Psychopathy and Mental Imagery: The Role of Imagery in Social Dominance,Callousness,and Impulsivity

Abstract

An inability to see mental images may contribute to the development of psychopathic traits. This study examined the relationship between trait vividness of mental imagery, spontaneous use of imagery, and psychopathic traits in undergraduates (N = 836, 80.6% female). Results did not support that psychopathy is associated with imagery deficits. Vividness positively predicted total psychopathy and Boldness, and spontaneous use of imagery negatively predicted Meanness. Mediations revealed less vivid imagery associated with more impulsivity and therefore increased psychopathic traits. Findings suggest the generation of vivid images fuels the socially dominant elements of psychopathy, whereas a lack of generating or using imagery facilitates callousness and limits opportunities for behavioral control. Findings support the use of imagery-based cognitive behavioral therapy interventions that target the disparities in the generation of vivid images that fuel maladaptive attitudes and behaviors, which be key in mitigating the instrumental and reactive behaviors seen in this population.

Keywords

psychopathic traits boldness imagery imagery vividness

Psychopathy is a personality syndrome characterized by a distinct set of traits and behaviors, classically conceptualized into four facets: Interpersonal (superficial charm, grandiosity, manipulativeness, pathological lying), Affective (callousness, a lack of remorse or empathy, shallow affect, failure to accept responsibility), Lifestyle (impulsivity, irresponsibility, often in need of stimulation, no realistic long-term goals, living a parasitic lifestyle), and Antisocial (poor behavioral control, lifelong behavioral problems (e.g., early life and recurring justice involvement; Hare, 2003). Newer conceptualizations include the element of Boldness (i.e., social dominance, fearlessness; Patrick et al., 2009). There is growing recognition of the dimensional nature of psychopathy (Guay et al., 2007, 2018; Sellbom & Drislane, 2021), with studies examining correlates of psychopathic traits in institutional and community samples (Patrick, 2018).

Individuals high in psychopathic traits often exhibit problems with self-regulation. Many plan their actions to achieve a self-oriented goal, spending considerable time exploiting others for material gain and using their superficial charm and skilled deception to con, scam, and defraud others via skillfully orchestrated schemes (Hare, 1993; Porter et al., 2018). These actions involve forethought and the use of instrumental aggression (i.e., aggression that is proactive and goal-oriented; Blais et al., 2014; Cornell et al., 1996; Glenn & Raine, 2009; Walsh et al., 2009). Paradoxically, psychopathic people also frequently exhibit impulsivity and unplanned, irresponsible behaviors (De Brito et al., 2021; Hare, 2003). With poor behavioral control, a lack of future planning, and impulsivity well documented in psychopaths, unsurprisingly, these individuals also display high rates of reactive aggression (i.e., aggression that is impulsive and emotionally-provoked; Blais et al., 2014; Cornell et al., 1996; Porter et al., 2018).

The response modulation theory posits these problems in self-regulation arise from a deficit in information processing that produces an “attentional bottleneck” early in the perceptual process (MacCoon et al., 2004; Newman & Baskin-Sommers, 2012; Patterson & Newman, 1993). Anomalies in early selective attention result in a failure to attend to, and process, peripheral information from the environment while executing goal-directed behavior (Newman & Baskin-Sommers, 2012; Patterson & Newman, 1993). In this bottleneck, only immediate cues of personal relevance are paid attention to (“filtered in”), whereas peripheral, self-irrelevant cues that would normally modulate behavior are “filtered out”, even if they are typically highly salient cues for non-psychopathic populations (Newman & Baskin-Sommers, 2012). Failing to shift attention to peripheral information from the environment that is secondary to their pursuit, psychopathic individuals rigidly pursue their personal goals, though missing contextual information can result in poorly informed behavior (Baskin-Sommers et al., 2011, 2012). Impulsive behavior may be initiated by enticing stimuli, and the inability to integrate additional contextual information and consider consequences of acting results in misinformed risky behavior (Baskin-Sommers & Brazil, 2022; Hamilton & Newman, 2018).

Cues of personal relevance may be internally generated, such as a thought or mental image. In visual mental imagery, the mind simulates sensory experience to produce visual images (Pearson, 2007). This ability to “see” images in the mind varies among individuals and measures of trait vividness of mental imagery approximate this ability from absent (i.e., aphantasia) to hyper-realistic (i.e., hyperphantasia; Figure 1; Pearson, 2019; Zeman et al., 2010, 2015). The mental simulation of future events is important for adaptive functioning, as it can inhibit, or incite, behavior (Hallford et al., 2018). By utilizing previous life experiences to make predictions of future outcomes, one can make a choice with long-term potential benefits (Benoit et al., 2011; Boyer, 2008; Ridderinkhof, 2017). Individuals who generate more vivid imagery when asked to simulate and pre-experience an imagined future event (i.e., engage in episodic future thinking) are less driven by immediate gratification (Atance & O’Neill, 2001; Daniel et al., 2013; Peters & Büchel, 2010). The more vivid the mental image, the more reduction in impulsive behavior is seen and, instead, a preference for future-minded choices is displayed (Peters & Büchel, 2010). In contrast, individuals who cannot generate mental images perform poorly on future planning tasks (Milton et al., 2021). Mental imagery can also induce behavior via many proposed mechanisms (see Hagger & Conroy, 2020). Whether the behavior is adaptive or maladaptive depends on the individual's motivation for generating the imagery, content of the imagery, and the vividness of the imagery (see e.g., Allen et al., 2023a, 2023b; Zaleskiewicz et al., 2023). Nonetheless, mental imagery is a powerful tool for planning and rehearsing future desired behavior, making it important in clinical contexts (Hagger & Conroy, 2020).

Figure 1.

The Continuum of Mental Imagery Ability. The continuum of trait mental imagery ability from aphantasia (i.e., no ability to generate or see mental images) to hyperphantasia (i.e., ability to generate and see vivid, hyper-realistic mental images). Adapted from “Are you a 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 in this apple visualization exercise?”, by Mary [@premium__heart], 2020, X.

Though some have speculated that select characteristics of psychopathy come from an inability to generate mental representations of future events (e.g., poor role taking), literature on the topic is limited (Gorenstein, 1991; Schalling, 1978). One study found no differences in imagery vividness among those convicted of sexual offences who were grouped by psychopathy scores (Patrick et al., 1994); in another, young males convicted of violent offences had a poorer ability to create mental images, though findings were not differentiated by psychopathy scores (Auvinen-Lintunen et al., 2015). In a non-forensic sample, Maxwell et al. (2017) assessed psychopathic traits, imagery vividness, and spontaneous daily use of visual imagery. Since imagery facilitates cognitive processes deficient in psychopaths (i.e., planning, empathy, social perspective taking), the researchers reasoned the two constructs would be negatively related. Results demonstrated negative associations between some psychopathy subscales, use of imagery, and imagery vividness, and positive associations between imagery and empathy. Though the imagery measures did not predict psychopathy scores, findings suggested imagery deficits related to higher levels of psychopathic traits. However, the authors did not account for key covariates which may influence self-reports of imagery vividness and psychopathic traits, namely biological sex and socially desirable responding (Allbutt et al., 2006, 2011; Floridou et al., 2022; Ray et al., 2013; Verona & Vitale, 2018; Wassell et al., 2015).

The Current Study

This study examined the relationship between visual mental imagery ability (approximated through trait vividness) and psychopathic traits. Alternative self-report measures of psychopathy were utilized to replicate and extend previous findings (Maxwell et al., 2017). Measures of future thinking and impulsivity were included to examine potential mechanisms through which imagery vividness related to psychopathic traits.

We hypothesized there would be a negative relationship between imagery vividness and psychopathic traits. An exploratory research question was included examining if mental imagery vividness and/or daily use explained a significant amount of variance in psychopathic traits and whether the relationship was moderated by biological sex. Lastly, mediations were conducted to determine how imagery vividness related to psychopathic traits. We hypothesized that vividness would positively relate to future thinking and negatively relate to impulsivity, whereas psychopathic traits would negatively relate to future thinking and positively relate to impulsivity.

Method

Participants and Procedure

A total of 1,121 participants were recruited through the undergraduate research pool at a Canadian university and completed this study. A priori power analysis using the average effect size from Maxwell et al. (2017) and assuming 80% desired statistical power produced an ideal sample size of 680. Recruitment was intentionally expanded to ensure enough data from male participants was available for analysis.

Sample characteristics can be found in the supplementary materials (Table S1). After excluding those who failed attention checks, the final sample was 836 participants. The average age for the sample was 20.2 years old (SD = 4.5, range = 16–61). Majority (80.6%) of the sample was assigned female at birth. One participant was intersex; the individual case was excluded from analyses that examined sex as a variable of interest. Instead, a binary variable was created and used in analyses (where male = 1 and female = 2). The sample primarily identified as heterosexual (72.7%), most were women (76.6%), and majority were of White ethnic origin (62.0%). A large majority of the sample reported being able to see images in their mind and imagine in other senses (92.3% and 95.3%, respectively). A minority of the sample was classified as aphantasic (2.5%; VVIQ score ≤ 20) or hyperphantasic (8.8%; VVIQ score ≥ 75). Independent samples t-tests revealed that males scored significantly higher than females on both psychopathy measures across almost all facets and subscales, and females reported significantly more spontaneous use of imagery than males (see supplemental analyses for descriptive statistics for each measure split by VVIQ cut-off groups and sex; Tables S2 and S3).

This study was part of a Master's thesis that was pre-registered online on the Open Science Framework (OSF) prior to data collection [https://osf.io/65hsu/] (Sohail, 2024). Participants were asked to complete an online survey via Qualtrics in exchange for course credit. After obtaining informed consent, participants were presented the study measures in randomized order to minimize order and fatigue effects. A debriefing form was presented upon completion. There were no exclusion criteria for this study.

Measures

Total and facet-level psychopathic traits were assessed using the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: Short Form (SRP:SF; Paulhus et al., 2016). The Triarchic Psychopathy Measure was used as a concurrent measure for self-reported psychopathic traits (TriPM; Patrick, 2010). The TriPM has three subscales corresponding to the three elements of psychopathy advanced in the triarchic model— Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition— with emphasis on assessment by each distinct scale, rather than producing a global score (Patrick et al., 2009). Trait vividness of visual mental imagery was measured using the Vividness of Mental Imagery Questionnaire, with response options inversed so that higher total scores reflected more vivid imagery (VVIQ; Marks, 1973, 2020). Cut-off scores for detecting aphantasia and hyperphantasia were derived from previous literature (Gulyás et al., 2022; Milton et al., 2021). The Spontaneous Use of Imagery Scale assessed a general tendency towards spontaneously using visual mental imagery in daily life (SUIS; Kosslyn et al., 1998; Reisberg et al., 2003). The Abbreviated Barratt Impulsiveness Scale assessed impulsivity and behavioral planning; total scores were calculated to reflect overall level of impulsiveness (ABIS; Coutlee et al., 2014). To assess the tendency to engage in future thinking and planning, the 20-item Frequency of Autobiographical Future Thinking Questionnaire was administered (AFTQ; Hallford, 2019). The AFTQ assesses characteristics and temporal distance of future thinking, though we calculated total scores to reflect one's overall tendency to engage in future thinking and planning. Lastly, the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Short Form measured self-deceptive enhancement (i.e., the tendency to respond honestly but unconsciously bias responses to be overly positive) and impression management (i.e., the tendency to bias responses to please others; BIDR-16; Hart et al., 2015).

Data Analysis

Data for this study is available on OSF [https://osf.io/5r2h9/]. Bivariate correlations were performed to assess relationships between the mental imagery and psychopathy measures. Squared semi-partial correlations were also calculated to determine the proportion of variance in psychopathic traits uniquely attributable to each imagery measure, controlling for the effects of the other variables. Multiple regressions were used to determine if mental imagery explained a significant amount of variance in psychopathic traits. In each regression, no significant interaction effects between the two imagery measures and sex were found, thus analyses reverted to main effects models only to avoid incorrect conclusions about the factors (Engqvist, 2005). After the planned analyses, sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of each model by removing data points of high global or local influence and comparing model results. Findings did not change, so the full models were retained and reported. The Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery Rate Procedure was utilized to correct for multiple comparisons involving the independent variables of interest (i.e., the VVIQ and SUIS). Parallel mediation analyses were conducted to understand the relationship between imagery vividness and psychopathic traits through impulsivity and future thinking. Due to the cross-sectional nature of this study, it must be noted that the mediations conducted more closely resemble a series of correlation coefficients, and any mediation effects found are inherently correlational in nature (Fairchild & McDaniel, 2017). With previous research making a case for deficits in mental imagery ability contributing to the development and maintenance of psychopathic traits, we believe there is some precedent for the temporal ordering of these variables (Maxwell et al., 2017). BIDR-16 scores were included as covariates in each model and 95% confidence intervals were drawn from 5000 bootstrapped samples. To correct for heteroscedastic errors, regression and mediation analyses used the HC3 correction from the stargazer package in R (Hlavac, 2022) and Hayes (2024) PROCESS version 4.2.

