Emotional Intelligence: Painting Different Paths for Low-Anxious and High-Anxious Psychopathic ...

14 Pages·2010·0.29 MB·English

LawHumBehav(2010)34:150–163
DOI10.1007/s10979-009-9175-y
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Emotional Intelligence: Painting Different Paths for Low-Anxious
and High-Anxious Psychopathic Variants
Sarah Vidal Æ Jennifer Skeem Æ Jacqueline Camp
Publishedonline:24April2009
(cid:1)AmericanPsychology-LawSociety/Division41oftheAmericanPsychologicalAssociation2009
Abstract Psychopathicindividualsmaybedisaggregated Measures of psychopathy, particularly those derived from
into low-anxious (emotionally stable ‘‘primary psycho- the Revised Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R, Hare, 2003),
paths’’) and high-anxious (emotionally disturbed feature two general groups of characteristics: emotional
‘‘secondary psychopaths’’) variants that may differ in their detachment and impulsive, antisocial behavior. However,
capacity for adaptive behavior. In turn, the skills encom- classic theories of psychopathy more narrowly emphasize
passed by emotional intelligence (EI) predict social and coreemotionaldetachment,highlightingsuchinterpersonal
business success. Based on a sample of 188 male under- and affective traits as superficial charm, deceitfulness,
graduates, we evaluate the performance of low-anxious egocentricity, callousness, remorselessness, and loveless-
psychopathic, high-anxious psychopathic, and low psy- ness(Cleckley,1988;Karpman,1941;McCord&McCord,
chopathic comparison groups on a measure of EI. High- 1964). Cleckley (1941) highlighted the inability of psy-
anxiouspsychopathsmanifestedsignificantlylowerEIthan chopathic individuals to experience such complex human
theothertwogroups,particularlywithrespecttomanaging emotions as anxiety, shame, and remorse.
emotionsandfacilitatingthoughts.Incontrast,low-anxious Beyond theory, there is some empirical support for
psychopaths manifested intact EI, with skill in facilitating placing emotional detachment at the heart of this disorder.
thoughts. High-anxious (but not low anxious) psychopaths PCL-psychopathic inmates manifest significantly less
were more likely than low psychopathic comparisons to emotional priming (for affective word valence) than non-
manifest violence. These results are consistent with the psychopathic inmates, even though they manifest similar
notion that primary psychopaths have greater capacity to levels ofsemantic priming (forwordmeaning;Blair et al.,
attain success in traditional society than secondary psy- 2006). When PCL scales are examined, emotional
chopaths,andinviteadirecttestofthishypothesisinfuture detachment typically relates more strongly to laboratory
research. measures of such deficits than antisocial behavior (see
Skeem & Cooke, in press). For example, when presented
Keywords Psychopathy (cid:1) Variants of psychopathy (cid:1) with pictures designed to elicit such emotions as fear and
Emotional intelligence distress, individuals with higher scores on the emotional
detachment scales of the PCL are particularly likely to
manifest hyporeactivity in the form of reduced fear-
S.Vidal potentiated startle and lower skin conductance (Bare,
GeorgetownUniversity,Washington,DC,USA Hopko, & Armento, 2004; Benning, Patrick, & Iacono,
2005;Patrick,Bradley,&Lang,1993;Patrick,Cuthbert,&
J.Skeem(&)
Lang, 1994; Sutton, Vitale, & Newman, 2002).
DepartmentofPsychology&SocialBehavior,Universityof
California,Irvine,3311SocialEcologyII,Irvine, In a rare study of nonoffenders, Vanman, Mejia, Daw-
CA92697-7085,USA son, Schell, and Raine (2003) found that the PCL’s
e-mail:[email protected]
emotional detachment scale related to reduced startle
potentiation,whereasitsantisocialbehaviorscalerelatedto
J.Camp
UniversityofNevada,LasVegas,LasVegas,NV,USA increased startle potentiation that seemed indicative of
123
LawHumBehav(2010)34:150–163 151
‘‘emotional sensitivity’’ (p. 2019). The latter finding is pronounced dysphoria, impulsivity, hostility, and reactive
notable, given that emotional sensitivity seems incompat- aggression. In contrast, primary psychopaths’ lack of
ible with Cleckleyan and other unitary conceptualizations anxiety relates to social dominance, potency, and confi-
of psychopathy. In their entirety, Vanman et al.’s (2003) dence that may bode well for living a relatively adaptive
findings suggest that the PCL may identify an emotionally and successful life.
heterogeneous group as psychopathic. There is some empirical support for such distinctions
between primary and secondary variants of psychopathy
(Skeem, Johansson, Andershed, Kerr, & Eno Louden,
EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING AND VARIANTS 2007; Swogger & Kosson, 2007; Vassileva, Kosson,
OF PSYCHOPATHY Abramowitz, & Conrod, 2005). For example, Hicks,
Markon, Patrick, Krueger, and Newman (2004) selected
Although psychopathy typically is construed as a homo- 123 incarcerated adults with high PCL-R scores and
geneous diagnostic category, both theory and research appliedmodel-basedclusteranalysistotheirresponsestoa
suggest that there are primary and secondary variants of generalmeasureofpersonalitytraits.Theauthorsidentified
psychopathy that differ in their emotional stability (see two different groups: an ‘‘emotional stable’’ group that
Poythress & Skeem, 2006; Skeem, Poythress, Edens, parallels primary psychopathy and a larger ‘‘aggressive’’
Lilienfeld, & Cale, 2003). According to Karpman’s (1941, groupthatparallelssecondarypsychopathy.Relativetothe
1949)classictheory,primarypsychopathsare‘‘born’’with secondary group, the primary group manifested lower
thecoreinterpersonalandaffectivefeaturesofthedisorder; anxiety, stress reactivity, impulsiveness, and aggression,
whereas secondary psychopaths develop similar traits in andshowedhigherdominanceandwell-being.Importantly,
response to such adverse environmental experiences as there is some evidence that these variants generalize to
parental rejection and abuse. Although their behavior may nonoffender populations. Falkenbach, Poythress, and
appearsimilar,thatoftheprimarypsychopaththeoretically Creevy (2008) cluster analyzed 96 male undergraduates’
reflects a genetically based lack of conscience, whereas scoresonself-reportmeasuresofpsychopathyandanxiety.
that of the secondary psychopath reflects an experience- They identified two groups that resemble primary (low
based emotional reaction, or neurosis (depression, anxiety, anxiety) and secondary (high anxiety) psychopathy.
guilt, and pronounced hostility). For secondary psycho- In research conducted to date, the trait that most con-
paths, an otherwise intact conscience is ‘‘prevented from sistently distinguishes between primary and secondary
functioning by the intrusion of an unusually large element variants of psychopathy is anxiety. Although it may be
of antipathic emotions, most often hostility’’ (Karpman, tempting to equate high scores on the PCL’s emotional
1948a, p. 457). Although Karpman’s etiological distinc- detachmentandimpulsiveantisocialityscaleswithprimary
tions lie beyond the scope of the present article, his and secondary psychopathy, respectively, there is little
phenotypic distinctions relate to emotional functioning. In empirical basis for doing so. Cluster analytic studies often
essence, primary psychopathy may be understood as an indicate that the two variants obtain similar profiles across
emotional deficit; whereas secondary psychopathy may be PCL scales (e.g., Hicks et al., 2004; Kimonis et al., 2008;
understood as an emotional disturbance. Primary psycho- Skeem et al., 2007). In such studies, secondary psycho-
paths lack the capacity to experience complex emotions, pathic clusters consistently manifest high scores on
but secondary psychopaths occasionally experience guilt, measures of anxiety, whereas primary psychopathic clus-
empathy, love, or a wish for acceptance. Still, ‘‘in sec- ters manifest low scores (e.g., Falkenbach et al., 2008;
ondary psychopathy the guilt may lie deeply buried, Hicksetal.,2004;Kimonisetal.,2008;Skeemetal.,2007;
overlaid for the most part with so much aggression and Vassileva et al., 2005). This finding is consistent with the
hostility that it is brought to surface only with great diffi- notion that secondary psychopaths are neurotic (Karpman,
culty’’ (Karpman, 1949, p. 174). As this quote suggests, 1941), whereas primary or Cleckleyan ‘‘psychopaths are
Karpman (1948b) often cast the secondary psychopath as verysharplycharacterizedbyalackofanxiety’’(Cleckley,
themoreaggressiveandimpulsiveofthetwovariants.The 1964,p.271).High-anxious(secondary)psychopathsoften
primary psychopath ‘‘often coolly and deliberately plans fail to show the cognitive-affective deficits that character-
his actions’’ (p. 528), rather than aggressing in the more ize low-anxious (primary) psychopaths (e.g., deficits in
characteristically ‘‘hot-headed,’’ impulsive, reactive man- passive avoidance learning, modulation of responses to
nerofthesecondarypsychopath(seealsoKarpman,1955). emotional and neutral stimuli, and fear-potentiated startle
These principles are developed and extended by response)(Arnett,Smith,&Newman,1997;Hiatt,Lorenz,
Blackburn’s (1996, 1998) work. Briefly, Blackburn & Newman, 2002; Lorenz & Newman, 2002; Newman &
observed that secondary psychopaths manifest character- Schmitt, 1998; Newman, Schmitt, & Voss, 1997; Sutton,
istics of borderline personality disorder, including Vitale, & Newman, 2002). Because it includes no
123
152 LawHumBehav(2010)34:150–163
assessment of anxiety, the PCL-R captures both low-anx- consistent with the principle that primary or ‘‘emotionally
ious and high-anxious psychopathic individuals. stable’’psychopathyservesanadaptivefunction,insulating
For the purposes of this article, we conceptualize pri- individuals against stress, whereas secondary or ‘‘aggres-
maryandsecondaryvariantsofpsychopathynotassharply sive’’ psychopathy places individuals at risk for emotional
divided categories, but instead as dimensional configura- distress and dysregulation. Given these points, we expect
tions that share high psychopathic traits, but differ in their low-anxious psychopaths to manifest greater emotional
degree of trait anxiety. We do so because there is com- intelligence than high-anxious psychopaths. However,
pelling evidence that psychopathy is distributed as a these hypotheses are tentative, given that the adaptive or
dimensional trait rather than a categorical taxon (Marcus, ‘‘successful’’sideofpsychopathyisrelativelyinfrequently
John, & Edens, 2004). That is, despite the availability of studied (see Patrick, 2006; Skeem & Cooke, in press).
traditional ‘‘thresholdscores’’ for diagnosing psychopathy, In past research, the relation between emotional intel-
available data suggest that psychopathic individuals differ ligence and psychopathy chiefly has been examined at the
from us more in degree than in kind. As Lykken (1995) level of total scores (not scales) and full samples (not
observed, ‘‘[h]uman nature being as complex as it is, variants). For example, based on a sample of 439 inmates,
…even an ideal taxonomy will yield ‘fuzzy’ and overlap- Malterer,Glass,andNewman(2008)foundthathighPCL-
ping types.’’ (p. 42). R scores were associated with low emotional intelligence
scores on the Trait-Meta Mood Scale (TMMS; Salovey,
Mayer, Goldman, Turvey, & Palfai, 1995). It is possible
THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF EMOTIONAL that this overall inverse relationship reflects the PCL-R’s
INTELLIGENCE saturation with indices of past violent and other criminal
behavior (see Skeem & Cooke, in press). Emotional
Emotional intelligence may be defined as the ‘‘mental intelligence scores are inversely associated with criminal
processes involved in the recognition, use, understanding, behavior,includinguseofillegaldrugsandinvolvementin
andmanagementofone’sownandothers’emotionalstates physical fights (Brackett & Mayer, 2003).
