Psychopathy and negative emotionality: Analyses of suppressor effects reveal distinct relations with emotional distress, fearfulness, and anger-hostility.

Abstract

Low negative emotionality (NEM) holds a central place in classic descriptions and seminal theories of psychopathy. However, the empirical link between low NEM and psychopathy is weak. The authors posited that this inconsistency is due to the multifaceted nature of both the NEM and psychopathy constructs and to suppressor effects between facets of psychopathy in relation to NEM criteria. The authors sought to delineate the differential associations between facets of psychopathy and NEM in a large sample of male prisoners using the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; R. D. Hare, 2003) and self-report measures assessing different aspects of NEM. Statistical analyses revealed that the interpersonal-affective facet of psychopathy is negatively associated whereas the social deviance facet of psychopathy is positively associated with facets of NEM. The results demonstrate that suppressor effects can reconcile the centrality of NEM in classic descriptions of psychopathy with empirical investigations using the PCL-R. Keywordspsychopathy; negative affect; suppressor effects; Psychopathy Checklist-Revised Explicating the relationship between psychopathy and negative emotionality (NEM; the tendency to experience unpleasant emotional states such as fear, anger, and nervous tension) has been one of the most challenging and conceptually important issues in psychopathy research. Although low anxiety and fearlessness have featured prominently in many clinical descriptions and theories of psychopathy (Cleckley, 1941;Fowles, 1980;Karpman, 1948;Lykken, 1995; Patrick, in press), empirical investigations often yield weak, inconsistent, or complex effects, creating confusion regarding the etiological significance of low NEM in psychopathy (cf. Hare, 2003). We contend that these difficulties are due to (a) the multifaceted nature of both the NEM and psychopathy constructs, such that different facets of NEM have differential associations with the facets of psychopathy, and (b) the presence of suppressor effects between the factor scores of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991Hare, , 2003 in relation to NEM criterion measures.We provide a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between facets of psychopathy as operationalized by PCL-R factor scores and several facets of NEM. In particular, we provide a systematic examination of the suppressor effects present between the PCL-R factor scores in the prediction of NEM outcomes. We demonstrate that suppression provides the analytic and conceptual framework needed to reconcile the centrality of NEM in clinical descriptions NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript of psychopathy with empirical investigations that use the PCL-R. Specifically, we demonstrate that PCL-R Factor 1 (F1) and Factor 2 (F2) exhibit mutually repulsive effects in the prediction of facets of NEM, wherein F1 is negatively associated with emotional distress (a similar but broader construct than trait anxiety) and fearfulness and is unrelated to anger-hostility, w...

Response inhibition in the parametric Go/No-Go task in psychopathic offenders

“…Relying solely on the total score can for example lead to masking effects when only some aspects of psychopathy are be related to the postulated deficit. Indeed, it is possible for one aspect of psychopathy to relate positively to the deficit while another may be negatively related (Snowden and Gray, 2011; for a discussion see Hicks and Patrick, 2006). For example, given the observed real-world behaviour of psychopathic offenders, the lifestyle aspects of psychopathy might relate to deficient response inhibition (Hare, 2003;Sharma et al, 2013).…”

Antecedents for aggression and the function analytic approach to the assessment of aggression and violence in personality disordered patients within secure settings

“…As Hicks and Patrick (2006) point out, the evidence relating to whether psychopaths do indeed have theorypredicted low NEM is inconsistent, with some studies reporting differences between Factor 1 and Factor 2 of the PCL-R, with Factor 1 scores correlating negatively with stress and positively with positive emotions, and Factor 2 scores correlating positively with NEM and impulsive aggression. The work of Hicks and Patrick (2006) and the analysis of Patrick (2006) would appear to allow for angry aggression having some association with psychopathy, although this would be specifi c to the Factor 2 dimension of psychopathy.…”

“…As Hicks and Patrick (2006) point out, the evidence relating to whether psychopaths do indeed have theorypredicted low NEM is inconsistent, with some studies reporting differences between Factor 1 and Factor 2 of the PCL-R, with Factor 1 scores correlating negatively with stress and positively with positive emotions, and Factor 2 scores correlating positively with NEM and impulsive aggression. The work of Hicks and Patrick (2006) and the analysis of Patrick (2006) would appear to allow for angry aggression having some association with psychopathy, although this would be specifi c to the Factor 2 dimension of psychopathy. Falkenback (2004) has also hypothesized that there may be an interaction between psychopathy type and type of aggression, suggesting that primary psychopaths (Blackburn, 1986), who are posited to 'experience less emotionality, anxiety and fear, and to be more calculating, may utilize instrumental violence to a greater extent than secondary psychopaths.…”

“…Low phenomenological experience of anger would be expected in psychopaths, given their assumed general low experience of negative affect, including anxiety, fear, sadness, guilt and shame, as well as anger-what Hicks and Patrick (2006) term as negative emotionality (NEM). As Hicks and Patrick (2006) point out, the evidence relating to whether psychopaths do indeed have theorypredicted low NEM is inconsistent, with some studies reporting differences between Factor 1 and Factor 2 of the PCL-R, with Factor 1 scores correlating negatively with stress and positively with positive emotions, and Factor 2 scores correlating positively with NEM and impulsive aggression.…”

Procesamiento de errores en la psicopatía subclínica: un estudio de potenciales evocados

“…Por otro lado, el PCL-F1 mostró relaciones negativas con medidas de ansiedad, mientras que el PCL-F2 mostró relaciones no significativas -o incluso relaciones positivas-con dichas medidas (Harpur y cols., 1989). En esta misma línea, numerosos estudios han seguido esclareciendo la red de asociaciones para los dos grandes factores, demostrando que el PCL-R-F1 se asocia con medidas de narcisismo y baja empatía (Hare, 2003), de forma positiva con indicadores de dominancia social y emocionalidad positiva (Verona, Patrick y Joiner, 2001), inversamente con medidas de ansiedad, depresión y miedo (Hicks y Patrick, 2006), y positivamente con patrones de agresión proactiva (instrumental/premeditada) (Patrick y Zempolich, 1998;Porter y Woodworth, 2006). En contraste, el PCL-R-F2 se asocia de forma más clara y directa con medidas de personalidad y conductas desadaptativas como la impulsividad, los problemas con el uso y abuso de alcohol y otras drogas, la conducta criminal y síntomas del TPA, la agresión reactiva, y con altos niveles de emocionalidad negativa (ansiedad, neuroticismo, depresión), ira y hostilidad, e historia de intentos de suicidio (Hare, 2003;Hicks y Patrick, 2006;Patrick y Zempolich, 1998;Porter y Woodworth, 2006;Verona y cols., 2001).…”