The
construct of psychopathy is a phenomenon regularly portrayed in news specials,
documentaries and film adaptations, and even television networks (e.g.,
Investigation Discovery and Crime & Investigation channels), yet is still
far from being fully understood in the field of psychiatry. The term “psychopath”
often brings to mind images of notorious serial killers such as the Gacys,
Bundys, and Dahmers of the world, yet do little to provide a full scope meaning
behind the term. Furthermore, such stereotypical images allude to a constrained
understanding of the disorder, limiting it to the perception that this disorder
solely exists in men. Only in the past two decades has the investigation of
psychopathy in women begun to take off in the literature (Kreis & Cooke,
2011).
As
a woman and a student with a keen interest in everything forensic, I began to
question why the study of psychopathy in women is so exceedingly
under-investigated. Furthermore, I was curious to explore whether
part of the reason why men make up the majority of the antisocial/psychopathic
demographic is because the antisocial woman is being labeled as something else
(e.g., a bully, a psycho/neurotic bitch), demonstrating yet another example of
how society views male attributes as the preferred norm. With this said, I felt
compelled to use my graduate coursework as an excuse to delve deeper into the
research in order to investigate what the female psychopathic prototype may
look like (if she in fact exists). To my benefit, not only did I acquire
extensive knowledge of psychopathic personalities, but a research proposal for which
I hope to attain funding.
My extensive research on the
phenomenon of female psychopathy has informed me of two things: 1) up until the
past decade, the study of psychopathy and women has been vastly under-investigated,
and 2) although there is some symptom overlap, there are indeed unique gender distinctions between psychopathic men and
psychopathic women.
For
the sake of brevity, I will only discuss the unique gender distinctions
relevant to portrayals of aggression, means of manipulation, relational
dominance, and emotional instability. With regard to distinct presentations of
aggression, Kreis and Cooke (2011) found that aggression in women is seen more
in intimate and familial settings; whereas, men tend to show aggression in more
public and obvious situations. Men may express their aggression and dominance
through physical intimidation (e.g., strong-arming, instilling of fear,
grandstanding, etc.); whereas, women tend to exercise dominance over others
through the use of their sexuality and stronger interpersonal skills.
Furthermore, women tend to convey their aggression in more indirect fashions
than men (Salmivalli & Kaukiainen,
2004), or in other words, their anger predominately tends to be displaced or
passively administered.
In terms of relational aggression, Crick (1997)
identifies this concept as “behaviors in which relationships specifically serve
as the vehicle of harm.” Such behaviors include spreading rumors, threatening
another’s social status, sabotaging relationships, using social exclusion as a
form of retaliation, and threatening to withdraw acceptance or friendship as a
means to dominate others.
Not
only does the research imply that females may have additional strategies to
express their hostility, but they may have also mastered hiding it by
presenting as nurturing and empathetic or, “as a manipulative guise, a mask of
maternalism” (Kreis & Cooke, 2011). In this exploitive strategy, the
psychopathic woman is able to use the traditional gender norms that society has
affixed to her to her advantage; i.e., playing up her perceived physical
weakness and sensitive emotions (Campbell, 2002).
The
most common gender-specific means of manipulation that the literature has found
to be true is the use of flirtation and sexuality in women’s exploitation of
others. This behavior may underline the parasitic lifestyle associated with
this population where a woman uses her sexuality as a manipulative measure to
obtain financial, social, or narcissistic gain. In contrast, their male
counterparts are more likely to use physical oriented tactics (i.e., physical
intimidation, implied harm, and other fear-mongering methods) in order to
obtain such gains (Forouzan & Cooke, 2005).
In
addition to the aforementioned varying manifestations of psychopathy, another
reason why psychopathy or ASPD may be under diagnosed in women is because it is
being confused and possibly misdiagnosed as something else. Many of the
symptoms presented in antisocial personality disorder overlap with the symptoms
of other cluster B personality disorders, particularly those of borderline
personality disorder (BPD) and narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). A
diagnosis of BPD is far more common in women than in men. Not surprisingly, the
diagnostic language used to identify BPD is greatly influenced by female attributes,
as ascribed by the male-dominated society in which we live. Symptoms
associated with this disorder, as noted in the The Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM–5; American
Psychiatric Association, 2013) include: Frantic efforts to avoid real or
imagined abandonment, patterns of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships,
affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood, and persistent
unstable self-image. One could argue such symptoms tend to “represent a
stereotypical woman at her most extreme—emotional labile, relationally
dependent, and self-destructive” (Tseris, 2013). These exaggerated symptoms
would either be overlooked or perhaps even chastised if they were to appear in
a man. Furthermore, this begs the question if clinicians are searching for the
more male-like symptoms associated with ASPD when making a diagnosis, while the
more female-like symptoms are investigated more for making a BPD diagnosis.
One
might ask why anyone should care what we choose to label these women, to which
I say the answer is simple: both the foundation of our diagnostic language and
the measurement tools used to assess psychiatric personality disorders may, in
part, reflect the overarching gender bias which continues to exist in our field
and society at large. Although our expectations cannot help but be partially
based on society’s preconceptions of gender norms and roles, without addressing
such discrepancies, clinicians are further perpetuating gender bias in the
mental health field.
I
would like to end this blog entry with a final thought on the study of
psychopathy and its apparent glorification in our society. The studies of
psychopathy, or to be more specific, the study of serial killers, has somewhat
become a ‘publicized phenomenon’ in today’s age. As mentioned above, we have
television networks dedicated to delivering the utmost horrifying and shocking
stories of fatal human tragedies, glorified television series (e.g., Dexter,
Hannibal, Criminal Minds) and extensive media coverage on the world’s most
perplexing individuals. It could be argued that the Bundys, Dahmers and Gacys
of the world are celebrities in their own way. Yet do names such as Genene
Jones, Rosemary West, Karla Homolka, or even Aileen Wuornos conjure up the same
familiarity? Doesn’t it say something about our society that even in a man’s
most deviant pathology where he hurts other people, he is still stronger and
more recognized than a woman?
References
American Psychiatric
Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Campbell, A. (2002). A mind
of her own: The evolutionary psychology of women. Oxford:
Oxford
University Press.
Crick, N. R. (1997).
Engagement in gender normative versus nonnormative forms of
aggression:
Links to social-psychological adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 33,
610–617.
Forouzan, E., & Cooke, D. (2005). Figuring out la femme fatale:
Conceptual and
assessment issues concerning psychopathy in
females. Behavioral Sciences & the Law.
Kreis, M., & Cooke, D.
(2011). Capturing The Psychopathic Female: A Prototypicality Analysis Of The Comprehensive Assessment Of
Psychopathic Personality (CAPP) Across
Gender. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 634-648.
Salmivalli, C., &
Kaukiainen, A. (2004). “Female aggression” revisited: Variable- and person
centered
approaches to studying gender differences in different types of aggression. Aggressive
Behavior, 30, 158–163.
Tseris, E. (2013). Trauma
theory without feminism? Evaluating contemporary
understandings
of traumatized women. Journal of Women
and Social Work, 28(2), 153-164.
No comments:
Post a Comment