ChapterPDF Available

The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings

January 2020

DOI:10.1007/978-3-030-27188-6_4

In book: Corporate Psychopathy (pp.107-149)

Authors:

Nathan Brooks

Central Queensland University

Katarina Fritzon

Bond University

The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare in The Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised. Mutli-Health Systems, Toronto, ON, 2003) has for many years been the gold standard psychopathy assessment, shaping the understanding of psychopathic personality. While the PCL-R remains a leading measure of psychopathy, some concerns have been raised that the instrument has become the sole representation of psychopathy. Recently, a number of measures and conceptual theories have emerged to both expand upon and counterbalance the large body of literature related to the PCL-R, this has included, self-report tools, clinical instruments, and research protocols. The PPI-R (Lilienfeld and Widows in Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R) Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Florida, 2005) is one of the modern assessment tools of psychopathy, focused on personality, rather than encompassing criminal behaviour in the assessment of psychopathy. Other emerging instruments with promising application in criminal and noncriminal settings include, the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP; Cooke et al., in International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11, 242–252, 2012) and Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (Lynam et al., in Psychological Assessment, 2010), while in research, the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TRiPM; Patrick, 2009) is a developing assessment tool with potential for clinical use. In the corporate setting, the Business-Scan (B-Scan; Mathieu et al., 2013) and the Corporate Personality Inventory-Revised (Fritzon et al., 2016) have been specifically developed, with the B-Scan 360 solely measuring psychopathy, and CPI-R examining problematic personality traits, including psychopathic characteristics. The chapter will review the body of assessment instruments examining psychopathic personality, explore strengths and weakness, and discuss the measures most suitable for use in the workplace.

Summary of psychopathic personality assessment tools and findings relevant to workplace assessments

…

Figures - uploaded by Nathan Brooks

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Nathan Brooks

Content may be subject to copyright.

The Assessment of Psychopathic

Personality Across Settings

Nathan Brooks and Katarina Fritzon

Early Theoretical Conceptualisations

and Measurement of Psychopathy

The understanding of psychopathic personality has evolved from work

based on psychiatric patients, criminal offenders, and a criterion checklist,

through to present assessment methods that involve self-report measures

in the community. In his book The Mask of Sanity, Cleckley (1941,1976)

operationalised the construct of psychopathy based on 16 key characteris-

tics which he believed classiﬁed the features associated with the personality.

The characteristics proposed by Cleckley to account for the psychopathic

persona included: superﬁcial charm and intelligence, poor judgment, and

a failure to learn, lack of remorse and shame, unreliability, untruthfulness

N. Brooks (B)

Central Queensland University, Townsville, QLD, Australia

e-mail: nathan@nathanbrooks.com.au

K. Fritzon

Bond University, Robina, QLD, Australia

e-mail: kfritzon@bond.edu.au

K. Fritzon et al., Corporate Psychopathy,

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27188-6_4

107

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

108 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

and insincerity, absence of delusions or nervousness, impersonal sex life,

absence of suicidal acts, antisocial behaviour, loss of insight, poverty in

affective reactions, pathological egocentricity and an incapacity to love

(Cleckley, 1941,1976). Notably, Cleckley did not depict psychopathic

people as predatory, violent, cruel, or dangerous, despite recent research

suggesting the contrary (see Hare, 1999b,2003; Hare & McPherson,

1984). Instead, Cleckley believed that the harm caused by these indi-

viduals was a secondary consequence of the shallow and feckless nature

(Cleckley, 1941; Skeem, Polaschek, Patrick, & Lilienfeld, 2011). In his

book, Cleckley cited not only criminals as being psychopathic, but also

provided case examples of businessmen, scientists, doctors, and psychia-

trists who had psychopathic personalities.

The work of Cleckley was expanded upon by Hare (1980)whoreviewed

and reﬁned the characteristics associated with psychopathic personality,

developing the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, 1980). After its intro-

duction, the PCL was revised by Hare (PCL-R; Hare, 1991,2003)and

reduced to a 20-item checklist of characteristics. Much of Hare’s con-

ceptualisation of psychopathy was developed from his research on North

American criminal offenders, with Hare proposing that impulsivity and

aggression were a core trait of the personality construct, rather than a sec-

ondary symptom (Hare, 2003; Skeem et al., 2011). In reviewing the work

of Checkley and Hare, it is evident that much of Hare’s early work on

psychopathy was inﬂuenced by offender characteristics, while Cleckley’s

understanding of psychopathy was largely based on community/hospital

patients.

Since the work of these two pioneering experts, several psychometric

measures and conceptual theories have recently emerged to counterbalance

the large body of literature that exists on psychopathy based on the PCL-R

criteria (Butcher et al., 2001; Cooke, Hart, Logan, & Michie, 2012; Leven-

son, Kiehl, & Patrick, 1995; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005; Patrick, Fowles,

& Krueger, 2009).The different assessment measures and theoretical con-

ceptualisations of psychopathy each provide important contributions to

the empirical knowledge of the construct. Self-report measures allow for

a broader understanding of different populations of people (such as com-

munity and business) with psychopathic personality characteristics, other

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 109

than the forensic population that the PCL-R instrument was designed to

measure (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005).

Several measures have in recent times been proposed, adding to the

large body of literature that exists on psychopathy based on the PCL-R

criteria. These measures mainly are self-report in nature and commonly

used for research purposes, although some support for clinical utility has

been observed. There has also been an emergence of instruments focused

on psychopathic personality in the workplace. Some of the prominent self-

report measures have included: Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-III (SRP-

III; Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, 2016), Levenson Self-Report Psychopa-

thy Scale (LSPR; Levenson et al., 1995); Minnesota Multiphasic Person-

ality Inventory Psychopathic Deviate Scale (Butcher et al., 2001); and

Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Wid-

ows, 2005). Measures developed to examine psychopathy in the work-

place include: Business-Scan 360 (B-Scan 360; Mathieu, Hare, Jones,

Babiak, & Neumann, 2013), Corporate Personality Inventory (Fritzon,

Croom, Brooks, & Bailey, 2013), and Psychopathy Measure-Management

Research Version (PM-MRV (Boddy, Ladyshewsky, & Galvin, 2010).

The reﬁnement of empirical knowledge on psychopathy, alongside the

multiple assessment instruments, has raised questions as to whether psy-

chopathic personality is of a dimensional or discrete nature. A dimensional

trait is one in which there is a continuation of a trait or variable along a

continuum, while a discrete category suggests that a distinct class or end

point exists, qualitatively different from others or things (Edens, Marcus,

Lilienfeld, & Poythress, 2006). The PCL-R score is often used to deter-

mine whether someone is a psychopath, with a cut-off score of 30 on

the PCL-R routinely used to indicate whether an individual is or is not a

psychopath in North America, while a score of 25 is employed in the UK

(Hare, 2003; Skeem et al., 2011).

Research suggests that psychopathy is a dimensional trait rather than

a discrete category or taxon. This suggests that individuals are not psy-

chopathic per se, but instead vary from other people based on the degree

rather than on kind (Dutton, 2012; Edens et al., 2006; Skeem et al.,

2011). Therefore, the degree of psychopathy is founded in the relativity

of psychopathic traits (Edens et al., 2006). This distinction has important

implications for research, assessment, treatment, decisions based on the

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

110 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

risk, and policy/court decision making (Hare, 2003; Skeem et al., 2011).

An advantage of using a dimensional deﬁnition of psychopathy is that it

overcomes arguments put forward by proponents of the taxonomic per-

spective that psychopathic individuals do not beneﬁt from treatment, due

to psychopaths being qualitatively distinct and different from the rest of

the population (Harris & Rice, 2006). However, although the dimen-

sional view of psychopathic personality offers a promising approach to

conceptualising and understanding the construct, there also appears to be

a threshold whereby psychopathic traits, or the combination of overlap-

ping traits become pervasive and problematic. According to Boddy (2011),

this threshold may be determined based on someone scoring at 75% of

a total score on an assessment of psychopathy, indicating signiﬁcantly

elevated levels of psychopathic traits. There is clinical and operational

utility in being able to propose a “tipping point” where traits are consid-

ered pervasive, yet such a position is also dependent on measures being

standardised and results reﬂective of an elevation in comparison with a

normative group.

Since the development of the PCL (Hare, 1980)andthePCL-R(Hare,

1991,2003), psychopathy has largely been assessed based on Hare’s instru-

ment. The body or research and application of the PCL-R has con-

tributed immensely to the understanding of psychopathy. However, some

researchers suggest that the PCL-R has effectively usurped the construct

(Skeem & Cooke, 2010) and become heralded as the only sole repre-

sentation of psychopathy (Skeem et al., 2011). According to Cronbach

and Meehl (1955), all measures of constructs are fallible, with Skeem et al.

(2011) suggesting that inferences made about psychopathy based solely on

one measure may prove misleading or problematic. Subsequently, a large

body of knowledge exists about “the psychopathic offender as deﬁned by

the PCL-R” (MacDonald & Iacono, 2006, p. 383), but not necessarily

about the nature, structure, and boundaries of the psychopathy construct

as a whole (Skeem et al., 2011). The current chapter will review the array

of assessment instruments developed to examine psychopathic personality,

discussing the suitability of measures, dimensional or taxonomic nature,

and exploring the clinical or operational utility of tools.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 111

The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)

Building on the work of Cleckley (1941), Dr. Robert Hare identiﬁed

22 core characteristics that he argued depicted psychopathic personality

(Hare, 1980). These characteristics were developed into a criterion-based

protocol, consisting of an interview and review of collateral documentation

to assess the presence of psychopathy. Hare (1980) called the measure the

Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, 1980). After its introduction, the PCL

was revised by Hare (PCL-R; Hare, 1991,2003) and reduced to a 20-item

checklist of characteristics.

According to Hare (2003), the construct of psychopathy is characterised

by two overarching factors, these being, an interpersonal-affective factor

comprising of an interpersonal facet and an affective facet, and an antiso-

cial factor which consisted of a lifestyle facet and an antisocial facet. Inter-

personal features included: glibness and superﬁcial charm, manipulation,

pathological lying, and a grandiose sense of self-worth. Affective charac-

teristics included: lack of remorse or guilt, callousness/lack of empathy,

failure to accept responsibility for actions, and shallow affect.The lifestyle

facet of psychopathy included: impulsivity, irresponsibility, lack of realistic

long-term goals, need for stimulation/proneness to boredom, and para-

sitic lifestyle. The fourth dimension, antisocial features included: early

behavioural problems, poor behavioural control, juvenile delinquency,

criminal versatility, and revocation of conditional release (Hare, 1999a,

2003).

Alternative factor structures have been found for the PCL-R, including

three- (Cooke & Michie, 2001; Johansson, Andershed, Kerr, & Levander,

2002) and ﬁve-factor models (Hare, 1980;Med

-edovi´c, Petrovi´c, Kujaˇci´c,

Želeskov Ðori´c, & Savi´c, 2015), which challenge the theoretical under-

pinnings of the PCL-R.

The difference in trait constellation has led researchers to suggest that

the interpersonal-affective features and the antisocial-lifestyle character-

istics of psychopathy are etiologically distinct from one another (Hall

& Benning, 2006; Patrick, 2007). It remains possible that an individual

could meet a diagnosis of psychopathy based on the PCL-R due to elevated

scores on one factor, yet low to moderate scores on factor two (Hall &

Benning, 2006). The two-psychopathy factors therefore, although similar,

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

112 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

are unique dimensions. This position provides support for the notion of

psychopathic personality variants (Hall & Benning, 2006). For example,

(Balsis, Busch, Wilfong, Newman, & Edens, 2017) contend that not all

psychopathic traits are weighted equally, with some features of more sig-

niﬁcance to the global construct. The authors argued that at raw score of

21 on the PCL-R may have higher construct severity in terms of presen-

tation than a less severe combination of traits that result in a raw score

of 30. Although the score of 30 on the PCL-R is determined to be the

diagnostic threshold, psychopathic traits may be of a lesser or severer con-

cern depending on what traits are endorsed and the speciﬁc context or

population being examined (Balsis et al., 2017).

Despite recent debate and commentary about the use of the PCL-R and

the tools operationalisation of psychopathy, the assessment tool remains

as the “gold standard” measure for examining psychopathic personality.

