Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 758–762

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Empathy deficits and trait emotional intelligence in psychopathy and

Machiavellianism
Farah Ali, Ines Sousa Amorim, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic *
Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, London, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study investigated the relationships between psychopathy (primary and secondary), Machi-
Received 6 April 2009 avellianism, trait emotional intelligence and empathy, using an image task that required an appropriate
Received in revised form 4 June 2009 empathic response to the emotional displays of others (happy, sad and neutral). Results indicated that
Accepted 12 June 2009
primary psychopathy and Machiavellianism were positively associated with the experience of positive
Available online 15 July 2009
affect from sad stimuli, while secondary psychopathy and Machiavellianism were positively associated
with the experience of negative affect in response to neutral stimuli, and the opposite pattern was found
Keywords:
for trait emotional intelligence. Regressional analyses demonstrated that secondary psychopathy, Machi-
Primary psychopathy
Secondary psychopathy
avellianism, trait emotional intelligence and state anxiety are important predictors when stimuli are
Machiavellianism ambiguous.
Empathy Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Emotional intelligence

1. Introduction
The study of aversive personality traits has received much
attention in the past few years, particularly the non-clinical traits
of psychopathy and Machiavellianism (e.g., Lee & Ashton, 2005;
Vernon, Villani, Vickers, & Harris, 2008). Within the personality-
based approach to psychopathy there is a consensus that guiltless-
ness, callousness, dishonesty, egocentricity, failure to form close
emotional bonds, low anxiety proneness, superficial charm and
blame externalisation all represent core features (Hare, 1991). The-
oretically, psychopathy is regarded as a heterogeneous concept
consisting of primary psychopathy, which is characterised by fea-
tures such as cruelty and lack of affect and secondary psychopathy,
which is characterised by features such as impulsivity, neuroticism
and aggression (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995).
Machiavellianism involves interpersonal strategies that pro-
mote the use of deception, manipulation and exploitation, and
the Machiavellian individual can be described as cynical, domi-
neering, aloof and practical (McHoskey, Worzel, & Szyarto, 1998).
According to Christie (1970) Machiavellian individuals are success-
ful manipulators characterised by: (a) lack of interpersonal affect
in interpersonal relationships, (b) lack of concern with conven-
tional morality, (c) lack of gross psychopathology, and (d) low ideo-
logical commitment. Various researchers have noted the
conceptual similarity between Machiavellianism and psychopathy
* Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths,
University of London, New Cross, London SE146NW, UK. Tel.: +44 (0) 2079197885.
E-mail address: pss02tc@gold.ac.uk (T. Chamorro-Premuzic).
(e.g., McHoskey et al., 1998; Mealey, 1995) and it has been sug-
gested that they denote a single construct (Lee & Ashton, 2005;
McHoskey et al., 1998). However, Vernon et al. (2008) have dem-
onstrated that Machiavellianism and psychopathy differ in herita-
bility, and research indicates that although overlapping, they are
distinct constructs (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Williams & Paulhus,
2004).
Unsurprisingly, psychopathy (Malterer, Glass, & Newman,
2008) and Machiavellianism (Austin, Farrelly, Black, & Moore,
2007) have been recently associated with lower trait emotional
intelligence (also known as trait emotional self-efficacy). Individu-
als high in trait emotional intelligence are good at managing their
stress levels and demonstrate enhanced psychosocial functioning,
such as better social relationships (e.g., Schutte et al., 2001).
Being able to empathise is an important part of emotional intel-
ligence and a defining criterion of clinical psychopathy is reduced
empathic responding to victims (Hare, 1991). The ability to repeat-
edly cause serious harm to others is an indicator of a profound dis-
turbance in an appropriate ‘‘empathic” response to the suffering of
another (Blair, 2005). Empathy is known to inhibit and moderate
aggression (Richardson, Hammock, Smith, & Gardner, 1994;
Wheeler, George, & Dahl, 2002). Past research indicates that clini-
cal psychopathic individuals show a selective empathic deficit in
that they are impaired in the recognition of sad and fearful facial
expressions (e.g., Montagne et al., 2005).
