Identifying distinct profiles of impulsivity for the four facets of psychopathy.

Psychopathy comprises antagonistic personality traits and antisocial behaviors that are associated with critical outcomes for the individual and society (e.g., violent behavior). Since its inception, impulsivity has been theorized as a core feature of psychopathy. Research supports this assertion, yet psychopathy and impulsivity are both multifaceted constructs. As such, the associations commonly observed between psychopathy and impulsivity may obscure more nuanced profiles of impulsivity that are only observable at the facet-level. To address this gap in the literature, we collected data from a community sample using a clinical psychopathy interview along with dispositional and neurobehavioral measures of impulsivity. We regressed each of the four facets of psychopathy onto eight impulsivity variables. We followed these analyses with bootstrapped dominance analyses in order to determine which of the impulsivity variables shared the most variance with each psychopathy facet. Our analyses revealed that positive urgency was the most important aspect of impulsivity to all four facets of psychopathy. We further identified distinct profiles of impulsivity linked to each psychopathy facet-the interpersonal facet was typified by sensation seeking and temporal impulsivity. The affective and lifestyle facets were both typified by general trait impulsivity and affective impulsivity. The antisocial facet was typified by affective impulsivity and sensation seeking. Such distinct profiles of impulsivity suggest that specific behaviors linked with each facet (e.g., manipulativeness and the interpersonal facet) may be explained in part by the distinct forms of impulsivity aligned with them.

Comparing psychopathy across measurement modalities.

Psychopathy is a collection of personality traits and behaviors that are associated with costly personal, interpersonal, and societal outcomes. The nature of this construct has been widely debated across decades of literature, and such debates have produced a multitude of instruments for the measurement of psychopathy. These measures include self-reports and clinical interviews, yet little work has examined the degree to which measurements of psychopathy may differ across these modalities and whether such potential differences may impact the associations commonly found with psychopathy (e.g., impulsivity). To this end, we applied psychometric network and item response theory analyses to data obtained from the interview-based Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version and the Levenson Self-Report of Psychopathy in the same sample. Our results revealed similarities and differences across measurement modalities. Regarding the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version, Factor 2 items were more important to the psychopathy construct (i.e., the most central and contributed more information than Factor 1 items), whereas Factor 1 items were more important to the Levenson Self-Report of Psychopathy. Factor 1 items were positively linked with Positive Urgency and were either negatively associated or not associated with Negative Urgency. In contrast, Factor 2 items were positively linked with Negative Urgency in both networks. Our analyses also revealed that dishonesty and irresponsibility served as the primary bridges connecting the factors of psychopathy in both networks. We make suggestions for improving the assessment of psychopathy by implementing self-report and interview measures that allow scores to be compared directly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Fluid Intelligence Moderates the Link Between Psychopathy and Aggression Differently for Men and Women.

Research on sex differences in the association of psychopathy with fluid intelligence is limited, and it remains unknown if fluid intelligence plays a meaningful role in explaining the psychopathy-aggression link for men and women. The present study aimed to test for sex differences in the relation between the four-facet model of psychopathy and intelligence, and to assess whether fluid intelligence moderates the link between psychopathy and aggression. In a community sample of men (n = 356) and women (n = 196), we assessed psychopathy using the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV), fluid intelligence using the Raven's Progressive Matrices, and types of aggression using the Aggression Questionnaire (AQ). Hierarchical regressions showed that the psychopathy lifestyle facet was negatively associated with intelligence and there were no sex differences. Our analyses for types of aggression revealed sex differences and similarities. For both men and women, total AQ scores were predicted by higher antisocial facet scores. Lower intelligence moderated the link between higher antisocial facet scores and aggression in men, but not for women. Physical aggression in women was associated with higher interpersonal, affective, and antisocial facet scores, whereas for men, it was only associated with higher antisocial facet scores. Verbal and indirect aggression were associated with higher intelligence in both men and women. For men only, higher antisocial facet scores were associated with verbal and indirect aggression. Higher intelligence moderated the link between the lifestyle facet and indirect aggression for women, whereas for men, it moderated the link between the affective facet and indirect aggression. This study further highlights sex differences in mechanisms of psychopathy-related aggression, which need to be considered in the development of violence interventions and risk assessment.

Effects of Psychopathy on Neurocognitive Domains of Impulsivity in Abstinent Opiate and Stimulant Users.

