​The Psychopath Whisperer: The Science of Those Without Conscience 
Author:  Kent A. Kiehl PhD
ISBN: 13: 9780770435868
 
APA Style Citation
Kiehl, Kent (2014). The Psychopath Whisperer: The Science of Those Without Conscience.
New York: Broadway Books.

Book Description
Author Dr. Kent Kiehl is a neuroscientist whose research involves utilizing brain imaging and clinical interviews to study mental illness especially criminal psychopathology.  His research has involved taking mobile fMRI machines into prisons to study the brains of inmates he has determined were psychopaths based on clinical interviews and the Hare Psychopathy Test.  Kiehl is currently a Professor of Psychology, Neuroscience, and Law at the University of New Mexico.  He has compiled brain scans from over 3,000 offenders at eight different prisons.  Dr. Kiehl is the protégé of the world famous expert in psychopaths and creator of the influential psychopath checklist, Dr. Robert Hare. The book opens with Dr. Kiehl’s first encounter with a psychopath during his graduate work at a Canadian prison.  The book traces Kiehl’s career and depicts how a variety of academic experiences led him to become an expert in this field.  His early work using EEGs to examine the brain waves of killer whales, experience with fMRI machines, and clinical work under the leading expert in psychopathy all contributed to this interesting research area.  His research eventually led him to conduct fMRI research on prisoners and has resulted in the discovery of important physiological differences in the brains of psychopaths.  His work provides insight into the symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of psychopathy. 
 
The author gives a thorough explanation of a question that comes up in nearly every introductory or abnormal psychology course, “What is the difference between a psychopath, a sociopath, and an individual with antisocial personality disorder?” The term psychopath was first used by the German psychiatrist J.L.A. Koch (1841-1908) to describe individuals who exhibited these traits throughout their entire life history and across most areas of their lives.  Koch narrowed the term to differentiate these individuals from others who were merely criminals.  Koch’s use of the term psychopath was based on biological causes.  This purely biological explanation for psychopathology soon was criticized by the growing influence of Behaviorism.  If individuals were blank slates at birth, then the traits described by Koch would have environmental causes.  The term sociopathy was first used in the 1930’s and was created to describe individuals with the same traits as psychopaths but whose cause was social and not physiological.  The simple answer then is that psychopaths are created by “nature” and sociopaths are created by “nurture.”  For the author, the terms sociopathy and psychopathy are very different.  Sociopathy would involve a very wide range of individuals who behave in antisocial ways as a result of negative environmental influences whereas psychopathy is a concept based on genetics and biology with measurable brain differences. 

Today, psychopathy is diagnosed based on the 20 items of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, the clinical rating tool considered the gold standard for the assessment of psychopathy.  The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised is given by a trained clinician who conducts a semi-structured interview lasting approximately two hours and collects extensive additional files on the individual.  The additional files often include police reports, assessments completed by other mental health workers, family history, employment history, educational records, childhood history, and criminal history.  Based on this information the individual is given a score for each of the 10 traits that describe the affective, impulsive, and antisocial symptoms of psychopathy.  Each item receives a score ranging from 0-2.  A score of 0 indicates that the trait is not present in the individual, a score of 1 indicates the trait describes the individual in some areas of their life, and a score of 2 indicates that the trait is present in all aspects of the individual's life.  The 20 traits on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist- Revised are described in detail in the book and are listed below:

1. Glibness (insincerity or thoughtless) and Superficial Charm
2. Grandiose Sense of Self-Worth
3. Need for Stimulation
4. Pathological Lying
5. Conning/Manipulation
6. Lack of Remorse or Guilt
7. Shallow Affect
8. Callous/Lack of Empathy
9. Parasitic Lifestyle
10. Poor Behavioral Controls
11. Promiscuous Sexual Behavior
12. Early Behavioral Problems
13. Lack of Realistic, Long-Term Goals
14. Impulsivity
15. Irresponsibility
16. Failure to Accept Responsibility for Own Actions
17. Many Short-Term Marital Relationships
18. Juvenile Delinquency
19. Revocation of Conditional Release (Repeated failure to learn from punishments)
20. Criminal Versatility

