EXPLORING PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY TRAITS AND MORAL DEVELOPMENT IN A NON-CRIMINAL SAMPLE. Kyle Bewsey, M.A. Dissertation Prepared for Degree of

Transcription

1 EXPLORING PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY TRAITS AND MORAL DEVELOPMENT IN A NON-CRIMINAL SAMPLE Kyle Bewsey, M.A. Dissertation Prepared for Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS May 2013 APPROVED: Craig Neumann, Major Professor Randall Cox, Committee Member Kenneth Sewell, Committee Member Vicki Campbell, Chair of the Department of Psychology Mark Wardell, Dean of the Toulouse Graduate School

2 Bewsey, Kyle. Exploring Psychopathic Personality Traits and Moral Development in a Non-Criminal Sample. Doctor of Philosophy (Clinical Psychology), May 2013, 88 pp., 17 tables, references, 95 titles. This study explored psychopathic personality traits among a non-criminal, college undergraduate sample. Much research has been done on conceptualizing the construct of psychopathy, but this work has been conducted primarily with incarcerated individuals using a structured interview, The Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003). The goal of the current study was to assess psychopathic traits among non-criminal individuals using The Self-Report Psychopathy Scale - Version Four (SRP-IV; Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, in press), and compare how SRP-IV scores were associated with a well recognized semi-structured interview for psychopathy, The Psychopathy Checklist Screening Version (PCL: SV; Hart, Cox, & Hare, 1995). The study also examined whether psychopathic personality traits could be predicted using a measure of normal-range personality, based on the five-factor model (FFM; Digman, 1990), and a measure developed by Loevinger (1976) related to ego development. Five-Factor Model Rating Form (FFMRF; Mullins-Sweat, Jamerson, Samuel, Olson, & Widiger, 2006) scores and Total Protocol Ratings (TPR score) on the Washington University Sentence Completion Test (WUSCT; Hy & Loevinger, 1996) were used to predict psychopathy scores. Correlations of SRP-IV scores and PCL: SV scores with FFMRF scores and WUSCT TPR scores were also examined for their uniformity. As predicted, there were significant, negative correlations between FFM domains, Agreeableness and Conscientious, and SRP-IV scores, as well as significant, negative correlations between WUSCT TPR scores and SRP-IV scores. These correlations ranged from small to strong for both SRP-IV overall scores and for SRP-IV factor scores (i.e., Interpersonal Manipulation, Callous Affect, Erratic Lifestyle, and Criminal

3 Tendencies). Additionally, FFM domain scores and WUSCT TPR scores significantly predicted SRP-IV scores. FFM domains, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, and WUSCT TPR scores, were the strongest predictors of SRP-IV scores. Similar results were found when FFM domain scores and WUSCT TPR scores predicted SRP-IV factor scores. Results also indicated Agreeableness and Conscientious explained an additional 24% of the variance in psychopathy scores, after controlling for WUSCT TPR scores. Conversely, WUSCT TPR scores explained an additional 5% of the variance in psychopathy scores after controlling for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Finally, as predicted, the differences in correlations between psychopathy scores (i.e., PCL: SV, SRP-IV), and Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and WUSCT TPR scores were not statistically significant providing evidence that correlates of psychopathic traits can be measured among non-criminal individuals using a self-report measure, the SRP-IV, and that these findings are concordant with those based on a standardized structured assessment for psychopathy. Limitations of the study, implications, and recommendations for future research are also discussed.

4 Copyright 2013 By Kyle Bewsey ii

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES......vi Chapters 1. EXPLORING PSYCHOPATY PERSONALITY TRAITS AND MORAL DEVELOPMENT IN A NON-CRIMINAL SAMPLE...1 Defining Psychopathy.. 1 The Measurement of Psychopathy... 6 The Factor Structure of Psychopathy: A Brief Synopsis The Five-Factor Model of Personality Historical Background of the Five Factors of Personality Defining the Five Factors and 30 Lower-Order Facets.13 The Five-Factor Model and Psychopathy The Theory of Ego Development.. 20 Ego Development and Psychopathy.. 24 Research Questions 28 Hypotheses METHOD Participants.30 Apparatus...31 Demographics 31 Five-Factor Model Rating Form (FFMRF) 31 Self-Report Psychopathy Scale Version IV (SRP-IV) 32 iii

6 Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL: SV). 33 Washington University Sentence Completion Task (WUSCT) Procedure...35 Data Analysis...35 Descriptive statistics..35 Inferential statistics Hypothesis 1a Hypothesis 1b Hypothesis 2a Hypothesis 2b Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis RESULTS The Relationship between Psychopathy and the FFM The Relationship between Psychopathy and Ego Development Theory The Relationship between Ego Development Theory and the FFM..41 Utilizing FFM and Ego Development Approaches to Predict Psychopathy..41 Standard Multiple Regression Hierarchical Multiple regression 44 Examining Differences in Associations between Measures of Psychopathy (i.e., SRP-IV and PCL: SV) and FFM iv

7 Examining Differences in Associations between Measures of Psychopathy (i.e., SRP-IV and PCL: SV) and Ego Development Theory.. 47 The Relationship between PCL: SV and SRP-IV Scores DISCUSSION Limitation of the Present Study. 57 Future Research. 58 Summary and Conclusions REFERENCES v

