Emotions,Affections,and Psychopathy Among Female Prisoners

Abstract

The present study intends to be a contribution to understand affections and emotions associated with female psychopathy. Although there are several studies aiming to understand psychopathy, there is still a gap in the integration of such a concept in affective dimensions, as well as a scarcity of surveys conducted in the female population. Sixty-three women confined to prison, located in the North region of Portugal, participated in this study. Participants were assessed using the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), the Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP), and the Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R). Results showed that only nine women presented moderate scores of psychopathy. Moreover, women with higher psychopathy scores revealed deficits in positive emotional abilities, and secondary psychopathy was related with predominance of negative affection. In the future, it would be useful to develop more effective instruments to assess emotions and affections in psychopaths.

Keywords

psychopathy affections emotions female prisoners

Introduction

The concept of psychopathy is extremely controversial, and researchers often question the relationship between psychopathy and emotional experiences. Emotions are not easy to describe, and, even though difficult to express, they convey a plurality of indispensable information (Smith et al., 2014).

Taking into account the scarce literature on this theme, especially among female individuals, the present study aims to fulfill some scientific gaps, mainly to what concerns the relationship between women’s emotional/affective characteristics and psychopathy. In particular, in this study, we aim to clarify which affections/emotions are experienced by women in prison and to understand the relationship between such emotions and psychopathy.

Psychopathy has been widely defined as a clinical construct comprising interpersonal (e.g., egocentricity, deception, manipulation), affective (e.g., shallow affect, a lack of empathy, guilt, or remorse; Factor 1), and behavioral characteristics (e.g., irresponsibility, impulsivity, unethical, and antisocial behaviors; Factor 2; Hare, 2003; Neumann et al., 2007). This conceptualization is highly rooted in the Hare’s and collaborators’ work and in the most known assessment instrument for psychopathy—the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003). However, other perspectives on psychopathy emerged. Karpman (1941) described two types of psychopaths based on clinical observation: the idiopathic and the symptomatic, later known as primary and secondary psychopaths, respectively. The author believes that primary and secondary psychopaths are constitutionally different but phenotypically similar: Primary psychopaths show symptoms of constitutional affective deficit, whereas secondary psychopaths reveal symptoms of affective disorder based on a premature psychosocial learning. This second type shows a stronger level of human emotions, such as empathy or desire to be accepted, revealing behavior caused by a neurotic emotional reaction (e.g., depression, anxiety, guilt, hostility), whereas primary psychopaths are individuals with cold, aggressive, and insensitive behavior (Poythress et al., 2006). Primary psychopathy has been seen as a consequence of some intrinsic deficit that hinders self-regulation and normal adjustment. It is usually characterized by lack of anxiety and associated with affective and attention-related deficits. However, secondary psychopathy is believed to be associated to social disadvantages, excessive neuroticism, anxiety, and/or some other form of psychopathology (Cleckley, 1941/1976; Lykken, 1995). According to the dual process model, the interpersonal and affective symptoms of psychopathy (PCL-R Factor 1) correspond to a deficit related to the amygdala in the processing of emotions, whereas impulsive and antisocial symptoms (behavioral characteristics) correspond to a deficit in executive control that disinhibits impulsive behavior. Patrick (2007) proposed that Factor 1 (affective and interpersonal symptoms) is associated with a weak defensive system that reduces behavioral and physiological reactions to direct threats, whereas Factor 2 (impulsive and antisocial symptoms) is associated with a deficit in information processing that interferes with the processing of threat alerts, the activation of the defensive system, and impairs the inhibition of approach behavior. To what concerns gender, studies point to some consistencies between males and females. Similar to male primary psychopaths (Hicks et al., 2004), the female primary group did not exhibit a particularly deviant behavior. Female secondary psychopathy was associated with externalizing disorders and overall malfunction (Krueger et al., 2000), as identified in previous studies with male prisoners (Hicks et al., 2004; Skeem et al., 2007). The subtype secondary psychopathy (for both men and women) is similar to an externalizing variant of borderline personality disorder (Shevlin et al., 2007). In terms of subtype differences, primary and secondary female psychopaths differ in several important variables including the onset of antisocial behavior, substance use patterns, and mental health. Primary psychopathy is associated with an adult onset of criminal and antisocial behavior, whereas secondary psychopaths tended to present an onset in childhood (Hicks et al., 2010).

Literature has shown that psychopathic males are callous and have deficits in the ability to experience a normal range and depth of emotional experiences (Cleckley, 1941/1976; Hare, 1996). Psychopaths often exhibit emotional impairments, such as dysfunctional affective processing (i.e., absence of insights on emotions), predominantly negative affect, poor emotional control, and deficits in experiencing complex emotions (i.e., trust, respect, and guilt; Gawda, 2013). Despite the disproportional amount of research that has been focused on men, there is now a growing interest in women.

The prevalence and incidence of psychopathic women are much lower compared with psychopathic men (Jackson et al., 2002; Verona & Vitale, 2018); however, research showed other differences between female and male psychopaths (e.g., Forouzan & Cooke, 2005; Grann, 2000). Grann (2000) found that insensitivity, lack of empathy, and juvenile delinquency were more associated with the male gender, whereas promiscuous sexual behavior and abuse of alcoholic substances to the female gender. Some evidence suggests that the fundamental deficits in emotional processing observed in male psychopaths may be generalized to female psychopaths (Vitale et al., 2007). Studies on female samples found poor emotional processing, typically found in male psychopaths (Sutton et al., 2002), and found that female psychopaths did not exhibit perseverance in response (Vitale & Newman, 2001), perhaps because female psychopaths were characterized by low levels of disinhibition. Studies conducted with women raise the hypothesis that they may not present the same processing deficit as men with psychopathic traits (Sutton et al., 2002). Poor processing of emotions in male psychopaths can be seen in several studies (Lorenz & Newman, 2002; Verona et al., 2004). In contrast to nonpsychopathic individuals, individuals who score in psychopathic traits exhibit weaker psychophysiological reactions to emotional stimuli (Levenston et al., 2000) and are less likely to inhibit previously rewarded responses that now result in punishment (e.g., Lykken, 1957).

Forouzan and Cooke (2005) found evidence of gender differences in traits and characteristic expressions of psychopathic traits, theorizing four key differences in manifestations of gender psychopathy: (a) differential expressions of psychopathic behavior, (b) differences in interpersonal characteristics, (c) different psychological motivations underlying indicators of psychopathy, and (d) potential bias in the evaluation of psychopathy according to social norms. Interpersonally, deceitful men are more likely to be conning, whereas women are more likely to act flirtatiously. Behaviorally, male psychopaths often manifest impulsivity and conduct problems as violent behavior, whereas female psychopaths usually engage in running away, self-harming behaviors, manipulation, and property crimes such as theft or fraud. At the level of motivations, female psychopaths tend to engage in promising behaviors to obtain some gain (e.g., money), whereas male psychopaths are motivated by their propensity to search for sensations or sexual activity (Quinsey, 2002).

