Psychopathy and risk taking: Examining the role of risk perception☆
Introduction
Psychopathy is characterized by pervasive emotional and interpersonal deficits, impulsivity, and antisociality (Hare, 1993). Theoretical accounts of psychopathy suggest that such traits should be associated with risk-taking (Fowles and Dindo, 2006, Fowles and Dindo, 2009), and indeed, empirical research has demonstrated that psychopathy is associated with a greater propensity to engage in a variety of risk-taking behaviors (Kastner and Sellbom, 2012, Swogger et al., 2010). However, given the current perspective regarding domain specificity in risk-taking behavior, further research is needed to examine the pervasiveness of this relationship across various situational contexts, and to determine which components of psychopathy are most influential in the psychopathy/risk-taking association. Moreover, research has yet to identify the specific mechanisms that may underlie this relationship. To address these gaps in the literature, Study 1 examined the differential associations between psychopathic traits and risky behavior utilizing a domain specific approach to risk-taking and the four-factor model of psychopathy. Study 2 was designed to replicate and extend the results of Study 1 by testing a conceptual model based on the Risk-Return Framework of Risky Choice (Blais & Weber, 2006) and the Dual Pathway model of psychopathy (Fowles and Dindo, 2006, Fowles and Dindo, 2009). As displayed in Fig. 1, this conceptual model identifies risk perception as a potential mechanism linking psychopathic traits to risk-taking behavior.
Research has generally focused on a two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy, which suggests that the construct consists of two related factors including emotional/interpersonal traits (Factor 1) and social deviance characteristics (Factor 2; Hare, 1993). However, recent work on clinical and subclinical samples suggests that a four-factor model is more appropriate (i.e. Hare and Neumann, 2008, Hare and Neumann, 2009, Mahmut et al., 2011, Neal and Sellbom, 2012). The four-factor model divides the emotional/interpersonal traits into two factors representing callous affect (i.e., shallow affect, lack of remorse, guilt and empathy) and interpersonal manipulation (i.e., superficial charm, egocentricity, and pathological lying). Social deviance characteristics have been divided into erratic lifestyle (i.e., irresponsibility, impulsivity, sensation seeking) and antisocial behavior (i.e., poor behavior control, early juvenile delinquency, and versatile antisociality). Given the extensive empirical support and the enhanced specificity of the four-factor model, this model was used in the present research.
Extant literature regarding the etiology of psychopathy provides theoretical support for the link between psychopathic traits and risk-taking. The Dual Pathway perspective offered by Fowles and Dindo (2006/2009) may be especially useful in informing this association. This model posits two distinct etiological pathways that interact with social-environmental processes to contribute to the emergence of Factor 1 and Factor 2 traits. Originally proposed to map onto the two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy, this perspective may also be relevant with respect to the four-factor model, whereby one pathway may contribute to the emergence of both interpersonal manipulation and callous affect traits, and the second pathway may be influential in the development of both erratic lifestyle characteristics and antisocial behavior.
According to Fowles and Dindo (2006), Factor 1 traits (callous affect and interpersonal manipulation) are partially the result of a low fear temperament or lack of anticipatory fear. A large body of research supports this perspective (i.e., Benning et al., 2005, Lykken, 1995, Patrick et al., 1993, Patrick et al., 1994). It is possible that this pathway is especially relevant with respect to the callous affect traits that are subsumed under Factor 1 since individuals who exhibit such traits, likely engage in risk-taking due to lack of fear of the potential negative consequences. Indeed, empirical research suggests that callousness is particularly relevant with respect to fear sensitivity (Roose, Bijttebier, Van der Oord, Claes, & Lillienfeld, 2013) and deficient fear conditioning (Veit et al., 2013). For example, Veit and colleagues found that fear conditioning deficits were especially prominent among violent offenders who exhibited callous affect psychopathy traits.
The Dual Pathway model also suggests that Factor 2 characteristics may, in part, reflect information processing deficits resulting in regulatory dyscontrol (Fowles & Dindo, 2009). Indeed, research demonstrates differential cognitive processes among individuals who exhibit psychopathic traits (for review see Hiatt & Newman, 2006). Given the specific traits subsumed within the erratic lifestyle component of Factor 2 (e.g., impulsivity, stimulation seeking, irresponsibility) and the current debate in the field as to whether the antisocial component of Factor 2 should be considered a core feature or an outcome of psychopathy (see Skeem and Cooke, 2010, Hare and Neumann, 2010), this pathway may be especially relevant to the development of erratic lifestyle characteristics. Accordingly, erratic lifestyle traits may be associated with a heightened propensity to engage in risky behavior due to an inability to attend to and cognitively process peripheral situational cues, as well as a lack of consideration/understanding of potential consequences.
More recently, the Dual Pathway model has been subsumed under the Triarchic Model of psychopathy (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009). This model is comprised of Boldness (social dominance, immunity to stressors, and tolerance for danger and uncertainty), Meanness (callousness, exploitativeness, and lack of attachment to others), and Disinhibition or Externalizing Proneness (low frustration tolerance, poor impulse control). Two pathways are still suggested, with disinhibition being due to problems in the pre-frontal cortex, and boldness related to the amygdala. The difference lies in the cause of meanness. According to the Triarchic Model, this callousness can result from genetic or environmental influences that tend to impair attachment, and can be related to either a tendency toward disinhibition or boldness. While we did not use measures conducive to a full examination of the Triarchic Model, results will be discussed in terms of the four-factor, Dual Pathway, and Triarchic models.
Research demonstrates significant links between psychopathy and risky behavior. For example, studies indicate that psychopathy is associated with self-reported sexual risk-taking (Fulton, Marcus, & Payne, 2010) and hypersexual behavior (e.g., sexual compulsivity, excitation, and sensation seeking; Kastner & Sellbom, 2012). In both studies, Factor 1 and 2 traits were related to engagement in risky sexual behavior. However, Factor 2 characteristics displayed stronger associations. Research has also shown that psychopathy is related to higher incidences of drug and alcohol use (Hemphill, Hart, & Hare, 1994), and substance use disorders (Walsh, Allen, & Kosson, 2007). For example, Walsh et al. (2007) found that erratic lifestyle traits were uniquely associated with drug dependence, whereas both erratic lifestyle and antisocial behavior were uniquely related to alcohol dependence. Conversely, the interpersonal manipulation factor was positively associated with cocaine dependency, whereas the callous affect factor was negatively related to cannabis use. Collectively, this research suggests Factor 2 traits are more relevant for risky behavior related to hypersexuality and substance use.
Given that the erratic lifestyle component of Factor 2 includes traits such as impulsivity and sensation seeking, these findings coincide with the general literature regarding the associations among sensation seeking, impulsivity, sexual risk-taking (Charnigo et al., 2013, Hoyle et al., 2000), and substance use and abuse (Leeman et al., 2014, Magid et al., 2007). Moreover, given the extant literature linking impulsivity and sensation seeking to risk-taking, it follows that the erratic lifestyle psychopathy traits likely play a substantial role in the psychopathy/risk-taking association.
The strength of the association between each psychopathy factor and risk-related behavior appears to differ as a function of situational context. Swogger et al. (2010) addressed the situation-specific nature of these relationships by examining the association between psychopathic traits, irresponsible and criminal real world risk-taking, and sensation seeking real world risk-taking. Results indicated that Factor 1 traits were most influential in promoting irresponsible and criminal risk-taking, whereas Factor 2 traits were more readily linked to sensation seeking risk-taking behaviors (although this association was attributable to other externalizing psychopathology). Of note, results also indicated that psychopathic traits were unrelated to performance on a behavioral risk-taking task (the Balloon Analog Risk-taking task; BART). Thus, although previous research tends to focus on the association between psychopathic traits and risk-related behavior within one specific context, such findings suggest that further empirical work examining the psychopathy/risk-taking relationship across situational domains is warranted. Moreover, research has yet to identify the specific mechanisms that may explain the link between psychopathy and risk-taking.
The Risk-Return Framework of Risky Choice provides a theoretical approach that incorporates both situational influences and explanatory mechanisms. This framework suggests that an individual's propensity to engage in risk-taking behavior is situation-dependant and varies as a function of the associated perceived risks and benefits (Blais and Weber, 2006, Blais and Weber, 2009, Figner and Weber, 2011, Weber et al., 2002). More specifically, it suggests that the decision to engage in risk-taking behavior is influenced by individual perceptions of how risky the behavior is, by the perceived benefits that are associated with the behavior, and by the trade-off between the perceived risks and benefits. Thus, this perspective differentiates between actual risk-taking behavior and the processes that underlie an individual's decision to engage in such behavior. Research has demonstrated a significant and robust negative association between risk perception and risk-taking, suggesting that individuals generally tend to be risk aversive (Blais and Weber, 2006, Blais and Weber, 2009, Johnson et al., 2004, Weller and Tikir, 2011). The literature in this area has predominantly focused on the role of risk perception in relation to risk-taking behavior. As such, measures utilized to assess these two constructs have received greater attention and validation (Blais and Weber, 2006, Blais and Weber, 2009). Consequently, the current work was designed to specifically focus on the constructs of risk perception and risk-taking.
The Risk-Return Framework of Risky Choice suggests that risk-taking behavior and the perceived risks and benefits are person and situation dependant (Figner & Weber, 2011). This perspective led to the development of a domain specific risk-taking scale (DOPERT; Weber et al., 2002, Blais and Weber, 2006, Blais and Weber, 2009), designed to examine the components of risk-taking (i.e., actual, perceived risks, perceived benefits) across several domains, including ethical, financial, health/safety, recreational, and social. Indeed, research has demonstrated that individuals do tend to vary in the extent to which they perceive and subsequently take risks in different situations. Hanoch, Johnson, and Wilke (2006), for instance, targeted participants that were likely to demonstrate risk-taking behavior within specific domains (i.e., sky divers and bungee jumpers in the recreational domain), and reported that individuals who exhibit risky behavior within one domain, may in fact be risk neutral or risk averse in other risk domains. Further, utilizing multi-level modeling techniques, Blais and Weber (2006) demonstrated that risk-taking varied as a function of domain, with significantly greater variability within than between individuals. Research regarding the relationships among specific personality traits and risk-taking domains provides further evidence for the domain specificity of risk-taking behavior and perception. For example, Weller and Tikir (2011) demonstrated that specific personality factors were differentially associated with risk-taking, risk perception, and perceived benefits across situational contexts. This suggests that individual differences do indeed demonstrate differential and situation dependant patterns of association with risk-taking and risk perception.
The etiological pathways outlined in the Dual Pathway model (Fowles and Dindo, 2006, Fowles and Dindo, 2009) suggest that both Factor 1 and Factor 2 psychopathy traits are associated with higher risk-taking via lower risk perception, albeit for different reasons. Specifically, the pervasive lack of anticipatory fear associated with Factor 1 and the cognitive processes associated with Factor 2, would lead to an inadequate evaluation of potential consequences, thus denoting lower risk perception, and in turn, resulting in higher risk-taking. In fact, research examining the effects of fear on risk perception and risk-taking has demonstrated that fear specifically leads to pessimistic risk perception and avoidance of risk-related behaviors (Lerner & Keltner, 2001). This suggests that the general lack of fear among individuals who exhibit Factor 1 traits may demonstrate more optimistic risk perception and greater engagement in risky behaviors. In addition, research has shown a significant association between poor self-regulation and engagement in risk-related behaviors. Poor cognitive regulation, for instance, has been associated with lower risk perception, defined as placing greater emphasis on potential benefits rather than potential negative outcomes of risky behavior (Magar, Phillips, & Hosie, 2008). Therefore, the regulatory dyscontrol among those who demonstrate Factor 2 traits may also promote lower risk perception. Similarly, under the umbrella of the Triarchic Model, one might expect that disinhibition would have results similar to the erratic lifestyle component of Factor 2 as impulsivity and inability to control behavior are represented there, while boldness findings would mirror those of callous affect due to reduced fear.
Of note, Dual Process models of risky decision making (Slovic et al., 2004, Weber and Johnson, 2009) also map onto the Dual Pathway model of psychopathy (Fowles & Dindo, 2009). Such models suggest that the decision to engage in risk-related behaviors is guided by experiential affective processes as well as analytical cognitive processes (Slovic et al., 2004). Research on experiential affective processes suggests that risky behaviors that elicit positive affect lead individuals to perceive high benefits and low risk. Conversely, risky behaviors that generate negative affect lead to low perceived benefits and high perceived risks. Thus, the shallow affect and lack of negative affect (specifically fear) among individuals who exhibit Factor 1 psychopathy traits may indeed lead to lower risk perception, especially in light of research indicating that Factor 1 traits are positively associated with positive affect/emotionality and negatively related to negative affect/emotionality (Del Gaizo & Falkenbach, 2008). The analytical cognitive processes are logical, reason oriented, and involve slower processing (Slovic et al., 2004). The inability to attend to secondary environmental cues among individuals who exhibit Factor 2 traits may result in an inadequate evaluation of potential consequences. This maps on nicely to Newman's Response Modulation Theory (Hiatt & Newman, 2006) in which there is a deficit in the ability to change ones' response set, even in the face of relevant punishment information. Such a deficit would lead an individual to continue with a behavior that has been rewarding, regardless of the negative consequences. Such a strategy would involve an ineffectual analytical cognitive evaluation of risky behavior, in turn, promoting lower risk perception and greater drive toward reward.
The present work examined the relationship between psychopathy and risk-taking in various situational contexts, and tested a conceptual model linking psychopathy to risk-taking via lower risk perception (see Fig. 1). This work adds to the literature by examining the differential associations between each of the four psychopathy factors and risk-taking behavior in multiple contexts providing a more comprehensive understanding of the pervasiveness of the psychopathy/risk-taking relationship. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the associations between the four factors of psychopathy, domain specific risk-taking, and risk perception across two distinct populations. Study 1 examined the direct association between psychopathy and risk-taking behavior in a sample of undergraduate students. Because callous affect includes fearlessness, we expected that it would be related to risk-taking. This prediction is supported by previous research linking fear sensitivity and deficient fear conditioning to callous/unemotional traits, specifically (Frick and Morris, 2004, Roose et al., 2013, Veit et al., 2013). In fact, in the Roose et al. study which employed two measures of psychopathic traits, the only facet of psychopathy that related to fear sensitivity was callousness. Further, because of the lack of self-regulation associated with Erratic Lifestyle traits (i.e. impulsivity, stimulation seeking behavior), and consistent with the Response Modulation Theory (Hiatt & Newman, 2006), we expected there to be a positive relationships with risk-taking. No a priori hypotheses concerning domain specific associations were made.
Study 2 was designed to replicate the findings of Study 1 and to examine the role of risk perception within the psychopathy/risk-taking relationship. Once again, it was predicted that the callous affect and erratic lifestyle factors of psychopathy would be positively associated with risk-taking behavior within each of the risk-taking domains (social, ethical, financial, health/safety, recreational). Further, it was expected that there would be an indirect link between the callous affect and erratic lifestyle psychopathy factors and risk-taking via lower risk perception within each of the risk-taking domains (social, ethical, financial, health/safety, recreational).
Section snippets
Participants
This sample included 194 undergraduate students at a Canadian University in Southern Ontario. An approximately equal number of men (48.5%, n = 94) and women (51.5%, n = 100) participated and age ranged from 18 to 51 (M = 20.57, SD = 4.84). The sample was predominantly Caucasian (80.9%, n = 157) and most students were in their first (57.7%, n = 112) or second (23.7%, n = 46) year of study.
Procedure
Students were recruited via an on-line university based research system and were offered 1 research participation credit
Participants
The total sample included 320 participants. Of the participants that reported sex, 40.6% (n = 130) were men and 58.4% (n = 187) were women. Reported ages ranged from 18 to 82 (M = 33.92, SD = 11.99) and participants were predominantly Caucasian (86.3%, n = 276) and resided in either the United States (53.4%, n = 171) or Canada (36.9%, n = 118). Most participants reported having started (33.1%, n = 106), or completed (41.6%, n = 133) post-secondary education.
Procedure
The questionnaires, and consent and debriefing forms
Discussion
To our knowledge, the current work was the first to examine psychopathic traits, risk perception, and risk-taking across various situational contexts in multiple subclinical samples. Study 1 examined direct associations between psychopathic traits and risky behavior across several risk-taking domains. Study 2 replicated and extended Study 1 to address the role of risk perception. Generally, it was hypothesized that erratic lifestyle and callous affect psychopathy traits would be significantly
References (56)
- et al.
Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon's MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing
Computers in Human Behavior
(2013) - et al.
Secondary psychopathy, but not primary psychopathy, is associated with risky decision-making in noninstitutionalized young adults
Personality and Individual Differences
(2013) - et al.
Primary and secondary psychopathic traits and their relationship to perception and experience of emotion
Personality and Individual Differences
(2008) - et al.
Psychopathic personality traits and risky sexual behavior in college students
Personality and Individual Differences
(2010) - et al.
Hypersexuality in college students: The role of psychopathy
Personality and Individual Differences
(2012) - et al.
Impulsivity, sensation seeking, and part-time job status in relation to substance use and gambling in adolescence
Journal of Adolescent Health
(2014) - et al.
Differentiating sensation seeking and impulsivity through their mediated relations with alcohol use and problems
Addictive Behaviors
(2007) A reliability analysis of mechanical Turk data
Computers in Human Behavior
(2015)- et al.
Psychopathy, startle blink modulation and electrodermal reactivity in twin men
Psychophysiology
(2005) - et al.
A domain-specific risk-taking scale for adult populations (DOSPERT)
Judgement and Decision Making
(2006)
The domain specific risk-taking scale for adult populations: Item selection and preliminary psychometric properties
Development and validation of triarchic psychopathy scales from the multidimentional personality questionnaire
Psychological Assessment
Amazon's mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high quality data?
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Sensation seeking and impulsivity: Combined associations with risky sexual behaviour in a large sample of young adults
Journal of Sex Research
A dual deficit model of psychopathy
Temperament and psychopathy: A dual pathway model
A Journal of Association for Psychological Science
Who takes risks when and why? Determinants of risk-taking
Current Directions in Psychological Science
Temperament and developmental pathways to conduct problems
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology
Are all types of morality compromised in psychopaths
Journal of Personality Disorders
Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of mechanical Turk samples
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
A comparison of the risk-taking behaviors of prisoners and non-prisoners
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
Domain specificity in experimental measures and participant recruitment: An application to risk-taking behaviour
Psychological Science
Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us
Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology
Psychopathy: Assessment and forensic implications
Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
The role of antisociality in the psychopathy construct: Comment on Skeem and Cooke (2010)
Psychological Assessment
Psychopathy and substance use
Journal of Personality Disorders
Understanding psychopathy: The cognitive side
Cited by (0)
- ☆
This research was supported in part by a Joseph-Armand Bombardier CGS Doctoral Scholarship awarded to the first author by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Award #767-2011-1553).