Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-7085, USA.
Psychol Assess. 2010 Jun;22(2):455-9. doi: 10.1037/a0014862.
In our article by J. L. Skeem & D. J. Cooke, (2010), we outlined the dangers inherent in conflating the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; R. Hare, 1991) with psychopathy itself. In their response, R. Hare and C. Neumann (2010) seemed to agree with key points that the PCL-R should not be confused with psychopathy and that criminal behavior is not central to psychopathy; at the same time, they said we provided no clear directions for theory or research. In this rejoinder, we clarify our argument that progress in understanding the unobservable construct of psychopathy hinges upon setting aside procrustean dependence on a monofocal PCL-R lens to test (a) actual theories of psychopathy against articulated validation hierarchies and (b) the relation between psychopathy and crime. In specifying these conceptual and applied directions, we hope to promote constructive dialogue, further insights, and a new generation of research that better distinguishes between personality deviation and social deviance.
在我们的文章中，J. L. Skeem 和 D. J. Cooke（2010）概述了将《精神病理检查表修订版》（PCL-R；R. Hare，1991）与精神病理学本身混为一谈所带来的固有危险。在他们的回应中，R. Hare 和 C. Neumann（2010）似乎同意关键观点，即 PCL-R 不应与精神病理学混淆，犯罪行为也不是精神病理学的核心；同时，他们表示我们没有为理论或研究提供明确的方向。在这次反驳中，我们澄清了我们的论点，即理解不可观察的精神病理学结构的进展取决于搁置对单一焦点 PCL-R 镜头的过分依赖，以测试 (a) 实际的精神病理学理论与明确的验证层次，以及 (b) 精神病理学与犯罪之间的关系。在指定这些概念和应用方向时，我们希望促进建设性的对话、进一步的见解以及新一代的研究，更好地区分人格偏差和社会偏差。
