Upload
john-hermes-c-untalan
View
535
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Running head: PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS
Five-Factor Model of Personality as Predictors of Psychopathic Traits
among Filipino Male Offenders: A Self-Report Approach
JOHN HERMES C. UNTALAN, M.A.
Graduate School, University of Santo Tomas, Manila, the Philippines
JOHNNY B. DECATORIA, Ph.D., B.C.E.T.S.
St. Joseph’s University, Macau, People’s Republic of China
Note: Bold and italicize words are indicated.
Send all correspondence to
Mr. John Hermes C. Untalan UST Graduate School Psychotrauma Clinic Thomas Aquinas Research Complex University of Santo Tomas, Manila Mobile No.: +63927-495-8855 Email: [email protected]
Manuscript submitted to ad Veritatem (2010)
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/2
ABSTRACT
This study examined McCrae and Costa’s Five-Factor Model (FFM; McCrae & Costa, 2003)
of personality as predictors of self-report psychopathy. A sample of 397 male offenders
answered the Filipino versions of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa
& McCrae, 1994) and Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R; Lilienfeld, 2005).
Using multiple regression, analysis reveals unique and similar patterns of FFM traits
predicting psychopathy. At the domain level, psychopathy is associated with emotional
instability, extraversion, and antagonism (low agreeableness). Low conscientiousness did
not showed significant association with overall psychopathy as Lynam and Widiger (2007)
hypothesize but with several dimensions of psychopathic traits. Overall, the FFM traits
show cross-cultural replicability in describing psychopathy in a non-Western culture.
Implication of the findings is discussed in using the clinical construct of psychopathy whose
time has come.
Keywords: psychopathy, five-factor model, personality, male offenders, Filipinos
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/3
FIVE-FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY AS PREDICTORS OF PSYCHOPATHIC TRAITS
AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS: A SELF-REPORT APPROACH
Since Hervey Cleckley’s seminal publication of the, now classic, The Mask of Sanity in
1941, an accumulating body of research regarding the etiology and implications of
psychopathic personality (or psychopathy) has been produced. Psychopathy is described
as a constellation of personality traits such as callousness, egocentrism, guiltlessness, lack
of empathy, inability to form social attachments, irresponsibility, impulsivity, shallow
affect, and superficial charm (c.f. Hare, 1970, 1998; Karpman, 1948; Lykken, 1995; McCord
& McCord, 1964). It is implicated as a serious, clinical psychological disorder synonymous,
but not interchangeable, to ICD-10’s dissocial personality disorder (World Health
Organization, 1990), DSM-IV’s antisocial personality disorder (American Psychiatric
Association, 2000), and sociopathic personality (or sociopathy; Lykken, 1995). In the
forensic area, psychopathy has recently shown valuable contributions in explaining crime,
predicting recidivism, as a dynamic risk/need, and further institutional misconducts (e.g.,
Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Blackburn, 1993; H. Miller, 2006; Skilling, Harris, Rice, & Quinsey,
2002; Woodworth & Porter, 2002). Testament to the viability of the psychopathy construct
as well lead to the publication of three recent edited readings that summarizes the trend of
psychopathy research (Herve & Yuille, 2007; Patrick, 2006; Salekin & Lynam, 2010) and
the founding of the Society for the Scientific Study of Psychopathy (SSSP), a global academic
organization formed specifically for cultivating psychopathic research, in 2006.
While theorizing of the psychopathy remains in its infancy stage despite it’s
emergence as a clinical construct in 1940s, one field in psychology that shows potential in
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/4
deconstructing the psychopathy construct is the field of personality psychology (Brinkley,
Newman, Widiger, & Lynam, 2004). According to Harkness (2007), personality is a classic
example of a “best science” in psychology. He suggests that “presenting complaints” and
“targets of treatment plan” may often be manifestations or sequallae of personality traits.
For example, using the analogy made by Tellegen (as cited in Harkness, 2007), (1) extreme
levels of personality traits; (2) problematic configuration of personality traits; and (3)
extreme (i.e. socially and personality maladaptive) adaptations to personality traits or their
configural properties often manifest in the psychopathology continuum. Further,
Loevinger’s (1957) theory of constructive realism suggests that traits are real, separate
from constructs and measures, and exists in individuals that lead to population concepts.
Hence, it cannot be argued that using trait perspective would lead to the understanding of
people from the layman, theorist, and self perspective (Hampson, 1988).
The suitability of traits can also be explained within the current nomenclature of
trait models. Current trait models are structured in a hierarchical fashion that posits a
structure of traits whether it is used for categorical or dimensional approach in
understanding psychopathology (Costa & Widiger, 2002; Markon, Krueger, & Watson,
2005; Watson, Clark, & Harkness, 1994). McCrae and Costa (2003, 2008) suggests further
that there seems to be consensus that traits are enduring general disposition and issues of
consistency and stability has been proven to be general characteristics of traits (Feist,
2006; McCrae, 2009). From the biological perspective, traits are shown to possess genome
heritability from the genetic and phenotypic studies (Jang, 2006; Jang, Wolf, & Larstone,
2006; Zuckerman, 2005). More so, current studies suggest that shared family influence
have weakness in shaping personality traits suggesting that traits are internal, unique, and
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/5
implicit to the individual. Hence, traits serve as basic tendencies for individuals in which
serves as the underlying disposition or source traits (McCrae & Costa, 2003; 2008). And
any concrete habits, attitudes, roles, and relationships that results from the interaction of
basic tendencies and the shaping forces of the social environment serve as character
adaptations. Hence, normal and psychopathic traits can serve as basic tendencies of the
psychopath individual.
In the context of psychopathy, one of the reasons is that a number of researchers
consider psychopathy as a personality construct, as an extreme variant of personality
traits, and is personality (Blackburn, 1998a, 2006; Lynam & Derefniko, 2006; Miller &
Lynam, 2003; Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leukfeld, 2001). Widiger & Lynam (1998) first
used the personality perspective in translating the core traits of psychopathy, as measured
by the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003), using the five-factor model 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 its facets predicted many of the PCL-R psychopathy items (see
also Harpur, Hart, & Hare, 2002 and Lynam, 2002). In a recent article summing up all the
research conducted on personality and psychopathy using various methods/approaches,
Lynam and Derefniko (2006), concludes that “extremely high interpersonal antagonism,
pan-impulsivity, the absence of negative self-directed affect, the presence of angry hostility,
and interpersonal assertiveness” (p. 160), are the primary FFM traits that translates the
core elements of psychopathy.
Though personality and psychopathy research in the Western literature is
successful, little is generated regarding the cross-cultural generalizability and replicability
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/6
of this hypothesis in non-Western, collectivistic cultures such as Asia in general and the
Philippines in particular. Only two studies (Untalan, 2009a; Untalan, Mordeno, &
Decatoria, 2008), aside from this current paper (see also Untalan, 2009b), has
demonstrated the construct of psychopathy among Filipinos. Moreover, the personality-
psychopathy using the FFM has only showed potential using a clinical diagnostic interview
measure of psychopathy, the PCL. Although few studies (e.g., Jacobwitz & Egan, 2006; Lee
& Kibeom, 2005; Paulhus & Williams, 2002) using brief assessments of psychopathy and
personality has demonstrated the replicability of Widiger and Lynam’s (1998) assertion
that low agreeableness and low conscientiousness will correlate with self-report
psychopathy, none has used to compare personality traits using a strong, valid and reliable
self-report measure of psychopathy such as the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI;
Lilienfeld, 1990). The revised form of the PPI—or the PPI-R (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005)—
is “arguably the gold standard” (p. 1007; Witt, Donnellan, & Blonigen, 2009) in assessing
psychopathy via self-report.
In an exploratory study conducted by Untalan and his colleagues (2008) with a
sample of 201 Filipino college students, using the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John &
Srivastava, 1999) as a measure of Big Five personality and the Self-Report Psychopathy
scale (SRP; Paulhus, Hemphil, & Hare, in press), analysis reveals that self-report
psychopathy is negatively associated with agreeableness (r = -.283, p < .01) and
conscientiousness (r = -.188, p < .01). However, Lilienfeld and Fowler (2006) notes that the
SRP needs to clarify discriminant validity with antisocial behavior and little published
research on the differential correlates of the two SRP factors or the relation between SRP
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/7
and laboratory measures that ostensibly tap the core deficits of psychopathy.1 Moreover,
the study conducted by Untalan and his colleagues focuses on the dark triad of personality
in general and not specifically psychopathy.
Hence, an investigation of a well-researched self-report psychopathy measure, such
as the PPI-R, with the FFM of personality warrants a legitimate research framework for this
study that focuses on male prisoners in a highly collectivistic culture. The present study
focuses on the utility of the domain and facet traits of the FFM NEO-PI-R as descriptors of
psychopathic personality. More specifically, we hypothesizes that the FFM domain traits of
agreeableness and conscientiousness and their facet traits will be able to translate the
global and core traits of the PPI-R psychopathy as hypothesized by Widiger & Lynam
(1998).
METHOD
Participants
A cross-sectional research design sampling 450 male prisoners located in a national
prison facility was conducted for this study. Incomplete responses and unqualified reading
level of the participants lead to the removal of 53 participants leaving 397 protocols
available for further analyses. Age of the male prisoners who participated in this study
ranges from 20 to 74 years old with a mean age of 37.92 (SD = 9.21). Majority of the
prisoners are married (n = 204; 51%), are practicing Roman Catholicism as religion (n =
312; 79%), and finished at least a high school level (n = 129; 33%). Table 1 shows the
complete demographic profile of the 397 respondents. Male prisoners have committed
1 We will not reiterate here the distinctions and implications of using a behavioral-based (clinical interview) type versus dispositional-based (self-report) type of assessing psychopathy. Readers are advised to consult Untalan (2009b) regarding the advantages and disadvantages brought by using the different methods or strategies of assessing psychopathy.
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/8
various crimes and when categorized using the PCL-R Item 20 (Criminal Versatility)
criteria as contextualized in the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, 21 general various
crimes are indexed. Crimes ranges from non-violent (e.g., drugs, theft), violent (e.g.,
robbery, murder, homicide), sexual (e.g., rape, incest), complex crimes (combination of two
different crimes, e.g., rape with homicide, robbery with murder), and with five crime cases
not being reported.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
INSERT TABLE 1 HERE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Measures
Three measures were used to survey the participants. The first measure is a
researcher constructed socio-demographic and criminal history profile. This measure
surveys personal information pertinent among the respondents that will be used to
describe their demography, social information, and criminal history.
The last two measures used are two standardized psychological tests namely, the
Filipino version of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (F-NEO-PI-R; McCrae, Costa, del
Pilar, Rolland & Parker, 1998) and the PPI-R (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005). We translated
the latter inventory in order to meet the language standard that can be comprehended by
the selected participants which is in Filipino-Tagalog. Translation of the PPI-R Tagalog
version underwent three stages of multiple forward-and-backward translations following
the suggestions by Geisinger (1994).
The NEO PI-R is a 240- item test which measures five broad domains of personality
namely neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/9
conscientiousness. Within each domain, six facet traits or subscales are subsumed (e.g., the
neuroticism trait is composed of anxiety, angry hostility, depression, self-consciousness,
impulsiveness, and vulnerability). The study used the Form S of the NEO PI-R which is a
self-report questionnaire addressed to the first person (e.g., I am usually hotheaded.). Each
item can be responded using a five-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (0) to strongly
agree (4). Costa and McCrae (1994) and McCrae et al. (1998) reported the replicability of
the five factors and internal consistency ranges from good to high reliability indexes. In this
study, internal consistency of the scales using the Cronbach’s alpha ranges from .02
(Impulsiveness) to .60 (Angry Hostility) for all the facet scales and .42 (Openness to
Experience) to .80 (Conscientiousness) for the domain scales. Internal consistencies of the
scales reported in this study are mostly low indicating that the items of the scales might not
be representative of the constructs, moreover, are poor representing that the NEO-PI-R in
general is not a well-reliable instrument in offender populations. However, previous
studies of NEO-PI-R in prisoner populations in Western literature show consistent
reliability indexes. Since this study is exploratory in nature particularly in Filipino male
prisoners, this study continued the process of analysis because the NEO PI-R is the only
personality instrument used in the study and it is the first to introduce the use of the test in
a prisoner population. With the limitation in mind, we are cautionary in interpreting the
results of this study as the scales’ poor internal reliability might cause variations and
alterations in the findings.
Developed by Lilienfeld, the PPI-R is used to measure the core elements of
psychopathic personality traits in this study. The PPI-R is a 154-item which measures eight
content scales namely Machiavellian egocentricity (ME), blame externalization (BE),
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/10
carefree nonplanfulness (CN), rebellious non-conformity (RN), social influence (SOI),
fearlessness (F), stress immunity (STI), and coldheartedness (C). The PPI-R also has a global
index when the ten scales are summed together and three factor scales namely, self-
centered impulsivity (SCI; composed of ME, BE, CN, RN), fearless dominance (composed of
SOI, F, STI), and coldheartedness. For the preliminary validation of the PPI-R English and
Filipino versions in a sample of 150 college students, internal consistency of the scales (in
English and Filipino) are fair to moderate with the Coldheartedness scale obtaining a value
of lower than .60. For the male prisoner sample, internal consistencies of the PPI-R ranges
from .28 (SOI) to .67 (ME) for the content scales and .41 (C) to .83 (SCI) for the factor
scales. The Cronbach’s alpha for the total score is .77 indicating. The male prisoner sample
showed lower internal consistency indexes compared to the U.S. male prisoner sample
reported in Lilienfeld and Widows (2005) and with the preliminary version of the Filipino
PPI-R version among college students (data available to Mr. John Hermes C. Untalan).
Considering that the nature of the study is exploratory, the analyses of the PPI-R scales are
continued in order to execute the goal of this study. Caution however is observed by the
researchers in interpreting the results of the study.
Data Procedure
Analysis of data was subjected using the Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 14. Frequency and descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were used
to describe the percentage value of the variables. Internal consistencies of the scales used
in the study were subjected thru reliability analysis. Meanwhile, simultaneous multiple
regression (SMR) analysis was used to determine the significant personality trait
predictors, which identifies the important markers or descriptors, of psychopathy.
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/11
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Five-Factor Model of Personality Profile of the Male Prisoners
Based on the analysis, the reliabilities of the NEO-PI-R suffered low reliability
coefficient values as shown in Table 2. We interpret this problem with three artifactual
explanations that is related to the NEO-PI-R’s issue on brevity, cross-cultural applicability,
and problems of using self-report inventories in prison populations. First, because of the
shortness of the facet scales with only 8-items, the shortness of the scale may have caused
the problem. This brevity feature has been faulted by several researchers as a
psychometric problem of the NEO-PI-R. But this explanation does not fit well with the
multitude of studies showing the consistency of the NEO-PI-R in many Western studies.
Because many of the reported studies on the NEO-PI-R are Western in nature using
American and European samples, culture might influence the result of the study, which
leads to our second interpretation.
Culture might impose various understanding of the items of the scales of the NEO-
PI-R resulting to misunderstanding with the items or the items do not necessarily reflect
Filipino experiences. This second explanation is partly supported by the study of Katigbak,
Church and Akamine (2002) wherein they have reported that in terms of the facet scales,
internal consistencies of the Philippine sample (usually college students) is lower than the
U.S. counterpart ranging from .26 (Tender-Mindedness) to .73 (self-Discipline) with a mean
α of .59. They conclude that “the low Philippine αs may reflect cultural differences, but also
the lower coherence of the items in these facets generally” (p. 88).
A third and last explanation why the facet scales of the NEO-PI-R reached negligible
αs is the prisoner’s constant self-abnegation or lack of insight to describe themselves
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/12
properly (personal communication by Mr. J. H. Untalan with Dr. Resureccion Morales,
February 2007). Prisoners suffer from not being able to present themselves truthfully
because of the fact that they lack insight or guilt to their wrongdoings or mistakes, which
they (prisoners) probably consider not as mistakes. Many studies have showed that
prisoner’s suffers from constant misperception or cognitive distortion (similar to
Feningsten’s theory of cognitive dissonance; see Bem, 1967 and Bem & Allen, 1974) of their
personalities and is inevitable with any research that involves prisoners. Despite this
assumption, no strong empirical evidence has proven the self-enhancing, deceptive
mechanisms of prisoners in self-reporting impression management, social desirability, or
malingering has been reported. This problem is not only suffered by self-report personality
in particular but also with other self-report assessments in general. “As Hogan implies, the
purpose of self-reports is to gather data from which the researcher can make inferences, not
to rely on the reporter to provide an accurate assessment” (p. 51-52; cited by Wiebe (2004)
with one reference omitted by the Authors). The responses made by the reporter, despite
being false, is also considered as real data for it is what the reporter is projecting in his self-
report that matters than not having a response at all (Blackburn, 1998b).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
INSERT TABLE 2 HERE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Table 2 shows the internal consistency, descriptive statistics, estimated T score
values, and verbal interpretation of the mean scores of the male prisoners’ responses on
the NEO-PI-R. Raw scores of the participants were converted into T scores in order to
determine the level of personality traits. Estimated T values are derived from the
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/13
descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) of adults (N = 500 men) as reported in
McCrae and Costa (1994). Based on the analysis, majority or 24 out of the 35 of the scales
(both domain and facet) obtained a very high estimated T score value indicating that the
prisoners self-reported very high characteristics of them in these traits. Out of the
remaining 11 scales, 10 scales obtained an estimated T score value in the high range while
one scale (O6: Values) obtained an average T score value. At the descriptive level, male
prisoners reported that they are emotionally unstable (with very high scores on anxiety,
depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability; and high score on angry
hostility), extraverted (with very high warmth and gregariousness; and high assertiveness,
excitement-seeking, activity, and positive emotions), open-minded to many experiences
(with very high on aesthetics, feelings, and actions; high on fantasy and ideas; and average
on values), very agreeable (with very high on straightforwardness, altruism, compliance,
modesty, and tender-mindedness; and high on trust), and conscientious (with very high
competence, order, achievement striving and deliberation; and high on dutifulness and self-
discipline).
Although contrary to Western researches suggesting prisoners are more likely
characterized by high antagonism and lack of conscientiousness (Lynam & Widiger, 2005;
Miller & Lynam, 2001; Wiebe, 2004), the participants of this study viewed themselves the
other way around—that is, they were more highly agreeable and conscientious. On the
part of the prisoners, this is interpreted as their ability to present themselves in a socially
acceptable manner in order to conceal their true personalities that which they deem to be
invasive of their characteristics to the outsider (i.e., to any researchers). There is also the
presence of pressure among prisoners to present themselves in a light condition
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/14
considering that rehabilitation or institutionalization inside prison suggests that they
behave in a socially acceptable manner that which dissociates with their true personalities.
Hence, it is in this light that the prisoners fail to present themselves accurately and respond
to the items in a socially acceptable manner.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
INSERT TABLE 3 HERE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Psychopathic Personality Traits Profile of the Male Prisoners
Table 3, as shown above, tabulates the descriptive statistics (mean and SD), internal
consistency, range of scores, estimated T score values, and verbal interpretation of the
mean scores of the male prisoners’ responses on the PPI-R. Converted T score values are
derived from the descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) of male offenders (N
= 154) as reported in Lilienfeld and Widows (2005). All PPI-R scales obtained an estimated
T score value which is interpreted as not clinically significant. This indicates that the
psychopathic traits levels of the male prisoners are not considered clinically significant.
However, this does not necessarily imply that the male prisoners in this study do not suffer
from psychopathic manifestations. Lilienfeld (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) stressed that the
scales of the PPI-R were created to indicate severe, clinical manifestation of psychopathic
traits. Lower scores do not indicate absence or constitute low levels of the psychopathic
traits but shows that respondents are not active in this area.
Comparing the mean scores of the male prisoners with the American male offender
sample (n = 154) reported by Lilienfeld and Widows (2005), Filipino male prisoners scored
higher on ME, RN, BE, F, STI, and GPI. This indicates that compared to American offenders,
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/15
Filipino male offenders in this study are higher in endorsing traits of manipulation,
nonconformity, blaming others, lack of fear, immune from stress, and has a higher
manifestation of overall psychopathic traits. However, the direct comparison made cannot
provide statistical significance whether such higher scores of Filipino male offenders are
results of score variance (see Untalan, 2009b).
Despite the non-clinical significance of the psychopathic traits, the T scores of the
participants would reveal that among the facet traits of the PPI-R, male offenders scored
higher in STI (T=84), RN (T=57), and ME (T=55) traits. These psychopathic traits suggest
that these offenders, at the mean level analysis, reveal that male offenders have “the
tendency to remain calm in the face of anxiety-provoking stimuli and a lack of tension
under pressure” (p. 22; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) due to high level of stress immunity.
On average, the male offenders as well manifest a “propensity toward unconventionality,
anti-authority attitudes, and reckless defiance of societal norms” (p. 21; Lilienfeld &
Widows, 2005) as presented by the Rebellious Nonconformity trait; and, “willingness to
manipulate others for selfish goals and a cynical and harshly instrumental view of human
nature” (p. 21; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) as supported by the presence of Machiavellian
Egocentricity trait.
While the global index of the PPI-R did not yield any clinical significance, a closer
look at the three factors of the PPI-R would reveal that the Fearless Dominance (FD) factor
scored marginally high (T=58). This suggests that on average, there is a predominant FD
activation of psychopathy among the prisoner participants. The FD factor suggests a
“tendency toward lack of anticipatory social and physical anxiety, low levels of tension and
worry, low harm avoidance, and high levels of interpersonal dominance” (p. 22; Lilienfeld
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/16
& Widows, 2005). This characteristic is expected since the Stress Immunity facet, which
obtained a clinically significant status, is included in this factor together with Fearlessness
and Social Influence.
Hence, it suggests that the Filipino male offenders who responded in this study
present an emotionally stable nature than being highly anxious and depressed. This is true
to some extent because majority of the prisoners who participated in this study have been
institutionalized in the jail system prior to being sent at the prison level suggesting that
vulnerability is an expression of weakness and failure to conform to the machismo setting.
However, the remainder of the prisoners may possess vulnerability to situations and
become prone to anxiety and depression as supported by the high scores on the
Neuroticism domain of the NEO-PI-R including the Anxiety, Depression, and Vulnerability
facets. This notion is highly expressed particularly when prisoners have time to sit down
with me and talk with me their cases and conditions. In local jargon, this experience among
male prisoners is collectively termed as buryong (boredom; Saplala, 2004). A clinical
acumen would lead us to suspect that these prisoners present a cognitively distorted view
of themselves describing themselves as psychologically “healthy” within the survey but
displays incongruent affect and behaviors when interviewed.
Regression Analysis
Twenty-four simultaneous regression analyses was conducted entering the FFM
domain and facet traits of each domain independently as predictors to eleven PPI-R
criterions (eight content scales, three factor scales (the last factor is the only loading content
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/17
scale), and the total psychopathy index. Table 4 shows a summary of the significant FFM
NEO-PI-R predictors of PPI-R psychopathy. 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
INSERT TABLE 4 HERE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Based on the analysis, various significant personality traits predicted psychopathy
and its particular facet traits. All five domain traits of the five-factor model significantly
contributed in the prediction of psychopathy. The Global Psychopathy Index (GPI) of the
PPI-R was predicted by three domain traits namely, neuroticism (N), extraversion (E), and
antagonism (-A), R=.334, adjR2=.250, p<.001. This prediction is even elucidated at the facet
level wherein PPI-R GPI is predicted by impulsiveness (N5), assertiveness (E3), and non-
straightforwardness (-A2), R=.464, adjR2=.151, p<.001. This finding suggest that the typical
psychopathic personality of the Filipino male offenders generally display a tendency to be
emotionally unstable with emphasis on high failing to resist impulses and be attracted to
temptations; and failure to keep their feelings under control. More so, they have the
tendency to become dominant, forceful, and assertive as indicated by the facet of
assertiveness. In addition, they are selfish, egotistical, cold and calculating which are
considered cardinal symptoms of interpersonal and affective deficits or Factor 2 of the PCL-
R psychopathy (Hare, 2003).
Among the three factors of the PPI-R, the Fearless Dominance (FD) factor was
predicted highly by the domain traits of N, E, -A, and conscientiousness (C), R=.556,
adjR2=.300 p<.001. It is further elucidated by the prediction of the following facet traits:
2 Data is available for the specific beta coefficients of the significant domain and facet trait predictors of psychopathy to Mr. J. H. Untalan.
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/18
non-vulnerability (N6), warmth (E1), assertiveness (E3), excitement-seeking (E5), and
openness to ideas (O5), R=.604, adjR2=.313, p<.001. The Self-Centered Impulsivity (SCI)
factor was predicted by two domain traits namely, N and E, R=.395, adjR2=.145, p<.001. At
the facet level, SCI was predicted by angry hostility (N2), self-consciousness (N4),
impulsiveness (N5), and lack of tender-mindedness (-A6), R=.511, adjR2=.201, p<.001.
Lastly, Coldheartedness was predicted by emotional stability (-N), introversion (-E), and
antagonism (-A), R=.320, adjR2=.091, p<.001. At the facet level, coldheartedness was
specifically predicted by lack of depression (-N3), lack of warmth (-E1), and high
deliberation (C6), R=.467, adjR2=.154, p<.001.
The findings of the three PPI-R factors support the hypothesis proposed by
Lilienfeld and Widows (2005). For example, FD is exemplified by a characteristic of being a
thrill-seeker, openness to ideas, and non-vulnerability. On the other, SCI is demonstrated
by lack of being thoughtful to others or egocentric thinking and impulsivity. Surprisingly,
the PPI-R Coldheartedness factor showed an interesting association. Lilienfeld (in
Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) define this facet/factor of the PPI-R as the “propensity toward
callousness, guiltlessness, and lack of sentimentality” (p. 21). Moreover, it “reflects an
absence of tender social emotions and a callous failure to sympathize with others’ feelings”
(p. 22). In the preliminary report of the PPI-R (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005), the
Coldheartedness factor correlated significantly with the short version of the NEO-PI-R
domain traits of E, r=-.20, p<.05, and A, r=-.34, p<.01. This study supports the E domain
relationship and even the non-significant findings reported by Lilienfeld (in Lilienfeld &
Widows, 2005) in the PPI-R Professional Manual. Overall, the finding of this study
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/19
regarding the validity of the Coldheartedness factor of the PPI-R is satisfactory with its
proposed hypothesis.
At the content level of the PPI-R, prediction patterns of the NEO-PI-R domain and
facet traits were similar with Western findings. For example, Carefree Nonplanfulness (CN)
was predicted negatively by the NEO-PI-R C trait, R=.250, adjR2=.050, p<.001, at the domain
level and lack of competence (-C1), R=.372, adjR2=.067, p<.001, at the facet level. Because
the PPI-R have no results regarding the facet traits of the NEO, this study showed new
results as well such as the prediction of Openness to Aesthetics (O2) at the facet level,
R=.414, adjR2=.104, β2=.021 p<.001, with Rebellious Nonconformity (RN). Interestingly,
the findings provide preliminary predictions between the PPI-R content scales with the
facet traits of the NEO-PI-R.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The construct of psychopathic personality traits possesses a cross-cultural
replicability in a non-collectivistic culture such as in Asia in general and the Philippines in
particular. This suggests that the construct has applicability in both theory and applied
areas of psychological science. Additionally, the general dimensions of the Five-Factor
Model have the ability to translate and elaborate the core traits of psychopathy in a normal
personality functioning perspective. Overall psychopathy is described by the NEO-PI-R as
high Neuroticism and Extraversion, and low Agreeableness (or high Antagonism).
Specifically, the facet traits or subtraits provide a robust indicator of identifying specific
traits related to psychopathy. Moreover, the finding provides an account on how the
domain and facet factors can be of use in the translation of the core traits of psychopathy
among Filipinos, despite of low to modest correlations.
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/20
On the overall index of psychopathy, it can be seen that a secondary type of
psychopathy is manifested among the male prisoners sampled in this data. According to
Karpman (1948), secondary or “idiopathic” psychopathy is described as “byproducts of
anxiety, guilt, and other premorbid psychological difficulties” (p. 1, Lilienfeld & Widows,
2005). In the study, this is presented by a high prediction of the neuroticism domain trait
across content, factor, and overall index of the PPI-R. Moreover, there were more
neuroticism facet traits that predicted the PPI-R suggesting that the domain and facets of
neuroticism explains well the psychopathic personality among the male offenders of this
study.
Aside from the neuroticism domain, the domain of the Agreeableness (A; or better
termed as Antagonism here because of the negative relationship found between the two)
predicted significantly as expected with the common trend of the psychopathy and the five-
factor model of personality (c.f. Lynam & Derefniko, 2006; Lynam & Widiger, 2007; Widiger
& Lynam, 1998). This finding extends a local finding from nonclinical-non-offender
population (Untalan et al., 2008) to offender populations suggestive that a common pattern
on the relationship between personality and psychopathy—that is, antagonism and
psychopathy—is cross-generalizable.
In terms of the hypothesis proposed by Lynam & Widiger (2007), it can be seen that
across the domain level of the NEO-PI-R, extreme highly antagonistic characteristic
predicted almost all scales of the PPI-R. Pan-impulsivity predicted the global index of
psychopathy, the SCI factor and its two content scales namely ME and BE. Negative self-
directed affect predicted the factor and content scale of Coldheartedness. Further, facet
traits of negative self-directed affected predicted the FD factor including its two content
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/21
scales namely STI and SOI. Presence of angry hostility, a facet of the Neuroticism trait,
predicted only the factor scale of SCI and the content scale of CN. And lastly, interpersonal
assertiveness predicted the GPI, the SCI factor, and the CN content scale of the PPI-R.
The variation of these predictions relied as well on the strength of the prediction of
the normal personality traits. It should be reiterated here that in the case of antagonism
and negative self-directed affect, they are the domain traits of A and N respectively.
Meanwhile, pan-impulsivity, angry-hostility, and assertiveness, are simply facet traits of the
FFM NEO-PI-R. Hence, it is more likely that the domain traits of A and N significantly
predicted the PPI-R scales whether at the global, factor, or content level. This method
invariance presents a future investigation in order to help attenuate the
overrepresentation of the negative self-directed affect and antagonism in understanding
psychopathy. Exploration of facet trait relationships and psychopathy are examples of
future researches that should be conducted in order to illuminate the distinction played by
domain and facets traits of the FFM.
Limitations and Recommendations
There are two limitations that are found in this study. The first limitation is
methodological in nature. Assessment of psychopathy among male prisoners is usually
diagnostic using the structure interview PCL-R. However, because the participation of the
male prisoners in this study does not permit us to review their file histories, which is a
requirement of the PCL-R; and time does not permit us as well to conduct extensive
interviews with each prisoner, we relied on using a self-report inventory of assessing
psychopathy. Based on the study by Lilienfeld and Widows (2005), the PPI-R GPI is
correlated modestly with the PCL-R Total Score and its two factors. Also, the use of the
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/22
PPI-R does not permit us to diagnose male prisoners who are psychopathic or labeled as
psychopath. Rather, the PPI-R permits me to assess the manifesting psychopathic trait
tendencies of the prisoners. Psychopathic trait tendencies are more likely the components
of what constitutes a psychopath, but nonetheless are not psychopathic by themselves.
Hence, future researches should be conducted in the area of diagnosing male offenders who
are psychopathic or psychopaths using the PCL-R.
Further, the instruments used in this study are mostly foreign in nature. Local
studies (Carlota & Lazo, 1980) have demonstrated that the use of foreign instruments in
the local setting do not warrant a generalized cultural implication of the Western
psychological constructs in the local context. But because the study is exploratory in
nature, foreign instruments were used since there are no local instruments that assess the
dimensions of the variables under study.3 It is recommended that the scales used should
be improved in using with Filipino prisoner populations by adapting the items that
represents above .30 item-total correlations to improve their reliabilities. By increasing
their reliability values, this will increase the total reliability value of the scales. By
following such method, it would also lead to shortening the scale which only showcases
items that reflect Filipino understanding.
The second limitation is the use of the sample population for this study. The study is
limited to the male prisoners located at the Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC) of the
New Bilibid Prison (NBP). Prisoners in this Center are assessed and evaluated in terms of
their security level before they are placed to the three security levels (e.g., maximum,
3 It should be noted that the NEO-PI-R has been translated in the Filipino-Tagalog language (McCrae et al., 1998) and many efforts are conducted in using this instrument among Filipinos (Katigbak et al., 2002). In light of personality theorizing in cross-cultural studies, the FFM or the Big Five Theory has proven to be replicable and captured within the Filipino culture (Guanzon-Lapeña, 2008).
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/23
medium, and minimum) and for transfer in various prison colonies. Although the sample
population represents heterogeneity of criminals in the country, nonetheless, they do not
represent homogeneity of criminal behaviors.
Implications
In the light of the study’s main findings, it is suggested that the construct of
psychopathy presents a genuine approach on understanding criminal personality among
Filipino offenders. It also coincides with the particular need and gaining interest of
studying the interface between clinical and forensic psychology in the Philippines. To some
extent, this study replicates previous findings from the Western literature and provides
new understanding of the psychopathy construct in a non-individualistic culture. This
presents a future endeavor in conducting researches with particular interest on the
interface between culture and personality (Church, 2000; Markus & Kitayama, 1998) and
personality and psychopathology (Kruger & Tackett, 2006). It will also provide a cultural
understanding of psychopathy which is still missing in the scientific literature.
The findings of this study preliminary demonstrate the viability of using the
psychopathy construct as assessed by a self-report approach. This may be contributive in
the prison assessment of Filipino male offenders particularly when clinical diagnostic
procedures of psychopathology are unavailable. In the future discourse of studying
criminal personality among Filipinos, the psychopathy construct ultimately has a place in
understanding the possibility of a Filipino criminal mind. To paraphrase Hare (1996), the
time has truly come for the clinical construct of psychopathy!
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/24
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for
Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revised (DSM-IV-TR). Washington, DC: Author.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. L. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (4th ed.).
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive
dissonance phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 74(3), 183-200.
Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The
search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 81(6), 506-
520.
Blackburn, R. (1993). The psychology of criminal conduct: Theory, research, and
practice. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Blackburn, R. (1998a). Psychopathy and the contribution of personality in violence.
In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial,
criminal, and violent behaviors (pp. 50-68). NY: Guilford.
Blackburn, R. (1998b). Psychopathy and personality disorder: Implications of
interpersonal theory. In D. J. Cooke, A. Forth, & R. D. Hare (Eds.), Psychopathy: Theory,
research and implications for society (pp. 269-301). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Blackburn, R. (2006). Psychopathy as a personality construct. In S. Strack (Ed.),
Handbook of personology and psychopathology (pp. 271-291). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Brinkley, C. A., Newman, J. P., Widiger, T. A., & Lynam, D. R. (2004). Two approaches
to parsing the heterogeneity of psychopathy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,
11(1), 69-94.
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/25
Carlota, A. J., & Lazo, L. S. (Eds.) (1980). Psychological measurement in the
Philippines: A book of readings. Diliman, QC: College of Social Science and Philosophy,
University of the Philippines.
Church, A. T. (2000). Culture and personality: Towards an integrated cultural trait
psychology. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 651-703.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R)
and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & Widiger, T. A. (Eds.). (2002). Personality disorders and the Five-
Factor Model of personality (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Feist, G. J. (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
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-Lapeña, M. A. (2008). Personality. In L. A. Teh & M. J. Macapagal (Eds.),
General psychology: A textbook for Filipino college students. Loyola Heights, QC: Ateneo de
Manila University Press.
Hampson, S. E. (1988). The construction of personality: An introduction (2nd ed.).
London: Routledge.
Hare, R. D. (1970). Psychopathy: Theory and research. NY: Wiley.
Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 23(1), 25-54.
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/26
Hare, R. D. (2003). Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) user’s manual (2nd
ed.). Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
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: 17
principles that every mental health professional should understand (pp. 263-290). NY:
Routledge.
Harpur, T. J., Hart, S. D., & Hare, R. D. (2002). Personality of the psychopath. In P. T.
Costa, Jr. & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality
(2nd ed.; pp. 299-324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Herve, H., & Yuille, J. C. (Eds.). (2007). Psychopathy: Theory, research, and social
implications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jacobwitz, S., & Egan, V. (2006). The dark triad and normal personality traits.
Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 331-339.
Jang, K. J. (Ed.). (2006). Genetic basis of psychopathology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jang, K. J., Wolf, H., & Larstone, R. (2006). What is the role of personality in
psychopathology? A view from behavior genetics. In R. F. Krueger & J. L. Tackett (Eds.),
Personality and psychopathology (pp.153-173). NY: Guilford.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). Big Five Theory: Taxonomy and Measurement. In
L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (eds.), Handbook of personality. NY: Guilford.
Karpman, B. (1948). The myth of the psychopathic personality. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 104, 523-534.
Katigbak, M. S., Church, A. T., & Akamine, T. X. (2002). Cross-cultural generalizability
of personality dimensions: Relating indigenous and imported inventory dimensions. In A. T.
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/27
Church and M. S. Katigbak (Authors), Filipino personality: Indigenous and cross-cultural
studies (pp. 80-106). Taft Avenue, Manila: De La Salle University Press.
Krueger, R. F., & Tackett, J. L. (Eds). (2006). Personality and psychopathology. NY:
Guilford.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in
the five-factor model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and
Individual Differences, 38, 1571-1582.
Lilienfeld, S. O. (1990). Development and preliminary validation of a self-report
measure of psychopathic personality (Vol. I and II). Unpublished doctoral dissertation in
psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & 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). NY: Guilford.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised
(PPI-R) professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory.
Psychological Reports, 3, 635-694 (whole monograph).
Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lynam, D. R., & Derefniko, K. J. (2006). Psychopathy and personality. In C. J. Patrick
(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 133-155). NY: Guilford.
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.
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/28
Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of
normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 139-157.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1998). The cultural psychology of personality. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(1), 63-87.
McCord, W. M., & McCord, J. (1964). The psychopath: An essay on the criminal mind.
NY: Van Nostrand.
McCrae, R. R. (2009). The five-factor model of personality traits: Consensus and
controversy. In P. J. Corr & G. Matthews (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personality
psychology (pp. 148-162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory
perspective (2nd ed.). NY: Guilford.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P.
John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd
ed.; pp. 159-181). NY: Guilford.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T. Jr., del Pilar, G. H., Rolland, J. P., & Parker, W. D. (1998).
Cross-cultural assessment of the five-factor model: The revised NEO Personality Inventory.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 171-188.
Miller, H. A. (2006). Inventory of Offender Risk, Needs, and Strengths (IORNS)
professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2001). Structural models of personality and their relation
to antisocial behavior: A meta-analytic review. Criminology, 39(4), 765-795.
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/29
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2003). Psychopathy and the five-factor model of
personality: A replication and extension. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81(2), 168-178.
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Leukfeld, C. (2001). Personality disorders
as extreme variants of common personality dimensions: Can the five-factor model
adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality Assessment, 79(2), 253-276.
Patrick, C. J. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of psychopathy. NY: Guilford.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556-563.
Salekin, R. T., & Lynam, D. R. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of child and adolescent
psychopathy. NY: Guilford.
Saplala, J. E. G. (2004). Skwelahang Sikolohiya for the rehabilitation of prisoners.
Miriam College Faculty Research Journal, 23, 43-62.
Skilling, T. A., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey, V. L. (2002). Identifying
persistently antisocial offenders using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist and DSM antisocial
personality disorder criteria. Psychological Assessment, 14(1), 27-38.
Untalan, J. H. C. (2009a). Are delinquents necessarily dangerous than non-
delinquents? Psychopathic traits, aggression, and conduct problems among Filipino
adolescent boys. Unitas, 82(2), in press.
Untalan, J. H. C. (2009b). Personality traits as predictors of psychopathy among male
incarcerated individuals. Unpublished master thesis in psychology, Graduate School,
University of Santo Tomas, Manila.
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/30
Untalan, J. H. C., Mordeno, I. G., & Decatoria, J. B. (2008). Exploring the dark triad of
personality in Filipino culture: Preliminary findings. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 41(2),
33-54.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Harkness, A. R. (1994). Structures of personality and their
relevance to psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103(1), 18-31.
Widiger, T. A., & Lynam, D. R. (1998). Psychopathy and the five-factor model of
personality. In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy:
Antisocial, criminal, and violent behaviors (pp. 171-187). NY: Guilford.
Wiebe, R. P. (2004). Delinquent behavior and the five-factor model: Hiding in the
adaptive landscape? Individual Differences Research, 2(1), 38-62.
Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., & Blonigen, D. M. (2009). Using existing self-report
inventories to measure psychopathic personality traits of Fearless Dominance and Self-
Centered Impulsivity. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 1006-1016.
Woodworth, M., & Porter, S. (2002). In cold blood: Characteristics of criminal
homicides as a function of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(3), 436-445.
World Health Organization (1990). International Classification of Disorders (10th
ed.). Switzerland: Author.
Zuckerman, M. (2005). Psychobiology of personality (2nd ed., revised & updated).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/31
AUTHORS’ NOTE
Oral paper presentation read at the Southeast Asia Psychology Conference, School of
Psychology and Social Work, University Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia, July 10
2009 and at the 46th Annual Convention of the Psychological Association of the Philippines,
Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, August 18, 2009. This paper is an abridged and expanded
version of the author’s thesis submitted to the Graduate School, University of Santo Tomas,
Manila, defended last March 2009. The author is indebted to the valuable contribution of
Dr. Dolores De Leon (Graduate School, University of Santo Tomas), who served as co-
research supervisor during initial stages of the first author’s master thesis project.
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/32
Table 1. Socio-demographic Data of the 397 Male Prisoners.
Note: Highest frequencies are in bold maxima.
Sociodemographic Factors f % Sociodemographic Factors F % Current Age (M = 37.92; SD = 9.21) Civil Status
20-30 years old 98 24.7 Single 145 36.5
31-41 years old 172 43.3 Married 204 51.4
42-52 years old 97 24.4 Separated 39 9.8
53-63 years old 27 6.8 Widower 9 2.3
64-74 years old 3 0.8
Religion Educational Attainment
Aglipay 3 0.8 Elementary Level 31 7.8
Born Again 28 7.1 Elementary Graduate 21 5.3
Iglesia Ni Cristo 22 5.5 High School Level 129 32.5
Islam 7 1.8 High School Graduate 82 20.7
Jehova's Witness 2 0.5 Vocational 28 7.1
Roman Catholic 312 78.6 College Level 74 18.6
7th Day Adventist 5 1.3 College Graduate 31 7.8
Not Indicated 3 0.8 Post Graduate 1 .3
Others 15 3.8
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/33
Table 2. Internal Consistency, Descriptive Statistics (Mean and Standard Deviation), and T Score of the NEO-PI-R.
NEO-PI-R Scales α Mean SD Range SEM T Score
Neuroticism .73 132.88 13.73 88-165 0.69 79
N1: Anxiety .33 22.83 3.71 10-34 0.19 70
N2: Angry Hostility .60 19.21 4.16 8-34 0.21 65
N3: Depression .54 22.32 4.29 10-40 0.22 70
N4: Self-Consciousness .06 25.67 3.10 17-36 0.16 79
N5: Impulsiveness .02 22.64 3.08 13-33 0.15 68
N6: Vulnerability .46 20.22 3.93 8-32 0.20 79
Extraversion .62 150.26 11.75 114-201 0.59 72
E1: Warmth .48 29.09 3.64 16-37 0.18 67
E2: Gregariousness .46 26.75 3.81 14-40 0.19 72
E3: Assertiveness .29 21.88 3.65 13-33 0.18 62
E4: Activity .28 23.47 3.17 14-32 0.16 63
E5: Excitement-Seeking .33 22.87 3.77 12-35 0.19 62
E6: Positive Emotions .26 26.21 3.37 16-38 0.17 65
Openness to Experience .42 146.48 10.39 118-193 0.52 70
O1: Fantasy .22 21.98 3.56 13-33 0.18 61
O2: Aesthetics .31 26.83 3.47 17-38 0.17 69
O3: Feelings .17 25.68 3.16 16-39 0.16 67
O4: Actions .14 23.64 2.77 15-36 0.14 71
O5: Ideas .43 25.43 3.68 16-37 0.18 60
O6: Values .06 22.92 3.04 13-34 0.15 55
Agreeableness .64 165.23 13.40 110-203 0.67 78
A1: Trust .37 26.18 3.43 13-36 0.17 62
A2: Straightforwardness .39 27.29 3.89 12-37 0.20 66
A3: Altruism .40 29.39 3.74 14-39 0.19 67
A4: Compliance .42 29.07 3.91 18-39- 0.20 79
A5: Modesty .33 25.99 3.82 12-38 0.19 68
A6: Tender-Mindedness .34 27.30 3.58 12-39 0.18 69
Conscientiousness .80 170.43 16.10 120-219 0.81 77
C1: Competence .51 28.08 3.97 15-40 0.20 66
C2: Order .28 27.12 3.56 15-40 0.18 70
C3: Dutifulness .40 29.27 3.45 16-40 0.17 65
C4: Achievement Striving .29 28.36 3.26 13-36 0.16 71
C5: Self-Discipline .54 28.43 4.02 16-40 0.20 65
C6: Deliberation .44 29.17 4.52 12-68 0.23 78
Note: n=397. α = Cronbach’s α; SEM = Standard Error Mean. Domain traits are in bold maxima.
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/34
Table 3. Internal Consistency, Descriptive Statistics (Mean and Standard Deviation), and T Score of the PPI-R.
PPI-R Scales α Mean SD Range SEM T Score
Content Scales
Machiavellian Egocentricity .67 43.17 8.41 23-71 0.42 55
Rebellious Nonconformity .65 32.18 7.16 16-51 0.36 57
Blame Externalization .54 34.18 6.87 17-53 0.34 50
Careless Nonplanfulness .64 31.57 6.90 19-84 0.35 48
Social Influence .55 42.74 8.27 22-69 0.41 43
Fearlessness .50 31.38 6.35 14-56 0.32 50
Stress Immunity .28 34.69 5.29 21-48 0.27 84
Coldheartedness .41 29.77 6.14 18-75 0.31 46
Total Score
Global Psychopathy Index .77 279.67 27.48 203-369 1.38 49
Factor Scales
Self-Centered Impulsivity .83 141.10 21.48 91-201 1.08 52
Fearless Dominance .59 108.80 13.57 71-173 0.68 58
Coldheartedness .41 29.77 6.14 18-75 0.31 46
Validity Scales
Virtuous Responding .32 35.37 5.32 20-48 0.27 55
Deviant Responding .52 16.98 4.15 9-35 0.21 63
Note: n=397. α = Cronbach’s α; SEM = Standard Error Mean.
PERSONALITY AND PSYCHOPATHY AMONG FILIPINO MALE OFFENDERS/35
Table 4. Regression Summary of the Personality Domain and Facet Traits Predictors of Psychopathy.
PPI-R Scales First Simultaneous Multiple Regression
R Adj R2 β2 NEO-PI-R Domain Traits
Total Score
Global Psychopathy Index .334 .250 .118 N, E, Aa
Factor Scales
Self-Centered Impulsivity .395 .145 .179 N, E
Fearless Dominance .556 .300 .216 N, E, Aa, C
Coldheartedness .320 .091 .114 Na, Ea, Aa
Content Scales
Machiavellian Egocentricity .417 .164 .268 N, E, Oa, Aa
Rebellious Nonconformity .282 .068 .088 N, E
Blame Externalization .413 .160 .236 N, A
Careless Nonplanfulness .250 .050 .048 Ca
Social Influence .541 .284 .242 Aa
Fearlessness .346 .108 .083 Aa
Stress Immunity .468 .209 .179 Aa, C
Coldheartedness .320 .091 .114 Na, Ea, Aa
Second Simultaneous Multiple Regression
R Adj R2 β2 NEO-PI-R Facets Traits
Total Score
Global Psychopathy Index .464 .151 .051 N5, E3, A2a
Factor Scales
Self-Centered Impulsivity .511 .201 .074 N2, N4, N5, A6a
Fearless Dominance .604 .313 .115 N6a, E1, E3, E5, O5
Coldheartedness .467 .154 .118 N3a, E1a, C6
Content Scales
Machiavellian Egocentricity .533 .225 .108 N4, N5, E5, O1a, O6a, A2a
Rebellious Nonconformity .414 .104 .021 O2
Blame Externalization .504 .193 .107 N4, N5, O2, A1a, A6a
Careless Nonplanfulness .372 .067 .071 N2, C1a
Social Influence .608 .318 .145 N6a, E1, E3, O4, A5a
Fearlessness .483 .170 .104 N3, E5, A2a
Stress Immunity .542 .236 .066 N3a, O6, A2, C5
Coldheartedness .467 .154 .118 N3a, E1a, C6
Note: a = refers to significant trait predictors with negative relationship. All is significant at .001 level. PPI-R = Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised, NEO-PI-R = Revised NEO Personality Inventory; N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness to Experience, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness, N2 = Angry Hostility, N3 = Depression, N4 = Self-Consciousness, N5 = Impulsiveness, N6 = Vulnerability, E1 = Warmth, E3 = Assertiveness, E5 = Excitement-Seeking, O1 = Fantasy, O2 = Aesthetics, O4 = Actions, O5 = Ideas, O6 = Values, A1 = Trust, A2 = Straightforwardness, A5 = Modesty, A6 = Tender-Mindedness, C1 = Competence, C5 = Self-Discipline; C6 = Deliberation. R = Multiple R, Adj.R2 = adjusted R square, β2 = total β2 of significant predictors.