psychopathy conceptualization
Abstract
Currently, Psychopathy is a topic fascinating the ordinary people, scientists, as well as the clinical practitioners worldwide. Nevertheless, psychopathy has become a subject having great confusion along with scholarly debate overs decades. Historically, the module reviews and currently appraisals primary instruments were proposed to use in the assessment of the psychopathic tendencies in both clinical and nonclinical samples. A hypothetical integrative framework including, Five-Factor Model, the Three-Factor model and the PEN model provides a foundation to reconcile differing historical conceptions and the current assessment techniques used in the psychopathy sampling. The paper offers the extrapolations of the model to think about underlying psychopathy hypotheses and to resolve longstanding debate points in the research field.
Key points: psychopathy, PEN model, Two-Factor model, personality, and Three-Factor model.
Introduction
Many people the term ‘psychopath’ refers to merciless homicidal fanatics and criminal masterminds images. The impression of the image of psychopath become empowered by the ongoing sources by pictures concerning psychopathic individuals in the favorite films and books including, No Country for Old men, Catch Me if You can, and as well Silence of the Lambs. Moreover, the psychopath images extended by media accounts which consists high- profile ranging of criminals such as Charles Manson, Bernie Madoff, and Jeffrey Dahmer (Fisher,2015). Nonetheless, the psychopathy concept held by mental health experts differs abruptly from the perception of ordinary people. The paper outline conceptional models used in addressing vital questions psychopath’s debates experienced in years. From the overview of the theoretical frameworks, different models are notable that the psychopath topic remains neither to be less interesting or even socially related considerably from a scientific and clinical perspective.
Eysenck’s PEN Model
The PEN Model is a biological personality theory developed by one of the influential psychologists, Hans Eysenck between 1916 to 1997. The model focused on three major personality issues which include, psychoticism, extraversion, and neuroticism (PEN). According to Eysenck perspective, biological traits such as hormone levels and cortical stimulation together with environmental aspects including, behavior learned via conditioning, may influence the person’s notch on the PEN personality dimensions (Almiro,2016).
Psychoticism personality
Psychoticism personality dimension ranges from the low psychoticism (normality) to high psychoticism. Hans Eysenck involved his wife, Sybil Eysenck in the formation of the psychoticism personality theory in 1976 (Boyle,2016). The approach suggested that an individual with higher psychoticism notch is likely in engaging in irresponsible or even miscalculated behavior. Besides, such individual may disregard accepted social customs, thus motivated by an immediate need of satisfaction, regardless of the resulting consequences.
Nevertheless, psychologist, Hans Eysenck decoded that psychoticism includes more positive connotations. In 1993, Eysenck did a study by comparing participants’ scores on the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and the Barron-Welsh Art Scale. The results were the individuals with high psychoticism notches inclined to embrace more advanced abilities of creativity of the mind (Fisher,2015). Based on the results, Eysenck could suggest that psychoticism is more influenced by biological aspects and is associated with hormones levels as such as testosterone.
PEN model record that great personalities levels such as psychoticism reduce a person’s responsiveness to conditioning. Thus, the person ends up not adopting the social norms where an individual may learn through punishment or even reward. Consequently, the theory suggests that persons may be more predisposed to criminal behavior seeking to satisfy their interests whereas violating the behavior rules accepted by other people in society. Regardless of the results of the Eysenck psychoticism theory associating genetics to personality traits with criminal tendencies, some psychologist and scholars criticized the approach as it adopted a deterministic assessment of behavior (Almiro,2016).
The Two-Factor Model
Cleckley managed to develop the classic psychopathy conceptualization. Influenced by the theory of psychodynamic, Cleckely’s psychopathy description included personality and behavioral variables (Brenner,2017). Basing on the Cleckley’s primary task, psychologist Hare managed to develop the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL), a semi-structured interview designed for the assessment of specific personality and behavioral features. The incorporation of personality and behavioral traits led Cleckley, forming the basis for the two-factor model of the Psychopathy Checklist (Chrysikou,2016). The preliminary construct validity of the psychopathy checklist became establishment via a universal factor analysis with slanting rotation in the sample of nine hundred and twenty-five prisoners and three hundred and fifty-six forensic inpatients (Chrysikou,2016).
The two -factor solution existed were, first factor F1 represented individuals who have selfish and callous traits as well as ruthless use of others. On the other hand, the second factor labeled F2, described chronic antisocial behavior. The two-factor model was widely used to study adult prisoners, mentally disordered, and confined adolescents. Despite the full application of the two- factor model, the different researcher became curious to test the model with demanding confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The CFA allowed the researchers to prove statistically, the fit of a particular model and the comparative fit of competing for hypothetical models (Chrysikou,2016)
However, by using CFA, several scholars could not manage to get the desired results to validate the two-factor model after analyzing different samples. For instance, psychologists, Cooke and Michie used a series of confirmatory factor analysis in attempting to check the psychopathy checklist two-factor model with 1,389 people from the forensic and correctional location in North America. Nonetheless, the data collected from the sampling process failed to rigorous confirm the traditional two-factor model which should include personal behavioral traits of individuals and chronic antisocial behavior (Fisher,2015). In a nutshell, the result of the two-factor model caused Cooke and Michie to investigate further the fitting model of the psychopathy checklist.
The Three-Factor Model
Due to discouraging results for the two-factor model, psychologist Cooke and Michie decided to figure a better fitting model for the psychopathy checklist reversed by utilizing testlet. Testlets are tools designed for counteracting dependence occurring when multiple individual entries become strongly related to each other than the causal trait (Jason, 2015). The conception of the testlet tent to combine hypothetically similar personal items into a single rating. According to the research, Cooke and Michie tended to combine 13 entries into six testlet that were tested on a total of 2,067 people and managed to produce the three-factor model fit. The testlet model encompassed three factors which included, Arrogant and Deceitful Interpersonal Style (ADI), Impulsive and Irresponsible Lifestyle, and Deficient Affective Experience (DAE). The psychologists concluded that ADI, DAE, and ILL factors were hierarchically correlated to each other and nested under a superordinate psychopathy feature (Jason, 2015).
The Cooke and Michie model differed from the two- factor model in that; the three factors have disaggregation factor dimensions to accentuate psychopathic personality characteristics. Secondly, the model has the ability to de-emphasis illegal behavior (Fisher,2015). The three-factor model started generating significant research by use of the current PCL instruments such as Psychopathy Checklist Reversed (PCL-R). For example, scholar, Tubb sampled one hundred and twenty-seven Hispanic federal prisoners and found that the three-factor hierarchal model managed to produce a better fit compared to the traditional two-factor model (Jason, 2015). Besides, the Tubb investigation on the three-factor model, the model has widely applied in the screening version of the psychopathy checklist reversed by other researchers. Psychologist Hill, Rogers, and Neuman pinpointed that both two-factor model and the three-factor model had a significant fit after a sample of mentally disordered criminals.
Remarkably, the researcher found that the Arrogant and Deceitful Interpersonal Style and Impulsive and Irresponsible Lifestyle factors became expressively correlated to institutional aggression (Fisher,2015). The Cooke and Michie model, with its emphasis on traits of personality, played an important implication for the psychopathy etiology. Hill, Frick, and Christian contacted a sample and found that children who have high callous traits levels engage in more antisocial behavior compared to children and adolescents without callous traits (Jason, 2015). However, according to the current research from the three-factor model, the temporal psychopathy stability was not rigorously achieved thus indicating further research which resulted in four-factor and five-factor models (Fisher,2015).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the paper delivers numerous suggestions for future research paths correlated to psychopathy in light that several questions remain unsettled. For instance, according to the Frick and fellow researchers never offered the solution on dimensions of psychopathy predicted to stay constant from youth to adults. Moreover, the research, encompassed of scientific and clinical perspective is yet to provide the answer of treatment intervention of the psychopathy- can the psychopathy dimensions magnificently treated. Subsequently, to have solutions of such question, may prospectively resolute the underlying debate which exists in diverse factor models of psychopathy.
References
Almiro, P. A., Moura, O., & Simões, M. R. (2016). Psychometric properties of the European
Portuguese version of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQ-
R). Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 88-93.
Boyle, G. J., Stankov, L., Martin, N. G., Petrides, K. V., Eysenck, M. W., & Ortet, G. (2016). Hans
- Eysenck and Raymond B. Cattell on intelligence and personality. Personality and
Individual Differences, 103, 40-47.
Brenner, R. E., Heath, P. J., Vogel, D. L., & Credé, M. (2017). Two is more valid than one:
Examining the factor structure of the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS). Journal of counseling psychology, 64(6), 696.
Chrysikou, E. G., & Thompson, W. J. (2016). Assessing cognitive and affective empathy through
the interpersonal reactivity index: An argument against a two-factor
Model. Assessment, 23(6), 769-777.
Fisher, A. J. (2015). Toward a dynamic model of psychological assessment: Implications for personalized care. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 83(4), 825.
Jason, L. A., Stevens, E., & Ram, D. (2015). Development of a three‐factor psychological sense of community scale. Journal of community psychology, 43(8), 973-985.