Psychopathic Traits and Victimization: What Mechanisms Mediate the Relationship?

Abstract

Psychopathy has been linked to a host of negative outcomes including victimization; yet, the mechanisms that may explain this relationship have not been identified. Using data from the Pathways to Desistance study, a longitudinal study of adolescents adjudicted for serious offenses (N = 1,354) who had been adjudicated in either Maricopa County, AZ, or Philadelphia County, PA, we examine several mechanisms that may mediate the relationship between psychopathy and violent victimization. A 1 SD increase in psychopathy increases the risk of victimization by about 9.3%, net of control variables. Psychopathy is linked to violent victimization through its significant influences on engagement in risky behaviors, moral disengagement, motivations to succeed, and expectations for the future. These findings are striking given that they identify factors such as cognition and engagement in risky behavior that may be suitable targets for change in prevention or intervention efforts.

Keywords

psychopathy victimization risky behavior violence cognition

Psychopathy is a “socially devastating disorder” (Hare, 1996, p. 25) that is defined by a constellation of characteristics including impulsivity, lack of empathy, persistent violation of social norms, and shallow emotions to name a few. Behaviorally, people high in psychopathic traits typically have poor behavioral control, are criminally versatile, and have short-temperedness (Hare, 1999). Because of these characteristics, individuals who suffer from psychopathy may have a desire to harm others or engage in criminal or antisocial behavior, a desire that nonpsychopathic people often do not have or are able to quell (Hare, 1999). Based on these characteristics and behavioral tendencies, it is not surprising that psychopathy has been associated with several negative outcomes including engaging in violence (Hare, 1999; McCuish et al., 2015; Serin, 1991; Skeem & Mulvey, 2001), delinquency (Somma et al., 2018), and substance abuse (Darke et al., 1998; Sellbom et al., 2017).

Psychopathy has also been linked to the negative outcome of experiencing a victimization (Beaver et al., 2016; Daigle & Teasdale, 2018; Dolan et al., 2013; Fanti & Kimonis, 2012; Silver et al., 2011). In attempting to understand the link between psychopathy and victimization, prior research provides important insights. Specifically, researchers have identified that features of psychopathy, such as impulsivity, violence perpetration, and deviant behaviors, all place a person at risk for a victimization experience¹ (Jennings et al., 2010; Pratt et al., 2014).

Psychopathy and Victimization

Although researchers have documented that victimization experiences can result in psychopathic traits (Lang et al., 2002; Tatar et al., 2012; Weiler & Widom, 1996), few studies have focused on how psychopathy may increase the risk of a person’s victimization. Of the research that has examined the relationship between psychopathic traits and victimization, it has been generally found that people who are higher in psychopathic traits are at a heightened risk for victimization experiences. For instance, Beaver and colleagues (2016) found a significant association between psychopathic traits and the odds of being personally victimized among a sample of youth residing within Saudi Arabia. Similarly, Fanti and Kimonis (2012) found that among Greek adolescents, dimensions of psychopathy predicted membership in bully and bully-victim groups.

Among clinical samples, psychopathy has also been implicated as a correlate of victimization. For example, utilizing the MacArthur Risk Assessment Study sample—a multisite, longitudinal assessment of people with mental illness—Silver and colleagues (2011) found that psychopathy was significantly related to both victimization and offending. Similarly, among a community sample of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders in Australia, Dolan and colleagues (2013) found that people who had experienced serious violence scored higher on all four facets of psychopathy than those who had not experienced serious victimization.

Researchers have also shown that psychopathy is related to recurring victimization. Using data from the MacArthur Risk Assessment Study (MacRisk) and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health), Daigle and Teasdale (2018) empirically examined the role of psychopathic traits in relation to recurring victimization. The researchers found that in both, the clinical (MacArthur Risk Assessment Study) and nonclinical (Add Health) samples, psychopathic traits were able to distinguish nonvictims from both single victims and recurring victims (Daigle & Teasdale, 2018). Specifically, psychopathic trait measures were higher for single victims than nonvictims and higher for recurring victims than for single victims. The authors argued that the constellation of characteristics that are commonly found among people high in psychopathic traits would increase their risk of victimization and keep them at risk for recurring victimization.

Overall, these studies suggest that there is some evidence that psychopathy is related to a person’s risk of victimization and recurring victimization experiences. This evidence comes from both clinical and nonclinical samples and from multiple countries around the world, indicating the robustness of this relationship. Despite this body of research findings, there is still little that is known about this relationship. That is, there is limited research examining why psychopathy and victimization are related.

Potential Causal Pathways Between Psychopathy and Victimization

Although researchers have determined that psychopathy and victimization are related, there is still little known about the mechanisms underlying this relationship. Using the lifestyles/routine activities perspective along with the social interactionist perspective, we argue that the behavioral, interpersonal, and cognitive–affective domains that characterize psychopathy may explain the links between psychopathy and victimization.

Lifestyle/Routine Activities Theory, the Social Interactionist Perspective, and Psychopathy

Routine activities theory (RAT) highlights that victimization occurs when motivated offenders, suitable targets, and a lack of capable guardianship converge in time in space (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Lifestyle-exposure theory is often used along with RAT in that it suggests that a person’s risk for victimization is tied to the behaviors in which they engage. Specifically, spending time in places high in crime and being exposed to criminals are considered particularly risky for victimization (Hindelang et al., 1978). These theoretical perspectives have been used in tandem to explain why some persons are prone to victimization (Miethe et al., 1987) and may help explain why people high in psychopathy would be likely to be victimized.

For example, people who are high on psychopathy tend to be more aggressive (Heilbrun et al., 1998; Reidy et al., 2007, 2011). Because of this tendency, they may place themselves in situations that are conducive for victimization experiences. For instance, if such a person is aggressive toward a person—through language or posturing—this may cause an aggressive behavioral response from the person they offended, ultimately leading to a victimization event for the person high in psychopathic traits. Furthermore, they may be more likely than others to respond with aggression to every day slights, thus escalating situations to victimizing events.

Also relevant to victimization risk, people high in psychopathic traits may engage in an array of risky lifestyle choices. In fact, researchers have found that people with this characteristic engage in high rates of substance abuse (Gustavson et al., 2007; Hemphill et al., 1994; Smith & Newman, 1990), crime (Hemphill et al., 1998), violence perpetration (Blair & Lee, 2013; Nolan et al., 1999; Skeem et al., 2002; Skeem & Mulvey, 2001), and antisocial activities with peers (Muñoz et al., 2008). Because of these risky lifestyle choices, people high in psychopathic traits may be more likely than others to place themselves in situations that are conducive for victimization. That is, as lifestyles/RAT suggests, engagement in risky behaviors such as substance abuse or crime perpetration may expose a vulnerable person to an environment filled with motivated offenders and lack of capable guardians (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Hindelang et al., 1978).

People high in psychopathy may be particularly unlikely to have capable guardians. This possibility is highlighted by the social interactionist perspective (Felson, 1992) and work examining mental illness and conflicted relationships (Silver, 2002). According to these works, distressed people who violate social norms are likely to be aggressed against by those they offend. This distress-reaction sequence may be particularly prevalent for those with mental health issues and may apply to persons high in psychopathy as well. Furthermore, because of grievances one may elicit when interacting with others, it is likely that such people are involved in conflicted relationships (Silver, 2002). Given emotional and behavioral deficits that psychopaths may have (Hare, 1999), they are likely to have weaker or conflicted attachments to other people. In fact, Muñoz and colleagues (2008) argue that one of the most salient characteristics for such people is the “inability to form committed, long lasting relationships with others” (pp. 223–224). Because of this inability to form quality, long-lasting relationships with others, researchers have found that youth high in psychopathic traits often have conflicted peer relationships (Muñoz et al., 2008). Within these conflicted peer relationships, Muñoz and colleagues (2008) find that those adolescents are likely to engage in antisocial activities such as drug use or delinquency with their peers.

In addition, people high in psychopathic traits may also have weak attachments to their family. For instance, psychopaths often show indicators of disorganized attachments or devaluation of attachment bonds (Schimmenti et al., 2014), which can lead to conflicted family environments and relationships as shown in previous research (Dembo et al., 2007). As such people often have weak attachments to peers and family, they may lack capable guardians (see Cohen & Felson, 1979). Because of the lack of attachment to others and the ensuing lack of capable guardianship, people high in psychopathic traits may be ripe targets for victimization.

Cognitive–Affective Factors and their Link to Victimization

In addition to engagement in risky behavior and lacking capable guardians, it is possible that the affective and cognitive differences of people high in psychopathy may contribute to their risk of victimization. For example, psychopathy may be related to a lack of self-evaluative emotions such as shame, guilt, or remorse (Hare, 1996). This deficit is linked to moral disengagement (DeLisi et al., 2014), which may be present among persons high in psychopathic traits. In fact, prior research has shown that psychopathy and moral disengagement are positively related (Harenski et al., 2010; O’Kane et al., 1996; Shulman et al., 2011). That is, psychopathic personality and moral disengagement directly relate to one another because of the inability to empathically relate to others (DeLisi et al., 2014). Because of this inability to relate to others, these people may ignore the rights of others, engage in impulsive acts, and lack interpersonal attachments, all of which potentially lead to victimization events.

It is possible that people high in psychopathic traits see the world differently than the general population. In accordance with this assertion, research has shown that those who are high in psychopathic traits lack realistic long-term goals (Edens et al., 2001). Because of the lack of realistic long-term goals, they may engage in risky behaviors and lifestyles. As mentioned above and hypothesized by Cohen and Felson (1979), these risky lifestyle choices may result in victimization. In addition, it is possible that lacking realistic life goals may influence victimization. For example, researchers have shown that people high in psychopathic traits are overly sensitive to rewarding cues in their environment (Arnett, 1997). Thus, if a person high in psychopathic traits is pursuing an unrealistic life goal with an enticing reward, they may continue to pursue this unrealistic goal/reward despite the possible risks (i.e., cannot detect risk; see Arnett, 1997). In this pursuit, a person high in psychopathic traits may encounter risky environments that produce a victimization experience.

Current Study

Although research has established that there is a significant empirical association between psychopathy and victimization, the causal mechanisms that explain this relationship have yet to be explored. This omission is surprising given the findings that people high in psychopathic traits are behaviorally and cognitively different than the general population and often engage in a host of risky behaviors, which in turn may lead to victimization.

Importantly, not everyone who scores high on a measure of psychopathy exhibits similar behaviors (e.g., not all psychopaths are criminal), have cognitive–affective deficits (e.g., not all psychopaths lack moral engagement), or are victimized; thus, the specific mechanisms linking psychopathic traits to violent victimization are important to examine. In doing so, the characteristics of psychopathy that are linked to victimization can be identified. Using the Pathways to Desistance study data, the current study examines 14 potential mediators derived from theory and the research on psychopathy that might explain the relationship between psychopathy and violent victimization. Knowing these mechanisms is important, as they are potential targets for change to reduce negative outcomes for people scoring high in psychopathic traits. Specifically, we hypothesize that the effect of psychopathy on victimization will be mediated by cognitive–affective features of psychopathy, risky lifestyles, and social support. Furthermore, psychopathy will be positively correlated with risky lifestyle and negatively correlated with future expectations and social support.

Method

Data and Sample

Data were drawn from the Pathways to Desistance study (Mulvey, 2012; Mulvey et al., 2004). The Pathways to Desistance data were collected via a multisite longitudinal design in which a sample of adolescents who had been adjudicated for serious offenses are followed over time. Initially, 1,354 youths who had been adjudicated from either the adult or juvenile courts in Maricopa County, Arizona, and Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, were interviewed. These youth were selected between November 2000 and January 2003. They were between the ages of 14 and 17 years when they committed their offense that brought them into the court system (a serious offense, most typically a felony). The baseline interview along with 10 follow-up interviews was conducted, the first six of which were performed every 6 months postbaseline, and then, they were conducted every 12 months (through 2010). Interviews were computer-assisted and took place either in the participants’ home, a facility, libraries, or other private space. The Pathways to Desistance data are especially rich and include measures of social support, delinquency and victimization, psychosocial development and attitudes, individual development, and other background characteristics, which enable us to test the mediation hypotheses proposed in this research.

The current analysis makes use of the first six follow-up interviews and the baseline interview. The analyses were restricted to these waves of data because these were the waves conducted every 6 months and thus allow for an analysis of the first 3 years after the baseline interview was conducted when the sample are late adolescents and young adults. In doing so, we ensure that the variables of interest used are developmentally appropriate (e.g., including measures of support from parents and adults) and also occur relatively close in time to the victimization event. The measure of psychopathic traits used in the study was also employed during the baseline interview, but not after. In total, 1,354 adjudicated youths were included in the sample.