The PCL-R is widely validated for use with offenders, and when scored by

trained and experienced raters is demonstrated to be highly reliable (Hare,

2003; Bolt, Hare, & Neumann, 2007). Researchers may argue that the

instrument is uniquely tailored to forensic settings, considering the associ-

ation between psychopathy and criminal behaviour; and that the overlap

between psychopathy, criminality, and risk is an artefact of the test, rather

than the underlying personality features (Cooke & Michie, 2001). Due to

violence or criminality being considered as a core aspect of psychopathy,

the use of the PCL-R in noncriminal populations is cautioned. There have

also been administration issues when using the instrument in noncrimi-

nal settings, based on the in-depth collateral information needed and the

formalised interview process (Skeem et al., 2011).

Psychopathy Checklist-Screening

Version (PCL:SV)

The PCL:SV (Hart, Cox, & Hare, 1995) is a 12-item criterion-based

assessment protocol initially developed for use in the MacArthur Risk

Assessment study (see Steadman et al., 2000). The measure is designed as

a screening tool for psychopathy and recommends that if elevated scores

are identiﬁed that a follow-up-formalised assessment is conducted with

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 113

the PCL-R. The authors of the PCL:SV stipulate that a score of 18 or

above is reﬂective of psychopathy and requires further investigation. The

PCL:SV is similar to the PCL-R, based on a two-factor scale structure and

correlates highly with the PCL-R (Hare & Neumann, 2005;Hartetal.,

1995). Due to the instrument being a screening tool and not requiring the

same level of collateral information as needed in the PCL-R, the PCL:SV

has been able to be used in noncriminal settings and in the corporate sector

(see Babiak, 1995). Evidence has been found to support the psychometric

properties of the PCL:SV, including research indicating the ability of the

instrument to predict violence and aggression in both forensic and civil

contexts (Hare & Neumann, 2005). The use of PCL:SV in noncriminal

settings has utility and provides a promising approach to screening for

psychopathic traits, however, as antisocial behaviour is considered a core

component of the operationalisation of psychopathy in the measure, along

with the close association that the tool has with the PCL-R, caution should

be taken when using the assessment. As noncriminal subjects may have a

limited history of antisocial actions, there remains the potential that the

PCL:SV will fail to capture features associated with psychopathy in the

community or workplace.

The Psychopathic Personality

Inventory-Revised (PPI-R)

The PPI-R was originally developed by Lilienfeld and Andrews (1996)

and revised by Lilienfeld and Widows (2005). The tool is comprised of

154 self-report items designed to measure the construct of psychopathy.

The PPI-R consists of eight content scales and three validity scales. In

addition to the total score, the eight content scales form three separate

factors: self-centred impulsivity, fearless dominance and coldheartedness.

The measure consists of two higher order factors (fearless dominance and

self-centred impulsivity), and one subscale (coldheartedness) that remains

primarily independent of the other two factors (Lilienfeld, & Widows,

2005; Skeem et al., 2011). Higher scores on the PPI-R are indicative of

a greater level of psychopathic traits. Scores can be interpreted as either

raw scores or standardised scores, with normative sample data available

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

114 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

to compare scoring. Standardised scores and base rates for the PPI-R are

based on the Tscores, consisting of a mean score of 50 and a standard

deviation of 10. The measure provides clinical cut-off levels for the PPI-

R for total, factor, and content scores, indicating that a Tscore of 65 or

above is considered to represent clinically signiﬁcant levels of psychopathic

traits (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). This

allows scores to be examined either as dimensional or based on a discrete

threshold.

The PPI-R (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) has been established as a

sound psychometric self-report measure of psychopathy. In comparison

with other assessment instruments, the PPI-R has had widespread use in

community and criminal samples (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005), as well

as being heavily utilised for research (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996; Lilien-

feld & Widows, 2005). The measure is established based on Cleckley’s

(1941) conceptualisation of psychopathy, considers antisocial behaviour

including violence to be separate or secondary to the core features of psy-

chopathy, and yet is relatively concordant with the PCL-R (Patrick &

Zempolich, 1998; Skeem, Poythress, Edens, Lilienfeld, & Cale, 2003).

The PPI has been found to moderately correlate with the PCL-R (.54),

while moderate correlations have also been found between the PPI total

score and factor one (.54) and factor two (40) of the PCL-R (Poythress,

Edens, & Lilienfeld, 1998). A full analysis and discussion of the PPI-R

will be provided in Chapter 5.

Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic

Personality (CAPP)

The Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality model

(CAPP; Cooke et al., 2012) was initially developed as a concept map for

understanding the dynamic personality traits of psychopathy (Sellbom,

Cooke, & Hart, 2015). The CAPP concept map details six overarching

domains associated with the personality construct, these being: self, emo-

tional, dominance, attachment, behavioural and cognitive domains. Each

domain is captured by several accompanying personality traits and symp-

toms, with 33 personality characteristics speciﬁed in the concept map

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 115

(Sellbom et al., 2015). Since the development of the concept map, sev-

eral assessment measures have been produced to examine psychopathy,

with this range of tools including: CAPP-Symptom Rating Scale (CAPP

SRS-CI; Cooke & Logan, 2018); CAPP SRS-Informant Report (CAPP

SRS-IR); CAPP Lexical Ratings Scale (CAPP-LRS; Sellbom et al., 2015);

and, CAPP Self Report Scale (CAPP-SR; Cooke & Logan, 2015).

The CAPP SRS-CI is suggested to provide the most detailed analysis of

psychopathic personality, evaluating overall symptom severity, functional

impairment, and trait extremity (Cooke & Logan, 2018). The interview

examines all 33 symptoms within the CAPP concept map and requires

a trained interviewer to complete a semi-structured interview with the

subject (Cooke, 2018). The CAPP SRS-IR is used to support the CAPP

SRS-CI, although in cases where a client refuses a clinical interview, may

serve as a substitute assessment tool. The measure requires a third party

or supervising informant (in the case of prison or a secure hospital) to

evaluate the client and provide an alternative perspective on the person’s

psychopathic symptomatology (Cooke, 2018). The CAPP-LRS provides

lexical markers, used to rate trait extremity in contexts or situations where

it is not possible to examine functional impairment. This version of the

tool has greater utility for research rather than clinical purposes, with par-

ticipants required to rate the adjective or personality descriptions as appli-

cable to them, rather than determining the clinical severity of symptoms

(Cooke, 2018). Lastly, the CAPP-SR is a self-report measure comprising

of 99 items tested with samples in the USA and New Zealand, reported to

show a promising pattern of convergent and discriminant validity based

on preliminary research ﬁndings (Cooke, 2018; Sellbom, Cooke, & Shou,

2018).

According to Cooke (2018), the development of different measures by

which the concept map is instantiated allows for the progression of psycho-

logical science through reﬁning existing models and in turn devising new

measures. Preliminary research on the CAPP has found support for the fac-

tor structure and validity of the model (Cooke et al., 2012; Kreis & Cooke,

2011; Pedersen, Kunz, Elass, & Rasmussen, 2010). Early ﬁndings of the

research on the CAPP suggest evidence of an overall global psychopathy

factor, characterised by residual sub-facets reﬂecting boldness/emotional

stability, emotional detachment, and disinhibition (Sellbom et al., 2015).

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

116 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

This factor structure suggests that psychopathy shares a core set of charac-

teristics, yet can be distinguished by variations in domains such as boldness

and impulsivity (Drislane et al., 2014; Sellbom et al., 2015). Research

has indicated that traits in the attachment, cognitive, and behavioural

domains are marginally more prototypical of males, while traits of manip-

ulative, unstable self-concept, and lacking emotional stability are more

prototypical of females (Kreis & Cooke, 2011). Early results examining

the CAPP SRS-CI have found support for the measure, with total scores

more related to personality pathology, ﬁnding associations with paranoid,

narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders, than with drug use or

criminal behaviour (Flórez et al., 2018).The ﬁndings also suggest that the

CAPP model shares similarities with the triarchic model (Cook, Hart, Van

Dogen, Van Marle, & Viljoen, 2013; Sellbom et al., 2015), with the CAPP

model providing a detailed domain and trait analysis of psychopathy.

Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM)

The triarchic model provides a conceptual overview of psychopathic per-

sonality and a theoretical basis to contrast varied ﬁndings across stud-

ies that have investigated psychopathy (Hall et al., 2014; Patrick &

Drislane, 2014; Polaschek, 2015; Skeem et al., 2011). Similar to the CAPP,

the triarchic model was initially developed as a conceptual framework

for psychopathic personality, however, the overarching factors (boldness,

meanness, and disinhibition) have formed the Triarchic Psychopathy Mea-

sure (TriPM; Patrick, 2010). The TriPM is a 58-item self-report measure

designed predominantly for research and study relating to psychopathy.

The measure comprises of three separate subscales based on the triarchic

factors, with overall scores summed to derive a total score on the instru-

ment (Somma, Borroni, Drislane, Patrick, & Fossati, 2019).

The factor structure of the TriPM has received support through empir-

ical analysis (Somma et al., 2019), while convergent and discriminant

validity has been found to support the three scales. TheTriPM has shown a

promising relationship with both the PPI-R and PCL-R. Boldness has been

found to have positive associations with fearless dominance (PPI-R), the

interpersonal facet (PCL-R), and Extraversion. A negative relationship has

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 117

been observed for boldness with Neuroticism and behavioural inhibition

(Hall et al., 2014). Disinhibition has been shown to relate positively with

the lifestyle face of the PCL-R, self-centred impulsivity factor of the PPI-R,

and negatively with contentiousness (Hall et al., 2014). Meanness has been

identiﬁed to positively relate to the affective facet (PCL-R), coldhearted-

ness (PPI-R), narcissism, machiavellianism, and negatively associate with

Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Openness (Hall et al., 2014). Total

TriPM scores have also been shown to predict the overall PCL-R score,

suggesting that the three factors of the TriPM and triarchic model ade-

quately account for the construct of psychopathy (Patrick, 2010; Skeem

et al., 2011).

The preliminary ﬁndings on the TriPM provide support for the measure

and indicate positive associations with established psychopathy tools such

as the PPI-R and PCL-R. As a research instrument, the TriPM has sufﬁcient

empirical evidence to validate the assessment as a measure of psychopathic

personality (Hall et al., 2014; Patrick & Drislane, 2014; Skeem et al., 2011;

Somma et al., 2019). Although the instrument is limited in clinical utility

at present, there appear to be several strengths to the TriPM based on its

association with other assessment tools, underlying theoretical structure,

and suitability for research purposes. The advantage of the triarchic model

and the TriPM is that it provides a phenotypical account of psychopathy

and allows for diverse operationalisation of the construct across different

samples, contexts, and practical applications (Skeem et al., 2011).

The Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-4)

The Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-4; Paulhus et al., 2016). The

SRP-4 is the fourth version of the original SRP which was developed by

Robert Hare and colleagues from an original item pool of 75 variables

derived from the PCL (Sellbom, Lilienfeld, Fowler, & McCrary, 2018).

Despite this, the original version of the SRP had only modest correla-

tion with the PCL, and so was further revised to increase coverage of the

core personality traits of psychopathy (Hare, Harpur, & Hemphill, 1989).

The SRP-II contained two factors identical to the PCL-R, and the SRP-

III was further developed to reduce the number of (negatively loading)

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

118 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

anxiety-related items, improve coverage of the antisocial facet, and increase

reliability of factor scores (Williams, Paulhus, & Hare, 2007). The SRP-4

now contains 64 items and has a reliable four-factor structure of Interper-

sonal Manipulation (α=082), Callous Affect (α=.78), Erratic Lifestyle

(α=.79), and Criminal Tendencies (α=.75) (Debowska, Boduszek,

Kola, & Hyland, 2014; Neal & Sellbom, 2012; Williams et al., 2007).

