Content uploaded by Emma-Clementine O. Welsh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emma-Clementine O. Welsh on Sep 24, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
1
Psychopathy, charisma, and success: A moderation modeling approach to successful
psychopathy
Emma-Clementine O. Welsh a, Mark F. Lenzenweger a, b
aDepartment of Psychology; State University of New York at Binghamton; Science IV,
Binghamton, NY, 13902-6000, USA
bDepartment of Psychiatry; Weill Cornell Medical College; New York, NY, 10065, USA
First Author:
Emma-Clementine O. Welsh, M.S.
Email: ewelsh1@binghamton.edu;
ORCID: 0000-0002-4737-4590
Corresponding Author:
Mark F. Lenzenweger, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
State University of New York at Binghamton
Science IV
Binghamton, NY, 13902-6000, USA
E-mail: mlenzen@binghamton.edu
Telephone: 607.777.7148
FAX: 607.777.4890
This research was completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of
Science in Clinical Psychology at The State University of New York at Binghamton by Emma-
Clementine O. Welsh, M.S.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial,
or not-for-profit sectors.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
2
Abstract
Psychopathic traits are associated with negative outcomes; however, they have also been
associated with adaptive outcomes (e.g., corporate success, etc.). We tested the Moderated-
Expression Model of psychopathy in a sample of community adults (N = 315; 50.8% female; 22-
65 years) utilizing a battery of self-report measures (Self-Report Psychopathy Scale; Triarchic
Psychopathy Measure; Conger & Kanungo Scale of Charismatic Leadership; General Charisma
Inventory; Evading Detection/Punishment; and Occupational Success). The effect of
psychopathic traits on evading detection and punishment (not occupational success) was
moderated by leadership (and to a lesser extent, general) charisma, net of the effects of
pathological narcissism and several other covariates. These results support the Moderated-
Expression Model and warrant further research on the associations among psychopathy,
charisma, and success.
Keywords: charisma; personality; psychopathy; psychopathic traits; successful psychopathy;
success; moderation; moderated-expression; leadership
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
3
1. Introduction
Psychopathy describes a form of personality pathology characterized by the co-
occurrence of various traits including lack of empathy, self-centeredness, narcissism,
interpersonal manipulation, cold-heartedness, recklessness, and a general disregard for authority
(Hare, 1996; McCord & McCord, 1964; Patrick & Drislane, 2015). While psychopathic
personality expressed at the clinical syndrome level constitutes the simultaneous expression of
many of these traits, due to the dimensional and spectrum-based nature of the construct, it is not
uncommon for individuals to express only one or select characteristics (Edens et al., 2006). This
particular constellation of personality and interpersonal features has long been associated with
criminality and assorted antisocial behaviors (Skeem et al., 2011) as well as other forms of
maladaptive personality functioning. However, an unknown proportion of individuals exhibiting
the core traits of psychopathy simultaneously engage in “successful behaviors,” achieving
wealth, influence, and power despite their psychopathic traits (Babiak & Hare, 2006). Such
individuals have frequently been referred to as “successful psychopaths” (Lilienfeld et al., 2015;
Widom, 1977).
The concept of successful psychopathy has been a widely debated one in the psychopathy
field
1
, as psychopathic traits are predictors of violence, criminal behavior, and recidivism (Harris
et al., 1991; Hemphill et al., 1998). The literature delineates several differing and somewhat
competing models of successful psychopathy. For example, successful psychopathy has been
conceptualized as: a) achieving relatively more positive outcomes and/or avoiding more negative
1
We acknowledge that the concept of successful psychopathy is still a controversial one in the psychopathy field, as
it is difficult to reconcile that an individual can be both “psychopathic” and successful. We seek to take a purely
empirical stance on this matter and our approach is one that intends to build upon extant theory and empirical
evidence for the existence of such a construct as successful psychopathy. In examining successful psychopathy, we
take a dimensional/spectrum approach and are in no way suggesting that an individual who scores a 40 on the PCL-
R would be entirely successful across all domains of functioning (Lilienfeld et al., 2012). In fact, this would be
highly unlikely.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
4
outcomes compared to others with psychopathic traits (e.g., incarceration etc.); b) exhibiting
adaptive features in addition to and independent of psychopathy; or c) the expression of a
combination of psychopathic features that is distinct from the features of others with more
negative outcomes (Hall & Benning, 2006; Lilienfeld et al., 2015). Even the term “successful
psychopathy” is controversial because it seems, to some, like a misnomer or oxymoron (Kiehl &
Lushing, 2014; Miller & Lynam, 2012). However, we argue, that to assert that psychopathic
individuals cannot display successful life outcomes because psychopathic individuals “cannot be
successful, by definition” constitutes the logical fallacy of begging the question. There are many
instances in which psychopathic individuals have achieved some measure of occupational and/or
social success (e.g., in politics and business; Lilienfeld et al., 2012; Falkenbach et al., 2018;
Patton et al., 2018). For the purposes of advancing empirical research in the field of successful
psychopathy, we must first comprehend and clearly operationalize the construct.
1.1 Conceptualization of Successful Psychopathy
Successful psychopathy has historically been differentiated from “unsuccessful
psychopathy” based on a psychopathic individual’s history of arrest and incarceration (those with
no history of arrest or incarceration being the successful psychopaths; Boccio & Beaver, 2018).
Essentially, this criterion reflects whether or not an individual has gotten caught doing something
illegal. Arguably, this dichotomy is a coarse one, defined by life history data (i.e., conviction)
rather than clinical or other personality/interpersonal features. Firstly, it focuses exclusively on
psychopathic individuals’ ability to avoid negative outcomes (“getting caught”) without
accounting for the acquisition of positive outcomes (Steinert et al., 2017). Additionally, it could
potentially result in the classification of an incarcerated psychopath as “unsuccessful” by
erroneously disregarding a prior history of successful evasion of arrest and incarceration
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
5
(Aharoni & Kiehl, 2013). One could also argue that this dichotomy might reflect societal bias
(defined by those negatively impacted by psychopathic individuals) by failing to define
successful psychopathy from the perspective of a psychopathic individual (Hall & Benning,
2006). For example, a corporate businessperson with psychopathic features who surreptitiously
defrauds their company is likely to believe that they are very successful because they benefitted
financially from their actions without being detected. Concurrently, from the perspective of the
organization and its employees, this is an exceedingly negative outcome because it results in
financial loss and other negative organizational outcomes (Babiak et al., 2010). Because the
“success” of a psychopathic individual often comes at the expense of others, the construct of
successful psychopathy is both controversial and difficult to define in an objective manner.
Finally, most prior research uses a categorical/diagnostic approach to psychopathy, focusing on
only diagnosed cases, thereby missing the full range and diversity of psychopathy manifestations
across the dimensional construct.
Utilizing the extant qualitative and empirical literature, we sought a more empirically
driven approach to understanding successful psychopathy. Our approach a) allows for the
integration of both positive and negative consequences, b) attempts to define successful
psychopathy from the perspective of those with psychopathic personality traits, and c) extends
beyond a dichotomous approach towards a more multifaceted and spectrum-based approach that
accounts for individual differences in personality and life outcomes. Like psychopathy itself,
psychopathic success occurs on a dimension, with individuals exhibiting features of psychopathy
achieving more success in some domains and less success in others (Benning et al., 2018).
Success through the lens of psychopathy, or “psychopathic success,” consists of the avoidance of
negative outcomes (arrest; incarceration; disciplinary action in the workplace; and interpersonal
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
6
repercussions (Boccio & Beaver, 2018; Cheang & Appelbaum, 2015; Hare, 1999) and the
acquisition of positive outcomes (occupational success evident from annual salary,
promotions/raises/awards, organizational ranking, and perceived power, freedom, and influence;
Eisenbarth et al., 2018; Smith & Lilienfeld, 2013).
1.2.1. Evading Detection and Punishment: Criminal Justice, The Workplace, and Interpersonal
Relationships
A notable portion of the psychopathy literature suggests that a psychopathic individual’s
ability to evade detection and punishment by the criminal justice system is a critical component
of psychopathic success (e.g., Boccio & Beaver, 2018; Widom, 1977). Such a distinction has
even been revealed in neurobiological and psychophysiological differences between those who
have been apprehended and those who have not (Gao & Raine, 2010; Ishikawa et al., 2001).
While being a “successful criminal” (Boccio & Beaver, 2018) may be one component of
psychopathic success, some individuals express their psychopathic tendencies in ways that do
not directly break established laws (Skeem & Cooke, 2010). They may engage in deviant or
unsavory workplace behaviors including: excessive absenteeism, manipulation of coworkers,
poor job performance, intimidation, and taking responsibility for the successes of their coworkers
(Cheang & Appelbaum, 2015; Clark, 2005) as well as concerning behaviors such as obtaining
unauthorized access to information technology systems, company resources, and security
protocols. Additionally, psychopathic traits are associated with devastating interpersonal
behavior, such as lying, manipulation, and exploitation (Hare, 1999; Patrick, 2018).
Psychopathic individuals must evade detection and punishment in order to fulfill their own goals
and desires in both of these domains.
1.2.2. Occupational Success
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
7
Another component of psychopathic success is the acquisition of positive outcomes in the
form of occupational success (Eisenbarth et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2014). Psychopathic
individuals are infamously greedy, power-hungry, sensation seeking, dishonest, and have a
general disregard for authority, resulting in a desire to occupy job positions that provide them
with power, status, freedom, and wealth (Boddy, 2017). Occupational success can be
operationalized in terms of observable and countable factors such as annual salary, accolades and
accomplishments, organizational ranking, and perceived power, freedom, and influence (Smith
& Lilienfeld, 2013). The intersection of psychopathy and occupational success is further
explicated in the “corporate psychopathy” literature (Boddy, 2014; Clarke, 2005), which
examines individuals who exhibit high levels of psychopathic features while also working in a
corporate or industrial/organizational setting (Boddy et al., 2010). Many would consider
employment in such settings to be a manifestation of occupational success, therefore the concept
of “successful psychopathy” has considerable traction and relevance.
1.3. Prior Models of Successful Psychopathy
Three models have been proposed to account for successful psychopathy (Hall &
Benning, 2006; Lilienfeld et al., 2015). First, the “differential severity” model asserts that
successful psychopathy is simply a less severe manifestation of unsuccessful psychopathy.
Second, the “differential configuration” model suggests that successful psychopathy is an
entirely different amalgamation of traits from those that comprise unsuccessful psychopathy.
Third, the “moderated expression” model posits that in successful psychopathy, the more
deleterious manifestations of unsuccessful psychopathy are moderated by protective factors such
as intelligence or high executive functioning (Lilienfeld et al., 2015). We argue that the
moderated expression model represents the most compelling psychological model because it (a)
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
8
allows for the interaction between core psychopathic features and other factors (e.g., personality
features, extraneous factors) in generating successful outcomes, (b) does not suggest that success
and very high levels of psychopathy are mutually exclusive, and (c) maintains the theoretical
integrity of the psychopathy construct (Steinert et al., 2017).
In accordance with the moderated expression model, the literature has discussed several
variables as potential moderators of successful outcomes in psychopathy. Some research
suggests that neuroanatomy (Yang et al., 2010) or enhanced information processing (Gao et al.,
2011) may play a moderating role in success. In addition to brain-based variables, researchers
have suggested that good parenting practices temper the less successful manifestations of
psychopathic traits (Frick & White, 2008). Other research has implicated executive functioning
(Ishikawa et al., 2001) and intelligence (Yang et al., 2010) as potential moderating factors in
psychopathy outcomes, warranting further research in these and other domains (Patrick, 2018).
1.4. Charisma’s Potential Moderating Role in Successful Psychopathy
One personality feature that may moderate the association between core psychopathic
features and behavioral outcomes is charisma. Since the inception of the psychopathy construct,
psychopathic personality and charisma have been discussed in tandem (Cleckley, 1941, 1976).
For example, in his seminal clinical observations, Cleckley documented adaptive features such as
charm, social prowess, and an absence of anxiety (Lilienfeld et al., 2018), while Hare (1991,
2003) includes the item “Glib and Superficial Charm” in the PCL-R in an effort to tap into this
enigmatic trait. Additionally, there are countless clinical anecdotes and qualitative descriptive
reports of psychopathic individuals who are identified as “charismatic” or “charming,” (e.g.,
Babiak & Hare, 2006; Boddy, 2017; Lykken, 1995). However, to date, research examining the
direct empirical relation between psychopathy and charisma remains essentially nonexistent.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
9
This state of affairs may be attributable to what has been described in the past as the inscrutable
nature of charisma (Shamir et al., 1993).
Like psychopathic success, charisma is a complex construct for which the literature
proposes differing and somewhat competing theoretical models. Attempts to define charisma
have also been complicated by near neighbor constructs such as leadership (Sy et al., 2018)
and/or narcissism (Rogoza & Fatfouta, 2020). Historically, charisma has been conceptualized as
an interpersonal “gift” that grants individuals exceptional, even superhuman qualities in the eye
of the beholder (Weber, 1947). Charisma is characterized by unwavering self-esteem,
confidence, self-determination, and unparalleled abilities to persuade and inspire followers
(Bass, 1985). It is often found in agents of sociopolitical change and radical reform who
articulate vision and engage in behaviors that display great personal risk and sacrifice for their
followers (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy; Tskhay et al., 2018). It has been
proposed that charisma can be understood either in terms of the inherent personality features of
an individual (Burke & Brinkerhoff, 1981) or observer perception and outcomes (Awamleh &
Gardner, 1999). Others have conceptualized charisma in terms of both personality features and
observer perception/outcomes (Conger & Kanungo, 1994) and through the lens of signaling
theory (Grabo et al., 2017). Despite the complexity and inherent ambiguity of the construct, there
is a general consensus that charismatic individuals have extraordinary social skills, exert
influence over others, evoke emotional arousal, inspire followership and action, and are prone to
leadership roles (e.g. Antonakis et al., 2016; House, 1977; Shamir et al., 1993).
Charisma is not necessarily indicative of good intentions or morality (Antonakis et al.,
2016). For a psychopathic individual lacking empathy or a “moral compass,” charisma might be
used as a tool of manipulation and deception (Hare, 1996, 1999). While the prototypical
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
10
psychopath is thought to operate behind a “mask” of sanity (Cleckley, 1941, 1976; Crego &
Widiger, 2016), the charismatic psychopath emanates the social and interpersonal signals that are
appealing to those with whom they interact. Some do, however, “go overboard” with the charm,
coming across as glib and superficial, rather than genuinely charismatic (Babiak & Hare, 2006).
In order to contextualize pre-existing literature regarding the overlap between charisma
and psychopathic personality, we will briefly delineate the prevailing models of psychopathy and
their corresponding measurement approaches. The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R-II;
Hare, 1991; 2003) reflects a two-factor, four-facet conceptualization of psychopathy intended to
measure psychopathic traits in institutionalized samples. Factor 1 encompasses the Interpersonal
and Affective facets of psychopathy characterized by traits such as manipulativeness, blunted
affective experience, superficial charm, and callousness. Factor 2 comprises the Lifestyle and
Antisocial facets, which tap antisocial features such as impulsivity, criminal behavior, and
sensation-seeking (Hare, 1991; 2003). The triarchic model of psychopathy (Tri-PM; Patrick et
al., 2009) encompasses Boldness (i.e., stress immunity, venturesomeness, and social dominance),
Meanness (i.e., deficient empathy, exploitativeness, and disdain for close attachments), and
Disinhibition (i.e., impulse control problems and need for immediate gratification), and taps
psychopathic features in community samples. The Meanness domain is primarily reflected in
Factor 1 of the PCL-R, while Disinhibition is primarily reflected by Factor 2. The adaptive
features encompassed by Boldness are weakly represented in the two-factor, four-facet model.
Finally, the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) measures
psychopathic features in community contexts and consists of eight unidimensional subscales
comprising two higher-order factors (Fearless Dominance and Self-Centered Impulsivity) and
one separate factor (Coldheartedness). Fearless Dominance (i.e., social potency, stress immunity,
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
11
and fearlessness) maps onto Tri-PM Boldness and somewhat onto PCL-R Factor 1, whereas Self-
Centered Impulsivity (i.e., impulsive nonconformity, blame externalization, Machiavellian
egocentricity, and carefree nonplanfulness) maps onto Tri-PM Disinhibition and Factor 2 of the
PCL-R (Drislane et al., 2014). Coldheartedness, the eighth subscale of the PPI, is associated with
Factor 1 of the PCL-R and Tri-PM Meanness (Patrick et al., 2009; Patton et al., 2018). Like Tri-
PM Boldness, the more adaptive traits captured by PPI Fearless Dominance are not well
represented in the PCL-R model of psychopathy, which tends to emphasize more antisocial (rule
and law breaking) elements.
While no prior studies have empirically examined the interpersonal effects of charisma in
the context of psychopathic traits, several studies have investigated the association between
psychopathic traits and neighboring constructs (e.g., persuasiveness, social influence, and charm,
etc.). For example, research has demonstrated that charm (associated with charisma and
potentially one of its comprising features; Buss, et al., 1987) is a method of social influence and
manipulation associated with the “dark triad” personality dimensions that have emerged in the
normal personality arena (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The psychopathy dimension of the dark
triad is associated with utilizing charm as a tactic for status seeking and coalition formation
(coalition formation is defined as “building coalitional bonds to promote cooperation and mutual
assistance in times of need;” Jonasen & Webster, 2012; Kenrick et al., 2002, p. 348).
Psychopathic features are also related to higher ratings of “charisma/presentation style,”
comprising creativity, good strategic thinking, and communication skills (Babiak et al., 2010).
Furthermore, psychopathy as defined through the lens of the Five Factor Model (FFM) of
personality, is positively related to FFM Extraversion (Eisenbarth et al., 2018) and its
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
12
Assertiveness and Gregariousness subcomponents (Miller et al., 2001), both of which map onto
charisma.
Regarding the specific sub features of psychopathic personality, research suggests that
Tri-PM boldness is positively associated with interpersonal persuasiveness (Weiss et al., 2018)
as well as “prosociality”, positive affect, and involvement with prosocial peers (Dotterer et al.,
2017). Tri-PM meanness, however, is negatively related to positive affect and involvement with
prosocial peers (Dotterer et al., 2017). A study utilizing the PPI to examine psychopathic traits in
U.S. presidents found that fearless dominance was associated with increased public
persuasiveness, communication, and leadership (Lilienfeld et al., 2012b). Finally, there is
evidence that the Interpersonal facet of the PCL-R is positively associated with the Social
Potency subscale of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Kennealy et al.,
2007). As the Interpersonal facet is also positively related to both Tri-PM boldness and PPI
fearless dominance (Lilienfeld et al., 2012a; Venables et al., 2013), this facet may be similarly
associated with features of charisma. We argue that these findings, while limited, warrant further
exploration of manipulation, persuasion, and social influence through the larger construct of
charisma in relation to the attainment of successful outcomes in psychopathy. We propose that
this “dark side” of charisma may be an essential ingredient in the amalgam of factors resulting in
successful psychopathy and may even be a common branch shared by heroes and villains (as
suggested by Lykken, 1995).
1.5. Covariates Relevant to a Consideration of Psychopathy, Charisma, and Success
Like charisma, psychopathy is a construct that is made more complicated by its
association with other personality constructs. Psychopathy is known to have considerable overlap
with narcissism. In fact, “malignant narcissism” is known to be characterized by the joint
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
13
presence of psychopathic features within the same narcissistic person, as well as other features
such as paranoia, sadism, and aggression (Lenzenweger et al., 2018). Additionally, charisma may
be suggestive of narcissistic grandiosity (Rogoza & Fatfouta, 2020). Therefore, narcissism
represents an important personality construct to take into account in the context of psychopathic
personality features. Another construct of interest to many is biological sex. There is no a priori
model that would suggest that the relations among psychopathic features, charisma, and success
should be driven by sex of the subject. However, the empirical psychopathy literature suggests
that there are sex differences in the base rates, mean symptom levels, expression, and correlates
of psychopathy (Cale & Lilienfeld, 2002). For this reason, biological sex could be controlled for
when investigating the effect of charisma on psychopathic success, mindful of the limitations and
conceptual peril associated with such control efforts (Meehl, 1971; Miller & Chapman, 2001).
Finally, because older participants are likely to have more life experiences and more time to
accrue successful outcomes compared to younger participants, it is essential to control for the
effects of chronological age and level of education (i.e., highest academic degree earned).
1.6. Current Study
To our knowledge, no prior research has directly examined the empirical relation
between psychopathic features and charisma. Additionally, no previous studies have tested
charisma as a moderator for the effects of psychopathic traits on achieving successful outcomes.
The current study aimed to fill these gaps in the empirical literature by exploring the relations
among psychopathic traits, charisma, and successful outcomes in a large community sample of
adults. We utilized two measures of psychopathic traits,
2
two measures of charisma, and three
2
Our reasons for not including the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) were
twofold. Firstly, incorporating more than two measures of psychopathic traits would have resulted in an unwieldy
number of moderation models to present in the current paper. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, we were
concerned that the Social Potency subscale of the PPI had too much overlap with the charisma construct. Social
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
14
forms of psychopathic success. This study had three core aims: 1) empirically examine the
theoretical relation between psychopathic traits and charisma; 2) evaluate whether charisma
moderates the association between psychopathic traits and psychopathic success (in support of
the moderated-expression model); and 3) explore whether other personality features may play a
role in the relations examined by the previous two aims. We hypothesized that there would be a
positive association between psychopathic traits and charisma (H1). We also predicted that
charisma would significantly moderate the relation between psychopathic traits and successful
outcomes in the form of Evading Detection (H2), Evading Punishment (H3), and Occupational
Success (H4). Regarding the distinct subcomponents of psychopathy, we anticipated that in a
two-factor, four-facet model, the Interpersonal facet would be the key predictor of successful
outcomes when moderated by charisma (H5) and in a three-factor model, the Boldness domain
would be the key predictor of successful outcomes when moderated by charisma (H6). Finally,
we accounted for the effects of narcissism, biological sex, age, and education on the associations
among the primary constructs of interest using statistical post hoc controls.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
The Institutional Review Board at the State University of New York at Binghamton
approved the current study. The sample comprised 315 “workers” between the ages of 22 and 65
recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Of the present sample, 48.9% identified as
male and 50.8% identified as female. One participant did not indicate gender and no participants
identified as transgender or as “Other.” The largest percentage of the sample identified as
Caucasian (74%), followed by African American (10.5%), Asian-American (6.3%), Hispanic
Potency measures “a tendency to be charming and adept at influencing others” (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996, p.
495), which closely matches many definitions of charisma and may have confounded our moderation results.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
15
(4.8%), more than one race (2.5%), and Native American (1.6%). One participant identified as
“Other.” Additional demographics for this sample are displayed in Table 1.
The MTurk workers were compensated with $ 3.00 (USD) for completing the study. A
total of 436 MTurk workers began the battery of measures (308 items). We utilized three criteria
to determine which participants would be subsequently excluded from final analyses. First, 30
participants were excluded for having a completion time below 8 minutes (minimum time
required for the participants to read and comprehend the questions, even when accounting for
“speed-reading”; Patton et al., 2018). Second, 58 participants were rejected on the MTurk
platform and excluded from analyses for nonsensical or contradictory response patterns (e.g.,
reporting engaging in a behavior such as theft on one occasion, but claiming they were caught
for the same behavior on four separate occasions). Finally, to preserve the quality of the dataset,
33 cases were excluded because they were missing more than 10% of their data. After
exclusions, 315 participants remained in the dataset to be analyzed.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Psychopathic Success Inventory (PSI)
In order to measure different aspects of successful psychopathy, we developed a life-data
survey entitled the Psychopathic Success Inventory (PSI) based upon the literature reviewed
above. This survey was not constructed as a psychometric measure of a psychological trait,
rather it is a simple count survey of a variety of specific behaviors.
3
The survey comprised
Informed Consent, demographics, and 30 behavioral item sets about specific types of
3
We wish to stress that the PSI is not intended to be a psychometric measure of a psychological construct. This
survey serves to collect counts of life-data related behaviors and outcomes reported by a participant. These data
cannot be validated in a traditional sense – even by collateral file review – because participants are reporting on
transgressions that they were not caught for. If the participants were not caught, there would be no record of these
behaviors; therefore, only the participant can report these behaviors. We provide reliability data in order to show that
the variables themselves demonstrate internal consistency.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
16
criminal/deviant activities
4
(including follow up questions regarding detection and punishment)
and 8 items regarding occupation. The PSI taps both domains of successful psychopathy:
Evading Detection and Punishment (30 items), and Occupational Success (8 items). The survey
was refined on the basis of preliminary data collection, after which we adjusted item presentation
and skip logic in Qualtrics and expanded the demographic options based upon respondent
feedback for use in the main study.
Given that grandiosity and boastfulness are somewhat inherent to the psychopathy
construct and because this survey relies on participants’ self-report, there is potential for biased
responding. Participants (especially those who exhibit elevations in psychopathic features) may
believe themselves to be more successful than they are in reality or minimize their history of
negative consequences. For these reasons, the PSI may be a reflection of perceived psychopathic
success and may not be an objective representation of successful outcomes.
We reduced the many PSI items into substantively meaningful subscales by summing the
items according to categories identified a priori in the literature review. For the primary
analyses, we used total scores comprised of: Evading Detection Total Score (sum of frequencies
with which participants got away with deviant workplace, criminal, and interpersonal behaviors)
and Evading Punishment Total Score (sum of the frequencies with which participants avoided
punishment for deviant workplace and criminal behaviors). The Occupational Success score
comprised the sum of items tapping perceived power (degree of power, freedom, and influence
perceived by participants in their workplace), accomplishments (promotions, raises, and awards
4
The PSI also includes data regarding the frequency with which participants engaged in deviant and/or criminal
behaviors. These data are captured by a variable entitled the Deviant Behavior Total Score (sum of all deviant
workplace, criminal, and interpersonal behaviors). This variable demonstrates excellent internal consistency (30
items; a = .91). This variable was not included in any primary analyses; however, these data are available upon
written request.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
17
received), rank (classification as a low, mid, high, or executive-level employee), and salary
(annual salary).
Although the PSI was not constructed to generate homogenous subscales, all domains
surveyed by the PSI demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency in this sample (Cronbach’s
alphas), including evading detection and punishment for deviant behaviors at work (8 items; a =
.72), in the criminal justice system (15 items; a = .89), and interpersonally (7 items; a = .74).
The occupational success domain also demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (8 items; a
= .75).
2.2.2. Self-Report Psychopathy Scale 4th Edition (SRP-4)
The SRP-4 (Paulhus et al., 2016) is a 64-item self-report version of the PCL-R, tapping
into the Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial facets. Participants rate each item on a
5-point Likert scale (1 = disagree strongly to 5 = agree strongly). Examples of items from each
subscale include: “I purposely flatter people to get them on my side” (Interpersonal), “I’m more
tough-minded than other people” (Affective), “I’m a rebellious person” (Lifestyle), and “I have
assaulted a law enforcement official or social worker” (Antisocial). The SRP-4 has demonstrated
acceptable levels of reliability (Paulhus et al., 2016) and construct validity (Williams et al., 2007)
in community samples. In the current sample, Cronbach’s alpha for the SRP-4 was .94. Facet-
specific results are available upon request.
2.2.3. Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (Tri-PM)
The TriPM (Patrick, 2009) is a 58-item, self-report inventory developed to measure the
Meanness, Boldness, and Disinhibition domains encompassed by the Triarchic Model of
Psychopathy. Participants rate each item on a 4-point Likert scale (0 = true, 1 = mostly true, 2 =
mostly false, 3 = false). Examples of items from each subscale include: “I have a knack for
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
18
influencing people” (Boldness), “It doesn’t bother me to see someone else in pain” (Meanness),
and “I jump into things without thinking” (Disinhibition). The Tri-PM has exhibited good
internal consistency and validity for assessing psychopathy in clinical and nonclinical samples
(Selbom & Phillips, 2013). Cronbach’s alpha for the current sample was .92. Domain-specific
data are available upon request.
2.2.4. Conger-Kanungo Scale of Charismatic Leadership (C-K scale)
The C-K scale (Conger & Kanungo, 1994) measures charisma through the lens of
leadership. The 5 subscales utilize a 6-point Likert scale (from “very characteristic” to “very
uncharacteristic”) and include: Strategic Vision and Articulation (SVA), Environmental
Sensitivity (ES), Unconventional Behavior (UB), Personal Risk (PR), and Sensitivity to
Members’ Needs (S2M; Conger et al., 1997). Examples of items from each subscale include: “I
am an exciting public speaker” (SVA), “I readily recognize new environmental opportunities that
may facilitate achievement of organizational objectives” (ES), “I often exhibit very unique
behavior that surprises other members of the organization” (UB), “I take high personal risks for
the sake of the organization” (PR), and “I influence others by developing mutual liking and
respect” (S2M). This measure has demonstrated satisfactory reliability, convergent validity, and
discriminant validity in community samples (Conger & Kanungo, 1992). Cronbach’s alpha for
the current sample was .91. Subscale-specific data are available upon request.
2.2.5. General Charisma Inventory (GCI)
The GCI (Tskhay et al., 2018) is a 6-item scale that measures everyday charisma
(independent from leadership). The GCI has two 3-item subscales: Affability and Influence.
Participants rate each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree).
Examples of items from each subscale include: “I am someone who has the ability to influence
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
19
people” (Influence) and “I am someone who can get along with anyone” (Affability). The item
factor loadings range from moderate to high. Additionally, the GCI displays adequate convergent
and discriminant validity as well as high internal consistency in community samples. In the
current sample, Cronbach’s alpha for the GCI was .81.
2.2.6. Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI)
The PNI is the well-known 52-item, self-report measure of pathological narcissism. This
measure includes sub-domain measures of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Narcissistic
grandiosity encompasses arrogant, conceited, and domineering attitudes and behaviors resulting
in maladaptive self-enhancement strategies, whereas narcissistic vulnerability reflects emotion
dysregulation and social withdrawal in response to narcissistic injury (Pincus et al., 2014). The
PNI has demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity (Pincus, 2013; Raskin & Terry, 1988),
and in the current sample, the Cronbach’s alpha for the PNI was .96.
2.3. Procedure
All measures were programmed into Qualtrics, the well-known online survey platform.
Participants provided Informed Consent with an electronic signature, after which they were
directed to the battery of measures. The main study data were collected using Amazon’s M-Turk,
the widely used system in empirical research that allows for secure data collection over the
Internet (McCredie & Morey, 2018). Participants’ IP addresses were unlinked from their
responses to preserve their privacy and confidentiality. Following the presentation of the PSI,
measures were randomized in order to address order effects.
2.4. Statistical Analyses
The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 27.0. We assessed internal
consistency using Cronbach’s a and measured associations with Pearson product-moment
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
20
correlation coefficients. We conducted four separate sets of bivariate partial correlations and re-
estimated all moderation models to account for the effects of pathological narcissism, age,
biological sex, and level of education. We used the SPSS PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2018) to
conduct moderation modeling. For the moderation analyses (Model 1 in Hayes, 2018),
PROCESS provides regression coefficients that reflect the conditional effects of X (the
independent variable) on Y (the outcome variable) when W (the moderating variable) is equal to
zero (b1), as well as the conditional effect of W on Y when X is equal to zero (b2). PROCESS
also provides the regression coefficient of the product of X and W, which reflects the interaction
term (b3).
In the current study, the psychopathy measures were tested as predictor variables and the
charisma measures were tested as moderating variables.
5
In addition to the total psychopathy
scores, we also tested whether the distinct facets and domains of psychopathy functioned as
predictors for psychopathic success when moderated by charisma. These results can be found in
the supplemental materials.
6
Finally, we analyzed the subscales of the PSI (Evading Detection,
Evading Punishment, and Occupational Success) as outcome variables in the moderation models.
To account for multiple comparisons, we applied a multi-stage Bonferroni correction to the p-
5
Initially, one could consider creating latent charisma and psychopathy variables; however, to do so would result in
the loss of nuanced differences between the two psychopathy measures and the two charisma measures. The novel
nature of this study necessitates testing the psychopathy measures as separate predictors and the charisma measures
as separate moderators. By doing so, we can determine whether there are differences in the predictive value of a
three vs. two-factor model of psychopathy for obtaining successful outcomes as moderated by either leadership or
general charisma. Future research may involve the creation of latent charisma and psychopathy variables.
6
The facet and domain-specific moderation results are useful because they inform our understanding of which
distinct psychopathy features are more predictive for obtaining successful outcomes (as moderated by charisma).
These data are especially interesting because most individuals have low levels of psychopathic traits or are more
likely to exhibit elevations on only one of these domains (e.g., a very bold person) as opposed to all or most of the
domains (Neumann & Hare, 2008). Therefore, the facet and domain-specific results can be beneficial for drawing
conclusions on how those with lower levels of psychopathic traits or elevations in only one domain of psychopathic
personality obtain successful outcomes. We include these results in the supplementary materials in order to conserve
space and prevent the main paper from being bogged down by a large number of analyses.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
21
values of each separate “family” of analyses, grouped by substantive outcome variable
(Larzelere & Mulaik, 1977).
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary Analyses
Reliability estimates for all measures fell between 0.81 and 0.96. Descriptive summary
statistics (means and standard deviations) for the established measures can be found in Table 2.
The means for this sample were comparable to those obtained in the original standardization
samples for each of the measures.
3.2. Bivariate Correlations
Bivariate Pearson correlations for the measures are presented in Table 2. Total scores on
the Tri-PM and SRP-4 were both significantly positively correlated with leadership charisma
(CKS). Tri-PM total psychopathy score was significantly positively correlated with general
charisma (GCI), while the SRP-4 total psychopathy score was not significantly associated with
general charisma. The bivariate correlations for the charisma measures as well as the facets and
domains of both psychopathy measures can be found in Table 3. Pathological narcissism (PNI)
was significantly positively related to both SRP-4 psychopathy and Tri-PM psychopathy, and
was significantly positively related to CKS and GCI charisma - albeit more modestly. Leadership
charisma was significantly positively associated with all of the SRP-4 facet and Tri-PM domain
scores. General charisma, however, was only significantly positively correlated with SRP-4
Interpersonal, SRP-4 Lifestyle, and Tri-PM Boldness, showing no significant relationship with
the other subcomponents of psychopathy. GCI Influence was significantly positively associated
with all of the SRP-4 facets and Tri-PM domains with the exception of Tri-PM Disinhibition. In
contrast, GCI Affability was significantly negatively associated with most of the psychopathy
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
22
facet and domain scores; however, it was positively related to Tri-PM Boldness and was not
significantly associated with SRP-4 Lifestyle.
Bivariate correlations for the psychopathy, charisma, and psychopathic success outcome
variables are presented in Table 4. Total scores on the Tri-PM and SRP-4 were both significantly
positively associated with all of the psychopathic success outcome measures. Leadership
charisma was significantly positively correlated with all of the outcome measures, while general
charisma was only significantly positively correlated with occupational success, and not
significantly related to evading detection or punishment. GCI Influence was significantly
positively correlated with all outcome measures with the exception of Evading Punishment. GCI
Affability was significantly positively correlated with occupational success and was not
significantly correlated with Evading Detection or Punishment.
3.3. Moderation Analyses
3.3.1. Evading Detection
The results for the moderation analyses are presented in Table 5. Interaction plots are
provided in Figures 1 and 2. Here, b3 represents the interaction term (XW). The following four
models utilized Evading Detection as the psychopathic success outcome variable. In support of
our hypothesis, the models including SRP-4 psychopathy (X) and CKS charisma (W) t(295) =
2.417; p < 0.05 (b3 = 0.003, SE = 0.001), Tri-PM psychopathy (X) and CKS charisma (W) t(295)
= 3.135; p < 0.01 (b3 = .007, SE = 0.002), and Tri-PM psychopathy (X) and GCI charisma (W)
t(296) = 2.141; p < 0.05 (b3 = 0.096, SE = 0.045) all yielded significant interactions. More
specifically, the effect of psychopathic traits on getting away with deviant, antisocial, and
criminal behavior becomes stronger when individuals exhibit higher levels of charisma. The
model including SRP-4 psychopathy (X) and GCI charisma (W) was not significant t(296) =
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
23
.721; p = .470 (b3 = 0.020, SE = .030). In other words, the association between the two-factor,
four-facet model of psychopathy and evading detection is not moderated by level of general
charisma. After applying a multi-stage Bonferroni correction to the p-values of this family of
moderation models, both models including CKS charisma remained significant, whereas the
model including GCI charisma and Tri-PM psychopathy fell just shy of significance (p = 0.033
with a cutoff of 0.025).
3.3.2. Evading Punishment
The results for moderation models with Evading Punishment as the outcome variable
exhibited similar, but somewhat more mixed results compared to those for Evading Detection.
Models with SRP-4 psychopathy (X) and CKS charisma (W) t(168) = 3.024; p < 0.01 (b3 =
0.004, SE = 0.001) and Tri-PM psychopathy (X) and CKS charisma (W) t(168) = 2.968; p <
0.01(b3 = 0.006, SE = 0.002) showed significant interactions. More specifically, the association
between psychopathic traits and evading punishment for deviant, antisocial, and criminal
behavior (after being caught) increases as individuals exhibit higher levels of leadership
charisma. The models containing SRP-4 psychopathy (X) and GCI charisma (W) t(169) = -
0.881; p = 0.380 (b3 = -0.024, SE = 0.027) as well as Tri-PM psychopathy (X) and GCI charisma
(W) t(169) = -0.555; p = 0.580 (b3 = -0.019, SE = 0.035) did not generate significant interactions.
In other words, the association between psychopathic traits and evading punishment was not
moderated by general charisma. After applying a multi-stage Bonferroni correction to the p-
values of this family of moderation models, both significant moderation models remained
significant (at a cutoff of p = 0.0125).
3.3.3. Occupational Success
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
24
Surprisingly, none of the moderation models utilizing occupational success as the
outcome variable produced significant interactions. More specifically, the strength of the relation
between psychopathic traits and achieving occupational success was not dependent upon level of
charisma. These results can be found in Table 5. While the models examining occupational
success as the outcome were not significant, the conditional effects for these models
demonstrated a specific and consistent pattern. For the four models in which Occupational
Success was the outcome variable, the b2 regression coefficient, which reflects the conditional
effect of charisma (W) on achieving occupational success (Y) when psychopathic traits (X) are
equal to zero, was consistently significant. (SRP-4 = X, CKS = W: t(268) = 2.209; p = .023 (b2
= .142, SE = .064); SRP-4 = X, GCI = W: t(268) = 3.063; p = .002. (b2 = 4.189, SE = .010); TPM
= X, CKS = W: t(268) = 3.612; p = .000 (b2 = .148, SE = .041; TPM = X, GCI = W: t(268) =
3.526; p = .000 (b2 = 2.909, SE = .013)).
3.4. Facet and Domain-Specific Moderation Models
Moderation modeling results utilizing the distinct facets and domains as predictors for
psychopathic success as moderated by charisma can be found in Tables 1 and 2 of the
supplemental materials. Consistent with the pattern exhibited by models utilizing psychopathy
total scores as predictors, charisma significantly moderated the relation between distinct
psychopathy subcomponents and achieving successful outcomes in the forms of Evading
Detection and Evading Punishment, but not in the form of Occupational Success. Of the four
distinct facets of the SRP-4, the effects of SRP-4 Affective and SRP-4 Antisocial on Evading
Detection and Evading Punishment were significantly moderated by leadership charisma. More
specifically, as the level of leadership charisma increases, individuals exhibiting the affective and
antisocial features of psychopathy are evading detection and punishment more frequently. In
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
25
addition to SRP-4 Affective and SRP-4 Antisocial, the effects of SRP-4 Lifestyle on Evading
Punishment were significantly moderated by leadership charisma. The remaining models with
SRP-4 facets as predictors did not produce significant interactions.
Of the three distinct domains of the Tri-PM, the effects of Tri-PM Meanness and Tri-PM
Disinhibition on Evading Detection and Evading Punishment were significantly moderated by
leadership charisma. More specifically, as the level of leadership charisma increases, individuals
exhibiting the meanness and disinhibition features of psychopathy are evading detection and
punishment more frequently. In addition to Tri-PM Meanness and Tri-PM Disinhibition, the
effects of Tri-PM Boldness on Evading Punishment were significantly moderated by general
charisma. The remaining models with Tri-PM domains as predictors did not produce significant
interactions.
3.5. Sensitivity Analyses: Examining Narcissism, Sex, Age, and Education as Covariates
Pathological narcissism was significantly negatively related to age and was not associated
with sex or level of education. Both SRP-4 and Tri-PM psychopathy were associated with
younger age and being biologically male, and neither were associated with education level. CKS
charisma was negatively related to age, positively related to education level, and was not related
to biological sex. GCI charisma was also positively associated with level of education but was
not associated with age or biological sex. Evading Detection and Evading Punishment were
positively related to pathological narcissism and were also associated with younger age and
being biologically male. Occupational success was positively related to age and level of
education.
After accounting for the effects of pathological narcissism, most of the bivariate
correlations remained significant with several exceptions. The correlation between SRP-4
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
26
psychopathy and CKS charisma became non-significant. SRP-4 and Tri-PM psychopathy were
no longer significantly associated with Occupational Success, and CKS charisma was no longer
significantly associated with Evading Detection or Evading Punishment. Partial correlations also
remained largely significant after controlling for the impact of biological sex. Exceptions include
the correlation between Tri-PM psychopathy and GCI charisma, the correlation between Tri-PM
psychopathy and Occupational Success, and the correlation between CKS charisma and Evading
Detection, all of which became non-significant. Removal of the influence of chronological age
had little effect on overall bivariate associations between the constructs of interest. The few
exceptions include the correlation between SRP-4 psychopathy and CKS charisma, the
correlation between Tri-PM psychopathy and GCI charisma, and the correlation between CKS
charisma and Evading Detection, all of which were reduced to non-significance. After parsing
out the impact of education level, most of the bivariate associations among the constructs of
interest remained significant. However, the correlation between Tri-PM psychopathy and GCI
charisma as well as the correlation between CKS charisma and Evading Detection became non-
significant.
Most notably, after simultaneously removing the effects of pathological narcissism, age,
sex, and education level, only one of the five significant moderation models – encompassing Tri-
PM psychopathy (X), GCI charisma (W), and Evading Detection (Y) – was no longer significant
t(290) = 1.468; p = 0.143 (b3 = 0.065, SE = 0.044). Overall, the primary findings of the present
study remained significant independent of pathological narcissism. The detailed results of these
covariation analyses are available upon written request.
4. Discussion
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
27
To our knowledge, this study was the first to directly examine the association between
psychopathic traits and charisma as well as the first to test charisma as a moderator for the effect
of psychopathic traits on perceived successful outcomes. Consistent with our hypotheses, we
found that psychopathic traits are positively associated with leadership charisma and the
influence subcomponent of general charisma (H1). Also consistent with our hypotheses, we
found that charisma moderates the association between psychopathic traits and perceived success
in the form of Evading Detection (H2) and Evading Punishment (H3), lending support to the
moderated-expression model of successful psychopathy. Our hypothesis that Tri-PM Boldness
would significantly predict psychopathic success as moderated by charisma (H6) was supported,
but only in part. Contrary to our hypotheses, the association between psychopathic traits and
achieving Occupational Success was not moderated by level of charisma (H4). Also contrary to
our hypotheses, the Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial facets of SRP-4 psychopathy
significantly interacted with leadership charisma to produce successful outcomes whereas the
Interpersonal facet did not (H5). Additionally, Tri-PM Meanness and Tri-PM Disinhibition
significantly interacted with leadership charisma to produce successful outcomes in the forms of
Evading Detection and Punishment, whereas Tri-PM Boldness only interacted with general
charisma to produce successful outcomes in the form of Evading Punishment (H6). Lastly, this
study illustrated that charisma remains a moderator for successful psychopathy even after
controlling for the impact of pathological narcissism, biological sex, age, and education level.
Our review of the literature identified two major components of “psychopathic success.”
The first, encompassing evading detection and punishment, maintains the traditional
understanding of successful psychopathy while accounting for individual variability in history of
criminal and/or antisocial behavior relative to the frequency with which they were caught and
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
28
punished (Boccio & Beaver, 2018; Skeem & Cooke, 2010; Widom, 1977). The second,
occupational success, captures the positive behavioral outcomes of psychopathic success that
were unexamined in previous literature (Eisenbarth et al., 2018; Smith & Lilienfeld, 2013). The
survey created for this study has provided a novel and comprehensive manner of measuring
perceived successful outcomes for individuals with psychopathic traits.
Direct associations between psychopathy and charisma models revealed that both Hare’s
(1996) more behavior-based conceptualization and Patrick’s (2009) more adaptive, personality-
based conceptualization of psychopathy have nuanced relationships with charisma. Our results
lend support to previous theoretical assertions that charisma and psychopathy are overlapping
constructs (Cleckley, 1976, pp. 157, 339; Hare, 1999, p. 38). However, the current findings
clarify that individuals with psychopathic traits are more likely to exhibit charisma in the form of
influence, magnetism, leadership ability, and engaging in risky or unconventional behavior
(many of which are extremely adaptive and invaluable tools). In contrast, individuals with
psychopathic traits are unlikely to demonstrate genuine kindness and congeniality (Hare, 1991;
2003). In Figure 3, we provide a hypothetical conceptual diagram of the overlap between the
charisma and psychopathy constructs. Because psychopathic individuals have a tendency to be
conning and manipulative and to take advantage of others (Hare, 1999), affable behavior on their
part may actually be a manifestation of glibness/superficial charm and may function as a method
of impression management, deception, and/or a tactic of manipulation (Cleckley, 1976; Gillard
& Rogers, 2015; Jonasen & Webster, 2012). Therefore, our results may also provide an empirical
basis for the theory behind the “Glibness/Superficial Charm” item of the PCL-R (Hare, 1991;
2003). Further research must be conducted in order to explicate the intersection between
psychopathic features and the affability subcomponent of general charisma.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
29
Our hypothesis that charisma would moderate the association between psychopathic traits
and achieving psychopathic success was supported (i.e., not refuted). As level of leadership
charisma increased, so too did the positive association between psychopathic traits and perceived
success in the forms of evading detection and punishment. These results suggest that individuals
with psychopathic traits who possess high levels of leadership charisma may be able to avoid
being caught and/or punished for engaging in criminal, antisocial, and unsavory behaviors more
frequently compared to those with low levels of leadership charisma. In contrast, elevations in
warmth, ability to put others at ease, ability to influence others, and ability to lead (encompassed
by the GCI) did not increase the association between psychopathy and evading detection and
punishment (with the exception of the model incorporating the Tri-PM psychopathy, the GCI,
and Evading Detection). One explanation for this pattern of results is that as levels of overall
psychopathy increase, related prosocial constructs such as warmth and gregariousness tend to
decrease (Poy et al., 2014). In other words, the more psychopathic the individual, the less likely
they are to exhibit the affability component of general charisma. Low to moderate levels of
general charisma may not be sufficient to moderate the relation between psychopathic features
and evading detection and/or punishment due to the divergent bivariate associations between
psychopathic features and the two subcomponents of general charisma.
As can be seen in Figures 1 and 2, the significant interactions exhibit an interesting
crossover pattern. A possible explanation for this pattern is that at very low levels of
psychopathy, highly charismatic individuals do not have the “meanness” or the callousness to
attempt to get away with deviant behaviors. They may be more likely to apologize, take the
blame, or accept their punishment. Another possibility is that at lower levels of psychopathy,
highly charismatic individuals do not engage in deviant behaviors at all, and therefore cannot get
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
30
away with things they did not do (and cannot achieve high levels of psychopathic success). The
present findings lend support to the moderated-expression model of successful psychopathy
(Lilienfeld et al., 2015) and warrant further research on charisma as well as other potential
moderators of successful outcomes.
While charisma moderated the associations between psychopathic traits and evading
detection and punishment, charisma did not moderate the relation between psychopathic traits
and perceived occupational success. In other words, the relation between psychopathic traits and
obtaining successful occupational outcomes did not depend upon participants’ level of charisma.
When we examined the other regression coefficients estimated by the PROCESS macro (b1 and
b2), we found a consistent pattern. For each model, the b1 term (the effect conditional of the
predictor on the outcome when the moderator is equal to zero) was not significant but the b2 term
(the conditional effect of the moderator on the outcome when the predictor is equal to zero) was
significant. Hayes (2018) indicates that these conditional effects must be interpreted with caution
(if interpreted at all). When the moderation model utilizes the two-factor, four-facet model of
psychopathy (SRP-4), the b2 term is substantively meaningless because “zero” is beyond the
lower bound of that psychopathy measure. When the model utilizes the three-factor model (Tri-
PM), however, the b2 term can be interpreted because it is possible to receive a score of zero on
that scale. Therefore, when psychopathic traits are absent, participants exhibiting higher levels of
charisma may achieve higher levels of occupational success in the form of perceived power and
influence at work, accolades and recognition, high rank within organizations, and higher annual
salaries. This suggests that individuals with lover levels of psychopathic traits may be more
likely to be successful in the workplace when they exhibit very high levels of charisma.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
31
Initially, this finding might lead one to conclude that psychopathic traits are not
conducive to occupationally successful outcomes. That may not be the case. Our findings simply
suggest that the strength of the association between psychopathic traits and occupational success
does not depend upon an individual’s level of charisma. As shown in Table 3, psychopathic traits
are significantly positively correlated with both occupational success and charisma. These
bivariate associations suggest that psychopathy, charisma, and occupational success may be
interrelated in a manner independent of moderation. Future research should seek to further
investigate the relations among these constructs.
In order to glean an in-depth understanding of which distinct features of psychopathy are
the driving force in predicting successful outcomes when moderated by charisma, we conducted
moderation modeling with the facets and domains as predictors. We found that the effects of the
SRP-4 affective facet (i.e., a shallow or blunted emotional experience accompanied by an
inability to experience remorse or take responsibility for one’s actions) and the SRP-4 antisocial
facet (i.e., a history of behavioral problems, antisocial and criminal activity, and contact with the
criminal justice system) on evading detection and punishment were significantly moderated by
leadership charisma. The same was true for the SRP-4 lifestyle facet (i.e., impulsivity,
irresponsibility, lack of realistic long-term goals, parasitic lifestyle, and stimulation-seeking), but
only for evading punishment. While these findings run counter to our prediction that the SRP-4
interpersonal facet would predict successful outcomes when moderated by charisma, they
suggest that the effect of the interpersonal features of psychopathy (i.e., superficial charm,
manipulativeness, grandiosity, and pathological lying) on perceived psychopathic success is
independent of charisma. Moreover, our findings illustrate that individuals exhibiting high levels
of leadership charisma (i.e., influence, vision, articulation, and unconventionality) in addition to
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
32
the more aversive, unsavory, and behavioral manifestations of psychopathy will get away with
and avoid punishment for antisocial and criminal behaviors more frequently than similarly
affectively deficient and antisocial individuals with low levels of leadership charisma.
When we examined the effects of the distinct domains of the triarchic model on
successful outcomes when moderated by charisma, the results were somewhat divergent from
our expectations. The effects of Tri-PM meanness (i.e. callousness, antagonism,
exploitatitiveness, and agentic affiliation) and Tri-PM disinhibition (i.e., emotional and
behavioral impulsivity, non-planfullness, and externalization) on evading detection and
punishment were significantly moderated by level of leadership charisma. Tri-PM boldness,
however, only significantly interacted with general charisma to predict evading punishment.
When we consider the moderation results for Hare’s (1991; 2003) psychopathy facets, these
results are less surprising. Research suggests that there is a significant degree of overlap between
Tri-PM meanness and SRP-4 affective, as well as among Tri-PM disinhibition, SRP-4 lifestyle,
and SRP-4 antisocial (Patrick et al., 2009). These results provide additional evidence that callous
and/or disinhibited individuals who are also highly influential, well-spoken, visionary, and
willing to take risks will more frequently engage in covert antisocial and criminal behaviors and
are more likely to escape punishment compared to individuals with fewer charismatic features.
Our results also indicate that Tri-PM boldness is disparate from the other psychopathy
features in that it interacts with general charisma to produce successful outcomes, whereas the
other subcomponents only interacted with leadership charisma. Perhaps the strong correlations
between boldness and both subcomponents of general charisma and the interaction between these
constructs to predict successful outcomes suggest that the boldness domain captures something
unique from the other features of psychopathy (Lilienfeld et al., 2016). Future research should
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
33
strive to identify what is unique about the boldness construct and how that component relates to
psychopathy as a whole. Such research might also consider placing this set of features within a
neurobehavioral matrix to better parse the relations of these phenotypic indicators with systems
related to incentive motivation, fear, anxiety, and nonaffective constraint to gain additional
leverage on potential underlying neural inputs (Depue & Lenzenweger, 2001; Lenzenweger &
Depue, 2016).
Bivariate associations between pathological narcissism and the constructs of interest
confirm the findings of prior literature suggesting that narcissism is relevant to both psychopathy
(Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Vize et al., 2020) and charisma (Rogoza & Fatfouta, 2020). After
separately accounting for the effects of a number of covariates, bivariate associations among the
constructs of interest were largely maintained. A primary exception among these was
pathological narcissism, statistical control of which rendered the association between the SRP-4
and leadership charisma non-significant, whereas the Tri-PM retained its positive association
with both leadership and general charisma. While both psychopathy models incorporate the self-
promotion and grandiosity that are inherent to narcissism and relevant to charisma (Pincus et al.,
2014; Rogoza & Fatfouta, 2020), the triarchic psychopathy model uniquely encompasses
adaptive features conducive to charisma such as prosociality, positive emotions, stress-immunity,
and social dominance, which are not captured by Hare’s (1991; 2003) two-factor model.
Therefore, removing the effect of pathological narcissism could not account for the intersection
between the Tri-PM and charisma in full, but rendered the association between the SRP-4 and
leadership charisma non-significant.
Also notable is that statistical control of demographic variables (i.e., age, biological sex,
and education) reduced several of the bivariate associations to non-significance. We must
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
34
emphasize, however, the perils associated with post hoc statistical controls and the parsing out of
effects of so many covariates inherent to the constructs in question, especially in the absence of
an a priori theoretical model (Meehl, 1971), for fear of having very little left over for
interpretation (Miller & Chapman, 2001). For instance, research suggests that mean symptom
levels and phenotypic expression of psychopathic features differ for males and females (Cale &
Lilienfeld, 2002). If this were also the case for mean levels and phenotypic expression of
charisma (e.g., Niebuhr et al., 2019), it is conceivable that much of the variability in the
intersection between psychopathic features and charisma could be accounted for by differences
in biological sex. Similarly, education may contribute a significant portion of variance to the
measure of charisma, in that more educated individuals may have had more opportunities to
practice public speaking, develop leadership skills, and interact collaboratively with others.
Critically, the moderating effects of charisma on the association between psychopathic
features and perceived success were largely maintained, even after controlling for the role of
pathological narcissism, age, sex, and education level. The maintenance of these effects after
accounting for several covariates speaks to the strength of these associations and their specificity
to the psychopathy construct (rather than being attributable to narcissism or other covariates).
While narcissism may explain a considerable portion of the overlap between psychopathy and
charisma, the present findings imply that it is unlikely that narcissism as a stand-alone construct
can function as a moderator for the association between psychopathic features and successful
outcomes. Our results also speak to the centrality of leadership charisma (compared to general
charisma) to the moderated expression of successful psychopathy. Furthermore, despite sex
differences in the prevalence and phenotypic expression of psychopathy (Cale & Lilienfeld,
2002; de Vogel & Lancel, 2016), our findings imply that these differences may not extend to the
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
35
moderated expression of successful outcomes through charisma. Finally, though one may
surmise that older or more educated individuals with psychopathic traits should inherently have
more successful outcomes, the present results demonstrate that this is not necessarily the case.
The present findings advance our understanding of the nuanced association between
psychopathy and charisma as well as the manifestation of successful psychopathy through
moderated-expression. Often, people struggle to comprehend why charismatic individuals are
able to do and get away with terrible things (e.g., serial killer Ted Bundy or cult leader Charles
Manson). Our findings indicate that there is considerable overlap between charisma and
psychopathic personality features and suggest that these charismatic individuals may have also
been quite psychopathic. Elevations in social dominance, interpersonal persuasiveness, and
leadership ability (encompassed by charisma) may counteract the more maladaptive features of
psychopathy (e.g. irresponsibility, disinhibition, nonpplanfulness), allowing them to more
successfully evade detection and achieve their goals. As our results illustrate, even if a
“charismatic psychopath” is caught for an indiscretion, more charismatic individuals with
psychopathic features may avoid punishment relatively more often than psychopathic individuals
who are less charismatic. These phenomena also give credence to Cleckley’s (1976) idea that
psychopathic individuals have adaptive qualities (Cleckley, 1976, pp. 339-340, 358-359).
However, future research of a longitudinal nature will be required in order to draw causal
conclusions about the moderated expression of successful psychopathy (Pek & Hoyle, 2016).
Charisma is highly coveted in positions of management and leadership (e.g., politics and
the corporate world; Tudosoiu et al., 2019). In these settings, the same characteristics that are
sought after in job interviews (e.g., vision, influence, willingness to take risks, boldness, and
fearless dominance) might be exhibited by someone with high levels of charisma and
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
36
psychopathy (Babiak & Hare, 2006). One of the troubling implications of the present findings is
that individuals who are both charismatic and psychopathic may be hired by organizations partly
as a result of their charismatic presentation. However, due to their psychopathic tendencies, the
same individuals may be engaging in “bad behaviors” such as abusing company privileges,
harassing and bullying other employees, and/or engaging in criminal activity (Babiak et al.,
2010; Cheang & Appelbaum, 2015). Furthermore, while those who are less charismatic may be
caught and reprimanded for their transgressions, the more charismatic individuals may be
engaging in the same problematic behaviors under the radar. This issue raises questions about
the controversy, complexity, and subjectivity of psychopathic success. A psychopathic individual
who evades detection and punishment for deviant behavior may perceive themselves to be very
successful. Yet, from an organizational, societal, or criminal justice standpoint, evading detection
and punishment for deviant behavior would be considered an exceedingly negative outcome.
This may explicate why the construct of successful psychopathy is such a heavily debated one in
the psychopathy field. The current findings suggest implications for the successful psychopathy
research field, suggesting that a “successful psychopath” may, in fact, be a “charismatic
psychopath.” These findings also raise potential issues for consideration by human resources,
employee assistance, and internal security offices within corporations and governmental
agencies.
4.1. Limitations and Caveats
One of the primary limitations of the current study is the utilization of solely self-report
measures. There are notable advantages to using self-report methods in empirical psychopathy
research (access to the private self and private personal history); however, there are also a
number of disadvantages (e.g., lack of insight, semantic aphasia, and a tendency to report high
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
37
levels of negative affect; Lilienfeld and Fowler, 2006). Currently, however, even the “gold
standard” interview for assessing psychopathy (the PCL-R) is self-report at its heart. Future
research in this domain should strive to assess the relevant constructs utilizing behavioral or
physiological measurement methodologies in place of, or alongside self-report measures.
The current study is also limited by its purely cross-sectional design. Without
longitudinal data, or at least, retrospectively measured variables, we cannot establish the
temporal order between psychopathic traits, charisma, and successful outcomes (Pek & Hoyle,
2016). While longitudinal data are not vital to moderation analyses, it may have been more
desirable to assess the outcome variables subsequent to the predictor and moderation variables.
For this reason, we must exercise caution in drawing causal or directional conclusions from the
findings of this study.
Another possible limitation is the use of an MTurk sample. While MTurk populations can
provide reliable, valid, and meaningful personality data (McCredie & Morey, 2018), there are
noteworthy differences that could impact the results of this study. The MTurk population’s
personality data exhibit a greater degree of social isolation and negative affect compared to
normative U.S. samples. This may be reflected in the charisma data, because social exposure and
communication skills are highly intertwined with one’s ability to express and signal charisma to
others. Additionally, the participants were compensated, potentially causing participants to speed
through the measures to receive compensation.
Finally, the present sample contained a wide range of individuals in terms of scores on
the psychopathy measures, ranging from very low to quite high. The sample did not consist
purely of clinically psychopathic individuals. However, we would argue that our dimensional
approach to the measurement of psychopathic features as well as other constructs in this study
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
38
accords well with modern conceptualizations of psychopathology, including sub-clinical variants
of personality pathology.
4.2. Conclusion
This study contributes to the field by advancing our understanding of the heterogenous
components of psychopathy and how they relate to the normal-range personality construct of
charisma. Our findings indicate that charisma is critical for comprehending successful
psychopathy by demonstrating its role as a moderator for perceived psychopathic success.
Additionally, due to a lack of prior research exploring charisma as a moderator for successful
psychopathy, this study has laid the groundwork for future research in this area. It is evident that
the combination of charisma and psychopathic traits is both powerful and dangerous, and future
research must be devoted to better understanding this combination of traits.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
39
References
Aharoni, E., & Kiehl, K. A. (2013). Evading justice: Quantifying criminal success in
incarcerated psychopathic offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(6), 629-645.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812463565
Antonakis, J., Bastardoz, N., Jacquart, P., & Shamir, B. (2016). Charisma: An ill-defined and ill-
measured gift. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational
Behavior, 3, 293-319. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062305
Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: The
effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance. The Leadership
Quarterly, 10(3), 345-373. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00022-3
Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. New York:
HarperCollins.
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
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Collier Macmillan.
Beck, A.T., Steer, R.A., & Brown, G.K. (1996). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II.
San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Benning, S. D., Venables, N. C., & Hall, J. R. (2018). Successful psychopathy. In C. J. Patrick
(Ed.), Handbook of Psychopathy (p. 585–608). The Guilford Press.
Boccio, C. M., & Beaver, K. M. (2018). Psychopathic personality traits and the successful
criminal. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 62(15), 4834-4853. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18787304
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
40
Boddy, C. R. (2014). Corporate psychopaths, conflict, employee affective well-being and
counterproductive work behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 121(1), 107-121.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1688-0
Boddy, C. R. (2017). Psychopathic leadership a case study of a corporate psychopath
CEO. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 141-156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-
2908-6
Burke, K. L., & Brinkerhoff, M. B. (1981). Capturing charisma: Notes on an elusive
concept. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 274-284.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1385549
Buss, D. M., Gomes, M., Higgins, D. S., & Lauterbach, K. (1987). Tactics of
manipulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1219.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1219
Cale, E. M., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2002). Sex differences in psychopathy and antisocial personality
disorder: A review and integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 22(8), 1179-1207.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(01)00125-8
Cheang, H. S., & Appelbaum, S. H. (2015). Corporate psychopathy: deviant workplace
behaviour and toxic leaders–part one. Industrial and Commercial Training, 47(4), 165-
173. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-12-2013-0086
Clarke, J.: 2005, Working with Monsters. How to Identify and Protect Yourself from the
Workplace Psychopath (Random House, Sydney).
Cleckley, H. M. (1976). The mask of sanity: An attempt to clarify some issues about the so-called
psychopathic personality (5th ed.). Augusta, GA: The C.V. Mosby Company.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
41
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N. (1992). Perceived behavioral attributes of charismatic leadership.
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 24, 86-102. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078703
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1994). Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived
behavioral attributes and their measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5),
439-452. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030150508
Conger, J. A., Kanungo, R. N., Menon, S. T., & Mathur, P. (1997). Measuring charisma:
dimensionality and validity of the Conger‐Kanungo scale of charismatic
leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences
de l'Administration, 14(3), 290-301. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.1997.tb00136.x
Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A. (2016). Cleckley’s psychopaths: Revisited. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 125(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000130
Depue, R.A., & Lenzenweger, M.F. (2001). A neurobehavioral dimensional model of
personality disorders In W. J. Livesley (Ed.), The Handbook of Personality Disorders
(pp.136-176). New York: Guilford.
de Vogel, V., & Lancel, M. (2016). Gender differences in the assessment and manifestation of
psychopathy: Results from a multicenter study in forensic psychiatric
patients. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 15(1), 97-110.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2016.1138173
Dotterer, H. L., Waller, R., Cope, L. M., Hicks, B. M., Nigg, J. T., Zucker, R. A., & Hyde, L. W.
(2017). Concurrent and developmental correlates of psychopathic traits using a Triarchic
Psychopathy Model approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology (1965), 126(7), 859–876.
https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000302
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
42
Drislane, L. E., Patrick, C. J., & Arsal, G. (2014). Clarifying the content coverage of differing
psychopathy inventories through reference to the triarchic psychopathy
measure. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 350. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035152
Edens, J. F., Marcus, D. K., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Poythress Jr, N. G. (2006). Psychopathic, not
psychopath: Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of psychopathy. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 115(1), 131.
http://dx.doi.org.proxy.binghamton.edu/10.1037/0021-843X.115.1.131
Eisenbarth, H., Hart, C. M., & Sedikides, C. (2018). Do psychopathic traits predict professional
success? Journal of Economic Psychology, 64, 130-139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2018.01.002
Eisenbarth, H., Krammer, S., Edwards, B. G., Kiehl, K. A., & Neumann, C. S. (2018). Structural
analysis of the PCL-R and relationship to BIG FIVE personality traits and parenting
characteristics in an Hispanic female offender sample. Personality and Individual
Differences, 129, 59-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.015
Falkenbach, D. M., Glackin, E., & McKinley, S. (2018). Twigs on the same branch? Identifying
personality profiles in police officers using psychopathic personality traits. Journal of
Research in Personality, 76, 102-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.08.002
Frick, P. J., & White, S. F. (2008). Research review: The importance of callous‐unemotional
traits for developmental models of aggressive and antisocial behavior. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 359-375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
7610.2007.01862.x
Gao, Y., & Raine, A. (2010). Successful and unsuccessful psychopaths: A neurobiological
model. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(2), 194-210. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.924
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
43
Gao, Y., Raine, A., & Schug, R. A. (2011). P3 event-related potentials and childhood
maltreatment in successful and unsuccessful psychopaths. Brain and Cognition, 77(2),
176-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2011.06.010
Gillard, N. D., & Rogers, R. (2015). Denial of risk: The effects of positive impression
management on risk assessments for psychopathic and nonpsychopathic
offenders. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 42, 106-113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.014
Grabo, A., Spisak, B. R., & van Vugt, M. (2017). Charisma as signal: An evolutionary
perspective on charismatic leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(4), 473-485.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.05.001
Hall, J. R., & Benning, S. D. (2006). The “successful” psychopath. Handbook of psychopathy,
459-478.
Hare, R. D. (1991; 2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: "A clinical construct whose time has come". Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 23(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854896023001004
Hare, R. D. (1999). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us.
Guilford Press.
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1991). Psychopathy and violent recidivism. Law
and Human Behavior, 15(6), 625. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01065856
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis
second edition: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.) The Guilford Press.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
44
Hemphill, J. F., Hare, R. D., & Wong, S. (1998). Psychopathy and recidivism: A review. Legal
and Criminological Psychology, 3(1), 139-170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8333.1998.tb00355.x
House, R. J. (1977). A theory of charismatic leadership. Leadership: The Cutting Egde.
Ishikawa, S. S., Raine, A., Lencz, T., Bihrle, S., & Lacasse, L. (2001). Autonomic stress
reactivity and executive functions in successful and unsuccessful criminal psychopaths
from the community. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 423–432.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.110.3.423
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the
Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2012). A protean approach to social influence: Dark Triad
personalities and social influence tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(4),
521-526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.023
Kennealy, P. J., Hicks, B. M., & Patrick, C. J. (2007). Validity of factors of the Psychopathy
Checklist—Revised in female prisoners: Discriminant relations with antisocial behavior,
substance abuse, and personality. Assessment, 14(4), 323-
340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107305882
Kenrick, D. T., Maner, J. K., Butner, J., Li, N. P., Becker, D. V., & Schaller, M. (2002).
Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Mapping the domains of the new interactionist
paradigm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(4), 347-356.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0604_09
Kiehl, K., & Lushing, J. (2014). Psychopathy. Scholarpedia, 9(5), 30835.
https://doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.30835
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
45
Larzelere, R.E., & Mulaik, S.A. (1977). Single-sample tests for many correlations. Psychological
Bulletin, 84, 557-569. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.3.557
Lenzenweger, M.F., Clarkin, J.F., Caligor, E., Cain, N.M., & Kernberg, O.F. (2018). Malignant
narcissism in relation to clinical change in borderline personality disorder: An
exploratory study. Psychopathology, 51, 318-325. https://doi.org/10.1159/000492228
Lenzenweger, M.F., & Depue, R.A. (2016). Toward a developmental psychopathology of
personality disturbance: A neurobehavioral dimensional model incorporating genetic,
environmental, and epigenetic factors (pp. 1079-1110). In D. Cicchetti (Ed.),
Developmental Psychopathology, Volume 3, Maladaptation and Psychopathology (3rd
ed). New York: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119125556.devpsy324
Lenzenweger, M.F., & Depue, R,A. (2020). Personality disturbances as emergent phenomena
reflective of underlying neurobehavioral systems: Beyond dimensional measurement,
phenotypic trait descriptors, and factor analysis. Psychopathology, 53(3), 213-220.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000509624
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-
report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal population. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 66, 488-524. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Fowler, K. A. (2006). The self-report assessment of psychopathy:
Problems, pitfalls, and promises. In Patrick, C. J. (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (107-
132). New York: The Guilford Press.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., Berg, J., Sellbom, M., & Edens, J. F. (2012a).
The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: Confusions, controversies, and
clarifications. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(3), 327–340.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
46
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026987
Lilienfeld, S. O., Smith, S. F., Sauvigné, K. C., Patrick, C. J., Drislane, L. E., Latzman, R. D., &
Krueger, R. F. (2016). Is boldness relevant to psychopathic personality? Meta-analytic
relations with non-Psychopathy Checklist-based measures of psychopathy. Psychological
Assessment, 28(10), 1172–1185. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000244
Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., Landfield, K., Watts, A. L., Rubenzer, S., & Faschingbauer, T.
R. (2012b). Fearless dominance and the US presidency: Implications of psychopathic
personality traits for successful and unsuccessful political leadership. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 489. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029392
Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., & Smith, S. F. (2015). Successful psychopathy: A scientific status
report. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(4), 298-303.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415580297
Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., Smith, S. F., Patrick, C. J., & Hare, R. D. (2018). Hervey
Cleckley (1903–1984): Contributions to the study of psychopathy. Personality Disorders:
Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9(6), 510. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000306
Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Psychology Press.
McCord, W., & McCord, J. (1964). The psychopath: An essay on the criminal mind. Princeton,
NJ: Van Nostrand.
McCredie, M. N., & Morey, L. C. (2018). Who are the Turkers? A characterization of MTurk
workers using the personality assessment inventory. Assessment, 26(5) 759–766.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118760709
Meehl, P. E. (1971). High school yearbooks: A reply to Schwarz. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 77(2), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030750
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
47
Miller, G. A., & Chapman, J. P. (2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 110(1), 40.
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2012). An examination of the Psychopathic Personality
Inventory’s nomological network: A meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders:
Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024567
Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2008). Psychopathic traits in a large community sample: links to
violence, alcohol use, and intelligence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 76(5), 893. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.5.893
Niebuhr, O., Tegtmeier, S., & Schweisfurth, T. (2019). Female speakers benefit more than male
speakers from prosodic charisma training—a before-after analysis of 12-weeks and 4-h
courses. Frontiers in Communication, 4, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00012
Patrick, C. J. (Ed.). (2018). Handbook of psychopathy. Guilford Publications.
