Hancock Et Al

Question 1

Key theme

Answer 1

Individual differences

Question 2

What was the aim of the study

Answer 2

To test how crime narratives differ between psychopathic and non- psychopathic murderers

Psychopathic speech was analysed

Question 3

Research method

Answer 3

Self- report

Involved face- to - face individual interviews

Question 4

Sample

Answer 4

• 14 psychopathic murderers
• 38-non psychopathic murdered
• all male
• 52 ppts
• the two groups didnt differ in age and the mean age for both groups were 28.9 years

Question 5

Sampling

Answer 5

Self - selected

Volunteered

Question 6

Design

Answer 6

The PCL-R (psychopathic checklist revised) was used to assess the ppts against 20 different criteria

• it measured affective traits and impulsive: antisocial traits to give individual scores out of 40
• assessments were carried out by trained prison psychologists and researchers that were experienced in coding the test
• Inter- reliability check was conducted on the PCL-R scores by having a trained graduate student re- code 10 randomly selected case files

Question 7

Procedure

Answer 7

• ppts were verbally briefed about the aims and procedure of the study at the start
• the offenders were individually asked to describe their crime in as much detail as possible while being audio taped
• lasted approximately 25 mins each
• interviewed used a standardised procedure called the ‘step- wise interview’ which facilitates open ended questioning
  The interviewers were two psychology graduate and one research assistant
• interviewees were ‘blind’ to the psychopathy scores of the ppts
• two text analysis tools were used:
  Wmatrix, which analyses part of speech and semantics contained in the ‘corpora’ of whole body
  Dictionary of affect in language(DAL), which specifically analysed emotional properties of language such as positivity, intensity and imagery

Question 8

Results

Answer 8

• no significant difference in the average number of words spoken by psychopaths and control group
• instrumental language analysis showed that psychopaths were more likely to describe their homocide using subordinating conjunctions- these include words that show cause and effects, such as because, since, as and ‘so that’
  1. 82% in the psychopath corpora compared to 1.54% of words in the control corpora
• as the researchers had expected, crime narratives of the psychopaths emphasised more basic needs, including food, sex and shelter, while in the other hand, the controls focused more on higher- level social needs, such as meaningful relationships and spirituality

Emotional expression in language was analysed:
Psychopaths were found to have used more last- tense forms of verbs and fewer present forms of verbs
Psychopaths viewed their crime as more in the past than non psychopaths
Their language was less fluent

Question 9

Conclusions

Answer 9

Psychopaths describe powerful emotional events in a rational but more primitive way compared to others

• tend to view their crime as the logical outcome of a plan
• are more likely to focus on their own basic physiological needs
• overall are less emotional and less positive in their speech
• are more emotionally detached from their crimes