Are fearless dominance traits superfluous in operationalizing psychopathy? Incremental validity and sex differences.

Abstract

Researchers are vigorously debating whether psychopathic personality includes seemingly adaptive traits, especially social and physical boldness. In a large sample (N=1565) of adult offenders, we examined the incremental validity of two operationalizations of boldness (Fearless Dominance traits in the Psychopathy Personality Inventory, Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996; Boldness traits in the Triarchic Model of Psychopathy, Patrick et al, 2009), above and beyond other characteristics of psychopathy, in statistically predicting scores on four psychopathy-related measures, including the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). The incremental validity added by boldness traits in predicting the PCL-R’s representation of psychopathy was especially pronounced for interpersonal traits (e.g., superficial charm, deceitfulness). Our analyses, however, revealed unexpected sex differences in the relevance of these traits to psychopathy, with boldness traits exhibiting reduced importance for psychopathy in women. We discuss the implications of these findings for measurement models of psychopathy.

Self‐ and informant perceptions of psychopathic traits in relation to the triarchic model

“…For example, the defining features of psychopathy proposed by Cleckley included multiple ostensibly adaptive characteristics, even going so far as to state that “everything about [the psychopath] is likely to suggest desirable and superior human qualities, a robust mental health” (, p. 339). Additionally, forensic and correctional professionals rate certain aspects of boldness (e.g., social dominance) as highly prototypical of the broader construct of psychopathy (Sörman et al, ), and boldness further appears to be relevant in distinguishing psychopathy from antisocial personality disorder (Murphy, Lilienfeld, Skeem, & Edens, ; Wall, Wygant, & Sellbom, ). The utility of boldness in this respect is reflected in the DSM‐5 alternative model of personality disorders (APA, ), which contains a psychopathy specifier for diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder to indicate the added presence of traits related to interpersonal dominance and emotional resiliency.…”

The Abbreviated Psychopathy Measure-2: associations with normal-range and maladaptive personality traits

“…The TriPM and other triarchic scales that have been derived from existing measures of psychopathy, psychopathology, and personality have been found in community, undergraduate, and/or forensic samples to be significantly and differentially associated in expected directions with a wide range of normal range personality criterion variables and criterion variables representing more extreme variants of normal range personality traits, e.g., social potency, antagonism, temperament/affectivity, entitlement, narcissism, impulsiveness, wellbeing, social closeness, aggression, alienation, sensation seeking, stress reaction, responsibility, harm avoidance, anxiety, manipulativeness, disinhibition, as well as criterion variables including substance and alcohol use problems and antisocial behavior. Notably, the TriPM and triarchic scales developed from other existing measures have demonstrated convergence with the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003), despite their different methods of assessment (e.g., Brislin, Drislane, Smith, Edens, & Patrick, 2015;Brislin et al, 2017;Hall et al, 2014;Murphy, Skeem, & Edens, 2016;Venables, Hall, & Patrick, 2014).…”

The incremental validity of the Triarchic model of psychopathy in replicating "The dark side of love and life satisfaction: Associations with intimate relationships, psychopathy and Machiavellianism"

“…While the LSPR was originally developed to investigate psychopathy in the general population, further research indicates that the LSRP focuses more on traits related to antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) than psychopathy (Lilienfeld & Fowler, 2006). A key difference between the constructs is the exclusivity of traits related to affective and interpersonal features (e.g., empathy deficits, shallow moral emotions, immunity to stress) in psychopathy (Berg et al, 2013;Murphy, Lilienfeld, Skeem, & Edens, 2016). Additionally, the LSRP demonstrates a limited association with bold interpersonal features of psychopathy, which covers the more adaptive side of psychopathy (e.g., social potency and stress immunity; Patrick, 2010;Poythress et al, 2010;Sellbom & Phillips, 2013).…”