Search

Purpose Current measures of psychopathy are limited in a number of ways, including length, administration methods, and reliance on history of antisocial behavior. Both the full and short forms of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (EPA) have demonstrated convergent validity and strong relations to other psychopathy measures and external criteria empirically associated with psychopathy. Methods In order to create an even briefer version of the EPA-SF, the EPA was administered to two separate undergraduate samples (n = 907 and n = 787) and a smaller sample of male prison inmates (n = 77) along with widely used measures of psychopathy and measures of Big Five personality traits and antisocial behavior. Results Eighteen items (one per EPA subscale) were chosen to comprise the final “super-short” form. Exploratory factor analyses performed at the item level showed a three-factor solution (Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Emotional Stability). The factor scales and total score of the EPA super-short form demonstrated strong relations to other psychopathy measures and external criteria associated with psychopathy. Conclusions The EPA super-short form could be a promising alternative to other psychopathy measures currently used in criminology due to its brevity and basis in an empirically validated personality model.

Evidence has accrued to suggest that there are 2 distinct dimensions of narcissism, which are often labeled grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Although individuals high on either of these dimensions interact with others in an antagonistic manner, they differ on other central constructs (e.g., Neuroticism, Extraversion). In the current study, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis of 3 prominent self-report measures of narcissism (N=858) to examine the convergent and discriminant validity of the resultant factors. A 2-factor structure was found, which supported the notion that these scales include content consistent with 2 relatively distinct constructs: grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. We then compared the similarity of the nomological networks of these dimensions in relation to indices of personality, interpersonal behavior, and psychopathology in a sample of undergraduates (n=238). Overall, the nomological networks of vulnerable and grandiose narcissism were unrelated. The current results support the need for a more explicit parsing of the narcissism construct at the level of conceptualization and assessment.

A new self-report assessment of the basic traits of psychopathy was developed with a general trait model of personality (five-factor model [FFM]) as a framework. Scales were written to assess maladaptive variants of the 18 FFM traits that are robustly related to psychopathy across a variety of perspectives including empirical correlations, expert ratings, and translations of extant assessments. Across 3 independent undergraduate samples (N = 210-354), the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (EPA) scales proved to be internally consistent and unidimensional, and were strongly related to the original FFM scales from which they were derived (mean convergent r = .66). The EPA scales also demonstrated substantial incremental validity in the prediction of existing psychopathy measures over their FFM counterparts. When summed to form a psychopathy total score, the EPA was substantially correlated with 3 commonly used psychopathy measures (mean r = .81). Finally, in a small male forensic sample (N = 70), the EPA was significantly correlated with scores on a widely used self-report psychopathy measure, disciplinary infractions, alcohol use, and antisocial behavior. The EPA provides an opportunity to examine psychopathy and its nomological network through smaller, more basic units of personality rather than by scales or factors that blend these elements.

The goals of the current study were to use specific measures of affective lability and neuroticism to examine the nomological network surrounding both constructs and to test the degree to which a measure of general personality can account for variability in affective lability. Using a psychiatric outpatient sample (n=48), we assessed personality disorder (PD) symptoms, personality, and level of functioning across a range of domains. Neuroticism and affective lability demonstrated a small but significant positive correlation and manifested a divergent pattern of correlations with PDs and measures of functioning. Specifically, neuroticism was correlated primarily with Borderline, Avoidant and Dependent PDs, whereas affective lability was primarily correlated with Cluster B PDs. In addition, neuroticism evinced significant correlations with a range of functional impairments, whereas affective lability was correlated only with self-harm. Regression analyses demonstrated that a substantial portion of the variance in affective lability scales can be explained by Five-Factor Model domains, particularly if the narrower facets are used. The current findings suggest that neuroticism and affective lability are related but in a complex manner that involves other basic personality domains in addition to neuroticism.

Most research on narcissism has been conducted using the narcissistic personality inventory (NPI). However, the generalizability of findings from the NPI to narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is unknown. The current study uses two samples (48 clinical outpatients; 49 undergraduates) to address this question by examining the correlations between the NPI and interview ratings of NPD. The profiles generated by both assessments in relation to measures of general personality traits are compared to expert and meta-analytically derived profiles of NPD. The NPI and NPD assess overlapping constructs as they are significantly correlated and generate similar personality profiles. The measures diverge primarily in that NPI narcissism includes traits related to certain facets of Extraversion, which is consistent with expert conceptualizations of NPD.

The authors examined the effects of depressed affect (DA) on functioning measured by behavioral tasks pertaining to abstract reasoning, social functioning, and delay of gratification in relation to Cluster B personality disorder features (PDs) in a clinical sample. Individuals were randomly assigned to either a DA induction or control condition. Consistent with clinical conceptualizations, the authors expected that Cluster B PD symptoms would be related to maladaptive responding (e.g., poorer delay of gratification) when experiencing DA. As hypothesized, many of the relations between the Cluster B PDs and functioning were moderated by DA (e.g., borderline PD was negatively related to abstract reasoning, but only in the DA condition). However, many of the Cluster B PDs symptom counts were related to more adaptive responses in the DA condition (e.g., less aggressive social functioning, better delay of gratification). The authors speculate that individuals with Cluster B PDs may be more likely to respond maladaptively to alternative negative mood states, such as anger and fear.

