A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty
of
Xavier University
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Psychology
by
Courtney Mills, M.A.
June 26, 2018
Approved:
Kathleen J. Hart, PhD, ABPP______Kathleen J. Hart, Ph.D., ABPP Dissertation Chair Chair, School of Psychology
Behavioral Correlates of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure
in a Non-Offender Sample
Dissertation Committee
Chair Kathleen J. Hart, Ph.D., ABPP Professor of Psychology Xavier University
Member W. Michael Nelson III, Ph.D., ABPP Professor of Psychology Xavier University
Member Nicholas Salsman, Ph.D., ABPP Associate Professor of Psychology Xavier University
Acknowledgments
The completion of my doctoral dissertation would not have been possible without the guidance of several important individuals. First and foremost, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my dissertation chair, Dr. Kathleen Hart. Describing you as my dissertation chair does not give justice to the various roles you’ve assumed throughout the course of my professional career: professor, supervisor, advisor, advocator, comic relief, and fellow Harry
Potter enthusiast. Your consistent warmth, humor, support, and guidance have positively influenced my development as a psychologist and a person. I cannot thank you enough.
I would also like to thank my dissertation committee members, Drs. Mike Nelson and
Nick Salmsan for their helpful advice and suggestions toward the completion of this project.
Additionally, I would like to thank the Xavier graduate and undergraduate students who put forth several hours of their time and effort to collect my data: Paul Thomas, Sharon Jarmusik, Cale
Kaminski, Lilly Taylor, and Nick Martinez.
I would also like to thank my family for their unwavering support throughout graduate school. To my mother, Cheryl Deaton, I want to thank you for being a constant source of support and friendship. Thank you for all the sacrifices you’ve made and will make for me.
Thank you for modeling the epitome of what it means to be a successful woman and mother: hard work, intelligence, flexibility, love, humor, patience, and chocolate, lots and lots of chocolate. To my father, Michael Mills, although I have not had the blessing of seeing your smiling face or hearing your laughter for several years, I feel your loving presence within me every day. The lessons you taught me were integral to my development as a clinical psychologist and your spiritual presence continues to encourage me to love relentlessly, reserve judgement, and treat others fairly and kindly. I hope you are proud of the woman I’ve become.
i
To my grandparents, David and Lee Payne, words cannot express the depth of my gratitude for your love and support throughout my life. I would not be where I am today without you. To my step-father, Bruce Deaton, thank you for your consistent encouragement and for loving my mother and sisters. To my sisters, Rhyleigh Mills and Baili McCoy, thank you for instilling fun and laughter into my life. Finally, to Christy, thank you for loving me, supporting me, uprooting your life for me, and most importantly, listening to all of my complaints. I look forward to our next journey together as we continue to grow as professionals, individuals, and partners.
ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………….....ii
Table of Contents.…………………………………………………………………….....iii
List of Tables…...……………………………………………………………………….iv
List of Appendices…...………………………………………………………………...... v
Dissertation……………………………………………………….………………..……1
References……………………………………………………………….……………...26
Tables………………………………………………………………….………………..33
Appendices…………………………………………………………….……….……....37
iii
List of Tables
1. Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants…………………………………....33
2. Means and Standard Deviations of Measure and Subscale Scores for the Total Sample
(N = 165)……..……………………………………………………………...…………34
3. Means, Standard Deviations, Independent Samples t-test, and Cohen’s d Results for
TriPM Scores by Risk-Taking Behavior Groups……………………………………....35
4. Correlations between Participants’ PPI-R, ICU, and IRI Scores and the TriPM….…..36
iv
List of Appendices
Appendix
A. Demographic Questionnaire…………………………………………………...………37
B. Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised………………………………...………..38
C. Triarchic Psychopathy Measure…………………………………………………...…..39
D. Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits……………………………………………..40
E. Interpersonal Reactivity Index………………………………………………………...41
F. Jones Task Instructions…………………………………………………...…………...42
G. Jones Task: View What Was Left by Previous Participant.………………..…………43
H. IRB Approval Letter…………………………………………………………..………44
I. Debriefing Form……………………………………………...……………………….45
v
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 1 Chapter V
Dissertation
Abstract
This study examined the validity of a new self-report measure of psychopathy, the
Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM, Patrick, 2010). The TriPM scores of 165 undergraduates were correlated with a well-validated measure of psychopathy, the Psychopathy
Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) to examine concurrent validity, a self-report measure of callous-unemotional traits, the Inventory of Callous-
Unemotional traits (ICU; Frick, 2004) to examine convergent validity, and a self-report measure of empathy, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980) to examine discriminant validity. In addition, participants were identified as risk-takers or non-risk takers based on their performance on a behavioral task and their scores on the TriPM were compared. Participants who engaged in risk-taking obtained higher scores on the TriPM Boldness and Meanness factors scores. In addition, the TriPM demonstrated adequate concurrent and convergent validity based on correlations with the PPI-R and ICU, and weak to moderate discriminant validity based on negative correlations with the IRI. These findings support the TriPM’s utility in measuring psychopathic features. In addition, the present study found that psychopathic features measured by the TriPM are associated with actual risk-taking behavior, which is conceptually related to psychopathy, adding further evidence of its validity in measuring psychopathic features.
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 2 Behavioral Correlates of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure in a Non-Offender Sample
Psychopathy is a personality construct that encompasses a number of intrapersonal and interpersonal features such as callousness, lack of empathy, manipulativeness, low stress reactivity, dominance, superficial charm, impulsiveness, aggression, and risk-taking behaviors
(Marcus, Fulton & Edens, 2013). The conceptualization of psychopathy, including its dimensions and assessment, has changed greatly since it was first described (Patrick, Fowles, &
Kruger, 2009). Contemporary conceptualizations of psychopathy have been influenced by a number of factors, including the shift to focusing on measuring psychopathic features in non- offender and non-clinical populations. Although the notion that non-criminals might manifest psychopathy was originally introduced by Cleckley (1941), most research until recently has focused on criminal or clinical groups. Influenced by Cleckley’s conceptualization of psychopathy, the underlying factor structure of existing psychopathy measures such as the
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare 1991) have also influenced the conceptualization of psychopathy, whereas previously this conceptualization was largely influenced by case studies
(Sica et al., 2015). Evidence in recent research supports a dimensional as opposed to typological view of psychopathy (Sica et al., 2015). As the conceptualization of psychopathy has changed, the measures used to assess psychopathy have changed to include self-report measures of psychopathy, which may be more appropriate for use in non-clinical/non-offender populations.
In his seminal work, Cleckley (1941) concluded that psychopathic features are not exclusively present in mentally ill individuals, but also present in individuals who demonstrate mental stability and are “acceptable members of the social group” (p. 190); these individuals possess many of the pathological features of psychopathy, but these features are masked by an outward appearance of mental health and stability (Cleckley, 1988). More recent
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 3 conceptualizations have continued to include these positive and adaptive features of non-criminal psychopaths. Two examples are the conceptualization included in the factor structure of the
Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005), a well- validated self-report measure of psychopathy; and the factor structure of the Triarchic
Psychopathy Measure (TriPM; Patrick, 2010), a new self-report measure of psychopathy. These more recent conceptualizations also include other personality features considered to be central to psychopathy, such as, callousness, lack of empathy, impulsiveness, and a proneness to risk- taking behavior, among others (Marcus et al., 2013).
Recent studies assessing the prevalence of psychopathic features endorsed by individuals outside of institutional settings have estimated that 1% to 3% of the general population could be classified as a “psychopath” based on their score on a measure of psychopathy (Neumann &
Hare, 2008). Although individuals in the general population may not report a history of offending behavior, which is considered a prominent feature of the construct by the “gold standard” measure of psychopathy, the PCL-R (Hare, 1991), they demonstrate other features of psychopathy (i.e., lack of empathy, callousness, impulsiveness) at the same level as offending psychopaths (Arbuckle & Cunningham, 2012; Neumann & Hare, 2008; Poythress & Hall, 2011;
Savard, Sabourin & Lussier, 2011). These studies have also found evidence that the presence of psychopathic features in non-offender samples are associated with personal and relationship distress, unethical treatment of others, violent behavior,and possible criminal behavior that has not been identified by authorities (Cleckley, 1988; Coid, Yang, Ullrich, Roberts & Hare, 2009;
Hare, 1993; Hughes, Stout & Dolan, 2013; Malterer, Lilienfeld, Neumann & Newman, 2010;
Poythress & Hall, 2011; Savard et al., 2011; Uzieblo, Verschuere, Van den Bussche & Crombez,
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 4 2010). These findings further increase the value of effectively measuring psychopathic features in non-offender samples.
Based on the increasing amount of research on psychopathy in the general population, the conceptualization of this construct has further shifted to understanding psychopathy as a dimensional construct or a combination of multiple personality features on a continuum rather than a typological construct (Guay, Ruscio, Knight & Hare, 2007; Poythress & Hall, 2011). The findings from these studies suggest that psychopathic features exist on a continuum along with non-pathological personality features and that individuals vary in the number of features of psychopathy that they display, rather than in the presence or absence of psychopathic features
(Poythress & Hall, 2011). This further influenced contemporary research to develop and validate new methods of measuring psychopathic traits in non-offender/non-institutionalized samples.
Although the PCL-R (Hare, 1991) has been highly influential in informing contemporary conceptualizations of psychopathy and is considered to be the “gold standard” for measuring the construct (Hughes et al., 2013), several scholars (e.g., Benning, Patrick, Hicks, Blonigen, &
Krueger, 2005) advised its use only in offender or clinical populations due to its inclusion of several key items that involve the measurement of criminal/deviant behavior; by definition, these elements are not typically present in non-clinical or non-offender populations. Therefore, the development and validation of new methods of measuring psychopathic traits that are more appropriate for use in non-offender/non-institutionalized samples has been a focus of recent research.
Self-report measures of psychopathy have gained merit as a means of measuring psychopathic features in non-offender samples. For instance, test validation studies of the PPI-R found this self-report measure of psychopathy demonstrated good psychometric properties
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 5 (DeMauro, 2012). In addition, research aimed at measuring the convergent and discriminant validity of the PPI-R found the measure significantly correlated with a number of other measures of psychopathy, including the PCL-R, and conceptually related constructs (DeMauro, 2012;
Hughes et al., 2013; Malterer et al., 2010; Uzieblo, 2010). Some studies have also found that self-report measures of psychopathy, such as the PPI-R, have demonstrated adequate psychometric properties based on their relation to participant’s behavior on tasks aimed at measuring impulsivity and/or risk-taking (Berg, Lilienfeld, Waldman, 2013; Dean, Altstein,
Berman, Constans, Sugar & McCloskey, 2013; Geniole, Keyes, Carre & McCormick, 2014;
Hunt, Hopko, Bare, Lejuez & Robinson, 2005; Jones, 2014), which are the most consistently identified behavioral manifestations of psychopathy (Poythress & Hall, 2011). Examination of the relationship between one’s performance on behavioral tasks of impulsivity/risk-taking and measures of psychopathy provides valuable information regarding their validity as it relates to actual behavior. As such, further research examining this relationship is essential to the validation of self-report measures of psychopathy.
Patrick (2010) recently developed the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM) in an attempt to integrate themes of current and traditional conceptualizations and assessment models of psychopathy based on Triarchic Model of Psychopathy (TriP; Patrick et al., 2009). The TriP model conceptualizes psychopathy in three related, but distinct, phenotypical constructs:
Disinhibition, Boldness, and Meanness (Patrick et al., 2009), which differentiates it from previous self-report measures of psychopathy such as the PPI-R. As stated previously, these constructs were identified based on themes present in psychopathy research. For example, TriPM
Meanness is comprised of features such as callousness, lack of empathy, cruelty and predatory aggression, which have been emphasized to varying degrees in several previous
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 6 conceptualizations of psychopathy (Cleckley, 1988; Frick & White, 2008; Hare, 1991; Lilienfeld
& Widows, 2005). Several studies support the TriPM’s psychometric properties (Blagov et al.,
2015; Sellbom & Phillips, 2013; Wall, Wygant, & Sellbom, 2015). However, to date its validity has been based on its correlation with other self-report measures of psychopathy or other conceptually-related constructs (Blagov et al., 2015; Patrick, 2010; Sica et al., 2015). No known studies to date have measured the convergent validity of the TriPM to non-self-report measures, such as behavioral manifestations or tasks associated with psychopathic behavior. Measuring the
TriPM’s ability to predict behavior associated with psychopathy would add valuable information about the measure’s validity and the relationship of this measure to actual behavior. It was expected that if the TriPM is truly measuring specific behavioral features of psychopathy, such as disinhibition, risk-taking, or meanness, then participants who obtained elevated scores on these dimensions would engage in greater disinhibition and risk-taking of the experimental tasks.
Based on previous findings, the aims of the present study were to examine the concurrent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the TriPM in a non-offender sample (college students) by comparing their scores on the TriPM to their scores on a well-established self-report measure of psychopathy (PPI-R), a self- report measure of a conceptually related construct, callousness, as measured by the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU; Frick, 2004) and a conceptually opposite construct, empathy, as measured by the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis,
1980) using their performance on a behavioral task measuring riskiness (Jones’ task).
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 7 Method
Participants
A total sample of 171 undergraduate students completed study measures after being recruited through a psychology department participant pool at a private, medium-sized,
Midwestern university. The only stipulation for participation was that students be age 18 or older. A review of participants’ responses indicated that six participants randomly responded to study measures (e.g., gave the same response to all questions); therefore, these six participants’ data were excluded from the data analysis. This left a total sample of 165 participants.
Demographic information for the sample is presented in Table 1. The students ranged in age from 18 to 39 years old with a mean age of 19.84 (SD = 2.08). As can be seen, the majority of the total sample was Caucasian females.
Measures
Demographic questionnaire. Prior to completing the study measures, participants provided basic personal information such as age, ethnicity, and gender. See Appendix A.
Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005).
The PPI-R is a 154-item self-report questionnaire that was developed for use in non-offender samples (Hughes et al., 2013; Uzieblo et al., 2010) to measure the personality features that are considered to be central to psychopathy (Marcus et al., 2013). In this study, the PPI-R was adapted and reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, Psychological Assessment
Resources, Inc. (PAR), 16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida 33549, from the
Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised by Scott O. Lilienfeld, PhD, Copyright 2005 by
PAR. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission of PAR. See Appendix B.
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 8 The items combine to form eight subscales, seven of which yield two over-arching orthogonal factors: Fearless Dominance and Self-Centered Impulsivity (Uzieblo et al., 2010).
The eighth subscale, Cold-Heartedness, does not load onto either of the first two factors, thus forming its own factor (PPI-III). The PPI-R also contains four validity scales.
Test validation studies have found strong internal consistency reliability coefficients for the total score of the PPI-R, which ranged from .86 to .93. The reliability coefficients for both factors scores range from .91 to .92 (Factor 1) and .76 to .91 (Factor 2), and test-retest coefficients were .82 (Coldheartedness), .95 (Social Influence), .92 (Self-centered impulsivity),
.95 (Fearless Dominance), and .93 (Total score), respectively (DeMauro, 2012).
Research measuring the convergent and discriminant validity of the PPI-R revealed that the total scores in both offender and community samples correlated significantly with a number of other measures of psychopathy, such as the primary (r = .56-.58) and secondary (r = .40-.58) psychopathy scales of Levenson's Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, Self-Report Psychopathy
Scale-II (r = .70-.82), and the Antisocial Personality Disorder scale of the OMNI-IV Personality
Disorder Inventory (r = .39 - .70) (DeMauro, 2012; Uzieblo, 2010). Hughes et al. (2013) examined the concurrent validity of the PPI-R with non- self-report measures of psychopathy found that the PPI-R demonstrated moderate concurrent validity with the Hare Psychopathy
Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV; a briefer version of the PCL-R) in a sample of
Australian male offenders (r = .70 - .82) in samples of adult male offenders (r = .39 - .41).
Malterer et al. (2010 found a stronger relationship with a non-clinical community sample, r =
.60).
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 9 Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM; Patrick, 2010). The TriPM is a 58-item self- report measure designed by Patrick (2010) to measure the three components of the Triarchic
Model of Psychopathy: Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition (Patrick, 2010). See Appendix C.
There have been few studies to date measuring the psychometric properties of the TriPM.
Blagov et al. (2015) found internal consistency estimates for all three components that ranged from α = .80 -.87. Similarly, Sellbom and Phillips (2013) found that each component of the
TriPM demonstrated high internal consistency in both a correctional sample (Boldness: α = .89,
Meanness: α = .90, Disinhibition: α = .89) and a college sample (Boldness: α = .82, Meanness: α
= .88, Disinhibition: α = .84). In addition, Blagov et al. (2015) found adequate test-retest coefficients, r = .64 to .77. However, two studies found that the Boldness component had smaller correlations with both Meanness (r = .03-.06; [Blagov et al., 2015] and r =.20; [Stanley,
Wygant & Sellbom, 2013]) and Disinhibition (r = .10-.14 [Blagov et al., 2015] and r =-.03
[Stanley et al., 2013]), whereas Meanness and Disinhibition in both studies demonstrated higher correlations with each other (r = .34-.44 [Blagov et al., 2015]) and (r =.36 [Stanley et al., 2013]).
Research studying the construct validity of the TriPM has found that the three dimensions are correlated with self-report measures of conceptually-related constructs as expected. For example, Blagov et al. (2015) found that the Boldness dimension was positively correlated with extraversion, high self-esteem, and narcissism, and negatively correlated with neuroticism as measured by the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), and the Disinhibition scale was positively correlated with impulsivity and manipulativeness as measured by the Schedule of
Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP) and Meanness was positively correlated with aggression as measured by the SNAP.
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 10 Studies examining the convergent validity of the TriPM have found that its scales were moderately correlated with respondents’ total scores on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in a sample of 152 male prison inmates (Wall et al., 2015), total scores on the Psychopathic
Personality Inventory-Revised and Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale in samples of female prison inmates and college undergraduate students (Sellbom & Phillips, 2013), and total scores on the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory in an offender sample (Stanley et al., 2013).
Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU; Frick, 2004). The ICU is a 24-item self-report measure used to assess callous and unemotional traits (Decuyper, De Bolle, De Fruyt
& De Clercq, 2011). The items comprise one of three subscales: (1) Callousness, (2) Uncaring, and (3) Unemotional (Frick, 2004); see Appendix D.
Currently, the ICU is an unpublished measure and norms for the measure are still being established, although a number of studies have examined the ICU’s use in both adolescent and adult samples. In their sample of 248 American juvenile offenders, Kimonis et al. (2008) found that the internal consistency coefficients for the Uncaring and Callousness domains and the Total score were adequate and ranged from .80 to .81. However, the internal consistency coefficient for the Unemotional domain was marginal (r = .53). Decuyper et al. (2011) found that the internal consistency coefficients for the Uncaring and Unemotional domains and Total Score were adequate and ranged from .71 to .77, but the internal consistency coefficient for the
Uncaring domain was marginal (r = .69). Kimonis, Branch, Hagman, Graham & Miller (2013) found the ICU to be moderately to strongly positively-correlated with the Cold-Heartedness (r =
.51) and Self-Centered Impulsivity (r = .48) factors of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-
Revised and the Total Score of the Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (r = .50), thus providing concurrent validity for the ICU in a sample of college students. In addition, a different
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 11 study by Kimonis et al. (2008) found that the Total score of the ICU was positively correlated with a measure of self-reported aggression, the Peer Conflict Scale (Kimonis, Marsee, & Frick,
2004), and with self-reported delinquency in a sample of the American juvenile delinquents, providing content validity in that sample.
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980). The Interpersonal Reactivity Index
(IRI) developed by Davis (1980) is a 28-item self-report measure that is commonly used to assess empathy. The 28-items load onto four subscales: Fantasy Scale; Perspective-taking
Personal Distress, and Empathic Concern (EC). The last of these scales is the one used as a measure of empathy (Davis, 1980), and was used in this study to assess discriminant validity with the TriPM scores. See Appendix E.
The IRI-EC scale has been found to have adequate internal consistency, α = .70 - .72, suggesting that its items are measuring a coherent underlying domain and to have adequate test- retest reliability, r = .70 to .76 (Christopher, Owens & Stecker, 1993; Davis, 1980).
Jones’ Task (Jones, 2014). Jones (2014) used an economic game as a behavioral measure of risk-taking to study the relationship between participants’ scores on self-report measures of Machiavellianism (Mach-IV), narcissism (Narcissistic Personality Inventory-16), and psychopathy (PPI-R) and actual behavior. The features of the task that Jones found to be related to risk-taking were used in the current study.
In the task, participants were told that they would receive $2.50 for participating in the study; however, they were also informed that each participant had the ability to gamble with the next participant’s $2.50 to earn more money (Jones, 2014). Participants were also informed that each participant had the ability to eliminate the previous participant’s earned money. Therefore, continuing to gamble would be considered risky behavior as the participant risks losing
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 12 everything if the next participant chooses to eliminate their money. The specific script used in the study to provide participants with study instructions is in Appendix F.
The decision about whether or not to “gamble” with the next participant’s money served as the measure of risk-taking; in the current sample, this decision divided participants into risk- takers (n = 96; 58.2% of total sample) and non-risk-takers (n = 69; 41.8% of total sample).
Proportionally, more of the men (66%) engaged in risk taking than did women (54%), but this difference was not statistically significant, χ 2 (df = 1) = 1.89, p = 17.
For those participants who agreed to gamble with the next participant’s bonus, the task proceeded as follows: On the computer screen, participants were instructed to choose among five companies in which they could invest. They were told that one company would make a profit
(and that choosing this company counted as a win) and the other four companies would lose money (choosing one of these counted as a loss). They also were informed that choosing a company that lost money would cause the next participant to lose money from the sum they would be given at the start of that person’s participation, whereas wins earned the current participant money (See Appendix F). Participants were allowed to gamble up to 10 rounds.
Participants were also told that a majority of their own bonus was gambled away by the previous participant, leaving them with only $0.50 left (See Appendix G). We used this instruction because Jones (2014) found that participants who were informed that the previous participant had gambled away most of their bonus had the highest portion of participants who subsequently engaged in the gambling task.
Procedure
The Institutional Review Board at Xavier University approved this study (see Appendix
H for approval letter). Undergraduate students who met the eligibility requirement of being 18
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 13 years old or older were invited from the psychology department participant pool; all participation was on a voluntary basis. Volunteers arrived at a scheduled computer lab on Xavier’s campus, logged onto computers and were given access to the study materials, which were available through Qualtrics. They first completed the self-report measures (PPI-R, TriPM, ICU, and the
IRI) in counterbalanced order across participants. Participants were then given the option to complete the Jones task (described above). If participants opted to complete the Jones task
(gamble), they were allowed to gamble up to 10 rounds. As stated previously, choosing to gamble was considered risky behavior because participants were choosing to risk their entire bonus. As such, the participant’s choice to either gamble (risky) or not gamble (not risky) served to divide participants into risk-takers/non-risk-takers. Participants who opted not to engage in the
Jones task were allowed to leave the study at that point. All students were provided with a debriefing form describing the purpose of the study and the mild deception involved (see
Appendix I). Regardless of whether they engaged in the Jones task, all students were given $2.50 in cash after they completed all tasks and were free to leave.
Results
The means and standard deviations of all self-report measures for the entire sample and by risk-taking group are presented in Table 2. Statistical comparisons were not performed but means and standard deviations for the measures appeared to differ from those obtained in previous studies. Specifically, means and standard deviations for the TriPM in the current study were slightly higher than those of an Italian community sample (Sica et al., 2015), but slightly lower than those from a sample of American offenders (Stanley, et al., 2013). These results may reflect cultural differences, and expected higher scores among offenders (Wall et al., 2015).
Although statistical comparisons were not performed to examine the difference between TriPM.
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 14 Means and standard deviations for the PPI-R in the current study were similar to those found in a community sample (Uzieblo, et al., 2010), and lower than those found in a sample of Australian offenders (Hughes et al., 2013); as with the TriPM, these differences may reflect cultural differences and expected differences from offender samples. Visual inspection of the values found the means and standard deviations for the ICU in the current study to be higher than those described for a sample of juvenile defendants (Kimonis et al., 2008) and in a sample of undergraduate students (Kimonis et al., 2013). The reason for the higher scores in the current sample is not known.
Comparison of TriPM scores of Risk Takers versus Non-Risk Takers
The three subscale TriPM scores (Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition) of individuals who engaged in risky behavior (i.e., agreed to participate in the Jones Task) were compared to the scores of the individuals who did not engage in risky behavior by using three independent sample t-tests. Because it was expected that individuals who engaged in risky behavior would have higher subscale scores on the TriPM, they were tested as a one-tailed comparison. Due to the number of analyses being conducted, a probability level of .01 was used to determine significance. The means, standard deviations, t values, and Cohen’s d values comparing the groups are presented in Table 3.
As can be seen, risk takers (n = 96; 58.2% of total sample) obtained statistically significantly higher scores on the TriPM Boldness and Meanness scores than non-risk takers (n =
69; 41.8% of total sample). Although the Disinhibition scores of risk takers was higher than that of non-risk takers, the difference was not significant. This latter finding was surprising given that features conceptually related to this factor include risk-taking behavior (as discussed in more detail below).
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 15 Concurrent Validity of the TriPM
To examine the concurrent validity of the TriPM, the correlation of its scores with those of measures of similar dimensions was computed using Pearson Product Moment correlations using one-tailed analysis in light of the expectation of positive relationships. Due to the number of analyses being conducted, a probability level of .01 was used to determine significance for all correlational analyses. These correlations are presented separately below for each of the measures. Cohen (1988)’s conventions to interpret effect size of correlational analyses were used to interpret the following results.
PPI-R. The correlations between participant’s three subscale scores on the TriPM
(Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition) and their total score and three subscale scores on the
PPI-R (Fearless Dominance, Self-Centered Impulsivity, and Cold-heartedness) are presented in
Table 4. As expected, there were statistically significant, positive correlations between participant’s TriPM Boldness and PPI-R Coldheartedness, Fearless Dominance, and PPI-R Total scores. The correlation between participant’s TriPM Boldness and PPI-R Self-Centered
Impulsivity scores was not statistically significant; however, this is to be expected as these factors are associated with conceptually different features (discussed in more detail below).
Also as expected, there were statistically significant, positive, large correlations between participant’s TriPM Disinhibition score and the PPI-R Self-Centered Impulsivity (r = .75), and
Total scores (r = .61) , all of which are conceptually similar measures. There was also a correlation with Fearless Dominance, but this relationship was small (r = .23). These scores measure less similar concepts, so a smaller relationship was expected. The correlation between participants’ TriPM Disinhibition and PPI-R Coldheartedness scores was not significant, which was expected given the conceptual difference of between these scales.
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 16 Lastly, there were statistically significant, positive correlations between participants’
TriPM Meanness and PPI-R Coldheartedness (r = .66), Fearless Dominance (r = .36), Self-
Centered Impulsivity (r = .61), and the PPI-R Total (r = .69) scores. The medium to large correlations among these scores were expected given the conceptual similarity of these measures.
ICU. The correlations between participants’ three subscale scores on the TriPM
(Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition) and their total score and three subscale scores on the
ICU (Callousness, Unemotional, and Uncaring) are presented in Table 4. There was a statistically significant, positive but weak correlation between participant’s TriPM Boldness and
ICU Callousness. The correlation between participants’ TriPM Boldness and ICU Total score was not significant. As expected given the dissimilarity between the concepts measured by these subscales, there was not a statistically significant correlation between the TriPM Boldness and
ICU Uncaring and Unemotional scores.
There were statistically significant, positive, medium correlations between participant’s
TriPM Disinhibition and ICU Callousness (r = .36), ICU Uncaring (r = .41) and ICU Total scores (r = .39). As expected, there was not a statistically significant correlation between participant’s TriPM Disinhibition and ICU Unemotional scores; these factors are associated with conceptually different features (discussed in more detail below).Lastly, there were statistically significant, positive correlations between participants’ TriPM Meanness and ICU Callousness,
Uncaring, Unemotional, and ICU Total scores. These relationships are expected as Meanness is conceptually related to features such as uncaring and callousness.
Discriminant Validity of the TriPM
IRI. The correlations between participants’ three subscale scores on the TriPM
(Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition) and their four subscale scores on the IRI (Fantasy
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 17 Scale, Perspective-taking Scale, Empathic Concern Scale, and Personal Distress Scale) were tested as a one-tail relationship and using a probability (alpha) level of .01 to determine significance. All but one of the 12 correlations between IRI and TriPM scores were negative, as hypothesized. As expected there was a statistically significant, large, negative correlation between participants’ TriPM Boldness and IRI Personal Distress (r = -.65), whereas the significant negative correlation with Empathic Concern was small (r = -.24). The correlations between participants’ TriPM Boldness and IRI Fantasy and IRI Perspective Taking scores were not statistically significant. This pattern of correlational relationships is expected given that features associated with TriPM Boldness and IRI Personal Distress are more conceptually related than features associated with the other factors.
There were statistically significant, negative, small correlations between participants’
TriPM Disinhibition and IRI Empathic Concern (r = -.19) and IRI Perspective-taking (r = -.23) scores. There was not a statistically significant correlation between participants’ TriPM
Disinhibition and IRI Fantasy and IRI Personal Distress scores. This pattern of relationships is expected given that features associated with TriPM Disinhibition and the IRI subscales are overall conceptually different (described in more detail below). The statistically significant, negative correlations between participant’s TriPM Meanness and IRI Empathic Concern,
Fantasy, Personal Distress, and Perspective–taking scores were expected given their conceptual similarity.
Discussion
The current study examined the validity of the recently developed TriPM (Patrick, 2010), which has shown promise as a self-report measure of psychopathy using several approaches. In addition to examining the correlation of the TriPM with existing measures of related constructs,
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 18 we also compared participants’ scores on the TriPM as grouped by their performance on a risk- taking measure described by Jones (2014). Few studies have examined whether self-report psychopathy measures differ based on participation in actual behavior associated with psychopathy. In addition, we examined the concurrent and discriminant validity of the TriPM by examining participants’ scores on the TriPM with their scores on a well-established self-report measure of psychopathy (PPI-R), a self-report measure of a conceptually related construct, callousness, as measured by the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU) and a conceptually unrelated construct, empathy, as measured by the Interpersonal Reactivity Index
(IRI).
TriPM Scores and Risk-taking Behavior
Participants in this study who engaged in risk-taking behavior endorsed higher levels of psychopathic features as measured by the TriPM Meanness and Boldness subscales. This finding further validates the utility of the TriPM as it evidences that psychopathic features measured by the TriPM, such as Meanness (e.g., lack of empathy, interpersonal detachment, exploitativeness, excitement seeking, and callousness) and Boldness (e.g., self-assurance, low stress reactivity, fearlessness and adventure seeking) are associated with actual risk-taking behavior, which is conceptually related to psychopathy. These associations were expected given that previous research found the TriPM Meanness and Boldness subscales were correlated with measures conceptually similar to impulsivity and/or risk-taking behavior (Benning et al., 2005; Patrick,
2010; Sica et al., 2015; Venables, Hall, & Patrick, 2014). Specifically, Venables et al. (2014) found that TriPM Meanness was moderately correlated with the Impulsive Behavioral Style facet of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991) in a sample of male prisoners. In addition, TriPM Meanness was positively correlated with Machiavellianism (Sica et al., 2015),
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 19 and Jones (2014) found it to be positively correlated with risk-taking behavior (e.g., choosing to gamble). Furthermore, the TriPM Boldness scale is comprised of features conceptually related to impulsivity, such as sensation seeking and adventuresomeness (Benning et al., 2005; Patrick
2010; Poythress & Hall, 2011).
As stated previously, the difference between the groups’ scores on the TriPM
Disinhibition subscale was not significant. Given that TriPM Disinhibition is conceptually associated with features that have been found in previous studies to be positively correlated with self-reported and engagement in risk-taking behavior, such as impulsivity, behavioral deviance, and stress reactivity (Blagov et al., 2015; Dean et al., 2013; Hunt et al., 2005), this finding was surprising. The failure to find significant differences on the Disinhibition scale may arise from methodological differences between the current study and previous studies, as no known studies to date have compared TriPM scores to risk-taking behavior, as measured by a gambling task.
However, Jones (2014) found that psychopathy as measured by the Self Report Psychopathy
Scale (Paulhus, Hemphill & Hare, 2014) was positively correlated with engagement in risk- taking behavior. This suggests some utility of the Jones task in eliciting risk-taking behavior. As such, the association between engagement in risk-taking behavior and TriPM Disinhibition and its associated features (e.g., impulsivity, poor planning, behavioral deviance and stress reactivity;
Blagov et al., 2015; Dean et al., 2013; Hunt et al., 2005) should be further examined in order to determine this factor’s relationship with actual behavior, versus self-reported risk-taking behavior which has already been demonstrated to be positively correlated with this factor
(Blagov et al., 2015; Patrick et al., 2009).
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 20 Concurrent Validity of the TriPM
We found adequate concurrent validity for the TriPM based on its significant correlation with the PPI-R. Specifically, the correlations between specific TriPM and PPI-R subscale scores were in the direction and strength expected in light of the concepts being measured. In addition, these correlations were largely consistent with previous studies (Sellbom & Phillips, 2013; Sica et al., 2015). An exception to this is the relationship between the TriPM Disinhibition and the
PPI-R Fearless Dominance scores, which was a positive, but small correlation in our sample, whereas Sica et al. (2015) found this relationship to be a negative and non-significant relationship. However, the relationship between these two factors in the current study was similar to that discovered by Sellbom and Phillips (2013). It is possible the results of the current study more closely matched those of Sellbom and Phillips (2013) due to similar sample characteristics (both college students), whereas the sample in Sica et al. (2015) consisted of
Italian community members.
The correlation between participants’ TriPM Boldness and PPI-R Self-Centered
Impulsivity scores in the current study was not statistically significant, which is consistent with previous studies (Sellbom & Phillips, 2013). This lack of relationship is to be expected as these factors are associated with conceptually different features, with the Boldness score associated with positive and adaptive personality functioning. Specifically, Blagov et al. (2015) found that
TriPM Boldness was associated with adaptive features such as low stress-reactivity, high self- esteem, and negatively correlated with neuroticism, whereas PPI-R Self-Centered Impulsivity is associated with features such as neuroticism, anxiety, and externalizing behaviors.
The current study also found positive, significant correlations between participants’
TriPM Disinhibition and PPI-R factor scores, as expected. These relationships were similar to
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 21 those discovered by previous studies. The relationship between TriPM Disinhibition and PPI-R
Fearless Dominance was also statistically significant, but smaller. As discussed previously, this is consistent with Sellbom and Phillip (2013). This smaller relationship is also expected given these factors are associated with some features that are conceptually different. Specifically,
TriPM Disinhibition is associated with features such as impulsivity, poor impulse control, negative affectivity and impaired ability to regulate one’s emotions (Patrick et al., 2009), whereas PPI-R Fearless Dominance is associated with features such as adaptive personality features such as positive affectivity and emotional resilience (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005).
TriPM Disinhibition and PPI-R Coldheartedness were not significantly correlated. The lack of correlation between these factors is consistent with previous studies and expected given these factors would not be expected to demonstrate a relationship with each other. Specifically, PPI-R
Coldheartedness reflects features such as lack of guilt, empathy, loyalty, and enduring attachments to others, whereas TriPM Disinhibition is not associated with these features.
The current study also found positive, significant correlations between participants’
TriPM Meanness scores and PPI-R factor and total scores, which is consistent with previous studies (Sellbom & Phillips, 2013; Sica et al., 2015). This pattern of relationships is also expected given that all of these factors are associated with features conceptually similar to features contained in TriPM Meanness, such as interpersonal aggression (PPI-R Self-Centered
Impulsivity; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005), excitement seeking (PPI-R Fearless Dominance;
Uzieblo et al., 2010), and absence of guilty and/or empathy (PPI-R Coldheartedness; Lilienfeld
& Widows, 2005).
The present study also found that the TriPM demonstrated adequate convergent validity with some scores on the ICU, which measures callous and unemotional traits associated with
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 22 psychopathy (Decuyper et al., 2011). Correlations between participants’ scores on the TriPM and
ICU varied, as would be expected, dependent on the subscale and/or factor score. For instance, relationships between TriPM Boldness, which has been associated in positive and adaptive functioning, were not significant for two of the ICU factor scores (Unemotional and Uncaring); but was correlated with Callousness score. This pattern of relationships is consistent with that found in a previous study by Drislane, Patrick and Arsal (2014); however, the relationships in the present study were overall slightly stronger. TriPM Meanness was largely and significantly correlated with all of the ICU scores, which is not surprising given what is being measured by the Callousness, Uncaring and Unemotionality scores. It is surprising that the relationship between Meanness and Callousness was not stronger (r = .39, whereas the other correlations exceeded r > .60); the strength of this relationship is consistent with that found by Drislane et al.
(2014). TriPM Disinhibition was correlated with Callousness and Uncaring, but not
Unemotionality. However, the lack of relationship between TriPM Disinhibition and ICU
Unemotional is expected given that TriPM Disinhibition is associated with negative affectivity and impaired ability to regulate one’s emotions (Patrick et al., 2009); whereas Essau, Sasagawa and Frick (2006) found that the ICU Unemotional score was negatively associated with emotional instability and aggression. The lack of relationship between TriPM Disinhibition and
ICU Unemotional is also consistent with the findings of Drislane et al., 2014. The relationship between TriPM Boldness and Callousness was significant, however, Boldness was not significantly correlated with Uncaring or Unemotionality. This is consistent with the findings of
Drislane et al. (2014).
Discriminant Validity of the TriPM
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 23 The present study found that the TriPM demonstrated weak to moderate discriminant validity, as measured by the correlations with the IRI, which is a self-report measure of empathy.
Correlations between participant’s scores on the TriPM and IRI varied, as would be expected, dependent on the subscale and/or factor score. There was a negative, large correlation between participant’s TriPM Boldness and IRI Personal Distress scores, which is expected given that
TriPM Boldness is positively associated with stress immunity and negatively associated with neuroticism. The remaining subscales of the IRI demonstrated smaller to non-existent relationships with TriPM Boldness; however, this pattern is expected given that features associated with TriPM Boldness are not conceptually related to features associated with these subscales, such as, one’s proclivity to image him/herself into fictional situations and one’s ability to “shift perspectives” (Davis, 1980).
The current study also found negative, statistically significant correlations between participant’s TriPM Disinhibition and some IRI factor scores. Although these correlations were small, this pattern of relationships is expected as TriPM Disinhibition is associated with features such as, impulsive behavior, poor planning, and impaired ability to regulate one’s emotions; whereas the IRI is associated with features such as empathy. There were not statistically significant correlations between TriPM Disinhibition and IRI Fantasy and Personal Distress scores; however, as stated previously, this pattern is expected.
The current study also found negative, statistically significant correlations between participant’s TriPM Meanness and all IRI factor and total scores. The correlations between
TriPM Meanness and IRI Fantasy and Personal Distress were smaller; however, this pattern of relationships is expected given that TriPM Meanness is more closely associated with features
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 24 measured by the remaining factors of the IRI, such as, lack of empathy, interpersonal detachment, and callousness (Patrick et al., 2009).
Limitations
The current results should be considered with several limitations in mind. Participants in this study represent a small sample of undergraduate students at a private Mid-western university; as such, the sample for this study does not mirror the general U.S. population in education, race distribution or sex distribution. Additionally, some of the data were collected through self-report by participants and thus the possibility of socially desirable response bias and variation of reports in increased given the subjective nature of the constructs being investigated.
An additional significant limitation for this study is that although the Jones Task was associated with conceptually-related measure scores, it has not been used in many studies and it has not been widely used or validated as a measure of risk-taking behavior. Although, it shows promise based on Jones (2014) and the current study, further research studying its validity as a measure of risk-taking behavior is recommended.
Lastly, although the psychometric properties of the ICU were not a primary focus of this study, the means and standard deviations of scores in the current sample were surprising given they are higher than the measure’s normative values and values found in previous studies. As such, this phenomenon should continue to be examined in future research in similar samples.
Future Research
In light of the current findings, future research could further explore the relationship between the TriPM scores and engagement in risk-taking behavior, particularly the relationship between risk-taking behavior and the Disinhibition, given the current study found unexpected results indicating TriPM Disinhibition was less predictive of engagement in risk-taking behavior,
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 25 which is inconsistent with previous studies that demonstrated self-reported risk-taking behavior is positively correlated with this factor (Blagov et al., 2015; Patrick et al., 2009). Although this study found the TriPM demonstrated some good psychometric properties, because it is a newly developed measure and does not yet have normative values and/or interpretive guidelines, interpretations of scores cannot be made in applied studies. As such, future research should aim at establishing normative values and interpretive guidelines for the TriPM.
General Conclusions
The present study found that the TriPM demonstrated adequate concurrent and convergent validity, which further supports its utility in measuring psychopathic features. In addition, the present study found that psychopathic features measured by the TriPM Meanness and Boldness factors are associated with actual risk-taking behavior, which is conceptually related to psychopathy, adding further evidence of its validity in measuring psychopathic features.
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 26 References Arbuckle, N.L., & Cunningham, W.A. (2012). Understanding everyday psychopathy: Shared
group identity leads to increased concern for others among undergraduates higher in
psychopathy. Social Cognition, 30(5), 564-583. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com.nocdbproxy.xavier.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid
=3ea3eb46-3e48-4c15-bc39-a2b1765953d2%40sessionmgr110&hid=119
Benning, S.D., Patrick, C.J., Blonigen, D.M., Hicks, B.M., & Iacono, W.G. (2005). Estimating
facets of psychopathy from normal personality traits: A step toward community
epidemiological investigations. Assessment, 12(1), 3-18 doi: 10.1177/1073191104271223
Berg, J.M., Lilienfeld, S.O., & Waldman, I.D. (2013). Bargaining with the devil: Using
economic decision-making tasks to examine the heterogeneity of psychopathic traits.
Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 472-482. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009265661300055X
Blagov, P.S., Patrick, C.J., Oost, K.M., Goodman, J.A., & Pugh, A.T. (2015). Triarchic
psychopathy measure: Validity in relation to normal-range traits, personality pathology,
and psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29, 182-193.
Christopher, S.F., Owens, L.A., & Stecker, H.L. (1993). An examination of single men’s and
women’s sexual aggressiveness in dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 10(4), 511-527. doi:
http://dx.doi.org.nocdbproxy.xavier.edu/10.11177/0265407593104003
Cleckley, H. (1988). The mask of sanity: An attempt to clarify some issues about the so-called
psychopathic personality (Fifth Edition). Retrieved from
http://www.quantumfuture.net/store/sanity_1.PdF
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 27 Coid, J., Yang, M., Ullrich, S., Roberts, A., & Hare, R.D. (2009). Prevalence and correlates of
psychopathic traits in the household population of Great Britain. International Journal of
Law and Psychiatry, 32, 65-73. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.01.002
Davis, M.H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS
Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85-102. Retrieved from
https://www.eckerd.edu/psychology/wp-
content/uploads/sites/49/2015/12/Davis_1980.pdf
Dean, A.C., Altstein, L.L., Berman, M.E., Constans, J.I., Sugar, C.A., & McCloskey, M.S.
(2013). Secondary psychopathy, but not primary psychopathy, is associated with risky
decision-making in noninstitutionalized young adults. Personality and Individual
Differences, 54, 272-277. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3505104/pdf/nihms410459.pdf
Decuyper, M., De Bolle, M., De Fruyt, F., & De Clercq, B. (2011). General and maladaptive
personality dimensions and the assessment of callous-unemotional traits in adolescence.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 681–701
DeMauro, G.E. (2012). Review of the psychopathic personality inventory-revised [Review of the
manual Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised, by S.O. Lilienfeld & M.R.
Widows]. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 17. Retrieved from
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=5&sid=4f1c977e-d023-4f36-ad31-
41936c29a4fc%40sessionmgr14&hid=28&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0
LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=mmt&AN=TIP17123310
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 28 Drislane, L.E., Patrick, C.J., & Arsal, G. (2014). Clarifying the content coverage of differing
psychopathy inventories through reference to the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure.
Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 350-362. doi: 10.1037/a0035152
Essau, C.A., Sasagawa, S., & Frick, P.J. (2006). Callous-unemotional traits in a community
sample of adolescents. Assessment, 13(4), 454-469. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191106287354
Frick, P.J., & White, S. (2008). The importance of callous-unemotional traits for developmental
models of aggressive and antisocial behavior. The Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 49(4), 359-375. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01862.x
Frick, P.J. (2004). Inventory of callous-unemotional traits: Unpublished rating scale. New
Orleans, LA: University of New Orleans
Geniole, S.N., Keyes, A.E., Carre, J.M., & McCormick, C.M. (2014). Fearless dominance
mediates the relationship between the facial width-to-height ratio and willingness to
cheat. Personality and Individual Differences, 57, 59-64. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.023
Guay, J.P., Ruscio, J., Knight, R.A., & Hare, R.D. (2007). A taxometric analysis of the latent
structure of psychopathy: Evidence for dimensionality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
116(4), 701-716. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.116.4.701
Hare, R. D. (1993). Without Conscience. New York, NY: The Guilford Press
Hare, R.D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health
Systems
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 29 Hughes M.A., Stout, J.C., & Dolan, M.C. (2013). Concurrent validity of the Psychopathic
Personality Inventory-Revised and the Psychopathy Checklist Screening Version in an
Australian offender sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(7), 802-813. doi
:10.1177/0093854812475135
Hunt, M.K., Hopko, D.R., Bare, R., Lejuez, C.W., & Robinson, E.V. (2005). Construct validity
of the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART) associations with psychopathy and impulsivity.
Assessment, 12(4). doi: 1.1177/173191105278740
Jones, D.N. (2014). Risk in the face of retribution: Psychopathic individuals persist in financial
misbehavior among the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 109-113.
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914000506
Kimonis, E.R., Branch, J., Hagman, B., Graham, N., & Miller, C. (2013). The psychometric
properties of the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits in an undergraduate sample.
Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 84-93. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029024
Kimonis, E.R., Frick, P.J., Skeem, J.L., Marsee, M.A., Cruise, K., Munoz, L.C., … Morris, A.S.
(2008). Assessing callous-unemotional traits in adolescent offenders: Validation of the
Inventory of Callous-Unemotional traits. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,
31, 241-252. Retrieved from http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0160252708000642/1-s2.0-
S0160252708000642-main.pdf?_tid=52d09086-4304-11e6-9c9a-
00000aacb35f&acdnat=1467759833_9f24e2e63f2bb1e59c6dfd73984e1239
Kimonis, E.R., Marsee, M.A., & Frick, P.J. (2004). The Peer Conflict Scale. Unpublished Rating
Scale.
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 30 Lilienfeld, S.O., & Widows, M.R. (2005). Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised.
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Lyons, M. (2015). Risk anything! Secondary, rather than primary psychopathy, is associate with
diverse risk-taking in evolutionarily relevant domains. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences,
9(3), 97-203. doi: http://dx.doi.org/101037/ebs0000039
Malterer, M.B., Lilienfeld, S.O., Neumann, C.S., & Newman, J.P. (2010). Concurrent validity of
the psychopathic personality inventory with offender and community samples.
Assessment, 17(1), 3-15. doi: 10.1177/1073191109349743
Marcus, D.K., Fulton, J.J., & Edens, J.F. (2013). The two-factor model of psychopathic
personality: Evidence from the psychopathic personality inventory. Personality
Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4(1), 67-76. doi: 10.1037/a0025282
Neumann, C.S., & Hare, R.D. (2008). Psychopathic traits in a large community sample: Links to
violence, alcohol use, and intelligence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
76(5), 893-899. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.76.5.893
Neumann, C.S., Hare, R.D., & Newman, J.P. (2007). The super-ordinate nature of the
psychopathy checklist-revised. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(2), 102-117.
Retrieved from
http://psych.wisc.edu/newman/SecurePDF/superordinate_PCLR_Neumann_Hare_Newm
an.pdf
Patrick, C.J., (2010). Operationalizing the Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy:
Preliminary description of brief scales for assessment of boldness, meanness, and
disinhibition. [unpublished test manual] Author: Florida State University.
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 31 Patrick, C.J., Fowles, D.C., & Krueger, R.F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy:
Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and
Psychopathology, 21, 913-938. doi:10.1017/S0954579409000492
Paulhus, D., Hemphill, J., & Hare, R.D. (2009). The SRP-III. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health
Systems
Poythress, N.G. & Hall, J.R. (2011). Psychopathy and impulsivity reconsidered. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 16, 120-134. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2011.02.003
Savard, C., Sabourin, S., & Lussier, Y. (2011). Correlates of psychopathic personality traits in
community couples. Personality and Mental Health, 5, 186-199. doi: 10.1002/pmh.159
Sellbom, M., & Phillips, T.R. (2013). An examination of the triarchic conceptualization of
psychopathy in incarcerated and nonincarcerated samples. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 122(1), 208-214. doi: 10.1037/a0029306
Sellbom, M., Wygant, D.B., & Drislane, L.E. (2015). Elucidating the construct validity of the
psychopathic personality inventory triarchic scales. Journal of Personality Assessment,
97(4), 374-381. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2014.962654
Sica, C., Drislane, L., Caudek, C., Angrilli, A., Bottesi, G., Cerea, S., & Ghisi, M. (2015). A test
of the construct validity of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure in an Italian community
sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 163-168. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.015
Stanley, J.H., Wygant, D.B., & Sellbom, M. (2013). Elaborating on the construct validity of the
Triarchic psychopathy measure in a criminal offender sample. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 95(4), 343-350. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2012.735302
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 32 Swogger, M.T., Walsh, Z., Lejuez, C.W., & Kosson, D.S. (2010). Psychopathy and risk taking
among jailed inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(4), 439-452. doi:
10.1177/0093854810361617
Uzieblo, K., Verschuere, B., Van den Bussche, E., & Crombez, G. (2010). The validity of the
psychopathic personality inventory-revised in a community sample. Assessment, 17(3),
334-346. doi: 10.1177/107191109356544
Venables, N.C., Hall, J.R., & Patrick, C.J. (2014). Differentiating psychopathy from antisocial
personality disorder: a triarchic model perspective. Psychological Medicine, 44, 1005-
1013. doi: 10.1017/S003329171300161X
Wall, T.D., Wygant, D.B., & Sellbom, M. (2015). Boldness explains a key difference between
psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(1),
94-105. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1321871902014019627
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 33 Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants Characteristic Total Sample Risk-takers Non Risk-takers (n = 165) (n = 96) (n = 69) (58.2% of total (41.9% of total sample) sample) Age M 19.84 19.74 19.97 SD 2.08 1.08 2.97
Gender Male 55 (33.3%) 36 (37.5%) 19 (27.5%) Female 107 (64.8%) 58 (60.4%) 49 (71.0%) Transgender 2 (1.2%) 1 (1.0%) 1 (1.4%) Other (Non-binary) 1 (.6%) 1 (1.0%) 0
Race Caucasian/European 124 (75.2%) 72 (75.0%) 52 (75.4%) Origin Black/African-Am 17 (10.3%) 12 (12.5%) 5 (7.2%) Asian/American/Pacific 7 (4.2%) 5 (5.2%) 2 (2.9%) Islander Latino-a/Hispanic 8 (4.8%) 3 (3.1%) 5 (7.2%) American Indian 1 (.6%) 0 1 (1.4%) Bi-racial/Multi-racial 8 (4.8%) 4 (4.2%) 4 (5.8%)
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 34 Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of Measure and Subscale Scores for the Total Sample (N = 165)
Measure and Subscale M SD TriPM
Boldness 49.01 9.04
Meanness 30.62 7.80
Disinhibition 35.84 8.36
PPI-R
Fearless Dominance 106.63 19.51
Self-Centered Impulsivity 137.53 21.48
Coldheartedness 28.35 7.15
Total Score 272.51 35.69
ICU
Callousness 15.78 3.17
Uncaring 14.47 3.68
Unemotional 11.95 3.35
Total 42.20 7.40
IRI
Fantasy 18.89 5.96
Perspective-taking 18.75 4.58
Empathic Concern 20.40 4.61
Personal Distress 11.04 4.88
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 35 Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, Independent Samples t-test, and Cohen’s d Results for TriPM Scores by Risk-Taking Behavior Groups Risk-Takers Non-Risk- n = 96 Takers (58.2% of TS) n = 69 (41.9% of TS) M SD M SD t d
TriPM Boldness 50.49 9.09 46.96 8.63 2.51** 0.40
TriPM Meanness 32.43 7.95 28.10 6.90 3.64** 0.58
TriPM 36.75 8.22 34.57 8.44 1.67* 0.26 Disinhibition
Note. TS = Total Sample. Risk Takers completed the Jones’ Task whereas Non-Risk Takers did not complete the Jones’ Task. * p < .05., **p < .01
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 36 Table 4
Pearson Product Moment Correlations between Participant’s PPI-R, ICU, and IRI Scores and the TriPM TriPM TriPM TriPM Subscale Boldness Meanness Disinhibition PPI-R Fearless Dominance .85** .36** .23**
Self-Centered .09 .61** .75** Impulsivity
Coldheartedness .36** .66** .15*
Total Score .59** .69** .61**
ICU Callousness .24** .36** .36**
Uncaring .06 .61** .41**
Unemotional .09 .66** .06
Total Score .17* .69** .39**
IRI Fantasy -.13* -.21** -.02
Perspective-Taking -.04 -.46** -.23**
Empathic Concern -.24** -.65** -.19**
Personal Distress -.65** -.24** .02
* p < .05., **p < .01
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 37 Appendix A
Demographics Questionnaire
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 38 Appendix B
Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised
The Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R) is protected by copyright so it is not reproduced in this document. For use in this study it was adapted and reproduced by special permission of the Publisher, Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. (PAR), 16204 North
Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida 33549, from the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised by
Scott O. Lilienfeld, PhD, Copyright 2005 by PAR. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission of PAR.
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 39 Appendix C
Triarchic Psychopathy Measure
The Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM) is protected by copyright so it is not reproduced in this document. The measure is available through its author, Christopher Patrick, Ph.D. at [email protected]
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 40 Appendix D
Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits
The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU) is protected by copyright so it is not reproduced in this document. The measure is available through the author’s website at http://labs.uno.edu/developmental-psychopathology/ICU/ICU-youth.pdf
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 41 Appendix E
Interpersonal Reactivity Index
The Interpersonal Reactivity Index is protected by copyright so it is not reproduced in this document. The measure is available through the author, Mark H. Davis, Ph.D., at https://www.eckerd.edu/psychology/wp-content/uploads/sites/49/2015/12/Davis_1980.pdf
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 42 Appendix F
Jones Task Instructions
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 43 Appendix G Jones Task: View What Was Left by Previous Participant
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 44 Appendix H IRB Approval Letter
BEHAVIORAL CORRELATES OF PSYCHOPATHY 45 Appendix I Debriefing Form