Intermsofvalidity,PaulhusandWilliams(2002) reported that SRP-II

scores correlated modestly with Narcissism and Machiavellianism, as well

as with the FFM; speciﬁcally in the expected (negative) directions with

Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and Conscientiousness, and positively with

Extraversion and Openness to Experience. The SRP-III was also shown

to be a strong predictor of various forms of “misbehaviour” (O’Boyle,

Forsyth, Banks, & Mcdaniel, 2012), including: bullying, drug use, dan-

gerous driving, criminal behaviour, and anti-authority attitudes. Although

this pattern of correlations supports the use of the SRP-4 as a valid and

reliable overall measure of psychopathy, research has also suggested that

certain features of psychopathy are not captured by the measure, namely

the interpersonal-affective traits, and Boldness (Sandvik et al., 2012, Sell-

bom et al., 2018). Crego and Widiger (2014) found a strong pattern

of correlations among the PPI-R Fearless Dominance, TriPM Boldness,

and EPA Emotional Stability; but the SRP-III did not correlate with any

of these measures. The SRP-III therefore arguably does not tap into the

potentially adaptive aspects of psychopathy, as captured by the fearless-

ness/boldness constructs of the PPI/ triarchic model, respectively. This

may in turn explain the relatively weak predictive relationships found

between psychopathy and job performance and CWB in meta-analytic

studies (O’Boyle et al., 2012; O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, Story, & White,

2015), given that many of the samples included in the meta-analyses

employed the SRP-III as a measure of psychopathy. It may be that the

aspects of psychopathy that have the strongest relationships with job per-

formance outcomes are those that are not well represented in currently

validated self-report measures of psychopathy.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 119

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale

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

contains 26 items and a two-factor structure was originally found rep-

resenting primary and secondary psychopathy. More recent studies have

reported a three-factor structure using a modiﬁed 19-item version of the

LSRP (Sellbom, 2011). The convergent and discriminant validity of the

three-factor model has not, however, held as well as the original two-factor

model (Salekin et al., 2014). The LSRP Factor 1 (Primary psychopathy)

correlates poorly with the PPI Factor 1 (fearless dominance; Ross, Ben-

ning, Patrick,Thompson, & Thurston, 2009); however, the LSRP Factor

2 correlates strongly with the PPI Factor 2 (self-centred impulsivity). Sim-

ilarly to the SRP-III, the LRSP has been found to assess maladaptive traits

and outcomes only, without considering any form of adaptive behaviours,

and consequently correlates poorly with items reported in the literature as

potentially reﬂecting positive traits associated with psychopathy (Durand,

2019). A recent item-response theory analysis (Tsang, Salekin, Coffey, &

Cox, 2017) indicated that items in the LSRP PP factor were relatively

good at discriminating among individuals with varying levels of primary

psychopathy, while items in the LSRP SP were not sensitive enough to

distinguish individuals with secondary psychopathy, in an undergraduate

student sample with presumably low levels of psychopathy overall, but

who may nevertheless endorse some impulsive and antisocial behaviour.

Finally, a comment that has been made in relation to self-report mea-

sures of psychopathy generally is that many of them contain negatively

worded items, the endorsement of which is assumed to reﬂect psycho-

pathic traits. As has been noted in psychometric personality assessment

generally (Crego, & Widiger, 2014; Ray, Frick, Thornton, Steinberg, &

Cauffman, 2016), and in relation to psychopathy speciﬁcally (Sellbom

et al., 2018; Tsang et al., 2017) there may be a problem with inferring

that the absence of a trait such as anxiety or empathy, is equivalent to

endorsement of its opposite, i.e. fearlessness, callousness.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

120 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

The Short Dark Triad

The SD3 is a 27-item self-report measure designed to examine the dark

triad personality traits, most speciﬁcally, psychopathy, narcissism, and

Machiavellianism. The measure was originally developed through a review

of seminal sources on each of the constructs associated with the dart triad

(Jones & Paulhus, 2011), with the aim of operationalising each construct.

The scales were of the measure were developed from theory and empiri-

cal associations with the construct (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). According to

Jones and Paulhus (2011), narcissism is associated with ego-identity goals,

Machiavellianism, and psychopathy with instrumental-based behaviour,

while Machiavellianism is distinct from psychopathy based upon tempo-

ral focus. All three constructs are related to Interpersonal Manipulation

and comprised by a callous core (Jones & Paulhus, 2011,2014).

The original version of the SD4 comprised of 41 items and was later

reduced to 27 items through item reﬁnement and structural analysis. Pre-

liminary studies on the SD3 have found support for the validity and relia-

bility, observing convergent validity with the SRP-III, Mach-IV, NPI and

Dirty Dozen measure of DarkTriad traits (Ashton-James & Levordashka,

2013; Jones & Paulhus, 2014). The SD3 appears to have usefulness in

research settings and, as the authors note, requires further investigation in

relation to behavioural outcomes to demonstrate the operational utility of

the measure for use in clinical practice. Researchers using the SD3 have

questioned the distinctiveness among the DT constructs (Miller, Hyatt,

Maples-Keller, Carter, & Lynam, 2017; Persson, 2019). In particular, very

high correlations between Machiavellianism and psychopathy have been

found, which may partly be due to inadequate construct coverage of the

SD3 (Malesza, Ostaszewski, Büchner, & Kaczmarek, 2017).

Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (EPA)

The EPA is a self-report measure of psychopathy designed based on the

relationship between psychopathic personality traits and the ﬁve-factor

model (Lynam et al., 2011). According to Lynam and Widiger (2007),

there are a number of traits from the ﬁve-factor model of personality

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 121

(FFM) that are consistently found to be associated with the conceptu-

alisation of psychopathy. Wilson, Miller, Zeichner, Lynam, and Widi-

ger contend that much of the speculation and dispute around the factor

structure of psychopathy is misattributed, with factor structure only rep-

resentative of the speciﬁc instrument measuring psychopathy, rather than

deﬁning the basic structure of psychopathic personality. Based on this

theoretical view of personality traits representing the building blocks of a

personality construct, Lynam et al. (2011) developed the EPA, compris-

ing of extreme and maladaptive variants of corresponding FFM traits. The

authors identiﬁed 299 items across 18 scales considered to be associated

with psychopathic personality. The scales included: antagonism (distrust,

manipulation, self-centeredness, opposition, arrogance, and callousness),

Conscientiousness (disobliged, impersistence, and rashness), Extraversion

(coldness, dominance, and thrill seeking), and Neuroticism (unconcern,

anger, self-contentment, self-assurance, urgency, and invulnerability).

Initial empirical analysis of the EPA has found strong convergent valid-

ity between the measure and the PPI-R, LSRP, and SRP-III (mean r=

.72; Wilson, Miller, Zeichner, Lynam, & Widiger, 2011). Support for

the EPA in relation to externalising behaviours was also identiﬁed, with

total EPA scores signiﬁcantly related to reactive and proactive aggression,

along with a history of antisocial behaviour, alcohol use, and substance

use. Wilson and colleagues suggested that one of the primary strengths of

the instrument was the focus on lower levels of Neuroticism or negative

emotionality, a feature that often receives limited content in assessment

instruments such as the PCL-R, SRP-III and LSRP. The ﬁndings related

to the EPA suggest support for the validity of the tool and the instru-

ment provides a unique conceptualisation of psychopathy based upon the

building blocks of personality traits. The authors noted some challenges

in relation to operationalising features such as arrogance due to discrep-

ancies between perception and ability (Lynam et al., 2011), although this

may be more reﬂective of some of the methodological limitations of self-

report instruments (Lilienfeld & Fowler, 2006). The EPA would beneﬁt

from further study to support the initial ﬁndings on the assessment, with

the effectiveness of the tool in the corporate setting unknown at this

stage in time, an area for possible further psychometric development and

application.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

122 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

Corporate Psychopathy Measures

In addition to these general self-report measures for psychopathy, a num-

ber of speciﬁc assessments have been developed for use with a corpo-

rate population. These are the Business-Scan 360 (B-Scan 360; Babiak

&Hare,2012), the Psychopathy Measure-Management Research Version

(PM-MRV; Boddy et al., 2010), and the Corporate Personality Inventory

(CPI; Fritzon, Croom, Brooks, & Bailey, 2013).

Business-Scan 360

The Business-Scan is based on Hare’s four-factor model of psychopathy

(see Hare, 2003; Hare & Neumann, 2005) and comprises of a 360 degree

assessment tool (B-Scan 360; Mathieu et al., 2013) and a self-report ver-

sion (B-Scan Self; Mathieu & Babiak, 2015). The B-Scan 360 measure is

designed as a third-party rater tool, requiring respondents to rate subjects

(i.e., managers, supervisors or peers) on psychopathy-relevant statements

(e.g. “comes across as smooth, polished and charming”). Initially 113 items

were developed, although this was later reﬁned to 20 items. Exploratory

factor analysis delineated a four-factor model for the B-Scan 360, similar

to that found in the PCL-R. The author’s also found an appropriate ﬁt for

items according to this factor structure based on conﬁrmatory factor anal-

ysis, supporting four factors comprised of ﬁve items each (Mathieu et al.,

2013). The derived factors and items of the B-Scan 360 include: manip-

ulative and unethical (ingratiates, glib, uses charm, claims expertise, and

rationalises), callous and insensitive (insensitive, rarely shows emotions,

cold inside, remorseless, and no empathy), unreliable and unfocused (not

loyal, no planning, unfocused, not patient, and unreliable), and intimi-

dating and aggressive (intimidating, angry, asks harsh questions, threatens

co-worker, and dramatic). The application of the B-Scan 360 to examine

psychopathy in the business setting appears promising, with the third-

party rating process allowing for objective oversight, rather than solely

a subjects self-report. It is not clear whether multiple B-Scan 360 assess-

ments would be carried out in cases where a concern is identiﬁed, or if one

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 123

rating is considered sufﬁcient to identify concern. The authors acknowl-

edged that a limit of the research to date has been the challenges with

gaining access to suitable participants, instead using online survey meth-

ods to gather data. While appearing to be a progressive tool for examining

psychopathy in business settings, there remains limited information on the

psychometric properties of the B-Scan 360, beyond its construct validity

in terms of factor structure. Subsequently, its usefulness is unclear in terms

of external criterion validity as well as discriminant validity.

The B-Scan Self was developed from theory and modelled of the

PCL-R items and factors. The measure is comprised of 15 out of the

20 PCL-R facet items, slightly modiﬁed to the corporate setting. The

assessment maintains the four-factor structure as reported in the PCL-R,

with an acceptable four-factor model identiﬁed through conﬁrmatory fac-

tor analysis (Mathieu & Babiak, 2015). The four factors and facet items

include the following: interpersonal (insincere, arrogant, untrustworthy,

and manipulative/unethical), affective (remorseless, shallow, insensitive,

and blaming), lifestyle (impatient, selﬁsh, unfocused, erratic, and unre-

liable), and antisocial (dramatic and bullying). Support was also found

for the convergent and discriminant validity of the B-Scan Self based

on the correlations with the SRP-III, Five-Factor Model and Dark Triad

traits—narcissism and machiavellianism. The B-Scan Self shared the same

correlational patterns with the FFM as the SRP-II, with a negative rela-

tionship with both Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. Positive rela-

tionships were observed between the B-Scan Self and narcissism, machi-

avellianism and the SRP-III, although factors three and four (lifestyle and

antisocial) of the B-Scan Self were more highly correlated with factor one

from the SRP-III than factors three and four (Erratic Lifestyle and Crim-

inal Tendencies) of the SRP-III (Mathieu & Babiak, 2015). The author’s

suggested that these correlational results were due to the modiﬁcation in

facet items within the B-Scan Self, with criminal behaviour removed from

the tool. Early research on the B-Scan Self appears positive; however, this

measure is still in the preliminary stages of development and requires fur-

ther validation and exploration to determine the operational utility of the

instrument in corporate settings.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

124 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

Psychopathy Measure-Management Research

Version

The PM-MRV (Boddy et al., 2010) is a third-party report measure requir-

ing respondents to rate their managers on a series of behavioural traits con-

sidered to reﬂect psychopathic personality. The instrument is comprised

of eight items scored on a three-point scale, comprising of not present

(0), somewhat present (1), and present (2). The eight items include: glib

and superﬁcially charming, accomplished liars, manipulative and conning,

grandiose sense of self-worth, lack of remorse about actions, emotionally

shallow, calculating and cold, lack of empathy and no capacity to experi-

ence the feelings of others, and refuse to take responsibility (Boddy et al.,

2010). According to Boddy (2011), psychopathy is indicated by a score

of 75% of the total score, this being represented as 13 out of 16. Scores

between 9 and 12 were considered to reﬂect dysfunctional managers, while

a score of 8 or below was reﬂective of a normal manager. Boddy (2011)

suggests an alternative view of these scoring categories can be interpreted

as, non-psychopaths, intermediate psychopaths and psychopaths.

