<p>Psychopathy is a diagnosis with high reliability and validity, which is based on research originally begun by psychologist Robert Hare and now continued by many others. It is often used in forensic settings, and its use requires specialized training. </p>

<p>Sociopathy isn't a diagnosis and has no generally accepted clinical definition (unless it's in the ICD, which I don't use); but it's often associated with Antisocial Personality Disorder in the DSM-5. APD has less research behind it, and lower reliability and validity.  It is more likely to be used in clinical settings.</p>

<p>As someone else noted here, there is some overlap between the two, but they are distinctly different diagnoses. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-12T12:50:56.197Z
In other words, the two diagnoses aren't just about different kinds of people, they are also different in how they were developed and how and where they are used.  This makes direct comparisons difficult
user6166
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-13T03:42:28.007Z
These are constructs, ways of categorizing people, and they overlap.  Regarding their characteristics, there's a considerable amount of research on psychopathy, which you can look up on the internet. The last time I looked no one knew how they got that way. But impulsivity is one of the criteria for psychopathy, so they have that by definition.
user6166
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-15T07:39:34.143Z
Do you have any sources to back up these claims?
anongoodnurse
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-15T18:43:46.383Z
@medica  I was trained by Robert Hare in the use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, which is the operational definition of psychopathy. I also worked with psychopaths in a clinical/forensic setting for several years. For research in the literature, you might start with the Wikipedia articles on Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder, and then look for summary articles that are based on actual research rather than clinical speculation.
user6166
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-15T21:03:42.903Z
I wasn't inquiring about your personal qualifications; I was looking for links to sourses: articles in peer-reviewed journals, etc.
anongoodnurse
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-16T17:21:42.803Z
Funny you should suggest starting with [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathy#20th_century)...It indicates that Hare was at least 50 years too late to be the original researcher. If you feel like suggesting any other references, I'd be particularly interested in support for the claim that antisocial personality disorder is less valid than psychopathy...
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-17T04:59:35.573Z
@medica Can you be more specific about what you want to know?
user6166
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-17T05:16:38.923Z
Any recent journal articles that support your position would be most helpful. For instance, your claim that sociopathy is less valid than psychopathy. That is not what I understand. Anything you can reference, from recent, credible literature, would be most appreciated.
anongoodnurse
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-17T05:42:15.447Z
@NickStauner in current usage, "psychopathy" means "what is measured by the Hare Psychopathy Checklist." Validity is a technical term, referring to the correlation between a measure (in this case, a diagnosis) and some objective criterion.  Sociopathy has no precise  definition afaik, for example it's not in the DSM-5; so it can't be correlated with anything.  The Psychopathy Checklist has high correlations with numerous criteria such as recidivism, so it has high validity in that sense.
user6166
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-17T05:51:49.970Z
No, Hare's measure does not define psychopathy. [It's not even the only measure in use](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathy#Tools). The unreliability of any sociopathy diagnoses would attenuate correlations, but not preclude correlation entirely as long as the diagnosis is used. Besides, I asked specifically about antisocial personality disorder (which is in the DSM-5), because that's the diagnosis you said is less valid.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-17T05:52:05.157Z
@medica see my reply to Nick Stauner. There are validity numbers for the Psychopathy Checklist, but they would be in the manual; I'll see what I can find. But the main point is that afaik there are no comparable numbers for sociopathy, because it hasn't been codified into a clear definition that everyone accepts.
user6166
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-17T05:53:32.153Z
IN other words, you have no valid evidence to back up your claim? One is simply to believe you because you claim it to be true?
anongoodnurse
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-22T23:58:08.383Z
@user6166 You said "Sociopathy isn't a diagnosis and has no generally accepted clinical definition", yet the same is true for "psychopathy".  It does not exist as a diagnosis in either the ICD nor the DSM.  Modern psychology simply doesn't use either term, but you imply "psychopathy" exists in the DSM.
Attackfarm
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-12T05:27:36.127Z
2014-06-16T05:41:52.177Z
2014-06-16T05:41:52.177Z
user6166
<p>My understanding of the distinction is that psychopaths are the way they are from birth, while sociopaths become antisocial due to upbringing or other environmental factors. As well, psychopaths have a high tendency towards violence but generally low impulsiveness, while sociopaths may not be as violent but have high impulsiveness. <a href="http://www.diffen.com/difference/Psychopath_vs_Sociopath" rel="nofollow">Diffen</a> has a nice and fairly comprehensive comparison of the two terms. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-06T18:56:46.227Z
I wish it were this easy, but I don't think it is. The ICD 10 lists them both under antisocial personality disorders and makes no distinction between them. If I'm correct, neither does the DSM V, but I don't have access to that online.
anongoodnurse
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-06T19:48:49.300Z
Diffen doesn't seem to agree very closely with its own references. Those references also don't strike me as very conclusive or authoritative. If anything, they're trying to *establish* differential meaning where it is lacking, and they acknowledge this confusion. Others would have to acknowledge *them* to give their opinions much weight in general theoretical discourse, and I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon...
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-06T17:16:30.223Z
2014-06-06T17:16:30.223Z
mayaPapaya
<p>Here is very nice article about difference:
<a href="http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/11/03/the-difference-between-psychopaths-and-sociopaths/" rel="nofollow">http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/11/03/the-difference-between-psychopaths-and-sociopaths/</a></p>

<p>Here is some history of psychopathy diagnosis:
<a href="http://law.jrank.org/pages/1884/Psychopathy-What-psychopathy.html" rel="nofollow">http://law.jrank.org/pages/1884/Psychopathy-What-psychopathy.html</a></p>

<p>In short APA made fusion of sociopathy and psychopathy diagnosis in DSM, but lot of researches was conducted in prisons. So they omited "snakes in the suits" whicha are very inteligent and charming and often climb very sucsesfully on corporate ladder.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-06T20:10:05.317Z
The KnowledgeNuts article suffers from [the same flaws as Diffen's](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/6560/what-is-the-difference-between-a-psychopath-and-sociopath#comment13623_6579) due to sharing a common, inconclusive reference that is mostly an internal definition for one Psy.D.'s blog.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-06T20:32:42.953Z
I have no doubt that they suffer. ;) But between clinical psychologist there are clean difference between sociopath and psychopath. I cant find now the Veinn diagram of intersection of criminal, sociopath and psychopath but I will post it if I manage to find it.
ICanFeelIt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-06T20:36:10.507Z
It's really the opinion of a small handful of clinical psychologists who try to draw clean differences and disagree with one another. They even acknowledge that the rest of the community is pretty confused/divided about this. I don't see much justification for differentiating between the two terms personally...but I'd want actual empirical evidence of discriminant validity, whereas others are sometimes to accept a much lower standard of evidence for two differential diagnoses...My opinion may not reflect that of the majority, for better or worse.
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-06T21:10:14.957Z
here are some views from neuroscience perspective: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/182/1/5.full
ICanFeelIt
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-06T21:15:06.200Z
Interesting...but there is only a very brief mention of "'acquired sociopathy'" in reference to another study. That study doesn't seem to have convinced the authors that acquired sociopathy is a useful or generally understood term, as they present it in quotes...
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-06T19:57:25.027Z
2014-06-06T19:57:25.027Z
ICanFeelIt
<p>The main difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is that you become a sociopath , while you are born a psychopath.Psychopaths cannot feel pity for others or remorse , while sociopaths dont.This video from Psych2Goers explains it very well.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLdf7nQDiIo&amp;t=121s" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLdf7nQDiIo&amp;t=121s</a></p>
<p>Highly functioning sociopaths dont exist.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-21T08:07:09.017Z
Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers [in the help center](/help/how-to-answer).
Community
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-15T19:57:15.583Z
2023-10-15T19:57:15.583Z
Cerise
<p>Well, neither a psychopath nor a sociopath is actually an official <a href="https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/psychopath-vs-sociopath" rel="nofollow noreferrer">diagnosis</a>. The main difference is that 'sociopath' is an unofficial term to describe someone with antisocial personality disorder in general while psychopathy is a series of behaviors associated with antisocial personality disorder, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4321752/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">including</a>:</p>
<ul>
<li>shallow emotional responses</li>
<li>impulsivity</li>
<li>lack of empathy</li>
<li>increased chance of antisocial behavior</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-07-06T19:20:38.307Z
2023-07-06T19:20:38.307Z
Tyler Mc
<p>A sociopath merely doesn't care about others.  A psychopath isn't able to care because they are disconnected from reality. </p>

