Bachelor thesis
Relationships between Psychopathy and Attachment Behavior:
Mediating Roles of
Emotional Reactivity and Emotional Cut off
Franziska Yasrebi
Student ID: 10323627 Universiteit van Amsterdam Supervisor: Dr. H.J. Conradi Word count abstract: 115 Word count: 7000
Abstract
Relationships between primary / secondary psychopathy and attachment behavior and the mediating roles of emotional reactivity and emotional cut off were investigated in a group of 434 psychology undergraduates. Participants completed the Experiences in
Close Relationships Scale (attachment), the Differentiation of Self Inventory (emotion regulation), and the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory in a cross-sectional design.
Attachment avoidance was partly found to be positively associated with primary psychopathy and fully associated with secondary psychopathy. Attachment anxiety was not found to be associated with psychopathy. These findings may suggest that specifically avoidant attachment may contribute to psychopathic traits. However, no causal conclusion can be drawn and the mediating role of emotion regulation needs to be investigated further.
Introduction
Psychopathy is a severe and chronic disruptive personality disorder, characterized by poor empathy, with a prevalence of approximately 1% of the general population (Dawel, O’Kearney, McKone, & Palermo, 2012). Hare (1996) already stated that according to him psychopaths are the most destructive and dangerous members of society (Moreira, Almeida, Pinto, & Favero, 2015). Psychopathic traits are found to be associated with increased criminality, violent behavior, suicide attempts and homelessness (Dawel et al., 2012). Therefore, it is beneficial for the public to accumulate empirical knowledge of how psychopathy can be prevented and treated. Accordingto Hare this is especially important, since so far psychopaths seem not to be treatable (Moreira et al., 2015).
Bowlby already theorized that having a poor attachment would lead an individual to become detached, cold and affectionless, or hyperactivated, over reactive and impulsive in
order to elicit proximity and support from others and ensure their availability (Wei, Vogel, Ku, Robyn, & Zakalik, 2005; Lopez et al., 2001; Allen, 2013). Chronic emotional detachment and the inability to form and maintain strong relational bonds are central features of the classical description of psychopathy (Savard et al., 2015). Therefore attachment is a plausible etiological factor of psychopathy that needs to be studied.
Psychopathy
The concept of psychopathy has been studied over many decades. The construct results from a set of disruptive personality traits, and antisocial behavior. Despite the fact that researchers did not reach consent yet about the definition of psychopathy, all seem to agree on its main characteristics, i.e. impulsivity and lack of feelings of guilt or regret (Moreira et al., 2015). Hare originally developed a two-factor model of psychopathy assessed with the
Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PCL). Factor one consists of the interpersonal and
affective traits and factor two of the behavioral traits (Allen, 2013). In the literature these factors are frequently referred to as primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy. Primary psychopathy includes traits such as grandiosity, shallowness of emotions,
manipulativeness, lack of remorse, low anxiety and secondary psychopathy includes behavior such as impulsivity and irresponsibility (Savard, 2015). The two dimensions are consistent with the dual-process model of psychopathy that implies that each dimension possesses its own etiology, and distinguishes criminal from noncriminal psychopaths. For instance Schulreich, Pfabigan, Derntl and Sailer (2013) found only primary psychopathy to be associated with impaired feedback processing, which indicates that deficits in behavioral adaptation in individuals high on primary psychopathy are the result of fear deficits. Consequently, it is important to assess psychopathy with its different factors, primary and secondary psychopathy. There are also three and four factor models of psychopathy, which are basically further differentiations within the original two-factor model (Allen, 2013).
There are several theories on how psychopathy develops. Nevertheless, neither neurological theories, nor genetic theories, nor theories about the gene-environment interaction were able to give a clear cut answer on the question why some individuals will and some will not develop psychopathy. In 1944 Bowlby published a case series study of 44 children, who were involved in stealing behavior. Bowlby found a specific subgroup of 14 offenders, which he described as ‘affectionless psychopaths’, was disturbed in developing appropriate social relationships and noticed they had experienced a distinctive early
separation from their primary caregiver. Therefore he hypothesized that loss and separation of a primary caregiver was explaining the children’s disturbance and he argued that the quality of our early relationships shapes our self-image, general expectations, trustworthiness and dependability on others (Lopez, Mauricio, Gormley, Simko, & Berger, 2001). Recent studies do also draw attention to the importance of early parental bonding in relation to adult psychopathy (Gao, Raine, Chan, Venables, & Mednick, 2009).
Attachment, Emotion regulation and Behavior
Bowlby’s attachment theory (1969/1982) has become the most important conceptual framework for understanding relational behavior. According to Bowlby human beings have an evolutionary designed disposition to seek and maintain proximity to an attachment figure in order to enhance security. This goal directed behavior coupled with the quality of our primary caregivers’ availability and responsiveness is setting the stage for predictable cognitive, emotional and relational behavioral processes. Through early experiences with a primary caregiver, internal working models (IWM) of self and others are formed (Collins, 1996). Over time the content of these IWM’s becomes more generalized beliefs and
expectations about the availability and responsiveness of others and about the worthiness of the self (Collins, 1996).
Since Ainsworth first proposed the concept of attachment styles in 1967, there have been several classifications of attachment styles. What all seem to agree on is a
differentiation between securely and insecurely attached individuals. Securely attached individuals experience a responsive and available caregiver in times of need and therefore feel sure to seek proximity to their caregiver and use them as a safe haven during infancy (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Conversely, infants that do not experience a caregiver that is consistently available and responsive will tend to be anxious about being rejected or abandoned and related security and become so called insecurely attached.
Recently it became evident that there are two orthogonal dimensions of insecurity: avoidance of intimacy and anxiety about rejection and abandonment. If the caregiver does not appropriately respond to the infant’s distress the child may adapt in one of two ways. The earlier mentioned goal-directed behavior will be either chronically deactivated or
hyperactivated (Fuendeling, 1998; Dozier & Kobak, 1992). Attachment avoidance is
characterized by discomfort with closeness and dependence on others and attachment anxiety is characterized by the strong desire of closeness and protection. Avoidantly attached
individuals were found to use deactivating strategies to deal with insecurity and distress and anxiously attached individuals were found to use hyperactivating strategies (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). The deactivating strategy is characterized by suppressing one’s attachment needs, a more general denial of feelings, the tendency to avoid and suppress awareness of problems and distance from others in order to avoid frustration caused by others’ earlier experienced consistent unavailability and rejection of attachment needs or sometimes overprotection. The second type, the hyperactivating strategy, is characterized by an overreaction to one’s attachment fears in order to elicit proximity and support from others and ensure their availability (Wei, Vogel, Ku, Robyn, & Zakalik, 2005; Lopez et al., 2001). This strategy seems related to earlier experiences with caregivers that show inconsistent
availability and responsiveness or attentive caregivers, who respond to a child’s overreaction to negative emotions (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). Individuals that score low on both dimensions fall into the category of securely attached individuals. They show trust in their partner and expectations of partner’s availability and responsiveness. They feel comfortable with both autonomy and interdependence and have the ability to cope with threats in a constructive manner (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).
Since the expression of negative emotions (deactivation or hyperactivation) was found to be directly linked to the two dimensions of attachment and to play a crucial role in the earlier described goal-directed behavior in order to enhance security, research on differences in emotion regulation is of great interest. Wei et al. (2005) conducted more detailed research on different emotion regulation strategies as a mediator between the two dimensions of adult attachment and interpersonal problems. Interpersonal problems are for example being needy, cold, lonely or hostile. They postulated emotion regulation strategies as emotional reactivity and emotional cut off. These two dimensions can be used as the index of the two maladaptive emotion regulation strategies (hyperactivation / deactivation) and do assess emotion
regulation more in general (more independent of experiences in romantic relationships compared to hyper / deactivation strategies). Attachment avoidance was found to be
positively associated with emotional cut off, but not with emotional reactivity. This is in line with the earlier explained expression, i.e. suppression, of emotions by avoidantly attached individuals. Wei et al. (2005) found attachment anxiety to be positively associated with emotional reactivity, but not with emotional cut off. This is in line with the earlier explained expression, i.e. intensification, of emotions by anxiously attached individuals. For the mediation Wei’s results indicated that attachment anxiety’s contribution to interpersonal problems was partially mediated through emotional reactivity and attachment avoidance’s contribution was partially mediated through emotional cut off.
Attachment and Psychopathy
Follan and Minnis (2009) revisited Bowlby’s (1944) study and replicated it. They found loss and separation and early childhood experiences like abuse and neglect to be associated with affectionless psychopathy and Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) in both studies. RAD is a psychiatric disorder characterized by a disturbance in the capacity to develop appropriate social relationships, mainly as a consequence of parental neglect, pathogenic care or serious mishandling in the early years. Follan and Minnis (2009) argue that RAD can be seen as the contemporary equivalent of Bowlby’s description of
affectionless psychopaths. RAD is characterized by behavioral disturbances, apathy, aggression towards self and others and poor social interactions that can as well be found in psychopathic adults. In line with this are Campbell, Porter and Santor’s (2004) findings in a sample of male and female incarcerated adolescent offenders, revealing higher levels of psychopathy being associated with the experience of physical abuse (Abusive Experiences
Questionnaire) and with a history of non-parental living arrangements (foster care). A
comparison of psychopathic and non-psychopathic inmates using the Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) did also reveal that significantly more of the psychopathic inmates reported
experiencing parental indifferences or neglect, poor parental supervision and poor parental discipline (Marshall & Cooke 1999, retrieved from Patrick, 2005). Krischer and Sevecke (2008) distinguished primary and secondary psychopathy and found emotional neglect in juvenile girls (Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; CTQ) to be associated with secondary psychopathy and physical abuse and emotional abuse in juvenile boys (CTQ) to be associated with primary and secondary psychopathy. This suggests that early environmental factors may have a different impact on girls than on boys and that, as mentioned earlier, differentiating between primary and secondary psychopathy is relevant.
Abuse, neglect, poor parental supervision, poor parental discipline and foster care were found to be associated with psychopathy. Since parental inconsistent availability and responsiveness (resulting in hyperactivation) and consistent unavailability and
unresponsiveness (resulting in deactivation) are known to contribute to the development of insecure attachment (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007), psychopathy in turn should be found to be positively associated with insecure attachment.
As expected Kosson, Cyterski, Steuerwald, Neuman, & Walker-Mathew (2002) found indications that insecure parental attachment (Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment;
IPPA) of delinquent adolescents was associated with higher scores on the Psychopathy Checklist Youth Version (PCL: YV) compared to securely attached peers. However, Frodi,
Dernevik, Sepa, Philipson and Bragesjö (2001) found no association between attachment state of mind (Adult Attachment Interview; AAI) and the degree of psychopathy (Psychopathy
Checklist Revised: screening version; PCL-R: SV) in a sample of 14 psychopathic criminal
offenders. This might be due to the narrow range in psychopathy scores (9-19, on scale ranging from 0-24) or simply to a lack of power due to a relatively small sample. Moreover, they found all individuals to appear insecurely attached with 64 percent falling into the category of dismissing attachment (high scores on the dimension of avoidance), resulting in a relatively homogenous sample and the absence of a comparison group. An equally distributed range of different attachment styles, a balanced amount of insecurely versus securely attached individuals or a dimensional measure of attachment would be necessary to draw a valid conclusion about the association of current mental attachment and psychopathy. Findings of Flight and Forth (2007) again confirmed the supposed positive relationship between insecure attachment (IPPA) and psychopathy (PCL-YV) in a sample of incarcerated adolescents. They differentiated between maternal and paternal attachment and found only insecure paternal
attachment to be positively related to psychopathy. However, the conclusion of this study has to be treated with caution, since it is based on the data from a small sample (N = 51).
To draw more valid conclusions bigger samples are needed in order to have sufficient power to detect an effect. The above-discussed studies have investigated criminal/ antisocial/ offending populations. These populations are relevant for several reasons, the prevalence of psychopathy is higher within these populations compared to the general population (Frodi et al, 2001; Krischer & Sevecke, 2008; Savard et al., 2015), consequently, a sample of medium size would reach sufficient power to investigate the relationship between psychopathy and attachment. Moreover, psychopaths within this population cause more harm to the society than non-criminal individuals with high psychopathy scores. However, it is problematic to get access to offending samples. Consequently, it is difficult to accumulate enough data for medium sized samples, therefore convenience samples from the general population can be used to investigate associations between attachment and psychopathy. Nonetheless, due to the lower prevalence of psychopathy much bigger samples are needed to get enough power and problems with restriction of range on the psychopathy measure need to be taken into account.
In a community sample of 333 men and women Gao, Raine, Chan, Venables and Mednick (2010) found poor parental bonding (PBI) and childhood physical abuse (Conflict
Tactics Scale-Modified) to be positively associated with psychopathy (PCL-R). Especially
low maternal care and lack of paternal involvement and regulatory control were found to be key aspect of bonding and emotional detachment associated with psychopathy.
The operationalization of early attachment with instruments like the PBI means introducing an inevitable retrospective bias, since early attachment needs to be retrieved from the subjects’ memory (Koppen, 2010). This shortcoming can be overcome with a longitudinal design, by measuring attachment in early childhood and assessing caregiver’s responsiveness
through observation or self-report measures. However, longitudinal studies request more time and financial resources. Furthermore very large samples are needed, due to the low
prevalence of psychopathy and attrition of subjects. As a consequence of the higher complexity few longitudinal studies have been conducted.
One 40-year prospective longitudinal study in a sample consisting of 411 boys revealed that poor parental supervision (closeness of supervision) at age 8 (in-person
interview) was associated with higher psychopathy scores at age 48 (Psychopathy Checklist:
Screening Version; PCL: SV) (Piquero et al., 2012). Another longitudinal study assessed
childhood neglect and abuse (Victimization extracted from school records; Lang, Klinteberg, Alm, 2002) in 199 males from a socially high-risk neighborhood and found high
victimization in childhood to be linked to high PCL scores in adulthood. However, these studies do only allow indirect inferences about the relationship of attachment and
psychopathy, because none of the studies assessed attachment directly.
Even though longitudinal data can help to overcome retrospective bias, a simpler method to avoid this is to measure current attachment. This is also advantageous, since attachment representations tend to be modified to a certain extent as individuals encounter different types of attachment relationships and experiences (Carlson, Sroufe, & Engeland, 2004; retrieved from Savard et al., 2015).
Mack, Hackney and Pyle (2011) assessed the two different dimensions of attachment behavior with the Experiences in Close Relationships-revised (ECR-R) and the two factors of psychopathic traits with the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale (LSRP) in a college sample. Results indicated that high scores on both dimensions of attachment were positively associated with both factors of primary and secondary psychopathy. However, this is not what would be expected by looking at the constructs of primary psychopathy and attachment
anxiety. Attachment anxiety is characterized by a strong desire of closeness and protection. Anxious individuals have been found to use hyperactivating strategies to deal with insecurity and distress to ensure the other person’s availability and support (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007, Wei et al., 2005). Traits like shallow affect or a lack of empathy that characterize primary psychopathy are contradictory to what is known about behavior of individual’s high on attachment anxiety and also contradictory to their goal to elicit support from another person. Therefore attachment anxiety should be found to be not or negatively associated with primary psychopathy. The contradictory findings might be due to the operationalization of the different constructs. Especially the ECR-R seems to be a problematic measure (Conradi, personal communication, March, 2015).Due to a high inter-correlation of the two dimensions of attachment discriminant validity may be problematic. It can only be concluded, consistent with what was expected, that individuals high on attachment anxiety and avoidance
(insecurely attached) receive higher scores on psychopathy in general. A measure with higher discriminant validity for the two scales is the ECR-short form, which showed a correlation between the two scales of r = .19 (Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt, & Vogel, 2007).
Savard et al. (2015) used the ECR-short form in a community sample. Findings indicated that for men primary and secondary psychopathy (Levenson Self- Reported
Psychopathy Scale; LSRP) were associated with attachment anxiety and avoidance and for
women secondary psychopathy was positively associated with attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. For primary psychopathy no association with attachment anxiety and avoidance has been found. However, attachment anxiety for men was again found to be associated with primary psychopathy. In this case it is necessary to check upon the validity of the LSRP. The contradictory findings might be due to the fact that a two-factor structure of psychopathy was applied whereas it had been found that psychopathy with the LSRP can better be assessed with a three-factor structure (Sellbom, 2011). Validity studies within the
three-factor structure found none of the factors to be associated with fearlessness. Moreover, the boldness domain was found to be completely absent within the LSRP measure. The boldness domain captures the more functional, social efficacious aspects of primary psychopathy, such as self-assurance, and high tolerance for stress, danger or unfamiliarity and will be discussed in more detail in the next paragraph (Craig et al., 2013). Both of these findings dissolve the contradiction, since it was especially striking that attachment anxiety was found to be associated with primary psychopathy, a construct that is amongst others characterized by low anxiety.
For the current study it is of importance to check all measures in terms of discriminant validity to draw valid conclusions. In accordance with current scientific knowledge of
attachment and psychopathy a plausible conclusion was drawn by Craig, Gray and Snowden (2013). They assessed current attachment with the ECR, which shows discriminant validity for both attachment dimensions with a correlation of p = .17 between both scales (Wei et al., 2007). The three factor-model Triachic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM), containing the three factors Meanness, Boldness and Disinhibition, was used to assess psychopathy. As would be expected just attachment avoidance, characterized by discomfort with closeness and
dependence on others, was found to be positively associated with meanness. Meanness is comparable to primary psychopathy and comprised of affective/interpersonal deficits, like lack of empathy, lack of emotional bonds and a tendency towards cruelty. This is in accordance with earlier discussed findings that avoidant individuals use deactivating
strategies like suppression of feelings and distancing from others in order to avoid frustration caused by other’s unavailability (Wei et al., 2005). That attachment anxiety was not found to be associated with primary psychopathy (Meanness) is also in line with our current scientific findings and theories, just as explained in the context of Mack et al.’s study (2011).
seen as part of primary psychopathy capturing the more functional, social, efficacious aspects of psychopathy, such as self-assurance, and high tolerance for stress, danger or unfamiliarity. Therefore these findings are coherent with what would be expected. However, attachment avoidance was found to be negatively associated with boldness. This is contradictory to what would be expected, since boldness is considered to be part of primary psychopathy. Primary psychopathy seems to be a vague construct with different facets, which can better be assessed separately. Disinhibition, which can be interpreted as secondary psychopathy, was found to be positively associated with both dimensions of attachment. For attachment anxiety the explanation for these findings is simple. Impulsivity, stimulation seeking and irresponsibility characterize secondary psychopathy. Anxious individuals overreact to negative feelings in order to elicit support (Wei et al., 2005). They have for example been found to show aggression when rejected by a partner (Hansen et al., 2011). For the relationship between disinhibition (i.e. secondary psychopathy) and attachment avoidance the explanation is more complex. The two-dimensional model of attachment fits into a four-quadrant model
producing four attachment patterns (Bartholomew and Horowitz, 1991). Individuals that score high on the dimension of attachment avoidance can either be referred to as avoidant or dismissing-avoidant. Both attachment patterns avoid intimacy, but fearful-avoidant individuals also have a high need of other’s acceptance to maintain positive self-regard. Generally avoidant individuals would not be expected to react impulsive, due to their suppressed feelings. However, in the case of a fearful-avoidant pattern individuals experience a high approach-avoidance ambivalence about intimacy. In situations of rejection / distress they may react with impulsive behavior to maintain closeness alternated with avoidance in order to self-protect.
As seen above just a few studies assessed the two dimensions of current attachment with a valid measure. None of the studies has taken emotion regulation as a more general
measure for emotion regulation (more independent of emotion regulation in romantic relationships) into account as a mediating factor.
Objective
The current study sought to test directly the relationships between psychopathy and attachment, using a cross-sectional design within a student sample. Retrospective bias was avoided by assessing current attachment with the ECR. Moreover, the current study differentiated between primary and secondary psychopathy using the Youth Psychopathy
Inventory (YPI). The YPI uses a three-factor structure that will be explained in more detail
later. Moreover, two dimensions of emotion regulation (Differentiation of Self Inventory;
DSI) emotional cut off and emotional reactivity will be taken into account as possible
mediating factors. In short this study investigated the relationship between primary and secondary psychopathy and attachment behavior and the mediating role of emotional reactivity and emotional cut off.
Hypothesis
Several hypotheses were tested. For the correlations between the dimensions of
attachment and the factors of psychopathy it was expected, as explained in the context of the
findings of Craig et al. (2013), that attachment avoidance would be positively associated with primary psychopathy and attachment anxiety would be not or negatively associated with primary psychopathy. Moreover, it was hypothesized that attachment avoidance and attachment anxiety would be positively associated with secondary psychopathy.
For the correlations between the two attachment dimensions and emotion regulation it was expected, as explained in the context of the findings of Wei et al. (2005), that attachment avoidance would be positively associated with emotional cut off, but not with emotional reactivity, because avoidantly attached individuals have been found to use deactivating
strategies to deal with insecurity and distress. Attachment anxiety was expected to be positively associated with emotional reactivity, but not with emotional cut off, because anxious individuals have been found to use hyper activating strategies to deal with insecurity and distress.
For the correlations between emotion regulation and psychopathy it was expected, as explained in the context of the findings of Wei et al. (2005), that emotional cut off is
associated with primary and secondary psychopathy, and emotional reactivity is associated with secondary psychopathy and not or negatively associated with primary psychopathy.
For the mediation of the different emotion regulation strategies between the two
dimensions of attachment and the two factors of psychopathy it was expected, as explained in
the context of the findings of Wei et al. (2005), that emotional cut off mediates the relationship between attachment avoidance and primary psychopathy. Moreover, it was expected that emotional reactivity partially mediates the expected relationship between attachment anxiety and secondary psychopathy. It was expected that attachment anxiety is not associated with primary psychopathy. Consequently a mediating relationship was not expected. For the hypothesized relationship between attachment avoidance and secondary psychopathy emotional cut off was expected to be the mediating factor.
Method
Participants
Participants were 434 psychology undergraduates at the University of Amsterdam. Participation was part of the curriculum. There were 136 male and 285 female participants. Their ages ranged from 18 to 45 years (M =20, SD = 2.6). Their cultural background was mainly Dutch. Most of the participants (N = 397) were raised speaking Dutch as a first language or were raised bilingual with Dutch being one of the two main languages. A small amount of participants (N = 21) was raised with another native language. In terms of current relationship status 156 participants were in a committed relationship and 266 were single. A total number of 107 participants had never been in a relationship.
Measures
Current Attachment was assessed using the Dutch version of the Experiences in Close Relationships scale (ECR) that was developed to measure adult attachment in current and past
self-report measure, each item uses a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly) and a middle position 4 (neutral) on how well the statement describes their typical feeling in a romantic relationship. Factor analysis identified two attachment
dimensions, Anxiety and Avoidance (Conradi, Gerlsma, Duijn, & Jonge, 2006). Both subscales consist of 18 items. The Anxiety subscale describes fear of rejection and
abandonment. A sample item is “I worry about being abandoned”. The Avoidance subscale describes fear of intimacy and discomfort with getting close to others. A sample item is “I am nervous when partners get close to me”. High scores represent a higher degree of adult insecure attachment in close relationships. Cronbach’s alphas for the Avoidance and Anxiety subscales in a Dutch student sample were found to be .93 and .88 respectively (Conradi et al., 2006). The present study found the inter-correlation between the two subscales to be low, namely .15, guaranteeing high enough discriminant validity.
Emotion regulation was assessed with the Differentiation of Self Inventory (DSI,
Skowron & Friedlander, 1998) translated from English into Dutch. The DSI is a 43-item self-report measure that focuses on the significant and current relationships of adults with their family of origin. Each item uses a 6-point response scale ranging from 1 (not at all true of
me) to 6 (very true of me) on how true the statement describes their typical feelings in a
relationship. The DSI contains four subscales; within the context of the present study only the Emotional Reactivity and Emotional Cut off scales were administered. The Emotional
Reactivity subscale (11 items) reflects the degree to which a person responds to
environmental stimuli with emotional flooding, emotional lability, or hypersensitivity to the point of being consumed by them. A sample item from the reactivity subscale is “At times I feel as if I’m riding an emotional roller-coaster.” (Wei et al., 2005). The Emotional Cut Off subscale (12 items) reflects feeling threatened by intimacy and isolating oneself from others and one’s emotions when internal emotional experiences or interpersonal interactions are too
intense. A sample item from the cut off subscales is “I would never consider turning to any of my family members for emotional support”. Each subscale was computed by summing items scores, with higher scores reflecting higher Emotional Cut Off and Reactivity. Skowron (2000) reported that the coefficient alphas are .84 and .82 for Emotional Reactivity and Emotional Cut off respectively (Wei et al., 2005). The present study found good alpha values of .87 for the Emotional Reactivity subscale and .88 for the Emotional Cut Off subscale.
Within the sample the present study principal axis factor analysis was conducted on the 23 items of the DSI with olique rotation. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = .90 (“marvelous” according to Hutcheson & Sofrouniou, 1999). All KMO values for individual items were greater than .84, which is well above the acceptable limit of .5 (Field, 2013). An initial analysis was run to obtain
eigenvalues for each factor in the data. The scree plot showed inflexions that would justify retaining two factors. Consequently the chosen Kaiser’s criterion was > 2 and in combination the two factors explained 44.66 % of the variance. The items that cluster on the same factor suggest that factor one represents the Emotional Reactivity subscale and factor 2 represents the Emotional Cut Off subscale. Furthermore, factor analysis revealed that exactly the same items, as planned ahead of analysis, were clustering together (Table 1). The inter-correlation between the two subscales was found to be high, namely .49. Consequently, discriminant validity may be problematic.
Table 1
Rotated Component Matrixa; Correlations of all items (DSI) with both subscales.
Component
Emotional Emotional Reactivity Cut Off
1 2 Item 1 -.050 .683 Item 2 Item 3 .630 .552 .010 .166 Item 4 .276 .344 Item 5 .768 .081 Item 6 .228 .628 Item 7 .495 .266 Item 8 .243 .684 Item 9 .744 .200 Item 10 .269 .716 Item 11 .594 .300 Item 12 .186 .690 Item 13 .605 .311 Item 14 .108 .614 Item 15 .718 .139 Item 16 .118 .637 Item 17 .605 .030 Item 18 .164 .734 Item 19 .676 .185 Item 20 .201 .593 Item 21 .554 .250 Item 22 .168 .670 Item 23 .604 .166
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Psychopathy was assessed with the Dutch translation of the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI; Das & de Ruiter, 2003; retrieved from Hillege, Das, de Ruiter, 2001).
The YPI is a 50-item youth self-report questionnaire designed to measure traits of
Psychopathy, specifically for use with community samples of adolescents. The YPI uses a 4-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (does not apply at all) to 4 (applies very well) and measures each psychopathic trait with five self-report items making up 10 internally consistent subscales (Dishonest charm, Grandiosity, Lying, Manipulation, Callousness,
Unemotionality, Remorselessness, Impulsiveness, Thrill seeking, and Irresponsibility). The
subscales of the YPI have been shown to form a theoretically meaningful and useful three-factor structure consisting of the Grandiose-Manipulative three-factor (subscales: Dishonest charm,
Grandiosity, Lying, and Manipulation), the Callous-Unemotional factor (subscales: Callousness, Unemotionality, Remorselessness) and the Impulsive-Irresponsible factor
(subscales: Impulsiveness, Thrill-Seeking, and Irresponsibility). High scores on the YPI subscales indicate stronger psychopathy traits. Hillege et al. (2010) found the following Cronbach’s alphas for each of the three dimensions and for the YPI total score for boys / girls: Grandiose- Manipulative: .84 / .82, Callous-Unemotional: .66 / .60 and
Impulsive-Irresponsible: .71 / .78, and the YPI full-scale: .70 / .74 The present study found coefficient
alphas respectively for the three subscales .91, .83, .83 and an alpha value of .93 for the overall test. The three factors from the YPI are conceptually similar to the three factors of the
PCL:YV. Within the two factor framework the Grandiose-Manipulative factor combined with
the Callous-Unemotional factor characterizes Primary Psychopathy, while the
Impulsive-Irresponsible factor in turn characterizes Secondary Psychopathy. Convergent validity of the PCL:YV was found to be adequate (Andershed, Hodgins, & Tengström, 2007). Whereas the PCL:YV presently is the most reliable measure for psychopathic traits among incarcerated
adolescents the YPI was found to be a valid and reliable more cost effective measure within community samples. The present study found the inter-correlation between the three
subscales to be high, ranging from .49 to .59, limiting discriminant validity.
Procedure
The questionnaires were part of an entire package of questionnaires that all
participants completed during five evenings at the facilities of the University of Amsterdam. Each session lasted two hours and 15 minutes. Participants were guaranteed anonymity of their data.
Statistical Analysis
All data was analyzed with SPSS version 20 (IBM Corp., 2011). Inter-correlations between all subscales were calculated in order to check for discriminant validity. To validate the translated version of the DSI factor analysis of the DSI was conducted. Means and
standard deviations were computed for all variables of interest. All variables were screened
for their adherence with the assumptions. Correlations were calculated between all study variables. Mediation analyses were done by means of PROCESS in SPSS as planned for the three scales of psychopathy, with the two dimensions of attachment entered as independent variable and the two emotion regulation strategies as mediator. PROCESS uses an ordinary least squares or logistic regression-based path analytic framework for estimating direct and indirect effects. Bootstrap and Monte Carlo confidence intervals were implemented for inference about indirect effect, including various measures of effect size (Hayes A.F; processmacro.org).
Results
Descriptive Statistics
The ECR was not completed by 119 of the 434 participants, partly (N = 107) because they had no history of romantic relationships, the DSI by 32 participants and the YPI by 21 participants. Missing data was excluded pairwise. Means and Standard deviations for all variables are presented in Table 1.
By inspecting the boxplots for all dependent variables no extreme outliers have been identified (Field, 2013). Inspection of skew and kurtosis, normal Q-Q plots and Shapiro-Wilk’s test of normality (p < .05) did not confirm that the data was normally distributed. However, for the planned correlational and mediation analysis, violation of this assumption was not problematic, since Bootstrapping and Spearman’s rho were used. Using a matrix scatterplot the assumption of linearity between all subscales was confirmed. Within the given sample a small to medium effect sizes were expected (Cohen, 1992). Using Cohen’s tables to discover a medium effect size a sample larger than 85 participants was required when an alpha value of .05 and power of .80 was chosen. However, to discover a small effect a sample size of 783 participants was required. Power analysis using G*Power confirmed the required sample size (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Consequently, the current study had not enough power to discover small effects.
Table 1
N, Means and Standard Deviation on the ECR, DSI, YPI.
Attachment Avoidance Attachment Anxiety Emotional Cut Off Emotional Reactivity Callous- Unemotional Grandiose- Manipulative Impulsive- Irresponsible N Valid 315 315 402 402 413 413 413 Missing 119 119 32 32 21 21 21 Mean 2.59 3.59 2.43 3.36 1.69 1.82 2.19 Std. Deviation .96 .99 .94 1.05 .43 .50 .48
Correlational analysis
Table 2 displays the correlations between all current variables of interest. Attachment Avoidance correlated, as anticipated, significantly positively with Callous- Unemotional factor (primary psychopathy) and Impulsive-Irresponsible factor (secondary psychopathy), whereas with Grandiose-Manipulativeness, unexpectedly, it did not reach significance (r = .10 BCa CI [-.02; .21]). Attachment Anxiety demonstrated the expected relationship with Primary Psychopathy. Attachment Anxiety showed, as anticipated, no significant correlations with Primary Psychopathy (CU and GM), but unexpectedly not with Secondary Psychopathy either (II). However, all effect sizes were small (Field, 2013).
Attachment Avoidance showed, as anticipated, a significant positive association with Emotional Cut Off (large effect size; Field, 2013), but not with Emotional Reactivity and Attachment Anxiety showed, as anticipated, a significant positive association with Emotional Reactivity (large effect size; Field, 2013), but unexpectedly also with Emotional Cut Off (medium effect size; Field, 2013).
Emotional Cut Off showed, as anticipated, a significant positive associated with Primary Psychopathy and Secondary Psychopathy (small effect size; Field, 1013) and Emotional Reactivity showed, as anticipated, no association (GM) or a significant negative association (CU) with Primary Psychopathy, but unexpectedly Emotional Reactivity was not found to be associated with Secondary Psychopathy (II).
Table 4
Spearman’s rhos [confidence intervals] between attachment, emotion regulation and psychopathy subscales c.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (1) Avoidance - .15* [.01; .27] .57** [.48; .65] .06 [-.05; .17] .22** [.11; .33] .10 [-.02; .21] .19** [.07; .30] (2) Anxiety - - .34** [.23; .44] .59** [.51; .66] -.05 [-.17; .06] .05 [-.06; 15] .02 [-.08; .14] (3) Cutoff - - - .49** [.38; .59] .18** [.07; .29] .16** [.06; .28] .23** [.13; .34] (4) Reactivity - - - - -.27** [-.37; -.16] -.03 [-.14; .08] -.01 [-.12; .11] (5) Callous-Unemotional - - - .59** [.51; .67] .47** [.37; .55] (6) Grandiose-Manipulative - - - .57** [.49; .66] (7) Impulsive-Irresponsible - - - -
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). c. Unless otherwise noted, bootstrap results are based on 1000 bootstrap samples
Fig. 2 Overview of all significant correlationsin the constellation of the proposed mediations of the effects of attachment dimensions on YPI subscales through Emotional Cut Off and Reactivity.
Note: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Mediation analysis
Given that the majority of variables demonstrated at least some degree of inter-relation, it was considered appropriate to continue with planned mediation analyses.
Mediation analysis failed to demonstrate, contrary to the expectations, a mediating role of Emotional Cut Off in the relationship of Attachment Avoidance on
Callous-Unemotional psychopathic traits and on Impulsive-Irresponsible psychopathic traits (Figure
3; Mediation 1 and 3). As demonstrated in Figure 3 (Mediation 3), Emotional Cut Off fully mediated the relationship between Attachment Avoidance and Grandiose-Manipulativeness, since analyses demonstrated a non-significant direct effect, but a significant indirect effect (medium effect, k2 = .08 BCa CI [0.01, 0.17]; Preacher & Kelley, 2011). Emotional
Reactivity did not mediate, contrary to the expectations, the relationship between Attachment Anxiety and Secondary Psychopathy (Impulsive-Irresponsible) (Figure 3; Mediation 4).
Discussion
In this study the relationship between primary / secondary psychopathy and
attachment behavior, and the mediating roles of emotional reactivity and emotional cut off were investigated. Findings indicated an association between attachment avoidance and emotional cut off, and psychopathic traits (primary and secondary). Findings indicated that attachment anxiety and emotional reactivity may not contribute to the emergence of primary psychopathy. This is in line with earlier findings of Craig et al. (2013). The findings
confirmed the anticipated relationship of attachment avoidance with emotional cut off and attachment anxiety with emotional reactivity and replicated the findings from Wei et al. (2005). However, attachment anxiety was not found to contribute to the emergence of secondary psychopathy. The results on the mediating roles of emotional reactivity and
emotional cut off were far from conclusive and will be discussed below in the context of limitations of this study.
Contrary to the expectations Attachment Avoidance was not found to be associated with the Grandiose-Manipulative factor that conventionally should be interpreted as part of Primary Psychopathy. Already Craig et al. (2013) found only Meanness (r = .27) and not
Boldness (r = -.20) to be positively associated with Attachment Avoidance. Even though both
constructs are not completely interchangeable with the Callous-Unemotional and
Grandiose-Manipulative factors, a detailed look at the subscales revealed that the positively associated
constructs capture traits like affective interpersonal deficits, lack of empathy, callousness, and unemotionality. The underlying reason for the relationship between Primary Psychopathy and Attachment Avoidance may be the downregulation of emotions. Therefore, only the
Callous-Unemotional and Meanness factors were positively associated with Attachment Avoidance.
This is consequential since Attachment Avoidance demonstrated a strong relationship with Emotional Cut Off, which captures the suppression of emotions.
However, the Grandiose-Manipulative factor demonstrated a significant positive relationship with Emotional Cut Off as well. Mediation revealed that an effect of Attachment Avoidance on Grandiose-Manipulativeness was fully mediated through Emotional Cut Off. This may corroborate the anticipated relationship between Attachment Avoidance and
Grandiose-Manipulativeness. The reason for it not being confirmed may then be the lack of
power.
The differentiation of psychopathy within a two-factor structure seems not to be justifiable, due to the different correlational findings for the two factors that conventionally should be interpreted as part of Primary Psychopathy and contentwise differences of the two
factors. Current scientific knowledge and the findings of the present study support a three-factor structure of psychopathy.
The earlier mentioned lack of power may as well explain that no association of Attachment Anxiety and Emotional Reactivity with Secondary Psychopathy has been found. It is remarkable that Craig et al. (2013) found the hypothesized positive association of Attachment Anxiety with Secondary Psychopathy (r = .40) within a smaller convenient student sample.
The lack of power may also explain why, contrary to the expectations, Emotional Cut Off failed to demonstrate the expected mediating role on the effect of Attachment Avoidance on Callous-Unemotional psychopathic traits (b = .02, BCa CI [-0.02, 0.06]) and on the effect of Attachment Avoidance on Impulsive-Irresponsible psychopathic traits (b = .04, BCa CI
[-0.01, 0.08]) and why an effect of Attachment Anxiety on Impulsive-Irresponsible
psychopathic traits was not found to be mediated through Emotional Reactivity (b = -.01, BCa CI [-0.06, 0.03]). However, the validity of the mediation is disputable due to several anticipated relationship that had not been confirmed and small effect sizes that have been found conducting mediation analyses. Moreover, the factors from the ECR and DSI do measure almost synonymous constructs and it is therefore disputable if the constellation of the anticipated mediation is useful. The only advantage of assessing emotion regulation (DSI) in addition to attachment (ECR) is that Emotional Cut Off and Reactivity assess emotion regulation more in general and more independent of romantic relationships compared to the two dimensions of the ECR.
Moreover, the unexpectedly found relationship between Attachment Anxiety and Emotional Cut Off is in line with earlier findings of Wei et al. (2005). Whereas, Wei et al. accepted the deviating findings due to a weaker magnitude compared to the expected
association of Attachment Anxiety and Emotional Reactivity, another explanation may be the inter-correlation (r = .49) of the two subscales of the DSI.
Several other limitations that underlie the current study have to be taken into consideration. The weak associations between the constructs may be a consequence of the operationalization. Whereas the internal reliability for all three measures was found to be acceptable to excellent, the found inter-correlation between the subscales of the DSI and the
YPI can be seen as problematic. Future research should therefore use different measures with
higher discriminant validity. Another related problem may be that a four-point Likert-scale was used to score the responses on the YPI. Preston and Colman (2000) argued that reliability increases when using a higher amount of response categories. Using a restricted range of response categories in combination with a relatively homogenous sample lowers
discriminating power between participants. Future studies should therefore pay attention to the amount of possible response categories.
Another limitation of the used convenient sample is that no conclusion in terms of etiology can be drawn. The ultimate purpose of studying associations of general vulnerability factors (attachment and emotion regulation) with psychopathy, as mentioned in the
introduction of this article, is to eventually be able to prevent the emergence of psychopathy and to invent effective treatment methods. However, students may have psychopathic traits, but are not expected to suffer from severe dysfunctional traits of psychopathy. Therefore, it is necessary to study the relationship of attachment behavior and psychopathic traits in large enough clinical samples for whom treatment would eventually be needed. However, as mentioned earlier it is difficult to gather large clinical samples. To study etiology a longitudinal design or an experimental design would be necessary. Therefore, the present study contributes to our general understanding of plausible vulnerability factors and of the underlying mechanisms of psychopathy in a convenient way.
Besides several limitations of this study the chosen design had some advantageous compared to earlier conducted studies. First of all the current study did directly assess the two recently found orthogonal attachment dimensions with a valid and reliable measure (ECR). Retrospective bias was avoided by the assessment of current attachment and additional assessment of emotion regulation (DSI) contributed a more general measure independent of feelings within a romantic relationship.
All in all, attachment behavior (specifically avoidant attachment) seems to be related to psychopathic traits. For firm conclusions about the association of different attachment dimensions and psychopathic traits systematic replication with proper assessment of psychopathy and enough power is necessary. Systematic replication should especially pay attention to the assessment of psychopathy within a three-factor structure, improve
discriminant validity of the DSI and the YPI and take several other above-mentioned limitations into consideration. When systematic replication confirms the expected
associations it should be invested into a longitudinal design to eventually be able to draw firm conclusions about the etiology of psychopathy.
References
Allen, V. (2013). Psychopathy and Attachment: Examining the Relationship between Secure Attachment Priming and Psychopathy. Electronic theses & Dissertations. Paper 850.
Andershed, H., Hodgins, S., & Tengström, A. (2007). Convergent validity of the youth psychopathic traits inventory (YPI) association with the psychopathy checklist: youth version (PCL: YV). Assessment, 14(2), 144-154. doi:10.1177/1073191106298286.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-category model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 61(2), 226.
Bowlby, J. (1944). Forty-four juvenile thieves: Their characters and home life. International
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 25(19-52), 107-127.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult
romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),
Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
Collins, N. L. (1996). Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 810–832.
Conradi, H.J., (2015).
Conradi, H. J., Gerlsma, C., Duijn, M. V., & Jonge, P. D. (2006). Internal and external validity of the experiences in close relationships questionnaire in an American and two Dutch samples. The European journal of psychiatry, 20(4), 258-269.
Craig, R. L., Gray, N. S., & Snowden, R. J. (2013). Recalled parental bonding, current
attachment, and the triarchic conceptualisation of psychopathy. Personality and Individual
Differences, 55(4), 345-350.
Dawel, A., O’Kearney, R., McKone, E., & Palermo, R. (2012). Not just fear and sadness: Meta-analytic evidence of pervasive emotion recognition deficits for facial and vocal expressions in psychopathy. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(10), 2288-2304. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.08.006.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Field, A.P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics: And sex and drugs and
rock’n’roll (4th edition). London: Sage.
Follan, M., & Minnis, H. (2010). Forty‐four juvenile thieves revisited: from bowlby to
reactive attachment disorder. Child: care, health and development, 36(5), 639-645. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.01048.x
Forth, A. E., & Flight, J. I. (2007). Instrumentally violent youth: The roles of psychopathic traits, empathy, and attachment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(6), 739-751. doi: 10.1177/0093854807299462.
Frodi, A., Dernevik, M., Sepa, A., Philipson, J., & Bragesjö, M. (2001). Current attachment representations of incarcerated offenders varying in degree of psychopathy. Attachment &
human development, 3(3), 269-283. doi: 10.1080/14616730110096889
Fuendeling, J. M. (1998). Affect regulation as a stylistic process within adult attachment.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(3), 291–322.
Gao, Y., Raine, A., Chan, F., Venables, P. H., & Mednick, S. A. (2010). Early maternal and paternal bonding, childhood physical abuse and adult psychopathic personality.
Psychological Medicine, 40(06), 1007-1016. doi:10.1017/S0033291709991279
Hansen, A. L., Waage, L., Eid, J., Johnsen, B. H., & Hart, S. (2011). The relationship between attachment, personality and antisocial tendencies in a prison sample: A pilot study. Scandinavian journal of psychology, 52(3), 268-276.
Hillege, S., Das, J., & de Ruiter, C. (2010). The Youth Psychopathic traits Inventory:
Psychometric properties and its relation to substance use and interpersonal style in a Dutch sample of non-referred adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 33(1), 83-91.
Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage.
IBM Corp. Released 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Dozier, M., & Kobak, R. R. (1992). Psychophysiology in attachment interviews: Converging evidence for deactivating strategies. Child development, 63(6), 1473-1480.
Koppen, P. J. (2010). Reizen met mijn rechter: psychologie van het recht. Kluwer.
Kosson, D. S., Cyterski, T. D., Steuerwald, B. L., Neumann, C. S., & Walker-Matthews, S. (2002). The reliability and validity of the psychopathy checklist: youth version (PCL: YV) in nonincarcerated adolescent males. Psychological assessment, 14(1), 97-109.
Krischer, M. K., & Sevecke, K. (2008). Early traumatization and psychopathy in female and male juvenile offenders. International journal of law and psychiatry, 31(3), 253-262.
Lang, S., Af Klinteberg, B., & Alm, P. O. (2002). Adult psychopathy and violent behavior in males with early neglect and abuse. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 106(412), 93-100.
Lopez, F. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). Dynamic processes underlying adult attachment organization: Toward an attachment theoretical perspective on the healthy and effective self. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(3), 283–300. doi:
10.1037//0022-0167.47.3.283.
Lopez, F. G., Mauricio, A. M., Gormley, B., Simko, T., and Berger, E. (2001), Adult Attachment Orientations and College Student Distress: The Mediating Role of Problem
Coping Styles. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79: 459–464. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2001.tb01993.x.
Mack, T. D., Hackney, A. A., & Pyle, M. (2011). The relationship between psychopathic traits and attachment behavior in a non-clinical population. Personality and Individual
Differences, 51(5), 584-588. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.019.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and
change. New York: Guilford Press.
Moreira, D., Almeida, F., Pinto, M., Favero, M. (2014). Psychopathy: A comprehensive review of its assessment and intervention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 191-195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.008.
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Fontaine, N. M., Vincent, G., Coid, J., & Ullrich, S. (2012). Childhood risk, offending trajectories, and psychopathy at age 48 years in the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(4), 577.
Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological methods, 16(2), 93-115.
Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta
psychologica, 104(1), 1-15.
Russell, D. W., Kahn, J. H., Spoth, R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1998). Analyzing data from experimental studies: A latent variable structural equation modeling approach. Journal of
Salekin, R. T., & Lynam, D. R. (Eds.).(2011). Handbook of child and adolescent psychopathy. Guilford Press.
Savage, J. (2014). The association between attachment, parental bonds and physically aggressive and violent behavior: A comprehensive review. Aggression and violent behavior, 19(2), 164-178.
Savard, C., Brassard, A., Lussier, Y., & Sabourin, S. (2015). Subclinical psychopathic traits and romantic attachment in community couples: A dyadic approach. Personality and
Individual Differences, 72, 128-134.
Sellbom, M. (2011). Elaborating on the construct validity of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale in incarcerated and non-incarcerated samples. Law and human
behavior, 35(6), 440-451.
Schulreich, S., Pfabigan, D. M., Derntl, B., & Sailer, U. (2013). Fearless Dominance and reduced feedback-related negativity amplitudes in a time-estimation task–Further
neuroscientific evidence for dual-process models of psychopathy. Biological psychology,
93(3), 352-363.
Skowron, E. A. (2000). The role of differentiation of self in marital adjustment. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 47(2), 229.
Skowron, E. A., & Friedlander, M. L. (1998). The Differentiation of Self Inventory: Development and initial validation. Journal of counseling psychology, 45(3), 235.
Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of
Wei, M., Vogel, D. L., Ku, T. Y., & Zakalik, R. A. (2005). Adult Attachment, Affect Regulation, Negative Mood, and Interpersonal Problems: The Mediating Roles of
Emotional Reactivity and Emotional Cutoff. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(1), 14-24. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.1.14.
Zimmermann, P., Maier, M. A., Winter, M., & Grossmann, K. E. (2001). Attachment and adolescents’ emotion regulation during a joint problem-solving task with a friend.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 331–343. doi:
