Journal of Personality Assessment

ISSN: 0022-3891 (Print) 1532-7752 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

The Durand Adaptive Psychopathic Traits

Questionnaire: Development and Validation

Guillaume Durand

To cite this article: Guillaume Durand (2019) The Durand Adaptive Psychopathic Traits
Questionnaire: Development and Validation, Journal of Personality Assessment, 101:2, 140-149,
DOI: 10.1080/00223891.2017.1372443

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1372443

© 2019 Guillaume Durand. Published with

license by Taylor & Francis.© Guillaume
Durand

Published online: 05 Oct 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1302

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjpa20
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT
2019, VOL. 101, NO. 2, 140–149
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1372443

The Durand Adaptive Psychopathic Traits Questionnaire: Development and Validation

Guillaume Durand
Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Although the term psychopathy is embedded with negativity, evidence points to the existence of another Received 6 July 2016
form of psychopathy, which involves adaptive traits such as stress and anxiety immunity, remarkable Revised 13 July 2017
social skills, noteworthy leadership ability, and an absence of fear. The newly developed Durand Adaptive
Psychopathic Traits Questionnaire (DAPTQ) aims to assess adaptive traits known to correlate with the
psychopathic personality. Validation of the questionnaire among 765 individuals from the community
gave support to a 9-factor solution: Leadership, Logical Thinking, Composure, Creativity, Fearlessness,
Money Smart, Focus, Extroversion, and Management. The DAPTQ and its 9 subscales demonstrated good
internal consistency reliability in a community sample (.68–.88). Convergent validity and divergent validity
were supported by administering the DAPTQ alongside established measures of the psychopathic
personality. Overall, these findings support the potential of the DAPTQ as an instrument for measuring
psychopathy-associated adaptive traits. Limitations of this study and potential directions for future
research are also discussed. Further studies are needed to validate the DAPTQ and its subscales against a
wider range of personality traits and behaviors.

Many researchers describe psychopathy as a severe personality psychopathy (Factor 1) is associated with emotional and
disorder characterized by emotional detachment, callousness, interpersonal traits, which include callousness, remorseless
lack of empathy, impulsivity, social deviance, and poor behav- exploitation of others, and lack of empathy. Secondary psy-
ioral control (Gao & Tang, 2013; L opez, Poy, Patrick, & Molto, chopathy (Factor 2) is associated with the social deviance
2013; Tassy, Deruelle, Mancini, Leistedt, & Wicker, 2013). The traits of psychopathy, which include criminal and impulsive
vast majority of studies on psychopaths have been conducted features, along with anxiety and neuroticism (Dunlop et al.,
on inmates, leading to this standard negative description of 2011). Although the PCL–R is well-validated, its use is
psychopathy (Berg et al., 2013). However, some theoretical mostly restricted to forensic and criminal populations.
models of psychopathy include an adaptive component. For Indeed, the checklist mainly focuses on the traits found in
instance, the triarchic model of psychopathy describes the con- psychopathic criminals, and might therefore not necessarily
cept of psychopathy in terms of disinhibition, meanness, and apply to the general population (Hall & Benning, 2006; Ray
boldness (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009). Whereas disinhi- et al., 2011).
bition and meanness assess maladaptive aspects of psychopa- The Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) is an alterna-
thy, the construct of boldness refers to adaptive traits such as tive to the PCL–R, assessing psychopathic traits on eight sub-
fearlessness, stress immunity, bravery, and social charm. Thus, scales using a self-report questionnaire (Lilienfeld & Andrews,
this model suggests that psychopathy should be seen as a com- 1996). The PPI is also divided into two facets, Fearless Domi-
bination of maladaptive and adaptive traits (Polaschek & Daly, nance (PPI–I) and Impulsive Antisociality (PPI–II). PPI–I is
2013). However, not every diagnostic tool includes this combi- related to boldness and includes adaptive traits such as social
nation of traits. poise, anxiety and stress immunity, and interpersonal boldness;
The diagnosis of psychopathy is commonly achieved whereas PPI–II is associated with a combination of disinhibi-
through the use of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised tion and meanness. This classification method of psychopathic
(PCL–R; Hare, 1991, 2003). The PCL–R, which is the most characteristics is different from the PCL–R, as Factor 1 of the
common and well-validated tool for assessing psychopathy, PCL–R mostly captures elements of meanness and very few ele-
is a time- and resource-consuming procedure requiring a ments of boldness (Dunlop et al., 2011; Polaschek & Daly,
one-on-one interview by a certified assessor for approxi- 2013). Although PPI–I assesses several adaptive characteristics
mately 90 min (Ray, Weir, Poythress, & Rickelm, 2011). related to the psychopathic personality, the questionnaire
Factor analysis of the PCL–R identified two-dimensional measures only a portion of adaptive traits known to correlate
constructs reflecting two variants of psychopathy. Primary with psychopathy.

CONTACT Guillaume Durand [email protected] Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Faculty of Health, Medicine, and Life Sciences, Maastricht
University, P.O. Box 616, 6211 ER, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
© 2019 Guillaume Durand. Published with license by Taylor & Francis.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribu-
tion, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
 DAPTQ DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION 141

The term successful psychopath refers to individuals who superior cognitive focus, and sensitivity to reward (Babiak et al.,
possess several core traits of psychopathy (e.g., lack of empathy, 2010; Baskin-Sommers, Zeier, & Newman, 2009; Camp et al.,
high dominance), but who lack pervasive traits found mostly in 2013; Dunlop et al., 2011; Durand, 2016; Eisenbarth, Lilienfeld, &
secondary psychopathy, such as aggressive externalizing behav- Yarkoni, 2015; Falkenbach, Howe, & Falki, 2013; Hicks, Markon,
iors (Cleckley, 1941; Lopez et al., 2013; Patrick, 2007). The idea Patrick, Krueger, & Newman, 2004; Ray et al., 2011; Takahashi,
behind the concept of successful psychopathy is highly debated Takagishi, Nishinaka, Makino, & Fukui, 2014; Uzieblo et al.,
in the scientific community. Some researchers describe success- 2010). Altogether, these characteristics seem to be correlated with
ful psychopaths as ruthless and irresponsible individuals who a high display of Factor 1 traits as defined by the PPI.
abuse others to climb to the top of an organization (Boddy, Although these characteristics are considered adaptive and
2014; Boddy, Miles, Sanyal, & Hartog, 2015). However, other linked to PPI–I, it is unknown how they interact with each
researchers focus on the potential links between PPI–I and other. It is possible that different patterns among these charac-
adaptive behaviors, which include characteristics such as fear- teristics lead to the existence of subtypes within PPI–I. Further-
lessness, leadership, stress and anxiety immunity, and social more, the spectrum of adaptive characteristics assessed by
dominance (Camp, Skeem, Barchard, Lilienfeld, & Poythress, the PPI is limited. Thus, the purpose of this article is to describe
2013; Smith, Watts, & Lilienfeld, 2014). Successful psychopathy the development and initial validation of the Durand Adaptive
can be interpreted by three models (Hall & Benning, 2006; Psychopathic Traits Questionnaire (DAPTQ), a newly devel-
Lilienfeld, Watts, & Smith, 2015). First, the differential-severity oped self-report measure assessing adaptive traits known to
model conceptualizes successful psychopathy as a milder form correlate with the psychopathic personality as defined by the
of psychopathy. Hypothesizing that psychopathy is a unitary PPI. This questionnaire is not intended to diagnose or assess
construct, successful and unsuccessful psychopathy represent the presence of psychopathy. This article outlines the construc-
the same disorder, with only a difference in intensity. Second, tion of the DAPTQ and its subscales, reports the DAPTQ’s
the moderated-expression model presumes that successful psy- basic psychometric properties, and describes the validity of
chopathy is an atypical manifestation of psychopathy due to scores on the questionnaire in multiple samples.
the emergence of protective factors diminishing the effect of
maladaptive outcomes related to psychopathy. Third, the differ-
ential-configuration model presumes that successful and unsuc- Study 1: Test development and preliminary
cessful psychopathy share the same core personality traits psychometric properties
(antagonism), but successful psychopathy is related to boldness,
Participants
extraversion, and conscientiousness, whereas unsuccessful psy-
chopathy is related to impulsivity and low conscientiousness The initial construction of the test spanned two rounds of item
(Mullins-Sweatt, Glover, Derefinko, Miller, & Widiger, 2010). writing and selection, data collection, and analyses. The first
A number of studies have identified several adaptive traits sample consisted of 118 participants and the second sample
related to PPI–I, which could be related to successful psycho- consisted of 305 participants. Participants of both samples were
paths. To identify these studies, an online search of the Medline recruited on social media and websites dedicated to psychologi-
and PsycINFO databases was conducted using the following cal research (e.g., callforparticipants.com, onlinepsychresearch.
keywords: [(“Psychopathy” OR “Psychopathic traits” OR co.uk). Participants were invited to take part in the study if
“Psychopathic Personality Inventory”)]. Studies were selected they were fluent in English and over 18 years old. To assess for
based on whether they showed at least one significant correla- potential deviant responses, I examined PPI–SF data through
tion between an adaptive trait and psychopathy or psycho- Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN). The purpose of this
pathic personality traits within participants. The term adaptive statistical procedure, which was modeled after Tellegen’s
trait is defined as a trait that maximizes an individual’s survival (1982) VRIN scale, and later adapted to the PPI by Lilienfeld
probability within a set environment. and Widows (2005), is to examine the inconsistencies within
Three types of adaptive characteristics emerged from the 10 pairs of highly correlated items from the PPI–SF. For each
aforementioned studies. Social characteristics include high levels of the 10 pairs, the score obtained on the first item is subtracted
of social charm, great leadership abilities, notable displays of her- from the second item, and the differences of the 10 pairs are
oism, the ability to discard unnecessary relationships, and good summed to give a total score. A higher score signifies greater
management strategies (Babiak, Neumann, & Hare, 2010; variability within similar questions expecting similar answers.
Dunlop et al., 2011; Gervais, Kline, Ludmer, George, & Manson, A cutoff of 8, which corresponds to 3 SD of the VRIN score
2013; Hall, Benning, & Patrick, 2004; Lilienfeld, Latzman, Watts, above its mean (M D 2.50, SD D 1.95), was used to identify out-
Smith, & Dutton, 2014; Smith, Lilienfeld, Coffey, & Dabbs, 2013). liers. Using this method, I was able to identify 6 outliers in the
Characteristics related to protective features include low levels of first sample and 14 outliers in the second with a VRIN  8.
anxiety and stress, little nervousness, and absence of fear, both Analyses were performed on the responses of the remaining
physical and psychological (Camp et al., 2013; Dindo & Fowles, 112 participants (72 men and 40 women, M D 26.0 years old,
2011; Dunlop et al., 2011; Gao & Tang, 2013; Hall et al., 2004; SD D 9.23) of the first sample and 291 participants (186 men
Lopez et al., 2013; Uzieblo, Verschuere, Van den Bussche, & and 105 women, M D 25.3 years old, SD D 8.40) of the second
Crombez, 2010; Zagon & Jackson, 1994). Characteristics related sample. No other demographics besides age and sex were
to personal features include boldness, low impulsivity, low pro- recorded in Study 1. All participants gave informed consent
voked aggression, willingness to take calculated risks, absence of before participating in any part of the study. This series of stud-
irrationality, strategic thinking, innovation, high self-esteem, ies was approved by the University of Maastricht Psychology
142 DURAND

