Reevaluating Psychopathy Assessment: Moving Beyond the 1970s Checklist

Psychopathy is often stereotyped as a profile of violent criminals, characterized by a lack of remorse and dangerous behavior, frequently portrayed in movies and media. However, experts like UC Berkeley psychologist Keanan Joyner emphasize that this image captures only the most extreme cases and does not reflect the full spectrum of psychopathic traits present in the general population.

Joyner's research highlights significant limitations in the traditional methods used to diagnose psychopathy, primarily the 20-item psychopathy checklist developed in the 1970s by Robert Hare. This checklist assesses features like superficial charm and pathological lying but is mainly used as a diagnostic side note for antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) within the DSM. Importantly, many individuals with psychopathic traits may go undetected because they do not meet all the criteria for ASPD, especially since the current diagnostic system places heavy emphasis on behaviors like conduct disorder before age 15.

To better identify and understand psychopathy, Joyner and his team propose a new approach based on the triarchic model, which emphasizes three core traits: disinhibition (impulsivity), callousness (lack of empathy), and boldness (fearlessness and social dominance). Their research introduces the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (EPA), a 178-question tool grounded in the five-factor personality model, offering a more nuanced and dimensional view of these traits.

A key innovation in this model is the recognition of boldness as a distinct dimension. While it might seem counterintuitive, boldness can be an adaptive trait associated with leadership, confidence, and resilience. In some cases, high boldness and other psychopathic traits can even be beneficial—contributing to successful careers or leadership roles—without necessarily causing harm.

Joyner explains that psychopathy is a multidimensional personality construct summarized by high levels of boldness, callousness, and disinhibition. Importantly, these traits exist on a spectrum and can be present in varying degrees. For instance, some individuals demonstrate manipulative or risky behaviors without being inherently malicious, especially if these traits serve adaptive purposes or are context-dependent.

Beyond individual assessment, Joyner emphasizes the importance of understanding environmental and societal factors in psychopathy. For example, traits like boldness may develop in response to adverse environments, such as socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods, which sometimes select for behaviors that are risky or aggressive for survival. Moreover, the current criminal justice system often disproportionately criminalizes individuals from marginalized communities based on perceived psychopathic traits, which can be influenced by systemic bias.

Joyner advocates for a shift in perspective—moving away from viewing psychopathy solely through a criminal lens—and toward recognizing the complex, multifaceted nature of these traits. He suggests that properly understanding and assessing psychopathy, including its beneficial aspects, can lead to early interventions, societal benefits, and reduced harm.

In conclusion, the traditional checklist for psychopathy, developed decades ago, is overdue for an update. Modern research points toward a more comprehensive and dimensional understanding, which could transform how we identify, interpret, and address psychopathic traits in society.

source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2025-06-psychopathic-personality-1970s-checklist-psychologist.html