Although investigators have recently begun to extend findings
from emotional deficits to psychopathy in normal populations,
only a few studies have looked at whether empathy deficits exist
in non-clinical samples (e.g., Del Gaizo & Falkenbach, 2008;

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.016
 F. Ali et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 758–762
Mahmut, Homewood, & Stevenson, 2008), this is surprising, espe-
cially when research with non-clinical samples has found that de-
spite lower base-rates, there is evidence for diverse expressions of
psychopathic traits across the population (Skeem, Poythress,
Edens, Lilienfeld, & Cale, 2003). Del Gaizo and Falkenbach’s
(2008) study indicated that primary psychopathic traits were pos-
itively correlated with accuracy of perception of fearful faces, while
secondary psychopathic traits were not related to emotional recog-
nition. Mahmut et al.’s (2008) study indicated that individuals
scoring highly on psychopathy demonstrated low levels of empa-
thy on an emotional empathy questionnaire; the EEQ (Mehrabian
& Epstein, 1972).
Analogous to the psychopathic personality, conventional moral-
ity is not a concern to Machiavellian individuals; instead, they
demonstrate shallow emotional involvement with others and
sanction behaviour which is emotionally-manipulative (Austin
et al., 2007). Because individuals high in Machiavellianism are
likely to exploit others and to view others in a goal-oriented man-
ner (they see people ‘‘as a means to an end”), unsurprisingly
Machiavellianism has demonstrated negative correlations with
empathy (e.g., Austin et al., 2007; Wastell & Booth, 2003).
The aim of the current study was to further explore the relation-
ships between non-clinical psychopathy, Machiavellianism, trait
emotional intelligence and deficits in empathy using a purposely-
designed visual task to assess appropriateness of empathic re-
sponses to the emotional displays of others.
Hoffman (2000) defined empathy as ‘‘feelings that are more
congruent with another’s situation than with one’s own situation”
(p. 30), while Mehrabian and Epstein (1972) defined emotional
empathy as a ‘‘vicariously emotional response to the perceived
emotional experiences of others” (p. 525). These definitions sug-
gest an affective reaction (‘‘affective/emotional empathy”; see Lo-
soya & Eisenberg, 2001), not just a cognitive ability to read
another person’s thoughts or feelings correctly (‘‘cognitive empa-
thy”). Following this line of thought, this study is concerned with
whether an individual experiences an appropriate empathic re-
sponse rather than how capable he or she is of such an experience,
hence the use of an empathy task that is not limited to emotion
recognition.
Although psychopathy is considered a heterogeneous concept,
many emotional deficit studies have approached it as homoge-
neous, potentially missing important differences between the
two. An important difference between primary and secondary psy-
chopathy is that negative affect is notably absent from primary
psychopathy, whereas secondary psychopathy is associated with
negative affect (Del Gaizo & Falkenbach, 2008). For this reason,
the current study included a measure of state anxiety in order to
measure the levels of anxiety experienced by participants at partic-
ular points during the study. Following on from findings from pre-
vious research it was hypothesised that primary and secondary
psychopathy and Machiavellianism would be associated with low
emotional intelligence and empathic deficiencies, i.e. the expres-
sion of inappropriate affect in response to images of positive and
negative affective content.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 84 undergraduates (67 female) who partici-
pated in the study in exchange for course credits. Their ages ranged
from 18 to 46 years (M = 20.7, SD = 4.1); 30 were White British
(36%), 23 White Other (27%), six Black Caribbean (7%) and five
Black African (6%). The remaining 20 participants (24%) were of
Mixed, South Asian, East Asian and Arab ethnicity. Participants
all had normal, or corrected to normal vision.
759
2.2. Materials
Levenson self-report psychopathy scale (LSRP): The LSRP scale
(Levenson et al., 1995) is a 26-item self-report measure designed
to assess psychopathic attributes in non-institutionalised samples
and to evaluate both the behavioural and personality traits com-
monly associated with psychopathy in the literature. The primary
psychopathy scale consists of 16 items, ranging from disagree
strongly (1) to agree strongly (4), designed to assess the core per-
sonality features described by Cleckley (1988), such as being self-
ish, uncaring and manipulative. The secondary psychopathy scale
consists of 10 items assessing anti-social behaviour, a self-defeat-
ing lifestyle and impulsivity. Cronbach’s a in the current study
were .84 for the primary psychopathy scale and .72 for the second-
ary psychopathy scale. The LSRP is both reliable and valid (McHos-
key et al., 1998).
Mach-IV: Machiavellianism was assessed with the Mach-IV
(Christie & Geis, 1970), which has 20 items covering the use of de-
ceit in interpersonal relationships, a cynical attitude to human nat-
ure and a lack of concern for conventional morality. Participants
indicate their response on a seven-point scale ranging from dis-
agree strongly (1) to agree strongly (7), with higher scores indicat-
ing higher levels of Machiavellianism. The reliability and the
validity of the Mach-IV are well documented (Fehr, Samsom, &
Paulhus, 1992). Cronbach’s a in the current study was .77.
Spielberger state-trait anxiety (STAI): The STAI (Spielberger, Gor-
such, & Lushene, 1970) consists of two 20-item scales: the state
and trait anxiety scales. In this study, only items from the SAI were
used (STAI Form Y-1). This is a 20-item self-evaluation question-
naire with responses to the statements about feelings at the pres-
ent time ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so), with higher
scores indicative of greater state anxiety. In the current study, six
items of the SAI were used due to time constraints. Participants
were given the SAI to complete before and after viewing the
images. Cronbach’s a in the current study was .82. for time one
and .80 for time two.
Trait emotional intelligence questionnaire – short form (TEIQue–
SF): The TEIQue–SF (Petrides & Furnham, 2006) is a 30-item self-re-
port scale that yields a global measure of trait emotional intelli-
gence and emotional self-efficacy, namely, the ability to identify
and manage one’s own emotions and the emotions of others. The
short form is based on the 153-item TEIQue and has demonstrated
adequate reliability and validity (Petrides & Furnham, 2006). Par-
ticipants are asked to rate their degree of agreement with each
item on a seven-point Likert-type scale with responses ranging
from completely disagree (1) to completely agree (7). Cronbach’s
a in this study was .90.
Empathy image task using the self-assessment manikin (SAM):1 To
create the image set we initially selected 45 images; 15 were classi-
fied as representing sadness, 15 representing happiness and 15 rep-
resenting neutral emotion. The stimuli were selected from the
gettyimagesÒ database, which depicts individuals of various ages,
gender and ethnicity showing a range of emotions. Each image con-
sisted of one individual who was the focal point of the image. Three
independent raters (all psychology students) then rated the emo-
tions displayed by the individual in each picture. Subsequently, nine
images were discarded due to inter-rater disagreement over the
emotion displayed (i.e. disagreement between sadness and fear
and happiness and surprise). The resulting image set consisted of
36 images of male and female individuals expressing sad, happy
and neutral emotional expressions, namely, 12 images of sadness
(overtly sad expressions; a = .81) and 12 images of happiness
1
All images are available on request.
760 F. Ali et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 758–762
(overtly happy expressions; a = .84) and 12 images of emotionally
neutral expressions (a = .78).
The SAM (Bradley & Lang, 1994), a non-verbal pictorial assess-
ment methodology of a human-like stimulus, was used to assess
affective responding after participants viewed each image. The
SAM permits the assessment of the core dimensions of emotional
experience: valence (scale 1), arousal (scale 2) and control/domi-
nance (scale 3). SAM ratings are made along five figures for each
scale. Participants select their current level of affective state along
these dimensions on a nine-point scale by placing an ‘‘X” over any
of the five figures in each scale, or between any two figures. Total
scores range from zero to nine for each dimension. In the current
study, the valence scale of the SAM was used. Valence refers to
whether a stimulus is viewed as pleasant or unpleasant (Lang,
1995). Figures depicting valence range from a low-spirited, frown-
ing manikin to a widely smiling one, going through a middle neu-
tral stance. The SAM has sound psychometric properties and has
been successfully employed to measure affective responses (Brad-
ley & Lang, 1994). The SAM scale was chosen for the current study,
rather than a simple emotion identifying task, because it allows an
insight into the emotions felt vicariously by participants in re-
sponse to the emotions of others. It has also previously been used
alongside other measures in empathy studies (e.g. Brown, Bradley,
& Lang, 2006; Danziger, Prkachin, & Willer, 2006). Cronbach’s a for
the valence scale in the current study was .80 for valence to the sad
images, .87 for valence to the happy images and .60 for valence to
the neutral images.
