Psychopathy and criminal behaviour: a psychosocial research perspective
| Pages | 83-107 |
| Date | 20 September 2013 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-06-2013-0014 |
| Published date | 20 September 2013 |
| Author | Katie Dhingra,Daniel Boduszek |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Public policy & environmental management,Sociology |
Psychopathy and criminal behaviour: a
psychosocial research perspective
Katie Dhingra and Daniel Boduszek
Dr Katie Dhingra is a
Researcher and Dr Daniel
Boduszek is a Lecturer, both
are based at University of
Huddersfield, Huddersfield,
UK.
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to provide a critical review of the psychopathy literature, with a particular
focus on recent research examining the relationship between psychopathy and various forms of
criminal behaviour.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors provide an overview of the studies conducted to date. To
identify relevant published studies for this review,literature searches were completed using Web of Science,
Scopus, PsychINFO, and PubMed.
Findings – Substantial empirical research exists to suggest that psychopathy is a robust predictor of
criminal behaviour and recidivism. Furthermore, considerable support for the assertion that the violence
perpetrated by psychopathic offenders is more instrumental than the violence committed by other offenders
was found. In addition, some research suggests that the greater use of instrumental violence among
psychopathic offenders may be due to the interpersonal/affective traits of psychopathy, and not the
impulsive/antisocial traits.
Originality/value – The current paper is the first to provide an in-depth review of the literature examining
the association between psychopathy and criminal offending with a particular focus on violent and homicidal
behaviour.
Keywords Criminal behaviour, Homicide, Offending, Psychopathy, Recidivism, Violence
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
Psychopathy is a clinical construct characterised by a constellation of interpersonal (e.g.
deceitfulness, superficial charm, grandiosity), affective (e.g. lack of empathy, remorse, or
guilt), and behavioural (e.g. irresponsibility, impulsivity, parasitic lifestyle) features (Cleckley,
1941/1976; Hare, 2003; Hare and Neumann, 2008). These features appear to be genetically
influenced, begin to manifest in childhood, and are relatively stable over time (Larsson
et al., 2006; Lynam et al., 2007; Viding et al., 2007). Recent studies indicate that the latent
structure of psychopathy is more accurately represented as a dimensional rather than
categorical construct (e.g. Edens et al., 2006; Forth and Kroner, 1995; Guay et al., 2007; see,
however, Harris et al., 1994; Skilling et al., 2001). These findings are consistent with the
view that psychopathic personality traits exist on a continuum within the general population
(Hare and Neumann, 2008).
Psychopathy has been described as one of the most important psychological constructs within
the criminal justice system (e.g. Hare et al., 2000; Harris et al., 2001), perhaps the most
important forensic concept of the early twenty-first century (Monahan, 2006), and the unified
theory of crime (DeLisi, 2009). The international standard for the assessment of psychopathy is
the psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003). The PCL-R and its direct
derivatives: the psychopathy checklist: screening version (PCL: SV; Hart et al., 1995) and
the psychopathy checklist: youth version (PCL: YV; Forth and Kroner, 1995) form the bases for
the majority of the research discussed in this review, and are described in greater depth
DOI 10.1108/JCP-06-2013-0014 VOL. 3 NO. 2 2013, pp. 83-107, CEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2009-3829
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY
j
PAGE 83
below, along with two self-report measu res: the Hare self-report psychop athy scale
(SRP; Paulhus et al., 2013) and the Levenson self-report psychopathy scale (LSRP;
Levenson et al., 1995).
The purpose of this review is to summarise extant knowledge on the relationship between
psychopathy and criminal behaviour, with the goal of identifying areas in particular need of future
research. This review will cover four main areas: measurement tools for the assessment of
psychopathy, an overview of the association between gender and psychopathy, an overview of
child/adolescent psychopathy, and the empirical research examining the association between
psychopathy and criminal behaviour.
Method
To identify relevant published studies for this review, literature searches were completed using
Web of Science, Scopus, PsychINFO, and PubMed. Keyword searches using the following
terms were employed: psychopath*and crim*; psychopath*; violen*; psychopath*and offend*;
and psychopath*and measures. The abstracts of all studies were read by the first author to
select appropriate papers for inclusion. To ensure that other relevant publications were not
missed, the reference sections of all papers were examined in detail. A web listing of
psychopathy references developed by Robert Hare (Key References Related to the Study of
Psychopathy: www.hare.org/references/) also was examined for relevant publications.
Assessment of psychopathy
Due to space limitations, we focus on the most extensively researched and validated measures
of psychopathy, the Hare PCL-R (Hare, 1991, 2003) and its derivatives the PCL: SV (Hart et al.,
1995), and the PCL: YV (Forth and Kroner,1995); the LSRP (Levenson et al., 1995);and the self-
report psychopathy-III (SRP-III; Paulhus et al., 2013).
The PCL-R
The PCL-R (Hare, 1991, 2003) was developed for use with offender populations. The measure
consists of 20-items scored on the basis of extensive interview and file information. Each item is
rated as 0 (not present), 1 (possibly present), or 2 (definitely present), resulting in total score that
can range from 0 to 40. A cut-score of 30 is typically used to distinguish individuals with
psychopathy from those without psychopathy for research purposes (Hare, 1991, 2003),
although some researchers have used other cut-scores for psychopathy due to a suggested
lack of scalar equivalence (e.g. 25 in some European studies; e.g. Cooke and Michie, 1999;
Cooke et al., 2005). Extensive literature supports the reliability and validity of the PCL-R.
Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that the measure generalises well across a variety of
populations and contexts (e.g. Bolt et al., 2004, 2007; Cooke et al., 2005; Hare 2003; Skeem
et al., 2004). However, there appears to be ethnic and sex differences in the functioning of
individual PCL-R items (Bolt et al., 2004, 2007; Cooke et al., 2005).
PCL-R scores have been found to predict violent behaviour and recidivism, revocation of parole,
and poor participation in and response to therapeutic interventions, among other outcomes, in
prison populations (e.g. Hare and McPherson, 1984; Hart, 1998; Hemphill et al., 1998a; Salekin
et al., 1996). The PCL-R may also provide incremental validity in the prediction of violence,
recidivism, and institutional misbehaviour over standard actuarial risk assessment based on
demographic and historical variables (Hart, 1998; Wilson and Yardley, 2013).
Although initially considered a higher-order construct underpinned by two highly correlated
factors (interpersonal/affective and socially deviant lifestyle; Hare, 1991; Neumann et al., 2007a,
see Table I), recent confirmatory factor analysis has described a three-factor hierarchical model,
based on 13-items (interpersonal, affective, and behavioural/lifestyle; Cooke and Michie, 2001)
and more recently a four-factor model (interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and antisocial; see
Table II) for the PCL-R (Hare, 2003; Neumann et al., 2005, 2007a,b; see Hare and Neumann,
2008, 2010 for a detailed description of the four-factor model). Two items (“promiscuous sexual
behaviour”, “many short-term relationships”) do not load on any of the factors but contribute to
PAGE 84
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY
j
VOL. 3 NO. 2 2013
To continue reading
Request your trial