Examining the Role of Low Self-Control and Psychopathy in Explaining Poly-Victimization

ABSTRACT

Although there has been research on the correlates of poly-victimization, studies have not fully considered the role of personality as a potential risk factor. The current study sought to address this gap by examining the personality characteristics of low self-control and psychopathy to assess how individuals who experience poly-victimization, defined as two or more different types of victimization, differ from non-victims and victims of only a single crime type. The sample was comprised of 872 undergraduate students at a southern university in the United States. Notably, 31.1% of victims experienced poly-victimization, including property, physical, or sexual harms. Consistent with prior work, lifestyle risk in the form of criminal behavior and adverse childhood experiences were associated with greater odds of poly-victimization. In addition, self-control proved to be a relatively robust correlate of poly-victimization. Psychopathy – measured as an aggregate measure and by separate subscale factors – was not associated with risk for poly-victimization. In this way, some subscales of personality traits such as low self-control seem to be important for explaining why some individuals experience poly-victimization. The findings provide preliminary evidence for personality traits as an important consideration in distinguishing poly-victimization from single- and non-victimization experiences in addition to other theoretically relevant factors.

KEYWORDS:

• poly-victimization
• low self-control
• psychopathy
• risky lifestyles
• childhood maltreatment

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2153955

Notes

1. At the discretion of instructors, study participants received extra-credit not to exceed three percent of their total possible grade. Data to estimate formal response rates for the survey were not gathered. Anecdotal evidence from research team members indicates that the vast majority of those approached to participate agreed to do so (> 95%).

2. The data under consideration here do not allow the grouping of victimization types within incidents. Therefore, the definition of poly-victimization as at least two categorically different types of victimization in the past year may include those who experience these different victimization types of in a single victimization incident.

3. For CFA Likert response categories for items were collapsed from five categories to three categories in order to account for categories with low frequencies. For example, only 8 participants – or 0.9% of the sample – indicated that they would strongly agree with the statement, “I’m more concerned with what happens to me in the short run than in the long run.”

4. For example, 13.6% (n = 119) of individuals were missing at least one demographic or theoretical control measure and 16.2% (n = 141) were missing at least one item used in the estimation of trait measure scores. Patterns of missing data overlapped somewhat and 25.6% (n = 223) were missing at least one item used to quantify the independent variables used in analyses.

5. De Ridder et al. (2012) define self-control as, “the capacity to alter or override dominant response tendencies and to regulate behavior, thoughts, and emotions” (p. 77). Burt (2020) defines self-control as, “the effortful inhibition of an impulse for immediate gratification in the service of long-term, higher-order goals” (p. 44).