<p>If you really want to be sane, ditch the DSM and stop trying to categorize human beings, because that <em>itself</em> tends towards psychopathy.  The only term that matters is <strong>insanity</strong> and that can (should) be defined as a "disconnection from reality" (calling yourself a horse, when you're actually a human, for example).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-20T10:01:17.727Z
Welcome to Psychology.SE We work differently to most SE sites, where we have a strict policy that all answers should be backed up with reliable references so that the answer can be independently verified, regardless of the reader's/answerer's background. If you still have trouble with this, feel free to visit the [help] or [meta]. Unreferenced claims can lead to answers being deleted.
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-20T10:02:52.840Z
As for ditching the DSM, what do you suppose we replace it with?
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-20T14:30:37.207Z
And why do you suppose we need a manual for understanding human beings?  The anatomy analogy only goes so far in understanding human behavior.  It ends at their psychology (the personal mind, not the field).
Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-11-17T16:02:51.067Z
2018-11-17T16:02:51.067Z
Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen
<p>Ironically enough, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathy#Sociopathy" rel="noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> <em>does</em> offer as meaningful a distinction as any of the answers here so far:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The term <em>sociopathy</em> may have been first introduced in 1909 in Germany by biological psychiatrist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Birnbaum" rel="noreferrer">Karl Birnbaum</a> and in 1930 in the US by educational psychologist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_E._Partridge" rel="noreferrer">George E. Partridge</a>, as an <strong>alternative to, or a subtype of,</strong> the concept of <strong>psychopathy</strong>.<sup>[137]</sup> It was used to indicate that the <strong>defining feature is violation of social norms, or antisocial behavior</strong>, and has often also been associated with postulating <strong>social as well as biological causation</strong>.<sup>[139][140][141][<a href="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/76/315/838.1.extract" rel="noreferrer">142</a>]</sup></p>
<p>There are various contemporary usages of the term. Robert Hare, who may believe that biological factors are predominant in causing psychopathy,<sup>[143]</sup> claimed in a 1999 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science" rel="noreferrer">popular science</a> book that <strong>sociopathy and psychopathy are often used interchangeably</strong>, but in some cases the term sociopathy is preferred because it is less likely than is psychopathy to be confused with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis" rel="noreferrer">psychosis</a>, whereas in other cases which term is used may &quot;reflect the user's views on the origins and determinates of the disorder&quot;. Hare contended that the term sociopathy is preferred by those that see the causes as due to social factors and early environment, and the term psychopathy preferred by those who believe that there are psychological, biological, and genetic factors involved in addition to environmental factors.<sup>[78]</sup> Hare also suggests another possible distinction: he defines psychopathy as not having a sense of empathy or morality, but sociopathy as only differing in sense of right and wrong from the average person.<sup>[144][145][verification needed][bolding added for emphasis]</sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>While this largely echoes the existing answers, it includes references to published books and articles, involves the idea's history, and gives the impression that the distinctions between psychopathy and sociopathy are largely in the mind of the authors. They vary somewhat from one author to the next, and don't seem to have much empirical support as distinct diagnoses.</p>
