Low Neuroticism and Psychopathy: Why Low Negative Emotionality Is Not Psychopathy
Updated: Oct 8
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Low neuroticism is not psychopathy. A lower position on neuroticism—or on a closely related Big Five Negative Emotionality domain—describes a tendency toward less frequent or less intense distress-related emotion on average. Psychopathy is a different, multidimensional construct involving configurations of interpersonal, affective, and behavioral traits. Low neuroticism by itself is neither necessary nor sufficient for psychopathy.
The confusion is understandable because some psychopathy models contain a boldness or fearless-dominance component that is associated with lower neuroticism. But that overlap concerns one part of some psychopathy models, not psychopathy as a whole. Research repeatedly separates boldness from meanness or callous antagonism and from disinhibition or poor behavioral control. In Five-Factor Model research, the most consistent broad personality correlates of psychopathy are low Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness, while Neuroticism shows a more heterogeneous, component-dependent pattern (Lilienfeld et al., 2014; Decuyper et al., 2009).
This distinction matters in practice. A calm, emotionally steady, low-neuroticism person may be warm, empathic, cooperative, responsible, and strongly constrained by conscience. Another person may show psychopathic traits while also experiencing substantial anxiety, anger, distress, or other negative emotion. A Big Five score cannot establish psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, or any psychiatric diagnosis.
The short answer: low neuroticism and psychopathy are different constructs
In the Big Five personality model, neuroticism is a broad dimensional trait. Lower neuroticism generally corresponds to greater emotional stability: less dispositional worry, distress sensitivity, emotional volatility, and negative affectivity on average. Different instruments operationalize this territory differently. The NEO inventories use Neuroticism; the BFI-2 uses Negative Emotionality; IPIP measures can use related but nonidentical scales; Eysenck measures use their own Neuroticism dimension. Scores from these systems should not be treated as numerically interchangeable.
Psychopathy, by contrast, is not one pole of the Big Five Neuroticism dimension. It is studied through several partially overlapping models and instruments. The triarchic model, for example, separates psychopathy-related variation into boldness, meanness, and disinhibition (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009). The Psychopathic Personality Inventory tradition distinguishes fearless-dominance-related features from self-centered impulsive or antisocial features. The Psychopathy Checklist–Revised is a clinician-rated forensic instrument organized around a different measurement tradition. These measures do not simply ask whether someone is emotionally stable.
The safest rule is therefore simple: low neuroticism answers a question about a broad personality dimension; psychopathy answers a different question about a complex pattern of traits. A single Big Five domain cannot substitute for a psychopathy assessment.
What low neuroticism actually means
Low neuroticism describes a relative position on a continuous personality dimension. It does not mean the absence of fear, sadness, guilt, anxiety, anger, or grief. It does not mean emotional numbness. It does not mean low empathy. It does not mean recklessness. It does not mean antisocial behavior. It also does not mean that a person will remain calm in every situation.
Someone who is lower on neuroticism is, on average, more likely to show emotional steadiness and lower stress sensitivity than someone higher on the same construct. The word “lower” still requires a measurement context. A raw NEO score, a BFI-2 Negative Emotionality score, an IPIP score, and an Eysenck Neuroticism score have different item sets, scoring rules, norms, and sometimes different facet structures. There is no universal raw-score cutoff that converts a personality questionnaire into a category of “low neuroticism.” The full construct boundary is covered in Low Neuroticism: Meaning, Traits, Strengths, and Tradeoffs.
Negative Emotionality is also not the same thing as momentary negative affect. The BFI-2 uses Negative Emotionality as a broad personality-domain label, whereas negative affect can refer to a current emotional state, an average level of unpleasant affect, or a dispositional tendency depending on the measure. The distinction is important enough to have its own measurement boundary in Neuroticism vs Negative Affect: Trait, State, and Measurement.
