See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225071934

The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), Low Anxiety, and Fearlessness:

A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

Article  in  Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment · May 2012

DOI: 10.1037/a0027886 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
95 4,632

3 authors, including:

Craig S Neumann Robert Hare

University of North Texas University of British Columbia - Vancouver
160 PUBLICATIONS   8,551 CITATIONS    229 PUBLICATIONS   30,941 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Examining the links between attachment style, personality traits, and sexual behavior View project

Early Schizophrenia research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Craig S Neumann on 28 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and
Treatment
The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), Low Anxiety,
and Fearlessness: A Structural Equation Modeling
Analysis
Craig S. Neumann, Robert D. Hare, and Peter T. Johansson
Online First Publication, May 28, 2012. doi: 10.1037/a0027886

CITATION
Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Johansson, P. T. (2012, May 28). The Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), Low Anxiety, and Fearlessness: A Structural Equation Modeling
Analysis. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. Advance online
publication. doi: 10.1037/a0027886
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment © 2012 American Psychological Association
2012, Vol. ●●, No. ●, 000 – 000 1949-2715/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0027886

The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), Low Anxiety, and

Fearlessness: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

Craig S. Neumann Robert D. Hare

University of North Texas University of British Columbia

Peter T. Johansson
Örebro University

The current study employed a large representative sample of violent male offenders
within the Swedish prison system to examine the factor structure of the PCL-R and the
latent variable relations between the PCL-R items and clinical ratings of low trait
anxiety and trait fearlessness (LAF). Consistent with previous research, confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) revealed strong support for the four-factor model of psychopathy
(Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial). Also, a series of CFAs revealed
that the LAF items could be placed on any of the PCL-R factors without any changes
in model fit. Finally, structural equation modeling results indicated that a PCL-R
superordinate factor was able to account for most of the variance of a separate LAF
factor. Taken together, the results indicate that if low anxiety and fearlessness, as
measured via clinical ratings, are part of the psychopathy construct they are compre-
hensively accounted for by extant PCL-R items.

Keywords: psychopathy, PCL-R, low anxiety, fearlessness, structural properties

Many hundreds of empirical articles have
described the psychometric properties, struc-
ture, and correlates of the Psychopathy Check-
list-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003) and its
derivatives (see www.hare.org). The reliability,
validity, and utility of these measures of the
psychopathy construct are firmly established in
a wide variety of contexts, basic and applied.
Nonetheless, some investigators believe that
specific measures of low trait anxiety and trait
fearlessness should be included in these instru-
ments. This belief is based, in part, on the
interpretation of clinical accounts of psychopa-
thy by Cleckley (1976) and other early clini-
cians (see Hervé, 2007), and on findings from
early laboratory experiments (e.g., Hare, 1965;
Lykken, 1957). Hare and Neumann (2008) have
argued that the role of anxiety and fear in clin-
ical accounts of psychopathy is not entirely
clear.
Low Anxiety

Cleckley (1976, p. 340) wrote of the psycho-

Craig S. Neumann, Department of Psychology, Univer-
sity of North Texas; Peter T. Johansson, Center for Devel-
opmental Research, Department of Behavioral, Social, and
Legal Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden; Robert
D. Hare, PhD, Department of Psychology, University of
British Columbia, and Darkstone Research Group, Vancou-
ver, BC.
Robert Hare receives royalties from the sale of PCL-R
and its derivatives. Financial support for this research was
generously provided by the William H. Donner Foundation,
Inc. (CSN).
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Craig S. Neumann, Psychology Department,
1155 Union Circle, No. 311280, University of North Texas,
Denton, TX 76203. E-mail: craig.neumann@unt.edu
1
path, “Within himself he appears almost as in-
capable of anxiety as of profound remorse”
(Cleckley, 1976, p. 340), a statement usually
quoted by those who believe that lack of trait
anxiety should have been included in the
PCL-R. But, in the previous sentence Cleckley
commented that psychopaths experience ten-
sion or uneasiness but that it “seems provoked
entirely by external circumstances, never by
feelings of guilt, remorse, or intrapersonal inse-
curity.” As Hare and Neumann (2008, p. 228)
put it, “This psychodynamic perspective sug-
gests that it is not so much a lack of anxiety that
differentiates psychopaths from others as it is
2 NEUMANN, HARE, AND JOHANSSON
the source of the anxiety (intra- or extrapsy-
chic).” Further, in the first edition of The Mask
of Sanity, the Clinical Profile contained only
half a sentence on the topic: “[The psychopath]
. . . is usually free from any marked nervousness
or other symptoms of psychoneurosis” (Cleck-
ley, 1941, p. 239; emphasis added). In a later
edition he said, “The true psychopaths person-
ally observed have usually been free, or as free
as the general run of humanity, from real symp-
toms of psychoneurosis” (Cleckley, 1976, p.
259; emphasis added). These statements would
apply to the average person. They suggest “an
absence of problematic anxiety, rather than a
problematically low level of anxiousness, which
are really very different in their implications for
personality disorder” (Hare, Neumann, & Wi-
diger, in press).
Sylvers, Lillienfeld, and LaPrairie (2011, p.
134) define trait anxiety as “the persistent and
pervasive experience of state anxiety across sit-
uations,” and say that it is “unclear which, if
any, psychopathological syndromes [including
psychopathy] are characterized by low trait anx-
iety.” The empirical literature (largely self-
report) on the topic certainly is ambiguous. In
the development of the PCL-R (see Hare, 1991;
Hare, 2003) measures of manifest trait anxiety
did not negatively covary with the other items
being evaluated, and similar results have been
reported by other investigators who used a
Cleckley-based measure of psychopathy (Lo-
ney, Taylor, Butler, & Iacono, 2007). These
findings are consistent with a literature indicat-
ing that most self-report measures of anxiety
and personal distress are related to negative
affect, and generally are only modestly associ-
ated with the PCL-R (cf. Table 1 of Blonigen
et al., 2010). For example, Hale, Goldstein,
Abramowitz, Calamari, & Kosson (2004, p.
705), concluded that the PCL-R was unrelated
to contemporary measures of anxiety and that
the “finding raises questions about traditional
conceptualizations of psychopathy that posit an
attenuated capacity for anxiety.” In his analysis
of the issue, Dahl (1998) argued that Cleckley
(1976) “was wrong when he stated that psycho-
paths did not show manifest anxiety” (p. 298).
Complicating the matter further is the recent
finding by Kubak and Salekin (2009) that,
among male and female juvenile offenders, self-
report measures of generalized anxiety disorder,
posttraumatic stress disorder, and separation
anxiety were positively correlated with several
measures of psychopathy, including the Psy-
chopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL: YV;
Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003) and the Antiso-
cial Process Screening Device (APSD; Frick &
Hare. 2001). Kubak and Salekin (2009, p. 280)
noted that the “. . . findings suggest that adoles-
cent psychopathy co-occurs with anxiety at a
higher rate than expected and that psychopathic
youth experience anxiety symptomatology . . .”
It is possible that the determinants and subjec-
tive experiences of anxiety, and the way in
which they are reported, are different in adoles-
cent and adult psychopathy, but this would pres-
ent several conceptual/developmental problems,
some of which Kubak and Salekin (2009) ad-
dress (see also Hemphala & Tengström, 2010).
Part of the difficulty lies in the almost exclusive
use of self-reports in the investigation of psy-
chopathy and anxiety.
Fearlessness
Fearlessness was mentioned only once in the
fifth edition of the Mask of Sanity (Cleckley,
1976, p. 319), in reference to a literary character
about whom Cleckley wrote, “. . . his suicide,
his capacity to admit his misdeed with what
impresses one as a measure of sincerity, his
warmth, and his depicted strength and fearless-
ness all stand out in contrast to the personality
patterns discussed in this book” (emphasis
added). That is, Cleckley considered fearless-
ness to be counter indicative of psychopathy.
Sylvers et al. (2011, p. 134) define trait fear
as “the persistent and pervasive experience of
state fear across situations.” The idea that psy-
chopaths are low in trait fear, or are fearless,
stems in large part from an early laboratory
study in which Lykken (1957) used the concepts
of low fear arousal and conditioned fear to
account for the poor performance of psycho-
paths in classical (electrodermal) conditioning
and in passive avoidance learning paradigms.
The model for linking these two paradigms was
Mowrer’s (1947) two-stage theory of passive
avoidance learning in which anticipatory fear is
an essential element in learning to avoid pun-
ishment (passive avoidance). There is a research
literature consistent with the suggestion that the
apparent social poise, sensation seeking, and
difficulty in staying out of trouble that charac-
terizes psychopathy may be interpreted in terms
 PCL-R AND LAF
of low fear arousal. However, measures of fear-
lessness typically are heavily laden with excite-
ment-seeking, sensation-seeking and impulsiv-
ity, making it difficult to determine whether
psychopathy is associated with fearlessness per
se or with impulsive disinhibition (Hare et al., in
press; Kubak & Salekin, 2010). Complicating
the picture is evidence that psychopathy may be
associated with a general attenuation of emo-
tional processes and not specifically with poor
fear conditioning (see Flor, Birbaumer, Her-
mann, Ziegler, & Patrick, 2002; Hare, 2003;
Herpertz & Sass, 2000). Further, research by
Newman and his colleagues (e.g., Newman,
Curtin, Bertsch, & Baskin-Sommers, 2010;
Zeier & Newman, in press) suggests that psy-
chopathic behaviors may be characterized less
by trait fearlessness than by idiosyncrasies in
attention that limit the processing of emotion-
related cues associated with response modula-
tion. For example, using a blink-startle para-
digm Wolf et al. (2012, p. 108) concluded that
attentional blink attenuation “was correlated
with the affective-interpersonal features of psy-
chopathy tentatively [suggesting] that an atten-
tion abnormality contributes to the expression
of the affective and interpersonal symptoms of
psychopathy as well as to their impulsive and
antisocial symptoms.” In their meta-analytic re-
view of the literature, Sylvers et al. (2011, p.
134) concluded that the argument by Lykken
and others “that psychopathy is characterized by
low trait fear remains controversial.”
The Present Study
However one interprets the clinical and em-
pirical literature on the role of anxiety and fear
in the explication of psychopathy, the question
under consideration here is whether or not the
PCL-R is compromised by its omission of items
that specifically measure these traits.1 Hare and
Neumann (2008; see also Hare et al., in press)
argued that both low trait anxiety and trait fear-
lessness already are subsumed under PCL-R
items associated with more general emotional
experiences and processes, including lack of
remorse or guilt, shallow affect, callous/lack of
empathy, behaviors and dispositions reflecting
impulsivity, irresponsibility, conning and ma-
nipulation of others, sensation-seeking, and en-
gagement in overt antisocial behavior.
3
To evaluate these issues we conducted a se-
ries of analyses of data from a representative
national sample of violent Swedish male of-
fenders who had been assessed both with the
PCL-R and with clinical ratings of low trait
anxiety and trait fearlessness (referred to here as
LAF). The first step was to determine if the
four-factor PCL-R model (Neumann, Hare, &
Newman, 2007; see below) could be replicated
on this Swedish sample. The second step, and
the primary purpose of the study, was to deter-
mine if the addition of LAF items alters the
item-to-factor structural properties or factor in-
terpretations of the PCL-R, and if the PCL-R
items could substantially account for these
traits. Note that some of the PCL-R data have
been used in two previous studies (Johansson &
Kerr, 2005; Skeem, Johansson, Andershed,
Kerr, & Louden, 2007), though none has in-
volved latent variable models of the PCL-R or
LAF items.
Method
Participants
In Sweden all adult men who receive a sen-
tence of four years to life for violent crimes are
sent to the National Assessment Unit in Kumla
Prison for psychological evaluation. These men
are considered to be generally representative of
Swedish male, long-term violent offenders (see
Johansson & Kerr, 2005). For various reasons
not all offenders who pass through the Unit
actually receive a complete psychological as-
sessment (e.g., occasional refusals to participate
in some evaluations, lack of resources due to
illness or vacation, etc.). Thus, while the total
sample consisted of 1,031 offenders, the sample
Ns for most analyses the sample Ns varied from
1
There is evidence that PCL-R psychopaths with low or
high levels of self-reported anxiety may differ in perfor-
mance of some laboratory tasks (e.g., Newman, MacCoon,
Vaughn, & Sadeh, 2005; but see Zeier & Newman, in
press). Some investigators have suggested that those with
low self-report anxiety scores are primary psychopaths,
whereas those with high self- report anxiety scores are
secondary psychopaths (e.g., Skeem et al., 2007), but this
mistakenly assumes that the role of anxiety in psychopathy
is well-understood. The recent tendency to equate PCL-R
Factor 1 (F1) and Factor 2 (F2) with primary and secondary
psychopathy, respectively, is unfortunate and misleading.
These topics are beyond the scope of the present paper and
will be addressed in detail elsewhere.
4 NEUMANN, HARE, AND JOHANSSON

398 to 989. The LAF items (see below) were
recent additions to the clinical assessment bat-
tery and only 291 offenders had complete
PCL-R and LAF files (no missing data).
Measures
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R).
The PCL-R is the most widely used interna-
tional measure for psychopathy. It is a 20-item
clinical construct rating scale that uses a semi-
structured interview, case-history information,
and specific scoring criteria to rate each item on
a 3-point scale (0, 1, 2) according to the extent
to which it applies to a given person. Total
scores can vary from zero to 40 and reflect the
degree to which the person matches the proto-
typical psychopathic person. This is in line with
strong evidence that, at the measurement level,
the construct underlying the PCL-R (and its
derivatives) is dimensional in nature rather than
taxonic (e.g., Guay, Ruscio, Knight, & Hare,
2007). Evidence for the reliability and validity
of the PCL-R as a measure of psychopathy is
extensive (Hare, 2003; Patrick, 2006). There is
strong evidence (e.g., Neumann et al., 2007)
that the PCL-R measures a superordinate con-
struct underpinned by four correlated factors
(see Table 1). The Interpersonal/Affective di-
mensions and the Lifestyle/Antisocial dimen-
sions comprise, respectively, the original
PCL-R Factor 1 (F1) and Factor 2 (F2) de-
scribed by Hare (2003; also see Hare & Neu-
mann, 2008).
Raters were six psychologists who completed
a two day PCL–R workshop and a Darkstone
postworkshop training course that included
working through a minimum of eight standard-
ized videotaped cases. PCL-R data were avail-
able for 973 offenders assessed during the pe-
riod 1997–2010. In an early analysis Johansson
and Kerr (2005) reported that the intraclass cor-
relation (ICC) for two sets of independent rat-
ings (N ⫽ 32), using a two-way mixed effects
model, was .84 for a single rating, and .91 for
the average of two ratings.
Low Anxiety and Fearlessness (LAF).
Andershed, Douglas, and Skeem (2004) devel-
oped two research items for Low Anxiety and
Fearlessness (LAF) in order to look for “poten-
tial subtypes/groups of inmates with PCL-
psychopathy” among referrals to the Swedish
national assessment center (Henrik Andershed,
personal communication to R.D.H., October 28,
2010). Scoring of these LAF items began in
2005, with data available for 398 violent of-
fenders (81 were charged with a violent sexual
offense). We used the LAF items in this study to
evaluate the role of low anxiety and fearlessness
in the PCL-R measurement of psychopathy. To
our knowledge, there are no formal reports of
their use for this purpose. Briefly, Low Anxiety
is described in terms of a range of cognitive,

Table 1
Items and Factors in the Hare PCL-R
Interpersonal Affective
1. Glibness/superficial charm 6. Lack of remorse
2. Grandiose self-worth 7. Shallow affect
4. Pathological lying 8. Lack of empathy
5. Conning/manipulative 16. Will not accept responsibility

Lifestyle Antisocial
3. Need for stimulation 10. Poor behavioral controls
9. Parasitic lifestyle 12. Early behavioral problems
13. Lack of goals 18. Juvenile delinquency
14. Impulsivity 19. Revocation conditional release
15. Irresponsibility 20. Criminal versatility
Note. The items and factors are from the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, 2nd Edition
(2003, p. 83). Copyright, 2003 R.D. Hare and Multi-Health Systems, 3770 Victoria Park
Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M2H 3M6. All rights reserved. Reprinted by permission. Note that
the item titles cannot be scored without reference to the formal criteria contained in the PCL-R
Manual. Two items, Promiscuous sexual behavior (Item 11), and Many short-term marital
relationships (Item 17), contribute to the Total PCL-R score but do not load on any factors.
 PCL-R AND LAF
emotional, and behavioral features associated
with the relative absence of anxiousness. Fear-
lessness is defined primarily as engagement in a
variety of risky behaviors, with little evidence
of fear. Each item follows the PCL-R item-
description and scoring format. Raters used a
semistructured interview and a review of file
information to score each item on a 3-point
scale according to specific criteria, summarized
as follows: 0 ⫽ the item does not apply; 1 ⫽
item may apply or applies in some respects/
conflicts between interview and file that cannot
be resolved in favor of a 0 or 2; 2 ⫽ the item
applies to the individual; a reasonably good
match in most essential respects.2
Raters scored the LAF items after they had
scored the PCL-R items. Only single ratings
were available.
Data Analytic Plan
Consistent with recent research on the latent
relations between personality disorder and
symptoms of mental disorders (Eaton et al.,
2011), the majority of analyses for the current
study involved structural equation modeling
(SEM), given its methodological rigor (e.g.,
modeling error separate from common variance,
unambiguous specification of item-to-factor re-
lations), and capacity to provide evidence of
construct validity (Strauss & Smith, 2009).
All model analyses were conducted with
Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 1998⫺2010), using
the robust weighted least squares estimation
procedure, given the ordinal nature of the
PCL-R and LAF items. As recommended by Hu
and Bentler (1999), we used a two-index strat-
egy to assess model fit: The incremental Tuck-
er-Lewis index (TLI), and an absolute fit index,
the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA). Generally, TLI at or above .90 and
RMSEA at or below .08 is considered accept-
able model fit (Hoyle, 1995). To assess statisti-
cal differences in model fit we used the guide-
lines laid out by Cheung and Rensvold (2002).
If the incremental change in the comparative fit
index (⌬CFI) between a superordinate model
and a nested, more-constrained model is ⱕ .01,
then it is reasonable to hold that the two models
within the comparison do not differ statistically
in terms of fit. Based on an extensive simulation
study, Cheung and Rensvold recommended that
⌬CFI is more appropriate than the more tradi-
5
tional ways of assessing differences in the ␹2 fit
statistic between nested models. For the models
described below, all nested models (#’s 1– 6)
were compared to a more elaborated model (#7)
in which the LAF items were specified as indi-
cators for a separate LAF latent variable.
The default in Mplus (v. 6.1) is to estimate
latent models using all available data (including
cases that have some missing values for the
variables within the model) in accordance with
missing data theory. Listwise deletion (using
only cases that have a value on all variables) is
correct only under MCAR (missing completely
at random), while MAR (missing at random) is
much more flexible than MCAR (Little & Ru-
bin, 2002), even when MAR may be only ap-
proximately true (e.g., some offenders were
administered the LAF items later in the assess-
ment battery). In most clinical data sets there is
a good chance that missing cases are not miss-
ing at random (NMAR) and a function of many
unobserved variables, but MAR may still be a
reasonable approximation (Muthén & Muthén,
1998⫺2010). Therefore to remain in accor-
dance with best practices for handling missing
data, we used all cases for our primary analyses
in Mplus. The proportion of missing values for
the current study was examined by a covariance
coverage matrix, which provides an estimate of
available observations for each pair of vari-
ables. The minimum recommended coverage is
.10 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998⫺2010). In this
study, coverage ranged from .39 to .99. Given
adequate coverage, the primary SEM analyses
were run on the larger sample of male offenders
with available data (Ns ⫽ 973–989), though
parallel model analyses using only cases with
complete data (N ⫽ 291) revealed results that
were substantively unchanged.
Results
Descriptive statistics for the sample were as
follows: mean age 32.89 (SD ⫽ 10.39), age of
first crime 21.88 (SD ⫽ 10.34), and sentence in
years 5.92 (SD ⫽ 2.28). The most frequent
types of offenses committed were: Murder
2
The complete item descriptions and scoring instructions
are available on request from P. Johansson
(petert.johansson@kriminalvarden.se) or H. Andershed
(henrik.andershed@oru.se).
6 NEUMANN, HARE, AND JOHANSSON
(18.3%), Robbery (17.5%), Attempted Murder
(16.2%), Aggravated Assault (8.6%), Man-
slaughter (5.9%), Aggravated Robbery (3.7%),
and Arson (2.6%). Preliminary missing cases
analyses revealed no meaningful differences be-
tween those with and without complete data in
terms of age, t(1021) ⫽ 1.69, p ⬎ .05, age of
first crime, t(246) ⫽ ⫺0.75, p ⬎ .05, sentence
in years, t(927) ⫽ ⫺1.09, p ⬎ .05, Low Anxiety
(␹2(2) ⫽ 0.42, p ⬎ .05), or Fearlessness
(␹2(2) ⫽ 1.85, p ⬎ .05). Those with versus
without complete data differed slightly on three
PCL-R facet scores, but this difference resulted
in small effect sizes (eta2): Interpersonal (.01),
Affective (.02), Lifestyle (.01).
Four-Factor PCL-R Model
The mean PCL-R score for the full sample
was 18.9 (SD ⫽ 10.3), with an alpha coefficient
of .92 and a mean interitem correlation (MIC)
of .37. Mean PCL-R facet scores were as fol-
lows: Interpersonal 2.70 (SD ⫽ 2.48), Affec-
tive 4.60 (SD ⫽ 2.72), Lifestyle 5.59
(SD ⫽ 3.36), and Antisocial 4.60 (SD ⫽ 3.33).
In a CFA we specified PCL-R items to load
onto their respective factors (see Table 1): In-
terpersonal (1, 2, 4, 5), Affective (6, 7, 8, 16),
Lifestyle (3, 9, 13, 14, 15) or Antisocial (10, 12,
18, 19, 20). The factors were allowed to corre-
late freely in each CFA. The results indicated
excellent fit for the four-factor model (TLI ⫽
.97, RMSEA ⫽ .06). All factor loadings and
factor correlations were significant ( ps ⬍
.05⫺.001). Figure 1 displays the items, the fac-
tors they comprise, and the standardized model
parameters.
Alpha coefficients and MICs for the four
PCL-R factors all exceeded .82 and .48, respec-
tively, indicating good internal consistency and
unidimensionality for each factor (cf. Schmitt,
1996; Smith, McCarthy, & Zapolski, 2009).3
LAF Items
The mean Low Anxiety score was .68
(SD ⫽ .77); 18.2% of the offenders had a
rating of 2. The mean Fearlessness score was
.80 (SD ⫽ .84); 26.9% of the offenders had a
rating of 2. The two LAF items were signif-
icantly correlated (r ⫽ .64, p ⬍ .001), and
each item was significantly correlated with
each of the PCL-R facets (rs ⫽ .40⫺.60, ps ⬍
.001).
PCL-R and LAF Model Results
We determined if the LAF items could be
placed with one or other of the traditional two
PCL-R factors (F1 ⫽ Interpersonal and Affec-
tive items; F2 ⫽ Lifestyle and Antisocial
items). The results indicated good fit (Models 1
and 2 in Table 2). There was little substantive
difference as a function of LAF item placement,
though these two models were associated with
CFI change values slightly greater than .01.
This is likely due to the fact that four-factor
PCL-R models had better model fit than the
two-factor model (see Table 2).
To determine if the LAF items would “fit”
better with one or another of the four PCL-R
factors, we conducted a series of SEMs, alter-
natively placing the LAF items with each one of
these PCL-R factors. We examined model fit,
the extent to which the LAF item loadings
changed as a function of their placement within
a model, and change in CFI. As can be seen in
Table 2 (Models 3– 6), model fit was excellent
(TLI’s ⫽ .96⫺.97, RMSEA’s ⫽ .06⫺.07).
There was little change in the statistical (model
fit) or substantive (factor loading) results across
models, despite the fact that the LAF items were
being tested with the different PCL-R factors.
Most importantly, all CFI change values were
below the recommended cut-off of .01. These
results suggest that each of the PCL-R factors
shares some element of the features rated by the
LAF items, and that the latter can go with any of
the PCL-R factors.
As shown in Table 2 and implied from the
CFI change results, Model 7, which involved
the separate LAF factor represented by the low
anxiety and fearless items, (“five-factor model”)
had excellent fit and the LAF item loadings
were large. Also noteworthy is that we found
excellent support (TLI ⫽ .97, RMSEA ⫽ .07)
for this model when we employed a relatively
new modeling approach referred to as explor-
atory structural equation modeling (ESEM),
which essentially involves estimation of model
fit across a series of EFAs.
3
The mean PCL-R score was somewhat lower for those
offenders with complete PCL-R and LAF data (17.2,
SD ⫽ 10.2), primarily because of the addition of sex of-
fenders to the sample when LAF data collection began.
Alpha coefficients and MICs were virtually the same as
those for the larger sample.
 PCL-R AND LAF 7

Figure 1. Standardized Parameters: Four-factor Model Results (TLI ⫽ .97, RMSEA ⫽ .06).

Drawing on our prior research with the PCL-R
(Neumann et al., 2007), we formed a superordi-
nate PCL-R factor by loading the four first-order
factors onto a second-order “psychopathy” factor.
For this SEM the two LAF items served as indi-
cators for a separate LAF factor. The LAF factor
was specified as a criterion variable and the su-
perordinate factor as the predictor. Using the full
sample (Figure 2A), this model indicated that the
PCL-R superordinate factor was able to predict
73% of the variance of the LAF factor, suggesting
the superordinate factor comprehensively ac-
counts for the LAF factor. The model results were
essentially the same when we used only cases with
complete data (69% of the variance in LAF pre-
dicted by the superordinate factor). Finally, we
examined which of the four first-order PCL-R
factors was able to uniquely predict the LAF fac-

Table 2
Structural Equation Model Fit When Low Anxiety and Fearlessness (LAF) Items are Placed on Individual
PCL-R Factors (Models 1– 6) or as a Separate LAF Factor (Model 7)
Loading of LAF Items on PCL-R Factors
Model TLI RMSEA Low-Anxiety Fearlessness ⌬CFIa
Two-Factor Models
1. F1 .955 .078 .75 .85 .012
2. F2 .951 .081 .75 .83 .015
Four-Factor Models
3. Interpersonal .965 .069 .77 .88 .002
4. Affective .967 .067 .75 .85 .001
5. Lifestyle .964 .069 .75 .83 .003
6. Antisocial .960 .074 .77 .86 .007
“Five-Factor” Model
7. Four-factor ⫹ LAF .967 .066 .82 .93
Note. N ⫽ 989. F1 ⫽ Factor 1 (Interpersonal/Affective); F2 ⫽ Factor 2 (Lifestyle/Antisocial).
a
The ⌬CFI column represents the change in comparative fit index (CFI) of a given model (1– 6) compared to model #7.
The strategy for assessing statistical differences in model fit draws on the guidelines by Cheung and Rensvold (2002). Based
on an extensive simulation study, these authors recommended that ⌬CFI is more appropriate than the more traditional way
of assessing differences in the ␹2 fit statistic between nested models.
8 NEUMANN, HARE, AND JOHANSSON

Figure 2. PCL-R Superordinate Psychopathy Factor (A) and Individual PCL-R Factors (B)
as Predictors of LAF (Low Anxiety, Fearlessness).

tor, controlling for PCL-R factor overlap. The Discussion

results (Figure 2B) indicated that only the Inter-
personal (.54) and Antisocial (.42) factors
uniquely predicted the LAF factor (71% of the
variance). The model analyses were substantively
unchanged when we used only those cases with
complete (listwise) data.
Based on a large sample of violent Swedish
offenders, the results revealed excellent fit for
the four-factor PCL-R model, consistent with
the results of other studies in a variety of con-
texts and diverse national samples (e.g., Hare &
 PCL-R AND LAF
Neumann, 2008; Mokros et al., 2011; Neu-
mann, 2007; Neumann et al., 2007; Vitacco,
Neumann, & Jackson, 2005; Walters, Wilson,
& Glover, in press). Thus, the results provide
continued support for a PCL-based four-factor
model of the psychopathy construct.
In addition, consistent with past research
(Patrick, 2006), the four first-order PCL-R fac-
tors showed a pattern of differential (predictive)
associations with external variables, in this case
the LAF factor (Figure 1b). This latter finding is
important to consider. Specifically, while the
four first-order factors can be accounted for by
a single superordinate factor (Neumann & Hare,
2008; Neumann et al., 2007; Neumann, Kosson,
Forth, & Hare, 2006), suggesting the PCL-R
can be safely treated as a unidimensional mea-
sure, the evidence of differential associations of
the four factors with a range of external corre-
lates should not be ignored.4 In other words, the
superordinate nature of the PCL-R should not
be equated with a simplistic notion of a unidi-
mensional psychopathy construct, as some
authors have suggested (Skeem, Polaschek, Pat-
rick, & Lilienfeld, 2012); such a mistake in-
volves both confusion between the measure and
the construct it is designed to assess, and failure
to recognize that latent first-order PCL-based
factors have differential associations with a
range of external (etiologically relevant) corre-
lates (e.g., Carré, Hyde, Neumann, Vidin, &
Hariri, 2012; Neumann & Hare, 2008; Neu-
mann & Pardini, in press; Salekin, Neumann,
Leistico, & Zalot, 2004; Seara-Cardoso, Neu-
mann, Roiser, McCrory, & Viding, 2012; Vi-
tacco, Neumann, & Caldwell, 2010; Vitacco et
al., 2005). Unidimensionality of a measure
(PCL-R) does not necessarily imply unidimen-
sionality of the construct it is designed to assess
(psychopathy).
Model fit also was excellent when the LAF
items were brought into the model. Based on the
series of modeling results, our study addressed
two questions: “Is LAF separate from the other
four aspects of PCL-R?” and “Is LAF subsumed
under the general PCL-based psychopathy con-
struct?” The answer to these questions appears
to be “no” and “yes,” respectively.
The SEM analyses suggest that the two LAF
items may not “belong” with any particular
PCL-R factor. In other words, each of the
PCL-R factors (and their underlying items) taps
aspects of low anxiety and fearlessness, as we
9
previously suggested (Hare & Neumann, 2008).
Moreover, a PCL-R superordinate factor was
able to account for most of the variance of a
separate LAF factor. It is possible that the
strong association between the PCL-R and LAF
was due, in part, to a shared methodology, but it
also is possible that clinical ratings of LAF are
more informative than self-reports, at least in
forensic settings.
The significant associations between the
PCL-R and LAF factors provide additional con-
struct validity for the PCL-R, and suggest that
when assessed with a PCL-type format, low
anxiety and fearlessness may be part of the
larger psychopathy construct. Still, we suggest
that psychopathy involves, and that the PCL-R
captures, a more general “dysregulation” of af-
fective experience, not just limited to anxiety
and fear. In this regard, Sylvers and colleagues
(2011) suggested that trait anxiety and trait fear-
lessness are largely distinct emotions. If this
supposition is correct we would expect clinical
ratings of fearlessness and low anxiety gener-
ally to be uncorrelated among psychopathic and
other individuals. On the other hand, if psy-
chopathy involves a general attenuation of
affective experience, then we would expect
fearlessness and low anxiety to be positively
correlated, and more importantly, we would ex-
pect that the PCL-R should be linked to clinical
ratings of both traits. The latter expectation was
met. Nevertheless, to more fully evaluate our
“attenuation” hypothesis, a more wide-ranging
and in-depth assessment of emotional experi-
ence will be necessary.
The use of a two-item factor in the current
study only represented a narrow portion of
LAF. At minimum, latent variables generally
should have four to five items. Yet, even if we
expand the LAF factor to a 5-item set, it is
possible that its associations with the PCL-R
4
The empirical modeling results for all of the PCL Scales
provide evidence of scale unidimensionality, which is a
further strength of the PCL Scales that no doubt contributes
to clear and robust findings with their use. See Smith et al.
(2009) for an in-depth discussion of the strengths of such
measures. At the same time, there are other psychopathy
scales (e.g., PPI-1 and PPI-2) that are the habitually treated
as unidimensional measures, when in fact the evidence
clearly suggests this is inappropriate, given that they are
multidimensional in nature (Neumann, Uzieblo, Grombez,
& Hare, in press). This latter situation is likely to result in
ambiguous findings.
10 NEUMANN, HARE, AND JOHANSSON
and its factors would not be much different from
those described here. The addition of low anx-
iety and fearlessness to the PCL-R may serve to
increase its face validity, but we doubt that it
would add very much to its incremental validity
(e.g., in neuroimaging, cognitive functioning,
criminal justice, etc.).5 Nonetheless, this re-
mains an empirical question. Meanwhile, the
present results may have implications for the
putative role of other traits and behaviors that
some investigators believe should have been
included in the PCL-R assessment of psychop-
athy. If, as we contend, the extant PCL-R items
account for low anxiety and fearlessness it is
possible that they also account for other features
of psychopathy, such as dominance, lack of
insight, and so forth. That is, the PCL-R item set
may be more comprehensive than some com-
mentators claim.
There are several limitations to the present
research. First, we had only single ratings for
the LAF items, and new research is needed to
determine whether or not their interrater reli-
ability is similar to that of the PCL-R items.
Second, raters scored the LAF items after they
had scored the PCL-R items, with the result that
the LAF scores may have been influenced by
impressions formed by the raters while they
scored the PCL-R items. This issue is not con-
fined to the LAF items, but is inherent in the
protocol for scoring the PCL-R. In theory,
though rather impractical, it would be possible
to have each PCL-R item scored by a different
rater. With respect to the LAF items, investiga-
tors could add independently scored LAF items
to their existing PCL-R data sets. This would
help to clarify the role of low anxiety and fear-
lessness in the psychopathy construct. More-
over, it would be helpful in future research to
investigate the potential incremental validity of
the LAF items relative to the PCL-R facets in
predicting critical correlates of psychopathy.
5
It is worth noting that the DSM-V Work Group has not
included traits of fearlessness or low anxiousness in the
DSM-V diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder/
dissocial personality disorder (American Psychiatric Asso-
ciation, 2011; also see Hare et al., in press, for a historical
overview of PCL-R psychopathy and the DSM criteria for
antisocial personality disorder). Further, in their expert con-
sensus study, Samuel, Lynam, Widiger, and Ball (2012, p.
6) concluded, “The Work Group and the experts surveyed in
the current study appeared to be in complete agreement
about traits that should and should not be used to diagnose
the antisocial/psychopathic type.” The included traits were
items reflective of Antagonism (cf., PCL-R Factor 1) and
Disinhibition (cf., PCL-R Factor 2); they did not include
low anxiousness or fearlessness.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (June 21, 2011).
Personality disorders. Retrieved from http://
www.dsm5.org/PROPOSEDREVISIONS/Pages/
PersonalityandPersonalityDisorders.aspx
Andershed, H., Douglas, K., & Skeem, J. (2004).
Clinical low anxiety, fearlessness item ratings
(Version 1.0). Örebro, Sweden: Department of Be-
havioral, Social, and Legal Sciences, Örebro Uni-
versity, SE-701 82.
Blonigen, D. M., Patrick, C. J., Douglas, K. S.,
Poythress, N. G., Skeem, J. L., Lilienfeld, S. O.,
. . . Krueger, R. F. (2010). Multimethod assess-
ment of psychopathy in relation to factors of in-
ternalizing and externalizing from the Personality
Assessment Inventory: The impact of method vari-
ance and suppressor effects. Psychological Assess-
ment, 22, 96 –107. doi:10.1037/a0017240
Carré, J., Hyde, L., Neumann, C. S., Viding, E., &
Hariri, A. (2012). The Neural signatures of distinct
psychopathic traits. Manuscript under review.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluat-
ing goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measure-
ment invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9,
233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity. St. Louis,
MO: Mosby.
Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity (5th edition).
St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Dahl, A. A. (1998). Psychopathy and psychiatric
comorbidity. In T. Millon, E. Simonson, M. Bir-
ket-Smith, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy:
Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior (pp.
291–303). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Eaton, N. R., Krueger, R. F., Keyes, K. M. Skodol,
A. E., Markon, K. E. Grant, B. F., & Hasin, D. S.
(2011). Borderline personality disorder co-
morbidity: Relationship to the internalizing–
externalizing structure of common mental disor-
ders. Psychological Medicine, 41, 1041–1050. doi:
10.1017/S0033291710001662
Flor, H., Birbaumer, N., Hermann, C., Ziegler, S., &
Patrick, C. (2002). Aversive Pavlovian condition-
ing in psychopaths: Peripheral and central corre-
lates. Psychophysiology, 39, 505–518. doi:
10.1111/1469-8986.3940505
Forth, A. E., Kosson, D., & Hare, R. D. (2003). The
Hare PCL: Youth version. Toronto, Canada:
Multi-Health Systems.
Frick, P. J., & Hare, R. D. (2001). The antisocial
process screening device. Toronto, Canada: Multi-
Health Systems.
 PCL-R AND LAF
Guay, J. P., Ruscio, J., Knight, R. A., & Hare, R. D.
(2007). A taxometric analysis of the latent struc-
ture of psychopathy: Evidence for dimensionality.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 701–716.
doi:10.1037/0021-843X.116.4.701
Hale, L. R. Goldstein, D. S., Abramowitz, C. S.,
Calamari, J. E., & Kosson, D. S. (2004). Psychop-
athy is related to negative affectivity but not to
anxiety sensitivity. Behaviour Research and Ther-
apy, 42, 697–710. doi:10.1016/S0005-
7967(03)00192-X
Hare, R. D. (1965). Temporal gradient of fear arousal
in psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-
ogy, 70, 442– 445. doi:10.1037/h0022775
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-
revised. Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-
revised (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON: Multi-Health Sys-
tems.
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy
as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Re-
view of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217–246. doi:
10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452
Hare, R. D., Neumann, C. S., & Widiger, T. A. (in
press). Psychopathy. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of personality disorders. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hemphala, M., & Tengström, A. (2010). Associa-
tions between psychopathic traits and mental dis-
orders among adolescents with substance use prob-
lems. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49,
109 –122. doi:10.1348/014466509X439216
Herpertz, S. C., & Sass, H. (2000). Emotional defi-
ciency and psychopathy. Behavioral Sciences and
the Law, 18, 567–580. doi:10.1002/1099-
0798(200010)18:5⬍567::AID-BSL410⬎3.0.CO;
2-8
Hervé, H. F. (2007). Psychopathy across the ages: A
history of the Hare psychopath. In H. F. Hervé &
J. C. Yuille (Eds.), The psychopath: Theory, re-
search and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates.
Hoyle, R. H. (1995). Structural equation modeling:
Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-score criteria for
fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Con-
ventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/
10705519909540118
Johansson, P., & Kerr, M. (2005). Psychopathy and
intelligence: A second look. Journal of personality
disorders, 19, 357–369. doi:10.1521/
pedi.2005.19.4.357
Kubak, F. A., & Salekin, R. T. (2009). Psychopathy
and anxiety in children and adolescents: New in-
sights on developmental pathways to offending.
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavior Assess-
11
ment, 31, 271–284. doi:10.1007/s10862-009-
9144-2
Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (2002). Statistical
analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: John Wiley.
Loney, B. R., Taylor, J., Butler, M. A., & Iacono,
W. G. (2007). Adolescent psychopathy features:
6-year temporal stability and the prediction of ex-
ternalizing symptoms during the transition to
adulthood. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 242–252. doi:
10.1002/ab.20184
Lykken, D. T. (1957). A study of anxiety in the
sociopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 55, 6 –10. doi:10.1037/
h0047232
Mokros, A., Neumann, C. S., Stadtland, C., Oster-
heider, M., Nedopil, N., & Hare, R. D. (2011).
Assessing measurement invariance of PCL-R as-
sessments from file reviews of North American
and German offenders. International Journal of
Law and Psychiatry, 34, 56 – 63. doi:10.1016/
j.ijlp.2010.11.009
Mowrer, O. H. (1947). On the dual nature of learn-
ing—A reinterpretation of “conditioning” and
“problem-solving.” Harvard Educational Re-
view, 17, 102–148.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2010). Mplus
user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén
& Muthén.
Neumann, C. S. (2007). Psychopathy. British Journal
of Psychiatry, 191, 357–358.
Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2008). Psychopathic
traits in a large community sample: Links to vio-
lence, alcohol use, and intelligence. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 893– 899.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.76.5.893
Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Newman, J. P.
(2007). The super-ordinate nature of the Psychop-
athy Checklist-revised. Journal of Personality Dis-
orders, 21, 102–117. doi:10.1521/pedi.2007
.21.2.102
Neumann, C. S., Kosson, D. S., Forth, A. E., & Hare,
R. D. (2006). Factor structure of the Hare Psychop-
athy Checklist: Youth version (PCL: YV) in incar-
cerated adolescents. Psychological Assess-
ment, 18, 142–154. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.18
.2.142
Neumann, C. S., & Pardini, D. (in press). Factor
structure and construct validity of the Self-Report
Psychopathy (SRP) Scale and the Youth Psycho-
pathic Traits Inventory (YPI) in young men. Jour-
nal of Personality Disorders.
Neumann, C. S., Uzieblo, K., Grombez, G., & Hare,
R. D. (in press). Understanding the Psychopathic
Personality Inventory (PPI) in terms of the unidi-
mensionality, orthogonality, and construct validity
of PPI-I and -II. Personality Disorders: Theory,
Research, and Treatment.
 12 NEUMANN, HARE, AND JOHANSSON
Newman, J. P., Curtin, J. J., Bertsch, J. D., & Baskin-
Sommers, A. R. (2010). Attention moderates the
fearlessness of psychopathic offenders. Biological
Psychiatry, 67, 66 –70. doi:10.1016/j.bio-
psych.2009.07.035
Newman, J. P., MacCoon, D. G., Vaughn, L. J., &
Sadeh, N. (2005). Validating a distinction between
primary and secondary psychopathy with measures
of Gray’s BIS and BAS constructs. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 114, 319 –323. doi:
10.1037/0021-843X.114.2.319
Patrick, C. J. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of psychopa-
thy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Salekin, R. T., Neumann, C. S., Leistico, A. M., &
Zalot, A. A. (2004). Psychopathy in youth and
intelligence: An investigation of Cleckley’s Hy-
pothesis. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 33, 731–742. doi:10.1207/
s15374424jccp3304_8
Samuel, D. B., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Ball,
S. A. (2012). An expert consensus approach to
relating the proposed DSM-5 types and traits. Per-
sonality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treat-
ment, 3, 1–16. doi:10.1037/a0023787
Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient
alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8, 350 –353. doi:
10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.350
Seara-Cardoso, A., Neumann, C. S., Roiser, J., Mc-
Crory, E., & Viding, E. (2012). Investigating as-
sociations between empathy, morality and psycho-
pathic personality traits in the general population.
Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 67–71.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.08.029
Skeem, J., Johansson, P., Andershed, H., Kerr, M., &
Louden, J. E. (2007). Two subtypes of psycho-
pathic violent offenders that parallel primary and
secondary variants. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-
ogy, 116, 395– 409. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.116
.2.395
Skeem, J. L., Polaschek, L. L., Patrick, C. J., &
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2012). Psychopathic personal-
ity: Bridging the gap between scientific evidence
and public policy. Psychological Science in the
View publication stats
Public Interest, 12, 95–162. doi:10.1177/
1529100611426706
Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Zapolski, T. C.
(2009). On the value of homogeneous constructs
for construct validation, theory testing, and the
description of psychopathology. Psychological As-
sessment, 21, 272–284. doi:10.1037/a0016699
Strauss, M., & Smith, G. (2009). Construct validity:
Advances in methodology. Annual Review of Clin-
ical Psychology, 5, 1–25. doi:10.1146/annurev
.clinpsy.032408.153639
Sylvers, P., Lilienfeld, S. O., & LaPrairie, J. L.
(2011). Differences between trait fear and trait
anxiety: Implications for psychopathology. Clini-
cal Psychology Review, 132, 122–137. doi:
10.1016/j.cpr.2010.08.004
Vitacco, M. J., Neumann, C. S., & Caldwell, M. F.
(2010). Predicting antisocial behavior in high-risk
male adolescents: Contributions of psychopathy
and instrumental violence. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 37, 833– 846. doi:10.1177/
0093854810371358
Vitacco, M. J., Neumann, C. S., & Jackson, R. L.
(2005). Testing a four-factor model of psychopa-
thy and its association with ethnicity, gender, in-
telligence, and violence. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 73, 466 – 476. doi:10.1037/
0022-006X.73.3.466
Walters, G. D., Wilson, N. J., & Glover, A. J. J. (in
press). Predicting recidivism with the Psychopathy
Checklist: Are factor score composites really nec-
essary? Psychological Assessment.
Wolf, R. C., Carpenter, R. W., Warren, C. M., Zeier,
J. D., Baskin-Sommers, A. R., & Newman, J. P.
(2012). Reduced susceptibility to the attentional
blink in psychopathic offenders: Implications for
the attention bottleneck hypothesis. Neuropsychol-
ogy, 26, 102–109. doi:10.1037/a0026000
Zeier, J. D., & Newman, J. P. (in press). Both
self-report and interview-based measures of psy-
chopathy predict attention abnormalities in
criminal offenders. Assessment. doi:10.1177/
1073191111415364