2012. Vol.3, No.3, 243-248
Published Online March 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/psych) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.33034
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 243
Construct Validity of a Two-Factor Model of Psychopathy
Heather Douglas, Miles Bore, Don Munro
School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia
Received November 9th, 2011; revised December 10th, 2011; accepted December 31st, 2011
There is currently limited evidence for the two-factor structure of Psychopathy. The aim was to provide
evidence for the construct validity of Primary and Secondary Psychopathy. Batteries including the Five
Factor Model, the Hogan Development Survey, and Narcissism, Machiavellianism, Empathy, and Ag-
gression, were administered to 241 undergraduate psychology students. Confirmatory factor analysis in-
dicated that a two component structure fitted the data reasonably well (chi-square = 1.939, CFI = .799,
RMSEA = .063). The strongest markers of Primary Psychopathy were Agreeableness, Empathy, and the
HDS Bold and HDS Colourful subscales, while the strongest markers of Secondary Psychopathy were
Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, and HDS Excitable. It was concluded that preliminary evidence for the
two-factor model of Psychopathy had been gained.
Keywords: Construct Validity; Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale; Five-Factor Model; Hogan
The construct of Psychopathy has been of interest to psy-
chologists for some time (Lee & Salekin, 2010). On the basis of
clinical observation, Cleckley (1955) posited a clinical profile
of the psychopathic personality that included as its key features
inadequately motivated antisocial behaviour, a lack of remorse
or shame, and a general poverty in major affective reactions.
High levels of the trait have been associated with violence,
criminal recidivism, and antisocial behaviour in both forensic
and general populations (Flores-Mendoza, Alvarenga, Herrero,
& Abad, 2008; Freidenfelt & Klinteberg, 2007; Vitacco, Neu-
mann, & Jackson, 2005).
The literature on the measurement of Psychopathy indicates
disagreement over the construct’s structure, with anywhere
from two to eight separate factors proposed (Forth, Brown, Hart,
& Hare, 1996; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996; Vitacco, Neumann,
& Jackson, 2005; Williams, Paulhus, & Hare, 2007). A two-
factor model was proposed by Karpman (1948), which has been
empirically demonstrated in the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R;
Hart & Hare, 1989; Templeman & Wong, 1994). The first fac-
tor was labelled Primary Psychopathy, which consists of cal-
lous, selfish and manipulative personal attitudes. Secondary
Psychopathy is characterised by high impulsivity and emotional
instability, coupled with a self-defeating lifestyle. Both factors
of Psychopathy are negatively related to Agreeableness from
the Five Factor Model (Lynam&Derefinko, 2006) and Empathy
(Andrew, Cooke, & Muncer, 2008; Munro, Bore, & Powis,
2005; Wastell & Booth, 2003). They are also positively related
to Aggression (Ross, Bye, Wrobel, & Horton, 2008), Narcis-
sism (Jakobwitz & Egan, 2006; Paulhus & Williams, 2002),
and diagnoses of Antisocial Personality Disorder (Blackburn &
The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP; Le-
venson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995) was designed from items
on the PCL-R structured interview to reflect the above-men-
tioned two-component structure. Exploratory factor analysis on
the initial item pool clearly indicated two factors. Subsequent
confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) appear to replicate this
structure (Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, & Newman, 2001; Lynam,
Whiteside, & Jones, 1999). However some issues with the re-
porting of previous CFA results and the theoretical justification
for the model suggest that confirmation of these results would
An aspect of providing evidence for the two-factor structure
of Psychopathy involves the need to establish the differential
validity of Primary and Secondary Psychopathy. The focus of
research on the LSRP appears to have been on replicating the
factor structure rather than examining differential construct va-
lidity. Levenson, Kiehl and Fitzpatrick (1995) provided the ini-
tial investigation of this issue. They found that Primary Psy-
chopathy was related to harm avoidance and a lack of inhibition,
whereas Secondary Psychopathy was related to boredom sus-
ceptibility. Lynam, Whiteside and Jones (1999) investigated the
relationships of Psychopathy with the Five Factor Model. Pri-
mary Psychopathy was found to have a negative correlation
with Agreeableness, while Secondary Psychopathy was nega-
tively correlated with Agreeableness and also with Conscien-
tiousness, but positively with Neuroticism. These results sug-
gest that the two factors of Psychopathy should have different
Psychopathy has also demonstrated relationships with the
DSM-IV defined Personality Disorders in forensic populations
(Blackburn & Coid, 1998; Decuyper, De Fruyt, & Buschman,
2008; Hart & Hare, 1996; Ross, Bye, Wrobel & Horton, 2008).
