- Email: [email protected]
Psychopathic traits and aggression: Which trait components predict aggressive responding in a laboratory task?
Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 180–184
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Psychopathic traits and aggression: Which trait components predict aggressive responding in a laboratory task? Joshua D. Miller ⁎, Lauren F. Wilson, Courtland S. Hyatt, Amos Zeichner University of Georgia, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 15 April 2015 Received in revised form 17 June 2015 Accepted 3 August 2015 Available online 16 August 2015 Keywords: Psychopathy Aggression Laboratory paradigm
a b s t r a c t Psychopathy is a complex personality disorder comprising traits related to interpersonal and emotional callousness, egocentricity, and manipulativeness, cognitive and behavioral disinhibition, emotional resilience and fearlessness, and a bold interpersonal style. Aggressive behavior is considered by many one of the central behavioral correlates or consequences of psychopathy. In the current study, we examined the relations between psychopathic traits and aggression manifested in a behavioral shock paradigm in two samples (Sample 1: undergraduates — N = 101; Sample 2: community sample — N = 104). Across both samples, traits related to Antagonism and Disinhibition were significantly correlated with aggressive responding within this paradigm (i.e., shocking more frequently, intensely, and for a longer duration). When controlling for the overlap among psychopathy traits, only the Antagonism-related traits were uniquely correlated with aggressive responding. These findings are consistent with a growing literature that suggests that traits related to Antagonism both within psychopathy and a general trait framework are vital to the propensity to act aggressively towards others. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Psychopathy is a personality disorder consisting of traits such as callousness, remorselessness, arrogance, manipulativeness, superficial charm, impulsivity, and irresponsibility (e.g., Hare, 2003) and is associated with persistent and severe antisocial behavior (e.g., Neumann, Hare, & Pardini, in press). A substantial empirical literature links psychopathic traits with aggressive behaviors (e.g., Porter & Woodworth, 2006), including both reactive (i.e., defensive, reactionary) and proactive (i.e., instrumental, goal-oriented) aggression (Miller, Rausher, Hyatt, Maples, & Zeichner, 2014). Understanding the relations between psychopathy and aggression is complicated by a number of factors including the multidimensionality of psychopathy (e.g. Lilienfeld et al., in press; Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leukefeld, 2001) and the reliance primarily on self-report indices of aggression, although some studies have used official records (e.g., Cornell et al., 1996). Until recently, there were very few studies of the relations between psychopathic traits and aggression using behavioral paradigms (e.g., Reidy, Zeichner, Miller, & Martinez, 2007), which provide stronger methodological control by eliminating important potential confounds (e.g., differing levels or types of provocation). In the current study, we examine the utility of various psychopathy traits related to a cold and callous interpersonal style (i.e., Antagonism; Meanness), impulse control difficulties (i.e., Disinhibition), and a fearless and bold disposition in predicting ⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.D. Miller).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.008 0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
aggressive responding in a laboratory paradigm in both undergraduate (Sample 1) and community samples (Sample 2). The use of a community sample is important as existing laboratory based studies to date have relied on college samples. 1.1. Underlying factor structure of psychopathic traits Psychopathy comprises a multitude of underlying traits. For the past 25 years, a “factor 1” vs. “factor 2” approach was used to divide psychopathy into constituent parts in which interpersonal and affective traits (e.g., Factor 1: manipulation; grandiosity; callousness) were compared to traits and behaviors associated with social deviance (e.g., Factor 2: impulsivity; irresponsibility; early behavioral problems). More recently, alternative multidimensional models of psychopathy have been developed. For instance, Lilienfeld and others (e.g., Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) put forth a two-factor model comprising higher order domains of fearless dominance and self-centered impulsivity. Building off this work, Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger (2009) articulated a three-factor model comprising boldness (akin to Lilienfeld's Fearless Dominance), meanness (e.g., exploitativeness; cruelty; callousness), and disinhibition (e.g., impulsivity; poor delay of gratification; affective dysregulation) (the latter two domains representing aspects of Lilienfeld's Selfcentered Impulsivity). Alternatively, Lynam and colleagues have used an approach informed by the structure of general personality to conceptualize psychopathy (e.g., Lynam & Miller, in press) in which they hypothesize that psychopathy is a configuration of general personality traits composed primarily of low Agreeableness (Antagonism) and low Conscientiousness (Disinhibition) with smaller and more varied
J.D. Miller et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 180–184
relations to five-factor model (FFM) domains of neuroticism and extraversion. The articulation of more fine-grained, elemental models of psychopathy is an important advance; the use of narrower, more homogeneous constructs in research settings provides opportunities for the development of a more valid and sophisticated nomological network (e.g., Smith, McCarthy, & Zapolski, 2009). At the same time, these developments have led to debates surrounding the centrality of various dimensions. For instance, many of these newer models suggest that psychopathy traits such as fearless dominance or boldness are largely unrelated or marginally related to other psychopathy traits such as meanness or Disinhibition and manifest divergent trait and behavioral correlates including aggression and antisocial behavior (e.g., Marcus, Fulton, & Edens, 2013; Miller & Lynam, 2012). Some have argued that these traits mostly measure an adaptive construct comprising very low neuroticism and very high extraversion (Miller & Lynam, 2012, cf, Lilienfeld et al., 2012). Examinations of the manner in which different psychopathy measures and their traits relate to one another and to key outcomes are of high priority as the field of psychopathy continues to debate the central and more peripheral components of this construct. 1.2. Goals of the current project The goal of this project was to test the manner in which psychopathic traits, assessed with multiple measures, predict aggressive responding in a laboratory aggression paradigm. Importantly, these relations are examined using both undergraduate and community samples, which allows for an important test of the generalizability of these findings. Consistent with the limited literature to date (e.g., Reidy, Zeichner, & Seibert, 2011), we expected that the traits related to an antagonistic (i.e., cold, callous, self-centered) interpersonal and emotional disposition would be the primary predictors of laboratory-based aggression. Because a wider array of psychopathy measures were assessed in Sample 1, exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were used to examine the underlying latent factors represented by these measures and their relations to both general traits of personality as represented by the FFM and aggression. We believe that it is helpful to examine the underlying psychopathy factors revealed in the EFA in relation to general personality dimensions, as psychopathy (e.g., Miller et al., 2001) and personality disorders more generally (e.g., American Psychiatric Association, 2013) can be understood as configurations of general personality traits. These analyses provide a useful framework for understanding how these psychopathy traits bridge to more basic trait domains. 2. Methods 2.1. Participants 2.1.1. Sample 1 Participants were 133 undergraduates recruited from the research pool at a large U.S. university who received course credit for their participation. Thirty two participants were excluded from analyses due to technical problems, because their responses on a manipulation check suggested that they did not believe they were competing against another individual as part of the laboratory aggression paradigm, or elevated scores on one of two validity scales. The final sample comprised 56 men and 45 women (Mage = 19.15; SD = 1.33; 79% Caucasian, 5% African American, 5% Asian, 5% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 6% Other/ unknown). After providing informed consent, participants completed questionnaires including demographic information, psychopathy measures, and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Next, participants came to the laboratory for a separate session to complete the Response Choice Aggression Paradigm (RCAP), a laboratory-based aggression paradigm. Participants were debriefed at the completion of the study. IRB approval was obtained for this study.
181
2.1.2. Sample 2 Participants were recruited via advertisements placed in a freelyavailable local newspaper, fliers placed throughout the local community, and by word of mouth. In order to oversample for psychopathic traits, two advertisements were used — one which called for individuals who thought of themselves as charming, aggressive, carefree, impulsive, and irresponsible, but good at “handling people” and looking after “number one” (e.g., Widom, 1977). The other advertisement provided only generic information regarding a study on personality. Participants who were eligible to participate (e.g., between ages of 18 and 65; no symptoms of psychosis) came in for an assessment that included informed consent, completion of personality questionnaires and other laboratory-based tasks. Participants were paid $30 as compensation. IRB approval was obtained for this study. One hundred-twenty individuals participated in the study but data from 16 individuals were excluded because they provided invalid data as indicated by either of the two EPA validity scales or other markers (e.g., completed all self-report assessments in a time that was deemed implausible) or were not misled by the experimental manipulation. Data from 104 individuals are included in the current study (Mage = 30.87, SD = 10.8; 71% male; 64% White, 22% Black, 6% Biracial, 5% Asian; 8% Hispanic). 2.2. Measures in Study 1 and 2 2.2.1. Elemental psychopathy assessment (EPA) The EPA (Lynam et al., 2011) is a 178-item self-report measure of psychopathy that provides a total score, four factor scores, 18 subscale scores, and two validity scales (Infrequency; Virtue). The four higher order factors – Antagonism, Disinhibition, Emotional Stability, and Narcissism – were used in the current study. Alphas for the factors ranged from .85 (Narcissism) to .93 (Emotional Stability) in Sample 1 and .88 (Narcissism and Emotional Stability) to .94 (Disinhibition) in Sample 2. 2.2.2. Self-report psychopathy—III (SRP-III) The SRP-III (Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, in press) is a 64-item selfreport measure of psychopathy. In the current study, we used the higher order factors of Interpersonal Manipulation, Callous Affect, Erratic Lifestyle, and Antisocial Behavior. Alphas for the factors ranged from .68 (Antisocial Behavior) to .82 (Interpersonal Manipulation) in Sample 1 and from .76 (Erratic Lifestyle) to .83 (Interpersonal Manipulation) in Sample 2. 2.3. Measures in Sample 1 only 2.3.1. Levenson's Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP) The LSRP (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995) is a 26-item selfreport inventory designed to measure psychopathy in noninstitutionalized samples, which provides a global score and two factor scores (LSRP Factors 1 and 2). In this study, alphas for LSRP Factors 1 and 2 were .87 and .70, respectively. 2.3.2. Psychopathic Personality Inventory—Revised (PPI-R) The PPI-R (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) is a 154-item self-report measure of psychopathy that provides scores for eight subscales, as well as a global score and two factor scores (PPI-R Fearless Dominance and Selfcentered Impulsivity). In the current study, the two higher-order factors were used as well as the one “orphan scale” that does not load on either of the factors — Coldheartedness. Alphas for Fearless Dominance, Selfcentered Impulsivity, and Coldheartedness were .93, .90, and .80, respectively. 2.3.3. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) The NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 240-item self-report measure of the FFM that assesses the higher-order domains of Neuroticism,
182
J.D. Miller et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 180–184
from − .38 (EPA Emotional Stability with EPA Disinhibition) to .73 (SRP-III Callous Affect with EPA Antagonism) with a median of .47. Because of the large number of scales included in Sample 1, we submitted the 13 psychopathy subscales to an EFA with a promax rotation, which resulted in three eigenvalues with values of 1.0 or greater and a scree plot suggestive of three factors as well. However, as the SRP Antisocial Behavior scale manifested a much lower communality (.27) than the rest of the psychopathy scales (range of communalities = .40 to .92; median = .66), it was removed and the EFA was repeated. Again, three factors emerged with eigenvalues over 1.0 that accounted for 74.5% of the overall variance. Next, we employed Horn's (1965) Parallel Analysis (PA) method, using permutations of the raw data, and Velicer's (1976) Minimum Average Partial (MAP) method, to identify the optimal number of factors. Results of both of analyses were also supportive of a three-factor solution, which is presented in Table 2. Factor 1 – titled Antagonism – comprised many of the scales typically associated with “Factor 1 psychopathy:” SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation and Callous Affect, EPA Antagonism, PPI-R Coldheartedness, and LSRP Factor 1. Factor 2 – titled Disinhibition – comprised many of the scales typically associated with “Factor 2 psychopathy:” SRP Erratic Lifestyle, EPA Disinhibition, PPI-R Self-centered Impulsivity, and LSRP Factor 2. Finally, Factor 3 – titled Fearless Dominance – comprised EPA Emotional Stability and EPA Narcissism, as well as PPI-R Fearless Dominance. Unitweighted factor scores were created by summing z-scored values for the scales that loaded on each of the three factors. The Antagonism factor was significantly correlated with the Disinhibition (r = .58) and Fearless Dominance factors (r = .39), and Disinhibition and Fearless Dominance factors were significantly correlated as well (r = .29).
Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Alphas ranged from .89 to .93. 2.3.4. Response Choice Aggression Paradigm (RCAP) The RCAP is based on Taylor's TAP task (Taylor, 1967) and is designed to assess direct, physical aggression via electrical shock in a laboratory setting as an analogue to naturally-occurring aggression. The same RCAP protocol was used in both samples. Participants are informed that the procedure is a competitive reaction-time task in which they (ostensibly) compete against another individual (i.e., a fictional opponent) to whom they can deliver shocks and from whom they may receive shocks. Participants are told they would be able to hear their opponent (a pre-recorded simulation) during the pain tolerance assessment administered in order to determine the levels of shock to be used in the procedure. 2.4. Procedure Participants were seated facing an “aggression console,” comprising electrical switches and light emitting diodes (LEDs). They were instructed to follow a light sequence and press and release a button that provided an ostensible measurement of reaction time. Participants were given bogus feedback regarding “wins” and “losses” and were then given a 6-second interval in which they could choose to shock or refrain from shocking their opponent as “punishment.” Ten shock intensities ranging from “1” to “10” were available and represented shocks consistent with 55% to 100% of what the participant reported as a painful shock during a pain tolerance assessment. All participants received the same win–loss and shock sequence during the 30-trial experiment and received visual feedback (via LED) regarding the shock levels “chosen” by their fictitious opponent. In both samples, we combined three RCAP scores to create an aggression composite: mean shock intensity (mean shock intensity for trials in which the participant administers a shock), mean shock duration (mean shock duration for trials in which the participant administers shocks), and shock frequency (the number of trials in which the participant administers a shock). These aggression scores were significantly correlated with one another (median rsample 1 = .57; rsample 2 = .68) and combined (after being z-scored) to create a reliable composite (Sample 1: α = .80; Sample 2: α = .84).
3.2. Psychopathy factors and FFM domains In order to test the degree to which the EFA-based psychopathy factors aligned with general traits from the FFM, we examined the bivariate and semi-partial correlations between the three psychopathy factor scores and the FFM domains. The semi-partial correlations provide information on the unique relations between the psychopathy scores, controlling for their overlap, and each FFM domain (see Table 3). At the bivariate level, both the Antagonism and Disinhibition psychopathy factors were significantly correlated with the domains of Agreeableness (rs = −.83 and −.47, respectively) and Conscientiousness (rs = −.35 and − .83, respectively). The Fearless Dominance psychopathy factor was significantly negatively correlated with Neuroticism (− .62) and Agreeableness (−.34) and positively related to Extraversion (.60). Controlling for the overlap among the psychopathy factors, the Antagonism psychopathy factor was strongly negatively related to Agreeableness, moderately negatively related to Openness and Extraversion, and manifested a small positive relation with Conscientiousness. The Disinhibition psychopathy factor was uniquely, strongly negatively related to Conscientiousness and moderately positively related to
3. Results 3.1. Relations among self-report psychopathy scales In Sample 1, the 13 psychopathy scales demonstrated correlations with one another ranging from − .20 (EPA Emotional Stability with LSRP Factor 2) to .72 (PPI-R Self-centered Impulsivity with LSRP Factor 2 and SRP-III Erratic Lifestyle), with a median of .35 (see Table 1). In Sample 2, the 8 psychopathy scales demonstrated correlations ranging Table 1 Interrelations among psychopathy factors.
1. SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation 2. SRP-III Callous Affect 3. SRP-III Erratic Lifestyle 4. SRP-III Antisocial Behavior 5. EPA Antagonism 6. EPA Emotional Stability 7. EPA Disinhibition 8. EPA Narcissism 9. PPI-R Fearless Dominance 10. PPI-R Self-centered Impulsivity 11. PPI-R Coldheartedness 12. LSRP Factor 1 13. LSRP Factor 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
– .61 .59 .45 .66 .24 .39 .44 .41 .58 .54 .69 .32
.58 – .62 .26 .64 .25 .42 .28 .32 .58 .65 .56 .39
.61 .53 – .40 .41 .24 .71 .34 .54 .72 .35 .46 .56
.44 .46 .49 – .30 .18 .45 .34 .27 .43 .30 .38 .30
.69 .73 .59 .51 – .09 .42 .18 .22 .44 .61 .65 .23
.15 .30 −.02 .19 .09 – −.02 .33 .70 −.01 .38 .16 −.20
.46 .32 .72 .41 .60 −.38 – .45 .36 .66 .19 .31 .58
.47 .47 .48 .44 .53 .10 .44 – .58 .32 .17 .34 .14
– .29 .27 .31 .04
– .45 .54 .72
– .60 .22
– .38
–
Note. Correlations from Sample 1 are below the diagonal; correlations from Sample 2 are above the diagonal.
J.D. Miller et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 180–184 Table 2 Exploratory factor analysis of psychopathy scales in Sample 1.
PPIR Coldheartedness EPA Antagonism LSRP Factor 1 SRP-III Callous Affect SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation EPA Disinhibition LSRP Factor 2 PPIR Self-centered Impulsivity SRP-III Erratic Lifestyle PPIR Fearless Dominance EPA Emotional Stability EPA Narcissism
Table 3 FFM personality correlates of psychopathy factors in Sample 1.
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor
Antagonism
Disinhibition
Fearless Dominance
.89 .85 .72 .64 .62 −.13 .00 .22 .07 −.12 .17 −.04
−.20 .01 .09 .19 .17 .85 .84 .77 .70 .12 −.37 .26
183
.03 −.12 −.01 .04 .14 .11 −.26 −.07 .26 .99 .79 .51
Note. Factor loadings ≥.40 are bolded.
Neuroticism and Openness. Finally, the Fearless Dominance psychopathy factor was uniquely strongly related to Extraversion (positively) and Neuroticism (negatively). 3.3. Psychopathy factors and behavioral aggression We next examined the bivariate correlations between the three psychopathy factors and the behavioral aggression composite (see Table 4).1 Both the Antagonism and Disinhibition psychopathy factors were statistically significantly related to aggressive responding. These findings were partially replicated in Sample 2 using participants from the community where EPA Antagonism, SRP-III Callous Affect, and EPA Narcissism were the three significant correlates of the behavioral aggression composite. We also examined the unique relations among the psychopathy factors and the aggression composite by calculating semi-partial correlations among the psychopathy factors and the behavioral aggression scores, controlling for the overlap among the psychopathy factors (Sample 1) and subscales (Sample 2). Across samples, only the psychopathy factor/scales related to a cold, callous, and antagonistic interpersonal and emotional personality style were uniquely related to aggressive responding.2 4. Discussion Modern advances in the conceptualization and measurement of psychopathy have resulted in multidimensional models that partition psychopathy into smaller, more homogeneous components; typically somewhere between 2–4 factors are used to summarize an even larger number of more specific and narrow traits. The traits that comprise these models overlap substantially such that most models contain a factor related to callous and antagonistic interpersonal and emotional dimensions (e.g., Antagonism; Meanness; Self-centered Impulsivity; Callous-unemotional; Factor 1 Psychopathy) and a factor related to impulse control deficiencies (e.g., Disinhibition; Self-centered Impulsivity; Erratic Lifestyle; Factor 2 Psychopathy). More recently, there has been a growing emphasis on measuring traits related to emotional resilience and dominance, either together (e.g., Fearless Dominance; boldness) or separately (e.g., Emotional Stability; Narcissism), as a core part of the broader psychopathy construct, although the importance of these latter traits remains an issue of substantial debate (Lilienfeld et al., 1 The correlations between the individual psychopathy scales from Sample 1 (e.g., PPI Coldheartedness) and behavioral aggression composite are available upon request from the first author. 2 The correlations between the psychopathy scales/factors and the individual aggression components that make up the overall composite (i.e., shock intensity, duration, and frequency) were generally quite similar and did not suggest that any one component was responsible for the majority of the variance in the composite scores.
NEO PI-R Domains
Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
Factor 1: Antagonism
Factor 2: Disinhibition
Factor 3: Fearless Dominance
r
sr
r
sr
r
sr
−.09 −.10 −.14 −.83** −.35**
−.09 −.39** −.41** −.82** .18*
.23 .02 .20* −.47** −.83**
.49** .05 .40** .02 −.95**
−.62** .60** .11 −.34** −.11
−.73** .74** .16 −.02 .10
Note. *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01. r = bivariate correlation; sr = semipartial correlations represent the relations between the psychopathy factors and each FFM domain controlling for the overlap among the psychopathy factors.
2012; Lynam & Miller, 2012; Miller & Lynam, 2012). Consistent with meta-analytic findings, the fearless dominance factor manifested little evidence of maladaptivity given its null relation with aggressive behavior — an outcome considered by many to be an important correlate of psychopathy. The use of fine-grained conceptualizations and assessments allows for a clearer discernment of which portions of the overall psychopathy construct are related to the outcomes of greatest interest such as aggression, antisocial behavior, treatment responsiveness, and recidivism, to name a few, which provides a more well-articulated nomological network for psychopathy. In the current study, we used several multidimensional measures of psychopathy to examine which traits are responsible for the wellestablished link between psychopathy and aggression (Porter & Woodworth, 2006), particularly aggression manifested in a laboratory paradigm. Few previous studies have examined the link between psychopathy and aggression manifested in these paradigms but have typically used undergraduate samples only (e.g., Seibert, Miller, Few, Zeichner, & Lynam, 2011) or single assessments of psychopathy (e.g., Reidy et al., 2007). The current study expands on these studies by reporting data from both college and community samples (the latter included participants oversampled for psychopathy) and using multiple measures of psychopathy. Nonetheless, these findings were consistent with previous studies in demonstrating that it is the traits contained within the Antagonism-related scales that are most robustly related to aggression in these settings and in response to these tasks. While the effect sizes were moderate for these traits in relation to the aggression paradigm, these were larger than the mean effect found for many other commonly examined personality predictors of behavioral aggression (Bettencourt, Talley, Benjamin, & Valentine, 2006). Although psychopathy scales related to disinhibited, impulsive, and irresponsible
Table 4 Relations between psychopathy factors and behavioral aggression in Samples 1 and 2. Behavioral aggression composite r
sr
Sample 1 Factor 1: Antagonism Factor 2: Disinhibition Factor 3: Fearless Dominance
.37* .21* .06
.32* −.01 −.09
Sample 2 SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation SRP-III Callous Affect SRP-III Erratic Lifestyle SRP-III Antisocial Behavior EPA Antagonism EPA Emotional Stability EPA Disinhibition EPA Narcissism
.19 .34** .24* .18 .35** .09 .19 .26**
−.05 .25* .08 .01 .22* .04 −.02 −.08
Note. *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01. r = bivariate correlation; sr = semi-partial correlations represent the unique relations between the psychopathy traits (within each measure in Sample 2) and aggression controlling for the overlap among the psychopathy traits.
