Introduction to Psychopathy &

Profiling of Psychopathic Traits

prof. dr hab. Daniel Boduszek

dboduszek@swps.edu.pl
“In interiore homine
habitat veritas”

Augustine, the Confessions

 Outline
• Psychopathy & Criminal
Psychopathy
• Different Models of Psychopathy
• Profiling Psychopathic Traits
PSYCHOPATHY
 Introduction
• Psychopathy
• The most important
psychological constructs
within the criminal justice
system (e.g., Hare et al.,
2000; Harris et al.,
2001, Monahan, 2006)
 “the unified theory of
delinquency and crime
and
the purest explanation
of
antisocial behaviour”
Matt DeLisi (2016)
 Psychological Risk Factors
 A critical psychological risk factor
is a lack of empathy

 Two dimensions (Boduszek et al.,

2016)
 Cognitive empathy (cognitive
responsiveness)- ability to
understand another person
from his/her perspective
 Affective empathy (affective
responsiveness) - ability to
understand and experience
another person’s emotional
state
 Psychological Risk Factors
 Deficiencies in affective
empathy is most strongly
associated with violent and
persistent offending (Jolliffe
& Farrington, 2007).

 Connection between cruelty

to animals and a lack of
empathy
 Torturing animals in childhood is a
significant indicator of later serious
behavioural problems ( Stouthamer-
Loeber et al., 2004)
 Psychological Risk Factors
 Serial killers use the same
methods of torture and
killing on their human victims
that they employed earlier
against their animal victims
(Wright & Hensley, 2003;
Merz-Perez et al., 2001)
If easily offended don't look until told
 Psychopathy
 Robert Hare (1993)

“Psychopaths are social predators who

charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow
their way through life, leaving a broad
trail of broken hearts, shattered
expectations, and empty wallets.
Completely lacking in conscience and
empathy, they selfishly take what they
want and do as they please, violating
social norms and expectations without
the slightest sense of guilt or regret”
A psychopath is a person who
is sane but amoral
 Psychopathy
 Psychopathy should be distinguished
clearly from another related
psychological disorder: antisocial
personality disorder (APD)

 APD describes individuals who display

pervasive behavioural tendencies that
disregard and violate the rights of
others and the norms of society

 This behavioural pattern frequently

brings such individuals in conflict with
the law
 The behavioural patterns emerge in childhood or early
adolescence and persist through adulthood
Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD)
Psychopaths are unique and
different from people with APD
because...
 They are not neurotic (don’t suffer from anxiety or
depressive disorders)
 They are not psychotic (do not suffer from bipolar
or schizophrenic disorders)
 They do not suffer from emotional disturbances
 Criminal Psychopathy
 Many psychopaths are not
criminals and may be highly
successful members of
society
 Politicians, business leaders, surgeons
etc.

 Criminal psychopaths are

those psychopaths who
engage in repeated criminal
behaviour
50

45

40

35

30

25 business
20
psychology
15

10

Interpersonal Callous affect Erratic Antisocial

manipulation lifestyle behaviour
Theories and Models
 Cleckley’s clinical profile
Cleckley (1941) suggested the prototypical psychopath to
be characterised by the following 16 traits:
– Superficial charm – Pathological egocentricity
– Absence of delusions – Poverty in affective
reactions
– Absence of nervousness
– Loss of insight
– Unreliability
– Unresponsiveness in
– Untruthfulness interpersonal relations
– Lack of remorse and shame – Uninviting behaviour
– Antisocial behaviour – Suicide rarely carried out
– Poor judgement & failure to learn by – Impersonal sex life
experience – Failure to follow any life
plan
 Definitions of psychopathy
• Karpman distinguishes between primary and secondary psychopaths
who differ considerably

• Hare distinguishes 4 aspects of psychopathy: callous affect,

interpersonal manipulation, erratic lifestyle, and antisocial behaviour

• Cleckley included 16 traits in his clinical profile of psychopathy

• Although we refer to psychopathy as an umbrella term, psychopathy

is NOT a unidimensional construct.

• A uniform definition of psychopathy does not exist.

This carries profound implications for research and practice.

 Hare’s model of psychopathy
• The formulation of psychopathy as grasped by the PCL-R and
its derivatives appears to be weighted more heavily towards
indicators of behavioural expressions of the disorder
Assessment of Psychopathy
 Assessment of Psychopathy

• The Psychopathy Checklist: Revised (PCL-R)

• The Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL: SV)

• The Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL: YV)

• The Hare Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP)

• The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP)

• Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale (PPTS; Boduszek

et al., 2016)
 The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
(PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003)

• Developed for use with offenders

• 20-items scored on the basis of
extensive interview and file
information
• Each item is rated as 0 (not present),
1 (possibly present), or 2 (definitely
present) – range of score 0-40
• A cut-score of 30 (sometimes 25) is
used to distinguish individuals with
psychopathy
 The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
(PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003)
PCL-R Items Relating to the Four Factors

Interpersonal Affective Lifestyle Antisocial

Glibness or Lack of remorse or Need for stimulation Poor behavioural
superficial charm guilt or proneness to control
boredom

Grandiose sense of Shallow affect Parasitic lifestyle Early behaviour

self-worth problems

Pathological lying Callous/lack of Lack of realistic Juvenile delinquency

empathy long-term goals

Conning or Failure to accept Impulsivity Revocation of

manipulative responsibility for conditional release
own actions

Irresponsibility Criminal versatility

The Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version
(PCL: SV; Hart et al., 1995)

• Developed for use with non-forensic samples

• 12 items, each scored on a 3-point scale (0 =

not present, 1= possibly present, 2 = definitely
present) on the basis of interview and
collateral information

• Total scores can range between 0 and 24 (cut

point of 18 for a diagnosis)

• Research suggested the four-factor model

solution (Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle,
and Antisocial) (Hill et al., 2004; Vitacco et al., 2005).
My research on Psychopathy Checklist:
Screening Version (Boduszek et al., 2015)
My research on Psychopathy Checklist:
Screening Version (Boduszek et al., 2015)
 My research on Psychopathy Checklist:
Screening Version (Dhingra, Boduszek & Kola, 2015)
 My research on Psychopathy Checklist:
Screening Version (Dhingra, Boduszek & Kola, 2015)
 The Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version
(PCL: YV; Forth et al., 2003)

• For use with adolescents

(age 12-18 years)

• 20 items (3-point Likert

scale) with three or four
factors solution (Jones et al.,
2006; Neumann et al., 2006)

• A cut-off score 30 -
diagnosis of psychopathy
(e.g., Forth & Mailloux, 2000).
 The Hare Self-Report Psychopathy Scale
(SRP; Paulhus et al., in press)
• Self-report inventory designed
to assess four factors of
psychopathy:
– Interpersonal Manipulation
– Callous Affect
– Erratic Lifestyle
– Criminal Tendencies (See Debowska
et al., 2014)
• 64 items, rated on a 5-point
scale (1 = Disagree strongly to 5 =
Agree strongly).
My research on Hare Self-Report Psychopathy Scale
(Debowska, Boduszek et al, 2014)
My research on Hare Self-Report Psychopathy Scale
(Debowska, Boduszek et al, 2014)
 My research on Hare’s model of psychopathy
(Debowska, Boduszek et al, 2016)
• Sample
– prison (N = 730)
– student (N = 2,506)

• Our results indicate that the

measure cannot be used in
the same way within forensic
and non-forensic samples
(due to the inclusion of
criminal/antisocial traits as
an integral part of
psychopathy)
 F1 F2 F3 F4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

M1 M2

Multitrait-multimethod solution of SRP-SF. F1 = callous affect, F2 = interpersonal

manipulation, F3 = erratic lifestyle, F4 = antisocial behaviour, M1 = affective/interpersonal
method factor, H2 = behavioural method factor.
The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale
(LSRP: Levenson et al., 1995)

• 26-item self-report questionnaire (rated on 4

point scale)designed to assess psychopathy in
non-institutionalised samples
• Two subscales
– The primary psychopathy sub-scale (16 items)
corresponds with Factor 1 of the PCL–R,
– The secondary psychopathy sub-scale (10 items)
corresponds with Factor 2 of the PCL–R.
 Psychopathy measurement

• Some researchers have suggested

that criminal/antisocial tendencies
are the outcome of psychopathic
traits - NOT core component of
psychopathy (Boduszek & Debowska,
2016, Boduszek et al., 2016, Skeem
& Cooke, 2010a, 2010b)
 Psychopathic personalities can
thrive in both criminal and
non-criminal contexts.

 If criminal tendencies are just

one possible manifestation of
psychopathy, other non-
criminal behaviours in which
psychopaths may participate
should also be accounted for.

 A simplified solution, is to
exclude behavioural items
from psychopathy measures
(Boduszek & Debowska,
2016).
 Cleckley - “the psychopath is always
distinguished by egocentricity” which is
pathological

 This self-centeredness is closely linked with

incapacity for love, other than self-love.

 Although items referring to egocentricity have

been included in some established psychopathy
measures (e.g., the PCL-R and PPI-R), they do
not form a separate dimension.
 There was a need for a clean personality model
of psychopathy with predictive utility for
antisocial behaviour, which could be used
among both forensic and non-forensic
populations (Boduszek & Debowska, 2016;
Johansson et al., 2002).
 In line with Skeem and Cooke’s (2010) claim, new
generation of research which “distinguishes
between personality deviation and social
deviance” is warranted.
 Our goal was to design
a model/measure
which would grasp the
essence of a
psychopathic
personality
 regardless of
respondents’
▪ age
▪ gender
▪ cultural background
▪ and criminal history.
PPTM Model of Psychopathy (Boduszek et al., 2019)
PPTM Model of Psychopathy (Boduszek et al., 2019)

• Affective responsiveness component reflects characteristics of

low affective empathy and emotional shallowness.
• Cognitive responsiveness component measures the ability to
understand the emotional state of other, mentally represent
another person’s emotional processes, and emotionally engage
with others at a cognitive level.
• Interpersonal manipulation aspect reflects characteristics such
as superficial charm, grandiosity, and deceitfulness.
• Egocentricity assesses an individual’s tendency to focus on
one’s own interests, beliefs, and attitudes.
Validation in Prison Population
Validation in Prison Population

SAMPLING PROCEDURE SAMPLE N = 1,794

*Random selection of prisoners (1,261 for
10 prisons (5 maximum this analysis)
and 5 medium security) – 749 thieves
– 522 burglars
*Systematic sampling – 246 drug dealers
within each prison – 488 general
violent offenders
*Stratification was – 35 sex offenders
based on: prison blocks, – 208 white collar
level of recidivism, type criminals
of criminals
– 117 murderers
Please note that some participants indicated having committed more than one crime
 Analysis & Results
χ2 df CFI TLI RMSEA (90% CI) WRMR

1. One Factor Model 2087.34*** 170 .64 .60 .102 (.098/.106) 3.15

2. Three Factor Model 1302.43*** 167 .79 .76 .079 (.075/.083) 2.47

3. Bifactor Model (3 grouping factors) 710.18*** 150 .90 .87 .059 (.054/.063) 1.66

4. MTMM Model (3 factors with 2 method factors 421.32*** 143 .95 .93 .042 (.038/.047) 1.16

5. Four Factor Model 1162.52*** 164 .81 .78 .075 (.071/.079) 2.31

6. Bifactor Model (4 grouping factors) 1308.02*** 150 .78 .73 .084 (.080/.089) 2.38

7. MTMM Model (4 factors with 2 method factors) 403.39*** 146 .96 .95 .040 (.036/.045) 1.15

Note. χ2 = chi square goodness of fit statistic; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker Lewis Index; RMSEA
= Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation; CI = Confidence Interval; WRMR = Weighted Root Mean Square Residual.
*** indicates χ2 is statistically significant (p < .001).
 MTMM Model of PPTS
F1 F2 F3 F4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

M1 M2

F1 = affective responsiveness, F2 = cognitive responsiveness, F3 = interpersonal

manipulation, F4 = egocentricity, M1 = knowledge/skills, and M2 = attitudes/beliefs.
 Model confirmed
• UK children (n = 450), student (n = 2500) &
community (n = 1100) sample
– Boduszek et al., (under review)

• US (n = 700) prisoners
– Boduszek, Sherretts & Debowska (under review)

• Barbados & Grenada children/youths (None-in-

Three project)
– Boduszek, Debowska, Sherretts, Willmott, Jones (work
in progress)
 Profiling Psychopaths
[Please note that my model of
psychopathy (PPTM) does not agree
with all presented traits]
 Superficial Charm
A psychopath puts a "mask" of sanity that is likeable and pleasant
 Grandiose self perception
psychopaths will often believe they are smarter and more
powerful than they actually are.
Constant need for stimulation
they need constant entertainment and activity
 Pathological lying
A psychopath will tell all sorts of lies;
Little white lies as well as huge stories
 Manipulation
all psychopaths are identified as cunning and able to get
people to do things they might not normally do
 No feelings of guilt
an absence of any guilt or remorse is a sign of psychopathy
 Lack of affect or emotional response
psychopaths demonstrate shallow emotional reactions to deaths, injuries,
trauma or other events that would otherwise cause a deeper response
 Lack of empathy
psychopaths are callous and have no way of
relating to non-psychopaths
Psychopaths are often parasitic
meaning they live off other people
Sexual immorality
 Unrealistic goals
either there are no goals at all, or they are unattainable and based
on the exaggerated sense of one's own accomplishments and
abilities.
Psychopaths are impulsive and
irresponsible
 Lack of responsibility
A psychopath will never admit to being wrong or owning
up to mistakes and errors in judgment
 Short term relationships
if there have been many short term marriages, the
chances the person is a psychopath increase .
 History of juvenile delinquency
many psychopaths exhibit delinquent behaviors in their youth
Psychopathy =
combination of
many traits
 Psychopaths
 Psychopaths tend to display remarkable verbal
fluency and an extensive vocabulary (Hare,
1991) (INTELLIGENCE!!!)
 However, while their speech is impressive the content is
generally superficial and empty of any real substance
 They jump from subject to subject – appear to lack a
“central organiser”
 Since they are exceptionally charming and
manipulative these short comings are not easily
noticeable
 It appears that
psychopathy should not
be studied in separation
from intelligence
(Boduszek et al., 2017)
 .17

+1SD above Mean

Intelligence

-.27

Psychopathy
Mean level Emotional
Callous Affect Intelligence response

-.56***

-1SD below Mean

Intelligence
 Prevalence of Psychopathy
 Psychopathy should be thought of
as existing along a continuum
 Not an either-or situation

 It is estimated that 1% - 2% of the

general population would meet the
criteria to be classified as a
psychopath (Hare, 1998)

 Within the adult prison population,

15-25% are classified as psychopaths

 This may depend on the type of facility in which

prisoners are detained
Problem with categorisation

-
+
My research - Psychopathy Profile among
prisoners (Boduszek et al., 2016)

7.1%

10.9%

21%

16.6%

44.4%
My research - Psychopathy Profile among
community sample (Boduszek et al., 2017)

5.9%

6.9%

14.2%

73.0%
My research - Psychopathy Profile among
university students (Boduszek et al., 2017)

7.4%

13.7% 15.5%

63.4%
My research - Psychopathy Profile among childern
(12-15 years old) - (Boduszek et al., 2017)

12.4%

35.1%

47.8%

4.6%
 Treatment of Psychopathy
 Psychopaths appear to be
completely unresponsive to
treatment interventions
(Gacono et al., 2000; Hare et al.,
2000)

 Probably due to the fact that psychopathy

relates to structural deficits in the brain and
these are resistant to any kind of
psychosocial interventions

 Difficult to evaluate because of the nature

of psychopaths
 Skilful at convincing therapists &
parole boards that they have
changed
 Treatment of Psychopathy
 Treatment interventions for psychopaths may well do
more harm than good

 Psychopaths who underwent a treatment program

while incarcerated displayed higher levels of recidivism
than psychopaths who did not (Rice et al., 1992)
 The opposite was the case among non-psychopaths

 Psychological interventions likely “arm” the psychopath

with knowledge and skills that can be used to more
effectively manipulate and deceive others
Diagnosis – Approach with Caution
• We should be careful when assessing
psychopathy or any other personality disorder.

