آیا اختلالات فکری و روانی روابط متفاوت با اجزای شبکه ی قانونی آن بسته به جنسیت را آشکار می کند؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|34350||2011||6 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4747 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 50, Issue 5, April 2011, Pages 564–569
Despite a great deal of empirical research on psychopathy there are fewer data on psychopathy in female samples, especially non-institutionalized samples, and it is unclear whether psychopathy manifests in similar ways across gender. In a large undergraduate sample, we explored psychopathy in relation to gender in a two-fold manner. First, we examined whether there were significant gender differences in self-report psychopathy scores; there were (men scored higher). Second, we tested whether psychopathy’s relations with important constructs from its nomological network differ depending on gender. Psychopathy largely manifested a pattern of relations that did not vary across gender, with a few important exceptions (e.g., traits related to impulsivity and Openness). Ultimately, these results suggest that, despite mean-level differences between men and women, psychopathy operates in a relatively consistent manner across gender.
Substantial progress has been made in the research of psychopathy, which is a personality disorder characterized by traits such as egocentricity, callousness, manipulativeness, and impulsivity. The majority of this research has been conducted on samples of male offenders (e.g., Kosson, Cyterski, Steuerwald, Neumann, & Walker-Matthews, 2002). As a result, less is known about the construct of psychopathy in females. More recently, attempts have been made to rectify this by studying psychopathy in female only samples (Vitale and Newman, 2001a and Vitale and Newman, 2001b). Although these studies have resulted in important advances, it is unclear whether resultant differences are due to substantive differences in how psychopathy is manifested across gender or differences in the samples from which the results were derived. Ideally, studies would examine potential gender differences in samples comprising both males and females – a strategy that has been used increasingly over the past decade (e.g., Epstein et al., 2006 and Schmidt et al., 2006). Additionally, many of the findings from relevant studies, discussed in detail below, underscore the importance of examining the components of psychopathy separately in relation to men and women, as differential relations may emerge. Factor 1 psychopathy is typically conceived of as the traits associated with the interpersonal (e.g., glib-charming) and affective (e.g., callousness) aspects of psychopathy. Factor 2 psychopathy is typically conceived of as the traits (e.g., impulsivity) and behaviors associated with a chronically antisocial lifestyle. These factors are derived from factor analyses of the Psychopathy Checklist and its revision (PCL/PCL-R; Hare, 1980 and Hare, 2003), which have been influential in the development of self-report measures with similar factor structures such as the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-III; Williams, Paulhus, & Hare, 2007). Failure to examine relations between psychopathy and important criteria at the factor level may mask important gender differences. Although it is impossible to state definitively, the majority of research suggests that males manifest higher mean levels of psychopathy than women (e.g., Lilienfeld and Hess, 2001 and Rutherford et al., 1996; cf., Stafford & Cornell, 2003). This is to be expected as males have higher rates of most externalizing forms of psychopathology (e.g., Seedat et al., 2009) and score lower on the trait of Agreeableness (see Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001), which is a core trait of psychopathy (Lynam & Derefinko, 2006). Beyond mean-level differences, other research has begun to explore whether the nomological network surrounding psychopathy differs across gender. In Verona and Vitale’s (2006) review of the literature, they suggest that the personality correlates of psychopathy are similar across gender, but that there may be somewhat different behavioral correlates such that psychopathy may not be as powerful a predictor of antisocial behavior and recidivism among females compared to males. Alternatively, psychopathy may be more strongly associated with internalizing forms of psychopathology and related behaviors such as suicide among women (Sevecke, Lehmkuhl, & Krischer, 2009), although this finding has not always replicated (Hemphala & Tengstrom, 2010). Despite these possible differences, Verona and Vitale suggest that “patterns of comorbidity associated with psychopathy, per se, in women appear similar to those for men” (p. 423). In addition, emerging evidence suggests that there may be gender differences in etiological factors surrounding psychopathy’s nomological network. For instance, in a sample of women, traumatic childhood experiences such as sexual abuse are significantly related to externalizing disorders such as alcohol dependence (e.g., Kendler et al., 2000) and may be more strongly linked to antisociality in women than men (e.g., McClellan, Farabee, & Crouch, 1997; cf., Krischer & Sevecke, 2008). Other studies have found that childhood physical and sexual abuse is linked to psychopathy, primarily “factor 2,” in both men (Poythress, Skeem, & Lilienfeld, 2006) and women (Verona, Hicks, & Patrick, 2005). In the current study, we addressed several of these issues. First, we examined whether men and women differed in their mean levels of psychopathy. We expected men to score higher on both factor 1 and 2 psychopathy scores. Second, we examined whether the relations between psychopathy and important constructs from its nomological network differed depending on gender. This is important as these issues have not been studied in great detail and because there are some inconsistencies in results across extant studies. We expected that problematic environmental events (e.g., abuse) would be more strongly linked to psychopathy in women than men (McClellan et al., 1997; cf., Krischer & Sevecke, 2008). We also expected psychopathy to be positively related to externalizing behaviors (EBs) across gender, although we expected that the relations would be stronger for men (Schmidt et al., 2006). Finally, we did not expect the pattern of relations between the psychopathy factors and basic personality traits to differ between men and women.