ASSESSMENT
Hall ARTICLE 10.1177/1073191103261466 et al. / VALIDITY OF THE THREE-FACTOR MODEL OF PSYCHOP ATHY
Criterion-Related Validity of the Three-Factor Model of Psychopathy
Personality, Behavior, and Adaptive Functioning Jason R. Hall Stephen D. Benning Christopher J. Patrick University of Minnesota
The Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) has been conceptualized as indexing two distinct but correlated factors. Previous research has established that these factors demonstrate distinct patterns of relations with external criteria. However, more recent findings suggest that the PCL-R psychopathy construct may encompass three distinguishable factors, reflecting affective, interpersonal, and behavioral symptoms. Here, we evaluated the validity of this newer three-factor model of the PCL-R factors with reference to external criteria from the domains of personality, antisocial behavior, and adaptive functioning in a sample of 310 incarcerated offenders. The interpersonal factor was related to social dominance, low stress reactivity, and higher adaptive functioning; the affective factor was correlated with low social closeness and violent offending; and the behavioral factor was associated with negative emotionality, disinhibition, reactive aggression, and poor adaptive functioning. These findings provide support for the convergent and discriminant validity of these psychopathy facets. Keywords: psychopathy; antisocial behavior; personality; construct validity Psychopathy is a clinical syndrome marked by profound emotional deficits and pervasive antisocial behavior. Although psychopathy was originally conceptualized as a unitary disorder, contemporary research using Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, 1980, 1991) has yielded evidence that psychopathy comprises correlated but distinct facets. Harpur, Hakstian, and Hare (1988) reported a two-factor structure for the original 22-item PCL, with Factor 1 reflecting interpersonal and affective features and Factor 2 reflecting social deviance. Hare et al.
(1990) reported a parallel two-factor structure for the revised, 20-item version of the PCL (PCL-R). These factors exhibit diverging relations with a wide range of criterionrelated variables (Edens, Hart, Johnson, Johnson, & Olver, 2000; Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, 1989; Hart & Hare, 1989; Patrick, 1994, 1995, 2001; Patrick, Zempolich, & Levenston, 1997; Smith & Newman, 1990; Verona, Patrick, & Joiner, 2001), implying that they reflect different constructs.
This study was supported by Grants MH48657, MH52384, and MH65137 from the National Institute of Mental Health and funds from the Hathaway endowment at the University of Minnesota. Thanks are extended to the residents and staff of FCI-Tallahassee—in particular, Chief Psychologist Allen Hanley—for their support of this work. We also thank Emily Daughtrey, Lynelle Erickson, Donna James, Stacey Lavoro, Mark Miller, David O’Connor, Arleen Goff, Erin Schaden, and Kristin Zempolich for their participation in the diagnostic and assessment aspects of this work. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christopher J. Patrick, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455; e-mail:
[email protected]. Assessment, Volume 11, No. 1, March 2004 4-16 DOI: 10.1177/1073191103261466 © 2004 Sage Publications
Hall et al. / VALIDITY OF THE THREE-FACTOR MODEL OF PSYCHOPATHY 5
Recently, an alternative three-factor structural model was proposed for the PCL-R (Cooke & Michie, 2001). In the proposed model, the interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy comprise separate factors; the third factor consists of impulsive and irresponsible traits. This model offers a potentially more refined conceptualization of psychopathy, but the construct validity of the threefactor model remains to be established. Our aim in the current study was to address this issue by examining relations between the three proposed factors of the PCL-R and criterion-related variables in the domains of personality, behavior, and adaptive function. The Psychopathy Checklist–Revised In his seminal monograph The Mask of Sanity, Cleckley (1941/1976) proposed 16 diagnostic criteria for identifying psychopathic individuals. Cleckley’s criteria were intended to describe a unitary syndrome, and studies that relied on these criteria used global prototypicality ratings to assign individuals to psychopathic and nonpsychopathic groups (e.g., Chesno & Kilman, 1975; Dengerink & Bertilson, 1975; Hare, 1972, 1982; Hare & Craigen, 1974; Hare & Quinn, 1971; Jutai & Hare, 1983; Lykken, 1957). Hare (1980, 1991) developed the PCL to formalize the assessment of psychopathy for research purposes. The original 22-item PCL (Hare, 1980) was constructed by identifying a set of specific indicators that empirically differentiated offenders identified as psychopathic and nonpsychopathic using the Cleckley global-rating approach. These items covered content including charm, grandiosity, boredom proneness, deceptiveness, deficient affect, irresponsibility, parasitism, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, child