Psychopathic Personality Traits and the Successful Criminal

Abstract

A significant body of literature links psychopathy and psychopathic personality traits with criminal behavior and involvement with the criminal justice system. However, very little research has examined whether psychopathic personality traits are related to being a successful criminal (e.g., evading detection). This study addresses this gap in the literature by examining whether psychopathic personality traits are associated with the likelihood of being processed by the criminal justice system (i.e., arrest). Our findings reveal that psychopathic personality traits are generally not associated with criminal success. Specifically, individuals with high levels of psychopathic personality traits commit more crimes and report more arrests, but they do not seem to have an advantage when it comes to avoiding arrest for the crimes they commit. We discuss the implications of these findings for the psychopathy literature.

Keywords

arrest psychopathy criminal behavior detection criminal success

Psychopathy is one of the most studied personality traits in relation to criminal and violent behavior and, as a result, there has been a significant knowledge base of research created on this topic. The findings that have been generated from studies examining the psychopathy–antisocial behavior link have shown that, among other things, persons who are characterized as being psychopaths or who score high on measures of psychopathic personality traits are significantly more likely to engage in violence and aggression and to be arrested for criminal involvement (Beaver, Boutwell, Barnes, Vaughn, & DeLisi, 2017; DeLisi, 2009; Hare, 1993, 1996; Vaughn & DeLisi, 2008). Other studies have shown that psychopaths are less likely to show empathy toward their victims (Babiak & Hare, 2006; Blair, 2007; Blair, Colledge, Murray, & Mitchell, 2001; Hare, 1993; Jones, Happé, Gilbert, Burnett, & Viding 2010) and are less likely to benefit by completing a rehabilitation program (Gretton, McBride, Hare, O’Shaughnessy, & Kumka, 2001; Hare, 1996). Despite the tremendous amount of research that has examined psychopathy and crime, there remains much to be learned about this association.

Perhaps one of the more glaring gaps in the literature—and one that has direct application from a public safety standpoint—has to do with whether psychopathy is related to being a successful criminal—that is, to engage in criminal activity, but to avoid detection and apprehension by the criminal justice system. This is somewhat surprising because (a) psychopathy is strongly related to crime and (b) there is a general belief—perhaps a mythical one—that psychopaths are cunning, clever, and conniving and thus are able to avoid detection, even after many years of engaging in acts of serious, violent criminal behavior (DeLisi, Vaughn, Beaver, & Wright, 2010). To date, there has been virtually no research bearing directly on the possibility that psychopaths are able to avoid detection at a rate that is better than the average criminal. There is, however, at least two lines of research that hint at the very real possibility that psychopaths may be much better at evading detection than nonpsychopathic criminals.

First, while there has been a dearth of research examining psychopathy and being a successful criminal, there has been a body of research examining what has been termed, the “successful psychopath.” This line of research has examined whether psychopathy might be associated with successful life outcomes and, if so, under what conditions. The findings from these studies have been decidedly mixed. For instance, some studies have shown that psychopathic personality traits may confer a benefit when it comes to some professions, particularly those that might require cutthroat business decisions, a lack of empathy, superficial charm, and other traits that are often manifested in psychopaths (Babiak, Neumann, & Hare, 2010; Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010; Howe, Falkenbach, & Massey, 2014; Lykken, 1995). That is part of the reason perhaps that psychopaths have been shown to be successful businessmen (Babiak & Hare, 2006) and why some of the top rated American Presidents are also ranked as scoring among the highest on psychopathic personality traits (Lilienfeld, Waldman, et al., 2012).

While these studies provide some evidence that psychopathy might actually be beneficial with some types of jobs, for the most part, the majority of individuals scoring high on psychopathic personality traits do not achieve much success (Andersen, Sestoft, Lillebæk, Mortensen, & Kramp, 1999; Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, 1989; Ullrich, Farrington, & Coid, 2008). The question, thus, is what separates successful psychopaths from unsuccessful psychopaths. While there is not a lot of research on this topic, there is some research showing that psychopathy only leads to positive, noncriminal outcomes among persons who have normal or enhanced neurobiological functioning (Gao & Raine, 2010).¹ For instance, a review by Gao and Raine (2010) examining psychopaths in five separate contexts (i.e., community sample, college students, employment agencies, serial killers, and industrial psychopaths) revealed that successful psychopaths tend to have normal-to-superior cognitive and executive functioning. Unsuccessful psychopaths, in contrast, tend to exhibit neurobiological impairments resulting in impaired executive functioning, reduced autonomic nervous system activity, and more severe and extreme variations of antisocial and aggressive behavior. In addition, one characteristic that may distinguish between psychopaths who achieve success and those who are less successful is “fearless dominance” that has been linked with occupational choice, persuasiveness, communication aptitude, and perceptions of leadership ability (Lilienfeld, Waldman, et al., 2012; Lilienfeld, Watts, & Smith, 2015; Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009). Fearless dominance involves a conception of boldness that incorporates fearlessness, poise, interpersonal potency, and emotional resilience (Lilienfeld et al., 2015). As a result, psychopaths with high levels of fearless dominance may be able to achieve higher levels of success in business and the social world than psychopaths lacking in these characteristics.²

Further complicating the relationship between psychopathy and success is that the different components of psychopathy appear to have different associations with intelligence, which is also highly correlated with occupational, financial, and interpersonal success (DeLisi et al., 2010; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). For instance, the interpersonal component of psychopathy has been linked with higher levels of intelligence (Salekin, Neumann, Leistico, & Zalot, 2004; Vitacco, Neumann, & Jackson, 2005; Vitacco, Neumann, & Wodushek, 2008), whereas the affective component of psychopathy appears to be inversely linked with intelligence (Salekin et al., 2004; Vitacco et al., 2005). Therefore, some of the characteristics associated with the interpersonal component of psychopathy (e.g., charming, deceitful, manipulative), along with intelligence, may assist individuals with high levels of psychopathic personality traits in achieving success both in the business world and perhaps in the criminal world.

