Scientists Found That Different Psychopathic Traits Are Linked to Different Ways of Seeing Yourself

People with higher levels of psychopathic traits tend to think about themselves in systematically different ways, but those differences depend on which psychopathic characteristics are most prominent. The paper, titled "Psychopathy and Self-Construal: Trait-Specific Associations With Independent and Interdependent Self-Construal," was authored by David A. Lishner and colleagues, adding a nuanced chapter to the ongoing effort to unpack the complex psychology of psychopathy.

Published in Social and Personality Psychology Compass, the study found that emotionally callous traits were linked to weaker social identity, while boldness was associated with a stronger sense of personal independence. The findings suggest that psychopathy is not a single, uniform personality profile but a collection of traits that relate differently to how people define themselves and their relationships with others.

Understanding Psychopathy

Psychopathy is generally characterized by low empathy, shallow emotional responses, manipulative behavior, and disregard for social rules.

People with elevated psychopathic traits often prioritize personal gain over the well-being of others and may derive satisfaction from dominance rather than cooperation.

Although these characteristics are widely recognized, psychologists continue to debate how psychopathy should be conceptualized and measured.

One commonly used framework is the four-factor model, which divides psychopathy into affective traits, interpersonal manipulation, impulsive lifestyle tendencies, and antisocial behavior.

Affective traits include emotional coldness and lack of guilt, while interpersonal traits involve grandiosity and superficial charm used to manipulate others.

Another widely used framework is the triarchic model, which focuses on three dimensions: meanness, disinhibition, and boldness.

Meanness reflects a lack of empathy and emotional attachment, disinhibition refers to poor impulse control, and boldness captures confidence, fearlessness, and social dominance. Individuals may display these dimensions in different combinations.

The researchers argue that treating psychopathy as a single overall construct can obscure important differences between its individual components, particularly when examining how people perceive themselves.

What Is Self-Construal?

The study focused on self-construal, a psychological concept describing how people define themselves in relation to others.

Independent self-construal emphasizes individuality, personal achievements, and unique characteristics. Someone with a highly independent self-view may primarily describe themselves using traits such as ambitious, creative, or self-reliant.

Interdependent self-construal emphasizes social relationships and belonging.

Researchers distinguish between relational self-construal, which centers on close personal relationships such as being a partner, friend, or family member, and collective self-construal, which reflects identification with larger groups such as professions, national identity, or social communities.

Previous studies examining psychopathy and self-construal have produced inconsistent findings, partly because they measured psychopathy differently and often failed to separate its individual traits.

How the Study Was Conducted

The study was led by David A. Lishner of the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh together with collaborators from several institutions.

The researchers conducted three related studies involving a combined sample of 446 undergraduate students in the United States.

Participants completed validated questionnaires measuring psychopathy using both the four-factor and triarchic models.

This allowed the researchers to examine specific traits—including callousness, manipulativeness, meanness, disinhibition, and boldness—rather than relying solely on an overall psychopathy score.

To assess self-construal, participants completed standardized questionnaires measuring independent, relational, and collective identity.

They also completed the classic Twenty Statements Test by writing responses to the prompt "I am," which were later categorized by independent judges.

The researchers used statistical models that accounted for sex and overlapping personality characteristics to better isolate the unique relationships between individual psychopathic traits and different forms of self-construal.

Callousness Was Linked to Weaker Social Identity

The strongest pattern emerged for emotional callousness and its closely related triarchic counterpart, meanness.

Participants with higher levels of callousness consistently reported lower interdependent self-construal, meaning they were less likely to define themselves through close relationships or social group memberships.

The relationship was particularly strong for relational self-construal.

Individuals scoring high on callousness were less likely to describe themselves in terms of roles such as friend, partner, or family member, suggesting weaker integration of close interpersonal relationships into their identity.

The researchers note that this finding fits with broader evidence indicating that emotional coldness and reduced empathy may interfere with forming deep, mutually supportive relationships.

Boldness Was Associated With Greater Independence

A different pattern emerged for boldness.

Participants with higher boldness scores were much more likely to display stronger independent self-construal, viewing themselves as autonomous, self-directed, and distinct from others.

Previous research has linked boldness with confidence, resilience, leadership, and reduced anxiety in non-clinical populations.

However, when combined with other psychopathic characteristics such as meanness or disinhibition, boldness may also contribute to greater risk-taking or exploitative behavior.

The remaining psychopathic traits showed weaker and less consistent relationships with self-construal.

Manipulative interpersonal traits were modestly associated with lower independent self-construal, while disinhibition showed small negative associations with both independent and relational aspects of identity.

These findings suggest that different psychopathic traits may influence self-concept in distinct ways rather than producing a single psychological profile.

Why Different Measures Produced Different Results

Interestingly, the strongest associations appeared on standardized self-report questionnaires rather than on the open-ended Twenty Statements Test.

When participants freely described themselves, most focused on personal characteristics, leaving relatively little variation in relational or collective identities.

The authors suggest this likely reflects the highly individualistic cultural context of American college students rather than the absence of genuine psychological differences.

They also note that the two assessment methods capture different aspects of identity.

Questionnaires measure people's broader, reflective beliefs about themselves, whereas the Twenty Statements Test captures whichever aspects of identity come to mind most readily at a given moment.

Limitations and Future Research

The researchers caution that several limitations should be considered.

The participants were all undergraduate students from a highly individualistic culture, and most displayed relatively low to moderate levels of psychopathic traits.

The findings therefore may not generalize to older adults, community samples, or people diagnosed with psychopathic personality disorder or those in forensic settings.

Because the study relied on self-report questionnaires, responses may also have been influenced by social desirability or deliberate impression management.

Future studies could examine whether these relationships differ across cultures where collective identity plays a larger role or among individuals with clinically significant psychopathic traits.

Longitudinal research may also help determine whether psychopathic traits shape identity development over time or whether certain styles of self-definition increase the likelihood of developing psychopathic characteristics.

Despite these limitations, the findings provide a more detailed picture of how specific psychopathic traits relate to identity. Rather than treating psychopathy as a single construct, the study suggests that emotional callousness is associated with weaker social identity, whereas boldness reinforces a more independent self-concept. The authors suggest this trait-specific perspective may ultimately improve risk assessment, intervention strategies, and understanding of how people with elevated psychopathic traits perceive themselves and others.

Article prepared by Dr. Alex Morgan.