Psychological Lab Report Example

Investigating the role of ADHD and Empathy on Criminal thinking 100070955

1

Investigating the role of ADHD and Empathy on Criminal thinking

100070955

University of East Anglia

Word Count: 2076


2

Abstract

There is a lot of literature that suggests empathy and attention deficit hyperactivity

disorder (ADHD) individually has a relationship with criminal thinking. However,

there is limited research on these two factors when compared to the general

population. The aim of this study was to investigate if ADHD and empathy can

predict criminal thinking. The findings could possibly create models to assess

criminal thinking in a general population and recommend possible interventions for

ADHD individuals. Using opportunity sampling in the general population (n=73). The

results found that a backwards multiple regression model, with ADHD and empathy,

predicted criminal thinking. In addition, demographics collected showed that age and

occupation also holds a relationship with criminal thinking. This suggests that

empathy and ADHD can be used as practical interventions on criminal thinking.

Although further investigations are needed to establish predictive validity and

alternative roots for predictors are suggested.


3

Investigating the role of ADHD and Empathy on Criminal thinking

Between January and February 2015, there have been a total number of

419,603 reported cases involving criminal activity in England and Wales (UK crime

Stats, 2015). Criminologist partake in investigating the role of individual and societal

factors that could influence root causes/indicators to criminal behaviour, ultimately to

lower crime on economical, political or social fronts for the safety of a community or

found areas through active interventions in delinquent and anti-social behaviour. But

where should one start in identifying criminal behaviour?

Mental disorders are prevalent in criminals, in fact, 64% of inmates showed

various mental health issues (James & Glaze, 2006). One example of a mental health

issue can be described as attention deficit/Hyperactive disorder (ADHD) where

studies investigating ADHD symptoms in prison inmates scored as high as 50%

(Gudjonsson, Sigurddsson, Young, Newton, & Peersen, 2009). ADHD is diagnosed in

early childhood where high levels of hyperactive, impulsive and/or impulse

behaviours are exhibited whilst impairment in two areas of life is recorded on a 6-

month scale (Young, Moss, Sedgwick, Fridman, & Hodgkins, 2015). Perhaps

criminal behaviour could stem from the inability to self-control ones actions? Not

only does ADHD persist through development but also it persists into adulthood

(Harpin, 2005). Harpin (2005), concluded that during adolescence, those with ADHD

are more aggressive and this further links to anti-social behaviour including

delinquency (Young & Gudjonsson, 2006). According to Young and Gudjonnsons

study, those with ADHD held higher antisocial behaviour compared to the control

group and those, exhibiting milder symptoms. Delinquent behaviour becomes a

consequence and this supports the concept that ADHD is associated to criminal

activity (Fletcher & Wolfe, 2009; Babinski, Hartsough, & Lambert, 1999; Pratt,

Cullen, Blevins, Daigle, & Unnever, 2002). However, ADHD is considered comorbid

within other disorders such as Conduct disorder or substance abuse suggesting that

ADHD tendencies itself, may not be the contributing factor to crime (Mordre,

Groholt, Kjelsberg, Sandstad, & Myhre, 2011). In addition, not all youths and young

adults with ADHD end up being criminals suggesting that maybe individual traits

may be an influence.


4

Whilst mental health may play a role in the reasons behind crime, perhaps its

an inability to consider others. Studies have found that criminals lack or low empathy

(Smallbone, Wheaton, & Houringan, 2003; Mahmut, Homewood, & Stevenson,

2008). Low empathy is often associated with psychopathic tendencies and it is

estimated a total of 15% of the prison population have been diagnosed as being

psychopaths (Decety , Skelly , & Kiehl, 2013). The study found that those in the

psychopathic group generally had less neural activity in the Ventromedial prefrontal

cortex and orbitofrontal cortex, an area measuring pain and distress when shown

stimuli of other persons experiencing pain. However, several studies have suggested

that criminal behaviour is not the lack of empathy but the inability to actively switch

it on (Meffert, Gazzola, den Boer, Bartels, & Keysers, 2013). The study revealed that

when instructed to focus on the actors emotions, brain regions involving empathy

activated concluding that psychopaths can empathize, just not to the extent of others.