However, the research used clinical tools, which are designed
to diagnose people with significant deficits in psychological
functioning. The Hogan Development Survey (HDS) was de-
signed for organisational contexts, to identify the presence of
sub-clinical personality traits reflective of the Axis II disorders.
It consists of eleven scales mapping onto the DSM-IV defined
Personality Disorders, the names of which can be found in Ta-
ble 1. Research indicates that Primary Psychopathy is associ-
ated with Narcissistic and Histrionic Personality Disorders
H. DOUGLAS ET AL.
Description of each of the HDS scales (Hogan, 2001).
DSM-IV PDs HDS Scale Description
Moody, hard to please, intense but
short-lived enthusiasm for people, projects,
Paranoid Sceptical Cynical, distrustful, and doubting others’
Avoidant Cautious Reluctant to take risks for fear of being
rejected or negatively evaluated.
Aloof, detached, and uncommunicative,
lacking interest or awareness of the feelings
Independent, ignoring people’s requests and
becoming irritated or argumentative if they
Unusually self-confident, feelings of
grandiosity or entitlement, over-evaluation
of one’s capabilities.
Risk taking and testing the limits, needing
excitement, manipulative, deceitful, cunning,
Expressive, animated, and dramatic, wanting
to be noticed and needing to be the centre of
Schizotypal Imaginative Acting and thinking in creative and
sometimes odd or unusual ways.
Meticulous, precise, perfectionistic,
inflexible about rules and procedures, critical
of others’ performance.
Eager to please and reliant on others for
support and guidance, reluctant to take
independent action or go against popular
(Hart & Hare, 1996; Hildebrand & de Ruiter, 2004), which
would correspond to the HDS Bold and Colourful scales re-
spectively. Secondary Psychopathy, on the other hand, has de-
monstrated relations with Borderline and Paranoid personality
traits (Hart & Hare, 1996), which map onto the Excitable and
Sceptical HDS scales respectively. Establishing these relation-
ships in a normal population would provide further evidence for
the construct validity of the two-factor model of Psychopathy.
An additional construct of interest to Primary Psychopathy in
particular is that of Machiavellianism, which consists of the
manipulativeness and the degree to which a person assumes
that others are manipulable (Christie & Geis, 1970). Machiavel-
lianism has most commonly appeared in the literature as a
component of the Dark Triad (Paulhus & Williams, 2002), which
consists of Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy. In
fact, the results reported in the current study were a part of a
larger project examining the construct validity of the Dark
Triad (Douglas, Bore, & Munro, 2012). The uncertainty in the
literature regarding the factor structure of Psychopathy war-
ranted the current exploration. Like Narcissism, Machiavel-
lianism was first assumed to be related to both Primary and
Secondary Psychopathy (Lee & Ashton, 2005). However, re-
cent evidence has emerged indicating that Machiavellianism
may be more closely related to Primary Psychopathy (Lynam,
2002; Wastell & Booth, 2003). This finding, if replicated, would
provide further evidence for the difference between the two
The aim of the current study is to provide evidence for the
construct validity of a two-factor model of Psychopathy. As a
first step in this process, the component structure of the LSRP
was replicated using confirmatory factor-analytic techniques,
with a two factor model expected to provide a good fit to the
data. The differential correlates of both Primary and Secondary
Psychopathy were then examined. It was expected that the two
factors of Psychopathy would have different relationships in the
nomological network of interest, such that:
1) Both Primary and Secondary Psychopathy are negatively
related to Agreeableness and Empathy, as well as positively
related to Aggression, Narcissism, and the HDS Mischievous
scale, corresponding to Antisocial Personality Disorder Traits.
2) In addition, Primary Psychopathy is associated with the
Bold and Colourful HDS scales, corresponding to Narcissistic
and Histrionic Personality Disorders; it should also be nega-
tively associated with Machiavellianism.
3) Secondary Psychopathy is also negatively related to Con-
scientiousness, as well as positively with Neuroticism, Excit-
able (Borderline) and Sceptical (Paranoid) HDS scales.
Participants were recruited from a first year psychology co-
hort in 2009 at an Australian University and were awarded
course credit for their introductory psychology course. Two
hundred and forty-one participants were recruited, 189 of
whom were female (78.4%). Fourteen participants did not re-
port their gender (5.8%). Participants had a mean age of 22.7,
with a range from 17 to 53. The median age of participants was
19.0. Twenty-four participants did not report their age.
The following measures were included in the battery:
The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP). A
26-item scale constructed to examine the two factors found in
the Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised, where participants
are required to respond to a statement using a four-point Likert
scale of disagree strongly, disagree somewhat, agree somewhat,
and agree strongly. An example item from this scale is “I often
admire a really clever scam”. The two factors are Primary and
Secondary Psychopathy (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995).
Goldberg’s International Personality Item Pool (IPIP).
The IPIP is a widely accepted measure of the Five Factor Mo-
del. The IPIP test consists of 300 items providing Five Factor
Model domain and facet scores. Items are endorsed on a four
point Likert scale ranging from F “definitely false” to T “defi-
nitely true”/An example item is “I warm up quickly to others”.
The alpha reliability coefficients for the domains are reported
on the IPIP website and range from .88 to .91. The IPIP has
been submitted to numerous reliability and validity examina-
tions, all indicating its similarity to the NEO PI-R (Goldberg et
The Narcissism-Aloofness-Confidence-Empathy (NACE)
scale. A 100-item four-point Likert scale ranging from A =
definitely true to D = definitely false originally designed to
discriminate among potential medical students, the NACE scale
measures Narcissism, Aloofness, Confidence and Empathy. The
48 items in the Narcissism and Empathy subscales were used.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
H. DOUGLAS ET AL.
An example item is “I am quite affectionate towards people”.
The validity of the four factor structure is supported by exten-
sive replication, as is the Cronbach’s alpha for all four scales,
which has been found to range between .78 and .84 (Munro,
Bore, & Powis, 2005).
The MACH-IV. A 20-item scale designed to measure Ma-
chiavellian orientation; participants are required to respond
using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strong disagreement”
to “strong agreement” (Christie & Geis, 1970). An example of
an item from this scale is “It is wise to flatter important people”.
Research findings indicate weak to acceptable reliability and
validity of the scale (Ray, 1982, 1983).
The Hogan Development Survey (HDS).1 The HDS is a
commercially published and highly respected 154-item scale,
used extensively in organisational psychology research to mea-
sure personality disorders. The survey is scored for eleven
scales, each consisting of fourteen items (Furnham& Crump,
2005; Hogan & Hogan, 2001). The names of each scale are as
follows: Excitable, Sceptical, Cautious, Reserved, Leisurely,
Bold, Mischievous, Colourful, Imaginative, Diligent, and Duti-
ful. A description of each scale can be found in Table 1. Re-
spondents are requested to “agree” or “disagree” with the items.
The item data from this scale was not available to us for the
calculation of reliability coefficients.
The Buss and Perry Aggression Questionnaire. A 29-item
scale endorsed by participants on a seven-point Likert scale
ranging from “extremely uncharacteristic of me” to “extremely
characteristic of me”. An example of an item from this scale is
“I have threatened people I know”. The internal consistency for
the four scales ranged between .72 and .85 (Buss & Perry,
1992). The scale consists of four factors labeled Physical Ag-
gression, Verbal Aggression, Anger, and Hostility.
Participants were tested in a group setting with a researcher
present to administer the questionnaires. Participants were pro-
vided with a paper copy of the battery of tests and given two
hours to complete them. Two versions of the questionnaire
were designed. Version A had each measure in the following
order: The IPIP, the MACH-IV, the Aggression Questionnaire,
the LSRP, and the NACE. Half of the participants received
version A of the questionnaire, and the other half received ver-
sion B, which had the measures in reverse order to version A, to
account for potential fatigue effects. After each participant
completed and returned their questionnaire, they were debriefed
about the purpose of the study. The responses to all question-
naires except the HDS were hand entered into a spreadsheet for
cleaning and scoring. The HDS response sheets were sent to the
Australian agents who entered the data and provided a spread-
sheet to us containing the eleven HDS scores for each partici-
All data were examined for missing values that were re-
placed using the mid-point of the corresponding measure. Eight
participants were excluded because they failed to complete one
or more scales in the battery. Two hundred and thirty-three
questionnaires were subsequently available for statistical ana-
The descriptive statistics for Psychopathy, Aggression, Ma-
chiavellianism, Narcissism and Empathy can be found in Table
2, including the alpha reliability for each scale. Participants
who completed version A of the questionnaire were compared
to those that completed version B to check for any order effects.
No fatigue effects were detected for any of the scales in Table
2. Alpha coefficients indicated acceptable reliability for each of
the scales. The sample mean for each scale was compared to the
norm mean where available, and indicated that our sample was
significantly different from the norm values for all scales ex-
cept Primary Psychopathy, and Physical Aggression for males.
Further inspection of the differences between the current study
and the normative sample suggest a clinically important dis-
crepancy for Machiavellianism, with our sample being substan-
tially less Machiavellian.
Descriptive statistics for the Five Factor Model can be found
in Table 3. No fatigue effects were detected for any of the Big
Five domains. Alpha reliabilities for the domains were all found
to be in the acceptable range.
Descriptive statistics for the Hogan Development Survey can
be found in Table 4. No fatigue effects were detected for any of
the eleven subscales. Table 4 presents norms for the HDS as
percentiles, indicating how the present sample compares to the
Australian norms for this measure. The 50th percentile corre-
sponds to the mean. As can be seen in Table 4, a substantial
difference between the sample percentile score and the 50th
percentile exists for the first five scales of the HDS. The sample
mean for Excitable, Sceptical, Cautious, Reserved and Lei-
surely scales is, in each instance, substantially higher.
Descriptive statistics for psychopathy, aggression, machiavellianism,
narcissism and empathy.
Mean SD Alpha Norm Mean
LSRP-Primary P 29.95 7.42 .86 29.13
LSRP-Secondary P 20.88** 4.33 .70 19.32
Total Psychopathy 50.84** 9.99 .86 48.45
MACH-IV 52.42** 8.55 .73 68.73
NACE-Narcissism 57.24** 9.53 .86 53.00
NACE-Empathy 71.56** 8.20 .84 74.00
Aggression 85.79 28.41 .93 n/a
Notes: **p < .01 sample mean compared to norm, LSRP-Primary P = Levenson
Self-Report Primary Psychopathy’ LSRP-Secondary P = Levenson Self-Report
Secondary Psychopathy; MACH-IV = Machiavellianism Four Scale; NACE-
Narcissism = the Narcissism subscale of the Narcissism-Aloofness-Confidence-
Empathy scale; NACE-Empathy = the Empathy subscale of the Narcissism-
Aloofness-Con fidence-Empathy scale.
