Personality and Psychopathy, Antisocial and Delinquent Behavior

Although many believe that psychopathic individuals cannot render valid information on
their own personality traits and behavior, and some researchers such as Cleckley (1988), said
that that loss of insight was a central characteristic of psychopathic individuals (Miller, Lynam,
& Jones, 2011), the truth is that these assumptions received little empirical attention. Miller et al
stated that one evident way to examine the veridicality of reports by individuals with
psychopathic traits is to compare their self-descriptions with the descriptions provided by
informants; significant discrepancies between the two sources might indicate problematic levels
of insight or deceitfulness.
Although there has been little empirical work in the area of psychopathy, a substantial
literature exists on the degree of selfinformant concordance for symptoms of personality
disorders (PDs) and general personality traits.
Psychopathy can be understood as a particular personality pattern ((Lynam & Derefinko,
2006). It can be seen as a certain/particular constellation of basic personality traits available in a
variety of structural models of personality. When referring to structural models of personality we
have in mind the fact that these models share fundamental assumptions that traits are the basic
building blocks of personality.
The present research tries to make a comparison between two papers. The first one is
written by Joshua D. Miller and Donald Lynam and is devoted to examining the relations
between Antisocial Behavior and the four most widely used structural models of personality: the
five-factor model (McCrae and Costa), the PEN(Psychoticism-Extraversion-Neuroticism)
model (Eyseck), Tellegens three factor model, and Cloningers temperament and character
model. The second one analyses the connection between psychopathy and three widely used
personality models: the five-factor model (FFM), PEN model and Tellegens three-factor
model. We chose to compare these papers without using Cloningers model for the simple fact
that we do not have it in one of the studies.
These models differ from each other in terms of number and composition of the primary
personality dimensions and in terms of how they were derived but at the same time there is
actually substantial agreement across the models in terms of the traits that are represented.
The FFM derived from studies of the English language and was based on the hypothesis
that says that the most important traits to human are interaction, communication, and survival

and that they have been encoded in the natural language as single words (Allport, 1937). This
model describes five broad domains, as it follows: Extraversion (E), Agreeableness (A),
Conscientiousness (C), Neuroticism (N), and Openness (O).
Domains
Extraversion

Functions
-evaluates an individuals leaning/proneness to positive

Agreeableness

emotions and sociability

-refers to an individuals interpersonal internships and

Conscientiousness

strategies
-relates to the control of impulses and as well as to the

Neuroticism
Openness

ability to plan, organize, and complete behavioral tasks

-assesses emotional adjustment and stability
-is related to an individuals preference for new emotions
and activities and also for his interest in culture

The PEN model includes Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E) and Psychoticism (P).
According to Eysenck ( 1977, 1998) the tree basic PEN dimensions of personality are related to
psysiological mechanisms in the brain and central nervous system (CNS).
Domains
Neuroticism
Extraversion

Functions
-measures emotional stability
-measures traits related to ones

Corresponding Biological systems

-sympathetic nervous system
-cortical arousal

Psychoticism

sociability and agency

-assesses egocentricity, interpersonal

-testosterone levels

warmth

and

connectedness,

empathy, and impulsiveness

This model was often related to schizophrenia patterns ((Lynam & Derefinko, 2006).
Tellengens model, posits three basic dimentions, each of which comrises several
subscales (Miller & Lynam, 2001).
Domains

Functions

Positive Emotionality

-refers to the tendency of one to be positively engaged

Negative Emotionality

with others and the world around him

-reflects an individuals tendency to experience negative
emotions

Constraint

-assesses an individuals ability to control impulses, acti

deliberately, avoid potentially dangerous situations, and
endorse traditional values and standards

There is solid agreement across the models in terms of the features that are represented.
All the models contain explicit representation of the big two- Extraversion (Positive
Emotionality) and Neuroticism (Negative Emotionality). Also all of the patterns include
representations of Agreeableness (A).
On the one hand, Miller & Lynam (2001) used these models in the examination of
antisocial behavior. They conducted a wide search for empirical research regarding the relations
between the models of personality and ASB. They stated that in fact, both Eysesck and Cloninger
hypothesized particular relations between their personality models and ASB. For example,
Eysenck argued that the personality profile of the typical criminal would be one marked by
elevations on all three of his dimensions of personality. Similarly, Cloninger hypothesized that
criminality would be related with high Novelty Seeking, low Harm Avoidance, and law Reward
Dependence.
On the other hand, (Lynam & Derefinko, 2006) have examined the relations between
psychopathy and the structural models of personality showed above. They used three approaches
to generating a basic personality profile for psychopathy. In the first aproach they analyzed the
empirical relations between eah of the structural models and psychopathy through a metaanalytic framework. In the second approach, they examined a translation of psychopathy
instrument into the language of a particular structural model, the FFM. In the last one, they
disccused about the personality profiles of psychopathy generated by experts.
Both studies used PsychINFO (1963-2000) in order to conduct a comprehensive search
for emperical research regarding the relations between these models of personality and ASB,
respectively psychopathy. The commun personality-terms included in these studies were
psychoticism, extraversion, neuroticism, Eysenck, negative emotionality, positive
emotionality,

constraint,

Tellegen,

neuroticism,

extraversion,

openness,

agreeableness, conscientious and five-factor model; while the study conducted in 2001 by
Miller & Lynam uses also such terms as novelty seeking, harm avoidance, reward
dependence, persistence, self-directedness, cooperativeness, self-transcendence and
Cloninger.
(Miller & Lynam, 2001) drew out several types of information from each study they
analyzed. They coded the type of sample (age, psychiatric or normal), an effect size (Pearsons r

was used), sample size, percentage of women in the sample, personality domain, significance
levels, measure, and type of dependent variable. In what concerns the size of the effects, the
authors chose to adapt Cohens criteria: small= .10, medium= .30, large= .50.
(Lynam & Derefinko, 2006) chose to combine studies and to look at the composite
profiles that emerged rather than concentrating only on one or two studies to provide the
empirical profile. They identified 20 studies that valuated both one of the major structural models
of personality and psychopathy, diversely defined. Two of the studies were not included in their
analysis because they were not using the total score of psychopathy. Three of the studies all with
FFM, were conducted in adolescent populations; the remaining studies were conducted in young
to middle-age adult samples. Twelve of the effect sizes came from male only samples; eight
effect size came from samples that were at least 40% female.
Both papers give us the size effect but in one (Miller & Lynam, 2001) the focus is on the
unweighted mean effect size and on the other (Lynam & Derefinko, 2006) is on the weighted
mean effect size. However, how the differences between unweighted and weighted mean effect
size in each paper is not significant we decided to compare the results the way we have them in
the tables bellow.
Five-Factor Model
Tabel 1 (Miller & Lynam, 2001)

Tabel 2 (Lynam & Derefinko, 2006)

Table 1 and Table 2 provide a summary of the results for the domain of the FFM. The
unweighted mean effect size for the domain of Neuroticism in the first paper was r=.09 with a
95% CI (Confidence Interval) ranging from .00 to .18. If we refer to the second paper we have
for the domain of Neuroticism a weighted mean effect size of .16 with a 95% CI ranging from .
13 to .20. As we can see in both cases there is a positive relation to psychopathy and antisocial
behavior. The unweighted mean effect size for the domain of FFM Extraversion in paper 1 was
r = .02 with a 95% CI ranging from -.06 to .10 while the weighted mean effect size for E was
-.05 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from -.09 to -.02. The unweighted mean effect size
for the next domain examined, the Openness, in paper 1 was r = -.02 with a 95% CI ranging
from -.07 to .03 while the weighted mean effect size for E was -.10 with a 95% confidence
interval ranging from -.14 to -.07. The unweighted mean effect size for the domain of
Agreeableness in the first case was r=.-37 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from -.43 to
-.31 meanwhile the weighted effect size in the second case for A was -.52 with a 95% CI of -.54
to -50. For C, the unweighted average effect size was -.25 with a 95% confidence interval
ranging from -.32 to -18 in the first paper, while in the last paper we have r=-.30 with a 95%
confidence interval ranging from -.41 to -.35.
Eysencks PEN Model
Tabel 3 (Miller & Lynam, 2001)

Tabel 4 (Lynam & Derefinko, 2006)

Table 3 and Table 4 provide a summary of the results for the PEN Model. The first paper
the unweighted mean size effect for Psychoticism war .39 with a 95% CI of .32 to .45; the
second paper revealed a weighted mean effect size of .25 with a 95% CI of .18 to .32. The
unweighted mean size effect for Extraversion was in the first study case .13 with a 95%
confidence interval of .08 to .19 while in the second case the weighted mean effect size was .07
with a 95% CI of .00 to .14. In both case, in what regards Extraversion, the studied conducted to
the conclusion that the relation between E and ASB and psychopathy was significantly stronger
than in the case of FFM Extraversion. Finally, the unweighted effect size for the domain of
Neuroticism was .09 with a 95% confidence interval of .02 to 0.16 while in the second paper the
weighted effect size for the same domain was .15 with a 95% confidence interval of .09 to .22.
(Miller & Lynam, 2001) observed that when it comes to Neuroticism there is a significant
correlation between effect size and the percentage of the sample that was female. This proves
that the relation between N and ASB was weaker in samples that were more heavily weighted
toward female subjects, however there were no other significant findings at this stage.
Tellegens Three-Factor Model
Tabel 5 (Miller & Lynam, 2001)

Tabel 6 (Lynam & Derefinko, 2006)

The studies conducted examining the relation between this model and ASB showed that
the domain of Positive Emotionality had an unweighted mean effect size of .04 with a 95%
confidence interval of -.10 to .17; while the relation between it and psychopathy showed for the
same domain a weighted mean effect size of .10 with a 95% CI ranging from 0 to .20. The
domain of Negative Emotionality had an unweighted mean effect size of .27 with a 95% CI of .
18 to .36 in the first paper and in the second paper we have a weighted mean size of .27 and a
95% confidence interval ranging from .17 to .36. In both cases we see a moderate, but positive
relation between NE ASB and psychopathy. Finally, the Constraint dimension had an
unweighted mean effect size of -.26 with a 95% CI of -.39 to -.13 in the first paper and the
weighted mean effect size in the second paper was -.35 with a 95% confidence interval ranging
from -.44 to-.36.
If (Miller & Lynam, 2001) found the largest effect sizes, all greater than .30 for
Psychoticism and Agreeableness, (Lynam & Derefinko, 2006) found it just for Agreeableness
and Constraint.
Because many researches have examined how the FFM relates to other structural models
(Church, 1994; Costa and McCrae 1992; De Fruyt et al., 2000; Deitsch, 1996), in the both
studies we see that the authors have integrated their finding using the FFM frame. A strong
pattern emerges when models are integrated. In both papers all dimensions related to
Agreeblenes (i.e FFM Agreeablenes, Eysencks Psychoticism, Tellengens Negative
Emotionality) are related to ASB and psychopathy at moderate levels. Also all dimensions
related to Conscientiousness (i.e., FFM Conscientiousness, Eysencks Psychoticism,
Tellegens Negative Emotionality) are also moderately related to the two concepts analyzed in
each study. The dimensions related to Openness did not show any significant relation to ASB or
psychopathy.
The results for dimensions related to Extraversion (i.e FFM Extraversion; Tellegens

Positive Emotionality and Eysencks Extraversion) were showing a small or nonsignificant

