Differentiating psychopathy from antisocial personality disorder: a triarchic model perspective

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 1005-1013 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. C. Venables ◽  
J. R. Hall ◽  
C. J. Patrick
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Antisocial Personality Disorder ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Antisocial Personality ◽  
Convergent And Discriminant Validity ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist Revised ◽  
Correctional Settings ◽  
High Base ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Triarchic Model

BackgroundThe triarchic model of psychopathy characterizes the disorder in terms of three distinguishable phenotypic facets: disinhibition, meanness and boldness. The present study sought to (1) inform current debates regarding the role of boldness in the definition of psychopathy and (2) clarify boundaries between psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD).MethodThis study evaluated the degree to which facets of the triarchic model are represented in the most widely used clinical inventory for psychopathy, the Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL-R), in comparison with ASPD as defined by DSM-IV criteria. Adult male offenders from two distinct correctional settings (n = 157 and 169) were investigated to ensure replicability of findings across samples exhibiting high base rates of psychopathy and antisocial behavior.ResultsWe found evidence for convergent and discriminant validity of the three triarchic facets in predicting symptomatic components of psychopathy as assessed by the PCL-R. Additionally, and crucially vis-à-vis current debates in the field, we found that boldness contributed incrementally (over and above disinhibition and meanness) to prediction of PCL-R psychopathy, in particular its interpersonal style component, but not ASPD.ConclusionsThe three distinct facets of the triarchic model of psychopathy are represented clearly and distinctly in the PCL-R, with boldness through its interpersonal facet, but not in DSM-defined ASPD. Our findings suggest that boldness is central to diagnostic conceptions of psychopathy and distinguishes psychopathy from the more prevalent diagnosis of ASPD.

Psychopathy/Antisocial Personality Disorder Conundrum

2006 ◽  
Vol 40 (6-7) ◽  
pp. 519-528 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R.P. Ogloff
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Antisocial Personality Disorder ◽  
Contemporary Literature ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Antisocial Personality ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist Revised ◽  
Affective Deficits ◽  
Hare Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
Research Findings

Psychopathy has traditionally been characterised as a disorder primarily of personality (particularly affective deficits) and, to a lesser extent, behaviour. Although often used interchangeably, the diagnostic constructs of psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and dissocial personality disorder are distinct. In this article, the relevant historical and contemporary literature concerning psychopathy is briefly reviewed. The diagnostic criteria for psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and dissocial personality disorder are compared. Consideration is given to the assessment, prevalence, and implications of psychopathy for violence risk and treatment efficacy. The DSM-IV-TR criteria for antisocial personality disorder, in particular, are largely behaviourally based. The ICD criteria for dissocial personality disorder, while paying more attention to affective deficits, also do not represent the broad personality and behavioural components of psychopathy. Since 1980, a great deal of research on these disorders has been conducted, using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, Revised (PCL-R). The PCL-R assesses both personality (interpersonal and affective) and behavioural (lifestyle and antisocial) deficits. As such, the research and clinical implications of psychopathy, as operationalised by the PCL-R, cannot be readily extrapolated to the diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder and dissocial personality disorder. As currently construed, the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder grossly over-identifies people, particularly those with offence histories, as meeting the criteria for the diagnosis. For example, research shows that between 50% and 80% of prisoners meet the criteria for a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, yet only approximately 15% of prisoners would be expected to be psychopathic, as assessed by the PCL-R. As such, the characteristics and research findings drawn from the psychopathy research may not be relevant for those with antisocial or dissocial personality disorder.

scholarly journals Prepulse Inhibition in Cocaine Addiction and Dual Pathologies

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 269
Author(s):  
Isis Gil-Miravet ◽  
Alejandro Fuertes-Saiz ◽  
Ana Benito ◽  
Isabel Almodóvar ◽  
Enrique Ochoa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Prepulse Inhibition ◽  
Dual Diagnosis ◽  
Antisocial Personality Disorder ◽  
Cocaine Addiction ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Antisocial Personality ◽  
Related Disorder ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist Revised

