Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The Effects Of Diphenylhydantoin On The Galvanic Skin Responses Of Psychopathic And Normal Prisoners
(USC Thesis Other)
The Effects Of Diphenylhydantoin On The Galvanic Skin Responses Of Psychopathic And Normal Prisoners
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
72-6081
LEVINE, Steven Eliot, 1944-
THE EFFECTS OF DIPHENYLHYDANTOIN ON THE
GALVANIC SKIN RESPONSES OF PSYCHOPATHIC
AND NORMAL PRISONERS.
University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1971
Psychology, clinical
i
I
!
| University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED
THE EFFECTS OF DIPHENYLHYDANTOIN ON THE
GALVANIC SKIN RESPONSES OF PSYCHOPATHIC
AND NORMAL PRISONERS
by
Steven Eliot Levine
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Psychology)
September 1971
UNIVERSITY O F SO U T H E R N C ALIFO RNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
...........
under the direction of hU r.f. Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Gradu
ate School, in partial fulfillment of require
ments of the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y
f ~771&HQ___
/ y Dean
Date S e Pteit* e r » 1 9 7 1
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairman
O li . . .
P LEASE NOTE:
Some Pages have indistinct
print. Filmed as received.
U N I V E R S I T Y MICROFILMS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to thank the members of his
dissertation committee, Dr. Gary Galbraith and
Dr. Barbara Meyerhoff, and especially his chairman,
Dr. Steven Frankel.
A number of individuals were very helpful in
carrying out the present project, and their participa
tion is gratefully noted: Dr. Richard Steele, Miss Toni
Jenkins, Dr. Howard Barton.
The staff of the Southern Reception and Guidance
Center, California Institution for Men, Chino, was very
cooperative in the running of the experiment, and my
thanks are especially extended to Mr. William D. Achuff,
Mr. Ephraim Rivlin, Miss Leisle Howell, and Miss Beth
Summer.
The inmates who participated in the study were,
of course, the essential ingredient, and their cooper
ative and friendly participation is gratefully acknowl
edged.
ii
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................... il
LIST OP TABLES................................... iv
LIST OP FIGURES . . ............. v
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION ............................. 1
II. METHOD ................................. 17
III. RESULTS ................................. 33
IV. DISCUSSION ............................... 47
REFERENCES ..................................... 56
ill
LIST OP TABLES
Table Page
1. Subject Characteristics: Mean Values and
Significant Differences, Psychopaths and
Normals................................. 22
2. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Shock
Level Chosen (N=48) ..................... 34
3. Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Shock
Level Chosen, Milllamperes (N=48) .... 35
4. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Basal
Level Conductance (N=48) 38
5. Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Basal
Level Conductance, Units of Square Root
Conductance x 100,000 (N=48) 39
6. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Anticipa
tion of Shock (N=48) ................... 41
7. Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Antic
ipation of Shock, Units of Square Root
Conductance x 100,000 (N=48) 42
8. Summary of Analysis of Variance of Response
to Shock (N=48) 43
9. Cell Means and Standard Deviations for Re
sponse to Shock, Units of Square Root Con
ductance x 100,000 (N=48) .............. 44
LIST OP FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Mean Profile on Minnesota Multiphasic Per
sonality Inventory, Psychopaths ......... 20
2. Mean Profile on Minnesota Multiphasic Per
sonality Inventory, Normals ......... 21
v
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The Psychopath
An area of clear controversy has existed in the
experimental literature concerning the autonomic arousal,
lability, and conditionability of the psychopath. (While
the American Psychiatric Association has moved presently
to the term "anti-social reaction," the tradition in the
experimental literature has generally retained the older
term "psychopath.")
In the 1940's, Cleckly (1941) and Lindner (1944)
■wrote about the traits and dynamics of the psychopath.
Cleckly*s checklist of psychopathic traits include guilt
lessness, incapacity for object love, emotional shallow
ness, egocentricity, purposelessness, impulsivity, ina
bility to learn from experience, and charm.
Psychopathy frequently has been discussed in terms
of two categories: "primary" and "secondary." The
primary psychopath is the true character disturbance and
is the subject of the present discussion. The secondary
psychopath is seen as a person who has the long history
of unrepentent criminality resembling that of the true
1
2
psychopath, but is driven by some anxiety medicated
(neurotic) mechanism to his behavior. He may be criminal,
for example, but not guiltless or purposeless.
While the true psychopath is a relatively infre
quent individual— he appears to comprise about 2 to 3 per
cent of prison intake— he has been the focus of a great
deal of experimental interest over the years. Primarily,
this is due to the rather widespread belief that there is
something physiologically or organically deficient, dif
ferent, or damaged in the psychopath which explains his
behavior. In many senses, this controversy parallels the
one surrounding schizophrenia. The experimental liter
ature concerning psychopathy spanning about 13 or 14 years
now, concerns itself largely, therefore, with the condi-
tionability and autonomic functioning of the psychopath.
In addition, some research has concerned operant learning,
empathy, and other facets of the psychopath's nature.
The first study in the area of autonomic condi-
tionability of the psychopath was done by Lykken (1957).
He found primary and secondary psychopaths to be indis
tinguishable in terms of Galvanic Skin Response (GSR)
reactivity or conditionability but more aroused than
non-incarcerated normals. GSR is a popular measure in
the study of psychopathy since it provides a sensitive
continuous measure which is responsive almost entirely
to the sympathetic branch of the Autonomic Nervous System.
However, the Lykken study marks the first in an apparent
tradition in the field which seems to dictate the use of
improper control groups. Some studies use mixed non
psychopaths, some use non-incarcerated controls, and some
use non-incarcerated normals. The most appropriate con
trol group would be Ss who differ only in psychiatric
condition and not in living condition, and who can make
some meaningful claim to normalcy. The use of inappro
priate controls makes much of the work discussed in this
chapter difficult to interpret.
Pox and Lippert.(1963) found that "sociopathic
delinquents" and controls were equal in basal skin con
ductance but the delinquents had a lower degree of spon
taneous GSR activity. Later (Lippert and Senter, 1966),
psychopathic Ss were found to have lower reactivity to
punishment or threat of punishment (electric shock) than
normals, but groups did not differ on this stimulus.
The most widely known experimental work in the area
was that of Hare (1965a, 1965b, 1968). He found that
psychopaths had higher shock tolerance and lower shock-
GSR conditionability than controls. Hare's work is
plagued, however, by certain methodological errors which
reduce its impact. His shock source was of a type for
which parameters are not well calibrated or controlled.
4
Further* his definition of psychopaths was not as well
founded as modern MMPI criteria. Most importantly*
perhaps* his selection of controls was generally "non
psychopaths." To anyone who has spent much time in
contact with prison inmates* "non-psychopaths" is not
"normal." In fact* psychiatric normality occurs in
prisoners at an even lower rate than primary psychopathy.
Thus* a control group composed of non-psychopathic in
mates would include a mixture of schizophrenics* passive-
aggressives* and mixed neuroses. Moreover* Hare's control
groups were* sometimes* not even prisoners* but were
drawn from such places as adult night schools (1965c).
A study by Schmauch (1969) compared primary psycho
paths, neurotic psychopaths* and normals on a form of the
Lykken avoidance-learning task* where punishment was
either shock* loss of money* or verbal comment. Also*
GSR recordings were taken during the trials. He found
no differences among groups in terms of time to learn
the maze. However* in the shock condition* the normal
controls did learn better than the primary psychopaths.
Also* an analysis of the GSR data showed that normals
did anticipate the shock more than the psychopaths did.
However* no differences in basal level conductance were
found* which is contrary to Hare's findings.
The results of the studies outlined above lend
themselves to the Interpretation that the psychopath's
criminality is possibly due to hyporesponsiveness to
negative stimuli. This theory argues that since the
psychopath is less responsive autonomically than is the
normal, punishment of misbehavior does not condition
autonomic fear responses to the emergence of criminal
impulses, as it does in the normal individual. Cleckly
(1941) first outlined this "faulty fear conditionability"
theory.
There is, however, a growing amount of evidence
that the psychopath is not autonomically less aroused
than is the normal in the presence of threat or punish
ment, but may indeed be just as autonomically labile or
even more so. If this is so, then the "fear-conditioning
deficit" theory does not adequately explain the psycho
path's criminal acting out.
In theoretical contributions, Eysenck (1964),
McCord and McCord (1964), and Schacter and Latane (1964)
have all considered the psychopath to be hyper- as opposed
to hypo-responsive autonomically. Eysenck, for example,
sees the psychopath as a neurotic extrovert who is highly
aroused, and McCord and McCord view the psychopath as
labile autonomically and unable to handle changes in
internal drives or external cues.
Bennett (1955) found that psychopaths showed as
high a level of verbal and autonomic (GSR) responding to
a stress film (subincision rites) as did normals, and
possibly more.
Scott (1969) tested a hypothesis of Cleckly's that
psychopaths do not respond appropriately to words and
phrases and especially are deficient in understanding
affective meaning. The experimental hypothesis was that
in a verbal learning task, psychopaths would not respond
as well as non-psychopaths in the presence of negative
verbal reinforcement, but would respond as well as normals
to positive reinforcement. These results did not occur,
as the psychopaths responded as well as normals to nega
tive verbal reinforcement.
Steele's (I970) study involving a line-drawing task
using verbal positive and negative reinforcement also
showed no difference between the performance of psycho
paths and controls.
Kahler (1970) tested Cleckly's "faulty-fear condi-
tionability" hypothesis in a behavioral choice situation.
This hypothesis would predict that given equal levels of
unpleasantness among tasks, psychopaths would choose a
higher number of those tasks associated with anxiety than
would non-psychopathic controls. Moreover, subjects were
placed in a choice situation concerning immediate versus
7
delayed shock. MMPI anxiety scales were also compared.
The results obtained yielded no difference between psy
chopaths and non-psychopaths on any of the measures of
anxiety used.
Levine (1970) compared the personal space or dis
tancing responses of psychopaths and normals in a prison
setting, assuming that such responses are reflective of
interpersonal anxiety. According to the hypoarousal
position of Hare and Cleckly, the psychopaths should
have exhibited less personal space, i.e., allowed the
E to approach closer before reporting internal responses
to the approach. The opposite result was obtained, how
ever, with psychopaths demonstrating significantly larger
personal space than normals, indicating a possibly higher
level of arousal.
Finally, Steele (I970), in a shock (GSR) condi
tioning paradigm similar to that of Hare (1965a) found
psychopaths to be more aroused on basal level conductance
than normals with a trend toward higher anticipation
and responses to shock. Steele suggested that perhaps
the psychopath is not less conditionable to fear
stimuli, but instead is so aroused that he experiences
an inability to control his anxiety and impulses.
8
Perhaps the most significant finding in this study
was that once aroused by the shock conditioning portion
of the experiment, psychopaths maintained a high level of
basal skin conductance afterward while normals returned
to significantly lower levels of arousal. This suggests
that once aroused, psychopaths may lack the ability to
inhibit further arousal in the absence of external causal
cues.
Thus, there is a good deal of recent evidence that
the psychopath is at least as autonomically aroused or
more so than is the normal. It has been suggested by a
number of writers (Eysenck, 1964; McCord and McCord, 1964;
Steele, 1970) that the psychopath experiences an abnorm
ally high level of physiological arousal which he is
unable to control.
Diphenylhydantoin
Diphenylhydantoin (DPH) is a drug which has been
known to have medical benefits since 1937* when it was
discovered by Putnam and Merritt (1938) as an anti
epileptic agent. It has been long known that anger,
anxiety, or excitement— arousal— often precede epileptic
seizures, and before the discovery of DPH, sedatives, first
the bromides and then phenobarbital, were used to control
epilepsy. DPH, however, is a drug which does not have
sedative effects. Its effect seems to be, instead, to
9
reduce abnormal cell excitability in the case of neuronal
and cardiac tissue. While the major use of DPH is still
the control of epilepsy, DPH has been found to have a wide
range of other clinical uses for its "normalizing" effect.
For example, DPH has found wide use in the control of
cardiac arrhythmias, and digitalis intosication (e.g.,
Blachly, 1965; Helfant Scherlag, and Damato, 1967).
For many years cases of benefits from DPH in non
cardiac and non-epileptic disorders have been reported.
The effectiveness of DPH has been reported in the relief
of a vast number of disorders such as alcoholism (e.g.,
Fox, 1966), gastrointestinal disturbances (e.g., Vanasin,
et al., 1970), sexual problems (e.g., Mark, et al., 1968),
migraine (e.g., Rowntree and Waggoner, 1950), and stutter
ing (e.g.. Sack, 1968).
Most relevant to the present study, however, is
the emergence of reports of the effectiveness of DPH in
the treatment of psychiatric disorders. Bogoch and Drey
fus (1970), for example, reference 97 studies concerning
the use of DPH in psychiatric disorders in children and
adults, and 106 laboratory studies which lend theoretical
support, in terms of basic mechanism, to the notion that
DPH might be an effective psychiatric medication.
Merritt and Putnam (1938) mention that epileptic
children on DPH showed behavior improvements. There are
10
a large number of subsequent reports of similar observa
tions. More importantly, however, starting with Lindsley
and Henry (1942) behavioral improvement of various sorts
have been noted in non-epileptics who are on DPH.
Throughout the literature are frequent reports of
the reduction of anxiety, impulsiveness, irritability,
and the like in behavior-disordered and general popula
tions both. For example, Jonas (1965, 1967), summarizing
a 12-year period in which he treated 211 patients with
DPH, noted improvement in a wide variety of specific
symptoms of mood and behavior in general medical practice.
Turner (1967) reported improvement in 46 of 56
patients on DPH iri an 18-month period, in private psychi
atric practice. There was poor control in this study
since Turner administered placebo to each patient for a
few days then changed to DPH and noted behavior improve
ment. E expectancy can hardly be seen as a minor variable
in an individual therapy situation.
Haward (1967) noted improvement in 20 neurotic
outpatients on DPH and hypothesized according to his
crossover study that there is a physiological typology
that is responsive to the drug. Haward (1968) in a blind
placebo study found DPH to improve concentration in a
motor coordination task using college students.
11
Tec (1968), In reviewing his work with behavior
disorders in children, concluded that DPH works in a
"majority" of cases, often when phenothiazines and amph
etamines failed. Alvarez (1968) and Ayd (1967) report
the same conclusion and point out that EEG abnormality
is not necessary for positive response to the drug.
Boelhouwer, Henry, and Glueck (1968) reported that
DPH was effective alone and in combination with Mellaril
in a double blind study of 78 young patients, all 30 years
old or younger. All were inpatients showing symptoms of
impulsive destruction, aggressive behavior, and 47 of the
patients showed spiking EEG abnormalities. Results were
highly positive on a large number of ratings.
A number of failures also have been reported.
Kanzler, Malitz, and Higgins (1968) reported the failure
of DPH and five other antidepressants to provide better
relief than did placebo. Lefkowitz (1969) showed no
difference between DPH and placebo in the treatment of
disruptive behavior, although both groups improved. And
Case, Rickels and Bazilian (1969), in treating anxious-
neurotic outpatients, found no difference between DPH
and placebo controls. Oddly enough, placebo produced
more side effects (p ( .001) than did DPH.
In 1970, however, Stephens and Shaffer, in a blind
study using 30 adult outpatients, reported positive results
12 |
In the effectiveness of DPH In reducing anxiety, anger,
Irritability, and impatience. Goldberg and Kurland (1970),
in a blind study using hospitalized retardates, also
reported positive results. Both of these studies used
100 mg., twice daily, which seems to have become fairly
standard in such studies, although many have used 100 or
150 mg., per day.
Besides general psychiatric effects, there have
been a number of studies concerned with effects of DPH
on acting-out behavior and criminality.
Brown and Solomon (1942), report that delinquent
boys in a reform school were less excitable, hot tempered,
and hyperactive when administered DPH. Silverman (1944)
reported that prisoners diagnosed "criminal psychopaths"
showed EEG changes, and sleep, mood, and behavior improve
ments with DPH. The study was blind with placebo, cross
over, and other-drug comparison. In the literature on
the use of DPH with acting-out behavior, such control is
a rarity.
Brill and Walker (19^5) reported improved in a
single case study of the administration of DPH to a
psychopath with latent epilepsy. Walker and Kirkpatrick
(I947) found improvement with DPH in the behavior of ten
problem children who demonstrated abnormal EEG, but were
non-epileptic. Pasaminick (I95I), however, found no
13
such improvement in a similar sample of children.
Zimmerman (1951) administered DPH to a group of
200 behavior problem children and noted improvement in
70 per cent of the cases. Anxiety and impulsiveness were
found to be frequently reduced. The author noted signs
of various organic disturbances in many of the children.
Putnam and Hood (1964) reported improvement in 17 of 23
delinquents on DPH. No controls were described as is
frequently the case.
Lynk and Amidon (1965) found DPH to be effective
with EEG abnormal but non-epileptic delinquents. The
number of cases attempted was not reported, however.
Rossi (1967) reported that DPH was effective in reducing
impulsiveness and acting out in a certain number of hyper
active children.
Jones' (1967) general psychiatric study included
20 patients diagnosed as "sociopathic reactions" and he
reports improvement in 18 of the 20 cases. In 1967,
Resnick carried out a fairly well-controlled study on the
effects of DPH on 11 prisoners. Improvement was noted in
areas of "over-thinking," anger, fear, impulsiveness,
irritability, and hostility. A subsequent study reported
in the same paper on delinquent boys found similar changes
in five out of the six subjects.
14
Deacon (I970) reported that in an 'uncontrolled
study of delinquent girls, a minority improved dramatic
ally in terms of impulsiveness and acting out following
the administering of DPH.
Conclusion and Hypothesis
It is clear from the above discussion that there
is a long historical precedent for the notion that DPH
might be an effective medication for the treatment of
the acting-out psychopath. It also will be recalled from
the first section that there is a good deal of evidence at
this point that the psychopath differs from the normal
in the direction of higher arousal and impulsivity. This
is consistent with the trend of the literature on the use
of DPH with criminals, delinquents, and behavior-problem
children.
The present study was concerned with utilizing the
procedure of Hare (1965) and Steele (1970) in an attempt
to compare the arousal levels of primary psychopaths with
those of normal controls. In addition, however, there
was the blind administration of DPH to one-half of the
Ss in both groups, with the other half receiving placebo.
The test procedure consisted of a seven-trial
series of shock administration at a known point in a
series of numbers visually displayed to the subject,
with ongoing GSR recording. The basal conductance,
anticipation of shock, and response to shock constituted
the dependent measures as in the previous studies. The
resultant design, then, was a 2 x 2 x 7 design on three
dependent GSR measures.
It was hoped that if in a well-controlled situation,
DPH would be differentially effective for psychopaths
versus normals, that the way would be pointed toward an
experimental treatment of psychopathy. Thus, the working
hypotheses of the experiment were:
1. There will be a drug effect in the direction
of less arousal and response for the DPH
condition.
2. There will be a diagnosis effect in the direc
tion of more arousal in the psychopath condi
tion than in the normal control condition.
3. There will be an interaction effect such that
psychopaths will exhibit more drug-placebo
difference than will normals, and that the
presence of DPH will change the GSR record of
the psychopaths in the direction of the normals.
It was felt that not only was replication of the
earlier work on the psychopath useful in further clarify
ing the nature of the disorder, but it was also hoped that
16
there would be clarification of the effect of a contro
versial medication in the responses of these individuals.
CHAPTER II
METHOD
Subjects
Forty-eight Ss were drawn from the inmate popula
tion of the Southern Reception and Guidance Center (SRGC)
California Institution for Men, Chino, California. SRGC
is a close security institution which processes men who
are on their way to state prisons. There is a certain
amount of anxiety present in the setting, since it is at
SRGC that the decision concerning eventual placement will
be made. Moreover, a substantial portion of the men are
there on 90-day observation in order to allow the prepar
ation of a court-ordered recommendation by the Department
of Corrections concerning prison versus probation. On
the other hand, SRGC is a well-run facility, with little,
if any, of the brutalizing aspects of the county jails,_
especially Los Angeles and San Diego Counties. A large
number of Ss have expressed strong relief at being at
SRGC and out of the county jails. The length of time
the men have been at SRGC is fairly constant, ranging
from two weeks to six weeks. However, the amount of time
the men spent incarcerated before arriving at the facility
18
varies from two days to two years, since some men are
being transferred from federal prisons to state prisons
due to multiple convictions for such crimes as bank
robbery, car theft, or narcotics, all of which violate
both federal and state laws. Moreover, a large number
of the men cannot make bail or are not granted it, and
have spent a number of months in county jails awaiting
due process of the law.
When the men arrive at SRGC, they are administered
a battery of tests which will constitute part of the
evaluation. Among these tests is the Minnesota Multi-
phasi.c Personality Inventory (MMPI)— the only group
psychiatric test administered. Ss were selected accord
ing to MMPI results.
Psychopaths. For the purposes of the study, the
psychopath was defined as follows: tested on the MMPI,
he exhibits T-scores of greater than 70 on Scales 4
(Psychopath Deviate) and 9 (Manic); all other scales must
be less than 70; L (Lie) must be less than 60; Scale 9
must exceed Scale 8 (Schizophrenia) by 15 T-scores, and
Scale 4 must exceed Scale 5 (masculine-feminine) by at
least 7. This profile appears to most closely approx
imate The American Psychiatric Association (APA) diagnos
tic category of "antisocial reaction." He is described
by the manual as follows: "Immature, hostile, rebellious,
19
poorly socialized, poor morals, poor standards. Impul
sive, restless, low frustration tolerance. ..."
(It Is interesting to note the correspondence
between this description and the description of the type
of behavior-disordered juveniles reported to have been
helped by DPH; for example, see Resnick, 1967.)
According to Gilberstadt and Duker (1965), eleva
tion on Scale 4 only probably indicates a passive-
aggressive personality, not a primary psychopath. The
"High 4" profile is the most commonly encountered profile
among prison inmates. Mean MMPI profile for psychopaths
is shown in Figure 1.
Normals. The Normal S was defined as follows:
Tested on the MMPI, he exhibited no elevation above a
T-score of 70, with Scales 4 and 9 under 60. Mean
normal profile is shown in Figure 2.
Table 1 outlines the mean value of a number of
comparison characteristics between groups. Significant
differences are accompanied by T-scores. It may be seen
that the psychopaths differ from the normals in having
been arrested more times and been Incarcerated more times
with a consequently greater total time incarcerated in
the past. Since this reflects a stronger history of crim
inality In the psychopath S than in the normal, this was
expected.
20
L F K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
III I I I I I I I I I I
70
50
30
I I I I I I I I I I I I
LFK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 1. Mean Profile on Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory, Psychopaths.
21
L F K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
tit 1 I 1 I I I I » I 1
70
50
30
I I f I I I I I I I I
L F K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 2. Mean Profile on Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory, Normals.
22
Table 1
Subject Characteristics: Mean Values and
Significant Differences, Psychopaths
and Normals.
Psychopaths Normals t
Age (years) 28.7 27.1
—
Shipley-Hartford IQ 93.0 91.5
—
Number of Arrests
13.2 6.7
1.72*
Number of Times
Incarcerated
4.7 2.9 1.73*
Total Amount of Time
Spent in Prison, All
Incarcerations (Months)
53.7 18.5
1
3.51**
Time Spent This Incar
ceration
4.2 4.7
—
* p^.05> 1 tail
** p O 01, 1 tail
23
Apparatus
A Stolting Dermograph single-channel GSR recorder
with event marker was used to record skin resistance. A
constant current of 46 microamperes was passed through
99.9 per cent silver electrodes attached to the first
and third fingers of the left hand. Burdick electrode
paste and wrappings of adhesive tape secured contact.
Current density was 8 microamperes per square centimeter,
will within the limits of recording liniarity defined by
Venables and Martin (1967).