Measures

Dependent Variable

Violent victimization

A measure of violent victimization was created that captures whether or not a respondent had experienced victimization in Waves 2 to 6. At each of these interview periods, individuals were asked whether or not they had experienced six types of violent victimization during the follow-up period. Specifically, participants were asked if they had been (a) chased and thought they could be hurt, (b) beaten up by another, (c) raped or sexually attacked, (d) attacked with a weapon, (e) shot at, or (f) shot and hit. If a respondent indicated that they had experienced any victimization, they were scored as 1 and scored as a 0 if they had not been victimized in any wave (Waves 2 through 6).

Key Independent Variable

Psychopathy

Psychopathy is measured at baseline through questions from the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL-YV) in a mostly open-ended form. The interviewer then used the interview responses along with court records and parent collateral interviews to complete the PCL-YV rating form. This form is 20 items that can be assessed on a 3-point scale: 0 “does not apply to the youth, 1 “item applies to a certain extent,” and 2 “item applies to the youth.” Each respondent was then scored on the 20 items for a final score on the PCL-YV. A prorated PCL-YV score was used to reflect accurate scores when more than five individual items were missing (Mulvey, 2012).² The inter-rater reliability for scoring the overall score was excellent (intraclass correlation [ICC] = .91; Mulvey, 2012).

Potential Mediators

We assessed several domains of potential mediators based on theory and the literature on psychopathy that might explain the link between psychopathic traits and victimization. First, we explore factors related to cognitions. Second, we include measures of attachment to others. Third, we explore variables related to risky behaviors. Each of these sets of variables is created from measures at the first follow-up (Wave 1).

Cognitive

Because it is possible that people high in psychopathic traits view their potential for success as lower than others, we include a measure of motivation to succeed. This measure includes six items designed to capture optimism for future success. The mean of the six items was taken to produce the final measure, as long as at least four items had valid responses.³

A measure of moral disengagement was also included. Respondents were asked a series of 32 questions that gauge general attitudes about how a person should treat others. The mean of the 32 items was used provided that respondents had valid data for at least 24 of the items. We also include a measure of expectations for the future. Respondents were asked six questions about their prediction for success as an adult. Specifically, they were asked about their perceived likelihood for achievement in work, family, and law-abiding behavior. An expectation for the future measure was created by taking the mean of the six items, as long as five items were answered. A final cognitive measure was included that assesses future outlook. Participants were asked the degree to which eight items reflected how they usually are (on a scale from 1 “never true” to 4 “always true”), with higher scores reflecting a greater degree of future consideration and planning. The mean of eight items forms the future outlook measure, as long as a respondent answered six of the items.

Social support

We also include a number of items to reflect the quality and presence of social support that respondents have in their lives. Because psychopaths may have weaker social supports, they may be more prone to being victimized. To measure social support that respondents have from adults outside of their family, a diversity of nonfamily support item was included. Respondents were asked to identify the total number of adults who are supportive across eight domains (e.g., adults you could talk to if you needed information or advice about something, special adults who care about your feelings). The diversity of nonfamily support measure is the count of the number of unique nonfamily adults identified by the respondent across all of the domains. Because of the skewness of this variable, the natural log was taken. A depth of support measure was also included. Based on the domains of support items described above, a measure was created that reflects the number of unique adults (family or nonfamily) who were mentioned in three or more domains. A measure assessing the number of domains in which respondents have nonfamily support was also included. This measure of domains of nonfamily support is the count of the number of domains in which at least one nonfamily member was mentioned. We also include an item to capture parental knowledge as a measure of monitoring. We argue that people high in psychopathic traits are less likely to have high scores on the parental knowledge measure as those people may be more deceptive about their whereabouts with their parents or act in ways that strain their relationships with their parents, thus reducing the likelihood that their parents have knowledge about their day-to-day activities. Based off the Parental Monitoring Inventory, respondents were asked five questions regarding how much their parents know about them and their behavior. For example, they were asked “how much does X know about how you spend your free time?” with answers ranging from “doesn’t know at all” to “knows everything.” The parental knowledge measure is a mean of these five items. Higher scores reflect greater parental knowledge. Finally, a measure of peer support is also included. Respondents were asked questions about their five closest friends, with instructions to answer questions based on the average across these five friends. Ten questions were asked (e.g., how much can you count on the people for help with a problem, how much do you depend on these friends), with responses ranging from “not at all” to “very much.” The mean of the 10 items was used as long as seven items had valid data.

Risky behaviors

Another set of mediators were included in the models to assess whether psychopathy leads to an increase in engagement in risky behaviors that is related to victimization risk. Criminal activity reflects whether (coded as 0) or not (coded as 1) respondents reported engagement in 23 antisocial and illegal activities during the previous 6 months. Peer delinquency assesses the degree of antisocial activity among respondents’ peers. Respondents were asked how many of their friends engaged in two behaviors, with answers ranging from “none of them” to “all of them.” The final peer delinquency item is the mean rating of prevalence of friends who engaged in these behaviors, as long as nine items were answered. Gang membership reflects the self-reporting of whether (coded as 1) or not (coded as 0) respondents indicated they were a member of a gang. Drug use is a measure that reflects use of illicit substances during the previous 6 months (coded as 0 for no and 1 for yes). Binge drinking was assessed as whether (coded as 1) or not (coded as 0) a respondent indicated having five or more drinks at a time during the previous 6 months. Finally, gun carrying reflects whether (coded as 1) or not (coded as 0) respondents reported carrying a gun during the previous 6 months.

Control variables

Several control variables are also included. Site reflects whether the respondent was residing in Maricopa County (coded as 0) or Philadelphia (coded as 1). Age is a continuous variable that reflects how old the respondent was at baseline. Gender is coded as 0 for male and 1 for female. Race reflects whether respondents are White, Black, Hispanic, or other race, with Black serving as the reference group. A measure of victimization at the baseline administration is a dichotomous version of our outcome variable, with responses based on ever having been violently victimized.

Analysis

There were a sizable number of missing cases in the data, given subject attrition. To prevent the biases inherent in a listwise deletion approach, we estimated full information estimators (wlsmv) under the missing at random assumption. This method is strongly preferred over listwise deletion methods for handling missing data (Schafer & Graham, 2002). Given the dichotomous nature of our dependent variable and several of our mediators, we estimated a series of probit regression equations in MPLUS version 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). These models utilized bootstrap standard errors to create estimates for the indirect effects of psychopathy through mediators to victimization utilizing the delta method for calculating standard errors. This allowed us to estimate both the “a” path (from psychopathy to the mediator) and the “b” path (from the mediator to victimization) simultaneously, as well as the standard error of a*b, while specifying the appropriate outcome distributions and accounting for missing data.

Results

As shown in Table 1, a sizable minority of the sample was victimized (36.4%). This prevalence is not surprising given the data are from a sample of youth adjudicted for serious offenses. The average score on the PCL was almost 16.⁴ This score is typical score for a nonpsychopathic criminal sample (Skeem & Mulvey, 2001). However, the standard deviation was 7, indicting a reasonable number of individuals with scores above 23, which may be indicative of psychopathy. No cut-point has been identified empirically for the PCL-YV, but some individuals advocate using the same threshold that is used for adults (30), while others have used 25 as the cutoff for juveniles (see Cauffman et al., 2009). Most individuals engaged in crime (58.9%), were not gang members (87%), did not use drugs (64.3%) or binge drink (74.8%), and did not carry guns (87.8%). The majority were from the Philadelphia site (51.7%), male (86.4%), and Black (41.5%).

Table 1:

Descriptive Statistics (N = 1,354)

	Mean or %	SD	Minimum–Maximum
Victimization	36.4%		0–1
Psychopathy	15.93	7.74	0–39
Cognitive factors
Motivation succeed	3.31	3.31	1–5
Moral disengagement (log)	0.19	0.10	0–0.48
Expectations	3.56	3.56	1–5
Future outlook	2.48	0.58	1–4
Social support
Log diversity nonfamily support	1.07	0.36	0–2.52
Depth of support	0.90	0.54	0–2
Domains nonfamily support	4.92	2.15	0–8
Parental knowledge	2.77	0.83	1–4
Peer support	3.34	0.49	1.3–4
Risky behaviour
Criminal activity	58.9%		0–1
Peer delinquency	1.98	0.87	1–5
Gang member	12.9%		0–1
Drug use	35.7%		0–1
Binge drinking	25.2%		0–1
Gun carrying	12.2%		0–1
Controls
Site (1 = Phila)	51.7%		0–1
Age	16.04	1.14	14–19
Gender (female = 1)	13.6%		0–1
Black	41.5%		0–1
Latino	33.5%		0–1
White	20.2%		0–1
Other	4.8%		0–1
Baseline victimization	67.1%		0–1

Psychopathy was significant in the expected directions for all of our proposed mediators, while holding constant control variables (see Table 2). As shown in Table 2, higher scores on the PCL-YV correlated positively with moral disengagement, criminal involvement, peer delinquency, gang membership, drug use, binge drinking, and gun carrying.

Table 2:

Effects of Psychopathy and Controls on Mediators (N = 1,354)

	Psychopathy	Age	Female	Philadelphia	White	Latino	Other	Victimization
Outcomes	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)	b (SE)
Motivation succeed	−.016 (.002)***	−.024 (.015)	.027 (.052)	−.147 (.044)***	.146 (.053)**	−.212 (.048)***	.057 (.081)	−.068 (.038)
Moral disengagement (log)	.003 (.000)***	−.004 (.002)	−.024 (.008)**	−.017 (.007)*	−.020 (.009)*	.020 (.008)**	.010 (.015)	.031 (.006)***
Expectations	−.020 (.003)***	.002 (.021)	.173 (.068)**	.065 (.063)	.217 (.073)**	−.101 (.068)	−.022 (.126)	−.136 (.053)**
Future outlook	−.008 (.002)***	.056 (.015)***	.080 (.050)	.204 (.045)***	−.014 (.053)	−.078 (.053)	−.024 (.081)	−.010 (.037)
Diversity nonfamily support (log)	−.003 (.001)*	−.032 (.009)***	−.035 (.032)	.152 (.026)***	.087 (.034)**	−.006 (.028)	−.007 (.051)	.018 (.024)
Depth of nonfamily support	−.006 (.002)**	−.005 (.014)	−.016 (.046)	.073 (.041)	.158 (.048)***	.019 (.048)	.071 (.067)	.037 (.036)
Peer support	−.004 (.002)*	−.004 (.012)	.226 (.037)***	.081 (.038)*	−.118 (.046)**	.008 (.040)	−.075 (.073)	.101 (.034)**
Domains of nonfamily support	−.037 (.009)***	−.112 (.064)	−.307 (.219)	.280 (.181)	−.222 (.211)	−.215 (.205)	−.580 (.361)	−.361 (.153)*
Parental knowledge	−.021 (.004)***	−.065 (.024)**	.026 (.079)	−.006 (.080)	.176 (.082)*	.061 (.080)	.073 (.143)	−.164 (.056)**
Criminal involvement	.039 (.005)***	−.100 (.035)**	−.276 (.115)*	−.182 (.105)	.007 (.123)	−.108 (.113)	.146 (.197)	.420 (.083)***
Peer delinquency	.029 (.003)***	.012 (.021)	−.240 (.065)***	.016 (.066)	−.014 (.075)	.141 (.075)	.103 (.123)	.358 (.052)***
Gang member	.041 (.008)***	−.074 (.054)	−.355(.203)	−1.004 (.191)***	−.662 (.246)**	.371 (.174)*	.041 (.290)	.579 (.144)***
Drug use	.031 (.005)***	.033 (.033)	.172 (.119)	−.418 (.101)***	−.049 (.120)	−.140 (.113)	−.183 (.213)	.183 (.088)*
Binge drinking	.015 (.005)**	.115 (.036)***	−.238 (.140)	−.392 (.107)***	.594 (.134)***	.405 (.124)***	.272 (.217)	.275 (.095)**
Gun carrying	.028 (.006)***	.028 (.045)	−.189 (.178)	−.041 (.127)	−.276 (.163)	.193 (.141)	.015 (.274)	.692 (.144)***

Note. Outcomes are listed in the rows. Independent variables in the columns. Crime, Gang Membership, Drug Use, Binge Drinking, and Gun Carrying are treated as probit regressions. The remaining mediators were estimated via WLS regression. WLS = weighted least squares.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

PCL-YV scores correlated negatively with motivations to succeed, future expectations, and a positive outlook on the future. Psychopathy also negatively correlated with nonfamily support, peer support, and parental knowledge. That is, individuals with higher psychopathy scores had less diverse social support systems, less depth in their supportive relationships, and their parents had less knowledge of them and their behaviors. These patterns are consistent with the literature on psychopathy (DeLisi et al., 2014; Edens et al., 2001; Hare, 1999; Hemphill et al., 1994; O’Kane et al., 1996; Schimmenti et al., 2014).

To test the impact of psychopathy on victimization, we first analyzed the impact of psychopathy net of controls (including baseline victimization), but without mediators to establish a direct effect. As shown in Model 1 of Table 3, PCL scores had a significant and positive impact on victimization. In fact, the probability of victimization was increased by 1.2% for each one point higher on the PCL-YV. To put this finding into context, a standard deviation for psychopathy was 7.74. Thus, a 1 SD increase in psychopathy was associated with a 9.3% increase in the risk for victimization. Stated differently, the average PCL-YV score for a victim was 18.0, while the average PCL-YV score for a nonvictim was 14.8. None of our control variables correlated significantly with victimization, except baseline victimization, which was significantly and positively correlated with later victimization.

Table 3:

Multivariate Probit Regressions Predicting Victimization (N = 1,354)

Independent Variables and Mediators	Model 1		Model 2
Independent Variables and Mediators	b	SE	b	SE
Psychopathy	0.03***	.01	−0.01	.01
Cognitive factors
Motivation succeed			−0.16**	.06
Moral disengagement			1.53***	.42
Expectations			−0.09	.05
Future outlook			−0.05	.07
Social support
Diversity nonfamily support (log)			−0.07	.11
Depth of nonfamily support			−0.05	.07
Domains nonfamily support			−0.03*	.02
Parental knowledge			−0.05	.05
Peer support			−0.02	.08
Risky behaviour
Criminal involvement			0.18***	.05
Peer delinquency			0.18***	.05
Gang member			0.004	.07
Drug use			0.12*	.05
Binge drinking			0.13*	.05
Gun carrying			0.21***	.07
Controls
Victimization (baseline)	0.33	.09	−0.07	.14
Site (1 = Phila)	−0.10	.11	0.12	.14
Age	−0.05	.04	−0.06	.04
Gender (1 = female)	−0.10	.11	0.07	.14
Latino	−0.04	.12	−0.18	.13
White	0.03	.12	0.11	.16
Other	−0.07	.20	−0.12	.23

p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

In Model 2 of Table 3, we added the potential mediators to see if the impact of psychopathy on victimization was reduced once we controlled for the theorized mediating mechanisms. In fact, the effect of psychopathy was reduced to nonsignificance, once we introduced the potential mediators, indicating full mediation. As shown in Model 2 of Table 3, two cognitive variables were significantly related to victimization. Having greater moral disengagement increased the risk of victimization. Motivations to succeed significantly reduced the risk of victimization. Several risk-taking behavior variables were also significantly related to victimization. Being involved in criminal activity significantly increased the risk of victimization, as did having a larger delinquent peer network, drug use, binge drinking, and carrying a gun. Finally, none of our control variables correlated significantly with victimization in Model 2.

Finally, we estimated significance tests for the indirect effects. We found that psychopathy had significant indirect effects on victimization through moral disengagements (IE = .005, p = .001), motivations to succeed (IE = .003, p = .019), involvement in criminal activities (IE = .007, p = .002), peer delinquency (IE = .005, p < .001), drug use (IE = .004, p = .033), and gun carrying (IE = .006, p = .008). That is, the mechanisms linking psychopathy to victimization are drawn from several of the various domains identified in our review of the literature. Specifically, individuals high in psychopathy are more likely to be victimized because they score higher in risky lifestyles (criminal involvement, peer delinquency, drug use, and gun carrying) and moral disengagement and lower in motivations to succeed (both cognitive domains). We have depicted these relationships graphically in Figure 1 (only significant relationships shown).

Figure 1:

Path Model of Psychopathy and Victimization

Discussion

The role of psychopathy in antisocial outcomes has been well-documented. More recently, its relationship with victimization has begun to be explored. Although previous research has shown that there is indeed a link between psychopathy and victimization (Beaver et al., 2016; Daigle & Teasdale, 2018; Dolan et al., 2013; Fanti & Kimonis, 2012; Silver et al., 2011), the mechanisms through which this link operates have not been previously empirically identified. Our research performs such an analysis and contributes at least three main findings.

First, we demonstrate the link between psychopathy and victimization in a sample of juveniles adjudicated for serious offenses. In fact, psychopathy is significantly related to victimization. When examining its direct effect on victimization while accounting for the control variables, but not the mediators, we found that a standard deviation increase in psychopathy was associated with a 9.3% increase in the risk for victimization. This finding regarding the link between psychopathy and victimization is consistent with previous research documenting this relationship (Beaver et al., 2016; Daigle & Teasdale, 2018).

Second, we find that there are several significant mediating variables that help explain why psychopathy is related to victimization. The mediators were able to reduce the effect of psychopathy on victimization to nonsignificance. Two cognitive–affective variables, moral disengagement and motivations to succeed, were significant mediators of the association between psychopathy and victimization. Psychopathy is positively related to moral disengagement, and it in turn increased the risk of victimization. Given that moral disengagement and psychopathic traits allow people to engage in self-serving behaviors that contrast with moral principles (DeLisi et al., 2014), people high in psychopathic traits may ignore the rights of others leading to a victimization event. Those with higher scores on psychopathy also had lower motivations to succeed, which in turn put them more at risk for victimization. These findings are in line with the lifestyles/routine activities, and the conflicted relationships perspectives in that having low motivation to succeed could increase involvement in risky behavior. Moreover, people high in moral disengagement may be involved in conflicted relationships as they may act in ways that produce aggressive responses.

We also found that psychopathy was significantly related to several risky behavior variables, which increased the risk of victimization. More specifically, psychopathy is related to an increase in drug use, peer delinquency, gun carrying, and criminal involvement. These risky lifestyle variables are all, in turn, related to an increase in the risk of victimization. As lifestyles/RAT has demonstrated, engagement in risky lifestyle choices may place a person in situations that are conducive for victimization (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Hindelang et al., 1978). Thus, involvement in criminal activity may expose those high on psychopathic traits to an environment filled with motivated offenders (i.e., large peer delinquent network) that lacks capable guardians (i.e., lack of attachment to others) leading to a victimization event. The only risky behavior variables that did not serve as significant mediators were gang membership and binge drinking. It is possible that those who score high in psychopathic traits do not fare well socially in groups. Their traits, such as being self-centered, likely prevent them from forming close personal connections and being willing to do things (perhaps even illegal or dangerous things) on the behalf of others. This lack of mediation is also in line with our finding that measures of social support were not significant mediators. Binge drinking was significantly correlated with psychopathy and victimization in the expected directions, and the indirect effect approached significance (p = .088). It is possible that the risks associated with drug use outweighed the risks associated with binge drinking, given the high-risk sample.

