Beaver 2011
Beaver 2011
Beaver 2011
The genetic origins of psychopathic personality traits in adult males and females:
Results from an adoption-based study☆
Kevin M. Beaver ⁎, Meghan W. Rowland, Joseph A. Schwartz, Joseph L. Nedelec
Florida State University, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 634 West Call Street, Hecht House, Tallahassee, FL 32306–1127, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Available online 20 August 2011 Purpose: Research has consistently revealed that measures of psychopathy and psychopathic personality traits
represent some of the most consistent predictors of violent criminal involvement. As a result, there has been a
considerable amount of interest in trying to identify the various etiological factors related to psychopathy. The
current study builds on this existing body of literature by examining the genetic foundations to psychopathic
personality traits.
Methods: An adoption-based research design is used to estimate genetic effects on psychopathic personality
traits. Adoptees are drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.
Results: Analyses revealed that having a biological criminal father was related to psychopathic personality
traits for male adoptees, but not for female adoptees. For males, having a criminal biological father increased
the odds of scoring in the extreme of the psychopathic personality trait scale by a factor ranging between 4.3
and 8.5. However, there was no association between having a biological criminal mother and psychopathic
personality traits for adoptees.
Conclusions: Psychopathic personality traits are transmitted from father-to-offspring due to genetic reasons.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction to criminal involvement, and one that has not been the subject of
much biosocial criminological research, is psychopathy/psychopathic
During the past 10 years or so, there has been a tremendous personality traits.
amount of criminological research examining the biosocial founda- Psychopathy is typically viewed as a personality disorder that is
tions to antisocial behaviors (Walsh, 2009). The findings flowing defined by an assortment of affective, interpersonal, and behavioral
from this body of scholarship have provided strong empirical evidence traits (Hare, 1996). However, psychopathy is usually measured by
linking genetic factors to crime, delinquency, and other forms of traits drawn from the affective component of psychopathy, especially
antisocial behaviors (Moffitt, 2005). Even some of the strongest callousness, remorselessness, guiltlessness, short-temperedness, and an
correlates to crime and delinquency, such as low levels of self-control inability to empathize (Hare, 2006). Studies have revealed a relatively
and exposure to delinquent peers, have been shown to be under strong and consistent link between psychopathy/psychopathic per-
substantial genetic influence (Beaver, 2009). With this impressive sonality traits and criminal involvement, especially among violent
amount of research linking genes to the development of serious chronic criminals (DeLisi, 2009). For example, Vaughn and DeLisi
antisocial behaviors, there have been calls for more research to employ (2008) found that psychopathic personality traits had accuracies
a biosocial perspective to examine salient criminogenic risk factors between 70 and 88 percent when predicting career criminal group
as a way to create effective prevention and intervention programs membership. Similarly, Vaughn and colleagues (2008) reported a
(Vaske, Galyean, & Cullen, 2011). One of the strongest correlates statistically significant and positive association between psychopathic
personality traits and delinquency, hostile aggression, and early
onset offending. These findings are mirrored by those reported by
☆ This research uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard Hare (1996), wherein he estimated that psychopathy is about 25 times
Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by a grant P01-
more prevalent among incarcerated offenders than among the general
HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies. Special population.
acknowledgment is due to Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the Against this backdrop, there is increasing recognition by the crim-
original design. Persons interested in obtaining data files from Add Health should inological community of a close association between psychopathy/
contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, psychopathic personality traits and an assortment of antisocial
NC 27516–2524 (addhealth@unc.edu). No direct support was received from grant
P01-HD31921 for this analysis.
