Psychopathic traits can be difficult to identify, but new research suggests that a person’s residential history may offer a subtle clue.
Researchers examined personality questionnaires, childhood locations and current residences for nearly 4,000 adults in the US. They compared people who still lived in the state where they grew up with those who had moved elsewhere.
In the study, psychopathic traits referred to characteristics such as callousness and impulsivity, including a lack of sensitivity to other people’s feelings and a tendency to act without considering the consequences.
Adults who remained in their childhood state recorded slightly higher levels of these traits, even after the researchers accounted for demographic and geographic differences.
The researchers said the result was consistent with the possibility that psychopathic traits are linked to impulsive behavior, weaker social relationships and less concern about managing one’s reputation.
By contrast, moving to another state often depends on an opportunity, such as a new job, a workplace transfer or a partner relocating.
Higher psychopathy scores were also linked with living in more densely populated states, areas with greater inequality and states with higher homicide rates.
The finding is notable because earlier research had associated frequent relocation with stronger dark personality traits.
People who remained in their childhood state recorded slightly higher levels of these traits, even after demographic and geographic differences were taken into account
Around 29 to 37 percent of American adults live in the exact place where they grew up, while a considerably larger share—approximately 60 to 72 percent—stay in or near their childhood city.
The researchers said the pattern might reflect differences in who has access to opportunities that make moving possible and who remains where they started.
Relocating across state lines commonly requires financial resources, a job offer or personal relationships that create opportunities elsewhere.
Callousness and impulsivity may harm a person’s reputation and weaken the professional and personal connections that can help secure those opportunities.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: Craig Melvin Stuns Parker Posey With ‘Horror’ Mispronunciation
As a result, people with stronger psychopathic traits may receive fewer invitations or offers that would prompt them to move, leaving slightly higher average scores among those who remain in their childhood state.
Another possibility is that familiar surroundings benefit people who are more willing to exploit others, allowing them to draw on established social networks rather than rebuild their lives among strangers.
Either explanation could account for the pattern, but the study did not establish that either mechanism was responsible.
The analysis used an online survey carried out in December 2022. Of the 3,958 adults included, 2,703 lived in their childhood state and 1,255 lived somewhere else.
Participants completed the Short Dark Triad questionnaire, which assesses psychopathy as well as narcissism and Machiavellianism—a tendency toward manipulation and calculated self-interest.
Each trait was measured through nine statements. Participants rated how strongly they agreed with each statement on a scale from one to five. One statement used to assess psychopathy was: ‘People who mess with me always regret it.’
The researchers averaged the responses to create a score for each trait. Higher scores reflected stronger tendencies and did not represent a clinical diagnosis of psychopathy.
Being categorized as a ‘stayer’ also did not mean that a participant had never moved away. People who left and later returned to their childhood state were included in this group.
The findings about destinations applied to broad state-level characteristics. They did not show that participants had deliberately chosen particularly crowded or dangerous neighborhoods.
The researchers did not collect information about participants’ individual incomes, education or reasons for moving. Financial circumstances and other practical limitations may therefore have contributed to the results.
The sample was not nationally representative, and the survey measured participants only at one point in time.
The findings cannot show whether personality influenced where people chose to live, whether their surroundings shaped their personality or whether another factor affected both.
