Continuity and Change in Psychopathic Traits as Measured ViaNormal-Range Personality: A Longitudinal–Biometric StudyDaniel M. Blonigen, Brian M. Hicks, Robert F. Krueger, Christopher J. Patrick, and William G. IaconoUniversity of Minnesota—Twin Cities CampusThe discriminant validity of the interpersonal–affective and social deviance traits of psychopathy hasbeen well documented. However, few studies have explored whether these traits follow distinct orcomparable developmental paths. The present study used the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire(A. Tellegen, in press) to examine the development of the psychopathic traits of Fearless Dominance (i.e.,interpersonal–affective) and Impulsive Antisociality (i.e., social deviance) from late adolescence to earlyadulthood in a longitudinal– epidemiological sample of male and female twins. Results from mean- andindividual-level analyses revealed stability in Fearless Dominance from late adolescence to earlyadulthood, whereas Impulsive Antisociality declined over this developmental period. In addition,biometric findings indicated greater genetic contributions to stability in these traits and greater nonsharedenvironmental contributions to their change over time. Collectively, these findings suggest distinctdevelopmental trends for psychopathic traits from late adolescence to early adulthood.Keywords: psychopathy, personality traits, development, behavior geneticsDelineating the developmental trajectory of psychopathic per-sonality traits represents a relatively neglected, yet important,domain of research. For example, such investigations may helpidentify periods of normative change in these traits that could yieldtheoretical insights into the etiology of the construct as well aspractical insights in terms of identifying the developmental stagesmost amenable to intervention. In recent years, empirical studies ofpsychopathy have begun to adopt such a developmental focus byextending the construct downward into adolescence and childhood(e.g., Edens, Skeem, Cruise, & Cauffman, 2001; Forth, Hare, &Hart, 1990; Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003; Frick, Bodin, & Barry,2000; Frick, O’Brien, Wootton, & McBurnett, 1994; Gretton,Hare, & Catchpole, 2004; Lynam, 1996, 1998; Lynam & Gudonis,2005; Salekin, Neumann, Leistico, DiCicco, & Duros, 2004; Tay-lor, Loney, Bobadilla, Iacono, & McGue, 2003; Viding, Blair,Moffitt, & Plomin, 2004). For example, in their review of thedevelopment of psychopathy, Lynam and Gudonis (2005) notedthat juvenile psychopathy appears stable from childhood to ado-lescence and resembles adult psychopathy in terms of its relationsto external criteria. Despite this emerging interest in psychopathyacross the life span, few studies have directly examined the de-velopmental course of psychopathic traits over time.In the present study, we examined the development of psycho-pathic personality traits, as measured by the MultidimensionalPersonality Questionnaire (MPQ; Tellegen, in press), from lateadolescence to early adulthood using a longitudinal–epidemiological sample of male and female twins. In particular,we sought to investigate whether the interpersonal–affective andsocial deviance traits of psychopathy, as measured via normal-range personality, exhibit distinct or comparable developmentaltrends. In addition, our genetically informative sample allowed usto investigate the degree to which genetic and environmentalinfluences contribute to both continuity and change in psycho-pathic traits from late adolescence to early adulthood.Clinical Conceptualizations of Psychopathy:Personality-Based ApproachesClinical conceptualizations of psychopathy (Cleckley, 1941/1976; Karpman, 1941; McCord & McCord, 1964) are often de-scribed as personality-based conceptualizations (see Lilienfeld,1994, 1998) in that the syndrome is viewed as a constellation ofmaladaptive personality traits. This conceptual approach empha-sizes such traits as superficial charm, egocentricity, guiltlessness,callousness, dishonesty, failure to form close emotional bonds,absence of nervousness or anticipatory anxiety, and propensity toexternalize blame. Moreover, these clinical conceptions can bedistinguished from behavior-based approaches to psychopathy(e.g., Spitzer, Endicott, & Robins, 1975), which tend to emphasizethe commission of specific antisocial or criminal acts. For exam-ple, although Cleckley (1941/1976) included evidence of behav-ioral deviance in his criteria (e.g., irresponsibility, poorly moti-vated antisocial behavior), he suggested that the manipulativeinterpersonal style and affective deficits of the psychopath repre-sent the core personality features that distinguish the syndromefrom common criminality.In contrast to these clinical perspectives, most empirical inves-tigations of psychopathy have employed either a behavior-basedconceptualization or have investigated the construct within foren-sic settings with the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL-R;Daniel M. Blonigen, Brian M. Hicks, Robert F. Krueger, Christopher J.Patrick, and William G. Iacono, Department of Psychology, University ofMinnesota—Twin Cities Campus.The Minnesota Twin Family Study was supported in part by U.S. PublicHealth Service Grants AA00175, AA09367, DA05147, and MH65137.Daniel M. Blonigen was supported by the National Institute of MentalHealth Training Grant MH17069.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to DanielM. Blonigen, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota—TwinCities Campus, Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0344. E-mail: [email protected] of Abnormal Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association2006, Vol. 115, No. 1, 85–95 0021-843X/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-843X.115.1.8585Hare, 1991, 2003), a semistructured interview that entails bothcriminal behaviors and clinician ratings of psychopathic traits. Analternative approach has been to draw from the clinical concep-tions of the disorder and use a personality-based approach toconstruct self-report measures to assess psychopathy as it occurswithin the general population (Lilienfeld, 1994). One such mea-sure, the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld &Andrews, 1996), is a self-report measure designed to capture arange of personality constructs relevant to clinical conceptions ofpsychopathy rather than antisocial behaviors per se. Validationstudies have found PPI total scores to correlate positively withobserver