8 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 : Stages of Ego Development 61 Table 2: Frequency, Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges for FFMRF Domain Scores, SRP- IV Overall and Factor scores, PCL: SV Overall Scores, PCL: SV High and Low Group Scores, and WUSCT TPR Scores Table 3: Pearson Product-moment Correlations between SRP-IV Factor and Overall Scores, PCL-SV Overall Scores, FFMRF Scores, and WUSCT TPR Scores 63 Table 4 : Frequencies, Percentages, and Cumulative Percentages for WUSCT TPR Scores for High SRP-IV Scores..64 Table 5 : Frequencies, Percentages, and Cumulative Percentages for WUSCT TPR Scores for Low SRP-IV Scorers..65 Table 6 : Summary of Standard Multiple Regression for FFMRF Domains and WUSCT TPR Scores Predicting SRP-IV Psychopathy Overall Scores Table 7 : Summary of Standard Multiple Regression for FFMRF Domains and WUSCT TPR Scores Predicting Interpersonal Manipulation Scores...67 Table 8 : Summary of Standard Multiple Regression for FFMRF Domains and WUSCT TPR Scores Predicting Callous Affect Scores Table 9 : Summary of Standard Multiple Regression for FFMRF Domains and WUSCT TPR Scores Predicting Erratic Lifestyle Scores.69 Table 10 : Summary of Standard Multiple Regression for FFMRF Domains and WUSCT TPR Scores Predicting Criminal Tendency Scores 70 Table 11 : Summary of Standard Multiple Regression for FFMRF Domains and WUSCT TPR Scores Predicting PCL: SV Scores 71 vi

9 Table 12 : Hierarchical Multiple Analysis of Predicting Psychopathy Overall Scores from WUSCT TRP Scores Controlling for FFMRF Agreeableness and Conscientiousness Score..72 Table 13 : Hierarchical Multiple Analysis of Predicting Psychopathy Overall Scores from FFMRF Agreeableness and Conscientiousness Scores Controlling for WUSCT TRP Scores. 73 Table 14 : Comparisons of Pearson Product-Moment Correlations between Psychopathy Scores and FFMRF Agreeableness and Conscientiousness Domain Scores and WUSCT TPR Scores. 74 Table 15 : Comparisons of Pearson Product-Moment Correlations between Psychopathy Scores (PCL: SV and SRP-IV Overall Scores for Individuals who Completed the PCL: SV) and FFMRF Agreeableness and Conscientiousness Domain Scores and WUSCT TPR Scores Table 16 : Frequencies, Percentages, and Cumulative Percentages for PCL: SV Scores for High SRP-IV Scorers.. 76 Table 17 : Frequencies, Percentages, and Cumulative Percentages for PCL: SV Scores for Low SRP-IV Scores vii

10 CHAPTER 1 EXPLORING PSYCHOPATHIC PERSONALITY TRAITS AND MORAL DEVELOPMENT IN A NON-CRIMINAL SAMPLE Defining Psychopathy During the early 19 th century, Philippe Pinel was one of the first clinicians to write on the subject of psychopathy. He described a condition he identified as manie sans delire or mania without delirium, and he later called it manie raisonnante or madness-like. These individuals often engaged in rule breaking, recklessness, and destructive behaviors (1801/1806, as cited in Herve, p. 32, 2007). A number of clinicians after Pinel would attempt to address the concept of psychopathy and some of its core features, but it was Howard Cleckley (1941, 1988), utilizing case study methodology, who provided the first thorough and specific conceptualization of psychopathy in his book, The Mask of Sanity. Herve (2007) says, Cleckley set out to define the core characteristics of the disorder and did so in a much more explicit and methodical fashion than any of his predecessors (p. 43). Cleckley identified a set of 16 defining traits or characteristics of psychopathy: Superficial charm and good intelligence; absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking; absence of nervousness or psychoneurotic manifestations; unreliability; untruthfulness and insincerity; lack of remorse or shame; inadequately motivated antisocial behavior; poor judgment and failure to learn by experience; pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love; general poverty in major affective reactions; specific loss of insight, unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relation; fantastic and uninviting behavior with drink and sometimes without; suicide rarely 1

11 carried out; sex life impersonal, trivial and poorly integrated; and failure to follow any life plan. (p ) Cleckley (1941, 1988) believed that underlying the core features of psychopathy was a deficit in experiencing or processing emotion at the same level as healthy, non-personality disordered individuals. This deficit, Cleckley proposed, led psychopaths to lack typical anxious, guilty, or remorseful psychological propensities. Similarly, it has been hypothesized that psychopaths tendency for fearlessness and shallow affect led them to engage in many of the socially deviant, impulsive, and manipulative acts that also characterize the disorder. Cleckley believed that the psychopath s only real source of tension or worry was in concern for their personal well-being. Using Cleckley (1941, 1988) as a guide, clinicians and researchers in the 1960s worked to define and operationalize the construct of psychopathy through research and clinical case studies (Herve, 2007). This influx of research led to two different conceptualizations of the psychopath. One was antisocial personality disorder, which is now defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision, (APA [DSM-IV- TR], 2000). The second conceptualization was Robert Hare s psychopath, which is partially based on Cleckley s criteria for psychopathy (Hare & Neumann, 2008), and was first defined in the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, 1980). Hare (1996) addressed the history of the discrepancy and diagnostic confusion between antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy. He suggests that the rift began in 1980 with the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition (APA [DSM-III], 1980) when authors decided to call the construct antisocial personality disorder rather than psychopathy. The DSM-based disorder was characterized primarily in behavioral terms, 2