behavioral measures, with some criminologists even calling psychop-
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 850 644 9180; fax: +1 850 644 9614. athy “the unified theory of crime” (DeLisi, 2009). In order to advance
E-mail address: kbeaver@fsu.edu (K.M. Beaver). a well-rounded theory of psychopathy, and in order to potentially
0047-2352/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.07.002
K.M. Beaver et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (2011) 426–432 427
prevent the emergence of psychopathic traits, the etiological un- Krueger, & Patrick, 2005; Brook et al., 2010; Larsson, Andershed, &
derpinnings first need to be fully delineated (Salekin & Lochman, 2008). Lichtenstein, 2006; Vernon, Villani, Vickers, & Harris, 2008; Viding,
The goal of the current study is to add to the existing knowledge base Blair, Moffitt, & Plomin, 2005). The results of these studies have been
on the causes of psychopathic personality traits by analyzing a sample substantiated by a recent meta-analysis showing that across ten
of adoptees to estimate the link between psychopathic personality studies, genetic factors explained 49% of the variance in psychopathy
traits and having criminal biological parents. Before proceeding to and psychopathic personality traits and the remaining 51% of the
the analyses, however, we first provide an overview of the literature variance was due to nonshared environmental factors (Waldman &
examining the genetic influences on psychopathy and psychopathic Rhee, 2006). The shared environment accounted for none of the
personality traits. variance in psychopathy and psychopathic personality traits among
the studies included in the meta-analysis.
The genetics of psychopathy and psychopathic personality traits An alternative methodology to the twin-based research design
that has also be used to estimate genetic effects on psychopathy and
An expanding line of research has examined the genetic and en- psychopathic personality traits is the adoption-based research design.
vironmental influences on the development of psychopathy and Samples of adoptees provide a very powerful way to estimate genetic
psychopathic personality traits. In general, this research has been influences on phenotypes, such as psychopathy and psychopathic
guided by a behavioral genetic approach, where samples of twin traits. In adoption studies, genetic effects are measured by assessing
pairs are analyzed. By analyzing samples of twin pairs, it is possible the biological parents while environmental effects are measured by
to quantify the proportion of variance in measures of psychopathy/ assessing the adoptive parents. Assuming that the adoptees had
psychopathic personality traits that is due to genetic factors and the limited or no contact with their biological parents, then the only
proportion of variance that is due to environmental factors (Plomin, reason that they should resemble their biological parents on behav-
DeFries, McClearn, & McGuffin, 2008). The logic underlying the twin- ioral phenotypes is because of shared genetic material. As it applies
based methodology relies on the fact that monozygotic (MZ) twins to psychopathy, the adoption research design typically assesses the
share 100% of their DNA, but dyzygotic (DZ) twins share only 50% of biological parents for psychopathy, psychopathic personality traits, or
their dissenting DNA. Both types of twin pairs, however, share the some other antisocial phenotype. If there is a statistically significant
same environments—that is, they are both raised in the same families, link between the measure of psychopathy for the biological parents
by the same parents, reside in the same neighborhoods, and so on. As and the measure of psychopathy in their adopted-away child,
long as this latter assumption is met, the only reason that MZ twins then the most commonly accepted interpretation is that this
should be more similar than DZ twins is because they share twice as association is the result of genetic factors shared between children
much DNA. Additionally, the more similar MZ twins are in comparison and their parents. Environmental effects on psychopathy can be
to DZ twins, the stronger the genetic effect. The proportion of variance explored by examining environmental conditions that are provided
that is accounted for by genetic factors is referred to as heritability in by the adoptee's non-biological parents, such as the socioeconomic
behavior genetic research. status of the family and even the criminal status of the non-biological
Contrary to what criminologists typically believe about behavior parents.
