Abstract
The aim of this research paper is to investigate the developmental differences between successful and violent psychopaths from a biological and environmental perspective. Psychopathy is a personality disorder identifiable by superficial charm, grandiosity, pathological lying, lack of empathy, remorse and guilt, callous unemotional traits and antisocial behaviours. Research suggests that successful psychopaths, who typically engage in covert financial crimes (e.g., fraud, embezzlement, insider trading, war) have far greater control of their impulses than violent psychopaths who are more impulsive, commit overt crimes and exhibit antisocial behaviours such as killing, torture and sadism. Not everyone with psychopathic traits follows the same developmental pathway. Findings from genetic, twin and other biological studies of both successful and violent psychopaths indicate that psychopathy has a strong genetic influence, however, genetic predisposition does not directly explain violent or non-violent outcomes. Twin studies showed that environmental experiences can play a key role in how psychopathy is expressed in childhood and adulthood. Successful psychopaths tend to display interpersonal skills, impression management and the ability to control others in socially adaptive situations. They typically come from a higher socioeconomic background with authoritarian parenting and callous unemotional psychological abuse. On the other hand, violent individuals tend to come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds with more deprivation and higher physical and emotional abuse. They display less-socially acceptable, aggressive behaviours. Empathy and family relationship building interventions early in childhood may help to curb the development of extreme psychopathic traits in adulthood, but more research is needed to build the evidence base.
Introduction
The term “psychopath”, since the early 20th century, has been portrayed and misused as a derogatory expression to describe violence and lunacy (Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011; Jones, 2017). Psychopathy is a personality disorder in which an individual lacks empathy, is controlled, cold and calculating, and shows antisocial behaviours. People with psychopathy can manipulate and lie without empathy or guilt after participating in harmful acts (DeBrito et al., 2021). Although psychopathy is commonly linked to violence and serial offending, psychopathic traits do not inherently result in violent behaviour. In reality, many individuals diagnosed with psychopathy are often non-violent and result in successful careers (DeBrito et al., 2021). The term “successful psychopaths” has emerged to describe individuals who are dynamic, charismatic and successful in engaging in less visible criminal behaviours that are non-violent in nature such as fraud, embezzlement, insider trading, war and corruption. The actions and behaviours of successful psychopaths can be destructive to far more people, as violent psychopaths typically harm one victim at a time. It is estimated that around 3-21% of the corporate world are successful psychopaths (Brooks, 2016), whereas around 1% of the population are violent psychopaths who are responsible for around 50% of serious violent crimes (Kowalski, 2026).
Psychiatric, mental health and other medical professionals often use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) (Veldmeijer et al., 2024) to diagnose psychiatric symptoms and behaviours. This manual contains 20 primary diagnostic categories, in which different identifications such as symptoms, behaviour, severity and duration, are used to evaluate individuals (Regier et al., 2013). In the DSM-5, psychopathy falls under the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. The nature of personality constructs such as psychopathy and sociopathy are much more nuanced than specified disorders listed within the DSM. The behaviours of psychopaths are less observable by others; psychopathy refers more to the internal ways of thinking and highly strategic ways these individuals present themselves to others and navigate relationships (DeAngelis, 2022). The lack of agreed upon definitions prompted Canadian psychologist Dr Robert Hare to create a checklist of characteristics that can identify a psychopath. Hare and Neumann (2006) define a psychopath as having “ a cluster of interpersonal, affective, lifestyle and antisocial traits and behaviours, including grandiosity, egocentricity, deceptiveness, shallow emotions, lack of empathy or remorse, irresponsibility, impulsivity and a tendency to violate social norms”.
Symptoms for antisocial personality disorders, which psychopathy falls under, do not begin in adulthood, but they are not formally diagnosed until after the age of 18. Childhood is considered a time when children and young people often exhibit aggressive or unruly behaviours that they may outgrow due to maturation, awareness, personal growth and development (Susa Erdogan et al., 2017). Therefore, when children exhibit antisocial behaviours before the age of eight, they are diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), a persistent pattern of angry moods, temper tantrums, active defiance towards adult rules and deliberately annoying others (Lin et al., 2019). From the age of 9-17 years of age, the diagnosis changes to Conduct Disorder (CD) and is typical of more severe behavioural issues like physical aggression toward people or animals, setting fires, deliberate destruction of property, deceitfulness and serious rule or law violations (Gao et al., 2020).
The terms “sociopath” and “psychopath” are often used interchangeably but they are different in some ways (Clark et al., 2017). Both terms fall under the antisocial personality disorder category, however, psychopaths are more genetically predisposed and display cold, controlled and calculating behaviours that lack empathy and remorse. Sociopaths, on the other hand, are capable of some empathy, however, they are shaped less by genes and more by the environment such as through childhood abuse and trauma; their behaviours, marked by reactivity and impulsivity, are more erratic, unplanned, disruptive and harmful.
Psychopathy, when paired with narcissism and machiavellianism, form a darker aspect of personality called “The Dark Triad”. Koehn, Okan and Jonason (2019) describe narcissism as a grand sense of egotism and self‐orientation. Machiavellianism is associated with manipulative behaviours, exploitation of others and a lack of morality. Together with psychopathy it can create a dangerous personality. More recently, sadism has been added to this trio that is now called “The Tetrad”. People with these traits can be ruthless, revengeful, enjoy the suffering of others and stop at nothing to achieve their goals, motivated by self-interest and using extreme antisocial behaviours (Koen, et al., 2019). These traits are defined precisely as “dark” because of their malevolent orientation and a so-called “callous” and manipulative social tendency are very often found in correlation with each other. While Dark Triad traits individually are regarded as subclinical, as they do not necessarily meet the criteria for mental disorders or personality disorders, the behaviours associated with them can still lead to very negative consequences for both the individuals themselves and those around them (Mielke et al., 2026).
Recognising and understanding the severity of these behaviours, it is important to identify early signs of psychopathy and the interventions that may positively shape behaviour to limit violent future outcomes. This literature review will aim to identify developmental similarities and differences between violent and non-violent psychopaths.
Literature Review
Early Child Development: Violent Psychopaths
BIOLOGICAL AND GENETIC INFLUENCES
Psychopathy has been historically viewed as a condition characterised by dangerousness and an inability to form meaningful emotional connections because of environmental factors that shaped an individual’s personality; however, research has increasingly shifted toward recognising biological and genetic factors in its development. Environmental factors may not independently “cause” psychopathy but can influence how psychopathic traits develop and are expressed. Early adverse experiences that occur during critical periods of brain development, such as maltreatment, chronic stress and deprivation during the first three years of life, have been associated with developmental abnormalities (Frazier et al., 2019). Pruessner et al. (2004) found that people who reported lower-quality caregiver relationships in childhood exhibited heightened dopamine and cortisol responses in stressful situations. This suggests that environmental experiences may influence neurobiological development, meaning biology and environment are not necessarily separate explanations (Frazier et al., 2019).
There are many different genetic and neurocognitive contributions to the development of psychopathy. For example, research by Frazier et al. (2019) suggests that psychopathy develops through a combination of genetic and environmental influences rather than being caused by one specific gene. One of the strongest examples is callous-enemotional (CU) traits, which include a lack of empathy, guilt and emotional responsiveness. Twin studies from the United States, Sweden and the United Kingdom have consistently found that CU traits are moderately to strongly heritable, with genetics accounting for about 40-78% of the differences in these traits between individuals (Frazier et al., 2019) and can be detected as early as seven years old. A study by Tuvblad et al. (2016) analysed the genetic and environmental etiology of the three personality dimensions (grandiose-deceitful, callous-emotional traits and impulsive need for stimulation) by evaluating five-year-old twin pairs (1261 pairs) in Sweden. The study used the Child Problematic Traits Inventory (CPTI). They found that grandiose-deceitfulness and impulsive need for stimulation had higher genetic determinants, while CU traits had a stronger interaction between genes and environmental factors.
Additional research also depicts how CU traits and antisocial behaviour can share some of the same genetic influences. In fact, antisocial behaviour that occurs alongside CU traits appears to be especially strongly influenced by genetics. Genetic factors accounted for about 80% of the variation when CU traits occurred with antisocial behaviour, compared with about 68% when CU traits occurred without high levels of antisocial behaviour (Frazier et al., 2019). This demonstrates that CU traits may play an important role in understanding why some children follow different developmental pathways toward antisocial or psychopathic behaviour. Overall, the findings indicated that genetics can increase a person’s vulnerability to developing these traits, but genes do not determine outcome on their own. Environmental experiences and neurocognitive development also play an important role in shaping how these traits are expressed.
By understanding how genetics may influence a violent psychopath, it is imperative to take a deeper look into the neurological concepts behind behaviour. Neuroscience has helped to clarify that the violent nature of psychopaths is “rooted in [the] frontal cortex”, with “reduced grey matter, fewer neurons and increased white matter in the frontal lobe” (Kiehl el al,. 2011). However, there is conflict over whether successful psychopaths have reduced or increased frontal lobe activity; this is still a contested topic. While there is a debate on the involvement of activity in the frontal lobe, Kiehl et al. (2011) explain that there is certainly decreased neural activity in the paralimbic regions of the brain and is potentially more involved in violent psychopaths than the possible prefrontal involvement in the matter. Kiehl et al. (2011) establish this by stating, “compared with non-psychopaths, psychopaths showed decreased activation in the right posterior temporal cortex and increased activation in the amygdala, two areas well known to be associated with moral reasoning” (Kiehl et al., 2011). Based on the evidence that psychopathy is mostly limbic and paralympic, it is possible to observe psychopathy early on in juveniles and apply preventive treatment to change neurological outcomes.
In addition to neuroscientific explanations of psychopathy, it is suggested by Tikkanen et al. (2010) that genetic components together with outcomes of the PCL-R psychopathy tests can identify violent psychopathy. Their study investigated monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) a genotype that provides instructions for its enzyme located on the X chromosome that breaks down key brain chemicals like serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine. It was found that violent re-offending was more frequent among MAOA-H genotyped psychopaths (14/22; 64%) than among MAOA-L psychopaths (8/21; 38%). Additionally, low serotonin with high-activity MAOA has been linked with impulsive violence. With this information in mind, the MAOA genotype can be used as an indicator of different types of psychopaths (successful versus violent) when applied with the PLC-R psychopathy checklist (Tikkanen et al., 2010).
Structural differences in psychopathic brains include volume reductions in the insula (mid-anterior) and temporal cortex (left-anterior).
Gene-environment interaction is primary to determining psychopathic traits. There are consistent interactions between childhood abuse, mistreatment and neglect and the above-mentioned genes: for example, the interaction between child abuse and the MAOA gene in women. Other genes that are associated with psychopathic behaviours include serotonin transporter gene 5HTTLPR and the dopamine receptor DRD5. While these biological points set a baseline for a portion of the behaviour violent psychopaths may exhibit, understanding the joint contribution of biological and environmental factors further increases insight into the topic.
Twin studies are incredibly useful when investigating violent psychopaths because they isolate the significance of genetics from the environmental influences. Factors such as a parent-child relationship can influence the development of psychopathic traits in children. A study by Tuvblad et al. (2013) examined 1,562 twins, comparing their personalities at ages 9-10 and 14-15 with both self and caregiver reports. The results showed that genetics and a negative parent-child relationship do play a role in the development of psychopathic traits in adolescence. The study’s findings show that parents’ behaviours influence the children, but the children also influence the parents. In younger adolescents (9-10), the parents’ negative affect resulted in the future development of psychopathic traits, and in older adolescents (14-15), children with genetically influenced psychopathic traits caused parents to act negatively (Tuvblad et al., 2013).
A twin study by Blonigen et al. (2008) examined the interpersonal-affective and antisocial traits of psychopathy in male and adolescent twins. The study aimed its research on the genetic and environmental sources of psychopathy in 626 twin pairs of 17-year-olds, which included both identical and fraternal twins. The results found that psychopathy is substantially heritable in genetics; specifically, the study found that 45% of fearless dominance and 49% of impulsive antisociality is genetic. Interestingly, the study additionally found that experiences/environments outside the home have some influence on the development of psychopathic traits as well (Blongigen et al., 2008).
ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES
Although genetic factors matter, whether a person becomes a violent psychopath is deeply shaped by their early childhood environment. Research by Wanger et al. (2015) demonstrates that lower levels of parental sensitivity at 24, 36 and 58 months predict higher levels of CU behaviours later in life. Sensitive parenting matters because warm, responsive parenting helps children learn empathy and guilt. Conversely, this study also found that harsh and intrusive parenting disrupts this mechanism, since unpredictable reactions prevent children from learning how their actions affect other people. Similarly, Kochanska and Kim (2012) concluded that easily-angered children often frustrated parents, leading to harsher discipline that made them rebel. Over time, this dynamic creates a cycle of insecure attachment, whereas secure attachment protects children from developing antisocial behaviours.
Further exploring these environmental roots, a CUNY Academy Centre study conducted by Ahmed E. Enaitalla compared psychopathic groups on internal and environmental characteristics leading to the expression of antisocial personality traits. The study used 1,138 participants from a larger longitudinal study started in 1986 that followed children who experienced childhood abuse and compared them later as adults. One striking finding was that both criminal and non-institutionalised psychopaths widely experienced childhood abuse and neglect; specifically, 78.4% of criminal psychopaths and 78.8% of non-institutionalised psychopaths experienced issues at home. This indicates that childhood trauma is extremely common among psychopaths and does not inherently differentiate between the types of psychopathy (Enaitalla, 2020).
Within these unstable environments, interactions frequently escalate into power struggles. If a child acts aggressively and the parent backs down, the aggressive behaviour is immediately reinforced, teaching the child that intimidation, coercion and hostility yield the best results when trying to get their needs met. Furthermore, children who frequently witness domestic violence experience a distorted form of social learning. They do not just see violence; they observe it being used successfully by authority figures to exert control or solve problems, thereby normalising physical aggression and teaching the child that violence is a standard, acceptable and highly effective interpersonal tool (Susa Erdogan et al., 2017).
Beyond active abuse, severe early neglect can be equally destructive in the development of psychopathic traits. When a child’s basic physiological and psychological needs for food, safety and comfort are consistently ignored during the critical first three years of life, the foundational building blocks for human connection and empathy are simply never laid down (Waller & Hyde, 2017). Because these fundamental requirements are neglected during this formative developmental window, the child fails to form the secure attachment and emotional mirroring necessary to internalise prosocial behaviour or value the emotional states of others.
Emotional deprivation, parental rejection and a lack of affection can lead to the development of a psychopathic personality. Moreover, Bowlby (1970) emphasised the influence of rejecting mothers and maternal deprivation in the development of psychopathic traits. Numerous studies have documented a pivotal association between attachment and psychopathy, with diverse potential explanations put forward. For instance, findings from studies by Frodi et al. (2001), Bailey and Shelton (2014), and Schimmenti et al. (2014) noted that delinquents diagnosed high on psychopathy report childhood separations, maltreatment or abuse, with parent-driven attachment insecurity widely assumed to be a contributing cause of their psychopathy.
Finally, recent research highlights how these adverse childhood experiences manifest across gender. In a study conducted by Pinheiro et al. (2025), researchers analysed how adverse childhood experiences contribute to psychopathy in incarcerated women. The study sample included 164 incarcerated women aged 18-81. The research was done through approved questionnaires (the Adverse Childhood Experiences scale, Social Desirability Scale-20, Benevolent Childhood Experiences scale, and Self-Report Psychopathy Scale Short Form) alongside interviews with convicts to attain contextual information. The results showed that 81% of participants experienced at least one adverse childhood experience. Some of the most frequent experiences were substance abuse (53.7%), emotional abuse (53.7%) and physical abuse (51.8%). Adverse childhood experiences prove so severe to emotional development that it has been seen that in neurodevelopmental models, extensive trauma affects brain circuits, impacting emotional regulation, empathy and social functioning, specifically within the prefrontal cortex and amygdala. One final key takeaway from this study is the reiteration of the idea that psychopathy manifests differently in females and males, affirming the requirement for gender-sensitive approaches in assessment and interpretation (Pinheiro et al., 2025).
Adult Behaviours: Violent Psychopaths
The behavioral expression of psychopathy in adulthood varies considerably between individuals. Hare and Neumann (2009) suggest that although some individuals with pronounced psychopathic traits engage in violent or criminal behaviour, others may exhibit these characteristics through manipulation, exploitation, irresponsibility and interpersonal dysfunction. Many of the key inhibitors of antisocial and violent behaviour, such as empathy, close emotional bonds, guilt and a fear of punishment, are deficient or absent in psychopathic individuals. Moreover, their egocentricity, grandiosity, impulsivity, entitlement, need for control and general lack of behavioural inhibitions explain their tendency to victimise the vulnerable, using intimidation and violence as tools to achieve power over others. While recklessness and poor behavioural controls often lead to reactive forms of aggression or violence, other features (for example, lack of empathy and shallow emotions) facilitate violence that is more predatory, premeditated, instrumental or cold-blooded in nature.
Within adult relationships, psychopathy is often expressed through superficial charm, manipulative behaviour, pathological lying, sudden impulsivity, shallow emotions, devaluation and blame shifting (Mehta, 2022). Psychopaths frequently document a history of short-lived, unstable relationships, characterised by a pattern of tumultuous connections marked by intense but fleeting “love-bombing”. At the start of a relationship, a psychopathic partner may overwhelm their target with excessive affection, flattery and gifts. This is carefully designed to secure their partner’s trust and affection. Once this bond is established, they often transition to a form of psychological manipulation, such as gaslighting which causes the partner to doubt their perception, memory and even question their own sanity. Furthermore, to exert power and control they deliberately isolate their partner from friends and family, leaving them increasingly dependent on the relationship for validation and emotional support (Nguyen & Hallet, 2023).
Beyond interpersonal relationships, psychopathic traits can also shape parenting behaviours and the nature of parent-child interactions. Parents with pronounced psychopathic traits tend to demonstrate cold, callous and unemotional behaviour towards their children, often lacking guilt or remorse when causing harm. Hence, they are frequently unable to provide genuine comfort to a distressed child and may regularly criticise or mock the child’s vulnerability, pain or emotional needs, sometimes picking a specific child to scapegoat. Many such parents are socially astute and can present as normal or successful to outsiders; behind closed doors, however, they utilise deceit, triangulation and intimidation to maintain absolute control over their household (Oliver et al., 2014).
These parenting behaviours severely affect children’s psychological and emotional well-being, potentially contributing to emotional distress, behavioural problems, neurological impairments and long-term developmental and interpersonal difficulties. Children raised in these environments adapt to these dysfunctional environments in various ways. Some develop deep-seated resentment toward the abusive parent, while others develop complicated psychological attachments or dependence as a result of the complex dynamics associated with prolonged abuse. In some cases, children may internalise and reproduce the behavioural patterns they observe, potentially adopting manipulative, aggressive or emotionally detached behaviours themselves. Through processes such as observational learning and socialisation, exposure to these dynamics can foster similar traits later in life (Waller et al., 2014), particularly when combined with underlying genetic, environmental and developmental risk factors. Consequently, dysfunctional parenting can perpetuate an intergenerational pattern in which abuse and maladaptive behaviours are repeatedly reproduced across generations (Kahn et al., 2016), though this exposure does not mean that children of psychopaths will inevitably develop psychopathy themselves (Mastromatteo et al., 2025).
While psychopathy manifests along a spectrum varying from overt physical impulsivity to covert interpersonal manipulation, it is critical to examine how these parental traits differentially influence child development. Specifically, analysing parental manipulative behaviours provides insight into divergent developmental pathways to successful and unsuccessful psychopathy, while highlighting the broader psychosocial mediators that modulate overall psychopathy risk.
Due to variations in individual parenting traits, it is crucial to establish a clear understanding of the associations between parental psychopathy, parenting practices and the development of adolescent callous-unemotional traits. Within Robert Hare’s PCL-R, the manifestations of psychopathy in parenting can be divided into two distinctive categories: Factor 1 and Factor 2. Factor 1 parents frequently exhibit emotional detachment and manipulative behaviour, whereas Factor 2 parents display more apparent acts of physical spontaneity (specifically chronic impulsivity) wherein an individual consistently acts without prompting. Upon deeper analysis, these two factors further diverge into four minor facets: Factor 1 separates into an Arrogant and Deceitful Interpersonal Style alongside Deficient Affective Experience, while Factor 2 encompasses an Impulsive and Irresponsible Behavioral Style. Child psychopathy, across both successful and violent trajectories, is best understood through the presence of callous-unemotional traits, characterised by low empathy and insensitivity towards others. Genetically informed research demonstrates how these subcategories of Factors 1 and 2 produce distinct parenting styles that differentially shape adolescent CU traits and aggression. Specifically, harsher parenting, characterised by frequent parental anger and hostility, serves as a primary risk factor for combined aggression and CU traits in children, whereas low parental warmth and a lack of emotional closeness or support elevate the risk of CU alone.
In a landmark investigation, Dotterer et al. (2021) examined the association between parental psychopathic traits and the development of callous-unemotional traits in offspring. Utilising a sample of 550 adolescent twin pairs and their parents, the researchers conducted multi-informant assessments to disentangle environmental influences from genetic baseline factors. The findings revealed that higher levels of parental psychopathic traits, combined with harsh discipline styles, significantly predicted greater unemotional and psychopathic traits in adolescents. By comparing differential parenting experiences within twin pairs (a twin-difference design), the study established that the twin who experienced higher levels of negative and harsh parenting exhibited elevated callous-unemotional traits relative to their co-twin. As a result, Dotterer et al. (2021) concluded that while genetic vulnerabilities account for baseline risk, environmental nurture plays a direct, casual role: specifically, low parental warmth and harsh parenting styles act as crucial environmental mechanisms that exacerbate adolescent psychopathic traits (Dotterer et al., 2021).
Early Child Development: Successful Psychopaths
BIOLOGICAL AND GENETIC INFLUENCES
In the study by Gao et al. (2010), a theoretical neurobiological model on different etiologies and manifestations of successful and violent psychopathy was proposed and outlined, defining successful psychopaths as individuals who have not been convicted for a crime. The model suggested that, although both successful and violent psychopaths share core psychopathic traits, differences in neurobiological functioning may contribute to divergent outcomes. It has been postulated that enhanced neurobiological processes, including better executive functioning, increased autonomic reactivity, normative volumes of the prefrontal grey matter and amygdala, and normal frontal functioning, may serve as protective factors that prevent successful psychopaths from conviction and allow them to attain their life goals through more covert and non-violent approaches. In contrast, structural and functional brain deficits, alongside reduced autonomic reactivity, impaired executive functioning and risky decision-making, may predispose violent psychopaths to more extreme forms of antisocial behaviour, utilising more overt and aggressive methods of manipulation (Gao et al., 2010).
Currently, there is less research on the heritability of psychopathy; although environmental influences are often given greater consideration, both nature and nurture are important factors to consider regarding the development and success of psychopathy. This field has primarily been researched from a neurophysiological perspective, but it also presents interesting findings from perspectives such as that of Tanksley et al. (2016), who state that “CU traits have been shown to be heritable” (Tanksley et al., 2016). It has also been documented that hyperactive symptoms, conduct problems, antisocial behaviour, impulsivity and the interpersonal style of psychopaths has also been found to have a genetic basis (Tanksley et al., 2016). Furthermore, it was found that “antisocial behaviour showed significant heritability (.81) when in the presence of CU traits” (Tanksley et al., 2016). Tanksley et al.’s report on the hereditary component concludes that “genetic influences may be responsible for the development of maladaptive behaviour and adaptive prosocial behaviour” (Tanksley et al., 2016).
A twin study done by Caspi et al. (2004) determined whether the amount of maternal expressed emotion dictated antisocial behaviors after genetic influences are taken into account. Participants of this study were 565 mothers of five-year-old monozygotic twins born between 1994-1995. Through qualitative interviews, this study determined and established which twin experienced positive maternal emotional expression and which experienced negative maternal emotional expressions. The study found that children who experience positive maternal expression experience less antisocial behavioural problems compared to children who experienced more negative maternal expression. Therefore, it can be determined that a psychopathic twin who experiences more warmth from their parents is more likely to develop successful traits, and genetic factors do not fully determine successful psychopathy.
Another study done by Taylor et al. (2003) determined the variance of which antisocial behaviours and callousness are associated with genetic and both shared and non-shared environmental factors. Participants of this study included 142 monozygotic and 70 dizygotic twin pairs aged 16-18 in one sample, while the other included 128 monozygotic and 58 dizygotic twin pairs. In both samples, all twin pairs were male and aged 16-18. This study used the Minnesota Temperament Inventory (MTI) in order to measure these variables on subscales. Results showed that both variables were associated with genetic factors and unassociated with shared environmental factors. As such, we can conclude that genetics is also a factor in successful psychopathy.
ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES
Environmental factors can impact the severity of psychopathic traits and whether or not they will be successful or violent. A study by Goa et al. (2011) measured whether successful psychopaths differ in their early childhood experiences vs violent psychopaths. The study’s participants were 121 adult men, all of whom had different levels of psychopathy; therefore, they were split into three groups for the experiment: successful psychopaths, violent psychopaths and those who have low psychopathy as a control variable. The study used the PCL-R test to measure the psychopathy levels. In addition, they measured the environmental background of the participants with the Conflict Tactile Scale (CTS). The overall results of the experiment were that violent psychopaths were reported to have more childhood physical maltreatment in their childhood than the control group; however, between the successful and violent psychopaths, the difference was not statistically significant. Therefore, child abuse may be related to violent psychopathy; however, the study could not prove that the volume of early child abuse separates successful from violent psychopaths (Gao et al., 2011).
Researchers recently looked into the environmental effects on high psychopathic traits, comparing those who initiate criminal behaviour with those who do not (violent vs successful psychopaths). The study investigated early childhood issues such as parental absence, parental monitoring, quality of parent-child relationship, adverse childhood experiences and socio-economic status. The study selected 1,200 participants who fit the relevant aim from the Transitions in Amsterdam study. The study was longitudinal, and the data was initially collected from 2010-2014; however, additional data was collected in 2017 to see if there was any criminal activity after the initial assessments earlier in the decade. Results were measured from the Levenson Self Report Psychopathy scale (LSRP) as a questionnaire, and then additional data was collected from the participants’ criminal behaviour. The results found that the more psychopathic traits one has, the more likely they are to engage in criminal behaviour. Though a significant environmental result was found where individuals with psychopathic traits and a high socio-economic background were less likely to initiate criminal behaviour and were more likely to become successful psychopaths. Therefore, a high socio-economic background can be a protective factor. In terms of the other environmental factors measured, there were less consistent results; however, the study recognised that those aspects of early environment may impact the ways psychopathic traits are expressed later in life (Veltman et al., 2025).
