UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Detection threshold and tolerance level for electric shock in psychopaths Thorvaldson, Sveinn Albert 1969

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1969_A8 T47.pdf [ 4.17MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0104264.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104264-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104264-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104264-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104264-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104264-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104264-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

DETECTION THRESHOLD AND TOLERANCE LEVEL FOR ELECTRIC SHOCK IN PSYCHOPATHS  by Sveinn Albert Thorvaldson. B.A., University of Manitoba, 1955  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of  Psychology  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard _  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1969  In p r e s e n t i n g  advanced  Library  agree  this  degree  shall  that  thesis  at the U n i v e r s i t y  make  for extensive  p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d  It  financial  gain  Department of  is understood  shall  not  B r i t i s h Columbia,  copying  that copying  Columbia  requirements  for  I agree  the  r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y .  of  this  thesis  that  I  scholarly  o r by h i s  represen-  or p u b l i c a t i o n of  this  thesis  permission.  an  further  for  be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n  Psychology  A p r i l s / , 1969  the  by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a  Date  of  it freely available for  permission  tatives.  in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f  for  ii  Abstract Detection threshold (DT) for electric shock under both incentive (IDT; cigarettes) and no-incentive (NIDT) conditions was determined i n psychopathic and nonpsychopathic criminals and noncriminal controls (N•••=. L4 each group). A modified forcedchoice procedure permitted E to vary stimulus intensity from t r i a l to t r i a l i n an attempt to counteract boredom or inattentiveness. The use of a constant-current stimulator, a concentric electrode, and monitoring of skin/electrode impedance allowed reasonably precise control over current intensity. There were no differences between groups i n NIDT or IDT, a result not consistent with previous findings of relatively high DTs i n psychopaths. terpreted i n terms of the concept of arousal.  The result was i n -  An additional result  was that IDT was lower than NIDT for a l l groups. Tolerance level (TL) for shock was also determined i n the same groups under both no-incentive (NITL) and incentive (ITLj cigarettes) conditions.  Although there was no difference between groups  i n NITL, psychopaths had a significantly higher ITL than the other groups.  The result? supported the hypothesis of relatively high sti--.  mulus tolerance i n psychopaths. An additional result noted was that TL did not correlate with DT, a finding which appears consistent with evidence suggesting that the two parameters have somewhat different response determinants.  iii  Table of Contents Page Title page Abstract Table of Contents  i i i i i i  List of Tables  iv  List of Figures  v  List of Appendices Acknowledgements  vi vii  Introduction The Psychopath Statement of the Problem Design and Experimental Hypotheses  1 1 5 15  Msthod Subjects Apparatus and Procedure Scoring Procedure  18 18 20 27  Results  29  Discussion  36  Notes  43  Bibliography  4-5  Appendices  51  iv  List of Tables  Page  Table 1  Characteristics of the groups  19  Table 2  Product-moment correlations between age and selected dependent variables  29  Summary of analysis of variance for NIDT and IDT by groups, incentive conditions and sequence of conditions  31  Table 4  Standard deviations for Detection Thresholds and Tolerance Levels  32  Table 5  Summary of analysis of variance i n NITL and ITL by groups and conditions  34  Table 6  Product-moment correlations between DT and TL according to incentive conditions  35  Table 3  V  List of Figures  Figure 1 Figure 2  Figure 3  MMPI profiles for psychopathic and nonpsychopathic penitentiary inmates  21  Detection Thresholds for electric shock under nc—incentive and incentive conditions for psychopaths, nonpsychc— paths and staff  30  Pain ratings and toieranee levels for electric shock under no-incentive and incentive conditions for psychopaths, nonpsychopaths and staff  33  vi  L i s t of Appendices Page  Appendix A  Instructions to .Penitentiary C l i n i c a l Staff f o r Selection of Subjects  51  Appendix B  Control Variables  54  Appendix C  Instructions to Subjects  58  Appendix D  Sample Data Sheet  61  Appendix E  Subjects' Individual Detection Threshold Graphs Dependent Variables  62 76  Appendix F  vii  Acknowled gments  I wish to express sincere thanks to Dr. Robert D. Hare for his example, his encouragement, and the consistent care with which he examined and criticized my work. The ready cooperation of "Warden G. E. DesEosiers, inmates and staff of the British Columbia Penitentiary i s also very much appreciated. gratitude goes to my wife, Anne.  My deepest  1  Introduction  Recent research (Schoenherr, 1964j Hare, 1968a) suggests that psychopaths may have a higher-than-norna 1 threshold for the detection of electric shock.  One implication may be that psycho-  paths are more tolerant of shock, or noxious stimulation i n general, than are  normal subjects (Schoenherr, 1964), and that this might  account, i n part, for the poor performance of the former, i n learning tasks involving an aversive stimulus (e.g. Lykken, 1957).  It  i s known, however, that both detection threshold and tolerance level may be influenced by motivation, attention and other subjective factors.  The present study attempts to determine both of these para-  meters while controlling for the effects of such psychological variables. The Psychopath Psychopathy may be seen as a pattern of aggressive or parasitic behaviour without apparent concern for the welfare of others and taking place i n the absence of organic disease or injury, neurosis, psychosis, mental defectiveness, or socialization i n a deviant subculture.  The literature seems to pinpoint as fundamental  the psychopath's apparent lack of a normal emotional response to others, his guiltlessness and lovelessness (McCord and McGord, 1964), his egocentricity and lack of empathy (Foulds, 1965; Buss, 1966).  2  Descriptions, accordingly, frequently include c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as a f f e c t i v e poverty, "hollow nan", narcissism, vanity, lack of honor, empathy or pride, lack of s i n c e r i t y , r e l i a b i l i t y or truthfulness.  While h i s behavior may be v i o l e n t l y aggressive or,  perhaps more t y p i c a l l y , passively manipulative,  i t i s the absence  of r e a l f e e l i n g or compunction i n an a n t i s o c i a l act, and lack of subsequent g u i l t or shame, that characterizes the psychopath. A s t r i k i n g feature of the psychopath i s that, with h i s profound emotional d e f i c i t , he appears normal both i n t e l l e c t u a l l y and p h y s i c a l l y .  Karpman (1961), i n t h i s connection,  psychopath as "two-dimensional", while Cleckley  describes the  (1964) suggested  the term "semantic dementia" to describe the s p l i t between i n t e l l e c t and amotion.  One of the consequences would seem to be that while  the psychopath lacks any r e a l concern f o r others, he may be quite adept a t simulating and v e r b a l i z i n g appropriate develop considerable  f e e l i n g ; he may  s k i l l as a charming and plausible dissembler  whose techniques may range from righteous indignation to p i t i a b l e self-deprecation, and whose e x p l o i t s i n confidence legendary.  games may be  His mimicry means that rather nice d i s t i n c t i o n s are o f -  ten necessary to t e l l the psychopath from the nonpsychopath. For example, h i s use of people i s not neurotic dependence, h i s emotional flatness i s not stoicism or d e n i a l , and his momentary destructiveness  3  i s not simply sadism (See Karpman, 1961)* A l i s t of characteristics of psychopathy provided by Cleckley (1964) was employed i n the present study to select subjects (see Appendix A), There have been a number of major contributors, however, toward clarifying the definition of psychopathy. Karpman (1941)» for example, long insisted that for proper diagnosis i t was necessary to look beneath the surface of psychopathic behavior to itB motivation.  Those cases where skilled investigation  revealed the behavior to be a manifestation of underlying neurosis or psychosis he termed "symptomatic" psychopathy, while those cases where investigation, no matter how patient, revealed no psychogenic factors he termed "idiopathic" psychopathy.  These terms are more  or less equivalent, respectively, to what other writers have called pseudppsychopathy.  neurotic or secondary psychopathy, and true,  classical, or primary psychopathy.  The "acting-out neurotic"  (Alexander, 1930) would f a l l into the symptomatic group.  Hare (in  press) points out however, that one of the d i f f i c u l t i e s with the terms secondary or neurotic psychopathy i s that they imply that i n dividuals so labelled are basically psychopaths when, i n fact, the motivations behind their behavior, as well as their personality structure, l i f e history, response to treatment, and prognosis, are quite different from those of the psychopath.  He suggests that a more  appropriate term at this stage of knowledge might be one that emphasizes the neurotic element i n the behavior, such as the term neurotic  4  personality disorder  suggested by the Group for the Advancement  of Psychiatry (1966). Arieti's (1967) descriptions of what he terms the simple and complex psychopath are further conceptualizations which seem consistent with Cleckley's description and Karpman's idiopathic type.  The simple psychopath appears the more primitive of the twoj  he may have adequate knowledge of normal means of attaining goals but seems unable to delay gratification of needs and i s unable to experience what Arieti terms "long-circuited anxiety", a vague expectation of some possible danger or discomfort.  The complex psycho-  path, on the other hand, seeks immediate gratification but also desires to "get away with i t " .  Professional criminals or some un-  scrupulous politicians and businessmen might be included i n this category. Such consensus as there may be i n defining the psychopath has been long i n arriving.  Although the concept f i r s t appeared as  a c l i n i c a l entity i n the late eighteenth century, i t s definition and etiology have been extremely controversial (Maughs, 1941; Ehrlich and Keough, 1956).  By the end of World War II, however, the dispute  over the meaningfulness of the term had been largely settled, a l though disagreement over etiology continued (McCord and McCord, 1964).  And i n 1959, Hervey Cleckley could point out that at any  meeting of clinicians a reference to a psychopath i s recognized  5  immediately as meaning a "... grave character and behaviour disorder so familiar to most psychiatrists as a distinct and easily recognizable entity" (1959, p. 568).  Moreover, several recent  studies (Albert, Brigante and Chase, 1959; Gray and Hutchison, 1964), as well as the results of research (see reviews by Hare, i n press), clearly indicate that the concept of psychopathy i s a meaningful one. Statement of the Problem Detection threshold.  The term detection threshold i s  usually defined as the minimal amount of stimulation required for the subject to detect i t s occurrence (see Dember, 1965).  A rather  Large number of variables appears to affect the threshold for elect r i c shock.  Green (1962), for example, has reported the effect of  various skin and electrode factors. Thus a "wet" contact or cool skin tend to yield low thresholds while thick skin appears associated with high thresholds.  