اختلالات فکری و روانی، هوش و سابقه محکومیت

The current study examined the relationship between psychopathy, intelligence and two variables describing the conviction history (length of conviction and number of prior convictions). It was hypothesized that psychopathy factors (interpersonal and antisocial factors assuming a 2-factor model or interpersonal, affective, lifestyle and antisocial factors assuming a 4-factor model) would be related in different ways to IQ scores, length of conviction and number of prior convictions. Psychopathy and IQ were assessed using the PCL:SV and the CFT 20-R respectively. Results indicated no association between interpersonal psychopathy features (Factor 1, two-factor model), IQ and the number of prior convictions but a positive association between Factor 1 and the length of conviction. Antisocial features (Factor 2, two-factor model) were negatively related to IQ and the length of conviction and positively related to the number of prior convictions. Results were further differentiated for the four-factor model of psychopathy. The relationship between IQ and psychopathy features was further assessed by statistically isolating the effects of the two factors of psychopathy. It was found that individuals scoring high on interpersonal features of psychopathy are more intelligent than those scoring high on antisocial features, but less intelligent than those scoring low on both psychopathy features. The results underpin the importance of allocating psychopathic individuals to subgroups on the basis of personality characteristics and criminological features. These subgroups may identify different types of offenders and may be highly valuable for defining treatment needs and risk of future violence.

1.1. Psychopathy and Crime Features Although psychopathic individuals are not necessarily criminal, they are at greater risk for behavioral deviancies (Vitacco, Michael, Neumann, & Wodushek, 2008). The nature of these deviancies seems to depend specifically on the way the psychopathic personality traits are expressed in the individual. For example, interpersonal features of psychopathy—superficial charm and manipulation, lack of empathy and callousness (Cleckley, 1941 and Hervé et al., 2000)—have often been found to be associated with planned and instrumental violence with severe consequences (Blair, Mitchell, & Blair, 2008). Psychopathic individuals seem to use manipulative skills and well-established superficial charm to fulfill their goals and desires (Toole, Smith, & Hare, 2008). According to the two-factor model of psychopathy (Hare, 1991 and Harpur et al., 1989) the phenomena of psychopathy are based upon interpersonal and affective features (Factor 1) and behavioral features (Factor 2). This division was later further refined to give a better fit, resulting in the four-factor model (Hare, 2003) made up of interpersonal, affective, lifestyle and antisocial factors (Factors 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively). Because of the well-planned character of their offences the likelihood of arrest and conviction seems to be low in individuals in whom the first factor of psychopathy is strongly expressed (Lilienfeld et al., 1997 and Porter and Porter, 2007). However, manifestations of psychopathy involving impulsive behavior, antisociality and lack of behavioral control, the second factor according to Hare (1991), have been found to be related to reactive and impulsive violence and to high rates of recidivism and incarceration (Cornell et al., 1996, Huchzermeier et al., 2006 and Skeem et al., 2003). In accordance with these findings, prisoners manifesting impulsive and antisocial behavior seem to significantly outnumber those with interpersonal features of psychopathy in inmate populations (Köhler et al., 2009, Lilienfeld et al., 1997 and Scholz and Schmidt, 2003). The high prevalence of impulsive features may be ascribed to the association with behavioral deviancies and to the high risk of being caught (Köhler et al., 2009 and Scholz and Schmidt, 2003). 1.2. Psychopathy and intelligence Criminal behavior has been shown to be inversely related to intelligence (Rushton and Templer, 2009 and Walsh et al., 2004). This association seems to be highly robust and holds across age, gender and ethnicity (Rushton & Templer, 2009). In particular, more detailed consideration of these results indicates that this relationship holds true for offences resulting from impulsive and reactive behavior but not for highly-planned instrumental offences (Salekin et al., 2004 and Vitacco et al., 2008). It has therefore been suggested that ‘intellectual deficits may be primarily related to impulsivity and not antisocial behavior per se’ (Vitacco et al., 2008). In line with these findings and in accordance with clinical descriptions of psychopathic personality (Cleckley, 1941 and Fowler et al., 2009) individuals with interpersonal psychopathic features should possess high levels of intellectual ability that enable them to thoroughly plan their actions and be especially skilled in engaging in manipulative social interactions. Individuals with behavioral psychopathic personality features, however, should possess characteristics resembling those of prototypical antisocial delinquents who tend to have low intelligence scores and offend impulsively in a non-planned manner. Despite the theoretical consistency of these assumptions examinations of the relationship between psychopathic personality traits and intelligence in incarcerated offenders have so far delivered mixed and sometimes even controversial results: dividing psychopathic personality traits into two factors Harpur et al. (1989) found no significant correlations between the presence of Factor 1 traits and IQ and only a weak negative correlation between the presence of Factor 2 traits and intelligence scores. Forth, Hart, and Hare (1990) did not find any significant relationship between the variables in a later investigation. However Salekin et al. (2004) reported a positive association between interpersonal features of psychopathy and IQ and a negative association between behavioral features of psychopathy and IQ. Studies that assumed a four-factor model to underlie the construct of psychopathy (interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, antisocial features; (Hare, 2003) claimed to deliver more specific results by investigating the construct more closely. Vitacco, Neumann, and Jackson (2005) found positive correlations between IQ and the interpersonal and affective factors and negative correlations between IQ and the lifestyle and antisocial factors. These results were replicated by Neumann and Hare (2007). Further studies hypothesized that the relationship between intelligence and psychopathy might be more complex than a straightforward correlation and tested interaction effects between intelligence and psychopathy. The results, however, were mixed (Walsh et al., 2004). All these studies used incarcerated samples. It has been suggested that the large amount of common variance between the two factors significantly influences the statistical analysis of the relationship between psychopathy and intelligence and that the predictive value of one factor therefore needs to be isolated from that of the other (Andershed, Kerr, & Stattin, 2002).