Patrick, C. J., & Drislane, L. E. (2015). Triarchic model of psychopathy: Origins,
operationalizations, and observed linkages with personality and general
psychopathology. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 627-643.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12119
Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of
psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and
meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21(3), 913-938.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000492
Patton, C. L., Smith, S. F., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2018). Psychopathy and heroism in first
responders: Traits cut from the same cloth?. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research,
and Treatment, 9(4), 354. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000261
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
48
Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., Williams, K. M., & Hemphill, J. F. (2016). Self-
Report Psychopathy Scale 4th edition-technical manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health
Systems.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556-563.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
Pek, J., & Hoyle, R. H. (2016). On the (in) validity of tests of simple mediation: Threats and
solutions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(3), 150-163.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12237
Pincus, A. L. (2013). The Pathological Narcissism Inventory. In J. S. Ogrodniczuk (Ed.),
Understanding and treating pathological narcissism (pp. 93-110). Washington, DC, US:
American Psychological Association.
Pincus, A. L., Cain, N. M., & Wright, A. G. (2014). Narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic
vulnerability in psychotherapy. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and
Treatment, 5(4), 439. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000031
Poy, R., Segarra, P., Esteller, À., López, R., & Moltó, J. (2014). FFM description of the triarchic
conceptualization of psychopathy in men and women. Psychological Assessment, 26(1),
69. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034642
Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54(5), 890. https://doi.org/0022-3514/88/S00.75
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
49
Rogoza, R., & Fatfouta, R. (2020). Decoding the Narcissism-Charisma link: A facet
approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 156, 109774.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109774
Sellbom, M., & Phillips, T. R. (2013). An examination of the triarchic conceptualization of
psychopathy in incarcerated and nonincarcerated samples. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 122, 208 –214. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029306
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.577
Skeem, J. L., & Cooke, D. J. (2010). Is criminal behavior a central component of psychopathy?
Conceptual directions for resolving the debate. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 433.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0008512
Skeem, J. L., Polaschek, D. L., Patrick, C. J., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011). Psychopathic
personality: Bridging the gap between scientific evidence and public
policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(3), 95-162.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611426706
Smith, S. F., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (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
Smith, S. F., Watts, A., & Lilienfeld, S. (2014). On the trail of the elusive successful
psychopath. Psychological Assessment, 15, 340-350.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
50
Steinert, S. W., Lishner, D. A., Vitacco, M. J., & Hong, P. Y. (2017). Conceptualizing successful
psychopathy: An elaboration of the moderated-expression model. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 36, 44-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.07.005
Sy, T., Horton, C., & Riggio, R. (2018). Charismatic leadership: Eliciting and channeling
follower emotions. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 58-69.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.008
Tskhay, K. O., Zhu, R., Zou, C., & Rule, N. O. (2018). Charisma in everyday life:
Conceptualization and validation of the General Charisma Inventory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 114(1), 131. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000159
Tudosoiu, A., Ghinea, V. M., & Cantaragiu, R. E. (2019). HR specialists’ perceptions of the
desirability of psychopathic traits in job candidates. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Business Excellence (Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 728-739). Sciendo.
https://doi.org/10.2478/picbe-2019-0065
Venables, N. C., Hall, J. R., & Patrick, C. J. (2014). Differentiating psychopathy from antisocial
personality disorder: A triarchic model perspective. Psychological Medicine, 44(5), 1005.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329171300161X
Vize, C. E., Collison, K. L., & Lynam, D. R. (2020). The importance of antagonism: Explaining
similarities and differences in psychopathy and narcissism's relations with aggression and
externalizing outcomes. Journal of Personality Disorders, 34(6), 842-854.
https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2020_34_342
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54(6), 1063. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
51
Weber, M. (1947). The theory of economic and social organization. Trans. AM Henderson and
Talcott Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weiss, B. M., Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2018). Psychopathy and ratings of persuasiveness:
Examining their relations in weaker and stronger contexts. Clinical Psychological
Science, 6(6), 882-890. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618783733
Widom, C. S. (1977). A methodology for studying noninstitutionalized psychopaths. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45(4), 674. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
006X.45.4.674
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 Personality Assessment, 88,
205–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701268074
Yang, Y., Raine, A., Colletti, P., Toga, A.W., & Narr, K.L. (2010). Morphological alterations in
the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala in unsuccessful psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 119(3), 546. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019611
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
52
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics (N = 315)
Age (years)
22-29 years
31.7%
30-39 years
41.3%
40-49 years
13.3%
50-59 years
10.2%
60-65 years
3.5%
Biological Sex
Female
50.8%
Male
48.9%
Prefer Not to Say
0.3%
Transgender or Other
0.0%
Race
Caucasian
74.0%
African American
10.5%
Hispanic
4.8%
Asian
6.3%
Native American
1.6%
Mixed Race
2.5%
Other
0.3%
Ethnicity
Hispanic
7.3%
Non-Hispanic
92.7%
Marital Status
Single
41.9%
Married
42.%
In a Domestic Partnership
6.7%
Divorced
8.3%
Widowed
0.6%
Prefer Not to Say
0.3%
Education Level
Did Not Complete High School
1.0%
GED
2.2%
High School Diploma
27.0%
Associate Degree
15.2%
Bachelor’s Degree
43.2%
Graduate Degree
11.4%
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
53
Table 2
Bivariate Correlations Between Psychopathy, Charisma, and Other Established Psychopathology Measures
SRP-4 = Self-Report Psychopathy Scale; Tri-PM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure; CKS = Conger-Kanungo Scale of Charismatic Leadership;
GCI = General Charisma Inventory; PNI = Pathological Narcissism Inventory; M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; *p < .05. **p < .01 ***p <
.001
Table 3
Bivariate Correlations Between Psychopathy Measures and Charisma Measures
Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial are subscales of the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale; Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition are
subscales of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure; *p < .05. **p < .01 ***p < .001
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1. SRP-4
.83***
.27***
.11
.47***
2. Tri-PM
.40***
.25***
.35***
3. CKS
.55***
.19**
4. GCI
.14*
5. PNI
M (SD)
137.9
(34.9)
56.2
(22.9)
77.3
(16.9)
3.6
(0.81)
2.1
(.83)
Variable
Conger-Kanungo
Charismatic Leadership
Scale Total Score
General Charisma
Inventory
Total Score
General Charisma
Inventory: Influence
General Charisma
Inventory: Affability
Self-Report Psychopathy Scale
.27***
.11
.29***
-.16**
Interpersonal
.22***
.14*
.30***
-.11*
Affective
.13*
-.02
.19**
-.28***
Lifestyle
.34***
.18**
.29***
-.04
Antisocial
.22***
.06
.29**
-.12*
Triarchic Psychopathy Measure
.40***
.25***
.42***
-.06
Boldness
.55***
.68***
.72***
.39***
Meanness
.13*
-.04
.16**
-.27***
Disinhibition
.17**
-.11
.02
-.24***
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
54
Table 4
Bivariate Correlations of Psychopathy and Charisma Measures with Psychopathic Success Outcomes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1. Tri-PM
.83***
.40***
.25***
.42***
-.06
.48***
.55***
.18**
2. SRP-4
.27***
.11
.29***
-.16**
.56***
.51***
.16**
3. CKS
.55***
.58***
.31***
.21***
.23**
.40***
4. GCI
.88***
.80***
.06
.02
.45***
5. GCI - I
.42***
.14*
.08
.48***
6. GCI - A
-.08
-.06
.27***
7. ED Total
.57***
.15*
8. EP Total
.12
9. OS Total
M (SD)
56.2
(22.9)
137.9
(34.9)
77.3
(16.9)
3.7
(.81)
3.2
(1.1)
4.1
(.85)
25.5
(16.4)
9.5
(10.1)
18.0
(4.7)
N
314
314
314
315
315
315
301
173
273
SRP-4 = Self-Report Psychopathy Scale Tri-PM – Triarchic Psychopathy Measure Total Score; CKS = Conger-Kanungo Charismatic Leadership Scale;
GCI = General Charisma Inventory Total Score; GCI – I = Influence Subscale of the General Charisma Inventory; Affability Subscale of the General
Charisma Inventory; ED Total = Evading Detection Total Score; EP Total = Evading Punishment Total Score; OS Total = Occupational Success Total
Score; M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; N = Number of data points available for that variable (Ns for outcome variables differ depending upon
relevance to participant); *p < .05. **p < .01 ***p < .001
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
55
Table 5
Interaction Terms for the Moderated Multiple Regression Models for Psychopathy, Charisma, and Outcome Variables
Outcome Variable
Predictor ´
Moderator
Coeff.
SE
t
p
N
Evading Detection
SRP-4 ´ CKS
.003
.001
2.417
.016
299
SRP-4 ´ GCI
.020
.030
.721
.470
300
Tri-PM ´ CKS
.007
.002
3.135
.002
299
Tri-PM ´ GCI
.096
.045
2.141
.033
300
Evading Punishment
SRP-4 ´ CKS
.004
.001
3.024
.003
172
SRP-4 ´ GCI
-.024
.027
-.881
.380
173
Tri-PM ´ CKS
.006
.002
2.968
.003
172
Tri-PM ´ GCI
-.019
.035
-.555
.580
173
Occupational Success
SRP-4 ´ CKS
-.000
.001
-.538
.591
272
SRP-4 ´ GCI
-.012
.010
-1.243
.215
272
Tri-PM ´ CKS
-.001
.001
-1.042
.298
272
Tri-PM ´ GCI
-.010
.013
-.559
.577
272
Only employed participants were included in analyses for moderation models with Occupational Success as the outcome variable; SRP-4 = Self-
Report Psychopathy Scale; CKS = Conger-Kanungo Scale of Charismatic Leadership; Tri-PM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure; GCI = General
Charisma Inventory; Coeff = Coefficient; SE = Standard Error; N = Number of data points available for that variable (Ns for dependent variables
differ depending upon relevance to participant).
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
56
Figure 1
Moderation Analyses for Evading Detection
Note: The three data points depicted in each graph reflect the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles for each variable.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
57
Figure 2
Moderation Analyses for Evading Punishment
Note: The three data points depicted in each graph reflect the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles for each variable.
PSYCHOPATHY, CHARISMA, & SUCCESS
58
Figure 3
Conceptual Diagram of the Charisma Construct and its Overlap with Psychopathy
Note: The area of the Venn diagram labeled “Charismatic Psychopath” refers to the subcomponents of charisma that
were positively associated with psychopathic features. The area of the diagram outside of the circle labeled
“Charismatic Psychopath” contains subcomponents of charisma that were either negatively related to or not related
to psychopathic features.
