![]() ![]() ![]() This is especially true for models that are based on different covariance matrices, and thus not amenable to direct statistical comparison ( Vitacco et al., 2005). Even so, as psychopathy researchers continue to debate the strengths of various structural models, it is important to highlight that support for a particular model hinges in large part on how well it is embedded within the theoretical and empirical literature ( Bentler, 1995). Given the evidence that antisocial tendencies are linked to the psychopathy construct in terms of both content and underlying structure, there is no empirical justification for regarding such tendencies as simply consequences of other psychopathic traits as opposed to integral facets of the construct ( Neumann, Vitacco, Hare, & Wupperman, 2005). study found that items reflecting antisocial tendencies loaded with one factor containing narcissistic items and another factor which contained callous/unemotional items. ![]() Similarly, studies of children ( Dadds, Fraser, Frost, & Hawes, 2005) and adolescents ( Blonigen, Hicks, Krueger, Patrick, & Iacono, 2005) within the general community have reported structural models of psychopathy that involve antisocial tendencies. Moreover, there is strong evidence for a broad structural model of psychopathy that includes antisocial tendencies ( Hare & Neumann, 2005, 2006 Neumann, Kosson, Forth, & Hare, 2006 Vitacco, Neumann, & Jackson, 2005). ![]() For example, some investigators ( Cooke & Michie, 2001 Cooke, Michie, Hart, & Clark, 2004) have proposed that overt antisocial tendencies (e.g., poor behavioral controls, early behavior problems) should not be included in any (including the PCL-R) definition of the construct, though other behavioral traits (e.g., pathological lying, conning, irresponsibility) that entail antisocial behaviors are regarded as intrinsic and retained in their model. And yet, psychopathy remains an elusive psychological construct in terms of a consensus definition and full explanation of its etiology ( Patrick, 2006). The conspicuous focus on psychopathic personality is in part due to its significant link with violence, aggression, and other externalizing pathology ( Hare, 2003). Psychopathy is likely the first and perhaps most recognized of the personality disorders ( Berrios, 1996 Trull & Durrett, 2005). Structural equation modeling results indicated that the four first-order factor dimensions could be explained by a single second-order cohesive super-factor. To examine this super-factor, the current study used several very large data sets of male ( N = 4865) and female ( N = 1099) offenders, and forensic psychiatric patients ( N = 965), who were assessed with the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R Hare, 2003). The nature of this higher-order factor may reflect the unifying feature which comprehensively defines the disorder. These dimensions are significantly interrelated, suggesting that they are indicators for a super-ordinate factor. The most recent proposal on its structural nature suggests that it is a multifaceted construct, made up of at least four dimensions reflecting Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial anomalies ( Hare & Neumann, 2005, 2006). Psychopathy, while perhaps the earliest and most recognized personality disorder, is the subject of intense debate about its nature and measurement. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |