Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T06:31:19.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differentiating psychopathy from antisocial personality disorder: a triarchic model perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2013

N. C. Venables ,
J. R. Hall  and
C. J. Patrick
N. C. Venables*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
J. R. Hall
Affiliation:
Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
C. J. Patrick*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
*
*Author for correspondence: Mr N. C. Venables, M.S., Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA. (Email: [email protected]) [N. C. Venables] (Email: [email protected]) [C. J. Patrick]
*Author for correspondence: Mr N. C. Venables, M.S., Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA. (Email: [email protected]) [N. C. Venables] (Email: [email protected]) [C. J. Patrick]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

The triarchic model of psychopathy characterizes the disorder in terms of three distinguishable phenotypic facets: disinhibition, meanness and boldness. The present study sought to (1) inform current debates regarding the role of boldness in the definition of psychopathy and (2) clarify boundaries between psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD).

Method

This study evaluated the degree to which facets of the triarchic model are represented in the most widely used clinical inventory for psychopathy, the Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL-R), in comparison with ASPD as defined by DSM-IV criteria. Adult male offenders from two distinct correctional settings (n = 157 and 169) were investigated to ensure replicability of findings across samples exhibiting high base rates of psychopathy and antisocial behavior.

Results

We found evidence for convergent and discriminant validity of the three triarchic facets in predicting symptomatic components of psychopathy as assessed by the PCL-R. Additionally, and crucially vis-à-vis current debates in the field, we found that boldness contributed incrementally (over and above disinhibition and meanness) to prediction of PCL-R psychopathy, in particular its interpersonal style component, but not ASPD.

Conclusions

The three distinct facets of the triarchic model of psychopathy are represented clearly and distinctly in the PCL-R, with boldness through its interpersonal facet, but not in DSM-defined ASPD. Our findings suggest that boldness is central to diagnostic conceptions of psychopathy and distinguishes psychopathy from the more prevalent diagnosis of ASPD.

Keywords

Antisocial personality disorderboldnessconstruct validitydisinhibitionmeannesspsychopathytriarchic model
Type
Original Articles
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 44 , Issue 5 , April 2014 , pp. 1005 - 1013
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

APA (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. DSM-IV-TR. American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
APA (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. DSM-5. American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Benning, SD, Patrick, CJ, Salekin, RT, Leistico, AR (2005). Convergent and discriminant validity of psychopathy factors assessed via self-report: a comparison of three instruments. Assessment 12, 270–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blonigen, DM, Patrick, CJ, Douglas, KS, Poythress, NG, Skeem, JL, Lilienfeld, SO, Edens, JF, Krueger, RF (2010). Multimethod assessment of psychopathy in relation to factors of internalizing and externalizing from the Personality Assessment Inventory: the impact of method variance and suppressor effects. Psychological Assessment 22, 96–107.Google Scholar
Campbell, DT, Fiske, DW (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psycholological Bulletin 56, 81–105.Google Scholar
Cleckley, H (1941). The Mask of Sanity: An Attempt to Reinterpret the So-called Psychopathic Personality. Mosby: Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Cleckley, H (1976). The Mask of Sanity, 5th edn. Mosby: St Louis, MO.Google Scholar
First, MB, Gibbon, M, Spitzer, RL, Williams, JBW, Benjamin, LS (1997). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II) . American Psychiatric Press, Inc.: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hall, J, Benning, SD, Patrick, CJ (2004). Criterion-related validity of the three-factor model of psychopathy: personality, behavior, and adaptive functioning. Assessment 11, 4–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hare, RD (1983). Diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder in two prison populations. American Journal of Psychiatry 140, 887–890.Google Scholar
Hare, RD (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised, 2nd edn. Multi-Health Systems: Toronto, ON.Google Scholar
Hare, RD, Hart, SD (1995). Commentary on the DSM-IV antisocial personality disorder field trial. In The DSM-IV Personality Disorders (ed. Livesley, W. J.), pp. 127–134. Guilford Press: New York.Google Scholar
Hare, RD, Neumann, CS (2006). The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy: development, structural properties, and new directions. In Handbook of Psychopathy (ed. Patrick, C. J.), pp. 58–88. Guilford Press: New York.Google Scholar
Krueger, RF, Markon, KE, Patrick, CJ, Benning, SD, Kramer, M (2007). Linking antisocial behavior, substance use, and personality: an integrative quantitative model of the adult externalizing spectrum. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 116, 645–666.Google Scholar
Lilienfeld, SO (1994). Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy. Clinical Psychology Review 14, 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lilienfeld, SO, Andrews, BP (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment 66, 488–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lilienfeld, SO, Patrick, CJ, Benning, SD, Berg, J, Sellbom, M, Edens, JF (2012). The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: confusions, controversies, and clarifications. Personality Disorders 3, 327–340.Google Scholar
Lilienfeld, SO, Widows, MR (2005). Psychopathic Personality Inventory – Revised (PPI-R): Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources: Odessa, FL.Google Scholar
Lykken, DT (1995). The Antisocial Personalities. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
Marcus, DK, Fulton, JJ, Edens, JF (2013). The two-factor model of psychopathic personality: evidence from the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Personality Disorders 4, 67–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, JD, Lynam, DR (2012). An examination of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory's nomological network: a meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders 3, 305–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patrick, CJ (2010). Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM) (https://www.phenxtoolkit.org/index.php?pageLink=browse.protocoldetails&id=121601). Accessed 13 January 2013.Google Scholar
Patrick, CJ, Fowles, DC, Krueger, RF (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology 21, 913–938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patrick, CJ, Venables, NC, Drislane, LE (2013). The role of fearless dominance in differentiating psychopathy from antisocial personality disorder: comment on Marcus, Fulton, and Edens. Personality Disorders 4, 80–82.Google Scholar
Sellbom, M, Phillips, TR (2012). An examination of the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy in incarcerated and non-incarcerated samples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 122, 208–214.Google Scholar
Skeem, JL, Ploaschek, DL, Patrick, CJ, Lilienfeld, SO (2011). Psychopathic personality: bridging the gap between scientific evidence and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 12, 95–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strickland, CM, Drislane, LE, Lucy, M, Krueger, RF, Patrick, CJ (2013). Characterizing psychopathy using DSM-5 personality traits. Assessment. Published online: 24 04 2013 . doi:10.1177/1073191113486691.Google Scholar
Venables, NC, Patrick, CJ (2012). Validity of the Externalizing Spectrum Inventory in a criminal offender sample: relations with disinhibitory psychopathology, personality, and psychopathic features. Psychological Assessment 24, 88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verona, E, Vitale, J (2006). Psychopathy in women: assessment, manifestations, and etiology. In Handbook of Psychopathy (ed. Patrick, C. J.), pp. 415–436. Guilford Press: New York.Google Scholar
Widiger, TA (2006). Psychopathy and DSM-IV psychopathology. In Handbook of Psychopathy (ed. Patrick, C. J.), pp. 156–171. Guilford Press: New York.Google Scholar