the effects of psychopathy and machiavellianism on
TRANSCRIPT
University of Texas at El PasoDigitalCommonsUTEP
Open Access Theses amp Dissertations
2009-01-01
The effects of psychopathy and Machiavellianismon cognitive dissonanceAshley Anne MurrayUniversity of Texas at El Paso aamurrayminersutepedu
Follow this and additional works at httpsdigitalcommonsutepeduopen_etdPart of the Clinical Psychology Commons Cognitive Psychology Commons and the Personality
and Social Contexts Commons
This is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommonsUTEP It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Theses amp Dissertationsby an authorized administrator of DigitalCommonsUTEP For more information please contact lweberutepedu
Recommended CitationMurray Ashley Anne The effects of psychopathy and Machiavellianism on cognitive dissonance (2009) Open Access Theses ampDissertations 317httpsdigitalcommonsutepeduopen_etd317
THE EFFECTS OF PSYCHOPATHY AND MACHIAVELLIANISM
ON COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
ASHLEY ANNE MURRAY
Department of Psychology
APPROVED
____________________________________ James M Wood PhD Chair
____________________________________ Theodore V Cooper PhD
____________________________________ Matthew H Scullin PhD
____________________________________ Theodore R Curry PhD
____________________________________ Patricia DWitherspoon PhD Dean of the Graduate School
Copyright
By
Ashley Anne Murray
2009
Dedications
This thesis is dedicated to my parents for their continued encouragement and support
THE EFFECTS OF PSYCHOPATHY AND MACHIAVELLIANISM ON
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
By
ASHLEY ANNE MURRAY BA
THESIS
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at El Paso
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
May 2009
v
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr James Wood for his wisdom knowledge and patience in guiding me
through this process In addition special thanks to Dr Scott Lilienfeld for assisting as an outside
consultant and lending his expertise in psychopathy research to this project
vi
Abstract
Psychopathic traits include a lack of guilt a lack of remorse callousness and antisocial behaviors
such as impulsivity and aggression The current study examined the effects of psychopathic traits
as measured by the Psychopathic Personality Inventory ndash Revised Short Form (PPI-R SF
Lilienfeld amp Widows 2005) and the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales
(LPSP Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995) and of Machiavellianism (MACH) as measured
by the MACH-IV (Christie amp Geis 1970) on cognitive dissonance in a sample of 164
participants The induced compliance paradigm of cognitive dissonance was implemented by
instructing each participant to complete a boring task inspired by the seminal cognitive
dissonance experiment by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) Afterward feelings of guilt and
psychological unease were induced by asking the participant to mislead a second participant
(actually a confederate) by telling him that the task was enjoyable Participantsrsquo level of guilt
over telling the lie was experimentally manipulated Half of the participants were directly and
firmly instructed to tell the lie (low perceived choice low guilt condition) whereas the other half
of the participants were politely requested but not instructed to tell the lie (high perceived
choice high guilt condition) As predicted participants low in psychopathy (as measured by the
PPI-R SF and LPSP) exhibited the classic cognitive dissonance effect whereas participants high
in psychopathy did not exhibit the effect Results for MACH were not significant The
implications of these results are important for cognitive dissonance research because they point
to a subset of the population (psychopaths) possibly confounding results of past studies on
cognitive dissonance In addition the results point to definitive cognitive differences between
individuals with varying levels of psychopathy
vii
Table of Contents
Dedicationhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipiii
Acknowledgementshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipv
Abstracthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipvi
Table of Contentshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipvii
List of Tableshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipix
List of Figureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipx
Chapter 1 Introductionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1
11 Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1
12 Justification for the Current Studyrsquos Procedural Designhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7
13 Cooperrsquos New Look Theory of Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10
14 Psychopathy Effects on Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12
15 Machiavellianismhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20
16 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip23
17 Hypotheses of the Present Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip29
Chapter 2 Methodshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip32
Chapter 3 Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip41
31 Confirmatory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip44
32 Exploratory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55
Chapter 4 Discussionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76
41 Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effecthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76
42 Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip78
43 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip88
44 Psychopathy Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment (Over MACH)hellip90
viii
45 Additional Exploratory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip91
Limitations and Future Directionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip94
Conclusionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip99
Referenceshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip100
Appendix Ahelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip107
Appendix Bhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip110
Appendix Chelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip114
Appendix Dhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip116
Appendix Ehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip121
Appendix Fhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip123
Appendix Ghelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip129
Appendix Hhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip133
Curriculum Vitahelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip134
ix
List of Tables
Table 1 Descriptive Information for the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Predictors and Dependent Variablehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43 Table 2 Multiple Regression Results Criterion is Self-Reported Enjoyment of the Abacus Tasks Predictors are the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores and Subscales Each Row Represents Results From One Multiple Regressionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip50 Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (PPI-RSF) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianismhellip54 Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (LPSP) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianismhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55 Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56 Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (LPSP)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57 Table 7 Correlations Between the Total Scores of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip62 Table 8 Correlations Between the PPI-R SF LPSP MACH-IV Their Factors and Subscales65 Table 9 Multiple Regression Results Criterion is Self-Reported Guilt After Misleading the Confederate Predictors are the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores and Subscales Each Row Represents Results From One Multiple Regressionhelliphelliphelliphelliphellip69 Table 10 Factor Solutions Between PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scorehelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70 Table 11 Factor Loadings of Total Item Factor Analysishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip72 Table 12 Factor Loadings of the Psychopathy and MACH Measures Subscaleshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip75 Table 13 Interactions of Psychopathy Subscales and Factor Scales with Choice Condition by the Two Factor (Cognitive or Behavioral) Psychopathy Solution Demonstrated by Past Research (Self-Reported Enjoyment as Criterion)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip86
x
List of Figures
Figure 1 Main Effect for Mean Task Enjoyment Across Choice Conditionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45 Figure 2 Relationship of PPI-R SF Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 Figure 3 Relationship of PPI-R SF Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 Figure 4 Relationship of LPSP Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49 Figure 5 Relationship of LPSP Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49 Figure 6 Relationship of MACH-IV Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52 Figure 7 Relationship of MACH-IV Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Psychopathy is a personality construct that has demonstrated negative consequences for
society For example individuals with psychopathy are overrepresented in prison populations
and commit more violent crimes (Hare 1996) Though psychopathy is represented in
approximately one to five percent of the population it is represented in 15-25 of prison
populations (Hare 1996) To date there is no identifiable treatment for psychopathy and no
definitive understanding of the causes or etiology of this construct Therefore it is important to
identify the specific pervasive and maladaptive cognitive aspects of psychopathy in order to
better treat and assess this personality construct One of the first steps in this process is to
identify how individuals with psychopathy differ cognitively and emotionally from people who
lack these traits The current study intends to identify a significant difference between
individuals with higher and lower levels of psychopathy in regard to how they experience
cognitive dissonance and more specifically guilt
11 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a well researched psychological phenomenon that is defined as
the tendency to change a previously held belief or moral to justify a behavior the person is asked
to perform (Festinger 1957) The key feature of cognitive dissonance that seems to cause
individuals to change their cognitions following a dissonant action or thought is a feeling of
unease (tension) that immediately follows the performance of the behavior Therefore it is
theorized that people alter their beliefs in order to reduce the unpleasant feelings that arise due to
the inconsistency among their cognitions and actions (Aronson 1968 Festinger 1957 Harmon-
Jones amp Mills 1999) Cognitive dissonance involves complex cognitive restructuring and for
this reason the attitude change that results is often pervasive (Smith amp Mackie 2000) This
2
phenomenon has been consistently demonstrated in research and is considered a universal pattern
of behavior across individuals
The theory of cognitive dissonance was originally proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957
He found that when people have little or no external justification for performing a behavior that
goes against their personally held beliefs they will often change their preexisting beliefs to
match the action For example in a landmark study of cognitive dissonance Festinger and
Carlsmith (1959) asked participants to perform a boring task (turning pegs on a board) and then
asked them to tell the next participant (a confederate) that the task would be enjoyable for either
a $1 or $20 compensation The authors found that participants who were paid the smaller amount
($1) and thus had very little external justification for lying to the confederate later reported to
the experimenter that they enjoyed the hour-long peg turning task much more that the
participants who were paid $20 Festinger and Carlsmith surmised that the results of this study
demonstrated that the participants who were paid $20 to mislead a confederate had a high
enough external justification for lying and did not experience sufficient psychological tension
over the discrepancy between their cognitions and behaviors to warrant an attitude shift
However participants who were only paid $1 to mislead the confederate experienced higher
levels of psychological unease over the lie because of the insignificant amount of external
justification and thus had to rely on attitude shift to ameliorate their negative feelings
Cognitive dissonance research defines peoplersquos actions and beliefs as either consonant or
