PSYCHOPATHY OR PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITIES A … · 2016-03-13 · psychopathy would articulately...

www.psicologia.pt

ISSN 1646-6977 Documento produzido em 13.03.2016

Cláudio Vieira 1 Siga-nos em facebook.com/psicologia.pt

PSYCHOPATHY OR PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITIES –

A DIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO THE MASK OF EVIL

2016

Cláudio Vieira

Mestrado Integrado em Psicologia (Universidade de Coimbra)

Mestrando em Psiquiatria Forense (King’s College of London)

Coordenador e Supervisor de Terapias Psicológicas

Serviços Forenses para Perturbações da Personalidade

Sistema Nacional de Saúde Britânico & Ministério da Justiça

E-mail de contato:

[email protected]

RESUMO

Psychopathy covers a wide range of emotional, interpersonal, and behavioural features,

including empathy deficits, callousness, impulsivity, and an overall indifference for the societal

norms and the rights of others . It shows a robust association with aggressive behaviour, and its

diagnosis is often used as a strong risk factor in predicting general and violent reoffending , even

when other factors such as delinquent peers, intelligence, self-control and family background are

controlled.

Psychopathy is commonly classified as a distinct disorder measured by an overall PCL-R

score; yet there is still a debate on whether it is a result of partially independent causal processes

or rather it constitutes a coherent syndrome. The aim of this article is thus to set a discussion on

this question, providing up-to-date evidences alongside significant pieces of research.

Palavras-chave: antisocial behaviour, psychopathy, violence, aggression.

https://www.facebook.com/psicologia.pt

mailto:[email protected]

www.psicologia.pt



INTRODUCTION

Antisocial personality traits, including callousness, impulsivity and manipulativeness, have

probably been present since the ascent of man [1,2]. It is estimated that 0.6–1.2% of the community

and 15–30% of the prison population in the Western world can be diagnosed as psychopath. Further

research also indicates that although psychopaths are represented by 1% in general population,

they were likely responsible for 50% of all violent offending [3,4].

Psychopathy covers a wide range of emotional, interpersonal, and behavioural features,

including empathy deficits, callousness, impulsivity, and an overall indifference for the societal

norms and the rights of others [5,6,7,15]. It shows a robust association with aggressive behaviour,

and its diagnosis is often used as a strong risk factor in predicting general and violent reoffending

[7], even when other factors such as delinquent peers, intelligence, self-control and family

background are controlled [8].

Psychopathy is commonly classified as a distinct disorder measured by an overall PCL-R

score; yet there is still a debate on whether it is a result of partially independent causal processes

or rather it constitutes a coherent syndrome. The aim of this essay is thus to set a discussion on this

question, providing up-to-date evidences alongside significant pieces of research.

PSYCHOPATHY – AN OVERVIEW

Up to the 19th century, psychopathy was perceived as a “demoniac personality” or rather an

“evil” spiritual state as opposed to a mental disorder [8,9].

Philippe Pinel, a French psychiatrist, was the first clinician to suggest that a specific group

of patients exhibited “manie sans délire” (insanity without delirium); that this, individuals with no

intellectual difficulties but with a profound deficit in behaviour typified by marked impulsivity and

aggressive acts, substance misuse, and immorality that would occur in the absence of confusion in

mind and intellect, in contrast with psychotic illness [4,8].

The current term “psychopathy” was not introduced until the end of the 19th century by the

German psychiatrist Julius Ludwig August Koch [4].

The following core publication came in 1941 from Hervey Cleckley, an American

neuropsychiatrist, with his work The Mask of Sanity in which he aimed to clarify the construct [1].

Cleckley, however, left the debate on whether psychopathy was characterized by a coalescence of

manifestations of dimensional attributes or categorized as a coherent syndrome. In his paper,


www.psicologia.pt



Cleckley was on the view that psychopaths display a markedly positive impression of robust mental

health upon first sight; however also exhibit deficits in understanding and registering punishment,

which makes them incapable to adjust their maladaptive ways. To explain the dissonance between

the extreme lack of insight into their own emotional difficulties and their intellectual understanding

that their behaviour causes harm to others, Cleckley introduced the term ‘semantic aphasia’ [1,4]

to describe a loss of recognition of the meaning of words and phrases. Thus, individuals with

psychopathy would articulately talk about of regret, guilt, and remorse, but they would not be in

touch with their emotional deeper meaning.

Coincident with the publication of DSM-III in

1980 which first included the Antisocial Personality

Disorder as a new diagnostic category, the Canadian

psychologist Robert D. Hare, based on Hervey

Cleckley’s previous work, developed the 20-items

diagnostic tool to rate a person’s psychopathic traits –

The Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) [5,6,7,15], in which

a cut-off of 25 or greater is used to diagnosis

psychopathy in United Kingdom, whereas in United

States of America the threshold is 30 [15].

Early factor analysis of the PCL-R determined it

contained two main factors. Factor 1 includes traits related to interpersonal and affective deficits

of psychopathy whereas Factor 2 emphasizes symptoms emerged in antisocial behaviour (table 1).

Factor 1 has been distinctively associated to emotional deficits, instrumental and goal-

orientated aggression and has also been related with both adaptive and maladaptive behavioural

patterns such as emotional resilience to stress and threat, deliberate risk-taking, professional

success, and social dominance. This factor comprises a wide range of traits which are absent from

Cleckley's list (e.g. grandiose sense of self-worth), addressing a more callous and deceitful

personality [4,5,7,15].

On the other hand, Factor 2 comprises poor behavioural control, reactive/impulsive

aggression, antisocial personality disorder, and has been mainly attached to maladaptive

behavioural patterns (e.g., criminal aggression, poor academic achievement, impulsive risk-taking,

psychiatric care, suicide attempts, and financial problems) [10-13,15-19].

These psychopathic traits have been shown to be normally distributed both in the general

population and in offenders, and recidivism has been considerably related with higher scores on

the PCL-R [20]. Further, PCL-R scores indicate a close relation with higher rates of aggressive

behaviour even for individuals without psychopathy [21].


www.psicologia.pt



Another important piece of research [6] has shown that individuals with psychopathic traits

share a wide range of cognitive and affective deficiencies linked to specific parts of the brain. Their

impairment in instrumental learning, response reversal and difficulties in executive functioning is

associated with deficits in their orbitofrontal cortex [22-26]. On the contrary, the impairment in

aversive conditioning [27] alongside dysfunctional response to another’s sad facial expressions

[28] and impaired processing expressions of fear [29] are strongly associated with deficits in the

functions of the amygdala [30].

The associations with particular neurobiological, cognitive and affective structures

highlighted above suggest the likelihood that certain neurobiological deficits may be essential

antecedents of this condition.

THE CALLOUS-UNEMOTIONAL TRAITS

Several research papers [34] have demonstrated that psychopathic traits are a robust predictor

of antisocial behaviours and are often used to describe a severe, chronic, and resistant-to-treatment

group of offenders A wide range of studies have also supported the view that antisocial behaviours

in adulthood have their roots in childhood [33,35]. Further, conduct problems associated to

difficulties in preserving social relationships during childhood are linked to an increase of violence

and aggression, a poorer clinical prognosis and also with a less response to treatment [36].

Gathering all these findings together, a bloom of studies on psychopathy in children and

adolescents started to rise [33].

The research on psychopathy in youth has been conducted under two main theoretical

approaches. The first approach, explored by Lynam [37], includes formulating a subtype of

behaviour disorder recognized on its comorbidity with hyperactivity and impulsivity. This

approach suggests that children who present both impulsive impulsive/hyperactive behaviour and

conduct disorder are more vulnerable to display more acute and persistent antisocial behaviour

when compared to those with either impulsivity or conduct disorder. Lynam [36] argued that

antisocial behaviours observed in boys with both impulsive/hyperactive and conduct disorder are

more severe and persistent than the antisocial behaviours displayed by boys with only impulsivity.

Furthermore, psychopathic traits (e.g. difficulties with response modulation) have been shown in

children with both conduct disorder and impulsive/hyperactive behaviours. However, this

correlation was not verified among children with either problem alone [39].

Other authors [39,86,87] have also correlated psychopathy with attention deficit

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) due to overlapping symptomology (e.g. substance misuse and

criminal activity and sensation-seeking) alongside parallels in the neurobiological function

underlying both ADHD and psychopathy. As result, both present high levels of impulsivity which


www.psicologia.pt



often leads to interpersonal difficulties and antisocial behaviour in both childhood and adulthood.

Mathias and colleagues [85] also addressed a correlation between the impulsivity trait of

psychopathy with the hyperactive factor of ADHD and a relationship between the narcissistic and

callous traits with the inattentive element of ADHD.

While these findings appear promising, one limitation with this approach is its focus on an

impulsive-antisocial dimension of behaviour, which has not established to be exact to adults with

psychopath, i.e., a predisposition impulsive-antisocial seems to be high and robust in most adults

with significant criminal background and/or a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder [15].

An additional approach amid the conceptualization of psychopathy in youth has been the

emphasis on the callous-unemotional (CU) traits which have been dominant to clinical formulation

of psychopathy in adulthood [1,15, 40,41, 45-47].

As observed within the affective dimension of adult psychopathy, CU traits incorporate lack

of guilt and empathy, and shallow affect. The prevalence of high CU traits in children and

adolescents with conduct disorder is estimated to range from 10–46% in community samples to

21–59% in clinic-samples [52] and display moderate to strong heritability (as greater as 50%)

among children and adolescents with behavioural problems [45,46,47,89].

Further, several studies [84] have demonstrated a robust stability of CU traits across youth.

Nevertheless, those do not suggest that CU traits are enduring as they seem to be somewhat flexible

and to be predisposed by environmental factors [58]. For instance, Frick and colleagues [88],

through a 4-year investigation, shown that a group of adolescents viewed their levels of CU traits

being reduced throughout the progress of the research, regardless their stability. Other authors [89]

have highlighted their findings for particular genetic stability in CU – 13% of the genetic impact

in the CU traits at age 19 was shown with the equivalent effects at age 16 [89].

