Psychopathic Personality Inventory

Last updated
Psychopathic Personality Inventory
PurposeIdentifies traits of psychopathy

The Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI-Revised) is a personality test for traits associated with psychopathy in adults. The PPI was developed by Scott Lilienfeld and Brian Andrews to assess these traits in non-criminal (e.g. university students) populations, though it is still used in clinical (e.g. incarcerated) populations as well. [1] [2] In contrast to other psychopathy measures, such as the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL), the PPI is a self-report scale, rather than an interview-based assessment. It is intended to comprehensively index psychopathic personality traits without assuming particular links to anti-social or criminal behaviors. It also includes measures to detect impression management or careless responding.

Contents

Factor structure

Development

Original subscales

The items used in the original version of the PPI were based on a number of conceptual constructs theorized (by previous researchers such as Hervey Cleckley and Robert D. Hare) to be related to psychopathy. It consists of a series of statements to which subjects respond on how accurately the statement describes them using a 4-point Likert scale ("false, "mostly false", "mostly true", "true").

Factor analysis of the initial 160 items revealed 8 factors: [3]

  • Machiavellian egocentricity (ME): A ruthless and self-centered willingness to exploit others [4]
  • Social potency (SOP): The ability to charm and influence others
  • Coldheartedness (C): A distinct lack of emotion, guilt, or regard for others' feelings
  • Carefree nonplanfulness (CN): Difficulty in planning ahead and considering the consequences of one's actions
  • Fearlessness (F): An eagerness for risk-seeking behaviors, as well as a lack of the fear that normally goes with them
  • Blame externalization (BE): Inability to take responsibility for one's actions, instead blaming others or rationalizing one's behavior
  • Impulsive nonconformity (IN): A disregard for social norms and culturally acceptable behaviors
  • Stress immunity (STI): A lack of typical marked reactions to traumatic or otherwise stress-inducing events [5]

Additionally, the PPI also included two special validity scales designed to detect participants who were giving random, inconsistent, or insincere answers. This was to avoid attempts at malingering, and to eliminate subjects who seemed to have difficulty understanding multiple items.

Revised factors

In 2005, the PPI was revised. The new version, called the PPI-R, [6] included a reorganization of the 8 subscales into two (sometimes three) new higher-order factors:

PPI-1: Fearless dominance (FD), consisting of the social potency, stress immunity, and fearlessness subscales. Associated with less anxiety, depression, and empathy as well as higher well-being, assertiveness, narcissism, and thrill-seeking.

PPI-2: Self-centered impulsivity (SCI), consisting of the carefree nonplanfulness, impulsive nonconformity, Machiavellian egocentricity, and blame externalization subscales. Associated with impulsivity, aggressiveness, substance use, antisocial behavior, negative affect, and suicidal ideation.

A person may score at different levels on the different factors, but the total score indicates the overall extent of psychopathic personality. Higher scores on factor I are associated with emotional stability and social efficacy, as well as reduced empathy. Higher scores on factor II are associated with maladaptive tendencies, including aggressiveness, substance use problems, negative feelings and suicidal ideation. Scores on the two major factors tend to be only moderately correlated. [7]

Use of coldheartedness

Although independent analyses of the PPI's factor structure have shown support for the validity of the new 2-factor model, [8] there is some data that suggests that a 3-factor model may be better. Many analyses of the PPI tend to exclude coldheartedness and focus only on FD and SCI, but some studies have shown the two factors to be less statistically reliable when coldheartedness is not also considered separately. [9] Thus, some researchers are starting to use it as a distinct third factor in their analyses, as such meanness was a central part of Cleckley's conceptualization of a psychopath (see The Mask of Sanity ). Coldheartedness has also been shown to be distinct from the other two factors when comparing across other personality models, such as the Five-factor model (FFM). In particular, coldheartedness has significantly negative correlations with the openness and agreeableness dimensions of the FFM. [10]

In 2015, researchers from Baylor University proposed the connection between psychopaths' coldheartedness and their inability to “catch” the contagious yawning. [11] Those who had more psychopathic qualities were less likely to yawn while watching the yawning clip. [12]

Relationship to other psychopathy theories

The fearless dominance and self-centered impulsivity factors are similar to the concepts of primary and secondary psychopathy. Like primary psychopathy, FD traits are related to a lack of emotional responsivity but accurate perception of emotions in others. Conversely, secondary psychopathy and SCI traits are related to difficulties in both emotional perception and control of negative emotional responses, such as anxiety, irritation, and aggressiveness. [13]

Validity

Construct validity

The PPI is based on a personality-centric theory of psychopathy. Thus, to demonstrate construct validity, the PPI should "be" as a measure of psychopathy is hypothesized to behave according to personality theory of psychopathy. (This isn't what construct validity is. I'm begging psychology majors to, just for once, open a philosophy textbook and study epistemology. As it stands, this is just circular reasoning.) According to this theory, psychopaths should possess a number of specific personality traits, including low conscientiousness, socialization, and empathy, as well as high impulsivity and sometimes aggression. Preliminary research suggests that the PPI behaves as the personality theory of psychopathy says it should. For example, one study of 100 male inmates found total PPI scores to be negatively correlated with empathy and positively correlated with aggressive behavior and borderline personality traits (such as impulsiveness, substance abuse, and unstable personal relationships). [7] Additional studies have reexamined the same variables in light of the revision of the PPI into its two new higher order factors. Splitting the PPI into two separate factor scores (instead of using only the total score) allowed new relationships that were otherwise obscured to be revealed. These included PPI-1 having a strong correlation with measures of Dominance and extraversion, whereas the total score and PPI-2 had no such relationship, but PPI-2 did show a moderate association with substance abuse and anxiety. These relationships are consistent with the conceptualizations of the two factors. [14] Thus, the PPI shows validity as a measure capable of assessing the personality theory of psychopathy. [15]

Criterion validity

The PPI demonstrates strong levels of criterion validity. It shows modest correlations with the PCL, which is considered the "gold standard" of psychopathy assessments. Any discrepancies in scores have been theorized to stem from the fact that the PPI was designed for non-forensic populations and thus focuses more on personality than behavior, while the PCL (designed to assess the disorder in criminals) puts more emphasis on antisocial behaviors in its scoring system. Additionally, each measure uses a different form of data collection (interviews and a review of personal history vs. self-reports), which could also contribute to weaker correlations between the two scores, as discrepancies in the information obtained may result in very different conclusions. [16]

Concurrent validity

The PPI exhibits moderate to strong correlations with other measures of psychopathy when used in cross-sectional designs. As stated earlier, the PCL and its derivatives are often used in criminal settings and consists of a semi-structured interview and review of the subject's criminal records. Despite being very different in format, some of the factors of the PPI correlate with the factors of the PCL. One series of studies found moderate correlations between PPI-SCI and PCL Factor 2, which like PPI-SCI examines impulsive and antisocial tendencies. The correlations between PPI-FD and PCL Factor 1 (which both examine interpersonal relations and emotional deficits) were not nearly as strong, but the researchers suggested that this was due to the method variance (self-report vs. interview/file review), and that the correlations were typical for measures of the same construct using different methods. [17] Because of this, it has been suggested that the PPI and interview-based measures of psychopathy like the PCL examine unique aspects of psychopathy while still sharing some overlap.

Gender differences

Because of the disproportionately large number of male inmates compared to female, some studies have explored whether the validity of the PPI is affected by the gender of the population. One study used an incarcerated female sample to test this, and found that while the statistical reliability of the PPI factors was the below the normal average for men, the measure proved to be satisfactory at assessing psychopathic traits in comparison to the PCL, the measure most commonly used to assess psychopathy in prison samples. [18] In comparison to other self-report measures, another study compared a female undergraduate sample with an incarcerated female sample. Although the measure correlated well with other self-report measures of psychopathy in both samples, the mean total scores between the two samples was the same, despite prisons normally having a far higher concentration of psychopaths than the general population. This suggests that the PPI has greater difficulty in detecting psychopathic traits in female criminals, possibly due to the expression of psychopathy varying by sex. [19]

Application

In 2016 psychologist Dr. Kevin Dutton enlisted several historians to rank the psychopathic traits of various US historical and political figures using the 56-item short form of the PPI-R. [20] According to that assessment, Adolf Hitler scored 169 points, Donald Trump received 171. Margaret Thatcher scored 136 points, and Elizabeth I scored 130. Jesus and Saint Paul both scored 157 points. According to Dutton, politicians and business leaders often demonstrate psychopathic qualities. [21]