genetic research, this line of inquiry does not just focus on genetic A number of studies have employed the adoption-based research
effects, but is equally concerned with the effects of environmental design to examine whether there is a connection between psychopathy/
factors (Beaver, 2009). Unlike most criminological research, though, psychopathic personality traits in the adopted child and their biological
behavioral genetic research designs distinguish between two types parents. Overall, and consistent with the findings culled from twin-
of environments: shared environments and nonshared environments based research, the results of these adoption-based studies have
(Plomin & Daniels, 1987). The shared environment captures all provided additional evidence that psychopathy, psychopathic person-
environmental effects that are the same between siblings and that ality traits, and other measures of psychopathology are influenced
make them similar to each other, while the nonshared environment by genetic factors. For example, in a classic study Schulsinger (1972)
captures all environmental effects that are unique to each sibling employed a sample of adoptees who had been committed to
and that create differences between siblings. Importantly, the effects a psychiatric hospital for psychopathy and a control group of never
of error are pooled together with the effects of the nonshared envi- hospitalized adoptees. Analyses of these two groups of adoptees
ronment. Together, heritability, the shared environment, and the revealed higher levels of antisocial personality and criminality in the
nonshared environment explain 100% of all phenotypic variance biological relatives of psychopaths when compared to the control group
(Plomin et al., 2008). of non-psychopaths. In another study, Crowe (1974) analyzed a sample
Twin-based research designs have been widely used to investigate of adoptees and reported higher levels of criminality and antisocial
the genetic and environmental effects on nearly every measurable personality in adoptees who had a criminal biological mother than
human trait, including psychopathy and psychopathic personality adoptees who did not have a criminal biological mother. Cadoret and
traits. To illustrate, Blonigen and colleagues (2003) analyzed a sample Stewart (1991), moreover, examined whether there was an association
of male twins from the Minnesota Twin Registry to estimate genetic between having a biological parent with a criminal history, living in a
and environmental effects on variance in measures of psychopathic low SES family environment, and antisocial personality and criminality
personality traits drawn from the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. in the adoptee. The results of their statistical models revealed that
The results of their statistical models revealed that variance in a combination of genetic and environmental factors predicted antisocial
psychopathic personality traits was influenced heavily by genetic personality and criminality in the adoptee (see also Cadoret, Yates,
factors, with the remaining variance being accounted for by Troughton, Woodworth, & Stewart, 1995).
nonshared environmental factors. Similarly, Taylor and colleagues
(2003) analyzed twins from the Minnesota Twin Family Study and The current study
reported that approximately 40% of the variance in the psychopathic
traits of antisocial behavior and attachment was attributable to Collectively, the available evidence garnered from twin- and
genetic factors. Nonshared environmental factors explained the adoption-based studies suggests that psychopathy is influenced by
remaining variance, while shared environmental factors explained genetic factors. The current study adds to this literature in three
none of the variance. Strikingly similar results have been reported in important ways. First, unlike most of the adoption-based studies that
other behavioral genetic studies, including studies that are based not were conducted on samples that were collected in the 1970s or 1980s,
only on adults, but also children and adolescents (Blonigen, Carlson, we use a more contemporary sample that was followed from the mid-
428 K.M. Beaver et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (2011) 426–432
1990s through the 2000s. The results of our study will indicate respondent indicated that they did not live with either of their
whether the results generated from past studies are still generalizable biological parents. With this selection criteria in place, and after
at the present time. Second, most of the past adoption studies on cases were removed from the analysis based on listwise deletion
psychopathy have used measures of antisocial personality disorder, techniques, we were left with a final analytical sample that ranged
aggression, or some other antisocial phenotype as a proxy for between n = 109 and n = 278 adoptees.
