Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Theory & Psychology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Levenson, M. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Rethinking Psychopathy

Michael R. Levenson

University Of California, Davis

Leading conceptions of psychopathy originated from a clinical perspective, which assumed abnormality and sought to explain it. This perspective has led to three related potential explanations of psychopathy: the sociological (i.e. the psychopath as nonconformist); the physiological (i.e. the psychopath as characterized by a deficiency in the behavioral inhibition system); and the developmental (i.e. the psychopath as a product of poor early socialization). These three models are examined in this paper, and all are found to be deficient in explanatory power, even when combined. An alternative approach to psychopathy is suggested, which begins with the assumption that psychopathy is not a mental disorder, but rather reflects a philosophy of life centering around the trivialization of others. It is further suggested that such a philosophy of life may be far more pervasive than is generally recognized.

Theory & Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 1, 51-71 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/0959354392021003
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
H. J. Stam
Ten Years after, Decade to Come: The Contributions of Theory to Psychology
Theory Psychology, February 1, 2000; 10(1): 5 - 21.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
R. Miltenburg and E. Singer
The (Ab)use of Reliving Childhood Traumata
Theory Psychology, October 1, 1997; 7(5): 605 - 628.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
M. R. Levenson
Physio-Sociology or Psychology of Conscience? Reply to Smith
Theory Psychology, February 1, 1995; 5(1): 139 - 144.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Theory PsychologyHome page
S. R. Feelgood and A. J. Rantzen
Rethinking Psychopathy: A Comment on Levenson (1992)
Theory Psychology, May 1, 1993; 3(2): 223 - 228.
[Abstract]