Is psychopathy associated with deficits in bonding in an adult noninstitutionalized sample? The association between intimate social network size,attachment behavior,and psychopathy

Abstract

The diminished capacity to form bonds is an attribute that has been widely ascribed to psychopathy, particularly the affective domain of the construct. The purpose of the current study was to investigate this hypothesis by examining the association between psychopathy, intimate social network size, and attachment bonds, using self-report measures in a large mixed Australian sample of university students and members of the general community. Our results indicated that psychopathy is associated with some deficits in bonding. Psychopathy was associated with fewer peer relationships and less attachment behavior toward familial relationships. The results also tended to differ across psychopathy factors. Higher scorers on the affective domain of psychopathy consistently displayed diminished attachment behavior with both peers and family. However, the effect sizes were generally small and raise some question as to the centrality of bonding deficits to psychopathy, at least in adult noninstitutionalized samples.

Keywords

Attachment bonding personality psychopathy

Psychopathy

Psychopathy is a construct which is often defined by a constellation of affective, interpersonal, and behavioral features (Cooke & Michie, 2001; Hare, 1996). Affectively, psychopathy is characterized by features such as callousness, diminished empathy, and shallow emotions. Interpersonally, psychopathy is characterized by manipulativeness, egocentricity, and pathological lying. Behaviorally, psychopathy is defined by impulsivity and irresponsibility. Definitions of psychopathy can sometimes include reference to antisociality (i.e., a propensity toward behaving in an antisocial, usually criminal, manner; Hare & Neumann, 2006) and boldness/fearless dominance (i.e., characteristics such as stress tolerance, fearlessness, and social agency; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005; Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009), though they remain debated areas of the construct. Nevertheless, psychopathy has consistently been associated with a range of disruptive and destructive interpersonal behaviors from violence to fraud and counterproductive workplace behavior, often accompanied by diminished guilt, sympathy, or remorse regarding the consequences of these behaviors for others (Blais, Solodukhin, & Forth, 2014; Boddy, 2014; Cleckley, 1941; Hare, 2003; Hawes, Boccaccini, & Murrie, 2013; Leistico, Salekin, DeCoster, & Rogers, 2008; Neo, Sellbom, Smith, & Lilienfeld, 2016).

An interesting attribute which has been ascribed to psychopathy, perhaps in part due to the remorseless behavior noted above, is that individuals higher on this construct have a diminished capacity to form close emotional bonds to others (Cleckley, 1941; Cooke, Hart, Logan, & Michie, 2012; Hare, 2003; Patrick et al., 2009). This attribute appears to be based on long-standing observations in the field from early pioneers such as Cleckley (1941), who described “an incapacity for object-love” (p. 241) as one of the characteristics of psychopathy. More recent clinicians have also consistently rated social bonding difficulties as a feature of psychopathy (Kreis & Cooke, 2011; Kreis, Cooke, Michie, Hoff, & Logan, 2012). This observational research appears to have been translated into modern conceptualizations of psychopathy, as there are consistent references to bonding and attachment across multiple theoretical models of the construct (e.g., Cooke et al., 2012; Hare, 2003; Patrick et al. 2009). For example, “disdain for and lack of close attachments with others” is considered characteristic of psychopathy in the triarchic theory of psychopathy (Patrick et al., 2009, p. 927).

Interestingly, references to diminished bonding capacity in psychopathy tend to be placed in the affective factor of the construct (i.e., a factor reflecting features such as callousness, diminished empathy, and shallow emotions, which tends to reoccur across conceptualizations of psychopathy; Cooke et al., 2012; Hare, 2003; Patrick et al., 2009), suggesting that this component may be particularly important when considering intimate social bonds in psychopathy. Theories regarding the etiology of the affective features of psychopathy often focus on potential biological deficits arising from genetic factors, which either lead to dulled emotional responses and/or a temperament which makes socialization and learning difficult (Blair, 2006; Kiehl et al., 2001; Kochanska, 1991; Lykken, 1995; Moul, Killcross, & Dadds, 2012; Viding, Blair, Moffitt, & Plomin, 2005). Dadds, Jambrak, Pasalich, Hawes, and Brennan (2011) argued that deficits in attachment formation in children that display the affective features of psychopathy may relate to deficits in attention to the eyes of parental figures (i.e., a salient emotional cue), which may hamper attachment bond formation, and they argue to be consistent with amygdala dysfunction. However, irrespective of the etiology of the affective features of psychopathy and despite the popularity of the idea that psychopathy is associated with deficits in bonding, there appears to have been fairly limited attempts to empirically examine whether psychopathy is actually associated with deficits in the capacity to form bonds.

Psychopathy and bonding

Despite the limited literature available regarding psychopathy and bonding, several studies using undergraduate and online samples have suggested that psychopathy is associated with less desirable processes and outcomes. Individuals higher on psychopathy are characterized by lowered commitment in romantic relationships (Jonason & Buss, 2012), higher rates of infidelity (Brewer, Hunt, James, & Abell, 2015; Jones & Weiser, 2014), and a game playing style of love (Jonason & Kavanagh, 2010), though these are not direct measures of bonding and findings here have not always been replicated (e.g., Ali & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2010).¹ Studies with male adolescents in institutional settings have found psychopathy was negatively associated with feelings of closeness with parents, but not with peers (Kosson, Cyterski, Steuerwald, Neumann, & Walker-Matthews, 2002), while callous/unemotional traits in clinical settings (analogous to the affective features of psychopathy) have been positively associated with the subjective perception of conflict in peer relationships (Muñoz, Kerr, & Besic, 2008), which could indicate some difficulty in interpersonal relations and the affective component of psychopathy.