Frick, Bodin, & Barry [41] determined that in a sample of both clinic-referred and non-

referred children, CU traits develop a constant and distinct dimension from other psychopathic

traits such as impulsivity and narcissism. Whilst impulsivity does not seem to discriminate discrete

subgroups within children with acute and early-onset conduct disorder or adolescents with criminal

conducts [44,43,40], high levels of CU traits display a moderate role on the presence of antisocial

behaviours and conduct disorder on the risk of developing psychopathy [33]

Other authors, such as Loeber & Pardini [48], have suggested that causal factors (e.g. low

temperamental fear) could moderate the conduct disorder in children with callous-unemotional

traits. Additional research supported these findings by demonstrating a correlation between low

fearful arousal and development of severe antisocial behaviour and violence. Also, as highlighted

by Fowles & Kochanska [49] children with low fear disposition display deficits in empathy and

remorse due to experiencing reduced emotional arousal in response to distress or punishment. It


www.psicologia.pt



appears that a fearless temperamental may contribute to the development of early antisocial

problems as it decreases the efficacy of punishment-oriented socialization techniques and

moderates the development of callous-unemotional traits [47].

In line with this, Hawes & Dadds [50] found that children with conduct problems alongside

callous-unemotional traits did not show any improvements from parenting when compared to the

control group. In their study, the callous-unemotional traits were the single predictor of less

engagement to treatment even after external variables such as parenting and family characteristic

and socioeconomic status were controlled.

Callous-unemotional traits can also be utilised as a robust predictor of instrumental antisocial

behaviours in children, discriminate them from children whose aggression and violence are mostly

impulsive and reactive [46,47]. Thus, and although a diagnosis of psychopathy in children would

lack sensibility and responsiveness, it has been well-documented that a specific subgroup of

children who shows conduct disorders alongside callous-unemotional traits are placed at enhanced

risk for fostering psychopathy in adulthood [33,47].

An additional prominent target of the current research on psychopathy has been the study of

how the brains of psychopaths process information in a different way from those without

psychopathy [52], highlighting and recognizing anatomical parts of the brain which operate in a

dysfunctional way [83].

The critical impairments of the brains of adults with psychopathy are observed in the

functionality of the ventrolateral/orbitofrontal cortex (e.g. represent a particular reward or

punishment) and the amygdala (e.g. social signs of emotions and fear conditioning) [53,54].

Research on psychopathy in children and adolescents assisted by functional magnetic resonance

imaging (fMRI) have emphasized that this age-group also display abnormalities in the

ventrolateral/orbitofrontal cortex, amygdala functioning and hippocampus, i.e., in areas of the

brain well-known for their role in emotional regulation and empathic processing [52,55,56].

Nevertheless, contrasting the findings in adult psychopathy where a decreased in the orbitofrontal

cortex grey matter is noted, children with CU traits and behavioural problems display an increased

grey matter concentration, observed particularly in the medial orbitofrontal cortex and in the

anterior cingulate cortex.

Additionally, children with callous-unemotional traits and behavioural problems, like adult

psychopaths, show difficulties in reversal learning and decision making mediated by the

orbitofrontal cortex [52,56]. Other critical findings in the neurobiological field came from Lozier

et al. [57] who aimed to examine whether neural impairments linked to callous-unemotional traits

play a moderate role in the relationship between callousness and proactive aggression in children

(7-10 years old) with behavioural problems.


www.psicologia.pt



Consistent with previous literature, these findings suggested that proactive aggression in

children with callous-unemotional traits is related to response deficits in the amygdala to emotional

expressions. The amygdala is thus thought to constitute a phenotype that associates CU traits in

children with behavioural problems to a behavioural phenotype [57].

Additionally, genetics underlying various aspects of the serotonergic pathway have also been

accounted with regards to callous-unemotional traits. A wide range of evidences [90,91,92] suggest

that males with high levels of CU traits show deficits in levels of serotonin in the basolateral

amygdala which are associated to reductions in the conditioned fear response – a response which

is consistently diminished in adults with high levels of psychopathic traits. Sadeh et al. [90] also

suggested that that 5-HTT genotype was highly correlated with the impulsivity dimension of

psychopathy [90].

In recent days a comprehensive discussion about the dimensions which best categorize the

construct of psychopathy in adulthood is still taking place. Three core dimensions have emerged

so far – 1) the callous-unemotional traits labelled as ‘deficient affective experience’, 2) a deceiving

and narcissistic interpersonal style and 3) a pattern of impulsive and irresponsible behaviour

alongside proneness to boredom [58]. Nevertheless, in order to enhance the utility of psychopathy

as a construct it is also required to account significant areas of independence from broad measures

of antisocial behaviour.

Cooke & Michie [59] suggested that in samples of adults with psychopathy, the callous-

unemotional dimension is the most specific and determinant dimension used to distinguish

individuals with high levels of psychopathy to other individuals. Caputo et al. [43] found the same

results in children and adolescents, i.e., in their research aggressive sex offenders showed higher

callous-unemotional traits when compared to other offenders. However, other dimensions of

psychopathy did not show any statistically significant differences across the offender groups [43].

PSYCHOPATHY OR ‘PSYCHOPATHIES’

Although psychopathy is often classified as a distinct and specific construct measured by a

total PCL-R score, an ongoing debate which continues to be core of the research attention is the

extent to which individuals with psychopathy are a categorical class [31, 32,62] or share a

coalescence of extreme levels of distributed personality traits [66,63].

