Criminal and Noncriminal Psychopathy: The Devil is in the Detail

Brooks, NS ORCiD: 0000-0003-1784-099XPsychopathy is prevalent and problematic in criminal populations, but is also found to be present in noncriminal populations. In 1992, Robert Hare declared that psychopaths may also “be found in the boardroom”, which has since been followed by an interest in the issue of noncriminal, or even successful, psychopathy. In this chapter, the paradox of criminal and noncriminal psychopathy is discussed with specific attention given to the similarities and differences that account for psychopathic personality across contexts. That psychopathy is a condition typified by a constellation of traits and behaviours requires wider research across diverse populations, and thus the streams of research related to criminal and noncriminal psychopathy are presented and the implications of these contrasting streams are explored

Genetic architecture of Environmental Sensitivity reflects multiple heritable components: a twin study with adolescents

Humans differ substantially in how strongly they respond to similar experiences. Theory suggests that such individual differences in susceptibility to environmental influences have a genetic basis. The present study investigated the genetic architecture of Environmental Sensitivity (ES) by estimating its heritability, exploring the presence of multiple heritable components and its genetic overlap with common personality traits. ES was measured with the Highly Sensitive Child (HSC) questionnaire and heritability estimates were obtained using classic twin design methodology in a sample of 2868 adolescent twins. Results indicate that the heritability of sensitivity was 0.47, and that the genetic influences underlying sensitivity to negative experiences are relatively distinct from sensitivity to more positive aspects of the environment, supporting a multi-dimensional genetic model of ES. The correlation between sensitivity, neuroticism and extraversion was largely explained by shared genetic influences, with differences between these traits mainly attributed to unique environmental influences operating on each trait

Impulsivity and self-harm in adolescence: a systematic review

Research supports an association between impulsivity and self-harm, yet inconsistencies in methodology across studies have complicated understanding of this relationship. This systematic review examines the association between impulsivity and self-harm in community-based adolescents aged 11-25 years and aims to integrate findings according to differing concepts and methods. Electronic searches of EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, PubMed and The Cochrane Library, and manual searches of reference lists of relevant reviews, identified 4,496 articles published up to July 2015, of which 28 met inclusion criteria. Twenty-four of the studies reported an association between broadly specified impulsivity and self-harm. However, findings varied according to the conception and measurement of impulsivity and the precision with which self-harm behaviours were specified. Specifically, lifetime non-suicidal self-injury was most consistently associated with mood-based impulsivity related traits. However, cognitive facets of impulsivity (relating to difficulties maintaining focus or acting without forethought) differentiated current self-harm from past self-harm. These facets also distinguished those with thoughts of self-harm (ideation) from those who acted on thoughts (enaction). The findings suggested that mood-based impulsivity is related to the initiation of self-harm, while cognitive facets of impulsivity are associated with the maintenance of self-harm. In addition, behavioural impulsivity is most relevant to self-harm under conditions of negative affect. Collectively, the findings indicate that distinct impulsivity facets confer unique risks across the life-course of self-harm. From a clinical perspective, the review suggests that interventions focusing on reducing rash reactivity to emotions or improving self-regulation and decision-making may offer most benefit in supporting those who self-harm

Integrating psychotherapy with the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP)

In this paper we present the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP), an evidence-based alternative to the categorical approach to diagnostic classification with considerable promise for integrative psychotherapy research and practice. We first review issues associated with the categorical approach that may have constrained advances in psychotherapy. We next describe how the HiTOP model addresses some of these issues. We then offer suggestions regarding potentially mutual benefits of integrating HiTOP with treatment principles from the common factors literature as well as the cognitive-behavioral and relational psychotherapy traditions. We conclude by enumerating principles for psychotherapy research and practice based on the HiTOP model, which are illustrated with a case example

Criterion A of the AMPD in HiTOP

The categorical model of personality disorder classification in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM–5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) is highly and fundamentally problematic. Proposed for DSM–5 and provided within Section III (for Emerging Measures and Models) was the Alternative Model of Personality Disorder (AMPD) classification, consisting of Criterion A (self-interpersonal deficits) and Criterion B (maladaptive personality traits). A proposed alternative to the DSM–5 more generally is an empirically based dimensional organization of psychopathology identified as the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP; Kotov et al., 2017). HiTOP currently includes, at the highest level, a general factor of psychopathology. Further down are the five domains of detachment, antagonistic externalizing, disinhibited externalizing, thought disorder, and internalizing (along with a provisional sixth somatoform dimension) that align with Criterion B. The purpose of this article is to discuss the potential inclusion and placement of the self-interpersonal deficits of the DSM–5 Section III Criterion A within HiTOP