Although the indirect effects were not significant, psychopathy was negatively related to several measures of social support. For example, it was negatively related to diversity, depth, and domains of nonfamily support. These measures of social support reflect the number of supportive nonfamily adults, the number of unique adults across domains, and the number of domains in which at least one nonfamily member was identified. Given the constellation of traits associated with psychopathy, it is not surprising that higher scores on psychopathy would be associated with a reduction in social support from adults. Furthermore, weak social support leading to greater odds of victimization is also consistent with the findings regarding social support and victimization (Schreck & Fisher, 2004). Although contrary to our expectations, psychopathy’s relationship to victimization is not mediated through any of these measures of social support. Because most of our social support measures were capturing supports from adults, it may make sense that this support is not able to reduce victimization risk given that if adults are not present they cannot perform as capable guardians. As noted, psychopathy is positively related to many risky behaviors—the types of behaviors that may be engaged in outside of the supervision of adults. Thus, while psychopathy is related to a reduction in social support, it does not account for the relationship between it and victimization.

In addition to social support measures, two cognitive–affective items—our measures of expectations and future outlook—were not significant mediators. Psychopathy was related to future outlook and expectations, in that higher scores on psychopathy were related to a reduction in both variables, but these variables were not significant mediators. As such, it may not reduce the risk of victimization or be as important as other cognitive–affective dimensions. Moreover, availing oneself (or not) of opportunities may be a more important connection to victimization risk than perception of opportunity.

Although we identified many mediators, future research must consider other factors that may also be able to account for this relationship. One such potential mediator is diminished fear reactivity. That is, previous research has demonstrated that psychopaths have diminished fear reactivity (Newman et al., 2010). Due to the diminished fear reactivity, psychopaths may not cue to environmental signals of risk as do other people. As hypothesized by Daigle and Teasdale (2018) in the discussion of their findings, because of the lack of fear reactivity, people high in psychopathic traits may place themselves in situations that result in victimization due to the inability to recognize the riskiness of the situation.

Collectively our findings have implications for practice and prevention. We found that psychopathy is related to victimization using a clinical measure of psychopathy, the PCL-YV. What is striking about this finding is that the PCL-YV and similar instruments can be easily administered in institutional and clinical settings to screen for psychopathy. Importantly, individuals who are in clinical or institutional settings are not only at risk for engaging in harmful behaviors such as violence but are also at heightened risk to experience harm (Maniglio, 2009; Pérez et al., 2010). A screening tool can identify those who are high in psychopathic traits—that is those who are at risk for a variety of negative outcomes, including victimization. These tools were not developed with the explicit use of reducing victimization, yet personnel and clinicians can use this information to intervene in ways that may be able to reduce victimization and other harmful behavior. Promising examples include methods such as cognitive–behavioral and psychodynamic intervention techniques as well as psychotherapy programs (see Salekin, 2002 for review). In addition, we found that several mediators combined to reduce the effect of psychopathy on victimization. Importantly, these factors are measures of features and behaviors that are malleable; thus, they can be targets for change. Thus, screening tools should incorporate not just measures of psychopathy but also of risky behaviors and cognitions such as moral disengagement and motivations to succeed. These are the mechanisms through which psychopathy is linked to victimization. If these factors can be changed, then the risk of victimization among those high in psychopathy could be reduced. For example, cognitive factors (such as moral disengagement) and risky behaviors are all features that can be targeted and bolstered in intervention efforts. Notably, in Salekin’s (2002) review of 42 studies that conducted interventions for psychopathic individuals, studies demonstrate that treatment can improve social relations, reduce risky behaviors and criminal convictions, and improve cognitive factors such as improving internalized value system. The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that targeting factors that our study found to be mediators could work in reducing negative outcomes such as crime and victimization among those high in psychopathic traits. More recently, researchers have implemented preventions targeting cognitive remediation (Baskin-Sommers et al., 2015) as well as intensive risk–need–responsivity (RNR)-based programs to improve cognitive factors and reduce risky behaviors such as violent offending among people high in psychopathic traits (Polaschek, 2011; Polaschek & Skeem, 2018). Our findings also suggest that people who socially connected to those high in psychopathic traits may be resources helpful in preventing victimization. Although the social support measures were not significant mediators, we did find that those high in psychopathic traits had weaker social supports and weak social support was tied to victimization risk. As such, these social supports can be taught that they are potential capable guardians who may be able to reduce victimization by monitoring behavior or intervening in high-risk situations. Furthermore, because peer delinquency is a significant mediator, the adults in a young person’s life may be particularly important in dissuading the development of friendships with delinquent youth or in counteracting the effects of delinquent peers.

In addition, a corollary consequence if features such as cognition and risky behavior can be changed to reduce victimization, offending will likely be reduced as well. As prior research has established, there is a strong correlation between offending and victimization (Broidy et al., 2006; Gottfredson, 1981; Lauritsen & Laub, 2007; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1990; Schreck et al., 2008). Because of this linkage, known as the victim–offender overlap, it is plausible that if features related to psychopathy such as cognition, social support, and risky behaviors can be molded and changed, it is also possible that in addition to a reduction in victimization, there may also be a reduction in offending behaviors.

Limitations

Despite our novel findings, this work has several limitations. It is possible that other mechanisms exist that may explain the relationship between psychopathy and victimization, such as fear reactivity. Research that is able to distinguish incident-specific factors may be needed to truly understand why psychopathic traits increase victimization risk. In addition, our sample includes only juveniles adjudicated for serious offenses; thus, our results may not be generalizable to other samples, particularly those who are not justice-involved. That is, the reasons for psychopathy’s link to victimization may be different for people high in psychopathy who have not been adjudicated for serious offenses. In addition, our sample’s scores on psychopathy are typical of a nonpsychopathic criminal population. It remains to be seen if the mechanisms that we identified linking psychopathy to victimization would be the same if our sample consisted of people meeting the cutoff for psychopathy. Along these lines, very few sample members are female. We are not able to examine whether our findings would be similar for females high in psychopathy. Our measure of victimization is not as precise as we would like. We used the victimization items provided in the Pathways data. Because the items are based off of self-reports and are not behaviorally specific, respondents must use their judgment in determining whether they had experienced the behavior, such as being “beaten up.” Nuanced analysis of the range of behaviors that could constitute such victimization is not possible. Finally, we are not able to examine multiple forms of victimization such as property or stalking victimization. It is unknown if our findings would also apply to these types of victimization. Future research should examine these mechanisms using different samples.

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, our study was the first, to our knowledge, to attempt to understand empirically why psychopathy and victimization are related. In doing so, we have not only hypothesized and identified key domains that are related to psychopathy and victimization, but we have also replicated findings that demonstrate the direct effect psychopathy has on victimization experiences. Thus, screening for psychopathy in clinical and institutional settings and designing prevention programs that target domains such as cognition and engagement in risky behaviors are important considerations for clinicians and researchers.