Another study found that chronic exposure to severe socio-economic deprivation subjects developing children to toxic stress, triggering prolonged dysregulation of the stress response system and impairing structural maturation within the prefrontal cortex (Blair & Raver 2016; Kim et al., 2013). This structural neuroimaging demonstrates that violent psychopaths exhibit significant grey matter reductions in the orbitofrontal cortex compared to successful counterparts (Yang et al., 2010). The neural degradation compromises vital top-down executive control, impulse control and long-term assessment; early socio-economic hardships functionally degrade the necessary neural apparatus to inhibit antisocial impulses. Consequently, individuals with underlying neurobiological markers of psychopathy who suffer early environmental deprivation lose neuro-cognitive capacity for strategic self-regulation, shifting aggression from calculated exploitation to reactive violence (Gao & Raine, 2010).
With this information, we can conclude that the type of background and environment someone is exposed to is a contributing factor in determining how psychopathic traits develop and whether a psychopath is successful or not.
Adult Behaviours: Successful Psychopaths
Some individuals with psychopathic traits can function in workplaces without completely showing the violent or criminal behaviours they have. A case study by Babiak (1995) showed that a successful industrial psychopath could appear charming and confident, especially when making first impressions. Psychopathic traits such as manipulation, lack of empathy and dishonesty may still be present but they can appear differently in a workplace than in criminal settings. The individual in the case study tended to form relationships with people who were useful to him and was able to influence how coworkers or managers viewed him. The individual, referred to as “Dave” in the case study, copied some material from another source and presented it as his own in a work report and later used company time and resources to establish his own business. When his manager, “Frank”, collected evidence and attempted to take disciplinary action, Dave manipulated senior managers by portraying Frank negatively and presenting himself as the victim. Even though some colleagues considered Dave dishonest and disruptive, the senior executives viewed him as a talented employee with strong potential. Following a company reorganisation, Frank was transferred to another role while Dave was promoted. This shows that impression management and manipulation can help hide problematic behaviour. In workplaces that are changing quickly or are less organised, manipulative behaviour may be harder to notice, which can sometimes also help a person advance in their career. This case suggests that adult psychopathic behaviour does not always develop into physical violence. Some individuals may instead express psychopathic traits through workplace manipulation and interpersonal behaviour while remaining relatively successful in society. As this research was based on a single case study, its findings cannot be generalised to all successful psychopaths; however, it suggests that interpersonal skills, impression management and the ability to control how psychopathic traits are expressed may help distinguish successful psychopaths from violent or criminal psychopaths (Babiak, 1995).
According to Medevdovic (2019), harsh environments may influence how psychopathic traits are expressed and how they relate to a person’s behaviour later in life. The study found that psychopathic traits were associated with greater interest in finding new partners, shorter relationships and lower investment in parenting. These patterns were especially noticeable for some individuals who had gone through a harder childhood with difficulties such as family dysfunction or poverty. In particular, the trait of meanness, which includes low empathy and lack of emotional attachment, was more strongly related to certain behaviours under harsh environmental conditions. This suggests that psychopathic traits may be expressed in different ways with people from different environments. Overall, environmental conditions may influence how these traits appear and whether certain behaviours become more useful or adaptive in particular situations. Therefore, the study shows that understanding psychopathy may require looking not only at personality traits but also at the environment in which these traits develop and are expressed. These findings support the idea that psychopathic traits alone do not determine a person’s developmental outcome. Instead, harsh childhood conditions may strengthen the effects of traits such as meanness and influence how they are expressed in adult relationships and parenting. This helps explain why individuals with similar psychopathic traits may develop different behavioural outcomes depending on their environment (Mededovic, 2019).
Due to the fact that “impulsive behaviour is more prevalent in violent psychopathic individuals, owing (in large part) to their impaired executive function and self-regulatory control”, the conscientiousness of adult psychopaths’ impulse control is key in determining if they are successful in their psychopathy (Lasko et al., 2021). It is further explained by Lasko et al. (2021) that in addition to conscientiousness, a key difference in success versus violent psychopaths “is the unique combination of heightened antagonism (e.g., grandiosity, manipulativeness) with either lower or higher impulse control that characterises the successful versus violent psychopathy phenotypes” (Lasko et al., 2021). The key takeaway is that conscientious impulse control is the determinant of adult behaviour and their degree of success in managing their psychopathy. Lasko et al. (2021) also suggest that it is crucial to consider “essential steps toward these goals (of successful psychopathy), which have implications for the development of more effective prevention and early intervention strategies. Studying and cultivating the strengths, not just the weaknesses, of psychopathic individuals is likely to be a productive path forward” (Lasko et al., 2021). Altogether, it can be seen that conscientious impulse control, as well as clear and productive goals, are the most important factors to determine whether an adult psychopath is successful.
Traits of successful psychopathy can also be seen in the psychopaths’ relationships. Du et al. (2022) explains that in relationships, romantic or otherwise, psychopaths often use manipulative strategies in addition to displaying easy jealousy and a need for power/control over the relationship. The researchers also suggested that successful psychopaths act with boldness, meanness and disinhibition in order to achieve job satisfaction, life satisfaction, and both positive and negative affect, with the results of the study suggesting that “meanness and disinhibition reduce subjective well-being, while boldness has the opposite effect of increasing it. Boldness emerged as a protective factor demonstrating its role in successful psychopathy. Individuals with high levels of both meanness and boldness experience better subjective well-being than those who are mean but not bold” (Du et al., 2022).
Interventions
Psychopathic traits and antisocial behaviour typically emerge during childhood or adolescence, increasing risk of persistence or violent behaviour later in life. Therefore, early intervention aims to address individual, family and social risk factors before harmful behavioural patterns become more established. The following approaches consider how family support, structured treatment and interventions tailored to specific psychopathic traits may improve outcomes for young people.
In terms of reducing psychopathic traits and antisocial behaviour among young offenders, Ribeiro da Silva (2023) challenges the longstanding belief that these traits are untreatable. The chapter reviews four treatment studies involving young offenders including two studies of multisystemic therapy (MST), one study of omega-3 supplementation and one study of the PSYCHOPATHY.COMP programme. MST is an intensive multimodal family- and community-based intervention. In a study of 108 families, Butler et al. (2011) found that MST was more effective than usual youth offending services (YOT) in reducing parent-rated psychopathic traits after treatment. Both interventions also reduced offending, but MST reduced the likelihood of non-violent offending significantly more than YOT services during the 18-month follow-up period. However, the study included young people with relatively low initial levels of psychopathic traits, and these traits were not measured during follow up.
