Theory and measurement of socialization.

Gough, Harrison G.

doi:10.1037/h0044749

Cited by 254 publications

(145 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

138

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings of the current study, in line with Smith and Newman's suggestion, indicate that Factor 2 of the PCL-R indexes this same "general inhibitory diathesis." This possibility could be explored further by examining, within a community twin sample, the genetic association between externalizing as indexed by diagnostic variables and PCL-R Factor 2 as indexed by separate indicators such as Gough's (1960) Socialization scale (cf. Hare, 2003) or the "impulsive antisociality" factor of Lilienfeld's (1990) Psychopathic Personality Inventory (cf.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relations between Psychopathy Facets and Externalizing in a Criminal Offender Sample

Patrick

Hicks

Krueger

et al. 2005

Journal of Personality Disorders

152

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The construct of psychopathy is viewed as comprising distinctive but correlated affectiveinterpersonal and social deviance facets. Here, we examined these facets of Hare's Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) in terms of their associations with the externalizing dimension of adult psychopathology, defined as the common factor underlying symptoms of conduct disorder, adult antisocial behavior, alcohol use/abuse, and drug abuse, along with disinhibitory personality traits. Correlational analyses revealed a strong relationship between this externalizing dimension and the social deviance facet of psychopathy (r = .84), and a lesser relationship with the emotionalinterpersonal component (r = .44). Structural models controlling for the moderate overlap between the PCL-R factors revealed that externalizing was substantially related to the unique variance in the social deviance features of psychopathy, but unrelated to the unique variance of the emotional and interpersonal features whether modeled together or as separate factors. These results indicate that the social deviance factor of the PCL-R reflects the externalizing dimension of psychopathology, whereas the emotional-interpersonal component taps something distinct aside from externalizing. In addition, based on our finding of an association between PCL-R social deviance and externalizing, we were able to predict new relations between this facet of psychopathy and criterion variables, including nicotine use and gambling, that have previously been linked to externalizing. Implications for future research on the causes and correlates of psychopathy are discussed.Antisocial behavior is a problem of enormous social importance that has been the focus of intensive psychological study. Two research traditions have been prominent in this area: (1) longitudinal, epidemiological studies examining precursors and predictors of criminality in the population at large, and (2) experimental psychopathology studies investigating the construct of psychopathic personality in incarcerated offender populations. The former has yielded evidence of a broad spectrum of externalizing problems, encompassing alcohol and drug abuse as well as child and adult antisociality, that arise from a common etiologic vulnerability (e.g., Krueger et al., 2002;Young, Stallings, Corley, Krauter, & Hewitt, 2000). The latter has produced evidence that there are distinct facets to psychopathy with differing external correlates (e.g., Cooke & Michie, 2001;Hall, Benning, & Patrick, 2004;Hare, 1991Hare, , 2003Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, 1989;Patrick, 1994;Widiger & Lynam, 1998) that may reflect separate etiologic processes (Fowles & Dindo, 2006; Patrick, 2001, in press). The current study bridges these research domains by demonstrating a link between the externalizing dimension of adult psychopathology and the social deviance factor of psychopathy, and illustrating how novel predictions can be generated through knowledge of this association.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relations between Psychopathy Facets and Externalizing in a Criminal Offender Sample

Patrick

Hicks

Krueger

et al. 2005

Journal of Personality Disorders

152

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Early attempts to measure psychopathy through self-report, such as the Pd scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (McKinley & Hathaway, 1944) and the So scale of the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1960), shared only 7% to 28% of their variance (Hare, 1985), suggesting that they varied substantially in the psychopathy constructs that they measured. These measures also shared only 8% to 14% of their variance with global ratings of "Cleckley psychopathy" (Cleckley, 1941(Cleckley, /1988, Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) scores, and antisocial personality disorder (APD) symptoms (Hare, 1985), implying that they showed poor convergence both with other measures of psychopathy and with related personality disorders.…”

Section: Nih Public Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Psychopathy has also been described with reference to the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM), which divides personality into five domains of Neuroticism, Extraversion (which has strong parallels with interpersonal Dominance; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990), Openness, Agreeableness (which has strong parallels with interpersonal Love; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990), and Conscientiousness. In the FFM, an average expert-generated prototype of psychopathy consisted of facets marking low Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness (Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leukefeld, 2001).Early attempts to measure psychopathy through self-report, such as the Pd scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (McKinley & Hathaway, 1944) and the So scale of the California Psychological Inventory (Gough, 1960), shared only 7% to 28% of their variance (Hare, 1985), suggesting that they varied substantially in the psychopathy constructs that they measured. These measures also shared only 8% to 14% of their variance with global ratings of "Cleckley psychopathy" (Cleckley, 1941(Cleckley, /1988, Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) scores, and antisocial personality disorder (APD) symptoms (Hare, 1985), implying that they showed poor convergence both with other measures of psychopathy and with related personality disorders.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Psychopathy Factors Assessed Via Self-Report

