Examining the Relationships Between the Triarchic Psychopathy Constructs and Behavioral Deviance in a Community Sample

Abstract

Few studies have examined the extent to which psychopathic traits relate to the commission of mild to moderate acts of deviance, such as vandalism and minor traffic violations. Given that psychopathy is now studied in community populations, the relationship between psychopathic traits and less severe deviant behaviors, which are more normative among noninstitutionalized samples, warrants investigation. The current study examined the relationships between the triarchic model of psychopathy (Patrick, Fowles & Krueger, 2009) and seven forms of deviant behavior (drug use, alcohol use, theft, vandalism, school misconduct, assault, and general deviance) in a nationally representative sample. Triarchic disinhibition positively predicted each form of normative deviance. Boldness positively predicted drug and alcohol use as well as general deviance, while meanness negatively predicted school misconduct. Boldness and disinhibition also positively predicted overall lifetime engagement in deviant behavior. Implications are discussed, including support of the role of boldness within the psychopathy construct.

Testing the properties of the triarchic model of psychopathy in a community sample: Self‐reported trait aggression and drug consumption associations

“…In this sense, studies have evidenced significant and moderate correlations between psychopathy, more specifically disinhibition, and alcohol and other substance abuse in both prison and university populations (Sellbom, Donnelly, Rock, Phillips & Ben‐Porath, ). A study conducted in a community sample showed that boldness positively predicted drug and alcohol abuse (Coffey, Cox & Kopkan, ). Tobacco use has also been related to psychopathic personality and impulsivity.…”

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

“…Indeed, a growing body of research suggests that boldness contributes to particular types of maladaptive outcomes, which resonates with previous concerns that such individuals may not experience punishment as appropriately aversive (Lykken, ) or be adequately responsive to harm inflicted on others. These studies have demonstrated the validity of boldness in predicting nonphysical victimization, risk‐taking and socially deviant behaviors, sensation seeking, and grandiose narcissism (Coffey, Cox, & Kopkin, ; Gatner, Douglas, & Hart, ; Lilienfeld, Watts, & Smith, ). Moreover, boldness (also known as fearless dominance) has demonstrated associations with substance use, antisocial behavior, and gambling that, although modest, are equal to or greater than the strength of associations for more consensually agreed‐upon features of psychopathy (e.g., impulsivity, antagonism; Miller et al, ).…”

Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Desviación de la Norma en jóvenes

“…Con respecto a la consistencia interna del modelo de medida final, las siete dimensiones obtuvieron valores de confiabilidad compuesta adecuados. Estos resultados se encuentran en línea con estudios previos realizados en contextos culturales diferentes (Vazsonyi, et al, 2004), en población general (Coffey, Cox, J, & Kopkin, 2018) y en muestras compuestas por adolescentes (Torrente & Vazsonyi, 2012). Además, considerando los criterios estadísticos para tener en cuenta un adecuado nivel de confiabilidad en los instrumentos de medición psicológica (Nunnally, 1978), se puede considerar a la EDN un instrumento adecuado para evaluar la conducta antisocial en el área de investigación.…”

“…Por ejemplo, en relación con la validez de la escala considerando la asociación de la variable desviación social con constructos vinculados como impulsividad, búsqueda de sensaciones y temperamento volátil se encontraron correlaciones positivas entre estas variables con valores de r entre .14 y .40 (Vazsonyi et al, 2001). Por su parte, la confiabilidad de la escala valorada mediante el índice de confiabilidad de Cronbach varió para las siete dimensiones entre .77 y .90 en población general (Coffey, Cox, & Kopkin, 2018), entre .65 y .87 en muestras compuestas por adolescentes en conflicto con la ley penal (Bobbio, Arbach, & Vazsonyi, 2019) y entre .77 y .86 en muestras de adolescentes sin conflicto con la ley penal (Torrente & Vazsonyi, 2012).…”