• Having professionals who specialise in

diagnosing specific disorders is dangerous.

• As human beings, we have a tendency to

categorise every aspect of our lives.
– And if we want to diagnose, we will!
My selected research
on psychopathy
My research (Debowska & Boduszek, 2017) Child
sexual abuse and psychopathy– prison study
5.3% of prison population
(violent offenders with
high psychopathic traits)
Psychopathy, Violence, and Rape
Parcel 1 Type Gender Age Relation

Parcel 2
IPM -.16 -.02 -.07
Parcel 3
.14
-.23
Parcel 4

Parcel 5

Parcel 6 IRMA 1
CA .72*
Parcel 7 IRMA 2
Rape
Parcel 8 attitudes IRMA 3

IRMA 4
Parcel 9
-.10
IRMA 5
Parcel 10
ELS
Parcel 11
.22***
Parcel 12
-.08

Parcel 13 REV
Parcel 14
ASB
Parcel 15
REV 1 REV 2 REV 3 REV 4
Parcel 16
My research on Psychopathy and
Homicide (Boduszek et al., 2017)
General violent offenders are more psychopathic
than murderers

White collar and property offenders score high on

interpersonal manipulation psychopathy factor
 My research on Psychopathy and Homicide
(Sherretts, Boduszek, Debowska & Willmott, 2017)

Recidivists are slightly more psychopathic than murderers

Psychopathy and Gangs
Variable B SE OR (95% CI)

Ethnicity -.43 .40 .65 (.30/1.41)

Have you ever run away from where you were living? .19 .40 1.20 (.55/2.66)

Did your parents have physical fights? -.55 .44 .58 (.25/1.35)
Number of incarcerated friends .22 .16 1.25 (.92/1.35)
Does gang share money? -.52 .44 .60 (.25/.142
Does gang have punishment if rules are broken? -.99 .41 .37* (.17/.83)
Frequency of contact with gang members -.02 .09 .98 (.82/1.17)
Position in gang .48 .44 1.62 (.68/3.85)
Importance of gang membership .94 .16 2.55*** (1.87/3.48)
Number of friends (non-gang members) -.40 .20 .67* (.45/.99)
Time with the gang .14 .16 1.16 (.85/1.57)
Moral disengagement .11 .04 1.11** (1.04/1.20)
PCL YV – Factor 1 -.01 .07 .99 (.06/1.15)

PCL YV – Factor 2 -.08 .07 .93 (.80/1.06)

Psychopathy and Criminal Social Identity (juvenile
incarcerated offenders from Pakistan)
• Boduszek, D., Dhingra, K., & Debowska (2016). The Moderating Role of
Psychopathic Traits in the Relationship between Period of Confinement and
Criminal Social Identity in a Sample of Juvenile Prisoners. Journal of Criminal
Justice. 44, 30-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.11.005. (ISSN 0047-2352)

.23*

+1SD above Mean

Psychopathy

.03

Period of
Mean level Criminal
confinement Psychopathy Identity

-.10

-1SD below Mean

Psychopathy
 Psychopathy and Criminal Social Identity (US
recidivistic prisoners)
• Sherretts, N., Boduszek, D., & Debowska, A. (2016). The Moderating Role of Psychopathy in the Relationship
between Length of Incarceration and Criminal Social Identity in recidivistic offenders. Law and Human
Behavior. DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000188. (ISSN 0147-7307)
.17*

+1SD above Mean

Psychopathy

.03

Period of
Mean level Criminal
confinement Psychopathy Identity

-.19*

-1SD below Mean

Psychopathy
Thank you for your time!
 Introduction

prof. dr hab. Daniel Boduszek

dboduszek@swps.edu.pl
 What we’ll do today

• Introduction

• Course Objectives

• Attendance

• Assignments and exams

• Course Content
 Module Leader
• Work experience outside
academia
• 3 years in maximum security prison (S
section)
• 1 year in maximum security prison for
recidivists
• 2 years in remand prison
• 1 year street working in the
environment of youth at risk of
addiction and social pathology (e.g.,
drug addicted, prostitutes, homeless
ex-prisoners)
• Currently – conducting research in
prisons (US, Poland, Pakistan, and
Ireland)
Maximum Security Prison
Prison for Recidivists
Cloverhill Remand Prison
 Module Leader

• My area of research and supervision

– Criminal Psychology
– Homicidal Behaviour
– Criminal Thinking Style & Criminal Social Identity
– Recidivism & Prisonization
– Psychopathy & Criminal Behaviour
– Personality and Criminal Behaviour
– Forensic Mental Health
– Advanced Statistics and Quantitative Research Methods
 Reaching Me

• Email: dboduszek@swps.edu.pl

• My university profile:
https://www.swps.pl/daniel-boduszek
• My research profile:
• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel-
Boduszek
 Assessment Information

• In order to demonstrate you

have met the learning
outcomes
– MCQ (20 questions)

• Assessment is worth 100% of

the module marks.

• Attendance Crucial!!!
 How do I get an A?
• Come to class (online) 
• Ask questions if you’re unsure
• Do the readings
Try hard!!! Do your best!!!
 Be open-minded!!!

Minds are like parachutes. They only

function when they are open.
- James Dewar
Be enthusiastic!!!

XXXXX
 Course Content

• Psychopathy
– Psychopathy
– Development of
Psychopathy
– Treatment of
Psychopathy
 Course Content
• Criminal Homicide –
Psychosocial perspective
– Define criminal homicide
and negligent manslaughter.
– Investigate different types of
multiple murder with an
emphasis on serial killers.
– Explore the psycho-
sociological profile of
homicide offender.
– Characteristics od sexual
serial killer
 Course Content
• Psychology of Homicidal
Behaviour (a case study and
research in maximum security
prison)
– Psychology of homicide
– What predicts homicidal behaviour
– Hedonistic serial killing (Comfort
type)
– Richard Kuklinski (Ice-Man) -
Hedonistic Serial Killer (Comfort
type) – Contract Killer
– Research in homicidal behaviour in
maximum security prison
 Course Content

• Criminal Social Identity

 Course Content

• Psychology of Gangs
Good Luck 
 The Integrated Psychosocial
Model of Criminal Social Identity

prof. dr hab. Daniel Boduszek

dboduszek@swps.edu.pl
Lecture Outline

• Criminal Social Identity

Theory
• The Integrated
Psychosocial Model of
Criminal Social Identity
(IPM-CSI)
• Measure of Criminal
Social Identity (MCSI)
• My Prison Research on
Criminal Social Identity
 Social Identity

• Social identity is a person’s sense of

who she or he is based on group
membership

• Group membership provides an

individual with a sense of social
identity, a sense of belonging to the
social world.
Criminal Social Identity
(Boduszek & Hyland, 2011)
 Personal vs. Social Identity

• Personal Identity –
self as unique
individual

• Social Identity - self

as member of group
 “In addition to the unique identity that is
sometimes labelled the personal self-concept,
there are also social aspects of the self that
criminal shares with others criminals”
(Boduszek & Hyland, 2011; p. 604)

How the criminals think of themselves is determined

by a collective identity that is the criminal social self
 Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)

• Individuals’ perceptions of, and

attitudes toward, in-group and out-
group members ultimately develop
from their need to identity with and
belong to groups that are relatively
superior, as means of enhancing their
level of self-esteem.

• The result of these processes is that

individuals perceive other group
members to be similar to themselves
and show preference in their
attitudes and behaviours
 Depersonalization
• Depersonalization - viewing oneself as a category
representative rather than a unique individual

• Shift from personal to social identity

• This process not only depersonalizes self-perception but also

transforms self-conception and assimilates all aspects of one’s
attitudes, feelings, and behaviours to the criminal group
model;
– it changes what individuals think, feel, and do (see Hogg 2001)
 Depersonalization

• According to the social

identity model of de-
individuation,
depersonalization can
produce antisocial behaviour
but only if individuals
identify with a criminal
group (Postmes et al. 2001).
Membership of a criminal group is “psychological”
when the criminal social identity of the group
members is incorporated into their self-concept and
becomes salient without the physical presence of
criminal group
(Boduszek & Hyland, 2011)
Once the criminal social identity with criminal
norms become established, members of
criminal group achieve a sense of self-
consistency through a manifestation of their
new identity in terms of criminal behaviours
(Boduszek & Hyland, 2011)
 Criminal Identity
• Once the criminal
social identity
becomes salient,
members tend to
express their
conformity to the
group (Thornberry
et al 1993)
Demonstration of over-conformity to criminal
conduct is positively encouraged and reinforced
by other in-group criminals
 Criminal Identity
• No need to apply persuasion to make an impact on
others criminal attitudes or commit a crime because
it occurs through the process of identification
Interpersonal Social-Cognitive Theory of Self
(Andersen et al., 2002)

• Development of a
criminal identity is
influenced by
representations of
known criminals which
are stored in memory
system, and are made
accessible due to
relevant situational
cues
Social identities and their change is based on situation
specific schemas which are activated by external
factors such as company of criminal others
 Multiple Social Identities and Their Change

• Dawes (1992) - behaviour may shift as social context and social

identity shift

• Situational Theory of Delinquency (Sykes and Matza 1957) -

criminals tend to drift in and out of anti-social behaviour

• Under certain circumstances, such as in the company of criminal

group, individuals can be expected to think and behave consistent
with criminal group norms

• Thus, anti-social behaviour is manifested only when the criminal

identity is salient.
 Multiple Social Identities and Their Change

Strocka (2008) - gang

members only showed
violent and criminal
behaviour in the
context of their social
identity as gang
members
 Model of Criminal Social Identity
(MCSI; Boduszek et al., 2012)
Boduszek, D., Adamson, G., Shevlin, M., & Hyland, P. (2012). Development and Validation of a
Measure of Criminal Social Identity within a sample of Polish Recidivistic Prisoners. Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health, 22(5), 315-324. DOI 10.1002/cbm.1827

The concept includes three factors:

• In-Group Ties - measures the level of personal
bonding with other criminals
• Cognitive Centrality - measures the
psychological salience of a criminal’s group
identity
• In-Group Affect - measures a criminals felt
attitude toward other in-group criminals
Cognitive
Centrality

Cognitive importance of belonging to a criminal group. Criminal identity, then, is

seen as central to an individual’s self-concept, which renders him or her more
likely to endorse the group norms and act accordingly even in the absence of
other group members.

‘Centrality’ is considered to be an integral component of the theory of Criminal

Social Identity as it reflects the conscious, cognitive component of belonging to a
criminal group.
 In-group Affect
Positive emotional valence of belonging to a criminal group and helps to reduce the
anxiety associated with the discrepancy between ideal and actual self by changing
an individual’s point of reference from wider societal norms to sub-group norms.
 In-group Ties

Psychological perception of resemblance and emotional connection with

other members of a criminal group. Individuals with strong in-group ties are
persistently readier to display behaviours condoned by the group in order to
demonstrate their conformity (Boduszek et al. 2012; Boduszek et al. 2014).
The Integrated Psychosocial Model of Criminal
Social Identity (IPM-CSI; Boduszek et al., 2016)

Personality
moderators
(affective and
interpersonal traits)
1. Identity crisis -
results in weak
Exposure to
criminals bonds with society,
CRIMINAL
(e.g., prison, gang,
street) SOCIAL peer rejection, and is
IDENTITY
IDENTITY CRISIS
associated with poor
Rejection by peers,
Weak bond with society,
Attitudes towards Three Factors: parental attachment
Dysfunctional family in-group/out- Cognitive
(parental attachment, group members centrality and supervision.
parental supervision, (criminals/non-
inappropriate parenting In-group
criminals)
style)
affect

In-group
Need for self- ties
esteem
CSI arises out of an School setting is one
Identity
identity crisis that occurs Crisis that supports strong
during adolescence,
social comparisons
when peer relationships
play a crucial role

The consequences of peer

rejection include
– low self-esteem
– violent tendencies
– risk of dropping out of
school or social activities
– development of criminal
behaviours
Peer rejection may be exacerbated by A lack of parental tenderness and
Identity Crisis
family factors, including a lack of
tenderness, parental rejection, or
affection can impede the
development of empathy and guilt
inappropriate parenting style

Emotional, psychological, and physical isolation from parents can negatively impact
upon the bonds of social control, and reduce any motivation to engage fully in pro-
social accomplishments or to conform with existing institutions of authority.

