running head: the psychopath next door 1 the psychopath ... · criminality, executive functioning,...

Running head: THE PSYCHOPATH NEXT DOOR 1

The Psychopath Next Door: How Similar Are They to Those Behind Bars? Criminality,

Executive Functioning, and Emotion Processing in ‘Noncriminal’ Psychopathy.

Emily Louise Adam

Bachelor of Arts (Psychology)

Bachelor of Psychological Science (Honours)

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (IF49)

The School of Psychology and Counselling

Faculty of Health

Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation

Queensland University of Technology

2017

THE PSYCHOPATH NEXT DOOR 2

Keywords

Criminality, psychopathy, noncriminal psychopathy, primary psychopathy, secondary psychopathy, executive function, emotion, emotion-processing, gender differences, lexical decision task.


“Though not deeply vicious, he carries disaster lightly in each hand”

Hervey Cleckley, The Mask of Sanity (1955)


List of Abbreviations

ASD Antisocial Personality Disorder (in quoted material)

ASPD Antisocial Personality Disorder

ASPD+P Antisocial Personality Disorder with Psychopathy

ASPD-P Antisocial Personality Disorder without Psychopathy

AX-CPT A/X Continuous Performance Test

BAS Behaviour Activation System

BE Blame Externalisation

BIS Behavioural Inhibition System

C Coldheartedness

calCAP-SPM2 California Computerised Assessment Package Serial Pattern Matching 2

CAT Categories Achieved

CFA Confirmatory factor analysis

CH Coldheartedness

CN Carefree Nonplanfulness

CSS-M Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified

CSS-R Criminal Sentiments Scale-Revised

DLPFC Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex

DSM Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

DSM-II Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders second edition

DSM-III Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders third edition

DSM-III-R Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders third revised edition

DSM-IV Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders fourth edition

DSM-IV-TR Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders fourth revised edition

DSM-V Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders fifth edition

EF Executive Function


ERN Error-related negativity

ERP Event-related potential

F Fearlessness

F1 Factor one

F2 Factor two

FD Fearless Dominance

FFFS Fight-Flight-Freeze System

FFM Five-Factor Model of personality

HH High Factor 1 and Factor 2 Scores

HL High Factor 1 Scores and Low Factor 2 Scores

HR Heart Rate

IA Impulsive Antisociality

ICO Identification with criminal others

ID/ED Intradimensional/Extradimensional

IES Integrated Emotions Systems

IGT Iowa Gambling Task

IMC’s Instructional manipulation checks

IQ Intelligence Quotient

LCP Law-Court-Police

LDT lexical decision task

LH Low Factor 1 Scores and High Factor 2 Scores

LL Low Factor 1 and Factor 2 Scores

LSRP Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy

ME Machiavellian Egocentricity

MI Mental Illness

MPQ Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire – Brief form

NART National Adult Reading Tests


NPE Nonperseverative errors

NTV Number of Traffic Violations

OFC Orbitofrontal cortex

OLD20 Orthographic Levenshtein distance

PAS Personality Assessment Screener

PCL Psychopathy Checklist

PCL:SV Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version

PCL-R Psychopathy Checklist-Revised

PCL-R Psychopathy Checklist Revised

PCL-SV Psychopathy Checklist Screening Version

PCL-YV Psychopathy Checklist Youth Version

PE Preservative errors

PEBL Psychology Experiment Building Language

PET Positron Emission Tomography

PPI Psychopathic Personality Inventory

PPI:SF Psychopathic Personality Inventory: Short Form

PPI-C Psychopathic Personality Inventory

PPI-FD Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Fearless Dominance

PPI-I Psychopathic Personality Inventory

PPI-II Psychopathic Personality Inventory

PPI-R Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised

PPI-SCI Psychopathic Personality Inventory- Self-Centred Impulsivity

rCBF Cerebral blood flow

RMH Response Modulation Hypothesis

RN Rebellious Nonconformity

RST Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory

RT Reaction times


SCI Self-Centred Impulsivity

SES Socioeconomic status

SI STOP-IT

SOI Social Influence

SPM-P Standard Progressive Matrices Plus

SRCS Self-reported criminal offending

SRCS Self-Report Criminality Scale

SRDS Self-Report Delinquency Scale

SRP-III Self-Report Psychopathy Scale – Version Three

SSDs Stop-signal delays

SSRT Stop-signal reaction time

STI Stress Immunity

TLV Tolerance for law violations

TMT-B Trail-Making Test Part B

TOL Tower of London

TOL-DX Tower of London Drexal University

WAIS Weschler Abbreviated Scale for Intelligence

WAIS-III Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale – Third Edition

WAS Welsh Anxiety Scale

WCST Wisconsin Card Sorting Test

WCST:CV4 Wisconsin Card Sorting Test: Computer Version Four

WISC-III Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Third Edition;

WMC Working memory capacity


Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. 4

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... 14

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... 15

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 18

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 19

Chapter One - Thesis Overview ............................................................................................... 21

Chapter Overview ................................................................................................................ 21

Background and Context ...................................................................................................... 21

Purpose of Research Program .............................................................................................. 22

Thesis Structure .................................................................................................................... 23

Chapter Two - General Literature Review ............................................................................... 24


Psychopathy Defined ............................................................................................................ 24

Assessment of Criminal Psychopathy .................................................................................. 26

Assessment of Noncriminal Psychopathy ............................................................................ 27

Review of Psychopathy Assessments .................................................................................. 28

Psychopathy Variants ........................................................................................................... 29

Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder ............................................................... 31

Psychopathy and Affective Deficits ..................................................................................... 34

Psychopathy and Cognitive Deficits .................................................................................... 40

Executive Functioning .......................................................................................................... 41

Summary of Affective and Cognitive Deficits ..................................................................... 45

Theories of Psychopathy .......................................................................................................... 46

Lykken’s Low Fear Hypothesis ........................................................................................... 46

Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory ............................................................................ 48

The Somatic Marker Hypothesis .......................................................................................... 50

The Integrated Emotions Systems Model ............................................................................ 52

The Response Modulation Hypothesis ................................................................................. 54

Review of Current Theories of Psychopathy ....................................................................... 55

What is Noncriminal Psychopathy? ..................................................................................... 56

Theoretical Perspectives of Noncriminal Psychopathy ........................................................ 57


Subclinical psychopathy. .................................................................................................. 58

Successful psychopathy. ................................................................................................... 58

A dual process model of psychopathy. ............................................................................. 59

Triarchic Model of Psychopathy .......................................................................................... 60

Review of Theories of ‘Noncriminal’ Psychopathy ............................................................. 61

The Current Research ........................................................................................................... 62

Original Contribution to Knowledge ....................................................................................... 62

Psychopathy and Criminality ............................................................................................... 62

Executive Function ............................................................................................................... 63

Emotion Processing .............................................................................................................. 63

Research Questions .................................................................................................................. 65

Research Question One: How central is criminal behaviour to the construct of psychopathy? ........................................................................................................................ 66

Research Question Two: Is the relationship between criminality and psychopathy the same for males and females? ......................................................................................................... 66

Research Question Three: What is the relationship between psychopathy variants and executive function in a community sample? ........................................................................ 66

Research Question Four: Is the pattern of relationships between psychopathy variants and executive function the same for males and females? ........................................................... 67

Research Question Five: What is the relationship between psychopathy variants and emotion processing in a community sample? ...................................................................... 67

Research Question Six: Is the relationship between psychopathy variants and emotion processing abnormalities the same for males and females? ................................................. 67

Chapter Three........................................................................................................................... 68


Background to Research ....................................................................................................... 68

Examination of the PCL-R. .............................................................................................. 70

Noncriminal Measures of Psychopathy. ........................................................................... 73

Theories of noncriminal psychopathy. ............................................................................. 76

Crime and Criminality. ..................................................................................................... 79

Gender. ............................................................................................................................. 82

The Current Study .................................................................................................................... 84

Method ..................................................................................................................................... 86

Participants ........................................................................................................................... 86

Materials ............................................................................................................................... 88


Demographic questionnaire. ............................................................................................. 88

Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP) (Levenson et al., 1995). .................... 88

The Criminal Sentiments Scale Modified (CSS-M) (Simourd, 1997). ............................ 89

Self-Report Criminal Activity Scale. ................................................................................ 90

Instructional manipulation checks (IMC’s) (Oppenheimer, Meyvis, & Davidenko, 2009). .......................................................................................................................................... 90

Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 90

Design ...................................................................................................................................... 91

Results ...................................................................................................................................... 92

Data Screening ..................................................................................................................... 92

Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................................ 92

Inferential Statistics .............................................................................................................. 94

Criminal Attitudes. ........................................................................................................... 95

Attitudes Toward Law, Courts and Police. ....................................................................... 97

Tolerance for Law Violations. .......................................................................................... 99

Identification with Criminal Others. ............................................................................... 101

Self-Reported Criminal Behaviour. ................................................................................ 103

Follow-up Mediation Analyses .......................................................................................... 105

Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 108

Overview of Research ........................................................................................................ 108

Key Findings ...................................................................................................................... 108

Gender. ........................................................................................................................... 108

Criminal convictions and traffic violations. ................................................................... 109

Criminal attitudes. .......................................................................................................... 109

Self-Reported Criminal Behaviour. ................................................................................ 112

Implications, Limitations, and Future Directions .................................................................. 115

Chapter Summary .................................................................................................................. 116

Chapter Four .......................................................................................................................... 117

Chapter Overview .............................................................................................................. 117

Background to Research ........................................................................................................ 119

Executive Function ................................................................................................................ 120

Hot and Cool Executive Function .......................................................................................... 122

Cool Executive Functions in Psychopathy ............................................................................ 126

Cool Executive Function in Unsuccessful Psychopathy ........................................................ 128


Cool Executive Function in Successful Psychopathy ............................................................ 136

Summary of Cool Executive Functioning in Successful and Unsuccessful Psychopathy . 143

The Current Study .................................................................................................................. 157

Aims and Hypotheses ......................................................................................................... 160

Method ................................................................................................................................... 161

Participants ......................................................................................................................... 161

Materials ............................................................................................................................. 162

The Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R) (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). ........................................................................................................................................ 162

The Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST). .................................................................. 163

The N-Back Task. ........................................................................................................... 164

The Tower of London. .................................................................................................... 164

The Stop-Signal Task. .................................................................................................... 165

The Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices Plus (SPM-P). .......................................... 165

Procedure ............................................................................................................................ 166

The computerised executive function tasks. ................................................................... 166

The WCST:CV4. ............................................................................................................ 166

The N-Back..................................................................................................................... 167

STOP-IT (Verbruggen et al., 2008). ............................................................................... 167

TOL-DX (Culbertson & Zillmer, 1998; Mueller, 2010). ............................................... 168

Design .................................................................................................................................... 168

Results .................................................................................................................................... 169

Data Screening ................................................................................................................... 169

Descriptive Statistics ...................................................................................................... 170

Inferential Statistics ........................................................................................................ 173

Psychopathic Personality Inventory – Revised .................................................................. 175

Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices-Plus ..................................................................... 175

Tower of London ................................................................................................................ 176

Tower of London -Total Score. ...................................................................................... 176

Tower of London – Planning and Execution Time. ....................................................... 179

Stop-Signal Reaction Time ................................................................................................ 181

Wisconsin Card Sorting Task ............................................................................................. 182

Categories Achieved. ...................................................................................................... 182

Percentage of Perseverative Errors. ................................................................................ 182


N-Back Task ....................................................................................................................... 184

Self-Report Criminality Scale (SRCS) ............................................................................... 185

Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 186


Key Findings ...................................................................................................................... 187

Males. ............................................................................................................................. 188

Females. .......................................................................................................................... 190

Psychopathy, Executive Function, and Self-Report Criminality ....................................... 193

Limitations and Directions for Future Research ................................................................ 194

Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................... 195

Chapter Five ........................................................................................................................... 196

Chapter Overview .............................................................................................................. 196

Emotion Deficits in Psychopathy ....................................................................................... 197

Emotion Deficits in Primary and Secondary Psychopathy ................................................ 200

Affective and Semantic Language Processing ................................................................... 202

Lexical Decision Task Research in Psychopathy ............................................................... 204

Summary of Implicit Language Tasks in Psychopathy ...................................................... 210

Study 3 ................................................................................................................................... 212

Method ................................................................................................................................... 213

Participants ......................................................................................................................... 213

Materials ............................................................................................................................. 214

Demographic questionnaire. ........................................................................................... 214

The Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R) (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). ........................................................................................................................................ 214

Word Stimuli. ................................................................................................................. 215

Pseudoword stimuli. ....................................................................................................... 215

Procedure ............................................................................................................................ 216

The Lexical Decision Task. ............................................................................................ 216

Word rating task. ............................................................................................................ 217

Design................................................................................................................................. 218

Results .................................................................................................................................... 218

Data Screening ................................................................................................................... 218

Lexical Decision Data ........................................................................................................ 219

Psychopathy and Priming Effects ................................................................................... 220


Word Rating Task .............................................................................................................. 222

Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 224


Key Findings ...................................................................................................................... 225

Psychopathy and priming. .............................................................................................. 225

Psychopathy and word ratings. ....................................................................................... 226

Summary of Findings ......................................................................................................... 227

Limitations, Implications and Directions for Future Research .............................................. 228

Chapter Six............................................................................................................................. 229

Psychopathy and Criminality ............................................................................................. 230

Executive Function ............................................................................................................. 231

Emotion Processing ............................................................................................................ 233

Theoretical Implications, Practical Applications, and Directions for Future Research ..... 234

References .............................................................................................................................. 236

Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................. 277

Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................................. 278

Appendix 3 ............................................................................................................................. 280

Appendix 4 ............................................................................................................................. 282

Appendix 5 ............................................................................................................................. 283

Appendix 6 ............................................................................................................................. 284

Appendix 7 ............................................................................................................................. 292

Appendix 8 ............................................................................................................................. 294

Appendix 9 ............................................................................................................................. 300

Appendix 10 ........................................................................................................................... 301


List of Figures

Figure 1 Conceptual diagram of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Secondary

Psychopathy on Self-Reported Criminal Behaviour for Males. …………………….Page 106

Figure 2 Conceptual diagram of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Secondary

Psychopathy on Self-Reported Criminal Behaviour for Females. …………………….Page 107

Figure 3a. Conceptual diagram of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Self-Centred

Impulsivity on Tower of London Performance for Males. ……………………………. Page 178

Figure 3b. Conceptual Diagram of the Direct and Indirect effects of Self-Centred

Impulsivity on Tower of London Execution Times for Males. …………………………Page 178

Figure 4. Example trial sequences: (a) congruent emotion word trial (b) incongruent

concrete word trial. ………………………………………………………………………….Page 217


List of Tables

Table 1 Participant Demographics (N = 523)……………………………………….Page 87

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Psychopathy and Criminal Attitudes for Males and

Females…………………………………………………………………………………………...Page 94

Table 3 Bivariate Correlations between Psychopathy and Criminal Attitudes

(Correlations Below the Diagonal Are for Males, Above the Diagonal for Females). Page 95

Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Criminal Attitudes from Primary

and Secondary Psychopathy Separately for Males and Females…………………………Page 97

Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Attitudes Toward Law, Courts,

and Police from Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Separately for Males and

Females…………………………………………………………………………………………..Page 99

Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Tolerance for Law Violations

from Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Presented Separately for Males and

Females……………………………………………………………………………………… Page 101

Table 7 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Identification with Criminal

Others from Primary and Secondary Psychopathy for Males and Females…………Page 103

Table 8 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Criminal Behaviour from

Primary and Secondary Psychopathy for Males and Females…………………………Page 105

Table 9 Studies Examining Behavioural Performance on Measures of Cool Executive

Function in Psychopathy……………………………………………………………………Page 146

Table 10 Descriptive Statistics for Psychopathy and Executive Function for Males and

Females………………………………………………………………………………………..Page 162

Table 11 Bivariate Correlations between Psychopathy and Executive Function for

Males and Females (Males are below the diagonal, females above) .Page 172


Table 12 Mediated Regression Predicting Tower of London Execution Times from Self-

Centred Impulsivity and Cognitive Ability for Females. ……………………………….Page 174

Table 13 Mediated Regression Predicting Tower of London Execution Times from Self-

Centred Impulsivity and Cognitive Ability for Females…….…………………………..Page 181

Table 14 Priming effects, presented separately for each gender, for concrete, abstract

and emotion words (in milliseconds)………………………………………………………Page 220

Table 15 Correlations between Psychopathy Factors and Priming Effects for Males and

Females…………………………………………………………………………………………Page 220

Table 16 Mean word ratings for positive, negative, abstract and concrete words on

concreteness, imageability, context availability, arousal, and valence………………...Page 221

Table 17 Correlations between Psychopathy Factors and Word Ratings for Males and

Females………………………………………………………………………………………….Page 222

QUT Verified Signature


Abstract

The current thesis provides an original contribution to knowledge through the examination of

psychopathy in a mixed gender community sample with a noncriminal measure of

psychopathy. Most research on psychopathy, a personality disorder characterised by

callousness, manipulativeness, deceitfulness, and a lack of emotion, has used predominately

male criminal samples and criminal measures of psychopathy. This monofocal approach

conflates psychopathy with criminality and has resulted in a dearth of knowledge regarding

the nature and presentation of psychopathy in females and in the general population. This

research tested prominent theories of psychopathy by examining criminality, executive

functioning, and emotion-processing in psychopathy in a community sample. Gender

differences were also examined. Study 1 examined the relationship between psychopathy and

criminality using a comprehensive survey; Study 2 explored executive function in

psychopathy using a series of computer-based executive function tests, and Study 3 focused

on emotion-processing in psychopathy using a lexical decision task. The results from Study 1

showed that psychopathy was a poor predictor of criminal behaviour and attitudes, for both

genders. In Study 2, while psychopathy predicted executive dysfunction in males, for

females, psychopathy predicted superior executive function. In Study 3, there were no

significant relationships between psychopathy and emotion-processing in either males or

females. However, gender differences were also observed for emotion-processing. These

findings suggest that while current theories of psychopathy explain male, criminal

psychopathy well (as would be expected given the tautology with sampling and

measurements), they do not adequately explain noncriminal psychopathy nor female

psychopathy.


Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to express my deep gratitude for the support and

mentoring provided by my primary supervisor, Renata Meuter. Renata, you have finessed the

art of postgraduate student supervision by providing me with enough support and advice to

get me through, but enough space to be an independent researcher. In addition to sharing your

exceptional content knowledge on language processing, E-prime, and virtually all aspects of

cognitive psychology, you have been a consistent advocate for me throughout the PhD

journey. I would never have finished this PhD had it not been for your support,

encouragement, and advice – thank you, thank you, thank you! I would also like to thank my

associate supervisor, Nigar Khawaja, who joined the PhD supervision team late in the

program. Nigar, thank you for reviewing drafts of my thesis and for setting expectations of

me that kept me motivated and on task.

To my husband Troy, thank you for listening to me whine about the PhD program and

for encouraging me out of my ‘imposter syndrome’ episodes. You have supported and loved

me not just through the PhD journey, but through all the wonderful and horrible life

circumstances throughout the past 8 years. A wife could not ask for a more loyal, supportive,

patient, or loving husband.

To my parents, Rick and Janine, thank you for your unwavering support for me. You

have loved me, encouraged me, nurtured me, and raised me to be the woman I am today.

Mum, you taught me to be a kind and empathetic person and you inspire me to be a better

person through the example that you set every day. Papa, thank you for raising me to be a

strong, determined, and confident woman. Your love, support, and belief in me has enabled

me to pursue my dreams and aspirations. To my siblings, Rachael and Kieran, thank you for

being my lifelong best friends and confidantes.


Thank you to my PhD peers, Louise Starfelt, Sherrie-Ann Kaye, Shannon Edmed,

Alicia Allen, Jim Oxtoby, Vincent Tam, Ivan Chang, Cassandra Pattinson, Daniel Joyce,

Sophie Miller, and Rachel and Stuart Leske. I couldn’t have asked for a better group of

people to go to work with every day. You all made the PhD journey so much more enjoyable

and I will never forget the good times we had navigating the academic world.


Chapter One - Thesis Overview

Chapter Overview

This chapter of the thesis provides an overview of the current program of research. In

an attempt to increase understanding on the nature and presentation of psychopathy, the

relationships between criminality, executive functioning, and emotion processing in

psychopathy were examined using a community sample. Although interest in female

psychopathy and noncriminal psychopathy has increased in recent times, the current body of

literature on psychopathy primarily reflects male, criminal psychopathy. Very little is known

about the presentation of psychopathy in females, and it is unclear whether research findings

in male psychopaths generalize to female psychopaths. Furthermore, the focus on criminal

offenders and the use of criminal scales to assess psychopathy has resulted in the conflation

of psychopathy and criminality. Thus, the primary goal was to extend psychopathy research

to female and noncriminal psychopathy using a community sample. To do this, current

theoretical models of noncriminal psychopathy were examined and their applicability to

noncriminal psychopathy and female psychopathy were assessed in the three studies

presented throughout this thesis. A brief background to the research is outlined in this

chapter, along with the presentation of the rationale and aims of the research program, the

chapter concludes with the presentation of the structure of the thesis.

Background and Context

The psychopathic personality produces considerable personal, financial and societal

burdens, including, an increased risk for domestic violence (Coid & Yang, 2011), an

increased incidence of workplace bullying (Boddy, 2011), negative impacts of corporate

psychopaths on employee well-being and productivity (Boddy, 2014), and an increased

incidence of general, violent, and sexual recidivism in criminal psychopathy (Hemphill, Hare

&Wong, 1998). Given the negative impact of psychopathy on families and society more


broadly it is not surprising that a considerable amount of research has focused on elucidating

the etiological mechanisms that give rise to this personality, along with attempts to treat and

reform individuals with psychopathy. However, because psychopathy has long been

associated with both serious and recidivist criminal behaviour (Hemphill, Hare & Wong,

1998), the majority of research on psychopathy has focused on criminal manifestations of

psychopathy. This program of research aims to extend the research literature on psychopathy

by highlighting the limitations of previous research that have focused exclusively on criminal

offender samples. Specifically, it will be argued that the use of predominately male, criminal

offender samples and the use of measures of psychopathy that explicitly tap criminality are

problematic and interfere with the interpretation of research on psychopathy. It will be argued

that the majority of previous research on psychopathy is confounded by criminality and the

prevalent belief that criminal behaviour is central to psychopathy cannot be justified by the

existing research literature.

Purpose of Research Program

The current research program addresses a significant gap in the psychopathy literature

which has primarily focused on male, criminal psychopathy. Because previous literature has

focused on criminal psychopathy, and emphasises criminality as a key feature, the goals of

the current program of research were to (a) extend psychopathy research to a community

sample; (b) examine the relationship between psychopathy and criminality using a

community sample and noncriminal measure of psychopathy; (c) examine executive

functioning in psychopathy as a way to test current theoretical models of psychopathy and to

establish whether previous findings in criminal psychopathy also extend to noncriminal

psychopathy; (d) examine emotion processing in psychopathy and establish whether findings

of affective abnormalities in criminal psychopathy extend to noncriminal psychopathy; (e)

examine possible gender differences in psychopathy and the manifestation of criminal


behaviour, executive functioning, and emotion processing. These research aims were

addressed by three broad studies that are described in chapters three, four, and five of this

thesis.

Thesis Structure

This thesis contains six chapters. Chapter one provides an overview of the research

program and thesis. The second chapter provides a general introduction to the current body of

literature on psychopathy, highlights potential problems with current findings, and provides a

brief rationale for the program of research presented in chapters three, four, and five.

Chapters three to five outline the background, aims, method, results and discussion of the

three studies designed to address the aforementioned aims of the current program of research.

Chapter three provides a more detailed review of the psychopathy assessment

literature, describes theories of noncriminal psychopathy, and outlines the method and results

of Study 1. Chapter four describes the background, methods and findings of the second study,

which examines whether findings of executive dysfunction in criminal psychopathy also

extend to noncriminal and female psychopathy, and whether there are differential

relationships between executive function and primary and secondary psychopathy. Chapter

five describes the background, methods and findings of the third study, which examines the

relationship between primary and secondary psychopathy and emotion processing in a

noncriminal sample, including an examination of possible gender differences. Chapter six

summarises the findings of the current program of research in the context of the current

literature, and provides some direction for future research.


Chapter Two - General Literature Review

Chapter Overview

This chapter provides the general background of the psychopathy literature. It begins

by defining the psychopathy construct, including coverage of the controversies in the

conceptualization and assessment of psychopathy. The current theoretical perspectives on the

etiology of psychopathy are set-out, followed by discussion of the notion of noncriminal

psychopathy. Through discussion of the current theories, measures, and approaches to the

study of psychopathy, gaps in the literature between theoretical conceptualisations and the

modern approach to the study of psychopathy become apparent. Specifically, it will be

argued that the over-use of criminal samples and the mono-operationalisation of psychopathy

have resulted in the conflation of psychopathy and criminality. Furthermore, it will be argued

that the male bias in the scientific study of psychopathy hinders understanding and may result

in less effective treatments for psychopathic females. The global objective here is to

empirically test two theories of psychopathy: the successful psychopathy model and the dual

process model. There is an additional focus on examining gender differences in the

manifestation of psychopathy. The chapter concludes with a presentation of the aims and

research questions of the current program of research.

Psychopathy Defined

The psychopathic individual is characterized by an excessive sense of self-worth, a

propensity towards deception, impulsivity, and a failure to learn from previous experience.

(Cleckley, 1951; Hare, 1991; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). Interpersonally, they are known

for their superficial charm, manipulativeness, and exploitation of others for personal gain.

Emotionally, they lack the capacity for genuine love, fear, empathy, and remorse.

Behaviourally, psychopathic individuals have a reputation for being impulsive and

irresponsible, and controversially, some theorists claim that antisocial behaviour is a defining


attribute (Hare, 1991). Although the early psychiatric literature describes individuals

displaying ‘manie sans délire’ (Pinel, 1801) ‘innate, preternatural moral depravity’ (Rush,

1812, p. 360), and ‘moral insanity’ (Pritchard, 1835), it was Hervey Cleckley (1941, 1948,

1951) who offered one of the first clear descriptions of the psychopathy construct with his

16-item checklist of interpersonal, affective, and behavioural symptoms. The criteria include:

1. Superficial charm and good “intelligence”

2. Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking

3. Absence of “nervousness” or psychoneurotic manifestations

4. Unreliability

5. Untruthfulness and insincerity

6. Lack of remorse or shame

7. Inadequately motivated antisocial behaviour

8. Poor judgment and failure to learn by experience

9. Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love

10. General poverty in major affective reactions

11. Specific loss of insight

12. Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations

13. Fantastic and uninviting behaviour with drink and sometimes without

14. Suicide rarely carried out

15. Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated

16. Failure to follow any life plan (Cleckley, 1941, pp. 338-339)

Cleckley’s clinical accounts have been hugely influential in the modern

conceptualisation and measurement of psychopathy. The most commonly used and

empirically validated measure of psychopathy, the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R)

(Hare, 1991), was developed specifically from Clecklian criteria.


Assessment of Criminal Psychopathy

Although reports of the psychopathic personality appear consistently throughout the

psychological literature (Herve & Yuille, 2007), the development of a valid empirical

measurement of psychopathy is a relatively recent addition. Hare (1980) was the first to

develop a standardised and reliable measurement of psychopathy with the Psychopathy

Checklist (PCL) (now Psychopathy Checklist-Revised [PCL-R]) (Hare, 1991). The

construction of the Psychopathy Checklist was based on Cleckley’s clinical description of

interpersonal, affective, and behavioural abnormalities. Research on the factor structure of the

PCL-R has produced varying factor structures, including two-factor (Hare, 1991), three-

factor (Cooke & Michie, 2001), and four-factor models (Hare & Neumann, 2005). Although

there is relatively little consensus amongst researchers on which factor structure best captures

PCL-R psychopathy, the two-factor structure is consistent with historical conceptualisations

of psychopathy as consisting of two distinct yet related variants (Blackburn, 1975; Karpman,

1941; Lykken, 1995). PCL-R Factor one (F1) reflects the interpersonal and affective

characteristics of psychopathy, such as superficial charm, egocentricity, deceitfulness,

blunted affect and a lack of inhibitory emotions (i.e., fear, guilt and remorse). PCL-R Factor

two (F2) reflects the behavioural and lifestyle features of psychopathy, such as impulsivity,

irresponsibility and a lack of long-term goals, and is associated with the experience of

negative affect (i.e., fear, anxiety and hostility).

The PCL-R has contributed enormously to the scientific study of psychopathy and is

considered by many to be the ‘gold standard’ of psychopathy measurement (e.g., Fulero,

1995). However, the PCL-R is not without limitations. The PCL-R consists of a 20-item

clinical rating scale completed by a trained clinician on the basis of extensive interviews and

information gathered from institutional files. As a result, the administration of the PCL-R is a

lengthy and involved process, and the reliance on institutional files makes it unsuitable for


nonclinical populations. Furthermore, the PCL-R was developed and standardised on criminal

offender samples, and includes assessment items that specifically capture previous criminal

behaviour. This focus on criminal samples and the antisocial behavioural aspects of

psychopathy has been a topic of recent debate (Skeem & Cooke, 2010a, 2010b). Specifically,

some researchers point out that the focus on criminal behaviour in the PCL-R measurement

of psychopathy is inconsistent with the theoretical foundations on which it was originally

constructed (Blackburn, 2005; Skeem & Cooke, 2010a). Given the heavy focus on criminal

samples and criminal behaviour in the development and standardisation of the PCL-R, it

follows that the PCL-R is best viewed as a measurement of criminal psychopathy, not the

broad theoretical construct of psychopathy.

Assessment of Noncriminal Psychopathy

The study of psychopathy outside of forensic samples was hindered by the absence of

suitable assessment techniques. However, the advent of self-report measurements of

psychopathy has provided researchers with an avenue to study noncriminal psychopathy. The

two most promising self-report measures of noncriminal psychopathy are the Levenson Self-

Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP) (Levenson, et al., 1995) and the Psychopathic Personality

Inventory-Revised (PPI-R) (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). The Levenson Self-Report

Psychopathy Scale (Levenson, et al., 1995) is a self-report measure of psychopathy. The

LSRP consists of two related subscales: the LSRP Primary Scale and the LSRP Secondary

Scale. Similar to the two-factor model of the PCL-R, primary psychopathy reflects the

interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy and secondary psychopathy reflects the

behavioural and lifestyle features of psychopathy. The LSRP possesses good psychometric

properties (Levenson, et al., 1995; Lynam, Whiteside, & Jones, 1999) and has been shown to

capture the same two-factor structure as the PCL-R (Levenson, et al., 1995). More


importantly, the LSRP does not contain items that tap criminality, making it a useful measure

of noncriminal psychopathy.

The Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) is

another promising self-report measure of psychopathy. The PPI-R was developed for use in

non-institutionalised samples and does not contain items that assess criminality. The PPI-R is

psychometrically reliable and captures the same two factor structure as the PCL-R (Lilienfeld

& Widows, 2005). Validity research on the PPI-R has shown that the two factors are strongly

correlated with composite scores from the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire

(MPQ; Patrick, Curtin and Tellegen, 2002), and the factors display significant correlations

with internalising and externalising behaviours that are consistent with theoretical accounts of

psychopathy (Witt, Donnellan, Blonigen, Krueger & Conger, 2009). With the advent of

psychometrically reliable measures of noncriminal psychopathy, researchers now have the

opportunity to investigate the mechanisms underlying the range of affective and cognitive

dysfunction observed in psychopathy, without the confounding effect of criminality.

Review of Psychopathy Assessments

The measure of psychopathy utilised often reflects the researcher’s theoretical

position regarding the role of severe anti-sociality in psychopathy and/or the research sample

of interest. Typically, those who endorse the view of criminality as central to psychopathy

utilise the PCL-R measures (i.e., PCL-R, PCL-SV, PCL-YV, and P-SCAN), and those who

view criminality as an epiphenomenon utilise the LSRP or the PPI-R. Additionally,

researchers interested in criminal samples often utilise the PCL-R, whereas the LSRP and

PPI-R are more commonly used when investigating psychopathy in noncriminal populations.

However, a consistent finding across all measures of psychopathy is the emergence of two

separate, yet related aspects of psychopathy, an interpersonal and affective facet, and an


antisocial-lifestyle facet. This finding aligns with theoretical conceptualisations of

psychopathy as consisting of two related, yet separate, variants (e.g., Karpman, 1941).

Psychopathy Variants

Karpman (1941) was the first to suggest the existence of two variants of psychopathy

that appeared phenotypically similar but were distinct in the underlying core deficits and

etiology. Karpman (1941, 1948) suggested that primary psychopathy or “idiopathic”

psychopathy was associated with a heritable deficit in affective experience, whereas

secondary psychopathy or “symptomatic” psychopathy was associated with affective

dysfunction resulting from negative environmental experiences. According to Karpman

(1941) primary psychopathy is characterized by an innate inability to experience negative

emotional states, including fear and anxiety, which interferes with socialisation. In contrast,

Karpman suggested that secondary psychopathic individuals experience increased levels of

negative affect, and have the capacity for empathy. Differentiating psychopathy variants has

important clinical implications. Although both primary and secondary variants are

phenotypically similar, if different etiological processes give rise primary and secondary

psychopathy, then it is plausible that interventions that may be effective for secondary

psychopathy may not be effective for primary psychopathy, and vice versa.

Research focused on disaggregating psychopathy variants has shown that primary

psychopathy and secondary psychopathy display distinct etiological markers and divergent

patterns of relationships with external variables (e.g., socioeconomic status (SES) variables)

(Benning, Patrick, Hicks, Blonigen, & Krueger, 2003; Morrison & Gilbert, 2001). A key

distinguishing feature of primary and secondary psychopathy is the experience of negative

affect (i.e., fear, anxiety and remorse) (Frick, Lilienfeld, Ellis, Loney, & Silverthorn, 1999;

Patrick, 1994). Numerous studies have shown that primary psychopathy is associated with a

paucity of negative emotions (K. S. Blair, Morton, Leonard, & Blair, 2006; Frick et al., 1999;


Lykken, 1957). Specifically, primary psychopathy is associated with a lack of fear and

anxiety (Lykken, 1957; Ogloff & Wong, 1990), poor passive avoidance to punishment when

the task involves competing goals (Newman & Kosson, 1986), and decreased electrodermal

responsivity to punishment cues (Lykken, 1957). In contrast, secondary psychopathy is

associated with elevated levels of negative affect, specifically, anxiety, fear and hostility

(Hicks, Markon, Patrick, Krueger, & Newman, 2004; Vassileva, Kosson, Abramowitz, &

Conrod, 2005). The experience of negative affect is often used to distinguish between

primary and secondary psychopathy.

In addition to the affective differences between primary and secondary psychopathy, a

range of socioeconomic and behavioural differences have also been observed. Secondary

psychopathy is positively associated with lower SES factors, lower educational levels and

lower verbal intelligence (Benning et al., 2003). In contrast, primary psychopathy is

negatively associated with these factors (Benning et al., 2003). Additionally, secondary

psychopathy and primary psychopathy differ in respect to aggressive behaviour. Empirical

findings demonstrate that primary psychopathy is associated with increased rates of both

instrumental and reactive aggression (Reidy, Zeichner, Miller, & Martinez, 2007).

Conversely, secondary psychopathy is only associated with increased rates of reactive

aggression (Reidy et al., 2007).

These differences in affective, socioeconomic and behavioural functioning suggest

that although primary and secondary psychopathy share some similar behavioural features,

they are actually two separate variants in terms of dysfunction and etiology. Research using

twins has demonstrated a distinct genetic architecture for primary psychopathy and secondary

psychopathy (Blonigen, Carlson, Krueger, & Patrick, 2003; Blonigen, Hicks, Krueger,

Patrick, & Iacono, 2005). According to the dual process model, primary and secondary

psychopathy arise from distinct neurobiological deficits (Patrick & Bernat, 2009). According


to this theory, primary psychopathy stems from dysfunctional neurobiological systems

responsible for motivation and emotion. On the other hand, secondary psychopathy is thought

to result from deficits in brain regions responsible for higher order cognitive functioning.

Taken together, the observed differences between the two variants highlights the need to

distinguish between primary and secondary psychopathy and the phenomenon of interest

when conducting psychopathy research.

It is evident that a complex pattern of both affective and behavioural anomalies have

been observed in primary and secondary psychopathy. However, the majority of previous

research has utilised criminal offender samples. The estimated prevalence of psychopathy in

prison populations (approximately 30%) (Hare, 1991) versus the estimated prevalence of

psychopathy in the general population using PCL measures (approximately 1-6%) (Coid,

Yang, Ullrich, Roberts, & Hare, 2009) makes criminal offender samples a convenient

recruitment option. However, the exclusive use of criminal offender samples provides a

relatively narrow perspective of psychopathy. The etiological mechanisms that lead to

criminal psychopathy (both primary and secondary variants) may not be the same as those in

psychopathy more broadly. Therefore, in order to gain a clearer understanding of the

biological and environmental processes that produce psychopathy, both criminal and

otherwise, research utilising more diverse populations is necessary. In addition to the lack of

generalisability of previous research to the wider population, the traditional use of criminal

offender samples has contributed to the coalescing of psychopathy with criminality and

antisocial personality disorder.

Psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder

An important distinction in the psychopathy literature is that of psychopathy and

Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD). The original conception of psychopathy (Cleckley,

1941, 1948) emphasised interpersonal and affective abnormalities concealed by a ‘mask of


sanity’. Cleckley’s research strongly influenced the criteria for ‘antisocial personality’ in an

early version of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-II)

(American Psychiatric Association, 1968). However, recent editions of the DSM (e.g. DSM-

III; DSM-III-R; DSM-IV; DSM-IV-TR, DSM-V) (American Psychiatric Association, 1980,

1987, 1994, 2000) have shifted towards behaviour-based criteria instead of personality traits

and affective characteristics, because the latter are considered difficult to assess objectively

and reliably. Antisocial Personality Disorder as described in the current version of the DSM

(DSM-V) (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) emphasises “a pervasive pattern of

disregard for and violation of the rights of others, occurring since age 15 years” (section

301.7 [F60.2]) demonstrated by evidence of at least three of the following criteria:

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours, as

indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others

for personal profit or pleasure.

3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.

4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or

assaults.

5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.

6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain

consistent work behaviour or honour financial obligations.

7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having

hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. (American Psychiatric Association,

2013, section 301.7 [F60.2])


Although ‘associated features supporting diagnosis’ describe some of the

interpersonal and affective features characteristic of psychopathy (American Psychiatric

Association, 2013), the current diagnostic criteria primarily focus on antisocial behaviour

rather than interpersonal and affective features. The emphasis in the DSM on antisocial

behaviour has drawn criticism from psychopathy researchers, who disagree with claims that

psychopathy and ASPD are synonymous constructs. This particular claim is not supported for

several reasons. Firstly, psychopathy is a personality construct that consists not only of

behavioural components, but also cognitive, interpersonal, and affective components. These

other central and perhaps more crucial aspects of psychopathy are not adequately captured in

DSM-V descriptions of ASPD which focus heavily on behavioural features. Furthermore,

there is a robust debate occurring in the psychopathy literature about the role of antisocial

behaviour, with some strong arguments against antisocial behaviour as a diagnostic feature of

psychopathy (Skeem & Cooke, 2010a). Secondly, research on the prevalence of ASPD in

forensic settings estimate that 50-80% of prisoners meet the criteria, while estimates of

psychopathy are only 15-30% (Hare, 1991). The high prevalence of ASPD in criminal

samples may be attributed to the focus on antisocial behaviour rather than personality

characteristics in the diagnosis of ASPD. Alternatively, research in a non-forensic sample

suggests that disparate cut-offs for psychopathy (stricter cut-offs) versus ASPD (lower cut-

offs) may explain the differences in prevalence rates (Rogers & Rogstad, 2010). However,

given the differences in sample characteristics in the Rogers and Rogstad study, further

research is needed before conclusions can be drawn regarding disparate cut-offs and

differences in prevalence rates for PCL-R measures of psychopathy and ASPD. Thirdly, the

predictive utility of psychopathy in forensic settings is higher than that of ASPD. Research

has shown that psychopathy is a good predictor of general recidivism, violent recidivism and

sexual recidivism (Hemphill, Hare, & Wong, 1998). Criminal psychopaths are three times


more likely to recidivate than criminal non-psychopaths and four times more likely to

recidivate violently than criminal non-psychopaths (Hemphill et al., 1998). Therefore, the

classification of psychopathy demonstrates a predictive utility above and beyond a diagnosis

of ASPD. Lastly, ASPD diagnoses in criminal offenders capture a highly heterogeneous

population grouped together based on antisocial behaviour rather than the various etiological

factors that lead to the behaviour. Lykken (2006) emphasised this latter point:

APD is plainly a heterogeneous category in respect to etiology and also in respect to

the psychological characteristics that give rise to the varied patterns of socially

deviant behaviour that serve to meet the criteria. Identifying someone as ‘having’

APD is about as nonspecific and scientifically unhelpful as diagnosing a sick patient

as having a fever or an infectious or a neurological disorder (Lykken, 2006, p. 4).

It is commonly accepted that the causes of antisocial behaviour are multifarious, with

biological, psychological, sociological, geographic, and economic factors all implicated in

crime causation (Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2010). In contrast, the diagnosis of psychopathy

captures a more homogenous group of individuals who share a common pattern of

personality dysfunction. This personality dysfunction separates psychopathic individuals

from individuals with antisocial personality disorder, and there is a wealth of evidence that

demonstrates that psychopathic criminals show unique emotional and cognitive impairments

not found in nonpsychopathic criminals.

Psychopathy and Affective Deficits

Clinical accounts of psychopathy emphasized emotional impairment as a central

feature of the disorder. This position is supported by a vast body of literature that

demonstrates that psychopathy is characterized by abnormal emotion processing. Lykken

(1957) conducted one of the earliest investigations of affective dysfunction in psychopathy


when he examined the performance of primary and secondary psychopaths (categorized using

Cleckian criteria) on a passive avoidance test. Using a sample of male and female participants

from a correctional facility, Lykken found that primary psychopaths generated lower galvanic

skin response to stimuli associated with punishment, and less avoidance of punished

responses compared to criminal controls (Lykken, 1957). Research using a startle reflex

paradigm has also revealed abnormal emotion processing in psychopathic individuals. In the

startle reflex paradigm, the startle reflex (aversive reflex) can be augmented by the

presentation of a visual prime before the startle probe (a loud noise) (Lang, Bradley, &

Cuthbert, 1990). In conditions where a positive prime (e.g., pictures of romantic couples or

babies) is presented before the startle probe, healthy participants display reduced startle

response compared to conditions using neutral primes (e.g., a book or a pair of shoes), as

measured by eye blinks using electrodes attached to the face (Lang et al., 1990). In contrast,

when negative primes (e.g., images of victims of violent death) are displayed prior to the

presentation of the startle probe, healthy participants display an increased startle response

compared to neutral primes (Lang et al., 1990). Research using the startle response paradigm

in psychopathic offenders has shown that whilst some reduction in startle reflex is observed

after the presentation of positive primes, there is significantly less augmentation of the startle

reflex following the presentation of negative primes (Patrick, 1994). These findings suggest a

reduced response to negative emotional information in psychopathic individuals compared to

controls.

Subsequent studies on emotion processing in psychopathy have produced consistent

evidence of pervasive emotional impairment in psychopathic individuals. For example, Blair

and colleagues examined skin conductance responses to visual distress cues, threat cues, and

neutral stimuli in a sample of male, psychopathic criminals and nonpsychopathic criminals

and found that psychopathic individuals compared to controls displayed hyporesponsivity to


the distress cues but intact responsivity to the threat cues and neutral stimuli (R. J. R Blair,

Jones, Clark, & Smith, 1997). Further support for the emotional impairment of psychopathic

individuals is provided by research that demonstrates that psychopathic individuals are

selectively impaired in recognizing the fearful facial expressions of others (R. J. R Blair et

al., 2004). Furthermore, this deficit appears to extend across sensory modality. Using a male,

criminal offender sample Blair and Colleagues (2002) examined the recognition of vocal

affect (happiness, disgust, anger, fear, and sadness) in psychopathic and nonpsychopathic

participants. They found that psychopathic participants were selectively impaired in

recognizing fearful and sad vocal affect, committing significantly more recognition errors

than nonpsychopathic controls (R. J. R. Blair et al., 2002).

The accumulated evidence on emotion and psychopathy strongly supports the claims

of affective dysfunction as a core feature of psychopathy. However, like many of the modern

studies on psychopathy, the vast majority of these studies employed predominately criminal

and predominately male participants. With the exception of a few studies (e.g., Eisenbarth et

al., 2013; Iria & Barbosa, 2009; Reidy, Zeichner, & Foster, 2009), the examination of

emotion deficits in noncriminal and female psychopathic samples remains an understudied

area. Iria and Barbosa (2009) examined the ability to recognize fearful facial expressions

amongst male noncriminal psychopaths. The authors found that the deficit in recognizing

fearful facial expressions commonly reported in criminal psychopaths also occurred in

noncriminal psychopaths. Preliminary research on emotional facial recognition in female

criminal psychopaths suggests that this deficit also extends to female, criminal psychopathy

(Eisenbarth, Alpers, Segrè, Calogero, & Angrilli, 2008; Eisenbarth et al., 2013). However,

this difficulty in recognizing facial expressions may not extend to female, noncriminal

psychopathy. For example, Justus & Finn (2007) found that the abnormal startle response to

aversive images found in male criminal psychopaths also occurred for male noncriminal


psychopaths, but that this did not extend to noncriminal female psychopaths. In fact,

noncriminal females high on psychopathy (global and primary psychopathy) demonstrated a

larger startle amplitude for negative images compared to those low on psychopathy.

Clearly, further research is needed to determine whether the findings of broad

emotional dysfunction in male, criminal psychopaths also extend to female psychopaths and

noncriminal psychopaths. Further, given that primary and secondary psychopathy display

divergent relationships with a range of external variables, it would be interesting to consider

whether similar emotion processing deficits are found in both primary and secondary

psychopathy. One task that has been used in previous research to examine implicit emotion

processing in psychopathy is the lexical decision task (LDT). The LDT is a well-known

cognitive task for studying the nature of language processing. In this task, participants are

presented with a string of letters and asked to decide as quickly as possible whether the letter

string forms a word or a nonword. The letter strings are typically presented in quick

succession on a computer screen with the response (often a key press) triggering the

presentation of the next letter string. Previous research has found that this task is useful in

tapping implicit cognitive and emotional processes related to psychological abnormality. For

example, research examining responses to appearance-related words (e.g., beautiful, ugly)

after viewing pictures of emaciated-looking women or thin women, found that participants

with Anorexia Nervosa responded faster to appearance-related words after looking at

emaciated pictures than did healthy females.

In relation to psychopathy, previous research using the LDT has shown that healthy

individuals show a speed advantage for emotion words (e.g., love, hate) relative to neutral

words (grass, candle) (Graves, Landis, & Goodglass, 1981; Landis, 2006; Strauss, 1983).

However, this speed advantage has not been observed in psychopathic individuals (Kiehl,

1999; Williamson et al., 1991). Further evidence for affective language dysfunction comes


from research which shows that psychopathic individuals do not display the same event-

related potential (ERP) responses to emotion words that are observed in healthy individuals

(Williamson et al., 1991). Collectively, these findings suggest that different processes may be

involved in the processing of affective language in psychopathic individuals (S. Williamson,

Harpur, & Hare, 1991). However, the majority of previous research on affective language

processing in psychopathy has been conducted using male participants. There is only one

known study that has examined language processing in female psychopathy (Vitale,

Maccoon, & Newman, 2011). The lack of consideration for gender differences in affective

language processing in psychopathy is problematic. Research has consistently demonstrated

differences in emotional processing as a function of gender. For example, previous research

has demonstrated gender differences in the judgment of facial affect (Thayer & Johnsen,

2000), including increased physiological reactivity to facial affect for females over males

(Dimberg & Lundquist, 1990); gender differences in the experience of emotion (Fischer,

Rodriguez Mosquera, van Vianen, & Manstead, 2004); gender differences demonstrating

increased emotional expressiveness for females (Kring & Gordon, 1998); and gender

differences in affective priming (Gohier et al., 2011). Therefore, it stands to reason that the

findings of affective dysfunction in language processing may only be true for male

psychopaths. This is likely given that Vitale et al. (2001) failed to replicate the findings of

affective language dysfunction with a female sample. However, because this study employed

only female participants, a direct examination of gender differences was not possible.

Clearly, further research on affective language processing in female psychopathy and an

examination of possible gender differences is needed in order to address this gap in the

psychopathy literature.

In addition to the lack of research on gender differences in affective language

processing in psychopathy, there is also a lack of research examining the separate


relationships between primary and secondary psychopathy and affective language processing.

As previously stated, research has shown that primary and secondary psychopathy are

associated with differential experiences of emotion, with primary psychopathy associated

with a paucity of negative emotion and secondary psychopathy associated with elevated

levels of negative emotion (Del Gaizo & Falkenbach, 2008). Affective priming studies have

consistently demonstrated a facilitation in response to negative stimuli amongst individuals

with elevated levels of negative affect (e.g., anxiety and depression) (B. P. Bradley, Mogg, &

Millar, 1996; B. P. Bradley, Mogg, & Williams, 1995; Ruiz-Caballero & González, 1997).

Thus, given that secondary psychopathy is associated with elevated levels of negative

emotionality (e.g., anxiety), it stands to reason that an attentional bias to negative words may

be observed. This attentional bias would result in a facilitation to negative words amongst

secondary psychopaths. However, given the paucity of emotion in primary psychopathy, it

would be expected that a lack of facilitation to both positive and negative words would be

observed. Consequently, the current findings of language processing deficits in psychopathy

may only be true for primary psychopathy and not secondary psychopathy.

There is only one known study that has investigated language processing separately

for primary and secondary psychopathy (Reidy, Zeichner, Hunnicutt-Ferguson, & Lilienfeld,

2008). Reidy and colleagues (2008) investigated response latencies to discrete affect word

categories (anger, sadness, happiness, and fear) and abstract words as a function of primary

and secondary psychopathy. Their findings provided partial evidence of a differential pattern

of response latencies to sadness and anger words between primary and secondary

psychopathy. Primary psychopathy was associated with slower responses to sadness words

and secondary psychopathy was associated with faster responses to anger words (Reidy et al.,

2008). However, a number of methodological limitations were present. An undergraduate

sample was used, but consisted of only male participants, thus affecting the generalisability


of the findings. Furthermore, the authors did not obtain word ratings on the discrete affect

dimensions from participants. Consequently, words that healthy, normal adults rate as

‘angry’, ‘sad’ or ‘happy’, may not be rated in the same fashion by psychopathic individuals.

Reidy, et al., (2008) suggested that cognitive biases based on individual differences may have

been present. For example, words that normal, healthy adults view as fearful (e.g. murder),

may actually activate anger nodes in individuals with high levels of hostile emotion (Reidy et

al., 2008). This highlights the importance of including a word rating task when conducting

language studies in psychopathy, especially considering the elevated rates of hostility and

aggression in secondary psychopathy (Reidy et al., 2007). Reidy, et al., (2008) concluded that

future studies should incorporate a wider participant sample, including female participants,

and the inclusion of a word rating task when conducting emotional priming studies in

psychopathy.

Psychopathy and Cognitive Deficits

In addition to the impairments in affective functioning, there is now a large body of

research that suggests that psychopathy is associated with abnormal cognitive processing

(Bagshaw, Gray, & Snowden, 2014; Baskin–Sommers, Curtin, Li, & Newman, 2012; Hiatt,

Schmitt, & Newman, 2004; Jutai, Hare, & Connolly, 1987; Kosson, 1996; Newman,

Patterson, & Kosson, 1987). Studies have shown that psychopathic individuals display

attentional deficits, such as reduced interference on Stroop-like tasks (Hiatt, et al., 2004) and

reduced physiological reactivity to irrelevant auditory stimuli (Jutai, et al., 1987). There is

also some evidence of executive dysfunction in criminal psychopathic individuals, such as

poor behavioural inhibition (Newman & Brinkley, 1997) and set-shifting (Bagshaw et al.,

2014), with research suggesting this is primarily associated with elevated levels of secondary

psychopathy. Conversely, there is some research that suggests that noncriminal psychopathy

(Ishikawa, Raine, Lencz, Bihrle, & Lacasse, 2001) and/or higher levels of primary


psychopathy are actually associated with superior executive functioning (Hansen, Johnsen,

Thornton, Waage, & Thayer, 2007; Sellbom & Verona, 2007).

Executive Functioning

The term ‘executive function’ refers to a constellation of higher order, self-regulatory

cognitive abilities, including attention, memory, planning, decision-making, response

inhibition, and cognitive flexibility (Royall et al., 2002). These self-regulatory processes are

essential for socially appropriate behaviour, prompting researchers to suggest that executive

dysfunction may underlie the range of socially inappropriate and self-defeating behaviours

observed in individuals with psychopathy. This hypothesis is bolstered by evidence of

‘acquired sociopathy’ or ‘pseudo-psychopathy’, a condition characterised by pervasive

changes in personality and socially appropriate behaviour, such as callousness, a paucity of

emotion, irresponsibility, impulsivity, and a lack of empathy, following damage to the

ventromedial prefrontal cortex, an area implicated as important for intact executive

functioning (Tranel, 2002). Individuals with acquired psychopathy display profound deficits

regulating socially inappropriate behaviour, and like psychopathic individuals, they generally

display intact intelligence, memory, and language ability.

Whilst the prefrontal cortex plays a crucial role in the ability to perform a range of

executive functions, different regions are purported to be responsible for different kinds of

executive function. A common distinction in the executive function literature is that of ‘hot’

and ‘cool’ executive functions (Zelazo & Cunningham, 2007; Zelazo & Muller, 2002). Hot

executive functions refer to cognitive functions that are recruited in situations that are

emotionally or motivationally significant because they involve reward/punishment. These

executive functions are subserved by the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and its associated

pathways (Zelazo & Muller, 2002; Zelazo, Qu, & Kesek, 2010). On the other hand, cool

executive functions are purely cognitive in nature, such as working memory, planning, set-


shifting and attentional processes, and rely on the lateral prefrontal cortex (Zelazo & Carlson,

2012; Zelazo & Cunningham, 2007; Zelazo & Muller, 2002; Zelazo et al., 2010). Researchers

claim that similar to the individuals with ‘acquired sociopathy’, the psychopathic individuals’

executive dysfunction is characterised by ventromedial prefrontal cortex deficits, with largely

intact lateral prefrontal cortex functioning (K. S. Blair, Newman, et al., 2006; Gao, Glenn,

Schug, Yang, & Raine, 2009).

The intuitive appeal of the executive dysfunction hypothesis has led to a flurry of

research examining executive function processes in psychopathic individuals (e.g., Bagshaw

et al., 2014; De Brito, Viding, Kumari, Blackwood, & Hodgins, 2013; Dolan, 2012; Ishikawa

et al., 2001; Mahmut, Homewood, & Stevenson, 2008; Mol, Van Den Bos, Derks, & Egger,

2009; Pham, Vanderstukken, Philippot, & Vanderlinden, 2003; Ross, Benning, & Adams,

2007; Sellbom & Verona, 2007; Snowden, Gray, Pugh, & Atkinson, 2013). However,

research findings to date are contradictory and clouded by methodological inconsistencies in

the measurement of psychopathy, the types of executive function studied (e.g., cool executive

functions or hot executive functions), the measurement of executive function utilised, and

demographic differences between samples (e.g., male criminal offender samples, male

community samples, or mixed gender community samples).

Generally speaking, two streams of research on the psychopathy-executive function

relationship have emerged, a stream examining executive function in criminal psychopaths

(often referred to as unsuccessful psychopaths), and a stream examining executive function in

noncriminal psychopaths (often referred to as successful psychopaths). The common

suggestion in the psychopathy literature is that criminal psychopathy is associated with

poorer executive functioning, whilst noncriminal psychopathy is associated with superior

executive functioning (Gao & Raine, 2010). This hypothesis was generated in part by

Ishikawa et al. (2001), who examined performance on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test


(WCST: a common neuropsychological measure of executive function) in successful

psychopaths, unsuccessful psychopaths, and non-psychopathic controls. They found that

successful psychopaths solved more categories, and displayed less perseverative and non-

perseverative errors than the unsuccessful psychopaths and non-psychopathic controls. There

were no differences in WCST performance for the unsuccessful psychopaths and non-

psychopathic controls. This study has been consistently referred to in the literature as

evidence of superior executive functioning in successful psychopaths. However, the literature

on executive functioning in psychopathy is considerably more complex, with differential

patterns of association with executive function observed for primary (F1) versus secondary

psychopathy (F2), both within the criminal and noncriminal psychopathy literatures, and

inconsistent results across different measures of executive function (for a full review of the

executive function literature on psychopathy, see Chapter Four). For example, Sellbom and

Verona (2007) used a mixed gender undergraduate sample to examine WCST performance as

a function of PPI-R assessed psychopathy and found that whilst Factor 1 was associated with

better performance, Factor 2 was associated with worse performance. These findings suggest

a more nuanced relationship between psychopathy and executive function.

Another possible explanation for the finding of executive dysfunction in criminal

psychopathy, primarily factor 2 (which captures the antisocial features), could be due to

factors related to criminality rather than psychopathy. Dolan (2012) examined planning

ability, set-shifting, and response inhibition in a large sample of offenders with Antisocial

Personality Disorder (ASPD) with and without PCL:SV assessed psychopathy (ASPD+P and

ASPD-P) against nonpsychopathic participants from the general population. The author

found that individuals with ASPD-P performed worse on tasks of planning ability, set-

shifting, and response inhibition than controls but that the performance of ASPD+P was not

significantly different to controls (Dolan, 2012). This finding suggests that antisociality,


rather than psychopathy, is associated with executive dysfunction on tasks reliant on the

DLPFC. When taken together with the findings by Ishikawa et al. (2001), one could infer that

successful psychopaths could well have superior executive functioning.

However, De Brito et al. (2013) conducted a similar study which examined

performance on a range of hot and cool executive functions (verbal working memory,

reversal learning, decision-making under risk, and stimulus-reinforcement-based decision

making) in a group of violent offenders diagnosed with ASPD with and without PCL-R

assessed psychopathy. The results revealed that the violent offenders (both ASPD-P and

ASPD+P) displayed poorer performance on measures of hot executive function than a

noncriminal control group but similar performance to each other. Specifically, the offenders

(ASPD-P and ASPD+P) failed to change their behaviour in response to changing task

requirements, failed to learn from punishment cues, and despite taking longer to make

decisions than the controls, they displayed more decision-making errors. However, unlike the

findings of Dolan (2012), the offenders (ASPD-P and ASPD+P) performed worse on a

measure of cool EF (working memory tasks) than controls. These findings suggest that poor

performance of psychopathic individuals recruited from forensic samples on tasks of hot

executive function may be explained by factors related to criminality (antisocial behaviour),

rather than psychopathy per se. However, the finding of poorer performance on tasks of cool

executive dysfunction in ASPD+P is in contrast to the results of Dolan (2012). Given that

these studies have not examined the unique relationships between primary psychopathy,

secondary psychopathy and executive function; it could be that differences in the levels of

primary versus secondary psychopathy between the samples is responsible for the

inconsistent findings.

The inconsistency in findings of different studies of psychopathy and executive

function may suggest different patterns of relationships for unsuccessful versus successful


psychopathy, or superior performance for primary psychopathy and worse performance for

secondary psychopathy, or they could be an artefact of methodological differences between

studies. Specifically, research in criminal offender samples typically utilise male participants,

whereas research in community samples has utilised either male participants or mixed gender

samples without any consideration of gender as a moderating factor (e.g., Snowden et al.,

2013). The a priori assumption that the pattern of relationships between psychopathy and

measures of executive function are the same for males and females is problematic. There is

evidence of differential patterns of disease susceptibility and symptomatology in males and

females for a range of physical and psychological conditions (For a review see Beery &

Zucker, 2011). However, a male bias in health research is prolific (Beery & Zucker, 2011),

and is prevalent in psychopathy research.

In addition to this problem, the previous research on psychopathy and executive

function is difficult to interpret because gender differences between criminal and noncriminal

samples obfuscate the relationship. This problem is exacerbated by research that

demonstrates gender differences in a range of cognitive functions (Astur, Ortiz, &

Sutherland, 1998; D. W. Collins & Kimura, 1997; Herlitz & Rehnman, 2008; Thakkar et al.,

2014; Tlauka, Brolese, Pomeroy, & Hobbs, 2005). Therefore, discrepancies between studies

that employ primarily male criminal offender samples and those that employ mixed gender

community samples could be because of the impact of criminality on the psychopathy-

executive function relationship, or they could be due to gender differences. One of the aims

of this thesis is to examine executive functioning in psychopathic individuals from the

community, including an examination of possible gender differences.

Summary of Affective and Cognitive Deficits

There is evidence of both affective and cognitive processing abnormalities in

psychopathic individuals. However, theorists are divided on the etiological and explanatory


mechanisms that underlie these abnormalities. These abnormalities are interpreted as being

either primarily affective or primarily cognitive in nature depending on the theoretical lens of

the researcher.

Theories of Psychopathy

The interaction of affective, behavioural, interpersonal, and cognitive traits of

psychopathy produce a complex personality, and whilst numerous studies have examined the

pattern of dysfunction associated with psychopathy, the underlying etiology remains unclear.

Early reports of affective dysfunction in psychopathy led to the development of theoretical

models that attempted to explain psychopathy primarily as a disorder of emotion (e.g.,

absence of fear). However, evidence of abnormalities in processing neutral stimuli (Kiehl,

1999; Newman, Schmitt, & Voss, 1997) combined with evidence of general information

processing dysfunction (Lorenz & Newman, 2002a) resulted in revisions to the ‘emotion

dysfunction’ hypotheses. Whilst there is relatively little consensus on the etiology of

psychopathy, the most prominent theories of psychopathy are Lykken’s Low Fear Hypothesis

(Lykken, 1957, 1995), Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (revised) (Gray, 1975; Gray

& McNaughton, 2003), The Somatic Marker Hypothesis (Bechara, Damasio, Damasio, &

Anderson, 1994; Bechara, Damasio, & Damasio, 2000; Damasio, 1994, 1995a), The

Integrated Emotions System Hypothesis (R J R. Blair, Mitchell, & Blair, 2005), and the

Response Modulation Hypothesis (Gorenstein & Newman, 1980; Lorenz & Newman, 2002a;

Newman & Lorenz, 2003).

Lykken’s Low Fear Hypothesis

In his book ‘The Antisocial Personalities’, David T. Lykken (1995) outlined his

theory on the etiological mechanisms that give rise to the various personalities that appear in

forensic institutions, including, sociopathy and psychopathy. His theory of psychopathy

demarcated the personality into two main subtypes: a primary subtype and a secondary


subtype. Lykken (1995) proposed a ‘low-fear hypothesis’ of primary psychopathy that argues

that primary psychopathy is associated with an absence of fear to conditions or situations that

would normally elicit a fear response. He suggested that all the characteristics on Cleckley’s

(1941) checklist can be accommodated for by an innate fearlessness. For example,

‘untruthfulness and insincerity’ is accounted for by the low-fear hypothesis with the claim

that fear of being caught in a lie prevents most people from telling serious lies, and that

‘white-lies’ are told because of fear of hurting other’s feelings (Lykken, 1995). Lykken

proposed that the innate fearlessness of primary psychopaths made it difficult to socialise

them away from antisocial behaviour, because they were impervious to the fear of

punishment. Lykken (1995) borrowed from Gray’s (1987) model of affective behaviour to

differentiate the secondary psychopath from the primary psychopath. Lykken suggests that

secondary psychopathy is associated with intact or normal reactivity to fear and anxiety, but a

strong sensitivity to reward. He claims that the strong sensitivity to reward may lead the

secondary psychopath to disregard the fear or anxiety that may normally curtail his

psychopathic behaviour.

The low fear hypothesis has garnered a range of empirical support, with studies

showing that psychopathic individuals display poor fear conditioning (Lykken, 1957),

impairments in response to threat cues (Ogloff & Wong, 1990), and poor startle response to

threat scenes (Levenston, Patrick, Bradley, & Lang, 2000). Lykken’s low-fear hypothesis set

the foundation for subsequent studies on the psychopathology of psychopathy and

contributed to a greater understanding of the affective dysfunction observed in psychopathic

individuals. However, whilst the low-fear hypothesis explains some the affective deficits

observed in psychopathy, it does not explain findings which suggest that emotional

impairment is present for both negative and positive emotional stimuli (K. S. Blair, Morton,

et al., 2006). K.S. Blair et al., (2006) used the Differential Reward/Punishment task to


demonstrate that psychopathic individuals were impaired on both punishment (as predicted

by the low-fear hypothesis) and reward trials. These findings cannot be easily accommodated

within the low-fear hypothesis, which argues that it is fearlessness, not general affective

dysfunction that characterizes the psychopathic individual. An extension of the low-fear

hypothesis that attempts to explain the broader emotion dysfunction observed in psychopathic

individuals is Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (now revised [RST]).

Gray’s Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory

Lykken (1995) considered aspects of the RST (Gray, 1987; Gray & McNaughton,

2003) to be consistent with his low-fear hypothesis and both theories share an emphasis on

dysfunction of fear and anxiety in psychopathic individuals. The RST is a sophisticated

neurobiological theory of individual differences in motivation and affective behaviour that

proposes three major systems of emotion: The Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS), The

Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS) and, The Behavioural Approach System (BAS). The

FFFS is reactive to both conditioned and unconditioned aversive stimuli, such as innately

unpleasant or painful stimuli and mediates emotional and behavioural responses to these

stimuli (e.g., fear and subsequent escape behaviours, respectively) (Corr, 2004; Gray &

McNaughton, 2003). The BAS is reactive to both unconditioned and conditioned reward cues

and is associated with the initiation of goal-directed behaviour (e.g., approach behaviour), the

anticipation of reward, and hope (Corr, 2004). The BIS is responsible for detecting and

resolving goal conflict by acting as a mediator between the FFFS and the BAS; it is activated

when FFFS and BAS conflict and is responsible for resolving conflict between approach and

avoidance behaviours. It performs this function by momentarily suspending behaviour and

shifting attention to the environment, performing a risk assessment of the environment, and

scanning memory (Gray & McNaughton, 2003). Because the BIS is sensitive to goal conflict


it is postulated to be responsible for the experience of anxiety, worry, and rumination (Gray

& McNaughton, 2003).

The RST model applied to psychopathy suggests that: (a) both primary and secondary

psychopathy are associated with a dysfunctional BIS, (b) primary psychopathy is associated

with an underactive FFFS, and (c) secondary psychopathy is associated with an overactive

BAS (Corr, 2010). Hughes, Moore, Morris and Corr (2012) recently tested the RST model of

psychopathy in an university sample using Carver and White’s (1994) BIS/BAS scales and

the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). In this

study, the BIS scale was separated into a FFFS subscale and a BIS subscale, whilst the BAS

produced scores on three subscales: Drive, Fun-seeking, and Reward Responsiveness. The

Drive subscale captured goal-directed behaviour, the Fun-seeking subscale reflected

impulsive behaviour motivated by immediate reward, and the Reward Responsiveness scale

captured motivation in anticipation of future reward. In support of Corr’s (2010) hypothesis,

Hughes et al., (2012) found that both primary and secondary psychopathy were associated

with low BIS activity. Primary psychopathy was associated with low FFFS activity,

negatively related to the Fun-seeking scale of the BAS, and positively associated with the

Drive and Reward Responsiveness subscales of the BAS. In contrast, secondary psychopathy

was not associated with the FFFS or the Drive and Reward Responsiveness subscales of the

BAS, but it was positively associated with the Fun-seeking subscale of the BAS. Whilst these

findings are consistent with characterisations of low fear, low anxiety and predatory

behaviour in primary psychopathy, the finding of a negative relationship between BIS and

secondary psychopathy is in direct contrast with both theory and research on the relationship

between anxiety and secondary psychopathy. In an attempt to clarify the relationship between

primary and secondary psychopathy and measures of FFFS, BIS and BAS, Broerman, Ross

and Corr (2014) replicated Hughes et al.,’s (2012) study with a larger university sample


whilst controlling for shared psychopathy variance. Using partial correlations they found that

secondary psychopathy was positively associated with BIS and FFFS activity and BAS Fun-

seeking. Primary psychopathy was unrelated to BAS Reward Responsiveness, positively

associate with BAS Drive, and negatively associated with BIS and FFFS. These findings are

consistent with historical conceptualisations of a fearless, constrained primary psychopath

and an impulsive, hostile secondary psychopath. Furthermore, these findings conflict less

with research on psychopaths insensitivity to reward stimuli, a finding making the low-fear

hypothesis untenable (K. S. Blair, Morton, et al., 2006). Although research on the revised

RST model of psychopathy is in its infancy, the preliminary findings suggest that the revised

model can accommodate many of the emotion and information-processing abnormalities

observed in psychopathic individuals. Another popular theory of psychopathy with

neurobiological origins is Damasio’s (1994, 1995a) Somatic Marker Hypothesis, similar to

the RST, this model is concerned with the role of emotion in decision-making.

The Somatic Marker Hypothesis

Compared to the RST, which is focuses on individual differences in emotion

behaviour, the Somatic Marker Hypothesis is a more general theory of the role of emotion in

decision-making (Damasio, 1994, 1995a). The theory is based on observations of emotional

processing abnormalities in the documentation of the famous neuropsychological patient,

Phineas Gage, and other patients who suffered similar injuries to the ventromedial prefrontal

cortex (Damasio, 1994). Challenging the commonly held belief that decision-making is best

performed in the absence of emotion (e.g., with a ‘cool-head’), Damasio (1994, 1995a)

argued that effective decision-making involves the use of emotions and emotional

information. The Somatic Marker Hypothesis proposes that the ventromedial prefrontal

cortex is involved in storing information about past situations and the physiological (somatic)

reactions (e.g., heart rate, facial expression, blood flow, posture, hormones, and muscle


contractions) to these situations and the emotions that are subsequently processed in the

brain. These ‘somatic’ markers then elicit the emotional reaction that was previous associated

with that situation and influence approach or avoidance behaviour. According to Damasio

(1994, 1995) somatic markers can influence decision making in two ways: (a) via the ‘body

loop’, in which bodily changes in response to a situation activate the emotional response, and

(b) via the ‘as-if body loop’ in which representations or simulations of the bodily changes are

processed and elicit the emotional response.

The majority of research testing the Somatic Marker Hypothesis has been conducted

using the Iowa Gambling Task (Bechara et al., 1994), a card game that consists of four decks

of cards. Participants are given an imaginary loan and play the card game to win money. Two

decks of cards produce small gains but also unexpected small loses and result in an overall

net gain of $250 per 10 cards. The other two decks produce large gains but also unexpected

large losses and result in an overall net loss of $250 per 10 cards. The game begins with trial

and error until participants begin choosing the advantageous card decks, with participants

either consciously or unconsciously aware of the advantageous strategy (Bechara, Damasio,

Tranel, & Damasio, 1997). Thus, the Iowa Gambling Task simulates real life decision

making by creating circumstances which produce uncertainty, reward, and punishment. The

Somatic Marker Hypothesis predicts that individuals with intact ventromedial prefrontal

cortex functioning will begin to establish somatic markers eliciting positive and negative

emotions to the four decks of cards following the gains and losses associated with each deck.

These somatic markers bias decision-making away from the risky decks to the advantageous

decks. Damasio and colleagues found that following a trial and error process, neurologically-

intact participants were initially drawn to the risky decks before switching to the

advantageous decks. However, participants with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal

cortex, unlike controls, were unable to establish the advantageous response strategy and


continued to sample from the risky decks (Bechara et al., 1994; Bechara , Damasio , Damasio

, & Lee 1999; Bechara et al., 1997). Observing the deficits of individuals with ‘acquired

sociopathy’ following damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, Damasio (1994)

suggested that abnormal ventromedial prefrontal cortex functioning might also explain the

behaviour of individuals with developmental psychopathy.

Initial research testing the Somatic Marker Hypothesis in psychopathic individuals

failed to discriminate the performance of psychopaths compared to controls (Schmitt,

Brinkley, & Newman, 1999). However, methodological inconsistencies between Schmitt,

Brinkley and Newman’s (1999) study and that of Bechara, Damasio & Damasio’s (2000)

investigation likely explained the findings, given that subsequent research using the same

methodology as Bechara, Damasio & Damasio showed that psychopathic individuals were

impaired on the Iowa Gambling Task (Mitchell, Colledge, Leonard, & Blair, 2002). Using a

sample of psychopathic offenders assessed with the PCL-R, Mitchell, Colledge, Leonard and

Blair (2002) found that psychopaths performed worse on the Iowa Gambling Task compared

to controls, with psychopaths preferring the risky decks despite the long-term negative

consequences. However, Mitchell, Colledge, Leonard and Blair suggest that the Somatic

Marker Hypothesis cannot adequately explain the selective impairment for sad and fearful

stimuli, but intact processing of threat cues found in previous research (e.g., R. J. R Blair et

al., 1997; Patrick, Bradley, & Lang, 1993). Instead, R J R Blair and colleagues propose a

more specific model of neurobiological dysfunction in psychopathic individuals, the

Integrated Emotions System Model (R J R. Blair et al., 2005).

The Integrated Emotions Systems Model

The Integrated Emotions Systems (IES) model proposed by R J R Blair and

colleagues (2005) suggests that the deficits associated with psychopathy are a result of

genetic anomalies that lead to amygdala dysfunction. The amygdala dysfunction disrupts


emotional learning, and as a result the normal affect representations are not made in

psychopathic individuals (R J R. Blair et al., 2005). More specifically, because the integrity

of the amygdala is crucial in the recognition of fearful and sad facial expressions, children

with psychopathic tendencies do not experience the same reaction to distress of others as

healthy children. Blair (1995) claims that the distress of others acts as an unconditioned

stimulus that results in aversive conditioning towards the behaviour that elicited the distress.

It is the inability to process sad and fearful facial expressions in children with psychopathy

that interferes with moral socialisation and the failure to inhibit antisocial behaviours that

cause harm to others. Blair and colleagues (2005) point out that whilst negative affect

representations are more severely impacted in psychopathy, these abnormalities also occur to

a lesser extent to positive affect representations. Thus explaining the findings of positive and

negative emotional dysfunction in psychopathy. Whilst amygdala dysfunction is the basic

tenet of the IES model, the model also suggests that functional interactions between the

amygdala and associated neural systems (e.g., orbitofrontal and ventrolateral prefrontal

cortex, and insula) are disrupted in psychopathic individuals (R J R. Blair et al., 2005). The

pattern of dysfunction predicted by the IES is consistent with research findings that

demonstrate that psychopathic individuals display deficits in tasks that rely on these neural

systems, for example, goal-directed behaviour (K. S. Blair, Morton, et al., 2006); the ability

to recognize fearful and sad facial expressions (R. J. R Blair et al., 2004); the ability to

recognize vocal affect (R. J. R. Blair et al., 2002); attention to emotional stimuli (Lorenz &

Newman, 2002a; Mitchell, Richell, Leonard, & Blair, 2006); and response control (Kiehl et

al., 2001).

While the IES model can accommodate the findings of emotional impairment, it

cannot account for findings that demonstrate that redirection of attention to emotional

information ameliorates the emotion impairment (Dadds, El Masry, Wimalaweera, &


Guastella, 2008; Larson et al., 2013; Newman, Curtin, Bertsch, & Baskin-Sommers, 2010).

For example, Newman, Curtin, Bertsch and Baskin-Sommers (2010) found that deficits in

fear-potentiated startle in criminal psychopaths were ameliorated under conditions in which

the threat was the primary focus of attention. They argue that the IES model cannot explain

these findings and suggest an alternative model, the Response Modulation Hypothesis

(Newman & Lorenz, 2003; Patterson & Newman, 1993).

The Response Modulation Hypothesis

The Response Modulation Hypothesis proposed by Newman and colleagues (Lorenz

& Newman, 2002; Newman & Brinkley, 1997; Newman & Lorenz, 2003; Patterson &

Newman, 1993) suggests that the behavioural and affective impairments currently observed

in psychopathy can be attributed to dysfunctional information processing. More specifically,

they suggest that psychopathy is associated with a deficit in shifting response set to

accommodate peripheral information. This results in an over-focus of attention to the primary

or salient features of a task, to the detriment of overall task performance. The Response

Modulation Hypothesis claims that the emotional deficits observed in psychopathy are simply

a secondary symptom of a broader problem of dysfunctional information processing. Several

studies provide support for the Response Modulation Hypothesis, for example, results from a

lexical decision task revealed deficits in processing non-salient neutral information (e.g.,

word frequency cues) (Lorenz & Newman, 2002a), indicating that deficits in psychopathy are

not exclusively affective in nature; less interference to neutral, incongruent information in a

flanker-type task when the target was the prepotent focus of attention, but normal interference

when the target was no longer the prepotent focus of attention (Zeier, Maxwell, & Newman,

2009); and less interference to incongruent information on modified Stroop tasks (Hiatt et al.,

2004). Altogether, these findings suggest that the affective and cognitive deficits observed in

psychopathy are specific to situations in which important information is peripheral to the


primary task. This ‘situation-specific’ position is in direct contrast with theories that posit

general emotional dysfunction in psychopathic individuals, such as the IES model.

Subsequent research on the Response Modulation Hypothesis suggests that an early

attentional bottleneck may underlie the attentional abnormalities observed in psychopathic

individuals (Baskin-Sommers, Curtin, & Newman, 2011). Providing further support for the

Response Modulation Hypothesis, recent research by Baskin-Sommers, Curtin, and Newman

(2015) found that cognitive remediation focused on addressing the attentional deficits in

psychopathy resulted in better performance on response modulation tasks for psychopathic

individuals.

However, the Response Modulation Hypothesis is not without criticism. Although a

recent meta-analytic and narrative analysis revealed small to medium effect sizes between

psychopathy and response modulation deficits, the results also revealed some evidence of

publication bias, with the effect sizes reported in the published literature higher than those

reported in unpublished studies (Smith & Lilienfeld, 2015).

Review of Current Theories of Psychopathy

Whilst these theories differ with respect to the specific mechanisms that underlie

psychopathy dysfunction, a common theme of many theories to posit dysfunction of one or

more regions of the brain associated with emotion processing. The point of contention

amongst theorists is whether the emotion dysfunction is exclusively affective in nature, or

whether it is an artefact of a more general information processing abnormality. However,

with the exception of the Low-Fear Hypothesis and the Revised RST model, these theories

predominately view psychopathy as a categorical construct, even in light of evidence that

suggests that psychopathy is best viewed as a dimensional construct (Edens, Marcus,

Lilienfeld, & Poythress, 2006). In fact, the majority of previous research and theory on

psychopathy has viewed psychopathy as a unitary, categorical construct. However, given


evidence that suggests psychopathy is dimensional, and that different etiological markers and

patterns of dysfunction are observed between primary and secondary psychopathy (e.g.,

Benning et al., 2003), an updated theoretical framework of psychopathy that accommodates

these findings is important for an accurate account of the nature of psychopathy.

The arguments surrounding psychopathy subtypes and the dimensional nature of

psychopathy tie in closely with the notion of ‘noncriminal psychopathy’. Given the empirical

evidence that psychopathic individuals differ in degree, rather than kind (Edens et al., 2006;

Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005; Murrie et al., 2007; Walters et al., 2007), it stands to reason that

psychopathic traits and behaviours may not be limited to the extremes seen in criminal

offenders, and that these traits may be found in the general population. Whilst the majority of

previous research has utilized forensic or clinical samples, there is now some research

emerging on the notion of ‘noncriminal psychopathy’ (e.g., Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005).

What is Noncriminal Psychopathy?

The vast majority of research on psychopathy has been conducted using criminal

offender samples. Consequently, comparatively little is known about psychopathy outside of

forensic settings. This is problematic because theoretical conceptualization by theorists such

as Cleckley (1941) did not emphasise criminality as a central feature of the disorder. On the

contrary, there is no a priori reason for assuming that the core interpersonal and affective

features should result in increased antisocial behaviour. Whilst it is acknowledged that a lack

fear, empathy, and regard for the welfare of others might place some psychopathic

individuals at risk for antisocial behaviour, situational factors such as socioeconomic status,

peer group, level of education, and family environment likely play a role in the manifestation


of psychopathy. Providing theoretical support for the notion of noncriminal psychopathy,

Hare remarked that:

Many psychopaths never go to prison or any other facility. They appear to function

reasonably well – as lawyers, doctors, psychiatrists, academics, mercenaries, police

officers, cult leaders, military personnel, businesspeople, writers, artists, entertainers,

and so forth – without breaking the law or at least without being caught and

convicted. These individuals are every bit as egocentric, callous, and manipulative as

the average criminal psychopath (Hare, 2011, pp. 202-203).

Recent studies of noncriminal psychopathy provide empirical support for the

existence of psychopathy in the general population (Levenson et al., 1995; Lilienfeld &

Widows, 2005). Thus, the criminal psychopathy literature must be interpreted cautiously as it

may only be reflective of a specific sub-population of psychopathy and not representative of

the construct as a whole. Studies examining psychopathy in the general population are

theoretically important because they provide insight into the nature of the disorder without

the confounding effect of criminality. Furthermore, research on psychopathy in the general

population is clinically relevant as it may identify protective factors and compensatory

mechanisms that buffer against severe antisociality and criminality (Lilienfeld, 1994).

Theoretical Perspectives of Noncriminal Psychopathy

Hall and Benning (2006) suggest that there are three common theoretical perspectives

of noncriminal psychopathy: psychopathy as a subclinical or less severe version of the full-

blown disorder; a moderated expression of psychopathy where psychopathic traits are

manifested in a positive, rather than negative way (i.e., successful psychopathy); and a dual

perspective of psychopathy that distinguishes the interpersonal features of the disorder from

the behavioural features. However, a more recent model of noncriminal psychopathy, the

Triarchic Model of Psychopathy, suggests that the varying conceptualisations of psychopathy


can be explained by differing emphasis on the three phenotypic constructs of psychopathy by

psychopathy researchers (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009).

Subclinical psychopathy. Proponents of the subclinical psychopathy perspective

claim that noncriminal psychopaths possess the same affective and interpersonal

characteristics as criminal psychopaths, but to a lesser degree (Ali, Amorim, & Chamorro-

Premuzic, 2009; Gustafson & Ritzer, 1995; Mahmut et al., 2008; Paulhus & Williams, 2002).

A central feature of the subclinical perspective is that it holds the interpersonal and affective

characteristics of psychopathy as the cause of anti-social behaviour. Consequently,

individuals who possess the interpersonal and affective characteristics of psychopathy at a

reduced level, will also exhibit less extreme examples of anti-social behaviour. However, the

term ‘subclinical’ implies that there is a clinical cut-off that determines whether a person is a

psychopath or a nonpsychopath (Lilienfeld, 1998). Therefore, the notion of subclinical

psychopathy cannot be sustained given research on the nature of psychopathy demonstrates

that psychopathy is dimensional not taxonic (Edens et al., 2006).

Successful psychopathy. According to proponents of the ‘successful psychopathy’

perspective, noncriminal psychopathy is viewed as an adaptive expression of psychopathy

(Hall & Benning, 2006; Hare, 2011; Widom, 1977). The central tenet of this model is the

claim that noncriminal psychopaths possess the same core characteristics, at the same level of

severity, but that compensatory factors moderate the expression of the disorder.

Compensatory factors such as high intelligence, high SES factors, level of education and

educational opportunities, parental style, and adequate vs. poor socialisation are said to result

in a successful adaption of psychopathy (Hall & Benning, 2006). Although successful

psychopaths possess the core affective and interpersonal features of the disorder, they are

expressed in noncriminal or socially accepted avenues, such as business environments, and

politics (Hall & Benning, 2006). In these environments, the core interpersonal and affective


features of psychopathy (e.g. fearlessness and paucity of emotion) are considered

advantageous. However, critics of the successful psychopathy model claim that the notion of

‘successful’ psychopathy is an oxymoron, because a personality disorder is inherently

pathological and maladaptive (Kiehl & Lushing, 2014). Yet, as S. F. Smith, Watts, and

Lilienfeld (2014) point out psychopathology is sometimes associated with creative

temperament and achievement. For example, numerous studies have demonstrated a link

between mood disorders and creativity and achievement (Kyaga et al., 2011; MacCabe et al.,

2010; Santosa et al., 2007). Therefore, although psychological conditions are characterised by

pathological traits, they can also have adaptive manifestations.

A dual process model of psychopathy. The dual process model of psychopathy

mirrors historical conceptualisations of psychopathy as consisting of two separate

components: the interpersonal and affective component (viz. primary psychopathy), and the

anti-social behaviour component (viz. secondary psychopathy) (Patrick, 2007). According to

the dual process model, the presence of the interpersonal and affective component can occur

in absence of the anti-social behaviour component, and vice versa, as it is thought that the

two components result from distinct etiological pathways. According to the dual process

model, primary psychopathy results from a deficiency in the brain’s defensive motivational

system resulting in trait fearlessness. In contrast, secondary psychopathy is thought to stem

from impairments in brain regions responsible for higher-order processes such as planning,

behavioural inhibition, and cognitive flexibility, resulting in a vulnerability to externalising

psychopathology (e.g., behavioural deviance, substance abuse) (Patrick & Bernat, 2009).

Therefore, individuals can present with elevations on primary psychopathy or secondary

psychopathy, or both. There is empirical support for the dual processing perspective, with

studies demonstrating that the two factors show divergent patterns of relationships with

external variables (e.g. personality, temperament, anti-social behaviour, and social


functioning) (Benning et al., 2003; Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, 1989; Hicks et al., 2004). A

recent study also found differences between primary and secondary psychopathy in feedback-

related negativity (FRN) for positive and negative faces on a time estimation task, with

primary, but not secondary psychopathy, related to reduced FRN (Schulreich, Pfabigan,

Derntl, & Sailer, 2013). A further extension of the dual process model is the Triarchic Model

of Psychopathy, which seeks to address the discrepancies in the conceptualization of

psychopathy between criminal and noncriminal classifications (Patrick et al., 2009).

Triarchic Model of Psychopathy

The Triarchic Model of Psychopathy proposed by Patrick et al., (2009) suggests that

the reoccurring themes in the conceptualization of psychopathy can be characterized as

generally fitting into three phenotypic constructs: disinhibition, boldness, and meanness.

Disinhibition reflects issues of impulsivity, behavioural disinhibition, an inability to delay

gratification, and a lack of forethought or planning (Patrick et al., 2009). Boldness reflects a

propensity towards thrill-seeking combined with low stress reactivity, emotional resiliency,

and social dominance (Patrick et al., 2009). Meanness reflects a lack of empathetic concern,

exploitativeness, callousness, and a disregard for close interpersonal relationships (Patrick et

al., 2009). Patrick and colleagues (2009) suggest that individuals may not possess all three

components of psychopathy and that conceptualisations of noncriminal and criminal

psychopathy can be explained by differences in how the three components are emphasized.

They suggest that psychopathy can be characterized as disinhibition combined with either

meanness or boldness, or both. They suggest that the Cleckian approach (Cleckley, 1941)

emphasizes disinhibition and boldness, whilst the criminal approach that dominates the

contemporary psychopathy literature emphasizes disinhibition and meanness. However, there

is a current debate on the usefulness and appropriateness of boldness in the psychopathy

construct, with some research suggesting that boldness is not a central component of


psychopathy (Gatner, Douglas, & Hart, 2016; Miller, Lamkin, Maples-Keller, & Lynam,

2016).

Review of Theories of ‘Noncriminal’ Psychopathy

A common theme in all theories of noncriminal psychopathy is the view that

criminality and severe anti-sociality are not central to psychopathy. Whilst this view has

recently been subject to enthusiastic debate (Hare & Neumann, 2010; Skeem & Cooke,

2010a, 2010b), very little empirical investigation has been conducted on the link between

criminality and psychopathy in the general population. This is an area of research that

warrants empirical attention as the current psychopathy literature may only apply to a small

subpopulation of psychopathy. There are two reasons for the overall lack of research on

psychopathy in the general population. Firstly, estimates of the prevalence of psychopathy in

criminal offender samples are higher (Hare, 1991) than estimates of the prevalence of

psychopathy in the general population (Coid et al., 2009). Thus, criminal offender samples

provide a convenient and easily recruited psychopathic sample. Secondly, until recently, there

were no suitable or established measures of psychopathy that could be used on noncriminal

samples.

The relative absence of research on noncriminal psychopathy can be partially

attributed to measurement limitations. The PCL-R has been hailed as the ‘gold standard’ of

psychopathy measurement (e.g. (Fulero, 1995; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Williams &

Paulhus, 2004), generating concern that researchers may be equating PCL-R psychopathy

with the theoretical construct of psychopathy (Blackburn, 2007; Skeem & Cooke, 2010a,

2010b). Furthermore, as previously discussed, the PCL-R was designed for use in criminal

offender samples, requires access to case histories, and contains items that specifically tap

criminal behaviours. Therefore, the PCL-R should be considered a measure of criminal

psychopathy rather than the broad construct of psychopathy. The recent advent of measures


of noncriminal psychopathy (Levenson, et al., 1995; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) have

provided researchers with an avenue to study the theoretical concept of psychopathy more

broadly.

The Current Research

Original Contribution to Knowledge

This program of research contributes to the existing body of literature on psychopathy

by addressing three main gaps in the current literature, each discussed in the following

sections: psychopathy and criminality; psychopathy and executive function; and psychopathy

and emotion-processing.

Psychopathy and Criminality

Because of the paucity of studies on the relationship between psychopathy and

criminality in the general population, it is not known whether criminality is a key feature of

psychopathy or simply one manifestation. Research investigating the relationship between

psychopathy and criminality in the general population may assist with answering this

question. In addition, the exclusive use of male participants means that we have a limited

understanding of the nature and presentation of female psychopathy. The first aim of the

current research project is to conduct a population study of psychopathy with the aim of

disentangling the relationship between psychopathy and criminality. Whilst several theories

of ‘noncriminal’ psychopathy have been proposed, a common perspective is that criminality

and anti-sociality are not central to psychopathy. The current theoretical models of

noncriminal psychopathy will be tested by examining the relationships between criminality,

criminal attitudes, and psychopathy in a general population sample. Additionally, an

examination of possible gender differences in the psychopathy-criminality nexus will be

included to address the male bias in previous psychopathy research.


Executive Function

The psychopathy literature on executive function has produced confusing and

contradictory findings. This may be attributed to methodological inconsistences between

studies, including criminal versus noncriminal samples; male versus mixed gender samples;

differences in the types of executive function studied; differences in the tests used to

operationalize the different types of executive function; differences in the measurement of

psychopathy; and whether psychopathy was examined as a unitary, categorical construct, or a

continuous, dimensional construct. Therefore, one of the aims of this program of research is

to provide some clarification on the relationship between psychopathy and executive function

by examining the separate relationships between primary and secondary psychopathy and

performance on several popular measures of executive function in a community sample. An

additional aim of this program of research is to examine the relationship between

psychopathy and executive function separately for males and females. This should assist with

comparison of the findings from this program of research with previous studies and also

reveal whether gender differences exist in the psychopathy-executive function relationship.

These findings may also provide support for one or more theories of psychopathy, for

example, by revealing whether a moderated expression of psychopathy is characterised by

intact executive functioning (i.e., the successful psychopathy model).

Emotion Processing

Most previous research on emotion processing abnormalities in psychopathy has been

conducted using male, criminal offender samples. Consequently, the patterns of emotion

dysfunction currently observed in psychopathy may not generalise to other psychopathic

populations. Specifically, the current psychopathy literature may only be applicable to male

psychopathy, and not female psychopathy. In fact, given that a range of cognitive and

emotion processing differences are observed between males and females, some differences in


cognitive and emotional processing between male and female psychopaths may be expected.

Therefore, the inclusion of gender in studies of affective dysfunction in psychopathy

(including affective language dysfunction) is warranted.

The current research project will examine emotion processing in psychopathy and will

include an examination of gender differences. The emotion literature has consistently

demonstrated differences in emotional processing as a function of gender, including

differences in the ratings of affective stimuli and affective priming. Research on psychopathy

and emotion using male participants has revealed a range of affective deficits, including

abnormal responding to affective words and affective priming abnormalities. However, it not

currently clear whether these deficits will be seen in female psychopathy.

Lastly, this program of research considers the separate contributions of primary and

secondary psychopathy on the processing of affective and semantic language and executive

function. Previous research suggests that psychopathy is a superordinate construct consisting

of two separate yet related subtypes; primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy. As

mentioned earlier, primary and secondary psychopathy display differential patterns of

affective experience (Del Gaizo & Falkenbach, 2008). Primary psychopathy is associated

with a paucity of positive and negative emotionality, whilst secondary psychopathy is

associated with elevated levels of negative emotionality (e.g., anxiety and hostility).

Cognitive bias studies have demonstrated a facilitation to negative stimuli in individuals with

elevated levels of negative emotion (e.g., anxiety). Given the differences in emotional

experience between primary and secondary psychopathy, differences in processing affective

language may also be observed. There is only one known study that has investigated primary

and secondary psychopathy and affective language abnormalities, and a number of

methodological limitations were present (Reidy et al., 2008). Specifically, this study did not

consider differences in word ratings for psychopathic samples, or differences in word ratings


for primary and secondary psychopathy (Reidy et al., 2008). The current research project will

examine emotion processing in primary and secondary psychopathy using a LDT and will

extend upon previous research by addressing methodological limitations found in previous

research.

Findings from previous research suggests that psychopathy consists of two subtypes

(Hare, 1991). Primary psychopathy reflects the core interpersonal and affective features of

psychopathy and is thought to be associated with emotion deficits (Karpman, 1941, 1948),

whilst secondary psychopathy reflects the anti-social and impulsive features of psychopathy

and is thought to be associated with affective dysfunction (Karpman, 1941, 1948). More

specifically, research has shown that primary psychopathy is associated with a lack of

negative affect, whilst secondary psychopathy is positively associated with elevated levels of

negative affect (Del Gaizo & Falkenbach, 2008). A consideration of these differences in

emotional experience from a cognitive bias perspective suggests that in comparison to both

non-psychopathic individuals and primary psychopaths a facilitation to negative emotion

stimuli may be observed in secondary psychopathy. Furthermore, given that primary

psychopathy is associated with a paucity of emotion, it is expected that there will be no

differences in response to emotion words in primary psychopathy.

Research Questions

Six main research questions were developed to address the aforementioned aims of

this program of research. These research questions were designed to address the gaps in the

psychopathy literature regarding the underrepresentation of female participants in the study

of psychopathy, the a priori assumption of criminality as a core feature of psychopathy, and

the tendency to consider psychopathy as a unitary construct despite evidence that it is

subsumed by two separate yet related variants.


Research Question One: How central is criminal behaviour to the construct of

psychopathy?

This research question addresses the controversial dispute between psychopathy

researchers regarding the centrality of criminality to the psychopathy construct. This research

question is addressed by a thorough coverage of the current debate about the role of antisocial

behaviour in relation to psychopathy and empirically tested in study 1 in this program of

research. The relevant literature, the methodology and findings are discussed in chapter three

of this thesis.

Research Question Two: Is the relationship between criminality and psychopathy the

same for males and females?

This research question addresses the underrepresentation of female participants in

psychopathy research. This research question is concerned with possible gender differences

in the relationship between psychopathy and criminality and is empirically tested in study one

of this program of research. The relevant literature, the methodology and findings are

discussed in chapter three of this thesis.

Research Question Three: What is the relationship between psychopathy variants and

executive function in a community sample?

This research question empirically tests the dual process model of psychopathy and

also addresses the current confusion in the psychopathy literature regarding the relationship

between psychopathy and performance on measures of executive function. This is achieved

in study two of this program of research, which examines the relationship between primary

and secondary psychopathy and several popular measures of executive function in a

community sample. The relevant literature, methodology and findings are discussed in

chapter four of this thesis.


Research Question Four: Is the pattern of relationships between psychopathy variants

and executive function the same for males and females?

This research question addresses the limitations of previous research on executive

functioning in noncriminal samples by including an examination of possible gender

differences. Whilst a couple of previous studies using noncriminal samples have included

female participants, they have not included an examination of possible gender differences in

the relationship between primary and secondary psychopathy and performance on measures

of executive function. This limitation is addressed in study two of this program of research

and the relevant literature and study details are set out in chapter four.

Research Question Five: What is the relationship between psychopathy variants and

emotion processing in a community sample?

This research question addresses the gap in the psychopathy literature regarding the

unique relationships between primary and secondary psychopathy and emotion processing

abnormalities. Specifically, it considers whether a differential relationship between primary

and secondary psychopathy will be observed on a task of implicit emotion processing. The

majority of previous studies have used a criminal offender sample and/or criminal measure of

psychopathy, thus inhibiting interpretation. The only study that has examined whether

differences exist used a male only sample and did not examine explicit ratings of the

emotional stimuli. This limitation is addressed in study three of this program of research,

which is outlined in chapter five of this thesis.

Research Question Six: Is the relationship between psychopathy variants and emotion

processing abnormalities the same for males and females?

Several differences in emotion processing have been observed between males and

females. However, the research on emotion processing abnormalities in psychopathy research

has failed to include an examination of possible gender differences. This limitation is


addressed in study 3 of this program of research. The relevant literature and study details are

presented in chapter five of this thesis.

Chapter Three

Chapter Overview

This chapter of the thesis presents theoretical arguments and empirical evidence for

extending research on psychopathy to noncriminal populations. The chapter begins by

covering the ongoing debate in the psychopathy literature on the centrality of criminal and

anti-social behaviour to the psychopathy construct, and presents a rationale for extending

psychopathy research to a community sample. It was hypothesised that the relationship

between psychopathy and criminality would more nuanced than suggested by previous

research that has used criminal offender samples and criminal measures of psychopathy. As

the bulk of previous research on psychopathy has examined male participants, possible

gender differences in the relationship between psychopathy and criminality were also

examined.

Background to Research

The psychopathic personality is typified by interpersonal, affective, and behavioural

characteristics such as, manipulativeness, deceitfulness, egocentricity, superficial charm,

irresponsibility, impulsivity, a disregard for conventional norms, and reduced emotional and

empathic capacity. Whilst considerable progress has been made in regards to the

conceptualization and measurement of psychopathy in criminal offenders (Hare, 1980, 1991,

1996), relatively little is known about psychopathy in the general population. The scarcity of

research on psychopathy in noncriminal samples can be attributed to measurement limitations

and a lack of consensus on how psychopathy should be conceptualised and defined

(Lilienfeld, 1994), specifically the role of severe anti-sociality (Hare & Neumann, 2010;


Neumann, Hare, & Newman, 2007; Skeem & Cooke, 2010a, 2010b; Skeem, Polaschek,

Patrick, & Lilienfeld, 2011).

Whilst the majority of modern research on psychopathy has focused on criminal

manifestations, earlier accounts of the psychopathic personality included both theoretical and

clinical reports of noncriminal psychopaths. In fact, the generally accepted conceptualization

of the clinical construct of psychopathy originated from Cleckley’s (1948) ‘The Mask of

Sanity’. In this collection of case studies, Cleckley highlighted various accounts of

psychopathic individuals who possessed the central features of psychopathy observed in

criminal psychopaths (e.g., egocentricity, manipulativeness, and a lack of concern for others),

but who did not commit serious anti-social or criminal acts (e.g., the business man; scientist;

psychiatrist; and the psychopath as man of the world) (Cleckley, 1948). This classic

Clecklian conceptualization is what forms the basis of modern psychopathy theory, research,

and measurement. At present, the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R) is the most widely

used measure of psychopathy, and it was constructed specifically from Clecklian criteria.

(Hare, 1980, 1991). However, the PCL-R was developed and normed on criminal offender

samples, contains items specifically related to criminality, and requires the use of institutional

files, making it unsuitable for the assessment of psychopathy in the general population. Even

PCL-R variants designed for use in noncriminal samples are similarly constrained by the

inclusion of items that specifically assess criminality (e.g., SRP-III). This modern approach to

psychopathy measurement does not align with the theoretical and clinical accounts from

which it was originally constructed. This is problematic because a basic tenet of personality

research states that the development of psychometric assessments should be guided by a

coherent theory of the construct of interest. Without a coherent theoretical foundation for

including criminality as a key feature of the psychopathy construct, the PCL-R unjustifiably

amalgamates psychopathy and criminality. This has resulted in claims of ‘conceptual drift’


(Blackburn, 2005) and ‘construct drift’(Skeem & Cooke, 2010a). However, this disaccord

between theoretical conceptualizations of psychopathy and the measurement of psychopathy

has been largely overlooked by researchers. As highlighted by Skeem and Cooke (2010a), the

psychopathy literature is bordering on equating the PCL-R measurement of psychopathy with

the construct itself. This mono-operationalisation is problematic not only because of the

departure from a coherent theoretical foundation, but also because previous findings using

PCL-R measures may not generalize to other psychopathic populations. The criticisms

regarding PCL-R measurement are not recent (e.g., Lilienfeld, 1994), yet the PCL-R and its

derivatives continue to be used almost exclusively in psychopathy research. Recent

theoretical discussions on the nature of psychopathy (e.g., Hare & Neumann, 2005; Hare &

Neumann, 2010; Lilienfeld, Watts, & Smith, 2015; Skeem & Cooke, 2010a, 2010b; Skeem et

al., 2011) have resulted in a renewed focus on examining alternative measures of

psychopathy and utilising noncriminal samples.

Examination of the PCL-R. As mentioned, the PCL-R is the most widely used

measure of psychopathy. Research on the factor structure of the PCL-R and its derivatives

has produced two-factor (Hare, 1991; Harpur et al., 1989), three-factor (Cooke & Michie,

2001), and four-factor models (Hare & Neumann, 2005; Hare & Neumann, 2006; Vitacco,

Neumann, Caldwell, Leistico, & Van Rybroek, 2006; Vitacco, Neumann, & Jackson, 2005;

Vitacco, Rogers, Neumann, Harrison, & Vincent, 2005). The once widely-accepted two-

factor model of the PCL-R produces two moderately correlated factors (Harpur et al., 1989).

Factor 1 reflects the interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy, including

deceitfulness, callousness, manipulativeness, superficial charm, and a lack of inhibitory

emotions. Factor 2 reflects the behavioural features of psychopathy, including criminal

antisociality, hostility, and impulsivity. Of particular relevance, criminal behaviour is

encompassed under Factor 2 of the two-factor model.


Unsatisfied with the methodological techniques used in previous factor analyses of

the PCL-R, and the conclusions drawn from these methods, Cooke and Michie (2001)

conducted factor analysis of the PCL-R using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on data

obtained from large forensic samples. Their research did not support the commonly accepted

two-factor model of PCL-R psychopathy. Instead Cooke & Michie’s research indicated that a

three-factor model best described PCL-R psychopathy. The first factor, named Arrogant and

Deceitful Interpersonal Style, consists of the interpersonal features commonly identified in

the psychopathy literature, including, superficial charm, grandiosity, manipulativeness, and

deceitfulness. The second factor, named Deficient Affective Experience, reflects the affective

characteristics, including shallow affect, a lack of inhibitory emotions (i.e., guilt, empathy &

remorse), and a failure to accept responsibility for one’s own actions. The third factor, named

Impulsive and Irresponsible Behavioural style, reflects the lifestyle features of psychopathy,

including boredom proneness, impulsivity, irresponsibility, a parasitic lifestyle, and a lack of

realistic long-term goals. Notably, the severe antisocial behavioural features that appear in the

two-factor model were excluded from Cooke & Michie’s model because they were

considered to be poor indicators of psychopathy.

The four-factor model is the most recent factor-analytic model proposed of PCL-R

psychopathy (Hare, 2003; Hare & Neumann, 2005; Hare & Neumann, 2008; Neumann et al.,

2007). Because of differing theoretical positions on the centrality of severe antisocial

behaviour in psychopathy, Hare and Colleagues (Hare & Neumann, 2005; Neumann et al.,

2007) conducted CFA on the PCL-R and its progeny (e.g., Psychopathy Checklist: Screening

Version [PCL-SV], Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version [PCL-YV], etc.) using large

forensic adult and youth samples and community samples. The authors proposed a four-factor

model which consisted of the three factors identified in Cooke & Michie’s (2001) factor

analysis and an additional factor labelled ‘antisocial’. The antisocial factor reflects poor


behavioural controls, early behavioural problems, juvenile delinquency, revocation of

conditional release, and criminal versatility (Hare & Neumann, 2005). Hare (2003) has

suggested that the four factors can easily be converted to the two factor model with Factor 1

consisting of the interpersonal and affective factors and Factor 2 consisting of the lifestyle

and antisocial factors. However, other variations of the four-factor model exist. Cooke,

Michie & Skeem (2007) describe the many variations of the four-factor models as fitting into

three general perspectives: a two factor, four facet model (Hare, 2003), a four factor

hierarchical model (Hare, 2003), and a four-factor correlated model (Hare & Neumann,

2005).

There is currently no consensus amongst researchers on a model of PCL-R

psychopathy. Proponents of the three-factor model criticise the methodology used in previous

factor analytic studies, and the a priori assumption that criminality is a key feature of

psychopathy (Cooke et al., 2007). In turn, proponents of the four-factor models criticise the

techniques used to derive the three-factor model, and argue that early and persistent antisocial

behaviours are central to psychopathy. Whilst there is no consensus on which model of PCL-

R psychopathy is best, it is important to consider that the results of factor analyses are reliant

on the scale items entered. As such, understanding of the criminality-psychopathy nexus

cannot progress by repeatedly conducting factor analyses on the same scale items. In order to

increase understanding, future research should examine the relationship between a measure of

psychopathy that does not explicitly tap criminality, with indicators of criminality, using a

noncriminal and non-psychiatric sample. This has been consistently highlighted by

researchers (Blackburn, 1988; Cooke et al., 2007; Lilienfeld, 1994), including Skeem and

Cooke (2010a, 2010b) who emphasised the tautological nature of predicting criminality from

measures of psychopathy that consist of items and subscales that directly tap criminality. This

problem is further magnified by research which uses the PCL-R as measure of psychopathy,


then examines the relationship between PCL-R scores and a range of indicators of criminality

(e.g., Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1991), and then uses these findings to support the notion that

criminality is a central feature of psychopathy (e.g., Hare, 1996). In order to examine the true

relationship between psychopathy and criminality, noncriminal measures of psychopathy

need to be utilised. A few measures of psychopathy suitable for assessment in both forensic

and non-forensic populations now exist for researchers, and research suggests that these

measures possess good psychometric properties. (Levenson et al., 1995; Lilienfeld &

Widows, 2005).

Noncriminal Measures of Psychopathy. Perhaps two of the most promising self-

report measures of psychopathy are the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP)

(Levenson et al., 1995), and the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (Now the Psychopathic

Personality Inventory- Revised) (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). The LSRP is a 26-item self-

report inventory designed to extend research on psychopathy to a noncriminal sample and

does not contain items that explicitly assess criminal behaviour. The scale produces a total

score and scores on two subscales that parallel the two factors consistently highlighted in the

literature: primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy. Validation studies of the LSRP

have produced two-factor (Levenson et al., 1995; Lynam, Whiteside, & Jones, 1999) and

three factor structures (C. Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, & Newman, 2001; Sellbom, 2011) that

display similar relations with external correlates as the PCL-R. Additionally, the LSRP has

demonstrated good concurrent validity with the PCL-R (C. Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, &

Newman, 2001). Lynam, Whiteside and Jones (1999) found significant, yet weak correlations

(r between .15 and .32) between LSRP scores and antisocial behaviour in a large university

sample (n = 1219), they concluded that the LSRP scale was a promising self-report measure

of psychopathy.


Another promising measure of psychopathy is the PPI, which is the most widely used

measure of psychopathy in college and community samples. Unlike the PCL-R, the PPI does

not explicitly tap criminal or anti-social behaviours. Rather, the PPI was developed to

measure the core personality traits considered by many theorists to be central to psychopathy

(Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). The PPI produces a global psychopathy score and eight content

scale scores derived from factor analyses: Stress Immunity, Social Potency, Fearlessness,

Coldheartedness, Impulsive Nonconformity, Blame Externalisation, Machiavellian

Egocentricity, and Carefree Nonplanfulness. Factor analytic studies of the PPI have generally

produced two dominant factors (Although see, Neumann, Malterer, & Newman, 2008, who

did not replicate the two-factor structure) labelled Fearless Dominance (FD) and Self-Centred

Impulsivity (SCI). (Benning et al., 2003; Patrick, Edens, Poythress, Lilienfeld, & Benning,

2006). A third factor labelled Coldheartedness (CH) also emerged from the aforementioned

studies, but comprised mostly of items from the Coldheartedness content scale. The FD factor

reflects aspects of positive adjustment such as low anxiety and worry, and social adeptness,

combined with high levels of interpersonal dominance (Lilienfeld et al., 2012; Lilienfeld &

Widows, 2005; Patrick et al., 2006). The SCI factor reflects the more deviant personality

traits of psychopathy, including, impulsivity, manipulativeness, egocentricity, a tendency to

blame others for one’s own mistakes, and lack of concern for convention (Benning et al.,

2003; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). The CH factor reflects the callous and unemotional traits

of psychopathy. Research by Witt et al. (2009) has demonstrated that the FD and SCI factors

display good convergent and criterion validity. Importantly, because the PPI-R was designed

using a personality-based approach, it does not contain items that assess criminal and/or

antisocial behaviour.

It clear at this point that the measure of psychopathy utilised often reflects the

theoretical position of the researcher regarding the role of severe anti-sociality in


psychopathy. Typically, researchers who endorse the view of criminality as central to

psychopathy utilise the PCL-R or similar measures (e.g., PCL-SV), and researchers who view

criminality as an epiphenomenon utilise the PPI or similar measures (e.g., LSRP). However, a

consistent finding across all measures of psychopathy is the emergence of two separate, yet

related aspects of psychopathy, an interpersonal and affective facet, and an antisocial-lifestyle

facet. The difference between the measures is the degree to which antisocial behaviour loads

on the antisocial-lifestyle facet, and this is a point of contention amongst psychopathy

researchers. However, in order to establish the true relationship between psychopathy and

criminality, and resolve the question of the centrality of criminality to psychopathy, it is

necessary to utilise a noncriminal measure of psychopathy.

It has been argued that it is tautological to predict criminality from measures of

psychopathy that assess criminality (e.g., Cooke et al., 2007; Skeem & Cooke, 2010a,

2010b). This logic also extends to research on the relationship between psychopathy and

criminality in criminal offender samples. It is currently difficult to assess the degree to which

criminality is central to the construct of psychopathy as previous research has been

confounded by both measurement and sample biases. In this regard, even if alternative,

noncriminal measures of psychopathy are used, understanding of the nature and presentation

of psychopathy will not evolve unless research is extended to include other populations.

Attempts to examine psychopathy using general population samples have been

hindered by measurement limitations, but also previous estimates of the prevalence of

psychopaths in the general population (e.g., estimates between 1-3%, Coid et al., 2009). With

such small estimates, large samples would be required - a task that is both timely and

expensive. However, these estimates were established using criminal measures of

psychopathy, which as pointed out earlier, are unsuitable for assessing psychopathy in the

general population. True estimates of the prevalence of psychopathy in the general population


would require the use of noncriminal measures. In addition, the research that does exist on

the relationship between psychopathy and criminality in general population samples has

employed measures of psychopathy that directly assess criminality, thus making it difficult to

interpret findings (Coid & Yang, 2011; Coid et al., 2009; Watt & Brooks, 2011). It is likely

that the range of interpersonal and affective features (e.g., callousness, manipulativeness,

superficial charm, deceitfulness, glibness) described by Cleckley (1948, 1951) do exist in the

general population, as severe anti-sociality is not a necessary consequence of possessing

these traits. Furthermore, even within criminal offender samples, the key interpersonal and

affective features are not good predictors of criminal behaviour (Hemphill et al., 1998). In a

review paper on psychopathy measures, Lilienfeld (1998) drew upon McCrae & Costa’s

(1995) distinction between basic tendencies and characteristic adaptations to highlight that

the basic tendencies of psychopathy may be manifested in antisocial ways when psychopathy

traits interact with adverse environmental factors. Given a different set of environmental

factors the basic tendencies of psychopathy may manifest in different characteristic

adaptations (Lilienfeld, 1998). This line of reasoning has led to the development of several

theories of noncriminal psychopathy.

Theories of noncriminal psychopathy. Whilst relatively little empirical research has

been conducted on noncriminal psychopathy, a few theoretical perspectives of noncriminal

psychopathy exist in the literature. These theoretical perspectives have been identified as

reflecting three distinct models: a subclinical psychopathy model, a successful psychopathy

model, and a dual process model (Hall & Benning, 2006). According to the subclinical

account, noncriminal psychopathy and criminal psychopathy share the same etiological

processes and the same psychopathic traits and features, however, noncriminal psychopaths

possess these characteristics to a lesser degree than criminal psychopaths (Ali et al., 2009;

Gustafson & Ritzer, 1995; Mahmut et al., 2008; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). According to the


subclinical account, criminal behaviour is a product of the core personality characteristics of

psychopathy. However, some researchers (e.g., Lilienfeld, 1994) have suggested that the term

‘subclinical’ implies a clinical cut-off and research demonstrates that psychopathy is a

dimensional construct, not a taxonic construct (Edens et al., 2006; Walters, Brinkley,

Magaletta, & Diamond, 2008). Thus the assumptions of the ‘subclinical’ account are not

supported by research on the nature of psychopathy. In contrast, the model of successful

psychopathy claims that noncriminal psychopaths possess the same traits and features as

criminal psychopaths, and to the same degree, however, compensatory mechanisms moderate

the expression of these traits (Hall & Benning, 2006; Hare, 2011; Lilienfeld, 1998; Widom,

1977). From this perspective, a criminal manifestation of psychopathy would occur in the

presence of other known criminogenic factors, such as pro-criminal attitudes, criminal

associates, substance abuse, familial history of criminal conduct, and lower educational and

financial achievement (Gendreau, Little, & Goggin, 1996). However, in the absence of these

criminogenic factors and/or the presence of compensatory mechanisms, the traits of

psychopathy may be expressed in an advantageous fashion (e.g., rational, successful business

leaders, etc.). This position is in line with the aforementioned distinction between basic

tendencies and characteristic adaptations in personality, which is widely accepted within the

domain of personality theory (McCrae & Costa Jr, 1995). Furthermore, a recent study found

that intelligence was a compensatory factor in the psychopathy-criminality relationship

(Wall, Sellbom, & Goodwin, 2013). Wall, Sellbom & Goodwin (2013) examined intelligence

as a moderating variable between PPI-R assessed psychopathy and self-reported criminal

activity in a university sample and found that individuals who scored highly on psychopathy,

and who were of higher intelligence, reported engaging in less criminal behaviour. This study

provides some support for Hall & Benning’s (2006) successful psychopathy theory and

suggests that psychopathic individuals who are intelligent may be less likely to engage in


criminal conduct. This finding is in line with research on criminality and intelligence, which

has shown that criminal offenders possess lower levels of intelligence than non-offenders,

particularly verbal intelligence (Kratzer & Hodgins, 1999; Moffitt, 1990). Lastly, the dual

process model of psychopathy suggests that distinct etiological factors give rise to the

development of the interpersonal and affective characteristics, and the development of the

anti-social behavioural features (Hall & Benning, 2006). According to this model,

psychopathic individuals can possess the interpersonal and affective features (primary

psychopathy) in absence of the anti-social behavioural features (secondary psychopathy)

(Patrick, 2007). This position is consistent with suggestions that antisocial behaviour is a

correlate of psychopathy, rather than a core feature. Furthermore, it is possible for individuals

to score highly on one facet whilst scoring low on the other, and there is consistent evidence

of divergent relationships with external variables for individuals high on primary vs.

secondary psychopathy (Benning et al., 2003; Benning, Patrick, & Iacono, 2005; Blonigen et

al., 2003; Morrison & Gilbert, 2001) . Although these theories offer divergent explanations of

the underlying mechanisms of noncriminal psychopathy, the explanations are not mutually

exclusive and a shared feature of all models is the reduced emphasis on criminality as a

central aspect of psychopathy. As previously highlighted, the view of criminality as central to

psychopathy resulted from the popular use of a criminal measure of psychopathy (PCL-R),

and the ease of access to psychopathic individuals in forensic institutions. This modern

conceptualisation of psychopathy is at odds with the theoretical foundation from which it has

originated (e.g., Cleckley).

Whilst the need to study noncriminal samples has been recognized, and new

noncriminal scales have enabled such research, attempts to examine the relationship between

psychopathy and criminality in the general population have continued to use criminal

measures (e.g., Coid et al., 2009; DeMatteo, Heilbrun, & Marczyk, 2006; Ishikawa et al.,


2001; Watt & Brooks, 2011). Therefore, although general population samples were utilised,

the scales used may only be capturing criminal psychopathy in a noncriminal sample. Very

few studies have examined psychopathy in noncriminal and nonclinical samples using

noncriminal measures (e.g., Lynam et al., 1999; Sellbom & Verona, 2007; Wall et al., 2013).

This is an area of research that warrants empirical attention as the current psychopathy

literature, both forensic and non-forensic, may not generalise to other psychopathic

populations. For example, Skeem & Cooke (2010a) have suggested that the current

psychopathy literature is one of ‘unsuccessful psychopathy’. Therefore, the aim of the current

study was to examine the relationship between LSRP assessed psychopathy and criminality in

a general population sample.

Crime and Criminality. Criminality is a socially constructed concept that can be

defined in various ways. Behaviour can be antisocial but not necessarily criminal and

criminal law is sometimes at odds with what is considered antisocial. For example, public

displays of affection are heavily penalised in some countries (e.g., United Arab Emirates), yet

spousal rape is not a criminal offence in many countries, although such behaviour would be

considered by many to be antisocial. Thus, it is acknowledged that criminal behaviour is

relative to the social, cultural, and political contexts in which it is performed; what is

considered ‘criminal’ varies across time and space. A recent debate on the distinction

between criminal and antisocial behaviour in regards to psychopathy (Hare & Neumann,

2010; Skeem & Cooke, 2010a, 2010b) highlights the need to provide a clear definition of

criminal behaviour for the context of the current discussion. Debates on how best to define

‘crime’ can be found in great detail within the criminology literature, with little agreement

amongst criminologists (see Brown et al., 2010 for a review). For the purposes of this

discussion, crime is defined as an act that is socially harmful, prohibited by the legal system

in the relevant state or country, and results in punishment (Sutherland, 1934). Implied in this


definition is the view that behaviours are still deemed ‘criminal’ even if they are not officially

documented and prosecuted. Criminologists have long acknowledged the limitations of

official convictions and official records in estimating criminal activity (Erickson & Empey,

1963; Sellin, 1931; Sutherland, 1934), with research showing that criminal activity is more

prevalent than indicated by official conviction records (Erickson & Empey, 1963; Porterfield,

1943). To overcome these limitations researchers have implemented self-report delinquency

scales to estimate the prevalence of criminal activity in the general community (Krohn,

Thornberry, Gibson, & Baldwin, 2010). Therefore, the use of a self-report criminal behaviour

inventory, together with the assessment of official convictions, may provide a more

comprehensive picture of the relationship between psychopathy and criminality than

measuring official convictions alone. In this discussion the term ‘criminality’ is used as a

more general term to refer to criminal behaviour and attitudes towards criminal behaviour.

Attitudes are encompassed in this definition because research in forensic samples shows that

the endorsement of pro-criminal attitudes correlates with future criminal behaviour for both

men and women (Andrews & Bonta, 2014; Gendreau et al., 1996; Holsinger, 1999). Thus, the

assessment of criminal attitudes may provide an additional indicator of criminality in

noncriminal samples.

Attitudes. Attitudes are favourable or unfavourable evaluations of something or

someone and consist of three components: affective, cognitive and behavioural (Maio, Olson,

Bernard, & Luke, 2006). The affective component refers to feelings about the object, the

cognitive component refers to beliefs and ideas about the object, and the behavioural

component refers to past behaviours regarding the object. Although personality traits and

attitudes are both used to explain and predict behaviour, there are also distinguishing features

that separate personality traits and attitudes (Ajzen, 2005). Personality traits are viewed as

behavioural dispositions or response tendencies of an individual that occur in a range of


circumstances, and are relatively stable over time (i.e., manipulativeness). Attitudes are

evaluations of a particular object (e.g., person, event, idea, or institution), and are more

flexible, and susceptible to change than personality traits (i.e., negative attitudes towards law

enforcement) (Ajzen, 2005). Azjen’s (1991) influential theory of planned behaviour suggests

that attitudes towards a particular behaviour, combined with subjective norms and perceived

control, can be used to predict behavioural intentions with a high degree of accuracy. It is

conceivable then that attitudes towards crime and criminal behaviour may provide an implicit

indicator of criminality in psychopathy, even in absence of actual criminal behaviour.

The Criminal Sentiments Scale- Revised (CSS-R) (Simourd, 1997) is a scale used to

assess attitudes towards criminal behaviour. The scale produces a global score and scores on

three subscales: attitudes towards the law-courts-police, identification with criminal others,

and tolerance for law violations. Thus, the CSS-M can be used to assess attitudes towards a

particular behaviour/s (criminal behaviours), which as suggested by Ajzen (1991) is one

component of predicting behavioural outcomes. Research by Simourd and Olver (2002) using

the CSS-M in a large, male offender sample found that the endorsement of criminal attitudes

was significantly related to rearrest, violent rearrest, and re-incarceration. Previous research

on the CSS-M and psychopathy in criminal offender samples has shown that secondary

psychopathy, but not primary psychopathy is moderately correlated with pro-criminal

attitudes (Simourd, 1997). Therefore, the use of the CSS-M to assess attitudes towards

criminal behaviour may be a good indicator of latent criminality in psychopathy in a

community sample. This study will examine the relationship between LSRP global

psychopathy, primary psychopathy, secondary psychopathy and criminal attitudes.

As mentioned earlier, the common theme shared by theories of noncriminal

psychopathy is the reduced role of criminality. However, these theories lead to differential

hypotheses regarding the relationship between psychopathy and criminal attitudes. According


to the dual-model, the interpersonal and affective features can appear in absence of the anti-

social features. Thus, it might be expected that only secondary psychopathy would be

associated with pro-criminal attitudes in a general population. However, according to the

successful psychopathy model, psychopathic individuals in the community possess the same

traits and to the same degree, but moderating factors influence the expression of these traits.

From this perspective, it might be expected that both primary and secondary psychopathy

would be associated with pro-criminal attitudes. However, the influence of these attitudes on

criminal behaviour would be moderated by social influences or other criminogenic factors

known to contribute to criminal behaviour. For example, it is acknowledged that subjective

norms influence the strength of attitudes, and the attitude-behaviour relationship. Research in

support of the effect of subjective norms on the attitude-behaviour relationship has shown

that group norms influence the strength of attitudes (Visser & Mirabile, 2004), and the

relationship between attitudes and behavioural intentions, particularly when the individual

identifies strongly with the social group (Terry & Hogg, 1996; Terry, Hogg, & White, 1999).

Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that individuals with increased levels of psychopathy in

criminal social contexts, where criminality is normalised, may display stronger criminal

attitudes and increased criminal behaviour. However, in contexts where criminal behaviour is

not acceptable and is heavily penalised, both formally and informally, the behavioural

expression of pro-criminal attitudes may be supressed. Therefore, some individuals with

psychopathy in the community may possess stronger pro-criminal attitudes, but the influence

of social context may supress the behavioural expression of these attitudes.

Gender. As previously discussed, the majority of previous research on psychopathy

has utilised male, criminal offender samples. Thus, in addition to criminal samples

dominating the psychopathy literature, research on psychopathy predominately reflects male

psychopathy. There is comparatively little research on psychopathy in females, and few


studies have explored possible differences in the manifestation of psychopathy traits as a

function of gender. The current literature on psychopathy and gender has demonstrated that

males are more likely to possess psychopathic characteristics than females (Rogstad &

Rogers, 2008), and mean differences in psychopathy scores are consistently reported (Miller,

Watts, & Jones, 2011). Furthermore, there is some evidence that psychopathy is expressed

differently in males and females. For example, Forouzan (2003) found that the interpersonal

characteristics of male and female psychopaths varied, deceitful males were more likely to be

conning, whilst females were more likely to act flirtatiously. Behavioural differences were

also observed, while male psychopaths displayed problems with impulsivity and violent

criminal conduct, female psychopaths displayed self-harming behaviours, manipulation and

non-violent criminal conduct, such as theft or fraud (Forouzan, 2003). However, these

findings are consistent with gender differences in offending more broadly, with crime

statistics showing that males are more likely to engage in violent criminal behaviour than

females, and that when females offend it is generally theft and property crimes (Australian

Institute of Criminology, 2013; United States Department of Justice, 2014). Therefore,

female and male criminal psychopaths are engaging in gender-consistent criminal behaviours

and the gender differences observed may not be related to psychopathy per se. Forouzan &

Cooke (2005) suggest that clinicians find the interpersonal features such as superficial charm

and grandiosity to be less observable in females and suggest that this may be an artefact of

socialisation. In addition, whilst psychopathy is considered a good predictor of recidivism in

males, the predictive utility of psychopathy in females is questionable. Using the PCL-R in a

female inmate sample, Salekin, Rogers, Ustad & Sewell (1998) found that the PCL-R

performed poorly as a predictor of recidivism in females, with only 11% of the recidivists

scoring highly on psychopathy. This study also found that unlike males, Factor 1 of the PCL-

R was a better predictor of recidivism in females than factor 2 (Salekin et al., 1998). Research


using male, criminal offender samples has consistently shown that Factor 2 of the PCL-R is a

better predictor of recidivism than Factor 1 (Hemphill et al., 1998). These findings suggest

that psychopathy factors may differentially predict criminal behaviour in males and females.

In contrast, Miller, Watts & Jones (2011) examined possible gender differences in the

relationships between psychopathy, etiological factors (e.g., parental relationships), the Five-

Factor Model of personality (FFM), measures of Gray’s (1970) behavioural inhibition and

activation systems, and a range of externalising behaviours (e.g., gambling, substance abuse,

and self-harm) in an undergraduate sample and found that the relationships between

psychopathy and these factors were similar across gender. Furthermore, research examining

the factor structure of psychopathy measures suggests that the factor structure is consistent

for both genders (Cale & Lilienfeld, 2002; Skeem, Mulvey, & Grisso, 2003; Kennealy,

Hicks, & Patrick, 2007). Whilst there appears to be similarities in the underlying structure of

psychopathy for males and females the scarcity of research on psychopathy in females,

together with some evidence of differences between males and females in the behavioural

expression of psychopathy, warrants an examination of possible gender differences in the

psychopathy-criminality nexus.

The Current Study

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between criminality and

psychopathy in the community using a noncriminal measure of psychopathy. It was expected

that some individuals recruited from the community would score highly on the LSRP scale.

Given the theories of noncriminal psychopathy previously discussed, it was hypothesised that

individuals who scored highly on primary and secondary psychopathy would not possess the

same level of criminality as psychopaths in criminal samples. Alternatively, the dual-model

approach may suggest elevated levels of criminality only in secondary psychopathy. Given

the scarcity of research on psychopathy using female participants, and some evidence of


gender differences in both crime (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2013; United States

Department of Justice, 2014) and the relationship between psychopathy and criminality

(Salekin et al., 1998), an additional aim of this study was to examine the psychopathy-

criminality relationship separately for males and females with the aim of elucidating any

gender differences. The examination of male and female findings separately will also aid in

the comparison of findings from the current study with previous research which has

predominately used male, criminal offender samples.

To achieve these aims, this study examined the relationship between primary and

secondary psychopathy (measured by the LSRP) and self-reported criminal convictions,

criminal behaviour, and traffic violations. To obtain a comprehensive assessment of the

relationship between psychopathy and criminality, criminal attitudes were also assessed as an

additional indicator of criminality. According to the theory of planned behaviour, attitudes

can influence behaviour, and there is some empirical support for the association between

criminal attitudes and criminal conduct (Gendreau, Andrews, Goggin & Chanteloupe, 1992;

Simourd & Andrews, 1994).

In line with theoretical accounts of noncriminal psychopathy, which emphasise the

reduced role of anti-sociality, it was hypothesised that the relationship between psychopathy

and criminality would be more nuanced than that found in previous research using criminal

offender samples. The successful psychopathy model suggests that compensatory

mechanisms (e.g., favourable environmental factors) influence the expression of psychopathy

towards adaptive rather than maladaptive expressions. Following this theory, it would be

expected that neither primary nor secondary psychopathy would be associated with criminal

convictions, self-report criminal behaviour, or traffic violations. However, because attitudes

are implicit and their expression influenced by social context, primary and secondary

psychopathy may be associated with pro-criminal attitudes, but not necessarily criminal


conduct. An examination of possible mediating effects of group norms on the relationship

between psychopathy and criminality may provide additional support for the successful

psychopathy model. Therefore, if a significant relationship is found between psychopathy and

criminal behaviour, it could be because of a stronger identification with criminal social

groups.

In contrast, the dual process model suggests that the interpersonal and affective

features are distinct from the antisocial behaviour features. In this regard, it might be

expected that only secondary psychopathy (the antisocial-lifestyle facet) would be

significantly related to criminal attitudes, criminal convictions, self-report criminal

behaviour, and traffic violations. This hypothesis is further supported by research in forensic

samples which demonstrates that only secondary psychopathy (Factor 2) is related to pro-

criminal attitudes (Simourd, 1997), and that secondary psychopathy is better predictor of

criminal behaviour (Hemphill et al., 1998). In regards to gender differences, it is

hypothesised that if a relationship exists between psychopathy and criminality in the current

study, primary psychopathy will be a better predictor than secondary psychopathy in the

female sample only, because previous research has shown that unlike males, Factor 1 of the

PCL-R is a better predictor of criminality in female criminal offenders (Hemphill et al., 1998;

Salekin et al., 1998).

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 523 participants (68% female) recruited from the general

population of South East Queensland via social networking sites, online news websites,

classified advertisements, and advertising flyers posted at shopping centres and university

campuses. The average age of participants was 29 years (males M = 29 years, SD = 10 years;

females M = 30 years, SD = 12 years). The sample consisted of participants who were


students (45%), and participants who were employed full-time (35.4%), part-time (11.1%), or

on a casual basis (4.2%); self-employed (1.7%); unemployed (1%) and other (1.5%) (e.g.,

volunteers/full-time parents/retirees). The complete demographic data for participants is

presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Participant Demographics (N = 523)

Demographic Variable % Male % Female

Highest Level of Education Did Not Complete Year 10

- .60

Year 10 Certificate 1.80 2.50 Year 12 Certificate 44.40 41.20 Trade/Diploma 14.20 13.30 Undergraduate Degree 29.60 26.30 Postgraduate Degree 10.10 16.10 Country of Birth Australia 78.10 74.90 England 4.10 5.40 New Zealand 4.10 4.50 China 3.0 1.10 Other (all < 2% frequency)

10.70 14.10

Cultural Background Australian 86.20 89.70 British 3.80 6.90 Chinese 4.40 2.20 Other (all < 1% frequency)

5.60 1.20

Traffic Violation Yes 58.60 50.90 No 41.40 49.10 Criminal Conviction Yes 5.30 2.0 No 94.70 98.0 Prison Sentence Yes - .30 No 100 99.70


Materials

Demographic questionnaire. A brief demographic questionnaire was used to

measure individual difference variables, such as age, gender, ethnicity, level of education and

employment status. In addition, there were items regarding previous criminal conduct and

lawful behaviour. Participation was anonymous, no personally identifying information was

requested from participants.

Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP) (Levenson et al., 1995). The

LSRP is a 26-item self-report questionnaire designed for use in non-institutionalised samples

(Levenson, et al., 1995). Each item consists of a statement that participants endorse on a four-

point Likert scale (the anchors are 1 = disagree strongly and 4 = agree strongly). The primary

psychopathy subscale contains 16 items that assess the core personality traits of psychopathy

described by Cleckley (1941, 1948, 1951), including manipulativeness, callousness, and lack

of empathy, guilt or remorse. A sample item is “I tell other people what they want to hear so

that they will do what I want them to do”. Scores range from 16 to 64 with higher scores

reflect higher levels of primary psychopathy. The secondary psychopathy subscale contains

10 items that assess impulsivity, anti-social behaviour and a self-defeating lifestyle. A sample

item is “I don’t plan anything very far in advance”. Scores range from 10 to 40 with higher

scores reflect higher levels of secondary psychopathy. Some items are scored in reverse order

to control for response sets. The scale has good internal reliability for the primary

psychopathy subscale with Cronbach’s alpha .84 and adequate internal reliability for the

secondary psychopathy subscale with Cronbach’s alpha .72 (Ali, et al., 2009). The scale

possesses good temporal reliability at eight weeks’ test-retest (.83) (Lynam, et al., 1999). In a

male, predominately Caucasian, undergraduate sample the mean level of primary

psychopathy (M = 32.22, SD = 6.80) and secondary psychopathy (M = 18.60, SD = 3.60)

(Reidy et al., 2008) is similar to that found in male, Caucasian, criminal offender samples for


primary (M = 31.86, SD = 8.22) and secondary (M = 22.20, SD = 5.18) psychopathy

(Brinkley et al., 2001).

The Criminal Sentiments Scale Modified (CSS-M) (Simourd, 1997). The CSS-M

is a 41-item self-report questionnaire designed to measure attitudes, values and beliefs

towards criminality and lawful behaviour. Each item consists of a statement with which

participants agree, disagree or remain undecided (anchors are A = agree, D = disagree, U =

undecided). Endorsement of pro-criminal statements (or the rejection of pro-social

statements) attracts two points whilst the rejection of pro-criminal statements (or the

endorsement of pro-social statements) yields a point of zero. Undecided responses attract one

point. Thus, higher scores indicate greater pro-criminal attitudes. Some items are scored in

reverse to control for response sets. The CSS-M yields a total score and three subscale scores:

law-court-police (LCP), identification with criminal others (ICO), and tolerance for law

violations (TLV). The LCP subscale contains 25 items that assess attitudes towards the law

and criminal justice system. Sample items are “The police are as crooked as the people they

arrest” (police), “Almost any jury can be fixed” (courts), and “It’s our duty to obey all laws”

(law). The ICO subscale contains 6 items designed to assess personal evaluative judgments

that individuals hold toward law violators. A sample item is “People who have broken the

law have the same sorts of ideas about life as me”. The TLV subscale contains 10 items that

assess justification for criminal behaviour and law violation. Sample items are “Most people

would commit crimes if they wouldn’t get caught” and “There is never a good reason to

break the law”. The CSS-M possesses good internal reliability for the total scale (alpha = .91)

(Simourd & Olver, 2002) and LCP subscale (alpha = .87) (Simourd & Olver, 2002), and

adequate internal reliability for the TLV (alpha = .76) (Simourd & Olver, 2002) and ICO

(alpha = .73) (Simourd, 1997) subscales.


Self-Report Criminal Activity Scale. A self-report criminal activity scale was

included to capture acts of criminal behaviour that may not have resulted in an official

conviction. The Self-Report Delinquency Scale (SRDS) (Mak, 1993) was modified so that

items relating to delinquent behaviours (such as truancy from school) were excluded or

reworded so that they were applicable to an adult population. The SRDS was designed by

Mak (1993) to capture actual delinquent behaviour rather than official convictions in young

people, and the scale demonstrates good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .88).

Unlike the SRDS, the modified scale used in the current study employed a Likert-scale

response format that assessed the frequency of a particular criminal act across the lifespan,

rather than in the previous 12-month period (the anchors are 1 = never, 2 = a couple of time,

3 = a few times, 4 = many times, 5 = all the time). The modified scale contains 28 items: 22

items that assess the frequency of a range of criminal behaviours, and six items to detect

socially desirable responding (See Appendix 1). The possible scores range from 22 to 110,

with higher scores indicating higher levels of criminal activity. The modified scale possesses

good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = .85).

Instructional manipulation checks (IMC’s) (Oppenheimer, Meyvis, &

Davidenko, 2009). The two IMC’s were designed to capture satisfice responding. The IMC’s

instructed participants to select a particular response on the Likert-scale or to refrain from

responding. A sample item is “Please select ‘agree strongly’ as your answer for this

question”.

Procedure

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Human Research Ethics

Committee of the Queensland University of Technology and is presented in appendix 2

(approval number 1100001490). Participants were given an information letter which detailed

the nature of the research and participation requirements. The participant information letter


contained a web link to an online survey tool (Surveymonkey.com) and participants

completed the questionnaire set electronically. Participation was anonymous and participants

were given the choice to participate in future studies by providing a unique identifier code.

The identifier code consisted of the first three letters of the participants’ mothers’ maiden

name and the last three digits of the participants’ mobile telephone number. The identifier

code was designed to link participant responses from this study with participation in

subsequent studies of this research program. Participation in this study was voluntary.

Participants first completed the demographic questionnaire and then the Levenson

Self-Report Psychopathy Scale. The Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and Self-Report

Criminal Activity Scale were presented last in a counterbalanced order to avoid value-laden

items from influencing responses on the other questionnaires. The IMC’s were presented

randomly throughout the questionnaire set. Participants were thanked for their participation at

the conclusion of the questionnaire set. The complete questionnaire set for this study is

presented in Appendix 1.

Design

A cross-sectional, correlational design was used to examine the relationship between

psychopathy and criminality. The predictor variables were primary psychopathy and

secondary psychopathy as measured by the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP)

(1995). The LSRP was chosen as the measure of primary and secondary psychopathy for this

study, as this scale is a psychometrically sound, public domain test and could therefore be

used in the online questionnaire set. The outcome variables were previous criminal

convictions; traffic violations; the three criminal attitude factors (attitudes towards law-

courts-police, tolerance for law violations, and identification with criminal others) (measured

using the CSS-M); and self-reported criminal offending (measured using the SRCS).


To prevent potential satisfice responding, a progress bar was displayed at the top of

the page to provide participants with information on their progress through the study. In

addition, four instructional manipulation checks (IMC’s) (Oppenheimer, Meyvis &

Davidenko, 2009) were used to capture satisfice responding and were randomly presented

throughout the questionnaire set. Participants who did not respond appropriately were

excluded from the sample (N = 32).

Results

Data Screening

Data was screened prior to analyses for accuracy of input, missing values, and

outliers. There were no missing data points or out of range values. All means and standard

deviations were plausible. Values that were more than 3.29 standard deviations from the

mean were considered extreme values (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). These cases were

addressed by replacing the original score with a value equal to the mean plus three standard

deviations. The modified data was used in all inferential analyses.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics are displayed separately for males and females in Table 2. An

examination of the means indicated possible gender differences in global psychopathy,

primary psychopathy, tolerance for law violations, identification with criminal others, and

self-report criminality. T-tests confirmed that these differences were significant. Males

reported significantly higher levels of global psychopathy, t(521) = 2.80, p = .005, d = .26,

primary psychopathy, t(521) = 3.28, p = .001, d = .26, tolerance for law violations, t(521) =

2.96, p = .003, d = .27, possessed a stronger identification with other criminals, t(521) = 3.53,

p < .001, 𝑑𝑑 = .31, and reported engaging in more criminal behaviour, t(521) = 5.70, p <

.001, 𝑑𝑑 = .56. The small effect sizes observed for psychopathy and criminal attitudes suggest

that no meaningful differences exist between males and females. However, a medium effect


size was observed for criminal behaviour, suggesting that there is a noticeable difference in

criminal offending as a function of gender. This finding is consistent with crime data on

gender differences in offense rates (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2013; United States

Department of Justice, 2014). Of the 523 participants only 16 reported having a criminal

conviction (< 3% of the sample), thus no further analyses were conducted in relation to

criminal offenses. The means and standard deviations for primary psychopathy and secondary

psychopathy were similar to those found in previous research using an undergraduate sample

(Reidy et al., 2008), and criminal offender sample (C. Brinkley et al., 2001) (Cohen’s d = .38,

a small-moderate effect, for the difference between the current sample and Brinkley et al.

2001). Interestingly, the means and standard deviations for the criminal sentiments subscales

were also similar to those found in previous research using male, criminal offender samples

(CSS-M Total, M = 27.10, SD = 14.80; LCP, M = 18.10, SD = 10.70; TLV, M = 6.50, SD =

3.80, ICO, M = 2.50, SD = 2.30) (Simourd, 1997). The internal reliabilities for the scales

were calculated using the whole sample and are displayed in Table 2. The internal reliabilities

of the scales ranged from good to adequate, with the exception of the ICO subscale. The poor

internal reliability of the ICO subscale could be because it contains only 6 items and

Cronbach’s alpha is sensitive to the number of items included. All inter-item correlations for

the ICO subscale were positive.


Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Psychopathy and Criminal Attitudes for Males and Females

Male Female Cronbach’s a Measure M SD M SD Global Psychopathy 48.49 9.48 46.05 9.14 .85 Primary psychopathy 28.48 9.14 26.37 6.28 .84 Secondary psychopathy

19.98 3.93 19.69 4.33 .70

Criminal Sentiments Scale total

25.81 12.11 24.15 9.73 .88

Law-Courts-Police 15.43 8.23 15.30 6.74 .85 Tolerance for law violations

7.15 3.69 6.17 3.42 .70

Identification with criminal others

3.18 1.68 2.67 1.51 .54

Self-report criminality

29.89 7.38 26.32 4.97 .85

Inferential Statistics

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to predict self-report

criminal behaviour and criminal attitudes as a function of primary and secondary

psychopathy. All assumptions were met (i.e., additivity and linearity, independent errors,

homoscedasticity, and normally distributed residuals). Bivariate correlations are displayed

separately for males and females in Table 2. The pattern of relationships between

psychopathy and the criminal attitudes factors are similar for both males and females.

However, the relationship between primary psychopathy and self-report criminality is

different for males and females. Higher levels of primary psychopathy show a weak, positive,

and significant relationship with criminal behaviour in females. However, for males a weak,

negative and nonsignificant relationship is observed. The difference between these

correlations was statistically significant, Z = 2.82, p = .005. These findings are consistent

with previous research in criminal offender samples (Hemphill et al., 1998; Salekin et al.,

1998). Secondary psychopathy was significantly related to self-report criminal conduct in


both males and females. Given the low bivariate correlations between the number of traffic

violations and primary and secondary psychopathy no further analyses were conducted.

Table 3

Bivariate Correlations between Psychopathy and Criminal Attitudes (Correlations Below the

Diagonal Are for Males, Above the Diagonal for Females)

Psych Total

Prim Psych

Secon Psych

CSS Total LCP ICO TLV SRCS NTV

Psych Total .90** .79** .39** .27** .26** .46** .25** .04

Prim Psych .92** .46** .31** .19** .20** .42** .18** .01

Secon Psych .71** .38** .37** .29** .25** .35** .27** .07

CSS Total .42** .33** .38** .92** .52** .77** .32** .07

LCP .31** .23** .30** .95** .32** .52** .22** .06

ICO .34** .27** .31** .62** .45** .41** .22** .04

TLV .48** .40** .41** .82** .63** .53** .36** .08

SRCS .06 -.01 .16* .33** .25** .37** .32** .18*

NTV -.15 -.17 -.04 -.22* -.19* -.11 -.21* .29**

Note. CSS Total = Criminal Sentiments Scale Total; LCP = Law Courts Police; ICO = Identification with Criminal Others; TLV = Tolerance for Law Violations; Psych Total = Psychopathy Total Score; Prim Psych = Primary Psychopathy; Secon Psych = Secondary Psychopathy; SRCS = Self-report Criminality Scale NTV = Number of Traffic Violations. * p < .05, **p < .01. two-tailed.

Criminal Attitudes. Hierarchical multiple regression was conducted to predict

criminal attitudes from the linear combination of primary and secondary psychopathy.

Because the literature on psychopathy suggests that secondary psychopathy is more strongly

related with antisocial behaviour, secondary psychopathy was entered in the first step, and

primary psychopathy was entered in the second step.


Males. The results at the first step revealed that higher levels of secondary

psychopathy significantly explained 14.3% (adjusted R square) of the variance in criminal

attitudes, a moderate effect (R = .38, F [1, 167] = 29.06, p < .001). Adding primary

psychopathy to the regression model explained an additional 4% of the variation in criminal

attitudes and this change in 𝑅𝑅2 was significant, F(1, 167) = 8.10, p = .005. The linear

combination of primary and secondary psychopathy significantly predicted criminal attitudes,

R= .43, accounting for 17.8% of the variance, F(2, 166) = 19.20, p<.001. Within the

regression model higher levels of secondary psychopathy, and to a lesser extent, higher levels

of primary psychopathy significantly predicted pro-criminal attitudes. Details of the

regression are presented in Table 4.

Females. In the first step when secondary psychopathy was entered, R = .37,

accounting for 13.6% of the variation in criminal attitudes (adjusted R square), F(1, 352) =

56.59, p < .001. The addition of primary psychopathy to the regression model explained an

additional 2.5%, and this change was significant, F(1, 351) = 10.70, p < .001. The linear

combination of primary and secondary psychopathy significantly predicted criminal attitudes

in females, accounting for 15.9% of the variability in pro-criminal attitudes, R = .40, F(2,

351) = 34.42, p < .001. Within the regression model both higher levels of primary and

secondary psychopathy significantly predicted pro-criminal attitudes, with secondary

psychopathy being a better predictor. Details of the regression are presented in Table 4.


Table 4

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Criminal Attitudes from Primary and Secondary

Psychopathy Separately for Males and Females

B SE B β t

Males

Step 1

Constant 2.09 4.48

Secondary Psychopathy 1.18 .22 .38 5.39***

Step 2

Constant -3.25 4.77

Secondary Psychopathy .76 .13 .34 5.90***

Primary Psychopathy .26 .08 .18 3.18**

Females

Step 1

Constant 7.67 2.24

Secondary Psychopathy .83 .11 .37 7.52**

Step 2

Constant 4.03 2.47


Primary Psychopathy .27 .08 .18 3.27**

Note. **p<.01 ***p<.001.

Attitudes Toward Law, Courts and Police. To further elucidate the relationship

between criminal attitudes and primary and secondary psychopathy, hierarchical multiple

regression was conducted on the criminal sentiments subscale: law, courts and police. Using

the previously mentioned rationale, secondary psychopathy was entered in the first step and

primary psychopathy was entered in the second step.


Males. The results at the first step revealed that higher levels of secondary

psychopathy significantly explained 8.9% of the variance in negative attitudes toward the

law, courts, and police, a small effect (R = .30, F [1, 167] = 17.40, p < .001). The addition of

primary psychopathy to the regression model did not produce a significant change in 𝑅𝑅2, F(1,

166) = 3.08, p = .08. The linear combination of primary and secondary psychopathy

explained 10% of the variance, R = .33, F(2, 166) = 10.35, p<.001. However, within the

regression model only higher levels secondary psychopathy significantly predicted negative

attitudes towards the law, courts, and police. Details of the regression are presented in Table

5.

Females. In the first step, higher levels of secondary psychopathy significantly

predicted negative attitudes towards the law, courts and police, R = .29, F(1, 352) = 34.64, p

< .001, accounting for 8.7% of the variability in negative attitudes towards the law, courts

and police. The addition of primary psychopathy to the regression model did not produce a

significant change in 𝑅𝑅2, F(1, 351) = 1.24, p =.26. The linear combination of primary and

secondary psychopathy significantly predicted negative attitudes towards the law, courts and

police, explaining 9.3% of the variance, R = .30, F(2, 351) = 17.95, p<.001. However, only

higher levels of secondary psychopathy significantly predicted negative attitudes towards the

law, courts and police. The regression model is presented in Table 5.


Table 5

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Attitudes Toward Law, Courts, and Police from

Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Separately for Males and Females

B SE B β t

Males

Step 1

Constant 2.55 3.14


Step 2

Constant .20 3.39


Primary Psychopathy .16 .09 .13 1.75

Females

Step 1

Constant 6.11 1.59


Step 2

Constant 5.22 1.78



Note. **p<.01 ***p<.001.

Tolerance for Law Violations. Hierarchical multiple regression was used to assess if

primary and secondary psychopathy significantly predicted a higher tolerance for law

violation. Secondary psychopathy was again entered in the first step and primary

psychopathy was entered in the second step.

Males. At the first step higher levels of secondary psychopathy significantly

explained 16.7% of the variance in tolerance for law violations, R = .41, F (1, 167) = 34.70, p


< .001. The addition of primary psychopathy to the regression model explained an additional

7.2% of the variance in tolerance for violations of the law and this change in 𝑅𝑅2 was

significant, F(1, 166) = 15.85, p <.001. The linear combination of primary and secondary

psychopathy significantly predicted tolerance for law violations, R = .49, accounting for

23.5% of the variance, F(2, 166) = 26.82, p<.001. A higher tolerance for law violations was

significantly predicted by higher levels of primary and secondary psychopathy, with

secondary psychopathy being a better predictor. The full regression model is presented in

Table 6.

Females. The results at the first step showed that higher levels of secondary

psychopathy significantly explained 12.3% of the variation in tolerance for law violations, R

= .35, F(1, 352) = 50.46, p < .001. With primary psychopathy added to the model, an

additional 8.9% of variability was explained and this 𝑅𝑅2change was significant, F(1, 351) =

39.81, p <.001. The linear combination of primary and secondary psychopathy significantly

predicted a tolerance for law violations, explaining 21% of the variability (R = .46, F[2, 351]

= 47.92, p <.001). Higher levels of both primary and secondary psychopathy significantly

predicted a higher tolerance for law violations. However, unlike the findings for males,

higher levels of primary psychopathy better predicted a tolerance for law violations. Details

of the regression are presented in Table 6.


Table 6

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Tolerance for Law Violations from Primary and

Secondary Psychopathy Presented Separately for Males and Females

B SE B β t

Males

Step 1

Constant -.63 1.34


Step 2

Constant -2.83 1.40


Primary Psychopathy .15 .03 .29 3.98***

Females

Step 1

Constant .65 .79


Step 2

Constant -1.73 .84


Primary Psychopathy .18 .02 .33 6.31***

Note. ***p <.001.

Identification with Criminal Others. Primary and secondary psychopathy were used

in a hierarchical regression analysis to predict identification with criminal others. Secondary

psychopathy was entered in the first step and primary psychopathy was entered in the second

step.

Males. The results at the first step revealed that secondary psychopathy significantly

explained 9.1% of the variance in identification with other criminals, R = .31, F (1, 167) =


17.81, p < .001. The addition of primary psychopathy to the regression model explained an

additional 2.8% of the variance in identification with criminal others, and this change in 𝑅𝑅2

was significant, F(1, 166) = 5.30, p =.02. The overall prediction model was statistically

significant, R = .35, accounting for 11.4% of the variance, F (2, 166) = 11.78, p < .001.

Within the regression model higher levels of both primary and secondary psychopathy

predicted a stronger identification with criminal others, with secondary psychopathy being a

better predictor. Details of the regression are presented in Table 7.

Females. The results after the first step showed that higher levels of secondary

psychopathy significantly explained 6.1% of the variation in identification with other

criminals, R = .25, F (1, 352) = 23.76, p < .001. The addition of primary psychopathy to the

regression model did not produce a significant change in 𝑅𝑅2, F(1, 351) = 3.8, ns. The linear

combination of primary and secondary psychopathy significantly predicted a stronger sense

of identification with other criminals, explaining 6.8% of the variability (R=.27, F[2, 351] =

13.91, p < .001. Unlike the male results, only secondary psychopathy was a significant

predictor within the regression model. The full details of the prediction model are presented

in Table 7.


Table 7

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Identification with Criminal Others from

Primary and Secondary Psychopathy for Males and Females

B SE B β t

Males

Step 1

Constant .53 .64


Step 2

Constant -.09 .68


Primary Psychopathy .04 .01 .18 2.30*

Females

Step 1

Constant .94 .36


Step 2

Constant .58 .40



Note. *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

Self-Reported Criminal Behaviour. Primary and secondary psychopathy were used

in a hierarchical regression analysis to predict criminal behaviour. Secondary psychopathy

was entered in the first step and primary psychopathy was entered in the second step.

Males. After the first step when secondary psychopathy was entered, the model

significantly explained 2.2% of the variability in criminal behaviour, R = .16, F (1, 167) =

4.85, p = .02. The addition of primary psychopathy to the regression model did not result in a


significant change to 𝑅𝑅2, F(1, 166) = 1.35, ns. The linear combination of primary and

secondary psychopathy significantly explained 2.4% of the variability in criminal behaviour

(R=.19, F[2, 166] = 3.10, p = .04). Within the regression model higher levels of secondary,

but not primary, psychopathy significantly predicted criminal behaviour. The full details of

the model are displayed in Table 8.

Females. The results at the first step revealed that higher levels of secondary

psychopathy significantly predicted higher levels of criminal behaviour, explaining 7% of the

variability, R = .27, F (1, 352) = 27.63, p < .001. The addition of primary psychopathy to the

model did not explain any additional variability in criminal behaviour, with a nonsignificant

𝑅𝑅2change, F(1, 351) = 1.69, ns. The linear combination of primary and secondary

psychopathy significantly explained 7.2% of the variability in criminal behaviour, R = .27, F

(2, 351) = 14.69, p < .001. However, within the regression model only secondary

psychopathy was a significant predictor of criminal behaviour. Details of the regression

model are presented in Table 8.


Table 8

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Predicting Criminal Behaviour from Primary and

Secondary Psychopathy for Males and Females

B SE B β t

Males

Step 1

Constant 23.58 2.91

Secondary Psychopathy .31 .14 .16 2.20*

Step 2

Constant 25.03 3.17

Secondary Psychopathy .38 .15 .20 2.48*

Primary Psychopathy -.09 .08 -.09 1.16

Females

Step 1

Constant 20.21 1.18


Step 2

Constant 19.43 1.32



Note. *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001.

Follow-up Mediation Analyses

Mediated regression analyses were used to follow-up the significant effect of

secondary psychopathy on self-reported criminal behaviour to determine whether this effect

was mediated by a stronger identification with other criminals.

Males. A mediated regression analysis was conducted to predict self-reported

criminal behaviour from secondary psychopathy whilst examining the possible mediating role


of ICO. All assumptions of the analysis were met. The linear combination of secondary

psychopathy and ICO significantly predicted self-reported criminal behaviour, explaining

14.2% of the variance, R = .37, F(2, 166) = 13.73, p <.001. Within the regression model a

stronger identification with criminal others significantly predicted criminal behaviour (b

=1.55, p < .001), secondary psychopathy was not a significant predictor (b =.10, p = .44). The

results of the mediation analysis revealed a significant indirect effect of secondary

psychopathy on self-reported criminal behaviour through ICO, b = .20, BCa CI [.06, .43].

This represents a small effect, 𝜅𝜅2 = .10, 95% BCa CI [.03, .19]. There was no significant

direct effect of secondary psychopathy on self-reported criminal behaviour, b = .10, p = .44,

The results suggest that the effect of secondary psychopathy on self-reported criminal

behaviour is entirely mediated by a stronger identification with other criminals. The

mediation effect is displayed graphically in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Conceptual diagram of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Secondary Psychopathy on Self-

Reported Criminal Behaviour for Males.

Females. A mediated regression analysis was conducted to predict self-reported

criminal behaviour from secondary psychopathy whilst examining the possible mediating role


of ICO. All assumptions were met. The linear combination of secondary psychopathy and

ICO significantly predicted self-reported criminal behaviour, explaining 10% of the variance,

R = .31, F(2, 351) = 19.62, p <.001. Within the regression model a stronger identification

with criminal others significantly predicted criminal behaviour (b =.56, p = .001), as did

higher levels of secondary psychopathy (b =.26, p <.001). The results of the mediation

analysis revealed a significant indirect effect of secondary psychopathy on self-reported

criminal behaviour through ICO, b = .04, BCa CI [.01, .09]. This represents a very small

effect, 𝜅𝜅2 = .04, 95% BCa CI [.01, .07]. Unlike males, there was also a significant direct

effect of secondary psychopathy on self-reported criminal behaviour, b = .26, p < .001. The

results suggest that the effect of secondary psychopathy on self-reported criminal behaviour

is only partially mediated by a stronger identification with other criminals, and that an effect

of secondary psychopathy on criminal behaviour exists even when controlling the effects of

identification with criminal others The conceptual model is displayed in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Conceptual diagram of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Secondary Psychopathy on Self-

Reported Criminal Behaviour for Females.


Discussion

Overview of Research

Previous research on the relationship between psychopathy and criminality has

typically utilised male, criminal offender samples, or criminal measures of psychopathy.

Consequently, it has been difficult to interpret previous research on the relationship between

psychopathy and criminality because of sample and measurement biases. The current study

aimed to provide clarification on the relationship between psychopathy and criminality by

using a community sample and a noncriminal measure of psychopathy. An examination of

possible gender differences was also included, as research on female psychopathy is scant.

Two current theories of noncriminal psychopathy were explored, the successful

psychopathy model and the dual process model. This was achieved by examining the

relationship between primary and secondary psychopathy and indices of criminality (criminal

convictions, criminal behaviour and traffic violations, and criminal attitudes).

Key Findings

Gender. Research on psychopathy has almost exclusively examined the personality

construct in male participants. Because of this, very little is known about psychopathy in

women. The few studies that have examined psychopathy in women have found that males

generally score higher on measures of psychopathy. Consistent with previous research on

psychopathy and gender, the current study found that males possessed higher levels of

primary psychopathy than females, but that secondary psychopathy did not differ between

genders (Miller, Gaughan, & Pryor, 2008). Although the gender difference in primary

psychopathy found in the current study produced a small effect, this finding provides some

support for claims by clinicians that the interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy

are muted in women (Forouzan & Cooke, 2005). However, alternative explanations for this

difference have been proposed in detail by Forouzan and Cooke (2005), including, effects of


gender socialisation on both the behavioural expression of psychopathy in females, and the

clinicians’ assessment of psychopathy in females; the failure of current psychopathy

assessments, designed for males, to capture female psychopathy; and genuine differences in

symptomatology for females. In addition to gender differences in mean psychopathy scores,

the current study also found a range of gender differences in the relationships between

psychopathy and criminal attitudes, and psychopathy and self-reported criminal behaviour.

These findings are discussed in detail in the proceeding sections.

Criminal convictions and traffic violations. It was hypothesised that the degree of

criminality reported in psychopathy using a community sample would be lower than that

found in criminal offender samples. The current study found no relationship between primary

and secondary psychopathy and traffic violations for males or females. Whilst the small

proportion of participants in the current sample with a criminal conviction (< 3%) prevented

analysis of the relationship between psychopathy and self-reported criminal conduct, the

means and standard deviations for global psychopathy, primary psychopathy and secondary

psychopathy were similar to those found in criminal offender samples (e.g., C. Brinkley et al.,

2001). This suggests that although psychopathic characteristics can be found equally in

criminal offender and community samples, individuals in the community with psychopathic

characteristics are far less likely to have a criminal conviction. Interpreted in isolation, this

finding would suggest that individuals with psychopathy in general community are engaging

in less criminal behaviour that individuals with psychopathy in forensic populations.

However, not all crimes are detected and even when they are detected, they do not always

lead to an official conviction. To overcome this limitation, the current study also examined

self-reported criminal behaviour, and pro-criminal attitudes.

Criminal attitudes. Following the dual process model it was hypothesised that higher

levels of secondary psychopathy, which reflect the antisocial, impulsive and interpersonally


parasitic features, would predict pro-criminal attitudes. However, because the interpersonal

and affective features are considered distinct from the antisocial features it was hypothesised

that primary psychopathy would not be related to pro-criminal attitudes.

In contrast, the predictions following the successful psychopathy model were that

primary or secondary psychopathy could be associated with pro-criminal attitudes. However,

because attitudes are implicit and subjective norms influence their behavioural expression, it

was suggested that the behavioural expression of these attitudes may be mediated by social

factors.

The results showed that for both males and females higher levels of primary and

secondary psychopathy predicted the endorsement of pro-criminal attitudes. However, it was

higher levels of secondary psychopathy that explained most of the variance, with primary

psychopathy not contributing much to the explanation of pro-criminal attitudes. These

findings are consistent with research in male criminal offender samples which show that

elevated levels of secondary psychopathy are more strongly associated with pro-criminal

attitudes than higher levels of primary psychopathy (Simourd, 1997). The results provide

partial support both models of noncriminal psychopathy. The dual process model suggests

that primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy arise from distinct etiological

mechanisms, and suggest that secondary psychopathy may be more strongly related with

criminality. The results provide partial support for this claim as secondary psychopathy was a

stronger predictor of pro-criminal attitudes than primary psychopathy. However, the results

also provide support for the successful psychopathy model in that both primary and

secondary psychopathy were associated with pro-criminal attitudes, but not an increase in

official convictions or traffic violations. This suggests that perhaps moderating factors are

influencing the expression of psychopathy away from criminal manifestations. This finding

was consistent for both male and female participants. However, some gender differences


were evident in the pattern of relationships between primary and secondary psychopathy and

the criminal attitudes subscales.

For both males and females only secondary psychopathy significantly predicted

negative attitudes towards the justice system. However, gender differences were observed for

tolerance for law violations and identification with criminal others. For males, both primary

and secondary psychopathy significantly predicted a higher tolerance for law violations, with

secondary psychopathy being a better predictor. In contrast, both primary and secondary

psychopathy predicted a higher tolerance for law violations, but primary psychopathy was a

better predictor in the female sample. This suggests that the relationship between

psychopathy and beliefs about criminal behaviour are different for males and females. This

finding is consistent with previous research on gender differences in the relationship between

psychopathy and criminal recidivism, which show that factor 1 is a better predictor in females

samples only (Salekin et al., 1998).

A possible explanation for this difference is the influence of gender norms on

attitudes toward antisocial behaviour. In general, antisocial behaviour is more frowned upon,

especially violent antisocial behaviour, in females than in males because the behaviour is

inconsistent with expected female traits of passivity, empathy and sensitivity. Females with

elevated levels of primary psychopathy may have a higher tolerance for law violations

because their personality makes them less susceptible to the guilt and shame associated with

violating female stereotypes of acceptable behaviour. This is consistent with Cleckley’s

(1941) description of ‘Anna’, a female client with psychopathy who engaged in a range of

sexual behaviours considered inappropriate for the era, with an apparent lack of concern for

social opinion. However, this explanation warrants further research to establish the possible

mediating effects of gender role on the relationship between primary psychopathy and


criminality, particularly because secondary psychopathy was generally a better predictor of

pro-criminal attitudes for both males and females in the current sample.

Self-Reported Criminal Behaviour. An examination of self-reported criminal

behaviour was included in the current study to overcome the discrepancies between estimates

of crime and official conviction records. According to the dual process model, it was

hypothesised that only secondary psychopathy would be associated with self-reported

criminal behaviour. The results supported this prediction revealing that secondary

psychopathy, but not primary psychopathy, significantly predicted self-report criminal

conduct. The results were consistent for males and females, although secondary psychopathy

explained more variance in criminal conduct in the female sample compared to the male

sample.

The successful psychopathy model proposes that external factors influence the

expression of psychopathic traits. According to this model, it was hypothesised that neither

primary nor secondary psychopathy would be associated with elevated engagement in

criminal behaviour. The results of this study did not support this hypothesis, with secondary

psychopathy a significant predictor of criminal behaviour. However, secondary psychopathy

did not explain much variance in criminal behaviour, particularly for males, suggesting that

other factors are more important than psychopathy in predicting criminal behaviour in this

sample. An alternative explanation for this finding could be that social group mediates the

relationship between psychopathy and criminal behaviour. The results of the follow-up

mediation analysis revealed that the relationship between secondary psychopathy and

criminal conduct was entirely mediated by identification with criminal peers for males, and

partially mediated by identification with criminals for females. These results suggest that

normative effects influence the relationship between psychopathy and criminality. Therefore,

it could be that criminal attitudes and behaviours are normalised in circumstances where a


psychopathic individual identifies with a criminal group, resulting in a criminal manifestation

of psychopathy. This interpretation is consistent with the successful psychopathy model,

which suggests that other factors influence the expression of psychopathy towards adaptive

and maladaptive manifestations. This claim is bolstered by the results of the current study

which demonstrated that whilst primary psychopathy was a significant predictor of pro-

criminal attitudes, it was not a significant predictor of criminal behaviour. This suggests that

other factors are mediating and/or moderating the relationship between primary psychopathy

and criminal behaviour. Gao & Raine (2010) have proposed a neurobiological model to

explain differences between noncriminal and criminal psychopaths. The authors suggest that

the neurobiological abnormalities found in criminal psychopaths are absent in noncriminal

psychopaths, and that these abnormalities may contribute to a criminal manifestation of

psychopathy (Gao & Raine, 2010). They suggest that noncriminal psychopathy may be

characterised by superior executive function.

Research examining executive functioning in psychopathy has shown that criminal

and noncriminal psychopaths display differential patterns of performance on measures of

executive function. A study by Ishikawa and colleagues (2001) examined executive

functioning in psychopathic individuals and found that whilst criminal psychopaths displayed

dysfunctional executive processing, noncriminal psychopaths displayed superior executive

functioning compared to both criminal psychopaths and controls (Ishikawa et al., 2001).

Given the differential patterns of executive dysfunction between criminal and noncriminal

psychopaths, it is plausible that intact or superior executive functioning could be moderating

the influence of pro-criminal attitudes on the behaviour of individuals with elevated levels of

psychopathy. Processes such as response inhibition, decision-making ability, cognitive

flexibility, and planning may prevent individuals with elevated levels of psychopathy, and

pro-criminal attitudes from engaging in risky, criminal behaviours. Superior executive


functioning could moderate the expression of criminal behaviour in individuals with

psychopathy because they are better able foresee the consequences of criminal behaviour, are

better equipped to inhibit inappropriate behaviour, and have increased cognitive flexibility to

determine superior courses of action.

However, these findings may also be explained by the dual process model, which

suggests that primary psychopathy results from deficits in the brain’s motivational systems,

whilst secondary psychopathy results from deficits in brain regions responsible for higher

order cognitive functions (Patrick & Bernat, 2009). According to this model, only secondary

psychopathy would be associated with executive dysfunction. The findings of executive

dysfunction in criminal, but not noncriminal, psychopathy may be explained by higher levels

of secondary psychopathy in the criminal sample. Support for this hypothesis comes from

research conducted by Sellbom and Verona (2007) who examined the relationships between

general executive control and response inhibition and found that whilst secondary

psychopathy was associated with deficits in response inhibition and general executive

control, primary psychopathy was related to superior general executive control, but not

associated with response inhibition. These findings may explain the results from the current

study which found that only secondary psychopathy predicted criminal behaviour, it could be

that executive dysfunction in secondary psychopathy may be related to criminal offending.

However, a recent review of the psychopathy and executive function literature found that

studies of executive function in psychopathy are obscured by methodological inconsistencies,

including differences in samples, measures of executive function, and statistical approaches

(Maes & Brazil, 2013). Therefore, further research is needed to establish whether individuals

with secondary psychopathy are at a heightened risk for criminal offending because of

executive dysfunction (dual process model), or alternatively whether executive dysfunction


plays a role in moderating the expression of psychopathic traits (successful psychopathy

model).

Implications, Limitations, and Future Directions

Although the current study provides an important contribution to the literature on

psychopathy and criminality, a number of limitations need to be considered when interpreting

the findings. The first limitation is the use of self-report measures to capture primary and

secondary psychopathy, criminal attitudes, and criminal behaviour. The use of self-report

measures can lead to socially desirable responding and other kinds of response biases (e.g.,

conservative or liberal responding). In order to counter social desirability, the current study

was conducted anonymously online. However, online studies can be problematic as

participants can adopt satisficing response strategies, and the ability to participate multiple

times can lead to duplicate data. In order to counter these potential issues, instructional

manipulation checks were randomly presented throughout the questions to detect satisfice

responding, and the use of a unique identifier was used to prevent duplicate data.

Nevertheless, these techniques may only have reduced the abovementioned issues, rather than

eliminated them. Future research could consider the use of scale to measure socially desirable

responding and other responses biases (e.g., the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale

[MCSDS; Reynolds, 1982]) to identify and address these issues.

Although the study possesses some methodological limitations, the current study

contributes important empirical evidence to the debate on whether criminality is a key feature

of psychopathy. The results obtained challenge the common assumption of both laypeople

and researchers that psychopathy equals criminality, and provides some support for Skeem &

Cooke’s (2010a) assertion that the current body of literature on psychopathy reflects

primarily unsuccessful psychopathy. The findings highlight the need to extend psychopathy

research to noncriminal samples, as such research may lead to the identification of protective


factors for individuals with psychopathy who are at risk of criminal offending. One such

direction for future research could be to examine the role of social group on the relationship

between psychopathy and criminality. Although the findings of the current study suggest that

the relationship between psychopathy and criminal behaviour is mediated by identification

with criminal peers, there was no direct assessment of peer group in the current study, which

limits the conclusions that can be drawn. Another avenue for future research could be to

examine neurobiological differences in psychopathy for criminal and noncriminal samples. In

particular, research examining executive functioning and noncriminal psychopathy may shed

light on the link between psychopathy, criminal attitudes, and criminal behaviour. The

current study also found some evidence of gender differences in the relationships between

psychopathy and criminal attitudes, however, future research is needed to determine the

mechanisms underlying gender differences in psychopathy. One such direction could be to

examine the extent to which psychopathic females identify with the feminine gender role

(e.g., Bem, 1974), and the extent to which gender stereotypes influence criminal and

noncriminal female psychopaths.

Chapter Summary

Controversy around the conceptualisation and measurement of psychopathy has led to

an increased interest in noncriminal psychopathy (Hare & Neumann, 2010; Skeem & Cooke,

2010a, 2010b). Current theories of noncriminal psychopathy generally fit into the subclinical

model, the successful psychopathy model, or the dual process model. The findings from this

study provided support for both the successful and dual process models, with secondary

psychopathy being the only significant predictor of criminal behaviour, yet this was entirely

mediated by identification with criminals for males, and partially mediated for females.

Interestingly, both primary and secondary psychopathy were predictive of pro-criminal

attitudes, suggesting that other compensatory mechanisms may be moderating the expression


of primary psychopathy in noncriminal samples. One explanation of these findings may be

that dysfunctional executive processes in secondary psychopathy leads to an increased risk

for criminal offending and that intact processes in primary psychopathy act as a protective

mechanism against criminal offending. However, this suggestion requires future research to

examine the potential role of executive function in the psychopathy-criminality nexus.

Chapter Four

Chapter Overview

The results from the previous study provided support for both the dual process and

successful models of psychopathy. Primary psychopathy did not significantly predict criminal

behaviour, however, secondary psychopathy did. Whilst secondary psychopathy was related

to criminality, the results suggest that the severe antisocial features often associated with

psychopathy are muted in psychopathic individuals living in the community. It has been

previously suggested that neurobiological differences may explain the differential

manifestation of antisocial behaviour in criminal versus noncriminal psychopaths (Gao &

Raine, 2010). For example, Gao and Raine suggest that neurobiological deficits associated

with criminal psychopathy, such as executive dysfunction, reduced grey volume, and

decreased autonomic reactivity, may be absent in noncriminal psychopathy. This hypothesis

aligns with theoretical accounts of ‘successful psychopathy’, in which compensatory

mechanisms, such as superior intelligence, are thought to moderate the expression of

psychopathy towards prosocial or socially acceptable manifestations (Hall & Benning, 2006).

Given the important role of executive processes in regulating socially acceptable behaviour, it

seems plausible that executive functioning may be differentially impaired in criminal versus

noncriminal psychopathy. From this perspective, executive function may moderate the

expression of criminal behaviour in individuals with psychopathy.


In contrast, proponents of the dual process model claim that psychopathy is not a

unitary disorder. Instead, they suggest that deficits in two neurobiological systems produce

two distinct patterns of personality dysfunction (Patrick & Bernat, 2009). According to this

model, primary psychopathy results from a deficiency in the brain’s defensive motivational

system resulting in trait fearlessness. In contrast, secondary psychopathy is thought to stem

from impairments in brain regions responsible for higher-order processes such as planning,

behavioural inhibition, and cognitive flexibility, resulting in a vulnerability to externalising

psychopathology (e.g., behavioural deviance, substance abuse) (Patrick & Bernat, 2009).

According to the dual process model, individuals can present with elevations on both primary

and secondary psychopathy, or either primary or secondary psychopathy. From this

perspective, only individuals with elevated levels of secondary psychopathy are at risk of

behavioural deviance because of difficulties with higher order processes, vis a vis executive

dysfunction.

This chapter of the thesis describes a study that empirically tests these two theories of

psychopathy by examining relationship between noncriminal psychopathy and executive

function. The review of the literature on executive function in psychopathy will highlight that

research on executive function in both criminal and noncriminal psychopathy has produced

mixed findings. These contradictory findings may result from methodological inconsistencies

across studies of executive function in psychopathy, including differences in the

conceptualisation of psychopathy (unitary syndrome or dual process); the measurement of

both psychopathy and executive function; and demographic differences between criminal and

noncriminal samples (e.g., sex, age, level of education, and drug use).

In the current study executive function in primary and secondary psychopathy is

examined using a noncriminal sample and several commonly used measures of executive

function, whilst also controlling for the possible mediating role of intelligence. An additional


focus was the examination of sex differences in the psychopathy-executive function

relationship. In doing so, this addresses a significant gap in the psychopathy literature on

executive function which hitherto has focused almost exclusively on males. Considering

gender differences is particularly important given that research, including the findings Study

1 of this program of research, suggest some gender differences exist in the manifestation of

psychopathy (Forouzan & Cooke, 2005; Justus & Finn, 2007). The chapter begins with a

critical review of the literature on psychopathy and executive function and highlights the

discrepancies and inconsistencies in previous research. The aims of the current study are then

described along with the methodology. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the

findings in relation to current models of psychopathy.

Background to Research

Intact self-regulatory processes are essential for socially appropriate behaviour,

leading researchers to suggest that executive dysfunction may underlie the range of socially

inappropriate and self-defeating behaviours observed in individuals with psychopathy. This

hypothesis is bolstered by evidence of ‘acquired sociopathy’ or ‘pseudo-psychopathy’, a

condition characterised by pervasive changes in personality and socially appropriate

behaviour, such as callousness, a paucity of emotion, irresponsibility, impulsivity, and a lack

of empathy, following damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, an area implicated as

important for executive functioning (Tranel, 2002). Whilst these patients display profound

deficits regulating socially inappropriate behaviour, like psychopathic individuals they

generally display intact intelligence, memory, and language ability.

There is now a wealth of evidence to suggest that psychopathy is characterised by a

range of cognitive deficits. Studies have shown that psychopathic individuals display

attentional abnormalities, such as reduced interference on Stroop-like tasks (Hiatt et al.,

2004) and reduced physiological reactivity to irrelevant auditory stimuli (Jutai et al., 1987).


In addition to the attentional abnormalities, there is also accumulating evidence of executive

dysfunction in criminal psychopathic individuals, such as poor behavioural inhibition

(Newman & Brinkley, 1997), difficulties planning a sequence of events (Lapierre, Braun, &

Hodgins, 1995; Pham et al., 2003), difficulties changing response strategies to changing

environmental contingencies (Ishikawa et al., 2001), and poor decision-making (Mitchell et

al., 2002).

Executive Function

Executive function is an umbrella term that refers to a range of cognitive functions

including: working memory, attention, response inhibition, planning, and cognitive

flexibility, all of which are necessary for the regulation of socially acceptable behaviour

(Chan, Shum, Toulopoulou, & Chen, 2008; Damasio, 1995b; Jurado & Rosselli, 2007; Royall

et al., 2002). Research suggests that the broad range of executive functions can be organised

into three correlated yet separate processes: set shifting or task-switching, inhibition, and

working memory functions such as monitoring and updating (Miyake et al., 2000). Collette et

al’s (2005) research using Positron Emission Tomography (PET) provided further support for

both the unity and diversity of executive functioning by demonstrating that whilst all three

executive processes share common neural substrates, there are also specific neural substrates

for each executive function (updating, shifting and inhibition). Although executive functions

can generally be categorised into three separate processes, research on executive function

also includes an examination of planning ability, which reflects the ability to plan a sequence

of events in order to achieve a goal. However, the planning function may fall under the

banner of ‘inhibition’, as it involves suspending behaviour and evaluating several potential

options before proceeding with a course of action.

Hofmann, Schmeichel and Baddeley (2012) suggest that all three basic executive

functions play a role in the self-regulation of behaviour. Working memory capacity (WMC)


(monitoring and updating) is linked to self-regulation through executive attention and goal-

shielding. Executive attention and goal-shielding refer to the ability to ignore distracting

stimuli and maintain goal-directed focus. WMC is considered to be a passive form of

inhibition in self-regulation because inhibition of distracting stimuli/thoughts results from the

selective activation of goal-directed processing. Inhibition is a key component of self-

regulation and refers to the ability to inhibit impulsive responses that conflict with an

individual’s goals. Finally, task-switching or set shifting refers to cognitive flexibility and

involves overriding prepotent responses that are no longer advantageous, and adopting

alternative strategies and methods (Hofmann et al., 2012; see also Miyake et al., 2000).

Given that intact executive function processes are essential for self-regulation and

socially acceptable behaviour, it seems plausible that psychopathy may be associated with

executive dysfunction. The intuitive appeal of the executive dysfunction hypothesis has

resulted in active research on psychopathy and executive dysfunction, however results are

contradictory and clouded by methodological inconsistencies. These methodological

inconsistencies include heterogeneous samples, different measures of psychopathy, and

different measures of executive function. Generally speaking, two streams of research on the

psychopathy-executive function relationship have emerged, a stream examining executive

function in criminal psychopaths (often referred to as unsuccessful psychopaths), and a

stream examining executive function in noncriminal psychopaths (often referred to as

successful psychopaths).

Some researchers claim that unsuccessful psychopathy is associated with poorer

executive functioning, whilst successful psychopathy is associated with superior executive

functioning (Gao et al., 2009; Gao & Raine, 2010). This hypothesis was generated in part by

a study by Ishikawa, Raine, Lencz, Bihrle and Lacasse (2001). They examined performance

on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST), a common neuropsychological measure of


executive function, in male participants classified as successful psychopaths, unsuccessful

psychopaths, and non-psychopathic controls. The results showed that successful psychopaths

solved more categories, and displayed less perseverative and non-perseverative errors than

the unsuccessful psychopaths and non-psychopathic controls. There were no differences in

WCST performance for the unsuccessful psychopaths and non-psychopathic controls. This

study has been consistently referred to in the literature as evidence of superior executive

functioning in successful psychopaths. However, the literature on executive functioning in

psychopathy is considerably more complex, with differential patterns of association between

executive function observed for primary (F1) versus secondary psychopathy (F2), both within

the criminal and noncriminal psychopathy literatures, and inconsistent results across different

measures of executive function. This has led some researchers to propose that the inconsistent

findings may be attributed to the different types of executive function tasks tapping two kinds

of executive processes: hot executive function processes, and cool executive function

processes (e.g., Lapierre et al., 1995; Snowden et al., 2013). These two types of executive

function are discussed in the proceeding section.

Hot and Cool Executive Function

Previous research on executive function in psychopathy has often produced

inconsistent findings, with some research showing no evidence of executive dysfunction

(e.g., Hare, 1984; Hart, Forth, & Hare, 1990). This has led some researchers to suggest that

psychopathy may be marked by specific executive dysfunction, namely dysfunction on

measures of hot executive function and intact performance on measures of cool executive

function (Lapierre et al., 1995; Snowden et al., 2013). Hot executive functions refer to

cognitive functions that are recruited in situations that are emotionally or motivationally

significant because they involve reward/punishment, and are believed to be subserved by the

orbital-ventromedial prefrontal cortex and its associated pathways (Zelazo & Muller, 2002;


Zelazo et al., 2010). In contrast, cool executive functions are purely cognitive in nature, such

as working memory, planning, set-shifting and attentional processes, and are believed to rely

on the lateral prefrontal cortex (Zelazo & Carlson, 2012; Zelazo & Cunningham, 2007;

Zelazo & Muller, 2002; Zelazo et al., 2010). Researchers claim that similar to the individuals

with ‘acquired sociopathy’, the psychopathic individuals’ executive dysfunction is

underscored by orbital-ventromedial prefrontal cortex deficits, with largely intact lateral

prefrontal cortex functioning (K. S. Blair, Newman, et al., 2006; Gao et al., 2009; Lapierre et

al., 1995; Snowden et al., 2013). However, evidence for compromised orbital-ventromedial

prefrontal cortex functioning and intact lateral frontal cortex functioning in psychopathy is

equivocal.

Snowden et al. (2013) examined performance on measures of hot and cool executive

function as a function of PPI-R assessed psychopathy in 150 undergraduate students. They

used the Porteus Maze and Object and Spatial Alternation Tasks1 to measure orbitofrontal

cortex (OFC) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) functioning, respectively. Snowden

et al. (2013) found no significant relationship between global psychopathy, fearless

dominance, or self-centred impulsivity and performance on the Spatial Alternation Task.

However, fearless dominance was weakly negatively correlated with performance on the

Object Alternation Task, and both fearless dominance and self-centred impulsivity were

associated with poorer performance on the Porteus Maze. The authors concluded that the

poor performance on the Porteus Maze reflected OFC dysfunction. However, the claim that

the Porteus Maze selectively taps orbitofrontal cortex functioning is spurious, with some

research showing that the dorsolateral cortex is also involved (Roberts & Wallis, 2000).

Furthermore, the finding of poor performance on the Porteus Maze contrasts with an earlier

study of psychopaths recruited from the general population (Widom, 1977). Here

1 In the Porteus Maze


performance of psychopaths on the Porteus Maze was similar to that found in normal, healthy

adults.

Using a criminal sample, Pham, Vanderstrukken, Philippot and Vanderlinden (2003)

examined executive function in 36 male inmates assigned to psychopathic and non-

psychopathic groups on the basis of PCL-R classification. They found some evidence to

support selective attention abnormalities, specifically impaired maintenance of attention on

the D-II Cancellation Test (a measure of cool executive function). Psychopathic individuals

made significantly more qualitative errors on the Porteus Maze (crossed more walls), they

performed significantly more movements on misleading trials of the Tower of London, and

took longer to solve the problem after the first move. Importantly, performance on the Tower

of London has been demonstrated to rely upon the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (Cazalis et

al., 2003), which is believed to play a role in cool executive functions.

Smith, Arnett and Newman (1992) also found deficits in cool executive function in

psychopaths. They examined performance on several measures of executive function in male

prisoners classified as low anxious psychopaths (n=18), low-anxious non-psychopaths

(n=18), high anxious psychopaths (n=19) and high anxious non-psychopaths (n=14) using the

PCL-R and the Welsh Anxiety Scale. They found that performance on two measures of cool

executive function, the Trail-Making Part B (TMT-B) and Block Design test, was impaired in

the low anxious psychopaths only, reflecting an impairment in their ability to plan a sequence

of events (TMT-B), and their ability to form and maintain a cognitive set, cognitive

flexibility, and attention (Block design). These findings and those from Pham et al. (2003)

suggest that there is some dysfunction in psychopathic individuals on tasks of cool executive

function.

Additionally, there is limited evidence of an OFC deficit even on tasks that are known

to rely upon intact OFC functioning, such as the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), the IGT is


purported to be sensitive to ventromedial deficits and has been widely used in testing the

Somatic Marker Hypothesis (Bechara & Damasio, 2005). For example, Hughes, Dolan,

Trueblood and Stout (2014) examined performance on this task in male offenders with

varying degrees of PCL-SV psychopathy and controls and found no difference in

performance on the IGT. In fact, higher levels of the antisocial facet of the PCL-SV predicted

better performance on the IGT. This finding is in contrast to previous research indicating

either poorer performance in psychopathic individuals (R. J. R. Blair, Colledge, & Mitchell,

2001; Mitchell et al., 2002) or intact performance in psychopathic individuals (Schmitt et al.,

1999).

Given the mixed findings on the role of the OFC in psychopathy, it is difficult to draw

any firm conclusions regarding the relationship between psychopathy and hot executive

functions, or the hypothesis that psychopathy is characterised by a specific OFC dysfunction.

The inconsistencies in results across different studies of hot executive function, may be

because different methodologies, samples and statistical analyses were used, or because the

relationship between brain pathology and psychological and behavioural functioning is

complex. E Miller (1972) in Lezak (2004) made the following insightful analogy:

“It is tempting to conclude that if by removing a particular part of the brain we can

produce a deficit in behaviour, e.g., a difficulty in verbal learning following removal

of the left temporal lobe in man, then that part of the brain must be responsible for the

impaired function…..[T]his conclusion does not necessarily follow from the evidence

as can be seen from the following analogy. If we were to remove the fuel tank from a

car we would not be surprised to find that the car was incapable of moving itself

forward. Nevertheless, it would be very misleading to infer that the function of the

fuel tank is to propel the car forward.” (pp. 19-20)


Thus, whilst specific deficits may be associated with damage to dorsolateral prefrontal

cortical regions or orbitolateral prefrontal cortical regions, it may be misleading to assume

that these regions are solely responsible for the pattern of dysfunction observed in individuals

with psychopathy. Indeed, the variable findings in relation to the role of anxiety (S. S. Smith

et al., 1992) and degree of antisocial markers (M. A. Hughes et al., 2014) suggest greater

complexity. It is likely that complex interactions between various prefrontal and other

neuroanatomical regions underlie normal executive processing and that damage to any one of

these (or combination of) prefrontal or related neuroanatomical regions may result in deficits

on a task that relied on the complex interaction. Furthermore, the use of hot executive

function tasks to assess executive function in psychopathy may be not be suitable because

they also rely on other non-executive processes, such as feedback processing and sensitivity

to reward and punishment cues (Maes & Brazil, 2013). In contrast, the use of cool or ‘pure’

executive function tasks allow the examination of cognitive processing in the absence of

emotional processing. This distinction is important in psychopathy research because of

evidence of emotional dysfunction in psychopathy. However, the research literature on cool

executive functioning in psychopathy is also plagued by contradictory and confusing

findings.

Cool Executive Functions in Psychopathy

Gorenstein (1982) conducted one of the earliest studies on executive function in

psychopathy using a male psychiatric inpatient sample classified as psychopathic (n=20) and

nonpsychopathic (n=23) using the Socialization Scale of the California Psychological

Inventory. Psychopathic individuals displayed more perseverative errors on the Wisconsin

Card Sorting Test (a task known to rely on the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex), poorer

performance on the Sequential Matching Memory Task, and significantly more reversals on

the Necker Cube (a phenomenon observed in bilateral frontal lobe lesion patients).


Gorenstein concluded that psychopathy was marked by frontal lobe deficits. However, the

study possessed a number of methodological weaknesses (e.g., differences in substance abuse

between the psychopathic and non-psychopathic groups, as well as the scale used to measure

psychopathy), and subsequent studies failed to replicate these findings (Hare, 1984; Sutker &

Allain, 1987; Sutker, Moan, & Allain, 1983). For example, Hare (1984) failed to find any

group differences in performance on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, Sequential Matching

Memory Task, or Necker Cube in a sample of male criminal offenders classified as high

(n=14), medium (n=16) or low (n=16) on psychopathy. However, more recently several

studies have reported evidence of poorer performance on measures of cool executive function

in psychopathic individuals (Bagshaw et al., 2014; Heritage & Benning, 2013;

Hoppenbrouwers et al., 2013; Kiehl, Smith, Hare, & Liddle, 2000; Kim & Jung, 2014;

Mahmut et al., 2008; Sellbom & Verona, 2007). For example, Hoppenbrouwers et al. (2013)

examined dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and working memory functioning in male

psychopathic offenders. They found that compared to controls, psychopathic offenders

displayed poorer performance on the letter-number sequencing test, a measure of working

memory, that was accompanied by inhibition deficits in the DLPFC. These findings suggest

that psychopathy is associated with DLPFC dysfunction and this dysfunction may explain the

impulse control problems that are characteristic of psychopathy. Whilst these findings

provide some evidence of executive dysfunction, studies on cool executive function in

psychopathy have also produced inconsistent findings, likely due to methodological

differences between studies of executive function in psychopathy. These demographic and

measurement differences make it difficult to determine whether executive dysfunction is

present in psychopathic individuals. Given the evidence that these differences in findings

may be attributed to the use of criminal versus noncriminal samples (Ishikawa et al., 2001),


the extant literature on executive function in criminal and noncriminal psychopathy is

considered separately in the proceeding sections.

Cool Executive Function in Unsuccessful Psychopathy

In addition to the interpersonal, affective and lifestyle features of psychopathy,

unsuccessful psychopaths also display problematic antisocial behaviours and a failure to learn

from mistakes. This pattern of self-defeating behaviour has led some to propose that criminal

psychopathy is characterised by executive dysfunction (e.g., Gao & Raine, 2010; Gorenstein,

1982). However, evidence supporting the executive dysfunction hypothesis has been

equivocal, with different results across different executive functions (working memory,

planning, set-shifting, and response inhibition) and factors of psychopathy (Factor 1 and

Factor 2 vis a vis primary and secondary psychopathy).

Working Memory. There are only a handful of studies that have examined working

memory function in criminal psychopathy, with most research focusing on set-shifting and

response inhibition because of their putative link with problematic behaviours. However,

Hansen et al. (2007) examined working memory function in male offenders (n=53) using the

California Computerised Assessment Package Serial Pattern Matching 2 (calCAP-SPM2) and

the N-back task (2-back). Using the PCL-R to delineate psychopathy into four facets

(interpersonal, affective, lifestyle and antisocial facets) they found that only Facet 1

(interpersonal) was related to superior performance on the calCAP and the N-back, indicating

superior working memory function. No other relationships found with working memory

function. In contrast, Hoppenbrouwers et al. (2013) in a small sample of male offenders

classified as psychopathic using the PCL-R (n=13) and a small sample of age-matched,

healthy, community controls (n=15) found that psychopathic offenders performed worse than

healthy controls on the Letter-Number Sequencing test from the Weschler Adult Intelligence

Scale – Third Edition (WAIS-III), indicating deficits in working memory function. These


contrasting findings are difficult to interpret and could be affected by a number of other

factors. For example, Hoppenbrouwers et al. (2013) noted that whilst no participants reported

drug use in the past six months, 87% of the psychopathic participants had a history of drug

use and substance use disorder. Therefore, it is plausible that their findings may be

attributable, at least in part, to neuropsychological changes caused by substance abuse, rather

than psychopathy. Another explanation for the discrepancy between these two studies is that

Hansen et al. (2007) examined working memory function and the PCL-R factors separately,

whilst Hoppenbrouwers et al. (2013) only examined the total PCL-R score. Thus, it could be

that only the interpersonal facet of the PCL-R is characterised by superior working memory

function, whilst the other factors are characterised by impairment in working memory.

Clearly further research is needed on working memory function in criminal psychopathy

before any conclusions can be drawn regarding this particular executive function.

Planning. Despite the intuitive appeal of a planning deficit in criminal psychopathy,

there is scant research in this area, with only four studies identified as having examined

planning in criminal psychopathy. Lapierre et al. (1995) was one of the first to examine

planning deficits in criminal psychopathy using the Porteus Maze in a sample of male

offenders classified using the PCL-R as psychopathic (n=30) or nonpsychopathic (n=30), and

matched on a range of demographic variables (e.g., age, education, socioeconomic status,

etc). The Porteus Maze requires participants to trace a path through a series of mazes

avoiding dead ends or ‘blind alleys’ and without back-tracking or crossing maze walls. The

test is scored for two types of errors: quantitative errors (i.e., the number of wrong entries or

blind alleys) and qualitative errors (i.e., rule-breaking errors such as back-tracking and

crossing maze walls). Lapierre et al. (1995) found no differences for the number of

quantitative errors, but a greater number of qualitative errors. These findings provide initial

support for a planning deficit in criminal psychopathy and are consistent with the findings


Pham et al. (2003), who examined planning ability using the Porteus Maze, Trail Making

Test Part B (TMT-B), and a TOL task with three different types of problems: neutral

problems, facilitating problems and misleading problems. They found no differences in PCL-

R psychopathic or nonpsychopathic offenders for the number of quantitative errors on the

Porteus Maze, but found significant differences for the number of qualitative errors. They

also found that psychopaths displayed excessive movements on misleading trials of the TOL,

broke more rules, and displayed longer subsequent completion times than nonpsychopathic

offenders, regardless of problem type. These findings suggest that planning deficits in

psychopathy may be subtle and dependent upon task complexity. The longer subsequent

completion times may be attributed to impulsively moving the first disc without thoughtful

consideration of the sequence of moves required to complete the problem. Bagshaw et al.

(2014) found similar results when they examined planning ability using an adapted Tower of

London (TOL) task in a small sample of male offenders. They found that PCL-R

psychopathy was related to more moves on misleading trials of the TOL and that Factor 1

(interpersonal and affective) and Factor 2 (impulsive and antisocial) were negatively related

to planning times. The shorter planning times and higher number of moves on misleading

problems indicate difficulties with planning a sequence of events, possibly because of

impulsive decision-making. Altogether, the findings from these studies suggest that criminal

psychopathy is characterised by planning deficits.

Response Inhibition. Similar to research on working memory function, research on

response inhibition in psychopathy has produced mixed findings, Kiehl et al. (2000)

examined response inhibition in psychopathy using a Go/No-Go task in male offenders

classified as psychopathic (n = 13) and nonpsychopathic (n = 11) using the PCL-R. They

found no difference in performance between the two groups. However, other studies using

the same paradigm did observe difficulties in response inhibition (Lapierre et al., 1995;


Varlamov, Khalifa, Liddle, Duggan, & Howard, 2011). For example, Varlamov et al. (2011)

compared performance in personality-disordered male forensic patients classified as

psychopathic (n = 22) or nonpsychopathic (n= 27) using the PCL-R, and a group of healthy

controls matched on age, intelligence, and parental occupation. They found that the

psychopathic patients made significantly more errors of commission than the

nonpsychopathic patients and controls. However, psychopathic patients made a similar

number of errors of omission to the healthy controls, indicating a problem with response

inhibition on No-Go trials but intact performance on Go trials.

As with working memory and planning performance, these inconsistent findings may

be explained by differential patterns of relationship with response inhibition deficits for

Factor 1 (interpersonal and affective) and Factor 2 (impulsive and antisocial). Support for this

hypothesis is provided by a recent study that examined the relationship between PCL-R

psychopathy factors and response inhibition using the Hayling Sentence Completion Test in a

sample of 29 male offenders (Bagshaw et al., 2014). The authors found that Factor 2 was

moderately associated with poorer response inhibition on the Hayling Sentence Completion

Test. However, there was no relationship between performance and Factor 1, indicating intact

response inhibition.

Set-shifting. The ability to shift between tasks is another key executive function.

Lapierre et al. (1995) examined set-shifting in a male offender sample using the WCST. They

found that psychopaths (n = 30), classified using the PCL-R, made more perseverative errors

and achieved fewer categories than the nonpsychopathic offenders (n =30), with a trend

towards significance (p = .07, p = .06, respectively). In contrast, Pham et al. (2003) found that

performance on the WCST in psychopaths (n =18) and offender controls (n = 18) was

similar, with psychopathic offenders actually making fewer perseverative errors. However,

these inconsistent findings may result from differential relationships between PCL-R


psychopathy factors and performance on the WCST, similar to what was observed by

Bagshaw et al. (2014)

For example, Mol, Van Der Bos, Derks and Egger (2009) examined possible

differential associations between PCL-R Factor 1 and Factor 2, and performance on the

WCST in a male forensic sample (n = 53). There were no differences in performance between

psychopathic (n = 17) and nonpsychopathic individuals (n = 36) in the number of categories

achieved, or in the number of perseverative and nonperseverative errors. However, when they

examined the relationships between WCST performance and the PCL-R factors separately

they found that Factor 1 was related to better performance on the WCST, with more

categories achieved and fewer perseverative and nonperseverative errors. In contrast, Factor 2

was largely unrelated to performance, with a weak relationship with nonperseverative errors

observed. Furthermore, when they examined performance in four psychopathy subgroups

(low F1 and F2 [low-low, n = 16), high F1 and low F2 [high-low, n = 6], high F2 and low F1

[low-high, n = 8], and high F1 and high F2 [high-high, n = 16) they found no significant

differences in performance between the four groups. However, this may be because of a lack

of statistical power from the small sample sizes, as the pattern of results showed that the

high-low group had fewer perseverative and nonperseverative errors and achieved more

categories than the other groups. The low-high group performed the worst, with a greater

number of perseverative and nonperseverative errors and fewer categories achieved (See

Table 9). This pattern of results suggest that Factor 1 may be related to superior performance

and Factor 2 related to worse performance. However, given the weak correlations found,

further research is needed before strong conclusions can be drawn regarding set-shifting in

criminal psychopathy.

To recap, the lack of consistency in findings across different studies of executive

function in criminal psychopathy may be a function of the different measures of executive


function utilized and may reflect differences task complexity. Alternatively, given that some

studies have shown a differential pattern of relationships between Factor 1 and Factor 2

psychopathy and executive dysfunction, the inconsistency in previous findings could be a

result of failing to parse psychopathy into primary and secondary factors. Based on the

preliminary evidence examining primary and secondary psychopathy and executive function,

it appears that primary psychopathy may be related to intact or superior executive

functioning, whilst secondary psychopathy may be associated with executive dysfunction.

Interestingly, secondary psychopathy reflects the antisocial features of psychopathy and there

is considerable debate about whether antisociality is a central feature of psychopathy or

simply one behavioural manifestation of the central personality characteristics. Given that

Morgan and Lilienfeld (2000) concluded from their meta-analytic review that there was a

robust and significant relationship between antisocial behaviour and executive dysfunction,

the degree to which executive dysfunction is attributable to psychopathy, or just antisociality

more broadly, is debatable.

For example, Dolan (2012) examined DLPFC dysfunction using a planning, set-

shifting and response inhibition task in male offenders with ASPD and varying degrees of

psychopathy (Low, Medium, High) with healthy controls. Results on the planning task

showed that offenders with Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) performed worse than

healthy controls but that psychopathy score was not related to performance: participants who

scored higher on psychopathy performed as well as healthy controls. This suggests that

previous research showing planning deficits in criminal samples may reflect the DLPFC

dysfunction associated with ASPD rather than psychopathy. In regards to set-shifting, Dolan

found that offenders with ASPD performed worse on the set-shifting task than healthy

controls, but again, performance did not vary with psychopathy scores. It is reasonable to

suggest that previous research that found set-shifting deficits in offenders with psychopathy


may be due to antisocial behaviour features related to psychopathy, rather than psychopathy

per se. In regards to the response inhibition task (Go/No-Go), Dolan found that ASPD

participants with moderate levels of psychopathy performed worse than healthy controls but

that ASPD participants with high levels of psychopathy displayed intact performance on the

Go/No-Go and actually displayed longer mean reaction times than healthy controls,

suggesting a response style marked by lower levels of impulsivity.

Similarly, Zeier, Baskin–Sommers, Hiatt Racer, and Newman (2012) recently

concluded from the results of their study that response inhibition deficits are not unique to

psychopathy, but related to antisociality more broadly. Using a male offender sample they

examined the relationship between response inhibition using a flanker task, psychopathy

using the PCL-R, and antisocial personality disorder. They found that when they examined

the global psychopathy scores and performance on the flanker task that high psychopathic,

low anxious individuals performed worse. However, they further elucidated the relationship

between psychopathy and response inhibition by examining Factor 1 and Factor 2 separately,

they found that only Factor 2 was related to worse performance. Interestingly, when they

examined the data for overlapping effects of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy,

antisocial personality disorder remained a significant predictor of response disinhibition, but

none of the PCL-R scores approached significance. This suggests that it is the antisocial

behaviour associated with, but not unique to, secondary psychopathy that is related to poor


Extending this research, De Brito et al. (2013) examined performance on a range of

hot and cool executive functions (verbal working memory, reversal learning, decision-making

under risk, and stimulus-reinforcement-based decision making) in a group of violent

offenders diagnosed with ASPD with and without PCL-R assessed psychopathy. The results

revealed that the violent offenders (both ASPD-P and ASPD+P) displayed poorer


performance on measures of hot executive function than a noncriminal control group but

similar performance to each other. Specifically, the offenders failed to change their behaviour

in response to changing task requirements, failed to learn from punishment cues, and despite

taking longer to make decisions than the controls, they displayed more decision-making

errors (De Brito et al., 2013). Furthermore, the offenders (both ASPD-P and ASPD+P)

performed worse on a measure of cool EF (working memory tasks) than controls, but similar

to each other. These findings suggest that poor performance of psychopathic individuals

recruited from forensic samples on tasks of hot and cool executive function may be explained

by factors related to criminality (antisocial behaviour) rather than psychopathy per se.

Taken together, the findings from these three studies suggest that the executive

dysfunction found in criminal psychopathy may not be unique to psychopathy, but rather

shared by other externalising disorders (e.g., ASPD), all of which place an individual at risk

for behavioural deviance. This aligns with claims of the dual process model of psychopathy,

which suggests that primary and secondary psychopathy result from distinct etiological

processes. Secondary psychopathy is considered to result from deficits in brain regions

important for higher order processes, placing these individuals at risk for externalising

problems. Interestingly, in criminal offender samples psychopathy is measured using the

PCL-R, which is oversaturated with items tapping externalising symptomatology (e.g.,

criminal versatility). Therefore, the findings of executive dysfunction in criminal offender

samples could be because PCL-R psychopathy reflects elevated levels of primary

psychopathy, but also an emphasis on externalising psychopathology in the assessment of

secondary psychopathy. From this perspective, criminal psychopathy may be related to

executive dysfunction because individuals in forensic institutions have elevated levels of

secondary psychopathy.


However, Gao and Raine (2010) propose an alternative explanation. They suggest

that intact neurobiological functioning differentiates criminal psychopaths from noncriminal

psychopaths. This hypothesis is bolstered by research on executive function in noncriminal

(successful) psychopathy which suggests that criminal psychopaths display executive

dysfunction, but that successful psychopaths actually display superior executive function

(Ishikawa et al., 2001).

Cool Executive Function in Successful Psychopathy

Gao and Raine’s (2010) recent review on successful and unsuccessful psychopathy

highlighted the lack of research on successful psychopathy. They proposed a neurobiological

model to account for the behavioural differences between successful and unsuccessful

psychopaths in criminal offending. They suggested these differences may reflect underlying

neurobiological differences, including executive functioning, in which successful

psychopaths are hypothesised to possess intact or superior functioning, whilst unsuccessful

psychopaths possess deficits. Given the recent evidence that it is antisocial behaviour in

general, rather psychopathy that is associated with executive dysfunction (e.g., Dolan, 2012),

it seems plausible that successful psychopaths may possess intact executive functioning.

Indeed, if individuals with the interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy possess

intact or superior executive function then their tendencies towards impulsive antisocial

behaviour may be moderated by superior planning ability, response inhibition, set-shifting

and working memory.

Working Memory. Sellbom and Verona (2007) examined working memory function

using the digits backward in a sample of undergraduate university students. They found that

Factor 1 psychopathy (measured using the PPI-R) was associated with superior working

memory function, with more digits recalled on the digits backward. In contrast, Factor 2 was

unrelated to working memory function. Similarly, Sadeh and Verona (2008) examined


performance on measures of selective attention and cognitive control in a sample of male

university students. Using the PPI to measure psychopathy, they hypothesized that primary

psychopathic traits would be associated with superior selective attention/reduced interference

of distracting stimuli on a test of selective attention, and that secondary psychopathic traits

would be associated with poorer performance on a measure of cognitive control. The results

supported their hypothesis, with primary psychopathic traits associated with faster reaction

times on the selective attention task, indicating reduced processing of distracting stimuli.

Secondary psychopathic traits were not associated with performance on the selective

attention task. However, secondary psychopathic traits, but not primary psychopathic traits,

were associated with cognitive control deficits, specifically, impaired working memory

function.

These findings suggest a differential pattern of relationships between primary and

secondary psychopathy and executive function deficits, with primary psychopathy

characterised by intact executive functioning and secondary psychopathy characterised by

poor executive functioning. Sadeh and Verona (2008) suggest that the differential pattern

may explain the contradictory findings from previous research that failed to partial

psychopathy traits into primary and secondary components.

Planning. Gao and Raine (2010) suggest that successful psychopathy may be

characterised by superior neuropsychological functioning and that this may facilitate the

achievement of personal goals, whilst avoiding detection. In order to successfully achieve

their desired goals, these individuals need the ability to foresee possible consequences of their

actions, and thus would need intact or superior planning ability. Salnaitis, Baker, Holland,

and Welsh (2011) found evidence for such relationship. They examined performance on a

computerised version of the Tower of Hanoi to assess planning ability, but also response

style, in a sample of undergraduate university students, assessed for psychopathy using the


PPI. They found that high psychopathy scorers displayed better performance, with a response

style marked by slow and accurate responses, compared to low and medium psychopathy

scorers.

In contrast, Snowden et al. (2013) when examining planning ability in an

undergraduate university sample with the Porteus Maze test, found that PPI-R total score,

PPI-I and PPI-II were all related to qualitative errors, suggesting difficulties in planning a

sequence of events. However, Sellbom and Verona (2007) used the WISC-III Mazes to assess

planning and found no significant relationships between PPI-I and PPI-II and performance.

However, the pattern of relationships showed that PPI-I was associated with better

performance, whilst PPI-II was associated with worse performance. Further analysis revealed

that the differences in performance for the two PPI-R factors were statistically significant,

suggesting that the relationship between psychopathy and executive function is different for

the primary and secondary components. Importantly, Sellbom and Verona (2007), unlike

Snowden et al. (2013), presented partial correlations thus identifying the unique relationships

between PPI-I and PPI-II and planning ability. The pattern of findings across the three studies

of planning ability suggest that, like working memory function, primary psychopathy appears

to be related to intact or superior planning ability, whilst secondary psychopathy is associated

with poor planning ability.

Set-Shifting. In one of the first studies of set-shifting in successful psychopathy,

Ishikawa et al. (2001) examined performance on the WCST in a sample of successful

psychopaths, unsuccessful psychopaths and healthy controls. They were no differences

between unsuccessful psychopaths and healthy controls. However, they did find that the

successful psychopaths displayed superior performance on the WCST, indicating superior

set-shifting abilities. Subsequent studies have failed to consistently replicate this finding. For

example, Mahmut et al. (2008) found that high psychopathy participants recruited from a


university student population performed similarly to low psychopathy participants on a

computerised version of the TMT-B, suggesting intact but not superior set-shifting abilities.

In contrast, Yang, Raine, Colletti, Toga, and Narr (2011) examined performance on the

WCST as a function of PCL-R psychopathy in a community sample recruited from temporary

employment agencies. They found that psychopathy was positively associated with the

number of perseverative errors, but not nonperseverative errors. Similarly, Kim and Jung

(2014) examined set-shifting using the WCST in a small sample of university students

classified as psychopathic and nonpsychopathic using the PPI-R. They found that the

psychopathic group displayed significantly more perseverative and nonperseverative errors

than the nonpsychopathic group.

The findings from these two studies (Kim & Jung, 2014; Yang et al., 2011) suggest

that noncriminal psychopathic individuals have deficient set-shifting abilities. However, both

Mahmut et al. (2008) and Yang et al. (2011) used criminal measures of psychopathy (SRP-III

and PCL-R, respectively), thus conflating psychopathy with criminality. Given that there is a

robust relationship between antisocial behaviour and executive dysfunction (Morgan &

Lilienfeld, 2000), these findings may simply reflect the relationship between antisocial

behaviour and set-shifting deficits. Although Kim and Jung (2014) found that PPI-R

psychopathy (a measure of noncriminal psychopathy) was related to more perseverative and

nonperseverative errors, they failed to parse the PPI-R into its subfactors: Fearless

Dominance (Primary) and Impulsive-Antisociality (Secondary). When Sellbom and Verona

(2007) examined the separate relationship between PPI-R factors and performance on the

WCST, they found that primary psychopathy was associated with significantly fewer

perseverative errors and secondary psychopathy was associated with more perseverative

errors. These findings suggest that it is the antisocial characteristics that are associated with


set-shifting dysfunction, and this may explain the inconsistent findings in research on

successful psychopathy.

Response Inhibition. Unlike research on set-shifting, planning and working memory,

most of the research on response inhibition has examined the separate relationships between

primary and secondary psychopathy and response inhibition, the exception being two recent

studies conducted using undergraduate samples. Using the Psychopathic Personality

Inventory: Short Form (PPI:SF), Zimak, Suhr, and Bolinger (2014) found no differences in

response inhibition on the Stop-Signal Task between psychopathic and nonpsychopathic

participants. Similarly, Kim and Jung (2014) examined response inhibition using the Go-No-

Go task, a popular measure of response inhibition. The Go-No-Go task is a computerised task

that requires participants to respond, as quickly as possible, to ‘Go’ stimuli and to withhold

responses for ‘No-Go’ stimuli. Kim and Jung found no differences in performance between

PPI-R psychopaths and nonpsychopaths on the Go-No-Go task. These findings suggest that

successful psychopathy is characterised by normal response inhibition. However, studies that

have examined primary and secondary factors separately paint a different picture. For

example, Sellbom and Verona (2007) found that PPI-I was unrelated to response inhibition

assessed using the Controlled Word Association Test and a Flanker Task. However, PPI-II

was significantly related to response inhibition deficits, with higher levels of PPI-II

significantly related to greater errors of commission on the Flanker Task.

Providing support for Sellbom and Verona’s research, Heritage and Benning (2013)

tested the Response Modulation Hypothesis (RMH)2 in male (n = 39) and female participants

(n = 50) recruited from an emergency department. Psychopathy was assessed with the

multidimensional personality questionnaire, from which scores of Impulsive-Antisociality

2 The Response Modulation Hypothesis is described in detail in Chapter Two of this thesis.


(e.g., SCI, PPI-II) and Fearless Dominance (e.g, PPI-I) were produced. They tested the RMH

using a stop-signal lexical decision task with words of different valence (positive, negative,

and neutral) and measured the event-related potentials (ERPs) N1 and error-related negativity

(ERN). The N1 is used as an index of attentional processing and the ERN is elicited when an

individual responds erroneously, it is used as an indicator of error monitoring. Heritage and

Benning showed that individuals with higher levels of Fearless Dominance had intact

performance on the task and normal N1 and ERN responses. However, Impulsive

Antisociality (IA) was associated with poorer performance on the task, with poorer lexical

decision accuracy, stop signal accuracy, stop signal delay and stop signal reaction times. This

did not change as a function of the valence of the word (positive, negative, or neutral). IA

was also correlated with smaller ERN peaks for the lexical decision responses and stop signal

inhibition, suggesting problems with error monitoring. Individuals higher on IA also showed

smaller N1 peaks after all stop signals, suggesting an issue with processing of the stop signal

itself. Follow-up mediation analyses showed that N1 mediated the relationship between IA

and ERN, suggesting that problems with inhibiting responses on the task may be a product of

deficient attentional processing of the stop signal cues. Altogether, these findings suggest that

in noncriminal samples, primary psychopaths possess intact response inhibition, whilst

secondary psychopaths display dysfunctional response inhibition that is underscored by

abnormal physiological reactivity to response inhibition cues. These findings suggest that the

antisocial features of psychopathy are related to response inhibition deficits, rather than the

core interpersonal features.

Although the majority of findings on response inhibition have found no relationship

between primary psychopathy and negative relationships with secondary psychopathy, there

are two studies that have found relationships between psychopathy and response inhibition.

For example, Carlson and Thai (2010) examined response inhibition using a modified version


of the Expectancy AX-CPT in an undergraduate university sample (n = 72; 40 females and 32

males). The Expectancy AX-CPT is a computerised task where a single letter is presented on

the screen. Participants are required to respond ‘target’ to the letter ‘X’ if it follows the letter

‘A’ and ‘non-target’ to all other letters. The task is designed to create an expectation for X

following the letter A, and participants must withhold responses to other letters following A.

They found that PPI-I was related to superior response inhibition, with faster responses for

correct trials, but that PPI-II was unrelated to performance. In contrast to the previous studies,

these findings suggest that primary psychopathy is associated with superior response

inhibition, whilst secondary psychopathy is characterised by normal response inhibition.

However, Lynam, Whiteside, and Jones (1999) looked at performance on a Go-No-

Go task and a Q task with 77 male undergraduate participants. The Q task is a computerised

task that assesses behavioural inhibition to previously punished stimuli. In the conditioning

phase, participants are presented with a string of letters and asked to respond as quickly as

possible when the letter-string does not contain the letter ‘Q’. Participants are rewarded when

they respond correctly (e.g., given points when the Q is absent) and punished when they

respond incorrectly (e.g., points taken when the Q is present). In the test phase, participants

are again presented letter strings, this time with a combination of letters and number or letters

only. Participants are instructed to respond as quickly as possible to the letter-only strings.

The letter Q is presented in some of the letter-only strings and responses on this task are

again rewarded or punished. Longer reaction times to letter trials containing the Q compared

non-Q trials indicate greater inhibition to the previously punished stimuli. There were no

significant correlations between secondary psychopathy and performance on the Q task or

Go-No-Go task. However, total scores on the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale

(LSRP) were correlated with Go-No-Go commission errors, and this was primarily because

of a significant relationship between primary psychopathy and commission errors on the Go-


No-Go task. On the surface, these findings suggest that the interpersonal features of

psychopathy are related to response inhibition. However, in this sample, primary psychopathy

was more strongly related to antisocial behaviour, as assessed by the Antisocial Behaviour

Inventory, than secondary psychopathy. Therefore, these findings provide partial support for

the link between antisocial behaviour features and response inhibition deficits in

psychopathy.

Summary of Cool Executive Functioning in Successful and Unsuccessful Psychopathy

Although results differ across studies of criminal and noncriminal samples, with some

evidence of executive dysfunction in criminal samples and superior executive function in

noncriminal samples, an emerging pattern across both samples is the divergent relationships

between primary and secondary psychopathy and executive function (see Table 9). Given

these findings, it is plausible that the differing results across the two samples may be

attributed to the different ways in which psychopathy was conceptualised, with studies using

criminal samples generally failing to parse psychopathy into its primary and secondary

factors. When psychopathy is parsed into primary and secondary factors, the findings across

both samples suggest that secondary psychopathy may be characterised by executive

dysfunction, whilst primary psychopathy may be characterised by intact or superior executive

function. However, this pattern is not consistent across different studies of psychopathy and

executive function, perhaps because of other methodological differences.

One such methodological difference relates to sample characteristics. Thus, an

alternative explanation for the conflicting findings across criminal and noncriminal studies

could be that the two samples differ in a range of demographic and socioeconomic factors

(e.g., age and gender). These factors vary across criminal and noncriminal samples and

confound any conclusions regarding the role of executive function in the psychopathy-

criminality relationship. Importantly, samples also differ according to gender. It is


noteworthy that all of the studies on executive function in criminal psychopathy have used

male participants, in contrast, the majority of the studies on executive function in noncriminal

psychopathy have used mixed gender samples (see Table 9). Despite this obvious gender

confound and bias, only two studies of executive function in noncriminal psychopathy have

examined possible gender differences. This is problematic because there is evidence that the

manifestation of psychopathy is different for males compared to females (e.g., Forouzan,

2003; Rogstad & Rogers, 2008).

For example, Justus and Finn (2007), using a short-form of the PPI-R to examine the

influence of psychopathy on startle response to affective images in a community sample of

male and female participants, found that the augmentation of the startle response in

psychopathy was moderated by gender. Males with elevated levels of global psychopathy and

PPI-I showed decreased startle amplitude compared to males with low psychopathy for

unpleasant images, at 2ms probe. However, the opposite pattern was observed for women,

with high levels of psychopathy producing greater startle response amplitudes to unpleasant

images compared to women low on psychopathy. These findings suggest that the expression

of psychopathy is different for males and females, with different physiological reactivity to

emotional stimuli observed. Interestingly, female participants in this study had significantly

lower levels of antisocial behaviour than the male participants. This finding is consistent with

data on gender differences in antisocial behaviour, with rates of antisocial behaviour

generally lower amongst females compared to males (Australian Institute of Criminology,

2013). Importantly, antisociality is known to be related to executive dysfunction (Morgan &

Lilienfeld, 2000). This highlights a significant oversight in the current literature on

psychopathy and executive function, as the majority of previous studies using mixed gender

samples have failed to examine possible gender differences. This is problematic because the

available evidence suggests that the manifestation of psychopathy is different for males and


females, and it is possible that the psychopathy and executive function relationship differs

depending on gender.

In addition to gender differences in criminal and noncriminal samples, the age of

participants in criminal offender and noncriminal samples also varies systematically, with

criminal offenders on average ten years older (average age 34 years) than their

undergraduate, noncriminal psychopathic counterparts (average age 23 years) (see Table 9).

This age difference is problematic because research on the developmental trajectory of

executive function suggests that executive functions peak around the age of 20, with a

gradual cognitive decline observed from the age of 30 (for a review see, De Luca & Leventer,

2010). Thus, criminal and noncriminal samples not only differ with respect to antisociality,

which is known to be related to executive dysfunction, but also age, which is also linked to

performance on executive function tests. Although samples utilising criminal offenders

usually have a matched healthy comparison group, the executive function deficits in criminal

offenders could be due to additive effects of a vulnerability to externalising psychopathology

combined with the onset of general cognitive decline. These differences in both gender and

age make comparison of findings between criminal and noncriminal samples very difficult

and cast doubt on the claims of executive dysfunction in criminal psychopathy and superior

executive functioning in ‘successful’ psychopathy. One simple solution to the demographic

inconsistencies would be to recruit participants from the community and to examine data

separately for males and females.


Table 9 Studies Examining Behavioural Performance on Measures of Cool Executive Function in Psychopathy

Author/s Sample Females (n)

Psychopathy Measure

Control measures

Executive Function

EF measure and dependant variables

Results

Bagshaw et al. (2014)

Male offenders (n = 29, mean age = 35)

0 PCL-R parsed into F1 and F2 scores

Weschler Abbreviated Scale for Intelligence (WAIS), psychopathy was not related to IQ

Drug screening test, all screens returned negative results

Planning

Set-shifting

Response Inhibition

Adapted TOL (planning time; number of moves).

Brixton Spatial Anticipation Test: (rule detection errors and rule adherence errors)

The Hayling Sentence Completion Test (RT’s and errors)

PCL-R related to more moves (r =.45, s) Factors not examined separately.

FI and F2 negatively related to planning times (F1: r =-.57 to -.68) (F2 r = -.35).

F1 and F2 negatively related to rule detection errors (F1:r = -.33, ns) (F2 r = -.39, s) and positively related to rule adherence errors (F1 r = .33, s) (F2 r = .35, s)

F1 not related to reaction time or errors

F2 related to more errors (r = -.32, p = .051)

Carlson and Thai (2010)

Undergraduates (n = 72, mean age = 20)

44

Examination of gender differences

PPI parsed into FD, IA and CH factors

Excluded head injury/neuropsychological conditions

Response Inhibition

Expectancy AX-CPT (RT)

No gender differences. FD was associated with faster RTs. FD predicted faster RTs on correct trials (r = -.28, s). No relationship observed for IA or CH.

DeBrito et al. (2013)

Male violent offenders with ASPD with (n = 17, mean age = 40) and without psychopathy (n

0 PCL-R Total Score

Matched on age and IQ.

Alcohol and drug use recorded. Healthy controls had less

Verbal Working Memory

Nonverbal Working Memory

Digits Backward (raw score)

Spatial Alternation Task

ASPD groups recalled less digits than healthy controls but there was no difference between ASPD+P or ASPD-P participants.

There was no significant difference between groups on the spatial alternation task.



Psychopathy Measure

Control measures

Executive Function


Results

= 28, meange age = 36)

Healthy controls (n = 21, mean age = 35)

substance use but substance use was similar amongst ASPD+P and ASPD-P groups.

Dolan (2012) Male offenders with ASPD (n = 96, mean age = 37)


0 PCL:SV Total Score divided sample into Low (LP) Medium (MP). and High (HP) scorers.

Offenders and controls matched on age and IQ

Planning

Set-shifting

Response Inhibition

Computerised TOL (planning time and percentage of problems completed)

ID/ED set-shifting task (the mean number of stage completed, and the number or errors)

Go/No-Go Task (Mean probability of response inhibition and mean RT)

No significant differences in planning time across the four groups

All ASPD groups completed less problems than the healthy controls, but only for the difficult trials. Psychopathy groups performed similarly to each other.

No group differences in ID performance but a significant group difference on ED performance, with healthy controls completing more stages than offenders. No differences between any of the psychopathy groups.

There was no significant difference in the number of errors between the four groups for the ID stages. There were significant differences between the healthy controls and the psychopathic groups on ED stages.

There was a significant difference in the probability of inhibition between the MP group and the LP group and healthy controls.

The HP group displayed longer mean reaction times than the healthy controls, indicating less impulsive responding. No other group differences were observed.



Psychopathy Measure

Control measures

Executive Function


Results

Hansen et al. (2007)


0 PCL-R parsed into Facets 1- 4.

Working Memory

calCAP/SPM2 (accuracy and RT)

N-back task (accuracy and RT

Facet 1 related to better performance on the calCAP SPM2 (r = .29, s)

Facet 1 related to better performance on the N-back task (r = .27, s)

Heritage and Benning (2013)

Emergency dept. patients (n = 89, mean age = 36)

50

No examination of gender differences

MPQ-BF to assess FD and IA

Response Inhibition

Lexical Decision Stop Signal Task (LD reaction times, LD and SS accuracy, and SSRTs)

FD was not related to performance

IA was significantly negatively related to LD and SS accuracy, SS delay (r = -.29, -.30, -.31), and significantly positively related to SSRT (r =.32) to . These findings indicate increased impulsivity and difficulty inhibiting a response.

Hoppenbrouwers et al (2013)


Healthy male controls (n=15, mean age = 34)

0 PCL-R Total Score

Participants screened for MI using PAS or case notes

Participants with current substance use excluded

Working memory

Letter-number sequencing test from the WAIS-III (total score)

Psychopathic individuals performed worse than healthy controls (t[26] = 3.06, s).

Ishikawa et al. (2001)

Males classified as successful (n = 13, mean age = 30) and unsuccessful psychopaths (n = 17, mean age = 34), or

0 PCL-R Total Score

IQ measured using the WAIS-R and controlled for in all analyses

Set-shifting

WCST (CAT, PE, NPE)

Successful psychopaths solved more categories and made fewer perseverative and nonperseverative errors than both unsuccessful psychopaths and controls. Unsuccessful psychopaths and controls did not differ in performance.



Psychopathy Measure

Control measures

Executive Function


Results

healthy controls (n = 26, mean age = 28)

Kiehl et al. (2000)

Male offenders comprised of 12 schizophrenic offenders (mean age = 33) , 24 nonpsychotic offenders classified as psychopathic (n = 13, mean age = 28)) and nonpsychopathic (n = 11, mean age = 27)

0 PCL-R Total Score

Response Inhibition

Go/No-Go (Reaction times, percentage of correct responses, and errors of commission)

Planned comparisons revealed that schizophrenic offenders made more errors of commission than non-psychopaths. There were no other significant differences in performance, with psychopathic and nonpsychopathic offenders performing similarly.

Kim and Jung (2014)

Undergraduate students (n = 30, mean age = 20)

20 No examination of gender differences

PPI-R Total Score used to classify groups as psychopathic or nonpsychopathic

Psychopathic and nonpsychopathic groups matched on age, education, IQ (WAIS) and gender.

Set-shifting

Response Inhibition

WCST (CAT, PE, NPE)

Go/No-Go Task (Accuracy and RTs for Go and No-Go trials)

T-tests revealed that psychopaths and non-psychopaths completed the same number of categories but psychopaths displayed significantly more perseverative and nonperseverative errors.

There were no significant differences in performance on any aspect of the Go/No-Go task.

Lapierre et al. (1995)


0 PCL-R used to classify offenders as

Matched on age, education, socioeconomic

Planning

Porteus Maze (quantitative and qualitative errors)

No differences for number of quantitative errors, but psychopathic individuals displayed significantly more qualitative errors.



Psychopathy Measure

Control measures

Executive Function


Results

psychoapthic (n = 30) or nonpsychopathic (n = 30)

status, and drug and alcohol consumption. No neuropsychological problems.

Set-Shifting

Response Inhibition

WCST (CAT, NPE)

Go/No-Go (commission and omission error)

A trend towards significance was observed for the number of perseverative errors (p = .07) and categories achieved (p = .06), with psychopathic individuals performing worse.

There were no differences in the number of errors of omission, but psychopathic individuals displayed significantly more errors of commission.

Lynam, Whiteside and Jones (1999)

Male undergraduate students (n = 70). Demographic details not provided

0 LSRP parsed into prim and sec psyc factors

Response Inhibition

Go/No-Go Task (errors of omission and commission)

LSRP prim was significantly correlated with errors of commission (r = .23, s), but not omission. The same pattern of results was observed for LSRP sec but the results were only marginally significant (r = .18, ns).

Mahmut et al. (2008)

Undergraduate students (n = 101, mean age = 23)

74 Examination of gender differences

SRP-III total score used to classify participants as psychopathic and nonpsychopathic

Estimated IQ using NART, no differences between males or females and no differences between psychopathic and nonpsychopathic groups.

Set-shifting

Computerised TMT-B (Completion time)

There were no gender differences in performance. No differences in completion time between psychopathic and nonpsychopathic groups for either males or females. However, the Callous-Affect facet was significantly related to longer completion times.

Mol et al. (2009) Male forensic psychiatric

0 PCL-R parsed into

Age, education and substance

Set-Shifting

WCST (CAT, PE, NPE)

T-test revealed that performance did not differ between psychopathic and nonpsychopathic



Psychopathy Measure

Control measures

Executive Function


Results

patients (n = 53, mean age = 39)

F1 and F2 scores and four subgroups, LH, HH, LL,and HL.

abuse were included as covariates

participants. However, partial correlations revealed that F1 was positively associated with the number of categories achieved and negatively associated with both perseverative and nonperseverative errors (r = .22, -.15, -.22, respectively). F2 was unrelated to the number of categories achieved or perseverative errors but was related to nonperseverative errors (r = .17). However, these correlations were not significant at p <.01.

Performance on the task also varied across the four subgroups, LH (PE = 23.25, NPE = 26.63, CAT = 4), HH (PE = 20.81, NPE = 23.13, CAT = 4.38), LL (PE = 18.87, NPE = 19, CAT = 4.57) and HL (PE = 13.17, NPE = 12.33, CAT = 5.17), all ns.

Munro et al., (2007)

Male violent offenders (n = 15, mean age = 46)


0 PCL-R total score to classify offenders as psychopathic (n = 9) and nonpsychopathic (n = 6)

Psychotropic medications unrelated to variables of interest.

Response Inhibition

Go/No-Go (number of omission and commission errors and RTs)

Offenders made more errors than controls but that this was only for errors of commission, with the number of errors of omission the same between groups. However, the level of psychopathy within the offender group was negatively related to the number of commission errors (r = -.46).

Similarly, offenders displayed longer reaction times for Go and No-Go trials. However, the level of psychopathy within the offender group was unrelated to performance (r = -.19).

Pham et al. (2003)

Male inmates (n = 36, mean age = 30)

0 PCL-R total scores used to classify participants

Matched on age and WAIS IQ.

Planning

TOL with three different types of problems, neutral, facilitating, or

Factorial ANOVA’s revealed that psychopaths displayed excessive movements but only in misleading trials, and broke more rules and displayed longer subsequent completion times than nonpsychopathic



Psychopathy Measure

Control measures

Executive Function


Results

as psychopathic (n = 18) and nonpsychopathic (n = 18)

Set-Shifting

misleading. (number of movements, number of broken rules, initiation time and subsequent completion time)

Porteus Maze (Quantitative and qualitative errors)

TMT-A and B (completion time and number of errors)

Modified WCST (CAT, PE, NPE, and percentage of perseverative errors)

individuals, regardless of problem type. There was no difference between groups for reaction time.

Psychopaths displayed more qualitative errors than nonpsychopaths but a similar number or quantitative errors.

There were no differences in performance between psychopathic and nonpsychopathic participants.

There were no differences in performance between psychopathic and nonpsychopathic participants.

Salnaitis et al. (2011)

Undergraduate university students (n =

60

No examination of

PPI total score used to classify participants

Working memory capacity assessed using

Planning Computerised Tower of Hanoi-revised (RT and accuracy)

High psychopathy scorers were faster and more accurate than medium and low psychopathy scorers. The results indicate superior planning abilities amongst noncriminal psychopaths.



Psychopathy Measure

Control measures

Executive Function


Results

82, mean age = 21)

gender differences in psychopathy-executive function

as low, medium and high psychopathy

the Spatial Span Task was used as a covariate

Sellbom and Verona (2007)

Undergraduate university students (n = 95, mean age = 20)

45


PPI parsed into PPI-I and PPI-2 factors

Estimated IQ measured using the Shipley Institute of Living Scale

Composite scores for General executive cognitive functions (ECF) and response inhibition

Digits Backward (total score)

WCST (PE)

TMT-B (Completion time)

WISC-III mazes (Completion time)

Controlled Word Association Test (number of words retrieved and number of rule breaks)

Flanker task (errors)

PPI-I was positively correlated with ECF (r =.28, s). This was primarily due to a negative relationship with the number of perseverative errors on the WCST (r = -.23, s) and better performance on the Digits Backward (r = .23, s).

PPI-II was negatively correlated with ECF (r = -.22, s). This was primarily because of longer completion times on the TMT-B and WISC-III mazes, and more perseverative errors on the WCST (r = .20, .17, .12, respectively, ns).

There was no relationship between PPI-I and the response inhibition composite or individual tasks (all ns).

PPI-II was negatively related to response inhibition (-.21, s) and this was because of greater commission errors on the Flanker task (r = .25, s)



Psychopathy Measure

Control measures

Executive Function


Results

Snowden et al. (2013)

Undergraduate students. Experiment 1 (n = 90) and Experiment 2 (n = 60). No age or demographic details provided.

Experiment 1 (n = 46). Experiment 2 (n = 48).


PPI-R parsed into FD, IA, and CH factors

Working Memory

Planning

Spatial and Object Alternation Tasks (number of errors)

Porteus Maze (Qualitative errors)

FD was related to more errors on the Object Alternation Task (r =.22). No other relationships were found.

FD and IA were related to more qualitative errors on the Porteus maze (r = .24 and .23, respectively). CH was unrelated to performance.

Varlamov et al. (2011)

Male personality-disordered forensic patients with (n = 22, mean age = 32) and without psychopathy (n = 27, mean age = 34).


0 PCL-R classified as psychopathic and nonpsychopathic

Healthy controls screened for psychopathy using PCL-SV

Response Inhibition

Go/No-Go (errors of omission and commission)

Psychopathic patients made significantly more errors of commission. Nonpsychopathic patients made more errors of omission than psychopathic patients and controls, with a trend observed (p = .055).



Psychopathy Measure

Control measures

Executive Function


Results

Yang et al. (Yang et al., 2011)

Community sample recruited from temp employment agency (n= 86) demographic details not provided.

? PCL-R total score

Age and IQ controlled in analyses

Set-shifting

Computerised WCST (PE and NPE)

Partial correlations revealed a significant relationship between PCL-R scores and perseverative errors (r = .20, s). No relationship with nonperseverative errors.

Zeier et al. (2012)


0 PCL-R Total score and WAS used to classify offenders as low anxious psychopathic (n = 29), high anxious psychopathic (n = 25), low anxious nonpsychopathic (n = 23) or high anxious nonpsychopathic (n = 29).

IQ

ASPD

Response Inhibition

Flanker Task (accuracy and RT)

No effect of ASPD on RT. However, ASPD resulted in significantly more errors on incongruent trials.

No effect of psychopathy, anxiety or their interaction on RT. Psychopathic participants displayed more errors on congruent and incongruent trials. High anxious individuals displayed more errors. However, a significant interaction was found where high psychopathic, low anxious individuals displayed more errors.

Analyses of individual PCL-R factors revealed that for the two-factor model, Factor 2 was related to more errors on incongruent trials. In the three factor model, only facet 3 was associated with more errors on incongruent trials.

When the overlapping effects of ASPD and psychopathy were examined together, ASPD was still related to lower accuracy, but psychopathy was no longer related to lower accuracy.



Psychopathy Measure

Control measures

Executive Function


Results

Zimak (Zimak et al., 2014)

Male undergraduate students (n = 79, mean age = 19)

0 PPI-SF participants caterogised into high and low psychopathy

IQ. No head injury, neuropsychological or psychological conditions, no substance abuse. Word memory test to detect faking.

Response Inhibition

Stop-Signal Task (SSRT)

T-tests revealed no difference between psychopathic and nonpsychopathic participants on SSRT.

Note: PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist Revised; MPQ = Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire – Brief form; FD = Fearless Dominance; IA = Impulsive Antisociality; CH = Coldheartedness; MI – Mental Illness;

PAS = Personality Assessment Screener; WAIS-III = Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Third Edition; WCST = Wisconsin Card Sorting Test; CAT = Categories Achieved; PE = Perseverative errors, NPE =

Nonperseverative Errors; ASPD = Antisocial Personality Disorder; ASPD+P = Antisocial Personality Disorder with Psychopathy; ASPD-P = Antisocial Personality Disorder without Psychopathy; PCL:SV =

Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version; ID/ED = Intradimensional/Extradimensional; WISC-III = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Third Edition; TMT-B = Trail Making Test Part B; PPI = Psychopathic

Personality Inventory; PPI-R = Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised; SRP-III = Self-Report Psychopathy Scale – Version Three; NART = National Adult Reading Test; RT = Reaction times; LSRP = Levenson

Self-Report Psychopathy Scale; WAS = Welsh Anxiety Scale; LH = Low Factor 1 Scores and High Factor 2 Scores; HH = High Factor 1 and Factor 2 Scores; LL = Low Factor 1 and Factor 2 Scores; HL = High Factor

1 Scores and Low Factor 2 Scores; PPI-SF = Psychopathic Personality Inventory – Short Form;


The Current Study

The literature on executive function in psychopathy has produced inconsistent

findings in both criminal and noncriminal samples. These inconsistent findings may be

attributed to differences in the conceptualisation and measurement of psychopathy, with some

studies examining psychopathy as a unitary construct and others examining primary and

secondary factors separately. According to the dual process model, psychopathy is

conceptualised as two distinct syndromes with distinct neurobiological origins. Primary

psychopathy is thought to arise from a deficiency of the brain’s defensive motivational

system, resulting in the lack of fear and anxiety that is characteristic of the primary

psychopath (Patrick & Bernat, 2009). Secondary psychopathy is considered to result from an

impairment in brain regions that are responsible for higher order cognitive processes.

Although the pattern is somewhat inconsistent across studies, when the unique relationships

are examined between executive function and primary and secondary psychopathy, a

divergent relationship emerges. Primary psychopathy appears to be related to superior, or at

least intact, executive function, whilst secondary psychopathy appears to be related to

executive dysfunction. These findings are consistent with the claims of the dual process

model of psychopathy, which suggest that the interpersonal and affective features (primary

psychopathy [PCL-R Factor 1, PPI-FD]) are etiologically distinct from the socially deviant

and lifestyle features of psychopathy (secondary psychopathy [PCL-R Factor 2, PPI-SCI]).

Further support for the dual process model is found in research which demonstrates unique

and divergent relationship between primary and secondary psychopathy and a range of

external variables.

For example, Heinzen, Köhler, Godt, Geiger, and Huchzermeier (2011) used a large,

male forensic sample to examine the unique relationships between PCL:SV psychopathy

factors, intelligence, and conviction history. The authors found no association between Factor


1 (primary psychopathy) and intelligence or number of convictions. However, they did find

that Factor 1 was associated with the length of conviction, perhaps indicating a relationship

between primary psychopathy and seriousness of offence. In contrast, Factor 2 (secondary

psychopathy) was negatively related with intelligence and the length of conviction, but

positively related to the number of prior convictions. These findings indicate that primary and

secondary psychopathy share opposite relationships with intelligence and conviction history.

Similar studies have found that primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy

display distinct etiological markers and divergent patterns of relationships with external

variables (i.e., socioeconomic status variables) (Benning et al., 2003; Morrison & Gilbert,

2001). Most notably, primary and secondary psychopathy differ in the experience of negative

affect (i.e. fear, anxiety and remorse) (Frick et al., 1999; Patrick, 1994). Numerous studies

have shown that primary psychopathy is associated with a paucity of negative emotions (K.

S. Blair, Morton, et al., 2006; Frick et al., 1999; Lykken, 1957). Specifically, primary

psychopathy is associated with a lack of fear and anxiety (Lykken, 1957; Ogloff & Wong,

1990), poor passive avoidance to punishment when the task involves competing goals

(Newman & Kosson, 1986), and decreased electrodermal responsivity to punishment cues

(Lykken, 1957). In contrast, secondary psychopathy is associated with elevated levels of

negative affect, specifically, anxiety, fear and hostility (Hicks et al., 2004; Vassileva et al.,

2005).

Taken together, there is some evidence that psychopathy arises from a two distinct

processes, each resulting in different, yet sometimes related, syndromes. From this

perspective, primary psychopathy would not be related to executive dysfunction. In contrast,

a deficit in brain regions responsible for executive processes places an individual with

secondary psychopathy at risk of externalising psychopathology (e.g., behavioural deviance).

Although offering different explanations of psychopathy, the dual process and successful


models of psychopathy are not mutually incompatible. For example, the results from study 1

provided support for both models by showing that the relationship between secondary

psychopathy and criminal behaviour was explained by identification with criminal peers. This

finding is consistent with the successful model of noncriminal psychopathy (Hall & Benning,

2006), which suggests the manifestation of psychopathy is influenced by other internal (e.g.,

intelligence, executive dysfunction) and external factors (e.g., peer group, family

environment).

Further evidence for the successful psychopathy model comes from a recent study by

Wall et al. (2013) which suggests that intelligence moderates the relationship between

psychopathy and criminal behaviour. Using a large undergraduate sample the authors

examined whether intelligence, as measured by the Shipley-2, moderated the relationship

between PPI-R psychopathy and scores on the Antisocial Behaviour Questionnaire. The

results indicated that individuals with high psychopathy scores (PPI-R and PPI-FD) were less

likely to have engaged in criminal behaviour if they had higher scores on both the verbal and

non-verbal scales of the Shipley-2. For individuals with higher levels of Self-Centred

Impulsivity, higher scores on the verbal scale of the Shipley-2 predicted a decreased

likelihood of having engaged in criminal behaviour (Wall et al., 2013). Therefore, the

increased risk for behavioural deviance in secondary psychopathy predicted by the dual

process model may be affected by other environmental factors, such as general intelligence,

education, socioeconomic status, and peer group, a finding that is consistent with the

successful psychopathy model. Following this line of reasoning, it may be that secondary

psychopathy is related to an increased risk of behavioural deviance because of executive

dysfunction, but that the degree of executive dysfunction moderates the relationship between

secondary psychopathy and antisocial behaviour. However, there are no known studies that

have explicitly tested these two neurobiological theories of noncriminal psychopathy.


Aims and Hypotheses

The primary aim of this study is to empirically test two contemporary neurobiological

theories of psychopathy; the successful psychopathy model (Gao & Raine, 2010; Hall &

Benning, 2006) and the dual process model. Given the pattern observed in previous research

on executive function in psychopathy and the findings of Study 1, it is hypothesised that there

will be intact or superior performance on measures of executive function in primary

psychopathy. Because there is accumulating evidence that supports the dual process model, it

is hypothesised that secondary psychopathy will be related to poorer performance on

measures of executive function. However, in line with the claims of the successful

psychopathy model, it is hypothesised that the relationship between secondary psychopathy

and antisocial behaviour will be moderated by the degree of executive dysfunction.

A secondary aim of this study is to address the demographic inconsistencies between

criminal and noncriminal studies. This will be achieved by recruiting participants from the

community, as opposed to an undergraduate university sample. Furthermore, this study will

examine possible gender differences in the relationship between psychopathy and executive

function. Given that previous research has demonstrated gender differences in the expression

of psychopathy, it is hypothesised that there would be some gender differences in the

relationship between psychopathy, executive function, and criminal behaviour. Given that

there is limited research on psychopathy in women, and that the current study is exploratory,

no specific hypotheses were made in regards to gender differences.

In addition to the examination of gender, this study will also control for possible

effects of intelligence on the relationship between primary and secondary psychopathy and

executive function. There is some evidence that performance on tests of executive function

are related to performance on intelligence tests (e.g., Salthouse, 2005), and that tests of

executive function and tests of intelligence both measure general intelligence (e.g.,


Obonsawin et al., 2002). However, more in-depth analysis of the relationship between

intelligence and executive function shows that inhibition and task switching are not related to

general intelligence, and that updating may be the only executive function that is related to

general intelligence (Miyake et al., 2000). Nevertheless, given the differential relationship

between primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy and intelligence (Heinzen et al.,

2011; Vitacco, Neumann, et al., 2005), and preliminary evidence that intelligence moderates

the psychopathy-antisocial behaviour relationship (Wall et al., 2013), the current study will

examine possible mediating effects of intelligence on the psychopathy-executive function

relationship.

Method

Participants

Forty participants were recruited from the participant pool of Study 1 (19 males, 21

females) by contacting all participants who expressed interest in participating in future

studies.The average age of participants was 28 years (males M = 28 years, SD = 7.6 years;

females M = 27 years, SD = 10 years). The sample consisted of participants who were

students (55%), and participants who were employed full-time (25%), part-time (2.5%), or on

a casual basis (10%); self-employed (5%), or unemployed (5%). Table 10 displays the

breakdown of employment status and education level by gender. Participants with a previous

history of psychiatric or neurological illness, and/or regular use of psychiatric or neurological

medication were excluded from participating. Additionally, participants who did not speak

English as their first language were excluded from participation.


Table 10

Employment status and education presented separately for males and females (N = 40)

Demographic Variable % Male (n = 19) % Female (n = 21)

Highest Level of Education

Year 12 Certificate 31.60 50.00

Trade/Diploma 26.30 25.00

Undergraduate Degree 36.80 20.00

Postgraduate Degree 5.30 5.00

Employment Status

Student 31.60 75.00

Full-time Employee 36.80 -

Part-time Employee - 5.0

Casual Employee 21.10 -

Self-Employed 5.30 -

Unemployed 5.30 5.00

Materials

The Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R) (Lilienfeld & Widows,

2005). The Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R) is a 154-item self-report

questionnaire commonly used to assess psychopathy in noncriminal populations (Lilienfeld &

Widows, 2005). Each item consists of a statement that participants endorse on a four-point

Likert scale (anchors are 1= false, 2= mostly false, 3= mostly true, 4= true). The PPI-R yields

a global psychopathy score, as well as eight content scale scores: Machiavellian Egocentricity

(ME), Rebellious Nonconformity (RN), Blame Externalisation (BE), Carefree

Nonplanfulness (CN), Social Influence (SOI), Fearlessness (F), Stress Immunity (STI), and

Coldheartedness (C). Factor analysis of the scale reveals a two factor solution that is


consistent with other well-validated measures of psychopathy (Benning, et al., 2003;

Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005).

The PPI-FD factor labeled “fearless dominance” consists of scores from the SOI, STI

and F content scales and reflects higher levels of wellbeing (e.g., lower social and physical

anxiety, and lower levels of worry and tension), interpersonal dominance, narcissism, and

thrill-seeking (Benning et al., 2003; Benning et al., 2005; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). The

PPI-SCI factor labeled “self-centered impulsivity” consists of scores from the ME, RN, BE

and CN content scales and reflects higher levels of manipulativeness, impulsivity, a

propensity to blame others for one’s shortcomings, and a defiance of societal norms and

values (Benning et al., 2003; Benning et al., 2005; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). Although the

C content scale does not load highly onto either PPI-FD or PPI-SCI, the scale captures a

callous disposition, a characteristic that many clinicians consider to be central to psychopathy

(Cleckley, 1951; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005).

The scale has good internal reliability for the global psychopathy scale with

Cronbach’s alpha .92 (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). The temporal reliability of the global

psychopathy scale remains high at an average test-retest interval of 19.94 days (Cronbach’s

alpha = .93) (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005).

The Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST). The WSCT is a classic test of

executive function that has been used extensively in cognitive, neuropsychological and

personality research (Eling, Derckx, & Maes, 2008). The WCST provides an index of

abstract reasoning ability, concept formation, the ability to maintain a response strategy, and

the ability to change response strategies to changing environmental contingencies (Eling et

al., 2008). The test consists of four stimulus cards and 128 response cards that depict varying

geometric figures (triangles, stars, crosses, and circles), colours (red, green, yellow, and blue)

and number of figures (one, two, three, or four). The task requires the participant to match


each of the 128 response cards to one of the four stimulus cards and the participant is given

feedback about whether the response was correct or incorrect. Once the participant has

achieved ten consecutive correct responses the sorting principle is changed without warning.

The test yields seven different scores: number of categories completed, trials to complete first

category, percent perseverative errors, percent non-perseverative errors, failure to maintain

set, percent conceptual level responses, and learning to learn. The variables of interest for this

study were the number of categories achieved as an index of overall task performance, and

the percentage of perseverative errors as an index of task-switching ability. Computerised

administration of the WCST was used with the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test: Computer

Version Four (WCST:CV4).

The N-Back Task. The n-back task is commonly used to investigate working

memory function and uses a parametric design to vary working memory load whilst

maintaining task consistency across conditions. A single n-back task was utilized across four

levels of difficulty (0-3-back). The stimuli consisted of eight phonologically distinct

consonants (B, F, H, K, M, Q, R, X). A computerised version of the task was administered

using E-prime software.

The Tower of London. The Tower of London (TOL) requires participants to

manoeuvre a number of discs across three vertical pegs of differing sizes from a start position

to a goal configuration, under the tasks constraints that only one disc is moved at a time, and

the number of discs on each vertical peg cannot exceed what the peg can accommodate (The

first peg can only accommodate one disc, the second peg can accommodate two discs, and

the third peg can accommodate three discs). Successful completion of the task requires a

number of execution functions, including planning, response inhibition and goal-oriented

behaviour (Anderson & Douglass, 2001; Goel & Grafman, 1995). A computerised version of

the Tower of London Drexal University (TOL-DX) (Culbertson & Zillmer, 1998) was


administered using the Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) software

(Mueller, 2010). The indices of performance on the TOL-DX were the total number of

correct trials, the average planning time (time from presentation of trial to the first problem-

solving move), and the average execution time (time from first problem-solving move to

completion of trial).

The Stop-Signal Task. The stop-signal task is used to assess response inhibition

(Lappin & Erikson, 1966; Logan & Cowan, 1984; Vince, 1948). Research by Verbruggen

and Logan (2008) suggests that in contrast to other measures of response inhibition, such as

the go/no-go paradigm, the stop-signal paradigm captures controlled, top-down inhibition,

and is therefore a purer measure of executive control processes in response inhibition. A

windows executable version of the stop-signal task called ‘STOP-IT’ (SI) was used to

administer the task (Verbruggen, Logan, & Stevens, 2008). The primary task requires

participants to perform a shape judgement task by discriminating between a square and circle

as quickly and accurately as possible. However, on stop-signal trials an auditory stop signal is

presented immediately following the presentation of the primary stimulus, which signals that

participants must withhold their response. The SI software uses a horse-race model to

produce a measure of the latency of the stop process, known as the stop-signal reaction time

(SSRT) (Verbruggen et al., 2008). Greater stop signal reaction times are indicative of poorer


The Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices Plus (SPM-P). The SPM-P is a non-

verbal measure of cognitive reasoning ability that was designed to capture the educative

component of Spearman’s g. The SPM-P consists of a series of patterns or designs with a

missing section. Participants are required to select the correct missing section from a number

of possible alternatives in a multiple choice format. The SPM-P consists of 60 problems

divided into five sets with a progressive level of difficulty both among the problems in each


set, and across sets (sets A-E). Each set consists of 12 problems. The test produces total

scores ranging from 0-60 with higher scores on the SPM-P indicating higher levels of

educative reasoning ability. The SPM-P provides a robust measure of cognitive reasoning

ability in a wide range of cultural, socioeconomic and ethnic groups and possesses adequate

test-retest reliability (>.85) for periods up to one year (Raven, Raven, & Court, 2000).

Procedure

Participants from Study 1 who indicated that they were interested in participating in

future studies were contacted. Testing was conducted individually in a quiet study room at

the Queensland University of Technology. Participants were given an information letter

which detailed the nature of the research and participation requirements (See Appendix 3 for

information letter). The executive function tasks, the SPM-P, and the PPI-R were conducted

in a counter-balanced order to control for order effects. The SPM-P and the PPI-R were

administered according to the test manual procedures for each test. Computerised versions of

the WCST, Stop-Signal, N-Back and Tower of London were used. Participants were

encouraged to take regular breaks between testing. The entire testing session lasted

approximately 120 minutes, including instructions and practice blocks.

The computerised executive function tasks. The computerised executive function

tasks were conducted on a computer connected to a flat screen monitor with a screen

resolution set at 1920x1080 pixels and a screen refresh rate of 60 Hertz. Auditory displays

were presented using the computer speakers and participants provided confirmation that the

sound was audible. A standard qwerty keyboard was used to obtain responses from

participants on the n-back and stop-signal tasks. An optical computer mouse was used to

obtain responses on the WCST and Tower of London tasks.

The WCST:CV4. The WCST:CV4 was administered to participants according to the

test manual instructions for computer mouse administration. The four stimulus cards were


presented across the top of the screen and the response cards were presented on the bottom of

the screen one at a time. Participants were required to match the response cards to the

stimulus cards by using the computer mouse to select the stimulus card they believed

matched the response card (pressing either the left or right mouse key). After each selection

participants were given visual and auditory feedback on whether their selection was correct

or incorrect.

The N-Back. Stimuli were presented in black on a white background for 500ms with

a 2,500ms interval which consisted of a blank screen. Participants responded with the ‘target”

key which was mapped to the ‘f’ key if the target matched the stimulus presented n-items

ago, or the ‘not a target’ key which was mapped to the ‘j’ key if the target did not match the

stimulus presented, with a response window of 3,000ms. In the 0-back condition participants

were asked to respond if the stimulus presented matched a pre-specified stimulus (X). In the

1-back condition, the target was any letter that was identical to the letter immediately

preceding it (one trial back). In the 2-back and 3-back conditions, the target was any letter

that was identical to the letter presented two or three trials back, respectively.

Participants performed a practice block at the start of each level so that the task

requirements were clear. This was followed by three experimental blocks of each of the four

levels in a sequential order, resulting in 12 blocks. Each block consisted of 30 trials which

contained 10 targets and 20 non-targets presented in a pseudorandom sequence (random with

reset after complete cycle of stimuli). Full instructions for the n-back task are presented in

Appendix 4.

STOP-IT (Verbruggen et al., 2008). Stimuli consisted of a square and a circle

presented in the centre of the screen in white text on a black background. On stop-signal trials

(25% of the trials) an auditory stop signal (750 Hz for 75 ms at 80dB) was presented

immediately following the presentation of the primary task stimulus. Participants responded


with the ‘square’ key which was mapped to the ‘z’ key if the stimulus presented was a square

and the ‘circle’ key which was mapped to the ‘/’ key if the stimulus presented was a circle.

Participants performed a practice block of 32 trials followed by three experimental

blocks of 64 trials. Each trial consisted of the presentation of a fixation sign (+) presented in

the centre of the screen for 250ms which was immediately replaced by the primary stimulus.

The primary stimulus was presented until a response was obtained or 1250ms (maximum

reaction time), with an ISI of 2,000ms that was independent of reaction time. On stop-signal

trials the stop signal was presented at varying stop-signal delays (SSDs) using a staircase

procedure. The initial SSD was 250ms and when the response was correctly inhibited the

SSD increased by 50ms; when the response inhibition failed the SSD decreased by 50ms.

There was a compulsory 10 second break between blocks in which participants were

provided with feedback on their performance on the previous block, including the number of

incorrect responses on no-signal trials, the number of missed responses on no-signal trials,

and the percentage of correctly inhibited responses (Verbruggen et al., 2008).

TOL-DX (Culbertson & Zillmer, 1998; Mueller, 2010). The task consisted of three

pile heights: the first pile could only accommodate one disc, the second pile height could

accommodate two discs and the third pile height could accommodate three discs. Participants

were instructed to move the discs to match the goal configuration within a specified number

of moves using the computer mouse. The next trial commenced once the participant was

successful or the specified number of moves had been exhausted. The task consisted of 15

trials. Full instructions for the TOL-DX task are presented in Appendix 5.

Design

A cross-sectional, correlational design was used to predict executive function from

primary and secondary psychopathy. Primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy were


the predictors variables and were assessed using the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-

Revised (PPI-R) (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). The PPI-R was chosen for this study to allow

the comparison of findings with previous reseach on psychopathy and executive function,

which has predominately used the PCL-R or PPI-R.

The executive functions of set-shifting, working memory function, planning, and

response inhibition were assessed using the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task, the N-back task,

the Tower of London task, and the Stop-Signal task, respectively and these were used as the

outcome variables. Measures of cool executive function were chosen to allow the

examination of cognitive processing in the absence of emotional processing. As previously

mentioned, this distinction is important in psychopathy research because of evidence of

emotional dysfunction in psychopathy.

Estimates of general cognitive ability were obtained using the Raven’s Standard

Progressive Matrices Plus. This measure of cognitive ability was used to examine possible

mediating effects of cognitive ability on the psychopathy-executive function relationship.

Follow-up moderation analyses were conducted to examine the influence of executive

function on the relationship between psychopathy and criminal behaviour. Criminal

behaviour was measured using the Self-Report Criminality Scale data from Study 1.

Results

Data Screening

Data were screened prior to analyses for accuracy of input and outliers. There were no

out-of-range values, and all means and standard deviations were plausible. Missing values

were not systematic and were excluded from analyses in a pairwise fashion. The PPI-R was

evaluated for inconsistent responding, and socially desirable and/or malingering response sets

according to the test manual instructions (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). One female


participant scored highly on the ‘Deviant Responding’ subscale. Experimenter notes

indicated that this participant had adopted a satisfice response style throughout the

experiment despite multiple reminders about task requirements. This participant was

excluded from all analyses. One female participant scored highly on both the ‘Virtuous’ and

‘Deviant’ Responding subscales. However, there was no evidence to suggest the participant

had adopted an exiguous response style, there was no evidence of inconsistent responding,

and the PPI-R scores were within normal ranges. Therefore, in order to increase power this

participant was included in all analyses with the caveat that they may have been ‘faking bad’

and ‘faking good’ on the PPI-R.

The data was examined for univariate outliers, and values were considered

problematic if they were greater than 3.29 standard deviations from the mean. There was only

one participant (male) with extreme scores, which reflected extremely high levels of PPI-

Total, PPI-FD, PPI-SCI and PPI-C. In order to retain the extreme value whilst reducing the

impact, the value was replaced with a score that was equal to three standard deviations from

the mean. Normality was checked separately for males and females via inspection of

histograms. Due to the small samples sizes (male n = 19, females n = 19) the data displayed

slightly leptokurtic distributions, but was otherwise normally distributed. Distribution-free

tests were used where violations of normality could impact the robustness of the statistical

analyses.

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics are displayed separately for males and females in Table 11.

Because gender differences in psychopathy are often reported, an examination of mean

differences was conducted using t-tests (Mann-Whitney U analyses were consistent with the

results of the t-tests). There was a significant gender difference in PPI-R Total Scores, t(36) =

2.41, p = .021, 𝜂𝜂2= .14, which could be attributed to higher scores for males on the PPI-C,


t=(36) = 2.95, p = .005, 𝜂𝜂2= .19, and PPI-FD subscales t(35) = 2.30, p = .027, 𝜂𝜂2=.13. There

were no significant gender differences observed for self-report criminality, PPI-SCI,

cognitive ability, or any of the executive function measures. The means and standard

deviations for the PPI-R were in line with those found in previous research using community

samples, for both the male and female samples (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). Additionally,

the means for the male sample were similar to those found in an Australian male prison

sample (PPI-Total M = 310.67, SD = 37.29; PPI-SCI M = 156.96, SD = 29.74; PPI-FD M =

124.69, SD = 18.20; PPI-C M = 42.96, SD = 9.52) (M. A. Hughes, Stout, & Dolan, 2013).


Table 11

Descriptive Statistics for Psychopathy and Executive Function for Males and Females

Male (n=19) Female (n=19) Measure M SD SE Min Max M SD SE Min Max Self-Report Criminality Scale 33.00 13.78 3.45 22.00 76.00 29.18 9.27 2.25 22.00 53.00 PPI-R Total 306.89 40.32 9.25 266 424 276.47 37.36 8.57 219 354 PPI-R Self-Centred Impulsivity 148.37 23.90 5.48 118 191 139.58 18.72 4.29 110 194 PPI-R Fearless Dominance 126.00 20.73 4.89 77 177 109.89 21.74 4.98 69 152 PPI-R Coldheartedness 33.95 7.75 1.78 21 56 27.00 6.83 1.56 16 40 SPM-Plus 43.28 8.84 2.08 25 58 39.55 6.79 1.60 27 56 TOL Total 30.00 10.39 2.45 12 45 27.17 8.38 2.03 15 39 TOL Avg Planning Time (sec) 22.65 12.88 3.03 8.26 52.48 15.56 6.58 1.55 9.99 28.87 TOL Avg Execution Time (sec) 8.47 2.78 .65 4.73 15.07 9.85 4.04 .95 9.99 16.21 SSRT(ms) 279.43 39.2 9.24 225.00 365.10 273.46 46.29 10.91 198.70 373.50 WCST Categories Achieved 5.82 .73 .18 3 6 5.72 .82 .19 3 6 WCST Perseverative Errors % 8.82 3.94 .95 5.00 23.00 9.00 4.45 1.05 5.00 20.00 N-Back Zero Back Target Hits 30.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 30.00 N-Back One Back Target Hits 25.66 3.41 .80 17.00 30.00 26.39 2.91 .68 18.00 30.00 N-back Two Back Target Hits 23.27 7.22 1.70 0.00 30.00 24.39 3.93 .92 15.00 30.00 N-back Three Back Target Hits 16.06 8.05 2.01 2.00 29.00 16.76 5.72 1.39 3.00 25.00


Inferential Statistics

The data were examined separately for males and females to elucidate any gender

differences in the psychopathy-executive function relationship. Because of breaches to the

normality assumption, Kendall’s Tau nonparametric bivariate correlations were conducted

and are displayed separately for males and females in Table 12. The results show that the

pattern of relationships between the psychopathy subscales, and psychopathy and executive

function is different for males and females. Given the differences in the psychopathy-

executive function relationship, separate regression analyses were conducted for males and

females for the executive function measures.

THE PSYCHOPATH NEXT DOOR 174 Table 12 Bivariate Correlations between Psychopathy and Executive Function for Males and Females (Males are below the diagonal, females above)

Note. *p <.05, **p < .01, # = trend towards significance. Two-tailed.

PPI-R PPI-SCI PPI-FD PPI-C SPM SRCS TOL TOL P TOL E SSRT WCST CA WCST PE One-back Two-back Three-back

PPI-R .519** .677** .673** .143 .278 .244 .214 -.155 -.391* .093 -.147 -.298 .127 .163

PPI-SCI .622** .185 .376* .294 .236 .459** .199 -.376* -.229 -.108 -.356* -.080 .149 .194

PPI-FD .695** .362* .505** .091 .400* .044 .148 .030 -.459* .217 -.124 .008 .221 .162

PPI-C .149 -.125 .180 -.031 .079 .004 .149 .-.075 -.209 .266 -.297 -.298 .127 .163

SPM -.133 -.260 -.120 .149 .378* .067 -.355# -.187 .086 -.140 .458* .598** .605**

SRCS .205 .256 .293 .026 -.100 .383# -.020 -.099 -.296 -.162 .159 .250 .125 .104

TOL -.222 -.377* -.030 .137 .430* -.142 .284 -.529* -.253 -.112 .048 .114 .292 .148

TOL P -.033 -.092 .096 .233 .253 -.020 .651** .033 -.137 .211 -.062 .140 .035 -.090

TOL E .281 .472** .214 -.207 -.558** .156 -.477** -.176 .150 -.014 -.034 -.070 -.438* -.209

SSRT .098 .026 .244 .033 .239 -.215 .383* .268 -.124 .099 .062 -.084 -.327 -.045

WCST CA -.343 -.344 -.354 -.349 .306 -.080 .331 .000 -.343 .214 -.487* .150 .210 .125

WCST PE .318# .440* .161 .008 -.462* .183 -.287 -.127 .207 -.096 -.371 .117 -.110 -.295

One-back -.129 -.137 -.054 .035 .132 .051 .280 .238 -.089 -.048 .202 -.042 .424* .254

Two-back .094 -.047 .168 -.027 .226 .281 .305 .243 .067 .121 .355 -.206 .505** .567**

Three-back -.176 -.336 -.221 .239 .281 .160 .266 .126 -.377* -.192 .367 -.104 .487* .421*


Psychopathic Personality Inventory – Revised

The results show that the pattern of relationships between the PPI-R subscales and the

total scale is different for males and females. Whilst PPI-C is not related to PPI-Total, PPI-

FD or PPI-SCI in males (all r <.19, ns), PPI-C is positively associated with PPI-total, PPI-FD

and PPI-SCI in females. The findings of low mean inter-item correlations for the PPI-R

factors in the male sample are consistent with previous research on the PPI-R in an Australian

male prison sample (M. A. Hughes et al., 2013). However, the results of the mean inter-item

correlations for the female sample are not in line with previous research. Chapman, Gremore,

and Farmer (2003) using a female prison sample found that PPI-C only displayed a weak

relationship (r=.11) with the PPI overall scale score. However, this study did use an earlier

version of the PPI-R (PPI).

Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices-Plus

The SPM-P was used to examine if there was a relationship between psychopathy and

intelligence in the community. The results revealed that PPI-R, PPI-FD, PPI-SCI and PPI-C

were not significantly related to the SPM-P for either males or females (all ns). This finding

is in line with previous research in general population samples, which shows there is no

relationship between psychopathy and intelligence (Bagshaw et al., 2014). With the exception

of TOL final score (r = .37, p = .04), TOL execution time (r =-.33, p =.05), and N-back

performance (one-back, r = .42, p = .02; two-back, r = .59, p =.001; three-back, r = .60, p

=.001), there were no significant relationships between SPM-P and the executive function

measures, for females. As can be seen in Table 11, for males, higher scores on the SPM-P

were significantly negatively related to WCST perseverative errors, and TOL execution time;

and significantly positively related to TOL total score. There were no significant relationships

observed between SPM-P and SSRT, WCST categories achieved, TOL planning time, or

performance on the N-back (all ns). Whilst all relationships between the PPI-R scales and


SPM-P were weak and non-significant, preliminary evidence suggests that intelligence may

be a compensatory mechanism in the psychopathy-criminality relationship (Wall et al., 2013).

Therefore, follow up tests were conducted to examine possible mediating effects of cognitive

ability on the psychopathy-executive function relationship for each individual task (i.e., the

TOL, Stop-signal, WCST, and N-back).

Tower of London

Tower of London -Total Score. Increased levels of PPI-SCI in males was

significantly related to poorer performance on the TOL, with a moderate, negative correlation

observed. In contrast, increased levels of PPI-SCI in females was significantly associated

with better performance on the TOL, with a moderate, positive correlation observed (see

Table 11). This difference cannot be explained by mean differences between males and

females on PPI-SCI or performance on the TOL. There were no significant relationships

observed between PPI-Total, PPI-FD, and PPI-C and performance on the TOL for either

males or females (all ns). Although non-significant, it is interesting to observe that the pattern

of relationships between PPI-Total, PPI-FD, and PPI-C and performance on the TOL was

opposite for males and females. For females, increased levels of psychopathy were positively

associated with performance on the TOL. For males, increased levels of psychopathy were

negatively associated with performance on the TOL, with exception of the PPI-C factor

which displayed a weak, positive correlation. Because of differences in the relationship

between PPI-SCI and TOL performance, separate regression analyses were conducted for

males and females.

Males. A mediated regression analysis was conducted to predict performance on the

TOL from PPI-SCI whilst examining the possible mediating role of SPM-P. All assumptions

of the analysis were met. The linear combination of PPI-SCI and SPM-P significantly

predicted performance on the TOL, explaining 51.28% of the variance, R = .71, F(2, 15) =


7.89, p =.004. Within the regression model higher scores on the SPM-P significantly

predicted better performance on the TOL (b =.53, p = .04), whilst higher scores on the PPI-

SCI scale predicted worse performance, with a trend towards significance observed (b =-.16,

p = .07). The results of the mediation analysis revealed a significant indirect effect of PPI-

SCI on TOL through SPM-P, b = -.09, BCa CI [-.25, -.01]. This represents a medium effect,

𝜅𝜅2 = .23, 95% BCa CI [.03, .50]. There was also a direct effect of PPI-SCI on TOL

performance, b = -.17, p = .07, with a trend towards significance observed. These results

suggest a partial mediation effect of SPM-P on the relationship between PPI-SCI and TOL

performance. This indicates that PPI-SCI predicts poorer performance on the TOL through its

relationship with SPM-P, although a direct effect of PPI-SCI still exists beyond the mediating

role of SPM-P. This relationship is displayed graphically in Figure 3a.


Figure 3a.

Conceptual diagram of the Direct and Indirect Effects of Self-

Centred Impulsivity on Tower of London Performance for Males.

Figure 3b.

Conceptual Diagram of the Direct and Indirect effects of Self-

Centred Impulsivity on Tower of London Execution Times for Males.


Females. A mediated regression analysis was conducted to predict performance on the TOL

from PPI-SCI whilst examining the possible mediating role of SPM-P. All assumptions were

met. Unlike males, there was no mediating role of SPM-P, b = .03, BCa CI [-.01, .23]. The

regression analysis revealed that higher levels of PPI-SCI significantly predicted better

performance on the TOL, R = .59, with 34.8% of the variance explained, F(1, 14) = 7.48, p =

.01.

Tower of London – Planning and Execution Time. For males and females, there

was no relationship observed between the PPI-R scales and planning time (all ns). However,

for males higher levels of PPI-SCI were significantly related to longer execution times, with a

moderate-strong relationship observed. In contrast, higher levels of PPI-SCI in females was

moderately, negatively related to execution time, with a trend towards significance observed

(p = .05). This differential relationship between PPI-SCI and TOL execution time cannot be

explained by mean differences between males and females on PPI-SCI or TOL execution

time. There were no significant relationships observed between PPI-Total, PPI-FD, or PPI-C

and TOL execution time for either males or females (all ns). Although non-significant, the

direction of the relationships between the PPI-R scales and TOL execution time was again

opposite for males and females. These differences in performance were followed up with

separate regression analyses for males and females.

Males. To examine possible mediating effects of SPM-P, a mediated regression

analysis was conducted to predict TOL execution times from PPI-SCI scores. All

assumptions were met. The results of the regression revealed that PPI-SCI and SPM-P

significantly predicted performance on the TOL, explaining 63.57% of the variance, R = .79,

F(2, 15) = 13.08, p <.001. Higher scores on the SPM-P significantly predicted shorter

execution times on the TOL (b = -173.43, p = .006). However, higher scores on the PPI-SCI

scale significantly predicted longer execution times (b = 44.97, p = .04). The results of the


mediation analysis revealed a significant indirect effect of PPI-SCI on TOL execution times

through SPM-P, b = 30.04, BCa CI [1.46, 82.49]. This represents a medium effect, 𝜅𝜅2 = .29,

95% BCa CI [.03, .56]. There was also a significant direct effect of PPI-SCI on TOL

performance, b = 44.97, p = .04. The conceptual diagram is displayed in Figure 3b. These

results show a partial mediation effect of SPM-P on the relationship between PPI-SCI and

TOL execution times. However, elevated scores on the PPI-SCI significantly predict longer

execution times, even with the effects of SPM-P partialled from the regression. These longer

execution times seen for males with elevated levels of PPI-SCI could be due to impulsively

moving the first disc without considering the constraints imposed by the move limit.

Females. A mediated regression analysis was conducted to predict execution times on

the TOL from PPI-SCI scores, whilst examining any mediating effects of SPM-P. All

assumptions were met. The linear combination of SPM-P and PPI-SCI significantly predicted

execution times on the TOL, R = .48, accounting for 23.48% of the variance, F(2, 14) = 5.41,

p = .01. The details of the regression are displayed in Table 13 and show that only SPM-P

was a significant predictor, with higher scores predicting shorter execution times.

Furthermore, unlike males, there was no mediating effect of SPM-Ps on the relationship

between PPI-SCI and TOL execution times b = -15.92, BCa CI [-96.53, 4.24].


Table 13

Mediated Regression Predicting Tower of London Execution Times from Self-Centred

Impulsivity and Cognitive Ability for Females.

B SE B β t

Constant 25142.49 5851.12

SPM-P -192.22 78.98 .-.34 2.43*

PPI-SCI -56.96 42.90 -.27 1.34

Note. *p<.05

Stop-Signal Reaction Time

There were no significant relationships observed between any of the PPI-R scales and

SSRT for males (all ns). However, the results for the female sample show that elevated levels

of PPI-R Total and PPI-FD were related to shorter SSRT times. These results were followed

up with a forced entry multiple regression analysis predicting SSRT from the linear

combination of PPI-FD, PPI-SCI and PPI-C. A forced entry multiple regression analysis was

chosen because little is known about the relationships between primary and secondary

psychopathy and executive function in females. The results revealed that the linear

combination of PPI-FD, PPI-SCI, and PPI-C did not significantly predict SSRTs, R = .52,

F(3, 13) = 1.48, p = .26. However, an examination of the individual beta-weights revealed a

trend towards significance for higher levels of PPI-FD predicting shorter SSRTs (p = .09).

Accordingly, a follow up mediated regression analysis was conducted to predict SSRT from

PPI-FD, whilst controlling for the effects of SPM-P. All assumptions of the analysis were

met. The results revealed that higher levels of PPI-FD predicted shorter SSRT’s, b = -.95, t =

1.81, explaining 19.48% of the variance, R = .44, F(1, 15) = 3.27, with a trend towards


significance observed (p = .07). There was no mediating effect of SPM-Ps on the relationship

between PPI-FD and SSRT, b = -0.07, BCa CI [-.53, .06]. These results suggest that higher

levels of the interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy in females, such as

interpersonal dominance, narcissism, and low levels of anxiety predict superior response

inhibition, with a moderate effect observed.

Wisconsin Card Sorting Task

The bivariate correlations between PPI-R Total, PPI-SCI, PPI-FD, PPI-C and

performance on the WCST show that the pattern of relationships vary according to gender. A

similar pattern of relationships emerged, with psychopathy in males related to poorer

performance on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test, whilst in females psychopathy was

associated with superior performance on the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test.

Categories Achieved. There were no significant relationships observed between

WCST number of categories achieved and any of the PPI-R scales for males or females (all

ns). However, consistent with the pattern of results for the other executive function measures,

the number of categories achieved was moderately and negatively related to PPI-R total, PPI-

FD, PPI-SCI and PPI-C for males, and moderately and positively related to PPI-FD and PPI-

C for females. There was no relationship between PPI-R Total and PPI-SCI in females (<

.11).

Percentage of Perseverative Errors. For males there was a significant moderate,

positive relationship between the number of perseverative errors made and PPI-SCI. There

was also a moderate, positive relationship between PPI-R Total and the number of

perseverative errors, with a trend towards significance (p = .09). There were no relationships

observed between PPI-FD, PPI-C and the number of perseverative errors made. For females,

there were no relationships between the number of perseverative errors and PPI-R Total, PPI-


FD or PPI-C. However, there was a significant negative relationship observed between the

number of perseverative errors and PPI-SCI. These significant findings were followed up

with separate mediated regression analyses for males and females.

Males. Given that a moderate relationship was observed between PPI-R Total, PPI-

SCI, and the percentage of perseverative errors, a hierarchical multiple regression was

conducted to predict the percentage of perseverative errors from the linear combination of

PPI-SCI, PPI-FD, and PPI-C. The assumption of normally distributed residuals was not met,

therefore a logarithmic transformation was applied to PPI-SCI, PPI-FD, PPI-C, SPM-P, and

WCST percentage of perseverative errors. This transformation was successful in achieving

the assumptions of the test, and the analysis was performed using the transformed data. PPI-

SCI was entered in the first step, and PPI-FD and PPI-C were entered in the second step. At

the first step, the results revealed that higher levels of PPI-SCI significantly predicted a

higher percentage of perseverative errors, b = 1.27, t = 2.90, explaining 31.80% of the

variance, R = .60, F(1, 15) = 8.44, p = .01. The addition of PPI-FD and PPI-C to the

regression model did not produce a significant change in 𝑅𝑅2, F(2, 13) = 1.36, p = .29. The

linear combination of PPI-SCI, PPI-FD, and PPI-C explained 34.9% of the variance, R = .68,

F(2, 13) = 3.86, p = .03. However, within the regression model only higher levels PPI-SCI

significantly predicted a higher percentage of perseverative errors. To examine possible

mediating effects of intelligence, the results of the hierarchical regression analysis were

followed up with a mediated regression analysis. There was no mediating effect of SPM-P on

the relationship between PPI-SCI and the number of perseverative errors, b = .02, BCa CI

[.00, .07]. These results suggest that males with elevated levels of secondary psychopathy

have more difficulty switching strategies in response to changing task contingencies, and that

this effect is independent of intelligence.


Females. A mediated regression analysis was used to predict the number of

perseverative errors from PPI-SCI. The assumptions of normally distributed residuals and

homoscedasticity were not met and logarithmic transformations failed to address the

violations. Therefore, PROCESS’s ‘heteroscedasticity consistent standard errors’ tool was

used to control for any deleterious effects of heteroscedasticity (Hayes, 2012). The results of

the regression analysis were not significant, R = .11, F(1, 15) < 1, p = .77. Furthermore, there

was no mediating effect of SPM-P on the relationship between PPI-SCI and the number of

perseverative errors, b = .02, BCa CI [-1.67, .09].