The author doubts that the average clinician can diagnose psychopaths accurately because they have difficulty reliably detecting the affective criteria such as lack of empathy, guilt, and remorse.  One common mistake that leads to overrating on the affective criteria is an excessive focus on the index crime (the one specific bad thing that the individual did which often leads to arrest).  For an individual to be diagnosed as a psychopath, these traits must be expressed across multiple areas of their lives and have existed for most of their life as evidenced by events from childhood.  One trick that the author suggests is to evaluate the individual on the psychopath checklist without using any information related to the index offense.  An actual psychopath would receive a high rating on traits even if the index offense were not included.  Also, according to the author, non-experts are often prone to giving excessively high scores across all areas if an individual has committed an extremely horrific crime, which may or may not be warranted.  The best way to prevent misdiagnosis is to have clinicians who work with individuals in forensic settings to undergo specialized training. 
 
In a fascinating chapter, the author examines the historical records to evaluate two infamous individuals according to the Psychopath Checklist-Revised.  The two individuals were both nineteenth-century presidential assassins:  John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated President Abraham Lincoln and Charles Guiteau, who assassinated President Garfield. The author draws upon the historical record and provides the reader with insight into how the criteria are measured and assessed.  Based on the author’s assessment of the historical record Charles Guiteau scores in the 99th percentile of psychopathy by scoring a 37.5/40 on the Psychopath Checklist-Revised.  John Wilkes Booth, on the other hand, earned an 8.4/40 on the checklist which although is two times the score of the average American male is below average for a criminal and not high enough for a diagnosis of psychopathy.
 
The text also discusses how psychopathy relates to the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder found in the DSM-5.  The DSM does not include psychopathy as a specific diagnosis but does include antisocial personality disorder.  According to Dr. Kiehl, the DSM antisocial personality disorder criteria will result in getting a clinician about halfway to a diagnosis of psychopathy according to the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised.  If an individual meets the criteria for antisocial personality disorder, then they likely have a very difficult personality.  The author advises that clinicians working in forensic settings not even bother with the antisocial personality criteria but instead begin immediately by using the Psychopath Checklist-Revised instead of the DSM.  Kiehl also provides insight into the DSM diagnosis of conduct disorder, which he believes is flawed because it is based entirely on observable criteria without reference to emotional, interpersonal, or affective characteristics associated with psychopathy.  Since nearly 80% of individuals who are given a conduct disorder diagnosis outgrow the antisocial behaviors, the author argues that it is of little utility because it does not predict which children are likely to develop psychopathy or lifelong personality problems.  Clinicians in secure juvenile facilities do not even bother conducting assessments for conduct disorder since nearly all of the children would meet the criteria.
 
The Psychopath Whisperer offers an amazing level of insight into the diagnosis of psychopathy but also makes a large number of connections to various units across the psychology curriculum.  As a result, the book is an excellent resource to add high-interest material to units including the biological bases of behavior, sensation and perception, abnormal and treatment, motivation, and emotion, personality, testing and individual differences, learning, and cognition.
 
Other Related Resources

Author’s Websites
http://kentkiehl.com/
The author’s site includes links to articles related to neuroscience, law, and psychopathy as well as videos and other resources. The website also has information about Dr. Kiehl’s research.
 
http://www.psychopathwhisperer.com/
This website includes author Kent Kiehl’s blog and other resources that are specifically related to the book.
 
http://www.mrn.org/people/kent-a-kiehl/principal-investigators/
The Mind Research Network’s website that includes resources, research articles, and information about Kiehl’s project.
 
Wired Interview with Kent Kiehl, Ph.D. about the Psychopath Whisperer
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/psychopath-brains-kiehl/
What It’s Like to Spend 20 Years Listening to Psychopaths for Science: An interview with the author about his research and the stories behind the book.
 