184
J.D. Miller et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 180–184
behavior (i.e., Disinhibition) manifested some relations with aggression, these relations were no longer significant in analyses examining the unique relations among the psychopathy scales and the aggression composite. Controlling for the shared variance among psychopathy traits, only the antagonistic psychopathy components were related to aggression in both the community and undergraduate samples. The current findings are not only consistent with previous studies documenting the central role that these psychopathy traits play in aggressive behavior manifested in laboratory settings (e.g., Reidy et al., 2011) but a larger literature on the relations between general personality traits and aggression. Meta-analytic reviews of the relations between personality and antisocial behavior and aggression document the reliable and relatively robust correlations between domains such as Agreeableness with aggression and antisociality (Bettencourt, Talley, Benjamin, & Valentine, 2006; Jones, Miller, & Lynam, 2011). Unfortunately, the current study does not address the mechanisms by which these traits exert their influence on aggression but they likely include diminished empathy for others, hostile attribution biases (Miller, Lynam, & Jones, 2008), a tendency to be primed for aggression more easily by aggression-related cues (Meier, Robinson, & Wilkowski, 2006), a focus on negative rather than positive interpersonal stimuli (Bresin & Robinson, 2015), and the willingness to use destructive tactics in interpersonal situations that lead to inequitable solutions (JensenCampbell & Graziano, 2001). 4.1. Limitations and conclusions An important limitation of the current study is that both samples were relatively small and thus had lower statistical power. Similarly, the reliance on self-report measures of psychopathy, while typical of studies of this type, is another limitation; the use of alternative measures such as the Psychopathy Checklist–Screening Version (Hare, 2003) would strengthen future studies. Finally, Sample 1 is smaller than is ideal for an EFA and thus the exact structure may not replicate, although it is consistent with known psychopathy structures (i.e., Patrick et al., 2009). Overall, the current results suggest that the element of psychopathy that appears to be most central to the construct and its relation with aggressive behavior is related to emotional detachment and interpersonal Antagonism (Lynam & Miller, in press). Although other traits are important to the psychopathy construct (e.g., Disinhibition), these are less strongly linked to aggression, at least the type manifested in these laboratory paradigms. Continued research on the mechanisms by which these traits manifest in these outcomes is needed. References American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5). Bettencourt, B., Talley, A., Benjamin, A. J., & Valentine, J. (2006). Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 751–777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00332909.132.5.751. Bresin, K., & Robinson, M. D. (2015). You are what you see and choose: Agreeableness and situation selection. Journal of Personality, 83, 452–463. Cornell, D. G., Warren, J., Hawk, G., Stafford, E., Oram, G., & Pine, D. (1996). Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive violent offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(4), 783–790. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.64.4.783. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Lutz, FL: PAR, Inc. Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare psychopathy checklist — Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto: MultiHealth Systems. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02289447. Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 323–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-6494.00148.
Jones, S. E., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2011). Personality, antisocial behavior, and aggression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(4), 329–337. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.03.004. Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.68.1.151. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). Professional manual for the Psychopathic Personality Inventory—Revised: (PPI-R). Lutz, FL: PAR, Inc. Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., Berg, J., Sellbom, M., & Edens, J. F. (2012). The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: Confusions, controversies, and clarifications. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 327–340. Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., Francis Smith, S., Berg, J. M., & Latzman, R. D. (2014). Psychopathy deconstructed and reconstructed: Identifying and assembling the Personality building blocks of Cleckley's chimera. Journal of Personality. Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2012). Fearless dominance and psychopathy: Response to Lilienfeld et al. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 341–353. Lynam, D. R., Gaughan, E. T., Miller, J. D., Miller, D. J., Mullins-Sweatt, S., & Widiger, T. A. (2011). Assessing the basic traits associated with psychopathy: Development and validation of the elemental psychopathy assessment. Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 108–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021146. Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2015). Psychopathy from a basic trait perspective: The utility of a five-factor model approach. Journal of Personality. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy. 12132 (in press). Marcus, D. K., Fulton, J. J., & Edens, J. F. (2013). The two-factor model of psychopathic personality: Evidence from the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4(1), 67–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025282. Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2006). Turning the other cheek. Agreeableness and the regulation of aggression-related primes. Psychological Science, 17(2), 136–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01676.x. Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2012). An examination of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory's nomological network: A meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(3), 305–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024567. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., & Jones, S. E. (2008). Externalizing behavior through the lens of the five factor model: A focus on agreeableness and conscientiousness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(2), 158–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00223890701845245. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D., Widiger, T. A., & Leukefeld, C. (2001). Personality disorders as an extreme variant of common personality dimensions: Can the five-factor model represent psychopathy. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 253–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-6494.00144. Miller, J. D., Rausher, S., Hyatt, C. S., Maples, J., & Zeichner, A. (2014). Examining the relations among pain tolerance, psychopathic traits, and violent and non-violent antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123(1), 205–213. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037/a0035072. Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Pardini, D. A. (2015). Antisociality and the construct of psychopathy: Data from across the globe. Journal of Personality. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/jopy.12127 (in press). Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Developmental Psychopathology, 21(3), 913–938. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000492. Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. F., & Hare, R. D. (2015). Manual for the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-III). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems (in press). Porter, S., & Woodworth, M. (2006). Psychopathy and aggression. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of Psychopathy (pp. 481–494). New York, NY: Guilford Publications. Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., Miller, J. D., & Martinez, M. A. (2007). Psychopathy and aggression: Examining the role of psychopathy factors in predicting laboratory aggression under hostile and instrumental conditions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(6), 1244–1251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.03.001. Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Seibert, L. A. (2011). Unprovoked aggression: Effects of psychopathic traits and sadism. Journal of Personality, 79(1), 75–100. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00691.x. Seibert, L. A., Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., Zeichner, A., & Lynam, D. R. (2011). An examination of the structure of self-report psychopathy measures and their relations with general traits and externalizing behaviors. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 2(3), 193–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019232. Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Zapolski, T. C. (2009). On the value of homogeneous constructs for construct validation, theory testing, and the description of psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 272–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016699. Taylor, S. P. (1967). Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a function of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression. Journal of Personality, 35(2), 297–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01430.x. Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02293557. Widom, C. S. (1977). A methodology for studying noninstitutionalized psychopaths. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(4), 674–683. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037/0022-006x.45.4.674.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Psychopathic traits and aggression: Which trait components predict aggressive responding in a laboratory task? Joshua D. Miller ⁎, Lauren F. Wilson, Courtland S. Hyatt, Amos Zeichner University of Georgia, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 15 April 2015 Received in revised form 17 June 2015 Accepted 3 August 2015 Available online 16 August 2015 Keywords: Psychopathy Aggression Laboratory paradigm
a b s t r a c t Psychopathy is a complex personality disorder comprising traits related to interpersonal and emotional callousness, egocentricity, and manipulativeness, cognitive and behavioral disinhibition, emotional resilience and fearlessness, and a bold interpersonal style. Aggressive behavior is considered by many one of the central behavioral correlates or consequences of psychopathy. In the current study, we examined the relations between psychopathic traits and aggression manifested in a behavioral shock paradigm in two samples (Sample 1: undergraduates — N = 101; Sample 2: community sample — N = 104). Across both samples, traits related to Antagonism and Disinhibition were significantly correlated with aggressive responding within this paradigm (i.e., shocking more frequently, intensely, and for a longer duration). When controlling for the overlap among psychopathy traits, only the Antagonism-related traits were uniquely correlated with aggressive responding. These findings are consistent with a growing literature that suggests that traits related to Antagonism both within psychopathy and a general trait framework are vital to the propensity to act aggressively towards others. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Psychopathy is a personality disorder consisting of traits such as callousness, remorselessness, arrogance, manipulativeness, superficial charm, impulsivity, and irresponsibility (e.g., Hare, 2003) and is associated with persistent and severe antisocial behavior (e.g., Neumann, Hare, & Pardini, in press). A substantial empirical literature links psychopathic traits with aggressive behaviors (e.g., Porter & Woodworth, 2006), including both reactive (i.e., defensive, reactionary) and proactive (i.e., instrumental, goal-oriented) aggression (Miller, Rausher, Hyatt, Maples, & Zeichner, 2014). Understanding the relations between psychopathy and aggression is complicated by a number of factors including the multidimensionality of psychopathy (e.g. Lilienfeld et al., in press; Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leukefeld, 2001) and the reliance primarily on self-report indices of aggression, although some studies have used official records (e.g., Cornell et al., 1996). Until recently, there were very few studies of the relations between psychopathic traits and aggression using behavioral paradigms (e.g., Reidy, Zeichner, Miller, & Martinez, 2007), which provide stronger methodological control by eliminating important potential confounds (e.g., differing levels or types of provocation). In the current study, we examine the utility of various psychopathy traits related to a cold and callous interpersonal style (i.e., Antagonism; Meanness), impulse control difficulties (i.e., Disinhibition), and a fearless and bold disposition in predicting ⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.D. Miller).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.08.008 0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
aggressive responding in a laboratory paradigm in both undergraduate (Sample 1) and community samples (Sample 2). The use of a community sample is important as existing laboratory based studies to date have relied on college samples. 1.1. Underlying factor structure of psychopathic traits Psychopathy comprises a multitude of underlying traits. For the past 25 years, a “factor 1” vs. “factor 2” approach was used to divide psychopathy into constituent parts in which interpersonal and affective traits (e.g., Factor 1: manipulation; grandiosity; callousness) were compared to traits and behaviors associated with social deviance (e.g., Factor 2: impulsivity; irresponsibility; early behavioral problems). More recently, alternative multidimensional models of psychopathy have been developed. For instance, Lilienfeld and others (e.g., Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) put forth a two-factor model comprising higher order domains of fearless dominance and self-centered impulsivity. Building off this work, Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger (2009) articulated a three-factor model comprising boldness (akin to Lilienfeld's Fearless Dominance), meanness (e.g., exploitativeness; cruelty; callousness), and disinhibition (e.g., impulsivity; poor delay of gratification; affective dysregulation) (the latter two domains representing aspects of Lilienfeld's Selfcentered Impulsivity). Alternatively, Lynam and colleagues have used an approach informed by the structure of general personality to conceptualize psychopathy (e.g., Lynam & Miller, in press) in which they hypothesize that psychopathy is a configuration of general personality traits composed primarily of low Agreeableness (Antagonism) and low Conscientiousness (Disinhibition) with smaller and more varied
J.D. Miller et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 180–184
relations to five-factor model (FFM) domains of neuroticism and extraversion. The articulation of more fine-grained, elemental models of psychopathy is an important advance; the use of narrower, more homogeneous constructs in research settings provides opportunities for the development of a more valid and sophisticated nomological network (e.g., Smith, McCarthy, & Zapolski, 2009). At the same time, these developments have led to debates surrounding the centrality of various dimensions. For instance, many of these newer models suggest that psychopathy traits such as fearless dominance or boldness are largely unrelated or marginally related to other psychopathy traits such as meanness or Disinhibition and manifest divergent trait and behavioral correlates including aggression and antisocial behavior (e.g., Marcus, Fulton, & Edens, 2013; Miller & Lynam, 2012). Some have argued that these traits mostly measure an adaptive construct comprising very low neuroticism and very high extraversion (Miller & Lynam, 2012, cf, Lilienfeld et al., 2012). Examinations of the manner in which different psychopathy measures and their traits relate to one another and to key outcomes are of high priority as the field of psychopathy continues to debate the central and more peripheral components of this construct. 1.2. Goals of the current project The goal of this project was to test the manner in which psychopathic traits, assessed with multiple measures, predict aggressive responding in a laboratory aggression paradigm. Importantly, these relations are examined using both undergraduate and community samples, which allows for an important test of the generalizability of these findings. Consistent with the limited literature to date (e.g., Reidy, Zeichner, & Seibert, 2011), we expected that the traits related to an antagonistic (i.e., cold, callous, self-centered) interpersonal and emotional disposition would be the primary predictors of laboratory-based aggression. Because a wider array of psychopathy measures were assessed in Sample 1, exploratory factor analyses (EFA) were used to examine the underlying latent factors represented by these measures and their relations to both general traits of personality as represented by the FFM and aggression. We believe that it is helpful to examine the underlying psychopathy factors revealed in the EFA in relation to general personality dimensions, as psychopathy (e.g., Miller et al., 2001) and personality disorders more generally (e.g., American Psychiatric Association, 2013) can be understood as configurations of general personality traits. These analyses provide a useful framework for understanding how these psychopathy traits bridge to more basic trait domains. 2. Methods 2.1. Participants 2.1.1. Sample 1 Participants were 133 undergraduates recruited from the research pool at a large U.S. university who received course credit for their participation. Thirty two participants were excluded from analyses due to technical problems, because their responses on a manipulation check suggested that they did not believe they were competing against another individual as part of the laboratory aggression paradigm, or elevated scores on one of two validity scales. The final sample comprised 56 men and 45 women (Mage = 19.15; SD = 1.33; 79% Caucasian, 5% African American, 5% Asian, 5% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 6% Other/ unknown). After providing informed consent, participants completed questionnaires including demographic information, psychopathy measures, and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Next, participants came to the laboratory for a separate session to complete the Response Choice Aggression Paradigm (RCAP), a laboratory-based aggression paradigm. Participants were debriefed at the completion of the study. IRB approval was obtained for this study.