The manifestation of psychopathy in women is more nuanced and hidden, but still highly destructive to others (de Vogel, 2014). Women with psychopathy show significantly more manipulative behavior compared with women without psychopathy (de Vogel & Lancel, 2016). Literature postulates that psychopathic women may be—or present as—less grandiose, physically dominant, and more aggressive than psychopathic men, and may use more relational aggression and sexual seduction to manipulate, dominate, and exploit others. Psychopathic women may present themselves as more emotionally unstable and engage in stronger impression management than psychopathic men (Kreis & Cooke, 2011). Psychopathic women would be expected to dominate, control, and exploit others using their sexuality, interpersonal skills, and more relational aggressive means. Yet, they should be just as able and willing as psychopathic men to use physical aggression if the rewards are worth the risk, but to be more likely to express aggression and dominance within close interpersonal relationships (Kreis & Cooke, 2011). Psychopathic women would also be expected to be more emotionally labile than psychopathic men, or at least present as such. They may also present as caring and empathic, using these stereotypical female characteristics as a manipulative guise, a mask of maternalism (Kreis & Cooke, 2011). Psychopathic women should, thus, predominantly employ subtler interpersonal dominance and exploitative strategies (Kreis & Cooke, 2011). Some evidence suggests that the fundamental deficits in emotional processing observed in male psychopaths may be generalized to female psychopaths (Vitale et al., 2007). Studies on female samples found poor emotional processing, typically found in male psychopaths (Sutton et al., 2002), and found that female psychopaths did not exhibit perseverance in response (Vitale & Newman, 2001), perhaps because female psychopaths were characterized by low levels of disinhibition. Studies conducted with women raise the hypothesis that women may not present the same processing deficit as men with traits of psychopathy (Sutton et al., 2002). Although literature points to differences between men and women with psychopathic traits in terms of emotional processing, there is still a lack of research among female samples, especially in the Portuguese context. Thus, the present study aims to fulfill a gap in literature and contribute to a deeper understanding of emotions and affections among women with psychopathic traits. In addressing the emotional domain, one speaks of three important constructs: emotions, affections, and mood. These constructs are used indistinctly and imprecisely and are often considered as synonyms. Despite being so, that does not represent a fallacy, as the three are connected. Emotions can be conceptualized as states of readiness for adaptive action, reflecting activity in two opposing motor systems: an appetitive system that engenders behavior and involvement with the environment and a defensive system that avoids and protects against danger. Affective states may be summoned by real-life events (e.g., food or an impending predator) or by symbolic representations of such events (e.g., images or text). In both cases, emotional arousal results from the activation of cognitive–perceptive representations that connect with the appetitive or defensive action system (Verona et al., 2004). Affections are waves of emotion in which there is a sudden exacerbation of emotion usually in response to an event, and mood is the emotional state that prevails at a given moment, being a lasting, reactive, or endogenous disposition to react to events with a certain type of emotion (Pathak et al., 2011).

The terms emotions, affections, and humor pose a puzzle to many people. Although they represent closely related phenomena, they are distinct. However, this distinction is unclear, as an emotion, affect, or mood seems very similar to the person who experiences it (Shouse, 2005). Clarifying constructs is essential for research because unclear terminology may produce ambiguous results. Affections, emotions, feelings, moods, passions are all part of the so-called affective life, but they are not always clearly distinguished (Pio Abreu, 2013). This study focuses more on affections and emotions, because moods are low intensity, diffuse feeling states that usually do not have a clear antecedent, and can be characterized as relatively unstable short-term intraindividual changes (Kelly & Barsade, 2001). Unlike emotions, people may not realize that they are experiencing a “mood” and may also be unaware that mood is influencing their behavior.

Taking into account the diverse models suggested for specific deficit in fear reactivity, Lykken’s (1995) approach assumes itself as one that has a major impact on research. This model, known as “fearlessness hypothesis,” is based on Karpman’s (1941) theory and Gray’s (1987) biological model of personality (Poythress et al., 2008). Gray’s model defends the existence of two main components: behavioral inhibition system (BIS), a system of behavioral inhibition that regulates the response to aversive stimuli and that is associated with negative affection (NA) experiences; and Behavioral Approach System (BAS), an unspecified excitement system that receives inputs from BAS and BIS activated by stimuli associated with reward, escape, fear, or pain (Baskin-Sommers et al., 2010; Newman et al., 2005). According to Gray, the BIS system is sensitive to signs of punishment, lack of reward, and novelty, and is responsible for the experience of negative affect (e.g., fear, anxiety, and sadness). The BAS system is sensitive to signs of reward, nonpunishment, and avoidance of punishment. The BAS system consists of three components that analyze how individuals respond to rewarding events: responsiveness to reward, motivation toward compelling goals, and pursuit of fun (Uzieblo et al., 2007). Research on the relationship between psychopathy and BIS/BAS systems is relevant, and several authors have hypothesized that psychopathy results from a subactive BIS and/or hyperactive BAS. Gray (1970) suggested that psychopaths seek rewards without fear of punishment, indicating a low BIS activity. This view was supported by a number of studies, including diminished aversive conditioning (Flor et al., 2002), reduced fear of psychopathy (Patrick et al., 1994), and also been associated with lack of anxiety (Cleckley, 1941/1976).

The postulated model is of particular relevance because if individuals with psychopathic traits have deficits in recognizing emotions, they probably also have deficits in recognizing affective stimuli as being sufficiently aversive. Thus, individuals with psychopathic traits do not experience the negative consequence of feeling bad, and instead of inhibiting antisocial actions that may generate fear and sadness in other people, they can feel reinforced by it (Blair, 2006). This hypothesis is compatible with the affective component of psychopathy, that is, lack of empathy and guilt (Dawel et al., 2012). Some findings suggest that BIS differentiates primary from secondary psychopathy, showing that the primary psychopathy is associated with low anxiety (associated predominantly with low scores on measures of the BIS) and secondary psychopathy is associated with general externalizing tendencies (associated predominantly with high scores on measures of the BAS; Wallace et al., 2009). These findings point to higher levels of anxiety and goal conflict, consistent with Karpman’s original formulation of secondary psychopathy as a neurotic variant. This theory also postulates two dimensions of personality, which are called anxiety (or anxiety proneness) and impulsivity. It represents individual differences in the sensitivity of two neurological systems in their responses to relevant environmental cues. One of these systems regulates aversive motivation; the other regulates appetitive motivation (Fowles & Dindo, 2006). There is also a reciprocal relationship between BAS and BIS. Thus, when BAS is too strong, the BIS will fail to interrupt approach behavior in reaction to punishment cues (Baskin-Sommers et al., 2010).

