The primary and secondary sociopathic personality: Differences in frequency and severity of antisocial behavior.

Abstract

The frequency and severity of antisocial behavior within a correctional setting was assessed for primary sociopaths, secondary sociopaths, and nonsociopaths. Primary sociopaths were found to engage in significantly more frequent and severe antisocial behavior than secondary sociopaths and nonsociopaths. This finding adds credence to the distinction between primary and secondary sociopathy and serves to bridge the gap between strictly experimental laboratory investigations with noncriminal populations and realistic situations involving individuals who have committed criminal offenses.The distinction between primary and secondary sociopathy made by Cleckley (1964) has been supported by the findings,of other investigations over the past 15 years (Emmons & Webb, 1974;Hare, 1970;Quay, 1965;Scrzypek, 1969). Primary sociopathy has been characterized by emotional unresponsiveness (Hare, 1970) and stimulationseeking behavior (Lykken, 1957;Scrzypek, 1969). Quay (1965) integrates both response components by characterizing the primary sociopath as an individual whose lowered automatic responsiveness elicits sensation-seeking behavior as a means of increasing arousal to a more comfortable level.The secondary sociopath, by contrast, has been characterized as an individual whose antisocial behavior is symptomatic of anxiety associated with frustration or inner conflict. The secondary sociopath is an individual who is overaroused by sensory input from external sources. Antisocial behavior is regarded as an ineffective, selfdefeating means of reducing internal conflict.

Economic decision-making in psychopathy: A comparison with ventromedial prefrontal lesion patients

“…The question, then, is how to differentiate primary psychopaths from secondary psychopaths for the purposes of research. In previous studies primary and secondary psychopaths have typically been differentiated based on levels of trait anxiety (Arnett et al, 1997; Blackburn, 1975; Brinkley et al, 2004; Fagan and Lira, 1980; Hiatt et al, 2004). This practice is supported by ample theoretical and empirical work.…”

“…In his seminal clinical descriptions, Cleckley stresses the importance of considering anxiety levels for the classification of psychopathy: “…[primary] psychopaths are sharply characterized by the lack of anxiety…I do not believe that [primary] psychopaths should be identified with the psychoneurotic group” (Cleckley, 1976). Following Cleckley’s recommendation of distinguishing low-anxiety individuals from those with high (neurotic) levels of anxiety, a large and growing number of laboratory studies demonstrate abnormal behavioral results for low-anxious (primary) psychopaths but not necessarily for high-anxious (secondary) psychopaths (Arnett et al, 1993; Arnett et al, 1997; Chesno and Kilmann, 1975; Fagan and Lira, 1980; Lykken, 1957; Newman et al, 1992; Newman et al, 1990; Newman et al, 1997; O’Brien and Frick, 1996; Schmitt et al, 1999; Skeem et al, 2007; Smith et al, 1992; Zeier et al, 2009). In the present study, we seek to build on this experimental tradition to determine whether primary (low-anxiety) and secondary (high-anxiety) psychopaths differ in their behavior in the domain of economic decision-making.…”

Personality in Intimate Relationships

“…Inpatient, psychiatric youth with the highest self-esteem reported the fewest interpersonal problems than youth with low or moderate self-esteem. As already touched in Chapter 10, one can differentiate among antisocial childhood and adolescence, oppositional defiant disorders, conduct disorders, psychopathies, and criminal recidivists among others (Brennan, Grekin, & Mednick, 2003;Fagan & Lira, 1980;Lahey & Waldman, 2003;Moffitt, 2003;Nigg & Huang-Pollock, 2003;Rhee & Waldman, 2003;Rutter, 2003;Snyder. Thus, the high self-esteem group was rejected by their peers in spite of reporting no interpersonal problems, essentially denying them.…”

Two Approaches to Parsing the Heterogeneity of Psychopathy

“…Traditionally, such distinctions are made by using measures of fear (e.g., Lykken, 1995) or anxiety such as the Welsh Anxiety Scale (WAS; Welsh, 1956) in conjunction with a measure of psychopathy (Chesno & Kilmann, 1975;Fagen & Lira, 1980;Schmauk, 1970). There is abundant experimental evidence suggesting that anxiety plays an important role in determining whether psychopathic and nonpsychopathic offenders differ on a variety of laboratory measures (Arnett, Howland, Smith, & Newman, 1993;Arnett, Smith, & Newman, 1997;Chesno & Kilmann, 1975;Devonshire, Howard, & Sellars, 1988;Fagan & Lira, 1980;Newman, Patterson, Howland, & Nichols, 1990;Newman, Kosson, & Patterson, 1992;Newman, Schmitt, & Voss, 1997;Schmitt, Brinkley, & Newman, 1999;Smith, Arnett, & Newman, 1992;Widom, 1976).…”