Descriptive statistics for the five-factor model.
Mean SD Alpha
Neuroticism (N) 145.61 26.52 .96
Extraversion (E) 168.30 19.35 .93
Openness (O) 173.79 16.45 .89
Agreeableness (A) 176.35 17.71 .92
Conscientiousness (C) 169.15 18.79 .92
1The Hogan Development Survey was provided by the Australian Agents
for Hogan Assessments, Peter Berry Consultancy.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 245
H. DOUGLAS ET AL.
Descriptive statistics for hogan development survey.
Mean SD Percentile Norm
Excitable 6.15 3.49 83.80*
Sceptical 6.84 2.63 82.03*
Cautious 6.35 3.14 81.22*
Reserved 5.24 2.39 73.66*
Leisurely 6.59 2.23 78.28*
Bold 6.83 2.86 49.11
Mischievous 6.42 2.53 56.61*
Colourful 7.04 2.92 45.44*
Imaginative 6.87 2.79 64.77*
Diligent 9.30 2.99 55.06*
Dutiful 8.67 2.47 65.97*
Note: *p < .05.
Confirmatory Fact or Analysis
As all participants in the current sample had completed the
LSRP scale, 241 cases were included in the confirmatory factor
analyses. Inspection of skewness and kurtosis values on the
item-level data indicated approximately normal distributions,
thereby upholding the CFA assumption of normality. Even
though missing data was replaced before statistical analysis was
conducted using the midpoint of each scale, it was more appro-
priate to use the expectation-maximisation (EM) algorithm re-
ported by Dempster, Laird, and Rubin (1977) for confirmatory
factor analysis. Missing value analysis indicated that EM esti-
mation was appropriate for replacing the missing data, χ2(175)
= 203.688, p < .05 (Little, 1988). Confirmatory factor analysis
with maximum likelihood estimation was then conducted using
In the first analysis, the two factors were allowed to correlate
and the model was estimated without any correlated errors. This
initial model provided a reasonable fit of the data, χ2(298) =
577.702, with a normed chi-square (χ2/df) of 1.939, a compara-
tive fit index (CFI) of .80, and a root mean square error of ap-
proximation (RMSEA) of 0.06. Inspection of the standardised
residual covariance matrix and the modification indices sug-
gested modifying the model to include correlated errors. How-
ever, as there was no theoretical justification for these changes,
the approach used by Lynam, Whiteside and Jones (1999) was
used, in which they added 17 measurement error correlations to
the model. Adding these parameters did not significantly im-
prove the fit of the model, χ2(281) = 557.944, chi-square (χ2/df)
of 1.986, CFI = .80, RMSEA = 0.06. The regression weights for
the initial estimated model ranged from .19 to .66, with the
error variances ranging from .29 to .79.
The correlation between Primary and Secondary Psychopa-
thy was .40. The correlations between Primary and Secondary
Psychopathy and their theoretically related constructs can be
found in Table 5, along with the absolute difference between
correlations, and the t-value for the significance of these dif-
ferences. The personality variables that significantly distin-
guished between the two factors were Aggression, Neuroticism,
Correlations between theoretically related constructs, primary, and se-
condary psychopathy scores.