relation to psychopathy and ASB.
The results for dimensions related to Neuroticism were a little bit different and
interesting. Just Negative Emotionality has been found to be moderately to strongly, negatively
correlated with Agreeableness in the case of the first paper. (Miller & Lynam, 2001) statet that a
considerable portion of Tellegens Negative Emotionality is made of an Aggression subscale
that is the Negative Emotionality subscale most strongly related to Agreeableness and that may
account for the size of the relation. In fact, in the Krueget et al. (1994) study, the correlations
between the Agression subscale and self-reported delinquency are almost twice as high as the
correlation for either of the other two subscales of Negative Emotionality.
Even though there is positive relation between Neuroticism and ASB there are also
studies that found negative correlations. This fact suggests that both high and low Neuroticism
may be related to antisocial behavior (Miller & Lynam, 2001). For example individuals who are
less emotionally stable may be more incline more to impulsive acts, while Lykken (1995) has
stated that people who are extremely emotionally stable behave antisocially because the normal
anxieties and fears that kept most people from behaving antisocially are missing.
A similar idea was stated by Lynam & Derefinko (2006). They said that the results for
Neuroticism were not so relevant when it comes to psychopathy. This can be explain using an
example: expert ratings suggest that the psychopathic individual can be described as high in
some elements of N ( i.e., angry hostility and impulsiveness/urgency) but low in other (i.e., selfconsiousness). These distinctions may get lost when one moves to the domain or higher-order
factor level where N demonstrates a small, positive correlation with psychopathy in the metaanalyses.
Although determining which basic dimensions of personality are most strongly associated
with antisocial behavior, psychopathy and delinquent behavior is important, these are descriptive
rather than explanatory statements. In order to understand for good these relations, we should
examine the mechanisms underlying them. Its mandatory to see how personality exerts its
effects on these concepts at both distal and proximal levels.
The results offered by Miller & Lynam (2001) and Lynam & Derefinko (2006) indicate
that the construct of personality and psychopathy deserves broader application in the field of
criminology.

Miller & Lynam (2001) believed that the construct of personality is complementary, not
antithetical to many theories of crime. They also stated that it may lead to solving of some issues
in the field. For example, personality, seen as a stable contributor to antisocial behavior could
help us justifying the stability of it (antisocial behavior). Curiously, there are changes in the
absolute levels of certain traits across time McGue et al. (1993) states that there have been
developmental changes in Constraint, which increased and Negative Emotionality which
decreased, these correspond roughly to development changes in offending. Also, the fact that
some proportion of the variation in crime is heritable could be explained with the help of
personality because upward 40% of the variation in the major dimensions of personality is
heritable (Tellegen et al., 1988). But rather than a certain tendency to crime, what may be
inherited is a broad disposition to think, feel, and act in certain characteristic way (i.e.,
personality).
An understanding of which dimensions of personality are more strongly related to
antisocial and delinquent behavior, may contribute to the prevention of them. Also
comprehending the relation between personality and antisocial and delinquent behavior could
allow training of parents and teachers to avoid the common evocative transactions that these
types of individuals provoke.
Psychopathy is seen as a theory of criminal behavior. Since psychopathy is so closely
related to the official mental disorder of Antisocial Personality Disorder, it is often associated
as the same thing, even though minor differences are present. The most obvious difference is that
Antisocial Personality Disorders diagnosis is based solely on a persons actions and behavior,
while psychopathy includes personality factors in its assessment, which is why it falls under then
personality theory of criminal behavior (Hare, 1999).
Because of this difference, many experts believe that the psychopathy tests and checklists
are much more helpful in preventing criminal and delinquent behavior in younger persons as you
do not have to wait for the unwanted behavior to occur before you can make a diagnosis. This
has opened up a world of prevention options and experiments that could hold a key to lowering
the crime rate of psychopathic people (Ray, 2001).
(Lynam & Derefinko, 2006) state that understanding psychopathy as a collection of basic
personality traits resolves a number of issues in the fields. Perhaps, more important, understading

psychopathy from this perspective generates a variety of new hypotheses and directions for
research.

Bibliography:
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality. A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.
Cleckley, H. (1988). The mask of sanity . St. Louis: MO:Mosby.

(2006). Psychopathy and Personality. In D. R. Lynam, K. J. Derefinko, & C. J. Patrick

(Ed.), The Handbook of Psychopathy.
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2001). Structural Models of Personality and their Relation
to Antisocial Behavior: a Meta-Analytic Review. Criminology, 765-798.
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., & Jones, S. E. (2011). Psychopathic Traits From the
Perspective of Self and Informant Reports: Is there Evidence for a Lack of
Insight? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120, 758-764.