Running head: SOCIOPATHY SCALE 1

Development of a Sociopathy Scale

Samuel Dunham

Valdosta State University

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 2

Abstract

For this project, Dr. Natalie Wright’s psychometrics class created a scale that would be

used to measure sociopathy in individuals. The class followed the guidelines set by Hinkin

(1998) to practice and demonstrate the test construction process. After conducting an EFA and

CFA, many items were removed from the scale in an attempt to make it more reliable and valid.

There were some problematic findings that could impact how much validity the scale is

perceived to have in measuring sociopathy. With the results of the analyses, it would probably be

wise for the test to continue being developed.

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 3

For this project, the purpose was for the class to develop a scale for the construct of

sociopathy. To do so, the class followed the guidelines set by Hinkin (1998), which will be

discussed more specifically later in this technical report. Then the class conducted both an EFA

and a CFA to determine how many factors may be present in the scale to and determine model

fit. Reliability estimates of the scale were taken to determine whether they would produce

consistent scores. Finally, a decision was made as to whether the reliability was acceptable for

the created sociopathy scale and evidence of validity was also gathered.

The construct of sociopathy is an interesting topic that may have implications in the work

environment; however, there are not many sociopathy scales in use today. It should be noted that

sociopathy is a complex construct and as a result, the research in the area is relatively limited. In

one of the first pieces of research on sociopathy, not only was anti-social behavior considered an

essential aspect of sociopath, but that the level of anxiety could separate sociopaths into either

the category of a primary sociopath or of the secondary sociopath (Lyyken, 1957). Along those

lines, Fagan & Lira (1980) suggest that primary sociopaths exhibit more anti-social behaviors

than secondary sociopaths or those who are not classified as sociopaths. Secondary sociopaths

were defined as sociopaths that “learn to control inappropriate responses that have been

previously punished.” It is also said that their antisocial behavior is “a result of frustration or

inner conflict. “Despite the limitations present in sociopathy, more research has been done in the

area of psychopathy research. For example, Caponecchia, Sun, & Wyatt (2012) suggest that

labeling anyone in the workplace a psychopath is extremely difficult and in most cases, the use

of the term is not appropriate. This is because the term “psychopath” is not fully understood and

the construct has not been fully developed; this makes it very easy to mislabel an individual as a

psychopath (which could have damaging results for the individual and those around them).

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 4

Psychopathy and sociopathy seem to touch on some of the same underlying principles and

because of that, sociopathy has also been difficult to define and is probably misused a great deal

in labeling individuals.

For the purposes of this project, the class defined sociopathy as a “personality type

characterized by a grandiose sense of self, and a disregard for and/or use of other persons in

pursuit of their own self-interests.” One component in this definition that should be noted is the

construct of narcissism. Prior research suggests that those high in “grandiose narcissism” have

less attachment avoidance (Rohmann, Neumann, Herner, & Bierhoff, 2012) which is relevant

because sociopathic people should be able to find attachment with other individuals. However,

the reason for that attachment is to get what they desire from the relationship. Narcissism has

also recently been examined in a workplace setting, primarily in the context of narcissism levels

in CEOs and how it impacts organizational change (Gerstner, König, Enders & Hambrick, 2013)

The study had results that would suggest that the narcissism by CEOs concerning organizational

outcomes would be mediated by perceptions of their actions by an audience (e.g. other

organization employees). The more their actions are observed by their audience, the more likely

CEOs will be to do aggressively narcissistic behaviors.

Methodology

The class generally followed the guidelines set by Hinkin (1998) in the construction of

the sociopathy scale. First, the items were generated. Then, the survey was given out for people

to take. After that, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to initially reduce the number

of items in the scale. Then, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to determine

the best model fit for the data and to reduce the number of items again. Finally, the class

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 5

examined the convergent and discriminant validity evidence results from the CFA output. For

this project, we were unable to replicate the process to a new sample.

The first step was to determine what descriptors the construct domain for sociopathy

contained. During one class period, the class came together and came up with ideas for possibly

relevant descriptors that may catch the essence of the sociopathy construct domain. There were

many suggestions, but the final descriptors included were the following: Need for recognition,

Egocentric, Disregard for norms, Confidence, Charismatic, Emotional intelligence, and Greed.

The other descriptors were removed for the following reasons: they were not thought to be vital

to the sociopathy construct, creating items for the descriptor would be difficult, and/or the

descriptor could only be measured using behavioral questions, which raised the possibility of

social desirability in item responses. Afterwards the class decided upon some scales that would

demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity for the sociopathy scale.

Then the class wrote items that would be considered for inclusion in the sociopathy scale.

Each person was given the task to write questions that covered the descriptors in the sociopathy

domain. After that was completed all of the items were compiled together and the class had to

determine which items to keep and which ones to get rid of. In total, 115 items were created.

Each person was assigned four questions to go through and score each item on set criteria. In the

criteria, points were added to the item’s score according to how well the question fit with the

sociopathy construct domain and question clarity. Points were subtracted from the item’s score if

the item contained any item writing errors or would not produce variance. Then the scores were

aggregated to produce a final score for each item. It was determined that items that obtained the

highest scores would be kept and the others would be deleted. In all, there were 31 items kept.

Then the class examined the highest scoring items and removed items that seemed to duplicate

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 6

other kept questions leaving 24 items (For a listing of those items see Appendix A). The wording

for each item was also examined to reduce as much possible error associated with the items as

possible.

Once those items were revised and finalized, the surveys were conducted using the

Qualtrics survey software system. The class was asked to get at least ten people to conduct the

survey. The class was able to get people to take the survey through word of mouth, asking, and

putting the link for the survey on Facebook. The survey was kept up for three weeks and then the

results were gathered from all of the surveys. After the survey was closes, there were 226

respondents. Then Dr. Natalie Wright complied all of the data on an SPSS data file and each

person in the class conducted their own EFA. In total, the data from 199 individuals were kept

for use in the EFA and CFA. Participants with missing data were excluded from the analyses

because they would not provide a substantial amount of relevant information concerning the

scale.

The sample consisted of a wide variety of different types of respondents. The sample

used for this scale validation process was primarily young and female. Females accounted for

approximately 67 percent of the respondents. Approximately half of the respondents were in the

18-25 year old age bracket (50.3 percent). The majority of respondents either had some college

education or claimed to have a bachelor’s degree as their highest education with a these

education levels accounting for a total of 63.3 percent of the respondents. 76.4 percent of the

sample was employed at the time of the survey. Overall, the average time working per week was

fairly broad (See Appendix B). 48.8 percent of survey respondents worked 31 hours or more per

week, while 38.7 percent worked 30 hours a week or less. Approximately 57 percent of the

respondents had worked at their place of employment for either 3 three years or less.

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 7

To determine whether the sociopathy scale was accurately measuring sociopathy,

convergent and discriminant validity evidence was sought through the use of other scales. In

order to determine convergent validity, a workplace arrogance measure that Johnson et al. (2010)

used was included (For item listing see Appendix C), and to find evidence of discriminant

validity, an altruism measure used by Rushton, Chrisjohn, & Fekken. (1981) was also included

with the sociopathy scale (For item listing see Appendix D). The measure of workplace

arrogance was used as evidence of convergent validity because it is in line with our

operationalized definition; primarily that they would have “a grandiose sense of self.” Because of

this, there is an expectation that workplace aggression and sociopathy share some similarities and

as a result there should be some relation between the two constructs. The measure of altruism

was used for discriminant validity evidence because it would contradict the last part of the

definition; “a disregard for and/or use of other persons in pursuit of their own self-interests.”

Altruism is the complete opposite of this and as a result, the expectation would be for there to be

no relation (or a completely negative one) between sociopathy and altruism. In other words,

people’s levels of one of the construct should not be influencing their levels on the other

construct.

In order to determine the dimensionality of the sociopathy scale, both an EFA and a CFA

were conducted. For the EFA, the purpose of its use was to determine how many factors could be

driving the sociopathy scale. Because there are not many sociopathy scales in use, there were not

a lot of theoretical considerations to use in figuring out the factor structure of the scale. The EFA

was able to give an estimate of the number of factors that were thought to be accounting for a

considerable portion of the variance in the scale responses. It was also used to determine how

items were loading on the particular factors. If items loaded relatively strongly on at more than

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 8

one factor, then the item was removed. The factor loadings were used as a measurement to

determine not only what factors the items were loading on, but also to determine whether the

item should be removed from the scale.

The CFA was used to check the data for model fit and to see if our EFA factor results

would stay consistent in terms of the number of factors and whether any additional items may

have needed to be removed from the scale. The CFA was used to compare the scale data to a

model that would best explain its dimensionality.

After the CFA was conducted, items that created problems for the model fit were

removed from the scale. The model was able to be identified, but the items were removed to

improve the model fit. Items that were able to load strongly on only one factor in the EFA and

helped the model identify in the CFA were kept for final inclusion in the scale. In total, we began

the project with a pool of 115 items for inclusion. Afterwards, through our item scoring criteria,

31 items were considered for placement in the scale. Then, the class agreed to keep 24 of the 31

items after a thorough analysis of each item. After the EFA was conducted, 14 items remained in

the survey because the other ten items either did not load strongly on any factors or loaded

strongly on more than one factor. Finally, after the CFA was done, only 11 of the original 115

questions were kept in the final sociopathy scale.

Analysis and Results

Of the 199 participants who were included for the final analyses, 99 were included in the

EFA. Maximum Likelihood was the extraction method that was chosen for use in this particular

EFA. I used Promax for the factor rotation and initially, there were eight factors extracted based

on the Kaiser criterion of having an eigenvalue higher than one. However, it appeared to be the

case that the factor loading information was not very beneficial and was non-interpretable. After

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 9

looking at the data, the decision was made to extract three factors from the model. The scree plot

curve appears to flatten at the third, fourth, and fifth factors (depending on the person looking at

the plot). Since the ideal number of factors that should be extracted is one less than the factor

number where it flattens, that would suggest that the proper number of factors to extract is

between two and four. EFAs were run with two, three, and four factors specified and the EFA

that was the most interpretable was the one with three factors specified. Factor 1 had an

eigenvalue of 5.414 and accounted for 22.558% of the variance. Factor 2 had an eigenvalue of

2.450 and accounted for 10.210% of the variance. Finally, Factor 3 had an eigenvalue of 2.042

and accounted for 8.508% of the variance.

Table 1Factor

Item 1 2 3

SOC1 .384 .279 .008

SOC2 .537 -.172 .205

SOC3 .479 .172 -.039

SOC4 .687 -.296 .183

SOC5 .534 .302 -.010

SOC6 .775 -.134 -.189

SOC7 .665 .332 -.047

SOC8 .248 -.507 .245

SOC9 .154 .272 .283

SOC10 .251 -.050 .455

SOC11 .048 .359 -.367

SOC12 -.085 -.015 .608

SOC13 -.086 .523 .377

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 10

SOC14 .320 .179 .250

SOC15 -.049 .531 .179

SOC16 -.090 .110 .247

SOC17 -.018 .067 .640

SOC18 -.185 .770 -.129

SOC19 -.130 .060 .077

SOC20 -.208 -.105 .608

SOC21 .530 -.048 -.262

SOC22 .425 .070 -.434

SOC23 .133 .275 -.053

SOC24 .092 .490 .265

Note: Loadings > .4 were considered strong, Loadings between .3-.4 were considered acceptable, Loadings <.3 were considered weak.

A number of items were deleted from inclusion in the CFA due to cross loading or

loading on all factors. The following items were removed after the EFA because they either cross

loaded or did not load particularly strong on any factor: SOC4, SOC8, SOC9, SOC10, SOC14,

SOC16, SOC19, SOC22, SOC23, and SOC24. Some additional items were removed from the

CFA because they were not a good fit with any proposed model. The number of factors extracted

from the EFA and CFA differed because the EFA freely allows items to load on as many factors

as can be extracted. This means that the researcher must interpret the results and determine how

many factors should be extracted from the EFA. In a CFA, the models are already set; the data is

required to fit to the model of best fit, meaning that the CFA gives the researcher the amount of

factors that should be extracted. The following items were removed in the CFA: SOC11, SOC15,

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 11

and SOC18. By removing those items, the model fit was improved significantly. Initially, the

CFA was run with the 100 participants that were not used in the EFA; however, some data had to

be excluded from the CFA. The final sample for the CFA came out to include the responses of

89 respondents. The information of some respondents had to be removed because they were

missing too much data. Overall, the fit indices were encouraging because they demonstrate

evidence that the model is appropriate for the data. The Chi-Square Test of Model Fit was not

significant, which is evidence of good model fit, X2 (43, N=89) = 51.048, p = .1868. The CFI and

TLI indices both showed evidence of good model fit with both having values higher than .90.

The CFI value was .958 and the TLI value was .946. The RMSEA estimate was .046, which also

provided model fit evidence because the value is less than .08.

Table 2F1 BY Estimate S.E. Two-tailed p-Value

SOC1 - I tell people what they want to hear so that they will give me what I want.

.640 .075 .000

SOC2 - I am better at most things than others.

.513 .091 .000

SOC3 - Success is based on the survival of the fittest.

.654 .076 .000

SOC5 - Looking out for myself is my top priority.

.395 .100 .000

SOC7 - My feelings are more important than those of others.

.642 .075 .000

SOC17 - I like to be the center of attention.

.576 .083 .000

SOC21 - I believe the end justifies the means.

.448 .096 .000

SOC13 - It is okay to break rules when they

.759 .062 .000

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 12

interfere with my goals.

F2 BY Estimate S.E. Two-Tailed p-ValueSOC6 - I can tell immediately whether a coworker will be useful to me.

.790 .168 .000

SOC12 - I fit in with any crowd.

.490 .143 .001

SOC20 - People look to me for leadership and guidance in team projects.

.328 .140 .020

Factor 1 appears to be measuring “Machiavellianism” and Factor 2 appears to be

measuring “social egotism.” In order to determine the names of the factors, every item for each

of the two factors was examined to see if there were any common themes or constructs contained

in the factor item pairings. Factor 1 items seemed to touch on a selfishness trait and a sense of

superiority. These aspects were in line with “Machiavellianism,” which is why the factor was

named as such. Factor 2 items appeared to key in on the ego and social aspects of sociopathy.

That is why it was labeled “social egotism.” Factor 1 appears to be fine, while Factor 2 has a

slight problem with SOC20. However, because the content of the item seems to be in line with

the content of the other two items associated with Factor 2, I believe that the item is fine being

included in the scale.

Table 3SOC Scale F1 SOC Scale F2 ALT Scale WA Scale

SOC Scale 1 Person Correlation

1

Sig. (2-Tailed)

SOC Scale 2 Person Correlation

.360** 1

Sig. (2-Tailed)

.000

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 13

ALT Scale Person Correlation

-.001 .332** 1

Sig. (2-Tailed)

.986 .000

WA Scale Person Correlation

.555** .066 -.175* 1

Sig. (2-Tailed)

.000 .404 .025

Note: *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-Tailed). Listwise N = 164. **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-Tailed).