What psychopathy means in contemporary research
Psychopathy is best understood as a multidimensional research and clinical construct rather than as a synonym for cruelty, criminality, fearlessness, or emotional calm. Its exact content varies somewhat across theoretical traditions and instruments, which is one reason claims about “the psychopath personality” need model-specific wording.
A major integrative framework is the triarchic model. It defines three phenotypic domains: boldness, involving social dominance, emotional resilience, and venturesomeness; meanness, involving callous or aggressive resource-seeking with weak affiliation; and disinhibition, involving deficient impulse control and poor regulation (Patrick et al., 2009; Patrick & Drislane, 2015). These domains are related but separable. Their external correlates differ, and studies consistently show that they cannot be reduced to one common emotional-stability axis.
Other psychopathy traditions divide the construct differently. Psychopathic Personality Inventory research commonly distinguishes Fearless Dominance from Self-Centered Impulsivity or closely related higher-order dimensions. A meta-analysis of the PPI found substantially different correlates for its factors and much weaker convergent validation for Fearless Dominance than for the impulsive-antisocial factor and total score (Miller & Lynam, 2012). That finding is part of a long-running scientific debate over how central boldness should be to psychopathy.
The construct is therefore heterogeneous by design and by measurement. Saying that one component can be low in neuroticism does not justify turning low neuroticism into a proxy for the entire construct.
Where the overlap comes from: boldness and fearless dominance
The strongest reason people connect low neuroticism with psychopathy is the boldness or fearless-dominance side of the literature. In Five-Factor Model analyses, boldness is often characterized by lower Neuroticism together with higher Extraversion and, in some studies, aspects of Openness. One study mapping the triarchic model onto the NEO PI-R found distinct Five-Factor profiles for boldness, meanness, and disinhibition (Poy et al., 2014). Later work similarly found large overlap between triarchic domains and broad Five-Factor traits, with boldness strongly represented by low Neuroticism plus high Extraversion, meanness by low Agreeableness, and disinhibition by low Conscientiousness (Hyatt et al., 2020).
PPI research shows the same kind of separation. Fearless Dominance has been predicted by low Neuroticism together with high Extraversion and Openness, whereas Impulsive Antisociality has been predicted by high Neuroticism together with low Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness (Ross et al., 2009). In other words, the same broad psychopathy literature contains a low-neuroticism component and a high-neuroticism component, depending on which dimension is being measured.
That single result already shows why “psychopathy = low neuroticism” fails. It erases the multidimensional structure of psychopathy and treats a correlate of one component as a definition of the whole construct.
Boldness is not the same as psychopathy
Even within psychopathy research, boldness is controversial. Some theorists regard fearless, socially dominant, stress-resistant characteristics as an important part of classical psychopathy. Others argue that boldness has weak relations with core harmful or antisocial criteria unless meanness or disinhibition is also present.
A study of the incremental effects of triarchic boldness found that boldness was generally unrelated to many prosocial or harmful criteria and rarely added predictive value beyond meanness and disinhibition, leading the authors to question its centrality (Gatner, Douglas, & Hart, 2016). By contrast, other work has defended the relevance of fearless dominance to classical descriptions of psychopathy (Lilienfeld et al., 2012). The existence of this debate is itself important: a feature that researchers dispute as a sufficient or central component of psychopathy cannot responsibly be treated as a diagnostic shortcut.
Recent research has continued to refine rather than erase this distinction. A 2025 study developed a Psychopathic Boldness Scale partly because conventional boldness measures can show weak associations with meanness, disinhibition, and antisocial outcomes (Marcus et al., 2025). A 2026 study showed that triarchic constructs can be statistically estimated from Five-Factor domain scores, but that kind of regression mapping is a research method: it does not make a low Neuroticism score equivalent to psychopathy in an individual person (Cheng et al., 2026).
Meanness and disinhibition are the missing dimensions in the low-neuroticism shortcut
The phrase “low neuroticism” says almost nothing by itself about the traits that make psychopathy clinically and socially distinctive. It does not tell us whether a person is callous, exploitative, deceitful, aggressive, irresponsible, impulsive, manipulative, or indifferent to other people’s welfare.
