No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Publisher's copyright statement: NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Research in Developmental Disabilities. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be re ected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A de nitive version was subsequently published in Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 3, March 2013, 10.1016/j.ridd.2012.11.020. Additional information:Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

In this study, we investigated the psychophysiological responsiveness of psychopathic individuals to distress cues and to threatening and neutral stimuli. Eighteen psychopathic individuals and 18 incarcerated control individuals, identified using the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (Hare, 1991, The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, Toronto: Multi-Health Systems), were shown slides of these three types of stimuli, and their electrodermal responses were recorded. The psychopathic individuals showed (relative to the controls) reduced electrodermal responses to the distress cues. In contrast, the two groups did not differ in their electrodermal responses to the threatening stimuli and to the neutral stimuli. The results are interpreted within the Violence Inhibition Mechanism model (Blair, 1995, Cognition, 57, 1-29) of the psychopathic individual.