Components of the Triarchic Model of Psychopathy and the Five-Factor Model Domains Share Largely Overlapping Nomological Networks

Abstract

The triarchic model of psychopathy is a recently developed model of psychopathy that identifies three primary domains: Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition. These traits overlap substantially with general and pathological five-factor model of personality (Boldness = low Neuroticism + high Extraversion; Meanness = low Agreeableness; Disinhibition = low Conscientiousness). In the current study (total N = 1,266), we compare domains from the triarchic model of psychopathy and five-factor model in relation to self- and informant-report of external criteria (e.g., pathological traits, antisocial behavior), and quantified their absolute similarity using a profile-matching approach. The corresponding traits from these models show large interrelations and very similar convergent and divergent relations, suggesting that unaltered traits from one can be considered excellent representations of the other. Results are discussed in terms of the benefits of using a unifying trait-based model to study psychopathy, as well as personality disorders more broadly.

Keywords

personality assessment triarchic model of psychopathy five-factor model personality disorder externalizing behavior

Psychopathy is a personality disorder associated with callousness, manipulativeness, superficial charm, egocentricity, impulsivity, risk-taking, and antisocial behavior (e.g., Hare, 1980). Since early theoretical work by Cleckley (1941), a range of models and measures have been developed to capture psychopathic personality traits (e.g., Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist; Hare, 1980). One of the most recent models is the triarchic model of psychopathy (see Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009), comprising the components of Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition, which can be measured with the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM; Patrick, 2010). The triarchic model of psychopathy was developed as framework that permits the integration of personality traits with behavior and neurobiological indices. As such, the TriPM was designed to capture traits that are important to understanding distinct neurobehavioral tendencies, and the components of the triarchic model of psychopathy have been differentially linked to various forms of event-related potential reactivity, as well as startle potential and facial processing (Brislin et al., 2014; Brislin et al., 2018; Brislin, Yancey, Venables, & Patrick, 2015; Vaidyanathan, Patrick, & Bernat, 2009).

Overlap Between the Triarchic Model and Other Conceptualizations of Psychopathy

Other models of psychopathy have their roots in structural models of personality derived from basic personality research. Consistent with robust evidence that the five-factor model (FFM) of personality can adequately capture psychopathy as a configuration of general traits (e.g., Lynam & Miller, 2015; Miller & Lynam, 2003; Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leukefeld, 2001), trait-based assessments of psychopathy have been created (e.g., Elemental Psychopathy Assessment; Lynam et al., 2011). For example, the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment contains Antagonism and Disinhibition factors, which can be conceived as maladaptive variants of FFM traits Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Using a basic personality framework has substantial benefits, which include parsimony (i.e., the ability to speak about a wide range of personality disorders and related constructs in a common language) and a linkage to a wide, robust, and multifaceted body of research (e.g., Vachon et al., 2013).

Numerous studies suggest a strong correspondence between the TriPM components and FFM traits. Across five recent studies (total N = 2,023; Crego & Widiger, 2014; Donnellan & Burt, 2016; Miller, Lamkin, Maples-Keller, & Lynam, 2016; Poy, Segarra, Esteller, López, & Moltó, 2014; Shou, Sellbom, & Han, 2016), Boldness was strongly linked to Neuroticism (range: −.43 to −.73) and Extraversion (range: .36 to .70), Meanness was strongly linked to Agreeableness (range: −.45 to −.82) and moderately related to Conscientiousness (range: −.28 to −.41) and Disinhibition was strongly related to Conscientiousness (range: −.39 to −.64) and Agreeableness (range: −.33 to −.51).

In the past several years, the creators of the TriPM have initiated a scale construction process that allows researchers to measure the components of the TriPM from other prominent personality or psychopathy scales (e.g., HEXACO; Ruchensky, Donnellan, & Edens, 2018; Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire; Brislin, Drislane, Smith, Edens, & Patrick, 2015; Psychopathic Personality Inventory; Hall et al., 2014; Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory; Drislane et al., 2015). By basing the new scales on narrative descriptions of the triarchic model of psychopathy components, these new scales represent alternative approaches to measure the TriPM dimensions. In this way, research using these other assessments can be used to inform a TriPM-based study of psychopathy. Generally, these alternative assessments show good convergent validity with their full scale counterparts, with correlations ranging from .57 to .80 for Boldness, .49 to .73 for Meanness, and .62 to .71 for Disinhibition (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Relations Between TriPM Components and FFM Trait Counterparts.

	1	2	3	4	5
1. TriPM Boldness	—
2. TriPM Meanness	.08 (.06 to .12)	—
3. TriPM Disinhibition	−.17 (−.26 to −.04)	.62 (.52 to .75)	—
4. FFM N/E composite	.78 (.70 to .81)	−.17 (−.25 to −.08)	−.36 (−.45 to −.26)	—
5. FFM Antagonism	.11 (.06 to .12)	.76 (.64 to .82)	.45 (.40 to .49)	−.16 (−.18 to −.11)	—
6. FFM Disinhibition	−.32 (−.42 to −.10)	.43 (.36 to .54)	.65 (.62 to .69)	−.51 (−.59 to −.34)	.44 (.28 to .64)
7. Alternative measures of Boldness	.57 to .80	.21 to .39	−.05 to .22
8. Alternative measures of Meanness	.14 to .25	.49 to .73	.19 to .40
9. Alternative measures of Disinhibition	−.13 to .05	.29 to .38	.62 to .71

Note. TriPM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure; FFM = five-factor model. Values in rows 7, 8, and 9 are the range of correlations from studies that derived alternative versions of the TriPM domains from extant measures: the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (Hall et al., 2014), Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (Brislin, Drislane, et al., 2015), Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (Drislane et al., 2015), NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (Drislane, Brislin, Jones, & Patrick, 2018); N/E composite is the composite of reverse-coded FFM Neuroticism and FFM Extraversion. All effect sizes are presented as Pearson’s r. The hypothesized TriPM-FFM relations are bolded. Values below the diagonal represent a weighted mean for the relations within the three current samples. Values below the diagonal and within parentheses represent the range of values included in the weighted mean analysis.

In a recent effort to interface the FFM and the TriPM in this manner, Drislane et al. (2018) used a construct rating and scale refinement approach, wherein trained graduate students in clinical psychology rated each item of the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) for degree of fit with each of the TriPM domains. After selecting items based on high interrater convergence, the authors culled the remaining items based on poor convergent validity or redundancy (see Drislane et al., 2018, for complete scale construction information). This resulted in the creation of “NEO-Tri” scales for Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition, which were 23, 21, and 25 items long, respectively. The NEO-Tri scales demonstrated good psychometric properties, including large correlations (.71 to .79) with their TriPM counterparts, convergent and discriminant validity with external criteria, and the expected three-factor model showed good fit in a confirmatory factor analysis. The authors conclude that the NEO-Tri scales can be used to assess the TriPM constructs, which allow the items from a language-based FFM measure to be transformed to comport with the putatively more neurobehavioral measures from the TriPM.

Although there is much value in linking ostensibly disparate measures of psychopathy, the transformation of items from NEO PI-R into the NEO-Tri comes with costs. The authors noted that “the current work shows that effectively quantifying the triarchic dimensions requires considerable reconfiguration of the standard FFM domains” (Drislane et al., 2018, p. 839; emphasis added). For instance, of the 23 NEO PI-R items used to assess Boldness, 11 come from Neuroticism (48%), 10 from Extraversion (43%), and 2 from Agreeableness (9%). Of the 25 items used to assess Meanness, 17 come from Agreeableness (68%), 4 from Extraversion (16%), 3 from Openness (12%), and 1 from Neuroticism (4%). Finally, of the 21 items used to assess Disinhibition, 11 come from Conscientiousness (52%), 7 from Neuroticism (33%), and 3 from Agreeableness (14%). An unfortunate side effect of this alternate scoring approach, in which items from multiple domains are used to capture the TriPM domains (Boldness–3 FFM domains; Meanness–4 FFM domains; Disinhibition–3 FFM domains) is that one cannot use results from the FFM to generalize to the TriPM or vice versa.

This recombination strategy may not be necessary, however, given that a more straightforward strategy might be used, based on the convergent relations manifested by the domains from both models reported earlier. In this approach, Meanness is simply represented by reverse-scored FFM Agreeableness, Disinhibition as reverse-scored FFM Conscientiousness, and Boldness as the sum of FFM Extraversion and reverse-scored Neuroticism. In the current study, we examine the empirical overlap between TriPM components and their FFM counterparts with the hypothesis that FFM domains themselves can be used to capture the TriPM domains; that is, unaltered FFM domains serve as adequate representations of the TriPM domains. Across three samples, we first examine the convergence between TriPM domains and their FFM counterparts using long (Samples 1 and 3) and short (Sample 2) versions of an FFM measure, and compare this with the convergence observed in previous studies in which multiple measures of the TriPM were given. Next, we examine and compare the relations of the FFM domains and TriPM domains with relevant external criteria including basic personality traits, pathological traits, developmental experiences, externalizing behavior, and an alternate measure of psychopathy. We chose these criteria so as to include variables that are theoretically and/or empirically relevant to the nomological networks of the triarchic model of psychopathy domains (e.g., developmental experiences, alternative measures of psychopathy, Cluster B personality disorders), in order to capture a full picture of how these domains are situated in a larger network of variables (i.e., Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). Specifically, we included criteria capturing externalizing behavior (e.g., antisocial behavior, aggression, substance use) as criteria of particular interest due, in part, to their longstanding association with psychopathy (e.g., Cleckley, 1941; Karpman, 1941; McCord & McCord, 1956). In doing so, we are able to judge the extent to which the nomological networks of TriPM and FFM domains overlap. In other words, moving beyond previous studies, we formally quantify the relative and absolute similarity of correlational profiles generated by the FFM domains versus the TriPM domains using a profile-matching approach that permits evaluation of how similar these domains are across their relations with a range of external criteria (see McCrae, 2008).

