Showing papers by "Ashley L. Watts published in 2012"

Fearless dominance and the U.S. presidency: implications of psychopathic personality traits for successful and unsuccessful political leadership.

Abstract: Although psychopathic personality (psychopathy) is marked largely by maladaptive traits (e.g., poor impulse control, lack of guilt), some authors have conjectured that some features of this condition (e.g., fearlessness, interpersonal dominance) are adaptive in certain occupations, including leadership positions. We tested this hypothesis in the 42 U.S. presidents up to and including George W. Bush using (a) psychopathy trait estimates derived from personality data completed by historical experts on each president, (b) independent historical surveys of presidential leadership, and (c) largely or entirely objective indicators of presidential performance. Fearless Dominance, which reflects the boldness associated with psychopathy, was associated with better rated presidential performance, leadership, persuasiveness, crisis management, Congressional relations, and allied variables; it was also associated with several largely or entirely objective indicators of presidential performance, such as initiating new projects and being viewed as a world figure. Most of these associations survived statistical control for covariates, including intellectual brilliance, five factor model personality traits, and need for power. In contrast, Impulsive Antisociality and related traits of psychopathy were generally unassociated with rated presidential performance, although they were linked to some largely or entirely objective indicators of negative job performance, including Congressional impeachment resolutions, tolerating unethical behavior in subordinates, and negative character. These findings indicate that the boldness associated with psychopathy is an important but heretofore neglected predictor of presidential performance, and suggest that certain features of psychopathy are tied to successful interpersonal behavior.

An examination of the Dirty Dozen measure of psychopathy: a cautionary tale about the costs of brief measures.

Abstract: Given substantial interest in the traits conceived of as part of the “Dark Triad”—psychopathy, narcissism,and Machiavellianism—assessment of these traits is of great importance. The Dirty Dozen (DD; Jonason& Webster, 2010) is a brief measure of the Dark Triad constructs that uses 4 items to assess each of theseconstructs. In the present study, the authors examined the adequacy of the DD’s Psychopathy scale bycomparing it with established measures of psychopathy in a sample of undergraduates (Sample 1: N 789) and male prisoners (Sample 2: N 75). DD’s Psychopathy subscale manifested significantcorrelations with established measures, but the correlations were smaller than those evinced by theexisting scales. The results also demonstrated that there is important variance related to interpersonalantagonism and disinhibition that is not assessed by the DD. The authors suggest that caution should beused in relying on the DD as a measure of psychopathy.Keywords: psychopathy, brief measures, construct validity, assessment

The DSM revision as a social psychological process: a commentary on Blashfield and Reynolds.

Abstract: We trust that we do not need to persuade readers of this journal that the DSM revision process is unavoidably political (Kirk & Kutchins, 1992; Widiger & Clark, 2000). As Blashfield and Reynolds (2012) observe in their useful and important article in this issue, this is not entirely a bad thing. The “invisible colleges” to which Blashfield and Reynolds refer can assist in achieving group consensus and facilitating rapid research progress. Nevertheless, these shadow committees may sometimes impede long-term scientific knowledge by being closed to alternative viewpoints. One might be tempted to argue that because the DSM revision process involves human beings, who are by their very nature fallible, this enterprise cannot be improved. We respectfully disagree. Although the DSM is inevitably a political document, there may be ways of minimizing the extent to which political considerations override scientific evidence in the process of diagnostic revision. Our thesis is straightforward and perhaps self-evident, but insufficiently emphasized: The DSM revision is not merely a political process, but a social psychological one as well. The diagnostic revision process necessitates an expert grasp of descriptive psychopathology, research methodology, and clinical utility, to be certain, but it would also benefit from a thoughtful consideration of evidence-based perspectives derived from research on group decision making.