dissonant with one another Consonant cognitions are thoughts that are in accordance with a
personrsquos other thoughts or behaviors (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) For example if a person
felt concern about the environment and decided to volunteer every Saturday to pick up litter on
the highway he would have consonant cognitions and behaviors (they match) On the other
3
hand if two cognitions are not relevant to one another or a thought does not match onersquos
behavior they are said to be dissonant and create inner turmoil within the person which then
motivates the individual to reduce the dissonance An example of this would be if a person was
raised to believe that stealing was wrong and then stole petty merchandise Once this dissonant
action is performed the individual must then find a way to reduce the internal unease that the
behavior created
According to Smith and Mackie (2000) in order for cognitive dissonance to arise and
create an attitude shift four conditions must be met First the individual must perceive his or her
behavior to be inconsistent with what he or she would normally be inclined to do Next the
person must take responsibility for freely engaging in the behavior In order for this condition to
be met the amount of external justification must be reduced or eliminated (ie no reward or
punishment for completing the task) Third negative physiological arousal needs to take place
for the individual to want to change the way they feel Finally the individual must attribute the
negative arousal to the action that he or she has just committed (Smith amp Mackie 2000)
People reduce dissonance in many ways (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Examples of
how people reduce dissonance include a) attempts to remove the dissonant cognition (ie a
smoker would try to stop thinking about the negative aspects of smoking on health) b) reduce
the importance of the dissonant cognition (ie a smoker placing higher importance on being
more likely to die in a car accident than by smoking) c) increasing the importance of consonant
cognitions over dissonant ones (ie smoking is enjoyable and makes me feel relaxed which is
important to me) (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) As one can see all of these methods of
reducing dissonance involve focusing onersquos thoughts and emotions away from the dissonant
cognition (ie smoking is bad for me)
4
Cognitive Dissonance Psychological Tension and Physiological Arousal
Conceptually Festinger (1957) theorized that cognitive dissonance contains ldquodrive-likerdquo
properties that manifest as psychological tension and unease and that the psychological unease
can also manifest as physical tensions Once a person experiences the psychological and physical
unease then often an attitude shift occurs that alleviates the tensions An example that lends
support for this theory that physiological arousal precedes cognitive dissonance came from a
study conducted by Zanna and Cooper (1974) The researchers wanted to identify the physical
arousal properties associated with cognitive dissonance Zanna and Cooper gave participants a
placebo pill and told 13 of them that the pill made people feel tense 13 that the pill caused
relaxation and the final 13 that the pill had no effect Next the authors instructed participants
(under the guise of a different experiment) to write a counterattitudinal essay advocating a
campus ban of inflammatory speakers under high or low perceived choice Participants in the
low perceived choice condition were directly instructed to write the counterattitudinal essay
whereas people in the high perceived choice group were politely asked to write the essay giving
them the choice to perform the dissonant action which is a key factor in eliciting the tension
associated with cognitive dissonance The dependent measure of this study was the amount of
attitude shift participants reported experiencing on a post experimental questionnaire
Participants were given a questionnaire before the study began that assessed their preference for
adopting a campus ban on inflammatory speakers and only participants who opposed the ban
were included in the study The questionnaire asked participants to identify on a 31 point Likert
scale how much they were in favor of a campus ban on inflammatory speakers After the essay
writing manipulation portion of the experiment (where participants under high and low perceived
choice wrote a pro-ban essay) their opinion of the campus ban was again assessed with the same
5
31 point Likert scale In addition the effectiveness of the choice manipulation was assessed on
the post experimental questionnaire with the question ldquoHow free did you feel to decline to
participate in this Ivy League Administrators research projectrdquo
In the study by Zanna and Cooper (1974) an attitude shift (between the pre and post
experimental questionnaires) toward favoring the speaker ban was the expected results for the
control and relaxation inducing pill groups The authors anticipated this attitude shift due to the
previous research of Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) They hypothesized that if participants had
no external justification for feeling negatively about writing a pro-ban essay when they
previously had spoken against the ban then they must change their cognitions as previously
suggested by Festinger (1957) in his cognitive dissonance theory In accordance with Zanna and
Cooperrsquos hypotheses results indicated that the individuals who were in the tension-inducing pill
group reported significantly lower attitude shift because they were able to attribute their
tenseness and negative feelings about performing the dissonant actions to the pill rather than to
their internal turmoil On the other hand participants in the relaxation pill group evidenced the
opposite reaction these individuals experienced more attitude shift after writing the
counterattitudinal essay due to their inability to attribute their tense feelings to an external source
(the pill) In other words the people in the relaxation pill group were unable to locate an external
source that explained their feelings of unease and thus had to rely on attitude shift to ameliorate
the tension they felt over the discrepancy between their beliefs and actions
Zanna and Cooper (1974) also found that choice had an impact on attitude shift such that
participants in the high perceived choice group evidenced more attitude shift than participants in
the low perceived choice group This finding further demonstrates the need for external
justification to avoid attitude shift participants who were given the choice to write the
6
counterattitudinal essay experienced more tension than the participants who were directly told to
write the essay because of the perceived free will they exercised in writing the statements that
went against their beliefs Thus it appears that attitude shift is most likely to occur when
individuals feel they freely chose to engage in the behavior and did not have any form of external
justification for performing the dissonant action
Cognitive Dissonance and the Induced Compliance Paradigm
Within the dissonance literature several paradigms have been used to elicit attitude shift
in participants (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Of these paradigms the most common is the
induced compliance paradigm (ICP) which is used in the current study The induced compliance
paradigm typically requires participants to perform an undesirable task which arouses dissonance
once performed The key to this paradigm is to induce the participant to engage in an activity
that due to personal predispositions he or she would not ordinarily engage in In addition there
must be low or nonexistent external justification to carry out the negative behavior The absence
of external justification is important because otherwise if external rewards or punishments for
the activity are present the participant will use them to rationalize their actions and dissonance
will not be aroused In the ICP attitude shift is expected to occur when the participant is induced
to perform a counterattitudinal behavior in the absence of external justification
Counterattitudinal behaviors are any that involve doing or saying something that one does
not agree with or would not normally advocate Examples used in cognitive dissonance studies
include writing counterattitudinal essays that have may have negative consequences for other
people (Elkin amp Leippe 1986 Steele amp Liu 1983) or lying to someone about a task being
enjoyable when it was not (Cooper amp Worchel 1970 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959) Within the
ICP participants are provoked by a researcher to perform the counterattitudinal behavior through
7
the manipulation of the participantrsquos amount of choice or reward For example the peg turning
cognitive dissonance study previously mentioned (conducted by Festinger and Carlsmith in
1959) was the first study to use the ICP and reward manipulation (through the use of $1 or $20
to mislead the confederate) was used to induce cognitive dissonance effects These researchers
found that if a person publically behaves in a manner that misrepresents his personal beliefs he
will experience cognitive dissonance and that the magnitude of the dissonance will increase
when there are fewer reasons for complying (such as less reward or more perceived free choice)
A famous study by Linder Cooper and Jones (1967) demonstrated that choice
manipulation within the ICP can induce cognitive dissonance and thus attitude shift
Linder and colleagues asked participants to write an essay (using either high or low perceived
choice manipulation) supporting the ban of Communist speakers at their institution knowing that
the majority of students did not support this ban Participants were screened to make sure that
they did not agree with the ban and then were either directly instructed to write the supportive
essay (the Low perceived choice group) or asked politely to write the pro-ban essay (High
perceived choice group) Results indicated that participants in the high perceived choice group
experienced more attitude shift after completion of the essay toward being in favor of a
Communist speaker campus ban than people in the low perceived choice group Linder and
colleagues interpreted these results as evidence that when people perceive that they have free
will to engage in a dissonant action they cognitively justify their actions (via an attitude or belief
shift) to reduce the negative feelings the dissonant action produced
12 Justification for the Current Studyrsquos Procedural Design
The procedures outlined for the current study were selected due to the significant attitude
shift results that were obtained by using these tasks in two previous experiments First Festinger
and Carlsmith (1959) implemented the peg board task in their original study on cognitive
8
dissonance Participants in the study were required to turn the pegs for one hour and then lie to
the next participant (a confederate) about the task being enjoyable The primary difference
between the Festinger and Carlsmith study and the current proposal is that the former paid
participants either $1 or $20 in order to identify what amount of external justification would lead
to more attitude shift The authors found that the participants in the $20 group had much less
attitude shift about the task because they were able to use the external justification of lying for
$20 whereas participants in the $1 group evidenced significantly more attitude shift due to the
lack of any external justification for lying The authors surmised that $1 was not enough money
to justify lying for participants so they instead had to change their own cognitions to make sense
of their actions (lying to a stranger) thus they convinced themselves that the abacus task wan not
boring
A second important study used a boring task while asking participants to lie to a
confederate Cooper and Worchel (1970) replicated the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study
but rather than using money as the external justification for lying they used small amounts of
experimental credit (1 extra credit vs 5 extra credit) to induce attitude shift However
regardless of the amount of extra credit the authors offered 98 of participants agreed to the
deception task which indicates that the script the experimenters used was effective in inducing
participantsrsquo compliance to lie The current experiment is using the Experimenter and
Confederate Scripts from the study by Cooper and Worchel with only a few minor modifications
to the original scripts For example the Cooper and Worchel study only manipulated a High
perceived choice group so their script was altered slightly in the present study so that it could
also be used for the Low perceived choice group
9
Justification for using the high perceived choice condition to elicit attitude shift comes
from an experiment conducted by Zanna Goethals amp Cooper (1975) Their study implemented
the peg board task and asked participants to lie to a confederate that the task was enjoyable (they