N-Back Task

As can be seen in Table 10, there was decrease in the number of targets correctly

identified as the task difficulty increased from zero-back to three-back. A repeated measures

ANOVA was conducted on the total sample and confirmed that this difference was

significant, F(3, 96) = 72.33, p < .001. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons using a Bonferroni

correction revealed that participants identified significantly fewer targets in the two-back

condition compared to the one-back condition, t(1, 32) = 3.00, p =.03, and significantly fewer

targets in the three-back condition compared to the two-back condition t(1, 32) = 8.1, p <

.001. These findings demonstrate that the N-back task was successfully increasing the

working memory load across difficulty level.

The bivariate correlations presented in Table 11 show that there were no significant

relationships observed between performance on the N-Back Task (at any level of difficulty)

and any of the PPI-R scores for either gender. This suggests that psychopathy is not related to

attentional deficits in either males or females. This finding is consistent with previous

research on psychopathy and attention, with studies demonstrating unusual yet superior

selective attention in psychopathic individuals.


Self-Report Criminality Scale (SRCS)

Follow-up moderation analyses were conducted to see whether executive function

moderated the relationship between psychopathy and self-report criminality. Bivariate

correlations revealed that for males, antisocial behaviour was positively related to PPI-R,

PPI-C, PPI-FD, and PPI-SCI but the results did not reach statistical significance because of a

lack of statistical power. A similar pattern of results was found for females, with the

exception that antisocial behaviour was significantly, moderately related to PPI-FD. Because

the pattern of relationships for the male and female samples were the same, the analysis was

rerun using the combined sample. The results revealed that PPI-FD, PPI-SCI, and PPI-R were

significantly, moderately related to scores on the SRCS (r = .304, p = .01; r = .279, p = .02, r

= 295, p = .02, respectively). However, for both genders, the SRCS only displayed

nonsignificant, weak to moderate correlations with the executive function measures.

Interestingly, the pattern of relationships between the SRCS and the measures of executive

function differed across the two samples, and so the male and female data were analysed

separately.

Moderated regression analyses were conducted using the PROCESS tool (Hayes,

2012). Variables were centred prior to analysis and any potential issues with

heteroscedasticity were controlled using the heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors

function. For males, there were no significant moderating effects of executive function on the

relationship between PPI-SCI and SRCS (all ns). Additionally, there were no significant

moderating effects of executive function on the relationship between PPI-FD and SRCS (all

ns). For females, the results of the moderation analyses revealed no significant moderation of

any of the executive function measures on the relationship between PPI-FD and SRCS (all

ns). Furthermore, there were no moderating effects of executive function on the relationship

between PPI-SCI and SRCS (all ns).


Discussion


The primary aim was to empirically test two theories of psychopathy: the dual process

model and the successful psychopathy model. Whilst both theories attempt to explain the

differential manifestation of psychopathy in criminal versus noncriminal samples, they differ

with respect to the neurobiological mechanisms that underlie criminal versus noncriminal

psychopathy. In line with the claims of the successful psychopathy model, Gao and Raine

(2010) suggest that criminal and noncriminal psychopaths are differentiated by executive

functioning. According to their hypothesis, criminal psychopaths are characterised by

executive dysfunction which places them at greater risk for overt criminal offending. In

contrast, noncriminal or ‘successful’ psychopaths possess intact or superior executive

functioning, which acts as a protective mechanism against criminal offending. From this

perspective, executive function is hypothesised to moderate the expression of antisocial

behaviour in psychopathy.

On the other hand, the dual process model claims that psychopathy cannot be

considered a unitary syndrome, but rather a confluence of two etiologically distinct

syndromes. From this perspective, primary psychopathy arises from a deficit in the brain’s

defensive motivational system, manifesting as trait fearlessness. Secondary psychopathy is

hypothesised to stem from a dysfunction in brain regions responsible for higher order

processes, placing an individual at risk for criminal offending. According to the dual process

model, individuals can present with elevated levels of primary and secondary psychopathy, or

elevated levels on only primary or secondary psychopathy. In this conceptualisation, the

criminal psychopath presents with elevated levels of both dimensions. However, the

noncriminal psychopath presents with only elevated levels of primary psychopathy, with low

or average levels of secondary psychopathy. From this perspective, primary psychopathy


would be associated with intact executive functioning. In contrast, secondary psychopathy

would be characterised by executive dysfunction.

This study aims to examine the relationships between primary and secondary

psychopathy and executive function, whilst also testing for moderating effects of executive

function on the relationship between psychopathy and antisocial behaviour. This was

achieved by utilising several commonly used measures of executive function and examining

their relationship with psychopathy and criminal behaviour in a community sample.

Following the dual process model, it was hypothesised that primary psychopathy would be

associated with intact executive function. In contrast, it was hypothesised that secondary

psychopathy would be predictive of executive dysfunction. In line with the successful

psychopathy model, it was hypothesised that the degree of executive dysfunction would

moderate the relationship between secondary psychopathy and antisocial behaviour.

In addition to theory testing, the secondary aim of this study was to address the

demographic inconsistencies between criminal and noncriminal studies, with a particular

focus on exploring possible gender differences in the relationship between psychopathy and

executive function. Given that previous research has found some gender differences in the

expression of psychopathy, it was hypothesised that there would be gender differences in the

relationship between psychopathy, executive function, and criminality. Furthermore, because

there is some evidence that measures of executive function and measures of intelligence tap

the same underlying construct, intelligence was included as a possible mediating factor.

Key Findings

These findings provide partial support for the dual process model of psychopathy. For

both males and females, primary psychopathy was associated with intact performance on all

measures. Interesting, for females, primary psychopathy was predictive of superior response


inhibition and this effect was independent of intelligence. However, support for the dual

process model was dependent on gender. This finding supports the hypothesis regarding

gender differences in the manifestation of psychopathy. It is interesting to note that there

were no gender differences in intelligence or performance on the measures of executive

function that could explain the differential findings for gender on the relationship between

psychopathy and executive function. Furthermore, although the majority of participants in the

female sample were students, males in current sample had higher levels of education than the

females, suggesting that level of education cannot explain the gender differences observed.

Given the gender differences, discussion of the key findings are presented separately for

males and females.

Males. For males, the results provide partial support for the dual process model, with

secondary psychopathy associated with poorer performance on some, but not all, measures of

executive function. Specifically, higher levels of secondary psychopathy were related to, or

predictive of, poorer planning ability and cognitive flexibility. However, higher levels of

secondary psychopathy were not related to working memory function or response inhibition.

The finding of intact response inhibition in secondary psychopathy is consistent with two

previous studies on response inhibition in secondary psychopathy using a noncriminal sample

(Carlson & Thái, 2010; Lynam et al., 1999).

In contrast, two other studies have found that individuals with higher levels of

secondary psychopathy displayed greater errors of commission on a Flanker task (Sellbom &

Verona, 2007) and longer stop-signal reaction times (Heritage & Benning, 2013). However,

in both these studies, the relationships observed between secondary psychopathy and

response disinhibition were weak (r = .25 - .32). Given that the sample sizes used in previous

studies were much larger than the sample used in the current study, the lack of replication in

the current study may reflect problems with statistical power. Nevertheless, given the weak


relationships observed between secondary psychopathy and response disinhibition across all

four studies, response disinhibition may not be a hallmark feature of secondary psychopathy

in noncriminal samples.

This appears to the case for working memory function also, with the results showing

intact working memory function in secondary psychopathy. This finding is consistent with

previous research using undergraduate (Sellbom & Verona, 2007; Snowden et al., 2013) and

criminal samples (Hansen et al., 2007). Taken together, these findings suggest that secondary

psychopathy is not characterised by global executive function deficits, but rather by specific

executive function deficits. The results suggest that males with higher levels of secondary

psychopathy have more difficulty planning a sequence of events, with worse overall

performance and longer execution times on the Tower of London. Furthermore, intelligence

only partially mediated the effects of psychopathy on performance, with a direct effect

observed for overall score and execution time. These findings are consistent with previous

research in an undergraduate sample, which showed that performance on the WISC-III Mazes

was significantly different for primary versus secondary psychopathy (Sellbom & Verona,

2007). In Sellbom and Verona’s study, primary psychopathy was associated with better

planning ability, whilst secondary psychopathy was associated with poorer planning ability.

Taken together, these findings highlight the importance of examining primary and secondary

variants separately. This is particularly important given that previous research on planning

ability using global psychopathy scores has produced inconsistent findings.

Similar to other studies in both criminal and noncriminal populations, global

psychopathy was associated perseverative responding on the WCST (Kim & Jung, 2014;

Lapierre et al., 1995; Yang et al., 2011). However, other studies have generally failed to parse

psychopathy into primary and secondary variants. The results show that when the relationship

between perseverative errors and primary and secondary psychopathy is examined separately,


only secondary psychopathy is significantly related to perseverative responding. Furthermore,

this effect is not mediated by intelligence This finding is consistent with Sellbom and Verona

(2007) findings, and highlights the importance of examining the psychopathy variants

separately. It also finding provides support for the dual process model, by showing that males

with higher levels of primary psychopathy have intact set-shifting abilities, but that those

higher on secondary psychopathy have problems with cognitive flexibility.

Taken together, the results provide partial support for the claims of the dual process

model, with primary psychopathy not related to performance on any of the measures of

executive function. In line with the claims of the dual process model, secondary psychopathy

was associated with some deficits in executive functioning. However, the results from this

study showed that support for the dual process model was specific to the male sample.

Females with elevated levels of secondary psychopathy did not display the same pattern of

executive function deficits predicted by the dual process model.

Females. While for males, secondary psychopathy was related to poorer performance

on tasks assessing planning and set-shifting abilities, for females, higher levels of secondary

psychopathy significantly predicted better performance, as shown on the Tower of London.

Furthermore, as shown by the finding that secondary psychopathy was negatively related to

execution times, higher levels of secondary psychopathy in females was related to faster

completion times. There were no mediating effects of intelligence for females. It is

interesting to observe that the pattern of relationships between secondary psychopathy and

performance on the Tower of London are opposite for males and females. This finding may

explain why previous research has produced inconsistent findings. As discussed previously,

criminal samples contain only male participants and reveal a deficit in planning for

psychopathy. On the other hand, noncriminal samples have a mix of male and female

participants and reveal intact performance on planning tasks. For example, Salnaitis et al.


(2011) found that undergraduate participants who scored high on psychopathy performed

better on the Tower of Hanoi than low and medium psychopathy scorers. Interestingly, in

contrast to criminal offender samples, the sample was predominately female (73%).

Therefore, it is plausible that the inconsistency in findings for a planning deficit in

psychopathy across criminal and noncriminal samples is because of gender differences in the

manifestation of psychopathy.

This pattern of superior or intact performance for females with elevated levels of

secondary psychopathy was observed for all the executive function tasks. Although not

significant, secondary psychopathy was negatively related to stop-signal reaction times, and

unrelated to performance on the N-back task, indicating intact response inhibition and

working memory function. Furthermore, the bivariate correlations revealed that higher levels

of secondary psychopathy were significantly negatively related to the percentage of

perseverative errors on the WCST. This finding is in contrast to that found for males, and

indicates that females with elevated levels of secondary psychopathy have superior set-

shifting abilities. Taken together, these findings suggest that current theoretical models of

psychopathy do not adequately explain the manifestation of psychopathy in women.

A possible reason for the differences in performance for males and females with

secondary psychopathy may have to do with gender stereotypes and the role they play in the

performance of females on tests of ability and intelligence. For example, previous research

has shown that ‘stereotype threat’ negatively affects performance on tests for females and

other minority groups (Nguyen & Ryan, 2008). Stereotype threat refers to the psychological

phenomenon where negative group stereotypes negatively impact performance on ability tests

(Steele, 1997). Many social-cognitive theories have been proposed to explain how gender

stereotypes are formed and maintained, including the gender schema theory (Bem, 1981), the

social-cognitive theory (Bussey & Bandura, 1999), and the cognitive-developmental theory


(Kohlberg, 1966). However, a central tenet of each theory is the role of socio-cultural and

cognitive influences in the formation and maintenance of gender roles.

Gender roles are defined as the roles that society assigns to men and women based

upon biological sex, and include the types of responsibilities, behaviours, attitudes,

personality traits, and skills that are appropriate for each sex. Generally speaking, masculine

stereotypes emphasise independence, competitiveness, physical strength and ability,

emotional ‘toughness’, and a natural intelligence. On the other hand, feminine stereotypes

emphasise social connectedness, empathy, compliance, physical ‘fairness’, and intellectual

inferiority. There exists a masculine hegemony where traditionally ‘male’ qualities are

superior and the male experience is the normative standard. These stereotypes are reinforced

by the media (R. Collins, 2011; Lauzen, Dozier, & Horan, 2008; Ward, 2002), parents

(Tenenbaum & Leaper, 2002; Tomasetto, Alparone, & Cadinu, 2011), teachers (Gunderson,

Ramirez, Levine, & Beilock, 2012), and peers (Kessels, 2005). This perspective of male

superiority has negatively impacted women, resulting in negative body image and negative

self-evaluations of physical ability (Hively & El-Alayli, 2014; Slater & Tiggemann, 2011);

lower participation in traditionally masculine enterprises, such as math and science (Nosek et

al., 2009; Schmader, Johns, & Barquissau, 2004); and poorer performance on a range of

ability tests (Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003; Schmader & Johns, 2003; Schmader, Johns, &

Forbes, 2008; Sekaquaptewa & Thompson, 2003).

For example, Schmader (2002) examined the influence of gender roles and stereotype

threat on math performance. Using a sample of male and female undergraduates, they

examined the moderating effects of gender identity on male and female math performance.

When females strongly identified with the feminine gender role, and their gender identity was

manipulated to be relevant to performance, their performance was worse than their male

counterparts. This effect was not observed for women with low levels of feminine gender


identification, with these women performing similarly to men. However, when gender

identity was not linked to performance women, regardless of gender identity, performed

equally as well as the men. There were no effects of gender identity on men’s math

performance. These findings show how gender roles and stereotype threat affect women’s

performance on ability tests.

Given that the measure of secondary psychopathy used here reflects

unconventionality and a defiance of societal norms, it is plausible that a flouting of traditional

gender identity roles in females with secondary psychopathy acts as protective mechanism

against gender stereotype threat. This hypothesis may also explain the superior performance

on the stop-signal reaction task for females with higher levels of primary psychopathy. This

is because one of the ways that stereotype threat affects performance is through increased

levels of test anxiety (Osborne, 2007). Therefore, it is plausible that females with higher

levels of primary psychopathy may identify with gender stereotypes, but that this does not

impact performance because of their innate fearlessness and stress immunity. Therefore, it

may be that primary and secondary psychopathy confer some advantages for females,

particularly in relation to performance on ability tests. However, this hypothesis requires

testing in future research on psychopathy in females. One possible avenue for future research

could be to employ a measure of gender identity and examine possible moderating effects on

the relationship between psychopathy and performance on tests of executive function.

Research has shown that gender identity moderates the performance of women on tests of

mathematical ability (Schmader, 2002). It is plausible that this may also be true for

performance on tasks of executive function.

Psychopathy, Executive Function, and Self-Report Criminality

In addition to testing the dual process model of psychopathy, this study examined the

successful model of psychopathy by examining the possible moderating role of executive


function on the relationship between criminality and self-report criminality. The results do

not provide support for the successful psychopathy model, as executive function did not

moderate the relationship between primary or secondary psychopathy and self-reported

criminal behaviour. Instead, the results suggest that the dual process model of psychopathy

may explain the differential relationships between primary and secondary psychopathy and

executive function. However, this was only true for the male participants. The results from

this study indicate that current theoretical models of psychopathy do not adequately explain

female psychopathy, with no support for the dual process or successful psychopathy model.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Although the aim was to make comparisons between criminal samples and this study

easier by controlling for age and gender differences, there are still other differences (e.g.,

drug use, socioeconomic status, education level, etcetera) that make comparison between the

two samples difficult. Future research may consider examining psychopathy in criminal and

noncriminal samples, including an examination of the possible mediating role of substance

use, socioeconomic status, and education level in the relationship between psychopathy and

executive function. The findings for the male participants support the pattern of relationships

observed for both criminal and noncriminal samples, with primary psychopathy related to

intact or superior functioning and secondary psychopathy related to some types of executive

dysfunction. This finding highlights the importance of examining psychopathy variants

separately. Inconsistencies across previous studies of executive dysfunction in psychopathy

may be because of the way that psychopathy was conceptualised and measured (e.g., different

measures of psychopathy, different samples, and unitary versus variant conceptualisations).

In order to gain a better understanding of the relationship between psychopathy and executive

function, future research should ensure that the psychopathy variants are examined

separately.


Whilst the findings for males supported the dual process model, the results revealed

that this model did not adequately explain female psychopathy. Indeed, neither the dual

process nor successful model of psychopathy adequately explained the results for

psychopathic women in the current study, indicating that current theoretical models based

predominately on male psychopathy do not generalise to female psychopathy. Given that

psychopathy presents with less nefarious manifestations in females, future research should

examine female psychopathy to determine whether the mechanisms that produce this

difference could be utilised in the treatment and management of male psychopathy.

There is one final limitation to note, and that is that the sample size was small and

consequently the analyses, particularly the regression analyses, may have been

underpowered. Although the sample size here is similar to previous research (see Table 9),

future studies using larger sample sizes would be better equipped to examine the possible

moderating role of executive function in the psychopathy-criminality nexus, and the possible

moderating role of gender.

Chapter Summary

According to the dual process model, primary and secondary variants arise from two

distinct processes, with primary psychopathy characterised by emotional dysfunction and

secondary psychopathy characterised by executive dysfunction. These findings provided

partial support for the dual process model, but only males. Future research could examine the

dual process model in relation to emotion deficits, including an examination of possible

gender differences. As previously mentioned, research has consistently demonstrated

differences in emotional processing as a function of gender. For example, previous research

has demonstrated gender differences in the judgment of facial affect (Thayer & Johnsen,

2000), including increased physiological reactivity to facial affect for females over males

(Dimberg & Lundquist, 1990); gender differences in the experience of emotion (Fischer et


al., 2004); gender differences demonstrating increased emotional expressiveness for females

(Kring & Gordon, 1998); and gender differences in affective priming (Gohier et al., 2011).

Given the gender differences observed for executive functioning in psychopathy, and the

research on gender differences in emotion processing, it would be interesting to see whether

gender differences also exist for emotion processing in psychopathy. According to the dual

process model, primary psychopathy arises from dysfunctional motivational systems,

resulting in a paucity of fear and anxiety. However, the findings from this study suggest that

models of psychopathy based on males do not generalise to females. Therefore, the final

study of this thesis tests the dual process model of psychopathy for emotion deficits, with a

particular focus on examining gender differences.

Chapter Five

Chapter Overview

The dual process model of psychopathy (Patrick & Bernat, 2009) suggests that

secondary psychopathy is the result of dysfunctional higher-order cognitive processing.

Consistent with this model, in Study 2 secondary psychopathy was related to poorer

performance on planning and set-shifting executive functions for males. However, females

with higher levels of secondary psychopathy displayed superior planning and set-shifting

abilities. In contrast, primary psychopathy was characterised by intact executive functioning

for both males and females. These findings indicate that current models of psychopathy,

developed to explain male psychopathy, do not necessarily extend to female psychopathy. A

further claim of the dual process model is that primary psychopathy is characterised by

emotional dysfunction (e.g., lack of emotional depth, and a lack of empathy, guilt or remorse

for personal transgressions) that is underscored by deficits in the brain’s motivational system.

However, as previously discussed, research to date has largely focused on criminal samples

and largely on men. Therefore, it is currently unknown not only whether the claims of the


dual process model regarding primary psychopathy extend to noncriminal psychopathy but

also whether they extend to female psychopathy.

Clinical descriptions of psychopathy emphasise a pattern of affective and

interpersonal abnormalities, including: a paucity of inhibitory emotions (i.e., empathy,

remorse, and guilt), a lack of emotional depth, fearlessness, and interpersonal

manipulativeness (Cleckley, 1941, 1948). This pattern of affective functioning led

researchers to examine whether deficits in processing emotional information and cues may

underlie the emotional symptoms observed in psychopathic individuals. There is now a

wealth of evidence that suggests psychopathy is characterised by abnormal affective

processing and reactivity.

Implicit emotional functioning is frequently measured using the lexical decision task,

previous studies employing this task in psychopathic criminal offenders have found abnormal

affective processing (e.g., K. S. Blair, Richell, et al., 2006; S. Williamson et al., 1991).

However, they have largely focused on male criminal offenders and have viewed

psychopathy as a unitary construct (i.e., psychopath vs. nonpsychopath). Addressing this gap,

this study examines affective and semantic processing in primary and secondary psychopathy

using a noncriminal, mixed gender sample to allow the examination of gender differences.

Emotion Deficits in Psychopathy

Lykken (1957) conducted one of the earliest investigations of affective dysfunction in

psychopathy when he examined the performance of primary and secondary psychopaths on a

passive avoidance test. Using a sample of male and female participants from a correctional

facility, Lykken found that primary psychopaths generated lower galvanic skin responses to


stimuli associated with punishment, and less avoidance of punished responses compared to

criminal controls (Lykken, 1957).

Research using a startle reflex paradigm has also revealed abnormal emotion

processing in psychopathic individuals. In the startle reflex paradigm, the startle reflex

(aversive reflex) can be augmented by the presentation of a visual prime before the startle

probe (a loud noise) (Lang et al., 1990). In healthy participants, positive primes (e.g., pictures

of romantic couples or babies) result in a reduced startle response compared to neutral primes

(e.g., a book or a pair of shoes), as measured by eye blinks using electrodes attached to the

face (Lang et al., 1990). In contrast, negative primes (e.g., images of victims of violent death)

result in an increased startle response (Lang et al., 1990). In psychopathic offenders, whilst

some reduction in startle reflex is observed after the presentation of positive primes, there is

significantly less augmentation of the startle reflex following the presentation of negative

primes (Patrick, 1994), suggesting a reduced response to negative emotional information.

Subsequent studies have produced consistent evidence of pervasive emotional

impairment in male, criminal psychopathic individuals. For example, Blair and colleagues

examined skin conductance responses to visual distress cues, threat cues, and neutral stimuli

in a sample of male criminals classified as psychopathic or nonpsychopathic (i.e.,

psychopathy as a unitary construct). They found that psychopathic individuals compared to

controls displayed hyporesponsivity to the distress cues, but intact responsivity to the threat

cues and neutral stimuli (R. J. R Blair et al., 1997). Further research suggests that this

emotional impairment may be specific to fearful or negative emotions. For example, some

research has shown that psychopathic individuals are selectively impaired in recognizing the

fearful facial expressions of others (R. J. R Blair et al., 2004), and this deficit appears to

extend across sensory modality. Using a male, criminal offender sample Blair and colleagues

(2002) examined the recognition of vocal affect (happiness, disgust, anger, fear, and sadness)


in psychopathic and nonpsychopathic participants. Psychopathic participants were selectively

impaired in recognizing fearful and sad vocal affect, committing significantly more

recognition errors than nonpsychopathic controls (R. J. R. Blair et al., 2002).

Williamson, Harper and Hare (1991) conducted one of the earliest studies into

abnormal processing of emotional information using a lexical decision task (LDT). On the

LDT participants are asked to identify, as quickly as possible, whether a string of letters

presented briefly on a screen (e.g., < 150 milliseconds) represents a valid word or a nonword

(e.g., Blerp). The LDT is an appropriate measure of affective function in psychopathic

individuals because the task assesses automatic/implicit processes rather than

strategic/explicit processes. This distinction is important in research on psychopathy because

psychopathic individuals are known for being conning and duplicitous. Previous research

using the LDT has shown that healthy adults respond faster to emotion words compared to

neutral words (Strauss, 1983). Williamson, Harper and Hare (1991) predicted that this

phenomenon would be absent in psychopathic offenders. Using a small sample of male

criminal offenders classified as psychopathic (n=8) and nonpsychopathic (n=8) by the PCL-

R, they examined responses to positive, negative and neutral words using a lexical decision

task. Whilst nonpsychopathic offenders responded faster to positive and negative emotion

words (compared to neutral words), the psychopathic individuals responded slower to

positive and negative words. Interestingly, on a post-experimental word rating task both

psychopathic and nonpsychopathic offenders rated positive words as good, and negative

words as bad. These findings indicate that psychopathic individuals have intact objective

appraisal of emotional information, but may process this information differently.

Alternatively, it could be that psychopathic offenders were rating the emotion words

according to how they believed other people would rate them. In either case, these and


similar observations support the use of implicit/automatic measures of emotional functioning

in psychopathic individuals.

Emotion Deficits in Primary and Secondary Psychopathy

Although most research on emotion processing in psychopathy has viewed

psychopathy has a unitary construct, some research has examined emotion processing and the

unique relationships between primary and secondary variants, revealing divergent

relationships between primary and secondary psychopathy and emotional impairment. For

example, Patrick et al. (1993) demonstrated that in criminal psychopaths the deficient startle

response was specific to high PCL-R Factor 1 scores (primary psychopathy), and was not

observed for high PCL-R Factor 2 scores (secondary psychopathy). These findings suggest

that different patterns of emotional reactivity may exist for primary and secondary

psychopathy.

Verona, Patrick, Curtin, Bradley, and Lang (2004) examined the relationships

between PCL-R assessed primary and secondary psychopathy and physiological reactions to

positive (e.g., baby laughing) and negative sounds (e.g., baby crying) sourced from the

International Affective Digitized Sounds system. The physiological measures of emotional

reactivity included skin conductance responses, heart rate reactivity, and corrugator (frown)

and zygomatic (smile) responses measured using electromyography. A sample of male

criminal offenders was classified as nonpsychopathic, high primary psychopathic (high on

F1, but low on F2), high secondary psychopathic (high on F2, but low on F1), and

psychopathic (high on both F1 and F2). Participants high in primary psychopathy displayed

lower skin conductance responses to all sounds (positive, negative, and neutral). Further,

those high in primary psychopathy did not show the expected skin conductance response

differentiation between positive, negative and neutral sounds observed in those high in

secondary psychopathy. An unusual pattern of HR was observed for the high secondary


psychopathy group across positive, negative and neutral sounds. Participants high on

secondary psychopathy displayed a similar decrease in HR for neutral and emotion sounds

found for high primary psychopathy, but only on the first block of the experiment. On the

second and third blocks they displayed a similar pattern of heart rate reactivity to the other

two groups, indicating intact functioning. The authors suggest this may indicate a delay in the

processing of the affective significance of sounds for those with secondary psychopathy. No

effects in regards to psychopathy were observed for electromyography activity. This study

provides some evidence of differential emotion impairment, with abnormal sympathetic

reactivity to emotional stimuli in primary psychopathy and generally intact functioning in

secondary psychopathy. These findings are consistent with more recent research which has

demonstrated reduced physiological reactivity to emotional stimuli in primary, but not

secondary, psychopathy (Casey, Rogers, Burns, & Yiend, 2013).

One study, in contrast to those discussed hitherto, found enhanced (rather than

reduced) emotion perception capabilities in primary psychopathy. Del Gaizo and Falkenbach

(2008) examined the unique relationships between primary and secondary psychopathy, the

ability to identify vocal and facial affect, and the experience of positive and negative

emotions in an undergraduate sample (female = 119, male = 56). Using the PPI to assess

primary and secondary psychopathy, those scoring highly on primary psychopathy displayed

a weak, negative correlation with errors in identifying fearful facial expressions. There were

no other relationships observed between primary and secondary psychopathy and the ability

to identify facial or vocal affect. In addition, those with primary psychopathy displayed a

moderate positive relationship with the experience of positive emotions and a weak, positive

relationship with negative emotions. In contrast, those with secondary psychopathy displayed

a moderate, positive correlation with the experience of negative emotions, but not positive

emotions. This study provides support for the notion of increased experience of negative


affect and lack of positive affect in secondary psychopathy. However, the findings suggest

that primary psychopathy is associated with superior ability to identify fearful facial

expressions, and intact experience of positive and negative emotions, at least in an

undergraduate sample. This may reflect the sample used (i.e., noncriminal) and could suggest

that the emotion deficits observed in criminal samples may not extend to noncriminal

samples. Alternatively, it could be that primary psychopathic individuals are capable of

emotion perception but lack the capacity to experience negative emotions (as indicated by the

weak relationship with negative emotionality).

Taken together, there is some evidence to suggest that primary and secondary

psychopathy present with different emotion processing capabilities and different experiences

of emotion. However, most research to date has utilized male, criminal offender samples.

Research that has used a noncriminal sample, notably Del Gazio and Falkenbach (2008),

reported divergent findings. More research is needed to establish whether psychopathy is

associated with emotional impairments and whether these impairments are uniquely related to

specific psychopathy variants (i.e., primary and secondary psychopathy), specifically outside

of a forensic environment. One promising area of emotion research is situated within the

language literature on affective and semantic language processing. The use of a language task

to assess affective deficits in psychopathy is particularly useful because it provides insight

into the emotional experiences of psychopathic individuals and their capacity to use

emotional information to make decisions.

Affective and Semantic Language Processing

The ability to use language to directly communicate our ideas and feelings with others

is perhaps one of the most fundamental traits of the human experience, and research has

shown that differences in how language is processed can provide important insights into our

psychological functioning. For example, research has shown that anxious individuals display


an attentional bias for negative word stimuli. Using a Stroop-task, Mogg, Bradley, Williams,

and Mathews (1993) examined subliminal effects of five types of words (anxiety words,

depression words, positive words, neutral categorized words [e.g., household items], and

neutral uncategorized neutral words) in a sample of anxious individuals, depressed

individuals, and healthy controls. Anxious individuals displayed greater interference for

negative words (combined anxiety and depression words), supraliminally and subliminally,

compared to depressed individuals and healthy controls. This suggests an early attentional

bias for negative information in highly anxious individuals. Similarly, Minor et al. (2015)

found that an analysis of language use was effective in predicting schizophrenic

symptomatology, suggesting that patterns of language use are useful in capturing clinically

relevant information. One commonly used language task for assessing implicit processing is

the lexical decision task (LDT). In the LDT, participants are asked to identify whether a

string of letters represents a valid word or a nonword (e.g., Blerp). The LDT has been widely

used to capture implicit and automatic processes, including cognitive bias for eating disorder

information (D. A. Williamson, 1996), implicit attitudes and racial prejudice (Wittenbrink,

Judd, & Park, 1997), and as an implicit alcohol expectancy measure (Campos-Melady &

Smith, 2012).

Altogether, there is evidence that the LDT can capture both emotional functioning and

psychopathology. A further advantage of using the LDT, is that the activation of affective and

semantic networks occurs automatically and subconsciously (see Balota, 1983; Neely, 1977)

and this is important because psychopathic individuals have a reputation for being

manipulative and deceitful. Thus, the LDT allows the assessment of implicit emotional and

semantic processing in psychopathy. Previous research using the LDT has demonstrated that

lexical decisions on a standard LDT and go/no-go LDT are faster for both positive (e.g.,

puppy, love) and negative emotion words (e.g., murder, cancer) compared to neutral words


(e.g., table, tissue) (Yap & Seow, 2014). The facilitation of lexical decisions to emotion

words can be explained by semantic-richness accounts which suggest that emotion words are

responded to faster because they are more familiar and meaningful (Pexman, 2012).

However, an interesting finding within the male, criminal psychopathy literature is the failure

of emotion words to facilitate lexical decisions (S. Williamson et al., 1991). Interestingly,

male criminal psychopaths display intact semantic processing (C. A. Brinkley, Schmitt, &

Newman, 2005).

Lexical Decision Task Research in Psychopathy

S. Williamson et al. (1991) was one of the first to use the LDT to assess affective and

semantic processes in psychopathic offenders. Since that time, several studies have utilised

the LDT to examine affective and semantic processing in psychopathy, with a pattern of

dysfunctional affective processing and intact semantic processing emerging (e.g., C. A.

Brinkley et al., 2005). In addition to examining reaction times for different word types, the

lexical decision task is commonly used to examine affective and semantic priming. A

consistent finding is that if word pairs are semantically related (e.g. sand/beach), then lexical

decisions to the second word (target word) are facilitated (e.g., Meyer & Schvaneveldt,

1971). That is, lexical priming is the facilitation in the detection or recognition of a word

through the use of prior information (McDonough & Trofimovich, 2009). Semantic priming

refers to the phenomenon in which the speed or accuracy in responding to a word is

facilitated when it is preceded by a semantically-related prime (e.g., butter-bread), rather than

a semantically-unrelated prime (e.g., butter-mouse) (McDonough & Trofimovich, 2009).

Affective priming refers to the phenomenon in which the speed or accuracy in responding to

an emotion-word (i.e., love) is facilitated when it is preceded by a prime with the same


affective valence (i.e., happy), rather than a prime with the opposite affective valence (i.e.,

fear) (Klauer & Musch, 2003).

Spreading activation models are the generally accepted model of priming. Although

several spreading activation models have been proposed (e.g., Anderson, 1976, 1983; Collins

& Loftus, 1975; Quillian, 1967) the common hypothesis is that when an item is retrieved

from memory it activates its internal representation, which in turn activates related concepts

and facilitates their retrieval from memory. Spreading activation models are closely linked to

network models of semantic memory. Network models of semantic memory suggest that

memory can be viewed as a network of nodes (concepts) that are interconnected by

associative links. When a word is presented (e.g. dog), the retrieval of the concept from the

semantic network activates related concepts (e.g. cat) and facilitates subsequent response

times to related words because they are already activated in the semantic network. Spreading

activation models provide a straightforward explanation of semantic priming by suggesting

that priming effects occur because a target word has already been partially activated by a

related prime word (A. M. Collins & Loftus, 1975).

Research employing a semantic priming LDT has demonstrated intact semantic

processing in male, psychopathic offenders. C. A. Brinkley et al. (2005) classified

participants has low anxious or high anxious using the Welsh Anxiety Scale (Welsh, 1956),

and as psychopathic and nonpsychopathic using the PCL-R. All participants performed

similarly on the semantic priming LDT, with responses faster to words that were preceded by

related words. There were no group differences regarding anxiety or psychopathy. Similarly,

they found that performance on a semantic Stroop task was the same for all groups, with

significant interference on trials where color-related words (e.g., grass, lemon, fire) were

written in incongruent colours. This finding demonstrates that psychopathic offenders,


including those low on anxiety (a hallmark of the Cleckley psychopath) possess intact

semantic processing.

Extending on this research, K. S. Blair, Richell, et al. (2006) demonstrated that male,

psychopathic offenders (n = 52) displayed intact semantic processing, but deficient affective

processing using an affective priming word categorization task and a semantic priming word

categorization task. Participants were classified as psychopathic or nonpsychopathic with the

PCL-R. The affective priming task consisted of negative emotion words, positive emotion

words, and neutral words. In congruent conditions emotion target words were preceded by an

affectively congruent word (e.g., love-song). In incongruent conditions target words were

preceded by a prime word with the opposite affective valence (e.g., hate-song). For the

neutral words, a neutral prime was paired with a positive or negative target word. Participants

were also asked to complete a word rating task in which they rated the words on a

pleasantness scale (seven-point Likert scale). The results revealed that the nonpsychopathic

offenders displayed significant facilitation in congruent conditions and significant

interference for negative targets that were preceded by positive primes. The psychopathic

individuals displayed no facilitation or interference for emotion words. However, consistent

with a previous studies (Kiehl, 1999; S. Williamson et al., 1991), psychopathic individuals

rated the positive and negative emotion words as similarly pleasant on the word rating task.

Follow-up correlational analyses revealed that both Factor 1 (primary psychopathy) and

Factor 2 (secondary psychopathy) of the PCL-R were related to longer reaction times on the

affective priming task. This could suggest that the affective and interpersonal features and the

impulsive-antisocial features of the PCL-R are related to deficient emotion processing.

Alternatively, given that partial correlations were not used, it could be that participants in the

sample who scored highly on Factor 2 also scored highly on Factor 1 and thus the findings

for Factor 2 represent shared variance.


The semantic priming task required participants to categorise words as belonging to

the category of fruit/vegetable or the category of animal. The congruent trials consisted of

congruent animal-animal (e.g., dog-cat) and fruit-fruit (e.g., apple-orange) word pairs. The

incongruent trials consisted of pairing animal words and fruit words (e.g., dog-apple) or vice

versa (e.g., lemon-cat). Both nonpsychopathic and psychopathic participants displayed

facilitation for congruent prime-target word pairs compared to incongruent prime-target word

pairs. Correlation analyses revealed that the PCL-R total score, PCL-R Factor 1, PCL-R

Factor 2 were unrelated to semantic processing. These findings indicate that semantic

processing is intact for individuals with psychopathy.

Demonstrating a similar finding of deficient affective processing, Lorenz and

Newman (2002a) found behavioural differences between psychopathic and nonpsychopathic

offenders on an affective priming task. Participants were classified as psychopathic or

nonpsychopathic using the PCL-R and then classified as low-anxiety or high-anxiety using

the Welsh Anxiety Scale (Welsh, 1956). This resulted in four groups: low-anxious

psychopaths, high-anxious psychopaths, low-anxious nonpsychopaths, and high-anxious

nonpsychopaths. Using a LDT, they examined behavioural responses to positive, negative,

and neutral words that were matched on frequency, concreteness, pronounceability, length,

number of letters, and imagery. Additionally, they also examined appraisal of the emotion

and neutral word stimuli using a word rating task where participants were required to rate

words on a 7-point Likert scale (anchors were 0 = bad, 4 = neutral, and 7 = good). They

found no differences between any of the groups in the appraisal of the word stimuli, with all

groups rating positive words highest, followed by neutral words, and then negative words.

However, they did find that nonpsychopathic offenders showed faster responses to emotion

words than neutral words and this facilitation effect was not observed in psychopathic

offenders.


An interesting finding is that the dysfunctional affective processing in psychopathic

offenders captured using the LDT may be underscored by abnormal physiological reactivity.

For example, Intrator et al. (1997) examined affective and semantic processing in a male

sample recruited from a substance abuse program, along with a healthy control group (who

they assumed were nonpsychopathic). The substance abuse users were classified as

psychopathic or nonpsychopathic using the PCL-R and this resulted in three groups;

psychopathic substance abuse, nonpsychopathic substance abuse, and healthy control. The

authors recorded behavioural responses (speed and accuracy) and cerebral blood flow (rCBF)

to neutral and negative emotion words using a LDT. Because this study used long stimulus

exposure times this made it unlikely that any group differences in behavioural responses

would emerge. However, the main purpose was to examine rCBF. Consistent with their

predictions, they failed to find any behavioural differences between psychopathic and

nonpsychopathic participants to neutral or negative emotion words, with all groups

performing similarly. However, they did find that psychopaths displayed increased rCBF to

the negative emotion words compared to both control groups. The authors interpreted this

finding as evidence that psychopathic individuals require additional resources to respond to

emotional information.

Similarly, Kiehl (1999) examined emotion and semantic processing in a small sample

of criminal offenders classified as psychopathic or nonpsychopathic using the PCL-R. They

found no differences between psychopathic and nonpsychopathic offenders for word

identification of positive and negative words. Furthermore, all participants regardless of

psychopathy status, responded faster to concrete words than abstract words in a LDT and

word identification task. However, the psychopathic participants displayed large negative

event-related potentials (ERPS) (N350) for all word types and this finding was absent in the

nonpsychopathic participants who displayed large positive ERPs. Kiehl (1999) interpreted


this finding as evidence that psychopathic individuals require more cognitive resources to

perform affective and semantic language tasks than do nonpsychopathic individuals, an

interpretation that echoes Intrator et al. (1997).

Taken together, there is evidence that male psychopathic offenders display difficulties

processing emotional information but have intact semantic processing. However, these

findings may only generalise to Caucasian, male criminal offenders. For example, some

research has shown that the impairments in affective processing on the LDT do not extend to

African-American offenders, or female offenders. Lorenz and Newman (2002b) replicated

their affective and semantic processing study (Lorenz & Newman, 2002a) with a group of

male, African-American criminal offenders. In contrast to the previous findings, they found

no differences in affective or semantic processing between low-anxious psychopathic, high-

anxious psychopathic, low-anxious nonpsychopathic or high-anxious nonpsychopathic

groups. Similarly Vitale et al. (2011) failed to find any differences between low anxious

psychopathic and nonpsychopathic female offenders on an affective lexical decision task.

Female offenders were classified as psychopathic or nonpsychopathic using the PCL-R and

anxiety was scored using the WAS. Additionally, participants were diagnosed with or with

Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) and this was used a covariate in the analyses. The

results revealed that participants with ASPD responded faster to emotion words than non-

ASPD participants, and no effects of regarding psychopathy. These findings suggest that the

emotion processing abnormalities observed in Caucasian, male criminal offenders may not

extend to Caucasian, female criminal offenders. The two aforementioned studies raise the

question of whether emotion processing deficits are limited to Caucasian, male, criminal

offenders.

There is only one known study that has examined lexical decisions in psychopathic

individuals recruited from a noncriminal sample. Using a male, undergraduate university


sample, Reidy et al. (2008) examined whether LSRP primary and secondary psychopathy

predicted reaction times to neutral, anger, sadness, fear or happiness words on a LDT. They

found that higher levels of secondary psychopathy, but not primary psychopathy,

significantly predicted faster reaction times (RTs) to anger words. Furthermore, higher levels

of primary psychopathy, but not secondary psychopathy, significantly predicted slower RTs

to sadness words. There were no significant findings regarding neutral words, happiness

words, or fear words. These findings indicate that the divergent relationships for secondary

and primary psychopathy and emotional reactivity may extend to male, noncriminal samples.

Furthermore, it appears as though different categories of negative words evoke different

responses depending on psychopathy variants.

Summary of Implicit Language Tasks in Psychopathy

A table summarising the findings from studies of implicit language tasks in both

unsuccessful and successful psychopathy is presented in Appendix 6. The pattern observed

from the studies suggests that psychopathic offenders display abnormal affective processing

(i.e., lack of responsivity) but intact semantic processing. However, this finding appears to be

specific to Caucasian, male, primary psychopaths. There have been no studies to date that

have examined affective and semantic processing using an implicit language task with a

noncriminal, community sample of mixed gender. Therefore, it is unknown whether

noncriminal psychopathic women will display the emotion processing deficits observed in

Caucasian men in criminal and noncriminal samples. Furthermore, there is some evidence

that emotion processing deficits on implicit language tasks are specific to primary

psychopathy. For example, as mentioned previously, Reidy et al. (2008) found that higher

levels of secondary psychopathy were associated with faster responding for anger words,

suggesting a facilitated response for certain kinds of emotion words. Additionally, Vitale et

al. (2011) found that females with ASPD displayed increased emotional facilitation effects.


Interestingly, ASPD is moderately correlated with Factor 2 (secondary psychopathy) of the

PCL-R (Hare, 1991). Therefore, it is plausible that intact or increased reactivity for emotion

words may be observed in females with secondary psychopathy. Furthermore, given that

there are no studies have examined the unique relationship between primary psychopathy and

affective language processing in females, it may be that the emotion deficits characteristic of

primary psychopathy in men, are absent in women. This may be because females are

socialized to be more empathetic and nurturing, thus emphasizing emotional intelligence in

females.

Another avenue for research would be to examine whether semantic processing is

intact for both abstract and concrete stimuli. Kiehl (1999) found that psychopathic individuals

displayed more errors for abstract words than nonpsychopathic individuals. K. S. Blair,

Richell, et al. (2006) suggest that this may indicate that intact semantic processing may only

be present for concrete words. Interestingly, Altarriba and Bauer (2004) conducted a word

rating task with undergraduate students and found that emotion words are considered less

concrete than abstract words. Further, emotion words were considered less imageable, more

difficult to think of a context, and less concrete than concrete words. Therefore, an interesting

extension of Blair’s rationale would be to examine how psychopathic individuals rate

emotion words in terms of characteristics known to facilitate responding, including context

availability, concreteness, and imageability. It may be that emotion processing deficits

captured by implicit language tasks actually reflect difficulties processing abstract stimuli.

The use of word rating task may also aid in the interpretation of any gender differences in

affective and semantic language processing in psychopathy. This is because previous research

has shown that females consider emotion words as having a greater emotional impact than

men and that women display a different pattern of brain activation to emotion words than

men (Bremner et al., 2000).


Study 3

The primary aim of Study 3 is to test the dual process model by examining implicit

emotion processing in primary and secondary psychopathy in a noncriminal sample. Given

that psychopathic individuals are known for being deceitful and manipulative, lexical

decision tasks using emotion words are particularly useful as they provide an implicit

measure of emotion processing through the assessment of automatic and subconscious

processes (Balota, 1983). Therefore, this study will examine implicit emotion processing

using a lexical decision task. Specifically, the study explores whether the impairment on

affective tasks seen in Caucasian, male psychopaths extends to noncriminal psychopathic

samples, including females.

Given that previous research has suggested that secondary psychopathy is associated

with faster responses for anger words (Reidy et al., 2008), and that ASPD is associated with

faster responses for both positive and negative emotion words in females (Vitale et al., 2011),

it is predicted that higher levels of secondary psychopathy will be related to larger priming

effects for negative words on the LDT, reflecting an increased sensitivity to negative

emotional information. It is further hypothesized that secondary psychopathy will be

unrelated to priming for positive words, reflecting intact emotional processing of positive

affective stimuli. Regarding primary psychopathy, for males it is hypothesized that higher

levels of primary psychopathy will be negatively related to priming for negative emotion

words. This is hypothesized to reflect the emotional impairment that is characteristic of males

with high levels of primary psychopathy by demonstrating that those higher on primary

psychopathy have difficulty using emotional cues. Previous research has demonstrated

differences in emotional processing as a function of gender (e.g., Dimberg & Lundquist,

1990; Fischer et al., 2004; Kring & Gordon, 1998; Thayer & Johnsen, 2000), and in Study 2

it was found that the relationships between psychopathy and executive function were


different for males and females, with higher levels of psychopathy predicting superior

executive function in females. Therefore, it is hypothesised that no relationships will be

observed between primary psychopathy and affective priming for females.

In regards to semantic priming, it is hypothesized that there will be intact semantic

processing for primary and secondary psychopathy in both males and females. However, if

semantic processing deficits appear, these are hypothesized to be specific to abstract stimuli

because, as previous mentioned, there is some evidence of abnormal processing of abstract

information in psychopathic individuals (Kiehl, 1999).

An additional aim of Study 3 is to examine explicit emotion processing in

psychopathy by using a word rating task. In male criminal offender samples, there is no

difference in word ratings for concrete, abstract or emotion words, indicating that explicit

processing of emotional information is intact. Using a word rating task, this study examines

whether this finding extends to noncriminal samples. Given that previous research has

demonstrated that psychopathic individuals appraise emotion words in the same way as

nonpsychopathic individuals, it is hypothesized that there will be no relationship between

psychopathy and word ratings. However, given that this is the first study to employ a

comprehensive word rating task for abstract, concrete and emotion words, it is unknown what

relationships might emerge regarding the ratings of concreteness, context availability,

imageability, valence and arousal in psychopathy.

Method

Participants

Thirty-five participants were recruited from the participant pool of Study 2 (18 males,

17 females). The mean age was 28 years (males M = 28 years, SD = 7.8 years; females M =

28 years, SD = 10.6 years). The sample consisted of students (51.4%), and individuals who

were employed full-time (28.6%), part-time (2.9%), or on a casual basis (8.6%); self-


employed (2.9%), or unemployed (5.7%). Participants with a previous history of psychiatric

or neurological illness, and/or regular use of psychiatric or neurological medication were

excluded from participating, as were those who did not speak English as their first language.

Materials

Demographic questionnaire. A brief demographic questionnaire was used to

measure individual difference variables, such as age, gender, ethnicity, level of education,

employment status, and handedness (RH/LH).

The Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R) (Lilienfeld & Widows,

2005). The Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R) is a 154-item self-report

questionnaire commonly used to assess psychopathy in noncriminal populations (Lilienfeld &

Widows, 2005). Each item consists of a statement that participants endorse on a four-point

Likert scale (anchors are 1= false, 2= mostly false, 3= mostly true, 4= true). The PPI-R yields

a global psychopathy score, as well as eight content scale scores: Machiavellian Egocentricity

(ME), Rebellious Nonconformity (RN), Blame Externalisation (BE), Carefree

Nonplanfulness (CN), Social Influence (SOI), Fearlessness (F), Stress Immunity (STI), and

Coldheartedness (C). Factor analysis of the scale reveals a two factor solution that is

consistent with other well-validated measures of psychopathy (Benning, et al., 2003;

Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). The scale has good internal reliability for the global

psychopathy scale with Cronbach’s alpha .92 (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). The temporal

reliability of the global psychopathy scale remains high at an average test-retest interval of

19.94 days (Cronbach’s alpha = .93) (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). A score for the Fearless

Dominance factor akin to primary psychopathy was obtained by combining the Fearlessness,

Social Influence, and Stress Immunity subscales. A score for Self-centered Impulsivity was

obtained by combining the Machiavellian Egocentricity, Rebellious Nonconformity, Blame

Externalisation and Carefree Nonplanfulness subscales. This was used as the measure of


secondary psychopathy. Although factor analytic studies have found that the Coldheartedness

factor does not load onto either the FD or SCI factors, this subscale was included in the

analyses as it represents characteristics that many consider to be central to psychopathy.

Word Stimuli. A total of 240 English language words were selected as follows:

concrete words (30 primes, 30 targets) whose meaning represented objects, materials or

people (e.g., chair) and/or had high concreteness ratings in previous research (Toglia &

Battig, 1978; Wilson, 1988); abstract words (30 primes, 30 targets) whose meaning did not

represent objects, materials, or people (e.g., metaphor), were not classified as emotion words,

and/or had low concreteness ratings in previous research (Toglia & Battig, 1978; Wilson,

1988); and emotion words (60 primes and 60 targets, with an equal number of positive and

negative words that were matched on valence and arousal) selected from the ANEW database

(Bradley & Lang, 1999). This resulted in a total of 120 prime-target pairs. All word stimuli

were matched on frequency (Brysbaert & New, 2009), word type (noun/verb), and word

length (see Appendix 7). The prime-target pairs were matched on mean strength of

association across the concrete, abstract, and emotion word conditions using the University of

South Florida Free Association Norms database (Nelson, McEvoy, & Schreiber, 1998) or the

Edinburgh Associative Thesaurus (Kiss, 1975; Kiss, Armstrong, Milroy, & Piper, 1973). The

complete list of word stimuli can be found in Appendix 8.

Pseudoword stimuli. A total of 120 pronounceable non-words were generated from

the target stimuli using the Wuggy pseudoword generator (Keuleers & Brysbaert, 2010). The

pseudowords were matched to the target word stimuli on length, subsyllabic segments (2/3),

transition frequency, and orthographic Levenshtein distance (OLD20). An additional set of

concrete, abstract and emotion words (120 words in total) were used as primes for the

pseudowords. This resulted in a total of 120 prime-target pairs. The prime words used in the

pseudoword condition were matched to the primes used in the word conditions on frequency


(Brysbaert & New, 2009), word type (noun/verb), and word length. In addition, concrete and

abstract primes were matched on concreteness and imageability to the primes used in the

word conditions (Toglia & Battig, 1978; Wilson, 1988), and emotion words were matched on

valence and arousal (M. M. Bradley & Lang, 1999). The complete list of pseudowords can be

found in Appendix 8.

Procedure

Testing was conducted individually in a quiet room. Participants were given an

information letter which detailed the nature of the research and participation requirements

(See Appendix 3 for information letter). The LDT was conducted first, followed by the word

rating task to avoid repetition priming effects. Participants then completed the demographic

questionnaire. Scores from Study 2 for the PPI-R were used in this study. The entire testing

session lasted approximately 90 minutes, including instructions and a practice block.

The Lexical Decision Task. A classic LDT (word/nonword) was used to assess

response times and error rates for concrete, abstract, and emotion word targets. The LDT was

conducted using Eprime software on a computer connected to a flat screen monitor with a

screen resolution set at 1920x1080 pixels and a screen refresh rate of 60 Hertz. Participants

were seated comfortably in a quiet room. The letter strings were presented in black lowercase

letters on a white background. A standard qwerty keyboard was used to obtain responses

from participants to the letter strings. The ‘f’ and ‘k’ keys were labelled with either ‘word’ or

‘nonword’ and were counterbalanced across participants. Participants were instructed to

identify, as quickly as possible, whether the second letter string formed a valid English word

by pressing the relevant key. The full instructions for the LDT are presented in Appendix 9.

A typical trial began with a fixation point (‘+’) presented briefly in the centre of the screen

(500ms). Next, a prime word was presented in the centre of the screen for 125ms, followed

by the presentation of a blank screen (1000ms) and then the target word which was presented


for 100ms, participants had 1500ms to respond (see Figure 4). There was a 1900ms inter-trial

interval before the next trial began.

Figure 4. Example trial sequences: (a) congruent emotion word trial (b) incongruent

concrete word trial.

(a) 500ms 125ms 1000ms 100ms

(b) 500ms 125ms 1000ms 100ms

The LDT began with a practice phase of 20 trials, followed by the experimental

phase. In the experimental phase, each participant was given a total of 240 trials: 30 concrete,

abstract, and 60 emotion (30 positive, 30 negative) word-word trials and 30 concrete,

abstract, and 60 emotion (30 positive, 30 negative) word-pseudoword trials. There was an

equal number of word/pseudoword word trials. There was an equal number of congruent and

incongruent prime-target trials for each word type and the trials were presented in random

order. In the concrete and abstract conditions, the prime words were counterbalanced across

participants so that the same prime words were used in both the related and unrelated

conditions (McNamara, 2005). In the emotion word condition, the primes used in the

affectively congruent prime-target pairs were re-paired with a word of the opposite affective

valence to form the incongruent prime-target pair. Participants completed the trials in blocks

of 80 (a total of three blocks) and the blocks were presented in random order. Participants

were given a 2-minute rest break between blocks. The lexical decision task lasted

approximately 25 minutes.

Word rating task. A computerized word rating task was used to obtain ratings for

concrete, abstract and emotion words on concreteness, imageability and context availability


using a 7-point Likert scale. Concreteness refers to the degree to which a word represents a

physical or perceivable entity. Imageability refers to the ease with which a word evokes

mental imagery, sound, or experience. Context availability refers to how easy it is to think of

a context for a given word. Emotion words were also rated on valence and arousal. Valence

refers to how positive or negative a word is and arousal refers to how stimulating or alerting a

word is. Concrete, abstract and emotion words were randomly presented throughout the word

rating task to control for fatigue and order effects. Participants were provided with clear

instructions for each word characteristic (e.g., context-availability) on the word rating task

and these instructions were in line with previous research (Paivio, Yuille, & Madigan, 1968)

(See Appendix 10 for complete instructions). The word rating task took approximately 40

minutes to complete.