psychopathy or psychopathic personality traits. The current study,
however, uses a novel measure of psychopathic personality traits that Measures
builds on previous psychopathy research (e.g., Lynam et al., 2005;
Lynam & Widiger, 2001). Third, although some research has examined Psychopathic personality traits
male-female differences in the development, correlates, and mani-
festations of psychopathic personality traits, much remains unknown Psychopathic personality traits were assessed by using questions
about the potential ways in which biological factors may differentially asked at wave 4 that were originally designed to measure the five-factor
affect psychopathic personality traits in males and females (Cale model of personality as well as measures related to problems with self-
& Lilienfeld, 2002; Verona & Vitale, 2006). To address this issue, regulation. This measure of psychopathic personality traits is grounded
in addition to estimating the statistical models for the full sample, in previous research indicating that personality measures extracted
analyses are also conducted separately for males and females. from the five-factor model can be combined together to produce a
continuous measure of psychopathy (Lynam, 2002; Lynam & Derefinko,
Methods 2006; Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leukefeld, 2001). Our psychopathic
personality traits measure was developed by first identifying items
Sample (drawn from the International Personality Item Pool) that have been
used by previous researchers using the five-factor model as a measure
Data for this study come from the National Longitudinal Study of of psychopathy (Derefinko & Lynam, 2007; Gudonis, Miller, Miller, &
Adolescent Health (Add Health; Udry, 2003). The Add Health is a four- Lynam, 2008; Lynam et al., 2005; Lynam & Derefinko, 2006; Lynam &
wave study of a nationally representative sample of American youths Widiger, 2001; Miller & Lynam, 2003; Miller et al., 2001) along with
who were attending middle or high school during the 1994–1995 items that tap problems with self-regulation. Importantly, there is
school year. The first wave of data was collected through two different empirical (Vaughn, DeLisi, Beaver, Wright, & Howard, 2007) and
surveys: an in-school survey and an in-home survey. The in-school theoretical reason (DeLisi, 2003, 2005, 2009) to believe that measures
surveys were administered to approximately 90,000 students during a of self-regulation and self-control are proxies for psychopathy.
specified school day. Youths were asked a wide range of questions Second, the items were factor analyzed and any item that did not
about their family life, their social relationships, and their behaviors. load on the psychopathy factor was removed from the scale. Then,
A subsample of respondents was then selected to be reinterviewed internal reliability analysis was estimated and any items that signifi-
at their homes along with their primary caregiver. These in-home cantly reduced Cronbach's alpha was deleted from the scale. Finally,
interviews were designed to include a much more thorough list of the remaining 23 items were summed together to create the psychop-
questions and also included questions that were more sensitive in athy scale (α = .82). Items were scored as follows: 1 = strongly agree,
nature. For example, adolescents were asked about their sexual 2 = agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = disagree, and 5 = strongly
behaviors, their use of drugs and alcohol, and their involvement in disagree. Where necessary, responses were reverse-coded to ensure
delinquent behaviors. Overall, 20,745 youths and 17,700 of their that higher values indicated a greater number of psychopathic traits. A
primary caregivers participated in the wave 1 in-home component to complete listing of all the items included in the psychopathic personality
the study (Harris et al., 2003). traits scale is included in Appendix A. Importantly, this psychopathic
Approximately one to two years after wave 1 the second round of personality traits scale is identical to one that has been used previously
data was collected. Most of the respondents were still adolescents (Beaver, Barnes, May, & Schwartz, 2011).
at this time and so the questions asked at wave 1 were still age- In addition to using the continuous measure of psychopathic
appropriate at wave 2. As a result, the survey instruments remained personality traits, we also created two binary psychopathic person-
very similar between the first two waves. Youths, for instance, were ality traits variables. The first variable was created by dividing the
asked questions about their romantic relationships, their involvement psychopathic personality traits scale at the 75th percentile, where
in risky behaviors, and their educational experiences. In total, 14,197 those scoring in the bottom 75% of the psychopathic personality traits
youths were included in the second wave of data. Then, in 2001 and scale received a score of zero (0) and those scoring in the top 25% of
2002 the third wave of data was collected when most of the respon- the psychopathic personality traits scale received a score of one (1).
dents were young adults. Because the age range of the respondents Similarly, the second dichotomous psychopathic personality traits
had changed considerably since the beginning of the study, the variable was created by dividing the psychopathic personality traits
surveys were revamped to include newer, more age-appropriate scale at the 90th percentile, where those scoring in the bottom 90% of
questions. For example, respondents were asked about their marital the psychopathic personality traits scale received a score of zero (0)
status, their experiences raising children, and their educational and those scoring in the top 10% of the psychopathic personality
history. Wave 3 data included information from 15,197 respondents. traits scale received a score of one (1). By using three measures of
Finally, the fourth wave of data was collected in 2007 and 2008. At psychopathic personality traits we were able to assess the consistency
that time most of the respondents were between the ages of 24 in results across measurement strategies and we were also able to
and 32 years old. A total of 15,701 respondents were successfully examine whether the genetic influences on psychopathic personality
interviewed at wave 4 (Harris et al., 2003). traits varied according to whether psychopathic personality traits is
One of the unique components of the Add Health data is that a measured continuously or dichotomously. Table 1 includes descrip-
subsample of adoptees is embedded within the nationally represen- tive statistics for the psychopathic personality measures along with
tative sample of respondents. During wave 1 interviews, respondents the other variables that were included in the current study.
