This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
VICTORIA DM. CHING
Graduate School, University of Santo Tomas, Manila
CARINEZ P. DELA CRUZ & CHRISTOPHER P. HERNANDEZ
Colegio de San Juan de Letran, Itramuros, Manila
RYAN ROSS C. SIERRA
Angeles University Foundation, Inc., Pampanga
JOHN HERMES C. UNTALAN
Graduate School, University of Santo Tomas, Manila
is defined as an aggregate of maladaptive coupled with antisocial behaviors construct
trait deficits in interpersonal,
affective, and the
So far, studies elucidating
in the framework of personality have relied on Western models in explaining Using a sample of 368 college students, this study attempts to provide an structure of psychopathy using Church, Katigbak, and Reyes' Based from the analysis, the dimensions
its basic elemental features.
account of explaining the nomological
of makasarili, pagiging kalog, kawalan ng disiplina, sumpungin, hindi pagiging relihiyoso, and mga katangiang kanaisnais correlated with psychopathy. In addition, specific lexical traits were also analyzed in order to (1996) indigenous Filipino lexical trait model. enrich the prediction grained description of the nine lexical trait factors on self-report psychopathy for psychopathy. and its four-factors. Specific lexical traits with an overwhelming personality in understanding Keywords: psychopathy, psychopathy negative trait terms from the nine factors provided a finein non-Western cultures such as the Philippines. Filipino.
These findings illumine the possible utility of an indigenous
lexical approach, traits, indigenous,
sychopathic personality (or psychopathy) is described as a constellation of personality traits such as callousness, egocentrism, guiltlessness, lack of empathy, 1964). Since its introduction inability to form social in 1941 thru the now attachments, irresponsibility, impulsivity, shallow affect, and superficial charm (Hare, 1999; Lykken, 1995; McCord & McCord,
classic The Mask of Sanity by Dr. Hervey Cleckley, much about psychopathy has been studied and
CHING, DELA CRUZ, HERNANDEZ,
SIERRA, & UNTALANI 2
linked with socially deviant and criminal behaviors. More so, it served as the prototype disorder for the clinical diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder and dissocial personality disorder of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association, 2004) and International Classification of Disorders (ICD; World Health Organization, 2010)
respectively.' Further, the viability of the construct is supported by several edited handbooks & produced within the past 40 years (e.g., Blauuw & Sheridan, 2002; Cooke, Forth, & Hare, 1998; Hare, 1970; Hare & Schalling, 1978; Herve & Yuille, 2007; Millon, Simonsen, Birket-Smith, Davis, 1998; Patrick, 2006; Salekin & Lynam, 2010) and a society-the Study of Psychopathy (SSSP)-dedicated interest of studying psychopathy. Society for the Scientific psychopathy, the
for linking researchers around the globe with the primary
Despite the growing interest of studying
maturity of the construct is still in its infancy. Two important issues will be raised here namely the (1) viable theoretical frameworks for psychopathy and (2) its assessments. Widiger and his colleagues (2002) reviewed the current frameworks of how the psychopathy construct is being studied and found that the two most relevant and promising frameworks are that of personality psychology and cognitive neuroscience. former framework in this paper. Because the primary interest of this study is psychopathy is thru its nomological more related to the former framework than the latter, the discussion is directed towards building the A best way of understanding structure within the personality framework. example of a "best science" in psychology. According to Harkness (2007), personality is a classic He suggests that "presenting complaints" and "targets of For example, using (i.e. socially and
treatment plan" may often be manifestations or sequallae of personality traits. traits; (2) problematic configuration of personality traits; and (3) extreme
the analogy made by Tellegen (in Harkness & Lilienfeld, 1997), (1) extreme levels of personality personality maladaptive) adaptations to personality traits or their configural properties often manifest in the psychopathology continuum. Such stand for understanding researchers consider psychopathy psychopathy within the personality framework is that a number of as (1) a personality construct, (2) as an extreme variant of
personality traits, and (3) is personality (Blackburn, 1998a, 2006; Lynam & Derefniko, 2006; Miller & Lynam, 2003; Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leukfeld, 2001). the personality perspective in translating Widiger & Lynam (1998) first used as measured by the the core traits of psychopathy,
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003), using the five-factor model (FFM) as assessed by the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1994). Based on their translation, the major dimensions of antagonism (low agreeableness) and low conscientiousness and their respective facets predicted many of the PCL-R psychopathy items (see also Harpur, Hart, & Hare, 2002 and Lynam, 2002). psychopathy-personality In a recent article summing up all the research conducted on using various methods/approaches, Lynam and Derefniko (2006) concludes the absence of negative self-directed
that "extremely high interpersonal antagonism, pan-impulsivity, traits that translates the core elements of psychopathy.
affect, the presence of angry hostility, and interpersonal assertiveness" (p. 160), are the primary FFM
The term "psychopathic"
will return as an interchangeable
term for antisocial personality
disorder in the DSM-5
(Skodol et al., 2011).
FILIPINO LEXICAL TRAIT MODELl 3
Moreover, the prominence of using personality framework in understanding
psychopathy is Using
based on the assumption that psychopathy is a complex and aggregate structures of traits.
personality models, they can provide basic elemental structures of these complex traits thru finegrained traits at the lower-order or facet level. Such feasibility is based on the current personality models that possess multi-level hierarchical orders and is proven effective in deconstructing the construct's aggregate clusters at the basic level. For example, Lynam and his colleagues (2011) were able to develop an assessment of psychopathy thru the use of the lower order facet traits of the FFM. Instead of using the normal traits of the FFM NEO-PI-R, they developed the polar opposites of After
these traits while retaining those traits in a positive, yet extreme, form of manifestations.
transforming these traits in its maladaptive position, they were explored to form the four important clusters of the FFM (except for Openness to Experience) and were aggregated towards each other form a composite of psychopathy from the personality perspective. Such approach and methodology thus far has let the psychopathy construct prosper in which traits at the basic, lower-order level are now utilized in order to structure a higher-order Another important level of psychopathy within the personality approach of assessment. framework and not from a psychopathology (Cleckleyian) perspective. issue within psychopathy is its methodological Considering the history of psychopathy with criminal populations, the development of psychopathy assessment was first introduced by Hare (2003). This assessment known popularly as the PCL-R is a clinical structured interview devised to assess the 18 primary traits of psychopathy, majority of which was derived from Cleckley's list. It is dubbed as the "gold standard" of measuring psychopathy and many studies have showed that the nature of the 18 primary traits can be divided into four primary factors and two higher-order factors. The four primary factors are known as domain deficits in The higher-order factors are known as F 1 However, because the interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and antisocial deviance.
(Interpersonal-Affective domain) and F2 (Lifestyle-Antisocial Behavior domain).
PCL-R requires a longer term of clinical usage such as with in-depth interviews to criminals and a review of their collateral file information, the PCL-R is not equipped for populations that do not have such information accessible to many researchers. Moreover, there are measurement and construct validity issues raised against PCL-R questioning the relevance and inclusion of the 18 primary traits in diagnosing psychopathy (see Skeem & Cooke, 2010). thru objective, self-report tests. Using self-report measures, three scales are highly recognized in the field (see Lilienfeld & Fowler, 2006) namely the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) and it's revision (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005), Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scale (PSPS; Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995), and Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP; Paulhus, Hemphil, & Hare, in press). Among these three self-reports of psychopathy, the closest measure that resembles the PCL-R is the SRP. It is also the measure employed in this study in order to assess a self-report psychopathy. Now in its third version, the assessment of psychopathy resembling the PCL-R is Four facets are captured within of captured within the SRP-III (Williams, Paulhus, & Hare, 2007). Because of this limitation, several researchers have developed instruments that can assess psychopathy in general populations
the SRP and can be ordered in a higher structural level similar to F 1 and F2 components
DELA CRUZ, HERNANDEZ,
SIERRA, & UNTALANI 4
This resemblance is based on the theoretical proposal of Hare (2003) regarding a two-
factor four-facet model of psychopathy (see Hare & Neumann, 2007).2 The advent of self-report measures of psychopathy has its own advantages and disadvantages (Lilienfeld & Fowler, 2006). psychopathic. management Moreover, While many criticize self-reports for their susceptibility on faking, self-report measures (e.g., PPI and PPI-R) employ impression This trait of there are no studies yet to prove that such is possible among individuals who are considered and inconsistent responding indices in order to detect social desirable responding measure than a clinician's intuition. in lying which is a primary
allowing for a more objective and empirically-driven psychopathy.
allows for explicitly scoring the ability of psychopaths
As discussed earlier, clinical structured interviews such as the PCL-R takes a long
while before providing a global assessment of psychopathy and its 18 key facets. Procedures such as interviews with the individual and cross-referencing these with observer reports and collateral file information takes a longer time which strains measurement in populations where such are not available. Several researchers even ponder that the PCL-R is too stringent in emphasizing explicit antisocial behaviors (e.g., juvenile delinquency, criminal versatility) than implicit dispositions (e.g., superficial charm, callous affect) with the latter as a key distinction of psychopathy than the former (Kennealy, Skeem, Walters, & Camp, 2010). Notwithstanding, respondents to provide answers on behaviorally-oriented without them being aware of the test's intentions. Philippine Dimensions of Personality As mentioned earlier, the field of personality psychology interprets psychopathy well. This is supported by studies that advance the link between psychopathy and personality. personality models. Despite these advancements, none has approached and viewed psychopathy from the indigenous framework of Indigenous models of personality have recently gained attention with local the possibility of a cultural the utilization of psychologists emphasizing the importance of culture in understanding psychology which is an off-shoot to cross-cultural these limitations are best offered by self-reports which are time-efficient and financially economical, professionally distressful, and allows descriptions of the key dispositional traits
traitedness and or cultural generalizability. Such possibility is opened by the discipline of indigenous psychology emphasizing indigenous constructs in explaining behaviors that are salient to the culture. South Korea, Mexico, and the Philippines (see Allwood & Berry, 2006). Considering the historical background of the Philippines with its high need to indigenize (Church & Katigbak, 2002b; Enriquez, 1992). Church psychology, Filipino psychologists emphasize the utility of indigenous frameworks in understanding and explaining psychological phenomenon (1987) reviewed that there is a long history of studying personality in the Philippines and several Filipino psychologists were able to develop and build an indigenous framework of personality.
We will not present here the historical development and psychometric properties of the SRP. Readers are advised to
Examples of countries
that focused on such developments are China (Mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan), India, Japan,
consult Hare (1985) and Williams et al. (2007). (see Widiger & Lynam, 1998).
Our point of discussion is to highlight that the closest structure of the and personality was initiated derivative of the PCL-R,
PCL-R in self-report assessment is the SRP in which much of studies about psychopathy correlations obtained from studies using the PCL-R will be the same as well with the SRP.
We assume that because the SRP is a direct self-report
FILIPINO LEXICAL TRAIT MODELl 5
These developments were based on construction Panukat
of indigenous psychological tests such as the 2001) and the Panukat ng
ng Ugali at Pagkatao (PUP; Enriquez & Guanzon-Lapefia,
Pagkataong Filipino (PPP; Carlota, 1995) which reflects valued characteristics of Filipinos. In 1996, Church and his colleagues attempted to study the lexical trait terms of Filipinos using a dictionary resulting to a nine-factor structure and a trait adjective inventory-the Katangian ng Personalidad (PKP). such tradition. Panukat ng mga This approach is patterned from Allport and Odbert's (1936)
classic psycholexical study of traits using the English language and those studies that had followed Saucier, Hampson, and Goldberg (2000) states that" [tjhe rational for lexical studies rests on the assumption that the most meaningful personality attributes tend to become encoded in language as single-word descriptors" (p. 1). Trait descriptors from the lexical hypothesis allows us to understand and be conscious of the words people use in describing individual attributes which serves as a "rough guide" of how speakers of the language give importance or value to such attribute. that best fits the 253 trait adjectives identified is subsumed within makakapwa (concern for others versus egocentricism), sumpungin (temperamentalness), tiwala disiplinado (conscientiousness), sa sarili (self-assurance), pagiging Using various methods and analysis (Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 1996; 1998), the nine-factor structure versus makasarili (intellect), 'di relihiyoso (religious), matalino
pagiging kalog (gregarious), mga katangiang kanais-nais (positive valence), and mga katangiang kanais-nais (negative valence).
The seven factor derived by Church et al. from their study is a best-fit similar to Almagor, Tellegen, and Waller's (1995) Big Seven model. However, conducting further hierarchical factor analysis would reveal that the seven factors can still be subsumed within the domains of the FFM. According to Church et al., the disiplinado and relihiyoso scales can also be combined in order to achieve a higher-order structure of conscientiousness. Results from their factor analyses also revealed that self-assurance and gregarious typically forms a larger extraversion domain while negative valence and temperamentalness presents a version of emotional instability. Moreover, positive valence seems to blend well with intellect. Despite the relations of the two valences with other purported domains, these valences were extracted because of the consistent evaluative terms in the Filipino language which was included in the study (Church & Katigbak, 2002a). Although the Big Seven model derived by Church et al. may seem to be captured within the FFM, the Filipino indigenous lexical trait model is far from being concluded to be exact of the FFM (Saucier et al., 2000). Guanzon-Lapefia and her colleagues (1998) showed that the indigenous models presented by the PPP, PUP, and PKP have strong convergences from each other. Moreover, the three indigenous 2007). models of personality can capture or is subsumed within the FFM (Guanzon-Lapefia, described. domain.
Because this paper is centered towards the utility of the PKP, only its association with the FFM is The PKP pagiging kalog and tiwala sa sarili consists the FFM surgency/extraversion Agreeableness is described by the PKP makakapwa vs. makasarili domain while
conscientiousness is described by the PKP disiplinado scale. The emotional stability/neuroticism domain is explained by the PKP sumpungin. experience-is Meanwhile, the fifth domain-intellect or openness to described by the PKP matalino trait.
To empirically test these hypothetical structures, Katigbak and her colleagues (2002) conducted a multi trait multi-factor analysis using the PPP, NEO-PI-R, and the PKP. Based on their analysis, the PKP disiplinado scale loaded with FFM conscientiousness. The PKP makakapwa vs. makasarili
CHING, DELA CRUZ, HERNANDEZ,
SIERRA, & UNTALANI 6
and relihiyoso scales loaded with the FFM agreeableness factor while PKP pagiging kalog loaded with FFM extraversion. naisi-). The remaining PKP scales loaded with FFM neuroticism namely sumpungin, mga katangiang kanais-naisi-), and mga katangiang 'di kanaistiwala sa sarilii-), pagiging matalinoi-),
Although the pagiging matalino did not correlate with openness to experience, an earlier Katigbak et al. (2002) explains that katangiang kanais-nais.
study conducted by Church et al. (1998) shows that this PKP subscale is correlated with Big Five adjective scales and NEO-FFI scale of openness to experience. the absence of relationship between pagiging matalino and openness to experience is accounted by the shared relationship of the PKP subscale with another PKP scale-mga The Present Study Church and Katigbak (2002a) recommended the potentiality of indigenous models as correlates of imported dimensions of psychopathology. With a considerable amount of studies supporting the relationship of an indigenous model of personality with the FFM, this study proposes that the same results of relationship between the FFM and psychopathy can be recovered by replacing the Western model with an indigenous model. First, this study hypothesizes that antagonism and low conscientiousness of psychopathy will be represented by the PKP dimensions of high makasarili (egocentrism), low disiplinado (discipline) and low relibiyoso (religiosity). Absence of negative affect will be resembled by a negative relationship between psychopathy and sumpungin Because (temperamentalness) and tiwala sa sarili (self-assurance). An extraverted component of psychopathy will be demonstrated by a positive relationship with pagiging kalog (gregarious) dimension. openness to experience is the least factor utilized and most of the time fails to be related, it is expected as well that the indigenous factor of pagiging matalino (intelligent) will not be correlated. In addition, two valence traits will be explored as well. Considering that the two valences are exact opposites (but are not bipolar to one another), the mga katangiang 'di kanais-nais (negative valence) will correlate negatively with psychopathy while mga katangiang kanais-nais (positive valence) will correlate positively. Second, the study also investigates the individual contribution of each lexical trait term with psychopathy and its four facets using regression analysis. This is to highlight which lexical trait term can describe psychopathy efficiently at a fine-grained level. This approach allows us in investigating empirically the possible linkages between indigenous personality and Western clinical constructs which is still absent in the literature. hearted), related
It is hypothesized that a greater proportion (cheater), manloloko
of trait terms
describing negative characteristics will be utilized. magagalitin psychopathy. (hotheaded), mandaraya
For example, terms such as walang puso (cold(trickster) will be positively
On the other hand, positive trait terms are expected to predict in a negative For the former pattern, positive terms will be correlated negatively (not) with the lexical trait terms such as hindi (unfriendly). maayos For the latter pattern, positive terms will be
direction or excessive intensity.
with adding the additive word hindi (unorganized) or hindi palakaibiganin correlated
positively and manifests in an excessive form such as walang atras (courageous),
makipagsapalaran (risk-taker), and palabiro (jokes a lot).
FILIPINO LEXICAL TRAIT MODELl 7
Participants Three-hundred-and-sixty-eight college students from three universities (two from the Metro
Manila namely, the Colegio de San Juan de Letran and De La Salle Araneta University; and one from a province north of Manila, the Angeles University Foundation of Pampanga) participated in this study. Fifteen of the participants did not have a complete response of the measures and four Age ranges from 16 to 27 years old with a mean age of 18.45 protocols were deemed inappropriate missing more than ten items hence were removed leaving 349 protocols for further analysis. (SD= 1.52) with seven failing to report their age. Seventy-four per cent (n=258) were females while 26% (n=91) were males. All students represent the four various levels of college education and were majoring different courses in social and liberal arts (psychology, and communication arts and broadcasting) and medical-allied sciences (nursing and pharmacy). Majority of the participants were fluent Filipino-Tagalog speakers while the remaining were Kapampangan, Ilokano, Tsabakano, and Hiligaynon speakersr' Measures Se/fReport Psychopathy (SRP-Illj Scale. Developed by Paulhus, Hemphil, and Hare (in press), the SRP-III scale is a 65-item scale that assesses the four core factors of psychopathy namely interpersonal manipulation, callous affect, erratic lifestyle, and antisocial behavior. It also has a composite index to assess the overall psychopathic personality. procedure. language. It is answerable in a five-point Likert scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and items are scored in a positively- and negatively-keyed This study made used of a translated version of the SRP-III into the Filipino-Tagalog Translation underwent two multiple forward-backward procedures following the
suggestions made by Geisinger (1994). Panukat ng mga Katangian ng Personalidad (PKPj. Derived from the lexical analysis of Filipino trait adjectives (Church, Katigbak, & Reyes, 1996; 1998), the PKP is a measure of nine aggregate traits deemed relevant
It is consisted of 253 Filipino trait terms and is answerable
in an eight-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (talagang-talagang hindi sang-ayon) to 8 (talagangtalagang sang-ayon). In a study reported by Katigbak and her colleagues (2002), the coefficient alpha of the PKP ranges from .81 (Mga Katangiang Kanais-Naisi to .92 (Disiplinado) with a mean a of .88. Procedure Participation of the students was collected as part of course requirement and all were given a waiver/consent form regarding the study's goal. Convenient sampling procedure was used in this study to collect the participants. respondents. Inferential Reliability analysis was computed using the Cronbach's alpha (a). Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) was utilized to describe the scores of the analysis was tested using repeated measures of analysis of variance
Filipino is the national language of the country which is based predominantly in the country from grade school up to college.
in the Tagalog dialect. Although we have
who were fluent in other local dialects, they were also fluent in speaking Tagalog since it is part of the
general education curriculum
CHING, DELA CRUZ, HERNANDEZ,
SIERRA, & UNTALANI 8
(AN OVA) , Mann-Whitney
U Test, Pearson product moment correlation (r), and simultaneous
regression analysis (SMR). These statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17.
The Internal Structure of Self-Report Psychopathy. ranged from .54 (Interpersonal Manipulation) was conducted in order
The internal consistencies of the four facets
.83 (Antisocial Behavior). The internal consistency
of the overall index of the SRP was acceptable with an alpha of .86. A repeated measures ANOVA determine which subscale of psychopathy did the respondents endorsed 112=.98, p<.OO1. In between were the subscales of most and least. Findings suggest that the participants endorsed interpersonal manipulation highly than antisocial behaviors, F(1,348)=16023.64, erratic lifestyle and callous affect. This distinctive responses can be explained by the obvious items of the Antisocial Behavior subscale which asks respondents to provide answers on explicit negative behaviors (e.g., vandalized a property, sneaked at night without permission, forced someone to have sex with) hence were endorsed least. A comparative analysis was also conducted exploring for gender differences using the Mann-Whitney
UTest as shown in Table 1. Though, there was no significant
difference in the interpersonal manipulation scale, results reveal that males significantly scored higher in overall psychopathy, callous affect, erratic lifestyle, and antisocial behavior than females.
Table 1. Gender differences on self-report psychopathy (SRP) scale. SRP Facets SRP SRP SRP SRP SRP Interpersonal Manipulation Callous Affect Erratic Lifestyle Antisocial Behavior Index Note:
Males M SD .44 2.76 2.50 .39 2.70 .52 2.41 .64 2.59 .37
Females M SD 2.70 .37 2.30 .38 2.46 .44 2.01 .62 2.37 .33
Mann-Whitney U 10903.50 8017.50" 822l.50" 7599.00" 7697.00"
Significant at .001 level.
Correlation analysis, as shown in Table 2, reveals that the four facets of psychopathy were highly related to the index score ranging from .71 (Interpersonal Manipulation) Antisocial Behavior subscales. to .82 (Erratic Lifestyle), with a mean r of .75. Notice that the highest rs in particular were from the Erratic Lifestyle and This relationship supports research trends in terms of the strong and Antisocial Behavior*Callous Affect) and This relationship between psychopathy and the Factor 2 facets. Between the four facets, the rs ranged from .29 (Antisocial Behavior*Interpersonal Manipulation to .56 (Callous Affect*Erratic Lifestyle), with a mean r of .44. Notice from this subscale rs that the Antisocial Behavior subscale correlated significantly lower with Interpersonal Manipulation Callous Affect subscales, which both composes the Factor 1 dimension of psychopathy.
supports theoretical trends between the relationship of Factor 1 and Factor 2 of psychopathy (see
FILIPINO LEXICAL TRAIT MODELl 9
in which the former factor composes facets that determines and affective) components of psychopathy
while the latter factor
composing of facets that are explicitly behavioral (impulsive and social deviance) in nature.
Table2. Descriptive statistics, internal consistency, bivariate correlations of psychopathy and indigenous personality. a .54 .59 .71 .S3 .S6 .S4 .79 .92 .S6 .SI .S9 .S2 .S4 .S3 M 2.n 2.35 2.52 2.11 2.42 2.24 0.23 6.24 2.9S 2.97 3.07 6.13 2.00 6.17 SD 0.39 0.39 0.50 0.65 0.35 0.66 0.S2 1.30 0.75 0.64 1.01 0.75 0.66 0.95 2 .50" .5!" .29" .7l" _.46" 3 4 5
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. 9. 10. 11. 12. 11. 12.
SRP-III Interpersonal Manipulation SRP-III Callous Affect SRP-III Erratic Lifestyle SRP-III Antisocial Behaviors SRP-III Index PKP Makakapwa vs. Makasarili PKP Disiplinado PKP Relihiyoso PKP Pagiging Kalog PKP Tiwala sa Sarili PKP Sumpungin PKP Pagiging Matalino PKP Mga Katangiang 'Di Kanais-Nais PKP Mga Katangiang Kanais-Nais
-.4S" -.IS" _.23" -.05 .05 .IS" -.04 .43" -.07
_.54" _.26" .23" -.04 .39" -.05 .55" .01
-.IS" .16" -.07 .36" .01 .35" -.04
.75" _.32" -.31" _.19" .12' -.02 .OS -.07 .33" -.07
_.28" .16" -.03 .30" -.05 .54" -.05
Note: n=349. = Significant at .05 level (two-tailed). ** = Significant at .01 level (two-tailed). * SRP-III = Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-III; PKP = Panukat ng mga Katangian ng Personalidad.
Correlation Analysis between Self-Report Psychopathy and Indigenous Lexical Personality Traits. Similar patterns were found among the relationship of the nine dimensions of PKP with self-report psychopathy. Valence). But first, three factors were not found significantly related namely, Tiwala sa Sarili Pagiging Matalino (Intelligent), and Mga Katangiang Kanais-Nais (Positive (Self-Assurance),
For the remaining six factors, significant rs ranged from .12, p<.05 (Pagiging Kalog vs. Makasarili (Concerned for Others erratic being Within the nomological structure related with Index), with a mean r of .34. traits, The interpersonal manipulation,
(Gregarious)*Antisocial Behavior) to -.57, p<.OI (Makakapwa vs. Egocentrism)*SRP-III of indigenous
lifestyle, and index scale of SRP-III obtained similar correlations. lexical personality
these subscales were positively
temperamental, gregarious, and negative valence. In addition, these subscales were negatively related to concern for others, conscientious, and religious. SRP. Meanwhile, the remaining two subscales (i.e, Callous Affect and Antisocial Behavior) obtained similar relationships as with the three scales of the However, callous affect did not correlate significantly with pagiging kalog, r=-.05, ns, and (temperarnentalness), r=.08, ns, antisocial behavior did not correlate significantly with sumpungin & Krueger, 2009).
which reflects the coldhearted feature of psychopathy (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005; Patrick, Fowles,
CHING, DELA CRUZ, HERNANDEZ,
SIERRA, & UNTALANI 10
Se/fReport (Concerned .84.
Psychopathy and Makakapwa for Others vs. Egocentrism)
The PKP Makakapwa
scale is consisted of 49 trait terms that describe the The internal consistency of this scale is
relational, other-oriented and agreeable nature of Filipinos.
Five SMR analyses were conducted in order to specifically explore the salient lexical trait F(48,300)=6.11, p<.OOl. Five traits specifically predicted (know-it-
predictors of psychopathy in general and among its four facets. The R model of predicting the SRP Index was significant, R=.70, Adj. k=.41, overall psychopathy namely mapagpanggap (pretentious; ~=.26, t=4.16, p<.OO1), madaya (cheater; ~=.22, t=3.72, p<.OOl), palaaway (quarrelsome; ~=.20, t=3.88, p<.OOl), mapagmarunong Manipulation facet, the R model was significant, R=.60, Adj. k=.26, mapagmarunong F(48,300)=3.S2, all; ~=.20, t=3.09, p<.Ol), and mapaghiganti (vengeful; ~=.14, t=2.20, p<.OS). For the Interpersonal p<.OOl. Five (grant-giving; traits specifically predicted interpersonal manipulation t=2.72, p<.Ol), namely mapagpanggap (pretentious; ~=.19,
(know-it-all; ~=.17, t=2.36, p<.OS), mapagkaloob
~=.16, t=2.64, p<.Ol), mapaghiganti (vengeful; ~=.14, t=2.02, p<.OS), and matapat (loyal; ~=-.14, t=2.28, p<.OS). The R model for predicting Callous Affect facet was significant, R=.67, Adj. k=.37, F(48,300)=S.21, (pretentious; mapagmarunong mapaghari-harian p<.OOl. ~=.27, Eight specific traits predicted p<.OOl), callous affect namely mapagpanggap ~=-.19, t=-3.46, p<.OOl), t=4.12, usisero (gossip-mongering;
(know-it-all; ~=.19, t=2.80, p<.Ol), mapaghiganti (vengeful; ~=.18, t=2.87, p<.Ol), (domineering; ~=.17, t=2.39, p<.OS), malambing (caring; ~=-.lS, t=-2.64, p<.Ol), (pretentious; ~=-.13, t=-2.00, Adj. k=.34, Lifestyle facet, the R model was significant, R=.70,
palaaway (quarrelsome; ~=.14, t=2.S1, p<.OS), and mapagkunwari p<.OS). For the Erratic F(48,300)=3.20, p<.OOl.
Four specific traits predicted erratic lifestyle namely mapaghari-harian
(domineering; ~=.241, t=2.317, p<.OS), palaaway (quarrelsome; ~=.23, t=2.99, p<.Ol), mapagmahal (loving; ~=.21, t=2.46, p<.OS), and usisero (gossip-mongering; ~=-18, t=2.31, p<.OS). Lastly, the R model for predicting Antisocial Behavior was significant, R=.S3, Adj. R2=.17, F(48,300)=2.44, p<.OOl. Ten specific traits predicted antisocial behavior namely madaya (cheater; ~=.24, t=3.38, (pretentious; ~=.22, t=2.94, p<.Ol), makakapwa (other-oriented; ~=.21, mapagmataas (pride; ~=.19, t=2.49, p<.OS), mapagmarunong (know-it-all; ~=.17, p<.OOl), mapagpanggap t=2.91, p<.Ol),
t=2.16, p<.OS), mapagmagaling (show off; ~=-.16, t=-2.23, p<.OS), matapat (loyal; ~=-.14, t=-2.2S, p<.OS), palaaway (quarrelsome; ~=.14, t=2.29, p<.OS), sinungaling (liar; ~=.13, t=1.98, p<.OS), and mainggitin (envious; ~=-.13, t=-2.02, p<.OS). Se/fReport Psychopathy and Disiplinado. domain. Composed of 42 items, the Disiplinado (Disciplined)
factor reflects the conscientious, disciplined, and organized characteristic of Filipinos similar to the FFM Conscientiousness The internal consistency of this scale is .79. F(42,306)=4.98, The R model for Three trait predicting SRP Index was significant, R=.64, Adj. k=.32, p<.OOl.
terms significantly predicted overall psychopathy namely matigas ang ulo (stubborn; ~=.19, t=3.02, p<.Ol), bulakbol (skips schooling; ~=.18, t=2.80, p<.Ol), and mapag-impok (saves money; ~=-.12, t=2.14, p<.OS). For predicting Interpersonal Manipulation, k=.lS, ~=.13, F(42,306)=2.43, t=2.16, p<.OS). p<.OOl. p<.OOl. the R model was significant, R=.SO, Adj. Two specific trait terms predicted interpersonal manipulation Adj. k=.lS,
namely masinop (neat/tidy; ~=.14, t=2.2S, p<.OS) and ningas kugon (sensitive to others' criticism; For Callous Affect, the R model was significant, R=.Sl, F(42,306)=2.49, Six trait terms predicted callous affect namely palaaral (studious; ~=-.20,
FILIPINO LEXICAL TRAIT MODELl II
t=-2.86, p<.Ol), matigas ang ulo (stubborn; ~=.20, t=2.81, p<.Ol), gastador (spends a lot; ~=-.18, t=1.97, p<.05), maaksaya (wasteful; ~=.17, t=2.40, p<.05), masistema (systematic; ~=.16, F(42,306)=4.36, t=2.37, p<.Ol), and makabago (accepts modernity or anything new; ~=-.13, t=-2.12, p<.05). was significant for predicting Erratic Lifestyle, R=.72, Adj. k=.40, The R model p<.OO1. Six
specific traits predicted erratic lifestyle namely matigas ang ulo (stubborn; ~=.22, t=2.64, p<.O 1), layas (stowaway; ~=.20, t=2.48, p<.05), tradisyonal (traditional; ~=-.19, t=-2.48, p<.05), sinauna (ancient; ~=.16, t=2.21, p<.05), mapaghanap (always looks for something else; ~=-.14, t=-2.15, p<.05), and mapagtipon (keeps saving; ~=-.14, t=-2.10, p<.05). Behavior was significant, R=.53, Adj. k=.18, Lastly, the R model for predicting Antisocial p<.OO1. Four specific trait terms F(42,306)=2.84,
predicted antisocial behavior namely bulakbol (bum; ~=.31, t=4.40, p<.OOl), mapagwaldas (wastrel; ~=.18, t=2.14, p<.05), tamad (lazy; ~=.14, t=2.02, p<.05), and mapag-impok (thrifty; ~=-.13, t=-2.13, p<.05). Self-Report Psychopathy and Relihiyoso. Consisted of seven items, the Relihiyoso (Religiousness)
domain refers to the religious characteristics of Filipinos. The internal consistency of this scale is .92 which is the highest among all the subscales of the PKP. For predicting the SRP Index, the R model was significant, R=.30, Adj. k=.07, was significant, R=.24, Adj. k=.04, F(7,341)=4.89, F(7,341)=3.05, p<.OOl, with madasalin (prayerful; ~=-.18, t=p<.OO1. The lexical relihiyoso (religious; ~=-.25, The R model for predicting p<.OOl, with the lexical trait The two remaining F(7,341)=2.41, F(7,341)=4.48, 2.16, p<.05) as a significant trait predictor. The R model for predicting Interpersonal Manipulation
t=-2.70, p<.Ol) was the significant trait predictor of this domain. Callous Affect was also significant, R=.29, Adj. k=.07,
madasalin (prayerful; ~=-.18, t=-2.13, p<.05) as its sole lexical trait predictor. p<.05) and Antisocial Behavior (R=.22, Adj. k=.03, lexical traits were found as significant predictors. F(7,341)=2.39,
domains' R model was also found significant, Erratic Lifestyle (R=.29, Adj. k=.04,
p<.05), though no specific
Self-Report Psychopathy and Pagiging Kalog. The Pagiging Kalog (Gregarious) domain is consisted of 39 items that reflects the sociability and interpersonal relatedness of Filipinos with others. internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha for this scale is acceptable with .86. predicting the SRP Index was significant, R=.59, Adj. k=.26, palabati madaldal (greets others; ~=-.17, (talkative; ~=-.17, t=-2.73, p<.Ol), maingay F(39,309)=4.18, (loud/noisy; The The R model for p<.OO1. Six lexical t=-2.38, p<.05), and
traits specifically predicted overall psychopathy namely, mapanukso (tease; ~=.33, t=5.73, p<.OOl), ~=-.17, t=-2.06, p<.05), magalaw (energetic; ~=.15, t=2.12, p<.05),
(sad; ~=.13, t=2.06, p<.05).
For the Interpersonal Manipulation
subscale, the R model
was significant, R=.52, Adj. k=.18, p<.OOl), and malungkutin lexical predictors.
p<.OOl, with three significant lexical trait Meanwhile, the R model for predicting p<.OOl, with three significant The R p<.OO1.
predictors namely, mapanukso (tease; ~=.23, t=3.71 , p<.OOl), palabati (greets others; ~=-.22, t=-3.47, (sad; ~=.14, t=2.15, p<.05). Callous Affect was significant, R=.49, Adj. k=.14, F(39,309)=2.48,
These three lexical traits were magalaw (energetic; ~=.29, t=3.74, p<.OOl), F(39,309)=3.89,
palabati (greets others; ~=-.19, t=-2.90, p<.Ol), and mapanukso (tease; ~=.15, t=2.41, p<.05). model for predicting Erratic Lifestyle was significant, R=.69, Adj. k=.35,
Six specific lexical traits were found significant predictors namely, madaldal (talkative; ~=-.29, t=-
CHING, DELA CRUZ, HERNANDEZ,
SIERRA, & UNTALANI 12
2.SS, p<.Ol), halakhakin
(sad; ~=.2S, t=3.06, p<.Ol), p<.OS).
(tease; ~=.24, t=2.99, p<.Ol), p<.Ol), and
daldalero (talkative; ~=.23, t=3.37, p<.OS), ngisi (smiles mischievously; ~=.22, t=3.lS, (laughs a lot; ~=-.19, t=-2.l2, Behavior was significant, R=.4S, Adj. k=.l1, lexical trait predictors. F(39,309)=2.04,
Lastly, the R model for predicting Antisocial p<.OOl, with five identified specific (tease; ~=.27, t=4.l9, p<.OOl),
These lexical predictors were mapanukso
mabibig (mouthful; ~=.17, t=2.l9, p<.OS), maingay (noisy; ~=-.16, t=-2.0S, p<.OS), palabiro (jokes a lot; ~=.16, t=2.l0, p<.OS), and palausap (chatty; ~=.14, t=1.9S, p<.OS). Self-Report Psychopathy and Tiwala sa Sarili. Forty-seven items consists the Tiwala sa Sarili (SelfAssurance) domain which reflects various intrapersonal characteristics of Filipinos. Adj. k=.3S, p<.Ol), F(47,301)=4.9S7, The internal consistency of the scale is .S1. The R model for predicting the SRP Index was significant, R=.66, p<.OO1. Ten lexical traits specifically predicted overall psychopathy p<.Ol), walang atras (daring; ~=.16, t=2.SS, p<.Ol), namely, matatag (strong-willed; ~=-.lS, t=-2.71, p<.Ol), pabagu-bago (unpredictable; ~=.16, t=3.11, agresibo (aggressive; ~=.16, t=3.lS, makipagsapalaran p<.OS), magulatin k=.22, (risk-taker; ~=.lS, t=2.S7, p<.OS), prangko (brutally frank; ~=.14, t=2.70, p<.Ol), (easily frightened; ~=-.13, t=2.32, p<.OS), and maliksi (energetically fit; ~=.13, the R model was significant, R=.S7, Adj. p<.OOl, with seven significant lexical trait predictors. These trait predictors were walang atras (daring; ~=.20, t=3.23, matapang (brave; ~=.lS, t=2.4S, p<.OS),
walang kusa (lack of self-initiative; ~=.14, t=2.69, p<.Ol), pursigido (persistent; ~=-.13, t=-2.36, t=2.2S, p<.OS). For predicting Interpersonal Manipulation, F(47,301)=3.0S, that significantly predicted interpersonal manipulation may katwiran (righteous; ~=.lS, t=2.S6, p<.Ol),
p<.OOl), matatag (strong-willed; ~=-.19, t=-2.6S, p<.Ol), agresibo (aggressive; ~=.19, t=3.30, p<.OOl), makipagsapalaran t=2.76, p<.Ol). F(47,301)=2.7S, (risk-taker; ~=.lS, t=2.7S, p<.Ol), and walang kusa (lacks self-initiative; ~=.16, (fearful;
The R model for predicting Callous Affect was significant, R=.SS, Adj. k=.19, p<.OO1. Seven lexical traits predicted this domain namely matatakutin
.1S, t=-2.79, p<.Ol), matatag (strong-willed; ~=-.17, t=-2.30, p<.OS), may tapang (bravery; ~=.lS, t=2.29, p<.OS), agresibo (aggressive; ~=.13, t=2.37, p<.OS), walang atras (daring; ~=.13, t=2.04, p<.OS), pabagu-bago F(47,30l)=4.l0, (unpredictable; ~=.12, t=2.0S, p<.OS), and prangko (brutally frank; ~=.12, t=2.03, p<.OS). In predicting Erratic Lifestyle, the R model was also significant, R=.74, Adj. k=.4l, p<.OO1. Six lexical traits were identified as significant predictors namely pabagut=3.79, p<.OOl), maagap (comes early; ~=-.22, t=-3.l4, p<.Ol), masugid bago (unpredictable; ~=.29, t=4.30, p<.OOl), walang atras (daring; ~=.2S, t=3.92, p<.OOl), agresibo (aggressive; ~=.2S, (persevering; ~=-.17, t=-2.44, p<.OS), and pursigido (persistent; ~-.17, t=-2.l3, p<.OS). Lastly, the R model for predicting Antisocial Behavior was significant, R=.SO, Adj. k=.14, F(47,30l)=2.lS,
p<.OO1. There were four significant lexical trait predictors namely magulatin (easily frightened; t=-2.l6, p<.OS), and maliksi (energetically fit; ~=.13, t=2.02, p<.OS). Self-Report Psychopathy and Sumpungin. interchangeable,
.21, t=-3.l6, p<.Ol), desidido (well-decided; ~=-.17, t=-2.SS, p<.Ol), matatag (strong-willed; ~=-.16,
domain refers to the sudden and
unpredictable changes of one's mood for no reason is a salient trait of Filipinos similar, but not emotional instability/neuroticism. The scale is consisted of 2S items and the coefficient alpha for this scale is .S9. For predicting the SRP Index, the R model was significant,
FILIPINO LEXICAL TRAIT MODELlI3
R=.57, Adj. If=.27, namely magagalitin p<.OOI), mainisin tampuhin t=2.36, p<.05),
F(2S,320)=5.56, (irritable; ~=.24,
Eight lexical traits predicted overall psychopathy p<.OI), maangal (ranting; ~=.IS, t=2.90, p<.OI),
(easily angered; ~=.30, t=3.91, p<.OOI), iyakin (cries easily; ~=-.25, t=-4.16, (sulking; ~=.14,
(loosely translated as "sulky"; ~=-.16, t=-2.49, p<.05), mapagmukmok mainitin ang ulo (hot-headed; ~=-.14, t=-2.01, p<.05),
(calmed/relaxed; ~=-.12, t=-2.40, p<.05). was significant, R=.49, Adj. If=.IS,
The R model for predicting Interpersonal Manipulation p<.OO1. Three lexical trait terms were found (irritable; ~=.21, t=2.52, For predicting Callous Affect, p<.OOI, with nine significant p<.OOI), magagalitin (easily
significant namely maangal (ranting; ~=.24, t=3.5S, p<.OOI), mainisin p<.05), and mainitin ang ulo (hot-headed; lexical trait predictors. p<.OOI), tampuhin ~=-.20, t=-2.71, p<.OI). F(2S,320)=4.15, the R model was significant, R=.52, Adj. If=.20, (loosely translated
These trait terms found significant were iyakin (cries easily; ~=-.27, t=-4.37, as "sulky"; ~=-.23, t=-3.54, (sulking; ~=.22, t=3.46, p<.OOI), maangal (ranting; (calmed/relaxed; and suplado Lifestyle was (sulking; ~=-.15, t=-2.23, p<.05), Erratic
angered; ~=.22, t=2.S2, p<.OI), mapagmukmok ~=-.16, t=-2.91, p<.OI), ~=.13, mareklamo t=2.06,
~=.IS, t=2.77, p<.OI), mainisin (irritable; ~=.IS, t=2.16, p<.05), mapaghunos-dili (always complains; The R model p<.OO1. (unapproachable; p<.05). for predicting
significant, R=.65, Adj. If=.33, significant namely magagalitin
Seven lexical trait terms were found
(easily angered; ~=.40, t=3.94, p<.OOI), mapagmukmok
~=.31, t=3.S2, p<.OOI), mareklamo (always complains; ~=.25, t=2.93, p<.OI), iyakin (cries easily; ~=.21, t=-2.65, p<.OI), mainitin ang ulo (hot-headed; ~=-.20, t=-2.11, p<.05), mahigpit (strict; ~=-.15, t=-2.22, p<.05), and mapaghunos-dili (calmed/relaxed; ~=-.15, t=-2.21, p<.05). Lastly, the R model p<.OO1. for predicting Antisocial Behavior was significant, R=.65, Adj. If=.33, F(2S,320)=4.71,
Four lexical trait terms were found significant namely magagalitin (easily angered; ~=.23, t=2.71 , p<.OI), mainisin (irritable; ~=.19, t=2.16, p<.05), iyakin (cries easily; ~=-.16, t=-2.4S, p<.05), and mahigpit (strict; ~=-.12, t=-1.99, p<.05). Self-Report Psychopathy and Pagiging Matalino. Composed of 16 items, the Pagiging Matalino The coefficient
domain reflects the intellect or openness to experience characteristics of Filipinos. If=.03, F(16,332)=1.75, knowledge/thought; p<.05). F(16,332)=1.59,
alpha for this subscale is .S2. For predicting the SRP Index, the R mode was significant, R=.2S, Adj. p<.05. Two lexical trait terms were found significant namely may isip (with ~=.14, t=2.13, of Interpersonal Manipulation (R=.27, Adj. If=.03, ns), and Erratic Lifestyle p<.05. May isip ~=.14, ~=-.19, t=-2.76, p<.OI), and matalas ang ulo (sharp-mindedness; F(16,332)=O.96,
The R model for the domains
ns), Callous Affect (R=.21, Adj.lf=.002,
(R=.34, Adj. If=.04,
F(16,332)= 1.57, ns) were not found significant.
Meanwhile, the R model for
predicting Antisocial Behavior was significant, R=.2S, Adj. If=.03, F(16,332)=1.73, (with knowledge/thought; t=2.0S, p<.05) were the two significant lexical trait predictor of this domain. Self-Report Psychopathy and Mga Katangiang person such as masarna (evil) and bastos (rude). Vi Kanais-Nais.
~=-.22, t=-3.24, p<.OOI), and matalas ang ulo (sharp-rnindedness;
Consisted of 15 items, the
Negative Valence domain refers to the negative evaluative terms used by Filipinos to refer a bad The coefficient alpha for this scale is .S4. The R F(15, 333)=13.5S, p<.OO1. model for predicting SRP Index was significant, R=.62, Adj. If=.35,
CHING, DELA CRUZ, HERNANDEZ,
SIERRA, & UNTALANI 14
Four lexical trait terms were found significant namely lasenggo (drunkard; ~=.23, t=4.29, p<.OOl), basag-ulero (troublesome; ~=.16, t=2.63, p<.Ol), ugaling hayop (beastly; ~=.15, t=2.77, p<.Ol), and buwaya (greedy; ~=.14, t=2.95, p<.Ol). significant, R=.41, Adj. If=.13, significant, R=.51, Adj. If=.22, F(I5, F(I5, p<.05) as sole lexical trait predictor. For predicting Interpersonal Manipulation, 333)=4.36, 333)=7.67, the R model was p<.OOl, with buwaya (greedy; ~=.14, t=2.48, p<.OOl. Three lexical trait terms were found For predicting the Erratic Lifestyle F(I5, 333)=8.14, p<.OOl, with three Lastly, the R 333)=5.33, ~=.15, t=2.35,
The R model for predicting the Callous Affect domain was
significant namely basag-ulero (troublesome; ~=.25, t=3.81, p<.OOl), buwaya (greedy; ~=.15, t=2.87, p<.Ol), and walang puso (coldhearted; ~=.12, t=2.18, p<.05). domain, the R model was significant, R=.62, Adj. If=.34,
significant lexical trait term predictors namely lasenggo (drunkard; ~=.29, t=4.04, p<.OOl), ugaling hayop (beastly; ~=.16, t=2.33, p<.05), and buwaya (greedy; ~=.14, t=2.21, p<.05). model for predicting Antisocial Behavior was significant, R=.44, Adj. If=.16, p<.OOl. F(I5, Lasenggo (drunkard; ~=.24, t=3.99, p<.OOl), lapastangan (contemptuous;
p<.05), and ugaling hayop (beastly; ~=.13, t=2.03, p<.05) were found as significant lexical trait term predictors for the antisocial behavior domain. Se/fReport Psychopathy and Mga Katangiang Kanais-Nais. The Positive Valence domain is The internal
consisted of 10 items that describes the extreme positive characteristics of Filipinos. consistency for this domain is .83. Adj. If=.04, kakaiba psychopathy. domain F(IO,338)=2.31, p<.05. May halaga (with importance;
The R model for predicting SRP Index was significant, R=.25, ~=-.16, t=-2.63, p<.Ol) and was significant, (with
(unique; ~=.24, t=3.99, p<.05) were found significant trait term predictors for overall Meanwhile, the R model for predicting Interpersonal Manipulation F(IO,338)=2.39, p<.Ol. mahalaga (feels important; F(IO,338)=2.78, ~=-.13, t=-2.03, p<.05) and Two lexical trait terms significantly predicted this may halaga ~=-.18,
R=.26, Adj. If=.04, namely
importance; ~=-.13, t=-2.09, p<.05). well, R=.28, Adj. If=.05, the callous affect domain. F(IO,338)=1.24, found significant.
The R model for predicting Callous Mfect was significant as p<.Ol. Mahalaga (feels important; t=-2.79,
p<.Ol) and kakaiba (unique; ~=.15, t=2.28, p<.05) were found as significant lexical trait predictors of The R model for predicting Erratic Lifestyle (R=.24, Adj. If=.Ol, F(IO,338)=O.88, ns) were not ns) and Antisocial Behavior (R=.16, Adj. If=.003,
This study explored the relationship between self-report psychopathy and an indigenous model of Filipino personality. Using Church, Katigbak, and Reyes' indigenous model of personality (temperamentalness), kawalan ng derived from the lexical hypothesis, the dimensions of sumpungin lubos na makasarili (egocentric), and mga katangiang
disiplina (lack of discipline), hindi pagiging relihiyoso (non-religiousness), pagiging kalog (gregarious), 'di leanais-nais (negative valence) correlated significantly with psychopathy and its four facets. The typical manifestations of psychopathy from the Filipinos sampled in this study reflect an antagonistic disposition coupled with strong negative
FILIPINO LEXICAL TRAIT MODEL/15
descriptions (i.e. traits from the mga katangiang 'di kanais-naisi. amicable and friendly, non-organized and unstructured, in one with others; Enriquez, Williams, 2009). (Mataragnon,
Further, they are not inclined to be (collectively
and have no sense of religiosity which is Ciarrochi, Dy-Liacco, &
contradictory to the common Filipino who is known to be marunong makipagkapwa-tao 1992) and is very religious (Piedmont, Lastly, being sumpungin,
someone who changes moods suddenly for no reasons of psychopathy supporting previous local (e.g., Ching et al., 2011;
1977), illumines an affective component
findings of the positive linkage between psychopathy and neuroticism Untalan & Decatoria, 2011; Untalan, Mordeno, & Decatoria, 2008).
These results are similar to earlier proposals regarding the nomological structure of psychopathy within personality traits. Antagonism subscales (i.e, PKP Egotism and Negative Valence) obtained the highest correlations with psychopathy followed by lack of Conscientiousness (i.e. PKP of Conscientious). This replicates Lynam and Widiger's (1998) theoretical proposal for a personalityand the ample of researches showing the prominent Neuroticism (i.e. PKP Temperamentalness) antagonistic-lack and Extraversion (i.e.
discipline nature of psychopathy.
PKP Gregarious) also played an important role as previously found in earlier studies. The consistent relationship between emotional instability and psychopathy presents an idiographic or secondary type while traits of Self-Assurance represent the fearless, primary subtype of psychopathy based from Karpman's proposal (Lykken, 1995). Surprisingly, the trait Relihiyoso which is not seen in Western personality trait models showed as an important key trait as well in elaborating the manifestations of psychopathy among Filipinos. In a culture where strong religious orientations are carved within the development constructs." While these correlations at the domain level similarly reflects previous hypothesis, what is more striking is the specific utility of the lexical trait terms as fine-grained descriptions of psychopathy at the facet level. Table 3 summarizes the predictions of lexical trait descriptions on the four factors and overall index of psychopathy. Surprisingly, the other domains which failed to correlate with psychopathy such as pagiging matalino, tiwala sa sarili, and mga katangiang kanais-nais gave specific lexical trait terms that would describe psychopathy and its four facets. This suggests that the lexical tradition warrants predictive utility in understanding complex constructs such as psychopathy. (does not yield), makipagsapalaran dynamic of psychopathy. halaga (feels unimportant), (risk-taker), and prangko (brutally frank). For example, the domain of self-assurance provided rich descriptions of psychopathy such as walang atras Walang isip (lacks thought) and matalas ang ulo (sharp-mindedness) of the intelligent domain described the cognitive of the positive valence and socialization of a Filipino and elevated as a national value
1997), it clinical
provides a preliminary understanding
that this domain may be tapped in deconstructing
Meanwhile, kakaiba (unique bordering oddity and weirdness), walang and may halaga (viewed with importance)
predicted psychopathy as well.
and Reyes' (1996,
1998) analysis, the Religiosity subscale belongs to a greater factor for When we added
However, we believe that the domain of Religiosity is distinctive enough to be utilized as a standConscientiousness factor, the same results were obtained.
alone subscale considering the emphasis of our culture that Filipinos are highly religious individuals. this domain with the Discipline domain to form a higher-order Hence, we present here the separate regression analysis instead.
CHING, DELA CRUZ, HERNANDEZ,
SIERRA, & UNTALANI 16
Table 3. Summary of Significant Indigenous Lexical Traits in Predicting Self-Report Psychopathy.
Interpersonal Manipulation Callous Affect Mapagpanggap usiserot-) mapagmarunong mapaghiganti mapaghari-harian rnalambingt-) palaaway mapagkunwari(-) Erratic Lifestyle mapaghari-harian palaaway mapagmahal usisero( -) Antisocial Behavior Madaya mapagpanggap makakapwa mapagmataas mapagmarunong mapagmagaling(-) marapar] -) palaaway sinungaling mainggitin(-) SRP Total mapagpanggap madaya palaaway mapagmarunong mapaghiganti
mapagpanggap mapagmarunong mapagkaloob mapaghiganti rnatapart-)
Mga Katangiang i» Kanais-Nais
basag- ulero buwaya walang puso
lasenggo ugaling hayop lasenggo ) matigas ang ulo layas rradisyonalt-) sinauna mapaghanap( mapagtipon(madaldal (-) malungkutin mapanukso daldalero ngisi -) )
lasenggo lapastangan ugaling hayop
lasenggo basag-ulero ugaling hayop buwaya madasalint-)
relihiyosof- ) masinop ningas kugon
rnadasalinfpalaaral (-) matigas maaksaya masistema rnakabagot-)
bulakbol mapagwaldas tamad mapag-impokt-)
matigas ang ulo bulakbol mapag-impok(-)
mapanukso palabati (-) malungkutin
Magalaw palabati (-) mapanukso
mapanukso mabibig maingay(-) palabiro palausap
palabati (-) magalaw malungkutin may halaga( -) kakaiba
halakhakint- ) Mga Katangiang Kanais-Nais Pagiging Matalino Sumpungin
maangal mainisin maintin ang ulot-) iyakint-) tarnpuhintmagagalitin mapagmukmok maangal mainisin mapaghunos-dili mareklamot-) (-) ) magagalitin mapagmukmok mareklamo iyakin(-) mainitin ang ulot-) -) mahigpitt- ) mapaghunos-dili( mahalaga may halaga mahalaga( -) kakaiba may isipl-) matalas ang ulo magagalitin mainisin iyakin(-) mahigpitf-)
may isip(-) matalas ang ulo magagalitin iyakint-) mainisin maangal tampuhin(-) mapagmukmok mainitin ang uloi-) ) mapaghunos-dili(-
suplado Tiwala sa Sarili
walang atras matatag(-) agresibo may katwiran matapang makipagsapalaran walang kusa matatakutin (-) pabagu-bago walang atras agresibo rnaagapt-) masugid(-) pursigidot-) magulatin(-) matatag(-) pabagu-bago agresibo walang atras makipagsapalaran prangko walang kusa pursigido(-) magulatin(-) maliksi
may tapang agresibo walang atras prangko pabagu-bago
Note: Lexical traits with negative values suggest prediction pattern. Traits are arranged based from highest to lowest regression beta weights.
FILIPINO LEXICAL TRAIT MODELlI7
Interestingly, it can be observed that negative trait terms outnumbered describing the lexical manifestations of psychopathy. puso (cold-hearted), buwaya (greedy), lasenggo (drunkard), mapaghiganti
positive trait terms in (vengeful), maangal
Examples such as madaya (cheater), walang-
(ranting), magagalitin (easily angered), and agresibo (aggressive) are the typical trait terms that are related with psychopathy in general. related
As hypothesized, positive trait terms were found inversely (non-straightforwardness), matatakutin hindi palabati (nonand hindi (fearless) that are typical to
psychopathy such as hindi pagkamatapat (not studious),
amicable), hindi palaaral description of psychopathy.
This suggest that the construction of psychopathy, using a model of lexical trait term such as that by Church, Katigbak, and Reyes, allows future investigators in understanding psychopathy as a maladaptive the Western clinical construct from the dynamic language of the Filipinos. It is not far from the original construction of form of personality with negative trait terms seemingly a better candidate in translating the nomological structure of psychopathy within the lexical trait structure. Though the Filipino language does not provide a direct and exact translation for psychopathy, it can be seen that the trait terms attributes to a masamang tao (bad person). folk story of Juan and his counterparts. psychopathy. However, local theories have not provided a rich story for the concept of a masamang tao except for the shallow reference with the Such examples are Juan Tamad (Juan, the Lazy) and Juan Pusong (Juan, the Trickster) of which possess key traits of irresponsibility and manipulativeness of Further, Salazar (1975) made mention that the worst degree of a Filipino can be that (spirit), and is reflected with his relational experience in sa Diyos (belief
of masamang or maitim ang budhi (bad or evil conscience). Budhi (conscience) is the deepest core of the Filipino, together with kaluluwa pakikipagkapwa religiousness (Covar, 1995). tao, pero mahirap translation) . Though majority of the trait terms that describes psychopathy were negative terms, it can be seen as well that several trait terms in a positive direction also became as potential descriptors. such as mapagmahal (caring), masinop (tidy), masistema (systematic), mahalaga (important), ang ulo (sharp-minded), Terms matalas At (shared identity) and pananiwala magpakatao God) as embodied
Thus, Enriquez (1992) is correct in mentioning (it's easy to be human but difficult
of madaling maging
be a person; authors'
and maliksi (strong agile) were considered as valuable trait descriptors. and cognitive dynamics.
this moment, interpretations of why these terms became relevant may be related to how these terms are employed in interpersonal For example, trickery is best when a psychopath utilizes a warm and engaging relationship such as that of being mapagmahal to others. Babiak and Hare (2007) describes this as a strategy of psychopathic manipulation to entrap potential victims by presenting a positive attitude of caring and loving. However, the true psychopath when peeled to its deepest layer is really someone who is affectively callous and superficial (Hare, 1999; McCord & McCord, 1964). Another view can be of that these terms are excessively used such as that of terms mahalaga and may halaga which points out of a grandiose sense of worth similar to narcissism. This grandiose sense of worth is a typical narcissistic attribute aggregated within the nomological structure of psychopathy (insert here recent study of Skeem et al. as reference). Despite the correct pattern of relationships between psychopathy and specific indigenous trait terms, there were other terms that raises question such as the inclusion of malungkutin walang halaga (wothless), hindi pursigido (lacks determination), (sadness), and hindi matatag (lacks courage).
CHING, DELA CRUZ, HERNANDEZ,
SIERRA, & UNTALANI 18
At the moment, we believe that these results are an effect of a shared variance method and may be treated preliminary as residual traits that correlate with psychopathy. such results as other studies show such relevance. psychopathy, internalizing behaviors However, we do not dismiss and than were more related For example, in studies of women
(e.g., anxiety and depression)
externalizing behaviors (e.g., antisocial behavior, substance abuse) as found in men (e.g., Jackson & Richards, 2007; Verona & Vitale, 2006). Limitations and Recommendations Four limitations involving principles of methodology warrant discussion together with the suggested solutions as well. First, the study only utilized one self-report assessment of psychopathy. Knowing this limitation, results of the study cannot be generalized with other self-report measures of psychopathy that has different theoretical orientations. researchers should Hence, it is recommended that future explore the feasibility and replicate our findings with other measures of Hence, the possibility of a shared variance method may be relatively that this procedure should be decreased by employing a rnultitraitThird, the population of this study utilized of psychopathy in non-clinical
psychopathy (e.g., PPI & PPI-R; PSPS). Second, as we emphasized all throughout, the methodology of assessment is self-report. high. It is recommended multimethod
technique (Campbell & Fiske, 1957). over the understanding
emerging Filipino adults in colleges. It can be contended that the particular selection of participants may bring doubt populations. populations. over manifestation
However, we argue that constructs should not be solely determined within clinical conclude universality of constructs across Lastly, the selection of participants in this Although sampling Filipinos Psychopathy is amply supported by researches that cross-cuts from clinical (mental
populations but as well as to non-clinical populations
health and forensic) to non clinical (college) populations.
study was cross-sectional and of convenient sampling. Hence, it can be argued that our participants do not reflect the generality of the entire Filipino population. nationally indeed warrant generality, our instruments the validity of our instrument hinder effective responding. are dependent which was both written in the Filipino-Tagalog language. on the origin of translation
In islands where Tagalog is not spoken,
may be limited as it does not reflect language relevance and may Future researchers might want to explore and develop multiple
translations of the instruments for comparisons of language and ethnic groups. Conclusion Based on our findings, it can be seen that indigenous lexical traits can be used in translating imported clinical constructs such as psychopathy among Filipinos. This provides insight that PUP) may indigenous measures (others like Carlota's PPP and Enriquez and Guanzon-Lapena's provide future understanding constructs. in finding culturally-related Also, language provides a rich interpretation
constructs in analyzing foreign clinical in exploring best and fine-grained This may provide an approach in finding
descriptions of the clinical construct under investigation.
the cultural relevance of translating foreign clinical constructs (Church, 2000) that may later help in the local practice of clinical diagnosis. Furthermore, our findings provides preliminary example that indigenous lexical traits also generates similar results with Western personality models (e.g., Big Five) allowing for cross-indigenous/cultural investigations. Comparative analysis between indigenous and
FILIPINO LEXICAL TRAIT MODELl 19
Western models may seem best and relevant to answer questions such as which model is superior and relevant within the nomological structure of psychopathy in the future. In the meantime, it is hoped that our findings will fuel the utility of indigenous concepts in transforming Western constructs such as psychopathy into a culturally-meaningful and -relevant construct among non-Western cultures such as that of the Filipinos.
G. W., & Odbert,
H. S. (1936).
Trait names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological
Monographs, 47, No. 211. Allwood, C. M., & Berry, ]. W. (2006). Origins and development of indigenous psychologies: An international analysis. InternationalJournalo/Psychology, 41(4),243-268. Almagor, M., Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1995). The big seven model: A cross-cultural replication and further exploration of the basic dimensions of natural language trait descriptors. Journal o/Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2),300-307. American Psychiatric Association (2004). Diagnostic and statistical manual for mental disorders, fourth edition-text revised (DSM-IV-TR). HarperCollins. Blauuw, E., & Sheridan, L. (Eds.) (2002). Psychopaths: Current international perspectives. Hague, the Netherlands: Elsevier. Carlota, A. Washington, DC: Author. Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. New York:
(1995). Panukat ng Pagkataong
Pilipino (PPP). Philippine Journal
J. H. C.
Measurement, 6(1), 82-90. Ching, V. DM., De La Cruz, C. P., Hernandez, C. P., Sierra, R. R. Exploring the dark triad
within the lenses
0/ a Filipino
indigenous lexical trait model.
Manuscript submitted under review. Church, A. T. (1987). Personality research in a non-Western Bulletin, 102, 272-292. Church, A. T. (2000). Culture and personality: Towards an integrated cultural trait psychology. culture: The Philippines. Psychological
[ournal of Personality, 68(6),651-703. Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (2002). Filipino personality: Indigenous and cross-cultural studies.
Taft, Manila: De La Salle University Press. Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (2002b). Indigenization of psychology in the Philippines. InternationalJournalo/Psychology, 37(3),129-148.
Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., & Reyes, 24. Church, A. T., Katigbak, M. S., & Reyes, [ournal ojPersonality, 12, 249-269.
S. (1996). Toward a taxonomy of trait adjectives in
Filipinos: Comparing personality lexicons across cultures. European Journal
S. (1998). Further exploration of Filipino personality
structure using the lexical approach: Do the big-five or big-seven dimensions emerge? European
CHING, DELA CRUZ, HERNANDEZ,
SIERRA, & UNTALANI 20
Cooke, D. J., Forth, A E., & Hare, R. D. (Eds.) (1998). Psychopathy: Theory, research and implications for society. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2010). NEG Inventories professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Covar, P. R. (1995). Unburdening Philippine society of colonialism. In N. M. R. Santillian & M. B. P. Conde (Eds.) (1998), Kasaysayan at kamalayan: Mga piling akda sa diskursong pangkasaysayan [History and consciousness: Selected readings in historical discourse] (pp. 251-257). Quezon City, Philippines: Limbagang Pangkasaysayan. Enriquez, V. G. (1992). From colonial to liberation psychology: The Philippine experience. Quezon City, Philippines: University of the Philippines Press. Enriquez, V. G., & Cuanzon-Lapefia, M. A (2001). Panukat ng Ugali at Pagkatao manual. Quezon City, Philippines: Philippine Psychology Research and Training House. Geisinger, K. F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6(4),304-312. Guanzon-Lapena, M. A (2007). Personality. In L. A Teh & M. E. J. Macapagal (Eds.), General psychologyfor Filipino college students (pp. 235-257). Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila University Press. Guanzon-Lapena, M. A, Church, AT., Carlota, A J., & Katigbak, M. S. (1998). Indigenous personality measures: Philippine example. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(1), 249-270. Hare, R. D. (1970). Psychopathy: Theory and research. New York: Wiley. Hare, R. D. (1985). A comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(1), 7-16. Hare, R. D. (1999). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New York: Guilford. (Originally printed in 1995 by Pocket Books, New York.) Hare, R. D. (2003). Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, second edition (PCL-R;znd ed.), user's manual. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Hare, R. D., & Schalling, D. (1978). Psychopathic behavior: Approaches to research. Chicester, Great Britain: Wiley. Harkness, A R. (2007). Personality traits are essential for a complete clinical science. In S. O. Lilienfeld & W. T. O'Donohue (Eds.), The great ideas of clinical science: 17principles that every mental health professional should understand (pp. 263-290). New York: Routledge. Harkness, A R., & Lilienfeld, S. o. (1997). Individual differences science for treatment planning: Personality traits. Psychological Assessment, 9, 349-360. Herve, J., & Yuille, J. C. (Eds.) (2007). The psychopath: Theory, research, and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Jackson, R., & Richards, H. (2007). Psychopathy in women: A valid construct with clear implications. In H. Herve & J. C. Yuille (Eds.), The psychopath: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 389-410). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Jocano, F. L. (1997). Filipino value system: A cultural definition. Quezon City, Philippines: Punlad Research House.
FILIPINO LEXICAL TRAIT MODELl 21
Katigbak, M. S., Church, A T, Guanzon-Lapefia, M. A, Carlota, A J., & del Pilar, G. H. (2002). Are indigenous personality dimensions culture specific? Philippine inventories and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1),89-101. Kennealy, P. J., Skeem,
L., Walters, G. D., & Camp,
(2010). Do core interpersonal and
affective traits of PCL-R psychopathy
interact with antisocial behaviors and disinhibition
predict violence? Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 569-580. Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A, & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized Lilienfeld, S. O. population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151-158.
(1998). Methodological advances and developments in the assessment of psychopathy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 99-125. Lilienfeld, S. 0., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in non-criminal population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(3), 488-524. Lilienfeld, S. 0., & Fowler, K. A (2006). The self-report assessment of psychopathy: Problems, pitfalls, and promises. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 107-132). New York:
Guilford. Lilienfeld, S. 0., & Widows, M. R. (2005). Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised
professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Lykken, D. T (1995). The antisocial personalities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lynam, D. R., Gaughan, E. T, Miller, J. D., Miller, D. J., Mullins-Sweatt, S., & Widiger, T A (2011). Assessing the basic traits associated with psychopathy: Development and validation of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment. Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 108-124. Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T A (2007). Using a general model of personality to identify the basic elements of psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21 (2), 160-178. Mataragnon, R. H. (1977). A conceptual and psychological analysis of sumpong. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 10,45-53. Millon, T, Simonsen, E., Birket-Smith, M., & Davis, R. D. (Eds.) (1998). Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behaviors. New York: Guilford. Patrick, C. J. (Ed.) (2006). Handbook of psychopathy. New York: Guilford. Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. c., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 913-938. Paulhus, D. L., Hemphil, J. D., & Hare, R. D. (in press). Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-III).
Toronto/Buffalo: Multi-Health Systems. Dy-Liacco, G. S., & Williams, Piedmont, R. L., Carriochi,
J. E. G.
(2009). The empirical and
conceptual value of the Spiritual Transcendence and Religious Involvement Scale for personality research. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 1(3), 162-179. Salekin, R. T, & Lynam, D. R. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of child and adolescent psychopathy. New York: Guilford. Saucier, G., Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2000). Cross-language studies of lexical personality factors. In S. E. Hampson (Ed.), Advances in personality psychology (Vol. 1; pp. 1-36). Chestnut Street, PA: Taylor & Francis.
CHING, DELA CRUZ, HERNANDEZ,
SIERRA, & UNTALANI 22
Skodol, A. E., Bender, D. S., Morey, L. R. F., Verheul, R., Bell, C.
Clark, L. A., Oldham,
(2011). Personality disorder types proposed for DSM-5.Journal of Personality Disorders, 25(2), 136-169. Untalan, J. H. c., & Decatoria, J. B. (2011). Five-factor model of personality as predictors of
psychopathic traits among Filipino male offenders: A self-report approach. 1. G., & Decatoria, ad Veritatem, 10(2),
& Siever, L.
M., Alarcon, R. D., Krueger,
557-580. (2008). Exploring the dark triad of personality in Filipino culture: Preliminary findings. Philippine Journal o/Psychology, 41(2), 33-54. Verona, E., & Vitale, J. (2006). Psychopathy in women: Assessment, manifestations, and etiology. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psycbopatby (pp. 415-436). New York: Guilford. Widiger, T. A., & Lynam, D. R. (1998). Psychopathy and the five-factor model of personality. In T.
Untalan, Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, Williams, World & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, the four-factor structure of and violent behaviors (pp. 171-187). New York: Guilford.
J. H. c., Mordeno,
K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Capturing
in college students via self-report. Journal o/PersonalityAssessment,
0/ disorders, 1 ph edition (lCD-II).
Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
Victoria Cruz Colegio DM. Ching, Graduate School, University Department Intramuros, Manila. of Santo Tomas, Ryan Manila. Carifiez P. dela Department of John & Christopher de San Juan College P. Hernandez, de Letran, of Psychology, College of Arts and Sciences, Ross C. Sierra, Inc., Pampanga.
of Social Sciences, Angeles University
Hermes C. Untalan,
Graduate School, University of Santo Tomas, Manila. and not on the degree of contribution. Research Director, Colegio We declare no grants. The We would last author to use de San Juan de
Authors were arranged alphabetically like to acknowledge Letran, for allowing Gratitude acknowledges the SRP-II1.
conflict of interests and report that this study was not funded by any institutional Prof. Golda Aira Crisostomo, us conduct our research at the academic institution.
Dr. Delroy Paulhus, University regarding
of British Columbia,
Canada, for permission
to Ms. Daphne Via De Vera for the encoding of data. this paper should be addressed to: Mr. John Hermes Clinic, Thomas Aquinas Research Complex,
Correspondence UST Graduate
School Psycho trauma
1008 or email to:email@example.com. 411-0729 or Tel. No.: +632-406-1611 local 4012.
Santo Tomas, Espana, Manila
Mobile no.: +632-949-
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.