Do core interpersonal and affective traits of PCL-R psychopathy interact with antisocial behavior and disinhibition to predict violence?

Abstract

The utility of psychopathy measures in predicting violence is largely explained by their assessment of social deviance (e.g., antisocial behavior; disinhibition). A key question is whether social deviance interacts with the core interpersonal-affective traits of psychopathy to predict violence. Do core psychopathic traits multiply the (already high) risk of violence among disinhibited individuals with a dense history of misbehavior? This meta-analysis of 32 effect sizes (N = 10,555) tested whether an interaction between the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; R. D. Hare, 2003) Interpersonal-Affective and Social Deviance scales predicted violence beyond the simple additive effects of each scale. Results indicate that Social Deviance is more uniquely predictive of violence (d = .40) than Interpersonal-Affective traits (d = .11), and these two scales do not interact (d = .00) to increase power in predicting violence. In fact, Social Deviance alone would predict better than the Interpersonal-Affective scale and any interaction in 81% and 96% of studies, respectively. These findings have fundamental practical implications for risk assessment and theoretical implications for some conceptualizations of psychopathy.

Psychopathy and the combination of psychopathy and sexual deviance as predictors of sexual recidivism: Meta-analytic findings using the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised.

“…Findings from the current meta-analysis suggest that evaluators should consider emphasizing Factor 2 and Facet 4 scores specifically if they are using the PCL-R as a measure of risk for sexual recidivism. Like meta-analyses of the relation between PCL-R scores and general violence or recidivism (Kennealy et al, 2010;Leistico et al, 2008;Yang et al, 2010), this meta-analysis addressing sexual recidivism found stronger predictive effects for Factor 2 (d = 0.44, p < .001) than Factor 1 scores (d = 0.17, p = .15), although there was substantial variability in effects for Factor 1. Although only five studies allowed for the calculation of facet-level results, effects were clearly strongest for Facet 4 (d = 0.40, p < .001) and weaker for other facets (d < .10).…”

Empathic, moral and antisocial outcomes associated with distinct components of psychopathy in healthy individuals: a Triarchic model approach

“…Although PCL scores are good predictors of antisocial outcomes, such as recidivism (Yang, Wong, & Coid, 2010) or violence (Kennealy, Skeem, Walters, & Camp, 2010), these associations seem to be restricted to characteristics of psychopathy assessed by the antisocial and impulsive facets of the PCL (Kennealy et al, 2010;Yang et al, 2010). However, in a study using the TriPM in a non-forensic sample, Drislane et al (2014) have shown that high levels of boldness, meanness, and disinhibition were associated with increased frequency of arrest.…”

Introduction and validation of Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale (PPTS) in a large prison sample

“…Consequently, consistent with the original conceptualization of psychopathy proposed by Cleckley (1941), the essence of the disorder seems to be captured by affective deficits and 2 For instance, the exclusion of factor 4 of the PCL-R (items that relate to antisocial behavior including poor behavior controls, early behavior problems, juvenile delinquency, revocation of conditional release, and criminal versatility) reduces the predictive validity of the measure Cooke, Michie, & Hart, 2006;Kennealy, Skeem, Walters, & Camp, 2010;Walters 2004). …”