to solve problems and regulate behavior’’ (Brackett &
Salovey,2006,p.34;seealsoMayer&Salovey,1997and
Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Emotional intelligence is asso- THE PRESENT STUDY
ciated with social and interpersonal competency (e.g., use
of effective strategies to resolve conflict; Brackett, Rivers, Despitethecentralityofemotionalcapacitiestotheoretical
Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006; Winters, Clift, & distinctions between primary and secondary psychopathy,
Dutton, 2004), good psychological functioning (e.g., low we could not locate any published investigations of how
stress;Tsaousis&Nikolauou,2005),andahealthylifestyle thesevariantsdifferintheirpatternsofemotionalskillsand
(e.g., physical exercise, limited smoking and drinking; abilities. In the present study, we address this gap in the
Tsaousis & Nikolaou, 2005). At work, emotional intelli- literature using a nonoffender sample and multifaceted
gence relates to (a) supervisor’s higher ratings of stress measures of emotional intelligence that assess abilities to
tolerance, interpersonal sensitivity, and sociability, and (b) recognize, use, understand, and manage one’s own and
highersalaryandmorepromotions(Lopes,Grewal,Kadis, others’ emotions. The study has three primary aims. Aim
Gall, & Salovey, 2006). one is to assess the relation between psychopathy and
Logically, there is a distinction between the experience emotional intelligence. Based on prior research,we expect
of emotion (which may be tapped by laboratory measures total psychopathy scores to relate inversely to emotional
typically used to study psychopathy) and emotional skills intelligencescores,andexpectmostofthisinverserelation
relevant to emotional intelligence. Mental processes figure tobeattributabletothepsychopathymeasure’sassessment
prominently in emotional intelligence. Thus, it is possible of antisocial and impulsive behavior. Aim two is to com-
that individuals with primary (low anxious) psychopathy pare the emotional intelligence of low-anxious and high-
have emotional deficits that prevent them from experi- anxious variants of psychopathy. We expect low-anxious
encing emotions as others do, but compensate by learning variantstoexhibitbetterperformanceontestsofemotional
emotional skills that allow them to perform relatively well intelligence than high-anxious variants, both with respect
ontestsofemotionalintelligence.UsingJohnsandQuay’s to understanding and managing emotions. Aim three is to
(1962) language, primary psychopaths may ‘‘know the assess whether low-anxious and high-anxious variants of
words, but not the music’’ of emotion. In contrast, indi- psychopathy differ with respect to aggressive and violent
viduals with secondary (high anxious) psychopathy may dating behavior, which is relatively prevalent on college
perform poorly on tests of emotional intelligence, given campuses (see Wasserman, 2004). Given theory and past
their basic emotional disturbance. These notions are research, we expected high-anxious psychopathy to relate
123
LawHumBehav(2010)34:150–163 153
more strongly to this maladaptive outcome than low-anx- validated with undergraduate samples. Clinical and
ious psychopathy. empiricalliteratureonpersonalitycharacteristicsrelatedto
psychopathy were reviewed, and new items were con-
structedtoassessover30focalconstructsthoughtrelevant
METHOD topsychopathy(e.g.,lackofguilt,disloyalty,poorimpulse
control,risktaking,externalizationofblame).PPI-Ritems
To address these three aims, we administered self-report are scored on a four-point Likert Scale (true, mostly true,
measuresofpsychopathictraits,anxiety,andaggressionto mostly false, and false) and summed to yield a total score
asampleofmaleundergraduates,aswellasaperformance- aswellaseightsubscalescores(thesesubscalesemergedin
based test of emotional intelligence. Then, we classified successive factor analyses conducted with three large
eachparticipantintooneofthreegroups(i.e.,high-anxious undergraduate samples).
psychopathy, low-anxious psychopathy, or low psychopa- PPI-R total and subscale scores have been shown to be
thy) based on their psychopathy and anxiety scores. internally consistent in previous research (a = .78–.92;
Lilienfeld&Widows,2005),andwereinternallyconsistent
Participants in this study (a = .67–.68). Test–retest reliability over a
26-dayperiodrangesfrom.82to.94inacommunityadult
Participants were 188 adult male undergraduates drawn sample (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). The PPI and PPI-R
from the subject pool of a large western university who are moderately correlated with interview ratings of psy-
were fluent in English. We restricted the sample to male chopathy based on Cleckleyan criteria (r = .60; Lilienfeld
participantsbecause(a)weobservedgenderdifferenceson & Widows, 2005), measures of antisocial personality dis-
measures of both psychopathy (women\men) and emo- order(r = .59;Lilienfeld&Andrews,1996),andscoreson
tional intelligence (women[men), and (b) psychopathy thePCL-R(r = .54;Poythress,Edens,&Lilienfeld,1998),
measures generally are better validated for men, and there including its emotional detachment scale (r = .54; Poyth-
may be gender-based differences in manifestations of ress et al., 1998). PPI-R scores demonstrate discriminant
psychopathy (see Cale & Lilienfeld, 2002; Hamburger, validity with respect to measures of psychosis-proneness,
Lilienfeld, & Hogben, 1996). Participants were young depression, and social desirability (see Lilienfeld & Fow-
(mean = 19.9, SD = 2.7), largely White (54%; 13% Afri- ler, 2006, for a review).