Results

Data Cleaning

Data was excluded from respondents who completed <50% of the survey (n = 31), completed the survey in an unreasonably short amount of time (<5 min; n = 37), failed any of the three randomly spaced attention checks in which participants were asked to select a specific response option (n = 83, 90, and 83, respectively), indicated they were not paying attention while completing the survey (n = 90), and/or reported they were not confident in the usefulness of their data (n = 119). Note that the exclusions were done simultaneously and often individual cases who failed one criterion also failed others; using the above criteria, data from 285 unique respondents were removed. Interestingly, participants excluded from analyses demonstrated significantly higher psychopathy scores than those included in the final sample (see Table S4).

Descriptive Statistics and Assumptions

Descriptive statistics and internal consistencies for the scales used in this study are included in the supplementary materials (Table S5). Internal consistency was acceptable for all measures except the Antisocial facet, likely due to a combination of homogeneity of scores (where 40.8% of the sample scored the minimum score of 8) and the small number of items in the subscale (Cronbach's α = .38; Morse, 2015). The Antisocial facet was still included as an outcome variable in analyses, though we note that lower reliability of outcome measures can reduce power and increase Type II errors rates (Matheson, 2019). To ensure validity of the use of the general linear model, all variables of interest were visually inspected for linear associations prior to conducting any analyses and normality of the continuous variables and residuals was assessed. No linear models were found to have markedly non-normal distributions of their residuals. However, the regression model predicting Antisocial facet scores had residuals that deviated from normality, potentially inflating standard error values and the Type II error rate for that model. All linear models were found to have independence of residuals (Durbin-Watson statistics 1.5 < d < 2.5). Lastly, all models were assessed for multicollinearity using bivariate correlations and variance inflation factors (VIFs). Results indicated little to no concern for multicollinearity (all r's ≤ .70 and VIFs ≤ 1.5) impacting significance tests.

Relationship Between Psychopathy and Mental Imagery Measures

Only the VVIQ and TriPM total scores significantly correlated with one another (Table 1). Contrary to the hypothesis, vividness and TriPM psychopathy demonstrated a small positive association, r(821) = .09, p = .008, 95% CI [.02, .16]. Controlling for the other variables, VVIQ scores uniquely shared 0.84% of the variance in TriPM total scores, sr(820) = .09, p = .008. Results concerning the SRP:SF facets were also contrary to the hypothesis; a small positive correlation between vividness and the Antisocial facet was observed, r(821) = .09, p = .010, [.02, .16]. However, vividness did not uniquely explain variance in any of the facets, when controlling for the other variables. A small negative relationship between spontaneous imagery use and the Affective facet was also found, r(821) = −.08, p = .032, [−.14, −.01]. When controlling for the other variables, spontaneous imagery use uniquely explained 0.50% of variance in the Affective facet, sr(818) = −.07, p = .044. Regarding the TriPM, Boldness was found to relate positively and significantly with imagery vividness and spontaneous use, r(821) = .17, p < .001, [.11, .24], and r(821) = .09, p = .014, [.02, .15], respectively. Vividness uniquely explained 1.72% of the variance in Boldness scores, when controlling for the effects of the other variables, sr(819) = .13, p < .001. The spontaneous use of imagery was negatively related to Meanness, uniquely explaining 0.76% of its variance, sr(819) = −.09, p = .012. Disinhibition did not significantly correlate with either imagery measure.

Table 1.

Bivariate Correlations Between the Psychopathy and Mental Imagery Measures.

Scale	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
1. SRP:SF total	-
2. Interpersonal	.85***	-
3. Affective	.86***	.68***	-
4. Lifestyle	.83***	.54***	.60***	-
5. Antisocial	.61***	.38***	.41***	.42***	-
6. TriPM total	.71***	.53***	.60***	.66***	.41***	-
7. Boldness	.21***	.11**	.14***	.27***	.13***	.59***	-
8. Meanness	.72***	.61***	.71***	.53***	.39***	.80***	.23***	-
9. Disinhibition	.54***	.40***	.40***	.56***	.34***	.67***	−.06	.44***	-
10. VVIQ	.03	−.01	−.02	.07	.09*	.09**	.17***	−.03	.03	-
11. SUIS	−.02	−.02	−.08*	0.1	.05	.00	.09*	−.10**	.01	.54***	-

Note. SRP:SF = Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: Short Form (Paulhus et al., 2016). TriPM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (Patrick, 2010). VVIQ = Vividness of Mental Imagery Questionnaire (Marks, 1973). SUIS = Spontaneous Use of Imagery Scale (Kosslyn et al., 1998).

*p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001.

Predicting SRP:SF Scores from the Imagery Measures

Each model explained a significant amount of variance in SRP:SF total or facet scores (Table 2). Controlling for the other variables, biological sex consistently significantly predicted variance in SRP:SF scores, with males scoring higher than females on all but the Antisocial facet. Further, holding constant the effects of the other variables, socially desirable responding significantly predicted decreases in total psychopathy and facet scores. Self-deceptive enhancement negatively predicted Affective scores (β = −.08, p = .012). Though imagery vividness positively predicted scores on the Lifestyle and Antisocial facets with small effects, neither finding remained significant after multiple test correction (β = .09, p = .024 and β = .08, p = .03, respectively).

Table 2.

Mental Imagery Predicting SRP:SF Total and Facet Scores.

