part0015

Psychopathy is characterized by a short-term, impersonal, and antisocial approach to life (Cleckley, 1976; Hare, 2003). Distinguishing characteristics of psychopaths include glibness, insincerity, callousness, impulsivity, need for stimulation, irresponsibility, and persistent and versatile antisocial behavior. There is evidence to suggest that psychopathy represents a taxon , that is, a natural class of individuals (G. T. Harris, Rice, & Quinsey, 1994; Skilling, Quinsey, & Craig, 2001). Thus, high scores on a measure of psychopathy such as the Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (Hare, 2003) may indicate the probability of whether someone is a psychopath, rather than representing degree of psychopathy. However, recent taxometric research has not confirmed these initial findings (Abramowitz, 2005; Edens, Marcus, Lilienfeld, & Poythress, 2006).

Psychopathy is an important construct in understanding sexual offending against children because it is consistently related to recidivism as well as other outcomes of concern, such as institutional misconduct, violation of parole or probation conditions, and treatment compliance (for comprehensive reviews, see Patrick, 2006). Although much more is known about psychopathy in adult male offenders, psychopathy can also be detected among adult female offenders, adolescent offenders, and civil psychiatric patients.

Psychopathy is associated with sexual behavior. Men who score high in psychopathy show a keen interest in partner novelty and casual sex and tend to have short-term sexual relationships. In fact, two of the items on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised specifically refer to this sexual history (“many short-term marital relationships” and “promiscuous sexual behavior”). A recent study suggested that psychopathy is characterized by early involvement in coercive sexual behavior (G. T. Harris, Rice, Hilton, Lalumière, & Quinsey, 2007). In addition, male psychopaths may be more likely than nonpsychopaths to opportunistically have sexual contacts with older girls; G. T. Harris et al. (2007) found that psychopathic sex offenders were less likely than nonpsychopathic sex offenders to have very young victims or boy victims.

My colleagues and others have argued that psychopathy may represent a life strategy that may have been adaptive in ancestral environments if the following conditions were met: Psychopaths (defectors in the language of game theory, which has been used by evolutionary theorists to compare different life strategies) can achieve reproductive success when they are difficult to detect, highly mobile, and skilled at manipulating the large majority of cooperative people (Harpending & Sobus, 1987; Mealey, 1995). In this view, psychopaths may be genetically different from other individuals, including other offenders. Unlike the orthodox conceptualization of psychopathy as a disorder, this view of psychopathy suggests it is not a disorder and may in fact be an evolutionarily stable strategy. Consistent with this view, and inconsistent with the view that psychopathy is a disorder, psychopathic offenders are less likely to have low intelligence, learning disorders, or to have experienced obstetrical complications than nonpsychopathic offenders (G. T. Harris, Rice, & Lalumière, 2001; Lalumière et al., 2001).

Core psychopathic features such as glibness, insincerity, and callousness are not necessarily deficits but may instead be adaptations that allow psychopaths to carry out their antisocial approach to life. This reconceptualization of psychopathy is radical because psychopathy is usually viewed as a major personality disorder that is a result of neuropsychological and social deficits and that leads to problems in a variety of domains, especially interpersonal relationships. The alternative view—that psychopathy may have been an adaptive strategy—has major implications for treatment because most interventions have a deficits-based approach (Seto & Quinsey, 2006). If psychopathy is not a mental disorder, then what should be addressed in treatment?