The P-psychopathy continuum: Facets of Psychoticism and their associations with psychopathic tendencies

Abstract

Highlights  An examination of psychopathy related facets in EPQ-R Psychoticism (P) Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the 2, 3 and 4 factor models of psychopathy in P  support the 4 factor model over 2 factor model, but 3 factor model had best fit  P-facets show predicted divergent associations with psychopathy related traits  linked to high psychopathy, impulsivity and aggression, and low empathy *Highlights (for review)The P-psychopathy continuum and facets of P 1 The P-psychopathy continuum: Facets of Psychoticism and their associations with psychopathic tendencies Abstract Eysenck proposed that psychopathy is at the extreme end of the Psychoticism (P) personality dimension (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976). This study examined (i) whether psychopathy-relevant P items of the EPQ-R can form psychometrically valid facets that map onto the conceptualization of the two-, three-or four-factor models of psychopathy using confirmatory factor analysis (N=577) in a normal population; and (ii) whether those P-facets have criteria-related validity in associations with self-reported primary and secondary psychopathy, impulsivity (subsample N=306), and measures of trait empathy and aggression (subsample N=212). The four-factor model incorporating affective, interpersonal, impulsive, and antisocial facets of P was superior to the two-factor model; however, the three-factor conceptualization excluding the antisocial P-facet was the best fit. The facets show predicted divergent associations with primary and secondary self-reported psychopathy and trait measures. Findings are discussed in light of Eysenck's P-psychopathy continuity hypothesis and the applicability of facet approaches to the prediction of psychopathic and antisocial tendencies.

Sensorimotor gating characteristics of violent men with comorbid psychosis and dissocial personality disorder: Relationship with antisocial traits and psychosocial deprivation

“…Previous reports have identified a moderating effect of related personality traits in PPI, for example, in showing an association between high novelty seeking and low PPI in healthy people (Hutchison et al, 1999). The current findings are consistent with previous observations of an association between low PPI and a high level of Psychoticism (Kumari et al, 2008); proposed by Eysenck to be characterised by impersonal, emotionally indifferent traits, and lacking empathy and remorse (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1976), and often conceptualised as part of the psychopathy continuum (Heym et al, 2013). Similar personality traits (novelty seeking, disinhibition) have also been observed to moderate PPI sensitivity to drugs in healthy participants (Hutchison et al, 1999;Swerdlow et al, 2009;Talledo et al, 2009), potentially suggesting that the responsiveness to pharmacological compounds amongst individuals with comorbid psychosis and DPD may differ from their non-comorbid counterparts.…”

The psychology of the corrupt: some preliminary findings

“…The E scale measures extraversion and high scorers in the general population tend to be outgoing, impulsive, uninhibited, have many social contacts and often take part in group activities. The P scale was originally set out to measure psychotisicm but in recent research has been argued to measure to psychopathy (Heym, Ferguson and Lawrence, 2013). High P scale scorers in the general population tend to be cruel, inhumane, socially indifferent, hostile, aggressive and intolerant.…”

Empathy at the Heart of Darkness: Empathy Deficits That Bind the Dark Triad and Those That Mediate Indirect Relational Aggression

“…Mixed findings might be due to the jingle-jangle fallacy, whereby different definitional constructs of cognitive (or affective) empathy have been measured and conflated across different studies ( 38 ). Moreover, whilst most studies have focused on general or more basic assessments of affective or cognitive empathy, a more fine-tuned facet approach within those types of empathic deficits may be more useful in predicting more specific forms of aggression ( 39 ). Reniers et al ( 40 ) devised a multidimensional model of empathy distinguishing between different aspects of cognitive and affective empathy.…”