Flor-Henry, P. (1983). . Bristol: PSG Wright. . . . suggested that hysteria and psychopathy are equivalent syndromes, the gender determining the manifestation. In males, you see a continuum from normal to psychopathic to the most extreme — hysteria. In females, you see a continuum from normal to hysteria to psychopathic at the most extreme. Regardless of sex, the presence of one increases the probability of the occurrence of the other. Hysteria has been found in the population at a prevalence of about 1% and therefore is roughly equivalent to the prevalence of psychopathy. Psychopathy in the male is associated with dysfunction of the dominant hemisphere (frontaltemporal). The genetic expression is seen in that psychopathic fathers tend to produce daughters with hysteria.
Ferguson, C. J. (2010). Genetic contributions to antisocial personality and behavior: A meta-analytic review from an evolutionary perspective. (2) 160-180. Evidence from behavioral genetics supports the conclusion that a significant amount of the variance in antisocial personality and behavior (APB) is due to genetic contributions. Many scientific fields such as psychology, medicine, and criminal justice struggle to incorporate this information with preexisting paradigms that focused exclusively on external or learned etiology of antisocial behavior. The current paper presents a meta-analytic review of behavioral genetic etiological studies of APB. Results indicated that 56% of the variance in APB can be explained through genetic influences, with 11% due to shared non-genetic influences, and 31% due to unique non-genetic influences. This data is discussed in relation to evolutionary psychological theory.
Whitlock, F. A. (1982). A note on moral insanity and psychopathic disorders. (4), 57-59. doi:10.1192/pb.6.4.57 It is commonly believed that Prichard's 'moral insanity' (1835) was the forerunner of our present-day concept of psychopathic (sociopathic) personality. Prichard confirmed Pinel's observation and coined the term "moral insanity" which led to "a marked perversion of the natural impulses". The word 'moral' denoted 'affective' and was not being used in the usual ethical sense. A careful examination of the cases mentioned by Pinel (1801) and by Prichard should make it abundantly clear that except for the first of the three patients cited by Pinel, there was not the remotest resemblance between their examples and what today would be classed as psychopathic personality. Nor do the authors' general delineations of the disorder conjure up the picture of present-day psychopathy.
Walsh, Z., & Kosson, D. S. (2008). Psychopathy and violence: The importance of factor level interactions. (2), 114-120. doi: 10.1037/1040-35220.127.116.11 The power of scales based on the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; R. D. Hare, 1980) for prediction of violent behavior is well established. Although evidence suggests that this relationship is chiefly due to the impulsive and antisocial lifestyle component (Factor 2), the predictive power of psychopathy for violence may also reflect the multiplicative effects of this component with interpersonal and unemotional traits (Factor 1). The determination of the extent to which psychopathy subcomponents interact to predict violence has theoretical and practical implications for PCL-assessed psychopathy. However, the relationship between violence and the interactive effects of psychopathy subcomponents remains largely undetermined. The authors used prospective and cross-sectional designs to examine the independent and interactive effects of the factors of PCL-assessed psychopathy in 2 samples: (a) 199 county jail inmates and (b) 863 civil psychiatric patients. The Factor 1 × Factor 2 interaction predicted violence in both samples, such that the predictive power of Factor 2 was attenuated at lower levels of Factor 1. . . . Our findings were consistent with those of prior studies, in that F2 appeared to be a stronger predictor of violence than did F1 (Skeem & Mulvey, 2001;Walters, 2003). However, F1 played an important role; in both studies, F1 interacted with F2, such that the predictive relationship between F2 and violence was accentuated at higher levels of F1 and attenuated at lower levels of F1.
Wallace, J. F., & Newman, J. P. (2004). A theory-based treatment model for psychopathy. (2), 178-189. doi:10.1016/S1077-7229(04)80029-4 The most salient characteristic of the psychopath is the propensity to engage in maladaptive and inappropriate behavior of all sorts, including antisocial and criminal actions. Consequently, there is considerable interest—particularly in the field of criminology—in determining what sorts of treatment interventions are likely to be effective in modifying the problematic behavioral tendencies of this difficult population. We suggest that interventions are most likely to meet with success if they are based on an accurate understanding of the cognitive deficits that underlie psychopaths' tendency to engage in maladaptive and illegal acts. Herein, we describe a theoretical framework for conceptualizing psychopaths' information processing deficits (in which the concepts of automatic information processing and implicit cognition play central roles), then discuss implications of this formulation for the design and implementation of treatment interventions.
Traditionally, the terms psychopath and antisocial personality disorder have not been used for individuals under the age of 18. Instead, several other terms and traits are associated with children and adolescents that are often linked with the eventual development of adult psychopathy. These terms include: interpersonal callousness (IC), hyperactivity/impulsivity (HI), inattention (IN), and conduct problems (CP) and impulsivity.
American Psychiatric Association (1994). (4th ed.). (2000). (4th ed., text revision). Continues to emphasize the behavioral characteristics of this disorder. The DSM-IV defines ASPD as a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of seven criteria. The DSM-IV includes the following statement: "This pattern has also been referred to as psychopathy, sociopathy, or dissocial personality disorder" (p. 645). This increases diagnostic confusion as the research literature discriminates between psychopathy and ASPD (Hare, 1991/2003); while the DSM-IV indicates that these terms are synonymous.
American Psychiatric Association (1980). (3rd ed.). (1987). (3rd ed. rev.). DSM-III (1980) listed a number of specific behaviors as criteria for the diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), the replacement for the term sociopathy. The clinical construct was no longer defined by personality traits, but rather by a set of specific behavioral criteria. The DSM-III, DSM-III-R, and DSM IV criteria for antisocial personality disorder thus represented a radical departure from the clinical tradition of DSM-I and DSM-II as they focus mainly on antisocial behaviors (Hare's Factor 2) based on the assumption that clinicians cannot validly or reliably assess interpersonal/affective characteristics (Factor 1) [this assumption was one of the main reasons why Hare developed the PCL]. Andrade: Easy to assess behavioral traits result in an over-inclusive, but a reliably measured construct. The core personality attributes of psychopathy were no longer included in the criteria. The criteria for APD adopted within DSM-III focused exclusively on behavioral indicants of deviance in childhood and adulthood, including such things as truancy, delinquency, stealing, vandalism, irresponsibility, aggressiveness, impulsivity, recklessness, and lying. As a function of this change, the DSM-III diagnosis of antisocial personality proved to be highly reliable. Some effort was made to respond to criticisms of the 3rd edition in the revised third edition by the addition of lack of remorse (i.e. "feels justified in having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another," p. 346) as an adult criterion for APD. The changes made in DSM-III led to an expanded clinical and research focus that resulted in a substantial increase in publications on personality disorder over the last decade (Blashfield & McElroy, 1987; Livesley, 2001, p. 6).
American Psychiatric Association (1952)., (1st ed.). Washington, DC: Mental Hospital Services. From Schneiderman 1996: as early as 1952 the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: Mental Disorders (DSM-I) used the term "sociopathic," [Sociopathic Personality Disturbance] substituting it for the term "psychopathic." The manual stated that individuals who are to be categorized as sociopathic "are ill primarily in terms of society and of conformity with the prevailing cultural milieu, and not only in terms of personal discomfort and relations with other individuals." . . . Andrade: The DSM description of sociopathy included many of Cleckley's (1941) personality traits including: a lack of anxiety; lack of guilt; impulsivity; callousness; and lack of accepting responsibility for actions. . . . Ogloff 2006 'Sociopathic Personality Disorders' (Subcategory: Antisocial Reaction) [this appears to be a mistake, the term disorders was not used it should have been disturbance]
American Psychiatric Association (1968). (2nd ed.). Mirrored ICD-8. Used the term 'Personality Disorder, Antisocial Type'. Viewed these individuals as unsocialized having behaviour patterns that bring them repeatedly into conflict with society. "Sociopathy is reserved for individuals who are basically unsocialized. They are incapable of significant loyalty to individuals, groups, or social values. They are grossly selfish, callous, irresponsible, impulsive, and unable to feel guilt or to learn from experience and punishment. Frustration tolerance is low. They tend to blame others and offer plausible rationalizations for their behavior (p. 43)." Retained clinical descriptors, although the manual did not present a uniform listing of character traits. This change was in concordance with clinical tradition, but resulted in much poorer reliability. Sexual deviation, addictions, and delinquent personality types were grouped under a category entitled "personality disorders and certain other non-psychotic mental disorders." Within this category, the term antisocial personality was used for a syndrome corresponding to psychopathy. The features of the syndrome closely resembled those proposed by Cleckley and included weak socialization, incapacity for loyalty, selfishness, callousness, irresponsibility, and absence of guilt. A serious limitation of DSM-II was that the basis for diagnostic classification consisted of prototypical descriptions of each disorder rather than specific, behavior-oriented diagnostic criteria. As a result, the reliability of clinical and research diagnostic classifications used in DSM-II was generally poor. The confusion created for psychiatric classification by diverse concepts led ultimately to DSM-III and the decision to classify personality disorder on a separate axis distinct from other mental disorders and to provide precise descriptions of each diagnosis using specific diagnostic criteria.