The PM-MVR has been found to have strong internal consistency, while

the measure has been compared with outcome-based criteria, indicating

a signiﬁcant positive relationship between psychopathy scores and with-

drawal, workload, bullying, organisational constraints, and conﬂict. Sig-

niﬁcant negative relationships were observed between psychopathy scores,

job satisfaction, and social responsibility. However, despite the relationship

between psychopathy and these work-related outcomes, the PM-MVR

has been criticised for its limited scope and lack of ability to discriminate

between broader personality traits, such as psychopathy, machiavellian-

ism, and narcissism. A primary critique is that the tool does not account

for lifestyle or antisocial features of psychopathy, which are considered to

be necessary for the characterisation of psychopathic personality (Cooke

& Michie, 2001; Jones & Hare, 2016). Before the PM-MVR can be

applied to organisational settings, further research is required to establish

the empirical validity of the measure, particularly its ability to exclusively

measure psychopathy, differentiating the construct from other similar, yet

separate personality dimensions.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 125

The Corporate Personality Inventory

The Corporate Personality Inventory (Fritzon et al., 2013) consists of both

a self-report and third-party report version (CPI-3R; Fritzon et al., 2013).

The self-report version consists of 61 items, while the third-party version

has 57 items. Both measures were based on an exploratory approach to test

construction with items being generated by an expert panel comprising of

academics with research and professional experience in forensic psychology

and business management.

For the self-report version, an initial item pool of 120 items was drawn

from the core personality descriptors of psychopathy as translated into

statements that would reﬂect the business environment, and a number

of these items (n=47) also reﬂected potentially positive constructions

or manifestations of psychopathic personality traits in a business context

(e.g. “I am not afraid to make bold business decisions”; “Iamatalented

communicator”), some of which also reﬂected the concepts of fearlessness

and social inﬂuence as central features of the psychopathic personality.

Exploratory factor analysis revealed a number of items with cross-loading

or nil loadings on factors, and the ﬁnal solution consisted of 61 items with

a three-factor structure accounting for 23.14% of the variance. The three

factors reﬂect similarities with the triarchic model of psychopathy (Patrick

et al., 2009).

For the third-party version (CPI-3R), exploratory factor analysis also

yielded a three-factor structure with subscale alphas of .91 for adaptive

façade, .92 for ruthless determination, and .75 for impulsive egocentric-

ity (Fritzon, Wiseman, & Gabriel, 2015). Preliminary validity evidence

supporting the internal structure of the CPI-3R was also found during

development, with the three-factor solution accounting for 35.95% of the

variance. In terms of discriminant and concurrent validity, the CPI corre-

lates signiﬁcantly with the Paulhus Deception Scale (r=.361, p< .001;

Fritzon et al., 2016) and the Psychopathy Personality Inventory-Revised

(r=.231, p< .001). The ﬁnding that the PDS correlated positively with

the CPI, while negatively with the PPI-R supports research by Verschuere

et al. (2014) ﬁnding an inverse relationship between psychopathy and

impression management based on the assumption that psychopaths have

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

126 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

a disregard for social convention. However, the disparate pattern of corre-

lations between the CPI and PPI-R suggests that impression management

may be a central part of the deﬁning criteria for corporate psychopathy and

differentiates the successful psychopath from the non-successful variant.

This ﬁnding also supports the moderated expression theory of corporate

psychopathy (Hall & Benning, 2006) in that the ability to successfully

create and maintain a positive impression acts as a protective factor that

buffers against the negative aspects of psychopathy, and allows individuals

to succeed in a business environment.

The research on the CPI-3R (Fritzon et al., 2015) also found an inter-

esting pattern of correlations using the NEO-PI-R to examine criterion

validity. Individuals obtaining high scores on the CPI-3R were rated as

low on Agreeableness on the NEO-PI-R, in line with previous research

(DeShong, Grant, & Mullins-Sweatt, 2015). Gender differences were also

noted, in that female participants with high ratings on the CPI-3R also had

high ratings on Openness and Conscientiousness. These ﬁndings were in

contrast to prior research linking high ratings on psychopathy measures

to low ratings on Openness and Conscientiousness. However, this also

potentially aligns with the moderated expression of successful psychopa-

thy, suggesting that gender may be a second variable that buffers against the

negative effects of psychopathic personality. This latter possibility extends

to other variables linked with gender that were not included in the Fritzon

et al. (2016) study such as empathy.

Finally, recent research by Spencer and Byrne (2016) identiﬁed that

contrary to expectation, the presence of primary psychopathic character-

istics amongst senior managers did not attenuate high levels of intrinsic

job satisfaction as reported by mid-level managers and low-level employ-

ees. It may be that the presence of psychopathy in senior management

was buffered by the ability of those same individuals to create and main-

tain a positive impression such that individuals working alongside these

psychopathic managers overall did not perceive a negative impact. These

ﬁndings collectively highlight the importance of recognising that corpo-

rate psychopathy may not necessarily convey entirely egregious effects

upon a workplace environment and calls for a more balanced approach to

examining both the costs and beneﬁts to organisations (Smith & Lilien-

feld, 2013). Table 4.1 provides an overview of psychopathy measures and

some considerations for their use in business settings.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 127

Tabl e 4.1 Summary of psychopathic personality assessment tools and findings relevant to workplace assessments

Name of

assessment Factors/scales

Correlations with

other measures

(of psychopathy) Criterion validity

Workplace

findings

Possible

limitations

PCL-R (Hare, 1991) Interpersonal-

affective;

Antisocial

Not reported

since this is the

original

psychopathy

measure

Numerous

outcomes

relating to

antisocial and

dishonest

behaviour

Babiak, Neumann,

and Hare (2010)

using the short

form found that

high scores were

positively

related to

ratings of

creativity,

strategic

thinking, and

communication

skills, and

negatively

associated with

ratings of being

a team player,

management

skills, and

overall accom-

plishments

Variable factor

structure,

The required

collateral infor-

mation difficult

to obtain in non-

institutionalized

samples

Relevance of

antisocial factor

to non-forensic

samples, and

indeed to

psychopathy

construct as a

whole has been

questioned

(Cooke, Michie,

Hart, & Clarke,

2004)

(continued)

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

128 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

Tabl e 4.1 (continued)

Name of

assessment Factors/scales

Correlations with

other measures

(of psychopathy) Criterion validity

Workplace

findings

Possible

limitations

SRP-4 (Paulhus

et al., 2016)

(derived from

PCL-R)

Interpersonal

manipulation;

Callous affect;

Erratic lifestyle;

Criminal

tendencies

Narcissism and

Machiavellian-

ism (Paulhus &

Williams, 2002);

correlations in

the expected

directions with

the FFM

Bullying, drug

use, dangerous

driving, criminal

behavior, anti-

authoritarian

attitudes

(Williams &

Paulhus, 2004)

Is frequently used

as a measure of

psychopathy in

studies

predicting CWB

(e.g. studies

included in

meta-analyses

by O’Boyle et al.,

2012,2015)

Interpersonal-

affective traits

and Boldness

(see Triarchic

model described

in Chapter 1) not

well captured

(Sellbom et al.,

2018)

Did not correlate

with PPI-R

Fearless

Dominance,

TriPM Boldness,

EPA Emotional

Stability (Crego

&Widiger,2014)

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 129

Name of

assessment Factors/scales

Correlations with

other measures

(of psychopathy) Criterion validity

Workplace

findings

Possible

limitations

LSRP (Levenson

et al., 1995)

(derived from

PCL-R)

Primary (Factor

1); secondary

(Factor 2)

Alternative factor

structure

Egocentric,

Callous, and

Antisocial

(Brinkley,

Diamond,

Magaletta, &

Heigel, 2008)

Factor 2 correlates

strongly with

PPI Self Centred

impulsivity (Ross

et al., 2009)

Factor 1

associated with

PPI

Coldheartedness

Buss-Perry

Aggression

Questionnaire,

PAI (Morey,

2007) Antisocial

personality scale

(Brinkley et al.,

2008); Machi-

avellianism and

Narcissism

Impulsivity,

anger,

antisociality, and

addiction

(Sellbom, 2011)

Rardin, Nadler,

Bartels, & Ro

(2017) found

that individu-

als higher in

(LSRP) psycho-

pathic traits

are attracted to

organisations

with a less for-

mal hierarchical

structure

Scores on LSRP

related to

ethical business

decision making

(Watson,

Teaque, &

Papamarcos,

2017)

Construct validity

of Primary scale

has been ques-

tioned due to

its relationship

with antisocial

behaviours

rather

than affec-

tive/interpersonal

features of

psychopathy

(Sellbom et al.,

2018)

Does not appear

to capture traits

of fearlessness,

stress immunity,

or social

influence

associated with

Boldness

(Lilienfeld et al.,

2012)

(continued)

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

130 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

Tabl e 4.1 (continued)

Name of

assessment Factors/scales

Correlations with

other measures

(of psychopathy) Criterion validity

Workplace

findings

Possible

limitations

PPI-R (Lilienfeld &

Widows, 2005)

Self-centred

impulsivity,

Fearless

Dominance and

Coldheartedness

Total score

correlates with

PCL-R; also

several other

self-report

measures of

psychopathy and

measures of

personality (e.g.

MMPI, MPQ, and

CPI)

Alcohol and drug

problems, child

and adult

antisocial

symptoms

(Benning,

Patrick, Salekin,

& Leistico, 2005).

Aggression,

Institutional

misbehavior

(Edens,

Poythress, &

Watkins, 2001),

Drug abuse

Treatment

Program failure

(McCoy &

Edelstein, 2010)

Coldheartedness

and SCI were

predictive of

economic self-

ishness (Berg,

Lilienfeld, &

Waldman, 2013)

Higher levels of

Stress Immunity

amongst

professionals

compared to

general

community

(Pegrum &

Pearce, 2015)

Fearless

dominance (as

aligned to

Boldness) has

been found to

correlate with

adaptive

outcomes. There

is debate about

whether

Boldness is a

core trait of

psychopathy;

irrelevant

(Lynam & Miller,

2012), or can be

considered an

“impact trait”

which

determines the

interpersonal

manifestation of

psychopathy

(Lilienfeld,

Watts, Smith, &

Latzman, 2018)

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 131

Name of

assessment Factors/scales

Correlations with

other measures

(of psychopathy) Criterion validity

Workplace

findings

Possible

limitations

CAPP (Cooke

et al., 2012)

Boldness/emotional

stability;

Emotional

detachment;

disinhibition

(Sellbom et al.,

2015)

Significant

associations with

IPDE diagnoses

of paranoid,

antisocial, and

narcissistic

(Flórez et al.,

2018)

Associated with

criminal

versatility,

violent crime,

and entitlement;

aggression

(total, physical,

hostility, anger,

verbal); and

interpersonal

conflict

(Hanniball,

Gatner, Douglas,

Viljoen, & Aknin,

2019)

Limited research

at this stage has

examined the

predictive

validity of the

CAPP, but one

study on a

forensic

psychiatric

population

found that the

CAPP may not

perform as well

as the PCL-R at

predicting

recidivism risk

(De Page,

Mercenier, &

Titeca, 2018)

(continued)

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

132 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

Tabl e 4.1 (continued)

Name of

assessment Factors/scales

Correlations with

other measures

(of psychopathy) Criterion validity

Workplace

findings

Possible

limitations

TriPM (Patrick,

2010)

Boldness;

Meanness;

Disinhibition

Moderate to

strong correla-

tions with PCL-R

(Patrick, 2010);

between TriPM

meanness and

PPI total;

Self-centred

impulsivity

subscale of PPI

and disinhibition

of TriPM

(Sellbom &

Phillips, 2013)

Sensation seek-

ing (Sellbom &

Phillips, 2013).

Meanness and

Disinhibition

related to

violent crime

and criminal

versatility, as

well as less

direct (e.g.,

nonviolent)

crime, and fraud

(Hanniball et al.,

2019)

Research

examining

predictive

validity is limited

at this stage,

and it has not

been used with

clinical or

occupational

samples

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 133

Name of

assessment Factors/scales

Correlations with

other measures

(of psychopathy) Criterion validity

Workplace

findings

Possible

limitations

EPA (Lynam et al.,

2011)

Antagonism,

Emotional

Stability,

Disinhibition,

and Narcissism

Significant

correlations

between total

scores of EPA

with PPI-R, LRSP,

and SRP-4

Substance use,

Reactive and

Proactive

aggression,

Anti-social

behaviour,

Alcohol and

substance use

(Wilson et al.,

2011)

Antagonism and

Disinhibition

significantly

related to

Computer

Crime, Identity

fraud and

website

defacing

(Seigfried-

Spellar,

Villacís-

Vukadinovi´c, &

Lynam, 2017)

Research

examining

predictive

validity is limited

at this stage

(continued)

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

134 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

Tabl e 4.1 (continued)

Name of

assessment Factors/scales

Correlations with

other measures

(of psychopathy) Criterion validity

Workplace

findings

Possible

limitations

B-Scan 360

(Mathieu et al.,

2013)

Manipulative and

unethical;

Callous and

insensitive;

Unreliable and

unfocused; and

Intimidating and

aggressive

Correlations with

SRP-III, Five

Factor Model

and Narcissism

and Machiavel-

lianism

Research

examining

predictive

validity is limited

at this stage

CPI (Fritzon et al.,

2013)

Boldness,

Ruthlessness and

Interpersonal

Dominance

Correlations with

the PPI-R for

the self-report

version, and

between the

third party (CPI-

3R) and the CAPP

SRS-Informant

Report.

Boldness

correlates with

Narcissism (NPI),

and Ruthlessness

correlates with

Machiavellian-

ism (Mach-IV)

(see Chapter 8

for further

details)

Proactive and

reactive

aggression,

academic

dishonesty, and

self-report

criminal

behaviour

Counter-

productive work

behaviour,

bullying,

complaints,

career success

and leadership

style (see

Chapter 8)

Research is limited

to mainly

unpublished

studies using

University

students, and

requires

replication

across larger and

more diverse

samples

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 135

Personality Assessment Instruments

There are a range of personality assessment tools designed to examine a

broad range of personality traits and other associated mental health symp-

tomology. These measures are commonly quite extensive, of a self-report

nature, and encompass validity indexes to control for response distortions.

Some of the leading personality assessments include: Minnesota Multipha-

sic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1940), Millon

Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-IV; Millon, Grossman, & Millon,

2015); Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck & Eysenck,

1975); Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 2007); California

Personality Inventory (CPI; Gough & Bradley, 1996), and Personality

Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, &

Skodol, 2012). Personality assessments are generally considered to com-

pressively examine personality features; however, these instruments are also

nonspeciﬁc measures of behavioural deviance, globally measuring traits,

rather than speciﬁc core features (Lilienfeld & Fowler, 2006). Many instru-

ments have scales developed to measure features of antisocial or criminal

behaviour, such as the Psychopathic Deviant (Pd) and Hypomania scales

(Ma) of the MMPI, Socialisation (So) scale of the CPI, Antisocial Scale

(ANT) from the PAI, and the Antisocial and Aggressive/Sadist Scales of

the MCMI.

Several studies have evaluated the relationship between personality

assessment measure scales and psychopathy instruments. Harpur, Hare,

and Halstian (1989) found negligible or low correlations (r=.05–.15) for

factor one and moderate correlations (r=.3–.5) for factor two of the

PCL with the MMPI Pd and Ma scales, the CPI So scale, and EPQ Psy-

choticism scale. Similar ﬁndings were observed by Edens, Hart, Johnson,

Johnson, and Olver (2000) based on the association between the PCL:SV

and PAI-ANT scale. A moderate correlation was observed between factor

one (r=.44) slightly higher correlation (r=.56) between factor two and

the PAI-ANT in a sample of psychiatric patients. However, in a sample

of sexual offenders, a non-signiﬁcant relationship was found between the

PCL-R factor one and PAI-ANT (r=.07), while a moderate correlation

was found for factor two and PAI-ANT (r=.53).

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

136 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

One of the most recently developed personality assessments is the PID-

5, a 220-item self-report inventory developed to assess personality traits

corresponding to the ﬁve traits of personality disorder described in Section

III of the DSM-5 (Krueger et al., 2012). This is the ﬁrst edition of the

DSM to include a psychopathy speciﬁer for ASPD, which emphasises

traits previously neglected under the DSM deﬁnition of ASPD, includ-

ing low anxiousness, and attention seeking. These traits are similar to the

concepts of fearless dominance or boldness captured in other psychopa-

thy measures such as the PPI-R or TriPM (Anderson, Sellbom, Wygant,

Salekin, & Krueger, 2014).The ﬁve domains of the PID-5 are: Disinhibi-

tion, Antagonism, Negative Affect, Detachment, and Psychoticism. Early

research on the PID-5 in relation to psychopathy observed varied results

based on correlational analysis between the instrument and TRiPM and

the PPI-R (Anderson et al., 2014). Although the DSM-5 Section III facet

proﬁle demonstrated greater associations with the psychopathy measures

than the DSM-IV ASPD, they did not provide coverage of disinhibitory

psychopathy traits. Additionally, some features of antisocial personality

disorder (ASPD) such as hostility, were found to be negatively associated

with psychopathy, with hostility more related to negative affectivity, rather

than the affective and interpersonal traits of psychopathy (Anderson et al.,

2014). Finally, the PID-5 psychopathy speciﬁer was negatively associated

with the PPI-R self-centred impulsivity scale, and theTriPM Disinhibition

scale.

The research ﬁndings suggest that personality assessment tools tend to

measure antisocial and criminal behaviour, yet do not encompass all of the

core characteristics of psychopathy, such as the interpersonal and affec-

tive traits. This has commonly been one of the central debates regarding

ASPD and psychopathy (see Hare, 2003), with ASPD traits often fail-

ing to sufﬁciently capture psychopathic personality, an issue apparent in

many personality measures, conﬂating ASPD with psychopathy (Ander-

son et al., 2014; Lilienfeld & Fowler, 2006). As many personality instru-

ments are modelled off the DSM-IV or DSM-5, comprising of clinical

scales designed to measure the personality disorders speciﬁed in the man-

uals, concerns exist regarding the measurement of psychopathy, as psycho-

pathic personality is not part of the nomenclature of personality disorders

(Mathieu & Babiak, 2015). Subsequently, personality assessments capture

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 137

features of psychopathy, although fail to exclusively and comprehensively

measure the construct. Although a combination of features based on the

results from a personality measure may suggest psychopathy, there is con-

siderable clinical interpretation and expertise required to determine that

such proﬁle elevations are suggestive of psychopathic personality (Hare,

2003; Lilienfeld & Fowler, 2006).

Conclusion

The assessment of psychopathy has largely been based upon Hare’s (1980,

2003) PCL (later revised as PCL-R) since the 1980s, with the measure

shaping much of what is known about modern-day psychopathy. The

PCL-R has for many years been the gold standard psychopathy assess-

ment and arguably remains the leading assessment tool of psychopathy

in offender populations (Hare, 2003; Hare & Neumann, 2005; Skeem

et al., 2011). Although there has been concern raised that the construct

of psychopathy has become equated and solely represented by the theo-

retical underpinnings and criteria of the PCL-R(Skeem & Cooke, 2010),

the body of empirical research on Hare’s measure has been important for

construct development. The PCL-R has paved the way for reﬁning the

empirical knowledge related to psychopathic personality and provided a

platform for further reﬁnement and progression. Subsequently, several

psychometric measures and conceptual theories have recently emerged to

both expand upon and counterbalance the large body of literature that

exists on psychopathy based on the PCL-R criteria (Butcher et al., 2001;

Cooke et al., 2012; Levenson et al., 1995; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005;

Patrick et al., 2009).

The different assessment measures and theoretical conceptualisations

of psychopathy each provide important contributions to the empirical

knowledge of the construct. The PPI-R (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005)was

one of the earlier assessment tools to propose an alternative conceptu-

alisation and method of psychopathy assessment, suggesting that three

factors captured psychopathy, with criminal behaviour not considered to

be a deﬁning feature. The self-report measure has had wide use as both

a clinical instrument and a research tool (Polaschek, 2015; Skeem et al.,

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

138 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

2011). The body of empirical literature on the PPI-R has supported the

instrument as valid measure of psychopathy and has demonstrated appli-

cation in both criminal and noncriminal settings (Brooks, 2016; Patrick &

Zempolich, 1998; Skeem et al., 2003,2011). Other promising assessment

tools include the CAPP SRS-IR (Cooke & Logan, 2018,) EPA (Lynam

et al., 2011), B-Scan 360 (Mathieu et al., 2013) and CPI-R (Fritzon et al.,

2016). These measures have encouraging ﬁndings in relation to exam-

ining psychopathic personality and the overlapping personality features

associated with the construct. The CAPP SRS-IR and EPA appear to have

utility in multiple settings; however, further investigation of these tools

in the corporate setting is required before this can be conclusive. The

B-Scan 360 and CPI-R have been speciﬁcally developed for use in the

corporate domain, designed to examine personality features applicable to

the workplace. The B-Scan 360 is solely a measure of psychopathy, while

the CPI-R examines various problematic personality traits, including psy-

chopathic characteristics. These two tools have had preliminary validation

with business samples and the ﬁndings have supported the use of the mea-

sures in determining problematic traits and behaviours in the workplace

setting. There are also a number of assessment instruments that have been

developed to measure psychopathy in the research setting. The TRiPM

(Patrick, 2010) has demonstrated promising ﬁndings based on early stud-

ies (Hall et al., 2014), while tools such as the LSRP (Levenson et al., 1995)

and SRP-III (Paulhus et al., 2016) are alternative measures of psychopa-

thy that have greater research, rather than clinical utility, particularly in

populations that are expected to possess accompanying adaptive traits.

References

Anderson, J., Sellbom, M., Wygant, D., Salekin, R., & Krueger, R. (2014).

Examining the associations between DSM-5 section III antisocial personality

disorder traits and psychopathy in community and university samples. Journal

of Personality Disorders, 28(5), 675–697. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2014_

28_134.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 139

Ashton-James, C. E., & Levordashka, A. (2013). When the wolf wears sheep’s

clothing: Individual differences in the desire to be liked inﬂuence noncon-

scious behavioural mimicry. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4,

643–648.

Babiak, P. (1995). When psychopaths go to work: A case study of an industrial

psychopath. Applied Psychology: An International review, 44 (2), 171–188.

Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2012). The B-Scan 360 manual. Manuscript in prepa-

ration.

Babiak, P., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2010). Corporate psychopathy:

Talking the walk. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(2), 174–193. https://doi.

org/10.1002/bsl.925.

Balsis, S., Busch, A. J., Wilfong, K. M., Newman, J. W., & Edens, J. F. (2017). A

statistical consideration regarding the threshold of the Psychopathy Checklist-

Revised. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99, 494–502. https://doi.org/10.

1080/00223891.2017.1281819.

Benning, S., Patrick, C., Salekin, R., & Leistico, A. (2005). Convergent and

discriminant validity of psychopathy factors assessed via self-report: A com-

parison of three instruments. Assessment, 12(3), 270–289. https://doi.org/10.

1177/1073191105277110.

Berg, J., Lilienfeld, S., & Waldman, I. (2013). Bargaining with the devil: Using

economic decision-making tasks to examine the heterogeneity of psychopathic

traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 47 (5), 472–482. https://doi.org/10.

1016/j.jrp.2013.04.003.

Boddy, C. R. (2011). Corporate psychopaths: Organisational destroyers.London:

Palgrave Macmillian.

Boddy, C. R., Ladyshewsky, R. K., & Galvin, P. (2010). The inﬂuence of corpo-

rate psychopaths on corporate social responsibility and organizational com-

mitment to employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 1–19. https://doi.org/

10.1007/s10551-010-0492-3.