Looking at Table 3, the results are in line with the expected relationships. Factors 1 and 2

of the sociopathy scale were hypothesized to be related and they appear to be. The workplace

arrogance scale and Factor 1 were expected to be related and the results are reasonable. It was

anticipated that there would an inverse relationship between altruism and workplace arrogance

scales, and the data appears to support that assertion. There was an inverse relationship expected

between Factor 1 and Altruism and that is not supported in the matrix. The relationship virtually

has no correlation which does not provide evidence of discriminant validity. There are some

issues with Factor 2 also. Factor 2 was not expected to correlate strongly with altruism and it

does. It was also expected to strongly correlate with workplace arrogance and it did not. Both of

those are problematic because they hurt the amount of validity that we can assume the scale has.

In examining Factor 2 of the sociopathy scale, there are only three items. Because the sample

size is so small, it is feasible that a good bit of random error found its way into the data. The

correlation could also be small because there is some aspect of the sociopathy domain that is not

being measured. It is even possible that there may be some contamination in the items that are

leading to the correlations. I believe that the correlations are the result of some key descriptors of

sociopathy not being covered along with the possibility that there was some form of

contamination in the items that load on Factor 2. In particular, the content of items SOC12 and

SOC20 appear to be measuring something other than sociopathy. Their content seems to be more

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 14

associated with leadership than it does with sociopathy. Considering those points, I believe that

the data contained in Table 3 does not provide enough evidence of convergent validity (with the

workplace arrogance scale) and discriminant validity (with the altruism scale) for the sociopathy

scale. As a result, this should lead to the conclusion that the scale may not be accurately

measuring what it is intended to measure. Overall, there is not a great deal of confidence that the

sociopathy scale is measuring the essential aspects of sociopathic attitudes.

Only including the 11 items that were kept through the EFA and CFA, the reliability

estimates were taken for both factors. The reliability estimate for Factor 1 was approximately .78

and the reliabiltity estimate for Factor 2 was .39. The reliability estimate for Factor 1 is

acceptable because it exceeds the widely accepted minimum Cronbach’s Alpha value of .70.

However, the reliability estimate for Factor 2 is very problematic and that factor will need to be

re-evaluated because it raises the possibility that test takers may be reading the questions

differently or that the factor is not really measuring any essential aspects of sociopathy. The

major concern would be whether the scale is covering enough of the content domain of

sociopathy to be valid. Considering that this was scale was constructed from scratch, I feel fairly

comfortable that Factor 1 appears to be fairly reliable with its reliability estimate value.

Unfortunately, I am not comfortable making the claim that Factor 2 is measuring the essential

aspects of the sociopathy construct domain. In fact, the content of the items appear to covering

another construct more than it is measuring sociopathy. If that is true, then the low reliability

estimate would make sense.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Overall, the finalized sociopathy scale appears to be relatively reliable and has promising

validity evidence. The reliability estimate is acceptable and ideal with a value over .70 and there

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 15

is validity evidence found in the EFA and CFA results. However, there does not appear to be any

substantial evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for the scale in looking at the

correlations between the sociopathy scale and the other included measures. This could be

problematic in terms of the scale’s utility and needs to be addressed. The decision was made to

extract three factors from the EFA, remove cross loaded and lowly loaded items, and then run the

CFA. After running the CFA, the model only specified two factors which appear to be

appropriate considering the questions that were kept in the sociopathy scale. In the CFA, the

model identified, but the model created a better fit when a three items were removed. The best

model for the particular data used in the CFA was the two factor model. The two factors

extracted from the model were named “Machiavellianism” and “social egotism.”

One major issue in this scale development process is that we did not have a chance to

follow the sixth step in Hinkin (1998) by replicating the process to see if results were

generalizable to other populations. Because of this limitation, we should be careful in how much

weight we put on sociopathy scale scores because they may not generalize to other populations.

Another limitation was the sample size that was used for validating the scale. The numbers were

fairly low for both the EFA and CFA, which could have impacted the results that were obtained

from them. For these analyses, larger sample sizes are typically wanted and we were unable to do

so with this particular project. This limitation was also expounded because we had to use the

same sample and divide the data to run the EFA and CFA, so it possible to deduce that the

population was essentially the same for both analyses, which should typically be avoided.