12 and gave a great deal of weight to social deviance and overt antisocial behaviors, while more trait-based personality components of psychopathy (e.g., grandiosity) were left out. Hare believes that this was a result of the importance placed on gaining an objectively measurable and reliable diagnosis, but he suggested that diagnostic validity was sacrificed. Also in 1980, Hare published his PCL, which incorporated both the behavioral and personality/trait features of psychopathy. However, his conceptualization was not included in the DSM-III (APA). Over the last 20 years, each subsequent version of the DSM has focused on the behavioral features of psychopathy, while placing only slightly more emphasis on the personality trait and interpersonal features, even at the behest of many clinicians (Hare, 1996). At present, the DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000) diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder is defined as a chronic disregard for and violation of the rights of others. Key criteria also include criminal behavior, deceitfulness, impulsivity, irritability and aggressiveness, recklessness, irresponsibility, and lack of remorse. To receive a diagnosis an individual must show a chronic disregard and violation of the rights of others before age 15, and they must meet three of the additional criteria. Given these broad criteria, a wide range of individuals can receive a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. Perhaps even more problematic is the DSM-IV-TR (APA) indicates that the diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy are synonymous. Nevertheless, it is possible that one individual will only exhibit social deviance criteria for DSM-based psychopathy while another may meet criteria more in line with Hare s conceptualization of a psychopath. The diagnostic differences and asymmetry between psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder are even more apparent when we consider that the base rate for PCL-based psychopathy is 15-25% in forensic settings, while the base rate for antisocial personality disorder is 50-80% (Cunningham & Reidy, 1998; Hare, 1996). This 3

13 problem in diagnostic differences is further illustrated by the fact that individuals diagnosed with psychopathy using the PCL-R are more likely to commit violent crimes, have higher recidivism rates for violent and sexual crimes, and show poorer treatment outcomes compared to individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder (Hare, Clark, Grann, & Thornton, 2000; Hemphill, Hare, & Wong, 1998; Porter & Woodworth, 2006; Rice & Harris, 1997; Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1996). Hare has continued to stress a conceptualization of psychopathy that contains both behavioral features and interpersonal/personality features (Hare & Neumann, 2008). This can be seen with his development and publication of a clinically useful measure of psychopathy, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003). Hare s PCL-R divides psychopathy into two broad symptom sets, emotional/interpersonal symptoms: glib and superficial, egocentric and grandiose, lack of remorse or guilt, lack of empathy, deceitful and manipulative, and shallow emotions and social deviance symptoms: impulsive, poor behavior controls, need for excitement, lack of responsibility, early behavior problems, and adult antisocial behavior. However, this two dimensional model has been further refined in terms of a four factor model (Neumann, Hare, & Newman, 2007) In his 1993 book, Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths among us, Hare provides a vivid description of both the emotional/interpersonal and social deviance symptom sets. He characterizes psychopaths as glib and superficial because of their conversational skills, their charming interpersonal style, and their ability to mimic sincerity and supposed knowledge about a variety of topics. They also possess an innate narcissism and an egocentric view of the world. They often develop elaborate plans to gain power, wealth, and status without the wherewithal or any specific plan to realistically achieve such success. 4

14 Psychopaths experience a complete lack of remorse for the negative consequences of their behaviors on others; however, they may learn to imitate these feelings for self-serving purposes. They are also prone to externalize blame and find rationalizations for their behaviors. Hare believes another essential element of psychopathy is a lack of empathy, that is, psychopaths show an inability to understand or empathize with the thoughts and feelings of others. They might even consider empathic individuals like therapists or nurses as weak and vulnerable. Psychopaths are also highly skilled at lying and manipulating others and can enact elaborately formulated cons. Finally, as Cleckley (1941, 1988) noted, it is hypothesized that psychopaths lack the range or intensity of emotional experience, compared to healthy individuals. Hare says, Sometimes they claim to experience strong emotions but are unable to describe the subtleties of various affective states. For example, psychopaths equate love with sexual arousal, sadness with frustration, and anger with irritability (p. 52). The interpersonal and affective characteristics described above comprise two important dimensions of psychopathy. In addition, there is a set of behavioral characteristics that make up other core features of psychopathy (Hare, 1993; Hare & Neumann, 2010). Psychopaths act impulsively without weighing the consequences of their behavior. They enjoy immediate gratification and find it difficult to resist their impulses. Along with impulsivity, psychopaths are also described as being hot tempered, quick to anger, and can be unable to control aggressive behavior. They also crave excitement and activity in their lives and they often cannot stand monotony. Hare discusses psychopathic individuals who commit crimes or engage in lifethreatening activities simply for the rush and excitement. Psychopaths also lack responsibility and can be quite unreliable. Typical behaviors include failure to repay debts, difficulty keeping a job, frequently driving under the influence of alcohol, and engaging in promiscuous sexual 5

15 behavior. Psychopathy is often associated with a number of early conduct problems including lying, theft, vandalism, promiscuity (Hare, p. 67). Finally, psychopaths often continue this pattern of rule breaking behavior into adulthood and develop lengthy arrest records. The Measurement of Psychopathy The PCL-R has widely been considered the gold standard for reliably and validly assessing for and diagnosing individuals with psychopathic personality (Acheson, 2005). Vitale and Newman (2008) add that because the PCL-R provided the common method for measuring psychopathy it has been a conduit for most of the psychopathy research for the past two decades. They even suggest over the course of the past twenty years, researchers and clinicians would be more likely to be called upon to justify not using the PCL-R as their primary measure of psychopathy than vice versa (Vitale & Newman, p. 579). However, there are certain drawbacks to using the PCL-R and structured interviews in general. Most notably, the PCL-R was designed to be used with forensic populations and this means that its use with non-forensic populations is problematic, though there are derivatives of the PCL-R (e.g., PCL: SV) that can be used with non-forensic populations (Lilienfeld, 2006). Nevertheless, psychopathy researchers have also been interested in developing alternative methods of measuring psychopathy, such as self-report. Lilienfeld reports a number of advantages in using self-report measures in the assessment of psychopathy. He suggests that self-report measures have the potential to accurately capture an individual s inner experiences and emotional states that are sometimes missed by clinical observation. Further, self-reports measure not only the presence of emotional states and experiences, but also the absence of states and experiences when they are not endorsed. They are also generally easy to complete by the examinee, easy to administer for the examiner, and take less overall time than any other method 6

16 (e.g., structured interviews, file review). Self-reports often have built-in response style measures, which is a clear advantage over structured interviews when considering the likelihood of impression management in psychopathy. Finally, self-report measures have an inherent advantage over interviews in that inter-rater reliability is not an issue, although they are susceptible to other threats to reliability. The PCL-R is a complex structured interview, which makes accurately coding responses labor intensive, and depends on adequate training to administer and code (Hare, 2003; Lilienfeld). There are also certain disadvantages in using self-report to measure psychopathy (Lilienfeld, 2006). First, psychopaths are infamously dishonest even when lying is not inherently beneficial to them (e.g., lying for fun). In addition, psychopaths are adept at both positive and negative impression management depending on the context of the situation. Further, psychopaths have a fundamental lack of insight into their own problems, behavior, and the impact of their actions on others. Third, psychopaths lack of emotional experience may not allow them to accurately report their own emotions. As Cleckley (1941, 1988) indicated, psychopaths may lack the ability to experience normal emotions like guilt or shame. Therefore, psychopaths may not be lying about their emotional experiences; they may simply not understand them. Finally, many personality measures often tap primarily into negative emotionality, which decreases the discriminant validity of many of the earlier self-report measures of psychopathy (e.g., the MMPI-2 Psychopathic Deviate scale). To address many of the aforementioned weaknesses of previous self-report measures of psychopathy, a series of researchers have aimed to develop more valid and reliable self-reports (Lilienfeld, 2006). Williams, Paulhus, and Hare (2007) indicate that the three self-report measures of psychopathy that have gained the most empirical support are the Self-Report 7

17 Psychopathy Scale Version II (SRP-II; Hare, Hemphill, and Harpur, 1989), the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrew, 1996), and the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP; Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). Lilienfeld adds that these measures tend to be best regarded in terms of self-report measures of psychopathy because they were expressly developed to respond to problems with past self-report instruments. In addition, they were designed to measure the entire construct of psychopathy, including interpersonal, affective, and lifestyle features, not just overt antisocial behaviors (Zagon & Jackson, 1994; Poythress, Edens, & Lilienfeld, 1998; Lynam, Whiteside, & Jones, 1999; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Questions still linger about the adequacy of self-report measures of psychopathy. This may mean that self-reports should not be used alone in assessing psychopathy (Lilienfeld, 2006). One instrument that can be used to supplement self-report measures is the PCL: SV, a 12-item measure based on the PCL-R, which is intended for use in psychiatric and non-institutionalized settings. Further, the PCL: SV, unlike the PCL-R, does not rely on use of formal criminal records in coding responses (Forth, Brown, Hart, & Hare, 1996). Importantly, the PCL: SV and the PCL-R are highly correlated (Cooke, Michie, Hart, & Hare, 1999). The PCL: SV is therefore applicable to a wider range of populations, it is less time consuming to administer, and it remains comparable to the PCL-R. The Factor Structure of Psychopathy: A Brief Synopsis There has been much debate over the prevailing factor structure of various psychopathy assessments, which of course, has implications for the larger construct. This began with exploratory factor analyses conducted on the PCL and the PCL-R. The results of the analyses led researchers to conclude that one psychopathy factor is made up of interpersonal features, 8

18 such as glibness, superficiality, and charm, and affective features, like lack of remorse or guilt. The second psychopathy factor is comprised of social deviance features, such as impulsivity and adult antisocial behaviors (Hare, Harpur, Hakstian, Forth, & Hart, 1990; Hare, 1991; Harpur, Hakstian, & Hare, 1988). Cooke and Michie (2001), using a mix of statistical methodologies (i.e., cluster, IRT, and confirmatory factor analysis), and subjective decisions, proposed an alternative three-factor model of psychopathy. Their model consisted of an interpersonal factor, an affective factor, and a lifestyle factor. Essentially, they separated PCL-R Factor 1 into two factors and dropped the antisocial behavior component of Factor 2. However, a number of researchers including Neumann, Kosson, and Salekin (2007) suggest that when they conducted their CFA they left out all of the antisocial behavior items (Items 10, 12, 18, 19, and 20). This has led many researchers to dispute Cooke and Michie s three-factor solution and investigators have shown that when all or a majority of the antisocial behavior items are included, psychopathy can be represented by four, not three, underlying factors (Hare & Neumann, 2008). This four-factor structure has been demonstrated in studies using the PCL-R (Hare, 2003; Hare & Neumann, 2006; Neumann et al., 2007), the PCL: SV (Hill, Neumann, & Rogers, 2004; Vitacco, Jackson, & Neumann, 2005), the PCL: YV (Neumann, Kosson, Forth, & Hare, 2006) and the SRP-III (Carré, Hyde, Neumann, Viding, & Hariri, in press; Williams et al., 2007). Neumann et al. add that the inclusion of antisocial behavior is consistent with the early EFA studies that were conducted. They also argue that the four-factor model is more mathematically parsimonious and consistent with clinical tradition. Finally, PCL: SV studies using the fourfactor model have shown better predictive validity for aggression and violence than the threefactor model (Hill et al.; Vitacco et al.). Given growing consensus on the four dimensions of 9

19 (PCL-based) psychopathy, researchers are seeking to better understand of a number of theoretical correlates of psychopathy that may further understanding of psychopathic personality. The Five-Factor Model of Personality Although psychopathy involves a conceptualization of a deviant form of personality, there exists a wide array of theories on non-pathological or normal-range personality; many are classic theories that date back into the early 20 th century. McCrae and Costa (1996) suggest that the five-factor model of personality (FFM; Digman, 1990) has emerged as a suitable alternative to these outdated models. The five factors are extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Extraversion measures level of extraversion versus introversion, openness to experience measures openmindedness and intellectual curiosity versus disdain for novel experiences, neuroticism measures emotional stability versus maladjustment, agreeableness measures amicable versus antagonistic interpersonal style, and conscientiousness measures degree of organization and control versus disorganization and lack of control. Advocates of the FFM believe that it is a theoretical and empirically viable structure that comprehensively measures and accounts for all aspects of general personality traits (Digman; Wiggins & Pincus, 1992; Goldberg, 1993). McCrae and Costa stated that the FFM s strengths, much like any trait theory, are its underlying assumptions of variability, proactivity, scientific knowability, and rationality, but that the FFM is unique because it is a fully comprehensive system where all personality variations can be explained within the context of the model (p. 61). McCrae and Costa (1996) provide three arguments for the comprehensiveness of the FFM. First, the FFM is able to explain the personality variance in most personality scales, even those that originate from widely varying theoretical perspectives. Second, the five factors relate 10

20 to a wide range of psychological constructs including psychopathology, motivation, interpersonal relationships, and temperament (e.g., low agreeableness and conscientiousness are related to psychopathy and conscientiousness is related to achievement striving). Third, because FFM traits have been shown to capture aspects of motivation, psychopathology, and cognition they are more than simple representations of behaviors. Use of the FFM allows for in-depth description and understanding of the person on multiple levels, normal and pathological. Consequently, over the past 40 years the FFM has gained worldwide acceptance, while continuing to receive empirical support (Digman, 1990). Historical Background of the Five Factors of Personality Digman (2002) contends the concept of five separate personality factors, which are proposed to explain personality variability, is not new and dates back over 75 years (Note: Certain studies have shown overlap between these separate factors indicating they are not orthogonal. Reynolds and Clark (2001) found moderate relationships between neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, as well as extraversion and openness to experience). In 1932, McDougal was the first to make a theoretical argument for five individual and unique personality domains. One year later Louis Thurstone (1934) presented his factor analysis of 60 adjectives, used to rate individual differences, during his 1933 presidential address at the American Psychological Association. As McDougal had suggested, Thurstone was able to demonstrate empirically five personality factors. However, after his initial study, Thurstone declined to follow-up on the factor analysis of personality traits and instead focused his attention in the area of intelligence. Researchers continued factor analysis of personality traits over the next 17 years, but there was widespread disagreement about the number of distinct personality 11

21 variables. Cattell (1947, 1948) suggested, in a series of studies, that he had found 16 individual factors, whereas Eysenck (1947) proposed a three-factor model of personality. Beginning in 1949, however, evidence for a five-factor model began emerging again. Fiske (1949) used 22 of Cattell s temperament rating scales and was able to identify five factors among a sample of Veteran s Administration trainees. In fact, these five factors were confirmed across self-ratings, peer ratings, and ratings of a supervisor. Fiske called these factors social adaptability, conformity, emotional control, inquiring intellect, and confident selfexpression. Tupes and Christal (1961) administered 30 of Cattell s temperament rating scales to a sample of U.S. Air Force trainees. Again, they found evidence for five factors. They also reanalyzed the correlations from Cattell s 1947 and 1948 studies, and Fiske s 1949 study and identified five factors that were each quite similar in content to their five factors. They labeled these factors surgency or extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and culture. Digman (1996) suggests that most personality researchers overlooked these studies. Tupes and Christal s article received particularly scant attention because it was published in an Air Force Technical Report. Although the emerging five-factor model was slow to gain attention, there were at least three researchers testing its merits. Norman (1963) used 20 of Cattell s temperament scales and found the same five factors from Fiske s (1949), and Tupes and Christal s (1961) studies. Borgatta (1964) developed his own rating scales based on brief descriptive sentences. He administered these scales to fraternity and sorority members and was able to identify the same five factors, which he labeled assertiveness, likeability, responsibility, emotionality, and intelligence. Finally, Smith (1967) had undergraduate college students use rating scales to rate their peers. Like his contemporaries, he found five factors that he called extraversion, 12

22 agreeableness, emotionality, strength of character, and refinement. It appears evident that the five factors found by Fiske, Tupes and Christal, Norman, Borgatta, and Smith are closely aligned in content with the currently agreed upon factors, extraversion, neuroticism, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and agreeableness. Although there was a great deal of empirical evidence in support of a FFM, it was slow to become a respected model. Digman (1990) suggests that this was likely due to the rise of behaviorism during the 1960s and 1970s and to the belief, proposed by Mischel, that behaviors were largely determined by the situation rather than personality variables. However, in 1980, at the Western Psychological Association, Digman (1996) reports that he along with Lewis Goldberg, Andrew Comrey, and Naomi Takemoto-Chock came to an agreement that the fivefactor model was the best and most robust factor model of personality. Goldberg proposed the five-factor model to Paul Costa and Robert McCrae who had developed a three-factor model, which included extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience, but not agreeableness or conscientiousness. They were persuaded and, in 1985, they created the first inventory specifically designed to measure the five-factor model, the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae). Defining the Five Factors and 30 Lower-Order Facets The five factors or domains of personality are groups of related sets of traits that together represent a person s emotional, interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal, and motivational styles (Costa & McCrae, p. 14, 1992). The five factors are called extraversion, openness to experience, neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae). The extraversion domain measures an individual s sociability, excitement seeking, and assertiveness. Conversely, the absence of these prototypical extraversion characteristics reflects introverts who 13

23 often prefer to be alone and tend to be more reserved and independent. The openness to experience domain measures an individual s level of curiosity, their willingness to explore new concepts and ideas, and the intensity of their emotional experience. As it turns out, there is a correlation between openness to experience and intelligence, and some researchers have referred to the openness to experience domain intellect (Costa & McCrae, p. 15). However, Costa and McCrae suggest that the openness to experience domain is only related to certain features of intelligence such as creativity. The neuroticism domain measures an individual s emotional stability versus maladjustment. The neuroticism domain appears to be closely linked to an individual s proclivity to experience negative affective states, impulsivity, an inability to cope with daily stressors, and irrational thoughts. The agreeableness domain measures an individual s likelihood to be amiable and helpful towards others. The agreeableness domain is also referred to as an individual s tendency toward altruism versus antagonism (Widiger & Lynam, 1998). However, neither low nor high levels of this trait appear advantageous, as high levels have been associated with dependent personality disorder and low levels with psychopathy and narcissistic personality disorder. The conscientiousness domain measures an individual s ability to be taskoriented, methodical, and organized in his or her daily life. Low levels of this trait are often associated with a lack of self-control or irresponsibility (Costa & McCrae). Each of the five domains is comprised of six lower-order facets, and thus the FFM represents a hierarchical model of personality based on lower-order more specific traits versus more broad and general personality dispositions. Costa and McCrae (1992) cite three advantages to using a hierarchical approach. The use of (lower-order) facets allows for the assessment of a broad array of specific thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, which together make each domain a broader measure of underlying personality disposition. Also, with six facets that closely relate to 14

24 a particular domain and an underlying construct, researchers and clinicians have more confidence that the overall domain comprehensively relates to the underlying latent construct. Third, closer examination of individual personality characteristics through facets allows us to see that there can be differences within various domains (Costa & McCrae). This is particularly apparent when an individual scores within the average range for a domain, but they have high and low scores on certain facets. Smith, McCarthy, and Zapolski (2009) actually suggest that a major criticism of the FFM is that the domains are multi-dimensional and heterogeneous rather than unidimensional. Therefore, when a score is calculated for an individual for a specific domain by summing up the facet scores, significant information is lost unless the specific facets are examined to better understand how the six facets of the domain are influencing the overall domain score. The Five-Factor Model and Psychopathy Not surprisingly, giving the evidence that most forms of psychopathology are continuously distributed, researchers have suggested that psychopathy (and other forms of psychopathology) can be understood as an extreme variant of normal-range personality, and it may be best understood through a FFM conceptualization (Widiger & Costa, 1994). Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian (1989) were among the first researchers to examine the relationship between the FFM and psychopathy. In their study, they used the Interpersonal Adjectives Scale (IAS; Wiggins, 1979), which is an alternative measure of the FFM. They found significant negative relationships between Love and PCL scores and significant positive relationships between Dominance and PCL scores. Love is considered synonymous with some of the facets of the agreeableness domain, whereas dominance is synonymous with certain facets of the extraversion domain. As an extension of this study, Harpur, Hart, and Hare (2002) hypothesized that 15