Within the triarchic model, meanness and disinhibition cover much of that territory. Meanness is strongly related to antagonistic and low-agreeableness traits. Disinhibition is strongly related to low conscientiousness and poor behavioral constraint. In a large Five-Factor comparison, the profiles corresponding to these domains showed distinct networks of associations even when they were statistically nested within general personality dimensions (Hyatt et al., 2020). Clinical-sample work likewise found meanness related to exploitative interpersonal pathology, disinhibition related to negative affect and poor behavioral constraint, and boldness related to lower negative affect and greater narcissistic traits (Ruchensky et al., 2022).
This means two people can both be low in neuroticism and still have radically different personality profiles. One may be emotionally stable, agreeable, conscientious, compassionate, and reliable. Another may be emotionally stable but antagonistic, callous, sensation-seeking, or unconstrained. Neuroticism alone cannot tell these profiles apart.
The broader Big Five profile of psychopathy
When psychopathy is translated into Five-Factor Model language, the strongest recurring signal is not simply low Neuroticism. Across measures and studies, low Agreeableness or high antagonism and low Conscientiousness or disinhibition are particularly robust.
A meta-analysis of 26 psychopathy samples totaling 6,913 participants found psychopathy negatively associated with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness facets, while neuroticism-related findings were more differentiated: psychopathy showed a small negative association with the Anxiety facet but positive associations with Angry Hostility and Impulsiveness (Decuyper et al., 2009). A personality-based review likewise concluded that psychopathy measures share low Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness, while disagreement is concentrated around adaptive-seeming features such as high agentic Extraversion, low Neuroticism, and high Openness (Lilienfeld et al., 2014).
Studies comparing self-report psychopathy instruments reach a similar conclusion. Measures can converge at the total-score level while diverging substantially in their subscales; across instruments, psychopathy has been represented by low Agreeableness, low Conscientiousness, and a mixture of high and low facets of Neuroticism and Extraversion (Derefinko & Lynam, 2006). A preregistered analysis of the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale also found that antagonism accounted for a large portion of the overlap among its subscales (Van Til et al., 2022).
This is why the “low neuroticism = psychopathy” idea is not merely incomplete. It points to the wrong level of personality structure. Psychopathy is a configuration across traits and facets, not a label attached to one Big Five pole.
Can someone with psychopathic traits have high neuroticism?
Yes. Some psychopathy dimensions and some psychopathy profiles are associated with substantial negative emotionality. This is particularly clear for impulsive-antisocial or disinhibited components, which can be associated with distress, anger, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and poor emotion regulation.
The contrast appears directly in PPI research: Fearless Dominance has been linked with lower Neuroticism, whereas Impulsive Antisociality has been linked with higher Neuroticism (Ross et al., 2009). A 2024 comprehensive meta-analysis of psychopathy in relation to anxiety and depression found substantial heterogeneity and showed that results depend strongly on which psychopathy dimension and measurement approach are used (Batky et al., 2024). That evidence is incompatible with a universal claim that psychopathy entails low anxiety, low depression, or low neuroticism.
Terms such as “primary” and “secondary” psychopathy have sometimes been used to describe lower-distress and higher-distress variants, but these labels depend on theoretical and measurement choices and should not be treated as fixed biological types. The more defensible conclusion is narrower: psychopathy-related traits can coexist with either lower or higher negative emotionality depending on the configuration being studied.
Low anxiety or fear does not establish psychopathy
Low neuroticism is often confused with low anxiety, and low anxiety is then confused with psychopathy. Each step collapses distinct constructs.
Anxiety can be a temporary state, a symptom, a trait-like disposition, or part of a diagnosed anxiety disorder. Neuroticism is a broader personality domain. Psychopathy is a multidimensional configuration. A person can be relatively calm under stress without being callous, exploitative, impulsive, or antisocial. Conversely, a person can show psychopathic traits while reporting substantial internalizing distress. The broader distinction between the Big Five trait and anxiety is explained in Neuroticism vs Anxiety: Personality Trait vs Emotional State and Disorder.
