Religious groups, in particular, can be easy targets for manipulation because of shared qualities like acceptance of new members from a variety of backgrounds and lifestyles, the ability to forgive past wrongdoings, and a tendency to assume that those who join have similar beliefs and values.  Members of addiction recovery groups, especially newcomers who may be in a state of crisis, can be vulnerable to psychopaths. The common practice in recovery groups of sharing personal stories and struggles may increase this vulnerability.  Even sophisticated members of financial and business groups – such as investment clubs – can fall victim to the charm and seduction of a good-looking, well-dressed, charismatic, and apparently well-connected psychopath.  Unfortunately, even after being victimized, many members of an affinity group might refuse to face the truth about the psychopath for a variety of reasons.  Often they will rationalize why he or she took advantage of the group, and continue to believe that the person is basically good at heart.  Some members of affinity groups could go as far as taking up the cause of the psychopath, and defending him or her when anyone questions their actions or motives.

There are several reasons why psychopaths are attracted to churches, synagogues and mosques; and they can be targeted on several levels.  Attendees may be psychopathic.  Those in leadership roles – both paid and volunteer – may be psychopathic.  Church splits can be led by psychopaths who may then lead the newly formed group.  The structure of many churches places their spiritual leaders in positions of power – something that psychopaths seek.  Less organized denominations do not always have ordained ministers, making it easier for the charismatic psychopath to rise to a leadership role where charm and manipulation can be effective tools. Some psychopaths may attend seminary or other formal education, and unless their true motives are exposed, they might graduate and go on to lead churches.  In addition, less organized denominations don’t always have formally trained leaders (e.g., ordained ministers or priests) making it easier for the charismatic psychopath to rise to a leadership role where charm and manipulation can be effective tools.  While more structured churches may be less vulnerable, others that use volunteers in significant lay leadership roles may enable psychopaths to preside over the group for the power and attention it draws to them.  Individuals often turn to their religious communities for support during stressful times, when they may be feeling spiritually and emotionally weakened.  Psychopaths often take advantage of this situation and use religion as a ruse to prey on people.  Singles groups, especially at more affluent churches, are often targeted.  There is wisdom in affinity group organizations taking a suspicious view of newcomers until they prove their trustworthiness.  This practice may help but is no guarantee of immunity to infiltration.

 Note:  This FAQ was written based on the experiences of victims and survivors.  

Babiak, P. & Hare, R.H. (2006).  Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work.  New York: Regan Books/Harper Collins.

Carozza, D. (2008).  Identifying psychopathic fraudsters:  These men know ‘Snakes in Suits’.  Fraud Magazine. http://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=404

Schug, R. & Ricke, J. (March 9, 2011).  Psychopathy and the ministry.  How vulnerable are you? Aftermath Radio.  http://aftermath-survivingpsychopathy.org/radio/index.php/2011/03/09/ aftermath-radio-psychopathy-and-the-ministry-how-vulnerable-are-you/

Unfortunately, the differentiation of these widely-used terms has caused much confusion among the general public and mental health professionals alike. Part of the problem lies not in differentiating among individuals or disorders but in differentiating between labeling or classification systems. For example, narcissistic personality disorder is outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (or DSM, first introduced in 1952 by the American Psychiatric Association, and currently in its fourth revised version, called the DSM-IV-TR), a classification system used in the United States and several other countries. According to the DSM-IV-TR, narcissistic personality disorder is characterized by a pattern of grandiose fantasies and behaviors, a need to be admired, and lack of empathy which begins early in life and persists throughout the lifespan in multiple areas of functioning. A person with this disorder may also have a strong sense of entitlement, may frequently take advantage of others, and may often be envious of others or believe that others are envious of him or her.

Psychopathy and sociopathy are not acknowledged as separate disorders in the current DSM, though the syndrome of psychopathy has been rigorously explored, defined, tested, and validated by researchers over the past several decades. Another consideration in differentiating these disorders is comorbidity, or the existence of two or more disorders at the same time in one individual—meaning that it is possible for one person to meet diagnostic criteria for both psychopathy and narcissistic personality disorder at the same time.

Understanding the difference between psychopathy and sociopathy really comes from an understanding of the different labels and conceptualizations historically used to describe psychopathy. Psychopathy, the disorder, has gone by many names. In 1801, it was called manie sans délire (“insanity without delirium”) by French physician and psychiatrist Philippe Pinel. In 1835, it was re-named moral insanity by British psychiatrist J. C. Prichard. In 1891, German psychiatrist J. L. Koch coined the term psychopathic inferiority (Koch chose the term “psychopathic”, which was actually a generic term for personality disorders until recent decades, to signify his belief that a physical basis existed for this condition—the term “inferiority” meant only that it represented an unfavorable deviation from the norm).

In 1952, the first edition of the DSM used the term sociopathic personality disturbance. This was  the first official emergence of the term “sociopathy” to describe this condition, although this diagnosis was focused on internal psychological processes and personality traits (as opposed to more easily identified behaviors), which made it difficult for clinicians to diagnose properly. To address this shortfall, in 1980 the DSM-III introduced a more limited, behaviorally-based diagnosis called antisocial personality disorder which arguably lost many of the key personality-based symptoms of psychopathy that were found in earlier versions of the diagnosis.

As such, antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy are often confused, though they are not the same condition. Furthermore, though one prominent researcher (David Lykken) years ago proposed differentiating between sociopathy and psychopathy based upon causal factors (with psychopathy caused primarily by biological factors, and sociopathy due more to social factors such as improper or ineffective parenting), there has been no research that supports this theoretical speculation. In fact, there is no currently validated measure of sociopathy which would permit researchers to study whether it has different causes or properties than psychopathy. Thus, the current confusion between sociopathy and psychopathy may stem from an unwillingness of mental health professionals to discard an antiquated term, in spite of the extensive body of research developed on psychopathy but not sociopathy.

Those with psychopathic features often seem to have an uncanny ability to home into basic human vulnerabilities.  This often puts them in unique positions, where they are able to gain the upper hand.  Uninhibited by conscience, they initially assess the utility of those around them freely and equally.  They then tend to narrow their choices to those they find unusually trusting or vulnerable. Sometimes, simply having normal personality traits qualifies an individual as vulnerable.  Other times, they sense that an individual may be susceptible to their advances due to hardship or an unfulfilled need.  Some psychopaths are predatory in nature and can quickly evaluate who might be willing and able to help them achieve what they are looking to accomplish.  They can identify a potential victim’s “Achilles Heel” and capitalize on it.

Individuals who are openly trusting or generally seek to find the good in others are more apt to find themselves targeted than those who tend to challenge others to “prove” themselves.  However, most people tend to attempt to see the good in others.  As a result, this natural inclination to respect and trust often leads people to rationalize or minimize the odd or unusual behavior that does occur in exchanges with psychopathic individuals.  This makes almost everyone fair game.

Psychopaths often try to present themselves as “saviors” to those they view as potential victims, offering “support,” relating to their plights and misfortune, or telling their own tales of woe and victimization (which may be distorted or entirely fabricated).  Those on the receiving end often believe what the psychopath tells them, which can lead to sympathy, which in turn, contributes to feelings of intense connection.  Though red flags may be present, many potential victims lack the ability to listen to or interpret their gut reactions.  Many people may genuinely feel that the psychopath is sincerely interested in them.

At this point, an individual who is being targeted is usually unaware of the psychopath’s true intentions.  In addition to any possible vulnerabilities potential victims may have that can  make them more receptive to their advances, psychopaths also look for those who will “invest” in relationships with them.  Often things may feel wrong.  However, in the absence of any solid reasons or evidence as to why things do not feel right, the relationships, whether romantic, business, or otherwise, often continue.  The simple passage of time can further deepen the connections and perceived obligations to the psychopath.  It may seem that victims are weak, but this is not the case.  Normal human vulnerability should not be confused with weakness.  Anyone has the potential to be targeted.  Psychopathic individuals do not appear to care whom or what they use or ultimately destroy.

Although interactions with individuals with psychopathic traits can often be conflictual, even when things are considered “good,” most psychopaths are easily bored, like excitement, and steadily move through victims.  It is common for them to leave trails of destruction as they go.  Often, psychopathic individuals simply decide to leave a situation, partnership, or relationship unexpectedly.  At any point, they tend to have disdain for anyone they see as threatening to their position and will very likely attempt to disarm those individuals who they consider to be threatening.  This stage may present further challenges for the victim.    Many with psychopathic traits do not like to be questioned.  Often, at this point, the victim searches for answers.  It is not uncommon for people to seek answers from those with whom they are involved.  In these cases, doing so can often lead to conflict and meet with further retaliation and  victimization.  Unfortunately, even though they are ready to move on to another situation or relationship, they may enjoy watching a victim’s distress.  Sometimes, they even enjoy the challenge of a fight.

Again, victims usually do not understand what is occurring until it is too late.  The psychopath may have already launched smear campaigns, taken unfounded legal action, and manipulated those the victim cares about, simply for sport.  Once the victims begin sharing their stories with others, the people to whom they tell these stories, often cannot believe what they are hearing.  It is common for others to be in disbelief, either because they perceive the victim as an unlikely candidate for targeting or abuse, or because the stories can seem so inherently unlikely that it may be difficult, at first, to believe they are true.

It is important to remember that some psychopaths appear to easily “become” whatever it is their potential victim wants them to be, morphing into “ideal” mates, business partners, or  friends.  Some of them seem to choose their victims based on a combination of opportunity and their perceived ability to manipulate the targeted individuals.  While it is likely that no one is immune from victimization, some may be better candidates for victimization than others, often simply by being decent, trusting people.

Written By:  Linda and the Aftermath Volunteers

Note:  This FAQ was written based on the experiences of victims and survivors.

Hare, R. D. (1999).  Without conscience:  the disturbing world of the psychopaths among us.          New York:  Guilford Press.

One of the reasons we do not label children and adolescents as psychopathic is to avoid the potential negative consequences of the ‘psychopath’ label.  The term has many negative connotations, and there is evidence that labels like “psychopath” or “mentally ill” can hurt the way that youth are treated by parents, teachers, and peers.  Examples of how labels can be harmful include denying someone treatment because of a belief that he/she cannot be treated, sending an adolescent to adult court, and attempting to influence a judge to administer a more severe punishment (including capital punishment) on the grounds that someone is untreatable.  Thus, extreme caution should be used when applying when using the term “psychopath” or “psychopathic” to describe youth.

Another reason not to label children as psychopathic is that many may be capable of significant change from childhood to adolescence to adulthood, particularly with intensive intervention.

Please keep in mind that even when research studies reveal symptoms that indicate a worse prognosis, there are still many children who change for the better over time. Prognosis is a statistical concept that loses some of its meaning when we consider one individual child. We simply cannot predict for any individual child what the outcome will be. It is therefore advisable to make intensive treatment available to all families dealing with children who have psychopathic features.

Several cognitive theories of psychopathy emphasize the state dependent or situation-specific nature of cognitive deficits associated with psychopathy. According to these accounts, psychopathic individuals exhibit few cognitive problems under most conditions. That is, they can think, reason, remember, and problem-solve as well as the average healthy person. However, when they are in the midst of trying to achieve an immediate and tangible goal (e.g., to impress you or to obtain something you have), they become relatively poor at processing peripheral information and may even exhibit a dramatic decline in their cognitive abilities.  In this circumstance, they may demonstrate strikingly poor judgment and additional impairments in their self-awareness.

People with psychopathic traits often have a false belief in their own superiority, a sense of entitlement and a complete disregard for social norms.  As a result, they commonly leave a long trail of victims and survivors over the course of living their lives.  Their victims include strangers, friends, romantic partners, co-workers, and family members.  Affected family members could range from distant relations to children, parents, and siblings.  People with psychopathic traits often view others as “suppliers,” and attempt to gain something from those with whom they interact.  Once they no longer need what that person can give or has to offer, that individual is discarded.

Psychopathy can also impair a person’s ability to function in society, in that individuals with psychopathic traits have an inability to connect or relate to others on a deep emotional level.  In spite of their emotional and cognitive deficits, individuals with psychopathic traits can sometimes be quite successful at work, although, at other times, they may display poor judgment while on the job, leave jobs impulsively, violate expectations for appropriate workplace conduct, or even commit crimes while working.

Psychopathy is sometimes referred to as sociopathy or Antisocial Personality Disorder, although there is evidence that psychopathy can be distinguished from Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Additional information about the nature and definition of psychopathy can also be found in the Resources section of this website; see “A Primer on Psychopathy”, “This Charming Psychopath”, and “What ‘Psychopath’ Means.”

For a more detailed discussion of the terms psychopathy, sociopathy, and antisocial personality disorder, click here.

Read the full article (Right click on your mouse to open the link in a new tab and keep this site open.)

As a part of our mission, we strive to increase awareness and understanding of the impact of psychopathy on people who are in relationships with psychopathic individuals, including friends, family members, romantic partners, and offspring. Towards this end, we invite proposals for grants-in-aid to conduct research studies. Initial grants-in-aid can request up to $5,000 to be used to cover payments to participants, equipment, and other direct costs associated with carrying out research studies. For the purposes of this request for proposals, no money may be used to cover indirect (facilities and administration) costs. This request for proposals is open only to graduate students with mentors in the field of psychopathy.

We are soliciting proposals for studies in the following areas, but other relevant proposals will also be considered:

To apply for one of these grants, please send an abstract (up to 500 words) and a research plan (no more than 5 pages single spaced with one inch margins) to David Kosson, President, Aftermath-Surviving-Psychopathy, Psychology Department, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, 3333 Green Bay Road, North Chicago, IL 60064. Proposals must be accompanied by a letter of support from the applicant’s advisor. We strongly suggest that people contact us before submitting proposals. For more information about this program, please contact david.kosson@rosalindfranklin.edu. Proposals and all supporting materials should be submitted by June 15, 2011.

The men also used children as pawns to pawns “to victimize their mother(s).” The psychopaths also psychologically abused the children by:
“(1) Lying to them;
(2) Ignoring them;
(3) Failing to provide for them;
(4) Bullying and terrifying them;
(5) Breaking promises to them;
(6) Destroying their toys.”

This paper appears in Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice Volume 78, Issue 3, pages 379–396, September 2005. The full abstract is below:

This idiographic and essentially exploratory study examined the unique experiences of 20 women who had been victimized within the context of heterosexual relationships with a male partner who was rated as having the characteristics associated with psychopathy.

An integrated approach, using questionnaires, and biographical and narrative data, was utilized. The experimental group consisted of 20 women who had partnered males rated by the women on the Hare P-SCAN (Hare & Herve, 1999) as having many or most of the features of psychopathy. As this was the first reported use of the Hare P-SCAN to provide partner ratings, norms for scorings on this assessment tool were obtained from ratings provided by a control group of a random sample of 100 women who had completed the Hare P-SCAN and provided ratings for their last male partner. Four two-tailed independent samples t tests were conducted to test for significant differences in scorings between the two groups. Following screening, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the experimental group, that is, 20 women who had partnered males with psychopathic traits.

The four independent samples t test showed that significant differences occurred between the ratings of male partners by women in the experimental group and ratings provided by the control group. Narrative data, generated from written accounts and interviews with women in the experimental group, was successful in clarifying the manner in which males with the personality traits which define psychopathy managed the heterosexual relationship and the nature and patterns of the abusive behaviours which occurred in this context.