DENIAL OF RISK: THE EFFECTS OF INTENTIONAL MINIMIZATION ON RISK ASSESSMENTS FOR PSYCHOPATHIC AND NONPSYCHOPATHIC OFFENDERS Nathan D. Gillard, M.S. Dissertation Prepared for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS August 2013 APPROVED: Richard Rogers, Major Professor Adriel Boals, Committee Member Jennifer Callahan, Committee Member Vicki Campbell, Chair of the Department of Psychology Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School Gillard, Nathan D. Denial of Risk: The Effects of Intentional Minimization on Risk Assessments for Psychopathic and Nonpsychopathic Offenders. Doctor of Philosophy (Clinical Psychology), August 2013, 152 pp., 18 tables, 1 figure, references, 275 titles. Risk assessments for offenders often combine past records with current clinical findings from observations, interviews, and test data. Conclusions based on these risk assessments are highly consequential, sometimes resulting in increased criminal sentences or prolonged hospitalization. Offenders are therefore motivated to intentionally minimize their risk scores. Intentional minimization is especially likely to occur in offenders with high psychopathic traits because goal-directed deception is reflected in many of the core traits of the disorder, such as manipulativeness, glibness, and superficial charm. However, this connection appears to be based on the conceptual understanding of psychopathy, and it has rarely been examined empirically for either frequency or success. The current study examined the connection between psychopathic traits and the intentional minimization of risk factors using a sentenced jail sample. In general, offenders were able to effectively minimize risk on the HCR-20 and SAQ, while the PICTS, as a measure of cognitive styles, was more resistant to such minimization. Psychopathic traits, especially high interpersonal facet scores, led to greater minimization using a repeated measure, simulation design. Important differences in the willingness and ability to use deception were found based on (a) the content of subscales, and (b) the mode of administration (i.e., interview vs. self-report). The important implications of this research are discussed for risk assessment procedures regarding likely areas of deception and its detection. It also informs the growing literature on the connection between psychopathic traits and deception. Copyright 2013 by Nathan D. Gillard ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................v Chapters 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 Overview of Violent Risk Assessment Why Perform Risk Assessments? Three Phases of Risk Assessment Phase I: Dangerousness Phase II: Refocusing on Risk Assessment and the Risk of Actuarials Phase III: Structured Professional Judgments Psychopathy and Risk Assessment Contrasting Perspectives in the Development of Psychopathy Use of Psychopathy on Existing Risk Assessment Measures Psychopathy and Deception Beyond Descriptions: The Actual Use of Deception by Psychopaths Success at Deception Current Study Research Questions and Hypotheses 2. METHOD ..............................................................................................................40 Design Participants Materials Measures Criterion Groups for High and Low Psychopathy Procedures 3. RESULTS ..............................................................................................................53 General Manipulation Check Descriptive Data Research Question Analyses iii Post-hoc Manipulation Check 4. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................78 The Increased Need for Risk Assessments Vulnerability of Risk Assessment Measures to Deception Offenders’ Underreporting of Static Variables Offenders’ Ability to Lower Perceived Risk Psychopathy’s Role in Deception Factor and Facet Scores of Psychopathy that Predict the Use of Deception Vulnerability to Deception Exists for Both Self-Reports and Interviews Limitations Future Directions Conclusion FOOTNOTES ..............................................................................................................................107 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................108 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................119 iv LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Comparison of Hare Facets and Corresponding Cleckley Traits .......................................19 2. Current and Most Serious Criminal Offenses Among Sentenced Jail Inmates .................56 3. Differences on HCR-20 Scale Scores Between Honest and Positive Impression Management Conditions ....................................................................................................59 4. Differences on Self Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) Scale Scores Between Honest and Impression Management Conditions .................................................................................60 5. Differences on the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS) Scales Between Honest and Impression Management Conditions ...............................................61 6. Effect of High and Low Psychopathy Scores on Impression Management on the HCR-20 ............................................................................................................................................63 7. Effect of High and Low Psychopathy Scores on Impression Management on the SAQ ...64 8. Effects of High and Low Psychopathy Scores on Impression Management on the PICTS ............................................................................................................................................65 9. Differential Effect of Psychopathy on Total Scores for Interview-Based vs. Self-Report Measures ............................................................................................................................67 10. Prediction of HCR-20 Risk Assessment Scores by the Two Factors of Psychopathy.......69 11. Effect of PCL-R Factors on Deception on SAQ and PICTS Self-Report Measures .........70 12. Ability of the Four-Facet Model of Psychopathy to Predict Changes in HCR-20 Scores .72 13. SAQ Scale Content and Its Effect on Impression Management ........................................74 14. Change in Insight and Non-Insight Scale Scores from Honest to Positive Impression Management Conditions ....................................................................................................75 15. Differences in Confidence of Success Based on the Presence of Psychopathy Traits ......75 16. The Effect of Self-Assessed Confidence in Successful Positive Impression Management ............................................................................................................................................76 17. Effect of High and Low Psychopathy Scores on Impression Management on Measures of Psychopathy (Edens et al., 2001) and Risk Assessment (Current Study) ..........................92 18. Descriptive Statistics for HCR-20 Total Score Across Groups .........................................94 v CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The intuitive appeal of a link between psychopathy and deception is undeniable, with the latter term considered a key characteristic of prototypical psychopathy. On this point, Cleckley’s (1941) model of psychopathy listed “untruthfulness and insincerity” as a core feature, while Hare’s (1991) model contained the variant of “pathological lying.” Beyond direct characterizations of deception, descriptions of psychopathy include multiple core features indicative of deceptive practices, such as superficial charm, manipulativeness, and shallowness. Deceptive features are also implied because psychopathic individuals are characterized as exploitative of others, which often requires lying and finesse at conning. Moreover, various forms of deception are also required in the successful commission of most crimes and the subsequent avoidance of apprehension. Beyond the prevarications of ordinary criminals, psychopaths characteristically use conscious distortions and manipulations across multiple domains of their lives, leaving no relationship unaffected (Cleckley, 1976). Studies have found that psychopaths are not actually any more successful at being deceptive, even though they may do so more frequently than nonpsychopaths (Clark, 1997; Lykken, 1978; Patrick & Iacono, 1989; Raskin & Hare, 1978). At least in one experimental situation, Cogburn (1993) found that psychopaths were actually less successful at deceiving others than nonpsychopaths when attempting to persuade interviewers that they had engaged in either socially desirable or undesirable behaviors. Importantly, they were rated as less credible whether they were lying or being presumably honest. Klaver, Lee, Spidel, and Hart (2009) generally supported Cogburn’s findings and concluded in their own study that psychopathic offenders do not exhibit superior deception skills when judged by lay persons. However, both 1 studies utilized artificial, sanctioned deceptions (Feely & DeTurck, 1998) in a laboratory setting. It is possible that psychopaths are superior to others when using deception in real-world circumstances and when motivated by self-interest. This