<p>One also ought to question the utility of the proposed distinctions. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathy#Primary_vs._secondary" rel="noreferrer">Secondary psychopathy</a> is also meant to imply social etiology, but also lacks empirical support somewhat. Defining a disorder by violation of social norms is a particularly poor approach to abnormal and clinical psychology, because social norms are typically subjective and ill-defined themselves, and do not necessarily apply outside a contemporary cultural context. Such a definition must possess very limited reliability across time and space.</p>
<hr />
<p><sup><strong>References</strong><br />
78. Hare, R. D. (1999). <em>Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us</em>. New York: Guilford Press.<br />
137. Rutter, S. (2007). <em>The psychopath: Theory, research, and practice</em> (pp. 37). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.<br />
139. Partridge, G. E. (1930). Current conceptions of psychopathic personality. <em>The American Journal of Psychiatry, 1</em>(87), 53–99.<br />
140. Felthous, A., &amp; Sass, H. (2008). <em>International handbook on psychopathic disorders and the law</em>, Vol. 1. Wiley.<br />
141. Hildebrand, M. (2005). <em>Psychopathy in the treatment of forensic psychiatric patients: Assessment, prevalence, predictive validity, and clinical implications</em>. Rozenberg Publishers.<br />
142. Partridge, G. E., &amp; Hamblin Smith, M. (1930). Epitome of current literature: Current conceptions of psychopathic disorder. <em>The British Journal of Psychiatry, 76</em>, 838. Retrieved from <a href="http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/76/315/838.1.extract" rel="noreferrer">http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/76/315/838.1.extract</a>.<br />
143. Ronson, J. (2011). The psychopath test (pp. 225). Riverhead Books.<br />
144. Hare, R. (2006). <em>Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work</em>. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.<br />
145. Skilling, T.A., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., &amp; Quinsey, V. L. (2002, March). <em>Identifying persistently antisocial offenders using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist and DSM antisocial personality disorder criteria</em>. American Psychological Association.
</sup></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-10T16:13:18.467Z
I agree with this answer. If I were to face the chopping block if I didn't provide an answer, I'd say that the difference is that psychopaths also exhibit psychosis - delusions, as did Son of Sam and others. But this is not hard and fast by any means.
anongoodnurse
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-07-10T21:11:34.047Z
@anongoodnurse: good suggestion! I have never heard of psychosis being associated with antisocial personality (though they probably correlate anyway, especially given the capacity for misdiagnosis), and nominally, that clearly **is** the difference in the labels!
Nick Stauner
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-06-16T17:52:00.290Z
2014-06-16T17:52:00.290Z
2020-06-17T09:55:31.633Z
Nick Stauner
<p>The Internet is of course full of memes from Sherlock Holmes show, based <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9sUVrVS4co">on one of the episodes</a> having Sherlock self-diagnose:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I'm not a psychopath, I'm a highly functioning sociopath</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>But what exactly is the difference?</strong></p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy">Wikipedia</a> does not actually seem to offer any meaningful distinction between the two, including seemingly indicating that they are synonymous in DSM but not actually named there.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The DSM and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) subsequently introduced the diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and dissocial personality disorder, stating that these have been referred to (or include what is referred to) as psychopathy or sociopathy.</p>
</blockquote>

<abnormal-psychology><terminology><empathy>
What is the difference between a psychopath and sociopath?
DVK
# What is the difference between a psychopath and sociopath?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-06-04)

The Internet is of course full of memes from Sherlock Holmes show, based [on one of the episodes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9sUVrVS4co) having Sherlock self-diagnose:

> I'm not a psychopath, I'm a highly functioning sociopath

**But what exactly is the difference?**

[Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy) does not actually seem to offer any meaningful distinction between the two, including seemingly indicating that they are synonymous in DSM but not actually named there.

> The DSM and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) subsequently introduced the diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and dissocial personality disorder, stating that these have been referred to (or include what is referred to) as psychopathy or sociopathy.

**Tags:** abnormal-psychology, terminology, empathy


---

## 7 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-06-16. Score: 13 | Accepted answer

Ironically enough, [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathy#Sociopathy) *does* offer as meaningful a distinction as any of the answers here so far:

> The term *sociopathy* may have been first introduced in 1909 in Germany by biological psychiatrist [Karl Birnbaum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Birnbaum) and in 1930 in the US by educational psychologist [George E. Partridge](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_E._Partridge), as an **alternative to, or a subtype of,** the concept of **psychopathy**.[137] It was used to indicate that the **defining feature is violation of social norms, or antisocial behavior**, and has often also been associated with postulating **social as well as biological causation**.[139][140][141][[142](http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/76/315/838.1.extract)]
>
> There are various contemporary usages of the term. Robert Hare, who may believe that biological factors are predominant in causing psychopathy,[143] claimed in a 1999 [popular science](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science) book that **sociopathy and psychopathy are often used interchangeably**, but in some cases the term sociopathy is preferred because it is less likely than is psychopathy to be confused with [psychosis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis), whereas in other cases which term is used may "reflect the user's views on the origins and determinates of the disorder". Hare contended that the term sociopathy is preferred by those that see the causes as due to social factors and early environment, and the term psychopathy preferred by those who believe that there are psychological, biological, and genetic factors involved in addition to environmental factors.[78] Hare also suggests another possible distinction: he defines psychopathy as not having a sense of empathy or morality, but sociopathy as only differing in sense of right and wrong from the average person.[144][145][verification needed][bolding added for emphasis]

While this largely echoes the existing answers, it includes references to published books and articles, involves the idea's history, and gives the impression that the distinctions between psychopathy and sociopathy are largely in the mind of the authors. They vary somewhat from one author to the next, and don't seem to have much empirical support as distinct diagnoses.

One also ought to question the utility of the proposed distinctions. [Secondary psychopathy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathy#Primary_vs._secondary) is also meant to imply social etiology, but also lacks empirical support somewhat. Defining a disorder by violation of social norms is a particularly poor approach to abnormal and clinical psychology, because social norms are typically subjective and ill-defined themselves, and do not necessarily apply outside a contemporary cultural context. Such a definition must possess very limited reliability across time and space.

---

**References**  
78. Hare, R. D. (1999). *Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us*. New York: Guilford Press.  
137. Rutter, S. (2007). *The psychopath: Theory, research, and practice* (pp. 37). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  
139. Partridge, G. E. (1930). Current conceptions of psychopathic personality. *The American Journal of Psychiatry, 1*(87), 53–99.  
140. Felthous, A., & Sass, H. (2008). *International handbook on psychopathic disorders and the law*, Vol. 1. Wiley.  
141. Hildebrand, M. (2005). *Psychopathy in the treatment of forensic psychiatric patients: Assessment, prevalence, predictive validity, and clinical implications*. Rozenberg Publishers.  
142. Partridge, G. E., & Hamblin Smith, M. (1930). Epitome of current literature: Current conceptions of psychopathic disorder. *The British Journal of Psychiatry, 76*, 838. Retrieved from <http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/76/315/838.1.extract>.  
143. Ronson, J. (2011). The psychopath test (pp. 225). Riverhead Books.  
144. Hare, R. (2006). *Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work*. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.  
145. Skilling, T.A., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey, V. L. (2002, March). *Identifying persistently antisocial offenders using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist and DSM antisocial personality disorder criteria*. American Psychological Association.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: I agree with this answer. If I were to face the chopping block if I didn't provide an answer, I'd say that the difference is that psychopaths also exhibit psychosis - delusions, as did Son of Sam and others. But this is not hard and fast by any means.  
> **username_3**: @username_2: good suggestion! I have never heard of psychosis being associated with antisocial personality (though they probably correlate anyway, especially given the capacity for misdiagnosis), and nominally, that clearly **is** the difference in the labels!  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-06-12. Score: 6

Psychopathy is a diagnosis with high reliability and validity, which is based on research originally begun by psychologist Robert Hare and now continued by many others. It is often used in forensic settings, and its use requires specialized training.

Sociopathy isn't a diagnosis and has no generally accepted clinical definition (unless it's in the ICD, which I don't use); but it's often associated with Antisocial Personality Disorder in the DSM-5. APD has less research behind it, and lower reliability and validity. It is more likely to be used in clinical settings.

As someone else noted here, there is some overlap between the two, but they are distinctly different diagnoses.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: In other words, the two diagnoses aren't just about different kinds of people, they are also different in how they were developed and how and where they are used.  This makes direct comparisons difficult  
> **username_1**: These are constructs, ways of categorizing people, and they overlap.  Regarding their characteristics, there's a considerable amount of research on psychopathy, which you can look up on the internet. The last time I looked no one knew how they got that way. But impulsivity is one of the criteria for psychopathy, so they have that by definition.  
> **username_2**: Do you have any sources to back up these claims?  
> **username_1**: @medica  I was trained by Robert Hare in the use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, which is the operational definition of psychopathy. I also worked with psychopaths in a clinical/forensic setting for several years. For research in the literature, you might start with the Wikipedia articles on Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder, and then look for summary articles that are based on actual research rather than clinical speculation.  
> **username_2**: I wasn't inquiring about your personal qualifications; I was looking for links to sourses: articles in peer-reviewed journals, etc.  
> **username_3**: Funny you should suggest starting with [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathy#20th_century)...It indicates that Hare was at least 50 years too late to be the original researcher. If you feel like suggesting any other references, I'd be particularly interested in support for the claim that antisocial personality disorder is less valid than psychopathy...  
> **username_1**: @medica Can you be more specific about what you want to know?  
> **username_2**: Any recent journal articles that support your position would be most helpful. For instance, your claim that sociopathy is less valid than psychopathy. That is not what I understand. Anything you can reference, from recent, credible literature, would be most appreciated.  
> **username_1**: @NickStauner in current usage, "psychopathy" means "what is measured by the Hare Psychopathy Checklist." Validity is a technical term, referring to the correlation between a measure (in this case, a diagnosis) and some objective criterion.  Sociopathy has no precise  definition afaik, for example it's not in the DSM-5; so it can't be correlated with anything.  The Psychopathy Checklist has high correlations with numerous criteria such as recidivism, so it has high validity in that sense.  
> **username_3**: No, Hare's measure does not define psychopathy. [It's not even the only measure in use](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathy#Tools). The unreliability of any sociopathy diagnoses would attenuate correlations, but not preclude correlation entirely as long as the diagnosis is used. Besides, I asked specifically about antisocial personality disorder (which is in the DSM-5), because that's the diagnosis you said is less valid.  
> **username_1**: @medica see my reply to username_3. There are validity numbers for the Psychopathy Checklist, but they would be in the manual; I'll see what I can find. But the main point is that afaik there are no comparable numbers for sociopathy, because it hasn't been codified into a clear definition that everyone accepts.  
> **username_2**: IN other words, you have no valid evidence to back up your claim? One is simply to believe you because you claim it to be true?  
> **username_4**: @username_1 You said "Sociopathy isn't a diagnosis and has no generally accepted clinical definition", yet the same is true for "psychopathy".  It does not exist as a diagnosis in either the ICD nor the DSM.  Modern psychology simply doesn't use either term, but you imply "psychopathy" exists in the DSM.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2014-06-06. Score: 3

My understanding of the distinction is that psychopaths are the way they are from birth, while sociopaths become antisocial due to upbringing or other environmental factors. As well, psychopaths have a high tendency towards violence but generally low impulsiveness, while sociopaths may not be as violent but have high impulsiveness. [Diffen](http://www.diffen.com/difference/Psychopath_vs_Sociopath) has a nice and fairly comprehensive comparison of the two terms.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: I wish it were this easy, but I don't think it is. The ICD 10 lists them both under antisocial personality disorders and makes no distinction between them. If I'm correct, neither does the DSM V, but I don't have access to that online.  
> **username_3**: Diffen doesn't seem to agree very closely with its own references. Those references also don't strike me as very conclusive or authoritative. If anything, they're trying to *establish* differential meaning where it is lacking, and they acknowledge this confusion. Others would have to acknowledge *them* to give their opinions much weight in general theoretical discourse, and I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon...  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2014-06-06. Score: 2

