1

DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY

Socio-affective Dynamics of Psychopathy in Daily Life

Colin E. Vize

Lori N. Scott

Thomas W. Kamarck

Aidan G. C. Wright

University of Pittsburgh

Conflict of Interest Statement: All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to
report.

Corresponding Author: Colin E. Vize, 4307 Sennott Square, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. Email:
[email protected]
2
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Abstract

Affective and interpersonal features of psychopathy are considered hallmarks of the

disorder. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA), well-suited to examine dynamic processes

in day-to-day life, has not been used to study how psychopathy influences emotional experiences

and interpersonal behavior. This preregistered study examined how psychopathy relates to

dynamic socio-affective processes in daily life. Two samples enriched for traits related to

psychopathy (Sample 1 N=142; Sample 2 N=159) completed EMA protocols focused on a

variety of interpersonal and affective experiences (Observation N=8,137 to 16,460). The samples

differed in socioeconomic, age, and ethnic diversity, which allowed us to examine the

replicability and generalizability of results. Results showed that while psychopathy was related

to distinct affective experiences in both samples (e.g., increased hostile affect), psychopathy was

unrelated to diversity in affective experiences, and rarely moderated within-person socio-

affective processes. Future directions for research on the affective and interpersonal processes of

psychopathy are discussed.

Keywords: psychopathy, ecological momentary assessment, affective dynamics,

multilevel structural equation modeling
3
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Psychopathy is a longstanding focus of clinical research due to its strong ties to

externalizing behaviors (e.g., aggression and antisocial behavior; Neumann et al., 2015).

Psychopathy is multidimensional, characterized by impulsivity-related traits (e.g., lack of

planning, sensation seeking), a manipulative, grandiose interpersonal style, and affective deficits

including low fear and lack of remorse (Patrick, 2022). The affective and interpersonal

components of psychopathy are considered to be central (e.g., Verschuere et al., 2018), and are

thought to partially explain chronic antisocial behavior (Frick, 2009). These deficits have

primarily been studied experimentally, using various laboratory-based paradigms (e.g., startle-

response, Patrick et al., 1993; facial affect recognition, Marsh & Blair, 2008). Results from these

studies have motivated multiple models to account for the unique affective and interpersonal

features of psychopathy (Nentjes et al., 2022). However, no research has examined

psychopathy’s affective and interpersonal processes in daily life using ecological momentary

assessment (EMA), despite the promise of EMA in helping understand various socio-affective

dynamics relevant to psychopathy. The current preregistered study was conducted to address this

gap, focusing on the role of psychopathic traits in various socio-affective processes in day-to-day

life.

Conceptualizing the Affective Features of Psychopathy

Theorists have emphasized the distinctive affective profile of psychopathy, and historical

accounts of psychopathy consistently highlight affective deficits, particularly related to lack of

guilt or remorse (Horley, 2014). In The Mask of Sanity, Cleckley (1941/1988) developed sixteen

criteria thought to be hallmark features of psychopathy, with four focused on affective

functioning (general poverty in affective reactions, absence of nervousness, lack of guilt and

remorse, incapacity for deep affectional bonds). Cleckley (1941/1988) further clarified that the
4
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
general deficit in affective experiences referred to the richness and strength of affective

responses as opposed to a lack of any affective experiences at all. Lykken (1995) argued for the

centrality of deficient fear responses in psychopathy (termed the “low-fear hypothesis”),

stemming from his early research showing that individuals seen as prototypical Clecklian

psychopaths showed lower fear responses to a conditioned stimulus that had been paired with an

electric shock. The work of Cleckley and Lykken was particularly influential for later

conceptualizations of psychopathy that emphasized low fearfulness and anxiety, social

assertiveness, and general emotional resilience, which collectively fall under the umbrella of

traits termed boldness or fearless-dominance (Benning et al., 2003; Patrick, 2022).1

Forensic theorists emphasized that while psychopathic individuals showed deficiencies in

remorse and fear, there were positive relations between psychopathy and other forms of negative

affect—most notably anger and hostility (McCord & McCord, 1964). The consistent affective

deficit across all conceptualizations of psychopathy is a lack of remorse or empathy (i.e., high

callousness), which is thought to play a central role in explaining why psychopathy is related to

serious antisocial behavior (Blair, 2017). Despite the centrality of affective and interpersonal

deficits in psychopathy, a consistent operationalization of psychopathy has proved challenging—

psychopathy components are not equally represented across measures. Relatedly, traits within

psychopathy show divergent empirical relations with interpersonal and affective outcomes.

Subscales or factors that assess affective-interpersonal features of psychopathy (e.g., Factor 1 of

the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised [PCL-R]; Hare, 2003) are generally unrelated to broad

negative affect outcomes, but positively related to lack of remorse. Meanwhile, scales assessing

antisocial-lifestyle features (e.g., Factor 2 of the PCL-R) positively relate to various forms of
1
The psychopathy specifier for antisocial personality disorder within the alternative model of personality disorders in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) is also
meant to capture these traits—the specifier is characterized by low levels of anxiousness and withdrawal, and high
levels of attention seeking.
5
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
negative affectivity. Thus, the multidimensionality of psychopathy and its various

operationalizations pose challenges to identifying a consistent nomological network of socio-

affective relations.

Empirical Evidence for Psychopathy and Socio-affective Experiences

Affective functioning spans multiple domains subject to different levels of analysis. In

their review of psychopathy and emotional functioning, Nentjes et al. (2022) highlight research

spanning perceptions and appraisals of stimuli, the experience, expression, and regulation of

affect, and physiological components of affect. Findings on subjective reports of affect, most

relevant to the present study, have highlighted the need to refine conceptualizations of affective

deficits in psychopathy.

Multiple meta-analyses have examined the relations between psychopathy and

theoretically relevant affective experiences. Hoppenbrouwers and colleagues (2016) examined

the relations between psychopathy total scores and multiple affect-related outcomes, including

self-reported affect and threat detection and response. While evidence supported deficits in threat

detection and responsivity, no evidence supported hypothesized reductions in subjective reports

of fear. Though data were limited, findings supported a significant positive link between

psychopathy and anger, a significant negative relation between psychopathy and happiness, and

null findings for sadness.

Derefinko (2006) examined the relations between psychopathy and broad-based measures

of anxiety, including assessments of fear and constraint. Total psychopathy scores were unrelated

to anxiety and fear, but moderately negatively related to constraint. However, the interpersonal-

affective components of psychopathy showed small negative relations with anxiety, fear, and

constraint, and the impulsive-antisocial components were positively related to anxiety, unrelated
6
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
to fear, and strongly negatively related to constraint. Importantly, research has shown that the

divergent findings across psychopathy components generalize to other forms of negative affect

(anger-hostility, depression), and divergent effects are enhanced when controlling for overlap

among psychopathy components (Hicks & Patrick, 2006).

Campos and colleagues (2022) examined the relations between psychopathy and specific

empathy dimensions (cognitive and affective), where cognitive empathy was defined as the

ability to infer mental states of others and take their perspective, and affective empathy was

defined as sensitivity to and ability to vicariously experience the emotions of others. Results

showed that total psychopathy scores were negatively related to both cognitive and affective

empathy, but, consistent with other research, there was important variability across psychopathy

components. Affective-interpersonal features of psychopathy were moderately negatively related

to both cognitive and affective empathy, while these relations were smaller for antisocial-

lifestyle features. Additionally, boldness-related traits were unrelated to cognitive empathy but

showed a small negative relation with affective empathy.

Other work has further emphasized that the affective profile of psychopathy may be more

complex. Garofalo and colleagues (2019) found that psychopathy was strongly related to anger,

spitefulness, and contempt, the latter two being complex affective states comprised of more basic

affect components. However, consistent with other work (Hicks & Patrick, 2006), these

associations varied when controlling for scale overlap and also varied across specific subscales.

Boldness from the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM; Patrick et al., 2009) was unrelated to

contempt and showed significant negative relations with various state and trait measures of anger

and negative emotionality. Yet, all scales from the Self-report Psychopathy Scale (SRP; Paulhus

et al., 2006) were significantly positively related to these socio-affective outcomes.

7
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Collectively, these findings challenge popular conceptions of psychopathic individuals as

being devoid of affect. Affective deficits in psychopathy are likely more circumscribed and

largely confined to specific components of psychopathy. Specifically, impulsive-antisocial

features are most strongly linked to negative affect while interpersonal boldness is negatively

related to negative affectivity and mostly related to positive affective experiences and adaptive

socio-affective functioning (e.g., Sleep et al., 2019). Thus, the relations between psychopathy

and socio-affective experiences are complex, but are further complicated by the mixed findings

observed for men and women high in psychopathy.

Though Cleckley (1941/1988) included two women among his 15 case presentations,

research on psychopathy in women has lagged behind the research literature focused on

psychopathy in men. In their review of research on emotional processing in female psychopathy,

Rogstad and Rogers (2008) only identified two studies that had explicitly focused on emotional

processing deficits in women with psychopathic traits. Researchers have begun to address this

gap in the literature (Verona et al., 2013; Verona & Vitale, 2018), but results have been mixed

regarding whether affective deficits in psychopathy observed for men generalize to women.

Some research has found support for the generalizability of affective deficits showing that, like

men, incarcerated women high in Factor 1 psychopathy traits demonstrate diminished startle

response to conditioned stimuli. However, Verona and Vitale (2018) note that other research

using alternative paradigms to assess affective processes (e.g., emotion recognition deficits when

viewing pictures of faces), has been equivocal in its support for affective deficits in women with

psychopathic traits.

The Current Study

8
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
A noteworthy feature of research on psychopathy and socio-affective functioning

reviewed above is that this work has been conducted experimentally using a limited set of

affective or interpersonal stimuli, or in cross-sectional studies with retrospective self-report

measures. This is true of research focused on both men and women high in psychopathic traits.

To date, no research has examined the socio-affective dynamics of psychopathy in daily life.

This is an important gap to address—the problems and dysfunction associated with psychopathy

occur in the ebb and flow of day-to-day life and in interactions with others. Thus, using methods

that can assess interpersonal dynamics that unfold over time has significant promise for studying

the affective and interpersonal features of psychopathy. EMA methods can also serve to establish

the generalizability of laboratory-based research on socio-affective functioning in psychopathy.

The generalizability of socio-affective findings in psychopathy across sex has also received little

attention. Important exceptions (e.g., Verona et al., 2013) have provided evidence that the

affective deficits in men with psychopathy are also observed in women with psychopathy while

other work has not found evidence of generalizability (e.g., ). No research has attempted to

extend observations of these deficits or lack thereof (for men or women) to ecologically valid

contexts.

EMA studies involve the repeated collection of real-time data focused on participants’

experiences and behaviors in the natural environments where they spend their lives (Shiffman et

al., 2008). For those with personality pathology, EMA can provide important insights into the

contexts where personality pathology is most disruptive. The present study makes use of

different sampling time frames to gain insight into the socio-affective processes related to

psychopathy (three days of intensive pseudo-random sampling; three weeks of moderate pseudo-

random sampling). The EMA methods in the current study can also help to establish the
9
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
ecological validity and boundary conditions of laboratory results (Trull & Ebner-Priemer, 2013),

an important step since laboratory studies represent the bulk of empirical investigations on

affective and interpersonal mechanisms of psychopathy. Calls to study personality pathology in

ways that synchronize theory and method have been made recently (e.g., Wright &

Zimmermann, 2019), but have not been incorporated into psychopathy research. The current

study sought to address this important gap in research on socio-affective dynamics of

psychopathy. Hypotheses are detailed at the end of the Method section after introducing study-

specific constructs and measures.

Method

All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University

of Pittsburgh (IRB Protocol #s: 000515 and 13050549). All data and code to reproduce our

results are available at the Open Science Foundation page for the project: https://osf.io/quhgm/?

view_only=3d9cab1e3d5345caad7e278091dd0aba. The preregistration is available at

https://osf.io/zwg5q/?view_only=aef138246e4b40898883a4c0d098dcf7. The preregistration also

includes a detailed overview of past publications using these data and what information was

known prior to the registration of our analytical plan. This study involved analyses of existing

data, thus sample size determination was not a part of the preregistration.

Sample 1

Sample 1 (S1) comprised 145 women drawn from the larger Pittsburgh Girls Study

(PGS). The PGS involves a community sample of 2,450 women who were initially recruited in

1999 and 2000 when they were ages 5 to 8 years old. An in-depth overview of the PGS is

described elsewhere (Keenan et al., 2010). Our secondary data analysis focused on a subsample

of the PGS, selected using a two-stage process. First, women from the PGS who reported verbal,
10
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
physical, or relational aggression or self-harm/suicidality within the past year were identified via

items administered annually in the PGS assessment battery over the course of three years (2014–

2017). These participants were then contacted by telephone for further screening to determine

whether they had engaged in externalized aggressive behavior in the past month (e.g.,

yelling/screaming, insulting or calling someone names, hitting or punching someone, threatening

to beat someone up) or self-harming behaviors or suicidal ideation. Women who endorsed any of

these behaviors in the past month were included. The final sample size of N=142 are those

women who were selected for the study, completed the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short

Form at baseline, and completed at least 10 EMA assessments (protocol described below).

The sample was ethnically and socioeconomically diverse (69.7% African American,

28.1% Caucasian, 2.1% multi-racial; 2.1% identified as Hispanic; 52.1% reported receiving

public assistance). In terms of education attainment, 51.4% did not complete high school while

41.5% completed high school or GED only, and 34% were unemployed. The mean age of the

sample was 21.54 years old (SD=1.58).

S1 Procedure

After completing baseline assessments, participants were trained to use study-provided,

touch-screen smartphones to complete the EMA protocol. The protocol involved three weeks of

assessments, including a daily morning assessment and six daily pseudo-random prompts. For

pseudo-random prompts, participants provided their typical waking hours, which were split into

six bins within which prompts were delivered randomly. EMA items were rated using a Likert-

scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). Pseudo-random prompts were the focus of the

present analyses, since they assessed specific interpersonal experiences and allowed for
11
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
examination of relevant socio-affective processes. For the pseudo-random prompts, participants

completed a mean of 115.9 out of a maximum of 126 (6 prompts x 21 days; 91.9% compliance).

Sample 2

Sample 2 (S2) included 159 middle-aged adults (M=40.67; SD=5.83; 46.3% male)

selected for high scores on standard self-report measures of trait hostility. Participants were

predominantly white (80.6% white; 12.5% African American; 1.9% Asian; 1.9% Hispanic) and

had higher educational attainment compared to S1 (12.8% of the sample completed high school

or GED only). Approximately 41.8% of the sample reported income greater than $50,000 per

year.

Full details of the study procedure are available in Kamarck et al. (2009). Briefly,

potential participants were screened over the telephone on two standard measures of hostility

(Buss-Durkee Motor Aggression subscale; Buss & Durkee, 1957; 10 items from the Cook-

Medley Hostility scale; Cook & Medley, 1954). Participants who passed the telephone screen

were invited to complete further in-person screening which included a more complete set of

hostility items from the Buss–Durkee Motor Aggression subscale (43 items) and the Cook–

Medley subscales (27 items). Individuals meeting inclusion criteria completed a larger battery of

self-report and laboratory assessments, before completing a four-day EMA protocol that was

preceded by a practice day.