The research theme is theoretically and pragmatically relevant, because little is known about female psychopathy. In addition, psychopathy is of relevance to what concern treatment, risk assessment, and prediction of violent behavior. Regardless of the studies conducted on this theme and assuming the gap in literature concerning the integration of psychopathy in other related concepts, this study intends to contribute to a deeper knowledge on the area.

Based on the theoretical framing previously described, the general aim of the present exploratory study is to understand the emotions and affections experienced and their relation with psychopathy in female prisoners. The specific aims of the survey are (a) to analyze the correlation between experienced emotions and affections and psychopathy scores and (b) to analyze the correlation between emotions, affections, and primary and secondary psychopathy.

Method

Sample

The sample included 63 female prisoners. As displayed in Table 1, the participants’ age was, in average, 27.29 years (SD = 10.06 years), ranging between 21 and 66 years. The majority of the women were Portuguese (88.9%) and approximately half of the participants were single (50.8%). The average of the total sentence was 77.34 months (SD = 65.87 months), ranging between 2 and 300 months. The majority of the participants were convicted (93.7%) and more than a half were recidivists (55.6%); 65.1% (n = 41) were convicted for a unique crime and 42.9% (n = 27) were sentenced for drug dealing.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Characterization and Juridical–Legal Characterization.

Variables	N (%)
Sociodemographic variables
Marital status
Single	32 (50.8%)
Divorced/separated	13 (20.6%)
Married/civil union	13 (20.6%)
Widowed	5 (7.9%)
Nationality
Portuguese	56 (88.9%)
Brazilian	3 (4.8%)
French	1 (1.6%)
Venezuelan	1 (1.6%)
Spanish	1 (1.6%)
Romanian	1 (16%)
Juridical–legal variables
Type of crime
Crimes against people	8 (12.7%)
Crimes against property	24 (38.1%)
Crimes against life in society	3 (4.8%)
Crimes against the government	1 (1.6%)
Crimes related to drug dealing	27 (42.9%)
Juridical situation
Remand	4 (6.3%)
Convicted	59 (93.7%)
First time/recidivist
First time	28 (44.4%)
Recidivist	45 (55.6%)
Unique crime/more than one crime
Unique crime	41 (65.1%)
More than one crime	22 (34.9%)

Procedure

Authorization to conduct the present study and to assess female offenders was obtained from the General Directorate of Reintegration and Prison Services–Ministry of Justice (DGRSP-MJ). Data were collected in one national female prison. Participants were selected by convenience: Those who were working, at school, or resting were contacted; all procedures were explained; and the informed consent was signed. All the participants then completed the measurements. To speak Portuguese and to have reading abilities were defined as inclusion criteria, to avoid results’ bias, because the measures used were validated to the Portuguese population and required minimal reading skills. Women who were unable to speak and understand Portuguese were not included in the present study. After that, participants’ individual files were analyzed to collect additional information.

All ethical procedures established by the University of Minho Ethics Commission and Portuguese legislation were followed. Participation in the study was anonymous and voluntary.

Instruments

Sociodemographic and Juridical–Legal Questionnaire

This questionnaire was developed specifically to this study and aims to gather information on sociodemographic (e.g., age, marital status, nationality) and juridical–legal variables (e.g., crime, sentence, primary/recidivist).

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)

PANAS was developed by Watson et al. (1988) to evaluate subjective well-being and affectivity. The scale is constituted by 20 items to assess positive affection (PA) and NA, on a Likert-type scale, ranging between little or nothing (1) and a lot (5). Ten of the 20 items evaluate PA (e.g., enthusiasm, inspiration, interest) and the remaining 10 assess NA (e.g., annoyance, fear, nervousness). Scores vary between 10 and 50, with higher scores meaning higher levels of PA/NA. PA and NA are independent dimensions, so an increase in NA does not imply a decrease in PA. As they are independent measures, the total sum of the instrument is not considered. In the original study, the internal consistency was of .88 for PA and .87 for NA (Watson et al., 1988). In this study, the Portuguese version of the instrument was used (Galinha & Pais-Ribeiro, 2005). In the Portuguese version, the PA and NA subscales reached a Cronbach’s alpha of .86, and .89, respectively. In the present sample, the internal consistency was of .58 and .86 for PA and NA, respectively. The low Cronbach’s alpha value could be due to the participants’ characteristics, because reliability might be affected by samples’ attributes, such as heterogeneity (Streiner, 2003). Thus, this low value of alpha may suggest a higher heterogeneity within the PA subscale than NA subscale. Other authors also refer that when dealing with psychological constructs low alpha values might be expected because of the diversity of the constructs being measured (Field, 2009).

Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP)

The LSRP consists of 26 items divided into two separate scales—primary and secondary psychopathy. It evaluates primary and secondary psychopathy, taking into account personality and the original bifactorial structure of PCL-R (Hare, 1991), in an attempt to detect interpersonal styles and philosophies that typify primary and secondary psychopaths (Levenson et al., 1995). The subscale of primary psychopathy includes 16 items related to the interpersonal and affective characteristics of psychopathy (lack of empathy and regret, tendency to manipulate and lie, selfishness, and insensitivity), and the subscale of secondary psychopathy consists of 10 items that measure impulsiveness, tolerance toward frustration, and self-destructive lifestyle. Items are scored in a 4-point Likert-type scale, varying from I strongly disagree to I totally agree, and the final score, resulting from the sum of each item, varies between 26 and 104. The original instrument (Levenson et al., 1995) had a satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .82 and .63, for primary and secondary psychopathy, respectively).

In this survey, the Portuguese version of the instrument was used (Coelho et al., 2010), which presents a good internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .81 for the total score, .82 for primary psychopathy, and .73 for secondary psychopathy. In the present sample, the instrument showed an internal consistency of .70 and .68, for primary and secondary psychopathy, respectively.

Hare’s PCL-R

PCL-R is a 20-item checklist that uses a semistructured interview, case-history information, and specific scoring criteria to rate each item on a 3-point scale (0 = not applied, 1 = applied somewhat, 2 = fully applied). The total score, resulting from the sum of each item’s score, varies between 0 and 40. A score equal or superior to 30 indicates the presence of psychopathy; between 20 and 29, points out mixed characteristics or moderate psychopathy; below 20, reflects low levels of psychopathy.

The PCL-R has shown high levels of internal consistency and interrater reliability (Hare & Neumann, 2005). An early exploratory factor analysis revealed two correlated dimensions—Factor 1 and Factor 2—that showed a satisfactory internal consistency. In a latter formulation, Hare and Neumann (2005) advocated that at least four factors are needed to represent PCL-R’s construct of psychopathy: interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and antisocial. In the current study, the PCL-R Portuguese version was used (Gonçalves, 1999), that showed an internal consistency of .84. In the present sample, the internal consistency was .78 and .68, for the interpersonal–affective factor (Factor 1) and antisocial–impulsive factor (Factor 2), respectively.

Data Analysis

All the analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 22. Descriptive statistics were compiled using measures of central and dispersion tendencies to characterize the participants (sociodemographic and juridical–legal variables). Exploratory analyses were conducted to verify whether the parametric tests’ assumptions were fulfilled (e.g., normality, homogeneity). Because normality and homogeneity were not assumed, nonparametric tests were conducted. To analyze the correlation between the variables, Spearman coefficient test was used.

Results

Descriptive Data

Data concerning descriptive statistics of the different measures are present in Table 2. In PANAS, participants revealed an average of 33.56 (SD = 6.26) in PA and of 24.16 (SD = 9.74) in NA. Thus, PA is the type of affection more experienced by female offenders.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of PANAS, PCL-R, and LSRP Scores.

Variable	M	SD	Minimum–maximum	Symmetry	Kurtosis
PANAS
Positive affection	33.56	6.26	17–50	0.113	0.369
Negative affection	24.16	9.74	10–50	0.648	−0.165
PCL-R (two-factor model)
Total score	10.30	6.66	0–25	0.501	−0.730
Interpersonal–affective	4.05	3.59	0–14	0.337	−0.389
Antisocial–impulsive	5.51	3.41	0–13	−0.011	−0.416
PCL-R (four-factor model)
Interpersonal	1.89	2.23	0–8	0.938	−0.296
Affective	2.33	2.27	0–8	1.064	0.413
Lifestyle	3.51	2.35	0–8	0.212	−0.999
Antisocial	1.57	1.68	0–7	1.468	2.155
LSRP
Primary psychopathy	37.16	7.53	24–57	0.337	−0.389
Secondary psychopathy	24.48	5.78	12–36	−0.011	−0.416

Note. PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Scale; PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist–Revised; LSRP = Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale.

The participants’ average of PCL-R total scale was 10.30 (SD = 6.66). Analyzing the factors (two-factor model) of the psychopathy construct, results revealed that female offenders presented higher scores on antisocial–impulsive factor (M = 5.51, SD = 3.41) than on interpersonal–affective factor (M = 4.05, SD = 3.59). In the PCL-R facets (four-factor model), results revealed that female offenders presented higher scores on lifestyle (M = 3.51, SD = 2.35) and affective facets (M = 2.33, SD = 2.27). The antisocial facet presented the lowest scores (M = 1.57, SD = 1.68). The analyses of the PCL-R total scores revealed that no women scored above 30 points and only nine of them scored for moderate psychopathy (PCL-R score between 20 and 30).

Analyzing LSRP scores, female offenders presented an average of 37.16 (SD = 7.53) in primary psychopathy dimension and an average of 24.48 (SD = 5.78) in secondary psychopathy dimension.

Correlations Between PCL-R Scores and LSRP-P Scores

Correlations between PCL-R scores and LSRP-P scores are presented in Table 3. Results only revealed a positive statistically significant correlation between antisocial–impulsive factor of PCL-R and secondary psychopathy (LSRP-F2), r = .275, p = .029, and between antisocial facet (four-factor model) and secondary psychopathy, r = .276, p = .028.

Table 3.

Correlations Between PCL-R Scores and LSRP Scores (N = 63).

PCL-R scores	Primary psychopathyLSRP-F1	Secondary psychopathyLSRP-F2
PCL-R two-factor model
Interpersonal–affective	.054	.087
Antisocial–impulsive	.098	.275*
PCL-R four-factor model
Interpersonal	.176	.228
Affective	.073	.013
Lifestyle	.040	.230
Antisocial	.111	.276*

Note. PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist–Revised; LSRP = Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale.

p < .05.

Correlations Between Psychopathy (PCL-R Scores) and PA and NA

The correlations between PCL-R scores and PA and NA are presented in Table 4. Results showed no significant correlations between PCL-R scores and PA and NA.

Table 4.

Correlations Between Affection (PA and NA) and Psychopathy Scores (Total PCL-R and Subscales; N = 63).

PA/NA (PANAS)	Interpersonal–affective	Antisocial–impulsive	PCL-R (total)
Interested	−.066	−.094	−.044
Excited	.078	.168	.152
Pleasantly surprised	.028	−.072	−.036
Warmful	.041	−.091	.052
Enthusiastic	.010	−.037	−.066
Proud	−.236	−.085	−.189
Enchanted	.019	.097	−.007
Inspired	.151	.158	.152
Determined	.154	.076	.126
Active	−.175	−.229	−.245
PA (total)	.044	.060	.027
Disturbed	.141	.115	.052
Tormented	.168	.120	.104
Guilty	−.258*	−.078	−.145
Scared	.106	.052	.105
Repulsion	−.119	−.85	−.139
Annoyed	−.124	.025	−.093
Remorse	.094	.104	.119
Nervous	.041	.200	.077
Tremulous	−.046	−.043	−.104
Frightened	−.020	−.046	−.032
NA (total)	.017	.094	.016

Note. PA = positive affection; NA = negative affection; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Scale; PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist–Revised.

p < .05.

However, a negative statistically significant correlation was found between PCL-R interpersonal–affective factor and the emotion “guilty,” r = −.258, p = .041. Thus, women scoring higher on PCL-R interpersonal–affective factor tend to show lower scores on “guilty” emotion.

Correlations between the PCL-R four-factor model and PA and NA were also analyzed and are presented in Table 5. Results showed no correlations between PCL-R facets and PA and NA. Nonetheless, a significant negative correlation was found between the PCL-R affective facet and the emotion “proud” (r = −.301, p = .016), as well as between the PCL-R antisocial facet and the emotion “active” and (r = −.330, p = .008). Thus, women scoring higher on affective facet tend to reveal lower scores on “proud” emotion and women who had higher scores on PCL-R antisocial facet scored lower on “active” emotion. There was also a significant positive correlation between the PCL-R antisocial facet and the emotion “excited,” r = .264, p = .036. Therefore, women with high scores in antisocial facet were more likely to report higher scores on the emotion “excited.”

Table 5.

Correlations Between the Scale of Affection (PA and NA) and the Four Psychopathy Facets (N = 63).

PA/NA (PANAS)	Interpersonal	Affective	Lifestyle	Antisocial
Interested	.040	−.044	−.128	.025
Excited	.112	.072	.80	.264*
Pleasantly surprised	.041	−.036	−.066	−.061
Warmful	.063	.019	.061	.035
Enthusiastic	.057	−.043	−.119	.063
Proud	−.069	−.301*	−.085	−.017
Enchanted	−.015	−.025	.077	.094
Inspired	.091	.058	.117	.178
Determined	.157	.118	.046	.002
Active	−.059	−.190	−.206	−.330**
PA (total)	.135	−.049	.002	.098
Disturbed	.012	.192	.017	.047
Tormented	.080	.192	−.003	.189
Guilty	−.170	−.186	−.122	.068
Scared	−.117	.164	.021	.153
Repulsion	−.164	−.093	−.062	−.028
Annoyed	−.136	−.123	−.017	.111
Remorse	.19	.166	−.006	.139
Nervous	−.016	.001	.197	.136
Tremulous	−.058	−.037	−.141	.069
Frightened	−.129	64	−.135	.094
NA (total)	−.70	.074	.001	.151

Note. PA = positive affection; NA = negative affection; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Scale.

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

Correlations Between Primary and Secondary Psychopathy and PA and NA

The correlations between primary and secondary psychopathy and PA and NA are shown in Table 6. Results revealed a positive significant correlation between primary psychopathy and PA, r = .346, p = .005, and between secondary psychopathy and NA, r = .581, p = .000. Moreover, significant positive correlations were found between primary psychopathy and the positive emotions “excited” (r = .496, p = .000) and “proud” (r = .257, p = .042) and between secondary psychopathy and the emotion “excited” (r = .363, p = .003). Thus, women who scored higher on primary psychopathy had high scores on the emotions “proud” and “excited”; those who reveal higher on secondary psychopathy tend to present higher scores on the emotion “excited.”

Table 6.

Correlations Between the Scale of Affection (PA and NA) and the Psychopathy Factors F1 (Primary Psychopathy) and F2 (Secondary Psychopathy; N = 63).

PA/NA (PANAS)	Primary psychopathy (LSRP)	Secondary psychopathy (LSRP)
Interested	−.056	−.003
Excited	.496**	.363**
Pleasantly surprised	.219	.147
Warmful	−.012	.202
Enthusiastic	.148	.139
Proud	.257*	.141
Enchanted	.241	−.007
Inspired	.209	−.018
Determined	.179	.129
Active	−.016	−.203
PA (total)	.346**	.168
Disturbed	−.006	.351**
Tormented	.265*	.456**
Guilty	.139	.321*
Scared	.048	.155
Repulsion	.338**	.488**
Annoyed	.253*	.594*
Remorse	.184	.310*
Nervous	.158	.550**
Tremulous	.216	.446**
Frightened	−.015	.130
NA (total)	.247	.581*

Note. PA = positive affection; NA = negative affection; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Scale; LSRP = Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale.

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

Moreover, primary psychopathy revealed statistically significant positive relations with the negative emotions “tormented” (r = .265, p = .036), “repulsion” (r = .338, p = .007), and “annoyed” (r = .253, p = .046). Hence, women who scored higher on primary psychopathy tend to disclose higher scores on the negative emotions “tormented,” “repulsion,” and “annoyed.” Secondary psychopathy seems to be strongly related to the dominance of negative emotions.

Discussion

The present study intended to analyze positive and negative emotions experienced by female offenders, as well as to understand its correlation with psychopathic traits. It was designed to extend previous research on the relationship between emotions and psychopathy in female prisoners.

The results of this study point out to low levels of psychopathic traits among female offenders. These results are in accordance with previous literature that concluded that, in general, women tend to reveal lower psychopathy scores than men (Coid et al., 2009; Salekin et al., 1997; Vitale et al., 2002; Vitale & Newman, 2001; Weizmann-Henelius et al., 2004) and that the prevalence of psychopathy among incarcerated women is much lower than among imprisoned men (Vitale & Newman, 2001). However, it should be noted that the prevalence of female offenders with psychopathic traits in our sample is even lower than what has previously been reported in research with incarcerated women—in our sample, none of the women scored above 30 on the PCL-R (e.g., Jackson et al., 2002; Verona & Vitale, 2018), which may reflect some cultural specificities. In fact, Cooke and Michie (1999) suggested that some cultural processes, such as differences in the criminal justice system or differences in the cultural norms regarding talking about one’s abilities, may inhibit or suppress the expression of psychopathic traits and, therefore, PCL-R scores are not equivalent across cultures (Cooke et al., 2005). Even so, this result is not completely surprising because other researchers were also unable to use the traditional cutoff scores of the PCL-R because none of their participants scored above 30 (Rutherford et al., 1996). Our results seem to support the hypothesis that there may be differences in the number of men and women classified as psychopathic using the traditional PCL-R cut score of 30 (Vitale & Newman, 2001). This may be due to differences in the way males and females express psychopathic traits (Hare, 1991). Factors, such as gender-role socialization and biological sex differences might result in differential expressions of psychopathy among men and women (e.g., Logan, 2004). Thus, it should be discussed whether measures that evaluate psychopathy should change when it comes to female participants (Nicholls & Petrila, 2005). It is possible that PCL-R does not identify characteristics essential for psychopathy in women, and may fail to classify certain women with psychopathy disorders (Vitale & Newman, 2001).

The results from the current study also highlighted that women revealed scores above average on primary (LSRP-F1) and secondary (LSRP-F2) psychopathy (Levenson et al., 1995). Such tendency was, however, expected due to the inmates’ low scores on PCL-R, the characteristics of our sample (i.e., forensic) and the nonforensic nature of LSRP. On one hand, if LSRP and PCL-R evaluate the same construct (i.e., psychopathy), it is expected that the individuals’ scores follow the same pattern. On the other hand, because LSRP was primarily developed to nonforensic populations, institutionalized individuals might interpret the questions in a quite different manner than noninstitutionalized ones, and forensic and nonforensic individuals may also differ with respect to their psychopathic characteristics (e.g., Snowden & Gray, 2011). Results also revealed that there are no correlations between LSRP-F1 and PCL-R’s interpersonal–affective factor. This result is, however, in accordance with previous studies revealing that LSRP-F1 demonstrates stronger associations with measures of secondary psychopathy (e.g., impulsive, antisocial aspects) than with measures of primary psychopathy (Lilienfeld & Fowler, 2006).

In the present study, there were no significant associations between PA and NA and psychopathic traits. This absence of results may be related either to the nature of the instrument used to assess affection (i.e., self-report) or to the low variation of PCL-R scores, that is, PCL-R scores are generally low and only a small percentage of women present psychopathic traits. Nonetheless, women scoring higher on interpersonal–affective factor tended to show less guilt, which is congruent with the definition of psychopath—an individual who shows absence of remorse, guilt, or empathy (Hare, 1993). On the other hand, it was also possible to identify negative correlations between the affective facet and the emotion “proud,” as well as between the antisocial facet and the emotion “active.” Again, these results may be supported by the emotional processing deficits exhibited by individuals with psychopathic traits (e.g., Del Gaizo & Falkenbach, 2008; Skeem et al., 2007; Widiger, 2006). Pride is conceptualized as a self-conscious emotion that signals the accomplishment of a valued task to other members of a group (e.g., Tracy & Robins, 2007). Recent studies revealed that prideful psychopaths who are successful leaders may strike an effective balance of bold interpersonal impact and intermittent prosocial behavior (Costello et al., 2018). Psychopathic individuals imbued with pride may wish to maintain a conception of themselves as good and competent people. Because pride is considered a potential protective factor among individuals predisposed to psychopathy (Costello et al., 2018), antisocial individuals with affective deficits (i.e., lack of empathy, guilt, or remorse) and, as a consequence, more self-oriented, might be less prone to experience pride (as well as guilt—a moral emotion). Moreover, in the present study, secondary psychopathy was positively correlated with NA; women with higher levels of secondary psychopathy tended to experience more negative affect. Thus, secondary psychopaths probably tend to express and experience more negative emotions, such as “annoyed,” “repulse,” and “nervous.” It should also be noted that, the total of PA and the emotions “excited” and “proud” were positively related to primary psychopathy, which is not a surprising result, as primary psychopaths act intentionally to maximize their gains and excitement (Skeem et al., 2003). Positive associations were also found between the negative emotions “tormented,” “repulse,” “annoyed,” and primary psychopathy, but this result was an unexpected result once primary psychopaths are intelligent and confident individuals, with strong social abilities and low levels of anxiety (e.g., Lee & Salekin, 2010; Sandvick et al., 2015; Swogger & Kosson, 2007; Vassileva et al., 2005; Widiger, 2006). However, these emotions may be related to the damaging effect of being incarcerated and the adaptation to the prison context, because we are referring to maladaptive prisoners, with a lifestyle “focused inside the prison” (Butler & Kariminia, 2006; Zamble, 1992).

Results from this study, as other research, highlight the need for a prevention strategy that allows an early identification of individuals with psychopathic traits (Coid & Yang, 2011), allowing a targeted and efficient intervention, instead of focusing only on a punitive approach. In fact, adult psychopaths may be more difficult to treat, or at least require more resources to treat and larger treatment doses to achieve sufficient changes in violent behavior. The majority of studies of violence have examined psychopathy as a moderator of violent outcomes in convicted offender populations. These studies depict a generally consistent pattern, suggesting that psychopathy moderates treatment outcomes predicting treatment dropout and violent recidivism with sexual and/or general violence. Many theorists assume that poor processing of emotions, a crucial process during early development, is the major deficit in psychopathy that disrupts “normal” socialization (Blair, 2003). Evidence of empirical evidence suggests the same psychopathic characteristics in children and adolescents, namely, manifestations of insensitive traits and lack of emotion (Frick, 2007), reflecting deficits in empathy and affective processing (Blair, 2006). Thus, it becomes important to know the emotional process in psychopathy in a deeper way, identifying precursors of early psychopathic traits, where intervention and prevention can be implemented more effectively.

Despite the contributions of the present study, some limitations should be considered when interpreting the results. First, our sample size was small and nonrepresentative and, as a consequence, presents a reduced statistical strength, which may justify the absence of significant results in some aspects. As a matter of fact, the statistic tests that were used represent a statistical strength lower than 80%. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that the present study does not have the pretension of generalizing results, as the female prisoners who participated in it are all from the same prison facility, and that raises obstacles to what concerns results’ generalization and representativeness of the phenomenon. A larger and a more representative sample is recommended to allow a better understanding of the constructs under research.

Second, some variables, such as affection and psychopathy, were assessed through self-report measures. Although the self-report measures are practical and allow a rapid assessment without the appraiser’s judgment, it presents some disadvantages, especially in the psychopathic (Lilienfeld & Fowler, 2006) and forensic populations. Self-report questionnaires might be affected by social desirability, insincerity, and dissimulation in which psychopaths are eximious (Hare et al., 1989). Psychopaths are notorious for their deceitfulness, and it is conceivable that impression management biases may undermine the veracity of the responses they give. Lilienfeld and Fowler (2006) also stressed that psychopaths often lack insight about their own personal and psychological problems, and in addition, exhibit a “semantic aphasia”; that is, “it may be inherently problematic to ask individuals who have never experienced an emotion (or who have experienced only weak variants of this emotion) to report on its absence” (p. 110). If the psychopath is not able to feel emotions, he might not be able to self-report accurately the interpersonal components of psychopathy (Snowden & Gray, 2011). These issues may help us better understand the absence of significant associations between affection and psychopathic traits. Because psychopaths are less sensitive to emotional expression and base themselves on the literal meaning of words (e.g., Kosson et al., 2002; Levenston et al., 2000; Lorenz & Newman, 2002; Vitale, 2011), they may have difficulties or may even be unable to interpret PANAS items. Some studies found that psychopaths are unable to feel emotions and demonstrate particular difficulty in recognizing feelings of fear, guilt, or anxiety (Costello et al., 2018; Gillespie et al., 2015) that might be associated with a delayed processing and emotional reactivity to unpleasant stimuli and threats (e.g., Lorenz & Newman, 2002). Therefore, in future investigations, it is essential to assess whether this population is effectively unable of processing/identifying emotions or experience a delay in emotional processing (e.g., slow response). Not having a deep understanding of their emotions suggests that psychopaths can experience only pseudo-emotions (Steuerwald & Kosson, 2000), endangering a reliable assessment to actual emotions/affections. As a future recommendation, due to the subjectivity of PANAS and the incapacity to have real access to the emotions experienced by this population using a self-report questionnaire, it would be useful to substitute that questionnaire by a semistructured interview.

In sum, there is a consensus that abnormalities in the processing of emotions are characteristic of the psychopathic man. However, less is known about the emotional processing characteristics of female psychopaths. Thus, the results of this study are relevant as they help to determine in more detail the positive/negative affect associated with primary and secondary psychopathy in psychopathic women, the motivation associated with the identification of the experienced affections, using evaluation instruments adjusted for this population (e.g., avoiding self-report instruments, choosing an instrument that evaluates psychopathy in women more reliably).

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This study was carried out at the University of Minho (EPSI/2015) in the scope of the master’s dissertation on psychology, under the guidance of the counselor.

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.

ORCID iDs

Marina Pinheiro

Olga Cunha

References

Baskin-Sommers

Wallace

MacCoon

Curtins

Newmn

(2010). Clarifying the factors that undermine behavioral inhibition system functioning in psychopathy. Personality Disorder, 1(4), 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018950

Blair

R. R.

(2003). Neurobiological basis of psychopathy. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 182, 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.182.1.5

Blair

R. R.

(2006). Subcortical brain systems in psychopathy: The amygdala and associated structures. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 296–312). Guilford Press.

Butler

Kariminia

(2006). Prison violence: Perspectives and epidemiology. New South Wales Public Health Bulletin, 17(1–2), 17–20.

Cleckley

(1976). The mask of sanity (5th ed.). Mosby. (Original work published 1941)

Coelho

Paixão

Silva

(2010). O Levenson’s Self Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP). Psychologica, 53, 413–421. https://doi.org/10.14195/1647-8606_53_20

Coid

Yang

(2011). The impact of psychopathy on violence among the household population of Great Britain. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 46, 473–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-010-0212-4

Coid

Yang

Ullrich

Amand

Moran

Bebbington

Brugha

Jenkins

Michael

Lewis

Singleton

Hare

(2009). Psychopathy among prisoners in England and Wales. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32(3), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.02.008

Cooke

D. J.

Michie

(1999). Psychopathy across cultures: North America and Scotland compared. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.108.1.58

10.

Cooke

D. J.

Michie

Hart

S. D.

Clark

(2005). Assessing psychopathy in the UK: Concerns about cross-cultural generalisability. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 186, 335–341. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.186.4.335

11.

Costello

T. H.

Unterberger

Watts

A. L.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(2018). Psychopathy and pride: Testing Lykken’s hypothesis regarding the implications of fearlessness for prosocial and antisocial behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 185. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00185

12.

Dawel

O’Kearney

McKone

Palermo

(2012). Not just fear and sadness: Meta-analytic evidence of pervasive emotion recognition deficits for facial and vocal expressions in psychopathy. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(10), 2288–2304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.08.006

13.

Del Gaizo

A. L.

Falkenbach

D. M

. (2008). Primary and secondary psychopathic-traits and their relationship to perception and experience of emotion. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.019

14.

de Vogel

. (2014). Gender issues in the assessment of psychopathy: Results from a multicenter study. De Forensische Zorgspecialisten. Retrieved from https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/9697a1df/MOBILE/pdf/iafmhs+2014+de+vogel+gender+issues+psychopathy.pdf

15.

de Vogel

Lancel

. (2016). Gender differences in the assessment and manifestation of psychopathy: Results from a multicenter study in forensic psychiatry. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 15, 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2016.1138173

16.

Field

(2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Sage.

17.

Flor

Birbaumer

Hermann

Ziegler

Patrick

(2002). Aversive Pavlovian conditioning in psychopaths: Peripheral and central correlates. Psychophysiology, 39, 505–518. https://doi.org/10.1017.S0048577202394046

18.

Forouzan

Cooke

(2005). Figuring out la femme fatale: Conceptual and assessment issues concerning psychopathy in females. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 765–778. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.669

19.

Fowles

D. C.

Dindo

(2006). A dual-deficit model of psychopathy. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 14–34). Guilford Press.

20.

Frick

P. J.

(2007). Using the construct of psychopathy to understand antisocial and violent youth. In Herve

Yuille

J. C.

(Eds.), The psychopath: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 343–367). Lawrence Erlbaum.

21.

Galinha

Pais-Ribeiro

(2005). Contribuição para o estudo da versão portuguesa da Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): I—Abordagem teórica ao conceito de afecto [Contribution to the study of the Portuguese version of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): I—Theoretical approach to the concept]. Análise Psicológica, 2(XXIII), 209–218.

22.

Gawda

(2013). The emotional lexicon of individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 42, 571–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-012-9237-z

23.

Gillespie

S. M.

Mitchell

I. J.

Satherley

R. M.

Beech

A. R.

Rotshtein

(2015). Relations of distinct psychopathic personality traits with anxiety and fear: Findings from offenders and non-offenders. PLOS ONE, 10(11), e0143120. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143120

24.

Gonçalves

R. A.

(1999). Psicopatia e processos adaptativos à prisão: da intervenção para a prevenção [Psychopathy and adaptive processes to prison: From intervention to prevention]. Centro de Estudos de Educação e Psicologia, Universidade do Minho.

25.

Grann

(2000). The PCL–R and gender. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 16, 147–149. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.16.3.147

26.

Gray

(1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 8(3), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(70)90069-0

27.

Gray

(1987). The neuropsychology of emotion and personality. In Stahl

S. M.

Iverson

S. D.

Goodman

E. C.

(Eds.), Cognitive neurochemistry (pp. 171–190). Oxford University Press.

28.

Hare

R. D.

(1991). The Revised Psychopathy Checklist. Multi-Health Systems.

29.

Hare

R. D.

(1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. Pocket Books.

30.

Hare

R. D.

(1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854896023001004

31.

Hare

R. D.

(2003). Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (2nd ed.). Multi-Health Systems.

32.

Hare

R. D.

Forth

A. E.

Hart

S. D.

(1989). The psychopath as prototype for pathological lying and deception. In Yuille

J. C.

(Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 25–49). Kluwer Academic.

33.

Hare

R. D.

Neumann

C. S.

(2005). Structural models of psychopathy. Current Psychiatry Reports, 7(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-005-0026-3

34.

Hicks

Markon

Patrick

Krueger

Newman

(2004). Identifying psychopathy subtypes on the basis of personality structure. Psychological Assessment, 16, 276–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.276

35.

Hicks

Vaidyanathan

Patrick

(2010). Validating female psychopathy subtypes: Differences in personality, antisocial and violent behavior, substance abuse, trauma, and mental health. Personality Disorder, 1(1), 38–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018135

36.

Jackson

Rogers

Neumann

Lambert

(2002). Psychopathy in female offenders: An investigation of its underlying dimensions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(6), 692–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/009385402237922

37.

Karpman

(1941). On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types: The symptomatic and the idiopathic. Journal of Criminal Psychopathology, 3, 112–137.

38.

Kelly

J. R.

Barsade

S. G.

(2001). Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 99–130. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2974

39.

Kosson

Suchy

Mayer

Libby

(2002). Facial affect recognition in criminal psychopaths. Emotion, 2(4), 398–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.2.4.398

40.

Kreis

M. K. F.

Cooke

D. J.

(2011). Capturing the psychopathic female: A prototypicality analysis of the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP) across gender. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 634–648. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.1003

41.

Krueger

Caspi

Moffitt

(2000). Epidemiological personology: The unifying role of personality in population-based research on problem behaviors. Journal of Personality, 68, 967–998. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00123

42.

Lee

Salekin

(2010). Psychopathy in a noninstitutional sample: Differences in primary and secondary subtypes. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1(3), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019269

43.

Levenson

M. R.

Kiehl

K. A.

Fitzpatrick

C. M.

(1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.151

44.

Levenston

Patrick

Bradley

Lang

(2000). The psychopath as observer: Emotion and attention in picture processing. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109(3), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.109.3.373

45.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Fowler

K. A.

(2006). The self-report assessment of psychopathy. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 107–132). Guilford Press.

