Prior research has demonstrated that antisocial behavior, substance-use disorders, and personality dimensions of aggression and impulsivity are indicators of a highly heritable underlying dimension of risk, labeled externalizing. Other work has shown that individual trait constructs within this psychopathology spectrum are associated with reduced self-monitoring, as reflected by amplitude of the error-related negativity (ERN) brain response. In this study of undergraduate subjects, reduced ERN amplitude was associated with higher scores on a self-report measure of the broad externalizing construct that links these various indicators. In addition, the ERN was associated with a response-locked increase in anterior theta (4-7 Hz) oscillation; like the ERN, this theta response to errors was reduced among high-externalizing individuals. These findings suggest that neurobiologically based deficits in endogenous action monitoring may underlie generalized risk for an array of impulse-control problems.

The Triarchic model of psychopathy describes this complex condition in terms of distinct phenotypic components of boldness, meanness, and disinhibition. Brief self-report scales designed specifically to index these psychopathy facets have thus far demonstrated promising construct validity. The present study sought to develop and validate scales for assessing facets of the Triarchic model using items from a well-validated existing measure of psychopathy—the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI). A consensus rating approach was used to identify PPI items relevant to each Triarchic facet, and the convergent and discriminant validity of the resulting PPI-based Triarchic scales were evaluated in relation to multiple criterion variables (i.e., other psychopathy inventories, antisocial personality disorder features, personality traits, psychosocial functioning) in offender and non-offender samples. The PPI-based Triarchic scales showed good internal consistency and related to criterion variables in ways consistent with predictions based on the Triarchic model. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for conceptualization and assessment of psychopathy.

The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) has been conceptualized as indexing two distinct but correlated factors. Previous research has established that these factors demonstrate distinct patterns of relations with external criteria. However, more recent findings suggest that the PCL-R psychopathy construct may encompass three distinguishable factors, reflecting affective, interpersonal, and behavioral symptoms. Here, we evaluated the validity of this newer three-factor model of the PCL-R factors with reference to external criteria from the domains of personality, antisocial behavior; and adaptive functioning in a sample of 310 incarcerated offenders. The interpersonal factor was related to social dominance, low stress reactivity, and higher adaptive functioning; the affective factor was correlated with low social closeness and violent offending; and the behavioral factor was associated with negative emotionality, disinhibition, reactive aggression, and poor adaptive functioning. These findings provide support for the convergent and discriminant validity of these psychopathy facets.

A concern among researchers is that self-report measures may not be valid indicators of psychopathic traits due to the core features of psychopathy (e.g., lying, deception/manipulation). The current study addresses this issue by combining effects sizes from studies published on or before March 31, 2010 to examine the relation between scores of 3 widely used self-report psychopathy measures--the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) and its revised version (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) and Levenson's Self-Report Psychopathy scale (LSRP; Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995) and scores on measures assessing response style (i.e., faking good and faking bad). Effect sizes were obtained from 45 studies for total, Factor 1, and Factor 2 scores (faking good: k = 54, 55, and 55, respectively; faking bad: k = 51, 50, and 50, respectively). Based on a random effects model, a significant negative association was found between social desirability/faking good and both total (r(w) = -.11, p < .01) and F2 (r(w) = -.16, p < .01) scores, and moderation analyses suggested that effect sizes varied as a function of psychopathy scale and validity scale used. Significant positive associations were also found between faking bad and both total (r(w) = .27, p < .05) and F2 (r(w) = .32, p < .05) scores. Also, moderation analyses suggested that effect sizes varied as a function of study location, psychopathy scale, and validity scale. Despite several limitations (e.g., inclusion of only published studies, limited moderators, exclusion of other measures), the general findings temper concerns of positive response bias and underscore the validity of self-report psychopathy scales.

The three distinct facets of the triarchic model of psychopathy are represented clearly and distinctly in the PCL-R, with boldness through its interpersonal facet, but not in DSM-defined ASPD. Our findings suggest that boldness is central to diagnostic conceptions of psychopathy and distinguishes psychopathy from the more prevalent diagnosis of ASPD.