Background: Psychopathy and substance use disorders (SUDs) are both characterized by neurocognitive impairments reflecting higher levels of impulsivity such as reward-driven decision-making and deficient inhibitory control. Previous studies suggest that psychopathy may exacerbate decision-making deficits, but it may be unrelated to other neurocognitive impairments among substance dependent individuals (SDIs). The aim of the present study was to examine the role of psychopathy and its interpersonal-affective and impulsive-antisocial dimensions in moderating the relationships between dependence on different classes of drugs and neurocognitive domains of impulsivity. Method: We tested 693 participants (112 heroin mono-dependent individuals, 71 heroin polysubstance dependent individuals, 115 amphetamine mono-dependent individuals, 76 amphetamine polysubstance dependent individuals, and 319 non-substance dependent control individuals). Participants were administered the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV) and seven neurocognitive tasks measuring impulsive choice/decision-making (Iowa Gambling Task; Cambridge Gambling Task; Kirby Delay Discounting Task; Balloon Analog Risk Task), and impulsive action/response inhibition (Go/No-Go Task, Immediate Memory Task, and Stop Signal Task). Results: A series of hierarchical multiple regressions revealed that the interpersonal-affective dimension of psychopathy moderated the association between decision-making, response inhibition and both amphetamine and heroin dependence, albeit differently. For amphetamine users, low levels of interpersonal-affective traits predicted poor decision-making on the Iowa Gambling Task and better response inhibition on the Stop Signal task. In contrast, in heroin users high interpersonal-affective psychopathy traits predicted lower risk taking on the Cambridge Gambling Task and better response inhibition on the Go/No-Go task. The impulsive-antisocial dimension of psychopathy predicted poor response inhibition in both amphetamine and heroin users. Conclusions: Our findings reveal that psychopathy and its dimensions had both common and unique effects on neurocognitive function in heroin and amphetamine dependent individuals. Our results suggest that the specific interactions between psychopathy dimensions and dependence on different classes of drugs may lead to either deficient or superior decision-making and response inhibition performance in SDIs, suggesting that psychopathy may paradoxically play a protective role for some neurocognitive functions in specific subtypes of substance users.

Physical Abuse Explains Sex Differences in the Link Between Psychopathy and Aggression.

Psychopathy has long been associated with aggression. However, few studies have looked at differences between men and women. Studies that do exist demonstrate that psychopathy differentially relates to aggression in men and women and indicate that environmental factors may play a significant role in influencing these associations. A key environmental factor is a history of lifetime physical abuse (LPA), which has been linked to aggressive behavior in both men and women. The aim of the present study was to test if psychopathy differentially predicted physical, verbal, and indirect aggression in men and women, and if these associations were moderated by LPA. In a large community sample of men (n = 369) and women (n = 204), we assessed the 4-facet model of psychopathy (Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, Antisocial) with the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version, LPA with the Addiction Severity Index, and self-report aggression with the Aggression Questionnaire. Results revealed sex differences and similarities. Physical aggression was associated with the affective facet of psychopathy in both men and women, though in different directions based on the moderating effects of LPA. Verbal aggression was associated with higher antisocial facet scores and LPA for men and not women. Finally, indirect aggression was associated with the antisocial facet of psychopathy for men, and the interpersonal facet for women, and these associations were not moderated by LPA. In women, low antisocial facet scores and no LPA were found to be protective for indirect aggression. These results show that LPA and psychopathy generally increase the risk of aggression, but the interaction between LPA and psychopathy differentiates the risk of aggression forms for men and women. These sex differences highlight the need for female-responsive interventions to target sex-specific risk factors for aggressive behavior.

Validation of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale in Bulgarian Substance-Dependent Individuals.

The co-occurrence of psychopathy and substance use disorders (SUDs) is associated with higher relapse rates and increased risk of violent offending. Studies on the validity of psychopathy measures in community samples and substance-dependent individuals (SDIs) are scarce. The aim of the current study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP) in a sample of Bulgarian SDIs and non-dependent controls. We tested 615 participants: 106 heroin users, 91 amphetamine users, 123 polysubstance users, and 295 controls. Confirmatory factor analyses replicated the tri-factor structure of the LSRP (egocentric, antisocial, callous). The scale demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. SDIs scored significantly higher than controls on the total scale and subscales of the LSRP, indicating good discriminant validity. Overall, results indicate that the LSRP is a valid instrument for measuring psychopathy in Bulgarian community samples.

Sex differences on the four-facet model of psychopathy predict physical, verbal, and indirect aggression.

Psychopathy is a multifaceted construct that has been linked to aggression. Yet, few studies have explored the association between physical, verbal, and indirect aggression using the 4-facet model of psychopathy in community samples, and to date, no studies exist that test for male and female differences. The present study aimed to understand what facets of psychopathy predict aggressive behavior for men and women, while controlling for important risk factors, such as Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD). Drawing from a large Bulgarian community sample (N = 565), a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) supported the use of the 4-facet model of the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV; Hart et al., ). Hierarchical linear regressions revealed that physical aggression was predicted by affective and antisocial psychopathic traits, and ASPD. Verbal aggression was predicted by the interpersonal facet, and indirect aggression was predicted by the antisocial psychopathy facet and ASPD. Sex significantly moderated the associations among facets of psychopathy and physical and indirect aggression. Specifically, the affective facet was positively associated with physical aggression only for women, whereas the antisocial facet was positively associated with indirect aggression only for men. Results suggest that the 4-facet model of psychopathy is sensitive to capture important similarities and differences between males and females when predicting forms of aggression in community samples. These findings underscore the importance of understanding how men and women differ in their risk-factors for aggressive behavior, which will better inform violence interventions based on sex-specific needs.

Validation of the Substance Use Risk Profile Scale (SURPS) With Bulgarian Substance Dependent Individuals.

Background: The Substance Use Risk Profile Scale (SURPS) is a 23-item self-report questionnaire that assesses four well-validated personality risk factors for substance misuse (Impulsivity, Sensation Seeking, Anxiety Sensitivity, and Hopelessness). While the SURPS has been used extensively with adolescents at risk for substance dependence, its properties with adult substance-dependent populations have been understudied. Further, the validity of the Bulgarian version of the SURPS has not been evaluated. The aims of the present study were to examine the factor structure of the Bulgarian version of the SURPS, its psychometric properties, and its ability to distinguish individuals with substance dependence from healthy controls. Methods: Participants included 238 individuals ages 18 to 50 (45% female): 36 "pure" (i.e., mono-substance dependent) heroin users, 34 "pure" amphetamine users, 32 polysubstance users, 64 controls with no history of substance dependence, 43 unaffected siblings of heroin users, and 29 unaffected siblings of amphetamine users. We explored the factor structure of the Bulgarian version of the SURPS with confirmatory factor analyses, examined its reliability and validity, and tested for group differences between substance dependent and non-dependent groups. Results: Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) replicated the original four-factor model of the SURPS. The four subscales of the SURPS demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alphas ranged from 0.71 to 0.85) and adequate concurrent validity. Significant group differences were found on the Impulsivity and Sensation Seeking subscales, with the three substance dependent groups scoring higher than controls. Conclusions: The SURPS is a valid instrument for measuring personality risk for substance use disorders in the Bulgarian population. The Bulgarian version of the SURPS demonstrates adequate to good reliability, concurrent validity, and predictive validity. Its ability to distinguish between groups with and without a history of substance dependence was specific to externalizing traits such as Impulsivity and Sensation Seeking, on which opiate, stimulant, and polysubstance dependent individuals scored higher than non-dependent controls.

Psychopathy in Bulgaria: The cross-cultural generalizability of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist.

The generalizability of the psychopathy construct to Eastern European cultures has not been well-studied, and no prior studies have evaluated psychopathy in non-offender samples from this population. The current validation study examines the factor structure, internal consistency, and external validity of the Bulgarian translation of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version. Two hundred sixty-two Bulgarian adults from the general community were assessed, of which 185 had a history of substance dependence. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated good fit for the two-, three-, and four-factor models of psychopathy. Zero-order and partial correlation analyses were conducted between the two factors of psychopathy and criterion measures of antisocial behavior, internalizing and externalizing psychopathology, personality traits, addictive disorders and demographic characteristics. Relationships to external variables provided evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity of the psychopathy construct in a Bulgarian community sample.

Heroin and amphetamine users display opposite relationships between trait and neurobehavioral dimensions of impulsivity.

The multidimensional construct of impulsivity is implicated in all phases of the addiction cycle. Substance dependent individuals (SDIs) demonstrate elevated impulsivity on both trait and laboratory tests of neurobehavioral impulsivity; however our understanding of the relationship between these different aspects of impulsivity in users of different classes of drugs remains rudimentary. The goal of this study was to assess for commonalities and differences in the relationships between trait and neurobehavioral impulsivity in heroin and amphetamine addicts. Participants included 58 amphetamine dependent (ADIs) and 74 heroin dependent individuals (HDIs) in protracted abstinence. We conducted Principal Component Analyses (PCA) on two self-report trait and six neurobehavioral measures of impulsivity, which resulted in two trait impulsivity (action, planning) and four neurobehavioral impulsivity composites (discriminability, response inhibition efficiency, decision-making efficiency, quality of decision-making). Multiple regression analyses were used to determine whether neurobehavioral impulsivity is predicted by trait impulsivity and drug type. The analyses revealed a significant interaction between drug type and trait action impulsivity on response inhibition efficiency, which showed opposite relationships for ADIs and HDIs. Specifically, increased trait action impulsivity was associated with worse response inhibition efficiency in ADIs, but with better efficiency in HDIs. These results challenge the unitary account of drug addiction and contribute to a growing body of literature that reveals important behavioral, cognitive, and neurobiological differences between users of different classes of drugs.