The Psychopathy Checklist - A Tool For Creating Stigma

A Tool for Creating Stigma

The "Psychopath." A scary, threatening person practically out of a horror story. The people who commit all the crimes and wrongdoings in society today. The media present these individuals as such, but what if these stereotypes weren't true? What if, instead, the stereotypes wrongfully drive the polarization of individuals with proclaimed "psychopathic" characteristics?

In practice today, the most notorious test of psychopathic personality is the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL), developed by Robert Hare, and of which there are many forms. Many other tools have been created based on the PCL as extended versions of a psychopath test for various settings and uses. With scales like this that can have such real consequences, it is essential to understand how justifiable and trustworthy they are. This test may be well known, but can these identifications really be depended on?

Psychopathy Tests

There is an extensive debate in forensics, currently arguing whether psychopaths are real or made-up demons. The PCL is an assessment tool that aims to score individuals on traits that will rate them on a scale of being a psychopath. These traits include anti-social behaviours and psychopathic personality traits like callousness and lack of empathy. The more psychopathic traits you show, the higher on the scale you end up. The features are scored as 0, not present, 1, sometimes present, or 2, stable, to give a maximum score of forty. Scores above thirty are generally accepted as a true "psychopath." Another version of the PCL, the screening version (PCL:SV), has been used to extend the scale's use and allow for more versatility. The question is, do these scales even measure what they claim?

How to Identify a Psychopath

The PCL:SV was created to identify psychopaths in a broader range of environments outside of forensic and legal settings, like community environments. This scale, developed by Robert Hare, claims to be beneficial for screening employees before hiring them and identifying misbehaviours in other establishments. Hence, this test can be administered in office settings or police stations to ensure employees do not show psychopathic characteristics. The issue is that the various PCL scales may not measure all they claim to, which poses a problem for individuals diagnosed.

Both the PCL:SV and the PCL make large claims about measuring the traits that separate psychopaths from other people. The PCL claims to rate individuals on traits such as empathy, remorse, and consciousness, which they claim to be assertive of psychopathy. Even though rumours are spread throughout media and movies that psychopaths are evil and emotionless, obviously different than other people, no literature of real nature supports this with findings that we can trust.

Research suggests that these traits may not actually be illustrating psychopaths and that these "emotionless" people may not exist. Larsen and colleagues provide a summary analysis paper that identifies no supportive works for the traits exemplified in the PCL and that it claims to find. This paper finds that there is actually no research to suggest that psychopathic individuals have less remorse, empathy, or conscientiousness, or any difference at all. However, these are the traits the PCL and the PCL:SV use to separate psychopaths from ordinary functioning people. There is no empirical evidence to support the idea that psychopaths experience emotions differently than others, allowing the PCL to separate and identify them. This means that the so-called "psychopath" is actually not different in emotional capabilities from other people. In this case, why is the scale allowed to be used in such fundamental situations, such as court assessments and community settings? The scale cannot measure the differences in psychopaths if there is no difference in the first place. If these traits are not actually identifying individuals who score highly on the scale, how can the scale claim to measure them?

The research clarifies that the PCL and other related scales identify psychopaths with measures that are proven to be invalid. The scales are not trustworthy or based on supporting empirical data, and the current diagnoses from them can therefore not be trusted to be accurate. With so much merit being given to these scales to be able to identify psychopaths out of society, it is difficult to see why when the literature finds that the basis for it is incorrect.

The Mess of Misconception

As you know by now, the assessments for psychopaths are not all they seem to be, and what you envision a psychopath being is probably not correct. The point of understanding this is to see the more significant issue with these misdiagnoses, which is the resulting stigma. Researchers have discussed how the diagnostic label of a psychopath, in forensic or community settings, has drastic effects on the individual. For example, Larsen discusses how the individual's pathway through any civil or legal system automatically becomes more barricaded and difficult after a psychopath diagnosis, causing them to face more challenging times getting the treatment they need or to face fair trials. As these tests are not accurate based on the scientific standards, is this compensated stigma even reasonable or necessary?

Life-long Effects

As we can see, the limitations of the PCL are clear. Even though researchers want a tool for addressing the concept of psychopathy, without empirical data to support it, the unnecessary consequences to the individual outweigh the potential benefits to the forensic system. For a tool like this to be used, there should be certainty behind what it stands for and should not assign stereotypes that are not scientifically accurate. Although it is supportive to have diagnostic tools in forensic and community settings, it is important to understand that they are not fully reliable.

Overall, researchers and scientists should be sure to back all decisions with empirical data. A diagnosis can stick with someone for life, so if we are going to create labels, we should support them with science that we can trust. Deciding someone is a psychopath because they fit imaginary standards that don't match any data can be detrimental to their life. Would you consent to a psychopathy test with what you know now?