simply human

From Paul Watzlawik’s “instructions on how to be unhappy” (1983) in the chapter on the communicative strategy of mind-reading/ clairvoyance in connection with nebulous accusations:
In dealing with the so-called mentally ill, this method has been used with great success for a long time. In the rare cases in which the person in question dares to demand clear information about what others think their madness consists of, this question can be used as further proof of their mental disorder: “If you weren’t mad, you would know what we mean.” The layman is amazed and the expert is astonished – because there is genius behind an answer of this kind: the attempt to create clarity is quickly reinterpreted as the opposite. The other person is therefore considered crazy as long as they tacitly accept the relationship definition “We are normal, you are crazy”, and crazy if they question it.

Now imagine that this type of communication is used deliberately and in the context of “feigned concern”: “You poor crazy person, I mean well for you.” And perhaps paired with guilt trips: “You’re so ungrateful.”, when the person tries to set boundaries. What „feigned concern“ means is described below in the context of the personality trait psychopathy.

Historically, psychopathy research has predominantly focused on male populations, leading to a limited understanding of how psychopathic traits manifest in females (and other genders). Emerging studies within the last two decades indicate that while various genders can exhibit overlapping psychopathic traits, the expression of certain dimensions differs significantly between male and female (e.g. Cale & Lilienfeld, 2002; Colins et al., 2016). A particularly intriguing aspect is the concept of „feigned concern“ in the context of the antisocial dimension (for an overview on psychopathic traits see Neumann et al., 2012), wherein individuals display superficial concern to manipulate others for personal gain. This paper explores gender-specific manifestations of psychopathy in females, in particular the role of „feigned concern“ hypothesized to be associated psychological defense mechanisms and specific psychological functions in understanding these dynamics.

Gender Differences in Psychopathic Behavior

Research indicates that males generally score higher on psychopathy assessments than females (de Vogel et al., 2016; Spormann et al., 2023). However, traditional measurement tools may not fully capture the nuanced ways psychopathy manifests in females. Females with psychopathic traits often engage in manipulative and relational aggression, whereas males are more prone to overt physical aggression (Babiac & Hare, 2019). These differences suggest that psychopathy in females may be underrecognized due to gender biases in diagnostic criteria and societal expectations and evaluations. However highly strategic „feigned concern“ as a mechanism to control the surrounding may lead to considerable harm while hard to recognize. The behavior can certainly be conceptualized in other contexts than psychopathic tendencies, however I chose to do so in order to incorporate dark triad dynamics and the underlying lack of genuine/ authentic empathy associated with (high) psychopathy in particular.

The Concept of „Feigned Concern“

„Feigned concern“ (the term was chosen for this blog; for etymology see also Benn, 1999) refers to the deliberate display of concern to achieve personal objectives. In the context of female psychopathy, this behavior serves as a strategic tool to exploit social relationships and maintain a facade of normalcy (Patrick, 2018). The displayed „concern“ is not based on empathic concern arising from affective and cognitive empathy or even a sense of obligation; it is displayed within a social system for personal gain while sometimes even acting in a way that should intensify the concern if it was genuine. Sometimes the worries are vehemently continued for personal gain despite requests to refrain from the “cared for” person. This is where the crossing of boundaries in behaviour becomes clearer (see also “infantilization”). While the term itself is new, the underlying behaviors have been documented in studies highlighting manipulative and deceitful actions among females with psychopathic tendencies. It is worth taking a closer look, as the potential costs of this manipulative behavior, which is socially desirable at first, can have consequences that can be harmful to the “cared for“ person or entire systems. Furthermore, this type of manipulation can have political implications.

Distinguishing Genuine from Feigned Concern

As always, it is important to characterize the concept on the basis of certain objective criteria. Especially in this case, as the concept can be misused to defame, for example.

Genuine concern/ caring behavior can be, amongst others, characterized by the following criteria:

1. Cognitive Empathy: Understanding the other person’s perspective. This usually requires considerable effort and, above all, (open) questions in order to separate the personal perspective from that of the other person.

2. Affective Empathy: Sharing and resonating with another’s emotions (see also deficity in affective empathy in particular in psychopathy and its neural underpinnings, e.g. mirror neurons; Penagos-Corzo et al., 2022).

3. Altruistic Behavior: Acting to benefit others without personal gain, this includes people from several levels of a hierarchy (for example within an organizational context) and bilateral conversations/ interactions as well as group conversations/ interactions.

4. Authenticity: Being sincere and transparent in interactions, including setting boundaries if one does not feel confident to address an issue, help coping with an obstacle or does currently not have the resources (e.g. time) to deal with it (see also „Inter-dependency“ in contrast to „Co-dependency“; this also serves as a measure of eye-level interaction as there is trust in the other adult person, oneself and the potential relationship).

5. Selflessness: Prioritizing others‘ needs over one’s own, including reflecting on and delimiting one’s own ideas, giving space to develop solutions instead of giving advice and a degree of confidentiality appropriate to the situation as well as respect for the person not wanting to speak about a certain (part) of a topic or declining the offer for help.

Feigned concern (pleae note that I don´t use the term „caring behavior“ as this is usually not part of the „concern“), in contrast, includes:

1. Manipulative Empathy: Using understanding of others‘ emotions to influence them for personal benefit, for example asking strategic questions with a hidden intention not being made clear to the person „listened“ to.

2. Suppressed Anger: Concealing resentment, which may manifest as passive-aggressive behavior (see also narcissistic behavior and projection)

3. Projected Envy: Displaying insincere support while undermining others due to jealousy, this includes sabotaging behavior, ignoring behavior in contexts that could actually be useful to the person (for their problem) without knowing the person while reinforcing them in direct contact, or (subtle) defamation (mental illness, emotional instability).

4. Superficial Charm: Exhibiting friendliness without genuine feeling to gain trust, e.g. by repeatedly painting an ideal picture of oneself, emphasizing one’s own innocence and ignorance and stressing the great concern (without actual content – even if there is content, see confidentiality).

5. Self-Serving Motives: Engaging in helpful acts primarily to advance one’s own interests, e.g. in getting a promotion in organizational contexts without taking the actual time to build a healthy and trustful bond (see also fast moving relationships in narcissistic behaviors). Please Note that self serving Motives are always part of our behavior as humans (evolutionary as well) but the relation and stability differentiates between authentic and feigned concern besides the degree of reflection.

Egoism and altruism connected are authentic, but the degree to which they are socially accepted still show sex based social evaluations and therefore differences in the phenotypic expression of these traits (that are in fact gradual/ dimensional not binary; see also Hare & Neumann, 2007). While indivoduals with highly psychopathic traits might more likely relentlessly be proud about their hardness and openly show no care at all to successfully persue their goals (therefore won’t feel the strategic need to fake concern), females are socialized differently and overly perform in their socially adaptive role to reach their goals relentlessly also based on certrain (internalized) role expectations (see also machiavellism). 

Examples of Feigned Concern in Context:

1. Manipulative Empathy: A colleague pretends to be interested in the personal concerns of a team member in order to obtain sensitive information which he later uses to outmaneuver the team member professionally, to deliberately patronize him or her or to put him or her in a bad light in front of a superior, colleague or customer by defaming him or her (see also “bullying”; showing also the potential systemical costs).

2. Suppressed Anger: An individual responds to constructive criticism with apparent composure but later engages in subtle sabotage of the critic’s projects (indirect interaction) or undermining the colleagues achievements continously by ignoring or ridiculing (direct interaction).

3. Projected Envy: A friend or colleague outwardly celebrates another’s achievements while discreetly spreading rumors to tarnish their reputation or minimizing ongoing contributions in shared projects.

4. Superficial Charm: A manager displays affability towards subordinates to foster loyalty, yet manipulates them to achieve personal career goals to an extent exploiting them or harming their own work-related goals (again the potential goals for entire systems or organizations becomes clear).

5. Self-Serving Motives: A person uses little information they have about another (as they have no information based on genuine interest) but to enhance their social standing and network for personal gain. Sometimes bilateral interactions are even (consciously) being presented in a distorted way to serve the personal impression while harming the reputation of the other (see also „gaslighting“).

Functions of Feigned Concern in higly psychopathic females: Evolutionary and psychological perspectives

Psychopathy, including its gender-specific manifestations, can be understood as an adaptive strategy that enhances individual survival and reproductive success in certain environments. Feigned concern serves multiple evolutionary and psychological functions that help higly psychopathic (female) individuals navigate social hierarchies, regulate emotions, and secure personal advantages.

1. Social Manipulation & Exploitation

Evolutionary Function: In ancestral environments, social intelligence was key to securing resources, protection, and reproductive success. Individuals who could manipulate others without direct aggression were more likely to thrive, especially in cooperative but competitive social groups. Females, historically constrained in direct competition by physical disadvantage, may have evolved covert social manipulation strategies (e.g., relational aggression, deception) to compete for status and resources.

Psychological Function: Highly psychopathic individuals lack emotional depth (affective empathy) but possess cognitive empathy, allowing them to read social cues and exploit them without genuine concern for others. Feigning concern provides a way to extract emotional, financial, or social resources while maintaining a socially acceptable facade.

Example: A woman pretends to support a coworker emotionally, only to later use personal details (true or invented) against them to gain professional leverage.

2. Status Maintenance & Social Climbing

Evolutionary Function: Social hierarchies determine access to power and resources; feigned concern allows highly psychopathic individuals to ingratiate themselves with high-status individuals while subtly undermining competition. This aligns with indirect aggression strategies seen in primate societies, where females often use social bonds to form alliances and weaken rivals (Archer & Coyne, 2005).

Psychological Function: Psychopathic individuals crave dominance and admiration (especially when high in Machiavellism), yet they avoid overt aggression when it risks social retaliation. Feigned concern allows them to appear cooperative while covertly dismantling competitors and advancing their own interests.

Example: A psychopathic woman befriends a powerful mentor, mirroring their values, while subtly sabotaging peers competing for the same position.

3. Conflict Avoidance & Power Retention

Evolutionary Function: In highly interdependent social groups, direct confrontation can lead to social exclusion, which historically meant loss of protection and resources. Females, especially, have been evolutionarily incentivized to use non-confrontational strategies like gossip, passive aggression, and emotional deception to maintain influence.

Psychological Function: Many highly psychopathic individuals lack a fear response (reduced amygdala activation) and do not react to social threats with genuine concern. Instead, they engage in superficial appeasement while manipulating situations in their favor. Feigned concern allows them to diffuse immediate conflicts while setting up advantages.

Example: A highly psychopathic woman apologizes profusely after being caught in deception, only to retaliate later when the target least expects it.

4. Emotional Regulation & Self-Justification

Evolutionary Function: Psychopathy may be an adaptation that minimizes guilt and stress, allowing for risk-taking behavior that increases reproductive and social success. Those who can exploit others without emotional distress can accumulate more resources and power.

Psychological Function: Highly psychopathic individuals use defense mechanisms like rationalization, projection, and dissociation to a great extent in various contexts to justify exploitative behaviors. Feigned concern helps maintain a socially acceptable self-image, reducing cognitive dissonance when engaging in harmful actions.

Example: A female managers exploits their employees (or single employees) while publicizes personal selflessness to others (the public, their superior, other employees).

5. Threat Management & Psychological Defense in Oppressive Environments

Evolutionary Function: In rigid, patriarchal or authoritarian societies, females with highly psychopathic traits may need to perform traditional gender roles to avoid punishment while still pursuing self-serving goals. This aligns with adaptive mimicry, where individuals blend into the dominant social framework while covertly subverting it.

Psychological Function: The Threat-and-Defense Model (Jonas et al., 2014) suggests that when faced with existential or social threats, individuals engage in defensive behaviors to maintain control. Feigned concern functions as a defense mechanism, helping highly psychopathic females deal with threats by engaging in self-serving „care“ for others (palliative to direct social distal reaction).

Considering the various expressions and consequences of „feigned concern“ as one type of emotional manipulation of even violence, I deplore the removal of the „emotional abuse“ in the ICD11. However, it´s consequences are still coded in stress related disorders (e.g. complex stress disorder), but the psychopathology of the behavior itself is being made less clear to the public and practitioners likewise.

Psychological Defense Mechanisms and Societal Role Expectations in Context

Females with psychopathic traits may employ defense mechanisms such as projection and denial to mask their true intentions. Societal expectations often cast females as nurturing and empathetic, providing a convenient cover for manipulative behaviors besides its various feministic concerns such as the economic situation of female compared to male. In sociopolitical environments that enforce rigid gender roles, such as those observed in authoritarian regimes, these expectations intensify. Females may conform outwardly to prescribed roles while covertly pursuing self-serving agendas, complicating the detection of psychopathic behaviors while contributing to further consolidate these roles and possibly phenotypic expressions of (female) psychopathy and „feigned concern“ (see also tradwifes nowadays serving as opinion maker in younger generations contributing to policies consolidating these roles, e.g. even the increase in state benefits, which do not bring any actual improvement, above a certain number of children in the Trump 2 government, as was also introduced under German Nazism).

Conclusion

Understanding the gender-specific expressions of psychopathy, particularly the concept of feigned concern, is crucial for accurate diagnosis and intervention. Recognizing how societal norms and psychological defense mechanisms influence these behaviors can inform more effective therapeutic approaches and policy development. The understanding of these behaviors also helps people who are affected by this often subliminal and difficult to grasp form of emotional manipulation (depending on the intensity of the abuse) to organize their experiences (emotionally). Further research integrating neuroscientific findings with psychological and sociocultural analyses will possibly enhance our comprehension of these complex dynamics.

References

Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An Integrated Review of Indirect, Relational, and Social Aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 212-230. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_2

Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. HarperCollins.

Benn, Piers. „Freedom, Resentment, and the Psychopath.“ Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology, vol. 6 no. 1, 1999, p. 29-39. Project MUSE, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/28281.

Cale, E. M. & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2002). Sex differences in psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 22(8), 1179–1207. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-7358(01)00125-8

Colins, O. F., Fanti, K. A., Salekin, R. T. & Andershed, H. (2016). Psychopathic Personality in the General Population: Differences and Similarities Across Gender. Journal Of Personality Disorders, 31(1), 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2016_30_237

De Vogel, V. (2016). Gender issues in the assessment and manifestation of psychopathy. AETAP. Retrieved from 

Hare, R. D. & Neumann, C. S. (2007). Psychopathy as a Clinical and Empirical Construct. Annual Review Of Clinical Psychology, 4(1), 217–246. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452

Jonas, Eva & Mcgregor, Ian & Klackl, Johannes & Agroskin, Dmitrij & Fritsche, Immo & Holbrook, Colin & Nash, Kyle & Proulx, Travis. (2014). Threat and defense: From anxiety to approach.

Neumann, C. S., Schmitt, D. S., Carter, R., Embley, I. & Hare, R. D. (2012). Psychopathic Traits in Females and Males across the Globe. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 30(5), 557–574. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2038

Patrick, C. J. (2018). Psychopathy as masked pathology. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. 3–21). The Guilford Press.

Penagos-Corzo, J. C., Cosio van-Hasselt, M., Escobar, D., Vázquez-Roque, R. A., & Flores, G. (2022). Mirror neurons and empathy-related regions in psychopathy: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and a working model. Social Neuroscience, 17(5), 462–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2022.2128868

Spormann, S.S., Mokros, A. & Schneider, S. Structural differences in psychopathy between women and men: a latent modeling perspective. Forens Psychiatr Psychol Kriminol 17, 174–188 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11757-023-00765-9