(Mis)understanding Psychopathy: Consequences for Policy and Practice with Offenders

¹This article is based on the R. G. Myers Memorial Lecture, presented at the ANZAPPL conference, 22 November 2012, and jointly sponsored by Monash University and ANZAPPL (Victoria branch).

Abstract

What is psychopathy? It is a term that is used casually, to refer to everyone from improbably skilled super-criminals to businessmen who succeed in making astronomical profits by staying more-or-less on the right side of the law, but on the wrong side of morality or ethics. It is a construct both complex and prosaic, about which there is significant scientific debate and confusion. This article gives an overview of the key definitional issues for psychopathy, and introduces a framework – the triarchic model – for organizing some the main components of psychopathy and for evaluating what psychopathy is, and what it is not. The second section outlines the measurement of psychopathy, noting in particular the strengths and limitations of The Hare Psychopathy Checklist and Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised, and their dominance of the measurement domain, before moving on to unpack the relationship between these scales and crime itself. Third, research is reviewed on whether psychopaths and psychopathy can change, before reaching several conclusions about the consequences of diagnostic confusion and misunderstanding for psychopathic people and those who work with them.

Key words:

• correctional offender rehabilitation
• diagnosis
• measurement
• psychological treatment
• psychopathy
• risk assessment
• treatment change
• triarchic model

Acknowledgements

My thanks to ANZAPPL Victoria and Monash University for the opportunity to present this lecture, and my colleagues Jen Skeem, Chris Patrick and Scott Lilienfeld for their contributions to the development of my understanding of psychopathy.

Notes

¹ This article is based on the R. G. Myers Memorial Lecture, presented at the ANZAPPL conference, 22 November 2012, and jointly sponsored by Monash University and ANZAPPL (Victoria branch).

1. A revised manual was published in 2003, but the scale itself was not revised.

2. Garrett is credited by Gendreau and Andrews (1990) with publishing the first offender treatment meta-analysis.

3. This is r. Based on the binomial effect size display (Rosenthal, 1984), an r of .28 can be interpreted as indicating that 64% of the comparison group recidivated, and 46% of the treatment group (Andrews & Bonta, 2010)

4. This evaluation was conducted on cohorts of the programme completed prior to the introduction and development of the therapeutic community within the unit.