Psychopathy and impulsivity: The relationship of the triarchic model of psychopathy to different forms of impulsivity in offenders and community participants

Abstract

Psychopathic individuals are considered to be impulsive, but impulsivity is a multifaceted construct (including positive and negative urgency, lack of planning, lack of perseverance, sensation seeking). We investigated the relationships between the Triarchic Psychopathy Model (TriPM), conceptualising psychopathy in terms of: Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition, and UPPS-P Impulsivity. Prison and community participants were examined to assess for consistency in relationships between psychopathic traits and impulsivity across these samples. Boldness related to high sensation seeking, but to low negative urgency and strong perseverance. Disinhibition related to high levels of negative/ positive urgency, and poor planning. Meanness was linked to most forms of impulsivity. While the samples showed small differences (higher Sensation Seeking for the community sample, and greater TriPM Disinhibition for the offenders), there were no differences in the relationships between TriPM and UPPS-P. The findings support the dimensional model of psychopathy and demonstrate that some aspects of psychopathy are related to reduced impulsivity. This might explain why some psychopathic offenders are able to commit instrumental violence or criminal behaviour that requires a high level of planning and persistence. March 29 th , 2017 Dear Editor, Thank you for the comments to our paper. We have made the changes requested and have detailed them below. For your convenience we have italicized the comments of the reviewer and have typed our response in red below each one.

Psychopathy and procrastination: Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy and its relations to active and passive procrastination

“…In contrast, boldness displayed a positive link with active procrastination. These findings are in line with previous research on psychopathy in triarchic terms and impulsivity, suggesting that bold individuals, as opposed to those who display disinhibition tendencies, are able to calculate risks and remain calm under pressure from a close deadline (Weidacker et al 2017). Accordingly, prior research on the relations between psychopathy-related traits and decisionmaking under risk revealed that boldness was positively linked to risk taking in a gain context, whereas disinhibition was positively linked to risk taking in a loss context (Maes et al 2018).…”

“…Accordingly, prior research on the relations between psychopathy-related traits and decisionmaking under risk revealed that boldness was positively linked to risk taking in a gain context, whereas disinhibition was positively linked to risk taking in a loss context (Maes et al 2018). Thus, the results obtained in the present study seem to support the assumption that boldness embodies potentially adaptive aspects of psychopathic personality which might be displayed in the absence of other dysfunctional psychopathy-related traits, and therefore those high in boldness (i.e., fearless dominance) and low in disinhibition may represent "successful psychopaths" (Lilienfeld et al 2015;Weidacker et al 2017). Such psychopathic individuals probably tend to adopt less detrimental task-related strategies and are more likely to self-regulate own behaviors in the academic and organizational context by deliberate planning of own actions.…”

“…Within the triarchic framework, disinhibition is identified as being directly linked to impulsivity due to the accompanying poor behavioral control, lack of long-term goals, reliance on immediate gratification and externalizing problems (Patrick et al 2009). Previous findings proved that on a behavioral level disinhibition manifests in higher levels of impulsivity and an inability to plan ahead, characteristic of a low behavioral inhibition system (Drislane et al 2014a;Sellbom and Phillips 2013;Weidacker et al 2017). Given these considerations, the psychopathic tendency to engage in irrational, impulsive, disinhibited acts (in the triarchic model mainly embodied by disinhibition) may take the form of dysfunctional, passive procrastination, involving unintentional delays resulting from problems with time control (Choi and Moran 2009).…”

“…In other words, disinhibited individuals may be more likely to passively procrastinate, mainly due to an inability to self-control. Similarly, meanness might be also related to passive procrastination, as this dimension of psychopathy encompasses excitement seeking through cruelty (Patrick et al 2009) and was reported to be negatively associated with conscientiousness (Poy et al 2014) and positively associated with low behavioral control (Sellbom and Phillips 2013) along with different forms of impulsivity (Weidacker et al 2017). Therefore, those high in meanness may show a greater tendency to passively procrastinate due to both low self-control and increased need for stimulation.…”

“…This means that boldness (seen as potentially advantageous and adaptive dimension of psychopathy) may be reflected by the tendency to actively procrastinate, representing a more functional side of impulsive behaviors. Past research proved that although all three facets of psychopathy from the triarchic model were linked to various aspects of impulsivity, only those individuals high in boldness tended to plan ahead and engage in instrumental risk taking (Weidacker et al 2017).…”