[{"content":"","date":"16 March 2025","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/tags/empathy/","section":"Tags","summary":"","title":"Empathy","type":"tags"},{"content":" Highlights # First study to examine empathy and physiological synchrony in psychopathy using real dyadic interactions Familiarity enhances cognitive empathy, but even strangers show significant empathic accuracy Psychopathic traits negatively linked to affective sharing and physiological synchrony — but not empathic accuracy Summary # Most empathy research — particularly in psychopathy — relies on questionnaires or artificial observational paradigms that strip away the very social dynamics empathy depends upon. To address this, we conducted a naturalistic dyadic interaction study with 41 dyads (N = 82) in New Zealand. Pairs engaged in six-minute conversations about major positive and negative life events, while heart rate and electrodermal activity were recorded simultaneously. Participants subsequently re-watched the conversations and continuously rated their own and their partner\u0026rsquo;s emotional intensity, allowing computation of empathic accuracy, affective sharing, and physiological synchrony.\nUsing mixed-effects regression models and a multiverse analytic approach, we found that familiarity predicted greater empathic accuracy, though strangers also showed significant accuracy. Affective sharing and EDA synchrony emerged regardless of familiarity or conversation valence, suggesting both reflect relatively automatic, context-independent processes. Critically, psychopathic traits — particularly self-centered impulsivity — were negatively associated with affective sharing, and coldheartedness showed a negative relationship with physiological synchrony. However, no psychopathy factor was associated with reduced empathic accuracy, potentially indicating that richer real-world context attenuates cognitive empathy deficits typically observed in observational studies.\nThese preliminary findings underscore the urgent need to move beyond observational paradigms and adopt second-person approaches that capture empathy as it genuinely unfolds between people!\nPublication: # Burghart, M., Goldsack, R., Echevarria, A., \u0026amp; Eisenbarth, H. (2026). Empathy, physiological synchrony, and psychopathy: preliminary insights from naturalistic dyadic interactions. Cognition and Emotion, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2026.2637546\n","date":"16 March 2025","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/blog/burghart_et_al_2026/","section":"Recent posts","summary":"Most empathy research — particularly in psychopathy — relies on questionnaires or artificial observational paradigms that strip away the very social dynamics empathy depends upon. To address this, we conducted a naturalistic dyadic interaction study with 41 dyads (N = 82) in New Zealand. Pairs engaged in six-minute conversations about major positive and negative life events, while heart rate and electrodermal activity were recorded simultaneously. Participants subsequently re-watched the conversations and continuously rated their own and their partner’s emotional intensity, allowing computation of empathic accuracy, affective sharing, and physiological synchrony.","title":"Empathy in psychopathy: What changes when we study real social interactions?","type":"blog"},{"content":"","date":"16 March 2025","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/","section":"mburghart.com","summary":"","title":"mburghart.com","type":"page"},{"content":"","date":"16 March 2025","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/tags/psychopathy/","section":"Tags","summary":"","title":"Psychopathy","type":"tags"},{"content":"","date":"16 March 2025","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/blog/","section":"Recent posts","summary":"","title":"Recent posts","type":"blog"},{"content":"","date":"16 March 2025","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/tags/","section":"Tags","summary":"","title":"Tags","type":"tags"},{"content":"","date":"12 March 2025","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/tags/risk-assessment/","section":"Tags","summary":"","title":"Risk Assessment","type":"tags"},{"content":" Highlights # Comprehensive meta-analysis of risk assessment tools used specifically at the policing stage, covering 29 studies and 256,125 participants Overall predictive performance is poor to moderate (pooled AUC = 0.67), with IPV tools performing worst (AUC = 0.64) Significant authorship bias detected: Studies led by tool developers reported notably higher performance than independent replications Summary # Risk assessment tools are increasingly used by police officers to inform high-stakes decisions, from detaining individuals to safeguarding potential victims, yet the evidence base supporting their use has never been comprehensively evaluated at the policing stage. We conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis of such tools, identifying 29 studies representing over 256,000 individuals across nine countries. Across 28 different tools and 134 effect sizes, we found an overall pooled AUC of 0.67, reflecting poor to moderate predictive performance.\nTools targeting intimate partner violence performed worst, with a pooled AUC of just 0.64. Actuarial tools outperformed structured professional judgement approaches, and health-related outcome tools showed the strongest performance, though based on limited evidence. Critically, we found significant authorship bias: independent validations yielded substantially lower AUCs than studies conducted by the original tool developers. Calibration data were almost entirely absent from the literature, undermining confidence in the reliability of risk estimates in practice.\nWhile some newer, large-scale tools demonstrate stronger performance and more transparent reporting, the evidence does not currently support the routine use of most existing tools at the policing stage. We therefore call for the development and independent validation of higher quality tools alongside robust implementation frameworks, to support more consistent and evidence-based decision-making in police settings.\nFigure. Caterpillar plot of main results showing discrimination performance of risk tools used at policing stage. Publication: # Ryland, H.*, Burghart, M.*, Zhong, S., Fazel, S., \u0026amp; Yu, R. (2025). Risk assessment tools used at the policing stage for health and crime outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Science \u0026amp; Medicine, 383, 118457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118457\n","date":"12 March 2025","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/blog/ryland_et_al_2025/","section":"Recent posts","summary":"Risk assessment tools are increasingly used by police officers to inform high-stakes decisions, from detaining individuals to safeguarding potential victims, yet the evidence base supporting their use has never been comprehensively evaluated at the policing stage. We conducted the first systematic review and meta-analysis of such tools, identifying 29 studies representing over 256,000 individuals across nine countries. Across 28 different tools and 134 effect sizes, we found an overall pooled AUC of 0.67, reflecting poor to moderate predictive performance. Tools targeting intimate partner violence performed worst, with a pooled AUC of just 0.64. Actuarial tools outperformed structured professional judgement approaches, and health-related outcome tools showed the strongest performance, though based on limited evidence. Critically, we found significant authorship bias: independent validations yielded substantially lower AUCs than studies conducted by the original tool developers. Calibration data were almost entirely absent from the literature, undermining confidence in the reliability of risk estimates in practice. While some newer, large-scale tools demonstrate stronger performance and more transparent reporting, the evidence does not currently support the routine use of most existing tools at the policing stage. We call for the development and independent validation of higher quality tools alongside robust implementation frameworks, to support more consistent and evidence-based decision-making in police settings.","title":"Risk assessment at the policing stage: How accurately can the police predict recidivism?","type":"blog"},{"content":" ","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/photo/","section":"mburghart.com","summary":"","title":"A few of my shots","type":"page"},{"content":"Hi there!\nI’m Matthias, a postdoctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law. I work in Isabel Thielmann’s independent research group, Personality, Identity, and Crime, where we study individual differences and their role in (im)moral behavior. If you would like to learn more about our work, feel free to visit our group’s homepage: PIC.\nBefore starting my postdoc position in 2024, I completed my PhD at the University of Konstanz under the supervision of Daniela Mier, focusing on psychopathy and social functioning. While psychopathy remains a core interest of my research, I have increasingly expanded my focus to personality more broadly. In addition, I’m interested in large language models and explore how they can be integrated into psychological research to better understand both personality and behavior.\nOn a more personal note, I’m a huge judo enthusiast (although I’m fascinated by grappling sports in general). I love coding and strongly believe in open source (Linux for the win!). Whenever I find the time, I also enjoy photography. If you’re interested, you can find a few of my shots under the Photography menu.\nWhy this homepage, you ask? Well, getting some visibility as a researcher never hurts. And for the four people who will actually read this, I host a Blog where I summarize my research whenever something new comes out. I also hate sharing my photos on Instagram, so I thought: why not combine the two?\nA cow and I in the Swiss Alps ","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/about/","section":"mburghart.com","summary":"","title":"About me","type":"page"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/authors/","section":"Authors","summary":"","title":"Authors","type":"authors"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/categories/","section":"Categories","summary":"","title":"Categories","type":"categories"},{"content":"* denotes authors contributed equally\nUnder review / in revision # Casali, N., Seidl, A., Burghart, M., \u0026amp; Thielmann, I. (under review). Holding up the mirror: Self-knowledge interventions can promote goals to change morality-related traits.\nBurghart, M.*, Dugré, J. R.*, Sahm, A. H. J., \u0026amp; Brazil, I. (under review). Are we talking about the same psychopathic traits? Mapping semantic similarity across psychopathy scales using large language models. [Preprint]\nRuggeri, K., Valenzuela-Catarí, G., Plemiti, E., \u0026hellip;, Burghart, M., \u0026hellip;, Macchia, L., Ashcroft-Jones, S., \u0026amp; Pelica, S. (under review). Global well-being in 2025: A multidimensional analysis of mental, financial, and social health in 92 countries. [Preprint]\nBurghart, M., Andreatta, M., Eisenbarth, H., \u0026amp; Mier, D. (under review). Behavioral and physiological insights into the interplay of affective perspective taking and psychopathic traits. [Preregistration]\nSicorello, M., Zaehringer, J., Paschke, L., \u0026hellip;, Burghart, M., \u0026hellip;, \u0026amp; Morawetz, C. (under review). The elusive neural signature of emotion regulation capabilities: Evidence from a large-scale consortium. [Preprint]\nSahm, A. H. J., Schmidt, S. N. L., Wolber, A., Burghart, M., \u0026amp; Mier, D. (under review). It is what it is: A comparative fMRI study on the regulation of negative emotions via distraction, reappraisal, and acceptance. [Preprint]\n2026 # Żemojtel-Piotrowska, M., Piotrowski, J., Nowak, B., \u0026hellip;, Burghart, M., \u0026hellip;, \u0026amp; Zand F. (2026). Beyond religious narcissistic identification: Agnostic and atheistic narcissism. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. [Link]\nBurghart, M., Goldsack, R., Echevarria, A., \u0026amp; Eisenbarth, H. (2026). Empathy, physiological synchrony, and psychopathy: Insights from naturalistic dyadic interactions. Cognition and Emotion, 1–10. [Link]\nThielmann, I., Back, M. D., Bleidorn, W., Bukowski, H., Carlson, E. N., Dufner, M., Hofer, G., Hofmann, W., Hopwood, C. J., Human, L. J., Jordan, C. H., Krueger, J. I., Langdon, J., Rau, R., Smillie, L. D., Strohminger, N., Sun, J., Vazire, S., Burghart, M., Casali, N., \u0026amp; Seidl, A. (in press). A consensus statement on self-knowledge conceptualization, measurement, outcomes, and changeability. Nature Reviews Psychology, 5, 338-351. [Link]\nAczel, B., Szaszi, B., Clelland, H., Kovacs, M. \u0026hellip;, Burghart, M., \u0026hellip;, \u0026amp; Nosek, B. (2026). Investigating the analytical robustness of the social and behavioural sciences. Nature, 652, 135-142. [Link]\n2025 # Thielmann, I., Burghart, M., \u0026amp; Casali, N. (in press). Ecological affordances as stages for trait expression. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.\nRyland, H.*, Burghart, M.*, Zhong, S., Fazel, S., \u0026amp; Yu, R. (2025). Risk assessment tools used at the policing stage for health and crime outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Science \u0026amp; Medicine, 383, 118457. [Link]\nBurghart, M., Seidl, A., Casali, N., Khalaf, T., \u0026amp; Thielmann, I. (2025). (Don’t) tell me more about myself: Willful ignorance of self-related feedback. Current Opinion in Psychology, 65, 102071. [Link]\nThielmann, I., \u0026amp; Burghart, M. (2025). Self-Knowledge: Limits, Implications, and Paths to Change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 65, 102056. [Link]\n2024 # Burghart, M., \u0026amp; Backhaus, S. (2024). The long-term consequences of family violence victimization: An umbrella review of longitudinal meta-analyses on child maltreatment and intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence. [Link]\nSahm, A. H. J., Burghart, M., Wolber, A., Lipinski, L., Stumpp, S., Büchele, N., Schmidt, N. L., Odenwald, M., Bulla, J., \u0026amp; Mier, D. (2024). Psychometric properties of a German version of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire-Short Form (ERQ-S): Evidence from Community and Clinical Samples. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. [Link]\nBurghart, M., Schmidt, S., \u0026amp; Mier, D. (2024). Executive dysfunctions in psychopathy: A meta-analysis of inhibition, planning, shifting, and working memory performance. Psychological Medicine, 54(11), 2823-2837. [Link]\nBurghart, M. (2024). Socio-emotional functioning in psychopathy: A multimethod approach [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Konstanz]. [Link]\nFazel, S., Hurton, C., Burghart, M., DeLisi, M., \u0026amp; Yu, R. (2024). An updated evidence synthesis on the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: Umbrella review and commentary. Journal of Criminal Justice, 92, 102197. [Link]\nFazel, S., Burghart, M., Wolf, A., Whiting, D., \u0026amp; Yu, R. (2024). Universal violence prevention interventions: Umbrella review of effectiveness meta-analyses. Trauma, Violence, \u0026amp; Abuse, 25(2), 1709-1718. [Link]\nBurghart, M., Sahm, A. H. J., Schmidt, S., Bulla, J., \u0026amp; Mier, D. (2024). Understanding empathy deficits and emotion dysregulation in psychopathy: The mediating role of alexithymia. PLoS ONE, 19(5), e0301085. [Link]\n2023 # Burghart, M.*, Sahm, A. H. J.*, \u0026amp; Mier, D. (2023). Investigating measurement invariance of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire-8 (ERQ-8) across 29 countries. Current Psychology, 42, 32054–32060. [Link]\nBurghart, M., de Ruiter, C., Hynes, S. E., Krishnan, N., Levtova, Y., \u0026amp; Uyar, A. (2023). The Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (SAPROF): A meta-analysis of its predictive and incremental validity. Psychological Assessment, 35(1), 56-67. [Link] | [Postprint]\n2022 # Burghart, M., Kamzelak, S., \u0026amp; Mier, D. (2022). Das Psychopathie Paradoxon – Alles eine Frage der Motivation? Forensische Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, 31(3), 309-320.\nde Ruiter, C., Burghart, M., De Silva, R., Garcia Griesbeck, S., Mian, U., Walshe, E., \u0026amp; Zouharova, V. (2022). A meta-analysis of childhood maltreatment in relation to psychopathic traits. PLoS ONE. 17(8), e0272704. [Link]\nRuggeri, K., Panin, A., \u0026hellip;, Burghart, M., \u0026hellip;, García-Garzon, E. (2022). The globalizability of temporal discounting. Nature Human Behaviour. [Link]\nvan Schie, K., Burghart, M., Kang, S., Mertens, G., \u0026amp; Smeets, T. (2022). Boosting long-term effects of degraded memories via acute stress. Comprehensive Psychoneuroendocrinology. 11, 100154. [Link]\nBurghart, M., \u0026amp; Mier, D. (2022). No feelings for me, no feelings for you: A meta-analysis on alexithymia and empathy in psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 194, 111658. [Link]\nFazel, S., Burghart, M., Fanshawe, T., Gil, S. D., Monahan, J., \u0026amp; Yu, R. (2022). The predictive performance of criminal risk assessment tools used at sentencing: Systematic review of validation studies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 81, 101902. [Link]\n2020 # Senior, M., Burghart, M., Yu, R., Kormilitzin, A., Liu, Q., Vaci, N., Nevado-Holgado, A., Pandit, S., Zlodre, J., \u0026amp; Fazel, S. (2020). Identifying predictors of suicide in severe mental illness: A feasibility study of a clinical prediction rule (Oxford Mental Illness and Suicide Tool or OxMIS). Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 268. [Link]\n2018 # Erceg, N., Burghart, M., Cottone, A., Lorimer, J., Manku, K., Pütz, H., Vlašiček, D., \u0026amp; Willems, M. (2018). The effect of moral congruence of calls to action and salient social norms on online charitable donations: A protocol study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1913. [Link]\n","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/publications/","section":"mburghart.com","summary":"","title":"My publications","type":"page"},{"content":"","externalUrl":null,"permalink":"/series/","section":"Series","summary":"","title":"Series","type":"series"}]