Psychopathy is Related to Negative Affectivity but Not

Behaviour Research and Therapy 42 (2004) 697–710

www.elsevier.com/locate/brat

Psychopathy is related to negative affectivity but notto anxiety sensitivity

Lisa R. Hale, Diane S. Goldstein, Carolyn S. Abramowitz, John E. Calamari,David S. Kosson �

Department of Psychology, Finch University of Health Sciences/The Chicago Medical School, 3333 Green BayRoad, North Chicago 60064, IL, USA

Received 22 October 2002; received in revised form ; accepted 30 June 2003

Abstract

Although the hypothesis that psychopathic individuals are characterized by a reduced capacity forexperiencing anxiety is central to many theories of psychopathy, most prior studies have examined anxi-ety and fear measures generally considered outdated in the literature. Moreover, prior findings are mixed,with several studies reporting no relationships between psychopathy and anxiety, and others suggestingnegative relationships for the affective, interpersonal aspects of the disorder and positive relationships forthe antisocial behavior dimension. To examine whether psychopathy dimensions are associated with con-temporary measures of anxiety, the Anxiety Sensitivity Index and State Trait Anxiety Inventory-Traitscale were administered to 157 male inmates. Participants also completed the MMPI-derived Welsh Anxi-ety Scale (WAS), commonly used in psychopathy studies. Analyses provide no evidence for a negativerelationship between psychopathy’s affective, interpersonal factor and anxiety sensitivity after controllingfor trait anxiety. Trait anxiety and WAS scores were positively associated with the antisocial behaviordimension of psychopathy. Findings do replicate prior relationships between the WAS and psychopathy,suggesting the WAS may measure aspects of negative affectivity that differ from anxiety.# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Psychopathy; Anxiety; Anxiety sensitivity

Psychopathy is a personality disorder associated with impulsive and often manipulative anti-

social behavior. For over 50 years, conceptualizations of the disorder have been dominated by

perspectives emphasizing psychopaths’ attenuated capacity for emotional experience (Cleckley,

� Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-847-578-8761; fax: +1-847-578-8765.E-mail address: [email protected] (D.S. Kosson).

0005-7967/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00192-X

1976). The specific hypothesis of a reduced capacity for fear and anxiety has occupied anespecially central role in psychopathy research (Lykken, 1957).However, empirical evidence for an inverse relationship between psychopathy and self-

reported anxiety has been equivocal. For example, Lykken (1957) reported that his sample ofprimary psychopaths scored no lower than non-criminal controls on the Taylor (1953) andWelsh (1956) anxiety scales, two measures of general anxiety or neuroticism; however, on hisown measure, they reported less aversion to frightening/dangerous activities than non-criminals.Other researchers have reported no differences between groups on Lykken’s measure (Hare,1972; Schmauk, 1970; Widom, 1976). Some other early studies indicated no significant differ-ences for other measures of neuroticism (Hare, 1982) and anxiety (Siegel, 1978), but most pro-vided little information about psychopaths’ scores on self-report anxiety scales, and thesestudies are often criticized for relying on unreliable or poorly validated measures of psychop-athy (Hare & Cox, 1978).Over the past two decades the measurement of psychopathy has become more refined and

researchers have increasingly relied on a single instrument for assessing psychopathy, the Psy-chopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, 1980), in its original or revised form (PCL-R; Hare, 1991; seeLilienfeld, 1994, for a review). This rating scale, based largely on clinical descriptions of thepsychopath (e.g. Cleckley, 1976), addresses both the personality and behavioral manifestationsof psychopathy, but does not directly assess for levels of anxiety or fear. Factor analyses havereliably identified two underlying, yet correlated, dimensions of the PCL-R (Harpur, Hakstian,& Hare, 1988; Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, 1989); Factor 1 represents a constellation of affectiveand interpersonal traits that describe a selfish, callous, remorseless use of others. Factor 2 con-sists of more behavioral manifestations of psychopathy, such as impulsivity, irresponsibility,juvenile delinquency, and proneness to boredom. Factor 2 is related to the diagnosis of anti-social personality disorder (ASPD), chronic criminality, and substance abuse and appears toreflect the influence of an antisocial /criminal lifestyle (Harpur, Hare & Hakstian, 1989).As the measurement of psychopathy has improved, many of the relationships between psy-

chopathy and emotional processing deficits have been widely replicated (Patrick, 1994; Hare,1998). However, the nature of the relationship between psychopathy and anxious or fearfulaffect has remained obscure. Recent studies continue to reveal no significant relationshipsbetween overall PCL-R psychopathy and a variety of scales validated as measures of anxiety,neuroticism, or fear (Patrick, 1994; Schmitt & Newman, 1999).Patrick (1994) reported that self-report measures of emotional distress and fear were nega-

tively related to PCL-R Factor 1 scores after controlling for PCL-R Factor 2 and positivelyrelated to Factor 2 after controlling for Factor 1. Because the two factors correlate 0.5 to 0.6,he suggested partial correlations with the PCL-R factor scores provide a more powerful way tosee the unique relationship between low fear capacity and the affective and interpersonal fea-tures of psychopathy (see also Frick, 1998). In contrast, controlling for Factor 2 did not affectcorrelations between fear or anxiety and PCL-R total scores in Schmitt and Newman (1999).1

1 Frick, Lilienfeld, Ellis, Loney, and Silverthorn (1999) also reported significant negative semi-partial correlationsbetween clinical measures of anxiety and callous, unemotional personality traits as measured by the PsychopathyScreening Device, an instrument that uses parent and teacher ratings to assess psychopathic traits in children.

