Measures of psychopathy
Psychlopedia -- Measures and manipulations -- Explicit measures -- Measures of psychopathy
Overview of measures
Often, psychologists and other professionals need to predict whether or not a person is likely to be violent or dangerous in the future (for a discussion, see Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 2006). Measures of psychopathy, especially the Hare psychopathy checklist, were developed to fulfill this goal. Elevated scores on these instruments increase the likelihood of violence in the future (e.g., Serin, Peters, & Barbaree, 1990).
Overview of psychopathy
Psychopathy is one example of several orientations or disorders that relate to antisocial or criminal behavior, collectively called the antisocial spectrum. Other instances of this spectrum include conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and antisocial personality disorder.
In short, psychopathy seems to entail two distinct facets. The first facet, sometimes called primary psychopathy or Factor 1 psychopathy, corresponds to a callous and manipulative orientation, devoid of empathy and emotion. The second facet, sometimes called secondary psychopathy or Factor 2 psychopathy, corresponds to a more impulsive form of aggression, representing an emotional response to negative events (Hare, 1991, 1993). This second facet is more closely related to antisocial personality disorder. In other words, psychpathy, unlike antisocial personality disorder, often coincides with a callous and unempathic demeanor.
The criteria to be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder is not as strict as the criteria to be diagnosed with psychopathy. Antisocial personality disorder is diagnosed in over 80% of incarcerated individuals (Hare, 1993). In contrast, psychopathy is diagnosed in only about 20% of incarcerated criminals but 50% of serial rapists (Hare, 1993).
In short, psychopathy is distinct from antisocial personality disorder and broader in scope. Accordingly, psychopathology is not represented in the Diagnostic Manual of Psychiatric Disorder (Hare, 2003).
Hare psychopathy checklist
The psychopathy checklist--revised, or PCL-R (Hare, 1991, 2003), is the tool that clinicians most often use to assess psychopathy. Psychologists or other professionals evaluate individuals on 20 items or traits, such as a grandiose sense of self or pathological lying, on a three point scale: 0 if the item does not apply, 1 if the item does apply somewhat, and 2 if the item applies fully. A standardized, semistructured interview is conducted to evaluate these items. Documentation and other forms of information are also consulted.
Two other variants of this checklist have also been developed. First, the original tool, called the psychopathy checklist, is similar to the revised version but comprises two additional items (see Hare, 1985). Second, a condensed version has been developed, comprising only 12 items, and used primarily for screening purposes.
To select the items, four criteria were considered (for a discussion, see Hart, Hare, & Harpur, 1992). First, none of the items overlap considerably with each other. That is, individuals who exhibit one of the characteristics might or might not exhibit any of the other 19 characteristics. Second, all the items correlate sufficiently with a global rating of psychopathy (Hare & Cox, 1978), as defined by Cleckley (1976). Third, none of the characteristics are especially rare or common. Finally, the characteristics are applicable to a broad range of samples.
The PCL-R seems to comprise two distinct factors (Hare, 1991). According to the two factor solution, eight of the items correspond to Factor 1: Glibness or superficial charm, a grandiose sense of self, pathological lying, a cunning or manipulative orientation, limited remorse or guilt, shallow emotions, callous rather than empathic attitudes, and a tendency to blame other people, called externalization.
Factor 1 coincides roughly with primary psychopathology, assumed to be the root disorder of individuals diagnosed with this orientation (Lykken, 1995). That is, primary psychopathy implies this trait is the primary cause of the undesirable and aggressive behavior. When Factor 1 is elevated, individuals tend to perceive other people as instruments to fulfill their personal needs rather than sentient beings with feelings, curbing feelings of empathy, guilt, or remorse. That is, aggression in these individuals is usually instrumental, intended to fulfill some goal, such as accumulating money or status (Cornell, Warren, Hawk, Stafford, Oram, & Pine, 1996)
Ten of the items correspond to Figure 2: A need to seek stimulation and avoid boredom, a parasitic lifestyle (cf Karpman, 1949), a limited capacity to control behavior, promiscuous sexual behavior, few realistic aspirations, impulsive behavior, juvenile delinquency, early behavioral problems, and violations of release conditions. These items represent impulsive behavior, corresponding to an inability to inhibit temptations and pursue future objectives.
Factor 2 roughly corresponds to secondary psychopathology, assumed to represent a consequence of other disorders, such as impairments in impulse control (Lykken, 1995). When Factor 2 is elevated, aggression usually represents an inability to regulate emotions or control behavior appropriately (e.g., Cornell, Warren, Hawk, Stafford, Oram, & Pine, 1996).
In short, primary psychopathology seems to be related to a relative neglect of threatening cues and manifests as callous, arrogant, and manipulative behavior. Secondary psychopathology represents a pronounced response to these negative cues and, thus, manifests as reactive aggression. Accordingly, primary psychopathology seems to be related to Factor 1 psychopathy; in contrast, secondary psychopathology seems to be related to Factor 2 psychopathology.
Two of the items in the PCL-R do not relate to either of these two factors: fleeting marital relationships and a broad range of criminal activities.
Psychometric properties of the Hare psychopathy checklist
Interrater reliability seems to be elevated, with intraclass correlations ranging from .78 to 89, in male prisoners (for summaries, see Hare, 1991). For individual items, these correlations tend to be lower, ranging from .42 to .84. Test retest reliability over a month has been shown to range from .84 to .94 (e.g., Alterman, Cacciola, & Rutherford, 1993; for a review, see Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 2006).
The PCL-R has been shown to predict recidivism and violence. Specifically, as Hare and Hare (1992) summarize, scores on the PCL-R predict future violence, aggression in prison, and recidivism that does not entail violence. Indeed, studies indicate the PCL-R, at least in some contexts, predicts violence more effectively than diagnosis of antisocial personality disorders (for comparisons, see Rice & Harris, 1992).
Serin, Peters, and Barbaree (1990) conducted a meta-analysis to ascertain the extent to which the psychopathy checklist predicts violent and criminal behavior. Across all studies, the average effect size, d, was .68. The average effect size to predict violence was .79. Indeed, one study, in which psychiatric patients who acted violently were compared to psychiatric patients who had not acted violently, the shortened version of the inventory generated a d value of 1.92, a very large effect. In contrast, when the inventory was used to predict recidivism, the effect size was generally lower, with a mean of .55.
Neurobiological correlates of global scores on the PCL-R
PCL-R is positively related to functioning of the amygdala. In particular, volumetric magnetic resonance imaging indicates the size of this region is negatively related to psychopathy (Tiihonen et al, 2000; cited in Blair, 2003), as gauged by the PCL-R.
Furthermore, when the PCL-R is elevated, the amygdala does not respond as effectively to negative events. That is, in the general population, when individuals need to memorize words, the items that coincide with negative states, like murder, tend to activate the amygdala, as shown by functional MRI (Kiehl, Smith, Hare, Mendrek, Forster, Brink, & Liddle, 2001). This activation of the amygdala, however, is impaired in individuals who generate elevated scores on the PCL-R (Kiehl, Smith, Hare, Mendrek, Forster, Brink, & Liddle, 2001).
