Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-020-09834-3 The Role of Exposure to Violence and Psychopathy on Violent Crime Perpetration Suzanne Estrada1 & Michelle Cinguina2 & Arielle Baskin-Sommers1 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020 Abstract Exposure to violence strongly predicts violent behavior. However, not all individuals who are exposed to violence engage in violent behavior. Personality is one factor that influences the translation from exposure to violence to engagement in violent behavior. Previous research in adolescents showed that psychopathy (a personality disorder) mediated the relationship between exposure to violence and violent behavior. However, this research has not: been conducted in adults, despite evidence of instability in exposure to violence and psychopathy across the lifespan; exam- ined the specificity of this relationship to different expressions of psychopathy, such as subcomponent Factors and primary/secondary subtypes; and, considered other environmental experiences that may impact this relationship. In two samples of adults (community [N = 232] and prison [N = 313]), psychopathy affected the relationship between exposure to violence and violence (community indirect effect = 0.03, SE = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.004, 0.07; prison indirect effect = 0.14, SE = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.05, 0.25). These effects appeared to be related more strongly to the impulsive- antisocial traits of psychopathy and the secondary (high-anxious) subtype of psychopathy. Results were robust against demographic and other environmental experiences. Ultimately, our findings indicate that psychopathy is an important factor affecting the link between exposure to violence and violent behavior. Keywords Exposure to violence . Psychopathy . Psychopathy Factors . Secondary psychopathy . Violence In the United States, approximately 30% of all individuals low-income Chicago neighborhoods reporting exposure to at witness, learn about, or are the victims of violent acts in their least one violent event per day (Richards et al. 2015).1 ETV is community (Finkelhor et al. 2011). For those who live in poor, strongly associated with a host of adverse outcomes, such as urban communities, rates of exposure to community violence physical and mental health issues, poor academic achieve- (ETV) are elevated, with about 80–100% of residents ment, and neuropsychological dysfunction (Borofsky et al. reporting exposure (Bender and Roberts 2009; Gorman- 2013; Cooley-Quille et al. 2001;Fowleretal.2009;Henrich Smith and Tolan 1998; Stein et al. 2003)andBlackyouthin et al. 2004; Sharkey et al. 2012; Wright et al. 2004). Additionally, ETV is one of the most robust predictors of engagement in violent behavior (Baskin and Sommers 2014; Durant et al. 1994; Gaylord-Harden et al. 2011; Hawkins et al. 2000; Spano et al. 2006). However, not all individuals who are * Suzanne Estrada exposed to violence engage in violent behavior. Therefore, it [email protected] is necessary to identify other factors that promote the transla- tion from ETV to violent behavior. Michelle Cinguina [email protected] The impact of ETV on engagement in violent behavior is undeniable. Individuals who have more chronic and direct Arielle Baskin-Sommers exposure to violence are more likely to chronically engage [email protected] in violent criminal behavior themselves (Baskin and 1 Department of Psychology, Yale University, P.O. Box 208205, New 1 Haven, CT 06520, USA In the United States Black individuals disproportionately live in communi- ties with the greatest disadvantage and highest rates of ETV (McNulty and 2 Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, 110 Inner Bellair 2003; Williams and Jackson 2005; Adelman 2004; Friedson and Campus Drive, Austin, TX 78705, USA Sharkey 2015). J Psychopathol Behav Assess Sommers 2014; Mulford et al. 2018). Several theories identify 2016). As a result, it is unclear if psychopathy influences the possible mechanisms to explain this relationship between relationship between ETV and violence in adults. ETV ETV and violent behavior. For example, social modeling the- (Baskin and Sommers 2015, 2014), psychopathy (Fontaine ory posits that those who are exposed to violence learn from et al. 2010; Hawes et al. 2014; Lynam et al. 2008), and violent what they see and reenact this violence in their own lives offending (Moffitt 1993) are not static over time. Some indi- (Bandura 1978; Huesmann and Kirwil 2007). Additionally, viduals show stable, high levels of each of these factors across network-based theories suggest that ETV, particularly within developmental stages (Baskin and Sommers 2014;Farrington one’s social network, increases the risk of individual victimi- et al. 2009; Moffitt et al. 2002; van Baardewijk et al. 2011). zation and perpetration of violence, spreading like a “conta- However, other individuals show decreases in antisocial be- gious” disease through the network (Bond and Bushman havior over time, and some individuals only start their antiso- 2017; Tracy et al. 2016). Finally, some theories use a basic cial behavior in adulthood (Gomez-Smith and Piquero 2005). learning model to propose that individuals exposed to vio- Therefore, extending the examination of ETV, psychopathy, lence either fail to habituate to violence, resulting in over- and violence to include later developmental stages (i.e., adult- detection of threat and difficulty inhibiting responses to threat hood) is necessary for capturing the varied cumulative and/or (Estrada et al. 2020; Gaylord-Harden et al. 2017), or become recent experiences of these factors. desensitized to repeated ETV, lowering inhibitory mecha- Second, there is a long tradition of subdividing psychopa- nisms against violence and increasing engagement in violent thy into subcomponent traits and phenotypically similar sub- behavior (Guerra et al. 2003; Ng-Mak et al. 2002, 2004). But, types, but little research examines these subdivisions in rela- even among those who experience ETV, there appears to be tion to ETV. According to dual-process models of psychopa- significant variation in terms of the quantity and quality of thy (Patrick 2007), the interpersonal and affective traits of exposure, the impact of risk and protective factors, and how psychopathy (Factor1 traits) correspond to a fundamental these factors relate to outcomes, particularly violent crime emotion deficit that reduces reactions to threat, whereas the (Baskin-Sommers et al. 2013;Haynieetal.2009;Kimonis impulsive and antisocial traits (Factor2 traits) correspond to a et al. 2008; Patchin et al. 2006). deficit in executive control that interferes with the processing Individual difference factors, such as personality traits, of threat and undermines inhibition of behavior. Consistent may influence how people interpret and use the information with the idea that Factor2 traits result in aberrant reactions to they see in their environments, resulting in individual variabil- threatening information (e.g., violence) and a dysregulated ity in behaviors like violent offending (Calder et al. 2011; response to that information, there is evidence that Factor2 Canli et al. 2001; Kaspar and König 2012;Paunonen2003; traits positively correlate with ETV (Schraft et al. 2013).2 Paunonen and Ashton 2001;Wuetal.2014). Psychopathy Similarly, psychopathy is sometimes conceptualized in terms represents one set of personality traits associated with inter- of primary and secondary subtypes (Lykken 1995). Primary personal manipulation, callousness, shallow affective experi- psychopathy is presumed to be a consequence of some intrin- ences, impulsivity, and chronic antisocial behavior (Hare sic deficit that hampers self-regulation, whereas secondary 2003). Psychopathy is associated with higher levels of ETV psychopathy is believed to stem from social disadvantage, (Kimonis et al. 2008; Schraft et al. 2013) and increased en- excessive neurotic anxiety, and/or some other form of psycho- gagement in violent behavior (Asscher et al. 2011;Hare1999; pathology. Relative to primary psychopathy, individuals with Salekin et al. 1996). Further, psychopathy accounts for some secondary psychopathy show comparable levels of antisocial of the relationship between several types of environmental behavior, but greater levels of emotional reactivity (Skeem experiences (e.g., child abuse, poor neighborhood conditions, et al. 2007), which purportedly accounts for the stronger as- parenting practices) and engagement in antisocial behaviors sociation between secondary psychopathy and ETV such as violence, substance use, and theft (Goulter et al. 2019; (Docherty et al. 2016). Further examination into the associa- Mosteiro et al. 2016; Weiler and Widom 1996). For example, tion between ETV and psychopathic traits/subtypes is war- in a sample of adjudicated adolescents, psychopathy mediated ranted given that each expression is associated with distinct the relationship between ETV and future violent offending causes and could impact the internalization of violence. (Baskin-Sommers and Baskin 2016). Taken together, these Finally, previous research inconsistently considers the im- findings suggest that psychopathy as a personality construct pact of demographic factors (i.e., sex, age, race; Cale and may explain, in part, the translation of environmental experi- ences into violent behavior. 2 Some research in youth samples show a positive correlation between callous- While we have a sense