Measures of other relevant concepts

Introduction

The notion of a quiet ego encompasses many of the features that epitomise humility.  Thus, research into the features, causes, and consequences of a quiet ego should uncover key insights around humility and narcissism. Individuals who experience a quiet ego demonstrate four qualities (Bauer & Wayment, 2008): 

• First, when individuals experience a quiet ego, they can observe themselves from the perspective of someone else, objectively and fairly, called detached awareness. 
• Second, perhaps because they can observe themselves objectively, they are not as inclined to perceive themselves as special, but instead feel a sense of belonging or affiliation with all humans, called inclusive identity.
• Third, perhaps because of this sense of affiliation with all humans, they are more inclined to consider, rather than dismiss, the perspective of other individuals, fostering compassion.
• Fourth, perhaps because they learn from the perspective of other people, they strive to develop and to learn from their experiences rather than demonstrate their capabilities, called growth-mindedness.

Measures

To measure a quiet ego, participants complete measures of these four qualities.  Specifically, to develop this measure, Wayment et al. (2015) first administered a questionnaire to over 300 psychology students at an American university.  The questionnaire included measures that may be relevant to the notion of a quiet rather than defensive ego, including

• mindfulness,
• allo-inclusive identity—or feeling of interconnectedness with other people and the natural world more broadly,
• meaning in life and psychological wellbeing,
• humility and wisdom,
• self-compassion, self-esteem, and self-determination
• generativity—or how the behaviours of individuals contribute to future goals, productivity, and advancement,
• personal growth initiative—or the motivation to grow as a person

Next, the researchers conducted a series of factor analyses to identify clusters of items that may correspond to the four facets of a quiet ego: detached awareness, inclusive identity, perspective taking, and growth-mindedness.   Three items, primarily derived from a measure of mindfulness (Brown & Ryan, 2003), assessed detached awareness including

• I find myself doing things without paying much attention [reverse-coded]
• I do jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware of what I’m doing [reverse-coded]
• I rush through activities without being really attentive to them [reverse-coded]

Similarly, three items, mainly derived from a measure of allo-inclusive identity (Leary et al. 2008), gauged inclusive identity, comprising questions that indicate, using overlapping circles, the degree to which they feel

• a connection between you and all living things
• a connection between you and a stranger on a bus
• a connection between you and a person of another race

Furthermore, four items, largely derived from the Davis Interpersonal Reactivity Scale (Davis, 1983), measured perspective taking:

• Before criticising somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place.
• When I’m upset at someone, I usually try to put myself in his or her shoes for a while.
• I try to look at everybody’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision.
• I sometimes find it difficult to see things from another person’s point of view [Reverse-scored]

Finally, five items, derived from the personal growth subscale of the psychological well-being scale (Ryff, 1989), assessed growth:

• For me, life has been a continuous process of learning, changing, and growth.
• I have the sense that I have developed a lot as a person over time.
• I think it is important to have new experiences that challenge how you think about yourself and the world.
• When I think about it, I haven’t really improved much as a person over the years [Reverse-scored].
• For me, life has been a continuous process of learning, changing, and growth.

As evidence of validity, Wayment et al. (2015) showed, in two subsequent research studies, that a quiet ego, as gauged by these four facets, was

• positively associated with agreeableness, openness to experience, the inclination to reframe adverse events positively,
• positively associated with the degree to which individuals feel their basic needs, such as the need to experience autonomy, strong relationships, and competence, are fulfilled,
• positively associated with measures of resilience, coping, authenticity, mindfulness, and life satisfaction,
• negatively associated with feelings of hostility, anger, aggression, and entitlement.

This quiet ego scale has been validated in other settings and nations.  For example, Bernabei et al. (2024) validated this scale at an Italian university, in which the participants were 160 university students, ranging in age from 20 to 42.  The study revealed that a quiet ego was positively associated with measures of resilience, happiness, and psychological wellbeing.

According to Tangney (2000), people who are humble recognise they are merely one constituent in a larger universe.  That is, humble individuals do not orient their attention only towards their personal needs and concerns but instead are more sensitive and connected to other people, other generations, other species, and the universe in general, sometimes called self-transcendence.  This self-transcendence can be regarded as a state of mind, a trait, a capacity that individuals can develop over time, a goal, or a worldview (Wong, 2016)—and may entail mindfulness, flow, awe, mystical experiences, and other states (Yaden et al., 2017).

