Generalizability of Psychopathy Network Analysis Findings to Scores Assigned to Individuals Convicted of a Sex Offense

• Author: Marcus T. Boccaccini,Darrel B. Turner,Jonathan Preszler,Gabriele Trupp,David K. Marcus,Jorge G. Varela
• Published date: 01 May 2021
• Date: 01 May 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854821989375
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2021, Vol. 48, No. 5, May 2021, 671 –689.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854821989375

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2021 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

671

GENERALIZABILITY OF PSYCHOPATHY

NETWORK ANALYSIS FINDINGS TO SCORES

ASSIGNED TO INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF A

SEX OFFENSE

GABRIELE TRUPP

Sam Houston State University

JONATHAN PRESZLER

Washington State University

MARCUS T. BOCCACCINI

Sam Houston State University

DAVID K. MARCUS

Washington State University

JORGE G. VARELA

Sam Houston State University

DARREL B. TURNER

Private Practice

Despite being well-researched, the conceptualization of psychopathy incites much debate within the field. Results from

network analysis can inform these debates by graphically and quantitatively depicting the core characteristics of the construct

of psychopathy. Existing network studies with Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL-R) scores suggest the affective traits

are most central to the construct of psychopathy, but more studies are needed. The current study examined network models

developed using data from risk assessments of individuals convicted of a sex offense (N = 615). Findings corroborate some

aspects of previous network studies in that affective features were most central to the construct and antisocial traits were least

central, but there were instances of traits with notably higher centrality (e.g., Pathological Lying, Need for Stimulation, and

Impulsivity) or lower centrality (e.g., Shallow Affect) than in prior research, suggesting that trait centrality may vary depend-

ing on the sample and evaluation context.

Keywords: psychopathy; PCL-R; network analysis; field study; individuals convicted of a sex offense

Although there are various conceptualizations of psychopathy and many measures for

assessing psychopathic traits (see e.g., Drislane et al., 2018; Lilienfeld et al., 2012;

Patrick, 2019; Skeem & Cooke, 2010), forensic practitioners rely extensively on one of

these measures—the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003)—for

assessing psychopathic traits in the field (Boccaccini et al., 2017; Neal & Grisso, 2014;

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gabriele Trupp,

Department of Psychology and Philosophy, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX 77341; e-mail:

gft005@shsu.edu.

989375CJBXXX10.1177/0093854821989375Criminal Justice and BehaviorTrupp et al. / Short Title

research-article2021

672 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Viljoen et al., 2010). The 20-item, clinician-scored PCL-R organizes psychopathic traits

into a two-factor model underpinned by four facets: Affective, Interpersonal, Lifestyle, and

Antisocial (Hare, 2003; see Table 1 for a list of PCL-R items). Although the affective com-

ponent is widely considered to be at the core of psychopathy (Lynam & Miller, 2015;

Verschuere & te Kaat, 2019), the more antisocial and behavioral traits assessed by the

PCL-R (e.g., Poor Behavioral Controls, Early Behavioral Problems, Juvenile Delinquency,

and Revocation of Conditional Release) stir much debate. Some scholars argue that antiso-

cial behaviors are central to the construct of psychopathy based on both psychometric and

developmental psychopathology research (Hare & Neumann, 2010). Others argue that anti-

social behavior is merely a “downstream correlate” of other more important psychopathy

components (Skeem & Cooke, 2010, p. 443). The importance of other components of the

PCL-R, such as impulsivity, has also been questioned due to their lack of universal applica-

tion to all individuals with psychopathic traits (Poythress & Hall, 2011).

Recent research suggests that results from psychopathy network analyses studies may be

useful for informing these debates. These studies allow researchers to identify the traits that

TABLE 1: Descriptive Statistics for PCL-R Facet and Item Scores

PCL-R Score M SD Cronbach’s α

Facet 1: Interpersonal 5.52 1.97 .77

1. Supercial charm 0.78 0.77

2. Grandiose 0.75 0.78

4. Pathological lying 0.93 0.74

5. Manipulative 1.04 0.79

Facet 2: Affective 5.30 1.30 .75

6. Lack of remorse 1.38 0.69

7. Shallow affect 1.00 0.73

8. Lack of empathy 1.17 0.75

16. Failure to accept responsibility 1.43 0.71

Facet 3: Lifestyle 5.57 1.70 .67

3. Need for stimulation 0.90 0.76

9. Parasitic lifestyle 0.61 0.70

13. Lack of long-term goals 0.62 0.70

14. Impulsivity 1.20 0.72

15. Irresponsibility 1.23 0.73

Facet 4: Antisocial 4.54 3.50 .61

10. Poor behavioral controls 1.06 0.82

12. Early behavioral problems 0.73 0.81

18. Juvenile delinquency 0.81 0.87

19. Revocation of release 1.41 0.87

20. Criminal versatility 0.74 0.78

Other

11. Promiscuous sexual behavior 1.56 0.69 —

17. Many short-term marital relationsa0.62 0.75 —

Factor 1 8.84 3.97 .82

Factor 2 9.32 4.27 .74

PCL-R total 19.98 7.34 .83

Note. N = 615 for items on the four facets. N = 614 for Promiscuous Sexual Behavior. PCL-R = Psychopathy

Checklist—Revised.

aItem not included in network models.