Despite some findings linking psychopathy to success in some specific types of employment positions, there is other research that has failed to find any evidence of successful psychopaths. In one study, for instance, Ullrich and associates (2008) examined whether psychopathic personality traits were associated with a range of measures of life success, including social class, job satisfaction, and partner relationship quality. The results of the analysis did not reveal that these traits were related to positive life outcomes and thus they concluded that their “findings cast doubt on the existence of the successful psychopath” (p. 1162). So whether it is possible for psychopaths to achieve success consistently across a broad range of life domains remains an open-empirical question.

The second reason to believe that psychopathy might be associated with being a successful criminal is because of research revealing that psychopaths might be more adept at identifying weak or vulnerable targets (Book, Costello, & Camilleri, 2013; Ritchie, Blais, Forth, & Book, 2018; Wheeler, Book, & Costello, 2009). Indeed, there is some evidence bearing on this possibility. To illustrate, there is some research indicating that psychopaths are able to filter social cues around them to help manipulate the situation and their intended targets (Blair et al., 1996; Book, Quinsey, & Langford, 2007; Richell et al., 2003; Wilson, Demetrioff, & Porter, 2008). In this way, they may be able to reduce the “on-guard” approach that may make it difficult to successfully victimize certain people. More germane to the current study, however, is one study that examined psychopathic personality traits and perceptions of victim vulnerability (Wheeler et al., 2009). In this study, vulnerability was measured via walking style. Subjects were asked to view a clip of a person walking and then asked to rate the extent to which the potential victim was vulnerable to a victimization experience. Vulnerability was indexed by the victimization history of the person who was walking. The results revealed that subjects scoring higher on measures of psychopathic personality traits were better able to assess vulnerability to victimization when compared with persons scoring lower on these traits. These results provide some of the strongest evidence to date that psychopaths might be better adept at selecting vulnerable victims when compared with nonpsychopathic criminals. Even so, these findings do not directly examine whether the ability to select a vulnerable victim would lead to psychopaths being able to escape detection and apprehension by the criminal justice system.

In a related note, while psychopathy may influence the likelihood of detection and arrest for criminal behavior, there is also some evidence that psychopathy is related to navigating the criminal justice system. For instance, a study by Häkkänen-Nyholm and Hare (2009) indicates that Finnish homicide offenders with higher levels of psychopathy are more likely to leave the scene of a homicide, more likely to deny the charges of homicide, more likely to receive a conviction for a lesser crime, and more likely to have their final sentence handed down from a higher level court than homicide offenders with lower levels of psychopathy. In this case, both leaving the scene of a homicide and denying responsibility can be seen as strategic tactics for avoiding punishment for their crimes. In addition, the increased likelihood of receiving a lesser sentence and having the final sentence handed down by a higher level court indicates that psychopaths may have some success at manipulating the court system in their favor.

It is also possible that psychopathy may be inversely related to success. That is, it is possible that individuals with high levels of psychopathic personality traits may be more likely to be detected and apprehended for committing criminal acts. As noted above, psychopathy is associated with a number of characteristics including impulsiveness, irresponsibility, poor behavioral control, and lack of long-term goals. These characteristics may work to increase the chance that psychopaths commit criminal acts without taking time to consider the likelihood of their apprehension and may not expend the effort to make their detection less likely. In addition, as research tends to indicate that psychopaths are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime (DeLisi, 2009; Hare, 1996), it is possible that psychopaths may be more likely to be detected than other offenders as they tend to commit crimes that entail a greater risk of detection and apprehension (U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2014).

The current study is designed to take a first step in examining the potential association between psychopathy and criminal success. To do so, we analyze data drawn from a large, longitudinal, and nationally representative sample and estimate whether a measure of psychopathic personality traits predicts the rate of criminal success in adulthood.

Method

Data

This study utilizes data drawn from Waves 1 through 4 of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). Add Health is a multiwave nationally representative sample of American adolescents that began data collection in the mid-1990s. To date, four waves of data have been collected from this sample (Udry, 2003). The original sample contained more than 90,000 adolescents (ages 12 to 21) and was selected from 132 middle schools and high schools during the 1994-1995 school year. Approximately, 20,000 of these respondents were then selected to take part in an In-Home survey the same year. The first wave of the survey asked questions pertaining to daily activities, delinquent involvement, and friendships. The second wave of the survey was collected 1 year later from approximately 14,700 of the original In-Home respondents and asked questions similar to the first wave.³ The third wave of the survey was administered 5 years later (in 2001-2002) to approximately 15,000 of the original In-Home survey respondents who were asked questions pertaining to labor market participation, school achievements, delinquent behavior, and contact with the criminal justice system. The fourth wave of the survey was administered to approximately 15,000 of the original In-Home participants in 2008 when the majority of the respondents were between the ages of 24 and 32. Questions in the fourth wave pertained to financial status, labor market participation, criminal involvement, and arrest history. After removing respondents with missing data, using listwise deletion, the analytic sample for this study ranged between 2,266 and 9,171 respondents.^4,5

Measures

Outcome Measures

Number of arrests

The number of arrests was calculated using four items administered during the fourth wave of the survey. First, respondents were asked to indicate if they had ever been arrested (0 = no, 1 = yes). Second, respondents who reported an arrest were then asked how many times they had been arrested (1 = once, 2 = more than once). Respondents who indicated that they had been arrested more than once were then asked two further questions concerning their arrest history. The first question asked the respondents to indicate how many times they were arrested before their 18th birthday. The second question asked respondents to indicate how many times they had been arrested since their 18th birthday. The total number of arrests was calculated by summing together the number of arrests reported before and after the respondents’ 18th birthday, along with respondents who indicated that they had only been arrested once. Respondents who indicated that they had never been arrested in the first question were coded as zeros. Values for the total number of arrests ranged from 0 to 62.

