Lably
Skip to content

Psychopathy

Personality construct

  • 52 min read
  • 10 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Personality, Empathy and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Hervey M. Cleckley, an American psychiatrist, influenced the initial diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality reaction/disturbance in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), as did American psychologist George E. Partridge. The DSM and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) subsequently introduced the diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and dissocial personality disorder (DPD), respectively, stating that these diagnoses have been referred to (or include what is referred to) as psychopathy or sociopathy. The creation of ASPD and DPD was driven by the fact that many of the classic traits of psychopathy were impossible to measure objectively. Canadian psychologist Robert D. Hare later re-popularized the construct of psychopathy in criminology with his Psychopathy Checklist.

Although no psychiatric or psychological organization has sanctioned a diagnosis titled "psychopathy", assessments of psychopathic characteristics are widely used in criminal justice settings in some nations and may have important consequences for individuals. The study of psychopathy is an active field of research. The term is also used by the general public, popular press, and in fictional portrayals of psychopaths. While the abbreviated term "psycho" is often employed in common usage in general media along with "crazy", "insane", and "mentally ill", there is a categorical difference between psychosis and psychopathy.

Definition

Concepts

There are multiple conceptualizations of psychopathy, including Cleckleyan psychopathy (Hervey Cleckley's conception entailing bold, disinhibited behavior, and "feckless disregard") and criminal psychopathy (a meaner, more aggressive and disinhibited conception explicitly entailing persistent and sometimes serious criminal behavior). The latter conceptualization is typically used as the modern clinical concept and assessed by the Psychopathy Checklist. The label "psychopath" may have implications and stigma related to decisions about punishment severity for criminal acts, medical treatment, civil commitments, etc. Efforts have therefore been made to clarify the meaning of the term.

It has been suggested that those who share the same emotional deficiencies and psychopathic features, but are properly socialized, should not be designated as 'psychopaths'.

The triarchic model suggests that different conceptions of psychopathy emphasize three observable characteristics to various degrees. Analyses have been made with respect to the applicability of measurement tools such as the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL, PCL-R) and Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) to this model.

  • Boldness. Low fear including stress-tolerance, toleration of unfamiliarity and danger, and high self-confidence and social assertiveness. The PCL-R measures this relatively poorly and mainly through Facet 1 of Factor 1. Similar to PPI fearless dominance. May correspond to differences in the amygdala and other neurological systems associated with fear.
  • Disinhibition. Poor impulse control including problems with planning and foresight, lacking affect and urge control, demand for immediate gratification, and poor behavioral restraints. Similar to PCL-R Factor 2 and PPI impulsive antisociality. May correspond to impairments in frontal lobe systems that are involved in such control.
  • Meanness. Lacking empathy and close attachments with others, disdain of close attachments, use of cruelty to gain empowerment, exploitative tendencies, defiance of authority, and destructive excitement seeking. The PCL-R in general is related to this but in particular some elements in Factor 1. Similar to PPI, but also includes elements of subscales in impulsive antisociality.

Psychopathy has been conceptualized as a hybrid condition marked by a paradoxical combination of superficial charm, poise, emotional resilience, and venturesomeness on the outside but deep-seated affective disturbances and impulse control deficits on the inside. From this perspective, psychopathy is at least in part characterized by psychologically adaptive traits. Furthermore, according to this view, psychopathy may be linked to at least some interpersonally successful outcomes, such as effective leadership, business accomplishments, and heroism.

Measurement

An early and influential analysis from Harris and colleagues indicated that a discrete category, or taxon, may underlie PCL-R psychopathy, allowing it to be measured and analyzed. However, this was only found for the behavioral Factor 2 items they identified, child problem behaviors; adult criminal behavior did not support the existence of a taxon. Marcus, John, and Edens more recently performed a series of statistical analyses on PPI scores and concluded that psychopathy may best be conceptualized as having a "dimensional latent structure" like depression.

Marcus et al. repeated the study on a larger sample of prisoners, using the PCL-R and seeking to rule out other experimental or statistical issues that may have produced the previously different findings. They again found that the psychopathy measurements do not appear to be identifying a discrete type (a taxon). They suggest that while for legal or other practical purposes an arbitrary cut-off point on trait scores might be used, there is actually no clear scientific evidence for an objective point of difference by which to label some people "psychopaths"; in other words, a "psychopath" may be more accurately described as someone who is "relatively psychopathic".

The PCL-R was developed for research, not clinical forensic diagnosis, and even for research purposes to improve understanding of the underlying issues, it is necessary to examine dimensions of personality in general rather than only a constellation of traits. The PCL-R test has been used to determine "true" or primary psychopaths (individuals that score a 30 or higher on the PCL-R test). Primary psychopaths are distinguished from secondary psychopaths, and contrast with those who are legitimately considered antisocial.

Personality dimensions

Studies have linked psychopathy to alternative dimensions such as antagonism (high), conscientiousness (low), and anxiousness (low).

Psychopathy has also been linked to high psychoticism—a theorized dimension referring to tough, aggressive, or hostile tendencies. Aspects of this that appear associated with psychopathy are lack of socialization and responsibility, impulsivity, sensation-seeking (in some cases), and aggression.

Otto Kernberg, from a particular psychoanalytic perspective, believed psychopathy should be considered as part of a spectrum of pathological narcissism, that would range from narcissistic personality on the low end, malignant narcissism in the middle, and psychopathy at the high end.

Psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism, three personality traits that are together referred to as the dark triad, share certain characteristics, such as a callous-manipulative interpersonal style. The dark tetrad refers to these traits with the addition of sadism. Several psychologists have asserted that subclinical psychopathy and Machiavellianism are more or less interchangeable. There is a subscale on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) dubbed "Machiavellian Egocentricity". Delroy Paulhus has asserted that the difference that most miss is that while both are characterized by manipulativeness and unemotionality, psychopaths tend to be more reckless. One study asserted that "the ability to adapt, reappraise and reassess a situation may be key factors differentiating Machiavellianism from psychopathy, for example". Psychopathy and Machiavellianism were also correlated similarly in responses to affective stimuli, and both are negatively correlated with the recognition of facial emotions. Many have suggested merging the dark triad traits (especially Machiavellianism and psychopathy) into one construct, given empirical studies that show immense overlap.

Criticism of current conceptions

The current conceptions of psychopathy have been criticized for being poorly conceptualized, highly subjective, and encompassing a wide variety of underlying disorders. Dorothy Otnow Lewis has written:

The concept and subsequent reification of the diagnosis "psychopathy" has, to this author's mind, hampered the understanding of criminality and violence. [...] According to Hare, in many cases one need not even meet the patient. Just rummage through his records to determine what items seemed to fit. Nonsense. To this writer's mind, psychopathy and its synonyms (e.g., sociopathy and antisocial personality) are lazy diagnoses. Over the years the authors' team has seen scores of offenders who, prior to evaluation by the authors, were dismissed as psychopaths or the like. Detailed, comprehensive psychiatric, neurological, and neuropsychological evaluations have uncovered a multitude of signs, symptoms, and behaviors indicative of such disorders as bipolar mood disorder, schizophrenia spectrum disorders, complex partial seizures, dissociative identity disorder, parasomnia, and, of course, brain damage/dysfunction.

Half of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist consists of symptoms of mania, hypomania, and frontal-lobe dysfunction, which frequently results in underlying disorders being dismissed. Hare's conception of psychopathy has also been criticized for being reductionist, dismissive, tautological, and ignorant of context as well as the dynamic nature of human behavior. Some have called for rejection of the concept altogether, due to its vague, subjective and judgmental nature that makes it prone to misuse. A systematic review determined that the PCL is weakly predictive of criminal behavior, but not of lack of conscience, or treatment and rehabilitation outcomes. These findings contradict widespread beliefs among professionals in forensics.

Psychopathic individuals do not show regret or remorse. This was thought to be due to an inability to generate this emotion in response to negative outcomes. However, a study found that psychopathic people experience regret but did not use the regret to guide their choice in behavior.

In an experiment published in March 2007 at the University of Southern California neuroscientist Antonio R. Damasio and his colleagues showed that subjects with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex lack the ability to empathically feel their way to moral answers, and that when confronted with moral dilemmas, these brain-damaged patients coldly came up with "end-justifies-the-means" answers, leading Damasio to conclude that the point was not that they reached immoral conclusions, but that when they were confronted by a difficult issue – in this case as whether to shoot down a passenger plane hijacked by terrorists before it hits a major city – these patients appear to reach decisions without the anguish that afflicts those with typically functioning brains. According to Adrian Raine, a clinical neuroscientist also at the University of Southern California, one of this study's implications is that society may have to rethink how it judges immoral people: "Psychopaths often feel no empathy or remorse. Without that awareness, people relying exclusively on reasoning seem to find it harder to sort their way through moral thickets. Does that mean they should be held to different standards of accountability?"

Sign in to keep reading

9 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Health, medicine and disease