An examination of the three components of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory: Profile comparisons and tests of moderation.

Abstract

There are a number of prominent trait-based models and assessments of psychopathy that posit the existence of a varying number of central traits, which differ in their relation to one another and the degree to which they manifest similar empirical networks. In the current study (N = 347), we examined Lilienfeld's popular 3-factor model and measure (Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short Form; Kastner, Sellbom, & Lilienfeld, 2012; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) in relation to adverse developmental factors, self and informant ratings of general personality and "near neighbor" personality styles from the Dark Triad (e.g., narcissism), as well as internalizing symptoms and externalizing behaviors. The 3 factors-Fearless Dominance, Self-centered Impulsivity, and Coldheartedness-manifested relatively limited relations with one another (median r = .22) and demonstrated varying empirical networks such that Self-centered Impulsivity was associated with substantial maladaptivity, Fearless Dominance was associated with a mixture of adaptive and maladaptive correlates, and Coldheartedness' relations to the external criteria fell in between and manifested a relatively small number of significant correlations. There was little evidence that the psychopathy factors in general, and Fearless Dominance more specifically, interacted with one another in the prediction of externalizing behaviors or interacted with adverse developmental/parental experiences to predict these behaviors. These results are relevant to ongoing discussions regarding the manner in which psychopathy is conceptualized and assessed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Identifying Essential Features of Juvenile Psychopathy in the Prediction of Later Antisocial Behavior

“…Regardless of the parents’ use of harsh discipline, consistency in discipline, supervision, or levels of positive parenting, FD did not predict adult psychopathy at the total score or facet score levels. This finding is also in line with other recent tests of this hypothesis using the PPI-R in an adult sample (Miller, Maples-Keller, & Lynam, in press). We also examined the possibility that FD might interact with other risk factors in early adolescence to produce adult psychopathy.…”

“…If this is correct, examining the risk factor earlier in development, when it remains a risk factor and not a marker of successful development, should reveal its negative effects on later outcomes. Second, FD-related traits may confer risk only in the presence of certain developmental contexts; although Lykken’s hypothesis is focused on parenting and rearing practices (e.g., Miller, Maples-Keller, & Lynam, in press), it is possible that other factors may also moderate the impact of FD-related traits over the course of development. For example, FD-related traits in childhood and adolescence may predict adult psychopathy but only at low or high levels of a moderating variable like IQ or the quality of a child’s neighborhood.…”

Self‐ and informant perceptions of psychopathic traits in relation to the triarchic model

“…First, some studies have directly assessed response distortion in relation to psychopathy (e.g., Ray et al, ; Watts et al, ). Second, an accumulating body of research has examined the extent to which self‐report measures of psychopathy converge with ratings from knowledgeable informants (Fowler & Lilienfeld, ; Iyican, Sommer, Kini, & Babcock, ; Jones & Miller, ; Maples‐Keller & Miller, ; Miller, Hyatt, Rausher, Maples, & Zeichner, ; Miller, Jones, & Lynam, ; Miller, Maples‐Keller, & Lynam, ; Miller, Rausher, Hyatt, Maples, & Zeichner, ; Weiss, Lavner, & Miller, ).…”

“…This degree of self‐informant correspondence is similarly found when measuring psychopathy using basic normal‐range personality domains ( r s = .41–.83; Miller et al, ; Weiss et al, ) and for the pathological traits composing psychopathy according to the alternative model of personality disorders in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM‐5 ; American Psychiatric Association [APA], ), although these scores may be considerably influenced by variance in self‐ and informant report response styles ( r s = .29–.67; Ashton, De Vries, & Lee, ; Markon, Quilty, Babgy, & Krueger, ). Finally, significant convergence emerges even when using different psychopathy measures for self‐ and informant report to examine perspectives on theoretically corresponding ratings (Miller, Hyatt, et al, ; Miller et al, ).…”

“…These studies have demonstrated the validity of boldness in predicting nonphysical victimization, risk‐taking and socially deviant behaviors, sensation seeking, and grandiose narcissism (Coffey, Cox, & Kopkin, ; Gatner, Douglas, & Hart, ; Lilienfeld, Watts, & Smith, ). Moreover, boldness (also known as fearless dominance) has demonstrated associations with substance use, antisocial behavior, and gambling that, although modest, are equal to or greater than the strength of associations for more consensually agreed‐upon features of psychopathy (e.g., impulsivity, antagonism; Miller et al, ). Research similarly indicates that individuals endorsing higher levels of boldness are seen by others not only as more emotionally stable and extraverted (Miller et al, ), but also sometimes as less agreeable (Miller et al, ).…”