Generally, the relationship between empathy and ADHD remains clear. Those

with ADHD traits are more likely to be seen as less empathetic and lower levels of

social perspective (Braaten & Rosn, 2000). Interestingly is the non-conclusive

relationship between low empathy and aggression (r = .11) suggesting that whilst

empathy may be strongly associated with ADHD it is not a direct influence of

criminal thinking (in terms of aggression).

Alternative reasoning for criminal thinking could be the result of demographic

factors. A 50 year longitudinal study investigating predictors involved examining

children with delinquent behaviour found that generally, children who had low

intelligence and attainment, impulsivity, criminality, poverty, poor parental child-

rearing behaviour whilst marriage, and employment reduced chances in offending

(Farrington, 1995). It is under this assumption that demographic information where

possible should also be collected and investigated. In addition, criminologists

generally associate youth with more crime (Brown & Males, 2011).

The present study aims to investigate if ADHD, Low Empathy

symptomatology and social circumstances will predict criminal thinking in a general

population. The majority of literature refers to samples of those diagnosed with

ADHD or are currently incarcerated consequently limiting research to a particular


5

field. The same applies for psychopathy. With ADHD impacting 3-7% of the general

population and 1% of individuals diagnosed as a psychopath. This study aims to

strengthen the literature by examining demographics and particular emphasis on

ADHD and empathy in the general population to establish a further connection on

criminal thinking patterns. Overall, the literature supports that ADHD and low

empathy will predict criminal thinking. Therefore the hypothesis that regression

model as a whole with ADHD and empathy will predict criminal thinking.

Specifically more ADHD symptoms will predict more criminal thinking; and low

empathy will predict more criminal thinking. Demographics will be collected to

examine whether there is any influence on criminal thinking.

Methodology

Design

The study takes a backwards multiple regression approach. The criterion

variable is criminal thinking. The predictors investigated are empathy, ADHD and

demographics (occupation, marital status, age, ethnicity, gender, cautions and

convictions).

Participants

Participants (n=73) were selected through opportunity sampling with a mean

age of 27.44 (Age range 19 - 49) and a standard deviation of 13.61. Participants also

provided demographic information such as occupation, education, marital status,

ethnicity, convictions/warnings and gender.

Materials

Three self-report questionnaires were used in the study to measure the predictors on

criminal thinking; empathy, ADHD and PICTS.

Empathy Empathy Quotient

A 60 itemed questionnaire consisting of 20 distractor items taken from the Empathy

quotient (EQ) (Baron-Cohen & Wheelright, 2004). The EQ holds high test-retest


6

reliability (r = 0.835) and concurrent validity (Lawrence, Shaw, Baker, S, & David,

2004). Responses were recorded from strongly Agree to Definitely agree. Scores

were only given showing empathetic behaviour where 1 point represented mild

empathetic behaviour and 2 points if the respondent records strong empathetic

behaviour. Definitely agree responses scored 2 points and slightly agree

responses scored 1 point on the following items: 1, 6, 19, 22, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38,

41, 42, 43, 44, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60. Definitely disagree responses scored 2

points and slightly disagree responses scored 1 point on the following items: 4, 8,

10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 21, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 39, 46, 48, 49, 50 (see appendix a). No

points were awarded for distractor items. Questions such as It upsets me to see an

animal in pain were included.

ADHD - ASRS

A measure of ADHD was developed consisting of 18 items from the ASRS (Kessler,

et al., 2005). 2 items were removed due to typing errors. Adler, et al (2006) found

internal reliability and validity stating that both patient and rater-administered

versions of the scale scored strongly (Cronbach's 0.88, 0.89) making it a suitable

measure. Responses were recorded on a 5 point likert-type scales. The exact

descriptors for the scale consisted of 1, Never 2,Rarely 3, Sometimes 4 Often

5 Very Often. Questions such as How often do you have difficulty keeping your attention when you are doing boring or repetitive work? were included (see appendix A.1).

Criminal thinking - PICTS

A 64-itemed questionnaire investigating a criminal thinking has been highly

associated in patterns of criminal behaviour (Walters, 1995). Walters found PICTS to

be reliable with high test-retest reliability (r=. 52-.72). Responses were recorded on a

4 point likert scale ranging from 1, disagree to 4, strongly agree. Questions such as

The more I break the rules the more I thought there was no way I would ever be

caught. were included (see appendix A.2). There were no reversed scored items.

