Document 6534837

Transcription

Document 6534837

P1: KEF
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (JOBA)
pp1225-joba-487537
October 19, 2004
13:2
Style file version June 25th, 2002
C 2004)
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Vol. 26, No. 4, December 2004 (
Psychopathy and the Five Factor Model
in a Noninstitutionalized Sample: A Domain
and Facet Level Analysis
Scott R. Ross,1,4 Catherine J. Lutz,2 and Steven E. Bailley3
Accepted January 4, 2004
The relationship of primary and secondary psychopathic dispositions as measured by the Levenson
Self-Report Psychopathy (LSRP) Scales to NEO-PI-R domain and facet scales of the Five Factor
Model (FFM) was examined in a sample (N = 463) of young adults. Previous investigations were
extended by (1) addressing the relationship of higher- (i.e., domain) and lower-order (i.e., facet)
FFM traits to primary and secondary psychopathy in noninstitutionalized persons, in an attempt to
validate hypotheses by T. A. Widiger and D. R. Lynam (1998); (2) examining sex differences in
FFM traits in relation to these two psychopathic dispositions; and (3) lending further evidence for the
validity of the LSRP. LSRP primary psychopathy was marked by low Agreeableness whereas LSRP
secondary psychopathy was characterized by high Neuroticism, low Agreeableness, and low Conscientiousness. Although few sex differences were found between primary and secondary psychopathy,
findings support the use of NEO-PI-R domain and facet scales in the identification of personality
disorder.
KEY WORDS: psychopathy; Five Factor Model; personality; sex differences.
The Five Factor Model (FFM) has recently emerged
as a model for describing the basic traits comprising
normal personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman
& Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Goldberg, 1990). Although
different investigators have variously referred to the
“Big-Five” personality traits, they include Neuroticism–
Emotional
Stability,
Extraversion–Introversion,
Openness–Closedness to Experience, Agreeableness–
Antagonism, and Conscientiousness–Undirectedness
(Costa & McCrae, 1992). FFM Proponents argue that
this model is useful in describing personality disorder as
well as normal variations in trait dispositions (Costa &
Widiger, 1994). A number of studies have already been
conducted in an attempt to locate personality disorders as
defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM-IV; APA, 1994) in the FFM (Blais, 1997;
Costa & McCrae, 1990; Dyce, 1997; Reynolds & Clark,
2001; Trull, 1992; Trull, Widiger, & Burr, 2001). However, fewer investigations have focused on personality
pathology not explicit in the DSM-IV (APA, 1994).
One such example is psychopathy, originally described by Cleckley (1976) as emotionally callous, irritable, impulsive, manipulative, and socially charming. Empirical investigations of psychopathic offenders suggest
that they are among the most prolific and violent of criminals, committing a wider variety and number of crimes
than the average criminal (Hare & McPherson, 1984; Hare,
McPherson, & Forth, 1988). This theoretical construct is
thought to underlie the DSM-IV diagnosis of antisocial
personality disorder (ASPD; Spitzer, Endicott, & Robins,
1975). Specifically, ASPD is thought to correspond most
closely to observable behavioral components of psychopathy such as repeated arrests and unstable employment history (Hare, Hart, & Harpur, 1991; Hare & Hart, 1995). In
contrast, the more broadly defined construct of psychopathy emphasizes antisocial behavior, as well as characteristic traits like superficial charm and grandiosity (Hare,
1991; Harpur, Hakstian, & Hare, 1988).
1 Department
of Psychology, DePauw University, Greencastle, Indiana.
of Psychology, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio.
3 Private Practice, Houston, Texas.
4 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of
Psychology, DePauw University, Greencastle, Indiana 46135; e-mail:
[email protected].
2 Department
213
C 2004 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
0882-2689/04/1200-0213/0 P1: KEF
pp1225-joba-487537
October 19, 2004
214
Many have advocated a two-factor model of
psychopathy as described by Karpman (1941) and
Blackburn (1975). Karpman (1941) characterized primary
psychopaths as callous, calculating, manipulative, and
deceitful. In contrast, secondary psychopaths were hypothesized to suffer from a neurotic disorder that stimulates impulsive behavior. Because primary psychopaths
are thought to be relatively free of depression and anxiety, they should be more likely to be successful in their
antisocial acts, escaping punishment. Using MMPI profiles of violent offenders, Blackburn (1975) characterized
primary and secondary psychopaths as aggressive, impulsive, and undersocialized with secondary psychopaths
also exhibiting social introversion and guilt-proneness. In
line with this conceptual distinction, it has been argued
that ASPD largely represents characteristics of secondary
psychopathy (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). Although controversial, the distinction between primary and
secondary psychopathy is gaining increased empirical
support (Eysenck, 1994; Gudjonsson & Roberts, 1983;
Lilienfeld & Hess, 2001; Lykken, 1995; Pollock, 1999;
Ross & Rausch, 2001).
Hare’s (1985) Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; and
PCL-R; Hare, 1991) is the most widely used measure
of psychopathy, with studies strongly supporting its reliability and validity. Factor analysis yields two PCLR dimensions, corresponding to primary and secondary
psychopathy (Levenson et al., 1995). The first factor, reflecting primary psychopathy, includes features such as
callousness, chronic lying, lack of remorse, and manipulativeness. The second factor, mapping onto secondary
psychopathy, includes impulsivity, boredom susceptibility, early behavior problems, and delinquency. Most studies utilizing the PCL have been conducted using older,
incarcerated adults where the base-rate of psychopathy
is high. Additionally, the participants in psychopathy research in all but a few studies have exclusively been men
(see Forth, Brown, Hart, & Hare, 1996; and Salekin,
Rogers, & Sewell, 1997, for reviews). This approach
to sampling may pose several difficulties for generalizing to the construct of psychopathy, broadly defined.
In an effort to be more inclusive, there is an increasing focus on subclinical manifestations of psychopathy
(Lilienfeld, 1994, 1998), after earlier but sporadic attempts to examine psychopathy in noninstitutionalized
populations (see Widom, 1977; Sutker & Allain, 1983;
Sutker, DeSanto, & Allain, 1985). Consistent with this
redirection, instruments for the measurement of psychopathy in noninstitutionalized samples have been recently developed by Hart (1992, as cited in Forth et al.,
1996), Levenson et al. (1995), and Lilienfeld and Andrews
(1996).
13:2
Ross, Lutz, and Bailley
In terms of the FFM, Widiger and Lynam (1998)
hypothesized that Agreeableness and Conscientiousness
are domains that describe global psychopathy. They suggested that the first factor of the PCL-R corresponds to
low Agreeableness; the second factor approximates low
Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness. They secondarily implicated Neuroticism where lower levels characterize PCL factor 1 and higher levels characterize PCL
factor 2. Consistent with this hypothesis, Harpur, Hare,
and Hakstian (1989) found that anxiety and neuroticism
are negatively related to PCL factor 1 scores and positively
related to PCL factor 2 scores. In small samples of inmates
and students, Harpur, Hart, and Hare (1994) examined the
relationship between the NEO-PI-R and PCL scores. Although PCL total scores were negatively related to Agreeableness and Conscientiousness in inmates, the PCL was
related to only Agreeableness in the student sample. This
finding may be a reflection of more secondary than primary psychopaths among offenders. A more recent study
by Lynam, Whiteside, and Jones (1999) examined the relationship between FFM traits as measured by the Big
Five Inventory (BFI) and primary and secondary psychopathic attributes as measured by the Levenson Self-Report
Psychopathy (LSRP; Levenson et al., 1995) scales in a
student population. They found that primary psychopathy was negatively related to Extraversion, Agreeableness,
and Conscientiousness. Secondary psychopathy was negatively related to Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness as well, but also demonstrated a positive
relationship to Neuroticism. Lynam et al.’s findings for
Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness, and
psychopathy are all in keeping with prior research. However, a negative relationship of Extraversion to primary
psychopathy is unexpected.
Others have argued that an examination of lowerorder (i.e., facet) FFM traits may be especially fruitful
when making differential diagnoses regarding character
pathology (Costa & Widiger, 1994). With regard to psychopathy, few studies have examined the importance of
FFM facets (Harpur et al., 1994; Miller, Lynam, Widiger,
& Leukefeld, 2001). However, Widiger and Lynam (1998)
offer hypotheses for certain FFM facets, given previous
findings for functional deficits in psychopathy. For example, Widiger and Lynam (1998) suggest that psychopathy may be characterized by lower levels of Deliberation
and Self-Discipline on the NEO-PI-R, in keeping with response modulation (i.e., passive avoidance) deficits in psychopathy. Given that studies of response modulation have
focused on low-anxious psychopaths, this hypothesis may
be most applicable to primary psychopathy. Moreover,
semantic aphasia as originally hypothesized by Cleckley
(1976) and later supported by Williamson, Harpur, and
P1: KEF
pp1225-joba-487537
Psychopathic Attributes and the Five Factor Model
Hare (1991) may suggest that psychopathic individuals
lack an empathic understanding or appreciation for feelings not unlike alexithymics. To this end, the Feelings
facet of Openness may be implicated. Finally, Widiger
and Lynam suggest that social information processing
deficits implicate the importance of Straighforwardness
(reversely, as manipulation), Compliance (reversely, as aggression), and Trust (reversely, as mistrust) as important
facets describing the psychopathic personality.
Miller et al. (2001) tested predictions by Widiger and
Lynam (1998) for FFM facets. Using expert ratings, they
developed the Psychopathy Resemblance Index (PRI),
representing the degree to which any one participant’s
NEO-PI-R profile of facet scores are characteristic of the
“prototypic psychopath.” Zero-order correlations between
the PRI and NEO-PI-R resulted in findings that were generally consistent with Widiger and Lynam (1998). For
men, positive relationships were found between the PRI
and Neuroticism facets of Angry Hostility and Impulsivity.
Conversely, negative relationships were found for Anxiety, Depression, Self-Consciousness, and Vulnerability.
Negative relationships were found between the PRI and all
facets of Agreeableness. For Extraversion facets, positive
relationships were found with Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity, and Excitement-Seeking. Finally, male participants who were more likely to resemble psychopaths
were less likely to be high in Conscientiousness facets
of Dutifulness and Deliberation. Although Miller et al.’s
(2001) measure of psychopathy is intriguing, they did not
differentiate between primary and secondary psychopathy.
Another issue of relevance is the construct validity of
psychopathy across sexes. It has been assumed that criminal behavior in women is governed less by personality
predispositions (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1995) and more
by contextual forces (e.g., pressure to please a lover). Likewise, feminist scholars have assumed that female criminal
behavior often reflects a reaction to male violence and control, as may be the case when a woman aggresses against
an abusive lover (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 1992). Despite the relative dearth of research in the area of psychopathy in women, a few reliable sex differences have
been identified. Specifically, women demonstrate a later
average age of onset of socially deviant behavior and
show fewer signs of overt aggression (Silverthorn & Frick,
1999). Additionally, there are some indications that female psychopaths are more likely to be assigned comorbid
diagnoses of histrionic personality disorder (Lilienfeld,
Van Valkenburg, Larntz, & Akiskal, 1996; Salekin et al.,
1997) or mood disruption such as anxiety and depression
(Mulder, Wells, Joyce, & Bushnell, 1994).
Miller et al. (2001) is one of the only studies that have
explicitly examined sex differences in the relationship be-
October 19, 2004
13:2
215
tween psychopathy and the FFM. The results revealed that
the pattern of relationships between psychopathy and the
domains and facets of the NEO-PI-R were remarkably
similar for men and women. However, a few interesting
and potentially important differences were revealed. Female participants demonstrated weaker positive relationships between psychopathy and Activity, consistent with
a later age of onset and less severe social deviance in
women (Silverthorn & Frick, 1999). Female participants
also demonstrated stronger negative associations between
psychopathy and Conscientiousness as well as lower-order
facets of Order and Discipline. These findings in conjunction with others indicating that female psychopaths are
more likely to be labelled with comorbid psychiatric disorders (Lilienfeld, Van Valkenburg, et al., 1996; Mulder
et al., 1994; Salekin et al., 1997) indicate that female psychopaths may more often resemble male secondary psychopaths than male primary psychopaths.
Instruments like the LSRP scales afford researchers
the opportunity to investigate the relationship between the
FFM and psychopathy in subclinical samples. Although
the descriptive ability of the FFM to capture personality pathology has drawn increased attention, Miller et al.
(2001) noted that “the few studies available on the relation of psychopathy to the FFM are supportive, but not
without their problems” (p. 258). Consequently, the current study extends previous findings by (1) addressing the
relationship of higher- (i.e., domain) and lower-order (i.e.,
facet) FFM traits to primary and secondary psychopathy;
(2) examining sex differences in FFM traits in relation
to these two psychopathic dispositions; and, (3) lending
further evidence for the use of the LSRP in noninstitutionalized persons. It was hypothesized that both primary
and secondary psychopathy would be negatively related to
the domain and facets of Agreeableness, consistent with
FFM predictions by Widiger and Lynam (1998) for FFM
based on social information processing deficits in psychopathy. Based on Widiger and Lynam’s review of FFM
markers for factor 2 of the PCL, it was hypothesized that
LSRP secondary psychopathy would be negatively related
to domain and facets of Conscientiousness. If Conscientiousness is more related to secondary than primary psychopathy, it may suggest that response modulation (i.e.,
passive avoidance) deficits are more prominent in secondary psychopaths. Additionally, positive relationships
between secondary psychopathy and the Neuroticism domain and facets were hypothesized. Consistent with pervasive emotional deficits in primary psychopathy, a negative
relationship between LSRP primary psychopathy and the
Feelings facet of Openness was posited. Finally, it was
believed that there would be a significant Sex by Trait interaction in the prediction of psychopathy. Finding such an
P1: KEF
pp1225-joba-487537
October 19, 2004
13:2
216
interaction would indicate that the pattern of relationships
between psychopathy and the FFM differs across sexes.
METHOD
Participants and Procedure
The study sample (N = 476) included male (30.7%)
and female (68.5%) participants who had been recruited
from introductory psychology classes over four semesters
from 1995 through 1996 at a university in Ontario, Canada.
The average age was 20.1 (SD = 3.4). Participants’ racial
composition was White (80.8%), Black (6.9%), Asian
(7.4%), or other (4.9%).
All participants were administered measures in small
groups of 5–25 per session. All participants completed the
Psychopathic Attributes Scales, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (form S of the NEO-PI-R; Costa &
McCrae, 1992), and measures of symptom overreporting
and defensiveness. Order of the measures was counterbalanced using a Latin Squares design. In addition, all
participants were instructed to “answer honestly” to all
questions in the study. All participants were informed of
their rights as a research participant and signed a consent
statement.
Measures
Psychopathic Attributes
Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy (LSRP) Scales
(Levenson et al., 1995). The LSRP were used to assess
psychopathic attitudes and beliefs via self-report. Twentysix items comprise two subscales designed to measure
both factors of the PCL-R in noninstitutionalized young
adults. The primary psychopathy subscale consists of
16 items measuring an inclination to lie, lack of remorse,
callousness, and manipulativeness, for example “For me,
what’s right is whatever I can get away with” (agree) or
“I enjoy manipulating other people’s feelings” (agree).
Coefficient alpha for the current sample was .85. The
secondary psychopathy subscale consists of 10 items
measuring impulsivity, intolerance of frustration, quicktemperedness, and lack of long-term goals, for example,
“I find myself in the same kinds of trouble, time after time”
(agree) or “I have been in a lot of shouting matches with
other people” (agree). Coefficient alpha in the current sample was .62. Initial validation studies by Levenson et al.
indicate that the LSRP scales significantly predict reports
of antisocial behavior and are positively related to boredom susceptibility and disinhibition in college samples.
Further, only LSRP secondary psychopathy was related
to anxiety, and in the positive direction, which is consistent with findings by Harpur et al. (1989) for factor 1 and
factor 2 of the PCL. In two additional studies, Lynam et al.
(1999) further support the validity of the LSRP scales visa´ -vis related self-report measures of antisocial tendencies
and clinician prototype ratings of psychopathy. Finally,
Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, and Newman (2001) provide
evidence for the validity of the LSRP in assessing psychopathy among institutionalized offenders.
Five Factor Model
Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R;
Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO-PI-R was used to
assess the FFM personality traits of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The NEO-PI-R consists of 240 items that measures
these five basic personality domains. Coefficient alphas
for the five domains in the current sample ranged from
.86 (Conscientiousness) to .91 (Neuroticism). In addition, each factor trait or domain scale is composed of six
lower-order traits or facet scales that are subsumed under
each domain. For example, Neuroticism is composed of
facet scales of Anxiety, Depression, Angry-Hostility, SelfConsciousness, Impulsiveness, and Vulnerability. Coefficient alphas for the facet scales ranged from .52 (Openness
to Values) to .81 (Openness to Aesthetics).
Response Bias
The F (Infrequency), K (Correction), and L (Lie)
scales of the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham,
Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) were used to assess potential response biases in this sample. Items from these scales
were interspersed among items from the Levenson scale
and other filler items. The MMPI-2 L- and K -Correction
scales are used to assess positive impression management
whereas the F-Infrequency scale is used to assess symptom overreporting and negative impression management.
Coefficient alphas for these scales in the current sample
were .80, .61, and .42, respectively.
RESULTS
In order to minimize the potential effect of response
bias in this study, persons with extreme scores on MMPI2 L, F, or K scales were excluded from further analyses. Based on suggestions by Butcher, Graham, and
Ben-Porath (1995) for the use of MMPI-2 validity scales
as screening measures in psychological research, cases
P1: KEF
pp1225-joba-487537
October 19, 2004
13:2
obtaining scores that were greater than or equal to 120 T
on the F scale, or greater than or equal to 80 T on either
the L or K scales were excluded from further analyses.
This resulted in a final sample of 463 cases.
Zero-order correlations revealed that LSRP primary
and secondary scales were significantly correlated in
both the male (r = .39, p < .001) and female (r = .46,
p < .001) samples. Overall rates of endorsement of
primary psychopathic attributes were higher in men
(M = 35.54; SD = 6.99; Range = 17 to 57) than in
women (M = 30.91; SD = 6.98; Range = 16 to 60;
217
t(2, 461) = 6.58, p < .001). However, no differences in
endorsement rates for secondary psychopathy were noted
between men (M = 21.99; SD = 3.83; Range = 12 to
30) and women (M = 21.86; SD = 4.12; Range = 11
to 34; t(2, 461) = 0.31, p > .05). Correlations between
NEO-PI-R domain and facet scales and LSRP primary
and secondary scales for male and female samples,
respectively, are presented in Table I. Openness and
Agreeableness were significantly negatively correlated
with primary psychopathy in men whereas only Agreeableness was significantly negatively correlated with
Table I. NEO-PI-R Domain and Facet Scale Correlations With LSRP Primary and Secondary Psychopathy in Men (n = 142) and Women (n = 321)
Primary psychopathy
NEO-PI-R domain or facet
Neuroticism
Anxiety
Angry Hostility
Depression
Self-Consciousness
Impulsiveness
Vulnerability
Extraversion
Warmth
Gregariousness
Assertiveness
Activity
Excitement-Seeking
Positive emotions
Openness
Fantasy
Aesthetics
Feelings
Actions
Ideas
Values
Agreeableness
Trust
Straightforwardness
Altruism
Compliance
Modesty
Tender-Mindedness
Conscientiousness
Competence
Order
Dutifulness
Achievement-Striving
Self-Discipline
Deliberation
Men
.08
−.00
.33∗∗∗
−.05
−.03
.11
.03
.13
−.17
−.16
−.19
−.10
.33∗∗∗
−.11
−.22∗
−.08
−.25∗∗
−.23∗∗
−.16
−.10
−.01
−.67∗∗∗
−.35∗∗∗
−.58∗∗∗
−.45∗∗∗
−.44∗∗∗
−.47∗∗∗
−.48∗∗∗
−.12
−.08
−.05
−.16
−.12
−.14
−.10
Women
.01
−.16∗∗
.33∗∗∗
−.08
−.11
.09
−.03
.01
−.34∗∗∗
−.01
.22∗∗∗
.10
.18∗∗∗
−.14∗
−.06
.09
−.07
−.12
.05
−.16∗∗
.01
−.44∗∗∗
−.35∗∗∗
−.34∗∗∗
−.39∗∗∗
−.41∗∗∗
−.13
−.16∗∗
−.05
−.06
.05
−.20∗∗∗
.10
.07
−.21∗∗∗
Sex difference r -to-z a
0.7
1.6
0
0.3
0.8
0.2
0.6
1.2
1.7
1.5
4.1∗
2.0
1.5
0.3
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.1
2.1∗
0.6
0.2
2.3∗
0
2.4∗
0.6
0.3
3.4∗
3.2∗
0.7
0.2
1.0
0.4
1.2
2.1∗
1.1
Secondary psychopathy
Men
.55∗∗∗
.27∗∗∗
.50∗∗∗
.40∗∗∗
.35∗∗∗
.49∗∗∗
.39∗∗∗
−.16
−.18
−.01
−.13
−.13
.04
−.23∗∗
.07
.26∗∗
−.04
−.03
−.02
−.01
.09
−.28∗∗∗
−.27∗∗∗
−.24∗∗
−.28∗∗∗
−.29∗∗∗
−.09
−.01
−.54∗∗∗
−.43∗∗∗
−.31∗∗∗
−.40∗∗∗
−.44∗∗∗
−.48∗∗∗
−.39∗∗∗
Women
.46∗∗∗
.15∗
.51∗∗∗
.37∗∗∗
.18∗∗∗
.40∗∗∗
.33∗∗∗
−.08
−.26∗∗∗
.04
−.04
−.04
.18∗∗∗
−.30∗∗∗
−.06
.09
−.07
−.12
.05
−.16∗∗
.01
−.44∗∗∗
−.35∗∗∗
−.34∗∗∗
−.39∗∗∗
−.41∗∗∗
−.13
−.16∗∗
−.51∗∗∗
−.36∗∗∗
−.27∗∗∗
−.39∗∗∗
−.23∗∗∗
−.42∗∗∗
−.51∗∗∗
Sex difference r -to-z a
LSRP r -to-z b
0.9
0.8
0.1
0.3
1.7
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.9
0.9
1.4
0.7
0.7
1.7
0.3
0.9
0.7
1.5
0.8
1.6
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.2
0.4
1.5
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.1
2.1∗
0.6
1.2
5.0∗∗
2.9∗∗
2.2∗∗
3.2∗∗
3.0∗∗
3.5∗∗
3.9∗∗
1.5
0.6
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.9
1.6
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
1.5
0.3
1.2
0.6
0.6
1.1
2.1∗
5.0∗∗
3.2∗∗
2.7∗∗
2.1∗
3.2∗∗
4.7∗∗
3.2∗∗
Note. NEO-PI-R = Revised NEO Personality Inventory; LSRP = Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale.
Difference r -to-z = z score for the differences in the correlations for men and women with NEO-PI-R domain and facet scales.
b LSRP r -to-z = z score for the differences in weighted pooled correlations over men and women, comparing LSRP primary with secondary psychopathy.
Bonferroni’s correction for multiple comparisons = p < .001.
∗ p < .01. ∗∗ p < .005. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
a Sex
P1: KEF
pp1225-joba-487537
October 19, 2004
13:2
218
primary psychopathy in women. In contrast, Neuroticism,
Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness were significantly
related to secondary psychopathy in both men and
women. As predicted, more differences between the
correlations for men and women were found with respect
to primary psychopathy than to secondary psychopathy.
Specifically, in terms of primary psychopathy, significant
differences between the correlations for men and women
were found for the Agreeableness domain as well as for
six facet scales, three of which were from Agreeableness,
as assessed by comparing r to z transformed values (Hays,
1988; see Table I). In contrast, in terms of secondary
psychopathy no significant differences between the
correlations for men and women were found for the
domains and only one difference was found for facets.
In order to determine the nonredundant relationships
of the five factors to primary and secondary psychopathic
dispositions and to test for possible sex differences, two
hierarchical multiple regressions with simultaneous entry
were computed with either LSRP primary or secondary
scores as the criterion. In both equations, sex and the five
factors were entered in the first step and the five Sex × Trait
interactions were entered in the second step. The FFM
significantly predicted both primary (Adj. R 2 = .58, p <
.001) and secondary (Adj. R 2 = .50, p < .001) psychopathic attributes.
Primary psychopathy was significantly predicted by
Extraversion (+), Openness (−), Agreeableness (−), Conscientiousness (−), and sex (see Table II). In terms of
sex differences, the result failed to reveal a significant R 2
change value on the second step (R 2 = .01, p > .05),
suggesting that there were no significant sex differences in
the associations between the FFM and primary psychopaTable II. Hierarchical Multiple Regression With Simultaneous Entry
Predicting LSRP Primary Psychopathy from the NEO PI-R Domains
and Gender
Variable
Step 1
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Gender
Step 2
G×N
G×E
G×O
G×A
G×C
β
t
Sig.
R2
Sig.
−.05
.08
.12
−.68
−.11
−.14
−1.29
2.40
−3.79
−21.52
−3.20
−4.17
.20
.02
.00
.00
.00
.00
.58
.00
.38
−.39
.08
.33
.17
−1.60
−1.52
0.31
−1.41
0.71
.11
.13
.75
.16
.48
.01
.20
Note. R 2 = .58 for step 1; R 2 = .59 for step 2.
Table III. Hierarchical Multiple Regression With Simultaneous Entry
Predicting LSRP Secondary Psychopathy from the NEO PI-R Domains
and Gender
Variable
Step 1
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Gender
Step 2
G×N
G×E
G×O
G×A
G×C
β
t
Sig.
R2
Sig.
.32
.03
−.03
−.37
−.41
.03
8.31
0.90
−0.83
−10.64
−11.49
0.92
.00
.37
.41
.00
.00
.36
.50
.00
−.07
.35
−.26
−.51
−.35
−0.29
1.25
−1.01
−2.11
−1.33
.77
.21
.31
.04
.19
.01
.11
thy. In contrast to the results for primary psychopathy,
Neuroticism (+), Agreeableness (−), and Conscientiousness (−) significantly predicted secondary psychopathy
(see Table III), which is consistent with the bivariate correlations reported in Table I. In keeping with predictions, the
results revealed a nonsignificant R 2 change value on the
second step (R 2 = .01, p > .05), indicating that there
were no significant sex differences in the associations between the FFM and secondary psychopathy. Follow-up diagnostics for each regression model revealed no multivariate outliers, points of influence, or multicolinearity among
predictor variables as indicated by tolerances and variance
inflation values within normal limits (see Tabachnik &
Fidell, 1996).
Given these findings for domain scales of the NEOPI-R in the prediction of psychopathic dispositions, the
facet scale contributors to standing on the FFM were examined. Stepwise multiple regressions were first computed with either LSRP primary or secondary score as the