Method

Participants and Procedure

Sample 1

Participants in Sample 1 were 362 adults recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and were compensated $1.50 for their participation. Twenty-seven participants were removed from this initial set due to high scores on two validity scales from the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment–Short Form (Lynam et al., 2013), for a total of 335 participants. The mean age in this final sample was 38.9 years (SD = 12.5), and the sample was predominantly women (55.5% female). However, 85% of this sample identified as White, with 8% identifying as African American, 5% as Asian, and 2% as American Indian. Data from this sample have been published previously (Miller et al., 2016).

Sample 2

Participants in Sample 2 were 340 undergraduates recruited from a large, public southeastern university who received research credit for their participation. The mean age in this sample was 19.6 years (SD = 1.9), and the sample had approximately equal proportions of men and women (50% male). However, 74% of the sample identified as White, 13% as Asian, 10% as African American, and 4% as Hispanic. Data from this sample have been published previously (Miller et al., 2018).

Sample 3

This sample consisted of 707 adults recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and compensated $2.00 for their participation. However, 116 participants were excluded based on invalid responding on validity scales (n = 86), excessively quick study completion (n = 26), or invariant responding (n = 4). The final sample consisted of 591 individuals. The mean age in this final sample was 37.0 years (SD = 11.8 years), and the sample was predominantly women (62% female). Indeed, 79% of the sample identified as White, 10% as Black, 8% as Asian, and 3% as Hispanic. Data from this sample have been published previously (Crowe, Lynam, Campbell, & Miller, 2019).

Materials in Samples 1, 2, and 3

TriPM

The TriPM (Patrick et al., 2009) is a 58-item self-report measure of the triarchic model of psychopathy. It assesses the subscales Boldness (Study 1 α = .87, mean interitem correlation [mIIC] = .26; Study 2 α = .80, mIIC = .18; Study 3 α = .87, mIIC = .26), Meanness (Study 1 α = .87, mIIC = .26; Study 2 α = .92, mIIC = .37; Study 3 α = .90, mIIC = .33), and Disinhibition (Study 1 α = .91, mIIC = .35; Study 2 α = .89, mIIC = .29; Study 3 α = .87, mIIC = .26). Descriptive statistics for all study measures can be found in Supplemental Tables 1 to 3 available online.

Materials in Samples 1 and 2

Crime and Analogous Behavior Scale–Short Form

The Crime and Analogous Behavior Scale–Short Form (Miller & Lynam, 2003) is a 25-item self-report measure of various externalizing behaviors. In Study 1, all three subscales were log-transformed to reduce problems with nonnormality. In Study 2, only the antisocial subscale was log-transformed.

Materials in Samples 1 and 3

International Personality Item Pool–120-Item (IPIP-120)

The IPIP-120 (Maples, Guan, Carter, & Miller, 2014) is a 120-item self-report measure of the FFM trait domains, as well as the six facets that comprise each domain. Domain αs in Sample 1 ranged from .84 to .94 (mIIC range = .20 to .40), and from .83 to .94 in Sample 3 (mIIC range = .17 to .38).

Materials in Sample 1 Only

Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5)

The PID-5 (Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012) is a 220-item self-report inventory developed to assess traits included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth edition (DSM-5) alternative dimensional model. Alphas ranged from .72 (Suspiciousness) to .91 (Anxiousness), and mean interitem correlations ranged from .40 (Suspiciousness) to .72 (Depressivity).

Self-Report Materials in Sample 2 Only

Experiences in Close Relationships–Revised (ECR-R)

The ECR–R (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000) is a 36-item self-report measure of two adult attachment styles: Avoidance (18 items; α = .94; mIIC = .48) and Anxiety (19 items; α = .94; mIIC = .48).

Child Abuse and Trauma Scale (CATS)

The CATS (Sanders & Giolas, 1991) is a 38-item self-report measure of physical, verbal, emotional, and sexual abuse. In the current study, we used only the items included in the revised scales described by Poythress, Skeem, and Lilienfeld (2006). Those 14 items were used to create subscales assessing Physical (α = .79; mIIC = .55), Verbal (α = .75; mIIC = .51), Sexual (α = .88; mIIC = .72), and Emotional Abuse (α = .84; mIIC = .56). The physical and sexual abuse scores were log-transformed to reduce problems with nonnormality.

IPIP-NEO-60

Participants rated their own personality on a 60-item IPIP measure of the FFM (Maples-Keller et al., 2019). Alphas for the domains ranged from .71 to .87, mean interitem correlations ranged from .17 to .38.

Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)

The PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) is a 60-item measure that can be scored to assess positive and negative affect as well as more narrow affective experiences. In the current study, only the positive and negative affect dimensions were used (αs = .88 and .87, mIICs = .41 and .40, respectively).

Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPAQ)

The RPAQ (Raine et al., 2006) consists of 23 items assessing proactive (α = .91, mIIC = .48) and reactive aggression (α = .85, mIIC = .35). The proactive aggression score was log-transformed prior to use due to problems with nonnormality.

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT)

The AUDIT (Saunders, Aasland, Babor, de la Fuente, & Grant, 1993) is a 10-item screening questionnaire used to identify alcohol use disorders (α = .84; mIIC = .36). Each item is rated on a 0 to 4 Likert-type scale, with a higher score reflecting more problematic drinking behaviors.

Self-Report Psychopathy Scale–Version III (SRP-III)

The SRP-III (Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, 2009) is a 64-item measure of psychopathy with the subscales Interpersonal Manipulation (α = .85, mIIC = .28), Callous Affect (α = .83, mIIC = .25), Erratic Lifestyle (α = .83, mIIC = .25), and Antisocial Behavior (α = .87, mIIC = .33).

World Health Organization Disability Schedule–II (WHODAS-II; Üstün et al., 2010)

The WHODAS-II is a 36-item measure of functional impairment that assesses six domains. The total score was used in the current study (α = .96, mIIC = .45).

Informant-Report in Sample 2

World Health Organization Disability Schedule–II (WHODAS-II; Üstün et al., 2010)

Informant-report WHODAS scores (α = .88, mIIC = .31) were log-transformed prior to use due to a nonnormal distribution.

Crime and Analogous Behavior Scale–Short Form

For informant-report in Sample 2, the antisocial behavior subscale was log-transformed to address problems with nonnormality.

Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPAQ)

For informant-report, the proactive (α = .72, mIIC = .29) and reactive (α = .87, mIIC = .38) subscales were used, and only the proactive aggression score was log-transformed prior to use due to problems with nonnormality.

Materials in Sample 3 Only

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Anxiety and Depression Short Form Scales

The PROMIS scales are self-report measures developed to measure emotional and behavioral functioning. The PROMIS Anxiety (α = .95, mIIC = .75) and Depression (α = .97, mIIC = .79) short form inventories were used in the current study, which are seven and eight items, respectively (Pilkonis et al., 2011).

Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI)

The PNI (Pincus et al., 2009) is a 52-item measure designed to measure “pathologically narcissistic” (p. 366) traits related to vulnerable and grandiose narcissism. The Grandiose (α = .88, mIIC = .27) and Vulnerable (α = .94, mIIC = .32) subscales were used in the current analyses.

Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI)

The NPI (Raskin & Terry, 1988) is a 40-item forced-choice measure of grandiose narcissism. The 40-item Likert-type version (see Miller, Gentile, et al., 2018) was collected for this study. We present findings from the three-factor solution of Leadership/Authority (NPI LA; α = .91, mIIC = .32), Grandiose Exhibitionism (NPI GE; α = .82, mIIC = .32), Entitlement/Exploitativeness (NPI EE; α = .68, mIIC = .35).

Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ)

The NARQ (Back et al., 2013) is an 18-item measure that was developed to assess a theoretical process model of narcissism, wherein two distinct but related narcissistic social processes are intended to maintain a grandiose self: Admiration (α = .84, mIIC = .84) and Rivalry (α = .80, mIIC = .32).

Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale (HSNS)

The HSNS (α = .77, mIIC = .25; Hendin & Cheek, 1997) is a 10-item measure of narcissistic vulnerability, hypersensitivity, and entitlement.

Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory–Short Form (FFNI-SF)

The FFNI-SF (Sherman et al., 2015) is a 60-item measure designed to measure maladaptive expressions of FFM facets related to narcissistic personality profiles. The FFNI-SF can be organized under three empirically derived higher order factors: Extraversion (α = .90, mIIC = .35), Antagonism (α = .92, mIIC = .27), and Neuroticism (α = .88, mIIC = .38).

Domain Profile Comparison Analyses

In addition to examining the simple bivariate correlations between the traits, we used three strategies to quantify the similarity of the empirical profiles of the hypothesized TriPM and FFM domains. We treated the column of relations between a given domain and the external criteria used herein as an empirical profile that represents the degree to which a given domain manifests relations with variables in its nomological network (McCrae, 2008). First, we calculated the bivariate relation between the profiles generated by each trait to quantify relative similarity. Next, to quantify the absolute similarity of the TriPM and related FFM domains, we implemented a profile-matching intraclass correlation analytic approach, wherein we used double entry correlations to examine the degree to which the nomological network of one domain shares absolute similarity in terms of magnitude and direction with that of another domain. Finally, to empirically compare the relations that the TriPM and FFM domains manifested with specific criteria, we conducted Steiger’s z tests for all criterion variable (Lee & Preacher, 2013). This allowed us to test if a TriPM domain’s relation to a given variable is statistically significant different than an FFM domain’s relation to that same variable.