A second study involving 256 families produced less conclusive results. Manders et al. (2013) found no overall difference between MST and treatment as usual in reducing psychopathic traits, although MST was more effective than TAU in reducing externalising problems among young people with low callous-unemotional and low grandiose-manipulative (GM) traits but not among those with high levels of these traits. Importantly, MST was not specifically designed to target psychopathy which may help explain the mixed findings. Another study tested omega-3 supplementation in 145 male young offenders but found that it did not reduce psychopathic traits (Raine et al., 2020). In contrast, the most promising intervention reviewed was PSYCHOPATHY.COMP, a 20-session individual programme based on compassion-focused therapy and specifically designed for young offenders with psychopathic traits. The programme aims to develop compassionate motivation and help young people become more able to recognise and respond to their own and other people’s suffering.
Ribeiro da Silva et al. (2021) compared 58 young offenders who received PSYCHOPATHY.COMP alongside treatment as usual with 61 who received treatment as usual alone. The programme was generally more effective in reducing psychopathic traits, disruptive behaviour, shame and fears of receiving compassion, while also increasing compassionate motivation. Further analysis suggested that increases in self-compassion and decreases in fears of receiving compassion from others were important mechanisms through which psychopathic traits changed. Nevertheless, the participants were not randomly assigned to the groups, so the findings cannot yet be considered conclusive. Overall, the evidence remains limited because only a small number of rigorous studies have been conducted. However, the findings suggest that psychopathic traits in young offenders are not necessarily fixed and that interventions specifically designed around their emotional and psychological needs may help reduce the risk of persistent antisocial or violent behaviour (Ribeiro da Silva, 2023).
Beyond examining the overall effectiveness of interventions, it is also important to consider whether treatment should be adapted to the specific psychopathic traits shown by each young person. Salekin et al. (2025) propose that the best approach to treating conduct disorder and children with psychopathic traits is to tailor treatment plans to an individual’s specific personality traits. For children with greater grandiose-manipulative traits, interventions should target behaviours such as manipulation and lying. For children with callous-unemotional traits, treatment should focus on improving emotional recognition and empathy. Finally, for children with daring-impulsive traits, interventions should focus on developing risk identification and threat appraisal skills. It is important to note that Salekin et al. (2025) propose these as potential future treatment approaches, rather than presenting them as therapies that are currently established as successful treatments.
Bjørnebekk (2022) highlights the benefits of interventions in both early childhood and adolescent years when youth express CU traits or conduct disorder. Bjørnebekk suggests the use of “teaching the parents new parenting strategies such as positive involvement, praise and encouragement, as well as effective and non-conflictual setting of boundaries”, amongst younger children (Bjørnebekk et al., 2022). For older children and/or adolescents, researchers suggest a more intensive approach: “in the treatment of adolescents, weight is still given to improving parenting practices, but the involvement of the young person in the treatment process is emphasised, and additional focus is put on important areas outside the family, such as relations with friends, school and leisure activities” (Bjørnebekk et al., 2022). Furthermore, Bjørnebekk recommends a combination of: functional family therapy, where the “therapist actively reaches out to get everyone to attend sessions, and meets the family with a respectful, non-judgemental and strength-based, family-focused attitude and behaviour, so as to reduce guilt and blame within the family and increase their sense of hope”; MST, involving “active and intense work on forming a good cooperative alliance with the parents and adolescent, as well as a detailed multi-informant assessment of current risk and protective factors”; and family check-ups. Overall, these “programmes are aimed at improving the child’s context as a developmentally supportive environment” in order to work effectively (Bjørnebekk et al., 2022). While Bjørnebekk emphasises early family and community-based support, treatment outcome studies are needed to determine whether such interventions can directly reduce psychopathic traits and antisocial behaviour.
Taken together, the studies suggest that early interventions involving the young person’s wider environment and tailored to their specific traits may be most effective. However, evidence remains limited, and further randomised, long term research is needed to determine whether these approaches can reliably reduce persistent anti-social and violent behaviour.
Discussion
The aim of this research was to understand why individuals with psychopathic traits may become violent offenders or successful psychopaths who may engage in non-violent criminal behaviours. We explored both biological and environmental factors of the violent and successful psychopaths.
In terms of the biological lens of violent psychopaths, it can create certain neuro-cognitive vulnerabilities that make someone more likely to develop psychopathic traits, particularly if they have experienced abusive, traumatic, negligent or authoritarian parenting. People who reported lower-quality caregiver relationships in childhood exhibited heightened dopamine and cortisol responses in stressful situations. Twin studies provided further insight that a higher amount of parental psychopathy is linked to a greater amount of callous-unemotional traits within their children (Dolan, 2022). This is further confirmed by twin studies, internationally, that found that CU traits are moderately to strongly heritable, with genetics accounting for about 40-78% of the differences in these traits between individuals (Frazier et al., 2019; Tuvblad et al., 2014). Caspi et al. (2004) determined whether the amount of maternal expressed emotion dictated anti-social behaviours after genetic influences are taken into account. It can be determined through this study that a psychopathic twin who experiences more warmth from their parents is more likely to develop successful traits, and genetic factors do not fully determine successful psychopathy. Similarly, Taylor et al. (2003) determined the variance of which anti-social behaviours and callousness are associated with genetic and both shared and non-shared environmental factors. Results from this showed that both variables were associated with genetic factors and unassociated with shared environmental factors. As such, we can conclude that genetics still is a factor in successful psychopathy. Combined, there is conflict on the significance of genetic factors on successful psychopathy; however, it can still be considered a factor at play in the success of psychopaths.
However, these findings cannot directly establish that psychopathic traits lead to violent behaviour. This is relevant when comparing successful and violent psychopaths, as both types may possess a genetic susceptibility towards psychopathic traits, while a difference in developmental pathways may determine whether these traits are expressed through violent or non-violent behaviour, which means that environmental factors also must be considered.
Regarding the environmental perspective, how parents nurture their children is directly linked to psychopathic trait development as a learnt behaviour and parents with harsher, less warm parenting contributing to more unemotional children with higher amounts of psychopathic traits (Dotterer et al., 2021). Furthermore, lower levels of parental sensitivity at 24, 36 and 58 months predict higher levels of CU behaviours later in life. Sensitive parenting matters because warm, responsive parenting helps children learn empathy and guilt. Conversely, it was also found that harsh and intrusive parenting disrupts this mechanism, since unpredictable reactions prevent children from learning how their actions affect other people (Wanger et al., 2015). Within this, it was found that there are two main factors for associations between parental psychopathic traits and the potential development of CU traits in adolescents: Factor 1 being higher mental manipulation and emotional disconnect influencing children’s risk of developing CU; Factor 2 being higher amounts of chronic impulsivity in parents creating higher risk of both CU and aggressive traits in adolescence. If a child acts aggressively and the parent backs down, the aggressive behaviours are immediately reinforced. The child quickly learns that intimidation, coercion and hostility show the best results when trying to get their needs met (Frick & Viding, 2009). Furthermore, children who frequently observe violence seem to learn that it is a way to exert control or solve problems, which normalises physical aggression and teaches the child that violence is a highly effective interpersonal tool (Frick & Viding, 2009). Combined, this means that the parenting styles play a significant role in whether or not psychopathic traits show in youth and can, to an extent, determine the degree of future psychopathic success.
