Construct validity of a psychopathy measure

Person. individ. Difl Vol. 17. No. I, pp. 125-135, 1994 Copyright 0 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0191~8869(94)EOO19-N Ol91-8869/94 $7.00 + 0.00

Pergamon

CONSTRUCT

VALIDITY

OF A PSYCHOPATHY

ILONA K. ZAGON*

and

MEASURE

HENRY J. JACKSON

The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia (Received 8 March 1993; received for publication 20 January 1994)

Summary-The present investigation utilizes some of the measures currently being used by the DSM-IV Field Trial work group in their effort to simplify the criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder and at the same time include more traditional items, typical of psychopathy. One hundred and forty-nine students (48 male, 101 female) completed self-report measures of psychopathy, empathy, anxiety, narcissism, untruthfulness and social desirability. It was found that there was an overlap between psychopathy and narcissism, and that overall, those scoring higher on a measure of psychopathy scored lower on a measure of empathy and anxiety. Sex differences were found, for example, males were more likely to score higher on a measure of psychopathy. Interestingly, it was also found that higher lying correlated with psychopathic traits and not social deviance. The results are discussed in terms of these relationships, with the notion of impulsiveness proposed as a possible contributor to the patterns that emerged.

INTRODUCTION

A prominent conceptualization of psychopathy, particularly in psychological research, is represented by the work of Cleckley (e.g. Hare, Hart & Harpur, 1991; Hat-pm, Hare & Hakstian, 1989; Modlin, 1983). Modlin (1983) points out that the brief description of the antisocial (sociopathic) personality in DSM-II (APA, 1968) derives entirely from Cleckley. In fact, the DSM-II (APA, 1968) criteria states that “a mere history of repeated legal or social offences is not sufficient to justify this diagnosis” (p. 43). This is in direct contrast with the DSM-III and DSM-IIIR (APA, 1980, 1987) criteria set which may well detect those who behave in an antisocial fashion, but ignores that they may differ greatly both in terms of the motivations for behaving in such a manner, and also in terms of significant affective, interpersonal, and psychopathological features (Hare et al., 1991), such as the capacity for empathy, remorse, guilt, anxiety or loyalty. Cleckley’s concept of the psychopath’s functioning postulates, in particular, a defect in those strong affective components which normally arise in major social and personal issues (Cleckley, 1976). Hare (1985a) empirically supports this notion, obtaining only a modest diagnostic overlap between DSM-III (APA, 1980) Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) and the diagnosis of psychopathy as described by Cleckley (k = 0.45). One viable diagnostic alternative to the DSM-III/R (APA, 1980, 1987) criteria sets is the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991). This revision, as well as the original PCL (Hare, 1980), is a clinical rating scale designed to assess the traditional prototypical clinical construct of psychopathy as exemplified by Cleckley (1976) (Harpur et al., 1989). The reliability and validity of the PCL-R are well-established (Hare, 1980; Hare et al., 1991; Schroeder, Schroeder & Hare, 1983), and research by Hare, Harpur, Hakstian, Forth, Hart and Newman (1990) indicates that the PCL (Hare, 1980) and its initial revision (Hare, 1985b) are highly correlated and can be considered measures of the same construct. There is strong evidence to suggest that the PCL and the PCL-R consist of two stable, highly replicable factors (Hare et al., 1991; Harpur, Hakstian & Hare, 1988; Harpur et al., 1989). Factor 1 of the PCL/-R reflects a set of interpersonal and affective characteristics considered by many clinicians to be fundamental to clinical conceptions of psychopathy, that is, personality traits (Harpur et al., 1989). Evidence indicates that Factor 1 of the PCL is positively correlated with clinical ratings of psychopathy, Narcissistic and Histrionic Personality Disorders (PDs), and with self-report measures of machiavellianism and narcissism, and that it is also negatively correlated with measures of empathy and anxiety (Hare, 1991; Hare et al., 1991; Harpur et al., 1988, 1989; Hart & Hare, 1989; Livesley & Schroeder, 1991). Thus, Hare’s empirical research is in agreement with Cleckley’s (1976) core *To whom all correspondence should be addressed.

126

ILONA

K. ZAGONand HENRYJ. JACKSON

criteria, which features a lack of anxiety. Cleckley’s (1976) criteria also correlate highly with Factor 1 to form a cluster of components that have long been considered central to the disorder (Cleckley, 1976; Hare, 1980; Millon, 1981). Factor 2 of the PCL/-R (Hare, 1991) reflects those socially deviant behaviours indicative of impulsive, chronically unstable and antisocial lifestyles (see also Blackburn, 1988). It is positively correlated with the DSM-III/R (APA, 1980, 1987) diagnosis of APD (Hare, 1991; Harpur et al., 1989). The Self-Report Psychopathy (SRP) scale is a self-report measure based on the PCL (Hare, 1980), and the Self-Report Psychopathy II (SRP-II) scale is an equivalent measure based on the PCL-R (Hare, 1991). Evidently, the PCL-R provides more complete coverage of the traditional construct of psychopathy than do the APD criteria. The social deviance facet of psychopathy appears to be assessed reasonably well by both the DSM-III/R (APA, 1980, 1987) and by Factor 2 of the PCL-R, but apparently the DSM-III/R neglects the facet of psychopathy assessed by PCL-R Factor 1 (Hare ef al., 1991). Morey (1988) describes a similar overlap between Narcissistic PD and APD; he found that the relationship between them displayed very differently in a cluster-analytic classification from that portrayed in the DSM-IIIR (APA, 1987). In essence, the cluster formed was one consisting of the majority of narcissistic features combined with the ‘non-aggressive’ antisocial features. The removal of the overtly aggressive antisocial features and the inclusion of exploitative narcissistic personality features formed a syndrome reminiscent of the traditional psychopathic concept of Cleckley (1976) (Morey, 1988). The Axis II work group of the task force on DSM-IV (Widiger, Frances, Pincus, Davis & First, 1991) has expressed concern that APD criteria focus on social deviance rather than personality traits central to the tradition of psychopathy (Cleckley, 1976) and to international criteria (e.g. ICD-10; WHO, 1990). The current research aims to utilize various instruments from the DSM-IV Field Trials (APA, 1990) specifically to determine the construct validity of Hare’s conceptualization of psychopathy using his SRP-II (Hare, 1991). Hare (e.g. 1980, 1985b, 1991) carefully acknowledges that his research focuses exclusively on the male, psychopathic criminal (Rogers & Dion, 1991) despite the fact that he does maintain that all prisoners are not psychopaths and vice-versa. This, however, is almost in contrast to Cleckley’s (1976) description of psychopathy, where he proposes that psychopathy is not restricted to incarcerated populations, but may be found among other groups, such as high achievers, for example, doctors, lawyers, and, indeed, university students, who, because of features such as high socioeconomic status, good social skills, and/or high IQ may have escaped law enforcement agencies or have taken advantage of others without formally committing societal or illegal transgressions, or possess the propensities to do so. Furthermore, Cleckley (1976) does not ignore the fact that psychopathy is exclusive to men only. For this reason, the present investigation focused on a sample of both male and female university students. The relationships between the following self-report measures were determined: 1, the SRP-II (Hare, 1991); 2, the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979); 3, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) (Spielberger, Gorsuch & Lushene, 1970); 4, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) (Davis, 1983) 5, the Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability (C-M SD) Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964); and 6, the MMPI Lie-Scale (Dahlstrom & Welsh, 1960). One must remember that the present investigation, in utilizing a dimensional format, made no claims to have diagnosed individuals as psychopathic, anxious, narcissistic, empathic, or as liars. Rather, the nature of the dimensional measures utilized in the present investigation enabled the authors to examine these personality characteristics as continuous with normality in an objective and standardized manner. This contrasts with the clinical literature which overwhelmingly utilizes categorical models (e.g. Bell & Jackson, 1992). The hypotheses investigated in the present study were as follows: 1, that a low measure of anxiety and empathy would correlate highly with Factor 1 of Hare’s (1991) SRP-II (as opposed to the PCL/-R; Hare, 1980, 1991) and 2, that an index of narcissism would correlate with psychopathic traits and not social deviance (as previously found in the literature, but to date not with non-incarcerated populations). Also investigated were sex differences with regard to psychopathy, and the relationship between social desirability, untruthfulness and psychopathy.