Design

A cross-sectional, correlational design was used to examine the relationships between

primary and secondary psychopathy and priming effects for concrete, abstract, and emotion

words. The predictor variables were primary and secondary psychopathy, as measured by the

Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R) (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). The

outcome variables were the word ratings of concrete, abstract and emotion words; and

priming effects for concrete, abstract and emotion word targets, assessed using the LDT.

Results

Data Screening

Data for the PPI-R from Study 2 was used for the analyses for Study 3 (see Chapter 4

results for data screening of the PPI-R). The RT data was screened and incorrect responses

(4.3% error rate), or responses less than 250ms (nil) or greater than 1000ms (0.8%) were

excluded from the data. Participants whose RTs on the LDT were greater than 2.5 SDs from

the mean were excluded from the LDT analyses (n= 1). Normality was checked separately for


males and females for the word rating and LDT data. The data for the word rating task and

LDT were not normally distributed. Therefore, nonparametric tests were used in instances

where violations of normality could affect the robustness of the statistical analyses.

Lexical Decision Data

The descriptive data for the RTs for positive, negative, abstract and emotion words on

congruent trials and incongruent trials are presented separately for males and females in

Table 14. Since analysis of variance (ANOVA) is considered robust to violations of

normality when group sizes are equal (Field, 2007), a 2 (relatedness) x 2 (gender) mixed

ANOVA was conducted for each word type to examine whether responses in congruent

conditions were faster than responses in incongruent conditions and whether this varied by

gender. For abstract words, there was no significant difference between responses for

congruent compared to incongruent conditions (F (1, 32) = 1.32, p = .25, 𝜂𝜂𝑝𝑝2 = .04) and no

interaction by gender (F (1, 32) = .41, p = .52, 𝜂𝜂𝑝𝑝2 = .01). For concrete words, there was no

significant difference between responses for congruent compared to incongruent conditions

(F (1, 32) = 2.30, p = .13, 𝜂𝜂𝑝𝑝2 = .06) and no interaction by gender (F (1, 32) = .07, p = .78, 𝜂𝜂𝑝𝑝2

= .002). This indicates that there were no priming effects for abstract or concrete words. For

positive emotion words, there was a significant difference between congruent (M = 556.90,

SD = 12.44) and incongruent conditions (M = 581.44, SD = 11.62), F (1, 32) = 19.41, p

<.001, 𝜂𝜂𝑝𝑝2 = .38, a large effect. This was the same for males and females, with no significant

interaction for word by gender (F (1, 32) = 1.09, p = .30, 𝜂𝜂𝑝𝑝2 = .03. This indicates that RTs

were faster in congruent conditions (i.e., positive, positive) compared to incongruent

conditions (i.e., negative, positive) and that this was the same for males and females. For

negative emotion words, there was a significant difference between congruent (M = 578.85,

SD = 10.56) and incongruent conditions (M = 558.85, SD = 11.36), F (1, 32) = 12.29, p =

.001, 𝜂𝜂𝑝𝑝2 = .27, a large effect. This was the same for males and females, with no significant


interaction for word by gender (F (1, 32) = .71, p = .40, 𝜂𝜂𝑝𝑝2 = .02. This indicates that RTs

were faster in the incongruent conditions (i.e., positive, negative) compared to congruent

conditions (i.e., negative, negative) and this was regardless of gender.

Table 14 Mean RTs for lexical decision responses, presented separately for each gender, on congruent and incongruent trials (Milliseconds)

Trial Male (n=17) Female (n=17) M SD M SD Positive Congruent 568 72 546 73 Positive Incongruent 586 58 577 77 Negative Congruent 583 60 575 63 Negative Incongruent 557 62 560 70 Abstract Congruent 606 70 581 66 Abstract Incongruent 609 74 594 71 Concrete Congruent 579 50 566 75 Concrete Incongruent 568 70 558 79

Psychopathy and Priming Effects

Priming effects were obtained for concrete, abstract, and positive and negative

emotion words by subtracting the mean RTs for the congruent trials from the mean RTs for

the incongruent trials. The descriptive data is presented in Table 15, greater values indicate

greater priming effects and smaller values indicate less priming.

Table 15 Priming effects, presented separately for each gender, for concrete, abstract and emotion words (in milliseconds) Male (n=17) Female (n=17) Measure M SD SE M SD SE Priming Effect Positive Word (RT)

18.70 38.34 9.29 30.38 25.30 6.13

Priming Effect Negative Words (RT)

-25.23 36.57 8.87 -15.44 30.81 7.47

Priming Effect Abstract Words (RT)

3.84 41.43 9.46 13.76 47.70 11.57

Priming Effect Concrete Words (RT)

-10.74 43.18 10.04 -7.93 28.01 6.79

Note: RT = Reaction Time in Milliseconds


Spearman’s Rho nonparametric correlations were conducted to examine the

relationships between psychopathy factors and priming effects for positive, negative, abstract,

and concrete word types. Table 16 displays the findings for both males and females.

Table 16 Correlations between Psychopathy Factors and Priming Effects for Males and Females

Note: * <.05, **,.01, # <.1

Regardless of gender, there were no significant relationships between the psychopathy

factors and affective priming, possibly because of a lack of statistical power given the small

sample sizes. However, a moderate negative relationship was observed between FD and

priming for positive emotion words, with a trend towards significance (p = .08). This

suggests that males with higher levels of primary psychopathy display less priming for

positive emotion words. This relationship was not observed for females, with a non-

significant positive relationship between FD and priming for positive words.

For males, SCI was strongly positively related to the concrete priming effect,

indicating that individuals with higher levels of secondary psychopathy displayed greater

priming effects for concrete words. There was also a moderate positive relationship between

FD and concrete priming effects, although this was only a trend (p =.07). These relationships

were not observed for females, but Coldheartedness was significantly positively related to the

Male (n = 18) Females (n = 17)

Measure SCI FD COLD SCI FD COLD

Positive Priming Effect

-.324 -.444# -.132

.178 .341 -.059

Negative Priming Effect

-.066 -.140 .199

-.067 .366 .137

Abstract Priming Effect

-.196 .029 .530*

.170 -.041 .362

Concrete Priming Effect

.609** .402# .032

.028 .299 .531*


concrete priming effect in females. In males, Coldheartedness was significantly positively

related to the abstract priming effect.

Word Rating Task

Table 17 shows the descriptive statistics for the word rating task separately for males

and females. Females and males both considered concrete words to be the most concrete,

followed by negative words, positive words, and then abstract words; concrete words to be

easier to think of a context, followed by emotion words, and then abstract words; concrete

words easier to image, followed by negative words, positive words, and then abstract words;

emotion words to be moderately arousing; positive emotion words to be positive and negative

emotion words to be negative.

Table 17

Mean word ratings for positive, negative, abstract and concrete words on concreteness, imageability, context availability, arousal, and valence

Male (n=18) Female (n=17) Measure M SD SE M SD SE Concreteness

Positive words 3.83 1.02 .24 4.06 .92 .21 Negative words 4.82 .90 .21 5.08 .89 .20 Abstract words 2.68 1.01 .23 2.70 1.05 .24 Concrete words 6.85 .14 .03 6.84 .29 .06

Context Availability Positive words 6.48 .51 .12 6.26 .72 .16 Negative words 6.45 .59 .14 6.57 .58 .13 Abstract words 5.91 .86 .20 5.26 1.37 .31 Concrete words 6.63 .58 .13 6.77 .33 .07

Imageability Positive words 5.47 1.03 .24 5.60 .73 .16 Negative words 6.00 .78 .18 6.18 .55 .12 Abstract words 3.69 1.40 .33 3.20 1.11 .25 Concrete words 6.83 .28 .06 6.92 .11 .02

Arousal Positive words 4.60 .86 .20 4.97 1.08 .24 Negative words 3.80 1.25 .29 4.61 1.32 .30

Valence Positive words 5.64 .38 .09 5.81 .55 .12 Negative words 2.45 .80 .18 1.81 .46 .10


Mann-Whitney U analyses were conducted to determine any gender differences in

word ratings (i.e., concreteness, imageability, context availability, arousal, and valence). The

only significant difference across the word rating categories was for negative words, which

were considered more negative by females (Mdn = 1.73, range = 1.87) compared to males

(Mdn = 2.15, range = 3.50), U = 61 p < .001, r = .54.

Correlations were conducted to examine whether psychopathy was related to the ways

in which the words were rated. Because the word rating data was not normally distributed,

Spearman’s Rho non-parametric correlations were conducted. The findings are presented

separately for males and females in Table 18.

Table 18. Correlations between Psychopathy Factors and Word Ratings for Males and Females

Note: *<.05, **<.01 CT = Context availability, C = Concreteness, I = Imageability, VAL = Valence, AR = Arousal, AB = Abstract, CON = concrete, POS = positive, NEG = negative.

Male (n = 18) Females (n = 17)

Measure SCI FD COLD SCI FD COLD

C-AB .106 .157 -.078 -.094 -.077 -.199

C-CON .186 .011 -.406 .160 .041 .096

C-POS .102 .313 .032 -.142 .026 -.031

C-NEG .110 .174 -.206 .103 -.065 .155

I–AB .142 .083 -.336 -.134 .026 -.305

I-CON -.010 -.016 -.486* -.170 -.015 -.172

I-POS -.044 .016 -.359 -.357 -.059 -.357

I-NEG -.107 .059 -.323 -.274 -.139 -.274

CT-AB -.004 .006 -.205 .128 .143 -.013

CT-CON .121 .322 .131 -.072 -.043 -.106

CT-POS -.229 -.046 -.149 .094 .179 -.018

CT-NEG .056 .212 -.076 .260 .058 .080

VAL-POS -.099 .008 -.601** -.039 -.346 -.173

VAL-NEG .415 .265 .494* .457* .518* .252

AR-POS .611** .775** .159 .063 .110 .010

AR-NEG .273 .385 .359 .380 -.062 .058


For males, Coldheartedness was moderately negatively related to imageability for

concrete words, strongly negatively related to valence for positive words, and strongly

positively related to valence for negative words. These findings indicate that males with

higher levels of Coldheartedness consider concrete words to be harder to image, positive

words to be less positive, and negative words to be less negative. Both Self-Centered

Impulsivity and Fearless Dominance were strongly, positively related to arousal for positive

words. This indicates that males higher on SCI and FD consider positive words to be more

arousing. For females, a moderate-strong positive correlation was observed between the

valence rating for negative words and both SCI and FD. This indicates that females with

higher levels of SCI and FD consider negative words to be less negative.

Discussion


The primary aim of this study was to empirically test the claims of emotional

impairment in primary psychopathy proposed by the dual process model of psychopathy in a

noncriminal sample. According to the dual process model, psychopathy consists of two

etiologically distinct variants: primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy (Patrick &

Bernat, 2009). Primary psychopathy is thought to result from aberrant neurological

functioning in regions of the brain responsible for emotion processes, specifically fear and

anxiety. Secondary psychopathy is considered to stem from impairments in brain regions

responsible for higher-order cognitive processes, resulting in disorganised and impulsive

behaviour. According to the dual process model, individuals can present with elevations on

either primary or secondary psychopathy, or elevations on both primary and secondary

psychopathy.

Following the claims of the dual process model, it was hypothesized that secondary

psychopathy would be characterised by intact or increased responsivity to emotional


information on a lexical decision task. Specifically, it was hypothesized that secondary

psychopathy would be positively associated with affective priming for negative words. In

contrast, it was hypothesized that the performance of individuals with primary psychopathy

would not be influenced by emotional information. Specifically, it was hypothesized that for

males, primary psychopathy would be associated with less priming for negative words. Given

that the results from the previous study found that the dual process model does not adequately

explain secondary psychopathy in females, it was predicted that primary psychopathy in

females would not be associated with priming effects for emotion words. A word rating task

was also included to examine whether primary and secondary psychopathy might be

associated with the ways in which emotion words, concrete words, and abstract words were

rated on attributes known to facilitate responding on lexical decision tasks.

Because some previous research has demonstrated that psychopathy may be

associated with dysfunctional semantic processing for abstract words, an examination of

word ratings and priming effects for abstract and concrete words types was included in the

study. It was hypothesized that there would be intact semantic processing for primary and

secondary psychopathy in both males and females. However, it was thought that if semantic

processing deficits were observed they would be for abstract words only.

Key Findings

Psychopathy and priming. There were gender differences observed in the

relationship between psychopathy and priming. For males there was a trend level moderate,

negative relationship observed between Fearless Dominance and priming for positive words.

The opposite relationship was observed for females with a non-significant positive

relationship found between Fearless Dominance and priming for positive words. No other

findings existed for affective stimuli.


With regard to semantic processing, Self-Centered Impulsivity was positively related

to the priming effect for concrete words, and a trend level relationship was observed between

Fearless Dominance and the priming effect for concrete words. This suggests that there does

not appear to be a deficit in semantic processing of abstract or concrete stimuli in a

noncriminal psychopathic sample. For females, there was a positive relationship between

Coldheartedness and priming for concrete words and abstract words. This suggests that

semantic processing is intact for females with high levels of the affective features of

psychopathy.

Psychopathy and word ratings. The results from this study revealed that for males,

Coldheartedness was related to lower ratings of imageability for concrete words, lower

valence ratings for positive words and high valence ratings for negative words. This means

that males high on the affective features of psychopathy consider concrete words as harder to

bring an image to mind, positive words less positive and negative words less negative. These

findings suggest that the affective features of psychopathy, such as callousness and a lack of

empathy, are related to differential appraisal of emotional information. This may indicate that

individuals high on the callous traits of psychopathy do not respond appropriately to

emotional information because of differences in the appraisal of the information rather than a

lack of responsivity. This finding is in contrast with that found in criminal offender samples,

where psychopathic individuals rated emotional words the same as nonpsychopathic

individuals (Kiehl, 1999; S. Williamson et al., 1991). However, the current study differs in

methodology, viewing psychopathy as a continuous construct as opposed to taxonomic.

Therefore, methodological differences may account for the discrepancy in the findings

between this study and those using criminal offenders. Alternatively, it could be that

similarities between offenders in the evaluation of emotion has obfuscated the findings of

differential appraisal of the valence of emotional stimuli in psychopathy.


Self-Centered Impulsivity and Fearless Dominance were related to arousal for

positive words. This means that males in this study with higher levels of primary and

secondary psychopathy considered positive emotion words to be more exciting than

individuals lower on primary and secondary psychopathy. These findings suggest appetitive

appraisal of positive emotion stimuli for males in both primary and secondary psychopathy.

Whilst previous research has examined valence ratings, this is the first study to examine

arousal for emotional words as a function of psychopathy.

For females, both Self-Centered Impulsivity and Fearless Dominance were positively

related to valence for negative emotion words. This means that females with higher levels of

primary and secondary psychopathy consider negative words to be less negative. This

indicates that both the interpersonal and lifestyle features of psychopathy in women are

related to differential appraisal of negative emotion information. This finding is in contrast

with the hypotheses for emotional appraisal in primary and secondary psychopathy for

women. However, given that there are no previous studies that have examined word ratings in

primary and secondary psychopathy using female participants these findings offer the first

insight into the appraisal of emotional language. The finding of differential appraisal of

negative emotion words in primary psychopathy is consistent with clinical accounts of

emotional impairment in primary psychopathy. This may suggest that the affective features of

primary psychopathy, considered by clinicians and researchers alike to be a key diagnostic

feature, are also characteristic of female psychopathy. The findings regarding secondary

psychopathy were not expected and suggest that secondary psychopathy in females is related

to differential appraisal of negative stimuli.

Summary of Findings

The findings from this study provide partial support for the hypotheses. It was

hypothesized that secondary psychopathy would be related to increased priming for negative


words, but no relationship with priming for positive words was expected for both males and

females. Consistent with this hypothesis, secondary psychopathy was not related to priming

for either positive or negative emotion words in either males or females, indicating intact

emotion processing. It was hypothesized that primary psychopathy would be negatively

related to priming effects for negative emotion words. This hypothesis was only partially

supported by the findings of this study with primary psychopathy not related to priming for

negative words. However, primary psychopathy in males was related to less priming for

positive emotion words, indicating that males with primary psychopathy may have

difficulties using positive emotion cues and information. This provides partial support for the

dual process hypothesis, which suggests that primary psychopathy is underscored by

dysfunctional neurological processing of emotional information. Interestingly, in some

instances, the explicit appraisal of emotional stimuli in this study did not correspond with the

implicit responses. This may be because males higher on primary psychopathy are

responding dishonestly. However, given that participation in this study was anonymous, the

motivation to do so is unclear. An alternative explanation is that males higher on primary

psychopathy have intact appraisal of emotional stimuli but have difficulties processing

emotional information. In contrast to males, it was hypothesized that primary psychopathy in

females would be unrelated to priming for negative emotion words and this hypothesis was

supported. This suggests that the dual process model of psychopathy does not adequately

explain female psychopathy.

Limitations, Implications and Directions for Future Research

This study possessed some limitations that may affect interpretation of the findings.

Firstly, despite the use of methodologically robust lexical decision task, the expected priming

effects for abstract, concrete and negative emotion words that have been found in previous

research were not found in this study. This cannot be explained by the word stimuli, as


participants in the current study rated words similarly to previous research on concreteness,

imageability, valence and arousal. However, this study did not examine the cue to target

strength for each of the prime-target pairs. It could be that the participants in this study did

not consider the prime-target pairs to be highly related. Future research could consider the

use of a discrete associate task to examine the prime to target strength of association. The

absence of clear priming effects makes interpretation of the relationship between

psychopathy and the priming effects difficult, as only one priming effect was found (i.e., for

positive words). Future studies may consider the use of an alternative implicit emotion task to

assess emotional processing in noncriminal psychopathy (e.g., affective priming using picture

stimuli). Secondly, this study was also limited by the small sample size, meaning that some of

the correlational analyses may have lacked statistical power. For example, a moderate,

negative correlation was observed between primary psychopathy and positive priming but

this did not reach statistical significance. Furthermore, given that results could change with

greater statistical power, the current findings should be interpreted with caution. The use of

larger sample size will make it easier to elucidate the relationships between psychopathy and

affective and semantic priming

Chapter Six

Chapter Summary

This program of research contributes to the current psychopathy literature by

addressing the scarcity of research on noncriminal psychopathy and female psychopathy,

whilst also examining the unique relationships between primary and secondary psychopathy

and criminality, executive function, and emotion processing. The key findings from each

study have been discussed in their respective chapters. Therefore, this chapter of the thesis

provides a summary of these key findings, along with a discussion of the implications for


current theories of psychopathy and some practical implications. The chapter concludes with

a discussion on future directions in psychopathy research.

Psychopathy and Criminality

Because there are few studies on the relationship between noncriminal psychopathy

and criminality in the general population, it was not known whether criminality was a key

feature of psychopathy or simply one manifestation. Some theorists have claimed that

antisocial behaviour is a defining feature (e.g., Hare, 1991; Hare & Neumann, 2010).

However, there was little empirical evidence for such a claim, with the majority of research

on psychopathy conducted in criminal offender samples and with criminal measures of

psychopathy. This obfuscated any clear interpretation of the relationship between

psychopathy and criminality. Furthermore, the exclusive use of male participants limits our

understanding of the nature and presentation of female psychopathy. Therefore, Study 1

sought to answer two research questions: (1) How central is criminal behaviour to the

construct of psychopathy; and (2) Is the relationship between criminality and psychopathy the

same for males and females? This was achieved by examining the relationship between

psychopathy and criminality in the community using noncriminal measures of psychopathy

and a mixed gender sample. Additionally, an examination of possible gender differences in

the psychopathy-criminality nexus was included to address the male bias in previous

psychopathy research. To the best of our knowledge, this was the first study to examine the

relationship between psychopathy and criminality using noncriminal measures in a mixed

gender, general population sample

The findings from Study 1 challenge the common assumption of both laypeople and

researchers that psychopathy equals criminality, and provides some support for Skeem &

Cooke’s (2010a) assertion that the current body of literature on psychopathy reflects

primarily unsuccessful psychopathy. These findings highlight the need to extend psychopathy


research to noncriminal samples, as such research may lead to the identification of protective

factors for individuals with psychopathy who are at risk of criminal offending. However,

there was evidence of gender differences between psychopathy and criminal attitudes, and

future research is needed to determine the mechanisms underlying gender differences in

psychopathy. One such direction could be to examine the extent to which psychopathic

females identify with the feminine gender role, and the extent to which gender stereotypes

influence criminal and noncriminal female psychopaths.

Executive Function

Study 2 extended theory testing of the successful and dual process models of

psychopathy by examining the relationships between primary and secondary psychopathy and

executive function in a mixed gender community sample. In line with the claims of the

successful psychopathy model, Gao and Raine (2010) suggest that criminal and noncriminal

psychopaths are differentiated by executive functioning. According to their hypothesis,

criminal psychopaths are characterised by executive dysfunction which places them at greater

risk for overt criminal offending. In contrast, noncriminal or ‘successful’ psychopaths possess

intact or superior executive functioning, which acts as a protective mechanism against

criminal offending. From this perspective, executive function is hypothesised to moderate the

expression of antisocial behaviour in psychopathy.

On the other hand, the dual process model claims that psychopathy cannot be

considered a unitary syndrome, but rather a confluence of two etiologically distinct

syndromes. From this perspective, primary psychopathy arises from a deficit in the brain’s

defensive motivational system, manifesting as trait fearlessness. Secondary psychopathy is

hypothesised to stem from a dysfunction in brain regions responsible for higher order

processes, placing an individual at risk for criminal offending. According to the dual process

model, individuals can present with elevated levels of primary and secondary psychopathy, or


elevated levels on only primary or secondary psychopathy. In this conceptualisation, the

criminal psychopath presents with elevated levels of both dimensions. However, the

noncriminal psychopath presents with only elevated levels of primary psychopathy, with low

or average levels of secondary psychopathy. From this perspective, primary psychopathy

would be associated with intact executive functioning. In contrast, secondary psychopathy

would be characterised by executive dysfunction.

In Study 2, two main research questions were addressed: (1) What is the relationship

between psychopathy variants and executive function in a community sample; and (2) Is the

pattern of relationships between psychopathy variants and executive function the same for

males and females? This was achieved by utilising several commonly used measures of

executive function and examining their relationship with psychopathy and criminal behaviour

in a community sample, separately for males and females. Furthermore, because there is

some evidence that measures of executive function and measures of intelligence tap the same

underlying construct, intelligence was included as a possible mediating factor.

The results from Study 2 did not provide support for the successful psychopathy

model, but provided partial support for the dual process model of psychopathy. For both

males and females, primary psychopathy was associated with intact performance on all

measures. Interesting, for females, primary psychopathy was predictive of superior response

inhibition and this effect was independent of intelligence. However, support for the dual

process model was dependent on gender. For males, secondary psychopathy was predictive of

poorer planning ability and a lack of cognitive flexibility and this was not mediated by

intelligence. This suggests some deficits in executive function for psychopathic males. In

contrast, for females, it was found that secondary psychopathy predicted superior planning

ability and cognitive flexibility and this was not mediated by intelligence. These findings

suggest that whilst the dual process model of psychopathy explains male psychopathy, it does


not adequately explain female psychopathy. Given these findings, the final study of the thesis

set out to examine the claims of the dual process model of psychopathy in relation to emotion

processing, with particular attention to gender differences.

Emotion Processing

Most previous research on emotion processing abnormalities in psychopathy has been

conducted using male, criminal offender samples. Therefore, it was suggested that the

patterns of emotion dysfunction currently observed in psychopathy may not generalise to

other psychopathic populations. Specifically, given the findings from Study 2, it was

suggested that the current psychopathy literature may not be applicable to female

psychopathy. In fact, given that a range of cognitive and emotion processing differences are

observed between males and females, it was suggested that some differences in cognitive and

emotional processing between male and female psychopaths may be expected. Therefore, the

aim of Study 3 was to test the dual process model of psychopathy, with a particular focus on

the examination of gender differences in affective dysfunction in psychopathy. Two main

research questions were addressed; (1) What is the relationship between psychopathy variants

and emotion processing in a community sample; and (2) Is the relationship between

psychopathy variants and emotion processing the same for males and females?

The results of Study 3 found some evidence of emotion processing deficits in primary

but, not secondary psychopathy, for males but not females. These findings provide partial

support for the dual process model of psychopathy for males and again highlight that current

theoretical models of psychopathy are unsuitable for female psychopathy. However, the

findings from this study should be interpreted with caution as we were unable to obtain

priming effects with the LDT, which limited our examination of emotion-processing deficits.


Theoretical Implications, Practical Applications, and Directions for Future Research

The findings from the three studies of this thesis have implications for the current

theories of psychopathy. Firstly, the assumption that criminality is central to psychopathy is

not supported by the evidence from Study 1, which is the only study to examine psychopathy

and criminality in a community sample with a noncriminal measure of psychopathy and a

consideration of gender differences. This finding, taken together with the lack of evidence in

the literature for criminality as a key feature, suggests that accounts of psychopathy that posit

criminality as a central feature need to be revised. Furthermore, these findings bolster the

claims by Skeem and Cooke (2010) that the current body of literature primarily reflects

research on unsuccessful psychopathy. Future research on psychopathy should focus on

examining psychopathy in a range of noncriminal populations (e.g., the general community,

corporate environments, etcetera) as research in these samples may lead to the identification

of protective factors and early indicators that can inform the treatment and management of

psychopathic individuals, both criminal and otherwise.

The second broad theoretical implication from these findings is that a dual process

account of psychopathy, as suggested by Patrick and Bernat (2009), best accommodates the

contradictory and often paradoxical research findings of both emotion deficits and cognitive

deficits in psychopathy. Furthermore, these findings suggest that the IES Model and RMH

may not be mutually incompatible, but complimentary accounts of psychopathy deficits in

primary and secondary psychopathy, respectively. The findings presented here suggest that

primary psychopathy is primarily characterised by emotion deficits, as predicted by the IES

Model and secondary psychopathy is primarily characterised by cognitive deficits, namely

executive dysfunction, as suggested by the RMH. This aligns with Patrick and Bernat’s

(2009) account, which brings together these competing theories and offers a possible

explanation for the contradictory findings of emotion deficits and cognitive deficits in


psychopathy when psychopathy is examined as a unitary construct. Taken together, this

highlights the importance of examining psychopathy variants separately in future

psychopathy research. Given these findings, it stands to reason that a broad treatment

approach for psychopathy may not be effective, and this could partially explain the failure of

previous approaches to the treatment of psychopathy. Given that primary and secondary

psychopathy are characterised by unique deficits (i.e., emotion deficits and executive

dysfunction, respectively), it seems reasonable to suggest that treatment approaches to

psychopathy should first focus on elucidating whether an individual is high on primary or

secondary psychopathy, or both, and tailor treatment approaches to address the primary

underlying dysfunction.

The final broad theoretical implication from the studies presented here is that current

theoretical models of psychopathy, designed to explain male psychopathy, do not explain

female psychopathy. The findings from Study 2, which is the first study to examine gender

differences in the executive function-psychopathy relationship, suggest that alternative

theories of female psychopathy are needed. Future research should focus on examining

female psychopathy, with the goal of elucidating possible gender differences in the

manifestation of psychopathy.


References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-

5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour (2nd Edition) Retrieved from

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/qut/docDetail.action?docID=10161279

Ali, F., Amorim, I. S., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009). Empathy deficits and trait

emotional intelligence in psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Personality and

Individual Differences, 47(7), 758-762.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.016

Altarriba, J., & Bauer, L. M. (2004). The Distinctiveness of Emotion Concepts: A

Comparison between Emotion, Abstract, and Concrete Words. The American Journal

of Psychology, 117(3), 389-410. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4149007

American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Diagnostic and statisical manual of mental

disorders: DSM-II (2nd ed.). Washington: American Psychiatric Association.

American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders: DSM-III (3rd ed.). Washington: American Psychiatric Association.


disorders: DSM-III-R (3rd revised ed.). Washington: American Psychiatric

Association.


disorders: DSM-IV. Washington: American Psychiatric Association.


disorders: DSM-IV-TR (4th., text revision ed.). Washington: American Psychiatric

Association.



disorders : DSM-5. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.

Anderson, J. R., & Douglass, S. (2001). Tower of Hanoi: Evidence for the cost of goal

retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,

27(6), 1331-1346. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1331

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2014). The psychology of criminal conduct (pp. 699).

Astur, R. S., Ortiz, M. L., & Sutherland, R. J. (1998). A characterization of performance by

men and women in a virtual Morris water task:: A large and reliable sex difference.

Behavioural Brain Research, 93(1–2), 185-190. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-

4328(98)00019-9

Australian Institute of Criminology. (2013). Australian crime: Facts and figures Retrieved

from http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/facts/2013/facts13.pdf

Bagshaw, R., Gray, N. S., & Snowden, R. J. (2014). Executive function in psychopathy: The

Tower of London, Brixton Spatial Anticipation and the Hayling Sentence Completion

Tests. Psychiatry Research, 220(1–2), 483-489. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.07.031

Balota, D. A. (1983). Automatic semantic activation and episodic memory encoding. Journal

of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(1), 88-104. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(83)80008-5

Baskin-Sommers, A. R., Curtin, J. J., & Newman, J. P. (2011). Specifying the Attentional

Selection That Moderates the Fearlessness of Psychopathic Offenders. Psychological

Science, 22(2), 226-234. doi: 10.1177/0956797610396227

Baskin–Sommers, A., Curtin, J. J., Li, W., & Newman, J. P. (2012). Psychopathy-related

differences in selective attention are captured by an early event-related potential.


Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(4), 370-378. doi:

10.1037/a0025593

Baskin-Sommers, A. R., Curtin, J. J., & Newman, J. P. (2015). Altering the Cognitive-

Affective Dysfunctions of Psychopathic and Externalizing Offender Subtypes with

Cognitive Remediation. Clinical Psychological Science: A Journal Of The

Association For Psychological Science, 3(1), 45-57.

Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). Insensitivity to future

consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50(1–3), 7-

15. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90018-3

Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). Emotion, Decision Making and the

Orbitofrontal Cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 10(3), 295-307. doi: 10.1093/cercor/10.3.295

Bechara , A., Damasio , H., Damasio , A. R., & Lee , G. P. (1999). Different Contributions of

the Human Amygdala and Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex to Decision-Making. The

Journal of Neuroscience, 19(13), 5473-5481.

Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. R. (1997). Deciding Advantageously

Before Knowing the Advantageous Strategy. Science, 275(5304), 1293-1295. doi:

10.2307/2892390

Beery, A. K., & Zucker, I. (2011). Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research.

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 565-572. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.07.002

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155-162. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0036215

Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological

Review, 88(4), 354-364. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354


Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Hicks, B. M., Blonigen, D. M., & Krueger, R. F. (2003). Factor

Structure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory: Validity and Implications for

Clinical Assessment. Psychological Assessment, 15(3), 340-350. doi:10.1037/1040-

3590.15.3.340

Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. G. (2005). Psychopathy, startle blink modulation,

and electrodermal reactivity in twin men. Psychophysiology, 42(6), 753-762. doi:

10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00353.x

Blackburn, R. (1975). An Empirical Classification of Psychopathic Personality. The British

Journal of Psychiatry, 127(5), 456-460. doi: 10.1192/bjp.127.5.456

Blackburn, R. (1988). On moral judgements and personality disorders. The myth of

psychopathic personality revisited.

Blackburn, R. (Ed.) (2005) Handbook of personology and psychopathology.

Blackburn, R. (2007). Personality disorder and antisocial deviance: Comments on the debate

on the structure of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Journal of Personality

Disorders, 21(2), 142-159.

Blair, K. S., Morton, J., Leonard, A., & Blair, R. J. R. (2006). Impaired decision-making on

the basis of both reward and punishment information in individuals with psychopathy.

Personality and Individual Differences, 41(1), 155-165.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V9F-4JJG9WY-

1/2/f28a7675ea171e2ec714948b354fcd39

Blair, K. S., Newman, C., Mitchell, D. G. V., Richell, R. A., Leonard, A., Morton, J., & Blair,

R. J. R. (2006). Differentiating among prefrontal substrates in psychopathy:

Neuropsychological test findings. Neuropsychology, 20(2), 153-165. doi:

10.1037/0894-4105.20.2.153


Blair, K. S., Richell, R. A., Mitchell, D. G. V., Leonard, A., Morton, J., & Blair, R. J. R.

(2006). They know the words, but not the music: Affective and semantic priming in

individuals with psychopathy. Biological Psychology, 73(2), 114-123.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T4T-4JKJT9D-

1/2/794b25973b6a61f1e996619d3666ca87

Blair, R. J. R. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to morality: investigating the

psychopath. Cognition, 57(1), 1-29. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00676-P

Blair, R. J. R., Colledge, E., & Mitchell, D. G. V. (2001). Somatic Markers and Response

Reversal: Is There Orbitofrontal Cortex Dysfunction in Boys with Psychopathic

Tendencies? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29(6), 499-511. doi:

10.1023/A:1012277125119

Blair, R. J. R., Jones, L., Clark, F., & Smith, M. (1997). The psychopathic individual: A lack

of responsiveness to distress cues? Psychophysiology, 34(2), 192-198.

doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.1997.tb02131.x

Blair, R. J. R., Mitchell, D. G. V., & Blair, K. S. (2005). The psychopath: Emotion and the

brain. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Blair, R. J. R., Mitchell, D. G. V., Peschardt, K. S., Colledge, E., Leonard, R. A., Shine, J. H.,

. . . Perrett, D. I. (2004). Reduced sensitivity to others' fearful expressions in

psychopathic individuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(6), 1111-1122.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V9F-4D2FH97-

1/2/4cfe37c14d087a0873b3b3d97d3c8b0f

Blair, R. J. R., Mitchell, D. G. V., Richell, R. A., Kelly, S., Leonard, A., Newman, C., &

Scott, S. K. (2002). Turning a deaf ear to fear: Impaired recognition of vocal affect in

psychopathic individuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(4), 682-686.

doi:10.1037/0021-843X.111.4.682


Blonigen, D. M., Carlson, S. R., Krueger, R. F., & Patrick, C. J. (2003). A twin study of self-

reported psychopathic personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences,

35(1), 179-197. doi: 10.1016/s0191-8869(02)00184-8

Blonigen, D. M., Hicks, B. M., Krueger, R. F., Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. G. (2005).

Psychopathic personality traits: heritability and genetic overlap with internalizing and

externalizing psychopathology. Psychological Medicine, 35(5), 637-648.

Boddy, C. R. (2011). Corporate Psychopaths, Bullying and Unfair Supervision in the

Workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(3), 367-379. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0689-5

Boddy, C. R. (2014). Corporate Psychopaths, Conflict, Employee Affective Well-Being and

Counterproductive Work Behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(1), 107-121.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1688-0

Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., & Millar, N. (1996). Implicit memory bias in clinical and non-

clinical depression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34(11–12), 865-879. doi:

10.1016/s0005-7967(96)00074-5

Bradley, B. P., Mogg, K., & Williams, R. (1995). Implicit and explicit memory for emotion-

congruent information in clinical depression and anxiety. Behaviour Research and

Therapy, 33(7), 755-770. doi: 10.1016/0005-7967(95)00029-w

Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective norms for English words (ANEW): Stimuli,

instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical report C-1. Gainesville, FL: The

Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.

Bremner, J., Soufer, R., McCarthy, G., Delaney, R., Staib, L., Duncan, J., & Charney, D.

(2000). Gender differences in cognitive and neural correlates of remembrance of

emotional words. Psychopharmacology bulletin, 35(3), 55-78.


Brinkley, C., Schmitt, W., Smith, S., & Newman, J. (2001). Construct validation of a self-

report psychopathy scale: does Levenson's self-report psychopathy scale measure the

same constructs as Hare's psychopathy checklist-revised? Personality and Individual

Differences, 31(7), 1021. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00178-1

Brinkley, C. A., Schmitt, W. A., & Newman, J. P. (2005). Semantic processing in

psychopathic offenders. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(5), 1047-1056.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.07.005

Broerman, R. L., Ross, S. R., & Corr, P. J. (2014). Throwing more light on the dark side of

psychopathy: An extension of previous findings for the revised Reinforcement

Sensitivity Theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 68(0), 165-169. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.024

Brown, S. E., Esbensen, F.-A., & Geis, G. (2010). Criminology: Explaining crime and its

context (7th ed.). New Jersey: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.

Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation

of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word

frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977-

990. doi: 10.3758/brm.41.4.977

Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and

differentiation. Psychological Review, 106(4), 676-713. doi: 10.1037/0033-

295X.106.4.676

Cale, E. M., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2002). Sex differences in psychopathy and antisocial

personality disorder: A review and integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 22(8),

1179-1207. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(01)00125-8


Campos-Melady, M., & Smith, J. E. (2012). Memory associations between negative emotions

and alcohol on the lexical decision task predict alcohol use in women. Addictive

Behaviors, 37(1), 60-66. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2011.08.010

Carlson, S. R., & Thái, S. (2010). ERPs on a continuous performance task and self-reported

psychopathic traits: P3 and CNV augmentation are associated with Fearless

Dominance. Biological Psychology, 85(2), 318-330. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.08.002

Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and

affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 319-333. doi: 10.1037/0022-

3514.67.2.319

Casey, H., Rogers, R. D., Burns, T., & Yiend, J. (2013). Emotion regulation in psychopathy.

Biological Psychology, 92(3), 541-548. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2012.06.011

Cazalis, F., Valabrègue, R., Pélégrini-Issac, M., Asloun, S., Robbins, T. W., & Granon, S.

(2003). Individual differences in prefrontal cortical activation on the Tower of

London planning task: implication for effortful processing. European Journal of

Neuroscience, 17(10), 2219-2225. doi: 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02633.x

Chan, R. C. K., Shum, D., Toulopoulou, T., & Chen, E. Y. H. (2008). Assessment of

executive functions: Review of instruments and identification of critical issues.

Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23(2), 201-216. doi:

10.1016/j.acn.2007.08.010

Chapman, A. L., Gremore, T. M., & Farmer, R. F. (2003). Psychometric Analysis of the

Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) With Female Inmates. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 80(2), 164-172. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA8002_05


Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity; an attempt to reinterpret the so-called psychopathic

personality. Oxford England: Mosby.

Cleckley, H. (1948). Antisocial personalities. In L. A. Pennington & I. A. Berg (Eds.), An

introduction to clinical psychology. (pp. 249-264). New York: Ronald Press

Company.

Cleckley, H. (1951). The mask of sanity. Postgraduate Medicine, 9(3), 193-197.

http://dlibrary.acu.edu.au/Scripts/ArielDoc.pl

Coid, J., & Yang, M. (2011). The impact of psychopathy on violence among the household

population of Great Britain. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 46(6),

473-480. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00127-010-0212-4

Coid, J., Yang, M., Ullrich, S., Roberts, A., & Hare, R. D. (2009). Prevalence and correlates

of psychopathic traits in the household population of Great Britain. International

Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32(2), 65-73. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.01.002

Collette, F., Van der Linden, M., Laureys, S., Delfiore, G., Degueldre, C., Luxen, A., &

Salmon, E. (2005). Exploring the unity and diversity of the neural substrates of

executive functioning. Human Brain Mapping, 25(4), 409-423. doi:

10.1002/hbm.20118

Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.

Psychological Review, 82(6), 407-428. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.82.6.407

Collins, D. W., & Kimura, D. (1997). A large sex difference on a two-dimensional mental

rotation task. Behavioral Neuroscience, 111(4), 845-849. doi: 10.1037/0735-

7044.111.4.845

Collins, R. (2011). Content Analysis of Gender Roles in Media: Where Are We Now and

Where Should We Go? Sex Roles, 64(3-4), 290-298. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9929-5


Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy: Towards a

hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13(2), 171-188. doi: 10.1037/1040-

3590.13.2.171

Cooke, D. J., Michie, C., & Skeem, J. L. (2007). Understanding the structure of the

Psychopathy Checklist – Revised: An exploration of methodological confusion. The

British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(49), s39-s50. doi: 10.1192/bjp.190.5.s39

Corr, P. J. (2004). Reinforcement sensitivity theory and personality. Neuroscience &

Biobehavioral Reviews, 28(3), 317-332. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.01.005

Corr, P. J. (2010). The psychoticism–psychopathy continuum: A neuropsychological model

of core deficits. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(6), 695-703. doi:


Culbertson, W. C., & Zillmer, E. A. (1998). The Tower of London DX: A Standardized

Approach to Assessing Executive Functioning in Children. Archives of Clinical

Neuropsychology, 13(3), 285-301.

http://acn.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/285.abstract doi:10.1093/arclin/13.3.285

Dadds, M. R., El Masry, Y., Wimalaweera, S., & Guastella, A. J. (2008). Reduced eye gaze

explains “fear blindness” in childhood psychopathic traits. Journal of the American

Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 47(4), 455-463.

Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. New York:

G.P. Putnam's Sons.

Damasio, A. R. (1995a). On Some Functions of the Human Prefrontal Cortexa. Annals of the

New York Academy of Sciences, 769(1), 241-252. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-

6632.1995.tb38142.x


Damasio, A. R. (1995b). REVIEW ■ : Toward a Neurobiology of Emotion and Feeling:

Operational Concepts and Hypotheses. The Neuroscientist, 1(1), 19-25. doi:

10.1177/107385849500100104

De Brito, S. A., Viding, E., Kumari, V., Blackwood, N., & Hodgins, S. (2013). Cool and Hot

Executive Function Impairments in Violent Offenders with Antisocial Personality

Disorder with and without Psychopathy. PLoS ONE, 8(6), 1-12. doi:

10.1371/journal.pone.0065566

De Luca, C. R., & Leventer, R. J. (2010). Developmental trajectories of executive functions

across the lifespan. In V. Anderson, R. Jacobs & P. J. Anderson (Eds.), Executive

funtion and the frontol lobes: a lifestyle perspective. New York: Taylor and Francis

Group.

Del Gaizo, A. L., & Falkenbach, D. M. (2008). Primary and secondary psychopathic-traits

and their relationship to perception and experience of emotion. Personality and

Individual Differences, 45(3), 206-212. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.03.019

DeMatteo, D., Heilbrun, K., & Marczyk, G. (2006). An empirical investigation of

psychopathy in a noninstitutionalized and noncriminal sample. Behavioral Sciences &

the Law, 24(2), 133-146. doi: 10.1002/bsl.667

Dimberg, U., & Lundquist, L.-O. (1990). Gender differences in facial reactions to facial

expressions. Biological Psychology, 30(2), 151-159. doi: 10.1016/0301-

0511(90)90024-q

Dolan, M. (2012). The neuropsychology of prefrontal function in antisocial personality

disordered offenders with varying degrees of psychopathy. Psychological Medicine,

42(08), 1715-1725. doi: doi:10.1017/S0033291711002686

Edens, J. F., Marcus, D. K., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Poythress, N. G., Jr. (2006). Psychopathic,

not psychopath: Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of psychopathy.


Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(1), 131-144. doi: 10.1037/0021-

843x.115.1.131

Eisenbarth, H., Alpers, G. W., Segrè, D., Calogero, A., & Angrilli, A. (2008). Categorization

and evaluation of emotional faces in psychopathic women. Psychiatry Research,

159(1–2), 189-195. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2007.09.001

Eisenbarth, H., Angrilli, A., Calogero, A., Harper, J., Olson, L. A., & Bernat, E. (2013).

Reduced negative affect response in female psychopaths. Biological Psychology,

94(2), 310-318. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.07.007

Eling, P., Derckx, K., & Maes, R. (2008). On the historical and conceptual background of the

Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. Brain and Cognition, 67(3), 247-253. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.01.006

Erickson, M. L., & Empey, L. T. (1963). Court records, undetected delinquency and decision-

making. J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci., 54, 456.

Field, A. P. (2007). Discovering statistics using SPSS: (and sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll)

(2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Fischer, A. H., Rodriguez Mosquera, P., van Vianen, A., & Manstead, A. (2004). Gender and

culture differences in emotion. Emotion, 4(1), 87-94. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.4.1.87

Forouzan, E. (2003). Psychopathy among women: Conceptualisation and assessment

problems. Paper presented at the Third Annual International Association of Forensic

Mental Health Services (IAFMHS) Conference, Miami, FL.

Forouzan, E., & Cooke, D. J. (2005). Figuring out la femme fatale: conceptual and

assessment issues concerning psychopathy in females. Behavioral Sciences & the

Law, 23(6), 765-778. doi:10.1002/bsl.669


Frick, P. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., Ellis, M., Loney, B., & Silverthorn, P. (1999). The Association

between Anxiety and Psychopathy Dimensions in Children. Journal of Abnormal

Child Psychology, 27(5), 383-392. doi: 10.1023/a:1021928018403

Gao, Y., Glenn, A. L., Schug, R. A., Yang, Y., & Raine, A. (2009). The Neurobiology of

Psychopathy: A Neurodevelopmental Perspective. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry,

54(12), 813-823. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00189-5

Gao, Y., & Raine, A. (2010). Successful and unsuccessful psychopaths: A neurobiological

model. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(2), 194-210. doi:10.1002/bsl.924

Gatner, D. T., Douglas, K. S., & Hart, S. D. (2016). Examining the incremental and

interactive effects of boldness with meanness and disinhibition within the triarchic

model of psychopathy. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment,

7(3), 259-268. doi:10.1037/per0000182

Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult

offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34(4), 575-607.

Goel, V., & Grafman, J. (1995). Are the frontal lobes implicated in “planning” functions?

Interpreting data from the Tower of Hanoi. Neuropsychologia, 33(5), 623-642. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(95)90866-P

Gohier, B., Senior, C., Brittain, P. J., Lounes, N., El-Hage, W., Law, V., . . . Surguladze, S.

A. (2011). Gender differences in the sensitivity to negative stimuli: Cross-modal

affective priming study. European Psychiatry. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2011.06.007

Good, C., Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents' standardized test

performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of

Applied Developmental Psychology, 24(6), 645-662. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002


Gorenstein, E. E. (1982). Frontal lobe functions in psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 91(5), 368-379. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.91.5.368

Gorenstein, E. E., & Newman, J. P. (1980). Disinhibitory psychopathology: A new

perspective and a model for research. Psychological Review, 87(3), 301-315. doi:

10.1037/0033-295x.87.3.301

Graves, R., Landis, T., & Goodglass, H. (1981). Laterality and sex differences for visual

recognition of emotional and non-emotional words. Neuropsychologia, 19(1), 95-102.

doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(81)90049-x

Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour

Research and Therapy, 8(3), 249-266. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0005-

7967(70)90069-0

Gray, J. A. (1975). Elements of a two-process theory of learning. Oxford, England: Academic

Press.

Gray, J. A. (1987). Perspectives on anxiety and impulsivity: A commentary. Journal of

Research in Personality, 21(4), 493-509.

Gray, J. A., & McNaughton, N. (2003). Neuropsychology of Anxiety : An Enquiry into the

Functions of the Septo-Hippocampal System Retrieved from

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/qut/docDetail.action?docID=10283781

Gunderson, E., Ramirez, G., Levine, S., & Beilock, S. (2012). The Role of Parents and

Teachers in the Development of Gender-Related Math Attitudes. Sex Roles, 66(3-4),

153-166. doi: 10.1007/s11199-011-9996-2

Gustafson, S. B., & Ritzer, D. R. (1995). The dark side of normal: a psychopathy-linked-

pattern called aberrant self-promotion. European Journal of Personality, 9(3), 147-

183.


Hall, J. R., & Benning, S. D. (2006). The 'Successful' Psychopath: Adaptive and Subclinical

Manifestations of Psychopathy in the General Population. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.),

Handbook of the psychopathy. (pp. 459-478). New York, NY US: Guilford Press.

Hansen, A. L., Johnsen, B. H., Thornton, D., Waage, L., & Thayer, J. F. (2007). Facets of

psychopathy, heart rate variability and cognitive function. Journal of Personality

Disorders, 21(5), 568-582.

Hare, R. D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal

populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 1(2), 111-119.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V9F-45XV3S3-

BS/2/9af53da62943286a343885b2b23206e9

Hare, R. D. (1984). Performance of psychopaths on cognitive tasks related to frontal lobe

function. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93(2), 133-140. doi: 10.1037/0021-

843X.93.2.133

Hare, R. D. (1991). Manual for the revised psychopathy checklist. Toronto, ON.: Multi-

Health Systems

Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice

and Behavior, 23(1), 25-54. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854896023001004

Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare psychopathy checklist-revised: Multi-Health Systems,

Incorporated.

Hare, R. D. (2011). Without Conscience : The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among

Us Retrieved from http://QUT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=811122

Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2005). Structural models of psychopathy. Current psychiatry

reports, 7(1), 57-64. doi: 10.1007/s11920-005-0026-3


Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2006). The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy:

Development, structural properties and new directions. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), The

handbook of psychopathy (pp. 58-90). New York: Guilford Press.

Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a Clinical and Empirical Construct.

Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4(1), 217-246. doi:

10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452

Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2010). The role of antisociality in the psychopathy construct:

Comment on Skeem and Cooke (2010). Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 446-454.

doi: 10.1037/a0013635

Harpur, T., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor conceptualization of

psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological

Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 6-17.

10.1037/1040-3590.1.1.6

Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1991). Psychopathy and Violent Recidivism.

Law and human behavior, 15(6), 625-637. doi: 10.2307/1394207

Hart, S. D., Forth, A. E., & Hare, R. D. (1990). Performance of criminal psychopaths on

selected neuropsychological tests. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99(4), 374-379.

doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.99.4.374

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable

mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved

from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

Heinzen, H., Köhler, D., Godt, N., Geiger, F., & Huchzermeier, C. (2011). Psychopathy,

intelligence and conviction history. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,

34(5), 336-340. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.08.002


Hemphill, J. F., Hare, R. D., & Wong, S. (1998). Psychopathy and recidivism: A review.

Legal and criminlogical psychology, 3, 139-170.

Heritage, A. J., & Benning, S. D. (2013). Impulsivity and response modulation deficits in

psychopathy: Evidence from the ERN and N1. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

122(1), 215-222. doi: 10.1037/a0030039

Herlitz, A., & Rehnman, J. (2008). Sex Differences in Episodic Memory. Current Directions

in Psychological Science, 17(1), 52-56. doi: 10.2307/20183248

Hiatt, K. D., Schmitt, W. A., & Newman, J. P. (2004). Stroop Tasks Reveal Abnormal

Selective Attention Among Psychopathic Offenders. Neuropsychology, 18(1), 50-59.

doi:10.1037/0894-4105.18.1.50

Hicks, B. M., Markon, K. E., Patrick, C. J., Krueger, R. F., & Newman, J. P. (2004).

Identifying Psychopathy Subtypes on the Basis of Personality Structure.

Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 276-288. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.276

Hively, K., & El-Alayli, A. (2014). “You throw like a girl:” The effect of stereotype threat on

women's athletic performance and gender stereotypes. Psychology of Sport and

Exercise, 15(1), 48-55. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.09.001

Hofmann, W., Schmeichel, B. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Executive functions and self-

regulation. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(3), 174-180.

Holsinger, A. M. (1999). Assessing criminal thinking: Attitudes and orientations influence

behaviour. Corrections Today, 61(1), 22.

Hoppenbrouwers, S. S., De Jesus, D. R., Stirpe, T., Fitzgerald, P. B., Voineskos, A. N.,

Schutter, D. J. L. G., & Daskalakis, Z. J. (2013). Inhibitory deficits in the dorsolateral

prefrontal cortex in psychopathic offenders. Cortex, 49(5), 1377-1385. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2012.06.003


Hughes, K. A., Moore, R. A., Morris, P. H., & Corr, P. J. (2012). Throwing light on the dark

side of personality: Reinforcement sensitivity theory and primary/secondary

psychopathy in a student population. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(4),

532-536. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.010

Hughes, M. A., Dolan, M. C., Trueblood, J. S., & Stout, J. C. (2014). Psychopathic

Personality Traits and Iowa Gambling Task Performance in Incarcerated Offenders.

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1-11. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2014.919689

Hughes, M. A., Stout, J. C., & Dolan, M. C. (2013). Concurrent Validity of The Psychopathic

Personality Inventory–Revised and The Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version in

an Australian Offender Sample. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(7), 802-813. doi:

10.1177/0093854812475135

Intrator, J., Hare, R. D., Stritzke, P., Brichtswein, K., Dorfman, D., Harpur, T., . . . Machac, J.

(1997). A brain imaging (single photon emission computerized tomography) study of

semantic and affective processing in psychopaths. Biological Psychiatry, 42(2), 96-

103. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(96)00290-9

Iria, C., & Barbosa, F. (2009). Perception of facial expressions of fear: comparative research

with criminal and non-criminal psychopaths. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry &

Psychology, 20(1), 66-73. doi: 10.1080/14789940802214218

Ishikawa, S. S., Raine, A., Lencz, T., Bihrle, S., & Lacasse, L. (2001). Autonomic stress

reactivity and executive functions in successful and unsuccessful criminal

psychopaths from the community. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(3), 423-432.

doi: 10.1037/0021-843x.110.3.423

Jurado, M. B., & Rosselli, M. (2007). The elusive nature of executive functions: a review of

our current understanding. Neuropsychology review, 17(3), 213-233.


Justus, A. N., & Finn, P. R. (2007). Startle modulation in non-incarcerated men and women

with psychopathic traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(8), 2057-2071.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.06.020

Jutai, J. W., Hare, R. D., & Connolly, J. F. (1987). Psychopathy and Event-Related Brain

Potentials (ERPs) associated with attention to speech stimuli. Personality and

Individual Differences, 8(2), 175-184. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(87)90172-3

Karpman, B. (1941). On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types:

the symptomatic and the idiopathic. Journal of Criminal Psychopathology, 3, 112-

137.

Kennealy, P. J., Hicks, B. M., & Patrick, C. J. (2007). Validity of factors of the Psychopathy

Checklist–Revised in female prisoners: Discriminant relations with antisocial

behavior, substance abuse, and personality. Assessment, 14(4), 323-340.

doi:10.1177/1073191107305882

Kessels, U. (2005). Fitting into the stereotype: How gender-stereotyped perceptions of

prototypic peers relate to liking for school subjects. European Journal of Psychology

of Education, 20(3), 309-323. doi: 10.1007/BF03173559

Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2010). Wuggy: A multilingual pseudoword generator.

Behavior Research Methods, 42(3), 627-633.

Kiehl, K. A. (1999). Semantic and affective processing in psychopaths: An event-related

potential (ERP) study. Psychophysiology, 36(6), 765-774.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=s3h&AN=13347080&site=eh

ost-live

Kiehl, K. A., & Lushing, J. (2014). Psychopathy. Scholarpedia, 9(5), 30835.


Kiehl, K. A., Smith, A. M., Hare, R. D., & Liddle, P. F. (2000). An event-related potential

investigation of response inhibition in schizophrenia and psychopathy. Biological

Psychiatry, 48(3), 210-221. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(00)00834-9

Kiehl, K. A., Smith, A. M., Hare, R. D., Mendrek, A., Forster, B. B., Brink, J., & Liddle, P.

