Paul Hubbard

PSYU 570

Professor O’Neill

February 15, 2012

Psychopathy

Psychopathy is a disorder that affects approximately 1-2% of the population, being more

common in males but it occurs in females as well and is distributed all over the world. It is

about as common as schizophrenia (Hare, 1993). The most commonly perceived types of

psychopaths would mass murderers like Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy. Other

well-known types of psychopaths include various leaders of nations in the past and present.

Some more obvious people could include the likes of Genghis Khan, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin

and Pol Pot. However, there are lots of different types of psychopaths, many of whom, because

of their cunning, are not as easy to identify. In fact, the majority of psychopaths are not

murderers (Hare, 1993).

According to the authors of Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work, a

psychopath is defined as someone who is “without conscience and incapable of empathy, guilt,

or loyalty to anyone but themselves” (Babiak & Hare, 2006, p. 19). Sociopathy has a slightly

different definition. Sociopathy isn’t a formal psychiatric designation. It relates to behaviors and

attitudes perceived as “antisocial and criminal” by the larger society, but are viewed as

normative or a requirement “by the subculture or social environment” in which they

developed. “Sociopaths may have a well-developed conscience and a normal capacity for
empathy, guilt, and loyalty but their sense of right and wrong is based on the norms and

expectations of their subculture or group” (Babiak & Hare, 2006, p.19). Some more obvious

examples of sociopaths could be members of street gangs or many common criminals.

Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) is defined an axis II disorder within the DSM-IV, a

diagnostic manual published by the American Psychiatric Association. “APD is similar to

sociopathy. Some of those with APD are psychopaths, but many are not. The difference

between psychopathy and” APD is that psychopathy includes traits like the lack of empathy as

well as grandiosity and “shallow emotion that are not necessary for a diagnosis of APD (Babiak

& Hare, 2006, p.19). APD focuses mainly on observable or long-standing patterns of

documented behavior like “disregard for social norms, lying, impulsivity, irresponsibility,

recklessness, cruelty, violence, law-breaking, lack of guilt or remorse, etc.” (Diamond, 2009).

Psychopathy emphasizes “somewhat more subjective, qualitative and inferred traits like lack of

caring or empathy, easily formed but superficial interpersonal attachments, low tolerance for

frustration, chronically irritable mood, absence of conscience, failure to learn from negative

consequences, and defensive projection of blame onto others” (Diamond, 2009). Also, at

present, the diagnosis of APD requires the “prior evidence of Conduct Disorder” (DSM-IV,

p.706). The DSM is in the process of being revised so that in the new DSM-V, which is due to be

published in May of 2013, there will be a somewhat broader definition of APD that will include

the lack of empathy and inability to create or maintain meaningful intimate (and interpersonal)

relationships (DSM5.org).

There is often a tendency for people to automatically label someone as a psychopath (or

sociopath) simply because they exhibit some of the characteristics (e.g. violent behavior). It is
irresponsible and can be very misleading to do so and according to Steven Diamond Ph.D.

(2009), violent “behavior is multi-determined and cannot be simplistically reduced to or

conveniently explained away by glibly dismissing all such offenders as ‘psychopaths’.”

What is also irresponsible, according to Diamond, is that many people think that those

whom they define as psychopaths are unable to benefit from therapeutic intervention. While

personality disorders can “be notoriously difficult to treat” with brief therapy and they require

intense and longer-term psychotherapy with highly trained professionals, they are,

nonetheless, generally treatable. Susan Whitbourne Ph.D. has stated that it is unlikely any

medication might be discovered that can cure psychopathy (2011). In Diamond’s (2009)

opinion, people who are psychopaths “are, without exception, profoundly embittered,

resentful, angry and narcissistically wounded individuals. Future research on treating this

population needs to focus on acknowledging their resentment and confronting the roots of

their pathological rage against authority and society in general, teaching them to redirect some

of this anger into more constructive activity.” He goes on to state that psychiatric “diagnosis is a

difficult and highly skilled process, requiring years and experience, and should never be

engaged in by anyone who is not formally educated and licensed to do so.”

At the same time, there is value in being able to identify psychopaths in that we are thus

more likely to avoid becoming victims to these people, both individually and on a societal level

(Hare, 1993).

Most studies on psychopathy have occurred in prison since many prison inmates are

psychopaths and the information required for diagnosis is more readily available (Hare, 1993).
Researchers at universities have used various techniques to study psychopathology within the

general population as well (Babiak & Hare, 2006).

While there have been psychopaths around probably for centuries, the practice of

studying and diagnosing psychopathy began in a more scientific way in the U.S. beginning in the

1930’s with the pioneering work of psychiatrist Dr. Hervey Cleckley. Cleckley wrote a book that

was originally published in 1941 called The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Clarify Some Issues

About the So-Called Psychopathic Personality (Diamond, 2009; Babiak & Hare, 2006). What

Cleckley discovered was that some of the residents within the psychiatric hospital where he

worked did not express the common symptoms of mental illness. They could be charming,

manipulative and they took “advantage of other patients, family members and even hospital

staff” (Hare, 2006, p.20). Cleckley recognized these individuals as psychopaths. “Despite having

normal intelligence,” they tended to make poor life decisions and learned very little from their

own personal experiences. This caused them to repeat dysfunctional and maladaptive

behaviors. They did not have insight into this or how their behavior affected others and seemed

unconcerned by that. They had little or no awareness of the feelings of others and they were

devoid of “remorse and shame for the harm they did” to others (Hare, 2006, p.21). They were

discernibly “unreliable, even about important things relevant to their current situation, and

seemed to have no real life goals or plans.” They were also pathological liars and had the habit

of lying about virtually everything, even things that weren’t worth lying about. They lacked

sincerity, although they could appear to be sincere to those who lacked prior experience

dealing with them (Hare, 2006, p.21). They could be antisocial and violent for seemingly

inconsequential reasons. They tended towards extraversion, extreme egocentricity and seemed
incapable of experiencing “deep human emotions, especially love and compassion.” They were

unable to create significant and meaningful relationships. Their sexual relationships were

shallow and impersonal. The only emotions they seemed capable of experiencing were the

“primitive or proto-emotions such as anger, frustration and rage. According to Cleckley,

psychopaths don’t have irrational or delusional thinking and they don’t tend to be anxious or

neurotic. So, superficially they can appear as relatively normal, sane and, in some cases could

be perceived as likable. Cleckley noted that the higher types of these could be more intellectual

and even successful in business or a profession. While Cleckley had familiarized himself with the

characteristics of psychopathy, he never intended that his book be used for diagnosing the

disorder and he had not tested his model with statistics (Babiak & Hare, 2006, p. 22).

Many years later, Robert D. Hare, realizing that Cleckley’s model was incomplete for

diagnosis, created the PCL (Psychopathy Check List) in 1980 to determine whether or not

someone was a psychopath. Later, in 1991, he created the PCL-R (Psychopathy Check List-

Revised). “The PCL-R is a 20-item clinical rating scale that is scored based on information from a

semi-structured interview and available legal files, medical records and collateral interviews

with someone who knows the subject well. Although the maximum possible score is 40, the

average scores in both male and female offender populations range from about 22 to 25. Hare

uses a cut-off score of 30 to distinguish psychopaths from non-psychopaths” (Cohen, 2011).

This is the standard tool for diagnosing psychopathy. Psychopathy and psychopathic traits exists

along a multidimensional continuum (Babiak & Hare, 2006, p. 28). Just because someone has

some of the characteristics that make up psychopathy, this does not at all mean they are a

psychopath. In any case, the method for determining this diagnosis requires professional
training and is not something someone else would be qualified to do in an unbiased manner.

According to Babiak and Hare (2006, p.177), approximately 1% of the population could be

categorized as psychopathic while another roughly 10% could be in a gray zone, somewhere

between normal and psychopathic.

One interesting fact worth mentioning is that psychopaths who are generally very adept

at maintaining a mask or façade of normality are easier to see through if the perceiver is not

viewed as either a threat or a victim by the psychopath (Babiak & Hare, 2006, p. 67-68, 127).

These people the psychopath tends to ignore.

Psychopathy appears to be primarily genetically/biologically based although there also

seems to be an environmental component. The amygdala is related to emotional learning.

Some research suggests that psychopaths have a smaller amygdala (Babiak & Hare, 2006, p.24-

25). Other research indicates that psychopaths may have parts of their brains as well as brain

connectivity that is undeveloped or underactive (Blair et al., 1995, as quoted in Boddy, 2010,

p.2). So if one is not afraid of the consequences of their actions then they are probably more

likely to engage in criminal behavior (Whitbourne, 2011). However, could there be individuals

with smaller amygdala’s who don’t become psychopaths due to an early environment that

compensated for any neurological defect they have been born with? More study is needed with

regard to this.

Studies have shown that those who could be defined as psychopaths tend to be

predominately male. So why is this? Apparently much of the difference between male and

female psychopaths is due to sex-roles and the socialization process. The expectation is that

psychopaths will be aggressive, intimidating, tough and domineering and so when clinicians
diagnose a female, who may have some different characteristics than a male counterpart (e.g.

passivity, warmth, nurturing and dependency) with something other than psychopathy (Babiak

& Hare, 2006, p. 101-102).

Within forensic research, there appear to be several sub-types of psychopathy. These

include the classic, the macho and the manipulative sub-types. (Babiak & Hare, 2006, p. 185-

186). There are 4 domains on the PCL-SV, a variant on the PCL-R. The 4 domains include

affective, interpersonal, antisocial and lifestyle. Affective means that the person lacks

remorse/empathy and doesn’t take responsibility for their actions. Interpersonal means that

the person is superficial, grandiose and deceitful. Antisocial means that the person’s history

reveals their poor behavioral controls as well as adolescent and adult antisocial behavior.

Lifestyle means the person is impulsive, irresponsible and they lack goals (Babiak & Hare, p.27).

All 3 sub-categories share affective components of lack of empathy, guilt or remorse along with

shallow emotions. The classic sub-type rates high, on the PCL-SV, in all 4 dimensions-affective,

interpersonal, antisocial and lifestyle. The macho sub-type rates high on affective, antisocial and

lifestyle but low on the interpersonal dimension. The manipulative sub-type rates high on

affective and interpersonal and somewhat lower on the antisocial and lifestyle dimensions

(Babiak & Hare, p. 185-186).

Dr. Hare has done extensive writing and research about psychopathology. Much of his

writing relates to a lesser known type of psychopath and that is the corporate psychopath. For

various reasons, many individuals who possess some of the traits of a sociopath seem to

gravitate toward the upper echelons of corporate America.

 The United States and much of the rest of the world experienced a severe economic

downturn beginning, in a more obvious way, a few years ago. This has been the most severe

economic recession since the Great Depression and the havoc that has been wrought upon so

many people’s lives has been horrendous. Was there a relationship between the economic

downturn and the influence of many of the major world corporations. Was the unethical

behavior of many of our corporate leaders responsible for what has happened to our economy?

If so then I believe there is value in recognizing some of these corporate leaders for who they

are and what they are doing in order to break the vicious cycle whereby so many people have

become victimized by the downturn in the economy. If some of these corporate heads are

indeed psychopaths then the effect of that is being felt by the rest of us, not just individually

but as a society. People like Charles Manson or Ted Bundy can do much harm, it is true and

those who run large multi-national corporations could do more damage, in part, because so

many people are unconscious of what is happening.

Clive Boddy, who has written several articles that have been published in the Journal of

Business Ethics, believes that the financial crisis of 2007/2008 may have been caused by and

also led to more psychopathic types being employed within large corporations (Boddy, 2011, p.

255-256).

Here is a largely complete list of the characteristics that define this particular personality

disorder and unless otherwise noted, these are from (Hare, 2011):

 Ruthlessness

 Shallow and superficial behavior including superficial charm

 Impulsiveness and poor self-control

 Cunning, manipulative and conning or using aliases (Cohen, 2011).

 Lack of conscience, remorse or guilt

 Extreme narcissism

 Grandiose sense of self-importance and self-centeredness

 Attitude of entitlement

 No fear

 Sexual promiscuity

 Criminal activity

 Early behavioral problems including juvenile delinquency

 Blaming others for their problems

 Short-term relationships

 Lack of realistic long-term goals

 Irresponsible behavior

 Living off others and predatory attitude and behavior

 Lack of empathy and callousness

 Deceptive behavior and pathological lying. People who are psychopaths are chronic liars

and will lie about virtually anything, including things that don’t even matter.

Psychopaths “can lie so well that listeners doubt themselves first, rather than question

the psychopath” (Babiak & Hare, 2006, p.254).

 Need for stimulation and a tendency to be prone to boredom

 Poor self-control

 Antisocial behavior as an adult

 Low tolerance for frustration

 Arrogance and lack of modesty

 Inability to engage in teamwork. Even the most well-behaved psychopath is incapable of

functioning in a workable team (Babiak & Hare, 2006).

 Aggression: overt and covert (Babiak & Hare, 2006).

 Reckless disregard for the safety of oneself and of others (Cohen, 2011).
 References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(4th ed., text rev.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.

American Psychiatric Association. (2011, June 21). DSM-V Development: Antisocial Personality
Disorder. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=16

Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work. New York:
HarperCollins.

Boddy, C., Ladyshewsky, R.K., & Galvin, P. (2010). The Influence of Corporate Psychopaths on
Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Commitment to Employees. Journal of
Business Ethics. 97, 1-19. Retrieved February 14, 2012. Proquest.

Boddy, C. (2011). The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis. Journal of
Business Ethics. 102, 255-259. Retrieved January 10, 2012. Proquest.

Cohen, L.J. (2011, March 14).What do we know about psychopathy? Psychology Today.
Retrieved February 14, 2012. Proquest. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/handy-
psychology-answers/201103/what-do-we-know-about-psychopathy

Diamond, S.A. (2009, August 31). Masks of Sanity (Part Four): What is a Psychopath?
Psychology Today. Retrieved February 14, 2012. Proquest.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/200908/masks-sanity-part-four-what-is-
psychopath

Hare, R.D. (1993). Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopath Among Us. New
York: Guilford Press.

Hare, R. D. (2011, December 28). This Charming Psychopath. Psychology Today. Retrieved
February 14, 2012. Proquest. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199401/charming-
psychopath

Whitbourne, S.K. (2011, June 14). Finding psychopathy in unexpected places. Psychology Today.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201106/finding-psychopathy-in-
unexpected-places