Developmental models

Some researchers have even developed measures that gauge this self-transcendence.  For example, Levenson et al. (2005) developed and validated the adult self-transcendence inventory.  This inventory adopts a developmental perspective to characterise the degree to which individuals have become more self-transcendent, and less concerned about their personal needs, over time.  This measure comprises 15 items.  As factor analysis revealed, ten of the items correspond to a sub-scale called self-transcendence:

• My peace of mind is not so easily upset as it used to be.
• I do not become angry as easily.
• Material things mean less to me.
• My sense of self is less dependent on other people and things.
• I feel much more compassionate, even toward my enemies.
• I am more likely to engage in quiet contemplation.
• I feel that my individual life is a part of a greater whole.
• I feel a greater sense of belonging with both earlier and future generations.
• I have become less concerned about other people’s opinions of me.
• I find more joy in life

Five of the items measure a separate tendency called alienation—a sense of detachment or disengagement from the universe—including

• I feel more isolated and lonely.
• I feel that my life has less meaning.
• I am less optimistic about the future of humanity.
• My sense of self has decreased as I have gotten older.
• I am less interested in seeking out social contact.

As evidence of validity, meditation practice was positively associated with self-transcendence and inversely associated with alienation.  Other research has also validated this instrument.  For example, Lee et al. (2015) showed that both factors—self-transcendence and alienation—are observed in both the US and Korea. 

Aging

Some measures of self-transcendence were derived from the experiences of individuals as they age.  For instance,  Reed (1986), while employed at the University of Arizona, developed one of the first measures of self-transcendence, sometimes called the self-transcendence scale.  The measure was derived from insights about the importance of self-transcendence to mental health, especially later in life.  That is, as people age, rather than pursue only goals that relate to themselves—such as identity, reputation, and belonging—these individuals gravitate to values that transcend their personal needs.  They may, for example, strive to share wisdom and seek meaning,  (Haugan, 2012; Reed, 1986; Reed, 2008).  Specifically, this self-transcendence comprises four distinct facets (Reed, 1992):

• the capacity of individuals to develop stronger affiliations with other people and the environment, referred to as the expansion of interpersonal boundaries,
• greater awareness of individuals to their personal values, worldviews, and aspirations, referred to as the expansion of intrapersonal boundaries,
• the capacity of individuals to connect to dimensions that transcend the tangible world, such as spiritual experiences, referred to as the expansion of transpersonal boundaries, and
• the ability of individuals to integrate their past, present, and future lives to generate a meaningful narrative, referred to as the expansion of temporal boundaries.

This self-transcendence is regarded as a resource that individuals can utilise to cope with the challenges they experience, especially as they age.  The self-transcendence scale, distilled from a broader measure of resources that older adults can utilise, comprises 15 items.  Each item begins with the stem “At this time of my life, I see myself as…” and then specifies a resource such as

• having hobbies and interests I can enjoy,
• accepting myself as I grow older,
• being involved with other people or my community when possible,
• adjusting well to my present life situation,
• adjusting well to changes in my physical abilities
• sharing my wisdom and experience with others,
• finding meaning in my past experience,
• helping others in some way,
• having ongoing interest in learning,
• able to move beyond things that once seemed so important,
• accepting death as a part of life,
• finding meaning in my spiritual beliefs,
• letting others help me when I may need it,
• enjoying my pace of life,
• letting go of my past losses.

According to subsequent research, these items can be divided into either two or four distinct factors or facets (Haugan, 2012).  The first factor primarily relates to expansion of interpersonal boundaries, such as “being involved with other people or my community when possible”.  A second factor primarily relates to intrapersonal boundaries, such as “finding meaning in my past experience”.  The other two factors are not as compelling and comprise fewer items.

ACT and DBT

Some measures of self-transcendence are applicable to specific therapeutic modalities. For example, one instrument was developed to gauge the various facets of self-transcendence that proponents of acceptance and commitment therapy, dialectical behavioural therapy, or similar modalities advocate (Fishbein et al. (2022). Specifically, to experience self-transcendence—a state in which people can separate themselves from their emotional experiences—these individuals may

• cultivate a sense of distance between themselves and the issue of concern, such as a personal challenge or conflict,
• instil the belief that a facet of themselves that observes their behaviour is always present,
• experience a fundamental connection to all beings, called inter-transience.