and Neuroscience Department’s Ethics Committee (Case ECP- Table 1. Principal constructs targeted during Study 1.
157-03-10-2015). Social characteristics Personal characteristics
1. Social charm 10. Boldness
2. Leadership abilities 11. Cautiousness
Measures 3. Heroism 12. Low provoked
4. Management abilities aggression
Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Short Form 5. Discarding relationships with no respect 13. Calculated risks
6. Discarding relationships with no common 14. Rational thinking
The PPI–SF (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) is a self-report ques- grounds 15. Strategic thinking
tionnaire of 56 items assessing psychopathic traits on eight sub- Protective characteristics 16. Innovative thinking
scales derived from the original PPI. A total score is given, 7. Anxiety immunity 17. High self-esteem
8. Stress immunity 18. Superior focus
along with a score for each subscale: Machiavellian Egocentric- 9. Fear immunity 19. Reward sensitivity
ity, Social Potency, Fearlessness, Coldheartedness, Impulsive
Nonconformity, Blame Externalization, Carefree Nonplanful- Note. Babiak et al. (2010): 1, 2, 15, 16; Baskin-Sommers et al. (2009): 18; Camp et al.
(2013): 9, 12; Dindo and Fowles (2011): 9; Dunlop et al. (2011): 1, 8, 10; Durand
ness, and Stress Immunity. The scales are divided into two fac- (2016): 12, 17; Eisenbarth et al. (2015): 9, 19; Falkenbach et al. (2013): 12, 17; Gao
tors. PPI–I is made up of Stress Immunity, Social Potency, and and Tang (2013): 7; Gervais et al. (2013): 5, 6; Hall et al. (2004): 2, 8; Hicks et al.
Fearlessness. PPI–II is made up of Blame Externalization, (2004): 11, 15; Lilienfeld et al. (2014): 4; Lopez et al. (2013): 9; Ray et al. (2011):
12; Smith et al. (2013): 3; Takahashi et al. (2014): 13; Uzieblo et al. (2010): 8, 9, 14;
Machiavellian Egocentricity, Carefree Nonplanfulness, and Zagon and Jackson (1994): 7.
Impulsive Nonconformity. Coldheartedness is not under either
factor. This questionnaire has been used in several studies to
assess psychopathic traits in the general population and is con- Likert-type format to avoid any bias of central tendency
sidered to be a well-validated instrument (Benning, Patrick, (Guilford, 1954).
Hicks, Blonigen, & Krueger, 2003; Patrick, Edens, Poythress, The first sample of participants was invited to fill in the
Lilienfeld, & Benning, 2006). Previous investigations demon- 190-item DAPTQ, the PPI–SF, and the LSRP. To assist in iden-
strated good convergent validity of the PPI–SF subscales with tifying the most appropriate items for each construct,
other measures of the psychopathic personality such as the Cronbach’s alpha analyses were performed for each group of
Triarchic Psychopathy Measures (Hall et al., 2014) and the 10 items in all 19 adaptive traits’ subscales. After examination
Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (Lynam et al., 2011). of the Cronbach’s alpha by deleting the item, the four items
with the weakest relationship within their respective subscales
were removed, leaving a total of 114 items. The second group
Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy of participants was then invited to complete the 114-item
The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy (LSRP; Levenson, DAPTQ along with the PPI–SF and the LSRP. Cronbach’s
Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995) is a self-report questionnaire of 26 alpha analyses were performed for each construct in the second
items assessing psychopathic attitudes and beliefs. The scale sample’s results to remove the two least correlated items of
was designed using the same factors as the PCL–R for use in each construct. This left the four most correlated items for each
noninstitutional settings. This test is structured around the construct. The removal of six items by construct ensured the
PCL–R’s Factor 1 and Factor 2. The Factor 1 subscale assesses homogeneity of each construct, leaving out potential nonre-
elements of meanness such as proneness to lying, lack of empa- lated items. Two-tailed Pearson correlations supported the
thy, and manipulative behaviors. The Factor 2 subscale assesses presence of weak to strong correlations among all scales, with
elements of disinhibition such as impulsivity, proneness to the exception of Discarding relationships with no respect. Items
frustration, lack of goals, and emotional negativity. Previous pertaining to that scale were removed from the questionnaire.
studies have supported the convergent and discriminant valid- The remaining 72 items (49 keyed positively, 23 keyed nega-
ity of scores on both scales (Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, & New- tively) were randomized once again, which was followed by
man, 2001; Ross, Bye, Wrobel, & Horton, 2008). However, due recruitment for Study 2.
to the low correlation between the PCL–R and the PPI, LSRP
Factor 1 correlates poorly with PPI–I (r D .08; Ross, Benning,
Patrick, Thompson, & Thurston, 2009). Alternatively, LSRP Study 2: Test validation and psychometric properties
Factor 2 has been shown to correlate strongly with PPI–II from a community sample
(r D .63; Ross et al., 2009). These results support the divergent
validity between Factor 1 and PPI–I, while supporting the con- Participants
vergent validity between Factor 2 and PPI–II. Eight hundred and nine (N D 809) individuals from the com-
munity were recruited once again via social media and websites
dedicated to psychological research for the validation of the
Procedure
DAPTQ. Potential participants were required to not have par-
I first identified the 19 constructs, which assess adaptive traits, ticipated in a previous phase of the DAPTQ’s development, be
based on the findings reported in the introduction. Once these over 18 years old, be fluent in English, and not be receiving
constructs were established, 10 items were written for each con- treatment from a mental health care professional. To improve
struct. All 19 adaptive traits can be found in Table 1. Half of the reliability of the results, I used a more conservative VRIN
these items were written in the negative form for reverse cod- cutoff corresponding to 2 SD above the mean, corresponding
ing. Items were answered using a six-option (strongly disagree, once again to 8 (M D 2.76, SD D 2.21). A total of 25 individuals
disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, strongly agree) were removed from subsequent analyses due to a VRIN  8 on
 DAPTQ DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION 143

the PPI–SF. Further analyses of standard deviation through Table 2. Durand Adaptive Psychopathic Traits Questionnaire subscales, sample
examination of the stem-and-leafs plot selected a total of 19 items, Cronbach’s alpha, eigenvalues, and variance.
additional outliers, leaving a final sample of 765 individuals. Cumulative % of
The final sample consisted of 519 men and 246 women. The Scales a Eigenvalues variance
location of most participants was Europe (53%), followed by Leadership (4 items) .82 11.46 15.92
North America (23%), Asia (11%), South America (6%), and People often follow my lead. (True)
Africa (4%). Regarding education level, the largest group Logical Thinking (5 items) .80 6.02 24.28
I prefer to act first and think
among participants was college dropouts (27%). For the later. (False)
remaining participants, the most common education levels Composure (6 items) .86 4.20 30.11
completed or in progress were college (26%), high school I rarely worry. (True)
Creativity (4 items) .85 3.53 35.00
(19%), master’s degree (14%), and technical school (6%). I am the most creative one out of
Regarding ethnic composition, most participants were White my friends. (True)
(76%), followed by Hispanic (8%), Asian (11%), or other (5%). Fearlessness (6 items) .84 2.76 38.84
Dangerous situations frighten
Participants’ mean age was 24.5 years (SD D 6.87). me. (False)
Similarity (3 items) .76 2.21 41.90
It is important that my friends are
Procedure like me. (True)
Money smart (3 items) .79 1.91 44.55
Participants were invited to complete the latest version of the I am a reckless money spender.
DAPTQ, along with the PPI–SF and the LSRP. Completion of (False)
Focus (4 items) .78 1.74 46.97
the questionnaire was performed on the Qualtrics Web platform. I can’t be distracted easily. (True)
Only the data from participants who had answered 100% of the Extroversion (6 items) .83 1.66 49.27
questions were recorded, and hence there were no missing data. I can effortlessly mingle with any
group. (True)
Prior to performing a factor analysis, I investigated the distribu- Consequentialism (4 items) .64 1.55 51.43
tions of the DAPTQ items in the sample. All 72 items had values The ends justify the means. (True)
between ¡1.016 and 1.275 for skewness and between ¡1.219 Management (3 items) .68 1.39 53.37
I feel like I have very poor
and 1.212 for kurtosis, supporting the normal distribution of all management skills. (False)
items in the sample. Additionally, all response options on all
items were used. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA; maximum
likelihood method with direct oblimin rotation) was conducted SD D 4.53; F(1, 764) D 12.70, p < .001, r D .14; Composure,
on the 72 items of the DAPTQ to determine the number of men, M D 21.94, SD D 6.29; women, M D 18.25, SD D 6.84;
subscales within the DAPTQ. Using O’Connor’s (2000) SPSS F(1, 764) D 54.41, p < .001, r D .27; Fearlessness, men,
syntax, a parallel analysis using principal components analysis M D 23.72, SD D 5.84; women, M D 20.32, SD D 5.92; F(1,
was conducted using permutations of the original data set 764) D 55.96, p < .001, r D .28; Extroversion, men, M D 20.52,
(N of parallel data sets D 1,000; percentile D 95th). This analysis SD D 6.54; women, M D 19.07, SD D 6.53; F(1, 764) D 8.32,
supported retaining the first 11 factors of the EFA, as the eigen- p D .004, r D .11; and Consequentialism, men, M D 11.62,
value of the 12th factor (1.266) was under the cutoff established SD D 3.97; women, M D 9.84, SD D 3.03; F(1, 764) D 36.10,
by the analysis for the aforementioned factor (1.350). Items p < .001, r D .24. Alternatively, women scored higher than
retained in the final version of the DAPTQ loaded .3 or greater men on one factor, namely Creativity: men, M D 14.95, SD D
on their targeted factor while not loading .3 or greater on any 4.62; women, M D 16.32, SD D 4.61; F(1, 764) D 14.79,
other factor. p < .001, r D .15. Men also received a higher PPI–SF total
score: men, M D 134.72, SD D 13.97; women, M D 127.47,
SD D 14.45; F(1, 764) D 44.0, p < .001, r D .25; and LSRP total
Results and discussion
score: men, M D 55.70, SD D 10.20; women, M D 50.94,
DAPTQ subscales SD D 9.54; F(1, 764) D 38.0, p < .001, r D .23. These findings
The 11-factor EFA solution accounted for 53.37% of the vari- are consistent with previous results demonstrating that
ance. The eigenvalues of these 11 factors ranged between 11.46 psychopathic traits, including adaptive psychopathic traits, are
and 1.39. The 11 subscales of the DAPTQ, the final number of more common among men than women (Lilienfeld &
items for each subscale, a sample item for each subscale, Cron- Andrews, 1996).
bach’s alpha, eigenvalues, and cumulative variance in percent-
age are shown in Table 2. Out of the original 72 items, 48 items
were successfully distributed among the factors. Internal consistency reliability
The internal consistency reliability of the DAPTQ total score,
Sex differences as assessed by Cronbach’s alpha, was .86. The internal consis-
A multivariate analysis of variance identified several gender dif- tency reliability of this sample on the 11 factors of the DAPTQ
ferences on the DAPTQ and other questionnaires. Men ranged from .64 to .86. In comparison, the internal consistency
(M D 176.15, SD D 23.77) scored higher than women reliability of the PPI–SF total score from this study was .76, and
(M D 164.89, SD D 22.29) on the DAPTQ total score, F(1, 764) its eight subscales’ internal consistency reliability ranged from
D 38.93, p < .001, r D .24, as well as on five other factors: Logi- .53 to .87. The internal consistency reliability of the LSRP was
cal Thinking, men, M D 21.96, SD D 4.46; women, M D 20.73, .85. Deeper examination of the subscales’ Cronbach’s alphas
144 DURAND

