Some with psychopathic traits stay out of trouble — here’s what may explain the difference

People with psychopathic personality traits are often thought to be destined for antisocial and criminal behavior. But new research published in the Journal of Criminal Justice challenges this view. The study found that certain environmental factors—like higher socioeconomic status and strong parental monitoring—can reduce the likelihood that people high in psychopathic traits will engage in criminal activity.

Psychopathy is often associated with coldness, impulsivity, and manipulation. Because of these traits, individuals high in psychopathy are more likely to commit crimes and tend to be overrepresented in the criminal justice system. But not everyone with these traits ends up in prison. Some people with high psychopathy scores appear to function relatively well in society, holding jobs, avoiding legal trouble, and even achieving success. This study set out to examine why that might be the case.

Researchers drew on the “moderated-expression model” of psychopathy. This model suggests that the expression of psychopathic traits—and their consequences—can be shaped by environmental influences. In other words, people with similar personality traits might behave very differently depending on their upbringing and surroundings. The research team aimed to understand which factors might buffer or amplify the link between psychopathy and later criminal behavior.

“I’ve always been interested in how early life experiences shape people’s later lives,” said study author Emma Veltman, a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Melbourne who conducted the new study while a postgraduate student at the University of Otago.

“It’s well established that adverse experiences in childhood can have lasting effects across the lifespan and are linked to a range of outcomes — including the development of psychopathic personality traits and involvement in criminal behavior. However, what is often overlooked is that not everyone high in psychopathic traits, or who engages in crime, has experienced adversity in childhood. This nuance is important.”

“A better understanding of this complex relationship could help inform early prevention efforts, reduce the societal harm often associated with psychopathic traits, and ultimately improve life outcomes for individuals with these traits. So, exploring this complex relationship over time felt like an opportunity to contribute to meaningful research to better understand this population.”

“While there is a lot more research to be done in this area, my hope is that this work sparks broader conversations—not only about the different ways in which psychopathy manifests, but also how we can use research to better support individuals and promote greater outcomes for society.”

The study used data from the Transitions in Amsterdam (TransAM) project, a large, longitudinal study of young adults in the Netherlands. The sample included 1,200 individuals between the ages of 18 and 21, drawn from different ethnic backgrounds, with intentional oversampling of individuals who had previous police contact.

Participants completed questionnaires over multiple waves of data collection between 2010 and 2014, with criminal records tracked through 2017. Psychopathic traits were measured using the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, which assesses three dimensions: egocentricity, callousness, and antisociality.

The researchers focused on whether several environmental factors moderated the relationship between psychopathy and future criminal behavior. These included parental monitoring, parental absence, the quality of the parent-child relationship, exposure to adverse childhood experiences, socioeconomic status (as indexed by parental education), and neighborhood disorder. To measure criminal behavior, the researchers used both self-reports and official records of criminal offenses.

As expected, higher levels of psychopathic traits were linked to greater involvement in crime. Specifically, the egocentric and callousness dimensions of psychopathy predicted future registered offenses, even after accounting for participants’ prior self-reported delinquency.

However, the antisociality dimension—surprisingly—did not significantly predict future crimes beyond its overlap with earlier behavior. This pattern suggests that certain traits, like emotional coldness or interpersonal arrogance, may be more predictive of long-term criminal behavior than impulsive or irritable tendencies.

Importantly, the researchers found that several environmental factors influenced how psychopathic traits translated into criminal behavior. Socioeconomic status stood out as a particularly consistent protective factor. Across all facets of psychopathy, individuals from higher-status families were less likely to commit future crimes, even if they scored high on psychopathy measures.

In contrast, individuals from lower-status backgrounds were more likely to commit crimes when they had high levels of callousness or egocentricity. These results support the idea that access to resources and social stability may reduce the expression of harmful behaviors in individuals with risky personality traits.

Parental monitoring also showed a protective effect, especially in relation to overall psychopathy scores. Participants whose parents kept track of their whereabouts, asked questions, and encouraged open communication were less likely to commit crimes, even if they scored high in psychopathy. The effect of parental monitoring was strongest for the total psychopathy score, rather than for individual traits. This suggests that consistent supervision may help blunt the impact of a broad psychopathic personality pattern.

“Traditional theoretical perspectives of psychopathy have generally argued that environmental influences would be most important for the development of the behavioral aspects of psychopathy (e.g., impulsivity, irresponsibility, tendency to seek immediate gratification), and that the affective/interpersonal aspects (e.g., egocentricity, grandiosity, manipulativeness, callousness, lack of empathy and remorse) would instead be more strongly influenced by genetic predisposition,” Veltman told PsyPost.

“Our findings challenge this notion and suggest that environmental factors may also influence the manifestation of interpersonal and affective traits of psychopathy. This was a surprising finding that really highlights the importance of environmental factors in understanding psychopathy.”

Other findings were more nuanced. Parental absence, for example, did not predict criminality on its own. But it did amplify the risk associated with egocentricity. Participants who scored high in egocentric traits—such as arrogance and self-centeredness—and also lacked a parent figure were more likely to have a criminal record later.

Similarly, exposure to adverse childhood experiences—such as abuse, parental addiction, or domestic violence—strengthened the link between egocentricity and criminal behavior. These results suggest that early trauma and lack of parental presence may make it more difficult for some individuals to regulate harmful tendencies.

Interestingly, the quality of the parent-child relationship and the level of neighborhood disorder did not significantly alter the relationship between psychopathy and criminal behavior. While these factors were linked to outcomes in other research, they did not moderate the psychopathy-crime connection in this particular study. This might indicate that more proximal factors, like daily parental monitoring or material resources, play a bigger role than general perceptions of support or environmental chaos.

“The key takeaways of this study are that for those high in psychopathic personality traits, there are aspects of the environment early in life that influence the extent to which they engage in criminal behavior,” Veltman explained. “Specifically, having access to socioeconomic resources seems to reduce the risk that those high in psychopathic personality traits engage in criminal behavior.”

“Similarly, having a parent or caregiver in your life who monitors your whereabouts and behavior, and less exposure to adverse childhood experiences such as abuse or neglect may reduce proclivity toward criminal behavior. This is interesting as it highlights that those high in psychopathy are not inherently antisocial as common lore would often suggest. Instead, their behavior is the result of a complex interplay of factors that is not yet well understood.”

As with all research, there are some limitations to consider. For one, the environmental factors were assessed during late adolescence and early adulthood, rather than earlier in childhood when development may be more malleable. Additionally, psychopathy was measured through self-report, which could be influenced by biased responding. Finally, the sample was based in Amsterdam and may not generalize to other cultural contexts.

Despite these limitations, the study adds important insight to how psychopathy is understood and studied. Rather than focusing solely on punishment or control, the findings point to prevention strategies rooted in family support, education, and community resources. The researchers hope their work can shift how psychopathy is approached.

“Going forward, it will be important for future research to examine the relationship between early environment, psychopathy, and other outcomes, including those beyond criminality,” Veltman explained. “This will help us to better understand the lives of those high in psychopathy.”

“This paper is part of a body of research we have conducted that we believe will shed light on the nuances of psychopathy that help us to understand why those who share similar personality profiles can have very different lives. Long-term, we hope others can harness the learnings from this line of research to change our approach to psychopathy, namely through an increased focus on harm prevention in relation to this population.”

The study, “Do early environmental factors influence the relationship between psychopathy and crime: Longitudinal findings from the transitions in Amsterdam study,” was authored by Emma Veltman, Carlo Garofalo, Jessica M. Hill, Arjan Blokland, and Martin Sellbom.