Construct validity of a psychopathy measure

127

METHOD

Subjects Ss were 149 (48 male, 101 female) first year psychology students (mean age = 19.37; SD = 3.51) at The University of Melbourne, who participated in the study to fulfill a course requirement. All gave written, informed consent. Instruments The SRP-II Scale (Hare, 2991). This experimental scale consists of a 60-item self-report version of the PCL-R described previously. Each item is scored on a scale of 1-7; the total score can thus range from 60 to 420. Factor 1 is made up of items 6, 10, 19, 25, 30, 31, 47, 53 and 60, and Factor 2 consists of items 2,7, 11, 17, 18,23,28,29,32,38,39,50 and 58, although the total score is based on all 60 items. These SRP-II factor items were theoretically derived from the known PCL-R factors and were obtained from the author (Hare, private communication, 1992). General information concerning the reliability and validity of the SRP-II is sparse. However, in the DSM-IV Field Trials, Widiger et al. (1991) have collected data on over 400 males, each of whom was administered the SRP-II and several other self-report inventories. Correlations with the criteria sets across four sites, are as follows: the SRP-II correlated from 0.24 to 0.56 (mean = 0.35) with DSM-IIIR (APA, 1987) diagnoses of APD; from 0.13 to 0.50 (mean = 0.29) with ICD-10 (WHO, 1990) diagnoses of dyssocial personality disorder; and from 0.23 to 0.68 (mean = 0.38) with a lo-item psychopathy set derived from the PCL-R (Hare, private communication, 1992). The age and sex was also supplied by the Ss. The IRZ (Davis, 1980). The IRI is a 28-item self-report scale consisting of four 7-item sub-scales, each of which assesses a specific aspect of empathy, according to Davis (1983). The Perspective-Taking sub-scale measures the tendency to adopt the point of view of other people in everyday life. The Fantasy sub-scale measures the tendency to transpose oneself into the feelings and actions of fictitious characters in books, movies, and plays. The Empathic Concern sub-scale measures the tendency to experience feelings of warmth, compassion, and concern for other people. The Personal Distress sub-scale also assesses typical emotional reactions; specifically one’s own feelings of unease and discomfort in reaction to the emotions of others. All four sub-scales have satisfactory test-retest reliabilities and internal reliabilities and as with most empathy measures, significant sex differences exist for each sub-scale, with males scoring lower than females on each of the four sub-scales (Davis, 1980, 1983). The STAI (Form Y) (Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg & Jacobs, 1983). This is a well-researched measure of anxiety which consists of 40 self-report items; 20 of which correspond to trait-anxiety (T-Anxiety) (Form Y-2) and the remaining 20 to state-anxiety (S-Anxiety) (Form Y- 1). Good construct and concurrent validities and strong test-retest reliabilities and internal consistencies are reported by Spielberger and coworkers (1966, 1970, 1983). The NPI (Raskin & Hall, 1979). The NPI is a 54-item, forced-choice self-report inventory that was developed as a response to the inclusion of Narcissistic PD in the DSM-III (APA, 1980) (Raskin & Hall, 1979, 1981). The present investigation utilized 38-items of Raskin and Hall’s (1979) 54-item NPI. The 38-items utilized were those which were included in Emmons’ (1984) factor analysis and confirmed by the author (Emmons, 1987, and private communication, 1992). Emmons (1984) extracted four factors from the NPI, namely, Factor 1, Exploitativeness/Entitlement; Factor 2, Leadership/Authority; Factor 3, Superiority/Arrogance; and Factor 4, Self Absorption/Self Admiration. The test-retest reliability, construct validity and internal consistencies of the full scale and each sub-scale (or factor) were quite satisfactory (Emmons, 1984; LaVopa, 1981; Raskin & Hall, 1981). The MMPI Lie-Scale (Dahlstrom & Welsh, 1960). The Lie-Scale of the MMPI has traditionally been used as a validity scale, primarily intended to detect unsophisticated attempts to present oneself in a favourable manner (Dahlstrom, Welsh & Dahlstrom, 1972; Meehl & Hathaway, 1946). However, according to Burish and Houston (1976), it indicates a defensive tendency to deny undesirable personality characteristics (e.g. Butcher, 1969; Coyle & Heap, 1965; Dahlstrom et al., 1972; Good & Branter, 1961).

ILONA K. ZAGON and HENRYJ. JACKSON

128

Crowne and Marlowe ( 1960) found that the Lie-Scale correlates highly with their Social Desirability Scale (described below), which Ford and Hersen (1967) assert is itself a measure of defensiveness. Coyle and Heap (1965) further suggest that a high score on the Lie-Scale may be a product of psychopathology; more specifically, due to pronounced grandiosity. Despite a scarcity of information directly dealing with the validity of the Lie-Scale of the MMPI, it is generally accepted as an index of falsification, with low scores indicating truthfulness, and high scores considered to be indicative of deliberate distortion or falsification (Vincent, Linsz & Greene, 1966). The C-M SD Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). The C-M SD Scale is a self-report scale consisting of 33 items. The scale attempts to locate individuals who describe themselves in favourable, socially-desirable terms in order to achieve the approval of others. High internal consistency and test-retest correlation coefficients for the final form of the C-M SD Scale were determined (Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). A comprehensive review of mainly positive results using the C-M SD Scale through to mid-1967 is provided by Wiggins (1968, pp. 305-308). A specific application of the scale to the control of response set tendencies in the survey setting is provided by Smith (1967). Procedure After giving informed, written consent, Ss were asked to complete six self-report personality measures, namely, the SRP-II, the IRI, the STAI, the NPI, the Lie-Scale and the C-M SD scales which were distributed in a random order. Following completion of the task, Ss were debriefed.

RESULTS

Overview The measures and their sub-scales were examined, and the associations between anxiety, empathy, narcissism, sex, lying, social desirability and psychopathy were determined by way of correlation matrices. In addition, the relationship between sex and all of the sub-scales was investigated. All of the following tables report complete data sets (n = 149). As there is no “cut-off’ on the SRP-II for psychopathy, and the distributions of Factors 1 and 2 of the SRP-II were largely normal, an approach involving mainly ANOVAs and MANOVAs was utilized. The measures

and their sub-scales

In order to reduce the possibility of Type 1 errors, a significance level of 0.01 was utilized throughout, with a probability of 0.05 being reported as a trend. Table 1 provides means and standard deviations for all of the sub-scales employed in the present investigation. It was necessary to transform a number of the variables, and these variables remained transformed throughout the following analyses: the Empathic Concern sub-scale of the IRI was negatively skewed and thus reflected and square-rooted; the Superiority/Arrogance sub-scale of the NPI, the State Anxiety scale of the STAI, and the Personal Distress sub-scale of the IRI were positively skewed, and were therefore square-rooted. For comparability, however, means and standard deviations are presented throughout the tables as untransformed. The correlation matrix in Table 2 portrays the relationship of total scores on the SRP-II in relation to total scores on the other sub-scales. High SRP-II scores associated significantly with low STAI and IRI scores (both with P < O.Ol), and high NPI scores (P < 0.01). Males and females with higher SRP-II scores both tended to exhibit low anxiety as measured by the STAI, as indicated by a trend in the negative direction. Females in particular exhibited significantly lower IRI scores with higher SRP-II scores (PcO.01). In addition, for both males and females higher SRP-II scores were associated significantly with high NPI scores (P < 0.01). Anxiety,

empathy

and psychopathy

The correlation matrix in Table 3 provides details of the relationships between the individual factors and sub-scales of each measure in relation to the total sample, males and females on Factors 1 and 2 of the SRP-II. As expected, Factor 1 of the SRP-II correlated significantly in a negative direction