However, room temperature within 65° to  75°, humidity, or pressure of contact short of causing numbness, have no appreciable effect. In a study of avoidance conditioning i n psychopaths, Schoenherr (1964) routinely obtained two measures of response to shock detection threshold and tolerance level (defined below)., While the psychopaths had a mean tolerance level similar to that of the nonpsychopaths, their mean detection threshold was significantly  6  higher than that of the other groups. The latter finding i s somewhat d i f f i c u l t to evaluate i n view of weaknesses i n the Method of Limits procedure as employed by Schoenherr. This procedure typically requires the subject to respond "yes" or "no" as to whether he detected a stimulus i n each t r i a l .  The subject,  however, i s constantly experiencing fluctuating sensory excitation or 'noise , and therefore must decide whether his excitatory state 1  during each t r i a l was due to noise alone or noise plus the signal. To make his decision he i s obliged to establish some standard or "response criterion".  It has been demonstrated that the criterion  adopted by the subject i s influenced by such factors as the expectation that a t r i a l w i l l contain a stimulus, motivation to achieve a low threshold (Blackwell, 1953), or probability of payoff for accuracy (Swets and Tanner, 1954)*  The response criterion thus tends  to shift with changes i n the subject's motivation, expectancy, and other nonsensory variables.  Unless such bias ses are removed by-  special procedures and statistical tfeatment,-"- the Ses/No response confounds their influence with the measure of sensitivity. 1961; Ctoombs, i n press).  (Swets,  It i s conceivable, for example, that psycho-  paths are more careless about the task or about the possibility of injury and therefore tend to establish a relatively high response criterion, overlooking very weak stimuli. The "forced-choice" indicator response, however, serves to control the influence of criterion factors (Swets, 1961).  The stimu-  7  lue occurs i n one of several intervals or locations; the subject i s required only to choose the interval he thinks contained the signal and to guess i f necessary.  He i s thus "... not asked for  an introspective report" (Dember, 1965, p. 32). Hare, (1968a) employed the forced-choice procedure i n a study of detection thresholds for shock i n three ^penitentiary inmate groups.  Consistent with Schoenherr's (1964) finding, psycho2  paths showed the highest, secondary psychopaths nonpsychopaths the lowest thresholds.  intermediate, and  Hare (1968a) points out,  however, that despite the use of the forced-choice procedure,  "...  correct identification of the interval containing the shock requires a degree of sustained attentiveness that the psychopath may be unable or unwilling to give!' (p. 270). There i s some evidence to support the suggestion (Hare, 1968aj Quay, 1965) that psychopaths may experience d i f f i c u l t y i n maintaining attention to a task involving low sensory input or requiring vigilance.  Orris (1967), for example, tested psychopathic,  neurotic and subcultural delinquents i n a task requiring them to watch for unusual deflections i n a voltmeter pointer. The psychopaths detected significantly fewer such deflections i n this boring task than did the other subjects. Further, Forssman and Frey (1953) found that psychopathic boys not only exhibited a high incidence of slow-wave activity (suggesting drowsiness) i n their EBGs, but also tended to f a l l asleep more readily during the examination than did  8  other boys.  They suggested that psychopathy i s characterized by  a wavering or decrement i n attentiveness.  Petrie's (I960, 1967)  comment that lobotomized patients who show 'psychopathic* behavior, juvenile delinquents, and extraverts, tend to be intolerant of sensory deprivation may also be mentioned here. Eysenck's (1967) discussion of vigilance i s also relevant assuming that his conception of the psychopath as a neurotic extrovert has something i n common with the conception adopted here.3 According to Eysenck's (1957) personality theory, extroverts (and psychopaths?) are characterized by a rapid build up of cortical inhibitory potentials. Further, i n any task requiring sustained attention the subject may experience an involuntary rest pause  (LHP)  whenever cortical inhibition equals cortical excitation or drive, resulting i n a cessation of activity.  It follows that extroverts  w i l l be more susceptible to such IRPs and, i f these coincide with a signal i n a vigilance task, can be expected to perform more poorly than introverts (Eysenck, 1967).  Thus Glaridge (I960) found that a  group of hysterics (neurotic extroverts) performed more poorly than a group of dysthymics (neurotie introverts) i n tasks requiring them to pick out certain numbers i n a series of digits. Studies of cortical activity i n psychopaths are pertinent to the present study i n view of evidence that cortical underarousal i s associated with low tactile thresholds (Edelberg, 1961).  Rose  (1964) found that less anxious, more impulsive psychopathic subjects  9  had a r e l a t i v e l y high two-flash threshold —  the minimum time  i n t e r v a l required f o r two b r i e f flashes of l i g h t to be seen as double rather than as single ~ c o r t i c a l arousal.  a measure negatively related to  Further, Hare (1968b) found that psychopaths  had a lower l e v e l of autonomic v a r i a b i l i t y , a f i n d i n g which i s relevant because of the hypothesis (Lacey and Lacey, 1958) fluctuations i n autonomic a c t i v i t y generally tend to be arousing.  that  cortically  Turning to the r e l a t i o n s h i p of c o r t i c a l arousal to de-  t e c t i o n threshold, Bdelberg (196l) found that increases i n skin conductance and decreases i n f i n g e r pulse volume were associated with a drop i n t a c t i l e threshold.  He interpreted t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p ,  i n part, as r e f l e c t i n g "... c e n t r a l arousal associated  concurrently  with autonomic a c t i v i t y and increased p e r c e p t i v i t y " (p. 193).  He  concluded that i t -,-is e s s e n t i a l to control or monitor indices of arousal i n any experiment which assumes a s t a t i c t a c t i l e  threshold.  Autonomic functioning i t s e l f , however, may also be associated with detection thresholds.  Silverman, Cohen and Shmavonian  (1959), f o r example, found that an increase i n galvanic skin response (GSR) a c t i v i t y was r e f l e c t e d i n a decrease i n detection threshold f o r e l e c t r i c shock.  But whether the f i n d i n g of these investigators  implies low detection thresholds i n psychopaths i s not c l e a r .  While  psychopaths appear to have low l e v e l s of r e s t i n g s k i n conductance and spontaneous electrodermal a c t i v i t y , they seem to show normal GSRs to simple tones and shock, i . e . t h e i r responsivity may (Hare, 1968b).  be normal  10  Eysenck (1967) has recently discussed cortical excitation/inhibition balance i n terms of arousal.  He predicts that  extrtprerts have higher sensory thresholds than introverts due to a relative lack of cortical excitation, and perhaps also due to higher levels of reactive inhibition resulting from the monotony and low-level stimulation associated with threshold measurement experiments.  Extroverts, for example, have been found to have  higher thresholds for the detection of electrical stimulation of the vestibular apparatus (Dunstone, Dzendolet and Henckeruth, 1964). In summary, evidence from a number of quarters holds out the possibility that previous findings of high detection thresholds i n psychopaths may have been related both (§J to psychological variables such as a careless attitude or inattentiveness and (b) to low levels of cortical and autonomic arousal.  The present experiment  attempts to take these factors into account by employing a slightly unorthodox psychophysical procedure and offering payoff for good performance. Tolerance Level.  Stimulus tolerance level, or simply  tolerance level, i s defined here as the maximum stimulus intensity an individual i s willing to accept under given experimental conditions and, for present purposes, i s considered a measure of pain tolerance .4  Care should be taken to differentiate i t from the term pain  threshold which has been defined as "... that stimulus value which  11  gives rise to just noticeable pain" (Wolff, 1964, p. 252). Mersky and Spear (196?) point out that historically there has been considerable controversy as to whether pain i s a physiological or psychological phenomenon or a combination of the two.  They conclude that i t i s impossible to divide the pain ex-  perience into cognitive/affective components and sensory/reactive components.  In any event, research has shown that tolerance  levels for pain are subject to a host of psychological variables, including cultural background (Poser, 1963; Zborowski, 1952), group identity (Lambert, Libman and Poser, I960), attitude (Clark and Bindra, 1956), age, sex and verbal IQ (Hall, 1953), body boundary (Nichols and Tursky, 196?), instructions (Gelfand, 1964a; Wolff and Horland, 1967), and hypnosis (Melzack, 1966).  In fact,  i t i s interesting to note that psychological factors appear to predominate: over physiological ones as a source of individual variation i n pain tolerance (Clark and Bindra, 1956j Gelfand, 1964aj Wolff and Horland, 1967).  Pain threshold, i n contrast, seems re-  latively stable, unaffected, for example, by placebos or drugs (Beecher, I960, Gelfand, Ullman and Krasner, 1963) or prefrontal lobotomy (Petrie, 1967). Turning to pain tolerance i n psychopaths, there have been very few studies foGuased on the topic. A number of experiments which routinely determined shock tolerance levels report no significant differences between psychopaths and nonpsychopaths, e.g.  12  Schoenherr, (1964)} Hare, (1965b, 1966).  Further, Schacter and  Latane (1964) found psychopaths to be similar to normal subjects i n rating the "painfulness" of shock of given intensity.  Schal-  l i n g and Levander (1964), on the other hand, found that a psychopathic group of institutionalized delinquents tolerated s i g n i f i cantly more (continuous) electric shock than did a group rated high i n anxiety-proneness.  The psychopathic delinquents also per-  sisted longer i n keeping a leg extended.  The results of this study  are, however, rather d i f f i c u l t to evaluate since the tolerance scores are reported i n multiples of each subject's detection threshold for the stimulus.  In a later study of the relationships between  shock tolerance and various personality inventory scores (Schalling, unpublished), results are reported i n absolute values as well as multiples.  Shock tolerance levels were consistently related to a  carefreeness/inconsistency/immaturity factor which appears to reflect an aspect of extroversion most consistent with psychopathy. While direct evidence as to shock tolerance i n psychopaths i s at best equivocal, there have been a number of studies of the relationship between pain responsivity and behavioral and personality variables which are relevant to psychopathy. Tong (1959) tested the relationship between reactivity to laboratory stressors and various forms of conduct disorder, e.g. larceny, assault, indecent exposure, etc.  Although his subjects were certified mental  patients of below average intelligence, he found those conduct disorders suggesting psychopathy to be low i n stress reactivity accord-  13  ing to verbal report of pain. Eysenck's (195'/) personality theory leads to the prediction that extroverts have high pain tolerance due to (a) a relatively high level of cortical inhibition which tends to dampen stimulus input, and (b) poor conditioning of anticipatory arousal responses which can be expected to summate with the physiological response to the pain stimulus.  Using heat as the stimulus, Lynn  and Eysenck correlated extroversion (E) and Weuroticism (N) scores on the Maudsley Personality Inventory (MPI) with pain tolerance scores (defined as the difference between pain threshold and tolerance level).  They obtained significant correlations of .61 and -.36  respectively, thus supporting predictions.  However, Levine, Tursky  and Nichols (1966) replicated the experiment using electrical stimulation administered i n discrete steps.  They obtained no correlation  between shock tolerance and either E or N scores for groups of students and housewives.  A series of experiments by Petrie (1967) and her associates seems to suggest, when strung together, higher pain tolerance i n psychopaths.  