No abstract

No abstract

Substantial research has investigated the association between intelligence and psychopathic traits. The findings to date have been inconsistent and have not always considered the multidimensional nature of psychopathic traits. Moreover, there has been a tendency to confuse psychopathy with other closely related, clinically significant disorders. The current study represents a meta‐analysis conducted to evaluate the direction and magnitude of the association of intelligence with global psychopathy, as well as its factors and facets, and related disorders (i.e. antisocial personality disorder, conduct disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder). Our analyses revealed a small, significant, negative relationship between intelligence and total psychopathy (r = −.07, p = .001). Analysis of factors and facets found differential associations, including both significant positive (e.g. interpersonal facet) and negative (e.g. affective facet) associations, further affirming that psychopathy is a multidimensional construct. Additionally, intelligence was negatively associated with antisocial personality disorder (r = −.13, p = .001) and conduct disorder (r = −.13, p = .001) but positively with oppositional defiant disorder (r = .06, p = .001). There was significant heterogeneity across studies for most effects, but the results of moderator analyses were inconsistent. Finally, bias analyses did not find significant evidence for publication bias or outsized effects of outliers. © 2019 European Association of Personality Psychology

No abstract

A contentious criminal justice policy issue in recent times has been community management policies for individuals convicted of sexual offenses. This systematic review attained professionals’ views, areas of concern, and recommendations for community management policies. It went beyond the extant literature by exploring perceptions of heterogenous professional groups involved in the criminal justice system. Of the 25 studies, 12 were quantitative, nine qualitative, and four mixed methods, and included custodial and community correctional officers, probation officers, psychologists, police officers, prosecutors, lawmakers, and academics. Overall, professionals mostly supported the policies, but had less support for public registries and community notification. Four key issues associated with the policies were apparent: problems with actuarial risk assessment tools, difficulties accessing information with partner agencies, limited resources, and lack of education among the public. Within this, four recommendations were identified. These findings offer a valuable resource for researchers, along with government and policy professionals tasked with overseeing community management policies.