Pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles

Personality and Individual Differences 110 (2017) 41–48

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles Virgil Zeigler-Hill a,⁎, Jon T. Mandracchia b, Eric R. Dahlen c, Rachel Shango a, Jennifer K. Vrabel a a b c

Oakland University, United States Missouri Western State University, United States University of Southern Mississippi, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 25 August 2016 Received in revised form 5 January 2017 Accepted 16 January 2017 Available online 23 January 2017 Keywords: Pathological PID-5 Criminogenic Criminal Prison Incarcerated

a b s t r a c t The present research investigated associations between pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles. Study 1 examined the associations between pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles among 122 community members, whereas Study 2 examined these associations among 299 incarcerated male offenders. Negative affectivity and detachment each had unique positive associations with cognitive immaturity, and antagonism was positively associated with the desire to control others across both studies. Disinhibition had unique positive associations with control and cognitive immaturity among incarcerated offenders in Study 2, whereas psychoticism was positively associated with cognitive immaturity and egocentrism across both studies. The results of these studies suggest important connections between pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles that may shed light on some of the difficulties that often accompany personality pathology. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Criminogenic thinking refers to characteristic cognitive styles or belief systems that tend to precede criminal activities and other forms of antisocial behavior (e.g., Walters, 1990; Yochelson & Samenow, 1976). The construct of criminogenic thinking can be helpful for understanding how and why individuals engage in criminal behavior, and most of the prominent theories of criminal behavior acknowledge the importance of criminogenic thinking (e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Marcus, 2004; Maruna & Copes, 2005; Sutherland, 1947; Sykes & Matza, 1957; Yochelson & Samenow, 1976). The role of criminogenic thinking in most of these theories involves the manner in which it permits offenders to rationalize their criminal behavior and minimize their perceptions of the negative consequences associated with criminal acts (e.g., perceiving many crimes as being “victimless;” Tangney, Mashek, & Stuewig, 2007; Tangney et al., 2012). Research from psychology and criminology has supported the important role that criminogenic thinking plays in contributing to both the onset and continuation of criminal behavior (e.g., Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Maruna & Copes, 2005; Palmer, 2007; Walters, 1995, 1996, 2009). Given the potential importance of criminogenic thinking for understanding criminal behavior, it is not surprising that multiple instruments have been developed to measure this construct. Examples include the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (Walters, 1990, 2002), the Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified (Shields & Simourd, 1991), the Measure of Criminal Attitudes and ⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Oakland University, 212A Pryale Hall, Rochester, MI 48309, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (V. Zeigler-Hill).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.021 0191-8869/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Associates (Mills, Kroner, & Forth, 2002), the Texas Christian University Criminal Thinking Scales (Knight, Garner, Simpson, Morey, & Flynn, 2006), the Criminogenic Cognitions Scale (Tangney et al., 2012), and the Criminogenic Thinking Profile (Mitchell & Tafrate, 2012). These instruments have provided insight into criminogenic thinking but they generally neglect the noncriminal maladaptive thinking styles posited by cognitive theorists such as Beck (1976), Ellis (1992), and Young (1995). Mandracchia, Morgan, Garos, and Garland (2007) argued that it is important to include noncriminal thinking errors (e.g., automatic thoughts, irrational beliefs) in the conceptualization of criminogenic thinking because these noncriminal thinking errors are likely to indirectly promote criminal behavior. The failure to account for these noncriminal thinking errors may prevent a comprehensive understanding of criminogenic thinking. Mandracchia and colleagues (Mandracchia & Morgan, 2011; Mandracchia et al., 2007) developed the Measure of Offender Thinking Styles in order to address the role that noncriminal thinking errors may play in criminogenic thinking. This instrument focused on the specific cognitive patterns described by Yochelson and Samenow (1976), Walters (1990), Beck (1976), and Ellis (1992). The present studies employed the Measure of Criminogenic Thinking Styles (MOCTS; Mandracchia, 2013) which is a slightly revised version of the Measure of Offender Thinking Styles - Revised that captures three aspects of criminogenic thinking: control (i.e., the desire for power and control over the self, others, and the environment), cognitive immaturity (i.e., thinking that is lazy, focused on ineffective shortcuts, and self-pitying in nature), and egocentrism (i.e., a sense of self-importance and entitlement).