In summary, she has reported that: (a) brain operations  which increase pain tolerance also make the patient more •psychopathic  1  or more extroverted (Petrie, 1952) but there i s no such personality change after operations which do not increase pain tolerance (Petrie,  1958); (b) high extroversion (MPI) scores characterize both thepostlobotomy and the more psychopathic patient (Petrie, 1967); (c) pain tolerant subjects receive significantly higher extroversion scores  u than do nontolerant subjects (Petrie, Collins and Solomon, I960); and (d) juvenile delinquents tend to perceptually reduce sensory input, a factor which strongly correlates with pain tolerance. Finally, there would seem to be a direct connection between anxiety level and pain tolerance.  Beecher, (1959) has pointed  out that physiological pain i s always accompanied by apprehension of (or anxiety about) future pain (see also Melzack and Wall, 1965). Thus H i l l , Kornetsky, Flanary and Wikler (1952) found that noxious stimuli were perceived as being significantly more intense under anxiety producing conditions than under anxiety reducing conditions. On the other hand, Piercy, Elithorn, Pratt and Grosskey (1955) found no differences between two groups of psychiatric patients, differing i n degree of rated anxiety, i n tolerance for electric shock (expressed as a ratio of pain threshold to tolerance level).  The more anxious  group did, however, show greater galvanic skin responses both to the warning light and to the shock.  In any event, the psychopath (a) i s  considered typically "anxiety-free" (e.g. Albert, Brigante and Chase, 1959; Lykken, 1957) and (b) shows attenuated fear arousal (GSR) with impending noxious stimulation (Hare, 1965a; Lippert and Senter, 1966). Further, Hare (1966) reports that, when given a choice of immediate or delayed shock, psychopaths chose immediate shock on significantly fewer occasions than did nonpsychopaths and normal controls, and that they "... reported that waiting.for the occurrence of delayed shock bothered them very l i t t l e " (p. 27). Although these studies offer only  15  i n d i r e c t evidence, a plausible inference would seem to be that psychopaths are more tolerant of pain. In summary, while some i n v e s t i g a t o r s f i n d that psychopaths seem to have shock tolerance l e v e l s s i m i l a r to those of nonpsychopaths, i t can be p l a u s i b l y argued that they are not r e a l l y 'suffering' as much as normals a t these l e v e l s .  Schoenherr ( 1 9 6 4 ) has suggested  that 'normal' tolerance l e v e l s declared by psychopaths may be s p u r i ously low, perhaps due to an unusual tendency to avoid discomfort. The present experiment attempts to control f o r such motivational f a c tors.  Design and Experimental Hypotheses Detection threshold.  As i n the Hare (1968a) study, the  present experiment used a forced-choice i n d i c a t o r response and the constant-stimulus method of stimulus s e l e c t i o n (see Dember, 1965) with a change i n the method of presenting s t i m u l i .  but  Usually, the  forced-choice method involves the s e l e c t i o n of about f i v e stimulus i n t e n s i t y l e v e l s and each of these i s presented i n blocks of ten trials.  Such block presentation, however, tends to be a rather boring  and tedious procedure f o r the subject.  Subjects i n Hare's study were  apt to say that they knew from the f i r s t few t r i a l s i n each block whether or not they had a chance of detecting a shock.  I f the chance  seemed borderline they might have quickly assumed a "set" to guess u n t i l there was  c l e a r evidence that the i n t e n s i t y had changed.  In  the present experiment, therefore, the block presentation procedure  16  was discarded and the stimulus intensity was varied from t r i a l to trial.  This enabled the experimenter to (a) protect the subject  from extended 'failures' i n detection, (b) counteract a developing set, and (c) attempt to keep the subject involved, interested and encouraged.  Further, three intervals, rather than the usual four,  were used i n order to simplify the task and allow rapid presentation of t r i a l s .  Finally, the number of t r i a l s at any one stimulus level  was not kept constant.  This allowed concentration of relatively  large numbers of t r i a l s around the threshold and avoided tedious repetition of t r i a l s well above or well below the threshold. Despite the possible virtues of the above procedure, i t was not expected that i t would be either sufficiently arousing or sufficiently interesting to induce the psychopath to show a 'normal' threshold.  Cigarettes were therefore introduced as an incentive  for accuracy i n detecting the shock.  Subjects were tested under both  incentive and no-incentive conditions, with sequence of conditions balanced across groups. The experimental hypothesis i s that under the no-incentive condition psychopaths have higher detection thresholds for shock than do nonpsychopaths. A further hypothesis i s that both psychopaths and nonpsychopaths have a lower threshold under the incentive condition than they have without the incentive. Tolerance level.  Shock tolerance was determined f i r s t  under a no-incentive, and then under an incentive, condition. It was  17  not expected that psychopaths would differ from nonpsychopaths i n tolerance level for shock under the no-incentive condition.  The  experimental hypothesis i s that under the incentive condition psychopaths have higher tolerance levels for electric shock than do nonpsychopaths.  Further, both psychopaths and non-psychopaths are ex-  pected toBShow higher tolerance for shock with the incentive than they do without i t .  18  Method  Subjects Three groups of 14 subjects each, representing  psychopathic  inmates (P), nonpsychopathic inmates (NP) and s t a f f (C), were selected from the B r i t i s h Columbia Penitentiary.  A procedure s i m i l a r to that  employed by Lykken (1957), Schoenherr (1964), and Hare (1968a) was used.  The i n s t i t u t i o n p s y c h i a t r i s t and senior counsellors were given  (a) Lykken's modified l i s t of Cleckley's psychopathy, and Disturbance;  (1955) c r i t e r i a  defining  (b) the description of the Sociopathic Personality  A n t i - s o c i a l Reaction  i960, See Appendix A).  (American P s y c h i a t r i c Association,  They were asked to l i s t a number of inmates  known to them and check o f f the l i s t as to whether or not Cleckley's c r i t e r i a applied.  The experimenter and a colleague then  independently  examined the psychological and general f i l e s of these inmates, using the Cleckley c r i t e r i a as a guide.  Emphasis was  placed on the a c t u a l r e -  ported behavior of the subject rather than on opinion.  Where a diag-  nosis was recorded i n the f i l e , care was taken to discover and the behavioral evidence supporting i t .  Each subject was  a 7-point scale representing degree of psychopathy.  evaluate  then rated on  The s t a f f c l i n i -  cians' assessments as recorded i n the check-off l i s t were kept separate during t h i s procedure.  The experimenter and h i s colleague then consulted  and compared t h e i r respective ratings and the check-off l i s t of the  19  staff.  Each subject was given a f i n a l r a t i n g on the 7-point scale  and subjects were chosen randomly from those rated on the extreme ends of the scale* Table 1 contains some of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the groups  Table 1  Variable Age (years)  Education (years)  Characteristics of the Groups Groups Measure P NP N M SD N  M  Time-servedcurrent sentence (years) MMPI Pd. scale  7.8 13  M  SD  14 110*2 8.9  106.1 9.4  "H M  13 2.4  14  SD  1.7  1.3 0.9  "N  12 86.1 19.7  12 68.7 L4.3  n/a  12 67.7 7.8  12 61.3 10.8  n/a  N  M  "N  M  SD  9.5  14  a b  Data not available on a l l Ss Not applicable or data not available  *  p <.10 p < .05 one t a i l e d p < .025 one t a i l e d  Test  U 37.3 9.9 b n/a  9.5 2.5  SD MMPI Ma. scale  u 28.0  2.2  SD Revised Beta IQ  u  32.2 12.1 a 12  G  F = 2.80*  NS  n/a  NS  n/a t = 1.94**  t = 2.37***  NS  20  (see Appendix B for data).  The significant t test for the difference  between the inmate groups (P and NP) i n  time-served-on-current-sentence  would seem consistent with expectation; i . e . psychopaths could be expected to have been sentenced to longer terms, perhaps due to seriousness of their offences or length of their criminal records. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) data (available i n inmate files) appear partially supportive of the c l i n i c a l selection procedures used; i . e . the psychopaths scored significantly higher on the psychopathic deviant scale (Pd) and the hypomania scale (Ma) although not significant, i s i n the expected direction (Craddick, 1962} Dahlstrom and Welsh, I960). Eigure 1 i s a plot of the group mean MMPI scores for a l l scales. The subjects for Group C (penitentiary staff) were selected by a random procedure from the l i s t of staff volunteers.  This group  served as a control group for the possible effects of institutionalization and criminality.  Apparatus and Procedure  Shock was administered by means of a Lafayette constant-current stimulator'fitted with a vernier d i a l to permit fine adjustments i n current intensity.  A Hunter electronic timer served to time the shock de-  livered by means of a concentric electrode (Tursky, Watson and O'Connell, 1965) placed on the volar surface of the subject's l e f t forearm.  21  22 Tursky and Watson (1964) nave shown that electric shock causes marked fluctuation i n skin/electrode impedance at the electrode site and that this results, i n accordance with Ohm's Law, i n fluctuations i n current passing through the circuit.  To assure constancy i n  skin/electrode impedance and therefore eontrol over current strength, a procedure developed by these investigators was followed. The electrode site was rubbed briskly for about 30 seconds with Sanborn Redux electrode paste, using cotton gauze as the applicator to ensure adequate abrasiveness. .Additional paste was then smeared on the site with the amount being adjusted so as to reduce skin/electrode impedance to 5,000 ± 500 ohms. The impedance was checked about twelve times at regular intervals during the course of the experiment.  In this way  the skin/electrode impedance was a r t i f i c a l l y reduced to a predetermined level, i t was then kept more or less constant by adding or removing electrode paste i f necessary.  In addition, a 100,000-ohm resistor was  placed i n series with the subject so that such variations i n skin/eleotrode impedance that did occur would represent only a small proportion of the total circuit impedance and therefore could be considered to have a negligible effect. Instructions (Appendix C) and stimuli (a 100-millisecond tone of moderate pitch and f a i r l y low intensity) signalling the intervals during which shock (300 milliseconds) was presented, were programmed on a Uher tape recorder and fed to the subject through padded earphones.  A Uher diapilot used with the tape recorder permitted the  simultaneous control of shock delivery.  23  The experiment took place i n an 8 f t . x 8 f t . room constructed of sound-absorbent wallboard and fitted with a fan for ventilation and masking of extraneous noise.  Room temperature remained f a i r l y con-  stant at about 75° • So far as possible a subject was selected from each group i n turn} due to administrative d i f f i c u l t i e s , however, Group C subjects tended to be tested a l i t t l e later i n the course of the research and later i n the day.  In fact, a number of Group C subjects  were tested immediately as they came off shift when they may have been more fatigued than the subjects from the other groups. Each subject was called to the test room individually and his participation was requested. He was assured that the research had no o f f i c i a l connection with the institution, that i t was for scientific purposes only, and that he had nothing to gain or lose by participating. Only a few subjects declined and these were about evenly divided between the inmate groups.  The subject was briefly given an idea of the purpose  of the f i r s t part of the experiment, i.e., to determine "the smallest amount of shock (he could) just feel", and was informed that further instructions were on the tape.  (The tolerance level procedure, which  would later require the subject to accept much stronger shock, was not mentioned at this stage). The subject was then comfortably seated at one side of a table separated from the experimenter by a blind.  A rough estimate of  the subject s detection threshold (DT) was f i r s t determined by the f  Method of Limits.  Signal tones were programmed about five seconds apart  and were followed immediately by shock.  The program was described to the  24  subject and he was instructed to report whether he f e l t any sensation after each tone by saying "yes", "no", or "not sure".  About 20 t r i a l s  were used. The resulting estimate of the subject's DT served as a preliminary guide for the selection of shock intensities to be used i n the forced-choice response procedure which immediately followed.  The  program for this procedure consisted of two blocks of about 180 t r i a l s each, with the f i r s t nine t r i a l s serving as training t r i a l s .  Each  t r i a l consisted of a series of three tones about 2% seconds apart, while about 5 seconds elapsed between t r i a l s .  A shock was programmed  after one of the tones with the location of the interval containing the shock being randomly determined. The subject's task was to decide which tone the shock followed and to guess i f necessary. In order to balance the sequence of incentive and nc—incentive conditions, each block of t r i a l s was preceded on the tape by two sets of instructions: those offering incentive (cigarettes) and those not offering incentive. . Thus, the experimenter could, by running the tape to the appropriate point, select a program i n either of two sequences: (a) no-incentive/incentive, and (b) incentive/no-incentive. The sequence for each subject was randomly determined beforehand and balanced within groups. Later, for tabulating convenience, the subjects were numbered so that subjects 1 to 7 i n each group had received the no-incentive/incentive sequence and subjects 8 to 14 had received the reverse sequence.  25  In the no-incentive/incentive sequence the subject was i n structed i n the following way.  For the f i r s t block of t r i a l s , the  instructions simply described the procedure and informed him of his task.  Then, after a short rest break between blocks, he was told  that the same procedure would continue except that this time he could win a cigarette for every two correct answers or guesses, and that he could win anywhere from two to four packs i n this way.  A small  electronic counter, which the experimenter operated by a foot pedal, was placed directly i n front of the subject so that he could easily see his score.  A partially opened carton of cigarettes was also  placed on the table i n his line of vision.  In the incentive/noincen-  tive sequence the instructions and procedure were reversed. Responses were recorded on a data sheet (Appendix D) which blocked put a l l trials according to the interval containing the shock (i.e., after tone 1, 2 or 3).  The experimenter's task was to enter  the chosen shock intensity for each t r i a l and record the subject's response.  The experimenter manipulated the shock intensity from t r i a l  to t r i a l choosing a range of values from the level where the subject's performance was no better than chance (33 1/3$ correct responses since three intervals were involved) to the level where he performed perfectl y (100$ correct responses). The tolerance level (TL) procedure followed immediately after the second block of DT t r i a l s .  The subject was told (not taped,  see Appendix C) that the level of shock would gradually be increased  26  and that his task was to indicate the subjective intensity of each shock. He was provided with a chart which described a series of pain levels as follows: (1) uncomfortable or just unpleasant or i r r i t a t i n g but not yet painful, (2) just getting painful or f a i r l y strong or just starting to hurt, (3) painful or hurting or strong, (4) very strong or very painful or hurts a l o t , (5) Stop.  Don't wish to go any higher.  The subject was asked to "rate or grade" each shock by calling out the number which applied.  He was told that he could use a number  once or many times or skip a number i f he wished. The shock stimuli (300 milliseconds) were spaced about 10 seconds apart; a signal tone (100 milliseconds) was presented two seconds before each shock. The experimenter increased the intensity of current at the rate of about 0.8 milliamperes (ma.) per step. The f i f t h level described above was, of course, the subject's TL under the no-incentive condition (NITL).  The TL under the incen-  tive condition (ITL) was then determined as follows. The subject was told that i f he was prepared to accept further shocks he would be paid two cigarettes for every step he might wish to go. He was informed that the intensity would increase i n the same way as previously and that he could stop at any time.  It was made clear that the choice was  completely his and that i t made no difference to the experiment whether he did or did not accept more shock.  27  Scoring Procedure  The f l e x i b l e DT procedure used resulted i n varying numbers of t r i a l s a t any given i n t e n s i t y l e v e l , i . e . , the r e l i a b i l i t y of the data v a r i e d .  Thus, i n order to evaluate the performance data (percen-  tage of correct responses a t any given i n t e n s i t y l e v e l ) i t was  necessary  to roughly "weight" each score according to the number of t r i a l s on which i t was based.  This resulted i n three categories of data:  (a)  "weak" data based on i to 10 t r i a l s (median = 4 ) , (b) "moderate" data based on 11 to 30 t r i a l s (median = 18), and (c) "strong" data based on over 30 t r i a l s (median = 42).  The data were then plotted  (percentage  of correct responses against shock i n t e n s i t y ) on semi-log paper using d i f f e r e n t symbols according to the weight of the entry (see Appendix E f o r each subject's graph).  A straight l i n e based mostly on the entries  representing "strong" data was f i t t e d to the p l o t by v i s u a l inspection (Woodworth and Schlosberg, 1954).  The 50% threshold, corrected f o r  chance success, was taken as the point midway between chance and perfect performance, i . e . , the i n t e n s i t y required f o r the subject to achieve 66 2/3% correct responses. The scoring procedure f o r the pain r a t i n g ( 1 - 4 ) , ITL data was much simpler.  NITL and  The subject's score f o r a given pain l e v e l  was taken as the median i n t e n s i t y of a l l shocks rated a t that l e v e l , e.g., i f an S rated 6.74,  6.82 and 6.90  ma. a l l as "4" (very p a i n f u l ) ,  his score f o r t h i s l e v e l would be taken as 6.82  ma.  I f a r a t i n g was  28  skipped, i t was estimated by taking the intensity midway between , the two adjacent levels.  The "5" l e v e l appeared only once as i t  was the subject's NITL. The subject's ITL was simply the quit point under the incentive condition. I f the subject chose to accept no further shocks beyond h i s NITL, then his NITL was taken as h i s ITL as well.  29  Results  Control variables*  In view of the nearly significant  age difference between the groups, correlations were calculated to test the relationship between age and some of the dependent variables (Table 2).  None of these correlations was significant.  Table 2 Product-moment correlations between age and selected dependent variables Variables —  r * X  y  Age x NIDT  .26  Age x NITL  -.20  Age x ITL -.28 * r =s .53 needed for significance at .05 level. Since Petrie (1967) has suggested,that fatigue i s associated with increased reduction of stimulus input, NIDT scores were plotted against time-of-day of testing (Appendix B).  Visual inspec-  tion of the plot revealed no relation between these variables. Detection threshold.  The mean DTs for each group under  no-incentive and incentive conditions are shown i n Figure 2. Table 3 summarizes a three-factor analysis of variance (groups, incentive conditions, and sequence of conditions) with repeated measures across i n centive conditions (Winer, 1962)-". While the analysis reveals the  Fig. 2. Detection Thresholds for electric shock under no-incentive (NIDT) and incentive (IDT) conditions for psychopaths (P), nonpsychopaths (NP), and staff (C).  31  Table 3 Summary of Analysis of Variance f o r NIDT and IDT by groups, incentive conditions and sequence of conditions Source  SS  df  MS  Between Ss  11.61  41  A (groups)  .92  2  .460  B (sequences)  .17  1  .170  AB  .04  2  .020  10.48  36  .291  Within Ss  .43  42  G (conditions)  .06  1  .060  AG  .01  2  .005  BC  .00  1  .000  ABC  .01  2  .005  G x sub. within groups (error within)  .347  36  .010  Sub. w. groups  F  1.58  (error between)  * p  ^  6.25*  .05  expected s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r i n c e n t i v e , ^ the important f i n d i n g i s the lack of a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r groups or i n t e r a c t i o n between groups and incentive conditions.  (In view of the lack of a  main e f f e c t f o r sequence of incentive conditions, the data f o r both sequences were combined i n Figure 2.  See Appendix F f o r raw data.)  32  It i s apparent then, that Group P did not show a higher mean NIDT as predicted; i . e . while i t was expected that the incentive would be required before Group P would show a 'normal' threshold, the data clearly suggest that the incentive was not necessary. In fact, under both incentive conditions, Group P had the lowest mean DT i n absolute terms.  Further, Group P had the lowest standard  deviation (SD) i n both NIDT and IDT (Table 4 ) . The larger SD i n the other groups, however, may have been due to the unusually high DTs for one subject i n each of these groups (NP5 and C7).  Table 4 Standard Deviations for Detection Thresholds and Tolerance Levels (in milliamperes) Group  NIDT  • IDT  NITL  :ITL  P  0,26  0.18  3.54  8.16  NP  0.41  0.39  4.34  5.08  C  0.45  0.4.1  3.00  4.09  Tolerance level.  The mean group scores for a l l pain  levels .(1-4)', NITL, and ITL are.presented i n Figure 3 (See Appendix F for raw data). A one-way analysis of variance for differences i n magnitude of increase between pain level 1 (uncomfortable) and NITL was not significant (F = 1.54; 2.39).  However, a two-factor analysis  of variance with repeated measures across conditions (Table 5) for the  33  0!  i  i  1  2  1 3 Response  1 4 Levels  1 NITL  1— ITL  Fig. 3. Pain ratings (1 - 4) and tolerance levels for electric shock under no-incentive (NITL) and incentive (ITL) conditions for psychopaths (P), nonpsychopaths (NP) and staff (C).  34  Table 5 Summary of Analysis of Variance i n NITL and ITL by groups and conditions Source Between Ss A (groups) Ss within groups  SS  df  MS  I960  a  -  279.0  139.50  2  43.10  F  3.24*  -  1681.0  39  Within Ss  854.1  42  B (conditions)  325.7  1  325.70  30.73**  AB (grps x cond.)  1H.8  2  57.40  5.42**  B x Ss within grps.  413.6  -  10.60  39  * p < .05 ** p < .01  difference between NITL and ITL showed a main effect for groups and interaction between groups and conditions.  It would seem clear that  the interaction was due mainly to the striking increase i n Group P's tolerance level with the addition of the incentive. The analysis also yielded the expected main effect for incentive conditions; i . e . a l l groups responded to the incentive to some degree. Examination of the data revealed great individual variation i n response to the incentive (Table 4).  In Group P only one subject  (P7) chose not to accept higher shock with incentive while this was true for five subjects i n each of the other groups. Again, i n Group P, three subjects (P4» U and 14) at least tripled their NITL with  35  incentive and one (P12) doubled i t j i n Group NP only one  subject  (NP13) doubled his NITL, while i n Group C no subjects showed such increases* In view of Schoenherr's (1964) assumption that a high DT may imply a high TL, correlations were computed between DT and  TL.  Table 6 gives the correlations for each group and for combined groups, according to incentive condition.  None of the correlations was sig-  nificant. Table 6 Product-moment correlations between DT and TL according to incentive condition (df = 12 for groups, 40 for combined groups) Variables  P*  NP*  G*  A l l groups**  NIDT x NITL  .48  -.04  .14  .10  IDT x ITL  .19  -.18  .07  -.12  * r = .53 required for significance at .05 level ** r = .30 required for significance at .05 level •  36  Discussion Detection threshold.  The finding of 'normal detection 1  thresholds i n psychopaths even without special incentives i s not consistent with previous findings of high thresholds i n this group. Perhaps the most plausible explanation rests on the concept of arousal. As outlined previously there i s evidence to suggest (aj that psychopaths are more prone to underarousal than are normals,and (b) that such underarousal may be associated both with high sensory thresholds and poor performance i n tasks requiring sustained attention or involving low sensory input. Arousal or activation refers to a dimension representing the physiological and psychological state of an organism.  At certain  optimum levels, the organism experiences maximum awareness of i t s environment (e.g. attentiveness, concentration), and peak behavioral efficiency (coordination, timing, f l e x i b i l i t y , etc.) (Malmo, 1966). Of primary interest here i s the fact that cortical arousal i s increased not only when a stimulus i s intense but when i t i s novel, complex, puzzling, varied or,"meaningful" (Berlyne, 1960j Fiske and Maddi, 1961). Applying arousal 'theory' to the present study, i t i s noted that the experimenter was able to present stimuli i n a varied and unpredictable way. Further, an attempt was made to break up the tedium of the procedure by inserting t r i a l s containing easily detected suprathreshold shocks.  These intermittent stronger shocks may have not  37  only given the subject some encouragement as o r i g i n a l l y intended, but helped to make the task more interesting by providing helpful reference points i n an otherwise rather d u l l discriminative task. The modified forced-choice procedure, then, may have been i n i t s e l f s u f f i c i e n t l y arousing to enable the psychopaths to function at an e f f i c i e n t l e v e l and thus show thresholds as low as those of the nonps ychopa ths• Hare's (1968b) study of autonomic responses i n psychopaths i s of interest i n the present context.  While the psychopaths showed  lower levels of autonomic v a r i a b i l i t y (an index of arousal) than the nonpsychopaths, the difference disappeared when the subjects were required to solve arithmetic problems. The apparent connection between cognitive a c t i v i t y and arousal led Hare (1968b) to suggest, i n fact, that psychophysical procedures which increase the psychopath's arousal l e v e l should lower his sensory threshold.  Implicit i n Eysenck's (1967)  discussion of sensory thresholds i s a similar suggestion that an i n crease i n excitation i n extraverts (psychopaths?) should result i n a drop i n thresholds.  F i n a l l y , i t may be noted that i n Hare's (1968a)  study detection threshold scores were calculated on the basis of the l a s t five of ten blocks of t r i a l s ; perhaps by t h i s time his psychopaths were at a particularly low l e v e l of c o r t i c a l arousal, or, to put i t another way, had become bored with the task. The interpretation of the present results i n terms of arousal i s , of course, speculative. However, i t i s apparent that further research on the determination of detection thresholds i n psychopaths  38  under 'arousing' and  'non-arousing  1  conditions i s warranted.  One of the implications of the present  "arousal" i n t e r p r e -  t a t i o n i s that, as suggested by Hare ( i n press), i f a s i t u a t i o n i s c o l o u r f u l , i n t e r e s t i n g , or entertaining enough, the psychopath w i l l perform normally.  His reputation f o r calmness and e f f i c i e n c y i n  chaotic l i f e situations would seem consistent with t h i s a n a l y s i s . Arousal theories of psychopathy (Eysenck,  1964j Quay, 1965), which  suggest that the psychopath's intolerance f o r routine and h i s reckl e s s , impulsive behavior may  be seen as stimulus seeking.?  also imply  improved performance with increased stimulation. An a l t e r n a t i v e explanation f o r the present r e s u l t s i s simply that the s e l e c t i o n procedure was not successful and that the psychopathic group was  therefore i n fact a mixed group.  Some doubt would  seem to be cast on t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , however, by the fact that the psychopaths did perform as predicted i n the tolerance l e v e l task. The p o s s i b i l i t y that c e r t a i n technical factors d i s t o r t e d the r e s u l t s should be mentioned,  (a) The design required that the experi-  menter have control over the i n t e n s i t y of the stimulus so as to vary i t from t r i a l to t r i a l .  Assuming that such v a r i a t i o n s affected thresh-  olds by contributing to arousal, an experimenter-effect  i s conceivable.  The experimenter may have unconsciously attempted to provide a more i n t e r e s t i n g stimulus pattern f o r psychopaths than f o r the other groups. It would seem highly u n l i k e l y , however, that such a factor was of appreciable importance,  (b)  The use of a forced-choice procedure per-  39  mitted the assumption that response criterion factors were adequately controlled.  It does not succeed, however, i n separating criterion  and sensitivity factors which combine to produce the subject's threshold. It would seem desirable that further research employ procedures which do isolate sensitivity,  (c.) Finally, i t i s noted that, i n absolute  terms, the thresholds here are much lower than those obtained i n Hare's (1968a) study.  This i s d i f f i c u l t to explain.  One possible rea-  son may be the fact that i n the present study cotton gauze, rather than cotton batting, was used to prepare the skin surface at the electrode site.  The gauze may have had a more abrasive action with the  result that skin resistance was more effectively reduced. Tolerance level.  As outlined earlier, stimulus tolerance  i s highly susceptible to a number of psychological variables. The present experiment attempted to control for the effect of one of these variables; i . e . motivation, by introducing an incentive.  The f i r s t  question, then, i s whether the cigarettes used as the incentive can be assumed to be of equal value for, at least, the inmate groups (P and HP) (Cigarettes cannot be considered to have had comparable value for penitentiary staff).  There would seem no apparent reason to reject  the assumption of equality.  Although the psychopaths had been institu-  tionalized longer than the nonpsychopaths, they would not necessarily have a stronger desire for cigarettes; i n fact, they may have had the time to achieve higher inmate pay rates.  Further, since the object  of the experiment was to reveal differences between personality groups,  40  the incentive was offered in a manner designed to appeal equally to a l l groups. The cigarettes were offered in somewhat dispassionate or commercial termsj for example, the instructions included: ...just say stop when i t (is) no longer worth i t to you in terms of cigarettes... it's a l l the same to mej it's up to you ..."  It may,  then, be a reasonable assumption that the incentive was equal for a l l groups. Since anxiety or anticipatory fear arousal may also affect stimulus tolerance (Beecher, 1959), an effort was made here also to avoid an experimental bias for or against any of the groups. It is recalled that subjects were given a chart describing the series of ascending pain levels, the purpose being to give them some notion of what to expect and thus reduce anxiety.  It is possible, however, that  the chart in fact contributed to greater fear arousal in the nonpsychopaths than in the psychopaths, particularly since the words "hurt" and "pain" were frequently included. If i t can be assumed, however, that both the incentive and the experimental procedure were free of bias, and, of course, that a l l other determinants of stimulus tolerance were equal, the results do seem to support the general hypothesis that psychopaths have a higher tolerance level for shock than do nonpsychopaths. The generality of the finding awaits research using other pain modalities and other incentive procedures. Further, other facets of psychopathy could be tested in a stimulus tolerance paradigm. Psychopaths might, for example,  41  respond differentially (a) to delayed and immediate incentives,or (b) to incentives benefitting others rather than themselves. The psychopath's high tolerance level for shock when 'motivated' would seem to support suggestions (Schoenherr, 1964j Hare, 1966) that previous findings of 'normal' tolerance levels in the psychopath are indeed spurious and due to his relative lack of motivation; i t seems he will tolerate more pain i f (immediate? material?) rewards are offered. This is consistent with the primary role psychological variables appear to play in determining pain tolerance. It does not contradict, of course, the possible additional role of central or peripheral physiological factor such as cortical inhibitory processes (Eysenck, 1967; Hare, in press) or attenuated autonomic fear responses (e.g.. Hare, 1965b).^  One specific implication would seem  to be that psychological and personality factors must be controlled when tolerance levels are determined for use as 'aversive' stimuli (cf. Eysenck, 1967).  A possible technical defect in the tolerance level procedure was the use of verbal rather than taped instructions. Despite an attempt to be objective, an experimenter-effect, tending to encourage psychopaths to accept more shock, was possible. Finally, i t is of interest to note that the results do not indicate a correlation between detection threshold and tolerance level. There seem to be limited data on this matter and what data are-available appear somewhat inconsistent. Schalling (unpublished), for example, found no correlation between the two parameters. And Hare (1968a),  42  calculating the correlations i n Schoenherr's data, found that while the nonpsychopathic and control groups showed low positive correlations, the psychopaths showed a significant negative correlation. There i s some indirect evidence, however, which seems to bear upon the topic.  Gelfand (1964a) reports that pain threshold shows no  correlation with pain tolerance when the latter i s defined as the difference between pain threshold and tolerance level.  As mentioned  previously, Gelfand suggests that the subject's response determinants seem to shift quite radically from physiological to psychological ones as stimulation increases from pain threshold to tolerance levels. Thus a lack of correlation between detection threshold and tolerance level would seem to be indicated.  43  Notes  1.  The Theory of Signal Detectibility (TSD) provides a mathemat i c a l l y precise method of isolating the effects of the response criterion, leaving a relatively pure measure of sensitivity (Swets, 1961; Coombs, i n press). The theory separates the observer's function as a (rather noisy), sensory device from his function as a decision maker who operates i n accord with stat i s t i c a l decision theory (SDT). The problem of deciding whether an observation occurred as a result of noise alone or noise plus, the stimulus i s a decision based on the ratio of two conditional probabilities or likelihood ratio. The ratio may be represented as a .single dimension on which the observer chooses a certain value as a decision point. This, of course, i s the observer's response criterion. It can be shown that i t varies i n accord with (a) the observer's assessment of the a priori probabilities that a signal w i l l occur i n a given t r i a l or interval, and (b) the relative value (or cost) of a correct or incorrect response. If the observer i s induced to change his criterion (e.g. by payoff) from one set of t r i a l s to another, the response criterion can be estimated by appropriate s t a t i s t i c a l procedures.  2.  Defined as subjects who are characterized by a pattern of psychopathic behavior but where underlying neurosis, psychosis or organic deficit may exist. In other words, there i s some doubt as to proper diagnosis and a mixed group may result.  