Psychopathy and Physiological Activity During Anticipation of an Aversive Stimulus in a Distraction Paradigm

ABSTRACT Two investigators independently rated 51 white, male prison inmates on a 7‐point psychopathy scale (interrater reliability = .89). The combined ratings were used to divide the inmates into low (1), medium (M). and high (H) psychopathy groups of 17 subjects each. Following a sample trial, each inmate was given two trials in which he could choose how to spend his time during a 5–6 min wait for an aversive stimulus (120dB tone). Three choices were available: 1 ) continuous white noise, 2 ) a recording of a nightclub comedian, or 3 ) a continuous tone that changed in frequency 10 sec before delivery of the aversive stimulus. The aversive stimulus could be avoided on one trial but not on I he other (the order was counterbalanced). When the aversive stimulus was unavoidable (Trial UA), 46 (90.2%) of the inmates spent all or most of their time listening to the comedian, i.e., they adopted a “nonvigilant” strategy, while 38 (74.5%) adopted this strategy when the aversive stimulus was avoidable (Trial A). There were no group differences in the type of strategy used on either trial, or in the physiological responses given by the nonvigilant subjects on Trial UA. Group H tended to give smaller electrodermal responses and a larger increase in HR in anticipation of the sample tone than did Group L, a pattern that is consistent with previous research using classical conditioning or “count down” procedures. On Trial A the nonvigilant subjects in Group H showed a significantly smaller increase in nonspecific skin conductance activity than did Group L. It is suggested that making use of distraction when an aversive stimulus is avoidable results in less conflict and heightened emotional arousal in psychopaths than in other inmates. Some speculations on how psychopaths cope with threat are offered.