can American; 12% Hispanic; 16% Asian; 5% other) men Exploratory factor analyses of the PPI-R’s eight lower-
with an average GPA of 3.09 (SD = 0.43). Their average order scales in community samples have yielded a two-
psychopathy scores (PPI-R Total, Mdn = 315) are consis- factor solution roughly analogous tothe emotional detach-
tentwith,ifslightlyhigherthan,normativedataoncollege mentandantisocialbehaviorscalesofthePCL-R(Benning,
men (Mdn = 301–303; Lilienfeld &Widows, 2005) Patrick, Hicks, Blonigen, & Krueger, 2003). These factors
are ‘‘Fearless Dominance’’ (e.g., low anxiety, social domi-
Procedure nance, and fearlessness) and ‘‘Impulsive Antisociality’’
(e.g., impulsiveness, aggressiveness, egocentricity, and
Advertisements for this study were placed on the psy- alienation from others). The PPI-R Coldheartedness scale,
chologysubjectpoolwebsiteandstudentswereabletosign whichtapscallousness,guiltlessness,andunsentimentality,
upforappointmentsviatheInternet.Interestedparticipants doesnotloadoneitherfactor(Benning,Patrick,Salekin,&
reviewed the informed consent and received instruction Leistico, 2005). The two-factor structure has been repli-
from a research assistant. Subjects were given up to3 hto cated using exploratory factor analysis with Procrustes
complete the measures and were then awarded course rotation in offender (Patrick, Edens, Poythress, Lilienfeld,
credit. All study procedures were approved by the univer- & Benning, 2006; Ross, Benning, Patrick, Thompson, &
sity institutional review board. Thurston, 2009) and student samples (Benning, Patrick,
Salekin et al., 2005;Rosset al., 2009).
Measures Still, there is controversy regarding the factor structure
of the PPI-R. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA),
Psychopathy Neumann,Malterer,andNewman(2008)foundinadequate
fit for the Benning et al.’s (2003) two-factor model to
The Psychopathic Personality Inventory—Revised (PPI-R; offenders’ PPI data. However, CFA has been critiqued as
Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005; see also Lilienfeld & overly stringent as a method for evaluating the fit of per-
Andrews,1996)isa154-itemself-reportmeasuredesigned sonality inventories (see McCrae, Zonderman, Costa,
to assess the core traits of psychopathy in nonreferred Bond, & Paunonen, 1996). Because such issues are not
populations. The measure largely was developed and easilyresolvedandlieoutsidethestudy’sprimaryaims,we
123
154 LawHumBehav(2010)34:150–163
donotrevisittheissueofmodelfithere.Factorstructureis Anxiety
merely one index of a measure’s construct validity; argu-
ably, convergent and discriminant relationships with Anxietywasassessed withthePPI-RStressImmunity(SI)
external measures are more important (Loevinger, 1957; subscale. The SI subscale correlates strongly with external
Skinner, 1981). Fearless Dominance negatively correlates measures of anxiety (e.g., -.76, PAI Anxiety subscale,
with measures of depression and anxiety, whereas Impul- Morey, 1991). Members of the ‘‘high-psychopathy’’ group
siveAntisocialitypositivelycorrelateswiththesevariables (see above) were split at the median on the SI subscale to
as well as measures of antisocial behavior and substance create low-anxious (n = 50) and high-anxious psycho-
abuse (Benning, Patrick, Salekin et al., 2005; Blonigen, pathic variants (n = 47), as shown in Fig. 1. The low-
Hicks, Krueger, Patrick, & Iacono, 2005; Patrick et al., psychopathy group served as a comparison group.
2006). Here, we report the relation between emotional
intelligence and three PPI-R scales: Fearless Dominance, Proxy for General Intelligence: Grade Point Average
Impulsive Antisociality, and Coldheartedness.
ThePPI-RdiffersfromthemorecommonlyusedPCL-R Research suggests that general intelligence is weakly to
in two major respects. Unlike the PCL-R, the PPI-R (a) moderately associated with overall emotional intelligence
does not explicitly assess criminal behaviors because it is (r = .25) and understanding emotions (r = .32), and
designed to provide a relatively ‘‘pure’’ measure of the moderatelytostronglyassociatedwithregulating(r = .76)
personality characteristics of psychopathy uncontaminated and perceiving (r = .56) emotions (Lam & Kirby, 2002).
by behavioral deviance that may not be specific to psy- Thus, it is important to control for general intelligence
chopathy, and (b) assesses for low anxiety (‘‘Stress when assessing the relation between psychopathy and
Immunity’’), which is emblematic of Cleckleyan or pri- emotional intelligence. We used grade point average
mary psychopathy (see above). The latter point is critical (GPA) as the best available proxy for general intelligence,
forthe presentstudy,givenourgoalstoidentify bothlow- given that GPA is moderately associated with several
anxious (primary) and high-anxious (secondary) psychop- measures of general intelligence, .39–.49 (e.g., Thorndike
athy. Because the PPI-R includes low anxiety (Stress Intelligence, Army Alpha, Terman, Otis, Miller, Resource
Immunity) in its definition of psychopathy, PPI-R total Associate’s General Intelligence Scale; see Bridges, 1920;
scoresoftenmayfailtoidentifyhighanxiousorsecondary Grauer&Root,1927;Jordan,1922;Ridgell&Lounsbury,
psychopaths. To remedy this problem and make the PPI-R 2004).
