Organizational behavior is an interdisciplinary body of knowledge with strong ties to the behavioral sciences such as psychology, sociology and anthropology as well as to allied sciences.
Some of these key terms include organizational behavior, organizational culture, diversity, communication, organizational effectiveness and efficiency, and organizational learning.
Lee, Z., & Salekin, R. T. (2010). Psychopathy in a noninstitutional sample: Differences in primary and secondary subtypes. (3), 153-169. doi:10.1037/a0019269. Early theoretical conceptualizations suggest psychopathy is a heterogeneous construct whereby psychopathic individuals are found in diverse populations. The current study examined male and female psychopathy subtypes in a large sample of undergraduate students (n = 1229). Model-based cluster analysis of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short Form (PPI-SF) revealed two clusters in both male and female students. In males, the primary subtype evidenced greater psychopathic personality traits (i.e., Social Potency, Fearlessness, and Impulsive Nonconformity) and lower anxiety (i.e., higher Stress Immunity), whereas the secondary subtype displayed fewer psychopathic personality traits (i.e., Machiavellian Egocentricity and Blame Externalization) and higher anxiety (i.e., lower Stress Immunity). In females, the primary subtype exhibited higher scores across all PPI-SF subscales and lower anxiety whereas the secondary subtype reported lower PPI-SF subscale scores and higher anxiety. Across a diverse array of personality, affective, and behavioral external correlates, differences between the subtypes and with nonpsychopaths emerged. Implications for psychopathy in noninstitutional populations with respect to theory, research, and gender are discussed.
Howard, R. C. (1986). Psychopathy: A psychobiological perspective. (6), 795-806. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(86)90078-4 After critically examining the concept of psychopathy and reviewing the major existing theories of psychopathy in the light of a psychobiological conception of abnormal behaviour (ohman, 1981), this paper attempts to present an integrated, psychobiological model of psychopathy. Essentially this analyses psychopathy in terms of the predisposing influences, the triggering environmental events which initiate psychopathic behaviour, and the neurophsychological mechanisms which mediate it. It is suggested that individuals who show chronic antisocial behaviour, conforming to the North American term 'sociopath', may demonstrate a maturational deficit but do not necessarily show a psychopathic personality disorder. The latter is said to be characterised, at a personality trait level, by high Impulsiveness and Psychopathy (Blackburn, 1982 a, b), reflecting interactive deficits in goal direction and affect. At a dynamic (state) level, a psychopathic personality disorder is said to be characterised by a lack of coping, reflecting either, in the case of the secondary psychopath, a deficit in primary appraisal, (over-perception of threat), or in the case of the primary psychopath, a deficit in secondary appraisal (low perceived control over aversive environmental events). It is further suggested that a genetic predisposition to social withdrawal and exposure to an uncontrollably aversive early environment may interact to predispose an individual to develop a psychopathic personality disorder in adulthood. . . . There will be yet others within the broad class of so-called 'sociopathic' individuals who are neither primary nor secondary psychopaths. These individuals will not be particularly susceptible to stress either in the form of boredom or threat, and so episodes of 'psychopathic' behaviour will not readily be triggered. In general, therefore, although often recidivistically criminal, they should not be regarded as psychopathic in the sense of being personality disordered and would therefore more properly be detained in prison than in an institution for mentally abnormal offenders. Others again may tread a tightrope between legality and illegality and correspond to the 'non-institutionalised psychopath' (Widom, 1977), who while sharing some of the personality characteristics of the criminal psychopath, does not generally engage in antisocial behaviour.
Millie, A. (2009). Berkshire, England: Open University Press. Over the last decade 'anti-social behaviour' has become a hugely important topic in political, media and public debates, particularly in Britain where it has become something of an obsession. For Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the government is 'committed to doing everything in our power to tackle anti-social behaviour'. This book provides an overview of anti-social behaviour, including consideration of theory, concepts and alternative approaches to tackling the problem. It includes case study material from my own research as well as drawing on other academic and policy sources.
Blackburn, R. (1993). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Product Description Taken from published reviews: ". . . Dr Blackburn has written a remarkably good book; indeed, the best book on the topic—from either side of the Atlantic—I have read. . . . the breadth of the authors knowledge is nothing short of encyclopaedic. Not only psychology—developmental and social, as well as clinical—but also psychiatry, biology, philosophy, and law are addressed in this volume. Finally, the book is written with clarity, economy, and a lucid style. It is as inviting and user-friendly as any work of such complexity can be. . . . I hope that it will find its way into psychiatry residency training programmes as well. It could do wonders for replacing turf-battles with common ground." Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health ". . . The scholarly breadth and accuracy of this work are remarkable. There seems to be no important contribution to our psychological understanding of crime which Blackburn has omitted to discuss, including those approaches from sociological and social psychology which are frequently neglected in straightforward psychological treatments. Moreover, all approaches are intelligently and sympathetically discussed." Expert Evidence ". . . The volume is infused with the authors enthusiasm for a social cognitive perspective on offending behaviour, but he also robustly defends the utility of the notion of personality traits. . . . Overall, this book brings together a vast array of research and theory examined from the perspective of the clinician involved with the individual. It will almost certainly become the key background text for post-graduate courses teaching forensic psychology and would be a valuable addition to the bookshelf of any clinician with forensic concerns." Clinical Psychology Forum ". . . This is undoubtedly an important book. . . . The end result is a book of excellent quality, which I recommend most warmly to clinical psychologists, and indeed, to anybody who is interested in 'criminological psychology." Behaviour Research and Therapy ". . . This author is to be congratulated for having produced this impressive volume. It provides a comprehensive review which is critical yet well-balanced. It assumes no prior familiarity with the field, and specialists from many different disciplines will learn a great deal from it." Criminal Law Review
Blackburn, R. (1988). On moral judgments and personality disorders: The myth of psychopathic personality revisited. (4), 505-512. doi:10.1192/bjp.153.4.505 Psychopathic personality has always been a contentious concept, but it continues to be used in clinical practice and research. It also has its contemporary synonyms in the categories of antisocial personality disorder in DSM-III (American Psychiatric Association, 1980) and "personality disorder with predominantly asocial or sociopathic manifestation" in ICD-9 (World Health Organization, 1978), and some overlap between these and the legal category of psychopathic disorder identified in the English Mental Health Act 1983 is commonly assumed. Although the literal meaning of "psychopathic" nothing more specific than psychologically damaged, the term has long since been transmogrified to mean socially damaging, and as currently used, it implies a specific category of people inherently committed to antisocial behaviour as a consequence of personal abnormalities or deficiencies. . . . The prominence of 'secondary psychopaths' and of borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic disorders in these populations clearly indicates that there is no single type of abnormal personality that is prone to chronic rule violation. Nor, of course, are these categories confined to the antisocial. It must be concluded that the current concept of psychopathic or antisocial personality remains 'a mythical entity'. The taxonomic error of confounding different universes of discourse has resulted in a diagnostic category that embraces a variety of deviant personalities. . . . To define a disorder of personality in terms of socially deviant behaviour is to prejudge the issue. Our understanding of how the attributes of the person contribute to socially deviant or other problematic behavior progress when we have an adequate system for describing the universe of personality deviation. Focus on an ill-conceived category of psychopathic personality has merely served to distract attention from the development of such a system.
Gurley, (2009) provided a helpful summary: There is much confusion surrounding the diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) and its counterparts, psychopathy, and sociopathy. Some individuals refer to the three as the same diagnosis but with different names (e.g., Blackburn, 1988; Rabin, 1986; Stout, 2005). Others differentiate between the three terms in various ways. For example, Lykken (1995, 1998) believes that psychopaths and sociopaths represent subcategories of ASPD. He goes on to state that although psychopaths and sociopaths have similar patterns of behavior, the two are distinct disorders. More specifically, Lykken believes that the personality and behavior of a psychopath is due to a congenital difference in temperament whereas the personality and behavior of a sociopath is due to unsocialized character caused by parental failures. In other words, the personality and behavior a psychopath is a result of genetics whereas the personality and behavior of a sociopath is due to the environment. Hare's conceptualization of the differences between psychopath and sociopathy is similar to Lykken's (Babiak & Hare, 2006; Hare, 2007). Hare (e.g., 1993, 1996, 2007) does differentiate between psychopathy and ASPD, stating that APSD is characterized by criminal behavior whereas psychopathy is a set of personality traits that can lead to criminal behavior. According to Hare (2008), the consensus in the field of psychology is that psychopathy and ASPD are distinct disorders. . . . [in] DSM-I, 1952, one of the disorders that experienced a name change was psychopathy, which referred to a personality disturbance consisting of traits that have been delineated by Cleckley (1964) including superficial charm, manipulativeness, and irresponsibility (see Cleckley, 1998, for a complete list of criteria). According to Jenkins (1960), the American Psychiatric Association reported that the term, "psychopath" was a poor term that needed to be changed. Their reasoning behind it may have been the confusion of the term psychopathy with psychotic - two similar sounding terms that represent very different disorders. Thus, in the initial edition of the DSM, the disorder formally known as psychopathy became Sociopathic Personality Disorder, Antisocial Reaction (American Psychiatric Association, 1952; Jenkins, 1960). . . . In addition to the Antisocial Reaction, the Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics of the American Psychiatric Association included criteria for a similar disorder called "Dyssocial Reaction." . . . The distinction between Dyssocial Reaction and Antisocial Reaction is remarkably similar to the distinction some modern day researchers have made between sociopathy and psychopathy (e.g., Lykken, 1995, 1998, see above for description); the etiology of Antisocial Reaction was genetic whereas the etiology of the Dyssocial Reaction was environmental.
Brinkley, C. A., Newman, J. P., Widiger, T. A., & Lynam, D. R. (2004). Two approaches to parsing the heterogeneity of psychopathy. (1), 69-94. doi:10.1093/clipsy/bph054 Individuals identified as psychopathic using Hare's (1991) Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) are of interest to forensic psychologists because of the high risk that they will engage in antisocial behavior (Hart, 1998). Existing crime data suggest that the PCL-R is a measure with great clinical utility, but evidence concerning the etiology of the PCL-R psychopath is less consistent. We propose that one potential source of the inconsistent evidence is that psychopathy is a construct, like mental retardation, that is etiologically heterogeneous. We suggest that the development of effective clinical interventions will require psychologists to (a) question the assumption that psychopathy is an etiologically homogeneous entity, (b) identify etiologically distinct variants of psychopathy for study, and (c) specify etiological mechanisms that may suggest tangible treatment targets. We discuss two complementary strategies for identifying etiological variants of psychopathy: (a) using general personality theory to identify specific psychopathic traits for study and (b) isolating specific bio-psychological mechanisms that possess the potential to explain specific psychopathic syndromes.