42

V. Zeigler-Hill et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 110 (2017) 41–48

The MOCTS (inclusive of its predecessors) has been used to explore how criminogenic thinking may develop, apply to different populations, and relate to maladaptive characteristics and experiences. More specifically, this instrument has been used with undergraduate samples to demonstrate that criminogenic thinking may develop, in part, due to how a person was parented (Gonzalez, Mandracchia, Dahlen, & Nicholson, 2014), play an important role in the relationship between exposure to violent media and aggression (Wagar & Mandracchia, 2016), be associated with psychopathology (i.e., depression, anxiety, stress; Mandracchia & Pendleton, 2015), and contribute to problem behaviors (e.g., risky sexual behavior, criminal behavior, academic misconduct; Mandracchia & Pendleton, 2015). In studies that have utilized this instrument with incarcerated prisoners, it has been shown that criminogenic thinking may be fostered by associating with other offenders (Whited, Wagar, Mandracchia, & Morgan, in press), be predicted by a range of demographic, mental health, and offense-related variables (Mandracchia & Morgan, 2010, 2012), and be a particularly salient feature of psychopathic personality traits (Mandracchia, Gonzalez, Patterson, & Smith, 2015). 1. Personality and criminogenic thinking The connections between criminogenic thinking and personality traits have been examined in previous studies. These studies revealed that criminogenic thinking is negatively associated with broad personality dimensions such as agreeableness (e.g., Egan, McMurran, Richardson, & Blair, 2000). In addition, research has shown that criminogenic thinking is positively associated with antisocial personality disorder (e.g., Bulten, Nijman, & van der Staak, 2009) as well as certain pathological personality features (e.g., psychopathy; Mitchell & Tafrate, 2012). The present studies sought to extend what is known about the connections between criminogenic thinking styles and personality by examining the broad array of pathological personality traits described in Section III (“Emerging Measures and Models”) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). This alternative model of personality pathology is focused on the following pathological personality traits: negative affectivity (i.e., the tendency to experience an array of negative emotions and associated behaviors), detachment (i.e., characterized by avoidance, social isolation, and anhedonia), antagonism (i.e., aggressive tendencies accompanied by assertions of dominance, callousness toward others, and grandiosity), disinhibition (i.e., impulsivity and sensation seeking), and psychoticism (i.e., a disconnection from reality and a tendency to experience illogical thought patterns and behaviors; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012). It is important to note that the pathological personality traits captured by this model are maladaptive variants of the Big Five personality dimensions of emotional stability (negative affectivity), extraversion (detachment), agreeableness (antagonism), conscientiousness (disinhibition), and openness (psychoticism; Thomas et al., 2013). Research concerning these pathological personality traits is still in its early stages; however, these traits have been shown to be associated with a wide range of phenomena, including interpersonal functioning (Southard, Noser, Pollock, Mercer, & Zeigler-Hill, 2015; Williams & Simms, 2016; Wright et al., 2012, 2015), moral judgments (Noser et al., 2015), mate retention behaviors (Holden, Roof, McCabe, & Zeigler-Hill, 2015), emotion regulation difficulties (Pollock, McCabe, Southard, & Zeigler-Hill, 2016), humor styles (Zeigler-Hill, McCabe, & Vrabel, in press), resting-state neural network properties (James, Engdahl, Leuthold, Krueger, & Georgopoulos, 2015), gambling disorder (Carlotta et al., 2015), psychopathy (Anderson, Sellbom, Wygant, Salekin, & Krueger, 2014), and aggression (Hopwood et al., 2013). Although it is quite likely that these pathological personality traits may eventually be found to have an important role in forensic psychology (see Hopwood & Sellbom, 2013, for an extended discussion), few studies have directly examined these traits in forensic contexts (e.g., Wygant et al., 2016).

2. Overview and predictions The purpose of the present studies was to examine the connections between pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles in a community sample (Study 1) and an incarcerated offender sample (Study 2). We predicted that pathological personality traits would be associated with criminogenic thinking because personality is intimately connected with how individuals process information about their social environments and often has implications for the values, motives, and goals that individuals adopt (e.g., McAdams, 1995). It has been argued that the pathological personality traits assessed by the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Krueger et al., 2012) represent major adaptive systems that have evolved because of their survival value (Harkness, Reynolds, & Lilienfeld, 2014). Specifically, negative affectivity corresponds to shortterm danger detection (i.e., attention to imminent danger and injury), detachment corresponds to resource acquisition (i.e., arousal evoked by attaining and consuming resources), antagonism corresponds to agenda protection (i.e., focusing energy and concentration on overcoming obstacles in order to achieve goals), disinhibition corresponds to long-term cost-benefit analysis (i.e., consideration of the long-term costs and benefits of one's behavior), and psychoticism corresponds to reality modeling for action (i.e., construction and storage of mental representations of the social environment that are used in planning behaviors). Each of the psychological systems represented by these pathological personality traits would seem to have possible connections with criminogenic thinking. Thus, we hypothesized that individuals with high levels of negative affectivity (short-term danger detection), detachment (resource acquisition), and disinhibition (a lack of longterm cost-benefit analysis) would report thinking styles characterized by cognitive immaturity in both community members and incarcerated offenders. Additionally, we expected that individuals with high levels of antagonism (agenda protection) would report thinking styles characterized by control and egocentrism in both community members and incarcerated offenders due to their lack of concern for the needs and desires of others (e.g., Noser et al., 2015). Finally, we expected individuals with high levels of psychoticism to report elevated levels of each of the three criminogenic thinking styles in both community members and incarcerated offenders because psychoticism captures a tendency to experience a broad array of cognitive distortions. 3. Study 1: community sample Most studies concerning criminogenic thinking have focused on offenders, but Walters (1990) argued that criminogenic thinking should also be examined in nonoffenders even if the levels of criminogenic thinking are lower than what is observed in offender samples. It is important to note that the relatively low levels of criminogenic thinking that Walters (2007) found in nonoffenders may still be important because these cognitive distortions could increase the probability that individuals will engage in problematic behaviors. Criminogenic thinking among nonoffenders has been found to be associated with various antisocial behaviors (e.g., aggression, property crimes; McCoy et al., 2006; Ragatz, Anderson, Fremouw, & Schwartz, 2011). Consequently, the purpose of Study 1 was to examine the associations between pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking in a sample of community adults. 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Participants and procedure Participants were 129 community adults from the United States who were recruited using Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk). This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Participants were asked to complete measures concerning pathological personality features and criminogenic thinking styles – along with other measures

V. Zeigler-Hill et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 110 (2017) 41–48

43

that are not relevant to the present study – via a secure website. Consistent with recommendations for identifying inattentive or otherwise careless responders (e.g., Huang, Curran, Keeney, Poposki, & DeShon, 2012; Meade & Craig, 2012), five directed response items (e.g., “Answer this item with ‘Strongly Disagree’”) were blended into the measures. Data were excluded for seven participants who failed to successfully complete two or more of these items. The final sample consisted of 122 participants (54 men, 68 women). The mean age of the participants was 39.18 years (SD = 11.81) and their racial/ethnic composition was 74% White, 7% Black, 10% Asian, 4% Hispanic, and 5% other. The educational background of the participants was as follows: 1% did not complete high school, 8% completed high school, 29% attended but did not complete college, 50% completed college, and 12% earned a graduate degree. The current employment status of the participants was as follows: 16% were unemployed, 24% were employed part-time, and 60% were employed full-time.

Table 1 Study 1: Intercorrelations and descriptive statistics.

3.2. Measures

⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

3.2.1. Pathological personality traits Pathological personality traits were assessed with the brief form of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5-BF; American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Krueger et al., 2012). The PID-5-BF is a 25-item instrument designed to assess the following five broad pathological personality trait dimensions: negative affectivity (5 items; e.g., “I worry about almost everything”), detachment (5 items; e.g., “I don't like to get too close to people”), antagonism (5 items; e.g., “I use people to get what I want”), disinhibition (5 items; e.g., “People would describe me as reckless”), and psychoticism (5 items; e.g., “My thoughts often don't make sense to others”). Participants were asked to rate how accurately each of the items of the PID-5-BF described them using scales ranging from 0 (very false or often very false) to 3 (very true or often true). Bach, Maples-Keller, Bo, and Simonsen (2016) reported internal consistencies between 0.74 and 0.81 and provided evidence of convergent validity with the 220-item PID-5, as well as similar relationships to external criteria. 3.2.2. Criminogenic thinking styles Criminogenic thinking styles were assessed using the Measure of Criminogenic Thinking Styles (MOCTS; Mandracchia, 2013). The MOCTS is a 70-item instrument designed to assess the following three criminogenic thinking styles: control (26 items; e.g., “I find myself looking for ways to gain power”); cognitive immaturity (28 items; e.g., “I don't stop to think before I act, I just act”); and egocentrism (11 items; e.g., “I'm not like everyone else”). Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement with each item using a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The MOCTS has been found to be appropriate for respondents with at least a fifth-grade English reading ability and it has demonstrated adequate psychometric properties in past studies (e.g., Mandracchia, 2013).

1 1. Negative affectivity 2. Detachment 3. Antagonism 4. Disinhibition 5. Psychoticism 6. Control 7. Cognitive immaturity 8. Egocentrism Mean Standard deviation Cronbach's α

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

– 0.58⁎⁎⁎ – 0.37⁎⁎⁎ 0.22⁎ – 0.56⁎⁎⁎ 0.43⁎⁎⁎ 0.52⁎⁎⁎ – 0.60⁎⁎⁎ 0.64⁎⁎⁎ 0.44⁎⁎⁎ 0.71⁎⁎⁎ – 0.25⁎⁎ 0.18 0.77⁎⁎⁎ 0.38⁎⁎⁎ 0.40⁎⁎⁎ – 0.78⁎⁎⁎ 0.75⁎⁎⁎ 0.39⁎⁎⁎ 0.56⁎⁎⁎ 0.69⁎⁎⁎ 0.38⁎⁎⁎ – 0.05 0.91 0.73

−0.08 0.75 0.73

0.33⁎⁎⁎ 0.15 0.48 0.55 0.64 0.66

0.22⁎ 0.61 0.65

0.54⁎⁎⁎ 0.11 – 2.03 2.17 3.32 0.73 0.85 0.63

0.80

0.81

0.86

0.81

0.94

0.87

0.97 0.75

personality traits had with criminogenic thinking, but sex did not moderate any of the results reported in the following section so these sex differences will not be discussed further. Path analysis (Hoyle & Smith, 1994) was used to examine the unique associations that the PID-5 pathological personality traits had with criminogenic thinking styles. The advantages of using path analysis over multiple regression analyses include the ability to account for shared variance among outcome variables entered simultaneously and the use of fewer inferential tests which reduces the likelihood of committing a Type 1 error (Schumacker & Lomax, 2004). The path analysis was performed in AMOS (version 19; Arbuckle, 2010). The current model was just-identified (i.e., the model estimates as many parameters as there are data points, resulting in a theoretical perfect fit) so all fit indices were held constant and are not reported (Kline, 2011). The coefficients from this path analysis including pathological personality features and criminogenic thinking styles are presented in Fig. 1. Results revealed that negative affectivity had a unique positive association with cognitive immaturity (β = 0.52, t = 7.48, SE = 0.07, p b 0.001). Detachment had a positive association with cognitive immaturity (β = 0.44, t = 6.33, SE = 0.07, p b 0.001) and a negative association with egocentrism (β = −0.28, t = −2.82, SE = 0.10, p = 0.005). Antagonism had unique positive associations with control (β = 0.87, t = 11.23, SE = 0.08, p b 0.001) and egocentrism (β = 0.30, t = 3.16, SE = 0.10, p = 0.002). Disinhibition did not have unique associations with any of the criminogenic thinking styles. Psychoticism had unique positive associations with cognitive immaturity (β = 0.20, t = 2.05, SE = 0.10, p = 0.04) and egocentrism (β = 0.41, t = 3.03, SE = 0.14, p = 0.002).

3.3. Results Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between the PID-5 pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles are presented in Table 1. Negative affectivity and disinhibition were positively associated with control and cognitive immaturity. Detachment was positively associated with cognitive immaturity. Antagonism and psychoticism were positively associated with each of the criminogenic thinking styles. We also examined whether sex differences emerged for pathological personality traits or criminogenic thinking styles in the present study (see Table 2). Men reported higher levels of antagonism (t[120] = 2.39, p = 0.02) and control (t[120] = 3.42, p b 0.001) than were reported by women. No other sex differences reached conventional levels of statistical significance. Preliminary analyses included sex as a potential moderator of the associations that pathological

Table 2 Study 1: Sex differences for pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles. Men

Negative affectivity Detachment Antagonism Disinhibition Psychoticism Control Cognitive immaturity Egocentrism ⁎ p b 0.05. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

Women

M

SD

M

SD

t

0.82 0.74 0.63 0.59 0.63 2.27 2.19 3.41

0.73 0.73 0.59 0.62 0.58 0.72 0.78 0.65

0.99 0.77 0.36 0.51 0.59 1.83 2.16 3.25

0.73 0.73 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.68 0.90 0.61

−1.23 −0.21 2.39⁎ 0.64 0.38 3.42⁎⁎⁎ 0.21 1.41

44

V. Zeigler-Hill et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 110 (2017) 41–48

Fig. 1. Study 1: Path model indicating the associations that pathological personality traits had with criminogenic thinking styles. Note: Rectangles indicate measured variables and circles indicate disturbance terms. The significant positive associations are indicated by solid black arrows. The significant negative associations are indicated by dashed black arrows. The correlations are included for the relationships between the predictors (i.e., pathological personality traits) as well as among the outcome variables (i.e., criminogenic thinking styles) and are indicated by curved bidirectional arrows. The grey lines represent nonsignificant associations.

3.4. Discussion The results of Study 1 revealed a variety of associations between the PID-5 pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles in a community sample. Consistent with our predictions, negative affectivity and detachment had unique positive associations with cognitive immaturity. These results suggest that psychological systems concerning short-term danger detection (negative affectivity) and resource acquisition (detachment) are linked with cognitive immaturity. However, our prediction that disinhibition would also have a unique positive association with cognitive immaturity was not supported despite the emergence of a positive zero-order correlation between disinhibition and cognitive immaturity. The absence of a unique association between disinhibition and cognitive immaturity may have been due to the relatively low levels of cognitive immaturity in our community sample. That is, there may have been a slight restriction of range for some of the criminogenic thinking styles because we employed a community sample for this study. Our predictions that antagonism would have unique positive associations with control and egocentrism were supported. This suggests that the psychological system concerning agenda protection (antagonism) is linked with cognitive distortions concerning the desire for power and control over others as well as a sense of entitlement. Finally, we expected psychoticism to be associated with all three styles of criminogenic thinking; however, unique positive associations only emerged for cognitive immaturity and egocentrism, suggesting that those individuals who have difficulty constructing and maintaining accurate representations of the social environment tend to experience cognitive styles characterized by immaturity and an inflated sense of self-importance. These results suggest that criminogenic thinking styles frequently accompany higher levels of pathological personality traits in members of the community. This is an important finding because it establishes a connection between pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles which may shed light on the links that exist between pathological personality traits and outcomes such as interpersonal difficulties.

4. Study 2: prison sample The purpose of Study 2 was to extend the results of Study 1 by examining the associations between pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles in a sample of incarcerated offenders.

This would allow us to determine whether the results observed in Study 1 would replicate in a group of incarcerated offenders. 4.1. Method 4.1.1. Participants and procedure Participants were 592 incarcerated adult male offenders who were general-population inmates recruited from multiple state prisons in Mississippi. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board and the Mississippi Department of Corrections. Data were collected in a group setting in which participants were asked to complete measures concerning pathological personality features and criminogenic thinking styles along with other measures that are not relevant to the present study. The inmates were required to be able to read and write in English to participate in the study. The purpose of the study was thoroughly described and the voluntary nature of participation was emphasized as part of the consent procedure. As required by the Mississippi Department of Corrections, the participants were not compensated for their participation in this study. As in Study 1, directed response items were blended into the measures to identify participants who responded carelessly. Data were excluded for 126 participants who failed to complete the measures of pathological personality features and criminogenic thinking styles during their testing sessions. Data were excluded for an additional 167 participants who failed to successfully complete two or more of the directed response items. The final sample consisted of 299 incarcerated male offenders and the following descriptive information is based on their self-reported information. The mean age of the participants was 40.28 years (SD = 12.04) with the ages of the participants ranging from 19 to 77 years-old. The racial/ethnic composition of the participants was 50% Black, 46% White, and 4% other. The educational background of the participants was as follows: 17% did not complete high school, 47% completed high school, 25% attended but did not complete college, 6% completed college, and 3% earned a graduate degree. Primary reasons for incarceration consisted of murder or serious injury (31%), theft or robbery (24%), drug-related crimes (24%), sex-related crimes (18%), and other (3%). The total time to be served for each participant for his current sentence ranged from 3 months to 99 years, with 22 offenders reporting life sentences (M = 24.86 years, SD = 28.82 years; life sentences were estimated as 99 years). The mean length of time already served by participants for their current sentences ranged from 1 month to 41 years (M = 6.76 years, SD = 7.43 years). The vast majority of participants (90%) reported that they were not receiving any mental health services.

V. Zeigler-Hill et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 110 (2017) 41–48

45

Table 3 Study 2: Intercorrelations and descriptive statistics.

1. Negative affectivity 2. Detachment 3. Antagonism 4. Disinhibition 5. Psychoticism 6. Control 7. Cognitive immaturity 8. Egocentrism Mean Standard deviation Cronbach's α

1

2

3

4

5

– 0.53⁎⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎⁎ 0.61⁎⁎⁎ 0.55⁎⁎⁎ 0.39⁎⁎⁎ 0.68⁎⁎⁎ 0.22⁎⁎⁎

– 0.43⁎⁎⁎ 0.47⁎⁎⁎ 0.64⁎⁎⁎ 0.45⁎⁎⁎ 0.59⁎⁎⁎ 0.23⁎⁎⁎

– 0.44⁎⁎⁎ 0.49⁎⁎⁎ 0.56⁎⁎⁎ 0.40⁎⁎⁎ 0.17⁎⁎

– 0.56⁎⁎⁎ 0.49⁎⁎⁎ 0.65⁎⁎⁎ 0.15⁎⁎

– 0.51⁎⁎⁎ 0.65⁎⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎⁎

1.06 0.77 0.77

0.95 0.73 0.76

0.59 0.59 0.71

0.94 0.76 0.81

0.92 0.76 0.78

6

7

8

– 0.68⁎⁎⁎ 0.40⁎⁎⁎ 2.21 0.62 0.91

– 0.29⁎⁎⁎ 2.46 0.75 0.95

– 3.77 0.57 0.70

⁎⁎ p b 0.01. ⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.

