Validating Empathy As Captured by the Meanness in Psychopathy-Self Report

UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones

8-1-2019

Validating Empathy as Captured by the Meanness in Psychopathy-Self Report

Stephanie Marie Molina

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations

Part of the Biological Psychology Commons, Clinical Psychology Commons, and the Personality and Social Contexts Commons

Repository Citation Molina, Stephanie Marie, "Validating Empathy as Captured by the Meanness in Psychopathy-Self Report" (2019). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 3739. http://dx.doi.org/10.34917/16076280

This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself.

This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VALIDATING EMPATHY AS CAPTURED BY

THE MEANNESS IN PSYCHOPATHY- SELF REPORT

Stephanie Marie Molina

Bachelor of Science in Psychology Tulane University 2011

Master of Arts in Psychology University of Nevada, Las Vegas 2016

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the

Doctor of Philosophy - Psychology

Psychology Department College of Liberal Arts The Graduate College

University of Nevada, Las Vegas August 2018

Dissertation Approval

The Graduate College The University of Nevada, Las Vegas

May 15, 2018

This dissertation prepared by

Stephanie Marie Molina entitled

Validating Empathy as Captured by the Meanness in Psychopathy- Self Report is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy - Psychology Psychology Department

Stephen Benning, Ph.D. Kathryn Hausbeck Korgan, Ph.D. Examination Committee Chair Graduate College Interim Dean

Kimberly Barchard, Ph.D. Examination Committee Member

Andrew Freeman, Ph.D. Examination Committee Member

Peter Gray, Ph.D. Graduate College Faculty Representative

Abstract

Psychopathy is a distinctive personality disorder with an array of interpersonal and affective deficits. In particular, deficits in affective and cognitive empathy skills are noted to be a central feature of psychopathy. Specifically, the construct of psychopathic meanness, which is conceptualized as a tendency to act aggressively without regard for others, is preferentially related to deficient empathy. To elucidate the relationship between psychopathic meanness and empathy, three studies were conducted utilizing the Meanness in Psychopathy-Self Report (MiP-

SR). The MiP-SR is a new measure that parses apart the construct of psychopathic meanness into three factors: Malice, Coldness, and Imperviousness. MiP-SR also includes several empathy subscales that capture positive and negative emotional contagion, cognitive empathy, and emotional perception abilities; together they allow for a comprehensive examination of empathy.

The first study established the construct validity of the MiP-SR’s empathy subscales in a large community sample. In Study 2, an undergraduate student sample underwent a laboratory stressor while in the presence of a friend. As captured by the postauricular and startle blink reflexes, psychopathic meanness was not implicated in deficits with emotional reactivity. In

Study 3, undergraduate students underwent a behavioral laboratory task designed to elicit aggression while psychophysiological data was recorded. While there were no significant findings with the psychophysiological measures, Imperviousness was related to and predicted instrumental behavioral aggression. Furthermore, empathy was largely unrelated to behavioral aggression. Overall, this dissertation brings forth questions regarding the role of empathy within the construct of psychopathic meanness. Given that the MiP-SR’s empathy subscales do indeed appear to be capturing empathy, the null finding from Study 2 raises questions regarding the distinction in one’s ability to provide and benefit from receiving empathy. Study 3 elucidates the

iii

role of maladaptive boldness (i.e., Imperviousness) in aggressive behaviors, but also suggests that empathy and aggression are unrelated. These findings have important implications for understanding of how empathy deficits within psychopathic meanness manifest.

Table of Contents Abstract ...... iii List of Tables ...... viii List of Figures ...... x Chapter 1: Literature Review ...... 1 Psychopathy Models ...... 1 Triarchic Meanness ...... 4 Empathy ...... 7 Empathy Deficits in Psychopathy ...... 10 Empathy, Psychopathic Meanness, and Psychophysiology ...... 12 The Meanness in Psychopathy- Self Report ...... 15 Chapter 2: Current Studies ...... 18 Study 1 ...... 18 Hypotheses...... 19 Study 2 ...... 20 Hypotheses...... 21 Study 3 ...... 22 Hypotheses...... 23 Chapter 3: Study 1 Method ...... 25 Participants ...... 25 Questionnaires ...... 25 Demographics...... 25 Meanness in Psychopathy-Self Report ...... 25 Interpersonal Reactivity Index ...... 27 Empathy Quotient ...... 27 The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire ...... 28 Short Dark Triad ...... 28 Chapter 4: Study 1 Data Analyses ...... 29 Chapter 5: Study 1 Results ...... 31 Correlations with Empathy Measures ...... 31 Regressions with Empathy Measures ...... 31 Correlations with the SD3 ...... 34 Regressions with the SD3 ...... 35 Chapter 6: Study 1 Discussion ...... 36 Convergent Validity Findings ...... 36 Divergent Validity Findings ...... 38 Limitations and Future Directions ...... 39 Chapter 7: Study 2 Method ...... 41 Participants ...... 41 Questionnaires ...... 41 Demographics...... 41 Meanness in Psychopathy-Short Form ...... 41