3*  The extent of overlap between the conceptions i s not clear, however. First, i t i s apparent that Eysenck's description of the psychopath as neurotic (emotionally unstable) contradicts the present concept which regards the psychopath as showing an absence of neuroticism or emotionality. Secondly, there i s some empirical data that conflicts with Eysenck's findings of high extraversion i n psychopaths. Thus Schoenherr (1964) found no significant difference between psychopaths and nonpsychopathic groups i n either extraversion or neuroticism (MPI). It has been suggested, however, that the (primary) psychopath may be a stable extravert, low i n neuroticism and high i n extraversion (Franks, I960; Hare, i n press).  4*  whether tolerance level i s properly a measure of pain tolerance i s a controversial point beyond the scope of this paper. Some investigators (Wolff, 1964) do use the term pain tolerance for this parameter, while others (Gelfand, 1964a, 1964b) suggest that pain tolerance i s properly conceived as the individuals tolerance for painful stimulation. The latter definition thus measures pain tolerance as the difference (in stimulus intensity or tempotal units) between pain threshold and stimulus tolerance level.  44  5.  One subject's (NP5) NIDT was 0.56 ma. and his IDT then rose to 1.89 na. (no-incentive/incentive sequence). His IDT was thus about 3.4 times his NIDT and, i n terms of the v a r i a b i l i t y i n IDT for his group, including his own score, the z_ score equivalent i s 3.63 (p. .0001, two-tailed). The score must, therefore, be Considered invalid, although there i s no apparent reason for this bizarre result. No special notis by the experimenter appear on this subject's record. It may be noted, however, that he i s of Canadian Indian descent, from a rural area, and a rather unstable and self-conscious person. He may have become somewhat anxious over the demands of the task to the point where he was unable to sustain attention. His IDT was, therefore, treated as lost data (Winer, 1962). An analysis of variance (as i n Table 3) with this subject's actual IDT included sharply distorts the results. The analysis yields a significant main effect for sequences (F = 10.66} 1,36} p<.01,). No other effects approach significance.  6.  The effect of the incentive would seem largely due to the knowledge of results (K0R) received by the subject after each t r i a l . There i s empirical data demonstrating the effect of K0R (Blackwell, 1953), and i t i s noted that while a l l groups appear to have shown a similar response to the incentive, cigarettes cannot be expected to have had equal value to both staff (Group C) and inmates (Groups P and NP). Subjects were not questioned as to whether or not they smoked, but there seemed to be very few non-smokers at least among the inmates and these seemed evenly divided between these groups. In any event, cigarettes are of value as a barter i n the institution.  7.  The explanation rests, i n part, on the fact that at optimum levels of arousal the individual experiences not only peak e f f i ciency but pleasant affect, while deviations to very low (or very high) levels become increasingly 'painful* (Malmo, 1966} Eysenck, 196v).  8.  While the psychopath's autonomic fear responses may be attenuated (and thus bear upon his response to pain), his autonomic response to the actual stimulus may be normal (e.g. Hare, 1968a, 1968b). Such physiological responsivity should not be confused with stimulus tolerance i t s e l f . It i s only one, perhaps relatively minor, determinant of individual variation i n stimulus tolerance.  A5  Bibliography  Albert, R.S., Brigante, T.R., and Chase, M. The psychopathic personality: A content analysis of the concept. J. gen. Psychol.. 1959, 60, 17-28. Alexander, F. Neurotic character.  Internat. J . Psycho-Analysis.  1930, 11, 292-311.  American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and s t a t i s t i c a l manual: mental disorders. Washington, D.C: Author, I 9 6 0 . . A r i e t i , S. The intrapsychic self.  New fork: Basic Books, 196?.  Beecher, H.K. Measurement of subjective responses. University Press, 1959.  New  3 b r k :  Oxford  Beecher, H.K. Increased stress and effectiveness of placebos and"act i v e " drugs. Science. I960, 131. 91-2. Berlyne, D.C. Conflict, arousal and; curiosity. H i l l , 1960.  New 2>rk: McGraw-  Blackwell, H.R. Psychophysical thresholds: experimental studies of methods of measurement. 1953: Univ. of Michigan Press (Eng. Res. Bull.;No. 36). Buss, A.H.  Psychopathology, New ?brk: Wiley,.1966.  Claridge, G. The excitation-inhibition balance i n neurotics. In Eysenck, H.J. (Ed.), Experiments in" personality, Vol. 2. London: Routledge and Kagan Paul, I960. ; Clark, J.W., and Bindra, D. Individual differences i n pain threshold. Canad. J . Psychol., 1956, 10, 69-76. Cleckley, H.  The mask of sanity.  St. Louis: Mosby, 1955,; 1964.  Cleckley, H. Psychopathic states. In S. Arieti (Ed.). American handbook of Psychiatry. New York: Basic Books, 1959, I, 567-588.  Coombs, C.H. The theory of signal detectibility. In Coombs, C.H., Dawes, R. and Teversky, A., General mathematical psychology. i n press.  46 Craddiok, R. Selection of psychopathic from non-psychopathic prisoners within a Canadian prison. Psychol, rep.. 1962, 10, 495-499.  Dahlstrom, W.H., and Welch, G.S. An MMPI handbook; A guide to use i n c l i n i c a l practice and research. Minneapolis: university of Minnesota Press, I960. Dember, W.N. The psychology of perception. New and Winston, 1965.  2>rk: Holt, Rinehart  Dunstone, J. J., Dzendalet, G., and Henckeruth, 0. Effect of some personality variables on electrical vestibular stimulation. Percept. Motor S k i l l s . 1964, 18, 689-695. Edelberg, R. The relationship between the galvanic skin response, Vaso-constriction, and tactile sensitivity. J. exper. Psychol.. 1961, 62, 187-195. Ehrlich, S.K., and Keaugh, R.P. The psychopath i n a mental institution. Arch. Neurol. Psvchiat.. 1956, 76, 285-295. Eysenck, H.J. The dynamics of anxiety and hysteria. Kegan, London, 1957. Eysenck, H.J.  Crime and personality.  Routledge and  London: Methuen, 1964.  Eysenck, H.J. The biological basis of personality. Charles C. Thomas, 1967,.  Springfield, 111.:  Fiske, D.W., and Maddi, S.S. Functions of varied experience. Homewood, 111.: Dorsey, 1961. Forssman, H., and Frey, T.S. Electroencephalograms of boys with behavior disorders. Acta Psychia't. Neurol. Scand.. 1953 , 28, 61-73.  Foulds, G.A. Personality and personal i l l n e s s. Publications, 1965. ~  London: Tavistock  Franks, CM. Conditioning and abnormal behavior. In Eysenck, H.J. (Ed.) Handbook of abnormal psychology. New 3brk: Basic Books, 1961. Gelfand, S., Dllman, L.P., and Krasner, L. The placebo response: An experimental approach. J. Nerv. Ment." Pis.. 1963, 136, 379-387.  47  Gelfand, S. The relationship of experimental tolerance to pain threshold. Ganad. J. Psychol.. 1964, 18, 36-42 (a). Gelfand, S.  Some comments on Wolff's critique.  Ganad. J. Psychol..  1964, 18, 3, 254-255 (b).  Gray, K.G. and Hutchison, H.G. The psychopathic personality: A survey of Canadian psychiatrists opinions. Ganad. Psychiat. Ass'n.. 1964, 2, 452-461. 1  Green, R.T. The absolute threshold of electric shock. Psychol.. 1962, 5JL, 2, 107-115.  Brit. J.  Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry. Psychopathologjeal disorders i n children: Theoretical considerations and, a proposed classification. New 5brk: Author, 1966. Report No. 62. H i l l , H.E., Kornetsky, C.H., Flanary, H.G., and Wilker, A. Effects of anxiety and morphine on discrimination of intensities of painful stimuli. J l Clin, invest.. 1952, 3JL, 473-480. Hall, K.R.L. Studies of cutaneous pain: a survey of research since 1940. Brit. J. Psychol.. 1953, 279-294. Hare, R.D.  Psychopathy fear arousal and anticipated pain.  Psychol.  Rep.. 1965, 16, 499-502 (a).  Hare, R.D.  Temporal gradientof fear arousal i n psychopaths. J.  aonorm. Psychol.. 1965, 70, 442-445 (to).  ~"  Hare, R.D. Psychopathy and choice of immediate versus delayed punishment. J. abnorm. Psychol.. 1966, 71. 25-29. Hare, R.D. Detection threshold for electric shock i n psychopaths. J. abnormV Psychol., 1968, 73, 268-272 (a). Hare, R.D. Psychopathy, autonomic functioning and the orienting response. J. abnorm. Psychol.. Monograph Supplement, 1968, 73, No. 3., Part 2, 1-24 (b). Hare, R.D. Psychopathy": Theory" and Research. press, 1969. "  New ibrk: Wiley, i n  Karpman, B. On the need for separating psychopathy into two distinct c l i n i c a l types, symptomatic and idiopathic. J. crim. Psychopath. , 1941, 3, 112-137.  48  Karpman, B. The structure of neurosis: with special differentials between neurosis, psychosis, homosexuality, alcoholism, psychopathy, and criminality. Arch, crim. Psvchodyn.. 1961, 4,  599-646.  Lacey, J.I. and Lacey, B.C. The relationship of resting autonomic activity to motor impulsivity. In The brain and human behavior (proceedings of the Association for Research i n Neural and Mental Disease). Baltimore: William and Wilkins, 1958,  144-209.  Lambert, W.E., Libman, E. and Poser, E.G. The effects of increased salience of membership group on pain tolerance. J. Pers.. 1960, 28, 350-357.  Levine, F.M., Tursky, B., and Nichols, D.C. Tolerance for pain, extraversion and Neuroticism: failure to replicate results Percept. Motor S k i l l s . 1966, 847-850. Lippert, W.W., and Senter, R.J. Electrodermal responses i n the sociopath. Psychon. Sci.. 1966, 4, 25-26. Lykken, D.T. A study of anxiety i n the sociopathic personality. J . abnorm. soc. Psychol.. 1957, j>£> 6-10. Lynn, R. and Eysenck, H.J. Tolerance for pain, extraversion and neuroticism. Percept. Motor Skills, 1961, 12, 161-162. Malmo, R.B. Studies of anxiety: Some c l i n i c a l origins of the activation concept. In CD. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1966, 157-178. Maughs, S.B. Concept of psychopathy and psychopathic personality: i t s evolution and historical development. J. crim. PsychoPath.. 19a,  2, 329-356 and 465-399.  McCord, W. and McCord, J. The psychopath: An essay on the criminal mind: Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1964. Melzack, R. and Wall, P.D. 1965,  Melzack, R.  Pain mechanisms: a new theory.  Science,  1^0, 971-979.  Perception of pain.  Sci. Amer. reprints i n Psychobiol..  1966.  Nichols, D.C and Tursky, B. experimental pain.  Body image, anxiety, and tolerance for Psychosom. Med., 1967, 29_, 103-109.  49  O r r i s , J.B. V i s u a l m o n i t o r i n g performance i n t h r e e subgroups o f male d e l i n q u e n t s . U n p u b l i s h e d Master's t h e s i s . U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , 1967. P e t r i e , A. P e r s o n a l i t y and the f r o n t a l l o b e s . P a u l , London, 1952.  Routledge and Kegan  P e t r i e , A. E f f e c t s o f chloropromazine a n d o f b r a i n l e s i o n s o n p e r s o n ality. I n Pennes, H.D. (Ed.) Psychopharmacology. New 2>rk: Harper, 1958, 99-115. P e t r i e , A s e n a t h . Some p s y c h o l o g i c a l a s p e c t s o f p a i n and r e l i e f o f s u f f e r i n g . Ann. N.Y. Acad. S c i . . I960, 86, 13-27. P e t r i e , A. I n d i v i d u a l i t y i n p a i n and s u f f e r i n g . o f Chicago P r e s s , 1967.  Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y  P e t r i e , A., C o l l i n s , W., and Soloman, P. The t o l e r a n c e f o r p a i n and f o r s e n s o r y d e p r i v a t i o n . Amer. J . P s y c h o l . . I960, 73_, 80-90. P i e r c y , M . , E L i t h o r n , A., P r a t t , R.T.C., and Crosskey, M. A n x i e t y and an autonomic r e a c t i o n t o p a i n . J . N e u r o l . . Neurosurg. and P s y c h i a t . . 1955, 18, 155-162. Poser, E.G. Some p s y c h o - s o c i a l determinants o f p a i n t o l e r a n c e . Paper r e a d a t the XVIth I n t e r n a t i o n a l Congress o f Psychology, Washington, D . C , 1963. Quay, H . C  Psychopathic p e r s o n a l i t y a s p a t h o l o g i c a l s t i m u l a t i o n seeking. Amer. J . P s y c h i a t . . 1965. 122. 180-183.  Rose, R . J . P r e l i m i n a r y s t u d y o f t h r e e i n d i c a n t s o f a r o u s a l : Measurement, i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , a n d c l i n i c a l c o r r e l a t e s . Unpubl i s h e d d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota,, 1964. Schacter,  S., and Latane, B. Crime, c o g n i t i o n and t h e autonomic n e r vous system. I n M.R. Jones ( M . ) , Nebraska symposium o h motivation. L i n c o l n : U n i v e r s i t y o f Nebraska P r e s s , 1964.  