Low fear also has a narrower meaning than psychopathy. Experimental studies have linked diminished defensive responding especially to boldness rather than to all triarchic components. For example, deficient aversive-potentiated startle was uniquely associated with boldness in one laboratory study, not with meanness (Esteller, Poy, & Moltó, 2016). Such group-level psychophysiological associations do not function as individual diagnostic tests.
Low neuroticism does not mean low empathy, callousness, or lack of conscience
Neuroticism primarily concerns negative emotionality and stress sensitivity. Empathy, warmth, compassion, honesty, guilt, interpersonal concern, and moral behavior are not simply the opposite pole of neuroticism. They depend on other personality dimensions, learned values, social cognition, relationships, and context.
In general personality models, callous or antagonistic features map more directly onto low Agreeableness or antagonism than onto low Neuroticism. This is visible in both psychopathy meta-analyses and measure-specific work. The 2009 meta-analysis found strong negative associations between psychopathy and Agreeableness-related facets (Decuyper et al., 2009), and a preregistered study of the SRP-4 found all four subscales related to antagonism, with antagonistic facets accounting for much of their shared variance (Van Til et al., 2022).
A low-neuroticism person can therefore be deeply empathic and conscientious. Emotional stability is not emotional coldness.
Psychopathy is not the same as antisocial personality disorder
Another common shortcut is to treat psychopathy, antisocial personality disorder, and low neuroticism as interchangeable. They are not.
Antisocial personality disorder is an official DSM-5-TR diagnosis. The American Psychiatric Association describes it in terms of a pervasive pattern involving disregard for others’ rights, irresponsibility, unlawful or impulsive behavior, deceit, aggression, and related features (American Psychiatric Association). Psychopathy is a research and clinical construct that overlaps with antisocial personality disorder but is not identical to it; the APA has also explicitly noted that psychopathy is not a standalone DSM diagnosis and that the overlap is incomplete (APA discussion of psychopathy).
Neither psychopathy nor antisocial personality disorder can be inferred from a Big Five score. Personality-trait dimensions can help researchers describe statistical similarities among constructs, but diagnostic assessment requires the relevant clinical framework and evidence of the full pattern, severity, persistence, and functional consequences. For the broader trait-versus-diagnosis boundary, see Neuroticism and Personality Disorders: Dimensional Traits and Clinical Diagnosis.
Why measurement changes the answer
Questions such as “Are people with psychopathy low in neuroticism?” cannot be answered responsibly without asking which neuroticism measure and which psychopathy measure were used. Different instruments emphasize different components.
Big Five and Five-Factor instruments
The NEO PI-R and NEO-FFI measure Neuroticism within the NEO Five-Factor tradition. The BFI-2 uses the domain name Negative Emotionality and organizes the domain differently. IPIP-based instruments vary in length and scale construction. Eysenck Neuroticism belongs to a different personality model. Even when scores are strongly related, they should be interpreted with their own scoring method and normative context.
Triarchic Psychopathy Measure
The TriPM operationalizes boldness, meanness, and disinhibition. Its subscales should be interpreted separately as well as in relation to whatever total or composite a study uses. Low neuroticism most directly overlaps with boldness, not with meanness or disinhibition. Studies connecting TriPM scores with Five-Factor domains support that differential mapping (Poy et al., 2014; Hyatt et al., 2020).
Psychopathic Personality Inventory and PPI-R
The PPI tradition is particularly useful for seeing why total-score statements can mislead. Fearless Dominance tends to show lower Neuroticism, whereas the impulsive-antisocial side can show higher Neuroticism. A total psychopathy score can therefore hide opposing associations among subcomponents (Miller & Lynam, 2012; Ross et al., 2009).
PCL-R and forensic assessment
The Psychopathy Checklist–Revised belongs to a structured forensic assessment tradition and is not equivalent to a Big Five questionnaire or a casual self-test. Findings from forensic samples also should not be transferred automatically to community samples. Score interpretation depends on the instrument, population, training, and assessment context.
The general lesson is methodological: two studies can both use the word psychopathy while measuring somewhat different mixtures of boldness, callousness, interpersonal manipulation, disinhibition, and antisocial behavior. A study can also use the word neuroticism while relying on a different personality model. Model names and instruments are part of the result, not footnotes to be ignored.
A useful comparison: what each construct does and does not tell you
Low neuroticism tells you about a person’s relative tendency toward negative emotionality, stress sensitivity, and emotional instability within a specified personality model. It does not by itself tell you about empathy, honesty, cruelty, impulsivity, or antisocial behavior.
Triarchic boldness tells you about a combination of fearlessness, social potency or dominance, stress resilience, and venturesomeness within a particular psychopathy framework. It overlaps with low neuroticism but also involves other traits, especially extraversion-related characteristics.
Triarchic meanness tells you about callous, aggressive, low-affiliation tendencies. Its general-personality mapping is much closer to antagonism or low Agreeableness than to low neuroticism.
Triarchic disinhibition tells you about poor impulse control and weak behavioral constraint. Its general-personality mapping is closely related to low Conscientiousness and can coexist with elevated negative emotionality.
Antisocial personality disorder is a clinical diagnosis with diagnostic requirements. It is not a Big Five profile and cannot be diagnosed by a neuroticism score.
Psychopathy is a multidimensional construct whose operational definition depends on the model and instrument. No single Big Five domain is sufficient to identify it.
Does emotional stability ever become maladaptive?
The fact that low neuroticism is not psychopathy does not mean every possible expression of very low negative emotionality is beneficial in every context. Personality traits are dimensional, and extreme trait levels can interact with other traits and environments in complex ways. A very calm person who is also highly conscientious and agreeable may show excellent emotional regulation; a calm person who is simultaneously antagonistic and severely disinhibited may present a very different pattern.
Recent personality-pathology work has renewed interest in maladaptive variants at both poles of ordinary traits. A 2025 study on bipolarity in maladaptive personality traits argued that very low neuroticism can capture features relevant to some psychopathy formulations, but this does not turn ordinary emotional stability into pathology (Hines et al., 2026). The clinically meaningful pattern depends on the configuration, extremity, impairment, and associated traits.
This is why the companion article High vs Low Neuroticism: What the Difference Means treats both poles as positions on a continuum rather than moral categories.
What current evidence supports—and what it does not
Current evidence supports substantial overlap between psychopathy dimensions and general personality dimensions. It also supports the idea that lower neuroticism is part of some boldness or fearless-dominance profiles. It supports strong roles for antagonism and low conscientiousness in broader psychopathy profiles. It supports heterogeneity in the relation between psychopathy and internalizing symptoms.
The evidence does not support diagnosing psychopathy from low neuroticism, using emotional stability as a proxy for callousness, assuming that low-anxiety people are psychopathic, or assuming that everyone high in psychopathic traits is emotionally unreactive. It also does not support converting scores from one instrument directly into another without a validated method.
A 2025 preregistered meta-analysis of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment further illustrates the move toward trait-based, multidimensional construct validation rather than one-trait shortcuts (Phillips et al., 2025). The field increasingly asks which elements of psychopathy are being measured and how they connect to broader personality structure.
How to interpret a low neuroticism result without overreading it
If a personality test reports low neuroticism or low Negative Emotionality, interpret that result inside the test that produced it. Identify the instrument, score type, norms or comparison sample, scoring direction, and population. A percentile has meaning only relative to a reference distribution. A raw score has meaning only under that instrument’s scoring rules. A label such as “very low” may be a website’s convenience category rather than a clinically validated cutoff.
