About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


33 Crim. Behav. & Mental Health 1 (2023)

handle is hein.journals/cbmh33 and id is 1 raw text is: DOI: 10.1002/cbm.2271 EDITOR I AL WILEY The science of psychopathy and some strategies for moving forward Individuals with psychopathic traits commit disproportionate amounts of crime (Hare, 1996), costing billions annually (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011), while often creating general havoc in their social orbit (Smith & Lilienfeld, 2013). Given its ripple effects, the decades-long explosion of psychopathy research is unsurprising. For reasons we discuss, though, it is similarly unsurprising that certain foundational questions remain unresolved. Why do psychopathic traits vary and how do they develop over the life-course? Are the traits stable or malleable, and in either case what are the driving factors? Infusing it all are practical considerations about data and the requirements for producing answers. Relative to psychopathy, the study of normative personality has produced a deep reservoir of insight on these core issues, both empirical and theoretical (Briley & Tucker-Drob, 2017). We argue that by importing parts of their knowledge along with certain research designs, psychopathy research can take a rapid leap forward. 1 | PSYCHOPATHY: A (VERY) BRIEF PRIMER The general characterisation of psychopathy as a constellation of interpersonal, affective, and behavioural manifes- tations, the full litany of which is tightly associated with externalising and antisocial outcomes, has reached virtual consensus across fields (e.g., Cleckley, 1941/1976; Hare, 1991/2003; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). Where disa- greement remains is around the efforts to organise the relevant traits into specific domains, ranging in number from 2 to 6, with every psychometric development accompanied by rigorous discussion (Cooke et al., 2012; Cooke & Michie, 2001; Patrick et al., 2009). A common presumption, however, is that psychopathy is a construct that can be understood separately from other more normative aspects of cognition and personality (e.g., Cleckley, 1941/1976). Rapidly gaining traction is the argument that the construct is better understood as a configuration of common personality traits calibrated at extreme levels, with particular reliance on the Five Factor Model (FFM). The FFM (measured often with NEO Personality Inventory-Revised [NEO PI-R]; Costa & McCrae, 1992) includes the well-known domains of Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism, each of which is underlain by six specific facets (e.g., agreeableness: trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty and tender-mindedness). Expert ratings (Miller et al., 2001), translations of existing measures (e.g., the Psychop- athy Checklist-Revised; Widiger & Lynam, 1998), and meta-analytic evidence (Decuyper et al., 2009; Lynam & Derefinko, 2006) all point to a psychopathy profile comprising low scores on Agreeableness (e.g., trust, compliance, altruism) and Conscientiousness (e.g., dutifulness, self-discipline, deliberation) and a mix of high and low scores on facets of Neuroticism (e.g., high: angry hostility, impulsiveness; low: anxiety, depression) and Extraversion (e.g., high: assertiveness, excitement seeking; low: warmth, positive emotions). Early evidence for this formulation was prom- ising (Miller & Lynam, 2003; Miller et al., 2001) and led to the creation of a FFM-based psychopathy measure-the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (EPA; Lynam et al., 2011). Subsequent factor analytic work (Few et al., 2013) suggested that the EPA exhibits factors corresponding to four of the five FFM domains strongly linked to psychop- athy (all but Openness). Some additional conceptualisations warrant mentioning and represent, mostly, more modern, trait-based conceptualisations, including the triarchic model of psychopathy (TriPM; Patrick et al., 2009). The TriPM focuses on Boldness, Meanness and Disinhibition (see Sleep et al., 2019 for a meta-analytic review). The individual domains are © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 1 1 Crim Behav Ment Health. 2023;33:1-8.