Criticism

Fearless dominance

Some researchers have criticized the status of the fearless dominance (FD) factor of the PPI-R as an orthogonal factor of the psychopathy construct. A 2012 meta-analysis found that while the FD and SCI factors of the PPI-R did not overlap much, FD had very weak or non-statistically significant correlations with variables normally associated with psychopathy (such as anti-social behavior, violence, or substance abuse). [22] When compared to other two-factor models of psychopathy (such as the two factors of the PCL-R), the SCI and PPI-R total score correlated well with their corresponding factors, but FD had weak correlations with its supposed PCL equivalent. On the contrary, PPI-FD's best relationships were with positive personality traits, such as extroversion. This observation caused the researchers to suggest that the FD factor, examined alone, is actually more indicative of the personality of a mentally healthy, well-adjusted individual. They thus concluded that FD was not a valid factor of psychopathy by itself, as it did not appear to fit into the pathological definitions of psychopathic personality conceptually or empirically. [22]

In response, some of the creators and supporters of the PPI-R defended fearless dominance as a legitimate aspect of psychopathy, arguing that the authors of the meta-analysis were misinterpreting the role and importance of the factor. [23] They contended that FD helps to distinguish psychopathy from other personality disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder, and that the traits that were similar to well-adjusted individuals are part of the "mask" psychopaths put on in public. Without the presence of the FD factor (in their opinion), psychopathy would be a mere subset of anti-social behavior. They also criticized the choice of comparison variables the meta-analysis employed, noting that anti-social behavior and substance abuse are more commonly associated with the SCI factor rather than the FD factor (which would cover areas such as low empathy and immunity to stress), so their data would naturally result in weak FD correlations. Furthermore, the fact that the PCL and PPI-R are designed for different types of sample populations (criminal vs. community), and thus could have very different outcomes and relationships when comparing factors, was reason to doubt the conclusions of the meta-analysis. [23]

The authors of the meta-analysis quickly attempted to address some of these criticisms. They contended that the PPI-R supporters were downplaying the role of anti-social behavior in assessing psychopathy, and that doing so could result in accidentally identifying otherwise normal extroverts as psychopathic. [24] They also reemphasized the fact that the FD factor's best correlations were with positive personality traits such as extroversion, which to them suggests that the FD factor is a better indicator of psychological well-being rather than malfunction. Furthermore, they accused their critics of cherry picking their selections of data in order to support their own claims while criticizing the conclusions of the meta-analysis. [24]

In the end, most researchers agree that fearless dominance, by itself, is not a sufficient indicator of psychopathy, and that anti-social behavior does need to be a prominent feature regardless of whether the psychopath is a criminal or an ordinary citizen. [23] [24] The authors of the meta-analysis did admit that some of the more pathological components of FD (such as unconcern for other or self-assurance) may have a place in the description of psychopathic traits, but that a high presence of these in an individual in the absence of other psychopathy factors is not truly psychopathic personality or behavior. The two parties thus ultimately continued to disagree on the place of FD in psychopathy, with PPI-R supporters maintaining that the factor is an important distinguishing feature of the disorder, and their critics claiming it is ultimately unnecessary and may be better suited in assessing social adjustment and sanity (rather than the "moral insanity" of psychopaths). [24]

Because the PPI and PPI-R are self-report measures, there are several potential weaknesses in using it with certain populations or under certain circumstances. [25]

Positive impression management

In criminal populations, psychopathy assessments are often used in threat assessment to determine if inmates are fit for early release or solitary confinement. Thus, it is often beneficial to inmates to appear less psychopathic (less callous or manipulative, more empathetic, etc.) in order to receive a more positive assessment or judgment. Although the PPI has a validity scale built into it, the measure was designed using populations in which no real "stakes" were involved, which may have resulted in the measure being prone to manipulation by the taker when there is a need to appear "less" psychopathic. One study that explored this used a social desirability scale as well as a few direct questions about participants' honesty and motivation, given after completing the PPI. [26] The data showed that participants who were instructed to be "faking good" (intentionally trying to create a positive impression) had lower mean scores on the PPI and higher scores on the social desirability scale than those who were given no instructions or told to be honest in their answers. Despite the validity scales built into the PPI being able to indicate when such response distortion was occurring in many of the cases, a significant number of misclassifications were observed. Thus, the researchers concluded that the PPI was vulnerable to manipulation by respondents consciously attempting to present themselves in a positive light, which could limit its utility in criminal populations or any situations in which users have a significant motivation to appear well-adjusted. The study has not yet been replicated using the revised form of the scale, the PPI-R, however. [26]