In line with social control theory, Boduszek et al. (2014) found that recidivistic
prisoners who reported a low level of parental supervision were significantly more
likely to develop on-going relationships with criminal friends
The Integrated Psychosocial Model of Criminal
Social Identity (IPM-CSI)

Personality
moderators
(affective and
interpersonal traits)
2. Exposure to a
criminal/antisocial
Exposure to
criminals environment in the
CRIMINAL
(e.g., prison, gang,
street) SOCIAL form of associations
IDENTITY
IDENTITY CRISIS
with criminal friends
Rejection by peers,
Weak bond with society,
Attitudes towards Three Factors: before, during,
Dysfunctional family in-group/out- Cognitive
(parental attachment, group members centrality and/or after
parental supervision, (criminals/non-
inappropriate parenting
style)
criminals) In-group incarceration.
affect

In-group
Need for self- ties
esteem
 Exposure to criminal environment
Exposure to criminal/antisocial environment

• Akers’s (1985) differential reinforcement theory - people are first

initiated into delinquent conduct by differential associations with
antisocial friends.
• Through differential reinforcement, they gain knowledge of how to reap
the rewards and avoid punishments as the consequences of criminal
conduct.
• This theory tends to fit well into criminology because it provides an
explanation of the decision-making process involved in the development
of the cognitive, behavioural, and motivational techniques essential to
commit a crime
• Holsinger (1999) - people who have been socialized in criminal settings
and have acquired criminal cognitions are more likely to commit a crime
 Exposure to criminal environment

• Losel (2003) - through interactions with group influences, delinquent

adolescents develop attitudes, values, and self-related cognitions that
encourage criminal behaviour.
• Rhodes (1979) - individuals who initially registered cognitions that were
more deviant recorded a slight temporal trend in favour of increased
conventionality; whereas, prosocial cognitions became more criminally
oriented as time progressed given persistent contact with criminal others.
• Walters (2003) - criminal identity and instrumental criminal thinking
increased over a six-month period in novice inmates (i.e., those with no
prior prison experience) exposed to a medium-security prison environment.
• Boduszek et al. (2013) - criminal friend associations play a significant role in
the development of all three factors of criminal social identity.
The Integrated Psychosocial Model of Criminal
Social Identity (IPM-CSI)

Personality
moderators
(affective and
interpersonal traits)
3. Need for
identification with
Exposure to
criminals a criminal group to
CRIMINAL
(e.g., prison, gang,
street) SOCIAL protect self-esteem
IDENTITY
IDENTITY CRISIS
Rejection by peers, Attitudes towards
Weak bond with society,
Three Factors:
Dysfunctional family in-group/out- Cognitive
(parental attachment, group members centrality
parental supervision, (criminals/non-
inappropriate parenting In-group
criminals)
style)
affect

In-group
Need for self- ties
esteem
Boduszek & Hyland
(2011) - criminals’
perception of and
attitudes toward
criminal group
members ultimately
develop from their need
to identify with that
particular group to
protect their self-
esteem.

A prison study
conducted by Boduszek
et al. (2013) highlighted
the role of self-esteem
in the development of
criminal social
identification.
 My research
Boduszek, D., Adamson, G., Shevlin, M., Mallett, J., & Hyland, P. (2013). Criminal Social Identity of Recidivistic
Prisoners: The Role of Self-Esteem, Family and Criminal Friends. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 28(1),
15-25. DOI: 10.1007/s11896-012-9105-7
The Integrated Psychosocial Model of Criminal
Social Identity (IPM-CSI)

Personality 4. Moderating role

moderators
(affective and
of personality traits
interpersonal traits)
in the relationship
between
Exposure to
criminals
criminal/antisocial
CRIMINAL
(e.g., prison, gang,
street) SOCIAL
environment and the
IDENTITY CRISIS
IDENTITY development of
Rejection by peers,
Weak bond with society,
Attitudes towards Three Factors: criminal social
in-group/out-
Dysfunctional family
(parental attachment, group members
Cognitive
centrality
identity.
parental supervision, (criminals/non-
inappropriate parenting In-group
criminals)
style)
affect

In-group
Need for self- ties
esteem
Boduszek et al. (2011) found psychoticism to be a strong predictor of
criminal cognitions

Impact of in-group affect on criminal thinking is stronger among those

criminals who are more introverted, while the impact of in-group ties on
criminal thinking is stronger among those criminals who are more
extroverted (Boduszek et al., 2012)

Identity change due to social adaptation is not simply a passive

response to environmental stimuli (Bakker, 2005).

People are often motivated to enact this change by recognising what they
want, establishing a goal, and deciding on an appropriate course of action
to bring them closer to the desired object (Blumer, 1966).

Criminal identity may be developed or displayed if categorizing the

self as a part of criminal group is seen as advantageous.

Boduszek et al., (2016) - those more skilled at interpersonal manipulation

may portray a more criminally orientated identity because of the benefits
such behaviour might provide, such as increased status within a group.
Psychopathy and Criminal Social Identity (juvenile
incarcerated offenders from Pakistan)
Boduszek, D., Dhingra, K., & Debowska (2016). The moderating role of psychopathic traits in
the relationship between period of confinement and criminal social identity in a sample of
juvenile prisoners. Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 30-35.

.23*

+1SD above Mean

Psychopathy

.03

Period of
Mean level Criminal
confinement Psychopathy Identity

-.10

-1SD below Mean

Psychopathy
Psychopathy and Criminal Social Identity (US
recidivistic prisoners)
Sherretts, N., Boduszek, D., & Debowska, A. (in-press). The Moderating Role of
Psychopathy in the Relationship between Length of Incarceration and Criminal Social
Identity in recidivistic offenders. Law and Human Behavior

.17*

+1SD above Mean

Psychopathy

.03

Period of
Mean level Criminal
confinement Psychopathy Identity

-.19*

-1SD below Mean

Psychopathy
More research on Criminal
Identity
Boduszek, D., Adamson, G., Shevlin, M., Hyland, P., &
Bourke, A. (2013). The Mediating Role of Criminal Social
Identity in Relationship between Criminal Friends and
Criminal Thinking Style within a sample of recidivistic X1 X2 X3 Testing theory
prisoners. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social
Environment. 23(1), 14-28.
Link between Criminal
DOI:10.1080/10911359.2013.737289 Identity & Criminal
Centrality
Thinking

.44*** .04

NF TF X4 X5
Ent
PR -.08

Criminal
.56*** Affect
.34*** Criminal Vio
Friends Thinking
-.46***

Int
PS

.79***
X6 X7 X8 .33***

Indirect effect β
Ties

CA  CT via A.19***
CA  CT via T .26***
 My research
Shagufta, S., Boduszek, D., Dhingra, K., & Palmer-Kola, D. (2015). Criminal Social Identity
and Suicide Ideation among Pakistani Young Offenders. International Journal of Prisoner
Helath, 11(2), 98-107. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPH-06-2014-0018. (ISSN 1744-9200)

X1 Vio Addict

X2 C
.15 .02
.28
X3
S1
X4
A -.29
ST
X5
S2
-.51**
X6
.01
.01
X7 T
Conf Age
X8
 My research
Boduszek, D., Shevlin, M., Hyland, P., & Adamson, G. (2013). Eysenck's Personality Model and Criminal
thinking style within a violent and non-violent offender sample - application of propensity score
analysis. Deviant Behavior, 34(6), 483-493. DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2012.748628
 My research
Boduszek, D., Hyland, P., Shevlin, M., & Adamson, G. (2013). Assessment of Psycho-Social
Factors Predicting Recidivistic Violent Offences within a Sample of Male Prisoners. Irish Journal of
Psychology. 34(1), 24-34. DOI: 10.1080/03033910.2012.754324
 What predicts development of criminal
social identity?

• Rejection by peers

• Weak bond with society

• Dysfunctional family

• Criminal/antisocial environment

• Need for self-esteem

• Personality factors (psychopathic traits)

 MARK TWAIN (1835 – 1910)

“Of all the animals, man is the only one that

is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain
for the pleasure of doing it”
 HOMICIDE
PSYCHO-SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE

prof. dr hab. Daniel Boduszek

dboduszek@swps.edu.pl
 OBJECTIVES
• Define criminal homicide and negligent
manslaughter.

• Investigate different types of multiple murder

with an emphasis on serial killers.

• Explore the psycho-sociological profile of

homicide offender.

• Characteristics of sexual serial killer

CRIMINAL HOMICIDE
• Criminal Homicide – causing the death of another person
without legal justification or excuse (Bartol & Bartol, 2014)
• Murder – unlawful killing of one human being by another
with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied
(Black, 1990)
• “Malice aforethought” – premeditation or mental state
of a person who thinks ahead, plans, and voluntary
causes the death of another without legal justification.
• However premeditation can occur also in a very
short period of time
• Negligent manslaughter – killing another as a result of
recklessness or responsible negligence (no intention to kill)
 TYPES OF SERIAL MURDERERS

• According to Holmes & DeBurger (1988) – 4 major

types:
 TYPES OF SERIAL MURDERERS

• 1. Visionary – driven by voices

or visions that particular group has
to be destroyed (e.g., prostitutes)
• Operates on basis of a
“directive from God”
• Sometimes psychotic (atypical
for serial killers because most of
them are not mentally ill)
• Most difficult to understand for
investigators
• Crime scene is usually chaotic
and has plenty of physical
evidence (e.g., fingerprints, David Berkowitz
weapon) (Holmes & Holmes,
2010)
 TYPES OF SERIAL MURDERERS

• 2. Mission-orientated – there
are a particular undesirable group
which must be destroyed (e.g.,
members of particular religious,
racial or minority group)
• Killer demonstrates no obvious
mental disorder
• No visions, no voices Joseph Franklin
• Functions on a day-to-day basis
without notable psychologically
abnormal behaviour
 TYPES OF SERIAL MURDERERS

• 3. Hedonistic – strives for pleasure

and thrill seeking, and feels that
people are objects to use for one’s
own enjoyment
• Murder itself is pleasurable
• 3 types of hedonistic killers (Holmes & John Wayne Gacy
Holmes, 2010):
• Lust (motivated by sexual gratification)
• Thrill (motivated to induce pain or a
terrified reaction from the victim)
• Comfort (motivated by financial reasons)
Richard Kuklinski
ICEMAN
 TYPES OF SERIAL MURDERERS

• 4. Power / control –
satisfaction by having
complete life-or-dead
control over a victim
• Sexual components
are present
• Killers tend to seek
for particularly
vulnerable and easy Ted Bundy
victims
 MULTIPLE MURDERERS
• One of the most bizarre and frightening types of
homicide is the killing of a group of individuals.

• The murders can occur in a random (usually

mass murder) or a non-random (usually serial
murder) fashion.

• They may also occur in a single episode or over

an extended period of time.
 TYPE OF MURDER

• Serial Murder – individual(s) kills a

number of people (min. 3) over time
• The time interval (cooling-off
Jeffrey Dahmer
period) may be days or weeks, but
more likely months or years
• Spree murder – killing of 3 or more
people without any cooling-off period,
usually at two or more locations Anders Breivik

• Mass murder – killing 3 or more people

at a single location with no cooling-off
period.
James Holmes
 MASS MURDERERS

• Various kinds of mass murder – planned extermination of a group

of people; terrorist attacks; school/workplace shootings.

• Two types of mass murder have been identified (Douglas et al.,

1986):
• Classic Mass Murder
• Family Mass Murder
 MASS MURDERERS

• Classic mass murder is where an individual,

or individuals, enter a building or public area
and kill people they come in contact with.

• Many of the recent school/university shooting

in the USA are examples of classic mass
murder.

• The killers choose their victims at random.

Adam Lanza
• The killers usually end up killing themselves. Connecticut School
Shooting
 MASS MURDERERS

• Family mass murder is where at least three

family members are killed at a single time.

• The killers is usually a family member of some

sort and the killer normally commits suicide
following the killing.
• Classified as mass murder/suicide

• Worth noting that these classifications are not William Balfour

entirely discrete and can cross over. Spree convicted of killing 3
members of Jennifer
murder in particular has been questioned as a
Hudson's family
useful category (FBI, 2005).
 SERIAL MURDERERS - NUMBERS

• The U.S. Department of Justice estimated that

there was between 35-40 serial killers active at
any given period of time throughout the 70’s and
80’s (Jenkins, 1988).

• Similar estimates have been made more recently

(Hickey, 2006).

• Realistically though there is no accurate data on

the number of active serial killers in the US or
internationally (Brantley & Kosky, 2005).
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• Examining the victim selection patters of

apprehended serial killers reveals much about
who victims of serial killers are likely to be.

• Serial killers usually select strangers as their

victims.

• The most likely group of people to be victims are

those who offer easy access; live a transient
lifestyle; and who frequently disappear for
periods of time without concern.
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• Serial killers select victims whom

they perceive to be vulnerable.
• Who are easy to access and whose
disappearance wouldn’t raise alarm.

• Street working prostitutes

• Young runaways
• traveling farm workers
• male drifters & homeless people
 SERIAL MURDERERS
• The next most preferred group for
serial killers include:

• Female students living on or near

college campuses
• Elderly, infirmed, or sick people
• Socially isolated people

• Serial murders very rarely break into

homes and murder middle-class or
upper-class strangers
• These groups do not provide easy
access or vulnerable targets
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• In some case serial killers can become more exploratory

in their selection of victims.

• They usually begin with highly vulnerable and easy

targets

• As they become more confident in their ability, they can

challenge themselves to kill more difficult targets

• This rarely occurs because serial killers are usually

apprehended long before they reach this level of
confidence
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• Serial killers can display similarities and

differences to single-victim murders.
• Psychopathic personality disorder, developmental disturbances etc.

• The major difference between the two types of

killers relates to:
• The selection of their victim
• The preferred method of murder

• Single-victim murders usually kill friends,

lovers, acquaintances.
• Victim is known and familiar to the killer.
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• The lack of any kind of relationship

between the killer and the victim is a
distinguishing quality of serial
murder.
• It means identifying suspects
can be difficult

• Serial killers prefer to use more

“hands on” approaches to kill their
victims than single-victim killers.

• Serial killers tend to beat or strangle

their victims to death while single-
victim killers are more likely to use
deadly weapons (Kraemer, Lord, &
Heilbrun, 2004).
 SERIAL MURDERERS
• Single-victim murderers kill during times of
intense emotional arousal – anger, lack of
control, usually unplanned

• Serial killers kill in a deliberate, thought-out

manner and murders are generally sexual in
nature

• Many serial killers are sexual sadists -

motivated primarily by sexual satisfaction
obtained through seeing their victim suffering

• They incorporate their deviant sexual

fantasies into their killings (Egger, 1990;
Holmes & DeBurger, 1988; Pistorius,
1990)
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• Serial killers tend to be considerably more organised

in their offending
• Single-victim killers display disorganised
characteristics

• Serial killers often move the body of their victim from

one place to another – dispose of it, hide it etc.

• They also tend to use restraints and maintain a

high level of control over their victims (Kraemer et
al., 2004).
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• The majority of serial killers have

experienced severe abuses and
disturbances in their early development
(DeLisi & Scherer, 2006)

• 80% from families characterized by

regular violence
• 93% experienced inconsistent parenting

• Unlike other violent offenders, serial killer

don’t show a history of violence in
adolescence

• They tend to begin killing in their mid-

20’s or 30’s.
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• Serial killer tend to have frequent prior contact with police

(Jenkins, 1988)
• Petty theft and forgery are typical crimes

• Serial killers are arrested on average 4 years after their first

offence

• Upon committing their first murder most serial killers

• had stable jobs
• lived in the same house
• half were married
• many were former police officers and
security guards (Jenkins, 1988)
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• Most serial killers kill in familiar locations

• An anchor point is used such as place
of residence, job office, relatives
• Very rare to travel far from their home
to kill (FBI, 2005).

• Hickey (1997) found that

• 14% of serial killer use their home or
workplace as a preferred location to kill
• 52% kill in the same geographical location
• Geographical profiling has emerged as an
effective method of identifying serial killers.
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• It is a myth that only whites are serial killers

(Walsh, 2005).

• 22% of serial killers in the U.S. were African-

American.

• There appears to be no difference between

whites and African-Americans in how many
people they kill or in who they target.

• Limited research exists with respect to serial

killers from other ethnic backgrounds.
 HOMICIDAL DEMOGRAPHICS

• There is also very robust evidence of

gender differences in homicide.

• Males commit 90% of homicides,

Females 10%

• Males are also much more likely

to be the victims of homicides.
• 78% - male
• 22% - female
 HOMICIDAL DEMOGRAPHICS

• Young people are also most likely to perpetrate

homicidal offences.
• The FBI found that half of all violent crimes were
committed by people (usually males) under the ages
of 25.
• 50% of all individuals arrested for murder and No
negligent murder were under 25, and 22% were
under the age of 18!
 HOMICIDAL DEMOGRAPHICS

• Homicides occur most frequently during

arguments (44%)
• Very often these are domestic or family related violence.

• Many homicides also occur during the process of

carrying out other felonies (23%).
• rape, robberies, burglaries, arson, drug trafficking.

• The remaining 23% of homicides occur during a

variety of other circumstances.
• Fights, gang killings, juvenile fights, sniper attacks.
 PROFILE OF SERIAL KILLER
(SUMMARY)
• The killer is usually a stranger to the
victim
• The murders appear unconnected or
random
• The murder is rarely ‘‘for profit’’ and the
motive is psychological, not material
• The victim may have a symbolic value
for the killer, and the method of killing
may reveal this meaning
• The killer often chooses victims who are
vulnerable (children, adolescents,
women, prostitutes)
 PROFILE (EGGER,1990)
• According to Egger the
average serial killer
profile is as follows:
• white
• male
• low to middle socioeconomic status
• in his 20s or 30s
• possessing a history of childhood
abuse or neglect
• killer is sociopathic/psychopathic
• Killer is a chameleon to his
environment and appears normal to
others
 MOTIVATIONS OF SERIAL KILLERS
(HOLMES & DE BURGER, 1988)

• Serial murders are lacking in

clear-cut motives
• The crime is lacking in an
external motivation
• They are driven by internal
compulsions
• They kill for an elusive
psychological gain
• This gain is generally sexual
• Uncontrolled drives
• Inability to control impulsive
behaviour or change their
actions in consideration of
others
 FANTASY AND
SEXUAL HOMICIDE
 THE FBI’S NATIONAL CENTER FOR
THE ANALYSIS OF VIOLENT CRIME

• Four types of sexual

homicide:
• Organized – conscious
planning and display of
control of the victim
• Disorganized – less aware
of a plan and signs of non-
systematic behaviour
• Mixed – elements of both
categories
• Sadistic – torture, cruelty
 SEXUAL HOMICIDE

• According to the FBI, sexual homicide,

both organized and disorganized:
• involves a sexual element (activity)
as the basis for the sequence of acts
leading to death
• Performance and meaning of the
sexual element vary with an offender
• The act may range from actual rape
involving penetration (either before
or after death) to a symbolic sexual
assault, such as insertion of foreign
objects into a victim’s body orifices
 SEXUAL HOMICIDE

• Sexual predators, whether they kill or

not, will intensify their activities over the
course of their careers
• They start with violent sexual fantasies
and progress to acting out their
imagined scenes with both willing and
unwilling partners
• The lethal predator also will
demonstrate increasing skill in
selecting, tracking, capturing, and
controlling the victim and carrying out
the murder
 SEXUAL SERIAL MURDERERS

• Many serial killers are also sexual sadists motivated

primarily by sexual satisfaction obtained through
victim suffering (Douglas et al., 2006; Hazelwood &
Burgess, 1987)

• They incorporate their deviant sexual fantasies into

their killings (Egger, 1990)
 SEXUAL SERIAL MURDERERS

• Sadistic sexual serial killers use

excessive force
• domination
• torture
• rape with objects
• sexual mutilation
• cutting hair
• burning with cigarettes
• sexual intercourse with a corpse following murder
• post-mortem display of the body
• collection of trophies

• The attacks of sadistic killers are

carefully planned and preventive
against discovery (Groth & Birnbaum, 1979)
 SEXUAL SERIAL MURDERERS

• Quite often, sexual predators who kill

commit acts that have nothing to do
with the commission of the murder
• They may pose, move, mutilate, or
dispose of the victim in an unusual
way
• These acts may be symbolic and
designed to make an impact on others
or for the predators’ perverse pleasure
and enjoyment, or both.
• In some cases, no evidence is found
of “normal” sexual arousal, such as
erection or ejaculation
 FANTASY AND SEXUAL HOMICIDE

• The killer is pushed to kill

by their thought patterns
• He is essentially driven to
murder by an intrusive
fantasy life
• His early learning is that
the violence against other
humans is normal and
"acceptable"
 FANTASY AND SEXUAL HOMICIDE

• Sexual killers have a drive to

find the “right victim”
• The killing does not live up to
the fantasy
• Killer is driven to “perfect” the
crime
• Taking souvenirs from the
victim is evidence of fantasy at
work
• Sado-erotic materials at home
are evidence of fantasy
 JEFFREY
DAHMER
Homosexual Serial Killer Cannibal
JEFFREY DAHMER
• Born May 21st 1960
• Parents both of German
origin
• He was one of two
children
• Worked at the Ambrosia
Chocolate Factory
CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES

• Was unable to trust anyone

• Around the age of 14 he spent a lot of

time on his own

• Was obsessed with masturbation, gay

porn, and internal organs (animal cruelty)
 THE CRIMES
• In 1978 in Ohio smashed his first victim to
pieces with a hammer and scattered him in
the woods
• Hung out in gay areas and took men back
to his flat
• Killed, dismembered, ate, had sex, boiled
skulls (then painted them). Kept body parts
and organs!
VICTIMS
 THE SENTENCE

• On February 13th 1992 found guilty of

the murder of 15 men
• Sentenced to 15 life sentences
• On sentencing he expressed remorse
and wished for his own death
• Killed in prison on November 24th
1994 by Christopher Scaver
 THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS

• Developmental disorders
• Attachment issues
• Schizotypal personality
disorder
• Cannibalism
• Many sexual disorders
• Sexual sadism
• Necrophilia
• Deluded
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW
1. Define criminal homicide and negligent
manslaughter.

2. Describe and compare different types of

multiple murder with an emphasis on serial
killers.

3. Provide the psycho-sociological profile of

homicide offender.

4. Outline characteristics of sexual serial killer.

 NEXT WEEK
• Psychology of homicidal behaviour

• Richard Kuklinski - a case study of

contract serial killer

• My research in homicidal
offending in maximum
security prisons for
recidivists (USA, Pakistan, and Poland)
QUESTIONS?
Thank you for your time!
 MARK TWAIN (1835 – 1910)

“Of all the animals, man is the only one that

is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain
for the pleasure of doing it”
 HOMICIDE
PSYCHO-SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE

prof. dr hab. Daniel Boduszek

dboduszek@swps.edu.pl
 OBJECTIVES
• Define criminal homicide and negligent
manslaughter.

• Investigate different types of multiple murder

with an emphasis on serial killers.

• Explore the psycho-sociological profile of

homicide offender.

• Characteristics of sexual serial killer

CRIMINAL HOMICIDE
• Criminal Homicide – causing the death of another person
without legal justification or excuse (Bartol & Bartol, 2014)
• Murder – unlawful killing of one human being by another
with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied
(Black, 1990)
• “Malice aforethought” – premeditation or mental state
of a person who thinks ahead, plans, and voluntary
causes the death of another without legal justification.
• However premeditation can occur also in a very
short period of time
• Negligent manslaughter – killing another as a result of
recklessness or responsible negligence (no intention to kill)
 TYPES OF SERIAL MURDERERS

• According to Holmes & DeBurger (1988) – 4 major

types:
 TYPES OF SERIAL MURDERERS

• 1. Visionary – driven by voices

or visions that particular group has
to be destroyed (e.g., prostitutes)
• Operates on basis of a
“directive from God”
• Sometimes psychotic (atypical
for serial killers because most of
them are not mentally ill)
• Most difficult to understand for
investigators
• Crime scene is usually chaotic
and has plenty of physical
evidence (e.g., fingerprints, David Berkowitz
weapon) (Holmes & Holmes,
2010)
 TYPES OF SERIAL MURDERERS

• 2. Mission-orientated – there
are a particular undesirable group
which must be destroyed (e.g.,
members of particular religious,
racial or minority group)
• Killer demonstrates no obvious
mental disorder
• No visions, no voices Joseph Franklin
• Functions on a day-to-day basis
without notable psychologically
abnormal behaviour
 TYPES OF SERIAL MURDERERS

• 3. Hedonistic – strives for pleasure

and thrill seeking, and feels that
people are objects to use for one’s
own enjoyment
• Murder itself is pleasurable
• 3 types of hedonistic killers (Holmes & John Wayne Gacy
Holmes, 2010):
• Lust (motivated by sexual gratification)
• Thrill (motivated to induce pain or a
terrified reaction from the victim)
• Comfort (motivated by financial reasons)
Richard Kuklinski
ICEMAN
 TYPES OF SERIAL MURDERERS

• 4. Power / control –
satisfaction by having
complete life-or-dead
control over a victim
• Sexual components
are present
• Killers tend to seek
for particularly
vulnerable and easy Ted Bundy
victims
 MULTIPLE MURDERERS
• One of the most bizarre and frightening types of
homicide is the killing of a group of individuals.

• The murders can occur in a random (usually

mass murder) or a non-random (usually serial
murder) fashion.

• They may also occur in a single episode or over

an extended period of time.
 TYPE OF MURDER

• Serial Murder – individual(s) kills a

number of people (min. 3) over time
• The time interval (cooling-off
Jeffrey Dahmer
period) may be days or weeks, but
more likely months or years
• Spree murder – killing of 3 or more
people without any cooling-off period,
usually at two or more locations Anders Breivik

• Mass murder – killing 3 or more people

at a single location with no cooling-off
period.
James Holmes
 MASS MURDERERS

• Various kinds of mass murder – planned extermination of a group

of people; terrorist attacks; school/workplace shootings.

• Two types of mass murder have been identified (Douglas et al.,

1986):
• Classic Mass Murder
• Family Mass Murder
 MASS MURDERERS

• Classic mass murder is where an individual,

or individuals, enter a building or public area
and kill people they come in contact with.

• Many of the recent school/university shooting

in the USA are examples of classic mass
murder.

• The killers choose their victims at random.

Adam Lanza
• The killers usually end up killing themselves. Connecticut School
Shooting
 MASS MURDERERS

• Family mass murder is where at least three

family members are killed at a single time.

• The killers is usually a family member of some

sort and the killer normally commits suicide
following the killing.
• Classified as mass murder/suicide

• Worth noting that these classifications are not William Balfour

entirely discrete and can cross over. Spree convicted of killing 3
members of Jennifer
murder in particular has been questioned as a
Hudson's family
useful category (FBI, 2005).
 SERIAL MURDERERS - NUMBERS

• The U.S. Department of Justice estimated that

there was between 35-40 serial killers active at
any given period of time throughout the 70’s and
80’s (Jenkins, 1988).

• Similar estimates have been made more recently

(Hickey, 2006).

• Realistically though there is no accurate data on

the number of active serial killers in the US or
internationally (Brantley & Kosky, 2005).
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• Examining the victim selection patters of

apprehended serial killers reveals much about
who victims of serial killers are likely to be.

• Serial killers usually select strangers as their

victims.

• The most likely group of people to be victims are

those who offer easy access; live a transient
lifestyle; and who frequently disappear for
periods of time without concern.
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• Serial killers select victims whom

they perceive to be vulnerable.
• Who are easy to access and whose
disappearance wouldn’t raise alarm.

• Street working prostitutes

• Young runaways
• traveling farm workers
• male drifters & homeless people
 SERIAL MURDERERS
• The next most preferred group for
serial killers include:

• Female students living on or near

college campuses
• Elderly, infirmed, or sick people
• Socially isolated people

• Serial murders very rarely break into

homes and murder middle-class or
upper-class strangers
• These groups do not provide easy
access or vulnerable targets
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• In some case serial killers can become more exploratory

in their selection of victims.

• They usually begin with highly vulnerable and easy

targets

• As they become more confident in their ability, they can

challenge themselves to kill more difficult targets

• This rarely occurs because serial killers are usually

apprehended long before they reach this level of
confidence
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• Serial killers can display similarities and

differences to single-victim murders.
• Psychopathic personality disorder, developmental disturbances etc.

• The major difference between the two types of

killers relates to:
• The selection of their victim
• The preferred method of murder

• Single-victim murders usually kill friends,

lovers, acquaintances.
• Victim is known and familiar to the killer.
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• The lack of any kind of relationship

between the killer and the victim is a
distinguishing quality of serial
murder.
• It means identifying suspects
can be difficult

• Serial killers prefer to use more

“hands on” approaches to kill their
victims than single-victim killers.

• Serial killers tend to beat or strangle

their victims to death while single-
victim killers are more likely to use
deadly weapons (Kraemer, Lord, &
Heilbrun, 2004).
 SERIAL MURDERERS
• Single-victim murderers kill during times of
intense emotional arousal – anger, lack of
control, usually unplanned

• Serial killers kill in a deliberate, thought-out

manner and murders are generally sexual in
nature

• Many serial killers are sexual sadists -

motivated primarily by sexual satisfaction
obtained through seeing their victim suffering

• They incorporate their deviant sexual

fantasies into their killings (Egger, 1990;
Holmes & DeBurger, 1988; Pistorius,
1990)
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• Serial killers tend to be considerably more organised

in their offending
• Single-victim killers display disorganised
characteristics

• Serial killers often move the body of their victim from

one place to another – dispose of it, hide it etc.

• They also tend to use restraints and maintain a

high level of control over their victims (Kraemer et
al., 2004).
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• The majority of serial killers have

experienced severe abuses and
disturbances in their early development
(DeLisi & Scherer, 2006)

• 80% from families characterized by

regular violence
• 93% experienced inconsistent parenting

• Unlike other violent offenders, serial killer

don’t show a history of violence in
adolescence

• They tend to begin killing in their mid-

20’s or 30’s.
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• Serial killer tend to have frequent prior contact with police

(Jenkins, 1988)
• Petty theft and forgery are typical crimes

• Serial killers are arrested on average 4 years after their first

offence

• Upon committing their first murder most serial killers

• had stable jobs
• lived in the same house
• half were married
• many were former police officers and
security guards (Jenkins, 1988)
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• Most serial killers kill in familiar locations

• An anchor point is used such as place
of residence, job office, relatives
• Very rare to travel far from their home
to kill (FBI, 2005).

• Hickey (1997) found that

• 14% of serial killer use their home or
workplace as a preferred location to kill
• 52% kill in the same geographical location
• Geographical profiling has emerged as an
effective method of identifying serial killers.
 SERIAL MURDERERS

• It is a myth that only whites are serial killers

(Walsh, 2005).

• 22% of serial killers in the U.S. were African-

American.

• There appears to be no difference between

whites and African-Americans in how many
people they kill or in who they target.

• Limited research exists with respect to serial

killers from other ethnic backgrounds.
 HOMICIDAL DEMOGRAPHICS

• There is also very robust evidence of

gender differences in homicide.

• Males commit 90% of homicides,

Females 10%

• Males are also much more likely

to be the victims of homicides.
• 78% - male
• 22% - female
 HOMICIDAL DEMOGRAPHICS

• Young people are also most likely to perpetrate

homicidal offences.
• The FBI found that half of all violent crimes were
committed by people (usually males) under the ages
of 25.
• 50% of all individuals arrested for murder and No
negligent murder were under 25, and 22% were
under the age of 18!
 HOMICIDAL DEMOGRAPHICS

• Homicides occur most frequently during

arguments (44%)
• Very often these are domestic or family related violence.

• Many homicides also occur during the process of

carrying out other felonies (23%).
• rape, robberies, burglaries, arson, drug trafficking.

• The remaining 23% of homicides occur during a

variety of other circumstances.
• Fights, gang killings, juvenile fights, sniper attacks.
 PROFILE OF SERIAL KILLER
(SUMMARY)
• The killer is usually a stranger to the
victim
• The murders appear unconnected or
random
• The murder is rarely ‘‘for profit’’ and the
motive is psychological, not material
• The victim may have a symbolic value
for the killer, and the method of killing
may reveal this meaning
• The killer often chooses victims who are
vulnerable (children, adolescents,
women, prostitutes)
 PROFILE (EGGER,1990)
• According to Egger the
average serial killer
profile is as follows:
• white
• male
• low to middle socioeconomic status
• in his 20s or 30s
• possessing a history of childhood
abuse or neglect
• killer is sociopathic/psychopathic
• Killer is a chameleon to his
environment and appears normal to
others
 MOTIVATIONS OF SERIAL KILLERS
(HOLMES & DE BURGER, 1988)

• Serial murders are lacking in

clear-cut motives
• The crime is lacking in an
external motivation
• They are driven by internal
compulsions
• They kill for an elusive
psychological gain
• This gain is generally sexual
• Uncontrolled drives
• Inability to control impulsive
behaviour or change their
actions in consideration of
others
 FANTASY AND
SEXUAL HOMICIDE
 THE FBI’S NATIONAL CENTER FOR
THE ANALYSIS OF VIOLENT CRIME

• Four types of sexual

homicide:
• Organized – conscious
planning and display of
control of the victim
• Disorganized – less aware
of a plan and signs of non-
systematic behaviour
• Mixed – elements of both
categories
• Sadistic – torture, cruelty
 SEXUAL HOMICIDE

• According to the FBI, sexual homicide,

both organized and disorganized:
• involves a sexual element (activity)
as the basis for the sequence of acts
leading to death
• Performance and meaning of the
sexual element vary with an offender
• The act may range from actual rape
involving penetration (either before
or after death) to a symbolic sexual
assault, such as insertion of foreign
objects into a victim’s body orifices
 SEXUAL HOMICIDE

• Sexual predators, whether they kill or

not, will intensify their activities over the
course of their careers
• They start with violent sexual fantasies
and progress to acting out their
imagined scenes with both willing and
unwilling partners
• The lethal predator also will
demonstrate increasing skill in
selecting, tracking, capturing, and
controlling the victim and carrying out
the murder
 SEXUAL SERIAL MURDERERS

• Many serial killers are also sexual sadists motivated

primarily by sexual satisfaction obtained through
victim suffering (Douglas et al., 2006; Hazelwood &
Burgess, 1987)

• They incorporate their deviant sexual fantasies into

their killings (Egger, 1990)
 SEXUAL SERIAL MURDERERS

• Sadistic sexual serial killers use

excessive force
• domination
• torture
• rape with objects
• sexual mutilation
• cutting hair
• burning with cigarettes
• sexual intercourse with a corpse following murder
• post-mortem display of the body
• collection of trophies

• The attacks of sadistic killers are

carefully planned and preventive
against discovery (Groth & Birnbaum, 1979)
 SEXUAL SERIAL MURDERERS

• Quite often, sexual predators who kill

commit acts that have nothing to do
with the commission of the murder
• They may pose, move, mutilate, or
dispose of the victim in an unusual
way
• These acts may be symbolic and
designed to make an impact on others
or for the predators’ perverse pleasure
and enjoyment, or both.
• In some cases, no evidence is found
of “normal” sexual arousal, such as
erection or ejaculation
 FANTASY AND SEXUAL HOMICIDE

• The killer is pushed to kill

by their thought patterns
• He is essentially driven to
murder by an intrusive
fantasy life
• His early learning is that
the violence against other
humans is normal and
"acceptable"
 FANTASY AND SEXUAL HOMICIDE

• Sexual killers have a drive to

find the “right victim”
• The killing does not live up to
the fantasy
• Killer is driven to “perfect” the
crime
• Taking souvenirs from the
victim is evidence of fantasy at
work
• Sado-erotic materials at home
are evidence of fantasy
 JEFFREY
DAHMER
Homosexual Serial Killer Cannibal
JEFFREY DAHMER
• Born May 21st 1960
• Parents both of German
origin
• He was one of two
children
• Worked at the Ambrosia
Chocolate Factory
CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES

• Was unable to trust anyone

• Around the age of 14 he spent a lot of

time on his own

• Was obsessed with masturbation, gay

porn, and internal organs (animal cruelty)
 THE CRIMES
• In 1978 in Ohio smashed his first victim to
pieces with a hammer and scattered him in
the woods
• Hung out in gay areas and took men back
to his flat
• Killed, dismembered, ate, had sex, boiled
skulls (then painted them). Kept body parts
and organs!
VICTIMS
 THE SENTENCE

• On February 13th 1992 found guilty of

the murder of 15 men
• Sentenced to 15 life sentences
• On sentencing he expressed remorse
and wished for his own death
• Killed in prison on November 24th
1994 by Christopher Scaver
 THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS

• Developmental disorders
• Attachment issues
• Schizotypal personality
disorder
• Cannibalism
• Many sexual disorders
• Sexual sadism
• Necrophilia
• Deluded
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW
1. Define criminal homicide and negligent
manslaughter.

2. Describe and compare different types of

multiple murder with an emphasis on serial
killers.

3. Provide the psycho-sociological profile of

homicide offender.

4. Outline characteristics of sexual serial killer.

 NEXT WEEK
• Psychology of homicidal behaviour

• Richard Kuklinski - a case study of

contract serial killer

• My research in homicidal
offending in maximum
security prisons for
recidivists (USA, Pakistan, and Poland)
QUESTIONS?
Thank you for your time!
Psychology of Homicidal Behaviour
Case study of contract serial killer and research in maximum security prison

prof. dr hab. Daniel Boduszek

dboduszek@swps.edu.pl
 Overview

 Psychology of homicide

 What predicts homicidal behaviour

 Hedonistic serial killing (Comfort

type)
 Richard Kuklinski (Ice-Man) -
Hedonistic Serial Killer (Comfort type)
– Contract Killer

 Research in homicidal behaviour in

maximum security prison
(Boduszek et al., 2012)
 Psychology of Homicide

 Cleckly (1982) – psychopathic

personality traits
 Psychology of Homicide

 Freud – the conflict between ID and SUPER-

EGO (Gallagher, 1987)
 Offendersoperate under ID – impulsive
 The SUPEREGO is not developed – feel no guilt
 Psychology of Homicide

 Eckstein (2000) and Steward et al.

(2001) – most of serial killers are
first born males in a family with
certain personality traits:
Rigidity
Independence
Unconventional sexuality
Narcissism
 Psychology of Homicide

 Aichorn (1934) – there

is a latent delinquency
among certain youths
that demands immediate
gratification

 Lewis et al (1985) –
trauma present in
childhood of a killer
 Psychology of Homicide

 Hickey (2006)
– murderers
continue to feel
frustration
from one killing
to the next
 Psychology of Homicide

 Holmes & Holmes (2008) – fantasy

provides
 Rationale
 Ritual
 Motivation
 Anticipated gain
 Victim selectivity
 And satisfaction
Psychology of Homicide

 Ifthe killing is not

completed the fantasy is
frustrated
 This frustration impels
action
 The fantasy cannot be
fully satisfied thus search
for “perfect victim”
continuous (serial killing)
 Psychology of Homicide

 Holmes & Holmes (2010) – psychotic individual are

more likely to kill
 They have a severe break with reality (at least occasionally)
 They hear voices or see visions which tell them to kill
 Psychology of Homicide

 Carlisle (1991, 1993, 2000) – dissociation pattern

including daydreaming and loss of memory
 Psychology of Homicide

 Carlisle (1991, 1993, 2000) – “divided

self” (part of the personality split from
the offender (e.g., Bundy)

 Killer protect himself from personality

disintegration by committing series of
violent acts including serial murder.

 Divided personality contains

 “good” social side
 “dark” side
 Psychology of Homicide

 Displaced aggression – those killers who hate their

mothers (would never admit) kill those who are similar
 The hate is directed to the person who harm them but behaviour is
directed to unknown person
 There is some form of dependency to caregiver so harm cannot
happened
 This becomes very frustrating to the serial killer because he cannot kill
that person without harming himself (Carlisle, 1993)
 As a result he kills strangers to temporarily remove frustration
 But frustration returns in greater frequency and intensity (Holmes &
DeBurger, 1988)
Introduction to my research
Homicide offending
 What predicts homicidal
behaviour? Research!

 Much research on the predictors of violent

behaviour, but relatively little attention
given to the prediction of homicidal
behaviour (Farrington et al., 2012).
 Likely due to how infrequently it occurs.

 Behavioural consistency theories –

similar predictors influence general violent
behaviour and risk for homicide (Loebert
& LeBlanc, 1990)
 Family variables
 Peers (rejection or approval)
 Antisocial friends
 Personality
 Personality & Homicide

 Ireland & Ireland (2011) – theories

of personality are more
appropriate that DSM concepts of
personality disorders for prison
samples

 Eysenck’s theory of personality

(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976)
 Psychoticism
 Neuroticism
 Extraversion
 Personality & Homicide

 High level of Psychoticism

 Impulsive
 Egocentric
 Cold
 Aggressive
 Un-empathic
 Tough-minded

 Convicted murderers score

higher on psychoticism
(Boduszek et al., 2012; Ram,
1987)
Psychopathy & Psychoticism

 Link between psychopathy and psychoticism

 Hare (1982) – prison study (N=173)
 High correlation between psychoticism and
impulsive early criminal behavioural
manifestations and unstable life style components
of psychopathy
 Psychoticism reflected the criminal aspect of
psychopathy
 Corr (2010) – neuropsychological model of
continuum from psychoticism to psychopathy
 Related to abnormalities in the behavioural
inhibition system which lead to cognitive defects:
 Dysfunctions in the flight – fright – freeze system
 Abnormalities in behavioural approach systems
 This leads to impulsivity
Psychoticism & Homicide

 Connection between psychopathy and homicidal

behaviour received significant empirical attention

 Psychoticism and homicidal behaviour???

 Interesting! – given the degree of overlap between

psychopathy and psychoticism
 Family Variables

 Dahlberg (1998) – familial

factors associated with
violent behaviour:
 caregiver attachment
 family violence

 parental supervision

 Peer rejection
 Family Variables

 Caregiver attachment
 Poor parental attachment with care givers early in
life has been demonstrated to be a significant risk
factor among serial killers (Ressler, Burgess, &
Douglas, 1988).

 36 serial killers did not form adequate attachments with

their caregivers

 Lack
of attachment related to aggressive behaviour
(Babcock et al., 2000; Farrington, 2010)
 Family Variables

 Family violence
 Experience of family
violence has been
shown to differentiate
between homicidal
and non-violent
offenders (Zagar,
Busch, Grove, &
Hughes, 2009).
 Family Variables

 Parental supervision
 Roe-Sepowith (2009) – 30.8 %
of male murderers reported lack
of parental supervision

 Positive parenting may act as a

protective factor rather than
negative parenting being a risk
factor (Farrington, Loeber, &
Berg, 2012).
 Family Variables –
Peer rejection

 Peer rejection has also been

associated with later delinquent
behaviour (Kupersmidt, Coie, &
Dodge, 1990)
 Also been identified as a risk factor
for multiple victim homicide
(Verlinden et al., 2000; Leary et al.,
2003)

 Additionally, peer rejection in

childhood has been associated with
anti-social peers in adolescence
(Coie, Terry, Zakriski, & Lochman,
1995).
 Criminal Friends

 Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) - poor

and inappropriate parenting results in
lack of self-control which leads to
associations with criminal peers

 Differential reinforcement theory

(Akers, 1985) - people are first exposed
to criminal behaviour by differential
association with deviant peers

 Criminal friends has a direct impact on

criminality (Boduszek et al., 2014; Cullen
& Agnew, 2006; Pratt & Cullen, 2000;
Warr, 2002; Wright, et al.,1999)
Types of Serial Murderers (recap
from last week)

 According to Holmes & DeBurger (1988) – 4 major

types:
 Focus on hedonistic

 Hedonistic – strives for pleasure

and thrill seeking, and feels that
people are objects to use for
one’s own enjoyment
 Murder itself is pleasurable John Wayne Gacy
 3 types of hedonistic killers
(Holmes & Holmes, 2010):
 Lust (motivated by sexual gratification)
 Thrill (motivated to induce pain or a
terrified reaction from the victim)
 Comfort (motivated by financial reasons)
Richard Kuklinski
ICEMAN
Focus on Comfort Type

 Objective is to enjoy life

 Motivated by financial
reasons

 Kill quietly
 Calmly commit homicides

 Killing is a “profession” Richard Kuklinski

ICEMAN
 Homicidal Behavioural Patterns:
Comfort type

Victims Non-specific
Non-random
Affiliative

Methods Act-focused
Planned
Organized

Murder Location Concentrated

Geographically centralized
Richard Kuklinski (Ice-Man)
Contract Killer (Comfort Type)

Born: 1936

Died: 2006

Location: Northeast
United States

Punishment: Life in
prison (Trenton, New
Jersey)
 Richard Kuklinski (ICE MAN)
 Ice-Man
 Richard Leonard Kuklinski was born
in Jersey City (New Jersey) to
Stanley and Anna Kuklinski
 Parents
 Stanley was an abusive alcoholic who
beat his wife and children (abandoned
his family shortly after the birth of his
fourth child)
 Anna (devout Catholic) was also abusive
to her children (sometimes beating them
with broom handles and other household
objects)
 Richard Kuklinski (ICE MAN)

 Childhood
 In1940, Stanley's beatings resulted in the death of
Kuklinski's older brother Florian

 Stanley and Anna hid the cause of the child's death

from the authorities, saying that he had fallen down
a flight of steps

 Crucial moment in Richard's life

 “You can kill and not be punished”
 Richard Kuklinski (ICE MAN)

 Childhood
 He attended the local Catholic grammar school
and was an altar boy at the neighbourhood
church

 He was beginning to develop an unreasonable

temper and constantly threatened to hurt or kill
people who angered him

 He particularly hated ‘loud-mouthed people’ as

they were a reminder of his father

 Kuklinski dropped out of school in the eighth

grade and was steadily drawn into petty crime
 Richard Kuklinski (ICE MAN)

 Childhood
 By the age of 10 he was filled with rage and began acting out
 For fun he would torture animals (typical indicator of
psychopatic behaviour) and by the age of 14 he had committed
his first murder
 Taking a steel clothing rod from his closet, he ambushed Charlie
Lane, a local bully and leader of a small gang who had picked
on him. (Richard was rejected by peers)
 Unintentionally he beat Lane to death. Kuklinski felt remorse for
Lane's death for a brief period, but then saw it as a way to feel
powerful and control. He then went on and nearly beat to death
the remaining six gang members
 Richard Kuklinski (ICE MAN)

 Childhood
 Years later in an interview,
Kuklinski claimed the killing of
Lane demonstrated to him
that it was “better to give
than to receive” and that
after the murder, he had felt
empowered for the first time
in his life
 Richard Kuklinski (ICE MAN)

 Early Adulthood

 By his early 20s Kuklinski had earned the

reputation of short-tempered tough street
hustler who would beat or kill those who
he didn't like or who offended him

 It was during this time that his association

with Roy DeMeo (member of the
Gambino Crime Family) was established
 Richard Kuklinski (ICE MAN)

DeMeo introduced Kuklinski to the

Gambino Family and he began on
small assignments for the mafia
 robberies
 sellingpirate pornographic movies
 stealing cars
 trading in drugs and guns
Gambino Family
 Richard Kuklinski (ICE MAN)

 Adulthood
 Work with DeMeo
advanced his ability to
be an effective killing
machine

 He became a favourite
hitman (enforcer) for the
mob, resulting in the
deaths of at least 200
people
 Richard Kuklinski (ICE MAN)

 The
use of cyanide poison
became one of his favourite
weapons as well as guns, knives
and chainsaws
 Richard Kuklinski (ICE MAN)

 Brutalityand torture
would often precede
death for many of his
victims
 Richard Kuklinski (ICE MAN)

 The End of the Iceman

 On December 17, 1986, Kuklinski was
arrested and charged with five counts of
murder which involved two trials
 He was found guilty and was sentenced to two
life sentences
 He was sent to Trenton State Prison, where his
younger brother Joseph was serving a life
sentence for the rape and murder of a 13-
year-old girl.
 Richard Kuklinski (ICE MAN)

 His Suspicious Death

 On March 5, 2006, Kuklinski, age 70, died of unknown
causes. His death came suspiciously around the same
time he was scheduled to testify against Sammy
Gravano
 Kuklinski was going to testify that Gravano hired him to
kill a police officer in the 1980s
 Charges against Gravano were dropped after
Kuklinski's death because of insufficient evidence
 Richard Kuklinski (ICE MAN)

 The Family Man

 His wife Barbara saw Kuklinski
as a sweet giving man (they had
three children)
 Much like his father, Kuklinski (6'
4" and weighing over 300
pounds) began to beat and
terrorize Barbara and children
 On the outside, the Kuklinski
family was admired by
neighbours and friends as being
a happy and well adjusted
 Richard Kuklinski (ICE MAN)
 Kuklinski Blames
Childhood Abuse
 When asked why he had
become one of the most
diabolical serial murderers
in history, he cast blame on
his father's abuse
 He admitted the one thing
he was sorry for was for
not killing him
 Richard Kuklinski (ICE MAN)
 What kind of personality did Kuklinski have?
 Psychopathic
 Experience of abusive and unloving parents (family violence)
 Lack of attachment with parents
 Rejection by peers (childhood)
 Cruelty to animals
 Lack of emotions, remorse, or sorrow
 Lack of trust or love anyone other than his wife and children
 He was only happy and content when he was with his own family
 No positive emotions directed outside his home
 No feelings about killing, cutting people into pieces
 Holmes & Holmes (2010) – suggested psychopathic and
paranoid personality
My research on
homicidal offending

Maximum Security
Prison (Poland)
Boduszek, D., Hyland, P., & Bourke, A. (2012). An Investigation of the
role of personality, familial and peer-related characteristics in homicidal
offending using retrospective data. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 2 (2),
96-106.
Aim
 Participants
 Participants – 144 male recidivistic offenders
(Nowogard Maxiumum Security Prison, Poland)
 55 murderers & 89 violent offenders (non-murderers)
 Age: 20 – 66 (M=33.85; SD=9.38)
 88 % from urban area
 Education:
 52.2% primary
 45.5% secondary
 2.2% some college
 Marital status:
 68.3 single
 11.9 married
 18.6 divorced/separated
 1.3 widowed
 Recidivism: 1-10 (M=3.57; SD=2.48)
 Police arrests: 1-20 (M=4.85; SD=4.09)
 Results
 Regression analysis predicting homicidal behaviour
(Boduszek et al., 2012)
 Discussion of results from
Boduszek et al. (2012)

 So what have we got?

Psychoticism (genetically
influenced, biological
personality trait),
experience of violence
in early life, and poor
parental attachments.

 Think of Richard Kuklinski

 My research on
multiple homicide

3 Maximum
Security Prisons
(USA)
 Aim

 To investigate the role of

 psychopathy

 criminal social identity

 prisonization

 associations with criminal

friends
 in predicting multiple
homicidal behaviour
Participants
 Multiple murderers Recidivists First sentence
Variable (n = 94) (n = 266) (n = 118)

Gender
Male 69 (73.4%) 142 (53.4%) 72 (61%)
Female 25 (26.6%) 124 (46.6%) 46 (39%)

Location
Urban 49 (65.3) 119 (54.3%) 52 (54.7%)
Rural 26 (34.7) 100 (45.7%) 43 (45.3%)

Ethnicity
White 42 (48.3%) 131 (56.7%) 65 (58.6%)
African American 29 (33.3%) 62 (26.8%) 21 (18.9%)
3 (3.4%) 12 (5.2%) 9 (8.1%)
Hispanic
13 (14.9%) 26 (11.3%) 16 (14.4%)
Others
Family background
Both parents 45 (47.9%) 125 (47.7%) 64 (55.7%)
One parent 37 (39.4%) 77 (29.4%) 32 (27.8%)
7 (7.4%) 23 (8.8%) 6 (5.2%)
Step parents
5 (5.3%) 37 (14.1%) 13 (11.3%)
Without parents
Socioeconomic status
High 2 (2.9%) 6 (4.1%) 0
Middle 48 (70.6%) 94 (63.9%) 55 (68.8%)
18 (26.5) 45 (32.0%) 24 (31.2%)
Low
 First sentence vs. Life Recidivism vs. Life Recidivism vs. First
sentence sentence sentence
Variable OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)

Criminal Friend Index .95 (.92/.98)** .99 (.96/1.01) 1.03 (1.01/1.06)**

Prisonization .97 (.90/1.06) .97 (.90/1.04) .99 (.93/1.06)
Cognitive Centrality 1.07 (.94/1.21) 1.14 (1.02/1.27)* 1.07 (.97/1.18)
In-group Affect .98 (.72/1.33) 1.07 (.83/1.37) 1.09 (.85/1.40)
In-group Ties 1.07 (.93/1.23) 1.04 (.91/1.18) .97 (.87/1.09)

Erratic Life Style 1.01 (.92/1.10) 1.13 (1.04/1.22)** 1.12 (1.05/1.20)***

Anti-Social Behaviour .92 (.85/.99)* .94 (.88/1.01) 1.03 (.97/1.09)

Affective 1.01(.91/1.12) .97 (.89/1.07) .97 (.90/1.05)
Interpersonal
Manipulation 1.10 (.99/1.21) 1.07 (.98/1.16) .97 (.91/1.05)

Age .94 (.91/.96)*** .96 (.94/.98)*** 1.03 (1.01/1.05)*

Gender (female) 1.22 (.61/2.44) 1.84 (1.01/3.37)* 1.51 (.89/2.56)
 My research with murderers
and white-collar criminals
(psychopathy, criminal social
identity, prisonization)

12 maximum and medium

security prisons

Boduszek, D. & Debowska, A. (2015)

Participants
 Differences between criminal groups
Psychopathy Affective deficits
Psychopathy Cognitive deficits General > financial
Psychopathy – Interpersonal Manipulation Financial > general
Financial > murderer
Psychopathy – Egocentrism
Criminal Social Identity – Cognitive centrality

Criminal Social Identity – Ingroup affect General > financial

Criminal Social Identity – Ingroup ties
Self-esteem - prison
Self-esteem – global
Prisonization General > financial
 My research on suicide attempts among
incarcerated homicide offenders in Pakistan

Dhingra, K., Boduszek, D., Hyland, P., & Shagufta, S. (2015). Suicide attempts
Dhingra, K., Boduszek, D., Hyland, P., & Shagufta, S.
among incarcerated homicide offenders.
(2015). Suicide Suicidology
attempts Online. homicide
among incarcerated
offenders. Suicidology Online.
 Aim
 To investigate the role of
 drug abuse
 period of confinement
 loneliness
 difficulty in controlling emotions
 no friends in prison
 victimization in prison
 guilt over crimes
 insomnia
 Nightmares
 anxiety,
 depression,
 and mood change
 in predicating suicide attempts in sample of juvenile homicidal offenders
 Participants

 Participants – 102 juvenile male prisoners

incarcerated for homicide (prisons in
Pakistan)
 Most offenders from rural areas (72.7%),
 37.3% secondary education
 39.6% primary education
 22.8% lack of formal education
 7.8% no parents
 47.1% one parent only
 45.1% both parents.
 40% reported drug abuse
 Imprisonment 1-60 months (M = 8.80; SD =
9.64)
 Age: 13-19 (M = 16.75, SD = 1.41)
Variable B SE Exp(B)
Age -.07 .06 .93
Drug abuse .49 .18 1.65**
Period of confinement .01 .01 1.01
Loneliness .20 .12 1.22
Victimization in prison .24 .12 1.26*
No friends in prison .12 .12 1.12
Guilt over crimes -.09 .12 .91
Insomnia -.15 .12 .86
Nightmares .28 .12 1.33*
General anxiety -.10 .18 .90
Depression .27 .14 1.31*
Mood change -.04 .12 .96
Difficulty in controlling emotions .22 .12 1.25*
Thank you for
your time!