The ensuing sense of self-transcendence diminishes the impact of unpleasant events, thoughts, or feelings on the experience of people, enabling these individuals to be flexible and resilient. 

Fishbein et al. (2022) designed and validated a scale that measures these facets of self-transcendence.  The scale comprises three sub-scales:

• distancing, such as “I can observe experiences in my body and mind as events that come and go”,
• observing self, such as “I see a connection between who I am at all places and times”,
• inter-transience, such as “I feel connected even to people I do not know”.

As evidence of validity, Fishbein et al. (2022) also revealed that

• all three subscales were inversely associated with a measure generalised anxiety disorder, indicating that self-transcendence may override feelings of anxiety,
• all three subscales were positively associated with a sense of meaning in life.

Other approaches to measure self-transcendence

Besides questionnaires, researchers have utilised a range of other approaches to measure self-transcendence.  As one review, published by Kitson et al. (2020) uncovered, these approaches include

• proxy measures, such as the degree to which time feels slower than usual (Rudd et al., 2012),
• physiological measures—such as measures of goosebumps or piloerection to assess feelings of awe (Benedek et al., 2010) or facial EMG to gauge other self-transcendent emotions (Clayton et al., 2021).

Introduction

Since the early 2000s, researchers have often assessed narcissism in concert with two other traits that are regarded as malevolent: psychopathy and Machiavellianism.  Researchers often refer to these traits collectively as the dark triad (Paulhus & Williams, 2002).  In contrast to narcissism, Machiavellianism tends to describe people who are manipulative, whereas psychopathy tends to describe people who are callous, impulsive, and likely to commit crimes.

Despite the differences between psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism, Jonason et al. (2009) suggested that perhaps researchers should combine these traits to generate one index. According to these authors, all three traits revolve around an interpersonal style in which individuals exploit other people to generate more immediate gains.  One index, therefore, could measure this interpersonal scale. To generate this index, Jonason et al. (2009)

• administered separate measures of psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism,
• converted each of the three scores to standardised responses or z values,
• calculated the average of these three standardised values.

Subsequently, researchers have developed and applied shorter variants of this index to gauge the Dark Triad. For example

• the dirty dozen is a scale, comprising 12 items, that measures the dark triad (Jonason & Webster, 2010),
• the short-D3, comprising 27 items, can gauge both the overall dark triad as well as each trait separately (Jones & Paulhus, 2014).

Concerns about the dark triad: The breadth of psychopathy

Most researchers appreciate that each of these traits—psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism—uncover vital insights.  Nevertheless, scholars have questioned the practice in which researchers combine these traits to generate one index.  One concern emanates from the breadth of psychopathy.  Specifically, according to Glen and Sellbom (2015), psychopathy subsumes both narcissism and Machiavellianism.  Thus, if researchers want to assess an index of the dark triad, a suitable measure of psychopathy may be sufficient.   

To illustrate, when researchers assess the dark triad, they generally utilise scales, such as the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, that measure grandiose narcissism—the inclination of individuals to inflate their capabilities, achievements, and importance—rather than vulnerable narcissism.   Yet, many, but not all, measures of psychopathy also include questions that gauge this tendency of people to inflate these qualities.  For example

• one of the items in the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (Hare, 2003) is a “grandiose sense of self-worth”,
• the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) comprises a subscale, called Machiavellian Egocentricity, that encompasses narcissism as well as Machiavellianism and includes items like “Frankly, I believe I am more important than most people”,
• similarly, measures of psychopathy tend to include subscales or items that gauge Machiavellianism.

Indeed, many scholars and researchers have discussed the overlap between narcissism and either psychopathy or antisocial personality.  For example, these traits comprise overlapping signs or symptoms, such as the inclination of these individuals to inflate their importance, to erupt in anger, to behave impulsively, and to manipulate other people.  Consequently, correlations between measures of narcissism and measures of antisocial personality are high (Jornkokgoud et al., 2023).  Indeed, some researchers conceptualise psychopathy or antisocial personality as an extreme variant of narcissism (e.g., Miller et al., 2017). 

Concerns about the dark triad: Negligible incremental validity

Glen and Sellbom (2015) also raised other concerns about an index that gauges the dark triad. Specifically, according to these researchers, this index should be calculated and utilised only if

• the dark triad index is associated with another relevant measure, such as criminal activity, after controlling psychopathy,
• the association between one trait, such as psychopathy, and another relevant measure should depend on one of the other traits, such as narcissism.

To assess these conditions, Glen and Sellbom analysed two archival datasets of over 900 inmates from two correction centres.  The dataset included the following measures to gauge the dark triad:

• the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) to gauge psychopathy and comprising 187 items and eight subscales, such as stress immunity, impulsive nonconformity, and blame externalisation,
• the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin & Terry, 1988) to measure grandiose narcissism,
• the Machiavellianism Inventory-Version IV (Christie & Geis, 1970) to assess Machiavellianism, comprising 20 items.

In addition, the database included measures of the potential causes, correlates, or consequences of the dark triad, such as

• the Emotional Empathy Scale (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972),
• the Sensation-Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, 1979) to gauge disinhibition as well as the inclination to pursue thrilling, risky, and unfamiliar activities,
• the Big Five Inventory (John et al., 1991) to assess extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness,
• the Emotionality-Activity-Sociability-Impulsivity Inventory (Buss & Plomin, 1975, 1984) to gauge temperament: traits that are regarded as inherent
• the Behavioral Activation and Inhibition Scales (Carver & White, 1994) to gauge sensitivity to reward and punishment,
• the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 Restructured form to assess mental disorders.

The analyses uncovered findings that challenge the utility and necessity of the dark triad index. For example, Machiavellianism and narcissism were only modestly associated with each other (r = .15) but strongly associated with psychopathy.  This finding accords with the assumption that psychopathy subsumes Machiavellianism and narcissism.

In addition, after controlling psychopathy, a dark triad index was not associated with most of the measures, such as empathy, sensation seeking, and sensitivity to punishment.  Nevertheless, the dark triad index, after controlling psychopathy, was positively associated with some measures—such as agreeableness—and negatively associated with other measures—such as two facets of behavioural activation, but all in the opposite direction to the hypothesised relationships.  One exception was that, after controlling psychopathy, the dark triad index was positively associated with anger.  Overall, however, as the findings imply, the incremental validity of the dark trial is limited.  Indeed, psychopathy was often more associated with the outcomes than was the dark triad index.

Finally, the unique facet of the dark triad, after controlling psychopathy, did not moderate the association between psychopathy and the various personality traits.  As this finding indicates, the questions that assess narcissism or Machiavellianism are redundant if psychopathy is also measured.

In the mid 2010s, researchers inserted an additional measure or characteristic into the dark triad: sadism (Paulhus, 2014).  Sadism refers to the tendency of some individuals to enjoy acts in which they are cruel to other people, either physically or psychologically (Foulkes, 2019).  This everyday sadism is distinct from sexual sadism, a paraphilic disorder, referring to people who enjoy the suffering of other people in relationships that are not consensual (Mokros et al., 2019).  The dark triad, when coupled with sadism, has been labelled the Dark Tetrad (Chabrol et al., 2009).

Measures

Researchers have developed a range of instruments to gauge the Dark Tetrad (e.g., Paulhus et al., 2021).  For example, Thibault and Kelloway (2020) constructed the Dark Tetrad at Work Scale.  This scale comprises items that measure

• narcissism, such as “I am much more valuable than my coworkers”,
• Machiavellianism, such as “At work, people are only motivated by personal gain”,
• psychopathy, such as “I don’t care if I accidently hurt someone at work.”, and
• sadism, such as “It’s funny to watch people make mistakes at work”.

As evidence of validity, Thibault and Kelloway (2020) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to verify the four distinct traits and revealed that all traits were significantly associated with workplace deviance, such as bullying, after controlling social desirability.

Concerns about whether sadism is distinct from psychopathy

The main concern that researchers have raised, however, revolves around the distinction between psychopathy and sadism.  That is, whether sadism offers insights that transcend psychopathy remains contentious.  The primary source of this contention is that

• psychopathy and sadism are highly associated with each other, sometimes generating correlations that approach 0.6 (Bonfá-Araujo et al., 2022),
• sadism may be significantly associated with some criminal behaviours after controlling psychopathy, but the percentage of additional variance that sadism explains is limited, seldom if ever exceeding 5% (Jonason & Zeigler-Hill, 2018; Jonason et al., 2017),
• conceptually, psychopathy and sadism both revolve around a callous personality—although the tendency of individuals to derive enjoyment from these callous acts seems to be more prevalent in sadism.

