Introduction to Special Feature on the Structure of Psychopathy

Abstract

The subject of this special feature—the structure of psychopathy—is currently a topic of considerable debate. Perhaps surprisingly, papers on the structure of psychopathy have generated more controversy than any other Journal publications. The debate which centers on the optimal way to represent the factor structure of psychopathy echoes some aspects of the more general debate on the factor structure of normal personality, a debate that has become somewhat muted of late although the issue appears far from settled. The structure of psychopathy is important given the prevalence of the disorder and the implications of the diagnosis. For this reason, most major contributors to the debate were asked to present their views for this special feature although, unfortunately, some of those invited could not meet the journal’s publication schedule. Much of the controversy is not actually about the structure of the disorder but rather about the best way to represent the factor structure of a specific measure, Robert Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). This is understandable given the significance of the PCL-R although, as some contributors note, problems occur when the measure is confused with the disorder. Nevertheless, the substantial progress that has been made over the last decade or so in understanding the consequences and correlates of psychopathy owes much to the robustness of this measure. For this reason, the papers in this feature cover both the structure of the PCL-R and the structure of psychopathy as conceptualized from other vantage points. The first two papers deal specifically with the structure of the checklist. The first paper by Craig Neumann, Robert Hare, and Joseph Newman describes their four-factor model of Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial components. This structure contrasts with the three-factor structure described by David Cooke and colleagues who argued that the antisocial component should not be included as a primary feature when defining the construct. The four factors are discussed in detail and further empirical evidence is offered to support a model of four first-order factors being explained by a single higher-order factor. The second paper by Christopher Patrick, Brian Hicks, Penny Nichol,