Discussion
The purpose of this study was to expand the current literature on psychopathy and perceptions of vulnerability to victimization by including an analysis of observer gender, including a more nuanced examination of psychopathy at the facet level, and focusing the analyses on a broader definition of violent victimization. Consistent with previous research (e.g. Beryl et al., 2014), gender differences were identified among psychopathy scores, where men scored higher on psychopathy than women. Moreover, despite limited research examining gender differences in the detection of nonverbal cues (Demetrioff et al., 2017), the current study did find that accuracy in perceiving vulnerability to violent victimization did differ across gender. Among the overall sample, significant associations with accuracy were evident for Factor 1 and the IPM facet. Subsequent linear regression analyses, however, identified gender differences in the association between psychopathy and accuracy. Specifically, total, Factor 2, and the ASB facet of psychopathy were positively associated with accuracy among male observers, but not among females. In fact, psychopathy in general (total, Factors, and facets) was unrelated to accuracy among female observers. This suggests that the adept ability to accurately perceive nonverbal cues signalling vulnerability is specific to males exhibiting psychopathic traits.
Contrary to previous research identifying an association between Factor 1 psychopathy and accuracy (e.g. Book et al., 2013), the current study suggests that Factor 2, more specifically the ASB facet, is most salient to the prediction of accuracy in perceiving vulnerability to violent victimization among male observers. This discrepancy may be due to the differences in the definition of violent crime across the studies. We defined violence with more specificity in order to capture more serious forms of crime (i.e. robbery, threats, physical abuse, sexual assault/abuse, stalking), whereas Book et al.’s definition was much broader (i.e. anything equal to or greater than bullying). Specifically, scores on the ASB facet, of the SRP-III, which were predictive in the current study, are based on items such as “I have attacked someone with the idea of injuring them,” “I was convicted of a serious crime,” and “I have threatened people into giving me money, clothes, or makeup” (Paulhus et al., 2016). Thus, those with more experience in victimizing others appear to be more accurate in identifying targets vulnerable to similar crimes based on nonverbal cues.