behavior problems and delinquency, blame externalization, and lack of planning. Overall scores on the PCL correlated highly (r = .80) with scores on the Cleckley global rating and with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1980) diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder (APD; r = .57; Hare, 1985). PCL total scores also showed reliable relations with relevant self-report measures, such as Gough’s (1960) Socialization (So) scale and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory– Psychopathic Deviate (MMPI-Pd) scale (rs = –.26 and .38, respectively; Hare, 1985). On the basis of factor analytic research (Hare et al., 1990; Harpur et al., 1988), the PCL and the revised 20item PCL-R have been conceptualized as indexing two correlated facets of psychopathy—namely, an emotionalinterpersonal facet (Factor 1) and a social-deviance facet (Factor 2). A number of studies have since reported that these two correlated factors exhibit distinct relationships with external criteria across multiple domains (Edens
et al., 2000; Hare, 1991; Harpur et al., 1989; Hart & Hare, 1989; Patrick, 1994, 1995, 2001; Patrick et al., 1997; Smith & Newman, 1990; Verona et al., 2001). According to these studies, Factor 1 is associated with tendencies toward dominance, narcissism, and low trait anxiety, as well as higher socioeconomic status (SES) and instrumental aggression. Factor 2, in contrast, is associated with traits of impulsiveness, sensation seeking, and high negative emotionality, as well as low SES, substance abuse, reactive aggression, and DSM diagnoses of antisocial personality (APA, 1987, 1994). The Three-Factor Model of Psychopathy Recent factor analytic work has suggested an alternative structural model of psychopathy as indexed by the PCL-R. Cooke and Michie (2001) reevaluated the factor structure of psychopathy using data from the original PCL-R standardization sample of 1,389 incarcerated offenders. Based on an inspection of the loading plot for an exploratory factor analysis and a quantitative evaluation of model fit using confirmatory factor analysis, these authors concluded that a two-factor solution did not provide an adequate structural model of PCL-R data. Further analyses supported a hierarchical structure of the PCL-R in which a superordinate psychopathy factor subsumes three distinct, lower order factors. This hierarchical three-factor structure was then successfully cross-validated in independent samples of offenders and with several different measures of psychopathy. In this alternative three-factor model, items from the original Factor 1 constitute two separate factors. The first of these, which Cooke and Michie (2001) labeled Arrogant and Deceitful Interpersonal Style, consisted of glibness/superficial charm, grandiosity, pathological lying, and conning/manipulativeness. The second, labeled Deficient Affective Experience, included lack of remorse, shallow affect, lack of empathy, and failure to accept responsibility for one’s actions. The third factor, termed Impulsive and Irresponsible Behavioral Style, comprised a subset of five items from the original Factor 2. This factor included proneness to boredom, impulsivity, irresponsibility, parasitic lifestyle, and lack of realistic goals. In this article, we use the simpler mnemonic labels Interpersonal, Affective, and Behavioral, respectively, to refer to these three factors of Cooke and Michie’s model. Skeem, Mulvey, and Grisso (2003) replicated this three-factor structure using the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL-SV; Hart, Cox, & Hare, 1995) in a sample of psychiatric inpatients. Skeem et al. (2003) also examined the predictive utility and external correlates of the three-factor model and reported that among the three factors, the Behavioral factor was most strongly related to
6
ASSESSMENT
frequency and severity of arrests, number of crimes against property, and alcohol and drug use diagnoses. In contrast, the Affective factor was most strongly associated with previous and future violence and crimes against people. The Skeem et al. (2003) study provided initial data concerning the validity of the three-factor model. However, because of the nature of the sample studied (i.e., psychiatric inpatients), the findings may not generalize to correctional samples. Furthermore, Skeem et al. (2003) focused primarily on actuarial criteria in their evaluation of the three factors; personality and demographic correlates were not examined.
loaded separately from the other original Factor 2 items. However, based on data from item-response theory analyses, Hare (2003) recently argued that these omitted items contribute substantial discriminatory power in the assessment of psychopathy. Hare (2003) also presented data from structural analyses supporting a four-factor hierarchical model of psychopathy, which includes this Antisocial factor in addition to the three factors of the Cooke and Michie (2001) model. Thus, we were interested in whether the external correlates of the Antisocial factor differ appreciably from those of the Behavioral factor.
