A Link between Psychopathy Affect and Instrumentality in Homicide

• Author: Ji Seun Sohn,Adrian Raine,Young-Oh Hong
• Published date: 01 August 2022
• Date: 01 August 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10887679211028879
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/10887679211028879

Homicide Studies

2022, Vol. 26(3) 308 –323

© 2021 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10887679211028879

journals.sagepub.com/home/hsx

Article

A Link between Psychopathy

Affect and Instrumentality in

Homicide

Ji Seun Sohn1, Adrian Raine2,

and Young-Oh Hong3

Abstract

This study tests the hypothesis that psychopathy is more associated with instrumental

homicides than mixed and reactive homicides, and explores relationships between

Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) facet/item scores and different forms of

homicide: instrumental (n = 130), mixed (n = 103), and reactive (n = 219) homicides.

Instrumental homicides scored higher on facet 2 (p < .01) but scored lower on facet

4 (p < .1) compared to reactive homicides, whereas no facet scores differed between

mixed and reactive homicides. Among the items of facet 2 (affective), remorselessness

(item 6), and callousness (item 8) were predictive of instrumental homicide.

Keywords

PCL-R, instrumental/planned homicide, reactive/emotional homicide, mixture of

reactive and instrumental homicide, facet 2 (affective), lack of remorse or guilt (item 6),

callous/lack of empathy (item 8)

The psychopathy construct is a combination of interpersonal (facet 1), affective

(facet 2), lifestyle (facet 3), and antisocial (facet 4) features that have been often

utilized as one of the riskiest predictors for violent behaviors (Hare, 2003). Meta-

analyses have supported the view that psychopathy predicts institutional misbehav-

iors, nonviolent, and violent criminal behaviors as well as general recidivism (e.g.,

Guy et al., 2005; Kennealy et al., 2010; Leistico et al., 2008). A relationship between

1Georgia College & State University, Milledgeville, USA

2University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

3Korean Institute of Criminology and Justice, Seoul, Republic of Korea

Corresponding Author:

Ji Seun Sohn, Department of Government and Sociology, Georgia College & State University, Campus

Box 18, Milledgeville, GA 31061-0490, USA.

Email: jiseun.sohn@gcsu.edu

1028879HSXXXX10.1177/10887679211028879Homicide StudiesSohn et al.

research-article2021

Sohn et al. 309

psychopathy and the instrumental-reactive distinction in violence research has also

received significant attention. While those with higher psychopathy were more

likely to be identified as instrumental offenders than those with lower psychopathy

(e.g., Cornell et al., 1996; Patrick, 2018; Raine, 1993), one meta-analysis questioned

the hypothesis that psychopathy is more related to instrumental compared to reactive

violence (Blais et al., 2014). Additionally, violent youths with high psychopathy

scores did not use significantly more instrumental violence than their counterparts

(Hutton & Woodworth, 2014). Moreover, a clear link between psychopathy and

homicide offending has been a focus of studies (e.g., Fox & DeLisi, 2019; Rodre

et al., 2019), and most of the homicides by psychopathic offenders were instrumen-

tal (Porter et al., 2018). However, no studies have assessed whether psychopathy

facets and items have relationships with instrumental/planned homicide that the cur-

rent study exclusively targeted.

Theories for Instrumental and Reactive Violence

The manifestations of different forms of violence and aggressive behavior vary. The

frustration-aggression hypothesis defines reactive aggression as the result of perceived

threat or frustration (Berkowitz, 1989). A systematic review suggested the attentional

bias theory in that hostile or threat-relevant stimuli (bias) is likely to trigger reactive

aggression (Manning, 2020). Correspondingly, hyperresponsivity to threat was identi-

fied as a risk factor for reactive aggression (Lickley & Sebastian, 2018). Regarding the

amygdala dysfunction hypothesis, while there is a strong link between psychopathy

and instrumental aggression, a link between psychopathy and reactive aggression was

not robust (Reidy et al., 2011). Such brain dysfunction can be central to understanding

the positive relationship between high sensitivity to alleged threats or frustrations and

reactive aggression (Bertsch et al., 2020). In contrast to reactive aggression, which is

perceived as more emotional, social learning theory views proactive aggression as

behavior that anticipates a reward (Bandura, 1973). Dehumanization theory explains

the psychological and social process of impersonalizing victims to impose instrumen-

tal violence (Markowitz & Slovic, 2020; Over, 2020). Thus, we would anticipate that

psychopathic individuals would be more likely to engage in instrumental and preda-

tory homicide relative to reactive homicide.

Comparisons between instrumental/proactive and emotion-laden/reactive violence

have been also reported. Violent offenders who were psychopathic used more instru-

mental violence without emotional arousal (Cornell et al., 1996), and proactive aggres-

sion was more linked with mothers’ rating of a psychopathic personality (Raine et al.,

2006). Although comparisons between instrumental and reactive violence are of value,

not all manifestations of violence are dichotomous. In one review, studies that catego-

rized proactive-only or reactive-only groups were relatively small, whereas many

studies have found reactive and proactive types of aggression to be more common

(Kempes et al., 2005). Consistently, homicides can be caused by humiliation, frustra-

tion, or rage as socialized emotions (reactive) or by an organized project (instrumen-

tal) (Katz, 1988), and psychopathic traits have been associated with both instrumental