2.3. Procedure
Every participant was tested individually in a quiet university
room (lab cubicle). Each participant was seated in a comfortable
chair behind a small table approximately 2 m from the screen on
which the slide stimuli were to be displayed. Participants com-
pleted the questionnaire battery and were then presented with
each image sequentially. The 36 slides were projected individually
onto a screen at the front of the room, with the order of presenta-
tion of the pictures randomised for each participant. Participants
were instructed to look at each image and rate their affect in re-
sponse to the image on the valence scale (scale 1) of the SAM.
Although no limits were issued for viewing the images, all partic-
ipants were told to ‘‘study the image carefully” before responding.
Once they had completed the valence scale for that particular im-
age, the next image was displayed.
3. Results
3.1. Correlations
Intercorrelations among primary psychopathy, secondary psy-
chopathy, Machiavellianism, state anxiety (time one and time
two), trait emotional intelligence and valence (to the happy, sad
and neutral images) are shown in Table 1. Gender correlated with
primary psychopathy and Machiavellianism, with males scoring
higher on both traits. Primary psychopathy positively correlated
with Machiavellianism and valence to the sad images. The correla-
tional analyses indicated that secondary psychopathy positively
correlated with Machiavellianism, state anxiety time one and state
anxiety time two. Secondary psychopathy correlated negatively
with trait emotional intelligence and valence to the neutral images,
while Machiavellianism negatively correlated with trait emotional
intelligence and with valence to the neutral images, but correlated
positively with valence to the sad images. Trait emotional intelli-
gence correlated negatively with state anxiety time one and state
anxiety time two and correlated positively with valence to the neu-
tral images. State anxiety at time one and time two correlated neg-
atively with valence to the neutral images.
3.2. Multiple regressions
Two standard multiple regressions were performed next; the
first with valence to sad images as the criterion variable and
Machiavellianism and primary psychopathy as predictors and the
second regression with valence to neutral images as the criterion
variable and Machiavellianism, secondary psychopathy, trait emo-
tional intelligence and state anxiety (time one) entered as predic-
tors. State anxiety time two was excluded from the regressions
as it was highly correlated with state anxiety time one. Results of
these analyses are presented in Table 2. In the first regression, pri-
mary psychopathy and Machiavellianism did not significantly pre-
dict the variability in valence to sad images (F(2,81) = 2.61,
adjusted R2 = .04, p > .05). In the second regression, secondary psy-
chopathy, Machiavellianism, trait emotional intelligence and state
anxiety significantly predicted the variability in valence to neutral
images (F(4,79) = 3.62, adjusted R2 = .11, p < .01).
Sobel’s tests of mediation (Sobel, 1982) were then performed in
three cases where mediation conditions were met (Baron & Kenny,
1986), with one model proving to be significant. The effect of sec-
ondary psychopathy on valence to neutral images was fully medi-
ated by trait emotional intelligence (Z = 2.30, p < .05), with
secondary psychopathy negatively affecting trait emotional intelli-
gence. State anxiety did not significantly mediate the effect of sec-
ondary psychopathy on valence to neutral images (Z = 1.64,
p > .05) and trait emotional intelligence did not significantly medi-
ate the effect of Machiavellianism on valence to neutral images
(Z = 1.73, p > .05).
4. Discussion
The present study set out to examine whether non-clinical psy-
chopathy (primary and secondary) and Machiavellianism were
associated with inappropriate empathic responses to the emo-
tional displays of others. Our results suggest that primary psychop-
athy and Machiavellianism are positively associated with
experiencing positive affect (valence) when looking at sad images.
This finding is consistent with the idea that individuals high in pri-
mary psychopathy do not experience negative emotions (e.g.,
Cleckley, 1988; Mealey, 1995) and therefore images of sadness
are unlikely to cause them any sort of distress. Interestingly, in
the current study, individuals high in primary psychopathy actu-
ally responded with positive affect (rather than simply not
responding with negative affect), to negative images. Research in
clinical samples has demonstrated that psychopathic individuals
show reduced autonomic responses to stimuli associated with
the distress and sadness of another individual (e.g., Blair, 1999;
House & Milligan, 1976); therefore it is possible that individuals
who score highly in primary psychopathic traits would actually
experience, or at least report, pleasurable affect from the sadness
of others. However, a replication of this finding is needed before
such conjectures are made, especially when considering the lack
and contradictory nature of research addressing the relationship
between psychopathy and sadism (e.g., Kirsch & Becker, 2007).
The apparent dysfunction of an appropriate empathic response
in primary psychopathy in this sample lends support to research
indicating that psychopathic individuals show a selective emo-
tional empathy dysfunction by not processing sad (and fearful)
expressions appropriately (Blair, 1995).
When ambiguous (i.e. neutral) images were presented, second-
ary psychopathy, Machiavellianism and state anxiety (time one
and time two) were positively associated with the experience of
negative affect. The association between secondary psychopathy
 F. Ali et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 758–762 761

Table 1
Intercorrelations: Bivariate Pearson correlation coefficients.

M SD a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
* **
1 Gender .12 .25 .01 .29 .05 .12 .09 .20 .21 .15
2 Age 20.62 4.12 .13 .01 .14 .06 .17 .03 .03 .03 .12
3 Primary psychopathy 30.88 7.68 .84 .33** .70** .17 .01 .01 .18 .22* .11
4 Secondary psychopathy 22.00 5.00 .72 .36** .48** .28** .31** .02 .02 .23*
5 Machiavellianism 95.30 7.68 .77 .23* .01 .06 .15 .23* .22*
6 Trait emotional intelligence 143.93 24.26 .90 .60** .64** .01 .06 .35**
7 State anxiety (time 1) 11.67 3.71 .82 .77** .16 .07 .28*
8 State anxiety (time 2) 12.13 3.57 .80 .20 .03 .34**
9 Valence happy images 7.08 .94 .87 .48** .19
10 Valence sad images 3.16 .96 .80 .20
11 Valence neutral images 5.17 .56 .60

n = 84.
*
p < .05 level (2-tailed).
**
p < .01 level (2-tailed).

Table 2
Summary of regression analyses.

Criterion Predictors B SE B b t p
Valence to sad images Constant 1.82 0.64 2.85 0.01
Machiavellianism 0.01 0.01 0.16 1.07 0.29
Primary psychopathy 0.01 0.02 0.10 0.69 0.49
Valence to neutral images Constant 5.36 0.88 6.12 0.00
Secondary psychopathy 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.28 0.78
Machiavellianism 0.01 0.01 0.16 0.14 0.16
Trait emotional intelligence 0.01 0.01 0.21 1.45 0.15
State anxiety (time one) 0.02 0.20 0.14 1.08 0.28

Note: R2 = .06 and DR2 = .04 (p > .05) for valence to sad images; R2 = .16 and DR2 = .11 (p < .01) for valence to neutral images.

and negative affect experienced in the presence of ambiguous
stimuli is consistent with research findings on the positive link be-
tween negative emotions and this trait (e.g., Del Gaizo & Falken-
bach, 2008). Although Machiavellianism is related to both
primary and secondary psychopathy, there is an important differ-
ence between Machiavellianism and primary psychopathy; the for-
mer trait is linked to heightened experience of anxiety (McHoskey
et al., 1998), something which is notably absent from the latter
(Cleckley, 1988; Lykken, 1995). Consequently, in a similar vein to
individuals high in secondary psychopathy, our findings showed
that individuals high in Machiavellianism seem to have also expe-
rienced negative affect from the neutral images.
To date, we are aware of only one other study that has indicated
an inappropriate response to neutral faces. In a study by Dadds
et al. (2006), children scoring highly in psychopathic traits had dif-
ficulty in recognising neutral faces in an emotion recognition task;
neutral faces where often mistakenly rated as angry. To further
understand this apparent misattribution to neutral faces more re-
search into facial emotion processing/recognition should use neu-
tral expressions alongside other emotions in samples with
psychopathic traits.
Trait emotional intelligence was associated with attributing po-
sitive affect to the neutral images and negatively associated with
secondary psychopathy, Machiavellianism and state anxiety at
time one and time two. This finding is consistent with studies
showing that individuals higher in trait emotional intelligence
have a more positive outlook in general (Austin, Saklofske, & Egan,
2005) and experience greater psychological well-being (Mavroveli,
Petrides, Rieffe, & Bakker, 2007). No association was found be-
tween primary psychopathy and trait emotional intelligence; this
is in contrast to previous research as Malterer et al. (2008) found
a negative association between primary psychopathy and a mea-
sure of emotional intelligence, however, this association was quite
small. In relation to the mediation effect, it was not surprising that
secondary psychopathy negatively affected trait emotional intelli-
gence when considering that secondary psychopathy is character-
ised by features such as aggression and impulsivity.
Males were associated with higher scores of primary psychopa-
thy and Machiavellianism. This is consistent with self-report evi-
dence that indicates that males score higher than females in
psychopathy (e.g., Lilienfeld & Hess, 2001) and Machiavellianism
(e.g., McHoskey, 2001).
The results of the regressions highlight the importance of trait
emotional intelligence when it comes to explaining why individu-
als higher in secondary psychopathy interpret emotionally neutral
images in terms of negative affect; thus when individuals are
matched in trait emotional intelligence secondary psychopathy
no longer affects responses to neutral images. On the other hand,
Machiavellianism and state anxiety affect these responses inde-
pendently of trait emotional intelligence.
There are limitations to the current study, including the use of a
small, majority female, undergraduate sample, which may make
generalisability to other non-clinical groups difficult. Nevertheless,
undergraduate samples have the advantage of being relatively free
of severe Axis I disorders (e.g., major depressive disorder, alcohol
dependence), which could distort the reporting of enduring per-
sonality traits and personality disorder features (Lilienfeld & Pen-
na, 2001).
In the current study, only two of the basic emotions were used,
this study could be extended by also using surprised, disgusted, an-
gry, and fearful images. It appears that ambiguous images work the
best when predicting individual differences in the traits examined
in the current study. The use of static images and the low emo-
tional involvement of impersonal images may have limited the
validity of empathic responsiveness on behalf of participants; be-
cause emotions displayed in the real world vary in intensity and
content. Future studies could use less artificial means for invoking
emotional empathy such as video footage. To date, no studies have
762 F. Ali et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009) 758–762
measured autonomic responses to affective material in a non-clin-
ical sample with psychopathic traits; this may be worthwhile be-
cause clinical psychopathic samples have demonstrated reduced
autonomic responses to emotional stimuli.
It should also be noted that while copious research has investi-
gated deficits in facial emotion processing in psychopathy, to date,
apart from the current study, no study has investigated this in rela-
tion to Machiavellianism. This may be worthwhile, not only when
taking into account the results of the current study, but also previ-
ous research which has demonstrated that Machiavellianism is
associated with empathic deficits.
Despite these limitations, the current results suggest that even
in a small student sample, brief self-reports of constructs related to
emotional-processing deficits are predictive of individual differ-
ences in emotional reactions to images of neutral emotional
valence.
We hope that the current study will encourage further research
into aversive personality traits and emotional deficits in non-clin-
ical populations and the use of studies that do not rely solely on
self-report inventories. Continuing research into the emotional
deficits manifested in aversive personality traits such as psychop-
athy and Machiavellianism may facilitate a greater understanding
of both non-clinical and clinical psychopathology.
References
Austin, E. J., Farrelly, D., Black, C., & Moore, H. (2007). Emotional intelligence,
Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation: Does EI have a dark side?
Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 179–189.
Austin, E. J., Saklofske, D. H., & Egan, V. (2005). Personality, well-being and health
correlates of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences,
38, 547–558.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Blair, R. J. R. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to morality: Investigating
the psychopath. Cognition, 57, 1–29.
Blair, R. J. R. (1999). Responsiveness to distress cues in the child with psychopathic
tendencies. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 135–145.
Blair, R. J. R. (2005). Responding to the emotions of others: Dissociating forms of
empathy through the study of typical and psychiatric populations.
Consciousness and Cognition, 14, 698–718.
Bradley, M., & Lang, P. (1994). Measuring emotion: The Self-Assessment Manikin
and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental
Psychiatry, 1, 49–59.
Brown, L. M., Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (2006). Affective reactions to pictures of
ingroup and outgroup members. Biological Psychology, 71, 303–311.
Christie, R. (1970). Why Machiavelli? In R. Christie & F. Geis (Eds.), Studies in
Machiavellianism (pp. 1–9). New York: Academic Press.
Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Cleckley, H. (1988). The mask of sanity (5th ed.). Augusta, GA: Emily S. Cleckley
(Original work published 1941).
Dadds, M. R., Perry, Y., Hawes, D. J., Merz, S., Riddell, A. C., Haines, D. J., et al. (2006).
Attention to the eyes and fear-recognition deficits in child psychopathy. The
British Journal of Psychiatry, 189, 280–281.
Danziger, N., Prkachin, K. M., & Willer, J. (2006). Is pain the price of empathy? The
perception of others’ pain in patients with congenital insensitivity to pain.
Brain, 129, 2494–2507.
Del Gaizo, A. L., & Falkenbach, D. M. (2008). Primary and secondary psychopathic-
traits and their relationship to perception and experience of emotion.
Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 206–212.
Fehr, B., Samsom, D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1992). The construct of Machiavellianism:
Twenty years later. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.). Advances in
personality assessment (Vol. 9, pp. 77–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised. North Tonawanda, NY:
Multi-Health Systems.
Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and
justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
House, T. H., & Milligan, W. L. (1976). Autonomic responses to modeled distress
in prison psychopaths. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34,
556–560.
Kirsch, L. G., & Becker, J. V. (2007). Emotional deficits in psychopathy and sexual
sadism: Implications for violent and sadistic behavior. Clinical Psychology
Review, 27, 904–922.
Lang, P. J. (1995). The emotion probe: Studies of motivation and attention. American
Psychologist, 50, 372–385.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in
the five-factor model and the HEXACO model of personality structure.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1571–1582.
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic
attributes in a noninstitutionalised population. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 151–158.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Hess, T. H. (2001). Psychopathic personality traits and
somatization: Sex differences and the mediating role of negative
emotionality. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23, 11–24.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Penna, S. (2001). Anxiety sensitivity: Relations to psychopathy,
DSM-IV personality disorder features, and personality traits. Journal of Anxiety
Disorders, 15, 367–393.
Losoya, S. H., & Eisenberg, N. (2001). Affective empathy. In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri
(Eds.), Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 21–43). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mahmut, M. K., Homewood, J., & Stevenson, R. J. (2008). The characteristics of non-
criminals with high psychopathy traits: Are they similar to criminal
psychopaths? Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 679–692.
Malterer, M. B., Glass, S. J., & Newman, J. P. (2008). Psychopathy and trait emotional
intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 735–745.
Mavroveli, S., Petrides, K. V., Rieffe, C., & Bakker, F. (2007). Trait emotional
intelligence, psychological well-being, and peer-rated social competence in
adolescence. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25, 263–275.
McHoskey, J. W. (2001). Machiavellianism and personality dysfunction. Personality
and Individual Differences, 31, 791–798.
McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998). Machiavellianism and
Psychopathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 192–210.
Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary
model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 523–599.
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of
Personality, 40, 525–543.
Montagne, B., van Honk, J., Kessels, R. P. C., Frigerio, E., Burt, M., van Zandvoort, M. J.
E., et al. (2005). Reduced efficiency in recognising fear in subjects scoring high
on psychopathic personality characteristics. Personality and Individual and
Differences, 38, 5–11.
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism,
Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36,
556–563.
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2006). User manual of the trait emotional intelligence
questionnaire (TEIQue). University of London: Institute of Education.
Richardson, D. R., Hammock, G. S., Smith, S. M., & Gardner, W. (1994). Empathy as a
cognitive inhibitor of interpersonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 20,
275–289.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Conston, T., Greeson, C., & Jedlicka, C. (2001).
Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. Journal of Social Psychology,
141, 523–536.
Skeem, J. L., Poythress, N., Edens, J. F., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Cale, E. M. (2003).
Psychopathic personality or personalities? Exploring potential variants of
psychopathy and their implications for risk assessment. Aggression & Violent
Behavior, 8, 513–546.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations
models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290–312). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. D. (1970). STAI manual for the state-
trait anxiety inventory (‘‘self evaluation questionnaire”). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Vernon, P. A., Villani, C. V., Vickers, L. C., & Harris, J. A. (2008). A behavioral genetic
investigation of the Dark Triad and the Big 5. Personality and Individual
Differences, 44, 445–452.
Wastell, C., & Booth, A. (2003). Machiavellianism: An alexithymic perspective.
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22, 730–744.
Wheeler, J. G., George, W. H., & Dahl, B. J. (2002). Sexually aggressive college males:
Empathy as a moderator in the ‘‘Confluence Model” of sexual aggression.
Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 759–775.
Williams, K. M., & Paulhus, D. L. (2004). Factor structure of the self report
psychopathy scale (SRP-II) in non-forensic samples. Personality and Individual
Differences, 37, 765–778.