were asked whether they were adopted. Additional questions were
asked to determine whether they currently lived with at least one of Genetic risk
their biological parents (e.g., living with one biological parent and a
stepparent). We restricted the final analytical sample based on two In the Add Health, genetic risk for psychopathic personality traits
criteria: 1) the respondent indicated they were adopted and 2) the was measured with two questions that asked about the biological
K.M. Beaver et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (2011) 426–432 429
Table 1 Table 2
Descriptive statistics for selected add health study variables OLS regression models predicting scores on the continuous psychopathic personality
traits scale with the genetic risk measures for the full sample
Mean SD Min. – Max.
Variables Criminal Biological Mother Criminal Biological Father
Outcome Measures
Psychopathic personality traits 54.97 9.68 30-88 b SE Beta b SE Beta
Top 25% 0.27 0.45 0-1
Genetic Risk .99 1.58 .04 3.67 1.35 .18*
Top 10% 0.10 0.30 0-1
Age .27 .35 .05 -.02 .36 -.00
Genetic Risk Measures
Gender − 1.74 1.18 -.09 −1.93 1.21 -.10
Criminal mother 0.17 0.38 0-1
Race − 1.45 1.23 -.07 −1.72 1.25 -.09
Criminal father 0.28 0.48 0-1
N 278 228
Control Variables
Age (wave 1) 16.24 1.65 12-20 *Significant at the .05 level, two-tailed tests.
Gender (1 = male) 0.53 0.50 0-1
Race (1 = nonwhite) 0.34 0.47 0-1
and the left-hand columns show that the genetic risk measure based *Significant at the .05 level, two-tailed tests.
430 K.M. Beaver et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (2011) 426–432
0.45
0.4
0.35
Predicted Probabilities
0.3
Full Sample
Female Sample
Male Sample
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
No Yes
Criminal Biological Father
Fig. 1. Predicted probabilities of scoring in the top 25 percent of the psychopathic personality traits scale by the biological father's criminal status. Predicted probabilities estimated
with age, gender, and race set to their means.
K.M. Beaver et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (2011) 426–432 431
0.15
0.13
0.11
Predicted Probabilities
0.09
Full Sample
Female Sample
Male Sample
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.01
No Yes
Criminal Biological Father
Fig. 2. Predicted probabilities of scoring in the top 10 percent of the psychopathic personality traits scale by the biological father's criminal status. Predicted probabilities estimated
with age, gender, and race set to their means.
violent psychopaths. While this is certainly post-hoc theorizing, the Although the findings of the current study provide additional
results of our statistical models provide some evidence in favor of this evidence that the etiology of psychopathic personality traits is
view. Future research would benefit by exploring this issue in much partially genetic, even when using a unique measure of psychopathic
greater detail. personality traits, there are at least three key limitations that need to
We are also left to reconcile why the statistically significant effects be addressed in future studies. First, and perhaps most importantly,
were confined only to males. This was true when examining genetic genetic risk for psychopathic personality traits was measured by
risk, wherein having a criminal biological father, but not a criminal whether the adoptees’ biological parents had ever been arrested.
biological mother, was related to scores on the psychopathic per- While arrest is certainly a proxy for psychopathy, not all psychopaths
sonality traits scale. And, this gendered effect was also observed in the are criminals and not all criminals are psychopaths (Babiak & Hare,
adoptees, wherein having a criminal biological father was related to 2006). As a result, the measures of genetic risk are not pure indicators
scores on the psychopathic personality traits scale for male adoptees, of psychopathy and thus there is likely a substantial amount of error
but not female adoptees. While the reasons for this difference are built into these measures. Statistically speaking, this would translate
likely complex, we offer one potential explanation. One of the most into attenuated effect sizes for the genetic risk measures, meaning
replicated findings within the criminological research is that males that the results reported in the current study are likely underesti-
are much more criminal than are females (Gottfredson & Hirschi, mates of the true effects. Second, the analyses were based on a sample
1990). This male-female disparity in crime becomes even more of adoptees, which necessarily raises questions about the generaliz-
pronounced when examining predatory crimes and is less pro- ability of the results to non-adoptees. While the results reported
nounced and sometimes non-existent when examining petty crimes, here parallel those reported with samples of twin and other kinship
such as crimes related to drug possession and petty theft (Braithwaite, pairs, caution should be used when extrapolating these findings
1989; Walsh, 2011). The measure of genetic risk that was used in the to other samples or populations. Third, current research indicates
current study was a simple dichotomous variable indicating whether that genetic factors often interact with environmental factors to
the biological parent had ever been arrested, but no details were explain a significant amount of variance in antisocial phenotypes
available surrounding the type of crime that was committed. As a (Moffitt, 2005). In adoption studies, environmental liabilities are often
result, we are likely capturing a significant amount of arrests for non- assessed by examining the criminal status of the adoptive parents. In
predatory crimes, especially for females. Since the least serious types the Add Health, only a handful of adoptive parents indicated that they
of crimes are the ones that are also the least likely to be affected by had a criminal history thereby preventing us from examining gene-
genetic factors, it stands to reason that the genetic risk measure based environment interactions in this way. Future research would benefit
on the biological mother is not as a reliable and valid measure of by exploring various environmental factors that may ameliorate or
genetic risk as the one based on the biological father. exacerbate genetic predispositions to psychopathic personality traits.
Similar logic can be employed to explain why there was not a genetic There is relatively widespread agreement that measures of
effect on female adoptees, but there was for male adoptees. There is psychopathy and psychopathic personality traits represent significant
a good deal of evidence indicating that female psychopaths, particularly risk factors for crime, violence, and other types of antisocial behaviors
female violent psychopaths, are extremely rare or perhaps even (DeLisi, 2009). What is much less agreed upon, however, are the
represent a different type of psychopathy than male violent psycho- underlying causes and developmental origins to psychopathy. While a
paths (Nicholls, Ogloff, Brink, & Spidel, 2005; Weizmann-Henelius, rapidly growing body of research from fields such as psychology,
Viemerö, & Eronen, 2004). If the magnitude of the genetic effect is psychiatry, behavioral genetics and neuroscience, have examined the
stronger on violent psychopaths, then again it would stand to reason etiology of psychopathy/psychopathic personality traits, very little
that genetic effects (especially when the genetic effect is measured criminological research has been devoted to this topic. The current
via biological parents’ criminality) for females would be dampened study sought to address this gap in the literature and hopefully spark
or even null. Analysis of adoptees drawn from the Add Health definitely a new wave of biosocial criminological research that focuses on the
hints at this possibility. origins of psychopathy.
432 K.M. Beaver et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (2011) 426–432
Appendix A. Items included in the psychopathic personality Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
traits scale Gudonis, L. C., Miller, D. J., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2008). Conceptualizing
personality disorders from a general model of personality functioning: Antisocial
personality disorder and the Five-Factor Model. Personality and Mental Health, 2,
1. I sympathize with others’ feelings
249–264.
2. I get angry easily* Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal
3. I am not interested in other people's problems* Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54.
4. I often forget to put things back in their proper place* Hare, R. D. (2006). Psychopathy: A clinical and forensic overview. The Psychiatric Clinics
5. I am relaxed most of the time of North America, 29, 709–724.
6. I am not easily bothered by things Harris, K. M., Florey, F., Tabor, J., Bearman, P. S., Jones, J., & Udry, J. R. (2003). The National
7. I rarely get irritated Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health: Research Design [www document]. URL:
8. I talk to a lot of different people at parties http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design
9. I feel others’ emotions Larsson, H., Andershed, H., & Lichtenstein, P. (2006). A genetic factor explains most of
10. I get upset easily* the variation in the psychopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115,
11. I get stressed out easily* 221–230.
Lynam, D. R. (2002). Psychopathy from the perspective of the Five Factor Model. In P. T.
12. I lose my temper*
Costa & T.A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of
13. I keep in the background*
personality (2nd Ed.) (pp. 325–350). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
14. I am not really interested in others*
Association.
15. I seldom feel blue Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Raine, A., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M.
16. I don't worry about things that have already happened (2005). Adolescent psychopathy and the Big Five: Results from two Samples.
17. I keep my cool Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 431–443.
18. I go out of my way to avoid having to deal with problems in my life* Lynam, D. R., & Derefinko, K. J. (2006). Psychopathy and personality. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.),
19. When making a decision, I go with my ‘gut feeling’ and don't think much Handbook of Psychopathy (pp. 133–155). New York: Guilford.
about the consequences of each alternative* Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. (2001). Using the five factor model to represent the
20. I live my life without much thought for the future* personality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal
21. Other people determine most of what I can and cannot do* Psychology, 110, 401–412.
22. There are many things that interfere with what I want to do* Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2003). Psychopathy and the Five Factor Model of personality:
23. There is really no way I can solve the problems I have* A replication and extension. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 168–178.
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T., & Leukefeld, C. (2001). Personality disorders as
*Indicates that the item was reverse-coded so that higher scores represent higher levels extreme variants of common personality dimensions: Can the Five Factor Model
of psychopathic personality traits. adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69, 253–276.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior:
A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.
Moffitt, T. E. (2005). The new look of behavioral genetics in developmental psychopa-
Note thology: Gene-environment interplay in antisocial behaviors. Psychological Bulletin,
131, 533–554.
1. We estimated the association between genetic risk based on the biological Nicholls, T. L., Ogloff, J. R. P., Brink, J., & Spidel, A. (2005). Psychopathy in women:
mother's criminal status and the odds of scoring in the top 25% of the psychopathy A review of its clinical usefulness for assessing risk for aggression and criminality.
scale and the top 10% of the psychopathy scale. Consistent with the results generated Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 779–802.
with the continuously measured psychopathy scale, there was not a statistically Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1987). Why are children in the same family so different from
significant effect for either of these outcome measures for the full sample, the female one another? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 1–16.
sample, or the male sample. Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., McClearn, G. E., & McGuffin, P. (2008). Behavioral genetics
(5th edition). New York: Worth.
Salekin, R. T., & Lochman, J. E. (2008). Child and adolescent psychopathy: The search for
References protective factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 159–172.
Schulsinger, F. (1972). Psychopathy, heredity and environment. International Journal of
Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. New York: Mental Health, 1, 190–206.
Harper Collins. Taylor, J., Loney, B. R., Bobadilla, L., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (2003). Genetic and
Beaver, K. M. (2009). Biosocial criminology: A primer. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. environmental influences on psychopathy trait dimensions in a community sample
Beaver, K. M. (2011). Genetic influences on being processed through the criminal justice of male twins. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 633–645.
system: Results from a sample of adoptees. Biological Psychiatry, 69, 282–287. Udry, J. R. (2003). The national longitudinal study of adolescent health (Add Health),
Beaver, K. M., Barnes, J. C., May, J. S., & Schwartz, J. A. (2011). Psychopathic Personality waves I and II, 1994–1996; wave III, 2001–2002 [machine-readable data file and
Traits, Genetic Risk, and Gene-Environment Correlations. Criminal Justice and documentation]. Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Behavior, 38, 896–912. Hill, Chapel Hill.