Table 3. Intercorrelations between the Durand Adaptive Psychopathic Traits Questionnaire (DAPTQ) subscales.

Scales 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 M (SD)

DAPTQ
1. DAPTQ total 172.52 (23.88)
2. Leadership .61** 14.96 (3.98)
3. Logical Thinking .37** .02 21.56 (4.51)
4. Composure .64** .19** .26** 20.75 (6.69)
5. Creativity .34** .21** ¡.04 0 15.38 (4.66)
6. Fearlessness .59** .31** .01 .36** .12** 22.62 (6.07)
7. Similarity .01 ¡.02 ¡.02 ¡.14** 0 ¡.11** 9.69 (3.34)
8. Money Smart .31** ¡.01 .39** .15** .05 ¡.04 ¡.03 11.82 (3.54)
9. Focus .57** .21** .32** .35** .12** .21** ¡.05 .25** 13.10 (4.00)
10. Extroversion .56** .52** ¡.13** .25** .18** .28** ¡.20** ¡.05 .13** 20.05 (6.56)
11. Consequentialism .39** .27** ¡.03 .09* ¡.04 .31** .13** ¡.05 .06 .19** 11.04 (3.91)
12. Management .59** .36** .34** .37** .10** .14** ¡.09* .30** .47** .23** .11** 11.50 (2.92)

Note. N D 765.

p < .05. p < .01, two-tailed.

did not identify any items the removal of which would signifi- with the DAPTQ. LSRP Factor 1 showed a weak positive corre-
cantly increase the overall internal consistency reliability. lation with DAPTQ, and LSRP Factor 2 showed a moderate
negative correlation.
Examination of the DAPTQ’s subscales demonstrated
Correlations among the DAPTQ, the PPI–SF, and the LSRP
several strong correlations supporting the subscales’ validity.
The intercorrelations among the 11 DAPTQ factors are
First, Leadership was highly correlated with Social Potency
shown in Table 3. Ten out of the 11 subscales moderately
to strongly correlated with the DAPTQ total score (r D (r D .57). Second, Composure correlated highly with Stress
Immunity (r D .61) and PPI–I (r D .49). Third, Fearlessness
.31–.64). Similarity did not display any correlation with the
correlated strongly with the fearlessness subscale of the
DAPTQ total, and very few weak correlations with other
PPI–SF (r D .59), PPI–I (r D .65), and PPI–SF total (r D
factors (r D ¡.09 to ¡.20).
.62). Fourth, Extroversion was strongly correlated with
The descriptive data and the correlations between the
Social Potency (r D .77) and PPI–I (r D .58). Fifth, Conse-
DAPTQ and its factors with the PPI–SF and the LSRP can be
quentialism showed strong correlations with Machiavellian
examined in Tables 4 and 5. The DAPTQ was moderately
Egocentricity (r D .52), LSRP Factor 1 (r D .66), and LSRP
correlated with the PPI–SF total score (r D .46). Closer exami-
nation of the PPI–SF’s subscales revealed that scores on Social Total (r D .59). Finally, Management was highly negatively
correlated with Carefree Nonplanfulness (r D ¡.47) and
Potency, Carefree Nonplanfulness, and Stress Immunity sub-
LSRP Factor 2 (r D ¡.49).
scales showed the strongest correlations with the DAPTQ,
Due to the lack of correlation between the Similarity factor
whereas Fearlessness, Coldheartedness, Impulsive Nonconfor-
and the DAPTQ total score, alongside the lack of moderate to
mity, Blame Externalization, and Machiavellian Egocentricity
strong correlations between Similarity and the PPI–SF or the
had the weakest correlations. PPI–I showed a strong positive
LSRP, the three items pertaining to similarity were removed.
correlation with the DAPTQ, which was not found on PPI–II.
The remaining 45 items (27 keyed positively, 18 keyed
This is consistent with the presumed adaptive nature of PPI–I
individuals. The LSRP total score did not show any correlation negatively) were randomized before starting Study 3.

