Psychopathy: A Very Short Introduction

Very Short Introductions #618

by Essi Viding

Psychopathy is a personality disorder that has long captured the public imagination. Newspaper column inches have been devoted to murderers with psychopathic features, and we also encounter psychopaths in films and books. Individuals with psychopathy are characterised in particular by lack of empathy and guilt, manipulation of other people and, in the case of criminal psychopathy, premeditated violent behaviour. They are dangerous and can incur immeasurable emotional, psychological, physical, and financial costs to their victims and their families.

Despite the public fascination with psychopathy, there is often a very limited understanding of the condition, and several myths about psychopathy abound. For example, people commonly assume that all psychopaths are sadistic serial killers or that all violent and antisocial individuals are psychopaths. Yet, research shows that most psychopaths are not serial killers, and, equally, there are plenty of antisocial and violent offenders who are not psychopaths. This Very Short Introduction gives an overview of how we can identify individuals with or at risk of developing psychopathy, and how they differ from other people who display antisocial behavior. Essi Viding also explores the latest genetic, neuroscience, and psychology evidence in order to illuminate why psychopaths behave and develop the way they do, and considers whether it is possible to prevent or even treat psychopathy.

ABOUT THE SERIES: The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Science, Audiobook, Education, Reference

144 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2020

About the author

Essi Viding is Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at the Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, where she co-directs the Developmental Risk and Resilience Unit. She is also adjunct faculty at Yale University Medical School Child Study Centre. Her research combines a variety of methodologies, including brain imaging and genetically informative study designs, in an effort to chart different developmental pathways to persistent antisocial behaviour. Professor Viding has received several prizes for her work, including the British Academy Wiley Prize in Psychology, The British Psychological Society Spearman Medal, The Royal Society Rosalind Franklin Award, and the Turin Mind & Brain Prize.

Reviews

[Alice · Rating 5 out of 5]

Clean and informative. They didn't joke about the "very short" part either.

[Carl · Rating 2 out of 5]

Before reading this book, I didn’t know what psychopathy was. The book provides a solid definition based on clinical psychology: psychopaths lack empathy, sympathy, and guilt to such an extent that it affects their behavior and becomes an issue for others. In the studies cited normal people might not constantly feel distress for all the unfortunate people in the world, but they would react and have an involuntary physiological response when encountering someone in pain or experiencing strong emotions. Psychopaths, however, do not have this automatic sympathy, which is their defining characteristic.

This absence of empathy/sympathy leads many psychopaths to engage in deeply self-destructive and antisocial behavior. They have trouble processing negative outcomes, often have lower average intelligence, and may become violent or threaten violence without feeling remorse. The book mentions that some 50% of violent crime could be attributed to psychopaths. They are dangerous, have lower inhibitions, and are more likely to reoffend—about 4-8 times more likely than non-psychopaths. They tend to have lower educational attainment, achieve less in their careers, and rarely have long-lasting romantic relationships.

All of this sounds awful so is there any benefit to being a psychopath? It seems like there could be benefits to psychopathy if someone wanted to maximize their outcomes at the expense of others in some sort of winner takes all survival situation. However, this comes at the cost of lower intelligence, low cunning, low awareness, and low inhibition. Psychopaths usually get caught hurting others after which their lives are usually over. So this really isn’t a useful trait in any sense. The book tries to have sympathy for these people and discusses the role a psychopathy diagnosis should play in sentencing. What are you suppose to do with people that cannot be rehabilitated?

I think populations that have a longer experience with the selective pressures of agriculture and urbanism likely have fewer psychopaths. In a dense urban environment a psychopaths antisocial behavior would result in death for most of recorded human history. In harsh environments requiring high levels of social cohesion and trust for survival psychopathic behavior would result in the death of the entire group, including the psychopath(surviving a harsh arctic or arid environment with intense resource scarcity). I would imagine resource rich environments where the population previously engaged in hunting and gathering for the majority of their calories probably have the highest rates of psychopathy today. I heard of a description of the aboriginal Tasmanians that made it sound like they were all psychopaths. The men would hunt kangaroos for sport while their women would gather and fish. They would steal and rape each others women. These practices seem to be common across pre-agricultural cultures and populations. So was agriculture and urbanism a process/system which systematically reduced the number of antisocial, violent individuals over time? The punishment for psychopathic crimes in the past was execution. People with these tendencies were progressively culled for millennia in agricultural, urban societies.

Psychopathy is predominantly a male trait. The book mentions men are 4x more psychopathic than women. If this trait is heavily masculine the reduction of this trait is a sort of feminization of the male population. Psychopathy isn’t linked to a single gene, it’s not like a light switch that can be turned on an off. It is the culmination of various traits which lead to a diagnoses and everyone has varying degrees of “psychopathy”(lack of empathy). The author mentions environmental factors, however the vast majority of psychopaths show signs of this disorder when they are toddlers, seeming to indicate there is a strong genetic component. It is weird to think of it as a “disorder” because it is naturally occurring and likely varies in frequency because of selective pressures. In a predatory population it is surely helpful to feel nothing when killing a victim. But in a modern urban society it makes life impossible which is why so many psychopaths inevitably end up in jail.

One dimension that is perplexing is the psychopathic traits of animals. Cats and dogs can be very affectionate and friendly with humans and can often identify with the emotional state of their human companion even if they don’t fully understand what is going on. However they can also ruthlessly kill their prey and will proudly present their victim without remorse. The same goes for people, a man might adore an object of affection, a friend or romantic partner, and gleefully kill someone who threatens them. Can love, affection, hate and other powerful emotions make someone psychopathic when relating to others? It seems so. The blindness of “Blind rage” is in relation to others feelings, experiences, and humanity.

I was always curious if there was a connection between autism and psychopathy. I have known and grown up alongside several autistic people. Their behavior struck me as psychopathic sometimes which was very distressing. The key difference according to the book is their capacity for empathy, which is not necessarily inhibited in autistic people. Rather they lack the ability to readily identify someone’s emotional state, making them seem callous when in reality they just have trouble figuring someone else’s mind out. This was sort of a relief and gave me a better sense of how to deal with friends that have this issue.

I feel psychopathic towards psychopaths. They are like an alien species and I cannot relate nor do I want to, have the time or interest. I thought while reading this maybe there is some great secret I can learn from psychopathic people, but they seem like evil losers. Perhaps the greatest thing you can do with your life is serve others. If you are motivated by financial gain serving/caring for others, solving problems, reducing/eliminating pain, is crucial. If you want to form relationships being of service to someone in some way is how you build affection, respect, reciprocity. In every domain of life being conscientious of others and reducing their pain is beneficial. But true psychopathy is an inversion of this. Instead of thinking how you can add value to the world you think of how you can take from others and this inevitably leads to criminal activity and incarceration. Maybe if this was done in service to your family or “in group” I could understand but in individuals with psychopathy it is purely selfish. Their family members are mere objects and they would sell their own mother into slavery. It is very disgusting, self-destructive, stupid and short sighted.

[Bojan Tunguz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ever since I first learned about what Psychopathy really means, and the prevalence of Psychopaths in the general population, I have been fascinated by this topic. My fascination is primarily practical, as I have had the misfortune to know and deal with many highly malicious Psychopaths over the course of my life. In this regard, unfortunately, I am not alone. The exact numbers are still being debated, but at least a few percent of all people are somewhere on the Psychopathy spectrum. Most Psychopaths are not the extremely dangerous Hannibal Lecter types, but can nonetheless be harmful in a myriad ways in our daily lives - from coworkers and bosses to friends, family members and spouses.

This short book is probably the most informative and up-to-date account of Psychopathy that I have come across. It provides plenty of detail and information about this condition, from what are the salient characteristics of psychopaths, to our current understanding of Psychopathy’s heritability, and what (if anything) can be done about it. The book provides nuanced insights into how, for instance, Psychopathy differs from Autism, and some other psychological conditions. Understanding it could potentially help you in your everyday lives get out abusive relationships and situations.

Very highly recommended.

[Hank Hoeft · Rating 3 out of 5]

Psychopathy: A Very Short Introduction reminds me of another volume in the series, Autism: A Very Short Introductions, in that our knowledge of the subject is imperfect and incomplete and the Introduction is largely a statement of what we happen to know at the moment of the book’s publication. I appreciated the explanation of what psychopathy is (and isn’t), what traits indicate psychopathy, and how psychopathy differs from “antisocial personality disorder” and “sociopathy.” (“Sociopathy” is not really a separate category of disorder and not really a thing at all, but the term continues to be used by society at large.) What I found of lesser interest is the large portion of the book devoted to how the brain of someone with psychopathic traits differs from the brain of someone lacking those traits. This is the particular area of specialization of author Essi Viding, which explains the depth of the discussion, but ultimately I found this of limited use. What are of considerably more interest are the questions of why some people develop into psychopaths while others don’t, how researchers can determine and predict who will indeed develop into psychopaths, and finally, how can psychopathic traits be treated and dealt with. And the answers to these three questions are all at this point still far from being resolved, although Viding provides good summaries of our best understanding at this time.

[Derek · Rating 3 out of 5]

A reasonable introduction by an expert in the field, but few surprises about the state of current research.

[Sam Freeze · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s difficult to review these books critically when you know next to nothing about the area. Overall, it seems like a sufficient brief of what we know, and still want to know, about psychopathy. In my opinion, one of the most interesting facets of psychopathy covered in the book is the tendency to make frequent prediction errors. For those with psychopathy, their predictions about the outcomes of their choices are often wrong (as shown by computational modelling experiments). Because decisions are often made according to optimality, there’s a big issue here. Differences in decision-making must have their seat in how the brain processes information; in the case of psychopaths, there is a lot of trouble in this area. Clearly, much work to be done in order to better understand and therefore treat this disorder.

[Kim · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing overview of the phenomenon and current research interests in the field of psychopathy. It covers neurological, genetic and developmental perspectives on psychopathy and highlights significant research findings along the way. Could not have asked for a better introductory book on the subject.

[Gijs Limonard · Rating 4 out of 5]

3,5 stars; with up to 1% of the general population showing any psychopathic traits (an estimated 0,1% actually qualifying as full-blown psychopath) and up to 25% prevalence for extremely-high-achieving individuals (a.o. CEO's, athletes, doctors, and (male) prison inmates) in any high-stakes professional field, you'd better read up on the subject.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting little book.

[Louis · Rating 2 out of 5]

A bit disappointing in all. The problem I'd anticipated was that this would be very high level given that’s its an introduction. What I'd not thought was that it would be so uneven. Some areas have a deep focus, some the barest sketch.

There is also a strange interlude where the author suggests that psychopathy has a hereditary element, then talks about how nature vs nurture has been resolved, then appears to attribute environmental influences to genetics. The most striking example of this:

“Environment is not just something that happens to us. Individuals create select and modify their own environment”

Well to an extent yes, and I understand the author is making the point that difficult children will generate particular responses from peers and family, but no-one chooses their family or when and where they are born so to that extent environment does just happen to us.

Further to this:

“For example children do not choose their friends at random and associations between delinquent peers and child psychopathic traits are bound to reflect genetic propensities for selecting particular friendship groups as well as the impact of interacting with such friends over time.”

This seems to assume that any compunding impact of friendship groups are only present because genes caused those groups to be chosen in the first place. This doesn’t take into account what groups are available to the child or indeed any environmental factors that may have caused that group to have been chosen (for example children in some settings will come under tremendous environmental pressure to join a gang). If genes are the cause of the environmental factors then we are essentially saying that the causes are wholly genetic.
I’d have found this a bit less frustrating if the rest of the book hadn’t essentially been the author saying more research is needed and we don’t know enough to make meaningful decisions. It doesn’t seem compatible to me to so strongly point to a cause of a phenomenon (a genetic root), but then claim the evidence for that claim is incomplete and lacks any explanatory power (these roots haven’t actually been identified).
The section on criminal justice was also underwritten. It made a very vague gesture toward whether psychopathy should be an aggravating or mitigating factor for sentencing, mentioned two cases neither of which were referenced, and again retreated into “more research is needed”. This is a potentially very interesting area, touching on free will and other topics, but its barely mentioned. This contrasts with the neuro imaging section which to the lay person degenerates into basically a list of areas of the brain that may play a role.
As a primer, I think you could read this and come away without a good understanding of what a psychopath looks like, the science behind it or the criminal justice implications.
For a general overview I preferred “Without Conscience” by Robert Hare and for the neurological focus “The Psychopath Whisperer ” by Kent Kiehl.

[J9 Reads · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting insight into how the discipline of Psychology delineates and treats psychopathy, but a critical reader will be skeptical of (and bored by) the lack of any mention of societal, structural or cultural forces - why would those things have any bearing on how people are and act in the world? According to this book, psychopaths are all about genetic defects or mothers who didn't show love (or some combination of both). And they are to be feared and dealt with.

[Dylan]

i checked this out from the library because i’d just finished reading madness and civilization and was curious about whether foucault-style discourse analysis would affect my understanding of a fraught social/mental category like psychopathy. well, surprise: it did.

this is a thorough, well-intentioned, and well researched little book about the contemporary “understanding” of psychopathy—a word i put in quotation marks because it is very important to recognize that “psychopath” is a discursive designation, something we made up to identify a pattern of particular antisocial behaviors, rather than something we “discovered” about “human nature.” in this sense, to “understand” psychopathy is to redefine it in more specific terms.

while the book is very detailed and comprehensible in its explanation of current research (and while i have no doubt that this research is extremely rigorous and generative w/r/t people who are designated as psychopathic), i don’t think the author comes to term with the extremely fragile epistemological position that psychopathy occupies. it is, to me, incredibly problematic that the central diagnostic criteria come from the american criminal justice system, of all places. that a group as insitutionalist as the american psychological association is not willing to include psychopathy in their diagnostic manual should raise red flags for us as well. but this author essentially accepts hare’s psychopath test as the standard for determining what a psychopath is. fair enough, given the absence of an alternative set of criteria, but it seems absolutely essential to me to subject the category to intense critical scrutiny. that doesn’t happen here.

“psychopath” is a media/prosecutorial category. it is a product of culture and discourse. it is like the letter “M” in fritz lang’s film, a signifier we use to negate what is most unacceptable to us. we ought to be asking how we define what psychopathy isn’t, and we certainly ought to be asking why we glorify and overcompensate social positions with which psychopathy is strongly associated (CEOs, politicians, etc). we ought to be asking how we designate between acceptable and unacceptable forms of acquisitiveness, hyperaggression, and lack of empathy.

i am not writing all of this to dunk on the discipline of psychology. merely saying that it is not sufficient to accept the parameters of a single discourse as the horizon of reality. psychopathy seems a particularly important place to recognize that our scientific designations (and especially our social scientific designations) are products of culture and inevitably serve the interests of someone in power. or, they protect us from features, behaviors, phenomena which we do not want to believe are part of us. as daniel plainview warns in there will be blood: “if it’s in me, it’s in you.”

[Luke · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent summary of current understanding which later devolves into overly academic material that reads as if cut & pasted from the author's journal articles.

Some key points expanded with my own understanding:


Psychopathy is primarily characterised by a profound lack of empathy and guilt. Also involved are manipulation and destructive life choices, and often premeditated violence.

Psychopathy is a subset of antisocial personality disorder, which is a broader, more varied category of antisocial behaviour.

Psychopaths are relatively more impulsive, and more sensitive to rewards than punishments or dangers. The result is repeated bad decisions, and a failure to learn from them.

A psychopath does not resonate with the emotions of others, but he can work out what they are thinking, especially when it benefits him. Psychopaths can identify right from wrong – what they lack is the emotional valence of the difference, i.e. conscience. Some psychopaths not only do not resonate with distress in others, but cannot identify it, e.g.: ‘I really do not know what that emotion is, but I do know that it is what people look like just before I stab them.’ That psychopath could also recite that stabbing someone is wrong, but there is no emotional weight behind that knowledge.

Similarly, psychopaths may identify distress in others, but what they lack is the associated warmth of feeling: empathy. Here lies a crucial misunderstanding. It is often claimed that psychopaths do not feel what others feel, and that is why psychopathic serial killers enjoy torturing and killing their victims. But that makes no sense: without feeling, what drives them to it? Why take such risks when there is no reward? Psychopathic killers clearly do get a kick from the terror and agony of their victims, that’s precisely why they do it. The answer must be that psychopaths are sensitive to the experience of others, but they lack the affiliative aspect of the emotion: the warm, fuzzy feeling that leads to caring behaviours. Without that positive emotion, what remains is the reward of power and control. Thus the psychopath’s lack of empathy opens the door for sadism.

Absence of the “warm fuzzies” (positive, affiliative emotion) explains why psychopaths have many short-term relationships. They enjoy the novelty and conquest of a new relationship, but lack the feeling of love that would lead them to stick around. Inevitable problems arise and they take off. The same process is at work with the psychopath never staying at one job for long. There is no emotional bond that becomes the foundation of loyalty.

[Kit · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a short introduction, yes.
Its circumbscribed nature means it's confined to classic psychopathy. This provides a clunky tool with which to understand the topic. I prefer Kevin Dutton's The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies, and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success where he uses the analogy of the sound board with different sliders to explain the constellation of characteristics that make up the condition and which vary in different people. This provides a more useful, organic, nuanced view of psychopathy that exists on a spectrum which all of us in society is on instead of a discrete Other class of freaks. Also Psychopathy: An Introduction to Biological Findings and Their Implicationsis worthwhile summary of knowledge on the topic as of 2014. Both are just a little longer at under 250 pages long each and very accessible.
I was interested to hear about Aftermath: Surviving Psychopathy Foundation.
I was glad to hear that research on psychopathy is increasing. The general public's knowledge of psychopathy is currently probably where it was with narcissism 50 years ago. I can't wait until the term psychopath being equated with Bundy or Dahmer ends. And end people flailing in the dark dealing with it.

[Anita · Rating 4 out of 5]

I knew only a little about the subject, so it was a very informative book for me! I appreciated that it covers neurological and genetic viewpoints. There is one thing in the book that really made me morally conflicted, such as the idea of tracking kids that have psychopathy traits to understand them better. That is a terrifying thought in our world; information like this, if leaked out, would cost lives. It is a very complex condition that could be misdiagnosed, and it doesn't mean that kids who have the potential to develop psychopathy ever will. On the other hand, the author pictures how desperate families with kids with psychopathy traits are in search of help, which we are failing to help as we know so little about the condition.

[Sandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hard to say 'really liked' when it was more 'really appreciated ' this. I bought it to determine whether or not a character I was developing was a psychopath and very quickly learnt he was not. Continuing with the book I found some of it felt overly-repetitive but understood the necessity of clear definition.
In summing up Professor Viding made interesting points about how the legal profession should deal with psychopaths, and outlined the intentions and hopes of those researching the condition which underlined the basic difficulties they face. Ultimately an informative book for a near-ignoramus such as I.

[Jovany Agathe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hard to say 'really liked' when it was more 'really appreciated ' this. I bought it to determine whether or not a character I was developing was a psychopath and very quickly learnt he was not. Continuing with the book I found some of it felt overly-repetitive but understood the necessity of clear definition.
In summing up Professor Viding made interesting points about how the legal profession should deal with psychopaths, and outlined the intentions and hopes of those researching the condition which underlined the basic difficulties they face. Ultimately an informative book for a near-ignoramus such as I.

[Emz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading this book was interesting yet challenging at times, mostly because of the highly academic, neuropsychological vocabulary and data type that I have never encountered before. However, it provided clear insight into the behaviour of psychopaths and the reasons for their behaviour. Overall, it was a well-deserved read.

[Nadvornix · Rating 2 out of 5]

It didn't answered questions I had at the beginning. Like what are common patterns and difference between low and high intelligence psychopaths. Or what properties of psychopaths are advantageous for managers, pilots, and other high-pressure occupations.

[Hanan Ryberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mycket intressant lyssning med forskningsresultat och olika teorier. En bra början för den intresserade av psykopati

[Agustiuddin M · Rating 4 out of 5]

A nice introduction. As an educator this is a good briefing.

[Kai · Rating 5 out of 5]

Would of liked more history on the research of psychopathy but none the less an amazing and informative read.

[Josephine · Rating 3 out of 5]

good. pretty outdated.

[Helen (they or he) · Rating 4 out of 5]

I didn't realize I know so little about Psychopathy. Sure I know the difference between psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder and sociopathy but that's about it. Although this book is a bit repetitive in the middle, it's still interesting and very informative as it talks about data and research into psychopathy. I wish it had been more detailed in some parts but it's an introductory book so I really can't complain. If you're planning to just dip your toes into this field, I recommend this book. If you want more in-depth stuff, find another one.

[Ashley Olson]

Dope