Two studies were conducted to uncover the factor structure of the Self-Report Psychopathy (SRP-II) scale in non-forensic samples. In Study 1 (N=289 students), the full 60 items yielded two large factors explaining 21% of the variance. The first factor was a combination of anti-social behavior, impulsivity, and interpersonal manipulation. The second factor resembled the Big Five factor of emotional stability. These factors do not correspond well with the traditional Behavior and Personality factors found in forensic work. Study 2 (N=356 students) examined the 31 items conceptually assigned to the Personality and Behavior factors by Hare, Harpur, and Hemphill (1989). Correlations with a comprehensive battery of delinquent behaviors indicated that only the Behavioral factor was predictive. The SRP-II total score (either 60 or 31 items) remains valid but its factor structure in non-forensic samples does not parallel that of the standard forensic instrument, the PCL-R.
Recently, researchers have taken up the task of applying the forensic concept of psychopathy to non-forensic, non-clinical populations (e.g., Forth, Brown, Hart, & Hare, 1996; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996; Lynam, Whiteside, & Jones, 1999; Reise & Oliver, 1994; Salekin, Trobst, & Krioukova, 2001; Widiger, 1998). Long before the advent of these scales, the necessity for identifying psychopaths whose behavior may not be extreme enough to warrant legal or clinical action had been noted (e.g., Millon, 1981). In fact, this conceptualization was implied in Cleckley’s (1941/1982) notion of the “successful psychopath”. Until recently, however, the topic has taken a back seat to the study of criminal psychopathy. The transported concept seems increasingly credible given the development of several self-report measures and evidence that they show substantial empirical convergence (Salekin et al., 2001).
Arguably the most important of these is Hare’s (1985) Self-Report Psychopathy scale (SRP-II). Although the total score of the SRP-II has proved to be a valid predictor in a variety of settings (e.g., Forth et al., 1996; Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Zagon & Jackson, 1994), there is no published information on the factor structure of the instrument.