Procedure

The experiment took place in a quiet room as decided by the participant.

Participants were provided an information sheet, consent sheet. Upon consent, the


7

researcher then proceeded to hand the participants a demographic sheet, the PICTS,

ADHD and Empathy quotient for the participant to fill out on their own. The

estimated time took approximately 45 minutes and upon completion provided a

debrief sheet providing more information about the experiment.

Statistical analysis

There were no outliers identified using Cooks Distance. VIF values below 10

indicted that collinearity was not a problem (appendix B). In addition, the scatter plot

indicated that the data met the assumption of homoscedasticity (see appendix C) and

the P-Plot indicated that the residuals were normally distributed (appendix D). This

allowed the continuation for a backward multiple regression.

Results

A backward multiple regression was run to examine the effect of

demographics and particular traits on criminal behaviour. Predictors included, age,

gender, education, marital status, occupation, ethnicity, conviction, empathy, ADHD

and caution. 8 predictors were removed (see appendix E). A multiple regression was

then run again with the 4 remaining indicators. The descriptive of the remaining

factors can be shown in table 1.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

PICTS 1.7823 .31382 73 Empathy 1.0223 .31580 73 ADHD 2.5445 .69254 73 Age 27.44 13.610 73 Occupation 3.30 1.151 73

Results showed a significant effect with the empathy, ADHD, age, education,

empathy and occupation predictors F(4,69) = 7.067, p < 0.001 (see Appendix F).

These four predictor variables accounted for a total of 29.4% of the variance in

criminal thinking. The standardized regression coefficient (pearsons) for ADHD was


8

= .247, t(68)= 2.42, p < .018. This indicates that for every unit of increase in ADHD

symptoms there is an increase of .259 in overall criminal thinking and is considered a

small effect. Empathy ( =-.409, t(68,) = -4.00, p < .001), age ( =-.242, t(68,) = -

1.87, p = .066), and occupation ( =-.316, t(68,) = -2.434, p < .02), all scored

negatively indicating that a decrease for said predictors, results in an increase of

overall criminal thinking. While empathy is a medium effect, both age and occupation

have a small effect (see table 2).

Correlations PICTS Empathy ADHD Age Occupation Pearson Correlation

PICTS - -.415 .259 -.054 -.148 Empathy - -.048 .006 -.022 ADHD - -.019 .037 Age - -.618 Occupation -

Discussion

The aim of this study was to investigate the role of ADHD, empathy and

demographics on criminal thinking accounting for 29.4%. The results found that the

regression, empathy and ADHD predicted criminal thinking supporting the

hypothesis. Demographic factors such as age and occupation showed a negative

correlation. Despite the regression model predicting criminal thinking; education was

not contributing to the model, suggesting that education does not affect criminal

thinking. Consequently rejecting Farringtons suggestion of IQ, marriage and

ethnicity. However, this provides more insight than problem suggesting alternative

demographic insight into investigating economic disparities, poverty and cross-

cultural studies.

ADHD and empathy symptoms were a significant predictor of criminal

thinking, supporting the literature (Babinski, Hartsough, & Lambert, 1999; Young,

Moss, Sedgwick, Fridman, & Hodgkins, 2015; Young & Gudjonsson, 2006; Decety,

Skelly, & Kiehl, 2013; Braaten & Rosn, 2000). This is a provides further support to

the literature as a general population is used, allowing a mundane realism as many

people display ADHD/ Low empathy traits but this is not enough to be clinically


9

diagnosed as a disorder. The model can be useful to assess the level of criminality in

at risk young people with ADHD and be used as prevention in the future. However it

would be premature to place immediately implications, as a predictive validity has not

been established placing emphasis for longitudinal studies.

Alternative routes should investigate the comorbid traits such as substance

abuse, oppositional defiant disorder should be considered in contrast to ADHD and

empathy as shown in additional studies that there is a relationship between criminal

behaviour (Mordre, Groholt, Kjelsberg, Sandstad, & Myhre, 2011); However, there is

limited research on the impact of each individual influencing predictor.

In conclusion, the present study adds to the growing literature linking ADHD,

empathy, age and occupation and criminality. This provides further research to the

academic field by examining the general public and for potential future interventions.