Questions?
 Psychopathic Personality Traits Model (PPTM): A new approach to defining

psychopathy

Daniel Boduszek1, Agata Debowska2 & Dominic Willmott1

1
Department of Psychology, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK
2
Department of Psychology, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Correspondence concerning this chapter should be addresses to Daniel Boduszek, University

of Huddersfield, Department of Psychology, Edith Key Building, Queensgate, Huddersfield,
HD1 3DH, United Kingdom, contact email: d.boduszek@hud.ac.uk

1
Introduction

The concept of psychopathy, often conceptualized as the causal antecedent to violent

offending, has long been of interest within the criminal justice system. Despite this,

psychopathy has continued to be difficult to assess, with research in the area compromised by

the absence of an established definition of the disorder (O’Kane, Fawcett, & Blackburn,

1996; Skeem, Polaschek, Patrick, & Lilienfeld, 2011). The first comprehensive

conceptualization of psychopathy was proposed by Cleckley in 1941. Cleckley suggested the

prototypical psychopath to be characterized by the following 16 traits: superficial charm,

absence of delusions, absence of “nervousness”, unreliability, untruthfulness, lack of remorse

and shame, antisocial behavior, poor judgement and failure to learn by experience,

pathological egocentricity, poverty in affective reactions, loss of insight, unresponsiveness in

interpersonal relations, fantastic and uninviting behavior, rare suicidal behavior, impersonal

sex life, and failure to follow any life plan.

This Cleckleyan representation of psychopathy served as the basis for designing some

widely employed psychopathic assessment tools, such as the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL;

Hare, 1980) and its updated version, the Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL-R; Hare,

1991, 2003). The PCL-R is commonly presented as consisting of four correlated factors: (1)

interpersonal manipulation, (2) callous affect, (3) erratic lifestyle, and (4) antisocial/criminal

behavior. Psychopathy, as assessed using the PCL-R and associated measures, has been

shown to be predictive of recidivism and aggression (see Dhingra & Boduszek, 2013 for a

review). However, given that numerous items within the measure pertain directly to criminal

and antisocial behavior alongside the suggestion that future behavior is best predicted by past

behavior, such findings are not surprising. Indeed, the formulation of psychopathy as grasped

by the PCL(-R) and its derivatives, is weighted heavily towards indicators of behavioral

expressions of the disorder, such as deviancy and maladjustment, which can have a profound

2
influence on the scales’ predictive utility for criminal behavior. For instance, the exclusion of

factor 4 of the PCL-R (encompassing items that relate to antisocial behavior, including poor

behavior controls, early behavior problems, juvenile delinquency, revocation of conditional

release, and criminal versatility) reduces the predictive validity of the measure in regards to

future reoffending (Polaschek, 2015; Yang, Wong, & Coid, 2010). Even though the affective

and interpersonal manipulation components correspond with Cleckley’s original

conceptualization of a psychopathic personality, erratic lifestyle and antisocial behavior more

closely resemble measures of criminal behavior and Antisocial Personality Disorder (Harpur

et al., 1989). Notably, prior research revealed that only the affective and interpersonal

factors’ items work equivalently well across race and gender (Bolt, Hare, Vitale, & Newman,

2004; Cooke, Kosson, & Michie, 2001), with poor generalizability of the remaining factors

being reported (McDermott et al., 2000). Further still, antisocial traits were found to diminish

over time, suggesting that the generalizability of this element of the construct may also be

affected by the age of respondents. A recent empirical investigation by Debowska et al.

(2017) demonstrated that Hare’s model of psychopathy cannot be used in the same way in

forensic and non-forensic populations due to inclusion of antisocial factor. It appears,

therefore, that items referring to criminal/antisocial tendencies should not be included in

psychopathy measures.

The essence of psychopathy seems to be captured more successfully through

assessments of affective deficits and interpersonal unresponsiveness. The proneness to

contravene social and legal norms, on the other hand, appears to be a possible behavioral

outcome of a psychopathic personality (Boduszek & Debowska, 2016; Skeem & Cooke,

2010a, b). In line with such a notion, a growing body of evidence suggests that psychopathic

personalities can thrive in both criminal and non-criminal contexts. For example, the

prevalence of psychopathic traits was demonstrated to be higher in a corporate sample than

3
that found in community samples (Babiak, Neumann, & Hare, 2010; Hassall, Boduszek, &

Dhingra, 2015). Interestingly, heightened psychopathy scores in U.S. presidents were

correlated with a better-rated presidential performance (Lilienfeld et al., 2012). As such, if

criminal/antisocial tendencies are just one possible manifestation of psychopathy, other non-

criminal/antisocial behaviors in which psychopaths may partake should also be accounted

for. A simplified solution, therefore, would be to exclude antisocial/criminal items from

psychopathy measures altogether (Boduszek & Debowska, 2016).

A new personality-based model of psychopathy: Psychopathic Personality Traits Model

(PPTM)

Although Cleckley’s conceptualization of psychopathy received the most widespread

acceptance among researchers and clinicians, some of the traits listed in his clinical profile,

such as pathological egocentricity, are largely missing from the existing psychopathy

assessment tools. Further, we have recently suggested that criminal/antisocial tendencies are

the consequence of psychopathic traits, rather than an integral part of the disorder, and

individuals with increased psychopathic traits may be successful in both criminal and non-

criminal endeavors (Boduszek & Debowska, 2016; Boduszek, Dhingra, Hyland, &

Debowska, 2016). Thus, given the broad spectrum of activities in which psychopaths may

engage, the inclusion of antisocial items in psychopathy construct appears counterproductive.

Instead, there is a need for a clean personality model of psychopathy, which could be used

among both forensic and non-forensic populations (Boduszek & Debowska, 2016; Johansson

et al., 2002). Accordingly, new generation of research which distinguishes between

personality deviation and social deviance is warranted (Skeem & Cooke, 2010b).

In an effort to address these issues, we sought to create and validate a new model of

psychopathy – Psychopathic Personality Traits Model (PPTM) with an associated brief self-

4
report scale (the Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale – PPTS; Boduszek, Debowska,

Dhingra, & DeLisi, 2016). The brief PPTS is used for research purposes only, but we are

currently working on an extended version and a diagnostic tool. The PPTM grasps the

essence of a psychopathic personality regardless of individuals’ age, gender, cultural

background, and criminal history. Central to our new model of psychopathy are four

components: affective responsiveness, cognitive responsiveness, interpersonal manipulation,

and egocentricity (see Figure 1).

(Please insert Figure 1 about here)

The lack of affective responsiveness component reflects characteristics of low

affective empathy and emotional shallowness. Individuals scoring high on this component are

characterized by inability to emotionally respond to another person’s feelings. This

dimension resembles the callous affect factor of the PCL-R, which has been constantly

demonstrated to be the core feature of a psychopathic personality. The lack of cognitive

responsiveness component, on the other hand, measures the inability to understand the

emotional state of other, mentally represent another person’s emotional processes, and

emotionally engage with others at a cognitive level. The distinction between affective and

cognitive responsiveness to others has been neglected in psychopathy research published to

date. Nonetheless, a recent study demonstrated that prisoners with increased psychopathic

traits were deficient in understanding affective states (emotions) but not cognitive states

(beliefs) (Shamay-Tsoory, Harari, Aharon-Peretz, & Levkovitz, 2010). These findings

indicate that reduced cognitive responsiveness to others’ emotional states constitutes an

important part of the psychopathy construct. Furthermore, although prior research has

5
revealed the importance of intelligence (IQ) in psychopathy, past psychopathy models have

failed to control for this aspect in psychopathy assessment. This is a serious limitation

because individuals with high IQ are able to learn how to recognize certain emotions and

respond in expected ways. For example, Bate, Boduszek, Dhingra and Bale (2014)

demonstrated that intelligence is a moderator in the relationship between psychopathy and

emotional responding, showing that individuals with increased psychopathic traits who score

higher on intelligence (1 SD above the sample mean) are able to respond in a socially

desirable manner to emotionally provoking stimuli. In order to verify whether deficiency in

cognitive responsiveness to emotional states of others is a universal feature of psychopathy or

is contingent on intelligence levels, future research using the PPTM should control for

participants’ IQ. The third component of the PPTM, interpersonal manipulation, reflects

characteristics such as superficial charm, grandiosity, and intentional deceitfulness.

Manipulation is viewed as largely malicious and destructive of optimal human relationships.

This aspect has been accounted for in past psychopathy models, including the PCL-R.

Finally, egocentricity assesses an individual’s tendency to focus on one’s own interests,

beliefs, and attitudes. In our opinion, egocentricity is one of the most important traits

observed among individuals with increased psychopathic traits. According to Cleckley

(1941), “the psychopath is always distinguished by egocentricity which is pathological and

cannot be compared with the one witnessed is non-psychopathic individuals” (p. 346). This

self-centeredness is closely linked with incapacity for love, other than self-love. Having said

that, individuals with increased psychopathic traits are able to express positive feelings

towards self and anyone whom they consider an “extension of self” (for example children or

parents). However, this expression of feelings towards those who are regarded as an

extension of self is only at the cognitive level. Items referring to egocentricity have been

included in some established psychopathy measures (e.g., the PCL-R and the Psychopathic

6
Traits Inventory – Revised [PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005]). However, since those items

were not conceptualized as forming a separate psychopathy dimension, the predictive utility

of self-centeredness over the remaining traits could not be investigated. Notably, Cooke,

Hart, Logan, and Michie (2012) included “self domain”, which resembles the PPTM

egocentricity factor, as a separate dimension in their Comprehensive Assessment of

Psychopathic Personality (CAPP) model. We also suggest that psychopaths’ egocentricity

and reduced affective responsiveness influence their ability to recognize other individuals’

emotional states (cognitive responsiveness). Prominent conceptual models implicate

structural and functional deficits in limbic brain systems, particularly the amygdala (see

Debowska, Boduszek, Hyland, Goodson, 2014), as the neurological cause of the affective

deficits in psychopathy. Prior research on empathic processing suggested that psychopathy is

associated with overall recognition deficits (Dolan & Fullam, 2006; Hastings, Tangney, &

Stuewig, 2008), as well as deficits in recognizing fear (Blair, Colledge, Murray, & Mitchell,

2001), sadness, and happiness (Dolan & Fullam, 2006; Hastings et al., 2008). In another

study, incarcerated offenders with increased psychopathic traits showed deficiency in

inferring emotional states (Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2010). Finally, Brook and Kosson (2013)

reported impaired cognitive empathy and difficulty understanding “the full spectrum of

emotions displayed by people” (p. 162) among psychopaths. This is congruent with

Cleckley’s (1941) suggestion that psychopathic individuals demonstrate general

unresponsiveness and poverty in affect in interpersonal relations.

Our research explorations to date have displayed empirical evidence of this new

conceptualization of psychopathy, validating the model’s utility in a sample of 1,794 inmates

from maximum and medium security prisons, and in excess of 3,000 participants from non-

forensic settings, including community adults, university students, and children (age range 10

– 14 years). The appropriateness of the identified factorial solution was supported by the

7
differential predictive validity of the four psychopathy facets in a large sample of prisoners

(Boduszek et al., 2016). Inmates scoring higher on affective responsiveness, but not on

cognitive responsiveness, were significantly more likely to commit violent offences and have

increased criminal social identity scores. Both affective responsiveness and cognitive

responsiveness correlated significantly with self-esteem; however, those associations were in

opposite directions. Specifically, affective responsiveness was associated with higher and

cognitive responsiveness with lower levels of self-esteem. Additionally, cognitive

responsiveness was significantly positively associated with child sexual abuse myths

acceptance. In contrast, association between this external criterion and affective

responsiveness was negative yet statistically non-significant. Given the differing predictive

utility of affective responsiveness and cognitive responsiveness, these two facets should be

considered as unique and distinct from each other. As for the remaining psychopathy factors,

interpersonal manipulation formed significant positive associations with child sexual abuse

myths acceptance, criminal social identity, and a significant negative correlation with self-

esteem. Egocentricity was found to predict increased scores on child sexual abuse myths

scale, attitudes towards sexual dating violence, and criminal social identity. This psychopathy

dimension was also associated with violent offending. In light of this evidence, the inclusion

of egocentricity items within psychopathy measures yet the failure to control for this aspect

of the disorder as a separate and unique dimension appears misguided. Such research

challenging the widely accepted notion of psychopathy and associated factors can also

challenge the assumptions on which current criminal justice practices are based, subsequently

leading to improved risk assessment, treatment provision, and prevention strategies.

8
Profiling psychopathy using the PPTM

Some psychopathy studies, mostly utilizing the PCL-R or its derivatives, have

focused on establishing the prevalence of psychopathy. This past research revealed large

discrepancies in the occurrence of psychopathic traits across samples drawn from different

populations. More specifically, while the PCL-R-based estimated occurrence of psychopathy

in the general population is between 0.3-2% (males: 1-2%, females: 0.3-0.7%; Patrick &

Drislane, 2015), the prevalence of psychopathy in the offender population is suggested to

oscillate between 15–25% (Lilienfeld & Arkowitz, 2007; Woodworth & Porter, 2002).

Nonetheless, although the PCL-R scores were most often suggested to be best captured by a

four-factor model, reflecting interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and antisocial characteristics,

studies into the prevalence of psychopathy tend to utilize total scale scores. Similarly, cut-off

points used to diagnose the condition rely on the sum of scores rather than ratings obtained

on these separate dimensions. Such an approach to measurement and diagnosis assumes

variations in trait intensity (quantitative differences) but not in the constellation of

psychopathic traits (qualitative differences) across individuals, which remains inconsistent

with the literature (Colins, Fanti, Salekin, & Andershed, 2016). Relying on the PCL-R total

scores could have led to exclusion of participants scoring high on core interpersonal/affective

but low on lifestyle/antisocial traits of psychopathy, resulting in skewed findings. We suggest

that psychopathy may be over-diagnosed in criminal populations due to (a) the widespread

use of measures based upon behavioral conception of psychopathy (such as the PCL-R) and

(b) the utilization of cut-off points derived from the sum of scores, which defies research

suggesting that psychopathy is multi-dimensional in character (Boduszek & Debowska, 2016;

Boduszek et al., 2015; Debowska, Boduszek, Kola, & Hyland, 2014; Kennealy, Skeem,

Walters, & Camp, 2010).

