Handbook of Psychopathy Chapter 2 Notes: Dual-Deficit Model of Psychopathy

Chapoter 2 Dual-Deficit Model of Psychopathy

Anxiety v Fear: a fundamental distinction
Considerable evidence at the clinical level points to a fundamental
distinction between anxiety and fear (e.g. Barlow, 2000, 2002, Bouton,
Mineka & Barlow, 2001; Brown, Chorpita & Barlow, 1998; Butcher et al.,
2004, chap. 6; Mineka, Watson & Clark, 1998). Within this framework,
anxiety is more cognitive in nature, the defining feature being worry
or anxious oppression about inability to control potential future
threats, combined with attentional hyper-vigilance regarding potential
threat. Fear in contrast constitutes an activation of the
fight-flight system w/high autonomic arousal in order to deal with
imminent threat. Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is the prototype
(a first or preliminary model of something) for anxiety disorder,
although in varying degrees anxiety is common to all anxiety
disorders. Fear is the basis of phobic responses and of panic
attacks, the later being ostensibly uncued fear but often actually a
fear response cued by internal proprioceptive stimuli.
SEE: proprioceptive article.
p. 19.

BIS, Trait Anxiety & Harm Avoidance I: hypothesis – BIS deficit = low
trait anxiety NOT MPQ low Constraint
Gray’s view’s parallel Hierarchial Tripartite Models (i.e., he drew a
distinction between anxiety and fear and viewed neuroticism measures
as an index of anxiety). Gray distinguished between anxiety and panic
(e.g., Gray & McNaughton, 2000), with the BIS related to anxiety and
fight-flight system related to panic attacks. Furthermore, Gray and
McNaughton (2000, pp. 34-35) characterized GAD as having strong
cognitive-attentional components (an excessively strong focus on
potential threats) that are manifestations of excessive activity in
the BIS. At least in the past (Gray & McNaughton, 2000), Gray viewed
trait anxiety as strongly related to BIS reactivity. Thus, a
hypothetical BIS deficit in psychopaths should relate to low scores on
trait anxiety – NOT the Harm Avoidance hypothesis that relates
psychopathy to a component of disinhibition or low Constraint on
Tellegen’s MPQ.
p. 19-20.

BIS, Trait Anxiety & Harm Avoidance II – BIS reactivity -> goal
conflict NOT anxiety
In a major re-evaluation of the theory, Gray and McNaughton (2000, p.
338) emphasized that the BIS is activated only when there is goal
conflict. In their theoretical approach, by definition, only BIS
activation constitutes “anxiety.” In consequence, Gray and McNaughton
suggest that neuroticism or trait anxiety may reflect “general
sensitivity to threat” and that only a subset of threat-related
stimuli (i.e., conflict-producing) increases anxiety as they define
it. Consistent with this perspective, they use the terms
“neuroticism” and “trait anxiety” to refer to “susceptibility to
anxiety-related disorders” (p. 341).
p. 20.

BIS, Trait Anxiety & Harm Avoidance III – anxiety disorders apart from
BIS functioning
Gray and McNaughton (2000, p. 338). In spite of the conceptual
distinction between trait anxiety and BIS reactivity – BIS reactivity
-> goal conflict NOT anxiety – it appears that Gray and McNaughton
view individual differences in BIS reactivity as a major contributor
to trait anxiety. Nevertheless, important processes such as classical
aversive conditioning or exposure to uncontrollable aversive stimuli,
which do not involve motivational conflict, may affect susceptibility
to anxiety disorders apart from BIS functioning.
p. 20.

BIS, Trait Anxiety & Harm Avoidance IV – BIS – APQ – MPQ & harm
avoidance-constraint-fear/anxiety
The BIS, Gray, 1970, may contribute significantly to Harm Avoidance
(Fowles, 2000), consistent w/Lykken’s linkage of both the BIS and Harm
Avoidance to psychopathy. The critical role of the BIS in inhibiting
behavior in situations that involve danger or risk appears appears to
fit Lykken’s description of the (Lykken) APQ as reflecting the effects
of fear/anxiety on behavior. Similarly, Clark & Watson’s description
of the superfactor of Tellegen’s MPQ Constraint as reflecting the
inhibitory control over behavior to avoid immediate risk or danger and
longer term negative consequences seems parallel to the central role
of the BIS in approach-avoidance conflict situations.
p. 20.

BIS, Trait Anxiety & Harm Avoidance V – PEM, NEM & Constraint Factors
Tellegen’s (1985) description of NEM (Tellegen’s MPQ negative
emotions) does not refer strongly to inhibition of behavior: “an
appraisal of oneself as unpleasurably engaged, as stressed by one’s
own and others’ and attitudes … a tendency to worry, to be anxious,
to feel victimized and resentful, and to appraise generally in ways
that foster negative emotional experiences” (p. 696). More generally,
PEM (positive emotions) and NEM strongly relate to affect and
cognitions, whereas Harm Avoidance and the other Constraint factors
have more to do with inhibition of behavior that might lead to
trouble.
p. 20.

BIS, Trait Anxiety & Harm Avoidance VI – low BIS & reduced fear
reactivity = low neuroticism
Phenotypic, factor-analytically defined psychological traits are
unlikely to map directly onto underlying brain systems (Lykken, 1971).
Rather, it is more likely that underlying fear and anxiety systems
interact with each other under many conditions and that both may
contribute to components of the psychological traits of
neuroticism/trait anxiety and Harm Avoidance or disinhibition. Thus,
both a weak BIS and reduced cue-specific fear reactivity might
contribute both to low Harm Avoidance and to lower scores on
neuroticism/trait anxiety, perhaps in particularly overlapping and
partially specific ways.
p. 20.

BIS, Trait Anxiety & Harm Avoidance VII – psychopaths = BIS deficit &
low Harm Avoidance
As a construct derived from animal paradigms having to do with
inhibition of behavior rather than experienced affect, the BIS seems
relevant to Harm Avoidance & Constraint. If so, the association of
psychopathy and Harm Avoidance would fit with BIS hypothesis.
Although unfortunately this issue remains unresolved, this possibility
is consistent with the view that psychopaths have a BIS deficit and
are low on Harm Avoidance.
p. 20.

BIS, Trait Anxiety & Harm Avoidance VIII – cue-specific fear
reactivity -> MPQ stress reaction & MPQ Harm Avoidance
Patrick (personal communication, 11/04) suggests that lesser
cue-specific fear reactivity (associated with individual differences
in fear-potentiated startle reflex is related to some aspects of both
MPQ (Tellegen) Stress reaction (e.g., vulnerability v insensitivity)
and MPQ Harm Avoidance (i.e., pure enjoyment of dangerous activities,
such as “I think I would enjoy the experience of an earthquake”), as
opposed to preference for risk over tedium).
p. 20.

Cluster Analysis of Psychopathy – Summary & Conclusions I – MPQ
low-fear hypothesis – important inferences
W/respect to low-fear hypothesis, important theoretical inferences: 1)
the low-fear/low-anxiety hypothesis clearly applies to PCL-R Factor 1
and PPI-I and the related emotionally stable subtype (from cluster
analysis) with particularly strong evidence of a relation for Stress
Reaction, but it does not apply to Factor 2, which is characterized by
high levels of all aspects of NEM. W/respect to low-fear hypothesis,
important theoretical inferences: 2) there is little indication that
Factor 1 is more specifically related to low fear in the form of MPQ
Harm Avoidance (engaging in dangerous behavior) than to low anxiety
(anxiety, depression, trait anxiety, neuroticism, stress reactivity,
etc.) – both appear to be strong correlates. 3) the impulsivity or
disinhibition identified in the personality domain clearly applies to
Factor 2 and the related aggressive psychopath but not to Factor 1,
for which the only component of impulsivity is MPQ low Harm Avoidance.
p. 25.

Cluster Analysis of Psychopathy – Summary/Conclusions II – emotionally
stable psychopaths & MPQ trait scores
Emotionally stable psychopaths in Hicks & Colleagues (2004) described
themselves (in terms of their MPQ trait scores) as planful and
unlikely to act w/out forethought. The form of impulsivity associated
w/primary or Factor 1 psychopathy is one of willingness to take risk
even after considering the consequences.
p. 25-26.

Cluster Analysis of Psychopathy – Summary/Conclusions III –
emotionally stable psychopaths & Factor 2
SEE: Cluster Analysis of Psychopathy – Summary & Conclusions I …
article.
4) Factor 2 and the aggressive psychopath subtype are more strongly
associated with aggressing and, to some extend, poor attachments or
lovelessness in the form of high scores on anger, alienation and
antagonism. At the least, aggression and poor attachments are not
specifically associated with emotionally stable psychopaths. In some
respects, then, this group would be viewed by many as dangerous and
severe “real” psychopaths, not as a group that is in some sense
peripheral to the construct of psychopathy.
p. 26.

Cluster Analysis of Psychopathy – Summary/Conclusions IV – emotionally
stable psychopaths = PEM
SEE: Cluster Analysis of Psychopathy – Summary & Conclusions I …
article. 5) Emotionally stable psychopaths appear to be high in
approach motivation (PEM), which is channeled into dominance and
instrumental, controlling behavior rather than affiliation with
others. 6) the identification of Factor II & aggressive psychopathy
w/broad externalizing factor of psychopathology identified in children
& adults makes a connection to a psychopathology literature on the
etiology of externalizing disorders.
p. 26.

Cluster Analysis of Psychopathy I: subtypes: emotionally stable &
aggressives on MPQ primary factors
Hicks & colleagues (2004) employed cluster analysis to identify
subtypes among incarcerated PCL-R diagnosed psychopaths on the basis
of the MPQ primary trait scales (SEE: MPQ Primary Trait Scales I-V
articles). The best-fitting cluster identified 2-subtypes with a
strong resemblance to the specific correlates of PCL-R Factors 1 & 2,
it is of interest that the subtype groups differed significantly but
only “slightly” on Factor 2 and did not differ on Factor 1 scores.
Based on the most extreme trait scale scores, the subtypes were
labeled “emotionally stable” (low Stress Reaction) and “aggressive”
(high Aggression).
p. 25.

Cluster Analysis of Psychopathy II: MPQ primary & superfactors –
primary v secondary psychopaths
In comparisons of the 2-subtypes on MPQ primary factors (SEE: MPQ
Primary Trait Scales I-V articles), the aggressive psychopaths were
higher on Stress Reaction, Alienation, and Aggression and lower on
Well-being, Achievement and Control. In comparisons involving the MPQ
superfactors [(1) NEM – negative emotions (cf. neuroticism; 2) PEM –
positive emotions (cf. neuroticism; 3) Constraint (cf. low
disinhibition)] the emotionally stable psychopaths were higher on
Agentic-PEM and Constraint, but low on NEM.
p. 25.

Cluster Analysis of Psychopathy III: secondary psychopaths = lower
attachments MPQ Social Closeness
RE: Hicks & colleagues (2004) employed cluster analysis to identify
subtypes among incarcerated PCL-R diagnosed psychopaths on the basis
of the MPQ primary trait scales. Scores of the 2-subgroups –
“emotionally stable” (low Stress Reaction) and “aggressive” (high
Aggression) – on MPQ Social Closeness are of interest. Only the
aggressive psychopaths were significantly lower than prisoner
controls, w/emotionally stable psychopaths being intermediate. Thus,
although “lovelessness” has often been said to characterize primary
psychopaths, only the aggressive (secondary) psychopaths showed
significantly lower attachments (Social Closeness) than the controls.
p. 25.

Cluster Analysis of Psychopathy IV: primary & violent psychopaths =
“true” psychopaths
RE: Hicks & colleagues (2004) employed cluster analysis to identify
subtypes among incarcerated PCL-R diagnosed psychopaths on the basis
of the MPQ primary trait scales (SEE: MPQ Primary Trait Scales I-V
articles). Though the psychopathy subtypes clearly differed on
personality traits in the directions suggested by the correlates of
psychopathy Factors 1 & 2, it is of interest that the subtype groups –
primary & violent psychopaths – differed significantly but only
“slightly” on Factor 2 and did not differ on Factor 1 scores. All
these subjects met the PCL-R criteria for psychopathy (i.e., overall
PCL-R score = 30). Both subgroups, primary & violent psychopaths, are
“true” psychopaths.
p. 25.

Cluster Analysis of Psychopathy V: criminal deviance -> PCL-R Factors
I & II scoring
RE: Hicks & colleagues (2004) employed cluster analysis to identify
subtypes among incarcerated PCL-R diagnosed psychopaths on the basis
of the MPQ primary trait scales. A compelling explanation for the
minimal factor differences (Patrick, personal communication, June
2004) is that there are 2-distinct etiological pathways to the high
PCL-R phenotype with PCL-R Factors 1 & 2 representing imperfect
indicators of the underlying trait dispositions associated with each.
From this standpoint, Factor 1 reflects more a “fearless-dominant”
trait disposition, and Factor 2 are an impulsive-AB behavior
(“externalizing”) disposition. However, because the 2-factors of the
PCL-R are related substantially on the basis of overlapping,
offensive-related information, higher scores on one factor tend to be
associated with higher scores on the other (i.e., there is a general
element of criminal deviance that enters into the scoring of both
factors).
p. 25.

Deficits as Risk Factors for Core Features of Psychopathy I: fearless
kid & super parents
From the perspective of the etiology of psychopathy, a fearless
temperament combined w/positive mother-child relationship results in a
normal individual. On the other hand, the combination of fearlessness
and the lack of a positive relationship results in a failure to
internalize conscience and, presumably, an AB trajectory. Thus the
link between lovelessness and AB could be conceptualized simply as the
result of the combination of fearlessness and an inadequately positive
mother-child relationship. More likely, given the other theories
cited previously, fearlessness may make a positive relationship more
difficult. In that case, fearlessness and lovelessness could be
attributed to the absence of unusually skilled parenting in the face
of a fearless child temperament (as suggested by Lykken, 1995) –
similar to the outcomes in attachment theory and Patterson’s social
learning approach.
p. 28.

Deficits as Risk Factors for Core Features of Psychopathy III:
negative interpersonal factors -> AB trajectory
The deficits associated w/psychopathy can be conceptualized primarily
as risk factors for negative developmental trajectories. When they
are combined w/parenting that is insufficiently skilled to overcome or
compensate for these challenges and other environmental adversities,
an interpersonally negative, AB trajectory is initiated that can in
some cases result in the development of psychopathy.
p. 28.

Deficits as Risk Factors for Core Features of Psychopathy III: super
parents v fearless-loveless kids
In contrast w/the positive relationship outcome of the fearless kid
and the reward-based mom, this relationship may make a positive
relationship more difficult. Then, fearlessness and lovelessness
could be attributed to the absence of unusually skilled parenting in
the face of a fearless child temperament (as suggested by Lykken,
1995) – similar to the outcomes in attachment theory and Patterson’s
social learning approach.
p. 28.

Deficits as Risk Factors for Core Features of Psychopathy IV:
lovelessness-guiltless orientation
The importance of interpersonal factors in this outcome is central in
the attachment literature and in Kochanska’s work, and their
importance is implied in Patterson’s work. From this standpoint, a
loveless-guiltless orientation represents a developmental failure of
the process of socialization. It is noteworthy that the Patterson
social learning and the attachment traditions are more identified with
ADHD-impulsive pathway to psychopathy than w/low fear pathway (Frick &
Morris, 2004), suggesting that the core feature of lovelessness may
be as integral to the impulsivity pathway as to the low-fear pathway.
p. 28-29.

Deficits, Core Feature of Psychopathy & Development
Assuming that low fear and impulsivity/executive function deficit
pathways have been identified as contributing to the etiology of
psychopathy, it is obvious that neither of these deficits per se fully
embodies all the core features of clinically defined psychopathy, but
neither are direct manifestations of either low fear or impulsivity.
Instead, deficits of this kind are viewed as risk factors creating
developmental challenges or difficulties that may – w/environmental
factors – contribute to the development of negative interpersonal
orientation and failure to internalize conscience (Frick & Morris,
2004; Hinshaw & lee, 2003). For example, lovelessness &
guiltlessness are viewed as core feature of psychopathy (e.g., McCord,
1982, pp. 24-27; McCord & McCord, 1964, p. 17), but neither are direct
manifestations of either low fear or impulsivity.
p. 27.

Developmental Theories of AB I: violent parents = violent kids
Patterson & colleagues (Dishion, French & Patterson, 1995; Patterson
et al., 2000; Patterson, Reid & Dishion, 1992) have documented the
importance of “coercive” parent-child interactions for the etiology of
AB, aggressive behavior. The child’s coercive repertoire, in turn,
ultimately generalizes to peers, teachers, and others. The poor
reception by teachers and peers results in lessened engagement in
school with subsequent academic failure, rejection by
normal-nondeviant peers, and association with deviant peers, who
contribute to the maintenance and further development of AB.
Handbook of Psychopathy, p. 27.

Developmental Theories of AB II: bad parents = AB child
Patterson’s group (e.g., Patterson et al., 1992; Patterson et al.,
2000) has emphasized the probable contribution of infant & child
temperament: an extremely active & difficult infant in interaction
w/an insufficiently responsive parent results in distressed infant
behavior that, by 24-months has escalated into the coercive behavior
and lack of social skills that characterize both the hyperactive & AB
child and later often results in diagnoses of ADHD, ODD & CD.
Handbook of Psychopathy, p. 27.
Developmental Theories of AB III : assertive parents = AB child/early
starters = adult criminals
assertive parents = AB child or early starters for adult criminal
careers, consistent with adult criminal career, consistent w/ADHD/CD
early-onset trajectory to psychopathy. This social learning model
assumes that coercive parent-child models assumes that coercive
parent-child relationships are incompatible with a mutually
responsive, positive mother-child relationship (Dishion et al., 1995).
The coercive process involves an antagonistic relationship in which
coercion is employed to obtain things from others, and the negative
reactions of others to the coercive child are likely to strengthen an
antagonistic, loveless, exploitive interpersonal orientation.
p. 27.

Developmental Theories of AB IV : AB risk factor = attachment disorder
Overlapping approach to temperament-based theories of the etiology of
AB, based more in developmental psychology, begins with the complex
context of the “difficult temperament” (especially, high negative
affect strongly expressed; Campbell, 1998; Frick & Morris, 2004;
Hinshaw & Lee, 2003). Infants w/a difficult temperament represent a
challenge to parenting that can promote poor parenting styles and
maladaptive parent – child interactions. A number of investigators in
this literature view the failure to develop “secure attachment” to the
mother by age 1-year as a risk factor for later AB.
p. 27.

Developmental Theories of AB V : infant difficult temperament &
attachment disorder
Although the correlations between infant difficult temperament and/or
insecure attachment at age-1 and later AB are relatively modest
(presumably because many other factors are important; Campbell, 1998,
Hinshaw & Lee, 2003), this theoretical approach is noteworthy in the
context of psychopathy for its emphasis on the attachment process,
which conceptually is relevant to the development of a negative
interpersonal orientation or lovelessness in adult psychopaths.
Handbook of Psychopathy, p. 27-28.

Developmental Theories of AB V: fearful v fearless temperament
In contrast to the direct effect of inhibitory/effortful control &
fearful temperament fearful temperament interacted w/parenting style
to predict the development of internalized conscience at ages 4-5
(Kochanska, 1997, 2002): When children are divided into fearful and fearless temperament using a median split, internalized conscience is predicted by maternal
gentle disciple (as opposed to harsher, power assertion discipline)
for fearful but not fearless children. In contrast, internalization
of conscience among fearless but not fearful children is predicated by
a positive, mutually responsive mother-child relationship (i.e.,a
reward-based pathway). Thus, for a fearless child the punishment-based pathway is ineffective, leaving the parent with only a reward-based pathway. p. 28.
Developmental Theories of AB VI: electrodermal reactive = for reactive
& nonreactive children
Fowles & Kochanska (2000) assessed overall electrodermal reactivity in
children from this longitudinal sample (Kochanska, 1997, 2002) at
age-4 and found the same pattern of results when this reactivity
measure was substituted for the original measure of fearful
temperament (with which it is uncorrelated). That is, using a median
split on electrodermal reactivity, maternal gentle disciple predicted
internalized conscience for the reactive children, while attachment
security (a substitute for a positive-mother relationship) predicted
internalized conscience for the nonreactive children. These finding
suggest that electrodermal reactivity at an early age may reflect some
aspects of temperament not captured by Kochanska’s assessment of
fearfulness based on behavioral observations & maternal ratings. That
is, electrodermal reactivity = for fearful and fearless kids in this
study.
p. 28.

Developmental Theories of AB VI: low inhibitory/effortful control &
fearful temperament
Kochanska studied impulsivity in the form of low inhibitory/effortful
control and fearful temperament (constructs from Rothbart’s 3-factor
model for children that parallel Tellegen’s MPQ adult factors;
Rothbart & Ahadi, 1994) on the later development of internalized
conscience in young children. Kochanska & her colleagues (Kochanska,
Murray & Coy, 1997; Kochanska, Murray, Jacques, Koenig & Vandegeest,
1996), using longitudinal designs, found that inhibitory effortful
control at toddler age has a direct effect on internalization of
conscience at preschool and early school ages. And, effortful control
was trait-like with robust longitudinal stability between toddlerhood
and early school age (correlation or r= .65).
SEE: r = correlation coefficient article
Handbook of Psychopathy, p. 28.

diathesis
Etymology: Gk, arrangement an inherited physical constitution
predisposing to certain diseases or conditions, many of which are
believed associated with the Y chromosome because males appear to be
more susceptible than females. A diathesis may be bilious, indicating
a familial tendency to development of GI distress, or gouty,
indicating a predisposition to accumulation of urates in the tissues,
particularly in mature males.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/diathesis

extraversion
A state in which attention and energies are largely directed outward
from the self as opposed to inward toward the self, as in
introversion.
http://www.revitalizingpsychiatry.com/terms.html

Factor 1 in Childhood I – ADHD Kids = imulsivity & lack emotional
control
Impulsivity & lack of emotional control of ADHD children have a
negative impact on their social skills, making them socially inept &
resulting in peer rejection (Hinshaw & Lee, 2003); Patterson, DeGarmo
& Knutson, 2000; Wicks-Nelson & Israel, 1997) – an image inconsistent
w/cool predator.
p. 27.

Factor 1 in Childhood II – AB kids = CU & low fear hypothesis
Frick’s (Frick & Marsee, ch. 18, this volume: Psychopathy &
Development al Pathways to AB in Youth; Salekin, ch. 20, this volume:
Psychopathy in Children & Adolescents…) relatively recent
identification of a “callous-unemotional” (CU) dimension of AB in
children, designed to tap the PCL-R Factor 1 and found to be
independent of ADHD, provides a possible solution to this theoretical
difficulty. In general, Frick (1998a, 1998b; Frick et al., 2003;
Frick & Morris, 2004) has found the low fear hypothesis in AB kids.
p. 27.

Factor 2 & Externalizing Disorders I – child externalizing v
internalizing
Childhood disorders have long been characterized in terms of broad
dimensions of internalizing – anxiety & depression, and externalizing
psychopathology – ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder or ODD, and
conduct disorder or CD, with AB being strongly associated
w/externalizing disorders (e.g., Quay, 1996). Moffitt & Lynam (Lynam,
1998; Moffitt, 1993; Moffitt & Caspi, 2001; Moffitt & Lynam, 1994)
have argued that early-onset ODD/CD, combined w/hyperactivity (ADHD),
but not the predominantly in attentive subtype) and neuropsychological
deficits, frequently develops in adult psychopathy.
p. 26.

Factor 2 & Externalizing Disorders II – adult psychopathy = ADHD &
aggressive behaviors
Hinshaw & Lee (2003) found strong support for the early onset ODD/CD,
ADHD = adult psychopathy (SEE: Psychopathy Factors in Childhood –
child externalizing v internalizing article). Lynam (1999) found
that adult psychopathy is predicted by this combination of ADHD
symptomatology and aggressive behaviors.
p. 26

Factor 2 & Externalizing Disorders III – externalizing disorders’
comorbity = genetics
Krueger and colleagues (2002; and Krueger, ch. 10, this volume:
Perspectives on the Conceptualization of Psychopathy: Toward an
Integration) demonstrated that the externalizing disorders share a
latent vulnerability, largely reflecting a genetic influence that
accounts for their comorbidity.
p. 26.
Factor 2 & Externalizing Disorders IV – Factor 2 = early onset ADHD &
AB
Factor 2 correlates strongly with impulsivity/disinhibition, combined
with this factor’s association w/externalizing disorder & diagnoses
(child/adult AB deviance, alcohol abuse/dependence, and drug
abuse/dependence, and Krueger (Perspectives on the Conceptualization
of Psychopathy: Toward an Integration), greatly strengthens the
hypothesis that a subset of the comorbid ADHD-CD children developer
into adult psychopaths. There is good evidence in support of an
etiological pathway involving the specific feature of Factor 2 or
aggressive psychopathy by way of comorbid ADHD & AB with an early
onset.
p. 26.

Factor 2 & Externalizing Disorders V – ADHD & impulsivity =
psychopathy risk factor
Theories concerning the deficit associated with ADHD focus on the
concepts of impulsivity (Berkeley, 1999) or dysfunction of regulator
or control processes (Douglas, 1999) – an admittedly complex and
potentially vague concept akin to executive function deficits. Rather
clearly, this etiological factor differs from the low fear/anxiety
factor and thus constitutes a second important risk factor for
psychopathy.
p. 26.

Factor 2 & PPI-II +- correlations
The unique variance in PCL-R Factor 2 the PPI-II tends to be
positively correlated with neuroticism/NEM (anxiety, depression, fear,
anger, alienation), impulsivity/disinhibition (i.e., negatively
correlated with all aspects of Constraint), and the externalizing
disorders, and it is negatively related to agentic PEM (in particular,
its Achievement facet).
p. 25.

Factor I & II features -> found in PPI
Factor 1: psychopathic psychological malfunctions: predator
inclinations and deficient emotional reactivity associated
w/psychopathy. Factor 2: antisocial behaviors: relates to impulsivity
disinhibition, early and chronic antisocial behaviors, and a flavor of
ineptness in the antisocial behavior (as opposed to competent,
proactive predation). These factors have also been found in the
Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld, 1990; Lilienfeld
& Andrews, 1996). This self-report instrument, appears to validly
assess these dimensions in normal populations.
p. 14.

Fear Conditioning, Amygdala & BIS I – amygdala v septohippocampal &
anxiety
Gray & McNaughton (2000, p. 1) commented that current orthodoxy (other
than their own work) views the amygdala rather than the
septohippocampal system as the “key brain structure underlying
anxiety.” The comment refers to a large and elegant literature on the
neural pathways involved in classical aversive fear conditioning,
especially the work of Davis (e.g., Davis, Walker & Lee, 1999; Lang et
al., 2000) and LeDoux (e.g., 1995, 2000, 2002, pp. 212-229).
p. 20.

Fear Conditioning, Amygdala & BIS II – aversive CS -> thalmus or
cortex -> amygdala
The (unconditioned) acoustic startle reflex in the rat is the point of
departure formuch of this literature. Davis’s work (e.g., Davis,
Walker & Lee, 1999; Lang et al., 2000) and LeDoux (e.g., 1995, 2000,
2002, pp. 212-229) on the potentiation of the startle reflex that
occurs in the presence of the brief light (CS or conditional stimulus)
previously paired with shock is of great interest, and the amygdala
looms large in this effect. LeDoux’s parallel work, which employs
freezing rather than startle and a tone rather than a light CS,
equally implicates the amygdala. Basic sensory information about the
aversive CS is transmitted directly from the thalamus (basic sensory
information) or indirectly via the cortex (more complex conditioned
fear stimuli) to the lateral nucleus of the amygdala. As a result of
the conditioning that has occurred to the CS, the lateral nucleus
activates the central nucleus of the amygdala which, in turn,
initiates the behavioral and physiological expression of fear.
p. 20-21.

Fear Conditioning, Amygdala & BIS III – pertinent to Gray’s theory &
psychopathy
Although at first glance, this literature on fear conditioning SEE:
Fear Conditioning, Amygdala & BIS I & II … articles)appears unlikely
to challenge a theory of anxiety, several issues arise from this work
that are pertinent to Gray’s theory and psychopathy. First: Studies
have suggested that the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (seen as
part of an “extended amygdala”) plays a critical role in anxiety
(David, 1998; Lang et al., 2000).
p. 21.

Fear Conditioning, Amygdala & BIS IV – stria terminalis = longer-term
potentiation of startle or anticipation
(David, 1998; Lang et al., 2000: SEE: Fear Conditioning, Amygdala &
BIS III) Exposure to bright light for 5-20 minutes induces startle
potentiation in rats similar to, but more prolonged than that produced
by fear CSs, as does injection of corticotropin-releasing hormone
(CRH) into the ventricles. Ventricular CRH produces fear- and
anxiety-like neuroendocrine and behavioral effects, and the anxiolytic
drug chlordiazepoxide (as well as buspirone in the case of light)
decreases both of these effects, suggesting that light and CRH
exposure produce anxiety, which enhances the startle response.
Various manipulations indicate that the bed nucleus of the stria
terminalis (seen here as an “extended amygdala,) but not the central
nucleus of the amygdala, is involved in this anxiety-like, longer-term
potentiation of startle, but not in fear-potentiated startle.
Conversely, the central nucleus of amygdala is involved in
fear-potentiated startle but not in the light- or CRH-potentiated
startle effects.
SEE: fear-potentiated startle article.
p. 21.

Fear Conditioning, Amygdala & BIS V – explicit v contextual fear
conditioning
A finding in amygdala/fear-reactivity literature distinguishes between
explicit (e.g., tone-shock) fear conditioning and contextual fear
conditioning (e.g., LeDoux, 1995, 2000, 2002). When animals are
returned to the chamber in which explicit cue conditioning previously
occurred, they freeze and act afraid in response to the environment.
The contextual conditioning phenomenon depends on the hippocampus as
well as the amygdala, the former presumably because of its “role in
relational/configural/spatial processing” (LeDoux, 2002, p. 216); in
contrast, the hippocampus is not involved in explicit cue
conditioning.
p. 21.

Fear Conditioning, Amygdala & BIS VI – Gray: septohippocampal system
& passive avoidance conflict
The view that the hippocampus (role in relational/configural/spatial
processing) along with the amygdala in contextual fear conditioning
overlaps with Gray’s emphasis on the role of the septohippocampal
system in passive avoidance conflict or in “facilitating entry into a
dangerous situation” (Gray & McNaughton, 2000, p. 217; Le Doux, 1995;
Patrick & lang, 1999).
p. 21.

Fear Conditioning, Amygdala & BIS VII – Gray: BIS = septohippocampal
& amygdala = anxiety
To accommodate more recent research on fear conditioning and the
amygdala, Gray & McNaughton (2000, pp. 281-284) modified the BIS to
include the amygdala: Output from septohippocampal system combined
w/activity in the amygdala constitutes anxiety, and the amygdala
produces the increased nonspecific arousal and autonomic activity
associated with BIS activity. W/respect to the bed nucleus of the
stria terminalis, Gray & McNaughton acknowledged the above findings
but suggested that is is too early to conclude that the bed nucleus
plays a critical role in anxiety.
p. 21.

Fear Conditioning, Amygdala & BIS VIII – potentiate startle reflects
fear NOT anxiety
With this modification of the BIS theory (BIS = septohippocampal &
amygdala) there is somewhat less conflict with the amygdala
literature, but Gray & McNaughton acknowledge that the BIS no longer
is identified with a “neurally unified set of structures” (p. 284) as
it was in the original theory. Whatever the outcome of the
septohippocampal system v the extended amygdala (bed nucleus of stria
terminalis) as central to anxiety, the use of a classically
conditioned fear CS to potentiate startle seems to reflect fear rather
than anxiety.
p. 21.

fear-potentiated startle
An exaggerated startle reaction to a sudden stimulus that occurs when
the stimulus is presented while the organism is afraid, e.g., in the
presence of a fear excitor.
http://www.sinauer.com/bouton/glossary.html

FFM high antagonism – PCL-R & PPI correlations
Low FFM Agreeableness (high Antagonism) characterizes PCL-R Factors 1
& 2 in prison males and is likewise associated with both factors of
the PPI (Ross, Benning, Patrick, Thompson & Thurston, 2005) – possibly
because high Antagonism reflects both dominance (Factor 1) and
Aggression (Factor 2).
p. 25.

Fowles (1980) used the weak BIS hypothesis to account for
discrepancies between heart rate and EDA (electrodermal activity) in
anticipation of shock. Hare’s (1978) review concluded that, contrary
to electrodermal hyporeactivity, psychopaths show normal or even
larger cardiac increases in anticipation of punishment. Fowles (1980)
proposed that EDA, at least under conditions of anticipation of
punishment, reflects activity of the BIS. HR is strongly tied to
somatic activity in order to support metabolic demands, but in
addition it reflects motivational processes associated with behavioral
activation by the BAS. Given the normality of the BAS in psychopaths,
this hypothesis of motivational specificity for the HR and EDA
accounted for the discrepant findings in anticipation of punishment.
Gray’s theory thus made predictions that fit both the clinical
features of psychopathy and the psychophysiological findings during
the anticipation of punishment.
p. 18.

1970, Jeffrey Gray proposed an anxiety deficit in psychopathy
conceptualized in terms of what he called the Behavioral Inhibition
System (BIS), a construct derived from theories of animal learning and
motivation supplemented by consideration of relevant neurobiological
findings. The BIS can best be understood in relation to its
counterpart, the Behavioral Approach System or Behavioral Activation
System (BAS; e.g., Gray, 1978, 1979).
p. 17

Gray’s Theory Applied to Psychopathy II – BIS inhibits BAS
The BAS activates behavior in response to cues or CSs (cue stimulus)
that signal response-contingent reward (simple approach paradigms) or
safety and relieving non-punishment (active avoidance paradigms). On
the other hand, the BIS (Behavioral Inhibition System) inhibits BAS
(Behavioral Activation System) – activated behavior in response to CSs
for response-contingent punishment (passive avoidance) in an
approach-avoidance conflict situation, or for frustrative nonreward in
an extinction paradigm. From this perspective, a person with a weak
BIS would be approach-dominant in conflict situations and slower to
give up responding to extinction situations.
p. 17

Gray began by developing a model of the anxiolytic effects of
anxiolytic drugs (alcohol, barbiturates and minor tranquilizers).
Gray (1977) concluded that these drugs weaken the BIS – reduce the
ability to inhibit dominant but incorrect responses (Gray &
McNaughton, 2000, p. 340). Aversive stimuli (anticipation punishment
or frustration) activate the BIS and anxiolytic drugs weaken it, Gray
concluded that the BIS mediates anxiety responses.
p. 17.

Gray identified the septohippocampal system as the core
neurobiological substrate for the BIS in the CNS, based on the finding
that the behavioral effects of lesions in this system paralleled the
effects of anxiolytic drugs and that anxiolytic drugs raised the
threshold for activating this system by electrical stimulation of the
medial septal area.
SEE: septohippocampal system – anxiety conflict article
p. 17

Although Gray (1970) did not extensively discuss psychopathy, he did
suggest that psychopaths seek rewards “with no fear of punishment” and
that their persistent antisocial behavior reflects “a relative
insensitivity to punishment” (p. 255) – implying a weak BIS combined
with a normal (or possibly strong) BAS. Fowles (1980) underscored the
match between predictions from the weak BIS hypothesis and the
clinical features of psychopathy.
p. 17.

Earlier formulations assumed that active avoidance is mediated by
anxiety, the tradition embraced by Gray placed more emphasis on the
anticipation of rewards: safety cues associated with avoidance of the
punishment are viewed as the functional equivalent to reward cues and
thus activate the BAS. As a result, Gray’s theory predicted that
psychopaths would have normal (or greater) active avoidance responses
that would be more undersocialized. That is, some active avoidance
responses are associated with a risk of punishment – for example:
feigning remorse or lying to avoid blame for a misdeed and killing
witnesses to reduce the chances of prosecution (represented in the
animal literature in the two-way active avoidance paradigm (Fowles,
1980). Such avoidance situations parallel approach-avoidance
conflicts. The weak BIS hypothesis predicts that psychopaths would be
less restrained by the potential punishments for making these active
avoidance responses.
p. 17.

Gray’s Theory Applied to Psychopathy VI – poor behavioral control –
poor extinction – poor passive avoidance
The fundamental role of inhibition in Gray’s work was relatively new
in animal learning theory (1970, Jeffrey Gray proposed an anxiety
deficit in psychopathy conceptualized in terms of what he called the
Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), a construct derived from theories
of animal learning; Gray’s Theory Applied to Psychopathy I…) – for
example, Hullian learning theory (1943, 1952) did not have a
comparable construct – and was ideal to account for impulsivity in
situations of response-contingent punishment and frustrative
non-reward. Psychopaths should show weak behavioral inhibition
(disinhibition) in passive avoidance and extinction situations.
p. 17.

Weak BIS activation in conflict situations predicts that psychopaths
would be less anxious than other individuals in such contexts. So,
the weak BIS hypothesis accounts for both the low anxiety and
behavioral disinhibition observed clinically in psychopaths (Cleckley,
1941/1982) and confirmed in laboratory investigations (Lykken, 1957).
Lykken (1995) embraced this perspective (i.e., attributing the fear
deficit in psychopathy to a weak BIS).
p. 17-18.

Hierarchial Tripartite Models I: anxiety & depression comorbidity ->
neuroticism
In the past 2-decades research has revealed considerable comorbidity
between anxiety and depression and their related disorders and has
identified neuroticism or negative affectivity as elevated in both.
Two descriptive approaches, the tripartite model of Clark & Watson
(1991) as recently modified (Mineka et al., 1998) and the hierarchical
(latent structure) model of Barlow and his colleagues (e.g., Barlow,
2000, 2002; Brown et al., 1998) have yielded elegant and convergent
conceptualizations of this anxiety and depression comorbidity and
related phenomena.
p. 19.

Hierarchial Tripartite Models II: higher-order factors & lower-order
factors
The model by Barlow and his colleagues (e.g., Barlow, 2000, 2002;
Brown et al., 1998) have yielded elegant and convergent
conceptualizations of this anxiety and depression comorbidity and
related phenomena. A higher-order factor of negative effect is common
to depression and the anxiety disorders, a higher-order factor of
positive effect is specifically low in depression, and a lower-order
factor of autonomic arousal is strongly related to panic disorder.
Negative affectivity correlates strongly with neuroticism and trait
anxiety measures.
p. 19.

Consistent with Hierarchial Tripartite Models, an important twin study
by Kendler, Neale, Keller, Heath & Eaves (1992) demonstrated a common
genetic diathesis for GAD and major depression, with individual
specific environment determining whether GAD or major depression
develops. It’s suggested that this shared vulnerability to anxiety
and depression consists of general distress reactivity, later found to
be well indexed by neuroticism (Kendler, 1996). Similarly, other
reviews have identified neuroticism as a major risk factor for anxiety
and depression (Butcher et al., 2004, chap. 7; Clark, Watson & Mineka,
1994; Klein, Durbin, Shankman & Santiogo, 2002; Mineka et al., 1998).
SEE: diathesis article.
p. 19.

From the perspective of psychopathy, this literature raises several
overlapping questions: 1) how can Gray’s BIS as an anxiety system be
understood in terms of the deficit in psychopathy, primarily
conceptualized as low fear, and how does the BIS relate to measures of
Tellegen’s MPQ superfactor Negative Emotionality or NEM v Harm
Avoidance? 2) how does the relatively strong distinction between
anxiety and fear relate to the nature of the deficit in psychopathy?
3) how does Harm Avoidance relate to the anxiety-v-fear distinction.
p. 19.

Major developments in the last decade in both adult psychopathy
literature and the developmental psychopathology literature focused on
AB provide new insights into the contribution of low fear to the
etiology of psychopathy, and other alternative pathways: impulsivity,
executive function deficits, poor emotional regulation, etc.
p. 14.

The current standard for diagnosing psychopathy, Hare’s (1991, 2003)
Psychopathy Checklist – Revised (PCL-R), encompass two distinct
dimensions. Factor analysis of the PCL-R item set yielded evidence of
2-factors with a correlation above .5 (Hare, 1991, 1998; Hare et
al.,1990; Harpur, Hare & Hakstian, 1989), characterized as
affective-interpersonal or “core features” of psychopathy (Factor 1)
and impulsive antisocial behavior (Factor 2) (Benning, Patrick, Hicks,
Blonigen & Krueger, 2003; Hare, 1991, 2003; Harpur et al., 1989).
p. 14.

The original low-fear hypothesis was seen as a deficit in fear/anxiety
conditioning with an emphasis on the effects of fear/anxiety on
behavior. Psychopaths were found to show 1) poor aversive
conditioning for EDA, 2) to fail to inhibit punished behavior, and 3)
to score low on the APQ (Activity Preference Questionnaire) – a
questionnaire designed to assess the effects of fear/anxiety on
behavior.
p. 18.

Low Fear Hypothesis: Summary&Comment II – low-fear study replications
Many investrigators have reported replication of the first finding
(poor aversive conditioning for EDA) and a reasonable number of the
second finding (fail to inhibit punished behavior). The third (score
low on the APQ) has not been well replicated with psychopaths, but a
few results have suggested some validity for the APQ as an index of
psychopathic features. Importantly, the APQ (activity perference
questionaire) evolved into the Harm Avoidance scale of Tellegen’s MPQ
(Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire, which has been used
extensively in the recent literature.
p. 18.

Patrick (personal communication, November 2004) noted that APQ items
require a forced choice between dangerous versus tedious/boring
activities and, as a result are more likely to reflect the “boredom
susceptibility” component of the Sensation-Seeking Scale (Zuckerman,
1991). Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, Hicks and Iacono (2005) found that
SSS-boredom correlates selectively with Factor 2 of the PPI (PPI-II),
whereas the thrill-and-adventure seeking (TAS) component of 885
correlates selectively with Factor 1 of the PPI (PPI-I).
p. 18.

Low Fear Hypothesis: Summary&Comment IV – APQ index of boredom
aversion
Patrick’s group has found that APQ-based items from the Harm Avoidance
scale requiring choice between risk and tedium correlate more with
PPI-II, whereas non-APQ items that deal exclusively with attracton to
danger seeking (e.g., “I think it would be fun and exciting to
experience an earthquake”) correlate more with PPI-I. Thus Patrick
suggested that although intended as an index of fearlessness, the APQ
may be more an index of boredom aversion associated with psychopathy
Factor 2, PPI-II.
p. 18.

Gray’s proposal of a BIS deficit in psychopaths offered relatively
good theoretical explanations for the clinical features of psychopath
and a way to account for the differences between EDA and HR in
anticipation of punishment by attributing reactivity to BIS and BAS
activity respectively: BIS linked to EDA; BAS linked to HR.
p. 18.

Lykken (1995) reviewed literature in support of the low-fear and found
it to be consistent with the concept of a weak BIS. This formulation
assumes that Harm Avoidance, BIS functioning, and the core features of
psychopathy are functionally related and should show high
correlations.
p. 18.

Over time, a number of issues have emerged that need to be addressed
in the context of the low-fear hypothesis. For example, the current
fundamental distinction between fear and anxiety at both a clinical
and neurobiological level (e.g., Barlow, 2002; Butcher, Mineka &
Hooley, 2004, chap[. 6; Gray & McNaughton, 2000, chap. 1; Lang, Davis
& Ohman, 2000) raises questions as to whether the deficit relates more
to fear than anxiety, whether the BIS hypothesis is incompatibility
w/a deficit in fear (as opposed to anxiety) conditioning, and whether
Harm Avoidance relates to fear or anxiety. Other issues have emerged
concerning the nature of the deficit as its relation to impulsivity
(e.g., whether the impulsivity deficit relates to core features of
psychopathy).
p. 18-19.

Lykken developed the Activity Preference Questionnaire (APQ; Lykken,
1995, p. 102) to assess “the extent to which anxiety determines
behavior choices” (Lykken, 1957, p. 7, emphasis added) and found that
it was negligibly correlated w/two neuroticism scales. Lykken’s view
of the role of neuroticism in psychopathology is not entirely clear.
In a 1995 review-restatement of his position, he referred to the APQ
as measuring fearfulness (p. 150), and commented that trait anxiety
scales measure neuroticism (reflecting the high correlation between
trait anxiety & neuroticism scales). The while, Lykken attributes
fearlessness in psychopaths to a deficit in an anxiety system that
inhibits behavior. The distinction is between the effects of
anxiety/fear on behavior v a cluster of characteristics including
negative emotional experience and negative self-descriptions. Lykken
does not appear to be concerned w/major distinction between anxiety v
fear that is prominent in recent literature on anxiety disorders.
p. 15.

Lykken (1957) tested the low fear-hypothesis in 3-ways: 1) he reasoned
that the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale and the Welsh Anxiety Index
from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) more
strongly reflect “neurotic self-description” (p. 7) “neurotic
maladjustment” (p. 8) or or “negative emotionality” (Lykken, 1995, pp.
101-102) to assess “the extent to which anxiety determines behavior
choices” (Lyken, 1957, p. 7, emphasis addes) & found that it was
neglibibly correlated w/the 2-neuroticism scales – Welsh Anxiety Index
from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
p. 15.

Lykken’s 2nd fear-hypothesis: employed a classical conditioning
paradigm in which electrodermal activity EDA or SCR,or skin
conductance response; constituted the conditioned response (CR) and
unconditioned response (UCR), a buzzer served as the conditioned
stimulus (CS), and electric shock served as the unconditioned stimulus
(UCS).
p. 15

Lykken’s third fear-hypothesis: a mental maze with 4-response options
at each choice point and to-choice points. One response option was
correct and advanced the subject to the next choice point. Of the
3-incorrect options, one resulted in shock. The instructed “manifest
task” was to advance through the 20 choice points without errors,
while the “latent task” was a presumably anxiety-mediated passive
avoidance of the shocked response option at each choice point.
p. 15

In Lykken’s mental maze task the primary psychopaths showed poor
avoidance of the shocked error choices compared to normal controls,
with the neurotic psychopaths at an intermediate position. Thus
Lykken’s study portrayed the primary psychopath as suffering from a
deficit in fear conditioning that could be assessed by a questionnaire
designed to assess the effect of fear on behavior, electrodermal
hyporeactivity during classical aversive conditioning, and poor
passive avoidance of shock contingent on erroneous responses.
p. 15

The MPQ consistes of 11 first-order factors or primary trait
dimensions that define 3-superfactors: 1) NEM – negative emotions (cf.
neuroticism; 2) PEM – positive emotions (cf. neuroticism; 3)
Constraint (cf. low disinhibition). Factors 1 & 2 have a strong
affective component; Constraint referes more to the regulaton of
behavior.
p. 16.

MPQ TRAIT SCALES
PEM Positive Emotional Temperament
High Positive Emotional Temperament = behavior and temperamental
characteristics conducive to joy, and to active and rewarding
engagement with social and work environments.
Low Positive Emotional Temperament = tendencies to experience
joylessness, loss of interest, and fatigue, reflecting non-pleasurable
and possibly depressive disengagement. Associated with Wellbeing, Social Potency, Achievement, and Social Closeness. NEM Negative Emotional Temperament High Negative Emotional Temperament = proneness to experience anxiety, anger, and related emotional and behavioral negative engagement. Low Negative Emotional Temperament = a somewhat phlegmatic temperament, disposing to calm, relaxation, and other non-pleasurable
states of disengagement. Most distinctively related to Stress Reaction, Alienation, and
Aggression.
http://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/mpq/copy_of_mpq_BF-overview

CON Constraint
High Constraint = tendencies to inhibit and restrain impulse
expression, unconventional behavior, and risk-taking.
Low Constraint = inclined to act on impulse, take risks, and ignore
conventional restrictions.
Cluster of traits primarily linked to Control, Harmavoidance, and
Traditionalism.

ABS Absorption
Represents an openness to a wide array of absorbing and self-involving
sensory and imaginative experiences. These experiences may have either
an integrative (“peak experience”) or a dissociative effect, depending
on the presence of other personality characteristics measured by the
MPQ.
http://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/mpq/copy_of_mpq_BF-overview

WB Wellbeing (23 items)
High scorers on this scale describe themselves as:
Having a cheerful happy disposition; feeling good about themselves;
seeing a bright future ahead; being optimists; living interesting,
exciting lives; enjoying the things they are doing.
SP Social Potency (25 items)
High scorers on this scale describe themselves as:
Being forceful and decisive; persuasive and liking to influence
others; enjoying or would enjoy leadership roles; enjoying being
noticed, being the center of attention.
AC Achievement (20 items)
High scorers on this scale describe themselves as:
Working hard, driving themselves; enjoying working hard; welcoming
difficult and demanding tasks; persisting where others give up;
ambitious; putting work and accomplishment before many other things;
seting high standards; being perfectionistic.
http://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/mpq/copy_of_mpq_BF-overview

SC Social Closeness (21 items)
High scorers on this scale describe themselves as:
Sociable, liking to be with people; taking pleasure in and valuing
close personal ties; warm and affectionate; turning to others for
comfort and help.
SC Social Closeness (21 items)
High scorers on this scale describe themselves as:
Sociable, liking to be with people; taking pleasure in and valuing
close personal ties; warm and affectionate; turning to others for
comfort and help.
SR Stress Reaction (23 items)
High scorers on this scale describe themselves as:
Tense and nervous; sensitive and vulnerable; prone to worry and
feeling anxious; irritable and easily upset; having changing moods;
feeling miserable without reason; being troubled by feelings of guilt
and unworthiness.
http://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/mpq/copy_of_mpq_BF-overview

CO Control (24 items)
High scorers on this scale describe themselves as:
Reflective; cautious, careful, plodding; rational, sensible,
level-headed; liking to plan activities in detail.

AG Aggression (19 items)
High scorers on this scale describe themselves as: Physically
aggressive; enjoying upsetting and frightening others; enjoying scenes
of violence (fights, violent movies); victimizing others for own
advantage.

AL Alienation (20 items)
High scorers on this scale describe themselves as:
Believing that others wish them harm; being victims of false and nasty
rumors; having been betrayed and deceived; feeling used by “friends”;
feeingl pushed around; having had a lot of bad luck.
http://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/mpq/copy_of_mpq_BF-overview

HA Harm avoidance (26 items)
High scorers on this scale describe themselves as:
Not enjoying or would not enjoy participating in dangerous adventures
or activities (e.g., skydiving), being in a natural disaster (e.g., a
forest fire), being caught in a sudden and dangerous emergency (e.g.,
a hold-up); deliberately risking serious bodily injury (e.g., riding a
runaway horse). Instead, prefer safer activities and experiences, even
if they are tedious or aggravating.

TR Traditionalism (27 items)
High scorers on this scale describe themselves as:
Endorsing high moral standards, religious values, and institutions;
expressing positive regard for parents; endorsing strict child-rearing
practices; valuing conventional propriety and a good reputation;
opposing rebelliousness and unrestricted freedom of expression;
condemning selfish disregard of others.
http://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/mpq/copy_of_mpq_BF-overview

MPQ Primary Trait Scales V

Date: 11/8/2011
Keywords: Handbook of Psychopathy, MPQ Primary Trait Scales

AB Absorption (34 items)
High scorers on this scale describe themselves as:
Responsive to evocative sights and sounds (e.g., a sunset); readily
captured by entrancing stimuli (e.g., overpowering music); tending to
think in images; have “crossmodal” experiences, including synesthesia
(e.g., sounds evoke color experiences); capable of vivid and
compelling imaginings; able to vividly re-experience the past;
becoming deeply immersed in own thoughts and imaginings; experiencing
episodes of expanded (e.g., ESP-like) awareness; experiencing states
of altered awareness (e.g., of “stepping outside oneself”).
Subscales: 1. Sentient
2. Prone to imaginitive and altered states
http://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/mpq/copy_of_mpq_BF-overview

neuroticism
Definition: An enduring tendency to experience negative emotional
states, such as anxiety, anger, guilt and depression. Those who score
high on neuroticism scales are more likely than average to respond
poorly to stress and to interpret situations as threatening or
hopelessly difficult.
http://depression.about.com/od/glossaryn/g/neuroticism.htm

orthogolnal
In geometry, orthogonal means “involving right angles” (from Greek
ortho, meaning right, and gon meaning angled). The term has been
extended to general use, meaning the characteristic of being
independent (relative to something else). It also can mean:
non-redundant, non-overlapping, or irrelevant.
http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/orthogonal

PCL-R Factor 1 & PPI-I +- correlations
The unique variance in psychopathy Factor 1 shows a strong negative
relation to the anxiety/fear components of neuroticism/NEM
(fearfulness, distress, stress reaction, depression, phobia, trait
anxiety) and little relation to alienation and aggression. PCL-R
Factor 1 shows little unique relation to the Constraint superfactor,
but PPI-I shows a positive correlation with engaging in dangerous
behaviors (i.e., a negative correlation with Harm Avoidance, and a
positive correlation with thrill and adventure seeking), as well as a
dominant/exploitative orientation to others (agentic PEM, narcissism).
Factor 1 appears to be unrelated to impulsivity/disinhibition (other
than engaging in dangerous behavior) and to externalizing disorders.
p. 24.

The relevance of personality measures to psychopathy is made obvious
by the trait anxiety/neuroticism and Harm Avoidance/Constraint.
Widiger (1998), Lynam & Derefinko (Chapter 7, this volume) and Kruger
(Chapter 10, this volume) have proposed that psychopathy can be
understood in terms of personality dimensions.
p. 22.

Psychopathy can be understood, it is argued, in terms of personality
dimensions/measures. The major approaches to personality include
Tellegen’s 3-factor approach, Eysenck’s (1990) 3-factors of
Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Psychoticism (the latter viewed as
misnamed and reflecting disinhibition more than psychosis; Clark &
Watson, 1999), and the five-factor model (FFM) of Costa and McCrae
(1998). In addition, the EASI Temperament Inventory (EASI; Buss &
Plomin, 1975, 1984), which indexes constructs of Activity, Sociability
and Emotionality (the latter encompassing correlated dimensions of
Fearfulness, Anger and Distress), has been employed in some studies.
p. 22.

Tellegen’s MPQ Constraint dimension encompasses Harm Avoidance,
Control and Traditionalism components. MPQ PEM includes facets of
Well-being, Social Potency, and Achievement, and MPQ NEM includes
facets of Stress Reaction, Alienation and Aggression. In addition,
MPQ PEM has been subdivided into sub-dimensions reflecting distinctive
interpersonal dispositions of “agency” and “communion” (Hicks, Markon,
Patrick, Krueger & Newman, 2004) or “affiliation” (Depue & Collins,
1999; Depue & Lenzenweger, 2001; Depue & Morrone-Strupinsky, in
press).
p. 22.

Affiliation involves “enjoying and valuing close interpersonal bonds,
and being warm and affectionate,” whereas agency “reflects social
dominance and the enjoyment of leadership roles, assertiveness, and a
subjective sense of potency in accomplishing goals” (Depue &
Morrone-Strupinsky, in press). These trait dimensions (PEM
subdivisions: affiliation & agency) are essentially uncorrelated once
the common element of well-being or positive effect has been
eliminated from each. The obvious prediction for primary psychopaths
is low affiliation (lovelessness) combined with high agency.
p. 22.

The FFM (Five Factor Model) factors are Neuroticism, Extraversion,
Agreeableness (v Antagonism), Conscientiousness and Openness to
Experience. At the level of superfactors, FFM Neuroticism and
Extraversion are highly similar to MPQ NEM and PEM. Conscientiousness
and Agreeableness both correlate about .5 w/MPQ Constraint, suggesting
that they can be seen as components of Constraint, although each also
has specific variance not found in Constraint (Clark & Watson, 1999).
p. 23.

Church (1994), Benning et al. (2003) identified the following as the
strongest associations between the MPQ and FFM that are relevant to
psychopathy: 1) FFM (low) Agreeableness with the MPQ Aggression and
Alienation facets of NEM; 2) FFM-Neuroticism with the MPQ-NEM Stress
Reaction Facet; 3) FFM-Conscientiousness with both the MPQ Control
component of Constraint and the achievement facet of PEM; 4) Thus, the
Antagonism end of Agreeableness includes elements of MPQ-NEM having
less to do with stress reactivity; 5) FFM-Conscientiousness includes
achievement or MPQ-PEM agentic elements.
p. 23.

Recent research has considered the complex relationships of the two
major components of psychopathy defined by the PCL-R (Factors 1 & 2)
with MPQ & FFM personality dimensions. The correlation of about .5
between the PCL-R factors can result in two, quite different
strategies: 1) variance in common; 2) variance specific to each
factor. In a critical decision, Patrick and his colleagues have
examined the correlations for one factor after controlling for the
variance common to both factors, thereby identifying the personality
correlates of the variance specific to that factor. This strategy has
been highly productive, and the results constitute much of the
empirical core for the dual-deficit model of psychopathy.
p. 23.

The most important inferences to be drawn: low fear and/or low anxiety
is specifically associated with affective-interpersonal dimension
(Factor 1) of psychopathy; impulsivity/disinhibition is specifically
associated with the impulsive-AB distinction (Factor 2). Several
additional specific associations are important: 1) Factor 2 with
externalizing disorder diagnoses; 2) Factor 1 with approach motivation
(PEM) expressed as dominance rather than affiliation [PEM
subdivisions: affiliation & agency (dominance)]; 3) Factor 2 with
aggression, alienation and antagonism (showing that lovelessness/poor
attachments are not limited to Factor 1).
p. 22.

A summary of this literature by Patrick and his colleagues (Benning et
al., 2003) concluded that neuroticism measures from several
inventories correlated consistently and negatively with the unique
variance in PCL-R Factor 1 but positively with the unique variance in
PCL-R Factor 2. The negative variance for Factor 1 reflect especially
the distress, fear, and/or stress reaction components; Factor 2
correlates positively with all facets of neuroticism (negative
emotionality) (i.e., with anger, aggression, and alienation, as well
as distress, fear, and stress reaction). Factor 2, but not Factor 1,
shows negative associations with the MPQ Constraint superfactor and
the somewhat overlapping dimension of Conscientiousness from the FFM
of Costa & McCrae (1989). Finally, MPQ Agentic PEM is correlated
positively with PCL-R Factor 1, but negatively correlated with Factor 2.
p. 23.

A review of psychopathy and personality literature that emphasized the
FFM but employed only simple correlations between the PCL-R factors
(i.e., not controlling for overlap between the factors), Lynam &
Derefinko (ch. 7, this volume: Psychopathy and Personality) found that
a substantial negative correlation with Agreeableness for both PCL-R
factors accounted for much of the correlation between those factors.
Factor 1 correlated weakly and negatively with Conscientiousness but
not at all with Neuroticism and Extraversion. Factor 2 showed a
strong positive correlation with Neuroticism, a strong negative
correlation with Conscientiousness, and a weak negative correlation
with Extraversion. These findings are consistent w/the summary by
Benning and colleagues (2003) in showing that, at the level of the
3-factor model model superfactors, Factor 2 correlates strongly with
Neuroticism.
p. 23-24.

Using the MPQ, Benning & colleagues (2003) reported correlates of PPI
I & II consistent w/the aforementioned findings: PPI of psychopathy is
associated w/low NEM & low stress reactivity, and more clearly than
for the PCL-R factors, evaluated the PPI factors in three diverse
samples including young adults from the community, college students
and male prisoners. Consistent with findings for the PCL-R factors,
their results emphasize that PPI-Factor 1 or PPI-I (Psychopathic
Personality Questionnaire, Lilienfeld, 1990; Lilienfeld &
Andrews,1996) is negatively related to anxiety and fear (anxiety,
depression, trait anxiety, self-reported fear, social phobia, number
of phobias), positively related to engagement in physically dangerous
behavior and an egocentric interpersonal style, and generally
unrelated to impulsivity and externalizing disorders.
SEE: Psychopathic Personality Inventory or PPI article.
p. 24.

Factor 2 negative correlation with FFM Conscientiousness is consistent
with its negative associations with MPQ Constraint and MPQ agentic
PEM. The positive correlation reported for Factor 2 with FFM
Antagonism is consistent with Benning and colleagues’ previously noted
positive associations between PCL-R Factor 2 and the Aggression and
Alienation scales of the MPQ, which are most related to FFM
Agreeableness/Antagonism. The fact that both PCL-R factors showed
negative associations with FFM Agreeableness points to a strong common
element of MPQ aggression and alienation that is not obvious for
Factor 1 when only the specific variance is considered.
p. 24.

Because the PCL-R was developed on the basis of data from prisoner
samples and is most appropriate for use in incarcerated populations,
it is useful to consider other measures of the psychopathy construct
appropriate for non-incarcerated samples. Probably the best such
measure is the PPI (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996), which has shown
robust associations with both factors of the PCL-R in incarcerated
samples (Poythress, Edens & Lilienfeld, 1998). Using a large,
community-based male sample, Benning and colleagues (2003) found two
dominant orthogolnal (independent) factors in the PPI (labeled PPI-I &
PPI-II) corresponding roughly to the PCL-R factors.
SEE: orthogolnal article.
p. 24.

Using Tellegen’s MPQ, Benning and colleagues (2003) reported correlates
of PPI-I and -II consistent w/findings (Benning et al., 2003, found
2-dominant orthogolnal (independent) factors in the PPI, PPI-I and
PPI-II, corresponding roughly to the PCL-R factors I and II) indicating
that PPI-I of psychopathy is associated with low NEM and low stress
reactivity and, more clearly than for the PCL-R factors I and II,
reduced effects of fear on behavior (i.e., low Constraint and low Harm
Avoidance). Their results (Benning and colleagues (2003) also
supported the association of Factor II with high MPQ NEM, a strong
negative orientation toward other people (high alienation and
aggression, low social closeness), and impulsivity (low Control and
Traditionalism but, importantly, not with Harm Avoidance). PPI-I was
positively associated with agentic MPQ PEM and Social Potency. PPI-II
was associated with a wide range of externalizing behaviors.
p. 24.

Dindo, McDade-Montez & Watson (2005) have replicated Benning &
colleagues’ (2003) findings of two dominant factors of PPI in a large
group of undergraduate students. In this study, PPI-I was strongly
and negatively correlated w/several widely used trait measures of NEM
and positively related to several measures of PEM. PPI-II positively
correlated w/NEM, and negatively related to PEM, and showed positive
associations w/various indices of disinhibition and with various
drinking and smoking behaviors.
p. 24.

PPI-II was positively correlated with both internalizing (depression
and anxiety) and externalizing disorders, impulsivity/disinhibition,
trait anxiety, and anger, while being negatively correlated with
prosocial attitudes toward others (sociability, empathy).
p. 24.

The unique variance of Factor I: a strong negative relation to the
anxiety/fear components of MPQ NEM neuroticism (fearfulness, distress,
stress reaction, depression, phobias, trait anxiety) and little
relation to aliienation and aggression. Factor I shows little unique
relation to the MPQ Constraint superfactor, but PPI-I shows a positive
correlation w/engaging in dangerous behaviors (i.e., negative
correlations with Harm Avoidance, and a positive correlation with
thrill & adventure seeking), as well as a dominant/exploitative
orientation to others (agentic PEM, narcissism). Factor I appears to
be unrelated to impulsivity/disinhibition (other than engaging in
dangerous behavior) and to externalizing disorders.
p. 24.

The unique variance in Factor II from PCL-R & PPI tends to be
positively correlated with MPQ neuroticism/NEM (anxiety, depression,
fear, anger, alienation), impulsivity/disinhibition (i.e., negatively
correlated w/all aspects of Constraint), and the externalizing
disorders, and it is negatively related to agentic PEM (in particular
its Achievement facet. Low FFM Agreeableness (high Antagonism)
characterizes PCL-R Factors I & II in prison males & is associated
w/PPI-I & II (Ross, Benning, Patrick, Thompson & Thurston, 2005) –
perhaps because high Antagonism (Low FFM Agreeableness) reflects both
dominance (Factor I) & Aggression (Factor II).
p. 25.

proprioceptive
A sensory receptor, found chiefly in muscles, tendons, joints, and the
inner ear, that detects the motion or position of the body or a limb
by responding to stimuli arising within the organism.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proprioceptive

Psychopathic Personality Inventory or PPI
The Psychopathic Personality Inventory was developed by Lilienfeld
(1990) to detect psychopathic traits in noncriminal (e.g., students)
samples. It consists of 187 items in a 4-point Likert-type format.
In addition to eight subscales that assess lower-order facets of
psychopathy, the PPI yields a total score representing global
psychopathy. The PPI also contains validity scales intended to detect
3-response styles that are potentially problematic among psychopaths:
positive impression management (the Unlikely Virtues Scale),
malingering (the Deviant Responding Scale), and careless or random
responding (the Deviant Responding Scale).
p. 121.

The amygdala-fear search is important to psychopathy because it has
inspired research on fear-potentiated eyeblink startle in humans
(Bradley, Cuthbert & Lan, 1999; Lang, Bradley & Cuthbert, 1990) that
has been applied to psychopathy. In general, induction of positive
affect by exposure to positively valenced perceptual stimuli (e.g.,
pictures or sounds) attenuates the acoustic startle reflex, whereas
induction of negative affect by exposure to negatively valenced
stimuli potentiates the acoustic startle reflex.
valence: Psychology The degree of attraction or aversion that an
individual feels toward a specific object or event.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Valence
p. 21-22.

Psychopathy & Startle Response II: selective fear deficit hypothesis
Applying the startle reflex paradigm, Patrick , Bradley & Lang (1993)
reported that psychopaths failed to show normal potentiation (increase
in strength) of startle with negative pictures but did show normal
attenuation (decrease in strength) of startle with positive pictures.
The finding has been well replicated (Herpertz et al., 2001;
Levenston, Patrick, Bradley & Lang, 2000; Pastor, Molto, Vila & Lang,
2003; Sutton, Vila & Newman, 2002; Vanman, Mejia, Dawson, Schell &
Raine, 2003). The results support the selective fear deficit
hypothesis, because positive pictures produced a normal attenuation of
sartle. They also point to the amygdala as a source of this deficit,
because of the presumed role of the amygdala in the fear-potentiated
startle phenomenon.
p. 22.

Attempts to identify subjects with stronger than normal potentiation
of startle have been much more successful when subjects are selected
for phobias, rather than anxiety or high negative affect (Cook, 1999;
Cuthbert et al., 2003). The strength of this perspective that
amygdala dysfunction is central to psychopathy can be seen in Blair’s
(ch. 15: Subcortical Brain Systems in Psychopathy: The Amygdala &
Associated Structures) proposal that punishment-based learning
dependent on the amygdala is impaired.
p. 22.

The observed deficit in startle potentiation relates specifically to
Factor 1 (affective-interpersonal factors) of the PCL-R (Patrick,
Cuthbert & Lang, 1994; Patrick et al., 1993), consistent with the idea
that these core features of psychopathy reflect low fear (Lykken,
1995). In contrast, fear-potentiated startle (startle potentiation
deficit) appears to be unrelated to the impulsive AB (Factor 2)
component of psychopathy. This conflicts with the assumption that low
fear and impulsivity are two manifestations of the same of the same
underlying process, and it points to impulsivity as a second possible
deficit.
p. 22.

startle potentiation deficit (low fear) NOT= impulsive AB. Patrick &
Lang (1999) & Patrick (in press) propose a similar dual-deficit
model, suggesting that a deficit comparable to the effect of alcohol
intoxication on higher cortical systems may be responsible for the
impulsivity seen in connection with Factor 2.
p. 22.

r = correlation coefficient will vary from -1 to +1. -1 indicates
perfect negative correlation, and +1 indicates perfect positive
correlation.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/correlationcoefficient.asp#axzz1YXfHf8AX

Sensation-Seeking Scale, Martin Zuckerman
Marvin Zuckerman of the University of Delaware[1] has spent more than
20 years researching the personality trait he has come to call
“sensation seeking.” His work indicates that sensation-seeking is one
of a handful of “core traits” that can be used to describe human
personality. Furthermore, he presents convincing evidence that this
characteristic has a strong genetic component nearly as strong as that
for intelligence. So, sensation-seeking parents are likely to have
sensation-seeking children.
Sensation-seeking can be divided into 4 traits:[2]
1) Thrill- and adventure-seeking, 2) Experience-seeking, 3)
Disinhibition, 4) Boredom susceptibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensation-Seeking_Scale

septal area
the region of the cerebral hemisphere that stretches as a thin sheet
of brain tissue between the fornix bundle and the ventral surface of
the corpus callosum, forming the medial wall of the lateral
ventricle’s frontal horn; it extends ventrally through the narrow
interval between the anterior commissure and the rostrum of corpus
collosum as the precommissural septum or subcallosal gyrus, which is
continuous caudally with the preoptic area and hypothalamus, as well
as more laterally with the innominate substance; its major functional
connections are with the hippocampus and hypothalamus. It is composed
of a dorsal septal nucleus [TA], lateral septal nucleus [TA], medial
septal nucleus [TA], septofimbrial nucleus [TA], and triangular
nucleus of septum [TA]. The subformical organ [TA] is also found in
this area.
http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=6249

septohippocampal system – anxiety conflict
1) The septo-hippocampal system detects conflict between two or more
competing goals that are both highly activated (these goals can take
many forms, e.g. escaping, food, threat, etc..), which ultimately
leads to an approach-approach, approach-avoid, avoid-avoid behavior,
depending on a number of factors. 2) There is a distinct difference
between fear (immediate threat, mainly controlled by amygdala with
other areas) and anxiety (threat is possible but not here at present
(uncertainty), mainly controlled, according to this theory, by the
septo-hippocampal system, with of course its surrounding circuit
connections with other areas, such as amygdala (so fear/anxiety
overlap largely but they are distinct negative affective emotions) 3)
Anxiety is mainly produced by the competition between two goals,
ideas, etc, which is controlled/viewed by the septo-hippocampus, and
this region tries to disambiguate this confusion/competition by
largely inhibition or certain behaviors. 4) This conflict of
competing goals creates an uncertainty within the hippocampus and it
generally tries to solve (via other circuitry to extra-hippocampal
brain areas) this conflict through inhibition of prepotent behaviors
(Do I approach or avoid this? A) Food with a certain chance of threat
(anxiety), B) Let me try to get more information about the
environment, first, and then assess the situation (anxiety)” or C)
Hell no, run, freeze, escape, etc… (fear)).
http://neuralconnections.blogspot.com/2011/08/decided-i-would-just-give-my-opinion-as.html

Alternative hypothesis: perhaps the development of psychopathy in
low-fear individuals is facilitated by low anxiety as well.
the low fear x low anxiety perspective of Frick (1998) and its AB
outcome is that it represents the low end of the autonomic arousal
dimension identified in the triparite model of Clark & Watson and the
Hierarchial (latent structure) model of Barlow and his colleagues.
p. 29.

No neonatal characteristics have strong predictive value for adult AB.
Later assessments (e.g., of toddlers or preschoolers) already reflect
the outcome of temperament by social environment interactions, making
it difficult to claim that the temperament component is
uncontaminated by early social environmental factors.
p. 30.

This conceptualization does not include a temperament directly related
to lovelessness or lack of regard for others. But, a loveless
temperament possibly might exist. Depue & Morrone-Strupinsky (in
press) propose a human trait of affiliation with temperament-like
features that is a critical element in the formation and maintenance
of affiliative bonds and social attachment. Depue and colleagues
argue that the experience of affection reflects the capacity to
experience reward that is elicited by various affiliative stimuli and
promotes affiliative bonding. This constitutes a 3rd etiological
factor, esp. w/respect to the development of lovelessness or a callous
orientation toward others. Still, there is no clear info on the role
of this in the temperament of psychopathy.
p. 30

Lykken’s low-fear hypothesis has been supported in many respects in
the recent literature, esp. research by Patrick and colleagues, as a
process related primarily to the affective-interpersonal features of
psychopathy embodied in PCL-R Factor 1 & PPI-I and to a subgroup of
psychopaths whose description exemplifies the affective-interpersonal
features of Factor 1.
p. 29.

Research relating Factor 1 to poor potentiation of the startle
response provides esp. strong support, because of the critical role of
conditioned fear in startle potentiation and the finding that enhanced
startle potentiation is associated with selection of subjects for
phobias more than for anxiety. Personality correlates of psychopathy
also provide strong support, although they point to low anxiety as a
factor as well.
p. 29.

It is not completely clear that the deficit in psychopathy is
specifically one of low fear rather than a combination of low fear and
low anxiety. An attractive possibility is that the most important
contribution is poor fear conditioning and that low fear, in turn,
makes anxiety less likely. That is, in the absence of conditioned
fears, there is little for the future-oriented anxiety process to
anticipate.
p. 29

In the absence of conditioned fears, there is little for the
future-oriented anxiety process to anticipate. Alternatively, perhaps
the development of psychopathy in low-fear individuals is facilitated
by low anxiety (as well as low fear)/ Consistent with this
possibility Frick (1998) found that the presence of an anxiety
disorder or trait anxiety reduced the severity and chronicity of CD.
The same might be true of low-fear AB children: That is, normal or
high levels of trait anxiety may mitigate the effects of low fear in
promoting AB. In that case, low fear would still, in some sense, be a
primary deficit but one made more severe by low anxiety.
p. 29.

We (Fowles & Dindo) propose that the core features of psychopathy are
not direct manifestation of either identified here: low fear or low
anxiety.
Rather, they represent a developmental failure that is
probabilistically associated with the deficits of low fear or low
anxiety. This developmental process most likely begins with
parent-child interactions, but it also involves interactions w/peers,
teachers & others in the social environment. How “pertinent” the
deficits are is difficult to ascertain.
p. 30

Low-fear made worse by low anxiety -> psychopathy development. If
this analysis is correct, low fear and its AB outcome constitute a
somewhat distinct process and aspect of psychopathology that has not
been widely recognized. The internalizing disorders (anxiety &
depression) have been found to reflect a shared genetic vulnerability
to general distress reactivity, and the externalizing disorders are
believed to reflect a shared genetic vulnerability to general distress
reactivity; the externalizing disorders are believed to reflect a
vulnerability to impulsivity and/or executive function deficits. Low
fear may not be merely the absence of anxiety, but rather it may be a
vulnerability distinct from anxiety. An attractive hypothesis:
anxiety represents the low end of the autonomic arousal dimension
identified in the Clark & Watson tripartite model & the Hierarchial
(latent structure) model of Barlow et al., SEE: Hierarchial &
Tripartite Models.
p. 29.

The impulsivity associated with psychopathy Factor 2 and its related
subtype (poor emotional control), combined w/the identification of
this factor as strongly related to the externalizing disorder, points
to a separate deficit and an alternative etiological pathway to
psychopathy. Indeed, this pathway, involving the combination of
impulsive AB and poor emotional control, has been highlighted much
more in the child psychopathology literature.
p. 29.

The impulsivity associated w/externalizing disorder involves a
difficulty in inhibiting activated responses and acting w/out
considering consequences. In contrast, the engagement in dangerous
behaviors associated w/low fear reflects a different process.
Although it could be viewed as impulsive because of the associated
risk taking, the individuals in question report that they take risks
even after considering the consequences. At the least, two different
types of impulsivity are involved: impulsivity & externalizing
disorder; and, engaging in dangerous behaviors after considering
consequences. 2-different types of impulsivity involved.
p. 29.

In the context of the low fear hypothesis, psychopaths who exemplify
the features of PCL-R Factor 2 have not always been been viewed as
true psychopaths. Given that they meet PCL-R criteria for psychopathy
and show strongly antagonistic, aggressive, alienated behavior, it
seems legitimate to consider them true psychopaths, but keep in mind
the different deficits and behavioral tendencies associated with the
two types of psychopaths, or perhaps more correctly, the two
underlying etiological processes that confer risk to these variants of
psychopathy.
p. 29-30.

About 25% of kids with ODD “mature” into conduct disorder or CD over a
3-year period (Hinshaw & Lee, 2003). The most likely hypothesis is
that temperamental deficits are significant contributors to the
etiology of psychopathy, but that many other factors also make a
significant contribution.
p. 30

Our (Fowles & Dindo) conceptualization does not include a temperament
directly related to lovelessness or lack of regard for others.
However, attention should be directed to the possibility that such a
temperament dimension exits. As noted earlier, Depue &
Morrone-Strupinsky (in press) propose a human trait of affiliation
w/temperament-like features that is a critical element in the
formation & maintenance of affiliative bonds & social attachment.
They argue that the experience of affection reflects the capacity to
experience reward that is elicited by various affiliative stimuli that
promotes affiliative bonding. Such a dimension of temperament could
constitute a third etiological factor that would interact w/low-fear &
impulsivity factors, especially w/respect to the development of
lovelessness or a callous orientation toward others. At this time,
there is no clear role of lovelessness temperament in psychopathy.
p. 30

Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, Hicks, & Iacono (2005) found SSS-boredom
correlates selectively with PPI-II; thrill-and-adventure seeking (TAS)
component of SSS correlates selectively the PPI-II. In support,
Patrick’s group has found that APQ-based items from the Harm Avoidance
scale requiring a choice between risk v tedium correlate more PPI-II;
non-APQ items that deal exclusively w/attraction to danger seeking
(e.g., “I think it would be fun/exiting to experience an earthquake”)
correlate w/PPI-I. Patrick suggests: APQ is intended as an index of
fearlessness; instead the APQ is an index of boredom aversion = to
PPI-II.
p. 18.

PRIMARY PSYCHOPATHS do not respond to punishment, apprehension,
stress, or disapproval. They seem to be able to inhibit their
antisocial impulses most of the time, not because of conscience, but
because it suits their purpose at the time. Words do not seem to have
the same meaning for them as they do for us. In fact, it’s unclear if
they even grasp the meaning of their own words, a condition that
Cleckley called “semantic aphasia.” They don’t follow any life plan,
and it seems as if they are incapable of experiencing any genuine
emotion. Read more:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/The_primary_psychopath_is#ixzz25GoUac6V

unique v common variance
The proportion of a variable’s variance that is not shared with a
factor structure. Unique variance is composed of specific and error
variance.
en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Exploratory_factor_analysis/Glossary

(Common) Variance in a variable shared with common factors. Factor
analysis assumes that a variable’s variance is composed of three
components: common, specific and error.
en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Exploratory_factor_analysis/Glossary

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s