Dysfunction of the amygdala could underpin the insensitivity of psychopathic individuals to moral socialization (Blair, 2003). That is, when children or adolescents behave inappropriately, they are often punished , eliciting unpleasant emotions. Over time, they begin to associate these inappropriate behaviors with negative emotions, called aversive conditioning. If the amygdala is impaired, this unpleasant experience is tempered and thus aversive conditioning is stifled. Similarly, when individuals offend someone else, they might experience the distress this other person exhibits, representing empathy. Again, this distress becomes associated with the offensive act, curbing this behavior in the future. If the amygdala is impaired, this sequence of events is also less likely to unfold (Blair, 2003).
Consistent with this proposition, when parents are supportive but firm, the likelihood of antisocial behavior diminishes; aggressive and impulsive acts are curbed. However, in individuals who exhibit elevated levels of psychopathy, this form of parenting does not necessarily curb antisocial behavior (Wootton, Frick, Shelton, & Silverthorn, 1997).
This dysfunction in the amygdala could, arguably, emerge from problems with the noradrenergic system. To illustrate, propranolol, which inhibits this system, compromises episodic memory for emotional events as well as impairs recognition of sad faces (Harmer, Perrett, Cowen, & Goodwin, 2001)--deficits that coincide with amygdala dysfunction. Hence, pathology in the noradrenergic system might underpin the dysfunction in the amygdala. That is, both inhibition of the noradrenergic system and lesions in the amygdale generate a similar sequence of consequences.
In addition to problems in amygdala functioning, dysfunction of the orbitofrontal cortex, which is often exacerbated by chronic amphetamine use (Rogers, Everitt, Baldacchino, Blackshaw, Swainson, Wynne et al., 1999), might also be related to psychopathy. Nevertheless, dysfunction in this region tends to be associated with impulsive, rather than instrumental, aggression (Anderson, Bechara, Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, 1999). Problems in the orbitofrontal region might be associated more with Factor 2, rather than Factor 1, items in the PCL-R.
Correlates of Factor 1
Overall, Factor 1 psychopathology is positively related to extraversion and positive affect. In addition, this factor is positively associated with a narcissistic and histrionic personality disorder.
Factor 1 psychopathology, representing a callous rather than empathic orientation, is negatively associated with behavioral inhibition (Wallace, Malterer, & Newman, 2009), as defined by (see reinforcement sensitivity theory; e.g., Gray & McNaughton, 2000). In particular, if individuals are callous and arrogant, they are less sensitive to potential conflicts or problems. As a consequence, they do not inhibit their prevailing tendencies.
Glenn, Raine, Yaralian, and Yang (2010) showed that corpus striatum might underpin some of the behaviors that are associated with psychopathy. The corpus striatum comprises the caudate head, the caudate body, the putamen, and the globus pallidus. This study compared the volume of these structures between individuals who exhibit psychopathy, as gauged by the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 2003), and control participants. Features of primary psychopathy, such as limited empathy, were associated with large caudate bodies.
The caudate body is activated during deception or the inhibition of truthful responses (e.g., Lee, Liu, Tan, Chan, Mahankali, & Feng, 2002). Conceivably, in primary psychopathy, in which individuals often deceive other people, this region is often activated, increasing the size of this body.
As Gregory et al (2015) showed, relative to violent offenders who do not demonstrate callous variants of psychopathy, violent offenders who do demonstrate callous variants of psychopathy may not learn from punishments as effectively. To clarify, in one study, both constellations of violent offenders completed a task in which they needed to identify which images should be paired with one another. Initially, they received a reward for pairing specific images. Later, however, individuals received punishments for pairing the same images. In contrast to violent offenders who do not demonstrate callous variants of psychopathy, violent offenders who do demonstrate callous variants of psychopathy did not shift their responses in response to these punishments. Furthermore, as measured by fMRI, they exhibited abnormal activity in the posterior cingulate and insula during trials in which stimuli that had been rewarded were now punished.
This connection between the posterior cingulate and insula is vital to learning about punishments. The posterior cingulate represents the information about what people like and dislike, whereas the insula represents negative evaluations. Dysfunction in the connections between these regions could undermine the capability of individuals to respond to punishments and, ultimately, explain some of the behaviours of people who demonstrate callous psychopathic tendencies.
Correlates of Factor 2
In general, Factor 2 psychopathology is positively related to antisocial personality disorder, criminal behavior, and reactive anger. Indeed, many scholars assumed that psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder might be equivalent: The American Psychiatric Association, for example, assume that psychopathy, as well as sociopathy, are obsolete terms to describe antisocial personality disorder. Arguably, Factor 2, but not Factor 1, psychopathology is tantamount to antisocial personality disorder.
Factor 2 psychopathology, representing an impulsive orientation, is positively associated with behavioral activation (Wallace, Malterer, & Newman, 2009), as defined by (see reinforcement sensitivity theory; e.g., Gray & McNaughton, 2000). In particular, when individuals often engage in impulsive, risky, and aggressive acts, they are more inclined to crave excitement and seek rewards.
Factor 2, which represents impulsive behavior, coincides with large caudate heads, a component of the corpus striatum. The caudate head seems to be involved in processing rewarding information (e.g., Seger & Cincotta, 2005). An undue emphasis on reward might culminate in impulsive behavior, increasing the likelihood of secondary psychopathy.
Limitations of the Hare psychopathy checklist
Several limitations of the Hare psychopathy checklist have been acknowledged (for a review, see Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 2006). First, some scholars maintain the PCL and PCL-R are not underpinned by a theoretical framework (e.g., Rogers, 1995). In particular, Cleckley (1941, 1976) enumerated 16 criteria that define psychopathy. The Hare psychopathy checklist was intended to represent these criteria (Hare, 1991). Nevertheless, according to Rogers (1995), the checklist diverges considerably from the criteria defined by Cleckley (1976); nine of the characteristics that were delineated by Cleckley (1976) are not represented in the PCL-R or PCL.
Second, the precise criterion or level that should be utilized to differentiate psychopathic individuals from other individuals has generated controversy. Scores on the PCL-R vary from 0 to 40. Hare (1991) suggested that individuals who exhibit scores of 30 or more could be classified as psychopathic. When this criterion is applied, the sensitivity, equivalent to the probability that actual psychopaths are indeed identified as psychopaths, is .72; the specificity, or probability that non-psychopaths are identified as non-psychopaths, is .93. In a review, Salekin, Rogers, and Sewell (2006) showed the criteria that researchers use to distinguish psychopathic individuals from other individuals ranges from 25 to 33.