Bolt, D. M., Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2007). Score metric equivalence

of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) across criminal offenders in

North America and the United Kingdom: A critique of Cooke, Michie, Hart,

and Clark (2005) and new analyses. Assessment, 14, 44–56. https://doi.org/

10.1177/1073191106293505.

Brinkley, C., Diamond, P., Magaletta, P., & Heigel, C. (2008). Cross-validation of

Levenson’s psychopathy scale in a sample of federal female inmates. Assessment,

15(4), 464–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191108319043.

Brooks, N. (2016). Understanding the manifestation of psychopathic personality

characteristics across populations. Gold Coast, QLD: Bond University.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

140 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath,Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, W. G.,

& Kaemmer, B. (2001). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2

(MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

Cleckley, H. M. (1941). The mask of sanity: An attempt to reinterpret the so-called

psychopathic personality. London:C.V.Mosby.

Cleckley, H. M. (1976). The mask of sanity (5th ed.). St. Louis: Mosby.

Cook, A. N., Hart. S. D., Van Dogen, S., Van Marle, H., & Viljoen, S. (2013,

June). Evaluation of the TriPM and PPI using the CAPP as a concept map in

Canadian and Dutch samples. Keynote Address presented at the 13th Inter-

national Association of Forensic Mental Health Services, Maastricht, The

Netherlands.

Cooke, D. (2018). Psychopathic personality disorder: Capturing an elusive con-

cept. European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 14(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/

10.31820/ejap.14.1.1.

Cooke, D. J., Hart, S. D., Logan, C., & Michie, C. (2012). Explicating the con-

struct of psychopathy: Development and validation of a conceptual model,

the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP). Inter-

national Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11, 242–252. https://doi.org/10.

1080/14999013.2012.746759.

Cooke, D. J., & Logan, C. (2015). Capturing clinical complexity: Towards

a personality-oriented measure of psychopathy. Journal of Criminal Jus-

tice, 43, 262–273. Retrieved from https://daneshyari.com/article/preview/

882729.pdf.

Cooke, D. J., & Logan, C. (2018). Capturing psychopathic personality: Pene-

trating the mask of sanity through clinical interview. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.),

Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Reﬁning the construct of psychopathy:

Towards a hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13, 171–188. https://

doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.171.

Cooke, D., Michie, C., Hart, S., & Clark, D. (2004). Reconstructing psychopa-

thy: Clarifying the signiﬁcance of antisocial and socially deviant behavior in

the diagnosis of psychopathic personality disorder. Journal of Personality Dis-

orders, 18(4), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2004.18.4.337.

Crego, C., & Widiger, T. (2014). Psychopathy, DSM-5, and a caution. Personality

disorders: Theory, research, and treatment, 5(4), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.

1037/per0000078.

Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.

Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 141

De Page, L., Mercenier, S., &Titeca, P. (2018). Assessing psychopathy in forensic

schizophrenia spectrum disorders: Validating the comprehensive assessment of

the psychopathic personality-institutional rating scale (CAPP-IRS). Psychiatry

Research, 265, 303–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.05.019.

Debowska, A., Boduszek, D., Kola, S., & Hyland, P. (2014). A bifactor model

of the Polish version of the Hare Self-Report Psychopathy Scale. Personality

and Individual Differences, 69(C), 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.

2014.06.001.

DeShong, H., Grant, D., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. (2015). Comparing models of

counterproductive workplace behaviors: The Five-Factor Model and the Dark

Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 74 (C), 55–60. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.001.

Drislane, L. E., Patrick, C. J., Sourander, A., Sillanmäki, L., Aggen, S. H., Elon-

heimo, H., … Kendler, K. S. (2014). Distinct variants of extreme psychopathic

individuals in society at large: Evidence from a population based sample. Per-

sonality Disorders, 5, 154–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000060.

Dutton, K. (2012). The wisdom of psychopaths: What saints, spies, and serial killers

can teach us about success. New York: Scientiﬁc American.

Edens, J., Hart, S., Johnson, D., Johnson, J., & Olver, M. (2000). Use of

the personality assessment inventory to assess psychopathy in offender pop-

ulations. Psychological Assessment, 12(2), 132–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/

1040-3590.12.2.132.

Edens, J., Poythress, N., & Watkins, M. (2001). Further validation of the psy-

chopathic personality inventory among offenders: Personality and behavioral

correlates. Journal of Personality Disorders, 15(5), 403–415. https://doi.org/

10.1521/pedi.15.5.403.19202.

Edens, J. F., Marcus, D. K., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Poythress, N. G. (2006). Psycho-

pathic, not psychopath: Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of

psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 131–144. https://doi.org/

10.1037/0021-843x.115.1.131.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Ques-

tionnaire. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Flórez, G., Ferrer, V., García, L. S., Crespo, M. R., Pérez, M., Saíz, P. A., &

Cooke, D. J. (2018). Clinician ratings of the Comprehensive Assessment of

Psychopathic Personality (CAPP) in a representative sample of Spanish prison

inmates: New validity evidence. PloS ONE, 13(4), e0195483. https://doi.org/

10.1371/journal.pone.0195483.

Fritzon, K., Bailey, C., Croom, S., & Brooks, N. (2016). Problematic personalities

in the workplace: Development of the Corporate Personality Inventory. In P.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

142 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

Granhag, R. Bull, A. Shaboltas, & E. Dozortseva (Eds.), Psychology and law

in Europe: When west meets east. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Fritzon, K., Croom, S., Brooks, N., & Bailey, C. (2013). The Corporate Personality

Inventory—Third Party Report (Unpublished).

Fritzon, K., Wiseman, E., & Gabriel, J. (2015). Factor structure of the third

party version of the Corporate Personality Inventory (CPI-3R). Unpublished

manuscript.

Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1996). “CPI Manual.” Ed.3. Palo Alto, CA: Con-

sulting Psychologists Press.

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 psychopathy (pp. 459–478): New York: Guilford

Press.

Hall, J., Drislane, L., Patrick, C., Morano, M., Lilienfeld, S., & Poythress, N.

(2014). Development and validation of triarchic construct scales from the

psychopathic personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 26 (2), 447–461.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035665.

Hanniball, K. B., Gatner, D. T., Douglas, K. S., Viljoen, J. L., & Aknin, L.

B. (2019). Examining the triarchic psychopathy measure and comprehensive

assessment of psychopathic personality in self-identiﬁed offender populations.

Personality Disorders:Theory, Research, andTreatment, 10(4), 340–353. https://

doi.org/10.1037/per0000333.

Hare, R. D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal

populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 111–119. https://doi.

org/10.1016/0191-8869(80)90028-8.

Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised.Toronto, ON: Multi-

Health Systems.

Hare, R. D. (1999a).Without conscience:The disturbing world of psychopaths among

us. New York: Guilford Press.

Hare, R. D. (1999b). Psychopathy as a risk factor for violence. Psychiatric Quar-

terly, 70, 181–197. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022094925150.

Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto,

ON: Mutli-Health Systems.

Hare, R. D., Harpur, T. J., & Hemphill, J. D. (1989). Scoring pamphlet for the self-

report psychopathy scale: SRP-II (Unpublished manuscript). Vancouver, BC,

Canada: Simon Fraser University.

Hare, R. D., & McPherson, L. M. (1984). Violent and aggressive behavior by

criminal psychopaths. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 7, 35–50.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-2527(84)90005-0.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 143

Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2005). Structural models of psychopathy. Cur-

rent Psychiatry Reports, 7 (1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-005-

0026-3.

Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2006). Treatment of psychopathy: A review of

empirical ﬁndings. In C. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 555–

572). New York: Guilford.

Hart, S., Cox, D., & Hare, R. D. (1995). Manual for the psychopathy checklist:

Screening version (PCL:SV). Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.

Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1940). The MMPI Manual.NewYork:

Psychological Corporation.

Johansson, P., Andershed, H., Kerr, M., & Levander, S. (2002). On the opera-

tionalization of psychopathy: Further support for a three-faceted personality

oriented model. Acta Psychiatrica Scandanavica, 106, 81–83. https://doi.org/

10.1034/j.1600-0447.106.s412.18.x.

Jones, D., & Hare, R. (2016). The mismeasure of psychopathy: A commentary

on Boddy’s PM-MRV. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(3), 579–588. https://

doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2584-6.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2011). Differentiating the dark triad within the

interpersonal circumplex. In L. M. Horowitz & S. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of

interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interven-

tions (pp. 249–268). New York: Wiley.

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad (SD3):

A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28–41. https://doi.

org/10.1177/107319111351405.

Kreis, M. K., & Cooke, D. (2011). Capturing the psychopathic female: A pro-

totypicality analysis of the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Per-

sonality (CAPP) across gender. Behavioural Sciences & the Law, 29, 638–648.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.1003.

Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E.,Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012).

Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory

for DSM–5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879–1890. https://doi.org/10.1017/

S0033291711002674.

Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psycho-

pathic attributes in a non institutionalized population. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 68, 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.

1.151.

Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary valida-

tion of a self report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

144 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 488–524. https://doi.org/

10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3.

Lilienfeld, S. O., & Fowler, K. (2006). The self-report assessment of psychopathy:

problems, pitfalls, and promises. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy

(pp. 107–132). New York: Guilford Press.

Lilienfeld, S., Patrick, C., Benning, S., Berg, J., Sellbom, M., & Edens, J. (2012).

The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: Confusions, controversies, and

clariﬁcations. Personality Disorders, 3(3), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/

a0026987.

Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., Smith, S. F., & Latzman, R. D. (2018). Boldness:

Conceptual and methodological issues. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of

psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. 165–186). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). Psychopathic Personality Inventory-

Revised (PPI-R) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment

Resources.

Lynam, D., Gaughan, E., Miller, J., Miller, D., Mullins-Sweatt, S., & Widiger,

T. (2011). Assessing the basic traits associated with psychopathy: Develop-

ment and validation of the elemental psychopathy assessment. Psychological

Assessment, 23(1), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021146.

Lynam, D., & Miller, J. (2012). Fearless dominance and psychopathy: A response

to Lilienfeld et al. Personality Disorders, 3(3), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.

1037/a0028296.

Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2007). Using a general model of personality

to identify the basic elements of psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders,

21, 160–178. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2007.21.2.160.

MacDonald, A. W., & Iacono, W. G. (2006). Towards an integrated perspective

on the etiology on psychopathy. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy

(pp. 375–385). New York: Guilford Press.

Malesza, M., Ostaszewski, P., Büchner, S., & Kaczmarek, M. C. (2017). The

adaptation of the Short Dark Triad personality measure—Psychometric prop-

erties of a German sample. Current Issues in Psychology.https://doi.org/10.

1007/s12144-017-9662-0.

Mathieu, C., & Babiak, P. (2015). Tell me who you are, I’ll tell you how you lead:

Beyond the Full-Range Leadership Model, the role of corporate psychopathy

on employee attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 8–12. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.016.

Mathieu, C., Hare, R., Jones, D., Babiak, P., & Neumann, C. (2013). Factor

structure of the B-Scan 360: A measure of corporate psychopathy. Psychological

Assessment, 25(1), 288–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029262.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 145

McCoy, K., & Edelstein, B. (2010). Incremental validity of the psychopathic

personality inventory—Revised in predicting program failure (ProQuest Dis-

sertations Publishing). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/

910874868/.

Millon, T. D., Grossman, S., & Millon, C. (2015). The Millon Clinical Multiaxial

Inventory (MCMI-IV) manual. Bloomington, MN: Pearson Inc.

Med

-edovi´c, J., Petrovi´c, B., Kujaˇci´c, D., Želeskov Ðori´c, J., & Savi´c, M. (2015).

What is the optimal number of traits to describe psychopathy. Primenjena

Psihologija, 8, 109–130.

Miller, J. D., Hyatt, C. S., Maples-Keller, J. L., Carter, N. T., & Lynam, D.

R. (2017). Psychopathy and Machiavellianism: A distinction without a dif-

ference? Journal of Personality, 85, 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.

12251.

Morey, L. C. (2007). The Personality Assessment Inventory professional manual.

Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Neal, T. M., & Sellbom, M. (2012). Examining the factor structure of the Hare

self-report psychopathy scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 244–253.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.648294.

O’Boyle, E., Forsyth, D., Banks, G., & Mcdaniel, M. (2012). A meta-analysis

of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 97 (3), 557–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025679.

O’Boyle, E., Forsyth, D., Banks, G., Story, P., & White, C. (2015). A meta-

analytic test of redundancy and relative importance of the DarkTriad and Five-

Factor Model of personality. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 644–664. https://

doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12126.

Patrick, C. J. (2007). Getting to the heart of psychopathy. In H. Herve & J. C.

Yuille (Eds.), Psychopathy: Theory, research, and social implications (pp. 207–

252). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Patrick, C. J. (2010). Operationalizing the triarchic conceptualization of psychopa-

thy: Preliminary description of brief scales for assessment of boldness, meanness,

and disinhibition (Unpublished manual). Tallahassee, FL: Department of Psy-

chology, Florida State University. Retrieved from http://www.phenxtoolkit.

org.

Patrick, C. J., & Drislane, L. E. (2014).Triarchic model of psychopathy: Origins,

operationalizations, and observed linkages with personality and general psy-

chopathology. Journal of Personality, 83, 627–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/

jopy.12119.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

146 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

Patrick, C. J., & Zempolich, K. A. (1998). Emotion and aggression in the psy-

chopathic personality. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 3, 303–338. https://

doi.org/10.1016/s1359-1789(97)00003-7.

Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualiza-

tions of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and

meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 913–938. https://doi.org/10.

1017/s0954579409000492.

Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2016). Manual for the Hare

Self-Report Psychopathy scale. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002).The Dark Triad of personality: Nar-

cissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality,

36, 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6.

Pedersen, L., Kunz, C., Elass, P., & Rasmussen, K. (2010). Psychopathy as a risk

factor for violent recidivism: Investigating the Psychopathy Checklist Screen-

ing Version (PCL:SV) and the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic

Personality (CAPP) in a forensic psychiatric setting. International Journal of

Forensic Mental Health, 9, 308–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/1499013.2010.

526681.

Pegrum, J., & Pearce, O. (2015). A stressful job: Are surgeons psychopaths? The

Bulletin of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 97(8), 331–334. https://

doi.org/10.1308/rcsbull.2015.331.

Persson, B. N. (2019). Searching for Machiavelli but ﬁnding psychopathy and

narcissism. Personality Disorders:Theory, Research, andTreatment, 1–11. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000323.

Polaschek, D. (2015). (Mis)understanding psychopathy: Consequences for policy

and practice with offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(4), 500–519.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.960033.

Poythress, N. G., Edens, J. F., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (1998). Criterion related validity

of the in a prison sample. Psychological Assessment, 10, 426–430. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/proﬁle/John_Edens/publication/232440323_

Criterionbased_validity_of_the_Psychopathic_Personality_Inventory_in_a_

prison_sample/links/0deec537cd138c0d03000000.pdf.

Rardin, E., Nadler, J., Bartels, L., & Ro, E. (2017). Corporate psychopaths and their

proclivity for Inﬁltrating Organizations (ProQuest Dissertations Publishing).

Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1925592797/.

Ray, J., Frick, P., Thornton, L., Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (2016). Positive

and negative item wording and its inﬂuence on the assessment of callous-

unemotional traits. Psychological Assessment, 28(4), 394–404. https://doi.org/

10.1037/pas0000183.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 147

Ross, S., Benning, S., Patrick, C., Thompson, A., & Thurston, A. (2009). Fac-

tors of the psychopathic personality inventory: Criterion-related validity and

relationship to the BIS/BAS and ﬁve-factor models of personality. Assessment,

16 (1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191108322207.

Salekin, R. T., Chen, D. R., Sellbom, M., Lester, W. S., & MacDougall, E. (2014).

Examining the factor structure and convergent and discriminant validity of

the Levenson self-report psychopathy scale: Is the two-factor model the best

ﬁtting model? Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 289–

304. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000073.

Sandvik, A., Hansen, A., Kristensen, M., Johnsen, B., Logan, C., &Thornton, D.

(2012). Assessment of psychopathy: Inter-correlations between psychopathy

checklist revised, comprehensive assessment of psychopathic personality—

Institutional rating scale, and self-report of psychopathy scale-III. International

Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11(4), 280–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/

14999013.2012.746756.

Seigfried-Spellar, K. C., Villacís-Vukadinovi´c, N., & Lynam, D. R. (2017). Com-

puter criminal behavior is related to psychopathy and other antisocial behavior.

Journal of Criminal Justice, 51, 67–73.

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, 440–451.

Sellbom, M., Cooke, D. J., & Hart, S. H. (2015). Construct validity of the Com-

prehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP) concept map: Get-

ting closer to the core of psychopathy. International Journal of Forensic Mental

Health, 14, 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2015.1085112.

Sellbom, M., Cooke, D. J., & Shou, Y. (2018). Development and initial validation

of the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality-Self Report (CAPP-

SR). Paper under review.

Sellbom, M., Lilienfeld, S. O., Fowler, K. A., & McCrary, K. L. (2018).The self-

report assessment of psychopathy: Challenges, pitfalls, and promises. In C. J.

Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 211–258). New York: Guilford

Press.

Sellbom, M., & Phillips, T. R. (2013). An examination of the triarchic conceptu-

alization of psychopathy in incarcerated and nonincarcerated samples. Journal

of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029306.

Skeem, J. L., & Cooke, D. J. (2010). Is criminal behavior a central component

of psychopathy? Conceptual directions for resolving the debate. Psychological

Assessment, 22, 433–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0008512.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

148 N. Brooks and K. Fritzon

Skeem, J. L., Polaschek, D. L. L., Patrick, C. J., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011).

Psychopathic personality: Bridging the gap between scientiﬁc evidence and

public policy. Psychological Science in Public Interest, 12, 95–162. https://doi.

org/10.1177/1529100611426706.

Skeem, J. L., Poythress, N., Edens, J. F., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Cale, E. M. (2003).

Psychopathic personality or personalities? Exploring potential variants of psy-

chopathy and their implications for risk assessment. Aggression and Violent

Behaviour, 8, 513–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1359-1789(02)00098-8.

Smith, S., & Lilienfeld, S. (2013). Psychopathy in the workplace: The knowns

and unknowns. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(2), 204–218. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.007.

Somma, A., Borroni, S., Drislane, L., Patrick, C., & Fossati, A. (2019). Modeling

the structure of the triarchic psychopathy measure: Conceptual, empirical,

and analytic considerations. Journal of Personality Disorders, 33(4), 470–496.

https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2018_32_354.

Spencer, R., & Byrne, M. (2016). Relationship between the extent of psycho-

pathic features among corporate managers and subsequent employee job satis-

faction. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 440–445. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.044.

Steadman, H., Silver, E., Monahan, J., Appelbaum, P., Robbins, P., Mulvey, E.,

… Banks, S. (2000). A classiﬁcation tree approach to the development of

actuarial violence risk assessment tools. Law and Human Behavior, 24 (1),

83–100. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005478820425.

Tsang, S., Salekin, R. T., Coffey, C. A., & Cox, J. (2017). A comparison of

self-report measures of psychopathy among non-forensic samples using item

response theory analyses. Psychological Assessment, 30(3), 311–327. https://

doi.org/10.1037/pas000481.

Verschuere, B., Uzieblo, K., De Schryver, M., Douma, H., Onraedt, T., &

Crombez, G. (2014). The inverse relation between psychopathy and faking

good: Not response bias, but true variance in psychopathic personality. The

Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 25(6), 705–713. https://doi.org/

10.1080/14789949.2014.952767.

Watson, G., Teaque, B., & Papamarcos, S. (2017). Functional psychopathy

in morally relevant business decisions. Ethics & Behavior, 27 (6), 458–485.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1224188.

Williams, K. M., & Paulhus, D. L. (2004). Factor structure of the Self Report

Psychopathy Scale (SRP-II) in non-forensic samples. Personality and Individual

Differences, 37, 765–778.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

4 The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings 149

Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Capturing the four-factor

structure of psychopathy in college students via self-report. Journal of Personal-

ity Assessment, 88, 205–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701268074.

Wilson, L., Miller, J. D., Zeichner, A., Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2011). An

examination of the validity of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment: Rela-

tions with other psychopathy measures, aggression, and externalizing behav-

iors. Journal of Psychological Behavioural Assessment, 33, 315–322. https://doi.

org/10.1007/s10862-010-9213-6.

Fritzon, Katarina, et al. Corporate Psychopathy : Investigating Destructive Personalities in the Workplace, Palgrave

Macmillan US, 2020. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bond/detail.action?docID=6001339.

Created from bond on 2020-03-01 15:41:09.

Psychometric properties of the psychopathic personality inventory: Application to high-functioning business population

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2021
CURR PSYCHOL

The Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R) has been developed for use in assessing psychopathy in community samples. Recent research into so-called ‘successful psychopaths’ and ‘corporate psychopaths’ has highlighted the potential prevalence of psychopathy in the community at large, and more specifically psychopathy amongst business executives. In this paper we study high functioning business executives and focus on the measurement of psychopathy, specifically the viability of various factor structures of the PPI-R. We employed two large business associations’ databases and obtained a usable sample of 501 responses. The results support the second-order factor of Fearless Dominance (along with the first-order factors of Social Influence, Fearlessness, and Stress Immunity). In addition, the results indicate the second-order factor of Self-Centered Impulsivity with the first-order factors of Machiavellian Egocentricity, Blame Externalization, Rebellious Nonconformity, and Carefree Nonplanfulness. Our results also support previous studies which suggest that Coldheartedness as a latent trait did not seem to relate to Fearless Dominance or Self-Centered Impulsivity. In addition to discussing our results, we also explore limitations and future research in understanding how psychopathy manifests itself in the high-functioning business population.

Las constelaciones de la perversidad. Hacia un modelo multi-dimensional de la psicopatía

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024

César San-Juan

La clasificación de los trastornos de la personalidad ha estado sistemáticamente sometida a una serie de dilemas conceptuales, metodológicos e incluso éticos. En este contexto, cabe indicar que la psicopatía no ha estado incluida en el vademécum psiquiátricoDSM5 asimilándola, con algunos matices, al trastorno de la personalidad antisocial. Sin embargo, la experiencia profesional en el campo de la salud mental y la criminología sugiere que la realidad de este constructo psicológico es algo más compleja. De hecho, en las personas “diagnosticadas” de psicopatía lo que podemos observar es una gran heterogeneidad de perfiles de personalidad, con diversos grados de perversidad o profundidad emocional que convierten algunos instrumentos tradicionales de evaluación de la psicopatía en herramientas muy limitadas para entender su compleja constelación de aristas. En este artículo se ofrece una revisión actualizada de los hallazgos más recientes sobre la personalidad psicopática cuya definición tendría mejor encaje en un mapa conceptual conformado por diversos parámetros de carácter cognitivo, conductual, interpersonal y emocional. Como resultado de este nuevo enfoque han surgido diversas herramientas de evaluación entre las que destacamos las diferentes versiones del CAPP (Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality). Si bien es evidente que es precisa más investigación en este campo, los hallazgos disponibles que asumen un enfoque multidimensional son prometedores para avanzar en una comprensión holística e integral de la personalidad psicopática.

Personality differences and buyer-supplier relationships: Psychopathy in executives, gender differences and implications for future research

Article

Sep 2021
J Purch Supply Manag

The buyer-supplier relationships (BSRs) literature to date has neglected the implications of individual personality differences amongst the parties to any relationship, thereby ignoring the complex dynamics of human interaction and behaviors on the progress and performance in such relationships. This Notes & Debates paper takes the view that personality matters, particularly toxic personality traits, and argues that for purchasing & supply researchers a cross-disciplinary approach to the study of BSRs will advance our understanding. Our study brought together psychology and supply management researchers. We begin by arguing that much of the extant literature demotes behavior and personality to peripheral, exogenous, or even irrelevant to the study of BSRs. Second, by focusing on the emergent research into corporate psychopathy, we explore one specific aspect of individual personality differences – psychopathic personality disorder. Third, we present our findings from a study of psychopathy in two executive samples, one consisting of exclusively procurement executives, to illustrate some of the personality traits likely to prevail within BSRs. Key to our argument, we found significant individual differences across our samples. Indeed, the incidence of psychopathic traits was higher than reported in the few prior studies of corporate psychopathy. We also found significant gender differences, marked not only by slightly higher levels of psychopathy in males than females, but by differences in the disposition of psychopathy. We also found that the relationship between psychopathy and seniority was significant, indicative of a relationship between executive status and potentially toxic behaviors. Future studies of BSRs thus need to recognize and account for individual differences in BSRs; such differences are not inconsequential.

Use of the Personality Assessment Inventory to Assess Psychopathy in Offender Populations

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2000

The authors investigated the validity of the Antisocial Features (ANT) scale of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; L. C. Morey, 1991) with respect to assessments of psychopathy in 2 offender samples. Study 1 included 46 forensic psychiatric inpatients who were administered the Screening Version of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL:SV; S. D. Hart, D. N. Cox, & R. D. Hare, 1995). In Study 2, 55 sex offenders were administered the Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL–R; R. D. Hare, 1991). ANT scores correlated highly with the PCL:SV total score (r = .54) and moderately with the PCL–R total score (r = .40). ANT tapped primarily behavioral symptoms of psychopathy rather than interpersonal and affective symptoms. Also, ANT had low to moderate diagnostic efficiency regarding diagnoses of psychopathy, suggesting that it may be better used as a dimensional rather than categorical measure of this construct.

Examining the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure and Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality in Self-Identified Offender Populations

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2019

Despite the clear clinical and forensic importance of psychopathy, definitions of psychopathy and the optimal measurement of the disorder are issues of continued controversy. The present research provides an empirical examination of two self-report instruments indexing recent conceptualizations of psychop-athy: the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality-Self-Rating Scale (CAPP-SR) and Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM). This study provides the first examination of the convergence between the two tools, and the first investigation into the criterion-related validity of the CAPP-SR within a self-identified offender population. Our findings suggest strong support for the criterion-related validity of the CAPP-SR and the convergent validity of the CAPP-SR and the TriPM Meanness and Disinhibition domains. TriPM Boldness exhibited a clearly bifurcated pattern of association with all outcome criteria as compared with all domains in the CAPP model, and the Meanness and Disinhibition domains of the TriPM. Further, TriPM Boldness did not add incrementally or interact with Meanness or Disinhibition to predict the majority of outcomes. Findings are discussed with respect to the relevance of TriPM Boldness in the conceptualization of psychopathy, and the possible contributions of the CAPP-SR to the field of psychopathy research and assessment.

Understanding the manifestation of psychopathic personality characteristics across populations

Thesis

Full-text available

Jan 2017

Nathan Brooks

Psychopathic personality traits have been identified in research on criminal and noncriminal samples (Hare, 2003; Babiak, Hare, & Neumann, 2010). A large body of research exists on criminal psychopathy; however, limited empirical understanding has emerged for noncriminal psychopathy. It is unknown whether the empirical knowledge on criminal psychopathy is generalisable to psychopathic personality in the broader community (Gao & Raine, 2010). The current thesis sought to address the lack of research on psychopathy outside of the correctional setting (Hall & Benning, 2006; Skeem, Polaschek, Patrick, & Lilienfeld, 2011). The present research aimed to develop a greater understanding of psychopathic traits across specific populations, incorporating three samples. These were a noncriminal community based sample (n = 115), criminal sample of community based probation and parole offenders (n = 44) and business sample consisting of working professionals and students completing a Master of Business Administration Degree (n = 60). Available at: https://pure.bond.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/17512266/understanding_the_manifestation_of_psychopathic_personality_characteristics.pdf

Development and Initial Validation of the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality-Self-Report (CAPP-SR)

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2019

The Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP; Cooke, Hart, Logan, & Michie, 2012) is a concept map that entails 33 personality traits; it integrates historical and contemporary conceptualizations and operationalizations of psychopathy. The current project sought to develop and validate a self-report inventory to operationalize this concept map. Study 1 reported on the development of a CAPP Self-Report (CAPP-SR) inventory using expert ratings to select items for an experimental version. Next, these experimental items were evaluated in an online sample of 550 community-dwelling U.S. participants who were carefully recruited to match current U.S. census data on gender, age, and race/ethnicity. The application of various latent modeling and classical test theory procedures resulted in the 99-item CAPP-SR measure. In Study 2, two samples from the United States and New Zealand were used for initial validation purposes. CAPP scales showed a promising pattern of convergent validity with other self-report psychopathy scales. The new CAPP-SR inventory is promising for furthering research on this emerging psychopathy model in correctional, forensic, business, and other settings in which this clinical construct is of high importance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Searching for Machiavelli but Finding Psychopathy and Narcissism

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2019

Björn N. Persson

Machiavellianism is a psychological construct reflecting individual differences in manipulative and strategic thinking, pragmatic morality, and a cynical outlook on life. A recent stream of research has shown that Machiavellianism and psychopathy seem to be redundant constructs and that measures of Machiavellianism do not correspond well with theoretical expectations. In the present study, I juxtapose multiple measures of Machiavellianism against normal (i.e., the five-factor model and HEXACO) and abnormal (e.g., narcissism, psychopathy, impulsivity, and personality dysfunction) personality traits in an online sample (N = 591). Using Goldberg’s (2006) Bass–Ackwards approach, I investigate whether typical Machiavellian traits can be found anywhere in the construct hierarchy by comparing the levels of the hierarchy with expert-rated five-factor model prototypes of Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and external correlates. Our results indicate that measures of Machiavellianism mostly reflect psychopathy and narcissism. The implications of these results are discussed, including what the future may hold for Machiavellianism.

Psychopathic Personality Disorder: Capturing an Elusive Concept

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2018

David john Cooke

The diagnosis of psychopathic personality disorder has salience for forensic clinical practice. It influences decisions regarding risk, treatability and sentencing, indeed, in certain jurisdictions it serves as an aggravating factor that increases the likelihood of a capital sentence. The concatenation of symptom that is associated with modern conceptions of the disorder can be discerned in early writings, including the book of Psalms. Despite its forensic clinical importance and historical pedigree the concept remains elusive and controverted. In this paper I describe an attempt to map the concept of psychopathic personality disorder—the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP). I outline the processes used to create the concept map; I summarise evidence in support of the content validity of the map and describe different operations designed to operationalise the construct. It is only when conceptual clarity is achieved that valid operations and measures can be created. I end with a plea for more carefully considered application of statistical methods; applications that better fit the theoretical questions being posed.

Problem personalities in the workplace: Development of the corporate personality inventory

Chapter

Full-text available

Jan 2016

The notion that individuals with psychopathic personality characteristics exist in the corporate world is both a logical extension of the estimated community prevalence rates of the disorder, as well as a scientific hypothesis based on the observation that a number of the characteristics of the disorder 9.1 Introduction 139 9.2 Aim 143 9.3 Method 143 9.3.1 Participants 143 9.4 Measures 144 9.4.1 Participant Demographics 144 9.4.2 Paulhus Deception Scales: Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding 144 9.4.3 Psychopathy Personality Inventory-Revised 145 9.4.4 Corporate Personality Inventory 145 9.5 Results 146 9.5.1 Descriptive Statistics 146 9.5.2 Factor Structure of the Corporate Personality Inventory 147 9.5.3 Discriminant and Concurrent Validity 152 9.5.4 Criterion Validity 152 9.6 Discussion 154 9.7 Limitations and Future Directions 156 References 159 Appendix: Corporate Psychopathy Inventory Items 161 could convey an advantage within this context (Crant & Bateman, 2000; Kets de Vries & Miller, 1985). However, very little literature has actually tested the validity of the hypothesis, despite the proliferation of the idea in media portrayals and semi-academic publications (Babiak & Hare, 2006; Boddy, 2011b; Dutton, 2012). Given that psychopathy in its criminal manifestation has been shown to predict aggression and violent behaviour, the assumption has been that in a business setting those individuals with the disorder will be responsible for fraud (Blickle, Schlegel, Fassbender, & Klein, 2006), workplace bullying (Caponecchia, Sun, & Wyatt, 2012) and poor management (Babiak, Neumann, & Hare, 2010). Smith and Lilienfeld (2013) have, though, recently posited a ‘double-edged sword’ hypothesis, citing examples from studies that have shown positive characteristics including being a strategic thinker, being creative or innovative and successful leadership (Babiak et al., 2010; Lilienfeld, Waldman, Landfield, Watts, Rubenzer, & Faschingbauer, 2012). The present study seeks to further clarify the distinction between positive and negative manifestations of psychopathic personality characteristics in a corporate sample. The aims of the study include the development of an assessment tool to measure psychopathic personality traits in a business setting, as well as the elucidation of how these characteristics correlate with other validated measures relevant to psychopathy assessment.

Modeling the Structure of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure: Conceptual, Empirical, and Analytic Considerations

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2018
J PERS DISORD

This study sought to characterize the factor structure of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM) using data from a sample of 1,082 communitydwelling Italian adults. Exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) was used to compare the fit of a bifactor model for each TriPM scale, in which specific-content factors were specified along with a general factor, with the fit of a single, general-factor model. Robust weighted least square (WLSMV) ESEM supported a bifactor latent structure of the TriPM items for all individual scales. When we jointly factor analyzed the 58 TriPM items, a WLSMV ESEM three-factor structure showed adequate fit; the three ESEM factors were akin to TriPM Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition theoretical dimensions, respectively, and could be effectively replicated across gender subgroups. Our findings support the three-factor structure of TriPM items, at least in Italian community-dwelling adults, and provide further evidence for the construct validity of the TriPM.

Clinician ratings of the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP) in a representative sample of Spanish prison inmates: New validity evidence

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2018
PLOS ONE

The Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP) is a concept map of psychopathic personality disorder (PPD). The CAPP- Institutional Rating Scale (IRS) is a tool designed to assess CAPP symptoms in institutional settings. The CAPP contains 33 personality traits organized in six domains: attachment, behavioural, cognitive, dominance, emotional and self. Until now, much of the CAPP research has been conducted out of clinical, forensic and correctional settings using self-ratings. In the current study, the psychometric properties and construct validity of the CAPP-IRS were evaluated in a non-convenience sample of 204 Spanish convicts. Clinician ratings were employed. Participants had been imprisoned for at least 6 months at Pereiro de Aguiar Penitentiary. This group of inmates was heterogeneous with respect to type of official charges, and representative as all convicts interned for at least 6 months in this prison were screened for participation. Classical test theory indexes of reliability, correlations between CAPP items and domains and external correlations and structural analyses demonstrated that CAPP assessment is a solid and robust way of evaluating psychopathy in a correctional setting. Best fit was found for a three-factor model: attachment and emotional items associated with a callous and unemotional trait, dominance and self items associated with a pathological interpersonal style, and behavioural and residual items from other domains associated with impulsivity.

Assessing Psychopathy in Forensic Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders: Validating the Comprehensive Assessment of the Psychopathic Personality-Institutional Rating Scale (CAPP-IRS)

Article

May 2018
PSYCHIAT RES

The assessment of psychopathy in (forensic) schizophrenia spectrum disorders is long-standing debate. In the present study, we investigated the psychometric properties of the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality-Institutional Rating Scale (CAPP-IRS) in a sample of 72 male forensic patients with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorders. We compared the CAPP-IRS' psychometric properties to those of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). The CAPP-IRS showed good interrater reliability and internal consistency except for the CAPP-IRS Cognition and Emotional Domains. There appears to be a larger but intelligible overlap between the CAPP-IRS and schizophrenia symptoms than between the PCL-R and schizophrenia symptoms. Inversely, the PCL-R showed overall stronger associations with risk assessment measures. We conclude that, in (forensic) schizophrenia disorder spectrum patients, the CAPP-IRS has closer associations with clinical features, while the PCL-R is better a predicting risk and life-time dimensions.

The Assessment of Psychopathic Personality Across Settings

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Fearless Dominance and Self-Centered Impulsivity Interact to Predict Predatory Aggression among Fore...

Overview of Theories and Empirical Findings Relevant to Psychopathic Personality Characteristics Amo...

Understanding the manifestation of psychopathic personality characteristics across populations

Conceptualising Psychopathy: Empirical, Clinical and Case Interpretations

Criminal and Noncriminal Psychopathy: The Devil is in the Detail