A contextualistic approach to antisocial personality
| Published date | 09 September 2014 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-11-2013-0029 |
| Pages | 163-184 |
| Date | 09 September 2014 |
| Author | J. Carmelo Visdómine-Lozano |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Criminal psychology |
A contextualistic approach to antisocial
personality
J. Carmelo Visdo
´mine-Lozano
Dr J. Carmelo Visdo
´mine-
Lozano is a Senior Technical
Body for II.PP.,based at
Ministerio del Interior,
Secretarı
´a General de
Instituciones Penitenciarias,
Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to introduce a contextualistic account of antisocialresponding, with
the addition of recent developments on the study of personality.
Design/methodology/approach – A behavioural and contextualistic view point is developed to account
for antisocial personality and related topics, inasmuch as traditional definitions of antisocial personality
disorder as provided on formal diagnostic manuals derive on several and not always coherent classifications
of antisocialbehaviours. Some of theseclassifications centreon issues like guilt, impulsivityor aggressiveness
for establishing different typesof offending and antisocialpatterns. This paper focuseson functional personal
backgrounds.
Findings – A total of five types of “potentiated contingencies”are described as being the main
underpinnings involved in antisocial patterns. An analysis of the transformation of aversive functions of
antisocial behaviours, leads to specify a distinctive rule-following behaviour that is concerned with that
responding. Finally, the exposition of the four verbal clinical contexts that behaviour analysis highlights
as taking place at therapeutic settings, serves to propose a fitter contextualistic intervention for antisocial
personality patterns.
Research limitations/implications – Novel investigations should contrast the functional classification of
antisocial responding. Those studies should experimentally demonstrate the way in which the different
instances of transformation of antisocial functions the author has described are prompted.
Practical implications – The analysis also allows for the anticipation of the behaviour of individuals fitting to
every category of antisocial avoidance. And as the functional analysis of “antisocial avoidance”uncovers
specific relations between environmental stimuli as they are produced and established in the history of
interactions of individuals, a more fitting intervention based upon those relations is feasible.
Originality/value – An exhaustive functional taxonomy of antisocial personalities and delinquent
behaviours has never been presented before elsewhere. Besides the author reinterprets from a contextualist
position traditional empirical studies.
Keywords Psychopathy, Antisocial behaviour, Conditioning history, Criminal classification,Delinquency,
Experiential avoidance
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
There are several psychological concepts trying to explicate the topic of violent and/or
delinquent behaviour. The variety of etiological explanations sustaining these concepts is also
very wide, and this fact is often a barrier to implementing well-grounded and empirical-validated
therapeutic interventions, as well as to designing relevant basic research. Current formal criteria
contained in diagnostic manuals are of little utility, as they do not provide information about
specific behavioural variables. This paper aims to offer an alternative and unifying contextualistic
account to provide clarity in the field.
For example, both ICD-10 (WHO, 2010) and DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) provide traditional
definitions of “antisocial personality disorder” (APD). However, ICD-10 typifies APD as a
“dissocial disorder”, while the term “dissocial” is applied in DSM to an axis-I disorderbeginning
DOI 10.1108/JCP-11-2013-0029 VOL. 4 NO. 2 2014, pp. 163-184, CEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2009-3829
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY
j
PAGE 163
either in infancy or adolescence. The central criteria emphasised in both classifications for an
adult personality disorder are almost identical. These criteria are: a failure to conform to society’s
norms that often results in legal involvement; impulsivity and low tolerance of frustration;
irritability and angry outbursts; a disregard for several aspects of other peoples’ concerns;
pervasive irresponsibility; and lack of guilt and empathy. In addition, DSM-IV-TR specifies:
dishonesty, lying behaviour and fraud; and ICD-10 adds; inconsistent interpersonal
relationships. Finally both classifications highlight the presence of a dissocial disorder before
age 15, and the criteria for diagnosing a dissocial disorder are: assaults on people and animals;
damaging property; fraud and robbery; and law violation. These sets of criteria are descriptions
of topographies and classes of behaviour that are useful for formal clinical labelling, but they
do not include any reference to actual offences nor tools for identifying relevant variables to
change those behaviours.
This confusion grows when we attempt to account for “psychopathy”, a topic intimately
associated with aggressive, antisocial and criminal behaviour. The first formal approaches
to conceptualise this topic were Pinel’s “manie sans de
´lire” and Pritchard’s “moral insanity”
(Prins, 2001). Some authors consider that “antisocial behaviour” has an environmental aetiology,
meanwhile “psychopathy” was innately biological (Frick, 1998); this distinction was made during
the 1940s and 1950s. In fact Hare (1983, 1991) and Frick and Hare (2002) have developed
a scale for determining who inclines towards a “psychopathic” profile and who towards an
“antisocial” one. However we cannot find apparent qualitative differences between “antisocial”
and “psychopathy” after reviewing the items belonging to Hare’s scale. Many items including
shallow charm, personal grandeur, pathological lying, parasitic life, manipulation, lack of guilt,
empathy and responsibility, thrill seeking, early behavioural problems, impulsivity, delinquent
behaviours in youth, and sexual promiscuity can also be found in the common delinquent
population. Neural correlates observed in the population labelled “psychopathic” can be
interpreted either as the result of a specific life and learning history, or as a characteristic
of severely brain-damaged individuals; neuro-imaging is inconclusive about etiological factors
per se.
Cleckley (1941/1976) distinguished between primary and secondary psychopathy, depending
on whether the person feels guilty or not. Likewise, Echeburu
´a and Corral (2003) differentiated
between antisocial patterns and delinquent behaviours, the latter being performed by an
individual who subsequently feels guilty. These and other authors (see Cleckley, 1941/1976;
Millon, 1981) have proposed that individuals performing antisocial behaviours do not necessarily
come to breaking the law; they separate “psychopathy” from criminal behaviour.
Notwithstanding, all these authors include, sooner or later, delinquent behaviours in their
definitions (Beck et al., 1995). Corral (2003) points out the prevalence of APD (75 per cent) in the
inmate population. Millon (1981) classified antisocial patterns depending on their
aggressiveness, and therefore distinguished between “aggressive antisocial” and “non-
antisocial aggressive” individuals. Millon and Davis (1998) subsequently added a new category,
“non-aggressive antisocial” individuals, which they split into four subcategories depending on
style:
1. normal antisocial style (competitive and irresponsible);
2. greedy antisocial (envious and without guilt);
3. risky antisocial (reckless); and
4. nomadic antisocial (resentful).
This amount of formal classifications adds further confusion to the definition of “antisocial
behaviour” and “psychopathy”, in our view, because many individuals can be categorised into
two or more categories at the same time (these authors do not provide an appropriate
explanation for this overlap) and also because we can understand some definitional criteria
(e.g. “guilt-no guilt”) as a continuum instead of as a dichotomy.
In addition, some researchers have enlarged the list of conceptual categories when they have
dealt with particular kinds of offences characterised by special seriousness. Thus, regarding
sexual offenders and murderers, further classifications are available. Sexual offenders have been
PAGE 164
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY
j
VOL. 4 NO. 2 2014
To continue reading
Request your trial