4.2. Measures 4.2.1. Pathological personality traits Pathological personality traits were assessed using the PID-5-BF as in Study 1. 4.2.2. Criminogenic thinking styles Criminogenic thinking styles were assessed using the MOCTS as in Study 1. 4.3. Results Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between the PID-5 pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles are presented in Table 3.1 All of the pathological personality traits were positively associated with each of the criminogenic thinking styles. As in Study 1, path analysis was used to examine the unique associations that the PID-5 pathological personality traits had with criminogenic thinking styles. The coefficients from this path analysis are presented in Fig. 2. Results revealed that negative affectivity (β = 0.30, t = 6.10, SE = 0.05, p b 0.001) and detachment (β = 0.16, t = 3.29, SE = 0.05, p = 0.001) had unique positive associations with cognitive immaturity. Antagonism had a unique positive association with control (β = 0.34, t = 6.50, SE = 0.05, p b 0.001). Disinhibition had unique positive associations with control (β = 0.19, t = 3.21, SE = 0.06, p = 0.001) and cognitive immaturity (β = 0.27, t = 5.44, SE = 0.05, p b 0.001). Psychoticism had unique positive associations with control (β = 0.17, t = 2.69, SE = 0.06, p = 0.007), cognitive immaturity (β = 0.24, t = 4.62, SE = 0.05, p b 0.001), and egocentrism (β = 0.20, t = 2.44, SE = 0.08, p = 0.02). 4.4. Discussion The results of Study 2 were largely consistent with those of Study 1, which suggests considerable similarity in the associations between the PID-5 pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles for incarcerated offenders and community members. Consistent with the results of Study 1, negative affectivity and detachment had unique positive associations with cognitive immaturity. Disinhibition also had a unique positive association with cognitive immaturity among 1 We also compared the average levels of pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles for our two samples. Compared with the community sample from Study 1, the incarcerated male offenders in Study 2 reported higher levels of detachment (t[419] = 2.62, p = 0.01), disinhibition (t[419] = 5.06, p b 0.001), psychoticism (t[419] = 3.95, p b 0.001), control (t[419] = 2.64, p = 0.01), cognitive immaturity (t[419] = 3.44, p b 0.001), and egocentrism (t[419] = 7.20, p b 0.001). In addition, the incarcerated male offenders in Study 2 reported marginally higher levels of negative affectivity (t[419] = 1.80, p = 0.07) and antagonism (t[419] = 1.77, p = 0.08) compared to the community sample from Study 1 but these differences did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance.

incarcerated offenders in Study 2 even though this effect did not emerge for the community members in Study 1. This result is consistent with our prediction, and the emergence of this effect in Study 2 suggests the intriguing possibility that disinhibition may have stronger links with criminogenic thinking styles among incarcerated offenders than among community members. This possibility is consistent with the unexpected positive association that disinhibition had with the criminogenic thinking style characterized by a desire for control among incarcerated offenders in Study 2. Antagonism had a unique positive association with control – which is consistent with the results of Study 1 – but the expected association between antagonism and egocentrism did not emerge for incarcerated offenders in Study 2. As expected, psychoticism had unique associations with all three styles of criminogenic thinking among incarcerated offenders, whereas it was only associated with cognitive immaturity and egocentrism for the community members in Study 1. These results suggest that pathological personality traits are frequently accompanied by elevated levels of criminogenic thinking styles among incarcerated offenders. This is important because it establishes a connection between pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles which may explain – at least in part – some of the antisocial behaviors that often accompany pathological personality traits (e.g., aggression; Hopwood et al., 2013). 5. General discussion The purpose of the present studies was to examine the associations between the pathological personality traits included in the alternative model of personality pathology that was presented in the DSM-5 and the criminogenic thinking styles identified by Mandracchia (2013). This was accomplished using a community sample (Study 1) and an incarcerated offender sample (Study 2). The results of the present studies were largely consistent with our predictions such that the pathological personality traits had a range of unique associations with the criminogenic thinking styles. As expected, negative affectivity and detachment had unique positive associations with cognitive immaturity across both studies. Negative affectivity is believed to be linked with short-term danger detection which is characterized by vigilance to cues for potential threats (Harkness et al., 2014). When potentially threatening cues are perceived, individuals with high levels of negative affectivity may respond with intense focus on the threat as well as heightened feelings of tension, anxiety, or fear. The connection between negative affectivity and cognitive immaturity is consistent with previous results showing that negative affectivity is associated with interpersonal problems (e.g., Southard et al., 2015; Zeigler-Hill et al., 2016) and emotion regulation difficulties (Pollock et al., 2016). In contrast to negative affectivity, detachment is believed to be a manifestation of the adaptive system concerning resource acquisition (Harkness et al., 2014). Resource acquisition can be characterized as either extraverted/high positive emotionality or introverted/low positive

46

V. Zeigler-Hill et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 110 (2017) 41–48

Fig. 2. Study 2: Path model indicating the associations that pathological personality traits had with criminogenic thinking styles. Note: Rectangles indicate measured variables and circles indicate disturbance terms. The significant positive associations are indicated by solid black arrows. The correlations are included for the relationships between the predictors (i.e., pathological personality traits) as well as among the outcome variables (i.e., criminogenic thinking styles) and are indicated by curved bidirectional arrows. The grey lines represent nonsignificant associations.