Nevertheless, this criterion assumes that all the items should be conferred the same weight. For example, a 2 on one item should be equivalent to a 2 on another item. This assumption, however, has been challenged. To clarify, items on Factor 2 seem to predict criminal behavior more effectively than items on Factor 1 (cf Hare, 1991). Two individuals could both generate a high score, such as 30; one individual, however, might exhibit all the characteristics that pertain to Factor 2 and thus be likely to engage in criminal behavior. The other individuals might exhibit the characteristics that pertain to Factor 1 and thus be less likely to engage in criminal behavior. Thus, a mere aggregate of the scores might not represent the best approach to predict violence.
Finally, although the psychometric properties of this instrument are encouraging, most of the research has been conducted in North America, particularly Canada, usually with white, forensic populations. Kosson, Smith, and Newman (1990) showed the factor structure of this instrument, and the correlations between measured psychopathy and impulsive behavior, differs between African Americans and Anglo Americans. Similarly, few studies have examined the utility of this instrument in adolescents (Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 2006).
Other factor structures
Cooke and Michie (2001) uncovered three factors from the PCL-R. In this analysis, items that coincided only with antisocial behavior were excluded. Specifically, a limited capacity to inhibit behavior, early behavioral difficulties, juvenile delinquency, violation of conditional release, and versatile criminal activities were omitted--all of which corresponds to Factor 2.
When these items were excluded, three factors emerged. The first factor represented arrogant and deceitful interpersonal style, such as a grandiose sense of self and pathological lying. The second factor was deficient affective experiences and entailed limited remorse or guilt and shallow emotions. The third factor was impulsive and irresponsible behavior, including a need to seek stimulation and avoid boredom.
Hare and Neumann (2008) challenged the legitimacy of this analysis. They questioned the statistical analyses, arguing that model generates negative variances, for example.
Research indicates that genetic factors might be related to psychopathy. Twin studies do indicate that psychopathy might be partly genetic. Some studies indicate that Factor 1 psychopathy, representing limited empathy and emotion but a cunning and manipulative orientation, is partly genetic. Nevertheless, many studies indicate that Factor 2 psychopathy, representing impulsive behavior or anger, is even more related to genetic factors than is Factor 1 psychopathy.
The Psychopathic Personality Inventory
In contrast to the Hare psychopathology checklist, which is completed by clinicians, the psychopathic personality inventory is a self report measure (for other self report measures, see Benning, Patrick, Salekin, & Leistico, 2005). The psychopathic personality inventory comprises 187 items (Lilenfeld & Andrews, 1996). The inventory generates an overall score as well as a score for each subscale. The eight subscales are:
Furthermore, Lilenfeld and Widows (2005) constructed a shortened version, comprising only 154 items. Impulsive nonconformity was relabeled as rebellious nonconformity; otherwise, the name of each subscale remain unchanged.
Lilenfeld and Fowler (2006) summarized the psychometric properties of this inventory, indicating the scale is reliable and valid. Similarly, Sadeh and Verona (2008) showed the internal consistency of each subscale ranged from .78 to .90. Furthermore, although initially intended to be completed by civilian rather than incarcerated populations, scores on the psychopathy personality inventory correlate appreciably with conclusions derived from the Hare psychopathy checklist (Lilenfeld & Fowler, 2006; see also Poythress, Edens, & Lilienfeld, 1998).
Although the scale comprises eight subscales, other factor structures have been uncovered. Indeed, many researchers have examined the factor structure of this scale (e.g., Benning, Patrick, Hicks, Blonigen, & Krueger, 2003; Neumann, Malterer, & Newman, 2008; Ross, Benning, Patrick, Thompson, & Thurston, 2009). Most of these studies indicate the eight subscales can be divided into main clusters. These two clusters roughly relate to primary and secondary psychopathology respectively (Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, Hicks, & Iacono, 2005)
Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, Hicks, and Iacono (2005) subjected the eight subscales to a factor analysis. The first overall factor comprised social potency, fearlessness, and stress immunity, roughly coinciding with primary psychopathy, representing a callous rather than emotional orientation. This scale is sometimes called fearless dominance (Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, Hicks, & Iacono, 2005). The second overall factor comprised Machiavellian egocentricity, blame externalization, carefree non-planfulness,and impulsive non-conformity, roughly coinciding with secondary psychopathy, representing an impulsive orientation. This scale is sometimes called impulsive antisociality (Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, Hicks, & Iacono, 2005).
Similarly, Sadeh and Verona (2008) also subjected the eight subscales to principal axis factoring, generating the same pattern of factors. They also showed that coldheartedness does not relate to the two main factors, but constituted a separate factor. Nevertheless, this subscale was combined with the factor that represented primary psychopathy.
Correlates of the two factors
Vidal, Skeem, and Camp (2010) showed that emotional intelligence might be impaired in individuals with secondary, but not in individuals with primary, psychopathy. In this study, undergraduate students completed the Psychopathic Personality Inventory; two factors were extracted, representing primary psychopathy or fearless dominance and secondary psychopathy or impulsive antisociality respectively. In addition, participants completed the MSCEIT, to assess emotional intelligence.
These researchers showed that individuals who exhibited secondary psychopathy--corresponding to elevated levels of impulsive behavior and reactive anger as well as elevated anxiety--did not perform well on the MSCEIT, relative to participants who exhibited primary psychopathy or no psychpathy (Vidal, Skeem, & Camp, 2010). Specifically, when presented with anecdotes about a problem that someone has experienced, and asked to specify a suitable approach to resolve this difficulty, they chose a response that other participants tend to regard as inappropriate. Similarly, when asked which moods or emotions might be suitable in specific contexts, such as coordinating a military march, they also tended to choose inappropriate answers. Emotional intelligence was not impaired in the participants who reported primary psychopathy, however.
In addition to emotional intelligence, responses to the Psychopathic Personality Inventory are related to personality, as represented by the five factor model. Fearless dominance is positively related to extraversion, labeled as dominance, openness, and conscientiousness but inversely related to neuroticism (Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, Hicks, & Iacono, 2005). Impulsive antisociality is positively related to neuroticism and inversely related to love, an analogue to agreeableness.
One peculiarity is that both factors of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory correlate highly with antisocial personality (Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, Hicks, & Iacono, 2005), as gauged by the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire 4+ (Hyler, 1994). Typically, only secondary, and not primary, psychopathy is assumed to manifest as antisocial behavior. Nevertheless, these findings indicate that both fearless dominance and impulsive antisociality, at least when measured by self report, could predict antisocial behavior.
Self Report Psychopathy Scale
The self report psychopathology scale was developed by Hare. This scale was regarded as a self report version of the PCL (Hare, 1985), Nevertheless, the correlation between this self report scale and the PCL was low, approximating .28 (Hare, 1985), prompting a revision. The revised version, called the Self Report Psychopathy Scale II, comprises 60 items and can generate correlations of approximately 0.55 with the PCL (see Hare, 1991).
Like the PCL-R, the Self Report Psychopathy Scale comprises two distinct clusters of items, called Factor 1 and Factor 2. Factor 1 roughly corresponds to primary psychopathology, representing low anxiety, low empathy, and considerable narcissism. Factor 2 roughly corresponds to secondary psychopathology or impulsive behavior, but also seems to correlate with narcissism.
Benning, Patrick, Salekin, and Leistico (2005), however, argued these two facets of the Self Report Psychopathy Scale do not align closely with Factor 1 and Factor 2 of the PCL-R. Specifically, the first facet of the Self Report Psychopathy seems to primarily relate to level of dominance. The second facet primarily relates to level of arrogance as well as reflecting a calculative orientation.
Psychometric properties of the Self Report Psychopathy Scale
Hare (1991), however, showed the psychometric properties of this Self Report Psychopathy Scale is also modest. Internal alpha consistency sometimes approximates .47 and .77 for the two factors respectively. Nevertheless, although the scale comprises 60 items, the first factor entails only nine 9 and the second factor entails only 13 items.
As a reflection of concurrent validity, both factors of the Self Report Psychopathy Scale are positively related to global scores on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory, a more comprehensive self report measure. These correlations approximate .54 and .71 for the two factors respectively.
The Self Report Psychopathy Scale is correlated with personality, as represented by the five factor model. In particular, Factor 1, which supposedly represents a manipulative rather than empathic orientation, is correlated with elevated levels of extraversion but limited levels of neuroticism. Factor 2, which should represent impulsive aggression, is positively correlated with extraversion, openness, and neuroticism but inversely correlated with conscientiousness, as hypothesized (see Williams & Paulhus, 2004; for similar findings, see Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, Hicks, & Iacono, 2005) .
Measures of psychopathic traits in children and adolescents
Some of the traits or characteristics that underpin psychopathy can be identified in children and adolescents. Several instruments have been developed to fulfill this purpose: the Antisocial Process Screening Device (Frick & Hare, 2001), the Psychopathy Checklist-Youth Version (Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003) or the Youth Psychopathy traits Inventory (YPI; Andershed, Kerr, Stattin, & Levander, 2002).
Psychopathic traits in children and adolescents often predict similar characteristics in adulthood. That is, psychopathy seems to be stable over time (Lynam,, Caspi, Moffitt, Loeber, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2007).
The Antisocial Process Screening Device
The Antisocial Process Screening Device, which comprises 20 items, was originally developed to assess psychopathy in children and adolescents. Usually, parents, teachers, or other authorities rated the individuals on these items. Nevertheless, self reports are also plausible.
Like other measures of psychopathy, the Antisocial Process Screening Device can be divided into two factors. The first factor is called callous-unemotional, roughly corresponding to primary psychopathology or Factor 1 on the PCL-R. The second factor is called impulsive-conduct problems and roughly overlaps with secondary psychopathology or Factor 2 on the PCL-R.
Frick and Hare (2001) indicate the internal alpha consistency, or Cronbach's alpha, is only modest, approaching .54 and .64 for each factor respectively.
Benning, Patrick, Salekin, and Leistico (2005), however, challenged the factor structure of the Antisocial Process Screening Device. They showed the first factor, called callous-unemotional, seems to represent general distress and not the absence of emotion. That is, this factor was positively associated with most facets of personality disorder, including paranoia and avoidance?personality disorders that often coincide with anxiety. In contrast, analogous factors of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory and the Self Report Psychopathy Scale were inversely related to paranoia and avoidance, as gauged by the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire 4+ (Hyler, 1994). Furthermore, this factor was not inversely related to neuroticism or positively related to extraversion or dominance.
Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy
The number of dimensions that underpin psychopathy has stimulated considerable controversy. Hare (1991) originally conceptualized psychopathy as a single dimension. Many authors, however, distinguish two dimensions. Although these two dimensions often manifest in various guises, in general, a cold and callous facet is distinguished form an impulsive and antisocial facet.
In contrast, some authors distinguish three main facets or classes of psychopathy. Patrick, Fowles, and Krueger (2009), for example, differentiated three main phenotypes and developed a model that characterizes the relationships between these propensities. In particular, the first phenotype is disinhibition, representing problems with controlling impulses, planning carefully, and regulating emotions. The second phenotype, boldness, represents the capacity to recover rapidly from stress, behave assertively, and seek dangerous contexts. The third phenotype, meanness, represents a callous rather than empathic orientation, in which individuals seek resources from other people without remorse or guilt, manifesting as arrogance, cruelty, premeditated aggression, and exploitation of other people (for links to measures, see TriPM).
Each of these phenotypes are represented in historical conceptualizations of psychopathy. Disinhibition, in which individuals behave impulsively, aggressively, and inappropriately, coincides roughly with Factor 2 of the PCL-R (e.g., Patrick, Hicks, Krueger, & Lang, 2005) or the impulsive antisocial facet of the PPI (e.g., Blonigen, Hicks, Patrick, Krueger, Iacono, & McGue, 2005). Specifically, disinhibition is analogous to the concept of externalizing--encompassing conduct problems, criminal deviance, and even substance abuse. Such externalizing is often regarded as a key feature of psychopathy (e.g., Arieti, 1963; Krueger, Markon, Patrick, Benning, & Kramer, 2007), at least in secondary or symptomatic variants (e.g., Lykken, 1957).
Nevertheless, disinhibition is not equivalent to psychopathy: Most conceptualizations of psychopathy refer to an absence of fear. Hence, disinhibition needs to be coupled with either boldness or meanness to be designated as psychopathy (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009).
Boldness corresponds to many of the features that Cleckley (1941, 1976) delineated to characterize psychopathy, such as poise, confidence in social settings, negligible anxiety, and insensitivity to punishment. Similarly, boldness resembles some of the subscales of the PPI, including immunity to stress and social potency.
Meanness is crucial to many characterizations of psychopathy (e.g., Quay, 1986). Although Factor 1 of the PCL-R comprises some elements of boldness, such as charm and a grandiose sense of self (Patrick, Hicks, Nichol, & Krueger, 2007), this factor more closely mirrors meanness. That is, items on the PCL-R such as limited empathy, limited remorse, shallow affect, pathological lying, and manipulative behavior, all reflect meanness (for a discussion, see Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009).
Patrick, Fowles, and Krueger (2009) also specified the likely determinants of these three phenotypes. In short, they argued that a difficult temperament often evolves into dishibition and meanness. In contrast, low fear tends to evolve into meanness and boldness. Thus, meanness, which emanates from both a difficult temperament and limited fear, departs from disinhibition and boldness, each of which is associated with only one of these antecedents.
In this model, a difficult temperament reflects maladaptive reactions to emotional stimuli. Individuals might become unduly stressed or irritable, unable to tolerate unpleasant states. Alternatively, they might withdraw from novel stimuli. They cannot, therefore, adapt to changes effectively. These problems might entail undue automatic responses, impaired controlled strategies in response to emotional events, or both. According to Patterson, Reid, and Eddy (2002), these children might thus be especially challenging, demonstrating incessant irritability and aggression. Parents might, eventually, relinquish their efforts to control these children, inadvertently reinforcing these unsuitable behaviors, called the coercion hypothesis.
These irritable outbursts, sometimes reinforced by parents, evolve into disinhibition. The inclination to disregard the needs of parents or other figures also escalates into meanness.
In contrast, the absence of fear can foster meanness and boldness. These individuals are insensitive to punishment, instead directing their attention almost exclusively on their own desires and potential rewards. Because of this bias to rewards rather than punishments, these individuals are unlikely to respond aggressively to punishments; reactive punishment is infrequent. Instead, aggression represents a motivation to secure resources, regardless of the feelings or needs of anyone else (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009).
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1978). The classification of child psychopathology: A review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1275-1301.
Alterman, A. I., Cacciola, J. S., & Rutherford, M. J. (1993). Reliability of the Revised Psychopathy Checklist in substance abuse patients. Psychological Assessment, 5, 442-448.
Anderson, S. W., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1999). Impairment of social and moral behaviour related to early damage in human prefrontal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1032-1037.
Andershed, H., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Levander, S. (2002). Psychopathic traits in non-referred youths: Initial test of a new assessment tool. In E. Blaauw and L. Sheridan (Eds), Psychopaths: Current International Perspectives (pp. 131-158). The Hague: Elsevier.
Andershed, H., Hodgins, S., & Tengstrom, A. (2007). Convergent validity of the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI): Association with the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth version. Assessment, 14, 144-154.
Arieti, S. (1963). Psychopathic personality: Some views on its psychopathology and psychodynamics. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 4, 301-312.
Arieti, S. (1967). The intrapsychic self: Feeling, cognition, and creativity in health and mental illness. New York: Basic Books.
Bare, R. L., Hopko, D. R., & Armento, M. E. A. (2004). The relation of psychopathic characteristics and anxiety in noncriminals: Physiological and cognitive responses to guided imagery. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 225-232.
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, 3-18.
Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Hicks, B. M., Blonigen, D. M., & Krueger, R. F. (2003). Factor structure of Psychopathic Personality Inventory: Validity and implications for clinical assessment. Psychological Assessment, 15, 340-350.
Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. (2005). Psychopathy, startle blink modulation, and electrodermal reactivity in twin men. Psychophysiology, 42, 753-762.
Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Salekin, R. T., & Leistico, A. R. (2005). Convergent and discriminant validity of psychopathy factors assessed via self-report: A comparison of three instruments. Assessment, 12, 270-289.
Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Salekin, R. T., & Leistico, A. R. (2005). Convergent and discriminant validity of psychopathy factors assessed via self-report: A comparison of three instruments. Assessment, 12, 270-289.
Bernat, E., Patrick, C. J., & Benning, S. D. (2006). Effects of picture content and intensity on affective physiological response . Psychophysiology, 43, 93-103.
Blackburn, R. (2006). Other theoretical models of psychopathy. In Patrick, C. J. (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 35-57). New York: Guilford Press.
Blair, R. J. R. (1995). a cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating the psychopath. Cognition, 57, 1-29.
Blair, R. J. R. (2001) Neuro-cognitive models of aggression, the Antisocial Personality Disorders and Psychopathy. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 71, 727-731.
Blair, R. J. R. (2003). Neurobiological basis of psychopathy. British Journal of Psychiatry, 182, 5-7.
Blair, R. J. R. (2004). The roles of orbital frontal cortex in the modulation of antisocial behavior. Brain and Cognition, 55, 198-208.
Blair, R. J. R. (2006). Subcortical brain systems in psychopathy: The amygdala and associated structures. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 296-312). New York: Guilford Press.
Blair, R. J. (2007). The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 387-392.
Blair, R. J., Mitchell, D. G. V., Leonard, A., Budhani, S., Peschardt, K. S., & Newman, C. (2004): Passive avoidance learning in individuals with psychopathy: Modulation by reward but not by punishment. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 1179-1192.
Blair, K. S., Richell, R. A., Mitchell, D. G. V., Leonard, A., Morton, J., & Blair, R. J. R. (2006). They know the words, but not the music: Affective and semantic priming in individuals with psychopathy. Biological Psychology, 73, 114-123.
Blonigen, D., Hicks, B., Patrick, C., Krueger, R., Iacono, W., & McGue, M. (2005). Psychopathic personality traits: Heritability and genetic overlap with internalizing and externalizing pathology. Psychological Medicine, 35, 637-648.
Bolt, D. M., Hare, R. D., Vitale, J. E., & Newman, J. P. (2004). A multigroup item response theory analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Psychological Assessment, 16, 155-168.
Campbell, S. B. (1998). Developmental perspectives. In Ollendick, T. H. & Hersen, M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychopathology (3rd ed., pp. 3-35). New York: Plenum Press.
Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity (1st ed.). St. Louis , MO : Mosby.
Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity (4th ed.). St. Louis , MO : Mosby.
Cole, P. M., & Hall, S. E. (2008). Emotion dysregulation as a risk factor for psychopathology. In Beauchaine, T. P. & Hinshaw, S. P. (Eds.), Child and adolescent psychopathology (pp. 265-298). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy: Towards a hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13, 171-188.
Cooke, D. J., Michie, C., & Hart, S. D. (2006). Facets of psychopathy: Toward clearer measurement. In Patrick, C. J. (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 91-106). New York: Guilford Press.
Cornell, D. G., Warren, J., Hawk, G., Stafford, E., Oram, G., & Pine, D. (1996). Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive violent offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 783-790.
Douglas, K. S., Lilienfeld, S. O., Skeem, J. L., Poythress, N. G., Edens, J. F., & Patrick, C. J. (2008). Relation of antisocial and psychopathic traits to suicide-related behavior among offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 511-525.
Edens, J. F., Poythress, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Patrick, C. J. (2008). Further evidence of the divergent correlates of the psychopathic personality inventory factors: Prediction of prison misconduct. Psychological Assessment, 20, 86-91.
Forth, A. E., Brown, S. L., Hart, S. D., & Hare, R. D. (1996): The assessment of psychopathy in male and female noncriminals: Reliability and validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 531-354.
Forth, A. E., Hart, S. D., & Hare, R. D. (1990). Assessment of psychopathy in male young offenders. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 342-344.
Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version. Multi-Health Systems: Toronto.
Fowler, K. A., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Patrick, C. J. (2009). Detecting psychopathy from thin slices of behavior. Psychological Assessment, 21, 68-78.
Fowles, D. C., & Dindo, L. (2006). A dual deficit model of psychopathy. In Patrick, C. J. (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 14-34). New York: Guilford Press.
Frick, P. J., Bodin, S. D., & Barry, C. T. (2000). Psychopathic traits and conduct problems in community and clinic-referred samples of children: Further development of the Psychopathy Screening Device. Psychological Assessment, 12, 382-393.
Frick, P. J., & Dickens, C. (2006). Current perspectives on conduct disorder. Current Psychiatry Reports, 8, 59-72.
Frick, P. J., & Hare, R. D. (2001). The Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Frick, P. J., & Marsee, M. A. (2006). Psychopathy and developmental pathways to antisocial behavior in youth. In Patrick, C. J. (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 353-374). New York: Guilford Press.
Frick, P. J., & Morris, A. S. (2004). Temperament and developmental pathways to conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 54-68.
Frick, P. J., O?Brien, B. J.,Wootton, J. M.,& McBurnett, K. (1994). Psychopathy and conduct problems in children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 700-707.
Frick, P. J., Stickle, T. R., Dandreaux, D. M., Farrell, J. M., & Kimonis, E. R. (2005). Callous-unemotional traits in predicting the severity and stability of conduct problems and delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 471-487.
Frick, P. J., & White, S. F. (2008). The importance of callous-unemotional traits for developmental models of aggressive and antisocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 359-375.
Gorenstein, E. E., & Newman, J. P. (1980). Disinhibitory psychopathology: A new perspective and a model for research. Psychological Review, 87, 301-315.
Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2000). The neuropsychology of anxiety (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gregory, S. et al. (2015). Punishment and psychopathy: A case-control functional MRI investigation of reinforcement learning in violent antisocial personality disordered men. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2(2), 153.
Hall, J. R., & Benning, S. D. (2006). The "successful" psychopath: Adaptive and subclinical manifestations of psychopathy in the general population. In Patrick, C. J. (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 459-478). New York: Guilford Press.
Hall, J., Benning, S. D., & Patrick, C. J. (2004). Criterion-related validity of the three-factor model of psychopathy: Personality, behavior, and adaptive functioning. Assessment, 11, 4-16.
Hall, J. R., Bernat, E. M., & Patrick, C. J. (2007). Externalizing psychopathology and the error-related negativity. Psychological Science, 18, 326-333.
Hare, R. D. (1978). Electrodermal and cardiovascular correlates of psychopathy. In Hare, R. D. & Schalling, D. (Eds.), Psychopathic behavior: Approaches to research (pp. 107-143). Chichester: Wiley.
Hare, R. D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 111-119.
Hare, R. D. (1985). Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 7-E6.
Hare, R. D. (1991): Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of psychopaths among us. New York: Pocket Books.
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) manual (2nd ed.). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D., & Cox, D. N. (1978). Clinical and empirical conceptions of psychopathy, and the selection of subjects for research. In R. D. Hare & D. Schalling (Eds.), Psychopathic behavior: Approaches to research (pp. 1-E1). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Hare, R. D., & Harpur, T. J., Hakstian, A. R., Forth, A. E., Hart, S. D., Newman, J. P. (1990). The revised Psychopathy Checklist: Reliability and factor structure. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 338-E41.
Hare, R. D., & Hart, S. D. (1993). Psychopathy, mental disorder, and crime. In S. Hodgins (Eds.), Mental disorder and crime (pp. 104-E15). Newbury Park, CA : Sage.
Hare, R. D., & McPherson, L. M. (1984). Violent and aggressive behavior by criminal psychopaths. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 7, 35-E0.
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2006). The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy: Development, structural properties, and new directions. In Patrick, C. J. (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 58-88). New York: Guilford Press.
Harmer, C. J., Perrett, D. I., Cowen, P. J., & Goodwin, G. M. (2001). Administration of the beta-adrenoceptor blocker propranolol impairs the processing of facial expressions of sadness. Psychopharmacology (Berlin), 154, 383-389.
Harpur, T.J., Hakstian, A. R., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Factor structure of the Psychopathy Checklist. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 741-E47.
Harpur, T.J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 6-E7.
Hart, S., Cox, D., & Hare, R. D. (1995). Manual for the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening version (PCL:SV). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hicks, B. M., Bernat, E. M., Malone, S. M., Iacono, W. G., Patrick, C. J., Krueger, R. F., & McGue, M. (2007). Genes mediate the association between P300 amplitude and externalizing psychopathology. Psychophysiology, 44, 98-105.
Hicks, B., Markon, K., Patrick, C., Krueger, R., & Newman, J. (2004). Identifying psychopathy subtypes on the basis of personality structure. Psychological Assessment, 16, 276-288.
Hicks, B. M., & Patrick, C. J. (2006). Psychopathy and negative affectivity: Analyses of suppressor effects reveal distinct relations with trait anxiety, depression, fearfulness, and anger-hostility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 276-287.
Hinshaw, S. P. (2008). Emotion dysregulation as a risk factor for psychopathology. In Beauchaine, T. P. & Hinshaw, S. P. (Eds.), Child and adolescent psychopathology (pp. 3-26). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hyler, S. E. (1994). PDQ-4+ Personality Questionnaire. Unpublished scale, New York State Psychiatric Institute.
Hyler, S. E., Skodol, A. E., Kellman, D., Oldham, J. M., & Rosnick, L. (1990). Validity of the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-Revised: Comparison with two structured interviews. American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 1043-1048.
Hyler, S. E., Skodol, A. E., Oldham, J. M., Kellman, D., & Doidge, N. (1992). Validity of the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-Revised: A replication in an outpatient sample. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 33, 73-77.
Ishikawa, S. S., Raine, A., Lencz, T., Bihrle, S., & Lacasse, L. (2001). Autonomic stress reactivity and executive functions in successful and unsuccessful criminal psychopaths from the community. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 423-432.
Kagan, J., & Snidman, N. (1999). Early childhood predictors of adult anxiety disorders. Biological Psychiatry, 46, 1536-1541.
Karpman, B. (1941). On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types: The symptomatic and the idiopathic. Journal of Criminology and Psychopathology, 3, 112-137.
Karpman, B. (1949). Psychopathy as a form of social parasitism--A comparative biological study. Journal of Clinical Psychopathology, 10, 160-194.
Kennealy, P. J., Hicks, B. M., & Patrick, C. J. (2007). Validity of factors of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in female prisoners: Discriminant relations with antisocial behavior, substance abuse, and personality. Assessment, 14, 323-340.
Kiehl, K. A., Smith, A. M., Hare, R. D., Mendrek, A., Forster, B. B., Brink, J., & Liddle, P. F. (2001). Limbic abnormalities in affective processing by criminal psychopaths as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry, 50, 677-684.
Kochanska, G. (1993). Toward a synthesis of parental socialization and child temperament in early development of conscience. Child Development, 64, 325-347.
Kochanska, G. (1995). Children's temperament, mothers' discipline, and security of attachment: Multiple pathways to emerging internalization. Child Development, 66, 597-615.
Kochanska, G. K. (1997). Multiple pathways to conscience for children with different temperaments: From toddlerhood to age 5. Developmental Psychology, 33, 228-240.
Kochanska, G. K., Gross, J. N., Lin, M. H., & Nichols, K. E. (2002). Guilt in young children: Development, determinants, and relations with a broader system of standards. Child Development, 73, 461-482.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K., & Coy, K. C. (1997). Inhibitory control as a contributor to conscience in childhood: From toddler to early school age. Child Development, 68, 263-267.
Kosson, D. S., & Newman, J. P. (1986). Psychopathy and the allocation of attention in a divided attention situation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 252-256.
Kosson, D. S., Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (1990). Evaluating the construct validity of psychopathy in black and white male inmates: Three preliminary studies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 250-E59.
Krueger, R. F. (1999a). Personality traits in late adolescence predict mental disorders in early adulthood: A prospective-epidemiological study. Journal of Personality, 67, 39-65.
Krueger, R. F. (1999b). The structure of common mental disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, 921-926.
Krueger, R. F., Hicks, B., Patrick, C. J., Carlson, S., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (2002). Etiologic connections among substance dependence, antisocial behavior, and personality: Modeling the externalizing spectrum. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 411-424.
Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., & Kramer, M. (2007). Linking antisocial behavior, substance use, and personality: An integrative quantitative model of the adult externalizing spectrum. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 645-666.
Lilenfeld, S. O. (1994). Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy. Clinical Psychology Review, 14, 17-E8.
Lilenfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. R. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 488-524.
Lilenfeld, S. O., & Fowler, K. A. (2006). The self-report assessment of psychopathy: Problems, pitfalls, and promises. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 107-132). New York: Guilford Press.
Lilenfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R): Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Loney, B. R., Frick, P. J., Clements, C. B., Ellis, M. L., & Kerlin, K. (2003). Callous-unemotional traits, impulsivity, and emotional processing in antisocial adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 66-80.
Lorenz, A. R., & Newman, J. P. (2002). Utilization of emotion cues in male and female offenders with antisocial personality disorder: Results from a lexical decision task. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 513-516.
Lykken, D. T. (1957). A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal and Clinical Psychology, 55, 6-10.
Lykken, D. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lykken, D. (2006). Psychopathic personality: The scope of the problem. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 3-13). New York: Guilford Press.
Lynam, D. R. (1997). Pursuing the psychopath: Capturing the fledgling psychopath in a nomological net. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 425-438.
Lynam, D. R. (1998). Early identification of the fledgling psychopath: Locating the psychopathic child in the current nomenclature. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 566-575.
Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Raine, A., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2005). Adolescent psychopathy and the Big Five: Results from two samples. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 431-444.
Lynam, D. R., & Derefinko, K. J. (2006). Psychopathy and personality. In Patrick, C. J. (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 133-155). New York: Guilford Press.
Marsh, A. A., Finger, E. C., Mitchell, G. V., Reid, M. E., Sims, C., Kosson, D. S., et al. (2008). Reduced amygdala response to fearful expressions in children and adolescents with callous-unemotional traits and disruptive behavior disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 712-720.
Maudsley, H. (1874). Responsibility in mental disease. London: King Publishers.
McCord, W., & McCord, J. (1964). The psychopath: An essay on the criminal mind. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Leukefeld, C. (2001). Personality disorders as extreme variants of common personality dimensions: Can the five-factor model adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69, 253-276.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.
Moffitt, T. E., & Lynam, D. Jr. (1994). The neuropsychology of conduct disorder and delinquency: Implications for understanding antisocial behavior. In Fowles, D., Sutker, P., & Goodman, S. (Eds.), Progress in experimental personality and psychopathology research 1994. Special focus on psychopathy and antisocial behavior: A developmental perspective (pp. 233-262). New York: Springer.
Neumann, C. S., Malterer, M. B., & Newman, J. P. (2008). Factor structure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI): Findings from a large incarcerated sample. Psychological Assessment, 20, 169-174.
Patrick, C. J. (1994). Emotion and psychopathy: Startling new insights. Psychophysiology, 31, 319-330.
Patrick, C. J. (2006). Back to the future: Cleckley as a guide to the next generation of psychopathy research. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 605-617). New York: Guilford Press.
Patrick, C. J. (2007). Getting to the heart of psychopathy. In Herve, H. & Yuille, J. C. (Eds.), Psychopathy: Theory, research, and social implications (pp. 207-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Patrick, C. J. (2008). Psychophysiological correlates of aggression and violence: An integrative review. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B (Biological Sciences), 363, 2543-2555.
Patrick, C. J., & Bernat, E. (2006). The construct of emotion as a bridge between personality and psychopathology. In Krueger, R. F. & Tackett, J. (Eds.), Personality and psychopathology (pp. 174-209). New York: Guilford Press.
Patrick, C. J., & Bernat, E. (2009). From markers to mechanisms: Using psychophysiological measures to elucidate basic processes underlying aggressive externalizing behavior. In Hodgins, S., Viding, E., & Plodowski, A. (Eds.), Persistent violent offenders: Neurobiology and rehabilitation (pp. 223-250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Patrick, C. J., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1993). Emotion in the criminal psychopath: Startle reflex modulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 82-92.
Patrick, C. J., Bernat, E., Malone, S. M., Iacono, W. G., Krueger, R. F., & McGue, M. K. (2006). P300 amplitude as an indicator of externalizing in adolescent males . Psychophysiology, 43, 84-92.
Patrick, C. J., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1993). Emotion in the criminal psychopath: Startle reflex modulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 82-92.
Patrick, C. J., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Emotion in the criminal psychopath: Fear image processing. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 523-534.
Patrick, C. J., Edens, J. F., Poythress, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Benning, S. (2006). Construct validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory two-factor model with offenders. Psychological Assessment, 18, 204-208.
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.
Patrick, C. J., Hicks, B. M., Krueger, R. F., & Lang, A. R. (2005). Relations between psychopathy facets and externalizing in a criminal offender sample. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 339-356.
Patrick, C. J., Hicks, B. M., Nichol, P. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2007). A bifactor approach to modeling the structure of the Psychopathy Checklist?Revised. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 118-141.
Patrick, C. J., & Zempolich, K. A. (1998). Emotion and aggression in the psychopathic personality. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 303-338.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Eddy, J. M. (2002). A brief history of the Oregon model. In Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention. (pp. 3-21). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Patterson, G. R., DeGarmo, D. S., & Knutson, N. (2000). Hyperactive and antisocial behaviors: Comorbid or two points in the same process. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 91-106.
Porter, S., & Woodworth, M. (2006). Psychopathy and aggression. In Patrick, C. J. (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 481-494). New York: Guilford Press.
Poythress, N. G., Edens, J. F., & Lilienfeld, S. (1998). Criterion-related validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory in a prison sample. Psychological Assessment, 10, 426-430.
Poythress, N. G., Dembo, R., Wareham, J., & Greenbaum, P. E. (2006). Construct validity of the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI) and the Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD) with justice-involved adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 26-55.
Poythress, N. G., & Skeem, J. L. (2006). Disaggregating psychopathy: Where and how to look for subtypes. In C. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 172-192). New York: Guilford Press.