Second Difference t (df = 230)
Neuroticism –.01 .54** .55 –9.40***
Conscientiousness –.27** –.69** .42 7.82***
Excitable .13* .51** .38 –6.09***
Narcissism .71** .36** .35 6.68***
Extraversion .10 –.20** .30 4.43***
Cautious –.06 .24** .30 –4.34***
Empathy –.44** –.17** .27 –4.13***
Bold .31** .05 .26 3.79***
Total Aggression .36** .59** .23 –3.91***
Agreeableness –.68** –.48** .20 –3.81***
Colourful .25** .05 .20 2.86**
Openness –.29** –.17** .12 –1.73
Mischievous .35** .24** .11 1.63
Reserved .11 .21** .10 –1.41
Leisurely .10 .20** .10 –1.41
Imaginative .06 .15* .09 –1.26
Diligent –.21** –.30** .09 1.31
Sceptical .22** .27** .05 –0.72
Dutiful –.07 –.11 .04 0.56
Machiavellianism .63** .61** .02 0.39
Notes: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, HDS Excitable, HDS Bold,
Narcissism, and Empathy. In particular, Primary Psychopathy
was strongly and positively related to Narcissism, Empathy,
and the HDS Bold scale, corresponding to Antisocial persona-
lity traits. Secondary Psychopathy was positively related to
Neuroticism and HDS Excitable (Borderline), and negatively to
Examination of the results indicated strong support for the
study hypotheses. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that
the two-factor model provided a reasonable fit to the data,
thereby supporting the two-component structure of Psychopa-
thy. The fit indices obtained in the current research were com-
parable to those of Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, and Newman
(2001) and Lynam, Whiteside and Jones (1999), however both
concluded poor fit based on these results. Both previous studies
introduced seventeen correlated error terms to their respective
models, which improved the fit indices only in the case of Ly-
nam et al. Despite the improvement in fit, there does not appear
to be a theoretical basis for expecting these correlated error
terms, which also impede the interpretation of the model.
However, given that the normed chi-square was 1.939 in the
present study, it can be concluded that there is support for the
two-factor structure of the LSRP.
Examination of the correlations with other personality vari-
ables likewise provided support for the construct validity of the
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
H. DOUGLAS ET AL.
two-component structure. As expected, both Primary and Se-
condary Psychopathy was negatively related to Agreeableness
and Empathy, and positively with Aggression, Narcissism, and
the Mischievous HDS subscale, corresponding to Antisocial
personality traits (Hogan & Hogan, 2001). However, t-tests for
the difference between dependent sample correlations indicated
that all but Mischievous had significantly different relationships
with the two factors. For example, Narcissism was positively
correlated with both factors, but there was a difference in the
magnitude of these correlations of .35, with Primary Psychopa-
thy having a correlation with Narcissism of .71.
As expected, Primary Psychopathy was also related to the
Bold and Colourful HDS scales, corresponding to Narcissistic
and Histrionic traits (Hogan & Hogan, 2001). Secondary Psy-
chopathy was not related to these scales. The comparatively
stronger correlations with Narcissism and Empathy indicate
that Primary Psychopathy can be defined by a sense of entitle-
ment and attention seeking behaviours, coupled with a lack of
consideration for the feelings of others. On the other hand, Se-
condary Psychopathy was negatively related to Conscientious-
ness, as well as positively related to Neuroticism, and to the
Excitable and Sceptical HDS scales corresponding to Border-
line and Paranoid personality traits (Hart & Hare, 1996; Lynam,
Whiteside, & Jones, 1999). This indicates that Secondary Psy-
chopathy may be characterised by impulsivity and emotional
reactivity, including increased levels of paranoia. However,
Primary Psychopathy was also related to Sceptical, and there
was no significant difference between the correlations, indicat-
ing that Paranoid personality traits may be common to both
Contrary to expectations, Machiavellianism was related to
both Primary and Secondary Psychopathy, with no significant
difference between the correlations. This fails to replicate the
results obtained by Wastell and Booth (2003). It is possible that
Machiavellianism is a construct that is related to both compo-
nents of Psychopathy, as was suggested by Lee and Ashton
(2005). An alternative explanation could be the lower levels of
Machiavellianism evident in the current sample in comparison
to the normative sample. More investigation may be needed to
determine the reason for the observed relationships.
Several limitations of the current study require mentioning.