L.R. Hale et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 42 (2004) 697–710698

Still under-emphasized in evaluations of anxiety and psychopathy are recent developments inthe conceptualization and measurement of anxiety pathology. As theories of anxiety haveevolved), the anxiety literature has moved away from instruments that measure personality-based constructs. According to Keedwell and Snaith (1996), Spielberger’s State-Trait AnxietyInventory (STAI; Spielberger, 1983) is now the most widely used anxiety measure. This measurewas designed to address concerns that older measures were too global and to distinguish traitanxiety, the general tendency to experience anxiety in many situations, from state anxiety, theobservable behaviors, physiological events, and cognitive symptoms associated with experienc-ing a stressor. However, reports relating STAI trait scores to psychopathy are inconsistent:Hare (1991) reported a near-zero correlation in one sample and a significant negative corre-lation in another.An anxiety construct that has received widespread attention in the anxiety disorders literature

is anxiety sensitivity (AS), measured by the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI; Reiss, Peterson,Gursky, & McNally, 1986). AS is posited to be a stable dispositional variable reflecting thetendency to interpret the physiological, psychological, and social effects of anxiety experiencesas aversive or dangerous (Reiss & McNally, 1985). Individuals with elevated AS will more oftenreact negatively to anxiety experiences, whereas individuals with low AS might experience thesesymptoms as unpleasant but non-threatening (McNally, 1996, 1999). In contrast, trait anxietyreflects a more general tendency to experience anxiety in many situations and AS has been con-ceptually and empirically distinguished from trait anxiety (e.g., Lilienfeld, 1999; McNally, 1996).It has been suggested that AS is a lower-order trait nested hierarchically within the broader con-structs of trait anxiety and higher-order personality traits (Lilienfeld, Turner, & Jacob, 1993).AS has predicted anxiety symptoms and disorders in longitudinal studies after controlling fortrait anxiety, and is related to depression and maladaptive substance use (see Taylor’s, 1999review).Shostak and Peterson (1990) argued that very low levels of AS are maladaptive and specu-

lated that AS may be particularly low in persons with ASPD, a disorder that overlaps substan-tially with psychopathy. An association between psychopathy and AS could elucidate the roleanxiety plays in the experiences of the psychopath. In particular, very low AS could account forpsychopaths’ unresponsiveness to environmentally provoked anxiety and stress. Under-reac-tivity to stressors and anxiety could in turn help to explain the antisocial lifestyle often seen inpsychopaths, a lifestyle avoided by many because of the risks involved.Although the relation between AS and psychopathy has not previously been explored in clini-

cal samples, a recent study by Lilienfeld and Penna (2001) examined relations between AS andmeasures of psychopathy among college undergraduates. They reported AS was not signifi-cantly related to self-report or interview measures of psychopathy. However, when they exam-ined specific dimensions of psychopathy, a different pattern emerged. AS correlated positivelywith an interview-based measure of the affective and interpersonal features of the psychopath,Factor 1 of the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL: SV), but correlated negativelywith various self-report scales designed to measure this facet of psychopathy. Although theobservation of both positive and negative correlations raises the possibility of complex relation-ships between psychopathy and AS, only one of these correlations remained significant aftercontrolling for trait anxiety. Thus, overall, this study suggests no unique relationship betweenFactor 1 of psychopathy and AS. Nevertheless, because their sample was characterized by

699L.R. Hale et al. / Behaviour Research and Therapy 42 (2004) 697–710

relatively little variance in PCL: SV scores, Lilienfeld and Penna emphasized the need for inves-tigations of AS in samples including more extreme psychopathy scores.The current study was designed to examine the relationship between psychopathy and anxiety

in a sample of incarcerated adult males. Primarily, we attempted to bring up to date the assess-ment of anxiety in psychopaths by including measures currently used in the anxiety literature.We evaluated the relations between psychopathy, STAI trait anxiety, AS, and the WAS, anolder measure commonly used in prior psychopathy studies. Similar to the approaches sug-gested by several psychopathy researchers (e.g., Frick, 1998; Schmitt & Newman, 1999), rela-tionships between specific dimensions of psychopathy and self-reported anxiety were examinedafter controlling for other dimensions thought to underlie psychopathy. In addition, based onevidence that psychopathy correlates differently with both self-report and laboratory measuresamong African American and European American inmates (Kosson, Smith, & Newman, 1990;Newman & Schmitt, 1998; Wallace, Vitale, & Newman, 1999), we conducted separate analysesfor the total sample versus European American and African American subsamples.

1. Method

1.1. Participants

Data were collected as part of a larger study of cognitive function in psychopathic offenders(Goldstein, 1998). Participants were 156 male inmates, aged 17–41 (M age ¼ 26:79, SD ¼ 6:35)who were convicted of felonies and completing their sentences in a county jail. Fifty-six percentof the participants were African American, 42% were European American, and 2% were Latino.Exclusion criteria included current use of psychotropic medication, difficulty reading English,and an estimated WAIS-R Full Scale IQ below 80 (i.e., exclusion of individuals with borderlineor lower intelligence; Wechsler, 1981). All participants were paid $5.00.

1.2. Procedure and materials

Informed consent was obtained from inmates, including permission to inspect institutionalfiles. Based on institutional records and case-history data collected from a semi-structured inter-view, participants were rated on the 20-item Revised Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R; Hare,1991) All interviews were conducted by advanced doctoral students trained by the last author(DK); raters were required to discuss rating criteria and practice rating inmates until theyreached an acceptable level of interrater agreement. PCL-R items are scored 0–2 depending onhow well each item description matches the behavior and personality of the individual. ThePCL-R is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing psychopathy, with alpha coefficients of0.87, mean inter-item correlations of 0.26, and interrater reliability of 0.78–0.94 (Hare, 1991).PCL-R scores also predict violent and non-violent recidivism, emotional processing deficits, anddifficulties in modulating dominant responses (Hare, 1998; Hemphill, Templeman, Wong, &Hare, 1998; Steuerwald & Kosson, 2000; Wallace, Vitale, & Newman, 1999).Following procedures recommended in the PCL-R manual, individuals were classified as psy-

chopaths if they received total PCL-R scores of 30 or greater, as non-psychopaths if they


received total PCL-R scores of 20 or lower, and were classified as neither if their scores werebetween 21 and 30. In the current sample, 34% of participants were classified as psychopaths.Three measures were used to assess anxiety constructs. The Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI;

Reiss, Peterson, Gursky & McNally, 1986) consists of 16 items measured on a five-point (0–4)Likert scale, with total AS score ranging from 0 to 64. High internal consistency (Cronbach’salpha of 0.88) and acceptable test–retest reliability over two week (r ¼ 0:75; Reiss, Peterson,Gursky & McNally, 1986) and three year intervals (r ¼ 0:71; Maller & Reiss, 1992) has beenreported. The internal consistency of the ASI for the present sample was high, a ¼ 0:86.Zinbarg, Barlow and Brown (1997) identified a single higher-order AS dimension accounting

for 60% of the variance in AS scores, and three second order factors: physical concerns, mentalincapacitation concerns and social concerns. There is general agreement that AS is multifactoralwith a higher-order general factor and three second order factors (see Zinbarg, Mohlman, &Hong’s, 1999 review).The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, 1983) is a self-report questionnaire

comprised of two 20-item subscales assessing transient, immediate (state), and stable, enduring(trait) propensity to general anxiety and negative affect. Both subscales have high internal con-sistency, with alphas of 0.90 or higher. The two subscales show expected divergence in theirstability over 104 days (r ¼ 0:75 for trait anxiety; r ¼ 0:30 for state anxiety; Spielberger, 1983).Only the trait scale (STAI-T) was used; internal consistency for the present sample was high,a ¼ 0:91.The Welsh Anxiety Scale (WAS; Welsh, 1956) is a 39-item scale that represents the first, and

largest, factor of the MMPI and MMPI-2. Although the WAS purports to assess five clusters ofanxiety-related symptoms (decreased mental efficiency, negative emotional tone, pessimism andloss of energy, interpersonal over-sensitivity, schizoid mentation) it is often considered a meas-ure of general maladjustment or emotional upset (Greene, 1999). In an earlier study of psychi-atric patients, the WAS evidenced excellent internal consistency (Kuder–Richardson 21 ¼ 0:94:Graham, 1987); in this sample, a ¼ 0:92. Although WAS scores are commonly interpreted asreflecting general negative affectivity (Watson & Clark, 1984), its relations with other anxietyscales are not well established. Nevertheless, it is the instrument most commonly used to assessanxiety levels in psychopathy studies (Kosson, Smith & Newman, 1990; Lykken, 1957; Newman& Kosson, 1986; Newman, Patterson, Howland, & Nichols, 1990).

2. Results

2.1. Sample characteristics

Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations for anxiety and psychopathy meas-ures for the total sample, European American and African American participants are shown inTable 1. ASI scores for the total sample were comparable to other non-clinical male samples(Peterson & Reiss, 1992, pp. 34–36). Significantly higher AS scores were found in AfricanAmerican than in European American participants, t ð152Þ ¼ 3:31, P ¼ 0:001. The ASI scoresof African Americans were equivalent to levels seen in some clinical anxiety disorders(Taylor, Koch, & McNally, 1992; social phobia, M ¼ 24:9). As shown in Table 2, there were no


significant differences between psychopaths and non-psychopaths on the ASI, t ð92Þ ¼ 1:48,

P ¼ 0:143, Cohen’s d ¼ 0:30.The mean STAI-T level for the present sample was higher than norms reported for non-clini-

cal samples of working adults (M ¼ 35:72), but similar to means reported for general medical

patients without psychiatric complications (41.33), prison inmates (44.64), and persons with

character disorders (40.32). The mean STAI-T score was lower than that reported for neuro-

psychiatric patients with anxiety reaction (48.08; Spielberger, 1983). No differences were found

Table 1Means and intercorrelations for anxiety and psychopathy measures

n Mean SD Correlations

STAIT WAS PCL F1 F2

Total sampleASI 156 21.69 11.04 0.37� 0.57� 0.12 0.08 0.10STAIT 144 40.41 10.66 – 0.75� 0.19� 0.05 0.23�WAS 143 15.41 9.00 – 0.15 �0.01 0.23�PCL total 156 25.17 6.82 – 0.86� 0.86�Factor 1 156 9.81 3.33 – 0.53�Factor 2 156 12.19 3.35 –European AmericansASI 67 18.43 10.42 0.45� 0.60� 0.21 0.14 0.19STAIT 64 40.18 11.44 – 0.77� 0.24 0.14 0.19WAS 62 15.13 9.10 – 0.22 0.09 0.25PCL total 67 23.70 7.27 – 0.86� 0.90�Factor 1 67 8.94 3.22 – 0.59�Factor 2 67 12.05 3.70 –African AmericansASI 84 24.35 11.00 0.33� 0.60� �0.06 �0.09 0.00STAIT 77 40.90 10.01 – 0.74� 0.14 �0.06 0.26�WAS 78 15.90 8.95 – 0.08 �0.10 0.21�PCL total 86 26.4 6.22 – 0.85� 0.84�Factor 1 86 10.5 3.22 0.50�Factor 2 86 12.3 3.11 – –

Note: ASI ¼ Anxiety Sensitivity Index; STAIT ¼ Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Trait version; WAS ¼Welsh Anxiety Scale; PCL total ¼ Revised Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) total score; Factor 1 ¼ PCL-R Factor 1score; Factor 2 ¼ PCL-R Factor 2 score. �P < 0:05.

Table 2Mean differences between psychopaths and non-psychopaths on anxiety measures

ASI STAIT�� WAS�

Psychopaths (PCL-R � 30, n ¼ 53) 22.79 (10.25) 44.04 (10.05) 18.17 (9.65)Controls (PCL-R � 20, n ¼ 41) 19.44 (11.74) 37.75 (9.05) 13.55 (8.02)

Note: ASI ¼ Anxiety Sensitivity Index; STAIT ¼ Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Trait scale; WAS ¼Welsh Anxiety Scale; PCL-R ¼ Revised Psychopathy Checklist total score. �P < 0:05; ��P < 0:01.


between ethnic groups for STAI-T; however, psychopaths reported higher STAI-T levels thannon-psychopaths, t ð86Þ ¼ 3:06, P ¼ 0:003, d ¼ 0:66.Means obtained for WAS scores were higher than those previously reported for non-clinical

samples of adult males (M ¼ 10:5; Colligan & Offord, 1988). Although norms for correctionalsamples have not been published, current means are also higher than those previously reportedfor samples of federal prisoners (M ¼ 8:97; Kosson, 1998) and state prisoners (M ¼ 12:19;Newman & Schmitt, 1998) selected for psychopathy studies.2 No significant differences werefound between ethnic groups for the WAS; however, in contrast to usual findings, psychopathsachieved higher WAS scores than non-psychopaths, t ð84Þ ¼ 2:37, P ¼ 0:020, d ¼ 0:52.Next, we evaluated ethnic group differences on psychopathy measures. African Americans

scored higher than European Americans on PCL-R total scores, t ð150Þ ¼ 2:61, P ¼ 0:009, andPCL Factor 1, t ð150Þ ¼ 3:12, P ¼ 0:001, but not Factor 2 scores. STAI-T and both PCL-Rtotal score and PCL-R Factor 2 were significantly correlated in the total sample (Table 1). Asimilar correlation was found between WAS and Factor 2 scores. In the African American sub-sample, both the STAI-T and the WAS were significantly correlated with Factor 2. No signifi-cant relations between the PCL-R and anxiety measures were found for European Americans.However, differences in the magnitudes of the Factor 2 correlations for European Americansversus African Americans were not significant for the STAI-T or the WAS, Z ¼ �0:43, ns,Z ¼ 0:24, ns. All correlations between anxiety measures and Factor 1 were non-significant.

2.2. Relations between anxiety and the affective and interpersonal dimension of psychopathy

Following the approach recommended in several recent studies (Frick, 1998; Patrick, 1994),we evaluated the possibility of unique relationships between measures of anxiety and more spe-cific dimensions underlying psychopathy scores. First, we examined the relation between AS andFactor 1 after controlling for the effects of Factor 2 (antisocial lifestyle) and the two generalmeasures of anxiety. Hierarchical regressions were conducted for the total sample, for AfricanAmericans, and for European Americans using the ASI as the dependent measure. The pre-dictors were PCL-R Factor 2, the STAI-T, the WAS, and PCL-R Factor 1. The resultant semi-partial correlations are reported in Table 3, alongside the respective zero-order correlationsbetween Factor 1 and the ASI for ease of comparison. Relationships between PCL-R Factor 1and AS remained non-significant in all analyses after controlling for variance accounted for byFactor 2, the STAI-T, and the WAS. In fact, the direction of the (non-significant) partial corre-lation between Factor 1 and AS was positive rather than negative, sr ¼ 0:13, P ¼ 0:07. Becausethe AS construct has been found to be multifactorial with three lower level factors, we also con-ducted parallel analyses with specific AS subscales. We generated subscale scores for each par-ticipant based on the factor structure of the ASI reported by Zinbarg et al. (1997). Questionsreported to load on the physical concerns, mental incapacitation concerns, and social concerns

2 The samples in these studies were similar to the current sample, in being limited to European American and Afri-can American participants but contained slightly lower proportions of African American participants (47.2% and43.6%) than the current sample (55.7%). Nevertheless, computation of means for European Americans and AfricanAmericans in the Kosson (1998) sample shows that both values appear lower than those for the current sample(Ms ¼ 7:80 and 10.47 for European American and African American participants in Kosson (1998)).


factors were summed to generate the respective subscale scores. As shown in Table 4, none of

the ASI subscales were reliably related to Factor 1 of the PCL-R after controlling for Factor 2

and other anxiety measures, although a positive correlation between Factor 1 and the Physical

Concerns dimension of AS approached significance, sr ¼ 0:14, P ¼ 0:06.Next, we conducted parallel analyses to examine the relations between Factor 1 and STAI-T

and between Factor 1 and WAS after controlling for the effects of Factor 2 and AS (Table 3).

Because of the high correlation between the STAI and WAS, regressions for each of these gen-

eral measures did not control for the other. Although none of the semi-partial correlations for

STAI-T proved significant, the negative semi-partial correlation between Factor 1 and WAS

Table 4Zero-order and semi-partial correlations between PCL-R factors and anxiety sensitivity components

ASI physical ASI mental ASI social concerns

Zero order Semi-partial Zero order Semi-partial Zero order Semi-partial

Relations for PCL-R Factor 1 Controlling for Factor 2Total sample 0.05 0.14+ 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.06European Americans 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.00 0.19 �0.04African Americans �0.13 0.00 �0.06 0.01 �0.02 0.01Relations for PCL-R Factor 2 Controlling for Factor 1Total sample 0.01 �0.20� 0.18� 0.00 0.23� 0.11European Americans 0.06 �0.16 0.24+ 0.05 0.39� 0.27�

African Americans �0.08 �0.15 0.11 0.01 0.10 0.06

Note: PCL-R ¼ Psychopathy Checklist—revised; ASI ¼ Anxiety Sensitivity Index; zero order ¼ Pearson correlationwith respective PCL-R Factor score; Semi-partial ¼ semi-partial correlation with the PCL-R Factor score indicatedwhile controlling for the other PCL-R factor score and the other two anxiety measures (for AS analyses). � P < 0:05;��P < 0:01; þP < 0:10.

Table 3Zero-order and semi-partial correlations between PCL-R factor and anxiety measures

ASI STAIT WAS

Zero order Semi-partial Zero order Semi-partial Zero order Semi-partial

Factor 1 controlling for Factor 2Total sample 0.08 0.13þ 0.05 �0.07 �0.01 �0.17�

European Americans 0.14 0.05 0.14 0.04 0.09 �0.10African Americans �0.09 0.01 �0.06 �0.14 �0.10 �0.12Factor 2 controlling for Factor 1Total sample 0.10 �0.11 0.23� 0.22� 0.23� 0.25��

European Americans 0.19 �0.02 0.19 0.07 0.25þ 0.18þ

African Americans 0.00 �0.09 0.26� 0.31�� 0.21þ 0.25�

Note: ASI ¼ Anxiety Sensitivity Index; STAIT ¼ Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory, Trait version; WAS ¼Welsh Anxiety Scale; zero order ¼ Pearson r zero-order correlations with PCL-R Factor 1; Semi-partial ¼semi-partial correlation with PCL-R Factor 1 score while controlling for PCL-R Factor 2 score and other two anxi-

ety measures. �P < 0:05; ��P < 0:01; þP < 0:10.


scores was significant in the full sample, sr ¼ �0:17, P ¼ 0:01. Separate analyses for EuropeanAmericans and African Americans revealed no significant semi-partial correlations.

2.3. Relations between anxiety and the antisocial lifestyle dimension of psychopathy

Finally, we conducted parallel analyses examining relations between Factor 2 and the anxietymeasures after controlling for Factor 1 and other anxiety measures (Tables 3 and 4). Theseanalyses, like those for Factor 1, revealed no significant relations between ASI total score andFactor 2; however, significant relations were found between Factor 2 and specific ASI dimen-sions (Table 4). Fear of the physical sensations associated with anxiety experiences wasnegatively related to PCL-R Factor 2, sr ¼ �0:20, P < 0:05. Also, as shown in Table 4, thepositive semi-partial correlation between ASI social concerns (distress about appearing anxiousto others) and Factor 2 was significant for European American participants, sr ¼ 0:27,P < 0:01.There were also significant positive semi-partial correlations between Factor 2 and both STAI-

T scores (sr ¼ 0:22, P ¼ 0:01) and WAS scores (sr ¼ 0:25, P < 0:001) (Table 3). When theseanalyses were repeated separately for each ethnic group, significant correlations were limited toAfrican American participants (sr ¼ 0:31 and 0.25, respectively, P ¼ 0:01). However, the semi-partial correlation for WAS scores approached significance among European Americans(sr ¼ 0:18, P ¼ 0:08). Although the semi-partial correlation for STAI-T among European Amer-icans was quite small (sr ¼ 0:07, P ¼ ns), none of the differences between the magnitudes of cor-relations for European Americans versus African Americans were significant (Z ¼ �1:5,P ¼ 0:14, Z ¼ �0:42, ns, for semi-partial correlations involving STAI-T and WAS, respectively).

3. Discussion

Current findings clarify relations between psychopathy and anxiety in several ways. First,results indicate that neither overall psychopathy nor the affective, interpersonal aspects of thedisorder are significantly associated with abnormally low anxiety sensitivity or trait anxiety. Oncontemporary measures of psychopathy and anxiety, no evidence of inverse relations betweenthe affective and interpersonal features of psychopathy and AS and STAI-T were found. Thisfinding raises questions about traditional conceptualizations of psychopathy that posit an atte-nuated capacity for anxiety (e.g., Cleckley, 1976). Moreover, mean levels of trait anxiety andanxiety sensitivity were equal to or slightly higher than levels typically observed with non-clini-cal samples. Thus, on self-report measures of anxiety no support is found for the contentionthat psychopaths do not experience anxiety. Instead, consistent with the general findingsreported by Schmitt and Newman (1999), these findings suggest that psychopathy, as measuredby the PCL-R, has a negligible relationship to most self-report measures of anxiety.The only negative association between the affective and interpersonal dimension of psychop-

athy and an anxiety measure was the negative semi-partial correlation between PCL-R Factor 1scores and WAS scores. That this finding also replicates a relation reported by others (Patrick,1994; see also Frick, Lilienfeld, Ellis, Loney, & Silverthorn, 1999) provides some evidence thatthis association is robust across different samples. Nevertheless, the relationship was small(r ¼ �0:17). Current findings also indicate that the relation between the WAS and the affective,


interpersonal features of psychopathy is not a function of an association with fear-of-fear.Although AS accounted for 32% of the variance in WAS scores, the two variables had differentrelations to PCL-R Factor 1. Thus, the negative relation between psychopathic personalitytraits and the WAS must reflect other aspects of anxiety or general negative affect. Moreover,the absence of a negative association between PCL-R Factor 1 and STAI-T scores suggests thatthis negative relation is not a function of individual differences in a general vulnerability toexperiencing anxiety. The small inverse relationship observed in the present and prior studiesbetween Factor 1 and the WAS may reflect primarily an association with general negative affec-tivity (Watson & Clark, 1984). Specific anxiety constructs (trait anxiety and AS), ascurrently conceptualized and measured, may be completely unrelated to the interpersonal andaffective features of the psychopath.Not only was there no negative relationship between AS and PCL-R Factor 1 scores; the

non-significant semi-partial correlation between AS and PCL-R Factor 1 scores was positive(sr ¼ 0:13, P ¼ 0:07). Inmates displaying more of the affective and interpersonal features of psy-chopathy reported slightly higher AS relative to inmates lacking these traits. Evaluation of ASdimensions suggested that this trend resulted from a marginally significant positive correlationof PCL-R Factor 1 with the physical concerns dimension. Although the small magnitude of thecorrelation suggests caution in interpreting this relationship, it is worth noting that a similarweak positive relationship was reported in the only other study to examine AS and psychop-athy. The magnitude of the semi-partial correlation reported here (0.14) is almost identical tothat of the partial correlation reported for a sample of undergraduates by Lilienfeld and Penna(2001; pr ¼ 0:15).In contrast, there were both negative and positive correlations with ASI subscales and the

antisocial lifestyle dimension of psychopathy. Although PCL-R Factor 2 scores were unrelatedto ASI total scores, they correlated negatively with fear of the bodily sensations associated withanxiety. Under-reactivity to the physical sensations associated with anxiety may promoteinvolvement in antisocial activities by diminishing the perception of the dangerousness of suchactivities. This evidence for a negative relation between reactivity to physical signs of anxietyand a specific dimension of psychopathy appears to provide the first evidence of reduced prone-ness to anxiety3 on a contemporary anxiety measure that is not contaminated by general nega-tive affectivity. That the correlation was similar in both African American and in EuropeanAmerican samples provides some confidence in this finding. Nevertheless, the modest magnitudeof the semi-partial correlation suggests caution until this finding is replicated in other samples.For European American participants, we also observed a positive relation between PCL-R

Factor 2 and the Social Concerns dimension of AS, which reflects distress about appearing anx-ious to others. Whether this positive relation reflects a specific link between externalizing behav-ior and heightened concern about the social consequences of appearing anxious, or results froma more general link between the ASPD traits of impulsivity and irresponsibility and distressproneness (Patrick, 1994; Lorenz & Newman, 2002; see also Krueger et al., 1994) is not clear.

3 Although there is prior evidence linking a reduced physiological index of anxiety to PCL-R Factor 2 scores(smaller heart rate increases; Patrick, Cuthbert, & Lang, 1994), most theorists attribute reduced fear capacity to thepersonality traits of callousness, egocentricity, and lack of attachment to others rather than to the impulsivity andirresponsibility commonly associated with PCL-R Factor 2.


However, again, this finding appears to be the first evidence of such a link in a study that

attempted to control for trait anxiety. In either case, the evidence for both positive and negative

correlations between psychopathy dimensions and ASI subscales argues for separate examin-

ation of anxiety sensitivity subscales in future studies.Finally, in addition to the small but significant negative relations between the Welsh Anxiety

Scale and PCL-R Factor 1 scores noted above, this study demonstrated small but significant

positive relations between both Welsh anxiety and STAI-T anxiety and PCL-R Factor 2 scores.

Because the significant positive relations between trait anxiety, WAS, and the dimension of psy-

chopathy related to antisocial behavior replicate positive relations previously reported for feder-

al prison inmates (Patrick, 1994), they demonstrate that this relationship generalizes across

important differences in sample characteristics. Frick, Lilienfeld, Ellis, Loney and Silverthorn

(1999) also reported conceptually similar relationships using different measures in a sample of

clinically referred children. The design of the present study does not allow us to determine the

cause of this correlation. Determining whether chronic criminality or the associated substance

abuse leads to negative emotions, or whether general anxiety and antisocial behavior are pre-

cipitated by a common third factor (e.g., stressful life events), will require research more pre-

cisely targeted to such questions.As noted by Keedwell and Snaith (1996), although many contemporary anxiety measures are

used for measuring ‘general’ anxiety, they in fact can differ greatly as to the type and degree of

symptoms assessed. In the present study, we have begun to clarify relations between psychop-

athy and the specific construct, anxiety sensitivity, as well as the more general construct, trait

anxiety. However, several additional limitations of our study should be noted.In light of the large number of correlations we examined, it is possible that some of the find-

ings reported here are spurious. However, because many of these correlations provide repli-

cations of findings reported previously, we can be more confident in the robustness of these

results. Nevertheless, the novel findings reported here should be considered in the context of the

overall study and should be interpreted cautiously, pending further replication.In addition, because only self-report measures were examined, it could be argued that such

measures are simply inadequate for identifying the anxiety deficits of psychopathic offenders

and that behavioral and physiological assessments are necessary to demonstrate a reduced

capacity for anxiety or fear. In this context, recent neuroimaging evidence for a fear condition-

ing deficit in psychopaths appears relevant (Veit et al., 2002).Current results point to important further research. Given that the personality and affective

factor of psychopathy is not significantly associated with low levels of reactivity to anxiety, and

given the evidence for the replicability of the negative relation between this factor and the WAS,

it is not clear what specific components of negative affectivity are driving this relationship. In

light of the present findings, more careful scrutiny of links between psychopathy and negative

affectivity appears warranted. More sophisticated analysis techniques, such as structural equa-

tion modeling, may further elucidate relations between anxiety and related constructs and spe-

cific dimensions underlying psychopathy.


Acknowledgements

The research and preparation of this article were supported in part by Grant MH57714 from

the National Institute of Mental Health to David S. Kosson. We thank Larry Lesza and

Charles de Filippo and the staff of the Lake County Jail in Waukegan, Illinois for their consist-

ent cooperation and support during the conduct of this research. We also thank Nick Doninger,

Maria Banderas, Katherine Aires-Byrnes, Seoni Llanes-Macy, Andrew Mayer, and Sarah Miller

for their help in interviewing and testing inmates.

References

Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity. (5th ed). St Louis, MO: C.V. Mosby.Colligan, R. C., & Offord, K. P. (1988). Changes in the MMPI factor scores: norms for the Welsh A and R dimen-

sions from a contemporary normal sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 142–148.Frick, P. J. (1998). Callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems: applying the two-factor model of psychopathy

to children. In R. D. Hare, D. Cooke, & A. Forth (Eds.), Psychopathy: theory research and implications forsociety (pp. 161–187). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Frick, P. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., Ellis, M., Loney, B., & Silverthorn, P. (1999). The association between anxiety and psy-chopathy dimensions in children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27, 383–392.

Goldstein, D. S. (1998). Assessment of frontal lobe functioning in psychopathy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Finch University of Health Sciences/The Chicago Medical School.

Graham, J. R. (1987). The MMPI: a practical guide. (2nd ed). London: Oxford University Press.Greene, R. L. (1999). MMPI-2: interpretive manual. New York: Allyn & Bacon.Hare, R. D. (1972). Psychopathy and physiological responses to adrenaline. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 79,

138–147.Hare, R. D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal populations. Personality and

Individual Differences, 1, 111–119.Hare, R. D. (1982). Psychopathy and the personality dimensions of psychoticism, extraversion and neuroticism. Per-

sonality and Individual Differences, 3, 35–42.Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist—revised. Toronto: MultiHealth Systems.Hare, R. D. (1998). Psychopathy, affect, and behavior. In D. J. Cooke, A. E. Forth, & R. D. Hare (Eds.), Psychop-

athy: theory, research, and implications for society (pp. 105–137). Boston: Kluwer.Hare, R. D., & Cox, D. N. (1978). Clinical and empirical conceptions of psychopathy and the selection of subjects

for research. In R. D. Hare, & D. Schalling (Eds.), Psychopathic behaviour: approaches to research (pp. 1–21).Chichester: Wiley.

Harpur, T. J., Hakstian, A. R., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Factor structure of the Psychopathy Checklist. Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 741–747.

Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two factor conceptualization of psychopathy: construct vali-dation and assessment implications. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1,6–17.

Hemphill, J. F., Templeman, R., Wong, S., & Hare, R. D. (1998). Psychopathy and crime: recidivism and criminalcareers. In D. J. Cooke, A. E. Forth, & R. D. Hare (Eds.), Psychopathy: theory, research, and implications forsociety (pp. 375–399). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Keedwell, P., & Snaith, R. P. (1996). What do anxiety scales measure?. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 93, 177–180.Kosson, D. S. (1998). Divided visual attention in psychopathic and nonpsychopathic offenders. Personality and Indi-

vidual Differences, 24, 373–391.Kosson, D. S., Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (1990). Evaluating the construct validity of psychopathy in black and

white male inmates: three preliminary studies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 250–259.


Krueger, R. F., Schmutte, P. S., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Campbell, K., & Silva, P. A. (1994). Personality traitsare linked to crime among men and women: evidence from a birth cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103,328–338.

Lilienfeld, S. O. (1999). Anxiety sensitivity and the structure of personality. In S. Taylor (Ed.), Anxiety sensibility:theory, research, and treatment of the fear of anxiety (pp. 149–180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lilienfeld, S. O. (1994). Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy. Clinical Psychology Review, 14, 17–38.Lilienfeld, S. O., & Penna, S. (2001). Anxiety sensitivity: relations to psychopathy, DSM-IV personality disorder fea-

tures, and personality traits. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 15, 367–393.Lilienfeld, S. O., Turner, S. M., & Jacob, R. G. (1993). Anxiety sensitivity: an examination of theoretical and meth-

odological issues. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 15, 147–183.Lorenz, A. R., & Newman, J. P. (2002). Utilization of emotion cues in male and female offenders with antisocial per-

sonality disorder: results from a lexical decision task. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 513–516.Lykken, D. T. (1957). A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,

55, 6–10.Maller, R. G., & Reiss, S. (1992). Anxiety sensitivity in 1984 and panic attacks in 1987. Journal of Anxiety Disorders,

6, 241–247.McNally, R. J. (1996). Anxiety sensitivity is distinguishable from trait anxiety. In R. M. Rapee (Ed.), Current con-

troversies in the anxiety disorders (pp. 214–227). New York: Guilford Press.McNally, R. J. (1999). Theoretical approaches to the fear of anxiety. In S. Taylor (Ed.), Anxiety sensitivity: theory,

research & treatment of the fear of anxiety (pp. 3–16). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Newman, J. P., & Kosson, D. S. (1986). Passive avoidance learning in psychopathic and nonpsychopathic offenders.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 252–256.Newman, J. P., Patterson, C. M., Howland, E. W., & Nichols, S. L. (1990). Passive avoidance in psychopaths: the

effects of reward. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1101–1114.Newman, J. P., & Schmitt, W. A. (1998). Passive avoidance in psychopathic offenders: a replication and extension.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 527–532.Patrick, C. J. (1994). Emotion and psychopathy: startling new insights. Psychophysiology, 31, 319–330.Patrick, C. J., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1994). Emotion in the criminal psychopath: fear image processing.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 523–534.Peterson, R. A., & Reiss, S. (1992). Anxiety sensitivity index manual. (2nd ed). Worthington, OH: International Diag-

nostic Systems.Reiss, S., & McNally, R. J. (1985). Expectancy model of fear. In S. Reiss, & R. R. Bootzin (Eds.), Theoretical issues

in behavior therapy (pp. 107–121). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Reiss, S., Peterson, R. A., Gursky, D. M., & McNally, R. J. (1986). Anxiety sensitivity, anxiety frequency, and the

prediction of fearfulness. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 24, 1–8.Schmauk, F. J. (1970). Punishment, arousal, and avoidance learning in sociopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

76(3), 325–335.Schmitt, W. A., & Newman, J. P. (1999). Are all psychopathic individuals low-anxious?. Journal of Abnormal Psy-

chology, 108, 353–358.Shostak, B. B., & Peterson, R. A. (1990). Effects of anxiety sensitivity on emotional response to a stress task. Behav-

iour Research and Therapy, 28, 513–521.Siegel, R. A. (1978). Probability of punishment and suppression of behavior in psychopathic and nonpsychopathic

offenders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 57, 514–522.Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-

chologists Press.Steuerwald, B. L., & Kosson, D. S. (2000). Emotional experiences of the psychopath. In C. B. Gacono (Ed.), The

clinical and forensic assessment of the psychopath: a practitioner’s guide (pp. 111–135). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Taylor, J. A. (1953). A personality scale of manifest anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 48, 285–290.Taylor, S. (Ed.) (1999), Anxiety sensitivity: theory research, and treatment of the fear of anxiety. Mahwah, NJ: Law-

rence Erlbaum.


Taylor, S., Koch, W. J., & McNally, R. J. (1992). How does anxiety sensitivity vary across the anxiety disorders?.Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 6, 249–259.

Veit, R., Flor, H., Erb, M., Hermann, C., Lotze, M., Grodd, W., & Birbaumer, N. (2002). Brain circuits involved inemotional learning in antisocial behavior and social phobia in humans. Neuroscience Letters, 328, 233–236.

Wallace, J. F., Vitale, J. E., & Newman, J. P. (1999). Response modulation deficits: implications for the diagnosisand treatment of psychopathy. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 13, 55–70.

Watson, D., & Clark, L. (1984). Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 96, 465–490.

Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—revised. New York, NY: The PsychologicalCorporation.

Welsh, G. (1956). Factor dimensions A and R. In G. S. Welsh, & W. G. Dahlstrom (Eds.), Basic readings on theMMPI in psychology and medicine (pp. 264–281). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Widom, C. S. (1976). Interpersonal and personal construct systems in psychopaths. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 44(4), 614–623.

Zinbarg, R. E., Barlow, D. H., & Brown, T. A. (1997). Hierarchical structure and general factor saturation of theanxiety sensitivity index: evidence and implications. Psychological Assessment, 9, 277–284.

Zinbarg, R. E., Mohlman, J., & Hong, N. N. (1999). Dimensions of anxiety sensitivity. In S. Taylor (Ed.), Anxietysensibility: theory, research, and treatment of the fear of anxiety (pp. 83–114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


Psychopathy is Related to Negative Affectivity but Not

Documents

Transcript of Psychopathy is Related to Negative Affectivity but Not