Table 4. Descriptive data. Study 3: Validation of the DAPTQ subscales

M SD Participants
PPI–SF The DAPTQ and its subscales were further validated in a sam-
Machiavellian Egocentricity 16.20 3.94
Social Potency 17.50 3.65 ple of 133 individuals from the community (44 men, 89
Fearlessness 17.69 5.26 women) recruited once again from social media and websites
Coldheartedness 14.29 4.15 dedicated to psychological research. As in Study 2, participants
Impulsive Nonconformity 17.47 3.76
Blame Externalization 15.38 5.10 were instructed to not participate if they had participated in a
Carefree Nonplanfulness 14.99 3.01 previous phase of the development of the DAPTQ. Participants
Stress Immunity 18.83 3.38 were mostly located in Europe (53%), North America (26%),
PPI–I 54.03 9.02
PPI–II 64.06 9.48 Asia (12%), Africa (4%), South America (3%), and Oceania
Total 132.38 14.51 (2%). Regarding education level, participants were mostly
LSRP college graduates (29%). Following this, the most common
Factor 1 32.45 8.14
Factor 2 21.72 4.10 education levels were master’s degree (28%), college dropout
Total 54.17 10.23 (23%), doctoral degree (7%), or other (13%). Regarding
ethnicity, participants were mostly White (77%), Asian (15%),
Note. N D 765. PPI–SF D Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Short Form;
PPI–I D Fearless Dominance; PPI–II D Impulsive Antisociality; LSRP D Levenson or other (8%). The mean age of the participants was 27.8 (SD D
Self-Report Psychopathy scale. 10.47) years old.
 DAPTQ DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION 145

Table 5. Correlations between the Durand Adaptive Psychopathic Traits Questionnaire (DAPTQ), the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Short Form (PPI–SF), and the
Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale (LSRP) by their respective subscales.
Scales 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 a

PPI–SF
Mach Ego .09* .16** ¡.20** ¡.02 ¡.03 .19** .18** ¡.23** ¡.13** .10** .52** ¡.15** .70
Social Potency .56** .57** ¡.05 .31** .21** .33** ¡.20** ¡.02 .16** .77** .15** .29** .59
Fearlessness .34** .22** ¡.09* .24** .07 .59** ¡.13** ¡.06 .05 .26** .22** .03 .79
Coldheartedness .25** .01 .30** .27** ¡.05 .11** ¡.04 .22** .19** ¡.02 .11** .20** .68
Impul Nonconfor .22** .16** ¡.08* .11** .22** .37** ¡.04 ¡.05 ¡.01 .15** .12** ¡.10** .58
Blame External ¡.03 .11** ¡.15** ¡.23** .03 .22** .11** ¡.13** ¡.05 ¡.06 .21** ¡.15** .87
Carefree Nonplan ¡.46** ¡.35** ¡.39** ¡.10** .21** ¡.17** ¡.03 ¡.24** ¡.32** ¡.12** ¡.15** ¡.47** .53
Stress Immunity .61** .27* .33** .61** .09* .46** ¡.24** .17** .37** .30** .06 .39** .53
PPI–I .66** .46** .06 .49** .16** .65** ¡.24** .02 .23** .58** .21** .28** .77
PPI–II ¡.04 .08* ¡.32** ¡.12** .02 .29** .11** ¡.27** ¡.19** .03 .33** ¡.33** .75
Total .46** .34** ¡.09* .31** .10** .62** ¡.10* ¡.10** .08* .37** .38** .02 .77
LSRP
Factor 1 .23** .14** ¡.03 .14** ¡.09* .28** .09* ¡.10** .02 .05 .66** 0 .88
Factor 2 ¡.31** ¡.10** ¡.35** ¡.24** ¡.16** .08* .07 ¡.34** ¡.32** ¡.10** .17** ¡.49** .64
Total .06 .07 ¡.16** .01 ¡.13** .26** .09** ¡.21** ¡.12** 0 .59** ¡.19** .85

Note. N D 765. Mach Ego D Machiavellian Egocentricity; Impul Nonconfor D Impulsivity Nonconformity; Blame External D Blame Externalization; Carefree Nonplan D Carefree
Nonplanfulness.

p < .05. p < .01, two-tailed.

Measures includes the 20 items related to risk taking from the original
320 items of the JPI. The scale uses a true–false format, and
Big Five Inventory
assesses preferences for risky behaviors.
The Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991) is
a 44-item questionnaire assessing the Big Five components of
Perceived Stress Scale–10-item version
personality (Goldberg, 1992). The questionnaire gives five sub-
The Perceived Stress Scale–10-item version (PSS–10; Cohen &
scale scores: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion,
Williamson, 1988) is a 10-item self-report questionnaire assess-
Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Respondents answer to what
ing how an individual can be stressed over everyday situations.
extent they agree with a particular characteristic (“I see myself
The questionnaire is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging
as someone who is…”). Examples include talkative (Extrover-
from 0 (never) to 4 (very often). Participants are asked to
sion), helpful and unselfish with others (Agreeableness), does a
answer based on their general feelings and thoughts from the
thorough job (Conscientiousness), depressed, blue (Neuroti-
last month (e.g., “In the last month, how often have you been
cism), and original, comes up with new ideas (Openness). Items
upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?”).
are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
State–Trait Anxiety Inventory–Trait version
The State–Trait Anxiety Inventory–Trait version (STAI; Spiel-
Rational–Experiential Inventory berger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970) is a 40-item questionnaire
The Rational–Experiential Inventory (REI; Pacini & Epstein, assessing anxiety through a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1
1999) is a 40-item questionnaire assessing preferences for infor- (almost never) to 4 (almost always). The Y2 scale includes 20
mation processing (rational style and experiential style). The items and focuses on how anxious an individual is in everyday
rational style assesses the usage of a conscious, analytical life. Participants are asked to answer how they generally feel
approach. Alternatively, the experiential style assesses the usage about statements such as “I lack self-confidence,” and “I am a
of a preconscious, affective, holistic approach. The REI is steady person.”
divided into four subscales, two for each approach. Rational
ability refers to the ability to think analytically (“I have a logical
mind”). Rational engagement refers to the reliance and enjoy- Results and discussion
ment of analytical thinking (“I enjoy intellectual challenges”). The intercorrelations among the 10 DAPTQ subscales were
Experiential ability refers to the ability of experiencing intuitive once again computed and are shown in Table 6. Once again, all
impressions and feelings (“I believe in trusting my hunches”). but one of the DAPTQ factors correlated moderately to
Experiential engagement refers to the enjoyment of relying on strongly with the DAPTQ total score (r D .37–.68). Whereas
feelings to make decisions (“I like to rely on my intuitive Consequentialism displayed a correlation of r D .39 with the
impressions”). Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging DAPTQ total score in Study 2, the factor failed to correlate sig-
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). nificantly with the total score in Study 3. The DAPTQ and its
subscales displayed good internal consistency reliability, rang-
Jackson Personality Inventory Risk Taking Scale ing from a D .63 to .89.
The Jackson Personality Inventory Risk Taking scale (JPI–RT; The descriptive data and the correlations between the
Jackson, 1976) is a personality assessment measuring various DAPTQ and the BFI, the REI, the JPI–RT, the PSS–10, and the
core traits of the personality, such as openness, neuroticism, STAI–Y2 are shown in Tables 7 and 8. The DAPTQ total score
extraversion, trustworthiness, and organization. The JPI–RT showed moderate to strong positive correlations with all
146 DURAND

Table 6. Inter-correlations between the Durand Adaptive Psychopathic Traits Questionnaire (DAPTQ) subscales.

Scales 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 M (SD)

DAPTQ
1. DAPTQ Total 153.42 (22.51)
2. Leadership .60** 13.39 (4.19)
3. Logical Thinking .41** .10 20.88 (4.48)
4. Composure .68** .22* .28** 18.11 (6.91)
5. Creativity .37** .18* .06 .17* 16.01 (4.55)
6. Fearlessness .39** .15 ¡.07 .15 ¡.06 19.98 (5.71)
7. Money Smart .38** ¡.06 .29** .21* .20* ¡.08 12.54 (3.41)
8. Focus .53** .27** .21* .32** .05 .14 .27** 12.25 (3.98)
9. Extroversion .62** .53** .02 .24** .23** .13 .07 .12 18.75 (6.18)
10. Consequentialism .10 .16 ¡.10 ¡.11 ¡.27** .21* ¡.22* ¡.13 .12 10.10 (3.38)
11. Management .67** .36** .28** .50** .15 .01 .42** .48** .32** ¡.03 11.38 (2.95)

Note. N D 133.

p < .05. p < .01, two-tailed.

measurements of the BFI, with the exception of a strong nega- displayed a strong correlation with Conscientiousness
tive correlation with Neuroticism. Strong positive correlations (r D .66), and strong negative correlations with Neuroticism
were also found between the DAPTQ and the two rational (r D ¡.50) and STAI–Y2 (r D ¡.60).
scales of the REI, demonstrating the analytical nature of indi- Similar to the removed construct of Similarity from Study 2,
viduals high on the DAPTQ. A weak correlation was also found Consequentialism was not correlated with the DAPTQ total
between the DAPTQ and experiential ability. The JPI–RT score. Additionally, the correlations obtained between Conse-
showed a weak correlation with the DAPTQ, and the measures quentialism and other measurements, such as the PSS–10 and
of stress and anxiety (PSS–10 and STAI–Y2) both showed a the STAI–Y2, were contrary to theory. The four items related
strong negative correlation with the DAPTQ. to the construct were therefore removed. The remaining 41
Examination of the DAPTQ’s subscales further supports items (24 keyed positively, 17 keyed negatively) were random-
their validity to measure their respective constructs. First, Lead- ized once again and form the final version of the DAPTQ.
ership correlated strongly with Extroversion (r D .58). Second,
Logical Thinking was strongly correlated with Rational Ability
(r D .61), and highly negatively correlated with Experiential General discussion
Engagement (r D ¡.47). Third, Composure was highly
The purpose of these studies was to develop and validate a new
negatively correlated with Neuroticism (r D ¡.85), PSS–10
questionnaire for assessing adaptive traits known to correlate
(r D ¡.65), and STAI–Y2 (r D ¡.75). Fourth, Creativity
with the psychopathic personality. The aforementioned studies’
showed a strong correlation with Openness (r D .65). Fifth,
results confirm the adequacy of the DAPTQ in various samples,
Fearlessness displayed a strong correlation with JPI–RT
as well as providing support for the subscales’ validity. The
(r D .54). Sixth, Focus highly correlated with Conscientiousness
DAPTQ demonstrated good internal consistency reliability for
(r D .53). Seventh, Extroversion correlated strongly with the
its total score and all its subscales for all samples, as well as
Extroversion scale of the BFI (r D .76). Finally, Management
strong correlations with well-established assessments of the
psychopathic personality and with other personality measures.
As expected, the DAPTQ was highly positively correlated
Table 7. Descriptive data.
with PPI–I and weakly positively correlated with LSRP Factor
M SD 1. Alternatively, the DAPTQ was not correlated with PPI–II
BFI subscales and moderately negatively correlated with LSRP Factor 2.
Extroversion 21.30 6.61 These results stem from the difference in the conceptual defini-
Agreeableness 32.72 5.88 tion of psychopathy by each questionnaire. The PPI defines
Conscientiousness 30.35 6.20
Neuroticism 25.00 7.71 psychopathic traits by adhering to the differential configuration
Openness 38.09 6.31 model. PPI–I focuses on adaptive traits only, whereas PPI–II
REI subscales focuses on maladaptive outcomes (Skeem, Polaschek, Patrick,
Rational Ability 38.31 6.47
Rational Engagement 38.96 6.19 & Lilienfeld, 2011). Although both PPI–I and PPI–II assess fun-
Experiential Ability 33.06 6.45 damentally different psychopathic traits, the LSRP assesses
Experiential Engagement 31.48 6.80 maladaptive outcomes on both of its factors without taking
JPI–RT
Total 6.06 4.08 into account any form of adaptive behaviors. The weak correla-
PSS–10 tion between the DAPTQ and LSRP Factor 1 further supports
Total 18.30 7.69 the divergent validity of the scale, demonstrating the inability
STAI–Y2
Total 47.15 13.26 of the LSRP to assess adaptive outcomes in psychopathic indi-
viduals. Alternatively, the moderate negative relationship
Note. N D 133. BFI D Big Five Inventory; REI D Rational–Experiential Inventory; between the DAPTQ and LSRP Factor 2 supports the maladap-
JPI–RT D Jackson Personality Inventory Risk Taking scale; PSS–10 D Perceived
Stress Scale–10-item version; STAI–Y2 D State–Trait Anxiety Inventory–Trait tive behaviors assessed by the LSRP and its opposition to the
version Y2 scale. adaptive traits assessed by the DAPTQ.
 DAPTQ DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION 147

Table 8. Correlations between the DAPTQ, the BFI, the REI, the JPI–RT, the PSS–10, and the STAI–Y2.

Scales 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 a

BFI subscales
Extroversion .54** .58** ¡.08 .17* .21* .18* .05 .19* .76** .09 .32** .83
Agreeableness .31** ¡.01 .07 .26** .10 .10 .24** .29** .28** ¡.18* .30** .78
Conscientiousness .44** .31** .23** .18* .08 ¡.07 .40** .53** .16 ¡.04 .66** .80
Neuroticism ¡.67** ¡.22* ¡.37** ¡.85** ¡.22* ¡.13 ¡.26** ¡.28** ¡.27** .08 ¡.50** .88
Openness .39** .28** .10 .16 .65** .09 .11 .12 .30** ¡.20* .16 .79
REI subscales
Rational Ability .44** .30** .61** .19* .05 .16 .24** .25** .13 0 .32** .86
Rational Engagement .46** .33** .39** .14 .18* .21* .17 .18* .33** .01 .29** .82
Exp Ability .24** .25** ¡.16 .04 .09 .30** ¡.09 .13 .19* .19* .16 .87
Exp Engagement .03 .10 ¡.47** ¡.03 .18* .18* ¡.15 .01 .13 .05 .05 .87
JPI–RT
Total .32** .32** ¡.12 .13 .04 .54** ¡.24** .04 .32** .21* .01 .80
PSS–10
Total ¡.50** ¡.19* ¡.31** ¡.65** ¡.15 ¡.04 ¡.23** ¡.32** ¡.18* .22** ¡.44** .89
STAI–Y2
Total ¡.64** ¡.24** ¡.32** ¡.75** ¡.27** ¡.03 ¡.36** ¡.32** ¡.30** .22* ¡.60** .95

Note. N D 133. 1 D DAPTQ total; 2 D Leadership; 3 D Logical Thinking; 4 D Composure; 5 D Creativity; 6 D Fearlessness; 7 D Money Smart; 8 D Focus; 9 D Extroversion;
10 D Consequentialism; 11 D Management. DAPTQ D Durand Adaptive Psychopathic Traits Questionnaire; BFI D Big Five Inventory; REI D Rational-Experiential Inven-
tory; Exp D Experiential; JPI–RT D Jackson Personality Inventory–Risk Taking scale; PSS D Perceived Stress Scale; STAI–Y2 D State–Trait Anxiety Inventory–Trait version.

p < .05. p < .01, two-tailed.