Other environmental factors suggest that successful psychopaths are reported to have experienced less childhood physical maltreatment. While this is important, it is crucial to acknowledge that the difference was not statistically significant in the study by Goa et al. (2011). Child abuse may be related to violent psychopathy; however, studies could not prove that the volume of early child abuse separates successful and unsuccessful psychopaths (Goa et al., 2011). With this in mind, it can be concluded, to a degree of low significance and reliability, that a more positive childhood and implementation of non-violent parental strategies are likely to increase the odds of a successful psychopath. Other results found that the more psychopathic traits one has, the more likely they are to engage in criminal behaviour, therefore successful psychopaths were seen to have less violent psychopathic traits (Veltman et al., 2025). This is important to consider when attempting to predict the degree of success someone with at least some psychopathic traits will experience.
From another perspective, socio-economic factors can act as either a catalyst that accelerates violent behaviour or a buffer that prevents violence in individuals with underlying psychopathy. Individuals with psychopathic traits and a high socio-economic background were less likely to initiate violent criminal behaviours and were more likely to become successful psychopaths (Veltman et al., 2025). Furthermore, a high socio-economic background can be a protective factor, therefore something which decreases the chance of becoming a violent psychopath (Veltman et al., 2025). Moreover, because the prefrontal cortex is responsible for impulse control, moral reasoning and risk assessment, socioeconomic hardship further compromises the exact neural systems needed to regulate psychopathic urges.
All of the environmental considerations combined, various studies have recognised that aspects of early environment may impact the ways psychopathic traits are expressed later in life (Veltman et al., 2025).
There are four promising early interventions used to reduce successful/violent psychopathy: multisystematic therapy, functional family therapy, PSYCHOPATHY.COMP and solutions targeted towards specific expressed traits of psychopathy in youth. The ideal interventions researchers suggest are those that target each unique psychopathic personality trait, choosing specific therapies according to behaviours found in oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder (Salekin et al., 2025). Perhaps then, adult behaviours can decrease, although more evidence-based research is needed to confirm their effectiveness.
Altogether, this paper effectively establishes that genetic and environmental factors play a significant role in the creation of both violent and successful psychopaths. It is established that both typologies have an inherited genetic component, but it appears that children and adolescents are likely to express the abusive behaviours that they experience from their parental and greater environment, which might differentiate whether one becomes a violent or successful psychopath or none of these.
Conclusion
The divergence between successful and violent psychopaths stems from the complex interaction among genetic, neurobiological and early childhood environments. Both paths have a shared genetic foundation.
The main difference between successful and violent psychopaths is based on an individual’s brain health and ability to self-regulate, given both low and high stress situations. Successful psychopaths have complete brain structures and strong executive function, which allows them to control their own impulse, plan ahead and engage in calculated manipulation. On the other hand, violent psychopaths suffer from deficits in brain areas (i.e., the right posterior temporal cortex and the amygdala) responsible for moral reasoning and emotional control, leading to sudden, uncontrolled aggression. Severe hardships in childhood, such as long-term poverty and extreme stress, damage these crucial brain areas early on in life, and eventually shift an individual’s behaviour towards the violent path.
Environmental factors further reinforce these developmental differences. Harsh or inconsistent parenting, childhood abusive, maternal separation and early neglect disrupts healthy attachment, preventing children from developing empathy and guilt, which further drives them toward the violent pathway. Conversely, protective factors like parental warmth, positive maternal emotional expression and higher socio-economic status can buffer hidden genetic risks, allowing individuals with psychopathic traits to navigate to successful psychopaths.
The outward behaviour which parents express to their child is also an important factor in determining the subsequent development of successful and violent psychopathy. Through the exhibition of lower emotional connection and provisions for a child, parents risk their child developing behaviours that reflect those given to them: shallow emotional expressions, an absence of guilt and a lack of remorse. Although it is understood that both successful and unsuccessful psychopaths exhibit these traits, the one differentiating factor would be the severity of the chaotic nature of the environment and actions the parent provides for the child. Though this might not be the overarching case that develops each individual’s psychopathy, violent psychopaths have a higher tendency of having experienced physical abuse and erratic behaviour on a consistent basis, whilst successful psychopaths experience mental and emotional rejection but have a rather stable home environment. This suggests that more support and education for parents as soon as a child is conceived may be a way to address the effects of psychopathy; building trust in love and nurture is the path forward to building happy children and parents.
Bibliography
Babiak, P. (1995). When Psychopaths go to work: A case study of an industrial psychopath. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 44(2), 171-188.
Blonigen, D.M., Hicks, B.M., Krueger, R.F., Patrick, C.J., & Iacono, W. G. (2005). Psychopathic personality traits: Heritability and genetic overlap with internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Psychological Medicine, 35(5), 637-648.
Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Morgan, J., Rutter, M., Taylor, A., Arseneault, L., Tully, L., Jacobs, C., Kim-Cohen, J., & Polo-Tomas, M. (2004). Maternal expressed emotion predicts children’s antisocial behavior problems: using monozygotic-twin differences to identify environmental effects on behavioral development. Developmental psychology, 40(2), 149-161.
Clark, L.A., Cuthbert, B., Lewis-Fernández, R., Narrow, W.E., & Reed, G.M. (2017). Three approaches to understanding and classifying mental disorder: ICD-11, DSM-5, and the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 18(2), 72-145.
DeAngelis, T. (2022). A broader view of psychopathy [A broader view of psychopathy]. American Psychological Association [online]. <https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/03/ce-corner-psychopathy>
Dolan E.W. (2022). Nature or nurture? Twin study sheds light on the development of callous-unemotional traits in adolescents. PsyPost – Psychology News [online]. <https://www.psypost.org/nature-or-nurture-twin-study-sheds-light-on-the-development-of-callous-unemotional-traits-in-adolescents/>
Dotterer, H.L., Burt, S.A, Klump, K.L. & Hyde, L.W. (2021). Associations Between Parental Psychopathic Traits, Parenting, and Adolescent Callous-Unemotional Traits. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 49(11), 1431-1445.
Du, Y.Y. & Templer, K.J. (2022). The Happy Subclinical Psychopath: The Protective Role of Boldness in Successful Psychopathy. J Happiness Stud, 23, 1143–1168.
Duradoni, M., Gursesli, M. C., Fiorenza, M., Donati, A., & Guazzini, A. (2023). Cognitive empathy and the Dark Triad: A literature review. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(11), 2642–2680.