Then interpret the result at the correct level. A low neuroticism score can support statements such as “this questionnaire suggests lower-than-reference negative emotionality” or “the person endorsed fewer items reflecting worry, volatility, or distress sensitivity.” It cannot support statements such as “this person is a psychopath,” “this person lacks empathy,” “this person cannot have anxiety,” or “this person has antisocial personality disorder.”
If there is a real clinical concern—persistent exploitation, aggression, severe irresponsibility, repeated rights violations, dangerous impulsivity, or another pattern causing harm—the relevant question is not whether a Big Five score is low. The relevant question is what behavior and impairment are present and whether a qualified assessment is warranted.
Common myths about low neuroticism and psychopathy
Myth: Psychopaths are simply people with very low neuroticism
Psychopathy includes interpersonal, affective, and behavioral dimensions that low neuroticism does not measure. Low Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness are more consistently implicated across broad psychopathy profiles, while neuroticism varies by component.
Myth: Emotional stability means emotional coldness
Emotional stability concerns the tendency toward distress-related emotional reactivity. It does not measure warmth, attachment, empathy, compassion, or moral concern.
Myth: A fearless person is probably psychopathic
Fearlessness can occur for many reasons and is not sufficient for psychopathy. Even within the triarchic model, boldness is only one dimension, and its centrality remains debated.
Myth: Psychopathy always means low anxiety and depression
Psychopathy–internalizing associations vary substantially with the psychopathy dimension and instrument. The 2024 meta-analysis of anxiety and depression found measurement-related heterogeneity rather than a universal inverse relation (Batky et al., 2024).
Myth: A low Big Five score can diagnose a personality disorder
A Big Five result is a personality measurement result. It is not a diagnostic evaluation. Diagnosis requires disorder-specific clinical assessment.
FAQ
Does low neuroticism mean someone is a psychopath?
No. Low neuroticism describes lower negative emotionality or greater emotional stability within a personality model. Psychopathy is a multidimensional construct involving other traits, especially antagonistic/callous and disinhibited features. Low neuroticism alone cannot identify psychopathy.
Are people high in psychopathy always low in neuroticism?
No. Boldness or fearless-dominance components tend to relate to lower neuroticism, whereas impulsive-antisocial or disinhibited components can relate to higher neuroticism and greater internalizing distress. Results depend on the psychopathy model and measure.
Can someone have low neuroticism and high empathy?
Yes. Neuroticism and empathy are different constructs. A person can be emotionally stable and highly empathic, warm, cooperative, and conscientious.
Does low neuroticism mean a lack of fear?
No. Low neuroticism can be associated with lower average threat sensitivity or anxiety, but it does not mean fear is absent. Fearlessness is a narrower construct and is measured separately in psychopathy research.
Is psychopathy a Big Five personality trait?
No. Psychopathy is not one of the five broad Big Five domains. Researchers can represent psychopathy-related dimensions as configurations of Big Five traits and facets, but the construct is not equivalent to one Big Five trait.
Which Big Five traits are most associated with psychopathy?
Across broad psychopathy measures, low Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness are especially consistent. Neuroticism is more heterogeneous: lower neuroticism is characteristic of boldness/fearless-dominance components, while other psychopathy components can involve higher neuroticism or specific high-neuroticism facets.
Is psychopathy the same as antisocial personality disorder?
No. The constructs overlap, but antisocial personality disorder is an official clinical diagnosis and psychopathy is a separate research and clinical construct with a stronger emphasis in many models on interpersonal and affective traits.
Can a low-neuroticism test score rule out anxiety or depression?
No. Personality traits and clinical disorders are different levels of assessment. A broad personality score cannot diagnose or rule out an anxiety or depressive disorder.
Can a Big Five test diagnose psychopathy?
No. Big Five measures describe broad personality traits. Researchers can use validated trait-based models to study psychopathy-related configurations, but an ordinary Big Five test is not a psychopathy diagnostic instrument.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. What Are Personality Disorders? Psychiatry.org.
Batky, B. D., et al. (2024). Psychopathy measurement practices moderate psychopathy’s association with anxiety and depression: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 111, 102448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102448.
Cheng, G., Wang, S., Wang, W., Cheng, C., & Guo, P. (2026). Developing a regression-based method for estimating triarchic model constructs using five-factor model domains scores. Personality and Individual Differences, 257, 113794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2026.113794.
Decuyper, M., De Pauw, S., De Fruyt, F., De Bolle, M., & De Clercq, B. J. (2009). A meta-analysis of psychopathy-, antisocial PD- and FFM associations. European Journal of Personality, 23(7), 531–565. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.729.
Derefinko, K. J., & Lynam, D. R. (2006). Convergence and divergence among self-report psychopathy measures: A personality-based approach. Journal of Personality Disorders, 20(3), 261–280. PubMed.
Drislane, L. E., Brislin, S. J., Jones, S., & Patrick, C. J. (2018). Interfacing five-factor model and triarchic conceptualizations of psychopathy. Psychological Assessment, 30(6), 834–840. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000544.
Esteller, À., Poy, R., & Moltó, J. (2016). Deficient aversive-potentiated startle and the triarchic model of psychopathy: The role of boldness. Biological Psychology, 117, 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2016.03.012.
Gatner, D. T., Douglas, K. S., & Hart, S. D. (2016). Examining the incremental and interactive effects of boldness with meanness and disinhibition within the triarchic model of psychopathy. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7(3), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000182.
Hines, A., Southward, M. W., Sauer-Zavala, S., & Widiger, T. A. (2026). Bipolarity of maladaptive personality traits in the alternative model of personality disorders. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 17(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000746.
Hyatt, C. S., Crowe, M. L., Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2020). Components of the Triarchic Model of Psychopathy and the Five-Factor Model domains share largely overlapping nomological networks. Assessment, 27(1), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119860903.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Benning, S. D., Berg, J., Sellbom, M., & Edens, J. F. (2012). The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: Confusions, controversies, and clarifications. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(3), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026987.
Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., Smith, S. F., Berg, J. M., & Latzman, R. D. (2014). Psychopathy deconstructed and reconstructed: Identifying and assembling the personality building blocks of Cleckley’s chimera. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 593–610. PubMed.
Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2015). Psychopathy from a basic trait perspective: The utility of a Five-Factor Model approach. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 611–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12132.
Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2007). Using a general model of personality to identify the basic elements of psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(2), 160–178. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2007.21.2.160.
Marcus, D. K., Lambros, A. M., Nagel, M. G., Ploe, M. L., Monaghan, K. L., & French, B. F. (2025). Construction and preliminary validation of a Psychopathic Boldness Scale in college and online samples. Psychological Assessment, 37(5), 249–259. PubMed.
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2012). An examination of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory’s nomological network: A meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(3), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024567.
Patrick, C. J., & Drislane, L. E. (2015). Triarchic Model of Psychopathy: Origins, operationalizations, and observed linkages with personality and general psychopathology. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 627–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12119.
Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21(3), 913–938. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000492.
Phillips, N. L., Rose, L., Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (2025). Elemental Psychopathy Assessment’s nomological net: A meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000728.
Poy, R., Segarra, P., Esteller, À., López, R., & Moltó, J. (2014). FFM description of the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy in men and women. Psychological Assessment, 26(1), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034642.
Ross, S. R., Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Thompson, A., & Thurston, A. (2009). Factors of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory: Criterion-related validity and relationship to the BIS/BAS and Five-Factor models of personality. Assessment, 16(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191108322207.
Ruchensky, J. R., Donnellan, M. B., Hopwood, C. J., Edens, J. F., Skodol, A. E., & Morey, L. C. (2022). A comparison of two Five-Factor Model operationalizations of the Triarchic Model of Psychopathy in a clinical sample. Assessment, 29(7), 1496–1506. https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211006186.
Van Til, K., Vize, C., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2022). Agreeableness explains the factor structure of the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, Fourth Edition. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 13(2), 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000493.