criterion. These analyses were conducted for each gender separately to avoid obscuring possible sex differences
in the significant facet predictors of psychopathy. That
is, if a facet scale was a predictor for only one gender
but the analyses were computed for the entire sample, a
stepwise regression procedure could result in a facet being falsely discarded. In order to reduce the number of
variables, only facets that demonstrated significant zeroorder correlations with primary or secondary psychopathy
respectively for either men or women were included. Hierarchical multiple regression equations with simultaneous
entry using the entire sample were then computed with
primary or secondary psychopathy as the criterion. Facets
that were significant in the stepwise regressions for either
P1: KEF
pp1225-joba-487537
October 19, 2004
13:2
Table IV. Hierarchical Multiple Regression With Simultaneous Entry
Predicting LSRP Primary Psychopathy from the NEO PI-R Facets and
Gender
Variable
Step 1
Anxiety (N1)
Excitement-Seeking (E5)
Feelings (O3)
Ideas (O5)
Trust (A1)
Straightforwardness (A2)
Altruism (A3)
Modesty (A5)
Tender-Mindedness (A6)
Deliberation (C6)
Gender
Step 2
G × N1
G × E5
G × O3
G × O5
G × A1
G × A2
G × A3
G × A5
G × A6
G × C6
β
t
Sig.
R2
Sig.
−.04
.19
−.21
−.06
−.12
−.35
−.17
−.20
−.05
−.04
−.10
−1.38
6.14
−6.15
−2.08
−3.74
−9.17
−4.54
−5.74
−1.64
−1.45
−3.18
.17
.00
.00
.04
.00
.00
.00
.00
.10
.15
.00
.64
.00
−.22
−.22
−.35
.28
−.29
−.21
.08
.02
.48
.30
−1.27
−1.07
−1.53
−1.83
−1.51
−0.91
0.29
0.13
2.16
1.70
.21
.29
.13
.07
.13
.36
.77
.90
.03
.09
.02
.03
men or women were entered along with sex in the first
step, and the Sex × Facet interactions were entered on the
second step.
Tables IV and V show the results of the hierarchical multiple regressions for LSRP primary and secondary
scales, respectively. As one can see from Table IV, there
were no Neuroticism facets that significantly predicted
primary psychopathy, and Excitement-Seeking was the
only Extraversion facet that significantly predicted primary psychopathy. Openness to Feelings and Openness
to Ideas were negatively related to primary psychopathy.
Finally, with the exception of Compliance and TenderMindedness, all Agreeableness facets negatively predicted
primary psychopathy. Consistent with hypotheses, there
were significant sex differences in facet scale predictors
as indicated by the significant R 2 change of the second
step (R 2 = .02, p < .05). Specifically, there was a significant Sex × Tender-Mindedness interaction, with Ideas
and Deliberation demonstrating trends ( p < .10).
As can be seen in Table V, the Neuroticism facets
of Hostility, Depression, and Impulsivity were significant
predictors of secondary psychopathy. The Agreeableness
facets of Trust, Altruism, and Modesty were significant
negative predictors of secondary psychopathy. Finally,
the Conscientiousness facets of Competence, Order, and
219
Table V. Hierarchical Multiple Regression With Simultaneous Entry
Predicting LSRP Secondary Psychopathy from the NEO PI-R Facets
and Gender
Variable
Step 1
Hostility (N2)
Depression (N3)
Impulsivity (N5)
Excitement-Seeking (E5)
Trust (A1)
Altruism (A3)
Modesty (A4)
Competence (C1)
Order (C2)
Dutifulness (C4)
Deliberation (C6)
Gender
Step 2
G × N2
G × N3
G × N5
G × E5
G × A1
G × A3
G × A4
G × C1
G × C2
G × C4
G × C6
β
t
Sig.
R2
Sig.
.22
.16
.08
.05
−.13
−.12
−.12
−.13
−.13
−.07
−.23
.03
5.04
4.15
2.00
1.50
−3.39
−2.97
−2.69
−3.11
−3.52
−1.80
−5.64
0.94
.00
.00
.05
.13
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.08
.00
.35
.56
.00
−.14
−.01
−.36
.22
−.08
−.11
−.10
−.33
−.25
.40
−.26
−0.60
−0.07
−1.56
0.95
−0.35
−0.39
−0.43
−1.21
−1.25
1.52
−1.09
.55
.94
.12
.35
.72
.70
.67
.23
.21
.13
.28
.01
.58
Deliberation were significant, negative predictors of secondary psychopathy. However, there were no significant
sex differences in facet scale predictors.
DISCUSSION
In keeping with previous studies using a dimensional
approach to personality pathology (e.g., Ross, Lutz, &
Bailley, 2002; Trull, Widiger, & Burr, 2001), the FFM
accounted for a large amount of descriptive variance in
personality disorder characteristics; NEO-PI-R domain
scales accounted for 50% of the variance in secondary
and almost 60% of the variance in primary psychopathic
dispositions as measured by the LSRP (Levenson et al.,
1995). Although LSRP primary and secondary scales were
moderately to strongly intercorrelated, they demonstrated
notably different patterns of relationships with FFM traits.
Consistent with Widiger and Lynam’s (1998) predictions
for factor 1 and factor 2 of the PCL-R, and Lynam et al.’s
(1999) findings for the LSRP and the FFM, Agreeableness
was a robust predictor of psychopathy, correlating strongly
with both primary and secondary psychopathy scales.
P1: KEF
pp1225-joba-487537
October 19, 2004
220
Bivariate and multivariate analyses of Agreeableness facet
scales indicated that primary and secondary psychopathy
are characterized by dishonesty, manipulation, and rulebreaking. These findings are consistent with Cleckley’s
(1976) original conceptualizations of psychopathy as representing a pervasive style of acting against others in
grandiose service of the self. Further, these results suggest
that social information processing deficits likely characterize both primary and secondary psychopaths (Widiger
& Lynam, 1998). Conscientiousness and Openness were
also significant predictors of primary psychopathy across
the entire sample. Within the domain of Openness, facets
of Ideas and Feelings negatively predicted primary psychopathy, which is partially consistent with Lynam et al.’s
findings and are consistent with FFM markers indicating
an emotional processing deficit in primary psychopaths.
On the surface, findings for Conscientiousness were inconsistent with the hypothesis that this trait would only
be associated with secondary psychopathy. However, the
observed magnitude of the relationships between Conscientiousness and primary psychopathy (r = −.12 and
−.05) were much smaller than those found between Conscientiousness and secondary psychopathy (r = −.54 and
−.51). Likely, significant findings with respect to Conscientiousness and primary psychopathy in multivariate analyses are largely a function of the large size of the current
sample and reflect a small effect (e.g., β = −.11).
In terms of secondary psychopathy, Neuroticism and
Conscientiousness were found to be strong markers of this
construct, consistent with earlier findings by Lynam et al.
(1999) and hypotheses by Widiger and Lynam (1998).
Secondary psychopathy was related to a tendency to experience general negative affectivity, including depression,
anger, and anxiety. Additionally, the negative relationship
noted with Conscientiousness seems to reflect the myopic view and lack of planning or concern for the consequences of one’s behavior associated with psychopathic
traits (Lilienfeld, Hess, & Rowland, 1996). If these findings for Conscientiousness are generalizable, they may
have important implications for psychopathy. Specifically,
Widiger and Lynam point to Conscientiousness as the
FFM trait likely underlying response modulation deficits.
In keeping with Widiger and Lynam’s implications for
Self-Discipline and Deliberation facets of Conscientiousness in passive avoidance, Nichols and Newman (1986)
found that the likelihood of perseveration increased as
the latency between the end of one trial and beginning of
the next decreased in an experimental passive avoidance
task. Thoughtfulness or “reflectivity” following punishment was predictive of fewer subsequent mistakes in the
experimental paradigm. What is interesting is that a relatively weak relationship was found for Conscientiousness
13:2
with primary psychopathy in the current study. If Conscientiousness is a trait manifestation underlying response
modulation deficits, then it would appear that deficits in
passive avoidance may be more of a problem for secondary
psychopaths than primary psychopaths.
In this sample, secondary psychopathy seems to reflect the characteristics of individuals who are largely
unsuccessful, but not putatively failed psychopaths (i.e.,
criminals). Instead of losing in life, the noninstitutionalized secondary psychopath may be more of a “cheater”—
characterized by covert hostility and subversion, as suggested by Ross and Rausch (2001). Although primary and
secondary psychopaths seem to share manipulative and
self-serving tendencies, the latter are hindered by poor
organization and general distress, which creates interference and obstacles to optimal performance. In keeping with high levels of Neuroticism and low levels of
Conscientiousness, their lives are likely colored by poor
choices, maladaptive reactions to life stress, and internalizing (e.g., Major Depression, Borderline PD) as much as
externalizing disorders (e.g., Antisocial PD). Rather than
falling at either extreme, secondary psychopaths in the
community seem to reflect those who “fall in between”—
underachievers who function on a day-to-day basis but
who also engage in a maladaptive and parasitic lifestyle
and likely skirt legal interdiction. Because so little attention has been given to the gradations of psychopathic
manifestation, future studies should continue to examine the nature of psychopathy across the full range of its
expressions, from the criminally failed to the eminently
successful.
In contrast, Neuroticism demonstrated a weak and
nonsignificant relationship with primary psychopathy.
These results are at odds with Cleckley’s (1976) descriptions of psychopaths as notably lacking in “neuroticism”
and differing from the “psychoneurotic type” (p. 339).
However, they are consistent with Schmitt and Newman’s
(1999) examination of psychopathy and anxiety. They
point out that either (1) Cleckley’s belief that all psychopaths are low-anxious is incorrect or (2) “the PCLR is not an adequate measure of primary psychopathy”
(p. 353). Schmitt and Newman found that the constructs
of anxiety and fear, which had been equated by Cleckley
and deemed absent in primary psychopaths, were largely
independent and unrelated to psychopathy in their study.
Additionally, Lynam et al. (1999) found that LSRP psychopathy was unrelated to Neuroticism as measured by the
BFI. Lynam et al. suggest that the absence of a relationship
between Neuroticism and the LSRP is a measurement limitation of the Levenson scales. An alternative explanation
may be that subclinical primary psychopaths evidence a
level of anxious arousal that is adequate and “prevents”
P1: KEF
pp1225-joba-487537
them from making the more overt, passive avoidancetype errors that may result in their institutionalized counterparts’ legal apprehension. Although psychopathy has
been repeatedly shown to be related to reoffending, the
most commonly replicated finding of passive avoidance in
(at least low-anxious) psychopaths (Schmitt & Newman,
1999) has not been examined as a predictor of reoffending in institutionalized offenders, or future incarceration
in subclinical psychopaths who are initially assessed before social norm-breaking turns into law-breaking and
criminality. This is curious, given the emphasis on understanding the reasons for incarceration and reoffending in psychopaths. Passive avoidance would appear to
be the primary candidate mechanism by which repeated
reoffending occurs in psychopaths.
Adequate levels of anxiety in psychopaths is consistent with other findings by Sutker and Allain (1983)
who found that “adaptive sociopaths” (e.g., young adults
without a criminal record but exhibiting a psychopathic
profile on the MMPI) were not lower in empathy, indicating adequate levels of arousal and sensitivity. Additionally, Lykken (1995) points out that Gray’s model predicts
that antisocial behavior results when the behavioral inhibition system (embodied in the FFM as Neuroticism)
is too weak. Although Lykken points out that there is
strong support for this model, more recent conceptualizations of psychopathy in Gray’s model emphasize an
overactive BAS, which is consistent with the impulsivity
found in psychopaths. This view is also in keeping with
the idea that Conscientiousness represents a more likely
conceptual culprit in predicting passive avoidance. For instance, Widiger and Lynam (1998) specifically implicate
Conscientiousness facets of Self-Discipline and Deliberation rather than Neuroticism facets such as Anxiety in
response modulation deficits. Consequently, investigation
of the role of Neuroticism and Conscientiousness in subclinical populations merits attention—especially if they
act as partial moderators of the relationship between psychopathy (i.e., self-centered, norm-breaking tendencies)
and successful behavior. For better or for worse, the vast
majority of studies examining psychopathy and passive
avoidance exclude those who score high on the PCL and
high on anxiety. Future studies should directly examine
differences in personality between putatively failed (e.g.,
incarcerated) and successful (e.g., community-based) psychopaths in order to adequately address this issue more
fully. With the exception of few studies, investigations to
date have focused on examining psychopathy in either
incarcerated or community-based samples.
Overall, investigations of sex differences in the manifestation of subclinical psychopathy appeared rather meager but included notable exceptions. Although Agreeable-
October 19, 2004
13:2
221
ness was a strong marker of primary and secondary psychopathy across sexes, corresponding facets of Straightforwardness, Modesty, and Tender-mindedness were more
highly related to primary psychopathy in men than in
women in the current study. Similarly, hard-mindedness
contributed more to primary psychopathic standing in men
than it did in women, possibly indicating a stronger commitment towards selfish gain in men. Additional sex differences for primary psychopathy were only noted for
three additional facet scales of the NEO-PI-R (e.g., Assertiveness, Actions, and Self-Discipline). These differences seem to reflect a higher external orientation and
impulsivity in the manifestation of primary psychopathy
in men. Further, neither domain nor facet scales significantly differed between sexes for secondary psychopathy,
with the exception of the facet of Achievement-Striving,
which was lower in men. Consequently, the lack of motivation seen in secondary psychopaths seems to be more
prominent in men. More generally, however, the similarities in the manifestation of psychopathy over men and
women far outweigh the differences. After controlling
for the main effects of sex and FFM traits in predicting
psychopathy, the sex by trait interaction was significant
only for facet scales in relation to primary psychopathy.
These findings are consistent with Lynam et al. (1999)
who failed to find sex differences in the factor structure
of the LSRP. Although Salekin et al. (1997) and Forth
et al. (1996) found evidence suggesting that validity for
the distinction between primary (PCL-R factor 1) and secondary (PCL-R factor 2) psychopathy may be lower for
women, the present data showed little evidence for this
contention. However, Salekin et al. and Forth et al. focused on incarcerated or objectively failed psychopaths.
Additionally, the PCL-R was validated almost exclusively
on men. Using the Levenson scales, these differences appeared to be less prominent in subclinical manifestations
of either primary or secondary psychopathy. Only Agreeableness consistently accounted for differences between
men and women for primary psychopathy.
In summary, this is one of the first explorations of
the importance of FFM facet-level traits in the prediction of type-specific dimensions underlying personality
pathology. Exceptions to this trend include recent studies by Miller et al. (2001), Reynolds and Clark (2001),
and Trull, Widiger, and Burr (2001) that focus on FFM
facet level traits in characterizing personality pathology.
These findings also bear favorably on the construct validity of the LSRP in the assessment of psychopathy. Although primary and secondary subscales were moderately
to strongly related, they demonstrated a notably different
pattern of relationships with NEO-PI-R domain and facet
scales. Of interest is that differential FFM correlates for
P1: KEF
pp1225-joba-487537
October 19, 2004
222
primary and secondary psychopathy may implicate different types of behavioral deficits, as predicted by Widiger
and Lynam (1998), for primary and secondary subtypes.
Finally, few differences were found between men and
women for domains or facets of the NEO-PI-R in terms
of primary or secondary psychopathy. Overall, these findings strongly support the use of the FFM, and the NEOPI-R specifically, in the description and characterization
of psychopathy.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) Washington, DC: Author.
Blackburn, R. (1975). An empirical classification of psychopathic personality. British Journal of Psychiatry, 127, 456–460.
Blais, M. A. (1997). Clinician ratings of the five-factor model of personality and the DSM-IV personality disorders. Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease, 185, 388–393.
Brinkley, C. A., Schmitt, W. A., Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (2001).
Construct validation of a self-report psychopathy scale: Does
Levenson’s self-report psychopathy scale measure the same constructs as Hare’s psychopathy checklist-revised? Personality and
Individual Differences, 31, 1021–1038.
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A.,
& Kaemmer, B. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). Methodological problems and issues in MMPI, MMPI-2, and MMPI-A research.
Psychological Assessment, 7, 320–329.
Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (1992). Girls, Delinquency, and
Juvenile Justice. Pacific Grove, CA: Brook/Cole.
Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity (5th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Cooke, D. J. (1995). Psychopathic disturbance in the Scottish prison population: The cross-cultural generalizability of the Hare Psychopathy
Checklist. Psychology, Crime and Law, 2, 101–108.
Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy:
Towards a hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13, 171–
188.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1990). Personality disorders and the fivefactor model of personality. Journal of Personality Disorders, 4,
362–371.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO PI-R) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (1994). Personality disorders and the five
factor model of personality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. (1981). Factors in the natural
language of personality: Reanalysis, comparison, and interpretation
of six major studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 149–
170.
Dyce, J. A. (1997). The big five factors of personality and their relationship to personality disorders. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
53(6), 587–593.
Eysenck, H. J. (1994). The biology of morality. In B. Puka (Ed.), Defining perspectives in moral development. Moral development: A compendium (Vol. 1, pp. 212–229). New York: Garland Publishing.
Forth, A. E., Brown, S. L., Hart, S. D., & Hare, R. D. (1996). The assessment of psychopathy in male and female noncriminals: Reliability
and validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 531–543.
Fowles, D. C. (1988). Psychophysiology and psychopathology: A motivational approach. Psychophysiology, 25, 373–391.
13:2
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The
Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.
Gray, J. A. (1987). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 493–509.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Roberts, J. C. (1983). Guilt and self-concept in
secondary psychopaths. Personality and Individual Differences, 4,
65–70.
Hare, R. D. (1985). The Psychopathy Checklist. Unpublished manuscript,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada.
Hare, R. D. (1991). Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised.
Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D., & Hart, S. D. (1995). Commentary on antisocial personality
disorder: The DSM-IV field trail. In W. J. Livesley (Ed.), The DSMIV Personality Disorders (pp. 127–134). New York: Guilford.
Hare, R. D., Hart, S. D., & Harpur, T. J. (1991). Psychopathy and the proposed DSM-IV criteria for antisocial personality disorder. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 391–398.
Hare, R. D., & McPherson, L. M. (1984). Violent and aggressive behavior by criminal psychopaths. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 7, 35–50.
Hare, R. D., McPherson, L. M., & Forth, A. E. (1988). Male psychopaths
and their criminal careers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 710–714.
Harpur, T. J., Hakstian, A. R., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Factor structure
of the Psychopathy Checklist. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 56, 741–747.
Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment
implications. Psychological Assessment, 1, 6–17.
Harpur, T. J., Hart, S. D., & Hare, R. D. (1994). Personality of the
psychopath. In P. T. Costa & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality
disorders and the five-factor model of personality (pp. 149–173).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hays, W. L. (1988). Statistics (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Hobson, J., & Shine, J. (1998). Measurement of psychopathy in a UK
prison population referred for long-term psychotherapy. British
Journal of Criminology, 38, 504–515.
Karpman, B. (1941). On the need for separating psychopathy into two
distinct clinical types: Symptomatic and idiopathic. Journal of
Criminology and Psychopathology, 3, 112–137.
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing
psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151–158.
Lilienfeld, S. O. (1994). Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy. Clinical Psychology Review, 14, 17–38.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary
validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits
in noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66,
488–524.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Hess, T., & Rowland, C. (1996). Psychopathic personality traits and temporal perspective: A test of the short-term
horizon hypothesis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 18, 285–314.
Lilienfeld, S. O. (1998). Methodological advances and developments in
the assessment of psychopathy. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
36, 99–125.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Hess, T. H. (2001). Psychopathic personality traits
and somatization: Sex differences and the mediating role of negative
emotionality. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23, 11–24.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Van Valkenburg, C., Larntz, K., & Akiskal, H. S. (1996).
The relationship of histrionic personality disorder to antisocial personality and somatization disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 718–722.
Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ:
Earlbaum.
P1: KEF
pp1225-joba-487537
Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psychopathy: A validation study. Journal of Personality Assessment,
73, 110–132.
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Leukefeld, C. (2001).
Personality disorders as extreme variants of common personality
dimensions: Can the five-factor model adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69, 253–276.
Mulder, R. T., Wells, J. E., Joyce, P. R., & Bushnell, J. A. (1994). Antisocial women. Journal of Personality Disorders, 8, 279–287.
Neary, A. (1990). DSM-III and Psychopathy Checklist assessment of antisocial personality disorder in Black and White female felons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, St. Louis.
Nichols, S., & Newman, J. P. (1986). Effects of punishment on response
latency in extraverts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
50, 624–630.
Pollock, P. H. (1999). When the killer suffers: Post-traumatic stress reactions following homicide. Legal and Criminological Psychology,
4, 185–202.
Reynolds, S. K., & Clark, L. A. (2001). Predicting dimensions of personality disorder from domains and facets of the five-factor model.
Journal of Personality, 69, 199–222.
Ross, S. R., Lutz, C. J., & Bailley, S. E. (2002). Positive and negative
symptoms of schizotypy in the Five Factor Model: A domain and
facet level analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79, 53–72.
Ross, S. R., & Rausch, M. K. (2001). Psychopathic attributes and
achievement dispositions in a college sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 471–480.
Rutherford, M. J., Cacciola, J. S., Alterman, A. I., & McKay, J. R. (1996).
Reliability and validity of the revised Psychopathy Checklist in
women methadone patients. Assessment, 3, 145–156.
Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1997). Construct validity of
psychopathy in a female offender sample: A multitrait–multimethod
evaluation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 576–585.
Schmitt, W. A., & Newman, J. P. (1999). Are all psychopathic individuals
low-anxious? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 353–358.
October 19, 2004
13:2
223
Silverthorn, P., & Frick, P. J. (1999). Developmental pathways to antisocial behavior: The delayed-onset pathway in girls. Development
and Psychopathology, 11, 101–126.
Spitzer, R. L., Endicott, J., & Robins, E. (1975). Clinical criteria for psychiatric diagnosis and DSM-III. American Journal of Psychiatry,
131, 1187–1197.
Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1995). Criminal behavior: Sex and age.
In J. F. Sheley (Ed.), Criminology: A contemporary handbook
(pp. 83–113). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sutker, P. B., & Allain, A. N. (1983). Behavior and personality assessment in men labeled adaptive socipaths. Journal of Behavioral
Assessment, 5, 65–79.
Sutker, P. B., DeSanto, N. A., & Allain, A. N. (1985). Adjective
self-descriptions in antisocial men and women. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 7, 178–181.
Tabachnik, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics.
New York: HarperCollins.
Trull, T. J. (1992). DSM-III-R personality disorders and the five-factor
model of personality: An empirical comparison. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 3, 553–560.
Trull, T. J., Widiger, T. A., & Burr, R. (2001). A structured interview for
the assessment of the five-factor model of personality: Facet-level
relations to the axis II personality disorders. Journal of Personality,
69, 175–198.
Widiger, T. A., & Lynam, D. R. (1998). Psychopathy and the five-factor
model of personality. In T. Millon & E. Simonsen (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior (pp. 171–187).
New York: Guilford.
Widom, C. S. (1977). A methodology for studying noninstitutionalized
psychopaths. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45,
674–683.
Williamson, S., Harpur, T. J., & Hare, R. D. (1991). Abnormal processing
of affective words by psychopaths. Psychophysiology, 28, 260–273.
Zagon, I. K., & Jackson, H. J. (1994). Construct validity of a psychopathy
measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 125–135.

Document 6534837

Transcription

Similar documents

Class 11: Psychopathy and Sociopathy "A diagnosis is a diagnosis

The Utility of the Construct of Psychopathy in Children Lorraine Johnstone

View Documentation - Injury Control Research Center for Suicide

gnarly brown gnarly brown

Psychopathy Introduction The concept of psychopathy is very important to forensic work,...

Psychopathy and Attentional Deficits Dr Newman

Women - Gewelddadige vrouwen

Treatment of Psychopathy: Reality or Oxymoron Stephen Wong Ph.D. R.D.Psyc

The neurobiology of antisocial personality disorder: The quest for rehabilitation ☆ ⁎

Personality Disorders