787304

research-article2018
IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X18787304International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyBoccio and Beaver

Original Manuscript
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
Psychopathic Personality Comparative Criminology
1­–20
Traits and the Successful © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Criminal sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X18787304
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18787304
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Cashen M. Boccio1 and Kevin M. Beaver2,3

Abstract
A significant body of literature links psychopathy and psychopathic personality traits
with criminal behavior and involvement with the criminal justice system. However,
very little research has examined whether psychopathic personality traits are related
to being a successful criminal (e.g., evading detection). This study addresses this gap
in the literature by examining whether psychopathic personality traits are associated
with the likelihood of being processed by the criminal justice system (i.e., arrest). Our
findings reveal that psychopathic personality traits are generally not associated with
criminal success. Specifically, individuals with high levels of psychopathic personality
traits commit more crimes and report more arrests, but they do not seem to have an
advantage when it comes to avoiding arrest for the crimes they commit. We discuss
the implications of these findings for the psychopathy literature.

Keywords
arrest, psychopathy, criminal behavior, detection, criminal success

Psychopathy is one of the most studied personality traits in relation to criminal and
violent behavior and, as a result, there has been a significant knowledge base of
research created on this topic. The findings that have been generated from studies
examining the psychopathy–antisocial behavior link have shown that, among other
things, persons who are characterized as being psychopaths or who score high on
measures of psychopathic personality traits are significantly more likely to engage

1The University of Texas at San Antonio, USA

2FloridaState University, Tallahassee, USA
3King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

Corresponding Author:
Cashen M. Boccio, San Antonio, TX 78207, USA.
Email: c.boccic@gmail.com
2 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 00(0)

in violence and aggression and to be arrested for criminal involvement (Beaver,

Boutwell, Barnes, Vaughn, & DeLisi, 2017; DeLisi, 2009; Hare, 1993, 1996;
Vaughn & DeLisi, 2008). Other studies have shown that psychopaths are less likely
to show empathy toward their victims (Babiak & Hare, 2006; Blair, 2007; Blair,
Colledge, Murray, & Mitchell, 2001; Hare, 1993; Jones, Happé, Gilbert, Burnett, &
Viding 2010) and are less likely to benefit by completing a rehabilitation program
(Gretton, McBride, Hare, O’Shaughnessy, & Kumka, 2001; Hare, 1996). Despite
the tremendous amount of research that has examined psychopathy and crime, there
remains much to be learned about this association.
Perhaps one of the more glaring gaps in the literature—and one that has direct
application from a public safety standpoint—has to do with whether psychopathy is
related to being a successful criminal—that is, to engage in criminal activity, but to
avoid detection and apprehension by the criminal justice system. This is somewhat
surprising because (a) psychopathy is strongly related to crime and (b) there is a
general belief—perhaps a mythical one—that psychopaths are cunning, clever, and
conniving and thus are able to avoid detection, even after many years of engaging
in acts of serious, violent criminal behavior (DeLisi, Vaughn, Beaver, & Wright,
2010). To date, there has been virtually no research bearing directly on the possibil-
ity that psychopaths are able to avoid detection at a rate that is better than the aver-
age criminal. There is, however, at least two lines of research that hint at the very
real possibility that psychopaths may be much better at evading detection than
nonpsychopathic criminals.
First, while there has been a dearth of research examining psychopathy and
being a successful criminal, there has been a body of research examining what has
been termed, the “successful psychopath.” This line of research has examined
whether psychopathy might be associated with successful life outcomes and, if so,
under what conditions. The findings from these studies have been decidedly mixed.
For instance, some studies have shown that psychopathic personality traits may
confer a benefit when it comes to some professions, particularly those that might
require cutthroat business decisions, a lack of empathy, superficial charm, and
other traits that are often manifested in psychopaths (Babiak, Neumann, & Hare,
2010; Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010; Howe, Falkenbach, & Massey, 2014;
Lykken, 1995). That is part of the reason perhaps that psychopaths have been shown
to be successful businessmen (Babiak & Hare, 2006) and why some of the top rated
American Presidents are also ranked as scoring among the highest on psychopathic
personality traits (Lilienfeld, Waldman, et al., 2012).
While these studies provide some evidence that psychopathy might actually be ben-
eficial with some types of jobs, for the most part, the majority of individuals scoring
high on psychopathic personality traits do not achieve much success (Andersen,
Sestoft, Lillebæk, Mortensen, & Kramp, 1999; Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, 1989;
Ullrich, Farrington, & Coid, 2008). The question, thus, is what separates successful
psychopaths from unsuccessful psychopaths. While there is not a lot of research on
this topic, there is some research showing that psychopathy only leads to positive,
noncriminal outcomes among persons who have normal or enhanced neurobiological
functioning (Gao & Raine, 2010).1 For instance, a review by Gao and Raine (2010)
Boccio and Beaver 3

examining psychopaths in five separate contexts (i.e., community sample, college stu-
dents, employment agencies, serial killers, and industrial psychopaths) revealed that
successful psychopaths tend to have normal-to-superior cognitive and executive func-
tioning. Unsuccessful psychopaths, in contrast, tend to exhibit neurobiological impair-
ments resulting in impaired executive functioning, reduced autonomic nervous system
activity, and more severe and extreme variations of antisocial and aggressive behavior.
In addition, one characteristic that may distinguish between psychopaths who achieve
success and those who are less successful is “fearless dominance” that has been linked
with occupational choice, persuasiveness, communication aptitude, and perceptions of
leadership ability (Lilienfeld, Waldman, et al., 2012; Lilienfeld, Watts, & Smith, 2015;
Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009). Fearless dominance involves a conception of bold-
ness that incorporates fearlessness, poise, interpersonal potency, and emotional resil-
ience (Lilienfeld et al., 2015). As a result, psychopaths with high levels of fearless
dominance may be able to achieve higher levels of success in business and the social
world than psychopaths lacking in these characteristics.2
Further complicating the relationship between psychopathy and success is that the
different components of psychopathy appear to have different associations with intel-
ligence, which is also highly correlated with occupational, financial, and interpersonal
success (DeLisi et al., 2010; Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). For instance, the interper-
sonal component of psychopathy has been linked with higher levels of intelligence
(Salekin, Neumann, Leistico, & Zalot, 2004; Vitacco, Neumann, & Jackson, 2005;
Vitacco, Neumann, & Wodushek, 2008), whereas the affective component of psychop-
athy appears to be inversely linked with intelligence (Salekin et al., 2004; Vitacco
et al., 2005). Therefore, some of the characteristics associated with the interpersonal
component of psychopathy (e.g., charming, deceitful, manipulative), along with intel-
ligence, may assist individuals with high levels of psychopathic personality traits in
achieving success both in the business world and perhaps in the criminal world.
Despite some findings linking psychopathy to success in some specific types of
employment positions, there is other research that has failed to find any evidence of
successful psychopaths. In one study, for instance, Ullrich and associates (2008)
examined whether psychopathic personality traits were associated with a range of
measures of life success, including social class, job satisfaction, and partner rela-
tionship quality. The results of the analysis did not reveal that these traits were
related to positive life outcomes and thus they concluded that their “findings cast
doubt on the existence of the successful psychopath” (p. 1162). So whether it is pos-
sible for psychopaths to achieve success consistently across a broad range of life
domains remains an open-empirical question.
The second reason to believe that psychopathy might be associated with being a suc-
cessful criminal is because of research revealing that psychopaths might be more adept
at identifying weak or vulnerable targets (Book, Costello, & Camilleri, 2013; Ritchie,
Blais, Forth, & Book, 2018; Wheeler, Book, & Costello, 2009). Indeed, there is some
evidence bearing on this possibility. To illustrate, there is some research indicating that
psychopaths are able to filter social cues around them to help manipulate the situation
and their intended targets (Blair et al., 1996; Book, Quinsey, & Langford, 2007; Richell
et al., 2003; Wilson, Demetrioff, & Porter, 2008). In this way, they may be able to
4 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 00(0)

reduce the “on-guard” approach that may make it difficult to successfully victimize
certain people. More germane to the current study, however, is one study that examined
psychopathic personality traits and perceptions of victim vulnerability (Wheeler et al.,
2009). In this study, vulnerability was measured via walking style. Subjects were asked
to view a clip of a person walking and then asked to rate the extent to which the poten-
tial victim was vulnerable to a victimization experience. Vulnerability was indexed by
the victimization history of the person who was walking. The results revealed that sub-
jects scoring higher on measures of psychopathic personality traits were better able to
assess vulnerability to victimization when compared with persons scoring lower on
these traits. These results provide some of the strongest evidence to date that psycho-
paths might be better adept at selecting vulnerable victims when compared with non-
psychopathic criminals. Even so, these findings do not directly examine whether the
ability to select a vulnerable victim would lead to psychopaths being able to escape
detection and apprehension by the criminal justice system.
In a related note, while psychopathy may influence the likelihood of detection
and arrest for criminal behavior, there is also some evidence that psychopathy is
related to navigating the criminal justice system. For instance, a study by Häkkänen-
Nyholm and Hare (2009) indicates that Finnish homicide offenders with higher
levels of psychopathy are more likely to leave the scene of a homicide, more likely
to deny the charges of homicide, more likely to receive a conviction for a lesser
crime, and more likely to have their final sentence handed down from a higher level
court than homicide offenders with lower levels of psychopathy. In this case, both
leaving the scene of a homicide and denying responsibility can be seen as strategic
tactics for avoiding punishment for their crimes. In addition, the increased likeli-
hood of receiving a lesser sentence and having the final sentence handed down by
a higher level court indicates that psychopaths may have some success at manipu-
lating the court system in their favor.
It is also possible that psychopathy may be inversely related to success. That is, it
is possible that individuals with high levels of psychopathic personality traits may be
more likely to be detected and apprehended for committing criminal acts. As noted
above, psychopathy is associated with a number of characteristics including impul-
siveness, irresponsibility, poor behavioral control, and lack of long-term goals. These
characteristics may work to increase the chance that psychopaths commit criminal acts
without taking time to consider the likelihood of their apprehension and may not
expend the effort to make their detection less likely. In addition, as research tends to
indicate that psychopaths are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent
crime (DeLisi, 2009; Hare, 1996), it is possible that psychopaths may be more likely
to be detected than other offenders as they tend to commit crimes that entail a greater
risk of detection and apprehension (U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 2014).
The current study is designed to take a first step in examining the potential asso-
ciation between psychopathy and criminal success. To do so, we analyze data drawn
from a large, longitudinal, and nationally representative sample and estimate
whether a measure of psychopathic personality traits predicts the rate of criminal
success in adulthood.
Boccio and Beaver 5

Method
Data
This study utilizes data drawn from Waves 1 through 4 of the National Longitudinal
Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). Add Health is a multiwave
nationally representative sample of American adolescents that began data collec-
tion in the mid-1990s. To date, four waves of data have been collected from this
sample (Udry, 2003). The original sample contained more than 90,000 adolescents
(ages 12 to 21) and was selected from 132 middle schools and high schools during
the 1994-1995 school year. Approximately, 20,000 of these respondents were then
selected to take part in an In-Home survey the same year. The first wave of the
survey asked questions pertaining to daily activities, delinquent involvement, and
friendships. The second wave of the survey was collected 1 year later from approxi-
mately 14,700 of the original In-Home respondents and asked questions similar to
the first wave.3 The third wave of the survey was administered 5 years later (in
2001-2002) to approximately 15,000 of the original In-Home survey respondents
who were asked questions pertaining to labor market participation, school achieve-
ments, delinquent behavior, and contact with the criminal justice system. The fourth
wave of the survey was administered to approximately 15,000 of the original
In-Home participants in 2008 when the majority of the respondents were between
the ages of 24 and 32. Questions in the fourth wave pertained to financial status,
labor market participation, criminal involvement, and arrest history. After remov-
ing respondents with missing data, using listwise deletion, the analytic sample for
this study ranged between 2,266 and 9,171 respondents.4,5

Measures
Outcome Measures
Number of arrests.  The number of arrests was calculated using four items administered
during the fourth wave of the survey. First, respondents were asked to indicate if they
had ever been arrested (0 = no, 1 = yes). Second, respondents who reported an arrest
were then asked how many times they had been arrested (1 = once, 2 = more than
once). Respondents who indicated that they had been arrested more than once were
then asked two further questions concerning their arrest history. The first question
asked the respondents to indicate how many times they were arrested before their 18th
birthday. The second question asked respondents to indicate how many times they had
been arrested since their 18th birthday. The total number of arrests was calculated by
summing together the number of arrests reported before and after the respondents’
18th birthday, along with respondents who indicated that they had only been arrested
once. Respondents who indicated that they had never been arrested in the first question
were coded as zeros. Values for the total number of arrests ranged from 0 to 62.

Number of crimes (W1-W4).  The number of crimes was calculated from items concerning
criminal behavior, which were asked in Waves 1 through 4. Criminal behavior at Wave 1
6 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 00(0)

was measured by using responses to 13 items concerning delinquent involvement over the
previous year. Respondents, for instance, were asked to indicate how often in the past 12
months they committed burglary, stole a car, or were involved in a physical fight. Responses
for these items ranged from never, one or two times, three or four times, to five or more
times.6 Responses to these items were summed to create a count of the number of criminal
acts committed at Wave 1. These same 13 items were asked at again Wave 2, allowing us
to create a comparable measure of the number of criminal acts committed at Wave 2.
Criminal behavior at Wave 3 was measured using responses to 12 items designed to
tap involvement in criminal behavior over the last year. For instance, respondents were
asked to indicate how often in the last 12 months they sold drugs, were involved in a
serious physical fight, or stole something worth more than US$50. Responses to these
items were summed together to create a count of the number of criminal acts commit-
ted at Wave 3. Criminal behavior at Wave 4 was measured using responses to 14 items
pertaining to criminal involvement over the previous year. For example, respondents
were asked to indicate how often in the last 12 months they bought or sold stolen prop-
erty, committed burglary, or shot someone. Responses to these items were summed to
create a count of the number of crimes committed at Wave 4. The items used to mea-
sure criminal and delinquent behavior at all four waves are similar to items that have
been used previously to create crime and delinquency scales with Add Health data
(Guo, Roettger, & Shih, 2007; Wright, Beaver, DeLisi, & Vaughn, 2008). After calcu-
lating the number of criminal acts committed at the separate waves, we then summed
together their total number of criminal acts committed in Waves 1 through 4.

Rate of criminal failure (“fail rate”).  Rate of criminal failure (or “fail rate”) was measured
using a variable constructed from both the number of arrests and the number of crimes
variables. To construct the “rate of criminal failure” variable we created a ratio of crimi-
nal arrests to criminal acts by dividing the respondents’ reported number of arrests by
the total number of crimes they reported in all four waves of the data. This variable
allows us to assess the number of times respondents were arrested in comparison with
the number of crimes they committed. Alternatively, this variable allows us to assess
the rate at which respondents were able to evade arrest or “get away with crime.” Higher
“failure rate” scores represent a higher rate of criminal failure, or, in other words, they
appear to be arrested more often for the number of crimes they have committed.

Predictor Variable
Psychopathic personality traits.  Psychopathic personality traits were measured at wave 4, follow-
ing the example of previous studies conducted using Add Health data (Beaver, Barnes, May,
& Schwartz, 2011). The items used to create the Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale were
originally drawn from questions from the Mini-International Personality Item Pool (Mini-
IPIP) which can be used to measure personality according to the five-factor model (FFM).7
While there is considerable debate in the literature concerning the appropriate way to measure
psychopathy, with some scholars advocating for the use of Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist–
Revised (PCL-R; which is the most widely accepted measurement of psychopathy in the
field), Psychopathic Personality Traits Scales created using the FFM have been
Boccio and Beaver 7

used previously and have been shown to be a valid and reliable way to measure psychopathy
(Derefinko & Lynam, 2007; Lynam & Miller, 2015; Lynam & Widiger, 2007; Miller &
Lynam, 2015). The psychopathic personality traits measure was constructed using answers to
23 items that tapped the affective, behavioral, and interpersonal components of psychopathy.8
For instance, respondents were asked to indicate if they sympathize with other’s feelings, are
interested in other people’s problems, get angry easily, or go out of their way to avoid dealing
with life problems.9 Answers to these items were standardized and then summed to create a
scale of psychopathic personality traits, where higher scores reflect higher levels of psycho-
pathic personality traits (α = .814). This Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale is identical to
other Psychopathic Personality Traits Scales used previously with Add Health data (Beaver,
Barnes, et al., 2011; Beaver et al., 2017; Beaver, Rowland, Schwartz, & Nedelec, 2011).

Control Variables
All of the analyses in this study were estimated using four control variables. Sex was
measured dichotomously where 0 = female and 1 = male. Race was measured dichot-
omously where 0 = White and 1 = non-White. Age was measured at Wave 1 and
employed as a continuous measure.

Verbal IQ.  Verbal IQ was measured using Picture Vocabulary Test (PVT) scores avail-
able at Wave 1. The PVT is a shortened version of the Picture Peabody Vocabulary
Test (PPVT) that is used to test verbal aptitude and receptive vocabulary. PVT scores
have been used to measure verbal IQ previously with add health data (Rowe, Jacob-
son, & van den Oord, 1999; Schwartz & Beaver, 2013). The Add Health has PVT
scores available in raw, standardized, and percentile forms. This study employs the
standardized measure of PVT scores and is coded so that higher values represent
higher levels of verbal intelligence.

Analytic Strategy
The analytic strategy for this study was conducted in a number of related steps. First, we
employed negative binomial regression to examine the relationships between psycho-
pathic personality traits, number of crimes committed, and number of arrests in the full
sample and in males and females separately. Second, we examined the association
between psychopathic personality traits and odds of arrest for the full sample, in a sample
of respondents who reported criminal involvement, and separately in respondents in the
bottom 25% of the distribution of number of crimes committed (1 to 2 crimes) and respon-
dents in the top 25% of the distribution of number of crimes committed (11 to 66 crimes).
Third, we tested whether psychopathic personality traits are associated with crimi-
nal failure rate in two different ways. First, we tested for a relationship between
psychopathic personality traits and failure rate using ordinary least squares (OLS)
regression in respondents who had been arrested. This relationship was estimated in
the full sample of arrested respondents and then in males and females separately.
Then, we examined the association between psychopathic personality traits and crim-
inal failure using OLS regression in the entire sample (including respondents who
8 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 00(0)

had not reported an arrest) after adding a small constant to both sides of the ratio used
to construct the fail rate variable. This relationship was first measured in the full
sample and then in males and females separately.

Results
The descriptive statistics for all of the variables and scales used in this study are pre-
sented in Table 1. In addition, correlations between all of the variables and scales used in
this study are displayed in Appendix A. The analysis began by examining the association
between psychopathic personality traits and number of crimes committed. As can be
seen in Table 2, psychopathic personality traits were positively and significantly associ-
ated with the number of criminal acts committed in the full sample and in the male and
female samples.10 These results indicate that individuals with higher levels of psycho-
pathic personality traits tended to commit more crimes than individuals with lower lev-
els of psychopathic personality traits.11
Then, we examined the association between psychopathic personality traits and num-
ber of arrests. Table 3 reveals that psychopathic personality traits were positively and
significantly associated with number of arrests in the full sample and in the male and
female samples when controlling for number of crimes committed. These findings indi-
cate that individuals with higher levels of psychopathic personality traits were more
likely to be arrested than individuals with lower levels of psychopathic personality traits.
Next, we examined whether psychopathic personality traits are associated with the
odds of arrest among all of the respondents and among respondents who reported at least
one criminal act. Examination of Table 4 reveals that psychopathic personality traits
were significantly associated with the odds of arrest in both the full sample and among
respondents who reported involvement in criminal behavior. These findings indicate that
respondents with higher levels of psychopathic personality traits had a greater likelihood
of being arrested than respondents with lower levels of psychopathic personality traits.
Further examination of Table 4 reveals that psychopathic personality traits were not sig-
nificantly associated with the odds of being arrested for respondents in the top 25% of
the distribution of number of crimes committed (11 to 66 crimes) or the bottom 25% of
the distribution of number of crimes committed (1 to 2 crimes). These findings indicate
that individuals with high levels of psychopathic personality traits who were in the bot-
tom or top quartiles of crimes committed (1 to 2 crimes, 11 to 66 crimes) were not sig-
nificantly more or less likely to be arrested than individuals with lower levels of
psychopathic personality traits who committed the same number of crimes.
Given that psychopathic personality traits appear to be associated with both number
of crimes committed and number of arrests, we then examined whether psychopathic
personality traits are related to the rate of criminal failure among respondents who
reported at least one arrest. Table 5 reveals that psychopathic personality traits were
not associated with the rate of criminal failure in the full sample or in the male sam-
ple.12 In contrast, psychopathic personality traits did appear to be negatively associ-
ated with the rate of criminal failure for females. These findings indicate that females
with high levels of psychopathic personality traits were more likely to avoid being
arrested than females with lower levels of psychopathic personality traits.
Boccio and Beaver 9

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics for Scales and Variables Included in the Analyses.

M (%) SD Range N
Psychopathic personality
  Traits Scale −.201 10.142 −35.819-56.722 14,857
Arrest
 Arrested (27.44) 4,099
  Not arrested (72.56) 10,841
Number of arrests .755 2.410 0-62 14,940
Number of crimes 6.790 8.291 0-66 9,633
Fail rate (No. of arrests/No. of crimes)
  (Arrested only) .411 0.684 0.017-10.5 2,380
Verbal IQ 100.061 14.845 13-146 18,795
Age 16.156 1.735 12-21 19,758
Sex
 Males (48.60) 9,605
 Females (51.40) 10,157
Race
 White (62.82) 12,408
 Non-White (37.18) 7,344

Table 2.  Negative Binomial Regression Models for the Association Between Psychopathic
Personality Traits and Number of Crimes.

Full sample Males Females

  Coefficient IRR Coefficient IRR Coefficient IRR

Predictor variables
 Psychopathic .017 1.017* .014 1.014* .019 1.020*
personality traits (.001) (.002) (.002)
  Verbal IQ .002 1.002 .004 1.004* <.000 1.000
(.001) (.001) (.001)
Controls
 Age −.058 0.944* −.018 0.982* −.092 0.912*
(.008) (.011) (.011)
 Race .072 1.074* .059 1.061 .087 1.091*
(.026) (.038) (.036)
 Sex .533 1.705* — —
(.024)  
N 9,171 4,060 5,111

Note. IRR = interrater reliability.

*p < .05.
10 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 00(0)

Table 3.  Negative Binomial Regression Models for the Association Between Psychopathic
Personality Traits and Number of Arrests.

Full sample Males Females

  Coefficient IRR Coefficient IRR Coefficient IRR

Predictor variables
 Psychopathic .018 1.018* .023 1.023* .010 1.010*
personality traits (.002) (.003) (.004)
  Number of crimes .073 1.076* .063 1.065* .095 1.100*
(.003) (.004) (.006)
  Verbal IQ −.014 0.956* −.013 0.987* −.016 0.985*
(.002) (.002) (.003)
Controls
 Age .015 1.015 .032 1.033 −.008 0.992
(.015) (.019) (.025)
 Race .048 1.049 −.008 0.992 .092 1.096
(.053) (.067) (.086)
 Sex 1.128 3.091* — —
(.049)  
N 9,171 4,060 5.111

Note. IRR = interrater reliability.

*p < .05.

Finally, we examined whether psychopathic personality traits are associated with rate
of criminal failure in the entire sample (including respondents who did not report an
arrest). As can be seen in Table 6, psychopathic personality traits were negatively associ-
ated with fail rate in the full sample and in the female sample. These findings indicate that
respondents with a high level of psychopathic personality were more likely to avoid being
arrested for their crimes. However, this association did not appear to be significant for males.

Discussion
There is no shortage of beliefs regarding psychopaths, and these beliefs are shaped,
in part, by news stories, TV shows, and movies. Research studies have evaluated
some of these widely held beliefs and shown many of them to be false. For instance,
recent studies have revealed that psychopaths are not highly intelligent or even more
intelligent than nonpsychopathic offenders, laying waste to what has been called the
Hannibal Lecter myth (DeLisi et al., 2010; Ribera, Kavish, & Boutwell, 2017).
Another belief that has not been fully investigated is that psychopaths are so cunning
and so intelligent that they are easily able to escape detection for the crimes that they
committed. The current study moved in this direction by testing the relationship
between psychopathy and criminal success by examining whether psychopathic per-
sonality traits are associated with criminal involvement, the likelihood of arrest, num-
ber of arrests, and the likelihood of successfully avoiding arrest for criminal behavior.
The results of the analyses revealed two key findings.
Boccio and Beaver 11

Table 4.  Logistic Regression Models for the Association Between Psychopathic Personality
Traits, Bottom 25% of Crimes Committed, Top 25% of Crimes Committed, and the
Likelihood of Being Arrested.
Odds of arrest

Odds of arrest Odds of arrest Bottom 25% Top 25%

  (0-66 crimes) (1-66 crimes) (1-2 crimes) (11-66 crimes)

  Coefficient OR Coefficient OR Coefficient OR Coefficient OR

Predictor variables
 Psychopathic .012 1.012* .011 1.011* .007 1.008 .008 1.009
personality (.003) (.003) (.007) (.005)
traits
  Number of .076 1.079* .069 1.071* .368 1.445* .034 1.034*
crimes (.003) (.003) (.130) (.006)
  Verbal IQ −.011 0.989* −.012 0.989* −.014 0.986* −.004 0.996
(.002) (.002) (.005) (.004)
Controls
 Age .023 1.023 .036 1.037* .065 1.067 .052 1.053
(.016) (.017) (.040) (.031)
 Race .030 1.031 .014 1.014 .156 1.169 .056 1.058
(.057) (.059) (.139) (.104)
 Sex 1.014 2.757* .978 2.659* 1.039 2.825* .886 2.425*
(.053) (.055) (.130) (.099)
N 9,171 7,734 2,019 1,932

Note. OR = odds ratio.

*p < .05.

Table 5.  OLS Regression Models for the Association Between Psychopathic Personality
Traits and Fail Rate (Arrested Only).

Full sample Males Females

  b β b β b β
Predictor variables
  Psychopathic personality traits <.000 −.003 .002 .029 −.004 −.083*
(.001) (.002) (.002)
  Verbal IQ −.003 −.063* −.004 −.069* −.002 −.045
(.001) (.002) (.002)
Controls  
 Age .016 .038 .022 .048* .003 .009
(.009) (.012) (.012)
 Race .019 .013 .004 .002 .038 .034
(.032) (.044) (.042)
 Sex .073 .051* — —
(.030)  
N 2,266 1,488 778

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares.

*p < .05.
12 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 00(0)

Table 6.  OLS Regression Models for the Association Between Psychopathic Personality
Traits and Fail Rate (Constant Added).

Full sample Males Females

  b β b β b β
Predictor variables
  Psychopathic personality traits −.003 −.065* <.000 −.003 −.006 −.143*
(.001) (.001) (.001)
  Verbal IQ −.002 −.056* −.003 −.082* −.001 −.028
(.000) (.001) (.000)
Controls  
 Age .017 .054* .015 .040* .018 .069*
(.003) (.006) (.004)
 Race −.014 −.013 .009 .007 −.031 −.036*
(.012) (.021) (.013)
 Sex −.007 −.007 — —
(.011)  
N 9,171 4,060 5,111

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares.

*p < .05.

First, and consistent with prior research, psychopathic personality traits were posi-
tively related to number of crimes committed and number of arrests for both males and
females (Beaver et al., 2017; DeLisi, 2009; Hare, 1996; Vaughn & DeLisi, 2008).
Second, and most importantly, there was little evidence that psychopathic personality
traits were associated with being a successful criminal. In all of the analyses that were
estimated, psychopathic personality traits were only associated with a reduction in the
likelihood of being arrested in three of the models (30%), and even these effects were
quite small (b = –.003 to –.006). Interestingly, the association between psychopathic
personality traits and criminal success appears to be more pronounced in females than
in males. These findings indicate that females with high levels of psychopathic person-
ality traits may be more successful at avoiding detection than females with lower rates
of psychopathic personality traits. Why this relationship only appeared in females and
not in males, or the full sample, may be a result of the different patterns of criminal
offending that tend to be exhibited by females compared with males. For instance,
females tend to engage in fewer crimes than males and, when they do offend, their
offenses tend to be relatively less serious (e.g., drug crimes and prostitution as opposed
to burglary and assault) and therefore, may entail lower levels of risk of detection
(Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). Future research, however, will be needed to determine
the precise mechanism that explains why psychopathic personality traits appear to be
more salient for criminal success in females compared with males.
In contrast to findings showing that psychopathic personality traits may decrease the
risk of detection, psychopathic personality traits were found to be positively associated
with the odds of arrest in the full sample and in a sample of respondents who reported at
Boccio and Beaver 13

least once criminal act. These findings suggest that instead of psychopathic personality
traits having a beneficial effect on the odds of detection, psychopathic personality traits
may instead increase the chances of being arrested for criminal behavior. While these
findings run counter to some of the findings concerning rate of criminal failure, they are
not surprising when considering that psychopaths are generally characterized as being
impulsive and irresponsible. As a result of these characteristics, psychopaths may offend
impulsively, may commit crimes that entail a high risk of arrest, and may not exert effort
to decrease their chances of detection. Based on these analyses, there does not appear to
be evidence that psychopaths or criminals scoring high on psychopathic personality
traits are better able to elude detection and arrest than nonpsychopathic criminals.
These findings are particularly interesting when juxtaposed against the research find-
ings indicating that psychopaths are highly resilient to change and thus are unlikely to
benefit from rehabilitation and treatment programs (Gretton et al., 2001; Hare, 1996).
What this means is that while psychopathic criminals appear no more difficult to arrest
than nonpsychopathic criminals, they are significantly less likely to change through inter-
vention efforts. From a public safety standpoint, therefore, the largest threat that these
offenders may pose is through recidivism and perhaps the most appropriate way of deal-
ing with them may be through incarceration and incapacitation. Fortunately, however, our
findings revealed that psychopaths are caught at a rate that is on par with all other types
of offenders, that is, offenders who might be more amenable to behavioral change through
intervention and treatment. If these findings are replicated, as the findings of one study
alone should not influence policy decisions, then scores on psychopathic personality traits
might be one useful tool among others that would help in sentencing decisions.
While the results of the current analysis shed some light on the potential linkage
between psychopathic personality traits and being able to successfully evade arrest
for criminal involvement, there are a number of shortcomings that need to be
addressed in future research studies. First, the measure of psychopathic personality
traits was assessed via the five-factor model of personality traits. While this exact
measure has been employed previously and been shown to be reliable and valid
(e.g., Beaver et al., 2017; Beaver, Barnes, et al., 2011), it would be important to
replicate these findings with other measures of psychopathy, including the PCL-R.
Unfortunately the Add Health data do not have any other measures of psychopathy
available and thus future research needs to use alternative samples to assess the
robustness of these findings. Second, the psychopathic personality traits measure,
while used in previous research (e.g., Beaver et al., 2017; Beaver, Barnes, et al.,
2011), is not exactly the same measure used to measure psychopathic personality
traits, according to the FFM by several other researchers in the field (e.g., Derefinko
& Lynam, 2007; Lynam & Miller, 2015; Miller & Lynam, 2015). As a result, this
measure, constructed from the Mini-IPIP as opposed to the NEO PI-R, has not been
widely tested for convergence with the PCL-R. Unfortunately, as the Add Health
does not contain the NEO PI-R, we are unable to directly test associations between
our Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale and Psychopathic Traits Scales created
using the NEO PI-R. Therefore, future research should attempt to test these associa-
tions using other measures of psychopathic personality traits. Third, the FFM mea-
sure of psychopathic personality traits used in this study does allow for individual
14 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 00(0)

measurement of some of the components of psychopathy (e.g., Fearless Dominance,

Self-Centered Impulsivity) that may have some bearing on the associations between
psychopathic traits and criminal success. As a result, future research will be needed
to determine if specific facets of psychopathy differentially influence criminal suc-
cess. Fourth, the size of the correlations between our measure of psychopathic per-
sonality traits with arrest, number of arrests, and number of crimes is somewhat
lower than might be expected from previous research on psychopathy. One possible
reason for these smaller correlations may be that our measure of psychopathic per-
sonality traits drawn from the FFM model does not contain some of the behavioral
measures of crime and delinquency that are contained in the PCL-R. As a result, this
measure is assessing correlations between criminal behaviors and arrest with per-
sonality traits associated with psychopathy without also including direct behavioral
measures of crime and delinquency – therefore, the correlations will be smaller.
However, it should also be noted that all of these correlations are in the theoretically
expected directions suggesting that this measure converges with other measures of
psychopathic traits in this respect. Fifth, the measure of arrest was based on self-
reports, not on official crime data. While self-reports of criminal justice processing
have been used frequently (Thornberry & Krohn, 2000) and have been shown to be
reliable and valid (Maxfield, Weiler, & Widom, 2000), under ideal conditions offi-
cial crime data would be used. Sixth, the measure used to assess number of crimes
committed was limited to a relatively small number of crimes that were included in
the Add Health data. For each of the waves the count of criminal acts only includes
12 to 14 different types of crime that were specifically asked about. As a result, the
count of criminal acts would not include forms of crime outside of these 12 to 14
different forms of criminal behavior. Relatedly, the items concerning criminal
involvement only asked respondents to report criminal involvement in the 12 months
prior to data collection. Therefore, if respondents engaged in criminal behavior in
between the waves (and outside of the 12 month data collection window) then these
crimes will not be accounted for in the count of criminal acts. As a result, the count
of criminal acts is likely an underrepresentation of the amount of criminal behavior
committed by these subjects between adolescence and adulthood. In addition, the
original items tapping criminal involvement asked respondents to report their fre-
quency of criminal involvement according to an ordinal scale (i.e., never, once or
twice, three or four times, and five or more times) limiting our ability to precisely
count the number of criminal acts committed by each of the participants. As a result,
these counts should be seen as rough counts of the amount of criminal activity
respondents were engaged in at each wave. Future research, therefore, will be needed
to determine if this pattern of findings persists when analyzing the associations
between psychopathic traits, arrest, and precise counts of criminal acts. Seventh, the
Add Health sample only tracked respondents from adolescence through early adult-
hood. It would be important to determine whether these findings would hold when
the entire life course was examined. These limitations should be addressed by future
researchers with independent samples. As for now, the findings of our study offer
some initial evidence that psychopathic personality traits are unrelated to the odds of
escaping detection from law enforcement.
Boccio and Beaver 15

Appendix A
Correlation Matrix of Variables Included in the Analysis.

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9
Psychopathic X1 1  
personality traits
Arrest (1/0) X2 .088* 1  
Arrest number X3 .101* .509* 1  
Crime number X4 .139* .325* .302* 1  
Fail rate X5 .039* .451* .597* −.051* 1  
Verbal IQ X6 −.173* −.051* −.047* .012 −.053* 1  
Age X7 .019* −.002 −.007 −.048* .038* −.053* 1  
Sex X8 −.007 .260* .200* .206* .133* .055* .047* 1  
Race X9 .015 .026* .028* .016 .020 −.282* .029* −.020* 1
*p < .05.

Appendix B
Items Included in the Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale.

  1. I sympathize with other’s feelings

  2. I get angry easilya
  3. I am not interested in other people’s problemsa
  4. I often forget to put things back in their proper placea
  5. I am relaxed most of the time
  6. I am not easily bothered by things
  7. I rarely get irritated
  8. I talk to a lot of different people at parties
  9. I feel others’ emotions
10. I get upset easilya
11. I get stressed out easilya
12. I lose my tempera
13. I keep in the backgrounda
14. I am not really interested in othersa
15. I seldom feel blue
16. I don’t worry about things that have already happened
17. I keep my cool
18. I go out of my way to avoid having to deal with problems in my lifea
19. W hen making a decision, I go with my “gut feeling” and don’t think much about the
consequences of each alternativea
20. I live my life without much thought for the futurea
21. Other people determine most of what I can and cannot doa
22. There are many things that interfere with what I want to doa
23. There is really no way I can solve the problems I havea
aItem was reverse coded so that higher values represent higher levels of psychopathic personality traits.
16 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 00(0)

Acknowledgements
This research uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter
S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by a grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice
Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative
funding from 17 other agencies. Special acknowledgment is due to Ronald R. Rindfuss and
Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Persons interested in obtaining data files
from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin
Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 (addhealth@unc.edu). No direct support was received
from grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.

Authors’ Note
Persons interested in obtaining data files from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina
Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 (addhealth@unc.edu).
No direct support was received from Grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Notes
  1. Along with research exploring factors that may distinguish between successful and unsuc-
cessful psychopaths, there is currently a debate over how to model the relationship between
psychopathy and successful psychopathy. For instance, successful psychopathy can be
modeled according to three different schemas: the differential-severity model, the moder-
ated-expression model, and the differential configuration model (Hall & Benning, 2006).
The differential-severity model suggests that successful psychopathy is a mild form of the
more conventionally recognized psychopathy. The moderated-expression model, however,
views successful psychopathy as the result of individuals with psychopathic traits being
exposed to protective factors such as intact executive functioning or exposure to protective
environmental factors early in the lifecourse (i.e., good parenting). Finally, the differen-
tial-configuration model views successful psychopathy as being the result of a different
combination of personality traits than conventional psychopathy (Hall & Benning, 2006;
Lilienfeld, Watts, & Smith, 2015).
 2. As can be seen, Fearless Dominance appears to account for some of the association
between psychopathic traits and success found in previous research, however, there is also
another line of research that questions the relevance of Fearless Dominance for psychopa-
thy. For instance, some scholars suggest that Fearless Dominance is not highly correlated
with either of the two main factors of psychopathy measured using the PCL-R (Malterer,
Lilienfeld, Neumann, & Newman, 2010). For a more thorough discussion of this debate,
see Crego and Widiger (2015) and Lilienfeld, Patrick, et al. (2012).
  3. Sample sizes varied across waves as a function of the number of respondents who could be
contacted at each of the waves.
Boccio and Beaver 17

  4. Listwise deletion is a commonly used method for dealing with missing data and ensures
that only respondents with valid data on all of the measures assessed in a model are
included in the analysis.
  5. To test the robustness of our findings, all of the analyses in this study were reestimated after
using multiple imputation to handle missing data. The results of these analyses were essentially
the same as the original analyses aside from one small difference on Table 4. Specifically, the
results using multiple imputation elicited a significant coefficient for psychopathic personal-
ity traits in the fourth model of Table 4, indicating that psychopathic personality traits sig-
nificantly influence the odds of arrest for offenders who have committed between 11 and 66
crimes. In addition, all of the ordinary least squares (OLS) models were reestimated after using
pairwise deletion to handle missing data. The findings of the analyses using pairwise deletion
elicited an identical pattern of findings to the original findings using listwise deletion.
  6. These same response categories were used for all of the criminal involvement items in
Waves 1 through 4.
  7. The Mini-IPIP has been validated across a number of studies and has been shown to be
comparable to other measures of personality according to the five-factor model (FFM;
Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006).
  8. There is further debate in the field over whether psychopathy should be measured as a
multicomponent construct or as a continuous measure. While the most commonly used
measure of psychopathy, the PCL-R, measures separate components of psychopathy, con-
tinuous measures constructed using the FFM have also been shown to be a valid and reli-
able way to measure psychopathy (Derefinko & Lynam, 2007; Lynam et al., 2005).
  9. All of the items included in the psychopathic personality traits measure are presented in
Appendix B.
10. All of the analyses in this study were reestimated after removing extreme outliers for arrest
(capped at 10 arrests). The findings of these analyses were essentially the same as the find-
ings of the original analyses.
11. We reestimated all of the analyses in this study without covariates to establish baseline rela-
tionships and our results revealed essentially the same pattern of findings as the original analy-
ses. One difference emerged, however, in Table 5 Model 3 (assessing the relationship between
psychopathic personality traits and fail rates in arrested females). In this case, the relationship
between psychopathic personality traits and fail rate was not significant without the covariates
in the analysis, whereas it was significant in the analysis including the covariates.
12. Of particular note, some respondents in this study had fail rates that were greater than 1.
The rate of failure can exceed the value of 1 as some respondents reported more arrests
than criminal acts. This pattern of responses could arise from a number of reasons
including respondents being arrested more than once for a single crime, or some respon-
dents either overreporting number of arrests, or underreporting number of crimes com-
mitted. Another possibility is that the arrest measure is a lifetime measure, whereas the
crime measures only include criminal involvement within 12 months of data collection
for each wave. As a result, while respondents will be reporting all arrests throughout
their life, they will only be reporting on a small subsection of the crimes they have com-
mitted. Therefore, it is possible that respondents may have more arrests than reported
crimes committed. To deal with possible instability in the findings that may arise from
unreliable reporting, we reestimated all of the analyses in this study after removing
respondents who had a fail rate score above 1. The results revealed a very similar pat-
tern of findings to the original findings. Tables documenting the results of these analy-
ses are available upon request.
18 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 00(0)

References
Andersen, H. S., Sestoft, D., Lillebæk, T., Mortensen, E. L., & Kramp, P. (1999). Psychopathy
and psychopathological profiles in prisoners on remand. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica,
99, 33-39.
Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. New York,
NY: HarperCollins.
Babiak, P., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2010). Corporate psychopathy: Talking the walk.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 174-193.
Beaver, K. M., Barnes, J. C., May, J. S., & Schwartz, J. A. (2011). Psychopathic personality
traits, genetic risk, and gene-environment correlations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38,
896-912.
Beaver, K. M., Boutwell, B. B., Barnes, J. C., Vaughn, M. G., & DeLisi, M. (2017). The asso-
ciation between psychopathic personality traits and criminal justice outcomes: Results
from a nationally representative sample of males and females. Crime & Delinquency,
63, 708-730.
Beaver, K. M., Rowland, M. W., Schwartz, J. A., & Nedelec, J. L. (2011). The genetic origins of
psychopathic personality traits in adult males and females: Results from an adoption-based
study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 426-432.
Blair, R. J. R. (2007). Empathic dysfunction in psychopathic individuals. In T. F. D. Farrow & P.
W. R. Woodruff (Eds.), Empathy in mental illness (pp. 1-16). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Blair, R. J. R., Colledge, E., Murray, L., & Mitchell, D. G. V. (2001). A selective impairment
in the processing of sad and fearful expression in children with psychopathic tendencies.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 491-498.
Blair, R. J. R., Sellars, C., Strickland, I., Clark, F., Williams, A., Smith, M., & Jones, L. (1996).
Theory of mind in the psychopath. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 7, 15-25.
Boddy, C. R., Ladyshewsky, R., & Galvin, P. (2010). Leaders without ethics in global business:
Corporate psychopaths. Journal of Public Affairs, 10, 121-138.
Book, A. S., Costello, K., & Camilleri, J. A. (2013). Psychopathy and victim selection: The use
of gait as a cue to vulnerability. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 2368-2383.
Book, A. S., Quinsey, V. L., & Langford, D. (2007). Psychopathy and the perception of affect
and vulnerability. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 531-544.
Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A. (2015). Psychopathy and the DSM. Journal of Personality, 83,
665-677.
DeLisi, M. (2009). Psychopathy is the unified theory of crime. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice, 7, 256-273.
DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., Beaver, K. M., & Wright, J. P. (2010). The Hannibal Lecter myth:
Psychopathy and verbal intelligence in the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study.
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 169-177.
Derefinko, K. J., & Lynam, D. R. (2007). Using the FFM to conceptualize psychopathy: A test
using a drug abusing sample. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 638-656.
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP
scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological
Assessment, 18, 192-203.
Gao, Y., & Raine, A. (2010). Successful and unsuccessful psychopaths: A neurobiological
model. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 194-210.
Gretton, H. M., McBride, M., Hare, R. D., O’Shaughnessy, R., & Kumka, G. (2001). Psychopathy
and recidivism in adolescent sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 427-449.
Boccio and Beaver 19

Guo, G., Roettger, M. E., & Shih, J. C. (2007). Contributions of the DAT1 and DRD2 genes
to serious and violent delinquency among adolescents and young adults. Human Genetics,
121, 125-136.
Häkkänen-Nyholm, H., & Hare, R. D. (2009). Psychopathy, homicide, and the courts: Working
the system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 761-777.
Hall, J. R., & Benning, S. D. (2006). The “successful” psychopath. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.),
Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 459-475). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hare, R. D. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of psychopaths among us. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 23, 25-54.
Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor conceptualization of psychopa-
thy: Construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological Assessment: A Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 6-17.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in
American life. New York, NY: Free Press.
Howe, J., Falkenbach, D., & Massey, C. (2014). The relationship among psychopathy, emo-
tional intelligence, and professional success in finance. International Journal of Forensic
Mental Health, 134, 337-347.
Jones, A. P., Happé, F. G. E., Gilbert, F., Burnett, S., & Viding, E. (2010). Feeling, caring,
knowing: Different types of empathy deficit in boys with psychopathic tendencies and
autism spectrum disorder. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 1188-1197.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., Berg, J., Sellbom, M., & Edens, J. F. (2012). The
role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: Confusions, controversies, and clarifications.
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 327-340.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., Landfield, K., Watts, A. L., Rubenzer, S., & Faschingbauer,
T. R. (2012). Fearless dominance and the U.S. presidency: Implications of psychopathic
personality traits for successful and unsuccessful leadership. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 103, 489-505.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., & Smith, S. F. (2015). Successful psychopathy: A scientific
status report. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 298-303.
Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Raine, A., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2005).
Adolescent psychopathy and the Big Five: Results from two samples. Journal or Abnormal
Child Psychology, 33, 431-443.
Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2015). Psychopathy from a basic trait perspective: The utility of
a five-factor model approach. Journal of Personality, 83, 611-626.
Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2007). Using a general model of personality to identify the
basic elements of psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 160-178.
Malterer, M. B., Lilienfeld, S. O., Neumann, C. S., & Newman, J. P. (2010). Concurrent valid-
ity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory with offender and community samples.
Assessment, 17, 3-15.
Maxfield, M. H., Weiler, B. L., & Widom, C. S. (2000). Comparing self-reports and official
record of arrests. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 87-110.
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2015). Psychopathy and personality: Advances and debates.
Journal of Personality, 83, 585-592.
Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psy-
chopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Developmental
Psychopathology, 21, 913-938.
20 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 00(0)

Ribera, O. S., Kavish, N., & Boutwell, B. (2017). On the relationship between psychopathy and
general intelligence: A meta-analytic review. bioRxiv, 100693. Advance online publication.
Richell, R. A., Mitchell, D. G. V., Newman, C., Leonard, A., Baron-Cohen, S., & Blair, R. J. R.
(2003). Theory of mind and psychopathy: Can psychopathic individuals read the “language
of the eyes”? Neuropsychologia, 41, 523-526.
Ritchie, M. B., Blais, J., Forth, A. E., & Book, A. S. (2018). Identifying vulnerability to vio-
lence: The role of psychopathy and gender. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 8, 125-137.
Rowe, D. C., Jacobson, K. C., & van den Oord, E. J. C. G. (1999). Genetic and environmental
influences on vocabulary IQ: Parental education level as a moderator. Child Development,
70, 1151-1162.
Salekin, R. T., Neumann, C. S., Leistico, A. R., & Zalot, A. A. (2004). Psychopathy in youth
and intelligence: An investigation of Cleckley’s hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Child &
Adolescent Psychology, 4, 731-742.
Schwartz, J. A., & Beaver, K. M. (2013). Examining the effects of dopamine genes on verbal IQ
within and between families. Journal of Neural Transmission, 120, 477-486.
Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female
offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 459-487.
Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2000). The self-report method for measuring delinquency
and crime. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Measurement and analyses of crime and justice (pp. 33-83).
Rockville, MD: National Institute of Justice.
Udry, J. R. (2003). The national longitudinal study of adolescent health (Add Health), Wave III,
2001-2002; Wave IV, 2008-2009. Los Altos: The Carolina Population Center.
Ullrich, S., Farrington, D. P., & Coid, J. W. (2008). Psychopathic personality traits and life-
success. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1162-1171.
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2014, Fall). Crime in the U.S.
2013. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/
offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/clearances/clearancetopic_final.pdf
Vaughn, M. G., & DeLisi, M. (2008). Were Wolfgang’s chronic offenders psychopaths? On
the convergent validity between psychopathy and career criminality. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 36, 33-42.
Vitacco, M. J., Neumann, C. S., & Jackson, R. L. (2005). Testing a four-factor model of psy-
chopathy and its association with ethnicity, gender, and violence. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 73, 466-476.
Vitacco, M. J., Neumann, C. S., & Wodushek, T. (2008). Differential relationships between the
dimensions of psychopathy and intelligence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 48-55.
Wheeler, S., Book, A., & Costello, K. (2009). Psychopathic traits and perceptions of victim
vulnerability. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 635-648.
Wilson, K., Demetrioff, S., & Porter, S. (2008). A pawn by any other name? Social information
processing as a function of psychopathic traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 42,
1651-1656.
Wright, J. P., Beaver, K. M., DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. (2008). Evidence of negligible parent-
ing influences on self-control, delinquent peers, and delinquency in a sample of twins.
Justice Quarterly, 25, 544-569.