The exploration of subclinical psychopathic subtypes and the relationship with types of aggression☆
Introduction
Contemporary conceptualizations of psychopathy reflect the Cleckley (1941) initial operationalization of deficits in affective and interpersonal functioning. Psychopathic individuals are superficially charming, insincere and have difficulty with meaningful attachments to others. They lack range and depth of emotions and tend to be narcissistic, deceitful and manipulative (Lykken, 1995). Since Cleckley’s seminal work, clinical, theoretical, and empirical evidence has accumulated supporting of the notion that psychopathy is a heterogeneous construct, with discrete subtypes (for review see Skeem, Poythress, Edens, Lilienfeld, & Cale, 2003).
Karpman (1941), distinguished between primary psychopaths, whose features originated in an unspecified but presumably constitutional deficit, and secondary psychopaths, whose behavior resulted from environmental insult (e.g., parental rejection, harsh punishment, parental overindulgence). Whereas primary psychopaths are seen as callous, self-serving, nonanxious and less affective, secondary psychopaths are capable of experiencing, on at least a transient basis, anxiety and emotion. Karpman also differentiated the two subtypes in terms of impulsivity:
... paradoxical as it may seem, the true [primary] psychopath is in a sense the least impulsive of them all... Rather than being hasty, the psychopath often coolly and deliberately plans his actions...there is no hotheadedness here at all of the type we are accustomed to seeing in neurotics and psychotics (pp. 523–524).
Similarly, Mealey (1995) proposes an evolutionary based theory indicating that Primaries are a result of genetic factors that predispose them against the experience of social emotions (e.g., anxiety), autonomic hypoarousal, and temperament which leave them unresponsive to typical teachings of moral responsibility. This combination leaves them without empathy and indicates that their behavior is driven by instrumental purposes, rather than emotional reactions. Secondaries act in antisocial ways due to exposure to risk factors in the environment, and are more prone to emotional reactions.
The Lykken (1995) typology theory uses Gray, 1975, Gray, 1987, Fowles, 1980 concepts of the behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and behavioral activation system (BAS) to distinguish the temperament deficits of primary and secondary psychopathy. The BIS is triggered by cues of punishment and aversive stimuli, and inhibits ongoing behaviors (Gray, 1982). BIS activation produces anxiety and/or fear in response to potential harm or nonreward, which serves to deter individuals from persisting in risky behavior. A weak BIS results in a relatively fearless temperament and less sensitivity, or responsiveness, to signs of punishment or nonreward. Given the role of punishment in socialization, individuals born with a fearless temperament are more difficult to socialize. In contrast, the BAS is related to impulsivity, engaged when reward opportunities are presented, and shifts attention to goal-directed behavior (Fowles, 1980).
Theory suggests that a deficit in either system may contribute to antisocial behavior. Specifically, a weak BIS is postulated as the constitutional deficit of the primary psychopath and an overactive BAS is postulated as a deficit of the secondary psychopath. When a desired, but prohibited, goal is encountered, the BIS and BAS are both activated resulting in either an avoidance approach (BAS), or a dilemma (BIS). In a well-socialized individual, the fear of consequences overrides the drive and this internal control deters the antisocial behavior. However, the person with a weak BIS (primary psychopathy) does not experience sufficient anxiety regarding the consequences of the antisocial behavior, therefore the behavior continues. However, the secondary psychopath, whose strong appetitive urge (overactive BAS) overrides inhibitions associated with a normal BIS, may also behave in an antisocial manner. Newman, MacCoon, Vaughn, and Sadeh (2005) found empirical support for this theory.
Empirical studies, using mainly the two factor definition of psychopathy defined by Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991) with offender samples, mirror clinical and theoretical characterizations of primary and secondary psychopathy (Karpman, 1941). A number of studies have reported divergent correlates for PCL-R Factor 1, which assesses core affective and interpersonal features (e.g., superficial charm, callousness, lack of remorse or guilt) and Factor 2, which captures features associated with a socially deviant lifestyle (e.g., impulsivity, poor behavior controls). As summarized by Hicks, Markon, and Patrick (2004), Factor 1 correlates positively with narcissism, and negatively with neuroticism and negative emotionality. In contrast, Factor 2 correlates positively with neuroticism, negative emotionality, impulsivity, and sensation seeking.
Despite the theory regarding psychopathy subtypes, there have been relatively few systematic empirical investigations. Further, those that have employed cluster analysis to identify subtypes, have either lacked a theoretical perspective (Vassileva, Kosson, Abramowitz, & Conrod, 2005), used inadequate samples (Haapasalo & Pulkkinen, 1992), or failed to employ a sufficiently broad array of clustering variables to adequately inform the debate (Herve, Yong hui Ling, & Hare, 2000). An exception is the recent work of Hicks et al. (2004), where 96 psychopathic prisoners (PCL-R Total ⩾ 30) were clustered on a general personality measure. Two groups emerged from the cluster analysis: Emotionally Stable Psychopaths and Aggressive Psychopaths, whose profiles in terms of personality variables (e.g., stress reactivity, anxiety, negative emotionality, control) and life history variables (e.g., childhood and adult fights, self-report alcohol problems) paralleled descriptions of primary and secondary psychopathy, respectively. However, while this was the first empirical support for psychopathy subtypes, it did not specifically cluster using psychopathy factor scores or temperament variables associated with Lykken and Karpman’s theories.
The majority of the research on psychopathy uses the PCL-R. However, the PCL-R cannot be utilized in non-institutionalized samples for which collateral files are lacking. Additionally, the antisocial/aggressive behavior features of Factor 2 were not part of Cleckley’s original conceptualization of psychopathy and make the PCL-R ill-equipped to identify successful psychopaths lacking a criminal history (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). Research with non-institutionalized populations has found that despite lower base-rates, there is evidence for diverse expressions of psychopathic traits across the population; that psychopathy is a dimensional construct (Skeem et al., 2003). Consequently, research on non-institutionalized samples is important for investigating the subclinical levels of psychopathic traits, to determine if results are generalizable to more individuals (Lilienfeld, 1998). Additionally, because base rates for aggression and psychopathy are higher in males (Nicholls, Ogloff, Brink, & Spidel, 2005), the use of male only samples increase the likelihood of finding these traits.
Section snippets
Present study
The present study was designed to assess, using cluster analysis, Lykken’s theoretical prototypes of primary and secondary psychopathy in a college sample. Measures of psychopathic traits, BIS, BAS, and trait anxiety were utilized as clustering variables. It was hypothesized that one group would be distinguished by a relatively higher score on the Factor 1/primary traits and low scores on BIS and anxiety – a pattern representing primary psychopathy. It was anticipated that a second cluster
Participants
Participants were 96 male undergraduates who participated in the study for class extra-credit. Their ages ranged from 18 to 46 years (M = 21.46, SD = 4.56). The sample was racially diverse with; 59.4% (N = 57) were Caucasian, 20.8% (N = 20) were African American, 19.8% (N = 19) were from other racial backgrounds, and 1% did not indicate their racial group. The sample’s ethnicity was reported as 12.4% (N = 12) Hispanic, 54.6% (N = 53) reported they were another ethnicity, and 33% (N = 32) did not specify their
Analysis
The software package mclust (Fraley, 1998), which is integrated into the software package S-Plus, 2003 was utilized for cluster analyses in the current study. Cluster analysis forms relatively homogeneous subgroups by identifying cases in a sample with similar scores on a set of specified variables. Model-based cluster analysis is a type of hierarchical clustering that is based on the “assumption that the data are generated by a mixture of underlying probability distributions” (Insightful
Cluster analyses
Standardized scores on the LPS subscales, STAI-T and BIS/BAS, were subjected to model-based cluster analyses. The best solution was obtained using model S (which has an elliptical shape, and holds the volume constant but allows the shape to differ across groups), with a four-cluster solution (AWE = 602.184). All other solutions were represented by significantly lower AWE scores.1
Fig. 1 illustrates the z-score
Discussion
The present study was the first to investigate Lykken’s theoretical prototypes of primary and secondary psychopathy. Model-based clustering yielded four clusters, two of which had elevated scores on measures of psychopathic features. The results provide initial empirical support for understanding dimensional psychopathy as a heterogeneous construct, however there is only partial evidence that the clusters fit within a theoretical framework (Lykken, 1995).
Limitations
The current study utilized a male only sample in order to increase the likelihood of finding aggressive and psychopathic traits; however, there is a need to examine these constructs in women. Second, Wilson, Frick, and Clements (1999) criticized previous research that examined the two types of psychopathy for being limited to institutionalized samples, providing the rationale for the current research. However, given the slight theoretical deviations found, it is also important to pursue this
References (36)
- et al.
Psychopathic personality or personalities? Exploring potential variants of psychopathy and their implications for risk assessment
Aggression & Violent Behavior
(2003) - et al.
The aggression questionnaire
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology
(1992) - et al.
Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology
(1994) - et al.
Handbook for the IPAT anxiety scale
(1963) The mask of sanity; an attempt to reinterpret the so-called psychopathic personality
(1941)- et al.
Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive violent offenders
Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology
(1996) The three arousal model: Implications of Gray’s two-factor learning theory for heart rate, electrodermal activity and psychopathy
Psychophysiology
(1980)Algorithms for model-based Gaussian hierarchical clustering
Journal of Scientific Computing
(1998)- et al.
Validation of the state-trait distinction in anxiety research
Multivariate Behavior Research
(1975) Elements of a two-process theory of learning
(1975)
The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system
The psychology of fear and stress
The psychopathy checklist and non-violent offender groups
Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health
The hare psychopathy checklist – revised
Psychopathy and violent recidivism
Law and Human Behavior
Psychopathy and recidivism: A review
Legal and Criminological Psychology
Identifying psychopathy subtypes based on personality structure
Psychological Assessment
Cited by (81)
Evolutionary and neuroendocrine foundations of human aggression
2023, Trends in Cognitive SciencesPrimary and secondary psychopathic traits: The role of attachment and cognitive emotion regulation strategies
2021, Personality and Individual DifferencesThe self-concepts of people with Dark Triad traits tend to be weaker, less clearly defined, and more state-related
2021, Personality and Individual DifferencesCorrelates of psychopathy in a Tunisian sample of incarcerated women
2021, Journal of Forensic and Legal MedicineThe classification of psychopathy
2021, Aggression and Violent BehaviorRape myth acceptance, male gender role norms, attitudes towards women, and psychopathic traits in a military sample
2019, Personality and Individual Differences
- ☆
This study was presented as a paper at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, La Jolla, CA.