The Present Study
METHOD
Although Skeem et al. (2003) provided preliminary evidence supporting Cooke and Michie’s (2001) three-factor model, the construct validity of this structural model has yet to be comprehensively evaluated using the PCL-R in a correctional sample. Thus, following from previous research on the correlates of the two-factor model, our goal in the present study was to investigate relations between the three PCL-R factors proposed by Cooke and Michie (2001) and criterion-related variables from the domains of personality, antisocial deviance, and adaptive functioning. These relationships were investigated in a sample of incarcerated males who were assessed for psychopathy with the PCL-R. Based on the findings of Skeem et al. (2003), we expected the Behavioral factor to correlate with nonviolent crime, substance abuse, and reactive aggression. We also anticipated that the Behavioral factor would demonstrate many of the same correlates that have been reported for the traditional Factor 2 of the PCL-R, including high negative emotionality, low behavioral constraint, and relatively poor adaptive functioning overall. In contrast, we expected serious violent crime to be associated with the Affective factor. The Interpersonal factor, which is marked by grandiosity, social charm, and manipulativeness, should relate to agency and extroversion, low anxiousness, and relatively higher adaptive functioning. As a final subsidiary goal, we were also interested in exploring the discriminant validity of the Behavioral factor relative to the five-item Antisocial factor recently introduced in the second edition of the PCL-R manual (Hare, 2003). The five items of the Antisocial factor, which reflect overt aggression and a chronic pattern of social deviance (poor behavioral controls, early behavior problems, juvenile delinquency, revocation of conditional release, and criminal versatility) were not retained in the threefactor model. These items were omitted from the threefactor model because an initial exploratory factor analysis of the full PCL-R item set indicated that these criteria
Participants Participants were 310 male inmate volunteers from the Federal Correctional Institution in Tallahassee, Florida, a large low-medium security prison.1 Those included in the study met the following criteria: no current major mental disorder indicated on file, competency in English, age 45 or younger, and no imminent release date. Informed consent was obtained from all individuals prior to their participation. The sample included 44.8% Caucasian, 42.3% African American, 12.6% Hispanic, and 0.3% Asian American participants. Mean age was 31.5 years. Measures and Procedure A semistructured interview was conducted to obtain information relevant to the scoring of the PCL-R. Separate questions were included to assess for child and adult symptoms of antisocial personality disorder (APD) as defined in the DSM (APA, 1987, 1994). Diagnostic criteria from the revised third edition (DSM-III-R) were used for a portion of the sample (n = 165) assessed prior to 1994; DSM-IV criteria were used for the remainder, who were assessed after 1994.2 Data from the interview were supplemented by information from the inmate’s prison file in assigning diagnostic ratings. The interviews were videotaped so that an independent rater could perform a secondary rating of each subject. All interviewers and raters had either a bachelor’s or master’s degree in psychology and underwent specialized training for administering and rating the PCL-R. Weekly meetings were held to maintain adherence to diagnostic criteria, and periodic reliability checks were performed by the senior investigator (Christopher J. Patrick) to guard against observer drift. Three factor scores were derived from the PCL-R as described by Cooke and Michie (2001): an Interpersonal fac-
Hall et al. / VALIDITY OF THE THREE-FACTOR MODEL OF PSYCHOPATHY 7
TABLE 1 Cooke & Michie (2001) Three-Factor Model of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised Arrogant and Deceitful Interpersonal Style
Deficient Affective Experience
Impulsive and Irresponsible Behavioral Style
Glibness/Superficial charm Grandiose sense of self-worth Pathological lying Conning/Manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt Shallow affect Callous/Lack of empathy Failure to accept responsibility Lack of realistic long-term goals
Need for stimulation/Proneness to boredom Parasitic lifestyle Impulsivity Irresponsibility
tor, consisting of four items relating to an arrogant and deceitful interpersonal style; an Affective factor, marked by four PCL-R items relating to deficient affective experience; and a Behavioral factor, comprising five items relating to an impulsive and irresponsible behavioral style. The three factors and their constituent items are presented in Table 1. Items were summed and then averaged across raters to obtain the three factor scores to be used in the analyses. Interrater reliability for the PCL-R factor scores was evaluated using correlation coefficients (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). Interrater coefficients were .73 for the Interpersonal factor, .78 for the Affective factor, and .77 for the Behavioral factor. The means and standard deviations for PCL-R factor scores were as follows: Interpersonal factor, M = 4.6, SD = 1.9; Affective factor, M = 4.6, SD = 1.8; Behavioral factor, M = 6.0, SD = 2.0. In addition, the three factor scores were summed to create a Composite score, which reflects the superordinate psychopathy construct embodied in the Cooke and Michie (2001) model. The mean for the Composite score was 15.2, with a standard deviation of 4.5; the interrater reliability coefficient for Composite scores was .84. Participants also completed a number of self-report measures; these are described below.3 Data from these measures were available for varying proportions of the sample. Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ). The MPQ (Tellegen, in press) is a 276-item, self-report personality inventory consisting of 11 primary trait scales that factor into the following four higher order dimensions: Agentic Positive Emotionality (PEM-A), which reflects the tendency to derive well-being from leadership and achievement; Communal Positive Emotionality (PEM-C), which consists of the tendency to derive satisfaction from affiliative behaviors; Negative Emotionality (NEM), which is defined as a general susceptibility to negative emotions, marked by traits of stress reactivity, alienation, and aggression; and Constraint (CON), which indexes dispositions toward behavioral control, restraint, and conventional moral attitudes. The MPQ also contains validity scales that enable the identification of inconsistent or biased response styles; 231 participants completed the
MPQ; of these, 16 had invalid profiles. Thus, valid MPQ data were available for 215 participants. Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). The NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 60-item self-report measure of normal personality traits encompassed by the five-factor model of personality. The NEO-FFI yields scores on five major personality dimensions: Neuroticism (the tendency to experience strong emotional reactions to stress), Extraversion (a measure of sociability and positive engagement with others), Agreeableness (willingness to cooperate and get along with others), Conscientiousness (discipline and orderliness, desire for structure), and Openness to Experience (willingness to be exposed to novel thoughts and experiences). Emotionality-Activity-Sociability Temperament Survey (EAS). The EAS (Buss & Plomin, 1975, 1984) is a 20-item inventory developed to measure temperament-related traits. Emotionality refers to one’s reactivity to negative emotional events and is represented by separate subscales indexing fear, anger, and distress. Activity refers to one’s pace of life, energy level, and tendency to be engaged in multiple activities. Sociability reflects the degree to which one enjoys the company and attention of others. Along with these subscales of the EAS, we administered the fiveitem Impulsivity scale from the original Buss-Plomin temperament inventory (Buss & Plomin, 1975). Socialization (So) Scale. The So scale (Gough, 1960) is a subscale of the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) that was constructed through a criterion validity approach, incorporating items that differentiated delinquents and nondelinquents. High scores indicate greater socialization and fewer delinquent attributes. Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)–Trait Version. The trait version of the PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) is a self-report measure of susceptibility to various mood states. The PANAS yields scores on two primary mood-related dimensions: Positive Affect (PA), which represents the capacity for pleasurable activation, and Negative Affect (NA), which is the propensity to experience negative mood states.
8
ASSESSMENT
Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS). The SSS (Zuckerman, 1979) is a 40-item questionnaire that measures a person’s level of behavioral disinhibition and tendency to engage in thrilling, novel, or dangerous activities. The SSS yields a total score and four subscale scores: Disinhibition, Boredom Susceptibility, Thrill and Adventure Seeking, and Experience Seeking. State-Trait Anger Experiences Inventory (AEX). The AEX (Spielberger, 1988) is a 20-item self-report inventory that measures anger expression and regulation. The AEX yields a total score and three subscale scores: Out (outward expression of anger), In (inward expression of anger), and Control (ability to suppress angry outbursts). Fear Survey Schedule III (FSS-III). The FSS-III (Arrindell, Emmelkamp, & van der Ende, 1984) asks participants to rate the extent to which 52 specific things, places, or activities create a sense of fear or similar unpleasant feelings. The FSS-III yields a total score and the following phobia related scores: social phobia, agoraphobia, animal phobias, and fear of bodily injury/illness. Short Drug Abuse Screening Test (SDAST). The SDAST (Skinner, 1982) is a 20-item screening measure for assessing various problems related to drug use. The SDAST yields a total score, indicating the degree of drugrelated dysfunction. Short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test (SMAST). The SMAST (Selzer, M. L., Vinokur, A., & van Rooijen, L., 1975) is a 13-item screening measure for problems associated with the use of alcohol. The SMAST yields a total score, which reflects the extent of alcohol-related dysfunction. Shipley Institute of Living Scale (SIL). The SIL (Shipley, 1940) is a relatively brief (60-item) selfadministered assessment of intellectual functioning. It yields a total score as well as two subscale scores: Verbal Ability, which consists of 40 items assessing vocabulary knowledge, and Abstraction, which consists of 20 abstract problem-solving items. Other measures. In addition, the following variables were coded on the basis of objective information gathered from the interview and prison files: criminal background, history of aggressive behavior, parents’ occupational status, and SES before incarceration. Criminal background variables were scored from the participants' file data. These included the total number of charges for both violent crimes (including assault, robbery, murder, weapons offenses, kidnapping, and arson) and nonviolent crimes (all other offenses, including drugrelated crimes, fraud/forgery, vehicular violations). In addition to the total counts, several categories of violent
crimes (all but arson) had sufficient base rates to allow for separate analyses. Aggressive behavior indices were also coded from file data, as well as participants’ self-reports during the interview. These variables included frequency of fights as a child, frequency of fights as an adult, and history of physical abuse against the spouse or partner. Ratings of parents’ occupational status and participant SES before incarceration were both derived from file data and scored according to the Hollingshead formula (Hollingshead & Redlich, 1958). Data Analysis Plan We conducted a series of correlational analyses to explore relations between each of the three PCL-R factors and variables from the domains of normal personality, antisocial behaviors, and social background. Given the large number of correlations computed, we adopted an alpha level of .01 rather than .05. This moderately conservative criterion was chosen to balance concerns of Type 1 error with statistical power. Zero-order correlations indicated that in accord with previous research (Cooke & Michie, 2001), the three PCL-R factors were moderately intercorrelated (AffectiveInterpersonal: r = .48, p < .001; Affective-Behavioral: r = .43, p < .001; Interpersonal-Behavioral: r = .41, p < .001). Thus, in addition to the zero-order correlations between each PCL-R factor and the criterion-related variables, partial correlations were computed in which the influence of the other PCL-R factors was statistically controlled. This strategy allows for an examination of the unique relationship between each of the PCL-R factors and the criterion-related variables. Previous authors have used a similar approach in examining the external correlates of the two original PCL-R factors (e.g., Patrick, 1994; Verona et al., 2001). RESULTS Self-Report Personality Inventories Omnibus personality measures. Table 2 presents the correlations between several omnibus measures of personality traits (MPQ,4 NEO-FFI, EAS) and each PCL-R factor. The partial correlations represent the relationship between each factor and the criterion-related personality measure, controlling for the influence of the other two factors. Only significant partial correlations are shown.5 The Interpersonal factor demonstrated positive zeroorder correlations with variables reflecting sociability (NEO-FFI Extroversion) and interpersonal dominance (MPQ Social Potency and PEM-A), as well as a willing-
Hall et al. / VALIDITY OF THE THREE-FACTOR MODEL OF PSYCHOPATHY 9
TABLE 2 Correlations of Omnibus Personality Measures and Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) Factors Measure MPQ (n = 215) Primary trait scale Well-being Social closeness Social potency Achievement Stress reaction Alienation Aggression Control Harm avoidance Traditionalism Absorption Higher order factor Agentic PEM Communal PEM NEM CON NEO-FFI (n = 174) Neuroticism Extroversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness EAS (n = 174) Sociability Activity Impulsivity Emotionality-fear Emotionality-distress Emotionality-anger
Arrogant/Deceitful Interpersonal Style
Deficient Affective Experience
