Academic literature on the topic 'Psychopaths Personality disorders'

The idea that psychopaths may be able to "beat" a standard polygraph ("lie detector") test remains a controversial issue. The one published study to date that has addressed this question directly (Raskin & Hare, 1978) has been challenged on the grounds that: 1) the polygraph testing situation lacked a 'realistic threat component, and 2) the examiner's decisions were not based on blind chart analyses (Lykken, 1978). The present study re-assessed the accuracy of the polygraph with psychopaths using a revised procedure, in response to Lykken's criticisms. Subjects were 24 psychopathic and 24 nonpsychopathic male prison inmates (aged 18-54) selected on the basis of psychopathy checklist scores (Hare, 1980) and DSM-III ratings within each diagnostic sample, equal groups of "guilty" and "innocent" subjects were tested regarding their involvement in a mock theft by experienced professional polygraphers using control question procedures. Methodological innovations included: a) a "group contingency threat" manipulation which produced a realistic motivational; atmosphere for the polygraph test, b) simultaneous recordings of physiological activity on field and laboratory polygraph instruments, and c) blind numerical analyses of the field polygraph charts. Consistent with Raskin and Hare's results, the guilty psychopaths in the present study were detected just as easily as the guilty nonpsychopaths, and the majority of guilty subjects (87%, excluding inconclusives ) were correctly identified, even when the decisions were based on blind chart analyses. However in contrast to Raskin and Hare's 91% accuracy figure for innocent subjects, the overall hit rate for innocent subjects in the present study was only 56%. Quantitative analyses of the laboratory polygraph recordings revealed few meaningful differences between psychopaths and nonpsychopaths, and the results for guilty and innocent subjects closely matched those obtained with the field polygraph. The findings were discussed in terms of their implications for the field validity of the control question test and the responsivity of psychopaths to threat.<br>Arts, Faculty of<br>Psychology, Department of<br>Graduate

There is a growing body of research on psychopathic traits in non-clinical populations. This emerging research has documented the prevalence of psychopathic traits in the general population and demonstrated that psychopathy has a similar latent structure as well as similar correlates (e.g., violent behavior, alcohol abuse, and lower intelligence) to forensic/offender samples. Relatedly, there is strong evidence insecure attachment patterns in adulthood are associated with many personality disorders, including psychopathy, but only a few studies have examined the relationship between attachment and psychopathic traits in non-clinical samples (albeit, convenience samples of college students). Thus, two aims of the current study are to: 1) describe and explore the manifestation and expression of psychopathic traits in a large, community-based sample and 2) examine associations between adult attachment disturbances and psychopathic traits in diverse sociodemographic subgroups. Using a cross-sectional design, results showed mean-level psychopathy factor score differences existed only when considering single sociodemographic factors (e.g., age), not an interaction of those factors. Psychopathy factor profiles were also consistent across groups, with higher levels of lifestyle followed by interpersonal, affective, and antisocial traits reported. Regarding the second aim, findings indicated support for the positive association between disturbed attachment patterns in adult relationships and psychopathic traits, although these associations differed in males and females of different age groups. Finally, there was some support for attachment processes acting as a social development pathway toward psychopathy, as insecure attachments in adulthood partially mediated the relationships between age and interpersonal, affective, and lifestyle traits of psychopathy.

This study was concerned with the relations between representations of psychopathy and interpersonal perceptions. From 147 inmates seen in a federal medium security prison, 79 of the men provided complete data for comparisons. Groups were defined under criteria from (1) the Psychopathy Checklist (PC) (Hare, 1985b), or (2) American Psychiatric Association (1980, 1987) outlines for Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD). Measures were derived from the Interpersonal Adjective Scales-Revised (IAS-R) (Wiggins, Trapnell, and Phillips, 1988 ) which relate interpersonally defined perceptions of personality as locations within a circumplex space--Interpersonal Circle (Wiggins, 1979, 1980). Self-ratings were obtained as descriptive of (1) self, (2) ideal self, (3) self as thought seen by a friends, and (4) self as thought seen by a specific member of the institutional staff. A rating was also obtained from the specific staff members as descriptive of the particular inmates. Comparisons were also made with respect to the specificity and sensitivity of MMPI profiles considered relevant to psychopathy. Supplementary comparisons used selected scales from the Adjective Checklist (ACL) (Gough and Heilbrun, 1980) and Rosenberg's (1965) Self- esteem Scale. These comparisons provided manipulation checks of the consistency of the data and contributed to the interpretive generalizability of the results. The primary hypotheses were that a group of individuals defined as psychopathic would show differences in representations obtained from self-rated and other-rated descriptions, with respect to circumplex location and derived difference scores from the IAS-R, in comparison to groups considered non-psychopathic. Results indicated differential perceptions, particularly by staff members, which provided good discriminations of groups based on the PC but not for groups defined by APD. Circumplex locations of psychopaths defined by the PC were consistent with expectations for the Interpersonal Circle. The discriminative utility of group differences was much higher for the PC-defined groups than for APD relative to the base rates for these different categorizations. The results are discussed in terms of (1) their contribution to the nomological network for the concept of psychopathy as represented by the PC, (2) specific limitations of the study, and (3) the evident confusion which can result from the use of measures assumed to to relate to the 'psychopath,' but that rely on primarily behavioural descriptions.<br>Arts, Faculty of<br>Psychology, Department of<br>Graduate

Both researchers and clinicians, especially those working in criminal populations, have long suggested that psychopathy (or antisocial personality disorder) and schizophrenia are associated on an etiological or on some other level (e.g., Eysenck and Eysenck, 1976, 1978). Others (Hare, 1984; Hare and Harpur, 1986; Raine, 1985) argue that psychopathy is not associated (or even negatively associated) with other psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia. To evaluate these competing positions concerning the psychopathy-schizophrenia association, 80 male prisoners remanded to a forensic psychiatric institute for assessment of their fitness to stand trial were diagnosed using both the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, 1980, 1985a) and DSM-III Axis I and II criteria. In addition, clinical global ratings and self-report inventories were used to measure the strength of psychopathy- and schizophrenia-related traits. The results indicated that: a) although diagnoses of psychopathy (according to PCL criteria) did not have perfect specificity with respect to schizophrenia-related clinical diagnoses, the overlap was small, and the PCL scales were either not associated or negatively associated with these disorders; b) diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder (APD, according to DSM-III criteria) were generally not associated with schizophrenia-related disorders, but had lower clinical specificity than did the PCL criteria with respect to both schizophrenia-related and other psychiatric disorders; c) there was no association between psychopathy- and schizophrenia-related clinical ratings; d) psychopathy and APD diagnoses and clinical ratings were not related to scores on other standard rating scales of the severity of psychiatric symptomatology; and e) there was no difference between schizophrenic and non-schizophrenic subjects in the strength of psychopathy-related traits, and no difference between psychopaths and nonpsychopaths (or APD versus non-APD subjects) in the strength of schizophrenia-related traits. As well, self-report measures related to psychopathy and schizophrenia did not correlate with each other, or with clinical ratings of the two disorders. The results are interpreted as supporting the view that psychopathy is not positively associated with schizophrenia or with psychiatric disorder in general. The practical utility of various techniques for assessing psychopathy in forensic psychiatric populations is also discussed.<br>Arts, Faculty of<br>Political Science, Department of<br>Graduate