Attachment: Presence versus quality of a bond

One type of bond, which may be important to consider with psychopathy, is that of attachment (Bowlby, 1982). Attachments refer to close emotional bonds to others formed across the life span, whether positive, negative, or mixed, who are called on for support and security in times of need (Ainsworth, 1979; Bowlby, 1982). Attachment bonds are usually first formed early in life between an infant and their parents, and individuals tend to form further attachment relationships with peers and romantic partners as they move into late adolescence and early adulthood (Ainsworth, 1989; Hazan & Zeifman, 1994). However, bonds with a range of other figures throughout the life span are not uncommon (e.g., Doherty & Feeney, 2004; Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997) and relate to the age and sex of the individual (Doherty & Feeney, 2004). It has been argued that attachment bonds serve an evolutionary function, stimulating proximity seeking during times of need to those whom an individual is attached. This proximity is thought to lead to care and protection from threats in childhood (leading to survival to reproductive age) and increased parental investment in offspring of pair bonded couples in adulthood and potentially alliances among conspecifics (Bowlby, 1982; Zeifman & Hazan, 2008).

When thinking about attachment, it is important to distinguish between the presence of an attachment (i.e., the having of a bond) and the quality of an attachment (i.e., what that bond is like; Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1982). The quality of an attachment refers to the attachment style the individual has developed in a relationship (or across relationships), which is based on their beliefs and expectations that have developed regarding relationships through their support seeking experiences (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Individual differences in attachment quality in adulthood are typically operationalized along two continuous dimensions: attachment avoidance (i.e., dismissiveness or avoidance of attachment-related needs) and attachment anxiety (i.e., worry and preoccupation regarding abandonment and separation; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998).

In contrast, the presence of an attachment refers to the actual existence of a bond, which is necessary in order for it to vary in quality. By way of analogy, one would not conflate the quality of their motor vehicle with possessing or owning a motor vehicle. A poor quality vehicle could still be used for the purposes of transport, but would not be considered that same as entirely lacking a vehicle. Attachment bonds (i.e., the having of a bond) are typically indicated by the presence of four behaviors directed toward the person to whom the individual is attached: proximity seeking (i.e., physical and/or emotional closeness), separation distress (i.e., distress when a figure is unavailable), safe haven (i.e., seeking the figure for support and comfort when threatened or distressed), and secure base (i.e., using the figure as a trusted base from which to explore; Bowlby, 1982; Hazan & Zeifman, 1994).² These behaviors indicate that the attachment figure serves as a source of comfort and security and have been observed in children and adults and been validated as indicators of attachment through self-report and cognitive and psychophysiological studies (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1982; Diamond, Hicks, & Otter-Henderson, 2008; Doherty & Feeney, 2004; Fraley & Shaver, 1998; Mikulincer, Birnbaum, Woddis, & Nachmias, 2000; Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997).

The distinction, between the presence and quality of an attachment, represents an important discrimination for research on psychopathy and attachment for two reasons. First, psychopathy has been ascribed to a deficit in the capacity to have bonds to others. This attribution has yet to have been empirically validated, despite being widely accepted (Cleckley, 1941; Cooke et al., 2012; Hare, 2003; Patrick et al., 2009). Second, there are a number of studies, predominately conducted with university and community samples, which have suggested that psychopathy is positively associated with insecure attachment styles (i.e., poorer quality attachments) across a variety of relational contexts, with particularly strong associations for psychopathy with peer relationships compared to familial relationships (e.g., romantic partners and friends compared to mothers and fathers; Christian, Sellbom, & Wilkinson, 2016, 2017; Conradi, Boertien, Cavus, & Verschuere, 2015; Craig, Gray, & Snowden, 2013; Mack, Hackney, & Pyle, 2011; Miller et al., 2010; Pasalich, Dadds, Hawes, & Brennan, 2012; Savard, Brassard, Lussier, & Sabourin, 2015). However, paradoxically, this research is based on the assumption that individuals higher in psychopathy have attachments on which to vary in quality, without having established whether the capacity to form attachments varies as a function of psychopathy.

Current study

Given the aforementioned gaps in the literature, the purpose of the current study was to empirically investigate the association between psychopathy and the presence of attachment bonds. To this end, we collected self-report data from a large sample composed of university students and members of the general community to test three main hypotheses. First, given that psychopathy is attributed deficits in bonding and is associated with behaviors, which are unlikely to promote having emotional bonds to others (e.g., infidelity; Brewer et al., 2015; Jones & Weiser, 2014), we hypothesized that individuals higher on psychopathy would be likely to report fewer figures in their lives to whom they consider themselves to have a close emotional bond (i.e., psychopathy would be negatively associated with intimate social network size). Second, we hypothesized that psychopathy would generally be associated with deficits in the presence of attachment bonds, as indicated by a negative association between psychopathy and behaviors indicating the presence of attachment bonds, consistent with the attribution of a generalized deficit in bonding capacity ascribed to psychopathy (Cleckley, 1941; Cooke et al., 2012; Hare, 2003; Patrick et al., 2009). Furthermore, we expected that this deficit would be most pronounced for the affective component of psychopathy, again, consistent with how psychopathy is currently conceptualized (Cooke et al., 2012; Hare, 2003; Patrick et al., 2009). Third, as previous research has found that psychopathy displays differential associations with attachment quality depending on the relationship investigated (Christian et al., 2016; Flight & Forth, 2007; Kosson et al., 2002), we hypothesized that psychopathy would display differential associations with degree of attachment behavior displayed and number of figures nominated. In particular, we expected greater deficits to be found regarding psychopathy and the peer domain compared to the familial domain, consistent with research regarding individual differences in attachment style and psychopathy (Christian et al., 2016).

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited from two Australian samples, which were then combined to form a larger sample. The first sample contained 217 participants from university students recruited via flyers placed around campus using entry into a small lottery as remuneration (i.e., $50 AUDgift vouchers). Of this initial sample, 18 participants were removed as they were identified as noncooperative.³ This exclusion left 199 participants (76.50% female) with a mean age of 23.07 years (SD = 8.79, range = 18–70), most of whom identified as White (71.50%, 17.50% Asian, 11.00% Other). The second sample contained 498 participants from an Australian general community sample recruited via the Qualtrics paneling service who were compensated with small monetary payments. Of this sample, 132 participants were removed as they were identified as noncooperative and seven participants were excluded as they were less than 18 years of age. Rates of participant removal are consistent with typical rates for online paneled sampling (Downs, Holbrook, Sheng, & Cranor, 2010; Shapiro, Chandler, & Mueller, 2013). This procedure left a sample of 359 participants (46.00% female) with a mean age of 39.20 years (SD = 11.28, range = 18–60) who predominately identified as White (85.00%, 8.90% Asian, 6.20% Other). The final combined sample was 558 participants (56.89% female) with a mean age of 33.43 years (SD = 13.00, range = 18–70), most of whom identified as White (80.14%, 12.00% Asian, 7.87% Other). It should be noted that these samples were previously used by Christian and Sellbom (2016) and Christian et al. (2016), but the research questions and statistical analyses presented here are novel and have not been published elsewhere. All collection of data was approved by the Australian National University Human Research Ethics Committee prior to commencement.

Measures

Intimate social network and measurement of attachment behavior

In order to measure participants’ intimate social networks, they were requested to nominate (via self-report) the people in their life to whom they have close emotional attachments with the following statement:

Throughout our lives we form a number of close emotional attachments to others. These attachments can be positive, negative or mixed. These are people we seek or wish to seek emotional support from, we miss during prolonged separations and hope to count on in times of need. Please nominate individuals in your life that you have a close emotional attachment to.

This method is similar to that used in previous studies, which typically requests participants to list people in their lives to whom they “feel a strong emotional tie, regardless of whether that tie is positive, negative or mixed” (Doherty & Feeney, 2004, p. 475; similar phrasing seen in Fraley & Davis, 1997; Hazan & Zeifman, 1994; Rowe & Carnelley, 2005; Tancredy & Fraley, 2006; Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997). However, we also included reference to attachment behaviors in the description to more clearly elicit participants’ nomination of attachment relationships rather than other types of close emotional bonds. Participants were able to nominate up to 20 relationships and were requested to provide details of the relationship including the nature of the relationship (e.g., romantic partner), length of relationship, and sex of the nominated individual.

Once participants had nominated all of their “close emotional attachments,” they were asked about their attachment behavior in each of these relationships. Participants were asked the same eight items for each relationship nominated, which included two items to measure proximity seeking (e.g., “It is important that I see or talk to [figure name] regularly”), separation distress (e.g., “I miss [figure name] if I know I won’t be able to contact them for a while”), safe haven (e.g., “I would contact [figure name] first in an emergency”), and secure base (e.g., “[figure name] will always be there for me”) with each item scored on a continuous 7-point Likert-type scale (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Slightly disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, Slightly agree, Agree, and Strongly agree). Items were predominately based on the scale used by Tancredy and Fraley (2006), in that it provides a measure of the degree to which attachment behaviors are present in a particular relationship. However, to reduce the burden on participants, the current measure is half the size of Tancredy and Fraley’s (2006) scale.

Expanded-Levenson Self-report Psychopathy Scales

An expanded 36-item version of the Levenson Self-report Psychopathy Scales (LSRP), the expanded-LSRP (E-LSRP), was used to measure psychopathy (Christian & Sellbom, 2016; Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). The scale is a short self-report measure with three subscales: Egocentricity (k = 11, α = .79), Callousness (k = 12, α = .73), and Antisocial (k = 13, α = .75; Total scale α = .90), which roughly correspond to Cooke and Michie’s (2001) three-factor model of psychopathy (i.e., interpersonal, affective, and behavioral domains, respectively). Items were scored on a 6-point forced choice Likert-type scale (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Somewhat disagree, Somewhat agree, Agree, and Strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater psychopathy. Compared to the original LSRP three-factor subscales proposed by Brinkley, Diamond, Magaletta, and Heigel (2008), the E-LSRP has displayed improvements in internal consistency and constructs validity while retaining acceptable levels of structural integrity (Christian & Sellbom, 2016).

Procedure

The survey was conducted online as part of a broader series of studies on attachment and psychopathy using the Qualtrics platform. Measures were presented in a single randomized order, but items within the measures were randomized across participants. The only exception to this procedure was that participants from the university sample were asked their age and sex at the end of the survey, whereas participants from the community sample were asked these questions at the start of the survey. All participants completed the E-LSRP first in this single randomized order, with the nomination of intimate social network and attachment behavior in this network measured at a later point in the survey. The overall survey took approximately 30 min to complete.

Results

Inspection of psychopathy variables and nominated intimate social networks

Prior to conducting our analyses, we first inspected our psychopathy scales and participant’s nominated intimate social networks. For the psychopathy scales, we inspected the distribution of scores for the total (M = 2.65, SD = .58, range = 1.11–4.25), Egocentricity (M = 2.60, SD =.81, range = 1.00–5.36), Callousness (M = 2.47, SD = .66, range = 1.00–4.58), and Antisocial (M = 2.87, SD = .69, range = 1.08–5.31) scales. Our inspection indicated that the means of this measure were generally toward the center of the scale and, though there was a degree of positive skew, there did not appear to be an unreasonable truncation in range for the psychopathy scales which were generally consistent with the means and distributions from previous research using the LSRP in both institutional and noninstitutional samples (e.g., Book, Quinsey, & Langford, 2007; Lynam, Whiteside, & Jones, 1999; Sellbom, 2011).

For the nominated intimate social networks, on average, participants nominated 5.08 figures (SD = 2.87, range = 1–15),⁴ with more female figures typically being nominated (M = 2.93, SD = 1.93), t(557) = 8.64, p < .01, r = .21, than males (M = 2.14, SD = 1.65), and females typically nominating more figures (M = 5.51, SD = 2.85), t(556) = 4.13, p < .01, r = .17, than males (M = 4.51, SD = 2.80), consistent with the previous attachment network research (Doherty & Feeney, 2004; Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997). For our major relationship categories of interest in this study, the majority of participants nominated at least one relationship which could be identified as a family member (82.40%) and at least one peer relationship (91.80%), with a smaller number nominating relationships outside of these domains (5.40%; e.g., deities, healthcare workers, pets, deceased individuals). In the family domain, the most common types of relationships nominated were mothers (61.60%), siblings (46.20%),⁵ or fathers (44.40%), with a smaller number nominating other types of family relationships (see Table 1). In the peer domain, the most nominated relationships were friendships (70.30%) and romantic partners (60.60%),⁶ with a small number of other types of peer relationships (see Table 1). A small number of participants nominated a same sex partner (4.14%, n = 14) or multiple partners (.01%, n = 3), who we retained in our analyses as the results were the same regardless of whether they were included or excluded. The types and frequencies of nominated relationships are broadly consistent with previous research (Doherty & Feeney, 2004; Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997) and suggest that our procedure for having participants nominate relationships has therefore preformed in a similar way to previous measures in this area.

Table 1.

Size and composition of participants nominated intimate social networks.

Figure	Number of participants nominated	%	Mean (SD)	Min–Max
Total	558	100.00	5.08 (2.87)	1–15
Family	460	82.40	2.46 (1.95)	0–8
Parent	362	64.90	1.06 (.87)	0–2
Mother	344	61.60	0.62 (.49)	1–1
Father	248	44.40	0.44 (.50)	1–1
Sibling	258	46.20	0.69 (.91)	0–5
Child	103	18.50	0.34 (.80)	0–4
Extended	84	15.10	0.24 (.65)	0–5
Other family	48	8.60	0.13 (.50)	0–5
Peer	512	91.80	2.55 (2.02)	0–14
Partner	338	60.60	0.61 (.49)	0–3
Ex-Partner	30	5.40	0.07 (.31)	0–3
Friend	392	70.30	1.85 (1.98)	0–10
Other Peer	5	0.90	0.01 (.15)	0–3
Other	30	5.40	0.06 (.29)	0–3

Psychopathy and number of relationships nominated

Next, we conducted analyses to determine whether psychopathy is associated with reductions in the number of relationships nominated. For this analysis, we summed the total number of figures nominated by each participant overall and in the family and peer domains before regressing these counts on the psychopathy variables with age and sex (dummy-coded) as covariates. For the family and peer domains, we opted to use Poisson regression, due to the count nature of the data. For the total number of nominated relationships, we chose to use ordinary least squares regression as this aggregate variable was more closely aligned with the normal distribution.

The results of these analyses are presented in Table 2. For the total number of figures nominated and number of figures nominated in the family domain, we found no significant relationship between any of the psychopathy variables and the number of figures nominated. However, in the peer domain, total psychopathy scores displayed a small but significant negative association with number of nominated of peer relationships. An examination of the specific psychopathy scales revealed that the aforementioned significant association appeared to have been driven by the Antisocial scale, which displayed a small significant negative association with number of peers nominated. Neither the Egocentricity nor the Callousness scale displayed a significant association with the number of peers nominated.

Table 2.

Association between psychopathy variables and number of figures nominated across relational contexts with age and sex as covariates.

Relational context	Psychopathy variable
	Total		Egocentricity		Callous		Antisocial
	B (SE)	Exp(b)	B (SE)	Exp(b)	B (SE)	Exp(b)	B (SE)	Exp(b)
Total^a	−.06 (.21)	N/A	−.03 (.15)	N/A	−.06 (.19)	N/A	−.07 (.18)	N/A
Age	−.11* (.01)	N/A	−.11* (.01)	N/A	−.10* (.01)	N/A	−.11* (.01)	N/A
Sex	−.13** (.26)	N/A	−.14** (.25)	N/A	−.13** (.26)	N/A	−.13** (.25)	N/A
Family	−.01 (.05)	0.99	.01 (.04)	1.01	−.03 (.04)	0.97	−.01 (.04)	0.99
Age	.00 (.00)	1.00	.00 (.00)	1.00	.00 (.00)	1.00	.00 (.00)	1.00
Sex	.22** (.06)	1.24	.22** (.06)	1.25	.21** (.06)	1.24	.22** (.06)	1.24
Peers	−.10* (.05)	0.90	−.04 (.03)	0.96	−.06 (.04)	0.94	−.09* (.04)	0.91
Age	−.01** (.00)	0.99	−.01** (.00)	0.99	−.01** (.00)	0.99	−.01** (.00)	0.99
Sex	.09 (.06)	1.09	.10 (.06)	1.11	.09 (.06)	1.10	.09 (.06)	1.09

^aAnalyses for the total number of nominated figures were conducted using ordinary least squares regression as the distribution of the responses approximated the normal distribution.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Validation of the attachment scale

Due to the novel nature of the attachment scale, the psychometric properties of the scale were examined prior to our analysis of psychopathy and attachment behavior. We conducted exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) in order to determine the latent factor structure of the scale as well as to calculate internal consistency estimates. Separate EFAs for total attachment behaviors, family attachment behaviors, and peer attachment behaviors were conducted to ensure the performance of the scale in each relational domain. The items for these scales were calculated by using participant’s averaged item score for each item across the relational domain (e.g., Participant A’s score for Item 1 in the family domain would be calculated by averaging their scores for Item 1 across each of their nominated family relationships). Based on the previous research, we expected that the scale would most likely adhere to a one-factor structure (Tancredy & Fraley, 2006), which would indicate the degree of attachment behavior displayed in that relationship. Cronbach’s α and average inter-item correlations were calculated to evaluate the internal consistency of the scale in each domain.

Following initial EFAs, an inspection of the item loadings suggested that one item (“I feel sad when…has to go somewhere without me”) tended to load poorly for relationships in the family domain (i.e., λ < .40) and removal of a second item (“I would contact…first in an emergency”) tended to improve the internal consistency of the scale. We re-specified these EFA models with these two items removed. Factor loadings, descriptive statistics, and internal consistency for the items and scale, respectively, are shown in Table 3. A review of the descriptive statistics for each of the scales and visual inspection suggested some negative skew to the attachment scales, which is consistent with previous research using this style of attachment scale (Tancredy & Fraley, 2006). Inspection of the eigenvalues (see Table 3 notes) suggested that a single latent factor underlay the measure regardless of domain of relationships. Factor loadings were strong for all items, across of relational domains, and indicators of internal consistency were all within acceptable ranges (Cronbach’s α = .86–.92; inter-item correlations = .52 –.66). Overall, the scale appears to reflect an internally consistent one-factor structure that measures the degree to which a relationship or domain of relationships represents an attachment relationship.

Table 3.

Exploratory factor analyses of attachment scales: Item loadings and scale properties.

	Relationship domains
Item	Total	Family	Peers
1.…will always be there for me	.79	.93	.80
2. I know I can always count on…	.80	.91	.80
3. I go to…for emotional support	.70	.68	.80
4. It is important that I see or talk to…regularly	.87	.78	.84
5. It is important to me to stay in contact with…	.86	.81	.83
6. I miss…if I know I won’t be able to contact them for a while	.73	.69	.74
Mean	5.54	5.53	5.58
SD	.86	1.05	.96
Min	2.08	1.67	1.83
Max	7.00	7.00	7.00
Cronbach’s α	.91	.92	.91
Inter-item	.63	.66	.64

Note: All items significantly loaded at <.001. Eigenvalues for total (4.150, .797, .472, .294, .174), family (4.294, .619, .492, .292, .204), and peers (4.210, .748, .364, .312, .230) supported a one-factor structure.

Psychopathy and attachment

The results of our regression analyses examining the associations between psychopathy variables and the attachment scales for total attachment, family attachment, and peer attachment, controlling for age and sex, are displayed in Table 4. The results indicated that total psychopathy scores were not significantly associated with overall attachment behavior or attachment in the peer domain; however, there was a small negative association between total psychopathy scores and attachment in the family. An examination of the psychopathy subscales revealed that the Egocentricity subscale displayed no significant association with attachment scores in any relational domain. In contrast, the Callousness subscale displayed small significant negative associations with all relational domains. Finally, similar to the total psychopathy scores, the Antisocial subscale was not significantly associated with overall attachment behavior or attachment in the peer domain; however, it did yield a small negative association attachment in the family domain.

Table 4.

Regression of attachment scales on psychopathy variables controlling for age and sex.

	Relational context
Model	Total	Family	Peer
Total	−.07	−.12*	−.03
Age	−.01	−.15**	.06
Sex	−.25	−.14**	−.29**
R ²	.08	.08	.08
Ego	−.03	−.07	.01
Age	−.01	−.15**	.06
Sex	−.26**	−.16**	−.30**
R ²	.07	.07	.08
Cal	−.10*	−.10*	−.10*
Age	−.01	−.15**	.06
Sex	−.24**	−.15**	−.27**
R ²	.08	.07	.09
Anti	−.04	−.12*	.02
Age	−.01	−.15**	.06
Sex	−.26**	−.15**	−.30**
R ²	.07	.08	.08

Note. All regressions were conducted using ordinary least squares. Ego: Egocentricity; Cal: Callousness; Anti: Antisocial.

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to investigate the association between psychopathy and attachment bonding. Based on the current conceptualizations of psychopathy as a construct partly defined by difficulties in bonding capacity, we expected that more psychopathic individuals would be likely to nominate fewer emotionally significant relationships as part of their intimate social network (Hypothesis 1), and it was expected that those higher on psychopathy, particularly the affective component, would report less attachment behaviors toward others (Hypothesis 2). We also expected that more psychopathic individuals would display differential associations in their attachment behaviors toward peer relationships compared to family relationships (Hypothesis 3). Our results showed some consistency with each of our hypotheses, but the effect size magnitudes were far weaker than expected.

Our results regarding the association between psychopathy and the number of emotionally significant relationships nominated (Hypothesis 1) were not entirely consistent with our predictions. Overall, those high on psychopathy reported a similar number of emotionally significant relationships as those low on psychopathy. However, we did find minor reductions in the number of relationships in the peer domain for those higher on the Total and Antisocial subscale, but not for the Callousness or Egocentricity subscales. Specific deficits in the number of close peer relationships reported by individuals higher on the Antisocial subscale could reflect the difficulties inherit with maintaining relationships with individuals higher on this aspect of psychopathy, which often includes reference to parasitic behaviors and irresponsibility (e.g., see Hare, 2003) and are likely to strain to continuance of relationships. It is interesting that this finding is restricted to the peer domain, which may reflect that individuals have more choice in the selection of peers (i.e., where relationships can be left more easily), whereas individuals generally have less choice regarding the selection of family members. Overall, the current findings suggest that psychopathy is associated with minor reductions in the number of nominated emotionally significant relationships, which tend to be isolated to reductions in nominated peer relationships and depend on the psychopathy factor considered. However, our findings were not consistent with the idea that psychopathy is associated with major or generalized reductions in the number of emotionally significant relationships nominated.

Our results regarding the associations between psychopathy and the presence of attachment behavior (Hypothesis 2) can be considered to be partially consistent with our predictions. The two key consistent findings were that most of the psychopathy scales displayed a small negative association with the familial domain, whereas the Callousness scales also displayed small, but significant, negative associations with attachment across all relational domains. The first of these findings is interesting as it would suggest that more psychopathic individuals tend to rely less on familial relationships for their attachment needs compared to less psychopathic individuals. Though it is not entirely clear as to why psychopathic individuals would show this differentiation in attachment behavior with familial relationships compared to peers, psychopathic individuals do tend to disproportionally experience stressors in their family environment which may make them reluctant to seek their family members for support (e.g., early separations, a lack of parental warmth, a lack of parental supervision; Farrington, 2006; Gao, Raine, Chan, Venables, & Mednick, 2010; Marshall & Cooke, 1999). The second of our findings regarding psychopathy and the presence of attachment behavior were the small negative associations between the presence of attachment behavior and the Callousness scale, which is consistent with conceptualizations of this aspect of psychopathy (Cooke et al., 2012; Hare, 2003; Patrick et al., 2009).

However, our overall findings regarding psychopathy and the presence of attachment behavior indicate only minor reductions in attachment behavior as psychopathy scores increase (depending on the psychopathy factor considered). Although these findings are consistent with the conceptualization of psychopathy (Cleckley, 1941; Cooke et al., 2012; Hare, 2003; Patrick et al., 2009), particularly the affective component of psychopathy, they appear to fall short of the magnitude expected given the centrality to which bonding deficits are attributed to psychopathy. In light of the previous literature regarding psychopathy and the quality of attachment bonds, our results here suggest that psychopathy tends to be associated with minor deficits in the presence of attachment bonds relative to the deficits in quality of attachment which have been found in previous research (Christian et al., 2016, 2017; Conradi et al., 2015; Craig et al., 2013; Mack et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2010; Pasalich et al., 2012; Savard et al., 2015). These findings indicate that the deficits in attachment observed in psychopathy may generally be better characterized or considered from the perspective of deficits in quality than lacking the presence of attachment bonds. Moreover, these findings suggest a need for researchers to provide a more sophisticated description of bonding deficits in psychopathy, as clearly the description of merely lacking a bonding capacity in light of the current and other research is insufficient (Christian et al., 2016, 2017; Conradi et al., 2015; Craig et al., 2013; Mack et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2010; Pasalich et al., 2012; Savard et al., 2015).

With regard to our third hypothesis, we found that psychopathy’s association with attachment was consistently differentially associated with familial compared to peer relationships. Differential associations between psychopathy and attachment across peer and family relationships, typically peer and parental, have been observed in several studies now (Christian et al., 2016; Flight & Forth, 2007; Kosson et al., 2002) and therefore may be an important area of distinction in the association between psychopathy and attachment. These findings underscore the need to consider the association between familial and peer relationships separately in future research looking at the associations between attachment and psychopathy.

While our findings do appear to contribute to the current state of knowledge regarding psychopathy and bonding, there are several limitations to caveat our findings. First, our study was conducted with an adult noninstitutionalized sample, and, therefore, the results may not generalize to samples where psychopathy may manifest in a more extreme manner. In other words, a restriction in the range of psychopathy and attachment scores was likely present in this study, which may relate to the small effect sizes observed and suggests a need to use forensic or correctional samples in future studies. Second, our study only focused on bonding from an attachment perspective. While there is evidence to suggest that psychopathy is associated with poorer quality in attachment bonds (Christian et al., 2016, 2017; Conradi et al., 2015; Craig et al., 2013; Mack et al., 2011; Miller et al., 2010; Pasalich et al., 2012; Savard et al., 2015), there are numerous conceptualizations of relationships which may be more relevant to psychopathy and the presence of a bond (see Sternberg & Weis, 2006). Third, our study only used one conceptualization of psychopathy, meaning that there were several psychopathy factors which have yet to be examined in their relationship to attachment behavior. A particularly interesting factor for future research may be the boldness/fearless dominance factor (e.g., stress tolerance, fearlessness, and social agency; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005; Patricket al., 2009), as individuals higher on this factor may be less likely to seek attachment figures during times of need as they feel dispositional less threatened. It is unclear what effect a reduction in support seeking due to resilience would have on attachment models, although this represents an interesting avenue for future research. Fourth, our study is correlational, therefore making it impossible to infer directionality of the associations reported. Although our study is framed more in terms of bonding capacity being a result of or feature of psychopathy, the possibility that environments unconducive to attachments produce psychopathic traits has some research support (Farrington, 2006; Gao et al., 2010; Marshall & Cooke, 1999), suggesting that the direction of association may need further consideration. Fifth, our results are based entirely on self-report. While self-report scales in these fields have tended to broadly reflect interview and observed behavior (Fraley & Shaver, 1998; Miller, Jones, & Lynam, 2011; Poythress et al., 2010; Shaver, Belsky, & Brennan, 2000), there could be some inflation in the correlations due to shared method variance. Sixth and finally, our measure of attachment is relatively novel and requires further validation. However, given that the scale was constructed based on items from previous measures, and the pattern of relationships nominated appears to roughly equate to previous studies (Doherty & Feeney, 2004; Tancredy & Fraley, 2006; Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997), the scale is likely to be sufficiently valid for these purposes, though further research is required.

