See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271772967

Variants of Psychopathy in Adult Male Offenders: A Latent Profile Analysis.

Article  in  Journal of Abnormal Psychology · February 2015

DOI: 10.1037/abn0000042 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
69 1,952

6 authors, including:

Andreas Mokros Robert Hare

FernUniversität in Hagen University of British Columbia - Vancouver
111 PUBLICATIONS   1,962 CITATIONS    228 PUBLICATIONS   30,217 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Craig S Neumann Pekka Santtila

University of North Texas Åbo Akademi University
155 PUBLICATIONS   8,191 CITATIONS    246 PUBLICATIONS   4,802 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Age Preferences View project

Incest aversion, Inbreeding avoidance, and Intra-familial sexual abuse View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pekka Santtila on 06 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Abnormal Psychology © 2015 American Psychological Association
2015, Vol. 124, No. 2, 372–386 0021-843X/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/abn0000042

Variants of Psychopathy in Adult Male Offenders:

A Latent Profile Analysis

Andreas Mokros Robert D. Hare

University Hospital of Psychiatry Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland University of British Columbia and Darkstone Research Group,
Vancouver, Canada

Craig S. Neumann Pekka Santtila

University of North Texas Abo Akademi University
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Elmar Habermeyer Joachim Nitschke

University Hospital of Psychiatry Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Ansbach District Hospital, Ansbach, Germany

As measured with the Psychopathy Checklist⫺Revised (PCL-R), psychopathy is a dimensional construct

underpinned by 4 correlated factors: Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial. Theorists and
clinicians (e.g., Karpman and Arieti) have posited 2 variants of “primary” or “true” psychopathy, both
distinct from so-called “secondary” or “pseudopsychopathy.” We used latent profile analysis to deter-
mine if homogeneous classes exist within a sample of 1,451 male offenders with high PCL-R scores (ⱖ
27). The 4 PCL-R factors were the dependent variables for clustering. A solution with 3 latent classes
showed a better fit to the data than did a unitary model without latent classes. Tentative labels for the
latent classes are Manipulative (Latent Class 1 [LC1]), Aggressive (Latent Class 2 [LC2]), and
Sociopathic (Latent Class 3 [LC3]). The latter class represented an antisocial group that lacked the
emotional detachment observed in the other 2 groups. We propose that LC1 and LC2 reflect phenotypic
variations on a theme of the traditional construct of psychopathy, and that LC3 is consistent with
conceptions of antisocial personality disorder and sociopathy. Replication and external classification with
an independent data set of 497 adult male offenders again yielded clearly separable clusters, as well as
meaningful differences or trends among latent classes on education, intelligence, symptoms of antisocial
personality disorder, and self-reported psychopathic traits and negative affect. The conceptualization of
psychopathy in terms of manipulative and aggressive variants is consistent with clinical theory and is
empirically grounded.

Keywords: psychopathy, manipulative psychopathy, aggressive psychopathy, subtype, sociopathy

Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/abn0000042.supp

The current concept of psychopathy combines aspects that com-
prise (a) narcissistic grandiosity and the ability to manipulate
others; (b) a lack of emotional resonance and sincerity; (c) a
reckless and impulsive lifestyle; and (d) a tendency to ignore or
violate social conventions and mores (Hare & Neumann, 2006).
These four foci represent the first-order factors underlying the
Psychopathy Checklist⫺Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003), a 20-item
rating scale that uses file and interview information to assess
psychopathic features. The PCL-R was built, in part, on earlier
work by Hervey Cleckley (1964, 1976) who had described a set of
16 features that he regarded as characteristic of psychopathic
personalities (see Hare & Neumann, 2008, for a critical analysis of
Cleckley’s work). Because the PCL-R factors are integral to the
analyses conducted in the present study, they and the items that
comprise them are listed here: Interpersonal (i.e., glibness/super-
ficial charm, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying,

This article was published Online First February 2, 2015.
Andreas Mokros, Department for Forensic Psychiatry, University Hospital of
Psychiatry Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Robert D. Hare, Department of Psychol-
ogy, University of British Columbia, and Darkstone Research Group, Vancouver,
Canada; Craig S. Neumann, Department of Psychology, University of North
Texas; Pekka Santtila, Department of Psychology and Logopedics, Abo Akademi
University; Elmar Habermeyer, Department for Forensic Psychiatry, University
Hospital of Psychiatry Zurich; Joachim Nitschke, Department of Forensic Psychi-
atry, Ansbach District Hospital, Ansbach, Germany.
Robert D. Hare receives royalties from the sale of the PCL-R and its
derivatives. We thank Joseph P. Newman, University of Wisconsin⫺Madi-
son, for kindly providing the data used in the external classification
analysis. We thank Kylie Neufeld for her editorial assistance with this
article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andreas
Mokros, University Hospital of Psychiatry Zurich, Department for Foren-
sic Psychiatry, Lenggstrasse 31, P.O. Box, 1931, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland.
E-mail: andreas.mokros@puk.zh.ch

