Boys Who Lack Empathy Don't React to a Fearful Face

A study of young boys who score poorly on tests of empathy and regard for others found that they didn't register a reaction to faces exhibiting fear. Christie Nicholson reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Psychopaths can't connect emotionally. Researchers have thought that trait may be connected with an outsized drive for reward and an inability to register fearful expressions in others’ faces. And that training them to pay attention to such expressions might help.

Training, however, has not been successful, and a paper to be published in the journal Psychological Science suggests why. [Patrick Sylvers, Patricia Brennan and Scott Lilienfeld, "Psychopathic Traits and Preattentive Threat Processing in Children: A Novel Test of the Fearlessness Hypothesis," link to come]

Scientists gathered 88 young boys. Some who have a high measure of disregard for others’ feelings, and others who were normal. Each boy watched a screen where a different image was flashed momentarily in each eye. One eye received abstract shapes and the other received an image of a face bearing one of four emotions: fear, disgust, happiness or neutral. The child had to push a button as soon as he saw the face.

Healthy children notice the fearful face faster than any other emotion. But for the others, their reaction time to fearful faces slowed in proportion to their lack of empathy.

The images flash so fast that this lack of reaction is at the unconscious level. So the scientists conclude that attention training will not help prevent psychopathic behavior. And that there is indeed an inherent ignorance of any expression of fear in the first place.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


—Christie Nicholson

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe