Original Research

SAGE Open
April-June 2023: 1–11
Ó The Author(s) 2023
Exploring the Relationship Between DOI: 10.1177/21582440231173823
journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
Cognitive Abilities and Adaptive
Components of Psychopathic Traits

Guillaume Durand1 , Bart P. F. Rutten2, and Jill Lobbestael2

Abstract
Although multiple studies have suggested a negative relationship between psychopathic traits and cognitive abilities, a few
identified positive associations between psychopathic traits and specific executive functions. This study examined the relation-
ship between a set of cognitive functions and the adaptive traits associated with psychopathic personality. Participants
(N = 107) completed measures of psychopathic traits and adaptive personality traits, as well as a series of cognitive-ability-
based tasks (measures of working memory, response inhibition, cognitive discrimination, and long-term memory). Results
showed that adaptive psychopathic traits were associated with faster response times on measures of working memory, cogni-
tive discrimination, and long-term recall. In contrast, psychopathic traits related to impulsivity were associated with slower
response times in incongruent trials of measures of cognitive discrimination and short-term recall. Higher levels of adaptive
and psychopathic traits related to fearlessness and dominance were associated with better performance in a working mem-
ory task without sacrificing accuracy for speed. These findings further support the multidimensionality of psychopathy;
whereas its maladaptive traits are related to cognitive impairments, its adaptive traits seem to be related to cognitive
superiority.

Keywords
psychopathic traits, executive functions, community sample, adaptive traits

Introduction Cognitive Abilities and Psychopathy

Psychopathy
Psychopathy is commonly defined by ruthlessness, cal-
lousness, lack of guilt and remorse, impulsivity, emo-
tional detachment, social deviance, and poor behavioral
control (Berg et al., 2013; Lynam & Miller, 2012).
Although there is a consensus regarding the importance
of the aforementioned traits, the inclusion of other traits,
which could be considered adaptive, is highly debated
(Lilienfeld et al., 2012; Lynam & Miller, 2012; Maples
et al., 2014). Early conceptualizations of psychopathy by
Cleckley (1941) included numerous non-maladaptive
traits in the set of characteristics observed in psycho-
paths, such as superficial charm, absence of delusion or
irrational thinking, absence of nervousness, and low sui-
cide rate (Cleckley, 1988, pp. 338–339). Multiple addi-
tional studies have confirmed that several psychopathic
traits are commonly associated with adaptive traits such
as social charm, low neuroticism, and high resilience to
stress and anxiety (see Durand, 2019b) for a complete
review).
Although multiple studies suggest that highly psycho-
pathic individuals have a deficit in executive functions
(EF) and cognitive abilities, findings and conclusions are
very inconsistent (Morgan & Lilienfeld, 2000). Cognitive
abilities include functions such as planning abilities,
behavioral inhibition, working memory, and cognitive
flexibility (Zeier et al., 2012). Previous findings indicate
that people classified as highly psychopathic often have
poor impulse control and difficulty adapting their beha-
vior. For instance, when asked to complete a flanker task
(i.e., a task where a centrally presented target stimulus is
flanked on both sides by distracter stimuli, which can be
1
Saint Paul University, Ottawa, ON, Canada
2
Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Guillaume Durand, School of Counselling, Psychotherapy and Spirituality,
Faculty of Human Sciences, Saint Paul University, 223 Main Street, Ottawa,
ON K1S 1C4, Canada.
Email: gdurand@ustpaul.ca