Despite prior sentiments that psychopaths cannot be treated effectively (Harris & Rice, 2006), many have argued that people high in psychopathic traits can benefit from treatment, ultimately leading to reductions in negative behaviors such as violence perpetration (Skeem et al., 2002). In line with this argument, we believe that adequate treatment and interventions designed to target domains specific to people high in psychopathic traits will ultimately lead to a reduction in victimization events among this population.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Leah E. Daigle

Michelle N. Harris

Notes

Leah E. Daigle is professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University. Her most recent research centers on repeat victimization of college women and responses women use during and after being sexually victimized. Her other research interests include the development and continuation of victimization across the life course. On these topics, she has published more than 50 peer-reviewed articles that have appeared in outlets such as Justice Quarterly, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Victims and Offenders. In addition, she is the author of Victimology: A Text/Reader (2nd ed.), Victimology: The Essentials (2nd ed.), co-author of Criminals in the Making: Criminality Across the Life Course (2nd ed.), Victimology (2nd ed.), and Unsafe in the Ivory Tower: The Sexual Victimization of College Women, which was awarded the 2011 Outstanding Book Award by the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.

Michelle N. Harris is a doctoral candidate at Georgia State University in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology. She holds a BA in psychology and criminal justice from the University of Arkansas and a MS in criminal justice and criminology from Georgia State University. Her research focuses on understanding victimization and mental health as well as how the two intersect. Her recent work appears in Deviant Behavior, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Journal of Criminal Justice.

Brent Teasdale, PhD, is a professor and Chair of Criminal Justice Sciences at Illinois State University. Dr. Teasdale is a graduate of the Crime, Law, and Justice program at The Pennsylvania State University. His current research focuses on applying advanced quantitative methods to the study of violence by and against persons with mental disorders and substance abuse prevention. Dr. Teasdale has published more than 30 peer-reviewed journal articles. His coedited book, with Dr. Mindy S. Bradley, titled Preventing Crime and Violence was published by Springer Press in 2017. Dr. Teasdale has been recognized among the best Criminologists in the United States in three different publications ranking scholars for publication quantity and impact.

References

Arnett

P. A.

(1997). Autonomic responsivity in psychopaths: A critical review and theoretical proposal. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 903–936.

Baskin-Sommers

A. R.

Curtin

J. J.

Newman

J. P.

(2015). Altering the cognitive-affective dysfunctions of psychopathic and externalizing offender subtypes with cognitive remediation. Clinical Psychological Science, 3, 45–57.

Beaver

K. M.

Al-Ghamdi

M. S.

Kobeisy

A. N.

Alqurashi

F. H.

Connolly

E. J.

Schwartz

J. A.

(2016). The association between psychopathic personality traits and victimization and exposure to violence in a sample of Saudi Arabian youth. Psychiatric Quarterly, 87, 217–228.

Blair

R. J. R.

Lee

T. M.

(2013). The social cognitive neuroscience of aggression, violence, and psychopathy. Social Neuroscience, 8, 108–111.

Broidy

L. M.

Daday

J. K.

Crandall

C. S.

Sklar

D. P.

Jost

P. F.

(2006). Exploring demographic, structural, and behavioral overlap among homicide offenders and victims. Homicide Studies, 10, 155–180.

Cauffman

Kimonis

E. R.

Dmitrieva

Monahan

K. C.

(2009). A multimethod assessment of juvenile psychopathy: Comparing the predictive utility of the PCL:YV, YPI, and NEO PRI. Psychological Assessment, 21, 528–542.

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

Daigle

L. E.

Teasdale

(2018). Psychopathic traits and recurring victimization: An examination using a community and clinical Sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45, 693–711.

Darke

Kaye

Finlay-Jones

(1998). Antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy and injecting heroin use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 52(1), 63–69.

10.

DeLisi

Peters

D. J.

Dansby

Vaughn

M. G.

Shook

J. J.

Hochstetler

(2014). Dynamics of psychopathy and moral disengagement in the etiology of crime. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 12, 295–314.

11.

Dembo

Jainchill

Turner

Fong

Farkas

Childs

(2007). Levels of psychopathy and its correlates: A study of incarcerated youths in three states. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 717–738.

12.

Dolan

O’Malley

McGregor

(2013). The role of psychopathic traits and substance abuse in predicting violent victimization in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Personality and Mental Health, 7, 28–38.

13.

Edens

J. F.

Skeem

J. L.

Cruise

K. R.

Cauffman

(2001). Assessment of “juvenile psychopathy” and its association with violence: A critical review. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 19(1), 53–80.

14.

Fanti

K. A.

Kimonis

E. R.

(2012). Bullying and victimization: The role of conduct problems and psychopathic traits. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 617–631.

15.

Felson

R. B.

(1992). “Kick ’em when they’re down”: Explanations of the relationship between stress and interpersonal aggression and violence. The Sociological Quarterly, 33, 1–16.

16.

Gottfredson

M. R.

(1981). On the etiology of criminal victimization. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 714–726.

17.

Gustavson

Ståhlberg

Sjödin

A. K.

Forsman

Nilsson

Anckarsäter

(2007). Age at onset of substance abuse: A crucial covariate of psychopathic traits and aggression in adult offenders. Psychiatry Research, 153(2), 195–198.

18.

Hare

R. D.

(1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54.

19.

Hare

R. D.

(1999). Psychopathy as a risk factor for violence. Psychiatric Quarterly, 70, 181–197.

20.

Harenski

C. L.

Harenski

K. A.

Shane

M. S.

Kiehl

K. A.

(2010). Aberrant neural processing of moral violations in criminal psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 863–874.

21.

Harris

G. T.

Rice

M. E.

(2006). Treatment of psychopathy: A review of empirical findings. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 555–572). Guilford Press.

22.

Heilbrun

Hart

S. D.

Hare

R. D.

Gustafson

Nunez

White

A. J.

(1998). Inpatient and postdischarge aggression in mentally disordered offenders: The role of psychopathy. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 514–527.

23.

Hemphill

J. F.

Hare

R. D.

Wong

(1998). Psychopathy and recidivism: A review. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 139–170.

24.

Hemphill

J. F.

Hart

S. D.

Hare

R. D.

(1994). Psychopathy and substance use. Journal of Personality Disorders, 8, 169–180.

25.

Hindelang

M. J.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Garofalo

(1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Ballinger.

26.

Jennings

W. G.

Higgins

G. E.

Tewksbury

Gover

A. R.

Piquero

A. R.

(2010). A longitudinal assessment of the victim-offender overlap. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2147–2174.

27.

Lang

af Klinteberg

Alm

P. O.

(2002). Adult psychopathy and violent behavior in males with early neglect and abuse. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 106, 93–100.

28.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Laub

J. H.

(2007). Understanding the link between victimization and offending: New reflections on an old idea. Crime Prevention Studies, 22, 55–75.

29.

Lynam

D.R.

Charnigo

Moffitt

T.E.

Raine

Loeber

Stouthamer-Loeber

. (2009). The stability of psychopathy across adolescence. Development and Psychopathology. Dev Psychopathol 21(4), 1133–1153.

30.

Maniglio

(2009). Severe mental illness and criminal victimization: A systematic review. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 119(3), 180–191.

31.

McCuish

E. C.

Corrado

R. R.

Hart

S. D.

DeLisi

(2015). The role of symptoms of psychopathy in persistent violence over the criminal career into full adulthood. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 345–356.

32.

Miethe

T. D.

Stafford

M. C.

Long

J. S.

(1987). Social differentiation in criminal victimization: A test of routine activities/lifestyle theories. American Sociological Review, 52, 184–194.

33.

Mulvey

E. P.

(2012). Research on pathways to desistance [Maricopa County, AZ and Philadelphia County, PA]: Subject measures, 2000-2010 [ICPSR Data Holdings]. https://doi.org/10.3886/icpsr29961.v2

34.

Mulvey

E. P.

Steinberg

Fagan

Cauffman

Piquero

A. R.

Chassin

Losoya

S. H.

(2004). Theory and research on desistance from antisocial activity among serious adolescent offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2, 213–236.

35.

Muñoz

L. C.

Kerr

Besic

(2008). The peer relationships of youths with psychopathic personality traits: A matter of perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 212–227.

36.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.).

37.

Newman

J. P.

Curtin

J. J.

Bertsch

J. D.

Baskin-Sommers

A. R.

(2010). Attention moderates the fearlessness of psychopathic offenders. Biological Psychiatry, 67, 66–70.

38.

Nolan

K. A.

Volavka

Mohr

Czobor

(1999). Psychopathy and violent behavior among patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Psychiatric Services, 50, 787–792.

39.

O’Kane

Fawcett

Blackburn

(1996). Psychopathy and moral reasoning: Comparison of two classifications. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 505–514.

40.

Pérez

D. M.

Gover

A. R.

Tennyson

K. M.

Santos

S. D.

(2010). Individual and institutional characteristics related to inmate victimization. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 378–394.

41.

Polaschek

D. L. L.

(2011). High-intensity rehabilitation for violent offenders in New Zealand: Reconviction outcomes for high- and medium-risk prisoners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 664–682.

42.

Polaschek

D. L. L.

Skeem

J. L.

(2018). Treatment of adults and juveniles with psychopathy. In Patrick

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. 710–731). Guilford Press.

43.

Pratt

T. C.

Turanovic

J. J.

Fox

K. A.

Wright

K. A

. (2014). Self-control and victimization: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 52, 87–116.

44.

Reidy

D. E.

Shelley-Tremblay

J. F.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(2011). Psychopathy, reactive aggression, and precarious proclamations: A review of behavioral, cognitive, and biological research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 512–524.

45.

Reidy

D. E.

Zeichner

Miller

J. D.

Martinez

M. A.

(2007). Psychopathy and aggression: Examining the role of psychopathy factors in predicting laboratory aggression under hostile and instrumental conditions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1244–1251.

46.

Salekin

R. T.

(2002). Psychopathy and therapeutic pessimism: Clinical lore or clinical reality? Clinical Psychology Review, 22(1), 79–112.

47.

Sampson

R. J.

Lauritsen

J. L.

(1990). Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime, and the offender–victim link in personal violence. Journal of Research in Crime Delinquency, 27, 110–139.

48.

Schafer

J. L.

Graham

J. W.

(2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177.

49.

Schimmenti

Passanisi

Pace

Manzella

Di Carlo

Caretti

(2014). The relationship between attachment and psychopathy: A study with a sample of violent offenders. Current Psychology, 33, 256–270.

50.

Schreck

C. J.

Fisher

B. S.

(2004). Specifying the influence of family and peers on violent victimization: Extending routine activities and lifestyles theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1021–1041.

51.

Schreck

C. J.

Stewart

E. A.

Osgood

D. W.

(2008). A reappraisal of the overlap of violent offenders and victims. Criminology, 46, 871–906.

52.

Sellbom

Donnelly

K. M.

Rock

R. C.

Phillips

T. R.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

(2017). Examining gender as moderating the association between psychopathy and substance abuse. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(4), 376–390.

53.

Serin

R. C.

(1991). Psychopathy and violence in criminals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 423–431.

54.

Shulman

E. P.

Cauffman

Piquero

A. R.

Fagan

(2011). Moral disengagement among serious juvenile offenders: A longitudinal study of the relations between morally disengaged attitudes and offending. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1619–1632.

55.

Silver

(2002). Mental disorder and violent victimization: The mediating role of involvement in conflicted social relationships. Criminology, 40, 191–212.

56.

Silver

Piquero

A. R.

Jennings

W. G.

Piquero

N. L.

Leiber

(2011). Assessing the violent offending and violent victimization overlap among discharged psychiatric patients. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 49–59.

57.

Skeem

J. L.

Monahan

Mulvey

E. P.

(2002). Psychopathy, treatment involvement, and subsequent violence among civil psychiatric patients. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 577–603.

58.

Skeem

J. L.

Mulvey

E. P.

(2001). Psychopathy and community violence among civil psychiatric patients: Results from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 358–374.

59.

Smith

S. S.

Newman

J. P.

(1990). Alcohol and drug abuse-dependence disorders in psychopathic and nonpsychopathic criminal offenders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 430–439.

60.

Somma

Andershed

Borroni

Salekin

R. T.

Fossati

(2018). Psychopathic personality traits in relation to self-report delinquency in adolescence: Should we mind about interaction effects? Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 40, 69–78.

61.

Tatar

J. R.

Cauffman

Kimonis

E. R.

Skeem

J. L.

(2012). Victimization history and posttraumatic stress: An analysis of psychopathy variants in male juvenile offenders. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 5, 102–113.

62.

Weiler

B. L.

Widom

C. S.

(1996). Psychopathy and violent behaviour in abused and neglected young adults. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 6, 253–271.