The Influence of Psychopathic Personality Traits, Low Self-Control, and Nonshared Environmental Factors on Criminal Involvement

• DOI: 10.1177/1541204016684176
• Published date: 01 January 2018
• Author: Cashen M. Boccio,Kevin M. Beaver
• Date: 01 January 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
2018, Vol. 16(1) 37-52
The Influence of Psychopathic
ª The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
Personality Traits, Low
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1541204016684176
journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj
Self-Control, and Nonshared
Environmental Factors
on Criminal Involvement
Cashen M. Boccio1 and Kevin M. Beaver1,2
Abstract
Theoretical and empirical research has linked variation in parental and peer socialization patterns
as well as criminogenic traits, particularly psychopathy and low self-control, to criminal invol-
vement. Findings from this body of scholarship, however, have generally been produced without
adequately controlling for genetic confounding. The current study addresses this gap in the lit-
erature by analyzing data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health
using a genetically informative research design. This study employs monozygotic difference scores
analyses in order to examine the effects of psychopathic personality traits (PPTs), low self-
control, and nonshared environmental factors on involvement with criminal behavior while
controlling for genetic factors. The results indicated that of the four outcomes examined, PPTs
were only associated with involvement in violent behavior. In addition, the results revealed that
delinquent peers was the only nonshared environmental factor associated with any of the out-
come measures.
Keywords
psychopathy, low self-control, nonshared environments, criminal behavior
Mainstream criminological research has tended to focus on environmental explanations for criminal
behavior while downplaying the role of individual-level criminogenic factors (Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990; Hirschi, 1969; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). Traditional criminological
explanations, for example, implicate families, peers, and neighborhoods in the development of
criminal behavior and delinquency. There has been a slight shift recently with more and more
research examining the potential role of individual-level factors in explanations for involvement
1 College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
2 Center for Social and Humanities Research, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Corresponding Author:
Cashen M. Boccio, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 145 Convocation Way, Eppes Hall,
Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA.
Email: cb13b@my.fsu.edu

---

38
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 16(1)
with criminal behavior (Walsh & Wright, 2015). Findings from this area of research have revealed
that psychopathy and low self-control are two trait-based characteristics consistently associated with
criminal behavior (DeLisi, 2009; Pratt & Cullen, 2000).
Despite findings from studies that link environmental and individual-level factors with criminal
behavior, these studies generally do not control for genetic confounding. As a direct result, these
findings could be biased in some capacity, as previous research has revealed that failing to control
for genetic confounding may lead to inflated parameter estimates for environmental variables
(Barnes, Boutwell, Beaver, Gibson, & Wright, 2014; Harris, 1998; Wright J. P. & Beaver, 2005).
In order to address this issue, the current study employs a research design that is capable of
estimating the effects of nonshared environmental factors and individual-level factors while con-
trolling for genetic influences.
Behavioral Genetics Research
Methodological and statistical techniques employed in behavioral genetics can be used to estimate
the effects of genetics and environmental factors on phenotypic variance (Plomin, DeFries,
McClearn, & Rutter, 1997). The environmental component of the variance of phenotypes is further
broken down into shared and nonshared environmental factors.1 Shared environmental factors refer
to elements in the environment that make siblings similar to each other, whereas nonshared envi-
ronmental factors refer to elements in the environment that make siblings different from each other.
The majority of behavioral genetics studies are conducted using twin research designs where cross
correlations on a trait are compared between monozygotic (MZ) twins and dizygotic (DZ) twins. MZ
twins share 100% of their DNA and DZ twins share 50% of their dissenting DNA on average. As a
result, it is possible to use comparisons between these two types of twins to determine the percentage
of variance in phenotypes that is due to genetic and environmental factors. If the assumptions of
twin-based research are met—and mathematical proofs and simulations indicate that they are
(Barnes, Wright, et al., 2014)—then the greater similarity of MZ twins compared to DZ twins would
be due to genetic influences.
A large body of behavioral genetics research has estimated the influence of genetic and envi-
ronmental factors on antisocial behavior and criminal involvement. According to a recent meta-
analysis that examined twin studies over the last 50 years, including tests of more than 17,800
traits and using more than 14,500,000 twin pairs, 49% of the variance in all human phenotypes,
including personality and behavioral phenotypes, is due to genetic factors (Polderman et al.,
2015). Of particular importance, genetic factors were found to account for 49% of the variance
in conduct disorder, 44% of the variance in temperament and personality functions, and 62% of the
variance in personality disorders, all of which have been linked with criminal involvement (Caspi
et al., 1994; Fridell, Hesse, Jæger, & Ku¨hlhorn, 2008; Mordre, Groholt, Kjelsberg, Sandstad, &
Myhre, 2011; Murray & Farrington, 2010). Other meta-analyses that focus exclusively on anti-
social behavior have revealed similar findings indicating that approximately 50% of the variance
in antisocial behavior is due to genetic factors. The remaining 50% of the variance in antisocial
behavior is explained by environmental factors with approximately 40–50% of the variance
explained by nonshared environmental factors and approximately 0–10% of the variance
explained by shared environmental factors (Ferguson, 2010; Mason & Frick, 1994; Miles & Carey,
1997; Rhee & Waldman, 2002).
Psychopathic Personality Traits (PPTs), Low Self-Control, and Criminal Involvement
A body of research has revealed a connection between trait-based characteristics and criminal
involvement (Caspi et al., 1994; Krueger et al., 1994; Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Vazsonyi, Pickering,

---

Boccio and Beaver
39
Junger, & Hessing, 2001). For instance, variation in psychopathy and low self-control has been
found to be consistently associated with criminal and antisocial behavior (DeLisi, 2009; Pratt &
Cullen, 2000). While these associations appear consistent in the literature, the majority of studies
examining the associations between trait-based characteristics and crime have not controlled for
genetic factors. As a result, findings from these studies may be confounded by genetic influences and
may have produced upwardly biased estimates for environmental factors.
According to the existing research, psychopathy and PPTs are associated with violent, antisocial,
and criminal behavior (DeLisi, 2009; Hare, 1993; Vaughn & DeLisi, 2008). Psychopathy is a
personality disorder that is characterized by a combination of behavioral, affective, and lifestyle
attributes. Psychopaths are generally characterized as irresponsible, impulsive, short tempered,
lacking empathy, and lacking guilt (Hare, 1996). Previous research on psychopathy and criminal
involvement indicates that psychopaths are responsible for a disproportionate amount of serious and
violent crime (Blackburn & Coid, 1998; Hare, 1993; Vaughn, Howard, & DeLisi, 2008). For
instance, estimates indicate that psychopaths may be responsible for more than 50% of serious
crimes committed (Hare, 1993) and that psychopaths make up between 15% and 25% of prison
populations (Hare, 1996).
Research examining the underpinnings of psychopathy suggests that variation in PPTs is primar-
ily explained by genetic and nonshared environmental factors (Beaver, Vaughn, & DeLisi, 2013;
Blonigen, Hicks, Krueger, Patrick, & Iacono, 2005; Taylor, Loney, Bobadilla, Iacono, & McGue,
2003; Waldman & Rhee, 2006). For example, a study by Viding, Blair, Moffitt, and Plomin (2005)
revealed that genetic factors explain 67% of the variance in extreme callous–unemotional traits and
81% of the variance in antisocial behavior in children with psychopathic tendencies. Shared envi-
ronmental factors, in contrast, account for only 6% of the variance in callous–unemotional traits and
0% of the variance in antisocial behavior in children with psychopathic tendencies. Additionally, a
meta-analysis examining studies on psychopathy revealed that 49% of the variance in psychopathy
is attributable to genetic factors and 51% of the variance is attributable to nonshared environmental
factors (Waldman & Rhee, 2006).
Similarly, low self-control has also been consistently linked with involvement in antisocial
behavior (Pratt & Cullen, 2000). People with low levels of self-control are described as being
impulsive, irresponsible, self-centered, insensitive to others, and prone to risky behavior (Gottfred-
son & Hirschi, 1990). Empirical research on self-control indicates that low self-control is associated
with involvement in delinquency, criminal behavior, antisocial behavior, and violence (Chapple,
2005; Evans, Cullen, Burton, Dunaway, & Benson, 1997; Vazsonyi et al., 2001; Wright B....