Understanding these five areas helps explain one of the most confusing aspects of certain destructive relationships: how can someone understand that they are hurting another person, recognise their distress, and still continue doing it?
The answer involves several different psychological processes. Emotional empathy, cognitive empathy, conscience, attachment and behavioural responsibility are not the same thing.
We need to examine each separately, because confusing them can lead us to misunderstand both the individual and the relationship.
A note before we begin: these characteristics can occur in ASPD, psychopathy-related traits and other personality patterns. They are not present in everyone with ASPD, and none can be diagnosed simply by observing an abusive relationship.
1. Cognitive empathy versus emotional empathy
This is perhaps the most important distinction.
Cognitive empathy: understanding what someone feels
Cognitive empathy is the ability to recognise and understand another person’s emotional state.
For example, someone may understand:
- Their partner is frightened.
- Their partner feels rejected.
- Their partner is becoming emotionally exhausted.
- Their partner is desperate for affection.
- Their partner is experiencing anxiety because of their behaviour.
They may be very good at reading facial expressions, body language and emotional vulnerabilities.
They can understand what another person is experiencing without necessarily sharing that emotion.
Emotional empathy: feeling with someone
Emotional empathy is the capacity to experience an emotional response to another person’s feelings.
For example:
- Seeing someone cry creates an emotional response.
- Knowing you have hurt someone causes genuine distress.
- Your partner’s fear makes you want to reassure them.
- Their suffering matters to you, even when you gain nothing from helping.
Some individuals with pronounced antisocial or psychopathic traits show reduced emotional empathy while retaining some cognitive empathy.
What does neuroscience tell us?
Empathy involves several interacting brain networks, rather than one single empathy centre.
Important areas include:
- Anterior insula: involved in experiencing and recognising emotional and bodily states.
- Anterior cingulate cortex: involved in emotional processing and responses to distress.
- Amygdala: involved in processing emotionally significant information, including threat and fear.
- Prefrontal cortex: involved in interpreting situations, regulating behaviour and making decisions.
Research suggests that some people with psychopathic traits may show differences in how these systems respond to other people’s distress. However, findings vary, and psychopathy research cannot simply be applied to every person diagnosed with ASPD.
The relationship implication: Someone may recognise that their partner is suffering but not experience the same emotional motivation to comfort, protect or reassure them.
That difference can be devastating in an intimate relationship.
2. Remorse versus regret at being caught
These two experiences are often confused.
They may look similar on the surface, but psychologically they are very different.
Genuine remorse
Remorse involves recognising that you have caused harm and feeling concern about the consequences for the other person.
It may include:
- Feeling distressed about the pain you caused.
- Accepting responsibility without blaming the victim.
- Understanding the impact of your behaviour.
- Wanting to make amends.
- Changing your behaviour over time.
Genuine remorse is not simply saying sorry.
It is demonstrated through accountability and sustained behavioural change.
Regret at being caught
Someone can regret an action because of what it has cost them personally.
For example:
- They have lost their relationship.
- Their reputation has been damaged.
- They are facing legal consequences.
- They have lost financial security.
- They no longer have access to the person they previously controlled.
This is regret about personal consequences, not necessarily remorse for another person’s suffering.
Consider two statements:
Statement A:
“I understand that I frightened you. I was wrong. You did not deserve that, and I accept that I must change.”
Statement B:
“I cannot believe you have done this to me. Look at what you have put me through.”
The second statement redirects attention towards the individual’s own perceived injury.
However, words alone cannot establish whether remorse is genuine. Behaviour over time is much more informative.
Can someone with ASPD experience remorse?
Yes, some can. Others may experience reduced guilt or remorse, particularly in relation to harm they have caused.
ASPD is not synonymous with an absolute absence of conscience.
3. Attachment versus love
This is a particularly important area when trying to understand long-term relationships.
Attachment and love are not interchangeable.
Attachment describes an emotional bond or connection. Love, in a healthy relationship, also involves concern for another person’s welfare, respect, responsibility and reciprocity.
What is attachment?
Attachment can involve:
- Wanting someone close.
- Feeling familiar and comfortable with them.
- Missing their presence.
- Depending on them emotionally or practically.
- Feeling unsettled when they leave.
- Wanting to maintain access to them.
A person can become attached to someone without necessarily being able to offer that person a healthy relationship.
What might attachment look like in someone with antisocial traits?
Depending on the individual, the relationship may be experienced through:
- Possession rather than partnership.
- Dependence rather than mutual support.
- Convenience rather than emotional reciprocity.
- Access rather than intimacy.
- Personal gratification rather than shared happiness.
This is not a universal description of ASPD. Some individuals form meaningful attachments, and attachment research does not support the idea that everyone with antisocial traits is incapable of loving relationships.
The difference between missing someone and loving someone
This is worth considering carefully.
Someone might miss:
- The attention they received.
- The practical support.
- The financial security.
- The companionship.
- The familiarity of having someone available.
- The control or influence they previously exercised.
But missing those things does not necessarily mean they miss the person as an independent human being with feelings and needs.
You can miss what someone provided without genuinely understanding or valuing who they are.
That is an important distinction in relationships where one partner has consistently given more than the other.
4. Control versus genuine intimacy
Genuine intimacy requires something that control cannot comfortably accommodate: two independent people who are equally entitled to make decisions.
What genuine intimacy requires
A healthy intimate relationship involves:
- Emotional safety.
- Trust.
- Honesty.
- Respect for boundaries.
- Mutual vulnerability.
- Freedom to disagree.
- Respect for independence.
- Accountability when mistakes happen.
You can be close to someone without controlling them.
In fact, the ability to allow another person freedom is an important expression of healthy attachment.
What happens when control replaces intimacy?
In some abusive relationships, the relationship becomes organised around one person’s needs, preferences and authority.
Possible behaviours include:
| Genuine intimacy | Controlling behaviour |
|---|---|
| Mutual decision-making | One person dictates decisions |
| Respect for boundaries | Boundaries are challenged or ignored |
| Emotional reassurance | Affection is withheld as punishment |
| Honest communication | Deception and manipulation |
| Independence is encouraged | Independence is perceived as a threat |
| Disagreement is tolerated | Disagreement triggers hostility |
| Separation is respected | Separation is resisted or punished |
These behaviours can occur with or without ASPD.
Why can independence become threatening?
For someone whose relationships are organised around dominance, another person’s independence can represent a loss of influence.
When a partner starts:
- Making their own decisions.
- Establishing financial independence.
- Reconnecting with family and friends.
- Refusing to accept mistreatment.
- Setting boundaries.
- Considering separation.
The relationship dynamic changes.
The person who previously had influence may experience this as rejection, humiliation, anger or loss of control.
In some cases, this can lead to attempts to re-establish dominance through intimidation, financial pressure, harassment or manipulation.
However, we should distinguish an explanation of behaviour from a diagnosis. These reactions are not specific to ASPD.
A person who cannot tolerate your independence is not demonstrating love through their desire to keep you.
5. Understanding pain without feeling responsible for it
This is perhaps the most disturbing psychological question of all.
Can someone know that they are hurting another person and still continue?
Yes.
There are several psychological processes that can contribute to this.
A. Emotional detachment
A person may recognise distress intellectually without experiencing a strong emotional response to it.
They might see someone crying and understand that the person is suffering, but not experience the same emotional concern that would motivate another person to stop.
B. Rationalisation
This involves creating explanations that make harmful behaviour seem acceptable.
For example:
- “They deserved it.”
- “They made me do it.”
- “I wouldn’t behave this way if they didn’t provoke me.”
- “They are too sensitive.”
- “I have done nothing wrong.”
Rationalisation can protect someone’s self-image and reduce the psychological discomfort associated with responsibility.
C. Externalisation of blame
Instead of taking responsibility, the individual places responsibility elsewhere.
Their partner becomes the explanation for their behaviour.
This can create an exhausting cycle in which the injured person ends up defending themselves rather than receiving an acknowledgement of the harm.
D. Moral disengagement
Psychologist Albert Bandura described how people can psychologically disengage from their usual moral standards.
Processes include:
- Justifying harmful behaviour.
- Minimising the consequences.
- Dehumanising the person being harmed.
- Blaming the victim.
- Comparing their behaviour with something worse.
This is not exclusive to ASPD. It is a wider psychological process that can occur in many contexts.
E. Lack of accountability
Perhaps the most important issue is whether the individual accepts that their actions are their responsibility.
Someone can have difficulties with empathy, emotional regulation or impulse control and still be expected to take responsibility for their behaviour.
A diagnosis does not give someone permission to harm another person.
6. The neuroscience of conscience and moral responsibility
There is another layer to this: how the brain processes moral decisions.
Several brain systems contribute to conscience, emotional learning and decision-making.
| Brain area | Broad function |
|---|---|
| Amygdala | Emotional significance, fear and learning from distress. |
| Ventromedial prefrontal cortex | Integrating emotional information into decisions and evaluating consequences. |
| Orbitofrontal cortex | Evaluating rewards, consequences and changing behaviour when circumstances change. |
| Anterior cingulate cortex | Monitoring conflict, errors and emotional responses. |
| Insula | Processing bodily sensations and aspects of emotional awareness. |
Research into psychopathic traits and ASPD has identified differences in some of these systems, particularly in the processing of distress and emotional information.
But there is no single brain scan that identifies a person as having ASPD or proves that they cannot experience conscience. Brain research describes group-level patterns, not a definitive assessment of an individual. PMC+2
Can conscience be developed?
Some aspects of emotional understanding, behavioural regulation and interpersonal responsibility can improve through psychological treatment.
NICE guidance recognises that people with ASPD can benefit from structured approaches that address harmful behaviour, emotional difficulties and offending. NICE+1
It is important to distinguish learning to behave differently from developing the same emotional experience as someone else.
A person may learn to regulate their behaviour without necessarily developing strong emotional empathy.
7. Why can someone behave differently behind closed doors?
One aspect of destructive relationships that deserves particular attention is the difference between public presentation and private behaviour.
Some individuals can appear:
- Charming and sociable.
- Generous and helpful.
- Intelligent and articulate.
- Calm and reasonable in public.
- Concerned about their reputation.
Yet their behaviour within an intimate relationship may be very different.
Why?
Because social behaviour can be influenced by circumstances, incentives and the consequences of actions.
Someone may understand social expectations perfectly well and behave accordingly when there are social consequences for behaving badly.
This does not necessarily mean they are pretending every positive emotion. Nor does it establish ASPD.
But it does demonstrate why public charm should never be treated as evidence of private emotional responsibility.
The character of a relationship is revealed by how someone treats their partner when there is no audience, no reward and no immediate consequence.
8. Five questions that help distinguish healthy love from harmful relationship patterns
These are not diagnostic questions. They are a way of examining relationship behaviour.
| Question | What it helps you understand |
|---|---|
| Do they care when I am distressed? | Emotional empathy |
| Do they accept responsibility when they hurt me? | Remorse and accountability |
| Do they respect my independence? | Attachment versus possession |
| Can I disagree without fear? | Emotional safety |
| Does their behaviour change after an apology? | Genuine behavioural responsibility |
The last question is particularly important.
A repeated apology followed by repeated harmful behaviour is not evidence of meaningful change.
9. The psychological distinction I would most like you to take away
There are three different things that people sometimes mistakenly assume are the same:
Understanding
I know you are hurting.
This demonstrates awareness of another person’s distress.
Emotional response
I feel concerned that you are hurting.
This involves an emotional response to another person’s suffering.
Responsibility
I recognise that I caused this pain, I accept responsibility, and I will change my behaviour.
This involves accountability and action.
A person may possess one capacity without consistently demonstrating the others.
And importantly, even where emotional empathy is impaired, behavioural responsibility remains relevant.
10. A final thought: the psychological cost to the other partner
There is another side of this subject that is often overlooked.
When someone spends years trying to obtain affection, understanding, reassurance or accountability from a partner who repeatedly fails to provide it, they can gradually lose confidence in their own emotional perceptions.
They may start asking:
- Why don’t they understand how much this hurts?
- Why do I have to explain basic kindness?
- Why does every disagreement become my fault?
- Why do they seem to understand my feelings but never respond to them?
- Why do their words and actions contradict each other?
- What am I doing wrong?
This can create chronic emotional uncertainty, hypervigilance and self-doubt.
The partner may become increasingly preoccupied with understanding the other person’s psychology, hoping that the right explanation will finally produce a different relationship.
But understanding someone’s psychology does not mean you can change their behaviour.
And you do not need to establish a psychiatric diagnosis to recognise abuse.
You can understand why someone behaves as they do without accepting what they do.
