![]() Despite being a minority, people with highly psychopathic traits commit more than 50% of the most serious crimes ( Hare et al., 1993 Hare, 1999) and display high rates of criminal versatility ( Kosson et al., 1990 Shaw and Porter, 2012). The prevalence of psychopathy is estimated at about 1% in the general population ( Neumann and Hare, 2008 Coid et al., 2009a) and 15 to 25% in prison populations ( Hare, 1999), with lower rates in Europe than in North America ( Coid et al., 2009b). Taken together as a construct, these interpersonal, affective, and behavioral characteristics make this a unique group for the criminal justice and healthcare systems to deal with ( Hare, 2003 Shaw and Porter, 2012). People with highly psychopathic traits are often described as social predators without conscience but with a sense of grandiosity, lack of remorse or shame, low empathy, high impulsivity, low anxiety, and high levels of thrill-seeking and criminal behaviors ( Cleckley, 1950 Hare, 1985, 1999 Babiak and Hare, 2006). Psychopathy is considered the most important clinical construct in the criminal justice system ( Hare, 1999 Logan and Hare, 2008) due to its implications for sentencing, placement, treatment planning, and risk assessment ( Hare, 1996). Currently, no specific treatment has been found effective in reducing the general criminality or aggressive antisocial behaviors of this population ( Hecht et al., 2018). Even small reductions in aggressive antisocial behaviors require substantial resources, thus imposing substantial economic cost to society ( DeLisi et al., 2017). Clinicians meet and treat these people in forensic psychiatry and other healthcare situations where they pose major challenges, possibly because those with highly psychopathic traits often do not complete their treatment. People with highly psychopathic traits are a resource-intensive group in the criminal justice system, and they often return to crime despite extensive rehabilitative efforts ( Rice and Harris, 2013). We suggest that intelligence, however, important for rehabilitation strategies and everyday functioning, is not necessarily pertinent to understanding aggressive antisocial behaviors in young offenders with psychopathic traits. However, the amount of variance in the LHA total score explained by the model was very small: 2.9%. In the moderation analyses, a small yet statistically significant moderation effect of intelligence on the association between the Interpersonal facet and LHA total scores was demonstrated. We found a positive association between psychopathic traits and aggressive antisocial behaviors, and a small negative association between the Affective PCL-R facet and intelligence. The PCL-R four-facet structure was used for the analyses. Associations were tested with Spearman’s rho, and moderation analysis was performed through ordinary least squares regressions. ![]() Participants were 269 male violent offenders aged 18–25 years, assessed on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), the Life History of Aggression (LHA), and the General Ability Index from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 3rd edition. This study aimed to investigate the association between psychopathic traits, aggressive antisocial behaviors, and intelligence in young violent offenders and to test whether intelligence moderates the relationship between psychopathic traits and aggressive antisocial behaviors. Increased knowledge of whether intelligence is relevant to this association is needed because of its possible implications on the assessment and treatment of individuals with psychopathic traits and aggressive antisocial behaviors. ![]() However, the potential role of intelligence as moderator of the well-established association between psychopathy and aggressive antisocial behaviors has largely been neglected, despite intelligence having been independently related to both concepts. Psychopathy continues to be a challenge in forensic contexts, and evidence of its association with destructive behaviors, such as aggressive antisocial behaviors, is extensive. 6Gillberg Neuropsychiatry Centre, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.5Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.4Blekinge Center for Competence, Region Blekinge, Karlskrona, Sweden. ![]() 3Centre for Ethics, Law and Mental Health, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.2Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.1Regional Forensic Psychiatric Clinic, Växjö, Sweden.Fernando Renee González Moraga 1,2,3*, Danilo Garcia 4,5, Eva Billstedt 6 and Märta Wallinius 1,2,3 ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |