Psychopathy and the Five-Factor Model of Personality
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 81(2), 168–178 Copyright © 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Psychopathy and the Five-Factor Model of Personality: A ReplicationFFMMILLER AND PSYCHOPATHYAND LYNAM and Extension Joshua D. Miller and Donald R. Lynam Department of Psychology University of Kentucky It has recently been argued that psychopathy can be understood and represented using common dimensions of personality taken from the Five-factor model (FFM). In this research, we exam- ined this possibility by using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO–PI–R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) to assess psychopathy in an undergraduate sample. Specifically, we matched in- dividuals’ NEO–PI–R profiles with an expert-generated psychopathy prototype to yield a psy- chopathy score. These scores were correlated with self-reports of drug use, delinquency, risky sex, aggression, and several laboratory tasks. FFM psychopathy was significantly related to all forms of deviance, although the effects tended to be small in size. Moreover, individuals who more closely resembled the prototypic FFM psychopath were more aggressive in a laboratory aggression task, less willing to delay gratification in a time discounting task, and demonstrated a preference for aggressive responses in a social information-processing paradigm. Psychopathy is a maladaptive personality disorder character- can be understood as a mixture of low Agreeableness and ized by such traits as a lack of remorse, manipulativeness, Conscientiousness, high Extraversion, and a combination of egocentricity, superficial charm, and shallow affect low and high Neuroticism (low anxiety, depression, vulnera- (Cleckley, 1941; Hare, 1991). Correlates of psychopathy in- bility to stress, and self-consciousness; but high angry hostil- clude high rates of both violent and nonviolent offending, vi- ity and impulsiveness). One benefit of this model is its ability olent and nonviolent recidivism, and substance use problems. to resolve several important issues in the psychopathy litera- For example, psychopathic criminals tend to commit more ture, including the underlying factor structure of the Psy- crimes, as well as a wider variety of crimes, as compared to chopathy Checklist–Revised (Hare, 1991), the patterns of nonpsychopathic criminals (Hare, McPherson, & Forth, comorbidity surrounding psychopathy, the variety of con- 1988). In addition, once arrested, psychopathic individuals ceptualizations of successful psychopathy, and the diversity are more likely to recidivate following release from jail and of putative psychopathic deficits (for a complete discussion, more likely to do so by committing a violent offense (Hart, see Lynam, 2002). Kropp, & Hare, 1988). Meta-analytic research has supported With regard to the two-factor structure of psychopathy the consistency of this finding; Psychopathy Checklist–Re- (Harpur, Hakstian, & Hare, 1988; Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, vised (Hare, 1991) scores predicted violent (d = .79) and gen- 1989), the FFM account of psychopathy argues that the fac- eral recidivism (d = .55; Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1996). tor structure is due to different personality dimensions being Similarly, Hemphill, Hare, and Wong (1998) found that psy- assessed by items in each factor. That is, Factor 1 items, such chopaths were three times more likely to recidivate following as grandiose self-worth, pathological lying, and lack of re- release as compared to nonpsychopaths. Finally, psychopa- morse or guilt, are argued to reflect primarily an interper- thy is also related to higher rates of alcohol and drug use, sonal style characterized by low Agreeableness (e.g., abuse, and dependence among incarcerated offenders deceitfulness, manipulativeness, egocentricity). Similarly, (Hemphill, Hart, & Hare, 1994; Smith & Newman, 1990). Factor 2 items, such as irresponsibility, parasitic lifestyle, Recently, it has been argued that psychopathy can be un- and impulsivity, are argued to represent combinations of low derstood as a configuration of personality traits from a model Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness. On this account, of general personality functioning (Lynam, 2002; Miller, the two factors covary because both factors assess low Lynam, Widiger, & Leukefeld, 2001; Widiger & Lynam, Agreeableness but are differentiated because Factor 2 items 1998). Using the Five-factor model of personality (FFM) as a also assess low Conscientiousness (e.g., impulsiveness, un- framework, these researchers have argued that psychopathy reliability, inability to delay gratification, lack of persever- FFM AND PSYCHOPATHY 169 ance). A similar logic explains the comorbidity of McCrae, 1992), to assess psychopathy. Specifically, Miller et psychopathy with other personality disorders (see Lynam & al. matched individual participants’ FFM personality profiles Widiger, 2001); psychopathy will co-occur with other per- against an expert-generated prototype (given in Table 1); this sonality disorders to the extent that they share common FFM resultant similarity index served as a measure in subsequent facets. For example, based on facet overlap, psychopathy is analyses. Miller et al. found that individuals who more closely expected to be highly comorbid with antisocial personality matched the psychopathy prototype demonstrated behavioral disorder (APD) because both are characterized by low patterns consistent with psychopathy such as increased rates Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness (Lynam & and/or variety of (a) criminal/delinquent behavior, (b) symp- Widiger, 2001). In contrast, psychopathy is expected to be toms of APD, (c) alcohol and drug use, and (d) an earlier onset negatively related to dependent personality disorder (DPD), of substance use. Furthermore, as expected, the which is characterized by high levels of Agreeableness FFM-psychopathy scores were negatively correlated with (Lynam & Widiger, 2001). This is exactly what was ob- symptoms of depression and anxiety. served; Hare (1991) reported a correlation of .71 between This study represents a replication and extension of this psychopathy and APD and a correlation of –.27 between psy- previous work on the FFM and psychopathy. Specifically, chopathy and DPD. we used the prototype-matching approach employed by According to the FFM account, the variety of conceptual- Miller et al. (2001) to assess psychopathy using the izations of the “successful” psychopath (e.g., Babiak, 2000; NEO–PI–R. We then examined the relations between psy- Gustafson & Ritzer, 1995; Hare, 1993; Lykken, 1982) all chopathy assessed using the FFM and measures of delin- represent incomplete manifestations of the psychopathic pro- quency, substance use, and aggression. Next, we examined totype, with various theorists focusing on different subsets of the relations between FFM psychopathy and performance on the FFM facets that characterize psychopathy. For example, three laboratory tasks assessing behavioral and cognitive pat- the psychopathic doctors, lawyers, and stock brokers dis- terns that are expected to be characteristic of psychopathy. cussed by Hare (1993) are clearly deceptive, exploitive, arro- Finally, we examined the ability of FFM psychopathy to pre- gant, and callous (i.e., low in Agreeableness) but having dict these outcomes above and beyond a measure of antiso- frequently obtained advanced degrees and notable career ad- cial behavior. vancement would seem to lack other important characteris- Psychopathy has been linked not only to higher rates of tics possessed by the prototypic psychopath such as general delinquency, but also to higher rates of violent of- unreliability, aimlessness, and poor impulse control (i.e., low fending. Thus, in addition to a standard measure of general Conscientiousness). Similarly, Lykken’s (1982) discussion offending, we also examine the degree to which FFM psy- of the hero as the successful variant of psychopathy focuses chopathy is related to three types of aggression: proactive, re- on the facets of low Neuroticism but ignores other psychopa- active, and relational. Proactive aggression refers to thy-defining facets associated with Agreeableness and Con- aggressive behavior that is instrumentally motivated (e.g., scientiousness. assaulting someone to steal their wallet), whereas reactive Finally, the FFM account posits that the diversity of puta- aggression refers to aggression that is primarily motivated tive psychopathic deficits is due to the multifaceted nature of by negative emotions such as feeling threatened, hurt, or an- psychopathy; different investigators are studying processes gry and is aimed less at achieving an explicit goal. Cornell et associated with different facets of the FFM. For example, al. (1996) found that psychopathy scores distinguished be- low fear conditioning may be linked to the broader dimen- tween instrumental violent, reactive violent, and nonviolent sion of Neuroticism, which measures adjustment and emo- offenders who were incarcerated. Psychopathy scores were tional stability (Costa & McCrae, 1992); that is, significantly higher for offenders rated as instrumental vio- psychopathic individuals tend to be low in Neuroticism and lent (which meant they could have also committed reactive are characterized by a lack of anxiety, fear, depression, and crimes) than those rated as reactive violent (only reactive vi- vulnerability to stress. Emotional detachment may be due to olence, no instrumental violence) or nonviolent offenders. A a combination of low Neuroticism and low Agreeableness. third form of aggression,