A Meta-Analysis Exploring the Relationship Between Psychopathy and Instrumental Versus Reactive Violence
| Author | Elizabeth Solodukhin,Adelle E. Forth,Julie Blais |
| DOI | 10.1177/0093854813519629 |
| Date | 01 July 2014 |
| Published date | 01 July 2014 |
research-article2014
A MetA-AnAlysis exploring the
relAtionship Between psychopAthy And
instruMentAl Versus reActiVe Violence
JULIE BLAIS
Carleton University
ELIzABETH SOLODUkHIN
Carleton University
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
ADELLE E. FORTH
Carleton University
The present meta-analysis explored the relationship between psychopathy and instrumental and reactive violence with a focus
on factor and facet scores. A total of 53 studies (reporting on 55 unique samples, N = 8,753) from both published and unpub-
lished sources were included. Results from random-effects analyses indicated moderate and significant relationships between
psychopathy and both instrumental and reactive violence. There was some evidence that the Interpersonal facet was more
important for instrumental violence, while Factor 2 (social deviance) was more important for reactive violence. The Lifestyle
facet appeared important in explaining both violent outcomes. Effect sizes were significantly smaller for clinical rating scales
compared with informant and self-report scales. Significant between-study variability was partly explained by mean age of
the sample and type of outcome measure. The current findings do not support the conclusion that psychopathy is more related
to instrumental violence as opposed to reactive violence.
Keywords: psychopathy; instrumental violence; reactive violence; meta-analysis
Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by interpersonal, affective, behav-
ioral, and antisocial features. It is estimated that 10% to 15% of the total offender popu-
lation (Hare, 2003) and less than 1% of the general population (Coid, Yang, Ullrich, Roberts,
& Hare, 2009) would meet the criteria for psychopathy. Although psychopaths represent a
small subset of the overall offender population, their impact on the criminal justice system
is exponential; it is estimated that a relatively small number of psychopathic offenders are
responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime (Hare, 2003). Research has also demon-
strated a relationship between psychopathy and violence in both offender (e.g., Asscher
et al., 2011) and non-offender samples (e.g., Walters, 2003a, 2003b).
Authors’ note: We would like to thank Kelly M. Babchishin for providing guidance on the statistical
software and analyses. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Julie Blais, Department
of Psychology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6; e-mail:
julie_blais@carleton.ca.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2014, Vol. 41, No. 7, July, 2014, 797 –821.
DOI: 10.1177/0093854813519629
© 2014 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
797
798 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
Violence can be further classified according to the instrumental versus reactive dimen-
sion. Reactive violence is thought to be marked by an impulsive emotional response to
provocation, while instrumental violence is thought to be predominantly controlled, proac-
tive, and goal oriented (Cornell et al., 1996). A great deal of research has demonstrated that
psychopaths tend to engage in more instrumental violence as opposed to reactive violence
(Cornell et al., 1996; Flight & Forth, 2007; Glenn & Raine, 2009; Vitacco, Neumann, &
Caldwell, 2010; Vitacco, Neumann, Caldwell, Leistico, & Van Rybroek, 2006; Walsh,
Swogger, & kosson, 2009; Williamson, Hare, & Wong, 1987; Woodworth & Porter, 2002).
Despite the prevalence of this finding, no study to date has systematically examined whether
the relationship between psychopathy and instrumental violence is consistent across studies
and across psychopathy facets or whether this relationship is dependent on sample charac-
teristics such as age, ethnicity, or gender.
MeAsuring psychopAthy
The measurement scales created to assess psychopathy can be divided into three broad
categories: clinical rating scales, self-report scales, and informant scales. The Psychopathy
Checklist–Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) and its derivations (i.e., PCL: Youth Version [YV];
Forth, kosson, & Hare, 2003, and PCL: Screening Version [SV]; Hart, Cox, & Hare, 1995)
are classified as clinical rating scales. These scales require raters to integrate information
from interviews, collateral sources, and files to make inferences about traits (Hare, 2003).