more similar to the PCL-R, which has been shown to
identify emotionally heterogeneous groups of individuals Emotional Intelligence
as psychopathic, we removed anxiety from total PPI-R
scores before creating psychopathic subgroups. Specifi- The Mayer–Salovey–Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
cally,wemodifiedPPI-Rtotalscores bysubtractingStress (MSCEIT) is a 141-item ability-based scale designed to
Immunity subscale scores from PPI-R total scores. Partic- assess emotional intelligence (Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso,
ipantsweresplitatthemedianonthismodifiedPPI-Rtotal 2002).ItwasdevelopedbasedontheMultifactorEmotional
to identify ‘‘high-psychopathy’’ (n = 97) and ‘‘low-psy- Intelligence Scale (MEIS; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey,
chopathy’’ (n = 91) groups, as shown in Fig. 1. 1999), the ‘‘first comprehensive ability measure of emo-
tionalintelligence’’(Mayeretal.,2002,p.1).TheMSCEIT
is the best validated measure of emotional intelligence to
date. It is significantly, but modestly associated with the
Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS, Salovey et al., 1995;
r = .29, Gohm & Clore, 2000) and Bar-On Emotional
Intelligence Inventory (Bar-On, 1997; r = .21, Brackett &
Mayer,2003).Asshownearlier,theMSCEITisassociated
withexternalindicesofsocialandinterpersonalcompetency
(Brackett et al., 2006; Winters et al., 2004), negative rela-
tionships (Furman & Buhrmester, 1985), professional
performance (Lopes et al., 2006), good psychological
functioning(Tsaousis&Nikolaou,2005),andhealthylife-
styles(Tsaousis&Nikolaou,2005).Therealsoisevidence
forthediscriminantvalidityoftheMSCEITasameasureof
emotionalskillratherthanemotionaltraits:MSCEITbranch
Fig.1 Compositionofhigh-anxiouspsychopathic,low-anxiouspsy-
chopathic,andlowpsychopathicsubgroups scores are unassociated with conscientiousness (n.s.), and
123
LawHumBehav(2010)34:150–163 155
inconsistently and weakly associated with extraversion, Managing Emotions The managing emotions branch
agreeableness, and neuroticism (maximum r = -.11 to measures the ability to manage or regulate emotions in
-.16;Day&Carroll,2004). oneself and others. Participants were asked to read vign-
The MSCEIT full scale has been shown to have an ettes and then rate on a 5-point Likert scale the
internal consistency of .91 (Mayer et al., 2002) and with effectiveness of certain actions in managing a particular
the branch scores, were internally consistent in this study emotion in either (a) oneself (e.g., ‘‘Mara woke up feeling
(a = .81). In addition, the MSCEIT has a test–retest reli- pretty well[…]Howwellwould eachaction [Actions 1–4]
ability of .86 (Brackett & Mayer, 2001) and branch scores help her preserve her mood?’’ [Action 1: She got up and
havebeenshowntohavehighreliabilitiesrangingfrom.74 enjoys the rest of the day]) or (b) others (e.g., ‘‘Roy’s
to .91 (Mayer et al., 2002, 2003). In this study, the teacher has just called Roy’s parents to say that Roy is
MSCEITwasscoredbasedongeneralconsensus,meaning doing poorly in school[…] The parents feel very angry.
that each participant’s performance was compared to the How helpful to their son is each of these reactions
normative database of over 5,000 people. [Responses 1–3]’’ [Response 3: Roy’s parents hung up on
The MSCEIT is comprised of eight tasks that measure the teacher and called the principal[…]).
four different aspects or ‘‘branches’’ of emotional intelli-
gence.BeyondtotalMSCEITscores,weusedscoresonthe Dating Aggression and Violence
four branches described below in the present study.
Psychopathy—as assessed by the PCL measures and their
Perceiving Emotions The perceiving emotions branch derivatives—is reliably associated with violence (see Pat-
assesses the ability to identify and recognize different rick & Zempolich, 1998). However, little is known about
emotions in oneself and others. Participants were asked to the association between variants of psychopathy and vio-
rate on a 5-point Likert scale how much certain emotions lence, particularly in nonoffender community samples. In
(i.e., happiness, sadness, fear, surprise, excitement) are thisstudy,webegintoaddressthisissue, usingamodified
depicted in photographs of human faces, and in other pic- version of the revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS–2;
turespertainingtomusic,abstractart,andtheenvironment. Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). The
CTS-2 is a widely used 78-item self-report measure of
Facilitating Thoughts The facilitating thoughts branch dating aggression developed for college samples. It has
measures the ability to use emotion to improve reasoning strong psychometric properties, with internal consistency
and thinking. Using a 5-point Likert-type scale, partici- coefficients ranging from .86 to .95 (Newton, Connelly, &
pants were asked to (a) rate the usefulness of various Landsverk, 2001; Straus et al., 1996), and moderate levels
emotions in facilitating certain behaviors (e.g., ‘‘What of correspondence with external reports of violence (for a
mood(s) might be helpful to feel when composing and review, see Suris,Lind, Kashner, Borman, &Petty, 2004).
inspiring military march?’’ [anger, excitement, frustra- The CTS was the foundation for the measure of violence
tion]), and (b) compare emotions experienced in used in such well-regarded studies as the MacArthur Vio-
certain situations to color, temperature, and sensations lence Risk Assessment Study (MVRAS; Monahan et al.,
(e.g., ‘‘Imagine feeling content on a wonderful day, with 2001).
terrific news about your job and family. How much is the We focused specifically on violence against dating
feeling of contentment like each of the following sensa- partners, given the relatively high prevalence of this form
tions?’’ [warm, purple, salty]). of violence on college campuses (Wasserman, 2004).
Specifically, we asked men to focus on the dating partner
Understanding Emotions The understanding emotions with whom they had had the longest romantic relation-
branch assesses a person’s ability to understand the ship, which was defined as a ‘‘relationship in which you
meanings of different emotions and the way that emotions are mutually involved with another person (seeing each
changeovertime.Participantswereaskedtochooseamong other, dating, or committed) and in which you show
fivemultiplechoiceresponses(a)themostlikelyemotional affection to the other person (holding hands, kissing,
reaction in a given situation or the next stage in an emo- etc.).’’
tional ‘‘chain’’ (e.g., ‘‘Marjorie felt more and more Datingaggressionwasoperationalizedastotalscoreson
ashamed, and began to feel worthless. She then felt the CTS-2, which reflects a sum of scores across the five
______.’’ [overwhelmed, depressed, ashamed, self-con- subscales. Dating violence was operationalized using the
scious, jittery]) and (b) the components of basic and definition of violence applied in the MVRAS (Monahan
complex emotions (e.g., ‘‘Sadness, guilt, and regret com- etal.,2001).Thatis,participantswereclassifiedasviolent
bine to form ______.’’ [grief, annoyance, depression, againsttheirdatingpartnerwhentheyreportedcommitting
remorse, misery]). an act of physical aggression that resulted in injury,
123
156 LawHumBehav(2010)34:150–163
committing sexual assault, using a weapon, or making a thoughts, understanding emotions, and managing emo-
threat with a weapon in hand. tions (see Table 1). Coldheartedness, on the other hand,
was unrelated to the MSCEIT total and branch scores. In
keeping with predictions, then, much of the inverse
RESULTS association between total psychopathy scores and emo-
tional intelligence appears attributable to the measure’s
Recall that the aims of the study were to (a) assess the assessment of impulsive antisociality, not emotional
relationship between psychopathy and emotional intelli- detachment.