46.

Logan

G. D.

(2004). Working memory, task switching, and executive control in the task span procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 218–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.218

47.

Lorenz

A. R.

Newman

J. P.

(2002). Deficient response modulation and emotion processing in low-anxious Caucasian psychopathic offenders: Results from a lexical decision task. Emotion, 2, 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.2.2.91

48.

Lykken

(1957). A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047232

49.

Lykken

(1995). The antisocial personalities. Lawrence Erlbaum.

50.

Neumann

C. S.

Hare

R. D.

Newman

J. P.

(2007). The super-ordinate nature of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 102–117. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2007.21.2.102

51.

Newman

J. P.

MacCoon

D. G.

Vaughn

Sadeh

(2005). Validating a distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy with measures of Gray’s BIS and BAS constructs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 319–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.114.2.319

52.

Nicholls

T. L.

Petrila

(2005). Gender and psychopathy: An overview of important issues and introduction to the special issue. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23(6), 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.677

53.

Pathak

Bhatia

Sriniwas

Batra

(2011). Emotions and mood. Delhi Psychiatry Journal, 14, 220–228.

54.

Patrick

(2007). Getting to the heart of psychopathy. In Hervé

H. F.

Yuikke

J. C.

(Eds.), Psychopathy: Theory, research, and social implications (pp. 207–252). Lawrence Erlbaum.

55.

Patrick

Cuthbert

Lang

(1994). Emotion in the criminal psychopath: Fear image processing. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-843X.103.3.523

56.

Pio Abreu

J. L

. (2013). Afectos, emoções e conceitos aparentados [Affect, emotion and similar concepts]. Psilogos, 11(1), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.25752/psi.3325

57.

Poythress

N. G.

Skeem

J. L.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(2006). Associations among early abuse, dissociation, and psychopathy in an offender sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 288–297. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.115.2.288

58.

Poythress

N. G.

Skeem

J. L.

Weir

Lilienfeld

Douglas

Edens

Kennealy

(2008). Psychometric properties of Carver and White’s (1994) BIS/BAS scales in a large sample of offenders. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(8), 732–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.07.021

59.

Quinsey

(2002). Evolutionary theory and criminal behavior. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 7, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532502168324

60.

Rutherford

M. J.

Cacciola

J. S.

Alterman

A. L.

Mackay

J. R.

(1996). Reliability and validity of the Revised Psychopathy Checklist in women methadone patients. Assessment, 3, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/107319119600300206

61.

Salekin

Rogers

Sewell

(1997). Construct validity of psychopathy in a female offender sample: A multitrait-multimethod evaluation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(4), 576–585. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-843X.106.4.576

62.

Sandvick

Hansen

Hystad

Johnsen

Bartone

(2015). Psychopathy, anxiety, and resiliency—Psychological hardiness as a mediator of the psychopathy–anxiety relationship in a prison setting. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 30–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.009

63.

Shevlin

Dorahy

Adamson

Murphy

(2007). Subtypes of borderline personality disorder, associated clinical disorders and stressful life-events: A latent class analysis based on the British Psychiatric Morbidity Survey. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466506X150291

64.

Shouse

(2005). Feeling, emotion, affect. M/C Journal, 8(6). Retrieved from http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0512/03-shouse.php

65.

Skeem

Johansson

Andershed

Kerr

Louden

(2007). Two subtypes of psychopathic violent offenders that parallel primary and secondary variants. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 395–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.2.395

66.

Skeem

Poythress

Edens

Lilienfeld

Cale

(2003). Psychopathic personality or personalities? Exploring potential variants of psychopathy and their implications for risk assessment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 513–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00098-8

67.

Smith

Edens

Clark

Rulseh

(2014). “So, what is a psychopath?” Venireperson perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes about psychopathic personality. Law and Human Behavior, 38(5), 490–500. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000091

68.

Snowden

R. J.

Gray

N. S.

(2011). Impulsivity and psychopathy: Associations between the Barrett Impulsivity Scale and the Psychopathy Checklist revised. Psychiatry Research, 187, 414–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2011.02.003

69.

Steuerwald

B. L.

Kosson

D. S.

(2000). Emotional experiences of the psychopath. In Gacono

C. B.

(Ed.), The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 111–135). Lawrence Erlbaum.

70.

Streiner

D. L.

(2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18

71.

Sutton

Vitale

Newman

(2002). Emotion among women with psychopathy during picture perception. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(4), 610–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.111.4.610

72.

Swogger

M. T.

Kosson

D. S.

(2007). Identifying subtypes of criminal psychopaths: A replication and extension. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 953–970. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807300758

73.

Tracy

J. L.

Robins

R. W.

(2007). The self in self-conscious emotions: A cognitive appraisal approach. In Tracy

J. L.

Robins

R. W.

Tangney

J. P.

(Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research (pp. 3–20). Guilford Press.

74.

Uzieblo

Verschuere

Crombez

(2007). The Psychopathic Personality Inventory: Construct validity of the two-factor structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 657–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.008

75.

Vassileva

Kosson

D. S.

Abramowitz

Conrod

(2005). Psychopathy versus psychopathies in classifying criminal offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532504X15376

76.

Verona

Patrick

Curtin

Bradley

Lang

(2004). Psychopathy and physiological response to emotionally evocative sounds. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 99–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.113.1.99

77.

Verona

Vitale

(2018). Psychopathy in women: Assessment, manifestations, and etiology. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 509–528). Guilford Press.

78.

Vitale

E. J.

(2011). Emotion facilitation and passive avoidance learning in psychopathic female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(7), 641–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811403590

79.

Vitale

E. J.

Brinkley

Hiatt

Newman

(2007). Abnormal selective attention in psychopathic female offenders. Neuropsychology, 21(3), 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.21.3.301

80.

Vitale

E. J.

Newman

(2001). Using the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised with female samples: Reliability, validity, and implications for clinical utility. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 8, 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/8.1.117

81.

Vitale

E. J.

Smith

Brinkley

Newman

(2002). The reliability and validity of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised in a sample of female offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 202–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854802029002005

82.

Wallace

J. F.

Malterer

M. B.

Newman

J. P.

(2009). Mapping Gray’s BIS and BAS constructs onto factor 1 and factor 2 of Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 812–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.019

83.

Watson

Clark

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063

84.

Weizmann-Henelius

Viemerö

Eronen

(2004). Psychopathy in violent female offenders in Finland. Psychopathology, 37, 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1159/000080716

85.

Widiger

T. A.

(2006). Psychopathy and DSM-IV psychopathology. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 156–171). Guilford Press.

86.

Zamble

(1992). Behavior and adaptation in long-term prison inmates: Descriptive longitudinal results. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19, 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854892019004005