Blonigen, D. M., Carlson, S. R., Krueger, R. F., & Patrick, C. J. (2003). A twin study of self- Vaske, J., Galyean, K., & Cullen, F. T. (2011). Toward a biosocial theory of offender
reported psychopathic personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, rehabilitation: Why does cognitive-behavioral therapy work? Journal of Criminal
179–197. Justice, 39, 90–102.
Blonigen, D. M., Hicks, B. M., Krueger, R. F., Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. G. (2005). Vaughn, M. G., & DeLisi, M. (2008). Were Wolfgang's chronic offenders psychopaths?
Psychopathic personality traits: Heritability and genetic overlap with internalizing On the convergent validity between psychopathy and career criminality. Journal of
and externalizing psychopathology. Psychological Medicine, 35, 637–648. Criminal Justice, 36, 33–42.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. New York: Cambridge University Vaughn, M. G., DeLisi, M., Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., & Howard, M. O. (2007). Toward
Press. a psychopathology of self-control theory: The importance of narcissistic traits.
Brook, M., Panizzon, M. S., Kosson, D. S., Sullivan, E. A., Lyons, M. J., Franz, C. E., Eisen, S. A., Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 803–821.
& Kremen, W. S. (2010). Psychopathic personality traits in middle-aged male twins: Vaughn, M. G., Howard, M. O., & DeLisi, M. (2008). Psychopathic personality traits
A behavior genetic investigation. Journal of Personality Disorders, 24, 473–486. and delinquent careers: An empirical examination. International Journal of Law and
Cadoret, R. J., & Stewart, M. A. (1991). An adoption study of attention deficit/ Psychiatry, 31, 407–416.
hyperactivity/aggression and their relationship to adult antisocial personality. Vernon, P. A., Villani, V. C., Vickers, L. C., & Harris, J. A. (2008). A behavioral genetic
Comprehensive Psychiatry, 32, 73–82. investigation of the Dark Triad and Big 5. Personality and Individual Differences, 44,
Cadoret, R. J., Yates, W. R., Troughton, E., Woodworth, G., & Stewart, M. A. (1995). 445–452.
Genetic-environmental interaction in the genesis of aggressivity and conduct Verona, E., & Vitale, J. (2006). Psychopathy in women: Assessment, manifestations, and
disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 916–924. etiology. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of Psychopathy (pp. 415–436). New York:
Cale, E. M., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2002). Sex differences in psychopathy and antisocial Guilford Press.
personality disorder: A review and integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, Viding, E., Blair, J. R., Moffitt, T. E., & Plomin, R. (2005). Evidence for substantial genetic risk
1179–1207. for psychopathy in 7-year-olds. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 592–597.
Crowe, R. R. (1974). An adoption study of antisocial personality. Archives of General Waldman, I. D., & Rhee, S. H. (2006). Genetic and environmental influences on
Psychiatry, 31, 785–791. psychopathy and antisocial behavior. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of Psychopathy
DeLisi, M. (2003). Self-control pathology: The elephant in the living room. In C. L. Britt & (pp. 205–228). New York: Guilford Press.
M.R. Gottfredson (Eds.), Control Theories of Crime and Delinquency: Advances in Walsh, A. (2009). Biology and criminology: The biosocial synthesis. New York: Routledge.
Criminological Theory (Volume 12, pp. 21–38). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Walsh, A. (2011). Feminist criminology through a biosocial lens. Durham, NC: Carolina
DeLisi, M. (2005). Career Criminals in Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Academic Press.
DeLisi, M. (2009). Psychopathy is the unified theory of crime. Youth Violence and Weizmann-Henelius, G., Viemerö, V., & Eronen, M. (2004). Psychopathy in violent
Juvenile Justice, 7, 256–273. female offenders in Finland. Psychopathology, 37, 213–221.
Derefinko, K. J., & Lynam, D. R. (2007). Using the FFM to conceptualize psychopathy: Wilson, J. Q., & Petersilia, J. (2011). Introduction. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.),
A test using a drug abusing sample. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 638–656. Crime and Public Policy (pp. 3–4). New York: Oxford University Press.