only used the high perceived choice condition to elicit guilt) The study had participants do the
peg turning task for 20 minutes (as opposed to the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study which
required participants to do the task for one hour) Through asking participants to voluntarily
deceive the next participant the authors found that all participants (n=76) agreed to tell the next
participant (really a confederate) that the peg turning task was enjoyable They obtained this
100 compliance rate simply by asking the participant to tell the next person (a confederate) that
the peg turning task was enjoyable The study by Zanna and colleagues also provides support
that conducting the peg turning task for only 20 minutes still induces sufficient boredom in
participants In addition the study found a significant attitude shift toward reporting enjoying a
dull task when voluntarily lying to a confederate (F = 848 plt001) as compared to a control
group who did not have to lie
Finally a study by Elkin and Leippe (1986) used both high and low perceived choice
groups to examine different rates of attitude shift toward a previously counterattitudinal belief
(supporting the implementation of a student parking fee) In the high perceived choice group
participants were given the option to write a counterattitudinal essay (supporting the parking
fee) while in the low perceived choice group participants were told directly to write the
counterattitudinal essay Participantrsquos feeling of guilt was manipulated by telling them that the
counterattitudinal essay they wrote would be used by a panel and may possibly persuade them to
implement the parking fee on the campus Results indicated that all subjects participated in
writing the counterattitudinal essay (100 compliance rates) regardless of what group they were
10
in and subjects in the high perceived choice group evidenced more attitude shift towards paying
for parking than participants in the low perceived choice group The authors concluded that this
attitude shift occurred due to the participantsrsquo lack of external justification for writing the
counterattitudinal essay (they agreed voluntarily to write it) which in turn caused feelings of
guilt for voluntarily lying to the confederate These results indicate that people are apt to perform
counterattitudinal behaviors even when given a high perceived choice not to Due to the studyrsquos
significant attitude shift (cognitive dissonance) results in the High perceived choice group as
opposed to the Low perceived choice group who did not get strong attitude shift results the
current study will compare high and low perceived choice groups to attain the different levels of
cognitive dissonance
Upon discovering the links between free choice and reward leading to attitude shift when
a dissonant act is completed cognitive dissonance researchers attempted to identify specific
components of decision making that would further explain the effects of cognitive dissonance
The key features that have been postulated to explain how and why cognitive dissonance creates
attitude shift include experiencing feelings of personal guilt (Cooper amp Fazio 1984) public
commitment (Aronson 1968) and perceived free choice to commit the behavior (Brehm amp
Cohen 1962) Researchers have come up with competing theories to explain the resulting
cognitive shift that accompanies dissonance and one of the most prominent theories is the New
Look theory
13 Cooperrsquos New Look Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
The New Look theory posits that the effects of dissonance are a result of feeling
personally responsible for instigating future negative consequences for oneself or more often for
others (Cooper amp Fazio 1984) Cooper and Fazio suggested in this theory that aversive
11
consequences are necessary for the arousal of dissonance The authors defined aversive events as
those that block onersquos self interest or events that the individual would rather avoid due to their
undesirable nature The New Look theory posits that the degree of dissonance aroused in an
individual is dependent on the amount of desire a person has to avoid the negative consequences
Cooper and Fazio term this phenomenon dissonance motivation The New Look theory identifies
the consequence of an action as the cause of the subsequent attitude shift The consequence must
be salient and must cause the individual enough distress to warrant attitude shift
Support for this theory came from a study conducted by Goethals and Cooper (1972)
These researchers induced participants (known to be in favor of drinking alcohol) to deliver an
anti-drinking speech to a panel of people Half of the subjects were informed that their speech
convinced the panel that allowing drinking on campus was a bad idea while the other half of
participants were told that the speech they made had no effect on the listeners Results indicated
that only the participants who were led to believe that their speech had a negative effect on the
panel (their speech convinced the panel that drinking was bad) experienced attitude shift toward
being in favor of a drinking ban on campus The participants who were told that they did not
convince the panel did not experience attitude shift toward being against drinking on campus
The authors concluded that unless the participant feels that he negatively impacted another
person then he will not experience enough guilt and dissonance to warrant an attitude shift
Cooper and Worchel (1970) further demonstrated evidence for the New Look theory in
their experiment which replicated the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) peg turning task However
in their study participants were asked to deceive a confederate (only a high perceived choice
group) for a small amount of experimental credit (1 credit or 5 credits) Results indicated that
participants who felt they had the free will to deceive another person and did so experienced
12
such a negative consequence that in order to alleviate feelings of internal unease they changed
their own attitude and reported enjoying the peg turning task more than a control group who did
not have to lie to another person (who experienced no aversive consequence to their behavior)
Therefore Cooper in his New Look theory postulated that most people experience cognitive
dissonance following an aversive act that impacts another person or the self negatively
especially when the negative act violates normative social standards (Cooper 1999)
The aforementioned aspects of Cooperrsquos New Look theory are crucial to the current study
because we hypothesized that the average person will experience cognitive dissonance and thus
attitude change after committing an aversive act (lying to a confederate) which they felt they
freely chose to do The current experiment intended to explore Cooperrsquos New Look theory to not
only validate it in a normal population but also to test its effectiveness in a subpopulation that
experiences lower levels of guilt and remorse The current experiment intended to explore
Cooperrsquos New Look theory to not only validate it in a normal population but also to test its
effectiveness in a subpopulation that experiences lower levels of guilt and remorse If the theory
is correct that cognitive dissonance effects are due to feelings of tension or unease over having
caused negative consequences to another individual then it is the hypothesis of the current
researchers that individuals who felt less guilt over breaking social norms would not be as
cognitively affected by lying to another person Therefore the person with less ability to
experience guilt would not experience psychological distress from lying and ultimately therefore
not have an attitude shift
14 Psychopathy Effects on Cognitive Dissonance
The New Look theory proposes that an important cause of cognitive dissonance is often
the feeling of remorse that an individual experiences after performing a counterattitudinal
13
behavior with negative consequences for another person The questions naturally arise How
would individuals with little or no guilt perform on a cognitive dissonance task that arouses
guilt Would people lacking these cognitive reactions experience cognitive dissonance and
attitude shift following a dissonant action In order to answer these questions one must first
identify a group of people that consistently exhibit a lack of concern for others such as
individuals with psychopathic traits
Psychopathy is a pervasive heterogeneous personality construct that is particularly salient
for the current study due to the callous nature of individuals with these traits Psychopaths are
individuals who exhibit no remorse are callous unemotional and lack concern for societyrsquos
morays In addition they are often impulsive antisocial manipulative and do not have strong
social bonds with others (Hare 1993 Patrick 2006) Approximately one percent of the
population meets criteria for the diagnosis of psychopathy though 15-25 of the prison
population is diagnosed with psychopathy (Hare 1996) Within the criminal population
individuals with psychopathy are not only overrepresented but they also commit more violent
crimes (over half in the United States) and recidivate four times more often than prisoners
without psychopathy (Hare 1993) As one can see these crime statistics make this population a
danger to society and thus it is important to attempt to identify what underlying cognitive and
behavioral differences exist in people with psychopathy
Psychopathy is often discussed in relation to antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) by
many scholars (Hare 1993 Lilienfeld 1994) because of the high number of correlated traits
between the two personality constructs Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is classified as
an Axis II Cluster B disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV-TR) (American
Psychological Association APA 1994) Cluster B disorders are ones in which the individual
14
exhibits unpredictable impulsive or dramatic behavior The DSM IV-TR criteria necessary for a
diagnosis of ASPD includes impulsive and aggressive behavior conduct disorder (CD) in
childhood a history of criminal acts and violent disregard for others (APA 1994)
Psychopathy is differentiated from ASPD in that psychopathy incorporates the cognitive
and internal states of the individual in addition to his or her external behaviors (Hare 1999) In
fact the cognitive and interpersonal features of psychopathy are considered to be the most
crucial defining aspects of the personality construct (Patrick 2006) Psychopaths have
demonstrated an inability to internalize their culturersquos moral or legal standards and therefore
many people with psychopathy do not abide by these rules
Historically Phillipe Pinel was the first scientist to document the condition of
psychopathy in the early 19th century (Meloy 1998) Pinel noted that psychopaths exhibited no
remorse or internal restraint Hervey Cleckley (1941 1976) furthered research on psychopathy in
his book The Mask of Sanity Cleckley (1976) proposed that psychopathy is a personality
construct which arises in childhood He also was the first to define several cognitive and
affective characteristics of psychopathy such as superficial charm emotional shallowness
deceitfulness egocentricity irresponsibility and (most central for the current study) a lack of
remorse shame or guilt In addition he found that psychopaths often externalize the blame for
their negative actions are extremely impulsive and do not learn from punishment
Within psychopathy research there has been some debate as to whether the construct is
taxonic or dimensional (Hare 1991 Marcus amp Edens 2004) For example the Psychopathy
Checklist Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991) which is one of the prominent ways of assessing
psychopathy assigns individuals with an overall score on a scale from 0 to 40 with a cut off
score of 29 generally indicating the threshold for a psychopathy diagnosis (Hare 1991 Hare amp
15
Neumann 2006) The use of a cut-off seems to suggest a taxonic perspective However use of
the scale indicates that the higher the score the more psychopathic traits an individual expresses
which is also consistent with a dimensional view of psychopathy Recent studies have used the
PCL-R to examine the dimensional aspects of psychopathy and have consistently come to the
conclusion that psychopathy should be viewed as a continuum (Edens Marcus Lilienfeld amp
Poythress 2006 Marcus amp Edens 2004) Aside from looking at psychopathy on a continuum it
is also important to examine the construct from multiple perspectives such as behaviorally and
cognitively
Two Factor Model of Psychopathy
Today a Two Factor Model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991) is one of the
primary models used to evaluate psychopathy (Hare amp Neumann 2006 Harpur Hare amp
Hakstian 1989 Murrie amp Cornell 2002 Rutherford Cacciola amp Alterman 1999) The Two
Factor model assesses both behavioral cues and intrinsic or internal personality traits to define
psychopathy (Chapman Gremore amp Farmer 2003 Hare 1991 Pethman amp Erlandsson 2002)
and is the bases for the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991 Lykken 1995)
which is the principal assessment tool used to identify clinical psychopathy Within the Two
Factor theory the first factor describes the internal disposition of the individual and includes
eight items believed to gauge psychopathy from a cognitive angle These personality traits
include superficial charm a grandiose sense of self worth lack of empathy or guilt pathological
lying and cunning manipulativeness (Hare 1991 Raine 2002) The second factor outlines the
behavioral actions of an individual with psychopathic tendencies and includes nine items used to
assess a psychopathic personality These traits include early problem behaviors poor behavioral
controls and impulsivity (Hare 1991 Rutherford et al 1999) Based on the aforementioned
16
cognitive components of psychopathy the current researchers propose that these individuals will
not experience the same degree of psychological unease from lying to a confederate that the non
psychopathic individuals involved in the study
Primary and Secondary Model of Psychopathy
A second differentiation model of psychopathy was proposed by Karpman (1941 1948)
Karpman following the work of Cleckley divided psychopathy into two subcategories primary
and secondary psychopathy It is important to note that the primary and secondary views of
psychopathy mirror the Two Factor Model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991) In both
instances the primary factor (Factor 1) encompasses the cognitive affective traits of
psychopathy while the secondary factor (Factor 2) assesses the more antisocial behavior
characteristics of psychopathy
Individuals with primary psychopathy evidence cognitive manifestations of the construct
such as low to non-existent trait anxiety callousness and a lack of guilt or remorse They tend to
be unresponsive to treatment efforts and often have more severe symptoms associated with
psychopathy (Karpman 1941) For example Karpman (1948) found that primary psychopaths
are more apt to carry out their deceptive and manipulative behavior to reach an end goal
displaying a callous lack of emotion or concern for others whereas secondary psychopaths will
occasionally act with higher human emotions such as empathy
Secondary psychopathy is believed to come about through the effects of environmental
stressors and life events such as severe child physical or sexual abuse (Porter 1996) The
manifestation of secondary psychopathy which has also been called sociopathy (Lykken 1995)
is mostly behavioral in nature and secondary psychopaths tend to carry out the antisocial and
deviant behavior as a reaction to deep emotional conflict or anger rather than a callous
17
disregard for others (Karpman 1941) Overall primary psychopaths seem to have a permanent
deficit in functioning whereas secondary psychopathy encompasses a dysfunction created by
aversive environmental factors However it is important to note that both primary and secondary
psychopaths to some degree evidence manipulative and callous behavior and display a lack of
regard for others (Karpman 1948)
Support for the view that psychopaths lack psychological distress comes in part from a
study conducted by Patrick Bradley and Lang (1993) The researchers attempted to elicit a
startle reflex in psychopaths and non-psychopaths (as diagnosed by the PCL-R) by blasting a
loud noise while having the participants view either pleasant or unpleasant photographs Results
showed that psychopaths exhibited a much smaller startle response to the noise when viewing the
stimuli (both positive and negative pictures) as compared to the non-psychopaths In addition
Patrick and colleagues found a negative correlation between the PCL-R Factor One scores (lack
of guilt lack of remorse etc) and the level of eye-blink reaction Eye blink reactions to the
startle noise were measured with Beckman miniature Ag-AgCl electrodes positioned at the
orbicularis oculi muscle beneath the participantrsquos left eye The authors found that non
psychopathic individualsrsquo eyes tend to blink more frequently than in psychopaths when aversive
stimuli are presented
Therefore these results seem to indicate that individuals with high Factor One traits
seem to evidence very little anxiety and less psychological distress towards aversive stimuli The
results of this study show that individuals higher in psychopathic traits experience less of a
physiological and thus perhaps less of a cognitive reaction to aversive stimuli In addition a
study conducted by Ray and Ray (1982) demonstrated that people high in psychopathy do not
seem to care as much about what others think of them The study found a negative correlation
18
between social desirability (as measured by the Marlow-Crowne social desirability scales) and
psychopathy (r = -32 p = 05) This finding also supports the current studyrsquos hypothesis that
individuals high on psychopathic traits will be less likely than other individuals to experience
psychological unease over lying to a confederate or undergo an attitude shift to diminish this
discomfort
Cognitive dissonance studies have consistently demonstrated that individuals not only
shift their attitude following a dissonant act but also experience physical symptoms of distress as
well For example a study conducted by Croyle and Cooper (1983) found that people have a
heightened skin conductance responses following the ldquovoluntaryrdquo commitment of a writing a
counterattitudinal essay Though no direct cognitive dissonance studies manipulating guilt have
been replicated using psychopaths studies that have used aversive stimuli such as the
anticipation of being blasted with a loud noise (80 to 120dB) have indicated that psychopaths
(compared to non-psychopath controls) evidence a hyporesponsive physical reaction (as
measured by electrodermal measurements) to the aversive stimuli (Hare 1978) Harersquos study
along with others like it (see Fowles 1980 Lykken 1957) indicate that psychopaths do not
seem to experience anxiety at the same level that non-psychopathic individuals do Therefore it
would follow that through the reduced physiological anxiety response identified in individuals
with psychopathy they will be unable to experience the psychological unease associated with the
adverse stimulus (lying to a confederate) and thus not experience an attitude shift
Past Research on Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonance
Only one study has attempted to assess the effect of psychopathy on cognitive
dissonance A doctoral dissertation by Weir (2007) examined cognitive dissonance in a sample
of 150 males from a drug treatment facility All participants had been in prison or jail and had a
19
history of criminal activity Level of psychopathy was assessed using the LPSP Participants at
the start of this study filled out an attitudes measure that assessed their opinions about the
judicial system treatment of criminals and drug abuse Later in the experiment cognitive
dissonance was induced by having participants copy a counterattitudinal statement from a sheet
of paper that dealt with being in favor of harsher punishments for criminals and drug offenders
(views that these men would adamantly oppose) After participants copied the counterattitudinal
statements they were instructed to tear up what they had written At the end of the study Weir
again assessed participantsrsquo attitudes regarding the judicial system treatment of criminals and
drug abuse with the same attitudes measure employed at the very beginning of the study The
pre and post-test use of the attitudes measure was to identify if participantsrsquo opinions had shifted
toward being in favor of harsher punishments for criminals after writing counterattitudinally in
favor of it
Weir hypothesized that primary psychopaths would experience cognitive dissonance
significantly less than individuals with secondary psychopathy or non-psychopathic individuals
because of the callous unemotional traits that are principally associated with primary
psychopathy However results of Weirrsquos study found no significant difference across the three
groups for attitude change following the dissonance inducing task The analysis did find minor
differences between the groups such that primary psychopaths did seem less effected by writing
the counterattitudinal essays than the secondary and non-psychopaths but again the results were
not significant Weir (2007) concluded that individuals with higher levels of primary
psychopathy were deficient but not completely incapable of experiencing dissonance following
an aversive behavior
20
An important confound of Weirrsquos study was the lack of a control group All participants
wrote the counterattitudinal essay so there was not a neutral group to compare the participantsrsquo
attitude shift following the essay copying to Due to the lack of a control group it is impossible to
know whether the experimental manipulation induced a dissonance effect in any of the groups
Though his study did assess cognitive dissonance it is still very different than the current study
because Weir was not using guilt as the catalyst for attitude shift
The current study examines the effect of guilt (or a lack of guilt) on cognitive dissonance
while the counterattitudinal essayrsquos used as the dissonance stimuli in Weirrsquos study did not cause
participants to feel guilt Weir was not manipulating guilt in participants but rather their
cognitive reactions to discrepant behaviors and beliefs (physically writing in favor of something
they cognitively disagreed with) Therefore though relevant to more general issues concerning
cognitive dissonance and psychopathy his study was not directly relevant to the question of
whether guilt-inducing manipulations evoke cognitive dissonance effects among individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy
15 Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism (MACH) is considered to be a similar concept to psychopathy
(McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto 1998 Saruk 1975) Both personality constructs are
characterized by callousness manipulation of others and a disregard for social norms and morals
(Christie amp Geis 1970 Skinner 1988) Based on these shared characteristics many researchers
have come to believe that the concepts may be the same but are just being labeled differently by
different branches of psychology (McHoskey et al 1998) Psychopathy is typically studied by
clinical psychologists whereas MACH has been primarily researched in the fields of social and
personality psychology
21
However other investigators (Wastell amp Booth 2003 Wilson Near amp Miller 1996)
have pointed to MACH as an instrumental construct that is incorporated as a strategic way to
pursue goals MACHs tend to be calculating and rational and engage in ruthless activity to attain
goals that are important to them Psychopaths on the other hand are often much less self-
controlled and more impulsive while exhibiting a dearth of planning abilities This may be one
of the main differences between MACH and psychopathy and this difference seems to point to
cognitive distinctions between the two personality traits
Christie (1970b) formulated the personality construct of MACH based on the writings of
16th century political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli Machiavellirsquos (1513) classic book The
Prince recommended that would-be rulers take a ruthless and cold-blooded approach to
governance Accordingly Christie identified the traits of an individual with high MACH as
using ldquosuccessfulrdquo manipulation for personal gain a lack of concern for moral standards and a
purely instrumental approach to interpersonal relationships The MACH-IV is the principal
measure used to identify Machiavellianism today It was developed in 1970 by Christie and Geis
(1970) and is a self report assessment containing 20 questions that tap the traits of MACH
Research attempting to explore the distinctions between psychopathy and MACH has
found Machiavellians to evidence many shared traits with both primary and secondary
psychopathy For example MACH characteristics related to Factor 1 of the PCL-R and primary
psychopathy (as measured by the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales LPSP
Levenson et al 1995) include callousness manipulation and a lack of anxiety (Smith 1999)
Qualities of Machiavellianism have also been found in secondary psychopathy such as a thrill
seeking behavior and a heightened need for external stimulation (Strelau 1983) In addition a
study conducted by McHoskey and colleagues (1998) found that high scores on the MACH-IV
22
and high scores on the LPSP significantly correlated (r = 62) Smith and Griffith (1978) also
found a significant though modest correlation between the MMPI (Pd) scale and the MACH-IV
(r = 25) using a sample of 66 college students These findings support the theory that MACH
and psychopathy diagnoses have features in common and may in fact be tapping similar
personality constructs McHoskey and colleagues concluded after his study that psychopathy and
MACH should be more integrated in the literature
However other researchers have argued that there are crucial differences between
psychopathy and Machiavellianism For example Smith (1999) has argued that many people
with Machiavellianism are more apt to resemble a ldquosuccessful psychopathrdquo as they tend to not
have as many legal problems as primary psychopaths do and are often overrepresented in the
business industry as successful employees In addition other studies have resulted in smaller
correlations between MACH and psychopathy (see Greenwald 1967 Christie 1970a) For
example Saruk (1975) compared MACH scores with psychopathy scores on the Psychopathic
Deviate (Pd) scale of the MMPI with incarcerated inmates as participants and found no
significant correlation between the two personality constructs However many researchers today
have advised against using the Pd scale of the MMPI to gauge psychopathy due to the unreliable
results this scale has offered when studying psychopathy (Patrick 2006) and MACH (Skinner
1982) in the past
Additional distinctions in the current literature between MACH and psychopathy are that
MACHs tend be more represented in higher SES families and have higher economic standing
than the majority of psychopaths (especially secondary psychopaths) (McHoskey et al 1998
Smith 1999) As a result of the aforementioned literature MACH is most often associated with
ldquosuccessfulrdquo psychopathy or non institutionalized psychopaths (Christie 1970a)
23
16 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonance
Though the literature is very sparse regarding the relationship between psychopathy and
cognitive dissonance a few studies have investigated the relationship between MACH and
cognitive dissonance Four of the studies are relevant to the current proposal due to the way that
the researchers manipulated dissonance arousal One hindrance in comparing the current study to
previous ones on MACH and cognitive dissonance is that at the time these former studies were
conducted Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory of cognitive dissonance arousal had not been
formulated and thus guilt had not been considered as the cause of dissonance arousal at that
point in time
Bogart Geis Levy and Zimbardo (1970) assessed the impact of social cohesiveness
(liking a partner versus not liking a partner) between high and low MACHs in a cognitive
dissonance paradigm Participantsrsquo level of MACH and self-reported level of morality were pre-
assessed using the MACH-IV Next high and low MACHs were enticed to cheat on a test by a
confederate posing as their partner in the experiment The partnerrsquos level of prestige was
manipulated For half of participants the fake partner was presented as a high prestige partner (a
graduate law school student with high grades) and the remaining participants were told that their
partner was of low prestige (an industrial arts undergraduate student with poor grades) Bogart
and colleagues hypothesized that after cheating low MACHs in the low external justification
group (low prestige partners) would decrease their self-reported ratings of morality (identify
themselves as less moral than before) in order to cognitively justify their cheating behavior Each
participant was left alone in a room with their high or low prestige partner to complete a test
containing un-solvable questions After a while the fake partner ldquohappened uponrdquo answers to the
questions on a desk in the room and attempted to get the participant to cheat with him by copying
24
the answers from the found answer sheet After the cheating manipulation the participantrsquos level
of MACH (self-reported morality rating) was assessed again using the MACH-IV
The results of the study concluded that both high and low MACHs succumbed to
cheating at approximately the same rate (50 [1632] of high MACHS and 46 [1328] of low
MACHs) However Bogart and colleagues (1970) found that high MACHs were more
instrumental in their cheating behavior such that they cheated significantly more with the high
prestige partner than with the low prestige partner Low MACHs cheated an equal amount across
low and high prestige partner pairings In addition Bogart and colleagues identified an ldquoanti-
dissonantrdquo effect such that high MACHs actually increased their self-ratings of morality by
reporting that they were more moral after cheating when paired with a low prestige partner (low
external justification condition) whereas low MACHs as predicted decreased their self-ratings
of morality (reported they were less moral) when paired with low prestige partners (low external
justification condition) In other words when high MACHs were in the condition with no
external justification present for their actions and thus would have to rely on changing their
thoughts to match their behaviors they did not undergo this attitude shift rather they seemed to
create more dissonance between their thoughts and actions by reporting themselves as more
moral after cheating with the low prestige partner This is opposite to the classical cognitive
dissonant studies where participants experience an attitude shift that matches their behaviors
when little or no external justification is present to explain their actions
In contrast the classic dissonance effect was exhibited by participants in the Bogart et al
(1970) study with low levels of MACH they reported that they were not moral individuals after
they cheated with a low prestige partner Therefore it appears high MACH individuals are
25
relying on unique aspects of the situation other than external justification to create attitude
change
A very similar experiment was reported by Bogart (1971) in which she again assessed the
effect of MACH on cognitive dissonance by enticing participants cheat on a task with a high or
low prestige partner However in this experiment a control group was employed to assess
differences between high and low MACHs who were asked to cheat as opposed to those who
were not asked to cheat As in the earlier study by Bogart et al (1970) participantsrsquo level of
MACH and self-reported level of morality were pre-assessed Next high and low MACHs were
persuaded to cheat on an essay writing assignment by a confederate posing as their partner in the
experiment The partnerrsquos level of prestige was manipulated this time in four different ways to
include their fake level of MACH as well The four categories of fake participants included High
MACH High Prestige (graduate law student) High MACH Low Prestige (business
administration student) Low MACH High Prestige (physics major) and Low MACH Low
Prestige (industrial arts student) Results indicated that high MACH participants cheated
significantly more than low MACHs (66 of high MACHs versus 41 of low MACHs) and
that they discriminated their cheating significantly more than low MACHs such that high
MACHs cheated more with the high prestige partners than the low prestige partners (81 versus
56) As in the previous study by Bogart et al (1970) an anti-dissonance effect was again found
for High MACH participants such that high MACHs again increased their self-ratings of
morality (reported they were more moral) when in the low external justification condition (paired
with low prestige partners) while low MACHs decreased their self-ratings of morality (reported
they were less moral) when in the low external justification condition (paired with low prestige
partners) This study also pointed to a difference between high and low MACHs experience of
26
cognitive dissonance by identifying the abnormal anti-dissonance reaction from individuals with
higher levels of MACH
A study by Epstein (1969) used a methodology that apparently induced guilt in
participants Epstein examined the difference between high and low MACH participantsrsquo ability
to be persuaded by induced counterattitudinal behavior Epstein pre-assessed participantsrsquo level
of MACH (with the MACH-IV) and through the use of a median split chose a sample of 40 high
MACH men and 40 low MACH men She told them that they were involved in a radio debate on
fluoridating water supplies Epstein also pre-assessed their position on water fluoridation to
make sure all participants were in favor of the procedure Half of the participants were in the
non-role playing condition (20 high MACHs and 20 low MACHs) They were instructed to read
a counterattitudinal essay against fluoridating water in town and then were post-experimentally
assessed about their position on water fluoridation to see if reading the essay had created an
attitude shift in these participants The other half of participants were in the role playing
condition They not only read the counterattitudinal essay but next they were asked to deliver an
impromptu speech against fluoridation that would be recorded and played on radio stations
across the state In the taped speech the participants had to give their name and advocate for a
ban on fluoridation which was dissonant to their personal beliefs After delivering the speech
they too were post-experimentally assessed about their position on water fluoridation to see if
their opinion had changed to be more against fluoridation Results indicated an interaction
between high and low MACHs with the role playing conditions High MACHs in the non-role
playing condition evidenced significantly more attitude change than the high MACHs in the role-
playing condition and more attitude change than the low MACHs in the non-role playing
condition This too is an anti-dissonance effect in that dissonance has been shown to produce
27
attitude change when people perform behaviors that go against their personal beliefs and in the
case of the non-role playing condition the participants did not engage in any dissonant behavior
they simply read a counterattitudinal essay written by someone else Conversely as predicted
low MACHs in the role-playing condition evidenced significantly more attitude change towards
being against fluoridation than high MACHs in the role-playing condition In addition low
MACHs in the role playing condition evidenced the most attitude change out of any condition
The finding that low MACHs experienced the most attitude shift when they had to give a speech
on the radio against fluoridation supports the classic cognitive dissonance phenomenon In
addition the role playing low MACH results potentially relate to our study if their attitudes
shifted because they felt guilt for publically denouncing a belief that they held Epsteinrsquos study is
relevant to the current study due to the methodology she used in the role playing condition
Participants were asked to publically (via a radio broadcast) deliver a speech advocating for
beliefs that they opposed Therefore because delivering a public anti-fluoridation speech would
most likely produce feelings of guilt in participants Epsteinrsquos study provides some support for
the current studyrsquos predicted results
One final study on MACH and cognitive dissonance is loosely related to the current
study although in this final example the experimental methodology did not induce guilt in
participants Burgoon Miller amp Tubbs (1972) had participants write counterattitudinal essays
advocating the removal of college student draft deferments under high and low justification In
the study justification was manipulated with classroom credits participants in the high
justification group received five classroom credits for agreeing to write the counterattitudinal
essay and participants in the low justification group received only one credit for writing the
essay Results indicated a significant interaction between level of justification (high versus low)
28
and level of MACH (high versus low) Low MACH participants experienced attitude shift
toward being in favor of draft deferments when in the low justification group This was
consistent with the classic cognitive dissonance effect When low MACH participants had no
external justification for writing the essay they changed their beliefs to match their actions In
contrast high MACHs experienced attitude shift toward being in favor of the draft deferments
only when in the high justification group but not in the low justification group The authors
explain this relationship by using incentive theory They posit that high MACHs attitudes are
persuaded by rewards which stems from their desire to gain power and prestige (and rewards)
with no regard for other people
Burgoon et al (1972) explained their findings as reflecting high MACHsrsquo lack of
concern about lying or moral standards Christie and Geis (1970) have also discussed the
findings of Burgoon et al and conjectured that they reflect the high MACHrsquos lack of concern for
other people Specifically Christie and Geis suggest that high MACHs view people more as
objects to be manipulated rather than as people with feelings and emotions
The main difference between the current study and that of Burgoon et al (1972) is that
our study assessed cognitive dissonance through the use of guilt induction while their study did
not induce guilt in participants The methodology involved in their experiment was not designed
to create guilt in participants rather it was simply created to examine attitude shift after