Malingering

Individuals may sometimes benefit from appearing to be mentally ill, such as when attempting an insanity defense. In relation to psychopathy, individuals possessing psychopathic traits are often more apt to engage in this sort of deception for practical or amusement purposes, and thus may possibly pose a greater risk for malingering than other populations. Thus, the PPI (being a self-report measure) may be similarly vulnerable to malingering. As in the case of positive impression management, the validity scales built into the PPI were designed to detect such manipulation. One study that examined whether these scales could reliably detect feigned psychosis found that these scales did indeed classify malingering effects correctly with over 95% accuracy, including individuals with high scores. [27] This was in spite of the fact that participants were specifically told to fake some form of insanity (having even been given common symptoms of several mental illnesses to assist them), as well as being made aware that the instrument (the PPI) was designed to detect faking beforehand. Thus, the researchers concluded that higher PPI scores were not associated with greater success at malingering on the PPI (other psychopathy measures, such as the PCL and the Psychopathic Deviate scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, were used to further confirm the presence of psychopathic traits). However, because the sample did not include any participants meeting criteria for an official diagnosis of psychosis, it is unknown whether those with an actual mental illness would also be classified correctly on the validity scales. As with positive impression management, this study has yet to be replicated with the PPI-R. [27]

Related Research Articles

Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes referred to as dissocial personality disorder, is a personality disorder characterized by a limited capacity for empathy and a long-term pattern of disregard for or violation of the rights of others. Other notable symptoms include impulsivity, reckless behavior, a lack of remorse after hurting others, deceitfulness, irresponsibility, and aggressive behavior.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is a standardized psychometric test of adult personality and psychopathology. A version for adolescents also exists, the MMPI-A, and was first published in 1992. Psychologists and other mental health professionals use various versions of the MMPI to help develop treatment plans, assist with differential diagnosis, help answer legal questions, screen job candidates during the personnel selection process, or as part of a therapeutic assessment procedure.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Personality test</span> Method of assessing human personality constructs

A personality test is a method of assessing human personality constructs. Most personality assessment instruments are in fact introspective self-report questionnaire measures or reports from life records (L-data) such as rating scales. Attempts to construct actual performance tests of personality have been very limited even though Raymond Cattell with his colleague Frank Warburton compiled a list of over 2000 separate objective tests that could be used in constructing objective personality tests. One exception, however, was the Objective-Analytic Test Battery, a performance test designed to quantitatively measure 10 factor-analytically discerned personality trait dimensions. A major problem with both L-data and Q-data methods is that because of item transparency, rating scales, and self-report questionnaires are highly susceptible to motivational and response distortion ranging from lack of adequate self-insight to downright dissimulation depending on the reason/motivation for the assessment being undertaken.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Agreeableness</span> Personality trait

Agreeableness is a personality trait referring to individuals that are perceived as kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm, honest, and considerate. In personality psychology, agreeableness is one of the five major dimensions of personality structure, reflecting individual differences in cooperation and social harmony.

Psychopathy, or psychopathic personality, is a personality construct characterized by impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited and egocentric traits, masked by superficial charm and the outward appearance of apparent normalcy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psychopathy Checklist</span> Psychopathy scale

The Psychopathy Checklist or Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, now the Psychopathy Checklist—revised (PCL-R), is a psychological assessment tool that is commonly used to assess the presence and extent of psychopathy in individuals—most often those institutionalized in the criminal justice system—and to differentiate those high in this trait from those with antisocial personality disorder, a related diagnosable disorder. It is a 20-item inventory of perceived personality traits and recorded behaviors, intended to be completed on the basis of a semi-structured interview along with a review of "collateral information" such as official records. The psychopath tends to display a constellation or combination of high narcissistic, borderline, and antisocial personality disorder traits, which includes superficial charm, charisma/attractiveness, sexual seductiveness and promiscuity, affective instability, suicidality, lack of empathy, feelings of emptiness, self-harm, and splitting. In addition, sadistic and paranoid traits are usually also present.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dark triad</span> Offensive personality types

The dark triad is a psychological theory of personality, first published by Delroy L. Paulhus and Kevin M. Williams in 2002, that describes three notably offensive, but non-pathological personality types: Machiavellianism, sub-clinical narcissism, and sub-clinical psychopathy. Each of these personality types is called dark because each is considered to contain malevolent qualities.