emotionality. In extraverted/high positive emotionality resource acquisition, resource opportunities are actively sought through creative planning and joy is experienced when the resource is consumed. In introverted/low positive emotionality resource acquisition, joy cannot be experienced from the consumption of resources and, as such, resource opportunities are met with ambivalence. It is the introverted/ low positive emotionality form of resource acquisition that is believed to correspond with detachment. The association between detachment and cognitive immaturity suggests that individuals who possess high levels of detachment may have difficulty avoiding certain cognitive pitfalls including self-pity. The results for detachment are consistent with those of previous studies suggesting that individuals with high levels of detachment have difficulty maintaining positive relationships with others (e.g., Ackerman & Corretti, 2015; Wright et al., 2012). Antagonism is linked with the adaptive system of agenda protection which is characterized by a focus on balancing the drives and desires of the self with the drives and desires of others in the social environment (Harkness et al., 2014). If there are conflicts between the desires of the self and the desires of others, agenda protection systems motivate the individual to behave in such a way that his or her desires take precedence over the desires of others. This helps to ensure that the individual remains focused on efforts that are relevant to his or her survival and reproduction. However, these agenda protection systems may become overactive in some cases resulting in aggressive and antagonistic behavior. Consistent with this possibility, the pathological personality feature of antagonism was found to have unique positive associations with control across both studies. These results are consistent with the characterization of antagonistic individuals as being cold, callous, and manipulative in their dealings with others (Hopwood et al., 2013; Southard et al., 2015; Strickland, Drislane, Lucy, Krueger, & Patrick, 2013). For example, individuals with high levels of antagonism are relatively unconcerned with how their choices could potentially harm others when making moral decisions (Noser et al., 2015). Disinhibition had unique positive associations with control and cognitive immaturity for the incarcerated offenders in Study 2. According to Harkness et al. (2014), disinhibition reflects difficulty in employing the adaptive strategy of long-term cost-benefit analysis (i.e., the ability to assess future rewards and consequences by mentally projecting into the future). The connections that disinhibition had with control and cognitive immaturity are consistent with previous findings showing that aspects of disinhibition are connected to behaviors that may be harmful to others and the self (e.g., Cyders, Coskunpinar, & VanderVeen, 2016).

Psychoticism is thought to reflect evolved psychological systems concerning reality modeling for action (Harkness et al., 2014). This adaptive system creates mental models of the external environment that can be used to plan behaviors with effective employment of this system corresponding with low levels of psychoticism. In the present studies, psychoticism was associated with cognitive immaturity and egocentrism across both studies. These findings suggest that difficulties with modeling reality may be linked with cognitive biases that involve heavy reliance on cognitive short-cuts and an exaggerated sense of self-importance. For the incarcerated offenders in Study 2, psychoticism also had a positive association with control which suggests that some individuals who have difficulty accurately representing reality also desire control over others. Taken together, the results of the present studies suggest that the PID-5 pathological personality traits are linked to criminogenic thinking styles in community members and incarcerated offenders. These results are consistent with the findings of previous studies showing that other aversive aspects of personality (e.g., psychopathy) are associated with criminogenic thinking styles (e.g., Mandracchia et al., 2015). The results of these studies extend our knowledge concerning the connections between pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles. For example, individuals with high levels of antagonism tend to report criminogenic thinking styles characterized by the desire for control over others. This desire for control may be a result of the strong desire for status that is expressed by individuals with high levels of antagonism (Zeigler-Hill & Hobbs, 2016). In turn, the desire for control over others may explain – at least in part – the connections that antagonism has with a range of aggressive interpersonal behaviors (e.g., Southard et al., 2015; Zeigler-Hill et al., 2016). Further, the tendency for individuals with high levels of antagonism to focus primarily on their own desires – including the desire to control others – may help explain why these individuals have such little concern for the welfare of others (Noser et al., 2015). Investigating the links between pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles may also shed light on the connections between pathological personality traits and a wide array of interpersonal difficulties. For example, it is possible that these criminogenic thinking styles may play an important role in the connections that pathological personality traits have been shown to have with outcomes such as the tendency to use manipulation and deception to control the behavior of romantic partners (Holden et al., 2015). Another potential benefit of research in this area is that it may have implications for offender treatment and rehabilitation. For example, treatment efforts may be tailored to take into account offenders' pathological personality

V. Zeigler-Hill et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 110 (2017) 41–48

traits. It is also possible that a comprehensive assessment of pathological personality traits could be helpful in identifying individuals who are at a particularly high risk for offending in the future (e.g., adolescents with extremely high levels of antagonism and disinhibition may be at high risk for criminal behavior in the future). Although the present studies had a number of strengths (e.g., a large sample of incarcerated offenders was examined in Study 2, we captured a wide array of pathological personality traits), it is important to acknowledge some of the potential limitations of these studies. The first limitation is that the direction of causality between pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles cannot be determined due to the correlational nature of the data. The underlying process model for the present study was that certain pathological personality traits would lead individuals to adopt different criminogenic thinking styles (e.g., antagonistic individuals would develop criminogenic thinking styles characterized by control). However, this causal sequence cannot be established using the present data. For example, it is possible that frequently employing certain criminogenic thinking styles may have influenced the development of pathological personality traits (e.g., people who adopt criminogenic thinking styles concerning control may develop more antagonistic personality traits) or that a third variable may have impacted the development of both pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles (e.g., common genetic factors, early experiences in a harsh and unpredictable social environment). Future research should attempt to gain a better understanding of the causal links between pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles by using experimental designs or longitudinal studies. The second limitation is that the present studies relied exclusively on self-report measures of pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles which raises the possibility that our findings may have been influenced by socially desirable responding. For example, it is possible that some individuals may have been reluctant to acknowledge the darker aspects of their personalities or their tendencies to engage in certain criminogenic thinking styles. Future research would benefit from the utilization of strategies that are designed to capture pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles that are not completely reliant on self-report (e.g., observer ratings). The third limitation of the present studies is that we employed the brief form of the PID-5 rather than using the full-length version of the instrument. Previous research using both versions of the instrument have found similar results (e.g., Zeigler-Hill & Noser, in press), but the full-length PID-5 appears to be a stronger instrument and it captures some facets of pathological personality that are not represented on the brief form of the PID-5 (e.g., rigid perfectionism). The fourth limitation of the present studies is that the PID-5 does not contain an embedded measure of valid responding. However, we did measure careless responding by embedding directed response items in both studies that we used to exclude participants from our analyses. The fifth limitation is that the pathological personality traits used in the present study capture only a limited range of pathological features of personality. For example, the PID-5 trait of disinhibition captures extremely low levels of conscientiousness but fails to capture extremely high levels of conscientiousness (e.g., rigidity) which may have unique connections with criminogenic thinking styles (e.g., rigidity may be positively associated with criminogenic thinking styles concerned with exerting control over others). The sixth limitation is that we excluded a large number of incarcerated male offenders from Study 2 due to their failure to complete all of the necessary materials or inattentive responding (we reduced the sample from 592 participants to 299 participants). Although the exclusion of so many participants is unfortunate, we preferred this option over retaining data from participants who responded carelessly to the items. Lastly, Study 2 consisted of only incarcerated male offenders. Future research should investigate whether similar patterns emerge between pathological personality features and criminogenic thinking styles in an incarcerated female sample. Despite these limitations, the results of the present studies expand