Further investigations such as longitudinal studies for predictive validity and more

demographic factors for alternative sources (such as poverty and economic status in

geographical regions) of criminal thinking are recommended.

Citations Adler, L. A., Spencer, T., Faraone, S. V., Kessler, R. C., Howes, M. J., Biederman, J., et al. (2006). Validity of Pilot Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS) to Rate Adult ADHD Symptoms. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry , 18 (3), 145-148. Babinski, L. M., Hartsough, C. S., & Lambert, N. M. (1999). Childhood conduct problems, hyperactivity-impulsivity, and inattention as predictors of adult criminal activity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 40 (3), 347355. Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: an investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism dvelopment Disorder , 34, 163-75. Braaten, E., & Rosn, L. (2000). Self-regulation of affect in attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and non-ADHD boys: Differences in empathic responding. Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 68, 313-321. Brown, E., & Males, M. (2011). Does Age or Poverty Level Best Predict Criminal Arrest and Homicide Rates? A Preliminary Investigation. Justice Policy Journal , 8, 1-30.


10

Decety , J., Skelly , L., & Kiehl, K. (2013). Brain Response to Empathy-Eliciting Scenarios Involving Pain in Incarcerated Individuals With Psychopathy. JAMA Psychiatry , 1-8. Farrington, D. (1995). Development of Offending and Antisocial Behaviour From Childhood: Key Findings From the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Journal of Child Psychology , 360, 929-964. Fletcher, J., & Wolfe, B. (2009). Long-term consequences of childhood ADHD on criminal activities. The journal of mental health policy and economics , 12 (3), 119138. Gudjonsson, G., Sigurddsson, J., Young, S., Newton, A., & Peersen, M. (2009). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). How do ADHD symptoms relate to personality among prisoners? Personality and Individual Differences , 49, 64-68. Harpin, V. A. (2005). The effect of ADHD on the life of an individual, their family, and community from preschool to adult life. Archives of disease in childhood , 90, i2-i7. James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Kessler, R., Adler, L., Ames, M., Demlar, O., Faraone, Hirpi, E., et al. (2005). WHO Adult ADHD Self Report Scale L A short screening scale for use in the general population. Psychological Medicine , 35, 245-256. Lawrence, E., Shaw, P., Baker, D., S, B.-C., & David, A. (2004). Measuring empathy: reliability and validity of the Empathy Quotient. Psychological Medicine , 34, 911924. Mahmut, M., Homewood, J., & Stevenson, R. (2008). The characteristics of non-criminals with high psychopathy traits: Are they similar to criminal psychopaths? Journal of Research in Personality , 42, 679692. Marton, I., Wiener, J., Rogers, M., Moore, C., & Tannock, R. (2009). Empathy and Social Perspective Taking in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 37, 107-118. Mazzone, L., Postorino, V., Reale, L., Guarnera, M., Mannino, V., Armando, M., et al. (2013). Self-esteem evaluation in children and adolescents suffering from ADHD. Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health , 9, 96102. Meffert, H., Gazzola, V., den Boer, J., Bartels, A., & Keysers, C. (2013). Reduced spontaneous but relatively normal deliberate vicarious representations in psychopathy. Brain , 2550-2562. Mordre, M., Groholt, B., Kjelsberg, E., Sandstad, B., & Myhre, A. M. (2011). The impact of ADHD and conduct disorder in childhood on adult delinquency: A 30 years follow-up study using official crime records. BMC psychiatry , 11 (1).


11

Palmer, E., & Hollin, C. (2003). Using thePsychological inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles in English Prisoners. Legal and Criminological Psychology , 8, 175-187. Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, L., & Unnever, J. D. (2002). The relationship of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to crime and delinquency: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Police Science & Management , 4 (4), 344-360. Rosenberg, F. R., Rosenberg, M., & McCord, J. (1978). Self-esteem and delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 7 (3), 279-294. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Slomkowski, C., Klein, R. G., & Mannuzza, S. (1995). Is self-esteem an important outcome in hyperactive children? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 23 (3), 303-315. Smallbone, S., Wheaton, J., & Houringan, D. (2003). Trait Empathy and Criminal Versatility in Sexual Offenders. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment , 15, 49-60. UK crime Stats. (2015, March). England and Wales. Retrieved April 8, 2015, from UK Crime Stats: http://www.ukcrimestats.com/ Walters, G. D. (1995). The psychological inventory of criminal thinking styles part I: Reliability and preliminary validity. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 22 (3), 307-325. Young, S., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2006). ADHD symptomatology and its relationship with emotional, social and delinquency problems. Psychology, Crime & Law , 12 (5), 463-471. Young, S., Moss, D., Sedgwick, O., Fridman, M., & Hodgkins, P. (2015). A meta-analysis of the prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in incarcerated populations. Psychological Medicine , 45, 247258.


12

Appendix

Appendix A. Empathy Quotient including distractor items and measured items


13

Appendix A.1 ADHD with errors included Please answer the questions below, rating yourself on each of the criteria shown using the scale on the right side of the page. As you answer each question, place an X in the box that best describes how you felt and conducted yourself over the past 6 months. Never

Rarely Sometimes

Often Very Often

Part A 1. How often do you have trouble wrapping up the final details of a project, once the challenging parts have been done? 2. How often do you have difficulty getting things in order when you have to do a task that requires organization? 3.How often do you have problems remembering appointments or obligations 4.When you have a task that requires a lot of thought, how often do you avoid or delay getting started? 5.How often do you fidget or squirm with your hands or feet when you have to sit down for a long time? 6.How often do you feel overly active and compelled to do things, like you were driven by a motor? Part B 7.How often do you make careless mistakes when you have to work on a boring or difficult project? How often do you have difficulty keeping your attention when you are doing boring or repetitive work? 8.How often do you have difficulty keeping your attention when you are doing boring or repetitive work? 9.How often are you distracted by activity or noise around you? 10.How often do you leave your seat in meetings or in other situations in which you are expected to stay seated? 11.How often do you feel restless or fidgety? 12.How often do you have difficulty unwinding and relaxing when you have time to yourself? 13.How often do you find yourself talking too much when you are in social situations? 14.When youre in a conversation, how often do you find yourself finishing the sentences of the people you are talking to, before they can finish it themselves? 15.How often do you have difficulty waiting your turn in situations when turn taking is required 16. How often do you interrupt others when they are busy?


14

Appendix A.2 First page of PICTS questionnaire The following items are designed to help us understand criminal thinking and behaviour. Please take the time to complete each of the 64 items on this inventory using the four-point scale defined below: 4 = strongly agree 3 = agree 2 = uncertain 1 = disagree 1. I will allow nothing to get in the way of getting what I want ............................. 4 3 2 1 2. I find myself blaming society and external circumstances for the problems I have had in my life. 4 3 2 1 3. Even though I may start out with the best of intentions I have trouble staying on track...... 4 3 2 1 4. There is nothing I cant do if I try hard enough.... 4 3 2 1 5. When I am under pressure I have sometimes used alcohol or drugs .................. 4 3 2 1 6. I have found myself blaming people who I have taken advantage of by saying things like they deserved what they got or they should have known better. 4 3 2 1 7. One of the first things I consider about another person is whether they look strong or weak........ 4 3 2 1 8. The way I look at it, I have paid my dues and am therefore justified in taking more than my share..... 4 3 2 1 9. The more I break the rules the more I thought there was no way I would ever be caught .................... 4 3 2 1 10. I believe that breaking the law is no big deal as long as you dont physically hurt someone ......... 4 3 2 1 11. I have helped out friends and family with money acquired illegally ................. 4 3 2 1 12. I sometimes let my thoughts and ideas run wild, ignore the problems and difficulties associated with my plans until it is too late ......... 4 3 2 1 13. It is unfair how little I have when lawyers, businessmen and politicians get away with all sorts of illegal and underhand behaviour every day ................ 4 3 2 1 14. I often argue with others over relatively minor matters ..................... 4 3 2 1 15. I can honestly say that the welfare of other people is something that I take into account when taking advantage of other people ................... 4 3 2 1

16. When frustrated I find myself saying to hell with it and then doing my something stupid ......... 4 3 2 1 17. Even when I break the rules I can convince myself that there was no way that I will ever get caught ............ 4 3 2 1 18. I find myself taking shortcuts, even if I know these shortcuts will create problems later ........ 4 3 2 1 19. When not in control of a situation I feel weak and helpless ...... 4 3 2 1 20. Despite my imperfections, deep down I am basically a good 4 3 2 1