The current study examined the interrelations between two measures of pathological personality, the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP; Clark, 1993) and the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ; Livesley, 1990), and their respective relations with psychopathy. Two hundred and twenty-nine undergraduate students completed the SNAP, DAPP-BQ, and two self-report psychopathy inventories, the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP; Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995) and the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). Results revealed good convergence between conceptually related SNAP and DAPP-BQ subscales. Both the SNAP and DAPP-BQ accounted for a substantial amount of variance in psychopathy scores although the DAPP-BQ accounted for a larger percentage of the variance and demonstrated greater incremental validity. Results suggest that both measures can be successfully used to assess traits associated with psychopathy.

There are several self-report measures of psychopathy, most of which use a two-factor structure. There is debate regarding the convergence of these factors, particularly with regard to Factor 1 (F1), which is related to the interpersonal and affective aspects of psychopathy; Factor 2 (F2) is related to the social deviance associated with psychopathy. This study examines the relations between the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy (LSRP) factors and personality traits and disorders (PDs) in an undergraduate sample (n = 271). LSRP Factor 1 is related to an antagonistic interpersonal style (i.e., low Agreeableness; high Narcissistic PD and ratings of prototypical psychopathy), whereas Factor 2 is more strongly related to negative emotionality (i.e., Neuroticism), disinhibition (i.e., low Conscientiousness) and a broad array of PD symptoms. The authors interpret these findings in the context of alternative measures of psychopathy and suggest that the LSRP is a reasonable, albeit imperfect, measure of psychopathy.

The Five-Factor model is one of the most popular models of general personality but recently a competing model, the HEXACO, has been put forth as an alternative. In the current study, we compare the two models by examining the interrelations between their primary measures, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and the Revised HEXACO Personality Inventory (HEXACO-PI-R), and their relations with psychopathy in a sample of undergraduates (N = 290). Results revealed good convergence between conceptually related personality traits. Both inventories accounted for substantial proportions of variance in psychopathy scores although the HEXACO-PI-R accounted for a larger proportion. The findings are discussed in relation to the HEXACO domain of Emotionality, which functions differently than NEO PI-R Neuroticism. The results suggest that both measures assess psychopathy-related traits, but the HEXACO-PI-R may offer a slight advantage.

Evidence has accrued to suggest that there are 2 distinct dimensions of narcissism, which are often labeled grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Although individuals high on either of these dimensions interact with others in an antagonistic manner, they differ on other central constructs (e.g., Neuroticism, Extraversion). In the current study, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis of 3 prominent self-report measures of narcissism (N=858) to examine the convergent and discriminant validity of the resultant factors. A 2-factor structure was found, which supported the notion that these scales include content consistent with 2 relatively distinct constructs: grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. We then compared the similarity of the nomological networks of these dimensions in relation to indices of personality, interpersonal behavior, and psychopathology in a sample of undergraduates (n=238). Overall, the nomological networks of vulnerable and grandiose narcissism were unrelated. The current results support the need for a more explicit parsing of the narcissism construct at the level of conceptualization and assessment.

Lynam and colleagues recently developed a new self-report inventory for the assessment of psychopathy, the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (EPA). Using a sample of undergraduates ( N = 227), the authors examined the construct validity of the EPA by examining its correlations with self and stranger ratings on the Five-Factor Model, as well as self-reported ratings of personality disorders, social cognition, and love styles. The EPA psychopathy scores manifested expected correlations with both self and stranger ratings of the Five-Factor Model, particularly with the domains of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, and were significantly related to various forms of personality pathology such as narcissism and antisocial personality disorders. The EPA also manifested expected relations with aggressive social cognitions. Finally, the EPA psychopathy scores were correlated with romantic love styles indicative of game playing and infidelity. The current results provide further evidence of the construct validity of the EPA as it manifests relations consistent with the nomological network of psychopathy.

Given the negative consequences of psychological entitlement, it is important to have a reliable and valid measure of the construct. We used an undergraduate sample (N = 271) to examine the Entitlement subscale (ENT) of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Terry, 1988) and the Psychological Entitlement Scale (PES; Campbell, Bonacci, Shelton, Exline, & Bushman, 2004) in relation to general personality traits (i.e., Revised NEO Personality Inventory; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and personality disorders (PDs; Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4; Hyler, 1994). We found similar personality correlates (e.g., disagreeableness; Cluster B PDs) for both measures, although ENT was comprised of greater disagreeableness and less warmth and positive affect. ENT was also more positively associated with schizoid and borderline PDs compared to the PES. Overall, these measures are closely related with regard to their relations with general and pathological personality dimensions, although the ENT scale may capture a slightly more pathological variant.

A correction is made to a previously published paper in Table 2 [Miller, J.D., Gaughan, E.T., Pryor, L.R., Kamen, C. (2008). Is research using the narcissistic personality inventory relevant for understanding narcissistic personality disorder? [Journal of Research in Personality 43 (2009) 482–488].