The lack of early research with subclinical psychopaths, could have led to a distorted understanding of the essence of psychopathy, and, subsequently, an erroneous definition of the disorder. However, the latter set of traits was not central to psychopathy diagnosis in Cleckley’s writings.Įven though criminal tendencies featured in some early portrayals of psychopathic individuals (see Arrigo and Shipley, 2001 and Moreira et al., 2014 for a historical overview of psychopathy construct), observations upon which these were founded had been conducted in forensic and clinical settings, suggesting an overrepresentation of violent individuals in the samples used. In addition, Cleckley’s representation of psychopathy incorporated some behavioral characteristics, such as impulsivity and proneness to transgress social and legal norms. Cleckley also argued for the existence of some adaptive traits among psychopathic individuals, such as resilience to anxiety, absence of irrational thinking, and rare instances of suicidality. Cleckley (1941), based on psychiatric case studies, depicted psychopathic personalities as callous, grandiose, unreliable, dishonest, egocentric, as well as lacking empathy, regret, and remorse. In addition, early clinical observations demonstrated that highly psychopathic individuals can be abnormally impulsive and extremely violent ( Ogloff, 2006).
Traditionally, researchers and clinicians have agreed that individuals with psychopathy are morally deprived, yet rational and able to differentiate between right and wrong ( Arrigo and Shipley, 2001).
In spite of this, a unitary definition of psychopathy is missing, resulting in an ambiguous psychological construct ( Ogloff, 2006 Buzina, 2012). Psychopathy is a widely researched personality disorder (see Patrick, 2018 for a recent review of studies in the field). The PPTS can be reliably used among prisoners from the United States. Good composite reliability and differential predictive validity was reported. An MTMM model with four grouping factors (affective responsiveness, cognitive responsiveness, interpersonal manipulation, and egocentricity) while controlling for two method factors (knowledge/skills and attitudes/beliefs) offered the best representation of the data. Seven alternative models of the PPTS were estimated in Mplus using WLSMV estimator. Dimensionality and construct validity of the PPTS was investigated using traditional CFA techniques, confirmatory bifactor analysis, and multitrait-multimethod modelling (MTMM). Another goal was to test the predictive efficiency of the PPTS dimensions for different types of offences (serial killing, homicide, sex crimes, weapon-related crimes, domestic violence, white-collar crimes, property crimes, drug-related crimes), recidivism (i.e., number of incarcerations), time spent in prison, and gender. male and female incarcerated offenders ( N = 772). Consequently, the objective of the present research was to assess construct validity, factor structure, and composite reliability of the PPTS within a sample of U.S. Although the measure offers a promising alternative to other, more behaviorally weighted scales, to date the factor structure of the PPTS and differential predictive validity of its dimensions has only been tested in one study. The Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale (PPTS Boduszek et al., 2016) is a personality-based psychopathy assessment tool consisting of four subscales: affective responsiveness, cognitive responsiveness, interpersonal manipulation, and egocentricity. 3Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom.2Katowice Faculty, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland.1Department of Psychology, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom.Daniel Boduszek 1,2 Agata Debowska 3* Nicole Sherretts 1 Dominic Willmott 1
0 kommentar(er)