Quay, H. C. (1986). Classification. In Quay, H. C. & Werry, J. S. (Eds.), Psychopathological disorders of childhood (3rd ed., pp. 1-42). New York: Wiley.
Raine, A., Ishikawa, S. S., Arce, E., Lencz, T., Knuth, K. H., Bihrle, S., et al. (2004). Hippocampal structural asymmetry in unsuccessful psychopaths. Biological Psychiatry, 55, 185-191.
Robins, L. N. (1966). Deviant children grown up. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
Robins, L. N. (1978). Sturdy predictors of adult antisocial behaviour: Replications from longitudinal studies. Psychological Medicine, 8, 611-622.
Rogers, R. (1995), Diagnostic and structured interviewing. Odessa , FL : Psychological Assessment Resources.
Rogers, R., & Bagby, M. (1994). Dimensions of psychopathy: A factor analytic study of the MMPI antisocial personality scale. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology,38, 297-308.
Ross, S. R., Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Thompson, A., & Thurston, A. (2009). Factors of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory: Criterion-related validity and relationship with the Five-Factor Model of personality. Assessment, 16, 71-87.
Salekin, R. T. (2006). Psychopathy in children and adolescents: Key issues in conceptualization and assessment. In Patrick, C. J. (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 389-414). New York: Guilford Press.
Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (2006). A review and meta-analysis of the pyschopathy checklist and psychpathy checklist-revised: Predict validity of dangerousness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 3, 203-215.
Schmitt, W. A., Brinkley, C. A., & Newman, J. P. (1999). Testing Damasio?s somatic marker hypothesis with psychopathic individuals: Risk-takers or risk-averse? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 538-543.
Schmitt, W. A., & Newman, J. P. (1999). Are all psychopathic individuals low-anxious? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 353-358.
Schroeder, M. L., Schroeder, K. G., Hare, R. D. (1983). Generalizability of a checklist for assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 511-516.
Seger, C. A., & Cincotta, C. M. (2005). The roles of the caudate nucleus in human classification learning. Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 2941-2951.
Seo, D., Patrick, C. J., & Kennealy, P. J. (2008). Role of serotonin and dopamine system interactions in the neurobiology of impulsive aggression and its comorbidity with other clinical disorders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 383-395.
Serin, R. C. (1991). Psychopathy and violence in criminals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 423-431.
Serin, R. C. (1992). The clinical application of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) in a prison population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 637-642.
Serin, R. C. (1996). Violent recidivism in criminal psychopaths. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 207-217.
Serin, R. C., Malcolm, P. B., Khanna, A., & Barbaree, H. E. (1994). Psychopathy and deviant sexual arousal in incarcerated sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 3-11.
Serin, R. C., Peters, R. D., & Barbaree, H. E. (1990). Predictors of psychopathy and release outcome in a criminal population. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 419-422.
Sher, K. J., & Trull, T. (1994). Personality and disinhibitory psychopathology: Alcoholism and antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 92-102.
Skeem, J. L., Johansson, P., Andershed, H., Kerr, M., & Eno Louden, J. (2007). Two subtypes of psychopathic violent offenders that parallel primary and secondary variants. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 395-409.
Skeem, J. L., Miller, J. D., Mulvey, E. P., Tiemann, J., & Monahan, J. (2005) Using a five-factor lens to explore the relation between personality traits and violence in psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 454-465.
Skeem, J. L., Mulvey, E. P., & Grisso, T. (2003). Applicability of traditional and revised models of psychopathy to the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version. Psychological Assessment, 15, 41-55.
Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (1990). Alcohol and drug abuse-dependence disorders in psychopathic and nonpsychopathic criminal offenders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 430-439.
Snyder, J., Reid, J., & Patterson, G. (2003). A social learning model of child and adolescent antisocial behavior. In Lahey, B. B., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (Eds.), Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 27-48). New York: Guilford Press.
Thompson, R. A. (2001). Childhood anxiety disorders from the perspective of emotion regulation and attachment. In Vasey, M. W. & Dadds, M. R. (Eds.), The developmental psychopathology of anxiety (pp. 160-182). New York: Oxford University Press.
Vaidyanathan, U., Patrick, C. J., & Bernat, E. M. (2009). Startle reflex potentiation during aversive picture viewing as an index of trait fear. Psychophysiology, 46, 75-85.
Vanman, E. J., Mejia, V. Y., Dawson, M. E., Schell, A. M., & Raine, A. (2003). Modification of the startle reflex in a community sample: Do one or two dimensions of psychopathy underlie emotional processing? Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 2007-2021.
Verona, E., Hicks, B. M., & Patrick, C. J. (2005). Psychopathy and suicidality in female offenders: Mediating effects of temperament and abuse history. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1065-1073.
Verona, E., & Patrick, C. J. (2000). Suicide risk in externalizing syndromes: Temperamental and neurobiological underpinnings. In Joiner, T. E. (Ed.), Suicide science: Expanding the boundaries, pp. 137-173. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Verona, E., Patrick, C. J., & Joiner, T. E. (2001). Psychopathy, antisocial personality, and suicide risk. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 462-470.
Verona, E., Sachs-Ericsson, N., & Joiner, T. E. (2004). Suicide attempts associated with externalizing psychopathology in an epidemiological sample. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 444-451.
Vidal, S., Skeem, J., & Camp, J. (2010). Emotional intelligence: painting different paths for low-anxious and high-anxious psychopathic variants. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 50-63.
Wallace, J. F., Malterer, M. B., & Newman, J. P. (2009). Mapping Gray's BIS and BAS constructs onto Factor 1 and Factor 2 of Hare's Psychopathy Checklist--Revised.Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 812-816.
Wallace, J. F., & Newman, J. P. (1997). Neuroticism and the attentional mediation of dysregulatory psychopathology. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 135-156.
Wallace, J. F., & Newman, J. P. (2004). A theory-based treatment model for psychopathy. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 11, 178-189.
Wallace, J. F., Vitale, J. E., & Newman, J. P. (1999). Response modulation deficits: Implications for the diagnosis and treatment of psychopathy. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 13, 55-70.
Widiger, T. A. (2006). Psychopathy and DSM-IV psychopathology. In Patrick, C. J. (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 156-171). New York: Guilford Press.
Widiger, T. A., Cadoret, R., Hare, R., Robins, L., Rutherford, M., Zanarini, M., et al. (1996). DSM-IV antisocial personality disorder field trial. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 3-16.
Williams, K. M., & Paulhus, D. L. (2004). Factor structure of the Self-Report Psychopathy scale (SRP-II) in non-forensic samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 765-778.
Young, S. E., Stallings, M. C., Corley, R. P., Krauter, K. S., & Hewitt, J. K. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on behavioral disinhibition. American Journal of Medical Genetics (Neuropsychiatric Genetics), 96, 684-695.
Created by Dr Simon Moss on 31/03/2010
Free Personality Tests :