Overall, our results are partially consistent with conceptualizations of psychopathy as a construct with deficits in bonding behaviors, particularly for the affective component of psychopathy. However, these results are far weaker than we expected, given the importance to which bonding deficits are ascribed to psychopathy. While this finding could be due to use of a noninstitutionalized sample or operationalization of bonding in this study (i.e., attachment and intimate social network properties), our preliminary results indicate that greater consideration should be given to the quality of bonds of those higher on psychopathy, more so than simply on the capacity to bond. Our results also highlight the need for researchers to be more sophisticated when describing the relationship between attachment and psychopathy, as the association between psychopathy and attachment clearly differs depending on whether one is considering the presence of an attachment bond or the quality of an attachment bond. Further research in forensic samples and with alternative conceptualizations of bonding and psychopathy is necessary to replicate and extend these findings.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Ainsworth

M. D. S

. (1979). Infant–mother attachment. American Psychologist, 34, 932–937. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.932

Ainsworth

M. D. S.

(1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709–716. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.4.709

Ainsworth

M. D. S.

Blehar

M. C.

Waters

Wall

(1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ali

Chamorro-Premuzic

(2010). The dark side of love and life satisfaction: Associations with intimate relationships, psychopathy and Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 228–233. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.10.016

Blair

R. J. R.

(2006). The emergence of psychopathy: Implications for the neuropsychological approach to developmental disorders. Cognition, 101, 414–442. doi:0.1016/j.cognition.2006.04.005

Blais

Solodukhin

Forth

A. E.

(2014). A meta-analysis exploring the relationship between psychopathy and instrumental versus reactive violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 797–821. doi:10.1177/0093854813519629

Blanchard

Lyons

(2016). Sex differences between primary and secondary psychopathy, parental bonding, and attachment style. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 10, 56–63. doi:10.1037/ebs0000065

Blanchard

Lyons

Centifanti

(2016). Baby was a black sheep: Digit ratio (2D:4D), maternal bonding and primary and secondary psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 67–71. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.077

Boddy

C. R.

(2014). Corporate psychopaths, conflict, employee affective well-being and counterproductive work behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 121, 107–121. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1688-0

10.

Book

A. S.

Quinsey

V. L.

Langford

(2007). Psychopathy and the perception of affect and vulnerability. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 531–544. doi:10.1177/0093854806293554

11.

Bowlby

(1982). Attachment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.

12.

Brennan

K. A.

Clark

C. L.

Shaver

P. R.

(1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In Simpson

J. A.

Rholes

W. S.

(Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

13.

Brewer

Hunt

James

Abell

(2015). Dark triad traits, infidelity and romantic revenge. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 122–127. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.007

14.

Brinkley

C. A.

Diamond

P. M.

Magaletta

P. R.

Heigel

C. P.

(2008). Cross-validation of Levenson’s psychopathy scale in a sample of federal female inmates. Assessment, 15, 464–482. doi:10.1177/1073191108319043

15.

Christian

Sellbom

(2016). Development and validation of an expanded version of the three-factor Levenson Self Report Psychopathy Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 155–168. doi:10.1080/00223891.2015.1068176

16.

Christian

Sellbom

Wilkinson

R. B

. (2016). Evaluating the association between psychopathy and specific attachment models in adults. Journal of Personality Disorders, accepted.

17.

Christian

Sellbom

Wilkinson

R. B

. (2017). Clarifying the associations between individual differences in general attachment styles and psychopathy. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 8, 329–339. doi:10.1037/per0000206

18.

Cleckley

(1941). The mask of sanity (1st ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

19.

Conradi

H. J.

Boertien

S. D.

Cavus

Verschuere

(2015). Examining psychopathy from an attachment perspective: The role of fear of rejection and abandonment. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 27, 92–109. doi:10.1080/14789949.2015.1077264

20.

Cooke

D. J.

Hart

S. D.

Logan

Michie

(2012). Explicating the construct of psychopathy: Development and validation of a conceptual model, the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP). International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11, 242–252. doi:10.1080/14999013.2012.746759

21.

Cooke

D. J.

Michie

(2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy: Towards a hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13, 171–188. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.171

22.

Craig

R. L.

Gray

N. S.

Snowden

R. J.

(2013). Recalled parental bonding, current attachment, and the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 345–350. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.012

23.

Dadds

M. R.

Jambrak

Pasalich

Hawes

D. J.

Brennan

(2011). Impaired attention to the eyes of attachment figures and the developmental origins of psychopathy. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 238–245. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02323.x

24.

Diamond

L. M.

Hicks

A. M.

Otter-Henderson

K. D.

(2008). Every time you go away: Changes in affect, behavior, and physiology associated with travel-related separations from romantic partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 385–403. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.385

25.

Doherty

N. A.

Feeney

J. A.

(2004). The composition of attachment networks throughout the adult years. Personal Relationships, 11, 469–488. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00093

26.

Downs

J. S.

Holbrook

M. B.

Sheng

Cranor

L. F.

(2010). Are your participants gaming the system? Screening mechanical turk workers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, USA (pp. 2399–2402). Retrieved from http://dmrussell.net/CHI2010/docs/p2399.pdf

27.

Farrington

D. P.

(2006). Family background and psychopathy. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 229–250). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

28.

Flight

J. I.

Forth

A. E.

, (2007). Instrumentally violent youth: The roles of psychopathic traits, empathy, and attachment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 739–751. doi:10.1177/0093854807299462

29.

Fraley

R. C.

Davis

K. E.

(1997). Attachment formation and transfer in young adults’ close friendships and romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 4, 131–144. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1997.tb00135.x

30.

Fraley

R. C.

Shaver

P. R

. (1998). Airport separations: A naturalistic study of adult attachment dynamics in separating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1198–1212. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1198

31.

Gao

Raine

Chan

Venables

P. H.

Mednick

S. A.

(2010). Early maternal and paternal bonding, childhood physical abuse and adult psychopathic personality. Psychological Medicine, 40, 1007–1016. doi:10.1017/S0033291709991279

32.

Hare

R. D.

(1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54. doi:10.1177/0093854896023001004

33.

Hare

R. D.

(2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (2nd ed.). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.

34.

Hare

R. D.

Neumann

C. S.

(2006). The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 229–250). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

35.

Hawes

S. W.

Boccaccini

M. T.

Murrie

D. C.

(2013). Psychopathy and the combination of psychopathy and sexual deviance as predictors of sexual recidivism: Meta-analytic findings using the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised. Psychological Assessment, 25, 233–243. doi:10.1037/a0030391

36.

Hazan

Zeifman

(1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In Bartholomew

Perlman

(Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 5, pp. 151–178). London, England: Jessica Kingsley.

37.

Jonason

P. K.

Buss

D. M.

(2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 606–610. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.015

38.

Jonason

P. K.

Kavanagh

(2010). The dark side of love: Love styles and the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 606–610. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.030

39.

Jones

D. N.

Weiser

D. A.

(2014). Differential infidelity patterns among the dark triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 57, 20–24. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.09.007

40.

Kiehl

K. A.

Smith

A. M.

Hare

R. D.

Mendrek

Forster

B. B.

Brink

Liddle

P. F.

(2001). Limbic abnormalities in affective processing by criminal psychopaths as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Biological Psychiatry, 50, 677–684. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01222-7

41.

Kochanska

(1991). Socialization and temperament in the development of guilt and conscience. Child Development, 62, 1379–1392. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01612.x

42.

Kosson

D. S.

Cyterski

T. D.

Steuerwald

B. L.

Neumann

C. S.

Walker-Matthews

. (2002). The reliability and validity of the psychopathy checklist: Youth version (PCL: YV) in nonincarcerated adolescent males. Psychological Assessment, 14, 97–109. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.14.1.97

43.

Kreis

M. K.

Cooke

D. J.

(2011). Capturing the psychopathic female: A prototypicality analysis of the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP) across gender. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29, 634–648. doi:10.1002/bsl.1003

44.

Kreis

M. K.

Cooke

D. J.

Michie

Hoff

H. A.

Logan

(2012). The Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP): Content validation using prototypical analysis. Journal of Personality Disorders, 26, 402–413. doi:101521pedi2012263402

45.

Leistico

A. M. R.

Salekin

R. T.

DeCoster

Rogers

(2008). A large-scale meta-analysis relating the hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 28–45. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9096-6

46.

Levenson

M. R.

Kiehl

K. A.

Fitzpatrick

C. M.

(1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151–158. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.151

47.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Widows

(2005). Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised professional manual. Odessa, FL: PAR.

48.

Lykken

D. T.

(1995). The antisocial personalities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

49.

Lynam

D. R.

Whiteside

Jones

(1999). Self-reported psychopathy: A validation study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 110–132. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA730108

50.

Mack

T. D.

Hackney

A. A.

Pyle

(2011). The relationship between psychopathic traits and attachment behavior in a non-clinical population. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 584–588. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.019

51.

Marshall

L. A.

Cooke

D. J.

(1999). The childhood experiences of psychopaths: A retrospective study of familial and societal factors. Journal of Personality Disorders, 13, 211–225. doi:10.1521/pedi.1999.13.3.211

52.

Mikulincer

Birnbaum

Woddis

Nachmias

(2000). Stress and accessibility of proximity-related thoughts: Exploring the normative and intraindividual components of attachment theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 509–523. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.509

53.

Miller

J. D.

Dir

Gentile

Wilson

Pryor

L. R.

Campbell

W. K.

(2010). Searching for a vulnerable dark triad: Comparing factor 2 psychopathy, vulnerable narcissism, and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality, 78, 1529–1564. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00660.x

54.

Miller

J. D.

Jones

S. E.

Lynam

D. R.

(2011). Psychopathic traits from the perspective of self and informant reports: Is there evidence for a lack of insight? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120, 758–764. doi:10.1037/a0022477

55.

Moul

Killcross

Dadds

M. R.

(2012). A model of differential amygdala activation in psychopathy. Psychological Review, 119, 789–806. doi:10.1037/a0029342

56.

Muñoz

L. C.

Kerr

Besic

(2008). The peer relationships of youths with psychopathic personality traits a matter of perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 212–227. doi:10.1177/0093854807310159

57.

Neo

Sellbom

Smith

S. F.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(2016). Examining psychopathic personality traits in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–19. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3108-8

58.

Pasalich

D. S.

Dadds

M. R.

Hawes

D. J.

Brennan

(2012). Attachment and callous-unemotional traits in children with early-onset conduct problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 838–845. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02544.x

59.

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, 913–938. doi:10.1017/S0954579409000492

60.

Poythress

N. G.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Skeem

J. L.

Douglas

K. S.

Edens

J. F.

Epstein

Patrick

C. J.

(2010). Using the PCL-R to help estimate the validity of two self-report measures of psychopathy with offenders. Assessment, 17, 206–219. doi:10.1177/1073191109351715

61.

Rowe

A. C.

Carnelley

K. B.

(2005). Preliminary support for the use of a hierarchical mapping technique to examine attachment networks. Personal Relationships, 12, 499–519. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00128.x

62.

Savard

Brassard

Lussier

Sabourin

(2015). Subclinical psychopathic traits and romantic attachment in community couples: A dyadic approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 128–134. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.014

63.

Sellbom

(2011). Elaborating on the construct validity of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale in incarcerated and non-incarcerated samples. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 440–451. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9249-x

64.

Shapiro

D. N.

Chandler

Mueller

P. A.

(2013). Using mechanical turk to study clinical populations. Clinical Psychological Science, 1, 213–220. doi:10.1177/2167702612469015

65.

Shaver

P. R.

Belsky

Brennan

K. A.

(2000). The adult attachment interview and self-reports of romantic attachment: Associations across domains and methods. Personal Relationships, 7, 25–43. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00002.x

66.

Sternberg

R. J.

Weis (2006). The new psychology of love. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

67.

Tancredy

C. M.

Fraley

R. C.

(2006). The nature of adult twin relationships: An attachment-theoretical perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 78–93. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.78

68.

Trinke

S. J.

Bartholomew

(1997). Hierarchies of attachment relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 603–625. doi:10.1177/0265407597145002

69.

Viding

Blair

R. J. R.

Moffitt

T. E.

Plomin

(2005). Evidence for substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 592–597. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00393.x

70.

Zeifman

Hazan

(2008). Pair bonds as attachments: Reevaluating the evidence. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 436–455). New York, NY: Guilford Press.