By selecting a wide range of adaptive traits known to corre- psychopathy (Lilienfeld et al., 2012; Lynam & Miller, 2012;
late with the psychopathic personality and developing an Miller & Lynam, 2012). Furthermore, this questionnaire has
assessment specific to these traits, it was possible to investigate not been validated for use in criminal populations, despite the
the relationship between them. The first factor refers to the propensity of psychopaths in criminal settings (Polaschek &
leadership attributes of an individual and the perception of Daly, 2013). In conclusion, the DAPTQ should solely be used
others to one’s role as a leader. The second factor assesses the to assess an individual’s adaptive characteristics in noncriminal
preference of an individual to act logically and rationally, rather populations until further validation.
than acting emotionally. The third factor relates to the ability to Although these findings are highly encouraging, additional
remain calm in most situations, including stressful scenarios. construct validation is needed to further assess the validity of
The fourth factor assesses creative thinking and a “think out- each subscale. The DAPTQ also needs to be administered
side the box” mentality. The fifth factor encompasses the fear- against measures of social potency, leadership, creativity, logical
less nature associated with psychopathic individuals. The sixth reasoning, propensity to take calculated risks, goal-driven
factor assesses the tendency of an individual to efficiently man- behavior, and display of aggression scales. Although some of
age money. The seventh factor refers to one’s ability to stay these components were included in this study and the findings
focused despite potential distractions. The eighth factor assesses were encouraging with regard to establishing the validity of the
extroversion and the charismatic attitudes of an individual. The DAPTQ’s subscales, further validation against alternative meas-
last factor encompasses the ability of an individual to manage a ures of personality is recommended.
group of tasks or individuals. Together, these nine factors
showcase the traits through which PPI–I individuals benefit the
most in comparison to the general population. Acknowledgments
Whereas several of the previously mentioned adaptive traits An early draft of this article was uploaded on a preprint server (https://
have been studied extensively in relation to the psychopathic peerj.com/preprints/2081). I would like to thank Erika Matsumoto Plata
personality (e.g., leadership, composure, fearlessness, extrover- and Janiya Khassenova for their help in the editing of this article.
sion), some other traits (e.g., creativity, management, money
smart) have not been studied in detail in the field of psychopa-
thy. Considering the numerous correlations reported between ORCID
these traits and various components of the psychopathic per- Guillaume Durand http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5418-4429
sonality, it is of interest to further investigate their role and
influence in psychopathic individuals.
As previously mentioned, although this test assesses the References
adaptive traits found in Factor 1 psychopathic individuals, as Babiak, P., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2010). Corporate psychology:
defined by the PPI, it should not be seen as a psychopathy mea- Talking the walk. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 174–193. http://
surement for several reasons. First, the diagnosis of psychopa- doi.org/10.1002/bsl.925
thy is a combination of Factor 1 and Factor 2 as defined by the Baskin-Sommers, A. R., Zeier, J. D., & Newman, J. P. (2009). Self-reported
PCL–R, and this test focuses exclusively on traits related to attentional control differentiates the major factors of psychopathy. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 47, 626–630. http://doi.org/
PPI–I (Patrick et al., 2009). The questionnaire can therefore 10.1016/j.paid.2009.05.027
only assess a portion of psychopathy-related traits, which is Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Hicks, B. M., Blonigen, D. M., & Krueger, R.
under a lot of debate regarding its validity with the concept of F. (2003). Factor structure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory:
148 DURAND