pp. 221-275.  S c h a l l i n g , D., a n d Levander, S. R a t i n g o f a n x i e t y proneness and r e sponses t o e l e c t r i c a l p a i n s t i m u l a t i o n . Scand. J . P s y c h o l . .  1964, 5, 1-9.  S c h a l l i n g , D. T o l e r a n c e f o r e x p e r i m e n t a l p a i n and p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a bles. Unpublished paper, C l i n i c f o r F o r e n s i c P s y c h i a t r y , Stockholm.  50  Schoenherr, J. C. Avoidance of noxious stimulation i n psychopathic personality,(Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles). Ann Arbor, Mich.: UniversityMicrofilms, 1964, No. 64-8334. Silverman, A.J., Cohen, S.I., and Schmavonian, B.M. Investigation of psycho-physiologic relationships with skin resistance measure. J. Psychosom. Res.. 1959, 4, 65-87. Swets, J.A.  Is there a sensory threshold?  Science. 1961, 134. 168-  177.  Tanner, W.P. Jr., and Swets, J.A. A decision making theory of visual detection. Psychol. Rev.. 1954, 61, 401-409. Tong, J.E.  Stress reactivity i n relation to delinquent and psychopathic behaviour. J. ment. Sci.. 1959. 105. 935-956.  Tursky, B., and Watson, P.D. Controlled physical and subjective i n tensities of electric shock. Psychophysiol.. 1964, 1, 151-162. Tursky, B., Watson, P.D., and O'Connell, A concentric shock electrode for pain stimulation. Psychophysiol.. 1965, 1, 296-298. Winer, B.J.  Statistical principles i n experimental design. McGraw-Hill, 1962.  Wolff, B.B.  The relationship of experimental pain tolerance to pain threshold: A critique of Gelfand's paper. Canad. J. Psychol.. 1964,  New 3brk:  18, 249-53.  Wolff, B.B., and Hovland, A.H. Effect of suggestion upon experimental pain: a validation study. J. abnorm. Psychol.. 1967, 72, 5, 402-407.  Woodworth, R.S. and Schlosberg, H. Experimental psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1954. Zborowski, M.  New York:  Cultural components i n responses to pain, J. soc. Issues.  1952,  8, 16-30.  APPENDICES  51  APPENDIX A Instructions to penitentiary c l i n i c a l s t a f f f o r s e l e c t i o n of subjects: Your cooperation i s requested i n s e l e c t i n g subjects f o r the persona l i t y study now being conducted. Please note c a r e f u l l y the l i s t of 15 descriptive items below, paying p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n to those items marked with an a s t e r i s k . These are the p r i n c i p a l c r i t e r i a . The l i s t w i l l be used to select subjects according to whether or not the c r i t e r i a apply to them. On the attached chart please l i s t the names of inmates known to you. Then check each name against each of the 15 descriptive items denoted by the numbers 1 t o 15 a t the top of the chart. When an item applies to a p a r t i c u l a r subject place a check mart i n the appropriate squarej when an item does not apply leave the square blank; when you are doubtful place a question mark i n the appropriate square but use the question mark as sparingly as possible. A general description of the sociopathic personality, taken from the APA diagnostic and S t a t i s t i c a l Manual, 1952, i s as follows: Sociopathic Personality Disturbance, A n t i s o c i a l reaction; This term refers to c h r o n i c a l l y a n t i s o c i a l i n d i v i d u a l s who are always i n trouble, p r o f i t i n g neither from experience nor punishment, and maintaining no r e a l l o y a l t i e s to any person, group, or code. They are frequently callous and hedonist i c , showing marked emotional immaturity, with lack of sense of respons i b i l i t y , l a c k of judgment, and an a b i l i t y t o r a t i o n a l i z e t h e i r behavior so that i t appears warranted, reasonable, and j u s t i f i e d . The term includes cases previously c l a s s i f i e d as "constitutional psychopathic s t a t e " and "psychopathic personality". As defined here the term i s more l i m i t e d , as w e l l as more s p e c i f i c i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n . Criteria 1.  Average or superior i n t e l l i g e n c e .  *2.  Free from i r r a t i o n a l i t y and other commonly-accepted symptoms of psychosis.  *3.  Free from any marked nervousness or other common symptoms of psychoneurosis.  4.  No sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . "Though he may give an e a r l y impression of being a most r e l i a b l e person, i t w i l l soon be found that he has ho sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y whatsoever to others. Furthermore, the question of whether or not he i s to be confronted with his f a i l u r e or his d i s l o y a l t y and c a l l e d to account f o r i t appears to have no e f f e c t on h i s a t t i t u d e . "  52 Appendix A (cont'd) 5.  Disregard f o r t r u t h , " . . . i s to be trusted no more i n his accounts of the past than i n h i s promises f o r the future or h i s statement of present intentions ... however ... no matter how v i v i d l y or how repeatedly his u t t e r f a l s i t y i s demonstrated to him, he i s not confounded but continues to expect his work to be regarded as a very serious matter."  *6.  No sense of shame, "...does not show the s l i g h t e s t evidence of humiliation or regret. This i s true of matters pertaining to h i s personal and s e l f i s h pride and to e s t h e t i c standards that he avows as w e l l as to moral or humanitarian matters."  *7.  A n t i s o c i a l behavior without apparent compunction. "He w i l l commit t h e f t , fraud, and other deeds f o r astonishingly small stakes and under much greater r i s k s of being discovered than w i l l the ordinary scoundrel. He w i l l , i n f a c t , commit such deeds i n the absence of any apparent goal a t a l l . "  *8.  I n a b i l i t y to l e a r n from experience. "Despite h i s excellent r a t i o n a l powers he continues to show the most exercrable judgment about a t t a i n i n g what one might presume to be h i s ends. I t i s t h i s writer's opinion that no punishment w i l l make (him) change his ways."  *9.  General poverty of a f f e c t . "Vexation, s p i t e , quick and l a b i l e flashes of quasi-affection, peevish resentment, shallow moods of s e l f - p i t y , puerile attitudes of vanity, absurd and showy poses of indignation are a l l within h i s emotional scale ... but mature, whole-hearted anger, true or consistent indignation, honest, s o l i d g r i e f , sustaining pride, deep joy, despair are never found within this scale."  *10.  Lack of genuine i n s i g h t . "In a s p e c i a l sense (he) lacks i n s i g h t to a degree seldom i f ever found i n other mental disorders. He has abs o l u t e l y no capacity to see himself as others see him. Occasionally, however, he w i l l p e r f u n c t o r i l y admit himself to blame f o r everything and analyze his case from what seems almost to be a p s y c h i a t r i c viewpoint, fet (he), shows not only a d e f i c i e n c y but apparently a t o t a l absence of i n s i g h t as a r e a l and moving experience."  *U.  L i t t l e response to s p e c i a l consideration or kindness. "No matter how w e l l he i s treated ... he shows no reaction of appreciation except s u p e r f i c i a l and transparent protestations."  *12.  No h i s t o r y of sincere attempts at s u i c i d e .  13.  Sex l i f e shows p e c u l i a r i t i e s . "... they regard sexual a c t i v i t y very casually. None ... (seem to have) ... p a r t i c u l a r l y strong sexcravings even i n (the) uncomplicated and poverty-stricken sense (of l i t e r a l p h y s i c a l contact). They u s u a l l y have records of great promiscuity which i s r e a d i l y understandable i n view of t h e i r almost t o t a l lack of self-imposed r e s t r a i n t . "  53 Appendix A (cont'd)  14-. No strongly adverse or neuropathic heredity; family background not markedly sociopathic or deviant. 15.  Onset of psychopathic characteristics no later than early twenties.  APPENDIX B:  CONTROL VARIABLES  Age (years) S  Group P  Group NP"  Time of Day of Testing* Group G  Group, P  Group NP  Group C  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  16.8 50.5 37.7 25.2 42.7 27.1 22.7  19.7 22.3 29.7 29.2 25.9 23.0 51.8  43.8 36.2 22.2 43.0 43.7 37.2 55.2  4 2 2 3 3 4 3  1 4 4 3 3 4 3  5 3 5 5 3 5 5  8 9 10 11 12 13  U  18.7 30.2 37.2 22.2 18.7 50.4 50.4  27.1 31.7 31.4 23.9 22.6 20.8 32.6  23.3 47.5 38.8 42.4 20.9 28.8 40.6  4 1 3 2 2 2 4  3 1 2 4 4 4 4  3 5 6 5 5 6 4  M  32.2  28.0  37.3  2.8  SD  12.1  7.8  9.9  -  3.1  *  Code: 1 = 9  a.m., 2 = 11  a.m.. 3 = 2 p.m., 4 = 4  p.m., 5 = 5  4.6  -  -  p.m., 6 = 9  p.m.  Appendix B (cont'd) Revised Beta I.Q.  s  Group P  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  100 119 119 116 119 99 101  8 9 10 11 12 13 14  Group NP  Time Served on Current Sentence (years)  Education (years)  Group P  Group NP  111 102 93 99 86 101 123  0.25 " 3.75 3.50 3.42 2.50 1.17 0.83  1.00 0.92 3.50 2.17 0.50 1.17 0.58  8 14 9 8 8  -  11 15  116 110 118 103 123 102 98  115 106 105 109 114 116 105  0.50 4.83 1.50 5.42 0.42 2.83  1.75 1.50 2.50 1.92 0.42 0.42 0.58  8 11 13 8 8 7 12  8 11 4 9 9 11 7  M  110.2  106.1  2.38  1.35  9.5  9.5  SD  8.9  9.4  1.67  0.89  2.3  2.5  -  Group P  —  Group NP 10 8 9 11  -  Appendix B (cont'd) MMPI Scores* for Group P  s  L  F  K  1  2  3  4  "5  6  7  8  ?  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  5 4 3 0 2  32 2 17 28 10  16 18  47  62  40  71 53  83 47 90  76 48 42 87 72 53  73 47 69  98 53 60 106 87 75  51 61 63 59 63 55  85 47 65 100 70 59  74 43 41 91 53 66  76 a 40 106 65 63  68 a 63 81 59 75  8 9 10  5 6 3  u  5 4  -  14  62 40 a  65 51 48  51 58 60  81 78 76  59 59 69  65 44 56  64 46 48  83 52 51  63 66 70  12 13  0 1 5  21 6 5  17 17 21  17 69 44  80 63 60  75 65 74  119 83 117  71 57 54  94 67 58  77 71 50  98 70 45  77 75 54  53.3  62.1  86.1  60.1  67.5  60.3  65.8  n  14  —  M SO  _  :  _  —  18 17 —  18  -  _  * The "?" (evasion) score not available  62  63.2  *  19.7  _  mm  67.7  7.8  Appendix B (cont'd) MMPI Scores* for Group NP  s  L  F  1 2  4  -  -  16  4 5 6 7  3 4 3 3  8 9 10 11 12 13  •a  U  M SD *  K  L  -  52 49  5 17 8 1  17 18 17 16  —  _  2 2 3 1 9 2  4 32 4 10 27 13  -  -  -  _  _  I  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  84 53  58 58  58 78  63 51  53 59  64 48  53 47  52 50  45 72 54 47  48 68 56 56  69 66 55 49  53 78 50 50  65 49 53 61  56 85 44 50  45 84 48 53  44 87 51 a  45 70 61 57  _  _  —  —  —  _  _  _  _  6 17 17 17 19 18  a 85  49 69 71 45 55 84  67 98 73 63 70 86  59 50 68 53 59 63  61 97  90  75 95 68 53 72 96  53 73 88  69 88 a 63 59 74  46 107 59 60 92 66  53 72 59 79 79 59  59.2  68.7  60.7  68.7  57.8  65.1  63.0  64.4  61.3  _  _  14.2  2'  62  51 62  The "?" (evasion) score not available  "  62  10.8  58  APPENDIX C Instructions to Subjects Detention Threshold (on tape) I  Method of Limits In the f i r s t part of this study we want to determine the lowest level of shock you can just feel. About every five seconds you w i l l hear a tone over the earphones. This i s your signal that a shock w i l l follow immediately after the tone. The shock w i l l be very small and you may or may not feel i t . 2bur job i s to l e t me know whether or not you feel i t by saying "yes", "no", or "not sure". I '11 just repeat that. Immediately after each signal tone you may feel something under the electrode on your arm. Just say "yes", "no", or "not sure" to l e t me know whether or not you f e l t anything. 2su can just use your normal speaking voice and I w i l l hear you quite easily. If you have any questions you may ask now or at any time during the study. (Pause). 5bu w i l l hear the f i r s t tone i n a few seconds.  II  Modified Constant-Stimulus Method (1) No-incentive/ihcentive sequence a)  No incentive condition;  We w i l l now continue i n a different way. This time you w i l l hear the tone i n sets of three; that i s , you w i l l hear the tone three times about two seconds apart. A shock w i l l follow one of the tones. 3bur job i s to wait u n t i l you have heard a l l three tones and then 1st me know which tone the shock came after by saying "one", "two" or "three". There w i l l always be one shock and only one shock i n each set of three tones. Now i f you did not feel anything or are not sure, guess as best you can as to where the shock might have been. Just to repeat, wait u n t i l you have heard a l l three tones and then say "one", i f you f e l t something after the f i r s t tone, "two", i f i t was after the second, and "three" i f i t was after the third tone. If you did not feel anything or are not sure, take a guess as to where you think i t might have been. (Pause). 2ou w i l l hear the f i r s t set of tones i n a few seconds.  59  Appendix G (cont'd.) b)  Incentive condition:  We'11 now continue i n the same way only t h i s time you can win a cigarette f o r every two correct answers even though you may get i t right by a guess. I f you don't smoke I ' l l arrange t o get something else of equivalent value f o r you at the canteen. Each time you are correct I'11 press a button t o operate the counter i n front of you. For every two points, you win one cigarette. 2bu should be able to win anywhere from two t o four packs i n t h i s way. Sou w i l l be able t o see your score e a s i l y . (Pause). The f i r s t set of tones w i l l follow i n a few seconds. (2) a)  Incentive/no-incentive sequence Incentive condition:  We w i l l now continue i n a d i f f e r e n t way. This time you w i l l hear the tones i n sets of threej that i s you w i l l hear the tones three times about two seconds apart. A shock w i l l follow one of the tones. 2bur j o b i s t o wait u n t i l you have heard a l l three tones and then l e t me know which tone the shock came a f t e r by saying "one", "two", or "three". There w i l l always be one shock and only one shock i n each set of three tones. I f you d i d not f e e l anything or are not sure, guess as best you can as to where the shock might have been. Now, you can win a cigarette f o r every two correct answers even though you may get i t r i g h t by a guess. I f you don't smoke, I ' l l arrange t o get something else of equivalent value f o r you a t the canteen. Each time you are correct, I ' l l press a button to operate the counter i n front of you. For every two points you win one cigarette. I b u should be able to win anywhere from two to four packs of cigarettes i n t h i s way. Ifou w i l l be able to see your score e a s i l y . Just to repeat: wait u n t i l you have heard a l l three tones and then say "one" i f you f e l t something a f t e r the f i r s t tone, "two" i f i t was a f t e r the second, and "three" i f i t was a f t e r the t h i r d tone. I f you d i d not f e e l anything or are not sure, take a guess as to where you think i t might have been. Sbu win one cigarette f o r every two points on the counter. (Pause). 2bu w i l l hear the f i r s t set of tones i n a few seconds. b)  No incentive condition:  We'11 now continue i n the same way only from here on no cigarettes w i l l be offered. Just continue to l e t me know which tone the shock came a f t e r . (Pause). The f i r s t set of tones w i l l follow i n a few seconds.  60  Appendix 0 (cont'd) Tolerance Level (not on tape) (1) No incentive condition: I'm nov going t o gradually increase the l e v e l of shock i n small steps. Your j o b i s to rate o r grade the shock as i t reaches d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s . Here i s a chart drawn up as a rough guide. As you see I've said (E read from the chart with the S) "Let me know when you f e e l the shock strength reaches each of these levels: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  Uncomfortable or just unpleasant or i r r i t a t i n g but not yet p a i n f u l . Just getting p a i n f u l or f a i r l y strong or j u s t s t a r t i n g to hurt. P a i n f u l or hurting or strong. Very strong or very p a i n f u l or hurts a l o t . Stop. Don't wish to go any higher.  Just l e t me know how each shock f e e l s by c a l l i n g out the number on the chart which seems t o f i t best, f o r example: "one" "one", "two" "two", and so on. Ibu may wish to use a number only once or many times o r even skip a number. I t ' s up to you. There w i l l be about t e n seconds between shocks. !>u w i l l hear a short s i g n a l tone about two seconds before each shock j u s t to l e t you know when t o expect i t . (E would repeat i n s t r u c t i o n s i f necessary). 5bu w i l l hear the f i r s t s i g n a l tone i n about 10 seconds. (2)  Incentive condition:  Now, i f you wish to go any higher, I ' l l pay you two cigarettes f o r each step you may wish t o go. I would press the button to operate the counter (which was again placed before the S) four times a f t e r each step. This would represent two c i g a r e t t e s . I would repeat the l a s t shock you j u s t received and we would then go up i n the same sort of steps as we d i d before. 5bu could j u s t say stop when i t was not worth i t t o you i n terms of cigarettes. I f you don't wish t o go any higher r i g h t now that's quite a l l r i g h t with me. Or i f you want t o go up a l i t t l e or a l o t i t ' s a i l the same to mej i t ' s up t o you. ( I f S indicated that he didn't care about cigarettes you would say or c l e a r l y imply that he would "take" more to help the experiment, E simply repeated that i t was up t o the Sj he could quit i f he f e l t i t was not worth i t or he could go higher and quit when he though i t was no longer worth i t . I f S decided t o accept further shocks he was t o l d he would hear the f i r s t s i g n a l tone i n about 10 seconds.  61 APPENDIX D Sample Data Sheet (condensed) Name  BCP# Pun. Temp.  Seq.  Response  Setting  (3BS/?/NO)  Time  Date Forced-choice  Method of Limits Dial  S#  Interval number  Tolerance Level  Dial setting  Response (Cor/lnc)  Dial Setting  Rating Response  (Random order of stimulus intervals proceeds as follows, l e f t to right:  (cont'd)  Notes:  2* 1 3 2  2 2 2 3  3 2 3 1  2 1 1* 3  2 3 3 1  1 3 1 3  1 2 1 2  3 1 2 2  3 3 2 2  2 3 3 2  1 3 1 2  2 1 13  3 1 1* 3  3 3 2 2  2 2 2 3  1 2 2 2 3 2 1... 1  3 2 2 1  2 1 1 3  1 3 1 1*  3 3 2 2  1 1 2 2  3 1 1 1  3 1 1 1  2 2 1 1  2 3 1 3  3 2 2 3  3 1 2 2  3 1 1 2  3 2 1 1  1 1 1 3  2 1 2 2  3 3 2 3  2 2 2 3  1 3 2 3  3 1 3 1  1 3 3 2  1* 2 1 1  3 3 2 1  2 3 2 1  1 3 3 3  1 3 2 1  1 3 1 2  3 3 2 3  3 2 3 2  3 1  2 3  3 1  2 1  2 1  3 3 1- 2  1 1  3 2*  This order i s repeated i n the alternate incentive condition which follows.)  * Skin/electrode resistance check point  (cont'd)  Appendix  0.7  0.8  0.9  E:  Individual Detection Threshold Graphs  0.2  0.3  0.4  0.5  0.6  0.1  0.2  0.  £9  Appendix E :  *  •  •  •  0.2  0.3  0.-4  0.5  i  '  0.6  Individual Detection Threshold Graphs (cont'd)  • — i  0.7  >  0.1  •  0.2  >—t  0.3  1  1  0.1  0.2  —i  0.3  i  i  i  0.3  0.4  1  0.5  •  i  0.6  0.  Appendix  0.0  0.1  0.2  0.3  0.4  E  : Individual Detection Threshold Graphs (cont'd)  0.5  0.6  0.7  0.8  0.9  Mllliamperes  0.0  0.1  0.2  0.3  0.1  0.2  0.  Percentage Correct Responses (Log^o)  Incentive Conditions 99  Percentage Correct Responses (Log^)  Appendix  1.3 100 90 80 70  1.4.  1.5  1.6  1.7  E:  1.8  Individual Detection Treshold Graphs (cont'd)  1.9  2.0  2.1  0.0  0.1  0.2  0.3 •o  NP7  0.4  0.5  0.6  0.7  o-  NP8  60 50 40 ® > 30 t r i a l s « 11-30 t r i a l s o < 11 t r i a l s  30  1.3  1.4  1.5  1.6  1.7  1.8  0.1  0.2  0.3  0.4  Milliamperes  0.5  0.6  0.7  0.8  0.9  1.0  1.1  Appendix  0.5  0.6  0.7  0.8  0.9  E:  Individual Detection Threshold Graphs (cont'd)  1.0  1.1  1.2  0.1  MLlliamperes  0.2  0.3  0.4  0.1  0.2  0.3  0.4  0.5  Percentage Correct Responses (Log, ) n  Percentage Correct Responses (Log^) 00 vO  o o o  o  VjJ  o  o  o rlf•i>-  o  Ul  o  o o ON  o 00  o o ON  o o 00  o o • 0  AfV  p u> v*> H  O  O  ei- et-  ct-  *t  n  H w  H  H  H  m xa  o H  O JO  o o IDT  NIDT Incentive Conditions XL  ON  o  o o o o o  «J 0J\O  Appendix  E:  Individual Detection Threshold Graphs (cont'd)  O > 30 t r i a l s • 11-30 t r i a l s ° < 11 t r i a l s  30 "t  1.6  i_  1.7  1.8  1.9  2.0  2.1  2.2  2.3  100 90 80  2.4  2.5  o —  2.6  2.7  0.4  0.5  0.6  o  /  C6  70  0.7  0.  ©  l  60  /'  1 1  50  1  40  //  • /'  I  30 T  ,  1.4  1.5  •  .  1.6  1.7  1.8  ii  1  1  1  1  1  1  i 1  1.9  1  •  2.0  2.1  2.2  2.3  Milliamperes  2.4  0.4  0.5  0.6  1  0.7  0.8  0.  Percentage Correct Responses (Log^) <  03  vOO  o o o o o  o  o o  o  o  o  «  o o o Vn  o ON  o ro o o o  c*- e+ H H H ta ta  o •  fo o o o IDT  NIDT Incentive Conditions  a  O^  <  o  o o o o  GO s O  Q  Appendix  E:  Individual Detection Threshold Graphs (cont'd)  E-t  Q  0.3  0.4-  0.5  0.6  0.7  100 90 80 70  0.8  0.3  0.4  0.5  0.6  0.7  0.8  0.1  0.2  0.3  0.4  0.5  0.2  0.3  0.4  0.5  Cll  60 50 40 30  © > 30 trials *11-30 trials o < 11 trials  0 0.3  0.4  0.5  0.6  0.7  0.1  0.2  0.3  0.4  0.5  Milliaraperes  0.6  0.7  0.8  Appendix  E:  Individual Detection Threshold Graphs (cont'd) o—  100 90 80  013  70 60 50 o tf ra ©  40 (Q > 30 trials • 11-30 trials ° < 11 trials  30  CQ  a  o &. ra  0 ~i— 0.4 0.5  •  0.6  i  i  0.7  0.8  0.9  1.0  1.1  1.2  0.7  0.8  0.9  1.0  1.1  1.2  1.3  • .  O  CD fn  8  8>  48 CD O CD P-.  100 90 80  013  <  70 60  0  ,  1.4  •  GL4 o  0  50  1  40  ;  1  30  1  1 0 0.2  >  1  1  0.3  0.4  0.5  0.6  0.7  0.8  0.9  0.6  0.7  Millia mperes  0.8  0.9  1.0  1.1  1.2  1.3  1.4  APPENDIX F:  DEPENDENT VARIABLES  Detection Thresholds under No-incentive (NIDT) and Incentive (IDT) Conditions ( i n ndlliamperes)  s  Group P IDT NIDT  Group NP NIDT IDT  Group C NIDT IDT  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  1.16 0.46 0.17 0.21 0.42 0.23 0.35  0.15 0.21 0.51 0.25 0.34  0.16 0.39 0.55 0.51 0.56 0.29 1.85  0.15 0.25 0.84 0.23 0.49* 0.21 1.62  0.13 0.64 0.71 0.20 1.98 0.61 0.47  0.19 0.51 0.55 0.38 1.88 0.64 0.59  8 9 10 11 12 13 14  0.41 0.18 0.25 0.54 0.20 0.73 0.23  0.46 0.16 0.16 0.36 0.18 0.66 0.20  0.25 0.91 0.34 0.44 0.34 0.41 0.81  0.35 0.81 0.34 0.29 0.27 0.45 0.86  0.23 0.30 0.68 0.61 0.29 0.96 0.92  0.29 0.25 0.49 0.55 0.33 0.59 0.99  M  0.40  0.32  0.56  0.51*  0.62  0.59  SD  0.26  0.18  0.41  0.39*  0.45  0.41  *  6.67  o.H  This score i n t e r p o l a t e d (see note 5 ) . S NP5 a c t u a l score = 1.89 ma. Resulting M = 0.61 ma. and SD = 0.52 ma.  Appendix ff (cont'd) Pain Rating Scores f o r Group P ( i n milliamperes) 1 (uncomfortable)  2 ( s l i g h t l y painful)  3  (painful)  4  (Very painful)  1 2 3 4 5 6 7  1.24 1.29 1.65 1.24 2.89 2.06 1.24  2.89 3.61 3.71 2.47 6.60 3.71 2.47  4.54 5.41 5.36 5.77 8.66 4.54 2.75  8.66 6.44 7.01 9.49 9.90 5.77 2.95  8 9 10 11 12 13  1.24 1.24  14  1.03 2.06 3.71 1.54 0.51  3.71 3.30 2.32 5.77 7.84 5.15 1.03  6.60 5.77 3.61 7.63 9.07 9.97 1.29  8.25 8.66 5.15 9.12 10.31 14.85 1.81  M  1.64  3.90  5.77  7.74  Appendix F (cont'd)  Fain Rating Scores f o r Group HP (In 1 (uncomfortable) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  2.47 3.30 3.30  8  1.29  0.77 2.47 2.47  railliamperes)  2 ( s l i g h t l y painful)  3 (painfuJ  4 (very painful)  2.06 5.36 5.77 4.12 5.36 6.60 7.42  3.35 8.25 7.84 5.67 7.01 7.84 9.07  5.41 10.72 10.31 6.19 8.25 9.49 9.28  13 14  1.65 0.82 1.24 3.71  2.57 2.89 2.47 3.71 3.71 2.47 7.84  3.35 4.54 5.77 5.77 8.66 4.54 9.07  4.89 7.01 9.07 7.84 17.72 7.01 10.31  M  1.96  4.45  6.48  8.82  9  10 11  12  1.49  1.24 1.24  Appendix F (cont'd) Pain Rating Scores for Group G (in milliamperes)  s 1 2 3  4  1  (uncomfortable) 0.77 1.24 1.03  3  (painful)  4  (very painful)  1.29 2.89 2.57 2.47 2.47 2.47 5.36  1.49 3.71 4.12 3.30 3.71 4.54 6.60  2.06 4.12 6.45 3.71 6.60 8.66 7.42  1.24  2.89 2.47 6.19 4.95 4.95 2.47 2.47  4.54 4.12 8.66 6.60 6.60 3.30 2.89  6.19 6.60 10.31 8.25 9.07 3.71 3.30  1.48  3.28  4.58  6.17  1.24  5  6 7  1.24 0.82 2.47  8 9 10 11 12 13  1.24 1.24 2.47 2.06 2.47  M  2  (slightly painful)  1.24  Appendix F (cont'd) Shock Tolerance Levels Under No-incentive (NITL) and Incentive (ITL) Conditions(in adlliampe Group P  s  NITL  1 2 3  12.37 7.22 8.25 10.72 10.72 6.60 3.30  4  5  6 7  8 9 10 11 12 13  14  9.07 10.72 6.19 10.10 11.55 16.50 2.57  ITL  16.50  " Group NP NITL ITL  Group C NITL  ITL 2.52 4.95 12.16 4.12 10.72 16.50 10.72  7.22 11.55 12.37 6.70 9.07 10.72 9.90  6.70 12.37 14.85 9.90  2.52 4.95 8.25 4.12 9.07 12.37 8.25  6.19 13.20 9.90 11.55 27.19 18.97 U.55  7.42 8.25 11.55 9.90 10.72 4.12 4.12  11.55 10.72  14.23  6.19 9.07 9.90 9.07 24.74 8.25 11.55  12.78 11.55 31.34 11.55 8.25 3.30 12.37  14.85  11.34 32.99 24.74 20.62  13.40 16.08  14.85  14.02  9.90 12.37 5.77 4.12  M  8.99  16.17  10.45  13.34  7.54  9.30  SD  3.54  8.16  4.34  5.08  3.00  4.09  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items