In terms of future research, researchers should look to not only learn how sociopathy

manifests itself outside of the prison environment, but should also look to come up with an

operational definition for sociopathy and create a scale that can measure it with considerable

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 16

reliability and validity. Sociopathy is a relatively new topic of interest in the psychological field

and learning more about it could be beneficial for not only individuals, but for organizations and

other larger groupings of people. I believe that it would be beneficial for researchers to

specifically examine how sociopathy affects people in the workplace and whether it is as bad as

it is assumed to be. There is a possibility that sociopathy could be a trait that drives individuals to

better performance, but we will never know until we examine it to see if it holds true in an

applied setting. For the specific sociopathy scale, future research should look to compare

correlations between the sociopathy scale used for this report and some other measures that can

provide more evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. There were some unexpected

correlations among the factors that need to be examined. In future research, it would be wise to

include some other descriptors that would be covered by the inclusion of more items in the scale.

Descriptors that could primarily be of interest are antisocial tendencies and “emotional

unresponsiveness.” The idea behind “emotional unresponsiveness” is that sociopaths may not

experience many emotions concerning other people. It would also be beneficial to set more time

for the scale development process to be completed. Because of class time and semester time

limits, data collection took a while and every other step in the development process was rushed

due to time constraints.

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 17

References

Caponecchia, C., Sun, A., & Wyatt, A. (2012). 'Psychopaths' at work? Implications of lay

persons' use of labels and behavioural criteria for psychopathy. Journal Of Business

Ethics, 107(4), 399-408. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1049-9

Fagan, T. J., & Lira, F. T. (1980). The primary and secondary sociopathic personality:

Differences in frequency and severity of antisocial behavior. Journal Of Abnormal

Psychology, 89(3), 493-496. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.89.3.493

Gerstner, W., König, A., Enders, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2013). CEO narcissism, audience

engagement, and organizational adoption of technological discontinuities. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 58(2), 257-291. doi:10.1177/0001839213488773

Hinken, T.R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey

questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104. doi:

10.1177/109442819800100106

Johnson, R., Silverman, S., Shyamsunder, A., Swee, H., Rodopman, O.B., Cho, E., & Bauer, J.

(2010). Acting superior but actually inferior?: Correlates and

consequences of workplace arrogance. Human Performance, 23, 403–

427. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2010.515279

Lykken, D. T. (1957). A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. The Journal Of

Abnormal And Social Psychology, 55(1), 6-10. doi:10.1037/h0047232

Rohmann, E., Neumann, E., Herner, M., & Bierhoff, H. (2012). Grandiose and vulnerable

narcissism: Self-construal, attachment, and love in romantic relationships. European

Psychologist, 17(4), 279-290. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000100

Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R.D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 18

self-report altruism sale. Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 292-302.

Appendix A

Sociopathy Item Code

Item Text

SOC1 I tell people what they want to hear so that they will give me what I want.

SOC2 I am better at most things than others.

SOC3 Success is based on the survival of the fittest.

SOC4 Achieving job status is important to me.

SOC5 Looking out for myself is my top priority.

SOC6 I can tell immediately whether a coworker will be useful to me.

SOC7 My feelings are more important than those of others.

SOC8 Others find me likable.

SOC9 I prefer to do what I want despite others' expectations.

SOC10 I like when my colleagues recognize me for my accomplishments.

SOC11 Other people see me as compassionate. (Reverse-scored)

SOC12 I fit in with any crowd.

SOC13 It is okay to break rules when they interfere with my goals.

SOC14 It is okay to further one’s position in the workplace at any cost.

SOC15 It is important to think about the needs of other people before my own. (Reverse scored)

SOC16 I am confident in my own abilities.

SOC17 I like to be the center of attention.

SOC18 I am concerned about my coworkers' feelings if I succeed and they do not. (Reverse scored)

SOC19 It is not possible to work your way up in a company without some conflict.

SOC20 People look to me for leadership and guidance in team projects.

SOC21 I believe the end justifies the means.

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 19

SOC22 I tend to disengage myself from others throughout the work day.

SOC23 The organization's success is more important than personal success. (Reverse scored)

SOC24 The more power I have in a company the better off the company will be.

Note: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither disagree nor agree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree.

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 20

Appendix B

Hours N Percent of Sample

Less Than 20 45 22.6%

21-30 32 16.1%

31-40 46 23.1%

Over 40 51 25.6%

Missing 25 12.6%

Total 199 100.00%

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 21

Appendix C

Workplace Arrogance Item Code

Item Text

WA1 Believes that s/he knows better than everyone else in any given situation

WA2 Makes decisions that impact others without listening to their input

WA3 Uses non-verbal behaviors like glaring or staring to make people uncomfortable

WA4 Criticizes others

WA5 Belittles his/her employees publicly

WA6 Asserts authority in situations when s/he does not have the required information

WA7 Discredits others’ ideas during meetings and often makes those individuals look bad

WA8 Shoots down other people’s ideas in public

WA9 Exhibits different behaviors with subordinates than with supervisors

WA10 Makes unrealistic time demands on others

WA11 Does not find it necessary to explain his/her decisions to others

WA12 Willing to listen to others’ opinions, ideas, or perspectives

WA13 Welcomes constructive feedback

WA15 Never criticizes other employees in a threatening manner

WA16 Realizes that it does not always have to be ‘his/her way or the highway’

WA17 Avoids getting angry when his/her ideas are criticized

WA18 Takes him/herself too seriously

WA19 Gives others credit for their ideas

WA20 Is considerate of others’workloads

WA21 Is willing to take credit for success as well as blame for failure

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 22

WA22 Does not mind doing menial tasks

WA23 Can get others to pay attention without getting emotionally ‘heated up’

WA24 Promises to address subordinates’ complaints with every intention of working to resolve them

WA25 Does not see him/herself as being too important for some tasks

WA26 Puts organizational objectives before his/her personal agenda

Note: 1=very inaccurate, 2=inaccurate, 3=neither inaccurate nor accurate, 4=accurate, 5=very accurate.

SOCIOPATHY SCALE 23

Appendix D

Altruism Item Code

Item Text

ALT1 I have helped push a stranger's car that was broken down or out of gas.

ALT2 I have given directions to a stranger.

ALT3 I have made change for a stranger.

ALT4 I have given money to a charity.

ALT5 I have given money to a stranger who needed it (or asked me for it).

ALT6 I have donated goods or clothes to a charity.

ALT7 I have done volunteer work for a charity.

ALT8 I have donated blood.

ALT9 I have helped carry a stranger's belongings (books, parcels, etc).

ALT10 I have delayed an elevator and held the door open for a stranger.

ALT11 I have allowed someone to go ahead of me in a lineup (in the supermarket, at a copy machine, at a fast-food restaurant).

ALT12 I have given a stranger a lift in my car.

ALT13 l have pointed out a clerk's error (in a bank, at the supermarket) in undercharging me for an item.

ALT14 I have let a neighbor whom I didn't know too well borrow an item of some value to me (eg, a dish, tools, etc).

ALT15 I have bought 'charity' holiday cards deliberately because I knew it was a good cause.

ALT16 I have helped a classmate who I did not know that well with an assignment when my knowledge was greater than his or hers.

ALT17 I have, before being asked, voluntarily looked after a neighbor's pets or children without being paid for it.

ALT18 I have offered to help a handicapped or elderly stranger across a street.

ALT19 I have offered my seat on a bus or train to a stranger who was standing.

ALT20 I have helped an acquaintance to move households.

Note: 1=never, 2=once, 3=more than once, 4=often, 5=very often.