Results

Trait Rescoring

For ease of interpretation, we reverse-coded FFM Agreeableness and Conscientiousness so that these domains ran in the same direction as TriPM Meanness and TriPM Disinhibition with higher scores indicating higher levels of psychopathy. As such, we subsequently refer to these reverse-coded FFM traits as FFM Antagonism and FFM Disinhibition, respectively. Considering that FFM Extraversion and (low) Neuroticism have comparable, strong links to TriPM Boldness, we created a composite that comprised the sum of participants’ score on the domains of Extraversion and reverse-coded Neuroticism, hereafter referred to as the FFM N/E composite (Sample 1 α = .96; Sample 2 α = .91; Sample 3 α = .96; Nunnally, 1978). Additionally, we also present results from FFM Extraversion and FFM Neuroticism individually, to allow comparison between the relations between these two general personality domains.

Bivariate Relations

TriPM and FFM traits

In Sample 1, relations between the TriPM traits and their FFM counterparts were generally large in magnitude, ranging in absolute strength from .62 (TriPM Disinhibition–FFM Disinhibition) to .82 (TriPM Meanness–FFM Antagonism), with a median of .72 (see Table 1). In Sample 2, relations ranged in absolute strength from .50 (TriPM Boldness–FFM Extraversion) to .64 (TriPM Meanness–FFM Antagonism and TriPM Disinhibition–FFM Disinhibition), with a median of .60. Finally, in Sample 3, relations ranged in absolute strength from .69 (TriPM Disinhibition–FFM Disinhibition) to .81 (TriPM Boldness–FFM N/E composite). Across all samples, TriPM Boldness displayed consistently large relations with FFM Neuroticism (range = −.73 to −.55) and FFM Extraversion (range .50 to .70). Overall, weighted mean analyses (N = 1,266) suggest that each of the hypothesized traits pairs displayed large relations of r = .65 or higher (see Table 1).

Tests of independent correlations suggest that the relations between TriPM Boldness–FFM N/E composite and TriPM Meanness–FFM Antagonism were significantly larger when using the full-length measure of the FFM used in Samples 1 and 3 as opposed to an abbreviated measure in Sample 2. Alternately, a test of independent correlations suggests that the TriPM Disinhibition–FFM Disinhibition relation did not significantly vary across samples.

We then compared the relations between the TriPM/FFM with the relations between the TriPM and the alternative assessment approaches that use data from other inventories (e.g., Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire; NEO-Tri) to score the TriPM reported in previous studies (Brislin, Drislane, et al., 2015; Drislane et al., 2015; Drislane et al., 2018; Hall et al., 2014). In every case, the FFM domains yielded convergent validity correlations that matched or outperformed (i.e., were larger than) the convergent rs found for these alternative scoring approaches for the TriPM.

FFM Domains/Facets

TriPM Boldness and the FFM N/E composite showed generally large (using conventional effect size designations; Cohen, 1992) negative and positive relations to Neuroticism and Extraversion as well as their facets, respectively (Table 2). Relations with facets from the other FFM traits were generally small, but TriPM Boldness and the FFM N/E composite bore large, positive relations to the facets Self-Efficacy, Achievement-Striving, and Self-Discipline (C), and large, negative relations to Modesty (A). FFM N showed large, positive relations to the FFM N facets, medium-to-large, negative relations to the FFM E facets, and also demonstrated large, negative relations with the domain Conscientiousness and the facets Self-Efficacy (C) and Self-Discipline (C), and a large, positive relation with Emotionality (O). Similarly, FFM E showed large, positive relations to the FFM E facets, medium-to-large, negative relations to the FFM N facets, and also demonstrated large positive relation with the facet Achievement-Striving (C).

Table 2.

TriPM Components and FFM Trait Relations to FFM Facets.

	TriPM Boldness	FFM N/E	FFM N	FFM E	TriPM Meanness	FFM Antagonism	TriPM Disinhibition	FFM Disinhibition
N	−.73^a/−.55^a/−.70^a	−.89/−.75/−.91	—	−.55/−.57/−.57	.15/.07^b/.19	.18/−.02/.22	.49^c/.20^c/.56	.59/.06/.62
N1	−.68^a/−.65^a	−.75/−.78	.86/.87	−.44/−.47	.03/.06	.08/.12	.31/.42	.39/.45
N2	−.42^a/−.32^a	−.61/−.57	.75/.69	−.29/−.29	.27^b/.36^b	.35/.44	.47/.47	.38/.40
N3	−.57^a/−.60^a	−.76/−.80	.82/.86	−.51/−.53	.07/.11	.05/.11	.36^c/.46	.49/.53
N4	−.73^a/−.73	−.79/−.78	.77/.75	−.62/−.62	.02/.04	.03/.01	.30^c/.33^c	.42/.45
N5	−.31^a/−.26^a	−.51/−.48	.64/.63	−.24/−.18	.21/.18	.23/.19	.50/.50	.53/.50
N6	−.70^a/−.66^a	−.76/−.80	.82/.84	−.49/−.55	.09/.16	.10/.16	.38^c/.44^c	.56/.57
E	.70^a/.50^a/.74^a	.87/.74/.86	−.55/−.57/−.57	—	.02/−.32/−.09	−.01/−.37/−.07	−.09^c/−.19^c/−.20^c	−.41/−.45/−.40
E1	.56^a/.58^a	.77/.74	−.57/−.54	.81/.80	−.19/−.20	−.26/−.25	−.19^c/−.26	−.37/−.34
E2	.51^a/.48^a	.66/.63	−.39/−.38	.80/.76	.01/.01	−.05/.00	−.03^c/−.10	−.18/−.15
E3	.68/.72	.64/.68	−.43/−.47	.71/.76	.10/−.05^b	.18/.05	−.12^c/−.20^c	−.39/−.45
E4	.43^a/.44^a	.62/.53	−.43/−.35	.68/.61	−.10/−.09	−.08/−.05	−.19^c/−.23^c	−.56/−.50
E5	.43/.40	.42/.38	−.12/−.12	.65/.60	.40/.19	.35/.15	.29^c/.20	.04/.09
E6	.51^a/.52^a	.73/.73	−.51/−.56	.80/.74	−.12/−.25	−.14/−.24	−.17^c/−.28^c	−.42/−.42
O	.03/.14/.11	.04/.11/.09	.11/.23/.00	.19/.41/.18	−.13/−.22^b/−.16	−.11/−.43/−.18	.03/−.15^c/.06	.01/−.30/.01
O1	.03/.03	−.09/−.01	.24/.13	.11/.14	.15/.00	.16/−.04	.27/.21	.20/.15
O2	.00^a/.12	.10/.20	.01/−.14	.21/.21	−.26/−.30	−.29/−.28	−.07/−.12	−.17/−.19
O3	−.41/−.32	−.36/−.36	.52/.48	−.09/−.13	−.20/−.18	−.15/−.13	.19/.24	.14/.19
O4	.40/.40	.37/.38	−.29/−.31	.37/.37	.07/.00	.04/−.06	−.06/−.03	−.03/−.07
O5	.23/.23	.26/.23	−.23/−.21	.24/.21	−.23/−.17	−.22/−.17	−.23/−.13	−.27/−.22
O6	−.09/−.06	−.13/−.11	.12/.08	−.11/−.11	.01/.04	.06/.04	.00^c/.07	.14/.15
A	−.14^a/−.11^a/−.09^a	.11/.16/.17	−.18/.13/−.22	.01/.36/.07	−.82/−.64/−.80	—	−.40^c/−.49^c/−.46	−.28/−.64/−.37
A1	.18^a/.21^a	.35/.41	−.35/−.36	.27/.36	−.32^b/−.30^b	−.55/−.53	−.18/−.27	−.11/−.19
A2	−.20^a/−.17^a	.01/.01	−.15/−.17	−.15/−.17	−.66^b/−.57^b	−.72/−.70	−.50^c/−.46	−.33/−.36
A3	.15^a/.21^a	.34/.42	−.28/−.31	.33/.44	−.67^b/−.65	−.76/−.70	−.35/−.35	−.45/−.44
A4	.02^a/−.03^a	.19/.21	−.33/−.33	−.02/.01	−.67/−.68^b	−.67/−.74	−.48^c/−.49^c	−.29/−.36
A5	−.53/−.50	−.46/−.44	.35/.32	−.46/−.49	−.33^b/−.33^b	−.46/−.51	−.05^c/−.06^c	.12/.06
A6	−.17^a/−.05^a	.00/.08	.03/−.03	.04/.11	−.65^b/−.61^b	−.77/−.69	−.10/−.18	−.12/−.19
C	.40^a/.10/^a.42^a	.57/.34/.59	−.59/−.06/−.62	.41/.45/.40	−.36/−.54^b/−.39	−.28/−.64/−.37	−.62/−.64/−.69	—
C1	.49^a/.53^a	.56/.63	−.50/−.55	.49/.57	−.18/−.23	−.11/−.17	−.38^c/−.41^c	−.78/−.74
C2	.18^a/.17^a	.36/.29	−.34/−.33	.29/.17	−.20/−.25	−.17/−.23	−.37^c/−.40^c	−.71/−.71
C3	.12^a/.15^a	.30/.35	−.34/−.40	.18/.20	−.50/−.54	−.50/−.55	−.56^c/−.61^c	−.69/−.70
C4	.40^a/.42	.52/.49	−.43/−.37	.50/.50	−.21/−.19	−.13/−.15	−.36^c/−.32^c	−.78/−.68
C5	.42^a/.38^a	.57/.52	−.57/−.53	.44/.38	−.21/−.22	−.14/−.21	−.42^c/−.80	−.84/−.80
C6	.17/.17^a	.25/.30	−.42/−.48	.00/.02	−.34^b/−.31	−.26/−.29	−.64/−.69	−.65/−.66

Note. TriPM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure; FFM = five-factor model; N/E composite = composite of reverse-coded FFM Neuroticism and FFM Extraversion; N = Neuroticism; N1 = Anxiety; N2 = Anger; N3 = Depression; N4 = Self-Consciousness; N5 = Immoderation; N6 = Vulnerability; E = Extraversion; E1 = Friendliness; E2 = Gregariousness; E3 = Assertiveness; E4 = Activity-Level; E5 = Excitement-Seeking; E6 = Cheerfulness; O = Openness O1 = Imagination; O2 = Artistic Interests; O3 = Emotionality; O4 = Adventurousness; O5 = Intellect; O6 = Liberalism; A = Agreeableness; A1 = Trust; A2 = Morality; A3 = Altruism; A4 = Cooperation; A5 = Modesty; A6 = Sympathy; C = Conscientiousness; C1 = Self-Efficacy; C2 = Orderliness; C3 = Dutifulness; C4 = Achievement-Striving; C5 = Self-Discipline; C6 = Cautiousness. All values presented are Pearson’s r correlation coefficients; for domains, the first values are from Study 1, second values are from Study 2, and third values are from Study 3; for facets, the first values are from Study 1 and the second values are from Study 3. Superscripts (a, b, and c) are used to indicate that Steiger’s z tests suggest that a given TriPM effect size is statistically significantly different (p < .01) than its FFM counterpart in the corresponding sample.

TriPM Meanness and FFM Antagonism showed comparable medium-to-large, negative relations to Agreeableness and underlying facets, with particularly large relations to Altruism and Sympathy, as well as small-to-medium relations with the facets of Conscientiousness, especially Dutifulness. TriPM Meanness and FFM Antagonism also demonstrated positive relations of medium magnitude with Excitement-Seeking (E) and Anger (N). TriPM Disinhibition and FFM Disinhibition generally evinced medium-to-large, negative relations to the facets of Conscientiousness, as well as medium, positive relations with Neuroticism and its facets, and medium, negative relations with Morality, Altruism, and Cooperation (A).

DSM-5 PD traits

TriPM Boldness and the FFM N/E composite displayed generally negative relations to the pathological DSM-5 PD facets assessed with the PID-5, with large negative correlations with Anxiousness, Anhedonia, Depressivity, Hostility, and Emotional Lability. Additionally, TriPM Boldness and the FFM N/E composite demonstrated small, but positive relations to Attention Seeking and Grandiosity (Table 3). TriPM Boldness but not the FFM N/E composite was also positively related to Manipulativeness and Risk-taking. Similarly, FFM E displayed generally negative relations to the PID-5 facets, with the exception of small, positive relations to Attention Seeking, Grandiosity, and Manipulativeness. In contrast, FFM N displayed either null or positive relations with all PID-5 facets, with large relations seen for Anxiousness, Emotional Lability, Perseveration, Depressivity, Anhedonia, Hostility, and Distractibility.

Table 3.

TriPM Components and FFM Trait Relations to PID-5 Facets.

	TriPM Boldness	FFM N/E	FFM N	FFM E	TriPM Meanness	FFM Antagonism	TriPM Disinhibition	FFM Disinhibition
Anxiousness	−.59^a	−.70	.78	−.43	.08	.10	.32	.34
Submissiveness	−.31	−.33	.35	−.23	.05	−.02	.20	.19
Separation Insecurity	−.26	−.29	.40	−.10	.10	.04	.21	.19
Emotional Lability	−.52	−.57	.70	−.28	.12	.11	.43	.34
Perseveration	−.45^a	−.55	.62	−.33	.32	.22	.54	.56
Depressivity	−.46^a	−.62	.63	−.45	.19	.08	.40	.46
Suspiciousness	−.23^a	−.35	.47	−.14	.39	.40	.45c	.23
Restricted Affect	.11^a	−.08	−.05	−.20	.39	.36	.13	.13
Anhedonia	−.49^a	−.67	.65	−.53	.21	.15	.37	.45
Withdrawal	−.39^a	−.62	.47	−.62	.31	.33	.32	.33
Intimacy Avoidance	−.25	−.33	.23	−.37	.16	.12	.20	.22
Manipulativeness	.31^a	.09	.02	.19	.53	.52	.38^c	.11
Deceitfulness	.02^a	−.16	.27	.01	.62	.55	.60^c	.34
Hostility	−.41^a	−.58	.68	−.31	.36	.41	.51^c	.39
Callousness	.05^a	−.11	.16	−.03	.75^b	.66	.37	.26
Attention Seeking	.26	.22	−.02	.39	.19	.21	.18	.08
Grandiosity	.23^a	.11	−.06	.14	.46	.48	.23^c	.09
Irresponsibleness	−.18^a	−.32	.37	−.17	.47^b	.33	.65	.61
Impulsivity	−.13	−.22	.36	−.01	.45	.36	.68^c	.55
Risk-taking	.18^a	−.52	.13	.17	.56^b	.21	.53	.61
Rigid Perfectionism	−.04	−.10	.19	.02	.15	.18	.12^c	−.12
Distractibility	−.36^a	.01	.58	−.31	.31^b	.44	.56^c	.35
Eccentricity	−.04^a	−.27	.34	−.12	.35	.31	.37	.34
Unusual Belief	.03^a	−.17	.22	.10	.26	.27	.40	.31
Perceptual Dysregulation	−.06	−.08	.28	.00	.38^b	.17	.46^c	.17

Note. PID-5 = Personality Inventory for DSM-5; TriPM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure; FFM = five-factor model; N/E composite = composite of reverse-coded FFM Neuroticism and FFM Extraversion; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion. All values presented are Pearson’s r correlation coefficients. Superscripts (a, b, and c) are used to indicate that Steiger’s z tests suggest that a given TriPM effect size is statistically significantly different (p < .01) than its FFM counterpart in the corresponding sample.

TriPM Meanness and FFM Antagonism displayed essentially exclusively positive relations to PID-5 facets, especially Callousness, Deceitfulness, Manipulativeness, and Grandiosity. TriPM Disinhibition and FFM Disinhibition evinced almost exclusively positive relations with the PID-5 facets, with notably large relations with Impulsivity, Irresponsibleness, Risk-taking, and Perseveration.

Developmental Experiences

TriPM Boldness, the FFM N/E composite, and FFM E displayed small-to-medium, negative relations to Anxious and Avoidant attachment styles, and bore small, negative relations to childhood abuse experiences (Table 4). FFM N, TriPM Meanness, FFM Antagonism, TriPM Disinhibition, and FFM Disinhibition each bore small-to-medium, positive relations to Anxious and Avoidant attachment styles, and abuse experiences.

Table 4.

TriPM Components and FFM Trait Relations to Developmental Experiences.

	TriPM Boldness	FFM N/E	FFM N	FFM E	TriPM Meanness	FFM Antagonism	TriPM Disinhibition	FFM Disinhibition
Anxious Attachment	−.33^a	−.48	.47	−.24	.19^b	.05	.27	.20
Avoidant Attachment	−.14^a	−.38	.29	−.28	.39^b	.21	.33	.27
Physical Abuse	−.08	−.17	.04	−.22	.41	.33	.41	.35
Verbal Abuse	−.01^a	−.13	.12	−.07	.27	.16	.28	.24
Emotion Abuse	−.12^a	−.29	.22	−.21	.31	.22	.30	.26
Sexual Abuse	−.08	−.17	.09	−.16	.33	.27	.36	.31

Note. TriPM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure; FFM = five-factor model; N/E composite = composite of reverse-coded FFM Neuroticism and FFM Extraversion; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion. All values presented are Pearson’s r correlation coefficients. Superscripts (a, b, and c) are used to indicate that Steiger’s z tests suggest that a given TriPM effect size is statistically significantly different (p < .01) than its FFM counterpart in the corresponding sample.

Externalizing Behavior

TriPM Boldness FFM N/E, FFM N, and FFM E composite showed null-to-small relations to externalizing behavior, and each of the traits examined herein bore null-to-small relations with intimate partner violence (Table 5). TriPM Meanness and FFM Antagonism each generally displayed medium, positive relations to antisocial behavior, reactive aggression, and problematic drinking, with large, positive relations to proactive aggression. TriPM Meanness and FFM Antagonism also showed small-to-medium, positive relations with informant-report of antisocial behavior, substance abuse, as well as proactive and reactive aggression. TriPM Disinhibition and FFM Disinhibition also generally exhibited small-to-medium, positive relations to self- and informant-report of antisocial behavior, proactive aggression, reactive aggression, and problematic drinking.

Table 5.

TriPM Components and FFM Trait Relations to Psychopathology, Affect, and Functional Impairment.

	TriPM Boldness	FFM N/E	FFM N	FFM E	TriPM Meanness	FFM Antagonism	TriPM Disinhibition	FFM Disinhibition
ASB	.19^a/.04	.03/−.06	.08/−.05	.03/−.01	.32/.18	.24/.14	.30/.34^b	.22/.10
Peer ASB	.17	.17	−.07	.18	.15	.16	.16^b	−.03
Substance Abuse	.25^a/.06	.13/.05	.06/−.06	.12/.13	.20/.06	.22/.05	.22/.19^b	.16/.01
Peer Substance Abuse	.26	.16	−.06	.19	.32	.32	.29^b	.14
IPV	.00/−.09	−.01/−.13	.18/.12	−.02/.10	.00/.04	.09/.06	.09/.18^b	.03/.01
Peer IPV	−.02	.01	.07	.09	.00	.04	.02	−.01
Proactive Aggression	.08^a	−.12	.04	−.14	.59^c	.41	.57^b	.39
Peer Proactive Aggression	.06	.01	.02	.04	.11	.16	.09	.05
Reactive Aggression	.06^a	−.15	.20	−.02	.37^c	.21	.35^b	.20
Peer Reactive Aggression	.09^a	−.02	.09	.08	.17	.16	.21^b	.07
Problematic Drinking	.21^a	.08	.03	.15	.34	.24	.32	.23
Positive Affect	.42^a	.58	−.36	.52	−.23^c	−.18	−.21^b	−.37
Negative Affect	−.25^a	−.42	.49	−.13	.35^c	.21	.39^b	.27
Promis Anxiety	−.66^a	−.49	.75	−.40	.13	.08	.42	.47
Promis Depression	−.71^a	−.55	.76	−.48	.10	.10	.48	.47
Functional Impairment	−.19^a	−.35	.23	−.30	.40	.31	.48	.43
Peer Functional Impairment	.03^a	−.12	.10	−.07	.13	.22	.11	.20

Note. TriPM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure; FFM = five-factor model; N/E composite = composite of reverse-coded FFM Neuroticism and FFM Extraversion; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; ASB = antisocial behavior; IPV = intimate partner violence. All values presented are Pearson’s r correlation coefficients. Values before the forward slash are from Study 1 and values after the slash are from Study 2. Superscripts (a, b, and c) are used to indicate that Steiger’s z tests suggest that a given TriPM effect size is statistically significantly different (p < .01) than its FFM counterpart in the corresponding sample.

