The search for the successful psychopath

Abstract

There has long been interest in identifying and studying “successful psychopaths.” This study sampled psychologists with an interest in law, attorneys, and clinical psychology professors to obtain descriptions of individuals considered to be psychopaths who were also successful in their endeavors. The results showed a consistent description across professions and convergence with descriptions of traditional psychopathy, though the successful psychopathy profile had higher scores on conscientiousness, as measured within the five-factor model (FFM). These results are useful in documenting the existence of successful psychopathy, demonstrating the potential benefit of informant methodology, and providing an FFM description that distinguishes successful psychopaths from unsuccessful psychopaths studied more routinely within prison settings.

Introduction

There has long been interest in studying “successful psychopaths” (e.g., Hall & Benning, 2006). Successful psychopaths are, in theory, individuals who fit the criteria of a psychopath, having certain fundamental traits (e.g., callousness), but largely succeed in their exploitation. Several psychopathy theorists have made anecdotal references to psychopathic lawyers, professors, businessmen, and politicians who have not committed crimes that warranted arrest or have successfully avoided investigation (e.g., Cleckley, 1988, Hare, 2003). It also has been argued that certain psychopathic traits (e.g., fearlessness) might be assets within some professions (e.g., Lykken, 1995).

There has been little empirical research characterizing such persons. Widom (1977) recruited participants using advertisements requesting “charming, aggressive, carefree people who are impulsively irresponsible but are good at handling people and at looking after number one” (p. 675). Characteristics associated with psychopathy (low empathy, psychopathic deviance, and hypomania) were found, though participants’ scores on impulsivity and Machiavellianism did not differ from scores of community members. Widom and Newman (1985) replicated this work using the same strategy. Hall and Benning (2006), however, argued that it might not be accurate to characterize these participants as successful as a substantial portion of participants in both studies had significant arrest records, and most were of low socio-economic status.

Ishikawa, Raine, Lencz, Bihrle, and Lacasse (2001) examined the correlates of psychopathy among “successful and unsuccessful” psychopaths within a community sample. They defined successful psychopaths as “community-based psychopaths who escape conviction for the crimes they perpetrate” (Ishikawa et al., 2001, p. 423). Psychopathy status was determined with the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) and collateral measures. Unsuccessful psychopaths had higher PCL-R total scores than successful psychopaths (possibly due to criminal acts) but the two groups did not differ on traits considered to be central to the disorder. Ishikawa et al. though acknowledged that they might not have identified truly successful psychopaths, as participants were recruited from temporary employment agencies. Therefore findings “cannot be extrapolated to socioeconomically successful psychopaths functioning in industry, public office, the criminal justice system, or academia” (Ishikawa et al., 2001, p. 431).

A difficulty in studying successful psychopaths is recruitment. “Research with the more socially successful psychopaths is badly needed, although it is recognized that there are real difficulties involved in obtaining suitable subjects” (Hare, 1975, cited by Widom (1977), p. 675). It would be difficult to sample enough individuals within a respective profession to find the rare psychopath. Once found, it is possible that this psychopathic person would not be forthcoming or would refuse to participate.

Although successful psychopaths may not be willing to participate in studies, individuals who are closely familiar with him/her may be able to provide useful information regarding his/her personality. Kirkman (2005) sampled women who had been victimized by a partner who evidenced psychopathic characteristics. Participants described their partners using the Hare P-SCAN (Hare & Herve, 1999). These descriptions were compared to ratings of partners provided by women in a comparison group. The ratings of the former group indicated significantly greater levels of psychopathy than the comparison group.

The current study sampled persons within professions likely to come in contact with psychopathic individuals. We asked if they had ever known anyone whom they would characterize as a “successful psychopath” and, if so, to describe him/her in terms of traits associated with psychopathy and the personality traits of the five-factor model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Lynam and Widiger (2007) integrated findings from three approaches describing psychopathy in terms of FFM traits (i.e., expert ratings, empirical correlations and translations of psychopathy measures) in order to generate a consensus psychopathy profile. Prototypic psychopathy was described across the approaches as low in five facets of agreeableness (all except trust), three facets of conscientiousness (dutifulness, self-discipline, deliberation), and one facet of neuroticism (self-consciousness) and extraversion (warmth) as well as high in impulsiveness from neuroticism and excitement-seeking from extraversion. Several traits appeared across two of the three approaches. This expanded profile included high angry hostility, assertiveness, and openness to actions, and low anxiousness, depressiveness, vulnerability, trust, and openness to feelings.

In the current study, we hypothesized that successful psychopaths would be described with the Lynam and Widiger (2007) consensus profile, except that successful psychopathy would be associated with high, rather than low, scores on conscientiousness (i.e., competence, achievement-striving, discipline and deliberation). Similarly, the successful psychopath would be characterized as high in such psychopathic traits as callousness, dishonesty, exploitative, and remorseless, but low in irresponsibility and impulsivity.