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
either the same as or different from the target stimulus),
incarcerated offenders diagnosed with psychopathy were
significantly less accurate in incongruent trials than non-
psychopathic participants. This supports the definition of
psychopathy as characterized by interference from
poorer cognitive control, as well as by increased impul-
sivity when making decisions (Zeier et al., 2012). These
results are consistent with the findings of Roussy and
Toupin (2000). They concluded that institutionalized
juvenile delinquents with psychopathy doing a go/no-go
task (i.e., responding when a specific stimulus is on screen
and not responding when any other stimulus is pre-
sented) and a stopping task (i.e., inhibiting the expected
response to a stimulus when hearing a signal tone) made
more errors than juvenile delinquents not diagnosed with
psychopathy. Similar trends were observed in undergrad-
uate students who completed a self-report measure of
psychopathic traits (Wilkowski & Robinson, 2008).
Specifically, individuals displaying high levels of psycho-
pathic traits related to impulsivity (but not to emotional
deficits) had difficulties adjusting their behavior after an
incorrect response, and therefore made more errors in
cognitive tasks. The authors suggest that the impulsivity
trait may prevent individuals from pausing after an error
for long enough to evaluate their strategy and readjust.
Cognitive Abilities and Adaptive Psychopathic Traits
None of the studies discussed in the previous section
used an instrument that included adaptive features.
However, multiple studies on cognitive abilities and psy-
chopathy were performed using a common measure of
self-reported psychopathic traits that notably includes an
adaptive component: the Psychopathic Personality
Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). The PPI is
divided into two factors: PPI-I (Fearless Dominance,
which includes several of the potentially more adaptive
features of psychopathy) and PPI-II (Impulsive
Antisociality, which focuses on several maladaptive fea-
tures of psychopathy).
A study by Snowden et al. (2013) on college students
identified a negative relationship between self-reported
levels of PPI and executive functions. Indeed, higher
levels of psychopathic traits were associated with more
errors on the Porteus Maze test used to assess impulsiv-
ity. This relationship was observed for both PPI-I and
PPI-II. Contradictory results came from another study
using the PPI on a sample of undergraduates (Carlson
et al., 2009), where self-reported psychopathic traits
were linked to executive functioning measured with the
rotated heads task. A negative relationship was found
between reaction time on the cognitive task and PPI-I,
but there was no association between reaction time and
PPI-II. Similar results were obtained for the
relationship between the PPI and a battery of test
assessing general executive functions (i.e., working
memory, attention, planning, cognitive flexibility, sus-
tained attention, and behavioral disinhibition) in
undergraduate students (Sellbom & Verona, 2007).
There was a positive association between cognitive
functioning and PPI-I, as well as a negative association
between the former and PPI-II. The negative associa-
tion between PPI-II and reduced executive functions
was also identified by Micha1owski et al. (2015). Their
findings suggested a negative association between PPI-
II and executive control (e.g., slower response time).
Contradictory results were also obtained in studies
examining psychopathic traits categorically rather than
on a continuum in the general population using the
PPI. For instance, one study supported the positive
association between high levels of PPI and cognitive
abilities. Salnaitis et al. (2011) divided their sample of
undergraduate students into three groups based on
their level of psychopathic traits (low, medium, or
high), and had them solve the tower of Hanoi (a cogni-
tive measure of planning, working memory, and prob-
lem solving). Highly psychopathic individuals were
predominantly fast and accurate in their responses,
while individuals with low levels of psychopathic traits
were slow and accurate, and suggested that executive
functioning deficiencies may not be present in subclini-
cal psychopathic individuals from the general popula-
tion. Similar results were observed in a study
comparing undergraduate students based on PPI levels
(low and high) on cognitive measures of risk-taking
and decision-making, and response inhibition (Zimak
et al., 2014). While individuals with high levels of psy-
chopathic traits displayed more inaccuracy and beha-
vioral inhibition, their response time was significantly
faster, and they exhibited better decision-making skills.
The highly variable results from studies comparing
PPI levels and cognitive abilities in the general popula-
tion could be due to the traits assessed by PPI-I. It
includes only three traits thought to be related to the
psychopathic personality—social potency, fearlessness,
and stress immunity—and does not consider maladap-
tive traits (coldheartedness, Machiavellian egocentri-
city, impulsive nonconformity, blame externalization,
and carefree nonplanfulness). There is a newer self-
reported instrument, which covers a wider range of
adaptive features believed to be associated with high
levels of psychopathic traits (Durand, 2019b). The
Durand Adaptive Psychopathic Traits Questionnaire
(DAPTQ) is a 38-item questionnaire assessing eight
adaptive traits known to correlate with psychopathic
personality traits. The first step in its development was
to identify the constructs considered adaptive that are
strongly associated with the diagnosis of psychopathy
Durand et al.
or psychopathic traits as measured through self-report.
Adaptive traits are defined as those that facilitate and
improve the individual’s chances of survival in their
environment (Durand, 2019b). Factor analysis sug-
gested an 8-factor solution (Leadership, Logical
Thinking, Composure, Creativity, Fearlessness, Focus,
Extroversion, and Management; Durand, 2019a). The
DAPTQ is not a measure of psychopathy, nor is it a
measure of psychopathic traits.
Present Study
The purpose of this study is threefold. First, due to the
high variability of cognitive tasks across the studies in
the field of psychopathy, a pilot study examining the
validity of different versions of cognitive tasks is neces-
sary. Second, while the DAPTQ was intended to expand
on the PPI-I, it has not yet been compared to any beha-
vioral executive function measure. Therefore, a correla-
tional analysis will be performed to identify the
relationship between the DAPTQ, PPI-I, and EF. Lastly,
we will examine how efficiently the DAPTQ and PPI-I
predict EF. We hypothesize that the DAPTQ and PPI-I
will predict the variance of response time in cognitive
tasks, whereas higher levels on the DAPTQ and PPI-I
will be associated with lower response time.
Methods
Participants
A total of N = 107 participants (44 males, 63 females)
were recruited on social media and websites dedicated to
psychology research (e.g., callforparticipants.com, onli-
nepsychresearch.co.uk, and facebook.com). The age of
the participants ranged between 18 and 64 years old
(M = 28.78, SD = 10.52). Over a third of the partici-
pants were university students (38%). Participants were
located mostly in North America (51%) and Europe
(39%). In terms of the latest diploma obtained, the larg-
est group of participants reported holding a high school
diploma (41%), followed by a bachelor’s degree (31%),
a master’s degree (13%), and other (15%). The current
study was approved and given the ‘‘exempt’’ status by
the IntegReview Ethical Review Board (Austin, TX,
USA), under protocol number 11022016. No names or
other protected health information, as defined by the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA), were recorded. All participants filled out an
informed consent form with detailed information about
the nature, goal, and procedure of the study before the
experiment started. Participants remained anonymous
throughout the study and were not compensated for
their time.
3
Instruments
Durand Adaptive Psychopathic Traits Questionnaire
(DAPTQ). The DAPTQ is a 38-item self-report instru-
ment assessing adaptive traits known to correlate with
psychopathic personality traits (Durand, 2019b). The
DAPTQ uses a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1
(Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree). A validation
study of the DAPTQ confirmed its incremental validity
over the PPI-short form in measures related to successful
psychopathy, such as conscientiousness, stress and anxi-
ety immunity, and communication adaptability
(Durand, 2019a). Subsequent studies supported the relia-
bility and validity of the DAPTQ as a measure of adap-
tive traits (Bronchain et al., 2020, 2021). In the present
study, the internal consistency reliability of the DAPTQ
total was a = .92, and that of its subscales ranged from
a = .76 to .92.
Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short Form (PPI-SF). The
PPI-SF is a 56-item self-report instrument assessing psy-
chopathic traits on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = false,
4 = true; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). Factor analytic
research showed that the subscales load on two different
factors. The Fearless Dominance (PPI-I) factor includes
Stress Immunity, Social Potency, and Fearlessness sub-
scales, and the Impulsive Antisociality (PPI-II) factor
includes Blame Externalization, Machiavellian
Egocentricity, Carefree Nonplanfulness, and Impulsive
Nonconformity subscales. The Coldheartedness subscale
does not load on either of the two factors (Benning
et al., 2003). The DAPTQ total score was shown to cor-
relate positively with PPI-I (r = .66) and PPI-SF total
(r = .46), but is not significantly associated with PPI-II
(r = 2.04; Durand, 2019b). In the present study, the
total PPI score had a Cronbach’s alpha of a = .76; PPI-
I, of a = .83; and PPI-II, of a = .76.
The n-Back Task. The n-back task is a measure of atten-
tion and working memory based on the design of
Schoofs et al. (2008). Participants were asked to monitor
a series of one-digit numbers from 0 to 9, presented in a
random sequence. Participants had to choose between
two arrows on the keyboard (e.g., left arrow if seen n
steps before; right arrow if not seen n steps before).
Participants completed a practice trial of 15 stimuli, fol-
lowed by two blocks of 50 trials presented in random
order, where the working memory load was varied by
switching the difficulty between a 2-back and a 3-back
condition. A fixation cross was presented for 500 ms, fol-
lowed by a stimulus with auto-advance for 3,000 ms and
an inter-stimulus interval of 1200 ms. Target stimuli
(same as in the n-trials before) were presented randomly
with a probability of 33%. The first three trials of both
conditions were removed for all participants.
4 SAGE Open
The Go/No-Go Task. The go/no-go task is designed to
assess cognitive attention and response inhibition. On-
screen instructions told the participant to press the space
bar of the keyboard every time the letter X appeared,
and to refrain from pressing any key when the screen dis-
played any other letter (A, D, Y, W). The task was com-
posed of 48 consecutive trials, divided equally between
presentations of the target cue and distracters. During
each trial, a blank screen was presented for 500 ms, fol-
lowed by a fixation cross for 1000 ms and a target letter
for 2500 ms. The go/no-go paradigm has been used in
several other laboratory studies in the field of psychopa-
thy (Zimak et al., 2014) and is a valuable tool for asses-
sing response discrimination. Scoring was performed by
calculating the mean reaction time before responding to
the go stimulus (the X) and by calculating the average
number of errors (i.e., pressing the space bar on Y or
inhibit pressing).
The Flanker Task. The flanker task is a common mea-
sure of cognitive control and perceptual discrimination
(Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974). A row of five characters was
presented to the participant. The target stimulus was in
the middle of the row, flanked by two distracters on
either side. The distracters were either very similar to
(congruent) or very different (incongruent) from the tar-
get stimulus. When distracter stimuli are incongruent,
participants generally answer more slowly and less accu-
rately than when answering congruent trials.
There are many versions of the flanker task. We used
one version with control trials and another without, with
participants completing either one or the other. The first
version was based on the numbers/letters version used by
Zeier et al. (2012). Our participants completed 100 trials
divided into two blocks. For each trial, a fixation cross
appeared on screen for 500 ms, followed by the target and
the flankers, which were set to auto-advance after 2500
ms. The target appeared at fixation, and the distracters
appeared to the left and right, equidistant from the target
(at approximately one degree of visual angle). As in Zeier
et al.’s (2012) study, the target stimulus was always a 5, 8,
G, or M, and the distracters were either another one of
these characters or a pound sign (#). Participants were
asked whether the target was a letter or a number and
responded using a two-alternative forced choice answer.
This was followed by a 1000–1500 ms variable intertrial
interval. In congruent trials, the target and distracters
were from the same category (e.g., 8 5 8); in incongruent
trials, they were different (e.g., G 5 G). In control trials,
the distracters were pound signs (e.g., # 5 #).
The second flanker task version we used was the
arrows version. The settings were the same, but the let-
ters and numbers were replaced with arrows (e.g., \ \
\ \ \). Participants were asked to chose the keyboard
arrow key corresponding to the middle arrow (left arrow
key for \ \ \ \ \; right arrow key for \ \ . \
\). The arrows version did not include control trials.
The dependent measures were response time (RT) and
the number of errors for congruent trials, incongruent
trials, and control trials (for version 1). Although Zeier
et al.’s (2012) task version appears to be an improve-
ment over the regular flanker task, the version without
control trials has been used in more studies (Racer
et al., 2011; Sellbom & Verona, 2007).
The Penn Word Memory Test (PWMT). The PWMT is a
measure of short- and long-term episodic memory.
Participants were presented with 20 target words (1500
ms for target cue; 1500 ms for target word) and were
asked to try to memorize them (Gur et al., 1993).
Immediately after, participants were instructed to identify
all the previously seen words from a list comprising 40
words (20 words from the first list and 20 distracters).
Participants were asked to answer using a two-alternative
forced choice response (left arrow if seen before; right
arrow if not seen before). The target cue during the trial
remained at 1,500 ms, and the trial auto-advanced to the
next trial after 3,000 ms. About 15 minutes later, at the
very end of the study, participants were shown a second
list (20 words from the first list, 20 new distracters), and
were asked to answer, once again using the two-
alternative forced choice response. Distracters and target
words were equated for frequency, length, concreteness,
and imageability using Paivio’s norms (i.e., moral, fig-
ment, event, prestige, hint, and origin; Paivio et al.,
1968). The response time and number of errors were
selected as performance measures. For analyses, PWMT1
refers to the first series of trials, measuring short-term
recognition, and PWMT2 refers to the second and last
series of trials, measuring long-term recognition. Across
all cognitive tasks, participants with an error rate of over
75% were automatically excluded from the data set.
Experimental Procedure
All participants first completed the PWMT1. Then, in
random order, they did the go/no-go, the n-back task,
and one of the two flanker tasks. The last task for all
participants was the PWMT2, which concerns long-term
memory. Participants completed the cognitive tasks
using the Gorilla platform (www.gorilla.sc). Although
laboratory studies in the presence of an experimenter are
often thought to be more reliable, recent evidence sug-
gests that online behavioral experiments do not differ
from laboratory studies and provide equally valid results
(Hilbig, 2016; Semmelmann & Weigelt, 2017). In order
to exclude participants who stopped completing the tasks
without closing the study page, we added various
Durand et al. 5

Table 1. Descriptive Data From the Durand Adaptive Table 2. Descriptive Data From the n-Back, Go/No-Go, and
Psychopathic Traits Questionnaire and the Psychopathic Flanker Tasks and the Pennsylvania Word Memory Test.
Personality Inventory Short Form (N = 107).
N M SD
M SD
N-back
DAPTQ 2-back RT 96 809.11 151.80
Leadership 13.14 4.56 2-back errors 96 3.89 3.71
Logical Thinking 21.14 4.47 3-back RT 93 881.11 156.39
Composure 18.47 7.71 3-back errors 93 7.06 5.26
Creativity 16.36 4.79 Go/no-go
Fearlessness 16.88 6.33 RT 107 436.26 73.15
Focus 12.84 4.80 Errors 107 0.61 0.85
Extroversion 18.12 8.03 Flanker letters/numbers version
Management 11.78 3.49 Control RT 47 589.86 79.31
Total 128.76 27.61 Congruent RT 47 593.08 67.75
PPI-SF Incongruent RT 47 603.15 66.10
Machiavellian Egocentricity 14.12 3.57 Errors 47 3.02 2.01
Social Potency 17.14 4.16 Flanker arrows version
Fearlessness 13.47 5.03 Congruent RT 54 478.65 73.95
Coldheartedness 14.10 3.92 Incongruent RT 54 530.32 80.07
Impulsive nonconformity 15.94 3.93 Errors congruent 54 0.18 0.47
Blame externalization 13.28 4.98 Errors incongruent 54 2.18 2.52
Carefree nonplanfulness 14.74 2.90 PWMT
Stress immunity 17.64 3.72 PWMT1 RT 103 834.47 121.63
PPI-I 48.27 9.97 PWMT1 errors 103 6.51 3.01
PPI-II 58.09 9.14 PWMT2 RT 104 815.32 110.13
Total 120.46 14.26 PWMT2 errors 104 6.28 3.46

checkpoints in the experimental setup of the Gorilla plat-
form. Participants missing more than 75% of the data
were automatically removed. There was no missing data
in either of the two questionnaires. For the analyses, we
excluded response time trials answered in less than
150 ms or more than 1,500 ms (2,000 ms for PWMT1
and PWMT2). Errors rates for all cognitive tasks were
recoded as z-scores.
Statistical Analyses
We first computed the means and standard deviations
for the questionnaires and cognitive tasks to ensure simi-
larity with other studies using the same instruments. T-
test analyses were used to compare cognitive tasks’ ver-
sion efficacy for the n-back task, the flanker task, and
the PWMT. A Pearson correlation was then used to
determine the strength of the association between the
questionnaires and the cognitive tasks. Lastly, we per-
formed a series of linear stepwise regression analyses on
all response time variables using the DAPTQ and PPI-I
as predictors.
Results
Descriptive Data
Tables 1 and 2 show the descriptive data of the ques-
tionnaires and all the cognitive tasks. The DAPTQ and
Note. Each participant was asked to complete only one of the two flanker
task versions. RT = reaction time.
the PPI-SF had similar means and standard deviations
as in other studies using those instruments (Bronchain
et al., 2020; Durand, 2018a, 2018b; Lee & Salekin,
2010). The DAPTQ total score again correlated posi-
tively with PPI-I (r = .81) and PPI-SF total (r = .59),
but was not significantly associated with PPI-II
(r = 2.20). The n-back task yielded results similar to
those obtained by Schoofs et al. (2008). In their study,
the mean response time for 2-back was 715 ms for con-
trol and 879 ms for the stress group (compared to
809 ms in the present study), and their mean response
time for 3-back was 811 ms for control and 943 ms for
the stress group (compared to 881 ms in the present
study). Our go/no-go response time was similar to the
results obtained by Harper et al. (2014), who reported
mean reaction times between 445 and 451 ms (com-
pared to 436 ms in the present study). Our results for
both versions of the flanker task were also similar to
previous results. Zeier et al. (2012) reported mean
response times between 579 and 610 ms for the letters/
numbers version (compared to 589–603 ms in the pres-
ent study), while Sellbom and Verona (2007) reported a
mean of 499 ms for the arrows version (compared to
478–530 ms in the current study).
On the other hand, our mean response times for the
PWMT were significantly faster than in other studies—
6 SAGE Open

around 800 ms, compared to previous results of around Table 3. Correlations Between the Durand Adaptive
1,400 ms (Gur et al., 2012; Moore et al., 2015). This dif- Psychopathic Traits Questionnaire, the Psychopathic Personality
ference may be due to the sample’s characteristics, Inventory Short Form, and Executive Functions.
whereas the aforementioned authors investigated the EF
Criterion DAPTQ PPI-SF PPI-I PPI-II
of a young sample with a mean age of 15 years.
Regarding the relationship between demographics Questionnaires
and levels of the DAPTQ and PPI, an ANOVA identi- DAPTQ — — — —
fied a sex-based difference for the PPI, where males PPI-SF .53*** — — —
PPI-I .77*** .73*** — —
scored higher than females (F(1, 105) = 6.122, p = .015, PPI-II 2.19* .58*** 2.07 —
d = 0.47). This was not the case on the DAPTQ (F(1, N-back
105) = 3.431, p = .067, d = 0.35). No other analyses of 2-back RT 2.35*** 2.18 2.26** .06
mean differences based on demographics could be car- 2-back errors 2.05 2.03 2.08 .08
ried out due to the small sample size. 3-back RT 2.32** 2.15 2.18 .00
3-back errors .17 .12 .08 .09
Go/no-go
RT 2.03 2.03 2.10 .01
Comparability of Alternative Cognitive Tasks Errors 2.07 2.04 2.05 2.01
Flanker letters/numbers version
To assess the reliability of cognitive tasks with multiple Control RT 2.41** 2.14 2.36* .24
paradigms, we first examined the mean differences Congruent RT 2.41** 2.17 2.30* .16
between the two versions of the n-back task, the flan- Incongruent RT 2.44** 2.10 2.35* .30*
ker tasks, and the PWMT. As expected, participants Errors .01 .05 .09 .01
Flanker arrows version
were significantly faster when answering the 2-back Congruent RT 2.33* 2.06 2.29* .23
task compared to the 3-back task (t(89) = 6.382, p Incongruent RT 2.27 .03 2.23 .28*
\ .001, d = 0.54). Within answered trials, participants Errors congruent .03 2.01 .18 2.14
also made fewer mistakes on the 2-back task than on Errors incongruent .14 2.01 2.01 2.07
the 3-back task (t(89) = 6.65, p \ .001, d = 0.72), most PWMT
PWMT-1 RT 2.10 .10 2.03 .24*
likely because the 2-back version was simpler than the PWMT-1 errors .16 .00 .04 2.06
3-back. PWMT-2 RT 2.20* 2.06 2.13 .09
As with the n-back task, a few differences were PWMT-2 errors .20* .12 .13 .04
observed between the two versions of the flanker task. In
the letters/numbers version, control trials yielded the Note. *p 2 .05. **p 2 .01. ***p 2 .001.
same reaction time as the congruent trials (t(46) = 0.67,
p = .504, d = 0.05). As expected, a small significant dif-
ference was nonetheless observed between response time Associations Between the DAPTQ, the PPI-SF, and
(RTs) of congruent and incongruent trials, where con- Executive Functions
gruent trials were answered faster (t(46) = 2.14, As shown in Table 3, Pearson correlations between the
p = .038, d = 0.15). Interestingly, differences between DAPTQ, the PPI-SF, and executive functions revealed
congruent and incongruent trials for the arrows flanker multiple significant results. As in Durand (2019a,
task were larger. In this version, congruent trials were 2019b), the DAPTQ was positively associated with PPI-
significantly faster than incongruent trials (t(53) = 13.39, SF and PPI-I, and significantly negatively associated
p \ .001, d = 0.67). Similarly, congruent trials elicited with PPI-II. Higher scores on the DAPTQ were associ-
fewer mistakes (t(53) = 5.70, p \ .001, d = 1.10). When ated with faster response times on the 2-back and 3-back
controlled for multiple testing (p = .05/3 = .016), three task; on the control, congruent, and incongruent trials of
ANOVAs detected no difference between the two flanker the letters/numbers flanker task; on the congruent trials
groups for the DAPTQ (F(1, 105) = 0.180, p = .672, of the arrows flanker task; and on the long-term recall
d = 0.08), the PPI-SF (F(1, 105) = 3.995, p = .048, PWMT2. Unexpectedly, the DAPTQ was also associated
d = 0.40), and age (F(1, 105) = 0.541, p = .464, with higher error rates on the long-term recall PWMT2,
d = 0.14). The flanker groups also did not differ by sex although the results were barely within the significance
(x2 (1, N = 107) = 0.718, p = .397). threshold (p = .040). The PPI-SF total score was not
A significant mean difference was observed between associated with any variables related to executive func-
response times for PWMT1 and PWMT2 (t(99) = 2.08, tions. Higher scores on the PPI-I were associated with
p = .040, d = 0.16). There were no significant differences faster RTs on the 2-back task; on the control, congruent,
in the number of errors between PWMT1 and PWMT2 and incongruent trials of the letters/numbers flanker
(t(98) = 1.22, p = .222, d = 0.11). task; and on congruent trials of the arrows flanker task.
Durand et al. 7

Table 4. Regression Analyses of DAPTQ and PPI-I on Response Time.

95% CI
Dependent variable Effect Estimate SE LL UL t p

RT 2-back
DAPTQ 21.897 0.532 22.953 20.841 23.568 .001
PPI-I 0.008 0.053 .958
RT 3-back
DAPTQ 21.840 0.577 22.986 20.693 23.188 .002
PPI-I 0.147 0.965 .337
RT flanker letters/numbers control
DAPTQ 21.206 0.404 22.019 20.392 22.985 .005
PPI-I 20.087 20.381 .705
RT flanker letters/numbers congruent
DAPTQ 21.030 0.345 21.725 20.335 22.985 .005
PPI-I 0.058 0.252 .802
RT flanker letters/numbers incongruent
DAPTQ 21.095 0.330 21.761 20.430 23.317 .002
PPI-I 0.027 0.118 .907
RT flanker arrows congruent
DAPTQ 21.075 0.429 21.936 20.215 22.507 .015
PPI-I 20.125 20.719 .475
RT PWMT-2
DAPTQ 20.813 0.386 21.579 20.046 22.104 .038
PPI-I 0.072 0.478 .634

Note. Standard error and confidence intervals are unavailable for non-significant predictors. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

Lastly, PPI-II was associated with slower response times Discussion

in incongruent trials for both the letters/numbers and
arrows flanker task, as well as slower response times on
short-term recall PWMT1.
Regression Analyses to Predict Executive Functions
As shown in Table 4, a series of stepwise regression anal-
yses was performed on all response time variables using
the DAPTQ total and PPI-I as predictors. The results are
as follows. A significant regression was observed for 2-
back response time (adjusted R2 = .11, F(1,94) = 12.731,
p \ .001); 3-back response time (adjusted R2 = .09,
F(1,91) = 10.160, p = .002); flanker letters/numbers con-
trol response time (adjusted R2 = .15, F(1,45) = 8.913,
p = .005); flanker letters/numbers congruent response
time (adjusted R2 = .15, F(1,45) = 8.909, p = .005); flan-
ker letters/numbers incongruent response time (adjusted
R2 = .18, F(1,45) = 11.002, p = .002); flanker arrows
congruent (adjusted R2 = .09, F(1,52) = 6.284, p = .015);
and PWMT2 response time (adjusted R2 = .03,
F(1,102) = 4.426, p = .038). For all analyses, the
DAPTQ was the sole predictor, and higher levels on the
DAPTQ predicted faster response times. No significant
regression was found for the go/no-go response time,
flanker arrows incongruent response time, or PWMT1
response time.
The purpose of the present study was (i) to compare the
validity of different measures of cognitive abilities in the
field of psychopathic traits; (ii) to examine the relation-
ship between EF and adaptive personality traits related
to the psychopathic personality; and (iii) to assess the
predictive value of the DAPTQ and PPI-I for EF.
Comparing versions of cognitive tasks yielded interest-
ing findings. The slower response time and higher num-
ber of errors in the 3-back task compared to the 2-back
task is similar to the results obtained by Schoofs et al.
(2008). These results suggest that the 3-back task may
yield more variable results for group differences in work-
ing memory performance. This is likely because the 3-
back task is more challenging than the 2-back task, which
may be too easy for high performers.
Similarly, a few differences emerged between the two
versions of the flanker task. Participants were signifi-
cantly slower in the letters/numbers version and were
making more mistakes, especially in incongruent trials.
These results mirror those obtained by Zeier et al. (2012),
who reported an effect size of d = 0.34 when comparing
response time between congruent and incongruent trials.
Another study using the arrows version obtained an
effect size between congruent and incongruent trials three
times larger (d = 0.99, Racer et al., 2011). These results
suggest that using an arrow paradigm for the flanker
8 SAGE Open
task provides better results in discriminating between
congruent trials and interfering stimuli.
Lastly, differences were also identified in the PWMT.
A previous study investigating the psychometric proper-
ties of a cognitive battery that included the PWMT
reported no difference in response time (d = 0.01) or
accuracy (d = 0.14) between immediate and delayed
word memory (Gur et al., 2010). Our participants, in
contrast, were faster at the second time point, which may
be due to a habituation effect. Repeating other tasks
besides the PWMT at different times could help deter-
mine whether participants were only faster the second
time because they already did the PWMT once, and
whether this is observed when repeating any other task,
such as the n-back and flanker tasks.
Higher levels of adaptive and psychopathic traits were
associated with faster response time for working memory
with high load (the 2-back task), but only adaptive traits
were associated with the more complex working memory
task (the 3-back task). Interestingly, no significant results
were observed regarding accuracy on the n-back task.
These findings suggest that individuals with higher levels
of adaptive traits did not lose accuracy while they gained
speed. Similar results were obtained in previous studies.
For instance, a study on incarcerated inmates suggested
that individuals with a higher deficit in interpersonal fea-
tures (e.g., arrogance and a deceitful interpersonal style,
as identified on a psychopathy diagnosis measure) made
fewer errors in tasks related to working memory (Hansen
et al., 2007). These results are also in line with the work
of Carlsonet al. (2009). Overall, these results suggest that
higher levels of adaptive and PPI-I traits are associated
with better performance in working memory tasks, with-
out sacrificing accuracy for speed.
Unexpectedly, no effects were found for the go/no-go
task. An early study in the field of cognitive abilities and
psychopathic traits in undergraduate students has
reported that individuals with higher levels of psycho-
pathic traits presented more difficulties inhibiting their
responses when facing a competing reward in a go/no-go
paradigm (Lynam et al., 1999). These results mirror
those previously reported, supporting an increase in
error on a go/no-go task in diagnosed juvenile psycho-
paths (Roussy & Toupin, 2000). Although only the sec-
ond study was categorical, it is possible that inhibition
difficulties in a go/no-go paradigm are present mainly in
highly psychopathic individuals. An experiment focusing
on groups of psychopathic individuals (low scorers and
high scorers on the PPI-SF) would provide more clarity
regarding the relationship between the go/no-go task
and psychopathy.
The results obtained for both versions of the flanker
task further support previous findings regarding the
opposite associations observed with PPI-I and PPI-II.
Higher levels of adaptive traits and PPI-I were associated
with faster RTs on all trials in the letters/numbers ver-
sion, and only with congruent trials in the arrows ver-
sion. In contrast, PPI-II was associated with slower
incongruent trials on both flanker task versions.
Impairment in response inhibition is one of the most
recurrent reported problems among psychopathic indi-
viduals (Roussy & Toupin, 2000; Wilkowski &
Robinson, 2008; Zeier et al., 2012). However, inhibitory
control has often been negatively associated with psycho-
pathic traits when viewing them as a whole. Studies dif-
ferentiating the various aspects of psychopathic traits,
for instance the behavioral aspects (e.g., social deviance
and violent behavior) from the psychological aspects
(e.g., callousness and low anxiety) find that inhibitory
control may be impaired in individuals showing high lev-
els of the former, but not in individuals displaying the
latter. In fact, individuals showing callousness and low
anxiety may even outperform typically developing indi-
viduals in tasks requiring inhibitory control (Ross et al.,
2007).
The results related to the PWMT1 and PWMT2
were in line with our expectations for the PPI-II, but
not for the DAPTQ. As with both flanker tasks, PPI-II
was associated with slower RTs on the PWMT1, but
not on the PWMT2. It is possible that higher levels of
PPI-II are related to higher levels of doubt in one’s
answers and lower levels of motivation when complet-
ing the first task of the study. Many studies have asso-
ciated high levels of psychopathic traits, particularly
those related to the PPI-II, with lower self-esteem
(Durand, 2016; Falkenbach et al., 2013). Alternatively,
low self-esteem has been associated with high neuroti-
cism, which includes a host of factors, such as self-
doubt and worry (Scheier et al., 1994). In addition,
adaptive traits were associated with faster RTs but a
higher error rate on the PWMT2, though the DAPTQ
has not been associated with error rates in any other
task. It is possible that higher levels of adaptive traits
are associated with a reduced attention span toward
the end of the experiment, causing more errors on the
last task. However, the lack of significant association
between adaptive traits and error rates in all other
tasks indicates a potential type I error due to limited
power, especially given the weak p-value (p = .040).
In addition to the correlation analysis, we performed a
regression analysis to assess the predictive power of the
DAPTQ and PPI-I on the response time of cognitive abil-
ities. For all significant regression analyses, the DAPTQ
was the sole predictor of the regression, with explained
variance varying between 3% and 18%. It is important
to note that these results should be considered highly pre-
liminary due to the small sample size, particularly on the
flanker task. Indeed, the sample size does not allow a
Durand et al.
thorough examination of the incremental validity of the
DAPTQ over the PPI-I. Nevertheless, these preliminary
findings are sufficiently encouraging to justify a larger
study focusing on the same variables to examine the
incremental validity of the DAPTQ over the PPI-I to pre-
dict EF.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this study. First, our sam-
ple size was modest, which further tampers the results
obtained on the flanker tasks. Only half the participants
performed each of the two versions, and our results need
to be verified in a larger study focusing on the arrows ver-
sion of the flanker task. Second, the assessment of psy-
chopathic traits was performed using a brief self-reported
questionnaire—the PPI-SF. A future study could benefit
from the paradigm developed by Bronchain et al. (2020),
in which a large sample of individuals are divided into
four groups based on an extensive measure of psycho-
pathic and adaptive traits. Third, our sample was not
only small but also very heterogeneous, which may fur-
ther temper the results. The standard deviation for the
age of the sample was particularly large, which may influ-
ence cognitive performance. A future study with a more
homogeneous group of participants (e.g., students from
one university) may yield different results. Lastly, while
experiments using cognitive tasks often include hundreds
of trials, each of our tasks used between 48 and 100 trials.
While the study gives a general idea of the relationship
between the DAPTQ and EF, future studies will need to
increase the number of trials (and most likely decrease the
number of EF tasks to remain time-efficient).
Conclusion
This study extends the research on psychopathic traits
and EF and tentatively supports the association between
the DAPTQ and EF. Specifically, adaptive traits and
PPI-I are associated with better performance on cogni-
tive tasks, as observed through a faster response times
with similar accuracy. While encouraging, these results
remain highly preliminary due to the small number of
participants, who were recruited on social media. Our
findings confirm that psychopathic traits need to be stud-
ied as a heterogeneous construct by exploring its various
individual facets, both adaptive and maladaptive, such as
the ones assessed by the DAPTQ.
Acknowledgments
This work is published thanks to an aid to publishing grant
from Saint Paul University.
9
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of inter-
est with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article: Dr. Guillaume Durand receives royalties from
the sale of the Durand Adaptive Psychopathic Traits
Questionnaire. Dr. Bart P.F. Rutten, and Dr. Jill Lobbestael
declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical Approval
The current study was approved and given ‘exempt’ status by
the IntegReview Ethical Review Board (Austin, TX, USA),
under protocol number 11022016.
ORCID iD
Guillaume Durand https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5418-4429
References
Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Hicks, B. M., Blonigen, D. M., &
Krueger, R. F. (2003). Factor structure of the psychopathic
personality inventory: Validity and implications for clinical
assessment. Psychological Assessment, 15(3), 340–350.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.340
Berg, J. M., Smith, S. F., Watts, A. L., Ammirati, R., Green, S.
E., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2013). Misconceptions regarding psy-
chopathic personality: Implications for clinical practice and
research. Neuropsychiatry, 3, 63–74. https://doi.org/10.2217/
npy.12.69
Bronchain, J., Chabrol, H., & Raynal, P. (2021). Adaptive psy-
chopathic traits: Positive outcomes in a college student sam-
ple. Current Psychology, 40(10), 4997–5004. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12144-019-00434-3
Bronchain, J., Raynal, P., & Chabrol, H. (2020). Heterogeneity
of adaptive features among psychopathy variants. Personal-
ity Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 11(1),
63–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000366
Carlson, S. R., Thái, S., & McLarnon, M. E. (2009). Visual P3
amplitude and self-reported psychopathic personality traits:
Frontal reduction is associated with self-centered impulsiv-
ity. Psychophysiology, 46(1), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00756.x
Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity; an attempt to reinter-
pret the so-called psychopathic personality. JAMA, 117(6),
493. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1941.02820320085028
Cleckley, H. (1988). The mask of Sanity: An attempt to clarify
some issues about the so called psychopathic personality. (W.
A. Dolan, Ed., 5th ed.). C V Mosby Co. https://doi.org/10.
1097/00007611-195105000-00028
Durand, G. (2016). A replication of ‘‘using self-esteem to disag-
gregate psychopathy, narcissism, and aggression (2013)’’.
The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12(2), r1–r5.
https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.12.2.r001
10
Durand, G. (2018a). A French translation and validation of
the Durand Adaptive Psychopathic Traits Questionnaire:
An investigation with community samples from France and
Canada. PLOS ONE, 13(9), e0204214. https://doi.org/10.
1371/journal.pone.0204214
Durand, G. (2018b). Demystification of the relationship
between psychopathy and happiness. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 19(2), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-
9823-0
Durand, G. (2019a). Incremental validity of the Durand adap-
tive psychopathic traits questionnaire above self-report psy-
chopathy measures in community samples. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 101(5), 493–502. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00223891.2018.1464456
Durand, G. (2019b). The Durand adaptive psychopathic traits
questionnaire: Development and validation. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 101(2), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00223891.2017.1372443
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters
upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.
Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149. https://doi.org/10.
3758/BF03203267
Falkenbach, D. M., Howe, J. R., & Falki, M. (2013). Using
self-esteem to disaggregate psychopathy, narcissism, and
aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(7),
815–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.017
Gur, R. C., Jaggi, J. L., Ragland, J. D., Resnick, S. M., Shtasel,
D., Muenz, L., & Gur, R. E. (1993). Effects of memory pro-
cessing on regional brain activation: Cerebral blood flow in
normal subjects. The International Journal of Neuroscience,
72(1–2), 31–44. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
8225798
Gur, R. C., Richard, J., Calkins, M. E., Chiavacci, R., Hansen,
J. A., Bilker, W. B., Loughead, J., Connolly, J. J., Qiu, H.,
Mentch, F. D., Abou-Sleiman, P. M., Hakonarson, H., &
Gur, R. E. (2012). Age group and sex differences in perfor-
mance on a computerized neurocognitive battery in children
age 8221. Neuropsychology, 26(2), 251–265. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0026712
Gur, R. C., Richard, J., Hughett, P., Calkins, M. E., Macy, L.,
Bilker, W. B., Brensinger, C, & Gur, R. E. (2010). A cogni-
tive neuroscience based computerized battery for efficient
measurement of individual differences: Standardization and
initial construct validation. Journal of Neuroscience Meth-
ods, 187(2), 254–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.
2009.11.017
Hansen, A. L., Johnsen, B. H., Thornton, D., Waage, L., &
Thayer, J. F. (2007). Facets of psychopathy, heart rate varia-
bility and cognitive function. Journal of Personality Disor-
ders, 21(5), 568–582. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2007.21.5.
568
Harper, J., Malone, S. M., & Bernat, E. M. (2014). Theta and
delta band activity explain N2 and P3 ERP component activ-
ity in a go/no-go task. Clinical Neurophysiology, 125(1),
124–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2013.06.025
Hilbig, B. E. (2016). Reaction time effects in lab- versus Web-
based research: Experimental evidence. Behavior Research
Methods, 48(4), 1718–1724. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-
015-0678-9
SAGE Open
Lee, Z., & Salekin, R. T. (2010). Psychopathy in a noninstitu-
tional sample: Differences in primary and secondary sub-
types. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and
Treatment, 1(3), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0019269
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and
preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psycho-
pathic personality traits in noncriminal populations. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 66(3), 488–524. https://doi.org/
10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3
Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., Berg, J., Sell-
bom, M., & Edens, J. F. (2012). The role of fearless domi-
nance in psychopathy: Confusions, controversies, and
clarifications. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and
Treatment, 3(3), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026987
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. (2005). Psychopathic personal-
ity inventory–revised: Professional manual. Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2012). Fearless dominance and
psychopathy: A response to Lilienfeld et al. Personality Dis-
orders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(3), 341–353.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028296
Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported
psychopathy: A validation study. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 73(1), 110–132. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327752JPA730108
Maples, J. L., Miller, J. D., Fortune, E., MacKillop, J., Camp-
bell, W. K., Lynam, D. R., Lance, C. E., & Goodie, A. S.
(2014). An examination of the correlates of fearless domi-
nance and self-centered impulsivity among high-frequency
gamblers. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28(3), 379–393.
https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2013_27_125
Micha1owski, J. M., Droździel, D., & Harciarek, M. (2015).
Impulsive antisociality and executive control problems: Evi-
dence from go/no-go and stop-signal tasks. Current Issues in
Personality Psychology, 1(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.5114/
cipp.2015.49939
Moore, T. M., Reise, S. P., Gur, R. E., Hakonarson, H., &
Gur, R. C. (2015). Psychometric properties of the Penn
Computerized Neurocognitive Battery. Neuropsychology,
29(2), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000093
Morgan, A. B., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2000). A meta-analytic
review of the relation between antisocial behavior and neu-
ropsychological measures of executive function. Clinical
Psychology Review, 20(1), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0272-7358(98)00096-8
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness,
imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 76(1, Pt.2), 1–25. https://doi.
org/10.1037/h0025327
Racer, K. H., Gilbert, T. T., Luu, P., Felver-Gant, J., Abdul-
laev, Y., & Dishion, T. J. (2011). Attention network per-
formance and psychopathic symptoms in early
adolescence: An ERP study. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 39(7), 1001–1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10802-011-9522-6
Ross, S. R., Benning, S. D., & Adams, Z. (2007). Symptoms of
executive dysfunction are endemic to secondary psychopa-
thy: An examination in criminal offenders and
Durand et al.
noninstitutionalized young adults. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 21(4), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2007.
21.4.384
Roussy, S., & Toupin, J. (2000). Behavioral inhibition deficits
in juvenile psychopaths. Aggressive Behavior, 26(6),
413–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(200011)26:
6\413::AID-AB1.3.0.CO;2-Q
Salnaitis, C. L., Baker, C. A., Holland, J., & Welsh, M. (2011).
Differentiating tower of Hanoi performance: Interactive
effects of psychopathic tendencies, impulsive response styles,
and modality. Applied Neuropsychology, 18(1), 37–46.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09084282.2010.523381
Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distin-
guishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-
mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orien-
tation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
67(6), 1063–1078. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.
1063
Schoofs, D., Preuß, D., & Wolf, O. T. (2008). Psychosocial
stress induces working memory impairments in an n-back
paradigm. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 33(5), 643–653.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.02.004
Sellbom, M., & Verona, E. (2007). Neuropsychological corre-
lates of psychopathic traits in a non-incarcerated sample.
11
Journal of Research in Personality, 41(2), 276–294. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.04.001
Semmelmann, K., & Weigelt, S. (2017). Online psychophysics:
Reaction time effects in cognitive experiments. Behavior
Research Methods, 49(4), 1241–1260. https://doi.org/10.
3758/s13428-016-0783-4
Snowden, R. J., Gray, N. S., Pugh, S., & Atkinson, G. (2013).
Executive function as a function of sub-clinical psychopa-
thy. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(7), 801–804.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.06.016
Wilkowski, B. M., & Robinson, M. D. (2008). Putting the
brakes on antisocial behavior: Secondary psychopathy and
post-error adjustments in reaction time. Personality and
Individual Differences, 44(8), 1807–1818. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.paid.2008.02.007
Zeier, J. D., Baskin-sommers, A. R., & Newman, J. P. (2012).
Cognitive control deficits associated with antisocial person-
ality disorder and psychopathy. Personal Disord., 3(3),
283–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023137.Cognitive
Zimak, E. H., Suhr, J., & Bolinger, E. M. (2014). Psychophysiolo-
gical and neuropsychological characteristics of non-incarcerated
adult males with higher levels of psychopathic personality
traits. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,
36, 542–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-014-9430-5