F. (2001). Limbic abnormalities in affective processing by criminal psychopaths as

revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry, 50(9),

677-684. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01222-7

Kim, Y. Y., & Jung, Y. S. (2014). Reduced frontal activity during response inhibition in

individuals with psychopathic traits: An sLORETA study. Biological Psychology,

97(0), 49-59. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.02.004

Kiss, G. R. (1975). An associative thesaurus of English: Structural analysis of a large

relevance network. In A. Kennedy & A. Wilkes (Eds.), Studies in long term memory

(pp. 103-121). London: Wiley.

Kiss, G. R., Armstrong, C., Milroy, R., & Piper, J. (1973). An associative thesaurus of

English and its computer analysis. In A. Aitken, R. Beiley & N. Hamilton-Smith

(Eds.), The computer and literary studies (pp. 153-165). Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press.

Klauer, K. C., & Musch, J. (2003). Affective priming: Findings and theories. In J. Musch &

K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evalutation: Affective processes in cognition

and emotion. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children's sex-role concepts and

attitudes. In E. E. Maccaby (Ed.), The development of sex differences (pp. 82-173).

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.


Kosson, D. S. (1996). Psychopathy and dual-task performance under focusing conditions.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(3), 391-400. doi:10.1037/0021-

843X.105.3.391

Kratzer, L., & Hodgins, S. (1999). A typology of offenders: A test of Moffitt's theory among

males and females from childhood to age 30. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health

: CBMH, 9(1), 57.

Kring, A. M., & Gordon, A. H. (1998). Sex differences in emotion: expression, experience,

and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3). http://ist-

socrates.berkeley.edu/~akring/Kring%20%26%20Gordon.pdf

Krohn, M. D., Thornberry, T. P., Gibson, C. L., & Baldwin, J. M. (2010). The Development

and Impact of Self-Report Measures of Crime and Delinquency. Journal of

Quantitative Criminology, 26(4), 509-525. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10940-010-

9119-1

Kyaga, S., Lichtenstein, P., Boman, M., Hultman, C., Långström, N., & Landén, M. (2011).

Creativity and mental disorder: family study of 300 000 people with severe mental

disorder. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 199(5), 373-379. doi:

10.1192/bjp.bp.110.085316

Landis, T. (2006). Emotional Words: What's so Different from Just Words? Cortex, 42(6),

823-830. doi: 10.1016/s0010-9452(08)70424-6

Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1990). Emotion, attention, and the startle

reflex. Psychological Review, 97(3), 377-395. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.377

Lapierre, D., Braun, C. M., & Hodgins, S. (1995). Ventral frontal deficits in psychopathy:

Neuropsychological test findings. Neuropsychologia, 33(2), 139-151.

Larson, C. L., Baskin-Sommers, A. R., Stout, D. M., Balderston, N. L., Curtin, J. J., Schultz,

D. H., . . . Newman, J. P. (2013). The interplay of attention and emotion: top-down


attention modulates amygdala activation in psychopathy. Cognitive, Affective and

Behavioral Neuroscience, 13(4), 757-770. doi: 10.1017/ S0033291708003991

Lauzen, M. M., Dozier, D. M., & Horan, N. (2008). Constructing Gender Stereotypes

Through Social Roles in Prime-Time Television. Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, 52(2), 200-214. doi: 10.1080/08838150801991971

Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic

attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 68(1), 151-158. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.151

Lilienfeld, S. O. (1994). Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy. Clinical

Psychology Review, 14(1), 17-38. doi: 10.1016/0272-7358(94)90046-9

Lilienfeld, S. O. (1998). Methodological advances and developments in the assessment of

psychopathy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(1), 99-125. doi: 10.1016/s0005-

7967(97)10021-3

Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., Berg, J., Sellbom, M., & Edens, J. F. (2012).

The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: Confusions, controversies, and

clarifications.

Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., & Smith, S. F. (2015). Successful Psychopathy A Scientific

Status Report. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 298-303.

Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised

(PPI-R). Professional Manual. Florida: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Lorenz, A. R., & Newman, J. P. (2002a). Deficient response modulation and emotion

processing in low-anxious Caucasian psychopathic offenders: Results from a lexical

decision task. Emotion, 2(2), 91-104. 10.1037/1528-3542.2.2.91

Lorenz, A. R., & Newman, J. P. (2002b). Do emotion and information processing

deficiencies found in Caucasian psychopaths generalize to African-American


psychopaths? Personality and Individual Differences, 32(6), 1077-1086. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00111-8

Lorenz, A. R., & Newman, J. P. (2002c). Utilization of emotion cues in male and female

offenders with antisocial personality disorder: Results from a lexical decision task.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(3), 513-516. doi: 10.1037/0021-

843X.111.3.513

Lykken, D. T. (1957). A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. The Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55(1), 6-10. doi:10.1037/h0047232

Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Lykken, D. T. (2006). Psychopathic personality: The scope of the problem. In C. J. Patrick

(Ed.), Handbook of Psychopathy (pp. 4). New York: Guilford Press.

Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-Reported Psychopathy: A Validation

Study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73(1), 110 - 132.

http://www.informaworld.com/10.1207/S15327752JPA730108

MacCabe, J. H., Lambe, M. P., Cnattingius, S., Sham, P. C., David, A. S., Reichenberg, A., . .

. Hultman, C. M. (2010). Excellent school performance at age 16 and risk of adult

bipolar disorder: national cohort study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 196(2),

109-115. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.060368

Maes, J. H., & Brazil, I. A. (2013). No clear evidence for a positive association between the

interpersonal-affective aspects of psychopathy and executive functioning. Psychiatry

Research, 210(3), 1265-1274.

Mahmut, M. K., Homewood, J., & Stevenson, R. J. (2008). The characteristics of non-

criminals with high psychopathy traits: Are they similar to criminal psychopaths?

Journal of Research in Personality, 42(3), 679-692.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00111-8


Maio, G., Olson, J., Bernard, M., & Luke, M. (2006). Ideologies, Values, Attitudes, and

Behavior. In J. Delamater (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 283-308):

Springer US.

Mak, A. S. (1993). A Self-Report Delinquency Scale for Australian Adolescents. Australian

Journal of Psychology, 45(2), 75-79. doi: 10.1080/00049539308259122

McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1995). Trait explanations in personality psychology.

European Journal of Personality, 9(4), 231-252.

McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2009). Using priming methods in second language

research. New York: Routledge.

Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words:

Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 90(2), 227-234. doi: 10.1037/h0031564

Miller, J. D., Gaughan, E. T., & Pryor, L. R. (2008). The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy

Scale: An Examination of the Personality Traits and Disorders Associated With the

LSRP Factors. Assessment, 15(4), 450-463. doi: 10.1177/1073191108316888

Miller, J. D., Watts, A., & Jones, S. E. (2011). Does psychopathy manifest divergent relations

with components of its nomological network depending on gender? Personality and

Individual Differences, 50(5), 564-569. doi:


Miller, J. D., Lamkin, J., Maples-Keller, J. L., & Lynam, D. R. (2016). Viewing the triarchic

model of psychopathy through general personality and expert-based lenses.

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7(3), 247-258.

doi:10.1037/per000015510.1037/per0000155.supp (Supplemental)

Minor, K. S., Bonfils, K. A., Luther, L., Firmin, R. L., Kukla, M., MacLain, V. R., . . .

Salyers, M. P. (2015). Lexical analysis in schizophrenia: How emotion and social



word use informs our understanding of clinical presentation. Journal of Psychiatric

Research, 64(0), 74-78. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2015.02.024

Mitchell, D. G. V., Colledge, E., Leonard, A., & Blair, R. J. R. (2002). Risky decisions and

response reversal: is there evidence of orbitofrontal cortex dysfunction in

psychopathic individuals? Neuropsychologia, 40(12), 2013-2022. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00056-8

Mitchell, D. G. V., Richell, R. A., Leonard, A., & Blair, R. J. R. (2006). Emotion at the

expense of cognition: Psychopathic individuals outperform controls on an operant

response task. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(3), 559-566. doi: 10.1037/0021-

843x.115.3.559

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D.

(2000). The Unity and Diversity of Executive Functions and Their Contributions to

Complex “Frontal Lobe” Tasks: A Latent Variable Analysis. Cognitive Psychology,

41(1), 49-100. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734

Moffitt, T. E. (1990). The Neuropsychology of Juvenile Delinquency: A Critical Review.

Crime and Justice, 12, 99-169. doi: 10.2307/1147439

Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Williams, R., & Mathews, A. (1993). Subliminal processing of

emotional information in anxiety and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

102(2), 304-311. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.102.2.304

Mol, B., Van Den Bos, P., Derks, Y., & Egger, J. (2009). Executive functioning and the two-

factor model of psychopathy: No differential relation? International Journal of

Neuroscience, 119(1), 124-140.

Morgan, A. B., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2000). A meta-analytic review of the relation between

antisocial behavior and neuropsychological measures of executive function. Clinical


Psychology Review, 20(1), 113-136. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-

7358(98)00096-8

Morrison, D., & Gilbert, P. (2001). Social rank, shame and anger in primary and secondary

psychopaths. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 12(2), 330-356. doi:

10.1080/09585180110056867

Mueller, S. T. (2010). The Psychology Experiment Building Language, Version 0.11.

Retrieved from http://pebl.sourceforge.net

Munro, G. E. S., Dywan, J., Harris, G. T., McKee, S., Unsal, A., & Segalowitz, S. J. (2007).

Response inhibition in psychopathy: The frontal N2 and P3. Neuroscience Letters,

418(2), 149-153. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2007.03.017

Murrie, D. C., Marcus, D. K., Douglas, K. S., Lee, Z., Salekin, R. T., & Vincent, G. (2007).

Youth with psychopathy features are not a discrete class: a taxometric analysis.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(7), 714-723. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-

7610.2007.01734.x

Neely, J. H. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of

inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General, 106(3), 226-254. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.106.3.226

Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida

word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms., from

http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/.

Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Newman, J. P. (2007). The super-ordinate nature of the

psychopathy checklist-revised. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(2), 102.

http://proquest.umi.com.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/pqdweb?index=0&sid=2&srchmode

=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=6&startpage=-


1&clientid=14394&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=1261933751&scaling=FULL&ts=

1288424238&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1288424278&clientId=14394

Neumann, C. S., Malterer, M. B., & Newman, J. P. (2008). Factor structure of the

Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI): Findings from a large incarcerated sample.

Psychological Assessment, 20(2), 169-174. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.20.2.169

Newman, J. P., & Brinkley, C. A. (1997). Reconsidering the Low-Fear Explanation for

Primary Psychopathy. Psychological Inquiry, 8(3), 236-244.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1448894

Newman, J. P., Curtin, J. J., Bertsch, J. D., & Baskin-Sommers, A. R. (2010). Attention

Moderates the Fearlessness of Psychopathic Offenders. Biological Psychiatry, 67(1),

66-70. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.07.035

Newman, J. P., & Kosson, D. S. (1986). Passive avoidance learning in psychopathic and

nonpsychopathic offenders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95(3), 252-256.

doi:10.1037/0021-843X.95.3.252

Newman, J. P., & Lorenz, A. R. (2003). Response modulation and emotion processing:

Implications for psychopathy and other dysregulatory psychopathology. In R. J.

Davidson, K. R. Scherer & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of Affective Sciences.

Cary, NC, USA: Oxford University Press.

Newman, J. P., Patterson, C. M., & Kosson, D. S. (1987). Response perseveration in

psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96(2), 145-148. doi: 10.1037/0021-

843x.96.2.145

Newman, J. P., Schmitt, W. A., & Voss, W. D. (1997). The impact of motivationally neutral

cues on psychopathic individuals: Assessing the generality of the response modulation

hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(4), 563-575. doi: 10.1037/0021-

843x.106.4.563


Nguyen, H.-H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of

minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 93(6), 1314-1334. doi: 10.1037/a0012702

Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., . . . Greenwald,

A. G. (2009). National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex

differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26), 10593-10597. doi:

10.1073/pnas.0809921106

Obonsawin, M. C., Crawford, J. R., Page, J., Chalmers, P., Cochrane, R., & Low, G. (2002).

Performance on tests of frontal lobe function reflect general intellectual ability.

Neuropsychologia, 40(7), 970-977. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0028-

3932(01)00171-3

Ogloff, J. R. P., & Wong, S. (1990). Electrodermal and cardiovascular evidence of a coping

response in psychopaths. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17(2), 231-245.

doi:10.1177/0093854890017002006

Osborne, J. W. (2007). Linking Stereotype Threat and Anxiety. Educational Psychology,

27(1), 135-154. doi: 10.1080/01443410601069929

Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and

meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(1, Part

2), 1-25. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022101507664878

doi:10.1037/h0025327

Patrick, C. J. (1994). Emotion and psychopathy: Startling new insights. Psychophysiology,

31(4), 319-330. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1994.tb02440.x


Patrick, C. J., Curtin, J. J., & Tellegen, A. (2002). Development and validation of a brief form

of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 14(2),

150-163. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.14.2.150

Patrick, C. J. (2007). Getting to the Heart of Psychopathy. In H. Hervé & J. C. Yuille (Eds.),

The Psychopath: Theory, Research, and Practice. (pp. 207-252). Mahwah, NJ US:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Patrick, C. J., & Bernat, E. M. (2009). Neurobiology of Psychopathy Handbook of

Neuroscience for the Behavioral Sciences: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Patrick, C. J., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1993). Emotion in the criminal psychopath:

Startle reflex modulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102(1), 82-92. doi:

10.1037/0021-843x.102.1.82

Patrick, C. J., Edens, J. F., Poythress, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Benning, S. D. (2006).

Construct validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory two-factor model with

offenders. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 204-208. doi: 10.1037/1040-

3590.18.2.204

Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of

psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness.

Development and Psychopathology, 21(3), 913-938.

Patterson, C. M., & Newman, J. P. (1993). Reflectivity and learning from aversive events:

Toward a psychological mechanism for the syndromes of disinhibition. Psychological

Review, 100(4), 716-736. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.716

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism,

Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-

563. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566%2802%2900505-6


Pexman, P. M. (2012). Meaning-based influences on visual word recognition. Visual word

recognition: Meaning and context, individuals and development, 2, 24-42.

Pham, T. H., Vanderstukken, O., Philippot, P., & Vanderlinden, M. (2003). Selective

attention and executive functions deficits among criminal psychopaths. Aggressive

Behavior, 29(5), 393-405.

Pinel, P. (1801). Traite medico-philosophique sur l'alienation mentale, ou la manie

Retrieved from

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=OT1FAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=i

nauthor:%22Philippe+Pinel%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lB_YVODEKI_68QXD6YFI&ve

d=0CDsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=manie%20sans&f=false

Porterfield, A. L. (1943). Delinquency and its outcome in court and college. American

Journal of Sociology, 49(3), 199-208. doi: 10.2307/2771246

Pritchard, J. D. (1835). Treatise on insanity. London: Sherwood, Gilbert & Piper.

Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2000). Raven Manual: Section three, standard

progressive matrices, including parallel and plus versions (2000 ed.). San Antonio:

Harcourt Assessment, Inc.

Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Foster, J. D. (2009). Psychopathy, aggression, and emotion

processing of violent imagery in women. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5),

928-932. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.06.004

Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., Hunnicutt-Ferguson, K., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2008). Psychopathy

traits and the processing of emotion words: Results of a lexical decision task.

Cognition & Emotion, 22(6), 1174-1186. doi: 10.1080/02699930701745663

Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., Miller, J. D., & Martinez, M. A. (2007). Psychopathy and

aggression: Examining the role of psychopathy factors in predicting laboratory

aggression under hostile and instrumental conditions. Journal of Research in


Personality, 41(6), 1244-1251.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WM0-4N919J3-

1/2/3ba08d708bba9aa9179ca378abe43134

Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the marlowe-

crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119-125. doi:

10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:1<119::AID-JCLP2270380118>3.0.CO;2-I

Roberts, A. C., & Wallis, J. D. (2000). Inhibitory Control and Affective Processing in the

Prefrontal Cortex: Neuropsychological Studies in the Common Marmoset. Cerebral

Cortex, 10(3), 252-262. doi: 10.1093/cercor/10.3.252

Rogers, R., & Rogstad, J. E. (2010). Psychopathy and APD in non-forensic patients:

Improved predictions or disparities in cut scores? Journal of Psychopathology and

Behavioral Assessment, 32(3), 353-362. doi:10.1007/s10862-009-9175-8

Rogstad, J. E., & Rogers, R. (2008). Gender differences in contributions of emotion to

psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(8),

1472-1484. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VB8-4TGHNH4-

2/2/e866aa65818747aa79df3d7fbe028841

Ross, S. R., Benning, S. D., & Adams, Z. (2007). Symptoms of executive dysfunction are

endemic to secondary psychopathy: An examination in criminal offenders and

noninstituionalized young adults. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(4), 384-399.

Royall, D. R., Lauterbach, E. C., Cummings, J. L., Reeve, A., Rummans, T. A., Kaufer, D. I.,

. . . Coffey, C. E. (2002). Executive control function: A review of its promise and

challenges for clinical research. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical

neurosciences, 14(4), 377-405.


Ruiz-Caballero, J. A., & González, P. (1997). Effects of Level of Processing on Implicit and

Explicit Memory in Depressed Mood. Motivation and Emotion, 21(2), 195-209. doi:

10.1023/a:1024438701205

Rush, B. (1812). Medical inquiries and observations, upon the diseases of the mind.

Philadelphia: Kimber & Richardson.

Sadeh, N., & Verona, E. (2008). Psychopathic personality traits associated with abnormal

selective attention and impaired cognitive control. Neuropsychology, 22(5), 669-680.

doi: 10.1037/a0012692

Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., Ustad, K. L., & Sewell, K. W. (1998). Psychopathy and

Recidivism among Female Inmates. Law and human behavior, 22(1), 109-128. doi:

10.2307/1393998

Salnaitis, C. L., Baker, C. A., Holland, J., & Welsh, M. (2011). Differentiating Tower of

Hanoi Performance: Interactive Effects of Psychopathic Tendencies, Impulsive

Response Styles, and Modality. Applied Neuropsychology, 18(1), 37-46. doi:

10.1080/09084282.2010.523381

Salthouse, T. A. (2005). Relations Between Cognitive Abilities and Measures of Executive

Functioning. Neuropsychology, 19(4), 532-545. doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.19.4.532

Santosa, C. M., Strong, C. M., Nowakowska, C., Wang, P. W., Rennicke, C. M., & Ketter, T.

A. (2007). Enhanced creativity in bipolar disorder patients: A controlled study.

Journal of Affective Disorders, 100(1–3), 31-39. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2006.10.013

Schmader, T. (2002). Gender Identification Moderates Stereotype Threat Effects on Women's

Math Performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 194-201. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1500

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2006.10.013


Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging Evidence That Stereotype Threat Reduces

Working Memory Capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3),

440-452. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.440

Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Barquissau, M. (2004). The Costs of Accepting Gender

Differences: The Role of Stereotype Endorsement in Women's Experience in the

Math Domain. Sex Roles, 50(11/12), 835-850.

Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype

threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115(2), 336-356. doi:

10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336

Schmitt, W. A., Brinkley, C. A., & Newman, J. P. (1999). Testing Damasio's somatic marker

hypothesis with psychopathic individuals: Risk takers or risk averse? Journal of

Abnormal Psychology, 108(3), 538-543. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.108.3.538

Schulreich, S., Pfabigan, D. M., Derntl, B., & Sailer, U. (2013). Fearless Dominance and

reduced feedback-related negativity amplitudes in a time-estimation task – Further

neuroscientific evidence for dual-process models of psychopathy. Biological

Psychology, 93(3), 352-363. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.04.004

Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2003). Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance

expectancies: Their effects on women’s performance. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 39(1), 68-74. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00508-5

Sellbom, M. (2011). Elaborating on the construct validity of the Levenson Self-Report

Psychopathy Scale in incarcerated and non-incarcerated samples. Law and human

behavior, 35(6), 440-451.


Sellbom, M., & Verona, E. (2007). Neuropsychological correlates of psychopathic traits in a

non-incarcerated sample. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(2), 276-294. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.04.001

Sellin, T. (1931). The basis of a crime index. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,

22(3), 335-356.

Simourd, D. (1997). The Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and Pride in Delinquency

Scale. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(1), 52-70.

http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=4DCEA18FBFDA22D0FE90

Simourd, D., & Olver, M. (2002). The Future Of Criminal Attitudes Research And Practice.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 427-446.

http://ejournals.ebsco.com/direct.asp?ArticleID=CE35XD1PY49WQKF874UN

Skeem, J. L., & Cooke, D. J. (2010a). Is criminal behavior a central component of

psychopathy? Conceptual directions for resolving the debate. Psychological

Assessment, 22(2), 433-445. doi: 10.1037/a0008512

Skeem, J. L., & Cooke, D. J. (2010b). One measure does not a construct make: Directions

toward reinvigorating psychopathy research—reply to Hare and Neumann (2010).

Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 455-459. doi: 10.1037/a0014862

Skeem, J. L., Mulvey, E. P., & Grisso, T. (2003). Applicability of traditional and revised

models of psychopathy to the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version.

Psychological Assessment, 15(1), 41-55. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.15.1.41

Skeem, J. L., Polaschek, D. L., Patrick, C. J., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011). Psychopathic

personality bridging the gap between scientific evidence and public policy.

Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(3), 95-162.


Slater, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2011). Gender differences in adolescent sport participation,

teasing, self-objectification and body image concerns. Journal of Adolescence, 34(3),

455-463. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.06.007

Smith, S. F., Watts, A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2014). On the trail of the elusive successful

psychopath. Psychological Assessment, 15, 340-350.

Smith, S. F., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2015). The Response Modulation Hypothesis of

Psychopathy: A Meta-Analytic and Narrative Analysis. Psychological Bulletin,

141(6), 1145-1177.

Smith, S. S., Arnett, P. A., & Newman, J. P. (1992). Neuropsychological differentiation of

psychopathic and nonpsychopathic criminal offenders. Personality and Individual

Differences, 13(11), 1233-1243. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90259-

R

Snowden, R. J., Gray, N. S., Pugh, S., & Atkinson, G. (2013). Executive function as a

function of sub-clinical psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7),

801-804.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and

performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629. doi: 10.1037/0003-

066X.52.6.613

Strauss, E. (1983). Perception of emotional words. Neuropsychologia, 21(1), 99-103. doi:

10.1016/0028-3932(83)90104-5

Sutherland, E. H. (1934). Principles of criminology (2nd ed.). Chicago: J. B. Lippincott.

Sutker, P. B., & Allain, A. N. (1987). Cognitive abstraction, shifting, and control: Clinical

sample comparisons of psychopaths and nonpsychopaths. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 96(1), 73-75. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.96.1.73


Sutker, P. B., Moan, C. E., & Allain, A. N. (1983). Assessment of cognitive control in

psychopathic and normal prisoners. Journal of behavioral assessment, 5(4), 275-287.

doi: 10.1007/BF01321449

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston:

Allyn & Bacon.

Tenenbaum, H. R., & Leaper, C. (2002). Are parents' gender schemas related to their

children's gender-related cognitions? A meta-analysis. Developmental Psychology,

38(4), 615-630. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.38.4.615

Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group Norms and the Attitude-Behavior Relationship: A

Role for Group Identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(8),

776-793. doi: 10.1177/0146167296228002

Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: Self-

identity, social identity and group norms. The British Journal of Social Psychology,

38, 225-244.

Thakkar, K. N., Congdon, E., Poldrack, R. A., Sabb, F. W., London, E. D., Cannon, T. D., &

Bilder, R. M. (2014). Women are more sensitive than men to prior trial events on the

Stop-signal task. British Journal of Psychology, 105(2), 254-272. doi:

10.1111/bjop.12034

Thayer, J., & Johnsen, B. H. (2000). Sex differences in judgement of facial affect: A

multivariate analysis of recognition errors. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,

41(3), 243-246. doi: 10.1111/1467-9450.00193

Tlauka, M., Brolese, A., Pomeroy, D., & Hobbs, W. (2005). Gender differences in spatial

knowledge acquired through simulated exploration of a virtual shopping centre.

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25(1), 111-118. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.12.002


Toglia, M. P., & Battig, W. F. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. Hillsdale:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tomasetto, C., Alparone, F. R., & Cadinu, M. (2011). Girls' math performance under

stereotype threat: The moderating role of mothers' gender stereotypes. Developmental

Psychology, 47(4), 943-949. doi: 10.1037/a0024047

Tranel, D. (2002). Emotion, decision-making, and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. In D.

T. Stuss & R. T. Knight (Eds.), Principles of Frontal Lobe Function (pp. 338-353).

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

United States Department of Justice. (2014). Crime in the United States Retrieved from

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013

Varlamov, A., Khalifa, N., Liddle, P., Duggan, C., & Howard, R. (2011). Cortical Correlates

of Impaired Self-Regulation in Personality Disordered Patients with Traits of

Psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25(1), 75-88. doi: 10.1016/0013-

4694(58)90053-1

Vassileva, J., Kosson, D. S., Abramowitz, C., & Conrod, P. (2005). Psychopathy versus

psychopathies in classifying criminal offenders. Legal and Criminological

Psychology, 10, 27-43.

Verbruggen, F., Logan, G., & Stevens, M. (2008). STOP-IT: Windows executable software

for the stop-signal paradigm. Behavior Research Methods, 40(2), 479-483. doi:

10.3758/brm.40.2.479

Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008). Automatic and controlled response inhibition:

Associative learning in the go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms. Journal of

Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 649-672. doi: 10.1037/a0013170


Verona, E., Patrick, C. J., Curtin, J. J., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2004). Psychopathy

and Physiological Response to Emotionally Evocative Sounds. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 113(1), 99-108. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.113.1.99

Visser, P. S., & Mirabile, R. R. (2004). Attitudes in the Social Context: The Impact of Social

Network Composition on Individual-Level Attitude Strength. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 87(6), 779-795. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.779

Vitacco, M. J., Neumann, C. S., Caldwell, M. F., Leistico, A.-M., & Van Rybroek, G. J.

(2006). Testing Factor Models of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version and

Their Association With Instrumental Aggression. Journal of Personality Assessment,

87(1), 74 - 83. http://www.informaworld.com/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_06

Vitacco, M. J., Neumann, C. S., & Jackson, R. L. (2005). Testing a Four-Factor Model of

Psychopathy and Its Association With Ethnicity, Gender, Intelligence, and Violence.

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 466-476. doi: 10.1037/0022-

006X.73.3.466

Vitacco, M. J., Rogers, R., Neumann, C. S., Harrison, K. S., & Vincent, G. (2005). A

comparison of factor models on the PCL-R with mentally disordered offenders: The

development of a four-factor model. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(5), 526-545.

doi: 10.1177/0093854805278414

Vitale, J. E., Maccoon, D. G., & Newman, J. P. (2011). Emotion Facilitation and Passive

Avoidance Learning in Psychopathic Female Offenders. Criminal Justice and

Behavior, 38(7), 641-658. doi: 10.1177/0093854811403590

Wall, T. D., Sellbom, M., & Goodwin, B. E. (2013). Examination of Intelligence as a

Compensatory Factor in Non-Criminal Psychopathy in a Non-Incarcerated Sample.

Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 35(4), 450-459. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10862-013-9358-1


Walters, G. D., Brinkley, C. A., Magaletta, P. R., & Diamond, P. M. (2008). Taxometric

Analysis of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 90(5), 491-498. doi: 10.1080/00223890802248828

Walters, G. D., Gray, N. S., Jackson, R. L., Sewell, K. W., Rogers, R., Taylor, J., &

Snowden, R. J. (2007). A taxometric analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist:

Screening Version (PCL:SV): Further evidence of dimensionality. Psychological

Assessment, 19(3), 330-339. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.19.3.330

Ward, L. M. (2002). Does Television Exposure Affect Emerging Adults' Attitudes and

Assumptions About Sexual Relationships? Correlational and Experimental

Confirmation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(1), 1-15. doi:

10.1023/A:1014068031532

Watt, B. D., & Brooks, N. S. (2011). Self-Report Psychopathy in an Australian Community

Sample. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 19(3), 389-401. doi:

10.1080/13218719.2011.585130

Welsh, G. S. (1956). Factor dimensions A and R. Basic readings on the MMPI in psychology

and medicine, 264-281.

Widom, C. S. (1977). A methodology for studying noninstitutionalized psychopaths. Journal

of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(4), 674-683. doi: 10.1037/0022-

006x.45.4.674

Williamson, D. A. (1996). Body image disturbance in eating disorders: A form of cognitive

bias? Eating Disorders, 4(1), 47-58. doi: 10.1080/10640269608250075

Williamson, S., Harpur, T. J., & Hare, R. D. (1991). Abnormal processing of affective words

by psychopaths. Psychophysiology, 28(3), 260-273.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mnh&AN=1946892&site=eh

ost-live


Wilson, M. D. (1988). The MRC psycholinguistic database: machine readable dictionary,

version 2. Behavioural Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 20(1), 6-11.

Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Blonigen, D. M., Krueger, R. F., & Conger, R. D. (2009).

Assessment of Fearless Dominance and Impulsive Antisociality via Normal

Personality Measures: Convergent Validity, Criterion Validity, and Developmental

Change. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(3), 265-276.

doi:10.1080/00223890902794317

Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1997). Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit

level and its relationship with questionnaire measures. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 72(2), 262-274. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.262

Yang, Y. P., Raine, A. D., Colletti, P. M. D., Toga, A. W. P., & Narr, K. L. P. (2011).

Abnormal Structural Correlates of Response Perseveration in Individuals With

Psychopathy. The Journal of neuropsychiatry and clinical neurosciences, 23(1), 107-

110.

Yap, M. J., & Seow, C. S. (2014). The influence of emotion on lexical processing: Insights

from RT distributional analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), 526-533. doi:

10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.323

Zeier, J. D., Baskin–Sommers, A. R., Hiatt Racer, K. D., & Newman, J. P. (2012). Cognitive

control deficits associated with antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy.

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(3), 283-293. doi:

10.1037/a0023137

Zeier, J. D., Maxwell, J. S., & Newman, J. P. (2009). Attention moderates the processing of

inhibitory information in primary psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

118(3), 554-563. doi: 10.1037/a0016480


Zelazo, P. D., & Carlson, S. M. (2012). Hot and Cool Executive Function in Childhood and

Adolescence: Development and Plasticity. Child Development Perspectives, 6(4),

354-360. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00246.x

Zelazo, P. D., & Cunningham, W. A. (2007). Executive Function: Mechanisms Underlying

Emotion Regulation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 135-

158). New York: Guilford Press.

Zelazo, P. D., & Muller, U. (2002). Executive function in typical and atypical development

Handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 445-469).

Zelazo, P. D., Qu, L., & Kesek, A. C. (2010). Hot executive function: Emotion and the

development of cognitive control. In S. D. Calkins & M. A. Bell (Eds.), Child

development at the intersection of emotion and cognition. (pp. 97-111). Washington,

DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Zimak, E., Suhr, J., & Bolinger, E. (2014). Psychophysiological and Neuropsychological

Characteristics of Non-Incarcerated Adult Males with Higher Levels of Psychopathic

Personality Traits. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36(4),

542-554. doi: 10.1007/s10862-014-9430-5


Appendix 1

See attachment labelled ‘Appendix_Study1_Questionnaire’.


Appendix 2

Personality and the Law

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

Personality and Language Processing QUT Ethics Approval Number 1100001490

RESEARCH TEAM Principal Researcher:

Emily Adam, PhD Student, QUT

Associate Researcher:

Associate Professor Renata Meuter and Associate Professor Nigar Khawaja, QUT

DESCRIPTION This project is being undertaken as part of a PhD research project for Emily Adam.

The purpose of this project is to explore the relationship between personality and attitudes towards authority and the law.

You are invited to participate in this project in order to gain a better understanding of how personality influences the ways in which individuals think about the law and authority.

PARTICIPATION The research team are looking for male and female participants between the ages of 18 and 60 years who reside in South East Queensland. Participants must speak English as their first language. The following exclusion criteria also apply: 1) no past or present history of psychiatric or neurological disorders; 2) no regular use of psychiatric or neurological medication (e.g., antiepileptic medication or antidepressants).

Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you can withdraw from the project at any time without comment or penalty. Any identifiable information already obtained from you will be destroyed. Your decision to participate, or not participate, will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT.

Participation will involve completing an online survey that includes a brief demographic questionnaire, a personality questionnaire, a questionnaire on attitudes towards the law, and a questionnaire looking at any past anti-social acts. Participation will take approximately 45 minutes of your time and participation is anonymous. The questionnaires are designed to assess your feelings and beliefs, for example, “Before I do anything, I carefully consider the possible consequences” and to gain some background information (e.g. age and gender).

EXPECTED BENEFITS It is expected that this project will not directly benefit you. However, it may benefit our understanding of how personality influences the way individuals’ view authority and the law.

To recognise your contribution should you choose to participate, the research team is offering participants the chance to win an iPad mini.

RISKS There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project.

http://www.qut.edu.au/


PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All comments and responses will be treated confidentially and will remain anonymous. You will be asked to provide a unique code at the start of the study to identify your responses on this study with subsequent studies, whilst maintaining your anonymity. The unique code will not identify you an any way and will only be used for the purpose of matching responses. If please provide your contact phone number when prompted at the end of the survey.

Please note that non-identifiable data collected in this project may be used as comparative data in future projects.

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE Submitting the completed online questionnaire is accepted as an indication of your consent to participate in this project.

QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT If have any questions or require any further information about the project please contact one of the research team members.

Emily Adam, PhD Student A/Prof Renata Meuter, Supervisor

A/Prof Nigar Khawaja, Supervisor

School of Psychology and Counselling, Faculty of Health, QUT

+61 7 3138 4625 +61 7 3138 4625 +61 7 3138 4625

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Unit on +61 7 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Unit is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.

Thank you for helping with this research project. Please keep this sheet for your information.

mailto:[email protected]




Appendix 3

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FOR QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

Personality and Language Processing

QUT Ethics Approval Number 1100001490

RESEARCH TEAM Principal Researcher:

Emily Adam, PhD Student, Queensland University of Technology (QUT)

Associate Researcher:

Associate Professor Renata Meuter and Associate Professor Nigar Khawaja, QUT

DESCRIPTION This project is being undertaken as part of a PhD research project for Emily Adam.

The purpose of this project is to explore the relationship between personality and memory, attention, problem-solving, multi-tasking, planning, and the processing of different types of words: emotion words (i.e. happy, sad), concrete words (i.e. desk), and abstract words (i.e. metaphor).

You are invited to participate in this project in order to gain a better understanding of how personality influences the processing of written language, memory, attention, and other tasks such as problem-solving and multi-tasking.

PARTICIPATION The research team are looking for male and female participants between the ages of 18 and 60 years who reside in the South East Queensland Region. Participants must speak English as their first language. The following exclusion criteria also apply: 1) no past or present history of psychiatric or neurological disorders; and 2) no regular use of psychiatric or neurological medication (e.g., antiepileptic medication or antidepressants).

Your participation in this project is entirely voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you can withdraw from the project at any time without comment or penalty. Any identifiable information already obtained from you will be destroyed. Your decision to participate, or not participate, will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship with QUT.

Participation involves attending two testing sessions scheduled on different days. Participation in one testing session will involve completing a brief demographic questionnaire, a personality questionnaire, a word rating task, and a lexical decision task. Participation in this testing session will take approximately 1 and a half hours of your time. The questionnaire is designed to assess your feelings and beliefs, for example, “Some people say that I am a ‘worry wart’” and to gain some background information (e.g. age and gender). The word rating task is designed to gain your opinion on the qualities of English language words. The lexical decision task simply asks you to decide whether a string of letters is a word or not (e.g. apple vs bram) and records your response times in making that decision.

Participation in the other testing session will involve completing a brief demographic questionnaire, four computerised problem-solving tasks and one pen-and-paper problem-solving task. Participation in this testing session will take approximately 1 and a half hours of your time. The computerised and pen-and-paper problem-solving tasks are designed to memory, attention, problem-solving, planning and multi-tasking.

http://www.qut.edu.au/


EXPECTED BENEFITS It is expected that this project will not directly benefit you. However, it may benefit our understanding of how personality influences the way individuals’ process written language.

To recognise your contribution should you choose to participate, the research team is offering participants two adult movie passes for each testing session.

RISKS

There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this project.

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY All comments and responses will be treated confidentially and will remain anonymous. If you are willing to participate in similar follow-up studies for this research project, please provide your contact phone number and your unique code as indicated at the end of the questionnaire. This unique code will not identify you in any way, and will only be used for the purpose of matching responses from this study and any follow-up studies.

Please note that non-identifiable data collected in this project may be used as comparative data in future projects.

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE Submitting the completed online questionnaire is accepted as an indication of your consent to participate in this project.

QUESTIONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT If have any questions or require any further information about the project please contact one of the research team members.

Emily Adam – PhD Student A/Prof Renata Meuter – Supervisor

A/Prof Nigar Khawaja – Supervisor

School of Psychology and Counsel l ing – Faculty of Health – QUT

07 3138 4625 07 3138 4625 07 3138 4625

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

CONCERNS / COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROJECT QUT is committed to research integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects. However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Unit on 07 3138 5123 or email [email protected]. The QUT Research Ethics Unit is not connected with the research project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.

Thank you for helping with this research project. Please keep this sheet for your information.






Appendix 4

Welcome to the n-back test. You will see letters on the screen, one letter at a time. When you

see the letter X press TARGET. For all other letters press NOT A TARGET. Press

SPACEBAR to continue.


Appendix 5

You are about to perform a task called the ‘Tower of London’. Your goal is to move a pile of

disks from their original configuration to the configuration shown on the top of the screen.

You can only move one disk at a time, and you cannot move a disk onto a pile that has no

more room (as indicated by the size of the grey rectangle). To move a disk, clock on the pile

you want to move the disk off of, and it will move up above the piles. Then, click on another

pile and the disk will move down to that pile. You will only have a limited number of moves

to solve each problem. Before you make your first move, think about the problem to make

sure you can solve it within your move limit. If you do not finish the problem within the

limit, the turn will end and you will move onto the next problem.


Appendix 6


Psychopathy measure

Control Measures

Word Rating Task?

Stimuli Affective language task and DVs

Semantic language task and DVs

Results

K. S. Blair, Richell, et al. (2006)

Male, criminal offenders (n = 52)

0 PCL-R scores used to classify participants as psychopathic or nonpsychopathic

Raven’s advanced matrix (GI); NART (VI)

Yes; emotional words rated on pleasantness; neutral animals words rated according to the size of the animal.

Emotional words selected from ANEW database.

Neutral words selected from MRC psycholinguistic database.

Participants were required to press either ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ to the target word following a congruent or incongruent prime. Outcome measures were RT’s and errors.

Fruit and animal words used and participants had to identify whether the target word was an animal word, or in the fruit trials if the target was a fruit following either congruent or incongruent words. Outcome measures were RT’s and errors.

Affective Priming: Nonpsychopathic individuals showed significant facilitation for emotion words in congruent conditions. They also showed significant interference by negative primes for positive targets.

The psychopathic individuals displayed no facilitation or interference for the emotion words.

There were no group differences in error rates.

No group differences in semantic priming for psychopathic vs nonpsychopathic groups.



Psychopathy measure

Control Measures

Word Rating Task?



Results

Psychopathic individuals rated neutral words as more pleasant than nonpsychopathic individuals.

Correlational analyses revealed that PCL-R1 and PCLR2 were both related to longer reaction times on the affective priming task, but not the semantic priming task

C. A. Brinkley et al. (2005)

Male criminal offenders (study 1 n = 58, study 2 n = 124)

0 PCL-R scores used to classify participants as psychopathic or nonpsychopathic

SILS (for IQ)

WAS (for anxiety)

No Unknown source but matched on length, imageability, and log word frequency

Nil Study 1 LDT to examine facilitation.

Study 2 semantic Stroop task to examine interference

Study 1 No group differences between Ps and NPs. Intact semantic facilitation.

Study 2. No group difference observed. Intact interference for psychopaths.



Psychopathy measure

Control Measures

Word Rating Task?



Results

Intrator et al. (1997)

Male substance users (psychopath n = 8, nonpsychopath n – 9) and healthy controls (n = 9)

0 PCL-R scores used to classify participants as psychopathic or nonpsychopathic. Healthy controls not tested for psychopathy.

No drug use two weeks prior (recreational or medicinal)

All right-handed

No Unknown LDT decision task for neutral and emotional words.

Also looked at relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF) using a SPECT scanner.

Nil No behavioural differences in performance on the LDT.

Some differences in rCBF.

Kiehl (1999)

Male criminal offenders (n = 29)

0 PCL-R scores used to classify participants as psychopathic or nonpsychopathic (Cut scores 30)

ERP’s to word responses also recorded.

Yes, word rating task showed that Ps and NPs rated the abstract, concrete, positive and negative

Selected from Toglia & Battig’s (1978) word norms.

Task 3, participants had to decide if a word was positive or negative

Task 1 was a LDT with concrete or abstract words. No priming condition. Had to make word/nonword binary decision.

Task 1: No group differences

Task 2: Ps made more errors to abstract words than NPs

Task 3: No group differences. All participants displayed faster and



Psychopathy measure

Control Measures

Word Rating Task?



Results

words the same.

Task 2 participants had to decide if a word was concrete or abstract.

RTs and errors

more accurate responses to positive words than negative words.

ERPs: NPs showed normal ERPs in all tasks. Ps did not and displayed an N350 to all tasks.

Lorenz and Newman (2002a)

Male criminal offenders (n = 100)

0 PCL-R scores used to classify participants as psychopathic or nonpsychopathic (cut score 30)

WAS

WAIS-R

Age

Yes Emotion words selected from Rubin and Friendly’s (1986) word list.

High, Med and Low frequency

LDT, to examine RTs to the different word types (positive, negative, neutral)

Nil, but emotion words of high, medium and low frequency were chosen to examine whether an emotionally neutral secondary due would

No group differences in word ratings.

Nonpsychopaths displayed greater facilitation to emotion words than psychopaths but only for right-handed responses.

Low anxious psychopaths displayed less facilitation for



Psychopathy measure

Control Measures

Word Rating Task?



Results

words chosen.

facilitate performance.

emotion words than low anxious controls, for right handed responses only.

Planned comparison revealed that low anxious psychopaths displayed significantly less facilitation for high frequency words than low anxious controls but this was only for right handed responses, with performance intact for left handed responses.

Lorenz and Newman (2002b)

Male offenders (African-American) (n = 94)

0 PCL-R used to classify as psychopathic or nonpsychopathic (cut score 30)

IQ (SILS)

Anxiety (WAS)

Yes Emotion words selected from Rubin and Friendly’s (1986) word list.

LDT, to examine RTs to the different word types (positive, negative, neutral)

Nil, but emotion words of high, medium and low frequency were chosen to examine whether an emotionally neutral

No group differences in word ratings.

No difference between low anxious psychopaths and low anxious controls in emotion facilitation.



Psychopathy measure

Control Measures

Word Rating Task?



Results

High, Med and Low frequency words chosen

secondary due would facilitate performance.

No difference between low anxious psychopaths and low anxious controls in frequency facilitation.

No effects of response hand on emotion or frequency facilitation.

Reidy et al. (2008)

Male undergraduates (n = 60)

0 LSRP parsed into F1 and F2 scores

PANAS

IRI

BIS-11

STAI

NPI

Yes, but not by participant of the study.

Unknown source, but rated by 25 psychology students

LDT, no examination of priming. Just examination of responses to neutral, sad, anger, fear and happiness words by binary decision of word/nonword (RTs)

Nil Neither F1 nor F2 predicted RTs for fear and happiness words.

F1 did not predict RTs for anger words, but F2 significantly predicted faster reaction times to anger words.

F1 significantly predicted slower response times for sadness words. F2 did not predict response times for sadness words.



Psychopathy measure

Control Measures

Word Rating Task?



Results

Vitale et al. (2011)

Female offenders (n = 117)

117 PCL-R to classify participants as psychopathic or nonpsychopathic (cut scores 24)

IQ (SILS)

Anxiety (WAS)

ASPD

No Emotion words selected from Rubin and Friendly’s (1986) word list.

High, Med and Low frequency words chosen

LDT, to examine RTs and accuracy to the different word types (positive, negative, neutral)

2 (P or NP) x 2 (anxious or non-anxious) x 2 (left vs right) x 3 (pos, neg, neut word) ANCOVA with ASPD as a covariate.

ASPD diagnosis significantly predicted emotional facilitation for emotion words.

No other significant effects.

S. Williamson et al. (1991)

Male offenders (n = 16)

0 PCL-R to classify participants as psychopathic or nonpsychopathic cut score 33

Matched controls

Yes, participants asked to rate words from good to bad on 7-point scale

Positive, Negative and Neutral words were selected from Toglia and Battig’s (1978) word norms

LDT to make binary decision of word/non word for positive, negative and neutral words.

Nonpsychopaths responded faster to emotion words than neutral words.

Psychopaths responded slower to emotion words than neutral words (response to negative words was



Psychopathy measure

Control Measures

Word Rating Task?



Results

slowest although this was not statistically tested).


Primes - word condition: Mean ratings for each word characteristic

Word Type

Noun/Verb Frequency Length Concreteness Imageability Valence SD Arousal SD

Positive 1.43 39.77 6.10 N/A N/A 7.36 1.51 5.09 2.53

Negative 1.33 39.84 5.83 N/A N/A 2.47 1.59 5.71 2.40

Concrete 1.11 45.75 5.48 592.95 588.93 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Abstract 1.41 42.68 6.35 306.59 344.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Appendix 7

Targets: Mean ratings for each word characteristic

Word Type


Positive 1.53 77.91 5.80 N/A N/A 7.99 1.33 6.19 2.48

Negative 1.30 71.31 5.77 N/A N/A 2.11 1.37 6.32 2.48




Primes - nonword condition: Mean ratings for each word characteristic

Word Type


Positive 1.33 48.48 6.13 N/A N/A 7.73 1.46 5.47 2.61

Negative 1.30 41.09 5.97 N/A N/A 2.32 1.66 5.82 2.56




Appendix 8

PRIME TARGET RELATEDNESS honeymoon sex related proud glad related poetry romantic related save rescue related ambition desire related angel fex beautiful glid birthday salantic bouquet redsue bunny demite traitor betray related rage anger related explosion bomb related rot cancer related disappoint failure related corpse begley debt arber fat boge alone carger alcoholic fillure vivid hurt unrelated butterfly stress unrelated treat danger unrelated lottery funeral unrelated pleasant hate unrelated cake struss christmas rander cheer huch comedy nuderat valentine hade ulcer alive unrelated punish free unrelated threat reward unrelated grave cash unrelated enemy friendly unrelated bankrupt atill despise swee divorce rewote fraud cank lost freacely elbow ankle related


PRIME TARGET RELATEDNESS furniture apartment related oil engine related lake skiing related owl bird related canoe arshe barn anictment basement engate zoo droing bean birk reason purpose related method concept related norm rule related manner attitude related hint answer related series pursese enough concues rare rund role attinine theme arwher hallway car unrelated crane dog unrelated van doorway unrelated animal machine unrelated hill key unrelated bath lar beard doy beetle roonway card mascone zipper jey custom certain unrelated specific design unrelated value chance unrelated possible worth unrelated forever quote unrelated bland certive amateur desais definition chapes exception worps extent snote star wish related delight happy related sing joy related triumph miracle related flowers nature related diamond wesh


PRIME TARGET RELATEDNESS elegant haddy fame jof smile suraphe fantasy narire tragedy grief related victim killer related shoot gun related noose suicide related torture pain related horror prief insane kether infection gan lie suirame maggot pame compassion jail unrelated wisdom flood unrelated adore terrorist unrelated enjoy accident unrelated dove disease unrelated gentle jame heart slood holiday tastorist cozy accigate hug diseine criminal passion unrelated famine knowledge unrelated extremist loved unrelated scar pleasure unrelated virus peace unrelated massacre dassion morgue phowlepts nightmare lorts poison frealure rejected pealm pond frog related school book related bench chair related bracelet necklace related sculpture painting related oven scog olive boak leather chacs couch neckloys duck manching mind soul related


PRIME TARGET RELATEDNESS current event related posh refined related urge beg related belief real related inaction sool order enant intention regires motive bew normal deat building mattress unrelated bed mountain unrelated piano house unrelated suitcase rock unrelated park clothes unrelated corkscrew maldress cloud meantail chain hoose clock rost test clorked example always unrelated bias infinite unrelated eternity opinion unrelated intrinsic paradox unrelated enigma innate unrelated instance aslays logic innitute simple ocotion usual parafue grade indant honest truth related glory victory related celebrate fireworks related fun party related cute puppy related king trule luxury neccory music firegarks paradise pangy rainbow mumpy drown suffocate related hung death related hell fire related wreck crash related scared afraid related rude sutmorate


PRIME TARGET RELATEDNESS starve deald thief fint blind crast trauma acroid trophy bully unrelated humour pollution unrelated amaze disaster unrelated comfort weapon unrelated prosper sad unrelated riches rolly thrill perrution treasure denanter warmth weison jolly sar coward win unrelated smog laughter unrelated cyclone magic unrelated deadly support unrelated lonely success unrelated burn hin vomit latchler violence pabic ugly suppame filth sudress blanket pillow related letter envelope related banana apple related coach football related egg chicken related yard mollow light envenics student adfle handle lootbale spring shacken common typical related unclear vague related represent depict related gradual slower related potential ability related length lugical moment varve need depoth phrase slaler scheme imenity boat tree unrelated


PRIME TARGET RELATEDNESS cement water unrelated hose window unrelated curtain garden unrelated fishing plant unrelated secretary blee room laner radio wantow insect warmen market plang tired vision unrelated mirage fatigue unrelated amount fiction unrelated reality less unrelated dignity unknown unrelated proof vibean pause falived repeat loction realm lelt review unscorm


Appendix 9

Welcome to the experiment

In this experiment, you will see a word presented very briefly in the centre of the screen.

A second word will appear immediately after the first.

This word will either be a valid English word (e.g. cup) or a non-word (e.g. kolp).

Your task is to respond as quickly as possible to the second word/non-word.

Press 'SPACEBAR' to continue for further instruction.

To decide if the second word forms a valid English word please use the keys 'F' and 'J' on the keyboard.

When a word appears press the 'J' key.

If a non-word appears press the 'F' key.

Press 'SPACEBAR' to begin the practice trials.


Appendix 10

Please enter the unique code you generated for the previous study (personality and the law).

REMINDER: The unique code consists of the first three letter of your mother's maiden name

and the last three digits of your mobile phone number. For example, if your mother's maiden

name was 'SMITH' and your mobile phone number is 0408 891 525, your unique code would

be 'SMI525'. This unique code will not identify you in any way. The purpose of the unique

code is to enable us to match your responses across studies within this project, whilst

maintaining your anonymity.

In this section you will be asked to rate a list of words on context availability (how easy it is

to think of a context or circumstance for the word). Some words are easy to think of a context

or circumstance in which they might appear. Forexample, the word ‘sorry’ can easily be

contextualised in the sentence ‘I am sorry’. You will be asked to rate how easy it is for the

word to evoke a context for it's use (e.g. situations, circumstances, and cases). The scale

ranges from ‘very difficult to think of a context’ to ‘very easy to think of a context’.

Try to use all 7 points on the rating scale. Remember to read each word carefully before you

rateit. Make your rating on the basis of how easily you can think of a context of use for the

word, not how you think people in general would rate the word.

On the concreteness word rating task you will be asked to rate words that represent objects,

materials or people as concrete (e.g. couch), and to rate words that refer to concepts that

cannotbe perceived by the senses as abstract (e.g. justice). We want you to indicate how

concrete the meaning of each word is for you by using a 7-point rating scale going from

‘highly abstract’ to ‘highly concrete’.


A concrete word comes with a higher rating and refers to something that exists in reality; you

can have immediate experience of it through your senses (smelling, tasting, touching,

hearing, seeing) and the actions you do. The easiest way to explain a concrete word is by

pointing to it or by demonstrating it (e.g. To explain 'couch', you could point to a couch or

show a picture of a couch).

An abstract word comes with a lower rating and refers to something you cannot experience

directly through your senses or actions. Its meaning depends on language. The easiest way to

explain it is by using other words (e.g. There is no simple way to demonstrate 'justice'; but we

can explain the meaning of the word by using other words that capture parts of its meaning).


rate it. Make your rating on the basis of how abstract or concrete you think the word is, not

how you think people in general would rate the word.

The imagebility word rating task asks you to rate the degree of ease with which a word brings

to mind a mental image, sound, or sensory experience.

Words differ in their capacity to arouse mental images of things or events. Some words

arouse a sensory experience such as a mental picture or sound very quickly and easily,

whereas others may do so with difficulty after a long delay or not at all.

The purpose of this task is to rate a list of words as to the ease with which they arouse mental

images. For example, some words bring to mind a mental picture very easily (e.g. flower),

while others do not (e.g. enough).

Your task is to decide how much imagery each word brings to mind. The scale ranges from

‘no image comes to mind’ to ‘very clear and vivid image’. Words that arouse images quickly

and easily should be rated as 'very clear and vivid image', whilst words that do not bring to


mind a mental image should be rated as 'no image comes to mind'. Words that are

intermediate in ease

or difficulty should be rated somewhere between the two extremes.


rate it. Make your rating on the basis of how easily you can form an image for the word, not

how you think people in general would rate the word.

For the valence word rating task you are asked to rate words that evoke happy, positive, and

satisfied feelings as positive, and words that evoke sad, unpleasant, and negative feelings as

negative.

At one extreme of this scale, you are happy, pleased, satisfied, contented, hopeful. When you

feel completely happy you should indicate this by selecting 'highly positive'. The other end of

the scale is when you feel completely unhappy, annoyed, unsatisfied, melancholic, despaired,

or bored. You can indicate feeling completely unhappy by selecting 'highy negative'. If the

word doesn't feel extremely positive or negative you can select anywhere in between the two

extremes that reflects your feeling.


rate it. Make your rating on the basis of how the word makes you feel, not how you think

people in general would rate the word.

For the arousal word rating task you are asked to rate the intensity of some words. You

should rate words that are calming, dull or boring with low arousal, and words that are highly

exciting or agitating with high arousal.

At one extreme of this scale you are stimulated, excited, frenzied, jittery, wide-awake, or

aroused. When you feel completely aroused you should select 'highly arousing'. When you


feel completely relaxed, calm, sluggish, dull, sleepy, or unaroused, indicate feeling calm by

selecting 'Not at all arousing'. As with the valence word rating scale, you can represent

intermediate levels of excitedness or calmness by selecting somewhere between the two

extremes.


rateit. Make your rating on the basis of how arousing the word is for you, not how you think

people in general would rate the word.

running head: the psychopath next door 1 the psychopath ... · criminality, executive functioning,...

Documents