Number of crimes (W1-W4)

The number of crimes was calculated from items concerning criminal behavior, which were asked in Waves 1 through 4. Criminal behavior at Wave 1 was measured by using responses to 13 items concerning delinquent involvement over the previous year. Respondents, for instance, were asked to indicate how often in the past 12 months they committed burglary, stole a car, or were involved in a physical fight. Responses for these items ranged from never, one or two times, three or four times, to five or more times.⁶ Responses to these items were summed to create a count of the number of criminal acts committed at Wave 1. These same 13 items were asked at again Wave 2, allowing us to create a comparable measure of the number of criminal acts committed at Wave 2.

Criminal behavior at Wave 3 was measured using responses to 12 items designed to tap involvement in criminal behavior over the last year. For instance, respondents were asked to indicate how often in the last 12 months they sold drugs, were involved in a serious physical fight, or stole something worth more than US$50. Responses to these items were summed together to create a count of the number of criminal acts committed at Wave 3. Criminal behavior at Wave 4 was measured using responses to 14 items pertaining to criminal involvement over the previous year. For example, respondents were asked to indicate how often in the last 12 months they bought or sold stolen property, committed burglary, or shot someone. Responses to these items were summed to create a count of the number of crimes committed at Wave 4. The items used to measure criminal and delinquent behavior at all four waves are similar to items that have been used previously to create crime and delinquency scales with Add Health data (Guo, Roettger, & Shih, 2007; Wright, Beaver, DeLisi, & Vaughn, 2008). After calculating the number of criminal acts committed at the separate waves, we then summed together their total number of criminal acts committed in Waves 1 through 4.

Rate of criminal failure (“fail rate”)

Rate of criminal failure (or “fail rate”) was measured using a variable constructed from both the number of arrests and the number of crimes variables. To construct the “rate of criminal failure” variable we created a ratio of criminal arrests to criminal acts by dividing the respondents’ reported number of arrests by the total number of crimes they reported in all four waves of the data. This variable allows us to assess the number of times respondents were arrested in comparison with the number of crimes they committed. Alternatively, this variable allows us to assess the rate at which respondents were able to evade arrest or “get away with crime.” Higher “failure rate” scores represent a higher rate of criminal failure, or, in other words, they appear to be arrested more often for the number of crimes they have committed.

Predictor Variable

Psychopathic personality traits

Psychopathic personality traits were measured at wave 4, following the example of previous studies conducted using Add Health data (Beaver, Barnes, May, & Schwartz, 2011). The items used to create the Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale were originally drawn from questions from the Mini-International Personality Item Pool (Mini-IPIP) which can be used to measure personality according to the five-factor model (FFM).⁷ While there is considerable debate in the literature concerning the appropriate way to measure psychopathy, with some scholars advocating for the use of Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R; which is the most widely accepted measurement of psychopathy in the field), Psychopathic Personality Traits Scales created using the FFM have been used previously and have been shown to be a valid and reliable way to measure psychopathy (Derefinko & Lynam, 2007; Lynam & Miller, 2015; Lynam & Widiger, 2007; Miller & Lynam, 2015). The psychopathic personality traits measure was constructed using answers to 23 items that tapped the affective, behavioral, and interpersonal components of psychopathy.⁸ For instance, respondents were asked to indicate if they sympathize with other’s feelings, are interested in other people’s problems, get angry easily, or go out of their way to avoid dealing with life problems.⁹ Answers to these items were standardized and then summed to create a scale of psychopathic personality traits, where higher scores reflect higher levels of psychopathic personality traits (α = .814). This Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale is identical to other Psychopathic Personality Traits Scales used previously with Add Health data (Beaver, Barnes, et al., 2011; Beaver et al., 2017; Beaver, Rowland, Schwartz, & Nedelec, 2011).

Control Variables

All of the analyses in this study were estimated using four control variables. Sex was measured dichotomously where 0 = female and 1 = male. Race was measured dichotomously where 0 = White and 1 = non-White. Age was measured at Wave 1 and employed as a continuous measure.

Verbal IQ

Verbal IQ was measured using Picture Vocabulary Test (PVT) scores available at Wave 1. The PVT is a shortened version of the Picture Peabody Vocabulary Test (PPVT) that is used to test verbal aptitude and receptive vocabulary. PVT scores have been used to measure verbal IQ previously with add health data (Rowe, Jacobson, & van den Oord, 1999; Schwartz & Beaver, 2013). The Add Health has PVT scores available in raw, standardized, and percentile forms. This study employs the standardized measure of PVT scores and is coded so that higher values represent higher levels of verbal intelligence.

