Journal of Research in Personality 44 (2010) 554–558
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Research in Personality journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp
Brief Report
The search for the successful psychopath Stephanie N. Mullins-Sweatt a,*, Natalie G. Glover b, Karen J. Derefinko b, Joshua D. Miller c, Thomas A. Widiger b a
Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74074, United States Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, United States c Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, United States b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 23 May 2010 Keywords: Psychopathy Five-factor model General personality Successful psychopath
a b s t r a c t There has long been interest in identifying and studying ‘‘successful psychopaths.” This study sampled psychologists with an interest in law, attorneys, and clinical psychology professors to obtain descriptions of individuals considered to be psychopaths who were also successful in their endeavors. The results showed a consistent description across professions and convergence with descriptions of traditional psychopathy, though the successful psychopathy profile had higher scores on conscientiousness, as measured within the five-factor model (FFM). These results are useful in documenting the existence of successful psychopathy, demonstrating the potential benefit of informant methodology, and providing an FFM description that distinguishes successful psychopaths from unsuccessful psychopaths studied more routinely within prison settings. Ó 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction There has long been interest in studying ‘‘successful psychopaths” (e.g., Hall & Benning, 2006). Successful psychopaths are, in theory, individuals who fit the criteria of a psychopath, having certain fundamental traits (e.g., callousness), but largely succeed in their exploitation. Several psychopathy theorists have made anecdotal references to psychopathic lawyers, professors, businessmen, and politicians who have not committed crimes that warranted arrest or have successfully avoided investigation (e.g., Cleckley, 1988; Hare, 2003). It also has been argued that certain psychopathic traits (e.g., fearlessness) might be assets within some professions (e.g., Lykken, 1995). There has been little empirical research characterizing such persons. Widom (1977) recruited participants using advertisements requesting ‘‘charming, aggressive, carefree people who are impulsively irresponsible but are good at handling people and at looking after number one” (p. 675). Characteristics associated with psychopathy (low empathy, psychopathic deviance, and hypomania) were found, though participants’ scores on impulsivity and Machiavellianism did not differ from scores of community members. Widom and Newman (1985) replicated this work using the same strategy. Hall and Benning (2006), however, argued that it might not be accurate to characterize these participants as successful as
* Corresponding author. Address: 116 North Murray Hall, Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, United States. Fax: +1 405 744 8067. E-mail address:
[email protected] (S.N. Mullins-Sweatt). 0092-6566/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.05.010
a substantial portion of participants in both studies had significant arrest records, and most were of low socio-economic status. Ishikawa, Raine, Lencz, Bihrle, and Lacasse (2001) examined the correlates of psychopathy among ‘‘successful and unsuccessful” psychopaths within a community sample. They defined successful psychopaths as ‘‘community-based psychopaths who escape conviction for the crimes they perpetrate” (Ishikawa et al., 2001, p. 423). Psychopathy status was determined with the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) and collateral measures. Unsuccessful psychopaths had higher PCL-R total scores than successful psychopaths (possibly due to criminal acts) but the two groups did not differ on traits considered to be central to the disorder. Ishikawa et al. though acknowledged that they might not have identified truly successful psychopaths, as participants were recruited from temporary employment agencies. Therefore findings ‘‘cannot be extrapolated to socioeconomically successful psychopaths functioning in industry, public office, the criminal justice system, or academia” (Ishikawa et al., 2001, p. 431). A difficulty in studying successful psychopaths is recruitment. ‘‘Research with the more socially successful psychopaths is badly needed, although it is recognized that there are real difficulties involved in obtaining suitable subjects” (Hare, 1975, cited by Widom (1977), p. 675). It would be difficult to sample enough individuals within a respective profession to find the rare psychopath. Once found, it is possible that this psychopathic person would not be forthcoming or would refuse to participate. Although successful psychopaths may not be willing to participate in studies, individuals who are closely familiar with him/her may be able to provide useful information regarding his/her
S.N. Mullins-Sweatt et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 44 (2010) 554–558
personality. Kirkman (2005) sampled women who had been victimized by a partner who evidenced psychopathic characteristics. Participants described their partners using the Hare P-SCAN (Hare & Herve, 1999). These descriptions were compared to ratings of partners provided by women in a comparison group. The ratings of the former group indicated significantly greater levels of psychopathy than the comparison group. The current study sampled persons within professions likely to come in contact with psychopathic individuals. We asked if they had ever known anyone whom they would characterize as a ‘‘successful psychopath” and, if so, to describe him/her in terms of traits associated with psychopathy and the personality traits of the fivefactor model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Lynam and Widiger (2007) integrated findings from three approaches describing psychopathy in terms of FFM traits (i.e., expert ratings, empirical correlations and translations of psychopathy measures) in order to generate a consensus psychopathy profile. Prototypic psychopathy was described across the approaches as low in five facets of agreeableness (all except trust), three facets of conscientiousness (dutifulness, self-discipline, deliberation), and one facet of neuroticism (self-consciousness) and extraversion (warmth) as well as high in impulsiveness from neuroticism and excitement-seeking from extraversion. Several traits appeared across two of the three approaches. This expanded profile included high angry hostility, assertiveness, and openness to actions, and low anxiousness, depressiveness, vulnerability, trust, and openness to feelings. In the current study, we hypothesized that successful psychopaths would be described with the Lynam and Widiger (2007) consensus profile, except that successful psychopathy would be associated with high, rather than low, scores on conscientiousness (i.e., competence, achievement-striving, discipline and deliberation). Similarly, the successful psychopath would be characterized as high in such psychopathic traits as callousness, dishonesty, exploitative, and remorseless, but low in irresponsibility and impulsivity. 2. Method Participants were provided with a definition of a psychopath; ‘‘social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life. . .. Completely lacking in conscience and feeling for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret” (Hare, 2003, p. xi). They were then asked if they had known any such person – it could not be someone they knew of (e.g., a person within the media or literature); it had to be someone they knew personally. ‘‘Equally important, this person must be someone whom you felt was actually successful in his/ her psychopathic endeavors. It can not be someone who has largely failed (at least to this point) in his/her psychopathic pursuits.” Targets consisted of 120 males and 26 females (M = 43.48 years old, SD = 11.63; 86% Caucasian). Respondents indicated they had known the targets on average for 10.65 years (SD = 11.04 years).
555
gists (78% Ph.D., 16% Psy.D., 2% Ed.D.). Experience of participants ranged from 2 to 55 (M = 23) years since earning their degree. Participants indicated they knew the target ‘‘strongly” (M = 3.61; SD = 0.90).
2.2. Attorneys Attorneys who practice criminal law (N = 642) were surveyed. One hundred and forty-three envelopes were returned, suggesting that 499 probably reached their intended recipients. From that number, 31 returned the survey (6%) and 25 indicated they knew someone they would describe as a successful psychopath. Respondents (18 males, 7 females) had been in practice from 2 to 43 (M = 22) years since earning their degree. Participants indicated they knew the target moderately well (M = 3.36; SD = 1.11).
2.3. Professors Clinical psychology faculty members (n = 1000) were surveyed. Two hundred and thirty-two envelopes were returned, suggesting that 768 probably reached their intended recipients. From that number, 58 returned the survey (8%) and 41 indicated they knew someone they would describe as a successful psychopath. Respondents (24 males, 17 females) were doctoral level psychologists [95% Ph.D. (4% Ph.D. and J.D.), 2% Psy.D.]. Experience of participants ranged from 1 to 58 (M = 20) years since earning their degree. Participants indicated they knew the target ‘‘strongly” (M = 3.57, SD = 0.98).
2.4. Materials Beyond demographics of oneself and the target, and how well they knew the person (1 = slightly, 5 = extremely well), participants were also asked to indicate the extent to which they considered the person to be psychopathic (1 = only slightly to 5 = complete match/prototypic case). Participants then described in their own words attributes that made the person psychopathic and why the person was successful.
2.5. Five factor form (FFF) Participants completed the FFF, an updated version of the fivefactor model rating form (Mullins-Sweatt, Jamerson, Samuel, Olson, & Widiger, 2006), a one-page form consisting of 30 items representing the facets of the FFM. Participants described the individual where 1 = maladaptively low, 2 = normal low, 3 = neutral, 4 = normal high, and 5 = maladaptively high. For example, for competence, maladaptively low competence was ‘‘disinclined, lax,” low was ‘‘casual,” high was ‘‘efficient, resourceful” and maladaptively high was ‘‘perfectionistic” (a copy may be obtained from the authors).
2.1. Psychologists Psychologists were drawn from the directory of the American Psychological Association’s (APA) Division 41 (‘‘psych-law”), the organization that promotes applying psychology within the legal system. Seven hundred and fifty-two persons were solicited by postal mail, 83 envelopes were returned by the postal service, suggesting that 669 probably reached their intended recipients. From that number, 118 returned the survey (18%) and 81 indicated they knew someone they would describe as a successful psychopath. Respondents (53 males, 29 females) were doctoral level psycholo-
2.6. Psychopathy rating form (PRF) Participants described the target in terms of 15 traits commonly cited in psychopathy literature (e.g., callous, exploitative, irresponsible). For example, for ‘‘carefree lifestyle” the description was ‘‘lacking in long term plans or commitments; lives day-to-day; happy-go-lucky”. Participants described the individual where 1 represented ‘‘extremely low” and 5 represented ‘‘extremely high” (a copy may be obtained from the authors).
556
S.N. Mullins-Sweatt et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 44 (2010) 554–558
3. Results The modal choice of target for the professors and psych-law psychologists was a current/former colleague (75% and 34.5%, respectively). Of the psych-law psychologists 18.5% described a current/former client, 7.5% of the professors described a current/ former student, and just as many described a friend (16% and 7.5%, respectively). The modal choice for the attorneys was a client (48%), which may reflect that they considered these clients to be successful in avoiding convictions. There were no differences between the three samples with respect to length of relationship or how well the participant knew the target. Attorneys were significantly less familiar (M = 3.87, SD = 0.94) with the concept of psychopathy than the psych-law sample (M = 4.55, SD = 0.90) and clinical psychology professors (M = 4.48, SD = 0.75), F(2, 134) = 4.83, p < .01. Participants indicated that the extent to which the target met the description of a prototypic psychopath fell close to a strong match (M = 3.92, SD = 0.67). Attorneys described their targets as slightly more psychopathic (M = 4.16, SD = 0.67) than the psych-law sample (M = 3.80, SD = 0.72) and clinical psychology professors (M = 3.80, SD = 0.72), F(2, 134) = 2.34, p < .05. Narrative descriptions of the targets were consistent with the presence of what we would consider successful psychopathy (a table of descriptions is available online, see Supplementary Table A, or from the first author). For example, indicators of success included ‘‘a top notch police detective, a hero,” ‘‘dean from a major university,” ‘‘successful retail business,” ‘‘made large sum of money and was mayor for three years,” ‘‘managerial position in government organization,” ‘‘full professor at two major universities,” and ‘‘endowed professor with numerous federal grants.” Qualitative descriptions of psychopathy included ‘‘utter absence of empathy;” ‘‘manipulated women and children despite pain/damage caused, dishonest in business, superficial/forced emotionality;” ‘‘absence of remorse;” ‘‘chronic deceitfulness.” Narrative descriptions also were consistent with ratings of these persons with respect to psychopathic personality traits (Table 1). Members from all three professions described the successful psychopath as being dishonest, exploitative, low in remorse, minimizing of self-blame, arrogant, and shallow. The mean profiles generated by the three samples using the PRF were strongly related (r = .86, p < .001), using the average of the three possible correlations. The Wilks-lambda multivariate test of overall differences among the samples was not significant [F(30, 152) =
1.38, p = .106]. We completed univariate between-subjects ANOVA comparisons for each of the PRF variables to verify minimal group differences. Attorneys described targets as engaging in significantly more criminal behavior than the clinical psychology professors and the psych-law samples [F(2, 139) = 6.03, p < .01]. A table of the FFM profiles generated by the samples may be obtained online (see Supplementary Table B) or from the first author. These profiles were highly correlated (r = 0.96, p < .001), using the average of the three possible correlations. The Wilks-lamda multivariate test of overall differences among the samples was not significant at p < .01 [F(60, 166) = 1.58, p = .012]. Univariate between-subjects ANOVA comparisons indicated no significant differences in how the professions described successful psychopaths on any FFM facets. Table 2 provides the mean scores reported for the successful psychopaths averaged across samples in terms of facets of the FFM. In order to provide a quantitative indication of the extent that present results match the predictions of Lynam and Widiger (2007), we correlated the mean FFM profile with the consensus profile using dummy coding (i.e., L = 1, H = 1, 0 if not included). The correlation between the mean profile of successful psychopaths with the consensus profile of the prototypic psychopath was .49, p < .01. The correlation between the mean profile with the expanded profile was .66, p < .01 (i.e., 2 = L, 1 = l, 2 = H, 1 = h). Consistent with expectations, the successful psychopaths were rated high in assertiveness, excitement-seeking, and activity, and especially low in agreeableness traits like straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, and modesty. Most importantly with respect to the hypotheses of the study, successful psychopaths were high in competence, order, achievement-striving, and self-discipline. We also correlated the mean successful psychopathy profile with FFM descriptions of prototypic personality disorders (PDs; Lynam & Widiger, 2001). Pearson correlations ranged from .15 (obsessive compulsive PD) to .86 (narcissistic PD). It is worth noting that the correlations with antisocial PD and narcissistic PD (.80 and .86) were higher than with the consensus profiles, due to the use of dummy coding for the latter analysis. Finally, the mean successful psychopathy profile was not significantly related to an average personality profile based on NEO PI-R norms (r = .07). 4. Discussion The current results suggest that the successful psychopath is distinguished from the unsuccessful (or prototypic) psychopath
Table 1 Psychopathy rating form. Psych-law
Callous Dishonest Exploitative Criminal behavior Low remorse Low anxiousness Minimizes self-blame Arrogance Shallow Impulsive Excitement-seeking Carefree lifestyle Irresponsible Aggressive Childhood delinquency a *
Attorneys
Clinical psychology professors
Mean
Standard deviation
Mean
Standard deviation
Mean
Standard deviation
3.22 4.28 4.46 2.89 4.03 3.54 3.99 4.25 4.23 3.16 3.68 2.81 3.09 2.53 2.72
1.46 1.00 0.93 1.41 1.29 1.17 1.21 0.85 0.89 0.99 1.17 1.01 1.16 1.35 1.27
3.91 4.43 4.78 3.78 4.26 4.26 4.30 4.39 3.91 3.26 3.68 2.91 2.91 3.26 3.64
1.31 0.90 0.42 1.24 0.92 0.96 0.63 1.03 1.21 1.25 0.99 1.41 1.44 1.29 1.22
3.85 4.36 4.64 2.61 4.42 3.63 4.54 4.46 4.03 3.03 3.28 2.46 3.03 2.57 2.50
1.11 0.71 0.63 1.13 0.60 0.91 0.72 0.76 1.04 1.13 0.88 1.19 1.22 1.30 1.32
df ranged from (2, 129) to (2, 139) for all variables except childhood delinquency (df = 2, 95). p < .01.
Fa
4.220 0.325 1.701 6.029* 1.771 4.132 3.971 0.731 1.153 0.373 1.805 1.540 0.184 2.775 6.343
S.N. Mullins-Sweatt et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 44 (2010) 554–558 Table 2 Average scores across three samples and Lynam and Widiger (2007) consensus profile. Average across samples
Consensus profile— psychopathy
Neuroticism Anxiousness Angry hostility Depressiveness Self-consciousness Impulsivity Vulnerability
2.51 3.55 2.07 1.69 3.77 1.65
l h l L H l
Extraversion Warmth Gregariousness Assertiveness Activity Excitement-seeking Positive emotions
3.06 4.04 4.45 3.95 3.99 3.62
L
Openness Fantasy Aesthetics Feelings Actions Ideas Values
3.43 3.24 3.43 3.49 3.23 3.07
l h
Agreeableness Trust Straightforwardness Altruism Compliance Modesty Tender-mindedness
1.54 1.46 1.77 1.93 1.59 1.66
l L L L L L
Conscientiousness Competence Order Dutifulness Achievement-striving Self-discipline Deliberation
3.42 3.44 2.63 3.72 3.38 2.76
h H
L L L
Note. Based on integrated findings from three approaches describing psychopathy in terms of the FFM (i.e., expert ratings, empirical correlations, translations of psychopathy measures): L = traits consistently identified as low in the consensus psychopathy profile according to the three approaches. l = traits included in the expanded profile, consistent across two approaches. H = traits consistently identified as high in the consensus psychopathy profile according to the three approaches. h = traits included in the expanded profile, consistent across two approaches.
via differences in conscientiousness. Unlike the current successful psychopaths, prototypic psychopaths are said to be high in irresponsibility, impulsivity, and negligence, and perhaps these traits contribute to their arrests and convictions for crimes. In other words, the profile switches from being low in conscientiousness to being high in conscientiousness. This finding is consistent with a considerable literature that documents the importance of conscientiousness to a variety of positive life outcomes (e.g., Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006). Conversely, studies have demonstrated a significant negative relationship between conscientiousness and number of arrests (e.g., Clower & Bothwell, 2002). The current study also demonstrates the benefit of a comprehensive model of PD that includes adaptive traits within its classification system (Widiger & Mullins-Sweatt, 2009). The DSM-IV PDs are confined to maladaptive traits, not recognizing that persons with PDs can also have personality strengths. Some more recent models of psychopathy include traits that may represent adaptive strengths. The psychopathic personality inventory (PPI), for instance, includes such scales as Stress Immunity (remaining calm in spite of stress), Social Potency (interpersonal impact and skill at influencing people), and Fearlessness (lacking anticipatory anxiety) that could have considerable benefits toward achieving successful life outcomes (Lilienfeld & Fowler, 2006). These scales
557
largely define the PPI psychopathy factor ‘‘Fearless Dominance”, which has been associated with educational attainment, sociability, and executive functioning (Patrick, 2006). Similar to the current findings, Fearless Dominance has been associated with low neuroticism and high extraversion (Ross, Benning, Patrick, Thompson, & Thurston, 2009). However, Fearless Dominance has not correlated with conscientiousness and it is this particular domain of the FFM that distinguishes in the current study the successful from the unsuccessful psychopath. One might question whether the persons described in the current study should be described as psychopaths, given they did not fit traditional descriptions (e.g., they were not irresponsible or impulsive). Though a diagnostic measure was not administered, the psychologists, attorneys, and professors, who were moderately to highly familiar with the psychopathy construct, considered these persons to be psychopathic. Further, these individuals were identified as having traits of dishonesty, exploitation, low remorse, minimizing self-blame, arrogance, callousness, and shallow affect (often said to be among the core features of psychopathy; Hare, 2003). Cleckley (1988) suggested that the psychopathic businessman, physician, psychiatrist, and scientist described anecdotally represented ‘‘incomplete manifestations or suggestions of the disorder” (p. 188). However, as Patrick (2006) indicated, he did not mean it would be inaccurate to describe them as psychopaths. Cleckley felt that these individuals probably have the core traits and underlying pathology of psychopathy seen within prison settings. Though there are a number of studies that have examined ‘‘noninstitutionalized psychopathy,” these persons may not be described as successful. The current study suggests that psychopathy also may exist in a manner quite different from that of the ‘‘unsuccessful” psychopaths routinely studied within prison settings. The current study used informant descriptions to provide information about successful psychopaths. An advantage of this method was the ability to obtain descriptions on persons who would have been