Structural models of psychopathy

Abstract

Psychopathy traditionally is defined by a cluster of inferred personality traits and socially deviant behaviors. The accepted standard for the reliable and valid assessment of psychopathy is the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Because of its importance in basic and applied research, and in the mental health and criminal justice systems, the PCL-R has been subjected to intense scrutiny by researchers and clinicians. In this article we discuss issues surrounding its structural properties and those of its derivatives. Using factor analysis, item response theory, and multidimensional scaling, we propose that the PCL-R and its derivatives are underpinned by at least four correlated factors: Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial. We argue that attempts to characterize antisocial behaviors as merely "downstream" manifestations of more central traits are inconsistent with the structural properties of the PCL-R and with evidence that the development of traits and actions are interactive and reciprocal. We also report new evidence that psychopathy and its factors are dimensional in nature, perhaps extreme variants of normal personality traits and behaviors.

Reciprocal Influences between Negative Life Events and Callous-Unemotional Traits

“…Furthermore, because research has demonstrated that youth exposed to various negative life events (e.g., maltreatment, violence) manifest characteristics and behaviors associated with CU traits, such as conduct problems (e.g., Maschi, Bradley, & Morgen, 2008; CU TRAITS AND NEGATIVE LIFE EVENTS 6 Tiet et al, 2001), we controlled for co-occurring conduct problems in these analyses. While we acknowledge that some researchers view antisocial behavior as an integral part of psychopathy (e.g., Hare & Neumann, 2005), many theoretical models view it as a secondary characteristic that develops as a result of the core personality features (e.g., Skeem & Cooke, 2010). Furthermore, recent research supports the existence of CU traits in the absence of conduct problems and finds them to be significantly related to adjustment problems in youth without significant conduct problems (Kumsta, Sonuga-Barke & Rutter, 2011;Rowe et al, 2010).…”

From shared to distinct self–other representations in empathy: evidence from neurotypical function and socio-cognitive disorders

“…Moreover, psychopaths have been described as having an extraordinary ability to manipulate and charm others to achieve their goals [50], suggesting a superior capacity to represent their own and other-related states. In support of this hypothesis, research in the last decades has shown that psychopaths are proficient in cognitively representing both others' desires, beliefs and intentions (as documented by their normal capacitiesand related brain activations-to pass Theory of Mind tasks, also in the affective domain [58]), and their own emotional experiences (as indicated by the absence of alexithymic traits among psychopaths with deficits in the affective-interpersonal domain [59]).…”

Neurocriminology: implications for the punishment, prediction and prevention of criminal behaviour

“…This can be reasonably questioned. The widespread consensus of experts is that crime and antisocial behavior are dimensional constructs, not categorical 92 . Risk factors associated with antisocial and criminal violence are also usually dimensional in nature (e.g., degree of prefrontal dysfunction, level of resting heart rate), although some may be categorical (presence of traumatic brain injury, genetic polymorphisms).…”