Here is very nice article about difference:
<http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/11/03/the-difference-between-psychopaths-and-sociopaths/>

Here is some history of psychopathy diagnosis:
<http://law.jrank.org/pages/1884/Psychopathy-What-psychopathy.html>

In short APA made fusion of sociopathy and psychopathy diagnosis in DSM, but lot of researches was conducted in prisons. So they omited "snakes in the suits" whicha are very inteligent and charming and often climb very sucsesfully on corporate ladder.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: The KnowledgeNuts article suffers from [the same flaws as Diffen's](http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/6560/what-is-the-difference-between-a-psychopath-and-sociopath#comment13623_6579) due to sharing a common, inconclusive reference that is mostly an internal definition for one Psy.D.'s blog.  
> **username_6**: I have no doubt that they suffer. ;) But between clinical psychologist there are clean difference between sociopath and psychopath. I cant find now the Veinn diagram of intersection of criminal, sociopath and psychopath but I will post it if I manage to find it.  
> **username_3**: It's really the opinion of a small handful of clinical psychologists who try to draw clean differences and disagree with one another. They even acknowledge that the rest of the community is pretty confused/divided about this. I don't see much justification for differentiating between the two terms personally...but I'd want actual empirical evidence of discriminant validity, whereas others are sometimes to accept a much lower standard of evidence for two differential diagnoses...My opinion may not reflect that of the majority, for better or worse.  
> **username_6**: here are some views from neuroscience perspective: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/182/1/5.full  
> **username_3**: Interesting...but there is only a very brief mention of "'acquired sociopathy'" in reference to another study. That study doesn't seem to have convinced the authors that acquired sociopathy is a useful or generally understood term, as they present it in quotes...  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2023-10-15. Score: 1

The main difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is that you become a sociopath , while you are born a psychopath.Psychopaths cannot feel pity for others or remorse , while sociopaths dont.This video from Psych2Goers explains it very well.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLdf7nQDiIo&t=121s>

Highly functioning sociopaths dont exist.

> **Comments:**
> **username_8**: Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers [in the help center](/help/how-to-answer).  

---

### Answer by username_9 on 2023-07-06. Score: 0

Well, neither a psychopath nor a sociopath is actually an official [diagnosis](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/psychopath-vs-sociopath). The main difference is that 'sociopath' is an unofficial term to describe someone with antisocial personality disorder in general while psychopathy is a series of behaviors associated with antisocial personality disorder, [including](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4321752/):

* shallow emotional responses
* impulsivity
* lack of empathy
* increased chance of antisocial behavior


---

### Answer by username_10 on 2018-11-17. Score: -3

A sociopath merely doesn't care about others. A psychopath isn't able to care because they are disconnected from reality.

If you really want to be sane, ditch the DSM and stop trying to categorize human beings, because that *itself* tends towards psychopathy. The only term that matters is **insanity** and that can (should) be defined as a "disconnection from reality" (calling yourself a horse, when you're actually a human, for example).

> **Comments:**
> **username_11**: Welcome to Psychology.SE We work differently to most SE sites, where we have a strict policy that all answers should be backed up with reliable references so that the answer can be independently verified, regardless of the reader's/answerer's background. If you still have trouble with this, feel free to visit the [help] or [meta]. Unreferenced claims can lead to answers being deleted.  
> **username_11**: As for ditching the DSM, what do you suppose we replace it with?  
> **username_10**: And why do you suppose we need a manual for understanding human beings?  The anatomy analogy only goes so far in understanding human behavior.  It ends at their psychology (the personal mind, not the field).  

---

