No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The classification of psychopathy: A review of the Hare vs Blackburn debate
Abstract
The literature on the classification of ‘psychopathy’ is briefly reviewed. The contributions of Hare and Blackburn are set out and differences between them are discussed. The specific contention, made by Hare, that many of the subjects employed by Blackburn are not really ‘psychopaths’ in the true sense of the word as their behaviour arises from neurotic conflict, is considered. Tests of this hypothesis are reviewed and reveal little support for Hare's position. It is acknowledged that the issue is yet to be resolved finally, and two further tests are proposed.
... In a related study, Blackburn and Lee-Evans (1985) found that both groups of psychopaths experienced more intense anger to attack scenarios compared with non-psychopaths. Contrary to the 'de cient affective response' theory of psychopathy (Cleckley, 1976;Hare, 1980), psychopaths were found to be more not less reactive to threats, some of which could be construed as 'social punishments' (Thomas-Peter, 1992). ...
... In regard to anger, primary psychopaths rate themselves as signi cantly less angry per se (lower ratings of angriness), less angry with others and signicantly less put-down, and make more external attributions of blame compared with secondary psychopaths. Current ndings replicate previous research, which found that psychopaths react with signi cantly more intense anger than non-psychopaths to interpersonally threatening provocation (Blackburn and Lee-Evans, 1985;Thomas-Peter, 1992;Willner and Blackburn, 1988). No signi cant differences were found between primary and secondary psychopaths in their ratings of anger intensity under each of the categories of provocation. ...
... These ndings are consistent with previous research that has found differences between psychopath groups on a number of behavioural, cognitive and affective indices (e.g. Blackburn, 1998;Thomas-Peter, 1992). Viewed through the lens of an evolutionary perspective on the role of social hierarchies in behaviour (Gilbert, 1992), these ndings may suggest that primary psychopaths assume dominance and threaten others who challenge them, while secondary psychopaths assume defensive, subordinate positions, would like to be dominant, but are highly sensitive to attacks from above and below. ...
This study compared primary and secondary psychopaths (Blackburn, 1975 and Blackburn, 1998) in their perceptions of social rank, internal shame, angriness and intensity of anger in response to provocation. Fifty male mentally disordered offenders with the legal classification 'psychopathic disorder' were randomly sampled from a high-security (Special) hospital population and at interview a set of questionnaires was administered to each. Primary psychopaths perceived themselves to be significantly higher in social rank than secondary psychopaths, lower in shame, and lower in ratings of angriness, self-blame and anger towards others. A significant association was found between social rank and anger in response to provocation and an inverse relationship between social rank and both shame and angriness. Regression analyses revealed that social rank and self-esteem best predicted variance in anger intensity to provocation, controlling for antisocial personality deviation. Primary and secondary psychopaths differed significantly,therefore, in their self-evaluative and social evaluative processes. The key differences lay in social rank evaluations and shame. Primary psychopaths assume dominance and threaten others who challenge them, while secondary psychopaths assume defensive, subordinate positions within a psychopathy hierarchy, seek dominance, but are sensitive to attacks from above and below. Findings provide preliminary support for an evolutionary perspective on the role of social hierarchies in psychopathic behaviour.
... Psychopaths should not be confused with psychotics who are people suffering from a mental disorder which has made them lose touch with reality (Davidson et al. 1998). However, there is some confusion over these definitions between lawyers and psychologists and in the UK legal system for example, psychopathic disorder is defined by the 1983 Mental Health Act as being where people have a persistent disorder or disability of mind, which results in abnormally aggressive behaviour or seriously irresponsible conduct (Thomas-Peter 1991). This UK legal definition appears to be more in line with the North American condition of antisocial personality disorder rather than the North American description of psychopathy. ...
... Corporate Psychopaths thus make themselves attractive to know and this facilitates their generating support networks for themselves. Their friends, family and patrons do not realise at this stage that to Corporate Psychopaths, they are all extremely expendable and that psychopaths do not develop genuine warm friendships with others (Thomas-Peter 1991). ...
... Currently, the most influential conceptualization of psychopathy is that of Hare and his colleagues (Hare, 1991;Harpur et al., 1989;Harpur, Hart, & Hare, 1994; however, also see Blackburn & Maybury, 1985;Thomas-Peter, 1992), which is based on Cleckley's (1941Cleckley's ( /1988) seminal account of the characteristics associated with psychopathy. Hare and colleagues developed Cleckley's criteria into a rating scale for the measurement of psychopathy (the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised [PCL-R]; Hare, 1991), and factor-analytic work indicates that the PCL-R assesses two related but distinct psychopathy factors. ...
An integration of the Machiavellianism (MACH) and psychopathy constructs based on a dimensional view of personality and personality disorders and a recognition of B. Karpman's (1941, 1948) conceptual distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy is presented. Positive associations between MACH and both primary and secondary psychopathy were found. It is concluded that the Mach-IV is a global measure of psychopathy in noninstitutionalized populations (i.e., one that assesses but confounds both primary and secondary psychopathy) and that the primary differences between MACH and psychopathy are not traceable to substantive theoretical issues but to the different professional affiliations they are associated with: personality and social psychology and clinical psychology, respectively.
... There has been a dramatic increase in research on psychopathy over recent years, based largely on the advent of the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, 1991) measures and their relatively robust ability to predict violent behavior among correctional, forensic, and civil psychiatric samples (Douglas, Ogloff, Nicholls, & Grant 1999; Hemphill, Templeman, Wong, & Hare, 1998; Salekin, Rogers , & Sewell, 1996; Skeem & Mulvey, 2001). Despite the fact that numerous conceptualizations of psychopathy have been carefully articulated (see Maughs, 1941a, 1941b; Millon, Simonsen, & Birket-Smith, 1998; Thomas-Peters, 1992) and several measures have been created (e.g., Blackburn, 1987, 1996; Hare et al., 1990; Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996), in most contemporary North American literature, psychopathy has become virtually synonymous with the revised PCL (PCL–R; Hare, 1991). Certainly, the personality disorder field is fortunate to have a " gold standard, " predominant measure of psychopathy. ...
Recently, psychopathy has become virtually synonymous with the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) measures. However, the "gold standard" 2-factor model that underlines these measures has been questioned for its uncertain empirical support and emphasis on antisocial behavior that is not specific to psychopathic personality deviation. This study (N = 870 civil psychiatric patients) compares the fit of the traditional 2-factor model with that of a revised 3-factor model of psychopathy. The revised model better describes the structure of the Screening Version of the PCL (PCL:SV) than the traditional model. Although the revised model's exclusion of some items that assess antisocial behavior reduces the PCL:SV's power in predicting patient violence, this model arguably assesses psychopathy in a more specific, theoretically coherent fashion that may reduce misapplications of the construct. Implications for future research are discussed.
This chapter examines the status of psychopathy as a scientific kind. I argue that the debate on the question whether psychopathy is a scientific kind as it is conducted at present (i.e., by asking whether psychopathy is a natural kind), is misguided. It relies too much on traditional philosophical views of what natural kinds (or: legitimate scientific kinds) are and how such kinds perform epistemic roles in the sciences. The paper introduces an alternative approach to the question what scientific (or: natural) kinds are. On this alternative approach, the Grounded Functionality Account of natural kinds, psychopathy emerges as a “good” scientific kind that is best understood as a region on a multidimensional space of behaviors rather than as a traditional natural kind.
Although psychopathy is recognized as a relatively strong risk factor for violence among inmates and mentally disordered offenders, few studies have examined the extent to which its predictive power generalizes to civil psychiatric samples. Using data on 1,136 patients from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment project, this study examined whether the 2 scales that underlie the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV) measure a unique personality construct that predicts violence among civil patients. The results indicate that the PCL:SV is a relatively strong predictor of violence. The PCL:SV's predictive power is substantially reduced. but remains significant, after controlling for a host of covariates that reflect antisocial behavior and personality disorders other than psychopathy. However, the predictive power of the PCL:SV is not based on its assessment of the core traits of psychopathy, as traditionally construed. Implications for the 2-factor model that underlies the PCL measures and for risk assessment practice are discussed.
The treatment and management of individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) in psychiatric and forensic settings can be exceptionally challenging because such individuals usually evidence serious emotional and behavioral difficulties, including self-harm, impulsivity, affect dysregulation, and aggression. Utilizing a sample of 221 psychiatric patients meeting criteria for BPD, the current study systematically examines the underlying heterogeneity in BPD vis-à-vis psychopathy in an attempt to identify meaningful subgroups. We used latent profile analysis, bootstrapping techniques and analysis of variance to items in a scale assessing psychopathy to identify four subtypes of BPD which differed significantly by gender, level of psychopathy, criminal history and other salient characteristics. Findings hold significant implications for treatment and for guiding the refinement of existing evidence-based interventions and community management strategies.
Since the mid-nineteenth century, psychiatrists and psychologists have struggled to conceptualise a group of behaviourally disturbed subjects who repeatedly engage in exploitative and violent acts. In 1941, Cleckley first operationalised the construct of psychopathy in The Mask of Sanity. In 1980, Hare produced a checklist for a more formalised, categorical definition of psychopathy. The subsequent 20 item Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) purports to identify a select population of callous and remorseless individuals who appear to have a specific defect of emotional processing and be generally insensitive to the negative consequences of their risky or criminal behaviour. Operationalising the construct of psychopathy continues to evolve. Whilst the utility of the construct of psychopathy to generally predict violence and recidivism has important public policy implications in the management of serious offenders, compelling sociological and ethical issues arise particularly when courts propose to apply idiographic and prescriptive outcomes on the basis of nomothetic expert opinion on future behaviour based on measures of a construct of psychopathy.
Although the debate over the use of the legal classification of psychopathic disorder has been prolific, little research has been conducted in examining how the term is being used in current practice. This study used a retrospective case-note analysis to investigate the characteristics of patients who had been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 at a regional secure unit (RSU) since 1987. The sample included all individual inpatients referred to, and assessed by, the clinical psychology department, for whom data from the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory were also available. No differences were found between offenders detained under ‘psychopathic disorder’ and those legally classified as ‘mentally ill’ with respect to admission details and offending characteristics. Those people detained under ‘psychopathic disorder’ demonstrated the presence of more antisocial features. The results from a cluster analysis of the MCMI personality scales supported Blackburn's (1975) typology. The cluster analysis demonstrated the limitations of the term ‘psychopathic disorder’ to define a particular group of mentally disordered offenders.
In this paper we review the contribution of forensic clinical psychology to the investigation, understanding, and formulation of offending behaviour. The most significant contributions have been made in the areas of violence and sexual offending. The forensic clinician will need to be aware of work relating to personality predispositions, of research into the causal role of anger, of the links between mental disorder and offending behaviour, and of the difficulties in determining risk. These are all areas in which significant progress has been made and which are likely to expand and develop in the future.
The PCL-R has been heralded as the ‘unparalleled’ (Salekin et al, 1996) risk assessment tool for assessing risk of violent and non-violent recidivism. In the UK, the PCL-R looks likely to become an industry standard assessment in psychological evaluation of individuals thought to have a dangerous and severe personality disorder. However, current knowledge about the PCL-R is unsatisfactory, and a number of issues need to be addressed before clinicians can be confident in the use of this measure. This paper highlights these issues from the perspective of the practising clinician. Questions are raised about the theoretical, methodological and treatment implications of the use of the PCL-R. Future research needs are established in this context of caution over the use of the measure in routine clinical and academic assessment.
Mode of access: Internet, via World Wide Web. System requirements: Adobe Acrobat Reader. Title from title page display. Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of North Texas, May, 2003. Includes bibliographical references.
The relationship between psychopathy and mental disorders was investigated in 61 male subjects during a forensic psychiatric examination. The Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R) and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID) were used for the assessments. Although psychotic subjects were excluded, the overall psychiatric morbidity in the study population was high. Comorbidity was common, irrespective of the degree of psychopathy. Psychopathy was strongly positively correlated with substance abuse/dependence but negatively correlated with depression. Almost all of the subjects with high PCL-R scores had DSM-III-R antisocial and/or borderline personality disorders. However, some subjects with antisocial personality disorders had medium or low PCL-R scores. When the subjects were reassessed with diagnoses of DSM-IV and ICD-10 personality disorders, the difference between psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder was reduced.
This investigation examined the reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) in male adult Spanish prison populations (n = 117). The interrater reliability and internal consistency coefficients were high, and similar to those obtained in other countries. This data provides support for the homogeneity and unidimensionality of the psychopathy construct in Spanish male prison samples. The analysis of factor structure also replicated the two factor solution of previous studies. The two factors showed different patterns of intercorrelations with several self-report measures of personality, demographic, and criminal history variables, which confirmed the construct validity of PCL-R. The results confirm the psychometric properties of the PCL-R as a measure of psychopathy in Spanish male inmates, and suggest that psychopathy is a construct also observed in Southern European countries.
Although psychopathy is recognized as a relatively strong risk factor for violence among inmates and mentally disordered offenders, few studies have examined the extent to which its predictive power generalizes to civil psychiatric samples. Using data on 1,136 patients from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment project, this study examined whether the 2 scales that underlie the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV) measure a unique personality construct that predicts violence among civil patients. The results indicate that the PCL:SV is a relatively strong predictor of violence. The PCL:SV's predictive power is substantially reduced, but remains significant, after controlling for a host of covariates that reflect antisocial behavior and personality disorders other than psychopathy. However, the predictive power of the PCL:SV is not based on its assessment of the core traits of psychopathy, as traditionally construed. Implications for the 2-factor model that underlies the PCL measures and for risk assessment practice are discussed.
Several clinical-behavioral and self-report measures of psychopathy were compared in a sample of 274 male prison inmates. The assessment procedures included global clinical ratings, a 22-item checklist, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III; American Psychiatric Association, 1980) criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD), a self-report version of the 22-item checklist, the Socialization scale of the California Psychological Inventory, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Agreement among the various assessment procedures was evaluated with correlational analyses, discriminant function analyses, and kappa coefficients of diagnostic agreement. There was much stronger agreement among the clinical-behavioral measures (ratings, checklist, and DSM-III) than there was among the self-report measures. Agreement between these two measurement domains was, with few exceptions, rather poor.
Studied interpersonal behavior in 15 primary and 17 secondary male psychopaths (under age 40) using the Prisoner's Dilemma game. Various personality characteristics frequently cited as distinguishing psychopaths from others were operationalized and studied. 12 male controls matched for age, IQ, and education were also used, and all Ss were assigned to within-group pairs and played the game for 60 trials under 2 conditions (communication and noncommunication). Ss' predictions, intentions, and perceptions of their role and the other person's role in the game situation were recorded. Contrary to some current theories, data suggest that psychopaths may be quite capable of cooperating, tolerating boredom, and predicting the behavior of another person in specific situations. Although both psychopath groups perceived their role and the other person's role in this situation similarly, they did not behave similarly. Secondary psychopaths seemed less able to function efficiently and responsively in the game. (16 ref)
Physical aggression is typically attributed to inadequate control. While this is the pattern in 1 type of physically aggressive person, it is proposed that in another type, the Chronically Overcontrolled, rigid inhibitions against overt aggressive behavior will be found. Aggression by such people is apt to be of murderous intensity as aggressive impulse must build up to higher levels to overcome such inhibitions and since alternative means of expressing aggression have not been learned. This suggests that in comparison with other criminal groups, a murderously assaultive group will be assessed as less hostile, less aggressive, and more controlled. An empirical study of 4 groups of assaultive and nonviolent delinquents supports this prediction. Implications of this finding for practice and theory are discussed.
Suggests that there are problems associated with assessments of psychopathy in prison populations that use self-report inventories and global diagnostic procedures. In response to these problems, the authors developed a behavioral checklist for psychopathy. The psychometric qualities of the checklist were evaluated using generalizability theory and classical test score indices of reliability. In each of 5 yrs, 2 raters (usually different each year) rated prison inmates (N = 301; mean age 26.9 yrs) on 22 items. The generalizability coefficients were .85, .86, and .89 for the years 1977–1981, respectively. The generalizability coefficient for a test–retest study was .89. Classical indices of reliability (alpha coefficients and inter- and intrarater reliability) ranged from .82 to .93. Results indicate that the checklist is a highly reliable and generalizable instrument when used with prison populations. It is highly correlated with global ratings of psychopathy and criteria from the DSM-III for antisocial personality disorder. (14 ref)
The discussion of any topic is handicapped so long as there are doubts and disagreement as to what is being discussed.
Cluster analyses were carried out on a sample of random prisoners (N═60) and a comparison group of prison officers (N═40). The prisoner group produced three types similar to those previously obtained from abnormal homicides by Blackburn (1971) at Broadmoor and from “normal” homicides at Durham by McGurk (1978). The results were contrary to Megargee's (1966) theory of control in that the prisoners labelled as over-controlled did not have a history of extreme violence and few of those labelled undercontrolled had committed moderately assaultive offences. Most of the subjects were non-violent. Of particular note was the fact that 72.5 per cent, of the comparison group were seen as over-controlled relative to the previously obtained profiles from abnormal homicides and “ normal” homicides and this led to a reformulation of the results of these previous studies. Individuals previously seen as over-controlled in comparison to other offenders were thought simply to be normal and controlled.
The implications for Megargee's theory are discussed, and a reformulation of the theory is presented.
This chapter focuses on measuring rebelliousness. It describes the development of the negativism dominance scale. Negativism and conformity are central concepts in reversal theory, which form one of a number of pairs of bistable metamotivational states, among which there are said to be switches or “reversals.” Reversal theory posits that for a given pair of states, such as the negativistic and the conformist states, there is an internal bias, such that more time is likely to be spent in one state than in the other; and within the theory the degree of this bias is known as “dominance.” The negativistic dominant individual can be described synonymously as “rebellious” or “oppositional” and the negativistic state can be described as the “rebellious” or “oppositional” state. The concept of dominance is said to differ from that of “trait” because the former does not assume that behavior is consistent across situations. The development of a psychometrically sound measure of rebelliousness is based on the assumption that the construct merits investigation. The construct can be seen to be particularly relevant to the psychology of adolescence, for it is during this developmental period that rebelliousness is purported to be most prevalent.
The purpose of the present investigation was threefold: ( 1 ) to develop an empirical taxonomy of female offenders; (2) to relate these findings to empirical taxonomies of male offenders; and (3) to establish the occurrence of a personality type among female offenders approximating that called the psychopath. The women were awaiting trial in a correctional institution and approximately 94% had convictions previous to their current arrest. Personality profiles of these women were subjected to a cluster analysis, and four distinct profile types emerged, classifying three-quarters of the sample. The four types were tentatively identified as being characteristic of primary psychopaths, secondary or neurotic psychopaths, Megargee's overcontrolled personality type, and normal criminals. Similarities with previous research on both female and male offenders were emphasized, and one difference in the nondiscriminating power of the extraversion dimension was noted. The importance of further research with female offenders, and in particular, female psychopaths was stressed. High hostility scores for the entire sample were noted and an interpretation was suggested.
The abbreviated (15-item) version of Hare's Research Scale for the Assessment of Psychopathy (RSAP) was investigated in a sample of male admissions to Broadmoor Special Hospital (N = 50), along with five MMPI measures relevant to psychopathy (Impulsivity, Sociability, Psychopathic Deviate, Anxiety and Sociopathy). Patients were assigned to one of four clinical diagnostic groups: Personality Disorder, Mixed (personality disorder with schizophrenia), Schizophrenia and Affective Disorder. Results indicated that while both psychopathic groups (Mixed and Personality Disorder) showed high scores on almost all RSAP items, the Affective Disorder group showed low scores on almost all items. Results of a discriminant function analysis indicated that Hare's RSAP was superior to the MMPI measures at discriminating between psychopaths and non-psychopaths. Use of the discriminant function to re-allocate patients to criterion groups showed a high hit rate (94%) for psychopathic patients but a hit rate of only 61% for non-psychopathic patients. Half of the schizophrenic patients were mis-allocated to the psychopathic group. The results support the idea of an affective deficit common to psychopaths and schizophrenics, but suggest that psychopaths additionally show a deficit which may be characterized by a lack of goal-directed behaviour.
This paper describes an early phase in the development of new research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal populations. The scale is meant to be a sort of operational definition of the procedures that go into making global ratings of psychopathy. While the interrater reliability of these ratings is very high ( > 0.85) they are difficult to make, require a considerable amount of experience, and the procedures involved are not easily communicated to other investigators. Following a series of analyses, 22 items were chosen as representative of the type of information used in making global ratings. Two investigators then used interview and case-history data to complete the 22-item checklist for 143 male prison inmates. The correlation between the two sets of total checklist scores was 0.93 and coefficient alpha was 0.88, indicating a very high degree of scale reliability. The correlation between the total checklist scores and global ratings of psychopathy was 0.83. A series of multivariate analyses explored the factorial structure of the scale and demonstrated its ability to discriminate very accurately between inmates with high and low ratings of psychopathy. Preliminary indications are that the checklist will hold up well to crossvalidation.
Tested the proposal that H. Cleckley's (1976) criteria of psychopathy represent 1 axis (hostility vs warmth) of a circular ordering of the relationship between interpersonal variables. It was also proposed that these criteria alone would not be sufficient to identify a homogeneous group of deviant persons. Nurses' ratings of the behavior of 60 institutionalized mentally disordered offenders (mean age 33.2 yrs) were obtained for Cleckley's criteria and for behavioral dimensions of impulsive aggression and sociability. Ss also completed measures such as the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and Sensation-Seeking Scale. Cleckley's criteria described a unitary dimension whose relationship to other variables was consistent with the circumplex model. Cluster analysis of the ratings identified 2 distinct groups of high scorers on Cleckley's criteria, who were also significantly differentiated by self-report personality variables. Only 1 group showed the combination of lack of warmth or affection and lack of behavioral control that several investigators consider necessary to define psychopathy. Relationships among individual rating items and some of the personality variables closely approximated the expected circular ordering. This interpersonal circumplex appears to reconcile some of the differences in current conceptualizations of psychopathic personality. (40 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
It is the author's thesis that conditions now grouped under the heading of psychopathy and psychopathic states can be divided into 2 distinct clinical groups each having its own particular etiologies and forms of expression. Symptomatic psychopathy includes "all those reactions that on the surface bear close resemblance to what we call psychopathic behavior, except that in these cases it is not difficult to elicit psychogenesis which is behind the psychopathic indulgence;" idiopathic psychopathy (anethopathy) includes psychopathic reactions for which it is impossible to find any psychogenic factors. 2 detailed case studies are presented to illustrate this distinction. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Is has been proposed that the psychiatric categorisation of personality disorder can be translated into a two-dimensional system which represents the major sources of variation in interpersonal behaviour. This descriptive system has its counterparts in self-report personality measurement, and the construction of two scales to measure these dimensions is described. Items from a multi-trait inventory, the SHAPS (Special Hospitals Assessment of Personality and Socialisation) were matched with factor scores to yield a 40-item scale of Belligerence (B) and a 27-item scale of Withdrawal (W). Both scales have high reliability, and were highly correlated with factor scores in three samples of forensic psychiatric patients. Patient and prison samples scored significantly higher than a normal group on both scales, and correlations of the scales with other personality tests and with observer ratings provide evidence for their validity. B measures a dimension of hostile, impulsive and aggressive characteristics associated with psychopathic personality, central to which appears to be rejection versus acceptance of others. W measures a dimension of social shyness and submissiveness, and seems to reflect rejection versus acceptance of self. Cut off scores were derived which successfully reproduced a four-fold empirical taxonomy generated in previous research with offenders. It is suggested that the psychiatric categories of personality disorder can be encompassed within these four groups.
Barbour-McMullen, Coid and Howard argue that the So scale is a measure of the “North American” concept of psychopathy, and that since this measure but not “European” personality measures of psychopathy (such as Impulsivity and Belligerence) correctly identify DSM-III defined psychopaths, then European and North American concepts of psychopathy are distinct. Conceptual and methodological problems with this study are outlined which seriously question this conclusion. Socialisation is not an adequate measure of either psychopathy or the “early chronic antisociality” claimed to be central to North American conceptions of psychopathy. North American conceptions of psychopathy are not heavily based on early antisocial conduct claimed by Barbour-McMullen et al. There is also clear evidence that the two conceptions of psychopathy are related at an empirical level, and that psychiatrists in both continents adopt the same concept of psychopathy in making a diagnosis. It is concluded that psychopathy is a single and not a dual concept.
The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) was administered to 173 male prison inmates for whom reliable assessments of psychopathy were available. Psychopathy was significantly correlated with the Psychoticism (P) scale (r = 0.16) and the Lie scale (r = 0.14), but not with the Extraversion (E) or Neuroticism (N) scales. Zone (octant) analysis indicated that psychopathy was not associated with any particular combination of P, E and N scores. Additional analyses, based on the discriminant function procedure described in the EPQ manual, indicated that inmates with high assessments of psychopathy were significantly less psychiatrically abnormal, in the EPQ sense, than were those with low assessments of psychopathy. A series of comparisons was also made between the P scale and a 22-item psychopathy checklist. The P scale was significantly correlated with six of the items, and with factors 1 (r = 0.30) and 4 (r = 0.19) that emerged from a principal components analysis of the checklist. Factor 1 is related to an impulsive, unstable lifestyle with no long-term commitments and factor 4 to the early appearance of antisocial behavior. It is argued that the P scale reflects the criminal, antisocial aspects of psychopathy and that the results probably have no direct implications for the suggestion that psychopathy and psychoticism are related in some fundamental way. A canonical analysis indicated that some interesting relations may exist between the EPQ variables and the psychopathy factors.
This study addressed the question of the degree of commonality, at a psychometric trait level, shared between two distinct concepts of psychopathy: a North American concept, defined in terms of chronic antisocial behaviour with early onset; and a European concept, defined in terms of personality deviation. Four groups of Broadmoor patients were identified who conformed to DSM-III criteria for the following diagnostic categories: Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) (n = 12); Other Personality Disorders (OPD) (n = 9); Schizophrenic Disorders (SD) (n = 10); and a Mixed (M) group who met the criteria for both Schizophrenic Disorders and Antisocial Personality Disorder (n = 12). Thus subjects in both the APD and M groups, having a DSM-III diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder, conformed to the North American concept of psychopathy. All diagnostic groups, together with a non-psychiatric control group of psychiatric nurses, were investigated using a composite battery of psychometric measures which tapped the two concepts of psychopathy. The only measure to discriminate successfully between patient groups with an APD diagnosis and other groups was Gough's (1969) Socialisation, which is itself a measure of the North American concept. Measures of personality deviation, including Blackburn's (1987) Belligerence and Withdrawal measures, failed to successfully discriminate DSM-III APD's from others. Thus the degree of trait commonality between the two concepts was found to be minimal. The study also addresses a fundamental question raised recently by both Hare and Harpur (1986) and Raine (1986) in criticism of a study by Howard, Bailey and Newman (1984): Are Broadmoor psychopaths “psychopathic” in the North American sense? Results of the study clearly indicate that they indeed are.
In a recent paper Howard, Bailey and Newman described their experiences with a 15-item version of Hare's research scale for the assessment of psychopathy. They administered the checklist and several MMPI-derived scales to 50 consecutive admissions to Broadmoor Hospital. Psychiatric diagnoses were used to assign the patients to one of four clinical groups: Schizophrenic, Personality Disorder, Mixed and Affective Disorder. They reported that the Psychopathy Checklist was far better than the MMPI variables in discriminating among groups, but that it lacked clinical specificity because half of the schizophrenics were misclassified as ‘psychopaths’. However, we argue that serious methodological problems, including the use of poorly defined and inadequate criterion groups, make it impossible to draw any useful conclusions from the study.
It is suggested that Raine's criticisms of the paper by Barbour-McMullen, Coid and Howard rest on misconceptions, particularly regarding the nature of the supposed conceptual dichotomy between “North American” and “European” concepts of psychopathy. Several points of clarification are offered. It is maintained that psychopathy is indeed a dual, rather than a unitary, concept.
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of South Florida, 1977. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 111-116).
Two cluster analytic procedures were applied to personality test data obtained from 300 violent offenders. The analyses produced four broadly similar profile patterns which replicate those found in previous studies of violent offenders. The four patterns were labelled Primary Psychopath, Secondary Psychopath, Controlled and Inhibited. Two factor dimensions of Psychopathy or Antisocial Aggression and Social Withdrawal were sufficient to reproduce the typology. Two further profile patterns were identified, but these were variants or subgroups of the secondary psychopath and controlled profile patterns. The primary and secondary psychopath patterns predominate among those identified as having personality disorders, while controlled and inhibited patterns were more likely to be associated with more serious psychiatric disability.
The main personality types occurring among abnormal homicides were determined by means of a cluster analysis of MMPI profiles of fifty-six Broadmoor patients. The analysis yielded four independent profile types, by which it was possible to classify four-fifths of the sample. These were identified as: (1) an over-controlled-repressor type characterised by an absence of reported disturbance, but a marked tendency to make use of denial and avoidance mechanisms; (2) a paranoid-aggressive type showing severe and wide spread psychopathology and poor impulse control; (3) a depressed-inhibited type who reveal subjective depression, social withdrawal and inhibition; ( a psychopathic group who are extraverted, extra-punitive and impulsive, but who do not reveal any significant subjective distress. Significant differences were found between the groups on background variables, suggesting that the typology is meaningful. It was suggested that Types 1 and 3 on the one hand, and 2 and 4 on the other represent broad categories of over-controlled and under-controlled personalities. The presence of a substantial number of over-controlled personalities is consistent with a theory linking instigation and personality type to extreme aggression.
Factor analyses of personality test data in two samples of offenders admitted to psychiatric security hospitals yielded two higher order factors identified as psychopathy or antisocial aggression versus conformity, and social withdrawal versus sociability. One sample was also rated for ward behaviour by nursing staff, and similar factors emerged from the behaviour rating data. The self-report dimension of psychopathy correlated significantly with the corresponding rating dimension at the time of admission and, for medicated subjects only, with ratings obtained 2 years later. Cross-media convergence of the withdrawal dimension was not found at the time of admission, but for unmedicated subjects, initial self-reports correlated significantly with the equivalent rating dimension as assessed 2 years later. The two dimensions therefore appear to measure meaningful behavioural dispositions. While they define the same dimensional space as neuroticism and introversion--extraversion, they appear to provide a more appropriate framework for classification within this population of offenders.
The MMPI profiles of 295 short-term prisoners undergoing presentence evaluations were cluster-analyzed, resulting in four distinct groups. These groups differed in IQ, on recidivism-related characteristics reflected in a Base Expectancy score and an estimate of extensiveness of arrest record, and on type of psychiatric-psychological recommendation made to the referring courts. However, they did not differ on age, educational level, or the severity of their offenses. In comparing these results with those of other typological investigations of offender groups, it was tentatively concluded that these short-term prisoners being considered for probation seem less emotionally disturbed than those serving sentences for custodial or other purposes.
Personality profiles of 79 non-psychotic male offenders admitted to a security hospital were subjected to a cluster analysis. Four profile types were generated, classifying four-fifths of the sample, and differences were found between the types in previous antisocial behaviour. Two of the types were identifiable as primary and secondary psychopaths, while the remaining two showed little resemblance to the concept of the psychopathic personality. The primary psychopaths were extraverted but not neurotic, while the secondary psychopaths were neurotic, but not extraverted. Both were highly impulsive but distinguished by a dimension of sociability-withdrawal.
Offender patients at a psychiatric security hospital were classified as primary or secondary psychopaths or as conforming or inhibited non-psychopaths, and compared on a Situations-Reactions Inventory of Hostility. Prior factor analysis of this inventory indicated two classes of situation, labelled attack and frustration, and three classes of reaction - aggression, anger, and arousal. Psychopathic subjects generally rated their reactions as more intense but differed significantly from non-psychopaths only in their response to attack. Secondary psychopaths produced the most intense reactions, but differed from primary psychopaths in reporting greater somatic arousal. The results suggest that psychopaths as a group more readily interpret provocation or threats from others as unwarranted attack. It is proposed that an attributional bias towards perceiving malevolent intent may be central to psychopathy.
Reversal theory: motivation, emotion and personality. London: Routledge. Barbour-McMullen, a platform
- M J Apter
Apter, M. J. (1989). Reversal theory: motivation, emotion and personality. London: Routledge. Barbour-McMullen, a platform. Archives of Criminal Psychodynamics. 1. 3-100.
Psychopathic (sociopathic) personality Texrbook of forensic psychiatry
- M Roth
Roth, M. (1990). Psychopathic (sociopathic) personality In Bluglass, R. 8c Bowden, P. (Eds), Texrbook of forensic psychiatry. London: Churchill Livingstone.
Interpersonal conflict and cooperation in psychopaths An empirical classification of female offenders
- C S Widom
Widom, C. S. (1973). Interpersonal conflict and cooperation in psychopaths. Ph.D. thesis, Brandeis University. Widom, C. S. (1977). An empirical classification of female offenders. Criminal Justice and Eehauiour, 5, 35-52.
A cognitive-interpersonal analysis of personality disorder in mentally disordered offenders
- Blackburn
Personality types among prisoners and prison officers
- McGurk
Psychopathic (sociopathic) personality
- Roth