This study was designed to examine the hypothesis that criminal psychopaths differ from criminal nonpsychopaths in their ability to over-focus attention on certain kinds of stimuli. For the purposes of this study, the concept of over-focussing was operationalized to mean the ability to process stimuli more quickly or efficiently by making use of one or more attentional mechanisms for selecting among locations or stimuli. A second aim of the study was to identify the component processes contributing to this more efficient selection. Five experiments were run to assess several different components of attention contributing to selection of stimuli in a variety of paradigms. Experiments 1 and 2 assessed covert orienting of attention across the visual field using both peripherally presented physical cues and centrally presented symbolic cues to prime locations in visual space. Three dissociable components of attention were assessed in this paradigm. Experiments 3-5 were designed to assess the efficiency of processing a target item in the presence of a distractor item. Four additional dissociable components of selective attention were measured in these three studies. The results supported the hypothesis that psychopaths can over-focus attention, but the groups were differentiated by only one of the component processes measured. In Experiments 1 and 2 endogenous orienting of attention was greater for psychopaths than for nonpsychopaths. In these paradigms endogenous facilitation controlled the allocation of attention to cued locations, and the subsequent speeding of reaction time to targets presented at those locations, when the cue was symbolic or predictive, but not when it involved a physical change of energy at the cued location. This strategic allocation of attention probably resulted from the predictive validity (approximately 68% valid) of the cue in relation to the target. Other component processes failed to differentiate the groups. These included measures of exogenous orienting and inhibition of return in experiments 1 and 2, and measures of interference due to a distracting stimulus, habituation of interference, attenuation of interference due to spatial displacement of the distractor, and negative priming in experiments 3-5. The difference in covert orienting was replicated in experiments 1 and 2 in two groups of criminals who also failed to demonstrate any abnormalities in a variety of other processes involved in attention. It was concluded that psychopaths differ from nonpsychopaths specifically in their strategic allocation of attention in situations of moderate uncertainty, but show no other abnormalities in the component processes that control attention.<br>Arts, Faculty of<br>Psychology, Department of<br>Graduate

Personality disorders have traditionally been considered refractory to psychological interventions. Two of the most common, and potentially harmful personality disorders are antisocial personality disorder / psychopathy, and narcissism. Although a great deal of conceptual overlap exists between psychopathy and narcissism, the empirical study of these constructs has proceeded largely independently of one another. Further complicating the discrimination of these constructs is the identification of the bi-factorial nature of psychopathy - conceptualised as primary and secondary psychopathy - as well as the identification of two distinct forms of narcissism, overt and covert. The recent resurgence of interest in the sub-clinical manifestations of these two constructs has led to the development of a number of easily administered instruments to measure each of the psychopathy and narcissism constructs, as dimensional traits, within normal populations. This has provided empirically validated and reliable instruments to further explicate these two overlapping constructs. The first of the two studies reported sought to discriminate between psychopathy and narcissism through the recharacterisation of these constructs in terms of the early maladaptive schemas outlined in Young’s early maladaptive schema theory (Young, 1999). Two hundred and ninety one participants completed questionnaires measuring primary and secondary psychopathy, overt and covert narcissism, and early maladaptive schemas. Findings are consistent with the hypothesis that psychopathy and narcissism are discriminable in cognitive-interpersonal terms, as operationalised by early maladaptive schemas. Findings also call into question the earlier observed hierarchical structure of the Young Schema Questionnaire. The current analysis identified a two-factor structure to the schema questionnaire, rather than the previously stated 5-factors. Having demonstrated the usefulness of understanding psychopathy and narcissism in cognitive-interpersonal terms, the second study sought to further clarify the association between psychopathy and narcissism through the reconceptualisation of these constructs in cognitive terms, through the identification of the cognitive distortions operative in each disorder. One hundred and thirty two participants completed a cognitive distortions questionnaire developed by the author, along with the same measures of primary and secondary psychopathy, and overt and covert narcissism, as those administered in study 1. Findings were interpreted as providing support for the notion of psychopathy representing a sub-category of narcissism. Findings also provide further supportive evidence for the validity of the primary / secondary psychopathy, and overt / covert narcissism distinctions. The further clarification of the factor structure of the Young Schema Questionnaire, and the replication of the reliability and construct validity of the measure of cognitive distortions developed for this research are highlighted as areas for future research.