15

Appendix B . Collinearity and VIF statistics

Model Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig. Collinearity Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF 1 (Constant) 2.349 .242 9.702 .000

Empathy -.406 .101 -.409 -4.004 .000 .997 1.003 ADHD .112 .046 .247 2.422 .018 .996 1.004 Age -.006 .003 -.242 -1.866 .066 .618 1.617 Occupation -.086 .035 -.316 -2.434 .018 .617 1.620

a. Dependent Variable: PICTSMEAN

Appendix C. Scatter plot of homoscedasticity


16

Appendix D. Regression of Standardized Residual met normal assumptions.


17

Appendix E. The predictors removed from the model using a backwards regression

Excluded Variablesa

Model Beta In t Sig. Partial Correlation

Collinearity Statistics

Tolerance VIF Minimum Tolerance

2 MaritalStatus -.019b -.084 .933 -.011 .201 4.984 .201

3 MaritalStatus .007c .032 .974 .004 .218 4.587 .218

Caution -.044c -.404 .688 -.051 .899 1.113 .332 4 MaritalStatus .009d .043 .966 .005 .218 4.586 .218

Caution -.032d -.303 .763 -.038 .917 1.091 .338

Conviction .078d .704 .484 .088 .853 1.172 .341

5 MaritalStatus .034e .159 .874 .020 .224 4.465 .224

Caution -.035e -.327 .745 -.041 .918 1.090 .339

Conviction .061e .563 .576 .070 .883 1.133 .341 Gender -.086e -.719 .475 -.089 .720 1.389 .351

6 MaritalStatus .051f .239 .812 .030 .227 4.410 .227

Caution -.033f -.316 .753 -.039 .918 1.089 .398

Conviction .064f .590 .557 .073 .884 1.131 .403

Gender -.073f -.614 .541 -.076 .734 1.363 .412

Diagnosis .080f .728 .469 .090 .837 1.195 .351 7 MaritalStatus .030g .141 .888 .017 .228 4.378 .228

Caution -.035g -.326 .745 -.040 .918 1.089 .408

Conviction .056g .521 .604 .064 .887 1.128 .414

Gender -.072g -.607 .546 -.074 .734 1.363 .422

Diagnosis .084g .759 .451 .093 .838 1.194 .359

Ethnicity -.121g -1.142 .258 -.139 .904 1.106 .414 8 MaritalStatus .034h .157 .876 .019 .228 4.377 .228

Caution -.041h -.379 .706 -.046 .919 1.088 .574

Conviction .062h .566 .573 .069 .888 1.126 .550

Gender -.057h -.477 .635 -.058 .739 1.354 .613

Diagnosis .120h 1.119 .267 .135 .899 1.113 .561

Ethnicity -.104h -.976 .332 -.118 .913 1.095 .610

Education .186h 1.507 .136 .181 .669 1.494 .424

a. Dependent Variable: PICTSMEAN b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Age, EMPMEAN, Conviction, ADHDMEANTOTAL, Caution, Diagnosis, Ethnicity, Education, Gender, Occupation c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Age, EMPMEAN, Conviction, ADHDMEANTOTAL, Diagnosis, Ethnicity, Education, Gender, Occupation d. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Age, EMPMEAN, ADHDMEANTOTAL, Diagnosis, Ethnicity, Education, Gender, Occupation e. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Age, EMPMEAN, ADHDMEANTOTAL, Diagnosis, Ethnicity, Education, Occupation f. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Age, EMPMEAN, ADHDMEANTOTAL, Ethnicity, Education, Occupation g. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Age, EMPMEAN, ADHDMEANTOTAL, Education, Occupation h. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Age, EMPMEAN, ADHDMEANTOTAL, Occupation


18

Appendix F. ANOVA result where empathy, ADHD, age, and occupation were tested against PICTS ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 2.082 4 .521 7.067 .000b Residual 5.009 68 .074 Total 7.091 72

a. Dependent Variable: PICTSMEAN b. Predictors: (Constant), Occupation, EMPMEAN, ADHDMEANTOTAL, Age

Documents

Psychological Lab Report Example