Evidence suggests that the combination of the interpersonal-affective (F1) and impulsive-antisocial (F2) features of psychopathy may be associated with borderline personality disorder (BPD), specifically among women (e.g., Coid, 1993; Hicks, Vaidyana-than, & Patrick, 2010). However, empirical research explicitly examining gendered relationships between BPD and psychopathy factors is lacking. To further inform this area of research, we investigated the hypothesis that the interplay between the two psychopathy factors is associated with BPD among women across two studies. Study 1 consisted of a college sample of 318 adults (51% women), and Study 2 consisted of a large sample of 488 female prisoners. The interpersonal-affective (F1) and impulsiveantisocial psychopathy (F2) scores, measured with self-report and clinician-rated indices, respectively, were entered as explanatory variables in regression analyses to investigate their unique contributions to BPD traits. Across two independent samples, results indicated that the interaction of high F1 and F2 psychopathy scores was associated with BPD in women. This association was found to be specific to women in Study 1. These results suggest that BPD and psychopathy, at least as they are measured by current instruments, overlap in women and, accordingly, may reflect gender-differentiated phenotypic expressions of similar dispositional vulnerabilities.

The field of personality disorders has had a long-standing interest in understanding interactions between emotion and inhibitory control, as well as neurophysiological indices of these processes. More work in particular is needed to clarify differential deficits in offenders with antisocial personality disorder (APD) who differ on psychopathic traits, as APD and psychopathy are considered separate, albeit related, syndromes. Evidence of distinct neurobiological processing in these disorders would have implications for etiology-based personality disorder taxonomies in future psychiatric classification systems. To inform this area of research, we recorded event-related brain potentials during an emotional-linguistic Go/No-Go task to examine modulation of negative emotional processing by inhibitory control in three groups: psychopathy (n = 14), APD (n = 16), and control (n = 15). In control offenders, inhibitory control demands (No-Go vs. Go) modulated frontal-P3 amplitude to negative emotional words, indicating appropriate prioritization of inhibition over emotional processing. In contrast, the psychopathic group showed blunted processing of negative emotional words regardless of inhibitory control demands, consistent with research on emotional deficits in psychopathy. Finally, the APD group demonstrated enhanced processing of negative emotion words in both Go and No-Go trials, suggesting a failure to modulate negative emotional processing when inhibitory control is required. Implications for emotion-cognition interactions and putative etiological processes in these personality disorders are discussed.

The present study examined the effects of executive function (i.e., EF) and anger/hostility on the relationship between stress (across individual stress domains, as well as at the aggregate level) and aggression. Two independent groups of participants-a college sample and a low-income community sample-were administered a battery of self-report measures concerning the subjective experience of stress, aggressive behaviors, and feelings of state anger and hostility in the last month, along with a battery of well-validated neuropsychological tests of EF. Across both samples, the stress domains that demonstrated the strongest associations with aggression were those involving chronic strains of daily living (e.g., job, financial, health) versus interpersonal stressors (e.g., family, romantic). In the community sample, analyses also revealed a significant interaction between perceived stress (aggregated across domains) and EF in predicting aggressive behavior. Specifically, participants with relatively low EF abilities, across different EF processes, showed a stronger relationship between different domains of stress and aggression in the last month. Similar effects were demonstrated in the college sample, although the interaction was not significant. In both samples, experiences of anger and hostility in the last month mediated the relationship between perceived stress (aggregate) and aggressive behavior among those low, but not high, in EF. These findings highlight the importance of higher-order cognitive processes in regulating appropriate affective and behavioral responses across different types of individuals, particularly among those experiencing high levels of stress.

Women with antisocial and psychopathic traits have a more extensive history of self-directed violence, as well as borderline personality disorder (BPD) symptoms, than their male counterparts (Chapman, Specht, & Cellucci, 2005; Warren et al., 2003). To inform this area of research, we examined gender differences in the relationship between psychopathy factors and risk for self-directed violence, as measured by a history of suicidal ideation, self-harm, and suicide attempts, across 2 studies. In both studies, we found that the interaction of the interpersonal-affective (Factor 1) and impulsive-antisocial traits (Factor 2) of psychopathy, a combination considered to exemplify high psychopathy, was associated with ideation, self-harm, and suicide attempt histories specifically in women. In men, Factor 2 traits were associated with these risk indices for self-directed violence, regardless of Factor 1. In Study 2, we extended our analysis to examine whether BPD accounted for the relationship between psychopathy and self-directed violence differentially in women and men. Results suggested that BPD symptoms partially accounted for the effects of Factor 2 on self-directed violence (both self-harm and attempts) in both genders but fully accounted for Factor 1 protective effects only in men. These findings underscore the notion that the same psychopathic trait liabilities, at least as they are currently assessed, may confer risk for different forms of behavioral maladjustment in women versus men.

Background-Rapid release testing reduces the waiting period for administration of time-sensitive cell therapy products. Current assay systems are labor intensive and time consuming. The Endosafe ® Portable Test System (PTS™) is a chromogenic Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL) portable endotoxin detection system which provides quantitative results in approximately 15 minutes. To evaluate Endosafe ® performance, specifically with cell therapy products, side-by-side testing of traditional LAL systems, and the Endosafe ® system was conducted at the Production Assistance for Cellular Therapies (PACT) facilities and the National