Psychology’s Latest Deep Dive into Psychopathy

The topic of psychopathy fascinates the public, and also personality psychologists seeking precise definitions and sound measures. Researchers have at their disposal several distinct models for capturing personality in general as well as psychopathy specifically.

The predominant approach to understanding personality derives from trait-based theories, most commonly the Five Factor Model (FFM). This model divides everyone’s basic dispositions into the 5 categories of conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness, neuroticism, and extraversion. Psychopathy does not fit nicely into the FFM, which doesn’t have a spot reserved within it for such qualities as lack of remorse or the tendency to engage in impulsive, and potentially antisocial, acts.

Psychopathy and the FFM

University of California Berkeley’s Keanan Joyner and colleagues (2024) note that the diagnosis of personality disorders, which is still based on categorical distinctions in the clinical manual known as the DSM-5-TR, can include supplemental information based on an individual’s position along the FFM traits. The pathology that can be captured by these five factor model includes negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism. Although useful in many ways, these trait ratings may not work all that well when it comes to psychopathy, claim the Cal Berkeley team.

Instead, Joyner et al. point to the value of an entirely different system and measurement approach, the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (EPA). In contrast to the FFM measurement scales, the EPA contains items worded in such a way as to capture specifically psychopathy’s key elements. The EPA’s 18 scales are derived from the FFM’s sub-scale scores (known as facets) and cover the realms of affect (e.g. anger), social relations (e.g. arrogance), and behavioral styles (e.g. rashness). The EPA was intended to replace the many existing measures used clinically into one self-report inventory directly linked to the FFM.

Although the EPA has performed well statistically, Joyner et al. believe that it can be improved by connecting it to another theory unique to the understanding of psychopathy. According to the “triarchic” (3-way) view, psychopathy consists of the three biobehavioral dimensions of disinhibition, meanness, and boldness.

What makes these “biobehavioral” is the idea that these three dimensions are more than mere personality traits. They are, according to this view, expressed in physiological indices and measures of behaviors on tasks intended to tap the way that people high in psychopathy tend to act when studied in the lab, not just how they answer questionnaires.

The Triarchic View of Psychopathy

These are the 3 biobehavioral traits that Joyner et al. suggest are part and parcel of psychopathy:

Disinhibition: People high in this trait are impulsive and act irresponsibly. Their cognitive performance reflects an inability to inhibit themselves to the point at which they make careless mistakes or perform poorly when they must wait to make a decision.

Meanness: Being high on this trait reflects, as the term implies, a lack of ability to connect or affiliate with others. When others are in distress, individuals high on this trait do nothing to help.

Boldness: Those high on boldness show little fear when others would, including lowered physiological responses to threat.

As you read about each of these qualities, it’s possible that you conjure up the image of a famous criminal, real or fictional. However, people high in psychopathy need not engage in criminal behavior. As is well known from prior work, including that of the late Scott Lilienfeld (the present paper was his last), people high in these qualities can have success in various "legitimate” realms such as corporate leadership or politics.

To test whether the triarchic model would explain scores on the EPA, the Cal Berkeley researchers administered this measure to two large samples, all undergraduates. Across the two studies, the team also asked participants to complete other personality and psychopathy scales as well as measures assessing frequency of criminal and aggressive acts, substance use and misuse, delinquent behavior, and so-called “internalizing psychopathology” (i.e. anxiety, stress, and depression). Of note, although this was a college sample, there was sufficient variation on all of these measures to justify the generalizability of the findings to a larger population.

Psychopathy Essential Reads

Revising My Ideas About a Kid Who Killed

How Many Female Psychopaths Are There?

After subjecting scores on the EPA and related psychopathy measures to a sophisticated analytical procedure, Joyner et al. reported a final statistical structure that supported the triarchic model. The authors also used what’s called a “bass-ackwards” modeling approach that is sometimes used in the field to see where new factors stop emerging from a total scale score. This, too, confirmed the three-dimension fit to the data.

What the Triarchic Approach Adds

By showing that a solid three-factor model fit the EPA and related data, Joyner et al. now make it possible to move away from trying to fit the square peg of psychopathy into the round hole of the FFM. Although it would be nice to think that the FFM, as a model of personality, could apply to all gradations of adaptability in terms of traits, the data from this study suggest the need to see psychopathy as its own entity.

The other key contribution of this study is that it further reinforces the idea that antisocial personality disorder (of which psychopathy is a part), like other personality disorders, is best viewed along a continuum. It’s been eleven years since the diagnostic approach used primarily in the U.S. abandoned using a new and research-based dimensional vs. the clinical or categorical view of personality disorders. Its international counterpart, the ICD-11, already made the switch (with the exception of borderline personality disorder). It’s not only less stigmatizing, but also more consistent with reality, to see people’s personalities as ranging in adaptability.

When it comes to, as the saying goes, “spotting the psychopath,” these findings also emphasize the dimensions that you might want to be on the lookout for. You don’t need to walk around with a diagnostic checklist in your head to figure out who might take advantage of you. See what you can discern, instead, from their lack of sensitivity to threat, other people, or behavioral curbs.

To sum up, those high in psychopathy will always fascinate if not enthrall. By viewing their behavior as comprising both personality and more basic physiological qualities, your fascination will at least be more informed.