181
2.1.2. Sample 2 Participants were recruited via advertisements placed in a freelyavailable local newspaper, fliers placed throughout the local community, and by word of mouth. In order to oversample for psychopathic traits, two advertisements were used — one which called for individuals who thought of themselves as charming, aggressive, carefree, impulsive, and irresponsible, but good at “handling people” and looking after “number one” (e.g., Widom, 1977). The other advertisement provided only generic information regarding a study on personality. Participants who were eligible to participate (e.g., between ages of 18 and 65; no symptoms of psychosis) came in for an assessment that included informed consent, completion of personality questionnaires and other laboratory-based tasks. Participants were paid $30 as compensation. IRB approval was obtained for this study. One hundred-twenty individuals participated in the study but data from 16 individuals were excluded because they provided invalid data as indicated by either of the two EPA validity scales or other markers (e.g., completed all self-report assessments in a time that was deemed implausible) or were not misled by the experimental manipulation. Data from 104 individuals are included in the current study (Mage = 30.87, SD = 10.8; 71% male; 64% White, 22% Black, 6% Biracial, 5% Asian; 8% Hispanic). 2.2. Measures in Study 1 and 2 2.2.1. Elemental psychopathy assessment (EPA) The EPA (Lynam et al., 2011) is a 178-item self-report measure of psychopathy that provides a total score, four factor scores, 18 subscale scores, and two validity scales (Infrequency; Virtue). The four higher order factors – Antagonism, Disinhibition, Emotional Stability, and Narcissism – were used in the current study. Alphas for the factors ranged from .85 (Narcissism) to .93 (Emotional Stability) in Sample 1 and .88 (Narcissism and Emotional Stability) to .94 (Disinhibition) in Sample 2. 2.2.2. Self-report psychopathy—III (SRP-III) The SRP-III (Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, in press) is a 64-item selfreport measure of psychopathy. In the current study, we used the higher order factors of Interpersonal Manipulation, Callous Affect, Erratic Lifestyle, and Antisocial Behavior. Alphas for the factors ranged from .68 (Antisocial Behavior) to .82 (Interpersonal Manipulation) in Sample 1 and from .76 (Erratic Lifestyle) to .83 (Interpersonal Manipulation) in Sample 2. 2.3. Measures in Sample 1 only 2.3.1. Levenson's Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP) The LSRP (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995) is a 26-item selfreport inventory designed to measure psychopathy in noninstitutionalized samples, which provides a global score and two factor scores (LSRP Factors 1 and 2). In this study, alphas for LSRP Factors 1 and 2 were .87 and .70, respectively. 2.3.2. Psychopathic Personality Inventory—Revised (PPI-R) The PPI-R (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) is a 154-item self-report measure of psychopathy that provides scores for eight subscales, as well as a global score and two factor scores (PPI-R Fearless Dominance and Selfcentered Impulsivity). In the current study, the two higher-order factors were used as well as the one “orphan scale” that does not load on either of the factors — Coldheartedness. Alphas for Fearless Dominance, Selfcentered Impulsivity, and Coldheartedness were .93, .90, and .80, respectively. 2.3.3. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) The NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 240-item self-report measure of the FFM that assesses the higher-order domains of Neuroticism,
182
J.D. Miller et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 180–184
from − .38 (EPA Emotional Stability with EPA Disinhibition) to .73 (SRP-III Callous Affect with EPA Antagonism) with a median of .47. Because of the large number of scales included in Sample 1, we submitted the 13 psychopathy subscales to an EFA with a promax rotation, which resulted in three eigenvalues with values of 1.0 or greater and a scree plot suggestive of three factors as well. However, as the SRP Antisocial Behavior scale manifested a much lower communality (.27) than the rest of the psychopathy scales (range of communalities = .40 to .92; median = .66), it was removed and the EFA was repeated. Again, three factors emerged with eigenvalues over 1.0 that accounted for 74.5% of the overall variance. Next, we employed Horn's (1965) Parallel Analysis (PA) method, using permutations of the raw data, and Velicer's (1976) Minimum Average Partial (MAP) method, to identify the optimal number of factors. Results of both of analyses were also supportive of a three-factor solution, which is presented in Table 2. Factor 1 – titled Antagonism – comprised many of the scales typically associated with “Factor 1 psychopathy:” SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation and Callous Affect, EPA Antagonism, PPI-R Coldheartedness, and LSRP Factor 1. Factor 2 – titled Disinhibition – comprised many of the scales typically associated with “Factor 2 psychopathy:” SRP Erratic Lifestyle, EPA Disinhibition, PPI-R Self-centered Impulsivity, and LSRP Factor 2. Finally, Factor 3 – titled Fearless Dominance – comprised EPA Emotional Stability and EPA Narcissism, as well as PPI-R Fearless Dominance. Unitweighted factor scores were created by summing z-scored values for the scales that loaded on each of the three factors. The Antagonism factor was significantly correlated with the Disinhibition (r = .58) and Fearless Dominance factors (r = .39), and Disinhibition and Fearless Dominance factors were significantly correlated as well (r = .29).
Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Alphas ranged from .89 to .93. 2.3.4. Response Choice Aggression Paradigm (RCAP) The RCAP is based on Taylor's TAP task (Taylor, 1967) and is designed to assess direct, physical aggression via electrical shock in a laboratory setting as an analogue to naturally-occurring aggression. The same RCAP protocol was used in both samples. Participants are informed that the procedure is a competitive reaction-time task in which they (ostensibly) compete against another individual (i.e., a fictional opponent) to whom they can deliver shocks and from whom they may receive shocks. Participants are told they would be able to hear their opponent (a pre-recorded simulation) during the pain tolerance assessment administered in order to determine the levels of shock to be used in the procedure. 2.4. Procedure Participants were seated facing an “aggression console,” comprising electrical switches and light emitting diodes (LEDs). They were instructed to follow a light sequence and press and release a button that provided an ostensible measurement of reaction time. Participants were given bogus feedback regarding “wins” and “losses” and were then given a 6-second interval in which they could choose to shock or refrain from shocking their opponent as “punishment.” Ten shock intensities ranging from “1” to “10” were available and represented shocks consistent with 55% to 100% of what the participant reported as a painful shock during a pain tolerance assessment. All participants received the same win–loss and shock sequence during the 30-trial experiment and received visual feedback (via LED) regarding the shock levels “chosen” by their fictitious opponent. In both samples, we combined three RCAP scores to create an aggression composite: mean shock intensity (mean shock intensity for trials in which the participant administers a shock), mean shock duration (mean shock duration for trials in which the participant administers shocks), and shock frequency (the number of trials in which the participant administers a shock). These aggression scores were significantly correlated with one another (median rsample 1 = .57; rsample 2 = .68) and combined (after being z-scored) to create a reliable composite (Sample 1: α = .80; Sample 2: α = .84).
3.2. Psychopathy factors and FFM domains In order to test the degree to which the EFA-based psychopathy factors aligned with general traits from the FFM, we examined the bivariate and semi-partial correlations between the three psychopathy factor scores and the FFM domains. The semi-partial correlations provide information on the unique relations between the psychopathy scores, controlling for their overlap, and each FFM domain (see Table 3). At the bivariate level, both the Antagonism and Disinhibition psychopathy factors were significantly correlated with the domains of Agreeableness (rs = −.83 and −.47, respectively) and Conscientiousness (rs = −.35 and − .83, respectively). The Fearless Dominance psychopathy factor was significantly negatively correlated with Neuroticism (− .62) and Agreeableness (−.34) and positively related to Extraversion (.60). Controlling for the overlap among the psychopathy factors, the Antagonism psychopathy factor was strongly negatively related to Agreeableness, moderately negatively related to Openness and Extraversion, and manifested a small positive relation with Conscientiousness. The Disinhibition psychopathy factor was uniquely, strongly negatively related to Conscientiousness and moderately positively related to
3. Results 3.1. Relations among self-report psychopathy scales In Sample 1, the 13 psychopathy scales demonstrated correlations with one another ranging from − .20 (EPA Emotional Stability with LSRP Factor 2) to .72 (PPI-R Self-centered Impulsivity with LSRP Factor 2 and SRP-III Erratic Lifestyle), with a median of .35 (see Table 1). In Sample 2, the 8 psychopathy scales demonstrated correlations ranging Table 1 Interrelations among psychopathy factors.
1. SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation 2. SRP-III Callous Affect 3. SRP-III Erratic Lifestyle 4. SRP-III Antisocial Behavior 5. EPA Antagonism 6. EPA Emotional Stability 7. EPA Disinhibition 8. EPA Narcissism 9. PPI-R Fearless Dominance 10. PPI-R Self-centered Impulsivity 11. PPI-R Coldheartedness 12. LSRP Factor 1 13. LSRP Factor 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
– .61 .59 .45 .66 .24 .39 .44 .41 .58 .54 .69 .32
.58 – .62 .26 .64 .25 .42 .28 .32 .58 .65 .56 .39
.61 .53 – .40 .41 .24 .71 .34 .54 .72 .35 .46 .56
.44 .46 .49 – .30 .18 .45 .34 .27 .43 .30 .38 .30
.69 .73 .59 .51 – .09 .42 .18 .22 .44 .61 .65 .23
.15 .30 −.02 .19 .09 – −.02 .33 .70 −.01 .38 .16 −.20
.46 .32 .72 .41 .60 −.38 – .45 .36 .66 .19 .31 .58
.47 .47 .48 .44 .53 .10 .44 – .58 .32 .17 .34 .14
– .29 .27 .31 .04
– .45 .54 .72
– .60 .22
– .38
–
Note. Correlations from Sample 1 are below the diagonal; correlations from Sample 2 are above the diagonal.
J.D. Miller et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 180–184 Table 2 Exploratory factor analysis of psychopathy scales in Sample 1.
PPIR Coldheartedness EPA Antagonism LSRP Factor 1 SRP-III Callous Affect SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation EPA Disinhibition LSRP Factor 2 PPIR Self-centered Impulsivity SRP-III Erratic Lifestyle PPIR Fearless Dominance EPA Emotional Stability EPA Narcissism
Table 3 FFM personality correlates of psychopathy factors in Sample 1.
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor
Antagonism
Disinhibition
Fearless Dominance
.89 .85 .72 .64 .62 −.13 .00 .22 .07 −.12 .17 −.04
−.20 .01 .09 .19 .17 .85 .84 .77 .70 .12 −.37 .26
183
.03 −.12 −.01 .04 .14 .11 −.26 −.07 .26 .99 .79 .51
Note. Factor loadings ≥.40 are bolded.
Neuroticism and Openness. Finally, the Fearless Dominance psychopathy factor was uniquely strongly related to Extraversion (positively) and Neuroticism (negatively). 3.3. Psychopathy factors and behavioral aggression We next examined the bivariate correlations between the three psychopathy factors and the behavioral aggression composite (see Table 4).1 Both the Antagonism and Disinhibition psychopathy factors were statistically significantly related to aggressive responding. These findings were partially replicated in Sample 2 using participants from the community where EPA Antagonism, SRP-III Callous Affect, and EPA Narcissism were the three significant correlates of the behavioral aggression composite. We also examined the unique relations among the psychopathy factors and the aggression composite by calculating semi-partial correlations among the psychopathy factors and the behavioral aggression scores, controlling for the overlap among the psychopathy factors (Sample 1) and subscales (Sample 2). Across samples, only the psychopathy factor/scales related to a cold, callous, and antagonistic interpersonal and emotional personality style were uniquely related to aggressive responding.2 4. Discussion Modern advances in the conceptualization and measurement of psychopathy have resulted in multidimensional models that partition psychopathy into smaller, more homogeneous components; typically somewhere between 2–4 factors are used to summarize an even larger number of more specific and narrow traits. The traits that comprise these models overlap substantially such that most models contain a factor related to callous and antagonistic interpersonal and emotional dimensions (e.g., Antagonism; Meanness; Self-centered Impulsivity; Callous-unemotional; Factor 1 Psychopathy) and a factor related to impulse control deficiencies (e.g., Disinhibition; Self-centered Impulsivity; Erratic Lifestyle; Factor 2 Psychopathy). More recently, there has been a growing emphasis on measuring traits related to emotional resilience and dominance, either together (e.g., Fearless Dominance; boldness) or separately (e.g., Emotional Stability; Narcissism), as a core part of the broader psychopathy construct, although the importance of these latter traits remains an issue of substantial debate (Lilienfeld et al., 1 The correlations between the individual psychopathy scales from Sample 1 (e.g., PPI Coldheartedness) and behavioral aggression composite are available upon request from the first author. 2 The correlations between the psychopathy scales/factors and the individual aggression components that make up the overall composite (i.e., shock intensity, duration, and frequency) were generally quite similar and did not suggest that any one component was responsible for the majority of the variance in the composite scores.
NEO PI-R Domains
Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness
Factor 1: Antagonism
Factor 2: Disinhibition
Factor 3: Fearless Dominance
r
sr
r
sr
r
sr
−.09 −.10 −.14 −.83** −.35**
−.09 −.39** −.41** −.82** .18*
.23 .02 .20* −.47** −.83**
.49** .05 .40** .02 −.95**
−.62** .60** .11 −.34** −.11
−.73** .74** .16 −.02 .10
Note. *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01. r = bivariate correlation; sr = semipartial correlations represent the relations between the psychopathy factors and each FFM domain controlling for the overlap among the psychopathy factors.
2012; Lynam & Miller, 2012; Miller & Lynam, 2012). Consistent with meta-analytic findings, the fearless dominance factor manifested little evidence of maladaptivity given its null relation with aggressive behavior — an outcome considered by many to be an important correlate of psychopathy. The use of fine-grained conceptualizations and assessments allows for a clearer discernment of which portions of the overall psychopathy construct are related to the outcomes of greatest interest such as aggression, antisocial behavior, treatment responsiveness, and recidivism, to name a few, which provides a more well-articulated nomological network for psychopathy. In the current study, we used several multidimensional measures of psychopathy to examine which traits are responsible for the wellestablished link between psychopathy and aggression (Porter & Woodworth, 2006), particularly aggression manifested in a laboratory paradigm. Few previous studies have examined the link between psychopathy and aggression manifested in these paradigms but have typically used undergraduate samples only (e.g., Seibert, Miller, Few, Zeichner, & Lynam, 2011) or single assessments of psychopathy (e.g., Reidy et al., 2007). The current study expands on these studies by reporting data from both college and community samples (the latter included participants oversampled for psychopathy) and using multiple measures of psychopathy. Nonetheless, these findings were consistent with previous studies in demonstrating that it is the traits contained within the Antagonism-related scales that are most robustly related to aggression in these settings and in response to these tasks. While the effect sizes were moderate for these traits in relation to the aggression paradigm, these were larger than the mean effect found for many other commonly examined personality predictors of behavioral aggression (Bettencourt, Talley, Benjamin, & Valentine, 2006). Although psychopathy scales related to disinhibited, impulsive, and irresponsible
Table 4 Relations between psychopathy factors and behavioral aggression in Samples 1 and 2. Behavioral aggression composite r
sr
Sample 1 Factor 1: Antagonism Factor 2: Disinhibition Factor 3: Fearless Dominance
.37* .21* .06
.32* −.01 −.09
Sample 2 SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation SRP-III Callous Affect SRP-III Erratic Lifestyle SRP-III Antisocial Behavior EPA Antagonism EPA Emotional Stability EPA Disinhibition EPA Narcissism
.19 .34** .24* .18 .35** .09 .19 .26**
−.05 .25* .08 .01 .22* .04 −.02 −.08
Note. *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01. r = bivariate correlation; sr = semi-partial correlations represent the unique relations between the psychopathy traits (within each measure in Sample 2) and aggression controlling for the overlap among the psychopathy traits.
184
J.D. Miller et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 87 (2015) 180–184
behavior (i.e., Disinhibition) manifested some relations with aggression, these relations were no longer significant in analyses examining the unique relations among the psychopathy scales and the aggression composite. Controlling for the shared variance among psychopathy traits, only the antagonistic psychopathy components were related to aggression in both the community and undergraduate samples. The current findings are not only consistent with previous studies documenting the central role that these psychopathy traits play in aggressive behavior manifested in laboratory settings (e.g., Reidy et al., 2011) but a larger literature on the relations between general personality traits and aggression. Meta-analytic reviews of the relations between personality and antisocial behavior and aggression document the reliable and relatively robust correlations between domains such as Agreeableness with aggression and antisociality (Bettencourt, Talley, Benjamin, & Valentine, 2006; Jones, Miller, & Lynam, 2011). Unfortunately, the current study does not address the mechanisms by which these traits exert their influence on aggression but they likely include diminished empathy for others, hostile attribution biases (Miller, Lynam, & Jones, 2008), a tendency to be primed for aggression more easily by aggression-related cues (Meier, Robinson, & Wilkowski, 2006), a focus on negative rather than positive interpersonal stimuli (Bresin & Robinson, 2015), and the willingness to use destructive tactics in interpersonal situations that lead to inequitable solutions (JensenCampbell & Graziano, 2001). 4.1. Limitations and conclusions An important limitation of the current study is that both samples were relatively small and thus had lower statistical power. Similarly, the reliance on self-report measures of psychopathy, while typical of studies of this type, is another limitation; the use of alternative measures such as the Psychopathy Checklist–Screening Version (Hare, 2003) would strengthen future studies. Finally, Sample 1 is smaller than is ideal for an EFA and thus the exact structure may not replicate, although it is consistent with known psychopathy structures (i.e., Patrick et al., 2009). Overall, the current results suggest that the element of psychopathy that appears to be most central to the construct and its relation with aggressive behavior is related to emotional detachment and interpersonal Antagonism (Lynam & Miller, in press). Although other traits are important to the psychopathy construct (e.g., Disinhibition), these are less strongly linked to aggression, at least the type manifested in these laboratory paradigms. Continued research on the mechanisms by which these traits manifest in these outcomes is needed. References American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5). Bettencourt, B., Talley, A., Benjamin, A. J., & Valentine, J. (2006). Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 751–777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00332909.132.5.751. Bresin, K., & Robinson, M. D. (2015). You are what you see and choose: Agreeableness and situation selection. Journal of Personality, 83, 452–463. Cornell, D. G., Warren, J., Hawk, G., Stafford, E., Oram, G., & Pine, D. (1996). Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive violent offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(4), 783–790. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.64.4.783. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Lutz, FL: PAR, Inc. Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare psychopathy checklist — Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto: MultiHealth Systems. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02289447. Jensen-Campbell, L. A., & Graziano, W. G. (2001). Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 323–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-6494.00148.
Jones, S. E., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2011). Personality, antisocial behavior, and aggression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(4), 329–337. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.03.004. Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151–158. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.68.1.151. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). Professional manual for the Psychopathic Personality Inventory—Revised: (PPI-R). Lutz, FL: PAR, Inc. Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., Berg, J., Sellbom, M., & Edens, J. F. (2012). The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: Confusions, controversies, and clarifications. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 327–340. Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., Francis Smith, S., Berg, J. M., & Latzman, R. D. (2014). Psychopathy deconstructed and reconstructed: Identifying and assembling the Personality building blocks of Cleckley's chimera. Journal of Personality. Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2012). Fearless dominance and psychopathy: Response to Lilienfeld et al. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 341–353. Lynam, D. R., Gaughan, E. T., Miller, J. D., Miller, D. J., Mullins-Sweatt, S., & Widiger, T. A. (2011). Assessing the basic traits associated with psychopathy: Development and validation of the elemental psychopathy assessment. Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 108–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021146. Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2015). Psychopathy from a basic trait perspective: The utility of a five-factor model approach. Journal of Personality. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy. 12132 (in press). Marcus, D. K., Fulton, J. J., & Edens, J. F. (2013). The two-factor model of psychopathic personality: Evidence from the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4(1), 67–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025282. Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2006). Turning the other cheek. Agreeableness and the regulation of aggression-related primes. Psychological Science, 17(2), 136–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01676.x. Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2012). An examination of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory's nomological network: A meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(3), 305–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024567. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., & Jones, S. E. (2008). Externalizing behavior through the lens of the five factor model: A focus on agreeableness and conscientiousness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(2), 158–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 00223890701845245. Miller, J. D., Lynam, D., Widiger, T. A., & Leukefeld, C. (2001). Personality disorders as an extreme variant of common personality dimensions: Can the five-factor model represent psychopathy. Journal of Personality, 69(2), 253–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-6494.00144. Miller, J. D., Rausher, S., Hyatt, C. S., Maples, J., & Zeichner, A. (2014). Examining the relations among pain tolerance, psychopathic traits, and violent and non-violent antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123(1), 205–213. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037/a0035072. Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Pardini, D. A. (2015). Antisociality and the construct of psychopathy: Data from across the globe. Journal of Personality. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/jopy.12127 (in press). Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Developmental Psychopathology, 21(3), 913–938. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000492. Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. F., & Hare, R. D. (2015). Manual for the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-III). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems (in press). Porter, S., & Woodworth, M. (2006). Psychopathy and aggression. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of Psychopathy (pp. 481–494). New York, NY: Guilford Publications. Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., Miller, J. D., & Martinez, M. A. (2007). Psychopathy and aggression: Examining the role of psychopathy factors in predicting laboratory aggression under hostile and instrumental conditions. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(6), 1244–1251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.03.001. Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Seibert, L. A. (2011). Unprovoked aggression: Effects of psychopathic traits and sadism. Journal of Personality, 79(1), 75–100. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00691.x. Seibert, L. A., Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., Zeichner, A., & Lynam, D. R. (2011). An examination of the structure of self-report psychopathy measures and their relations with general traits and externalizing behaviors. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 2(3), 193–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019232. Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Zapolski, T. C. (2009). On the value of homogeneous constructs for construct validation, theory testing, and the description of psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 272–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016699. Taylor, S. P. (1967). Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a function of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression. Journal of Personality, 35(2), 297–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01430.x. Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02293557. Widom, C. S. (1977). A methodology for studying noninstitutionalized psychopaths. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(4), 674–683. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1037/0022-006x.45.4.674.