Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
Personal Disord. 2012 Jul;3(3):327-40. doi: 10.1037/a0026987.
Based on their 2011 meta-analysis of the correlates of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI), Miller and Lynam (An examination of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory's nomological network: A meta-analytic review, Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 305-326) conclude that its Fearless Dominance (PPI-FD) higher-order dimension exhibits weak construct validity, leading them to question the relevance of boldness to the conceptualization and assessment of psychopathy. We examine their assertions in light of the clinical, conceptual, and empirical literatures on psychopathy. We demonstrate that Miller and Lynam's assertions (a) are sharply at odds with evidence that well-validated psychopathy measures detect both secondary and primary subtypes, the latter of which is linked to social poise and immunity to psychological distress, (b) are inconsistent with most classic clinical descriptions of psychopathy, in which fearless dominance plays a key role, (c) presume an a priori nomological network of psychopathy that leaves scant room for adaptive functioning and renders psychopathy largely equivalent to antisocial personality disorder as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (d) are premised on a misunderstanding of the role of Cleckley's "mask" of healthy adjustment in psychopathy, and (e) are contradicted by data-some reported elsewhere by Miller and Lynam themselves-that PPI-FD is moderately to highly associated with scores on several well-validated psychopathy measures, as well as with personality traits and laboratory markers classically associated with psychopathy. A scientific approach to psychopathy requires the question of whether its subdimensions are linked to adaptive functioning to be adjudicated by data, not by fiat.
基于他们 2011 年对精神病态人格量表（PPI）相关性的元分析，米勒和莱纳姆（《精神病态人格量表的效标网络的检验：元分析综述》，《人格障碍：理论、研究和治疗》，第 3 卷，第 305-326 页）得出结论，其无畏支配（PPI-FD）高阶维度表现出较弱的结构有效性，这使他们对大胆与精神病态的概念化和评估的相关性产生了质疑。我们根据精神病态的临床、概念和实证文献来审查他们的主张。我们表明，米勒和莱纳姆的主张（a）与证据完全不一致，这些证据表明，经过良好验证的精神病态测量方法既可以检测到次要亚型，也可以检测到主要亚型，后者与社会沉着和对心理困扰的免疫力有关，（b）与大多数经典的精神病态临床描述不一致，在这些描述中，无畏支配起着关键作用，（c）假设精神病态的先验效标网络几乎没有为适应性功能留出空间，从而使精神病态在很大程度上等同于《精神障碍诊断与统计手册》中定义的反社会人格障碍，（d）基于对克莱克利“健康适应的面具”在精神病态中的作用的误解，（e）与数据相矛盾——其中一些数据是米勒和莱纳姆自己在其他地方报告的——PPI-FD 与几个经过良好验证的精神病态测量方法的得分以及人格特质和实验室标志物与精神病态的经典关联呈中度到高度相关。对精神病态的科学方法要求通过数据而不是命令来裁决其亚维度是否与适应性功能相关的问题。
