For those working in the mental health field… and others interested in this fascinating area of psychology.

Do you know the difference between a Psychopath and a Sociopath?
 
One of the most common misconceptions, even in the mental health field, is that they are one and the same…with essentially the same diagnosis.
 
Unless you are specialised in researching or working in this area, it can be a murky place to delve into.  While both share some distinctly similar features, the behavioural patterns and lifestyle choices are often separate and strikingly different.
 
So what is the difference??   Well, the first clue is in the name of each:
sociopath and psychopath.

A sociopath is thought to have developed persistent ‘bad’ behaviours through their experience of society, this can be anything from extensive childhood neglect or trauma, to perceived slights from society.

When you meet or interview a sociopath they will often refer to the unfairness of the world or the unjustness of society.

​They will also often show hints of empathy or at least offer insight that they once did feel remorse or love or significant emotion.
 
From my experience, sociopaths appear to have been born with the same ability to love and feel just like any other person in society. It has been their experience in the world that has led them to behave in ways that most of society finds incomprehensible.
 
Now, this is different for the psychopath: for these individuals, feeling empathy, remorse or love is an alien concept.

Indeed, they can describe it to you in dramatic and fascinating language.

Yet most will openly admit that they simply cannot feel these emotions and in fact view such emotions as weakness.

Bob Hare, the pioneer for psychopathic personality research aptly noted: “they can sing the lyrics but they will never respond to the melody”
 
A psychopath can almost be described as a caricature of a person: everything about them needs to be that bit more pronounced and dramatic…their only ‘fear’ is that the mask of sanity, which they wear each day, may slip and their vagueness may be revealed.
While all of this sounds dramatic and intriguing, the truth is, psychopaths and sociopaths are not really what society may imagine.
 
Television programs such as Criminal Minds and CSU, typically portray Psychopaths and Sociopaths as people lurking in dark alleys ready to pounce and murder kittens at any given time.

While in rare cases there are such individuals, the reality is, we are surrounded every day by individuals with these traits. It might be:

• That ambitious banker who aggressively pursues and gets every promotion

• The politician who wins every election, by telling us what we want to hear
• or that medical specialist who climbs the ranks at an exponential pace

 
Psychopathic traits provide them with the impetus, the motivation and the direction to achieve at a high level.
 
But…while they might indeed achieve, these are also the individuals who have just as much ability to wreak havoc with the lives others in the subtle but devastating fashion that our ‘paths’ thrive on.
 
When working in the area of mental health and the law, it is imperative to have an understanding of individuals with the traits of Sociopaths and Psychopaths, particularly when it comes to understanding the limits in diagnosing individuals with either of these constructs.
 
Australia is lagging behind when it comes to accepting these characteristics.
To further complicate the issue, there is significant confusion about the use of the term ‘Antisocial Personality Disorder’ as an ‘all-in-one’ label for psychopathy and sociopathy.
But that’s a topic of another newsletter!

In the meantime, let us know what you think…

Ciara Togher 

Assessment of risk offending behaviour - Part 1

A very common theme that arises whenever I speak of crime and the factors that might influence criminal behaviour, is
that of:
a ‘sense of entitlement’.
 
There seems to be a commonly held belief that much crime these days results from the presence of a:
‘you owe me’ attitude.
 
Which, many suggest, is frequently found in our younger generation.
 
So, is a sense of entitlement really a factor influencing criminal behaviour?
  
Before answering this question directly, it’s important to examine a few issues related to the prediction of crime...

First, the prediction of crime, or what we refer to as the assessment of risk, is not an easy or straight-forward process – humans are immensely complex beings, with many, many factors affecting our behaviour.
 
Second, the risk assessment processes or tools that we have are not 100% full-proof... There are currently two broad areas of risk assessment:
 

1. a statistical estimate: obtained from determining the presence of historical risk factors, which generally don’t change with time. Risk is obtained from a comparison to other similar offenders

 

1. structured professional judgement which determines the presence or absence of recognised risk factors, and then making a professional judgement of the level of risk. These risk factors are called dynamic factors, because they can and do change over time. They are also referred to as ‘criminogenic needs’ because it’s on these that counselling or treatment of the individual must focus on to reduce further offending.

Assessment of risk frequently takes into account the presence (or absence) of both the static and dynamic risk factors. For the purpose here, examining a sense of entitlement, we will look further at the dynamic risk factors, or criminogenic treatment needs.
 
So, what is a recognised dynamic risk factor:
 
Researchers, Andrews and Bonta in their fascinating book, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (1998), suggest three determinants needed for identification of a criminogenic need (risk factor):
 

1. The ability to distinguish criminal from non-criminal behaviour
2. The ability to be effectively measured
3. The ability to generate change

 
As an example of the above, here are some of the recognised and well- accepted dynamic treatment needs for general offending behaviour, as determined from extensive research and proposed by Andrews and Bonta:
 

• Antisocial attitudes and beliefs
  • Antisocial friends
  • Antisocial behaviour
• Problems with family or intimate relationships
• Alcohol or other drug problems
• Employment problems
• No involvement in healthy recreational/leisure activities

 
Further lists of criminogenic treatment needs (risk factors), have been found for more specific types of offending, including violence, sexual, spousal assault, and stalking.
 
But, at this stage, a ‘sense of entitlement’ does not make any of the lists determining static or dynamic risk factors.

However...
... research in 2011, has shown some promise: in a paper entitled: An examination of a sense of entitlement in violent men: Violence towards others and the self, Dr Sofia Fisher found that a sense of entitlement differentiated between violent offenders (who reported higher levels of entitlement) and non-violent offenders.
This difference however, was only found in those who committed violence offences, NOT non-violence offences.
 
But...in a later study in 2013, Narcissism and Empathy in Young Offenders and Non-Offenders, the researchers found that feelings of entitlement, a strong factor found in
Narcissism, together with the resulting lack of empathy, is likely to have accounted for a greater likelihood of general criminal behaviour.
 
So, the bottom line?
…it does seem from this research, that a sense of entitlement may indeed be found to be a criminogenic risk factor – at this stage, it seems to meet the first two of the three criteria suggested by Andrews and Bonta.
 
But, the problem is, it does not yet meet the third factor, that of ‘the ability to change’.
You see, it is not yet known whether an inflated sense of entitlement, or the self-belief of deserving more than others, can be altered either over time, or through appropriate intervention. If it is a reflection of a true personality disorder, then chances are, it cannot be changed…managed yes…but changed, no.
As the saying goes...the jury is still out on this one...

We welcome feedback and your comments...
Steve Jobson

In our long hot dry summers of Australia, we seem to be seeing an increasing number of destructive and terrifying bushfires, with many deliberately lit.

Recent research tells us that there has been an increase of nearly 40% in the number of bushfires in Australia, increasing from around 3200 in 2007 to nearly 5000 in 2013. 

And it has been estimated that about 13% of these are deliberately set, with 37% more being ‘suspicious’, with costs to our economy of about $1.6 billion a year.

Psychologists now refer to deliberately lit fires as the act of Firesetting, which includes Pyromania and Arson.  Pyromania is an impulse-control psychological disorder in which the individual gets intense pleasure or gratification from the fire.  Arson is the criminal act of setting a fire usually for a specific purpose such as to obtain insurance money.

​Those involved in the prevention of deliberately lit fires are keenly aware of the necessity to prevent this destructiveness to save lives and property.  A review of international research has found that around 30% of Firesetters will commit further acts of Firesetting.  

Although rare, some Firesetters have been found to be volunteer or paid fire officers.  James Ogloff, one of the foremost Firesetting researchers in Australia believes that we must develop improved systems to screen prospective fire fighters. But, as I said, this is rare, and it's my belief that we must be thankful to our fire officers for their dedication, bravery and commitment to us and our community. 

However it is also clear that despite the potential danger, the vast majority of Firesetters do not wish to cause physical harm to others.  There are many reasons or influencing factors to Firesetting, and many different types of Firesetters.
 
It is essential that Psychologists and law-makers learn more about the reasons why Firesetters deliberately light fires.  While we may wish to have a Firesetting criminal profile, despite the belief created from a popular television program, there is no specific mindset or personality of a typical Firesetter.

It is clear from research that Firesetting is a complex behaviour with a range of factors influencing the setting of fires. 

Understanding the social context and emotional responses of the Firesetter, as well as the reasons and motives behind firesetting behaviour will allow us to develop greater knowledge on how to intervene and what treatment to provide, to help prevent further deliberately lit fires.  

One of the key functions at inSync for life, is to provide thorough clinical interviews and detailed reports of individuals who have committed an offence or who have been alleged to have committed an offence.  These comprehensive reports inform legal representatives and the Courts, as to the primary factors influencing the offending behaviour, with the overall goal to assist in the prevention of further offending. 

Steve Jobson

In a previous newsletter I talked about the ongoing confusion around the differences between a psychopath and a sociopath.   
Often, even mental health professionals use these terms interchangeably – as though they are talking about the same thing.  However, to add to the confusion, many people also believe that Psychopathy is the same thing as Antisocial Personality Disorder, one of the most common psychological issues found in the residents of our prisons!

So let’s have a look at Antisocial Personality Disorder or ASPD and how how we get to this point of confusion…after all, we as mental health professionals should be adequately trained to know our ‘paths’ when we encounter one.