Analytic Strategy

The analytic strategy for this study was conducted in a number of related steps. First, we employed negative binomial regression to examine the relationships between psychopathic personality traits, number of crimes committed, and number of arrests in the full sample and in males and females separately. Second, we examined the association between psychopathic personality traits and odds of arrest for the full sample, in a sample of respondents who reported criminal involvement, and separately in respondents in the bottom 25% of the distribution of number of crimes committed (1 to 2 crimes) and respondents in the top 25% of the distribution of number of crimes committed (11 to 66 crimes).

Third, we tested whether psychopathic personality traits are associated with criminal failure rate in two different ways. First, we tested for a relationship between psychopathic personality traits and failure rate using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression in respondents who had been arrested. This relationship was estimated in the full sample of arrested respondents and then in males and females separately. Then, we examined the association between psychopathic personality traits and criminal failure using OLS regression in the entire sample (including respondents who had not reported an arrest) after adding a small constant to both sides of the ratio used to construct the fail rate variable. This relationship was first measured in the full sample and then in males and females separately.

Results

The descriptive statistics for all of the variables and scales used in this study are presented in Table 1. In addition, correlations between all of the variables and scales used in this study are displayed in Appendix A. The analysis began by examining the association between psychopathic personality traits and number of crimes committed. As can be seen in Table 2, psychopathic personality traits were positively and significantly associated with the number of criminal acts committed in the full sample and in the male and female samples.¹⁰ These results indicate that individuals with higher levels of psychopathic personality traits tended to commit more crimes than individuals with lower levels of psychopathic personality traits.¹¹

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Scales and Variables Included in the Analyses.

	M (%)	SD	Range	N
Psychopathic personality
Traits Scale	−.201	10.142	−35.819-56.722	14,857
Arrest
Arrested	(27.44)			4,099
Not arrested	(72.56)			10,841
Number of arrests	.755	2.410	0-62	14,940
Number of crimes	6.790	8.291	0-66	9,633
Fail rate (No. of arrests/No. of crimes)
(Arrested only)	.411	0.684	0.017-10.5	2,380
Verbal IQ	100.061	14.845	13-146	18,795
Age	16.156	1.735	12-21	19,758
Sex
Males	(48.60)			9,605
Females	(51.40)			10,157
Race
White	(62.82)			12,408
Non-White	(37.18)			7,344

Table 2.

Negative Binomial Regression Models for the Association Between Psychopathic Personality Traits and Number of Crimes.

	Full sample		Males		Females
	Coefficient	IRR	Coefficient	IRR	Coefficient	IRR
Predictor variables
Psychopathic personality traits	.017	1.017*	.014	1.014*	.019	1.020*
Psychopathic personality traits	(.001)		(.002)		(.002)
Verbal IQ	.002	1.002	.004	1.004*	<.000	1.000
Verbal IQ	(.001)		(.001)		(.001)
Controls
Age	−.058	0.944*	−.018	0.982*	−.092	0.912*
Age	(.008)		(.011)		(.011)
Race	.072	1.074*	.059	1.061	.087	1.091*
Race	(.026)		(.038)		(.036)
Sex	.533	1.705*	—		—
Sex	(.024)
N	9,171		4,060		5,111

Note. IRR = interrater reliability.

p < .05.

Then, we examined the association between psychopathic personality traits and number of arrests. Table 3 reveals that psychopathic personality traits were positively and significantly associated with number of arrests in the full sample and in the male and female samples when controlling for number of crimes committed. These findings indicate that individuals with higher levels of psychopathic personality traits were more likely to be arrested than individuals with lower levels of psychopathic personality traits.

Table 3.

Negative Binomial Regression Models for the Association Between Psychopathic Personality Traits and Number of Arrests.

	Full sample		Males		Females
	Coefficient	IRR	Coefficient	IRR	Coefficient	IRR
Predictor variables
Psychopathic personality traits	.018	1.018*	.023	1.023*	.010	1.010*
Psychopathic personality traits	(.002)		(.003)		(.004)
Number of crimes	.073	1.076*	.063	1.065*	.095	1.100*
Number of crimes	(.003)		(.004)		(.006)
Verbal IQ	−.014	0.956*	−.013	0.987*	−.016	0.985*
Verbal IQ	(.002)		(.002)		(.003)
Controls
Age	.015	1.015	.032	1.033	−.008	0.992
Age	(.015)		(.019)		(.025)
Race	.048	1.049	−.008	0.992	.092	1.096
Race	(.053)		(.067)		(.086)
Sex	1.128	3.091*	—		—
Sex	(.049)
N	9,171		4,060		5.111

Note. IRR = interrater reliability.

p < .05.

Next, we examined whether psychopathic personality traits are associated with the odds of arrest among all of the respondents and among respondents who reported at least one criminal act. Examination of Table 4 reveals that psychopathic personality traits were significantly associated with the odds of arrest in both the full sample and among respondents who reported involvement in criminal behavior. These findings indicate that respondents with higher levels of psychopathic personality traits had a greater likelihood of being arrested than respondents with lower levels of psychopathic personality traits. Further examination of Table 4 reveals that psychopathic personality traits were not significantly associated with the odds of being arrested for respondents in the top 25% of the distribution of number of crimes committed (11 to 66 crimes) or the bottom 25% of the distribution of number of crimes committed (1 to 2 crimes). These findings indicate that individuals with high levels of psychopathic personality traits who were in the bottom or top quartiles of crimes committed (1 to 2 crimes, 11 to 66 crimes) were not significantly more or less likely to be arrested than individuals with lower levels of psychopathic personality traits who committed the same number of crimes.

Table 4.