Impulsive/Irresponsible Behavioral Style
Composite Score
.14 –.01 .38 .15 –.12 –.04 .11 .02 –.13 –.03 .14
/ / / / / / / / / / /
.26 .— .34 .23 –.25 .— .— .18 .— .— .—
–.10 –.20 .17 .02 .00 .11 .23 –.03 –.07 –.12 .01
/ / / / / / / / / / /
.— –.22 .— .— .— .— .— .— .— .— .—
–.14 –.09 .13 –.16 .27 .19 .37 –.38 –.20 –.13 .10
/ / / / / / / / / / /
–.18 .— .— –.24 .35 .20 .34 –.42 .— .— .—
–.03 –.13 .29 .02 .05 .11 .29 –.15 –.16 –.12 .11
.26 .14 .00 –.06
/ / / /
.33 .24 –.20 .—
.05 –.13 .15 –.08
/ / / /
.— –.21 .— .—
–.11 –.04 .34 –.33
/ / / /
–.24 .— .35 –.33
.10 –.01 .19 –.19
–.10 .27 .25 –.17 .09
/ / / / /
–.25 .33 .25 .— .25
.01 .04 .11 –.23 .00
/ / / / /
.— .— .— .— .—
.29 –.03 .01 –.37 –.29
/ / / / /
.38 .— .— –.31 –.38
.07 .13 .16 –.31 –.07
.14 .16 .16 –.13 –.07 .07
/ / / / / /
.— .— .— .— –.24 .—
.01 .08 .16 –.03 .05 .19
/ / / / / /
.— .— .— .— .— .—
.01 .13 .42 .06 .31 .31
/ / / / / /
.— .— .39 .— .37 .28
.07 .15 .30 –.05 .11 .23
NOTE: r values to the left of the slash are for zero-order correlations; values to the right of the slash indicate partial correlations, controlling for the influence of the other two factors. Bold entries are significant at the .01 level. Only significant partial correlations are shown, and no partial correlations are reported for the PCL-R Composite score. MPQ = Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire; PEM = Positive Emotionality; NEM = Negative Emotionality; CON = Constraint; NEO-FFI = Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness Five Factor Inventory; EAS = Emotionality-Activity-Sociability Temperament Survey.
ness to experience new and novel situations (NEO-FFI Openness). Controlling for variance associated with the other two factors, the Interpersonal factor also correlated with scales measuring self-reported planfulness and achievement orientation (MPQ Achievement and Control; NEO-FFI Conscientiousness), as well as positive regard for self and desire to associate with others (MPQ WellBeing and PEM-C). In contrast, the Interpersonal factor correlated negatively with vulnerability to stress and negative emotions (MPQ Stress Reaction and NEM; NEO-FFI Neuroticism; EAS Emotionality-Distress). In the zero-order correlations, the Affective factor was positively associated with self-reported tendencies toward aggressive impulses (MPQ Aggression) and negatively with desire to affiliate and cooperate with others (MPQ Social Closeness and NEO-FFI Agreeableness). When the
influence of the other two factors was statistically controlled, however, the associations with Aggression and Agreeableness became nonsignificant. Thus, when its unique relationships with personality were examined, the Affective factor was selectively related to a preference for social and emotional detachment from others (low MPQ Social Closeness, PEM-C). The Behavioral factor was associated with measures of aggression (high MPQ Aggression; low NEO-FFI Agreeableness; high EAS Distress-Anger), mistrust (high MPQ Alienation), and general susceptibility to negative emotions (high MPQ Stress Reaction and NEM; high NEOFFI Neuroticism; high EAS Emotionality-Distress). Scores on this factor were also associated with several measures of disinhibitory tendencies (low MPQ Control, Harm Avoidance, and CON; low NEO-FFI Conscien-
10
ASSESSMENT
TABLE 3 Correlations of Other Self-Report Measures and Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) Factors Measure CPI Socialization scale (n = 170) PANAS (n = 175) Positive affect Negative affect Sensation Seeking Scale (n = 169) Disinhibition Boredom susceptibility Thrill-seeking Experience-seeking Total Anger Experiences Questionnaire (n = 175) Out In Control Total Fear Survey Schedule (n = 184) Social phobia Agoraphobia Bodily injury Animal phobia Total
Arrogant/Deceitful Interpersonal Style
Deficient Affective Experience
Impulsive/Irresponsible Behavioral Style
Composite Score
–.16 / .—
–.21 / .—
–.54 / –.52
–.36
.24 / .35 –.08 / .—
.02 / .— –.03 / .—
–.14 / –.28 .16 / .23
.06 .01
.14 .13 .13 .23 .11
/ / / / /
.— .— .— .— .—
.17 .16 .07 .08 .16
/ / / / /
.— .— .— .— .—
.31 .26 .08 .13 .22
/ / / / /
.22 .— .— .— .27
.25 .22 .12 .18 .20
.10 –.02 .00 .04
/ / / /
.— .— .21 .—
.16 .08 –.12 .16
/ / / /
.— .— .— .—
.30 .20 –.35 .37
/ / / /
.27 .23 –.38 .38
.22 .10 –.18 .22
–.12 –.15 –.19 –.18 –.18
/ / / / /
.— .— .— .— .—
–.03 –.08 –.13 –.20 –.12
/ / / / /
.— .— .— .— .—
.11 .05 .03 –.06 .05
/ / / / /
.— .— .— .— .—
–.02 –.08 –.13 –.19 –.11
NOTE: r values to the left of the slash are for zero-order correlations; values to the right of the slash indicate partial correlations, controlling for the influence of the other two factors. Bold entries are significant at the .01 level. Only significant partial correlations are shown, and no partial correlations are reported for the PCL-R Composite score. CPI = California Psychological Inventory; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule.