The controversy between dimensionality and taxonomy has a major impact on debate related

to psychopathy, specifically its etiology. For instance, a categorical approach might be explained

by a particular dependent factor (e.g., Down’s syndrome which is caused by the presence of an


www.psicologia.pt



extra chromosome 21); however, if psychopathy was proved to be dimensional, it would be

unlikely to result from a single underlying agent, such as an injury in the frontal lobe or from a

particular gene [62].

In psychopathology, taxon is well described by Meehl & Golden [62] as an entity, i.e., a

nonarbitary class of individuals that are authentic in nature and distinguished from the general

population.

Researchers like Harris, Skilling, and Rice [64] stressed that psychopaths are indeed a

discrete type of individuals who are fundamentally different from those who are classified as non-

psychopaths and who can be identified from a very early age. They proposed an alternative

psychopathy assessment tool – Child and Adolescent Taxon Scale – which supported psychopathy

as a taxon. Other studies have also sustained this approach in a community sample of children with

antisocial behaviours [65,60].

The evidences for psychopathy as a taxon expanded in 1994 with a study conducted by

Harris, Rice, and Quinsey [63], using a taxometric analysis of the PCL-R in a sample 653 male

offenders detained in Canadian mental health institutions. With their findings, Harris and

colleagues concluded that a taxon could be recognized using PCL-R scores, with a base rate in

their sample fluctuating from .44 to .46. Nevertheless, it was only found evidence of a taxon for

PCL-R Factor 2. That is, Factor 1 analyses were shown as inconsistent with a categorical structure

[62].

If psychopathy was shown to be dimensional, that would lead further researchers to focus

their studies on specific etiological and dimensional agents such as fearlessness. Further, it would

also support psychopathy research with community samples or with academic groups [62].

Although some researchers support the idea of psychopathy as a pattern of high scores on

distributed personality traits, such as low conscientiousness and low agreeableness [66], there are

not specific evidence for any dimensional model of psychopathy, as observed with the five-factor

model [67]. Other studies failed to support a categorical model of psychopathy. Marcus et al. [70]

led a research on a sample of prison inmates with the Psychopathic Personality Inventory and

consequent taxometric analysis. Consistent with previous studies no evidence supporting the

taxometric approach on psychopathy was found [60,70].

Hare [15] proposed a four-factor solution to the PCL-R in which the original Factor 1 and

Factor 2 are split into narrower facets. That is, Factor 1 would be composed of Interpersonal Facet

(e.g. manipulative) and Affective Facet (e.g. lack of remorse) whereas Factor 2 would include

Lifestyle facet (e.g. irresponsibility) and Antisocial Facet (e.g. poor behavioural controls). Hare

[15] suggested this model in order to enable taxometric analyses to be done at the scale level, which


www.psicologia.pt



was not possible in previous studies [62]. Subsequently to Hare’s four-factor solution, several

debates started to emerge around its relevance and applicability [68,69]. Nevertheless, it has been

generally established that this new approach does account and emphasizes the multidimensional

nature of the construct of psychopathy and its emotional, behavioural, and interpersonal structures.

That is why in community and forensic services it is observed that most criminal offenders are not

diagnosed with psychopathy for this diagnosis is usually established for those who display

psychopathic features across these facets.

The multidimensional approach of the PCL-R proposes the likelihood of those who are

classified as psychopaths are a heterogeneous group of offenders. For instance, some psychopaths

don’t reoffend during or after being in prison and engage fairly well in treatment [15,19,34].

Further, factor analyses indicates that the PCL-R Factor 1 highlights specific traits which are shown

in Cleckley’s formulation of psychopathy (e.g. callousness), whereas Factor 2 stresses the criminal

and antisocial behaviour more consistent with the diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder

[79]. These findings demonstrate that there is a constellation of reasons to disaggregate

psychopathy into homogeneous subgroups and also challenge the hypothesis that antisocial

behaviour of those who are diagnosed with psychopathy is unchallengeable, whilst addressing the

opportunity of exploring specific variants that might lead to different behaviours.

Skeem et al. [19] proposed a configuration of traits which might help to understand the

variances in psychopathy within a dimensional approach. The trait anxiety is often used to distinct

primary and secondary variants of psychopathy. PCL–R appears to classify a heterogeneous group

as psychopathic, instead of categorizing a specific group of psychopaths with low levels of anxiety

[4,19]. However, psychopaths can be distinguished regarding their levels of anxiety - low-anxious

psychopaths (primary psychopaths) display deficiencies in emotional responses [80], and fear

conditioning [19]. Other researchers [81] suggest that whilst primary psychopaths present more

noticeable traits of emotional detachment (PCL–R Factor 1 or Facet 2), secondary psychopaths

show more traits associated to irresponsibility and aggression [19].

Another variant identified by Blackburn [19,82] is the interpersonal behaviour and the degree

of withdrawal. Blackburn [19,82] emphasized that primary psychopaths are self-confident and

arrogant, whereas the secondary psychopath is passive, temperamental with low self-confidence.

Also, Blackburn [82] classified secondary psychopaths as consistent with borderline personality

traits (PCL-R Factor 2), whereas the personality of primary psychopaths would be more consistent

with narcissistic personality features (PCL-R Factor 1) [19].

If variants of psychopathy can be shown to be reliable with empiric support, researchers and

clinicians may be able to progress their understanding of this construct in order to develop further


www.psicologia.pt



management plans and specialist treatment services for a subgroup of individuals who have been

labelled as high-risky and hopeless [1].

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

Psychopathy is still a broad concept which offers minor guides for clinical interventions in

forensic services, particularly for individuals who score 25 or above in the PCL-R. A wide range

of researchers have claimed that individuals with psychopathy fluctuate in their symptomology,

with distinctive patterns of aggression, and responsiveness to treatment. Thus, if those fluctuations

and variances were categorized by different risk factors for offending behaviour, those would have

critical implications for assessment, management, and treatment of psychopathy [79].

Several debates and controversy have aroused for the last decades regarding whether

psychopathy is a dimensional or categorical construct, i.e., whether individuals with psychopathy

differ from the rest of the population in degree or kind [74]. The PCL-R offers both a dimensional

and categorical approach to psychopathy by classifying an individual as psychopath-

nonpsychopath utilising either cut-off scores or continuous scores which can be determine where

an individual falls into the spectrum of psychopathic traits [15]. Also, psychopathic variants may

also be considered as distinct classes (primary psychopath and secondary psychopath) or as

dimensional constellations.

Further research should focus and direct their investigative efforts on whether variants in

psychopathy might fluctuate in their responsiveness to treatment as primary psychopaths are

conventionally perceived as unmanageable in therapeutic settings [15]. This may be due to low

levels of motivation and willingness to change their behaviours and challenge their schemas and

to low levels of insight into their psychopathology.

The difficulties in managing responsiveness to treatment in primary psychopathy seem to

have been overvalued [75] considering current findings that young offender psychopaths who are

exposed to long-term of treatment are less expected to engage in subsequent antisocial behaviours

than do those who are exposed to less or no treatment [76]. Given that, the treatment for primary

psychopaths should incorporate outlets for their risk-taking predispositions rather than targeting

enduring personality traits which may be an unrealistic and unachievable. On the other hand,

secondary psychopaths may engage in a wide range of interventions as they are able to experience

remorse and anxiety, thus may be motivated to seek treatment [77].

If practitioners emphasize simply a categorical approach suggesting that someone scoring 25

in the PCL-R is a psychopath and someone scoring 24 is not a psychopath, this could lead to

challenging consequences. For instance, whilst someone scoring 24 may be perceived as having


www.psicologia.pt



good receptiveness to treatment and be at low risk, someone who scores 1 point higher would be

described as presenting poor treatment responsiveness and being at high risk for reoffending. Also,

clinicians are progressively adopting the psychopathy construct to address their decision-making

regarding treatment and assessment of individuals under this diagnosis. Hence, further

comprehensive research on the clinical implication of variants of psychopathy which are related to

significant repercussions in legal and clinical settings is desirable.

In conclusion several taxometric investigations suggest that psychopathy is a dimensional

construct when assessed by a wide range of instruments including self-report [70], PCL-R [60]

PCL-SV [71] and PCL-YV [72]. Those who argue that psychopathy is a dimensional approach

criticize the categorical view for building up limits where limits do not belong and for generating

specific classes that are overlapping, unclear, heterogeneous, and of dubious validity. In contrast,

those who argue for a categorical system stress that the categorical approach has shown to be a

rather operational shorthand form of communication among clinicians.

Investigative processes should also include cross-cultural studies of large community

samples using the PCL-R in order to extend our understanding of prevalence of psychopathic traits

in non-institutionalized samples. Taking into account cultural differences in incidence, exploring

how the picture of an institutionalized psychopath may differ from a non-institutionalized

psychopath (e.g. research on corporate psychopaths and how do they differ among themselves) and

also looking for additional variants on psychopathy might elucidate the heterogeneity within the

group within a robust framework. Also, most of the studies on psychopathy has been conducted in

males, thus it would be worth questioning variants of psychopathy in females as they may display

their traits differently from males (e.g. histrionic/borderline in women versus narcissistic/antisocial

in men).


www.psicologia.pt



REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS

1. Cleckley, H.M. (1976). The mask of sanity. St Louis, MO: Mosby.

2. Kiehl, K.A., & Hoffman, M.B. (2011). The criminal psychopath: History, neuroscience,

treatment, and economics. Jurimetrics Journal, 51, 355–397.

3. Patrick, C.J., Fowles, D.C., & Krueger, R.F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of

psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness.

Development and Psychopathology, 21, 913–938.

4. Yildirim, B., Derksen, J. (2015). Clarifying the heterogeneity in psychopathic samples:

Towards a new continuum of primary and secondary psychopathy. Aggression and

Violent Behaviour, 24, 9-4.

5. Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal

Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54.

6. Guay, J., Ruscio, J., Knight., R., Hare, R. (2007). A taxometric analysis of the latent

structure of psychopathy: evidence of dimensionality. Journal of abnormal psychology,

116(4). 701-716.

7. Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. N. (2006). The PCL–R assessment of psychopathy:

Development, structural properties, and new directions. In C. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of

psychopathy (58–88). New York: Guilford Press.

8. Fox, B., Jennings, W., Farrington, D. (2015). Bringing psychopathy into developmental

and life-course criminology theories and research. Journal of Criminal Justice. 43, 274-

289.

9. Millon, T., Simonsen, E., & Birket-Smith, M. (1998). Historical conceptions of

psychopathy in the United States and Europe. In T. Millon, & E. Simonsen (Eds.),

Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior (2–31). New York: Guildford

Press.

10. Babiak, P., Neumann, C.S., & Hare, R.D. (2010). Corporate psychopathy: Talking the

walk. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(2), 174–193.

11. Blackburn, R., Logan, C., Donnelly, J.P., & Renwick, S.J. (2008). Identifying psychopathic

subtypes: Combining an empirical personality classification of offenders with the


www.psicologia.pt



psychopathy checklist-revised. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22(6), 604–622.

12. Blair, R.J.R. (2006a). The emergence of psychopathy; implications for the

neuropsychological approach to developmental disorders. Cognition, 101, 414–442.

13. Blair, R.J.R. (2006b). Subcortical brain systems in psychopathy: The amygdala and

associated structures. In C.J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of Psychopathy (296–312). New

York: Guilford Press.

14. Blair, R.J.R. (2010). Psychopathy, frustration, and reactive aggression: The role of

ventromedial prefrontal cortex. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 383–399.

15. Hare, R.D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto:

Multihealth Systems.

16. Kennealy, P.J., Skeem, J.L., Walters, G.D., & Camp, J. (2010). Do core interpersonal and

affective traits of PCL-R psychopathy interact with antisocial behavior and disinhibition

to predict violence? Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 569–580.

17. Nioche, A., Pham, T.H., Ducro, C., de Beaurepaire, C., Chudzik, L., Courtois, R., et al.

(2010). Psychopathy and associated personality disorders: Searching for a particular effect

of the borderline personality disorder? Encephale, 36(3), 253–259.

18. Reidy, D.E., Shelley-Tremblay, J.F., & Lilienfeld, S.O. (2011). Psychopathy, reactive

aggression, and precarious proclamations: A review of behavioral, cognitive, and biological

research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(6), 512–524.

19. Skeem, J.L., Johansson, P., Andershed, H., Kerr, M., & Louden, J.E. (2007). Two subtypes

of psychopathic violent offenders that parallel primary and secondary variants. Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 116, 395–409.

20. Dahle, K. (2006). Strengths and limitations of actuarial prediction of criminal re-offense in

a German prison sample: a comparative study of LSI-R, HCR-20 and PCL-R. International

Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 29, 431-442

21. Hare, R., Clark, D., Grann, M., Thornton, D. (2000). Psychopathy and the predictive

validity of the PCL-R: an international perspective. Behavioral Sciences and the Law,

18(5), 557-690.

22. Herve ́, H. F., Hayes, P. J., & Hare, R. D. (2003). Psychopathy and sensitivity to the

emotional polarity of metaphorical statements. Personality and Individual Differences, 35,

1497–1507.

23. Morgan, A. P., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2000). A meta-analytic review of the relation between


www.psicologia.pt



antisocial behavior and neuropsychological measures of executive function. Clinical

Psychology Review, 20, 113–156.

24. Blair, R. J. R., Mitchell, D. G. V., Richell, R. A., Kelly, S., Leonard, A., Newman, C., &

Scott, S. K. (2002). Turning a deaf ear to fear: Impaired recognition of vocal affect in

psychopathic individuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 682–686.

25. Patrick, C. J. (2001). Emotional processes in psychopathy. In A. Raine & J. Sanmartin

(Eds.), Violence and psychopathy (57–77). New York: Kluwer Academic.

26. Williamson, S. E., Harpur, T. J., & Hare, R. D. (1991). Abnormal processing of affective

words by psychopaths. Psychophysiology, 28, 260–273.

27. Newman, J. P., & Kosson, D. S. (1986). Passive avoidance learning in psychopathic and

nonpsychopathic offenders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 252–256.

28. Blair, R. J. R. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating the

psychopath. Cognition, 57, 1–29.

29. Blair, R. J. R. (2001). Neuro-cognitive models of aggression, the antisocial personality

disorders and psychopathy. Journal of Neurology, Neuro- surgery and Psychiatry, 71, 727–

731.

30. Blair, R. J. R. (2004). The roles of orbital frontal cortex in the modulation of antisocial

behavior. Brain and Cognition, 55, 198–208.

31. Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Salekin, R. T., & Leistico, A. R. (2005). Convergent and

discriminant validity of psychopathy factors assessed via self-report: A comparison of three

instruments. Assessment, 12, 270 –289.

32. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Leukefeld, C. (2001). Personality disorders

as extreme variants of common personality dimensions. Can the five-factor model of

personality adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69, 253–276.

33. Essau, C., Sasagawa, S., Frick, P. (2006). Callous-Unemotional Traits in a Community

Sample of Adolescents. Assessment, 20(10), 1-16

34. Hemphill, J. F., Hare, R. D., & Wong, S. (1998). Psychopathy and recidivism: A review.

Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 139-170.

35. Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocial and delinquent child behavior: A review.

Child Development, 53, 1431-1446.


www.psicologia.pt



36. Rogeness, G. A., Javors, M. A., & Pliszka, S. R. (1992). Neurochemistry and child and

adolescent psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry, 31, 765-781.

37. Lynam, D. R. (1996). The early identification of chronic offenders: Who is the fledgling

psychopath? Psychological Bulletin, 120, 209-234.

38. Lynam, D. R. (1997). Pursuing the psychopath: Capturing the fledgling psychopath in a

normological net. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 06, 425-438.

39. Lynam, D. R. (1998). Early identification of the fledgling psychopath: Locating the

psychopathic child in the current nomenclature. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107,

566-575.

40. Vincent, G. M., Vitacco, M. J., Grisso, T., & Corrado, R. R. (2003). Subtypes of adolescent

offenders: Affective traits and antisocial behavior patterns. Behavioral Science and the

Law, 21, 695-712.

41. Frick, P. J., Bodin, S. D., & Barry, C. T. (2000). Psychopathic traits and conduct problems

in community and clinic-referred samples of children: Further development of the

Psychopathy Screening Device. Psychological Assessment, 12, 382-393.

42. Frick, P. J., & Morris, A. S. (2004) Temperament and developmental pathways to conduct

problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 54-68.

43. Caputo, A. A., Frick, P. J., & Brodsky, S. L. (1999). Family violence and juvenile sex

offending: Potential mediating roles of psychopathic traits and negative attitudes toward

women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 338-356

44. Christian, R., Frick, P. J., Hill, N., Tyler, L. A., & Frazer, D. (1997). Psychopathy and

conduct problems in children: II. Subtyping children with conduct problems based on their

interpersonal and affective style. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent

Psychiatry, 36, 233-241.

45. E., Viding, NM, Fountaine., EJ, McCrory (2012). Antisocial behaviour in children with and

without callous-unemotional traits. Journal of the Royal Society Medicine, 105(5): 195-200

46. Kahn RE, Frick PJ, Youngstrom E, Findling RL, Youngstrom JK. (2012). The effects of

including a callous-unemotional specifier for the diagnosis of conduct disorder. Journal of

Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 271–282


www.psicologia.pt



47. Pardini, D., & Frick, P. J. (2013). Multiple Developmental Pathways to Conduct Disorder:

Current Conceptualizations and Clinical Implications. Journal of the Canadian Academy

of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 22(1), 20–25.

48. Loeber R, Pardini D. (2008). Neurobiology and the development of violence: Common

assumptions and controversies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological

Sciences, 363, 2491–2503.

49. Fowles DC, Kochanska G. (2000). Temperament as a moderator of pathways to conscience

in children: The contribution of electrodermal activity. Psychophysiology, 37,788–795.

50. Hawes D.M, Dadds M.R. (2002). Callous–unemotional traits are a risk factor for poor

treatment response in young conduct problem children. Journal Consult Clinical

Psychology, 73, 737–741

51. Dadds, M. R., & Rhodes, T. (2008). Aggression in young children with concurrent callous–

unemotional traits: can the neurosciences inform progress and innovation in treatment

approaches? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,

363(1503), 2567–2576.

52. De Brito SA et al (2009) Size matters: increased grey matter in boys with conduct problems

and callous-unemotional traits. Brain, 132, 843-52.

53. Blair, R., Mitchell, D., Blair, K. (2005). The Psychopath: emotion and the Brain. Oxford:

Blackwell.

54. Decety J, Shelly, L., Kiehl, K. (2013) Brain response to empathy-eliciting scenarios

involving pain in incarcerated individuals with psychopathy. JAMA Psychiatry 70,638-45.

55. Singer T, Seymour B, O’Doherty J, Kaube H, Dolan RJ, Frith CD. (2004). Empathy for

pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science, 303, 1157-62.

56. Blair, J. (2003). Neurobiological basis of psychopathy. The British Journal of Psychiatry,

182(1), 5-7,

57. Lozier, L., Cardinale, E., Vanmeter, J., Marsh, A. (2014). Mediation of the relationship

between callous-unemotional traits and proactive aggression by amygdala response to fear

among children with conduct problems. JAMA Psychiatry,71, 627-636.


www.psicologia.pt



58. Frick, P., White, S. (2008). Research Review: The importance of callous- unemotional traits

for developmental models of aggressive and antisocial behaviour. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 49 (4), 359–375

59. Cooke, D.J, & Michie, C. (1997). An item response theory analysis of the Hare

Psychopathy Checklist. Psychological Assessment, 9, 3–14.

60. Edens, J. F., Marcus, D. K., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Poythress, N. G. (2006). Psychopathic,

notpsychopath: Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of psychopathy. Journal

ofAbnormal Psychology, 115, 131-144.

61. Cunningham, M. D., & Reidy, T. J. (2002). Violence risk assessment at federal capital

sentencing: Individualization, generalization, relevance, and scientific standards. Criminal

Justice and Behavior, 29, 512–537.

62. Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey, V. L. (1994). Psychopathy as a taxon: Evidence that

psychopaths are a discrete class. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 387–

397.

63. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Fowler, K. A. (2006). The self-report assessment of psychopathy:

Pitfalls, problems, and promises. In C. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (107–132).

New York: Guilford Press.

64. Harris, G. T., Skilling, T., & Rice, M. E. (2001). The construct of psychopathy. Crime and

Justice, 28, 197–264.

65. Skilling, T. A., Quinsey, V. L., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Evidence of a taxon underlying

serious antisocial behavior in boys. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 450–470.

66. Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Blonigen, D. M., Hicks, B. M., & Iacono, W. G. (2005).

Estimating facets of psychopathy from normal personality traits: A step toward community

epidemiological investigations. Assessment, 12, 3–18.

67. Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five-factor model to represent the DSM–

IV personality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

110, 410–412

68. Cooke, D. J., Michie, C., Hart, S. D., & Clark, D. (2005). Searching for the pan-cultural

core of psychopathic personality disorder. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 283–

295

69. Hill, C., Neumann, C., & Rogers, R. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis of the

Psychopathy Checklist: Screening version in offenders with Axis I disorders. Psychological


www.psicologia.pt



Assessment, 16, 90–95.

70. Marcus, D. K., John, S. L., & Edens, J. F. (2004). A taxometric analysis of psychopathic

personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(4), 626-635.

71. Hart, S., Cox, D., & Hare, R. D. (1995). Manual for the Psychopathy Checklist:

ScreeningVersion (PCL:SV). Toronto: Multihealth Systems.Jackson, R.

72. Murrie, D. C., Marcus, D. K., Douglas, K. S., Lee, Z., Salekin, R. T., & Vincent, G.

(2007).Youth with psychopathy features are not a discrete class: a taxometric analysis.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 714-723.

73. Hart, S. D., & Dempster, R. J. (1997). Impulsivity and psychopathy. In C. D. Webster, &

M. A. Jackson (Eds.), Impulsivity: theory, assessment and treatment (212–232). New York:

Guilford.

74. Baldwin, J. (1995). Continua outperform dichotomies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18,

543–544

75. Wong, S. (2000). Psychopathic offenders. In S. Hodgins, & R. Muller-Isberner (Eds.),

Violence, crime and mentally disordered offenders: concepts and methods for effective

treatment and prevention (87–112). New York: Willey

76. Skeem, J., & Mulvey, E. (2001). Psychopathy and community violence among civil

psychiatric patients: results from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study. Journal

of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 358–374.

77. Woody, G., McLellan, A., Luborsky, L., & O’Brien, C. (1985). Sociopathy and

psychotherapy outcome. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 1081–1086

78. Blackburn, R. (1988). On moral judgments and personality disorders: the myth of

psychopathic personality revisited. British Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 505–512.

79. Skeem, J., Poythress, N., Edens, J., Lilienfeld, S., Caled, E. (2003). Psychopathic

personality or personalities?Exploring potential variants of psychopathy and their

implications for risk assessment. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 8(5), 513-546.

80. Newman, J. P., & Schmitt, W. (1998). Passive avoidance in psychopathicoffenders: A

replication and extension. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 527–532.


www.psicologia.pt



81. Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic

attributes in a noninstitutional population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

68,151–158.

82. Blackburn, R. (1975). An empirical classification of psychopathic personality. British

Journal of Psychiatry, 127,456–460.

83. Kiehl, K., Sinnott-ARmstrong, W. (2013). Handbook on Psychopathy and Law. Oxford

Series in Neuroscience, Law, and Philosophy.

84. Munoz, L.C., & Frick, P.J. (2007). The reliability, stability, and predictive utility of the

self-report version of the Antisocial Process Screening Device. Scandinavian Journal of

Psychology, 48, 299–312.

85. Mathias, C. W., Furr, R. M., Daniel, S. S., Marsh, D. M., Shannon, E. E., & Dougherty, D.

M. (2007). The relationship of inattentiveness, hyperactivity, and psychopathy among

adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1333–1343.

86. Eisenbarth, H., Alpers, G.W., Conzelmann, A., Jacob, C.P., Weyers, P. (2008).

Psychopathic traits in adult ADHD patients. Aggressive and Violent Behavior, 45,(6), 468-

472

87. Smith, C., Hung, L. (2012). The relative influence of conduct problems and attention-

deficit hyperactivity disorder in the development of adolescent psychopathy. Aggression

and Violent Behavior, 17(6), 575-580.

88. Frick, P.J., Kimonis, E.R., Dandreaux, D.M., & Farrell, J.M. (2003c). The 4-year stability

of psychopathic traits in non-referred youth. Behavioral Sciences and the Law,21 713–736

89. Viding, E., McCrory, E. (2012). Genetic and neurocognitive contributions to the

development of psychopathy. Developmental Psychopathology, 24(3), 969-983.

90. Sadeh, N., Javdani, S., Jackson, J. J., Reynolds, E. K., Potenza, M. N., Gelernter, J., …

Verona, E. (2010). Serotonin Transporter Gene Associations with Psychopathic Traits in

Youth Vary as a Function of Socioeconomic Resources. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

119(3), 604–609.

91. Newman JP, Curtin JJ, Bertsch JD, Baskin-Sommers AR (2010) Attention Moderates the

Fearlessness of Psychopathic Offenders. Biological Psychiatry 67: 66–70.

92. Moul,C., Dobson-Stone, C., Brennan, J., Hawes, D., Dadds, M. (2013). An Exploration of

the serotonin system in antisocial boys with high levels of callous-unemotional traits. Plos

One, 8, 2.


www.psicologia.pt




Date post:	16-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

PSYCHOPATHY OR PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITIES A … · 2016-03-13 · psychopathy would articulately...

Documents