25 psychopaths would score high in Extroversion and low in Conscientious, Agreeableness, Openness to Experience, and Neuroticism. They compared NEO-PI and PCL scores in an offender sample and a student sample. They found negative correlations between the PCL and the agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience domains; however, in the offender sample only correlations between the agreeableness domain and the PCL were statistically significant. Conversely, among the student sample only the conscientiousness domain was significantly negatively correlated with PCL scores. Hart and Hare (1994) administered the PCL: SV to 24 participants (12 university students and 12 offenders). Two independent raters were then asked to rate the men using the Revised Interpersonal Adjectives Scale-Big 5 version (IASR-B5; Trapnell & Wiggins, 1991). The interrater reliability was reported as good. The researchers found significant negative correlations between psychopathy scores and the agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and neuroticism domains of the FFM. Lynam, Whiteside, and Jones (1999) compared participants Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, 1995) and Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP; Levenson et al., 1995) scores. The LSRP is a 26-item self-report measure that examines both social deviance and psychopathic personality traits, including glibness, superficiality, impulsivity, and failure to learn from mistakes. They found significant negative correlations between LSRP total scale scores and the agreeableness and conscientiousness domains of the FFM. Similarly, Paulhus and Williams (2002) used the BFI as a measure of the FFM, while they used the Self-Report of Psychopathy Scale (SRP; Hare, 1985) to measure psychopathy. They found significant negative correlations between psychopathy scores and the agreeableness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism domains, 16

26 while they found significant positive correlations between psychopathy scores and the extraversion and openness to experience domains of the FFM. Lynam (2002) administered the LSRP and the NEO-PI-R to a group of 481 participants. He found negative correlations between all facets of the agreeableness domain and total psychopathy scores. He also found that correlations between psychopathy scores and all facets of the conscientiousness domain, except order, ranged from -.35 to Correlations between total psychopathy scores and the neuroticism domain were small; however, he found a moderate, positive correlation between total psychopathy scores and the angry hostility facet. He found weak correlations among the extraversion domain and total psychopathy scores with the exception of the warmth facet, which was moderately negatively correlated with total psychopathy scores. Of note, the 30 facets of the FFM accounted for 57% of the variance in total psychopathy scores. Miller, Lynam, Widiger, and Leukefeld (2001) used an alternative approach in conceptualizing psychopathy using the FFM. The authors contacted 23 respected psychopathy researchers and asked them to rate the prototypical psychopath on 30 bipolar scales representing the 30 facets of the FFM. The researchers then administered the NEO-PI-R, and the LSRP to 242 male and 239 female participants. The expert generated psychopathy scale suggested that the psychopath was low in all facets of agreeableness, the dutifulness, self-discipline, selfconsciousness, and vulnerability facets of conscientiousness, the warmth facet of extraversion, and the openness to feelings facets of openness to experience. Further, they found that the psychopath was rated high on the impulsiveness facet of neuroticism, the assertiveness and excitement seeking facets of extraversion, the actions facet of openness, and the competence facet of conscientiousness. 17

27 The expert generated psychopathy scale was then compared to each participant s NEO- PI-R profile to determine which personality traits were associated with psychopathy. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between the expert generated psychopathy scale and agreeableness, whereas there was a statistically significant positive correlation between the expert generated psychopathy scale and extraversion. Finally, the expert generated psychopathy scale and the LSRP were significantly positively correlated, demonstrating external validation of the scale. Taken together, these FFM-based studies provide good evidence for the idea that psychopathy can be further understood by using a normal-range (FFM) approach to conceptualization of personality (Miller et al., 2001). Given the findings of all the various FFM studies, Lynam and Derefinko (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of many of the aforementioned studies (i.e., Harpur et al., 1989, 2002; Lynam, 2002; Lynam, Whiteside, & Jones, 1999; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). They tabulated the results of these studies and suggested that all five FFM domains were significantly related to psychopathy; however, only agreeableness and conscientiousness were strongly related. They reported effect sizes for each of the domains in relationship to psychopathy scores. Weighted mean effect sizes were.16 for neuroticism, -.05 for extraversion, -.10 for openness to experience, -.52 for agreeableness, and -.38 for conscientiousness. The authors summarized that low agreeableness appears to be the best indicator of psychopathy, while conscientiousness has been frequently related to psychopathy. They suggested that although weak relationships exist for neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience it might be because these domains are not unidimensional, as was later suggested by Smith, McCarthy, and Zapolski (2009). Therefore, a psychopath may be rated high on certain facets of neuroticism (e.g., angry hostility), while they are rated low on other facets (e.g., self-consciousness) of the same domain. Researchers have 18