gence, (b) compare the emotional intelligence of potential
variants of psychopathy, and (c) assess the relationship Aim 2: Do Psychopathy Variants Differ with
between variants of psychopathy and aggressive and vio- Respect to their Emotional Intelligence?
lent dating behavior. To address these aims, three sets of
analyses were conducted. First, we performed correlations An ANOVA was conducted to compare the three groups
toassesstherelationshipbetweenmeasuresofpsychopathy (i.e., low-anxious psychopathic, high-anxious psycho-
and emotional intelligence. Second, we examined differ- pathic, and low psychopathy comparisons) in their total
ences in emotional intelligence among psychopathy emotional intelligence scores. Descriptive statistics and
variantsandthecomparisongroupbyconductingANOVA group comparison scores are described in Table 2. The
anddiscriminantfunctionanalyses.Third,thethreegroups results indicated that the three groups differ in emotional
were compared in dating aggression and violence using intelligence, F(2, 172) = 6.63, p\.01 (partial g2 = .07).
chi-square and ANOVA analyses. Post hoc tests conducted with Tukey’s HSD indicated
that the high-anxious psychopathy group had signifi-
Aim 1: Is There a Relationship Between cantly lower emotional intelligence than both the low-
Psychopathy and Emotional Intelligence? anxious psychopathy and low psychopathy comparison
groups. There was no significant difference between the
AsshowninTable 1,inthefullsample,unmodifiedPPI-R low-anxious psychopathy and low psychopathy compar-
totalscoreswerenotsignificantlyassociatedwithMSCEIT ison groups in their emotional intelligence scores. These
scores (r = -.14, p = .06). However, also shown in results remained the same even after controlling for
Table 1, PPI-R total scores modified by removing the GPA.
anxiety scale were significantly inversely associated with As shown in Table 3, the four branches of MSCEIT
MSCEIT scores, in keeping with our PCL-based predic- (i.e., facilitating thoughts, understanding emotions, man-
tions. Specifically, those who have high PPI-R total scores aging emotions, and perceiving emotions) were positively
show deficits in understanding and managing emotions. correlated. To control for the correlation among these
These relationships remained significant even after con- scales and determine the aspects of emotional intelligence
trolling for GPA. on which the groups maximally differed, we conducted a
Next, we examined the relationship between PPI-R stepwise discriminant function analysis using the four
scale scores and emotional intelligence. The Fearless branches of MSCEIT as predictors of membership in the
Dominance scale correlated positively with facilitating low-anxious psychopathic, high-anxious psychopathic, or
thoughts, whereas the Impulsive Antisociality scale cor- low psychopathy comparison group. This analysis yielded
related inversely with total MSCEIT scores, facilitating two discriminant functions that significantly predicted
Table1 AssociationsbetweenPPI-RscoresandMSCEITscores
Total Branch1: Branch2: Branch3: Branch4:
MSCEIT Perceiving Facilitating Understanding Managing
emotions thought emotions emotions
PPI-RTotal(Unmodified) -.14 -.03 .04 -.14 -.24**
PPI-RTotal(Modified) -.21** -.05 -.03 -.19* -.30**
PPI-RFearlessDominance .13 .05 .19* .07 .10
PPI-RImpulsive -.30** -.07 -.17* -.23** -.38**
Antisociality
PPI-RColdheartedness -.06 -.05 .10 -.03 -.13
*p\.05,**p\.01
123
LawHumBehav(2010)34:150–163 157
Table2 Groupcomparisonsinemotionalintelligence
Low-anxious High-anxious Lowpsychopathy Pairwisedifferences,p\.05
psychopathic psychopathic comparison
Mean(SD) Mean(SD) Mean(SD)
TotalMSCEIT 88.43(11.20) 81.74(12.74) 89.56(11.34) Highanxious\Lowanxious&Low
psychopathy
Branch1:Perceiving 96.98(16.10) 95.05(13.42) 98.24(14.81) None
emotion
Branch2:Facilitating 96.74(13.60) 85.88(13.77) 92.71(13.44) Highanxious\Lowanxious&Low
thoughts psychopathy
Branch3:Understanding 87.65(11.15) 81.95(12.85) 87.55(10.77) Highanxious\Lowanxious&Low
emotions psychopathy
Branch4:Managing 86.33(11.23) 81.86(10.84) 90.58(11.04) Highanxious\Lowanxious\Low
emotions psychopathy
Table3 AssociationsamongMSCEITsubscales The second discriminant function, which accounts for
33.6% (Canonical R2 = .05) of the between-group vari-
Perceiving Facilitating Understanding
emotion thoughts emotions ance, maximally separates the low-anxious psychopathic
(centroid = .37) from the low psychopathy comparison
Facilitatingthoughts .46**
(centroid = -.19) and, to a lesser extent, high-anxious
Understandingemotions .10 .30**
psychopathic (centroid = -.06) groups. As shown in
Managingemotions .21** .41** .50** Tables 2 and 4, higher scores on the facilitating thoughts
**p\.01 chiefly distinguished low-anxious psychopathy from the
other two groups.
Table4 Correlations between MSCEIT branches and discriminant Aim 3: Do Psychopathy Variants Differ with
functionsthatdistinguishprimary,secondary,andcomparisongroups Respect to Dating Aggression and Violence?
MSCEITbranches Function
First, a chi-square analysis was used to determine whether
1 2
the three groups differed in dating violence. The results
Branch4Managingemotions .91 -.42 revealed that 17% (n = 32) of our sample committed vio-
Branch2Facilitatingthought .74 .67 lence against their partners, and the likelihood of violence
Branch3Understandingemotionsa .46 -.13 varied by group membership, v2 (2, N = 187) = 5.99,
Branch1Perceivingemotionsa .36 .29 p = .05.Ofthe32individualswhohadbeenviolenttoward
their partners, 41% were high-anxious psychopathic, 28%
a Thisvariablewasnotusedintheanalysis
were low-anxious psychopathic, and 31% were low psy-
chopathy comparisons. Although the difference between
group membership (Function 1, v2(4) = 27.07, p\.001; low-anxiousandhigh-anxiouspsychopathicgroupswasnot
Function 2, v2(3) = 9.26, p\.01). statistically significant, high-anxious psychopathic—but
The first discriminant function, which accounts for not low-anxious psychopathic—individuals were signifi-
66.4% (Canonical R2 = .10) of the between group vari- cantlymorelikelythanlowpsychopathycomparisonstobe
ance, maximally separates high-anxious psychopathic violent,v2(1,N = 137) = 6.05,p\.01.Theresults,then,
(centroid = -.57) from the low psychopathy comparison wereonlypartiallyconsistentwithourhypothesisthathigh-
(centroid = .23) and low-anxious psychopathic (cen- anxious psychopathy relates more strongly than low-anx-
troid = .13) groups. The structure matrix of correlations ious psychopathy to thismaladaptive behavior.
betweenpredictorsanddiscriminantfunctionssuggeststhat Second,anANOVAwasconductedtocomparethelow-
lower scores on the managing emotions and facilitating anxious psychopathic (M = 41.5, SD = 19.9), high-anx-
thoughts branches maximally distinguish high-anxious ious psychopathic (M = 41.7, SD = 20.6), and low
psychopathy from the other two groups (see structure psychopathycomparison(M = 34.1,SD = 15.0)groupsin
matrix in Table 4). Descriptive statistics and group com- aggression as reflected by their total CTS-2 score. The
parison scores are described in Table 2. resultsindicatedthatthethreegroupsdiffersignificantlyin
123
158 LawHumBehav(2010)34:150–163
overall dating aggression, F(2, 187) = 4.15, p\.05 (par- although we used a performance-based test of emotional
tialg2 = .04).PosthoctestsconductedwithTukey’sHSD intelligence, the measures of psychopathy and violence
revealedthat the high-anxiouspsychopathic—butnotlow- werebasedonself-report.Thus,(a)someoftheassociation
anxious psychopathic—variant had significantly greater between the latter measures likely reflects method, rather
dating aggression than the low psychopathy comparison than construct variance, and (b) we may not have detected
group. These results remained significant even after con- someincidentsofviolencegivenmotivationtounderreport
trolling for GPA. this behavior, despite the fact that more incidents of vio-
lence are revealed via self-report than via records or
collateralinformants(Monahanetal.2001).Moreover,our
DISCUSSION violence was measured concurrently, rather than prospec-
tively. To correct for these limitations, future research
This study is among the first to compare the emotional should apply a measure of violence based on multiple
intelligence of individuals with low-anxious (primary) sources of information, using a prospective design. Third,
and high-anxious (secondary) psychopathy. Primary our psychopathic subgroups were limited in size, which
psychopathy appears to be a more emotionally stable and prevented us from (a) testing whether emotional intelli-
potentially adaptive variant than secondary psychopathy gence mediated the relation between psychopathy variants
(Patrick, 2006). Emotional intelligence—the mental pro- and aggression, and (b) employing model-based cluster
cesses involved in recognizing, using, understanding, and analysis to identify psychopathy variants. The latter con-
managing emotions (Brackett & Salovey, 2006)—relate cern—andouruseofdimensionalpsychopathyandanxiety
to such positive outcomes as success in social interac- scores to define variants—is partially mediated by theory
tions and in business (see Salovey & Grewal, 2005). We and research indicating that (a) psychopathy is distributed
hypothesized that the emotional deficit of primary psy- as a dimension rather than category (Marcus et al., 2004)
chopathy would interfere less with these mental and(b)anxietyreliablydistinguishesbetweenprimaryand
processes than the emotional disturbance of secondary secondary variants (e.g., Hicks et al., 2004; Falkenbach
psychopathy. et al., 2008; Skeem et al., 2007).
Thestudyyieldedthreechieffindingsthatgenerallyare
in keeping with our hypotheses. First, total PPI-R psy- Dimensions of Psychopathy and Emotional
chopathy scores are inversely associated with emotional Intelligence
intelligence, but only when low anxiety is excluded from
the measure (as it is in the PCL-R). Much of the modified PPI-R total scores relate inversely to emotional intelli-
PPI-R’s inverse association with emotional intelligence gence, but only when low anxiety (the Stress Immunity
relates to its assessment of impulsive antisociality (not subscale) is excluded from those total scores. In opera-
emotional detachment). Second, the high-anxious psycho- tionalizingpsychopathy,thePPI-RdiffersfromthePCL-R
pathicgroup(secondary)hassignificantlyloweremotional not only in its inclusion of low anxiety, but also in its
intelligence than both the low-anxious psychopathic group exclusion of criminality. Relative to the PCL-R (see
(primary) and low psychopathy comparison group, partic- Patrick, 2006), the PPI-R generally may paint a more
ularly with respect to facilitating thoughts and managing psychologically adjusted, less aggressive, and more
emotions.Conversely,thelow-anxiouspsychopathicgroup ‘‘Cleckleyan’’ picture of psychopathy.