Letter-Shock Task ...... 42 Psychophysiological Recordings ...... 43 Chapter 8: Study 2 Data Analyses ...... 45 Chapter 9: Study 2 Results ...... 46 T-Tests...... 46 Correlations ...... 46 Regressions ...... 46 Chapter 10: Study 2 Discussion ...... 48 Task Design ...... 48 Limitations and Future Directions ...... 49 Chapter 11: Study 3 Method ...... 51 Participants ...... 51 Questionnaires ...... 51 Demographics...... 51 Meanness in Psychopathy-Short Form ...... 51 Response-Choice Aggression Paradigm ...... 52 Psychophysiological Recordings ...... 55 Chapter 12: Study 3 Data Analyses ...... 57 Chapter 13: Study 3 Results ...... 60 Basic Effects ...... 60 Correlations ...... 61 Regressions with Behavioral Measures ...... 62 Proposed MiP-SF Factor Regressions ...... 62 Exploratory MiP-SF Factor Regressions ...... 63 Proposed MiP-SF Empathy Subscales Regressions ...... 65 Exploratory Behavioral Correlations ...... 66 Regressions with Psychophysiological Measures ...... 67 Proposed MiP-SF Factor Regressions ...... 67 Proposed MiP-SF Empathy Subscales Regressions ...... 68 Chapter 14: Study 3 Discussion ...... 69 Basic Task Effects ...... 69 Behavioral Findings ...... 71 Psychophysiological Findings ...... 73 Limitations and Future Directions ...... 74 Chapter 15: General Discussion ...... 76 The Places of Empathy in Psychopathic Meanness and Related Constructs ...... 76 Personal Distress as an Unnecessary Component of Empathy? ...... 78 Empathy and Aggression in Psychopathy ...... 79 How Important is Low Empathy to Psychopathic Outcomes? ...... 81 Limitations and Future Directions ...... 82 Appendix A ...... 85 Appendix B ...... 112

References ...... 113 Curriculum Vitae ...... 131

vii

List of Tables

Table 1: Correlations between MiP-SR Factors and Empathy Measures ...... 85 Table 2: Correlations between MiP-SR Empathy Subscales and Empathy Measures ...... 86 Table 3: Hierarchical Regressions with MiP-SR Factors Predicting the IRI ...... 87 Table 4: Hierarchical Regressions with MiP-SR Factors Predicting the EQ and TEQ ...... 88 Table 5: Hierarchical Regressions with MiP-SR Subscales Predicting the IRI ...... 89 Table 6: Hierarchical Regressions with MiP-SR Subscales Predicting the EQ and TEQ ...... 91 Table 7: Correlations between MiP-SR Factors and SD3 Factors ...... 93 Table 8: Correlations between MiP-SR Empathy Subscales and SD3 Factors ...... 94 Table 9: Hierarchical Regressions with SD3 Factors Predicting MiP-SR Empathy Subscales ... 95 Table 10: Correlations between MiP-SF and Psychophysiological Measures ...... 96 Table 11: Hierarchical Regressions with MiP-SF Factors Predicting Psychophysiological Modulation ...... 97 Table 12: Hierarchical Regressions with MiP-SF Subscales Predicting Psychophysiological Modulation ...... 98 Table 13: Means and Standard Deviations for Behavioral Aggression Measures ...... 99 Table 14: Correlations between MiP-SF and Aggression Measures ...... 100 Table 15: Proposed Hierarchical Regressions with MiP-SF Factors Predicting Behavioral Instrumental Aggression ...... 101 Table 16: Proposed Hierarchical Regressions with MiP-SF Factors Predicting Behavioral Reactive Aggression ...... 102 Table 17: Exploratory Hierarchical Regressions with MiP-SF Factors Predicting Behavioral Instrumental Aggression ...... 103 Table 18: Exploratory Hierarchical Regressions with MiP-SF Factors Predicting Behavioral Reactive Aggression ...... 104 Table 19a: Proposed Hierarchical Regressions with MiP-SF Empathy Subscales Predicting Behavioral Instrumental Aggression ...... 105 Table 19b: Proposed Hierarchical Regressions with MiP-SF Empathy Subscales Predicting Behavioral Instrumental Aggression ...... 106 Table 20a: Proposed Hierarchical Regressions with MiP-SF Empathy Subscales Predicting Behavioral Reactive Aggression ...... 107 Table 20b: Proposed Hierarchical Regressions with MiP-SF Empathy Subscales Predicting Behavioral Reactive Aggression ...... 108 Table 21: Correlations between MiP-SF and Residualized Behavioral Aggression Measures .. 109

viii

Table 22: Hierarchical Regressions with MiP-SF Factors Predicting Psychophysiological Modulation ...... 110 Table 23: Hierarchical Regressions with MiP-SF Empathy Subscales Predicting Psychophysiological Modulation ...... 111

List of Figures

Figure 1 ...... 112

Chapter 1: Literature Review

Psychopathy is a distinctive personality disorder whose maladaptive traits often lead to an array of interpersonal deficits. Interpersonally, psychopathic individuals may lack empathy, be deceptive, or have ideas of grandiosity, which may impede their ability to maintain relationships with others. The deficits in empathy associated with psychopathy may be at the core of meanness traits which are distinctively associated with the disorder. In the literature, there are a number of different models and measures utilized to capture psychopathic personality traits, some of which capture aspects of meanness. However, meanness is currently only represented in short facets of measures that are unlikely to capture completely the panoply of empathic deficits in psychopathy. My dissertation will employ the Meanness in Psychopathy-Self Report (MiP-SR;

Benning, Barchard, Westfall, Brouwers, & Molina, 2018a), which parses meanness across multiple constructs and includes a rich subset of scales that assess facets of empathy. Given the central role of empathy in psychopathy, it would be beneficial to utilize a measure such as the

MiP-SR and interpersonal laboratory tasks to investigate the role of empathy within psychopathic meanness.

Psychopathy Models

One of the most commonly used psychopathy measures in both research and clinical settings is the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003). The PCL-R conceptualizes psychopathy into two overarching and correlated factors, each consisting of two facets. Factor 1 encompasses the core interpersonal and affective features of the disorder including manipulativeness (Facet 1) and lack of empathy (Facet 2; Hare, 2003). On the other hand, Factor 2 captures the antisocial lifestyle associated with the disorder by focusing on impulsivity (Facet 3) and criminal/antisocial deviance (Facet 4; Hare, 2003). The PCL-R requires

a trained individual to rate the participant on each of the 20 items via a structured interview and collateral records review (Hare, 2003). As this measure was developed for use in forensic populations, scores are heavily influenced by criminality and externalizing features (Patrick,

Hicks, Nichol, & Krueger, 2007). Given its limited utility, other measures (mainly self-report) are aimed at capturing core psychopathic personality traits as they relate to interpersonal functioning in a variety of settings (Skeem, Polaschek, Patrick, & Lilienfeld, 2011).

Following the PCL-R, the Self- Report Psychopathy Scale-III (SRP-III; Paulhus,

Hemphill, & Hare, 2009) was developed to index the facets of the PCL-R in self-report form.

Currently, the most updated version of the SRP is the SRP-4 (Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, 2016); however, there are yet to be studies aimed at validating this version. Thus, the SRP-III is the most recent validated version. The SRP-III yields a total psychopathy score and four subscales:

Interpersonal Manipulation, Callous Affect, Erratic Lifestyle, and Criminal Tendencies (Paulhus et al., 2009). Factor 1, Interpersonal Manipulation, is associated with characteristics such as low honesty, relational and physical aggression, fraud, and narcissism (Neal & Sellbom, 2012). The second factor, Callous Affect, is associated with low empathy, callousness, and unemotional traits as assessed via other psychopathy measures (Neal & Sellbom, 2012), including the

Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (Frick, 2004). Factor 3, Erratic Lifestyle, encompasses low planful control, boredom proneness, and excitement seeking (Neal & Sellbom, 2012).

Lastly, the fourth factor is Criminal Tendencies which is found to be the best predictor of destructive aggression, and is further associated with externalizing and impulsive behaviors

(Neal & Sellbom, 2012). While Mahmut, Menictas, Stevenson, and Homewood (2011) validated the SRP-III successfully in an undergraduate student sample, the reliability for the Callous Affect

factor was low (Cronbach’s alpha = .65). Thus, the SRP-III may not be the best measure to capture empathy deficits in non-forensic samples.

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP; Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick,

1995) was created as another self-report adaption of the PCL-R. Distinct from the SRP-III, the

LSRP focuses on primary and secondary psychopathy (Karpman, 1948). Karpman (1948) described primary psychopaths to be those individuals who were callous, manipulative, untruthful, and ultimately what he believed to be “true psychopathy.” On the other hand, he described secondary psychopaths as having an underlying neuroticism or emotional disorder which drives them to engage in impulsive, antisocial behaviors (Karpman, 1948). The LSRP primary psychopathy scale captures interpersonal-affective features and has been found to be associated with affective empathy deficits (Reniers, Corcoran, Drake, Shryane, & Völlm, 2011).

On the other hand, the secondary psychopathy scale of the LSRP assesses impulsive-antisocial deviance and has been found to be associated with trait