28 conducted a number of studies utilizing self-reports to measure psychopathy but questions remain about the validity of the self-report method with psychopaths. As mentioned, Lilienfeld (2006) contends that there are both advantages and disadvantages in the use of self-reports. Selfreports provide information about the absence or presence of subjective emotional states, they are efficient and economical, they assess response style, and interrater reliability is not a problem. However, psychopaths tend to lie frequently, they lack insight into their psychological problems, their limited emotional experience may not allow them to accurately report their own emotions, and it may be difficult for self-report measures to discriminate psychopathology from negative emotionality. Jackson and Richards (2007) also indicate that the literature has shown that psychopaths have difficulty rating their personality and emotional traits. The authors utilized alternative methods in a study exploring the relationship between psychopathy and the FFM in an offender sample. They used both the self-report form of the NEO-PI-R and allowed the primary therapist to complete the observer form of the NEO-PI-R. They assessed psychopathy by administering the PCL-R and PCL: SV to an offender sample. Agreeableness was found to be significantly negatively correlated with psychopathy scores in both the self and observer groups. Only observer ratings for the conscientiousness domain were significantly negatively correlated with psychopathy scores. Correlations between self and observer ratings indicate that there were only significant negative correlations for Factor 1 of the PCL: SV and the affective facet of the PCL- R. The authors suggest that this finding is indicative of psychopaths inability to accurately report on their emotional states. Although Jackson and Richards found similar results as many of the previous studies, they contend that because of limitations with self-reports, a FFM 19

29 conceptualization may be valid yet not comprehensive. This finding lends support for the use of alternative measures to fully conceptualize psychopathy. A particularly novel approach to assessing psychopathy, separate from interviewer ratings or self-reports, involves a projective technique like the Washington University Sentence Completion Test (WUSCT; Hy & Loevinger, 1996), developed to measure Loevinger s (1976) theory of ego development. This third approach might fill the void left by the inherent inability of psychopaths to self-report on their inner experiences and emotional states, or for these internal experiences to be rated via PCL interview. Before providing a discussion of ego development and psychopathy, a brief discussion of ego development theory follows. The Theory of Ego Development The theory of ego development finds it origins in two philosophical questions. How the ego is shaped during childhood and why are there individual differences in ego development (Loevinger, 1976). Loevinger indicates particular interest in the structure of the ego and how it evolves over time. She suggests that the term ego is comprised of character development, cognitive style, interpersonal style, and conscious preoccupations, stating specifically, discussion of ego development includes some topics previously discussed under moral development, socialization, character structure, and even cognitive development (Loevinger, p.4). Loevinger also prescribes the four essential components of the theory of ego development. It is a stage-type theory of development meaning that individuals pass through critical stages during their lives and they have the potential to become stuck in these stages and defined by the stage where they are fixated. Also, each progressive stage details a more advanced or evolved representation of ego development. Third, the theory of ego development is a falsifiable theory and there are specific methodologies in place to test, assess, and move the theory forward, 20

30 specifically the latest version of the WUSCT (Hy & Loevinger, 1996). Finally, this stage-type theory is appropriate for all ages of individuals (Loevinger). Loevinger (1976) describes in detail the stages of ego development (see Table 1). She indicates that the stages can apply to any age group, but it is rare to see adolescents and adults in the early stages just as it is not possible for very young children to be in more advanced stages. Loevinger s first stage of development is the presocial stage and it is described as the stage where the individual has no ego. Therefore, the individual cannot differentiate their own self from the world around them. During the symbiotic stage, individuals have differentiated themselves from the world, but not from their primary caregiver. The major developmental milestone during this stage is the ability of the individual to see themselves as a different person from their primary caregiver. The chief piece in accomplishing this end is language skills. During the impulsive stage, the individual is primarily defined by their basic impulses. Individuals focus on the present and worry about satisfying their own needs. Individuals in this stage are often egocentric and dependent on others, specifically their primary care providers. The self-protective stage is defined by the individual moving past the satisfaction of his or her own impulses. Here, individuals begin to understand the difference between right and wrong. They also begin to understand the concept of blame, but this blame is often externalized to others or situations. Adults in this stage may become fixed on securing advantage over others and may focus on material possessions. The conformist stage is the first stage where the individual begins to associate their interests with that of a larger group. This only happens when individuals feel they can trust other people. Here, the individual follows rules because they believe that they are following socially accepted norms, rather than because they fear punishment. Loevinger also refers to this behavior as social desirability because belonging and social acceptance are 21

31 paramount during this stage (p. 18). Also, the conformist defends other group members, but they may be apt to look negatively upon members of different groups. The self-aware level: transition from conformist to conscientiousness stage is one of the most important stages in the ego development model (Loevinger, 1976), mainly because it is considered the modal level reached by most adults. One is also considered to have accomplished a healthy level of ego development if they have reached this stage. The two primary differences between this level and the conformist stage are that individuals in this stage can understand alternative explanations for events and possess more self-awareness regarding their own behavior. At the conscientious stage, the conscience of the individual is fully developed. They follow rules based on their beliefs about the merits of the rules. They develop a desire to protect and care for others. Also, they begin to see that there is more to the world than right and wrong or black and white. The individualist level: transition from conscientiousness to the autonomous stage is also a critical level in that it characterizes an emotional enlightenment. Here, the individual finds that they must strive for an emotional independence from others. They also begin to understand the concept of individual differences and they learn that conflict is part of human existence. The autonomous stage is marked by an individual s ability to deal with inner conflict. The individual begins to appreciate his or her and others autonomy. Autonomous individuals possess the insight and courage to understand, explore, and accept their inner conflicts openly. In this stage, individuals also focus on self-fulfillment more than achievement striving. Finally, Loevinger says the integrated stage is the rarest and most difficult stage to achieve. In many ways, it represents a transcendence of self or a self-actualization. As can be seen through Loevinger s (1976) theory of ego development, the stages are rather advanced and encompass many psychological and social phenomena. The development of 22