Validity and implications for clinical assessment. Psychological Assess- construct scales from the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Psycho-
ment, 15, 340–350. http://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.340 logical Assessment, 26, 447–461. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0035665
Berg, J. M., Smith, S. F., Watts, A. L., Ammirati, R., Green, S. E., & Lilien- Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. Toronto,
feld, S. O. (2013). Misconceptions regarding psychopathic personality: Canada: MultiHealth Systems.
Implications for clinical practice and research. Neuropsychiatry, 3, 63– Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. Toronto,
74. http://doi.org/10.2217/npy.12.69 Canada: Mulitihealth Systems.
Boddy, C. R. (2014). Corporate psychopaths, conflict, employee affective Hicks, B. M., Markon, K., Patrick, C. J., Krueger, R., & Newman, J. P.
well-being and counterproductive work behaviour. Journal of Business (2004). Identifying psychopathy subtypes on the basis of personality
Ethics, 121, 107–121. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1688-0 structure. Psychological Assessment, 16, 276–288.
Boddy, C., Miles, D., Sanyal, C., & Hartog, M. (2015). Extreme man- Jackson, D. N. (1976). Jackson Personality Inventory manual. Port Huron,
agers, extreme workplaces: Capitalism, organizations and corporate MI: Research Psychologists Press.
psychopaths. Organization, 22, 530–551. http://doi.org/10.1177/ John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inven-
1350508415572508 tory—Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Ber-
Brinkley, C. A., Schmitt, W. A., Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (2001). Con- keley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
struct validation of a self-report psychopathy scale: Does Levenson’s Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psy-
Self-Report Psychopathy scale measure the same constructs as Hare’s chopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of
Psychopathy Checklist–Revised? Personality and Individual Differen- Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151–158.
ces, 31, 1021–1038. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00178-1 Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary
Camp, J. P., Skeem, J. L., Barchard, K., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Poythress, N. G. validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in
(2013). Psychopathic predators? Getting specific about the relation noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 488–
between psychopathy and violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 524. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3
Psychology, 81, 467–480. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0031349 Lilienfeld, S., Latzman, R. D., Watts, A. L., Smith, S. F., & Dutton, K.
Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity: An attempt to reinterpret the so- (2014). Correlates of psychopathic personality traits in everyday life:
called psychopathic personality. JAMA, 117, 493. http://doi.org/ Results from a large community survey. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–
10.1001/jama.1941.02820320085028 11. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00740
Cohen, S., & Williamson, G. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sam- Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., Berg, J., Sellbom, M., &
ple of the United States. In S. Spacapam & S. Oskamp (Eds.), The social Edens, J. F. (2012). The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy:
psychology of health: The Claremont Symposium on applied social psy- Confusions, controversies, and clarifications. Personality Disorders:
chology (pp. 31–67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 327–340. http://doi.org/10.1037/
Dindo, L., & Fowles, D. (2011). Dual temperamental risk factors for psy- a0026987
chopathic personality: Evidence from self-report and skin conductance. Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., & Smith, S. F. (2015). Successful psychopa-
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 557–566. http://doi. thy: A scientific status report. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-
org/10.1037/a0021848 ence, 24, 298–303. http://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415580297
Dunlop, B. W., DeFife, J. A., Marx, L., Garlow, S. J., Nemeroff, C. B., & Lil- Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). Psychopathic personality inven-
ienfeld, S. O. (2011). The effects of sertraline on psychopathic traits. tory—Revised professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment
International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 26, 329–337. http://doi.org/ Resources
10.1097/YIC.0b013e32834b80df L
opez, R., Poy, R., Patrick, C. J., & Molt o, J. (2013). Deficient fear condi-
Durand, G. (2016). A replication of “Using self-esteem to disaggregate tioning and self-reported psychopathy: The role of fearless dominance.
psychopathy, narcissism, and aggression (2013).” The Quantitative Psychophysiology, 50, 210–218. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
Methods for Psychology, 12(2), r1–r5. http://doi.org/10.20982/ 8986.2012.01493.x
tqmp.12.2.r001 Lynam, D. R., Gaughan, E. T., Miller, J. D., Miller, D. J., Mullins-Sweatt, S.,
Eisenbarth, H., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Yarkoni, T. (2015). Using a genetic algo- & Widiger, T. A. (2011). Assessing the basic traits associated with psy-
rithm to abbreviate the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised chopathy: Development and validation of the Elemental Psychopathy
(PPI–R). Psychological Assessment, 27, 194–202. Assessment. Psychological Assessment, 23, 108–124. http://doi.org/
Falkenbach, D. M., Howe, J. R., & Falki, M. (2013). Using self-esteem to 10.1037/a0021146
disaggregate psychopathy, narcissism, and aggression. Personality and Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2012). Fearless dominance and psy-
Individual Differences, 54, 815–820. http://doi.org/10.1016/j. chopathy: A response to Lilienfeld et al. Personality Disorders: The-
paid.2012.12.017 ory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 341–353. http://doi.org/10.1037/
Gao, Y., & Tang, S. (2013). Psychopathic personality and utilitarian moral a0028296
judgment in college students. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 342–349. Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2012). An examination of the Psychopathic
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.06.012 Personality Inventory’s nomological network: A meta-analytic review.
Gervais, M. M., Kline, M. A., Ludmer, M., George, R., & Manson, J. H. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 305–326.
(2013). The strategy of psychopathy: Primary psychopathic traits pre- http://doi.org/10.1037/a0024567
dict defection on low-value relationships. Proceedings of the Royal Soci- Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Glover, N. G., Derefinko, K. J., Miller, J. D., &
ety–Biological Sciences, 280(February), 20122773. http://doi.org/ Widiger, T. A. (2010). The search for the successful psychopath. Jour-
10.1098/rspb.2012.2773 nal of Research in Personality, 44, 554–558. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big Five factor jrp.2010.05.010
structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42. O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the num-
Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hil. ber of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test.
Hall, J., & Benning, S. (2006). The “successful” psychopath: Adaptive and Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396–
subclinical manifestations of psychopathy in the general population. In 402.
C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 459–478). New York, Pacini, R., & Epstein, S. (1999). The relation of rational and experiential
NY: Guilford Press. information processing styles to personality, basic beliefs, and the
Hall, J., Benning, S. D., & Patrick, C. J. (2004). Criterion-related validity of ratio-bias phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
the three-factor model of psychopathy: Personality, behavior, and 76, 972–987.
adaptive functioning. Assessment, 11, 4–16. http://doi.org/10.1177/ Patrick, C. J. (2007). Affective processes in psychopathy. In J. Rottenberg &
1073191103261466 S. L. Johnson (Eds.), Emotion and psychopathology: Bridging affective
Hall, J., Drislane, L. E., Patrick, C. J., Morano, M., Lilienfeld, S. O., & and clinical science (pp. 215–239). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
Poythress, N. G. (2014). Development and validation of triarchic logical Association. http://doi.org/10.1037/11562-010
 DAPTQ DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION 149

Patrick, C. J., Edens, J. F., Poythress, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Benning, S. and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(3),
D. (2006). Construct validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory 95–162. http://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611426706
two-factor model with offenders. Psychological Assessment, 18, 204– Smith, S. F., Lilienfeld, S. O., Coffey, K., & Dabbs, J. M. (2013). Are psycho-
208. http://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.204 paths and heroes twigs off the same branch? Evidence from college,
Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptuali- community, and presidential samples. Journal of Research in Personal-
zation of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, bold- ity, 47, 634–646. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.006
ness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 913. http:// Smith, S. F., Watts, A. L., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2014). On the trail of the elu-
doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000492 sive successful psychopath. The Psychologist, 27, 506–511.
Polaschek, D. L. L., & Daly, T. E. (2013). Treatment and psychopathy in Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). The State–Trait
forensic settings. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18, 592–603. http:// Anxiety Inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2013.06.003 Press.
Ray, J. V., Weir, J. W., Poythress, N. G., & Rickelm, A. (2011). Correspon- Takahashi, T., Takagishi, H., Nishinaka, H., Makino, T., & Fukui, H.
dence between the Psychopathic Personality Inventory and the Psycho- (2014). Neuroeconomics of psychopathy: Risk taking in probability dis-
pathic Personality Inventory–Revised: A look at self-reported counting of gain and loss predicts psychopathy. Neuroendocrinology
personality traits. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 375–385. http:// Letters, 35, 510–517.
doi.org/10.1177/0093854811398178 Tassy, S., Deruelle, C., Mancini, J., Leistedt, S., & Wicker, B. (2013). High
Ross, S. R., Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Thompson, A., & Thurston, A. levels of psychopathic traits alters moral choice but not moral judg-
(2009). Factors of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory: Criterion- ment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 229. http://doi.org/10.3389/
related validity and relationship to the BIS/BAS and five-factor models fnhum.2013.00229
of personality. Assessment, 16, 71–87. http://doi.org/10.1177/ Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the Differential Personality Question-
1073191108322207 naire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Ross, S. R., Bye, K., Wrobel, T. A., & Horton, R. S. (2008). Primary Uzieblo, K., Verschuere, B., Van den Bussche, E., & Crombez, G. (2010).
and secondary psychopathic characteristics and the Schedule for The validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised in a
Non-Adaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP). Personality and community sample. Assessment, 17, 334–346. http://doi.org/10.1177/
Individual Differences, 45, 249–254. http://doi.org/10.1016/j. 1073191109356544
paid.2008.04.007 Zagon, I. K., & Jackson, H. J. (1994). Construct validity of a psychopathy
Skeem, J. L., Polaschek, D. L. L., Patrick, C. J., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2011). measure. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 125–135. http://
Psychopathic personality: Bridging the gap between scientific evidence doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90269-0