International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 8 2025 94
often were referred to as evil or immoral. Clinicians
and theorists, however, have worked to understand
the psychopathic mind and postulate the construct of
psychopathy to explain the phenomenon better.
Over the last two centuries, the construct of psychopathy
grew from a “wastebasket category” to
a specific psychopathic pattern of interpersonal,
affective, behavioral, and lifestyle
characteristics. Across these various renditions,
the psychopath’s portrait consistently emerged
as depicting a manipulative, grandiose, and
superficial parasite who, devoid of emotional
connections to the world, irresponsibly
and selfishly drifts through life, only stopping
long enough to callously, impulsively, and
aggressively satisfy the urge of the moment
(Hervé 2007:45).
The evolution of the construct began in the early
nineteenth century when French psychiatrist Philippe
Pinel (1745–1826) introduced the terms “manie sans
delire (mania [or madness] without delirium) and
later manie/folie raisonnante (madness-like) as a
clinical syndrome” (Hervé, 2007:32). Following Pinel,
other theorists conceptualized antisocial behavior
caused by illness with the terms moral derangement
or anomia, moral insanity, moral imbecility and moral
defective, and psychopathy (Hervé 2007:32-34 [italics
in original]).2
1
While early theorists provided general psychiatric
descriptions of psychopathy, the construct of
psychopathy developed into a clinical entity in the
twentieth century. At this time, theorists3
2
refined the
construct to a specific syndrome (see Cooke et al.
2006:92) which “emerged consistently as a disorder
of affective bluntness toward others and the future,
accompanied by immature or primitive emotions and
grandiose, superficial, and manipulative attitudes that,
together, manifested in irresponsible, callous, impulsive,
and aggressive behaviors” (Hervé 2007:41–42).
2 For a summary of the work of early theorists, including Phillipe
Pinel, Benjamin Rush, James Cowles Prichard, Julius Ludwig Koch, Emile
Kraepelin, and Kurt Schneider, see Hare and Neumann 2006:84 and Hervé
2007:32–36.
3 For a summary of the work of early twentieth-century theorists,
including G.E. Partridge, David Henderson, Benjamin Karpman, Silvano
Arieti, and William and Joan McCord, see Hare1970:6–7 and Hervé
2007:36–42.
Building on the work of previous theorists, Hervey
Cleckley (1903–1984) developed a detailed clinical
description of the psychopath in his seminal work, The
Mask of Sanity (1941/1955) (see Hare 1993:27–28).
Cleckley’s construct of psychopathy, which included
sixteen traits of the disorder, influenced researchers and
theorists well into the twentieth century. Moreover, his
influence is reflected in both the clinical and research
constructs of psychopathy that are predominant today
(see Blackburn 2006:38 Hare, Fourth, and Hart
1989:30 Hare and Neumann 2006:60 Hervé 2007:42–
45).
From the mid- to late-twentieth century, North
American researchers 4 expanded on Cleckley’s
work to develop an “accepted, clinically sound, and
scientifically grounded operational definition of the
construct”(Hervé 2007:45).
1
During this time, two
distinct, but overlapping definitions of the construct
were developed. The first, antisocial personality disorder
(APD), “emerged out of clinical necessity in the 1950s
...[when] mental health professionals struggled to
find an accepted nomenclature for the various mental
health problems of the time” (Hervé 2007:45). APD
is included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR) and is described
as “a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation
of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years”
(American Psychiatric Association, 2022:748).
2
5
The other construct of psychopathy to emerge in the
late twentieth century was the Hare psychopath.6
.3 “[T]he Hare psychopath, emerged to satisfy research
requirements in the early 1980s, an era in which the
Cleckley psychopath was receiving increasing empirical
attention, the study of personality traits had become
accepted, and scientific rigor was a necessity” (Hervé
2007:45). Hare and his colleagues noted the grandiose,
4 Refinement of the construct was influenced by other developing
areas in psychology. For examples, see Blackburn 2006:35 and Hare 2007:3.
See also Cooke et al. 2006:92.
5 “It should be noted that the definition of mental disorder was
developed for clinical, public health, and research purposes. Additional
information is usually required beyond that contained in the DSM-5
diagnostic criteria in order to make legal judgments on such issues as criminal
responsibility, eligibility for disability compensation, and competency”
(American Psychiatric Association 2022:14).
6 Robert D. Hare’s construct of psychopathy is similar to the
International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health
Problems, tenth revision (ICD-10) dissocial personality disorder classification
(World Health Organization, 2024). See Hare 2006:713.
often were referred to as evil or immoral. Clinicians
and theorists, however, have worked to understand
the psychopathic mind and postulate the construct of
psychopathy to explain the phenomenon better.
Over the last two centuries, the construct of psychopathy
grew from a “wastebasket category” to
a specific psychopathic pattern of interpersonal,
affective, behavioral, and lifestyle
characteristics. Across these various renditions,
the psychopath’s portrait consistently emerged
as depicting a manipulative, grandiose, and
superficial parasite who, devoid of emotional
connections to the world, irresponsibly
and selfishly drifts through life, only stopping
long enough to callously, impulsively, and
aggressively satisfy the urge of the moment
(Hervé 2007:45).
The evolution of the construct began in the early
nineteenth century when French psychiatrist Philippe
Pinel (1745–1826) introduced the terms “manie sans
delire (mania [or madness] without delirium) and
later manie/folie raisonnante (madness-like) as a
clinical syndrome” (Hervé, 2007:32). Following Pinel,
other theorists conceptualized antisocial behavior
caused by illness with the terms moral derangement
or anomia, moral insanity, moral imbecility and moral
defective, and psychopathy (Hervé 2007:32-34 [italics
in original]).2
1
While early theorists provided general psychiatric
descriptions of psychopathy, the construct of
psychopathy developed into a clinical entity in the
twentieth century. At this time, theorists3
2
refined the
construct to a specific syndrome (see Cooke et al.
2006:92) which “emerged consistently as a disorder
of affective bluntness toward others and the future,
accompanied by immature or primitive emotions and
grandiose, superficial, and manipulative attitudes that,
together, manifested in irresponsible, callous, impulsive,
and aggressive behaviors” (Hervé 2007:41–42).
2 For a summary of the work of early theorists, including Phillipe
Pinel, Benjamin Rush, James Cowles Prichard, Julius Ludwig Koch, Emile
Kraepelin, and Kurt Schneider, see Hare and Neumann 2006:84 and Hervé
2007:32–36.
3 For a summary of the work of early twentieth-century theorists,
including G.E. Partridge, David Henderson, Benjamin Karpman, Silvano
Arieti, and William and Joan McCord, see Hare1970:6–7 and Hervé
2007:36–42.
Building on the work of previous theorists, Hervey
Cleckley (1903–1984) developed a detailed clinical
description of the psychopath in his seminal work, The
Mask of Sanity (1941/1955) (see Hare 1993:27–28).
Cleckley’s construct of psychopathy, which included
sixteen traits of the disorder, influenced researchers and
theorists well into the twentieth century. Moreover, his
influence is reflected in both the clinical and research
constructs of psychopathy that are predominant today
(see Blackburn 2006:38 Hare, Fourth, and Hart
1989:30 Hare and Neumann 2006:60 Hervé 2007:42–
45).
From the mid- to late-twentieth century, North
American researchers 4 expanded on Cleckley’s
work to develop an “accepted, clinically sound, and
scientifically grounded operational definition of the
construct”(Hervé 2007:45).
1
During this time, two
distinct, but overlapping definitions of the construct
were developed. The first, antisocial personality disorder
(APD), “emerged out of clinical necessity in the 1950s
...[when] mental health professionals struggled to
find an accepted nomenclature for the various mental
health problems of the time” (Hervé 2007:45). APD
is included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR) and is described
as “a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation
of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years”
(American Psychiatric Association, 2022:748).
2
5
The other construct of psychopathy to emerge in the
late twentieth century was the Hare psychopath.6
.3 “[T]he Hare psychopath, emerged to satisfy research
requirements in the early 1980s, an era in which the
Cleckley psychopath was receiving increasing empirical
attention, the study of personality traits had become
accepted, and scientific rigor was a necessity” (Hervé
2007:45). Hare and his colleagues noted the grandiose,
4 Refinement of the construct was influenced by other developing
areas in psychology. For examples, see Blackburn 2006:35 and Hare 2007:3.
See also Cooke et al. 2006:92.
5 “It should be noted that the definition of mental disorder was
developed for clinical, public health, and research purposes. Additional
information is usually required beyond that contained in the DSM-5
diagnostic criteria in order to make legal judgments on such issues as criminal
responsibility, eligibility for disability compensation, and competency”
(American Psychiatric Association 2022:14).
6 Robert D. Hare’s construct of psychopathy is similar to the
International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health
Problems, tenth revision (ICD-10) dissocial personality disorder classification
(World Health Organization, 2024). See Hare 2006:713.