Shock was delivered by a constant current smooth
wave D. C. shock source designed by Robert A. Stewart
of University of London (Stewart and Campbell, 1970).
The source is adjustable to deliver from 0.2 to 9 milli-
amperes of current through a variable range with less than
2 per cent error. Timing is adjustable from 0.1 to 2.5
seconds, plus or minus 1/1000 second at any setting.
Voltage varies as a function of subject skin resistance
and current level, to a maximum of 270VDC. Shock was
delivered through two coin silver electrodes, 18 mm in
diameter, taped to the fingerprint area of the first and
third fingers of the right hand. Electrode paste was
employed.
Stimulus numbers from one to twenty were projected,
using a Kodak Carousel 800 slide projector, onto a screen
24
placed 8 feet in front of the S.. The numbers were about
12 inches high when projected. Previous use has deter
mined the Weston value of the image to be 5> and the am
bient light value to be 0.2. The projector automatically
cycled to project each number for five seconds. Shock was
administered at the instant the number 16 left the screen.
This was accomplished by using the current generated by
the slide-changing mechanism of the projector to operate
a relay which triggers the shock source. The E armed the
shock source by a silent switch during the presentation
of the number 16.
The experimental room was small and rectangular,
with the equipment on a desk, behind which the E sat.
At the end of the desk there was an easy chair in which
» ”
the S sat, facing the wall opposite the desk, and seated
the same direction as the E, but a couple of feet farther
forward. There were no windows, except that the entire
wall behind the E's and S1s backs was glass from waist
level to ceiling.
Drug Procedure
Prior to the selection of Ss the blind code for
drug and placebo administration was established. Forty-
eight packets, each containing four separately-packaged
10-grain gelatin capsules, were prepared. Twenty-four of
the packets contained a series of four capsules each
25
containing the contents of a 100 mgm. Dilatin Kapseal,
Delayed Action, Parke-Davis Code No. 385* plus powdered
sugar. (Dilantin is a brand of Diphenylhydantoin Sodium.)
The remaining 24 contained identical capsules filled with
sugar only.
The numbering of the packets was accomplished in
such a way that half (12) of the odd-numbered packets
contained drug, and the remaining half contained placebo.
Similarly, half (12) of the even-numbered packets con
tained drug, half placebo. The assignment of drug code
numbers was accomplished by the use of a random numbers
table, with above limitation on randomness imposed so
that four equal groups of 12 were obtained: 12 odd-
numbered drug; 12 odd-numbered placebo; 12 even-numbered
drug; 12 even-numbered placebo.
As Ss entered the experiment they were assigned
numbers according to random drawing of packets with the
limitation that psychopaths would always receive odd
numbers, and normals would always receive even numbers.
Thus, if the packet drawn for a £ 3 were even, and he was
in the psychopath group, the packet was replaced and
another drawn until he received an odd number. Since
the E had to select the Ss himself, he could not avoid
awareness of the diagnosis. The drug-placebo code, how
ever, was prepared by another person, who numbered the
26
packets secretly. Thus, the E was aware of diagnosis but
was totally unaware of drug condition. The purpose of
the even-odd division was to ensure that equal size -cells
resulted. After data collection was complete, the drug
code was broken, and the S's data assigned to one of the
four groups.
The preparation of the capsules and the medical
authorization for their administration was supervised by
Howard R. Barton, M.D., of the County of Los Angeles
Department of Mental Health.
Procedures
As Ss were selected (normally in groups of three
to six) they were sent ducats (appointment slips) instruc
ting them to appear at the reception desk of the clinical
area on the morning of Day 1 of the procedure. Ss had
anywhere from no prior notice of the appointment up to
18 hours' notice, depending on the procedures for handling
ducats on his particular cell block.
When Ss arrived for their appointment on Day 1,
they were sent individually to the experimental room (a
converted office) where E introduced himself to S and
presented a close approximation of the following explana-
tion:
27
We are carrying on a program of physiological
research here concerning the effects of incar
ceration on certain kinds >of reflexes and re
sponsiveness of the peripheral nervous system,
and we would like you to participate. Men are
chosen as they come through to represent a cross
section of prisoners in terms of age, length of
time in prison, nature of offense, and so on.
What you will have to do is to take a series
of four pills to prepare your skin for the
recordings. You will take one tonight, one
tomorrow morning, one tomorrow night, and the
last one the next morning. You will come back
for the test the same day.
It only takes about half an hour to do. You
will sit in that chair there and I will sit in
that chair there and I will hook some surface
electrodes to your fingertips. Then while I
record the electrical activity in your nervous
system, you will watch a series of boring numbers
projected on the screen. That will give us a
resting level recording. Then you will receive
a small number of small electric shocks on your
fingertips— you will set the intensity yourself
and you will know when it is coming, so it is
nothing to worry about. This will allow us to
measure the responsiveness and recovery time
of your nervous system, and that sort of thing.
You will receive two packages of cigarettes and
a letter of appreciation in your jacket /Filey7.
Otherwise, nobody knows a thing. O.K.?
At this point, any questions the S had were answered. If
he asked about the type of drug it was, he was told the
generic description, without reference to specific action
of the drug.
If the S agreed to participate, the E then asked
him to read over and sign the consent form, which read,
28
I, ____ , do voluntarily consent to
participate in the research project being con
ducted by the University of Southern California
at the California Institute for Men, Chino,
California. I understand that I will receive
four dosages of a common and safe medication.
I understand, however, that side effects are
possible with any drug, and I voluntarily as
sume that risk. I understand that after four
dosages of medication, I will undergo some
physiological testing which will include the
administration to my fingertips a small number
of mild electric shocks. I am free to set the
intensity of the shock to my own personal level
of tolerance, and no shocks of a greater inten
sity, or shocks for which I am not prepared,
will be administered. I further understand
that the only form of payment I will receive
will be two packages of cigarettes. A form
acknowledging my cooperation and participation
in this project will become a permanent part of
my file. I am not under medical treatment at
this time; I am not receiving medication; I am
in good health.
If the S had any questions about side effects, he
was told that the most common side effect was an upset
stomach due to the sodium and that he could avoid this
by drinking a full cup of water with each pill to dilute
it. He was also told that while other side effects are
not common, people react individually to medication, and
anything is possible with drugs, and that this is the
reason for the consent form.
Next, the was asked for some basic information:
Bunk number, height and weight, nature of offense, addic
tions, amount of time spent in prison, medical and psy
chiatric history.
29
Following this, the £ was instructed that the
officer would bring him his first pill that night around
9:00 p.m. (Day 1) in his cell. Then, he would be ducated
to Controlled Medication Clinic (next to the clinical
area) the following morning (Day 2), to receive his
second pill. That night he would receive his third pill
in his cell, around 9:00 p.m. (Day 2). The following
morning at 8:00 a.m. (Day 3), he would be re-ducated to
the clinical area where the E would give him his fourth
pill. At some time (specified) during that day, he would
be re-ducated to the clinical area to run through the
experiment.
The entire explanation and recruitment usually
required about 20 minutes, since the E desired to make
the interview as relaxed, friendly, and non-anxiety-
provoking as possible. The Ss were reassured at several
points that the procedure was nothing to worry about, and
that they were to just relax and go on about their normal
activities until they returned for the experiment. When
all S. 16 questions had been answered, he was excused to
return to his normal routine. (During the course of the
experiment, only two Ss -declined to participate. One was
a. psychopath and the other a normal. Both were assured
that no mention of their refusal would be made or noted
in their files.)
30
On the morning of Day 3» the E brought all Ss for
the day back to the experimental room in a group to
administer the last pill. There was normally a good deal
of small talk and early morning humor. The group admin
istration was primarily an attempt to relax the Ss.
Starting at 9:00 a.m. on Day Ss returned
individually for the test procedure. As he arrived, the
S was greeted, then asked to remove his jacket, if he
was wearing one, and be seated in the easy chair. At
this point, the E attached the electrodes to the S while
carrying on a general conversation and answering ques
tions. Every attempt was made to relax the S and to be
as informal as possible. Next, the E seated himself
behind the desk, and gave the following instructions:
Now let's find out how much shock you feel like
today. I'm going to start off at a very low
level— you won't be able to feel it— and work
it up in small steps. I want you to tell me
three things. First, I want you to tell me
when you first feel the shock— you'll only
feel it in your right fingertips. Next, I
want you to tell me when it becomes uncomfort
able. And third, I want you to tell me when
you don't want to go any higher. That's the
level we'll use in the experiment. Remember,
this isn't to find out how much you can stand,
but only how much you feel like tolerating
throughout the experiment. This isn't a pain
contest. Ready?
At this point, a shock of 0.2 milliamps was admin
istered. The S was then asked if he felt it, and the
answer was always "no." Then the shock was worked up
in 0.2-milliamp steps until the subject responded that
he felt it (anywhere from 0.4 to 1.0). When he said
that he felt it, the S was instructed to next report
when it became uncomfortable. If by 2.0 milliamps the
S had not said anything, he was reminded to report dis
comfort. The procedure continued until the S indicated
that the level was as high as he wanted it. The resultant
level was the one used throughout the experiment, and was
entered in the GSR record as "shock level chosen."
Following the shock work-up, the S was told to
relax, place his feet on the floor, to watch the screen
and not to talk or move unnecessarily, since all move
ments tended to influence the recording.
After about two minutes of relaxing, deep breaths,
and small talk, the slide projector was activated, the
number "1" appeared on the wall, and the series pro
gressed, at the rate of five seconds per number. The S
was given the following instructions:
Here's what we're going to do. We're going to
run through, the numbers 1 through 20, 8 times.
Now, the first time around nothing happens—
I'll just be getting a baseline on the machine.
After the first time, whenever the number "16"
goes off the screen, you'll receive the shock.
The shock will be the same as administered
previously. That's all there is to it. Just
sit quietly, relax, and watch the wall. Any
questions?
32
If there were any questions, they were answered.
At this point, the E sat back and began to operate
the GSR recorder and did not speak for the remainder of
the procedure, which was a period of about 12 to 13
minutes.
When the last series of numbers was completed,
the E turned off the machines, and said:
That’s it. Before I get you out of those
wires, let me ask you a couple of questions.
It's helpful for us in analyzing our results
to know what you thought the experiment was
about. Could you tell me? (Record S_'s
response.) How would you describe your state
of mind while you were taking the test? Were
you calm, nervous, relaxed, tense, or what?
(Record response.) Did you feel any effects
from the medication, or did you feel any dif
ferent in the last two days? (Record response.)
Is there anything else you want to tell me?
(Record response.)
At this time, the E removed the electrodes from the S^,
and talked with him while cleaning off the electrode
paste and calibrating the recorder. The £ 3 was thanked
then, paid two packes of cigarettes', and excused to
return to duty.
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
Shock Level
The final level of shock indicated by the S during
the shock work-up described previously was used throughout
the test procedure for that £ and was recorded as Shock
Level Chosen.
Table 2 presents the summary of a standard 2 x 2
analysis of variance of these data. Table 3 presents the
cell means and standard deviations. It may be seen from
these results that there was a significant diagnosis
effect. The mean shock level chosen for psychopaths
was 3.0 and the mean for normals was 2.0. There were
no significant drug or Diagnosis X Drug interaction
effects.
Basal Level Conductance
For the first series of numbers presented visually,
there was no shock administered and nothing scored. On
the subsequent seven Trials, Basal Level Skin Conductance
was scored according to the following rules:
33
34
Table 2
Summary of Analysis of Variance of
Shock Level Chosen (N=48)
Source of Variance df SS MS F
Total
47
80.21
A (Diagnosis) 1 14.52 14.52 10.08*
B (Drug) 1 2.43 2.43 1.69
A X B 1 0.00 0.00 —
S/AB (Error)
44
63.26
1.44
* p <" .005
Table 3
Cell Means and Standard Deviations for
Shock Level Chosen, Milliamperes
(N=48)
Psychopaths Normals
I S.D. X S.D.
3.08 1.41 1.98 0.90
Drug Placebo
X S.D. X S.D.
2.30 1.28 2.75 1.32
Drug Placebo
X S.D. X S.D.
Psychopaths 2.85 1.40 3*30 1.47
Normals 1.75 0.88 2.20 0.91
................. " .....’... .... .............. ’ ■ 36
The skin resistance at the midpoint of the interval
during which the number 13 was presented was normally
taken as basal level resistance. If, however, there was
a significant resistance drop occurring during the inter
val, such that the midpoint of the interval logically
could not be called resting level, then the resistance
at the beginning of the resistance change was taken as
basal level resistance. Thus, if at the middle of inter
val 12, there began a rapid GSR response which continued
at least until 13 was off the screen, then the resistance
level at the midpoint of 12 was recorded as basal level
resistance. Such adjustments in scoring occurred in
perhaps one out of 15 or 20 measurements. If due to the
SJs movements or other extraneous factors, there was a
fair amount of irregularity during the interval, then a
straight line was drawn between the resistance level at
the beginning of the interval and the level at the end,
with the midpoint read off the line instead of the tracing
When a resistance value was recorded for each trial
this value was changed to conductance by taking the recip
rocal. Then the square root of that value was taken in
order to normalize the data. This conversion is the one
found by Schlosberg and Stanley (1949) and Woodworth and
Schlosberg (1954) to yield the most validly manipulable
data. Moreover, rises in conductance correspond to rises
37
in arousal, which aids in conceptualizing and discussing
the data. The resultant value was multiplied by 100,000
to delete the decimal, and the final value entered as a
three-digit number.
The data for Basal Conductance yields a matrix of
two between-groups variables— Diagnosis and Drug—
and one within-subjects variable— Trials.
Table 4 presents the results of the analysis of
variance of these data. It may be seen from these results
that there was no main effect for diagnosis. There was a
drug effect which reached the 10 per cent level of confi
dence. Table 5, which presents the cell means and stand
ard deviations, shows that the effect is in the opposite
direction than was hypothesized.
There were no other effects.
Anticipation of Shock
For each of the seven Trials, the resistance value
at the instant shock was delivered was converted to square
root conductance as described for Basal Conductance. For
each Trial, the value which had been entered for Basal
Conductance was subtracted from the value obtained. This
was then multiplied by 100,000 to lose the decimal. The
resulting figure was entered as Anticipation of Shock.
This procedure takes into account the initial value
effect, adjusting the arousal level in anticipation of
38
Table 4
Summary of Analysis of Variance of
Basal Level Conductance (N=48)
Source of Variance df SS MS F
Total 335 2,244,815.56
Between Ss 47 1,138,333.42
A (Diagnosis) 1 19,261.71 19,261.71 0.83
B (Drug) 1 92,203.44 92,203.44 3.97*
A X B 1 6,103.05 6,103.05
<1
S/AB (Error)
44
1,020,765.22 23,199.21
Within Ss 288
1,106,482.14
C (Trials) 6
20,441.79 3,406.97
<1
A X C 6 1,303.85 217.31 <1
B X C 6 906.04 151.01
O
A X B X C 6
588.93
98.16
<1
SC/AB (Error) 264 1,083,241.53 4,103.19
* p <.10
39
Table 5
Cell Means and Standard Deviations for
Basal Level Conductance, Units of Square
Root Conductance X 100,000 (N=48)
Psychopaths
X S.D.
546.61 82.14
Normals
X S.D.
531.49 81.11
Drug
X S.D.
555.61 93.22
Placebo
S.D.
522.50 64.81
Psychopaths
Normals
Drug
1 S.D.
567.46 90.36
543.80 95.05
Placebo
X
525.81
519.19
S.
67.
62.
Trial
1 2 3 4 5 6
X 530.54 525.65 532.94 540.67 545.75 547.04
S.D. 81.19 89.67 64.43 76.12 91.32 78.30
D.
40
23
7
550.77
76.11
shock by the amount of the initial resting level.
Table 6 presents the results of the analysis of
variance for Anticipation of Shock. It may be seen from
Table 6 that there was no significant effects except for
Trials. Anticipation was larger at the beginning and at
the end of the experiment than in the middle; it can be
seen from Table 7* which presents the cell mean and stand
ard deviation.
Response to Shock
Following the presentation of the shock, there was
almost invariably a sharp rise in skin conductance. The
resistance value at the peak of this rise, before the
first measurable downturn of the tracing, was converted
to square root conductance. The resultant value was re
duced by the square i oot conductance at the instant shock
was delivered, and the difference was multiplied by
100,000 and entered into the data as Response to Shock.
Table 8 presents the results of the analysis of
variance of these data. Table 9 presents the cell means
and standard deviations. It may be seen from these tables
that there were no significant effects on this measure
other than a Trials effect, with responses decreasing
over Trials.
41
Table 6
Summary of Analysis of Variance of
Anticipation of Shock (N=48)
Source of Variance . df SS .MS E
Total 335 16,837,577.64
Between Ss 47
8,275,266.21
A (Diagnosis) 1 5,808.36 5,808.36
<1
B (Drug) 1 59,866.74 59,866.74
<1
A X B ■ 1 ,192,337.86 192,337.86 1.06
S/AB (Error) 44 8,017,253.25 182,210.30
Within Ss 288
8,562,311.43
C (Trials) 6
774,748.37 129,124.73 4.63*
A X C 6
169,465.95 28,244.33
1.01
B X C 6
114,248.49 19,041.42
<1
A X B X C 6 143,081.27 23,846.88
<1
SC/AB (Error) 264 7,360,767.35 27,881.69
* p <.001
42
Table 7
Cell Means and Standard Deviations for
Anticipation of Shock, Units of Square
Root Conductance X 100,000 (N=48)
Psychopaths
X S.D.
206.04 226.44
Normals'
X S.D.
214.36 221.15
Drug Placebo
X S.D. X S.D.
196.85 206.23 223.55 239.44
Drug Placebo
1 S.D. I S.]
Psychopaths 216.62 199*09 195.46' 250,
Normals 177.08 211.29 251.63 224.
Trial
1 2 3 4 5 6
I 282.33 286.77 180.60 162.19 179.92 181.33
S.D. 298.80 290.19 188.70 185.74 189.33 216.34
39
49
7
198.25
222.18
43
Table 8
Summary of Analysis of Variance of
Response to Shock (N=48)
Source of Variance df SS MS F
Total 335
10,727,043.00
Between Ss 47 5,827,644.29
A (Diagnosis) 1 80.848.05 80,848.05
<1
B (Drug) 1
121,752.43 121,752.43 <1
A X B 1 206,097.67 206,097.67 1.67
S/AB 44 5,418,946.14 123,157.87
Within Ss 288 4,899,398.71
C (Trials) 6 678,053.63 113,008.94 7.79*
A X C 6 172,685.86 28,780.98 1.98
B X C 6 145,770.52 24,295.03 1.67
A X B X C 6 71,839.84 11,973.31 <1
SC/AB (Error) 264 3,831,048.86
14,511.55
* p< .001
44
Table 9
Cell Means and Standard Deviations for
Response to Shock, Units of Square
Root Conductance X 100,000 (N=48)
Psychopaths
1 S.D.
201.49 180.30
Normals
1 S.D.
232.51 175.67
Drug
I S.D.
197.96 158.49
Placebo
X S.D.
236.04 194.94
Drug Placebo
X S.D. X S.D.
Psychopaths 179.23 117.68
223.,75 224.00
Normals 216.70 188.90 248.32 159.80
Trial
1 £
3 4 5 6
7
X 318.21 230.48 222.21 191.92
190.65 180.58 184.1
S.D. 240.67 195.14 182.21 193.89 161.80 178.81 200. -
45 !
Relationships Between Shock Level
Chosen, and Other Measures
Because Shock Level Chosen was the only data that
differed significantly across experimental conditions,
it was decided to explore the extent to which Shock Level
Chosen accounts for the variance of scores on the three
dependent measures,
Pearson product moment correlations were computed
relating each SJa Shock Level Chosen to: (1) his mean
Basal Level Conductance score, (2) his mean Anticipation
of Shock score, and (3) Response to Shock score. The:
resultant correlations were .16, .10, and .02, respec
tively. None approached significance. The variance
among scores, then, cannot be accounted for by Shock
Level Chosen.
Self Report of Effects of Medication
Five Ss in the drug group reported feeling some
effect from the medication. One said it made him tense;
two said it relaxed or calmed them; and two said it
nauseated them.
Eight Ss who took placebo reported similar effects.
Curiously, this is similar to the results of Case, Bazil-
ian, and Rickels (1969) although the difference in numbers
of side effects between drug and placebo are minimal in
the present case.
Self Report of "state of mind" did not relate to
Basal Conductance at all. Sixteen subjects reported that
they were In some fashion, tense, during the procedure.
Twenty-seven reported they were relaxed. This self-
reporting did not relate to basal arousal whatsoever.
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
Shock Level Chosen
The analysis of variance reported earlier reveals
that psychopaths chose significantly higher shock levels
than did the normals.
This result was reported also by Hare (1965c).
In the study most similar to the present one, however,
Steele (1970) found no such difference. Using the same
shock calibration and workup procedure, his psychopaths
chose a mean level of 1.6 milliamps, and~his normals chose
a mean level of 1.8. The psychopaths in the present study
chose a mean level of 3.0 and the normals 2.0. The differ
ence, then, is that the psychopaths were quite a bit
higher than previously.
Correlations computed between shock level chosen
and all GSR measures revealed that shock level does not
account for variances in autonomic arousal or reactivity
in the present experiment.
There are a number of possible explanations for the
present results. First, the higher shock levels chosen
by the psychopaths can be seen as they were earlier as
47
48
being supportive of the positions of Cleckly, Hare, and
Lykken that the psychopath is under-aroused autonoraically.
However, the fact that the psychopaths did not exhibit
less arousal than the normals in the present study, and
that there was no relationship found between shock level
and GSR, both fail to support this interpretation.
It is believed that there is a possible explana
tion of the variance between the present results and
Steele’s. A review of his procedures reveal that he did
less to relax his subjects. If there was a true differ
ence between psychopaths and normals in shock level
chosen, as there seems to be at this point, then Steele's
procedure may have created more anxiety concerning the
shock than did the present procedure. In the present
procedure given a certain amount of relaxation concern
ing the shock procedure, Ss may have been free to follow
their predelictions concerning shock. Thus, in Steele's
study, Ss may have stopped the shock work-up early due
to their anxiety concerning the EJ s attitude and concern
for their welfare.
Another possible explanation of the shock level
difference may be that there is something physiologically
different between psychopaths and normals which is not
reflected in autonomic arousal. There were a number of
j3s among the psychopath group who chose abnormally high
shock levels, and account for most of the main effect.
49
It is conceivable that there is a significant portion of
psychopaths who respond differently to shock than normals.
Further exploration of this difference would be possibly
quite fruitful.
Another explanation seems to the present writer to
be the most likely. Psychopaths as a group have more
arrests and more time in prison than normals. The higher
shock levels they chose may simply reflect that many
prisoners try to present a "tough convict" image to others,
and psychopaths are more "prisonized" than normals.
Moreover, as psychopaths are theoretically more
manipulative than normals, a significant number of them
might have decided to select a very high shock level in
order to please the E or look good.
Basal Level Conductance
There were no significant diagnosis effects on this
measure. Basal Conductance previously has been found to
be higher for psychopaths than normals (e.g., Steele,
1970); or, the same for psychopaths and normals (e.g.,
Bennett, 1965; Kahler, 1970)j or, lower for psychopaths
than for normals (e.g., Hare, 1965).
A review of the conductance values reported by Hare
(1965c) reveals that psychopaths in his study were far
less aroused than in the present experiment. The present
50
psychopathic group was highly aroused, in fact, and was
practically identical in Basal Conductance to Steele's
psychopathic group. Mean Skin Resistance for the present
psychopath group (reconverted from mean square root con
ductance) was 33*467 ohms, which is quite similar to the
mean value for Steele's group— 34,294 ohmsr—a value cor
responding to a fairly high arousal level.
The difference, however, was between the present
group of normals and Steele’s normal group. While the
present normals had a mean resistance of 35,398 ohms,
which is not significantly different from the psycho
paths, the mean value for Steele's normals was 49,164
ohms— significantly higher.
It would appear, then, that while the present group
of psychopaths responded to the procedure with conductance
levels comparable to Steele's earlier results, the normals
in the present procedure responded in a much more aroused
fashion than previously.
The clearest difference between the present pro
cedure and that of Hare and Steele is that the Ss were
told about the experiment two days in advance, and had
to take the pills, both of which very possibly might have
created anxiety which the E was unable to counteract.
Having two days to worry over the upcoming procedure
appears to have brought the normals to a level of arousal
nearly equal to that of the psychopaths, who were so
highly aroused that a ceiling effect might have occurred.
It is possible that Bennett's (1955) results, in which
psychopaths and normals did not differ in their GSR
arousal during the showing of a stress film, might be
due to such a ceiling effect for both groups.
The results of the drug main effect in Basal Con
ductance reach a confidence level of 10 per cent. The
direction of the effect, however, is with those on DPH
being somewhat more aroused. This is clearly in conflict
with the experimental hypothesis. The hypothesized inter
action effect is also non-significantly in the opposite
direction.
While one can speculate about paradoxical drug
effects, the writer feels that the most likely explana
tion of these results is that while DPH was not effective
in significantly reducing the high arousal of the psycho
path (or normals, as it turned out), it did create some
perceived changes in bodily state, which was anxiety-
provoking to the Ss. It should be noted that verbal
report of response to medication yields no correspondence
between high arousal and perception of effects from medi
cation and basal arousal. Verbal report is usually quite
unreliable in the case of inmates when one is asking them
to report feelings to an outsider. Verbal report of
mental state in terms of relaxation or tension did not
correspond with arousal at all.
It is possible to hypothesize from the present data
that the psychopath is, in fact, more highly aroused than
is the normal, as reported by Steele, but that the arousal
level of the normal controls in the present study was
raised by the procedural artifacts of time and drug
administration. It must be kept in mind, however, that
if the high arousal level of the normals is explained by
such artifacts, then the high arousal of the psychopaths
might be similarly explained, without resorting to any
hypothesized difference between groups.
As discussed earlier, various studies have shown
the psychopath to be less aroused (e.g., Hare, 1968),
equally aroused (e.g., Bennett, 1955), and more aroused
(e.g., Steele, 1970) than the normal. It is possible to
hypothesize from these results that any number of proced
ural differences and artifacts were responsible for the
variety of findings, and that autonomic arousal may not
be a measure which meaningfully relates to psychopathy.
Certainly there has been little theoretical or experi
mental support for a "faulty fear conditioning" hypoth
esis— underarousal. But the evidence in the other direc
tion— that the psychopath is autonomically overaroused and
"out of control"— has little support at present as well.
53
While the present results are not contradictory with
such an explanation, they are not highly supportive
either.
A statistic from the present data provides some
support, it is believed, for the notion that autonomic
arousal may not be significantly related to the nature
of psychopathy. The present study found that psycho
paths differed highly from normals on only one measure—
Shock Level Chosen (p ^ .005). Moreover, the MMPI data
as discussed previously (see Chapter II) support the
meaningful differentiation of psychopaths from normals,
although to explain negative findings on the basis of
psychopathy not being a meaningful diagnostic category
is also possible. However, combining a highly signif
icant difference between psychopaths and normals on Shock
Level with the finding that shock level does not correlate
with GSR level whatsoever lends some weight to the idea
that autonomic arousal does not relate meaningfully to
the diagnosis of psychopathy as presently defined.
Perhaps future research in psychopathy would do well to
either explore the conditions under which autonomic
differences appear, or to pursue other avenues entirely.
Further basic research into the usefulness of the diag
nosis itself would not be out of line with such pursuits.
54
Anticipation of Shock
The results of this analysis reveal no difference
between groups, with the presence of a Trials effect only.
Examination of the Trials means shows that anticipation
was higher at the beginning and the end of the experi
ment than in the middle. It seems unlikely that there
is a great deal of significance to be attached to the
Trials effect, beyond the observation that Ss tended to
anticipate highly at first and then settle down, with a
gradual increase in anticipation thereafter. In any
case, Ss definitely did not fade out an anticipation.
Response to Shock
There were no significant effects on Response to
Shock. This measure simply did not differentiate among
treatment groups. The Trials effect resulted from a
general decline in responsivity over Trials.
Summary
As has been reported earlier, psychopaths chose
higher shock levels than normals, but this did not ac
count for GSR measures. The meaning of this result is
unclear, but either the greater prisonization of psycho
paths, or possibly their greater defensiveness and desire
to second guess the E might explain the differences found.
A physiological difference not reflected by autonomic
arousal cannot be ruled out, however.
The drug effect on Basal Conductance is very
possibly due to the anxiety caused by state-change, and
not physiologically medicated. In any case, DPH defi
nitely did not have the effect of reducing the arousal
of the psychopath. The hope that this drug might have
treatment possibilities with this group was not supported
by the present study.
The basal arousal of the psychopaths in the present
study was quite high. Although they did not differ sig
nificantly from normals, this might possibly be due to
increased anxiety in the normals caused by time parameters
in the design. Another explanation explored is that
autonomic arousal is not as meaningful a concomitant of
psychopathy as has been previously assumed by many
writers.
REFERENCES
56
REFERENCES
Alvarez, W. C. Mod. Med., 1968, 75-76, ,
Ayd, E. J., Jr. New uses for an old drug. Intern. Drug
Ther. Newsletter, 1967, 2, 1-2.
Bennett, Lawrence A. Sociopathy and stress. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. Claremont Colleges, Claremont,
California, 1955*
Blachly, P. H. Diphenylhydantoin and arrhythmias. J.A.-
M.A.. 202, 1967, 173. -
Boelhouwer, C., Henry, C. E., & Glueck, B. C. Positive
spiking: a double blind control study on its signifi
cance in behavior disorders, both diagnostically and
therapeutically. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1968. 125. 473-
481.
Boguch, Samuel & Dreyfus, Jack. The broad range of use of
diphenylhydantoin. New York: The Dreyfus Medical
Foundation, 1970.
Brill, N. Q. & Walker, E. F. Psychopathic behavior with
latent epilepsy. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 1945. 101, 545-
549.
Brown, W. T. & Solomon, C. I. Delinquency and the elec-.,
troencephalograph. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1942, 98,499-
503.
Cleckly, H. The Mask of Sanity. St. Louiss C. V. Mo-
sby, 1950.
Deacon, Sharon. Personal communication, 1970.
Eysenck, H. F. Crime and personality. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul, 1^64.
Fox, V. Treatment of the non-neurologic complications of
alcoholism. Mod. Treatm., 1966, 3, 502-508.
Fox, Robert and Lippert, Walter. Spontaneous GSR and
anxiety level in sociopathic delinquents. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 1963, 27(4), 368.
Goldberg, J. & Kurland, A. A. Dilantin treatment of hos
pitalized cultural-familial retardates. J. Nerv.
Dis., 1970, 150, 133-137.
57
58
Hare, R. D. Acquisitioni.and generalization of a condi
tioned fear response in psychopathic and non-psychopa-
thic criminals. Journal of Psychology, 1965. 59(2),
367-370. (a)
Hare, R. D. A conflict and learning theory analysis of
psychopathic behavior. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 1965, 2, 12-19. (b)
Hare, R. D. Temporal gradient of fear arousal in psycho
paths, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1965, 70, 442-
445. Tc5
Hare. R. D. Psychopathy, autonomic functioning and the
orienting response. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
Monograph Supplement, 1968, 777 NO. 3, Part 2.
Haward, L. R. C. A study of physiological responses of
neurotic patients to diphenylhydantoin. Int. J. Neuro-
psychiat., suppl. 2, 1967, 3, S49-S56.
Haward', L. R. C. Drugs and concentration: cognitive
effect of DPH. Portsmouth J. Psychol., 1968, 1, 3-5.
Helfant, R., Scherlag, B., & Damato, A. Protection from
digitalis toxicity with prophylactic Dilantin: an
electrophysiological-inotropic dissociation. Clin. Res.,
1967, 15, 206.
Jonas, A. D. Ictal and subictal neurosis. Springfield,
111.: C. C. Thomas, 1965.
Jonas, A. D. The diagnostic and therapeutic use of di
phenylhydantoin in the subictal state and non-epileptic
dysphoria. Int. J. Neurophyschiat., suppl. 2, 1967, 3,
S21-S29.
Kahler, R. A. Anxiety and choice behavior in psychopathic
and nonpsychopathic criminals. Dissertation Abstracts,
1970, 3387B. (Abstract)
Kanzler, M., Malitz, S. & Higgins, J. How effective are
antidepressants? J.A.M.A., 1968, 204, 34.
Lefkowitz, M. M. Effects od diphenylhydantoin on dis
ruptive behavior: study of male delinquents. Arch.
Gen. Psychiat., 1969, 20, 643-651.
Levine, S. E. Personal space responses in psycopathic and
normal prisoners. Paper presented to Western Psycho
59
logical Association Convention, San Francisco, Califor
nia, April, 1971.
Lindner, R. Rebel without a cause. New York: Grime &
Stratton, 1944. "~
Lindsley, D. B.., ,& Henry, C. E. The effect of drugs on
behavior and the electroencephalograms of children with
behavior disorders. Psychosom. Med., 1942, 4, 140-149.
Lippert, W. W., & Senter, R. J. Electrodermal responses
in the sociopath. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 4(1). 25-
26.
Lykken, D. T. A study of anxiety in the sociopathic
personality. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology,
1957, 55, 6-10.
Lynk, S. M., & Amidon, E. Chemotherapy with delinquents.
Mich. Med., 1965, 762-766.
Mark, V. H., Sweet, W. R., Ervin, P. R., Solomon, P., &
Geschwind, N. Brain disease and violent behavior. In
Neuroophthalmology, Smith, J. L., ed., St. Louis:
C. V. Mosby, 1968.
McCord, W., & McCord, J. The psychopath: an essay on
the criminal mind. New York: Van Nostrand, 1964.
Pasamanick, B. Anticonvulsant drug therapy of behavior
problem children with abnormal electroencephalograms.
A.M.A. Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 1951, 65, 752-766.
Putnam, T. J., & Hood, 0. E. Project Illinois: a study
of therapy in juvenile behavior problems. Western Med.,
1964, 231-233.
Putnam, T. J., & Merritt, H. H. A new series of anti
convulsant drugs tested by experiments on animals.
Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., 1938, 39, 1003-1015.
Resnick, 0. The psychoactive properties of diphenylhydan
toin: experiences with prisoners and juvenile delin- ■ '
quents. Int. J. Neuropsychiat., suppl. 2, 1967, 3,
S30-S48.
Rossi, A. 0. Psychoneurologically impaired child: com
munity mental health clinic approach. New York J. Med.,
1967, 67, 902-912.
60
Rowntree, L. G., & Waggoner, R. W. PRevention of migraine
attacks by Dilantin sodium. Dis. Nerv. Syst., 1950,11,
Sack, L. P. The effects of sodium Dilantin on stuttering
behavior. Doctoral dissertation, University of Calif
ornia, Los Angeles, 1968.
Schacter, S. & Latane, B. Crime cognition and the auto
nomic nervous system. In Nebraska Symposium on Motiva
tion: 1964. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press,
1964.
Schlosberg, H., & Stanley, W. A simple test of the nor
mality of twenty-four distributions of electrical skin
conductance. Science, 1953, 117, 35-37.
Schmauk, P. J. A study of the relationship between kinds
of punishment, autonomic arousal, subjective anxiety,
and avoidance learning in theprimary sociopath. Dis
sertation Abstracts, 1969, 1367B. (Abstract)
Scott, S. M. Effects of positive and negative verbal
reinforcement and task difficulty on the verbal dis
crimination learning of psychopathic and non-psycho-
pathic criminals. Dissertation Abstracts, 1969, 1368B.
(Abstract)
Silverman, D. The electroencephalograph and therapy of
criminal psychopaths. Criminal Psychopathology, 1944,
5, 439-457.
Steele, R. E. An examination of positive and negative
reinforcement in classical and operant conditioning
paradigsm in the primary psychopath. Doctoral disserta
tion, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
1970.
Stephens, J. H., & Shaffer, J. W. A controlled study of
the effects of diphenylhydantoin on anxiety, irritabi
lity , and anger in neurotic outpatients. Ps.ychophar-
macologia, 1970, 17, 169-181.
Tec, L. Efficacy of diphenylhydantoin inchildhood psychi
atric disorders. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1968, 124, 156-
157.
Turner, W. J. Therapeutic use of diphenylhydantoin in
neuroses. Int. J. Neuropsychiat., 1967, 3, 94-105.
61
Vanasin, B., Bass, D. D., Mendeloff, A. I., & Schuster,
M. M. Effect and site of action of diphenylhydantoin
(DPH) on gastrointestinal smooth muscle. Clin. Res.,
1970, 18, 391.
Walker, C. P., & Kirkpatrick, B. B. Dilantin treatment
for behavior problem children with abnormal electro
encephalograms. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1947. 103. 484-
492.
Woodworth, R. S., & Schlosberg, M. Experimental psychol
ogy. New York: Holt, 1954.
Zimmerman, F. T. Explosive behavior. . anamalies in children
on an epileptic Oasis'. ffew~York o. Med., 1956, 56,2537.-
2543.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Self-Sacrifice, Cooperation, And Aggression In Women Of Varying Sex-Role Orientations
PDF
Looking Back After Coming Down: Conformity And Commitment In Campus Protest
PDF
The Differential Effectiveness Of External Versus Self-Reinforcement On The Acquisition And Performance Of Assertive Responses
PDF
An Examination Of Positive And Negative Reinforcement In Classical And Operant Conditioning Paradigms In The Primary Psychopath
PDF
The Effects Of Repression-Sensitization, Race, And Levels Of Threat On Extensions Of Personal Space
PDF
Attention, retention, and incentive processes in observational learning
PDF
The Development And Evaluation Of Three Therapeutic Group Interventions For Widows
PDF
The Effect Of Anxiety And Frustration On Muscular Tension Related To The Temporomandibular-Joint Syndrome
PDF
The effects of physical proximity and body boundary size on the self-disclosure interview
PDF
Prognostic Expectancy Effects In The Desensitization Of Anxiety Over Invasion Of Body Buffer Zones
PDF
Death Anxiety In Leukemic Children
PDF
Modification Of Low Self-Confidence In Elementary-School Children By Reinforcement And Modeling
PDF
Imagery And Response Styles In Desensitization
PDF
Monocular Acquisition And Interocular Transfer Of Two Types Of Discriminations In Normal And Corpus Callosally-Sectioned Guinea Pigs
PDF
Dissonance and Self-Perception Analysis of "Forced Compliance": When Two Theories Make Competing Predictions
PDF
Weight Reduction As A Function Of The Timing Of Reinforcement In A Covertaversive Conditioning Paradigm
PDF
Strategies Of Marital Communication
PDF
Biofeedback Control Of The Eeg Alpha Rhythm And Its Effect On Reaction Time In The Young And Old
PDF
Habituation Of The Multiple Unit Discharge Response To White Noise Stimulation In The Unanesthetized Rabbit
PDF
Performance Evaluation Based On Multidimensional Job Behaviors
Asset Metadata
Creator
Levine, Steven Eliot
(author)
Core Title
The Effects Of Diphenylhydantoin On The Galvanic Skin Responses Of Psychopathic And Normal Prisoners
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Psychology
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, clinical
Format
dissertations
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Frankel, Andrew Steven (
committee chair
), Galbraith, Gary C. (
committee member
), Myerhoff, Barbara G. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-553325
Unique identifier
UC11362149
Identifier
7206081.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-553325 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
7206081.pdf
Dmrecord
553325
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
dissertations (aat)
Rights
Levine, Steven Eliot
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
psychology, clinical