(primary) possesses relative intact emotional intelligence As we hypothesized, most of the inverse association
and manifests some skill in facilitating thoughts, or rea- between modified PPI-R total scores and emotional intel-
soning about emotions. Third, the high-anxious—but not ligence appears attributable to the PPI-R’s assessment of
low-anxious—psychopathic group is more likely than the impulsiveantisociality.Althoughthepresentstudyappears
low psychopathy comparison group to manifest dating to be the first of its kind, these results generally are con-
violence and aggression. In the next section, we discuss sistentwiththoseofMullilns-Nelson,Salekin,andLeistico
thesefindingsandtheirimplicationsforfutureresearchand (2006), who administered a short form of the PPI to 174
practice. students, and also tested their empathic skills (i.e., per-
Before turning to that section, we note three study spective-taking and affective empathy). The authors found
limitations to bear in mind when interpreting these find- that impulsive antisociality (but not fearless dominance)
ings. First, this study focuses on men. Given the potential predicted an impaired ability to recognize emotions in
gender-related differences in psychopathy, emotional other people and to show empathic concern. Similarly, we
intelligence, and violence (some of which were noted found that high impulsive antisociality predicted difficulty
earlier), the extent to which these findings will generalize in facilitating thoughts, managing emotions, and under-
towomenisanoptionquestionforfutureresearch.Second, standing emotions. In contrast, high fearless dominance
123
LawHumBehav(2010)34:150–163 159
scorespredictedskillinfacilitatingthought.Thispatternof Conceptually, this difference is consistent with ourfinding
divergent,andsometimesoppositecorrelatesforthePPI-R that fearless dominance is positively associated with
factors, is consistent with other research suggesting that it facilitating thoughts. The difference suggests that those
assessespsychopathyasacompoundtrait(seeLilienfeld& with primary psychopathy can skillfully identify moods
Fowler, 2006). For example, unlike fearless dominance that would be useful in particular situations, and draw
scores, impulsive antisociality scores relates to lower analogies between emotions on the one hand, and colors,
education, income, and verbal intelligence (Benning et al., sensations, and temperatures on the other. In short, good
2003). Generally, fearless dominance may relate to resil- performance on tests of emotional intelligence may mask
ienceandskill,andimpulsiveantisociality,toexternalizing the emotional deficit detected with more primitive mea-
and maladaptive behavior (Benning et al., 2003). This is sures of the experience of emotion (e.g., priming, startle
compatible with Cleckley’s (1941) conceptualization of potentiation).Iftheseindividuals‘‘knowthewordsbutnot
psychopathyas‘‘aninherentlyparadoxicalsyndrome–one the music’’ (Johns & Quay, 1962) of emotion, they may
in which severe behavioral maladjustment and positive compensate by learning the words particularly well. Such
psychologicaladjustmentgohandinhand’’(Patrick,2006, compensation may serve them well, given that emotional
p. 611). intelligence relates to positive social and business out-
However, it is also possible that these findings reflect comes (see Salovey & Grewal, 2005).
differencesamongindividualswith psychopathic traits. As Ourfindingthatthelow-anxiouspsychopathicgrouphas
shown next, the divergent relations between the PPI-R similar levels of general emotional intelligence as the low
factors and emotional intelligence parallel those found for psychopathy comparison and somewhat higher levels of
low-anxious and high-anxious variants of psychopathy. facilitating thought is consistent with the notion that pri-
mary psychopaths can make successful characteristic
VariantsofPsychopathyandEmotionalIntelligence adaptations (e.g., heroism, political leadership, business
success) to basic psychopathic tendencies (see Lilienfeld,
Compared to the low-anxious psychopathic group and the 1998; Lykken, 1995). To date, much of the literature on
low psychopathy comparison group, the high-anxious psychopathy has focused narrowly on only one (unsuc-
psychopathic group manifests significantly lower emo- cessful) adaptation: criminal behavior (see Skeem &
tional intelligence, particularly with respect to facilitating Cooke, in press). As Cleckley (1988) suggested, however,
thoughtsandmanagingemotions.Conversely,low-anxious ‘‘the true difference between [the successful psychopath]
psychopathic individuals are about as emotionally intelli- and the psychopaths who continually go to jails or to
gentaslowpsychopathycomparisonsandmanifestskillin psychiatric hospitals is that [successful psychopaths] keep
facilitating thoughts or reasoning about emotion. Second- up a far better and more consistent outward appearance of
ary (high anxious) psychopaths’ negative affect, hostility, being normal’’ (p. 191).
impulsivity—their basic emotional disturbance—may Lykken (2006) observed that the psychopath may
impairtheirabilitytoanalyzefeelingsandtoregulatetheir ‘‘[cultivate] his innate charm and other talents to win
own and others’ emotional states. Primary (low anxious) successandstatusinlegitimatesociety’’(p.11).Intheory,
psychopaths’ fearlessness or basic emotional deficit, in primary psychopaths who are particularly emotionally
contrast, does not seem to impair the mental processing intelligent could use their skills to manipulate others and
required to recognize, use, understand, and, to a lesser advance their own interests. Indeed, Carr (2000) asserted
extent, manage emotions. that emotional intelligence ‘‘is not clearly distinguishable
from emotional cunning or cleverness’’ (p. 31). Neverthe-
Low-Anxious Psychopathy less, there is little support for this proposition. In fact,
measures of Machiavellianism and emotional intelligence
Infact,ourdiscriminantfunctionanalysisindicatesthatthe are inversely related (Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore,
low-anxious psychopathic group has a modestly enhanced 2007). Whether emotional intelligence facilitates primary
ability to think logically and effectively about emotions, psychopaths’ success—and does so through traditional or
relative to the low psychopathy comparison group (facili- ‘‘darker’’ means—is an open and important question for
tating thoughts; see also Tables 2 and 4). Although this future research.
effect must be replicated in future research, it is remark-
able, given that this study does not involve an extreme High-Anxious Psychopathy
group design. Rather than comparing nonoverlapping
groups, we are comparing those above the sample median Unlike the low-anxious psychopathic group, the high-
on psychopathy and below the median on anxiety with anxiouspsychopathicgroupmanifestsdistinctimpairments
those below the sample median on psychopathy. in their general emotional intelligence, which may bode
123