NPR Story:  Inside A Psychopath's Brain: The Sentencing Debate
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128116806
 
Psychological Figures and Concepts
Paul Broca
Sigmund Freud
Phineas Gage
Michael Gazzaniga
Robert Hare
Patient HM
John Nash
Peter Salovey
Adderall
ADHD
Affect
Amnesia
Amygdala
Anterior and Posterior Cingulate Cortex
Antisocial Personality Disorder
Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
Behaviorist Theory
Bipolar Disorder
Borderline Personality Disorder
Callous and Unemotional (CU) Trait
Child Psychopathy Scale
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Conduct Disorder
Corpus Callosum
Death Penalty
Delusion
Depression
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM) III, IV-TR, 5
EEG (Electroencephalogram)
Ego
Emotional Intelligence
Empathy
Factor Analysis
Frontal Lobe
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI)
Hallucination (auditory, command, visual)
Hippocampus
IQ
Juvenile Justice System
Limbic System
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder
Oppositional Defiant Disorder
Orbital Frontal Cortex
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
Prefrontal Cortex
Psychopathic Trait
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)
Recidivism
Schizophrenia
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Self-Report Inventory
Sleep-Wake Disorder
Sociopath
Substance Abuse
Youth Psychopathy Checklist
 
 
 

Blog Contributor: Jessica Flitter
West Bend East High School
[email protected]
 
Great Myths of Education and Learning
Author: Jeffrey D. Holmes
ISBN: 978-1-118-70939-9 (Paperback)
 
APA Style Citation
Holmes, J. (2016). Great Myths of Education and Learning. Chichester, West Sussex:
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Book Description
How many times have you heard something about using learning styles or being too left-brained? Sometimes components of researching findings become pervasive in the world of education even though they lack sound scientific research.  This book looks at sixteen popular myths concerning education and learning.  The content is dense and various studies are presented, addressing both sides of the myth.  A scientific claim should not be based on the finding of a single study, but rather a combination of studies all of which find fairly consistent results.  Existing studies should be combined through meta-analysis to find reliable patterns and limit potential bias. Through this sound research method, hopefully, a more complete picture is formed regarding a specific scientific claim. The summaries below provide a basic understanding of the findings presented in the book. 
 
Myth 1: Students are accurate judges of how much they know
Have you been told to empower your students and ask them how they learn best? Student empowerment is important but students, especially low-achieving students, tend to be overconfident and do not recognize what learning strategies are most effective. When material feels easy and quickly comes to mind, students falsely believe they understand the information well.  In addition, after reviewing assessments, they fall victim to hindsight bias.  Familiarity increases their confidence, leading to a false assessment of their knowledge.  Without an accurate ability to gauge performance, students are less efficient and do not study effectively.
 
Myth 2: Students learn better when teaching methods are matched with their learning styles
We have all sat through an in-service that demands we learn our students’ learning styles, but does it really matter?  A common claim supported by educators, parents, and students is that instruction which matches students’ learning preferences leads to more successful learning. To date, over 71 different learning style models have been identified, and the most common ones include the senses (visual, auditory, and kinesthetic). However, few scientifically sound studies support matching instruction to these preferences.  The studies lack reliability and appropriate assessments. Rather than using specific sensory modes to store content, most successfully learned memories are semantic in nature.  It has been found that students can use many different learning strategies when the specific content calls for it.
 
Myth 3: Lecturing is broadly inferior to other teaching methods
We are told, “Stop lecturing!” yet our students beg for it.  Should we lecture? Lectures compared to alternative teaching methods often reveal no significant difference in learning.  Many arguments center on the loss of attention span after 10-15 minutes.  However, few scientific studies support this statement.  A quick resetting of attention can easily get students back on track.  The lecture actually offers several advantages, including its efficiency for significant amounts of novel material.  On the contrary, lectures lack effectiveness when it comes to attaining applied skills or communication skills. It should be noted that classroom research is challenging due to a lack of control and experimenter bias. Also, lecturing is very difficult to define operationally.
Interestingly, instructors often negatively associate lectures with effectiveness. In contrast, students view lecturing as one of the most effective learning strategies. Studies reveal that high achieving students prefer lectures. In addition, structured lectures seem to help low-achieving students, as well as those students with high anxiety. While preferences are not the best evaluation tool, student perception does play a role in a successful classroom. Ultimately, effective teaching is partly the teaching method and the preferences in the classroom.
 
Myth 4: Using PowerPoint in the classroom improves student learning
PowerPoint has become the new overhead projector, but does it really work? Many students believe that PowerPoint leads to effective learning, but studies find no significant advantage compared to other presentations.  When students focus too much on elaborate slides, PowerPoint can actually hurt student performance.  However, students report the method as being more interesting, more organized, and more enjoyable.  They believe they take better notes and have increased confidence.  Interestingly, this increased confidence leads to a halo effect and improves students’ perception in other areas of the course as well.  There is little empirical evidence that PowerPoint affects student learning, but once again it is necessary to take student perception into account. 
 
Myth 5: Minimally guided instruction is superior to traditional direct instruction
How many times have you heard that you should be using problem-solving learning? Minimally guided instruction is founded on the constructivist learning philosophy. According to this theory, it is believed that knowledge must be based on personal experiences in the world, not gained through direct instruction.  However, there is no empirical evidence that leaving students to their own devices provides more effective learning.  Studies have found that direct instruction can be successful for students at all levels, for verbal and social skills, and increased performance on immediate and delayed tests.  Problem-solving teaching strategies utilize a very limited working memory.  When one’s ability to problem-solve is at capacity students will struggle with learning.  This is especially true for low-achieving students.  Most likely a balanced approach of direction instruction and discovery would work best. 
 
Myth 6: Rewards always undermine students’ intrinsic motivation
Has your school been consumed by a Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) plan? Various empirical findings support that rewards can increase intrinsic motivation, but with certain contingencies.  As is stated by the overjustification hypothesis, expected tangible rewards for simply engaging in an activity of high interest reduces intrinsic motivation.  While this is true, it has been found that intrinsic motivation actually increases with verbal praise.  Also, an expected tangible reward is not detrimental if it is based on the quality of the task as opposed to participation.  However, research has found that rewards for simply performing the task actually increases intrinsic motivation for low-achieving students. Lab research does not always generalize to the classroom; however, researchers agree that rewards do not always reduce intrinsic motivation.
 
Myth 7: Multitasking does not inhibit academic performance
How many of your students are addicted to their cellphone? Technology is everywhere, and young people are easily tempted by it. Some argue that young people, born since 1980, may be able to multitask more efficiently than members of past generations.  Young people believe they can successfully multitask.  Some even think it helps them focus and complete homework.  However, none of these statements are supported by research.  Switching tasks results in slower performance and increased errors. Completing homework with the TV on in the background takes longer.  It was also found that students watching other students multitask learned significantly less than those who could not see other students multitasking.  When others control the content, multitasking is even more challenging.
While multitasking, performance usually declines as the difficulty of the task increases.  However, one study found that multitasking students took longer to read, but did not have lower performance. While learning may not be affected, few high school students have the extra time that it takes to multitask.
 
Myth 8: People are either left-brained or right brained
I am sure you have heard of the vocabulary learning technique that utilizes both sides of your brain; self-made definitions invoke the left-hemisphere, while drawings activate the right hemisphere. Many educators support the claim that differences in hemispheric dominance can explain learning differences.  Early research grabbed everyone’s attention but lacked the ability to generalize to the general population. Early split-brain research utilized unique brains and usually had very limited sample sizes.  Current research with brain-imaging technology supports that both hemispheres are necessary for various functions.  Greater hemispheric lateralization has been found only in people of low-achieving ability.  Furthermore, the statements supporting a brain dichotomy are often oversimplified, and neuroscience has been incorrectly applied to the world of education and business. 
 
Myth 9: There are many independent varieties of intelligence
The number of intelligences has been debated for years.  Sir Francis Galton was the first to talk of general intelligence, but it was Charles Spearman that was able to identify it statistically through factor analysis.  The g factor is probably one of the most studied traits in the history of intelligence in psychology.  Several theorists have offered opposing models supporting specific intelligences.  Howard Gardner’s theory has caught on with educators due to its ability to identify all children as being special.  However, the theory has several pitfalls.  It utilizes eight criteria to find separate intelligences, but they are not always consistently applied.  Also, there is no specific assessment that can measure each specific intelligence.  Currently, most tests are based on self-report and still measure general intelligence.  Empirical evidence does not support the existence of many separate intelligences.   
 
Myth 10: Self-esteem improves academic performance
In order to excel you have to feel good about yourself, right? There is a small, positive correlation between self-esteem and academic performance. However, it often shrinks when other environmental factors are controlled.  Self-esteem is studied most often in the United States, an individualistic culture.  One strategy, self-evaluation educational interventions, needs to be used with caution because it can actually reduce performance. Interestingly, Americans have enjoyed increased self-esteem scores in recent decades but have witnessed a decrease in the average SAT score. Research supports that academic self-concept is a better predictor of performance than self-esteem.
 
Myth 11: Repetition is a highly effective study strategy
Tight on time before a test? Everyone has probably utilized the study strategy of rereading a text, and it can enhance learning to a degree.  The benefits of rereading are greatest the first time the content is reread and immediately tested, but little enhancement is achieved when testing is delayed after rereading content.  In addition, high-achieving students benefit the most from rereading a second time.  Most of these findings have been found in the laboratory and need to be questioned before being generalized to the classroom. 
While rereading is not that effective, there are study methods to increase performance. The most effective method is the testing effect.  Practice testing leads to better performance on similar future tests than restudying the content. The benefits of practice testing can occur using a variety of test formats, even when the final test is a different format. This finding has held up across a wide range of ages and abilities.  Two additional effective study methods include elaborative interrogation and self-explanation.  Both are effective but require more time.  Students have limited time, but will hopefully recognize the powerful ability of practice testing to increase retention.
 
Myth 12: Multiple-choice exams are inferior to other exam formats
Essay exams take time to grade and have concerns of inter-rater reliability, but can a multiple-choice test really measure all aspects of student knowledge?  Even though students are exposed to misinformation via the multiple-choice format, the testing effect is increased by providing feedback no matter if it is immediate or delayed.  Scientific studies find that both testing formats, multiple-choice and essay, assess similar abilities and students perform at similar levels on both parts of an exam. 
Many concerns with multiple-choice tests are not supported by scientific findings. It is believed that essay tests measure higher levels of thinking, but often they do not. Before we abandon multiple-choice tests, let’s make sure that the new exam format actually provides a better performance indicator. 
 
Myth 13: Students should not change answers on multiple-choice exams
Many of your students have probably heard of the first instinct fallacy; once you select an answer on a test, it is best not to change it.  Scientific studies show that usually students, especially high-achieving students, benefit from changing their answer as long as they are not just guessing.  If you re-evaluated or better understand the questions, then the odds are in your favor to make the change.
As is often the case, students’ perceptions do not match the research.  Even when trained to change their answers, they still believed that it would lead to a lower exam score.  The circumstance when changing your answer did not work is more memorable thanks to the availability heuristic.  Don’t stress your students out during the exam, but share the possible benefits of changing answers well in advance.
 
Myth 14: Coaching produces large gains in college admission test scores
As any high school student wanting to attend college knows, the SAT and ACT are a common hurdle one must first pass.  Studies suggest that coaching can increase student SAT scores.  However, there are many confounding variables. Coaching time becomes confused with coaching methods.  In addition, a certain type of student seeks academic coaching.  These concerns, as well as a lack of random assignment, call these scientific findings into question.    
 
