4.4 Article

The joy of being frightened: Fear experience in psychopathy

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12890

关键词

boldness; emotional/interpersonal traits; fear enjoyment; fear/threat processing; psychopathy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Psychopathic traits are associated with abnormalities in fear processing. Individuals with elevated psychopathic traits may experience threatening situations with appreciation or positivity, resulting in reduced negative fear responses and heightened positive responses (fear enjoyment hypothesis, FEH).
ObjectivePsychopathic traits are associated with abnormalities in fear processing. While traditional theories focus on a lack of fear, Hosker-Field et al. (2016) provided a new perspective. They suggested that individuals with elevated psychopathic traits may experience threatening situations with appreciation or positivity, resulting in reduced negative fear responses and heightened positive responses (fear enjoyment hypothesis, FEH).MethodOur study aimed to refine Hosker-Field et al.'s (2016) study design, addressing methodological limitations and improving the inconsistent operationalization of fear experience in the literature. In an online sample of 353 participants from the general population, we examined the relationship between the FEH and relevant psychopathic traits, specifically those derived from the PCL-R framework (i.e., SRP 4 Factor 1), and from a more trait-based approach to psychopathy with assumed links to fearlessness (i.e., TriPM Boldness).ResultsBy employing linear mixed effect models, we extended Hosker-Field et al.'s correlational analysis and provided further evidence for the FEH, particularly in relation to psychopathic traits measured using the PCL-R framework. The results regarding Boldness, however, are somewhat inconclusive.ConclusionThe present study enhances existing research on fear deficits in psychopathy by assessing the subjective experience of individuals facing threat.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据