Variable	B [95% CI]	SE	β	p
Total Score
VVIQ	.04 [−.02, 0.11]	.03	.04	.208
SUIS	−.04 [−.15, .07]	.06	−.03	.457
Sex	−6.21 [−8.27, −4.15]	1.05	-	<.001
BIDR-16 IM	−.62 [−.71, −.53]	.05	−.43	<.001
BIDR-16 SDE	−.08 [−.18, .02]	.05	−.05	.123
Constant	84.08 [77.34, 90.83]	3.44	-	<.001
Adj. R² = .22				<.001
Interpersonal
VVIQ	.00 [−.02, .02]	.01	.00	.940
SUIS	−.01 [−.05, .02]	.02	−.02	.561
Sex	−1.61 [−2.34, −.88]	.38	-	<.001
BIDR-16 IM	−.24 [−.28, −.21]	.02	−.47	<.001
BIDR-16 SDE	−.01 [−.05, .02]	.02	−.02	.451
Constant	25.02 [22.62, 27.43]	1.23	-	<.001
Adj. R² = .23				<.001
Affective
VVIQ	.00 [−.02, .02]	.01	.00	.914
SUIS	−.03 [−.06, .01]	.02	−.06	.152
Sex	−2.65 [−3.34, −1.97]	.35	-	<.001
BIDR-16 IM	−.15 [−.18, −.12]	.02	−.32	<.001
BIDR-16 SDE	−.04 [−.07, −.01]	.02	−.08	.012
Constant	25.31 [23.07, 27.55]	1.14	-	<.001
Adj. R² = .18				<.001
Lifestyle
VVIQ	.03 [.00, .05]	.01	.08	.032
SUIS	−.02 [−.06, .03]	.02	−.03	.501
Sex	−1.48 [−2.27, −.69]	.40	-	<.001
BIDR-16 IM	−.16 [−.19, −.12]	.02	−.30	<.001
BIDR-16 SDE	−.03 [−.07, .01]	.02	−.05	.142
Constant	21.87 [19.29, 24.45]	1.32	-	<.001
Adj. R² = .11				<.001
Antisocial
VVIQ	.02 [.00, .03]	.01	.09	.024
SUIS	.00 [−.02, .02]	.01	.00	.942
Sex	−.38 [−.81, .05]	.22	-	.087
BIDR-16 IM	−.07 [−.09, −.05]	.01	−.26	<.001
BIDR-16 SDE	.01 [−.01, .03]	.01	.02	.527
Constant	12.22 [10.81, 13.63]	.72	-	<.001
Adj. R² = .07				<.001

Note. SRP:SF = Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: Short Form (Paulhus et al., 2016). VVIQ = Vividness of Mental Imagery Questionnaire (Marks, 1973). SUIS = Spontaneous Use of Imagery Scale (Kosslyn et al., 1998). BIDR-16 = Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Short Form, IM = Impression Management and SDE = Self-Deceptive Enhancement subscales (Hart et al., 2015).

Predicting TriPM Scores from the Imagery Measures

Each model explained a significant amount of variance in TriPM total or subscale scores (Table 3). Similar to above, biological sex significantly predicted variance in TriPM total and subscale scores, with females having lower average scores than males. As well, higher impression management predicted lower total and subscale scores, whereas self-deceptive enhancement predicted higher total and Boldness and lower Disinhibition scores. Controlling for the other variables, imagery vividness positively predicted TriPM total and Boldness scores with small effects (β = .10, p = .005 and β = .13, p < .001, respectively). Less spontaneous use of imagery predicted higher Meanness scores (β = −.08, p = .031); however, this finding was not significant after multiple test correction.

Table 3.

Mental Imagery Predicting TriPM Total and Subscale Scores.

Variable	B [95% CI]	SE	β	p
Total Score
VVIQ	.11 [.03, .19]	.04	.10	.005*
SUIS	−.06 [−.20, .07]	.07	−.04	.341
Sex	−9.27 [−11.70, −6.83]	1.24	-	<.001
BIDR-16 IM	−.72 [−.83, −.61]	.06	−.42	<.001
BIDR-16 SDE	.19 [.07, .31]	.06	.10	.002
Constant	87.01 [79.04, 94.98]	4.07	-	<.001
Adj. R² = .22				<.001
Boldness
VVIQ	.07 [.03, .11]	.02	.13	<.001*
SUIS	.03 [−.04, .09]	.03	.03	.431
Sex	−1.90 [−3.10, −.70]	.61	-	.002
BIDR-16 IM	−.14 [−.19, −.08]	.03	−.16	<.001
BIDR-16 SDE	.48 [.42, .54]	.03	.50	<.001
Constant	15.05 [11.12, 18.97]	2.00	-	<.001
Adj. R² = .27				<.001
Meanness
VVIQ	.01 [−.03, .04]	.02	.01	.730
SUIS	−.06 [−.13, −.01]	.03	−.08	.031
Sex	−5.11 [−6.23, −4.00]	.57	-	<.001
BIDR-16 IM	−.32 [−.37, −.27]	.03	−.41	<.001
BIDR-16 SDE	−.01 [−.07, .04]	.03	−.01	.660
Constant	34.54 [30.88, 38.19]	1.87	-	<.001
Adj. R² = .24				<.001
Disinhibition
VVIQ	.04 [.00, .08]	.02	.07	.065
SUIS	−.02 [−.09, .04]	.03	−.03	.466
Sex	−2.25 [−3.42, −1.08]	.60	-	<.001
BIDR-16 IM	−.26 [−.31, −.21]	.03	−.31	<.001
BIDR-16 SDE	−.28 [−.34, −.22]	.03	−.30	<.001
Constant	37.43 [33.59, 41.26]	1.96	-	<.001
Adj. R² = .25				<.001

Note. TriPM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (Patrick, 2010). VVIQ = Vividness of Mental Imagery Questionnaire (Marks, 1973). SUIS = Spontaneous Use of Imagery Scale (Kosslyn et al., 1998). BIDR-16 = Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Short Form, IM = Impression Management and SDE = Self-Deceptive Enhancement subscales (Hart et al., 2015).

* p < 0.05 after applying the Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple comparisons involving the VVIQ and SUIS.

Mediations: Exploring How Vividness Relates to Psychopathic Traits

Figure 2 illustrates the unstandardized path a and b coefficients, corrected standard errors, and associated significance values. Consistent with hypotheses, imagery vividness negatively related to impulsivity and positively related to future thinking. Results demonstrated a significant indirect effect for impulsivity, with < .001% of estimated explainable variance in SRP:SF scores attributable to the indirect effect of the VVIQ on SRP:SF total scores through impulsivity (ab_cs = −.03 [−.05, −.01], υ = .0006, p < .05). There was also a significant indirect effect of impulsivity, explaining .001% of variance in TriPM scores (ab_cs = −.03 [−.06, −.01], υ = .001, p < .05). Future thinking did not play a mediating role.

Figure 2.

Mediation Results of Imagery Vividness through Future Thinking and Impulsivity to Psychopathy Scores. Figure depicts unstandardized effects with standard errors in parentheses. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

Discussion

This study explored the relationship between mental imagery ability and psychopathic traits and examined whether future thinking and impulsivity were mechanisms through which mental imagery related to psychopathic traits. Answering these research questions contributes to the growing body of literature seeking to understand the cognitive mechanisms underlying psychopathy to ultimately inform interventions.

Overall, our findings discredit the notion of a “failure to imagine” in psychopathic individuals. Accounting for sex- and disposition-based differences that impact assessments of psychopathy and cognitive abilities (see Allbutt et al., 2006, 2011; Floridou et al., 2022; Freeman & Samson, 2012; Sanz-García et al., 2021), more vivid imagery predicted Boldness, an element uniquely covered by the TriPM (Patrick et al., 2009; Sellbom et al., 2018). It appears heightened imagery is related to one's propensity to stay calm in high pressure situations, remain emotionally resilient, tolerate unfamiliarity, and feel a high sense of social efficacy (Brislin et al., 2017; Patrick et al., 2009). Boldness may be an adaptive component to psychopathy (Segarra et al., 2022; Sleep et al., 2019). With recent work linking a more goal-oriented imagination (a higher order cognitive function that involves imagery) to clinically elevated levels of personality facets indicative of psychopathy, perhaps vivid imagery and control over the content of the imagined scenes serves an adaptive or protective function in social domains (Castillo & Condon, 2024). Since imagery can be used to visualize consequences of behavior, if an individual generates vivid mental pictures of success to promote feelings of self-efficacy, expect the outcome of an upcoming social situation, or regulate an anticipated emotional reaction, it may ultimately fuel their fearless social dominance (Hagger & Conroy, 2020).

Spontaneous imagery use was negatively related to the Affective facet and predicted Meanness, supporting the idea that the callousness seen in psychopathic individuals may be facilitated by a lack of automatically taking others’ perspectives unless prompted or it benefits them (Drayton et al., 2018; Viding & McCrory, 2019). Further, impulsivity mediated the relationship between imagery vividness and psychopathy scores, with less vivid imagery related to increased impulsivity and, therefore, increased psychopathy. Since generating vivid imagery aids in social perspective taking, having empathy for others, risk perception, and a decreased tendency to act based on immediate gratification, findings suggest that when vivid images are not generated or utilized as internal cues to modulate behavior, more callous and impulsive behavior may be seen (Daniel et al., 2013; Gaesser & Schacter, 2014; Johnson et al., 2013; Peters & Büchel, 2010).

Our findings suggest that phenotypic characteristics of psychopathy may not come from deficits in mental imagery; rather, we advance that the content or use of one's imagery may be more important. Contextualizing our findings within the response modulation hypothesis, generating vivid imagery serves as an internal cue that facilitates the planning of callous, goal-directed behavior. Using imagination to plan future interpersonal interactions and antisocial behaviors may explain the success psychopathic people have in deceiving and convincing others, gaining others’ trust, and engaging in cold-hearted, instrumental violence (Blais et al., 2014; Book et al., 2015; Brazil et al., 2021; Skeem et al., 2003; Woodworth & Porter, 2002). When acting out the behaviors, the imagined events may serve as salient internal cues of personal relevance, thereby filtered into the attentional bottleneck, aiding them in selfishly pursuing their goals (Baskin-Sommers & Brazil, 2022). In other instances, other enticing internal or external cues may be filtered in and incite impulsive behavior, such as the thought of the self-serving outcome (e.g., instant monetary gain) or a visual cue (e.g., seeing an unattended wallet). In these cases, generating mental images to consider consequences and modulate behavior would come downstream in the attentional process. With the behavioral response already set, psychopathic people may not pause to vividly evaluate outcomes, therefore failing to use imagery to modulate their behavior (Hamilton & Newman, 2018).

Implications for Theory and Practice

This study provides evidence that psychopathy is not associated with deficits in mental imagery, as previously thought. That the directionality of this relationship was inconsistent with past findings suggests there are other factors which must be considered. Perhaps the content, context, or functional purpose of one's mental imagery may better explain the cognitive and behavioral manifestations of psychopathy. In clinical contexts, imagery interventions are incorporated into cognitive-behavioral therapies as a tool for emotional and behavioral regulation (CBT; Hackmann et al., 2011; Hagger & Conroy, 2020). CBT-based treatments promote therapeutic change by imploring individuals to appraise the content, meaning, and impact of their imagery, then formulate a behavioral response (Hackmann et al., 2011). In psychopathic populations, effective programming manages the difficult interpersonal components of the disorder, while directly targeting risk factors (i.e., criminogenic needs; Andrews & Bonta, 2006, 2010; Wong, 2015). Our findings encourage practitioners to make use of mental imagery as a viable and powerful tool to promote behavioral change in psychopathic populations. Practitioners and patients must first identify instances of how and when imagination becomes maladaptive in an individual's life, to then be able to target the specific features related to criminogenic needs in interventions (e.g., antisocial attitudes stemming from a lack of automatic social perspective taking or impulsive behavior acted out before pausing to vividly imagine consequences).

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

This study was the first to use two self-report psychopathy measures not yet examined in relation to mental imagery, include covariates derived from past research, and use mediation analyses to examine theoretically linked mechanisms. However, there are some limitations to consider. First, the use of an undergraduate sample limits generalizability. Although examining psychopathic traits in community samples yields correlates similar to institutional samples and informs real-world behavioral outcomes, future research should seek to replicate our findings in a clinical sample, particularly with the goal of identifying intermediate mechanisms for interventions (Benning et al., 2005; Lilienfeld et al., 2014). Second, the cross-sectional design does not allow for conclusions about causality. However, findings may inspire future studies examining imagery, behavioral outcomes, and real-time intervention opportunities (e.g., using ecological momentary assessment methods). Third, we relied on self-report measures to assess abilities and dispositions. Future research may benefit from using objective measures of image generation ability and clinical measures of psychopathy to limit potential bias. Lastly, we did not ask individuals about the characteristics, content, or functional purpose of their mental imagery. Including additional measures that examine those components may help in better understanding how psychopathic individuals’ imagery is differentiated from those with lower levels of these traits. Further still, expanding the conversation to study imagination more broadly may yield meaningful answers on how and when imagination becomes maladaptive.

Conclusion

This study did not find support for deficits in mental imagery being related to psychopathic traits. Findings suggest that increased imagery vividness may serve as an internal cue that facilitates social boldness and goal-directed behavior, whereas a failure to generate and use vivid imagery to promote behavioral control may explain impulsive, reckless action. Further, a lack of spontaneously using imagery in social contexts may explain psychopathic peoples’ failure to automatically consider others’ perspectives and act selfishly. In clinical contexts, harm reduction initiatives with psychopathic populations may benefit from identifying atypicalities in the content of one's imagery, use of imagery, and related cognitions, and use cognitive-behavioral strategies to pause and reflect, appraise these thoughts, and visualize prosocial outcomes, to mitigate harmful secondary processes (e.g., instrumental and reactive violent behavior).

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ica-10.1177_02762366251374186 - Supplemental material for Psychopathy and Mental Imagery: The Role of Imagery in Social Dominance, Callousness, and Impulsivity

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ica-10.1177_02762366251374186 for Psychopathy and Mental Imagery: The Role of Imagery in Social Dominance, Callousness, and Impulsivity by Roshni Sohail and Adelle E. Forth in Imagination, Cognition and Personality

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

ORCID iD

Roshni Sohail

Ethical Considerations

We received approval from the Carleton University Research Ethics Board to conduct this study (ID # 119626).

Consent to Participate

All participants provided written informed consent prior to participating in this study.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Author Contributions (CRediT Statement)

Roshni Sohail: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing – original draft, visualization, project administration.

Adelle Forth: conceptualization, methodology, resources, writing – reviewing & editing, supervision.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability

All data from this study is publicly available on OSF ().

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Roshni Sohail is a PhD student in psychology at Carleton University. Her area of research focuses on how psychopathy intersects with the criminal justice system.

Adelle E. Forth is a Professor in the Department of Psychology at Carleton University. Her research area is the assessment, correlates, and impact of psychopathy.

References

Allbutt

Ling

Rowley

Shafiullah

(2011). Vividness of visual imagery and social desirable responding: Correlations of the vividness of visual imagery questionnaire with the balanced inventory of desirable responding and the Marlowe–Crowne Scale. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 791–799. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0086-8

Allbutt

Ling

Shafiullah

(2006). The relationship between self-report imagery questionnaire scores and sub-types of social desirable responding: Components of visual imagery. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 25(4), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.2190/Y067-0726-M45W-37W8

Allen

Katsikitis

Millear

McKillop

(2023a). Implications of sexual fantasy characteristics and memory intensity for harmful sexual behaviour. Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, 33(5), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2308

Allen

Millear

McKillop

Katsikitis

(2023b). Sexual fantasies and harmful sexual interests: Exploring differences in sexual memory intensity and sexual fantasy characteristics. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 67(8), 835–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624(221086580

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.). LexisNexis.

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018362

Atance

C. M.

O'Neill

D. K.

(2001). Episodic future thinking. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(12), 533–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01804-0

Auvinen-Lintunen

Lindgren

Tikkanen

Ilonen

(2015). Mental imagery and movement responses to the Rorschach test among young violent offenders. Rorschachiana, 36(2), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1027/1192-5604/a000070

Baskin-Sommers

A. R.

Brazil

I. A.

(2022). The importance of an exaggerated attention bottleneck for understanding psychopathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(4), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.01.001

10.

Baskin-Sommers

A. R.

Curtin

J. J.

Newman

J. P.

(2012). Psychopathy-related differences in selective attention are captured by an early event-related potential. Personality Disorders, 3(4), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025593

11.

Baskin-Sommers

A. R.

Curtin

J. J.

Newman

J. P.

(2011). Specifying the attentional selection that moderates the fearlessness of psychopathic offenders. Psychological Science, 22(2), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610396227

12.

Benning

S. D.

Patrick

C. J.

Blonigen

D. M.

Hicks

B. M.

Iacono

W. G.

(2005). Estimating facets of psychopathy from normal personality traits: A step toward community epidemiological investigations. Assessment, 12(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191104271223

13.

Benoit

R. G.

Gilbert

S. J.

Burgess

P. W.

(2011). A neural mechanism mediating the impact of episodic prospection on farsighted decisions. Journal of Neuroscience, 31(18), 6771–6779. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6559-10.2011

14.

Blais

Solodukhin

Forth

A. E.

(2014). A meta-analysis exploring the relationship between psychopathy and instrumental versus reactive violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(7), 797–821. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813519629

15.

Book

Methot

Gauthier

Hosker-Field

Forth

Quinsey

Molnar

(2015). The mask of sanity revisited: Psychopathic traits and affective mimicry. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1(2), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-015-0012-x

16.

Boyer

(2008). Evolutionary economics of mental time travel? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(6), 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.03.003

17.

Brazil

K. J.

Dias

C. J.

Forth

A. E.

(2021). Successful and selective exploitation in psychopathy: Convincing others and gaining trust. Personality and Individual Differences, 170, 110394–110394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110394

18.

Brislin

S. J.

Venables

N. C.

Drislane

L. E.

Blonigen

D. M.

Iacono

W. G.

Tellegen

Edens

J. F.

Patrick

C. J.

(2017). Further validation of Triarchic Psychopathy Scales from the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire: Setting the stage for large-sample etiological studies. Assessment, 24(5), 575–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115621790

19.

Castillo

Condon

D. M.

(2024). The pathology of imagination: Picturing the worst. Creativity Research Journal, 0(0), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2024.2365072

20.

Cornell

D. G.

Warren

Hawk

Stafford

Oram

Pine

(1996). Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive violent offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(4), 783–790. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.64.4.783

21.

Coutlee

C. G.

Politzer

C. S.

Hoyle

R. H.

Huettel

S. A.

(2014). An Abbreviated Impulsiveness Scale (ABIS) constructed through confirmatory factor analysis of the BIS-11. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 2(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000005

22.

Daniel

T. O.

Stanton

C. M.

Epstein

L. H.

(2013). The future is now: Reducing impulsivity and energy intake using episodic future thinking. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2339–2342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613488780

23.

De Brito

S. A.

Forth

A. E.

Baskin-Sommers

A. R.

Brazil

I. A.

Kimonis

E. R.

Pardini

Frick

P. J.

Blair

R. J. R.

Viding

(2021). Psychopathy. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 7, 49. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-021-00282-1

24.

Drayton

L. A.

Santos

L. R.

Baskin-Sommers

(2018). Psychopaths fail to automatically take the perspective of others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States of America (PNAS), 115(3), 3302–3307. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721903115

25.

Engqvist

(2005). The mistreatment of covariate interaction terms in linear model analyses of behavioural and evolutionary ecology studies. Animal Behaviour, 70(4), 967–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.01.016

26.

Fairchild

A. J.

McDaniel

H. L.

(2017). Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: Mediation analysis. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 105(6), 1259–1271. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.117.152546

27.

Floridou

G. A.

Peerdeman

K. J.

Schaefer

R. S.

(2022). Individual differences in mental imagery in different modalities and levels of intentionality. Memory and Cognition, 50(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01209-7

28.

Freeman

J. E.

Samson

(2012). Are you telling the truth? Psychopathy assessment and impression management in a community sample. Open Criminology Journal, 5, 16–23. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874917801205010016

29.

Gaesser

Schacter

D. L.

(2014). Episodic simulation and episodic memory can increase intentions to help others. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 111(12), 4415–4420. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1402461111

30.

Glenn

A. L.

Raine

(2009). Psychopathy and instrumental aggression: Evolutionary, neurobiological, and legal perspectives. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32(4), 253–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.04.002

31.

Gorenstein

E. E.

(1991). A cognitive perspective on antisocial personality. In Magaro

P. A.

(Ed.), Cognitive bases of mental disorders (pp. 100–133). Sage.

32.

Guay

J.-P.

Knight

R. A.

Ruscio

Hare

R. D.

(2018). A taxometric investigation of psychopathy in women. Psychiatry Research, 261, 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.01.015

33.

Guay

J.-P.

Ruscio

Knight

R. A.

Hare

R. D.

(2007). A taxometric analysis of the latent structure of psychopathy: Evidence for dimensionality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.4.701

34.

Gulyás

Gombos

Sütöri

Lovas

Ziman

Kovács

(2022). Visual imagery vividness declines across the lifespan. Cortex, 154, 365–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2022.06.011

35.

Hackmann

Bennett-Levy

Holmes

E. A.

(2011). Oxford guide to imagery in cognitive therapy. Oxford University Press.

36.

Hagger

Conroy

(2020). Imagery, visualization, and mental simulation interventions. In Hagger

Cameron

Hamilton

Hankonen

Lintunen

(Eds.), The handbook of behavior change (pp. 479–494). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677318.033

37.

Hallford

D. J.

(2019). The phenomenological characteristics of autobiographical future thinking in dysphoric and non-dysphoric individuals. Psychiatry Research, 273, 481–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.100

38.

Hallford

D. J.

Austin

D. W.

Takano

Raes

(2018). Psychopathology and episodic future thinking: A systematic review and meta-analysis of specificity and episodic detail. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 102, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.01.003

39.

Hamilton

R. B.

Newman

J. P.

(2018). The response modulation hypothesis: Formulation, development, and implications for psychopathy. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. 80–93). The Guilford Press.

40.

Hare

R. D.

(1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. Simon & Schuster.

41.

Hare

R. D.

(2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (2nd ed.). Multi-Health Systems.

42.

Hart

C. M.

Ritchie

T. D.

Hepper

E. G.

Gebauer

J. E.

(2015). The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Short Form (BIDR-16). SAGE Open, 5(4), 2158244015621113. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621113

43.

Hayes

A. F.

(2024). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

44.

Hlavac

(2022). Stargazer: Well-formatted regression and summary statistics tables. R package version 5.2.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=stargazer

45.

Johnson

D. R.

Cushman

G. K.

Borden

L. A.

McCune

M. S.

(2013). Potentiating empathic growth: Generating imagery while reading fiction increases empathy and prosocial behavior. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7(3), 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033261

46.

Kosslyn

S. M.

Chabris

C. F.

Shephard

J. M.

Thompson

W. L.

(1998). Spontaneous use of imagery scale. Unpublished. https://kosslynlab.fas.harvard.edu/downloads

47.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Latzman

R. D.

Watts

A. L.

Smith

S. F.

Dutton

(2014). Correlates of psychopathic personality traits in everyday life: Results from a large community survey. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 740. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00740

48.

MacCoon

D. G.

Wallace

J. F.

Newman

J. P.

(2004). Self-regulation: The context-appropriate allocation of attentional capacity to dominant and non-dominant cues. In Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 422–446). Guilford Press.

49.

Marks

D. F.

(1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01322.x

50.

Marks

D. F.

(2020, March 10). Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ). Curious about behaviour. https://davidfmarkscom.wordpress.com/2020/03/10/vividness-of-visual-imagery-questionnaire-vviq/

51.

Mary [@premium__heart] . (2020, February 8). Are you a 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 in this apple visualization exercise? [X Post]. X. https://twitter.com/i/events/1226183524773875712

52.

Matheson

G. J.

(2019). We need to talk about reliability: Making better use of test-retest studies for study design and interpretation. PeerJ, 7, e6918. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6918

53.

Maxwell

Lynn

S. J.

Lilienfeld

(2017). Failures to imagine: Mental imagery in psychopathy and emotional regulation difficulties. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 36(3), 270–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276236616679963

54.

Milton

Fulford

Dance

Gaddum

Heuerman-Williamson

Jones

Knight

K. F.

MacKisack

Winlove

Zeman

(2021). Behavioral and neural signatures of visual imagery vividness extremes: Aphantasia versus Hyperphantasia. Cerebral Cortex Communications, 2(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/texcom/tgab035

55.

Morse

(2015). Re: If Cronbach's alpha is low and I do not want to abandon my questionnaire, what needs to be done? Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_Cronbachs_alpha_is_low_and_I_do_not_want_to_abandon_my_questionnaire_what_needs_to_be_done/5591631a61432599048b4580/citation/download

56.

Newman

J. P.

Baskin-Sommers

A. R.

(2012). Early selective attention abnormalities in psychopathy: Implications for self-regulation. In Posner

M. I.

(Ed.), Cognitive neuroscience of attention (pp. 421–440). The Guilford Press.

57.

Patrick

C. J.

(2010). Operationalizing the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Preliminary description of brief scales for assessment of boldness, meanness, and 57 disinhibition. [Unpublished test manual], Department of Psychology, Florida State University.

58.

Patrick

C. J.

(2018). Preface. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. xi–xvi). The Guilford Press.

59.

Patrick

C. J.

Cuthbert

B. N.

Lang

P. J.

(1994). Emotion in the criminal psychopath: Fear image processing. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(3), 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.103.3.523

60.

Patrick

C. J.

Fowles

D. C.

Krueger

R. F.

(2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21(3), 913–938. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000492

61.

Patterson

C. M.

Newman

J. P.

(1993). Reflectivity and learning from aversive events: toward a psychological mechanism for the syndromes of disinhibition. Psychological Review, 100(4), 716–736. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.716

62.

Paulhus

D. L.

Neumann

C. S.

Hare

R. D.

Williams

K. M.

Hemphill

J. F.

(2016). The SRP4: Self-Report Psychopathy scale manual (4th ed.). Multi-Health Systems.

63.

Pearson

D. G.

(2007). Mental imagery and creative thought. In Roth

(Ed.), Imaginative minds (pp. 187–212). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.5871/bacad/9780197264195.003.0009

64.

Pearson

(2019). The human imagination: The cognitive neuroscience of visual mental imagery. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 20(10), 624–634. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-019-0202-9

65.

Peters

Büchel

(2010). Episodic future thinking reduces reward delay discounting through an enhancement of prefrontal-mediotemporal interactions. Neuron, 66(1), 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.026

66.

Porter

Woodworth

M. T.

Black

P. J.

(2018). Psychopathy and aggression. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. 611–634). The Guilford Press.

67.

Ray

J. V.

Hall

Rivera-Hudson

Poythress

N. G.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Morano

(2013). The relation between self-reported psychopathic traits and distorted response styles: A meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026482

68.

Reisberg

Pearson

D. G.

Kosslyn

S. M.

(2003). Intuitions and introspections about imagery: The role of imagery experience in shaping an investigator’s theoretical views. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.858

69.

Ridderinkhof

K. R.

(2017). Emotion in action: A predictive processing perspective and theoretical synthesis. Emotion Review, 9(4), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073916661765

70.

Sanz-García

Gesteira

Sanz

García-Vera

M. P.

(2021). Prevalence of psychopathy in the general adult population: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 3278. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661044

71.

Schalling

(1978). Psychopathy-related personality variables and the psychophysiology of socialization. In Hare

R. D.

Schalling

(Eds.), Psychopathic behavior: Approaches to research (pp. 85–106). Wiley.

72.

Segarra

Poy

Branchadell

Ribes-Guardiola

Moltó

(2022). Psychopathy and heart rate variability: A new physiological marker for the adaptive features of boldness. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 13(5), 557–562. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000573

73.

Sellbom

Drislane

L. E.

(2021). The classification of psychopathy. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 59, 101473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101473

74.

Sellbom

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Fowler

K. A.

McCrary

K. L.

(2018). The self-report assessment of psychopathy. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. 211–258). The Guilford Press.

75.

Skeem

J. L.

Poythress

Edens

J. F.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Cale

E. M.

(2003). Psychopathic personality or personalities? Exploring potential variants of psychopathy and their implications for risk assessment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8(5), 513–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00098-8

76.

Sleep

C. E.

Weiss

Lynam

D. R.

Miller

J. D.

(2019). An examination of the Triarchic Model of psychopathy’s nomological network: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 71, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.04.005

77.

Sohail

. (2024). Inside their mind: Examining the relationship between visual mental imagery and psychopathic traits [Master’s thesis]. Carleton University.

78.

Verona

Vitale

(2018). Psychopathy in women: Assessment, manifestations, and etiology. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. 509–528). The Guilford Press.

79.

Viding

McCrory

(2019). Towards understanding atypical social affiliation in psychopathy. The Lancet Psychiatry, 6(5), 437–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30049-5

80.

Walsh

Swogger

M. T.

Kosson

D. S.

(2009). Psychopathy and instrumental violence: Facet level relationships. Journal of Personality Disorders, 23(4), 416–424. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2009.23.4.416

81.

Wassell

Rogers

S. L.

Felmingam

K. L.

Bryant

R. A.

Pearson

(2015). Sex hormones predict the sensory strength and vividness of mental imagery. Biological Psychology, 107, 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.02.003

82.

Wong

S. C.

(2015). Treatment of violence prone individuals with psychopathic personality traits. In Livesley

Dimaggio

Clarkin

(Eds.), Integrated treatment of personality disorder: A modular approach (pp. 345–376). The Guilford Press.

83.

Woodworth

M. T.

Porter

(2002). In cold blood: Characteristics of criminal homicides as a function of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(3), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.111.3.436

84.

Zaleskiewicz

Sobkow

Traczyk

(2023). Polish validation of the Spontaneous Use of Imagery Scale (SUIS): Psychometric characteristics and relationships with risk propensity. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 43(1), 58–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/02762366231168360

85.

Zeman

A. Z.

Della Sala

Torrens

L. A.

Gountouna

V. E.

McGonigle

D. J.

Logie

R. H.

(2010). Loss of imagery phenomenology with intact visuo-spatial task performance: A case of ‘blind imagination’. Neuropsychologia, 48(1), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.08.024

86.

Zeman

A. Z.

Dewar

Della Sala

(2015). Lives without imagery— Congenital aphantasia. Cortex, 73, 378–380. 10.1016/j.cortex.2015.05.019

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.04 MB

0.00 MB