To explore this overlap between psychopathy and sadism more comprehensively, Bonfá-Araujo et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis.  The meta-analysis uncovered 185 studies that

• referred to the dark triad, to sadism and psychopathy, or to sadist and psychopath.
• reported a correlation between sadism and psychopathy,
• reported correlations between some other variable—such as narcissism, agreeableness, or honesty-humility—and both sadism as well as psychopathy.

The researchers used the meta-R package (Balduzzi et al., 2019) to undertake the meta-analysis, such as to generate funnel plots and to conduct the Egger’s Regression Test of funnel asymmetry to assess publication bias.  The researchers also utilised the metafor R package (Viechtbauer, 2010) to remove outliers if publication biases were identified.  As the meta-analyses revealed

• the overall correlation between sadism and psychopathy was 0.56—although this value depends on which instruments researchers utilise to assess these traits,
• psychopathy and, to a lesser extent, sadism were positively associated with narcissism and Machiavellianism,
• psychopathy and, to a lesser extent, sadism were negatively associated with agreeableness, conscientiousness, and honesty-humility (Bonfá-Araujo et al., 2025).

Accordingly, psychopathy is more strongly associated with many key outcomes than sadism.  Although not definitive, this study questions the assumption that a Dark Tetrad is more useful than is a Dark Triad. finding indicates, the questions that assess narcissism or Machiavellianism are redundant if psychopathy is also measured.

Introduction

In 1980, Robert D Hare first published the Psychopathy Checklist: a set of 22 behaviours or inclinations that may indicate psychopathy.  The tool was primarily derived from his observations with male offenders and inmates in Vancouver as well as traits that Cleckley (1941) had delineated previously to characterise psychopathy.  In 1991, Hare then revised this instrument to generate the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised that comprises 20 items (Hare, 1991). 

To administer the checklist, a mental health professional—often a psychologist or psychiatrist—will determine whether each of the 20 behaviours or inclinations fully applies, somewhat applies, or does not apply to the target participant.  To answer these questions, the mental health professional will conduct interviews with the participant as well scrutinise case files or other information about the person.  The items appear on various websites and include

• glib and superficial charm—such as slick and smooth but often unconstrained by social conventions, like the need to switch between talking and listening,
• conning and manipulative—such as the inclination to cheat or defraud other people ruthlessly
• callous rather than empathic, such as contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless rather than warm
• grandiose self-worth—in which people inflate their capabilities and seem opinionated,
• need for stimulation and proneness to boredom—such as a tendency to pursue thrilling activities and to shift jobs frequently,
• shallow affect, such as limited range or intensity of feelings including a sense of coldness even if gregarious,
• impulsivity, such as reckless acts because of an inability to resist urges and plan carefully,
• irresponsible behaviour, including repeated failures to honour commitments, such as pay bills or arrive on time,
• impaired behavioural control, such as impatience and verbal abuse,
• criminal versatility, such as a diversity of criminal offences or pride in averting convictions,
• juvenile delinquency.

Two factors

As preliminary studies indicated (e.g., Harpur et al., 1988; Harpur et al., 1989), these items can be divided into two clusters or factors.  The first factor primarily revolves around selfish interpersonal behaviour and entails, for example, superficial charm, conning and manipulative behaviour, callous rather than empathic, and shallow affect.  These tendencies seem to correspond more to the traditional characterisation of psychopathy, sometimes called primary psychopathy.

The second factor primarily revolves around an unstable, criminal, and antisocial lifestyle.  To illustrate, this factor entails impulsivity, irresponsible behaviour, impaired behavioural control, and juvenile delinquency.  In contrast to the first factor, these tendencies often coincide with criminal behaviour, family background, and antisocial personality disorder.

Typically, the two factors, although positively associated with each other (Harpur et al., 1989), differ in their relationships with measures of wellbeing or thriving.  For example, the first factor is not statistically associated with suicide risk, whereas the second factor is positively associated with suicide risk (Verona et al., 2001).

The two factors also coincide with distinct criminal acts.  For example, as Hart and Dempster (1997) revealed, the first factor tends to predict criminal acts that are planned carefully.  In contrast, the second factor is more likely to predict criminal acts that are impulsive and spontaneous, often emanating from strong emotions, such as anger or anxiety.

Three factors

Yet, as subsequent research has revealed, the items might correspond to more than two factors.  According to some researchers (e.g. Cooke & Michie, 2001), previous attempts to apply confirmatory factor analysis to substantiate these factors have been unsuccessful.  For instance, in a sample of 376 participants in Australia, the model fit indices were inadequate (Darke et al., 1998).  Similarly, in another study, the comparative fit index was only .83—typically suggestive of inadequate fit although the authors deemed this fit as moderate (Brandt et al., 1997).  

In 2001, Cooke and Michie, two academics employed at the Glasgow Caledonian University, conducted a study that derived three factors from data collected in Scotland and North America. The three factors can be interpreted as

• an arrogant and deceitful interpersonal style, comprising items such as glibness and superficial charm, a grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, as well as conning and manipulative behaviour,
• deficient affective experience, comprising items such as shallow affect, limited empathy, limited remorse or guilt, and a failure to accept responsibility,
• impulsive and irresponsible behaviour, comprising items such as need for stimulation, impulsivity, irresponsible behaviour, and a parasitic lifestyle. 

In essence, this solution divides the first factor that previous researchers had identified into two factors, sometimes called 1A and 1B.  However, this model also excluded the items that revolve around criminal behaviour, partly because the instrument is designed to predict, rather than describe, such acts. 

Four factors

Later studies showed that 18 of the 20 items in the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised can be reduced to four distinct factors (for a summary, see Hare & Neumann 2008; for similar factors, see Paulhus et al., 2016). These factors or dimensions are called

• interpersonal manipulation—comprising glib and superficial charm, grandiose self-worth, pathological lying, as well as conning and manipulative.  
• callous affect— comprising limited remorse, shallow affect, callous rather than empathic, and failure to accept responsibility,
• erratic lifestyle—comprising need for stimulation, impulsivity, irresponsible behaviour, a parasitic orientation, and the absence of realistic goals,
• antisocial behaviour—comprising impaired behavioural control, early behaviour problems juvenile delinquency, revocation of conditional release, and criminal versatility.

Interpersonal manipulation and callous affect both coincide with a shared factor, comparable to the first factor that Robert Hare had originally delineated.  Similarly, erratic lifestyle and antisocial behaviour coincide with another shared factor, comparable to the second factor that Robert Hare had originally delineated. All four dimensions also coincide with one super-ordinate factor, representing psychopathy overall (Neumann et al., 2007). Many studies have corroborated these four factors in diverse samples, such as

• adolescent offenders (Jones et al., 2006; Salekin et al., 2006)—although some of these studies have also validated a model that comprises three factors as well (Jones et al., 2006; Salekin et al., 2006),
• inpatient psychiatric patients disorders (Hill et al., 2004), even after controlling ethnicity, gender, and intelligence (Vitacco et al., 2005),
• both European Americans and African Americans (Jackson et al., 2007)

Typically, to delineate these four dimensions, researchers usually refer to the presence of undesirable qualities or inclinations.  In contrast, Curtis et al. (2025) identified the absence of desirable qualities or inclinations that correspond to each dimension.  Specifically, Curtis et al. proposed that

• interpersonal manipulation can partly be defined as a deficit in honesty and humility—because deception is the converse of honesty and grandiosity is the converse of humility,
• callous affect can partly be defined as a deficit in empathy,
• erratic lifestyle can partly be defined as a deficit in conscientiousness,
• antisocial behaviour in general can partly be defined as a deficit in regulatory governance—or the capacity to comply with social, cultural, and legal rules.

Capacity to predict violence

The degree to which the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised predicts crimes has been studied carefully.  Although sometimes useful, other tools may predict specific crimes more effectively. For example, as a systematic review and meta-regression revealed (Singh et al., 2011), several tools predict violent crimes more effectively than does the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised.  Specifically, Singh et al. (2011) evaluated several instruments in addition to the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, including

• the Historical, Clinical, Risk Management-20 (Webster & Eaves, 1995),
• the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (Andrews & Bonta, 1995),
• the Static-99 (Hanson & Thornton, 1999),
• the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (Borum et al., 2003), and
• the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (Quinsey et al., 2000).

The review analysed data that were derived from 68 studies, almost 26 000 participants, and 13 nations.   Overall, the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth, designed to predict violence in adolescents, was generally the most useful.  In contrast, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and Level of Service Inventory-Revised generated the least accurate predictions—perhaps because these tools were designed to predict a diverse range of offences across many ages and settings.  Tools that are designed to predict a particular offence in a subset of the population may thus be more effective.

Introduction

Patrick (2010) constructed and evaluated the triarchic psychopathy measure partly to circumvent some limitations of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised.  For example,

• whereas the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised can demand extensive time and investigation to complete (Copestake et al., 2011), the triarchic psychopathy measure is shorter and simpler,
• whereas the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised primarily revolves around criminal acts (for a discussion, see Skeem & Cooke, 2010), the triarchic psychopathy measure assesses the underlying attributes.

The triarchic psychopathy can be accessed from this website. This measure was derived from a taxonomy, formulated by Patrick et al. (2009), that characterises the developmental origins of three key dimensions of psychopathy: disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. According to this account

• disinhibition revolves around impairments in the capacity of individuals to regulate their impulses or temptations,
• boldness combines a sense of dominance in social interactions as well as resilience and risky behaviour in other settings,
• meanness relates to a tendency of individuals to fulfill personal interests aggressively with negligible regard for the needs of other people.

The measure

As Patrick et al. (2009) argue, disinhibition and boldness seem to emanate primarily from a difficult temperament—that is, an inherent nature or personality that entails significant negative affect and irritability, coupled with high levels of activity and impairments in the capacity to adapt effectively to changes in the environment.  These tendencies could be ascribed to impairments in the frontal-cortical circuits that regulate behaviour as well as limited activity in the defensive motivation systems of the brain (Patrick et al., 2012).  In contrast, boldness and meanness seem to emanate from low dispositional fear—such as a tendency to approach, rather than avoid, risky situations—as well as limited empathy.  The limited empathy could partly be ascribed to dysfunction in oxytocin, resinessin, and other endogenous neuromodulators (Patrick et al., 2012). To measure these dimensions, Patrick (2010) constructed a scale that comprises

• 19 items to measure boldness, such as “I am afraid of far fewer things than most people”, “I can get over things that would traumatize others”, and “It worries me to go into an unfamiliar situation without knowing all the details” (reverse scored),
• 20 items to measure disinhibition, such as “I have lost a friend because of irresponsible things I’ve done”, “I have a hard time waiting patiently for things I want”, and “I get in trouble for not considering the consequences of my actions”,
• 19 items to assess meanness, such as “I don’t see any point in worrying if what I do hurts someone else”, “I taunt people just to stir things up”, and “How other people feel is important to me” (reverse scored).

Evidence of reliability and validity

To establish the validity of this instrument, Patrick (2010) administered these items to a sample of 94 college students, together with several other measures including

• the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005), designed to assess all facets of psychopathy in the general population
• the Hare Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, Version 2 (Williams et al., 2007), similar to the Psychopathy Checklist, except that individuals rate themselves on the various traits,
• the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory
• the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, and
• the NEO antagonism facet.

As Patrick (2010) revealed, responses to the boldness, meanness, and disinhibition subscales were all moderately to highly correlated with scores on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory, the Hare Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, and the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory.  The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale and NEO antagonism subscale were highly associated with meanness and disinhibition but not boldness.

Studies have also explored the internal consistency and factor structure.  For example, Sellbom and Phillips (2013) administered this instrument to a sample of 209 female prisoners as well as 627 undergraduate students. The prisoners generated alpha internal consistency values of .89, .90, and .89 for boldness, meaning, and disinhibition respectively.  The undergraduate students generated alpha internal consistency values of .82, .88, and .84 for boldness, meaning, and disinhibition respectively. 

Nevertheless, in one study, in which over 1000 members of the public completed this instrument, confirmatory factor analysis did not substantiate the three factors: CFI = .76 (Roy et al 2021). Instead, this study uncovered seven factors in which

• positive self-image, leadership, and stress immunity were derived from the items that purportedly measure boldness,
• callousness and enjoy hurting were derived from the items that purportedly assess meanness, and
• trait impulsivity and overt antisociality were derived from the items that purportedly measure disinhibition.

Studies have also explored the association between these sub-scales and other relevant personality traits (for reviews, see Evans & Tully, 2016; Patrick & Drislane, 2015).  For example, Sellbom and Phillips (2013) revealed that

• boldness tends to coincide with narcissism, adventure seeking, and limited behaviour inhibition,
• meanness tends to coincide with limited empathy and Machiavellianism, and
• disinhibition tends to coincide with impulsivity and the pursuit of fun.

This pattern diverges, at least marginally, from the hypotheses. For example, meanness was more related to sensation seeking than anticipated. Risk in Youth, designed to predict violence in adolescents, was generally the most useful.  In contrast, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and Level of Service Inventory-Revised generated the least accurate predictions—perhaps because these tools were designed to predict a diverse range of offences across many ages and settings.  Tools that are designed to predict a particular offence in a subset of the population may thus be more effective.

Short version

Researchers have developed many instruments to measure psychopathy, such as the PCL-R.  However, when researchers want to assess psychopathy in the workplace, most of these instruments may be unsuitable for several reasons.  Specifically

• in some instances, only a clinician or specialist may complete the instrument,
• in other instances, individuals must complete the instrument to evaluate themselves—and these evaluations may be biased or inaccurate,
• few instrument comprise items that are specifically designed to assess behaviours in the workplace.

To overcome these limitations, Babiak and Hare (2012) developed the B-Scan 360. This measure comprises two distinct features:

• first, all the items refer to behaviours or attitudes that HR personnel or organisational psychologists deemed as concerning in the workplace—such as “threatens coworkers” or “asks harsh questions”,
• second, usually other people, such as supervisors, peers, or subordinates, evaluate the participants.

To explore and to characterise the factors or subscales of the B-Scan 360, Mathieu et al. (2013) conducted two studies.  To conduct the first study, 340 working adults, recruited from Amazon Mechical Turk, were invited to rate the personality of their supervisor or boss on 113 attributes, such as “Shows no regret for making decisions that harm the company, shareholders, or employees”.  To extract the factors, the researchers applied parallel analysis (Horn, 1965) and the minimal average partial (Zwick & Velicer, 1986) criteria to both the Pearson and polychoric correlation matrices (for a justification, see Cho et al., 2009)—primarily because distributions of psychopathy scores do not usually conform to a normal distribution.  Next, to complete the exploratory factor analysis, the researchers applied the weighted least squares estimation procedure.

Although the analysis uncovered six factors, two of these factors revolved more around performance and potential rather than psychopathy. When items that loaded on these two factors or items that loaded on no factors were removed, the remaining 38 items were subjected to another factor analysis.  This analysis generated four factors.  For each factor, the researchers then decided to retain only the five items that produced the highest loadings.  These factors roughly overlap with the four-factor model of the PCL-R and comprise

• manipulative and unethical—such as glib, uses charm, claims expertise, ingratiates himself or herself, and rationalises inappropriate behaviour,
• callous and insensitive—such as rarely shows emotions, insensitive, cold inside, remorseless, and no empathy,
• unreliable and unfocussed—such as disloyal, absence of planning, unfocussed, impatient, and unreliable,
• intimidating and aggressive—such as intimidating, angry, asks harsh questions, threatens co-workers, and dramatic.

The second study, in which the participants were 806 working adults, generated data that confirmed these factors, in which the Tucker-Lewis Index was .93 and the standardized root mean square residual was .07. 

Long version

Besides this short version of the B-Scan 360, researchers have also developed and validated a long version (Mathieu & Babiak, 2016).  The long version comprises 15 facets, and four items assess each facet.  Each facet corresponds to one of the four overarching factors.  Specifically

• insincere, arrogant, untrustworthy, and manipulative corresponds to manipulative and unethical,
• remorseless, shallow, insensitive, and blaming corresponds to callous and insensitive,
• impatient, selfish, unfocussed, erratic, and unreliable corresponds to unreliable and unfocussed,
• dramatic and bullying corresponds to intimidating and aggressive.

Babiak and Mathieu (2025) conducted two studies to assess whether this long version could be applied to measure other people in the workplace, such as managers.  For the first study, over 500 working adults completed the instrument to assess their immediate supervisor.  Confirmatory factor analysis tentatively validated the 15 facets and four underlying factors: the Tucker-Lewis Index was .85 and the standardized root mean square residual was .06. 

For the second study, 340 working adults completed this instrument as well as a measure of the five personality traits—again to assess their supervisor and not themselves.  As the findings revealed, all four factors were inversely related to agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability.