Criminal Histories and Rates of Recidivism Among Two Subtypes of Psychopathic Individuals

• Author: Shelby S. Weaver,Monika Dargis,Kent A. Kiehl,Michael Koenigs
• Date: 01 April 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/00938548211033329
• Published date: 01 April 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2022, Vol. 49, No. 4, April 2022, 471 –491.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211033329

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2021 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

471

CRIMINAL HISTORIES AND RATES OF

RECIDIVISM AMONG TWO SUBTYPES OF

PSYCHOPATHIC INDIVIDUALS

SHELBY S. WEAVER

MONIKA DARGIS

University of Wisconsin–Madison

KENT A. KIEHL

The Mind Research Network

The University of New Mexico

MICHAEL KOENIGS

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Although it is well established that individuals with psychopathic traits are a high-risk group for criminal recidivism, there

is considerable evidence that psychopathy is a heterogeneous personality disorder comprised of two subtypes who differ on

levels of negative affect (NA). However, few studies have examined differences in criminal histories, and fewer still have

investigated differences in recidivism among subtypes of psychopathy. The current study compared criminal histories and

recidivism rates between psychopathy subtypes differing in NA (high-NA vs. low-NA) within a sample of adult males incar-

cerated in state prisons. The high-NA and low-NA psychopathy subtypes did not differ on histories of total, nonviolent, or

violent crime, and did not differ on rates of total, nonviolent, or violent recidivism. This finding highlights equally high

levels of criminal risk associated with both subtypes of psychopathic individuals. Intervention strategies should be prioritized

for both subgroups to effectively reduce the criminal costs associated with psychopathy.

Keywords: psychopathy; subtypes; recidivism; criminal history; negative affect

INTRODUCTION

Incarceration is a costly system in the United States, with a total of approximately US$43

billion spent annually on state prisons across the country (Henrichson & Delaney, 2012).

Unfortunately, rates of recidivism remain very high, with an estimated 83% of incarcerated

individuals in the United States being rearrested at least once after their release from prison

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Monika Dargis is now affiliated with New York Presbyterian–Weill Cornell Medicine. We

thank the many staff at the Wisconsin Department of Corrections and incarcerated individuals who made this

research possible, and are especially indebted to Warden Michael Meisner, Warden Cathy A. Jess, Warden

Jennifer McDermott, and Dr. Kevin Kallas. This project was supported by the following funding sources:

MH109329 (Jean Decety), AA026290 (Kent Kiehl), MH090169 (David Kosson), and MH114028 (Carla

Harenski). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shelby S. Weaver, Department of

Psychology, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1202 West Johnson St., Madison, WI 53706; e-mail: sweaver3@

wisc.edu

1033329CJBXXX10.1177/00938548211033329Criminal Justice and BehaviorWeaver et al. / Rates of Recidivism in Psychopathic Subtypes

research-article2022

472 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

or jail (Alper et al., 2018). High rates of recidivism have led to research dedicated to under-

standing factors that may influence individuals’ risk for reoffense (Andrews et al., 2006);

however, evidence-based, effective interventions to reduce recidivism are still needed.

Antisocial personality characteristics have consistently been documented as predictors of

recidivism (Andrews et al., 2006). In particular, individuals with high levels of psychopa-

thy, a personality disorder characterized by callous and impulsive antisocial behavior, con-

stitute a particularly high-risk group for recidivism. Individuals high in psychopathy are 3

times more likely to reoffend generally and 4 times more likely to reoffend violently than

nonpsychopathic individuals (Hemphill et al., 1998). In fact, the Psychopathy Checklist–

Revised (PCL-R), the most widely used assessment of psychopathy in forensic settings,

although not a risk assessment tool itself, has become increasingly commonly used in the

assessment of risk (DeMatteo & Edens, 2006). Factor analyses indicate PCL-R can be

divided into two distinct factors of personality traits, one factor capturing Interpersonal and

Affective traits (Factor 1) and the other capturing Lifestyle and Antisocial traits (Factor 2;

Hare et al., 1990). Item response theory (IRT) suggests that the two factors can be divided

into four separate Facets, which correspond to the Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and

Antisocial traits (Hare, 2003).

Although psychopathy is typically understood as a dimensional construct (Edens et al.,

2006; Miller et al., 2001), identifying discrete groups of highly psychopathic individuals may

be informative from a clinical perspective because it has been well documented that there may

be different paths to clinical levels of psychopathy. Importantly, research shows there may be

unique genetic contributions to different facets of psychopathy and subtypes of highly psy-

chopathic individuals (Ireland et al., 2020; Sadeh et al., 2013), which could inform unique

treatment targets. Most studies that have examined subtypes in psychopathy have done so

using a discrete cutoff (e.g., PCL-R score ≥30), rather than continuous PCL-R scores, and

have identified two subtypes of highly psychopathic individuals who differ on levels of nega-

tive affect (NA; Blackburn et al., 2008; Claes et al., 2014; Dargis & Koenigs, 2018a, 2018b;

Gill & Stickle, 2016; Hicks et al., 2004; Kimonis et al., 2012, 2013; Mokros et al., 2015;

Newman et al., 2005; Newman & Schmitt, 1998; Olver et al., 2015; Skeem et al., 2003, 2007;

Tatar et al., 2012). Identifying discrete subgroups of highly psychopathic individuals who dif-

fer on clinically relevant variables (e.g., experience of internalizing vs. externalizing psycho-

pathology) may better inform individualized targets for treatment and intervention (see Dargis

& Koenigs, 2018a, for discussion on primary/secondary subtypes related to NA and anxiety).

These clinical differences, in combination with high rates of recidivism, make it necessary to

focus research and treatment among this high-risk group of highly psychopathic individuals.

Although there are widespread differences in study methodology to derive subtypes, a

two-subtype model has consistently been demonstrated. For example, Mokros et al. (2015)

utilized latent class analysis to differentiate a Manipulative group (high Facet 1) and an

Antisocial group (high Facet 4). Other studies have shown differences in NA among two

clusters of psychopathic individuals when clustered based on personality inventories and

not PCL-R scores (e.g., Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire [MPQ], NEO Five-

Factor Inventory [NEO-FFI]; Claes et al., 2014; Dargis & Koenigs, 2018a, 2018b; Gill &

Stickle, 2016). Hicks and Drislane (2018) summarize a number of studies finding two clus-

ters of psychopathic individuals, and studies finding more than two clusters commonly

describe one with higher levels of anxiety, childhood trauma, and Factor 2 scores, and

another showing higher Factor 1 scores, lower anxiety, and fewer psychiatric concerns. In