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychopathy has been conceptualized as a personality disorder with distinctive interpersonalaffective and behavioral deviance features. The authors examine correlates of the factors of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI), Self-Report Psychopathy-II (SRP-II) scale, and Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD) to understand similarities and differences among the constructs embodied in these instruments. PPI Fearless Dominance and SRP-II Factor 1 were negatively related to most personality disorder symptoms and were both predicted by high Dominance and low Neuroticism. In addition, PPI Fearless Dominance correlated positively with antisocial personality features, although SRP-II Factor 1 did not. In contrast, PPI Impulsive Antisociality, SRP-II Factor 2, and both APSD factors correlated with antisocial personality features and symptoms of nearly all personality disorders, and were predicted by low Love. Results suggest ways in which the measurement of the constructs in each instrument may be improved. KeywordsPsychopathic Personality Inventory; Self-Report Psychopathy-II scale; Antisocial Process Screening Device; psychopathy; self-report; nomological network Psychopathy is a personality disorder that is distinguished from common criminality and chronic antisociality by the presence of distinctive interpersonal-affective features (Hare, 2003;Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, 1989;Lilienfeld, 1994;Lykken, 1995;Patrick & Lang, 1999). Recent self-report measures of psychopathy, including the Self-Report Psychopathy scale (SRP;Hare, 1985Hare, , 1991 and the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996), demonstrate better convergence and coverage of both the interpersonalaffective and antisocial lifestyle features of psychopathy. Factor analytic work on these and other self-report instruments of psychopathy has revealed that many of these instruments have a two-factor structure, each of which parses the interpersonal-affective and behavioral features into separate subscales (Benning, Patrick, Hicks, Blonigen, & Krueger, 2003;Frick, O'Brien, Wootton, & McBurnett, 1994;Hare, 1991). Here, we examined in an undergraduate sample the construct validity of the two-factor structures of the PPI, the SRP-II scale, and a self-report version of the Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD; Frick & Hare, 2001). We examined the relations of each psychopathy factor to the others, to symptoms of other personality disorders, and to normal-range personality dimensions.Correspondence may be addressed either to Stephen D. Benning, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455 (e-mail: benn0224@umn.edu), or to Randall T. Salekin, Department of Psychology, University of Alabama, Box 870348, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 (e-mail: rsalekin@bama.ua.edu). Cronbach and Meehl (1955) proposed the concept of the nomological network as a theoretical framework for understanding construct validity. In this framework, a network is set up between unobserved theoretical constructs ...

show abstract

“…Gough Socialisation Scale (Gough, 1960;Megargee, 1972) This 54-item scale is one of the best self-report measures of proneness to antisocial behaviour (Blackburn, 1993) and measures the extent to which individuals have internalized the values of society. The lower the score the more likely the person is to possess antisocial personality traits.…”

Section: Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confessions and denials and the relationship with personality

Gudjónsson¹,

Sigurðsson

Bragason

et al. 2004

Legal Criminol Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. The main aim of the study was to examine the reasons and personality factors associated with confessions and denials. It was hypothesized that antisocial personality traits and active involvement in criminal behaviour would distinguish true confessors and true deniers from false confessors and false deniers.Method. The participants were 1,080 students in further education in Iceland. Each was asked about false admissions made to teachers and parents in the past, as well as about confessions or denials (true and false) made to the police during questioning, and the reasons for having responded in the way they did. The participants also completed questionnaires relating to offending, personality and self-esteem.Results. One-quarter (25%) of the participants stated that they had in the past been interrogated by the police in relation to a suspected offence, of whom 59% said they had confessed. A small minority of those interrogated (3.7%; 1% of the total sample) claimed to have made false confessions to the police, whereas 10% claimed to have made false confessions to teachers or parents. Males were signi cantly more likely to report false confessions than females. False confessions and false denials were signi cantly associated with antisocial personality traits, with Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Psychoticism being the single best predictor. Those participants who made true confessions and true denials were most normal in their personality. Conclusions.Personality is a signi cant predictor of who makes false confessions and false denials. It is only in recent years that much research has been carried out into the psychological aspects of confessions (Gudjonsson, 2001). Gudjonsson (2003) reviewed five theories of what makes suspects confess to crimes they have committed during police questioning. These, combined with the empirical evidence (Moston, Stephensen, & Williamson, 1992), suggested that there are three main reasons why suspects confess to crimes they have committed (Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, 1999;Sigurdsson & Gudjonsson, 1996a). These are suspects' perceptions of the strength of the evidence against them, external pressure (e.g. pressure during interrogation, fear of custody) and internal pressure (e.g. wanting to 'clear their conscience'). Usually more than one of these factors are present when suspects confess, but the empirical evidence suggests that it is the perception of the evidence against them that is the most powerful reason for suspects confessing to the offence. As far as false confessions are concerned, these are psychologically more complicated than true confessions. Kassin and Wrightsman (1985) and Wrightsman and Kassin (1993) suggest three psychologically distinct types of false confession, which they refer to as 'voluntary', 'coerced-compliant' and 'coerced-internalised' types. More recently, Ofshe and Leo (1997a, 1997b) have proposed a modified five-level model which distinguishes between coerced and noncoerced compliant and persuaded confessions. The model, as presented b...

show abstract

Theory and measurement of socialization.

Cited by 254 publications

References 5 publications

Relations between Psychopathy Facets and Externalizing in a Criminal Offender Sample

Relations between Psychopathy Facets and Externalizing in a Criminal Offender Sample

Convergent and Discriminant Validity of Psychopathy Factors Assessed Via Self-Report

Confessions and denials and the relationship with personality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About