tiousness; high Buss-Plomin [1975] Impulsivity). When the variance associated with the other two factors was controlled, the Behavioral factor was also negatively correlated with markers of positive emotionality and achievement motivation (low MPQ Well-being, Achievement, and PEM-A). The Composite score was significantly associated with several measures of aggression and negative emotionality (high MPQ Aggression and NEM; low NEO-FFI Agreeableness; EAS Distress-Anger), poor behavioral controls (low MPQ CON; high Buss-Plomin [1975] Impulsivity), as well as feelings of interpersonal dominance and influence (MPQ Social Potency). Other personality measures. Simple and partial correlations (controlling for the influence of the other two factors) between the three PCL-R factors and several other personality instruments (So, PANAS, SSS, AEX, FSS) are presented in Table 3. The Interpersonal factor was positively correlated with the Positive Affect scale of the PANAS and the Experience-Seeking facet of the SSS. The Interpersonal factor was also negatively related to selfreported fear of physical harm (FSS Bodily Injury) and Socialization scores. When the influence of the other two factors was statistically controlled, however, only the correlation with Positive Affect remained significant. Fur-
thermore, there was also a significant partial correlation between the Interpersonal factor and anger control (AEX Control). The Affective factor correlated negatively with Socialization and positively with several facets of sensation seeking (Disinhibition, Boredom Susceptibility, and Total scores). Scores on this factor were also negatively related to fears regarding various nondangerous animals (FSS Animal Phobia). However, none of these relationships remained significant when the influence of the other two factors was statistically controlled. The Behavioral factor was strongly related to low Socialization as well as poor anger regulation (high AEX Out, In, and Total; low AEX Control) and several facets of Sensation Seeking (Disinhibition, Boredom Susceptibility, and Total scores). With the exception of Boredom Susceptibility, all of these relationships remained significant when the effects of the other two factors were controlled. In addition, the Behavioral factor showed significant partial correlations with low Positive Affect and high Negative Affect scores on the PANAS. The Composite score was associated with low Socialization and several facets of Sensation Seeking (high Disinhibition, Boredom Susceptibility, and Total), as well as heightened anger expression (high AEX Out and Total).
Hall et al. / VALIDITY OF THE THREE-FACTOR MODEL OF PSYCHOPATHY 11
TABLE 4 Antisocial Behavior and Substance Use Correlates of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) Factors Measure Criminal history (n = 309) Nonviolent offenses Violent offenses Robbery Murder Weapons possession. Sexual offenses Kidnapping Assault Interpersonal aggression (n = 308) Adult fights Childhood fights Domestic abuse APD (n = 310) Adult Sx Childhood Sx Substance abuse SDAST total (n = 297) SMAST total (n = 303)
Arrogant/Deceitful Interpersonal Style .30 .17 .05 .02 .15 .03 .15 .07
/ / / / / / / /
.— .— .— .— .— .— .— .—
Deficient Affective Experience .32 .28 –.07 .27 .23 .14 .20 .21
/ / / / / / / /
Impulsive/Irresponsible Behavioral Style
.15 .19 .— .27 .17 .— .— .16
.33 .19 .00 .13 .13 .06 .12 .19
/ / / / / / / /
Composite Score
.19 .— .— .— .— .— .— .—
.40 .27 .01 .18 .22 .10 .20 .19
.13 / .— .01 / .— .07 / .—
.14 / .— .11 / .— .14 / .—
.28 / .24 .20 / .19 .22 / .19
.23 .13 .18
.42 / .— .30 / .—
.48 / .26 .33 / .—
.68 / .57 .56 / .47
.66 .50
.12 / .— .00 / .—
.04 / .— –.01 / .—
.34 / .34 .17 / .21
.20 .06
NOTE: r values to the left of the slash are for zero-order correlations; values to the right of the slash indicate partial correlations, controlling for the influence of the other two factors. Bold entries are significant at the .01 level. Only significant partial correlations are shown, and no partial correlations are reported for the PCL-R Composite score. APD = Antisocial personality disorder; SDAST = Short Drug Abuse Screening Test; SMAST = Short Michigan Alcohol Screening Test.
Antisocial Behavior and Substance Use Table 4 presents the zero-order and partial correlations between various indices of antisocial deviance and substance abuse and each of the PCL-R factor scores. Scores on the Interpersonal factor were related to total counts of both violent and nonviolent offenses (but not to any specific charges) as well as child and adult APD symptoms (proportion of symptoms met, averaged across two raters). However, none of these relationships remained significant after controlling for the influence of the other two factors. The Affective factor was positively associated with total counts of both violent and nonviolent offenses. Specifically, high scores on the Affective factor were related to charges for assault, murder, kidnapping, and weapons possession. This factor was also positively related to number of adult and child APD symptoms. All of these relations were borne out in the partial correlations, with the exceptions of kidnapping and childhood APD symptoms. The Behavioral factor was associated with a wide array of antisocial behaviors, including total violent and nonviolent offenses, assault charges, fights as a child and as an adult, and incidents of violence toward the spouse/ girlfriend. The Behavioral factor was also positively correlated with self-reports of drug and alcohol abuse and both child and adult symptoms of APD. Most of these rela-
tionships remained significant when the influence of the other two factors was controlled; the partial correlations with violent offenses and assault charges became nonsignificant. The Composite score also demonstrated broad associations with antisocial behavior and substance use, as it was significantly correlated with nearly every index that we examined (except robbery, sexual offenses, childhood fights, and alcohol abuse). Thus, the overall syndrome (as conceptualized by the three-factor model) was highly associated with an extensive array of antisocial behaviors and drug abuse. Adaptive Functioning Table 5 presents the zero-order and partial correlations between each PCL-R factor and indices of social status, family background, and intelligence. High scores on the Interpersonal factor were associated with higher verbal IQ, higher occupational status of the father, and higher SES prior to incarceration; the Affective factor appeared to be unrelated to variables involving social status and intelligence. The Behavioral factor, on the other hand, was associated with lower SES. Consistent with prior research (Patrick, 1994), Composite scores did not correlate with any of these measures.
12
ASSESSMENT
TABLE 5 Social Background and Intelligence Correlates of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) Factors Measure Parents’ occupational status Father (n = 183) Mother (n = 177) Current SES rank (n = 304) Shipley Institute of Living Scale (n = 108) Verbal score Abstraction score Total score
Arrogant/Deceitful Interpersonal Style
Deficient Affective Experience
Impulsive/Irresponsible Behavioral Style
Composite Score
–.20 / –.25 –.06 / .— –.15 / –.26
.00 / .— .14 / .— .07 / .—
.03 / .— .05 / .— .18 / .23
–.08 .05 .03
.28 / .30 .15 / .— .22 / .—
.07 / .— .05 / .— .06 / .—
.00 / .— .15 / .— .10 / .—
.16 .15 .17
NOTE: r values to the left of the slash are for zero-order correlations; values to the right of the slash indicate partial correlations, controlling for the influence of the other two factors. Bold entries are significant at the .01 level. Only significant partial correlations are shown, and no partial correlations are reported for the PCL-R Composite score. Fathers occupation, mothers occupation, and current social economic status (SES) are rank variables, thus negative correlations indicate higher SES.
Hare’s Antisocial Factor Steiger’s (1980) paired t-test statistic was used to compare the external (zero-order) correlations for Hare’s (2003) five-item Antisocial factor (comprising the following PCL-R items: poor behavioral controls, early childhood problems, juvenile delinquency, revocation of conditional release, and criminal versatility) with those for the Behavioral factor with respect to all criterion-related measures in the study. All significant correlations were in the same direction for both factors. However, the Behavioral factor demonstrated a greater positive correlation with Buss-Plomin Impulsivity (rs = .42 vs. .21, t = –3.41, p < .01) and greater negative correlations with MPQ Control (rs = –.38 vs. –.09, t = 3.43, p < .01) and CON (rs = –.33 vs. –.13, t = 5.08, p < .01). The Antisocial factor, on the other hand, demonstrated greater positive correlations with assault charges (rs = .41 vs. .19, t = 4.70, p < .01) and overall number of violent charges (rs = .38 vs. .19, t = 4.10, p
