Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Unfair offers, unfair offenders? Fairness considerations in incarcerated individuals with and without psychopathy.
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013; 7:406.FH

Abstract

Offenders with psychopathy have often committed crimes violating social norms, which may suggest a biased moral reasoning in psychopathy. Yet, as findings on utilitarian decisions remain conflicting, the current study investigated different aspects of fairness considerations in offenders with psychopathy, offenders without psychopathy and healthy individuals (N = 18/14/18, respectively). Unfair offers in a modified Ultimatum Game (UG) were paired with different unselected alternatives, thereby establishing the context of a proposal, and made under opposing intentionality constraints (intentional vs. unintentional). As in previous studies, unfair offers were most often rejected when the alternative was fair and when the offer was made intentionally. Importantly, however, offenders with psychopathy demonstrated a similar rejection pattern to that of healthy individuals, i.e., taking the unselected alternative into account. In contrast, delinquents without psychopathy did not adjust their decision behavior to the alternatives to an offer, suggesting stronger impairments in social decision-making. Crucially, the mechanisms and processes underlying rejection decisions might differ, particularly with regard to cognitive vs. emotional competencies. While preserved cognitive perspective-taking could drive seemingly intact decision patterns in psychopathy, emotional empathy is likely to be compromised.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen Nijmegen, Netherlands.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

23898257

Citation

Radke, Sina, et al. "Unfair Offers, Unfair Offenders? Fairness Considerations in Incarcerated Individuals With and Without Psychopathy." Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, vol. 7, 2013, p. 406.
Radke S, Brazil IA, Scheper I, et al. Unfair offers, unfair offenders? Fairness considerations in incarcerated individuals with and without psychopathy. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:406.
Radke, S., Brazil, I. A., Scheper, I., Bulten, B. H., & de Bruijn, E. R. (2013). Unfair offers, unfair offenders? Fairness considerations in incarcerated individuals with and without psychopathy. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 406. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00406
Radke S, et al. Unfair Offers, Unfair Offenders? Fairness Considerations in Incarcerated Individuals With and Without Psychopathy. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013;7:406. PubMed PMID: 23898257.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Unfair offers, unfair offenders? Fairness considerations in incarcerated individuals with and without psychopathy. AU - Radke,Sina, AU - Brazil,Inti A, AU - Scheper,Inge, AU - Bulten,Berend H, AU - de Bruijn,Ellen R A, Y1 - 2013/07/26/ PY - 2013/06/01/received PY - 2013/07/10/accepted PY - 2013/7/31/entrez PY - 2013/7/31/pubmed PY - 2013/7/31/medline KW - antisocial KW - fairness KW - psychopathy KW - social decision-making KW - ultimatum game SP - 406 EP - 406 JF - Frontiers in human neuroscience JO - Front Hum Neurosci VL - 7 N2 - Offenders with psychopathy have often committed crimes violating social norms, which may suggest a biased moral reasoning in psychopathy. Yet, as findings on utilitarian decisions remain conflicting, the current study investigated different aspects of fairness considerations in offenders with psychopathy, offenders without psychopathy and healthy individuals (N = 18/14/18, respectively). Unfair offers in a modified Ultimatum Game (UG) were paired with different unselected alternatives, thereby establishing the context of a proposal, and made under opposing intentionality constraints (intentional vs. unintentional). As in previous studies, unfair offers were most often rejected when the alternative was fair and when the offer was made intentionally. Importantly, however, offenders with psychopathy demonstrated a similar rejection pattern to that of healthy individuals, i.e., taking the unselected alternative into account. In contrast, delinquents without psychopathy did not adjust their decision behavior to the alternatives to an offer, suggesting stronger impairments in social decision-making. Crucially, the mechanisms and processes underlying rejection decisions might differ, particularly with regard to cognitive vs. emotional competencies. While preserved cognitive perspective-taking could drive seemingly intact decision patterns in psychopathy, emotional empathy is likely to be compromised. SN - 1662-5161 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/23898257/Unfair_offers_unfair_offenders_Fairness_considerations_in_incarcerated_individuals_with_and_without_psychopathy_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00406 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -
Try the Free App:
Prime PubMed app for iOS iPhone iPad
Prime PubMed app for Android
Prime PubMed is provided
free to individuals by:
Unbound Medicine.