Search

In the past few decades, the psychopathic personality has received a great deal of representation in popular culture and media. Televisions shows like Dexter and films like American Psycho depict an artistic perspective of psychopathy, which may or may not be representative of the perspectives of experts on the disorder. Several researchers have investigated the perspectives of jurors or mock jurors on various kinds of psychopathy evidence used in criminal courts. However, the perspectives of laypeople have an effect beyond their roles as potential jurors, indirectly impacting the development of effective interventions, the consideration of psychopathy in violence risk assessment, and legislation and case law regarding criminal responsibility via the less individualistic force of public opinion. The proposed study will examine perspectives on psychopathy in a group of laypeople in order to ascertain prominent beliefs about the nature, assessment, and treatment of psychopathy both in clinical and legal settings. The proposed study will seek to investigate perspectives of psychopathy from laypeople, including definitions of psychopathy, attitudes toward psychopathy, and beliefs regarding criminal responsibility, in order to provide a comprehensive description of how society views individuals high in psychopathic traits. Specifically, the proposed study will involve a measure of stigma toward mental illness in general, as well as a measure of stigma toward psychopathy specifically, measures of participants views regarding the nature of psychopathy, their attitudes toward individuals labelled as “psychopaths”, and their beliefs regarding whether individuals high in psychopathic traits should be held criminally responsible as well as a measure of participant personality. Participants will complete a general version and a psychopathy-specific version of the Mental Illness Stigma Scale, in order to not only measure stigma toward individuals labelled as “psychopathic” but also to separate that stigma from general stigma toward mental illness (Day, Edgren, & Eshleman, 2007). This measure of stigma was chosen due to its efficacy for measuring general stigma toward mental illness, as well as stigma toward specific diagnostic labels. To gain insight into how lay perceptions of psychopathy may affect public policy and criminal justice proceedings, participants will (1) complete the Insanity Defense Attitudes Scale-Revised, (2) indicate their attitude toward capital punishment, and (3) provide opinions on whether individuals high in psychopathic traits should be held criminally responsible for criminal behavior. Participants will also be asked to provide their perspective of the prototypical psychopath, attitudes toward individuals labelled as “psychopathic”, and perspectives on treatment amenability. Participants will be provided education regarding definitions of psychopathy and current research on psychopathy treatments, then asked how (if at all) their opinions may have changed. This final measure was included with the purpose of measuring the effect on laypeople of simple education about psychopathy; regardless of the result, implications from this investigation will apply to juror decision-making (i.e., the efficacy of education in reversing psychopathy stigma) and the development of educational material for the general public. Finally, participants will complete the Five Factor Model Rating Form (FFMRF), as it is brief but also measures traits specifically related to the scales and subscales of the NEO-PI-R, in order to facilitate comparisons between results of the proposed study and previously mentioned studies investigating the relationship between an individual’s personality traits and their perceptions of psychopathy (Edens, Clark, Smith, Cox, & Kelley, 2013; A. K. Miller, Rufino, Boccaccini, Jackson, & Murrie, 2011; Mullins-Sweatt, Jamerson, Samuel, Olson, & Widiger, 2006).The analyses in the proposed study will primarily involve descriptive statistics, such as providing frequencies, means, and standard deviations for ratings on particular measures or answers to individual queries. Simple linear regressions will be done to test hypotheses regarding the relationships between variables. Based on theory and previous research, I expect beliefs about mental illness, in general, will positively correlate with beliefs about psychopathy (i.e., if a participant believes they can recognize when a person is mentally ill, they will be more likely to believe that they can recognize a person high in psychopathic traits). I expect negative attitudes toward the insanity defense in general will predict support for holding “psychopaths” criminally responsible. I expect support for capital punishment will predict support for this sentence for individuals high in psychopathic traits. I expect participants will derive their perspectives of psychopathy primarily from pop culture (movies, television shows, news media, documentaries, books and magazines). I expect participants will name well known serial murderers and perpetrators of mass killings as examples of a prototypical psychopath, regardless of actual observed psychopathology. Regarding etiology of psychopathy, I expect participants will assign the highest percentage to genetics. I expect participants will over-estimate the number of individuals with psychopathy in the general community, and that this effect will be stronger for estimates of psychopathy in psychiatric populations. I expect the belief that psychopathy is not amenable to treatment will predict beliefs that individuals with psychopathy should be held criminally responsible and should be eligible to receive capital punishment. I expect high participant agreeableness will predict lower sigma toward mental illness and psychopathy, fewer negative attitudes toward psychopathy, and more lenient beliefs regarding the criminal responsibility of individuals high in psychopathic traits. Finally, I expect significant mean differences between Group 1 and Group 2 (detailed below) on the scale scores and (where applicable) subscale scores from the Psychopathy-specific Mental Illness Stigma Scale, Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality, Attitudinal Statements Questionnaire, and Psychopathy Insanity and Capital Punishment Questionnaire. Given the exploratory nature of these hypothesized group differences, no specific directional differences are expected. Methods Participants will be recruited via Prime Panels, an online interface similar to Amazon’s Mechanical Turk with the ability to collect a census-matched sample. Prior to responding to study measures, participants will complete a sociodemographic questionnaire. Each participant will report their age, race, gender, marital status, level of education, and annual income. The variables of age and race will be used to collect a census-matched sample of participants. Proportions of participant gender will be 49% male, 50% female, and 1% individuals who identify their gender as being outside of the gender binary, in accordance with census data and empirical estimates of the prevalence of individuals in the United States who identify their gender as being outside of the gender binary (Meerwijk & Sevelius, 2017). Following the completion of this sociodemographic questionnaire, participants will complete questionnaires measuring stigma toward mental illness and beliefs about the insanity defense and the death penalty, as well as answering a variety of questions regarding how they define psychopathy, and how they feel individuals high in psychopathic traits should be treated generally, clinically, and legally. Finally, participants will complete a brief Five-Factor Model personality questionnaire. Order of Procedures Measures for the proposed study will be administered in two distinct orders for two separate (but demographically matched) groups of participants, to which participants will be randomly assigned. The primary difference in these orders is the point at which participants are given a definition of psychopathy in the form of a video in which an expert describes the construct of psychopathy. Presenting the study measures to participants in these two different orders will allow for comparisons on the measures completed by Group 2 after viewing the definition video and completed by Group 1 before viewing the definition video. That is, it will allow comparison on these measures between a group with the knowledge of an evidence-based definition of psychopathy and a group without this knowledge. Participants Data will be collected from laypeople using the service Prime Panels by Cloud Research, the company that also runs Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Prime Panels is superior to MTurk, as this service both allows for a deliberately representative sample and provides higher quality participants. Using a demographic questionnaire, Prime Panels allows for the collection of data from a group of participants matched to any reference group the researcher chooses, although the default option is a sample matched to the United States census-matched statistics. Additionally, Prime Panels participants undergo a more rigorous vetting process than MTurk, involving measures assessing attention and English comprehension. Cloud Research recently conducted a study to measure the effectiveness of this screening process and found that those who passed the initial Prime Panels screener also passed attention checks during the administration of several other measures, including a 44-item personality assessment (Chandler, Rosenzweig, Moss, Robinson, & Litman, 2019). For the proposed study, the researcher will collect data from a sample of census-matched laypeople using Prime Panels. Mental Illness Stigma Scale. Following the sociodemographic questionnaire, participants will complete the Mental Illness Stigma Scale in order to measure how beliefs about mental illness, in general, relate to beliefs about psychopathy (Day et al., 2007). This measure does not result in a composite or total score, but rather seven factor scores measuring the following factors: anxiety, relationship disruption, hygiene, visibility, treatability, professional efficacy, and recovery (Day et al., 2007). The anxiety factor measures the level of nervousness or fear the participant associates with people who are mentally ill. The relationship disruption factor measures the degree to which the participant believes individuals who are mentally ill can maintain stable, healthy relationships. The hygiene factor measures the participant’s beliefs regarding the appearance and grooming abilities of people who are mentally ill. The visibility factor measures the degree to which the participant believes people who are mentally ill can be identified based on their appearance (Day et al., 2007). The treatability factor, as the name suggests, measures the degree to which the participant believes mental illness is treatable. The professional efficacy factor measures participants’ beliefs regarding how proficient mental health professionals are at treating mental illness. Finally, the recovery factor measures the participant’s beliefs regarding whether people can recover from mental illness (Day et al., 2007). Each subscale is measured by four items, for a total of 28 items in the complete measure (Day et al., 2007). For the proposed study, the order of items in this measure will be randomized in order to reduce any effect of item order. Insanity Defense Attitudes – Revised. All participants will complete the Insanity Defense Attitudes – Revised (IDA-R) Scale in order to measure attitudes toward the insanity defense separate from attitudes toward psychopathy (Skeem, Louden, & Evans, 2004). This scale includes nineteen “key variables” and three “general opinion items.” The key variables are statements involving beliefs about the use of the insanity defense and about criminal responsibility (i.e., “A defendant’s degree of insanity is irrelevant: if he commits the crime, then he should do the time,” “It is wrong to punish people who commit crime for crazy reasons while gripped by uncontrollable hallucinations or delusions”), which are rated on a 7-point Likert scale (Skeem et al., 2004). The general opinion items are questions about how strongly the participant feels about the insanity defense, how personally important their opinion is to them, and how much they care about the insanity defense, all also rated on a 7-point scale. For the proposed study, the order of the “key variable” items and “general opinion” items in this measure will both be randomized in order to reduce any effect of item order. Death Qualification. In accordance with standard death qualification procedures (Witherspoon v. Illinois, 1968), participants will complete a measure intended to identify those who would be unwilling to recommend the death sentence under any circumstance and those who would recommend the death sentence regardless of the circumstances of the case. Modeled after procedures utilized by Gordon and Greene (2018), participants will choose one of four statements as representative of their beliefs regarding capital punishment. For the proposed study, the order of items in this measure will be randomized in order to reduce any effect of item order. Knowledge and Definitions of Psychopathy Questionnaire. Participants will complete a questionnaire measuring a variety of factors related to their existing knowledge and definition of psychopathy. First, they will be asked to rate how much they know about psychopaths, on a slider from “no knowledge” to “I’m an expert.” Next, participants will report the source of their knowledge about psychopaths, by assigning percentages to a list of sources, including (among others) movies, news, and education. Participants will then be asked to name a person they consider to be a “prime example” of a psychopath—a fictional character, historical figure, celebrity, politician, or someone they know—as well as what makes that person a “prime example” of psychopathy. Participants will also be asked about the etiology of psychopathy, choosing between a variety of factors, including (among others) parenting, genetics, and brain injury. Finally, participants will be asked to estimate the prevalence of psychopathy in the general population as well as in psychiatric populations, with the latter being defined as “individuals receiving inpatient psychiatric treatment (hospitalized individuals)”. Items in this measure will be presented in the order described above for all participants. Mental Illness Stigma Scale – Psychopathy. In addition to measuring stigma toward mental illness in general, the Mental Illness Stigma Scale was designed to measure attitudes toward specific mental illnesses (Day et al., 2007). In the development of the measure, the researchers included instructions that either referenced mental illness in general, or that referenced depression, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia. For each of the specific mental illnesses, the measure itself was modified with the name of the specific mental illness replacing the phrase “mental illness” or “mental illnesses” (Day et al., 2007). For the proposed study, in addition to assessing stigma toward mental illness in general, all participants will report on their stigma toward individuals with psychopathy specifically. To this end, the Mental Illness Stigma Scale will be modified to replace the phrase “mental illness” or “mental illnesses” with the phrase “a psychopathic personality.” As with the general scale, the order of items in this measure will be randomized in order to reduce any effect of item order. Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality. Participants will complete the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP) in order to determine what specific traits participants associate with psychopathy (Cooke, Hart, Logan, & Michie, 2004). As described previously, this measure includes 42 items: 33 items that are traits associated with psychopathy, each listed as one main trait along with three synonyms for that trait in order to avoid confusion [i.e. “Unempathic (uncompassionate, cruel, callous)”] and 9 “foil” items not associated with psychopathy (i.e., Self-conscious, Shy, Considerate, Strange). Each item is rated on a 7-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating a trait that is “not typical” of psychopathy, and 7 indicating a trait that is “very typical” of psychopathy. Similar to procedures used by Smith, Edens, Clark, and Rulseh (2014), participants in the proposed study will also rate three distractor traits associated with psychosis [i.e., “Delusional Beliefs (unusual, strange, and idiosyncratic)”], in order to measure the degree to which participants associate psychopathy with symptoms of psychosis. For the proposed study, the order of items in this measure will be randomized in order to reduce any effect of item order. Attitudinal Statements. Participants will rate a series of attitudinal statements about psychopathy, modeled after procedures used by Smith et al. (2014) in a study of juror perceptions of psychopathy. This procedure will involve participants rating 25 statements on a 7-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Agree; 7=Strongly Disagree), which measure attitudes toward various aspects of psychopathy (i.e., “Most psychopaths are murderers,” “Psychopaths are violent predators who prey on other people,” “There are many psychopaths who do not commit crimes”). Statements are divided into five domains: criminality and violence potential, moral judgments and legal perspectives, etiology, immutability/rehabilitation potential, and quasi-adaptive features. For the proposed study, the order of items in this measure will be randomized in order to reduce any effect of item order. Psychopathy, Insanity, and Capital Punishment. Participants will be asked four questions about the legal treatment of psychopathy. They will first be asked whether they believe individuals should be permitted to use evidence of a psychopathic personality for an insanity Defense. Next, participants will be asked if they believe individuals with a psychopathic personality should be held criminally responsible for criminal acts (i.e., receiving prison time rather than psychiatric treatment). After viewing a brief video description of Norwegian prisons, they will be asked if individuals with a psychopathic personality should be subject to an import model of incarceration (as in countries like Norway)—whether these individuals should be separated from society (lose freedom of movement) but be given the same services available to free citizens. Finally, they will be asked whether they believe, all other things being equal, individuals with a psychopathic personality are more or less deserving of the death penalty in capital murder cases than those with no mental illness. Just before completing the psychopathy-specific Mental Illness Stigma Scale, participants will again be asked these three questions about the legal treatment of psychopathy in order to measure any change that may have occurred as a result of the education given. Knowledge and Definitions of Psychopathy Questionnaire Follow Up. For this measure, participants will view a short video summarizing a definition of psychopathy informed by extant research on the construct. After viewing this video definition, participants will be asked questions regarding the relation of this definition to the personal definitions they previously provided. First, they will be asked the degree to which the given definition matches with the parameters they provided previously. Participants will then be asked to again answer questions from the previously mentioned Knowledge and Definitions of Psychopathy Questionnaire. First, they will be asked whether the given definition is consistent with the characteristics of the typical psychopath they previously described. Next, they will be asked whether the provided definition is consistent with the characteristics of the typical psychopath they chose from a list of characteristics (i.e., Lacks pleasure [pessimistic, gloomy, unenthusiastic]). They will then indicate whether they believe the provided definition is accurate. If they believe the provided definition is not accurate, they will be asked what is inaccurate and why they believe the definition is inaccurate (with an open box to respond). Treatment Amenability of Psychopathy. Participants will be asked their opinion on the treatment amenability of psychopathy, as well as what form they believe treatment for psychopathy would take. As with the definition of psychopathy, participants will then view a video summarizing research regarding treatment amenability and available treatments for psychopathy. Following this summary, participants will be asked to rate the degree to which the summary aligned with their answers. They will then again be asked their opinion on the treatment amenability of psychopathy, as well as what form they believe treatment for psychopathy would take. Five Factor Model Rating Form. After completing all other study measures, participants will complete the Five Factor Model Rating Form (FFMRF), in order to assess the “Big Five” personality traits of Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (Mullins-Sweatt et al., 2006). This measure will also assess the thirty NEO-PI-R subscales of these personality traits (six subscales per trait), which will facilitate comparison with the NEO-PI-R Psychopathy Resemblance Index (J. D. Miller, Lyman, Widiger, & Leukefeld, 2001). This measure contains thirty items (one for each of the NEO-PI-R subscales), rated on a scale from one to five, with one being “extremely low”, two being “low”, three being “neither high nor low”, four being “high”, and five being “extremely high” (Mullins-Sweatt et al., 2006). Each end of the scale is assigned adjective descriptors (i.e., for Warmth, one is given the descriptors “cold, aloof, indifferent” and five is given the descriptors “cordial, affectionate, attached”). The developers of the measure report good internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity (Mullins-Sweatt et al., 2006). For the proposed study, the order of items in this measure will be randomized in order to reduce any effect of item order. Data Analysis Plan Simple linear regressions will be done using items related to psychopathy in the legal system, in order to compare the results of the proposed study with the results of juror decision-making studies conducted previously. Demographic variables related to study variables, as well as IDA-R scores and death qualification answers, will be entered as covariates. Participant ratings on the CAPP will be analyzed using prototype analysis, which involves analyzing means and standard deviations. Differences between Group 1 and Group 2 will be measured using two-tailed t-tests of mean differences between these groups. All other study variables will be reported using descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations, as no previous literature exists with which to compare these variables. References Chandler, J., Rosenzweig, C., Moss, A. J., Robinson, J., & Litman, L. (2019). Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk. Behavior research methods, 51(5), 2022-2038. Cooke, D. J., Hart, S., Logan, C., & Michie, C. (2004). Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality-institutional rating scale (CAPP-IRS). Unpublished manuscript. Day, E. N., Edgren, K., & Eshleman, A. (2007). Measuring stigma toward mental illness: Development and application of the mental illness stigma scale 1. Journal of applied social psychology, 37(10), 2191-2219. Edens, J. F., Clark, J., Smith, S. T., Cox, J., & Kelley, S. E. (2013). Bold, smart, dangerous and evil: Perceived correlates of core psychopathic traits among jury panel members. Personality and Mental Health, 7(2), 143-153. Gordon, N., & Greene, E. (2018). Nature, nurture, and capital punishment: How evidence of a genetic–environment interaction, future dangerousness, and deliberation affect sentencing decisions. Behavioral sciences & the law, 36(1), 65-83. Meerwijk, E. L., & Sevelius, J. M. (2017). Transgender Population Size in the United States: a Meta-Regression of Population-Based Probability Samples. American journal of public health, 107(2), e1-e8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2016.303578 Miller, A. K., Rufino, K. A., Boccaccini, M. T., Jackson, R. L., & Murrie, D. C. (2011). On individual differences in person perception: Raters’ personality traits relate to their Psychopathy Checklist-Revised scoring tendencies. Assessment, 18(2), 253-260. Miller, J. D., Lyman, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Leukefeld, C. (2001). Personality disorders as extreme variants of common personality dimensions: Can the five factor model adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69(2), 253-276. Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Jamerson, J. E., Samuel, D. B., Olson, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2006). Psychometric properties of an abbreviated instrument of the five-factor model. Assessment, 13(2), 119-137. Skeem, J. L., Louden, J. E., & Evans, J. (2004). Venirepersons’s attitudes toward the insanity defense: Developing, refining, and validating a scale. Law and human behavior, 28(6), 623-648. Smith, S. T., Edens, J. F., Clark, J., & Rulseh, A. (2014). “So, what is a psychopath?” Venireperson perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes about psychopathic personality. Law and human behavior, 38(5), 490.