129

Construct validity of a psychopathy measure Table

1.Means and standard deviations for measures of psychopathy, anxiety, empathy, social desirabilitv. narcissism and Ivine

Variable

Mean

SD

Tot SRP-II’ SRP-II Fl b SRP-II F2< State-Anxiety Trait-Anxiety [RI-P@ IRI-F/Se IRI-WC’

220.89 31.28 46.80 36.91 41.75 17.04 19.26 20.76

34.52 6.61 1I .25 10.93 9.14 4.42 5.36 4.30

Variable

Mean

SD

IRI-P/D* C-M SDh NPI-EYE’ NPIUA’ NPI-S/A’ NPI-S/S’ Lie-Scale”

11.38 12.99 4.98 5.49 3.36 4.39 38.23

4.99 4.76 2.18 2.51 2.34 2.1 I 6.29

Total Self-Report Psychopathy-II scale scores (i.e. sum of items I-60); %elf-Report Psychopathy-II scale Factor 1; ‘Self-Report Psychopathy-II scale Factor 2; ‘%nterpersonal Reactivity Index Perspective-Taking sub-scale; ‘Interpersonal Reactivity Index Fantasy sub-scale; ‘Interpersonal Reactivity Index Empathic Concern sub-scale; slnterpersonal Reactivity Index Personal Distress sub-scale; hCrowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale; ‘Narcissistic Personality Inventory Exploitativeness/Entitlement sub-scale; ‘Narcissistic Personality Inventory Leadership/Authority sub-scale; ‘Narcissistic Personality Inventory Superiority/Arrogance sub-scale; ‘Narcissistic Personality Inventory Self Absorption/Self Admiration sub-scale; mMMPI Lie-Scale.

with STAI S-Anxiety and STAI T-Anxiety for the total sample, males and females, and with the Personal Distress sub-scale of the IRI in particular (P < 0.01) (with the exception of males on Factor 2 of the SRP-II), indicating that, in general, psychopathic traits were associated with less state anxiety, less trait anxiety and less feelings of unease and discomfort in reaction to the emotions of others. Narcissism and psychopathy

In Table 3, significant correlations were expected in a positive direction between Factor 1 of the SRP-II and the sub-scales of the NPI. This was in fact found for the Leadership/Authority, Superiority/Arrogance and Self Absorption/Self Admiration subscales for the total sample and for females only. In comparison, higher scores on Factor 1 of the SRP-II for males were found to correlate significantly only with the Leadership/Authority subscale of the NPI. The Exploitativeness/Entitlement sub-scale was not shown here to correlate at all with Factor 1. It was not expected that three of the four NPI sub-scales (Exploitativeness/Entitlement, Leadership/Authority and Superiority/Arrogance) would be found to correlate significantly (P < O.Ol), in a positive direction, with Factor 2 of the SRP-II for the total sample and males in particular. Lying, social desirability and psychopathy

A trend was exhibited between total scores for Factor 1 of the SRP-II (in a positive direction), males on Factor 2 of the SRP-II (in a negative direction), and females on Factor 1 of the SRP-II (in a positive direction) and scores on the C-M SD Scale. Scores on the Lie-Scale were found to correlate significantly in a positive direction with total scores and for females on Factor 1 of the SRP-II (P < O.Ol), as expected. Surprisingly, however, Factor 2 of the SRP-II correlated significantly in a negative direction with scores on the Lie-Scale (P < 0.01) for the total sample, males and females. Table 2. Correlations between total scores for the total sample, males and females on the SRP-II, and measures of psychopathy, anxiety, empathy, social desirability, narcissism and lying Variable STAb IRE C-M SDd NPS Lie-Scale’

Total sample Tot SRP-11’

Males Tot SRP-11’

Females Tot SRP-II”

- 0.30** - 0.30** - 0.05 0.62** -0.15

- 0.32* - 0.24 -0.16 0.68** - 0.26

- 0.24* - 0.29** 0.02 0.57** -0.11

Total SRP-II (i.e. sum of items l-60); %tate-Trait Anxiety Inventory; ‘Interpersonal Reactivity Index; dCrowne-Marlowe Social Desirability scale; ‘Narcissistic Personality Index; ‘MMPI Lie-Scale. **P < 0.01; *P < 0.05 (trend).

ILONA K. ZAGON and HENRY J. JACKSON

130

Table 3. Correlations between scores on Factor 1 and 2 of the SRP-II for the total sample, males and females, and measures of psychopathy, anxiety, empathy, social desirability, narcissism and lying and their sub-scales

Variable SRP-II Fla SRP-II F2b S-AnxietyC T-Anxietyd IRI-P/T= IRI-F/S’ IRI-UCe IRI-P/Dh C-M SD’ NPI-E/E NPI-L/A’ NPI-S/A’ NPI-S/Sm Lie-Scale”

Total sample SRP-II Fla

-

I.00 0.37” 0.48** 0.60** 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.54** 0.17* 0.09 0.35** 0.31** 0.32** 0.23**

Total sample SRP-II F2b

Males only SRP-II Fl”

Males only SRP-II F2b

Females only SRP-II FIa

1.00 - 0.10 - 0.12 0.05 0.05 0.13 - 0.36** -0.15 0.37** 0.22** 0.37** 0.13 - 0.26**

1.00 0.35* - 0.72** - 0.72** -0.01 -0.19 0.08 - 0.41** 0.06 0.13 0.42** 0.06 0.26 0.21

1.00 - 0.24 -0.12 - 0.03 0.00 0.20 - 0.27 - 0.29’ 0.53** 0.41** 0.51** 0.08 - 0.38**

1.00 0.3 1** - 0.33** - 0.52+* 0.03 0.02 0.12 - 0.52** 0.24* 0.05 0.35** 0.36*’ 0.30** 0.22*

Females SRP-II F2b

-

-

-

1.00 0.03 0.07 0.06 0.1 I 0.09 0.36** 0.56 0.29** 0.13 0.24* 0.1 I 0.21*

“Self-Report Psychopathy-II Factor I; %elf-Report Psychopathy-II Factor 2; ‘State-Trait Anxiety Inventory State-Anxiety sub-scale; ‘State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Trait-Anxiety sub-scale; ‘Interpersonal Reactivity Index Perspective-Taking sub-scale; ‘Interpersonal Reactivity Index Fantasy sub-scale; sInterpersonal Reactivity Index Empathic Concern sub-scale; hInterpersonal Reactivity Index Personal Distress sub-scale; ‘Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability 1ndex;‘Narcissistic Personality Inventory Exploitativeness/Entitlement sub-scale; ‘Narcissistic Personality Inventory Leadership/Authority sub-scale; ‘Narcissistic Personality Inventory Superiority/Arrogance sub-scale: mNarcissistic Personality Inventory Self Absorption/Self Admiration sub-scale; “MMPI Lie-Scale. **P < 0.01: *P < 0.05 (trend).

Thus, psychopathic traits were associated with lying whereas social deviance was associated with lower scores on the MMPI Lie-Scale. An additional correlation analysis found that in addition, the Lie-Scale and the C-M SD Scale were found to be significantly correlated, accounting for 27% of the variance (r = 0.52, P -=c0.01) indicating that high social desirability is correlated with lying.

The efSect of sex In an attempt to control for Type 1 errors, individual MANOVAs were conducted between sex and all of the sub-scales, except for the total SRP-II score, and the C-M SD and Lie scales [these were examined separately via non-directional (two-tailed) t-tests]. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 4. The MANOVA (sex by SRP-II) that was run on the two sub-scales of the SRP-II was significant [Pillai’s Exact F (2,145) = 10.63, P = 0.011 and univariate analyses of variance were conducted. Inspection of Table 4 shows that males obtained significantly higher scores for the totalled SRP-II items, and also both Factors 1 and 2 of the SRP-II (P -=c0.01). A sex by STAI MANOVA yielded a non-significant result with Pillai’s Exact F(2,145) = 2.59, P = 0.08. Although it was expected that females would score significantly higher on the T-Anxiety sub-scale, a trend was only demonstrated from the subsequent univariate analysis (see Table 4). The MANOVA (sex by IRI) that was conducted on the four sub-scales of the IRI was significant [Pillai’s Exact F(4,143) = 3.55, P = O.Ol] and one-way analyses of variance were conducted. Table 4 shows that the Personal Distress sub-scale exhibited significant differences between males and females with females obtaining higher scores on this sub-scale. This compares with previous research on the IRI (e.g. Davis, 1980, 1983) that has shown that females score higher on all four sub-scales of the IRI. The two-tailed t-tests that were conducted between sex and the C-M SD Scale, and sex and the Lie-Scale showed that there was not a significant difference between males and females on C-M SD and Lie-Scale scores, where P = 0.01, although there was a trend among males to score higher on the MMPI Lie-Scale (P < 0.05). A final MANOVA investigated the relationship between sex and the NPI. It was not significant [Pillai’s Exact F (4,143) = 2.59, P = 0.391. Table 4 shows that males exhibited a trend favouring

131

Construct validity of a psychopathy measure Table 4. The effect of sex on measures of psychopathy, desirability, narcissism and lying Males (n = 48)

Tot SRP-II’ SRP-II Fl b SRP-II FT S-Anxietyd T-Anxieiy’ IRI-P/T’ IRI-F/Ss IRI-UC? IRI-P/D’ C-M SW NPI-EJEk NPI-L/A’ NPI-S/Am NPI-S/S” Lie-Scale’

anxiety, empathy, social

Females (n = 101)

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

F ratio

235.26 34.62 50.30 34.49 39.13 17.51 18.79 20.75 9.21 13.13 5.11 5.47 4.02 4.92 38.92

38.92 6.40 13.29 10.79 9.29 3.98 5.55 4.83 4.14 5.50 2.12 2.38 2.45 2.11 7.48

214.21 29.13 45.17 38.04 42.97 16.82 19.49 20.77 12.39 12.93 4.92 5.50 3.05 4.15 37.91