Enaitalla, A.E. (2020). Do criminal and successful (non-institutionalized) psychopaths differ on internal, environmental, and contextual characteristics? [Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York]. CUNY Academic Works.
Forsman, M., Lichtenstein, P., Andershed, H., & Larsson, H. (2009). A longitudinal twin study of the direction of effects between psychopathic personality and antisocial behaviour. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(1), 39–47.
Frazier, A., Ferreira, P.A., & Gonzales, J.E. (2019). Born this way? A review of neurobiological and environmental evidence for the etiology of psychopathy. Personality Neuroscience, 2, e8.
Gao, Y., & Raine, A. (2010). Successful and unsuccessful psychopaths: A neurobiological model. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(2), 194–210.
Gao, Y., Schug, R.A., Huang, Y. and Raine, A. (2020). Successful and Unsuccessful Psychopathy. In The Wiley International Handbook on Psychopathic Disorders and the Law (eds A.R. Felthous and H. Saß).
Kiehl, K.A., & Hoffman, M.B. (2011). The Criminal Psychopath: History, Neuroscience, Treatment, And Economics. Jurimetrics, 51(4), 355–397.
Kochanska, G,, & Kim, S. (2012). Toward a new understanding of legacy of early attachments for future antisocial trajectories: Evidence from two longitudinal studies. Development and Psychopathology, 24(3), 783-806.
Koehn, M.A., Okan, C., & Jonason, P.K. (2019). A primer on the Dark Triad traits. Australian Journal of Psychology, 71(2), 96–105.
Kowalski, D. (2026). Psychopath Statistics. Gitnux [online]. <https://gitnux.org/psychopath-statistics>
Lasko, E.N., & Chester, D.S. (2021). What makes a “successful” psychopath? Longitudinal trajectories of offenders’ antisocial behavior and impulse control as a function of psychopathy. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 12(3), 207–215.
Lemos, M., & Queirós, T. (2021). What lies underneath: The genetics and neurobiology of psychopathy. European Psychiatry, 64(Suppl 1), S442.
Lin, L., Wang, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Family risk factors associated with Oppositional Defiant Disorder: The role of parental emotion dysregulation and harsh parenting practices. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2062.
Mariz, C., Cruz, O.S., & Moreira, D. (2022). The influence of environmental and genetic factors on the development of psychopathy: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 62, 1–17.
Mededovic, J. (2019). Harsh environment facilitates psychopathy’s involvement in mating parenting trade off. Personality and Individual Differences,139, 235-240.
Mielke, E. L., Neukel, C., Roth, C., Bertsch, K., Nüssel, F., & Herpertz, S. C. (2026). Common and distinct morphometric correlates of the Dark Triad traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy in a healthy male sample. Journal of Neural Transmission, 133, 1713-1722.
Pemment, J. (2013). Psychopathy versus sociopathy: Why the distinction has become crucial. Elsevier.
Pinheiro, M., Machado, A.B., Gonçalves, R.A., & Cunha, O. (2025). The moderating role of positive childhood experiences in the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and psychopathic traits in incarcerated women. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 34(10), 1467–1487.
Ribeiro da Silva, D. (2023). Treatment of psychopathic traits in young offenders. In C.R. Martin, V.R. Preedy, & V.B. Patel (eds.), Handbook of anger, aggression and violence (Springer), 2197-2211.
Regier, D.A., Kuhl, E.A., & Kupfer, D.J. (2013). The DSM-5: Classification and criteria changes. World psychiatry: official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 12(2), 92–98.
Salekin, R.T., Bellamy, N.A., DeGroot, H.R., Avellan, J.J., Butler, I.G., & Grant, J.C. (2025). Future Directions for Conduct Disorder and Psychopathic Trait Specifiers. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 54(1), 163–179.
Susa Erdogan, G., Benga, O., & Marină, C. (2017). Attentional Orientation Patterns toward Emotional Faces and Temperamental Correlates of Preschool Oppositional Defiant Problems: The Moderating Role of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Anxiety Symptoms. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.
Tanksley, P.T. (2016). Differential Susceptibility in Successful Psychopathy: A Genetic Plasticity Explanation of Heterogeneity among Psychopathic Individuals. [online]. <https://rrpress.utsa.edu/items/f30d29b1-5d08-4052-86d5-e311aa424564>
Taylor, J., Loney, B.R., Bobadilla, L., Iacono, W.G., & McGue, M. (2003). Genetic and environmental influences on psychopathy trait dimensions in a community sample of male twins. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 31(6), 633–645.
Tikkanen, R., Auvinen-Lintunen, L., Ducci, F., Sjöberg, R.L., Goldman, D., Tiihonen, J., Ojansuu, I., & Virkkunen, M. (2011). Psychopathy, PCL-R, and MAOA genotype as predictors of violent reconvictions. Psychiatry research, 185(3), 382–386.
Tuvblad, C., Bezdjian, S., Raine, A., & Baker, L.A. (2013). Psychopathic Personality and Negative Parent-to-Child Affect: A Longitudinal Cross-lag Twin Study. Journal of Criminal Justice. 41(5).
Tuvblad, C., Bezdjian, S., Raine, A., & Baker, L. A. (2014). The heritability of psychopathic personality in 14- to 15-year-old twins: A multirater, multimeasure approach. Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 704–716.
Tuvblad, C., Fanti, K.A., Andershed, H., Colins, O.F., & Larsson, H. (2016). Psychopathic personality traits in 5 year old twins: The importance of genetic and shared environmental influences. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 26(4), 469–479.
Van Goozen, S.H.M., Langley, K., & Hobson, C.W. (2022). Childhood Antisocial Behavior: A Neurodevelopmental Problem. Annual Review of Psychology, 73(1), 353–377.
Veltman, E., Garofalo, C., Hill, J.M., Blokland, A., & Sellbom, M. (2025). Do early environmental factors influence the relationship between psychopathy and crime: Longitudinal findings from the transitions in Amsterdam study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 98, 102399.
Veldmeijer, L., Terlouw, G., van Os, J., Te Meerman, S., van Veer, J., & Boonstra, N. (2024). From diagnosis to dialogue – reconsidering the DSM as a conversation piece in mental health care: a hypothesis and theory. Frontiers in psychiatry, 15, 1426475.
Viding, E., & McCrory, E. J. (2012). Genetic and neurocognitive contributions to the development of psychopathy. Development and Psychopathology, 24(3), 969–983.
Wagner, N.J., Mills-Koonce, W.R., Willoughby, M.T., Zvara, B., Cox, M.J. (2015). Parenting and children’s representations of family predict disruptive and callous-unemotional behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 51(7):935-948.
Waller, R., & Hyde, L.W. (2017). Callous–unemotional behaviors in early childhood: Measurement, meaning, and the influence of parenting. Child Development Perspectives, 11(2), 120–126.