Cocaine addiction is frequently associated with different psychiatric disorders, especially schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder. A small number of studies have used prepulse inhibition (PPI) as a discriminating factor between these disorders. This work evaluated PPI and the phenotype of patients with cocaine-related disorder (CRD) who presented a dual diagnosis of schizophrenia or antisocial personality disorder. A total of 74 men aged 18–60 years were recruited for this research. The sample was divided into four groups: CRD (n = 14), CRD and schizophrenia (n = 21), CRD and antisocial personality disorder (n = 16), and a control group (n = 23). We evaluated the PPI and other possible vulnerability factors in these patients by using different assessment scales. PPI was higher in the CRD group at 30 ms (F(3, 64) = 2.972, p = 0.038). Three discriminant functions were obtained which allowed us to use the overall Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised score, reward sensitivity, and PPI at 30 ms to predict inclusion of these patients in the different groups with a success rate of 79.7% (42.9% for CRD, 76.2% for CRD and schizophrenia, 100% for CRD and antisocial personality disorder, and 91.3% in the control group). Despite the differences we observed in PPI, this factor is of little use for discriminating between the different diagnostic groups and it acts more as a non-specific endophenotype in certain mental disorders, such as in patients with a dual diagnosis.

Reduced cortical call to arms differentiates psychopathy from antisocial personality disorder

2012 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 825-835 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. E. Drislane ◽  
U. Vaidyanathan ◽  
C. J. Patrick
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Antisocial Personality Disorder ◽  
Orienting Response ◽  
Dependent Measure ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Antisocial Personality ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist ◽  
Aversive Events ◽  
Psychopathy Checklist Revised ◽  
Threat Cues

BackgroundPsychopathy and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) are both characterized by impulsive, externalizing behaviors. Researchers have argued, however, that psychopathy is distinguished from ASPD by the presence of interpersonal–affective features that reflect an underlying deficit in emotional sensitivity. No study to date has tested for differential relations of these disorders with the brain's natural orienting response to sudden aversive events.MethodElectroencephalography was used to assess cortical reactivity to abrupt noise probes presented during the viewing of pleasant, neutral and unpleasant pictures in 140 incarcerated males diagnosed using the Psychopathy Checklist – Revised and DSM-IV criteria for ASPD. The primary dependent measure was the P3 event-related potential response to the noise probes.ResultsPsychopaths showed significantly smaller amplitude of P3 response to noise probes across trials of all types compared with non-psychopaths. Follow-up analyses revealed that this overall reduction was attributable specifically to the affective–interpersonal features of psychopathy. By contrast, no group difference in general amplitude of probe P3 was evident for ASPD versus non-ASPD participants.ConclusionsThe findings demonstrate a reduced cortical orienting response to abrupt aversive stimuli in participants exhibiting features of psychopathy that are distinct from ASPD. The specificity of the observed effect fits with the idea that these distinctive features of psychopathy reflect a deficit in defensive reactivity, or mobilization of the brain's defensive system, in the context of threat cues.

Antisocial Personality Disorder

2018 ◽  
pp. 227-244
Author(s):  
Carol S. North ◽  
Sean H. Yutzy
Keyword(s):  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Natural History ◽  
Antisocial Personality Disorder ◽  
Clinical Picture ◽  
Clinical Management ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Antisocial Personality ◽  
Childhood Conduct ◽  
Definition Of

In this chapter the historical background of the definition of antisocial personality disorder over the last 200 years (including the most commonly applied labels—psychopathy, sociopathy, and criminality) are reviewed along with the current core features. The most recent diagnostic criteria require the repetitive violation of the rights of others, beginning in childhood (conduct disorder) and continuing after age 18. This chapter considers at length the epidemiology, clinical picture, natural history, and family studies of antisocial personality disorder, and the complications of this disorder that are most burdensome to society. The diverse presentations are emphasized to assist the reader in detection of this disorder. Differential diagnosis for the disorder and clinical management (such that it is) are touched upon.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document