Logistic Regression Models for the Association Between Psychopathic Personality Traits, Bottom 25% of Crimes Committed, Top 25% of Crimes Committed, and the Likelihood of Being Arrested.

	Odds of arrest (0-66 crimes)		Odds of arrest (1-66 crimes)		Odds of arrest
	Odds of arrest (0-66 crimes)		Odds of arrest (1-66 crimes)		Bottom 25% (1-2 crimes)		Top 25% (11-66 crimes)
	Coefficient	OR	Coefficient	OR	Coefficient	OR	Coefficient	OR
Predictor variables
Psychopathic personality traits	.012	1.012*	.011	1.011*	.007	1.008	.008	1.009
Psychopathic personality traits	(.003)		(.003)		(.007)		(.005)
Number of crimes	.076	1.079*	.069	1.071*	.368	1.445*	.034	1.034*
Number of crimes	(.003)		(.003)		(.130)		(.006)
Verbal IQ	−.011	0.989*	−.012	0.989*	−.014	0.986*	−.004	0.996
Verbal IQ	(.002)		(.002)		(.005)		(.004)
Controls
Age	.023	1.023	.036	1.037*	.065	1.067	.052	1.053
Age	(.016)		(.017)		(.040)		(.031)
Race	.030	1.031	.014	1.014	.156	1.169	.056	1.058
Race	(.057)		(.059)		(.139)		(.104)
Sex	1.014	2.757*	.978	2.659*	1.039	2.825*	.886	2.425*
Sex	(.053)		(.055)		(.130)		(.099)
N	9,171		7,734		2,019		1,932

Note. OR = odds ratio.

p < .05.

Given that psychopathic personality traits appear to be associated with both number of crimes committed and number of arrests, we then examined whether psychopathic personality traits are related to the rate of criminal failure among respondents who reported at least one arrest. Table 5 reveals that psychopathic personality traits were not associated with the rate of criminal failure in the full sample or in the male sample.¹² In contrast, psychopathic personality traits did appear to be negatively associated with the rate of criminal failure for females. These findings indicate that females with high levels of psychopathic personality traits were more likely to avoid being arrested than females with lower levels of psychopathic personality traits.

Table 5.

OLS Regression Models for the Association Between Psychopathic Personality Traits and Fail Rate (Arrested Only).

	Full sample		Males		Females
	b	β	b	β	b	β
Predictor variables
Psychopathic personality traits	<.000	−.003	.002	.029	−.004	−.083*
Psychopathic personality traits	(.001)		(.002)		(.002)
Verbal IQ	−.003	−.063*	−.004	−.069*	−.002	−.045
Verbal IQ	(.001)		(.002)		(.002)
Controls
Age	.016	.038	.022	.048*	.003	.009
Age	(.009)		(.012)		(.012)
Race	.019	.013	.004	.002	.038	.034
Race	(.032)		(.044)		(.042)
Sex	.073	.051*	—		—
Sex	(.030)
N	2,266		1,488		778

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares.

p < .05.

Finally, we examined whether psychopathic personality traits are associated with rate of criminal failure in the entire sample (including respondents who did not report an arrest). As can be seen in Table 6, psychopathic personality traits were negatively associated with fail rate in the full sample and in the female sample. These findings indicate that respondents with a high level of psychopathic personality were more likely to avoid being arrested for their crimes. However, this association did not appear to be significant for males.

Table 6.

OLS Regression Models for the Association Between Psychopathic Personality Traits and Fail Rate (Constant Added).

	Full sample		Males		Females
	b	β	b	β	b	β
Predictor variables
Psychopathic personality traits	−.003	−.065*	<.000	−.003	−.006	−.143*
Psychopathic personality traits	(.001)		(.001)		(.001)
Verbal IQ	−.002	−.056*	−.003	−.082*	−.001	−.028
Verbal IQ	(.000)		(.001)		(.000)
Controls
Age	.017	.054*	.015	.040*	.018	.069*
Age	(.003)		(.006)		(.004)
Race	−.014	−.013	.009	.007	−.031	−.036*
Race	(.012)		(.021)		(.013)
Sex	−.007	−.007	—		—
Sex	(.011)
N	9,171		4,060		5,111

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares.

p < .05.

Discussion

There is no shortage of beliefs regarding psychopaths, and these beliefs are shaped, in part, by news stories, TV shows, and movies. Research studies have evaluated some of these widely held beliefs and shown many of them to be false. For instance, recent studies have revealed that psychopaths are not highly intelligent or even more intelligent than nonpsychopathic offenders, laying waste to what has been called the Hannibal Lecter myth (DeLisi et al., 2010; Ribera, Kavish, & Boutwell, 2017). Another belief that has not been fully investigated is that psychopaths are so cunning and so intelligent that they are easily able to escape detection for the crimes that they committed. The current study moved in this direction by testing the relationship between psychopathy and criminal success by examining whether psychopathic personality traits are associated with criminal involvement, the likelihood of arrest, number of arrests, and the likelihood of successfully avoiding arrest for criminal behavior. The results of the analyses revealed two key findings.

First, and consistent with prior research, psychopathic personality traits were positively related to number of crimes committed and number of arrests for both males and females (Beaver et al., 2017; DeLisi, 2009; Hare, 1996; Vaughn & DeLisi, 2008). Second, and most importantly, there was little evidence that psychopathic personality traits were associated with being a successful criminal. In all of the analyses that were estimated, psychopathic personality traits were only associated with a reduction in the likelihood of being arrested in three of the models (30%), and even these effects were quite small (b = −.003 to −.006). Interestingly, the association between psychopathic personality traits and criminal success appears to be more pronounced in females than in males. These findings indicate that females with high levels of psychopathic personality traits may be more successful at avoiding detection than females with lower rates of psychopathic personality traits. Why this relationship only appeared in females and not in males, or the full sample, may be a result of the different patterns of criminal offending that tend to be exhibited by females compared with males. For instance, females tend to engage in fewer crimes than males and, when they do offend, their offenses tend to be relatively less serious (e.g., drug crimes and prostitution as opposed to burglary and assault) and therefore, may entail lower levels of risk of detection (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). Future research, however, will be needed to determine the precise mechanism that explains why psychopathic personality traits appear to be more salient for criminal success in females compared with males.

In contrast to findings showing that psychopathic personality traits may decrease the risk of detection, psychopathic personality traits were found to be positively associated with the odds of arrest in the full sample and in a sample of respondents who reported at least once criminal act. These findings suggest that instead of psychopathic personality traits having a beneficial effect on the odds of detection, psychopathic personality traits may instead increase the chances of being arrested for criminal behavior. While these findings run counter to some of the findings concerning rate of criminal failure, they are not surprising when considering that psychopaths are generally characterized as being impulsive and irresponsible. As a result of these characteristics, psychopaths may offend impulsively, may commit crimes that entail a high risk of arrest, and may not exert effort to decrease their chances of detection. Based on these analyses, there does not appear to be evidence that psychopaths or criminals scoring high on psychopathic personality traits are better able to elude detection and arrest than nonpsychopathic criminals.

These findings are particularly interesting when juxtaposed against the research findings indicating that psychopaths are highly resilient to change and thus are unlikely to benefit from rehabilitation and treatment programs (Gretton et al., 2001; Hare, 1996). What this means is that while psychopathic criminals appear no more difficult to arrest than nonpsychopathic criminals, they are significantly less likely to change through intervention efforts. From a public safety standpoint, therefore, the largest threat that these offenders may pose is through recidivism and perhaps the most appropriate way of dealing with them may be through incarceration and incapacitation. Fortunately, however, our findings revealed that psychopaths are caught at a rate that is on par with all other types of offenders, that is, offenders who might be more amenable to behavioral change through intervention and treatment. If these findings are replicated, as the findings of one study alone should not influence policy decisions, then scores on psychopathic personality traits might be one useful tool among others that would help in sentencing decisions.

While the results of the current analysis shed some light on the potential linkage between psychopathic personality traits and being able to successfully evade arrest for criminal involvement, there are a number of shortcomings that need to be addressed in future research studies. First, the measure of psychopathic personality traits was assessed via the five-factor model of personality traits. While this exact measure has been employed previously and been shown to be reliable and valid (e.g., Beaver et al., 2017; Beaver, Barnes, et al., 2011), it would be important to replicate these findings with other measures of psychopathy, including the PCL-R. Unfortunately the Add Health data do not have any other measures of psychopathy available and thus future research needs to use alternative samples to assess the robustness of these findings. Second, the psychopathic personality traits measure, while used in previous research (e.g., Beaver et al., 2017; Beaver, Barnes, et al., 2011), is not exactly the same measure used to measure psychopathic personality traits, according to the FFM by several other researchers in the field (e.g., Derefinko & Lynam, 2007; Lynam & Miller, 2015; Miller & Lynam, 2015). As a result, this measure, constructed from the Mini-IPIP as opposed to the NEO PI-R, has not been widely tested for convergence with the PCL-R. Unfortunately, as the Add Health does not contain the NEO PI-R, we are unable to directly test associations between our Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale and Psychopathic Traits Scales created using the NEO PI-R. Therefore, future research should attempt to test these associations using other measures of psychopathic personality traits. Third, the FFM measure of psychopathic personality traits used in this study does allow for individual measurement of some of the components of psychopathy (e.g., Fearless Dominance, Self-Centered Impulsivity) that may have some bearing on the associations between psychopathic traits and criminal success. As a result, future research will be needed to determine if specific facets of psychopathy differentially influence criminal success. Fourth, the size of the correlations between our measure of psychopathic personality traits with arrest, number of arrests, and number of crimes is somewhat lower than might be expected from previous research on psychopathy. One possible reason for these smaller correlations may be that our measure of psychopathic personality traits drawn from the FFM model does not contain some of the behavioral measures of crime and delinquency that are contained in the PCL-R. As a result, this measure is assessing correlations between criminal behaviors and arrest with personality traits associated with psychopathy without also including direct behavioral measures of crime and delinquency – therefore, the correlations will be smaller. However, it should also be noted that all of these correlations are in the theoretically expected directions suggesting that this measure converges with other measures of psychopathic traits in this respect. Fifth, the measure of arrest was based on self-reports, not on official crime data. While self-reports of criminal justice processing have been used frequently (Thornberry & Krohn, 2000) and have been shown to be reliable and valid (Maxfield, Weiler, & Widom, 2000), under ideal conditions official crime data would be used. Sixth, the measure used to assess number of crimes committed was limited to a relatively small number of crimes that were included in the Add Health data. For each of the waves the count of criminal acts only includes 12 to 14 different types of crime that were specifically asked about. As a result, the count of criminal acts would not include forms of crime outside of these 12 to 14 different forms of criminal behavior. Relatedly, the items concerning criminal involvement only asked respondents to report criminal involvement in the 12 months prior to data collection. Therefore, if respondents engaged in criminal behavior in between the waves (and outside of the 12 month data collection window) then these crimes will not be accounted for in the count of criminal acts. As a result, the count of criminal acts is likely an underrepresentation of the amount of criminal behavior committed by these subjects between adolescence and adulthood. In addition, the original items tapping criminal involvement asked respondents to report their frequency of criminal involvement according to an ordinal scale (i.e., never, once or twice, three or four times, and five or more times) limiting our ability to precisely count the number of criminal acts committed by each of the participants. As a result, these counts should be seen as rough counts of the amount of criminal activity respondents were engaged in at each wave. Future research, therefore, will be needed to determine if this pattern of findings persists when analyzing the associations between psychopathic traits, arrest, and precise counts of criminal acts. Seventh, the Add Health sample only tracked respondents from adolescence through early adulthood. It would be important to determine whether these findings would hold when the entire life course was examined. These limitations should be addressed by future researchers with independent samples. As for now, the findings of our study offer some initial evidence that psychopathic personality traits are unrelated to the odds of escaping detection from law enforcement.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix B

Items Included in the Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale.

1. I sympathize with other’s feelings
2. I get angry easily^a
3. I am not interested in other people’s problems^a
4. I often forget to put things back in their proper place^a
5. I am relaxed most of the time
6. I am not easily bothered by things
7. I rarely get irritated
8. I talk to a lot of different people at parties
9. I feel others’ emotions
10. I get upset easily^a
11. I get stressed out easily^a
12. I lose my temper^a
13. I keep in the background^a
14. I am not really interested in others^a
15. I seldom feel blue
16. I don’t worry about things that have already happened
17. I keep my cool
18. I go out of my way to avoid having to deal with problems in my life^a
19. When making a decision, I go with my “gut feeling” and don’t think much about the consequences of each alternative^a
20. I live my life without much thought for the future^a
21. Other people determine most of what I can and cannot do^a
22. There are many things that interfere with what I want to do^a
23. There is really no way I can solve the problems I have^a

Item was reverse coded so that higher values represent higher levels of psychopathic personality traits.

Acknowledgements

This research uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by a grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies. Special acknowledgment is due to Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Persons interested in obtaining data files from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 (). No direct support was received from grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.

Authors’ Note

Persons interested in obtaining data files from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 (). No direct support was received from Grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Andersen

H. S.

Sestoft

Lillebæk

Mortensen

E. L.

Kramp

(1999). Psychopathy and psychopathological profiles in prisoners on remand. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 99, 33-39.

Babiak

Hare

R. D.

(2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Babiak

Neumann

C. S.

Hare

R. D.

(2010). Corporate psychopathy: Talking the walk. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 174-193.

Beaver

K. M.

Barnes

J. C.

May

J. S.

Schwartz

J. A.

(2011). Psychopathic personality traits, genetic risk, and gene-environment correlations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 896-912.

Beaver

K. M.

Boutwell

B. B.

Barnes

J. C.

Vaughn

M. G.

DeLisi

(2017). The association between psychopathic personality traits and criminal justice outcomes: Results from a nationally representative sample of males and females. Crime & Delinquency, 63, 708-730.

Beaver

K. M.

Rowland

M. W.

Schwartz

J. A.

Nedelec

J. L.

(2011). The genetic origins of psychopathic personality traits in adult males and females: Results from an adoption-based study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 426-432.

Blair

R. J. R.

(2007). Empathic dysfunction in psychopathic individuals. In Farrow

T. F. D.

Woodruff

P. W. R.

(Eds.), Empathy in mental illness (pp. 1-16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Blair

R. J. R.

Colledge

Murray

Mitchell

D. G. V.

(2001). A selective impairment in the processing of sad and fearful expression in children with psychopathic tendencies. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 491-498.

Blair

R. J. R.

Sellars

Strickland

Clark

Williams

Smith

Jones

(1996). Theory of mind in the psychopath. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 7, 15-25.

10.

Boddy

C. R.

Ladyshewsky

Galvin

(2010). Leaders without ethics in global business: Corporate psychopaths. Journal of Public Affairs, 10, 121-138.

11.

Book

A. S.

Costello

Camilleri

J. A.

(2013). Psychopathy and victim selection: The use of gait as a cue to vulnerability. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 2368-2383.

12.

Book

A. S.

Quinsey

V. L.

Langford

(2007). Psychopathy and the perception of affect and vulnerability. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 531-544.

13.

Crego

Widiger

T. A.

(2015). Psychopathy and the DSM. Journal of Personality, 83, 665-677.

14.

DeLisi

(2009). Psychopathy is the unified theory of crime. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7, 256-273.

15.

DeLisi

Vaughn

M. G.

Beaver

K. M.

Wright

J. P.

(2010). The Hannibal Lecter myth: Psychopathy and verbal intelligence in the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 169-177.

16.

Derefinko

K. J.

Lynam

D. R.

(2007). Using the FFM to conceptualize psychopathy: A test using a drug abusing sample. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 638-656.

17.

Donnellan

M. B.

Oswald

F. L.

Baird

B. M.

Lucas

R. E.

(2006). The Mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18, 192-203.

18.

Gao

Raine

(2010). Successful and unsuccessful psychopaths: A neurobiological model. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 194-210.

19.

Gretton

H. M.

McBride

Hare

R. D.

O’Shaughnessy

Kumka

(2001). Psychopathy and recidivism in adolescent sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 427-449.

20.

Guo

Roettger

M. E.

Shih

J. C.

(2007). Contributions of the DAT1 and DRD2 genes to serious and violent delinquency among adolescents and young adults. Human Genetics, 121, 125-136.

21.

Häkkänen-Nyholm

Hare

R. D.

(2009). Psychopathy, homicide, and the courts: Working the system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 761-777.

22.

Hall

J. R.

Benning

S. D.

(2006). The “successful” psychopath. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 459-475). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

23.

Hare

R. D.

(1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of psychopaths among us. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

24.

Hare

R. D.

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

25.

Harpur

T. J.

Hare

R. D.

Hakstian

A. R.

(1989). Two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 6-17.

26.

Herrnstein

R. J.

Murray

(1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York, NY: Free Press.

27.

Howe

Falkenbach

Massey

(2014). The relationship among psychopathy, emotional intelligence, and professional success in finance. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 134, 337-347.

28.

Jones

A. P.

Happé

F. G. E.

Gilbert

Burnett

Viding

(2010). Feeling, caring, knowing: Different types of empathy deficit in boys with psychopathic tendencies and autism spectrum disorder. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 1188-1197.

29.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Patrick

C. J.

Benning

S. D.

Berg

Sellbom

Edens

J. F.

(2012). The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: Confusions, controversies, and clarifications. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 327-340.

30.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Waldman

I. D.

Landfield

Watts

A. L.

Rubenzer

Faschingbauer

T. R.

(2012). Fearless dominance and the U.S. presidency: Implications of psychopathic personality traits for successful and unsuccessful leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 489-505.

31.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Watts

A. L.

Smith

S. F.

(2015). Successful psychopathy: A scientific status report. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 298-303.

32.

Lykken

D. T.

(1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

33.

Lynam

D. R.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Raine

Loeber

Stouthamer-Loeber

(2005). Adolescent psychopathy and the Big Five: Results from two samples. Journal or Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 431-443.

34.

Lynam

D. R.

Miller

J. D.

(2015). Psychopathy from a basic trait perspective: The utility of a five-factor model approach. Journal of Personality, 83, 611-626.

35.

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.

36.

Malterer

M. B.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Neumann

C. S.

Newman

J. P.

(2010). Concurrent validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory with offender and community samples. Assessment, 17, 3-15.

37.

Maxfield

M. H.

Weiler

B. L.

Widom

C. S.

(2000). Comparing self-reports and official record of arrests. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 87-110.

38.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(2015). Psychopathy and personality: Advances and debates. Journal of Personality, 83, 585-592.

39.

Patrick

C. J.

Fowles

D. C.

Krueger

R. F.

(2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Developmental Psychopathology, 21, 913-938.

40.

Ribera

O. S.

Kavish

Boutwell

(2017). On the relationship between psychopathy and general intelligence: A meta-analytic review. bioRxiv, 100693. Advance online publication.

41.

Richell

R. A.

Mitchell

D. G. V.

Newman

Leonard

Baron-Cohen

Blair

R. J. R.

(2003). Theory of mind and psychopathy: Can psychopathic individuals read the “language of the eyes”? Neuropsychologia, 41, 523-526.

42.

Ritchie

M. B.

Blais

Forth

A. E.

Book

A. S.

(2018). Identifying vulnerability to violence: The role of psychopathy and gender. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 8, 125-137.

43.

Rowe

D. C.

Jacobson

K. C.

van den Oord

E. J. C. G

. (1999). Genetic and environmental influences on vocabulary IQ: Parental education level as a moderator. Child Development, 70, 1151-1162.

44.

Salekin

R. T.

Neumann

C. S.

Leistico

A. R.

Zalot

A. A.

(2004). Psychopathy in youth and intelligence: An investigation of Cleckley’s hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 4, 731-742.

45.

Schwartz

J. A.

Beaver

K. M.

(2013). Examining the effects of dopamine genes on verbal IQ within and between families. Journal of Neural Transmission, 120, 477-486.

46.

Steffensmeier

Allan

(1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 459-487.

47.

Thornberry

T. P.

Krohn

M. D.

(2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency and crime. In Duffee

(Ed.), Measurement and analyses of crime and justice (pp. 33-83). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Justice.

48.

Udry

J. R.

(2003). The national longitudinal study of adolescent health (Add Health), Wave III, 2001-2002; Wave IV, 2008-2009. Los Altos: The Carolina Population Center.

49.

Ullrich

Farrington

D. P.

Coid

J. W.

(2008). Psychopathic personality traits and life-success. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1162-1171.

50.

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2014, Fall). Crime in the U.S. 2013. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/clearances/clearancetopic_final.pdf

51.

Vaughn

M. G.

DeLisi

(2008). Were Wolfgang’s chronic offenders psychopaths? On the convergent validity between psychopathy and career criminality. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 33-42.

52.

Vitacco

M. J.

Neumann

C. S.

Jackson

R. L.

(2005). Testing a four-factor model of psychopathy and its association with ethnicity, gender, and violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 466-476.

53.

Vitacco

M. J.

Neumann

C. S.

Wodushek

(2008). Differential relationships between the dimensions of psychopathy and intelligence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 48-55.

54.

Wheeler

Book

Costello

(2009). Psychopathic traits and perceptions of victim vulnerability. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 635-648.

55.

Wilson

Demetrioff

Porter

(2008). A pawn by any other name? Social information processing as a function of psychopathic traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1651-1656.

56.

Wright

J. P.

Beaver

K. M.

DeLisi

Vaughn

(2008). Evidence of negligible parenting influences on self-control, delinquent peers, and delinquency in a sample of twins. Justice Quarterly, 25, 544-569.