Internalizing Psychopathology

TriPM Boldness, the FFM N/E composite, and FFM E each showed medium-to-large, negative relations with indices of anxiety and depression, while FFM N showed large, negative relations with these indices (Table 5). TriPM Disinhibition and FFM Disinhibition demonstrated medium-to-large, positive relations with anxiety and depression, while TriPM Meanness and FFM Antagonism showed small, positive relations with these constructs.

Affect and Functional Impairment

TriPM Boldness, the FFM N/E composite, and FFM E demonstrated medium-to-large, positive relations to positive affect, and small-to-medium, negative relations to negative affect (Table 5). Similarly, both self- and informant-report suggest that these traits are either unrelated or have small negative relations to functional impairment. Alternately, FFM N bore medium-to-large relations with positive and negative affect that were negative and positive, respectively, and demonstrated small, positive relations to self- and informant-report of functional impairment. Alternately, TriPM Meanness, FFM Antagonism, TriPM Disinhibition, and FFM Disinhibition showed medium, negative relations to positive affect, and medium, positive relations to negative affect. Additionally, each of these traits were positively related to self- and informant-report of functional impairment, although the self-report relations were stronger in every case.

Cluster B Personality Disorders and Related Components

Each of the TriPM traits and their FFM counterparts bore medium-to-large, positive relations to SRP Erratic Lifestyle, with the exception of the FFM N/E composite, FFM N, and FFM E. TriPM Meanness, FFM Antagonism, TriPM Disinhibition, and FFM Disinhibition displayed medium-to-large, positive relations to SRP Interpersonal Manipulation, Callous Affect, and Antisocial Behavior. Each of the TriPM traits and their FFM counterparts bore medium-to-large relations to PNI Narcissistic Vulnerability and HSNS-assessed vulnerable narcissism, which were negative for TriPM Boldness, the FFM N/E composite, and FFM E and positive for FFM N, TriPM Meanness, FFM Antagonism, TriPM Disinhibition, and FFM Disinhibition (Table 6). The FFM N/E composite, FFM E, TriPM Meanness, FFM Antagonism, and TriPM Disinhibition exhibited small, positive relations with PNI Narcissistic Grandiosity.

Table 6.

TriPM Components and FFM Trait Relations to Other Malevolent Personality Disorders.

	TriPM Boldness	FFM N/E	FFM N	FFM E	TriPM Meanness	FFM Antagonism	TriPM Disinhibition	FFM Disinhibition
SRP IPM	.26^a	−.09	.05	−.09	.65^b	.51	.49^c	.36
SRP CA	.12^a	−.21	.04	−.27	.67^b	.50	.42	.35
SRP ELS	.31^a	.01	.03	.04	.58^b	.39	.59^c	.45
SRP ASB	−.01^a	−.16	.09	−.16	.57^b	.41	.62^c	.45
PNI Grandiosity	.12^a	.25	.11	.36	.25	.21	.08^c	.26
PNI Vulnerability	−.45^a	−.29	.61	−.16	.37	.32	.41^c	.49
NPI LA	.68^a	.53	−.31	.65	.20^b	.32	.02^c	−.24
NPI GE	.39	.32	−.13	.47	.27^b	.36	.14^c	.04
NPI EE	.31^a	.18	.00	.35	.40^b	.51	.24^c	.04
NARQ Admiration	.46^a	.54	−.27	.58	.35^b	.24	−.14^c	.07
NARQ Rivalry	−.25^a	−.06	.35	−.07	.67	.63	.40^c	.48
HSNS	−.53^a	−.34	.61	−.30	.45^b	.38	.45	.52
FFNI Antagonism	−.03^a	.23	.17	.15	.76^b	.70	.28^c	.47
FFNI Extraversion	.44^a	.57	−.18	.64	.28^b	.20	−.15^c	.11
FFNI Neuroticism	−.59	−.57	.68	−.33	−.08	−.10	.36	.30

Note. TriPM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure; FFM = five-factor model; N/E composite = composite of reverse-coded FFM Neuroticism and FFM Extraversion; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; SRP = Self-Report Psychopathy Scale–III; IPM = interpersonal manipulation; CA = Callous Affect; ELS = Erratic Lifestyle; ASB = antisocial behavior; PNI = Pathological Narcissism Inventory; NPI = Narcissistic Personality Inventory; NARQ = Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire; HSNS = Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale; FFNI = Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory. All values presented are Pearson’s r correlation coefficients. Superscripts (a, b, and c) are used to indicate that Steiger’s z tests suggest that a given TriPM effect size is statistically significantly different (p < .01) than its FFM counterpart in the corresponding sample.

TriPM Boldness, the FFM N/E composite, and FFM E demonstrated large, positive relations with NARQ Admiration, while TriPM Meanness and FFM Antagonism displayed medium, positive relations with this construct. Alternately, TriPM Meanness, FFM Antagonism and FFM N demonstrated large, positive relations with NARQ Rivalry, TriPM Disinhibition and FFM Disinhibition displayed medium, positive relations with NARQ Rivalry, and TriPM Boldness and the FFM N/E Composite demonstrated small, negative relations with NARQ Rivalry.

TriPM Meanness, FFM Antagonism, and TriPM Disinhibition showed large, positive relations to FFNI Antagonism, while FFM Disinhibition displayed a medium, positive, relation to this construct and TriPM Boldness and the FFM N/E composite demonstrated null and small, positive relations, respectively. TriPM Boldness, the FFM N/E composite, and FFM E displayed large, positive relations to FFNI Extraversion, and medium-to-large, negative relations to FFNI Neuroticism. FFM N showed a large, positive relation to FFNI Neuroticism. The relations between TriPM Meanness, FFM Antagonism, TriPM Disinhibition, and FFM Disinhibition evinced relations with these constructs that were generally small in magnitude.

Domain Profile Comparison Across TriPM and FFM Correlates

To quantify the degree of relative similarity between the nomological networks of the TriPM domains and their FFM counterparts, we calculated bivariate correlations between the criteria relations in Tables 2 through 6 using 135 criteria for TriPM Boldness/FFM N/E composite and 138 criteria each for TriPM Meanness/FFM Antagonism and TriPM Disinhibition/FFM Disinhibition. The former had three fewer criteria as we did not include the relations of either FFM N or FFM E from any sample (whereas in the latter, we only removed FFM Agreeableness or FFM Conscientiousness, respectively), given they are both nearly redundant with the FFM N/E composite. These analyses suggest that the nomological networks for these traits are remarkably overlapping in terms of relative similarity to external criteria (TriPM Boldness–FFM N/E composite r = .92; TriPM Boldness–FFM N r = .91; TriPM Boldness–FFM E r = .91; TriPM Meanness–FFM Antagonism r = .97; TriPM Disinhibition–FFM Disinhibition r = .92).

Next, to quantify the degree of absolute similarity manifested by the TriPM domains and their FFM counterparts, we calculated double-entry intraclass correlations between the correlations in Tables 2 through 6. Overall, these profiles were highly correlated–TriPM Boldness and the FFM N/E composite (r_ICC = .72), TriPM Meanness and FFM Antagonism (r_ICC = .75), and TriPM Disinhibition and FFM Disinhibition (r_ICC = .73). Additionally, TriPM Boldness also showed large absolute relations with FFM N (r_ICC = −.71) and FFM E (r_ICC = .71) showing that, individually, each of these basic personality dimensions largely reproduce the relations demonstrated by TriPM Boldness.

Additionally, we also computed profile matching for the hypothesized trait pairs by each criteria domain (i.e., separately for each Tables 2 -6; see Supplemental Table 4 available online). With the exception of developmental experiences, these profile-matching analyses suggest that the hypothesized trait pairs show large intraclass correlations when broken down into different domains of external criteria (range: .59 to .74). The intraclass correlations calculated from the relations between the hypothesized trait pairs and developmental experiences were medium-to-large in magnitude (range: .27 to .48). We would note that one should be more cautious about these indices given the small number of correlations (e.g., only six for developmental experiences) used to compute the degree of similarity, especially when there is limited variability in effect size and effect direction in the criteria relations.

Finally, we used Steiger’s z tests to examine the extent to which hypothesized sets of TriPM and FFM traits demonstrate statistically significantly (p < .01) different relations to individual external criteria. Of 135 comparisons, 95 (70%) of the criteria-comparisons between TriPM Boldness and the FFM N/E composite were statistically significantly different. Of 138 comparisons, 67 (49%) of the comparisons between TriPM Disinhibition and FFM Disinhibition were statistically significantly different, as were 38 (28%) of the comparisons between TriPM Meanness and FFM Antagonism. To quantify the magnitude of these differences, we calculated the mean absolute value of the differences in criteria relations evinced by each of the TriPM and FFM trait pairs (i.e., |TriPM-criterion r–FFM-criterion r|) that were deemed statistically significant. The mean difference in effect size for statistically significantly different criteria relations was .18 for TriPM Boldness and the FFM N/E composite (range = .06 to .70), .13 for TriPM Meanness and FFM Antagonism (range = .06 to .35), and .20 for TriPM Disinhibition and FFM Disinhibition (range = .08 to .45).

Discussion

Psychopathy has intrigued both scholars and laypersons for decades due, in part, to its ties to violence and other costly externalizing behaviors (e.g., Neumann, Hare, & Pardini, 2015). Numerous models and related measures of psychopathy have been developed. The goal of the current study was to compare the triarchic model conception of psychopathy with an FFM operationalization (i.e., low N/high E, low A, low C) by examining the degree of overlap in their nomological networks. We believe the current study offers multiple lines of evidence suggesting the components of the triarchic model of psychopathy and the FFM domains that approximate these components are highly similar and that the FFM domains do not require reconfiguration in order to serve as useful measures of the TriPM (e.g., Drislane et al., 2018).

First, the interrelations between TriPM constructs and their FFM trait counterparts were large, particularly when the latter was measured using a longer, faceted measure such as the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) or IPIP-NEO-120 (Maples et al., 2014). In fact, the FFM traits’ relations with the TriPM constructs were as strong, if not stronger, than convergent relations among different scales created to explicitly assess the TriPM (Brislin, Drislane, et al., 2015; Drislane et al., 2015; Drislane et al., 2018; Hall et al., 2014). Second, the TriPM and relevant FFM domains bore highly similar patterns of relations to measures of general and pathological traits, developmental experiences, externalizing behavior, affect, psychopathy, and functional impairment. At the personality facet level, the TriPM and FFM traits shared almost all of their strongest and weakest correlates. TriPM Boldness and the FFM N/E composite appear to be related to generally adaptive developmental experiences (i.e., lack of anxious attachment style; absence of abuse), while TriPM Meanness, FFM Antagonism, TriPM Disinhibition, and FFM Disinhibition were each generally related to more maladaptive developmental experiences. Similarly, TriPM Boldness and the FFM N/E composite appear to be generally unrelated to externalizing behavior—consistent with a large body of research on the general lack of maladaptivity associated with this construct (e.g., Miller & Lynam, 2012). On the other hand, TriPM Meanness, FFM Antagonism, TriPM Disinhibition, and FFM Disinhibition were substantially related to antisocial behavior, proactive, and reactive aggression, as well as an alternative measure of psychopathy.

Overall, the corresponding TriPM and FFM domains demonstrated high levels of both relative and absolute similarity, yielding empirical profiles that were nearly identical. Although Steiger’s z tests suggest numerous instances where the corresponding TriPM and FFM domains bore significantly different relations to external criteria, there are important issues to consider in the interpretation of these findings. Steiger’s z tests are calculated by considering the relations that two variables have with a third criteria variable (i.e., r_XZ and r_YZ) as well the strength of the relation between the two variables themselves (i.e., r_XY). As the magnitude of r_XY increases, relatively smaller differences between r_XZ and r_YZ become statistically significant. In the case of TriPM Boldness and the FFM N/E composite, which are highly interrelated, differences in criteria relations that may not be meaningfully different may be statistically different. For example, the relations between TriPM Boldness and the FFM N/E composite and the FFM facet Self-Consciousness (Sample 1) were r = −.73 and r = −.79, respectively, but this difference was associated with a p < .005. In these cases, we believe statistical significance does not necessarily connote practical or clinical significance. Thus, while Steiger’s z tests are a valuable statistical tool, we believe they must be considered in tandem with the other results, which suggest that across all criteria considered, the corresponding triarchic model and FFM operationalizations of psychopathy operate very similarly within their nomological networks.

Another consideration regarding the current results of the Steiger’s z tests is that a similar pattern will most certainly emerge when comparing the original TriPM domains with alternative operationalizations of the triarchic model of psychopathy derived from other measures (e.g., NEO-Tri scales). In other words, although TriPM Boldness and the FFM N/E composite demonstrated many statistically significantly different relations to external criteria, such differences are sure to exist between the original and alternative TriPM measures given that the convergent correlations in those cases are similar to those observed here. We attempted to test this hypothesis, but the requisite statistical information was not present in any of the alternative TriPM development studies (e.g., HEXACO; Ruchensky, Donnellan, & Edens, 2018; Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire; Brislin, Drislane, et al., 2015; Psychopathic Personality Inventory; Hall et al., 2014; Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory; Drislane et al., 2015). This was unfortunate because most of these studies included the original TriPM scales along with the alternative measure (e.g., NEO-Tri) and such comparisons could have been conducted. We hope to see such data in the future so that this issue can be examined empirically.

Two Differences in Patterns of TriPM and FFM Relations

Despite the strong overlap between the TriPM and FFM domains, two patterns of slight discrepancy emerged. First, TriPM Disinhibition displayed stronger relations to FFM Antagonism and related constructs than did FFM Disinhibition. For example, TriPM Disinhibition bore stronger relations to TriPM Meanness, 4/6 FFM Agreeableness facets, each of the DSM-5 Antagonism facets, antisocial behavior, aggression, and SRP Callous Affect and Interpersonal Manipulation than did FFM Disinhibition. This is likely due to the fact that TriPM Disinhibition scale includes several explicitly antisocial items that do not require disinhibition for endorsement (e.g., “I have taken money from someone’s purse or wallet without asking”; “I have robbed someone”; Patrick, 2010) and which likely assess antagonism instead—the strongest trait correlate of antisocial behavior (Jones, Miller, & Lynam, 2011; Miller & Lynam, 2001; Vize, Lynam, Collison, & Miller, 2018). To test the hypothesis that TriPM Disinhibition would function even more similarly to FFM Disinhibition if these explicitly antisocial items were removed from the TriPM scale, we created an abridged version of the TriPM Disinhibition scale where we removed the five items from the TriPM scale that explicitly asked participants if they had engaged in antisocial behavior.¹ We then examined the relations between this new scale and the available antisocial behavior criteria. TriPM Disinhibition scale (compared with the unabridged TriPM Disinhibition scale) displayed smaller relations with the Agreeableness domain and 4/6 of its facets, each of the DSM-5 Antagonism facets, antisocial behavior, aggression (proactive and reactive), and each of the SRP facets. We believe this underscores the interpretative concerns that accompany including explicitly antisocial items, especially those that are multiply determined, in a trait measure: it should not be surprising to find to that antisocial behavior is an important component of the nomological network of TriPM Disinhibition, when the relation is “built in” to the scale itself.

The second pattern is that the N/E composite appeared to be even more strongly related to adaptive outcomes than was TriPM Boldness. For example, the FFM N/E composite demonstrated either stronger negative relations or weaker positive relations to 24/25 (96%) of DSM-5 pathological traits, as well as stronger negative relations to all maladaptive developmental experiences. Moreover, the FFM N/E composite showed stronger relations to positive and negative affect (positive and negative, respectively), generally weaker relations to antisocial behavior, and stronger, negative relations to self- and informant-reported functional impairment than did TriPM Boldness. So, while their nomological networks are quite similar, the FFM N/E composite captures an even more adaptive construct than TriPM Boldness, which has already been criticized (e.g., Gatner, Douglas, & Hart, 2016; Miller, Lamkin, Maples-Keller, & Lynam, 2016; Miller & Lynam, 2012) for being more tangential to psychopathy given its general lack of maladaptivity (cf. Lilienfeld et al., 2016).

An additional issue related to TriPM Boldness is that it is multidimensional in nature, comprising a combination of high levels of emotional stability (i.e., low Neuroticism) and high levels of Extraversion. Although a composite of FFM Neuroticism and FFM Extraversion did a good job approximating TriPM Boldness from an FFM perspective, we believe that studying TriPM Boldness or the FFM N/E composite as a singular construct has substantial limitations, as does studying psychopathy at the total score level (e.g., Miller & Lynam, 2012; Watts, Waldman, Smith, Poore, & Lilienfeld, 2017). First, it significantly limits the potential for translation between TriPM Boldness and FFM Neuroticism and FFM Extraversion. In other words, if a study links TriPM Boldness to construct X, it is impossible to know if this effect is being “driven” by Neuroticism, Extraversion or both. Second, blending the two domains is problematic because they are distinct and separable constructs. If important questions are to be answered regarding the developmental origins, interpersonal/intrapersonal consequences, and psychophysiological underpinnings of personality constructs such as Boldness, it is crucial to study them at as narrower, more homogeneous constructs (Smith, McCarthy, & Zapolski, 2009).

Limitations

Limitations of this study include a reliance on undergraduate and MTurk samples, as well as primary reliance on self-report ratings. As such, generalizability to other populations is uncertain. Of note, these sampling and methodological approaches are consistent with the work done to date comparing the triarchic model of psychopathy and FFM. MTurk samples have been criticized on the grounds that using this data collection platform is associated with less reliable responses, and that MTurk workers may not be representative of the population-level rates of psychopathology (e.g., Rouse, 2015; Shapiro, Chandler, & Mueller, 2013). However, recent evidence suggests that MTurk workers in general provide high-quality data (especially when validity checks and prescreening strategies are implemented; see Chandler, Mueller, & Paolacci, 2014; Wessling, Huber, & Netzer, 2017), and score similarly on measures of personality and psychopathology as community samples (McCredie & Morey, 2018). In fact, the scores, are highly similar to those for the normative sample of the Personality Assessment Inventory (Morey, 1991), one of the most commonly used personality assessment tools, Thus, while every source of data has limitations, we believe that there is great value to study to studying psychopathy in a broad range of samples, including MTurk.

An additional key limitation of the current study is the limited number and type of external criteria used to compare the TriPM and FFM domains. Although we included a wide range of variables, our ability to compare the TriPM and FFM domains is inherently limited by the data we are able to present. For example, the TriPM has been used to test several hypothesized relations with psychophysiological indices (e.g., electroencephalography [EEG]; Brislin et al., 2014), but a lack of complementary data on the FFM makes it impossible to compare the extent to which the TriPM and FFM manifest differential relations with these unexamined variables. Finally, we note that our measure of the FFM was the IPIP-NEO-120, which is similar in structure and content to the NEO PI-R, which has been used in previous work on the TriPM and FFM (Drislane et al., 2018).

Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Personality Disorder Research

Although the traits were derived from different theoretical orientations, the current data provide further evidence that the trait components of the triarchic model of psychopathy can be considered variants of basic personality domains. We agree with the general theme of the alternative scale development approach undertaken by the creators of the TriPM: to unify the triarchic model and trait-based approaches to the study of psychopathy, which we believe to be an important bridge between separate research initiatives that are often characterized by unique methodological approaches. However, the current results suggest that the TriPM Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition are essentially redundant with low Neuroticism/high Extraversion, low Agreeableness, and low Conscientiousness, respectively, and require no reconfiguration. We believe parsimony is a critically important attribute to scientific theory; conceiving of triarchic model of psychopathy and FFM traits as unique is a likely example of the “jangle” fallacy, wherein extremely similar constructs are erroneously given different names and studied as separate entities (Block, 1995).

There are several major benefits to studying psychopathy from the perspective of the FFM. First, the FFM was derived from the natural language which should ensure that important aspects of personality are represented (John & Srivastava, 1999). Second, the FFM offers a comprehensive lexicon of 30 facets which provides excellent articulation for describing complex constructs, including but in no way limited to psychopathy. Third, the FFM, both at the domain and facet levels, has much empirical support in the form of convergent and discriminant validity across self, peer, and spouse ratings (Costa & McCrae, 1988), temporal stability (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000), cross-cultural support (Church, 2001), and behavior genetics (Yamagata et al., 2006). Fourth, the relations between the FFM and psychopathy are well-known. The FFM has been examined in relation to all major psychopathy instruments (see meta-analyses by Decuyper, De Pauw, De Fruyt, De Bolle, & De Clerq, 2009; Lilienfeld, Watts, Smith, Berg, & Latzman, 2015; Lynam & Derefinko, 2006). In their recent meta-analysis, O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, Story, and White (2015) identified between 76 and 86 studies that reported on relations between one or more of the Big Five dimensions and one or more psychopathy instruments.

Fifth, in addition to the research base supporting the FFM, there is a substantial research base emanating from this model. Researchers have used the FFM to study personality across development (Tackett et al., 2012), as well as the levels of these traits as a function of gender, age, and culture (Soto & John, 2012). The FFM framework has also been used to study the processes underlying and outcomes attributable to specific personality domains, such as the basic processes underlying Agreeableness (e.g., Meier, Robinson, & Wilkowski, 2006). Through the FFM, all of this information can be brought to bear on the study of psychopathy. The advantages of the FFM in conceptualizing, assessing, and diagnosing psychopathy and other PDs are such that this approach has been included in the two most prominent psychiatric nosologies, the DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and the International Classification of Diseases–11th edition (see Tyrer, 2013). Of course, it should be noted that the DSM-5 includes a psychopathy specifier for antisocial personality disorder that indexes a trait very akin to Boldness, and thus the TriPM and other psychopathy scales that include this component have also influenced diagnostic nosology, although there is debate about the rationale and utility of this specifier (Miller, Lamkin, Maples-Keller, Sleep, & Lynam, 2018).

As a final note, it is important to emphasize that the triarchic model of psychopathy and FFM were developed with different origins, with the triarchic model explicitly developed in order to provide links between traits, behavior, and neurobiology. In this way, researchers may find it an appealing option to study psychopathy from a multimethod perspective. However, we believe that although triarchic model of psychopathy is described to as a “biobehavioral” model and has been used to study the link between traits and physiological indices, it remains an unanswered empirical question if this designation makes this model more amenable to predictions about the biological correlates of personality traits than other models like the FFM. Indeed, many researchers have used the FFM to study genetic variation (Yamagata et al., 2006), electrodermal activity (Norris, Larsen, & Cacioppo, 2007), patterns of EEG activation (Schmidtke & Heller, 2004), hormonal differences (Alvergne, Jokela, Faurie, & Lummaa, 2010), eye tracking (Rauthmann, Seubert, Sachse, & Furtner, 2012), cortical (Owens et al., 2019), and subcortical (Gray, Owens, Hyatt, & Miller, 2018) morphometry, as well as the neuroanatomical overlap between personality and psychopathology (Hyatt et al., 2018). Given the substantial overlap between the TriPM and FFM, there is reason to suspect that physiological correlates of traits within one model would translate to the corresponding traits in the other model. This is of course, a supposition that requires data to test.

In sum, we believe that although psychopathy has been operationalized in many ways, a trait-based approach is the most parsimonious way of studying psychopathy because it allows researchers and clinicians to link psychopathy to the much larger personality and personality disorder literatures. We believe this would be beneficial to all personality researchers, and a migration to a trait-based approach is consistent with the tide of personality disorder nosology more broadly (e.g., DSM-5 Section III Alternative Model; American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

Supplemental Material

supplemental_tables_(1) – Supplemental material for Components of the Triarchic Model of Psychopathy and the Five-Factor Model Domains Share Largely Overlapping Nomological Networks

Supplemental material, supplemental_tables_(1) for Components of the Triarchic Model of Psychopathy and the Five-Factor Model Domains Share Largely Overlapping Nomological Networks by Courtland S. Hyatt, Michael L. Crowe, Donald R. Lynam and Joshua D. Miller in Assessment

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

Courtland S. Hyatt

Michael L. Crowe

Joshua D. Miller

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Alvergne

Jokela

Faurie

Lummaa

(2010). Personality and testosterone in men from a high-fertility population. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 840-844.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Back

M. D.

Küfner

A. C. P.

Dufner

Gerlach

T. M.

Rauthmann

J. F.

Denissen

J. J. A.

(2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 1013-1037.

Block

(1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215.

Brislin

S. J.

Drislane

L. E.

Smith

S. T.

Edens

J. F.

Patrick

C. J.

(2015). Development and validation of triarchic psychopathy scales from the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 27, 838-851.

Brislin

S. J.

Yancey

J. R.

Drislane

L. D.

Bowyer

C. B.

Roche

Patrick

C. J.

(2014). P3 amplitude shows differential relations with triarchic psychopathy facets. Psychophysiology, 51, S33.

Brislin

S. J.

Yancey

J. R.

Perkins

E. R.

Palumbo

I. M.

Drislane

L. E.

Salekin

R. T.

. . . Patrick

C. J.

(2018). Callousness and affective face processing in adults: Behavioral and brain-potential indicators. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9, 122-132.

Brislin

S. J.

Yancey

J. R.

Venables

N. C.

Patrick

C. J.

(2015). Triarchic psychopathy facets and early ERP reactivity to emotional faces. Psychophysiology, 52, S92.

Chandler

Mueller

Paolacci

(2014). Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: Consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 112-130.

10.

Church

T. A.

(2001). Personality measurement in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Personality, 69, 979-1006.

11.

Cleckley

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

12.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.

13.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. McCrae

R. R.

(1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853-863.

14.

Costa

P. T.

Jr. McCrae

R. R.

(1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEOFFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

15.

Crego

Widiger

T. A.

(2014). Psychopathy, DSM-5, and a caution. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 335-347.

16.

Cronbach

L. J.

Meehl

P. E.

(1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.

17.

Crowe

M. L.

Lynam

D. R.

Campbell

W. K.

Miller

J. D.

(2019). Exploring the structure of narcissism: Towards an integrated solution. Journal of Personality. doi:10.1111/jopy.12464

18.

Decuyper

De Pauw

De Fruyt

De Bolle

De Clerq

B. J.

(2009). A meta-analysis of psychopathy-, antisocial PD- and FFM associations. European Journal of Personality, 23, 531-565.

19.

Donnellan

M. B.

Burt

S. A.

(2016). A further evaluation of the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy in college students. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 38, 172-182.

20.

Drislane

L. E.

Brislin

S. J.

Jones

Patrick

C. J.

(2018). Interfacing five-factor model and triarchic conceptualizations of psychopathy. Psychological Assessment, 30, 834-840.

21.

Drislane

L. E.

Brislin

S. J.

Kendler

K. S.

Andershed

Larsson

Patrick

C. J.

(2015). A triarchic model analysis of the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29, 15-41.

22.

Gatner

D. T.

Douglas

K. S.

Hart

S. D.

(2016). Examining the incremental and interactive effects of boldness with meanness and disinhibition within the triarchic model of psychopathy. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7, 259-268.

23.

Gray

J. C.

Owens

M. M.

Hyatt

C. S.

Miller

J. D.

(2018). No evidence for morphometric associations of the amygdala and hippocampus with the five-factor model personality traits. PLoS ONE, 13, e0204011. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204011

24.

Fraley

R. C.

Waller

N. G.

Brennan

K. A.

(2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 350-365.

25.

Hall

J. R.

Drislane

L. E.

Patrick

C. J.

Morano

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Poythress

N. G.

(2014). Development and validation of Triarchic construct scales from the psychopathic personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 26, 447-461.

26.

Hare

R. D.

(1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 111-119.

27.

Hendin

H. M.

Cheek

J. M.

(1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A reexamination of Murray’s Narcism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 588-599.

28.

Hyatt

C. S.

Owens

M. M.

Gray

J. C.

Carter

N. T.

MacKillop

Sweet

L. H.

Miller

J. D.

(2018). Personality traits share overlapping neuroanatomical correlates with internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128, 1-11. doi:10.1037/abn0000391

29.

John

O. P.

Srivastava

(1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Pervin

L. A.

John

O. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102-138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

30.

Jones

S. E.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(2011). Personality, antisocial behavior, and aggression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 329-337.

31.

Karpman

(1941). On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types: The symptomatic and the idiopathic. Journal of Criminal Psychopathology, 3, 112-137.

32.

Krueger

R. F.

Derringer

Markon

K. E.

Watson

Skodol

A. E.

(2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879-1890.

33.

Lee

I. A.

Preacher

K. J.

(2013). Calculation for the test of the difference between two dependent correlations with one variable in common [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://quantpsy.org/corrtest/corrtest2.htm

34.

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, 1172-1185.

35.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Watts

A. L.

Smith

S. F.

Berg

J. M.

Latzman

R. D.

(2015). Psychopathy deconstructed and reconstructed: Identifying and assembling the Personality building blocks of Cleckley’s chimera. Journal of Personality, 83, 593-610.

36.

Lynam

D. R.

Derefinko

K. J.

(2006). Psychopathy and personality. In Patrick

C. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of the psychopathy (pp. 133-155). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

37.

Lynam

D. R.

Gaughan

E. T.

Miller

J. D.

Miller

D. J.

Mullins-Sweatt

Widiger

T. A.

(2011). Assessing the basic traits associated with psychopathy: Development and validation of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment. Psychological Assessment, 23, 108-124.

38.

Lynam

D. R.

Miller

J. D.

(2015). Psychopathy from a basic trait perspective: The utility of a five-factor model approach. Journal of Personality, 83, 611-626.

39.

Lynam

D. R.

Sherman

E. D.

Samuel

Miller

J. D.

Few

L. R.

Widiger

T. A.

(2013). Development of a short form of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment. Assessment, 20, 659-669.

40.

Maples

J. L.

Guan

Carter

N. T.

Miller

J. D.

(2014). A test of the International Personality Item Pool representation of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and development of a 120-item IPIP-based measure of the five-factor model. Psychological Assessment, 26, 1070-1084.

41.

Maples-Keller

J. L.

Williamson

R. L.

Sleep

C. E.

Carter

N. T.

Campbell

W. K.

Miller

J. D.

(2019). Using item response theory to develop a 60-item representation of the NEO PI–R using the International Personality Item Pool: Development of the IPIP–NEO–60. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101, 4-15. doi:10.1080/00223891.2017.1381968

42.

McCord

(1956). Psychopathy and delinquency. Oxford, England: Grune & Stratton.

43.

McCrae

R. R.

(2008). A note on some measures of profile agreement. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 105-109.

44.

McCredie

M. N.

Morey

L. C.

(2018). Who are the Turkers? A characterization of MTurk workers using the Personality Assessment Inventory. Assessment, 26, 759-766. doi:10.1177/1073191118760709

45.

Meier

Robinson

Wilkowski

B. M.

(2006). Turning the other cheek: Agreeableness and the regulation of aggression-related primes. Psychological Science, 17, 136-142.

46.

Miller

J. D.

Gentile

Carter

N. T.

Crowe

Hoffman

B. J.

Campbell

W. K.

(2018). A comparison of the nomological networks associated with forced-choice and likert formats of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100, 259-267.

47.

Miller

J. D.

Lamkin

Maples-Keller

J. L.

Lynam

D. R.

(2016). Viewing the triarchic model of psychopathy through general personality and expert-based lenses. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7, 247-258.

48.

Miller

J. D.

Lamkin

Maples-Keller

J. L.

Sleep

C. E.

Lynam

D. R.

(2018). A test of the empirical profile and coherence of the DSM-5 psychopathy specifier. Psychological Assessment, 30, 870-881.

49.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

(2001). Structural models of personality and their relation to antisocial behavior: A meta-analytic review. Criminology, 39, 765-798.

50.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

(2003). Psychopathy and the five-factor model of personality: A replication and extension. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 168-178.

51.

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.

52.

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

Widiger

T. A.

Leukefeld

(2001). Personality disorders as extreme variants of common personality dimensions: Can the five-factor model adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69, 253-276.

53.

Morey

L. C.

(1991). Personality Assessment Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

54.

Neumann

C. S.

Hare

R. D.

Pardini

D. A.

(2015). Antisociality and the construct of psychopathy: Data from across the globe. Journal of Personality, 83, 678-692.

55.

Norris

C. J.

Larsen

J. T.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(2007). Neuroticism is associated with larger and more prolonged electrodermal responses to emotionally evocative pictures. Psychophysiology, 44, 823-826.

56.

Nunnally

J. C.

(1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

57.

O’Boyle

E. H.

Forsyth

D. R.

Banks

G. C.

Story

P. A.

White

C. D.

(2015). A meta-analytic test of redundancy and relative importance of the dark triad and five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 83, 644-664.

58.

Owens

M. M.

Hyatt

C. S.

Gray

J. C.

MacKillop

Sweet

L. H.

Miller

J. D.

(2019). Cortical morphometry of the five-factor model of personality: Findings from the Human Connectome Project full sample. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 14, 381-395. doi:10.1093/scan/nsz017

59.

Patrick

C. J.

(2010). Operationalizing the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Preliminary description of brief scales for assessment of boldness, meanness, and disinhibition. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota. Minneapolis.

60.

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.

61.

Paulhus

D. L.

Neumann

C. S.

Hare

R. D.

(2009). Manual for the Self Report Psychopathy (SRP) scale. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

62.

Pilkonis

P. A.

Choi

S. W.

Reise

S. P.

Stover

A. M.

Riley

W. T.

Cella

D., &

PROMIS Cooperative Group. (2011). Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®): Depression, anxiety, and anger. Assessment, 18, 263-283.

63.

Pincus

A. L.

Ansell

E. B.

Pimentel

C. A.

Cain

N. M.

Wright

A. G.

Levy

K. N.

(2009). Initial construction and validation of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21, 365-379.

64.

Poy

Segarra

Esteller

À.

López

Moltó

(2014). FFM description of the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy in men and women. Psychological Assessment, 26, 69-76.

65.

Poythress

N. G.

Skeem

J. L.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(2006). Associations among early abuse, dissociation, and psychopathy in an offender sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 288-297.

66.

Raine

Dodge

Loeber

Gatzke-Kopp

Lynam

Reynolds

Liu

(2006). The reactive-proactive aggression questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 159-171.

67.

Raskin

Terry

(1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890-902.

68.

Rauthmann

J. F.

Seubert

C. T.

Sachse

Furtner

M. R.

(2012). Eyes as windows to the soul: Gazing behavior is related to personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 147-156.

69.

Roberts

B. W.

DelVecchio

W. F.

(2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3-25.

70.

Rouse

S. V.

(2015). A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk data. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 304-307.

71.

Ruchensky

J. R.

Donnellan

M. B.

Edens

J. F.

(2018). Development and initial validation of the HEXACO-Triarchic scales. Psychological Assessment, 30, 1560-1566. doi:10.1037/pas0000609

72.

Sanders

Giolas

M. H.

(1991). Dissociation and childhood trauma in psychologically disturbed adolescents. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 50-54.

73.

Saunders

J. B.

Aasland

O. G.

Babor

T. F.

De la Fuente

J. R.

Grant

(1993). Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction, 88, 791-804.

74.

Schmidtke

J. I.

Heller

(2004). Personality, affect and EEG: Predicting patterns of regional brain activity related to extraversion and neuroticism. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 717-732.

75.

Shapiro

D. N.

Chandler

Mueller

P. A.

(2013). Using Mechanical Turk to study clinical populations. Clinical Psychological Science, 1, 213-220.

76.

Sherman

E. D.

Miller

J. D.

Few

L. R.

Campbell

W. K.

Widiger

T. A.

Crego

Lynam

D. R.

(2015). Development of a Short Form of the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory: The FFNI-SF. Psychological Assessment, 27, 1110-1116.

77.

Shou

Sellbom

Han

(2016). Development and validation of the Chinese Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30, 436-450.

78.

Smith

G. T.

McCarthy

D. M.

Zapolski

T. C.

(2009). On the value of homogeneous constructs for construct validation, theory testing, and the description of psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 21, 272-284.

79.

Soto

C. J.

John

O. P.

(2012). Development of Big Five domains and facets in adulthood: Mean-level age trends and broadly versus narrowly acting mechanisms. Journal of Personality, 80, 881-914.

80.

Tackett

Slobodskaya

Mar

Deal

Halverson

Baker

. . . Besevegis

(2012). The hierarchical structure of childhood personality in five countries: Continuity from early childhood to early adolescence. Journal of Personality, 80, 847-879.

81.

Tyrer

(2013). The classification of personality disorders in ICD11: Implications for forensic psychiatry. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 23, 1-5.

82.

Üstün

T. B.

Chatterji

Kostanjsek

Rehm

Kennedy

Epping-Jordan

, & the WHO/NIH Joint Project. (2010). Developing the World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88, 815-823.

83.

Vachon

D. D.

Lynam

D. R.

Widiger

T. A.

Miller

J. D.

McCrae

R. R.

Costa

P. T.

(2013). Basic traits predict the prevalence of personality disorder across the life span: The example of psychopathy. Psychological Science, 24, 698-705.

84.

Vaidyanathan

Patrick

C. J.

Bernat

E. M.

(2009). Startle reflex potentiation during aversive picture viewing as an indicator of trait fear. Psychophysiology, 46, 75-85.

85.

Vize

C. E.

Lynam

D. R.

Collison

K. L.

Miller

J. D.

(2018). Differences among dark triad components: A meta-analytic investigation. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9, 101-111.

86.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

87.

Watts

A. L.

Waldman

I. D.

Smith

S. F.

Poore

H. E.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(2017). The nature and correlates of the dark triad: The answers depend on the questions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 951-968.

88.

Wessling

K. S.

Huber

Netzer

(2017). MTurk character misrepresentation: Assessment and solutions. Journal of Consumer Research, 44, 211-230.

89.

Yamagata

Suzuki

Ando

Ono

Kijima

Yoshimura

. . . Livesley

W. J.

(2006). Is the genetic structure of human personality universal? A cross-cultural twin study from North America, Europe, and Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 987-998.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.35 MB