As previously discussed, Machiavellianism levels are signifi-
cantly lower than the norms in the current sample, which may
have impacted on our ability to differentiate between Primary
and Secondary Psychopathy. A likely explanation for the lower
Machiavellianism levels is the proportion of women in the cur-
rent sample. Evidence indicates that both Machiavellianism and
Psychopathy levels are lower in females (Christie & Geis, 1970;
Williams, Paulhus, & Hare, 2007), though the average Psycho-
pathy scores were not significantly different from norms in this
case, making the gender proportion explanation unlikely for
Another limitation of the current study involves the fact that
the current sample scored substantially higher than the Austra-
lian norm on the Excitable, Sceptical, Cautious, Reserved and
Leisurely scales. An improbable explanation for these findings
could be that the student sample had high levels of Borderline,
Paranoid, Avoidant, Schizoid, and Passive-Aggressive traits. It
is more likely that the HDS scale did not operate exactly as
expected. Unfortunately the item-level data were not made
available for comparison. Given that the majority of study par-
ticipants were undergraduate psychology students, it is possible
that the normative group of Australian managers was not an
appropriate comparison population. The homogeneity of the
sample may have also introduced a restriction of range issue.
Although our hypotheses were supported, further research is
required to clarify these issues.
The two-component model of Psychopathy may have appli-
cation in forensic and clinical samples. The two-factor model
has been derived from the “gold standard” psychopathy diag-
nostic tool, the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R; Hare,
1985). Given the current results, which suggest a different per-
sonality profile for each construct, it is likely that this would
also translate into behaviour, but further research is necessary
to validate the model.
In conclusion, the findings of the current study appear to
support Karpman’s (1948) two factor structure of Psychopathy,
as well as the validity of the structure contained within the Le-
venson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (Levenson, Kiehl, &
Fitzpatrick, 1995). Preliminary evidence for the construct vali-
dity of Primary and Secondary Psychopathy has been obtained.
It appears increasingly likely that there are two types of Psy-
chopathy, one that taps into callous, manipulative and selfish
interpersonal attitudes, and the other that reflects impulsivity
and emotional instability.
Thanks go to Peter Berry Consultancy, who provided the
Hogan Development Survey for use in this study. The assis-
tance of Mrs. Paula Bridge in the data collection process is also
Andrew, J., Cooke, M., &Muncer, S. (2008). The relationship between
empathy and Machiavellianism: An alternative to empathizing-sys-
temizing theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1203-
Blackburn, R., & Coid, J. W. (1998). Psychopathy and the dimensions
of personality disorder in violent offenders.Personality and Individ-
ual Differences, 25, 129-145. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00027-0
Brinkley, C. A., Schmitt, W. A., Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (2001).
Construct validation of a self-report psychopathy scale: Does Leven-
son’s self-report psychopathy scale measure the same constructs as
Hare’s psychopathy checklist-revised? Personality and Individual
Differences, 31, 1021-1038. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00178-1
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New
York: Academic Press.
Cleckley, H. (1950). The mask of sanity: An attempt to clarify some
issues about the so-called psychopathic personality. Oxford, England:
Decuyper, A. P., De Fruyt, F., & Buschman, J. (2008). A five-factor
model perspective on psychopathy and comorbid Axis-II disorders in
a forensic-psychiatric sample. International Journal of Law and Psy-
chiatry, 31, 394-406. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.08.008
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum like-
lihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society. S eries B (Methodological), 39, 1-38.
Flores-Mendoza, C. E., Alvarenga, M. A. S., Herrero, O., & Abad, F. J.
(2008). Factor structure and behavioural correlates of the psychopa-
thy checklist-revised. Personality and Individual Differences, 45,
Forth, A. E., Brown, S. L., Hart, S. D., & Hare, R. D. (1996). The as-
sessment of psychopathy in male and female noncriminals: Reliabil-
Copyright © 2012 SciRes. 247
H. DOUGLAS ET AL.
Copyright © 2012 SciRes.
ity and validity. Personality and Individual Diffe r e nces, 20, 531-543.
Freidenfelt, J., & Klinteberg, B. (2007). Exploring adult personality and
psychopathy tendencies in former childhood hyperactive delinquent
males. Journal of Individual Differences, 28, 27-36.
Furnham, A., & Crump, J. (2005). Personality traits, types, and disor-
ders: An examination of the relationship between three self-report
measures. European Journal of Personality, 19, 167-184.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C.,
Cloniger, C. R., & Gough, H. C. (2006). The international personal-
ity item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures.
Journal of Research i n Personality, 40, 84-96.
Hare, R. D. (1985). Comparison of procedures for the assessment of
psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53,
Hart, S. D., & Hare, R. D. (1989). Discriminant validity of the psycho-
pathy checklist in a forensic psychiatric population. Psychological
Assessment, 1, 211-218. doi:10.1037/1040-35184.108.40.206
Hart, S. D., & Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy and antisocial personal-
ity disorder.Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 9, 129-132.
Hildebrand, M., & de Ruiter, C. (2004). PCL-R psychopathy and its
relation to DSM-IV Axis I and II disorders in a sample of male fo-
rensic psychiatric patients in the Netherlands. International Journal
of Law and Psychiatry, 27, 233-248. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.03.005
Hogan, R., & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the
dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40.
Jakobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personal-
ity traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 331-339.
Karpman, B. (1948). The myth of the psychopathic personality. Ameri-
can Journal of Psychiatry, 104, 523-534.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, machiavellianism, and
narcissism in the five-factor model and the HEXACO model of per-
sonality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1571-
Lee, Z., &Salekin, R.T. (2010). Psychopathy in a noninstitutional sam-
ple: Differences in primary and secondary subtypes. Personality Dis-
orders: Theory, Research, and T re atment, 1, 153-169.
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing
psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal
of Personality and Social Ps y c h o l o g y , 68, 151-158.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and prelimi-
nary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality
traits in noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment,
66, 488-524. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3
Little, R. J. A. (1988).A test of missing completely at random for mul-
tivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statisti-
cal Association, 83, 1198-1202. doi:10.2307/2290157
Lynam, D. R. (2002). Psychopathy from the perspective of the five-
factor model of personality. In P. T. Costa Jr. & T. A. Widiger (Eds.),
Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (2nd
ed., pp. 325-348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Asso-
Lynam, D. R., & Derefinko, K. J. (2006). Psychopathy and personality.
In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 133-155). New
York: Guilford Press.
Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psycho-
pathy: A validation study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73,
Munro, D., Bore, M., & Powis, D. (2005). Personality factors in profes-
sional ethical behaviour: Studies of empathy and narcissism. Austra-
lian Journal of Psychology, 57, 49-60.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality:
Narcissism, machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research
in Personality, 36, 556-563. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6
Ray, J. J. (1982). Machiavellianism, forced-choice formats and the
validity of the F scale: A rejoinder to Bloom. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 38, 779-782.
Ray, J. J. (1983). Defective validity of the machiavellianism scale. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 291-292.
Ross, S. R., Bye, K., Wrobel, T .A., & Horton, R. S. (2008). Primary
and secondary psychopathic characteristics and the schedule for non-
adaptive and adaptive personality (SNAP). Personality and Individ-
ual Differences, 45, 249-254. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.007
Templeman, R., & Wong, S. (1994). Determining the factor structure of
the psychopathy checklist: A converging approach. Multivariate Ex-
perimental Clinical Resear c h , 10, 157-166.
Vitacco, M. J., Neumann, C. S., & Jackson, R. L. (2005). Testing a
four-factor model of psychopathy and its association with ethnicity,
gender, intelligence, and violence. Journal of Consulting and Clini-
cal Psychology, 73, 466-476. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.466
Wastell, C., & Booth, A. (2003). Machiavellianism: An alexithymic
perspective. Journal of So cial a nd Clinical Psychology, 22, 730-744.
Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Capturing the
four-factor structure of psychopathy in college students via self-re-
port. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 205-219.