Understanding Research paper: Personality Disorder, Theory, Research, and Treatment

Virginia Nielsen

09/14/2020

Understanding Research Paper

The article explored was Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment; Do Psychopathic Individuals possess a Misaligned Moral Compass? A Meta-Analytic Examination of Psychopath's Relations with Moral Judgement. This article looks into research on psychopaths, moral judgments, and current tools/assessments used to assess psychopaths and moral judgment. A meta-analysis was completed on the three most common measurement tools. The tools used were sacrificial moral dilemmas, measures of Kohlbergian moral reasoning, and moral foundations questions (Julia Marshall, 2016). 

Purpose of Study

Julia Marshal, A. L. (2016), wanted to understand why the three main tools to assess moral judgment and decision making with psychopaths; do not have consistent results or validity. They reported that many studies and research were done on the relationship between psychopathy and abnormal moral judgment. They will complete a Meta-analytic examination of the current tools, studies, and results, including a new review for each of the main tools used, a comparison between the three, and lastly, the findings. 

Tools Used

Sacrificial moral dilemmas asses the individuals' moral values. In certain situations, by pitting utilitarianism against deontological considerations (Julia Marshall, 2016). The assessment does two things: it assesses the person's ability to choose based on consequences of action and adherence to moral duties. Kohlberg's test of morality is a theory of moral development. Including moral stages, pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional. Identifying how people make decisions, what considerations they make before acting, and avoiding punishment (Julia Marshall, 2016). Lastly, moral foundations theory. It assesses five moral domains that represent various ethical issues while making decisions. The five moral domains are harm, purity, authority, loyalty, and fairness. Allowing the researcher to identify which area of moral decision-making the individual avoids, follows, or is not concerned with when making decisions (Julia Marshall, 2016). 

Data Collected & Limitations

Julia Marshal, A. L. (2016), completed a meta-analytic examination of the discrepancies between methodological differences across studies, what the potential boundary conditions for the relationship between psychopathy and moral judgment. It predicted that the meta-analytic relations between psychopathy traits and moral judgment would have a negligible impact on the varied findings and be consistent in the notion that a psychopathic individual possesses subtle deficits in moral judgment. Also examined was the variation in the relationship between psychopathy and moral judgment indices function of several potential moderators (Julia Marshall A. L., 2016).  

The researchers used search terms psychopathy, psychopathic, personality, moral decision-making, moral reasoning, morality, trolly dilemmas, defining issues, and moral foundations for the meta-analysis. The researchers located published and unpublished studies on the relation between psychopathy and sacrificial moral dilemmas, the DIT or other indices of Kohlbergian moral reasoning, and the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. They used any combinations of the three types and used Google Scholar and PsychInfo. 

The studies consist of two separate analyses, the primary comprised 23 studies with 27 independent samples, with 4376 participants. Then, it examined the relationship between psychopathy, the two measures of moral judgment, and tested the typical moral reasoning and decision making (Julia Marshall A. L., 2016). Conducting the meta-analysis allowed the researchers to ascertain further the correlation between psychopathy and the two measures of moral standing. They assessed six studies, nine independent samples, and 4294 participants (Julia Marshall A. L., 2016). All data is provided to the reader through a histogram. Providing all the unpublished and published information, table one included information from primary meta-analysis, and table two the subsidiary meta-analysis. 

Findings & Presentation

Results indicated a slight relationship between psychopathy and moral deficits, which included the two moral judgment measures. Seventy-nine percent of the effects were consistent with the idea; psychopathic individuals have some moral deficits. Both meta-analyses had varied considerably. Then, the researchers completed follow-up analyses to ascertain the boundary conditions of moral deficits in psychopathy. Still, the researchers concluded that all data and results need to be interpreted with caution due to variations in results and the inability to validate or replicate the test and findings (Julia Marshall A. L., 2016). 

All said and done; their findings continued to be inconclusive. Just as previous research is done in this area of study, findings are not conclusive. Data shows different findings than expected; assessments do not show continuation from one person to another or study to another. There is a lack of assessment/tool validity. While asking questions, the biggest one that came up was, "If these assessments/tools are not showing continuous positive validity, then why not create new assessments/tools?" When exploring this idea, the same central theme came into view. Someone with psychopathic tendencies, and a diagnosis of personality disorders, tend to be dishonest on assessments. Each will present with different symptoms, behavior, and manipulation. How can a universal assessment or tool show validity when what it is assessing is not consistent? The student has difficulty answering this question and identifying new ways to assess moral judgment and show validity. 

References

Julia Marshall, A. L. (2016). Personality Disorders; Theories, Research, and Treatment: Do Psychopaths Possess a Misaligned Moral Compass? A Meta-analytic Examination of Psychopathy's Relations with Moral Judgement. American Psychological Association, 16.