30.22 6.14 9.82 10.86 9.75 4.61 5.28 4.06 5.05 4.40 2.2i 2.58 2.23 2.07 5.66

12.89 19.77 6.94 3.74 5.13 0.78 0.54 0.01 13.53 1.56 0.23 co.01 4.94 4.35 1.75

Sig. Level
‘Total Self-Report Psychopathy-II scores (i.e. sum of items 14); %elf-Report Psychopathy-II Factor 1; ‘Self-Report Psychopathy-II Factor 2; %tate-Trait Anxiety Inventory State-Anxiety sub-scale; ‘State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Trait-Anxiety sub-scale; ‘Interpersonal Reactivity Index Perspective-Taking sub-scale; *Interpersonal Reactivity Index Fantasy sub-scale; hIntelpersonal Reactivity Index Empathic Concern sub-scale; ‘Interpersonal Reactivity Index Personal Distress sub-scale; ‘Crowne-Marlowe Social Desirability Index; kNarcissistic Personality Inventory Exploitativeness/Entitlement sub-scale; ‘Narcissistic Personality Inventory Leadership/Authority sub-scale; “‘Narcissistic Personality Inventory Superiority/Arrogance sub-scale; “Narcissistic Personality Inventory Self Absorption/Self Admiration sub-scale; ‘MMPI Lie-Scale. P < 0.01.

higher scores on both the Superiority/Arrogance and Self Absorption/Self Admiration sub-scales of the NPI in the subsequent univariate analyses. In summary, therefore, males were shown to be significantly more likely to manifest psychopathic traits and social deviance, and were more likely to lie than females. Females were more likely to show personal distress, that is, feelings of unease and discomfort in reaction to the emotions of others. Males were shown to view themselves as significantly more superior, arrogant, self-absorbed and self-admiring than females.

DISCUSSION

Anxiety, empathy and the SRP-II The first hypothesis that a low measure of anxiety and empathy would correlate highly with the SRP-II was supported with Factor 1 (and not Factor 2) of the SRP-II being associated with low levels of state and trait anxiety for the total sample of males and females. Although it was only expected to correlate with Factor 1, the Personal Distress sub-scale of the empathy scale (IRI) was correlated negatively with both Factor 1 and 2 of the SRP-II for the total sample of males and females. This is a surprising result, as Davis (1983) demonstrated that most of the sub-scales intercorrelated significantly with each other.

Narcissism and psychopathic personality traits The second hypothesis that narcissistic personality features would correlate highly with Factor 1 and not Factor 2 of the SRP-II was partially supported. The Exploitativeness/Entitlement, Leadership/Authority and Superiority/Arrogance sub-scales of the NPI correlated with Factor 2, particularly for the total sample and females. The Exploitativeness/Entitlement sub-scale did not correlate at all with Factor 1. Of course, the SRP-II may exhibit different relationships to narcissism than those found by past research (e.g. Harpur et al., 1989; Hart & Hare, 1989) due to the incarcerated samples utilized in those investigations, or due to the nature of the SRP-II factor structure or the items themselves. Conceptually,

ILONAK. ZAGON and HENRYJ. JACKSON

132

it is not altogether peculiar that those who exhibit social deviance or a chronically unstable and antisocial lifestyle could also be those who are also exploitative, feel a sense of entitlement, are superior and arrogant, and tend toward leadership and authority (which accords with Cleckley’s, 1976, prototypical psychopath). It may also be possible that because Factor 1 and 2 of the SRP-II were significantly correlated with each other, the ability to make a clear distinction between the two may have been clouded to an extent.

Psychopathy,

untruthfulness

and anxiety

It was demonstrated that for the total sample, psychopathic personality traits correlated positively with lying, but that the social deviance measured by Factor 2 of the SRP-II correlated negatively with lying. It was not surprising that the lower levels of anxiety associated with psychopathic traits are in turn associated with higher levels of untruthfulness. It has been proposed throughout the present investigation, in the light of Hare’s (e.g. 1980, 1985a) and Cleckley’s (1976) conceptualizations of psychopathy, that those who exhibit social deviance are also likely to be those who do not care about the consequences, do not feel a lack of remorse or guilt, and so on (keeping in mind that Factor 1 of the SRP-II was consistently correlated with Factor 2). Thus, it may be the case that those who do manifest high levels of social deviance, as compared to those who do not, may lie significantly less, as they simply do not care about the consequences of their antisocial actions and do not take responsibility for them.

Psychopathy

and sex diferences

The present investigation was able to psychometrically demonstrate that males were more likely to be psychopathic; both in terms of personality traits and socially deviant behaviour. More detailed analyses were able to also show that females exhibited significantly more unease and discomfort in reaction to the emotions of others (Personal Distress) than males, which may have served to prevent them from acting out with social deviance. APD has shown a different rate of diagnosis for men and women in the literature (Kass, Spitzer & Williams, 1983; Reich, 1987), although the question arises as to whether these are real differences between the sexes (e.g. Williams & Spitzer, 1983) or the influence of stereotyping and sex biases in clinical diagnosis (e.g. Kaplan, 1983). As the present investigation demonstrated a significant difference between the sexes on a self-report measure of psychopathy, the position that this difference may be a function of sex bias and stereotyping does not really hold, although further research may address the issue of further analyzing the SRP-II in order to determine if the measure in itself is in some way biased toward detecting a larger proportion of males than females. Williams and Spitzer ( 1983) argue that predisposing sociocultural and biogenetic variables may be sex-specific to an extent, and, in turn, a disorder such as APD that involves an exaggeration of stereotypic masculine traits will probably occur more often in males (Widiger, 1987). Thus, in a sense, it is possible that the males are in fact more likely to express what may arguably be seen as “an exaggeration of stereotypic masculine traits” than are females.

Impulsivity

and psychopathy

An interesting notion that may help to account for some of the results obtained in the present investigation is that of impulsivity, which is characterized by features such as risk-taking, non-planning and liveliness (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978). It may be the case that more impulsive individuals are those who are more likely to express their antisociality and become those likely to be labelled “psychopaths” or those suffering from APD. This would especially be the case when the DSM-III/-R is used as the diagnostic tool, because as discussed previously, it concentrates on this behavioural manifestation of antisociality and not on the personality traits underpinning them. Impulsivity has been found to exhibit a positive relationship with psychopathy in the literature (e.g. Blackbum, 1982; Ellis, 1987; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978). In fact, Blackbum (1982) essentially defines psychopathy in terms of impulsivity.

Construct validity of a psychopathy measure

133

Limitations The present investigation is limited in terms of its generalizability for a number of reasons. Firstly, a convenience sample which is predominantly female was used. Secondly, the measures utilized vary quite considerably in terms of their reliability and validity, and indeed in terms of the amount of research conducted with some of them up until this time. Future directions The investigators assumed the student sample to be of high IQ and social skills, but these characteristics need to be tested in future research. Furthermore, uncertainty remains as to the nature of the relationship between lying to psychopathy. Some clarification of this issue is necessary, and could possibly be addressed in combination with impulsivity. In retrospect, it would have been interesting to examine impulsivity and how it relates to the constructs examined here. Indeed, future research may seek to consider this further. Further examination of the relationships between social deviance and psychopathic personality traits, and the notion of a ‘narcissistic psychopath’ [who has been construed as one exhibiting a manifestation of the majority of narcissistic features combined with ‘non-aggressive’ antisocial features (Morey, 1988)] would be interesting, once the validity of Narcissistic PD is ascertained. The goal of the DSM-IV Axis II work group is to develop a valid nomenclature which is guided and informed by empirical research (Widiger et al., 199 1). Robins’ ( 1966) concentration on socially deviant acts ignores not only the traditional conception of psychopathy, but, as a result, also the interpersonal and affective personality traits underpinning clinical conceptions of psychopathy (Harpur ef al., 1989). One needs to keep in mind that although the SRP (Hare, 1980) and SRP-II (Hare, 1991) were specifically developed as self-report versions of the PCL (Hare, 1980) and the PCL-R (Hare, 1991), respectively, the correlation between scores on the PCL and the SRP was found to be only 0.38 (Hare, 1985a). Even when extreme-groups analysis was used, Hare (1985a) found that the kappa coefficient of agreement between the PCL and SRP was only 0.42, and that agreement between clinical-behavioural and self-report measurement domains for the assessment of psychopathy, was, with a few modest exceptions, rather poor. This information is, as yet, unavailable for the SRP-II, although it would not be unexpected if similar patterns were to become evident. Thus, the theoretical basis for the PCL-R, and the dual factor structure shown to underlie it (Hare et al., 1991; Harpur et al., 1988; Harpur et al., 1989) has been largely assumed to be applicable to the SRP-II utilized in the present study, but this has not yet been researched in the literature. Conclusions In the present investigation we found evidence in support of the construct validity of the SRP-II. In general, lower levels of anxiety and empathy correlated with the scale, as did higher levels of narcissism. This would seem to accord with the current theoretical conceptualization of psychopathy as represented by the work of Hare (1991) and also with the seminal work of Cleckley (1976). Acknowledgements-We

would like to thank Professor Thomas Widiger and Professor Robert Hare for their assistance with

this study.

REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ofMental Disorders (2nd edition). Washington, DC: Author. American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and Stutisfical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edition). Washington, DC: Author. American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edition-Revised). Washington, DC: Author. American &ychiatric Association. (1990). DSM-IV Update. Washington, DC: Author. Bell, R. & Jackson, H. (1992). The structure of oersonalitv disorders in DSM-III. Acru Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 85. 279-287.

Blackbum, R. (1982). On the relevance of the concept of the psychopath. In Black, D. A. (Ed.), Issues in criminological and legal psychology (No. 2). Leicester: British Psychological Society.

134

ILONA

K. ZAGON and HENRYJ. JACKSON

Blackbum, R. (1988). On moral judgements and personality disorders. The myth of psychopathic personality revisited. Erifish Journal of Psychiarty, 153, 505-5 12.

Butish, T. & Houston, B. (1976). Construct validity of the Lie Scale as a measure of defensiveness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32, 310-314.

Butcher, J. (Ed.) (1969). MMPI: Research developments and clinical applications, New York: McGraw Hill. Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity (5th edition). Saint Louis: C.V., Mosby Co. Coyle, F. Jr & Heap, R. (1965). Interpreting the MMPI L Scale. Psychological Reporrs, 17, 722. Crowne, D. & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal ofconsuhing and Clinical Psychology, 24, 349-354.

Crowne, D. & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: Wiley. Dahlstrom, W. & Welsh, G. (1960). An MMPI Handbook: A guide to use in clinical practice and research. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, Dahlstrom, W., Welsh, G. & Dahlstrom, L. (1972). An MMPI Handbook (Volume I J. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Davis, M. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, IO, 85.

Davis, M. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multi-dimensional Personality ana’ Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.

approach. Journal of

Ellis, L. (1987). Relationships of criminality and psychopathy with eight other apparent behavioural manifestations of sub-optimal arousal. Personality and Individual Dtfirences, 8, 905-925. Emmons, R. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessmenr, 48, 291-300. Emmons, R. (1987). Narcissism: theory and measurement. Journal OfPersonality and Sociul Psychology, 52, I l-17. Eysenck, S. & Eysenck, H. (1978). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness: their position in a dimensional system of personality description. Psychological Reports, 43, 1247-I 255. Ford, L. Jr & Hersen, J. (1967). Need approval, defensive denial, and direction of aggression in a failure-frustration situation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 228-232.

Good, P. & Branter, J. (1961). The physician’s guide to rhe MMPI. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hare, R. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal populations, Personality and Individual Di;fferences, 1. 111-117. Hare, R. (1985a). Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinica! Psychology, 53, 7-l 6.

Hare, R. (1985b).The Psychopathy Checklist. Unpublished Manuscript, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Hare, R. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Hare, R., Hart, S. & Harpur, T. (1991). Psychopathy and the DSM-IV criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 391-398.

Hare, R.. Hat-pm, T., Hakstian, A., Forth, A., Hart, S. & Newman, J. (1990). The Revised Psychopathy Checklist: reliability and factor structure. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 338-341. Harpur, T., Hakstian, A. & Hare, R. (1988). Factor structure of the Psychopathy Checklist. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 741-747. Harpur, T., Hare, R. & Hakstian, A. (1989). Two factor conceptualization of psychopathy. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulring and Clinical Psychology, I, 6-17.

Hart, S. & Hare, R. (1989). Discriminant validity of the Psychopathy Checklist in the forensic psychiatric population. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 21 l-218. Kaplan, M. (1983). A woman’s view of DSM-III. American Psychologist, 38, 786-792. Kass, F., Spitzer, R. & Williams, J. (1983). An empirical study of the issue of sex bias in the diagnostic criteria of DSM-III Axis II personality disorders, American Psychologist, 38, 799-801. LaVopa, L. (1981). The relationship between narcissism and machiavellianism. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Southern Maine. Livesley, W. & Schroeder, M. (1991). Dimensions of personality disorders: the DSM-IIIR Cluster B diagnoses. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 179, 320-328.

Meehl, P. & Hathaway, S. (1946). The K Factor as a suppressor variable in the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology. 30, 525-564.

Millon, T. (1981). Disorders of personality: DSM-III, Axisll. New York: Wiley. Modlin. H. (1983). The antisocial oersonalitv. Bulletin ofrhe Menninaer Clinic. 47. 129-144. Morey, L. (1988). The categorical representailon of personality disorde;: a cluster analysis of DSM-IIIR personality features. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 3 14-32

1.

Raskin, R. & Hall, C. (1979). A Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590. Raskin, R. & Hall, C. (198 1). The Narcissistic Personality Inventory: alternate form reliability and further evidence of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 159-l 62. Reich, J. (1987). Sex distribution of DSM-III personality disorders in psychiatric outpatients. American Journal ofPsychiatry, 144, 485488.

Robins, L. (1966). Deviant children grown up. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins. Rogers, R. & Dion, K. (1991). Rethinking the DSM-IIIR diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 19, 2 1-3 1. Schroeder, M., Schroeder, K. & Hare, R. (1983). Generalizability of a checklist for assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 511-516.

Smith, D. (1967). Correcting for social desirability response sets in opinion-attitude Quarterly, 31, 87-94.

survey research. Public Opinion

Spielberger, C. & Gorsuch, R. (1966). Mediaring Processes In Verbal Conditioning. Final report to the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Public Health Service on Grants MH 7229, MH 7446 & HD 947. Spielberger, C., Gorsuch, R. & Lushene, R. (1970). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Self-evaluation Quesfionnaire). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Construct validity of a psychopathy measure

135

Spielberger, C., Gorsuch, R. Lushene, R., Vagg. P. &Jacobs, G. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Form Y) (Self-evaluation Questionnaire). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Vincent, N., Linsz, N. & Greene, M. (1966). The L Scale of the MMPI as an index of falsification. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22. 214-215. Widiger, T. (1987). The self-defeating personality disorder: afterword. Journal of Personality Disorders, 1, 200-201. Widiger, T., Frances, A., Pincus, H., Davis, W. & First, M. (1991). Towards an empirical classification for the DSM-IV. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 280-288. Wiggins, J. (1968). Personality structure. Annual Review of Psychology, 19, 293-350. Williams, J. & Spitzer, R. (1983). The issue of sex bias in DSM-III; a critique of “A woman’s view of DSM-III” by Marcie Kaplan. American Psychologist, 38, 786-792. World Health Organisation. (1990). International classification of disease and related health problems (10th edn; testfield trials). Geneva: Author.