Assessment of Fearless Dominance and Impulsive Antisociality via Normal Personality Measures: Convergent Validity, Criterion Validity, and Developmental Change

Abstract

This report provides evidence for the reliability, validity, and developmental course of the psychopathic personality traits (factors) of Fearless Dominance (FD) and Impulsive Antisociality (IA) as assessed by items from the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Patrick, Curtin, & Tellegen, 2002). In Study 1, MPQ-based measures of FD and IA were strongly correlated with their corresponding composite scores from the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). In Study 2, FD and IA had relatively distinct associations with measures of normal and maladaptive personality traits. In Study 3, FD and IA had substantial retest coefficients during the transition to adulthood, and both traits showed average declines with an especially substantial drop in IA. In Study 4, FD and IA were correlated with measures of internalizing and externalizing problems in ways consistent with previous research and theory. Collectively, these results provide important information about the assessment of FD and IA.

Acknowledgments

The Michigan State University Graduate School provided funds to purchase the PPI–R protocols administered in Study 1. The ongoing panel study used in Studies 3 and 4 is currently supported by grants from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the National Institute of Mental Health (HD047573, HD051746, and MH051361, respectively). Support for earlier years of the study also came from multiple sources including the National Institute of Mental Health (MH00567, MH19734, MH43270, MH59355, MH62989, and MH48165), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA05347), the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD027724), the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health (MCJ–109572), and the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Adolescent Development Among Youth in High-Risk Settings. We thank Christopher Patrick and Stephen Benning for helpful comments concerning the PPI–R.

Notes

¹The MACH–IV was strongly correlated with the SRP total score in these data (r = .54), a finding similar to the .51 correlation reported by Vernon et al. (2008).

²One participant was excluded from these analyses because she or he completed the Year 10 assessment in early 2005.

³Comparisons on IA and FD for a group with affective disorders (n = 22) and a group with anxiety disorders (n = 44) did not yield statistically significant results (a complete table is available on request).

⁴Unfortunately, research on the unique correlates of the PPI–R Coldheartedness scale is relatively scarce. This scale seems to assess an important element of the syndrome of symptoms linked psychopathy (viz., an absence of empathy and guilt) and deserves more research attention. The availability of this scale is one reason why researchers may want to use the PPI–R in subsequent studies.

⁵We note that the connection we observed between IA and Neuroticism in Study 2 does not necessarily invalidate this interpretation. We suspect that this association might be driven by the angry hostility and impulsivity aspects of Neuroticism. Future work using the facets of the Five-factor model would help clarify this issue.