Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
The psychopath, media and social work
The first use of the term “psychopath” in the context in which we today apply it came from Vienna based doctor Ernst von Feuchtersleben in 1845, yet it would not gain recognition until 1888 when Julius Ludwig August Koch used it in his writing on “psychopatische Minderwertigkeiten (Lingh, 2011). Older recordings of what was called “moral insanity”, “insanity without delusion” and similar definitions can be seen as far back as to the old Greeks where Plato back in 380 B.C. analyzed the nature of a tyrant in his “The Republic, book II” and Aristotles depiction of a group of people displaying a “brutal nature” in his “Nicomachean Etics”(Lingh, 2011), but the first modern theorist to provide a clinical definition of psychopathy was American psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley with his book “The mask of sanity”, first published in 1941 (Cleckley, 2011). He produces 16 common qualities of a psychopath in the form of a checklist (Cleckley, 2011) and these are the basis for most of the following experts on the subject, like Robert Hare whose “Psychopathy Checklist, Revised” is the most commonly used way of affirming psychopathy today (Hare, 2003).
The term was used early in Sweden, as early as 1849, in Carl Ulrik Sondéns writings on psychopathology and in 1917 it was adopted by the Swedish Psychiatric Association, which started a still ongoing debate on the use, misuse and social impact surrounding the definition (Lingh, 2011).
Even if psychopathy is a widely used term in the psychiatric field it has not been listed in the most common system of mental disorder; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) produced by the American Psychiatric Association and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) produced by the World Health Organization. The closest thing they have is DSM-IV’s Antisocial Personality Disorder and ICD-10’s Dissocial Personality Disorder, which share behavioral similarities with psychopathy but does not fully take into account the lack of empathy that the psychopath criteria holds. Robert D. Hare (2003) writes that the average clinician would not properly asses the complicated personality trait criteria required to diagnose psychopathy, but would rather make assumptions based on the acts perpetrated by the individual, since these are more easily identified in DSM-IV. Yet in DSM-IV there is mentioning of psychopathy in the text describing Antisocial Personality Disorder, which causes some confusion and has made DSM-IV to recommend that the diagnoses Antisocial Personality Disorder should be reviewed and be called Antisocial/Dissocial Personality Disorder instead, and have Antisocial/Psychopathic Type as a subgroup.
The psychopath has a personality that is characterized by their extreme egocentricity and the ability to successfully lie, manipulate and use the people around them for their own purposes (Hare, 2003). Emotionally they are shallow, superficial and show a severe lack of remorse, guilt and empathy, as well as reduced feelings of fear and stress (Hare, 2003 & Cleckley, 2011). Their behavior is very impulsive, irresponsible and with a great need for stimulation and with a parasitic and often criminal lifestyle (Hare, 2003 & Cleckley, 2011). They have weak impulse control and are drawn towards different forms of substance abuse, but not to find feelings of relief or dullness but to experience stimulation (Lingh, 2011). It is hard to fully understand the charm and confidence the psychopath is able to exhibit, sense he does it with a full certainty of his own ability and without any feelings of guilt or remorse (Hare, 2003). He does what he wants and do not care how it affects anyone around him, because to him other people are not living, thinking or feeling individuals (Cleckley, 2011).
The image of the psychopath is hard to conceive without drifting away towards perceptions given to us by movies, books and newspapers. The unconsidered use of the word “psycho” is in itself a term that just enhances this. Is the social worker immune to this? Is the social worker through good education and good intentions above this?
There are few references on how to handle a person with this diagnosis from Socialstyrelsen that are useful. There are recommendations on what indicates psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder (Socialstyrelsen, 2011), and where to send people for further evaluation (SOSFS 1996:14), but as for the actual face to face meeting and the handling of cases involving people with the diagnosis there is no help to be found. So what the social worker has got to use is his or her training and education.
The definition of social work is stated by The International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) as:
“The social work profession promotes social change, problem solving in human relationships and the empowerment and liberation of people to enhance well-being. Utilizing theories of human behavior and social systems, social work intervenes at the points where people interact with their environments. Principles of human rights and social justice are fundamental to social work.”
Social work has a history of categorizing their clients, often with the best of intention, and therefore they are themselves part of creating “outsiders” (Swärd, 2008). Swärd claims that the process of creating norms for clients is a way to assess if they are worth helping or not. If they are not, they will have to make an effort, in what French philosopher Michel Foucault calls a self-discipline technique (1986, 1987). There are studies that have shown that when labelling clients, social workers tend to do so in a negative way (Gingerich, Kleczewski & Kirk, 1982).
As a client you have to adjust and fit the mold. However the clinical psychopath does not fit the mold, and is often not even able to, for more than short periods of time. They will lie, cheat and adjust to get what they need, but are often not able to do so more than momentarily (Hare, 1997). So what the social worker has to go after, and often the first thing the social workers reads in the case file, is the diagnosis: psychopath, a classic outsider and also unable to reform. It is hard not to get affected by this. Malcolm Payne (1999) says that social work should have a moral base and it is the social workers task to make moral judgment on behalf of society. Each individual carries their own moral foundation, and in social work it has to be put into a professional frame to find what is and is not “acceptable”. Therefore our morals need to be in tune with the climate we are working in (Payne, 1999). Being part of the society and sharing its values also means exposure to claims-makers who construct what we read about and what we care about; the media. A successful way of getting the media consumer to take in the point that is made is not just to make them think, but more importantly to feel, and a common procedure in executing this is by manufacture feelings connected with victims or villains (Loseke, 2008). In Losekes Thinking about social problems she argues that the villains are blamed with causing the suffering of the victims, and culturally the feeling of blame and responsibility should be accompanied by the emotions of hatred and condemnation, followed by a will to implement punishment. The media can add fuel to this by causing a “moral panic”, a reaction of social concern over a deviation of the established social norm (Cohen, 1972). This further adds to the exclusion of the “outsider” and enhances the labeling process. Loseke (2008) says that in the use of key phrases, “terrorist”, “child-molester” and such, a construction of danger is established. The word “psychopath” could be seen as a key phrase causing a reaction.
In social work a reflexive stand point must be had, and socio-analytic reflection should also be present in every meeting or contact; is there prejudice from the social worker? Is the client being met with respect and an open mind? Is the client’s need in focus? The power the social worker owns should not be neglected in this reflection (Johansson, 2006). The professional social worker in this situation needs to be aware of his or her own personal traits and viewpoints. Ulla Holm (2001) claims that a professional standpoint is a constant endeavor to be ruled by what is gainful, in a short-term as well as a long-term perspective, for the client, and not by their own needs, emotions or impulses. There are constant risks involved in work where much of the profession is face-to-face contact and one party hold the power over the other and although the decisions made have structural guide lines much of the content in these decisions are judgment calls made by the individual handler (Skau, 2008). Greta Marie Skau (2008) also writes that if an unprofessional attitude is accepted it runs the risk of becoming an established structural condition that might influence an entire organization, which increases the risk of wide scale abuse.
Earlier research
In the comprehensive book, “Psykopater och sociopater – Ett Spektrum” (2011), we found interesting references, such as Susanne Strand, from whom we were able to find more interesting articles. The book just mentioned, we found in the university library in Jönköping. An interesting, and as we find it, relevant study in the research area of psychopathy and media is a scientific book by Otto F. Wahl which is titled “Media Madness: Public Images of Mental Illness (1997)”. In this book the author makes a compilation of the term psychopath used in books, movies and TV-Shows and makes the conclusion that the term “psychotic” and “psychopath” is often confused. The psychopath is also often described as “a morally tainted person” who prays on the innocent. However he finds that they are rarely true psychopaths in the clinical sense. Regarding the clinical sense, the most used and worldwide recognized material of diagnosing psychopathy is Hares “Psychopathy Checklist, Revised” (2003), or if the alternative diagnosis Antisocial Personality Disorder as mentioned in “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)” published by “American Psychiatric Association (APA)”. The latest revised edition called DSM-IV-TR was published 2000. In Sweden DSM is used as additional material to the more commonly used ICD-10, published by World Health Organization (WHO). The latest edition was published in the year 2011. In ICD-10 the diagnosis Dissocial Personality Disorder is the closest equivalent to psychopathy. According to Lychik (2012), the media doesn’t purposefully intend to make people fearful of psychopaths; however they use the term to convey an image of someone dangerous and without remorse. She also claims that the media doesn’t take into account that psychopathy actually is a personality disorder and therefore every psychopath suffers in their own way.
Lawrie (2000) states that negative articles about psychiatric illness lean to criticize the patients. He says that the newspapers themselves cover psychiatric illness in a negative way. In his study, daily newspapers were covered for one month during November 1996 and any articles related to health issues were kept.
Our research area is not a unique field, since psychopathy have been studied in various shapes, although we find a lack of more defined comparative studies focusing on the use of the word (psychopath) itself. Therefore we have to look for earlier research in a wider perspective. When we look for Swedish research in our field we find a thesis dealing with the media reports of crime in today’s society (Demker & Duus-Otterström, 2011). They write that the description of a human being a psychopath is a way to distance society from the perpetrator. It is “något som kan klassificeras som utanför det normala eller förväntade” (“something that can be classified as outside the normal and expected” – our own translation). They also say that the psychopath is seen as a threat to the society and a bit of a mystery. This is a view that is supported by Canadian professor of sociology Riley Olstead in his article where he claims that the labeling is a way for the general public to more easily view the mentally ill as “bad” (Olstead, 2002). Susanne Strand (2007) from Mittuniversitetet in Sweden claims that the media pictures the psychopath as a cold-hearted murderer without a conscious and makes a connection with the character Hannibal Lector from the movie “The Silence of the Lambs”. She claims that although this picture can be partly true, it does not necessarily have to be in this way. Despite the fact that psychopathy is a risk factor for antisocial and violent behavior, Strand is referring to Hare’s research that the psychopath might very well adapt to the society’s norms and regulations and function within those without drawing too much attention. Hare claims that one percent of men in today’s society are psychopaths (Strand, 2007) and Strand also states that the media often miss the female psychopath who can demonstrate an equally destructive behavior as her male counterpart. As we have noticed, the “psychopath” is portrayed in the media as a male figure, cold and without remorse, but on the few occasions a woman is identified as a psychopath she is often hysterical and emotionally unstable. As an example of this we refer to the earlier mentioned movie characters and the movie “Fatal Attraction” were Glenn Close portraits a rabbit-boiling hysterical woman, and opposed to this, as mentioned, Hannibal Lector is the typical male psychopath as he without any facial expressions beats two prison guards to death while listening to classical music.
Swedish psychologist Sigvard Lingh who wrote the extensive book “Psykopater och socipater – Ett spektrum” (2011), writes that researchers at Copenhagen University let eight psychology students evaluate four movie characters regarding possible personality disorders. All of the students successfully diagnosed different movie characters with good accuracy. We understand this as a claim that psychopaths and other personality disorders are more common the world of cinema. The psychopath is often needed for thrill, and a manifestation of evil without a need for further explanation. Psychopaths are simply evil. That sort of evil is beneficial to movie makers and those wanting to convey suspense or thrilling stories, but as a reflection of a condition it’s counter-productive due to the fact that it is creating unrealistic expectations and fears that may be non-existing because of the extreme stereotyping the characters exhibit.
Finding quantitative studies in this field is problematic. It might be possible for us to have a quantitative aspect in categorizing the articles with elements of a qualitative nature.
As we find it, the earlier research in this field is based on the professional perspective and not the client perspective. What we find in the above mentioned articles and books is a common use of a form of social constructionism. The media has a role in identifying and presenting social problems or the reason for them, yet also has a motive to entertain or sensationalize in order to sell newspaper issues or attract viewers. In “Thinking about Social Problems” (2008) Loseke claims that the context for a problem is not automatically there, but has to be constructed or produced be those who identify it. Since the mass media is the most common source of information for the public, the labeling of the psychopath as a murderous mad man becomes a more accepted context then that of the psychiatric community who present their view on the matter to a much smaller audience. The impact on the public is far greater from a daily newspaper then from a scientific journal. Once the psychopath has been presented often enough as a threat, he/she has become part of a construction where the mere mentioning of the word stops being a diagnosed condition and instead becomes a danger to society. Loseke finds that among Americans, whom are her reference group, social concerns are often based on the fear of what these problems might cause for themselves. The terms presented in the media as harmful are therefore put into a context of being a threat to the society, the community, the family, the social workers and also oneself.
Theory and concept
In this thesis our theoretical approach is social constructionism, seeing society as a construction built on the communications and understandings of those who take part in it and by this challenging the way we see things as “natural” (Burr, 2003). The way we perceive our world and the values and categorizations we attribute to it, is based on our social context; the culture, norms and historical events that have formed our way of life so far (Payne, 2010). What is acceptable and justified in one context might not in another. The knowledge we acquire and an understanding of how the world is, comes to us through a social interaction with the people around us; people having the same frame of reference (Payne, 2010). So when making an assessment via an observation, we should understand that the thing we might find unproblematic and natural, is actually just what we are formed to view as such (Burr, 2003). The different ways we view an event or experience a situation is depending on our pre-adjusted way of estimating the world around us. Loseke (2008) gives us the American flag as an example. In itself it is a colorful piece of cloth on a pole, but to most Americans it is a symbol of freedom, patriotism and something to feel proud before, yet in other parts of the world it is a symbol of other things. There are different parties involved in making us perceive our world the way we do, and some have it as their purpose. These are social interest groups, lobbyists, public organizations and a growing and dominant player: the media (Ejrnæs & Kristiansen, 2002). As a claims-maker the media has come to rely on not just the use of information, but also to appeal to an emotional part of the audience, understanding that apart from the demand for information there is also a desire among the audience to be entertained (Loseke, 2008). As an audience we turn to the media to find amusement, guidance, entertainment and information (Berger 2005), but if our information becomes entertainment, or has a larger focus on making us respond emotionally then receive data, then there is a risk that our view of our own world becomes a place filled with false morals and stereotypes (Loseke, 2008). Whether good or bad, stereotypes give an oversimplified version of a person, be it black, Jewish, doctors or women, and it minimizes the individual differences and affect our values related to this group of people (Berger, 2005). Media analyst Arthur Asa Berger (2005) writes that values are the attribute by which people determine good or bad, and the spectrum within those two, regarding politics, sex, social behavior and other things found within our society. He points out that the stereotypes found in the media affect the audience, but it also suggest something about the values that are valid in society (Berger, 2005). Berger criticizes the concept of just blaming bad morals and negative categorizations of people on the media, and suggests that many of the values portrayed comes from a pre-existing set or norms and values found in the audience (Berger, 2005). So are the media constructing or a construction? Both?
Payne (2010) argues that social problems occur when a social group, most often the media, successfully claims that a social issue is problematic and demands an intervention. The argument is that many issues may not be problematic in a general sense, but are a way for certain groups to create social constructions around specific social experiences (Payne, 2010). Studies show that social problems and norm deviation are created through a social process were a certain group of people are attributed and adapt into the social surroundings stereotypical values and classifications, and those processes also exist in the meetings between citizens and the social services of the welfare states (Ejrnæs & Kristiansen, 2002). Many social institutions, while supposedly work for the wellbeing of the people within a society, actually help enforce the ruling force of power that punishes people who deviate from the norm (Foucault, 1987 & Payne, 2010). Seen from the point of view of the social constructionist the work of the social services might in their categorization and systematic gathering of information help create social problems and add blame to specific groups of people (Ejrnæs & Kristiansen, 2002).
Table of contents :
Introduction
Research questions
Background
Earlier research
Theory and concept
Method
Results
Discussion
Result discussion
References