The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF) is a self-reported personality test developed over several decades of empirical research by Raymond B. Cattell, Maurice Tatsuoka and Herbert Eber. The 16PF provides a measure of personality and can also be used by psychologists, and other mental health professionals, as a clinical instrument to help diagnose psychiatric disorders, and help with prognosis and therapy planning. The 16PF can also provide information relevant to the clinical and counseling process, such as an individual's capacity for insight, self-esteem, cognitive style, internalization of standards, openness to change, capacity for empathy, level of interpersonal trust, quality of attachments, interpersonal needs, attitude toward authority, reaction toward dynamics of power, frustration tolerance, and coping style. Thus, the 16PF instrument provides clinicians with a normal-range measurement of anxiety, adjustment, emotional stability and behavioral problems. Clinicians can use 16PF results to identify effective strategies for establishing a working alliance, to develop a therapeutic plan, and to select effective therapeutic interventions or modes of treatment. It can also be used within other areas of psychology, such as career and occupational selection.

Social adroitness is a personality trait measured in the Jackson Personality Inventory and the Jackson Personality Inventory-Revised. Adroitness is not explicitly measured by these tests, but rather the characteristics are measured through different scales.

In psychology, grandiosity is a sense of superiority, uniqueness, or invulnerability that is unrealistic and not based on personal capability. It may be expressed by exaggerated beliefs regarding one's abilities, the belief that few other people have anything in common with oneself, and that one can only be understood by a few, very special people. The personality trait of grandiosity is principally associated with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), but also is a feature in the occurrence and expression of antisocial personality disorder, and the manic and hypomanic episodes of bipolar disorder.

The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) was developed in 1979 by Raskin and Hall, and since then, has become one of the most widely utilized personality measures for non-clinical levels of the trait narcissism. Since its initial development, the NPI has evolved from 220 items to the more commonly employed NPI-40 (1984) and NPI-16 (2006), as well as the novel NPI-1 inventory (2014). Derived from the DSM-III criteria for Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), the NPI has been employed heavily by personality and social psychology researchers.

In psychology, manipulation is defined as subterfuge designed to influence or control another, usually in an underhanded manner which facilitates one's personal aims. Methods used to distort the individual's perception of reality may include seduction, suggestion, persuasion and blackmail to induce submission. Usage of the term varies depending on which behavior is specifically included, whether referring to the general population or used in clinical contexts. Manipulation is generally considered a dishonest form of social influence as it is used at the expense of others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">HEXACO model of personality structure</span> Six-dimensional model of human personality

The HEXACO model of personality structure is a six-dimensional model of human personality that was created by Ashton and Lee and explained in their book, The H Factor of Personality, based on findings from a series of lexical studies involving several European and Asian languages. The six factors, or dimensions, include honesty-humility (H), emotionality (E), extraversion (X), agreeableness (A), conscientiousness (C), and openness to experience (O). Each factor is composed of traits with characteristics indicating high and low levels of the factor. The HEXACO model was developed through similar methods as other trait taxonomies and builds on the work of Costa and McCrae and Goldberg. The model, therefore, shares several common elements with other trait models. However, the HEXACO model is unique mainly due to the addition of the honesty-humility dimension.

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale (LSRP) is a 26-item, 4-point Likert scale, self-report inventory to measure primary and secondary psychopathy in non-institutionalized populations. It was developed in 1995 by Michael R. Levenson, Kent A. Kiehl and Cory M. Fitzpatrick. The scale was created for the purpose of conducting a psychological study examining antisocial disposition among a sample of 487 undergraduate students attending psychology classes at the University of California, Davis.

Callous-unemotional traits (CU) are distinguished by a persistent pattern of behavior that reflects a disregard for others, and also a lack of empathy and generally deficient affect. The interplay between genetic and environmental risk factors may play a role in the expression of these traits as a conduct disorder (CD). While originally conceived as a means of measuring the affective features of psychopathy in children, measures of CU have been validated in university samples and adults.

The alternative five factor model of personality is based on the claim that the structure of human personality traits is best explained by five broad factors called impulsive sensation seeking (ImpSS), neuroticism–anxiety (N-Anx), aggression–hostility (Agg-Host), sociability (Sy), and activity (Act). The model was developed by Marvin Zuckerman and colleagues as a rival to the well-known five factor model of personality traits and is based on the assumption that "basic" personality traits are those with a strong biological-evolutionary basis. One of the salient differences between these two models is that the alternative five model lacks any equivalent to the dimension called openness to experience in the five factor model.

The response modulation hypothesis is an etiological theory which argues that psychopathy is an attention disorder, and is not caused by an inherent lack of empathy or fear. It posits that when psychopaths focus on a particular goal, they are unable to shift their attention to peripheral signals or cues if they are unrelated to the main goal. Usually outside signals prevent people from antisocial behaviors but psychopaths do not focus on these signals if they do not relate to their main goal.

The Dark Triad Dirty Dozen (DTDD) is a brief 12-question personality inventory test to assess the possible presence of three co-morbid socially maladaptive, dark triad traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. The DTDD was developed to identify the dark triad traits among subclinical adult populations. It is a screening test. High scores on the DTDD do not necessary correlate with clinical diagnoses.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Machiavellianism (psychology)</span> Psychological trait

In the field of personality psychology, Machiavellianism is the name of a personality trait construct characterized by interpersonal manipulation, indifference to morality, lack of empathy, and a calculated focus on self-interest. Psychologists Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis named the construct after Niccolò Machiavelli, as they used truncated and edited statements inspired by his works to study variations in human behaviors. Their Mach IV test, a 20-question, Likert-scale personality survey, became the standard self-assessment tool and scale of the Machiavellianism construct. Those who score high on the scale are more likely to have a high level of manipulativeness, deceitfulness and a cynical, unemotional temperament.

The influence of childhood trauma on the development of psychopathy in adulthood remains an active research question. According to Hervey M. Cleckley, a psychopathic person is someone who is able to imitate a normal functioning person, while masking or concealing their lack of internal personality structure. This results in an internal disorder with recurrent deliberate and detrimental conduct. Despite presenting themselves as serious, bright, and charming, psychopathic people are unable to experience true emotions. Robert Hare's two factor model and Christopher Patrick's triarchic model have both been developed to better understand psychopathy; however, whether the root cause is primarily environmental or primarily genetic is still in question.

References

  1. ↑ Benning, Stephen D. (2016). "Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI)". Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. pp. 1–4. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1098-1. ISBN   978-3-319-28099-8. S2CID   239409797.
  2. ↑ Dutton, Kevin (2012). The wisdom of psychopaths : lessons in life from Saints, spies and serial killers. London: William Heinemann. p. 104. ISBN   9780434020676. OCLC   794296196.
  3. ↑ Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Andrews, Brian P. (June 1996). "Development and Preliminary Validation of a Self-Report Measure of Psychopathic Personality Traits in Noncriminal Population". Journal of Personality Assessment. 66 (3): 488–524. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3. PMID   8667144.
  4. ↑ Quote: Factor 1, Machiavellian Egocentricity, contains elements of Christie and Geis' (19'69) Machiavellianism construct and appears similar to the construct of "Ruthless Practicality" identified by Hundleby and Ross (1977) in their factor analysis of psychopathy-related measures." --------- Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal population. Journal of personality assessment, 66(3), 488-524.
  5. ↑ "How to Spot a Psychopath". World of Psychology. 2013-12-06. Retrieved 2018-09-20.
  6. ↑ Lilienfeld, S. O.; Widows, M. R.; Staff, P. A. R. (2005). "Psychopathic Personality InventoryTM-Revised". Social Influence. 61 (65): 97.
  7. 1 2 Sandoval, Ann-Marie R.; Hancock, Danyel; Poythress, Norman; Edens, John F.; Lilienfeld, Scott (April 2000). "Construct Validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory in a Correctional Sample". Journal of Personality Assessment. 74 (2): 262–281. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7402_7. PMID   10879355. S2CID   43194197.
  8. ↑ Benning, Stephen D.; Patrick, Christopher J.; Hicks, Brian M.; Blonigen, Daniel M.; Krueger, Robert F. (2003). "Factor Structure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory: Validity and Implications for Clinical Assessment". Psychological Assessment. 15 (3): 340–350. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.340. PMID   14593834.
  9. ↑ Neumann, Craig S.; Malterer, Melanie B.; Newman, Joseph P. (June 2008). "Factor structure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI): Findings from a large incarcerated sample". Psychological Assessment. 20 (2): 169–174. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.20.2.169. PMC   2887679 . PMID   18557694.
  10. ↑ Berg, Joanna M.; Hecht, Lisa K.; Latzman, Robert D.; Lilienfeld, Scott O. (2015). "Examining the correlates of the coldheartedness factor of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised". Psychological Assessment. 27 (4): 1494–1499. doi:10.1037/pas0000129. PMID   25915788.
  11. ↑ "Are You A Psycho? Psychopathic Personality Linked To How Often You Yawn". Medical Daily. 2015-08-18. Retrieved 2018-09-21.
  12. ↑ "Psychopaths May Be Immune To Contagious Yawning". HuffPost. 2015-08-17. Retrieved 2024-06-07.
  13. ↑ Del Gaizo, Ariel L.; Falkenbach, Diana M. (August 2008). "Primary and secondary psychopathic-traits and their relationship to perception and experience of emotion". Personality and Individual Differences. 45 (3): 206–212. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.019.
  14. ↑ Patrick, Christopher J.; Edens, John F.; Poythress, Norman G.; Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Benning, Stephen D. (June 2006). "Construct validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory two-factor model with offenders". Psychological Assessment. 18 (2): 204–208. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.204. PMC   2373269 . PMID   16768596.
  15. ↑ Uzieblo, Katarzyna; Verschuere, Bruno; Crombez, Geert (September 2007). "The Psychopathic Personality Inventory: Construct validity of the two-factor structure". Personality and Individual Differences. 43 (4): 657–667. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.01.008.
  16. ↑ Poythress, Norman G.; Edens, John F.; Lilienfeld, Scott O. (December 1998). "Criterion-related validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory in a prison sample". Psychological Assessment. 10 (4): 426–430. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.10.4.426.
  17. ↑ Malterer, Melanie B.; Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Neumann, Craig S.; Newman, Joseph P. (December 2009). "Concurrent Validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory With Offender and Community Samples". Assessment. 17 (1): 3–15. doi:10.1177/1073191109349743. PMC   2846222 . PMID   19955107.
  18. ↑ Berardino, Stacey D.; Meloy, J. Reid; Sherman, Mark; Jacobs, Delores (November 2005). "Validation of the psychopathic personality inventory on a female inmate sample". Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 23 (6): 819–836. doi:10.1002/bsl.666. PMID   16333814.
  19. ↑ Chapman, Alexander L.; Gremore, Tina M.; Farmer, Richard F. (April 2003). "Psychometric Analysis of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) With Female Inmates". Journal of Personality Assessment. 80 (2): 164–172. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA8002_05. PMID   12700019. S2CID   19147722.
  20. ↑ Dutton, Kevin (2012). The wisdom of psychopaths : lessons in life from Saints, spies and serial killers. London: William Heinemann. ISBN   9780434020676. OCLC   794296196.[ page needed ]
  21. ↑ Knapton, Sarah (2016-08-22). "Donald Trump outscores Hitler on psychopathic traits test, claims University of Oxford researcher". The Telegraph. ISSN   0307-1235 . Retrieved 2018-09-20.
  22. 1 2 Miller, Joshua D.; Lynam, Donald 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. doi:10.1037/a0024567. PMID   22452764.
  23. 1 2 3 Lilienfeld, Scott O.; Patrick, Christopher J.; Benning, Stephen D.; Berg, Joanna; Sellbom, Martin; Edens, John F. (2012). "The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: Confusions, controversies, and clarifications". Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. 3 (3): 327–340. doi:10.1037/a0026987. PMID   22823232.
  24. 1 2 3 4 Lynam, Donald R.; Miller, Joshua D. (2012). "Fearless dominance and psychopathy: A response to Lilienfeld et al". Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. 3 (3): 341–353. doi:10.1037/a0028296. PMID   22823233.
  25. ↑ Ray, James V.; Jones, Shayne (1 January 2012). "Examining the relationship between self-reported compliance and psychopathic personality traits". Personality and Individual Differences. 52 (2): 190–194. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.011.
  26. 1 2 Edens, John F.; Buffington, Jacqueline K.; Tomicic, Tara L.; Riley, Brandon D. (2001). "Effects of positive impression management on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory". Law and Human Behavior. 25 (3): 235–256. doi:10.1023/A:1010793810896. PMID   11480802. S2CID   22838975.
  27. 1 2 Edens, John F.; Buffington, Jacqueline K.; Tomicic, Tara L. (26 July 2016). "An Investigation of the Relationship between Psychopathic Traits and Malingering on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory". Assessment. 7 (3): 281–296. doi:10.1177/107319110000700307. PMID   11037394. S2CID   21852790.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.