Using factor analysis, two factors have been identified within the PCL-R (Hare, 1991, 2003;
Harpur, Hakstian, & Hare, 1988). Factor 1 represents the interpersonal (e.g., manipulative)
and affective (e.g., callousness) components of psychopathy, while Factor 2 describes the
antisocial lifestyle (e.g., early antisocial behavior) and behavioral (e.g., need for stimula-
tion) components of psychopathy. More recently, these two factors have been further
divided into four facets: Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial (Hare, 2003).
Subsequent research has found support for these four facets as a means of more thoroughly
capturing the nature of psychopathy in a variety of forensic, clinical, and community popu-
lations (e.g., Babiak, Neumann, & Hare, 2010; kosson et al., 2013; Neumann, kosson,
Forth, & Hare, 2006; Neumann, kosson, & Salekin, 2007).
Additional research has been conducted in an attempt to identify possible alternate factor
structures for psychopathy. Cooke and Michie (2001) have studied the validity of a three-
factor model: arrogant and deceitful interpersonal style, deficient affective experience, and
impulsive and irresponsible behavioral style. Weaver, Meyer, Van Nort, and Tristan (2006)
conducted an examination of the original two-factor model (Harpur et al., 1988) as well as
the three-factor model proposed by Cooke and Michie (2001), and the four-facet model
proposed by Hare (2003). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the best fit to the data
(sample of 1,566 male sex offenders) was represented by the three-factor model; the four-
facet model was also found to be a better fit than the original two-factor model (Weaver
et al., 2006).
Despite their frequent use, there are limitations associated with clinical rating scales. For
example, scoring clinical rating scales is time-consuming given that interviews and reviews
of file information are both necessary. Also, with community samples, access to any col-
lateral or file information is often difficult to obtain. Alternatively, self-report scales repre-
sent a more cost-effective method of assessing psychopathy and can be administered to both
Blais et al. / PSYCHOPATHY AND TYPE OF VIOLENCE 799
criminal and non-criminal populations (Lilienfeld, 1994). In addition, self-report scales can
be completed without fear of observer bias or subjectivity in scoring. The main limitation
of self-report scales, especially when assessing psychopathy, is the possibility of dishonest
responding (Lilienfeld & Fowler, 2006). Despite this limitation, a recent meta-analysis
found that most self-report psychopathy scales are actually negatively correlated with social
desirability responding (Ray et al., 2013). Although psychopaths may be willing to admit to
negative traits in the context of a research study, they may be much more likely to engage
in impression management when there are meaningful consequences such as during a foren-
sic clinical assessment.
Various self-report scales have been developed to assess psychopathy. Importantly, these
scales tend to correlate significantly with total scores derived from clinical rating scales and
also represent similar underlying factor and facet structures. For example, the factor structure
of the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP; Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, in press) is best
represented by the four facets of the PCL-R (Neal & Sellbom, 2012). In addition, a study by
Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, and Newman (2001) found that the primary and secondary factors
of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP; Levenson, kiehl, & Fitzpatrick,
1995) moderately correlate with Factors 1 and 2 of the PCL-R. Recent research has also sug-
gested that a three-factor solution may be appropriate for the LSRP (Sellbom, 2011).
Another common self-report scale for youth, the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory
(YPI; Andershed, kerr, Stattin, & Levander, 2002), is also representative of the three-factor
model of psychopathy. More specifically, the three factors of the YPI (Affective,
Interpersonal, and Lifestyle) correlate with the Interpersonal, Affective, and Lifestyle fac-
tors of psychopathy (Cooke & Michie, 2001). Finally, the two underlying factors found
within the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) have
been shown to significantly correlate with both factors of the PCL-R (Benning, Patrick,
Hicks, Blonigen, & krueger, 2003; Berardino, Meloy, Sherman, & Jacobs, 2005; Poythress,
Edens, & Lilienfeld, 1998). Evidence suggests that although self-report scales differ in
administrative procedure, they are able to capture the underlying characteristics of
psychopathy.
Informant scales have been created to assess psychopathy among children and adolescents.
They provide researchers with the ability to accurately assess a child through regular interac-
tion and observation (Lynam, 1997). For example, the Antisocial Process Screening Device
(APSD; Frick & Hare, 2001) and the Childhood Psychopathy Scale (CPS; Lynam, 1997) can
be completed by a parent, guardian, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial