The relationship between psychopathy and indirect aggression in a community sample

311 Pages·2010·1.62 MB·English

by  Gemma Warren

CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk
Provided by White Rose E-theses Online
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PSYCHOPATHY AND
INDIRECT AGGRESSION IN A COMMUNITY SAMPLE
Gemma Carolyn Warren
Thesis submitted for the qualification of
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
University of York
Department of Psychology
September 2009
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Firstly I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Jane Clarbour for her constant support and
guidance. I would also like to thank all the members of my Research Committee, Prof.
Andy Young, Prof. Cynthia McDougall and Dr Marcel Zentner for their guidance
throughout my PhD. I would also like to thank the various members of the Department of
Psychology, both faculty and support staff, at the University of York for their help and
support. There are too many of you to name individually, but this PhD would not have
been possible without the support received from the department. I am also grateful to both
the department and the University of York for awarding me a teaching studentship without
which this work would not have been possible. I would especially like to thank Paul
Summers and Dr Jo Clarke as a constant source of moral support and advice (not to
mention a supply of caffeine). I would also like to thank the various message boards,
internet forums, mailing lists and websites which allowed me to advertise my research and
recruit a wide range of online participants.
Last but certainly not least I would like to thank my family for all their constant support
and encouragement, especially my mother who always taught me that I could achieve
whatever I put my mind to. Special thanks go to my housemate for putting up with me
during the three long years of my thesis. I know I must not have been the easiest person to
live with when I get stressed. Big thank you to all my friends for always being thereto
offer support when I needed it, you all know who you are.
-2-
DECLARATION
The literature review, data collection, analyses and the conclusions drawn are the result of
my own work. In cases where data may have been collected in conjunction with others all
analysis and conclusions drawn are my own. All tests used in the current study remain the
copyright of their respective authors and proprietors.
Sections of this thesis have been presented in the following conference presentations and
peer-review paper:
Warren, G., & Clarbour, J. (2008, July). The effect of psychopathic traits on the use of
direct and indirect forms of aggression. Paper presented at the ISRA XVIIII. World
Meeting, Budapest, Hungary.
Warren, G., & Clarbour, J. (2008, July). Gender moderation of the relationship between
psychopathy and the use of direct and indirect aggression.Paper presented at the 18th
Conference of the European Association of Psychology and Law, Maastrict, Netherlands.
Warren, G., & Clarbour, J. (2008, June). Psychopathy and indirect aggression: the
mediating effect of empathy.Paper presented at the The British Psychological Society:
Division of Forensic Psychology Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK.
Warren, G., & Clarbour, J. (2009). The role of social skills in the relationship between
psychopathy and indirect aggression. Paper presented at the European Association of
Psychology and Law.
Warren, G., & Clarbour, J. (2009). Relationship between psychopathy and indirect
aggression use in a noncriminal population. Aggressive Behavior., 35, 408 - 421.
Parts of the thesis are also under revision following submission to the Journal of
Personality Disorders. Sections of this thesis were also submitted for consideration in
relation to the Junior Award from the Division of Forensic Psychology (2008).
-3-
ABSTRACT
This thesis sought to investigate the relationship between psychopathy and indirect
aggression use. Psychopathy has been strongly linked with increased levels of aggressive
behaviour and in particular violence (Porter & Woodworth, 2006). However, thus far
research has predominantly focused on direct forms of aggression with minimal research
considering indirect forms of aggression. On the basis of previous research, it was
hypothesised that not only would psychopathy be significantly related to indirect
aggression use, but that this relationship would remain after controlling for the shared
variance with direct aggression. It was also hypothesised that this relationship would be
mediated by deficits in affective empathy and moderated by both gender and levels of
social skills.
A series of quasi-experimental studies were conducted to test this hypothesis using
regression analysis and structural equation modelling. Study 1 sought to test the basic
relationship between psychopathy and indirect aggression using the Psychopathic
Personality Inventory -Revised and the Indirect Aggression Scale respectively on a sample
of 103 university students. Study 2 & 3 then expanded this and sought to investigate both
the role of empathy, using the Empathy Quotient (Study 2), and gender (Study 3) using a
sample of 201 university students, 83 males and 118 females. Study 4 used the Social
Skills Inventory in a sample of 107 students to test the hypothesised social skill moderation
of this relationship. Finally Study 5 and 6 sought to redress issues of both the limited
samples and use of self-report measures in the previous studies by replicating these
findings in a general community population of 204 (Study 5) and using behavioural
measures of empathy on a sample of 117 (Study 6).The results indicate that psychopathy is
significantly related to the use of indirect aggression, even after controlling for direct
aggression, and that this was driven predominantly by the impulsive antisociality and
coldheartedness factors. This relationship was found to be significantly mediated by
affective, but not cognitive, empathy deficits although only for males, not for females,
which may arguably point towards differences in the function of indirect aggression for
male compared to female psychopaths. Non-verbal social skills were found to significantly
moderate this relationship among students, however this finding could not be replicated.
-4-
These findings would appear to imply that psychopathy is related to a general increase in
aggression, rather than a specific increase in violence. This supports the theorisation of
non-criminal psychopathy as a moderated behavioural manifestation of the underlying
personality traits rather than asub-clinical version of the disorder. The sex differences in
the relationship would seem to imply that the different types of aggression use may have
different underlying meanings for males and females high on psychopathic traits.
-5-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................1
DECLARATION........................................................................................................3
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................14
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................16
LIST OF APPENDICES.........................................................................................18
CHAPTER 1.............................................................................................................19
1. INTRODUCTION AND PSYCHOPATHY LITERATURE REVIEW.........19
1.1. Overview of thesis.............................................................................................19
1.2. Psychopathy conceptualisations.......................................................................20
1.2.1. Early conceptualisations and Cleckley’s psychopath...................................20
1.2.2. Hare’s PCL-R...............................................................................................22
1.2.2.1. Validity and reliability of the PCL-R conceptualisation of psychopathy24
1.2.3. PCL-R structure............................................................................................28
1.2.3.1. The 2-factor model................................................................................29
1.2.3.2. The role of antisocial behaviour –three versus four factor model........30
1.2.3.3. Criticisms of the PCL-R........................................................................34
1.2.3.4. Dimension vs. taxonomy.......................................................................36
1.2.4. Psychopathy conceptualisation: conclusions...............................................37
1.3. Psychopathy and empathy................................................................................37
1.4. Female psychopathy..........................................................................................44
1.4.1. Prevalence and assessment issues................................................................45
1.4.2. Differential behavioural manifestations?.....................................................48
1.4.3. Female psychopathy: Conclusions...............................................................49
-6-
1.5. Non-criminal psychopathy...............................................................................50
1.5.1. Non-criminal psychopathy as sub-clinical version of the disorder..............51
1.5.2. Noncriminal psychopathy as a moderated expression of the disorder.........52
1.5.3. Neurological deficits in non-criminal psychopathy: A dual-deficit perspective
................................................................................................................................54
1.5.4. Non-criminal psychopathy: Conclusions.....................................................56
1.6. Psychopathy: Conclusions................................................................................56
CHAPTER 2.............................................................................................................58
2. AGGRESSION LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................58
2.1. Introduction.......................................................................................................58
2.2. Defining aggression...........................................................................................58
2.3. The proactive-reactive distinction..................................................................59
2.4. The direct-indirect distinction.........................................................................63
2.5. Gender differences in aggression.....................................................................66
2.5.1. Theories of the gender differences in aggression.........................................68
2.5.2. Gender differences: Conclusions.................................................................72
2.6. Aggression and psychopathy............................................................................72
2.6.1. Male psychopathy and direct aggression .....................................................72
2.6.2. Female psychopathy and direct aggression..................................................76
2.6.3. Psychopathy and indirect aggression...........................................................77
2.6.3.1. Psychopathy and indirect aggression in adolescents.............................79
2.6.3.2. Psychopathy and indirect aggression in adults......................................80
2.6.4. Psychopathy and aggression: Conclusions...................................................83
2.7. Hypotheses.........................................................................................................84
CHAPTER 3.............................................................................................................87
-7-
3. ASSESSMENT OF PSYCHOPATHY AND AGGRESSION..........................87
3.1. Psychopathy assessment: Self-report scales...................................................87
3.1.1. Levenson’s self-report psychopathy scale (LSRP; Levenson et al., 1995)..89
3.1.2. Hare’s self-report psychopathy scale (SRP-II; Hare, 1985).........................90
3.1.3. The psychopathic personality inventory-revised (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows,
2005).......................................................................................................................91
3.2. Indirect aggression assessment tools...............................................................96
3.2.1. Use of self-report..........................................................................................96
3.2.2. Richardson conflict response questionnaire (RCRQ; Richardson & Green, 2003)
................................................................................................................................98
3.2.3. Indirect aggression scale (IAS; Forrest et al., 2005)....................................99
3.2.4. Conclusion..................................................................................................100
CHAPTER 4...........................................................................................................101
4. STUDY 1: AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF
PSYCHOPATHY WITH INDIRECT AGGRESSION......................................101
4.1. Introduction.....................................................................................................101
4.2. Method.............................................................................................................103
4.2.1. Participants.................................................................................................103
4.2.2. Measures.....................................................................................................103
4.2.2.1. Psychopathic Personality Inventory -revised (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows,
2005).................................................................................................................103
4.2.2.2. Indirect aggression scale (IAS) (Forrest et al., 2005):.........................105
4.2.3. Procedure....................................................................................................106
4.3. Results..............................................................................................................107
4.3.1. IAS reliability.............................................................................................107
4.3.2. PPI-R reliability..........................................................................................108
4.3.3. Psychopathy and indirect aggression.........................................................109
4.4. Discussion.........................................................................................................110
-8-
CHAPTER 5...........................................................................................................115
5. STUDY 2: AN INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECTS OF EMPATHY AND
GENDER ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PSYCHOPATHY AND
INDIRECT AGGRESSION .................................................................................115
5.1. Introduction.....................................................................................................115
5.2. Method.............................................................................................................117
5.2.1. Participants.................................................................................................117
5.2.2. Measures.....................................................................................................117
5.2.2.1. Psychopathic Personality Inventory -Revised (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows,
2005).................................................................................................................117
5.2.2.2. Indirect aggression scale (IAS; Forrest et al., 2005)...........................117
5.2.2.3. The empathy quotient (EQ; Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004).....118
5.2.2.4. Buss-Perry aggression questionnaire (AQ; Buss & Perry, 1992)........119
5.2.2.5. Balanced inventory of desirable responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1984).120
5.2.3. Procedure....................................................................................................120
5.2.4. Missing data...............................................................................................121
5.2.5. Data analysis ..............................................................................................121
5.3. Results..............................................................................................................121
5.3.1. Descriptive statistics...................................................................................121
5.3.2. Scale validity..............................................................................................122
5.3.3. Socially desirable responding.....................................................................124
5.3.4. Empathy.....................................................................................................126
5.3.5. Psychopathy and aggression.......................................................................127
5.3.6. Regression analysis....................................................................................129
5.3.7. Role of empathy.........................................................................................133
5.4. Discussion.........................................................................................................137
5.4.1. Indirect aggression and psychopathy.........................................................137
5.4.2. Empathy effects..........................................................................................139
5.4.3. Limitations and future directions...............................................................141
-9-
CHAPTER 6...........................................................................................................144
6. STUDY 3: GENDER DIFFERENCES IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
PSYCHOPATHY AND INDIRECT AGGRESSION.........................................144
6.1. Introduction.....................................................................................................144
6.2. Method.............................................................................................................145
6.2.1. Participants.................................................................................................146
6.2.2. Data analysis ..............................................................................................146
6.3. Results..............................................................................................................146
6.3.1. Gender differences in aggression and psychopathy...................................146
6.3.2. Gender differences in the relationship between psychopathy and indirect
aggression.............................................................................................................148
6.3.3. Regression analysis....................................................................................150
6.3.4. Gender analysis of empathy effects ...........................................................151
6.3.5. Structural equation model replication........................................................153
6.4. Discussion.........................................................................................................157
6.4.1. Gender differences in psychopathy and aggression scores........................157
6.4.2. Gender differences in the relationship between psychopathy and indirect
aggression.............................................................................................................158
6.4.3. Gender differences in the empathy mediator analysis...............................160
6.4.4. Conclusions and future directions..............................................................163
CHAPTER 7...........................................................................................................165
7. STUDY 4: MODERATION OF EFFECTS OF SOCIAL SKILLS ON THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEENPSYCHOPATHY AND INDIRECT AGGRESSION
..................................................................................................................................165
7.1. Introduction.....................................................................................................165
7.2. Method.............................................................................................................167
7.2.1. Participants.................................................................................................167
-10-