How Media Exposure Relates to Laypersons’ Understanding of Psychopathy

Abstract

While conceptualization of psychopathy has evolved, so too has the public's relationship with psychology changed. Concurrently, portrayal of psychopaths has made several shifts, both through nonfiction sources and in popular film and television. Psychopathic villains of the mid-20th century have made space for a growing cast of protagonist psychopaths. This study examined whether a relationship existed between exposure to fictional psychopaths and how lay individuals conceptualize psychopathy. Specifically, this study explored conceptualization differences based on exposure to antagonist versus protagonist fictional psychopaths. Surveyed community participants supported earlier research suggesting mixed misunderstanding of psychopathy. Additionally, higher exposure to protagonist psychopaths was associated with higher endorsement of flattering distractor traits, reflecting a kind of romanticized psychopathy. These findings have legal, practical, and ethical implications, including the potential for biased jurors, confounded research about psychopathy's labeling effect, and questions about how psychologists should respond on an individual and systemic level.

Dangerous, depraved, and death‐worthy: A meta‐analysis of the correlates of perceived psychopathy in jury simulation studies

“…First, although “psychopathy” is a mental health concept that is typically introduced at trial to inform violence risk assessment (DeMatteo et al, ), research suggests that for laypersons the disorder calls to mind lurid and sensationalistic examples of ostensibly psychopathic figures. In fact, various community surveys indicate that the most commonly identified prototypical “psychopaths” are notorious real‐world murderers (e.g., Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and Jeffrey Dahmer) or fictional killers (e.g., Hannibal Lecter) and that psychopathic individuals tend to be characterized more generally as “monsters” prone to extreme acts of violence (Edens, Clark, Smith, Cox, & Kelley, ; Furnham, Daoud, & Swami, ; Helfgott, ; Keesler & DeMatteo, ; Rogers, Dion, & Lynett, ; Smith, Edens, Clark, & Rulseh, ). To the extent that psychopathy is at issue in a case because of its putative relationship with future violence or crime (e.g., in a capital murder trial), presenting evidence of a disorder known to elicit negative attributions of the defendant that go well beyond the legal question at hand (i.e., outside the scope of violence risk) arguably could be considered unduly prejudicial (DeMatteo & Edens, ; DeMatteo, Hodges, & Fairfax‐Columbo, ).…”

Are psychopathy assessments ethical? A view from forensic mental health.

“…There is also mounting evidence of adversarial allegiance in courts, whereby PCL-R scores differ significantly depending on whether the assessor is retained by the defense or prosecution (e.g., Boccaccini et al, 2017; DeMatteo et al, 2014; Edens et al, 2015; Hare, 2016; Murrie et al, 2009). Finally, some researchers have highlighted a potential risk of prejudicial impact when openly labeling a person as a “psychopath” in trials, as studies suggest that jurors and judges often associate psychopathy with exaggerated risk levels (e.g., Gardner et al, 2018; Gendreau et al, 2002; Keesler & DeMatteo, 2017; Kelley et al, 2019; Smith et al, 2014; Sörman et al, 2020; Truong et al, 2020).…”

The psychopathic “label” and effects on punishment outcomes: A meta-analysis.

“…Psychopathy has traditionally been linked to individuals perceived to be dangerous, evil, violent, and unpredictable (Keesler, 2013; Kiehl & Hoffman, 2011; Smith, Edens, Clark, & Rulseh, 2014). Although some more recent portrayals of psychopathic traits in TV and movies, such as Walter White in Breaking Bad and the title character in Dexter , have led to romanticizing psychopathy and the portrayal of redeeming or exculpating characteristics of psychopathy (Keesler & DeMatteo, 2017), fictional and nonfictional characters “labeled” with psychopathy have been traditionally portrayed on media platforms as merciless villains or killers (Hesse, 2009). Recent research has found that laypersons perceive individuals with psychopathy as bold, intelligent, social adept, but also dangerous and “evil” (Edens, Clark, Smith, Cox, & Kelley, 2013).…”