47

the current understanding of the connections between the darker aspects of personality and certain types of cognitive distortions by showing the links between pathological personality traits and criminogenic thinking styles. 6. Conclusion The results of these studies revealed that pathological personality traits were associated with specific criminogenic thinking styles. Specifically, negative affectivity and detachment each had unique positive associations with cognitive immaturity. Antagonism was positively associated with the desire to control others. Disinhibition had unique positive associations with control and cognitive immaturity among incarcerated offenders, whereas psychoticism was positively associated with cognitive immaturity and egocentrism for both community members and incarcerated offenders. Taken together, these results suggest that individuals with pathological personality traits tend to report heightened levels of criminogenic thinking styles. These results suggest that criminogenic thinking styles may play at least some role in the negative outcomes that often accompany pathological personality traits. References Ackerman, R. A., & Corretti, C. A. (2015). Pathological personality traits and intimacy processes within roommate relationships. European Journal of Personality, 29, 152–172. American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author. Anderson, J. L., Sellbom, M., Wygant, D. B., Salekin, R. T., & Krueger, R. F. (2014). Examining the associations between DSM-5 Section III antisocial personality disorder traits and psychopathy in community and university samples. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28, 675–697. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Psychology of criminal conduct (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. Arbuckle, J. L. (2010). IBM SPSS AMOS19 user's guide. Crawfordville, FL: Amos Development Corporation. Bach, B., Maples-Keller, J. L., Bo, S., & Simonsen, E. (2016). The alternative DSM-5 personality disorder traits criterion: A comparative examination of three self-report forms in a Danish population. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7, 124–135. Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York, NY: International Universities Press. Bulten, E., Nijman, H., & van der Staak, C. (2009). Psychiatric disorders and personality characteristics of prisoners at regular prison wards. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32, 115–119. Carlotta, D., Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., Borroni, S., Frera, F., Somma, A., ... Fossati, A. (2015). Adaptive and maladaptive personality traits in high-risk gamblers. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29, 378–392. Cyders, M. A., Coskunpinar, A., & VanderVeen, J. D. (2016). Urgency: A common transdiagnostic endophenotype for maladaptive risk-taking. In V. Zeigler-Hill, & D. K. Marcus (Eds.), The dark side of personality: Science and practice in social, personality, and clinical psychology (pp. 157–188). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Egan, V., McMurran, M., Richardson, C., & Blair, M. (2000). Criminal cognitions and personality: What does the PICTS really measure? Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 10, 170–184. Ellis, A. (1992). Group rational-emotive and cognitive-behavioral therapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 42, 63–80. Gonzalez, R., Mandracchia, J. T., Dahlen, E., & Nicholson, B. (2014). Exploring parenting as a predictor of criminogenic thinking in college students. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58, 1081–1100. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Harkness, A. R., Reynolds, S. M., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2014). A review of systems for psychology and psychiatry: adaptive systems, personality psychopathology five (PSY-5), and the DSM-5. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 121–139. Holden, C. J., Roof, C. H., McCabe, G., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2015). Detached and antagonistic: Pathological personality features and mate retention behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 77–84. Hopwood, C. J., & Sellbom, M. (2013). Implications of DSM-5 personality traits for forensic psychology. Psychological Injury and Law, 6, 314–323. Hopwood, C. J., Wright, A. G. C., Krueger, R. F., Schade, N., Markon, K. E., & Morey, L. C. (2013). DSM-5 pathological personality traits and the Personality Assessment Inventory. Assessment, 20, 269–285. Hoyle, R. H., & Smith, G. T. (1994). Formulating clinical research hypotheses as structural equation models: A conceptual overview. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 429–440. Huang, J. L., Curran, P. G., Keeney, J., Poposki, E. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2012). Detecting and deterring insufficient effort responding to surveys. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 99–114.

48

V. Zeigler-Hill et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 110 (2017) 41–48

James, L. M., Engdahl, B. E., Leuthold, A. C., Krueger, R. F., & Georgopoulos, A. P. (2015). Pathological personality traits modulate neural interaction. Experimental Brain Research, 233, 3543–3552. Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Knight, K., Garner, B. R., Simpson, D. D., Morey, J. T., & Flynn, P. M. (2006). An assessment for criminal thinking. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 159–177. Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879–1890. Mandracchia, J. T. (2013). Measure of Criminogenic Thinking Styles (MOCTS) manual. Unpublished manual and user guide. Mandracchia, J. T., & Morgan, R. D. (2010). The relationship between status variables and criminal thinking in offenders. Psychological Services, 7, 27–33. Mandracchia, J. T., & Morgan, R. D. (2011). Understanding criminals' thinking: Further examination of the Measure of Offender Thinking Styles – Revised. Assessment, 18, 442–452. Mandracchia, J. T., & Morgan, R. D. (2012). Predicting offenders' criminogenic cognitions with status variables. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 39, 5–25. Mandracchia, J. T., & Pendleton, S. (2015). Understanding college students' problems: Dysfunctional thinking, mental health, and maladaptive behavior. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 17, 226–242. Mandracchia, J. T., Gonzalez, R., Patterson, K. L., & Smith, P. N. (2015). Psychopathy and criminogenic thinking in adult male prisoners. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31, 409–425. Mandracchia, J. T., Morgan, R. D., Garos, S., & Garland, J. T. (2007). Inmate thinking patterns: An empirical investigation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1029–1043. Marcus, B. (2004). Self-control in the general theory of crime: Theoretical implications of a measurement problem. Theoretical Criminology, 8, 33–55. Maruna, S., & Copes, H. (2005). What have we learned in five decades of neutralization research? Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 32, 221–320. McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person? Journal of Personality, 63, 365–396. McCoy, K., Fremouw, W., Tyner, E., Clegg, C., Johanssson-Love, L., & Strunk, J. (2006). Criminal-thinking styles and illegal behaviors among college students: Validation of the PICTS. Journal of Forensic Science, 51, 1174–1177. Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17, 437–455. Mills, J. F., Kroner, D. G., & Forth, A. E. (2002). Measures of Criminal Attitudes and Associates (MCAA): Development, factor structure, reliability, and validity. Assessment, 9, 240–253. Mitchell, D., & Tafrate, R. C. (2012). Conceptualization and measurement of criminal thinking: Initial validation of the criminogenic thinking profile. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 1080–1102. Noser, A. E., Zeigler-Hill, V., Vrabel, J. K., Besser, A., Ewing, T. D., & Southard, A. C. (2015). Dark and immoral: The links between pathological personality features and moral values. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 30–35. Palmer, E. J. (2007). Criminal thinking. In D. Carson, B. Milne, F. Pakes, K. Shalev, & A. Shawyer (Eds.), Applying psychology to criminal justice (pp. 147–165). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Pollock, N. C., McCabe, G. A., Southard, A. C., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2016). Pathological personality traits and emotion regulation difficulties. Personality and Individual Differences, 95, 168–177. Ragatz, L., Anderson, R., Fremouw, W., & Schwartz, R. (2011). Criminal thinking patterns, aggression styles, and psychopathic traits of late high school bullies and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 145–160. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Shields, I. W., & Simourd, D. J. (1991). Predicting predatory behavior in a population of incarcerated young offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 180–194. Southard, A. C., Noser, A. E., Pollock, N. C., Mercer, S. H., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2015). The interpersonal nature of dark personality features. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 34, 555–586.

Strickland, C. M., Drislane, L. E., Lucy, M., Krueger, R. F., & Patrick, C. J. (2013). Characterizing psychopathy using DSM-5 personality traits. Assessment, 20, 327–338. Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: J. B. Lippincott. Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664–670. Tangney, J. P., Mashek, D., & Stuewig, J. (2007). Working at the social-clinical communitycriminology interface: The George Mason University Inmate Study. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 1–21. Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., Furukawa, E., Kopelovich, S., Meyer, P. J., & Cosby, B. (2012). Reliability, validity, and predictive utility of the 25-item Criminogenic Cognitions Scale (CCS). Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1340–1360. Thomas, K. M., Yalch, M. M., Krueger, R. F., Wright, A. G., Markon, K. E., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013). The convergent structure of DSM-5 personality trait facets and five-factor model trait domains. Assessment, 20, 308–311. Wagar, L. B., & Mandracchia, J. T. (2016). Criminogenic thinking mediates the relation between violent media exposure and aggression. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 25, 537–554. Walters, G. D. (1990). The criminal lifestyle: Patterns of serious criminal conduct. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Walters, G. D. (1995). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles: I. Reliability and preliminary validity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 307–325. Walters, G. D. (1996). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles: Part III. Predictive validity. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 40, 105–112. Walters, G. D. (2002). Current and historical content scales for the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS). Legal and Criminological Psychology, 7, 73–86. Walters, G. (2007). Taxometric analysis of the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles in incarcerated offenders and college students. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 781–793. Walters, G. (2009). Criminal thinking. In M. McMurran, & R. Charles (Eds.), Personality, personality disorder, and violence (pp. 281–298). London: Wiley. Whited, W. H., Wagar, L. B., Mandracchia, J. T., & Morgan, R. D. (2017). Partners or partners in crime? The relationship between criminal associates and criminogenic thinking. The International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology (in press). Williams, T. F., & Simms, L. J. (2016). Personality disorder models and their coverage of interpersonal problems. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7, 15–27. Wright, A. G. C., Calabrese, W. R., Rudick, M. M., Yam, W. H., Zelazny, K., Williams, T. F., ... Simms, L. J. (2015). Stability of the DSM-5 Section III pathological personality traits and their longitudinal associations with psychosocial functioning in personality disordered individuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124, 199–207. Wright, A. G. C., Pincus, A. L., Hopwood, C. J., Thomas, K. M., Markon, K. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). An interpersonal analysis of pathological personality traits in DSM-5. Assessment, 19, 263–275. Wygant, D. B., Sellbom, M., Sleep, C. E., Wall, T. D., Applegate, K. C., Krueger, R. F., & Patrick, C. J. (2016). Examining the DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model operationalization of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in a male correctional sample. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7, 229–239. Yochelson, S., & Samenow, S. E. (1976). The criminal personality: A profile for change, Vol. 1. New York, NY: Aronson. Young, J. E. (1995). Cognitive therapy for personality disorders: A schema-focused approach. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange. Zeigler-Hill, V., & Hobbs, K. A. (2016). Pathological personality traits and the fundamental social motives. Unpublished manuscript. Zeigler-Hill, V., & Noser, A. E. (2017). Characterizing spitefulness in terms of the DSM-5 model of pathological personality traits. Current Psychology (in press). Zeigler-Hill, V., McCabe, G. A., & Vrabel, J. K. (2016). The dark side of humor: DSM-5 pathological personality traits and humor styles. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 12, 363–376.