Myth 15: Standardized tests do not predict academic performance
We have all heard that story about a young person who did poorly on the SAT or ACT but excelled in college. The problem is that story is not the norm and only shows that the correlation is not perfect.  Almost all studies support that there is a significant positive correlation between standardized tests for college admission and first-year college GPA.  Critics question the validity of the assessment due to range restriction and reliability. However, after correcting for these issues, as well as socioeconomic status, the SAT still had predictive validity.
 
Myth 16: Standardized ability tasks are biased against some minority groups
The average group differences in IQ has spurred concerns about cultural bias in testing.  If a test measures different things for people within different groups, it is biased.  However, research has not been able to find anyone, including experts that can find biased test items based on content.  In addition, the claim that tests underpredict for minority members has not been demonstrated.  Studies have actually found an overprediction for most minority groups.  The origin and meaning of intelligence is a complex issue that is heavily debated.  To date, empirical evidence does not support a testing bias against minority groups.
 
 
Psychological Figures and Concepts
Paul Broca
Sir Francis Galton
Howard Gardner
Jean Piaget
B. F. Skinner
Charles Spearman
Roger Sperry
L. L. Thurstone
Achievement Test
Aptitude Test
Availability Heuristic
Cognitive Psychology
Cohort Effect
Confirmation Bias
Confounding of Variables
Correlation (Positive, Modest)
Creativity
Critical Thinking
Cultural Bias
Dichotic Listening Study
Distributive Study
Divergent Thinking
EEG
Efficacy
Empirical Evidence
Experimenter Bias
Experimental Control
Expressive vs. Receptive Language
Factor Analysis
General Intelligence
Generalizability of Research
Halo Effect
Hemispheric Dominance
Hindsight Bias
Individualistic Cultural Belief
Intelligence
Inter-Rater Reliability
Intrinsic Motivation
Lateralized
Learning Styles:  Visual, Auditory, Kinesthetic
Longitudinal Data
Meta-analysis
Metacognition
Motivation
Multitasking or Task Switching
Neuroscientific Research
Operational Definition
Overconfidence
Overjustification Hypothesis
“Psychological Refractory Period”
Positive Emotions- Left Hemisphere
Predictive Validity
 “Prodigy” or “Idiot Savant”
Psychometrician
Random Assignment
Repetition
Replicate
Scaffolding
Self-Efficacy
Self-Esteem
Self-Report Measure
Semantic Memory
Sensory Memory
Split-Brain Operation
Statistical Significance
Test Bias
Testing Effect
Visual Field Study
WISC
Working Memory
 
 
Other Related Resources
 
Great Myths of Psychology Series
Erber, J. T., & Szuchman, L. T. (2014). Great Myths of Aging. Chichester, West Sussex:
Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN: 978-1-118-52145-8
 
Hupp, S., & Jewell, J. (2015). Great Myths of Child Development. Chichester, West
Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN: 978-1-118-52122-9
 
Jarrett, C. (2014). Great Myths of the Brain. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
ISBN: 978-1-118-62450-0
Johnson, M. D. (2016). Great Myths of Intimate Relationships: Dating, Sex, and
Marriage. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN: 978-1-118-52128-1
 
Lilienfeld, S. 0., Lynn, S. J., Ruscio, J., & Beyerstein, B. L. (2009). 50 Great Myths of
Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions About Human Behavior. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN : 978-1-4051-3112-4
 
Series Website www.wiley.com/go/psychmyths
 
Podcast
Britt, M. A. (2009, December 27). Episode 113: Interview with Scott Lilienfeld on the 50 great myths of popular psychology [Audio Podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.thepsychfiles.com/
 
Articles
Willis, J. (2015). The High Cost of Neuromyths in Education. Edutopia, http://www.edutopia.org/. Retrieved on July 26, 2016, from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/high-costs-neuromyths-in-education-judy-willis