S2 Procedure

The EMA protocol consisted of a 47-item self-report questionnaire developed for

repeated assessment of participants’ mood and social experiences and was administered using

palm pilots (Palm Pilot Professional, Palm, Santa Clara, California) provided to participants. An

auditory prompt was delivered every 45 minutes during waking hours, alerting participants to
12
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
complete the survey. Thus, participants could complete a total of 21 prompts per day. All EMA

items were rated using a 0-100 point sliding visual analogue scale, with “No” and “Yes”

displayed at either pole. Practice day data were not included in our analyses, consistent with past

use of these data (Vella et al., 2012). The mean number of completed entries per participant was

59.44, giving an average compliance rate of approximately 70.7%.

Measures

Descriptive information for the primary self-report scales and EMA variables are

presented in Table 1.

Self-reported Psychopathy

Sample 1

Participants in S1 completed the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short Form (PPI-

SF; Lilienfeld & Hess, 2001). The PPI-SF is a 56-item self-report measure of psychopathy

comprised of eight subscales. Empirical investigations of the parent measure, the Psychopathic

Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows, 1994), have shown that the

subscales form two psychopathy dimensions termed Impulsive Antisociality (made up of the

Machiavellian Egocentricity, Carefree Nonplanfulness, Blame Externalization, and Impulsive

Nonconformity subscales) and Fearless-dominance (made up of the Social Potency, Fearlessness,

and Stress Immunity subscales) (Benning et al., 2003). The Coldheartedness scale does not load

on either factor and is considered a standalone subscale. In the current study, internal consistency

values were α=.82 for Impulsive Antisociality and α=.70 for Fearless-dominance. Internal

consistency for the PPI-SF-Total score was α=.80. Impulsive Antisociality and Fearless-

dominance were significantly positively correlated (r=.19; p=.02), consistent with past work

(Marcus et al., 2013).

13
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Sample 2

Participants completed the NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa &

McCrae, 1992), a 240-item self-report measure based upon the Five-factor Model of personality.

Past work has shown that a reliable and valid proxy measure of the PPI-R can be derived using

items from the NEO-PI-R (Witt et al., 2009). Thus, we took the same approach used by Witt and

colleagues (2009) to construct scales for Impulsive Antisociality (17 items), Fearless-dominance

(17 items), and a total score (34 items) using a subset of NEO-PI-R items. Internal consistency

values were α=.69 for NEO-Impulsive Antisociality, α=.80 for NEO-Fearless-dominance, and α

=.64 for the NEO-PPI-Total score. NEO-Impulsive Antisociality and NEO-Fearless-dominance

were significantly negatively correlated (r= -.23; p <.01), consistent with other work using the

NEO-based measure of the PPI-R (e.g., Witt et al., 2010).

Ambulatory Assessment

See Table 1 for EMA variable descriptives, including ICCs and multilevel reliabilities.

Positive and Negative Affect

Three affect composite scales were created in S1 and S2. Four positive affect items

(excited, happy, cheerful, joyful) were combined to create positive affect scales in S1 and S2.

Negative affect composites used in both S1 and S2 included a hostile affect composite of three

items (hostile, irritable, angry2) and a non-hostile negative affect composite of three items

(scared, sad, lonely). In S1, two additional affect items (guilty, regretful) were combined to

index remorse-related affect. In S2, an additional two affect items (nervous, jittery) were

combined to index anxiety-related affect.

Interpersonal Interactions

2
In S1, this item had slightly different wording: angry at others.
14
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Negative Interpersonal Interactions. In S1, negative interpersonal interactions were

assessed with two EMA items. At each random prompt, participants were asked if they had 1)

felt insulted or criticized and 2) felt rejected, abandoned, excluded, or left out since they had

received the last prompt. The two items were combined to create a negative interpersonal

interaction scale.

In S2, negative interpersonal interactions were assessed with three EMA items. During

each EMA prompt, participants were asked when their most recent social interaction was. If

participants reported that the interaction was less than 45 minutes ago, they were asked whether

1) Someone treated you badly 2) Someone interfered with your efforts and 3) Someone was in

conflict with you. The three items were combined to create a negative interpersonal interaction

scale in S2.

Positive Interpersonal Interactions. In S1, participants were asked if they had felt

complimented or praised since they had received the last prompt. This single item was used to

index positive feedback interactions.

In S2, a larger number of EMA items assessed positive interpersonal interactions. We

examined a single EMA item asking participants whether Someone gave you positive feedback in

order to have a comparable positive interaction outcome in both S1 and S2. Other positive

interpersonal EMA items administered in S2 had participants rate whether the interaction was 1)

Pleasant, 2) Agreeable, 3) Friendly, and 4) Intimate/close, and to what extent participants 5) Felt

close to others and 6) Confided in others. Pleasant, agreeable, and friendly interaction items

were combined to create an agreeable interaction composite, and the intimate, felt close, and

confided items were combined to create an intimacy interaction composite.

Primary Hypotheses
15
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
We had several primary hypotheses. First, we expected divergent relations for Fearless-

dominance and Impulsive Antisociality. We hypothesized that Impulsive Antisociality would be

positively related to all negative affect and negative interactions, but negatively related to

positive affect and positive interpersonal interactions. Furthermore, Impulsive Antisociality

would significantly enhance the within-person links between negative interactions and different

forms of negative affect, with the exception of remorseful affect. Last, we expected Impulsive

Antisociality to have an enhancing effect on each path of our within-person mediation model

focused on hostility and negative interpersonal interactions (described below). We hypothesized

that Fearless-dominance would be negatively related to all forms of negative affect as well as

frequency of negative interactions, and positively related to positive affect. Second, we expected

FD-traits to have a dampening effect on within-person links between negative interactions and

negative affect. We did not have specific hypotheses for Fearless-dominance regarding its

enhancing or dampening effects on positive interactions and positive affect. Regarding emotional

diversity (i.e., evenness and richness of affective experiences), we hypothesized that

psychopathy traits would generally be linked to lower emotional diversity (i.e., negatively

correlated).

Results

Average Momentary Affect and Interpersonal Outcomes

We examined the relations between psychopathy and average reported affect and

interpersonal outcomes over the course of the EMA protocols in S1 and S2 using multilevel

linear regression models with robust maximum likelihood due to the nesting of observations

within participants. All level-2 psychopathy predictors were grand-mean centered for analyses.
16
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Time of day (assessed continuously within each day) and day of the week (weekday vs.

weekend) were included as within-person covariates in each model.

Results are displayed in Table 2. Overall, findings showed few replicable relations

between psychopathy traits and average affect in S1 and S2. The exception was for hostile affect.

In both S1 (β=.28; 95% CI=.14; .42) and S2 (β=.21; 95% CI=.02; .40), Impulsive Antisociality

was significantly positively related to hostile affect. Three other effects were statistically

significant. In S1, there was a significant negative relation between PPI-SF-Fearless-dominance

and hostile affect (β=-.20; 95% CI=-.38; -.02). In S2, while NEO-Impulsive Antisociality was

positively related to sad affect (β=.20; 95% CI=.03; .37), NEO-Fearless-dominance showed a

negative relation (β=-.21; 95% CI=-.35; -.06).

For aggregated interpersonal outcomes, most results showed null relations for

psychopathy dimensions in both S1 and S2 (Table 3). The lone exception was a significant

positive relation between PPI-Impulsive Antisociality and the average number of negative

interpersonal interactions in S1 (β=.18; 95% CI=.09; .28).

Emotional Diversity

Individual scores for emotional diversity were calculated using metrics that quantify the

evenness/distribution of emotional experiences (Gini coefficient) and the total number of

emotions experienced (Simpson’s index) during the EMA protocol using R code adapted from

Benson et al. (2018).3 Individual differences in these indices were correlated with each

psychopathy scale (Fearless-dominance, Impulsive Antisociality, and total score). Scores were

calculated for global, positive, and negative emotional diversity. Results for the relation between

psychopathy features and emotional diversity are presented in Table S1 while Figure 1 displays

3
See the supplementary material for a detailed overview of how the two indices operationalize emotional diversity.
17
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
emotional diversity data for select individuals in S1 and S2 high in psychopathy.4 Overall, results

showed that null effects were most common (r range= -.17-.15; median r = -.01). PPI Total

scores in S1 showed a significant negative relation with negative Emodiversity (r = -.17, 95%

CI= -.32; .00), though this was confined to Simpson’s index of negative emotional diversity.

Dynamic Affective and Interpersonal Outcomes

We also examined whether psychopathic traits moderated within-person affective

processes following different types of interpersonal interactions. Specifically, we examined how

negative interactions impacted feelings of hostile affect and non-hostile negative affect and how

positive interactions impacted positive affect. Next, we tested whether level-2 psychopathy

scales enhanced or dampened the level-1 relation between negative interpersonal interactions and

the two negative affect scales (i.e., a cross-level interaction effect). Additionally, we extended

these basic dynamic models to test a dynamic mediational model involving hostile affect and

negative interpersonal interactions. Specifically, we evaluated whether the strength of the

relation between lagged hostile affect (hostile affect at time t-1) and current hostile affect (hostile

affect at time t) was partly mediated by negative interpersonal interactions, and to what extent

psychopathy traits moderated these pathways.

We used multilevel structural equation models (MSEM; Sadikaj et al., 2021) to test all

dynamic models involving interpersonal interactions and affect. MSEM was carried out using

Bayesian model estimation. Diffuse, default priors were used for all model parameters.

Psychopathy scales were grand-mean centered for all models. Time of day and day of the week

served as within-person covariates. Last, lagged hostile affect was person-mean centered in

4
Radar plots for all high-psychopathy participants in S1 and S2 are available on the OSF page for the project:
https://osf.io/quhgm/?view_only=3d9cab1e3d5345caad7e278091dd0aba
18
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
models estimating the mediational effects of hostility. All MSEM and multilevel linear

regression models were implemented in MPlus (version 8.7; Muthén & Muthén, 2017).

Results from these models are displayed in Table 4. At the within-person level, there was

robust evidence that each of the assessed interpersonal situations gave rise to specific affective

responses in both S1 and S2. Specifically, relative to participants’ average levels, negative

interactions increased feelings of hostile affect (S1: β =.39; 95% CI=.36; .42, S2: β =.42; 95%

CI=.39; .45), sad affect (S1: β =.38; 95% CI=.34; .40, S2: β =.16; 95% CI=.13; .19), remorseful

affect (S1: β=.26; 95% CI=.23; .29), and anxious affect (S2: β=.18; 95% CI=.15; .21).

Additionally, receiving positive feedback increased positive affect (S1: β=.26; 95% CI=.22; .28,

S2: β =.28; 95% CI=.25; .30), as did agreeable interactions (S2: β =.38; 95% CI=.35; .40) and

intimate interactions (S2: β=.24; 95% CI=.22; .27). However, psychopathy features did not

generally moderate these within-person responses to interpersonal interactions. One cross-level

moderation effect was observed in S1, where PPI-Fearless-dominance significantly dampened

the relation between negative interpersonal interactions and sad affect.

The additional MSEM estimating a mediational within-person process involving hostile

affect and negative interpersonal interactions found support for negative interpersonal

interactions mediating the relation between past and future hostile affect in both S1 and S2.

Specifically, hostile affect at t-1 was related to future negative interactions (S1: β=.14; 95%

CI=.12; .16, S2: β =.11; 95% CI=.09; .13), and negative interactions increased hostile affect (S1:

β=.37; 95% CI=.32; .40, S2: β=.40; 95% CI=.36; .42). The mediational effects were significant

in both samples (S1: B=.05; 95% CI=.03; .07, S2: B=.06; 95% CI=.04; .07), but direct paths

between past hostile affect at t-1 and future hostile affect at time t remained significant (S1: β

=.21; 95% CI=.20; .22, S2: β =.26; 95% CI=.23; .27). Despite replicable within-person mediation
19
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
processes, tests for cross-level moderation of within-person effects showed mostly null results

(Table 5). The one exception was the impact of PPI-Fearless-dominance on hostility inertia in

S1, where PPI-Fearless-dominance had a dampening effect (β= -.20; 95% CI=-.35; -.04).

Secondary Analyses

We conducted additional secondary analyses that were not preregistered to provide

discriminant information how other personality traits relate to and impact the socio-affective

processes in S1 and S2. Borderline personality disorder symptom count (S1) and NEO-PI-R

Neuroticism (S2) were used based on research showing that trait neuroticism is most commonly

associated with various socio-affective processes in daily life (e.g., Hisler et al., 2020). S1 lacked

a baseline neuroticism scale, so BPD was chosen as a substitute given that trait negative

affectivity is a prominent feature of BPD. Results are presented in the supplementary materials

(Tables S3-S7). BPD symptom count in S1 was significantly positively related to various forms

of aggregated negative affect (hostility, sadness, remorse) as well as aggregated negative

interactions. NEO-Neuroticism was significantly related to aggregated sad affect in S2. Neither

BPD symptom count in S1 nor NEO-Neuroticism in S2 moderated within-person socio-affective

associations.

Discussion

We sought to address the current research gap on interpersonal and affective dynamics of

psychopathy by examining how psychopathic traits impacted various socio-affective processes in

day-to-day life. Overall, we found limited support for our primary hypotheses. Results provided

robust evidence for various within-person socio-affective processes, but psychopathy traits

showed little evidence of enhancing or dampening these effects. Furthermore, replicable effects

were confined to specific dimensions of psychopathy and in many cases psychopathy dimensions
20
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
showed divergent results. Last, psychopathy was unrelated to diversity in emotional experiences.

Together, the findings highlight important avenues for future research on the socio-affective

dynamics of psychopathy.

Making Sense of the Predominantly Null Findings for Psychopathy

While there was robust evidence for various within-person socio-affective processes,

psychopathy had little impact on these processes. Impulsive Antisociality did show replicable

relations with averaged hostile affect in S1 and S2, but this finding was the exception. In most

cases, significant findings were only observed in one sample, if at all. For averaged affect and

interpersonal outcomes, these findings highlight that psychopathic dimensions do not manifest

moderate or large relations with relevant affective or interpersonal experiences in daily life.

Regarding the lack of moderation of within-person effects, the findings highlight that specific

socio-affective processes (e.g., increases in negative affect following a negative interpersonal

interaction) function similarly for individuals across a range of psychopathy scores. Collectively,

the findings suggest that accounts of broad-based affective-functioning deficits in psychopathy

(c.f. Cleckley, 1941/1981) require further refinement.

However, null findings are informative when statistical power is high to detect the

smallest effects of interest. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the smallest effect

size detectable in S1 and S2.5 Results are reported in supplementary Table S2. Tests focused on

average reported affect, average reported interpersonal interactions, and emotional diversity

outcomes had low power (.22-.25) to detect small effects (r=.10) but were adequately powered

(.80) to detect effects of approximately r=.25 or larger (Table S). Power was very similar for

tests of cross-level moderation. Thus, our primary tests were underpowered to detect small
5
Sensitivity analyses were conducted in R (version 4.1.1; R Core Team, 2022) and MPlus (version 8.7; Muthén &
Muthén, 2017). The code needed to reproduce these analyses is available at https://osf.io/quhgm/?
view_only=3d9cab1e3d5345caad7e278091dd0aba. Sensitivity analyses are fully outlined in the supplementary
materials.
21
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
effects in socio-affective functioning, while they were well-powered to detect moderate to large

effects. Thus, the results suggest that if the affective-interpersonal components of psychopathy

serve as distinguishing features, they do not have a moderate or large impact on socio-affective

dynamics in daily life. Nonetheless, the results highlight potential avenues for future EMA

research on psychopathy.

Future work can enhance the assessment specificity of interpersonal situations. Although

we examined broad-based indices of negative interpersonal interactions, psychopathic traits may

exert their largest influence in specific interpersonal situations (e.g., significant dampening of

remorse- or guilt-related affect after harming another person). These effects may be difficult to

detect when collapsing across various negative interpersonal situations. These points are

underscored by past research using S1 data while focused on borderline personality disorder and

antisocial personality disorder traits. Scott and colleagues (2017) relied on theoretical

conceptualizations of BPD to identify relevant within-person processes (i.e., a mediational

pathway between perceived rejection, negative affect, and aggressive urges and behavior) and

found evidence that BPD traits enhanced the link between perceived rejection and broad-based

negative affect, while this cross-level enhancement was not observed for antisocial personality

disorder traits, nor when perceived criticism was substituted for perceived rejection. Similarly,

Wright and colleagues (2017) found that narcissism amplified the link between perceptions of

other dominance and negative affect. Thus, the lack of empirical support for psychopathy traits

moderating the various within-person processes can be contrasted with past efforts that were

successful when focusing on BPD and narcissism, though the latter efforts were closely tied to

specific, theoretically relevant interpersonal contexts. Though future EMA research on

psychopathy dynamics may benefit from such enhanced designs, the present results also
22
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
highlight that common operationalizations of psychopathy pose more general statistical and

methodological hurdles.

Divergent Effects for Psychopathy Components

Across outcomes, Impulsive Antisociality and Fearless-dominance tended to show

opposing effects, consistent with past research on affective functioning in psychopathy (Nentjes

et al., 2022). For example, while Impulsive Antisociality was significantly positively related to

hostile affect in S1 and S2, Fearless-dominance was negatively related to hostility in both

samples. Though the PPI scales have not been used in EMA-based studies, the divergent findings

are in line past research showing that Impulsive Antisociality is related to a wide range of

negative outcomes while Fearless-dominance has been shown to largely overlap with traits

related to extraversion and low neuroticism, and in turn, is mostly unrelated to maladaptive

outcomes (Miller & Lynam, 2012). Researchers have argued that these opposing findings are to

be expected since Fearless-dominance and Boldness are meant to index the “mask” first

highlighted by Cleckley (1941/1981) which disguises or hides the maladaptive functioning

related to psychopathy (e.g., Lilienfeld et al., 2012).

Yet, the opposing relations between psychopathy dimensions raise important practical

issues regarding the interpretation of psychopathy total scores for specific measures like the PPI-

R. Researchers have suggested alternative approaches to understand how psychopathic traits

come together to produce expected relations with relevant outcomes, whether it be curvilinear

relations (e.g., Blonigen, 2013) or trait-by-trait interactions (e.g., Lilienfeld et al., 2019).

However, evidence for these types of relations is limited (Benning & Smith, 2019; Crowe et al.,

2021).6 Other approaches include subgrouping methods to identify particular “types” of

6
Recent work has also suggested that in order to adequately test for trait-by-trait interactions in psychopathy, it will
require sample sizes much larger than typical sample sizes used in psychopathy research (Vize et al., 2022a).
23
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
psychopaths and examine how the types relate to external correlates (e.g., Hicks et al., 2004).

Together, these considerations suggest that future EMA-based studies on psychopathy and socio-

affective functioning may benefit from alternative measurement approaches. Relatedly, future

work could use more homogenous and narrow-band trait scales. Recent EMA research focused

on antagonism supports this approach, as variability was observed across different facets of

antagonism (e.g., callousness vs. manipulativeness) for affective and interpersonal outcomes

(Vize et al., 2022b).

Psychopathy and the Experience of Emotion in Daily Life

Dominant conceptualizations of psychopathy suggest that it should be related to a lack of

diversity in emotional experiences. However, results ran counter to our hypotheses and highlight

significant emotional heterogeneity worthy of further study. For example, for participants high in

psychopathy, positive affect was commonly reported and at various levels of intensity. In some

cases, individuals high in psychopathy reported very little negative affect while reporting high

levels of positive affect (Panel 2A, Figure 1). In others, the reported emotional experiences were

in line with typical descriptions of psychopathy (Panel 1A, Figure 1). Importantly, the

heterogeneity was not explained by factor profiles (i.e., higher standing on Fearless-dominance

relative to Impulsive Antisociality, and vice versa). It will be beneficial for future research to

explore this variability underlying the emotional experiences of psychopathy. To date,

psychopathy research has largely been focused on between-person data (i.e., nomothetic

research) while investigations of the individual variability within psychopathy is less common

(i.e., idiographic research). Insights from the large body of nomothetic research on socio-

affective processes of psychopathy can be further enhanced by leveraging the respective

strengths of nomothetic and idiographic traditions in future research (Wright & Woods, 2020).
24
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Limitations

Our results should be interpreted with important limitations in mind. First, S1 was

composed of young, predominantly African American women of low socioeconomic status while

S2 was composed of middle-aged adults who were predominantly white and of medium to high

socioeconomic status. While these features of the samples allowed us to examine the

generalizability of the findings across various diversity dimensions, they differed from typical

samples used to study the socio-affective deficits involved in psychopathy (e.g., incarcerated

males). It is important to extend the present findings to other relevant populations.

Second, different operationalizations of psychopathy are frequently used in research. The

PPI-based operationalization of psychopathy emphasizes traits related to interpersonal boldness,

whereas measures like the PCL-R do not explicitly assess this content. Because Fearless-

dominance manifested divergent relations compared to Impulsive Antisociality, it is almost

certain that different results will be obtained if psychopathy measures that deemphasize

boldness-related content are used. Thus, future work will benefit from using alternative

operationalizations of psychopathy in EMA studies. Ideally, multiple measures can be used and

compared against one another to better understand the influence of psychopathy measurement on

findings regarding socio-affective processes.

Last, the EMA protocols in S1 and S2 were not explicitly designed to study socio-

affective processes tied to psychopathy. Future work would benefit from EMA protocols

purposefully designed to assess processes thought to be most relevant to psychopathy. For

example, as described above, interpersonal situations where callousness may be most relevant

can be explicitly assessed with EMA items written to capture those contextual features.
25
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Relatedly, interpersonal situations where manipulation or dishonest behavior occurs would also

be relevant to the socio-affective features of psychopathy.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The present study offers important data regarding the role psychopathy plays in various

socio-affective processes that unfold in daily life. Though we observed primarily null findings,

the results highlight promising directions for future EMA-based psychopathy research, including

designing EMA studies focused on the interpersonal situations most relevant to psychopathy.

Thus far, psychopathy research has taken a nomothetic approach to understanding the disorder.

The present results point towards integrating the strengths of nomothetic and idiographic

approaches in order to better understand dynamic processes related to psychopathy. Last,

echoing calls from other researchers (Verschuere et al., 2021), preregistration and other open

science practices have much to offer psychopathy research. Many of the factors that impact the

robustness of psychological findings are present in psychopathy research (e.g., small sample

sizes, flexible measurement and analytical frameworks, novel and eye-catching findings). These

methods are valuable tools for researchers working to further unravel the socio-affective

dynamics of psychopathy.
26
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Satistical Manual of Mental

Disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association.

Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Hicks, B. M., Blonigen, D. M., & Krueger, R. F. (2003). Factor

structure of the psychopathic personality inventory: validity and implications for clinical

assessment. Psychological Assessment, 15(3), 340–350.

Benning, S. D., & Smith, E. A. (2019). Forms, importance, and ineffability of factor interactions

to define personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 33(5), 623–632.

Benning, S. D., & Smith, E. A. (2022). The Registration Continuum in Personality Disorder

Studies: Theory, Rationale, and Template. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and

Treatment. Advance online publication.

Blair, R. J. R. (2017). Emotion-based learning systems and the development of morality.

Cognition, 167, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.03.013

Blonigen, D. M. (2013). Is fearless dominance relevant to the construct of psychopathy?

Reconciling the dual roles of theory and clinical utility. Personality Disorders, 4(1), 87–88.

Buss, A.H., Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different types of hostility. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 21, 343-349.

Campos, C., Pasion, R., Azeredo, A., Ramião, E., Mazer, P., Macedo, I., & Barbosa, F. (2022).

Refining the link between psychopathy, antisocial behavior, and empathy: A meta-

analytical approach across different conceptual frameworks. Clinical Psychology Review,

94, 102145.

Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity. (5th ed.). Mosby. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0050245

27
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Cook. W, Medley, D. (1954). Proposed hostility and pharasaic-virtue scales for the MMPI.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 414-418.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual: revised NEO personality inventory

(NEO-PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI). Psychological Assessment

Resources.

Crowe, M. L., Weiss, B. M., Sleep, C. E., Harris, A. M., Carter, N. T., Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J.

D. (2021). Fearless Dominance/Boldness Is Not Strongly Related to Externalizing

Behaviors: An Item Response-Based Analysis. Assessment, 28, 413–428.

Frick, P. J. (2009). Extending the construct of psychopathy to youth: Implications for

understanding, diagnosing, and treating antisocial children and adolescents. Canadian

Journal of Psychiatry, 54, 803–812.

Garofalo, C., Neumann, C. S., Zeigler-hill, V., & Meloy, J. R. (2019). Spiteful and

Contemptuous : A New Look at the Emotional Experiences Related to Psychopathy.

Personality Disorders : Theory, Research, and Treatment, 10, 173–184.

Hare, R. D. (1980). A Research Scale for the Assessment of Psychopathy in Criminal

Populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 1(2), 111–119.

Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist- Revised. Muliti-Health Systems.

Hicks, B. M., Markon, K. E., Patrick, C. J., Krueger, R. F., & Newman, J. P. (2004). Identifying

Psychopathy Subtypes on the Basis of Personality Structure. Psychological Assessment,

16(3), 276–288.

Hicks, B. M., & Patrick, C. J. (2006). Psychopathy and negative emotionality: Analyses of

suppressor effects reveal distinct relations with emotional distress, fearfulness, and anger-

hostility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(2), 276–287.

28
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Hisler, G. C., Krizan, Z., DeHart, T., & Wright, A. G. C. (2020). Neuroticism as the intensity,

reactivity, and variability in day-to-day affect. Journal of Research in Personality, 87,

103964.

Hoppenbrouwers, S. S., Bulten, B. H., & Brazil, I. A. (2016). Parsing fear: A reassessment of the

evidence for fear deficits in psychopathy. Psychological Bulletin, 142(6), 573–600.

Horley, J. (2014). The emergence and development of psychopathy. History of the Human

Sciences, 27, 91–110.

Kamarck, T. W., Haskett, R. F., Muldoon, M., Flory, J. D., Anderson, B., Bies, R., Pollock, B.,

& Manuck, S. B. (2009). Citalopram Intervention for Hostility: Results of a Randomized

Clinical Trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 174–188.

Keenan, K., Hipwell, A., Chung, T., Stepp, S., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Loeber, R., & McTigue,

K. (2010). The Pittsburgh Girls Study: overview and initial findings. Journal of Clinical

Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39(4), 506-521.

Lilienfeld, S. O., & Hess, T. H. (2001). Psychopathic Personality Traits and Somatization: Sex

Differences and the Mediating Role of Negative Emotionality. Journal of Psychopathology

and Behavioral Assessment, 23(1), 11–24.

Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., Berg, J., Sellbom, M., & Edens, J. F. (2012). The

role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: confusions, controversies, and clarifications.

Personality Disorders, 3(3), 327–340.

Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., Murphy, B., Costello, T. H., Bowes, S. M., Smith, S. F., Latzman,

R. D., Haslam, N., & Tabb, K. (2019). Personality disorders as emergent interpersonal

syndromes: Psychopathic personality as a case example. Journal of Personality Disorders,

33(5), 577–622.
29
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale.

Marcus, D. K., Fulton, J. J., & Edens, J. F. (2013). The two-factor model of psychopathic

personality: evidence from the psychopathic personality inventory. Personality Disorders,

4(1), 67–76.

Marsh, A. a., & Blair, R. J. R. (2008). Deficits in facial affect recognition among antisocial

populations: A meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 32, 454–465.

McCord, W., & McCord, J. (1964). The psychopath: An essay on the criminal mind. Van

Nostrand.

Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2015). Psychopathy and Personality: Advances and Debates.

Journal of Personality, 83(6), 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12145

Nentjes, L., Garofalo, C., & Kosson, D. S. (2022). Emotional functioning in psychopathy: A

critical review and integration with general emotion theories. In P. Marques, M. Paulino, &

L. Alho (Eds.), Psychopathy and Criminal Behavior: Current Trends and Challenges (pp.

75–103). Elsevier Inc.

Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Pardini, D. A. (2015). Antisociality and the Construct of

Psychopathy: Data From Across the Globe. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 678–692.

Patrick, C J, Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1993). Emotion in the criminal psychopath: startle

reflex modulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 82–92.

Patrick, Christopher J. (2022). Psychopathy: Current Knowledge and Future Directions. Annual

Review of Clinical Psychology, 18, 387–415.

Patrick, Christopher J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of

psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness.

Development and Psychopathology, 21(3), 913–938.

30
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Manual for the self-report psychopathy

scale. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Rogstad, J. E., & Rogers, R. (2008). Gender differences in contributions of emotion to

psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(8), 1472–

1484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.09.004

Sadikaj, Wright, Dunkley, Zuroff, & Moskowitz. (2021). Multilevel Structural Equation

Modeling for Intensive Longitudinal Data: A Practical Guide for Personality Researchers.

In J. F. Rauthmann (Ed.), The Handbook of Personality Dynamics and Processes (pp. 855–

885). Academic Press.

Scott, L. N., Wright, A. G. C., Beeney, J. E., Lazarus, S. A., Pilkonis, P. A., & Stepp, S. D.

(2017). Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms and Aggression: A Within-Person

Process Model. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(4), 429–440.

Shiffman, S., Stone, A. A., & Hufford, M. R. (2008). Ecological momentary assessment. Annual

Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 1–32.

Sleep, C. E., Weiss, B. M., Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2019). An Examination of the

Triarchic Model of Psychopathy’s Nomological Network: A Meta- Analytic Review.

Clinical Psychology Review, 71, 1–26.

Trull, T. J., & Ebner-Priemer, U. (2013). Ambulatory assessment. Annual Review of Clinical

Psychology, 9, 151–176.

Verona, E., Bresin, K., & Patrick, C. J. (2013). Revisiting psychopathy in women: Cleckley/hare

conceptions and affective response. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(4), 1088–1093.

Verona, E., & Vitale, J. (2018). Psychopathy in women: Assessment, manifestations, and

etiology. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 509–528). The Guilford

31
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Press.

Verschuere, B., Grothe, S. van G., Waldorp, L., Watts, A. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Edens, J. F.,

Skeem, J. L., & Noordhof, A. (2018). What features of psychopathy might be central? A

network analysis of the psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R) in three large samples.

Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127(1), 51–65.

Verschuere, B., Yasrebi-De Kom, F. M., van Zelm, I., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2021). A plea for

preregistration in personality disorders research: The case of psychopathy. Journal of

Personality Disorders, 35(2), 161–176.

Vize, C. E., Baranger, D. A. A., Finsaas, M. C., Goldstein, B. L., Olino, T. M., & Lynam, D. R.

(2022). Moderation effects in personality disorder research. Personality Disorders: Theory,

Research, and Treatment. Advance online publication.

Vize, C. E., Lynam, D. R., Lamkin, J., Miller, J. D., & Pardini, D. (2016). Identifying essential

features of juvenile psychopathy in the prediction of later antisocial behavior: Is there an

additive, synergistic, or curvilinear role for fearless dominance? Clinical Psychological

Science, 4(3), 572–590.

Vize, C. E., Ringwald, W. R., Edershile, E. A., & Wright, A. G. C. (2022). Antagonism in daily

life: An exploratory ecological momentary assessment study. Clinical Psychological

Science, 10(1), 90–108.

Witt, E. A., Brent Donnellan, M., & Blonigen, D. M. (2009). Using existing self-report

inventories to measure the psychopathic personality traits of Fearless Dominance and

Impulsive Antisociality. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 1006–1016.

Witt, E. A., Hopwood, C. J., Morey, L. C., Markowitz, J. C., McGlashan, T. H., Grilo, C. M.,

Sanislow, C. A., Shea, M. T., Skodol, A. E., Gunderson, J. G., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010).
32
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Psychometric characteristics and clinical correlates of NEO-PI-R fearless dominance and

impulsive antisociality in the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study.

Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 559–568.

Wright, A.G.C., Stepp, S.D., Scott, L.N., Hallquist, M.N., Beeney, J.E., Lazarus, S., & Pilkonis,

P.A. (2017). The effect of pathological narcissism on interpersonal and affective processes

in social interactions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(7), 898-910.

Wright, A. G. C., & Woods, W. C. (2020). Personalized Models of Psychopathology. Annual

Review of Clinical Psychology, 16, 49–74.

Wright, A. G. C., & Zimmermann, J. (2019). Applied ambulatory assessment: Integrating

idiographic and nomothetic principles of measurement. Psychological Assessment, 31,

1467–1480.
33
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Table 1

Descriptive Information for Between- and Within-person Primary Variables

Between-person (Level 2) Within-person (Level-1)
Mean SD 𝜔 N Min. Max. Mean SD ICC 𝜔
Sample 1 (N=142)
PPI-SF-Total 118.28 15.69 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PPI-SF-FD 47.7 7.97 .23 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
PPI-SF-IA 56.2 11.40 .64 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Positive Affect 7.26 2.58 .97 16,460 4 20 7.36 4.10 .41 .90
Hostile Affect 4.04 1.14 .92 16,458 3 15 4.03 2.06 .31 .76
Sad Affect 3.85 0.97 .81 16,455 3 15 3.84 1.72 .32 .67
Remorseful Affect 2.40 0.56 .40* 16,462 2 10 2.39 1.06 .28 .23*
Negative Interaction 2.24 0.51 .79* 14,219 2 10 2.24 .93 .31 .18*
Pos. Feedback 1.22 0.33 -- 14,206 1 5 1.21 .66 .25 --
Sample 2 (N=159)
NEO-PPI-Total 98.55 9.74 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
NEO-PPI-FD 50.91 8.82 .80 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
NEO-PPI-IA 47.64 6.90 .70 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Positive Affect 178.51 55.57 .92 9,451 0 400 180.30 67.48 .40 .82
Hostile Affect 80.50 41.43 .94 9,451 0 300 79.51 53.58 .37 .80
Sad Affect 53.86 40.31 .89 9,451 0 300 52.33 51.48 .60 .58
Anxious Affect 48.82 35.02 .77* 9,451 0 200 47.73 46.51 .55 .25*
Negative Interaction 51.37 33.41 .97 8,137 0 300 50.89 60.18 .31 .82
Pos. Feedback 48.13 16.33 -- 8,137 0 100 48.50 30.93 .29 --
Agreeable Interaction 205.03 33.72 .98 8,137 0 300 206.11 65.31 .27 .92
Closeness Interaction 110.20 39.63 .83 8,137 0 300 109.10 75.46 .27 .80
Note: PPI-SF=Psychopathic Personality-Short Form; NEO-PPI=NEO-PI-R Proxy measure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory; IA=Impulsive
Antisociality factor; FD= Fearless-dominance factor; *=value represents the squared correlation between the two items used for the composite; 𝜔 is not
estimated for total score scales as they are not intended to be unidimensional scales.
34
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY

Table 2

Relations Between PPI Scales and Average Affect Ratings During EMA Protocols
Hostile Affect Sad Affect Positive Affect Remorseful Affect Anxious Affect
Estimate (SE) 95% CI Estimate (SE) 95% CI Estimate (SE) 95% CI Estimate (SE) 95% CI Estimate (SE) 95% CI
Sample 1
PPI-SF-IA .28** (.07) .14; .42 .14 (.08) -.02; .30 -.06 (.08) -.21; .09 .11 (.08) -.05; .27 -- --
†
PPI-SF-FD -.20* (.09) -.38; -.02 -.16 (.11) -.37; .05 .04 (.08) -.11; .19 -.20 (.10) -.41; .00 -- --
PPI-SF-Total .08 (.07) -.06; .22 -.03 (.09) -.21; .15 -.08 (.07) -.23; .06 -.09 (.08) -.24; .07 -- --
Sample 2
NEO-PPI-IA .21* (.10) .02; .40 .19* (.09) .02; .36 -.06 (.09) -.24; .11 -- -- .08 (.08) -.07; .24
NEO-PPI-FD -.10 (.08) -.26; .05 -.21* (.07) -.35; -.07 .13 (.08) -.03; .29 -- -- -.09 (.08) -.26; .07
NEO-PPI-Total .05 (.08) -.10; .21 -.05 (.08) -.20; .10 .07 (.09) -.09; .24 -- -- -.03 (.09) -.20; .15
Note: PPI-SF=Psychopathic Personality-Short Form; NEO-PPI=NEO-PI-R Proxy measure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory; IA=Impulsive
Antisociality factor; FD= Fearless-dominance factor; All values are standardized estimates to facilitate comparisons across samples; †= p<.10; *=p<.05;
**=p<.01.
35
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Table 3

Relations Between PPI Scales and Average Interpersonal Interaction Ratings During EMA Protocols
Negative Interaction Praise/Positive Feedback Agreeable Interaction Intimacy Interaction
Estimate (SE) 95% CI Estimate (SE) 95% CI Estimate (SE) 95% CI Estimate (SE) 95% CI
Sample 1
PPI-SF-IA .18** (.05) .09; .28 .08 (.08) -.07; .23 -- -- -- --
PPI-SF-FD -.07 (.08) -.22; .08 .15 (.10) -.04; .33 -- -- -- --
PPI-SF-Total .06 (.05) -.04; .17 .06 (.08) -.09; .22 -- -- -- --
Sample 2
NEO-PPI-IA .13 (.08) -.05; .30 .06 (.09) -.11; .23 -.16† (.09) -.33; .02 .09 (.09) -.07; .26
NEO-PPI-FD .04 (.08) -.12; .20 -.02 (.08) -.17; .14 .02 (.08) -.13; .16 -.05 (.08) -.21; .12
NEO-PPI-Total .13 (.08) -.02; .27 .02 (.08) -.13; .18 -.10 (.08) -.25; .06 .03 (.08) -.13; .18
Note: PPI-SF=Psychopathic Personality-Short Form; NEO-PPI=NEO-PI-R Proxy measure of the Psychopathic Personality
Inventory; IA=Impulsive Antisociality factor; FD= Fearless-dominance factor; All values are standardized estimates to facilitate
comparisons across samples; †= p<.10; **=p<.01.
36
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Table 4

PPI Moderation of Within-person Affective Processes Following Interpersonal Interaction

Neg. Int.Hostile Neg. Int.Remorseful Neg. Int.Anxious Agr. InteractionPos. Int. InteractionPos.
Neg. Int.Sad Affect Pos. FeedbackPos.Affect
Affect Affect Affect Affect Affect
Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
95% CI 95% CI 95% CI 95% CI 95% CI Estimate (SD) 95% CI Estimate (SD) 95% CI
(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)
Sample 1
PPI-SF-IA .04 (.07) -.11; .18 -.07 (.07) -.21; .07 .03 (.07) -.13; .15 -- -- -.05 (.07) -.16; .10 -- -- -- --
PPI-SF-FD .07 (.07) -.09; .21 -.19* (.08) -.35; -.05 -.06 (.07) -.22; .08 -- -- .11 (.07) -.01; .27 -- -- -- --
PPI-SF-Total .06 (.07) -.09; .19 -.14† (.08) -.28; .00 -.01 (.07) -.16; .14 -- -- .06 (.07) -.05; .22 -- -- -- --
Sample 2
NEO-PPI-IA -.02 (.07) -.14; .12 -.06 (.07) -.19; .08 -- -- .05 (.09) -.12; .19 .05 (.08) -.12; .18 .04 (.07) -.10; .18 .01 (.07) -.11; .16
NEO-PPI-FD .01 (.08) -.14; .14 -.01 (.07) -.16; .13 -- -- .06 (.07) -.08; .21 .02 (.07) -.12; .16 .10 (.08) -.06; .23 .06 (.07) -.09; .21
NEO-PPI-Total -.02 (.07) -.15; .13 -.07 (.08) -.20; .08 -- -- .10 (.08) -.07; .23 .06 (.07) -.08; .18 .12† (.07) -.02; .24 .06 (.07) -.08; .20
Note: PPI-SF=Psychopathic Personality-Short Form; NEO-PPI=NEO-PI-R Proxy measure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory; IA=Impulsive Antisociality factor; FD=
Fearless-dominance factor; Neg. Int.=Negative interaction; Pos. Feedback=interpersonal interaction where the participant received positive feedback; Agr.
Interaction=Agreeable interaction; Int. Interaction=Intimacy interaction; Estimated effects are standardized Bayesian posterior estimates; †= p<.10; *=p<.05
37
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Table 5

PPI Moderation of Within-person Mediation Model of Hostility

Hostility Generation Hostile Reactivity Hostility Inertia
Estimate (SD) 95% CI Estimate (SD) 95% CI Estimate (SD) 95% CI
Sample 1
PPI-SF-IA .05 (.07) -.07; 20 -.01 (.07) -.15; .12 .07 (.07) -.04; .21
PPI-SF-FD -.08 (.07) -.21; .05 .09 (.07) -.05; .20 -.20* (.08) -.35; -.04
PPI-SF-Total -.02 (.07) -.16; .10 .04 (.07) -.09; .16 -.02 (.07) -.15; .12
Sample 2
NEO-PPI-IA -.04 (.09) -.18; .16 -.05 (.08) -.19; .11 .02 (.07) -.12; .16
NEO-PPI-FD -.02 (.07) -.15; .12 -.02 (.08) -.19; .13 -.05 (.07) -.17; .07
NEO-PPI-Total -.03 (.08) -.18; .15 -.04 (.09) -.23; .13 -.03 (.07) -.17; .08
Note: PPI-SF=Psychopathic Personality-Short Form; NEO-PPI=NEO-PI-R Proxy measure of the Psychopathic Personality
Inventory; IA=Impulsive Antisociality factor; FD= Fearless-dominance factor; Estimated effects are standardized Bayesian
posterior estimates; Hostility Generation=within-person path from past hostility at time t-1 to negative interpersonal interactions;
Hostile Reactivity=within-person path from negative interpersonal interaction to hostility at time t; Hostility Inertia=within-person
path from past hostility at time t-1 to hostility at time t.
38
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Figure 1

Between-person Heterogeneity in Affect Ratings for Select Participants High in Psychopathy in Samples 1 and 2
1A PPI Total=142; IA=70; FD=54 1B PPI Total=142; IA=61; FD=62 1C PPI Total=140; IA=54; FD=66
Neg. Emodiversity=.90 Neg. Emodiversity=.89 Neg. Emodiversity=.88
Pos. Emodiversity=.82 Pos. Emodiversity=.82 Pos. Emodiversity=.83

Delighted Hostile Delighted Hostile Delighted Hostile

Joyful Irritable Joyful Irritable Joyful Irritable

Cheerful Mad Cheerful Mad Cheerful Mad

Happy Angry Happy Angry Happy Angry

Proud Disgusted Proud Disgusted Proud Disgusted

Excited Annoyed Excited Annoyed Excited Annoyed

Regretful Scared Regretful Scared Regretful Scared

Deserving Criticism Sad Deserving Criticism Sad Deserving Criticism Sad

Embarassed Lonely Embarassed Lonely Embarassed Lonely

Stupid Ashamed Stupid Ashamed Stupid Ashamed

Guilty Guilty Guilty

2A NEO−PPI Total=116; IA=52; FD=64 2B NEO−PPI Total=109; IA=67; FD=42 2C NEO−PPI Total=110; IA=68; FD=42
Neg. Emodiversity=.68 Neg. Emodiversity=.66 Neg. Emodiversity=.51
Pos. Emodiversity=.84 Pos. Emodiversity=.58 Pos. Emodiversity=.95

Joyful Hostile Joyful Hostile Joyful Hostile

Cheerful Irritable Cheerful Irritable Cheerful Irritable

Happy Angry Happy Angry Happy Angry

Enthusiastic Scared Enthusiastic Scared Enthusiastic Scared

Excited Sad Excited Sad Excited Sad

Lively Lonely Lively Lonely Lively Lonely

Alert Blue Alert Blue Alert Blue

Attentive Nervous Attentive Nervous Attentive Nervous

Interested Jittery Interested Jittery Interested Jittery
39
DYNAMICS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Note: PPI-SF=Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short Form; NEO-PPI=NEO-PI-R Proxy Scale of the PPI-R; IA=Impulsive Antisociality; FD=Fearless-
dominance; Sample 1 participants are displayed in the first row and Sample 2 participants are shown in the second row; All participants displayed in the figure
scored at least 1 SD above their respective sample average on total psychopathy scores; The length of each “petal” indicates the number of occasions each
emotion was reported by the participants; the colors of each “petal” reflect the proportion of occasions the emotion was rated at low (darker shades closer to
edge) to high (lighter shades, closer to center) intensities; Positive and negative emodiversity are Gini coefficients, which range from 0 to 1, with higher values
reflecting more diverse emotional experiences. Gini coefficients reflect the variety and relative abundance of emotions that individuals reported during the
respective EMA protocols in Samples 1 and 2.