difficult to research (e.g., college dean, university president, police detective, mayor, and director of a medical center). Such persons have been described in papers and texts on psychopathy but only anecdotally. This was the first study to conduct a systematic, quantitative analysis of such persons. Nevertheless, there are potential limitations to the informant approach. One concern would be whether the informants knew the person sufficiently well. Informants will not have access to all relevant data. To combat this, raters were encouraged to leave a specific question blank if they had insufficient knowledge of a trait. This option was rarely chosen except for the ‘‘childhood delinquency” item, indicating the informant methodology is perhaps more difficult for assessing a target’s history. An additional limitation was the relatively low response rates. Low response rates have perhaps occurred in other successful psychopathy studies [Ishikawa et al. (2001) did not report how many declined and Widom (1977) cannot report who considered advertisements but declined participation]. Individuals in the current study may have chosen not to respond because they were not interested or because they did not know anyone who would be characterized as a successful psychopath. Mitigating response rate concerns was the consistency of findings across the different professions that were surveyed. Nevertheless, the current results should be interpreted with caution given possible response bias. Future informant surveys might benefit from efforts to increase response rate (e.g., payment).
Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.05.010.
558
S.N. Mullins-Sweatt et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 44 (2010) 554–558
References Cleckley, H. M. (1988). The mask of sanity (5th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Clower, C. E., & Bothwell, R. K. (2002). An exploratory study of the relationship between the Big Five and inmate recidivism. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 231–237. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Hall, J. R., & Benning, S. D. (2006). The ‘‘Successful” psychopath: Adaptive and subclinical manifestations of psychopathy in the general population. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 459–478). New York: Guilford. Hare, R. D. (1975). Psychopathy. In P. Venables & M. Christie (Eds.), Research in psychophysiology. New York: Wiley. Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare psychopathy checklist—Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Hare, R. D., & Herve, H. F. (1999). Hare P-SCAN. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Ishikawa, S. S., Raine, A., Lencz, T., Bihrle, S., & Lacasse, L. (2001). Autonomic stress reactivity and executive functions in successful and unsuccessful criminal psychopaths from the community. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 423–432. Kirkman, C. A. (2005). From soap opera to science. Towards gaining access to the psychopaths who live amongst us. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 78, 379–396. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Fowler, K. A. (2006). The self-report assessment of psychopathy: Problems, pitfalls, and promises. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 107–132). New York: Guilford.
Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale: New Jersey. Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five-factor model to represent the DSM-IV personality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 401–412. Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2007). Using a general model of personality to identify the basic elements of psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 160–178. Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Jamerson, J. E., Samuel, D. S., Olson, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2006). Psychometric properties of an abbreviated instrument of the five-factor model. Assessment, 13(2), 119–137. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. Patrick, C. J. (2006). Back to the future: Cleckley as a guide to the next generation of psychopathy research. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 605–617). New York: Guilford. Ross, S. R., Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Thompson, A., & Thurston, A. (2009). Factors of the psychopathic personality inventory: Criterion-related validity and relationship to the BIS/BAS and the five-factor models of personality. Assessment, 16, 71–87. Widiger, T. A., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. (2009). Five factor model of personality disorder: A proposal for DSM-V. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 197–220. Widom, C. S. (1977). A methodology for studying noninstitutionalized psychopaths. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 674–683. Widom, C. S., & Newman, J. P. (1985). Characteristics of noninstitutionalized psychopaths. In J. Gunn & D. Farrington (Eds.). Current research in forensic psychiatry and psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 57–80). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