372
 VARIANTS OF PSYCHOPATHY
cunning/manipulative); Affective (i.e., lack of remorse or guilt,
shallow affect, callous/lack of empathy, failure to accept respon-
sibility for own actions); Lifestyle (i.e., need for stimulation/prone-
ness to boredom, parasitic lifestyle, lack of realistic long-term
goals, impulsivity, irresponsibility); and Antisocial (i.e., poor be-
havioral controls, early behavior problems, juvenile delinquency,
revocation of conditional release, criminal versatility). Two other
items (promiscuous sexual behavior, many short-term relation-
ships) do not load on any factor but do contribute to the total
PCL-R score. The Interpersonal/Affective dimensions and the
Lifestyle/Antisocial dimensions comprise, respectively, the
second-order PCL-R Factors 1 and 2 described by Hare (2003; also
see Hare & Neumann, 2008).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Clinical Background
As early as the 1920s Karpman (e.g., Karpman, 1929) began to
describe a clinical disorder very similar to that later outlined by
Cleckley (1941). Like Cleckley, Karpman was concerned that
many different conditions were lumped under the umbrella of
psychopathic personality, many characterized by antisocial behav-
ior. He took pains to differentiate “primary, essential, or idiopathic
psychopathy” from “symptomatic or secondary psychopathy,” on
the grounds that the underlying etiology, motivations, dynamics,
and response to treatment of the former are quite unlike those of
the latter. Karpman described two forms of primary or idiopathic
psychopathy that shared similar motivations and dynamics but
differed in their interactions with others: aggressive/predatory and
passive/parasitic (Karpman, 1955, p. 46).
Karpman’s distinctions between primary and secondary psy-
chopathy, and between variants of the former, were shared by
several other clinicians (see Hervé, 2007, for a review). Like
Karpman, Arieti (1963) also described several kinds of the “true”
psychopath that differed from one another in their interpersonal
and aggressive behaviors. They included the simple psychopath
and the complex psychopath, the latter described by Arieti (1963,
pp. 307–308) as having the mental set, wit, and Machiavellian
orientation needed to transform the simple psychopath’s “how to
do it” into “how to do it and get away with it.” Arieti (p. 308) also
referred to dyssocial individuals who are not socialized in the usual
sense, are antisocial with respect to society at large, but loyal to
members of their own group. Another term for such individuals
would be sociopath, as described by Lykken (1995).
It is clear that Karpman, Arieti, and other early influential
clinicians did not consider secondary or symptomatic types to be
part of the prototypical psychopathy construct described so vividly
in their writings. A common view was that psychopathy is rooted
in genetic predispositions and social/environmental forces that are
quite different from those that lead to secondary psychopathy. In
this sense, diagnostic labels, such as secondary or symptomatic
psychopathy, are problematic and misleading because they imply
that individuals so labeled are psychopaths in the traditional sense
of the term (Hare, 1970). Pseudopsychopath (Arieti, 1963; Mc-
Cord & McCord, 1964) or sociopath may be more appropriate
descriptors for such individuals. It also would facilitate theory and
research on the real issue: Do different manifestations of psychop-
athy reflect meaningful subtypes or are they variations on a theme?
373
Some Current Subtype Theories
Since the writings of Karpman, Arieti, Cleckley, and their
contemporaries, theorists and researchers have pursued efforts to
parse the psychopathy construct. In many cases, the results bear a
strong resemblance to the idea of primary and secondary (or rather,
sociopathic) subtypes. Although many investigators view psy-
chopathy as pathology (i.e., abnormality, deficit), evolutionary
psychologists take the view that psychopathy is an evolved, adap-
tive life-strategy for reproductive and survival success (Book &
Quinsey, 2004; Harpending & Sobus, 1987; Harris, Rice, Hilton,
Lalumiére, & Quinsey, 2007; Mealey, 1995a, 1995b; Ward &
Durrant, 2011; also see Buss, 2009, for a discussion of personality
traits as forms of strategic individual differences in adaptation).
Book and Quinsey (2004) have suggested that psychopaths
achieve their ends through the use of cheater (e.g., manipulation,
deception, selfishness, callousness) and warrior-hawk strategies
(e.g., impulsivity, aggression, violence). Presumably, psychopaths
differ among themselves (and across context and time) in the
relative use of manipulative or aggressive strategies.
Along these lines, and drawing on extensive research from
behavior genetics, psychology, sociobiology, and game theory,
Mealey (1995b) proposed an evolutionary model to account for the
similarities and differences between primary and secondary psy-
chopathy (she originally used the term sociopathy; Mealey,
1995a). She stated: “My basic premise is that sociopaths are
designed for the successful execution of social deception and that
they are the product of evolutionary pressures which, through a
complex interaction of environmental and genetic factors, lead
some individuals to pursue a life-history strategy of manipulative
and predatory social interactions” (Mealey, 1995b, p. 524). For
primary psychopaths, the etiological pathway to this life-history
strategy is heavily influenced by genetically based biological,
personality, and behavioral dispositions, whereas for secondary
psychopathy, the pathway is influenced more by early adverse
social and environmental conditions. This latter pathway captures
the meaning of earlier conceptions of sociopathy or pseudopsy-
chopathy (e.g., Arieti, 1963; Lykken, 1995; McCord & McCord,
1964), but adds dimensions derived from models of evolutionary
psychology. For example, primary psychopaths should have highly
heritable psychopathic traits, be predominantly male, be affection-
less and emotionally hypoaroused, stem from all socioeconomic
backgrounds, exhibit behavioral propensities that are persistent
throughout the life span, excel in social exchanges that reward
successful defection more than cooperation, and be relatively
uncommon. In contrast, the heritability of most of the traits of
secondary psychopathy is presumed be low. Furthermore, Mealey
(1995b) suggested that secondary psychopaths should have few
heritable psychopathic traits, come predominantly from lower-
class backgrounds, and exhibit patterns of antisocial conduct that
vary across the life span. Finally, secondary psychopaths should be
found among both men and women, and their prevalence should
fluctuate according to societal conditions across time or culture. In
many respects, her suggestions concerning primary psychopathy
are consistent with the current empirical literature on psychopathy
(e.g., Hare, 2003; Hare, Neumann, & Widiger, 2012; Hervé &
Yuille, 2007; Kiehl & Sinnott-Armstrong, 2013; Millon, Krueger,
& Simonsen, 2010; Patrick, 2006; Widiger, 2012). They also are
consistent with the theoretical outline by Yildirim and Derksen
 374 MOKROS ET AL.
(2013) on the emotional, behavioral, and neurophysiological dif-
ferences between psychopathy and sociopathy.
Empirical Studies
Since the writings of Karpman, Arieti, Cleckley, and their
contemporaries, the notion of psychopathic subgroups has given
rise to a considerable amount of research. Many of the earlier
studies relied on conventional techniques of cluster analysis,
known to be prone to overidentifying subgroups (Beauchaine,
2003). Some more recent studies (e.g., Claes et al., 2014; Drislane
et al., 2014; Falkenbach, Poythress, & Creevy, 2008; Falkenbach,
Stern, & Creevy, 2014; Hicks, Markon, Patrick, Krueger, & New-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
man, 2004; Hicks, Vaidyanathan, & Patrick, 2010; Lee & Salekin,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
2010) have used more rigorous methods—such as latent class
analysis (Vermunt & Magidson, 2006) or model-based cluster
analysis (Fraley & Raftery, 2002)—that allow the relative fit of
competing models to be compared. These studies differed widely
in their conceptual orientation and definition of psychopathy (e.g.,
clinical ratings, self-reports), involved a diversity of participants
(e.g., offender, community, and student samples), and used differ-
ent methods of measurement and analysis (see Blackburn, 2009;
Hervé, 2007; Poythress & Skeem, 2006, for reviews).
Poythress et al. (2010) performed a model-based cluster analysis
of the data from an entire sample of 691 adult male offenders, all
of whom had been diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder
(ASPD). The data subjected to clustering consisted of scores on
three (of the four) PCL-R factors (i.e., Interpersonal, Affective,
and Lifestyle), along with other measures such as self-reports of
harm avoidance, reward responsivity, and experiences of child-
hood trauma. They obtained five clusters, including two clusters
labeled as “primary psychopath” (20.4% of the sample) and “Karp-
man’s secondary psychopath” (22.1% of the sample), respectively.
Individuals in the primary psychopath cluster had relatively high
mean scores on the Interpersonal and Affective factors, and rela-
tively low mean scores on the Lifestyle factor and self-reported
anxiety. Those assigned to the secondary psychopath cluster had
relatively high mean scores on self-report scales measuring anxi-
ety, antisociality, and childhood trauma. These two clusters did not
differ on the PCL-R Antisocial factor, a variable that was not
included in the cluster analysis.
Skeem, Johansson, Andershed, Kerr, and Louden (2007) per-
formed a model-based cluster analysis on a sample of 123 Swedish
violent male offenders whose PCL-R scores were in the top one
third of the distribution of scores in a group of 367 offenders. Each
offender in the clustering sample had a PCL-R score of 29 or
higher, close to the commonly used threshold for psychopathy (ⱖ
30). The data subjected to clustering included scores on all four
PCL-R factors and a self-report measure of trait anxiety. Two
clusters emerged, which the authors interpreted as consistent with
Karpman’s (1941) conception of primary and secondary psycho-
pathic types. The primary subtype (60% of the sample) had a
higher mean PCL-R total score and higher mean scores on PCL-R
Factors 1⫺3 (i.e., Interpersonal, Affective, and Lifestyle), about
the same score on Factor 4 (Antisocial), and a lower mean trait
anxiety score, than did the secondary subtype (40% of the sample).
Skeem et al. (2007) stated that “. . .we found no differences
between variants in their patterns of psychopathic traits” (p. 404).
But, the differences between the “variants” were not confined to
self-reported anxiety; the differences included the PCL-R Inter-
personal, Affective, and Lifestyle factors. That is, the “variants”
did differ in their pattern of PCL-R traits, with those in the
secondary psychopathy cluster having lower scores than those in
the primary psychopathy cluster on the very elements (i.e., Inter-
personal, Affective, Lifestyle) considered by Skeem and col-
leagues (e.g., Skeem & Cooke, 2010) to be at the core of the
psychopathy construct.
Hicks et al. (2004) obtained two clusters from a model-based
analysis of scores on the 11 scales of the self-report Multidimen-
sional Personality Questionnaire⫺Brief Form (MPQ-BF; Patrick,
Curtin, & Tellegen, 2002). The scores were obtained from 96 male
offenders, each with a PCL-R score of at least 30. One cluster was
delineated by MPQ-BF scores indicative of low stress reaction,
social dominance, lack of close attachments, capacity for strategic
action, and proneness to taking risks. Hicks et al. (2004) labeled
individuals in this cluster (31% of the sample) as emotionally
stable psychopaths, and noted that their features were consistent
with conceptions of the primary psychopath or “classic” psycho-
path. The second cluster (69% of the sample) was delineated by
MPQ-BF scores indicative of negative emotionality, and aggres-
sive, externalizing, and disinhibited behavior. The authors labeled
individuals in this cluster as aggressive psychopaths.
The authors of the three studies discussed in detail above (Hicks
et al., 2004; Poythress et al., 2010; Skeem et al., 2007) interpreted
their results in terms of Karpman’s (1941, 1948) primary⫺second-
ary distinction. Furthermore, the results of one of these studies
(Hicks et al., 2004) can be understood in terms of the views of
Karpman (1955) and Arieti (1963) that there are two variants of
primary psychopathy. Therefore, we should be able to identify
individuals with high levels of psychopathic and/or antisocial traits
as psychopathic and sociopathic types. It also should be possible to
distinguish passive/parasitic/complex psychopaths from aggres-
sive/predatory/simple psychopaths.
The studies discussed above derived their subtypes from a
combination of PCL-R factors and various self-report scales, or
from self-report scales alone. An alternative approach would be to
search for classes defined by the traits or dimensions that comprise
the psychopathy construct. Analyses based on individual traits
would be far more complex and difficult to interpret than analyses
based on dimensions of psychopathy. The logical candidates for
such analyses are the four dimensions or factors that underpin the
PCL-R. Hervé (2007) described some preliminary cluster analyses
of the factor scores of 202 male offenders with a PCL-R score of
at least 27.
Current Study
The sample in the current study consisted of a large number of
adult male offenders with high trait levels of psychopathy and
antisociality. On the basis of clinical theory and previous research,
we expected that latent class analysis of the four PCL-R factors
would yield two variants of psychopathy and a separate socio-
pathic subgroup. We expected that the psychopathy variants would
be consistent with clinical and empirical descriptions of manipu-
lative (passive/parasitic/complex) and aggressive (predatory/sim-
ple) psychopathy. We also expected that these variants would be
distinguishable from sociopathy (pseudopsychopathy/dyssociality/
“secondary psychopathy”). The sociopathic cluster should be
 VARIANTS OF PSYCHOPATHY
mostly antisocial and would share many psychopathic features, but
with less extreme emotional components (e.g., lack of empathy,
guilt or remorse, shallow emotions) so characteristic of the psy-
chopathy construct. In keeping with the method chosen by Hervé
(2007), we included offenders with a PCL-R total score of 27 or
higher, which is 1 SEM unit below the conventional PCL-R thresh-
old for psychopathy of 30. The rationale was to increase sensitivity
(i.e., not missing “psychopaths”) at the cost of decreasing speci-
ficity (i.e., possibly including “nonpsychopaths”), as argued by
Hervé (2007). We expected that evidence for latent classes or
variants would emerge as different patterns of PCL-R factor scores
(profiles).
Second, we aimed to provide a cross-validation of the results of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
the development sample in an independent sample by (a) replicat-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ing the structure of the latent profile analysis (LPA), and (b)
validating the latent classes through an external classification with
respect to meaningful variables not included in the clustering
procedure.
Experiment 1
Method
Sample. Participants were part of the pooled sample (referred
to here as the reference group) of 5,408 North American adult
male offenders described in the PCL-R manual (Hare, 2003). The
PCL-R rating of each offender in the reference group was based on
the standard PCL-R assessment procedure, which involves use of
a semistructured interview, case-history information, and specific
scoring criteria to rate each item on a 3-point scale (range: 0⫺2)
according to the extent to which it applies to a given person. Total
scores can range from 0⫺40, with 30 typically used by researchers
as a convenient threshold for psychopathy (see Hare, Black, &
Walsh, 2013; Forth, Bo, & Kongerslev, 2013). The mean PCL-R
score for the reference group was 22.1 (SD ⫽ 7.9). Reliability of
the total scores (as indexed with Guttman’s ␭2 coefficient of
internal consistency) was .86. The PCL-R items can be accounted
for in terms of a superordinate latent variable (Neumann, Hare, &
Newman, 2007), and this superordinate factor is underpinned by
four correlated first-order factors or dimensions, labeled as Inter-
personal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial. Guttman’s ␭2 coef-
ficients for these four factors in the reference group were, respec-
tively, .73, .73, .74, and .70. Assigning an individual to a group
profile based on the four factors would thus occur at an estimated
battery reliability of rP equal to .57 (using the Mahalanobis D as a
measure of similarity; cf. Conger & Lipshitz, 1973).
Participants were 1,451 offenders (27% of the reference group)
with a PCL-R score of at least 27. The scores for this development
sample ranged from 27⫺40 (M ⫽ 30.5, SD ⫽ 2.7). The mean
score on each factor was as follows: Interpersonal, 5.4 (SD ⫽ 1.6);
Affective, 6.5 (SD ⫽ 1.2); Lifestyle, 7.9 (SD ⫽ 1.4); and Antiso-
cial, 8.0 (SD ⫽ 1.7). Note that the scores for the Lifestyle/
Antisocial factors are higher than those for the Interpersonal/
Affective factors because the former are based on five items per
factor (scores from 0⫺10) whereas the latter are based on four
items per factor (scores from 0⫺8). Also, scores on two PCL-R
items (promiscuous sexual behavior, many short-term marital re-
lationships) do not load on any factor but do contribute to the total
PCL-R score.
375
A Mardia (1974) test showed that the subtotals on the four
PCL-R factors were not distributed as multivariate normal due to
skewness (␹2(20) ⫽ 498.48, p ⬍ .001) even though the distribution
was mesokurtic (z ⫽ ⫺1.62, p ⫽ .11). Skewness is a result of
truncating the data by only including slightly more than the upper
quartile of the reference group.
Statistical analyses. LPA is a variant of latent class analysis
based on observed continuous rather than categorical variables.
LPA serves to identify homogeneous subgroups within a sample
through maximum likelihood (ML) estimation. Consequently,
LPA is a probabilistic or model-based alternative to conven-
tional cluster analysis (Vermunt & Magidson, 2006). As Ver-
munt and Magidson pointed out, LPA is basically equivalent to
model-based clustering. Mathematically, LPA as well as model-
based clustering are variants of finite-mixture modeling
(McLachlan & Peel, 2000). As a mixture-distribution model,
LPA seeks to identify nominal variables that underlie the con-
tinuous data and whose identification allows “demixing” of the
data (Rost, 2006). It should be noted that individual cases
commonly have probabilities of belonging to more than one
latent class. The more distinct these average latent class prob-
abilities for the most likely class membership are, the more
useful will be a latent class solution. As Rost (2006) noted:
“The average probability of group membership for all persons
tells something about the quality of the class allocation . . .. In
fact, the values in useful analyses are mostly above .80, indeed
often even above .90” (p. 278; translation by first author).
Both information criteria (e.g., the Bayesian information crite-
rion [BIC]) as well as modified likelihood ratio tests (LRTs; Lo,
Mendell, & Rubin, 2001; Nylund, Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2007)
can be used to decide on the number of latent classes. For the BIC
(Schwarz, 1978), a minimal value would indicate best model fit in
terms of the optimal trade-off between model parsimony and
residuals. Reductions in BIC value of less than 3 are considered
negligible (Kass & Raftery, 1995). For the LRTs, a nonsignificant
outcome for a solution with k latent classes indicates that model fit
did not improve substantially compared with a more parsimonious
(k ⫺ 1) model; hence, the simpler (k ⫺ 1) model should be chosen.
Nylund et al. (2007) has recommended using the BIC index as
well as an LRT. Because the bootstrap LRT is more strongly
affected by nonsymmetrical data distributions (Nylund et al.,
2007) and often remains inconclusive (Kupzyk, 2011), we opted
for the combination of the LRT of Lo et al. (2001) and the BIC
index instead.
Data were analyzed with the SPSS statistics program, Version
19.0.0 (IBM Corp., Somers, NY), and LPA was carried out with
Mplus for Mac, Version 6.12 (Muthén & Muthén, 2011). To
prevent local maxima in the ML estimation procedure for the LPA,
several random starts were conducted in the ML procedure. We
specified 600 random sets of starting values and 120 optimizations
of the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm for the solutions
with two to five latent classes. These values were raised to 5,000
and 1,000, respectively, for models with six or more latent classes.
Furthermore, the default settings for the maximum number of
iterations within the initial stage (10) and the convergence criterion
(0.1e-5) were used. In the bootstrap variant of the LRT (Nylund et
al., 2007), the number of random starts and of optimizations within
the EM algorithm was set to 1,000 and 100, respectively, for the
model with k classes. Scripts for the estimation of battery reliabil-
 376 MOKROS ET AL.

ity (Conger & Lipshitz, 1973) and for Mardia’s (1974) test of
multivariate normality were implemented in Maple, Version 14.01
(Waterloo Maple Inc., Waterloo, ON, Canada). The scripts are
available from the first author on request. Effect sizes were ex-
pressed as Cohen’s d, computed as the absolute difference between
means, divided by the pooled standard deviation. Values of d equal
to or larger than 0.2, 0.5, or 0.8 are considered indicative of small,
medium, or large effects, respectively (Cohen, 1992).
Results
According to the LPA, solutions with latent classes fit the data
better than did a unitary solution without latent classes (see Table
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
For display purposes, we converted the subtotals per PCL-R factor
into z score deviations from the reference group. The z score means
of the three latent classes are depicted in Figure 1a, with a z score
of 0 representing the mean of the reference group.
As Figure 1a shows, individuals with the highest allocation
probability for LC1 had a very high mean score on the Interper-
sonal factor (indicative of deceitfulness, manipulativeness, and
egocentricity). Those with the highest allocation probability for
LC2 had a very high mean score on the Antisocial factor (indic-
ative of a propensity for violating social norms). LC1 and LC2 did
not differ on the Affective and Lifestyle factors, and their mean
scores on these factors were much higher than those of the refer-
ence group.

1, top). The LRT of Lo et al. (2001) indicated that the fit did not
The individuals most likely allocated to LC3, in contrast, had a
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

improve significantly when increasing the number of latent classes

to four (p ⫽ .272). The minimum BIC value was observed for a
solution with eight latent classes, however. In the sense of parsi-
mony, the three-latent-classes solution was chosen as the frame of
reference for further inspection.
For the solution with three latent classes, the average probabil-
ities for the most likely class membership were .88, .86, and .73
(see Table 2, top), with a relative entropy of .67. Hence, the
allocation probabilities were substantial with regard to Latent
Classes 1 (LC1) and 2 (LC2) and somewhat lower for Latent Class
3 (LC3). Cases with most likely latent class allocation toward LC1
had the second-highest mean probability for LC2. Similarly, for
cases with a most likely latent class allocation toward LC3, the
second-highest mean probability concerned LC2.
Assigning cases to clusters based on their most likely class
membership, three groups of different size did emerge. These
clusters contained 287, 948, and 216 individuals, respectively. We
tentatively labeled these clusters as LC1 (n ⫽ 287; 19.8% of the
development sample), LC2 (n ⫽ 948; 65.3% of the development
sample), and LC3 (n ⫽ 216; 14.9% of the development sample).
mean score on the Affective factor that was on par with the mean
of the reference group, and much lower than the corresponding
means of the other two groups. They also had a high mean score
on the Lifestyle and Antisocial factors. That is, on average, the
latter resembled the LC2 individuals in terms of antisociality and
in indicators of a lifestyle that includes impulsivity, sensation
seeking, and irresponsibility.
Table 3 provides the means (standard deviations) of the three
latent classes on the four PCL-R factors as well as the corre-
sponding pairwise effect sizes between the clusters. LC1 had a
higher mean score on the Interpersonal factor than did LC2 (by
a medium effect size; d ⫽ 0.58), whereas LC2 a higher mean on
the Antisocial factor than did LC1 (by a very large effect size;
d ⫽ 2.58).
LC1 and LC2, pooled as a single group (LC1/LC2), had a
much higher average score than LC3 on the Affective factor
(d ⫽ 2.79), a moderately higher average score on the Interper-
sonal factor (d ⫽ 0.43), and somewhat lower average scores on
the Lifestyle (d ⫽ 0.35) and Antisocial (d ⫽ 0.39) factors.

Table 1
Model Fit of the Latent Profile Analyses for the Development Sample and the Replication Sample

(⫺2) ⴱ log-
No. of free Adjusted likelihood Bootstrap
No. of latent classes Log-likelihood parameters BIC BIC AIC differencea LMR LRTb pd LRTc pd 1 – entropy

Development sample (N ⫽ 1,451)

1 ⫺10,360.21 8 20,778.66 20,753.25 20,736.42 — — — —
2 ⫺10,247.86 13 20,590.36 20,549.06 20,521.72 224.70 ⬍.001 ⬍.001 0.730
3 ⫺10,196.10 18 20,523.25 20,466.07 20,428.21 103.52 0.012 ⬍.001 0.674
4 ⫺10,166.12 23 20,499.68 20,426.62 20,378.24 59.96 0.272 ⬍.001 0.727
5 ⫺10,138.44 28 20,480.72 20,391.77 20,332.88 55.36 0.433 ⬍.001 0.659
6 ⫺10,116.09 33 20,472.42 20,367.59 20,298.18 44.70 0.062 ⬍.001 0.744
7 ⫺10,086.25 38 20,449.14 20,328.43 20,248.50 59.68 0.277 ⬍.001 0.638
8 ⫺10,061.57 43 20,436.17 20,299.58 20,209.13 49.37 0.084 ⬍.001 0.650
9 ⫺10,044.39 48 20,438.22 20,285.74 20,184.78 34.35 0.259 ⬍.001 0.665
Replication sample (N ⫽ 497)
1 ⫺3,583.948 8 7,217.57 7,192.17 7,183.90 — — — —
2 ⫺3,525.559 13 7,131.83 7,090.57 7,077.12 116.78 <.001 ⬍.001 0.797
3 ⫺3,506.575 18 7,124.90 7,067.77 7,049.15 37.97 0.087 ⬍.001 0.789
4 ⫺3,495.563 23 7,133.92 7,060.92 7,037.13 22.02 0.013 ⬍.001 0.833
Note. Optimal models according to LMR LRT and BIC are highlighted in boldface. Other fit indices are reported for completeness. AIC ⫽ Akaike’s
information criterion; BIC ⫽ Bayesian information criterion; LMR ⫽ Lo–Mendell–Rubin; LRT ⫽ likelihood ratio test.
a
Difference between models of (k – 1) and k classes. b LRT according to Lo et al. (2001). c LRT according to Nylund et al. (2007). d If less than .05,
a model with k latent classes will fit significantly better than a model with (k – 1) latent classes. The relevant criteria for deciding on the number of latent
classes are LMR LRT and BIC (see text for details).
 VARIANTS OF PSYCHOPATHY 377

Table 2 are manipulative and aggressive psychopathy, respectively. In

Cluster Allocation Based on Maximum Posterior Probability for each case, the theoretical implication is that we are dealing with
Three Latent Classes: Mean Probabilities of Latent Class variations on the theme of psychopathy rather than with clear
Membership in the Development Sample and in the subtypes, in-line with the LPA results.
Replication Sample The lowest average classification probability was observed for
LC3. The pattern observed for this latent class was similar to the
Latent class
pseudopsychopathic or sociopathic profile described by Hervé
Cluster allocation n % LC1 LC2 LC3 (2007). It also is consistent with Arieti’s (1963) description of
Development sample (N ⫽ 1,451) dyssocial individuals and, to a degree, with the diagnostic criteria
LC1 287 19.8 .86 .12 .03 for ASPD. Because it does not seem to reflect psychopathy, at least
LC2 948 65.3 .06 .88 .06 in the narrow sense of the term, and for convenience, we refer to
LC3 216 14.9 .04 .23 .73
LC3 as sociopathic. However, as Table 3 indicates, the boundary
Replication sample (N ⫽ 497)
LC1 96 19.3 .87 .11 .02 between LC3 and LC2 seems rather fuzzy. Some offenders might
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

LC2 364 73.2 .04 .93 .03 fit into either latent class, depending in large part on how high their
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

LC3 37 7.4 .05 .15 .80 score is on the Affective factor.

Note. LC1 ⫽ Latent Class 1; LC2 ⫽ Latent Class 2; LC3 ⫽ Latent Class 3.
Mean (standard deviation) PCL-R total scores were 29.2 (2.0),
31.2 (2.8), and 28.9 (1.7) for LC1, LC2, and LC3, respectively.
Pairwise comparisons of the means yielded a very small effect size
for LC1 versus LC3 (d ⫽ 0.13), and large effect sizes for LC1
versus LC2 (d ⫽ 0.80) and for the LC2 versus LC3 (d ⫽ 0.89). The
similarity of the average PCL-R total scores observed for LC1 and
LC3 indicates that they may be difficult to tell apart without
information about their pattern (profile) of factor scores.
Discussion
We used LPA to determine whether homogeneous classes with
relatively unique PCL-R four-factor profiles exist within a sample
of male offenders with high PCL-R scores. A solution with three
latent classes showed better model fit than did a single-group
version or a solution with two latent classes, attesting to a degree
of phenomenological heterogeneity of the psychopathy construct
as measured with the PCL-R. Model fit did not improve signifi-
cantly when we increased the number of latent classes to four.
Hence, we focused on the three-latent-classes solution for inter-
pretation and further analysis.
The average classification probabilities when assigning individ-
uals to their most likely latent class were relatively high, particu-
larly for LC1 and LC2. This suggests that the two latent classes
represent separable variations of the psychopathic theme. This
observation counters Eysenck’s (1995) criticism of Mealey’s
(1995b) theory on the grounds that he expected low agreement for
any attempts to allocate individuals to such groups: “From expe-
rience, I would be surprised if agreement between professional
observers would be greater than 0.3 or thereabouts; clearly
insufficient for scientific or practical purposes” (Eysenck, 1995,
p. 556).
LC1 and LC2, respectively, seem in keeping with Karpman’s
(1955) passive/parasitic and aggressive/predatory psychopathy,
Arieti’s (1963) complex and simple psychopathy, Book and Quin-
sey’s (2004) cheater and warrior-hawk psychopathy, and Hervé’s
(2007) manipulative and aggressive psychopathy. Similarly, Hicks
et al. (2004) referred to emotionally stable and aggressive psycho-
paths. Given the profiles in this study, it seems plausible to refer to
both LC1 and LC2 as variants of (primary) psychopathy. We
propose that clinically meaningful descriptors for LC1 and LC2
The mean PCL-R score of the offenders in LC3 was almost as
high as that of those in the other latent classes. But, the suggestion
that LC3 is a variant of psychopathy is at odds with the very low
score on the Affective factor, and with the widely held view and
empirical evidence that shallow emotions and lack of empathy,
guilt, and remorse are essential components of the psychopathy
construct (e.g., Cleckley, 1976; Hare, 2003; Herpertz & Sass,
2000). Item response theory analyses of the data from the reference
group have indicated that the Affective factor of the PCL-R is
more discriminating of the latent trait of psychopathy than are the
other factors (Bolt, Hare, Vitale, & Newman, 2004). Further, the
offenders in LC3 seem very much like those who meet the criteria
for ASPD but who do not have the affective features that charac-
terize psychopathy (Hare et al., 2012). We might expect that such
offenders would display more affect, and perhaps even symptoms
of affective disturbance, than would those who match the LC1 and
LC2 PCL-R factor profiles. Finally, the emergence of LC3 seems
to be largely due to the choice of a lower-than-customary cut-score
of 27 points on the PCL-R because a similar type did not emerge
once the cut-score was raised to the customary 30 points.1
Experiment 2
The sample used for the LPA in Experiment 1 (development
sample) consisted of offenders with high PCL-R scores in a
reference group made up of data sets provided by several research-
ers (Hare, 2003). Although we had PCL-R item and factor scores,
we did not have ready access to the concomitant data that the
researchers may have gathered. For this reason, we were unable to
1
Several investigators have searched for latent classes in samples of
offenders selected on the basis of a PCL-R threshold higher than 27 (e.g.,
29 by Skeem et al., 2007; 30 by Hicks et al., 2004). For comparative
purposes, we performed a supplementary LPA on a sample of 856 offend-
ers with a PCL-R score of at least 30 (the upper 15% of the reference
group). A two-group solution provided sufficient fit to the data. The two
latent classes were virtually identical with LC1 (manipulative; 23.7% of the
sample) and LC2 (aggressive; 76.3% of the sample) described here. In
statistical terms, the three-class solution obtained with a PCL-R threshold
of 27 was more robust than the two-class solution obtained in this supple-
mentary analysis. Also, use of the lower threshold likely ameliorated some
of the issues associated with conducting LPA on more extreme portions of
a distribution of scores (Bauer & Curran, 2004). Details of the 30⫹
analyses are provided in the supplemental materials for this article.
 378 MOKROS ET AL.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Figure 1. Mean z scores of each latent class on each PCL-R factor, referenced against the mean factor scores
of the reference group of 5,408 male offenders, depicted on the bottom line as a z score of 0. The latent classes
consist of offenders with a PCL-R score of 27 or higher. The reference group is from Hare (2003, p. 59).
Descriptive labels for the three latent classes are: manipulative psychopaths (Latent Class 1), aggressive
psychopaths (Latent Class 2), and sociopaths (Latent Class 3). Results for the development sample (N ⫽ 1,451)
(a). Results for the replication sample (N ⫽ 497) (b). Vertical bars indicate standard deviations. PCL-R ⫽
Psychopathy Checklist⫺Revised (Hare, 2003).
 VARIANTS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Table 3
Means (Standard Deviations) and Effect Sizes (Cohen’s d) on Four Factors of the PCL-R in Three Latent Classes for the
Development Sample (N ⫽ 1,451) and the Replication Sample (N ⫽ 497)
LC1 LC2
M (SD) M (SD)
PCL-R factors n ⫽ 287 [96] n ⫽ 948 [364]
1. Interpersonal 6.2 (1.5) [6.0 (1.6)] 5.3 (1.5) [4.8 (1.6)]
2. Affective 6.8 (0.9) [6.9 (1.0)] 6.8 (0.9) [6.7 (1.0)]
3. Lifestyle 8.0 (1.4) [8.3 (1.3)] 7.8 (1.4) [7.8 (1.3)]
4. Antisocial 5.9 (1.1) [6.0 (1.1)] 8.6 (1.1) [8.9 (1.1)]
Note. LC1 ⫽ Latent Class 1; LC2 ⫽ Latent Class 2; LC3 ⫽ Latent Class 3; PCL-R ⫽ Psychopathy Checklist–Revised.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
explore how the empirically generated, and theoretically coherent,
variants/subtypes might differ on various demographic and other
psychological variables. We therefore are grateful to Joseph New-
man for providing us with a data set obtained from his ongoing
research in Wisconsin prisons. The set included the scores of male
offenders on each of the PCL-R items and on a variety of variables
relevant to testing our latent class model. The PCL-R data used for
external validation were not part of the development sample used
to conduct the LPA analysis described in Experiment 1.
The Wisconsin data set allowed us to determine (a) if the three
latent classes obtained in the development sample also could be
identified in an independent set of PCL-R data (the replication
sample); (b) if there was substantial overlap when the same cases
from the replication sample were allocated to clusters on the
classification routine derived from the development sample (ex-
ternal classification); and (c) if the clusters derived in Step b
differed in meaningful ways from one another with respect to
scores on relevant demographic and psychological variables (ex-
ternal validation). We note, however, that these variables were part
of a “convenience” sample, and that their use here is preliminary
to more extensive and planned research with variables selected to
be of direct relevance to interpretation and validation of the latent
classes described herein.
Method
Sample. Each of the 497 male offenders in the Wisconsin
sample (referred to here as the replication sample) had a PCL-R
score of at least 27 (M ⫽ 30.7, SD ⫽ 2.6), almost identical to that
of the development sample. The scores were based on interview
and file information, with intraclass correlations greater than .90
for subsamples (see Baskin-Sommers, Baskin, Sommers, & New-
man, 2013). Mean age was 30.9 years (SD ⫽ 7.3). Data on the
Wisconsin sample were reported previously in other publications
(e.g., Newman, MacCoon, Vaughn, & Sadeh, 2005).
Procedure. First, the data from the replication sample were
subjected to LPA analogous to the LPA described in Experiment 1
for the development sample (i.e., replication; see Figure 1b).
Subsequently, and following the suggestion of Linda Muthén
(personal communication, April 12, 2013), the latent class proba-
bilities for the replication sample data set were estimated again
based on the fixed parameter estimates obtained with the 1,451
offenders from the development sample (see see Appendix A
within online supplemental material).2 This method assigned of-
379
Pairwise comparisons between latent classes
LC3 (Cohen’s d)
M (SD) 1 vs. 2 1 vs. 3 2 vs. 3
n ⫽ 216 [37]
4.8 (1.5) [5.6 (1.6)] 0.58 [0.73] 0.90 [0.22] 0.32 [0.51]
4.8 (0.9) [4.1 (1.0)] 0.06 [0.21] 2.17 [2.89] 2.22 [2.68]
8.3 (1.4) [8.3 (1.3)] 0.09 [0.41] 0.25 [0.05] 0.34 [0.37]
8.5 (1.1) [8.2 (1.1)] 2.58 [2.84] 2.46 [2.18] 0.12 [0.68]
fenders from the Wisconsin replication sample to three latent
classes. Consequently, the profiles for the latent classes were the
same as those depicted in Figure 1a. The three latent classes were
labeled in the same way as in the development sample: LC1, LC2,
and LC3 (i.e., external classification). Finally, we used the Wis-
consin data to explore several broad assumptions about how the
three latent classes might differ on certain external variables (i.e.,
validation). The restricted range of the PCL-R scores (27– 40) used
to generate the latent classes likely served to reduce the strength of
these associations. Nonetheless, we expected that the latent classes
derived from the external classification would differ from one
another in their associations with some of the external variables,
particularly education, intelligence, and measures of antisociality
and affect. First, we expected psychopathic variants (i.e., manip-
ulative and aggressive psychopaths) to differ from each other in
terms of education, IQ, symptoms of ASPD, and self-reported
criminal tendencies. More specifically, we expected higher aver-
age levels of education and IQ for manipulative psychopaths than
for aggressive psychopaths, whereas ASPD symptom load and
self-reported criminal tendencies should be, on average, higher
among aggressive psychopaths than among manipulative ones.
Second, we assumed that there would be meaningful differences
between psychopaths (i.e., manipulative and aggressive variants,
or LC1 and LC2, combined), on the one hand, and sociopaths (i.e.,
LC3), on the other. More specifically, we hypothesized that psy-
chopaths would display lower mean scores than sociopaths on
self-report measures of negative affectivity and behavioral disin-
hibition, whereas the reverse would be true for a self-report scale
of Callous Affect.
Education and IQ. The external demographic variables in-
cluded years of education and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–
Revised (Wechsler, 1981) Full Scale IQ estimated from the revised
Shipley Institute of Living Scale (Zachary, 1986).
ASPD symptoms. ASPD symptom count was indexed accord-
ing to the total number of corresponding Diagnostic and Statistical
2
The supplemental materials provide an alternative allocation algorithm
based on R for researchers who do not have access to Mplus. Note that the
R algorithm is a quadratic classification function that rests on manifest
cluster allocations in the first place. The differences between the algorithms
in Appendixes A and B within the supplemental material seem negligible,
though: The correlations between the corresponding posterior probabilities
were around .98 for all three latent classes, and Cohen’s kappa for agree-
ment was .96 for manifest allocation.
 380 MOKROS ET AL.
Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (American Psychiatric
Association, 2000), criteria fulfilled.
Welsh Anxiety Scale. The Welsh Anxiety Scale (WAS;
Welsh, 1956) is a 39-item inventory (true/false) that yields infor-
mation on four scales: Trouble Concentrating; Negative Affect;
Low Energy/Pessimism; and Personal Sensitivity (cf. Newman et
al., 2005). Newman and colleagues (e.g., Newman et al., 2005;
Zeier & Newman, 2013) routinely use WAS scores to subdivide
offenders with high PCL-R scores into primary (low anxiety) and
secondary (high anxiety) psychopathy groups. We used the WAS
total score as a measure of anxiety and negative affect.
Behavioral Inhibition System. The Behavioral Inhibition Sys-
tem (BIS; Carver & White, 1994) was used to assess sensitivity to
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
aversive stimuli based on seven items. Each of the seven items is
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
scored on an ordinal rating scale, ranging from 1 (strongly agree)
to 4 (strongly disagree). Wallace, Malterer, and Newman (2009)
reported that BIS scores negatively correlate with PCL-R Factor 1
(Interpersonal/Affective) scores.
Self-Report Psychopathy Scale. The Self-Report Psychopathy
Scale⫺III (SRP-III; Neumann & Pardini, 2014; Paulhus, Neu-
mann, & Hare, in press) consists of 64 items, each scored on
5-point scale, ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree
strongly). It has a stable four-factor structure similar to that of the
PCL-R (Neal & Sellbom, 2012; Neumann & Pardini, 2014). The
labels for the factors are Interpersonal Manipulation, Callous Af-
fect, Erratic Lifestyle, and Criminal Tendencies. The conceptual
and empirical associations between the SRP-III and PCL-R factors
are well-established (Neumann, Hare, & Pardini, 2014; Paulhus et
al., in press).
Statistical analyses. We conducted a series of seven planned
comparisons in which either manipulative psychopaths were com-
pared with aggressive ones (i.e., LC1 vs. LC2) or in which psy-
chopaths were compared with sociopaths (i.e., LC1/LC2 pooled
vs. LC3). For these comparisons, the family wise error rate (FWE)
for the Type I error was set at .05 (one-sided) using the sequential
Bonferroni adjustment by Holm (1979). Mean differences were
tested for statistical significance using parametric independent-
samples t tests. Because some of the variables were not distributed
normally according to a Kolmogorov–Smirnov goodness-of-fit
test, all independent-samples t tests were carried out in a nonpara-
metric way. For this purpose, permutation tests were used, each
with 10,000 draws for the Monte Carlo. We also were interested in
how LC1, LC2, and LC3 differed from each other. For this reason,
we conducted the full set of pairwise comparisons in an explor-
atory manner (i.e., without adjusting p values for multiple testing).
Results
The outcome of the replication analysis is described in Table 1
(bottom). The results of the LRT of Lo et al. (2001) pointed to a
solution with two latent classes, whereas the BIC indicated that
a three-latent-classes solution was superior. Choosing the latter as
a frame of reference (in line with the number of classes chosen for
the development sample), the average probabilities for most likely
latent class membership were all in excess of .80 (see Table 2,
bottom). Assigning cases to manifest clusters based on their prob-
abilities of most likely latent class membership yielded clusters
that consisted of 96 offenders (19.3% of the replication sample),
364 offenders (73.2% of the replication sample), and 37 offenders
(7.4% of the replication sample), respectively. These values are
close to those obtained in the development sample (19.8%, 65.3%,
and 14.9 for LC1, LC2, and LC3, respectively). As Table 3
indicates, the means and standard deviations of the corresponding
latent classes in the development and replication samples were
nearly on par. The respective means differed by 0.5 SD or more in
only two cases (i.e., the Interpersonal and Affective factors of
LC3), whereas the average difference (in standard deviation units)
was 0.18 for the remaining comparisons, which is a very small
effect.
Figure 1b shows the outcome of the LPA for the replication
sample. As visual inspection shows, there was considerable over-
lap with the results from the development sample (see Figure 1a).
Calculating the Euclidean distances between the profiles ob-
tained from the development sample, on the one hand, and the
replication sample, on the other, the corresponding profiles
clearly had the smallest distances from each other, with values
of 0.45 (manipulative psychopaths), 0.64 (aggressive psycho-
paths), and 1.11 (sociopaths), respectively. The Euclidean dis-
tances of the cross-modal pairings (e.g., comparing manipula-
tive psychopaths from the development sample with sociopaths
from the replication sample) consistently yielded larger values,
from 2.05⫺3.77. Judging from the Euclidean distances, the
latent class of manipulative psychopaths is preserved best in the
replication study because it has the smallest Euclidean distance,
followed by the aggressive psychopaths and the sociopathic
cluster (in this order). The only major discrepancy concerns the
Interpersonal factor between the last two: There is a reversal of
the aggressive psychopath and sociopath groups in this regard.
Although aggressive psychopaths on average had higher scores
on the Interpersonal factor than sociopaths in the development
sample (d ⫽ 0.58), the converse was true for the replication
sample (d ⫽ ⫺0.51).
When the cases from the replication sample were allocated to
latent classes following the specifications for the development
sample described in Experiment 1 (i.e., external classification), 82
of 497 cases (16.5% of the replication sample) were assigned to
LC1, with a mean posterior probability of cluster membership of
0.84 (SD ⫽ 0.17; range: 0.38⫺1.00). About two thirds (n ⫽ 341
[68.8%]) were assigned to LC2, at an average posterior probability
of class membership of 0.90 (SD ⫽ 0.12; range: 0.48⫺1.00).
Finally, 73 cases (14.7% of the sample) were allocated to LC3,
with a mean allocation probability of 0.77 (SD ⫽ 0.18; range:
0.48⫺1.00). Maximum class allocation probabilities were rela-
tively high and on par with those obtained in the development
sample, listed in Table 2 (top).
To assess the degree of overlap between the internal classifica-
tion based on an LPA of the Wisconsin replication sample (see
above) and this external classification, the outcome of both solu-
tions was compared. The majority of cases (88.7% [n ⫽ 441])
were allocated to corresponding clusters (i.e., LC1/LC1, LC2/LC2,
or LC3/LC3). Cohen’s kappa coefficient of agreement between the
two allocation routines calculated to .751, 90% confidence interval
[.69, .81]—a value that indicates an excellent level of agreement
(Fleiss, 1981).
Mean (standard deviation) PCL-R total scores for offenders in
LC1, LC2, and LC3 were 29.7 (2.2), 31.3 (2.6), and 29.1 (1.9),
respectively. These values are very close to those obtained for the
three latent classes in the development sample. We used the cluster
 VARIANTS OF PSYCHOPATHY 381

Table 4
External Classification Results: Mean (SD) Scores of the Three Clusters and Pairwise Comparisons (Cohen’s d) for Each
External Variable

Latent Class 1 Latent Class 2 Latent Class 3 1 vs. 2 1 vs. 3 2 vs. 3

a a
Variables M SD n M SD n M SD n d d da

Education (years) 10.96 1.43 81 9.81 1.74 338 10.10 1.43 71 0.68 0.60 0.17
Estimated IQ 98.80 11.42 76 96.26 12.29 323 96.64 14.45 71 0.21 0.17 0.03
BIS 17.67 3.53 51 17.53 3.93 197 17.82 3.58 44 0.04 0.04 0.07
WAS 11.93 6.99 44 13.39 9.32 160 17.20 9.11 40 0.17 0.66 0.41
ASPD symptoms
Total 8.88 2.80 82 12.07 3.31 342 11.67 3.14 72 0.99 0.94 0.12
Adult 5.37 1.34 82 5.58 1.19 342 5.40 1.11 72 0.17 0.02 0.15
CD 1–7 (Aggressive) 1.11 1.14 82 2.40 1.60 342 2.10 1.31 72 0.85 0.81 0.19
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

CD 8–15 (Antisocial) 2.40 1.67 82 4.09 2.00 342 4.17 1.76 72 0.87 1.03 0.04
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

SRP-III
Interpersonal Manipulation 47.19 15.46 31 52.17 14.83 145 51.90 13.89 29 0.33 0.32 0.02
Callous Affect 39.48 7.34 31 40.97 7.33 145 39.21 8.47 29 0.20 0.03 0.23
Erratic Life Style 53.29 9.54 31 56.48 8.03 145 55.76 7.14 29 0.38 0.29 0.09
Criminal Tendencies 45.84 8.99 31 51.76 8.14 145 54.66 7.35 29 0.71 1.08 0.36
Total score 185.81 31.02 31 201.38 26.98 145 201.52 27.35 29 0.56 0.54 0.01
Note. Variables from planned comparisons (see main body of text) are highlighted in boldface. Variables not included in the planned comparisons are
given for completeness. ASPD ⫽ antisocial personality disorder; BIS ⫽ Behavioral Inhibition Scale; CD ⫽ ASPD conduct disorder symptoms; SRP-III ⫽
Self-Report Psychopathy–III scale; WAS ⫽ Welsh Anxiety Scale.
a
Cohen’s d effect size measure (mean difference in pooled SD units).

allocation based on the external classification method as a frame-
work for the validation analyses (see below) because it provides a
more rigorous test than any clustering based on an internal anal-
ysis. External classification entails the transfer of a prescription to
a new sample (i.e., from the development to the replication sam-
ple) whereas an internal analysis would run the risk of capitalizing
on the specifics of the replication sample itself.
Table 4 contains the mean (standard deviation) scores of the
three clusters on each of the external variables. In the following,
the notation p ⬍ FWE represents statistical p values from permu-
tation t tests for the planned comparisons that turned out to be
smaller than the adjusted p values according to an FWE of .05. As
far as the expected differences among the psychopathic variants
are concerned, all mean differences were in the expected direction.
On average, manipulative psychopaths had more years of educa-
tion (d ⫽ 0.68, t ⫽ 5.50, p ⬍ .001 ⬍ FWE) and a higher IQ than
aggressive psychopaths (d ⫽ 0.21, t ⫽ 1.64, p ⫽ .050, ns), whereas
the aggressive psychopaths had a higher ASPD symptom count
(d ⫽ 0.99, t ⫽ ⫺8.05, p ⬍ .001 ⬍ FWE) and a higher mean score
on the SRP-III Criminal Tendencies subscale than the former (d ⫽
0.71, t ⫽ ⫺3.61, p ⬍ .001 ⬍ FWE).
Regarding the presumed differences between psychopaths, on
the one hand (i.e., LC1/LC2 pooled), and sociopaths (LC3), on the
other, all mean differences were in the expected direction, but only
one was statistically significant. Sociopaths had a higher mean
score on the BIS (d ⫽ 0.07, t ⫽ ⫺0.42, p ⫽ .326, ns) and the WAS
(d ⫽ 0.46, t ⫽ ⫺2.67, p ⫽ .004 ⬍ FWE) than did the psychopaths,
whereas the psychopaths on average had higher scores than the
former on the SRP-III Callous Affect subscale (d ⫽ 0.20, t ⫽ 1.00,
p ⫽ .164, ns).
In sum, all planned comparisons, except one (behavioral disin-
hibition), entailed at least small effect sizes in the expected direc-
tion, but only four of seven was statistically significant after
Bonferroni correction. The largest effects were observed for anti-
sociality (ASPD symptom count, Criminal Tendencies), followed
by years of education and negative affectivity (WAS), with small
effects for IQ and Callous Affect.
Discussion
In Experiment 2, we attempted to cross-validate the classifica-
tion model derived in the development sample, using a new sample
of male offenders with PCL-R scores of at least 27. First, a
separate LPA carried out on the replication sample was commen-
surate with the results for the development sample even though
there was some ambiguity of fit indices concerning whether a two-
or three-latent-classes solution was preferable. Settling on the
solution with three latent classes, the allocation probabilities for
the most appropriate cluster were as high as they were in the
development sample, attesting to the reliability of the classification
routine. Furthermore, the relative frequencies of cluster allocation
reflected those from the development sample. More cogently, the
cluster profiles were highly similar in both instances, as evidenced
by their respective Euclidean distances. Finally, the overlap be-
tween classifications derived from the internal analysis of the
replication sample and an external analysis using the specifications
from the development sample showed a very high level of agree-
ment. Consequently, the distinction between manipulative and
aggressive psychopaths and between sociopaths appears to be
robust and replicable.
Second, planned comparisons between the groups derived from
external classification highlighted several meaningful differences
that were generally consistent with the descriptive labels suggested
for the clusters. As expected, manipulative psychopaths were more
educated than aggressive ones, but the two had relatively similar
IQ scores. Mirroring the strongest difference between the two
clusters on the PCL-R factors (i.e., Antisocial), the most pro-
nounced differences were observed for the ASPD symptom count
 382 MOKROS ET AL.
and self-reported Criminal Tendencies, with aggressive psycho-
paths having higher average scores on these measures than ma-
nipulative psychopaths, by medium-to-large effect sizes. Although
both the PCL-R Antisocial factor and the ASPD criteria partly rely
on the same information, the occurrence of a difference on a
self-report scale (i.e., Criminal Tendencies) supports the distinc-
tion between the two clusters in terms of social deviance.
The differences observed between the psychopathic variants and
the sociopathic cluster, however, were weaker. Only one of three
corresponding hypotheses (concerning greater negative affectivity
of sociopaths) could be upheld, whereas neither a higher BIS for
sociopaths (as expected, for instance, based on the work of New-
man et al., 2005; but see critique by Poythress et al., 2008; and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
response by Newman & Malterer, 2009), nor a higher score of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
psychopaths on self-reported Callous Affect could be substantiated
by statistical significance. It is conceivable, though, that the dif-
ferences between psychopaths and sociopaths would be more
considerable if individuals with lower PCL-R total scores than in
the present sample were scrutinized as well.
Surprisingly, the mean score of manipulative psychopaths on the
SRP-III Manipulative factor was somewhat lower than that of the
other groups, perhaps suggesting that the offenders in the former
were more adept than others at controlling their responses to items
that tap deception and manipulation. In a meta-analysis, Ray et al.
(2013) did not find a positive linear association between self-rated
psychopathic traits and response distortion in research studies. The
findings of Ray et al. (2013), however, may not generalize to
assessment in real-world clinical settings, especially forensic set-
tings, in which there may be incentives for response distortion. In
the present study, it is plausible that the individuals in LC1 were
more careful in monitoring their responses to the SRP items than
were those in LC2 or LC3. Still, the self-report inventories we used
were not impressive in their ability to discriminate among latent
classes. As suggested above, this may also be because we were
dealing with a sample of offenders at the upper end of the psy-
chopathy continuum, with the reduced variance making it difficult
to uncover associations between the latent classes and external
variables.3
General Discussion
This article describes two sets of analyses on putative variants of
psychopathy in male offenders. Our purpose was to clarify and
possibly reconcile the sometimes confusing findings and positions
reported in the literature. Using a large sample of individuals with
high levels of psychopathic (PCL-R) traits, we first identified three
latent classes: LC1, LC2, and LC3. LC1 and LC2 mirror early
clinical conceptualizations of psychopathy, akin to the aggressive/
predatory/simple and passive/parasitic/complex types described by
Karpman (1955) and Arieti (1963). We labeled LC1 and LC2 as,
respectively, manipulative and aggressive variants of psychopathy.
These two variants of psychopathy may reflect different modes of
adaptive behavior that are plausible from sociobiological and
developmental perspectives (Book & Quinsey, 2004; Harpending
& Sobus, 1987; Hicks et al., 2004; Mealey, 1995b). That is,
individuals in LC1 and LC2 may differ primarily in the strategies
with which they attain their goals, those in LC1 more through
manipulation and deception, and those in LC2 more through ag-
gression and force. In this respect, their interactions with society
would be in line with the cheater and warrior-hawk strategies
described by Book and Quinsey (2004). Presumably, these are not
mutually exclusive (or exhaustive) strategies, but rather more a
matter of preference or emphasis influenced by interactions be-
tween the immediate context and personal characteristics, such as
physical appearance, verbal facility, intelligence, and social back-
ground. Psychopaths may be able to draw on a repertoire of
behaviors that is wider and less encumbered by emotional and
conventional mores than is the case with most people. That is,
charm, manipulation, and persuasion readily give way to intimi-
dation, threats, and violence, according to the nature of the situa-
tion.
The third latent class, LC3, is reminiscent of the concepts of
secondary psychopathy, sociopathy, and ASPD, and seems to
represent an entity different from LC1 and LC2. Whereas the
latter can be conceived of as variants of prototypical, primary or
idiopathic psychopathy, LC3 was characterized by social devi-
ance, but not by the affective features integral to psychopathy.
The appearance of this latent class was largely a consequence of
the relatively low PCL-R threshold (27) set for psychopathy. It
did not appear when the threshold was raised to 30 (see Foot-
note 1). The warrior-hawk strategy may not be limited to
aggressive psychopaths but may also be prevalent among so-
ciopaths, as suggested by Mealey’s (1995b) theory. This is
reflected by both aggressive psychopaths and sociopaths dis-
playing high trait levels of social deviance or antisociality,
according to both observer ratings and self-report.
The latent classes identified in this study bear some resemblance
to several of the classes obtained in previous studies that used
similar model testing methodology and similar samples of psycho-
pathic male offenders, although somewhat different variables
(Hicks et al., 2004; Poythress et al., 2010; Skeem et al., 2007). For
example, Hicks et al. (2004) applied model-based cluster analysis
to the scores of self-report personality inventories obtained from
male offenders with scores of at least 30 on the PCL-R. They
labeled the two latent classes that emerged as emotionally stable
psychopaths and aggressive psychopaths, respectively. As in the
present study, aggressive psychopaths were more abundant than
emotionally stable (or manipulative) ones. We found a ratio of
about 1:3 whereas Hicks et al. noted a ratio of about 1:2 between
manipulative (emotionally stable) and aggressive psychopaths.
Two of the four clusters described by Hervé (2007), namely,
manipulative and macho, were similar to LC1 and LC2, respec-
tively, in this study, while a third cluster (pseudopsychopathic)
resembled LC3.
The Wisconsin data set allowed us to start testing the viability of
our latent class model, first by showing that the variants obtained
in the development sample could be identified in an independent
sample, and second by demonstrating that there were several
expected differences among classes in their associations with
external variables. Of course, our efforts at external validation
were based as much on the availability of variables as on their
theoretical plausibility. Nonetheless, the results were encouraging
3
For example, the correlation (r) between the SRP-III and PCL-R total
scores was .54 for the total sample of 549 offenders in the Wisconsin
external validation dataset (i.e., PCL-R total score range: 2⫺39). When
only the 206 offenders with a PCL-R score of 27 or higher were used, the
correlation (r) between the SRP-III and the PCL-R dropped to .33.
 VARIANTS OF PSYCHOPATHY
and should lead to attempts by other researchers to replicate and
test our latent class model with diverse samples and an array of
relevant variables. Because of the dramatic increase in research on
psychopathy and use of the PCL-R over the past decade or so,
many large sample data sets are available to evaluate both the
structure and the correlates of our latent class model.
For instance, the observed differences between psychopaths and
sociopaths in terms of emotional facilitation effects in lexical
decision tasks, as measured by response latencies and event-related
brain potentials (Kosson, Lorenz, & Newman, 2006; Verona,
Sprague, & Sadeh, 2012; Williamson, Harpur, & Hare, 1991),
should also become apparent if the present classification algorithm
was adopted. Particularly interesting would be research that looks
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
at the latent classes through the lenses of, for example, molecular/
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
behavioral genetics and gene⫺environment interactions (Eme,
2013; Viding & McCrory, 2012), developmental psychopathology
(Frick, Ray, Thornton, & Kahn, 2014; Lynam & Gudonis, 2005),
aggression (Blair, 2010; Glenn & Raine, 2009), cognitive⫺emo-
tional integration (Brook, Brieman, & Kosson, 2013; Hare, 1998;
Newman et al., 2006), attentional processes (Zeier & Newman,
2013), and neuroimaging (Anderson & Kiehl, 2013; Boccardi,
2013). In terms of molecular genetics, it would be intriguing to test
the supposition of Viding and McCrory (2012) that different
alleles might be at play with regard to the psychopathic variants
(LC1 and LC2), on the one hand, and the sociopathic/antisocial
variant (LC3), on the other. The long allele variant (rs25531) at the
promoter region (5HTTLPR) of the serotonin transporter gene
(SLC6A4) may be more prevalent among LC1/LC2 psychopaths
than among LC3 sociopaths (cf. Glenn, 2011), for instance. In
contrast, the low-activity polymorphism of the monoamine oxidase
A gene (MAOA-L) may be more strongly associated with LC3
given the link between this polymorphism and reactive aggression
(Buckholtz & Meyer-Lindenberg, 2008). Indeed, Sadeh, Javdani,
and Verona (2013) recently reported an association between the
long-allele polymorphism (5-HTT) at the serotonin transporter
gene promoter region with the Affective factor of the Psychopathy
Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV; Hart, Cox, & Hare, 1995)
and a link between MAOA-L and the Lifestyle factor of the
PCL:SV in a forensic sample.4
Various personal and demographic variables also may contrib-
ute to different behavioral styles and strategies among the latent
classes. Individuals in LC1 may be more physically and personally
attractive, better educated, more intelligent, or verbally facile, and
less likely to have come from a disadvantaged or abusive back-
ground, than are those in LC2 or LC3. Presumably, such individ-
uals akin to LC1 are more likely to be attracted to and successful
in the corporate and political worlds than are those in the other
latent classes (Babiak & Hare, 2006; Babiak, Neumann, & Hare,
2010). As an aid for future research, the supplemental materials
provide the code for allocation routines in Mplus or R toward the
latent classes presented herein (see Footnote 2).
Limitations
There are several limitations to the present study. Because we
lacked information on adverse or traumatic experiences of the
individuals in the sample, we could not test hypotheses that would
follow from Mealey’s (1995b) etiological speculations about psy-
chopathy and sociopathy. Also, for the current analyses, we had
383
very limited data on correlates that should be relevant to evaluating
our model. However, many other researchers will have the data
needed to test our model and to examine in detail its external
correlates.
The present study dealt exclusively with adult male offenders.
Similar analyses should be conducted with female offenders
(Hicks et al., 2010; Lee & Salekin, 2010), possibly testing sex-
limitation models within behavioral genetics, following Mealey’s
(1995b) suggestions.
The latent class analyses identified in this study were based
on the dimensions of a single measure of psychopathy, the
PCL-R. However, it seems more reasonable to conduct an LPA
on empirically derived dimensions of psychopathy than to in-
clude other dimensions or variables (especially self-reports)
with uncertain or hypothetical relevance to psychopathy. Thus,
we sought to identify clusters derived from the PCL-R alone,
and to evaluate their relevance by comparing them on other
correlates (as was done by Hicks et al., 2004). An added
advantage of limiting the dependent variables for clustering to
the PCL-R factors is that many researchers already have such
data, making it relatively easy for them to use the classification
algorithm from Appendix A within the online supplemental
material to test a variety of hypotheses about the external
correlates of our model.
The generalizability of our latent class model and its correlates
readily can be evaluated in extant samples of adolescent and
female offenders, forensic and civil psychiatric patients, and mem-
bers of the community. We believe that initial evaluations of our
model should be based on similar four-factor models of psychop-
athy. This would allow researchers to work from a common
framework, thereby facilitating comparisons across conceptually
similar studies. This also would allow researchers to compare our
latent class model with those obtained from the use of other
measures of psychopathy, including those that are based on or
include self-reports. Psychopathic variants should become appar-
ent when looking at the traits that constitute psychopathy measured
in other reliable ways.
As a final point, our model is based on analysis of offenders
with very high PCL-R scores. This approach allowed us to inden-
tify meaningful variants of psychopathy. An alternative approach
involves LPA of an entire distribution of psychopathy scores, thus
allowing for the emergence of a variety of clinical profiles. Either
approach would be useful to clinicians and researchers, depending
on whether they are interested in a nuanced description of indi-
viduals with high PCL-R scores or in obtaining a general picture of
the entire set of individuals. This issue is beyond the scope of the
current article, but is discussed in detail elsewhere (Hare, Neu-
mann, & Mokros, in press).
4
PCL-R total scores typically vary from about 3⫺10 among various
samples of noncriminals, with scores on its four factors being proportion-
ately lower (Hare, 2003, pp. 52-53). Additionally, a derivative of the
PCL-R, the 12-item PCL:SV (Hart et al., 1995) is conceptually and
empirically equivalent to the 20-item PCL-R, making it possible to esti-
mate PCL-R scores from PCL:SV scores by multiplying the latter by
20/12 ⫽ 1.67 (see Hare et al., 2013, p. 238). For example, Neumann and
Hare (2008) obtained a mean PCL:SV score of 3.5 for a community male
sample. The PCL-R score “equivalent” to this PCL:SV score is 5.9.
 384 MOKROS ET AL.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Anderson, N. E., & Kiehl, K. A. (2013). Functional neuroimaging and
psychopathy. In K. A. Kiehl & W. P. Sinnott-Armstrong (Eds.), Hand-
book on psychopathy and law (pp. 131–149). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Arieti, S. (1963). Psychopathic personality: Some views on its psychopa-
thology and psychodynamics. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 4, 301–312.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-440X(63)80056-5
Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to
work. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Babiak, P., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2010). Corporate psychopathy:
Talking the walk. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 174 –193.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Baskin-Sommers, A. R., Baskin, D. R., Sommers, I. B., & Newman, J. P.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(2013). The intersectionality of sex, race, and psychopathology in pre-
dicting violent crimes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 1068 –1091.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854813485412
Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2004). The integration of continuous and
discrete latent variable models: Potential problems and promising op-
portunities. Psychological Methods, 9, 3–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
1082-989X.9.1.3
Beauchaine, T. P. (2003). Taxometrics and developmental psychopathol-
ogy. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 501–527. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/S0954579403000270
Blackburn, R. (2009). Subtypes of psychopath. In M. McMurran (Ed.),
Personality, personality disorder and violence: An evidence based ap-
proach (pp. 113–132). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Blair, R. J. R. (2010). Psychopathy, frustration, and reactive aggression:
The role of ventromedial prefrontal cortex. British Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 101, 383–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712609X418480
Boccardi, M. (2013). Structural brain abnormalities and psychopathy. In
K. A. Kiehl & W. P. Sinnott-Armstrong (Eds.), Handbook on psychop-
athy and law (pp. 150 –157). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bolt, D. M., Hare, R. D., Vitale, J. E., & Newman, J. P. (2004). A
multigroup item response theory analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist–
Revised. Psychological Assessment, 16, 155–168. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/1040-3590.16.2.155
Book, A. S., & Quinsey, V. L. (2004). Psychopaths: Cheaters or warrior
hawks? Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 33– 45. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00049-7
Brook, M., Brieman, C. L., & Kosson, D. S. (2013). Emotion processing in
Psychopathy Checklist⫺assessed psychopathy: A review of the litera-
ture. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 979 –995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cpr.2013.07.008
Buckholtz, J. W., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2008). MAOA and the neu-
rogenetic architecture of human aggression. Trends in Neurosciences,
31, 120 –129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2007.12.006
Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully ex-
plain personality and individual differences? Perspectives on Psycho-
logical Science, 4, 359 –366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009
.01138.x
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral
activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment:
The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
319 –333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
Claes, L., Tavernier, G., Roose, A., Bijttebier, P., Smith, S. F., & Lilien-
feld, S. O. (2014). Identifying personality subtypes based on the five-
factor model dimensions in male prisoners: Implications for psychopa-
thy and criminal offending. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 58, 41–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0306624X12462013
Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Cleckley, H. (1964). The mask of sanity (4th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity (5th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Conger, A. J., & Lipshitz, R. (1973). Measures of reliability for profiles
and test batteries. Psychometrika, 38, 411– 427. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/BF02291663
Drislane, L. E., Patrick, C. J., Sourander, A., Sillanmäki, L., Aggen, S. H.,
Elonheimo, H., . . . Kendler, K. S. (2014). Distinct variants of extreme
psychopathic individuals in society at large: Evidence from a
population-based sample. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and
Treatment, 5, 154 –163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000060
Eme, R. (2013). MAOA and male antisocial behavior: A review. Aggres-
sion and Violent Behavior, 18, 395–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb
.2013.02.001
Eysenck, H. J. (1995). Psychopathology: Type or trait? Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 18, 555–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00039765
Falkenbach, D., Poythress, N., & Creevy, C. (2008). The exploration of
subclinical psychopathic subtypes and the relationship with types of
aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 821– 832. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.012
Falkenbach, D. M., Stern, S. B., & Creevy, C. (2014). Psychopathy
variants: Empirical evidence supporting a subtyping model in a com-
munity sample. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treat-
ment, 5, 10 –19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000021
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Wiley.
Forth, A. E., Bo, S., & Kongerslev, M. (2013). Assessment of psychopathy:
The Hare Psychopathy Checklists. In K. A. Kiehl & W. P. Sinnott-
Armstrong (Eds.), Handbook on psychopathy and law (pp. 5–33). New
York, NY: 4 Oxford University Press.
Fraley, C., & Raftery, A. E. (2002). Model-based clustering, discriminant
analysis, and density estimation. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 97, 611–631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1198/016214502760047131
Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2014). Can
callous-unemotional traits enhance the understanding, diagnosis, and
treatment of serious conduct problems in children and adolescents? A
comprehensive review. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1–57. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0033076
Glenn, A. L. (2011). The other allele: Exploring the long allele of the
serotonin transporter gene as a potential risk factor for psychopathy: A
review of the parallels in findings. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral
Reviews, 35, 612– 620. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.07
.005
Glenn, A. L., & Raine, A. (2009). Psychopathy and instrumental aggres-
sion: Evolutionary, neurobiological, and legal perspectives. Interna-
tional Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32, 253–258. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.04.002
Hare, R. D. (1970). Psychopathy: Theory and research. New York, NY:
Wiley.
Hare, R. D. (1998). Psychopathy, affect, and behavior. In D. Cooke, A.
Forth, & R. Hare (Eds.), Psychopathy: Theory, research, and implica-
tions for society (pp. 105–137). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3965-6_6
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist⫺Revised (2nd ed.).
Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D., Black, P., & Walsh, Z. (2013). The PCL-R: Forensic appli-
cations and limitations. In R. P. Archer & E. M. Archer (Eds.), Forensic
uses of clinical assessment instruments (2nd ed., pp. 266 –290). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2006). The PCL-R assessment of psy-
chopathy: Development, structural properties, and new directions. In
C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 58 – 88). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
 VARIANTS OF PSYCHOPATHY
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and
empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217–246.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452
Hare, R. D., Neumann, C. S., & Mokros, A. (in press). The PCL-R
assessment of psychopathy: Development, properties, debates, and new
directions. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hare, R. D., Neumann, C. S., & Widiger, T. A. (2012). Psychopathy. In
T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of personality disorders (pp.
478 –504). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Harpending, H., & Sobus, J. (1987). Sociopathy as an adaptation. Ethology
and Sociobiology, 8(Supp.), 63–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0162-
3095(87)90019-7
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Hilton, N. Z., Lalumiére, M. L., & Quinsey,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
V. L. (2007). Coercive and precocious sexuality as a fundamental aspect
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
of psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 1–27. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2007.21.1.1
Hart, S. D., Cox, D. N., & Hare, R. D. (1995). Manual for the Psychopathy
Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV). Toronto, ON: Multi-Health
Systems.
Herpertz, S. C., & Sass, H. (2000). Emotional deficiency and psychopathy.
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18, 567–580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
1099-0798(200010)18:5⬍567::AID-BSL410⬎3.0.CO;2-8
Hervé, H. (2007). Psychopathic subtypes: Historical and contemporary
perspectives. In J. C. Yuille & H. Hervé (Eds.), The psychopath: Theory,
research, and practice (pp. 431– 460). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hervé, H., & Yuille, J. C. (Eds.). (2007). The psychopath: Theory, re-
search, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hicks, B. M., Markon, K. E., Patrick, C. J., Krueger, R. F., & Newman,
J. P. (2004). Identifying psychopathy subtypes on the basis of person-
ality structure. Psychological Assessment, 16, 276 –288. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.276
Hicks, B. M., Vaidyanathan, U., & Patrick, C. J. (2010). Validating female
psychopathy subtypes: Differences in personality, antisocial and violent
behavior, substance abuse, trauma, and mental health. Personality Dis-
orders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1, 38 –57. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0018135
Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure.
Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70. Retrieved from http://
www.jstor.org/stable/4615733
Karpman, B. (1929). The problem of psychopathies. Psychiatric Quarterly,
3, 495–525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01585441
Karpman, B. (1941). On the need of separating psychopathy into distinct
clinical types: The symptomatic and the idiopathic. Journal of Criminal
Psychopathology, 3, 112–137.
Karpman, B. (1948). The myth of the psychopathic personality. The
American Journal of Psychiatry, 104, 523–534. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1176/appi.ajp.104.9.523
Karpman, B. (1955). Criminal psychodynamics: A platform. Archives of
Criminal Psychodynamics, 1, 3–100.
Kass, R., & Raftery, A. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 90, 773–795. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01621459.1995.10476572
Kiehl, K. A., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (Eds.). (2013). Oxford handbook on
psychopathy and the law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kosson, D. S., Lorenz, A. R., & Newman, J. P. (2006). Effects of comorbid
psychopathy on criminal offending and emotion processing in male
offenders with antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 115, 798 – 806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.115.4
.798
Kupzyk, K. A. (2011). Introduction to mixture modeling. Retrieved from
http://r2ed.unl.edu/presentations/2011/RMS/012111_Kupzyk/
012111_Kupzyk.pdf
385
Lee, Z., & Salekin, R. T. (2010). Psychopathy in a noninstitutional sample:
Differences in primary and secondary subtypes. Personality Disorders:
Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1, 153–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0019269
Lo, Y., Mendell, N., & Rubin, D. (2001). Testing the number of compo-
nents in a normal mixture. Biometrika, 88, 767–778. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/biomet/88.3.767
Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lynam, D. R., & Gudonis, L. (2005). The development of psychopathy.
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 381– 407. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.144019
Mardia, K. V. (1974). Applications of some measures of multivariate
skewness and kurtosis in testing normality and robustness studies.
Sankhya៮ : The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series B, 36, 115–128. Re-
trieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25051892
McCord, W., & McCord, J. (1964). The psychopath: An essay on the
criminal mind. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand.
McLachlan, G., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York, NY:
Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471721182
Mealey, L. (1995a). Primary sociopathy (psychopathy) is a type, secondary
is not. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 579 –599. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/S0140525X00040024
Mealey, L. (1995b). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evo-
lutionary model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 523–540. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00039595
Millon, T., Krueger, R. F., & Simonsen, E. (2010). Contemporary direc-
tions in psychopathology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2011). Mplus (Version 6.12 for Mac)
[Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
Neal, T. M. S., & Sellbom, M. (2012). Examining the factor structure of the
Hare Self-Report Psychopathy Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment,
94, 244 –253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.648294
Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2008). Psychopathic traits in a large
community sample: Links to violence, alcohol use, and intelligence.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 893– 899. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.76.5.893
Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Newman, J. P. (2007). The super-ordinate
nature of the Psychopathy Checklist⫺Revised. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 21, 102–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2007.21.2.102
Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Pardini, D. A. (2014). Antisociality and the
construct of psychopathy: Data from across the globe. Journal of Per-
sonality. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopy
.12127
Neumann, C. S., & Pardini, D. (2014). Factor structure and construct
validity of the Self-Report Psychopathy (SRP) scale and the Youth
Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI) in young men. Journal of Person-
ality Disorders, 28, 419–433. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2012_26_063
Newman, J. P., MacCoon, D. G., Buckholtz, J., Bertsch, J., Hiatt, K. D., &
Vaughn, L. J. (2006). Deficient integration of top-down and bottom-up
influences on attention in psychopaths: Potential contribution of the
septal-hippocampal system. In D. Barch (Ed.), Cognitive and affective
neuroscience of psychopathology. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Newman, J. P., MacCoon, D. G., Vaughn, L. J., & Sadeh, N. (2005).
Validating a distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy
with measures of Gray’s BIS and BAS constructs. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 114, 319 –323.
Newman, J. P., & Malterer, M. B. (2009). Problems with the BIS/BAS
scales or Lykken’s model of primary psychopathy? A reply to Poythress
et al. (2008). Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 673– 677.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.037
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the
number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling:
 386 MOKROS ET AL.
A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14,
535–569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
Patrick, C. J. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of psychopathy. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Patrick, C. J., Curtin, J. J., & Tellegen, A. (2002). Development and
validation of a brief form of the Multidimensional Personality Question-
naire. Psychological Assessment, 14, 150 –163. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/1040-3590.14.2.150
Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (in press). Manual for the
Self-Report Psychopathy Scale. Toronto, ON. Multi-Health Systems.
Poythress, N. G., Edens, J. F., Landfield, K., Lilienfeld, S. O., Skeem, J. L.,
& Douglas, K. S. (2008). A critique of Carver and White’s (1994)
Behavioral Inhibition Scale (BIS) for investigating Lykken’s (1995)
theory of primary psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
45, 269 –275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.04.014
Poythress, N. G., Edens, J. F., Skeem, J. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Douglas,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
K. S., Frick, P. J., . . . Wang, T. (2010). Identifying subtypes among
offenders with antisocial personality disorder: A cluster-analytic study.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 389 – 400. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0018611
Poythress, N. G., & Skeem, J. L. (2006). Disaggregating psychopathy:
Where and how to look for subtypes. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of
psychopathy (pp. 172–192). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Ray, J. V., Hall, J., Rivera-Hudson, N., Poythress, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O.,
& Morano, M. (2013). The relation between self-reported psychopathic
traits and distorted response styles: A meta-analytic review. Personality
Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/a0026482
Rost, J. (2006). Latent-Class-Analyse [Latent class analysis]. In F. Peter-
mann & M. Eid (Eds.), Handbuch der psychologischen Diagnostik
[Handbook of psychological assessment] (pp. 275–287). Göttingen, Ger-
many: Hogrefe.
Sadeh, N., Javdani, S., & Verona, E. (2013). Analysis of monoaminergic
genes, childhood abuse, and dimensions of psychopathy. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 122, 167–179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0029866
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of
Statistics, 6, 461– 464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344136
Skeem, J., Johansson, P., Andershed, H., Kerr, M., & Louden, J. E. (2007).
Two subtypes of psychopathic violent offenders that parallel primary
and secondary variants. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 395–
409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.2.395
Skeem, J. L., & Cooke, D. J. (2010). Is criminal behavior a central
component of psychopathy? Conceptual directions for resolving the
debate. Psychological Assessment, 22, 433– 445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0008512
View publication stats
Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2006). Latent class cluster analysis. In
J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class
analysis (pp. 89 –106). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Verona, E., Sprague, J., & Sadeh, N. (2012). Inhibitory control and
negative emotional processing in psychopathy and antisocial personality
disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 498 –510. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0025308
Viding, E., & McCrory, E. J. (2012). Genetic and neurocognitive contri-
butions to the development of psychopathy. Development and Psycho-
pathology, 24, 969 –983. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095457941200048X
Wallace, J. F., Malterer, M. B., & Newman, J. P. (2009). Mapping Gray’s
BIS and BAS constructs onto Factor 1 and Factor 2 of Hare’s Psychop-
athy Checklist⫺Revised. Personality and Individual Differences, 47,
812– 816. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.019
Ward, T., & Durrant, R. (2011). Evolutionary behavioural science and
crime: Aetiological and intervention implications. Legal and Crimino-
logical Psychology, 16, 193–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333
.2011.02020.x
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. San An-
tonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Welsh, G. (1956). Factor dimensions A and R. In G. S. Welsh & W. G.
Dahlstrom (Eds.), Basic readings on the MMPI in psychology and
medicine (pp. 264 –281). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
Press.
Widiger, T. A. (Ed.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of personality disor-
ders. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199735013.001.0001
Williamson, S., Harpur, T. J., & Hare, R. D. (1991). Abnormal processing
of affective words by psychopaths. Psychophysiology, 28, 260 –273.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.tb02192.x
Yildirim, B. O., & Derksen, J. J. L. (2013). Systematic review, structural
analysis, and new theoretical perspectives on the role of serotonin and
associated genes in the etiology of psychopathy and sociopathy. Neuro-
science and Biobehavioral Reviews, 37, 1254 –1296. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.04.009
Zachary, R. A. (1986). Shipley Institute of Living Scale⫺Revised manual.
Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Zeier, J. D., & Newman, J. P. (2013). Feature-based attention and conflict
monitoring in criminal offenders: Interactive relations of psychopathy
with anxiety and externalizing. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122,
797– 806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0033873
Received February 6, 2014
Revision received December 1, 2014
Accepted December 8, 2014 䡲