9
 In our recent study with the PPTM using a person- as opposed to variable-centered

approach to data analysis (Boduszek, Debowska, & Willmott, 2017b), we identify five

meaningful classes (groups) of psychopathic traits among a systematically selected large

representative sample of Polish prisoners. The results of latent profile analysis suggested that

psychopathy should be interpreted as a continuum with varying levels of each dimension

across individuals, rather than a dichotomous entity. Class 1, consisting of 44% of prisoners,

was characterized by low mean scores on all four personality-based psychopathy dimensions

and hence has been labelled the “low psychopathy group”. Class 2, consisting 16.8% of

prisoners, was characterized by moderate mean scores on affective and cognitive

responsiveness and relatively low ratings on interpersonal manipulation and egocentricity.

This group was labelled the “moderate affective/cognitive responsiveness group”. We also

identified the “high interpersonal manipulation group” (class 3; 20.8% of prisoners),

characterized by low mean scores on affective responsiveness, cognitive responsiveness, and

egocentricity and high on interpersonal manipulation. Inmates in this class were significantly

more likely to be convicted of property offences than those in class 1. Consistent with earlier

findings in regard to socioeconomic status of individuals with such traits, offenders in class 3,

compared with class 1, were also more likely to engage in white-collar crime, which may be

indicative of a higher social class background. Further, similar ratings on affective and

cognitive responsiveness to those noted for class 2 in the present analysis were recorded for

prisoners in class 4; yet this particular group was also distinguished by moderate mean scores

on egocentricity and high interpersonal manipulation (the “moderate psychopathy group”;

10.8% of inmates). Finally, the “high psychopathy group” (class 5; with very high mean

scores on affective responsiveness, moderate cognitive responsiveness, and high

interpersonal manipulation and egocentricity) was identified. This group constituted 7.1% of

prisoners, which indicates that most inmates (detained in maximum and medium security

10
units) do not meet the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy. Using the same methodology, our

most recent research revealed similar psychopathy profiles among various populations. Most

interestingly, membership in high psychopathy group was comparable for all adult samples

(772 US prisoners = 7.6%; 1,201 UK community adults = 5.9%; 2,080 university students =

7.4%), but not for adolescents (n = 475), who were more likely than adults to have increased

ratings on all PPTS dimensions (12.4%) (Boduszek, Debowska, Sherretts, Boulton &

Willmott, 2017a). High psychopathy groups were earlier extracted, among others, by Colins

et al. (2016) and Dhingra, Boduszek, and Kola (2015); however, the class membership in the

latter study amounted to 26.4%. Dhingra et al. profiled respondents using a behavioral

measure of psychopathy (the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version [PCL:SV; Hart, Cox,

& Hare, 1995) and hence the current results are not directly comparable with this earlier

research. Nonetheless, it appears that the high rates of psychopathy reported for some

populations (those incarcerated and institutionalized in particular) may be accounted for by

the inclusion of indicators of behavioral expressions of the condition (Boduszek &

Debowska, 2016; Edens et al., 2001; Patrick, 2007; Patrick, Hicks, Nichol, & Krueger, 2007;

Rogers, 1995).

Conclusions and Future Directions

As explicated in the current chapter, the PPTM offers an alternative psychopathy

assessment based on personality traits. The PPTM consists of four dimensions, including

affective responsiveness, cognitive responsiveness, interpersonal manipulation, and

egocentricity. It is also conceptualized that intelligence levels moderate that relationship

between the afore-mentioned psychopathic traits and behavioral outcomes. Importantly,

while antisocial/criminal tendencies/behaviors may constitute one possible expression of

psychopathy, they are not treated as integral to psychopathy construct within the newly

11
developed framework. Using this personality approach to psychopathy assessment, we

demonstrated that the prevalence of psychopathy among individuals incarcerated in medium

and maximum security prisons amounts to approximately 7% of the total prison population

and hence is much lower than previously speculated and comparable with the prevalence

found among non-forensic adult samples (Boduszek et al., 2017a, b). Using a similar research

methodology1, Colins et al. (2016) found that as much as 12% of adults in the general

population belong in a psychopathic personality group. This may indicate that the difference

in intensity of psychopathic traits between forensic and non-forensic populations is not as

pronounced as reported to date. In light of this, it is recommended that both researchers and

practitioners re-evaluate the previously utilized conceptualization of psychopathy and

assessment methods. Additionally, psychopathy measures which index behavioral traits and

rely on cut-off points for total scale ratings should be used with caution in clinical settings.

We anticipate that the method of defining and measuring psychopathy upon which the PPTM

is based, will (a) address the numerous problems identified in past psychopathy research

which treated antisocial/criminal behaviors as vital to psychopathy construct and (b) allow

for reliable psychopathy assessment among forensic and non-forensic populations (for more

details with regard to problems with prior psychopathy measurement see chapter titled “The

PCL-R family of psychopathy measures: Dimensionality and predictive utility of the PCL-R,

PCL: SV, PCL: YV, SRP-III, and SRP-SF” in the current book).

1
With the exception of including some behavioral characteristics (i.e., impulsive-
irresponsible traits) in the assessment of psychopathy, which could partly explain the high
class membership rates.

12
 References

Babiak, P., Neumann, C.S. and Hare, R. (2010) Corporate Psychopathy: Talking the Walk.

Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 174-193.

Bate, C., Boduszek, D., Dhingra, K., & Bale, C. (2014). Psychopathy, Intelligence and

Emotional Responding in a Non-Forensic Sample: A Physiological Investigation.

Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 25(5), 600-612.

Blair, R. J. R., Colledge, E., Murray, L., & Mitchell, D. G. (2001). A selective impairment in

the processing of sad and fearful expressions in children with psychopathic

tendencies. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29(6), 491–498.

Boduszek, D., Debowska, A., Dhingra, K., DeLisi, M. (2016). Introduction and validation of

Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale (PPTS) in a large prison sample. Journal of

Criminal Justice. 46, 9-17.

Boduszek, D., & Debowska, A. (2016). Critical evaluation of psychopathy measurement

(PCL-R and SRP-III/SF) and recommendations for future research. Journal of

Criminal Justice. 44, 1-12.

Boduszek, D., Debowska., A., Sherretts, N., Boulton, M., & Willmott, D. (2017a). Profiles of

Psychopathic Personality Traits among Prisoners, Community Adults, University

Students, and Adolescents. Manuscript in preparation.

Boduszek, D., & Debowska, A., & Willmott, D. (2017b). Latent profile analysis of

psychopathic traits among homicide, general violent, property, and white-collar

offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice. 51, 17-23. DOI:

10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.06.001

13
Boduszek, D., Dhingra, K., Hyland, P., & Debowska, A. (2016). A bifactorial solution to the

Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version in a sample of civil psychiatric patients.

Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 26(3), 174-185. doi: 10.1002/cbm.1956

Bolt, D. M., Hare, R. D., Vitale, J. E., & Newman, J. P. (2004). A multigroup item

response theory analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Psychological

Assessment, 16(2), 155-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.2.155

Brook, M., & Kosson, D. S. (2013). Impaired Cognitive Empathy in Criminal Psychopathy:

Evidence From a Laboratory Measure of Empathic Accuracy. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 122(1), 156-166.

Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity (1st ed.). St. Louis, MO: C.V. Mosby.

Colins, O. F., Fanti, K. A., Salekin, R. T., & Andershed, H. (2016). Psychopathic personality

in the general population: Differences and similarities across gender. Journal of

Personality Disorders, 30, 1-26. Doi: 10.1521/pedi_2016_30_237

Cooke, D. J., Hart, S. D., Logan, C., & Michie, C. (2012). Explicating the construct of

psychopathy: Development and validation of a conceptual model, the Comprehensive

Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP). International Journal of Forensic

Mental Health, 11(4), 242-252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2012.746759

Cooke, D. J., Kosson, D. S., & Michie, C. (2001). Psychopathy and ethnicity: Structural,

item, and test generalizability of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL–R) in

Caucasian and African American participants. Psychological Assessment, 13(4), 531–

542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.13.4.531

Debowska, A., Boduszek, D., Dhingra, K., Willmott, D., Sherretts, N., & DeLisi, M. (2017).

Can we use Hare’s psychopathy model within forensic and non-forensic populations?

An empirical investigation. Deviant Behavior. DOI:

10.1080/01639625.2016.1266887.

14
Debowska, A., Boduszek, D., Hyland, P., & Goodson, S. (2014). Biological Correlates of

Psychopathic Traits. Mental Health Review Journal, 19(2), 110-123. DOI:

10.1108/MHRJ-10-2013-0034

Dhingra, K., & Boduszek, D. (2013). Psychopathy and Criminal Behaviour – A Psychosocial

Research Perspective. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 3(2), 83-107. DOI:

10.1108/JCP-06-2013-0014

Dhingra, K., Boduszek, D., & Kola, S. (2015). A Latent Class Analysis of Psychopathic

Traits in Civil Psychiatric Patients. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice.

54(3), 237-249. DOI: 10.1111/hojo.12128

Dolan, M.C., & Fullam, R.S. (2009). Psychopathy and functional magnetic resonance

imaging blood oxygenation level-dependent responses to emotional faces in violent

patients with schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry, 66(6), 570-577.

Edens, J. F., Skeem, J. L., Cruise, K. R., & Cauffman, E. (2001). Assessment of “juvenile

psychopathy” and its association with violence: a critical review. Behavioral Sciences

and the Law, 19(1), 53-80. doi: 10.1002/bsl.425

Hastings, M. E., Tangney, J. P., & Stuewig, J. (2008). Psychopathy and Identification of

Facial Expressions of Emotion. Personality and Individual Differences. 44, 1474-

1483. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.004

Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor conceptualization of

psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological

Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 6-17.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.1.1.6

Hart, S. D., Cox, D. N., & Hare, R. D. (1995). Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening

Version (PCL: SV). Toronto: Multi-Heath Systems.

15
Hassall, J., Boduszek, D., & Dhingra, K. (2015). Psychopathic traits of business and

psychology students and their relationship to academic success. Personality and

Individual Differences, 82, 227-231. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.017. (ISSN 0191-

8869)

Hare, R.D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal

populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 1(2), 111-119. doi:

10.1016/0191-8869(80)90028-8

Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health

Systems.

Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised. 2. Toronto: Multi- Health

Systems.

Johansson, P., Andershed, H., Kerr, M., & Levander, S. (2002). On the operationalization of

psychopathy: Further support for a three-faceted personality oriented model. Acta

Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 106(s412), 81–85.

Kennealy, P. J., Skeem, J. L., Walters, G. D., & Camp, J. (2010). Do core interpersonal and

affective traits of PCL-R psychopathy interact with antisocial behavior and

disinhibition to predict violence? Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 569-580.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019618

Lilienfeld, S. O., & Arkowitz, H. (2007). What “psychopath” means. Scientific American

Mind, 18(6), 80–81. doi: 10.1038/scientificamericanmind1207-80

Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., Landfield, K., Watts, A. L., Rubenzer, S., &

Faschingbauer, T. R. (2012). Fearless dominance and the US presidency: implications

of psychopathic personality traits for successful and unsuccessful political

16
 leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 489–505. doi:

10.1037/a0029392

Lilienfield, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). PPI-R: Psychopathic Personality Inventory-

Revised. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Incorporated.

McDermott, P. A., Alterman, A. I., Cacciola, J. S., Rutherford, M. J., Newman, J. P., &

Mulholland, E. M. (2000). Generality of Psychopathy Checklist—Revised factors

over prisoners and substance-dependent patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

psychology, 68(1), 181-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.1.181

O’Kane, A., Fawcett, D., & Blackburn, R. (1996). Psychopathy and moral reasoning: A

comparison of two classifications. Personality and Individual Differences, 20(4), 505-

514. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00203-0

Patrick, C. (2007). Back to the future: Cleckley as a guide to the next generation of

psychopathy research. In C. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 605–

617). New York: Guilford Press.

Patrick, C. J., & Drislane, L. E. (2015). Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy. In

P. H. Blaney, R. F. Krueger, & T. Millon (Eds.), Oxford textbook of psychopathology

(pp. 681–706). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Patrick, C. J., Hicks, B. M., Nichol, P. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2007). A bifactor approach to

modeling the structure of the psychopathy checklist-revised. Journal of Personality

Disorders, 21(2), 118. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2007.21.2.118

Polaschek, D. L. (2015). (Mis)understanding psychopathy: Consequences for policy and

practice with offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(4), 500-519.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.960033

17
Rogers R. (1995). Diagnostic and structured interviewing: A handbook for psychologists.

Odessa, FL: PAR.

Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Harari, H., Aharon-Peretz, J., & Levkovitz, Y. (2010). The role of the

orbitofrontal cortex in affective theory of mind in criminal offenders with

psychopathic tendencies. Cortex, 46, 668-677.

Skeem, J. L., & Cooke, D. J. (2010a). Is criminal behavior a central component of

psychopathy? Conceptual directions for resolving the debate. Psychological

Assessment, 22(2), 433–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0008512

Skeem, J. L., & Cooke, D. J. (2010b). One measure does not a construct make: Directions

toward reinvigorating psychopathy research—reply to Hare and Neumann (2010).

Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 455-459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014862

Skeem, J.L, Polaschek, D., Patrick, C.J. and Lilienfeld, S.O. (2011) Psychopathic personality:

Bridging the gap between scientific evidence and public policy. Psychological

Science in the Public Interest, 12, 95-162.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1529100611426706

Woodworth, M., & Porter, S. (2002). In cold blood: characteristics of criminal homicides as a

function of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(3), 436-445.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.111.3.436

Yang, M., Wong, S. C., & Coid, J. (2010). The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-

analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5),

740. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020473

18
 Psychopathic Personality Traits Model (PPTM)

Affective Cognitive Interpersonal Egocentricity

responsiveness responsiveness manipulation (tendency to focus on one’s
(inability to understand and own interests, beliefs, and
(low affective empathy and (superficial charm,
respond at cognitive level to attitudes)
emotional shallowness) grandiosity, deceitfulness)
emotional states of others)

Intelligence
(control variable)

Figure 1. The Psychopathic Personality Traits Model (PPTM).

19