performing a counterattitudinal act with no negative consequences Therefore though Burgoon
and colleaguesrsquo study assessed cognitive dissonance effects in participants with MACH it does
not appear directly relevant to the hypothesis underlying the present study
Overall past research has demonstrated that individuals high in MACH are resistant to
the classic cognitive dissonance effects of attitude shift after performing a behavior that they
29
cognitively oppose In fact the past research has shown that individuals with high MACH often
experience attitude shift in the opposite direction or conditions that low MACHs do These
results have been explained as consequences of the underlying personality characteristics that
high MACH individuals possess (callousness manipulative nature and lack of regard for others)
Since these characteristics are also traits of psychopathy (especially primary psychopathy) it is
reasonable to expect that the negative associations demonstrated between MACH and cognitive
dissonance will also be found between psychopathy and cognitive dissonance in the present
study
17 Hypotheses of the Present Study
Cognitive dissonance studies analyzing the affects of MACH have shown a significant
effect such that high MACHs do not evidence the classic attitude shift following the
performance of a dissonant act The current study sought to determine whether individuals with
high psychopathy scores exhibit a similar pattern
In the current study we analyzed guilt-induced cognitive dissonance effects in individuals
with varying levels of psychopathy Participantsrsquo level of psychopathy (and MACH) was
identified by having them fill out two self report measures on psychopathy and one self-report
measure on MACH They completed a boring abacus task that involved manually pushing balls
one at a time across an abacus for 20 minutes After the task the participants were either politely
asked (High perceived choice to lie group) or directly instructed (Low perceived choice to lie
group) to tell a fellow student (actually a confederate) that the abacus task was enjoyable After
misleading the confederate the participants completed a post-experimental questionnaire that
assessed their personal enjoyment of the abacus task and their level of guilt over deceiving
another person
30
First it was hypothesized that the classic cognitive dissonance effect would be replicated
We expected that regardless of psychopathy or MACH level participants in the High Choice to
Lie condition would evidence more attitude shift towards enjoying the abacus task than
participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition These results were expected to be a replication
of the classic Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study except that instead of manipulating reward
we would demonstrate the effect using choice as the dissonance manipulator
The second hypothesis was that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy (and
MACH) would report disliking the abacus task (as measured by the post experimental
questionnaire) across both the High and Low perceived choice to lie groups We expected these
results due to the lack of guilt commonly found in individuals with higher levels of psychopathy
and MACH Therefore we theorized that individuals with high levels of psychopathy would not
experience guilt even when they felt that they voluntarily (High perceived choice to lie group)
chose to mislead another participant Due to this lack of guilt the high psychopathy (and high
MACH) participant would not have had the attitude shift associated with cognitive dissonance
and would not report enjoying the abacus task
The third hypothesis pertained to the individuals with low or nonexistent levels of
psychopathy and MACH We predicted that participants with low levels of psychopathy would
report enjoying the abacus task more after lying to a future participant only if they were in the
High perceived choice to lie group These results were believed to be due to the guilt inducing
nature of voluntarily agreeing to lie to a person as opposed to the Low perceived choice group
where participants were told directly to lie to the next participant as part of the study
requirements These results were also expected for people who scored low in Machiavellianism
due to the similarities between the two personality constructs
31
The fourth hypothesis was that psychopathy would better account for a demonstrated lack
of guilt than would MACH Though this hypothesis did not have a strong empirically supported
theoretical background we were interested in learning whether the psychopathy construct would
yield different results from MACH suggesting that the psychopathy construct is including
relevant and distinct personality dimensions that the MACH construct does not include
In addition this study explored the relationship between primary and secondary
psychopathy with the level of self reported abacus task enjoyment Specifically the study
examined differences in the reported level of abacus task enjoyment between individuals with
high scores on primary as compared to secondary psychopathy Also the study explored
particular facets of psychopathy (such as callousness) and their relationship to reported
enjoyment of the abacus task
32
Chapter 2 Method
Participants
The current study was conducted with 164 (103 females 61 males) undergraduate
students at the University of Texas El Paso The sample size for the current study was
determined by examining past research on cognitive dissonance effects on MACH These studies
typically included 50 to 80 participants and yielded statistically significant results We
conservatively concluded that the present study should include approximately twice as many
participants as these earlier studies to ensure appropriate power for the current study
Participantsrsquo ages ranged from 18 to 44 years (M =1966 years SD = 317 years) with 823
between the ages of 18 to 20 The ethnicity of the sample was predominately Hispanic (854)
with the remaining participantsrsquo ethnicities Anglo-American (67) African American (18)
Asian (6) and Other (55) Participants were drawn from Introductory Psychology courses at
the University of Texas El Paso and were given 15 experimental credits for their participation
Measures
The Psychopathic Personality InventorymdashRevised Short Form (PPI-R SF Lilienfeld amp
Widows 2005)
The current study used the Psychopathic Personality Inventory ndash Revised Short Form
(PPI-R SF) which is a shortened version of the PPI-R It is a self-report measure of subclinical
psychopathic tendencies The PPI-R SF contains 56 items that are scored using a Likert scale
between 1 and 4 (1=False 2=Mostly False 3=Mostly True 4=True) The PPI-R SF yields one
overall total score and two factor scores (Fearless Dominance [FD] and Self-Centered
Impulsivity [SCI] ) as well as scores on eight content scales (a) Machiavellian Egocentricity
(ME 20 items) (b) Social Influence (SOI previously Social Potency 18 items) (c)
Coldheartedness (C 16 items) (d) Carefree Nonplanfulness (CN 19 items) (e) Fearlessness (F
33
14 items) (f) Blame Externalization (BE 15 items) (g) Rebellious Nonconformity (RN
previously Impulsive Nonconformity 16 items) and (h) Stress Immunity (STI 13 items) The
Fearless Dominance factor includes the Social Influence Fearlessness and Stress Immunity
content scales and the Self Centered Impulsivity factor is comprised of the Machiavellian
Egocentricity Rebellious Nonconformity Carefree Nonplanfulness and Blame Externalization
content scales (the Coldheartedness content scale is part of the overall total but is considered
separate from either of the two summed factors (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger
2003) These factors correspond to the two-factor structure (PPI-I and PPI-2) of the original
version of the PPI which are also similar to the Two Factor Structure of psychopathy proposed
by Hare (1991) in the Psychopathy ChecklistmdashRevised Specifically the Fearless Dominance
factor assesses the cognitive deficits of psychopathy while the Self Centered Impulsivity factor
reviews the antisocial behavior traits of psychopathy
Currently there are no published studies that have analyzed the reliability and validity of
the PPI-R SF but because it is a shortened version of the PPI-R (it is comprised of the 7 highest
loading questions from each of the eight subscales of the PPI-R) the demonstrated psychometric
properties of the PPI and PPI-R are relevant to evaluating the PPI-R SF
Lilienfeld and Andrews (1996) evaluated the convergent and discriminant validities of
the PPI with an undergraduate sample and found evidence of convergent validity with the
California Psychological Inventory Socialization scale (r = -59) Levensonrsquos (1990)
Psychopathy Scale (r = 37) and with the Hare (1985) Self Report Psychopathy ScalemdashRevised
(r = 91) Lilienfeld and Widows (1995) demonstrated internal consistencies for the PPI-R
overall total and content scales to range from α = 78 to α = 92 They also found test-retest
reliabilities (mean test-retest interval = 1994 days) to range from r = 82 to r = 93 The PPI-R
34
has been found to correlate significantly with both the Self-Report Psychopathy ScalendashII (SRP-
II Hare Harpur amp Hemphill 1989) and the LPSP (Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995) as
well as with self-report measures of antisocial personality disorder substance use sensation
seeking and pathological functioning (Lilienfeld amp Widows 2005)
Levensonrsquos Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales (LPSP Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick
1995)
The LPSP is a 26-item self report measure that identifies both behavioral and emotional
aspects of psychopathy The measure breaks down into two subscales Primary Psychopathy (16
items) and Secondary Psychopathy (10 items) Each item is scored on a 1 to 4 point Likert Scale
(1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Agree Strongly) Levenson and colleagues
(1995) found that the Primary scale has good internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos alpha = 82) and
that the Secondary scale had marginal internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos alpha = 63) In addition
they found that the two scales correlate moderately (r = 40) Lynam and colleagues (1999)
found convergent validity between the PPI and the LPSP to be moderately high (r= 64)
MACH-IV Scale (Christie amp Geis 1970) The MACH-IV is a 20-item self-report measure that identifies Machiavellianism which
is characterized by being callous manipulative and behaving in a way that only benefits oneself
The items are arranged in a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very Strongly Agree) to 5 (Very
Strongly Disagree) with 3 being a neutral choice (No Opinion) Internal reliability has been
found to be rather consistent with studies demonstrating moderate alpha coefficients α=74
(Austin Farrelly Black amp Moore 2007) and α=70 (Fehr Samsom amp Paulhus 1992) Christie
and Geis (1970) found split half reliabilities from 69 to 88 Finally Machiavellianism has
35
shown moderate correlations with primary (r = 65 plt001) and secondary psychopathy (r = 49
plt001) as measured by the LPSP (McHoskey et al 1998)
Post-experimental Questionnaire
The post experimental questionnaire was administered after the participant completed the
abacus task and after they misled the confederate in the experiment The questionnaire was
based on the post experimental measure used in the Cooper and Worchel (1970) study on
cognitive dissonance The measure contains eight items that assess how enjoyable the participant
perceived the abacus task how guilty they felt for lying to the confederate and how voluntary
the person felt the deceiving of the confederate was (see Appendix B) The item assessing
participantsrsquo enjoyment of the abacus task was the primary dependent measure of the current
study
The questionnaire was designed so that it appeared to be a survey conducted by the
Psychology Department attempting to analyze how effective all of the departmental research
was The questionnaire was sealed into an envelope by the participant upon completion in order
to create the illusion of the confidentiality of their answers from the experimenter The
questionnaire was designed to appear separate from the current experiment in order to prevent
any biasing of participantsrsquo responses by compliance effects (ie participants answering the way
they perceive the experimenter would want them to answer) The majority of the questions on
this questionnaire were obtained from the Cooper and Worchel post experimental questionnaire
The main adaptation the current study made to the original measure was the use of a 1-7 point
Likert scale to rate responses instead of the 1-31 point Likert scale utilized by Cooper and
Worchel In addition in the present study the last 2 questions on the questionnaire were changed
36
to identify how voluntary the participant found the task to be and if the deceiving of the
confederate elicited feelings of guilt in the participant
Demographics Form
A brief demographics form was presented at the beginning of the packet of psychopathy
and MACH self report measures (Appendix B) It was given before the self-report measures and
assessed participantsrsquo age gender and ethnicity This form took approximately one minute to
complete
Procedure Participants were Introductory Psychology students recruited through an online computer
experiment program provided by the University of Texas at El Paso and were given 15
experimental credits for their involvement in the current study Upon entering the lab the
participant was seated in the hall to wait for the experimenter Meanwhile the experimenter text-
messaged the confederate to let him (or her) know that the participant had arrived Upon
receiving the text message the confederate knew to wait approximately 15 minutes before
entering the lab and acting out their role Next the participant was guided into a room and given
an informed consent form (Appendix F) which was explained to them The form explained the
confidential nature of the study and that the study was about personality traitsrsquo influence on
motor skills and reaction time After the experimenter explained the consent form the participant
read and signed the form
Abacus Task
An abacus task was implemented to induce boredom in participants The task was loosely
modeled on the boring peg turning task used in the Cooper and Worchel (1970) and Festinger
and Carlsmith (1959) experiments on cognitive dissonance In the abacus task a large abacus
37
was placed flat on the table in front of the participant He or she was instructed to move the
wooden balls one at a time across the abacus using only their right hand The participant was
instructed to slide the balls across the abacus one at a time starting at the top row and moving
down the board until they reached the bottom row Once he or she had slid all of the balls (one
at a time) to the right side of the abacus the participant was instructed to start at the top again
and to slide the balls back across the abacus one at a time beginning at the top row and moving
down the abacus until they had reached the bottom row again Participants were told to work at
their own ldquonaturalrdquo pace and to continue sliding balls across the abacus one at a time going row
by row until instructed to stop After 10 minutes the experimenter instructed the participant to
stop and then start the task over with their left hand instead of their right hand During this task
the experimenter was seated directly across from the participant with a clipboard and a stopwatch
and acted as though she was monitoring the participantrsquos progress (eg occasionally writing
notes on the clipboard and appearing to time the participantrsquos progress with the stopwatch)
Approximately 15 minutes into the task a knock was heard on the door and the
confederate came into the room to ask if this was where the experiment was being held The
experimenter looked up and quickly told the confederate that he was in the right place and asked
him to wait in the hall until she was done running the current participant The confederate
apologized for his interruption shut the door behind him and sat in the hall to wait for his
interaction with the participant While waiting in the hall the confederate pretended to be doing
homework or listening to his Ipod to give the illusion that he was just another participant waiting
to do the experiment After the participant had moved the balls across the abacus with his or her
left hand for 10 minutes the experimenter signaled the participant to stop the task The abacus
task lasted 20 minutes 10 minutes per hand
38
Choice Conditions
After the abacus task was completed the experimenter stopped the participant and recited
from memory one of the Post Abacus Task scripts to the participant For half of participants the
experimenter recited from memory the High Perceived Choice to Lie script (see Appendix A)
and the other half of the participants were recited the Low Perceived Choice to Lie script
(Appendix A) The scripts were alternated randomly between participants Following the choice
manipulation portion of the experiment and guilt induction participants were given the post
experimental questionnaire to complete as this was the main dependent measure of the study
High Perceived Choice to Lie Group
In the High Perceived Choice to Lie condition the experimenter politely asked the
participant to tell the next waiting participant (the confederate waiting in the hall) that the abacus
task was fun and interesting (see Appendix A) The participant was informed that telling the
person waiting in the hall about the task being enjoyable was not required but that their
assistance would be greatly appreciated Once the participant agreed to the task (this study had a
100 compliance rate) he or she was taken into the hall where the ldquofuturerdquo participant (actually
a confederate) was seated and waiting The (real) participant was introduced to the confederate
and the experimenter explained to the fake participant that she had to set up quickly in the other
lab room so the current participant was going to explain the experiment to him while she was
gone The experimenter then excused herself and left the hallway The real participant was given
about two minutes to tell the second (bogus) participant that the task was enjoyable If the
participant freely told the confederate that the task was going to be fun (927 of participants)
then the fake participant thanked the real participant as follows ldquoGreat Irsquom really glad to hear
that this is a fun experiment because all of the other experiments I have had so far have really
39
been boring Thanks for telling merdquo If the participant did not freely say that the task was
enjoyable the confederate attempted to prompt them by asking ldquoSo how was itrdquo This
manipulation got an additional 37 of participants to verbalize that the task was fun and the
confederate also thanked them with the same statement reported above The statement thanking
the participant for the information about their enjoyable rating of the task was intended to
increase the real participantrsquos guilt about lying Following the short conversation with the
confederate the experimenter went back into the hall and led the participant into the other lab
room After she had shut the lab room door behind them the confederate filled out the
Confederate Manipulation Check form (Appendix H) The confederate checked the box on the
form that indicated whether or not the real participant told him directly if the task was fun if he
had to prompt the participant or if the participant did not tell him the task was enjoyable Upon
filling out the Confederate Manipulation Check form the confederate put the form in its box in
the lab and promptly left
Low Perceived Choice to Lie Group
In the Low Perceived Choice to Lie condition the experimenter directly instructed (not
requested) the participant to tell the next (fake) participant that the abacus task was fun and
interesting (see Appendix A) Upon consent from the participant the experimenter led him into
the hall and introduced him to the confederate who was waiting as the future participant
Identical procedures to the ones explained for participants in the High Perceived Choice to Lie
group occurred at this point
Post-experimental Questionnaire
Once participants had interacted with the confederate and been taken into the second lab
room they were given the post-experimental questionnaire The post-experimental questionnaire
40
(Appendix B) contained eight items that quantified how enjoyable the participant found the
abacus task to be and assessed their self-reported feelings of guilt after misleading the
confederate The questionnaire was presented to seem like it was not part of the current
experiment but rather a general Psychology Department survey being conducted to assess
departmental research being performed that semester The questionnaire was administered with
an envelope and the participant was instructed to seal their questionnaire inside the envelope
after completing it to promote the sense of confidentiality of their answers from the
experimenter The experimenter explained the questionnaire to the participant To prevent
possible compliance effects the experimenter reiterated that she was not supposed to see the
participantrsquos answers because the questionnaire was supposed to remain anonymous and was not
part of the current study
After the participant completed the post-experimental questionnaire and sealed it into the
envelope he or she was given a packet containing the LPSP [Appendix C] PPI-R SF [Appendix
D]) and MACH-IV [Appendix E]) and the demographics form (Appendix B) and asked to
complete these questionnaires The packet of measures took approximately 30 minutes to
complete After the participants filled out all of the self-report measures they were debriefed as
to the true nature of the experiment and asked to sign a second informed consent form (Appendix
F) that outlined to them the true purposes of the experiment A debriefing script was used to
ensure that all participants received the same information about the experiment (see Appendix
G) They were asked not to share with anyone the actual purpose and procedures of the
experiment in order to prevent future participants from knowing ahead of time what the
experiment was about Participants were given 15 experimental credits for their participation
41
Chapter 3 Results
Manipulation Check
There were 82 participants in the High Choice to Lie group and 82 participants in the
Low Choice to Lie condition All participants verbally agreed with the researcher that they
would tell the confederate that the task was enjoyable A manipulation check was performed to
determine whether they actually kept their agreement The confederate marked on a form
(Appendix G) whether or not the participant told him or her that the task was enjoyable Results
of the manipulation check indicated that 152 (927) of the participants complied with the
researcherrsquos suggestion and told the confederate that the task would be enjoyable An additional
six (37) told the confederate that the abacus task would be enjoyable but only after they were
prompted by the confederate asking ldquoHow was the taskrdquo One (6) participant told the
confederate that the task was enjoyable but added that he was instructed by the researcher to say
so Three participants (18) never told the confederate that the task was enjoyable Two
participants (12) told the confederate that the task was boring To preserve randomization
analyses for the study were run on all participants (N = 164) including those who failed to report
that the task was enjoyable This approach to the analysis of experimental findings is known as
ldquointent-to-treat analysisrdquo and yields an unbiased estimate of the effects of being assigned to each
experimental condition (Shadish Cook amp Campbell 2002) However as will be reported later
in the Results supplementary analyses were also run that excluded the six participants who
failed to tell the confederate that the task was enjoyable
Descriptive Statistics
Before running analyses procedures were carried out for dealing with missing data
Seven participants did not fill out the psychopathy and Machiavellianism self-report measures
42
completely Specifically each of the seven neglected to answer precisely one item on a single
scale Scores for the missing items were imputed individually using regression using the
summed score of the other items on the same scale as the predictor and the missing item score as
the criterion
Descriptive statistics were then calculated for participantsrsquo self-reported abacus task
enjoyment for their total scores on the psychopathy and Machiavellianism self-report measures
and for their respective factor scores and subscales scores (see Table 1)
43
Table 1 Descriptive Information for the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Predictors and Dependent Variable (N=164)
Mean Standard
Deviation Minimum Maximum
Total Enjoyment Rating of Abacus Task
401 169 100 700
High Choice to Lie Enjoyment Rating of Task
434 162 100 700
Low Choice to Lie Enjoyment Rating of Task
367 171 100 700
PPI-R SF Total Score 12565 1628 9000 17000
Fearless Dominance Factor
5605 912 2800 7600
Self-Centered Impulsive Factor
5436 989 3500 8400
Machiavellian Egocentricity 1360 352 700 2500
Social Influence 1888 400 700 2800
Fearlessness 1898 448 700 2800 Coldheartedness 1523 387 800 2600 Rebellious Nonconformity 1399 415 700 2400
Blame Externalization 1416 419 700 2600
Carefree Nonplanfulness 1262 329 700 2300
Stress Immunity 1820 453 700 2800 LPSP Total Score 5018 903 3000 7300
LPSP Primary Factor 3062 702 1600 4900
LPSP Secondary Factor 1956 405 1100 3100
MACH-IV Total Score 5296 833 3500 7600
Deceit 850 284 400 1600 Flattery 563 209 200 1000 Immoral 883 241 300 1500 Cynicism 1066 296 500 2000 Residual 1934 359 1000 2900 Note Total scale scores are in bold Factor scale scores are in italics Subscales are presented in regular font
44
31 Confirmatory Analyses
Hypothesis 1 Replication of the Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effect
A regression was performed to determine whether the classic cognitive dissonance effect
reported in earlier research was reproduced in the present study The main dependent variable in
this analysis was participants self-report ratings of how much they enjoyed the abacus task (Self-
Reported Enjoyment) The independent variable was Choice Condition (High Choice to Lie
versus Low Choice to Lie) In this analysis and all other analyses High Choice to Lie was coded
as ldquo1rdquo and Low Choice to Lie as ldquo0rdquo Based on prior studies of cognitive dissonance it was
predicted that that participants in the High Choice to Lie condition would report higher levels of
enjoyment than participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition A linear regression was
conducted and as predicted a significant difference in abacus task enjoyment was found
between the High and Low Choice to Lie groups Rsup2 = 039 F (1162) = 666 p = 011
standardized β = 199 t(163) = 258 p = 011 A one-way ANOVA was also conducted and
yielded exactly the same results as the regression F(1162) = 666 p = 011 d = 402 The High
Choice to Lie group had a mean enjoyment rating of 434 (SD = 162) (on a 1 to 7 rating scale
with 1 being no enjoyment of the task and 7 being high enjoyment of the task) while the Low
Choice to Lie group reported a mean enjoyment rating of 367 (SD = 171) on the same scale (see
Figure 1) These results indicate that participants in the High Choice to Lie group who felt that
they had more choice whether to mislead the confederate about the task being enjoyable
reported enjoying the task more than participants in the Low choice to lie group
45
Figure 1 Main effect for mean task enjoyment across choice conditions r = 199
Hypothesis 2 amp 3 Relationship Between Task Enjoyment and Choice Level Will Vary With
Psychopathy Level
The main hypothesis of the study was that individuals with lower levels of psychopathy
(and Machiavellianism) would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect by reporting higher
enjoyment of the abacus task in the High Choice to Lie Condition than in the Low Choice to Lie
Condition whereas individuals with higher levels of psychopathy would not report more
enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie than in the Low Choice to Lie condition In other words a
significant interaction was hypothesized between choice condition and level of psychopathy (and
Machiavellianism) in the prediction of self-reported enjoyment In order to test this hypothesis
three multiple regressions were conducted using the two psychopathy measures and the single
Machiavellianism measure
46
First multiple regression PPI-R SF total scores In the first multiple regression the
criterion was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice
Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) PPI-R SF total scores and the
interaction of Choice Condition with PPI-RSF scores It was hypothesized that the interaction
term would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple regression
are shown in Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was statistically
significant Rsup2 = 105 F(3160) = 623 p lt 001
As hypothesized the interaction of PPI-R SF total scores and choice condition was
statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -216 t(163) = -
211 p =036 (Table 2) Figures 2 and 3 depict this interaction graphically As can be seen in
Figure 2 there was not a significant relationship between PPI-R SF scores and Self-Reported
Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -054 t(81) =
-486 p =628 In contrast there was a significant relationship between PPI-R SF scores and
Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -374 t(81) = -
361 p =001 This finding thus supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of
psychopathy would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher
levels would not
47
Figure 2 Relationship of PPI-R SF total scores to reported level of task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie condition only Standardized β = -054 p = 628
Figure 3 Relationship of PPI-R SF total scores to reported level of task enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie condition only Standardized β = -374 p = 001
48
Second multiple regression LPSP total scores In the second multiple regression the criterion
was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice Condition (High
Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) LPSP total scores and the interaction of Choice
Condition with LPSP scores Again it was hypothesized that the interaction term would
significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple regression are shown in
Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was statistically significant Rsup2 =
089 F(3160) = 518 p = 002
As hypothesized the interaction of LPSP total scores and choice condition was
statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -236 t(163) = -
234 p = 021 The interaction is depicted graphically by choice condition in Figures 4 and 5
As can be seen from Figure 4 there was not a significant relationship between LPSP scores and
Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β
= 023 t(81) = 208 p =836 In contrast there was a significant negative relationship between
LPSP scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β =
-327 t(81) = -309 p =003 (Figure 5) Thus this finding like the finding concerning the PPI-
R SF supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of psychopathy would show
the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher levels would not
49
Figure 4 Relationship of LPSP total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = 023 p = 836
Figure 5 Relationship of LPSP total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash High Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -327 p = 003
50
T
able
2 M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts C
rite
rion
is S
elf-
Rep
orte
d E
njoy
men
t of t
he A
bacu
s T
asks
P
redi
ctor
s ar
e th
e P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
an
d M
AC
H-I
V T
otal
Sco
res
and
Subs
cale
s E
ach
Row
Rep
rese
nts
Res
ults
Fro
m O
ne M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n
Over
all
Mode
l
High
L
ow C
hoic
e
Psyc
hopa
thy
Ma
ch P
redi
ctor
In
tera
ctio
n
Pred
icto
r
F
(df)
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
PPIR
SF
Tot
623
(3160)
lt00
1
661
252
196
262
010
-089
173
-053
-52
607
-536
254
-216
-211
036
PPIRSF1-FD
296
(3160)
03
4
670
260
198
258
011
175
194
104
91
366
-382
262
-167
-146
146
PPIRSF2-SCI
690
(3160)
lt00
1
657
251
195
262
010
-123
168
-073
-73
466
-561
254
-220
-221
028
Mach Egocen
730
(3160)
lt00
1
721
251
214
287
005
024
178
014
14
892
-708
252
-295
-281
006
Soc Influ
230
(3160)
079
677
263
201
258
011
-034
200
-020
-17
867
128
266
057
48
631
Fearlessness
487
(3160)
00
3
660
256
196
258
011
177
188
105
94
348
-634
257
-274
-247
015
Coldhrtnes
577
(3160)
00
1
733
254
217
288
004
-488
193
-288
-253
012
153
257
068
59
554
Rebel Non
445
(3160)
00
5
668
256
198
261
010
142
179
084
80
428
-590
257
-243
-230
023
Blm Extern
296
(3160)
03
4
678
260
201
261
010
-144
190
-085
-76
451
-084
261
-036
-32
747
Carefree
490
(3160)
00
3
570
258
169
221
029
-430
176
-254
-244
016
171
260
068
66
511
Stress Imun
257
(3160)
056
665
261
197
255
012
179
183
106
98
330
-245
262
-101
-93
352
LPSP
Tot
al
518
(3160)
00
2
699
255
207
274
007
037
171
022
22
827
-603
258
-236
-234
021
Primary
420
(3160)
00
7
691
257
205
269
008
041
176
024
23
815
-495
259
-199
-192
057
Secondary
359
(3160)
01
5
682
258
202
264
009
018
187
101
09
926
-377
259
-161
-145
148
MACH
-IV
Tot
492
(3160)
00
3
703
256
208
275
007
-173
178
-102
-98
331
-314
257
-128
122
223
Deceit
508
(3160)
00
2
696
255
206
273
007
-374
167
-221
-224
026
011
260
004
04
965
Flattery
368
(3160)
01
3
682
258
202
264
009
162
173
096
94
351
-523
261
-204
-200
047
Immoral
454
(3160)
00
4
705
256
209
275
007
-360
184
-213
-196
052
052
257
022
20
840
Cynicism
270
(3160)
04
8
680
261
201
261
010
002
198
001
01
991
-212
264
-094
-81
422
Residual
302
(3160)
03
2
667
260
198
257
011
052
171
031
30
762
-354
264
-136
-135
181
Not
e
Sign
ific
ant p
val
ues
(p lt
05)
are
in b
old
p v
alue
s ap
proa
chin
g si
gnifi
canc
e (lt
10)
are
in it
alic
s
Pre
dict
or A
bbre
viat
ions
PPI
RS
F To
t =
PPI-
RS
F to
tal s
core
PPI
RS
F1-F
D =
PPI
RS
F Fa
ctor
1 ndash
Fea
rless
Dom
inan
ce F
acto
r Sco
re P
PIR
SF2
-SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f C
ente
red
Impu
lsiv
ity F
acto
r Sco
re M
ach
Ego
cen
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
ricity
sub
scal
e S
oc I
nflu
= P
PI-R
SF
Soci
al In
fluen
ce s
ubsc
ale
Fea
rles
snes
s =
PPI-
RS
F
Fear
less
ness
sub
scal
e C
oldh
rtnes
= P
PI-R
SF
Col
dhea
rted
ness
sub
scal
e R
ebel
Non
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
xter
n =
PPI
-RS
F B
lam
e E
xter
naliz
atio
n
subs
cale
Car
efre
e =
PPI-
RS
F C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Str
ess
Imun
= P
PI-R
SF
Stre
ss Im
mun
ity s
ubsc
ale
LPS
P To
tal =
LPS
P to
tal s
core
Pri
mar
y =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le
Seco
ndar
y =
LPSP
Sec
onda
ry s
ubsc
ale
MA
CH
-IV
Tot
= M
AC
H-I
V to
tal s
core
Dec
eit =
MA
CH
-IV
Dec
eit s
ubsc
ale
Fla
ttery
= M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
oral
= M
AC
H-I
V
Imm
oral
ity s
ubsc
ale
Cyn
icis
m =
MA
CH
-IV
Cyn
icis
m s
ubsc
ale
Res
idua
l = M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
Mod
el A
bbre
viat
ions
Un-
Stzd
β =
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Bet
a S
td E
rr =
Sta
ndar
d E
rror
Stz
d β
= St
anda
rdiz
ed B
eta
51
Third multiple regression Mach-IV total scores In the third multiple regression the
criterion was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice
Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) Mach-IV total scores and the
interaction of Choice Condition with Mach-IV scores Again it was hypothesized that the
interaction term would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple
regression are shown in Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was
statistically significant Rsup2 = 085 F(3160) = 492 p = 003
Contrary to prediction the interaction of Mach-IV total scores and choice condition was
not statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -128 t(163) =
-122 p = 223 Thus this finding failed to support the hypothesis that individuals with lower
levels of Machiavellianism would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that
individuals with higher levels would not The pattern of data is depicted graphically by choice
condition in Figures 6 and 7 As can be seen from Figure 6 there was not a significant
relationship between MACH-IV scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the
Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -104 t(81) = -932 p =354 In contrast there
was a significant negative relationship between MACH-IV scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment
in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -295 t(81) = -276 p =007 (Figure 7)
Although one of the standardized betas (-104) was non-significant and the other (-295) was
significant the difference between the two betas was not significant so the predicted interaction
did not attain statistical significance
52
Figure 6 Relationship of MACH-IV total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -104 p = 354
Figure 7 Relationship of MACH-IV total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash High Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -295 p = 007
53
Hypothesis 4 Level of Psychopathy Will Incrementally Predict Abacus Task Enjoyment
The second main hypothesis was that psychopathy scores would incrementally predict
Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task above and beyond the predictive power of
Machiavellianism To test this hypothesis two hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted
using Self-Reported Enjoyment as the criterion
First hierarchical regression PPI-R SF total scores The first hierarchical regression
used PPI-R SF total scores as the psychopathy measure In the first step of the regression the
Choice to Lie condition was entered as a predictor In the second step standardized total
MACH-IV scores and the standardized interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice
condition were entered In the third step standardized PPI-R SF total scores and the
standardized interaction term of total PPI-R SF scores with choice condition were entered as a
predictor Results are shown in Table 3 As can be seen inclusion of PPI-R SF scores and their
interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment significantly increased predictive power above and
beyond scores on the MACH-IV ∆Rsup2 = 041 F(2158) = 367 p = 028 Although the change in
Rsup2 was significant it is important to note that the standardized beta for the PPI-R SF total scores
was not significant in predicting task enjoyment when added to MACH-IV scores in predicting
task enjoyment standardized β = -010 t(158) = -09 p = 930 In addition the standardized beta
for the interaction between PPI-R SF scores and choice condition only approached significance
when added to MACH-IV scores in block three (standardized β = -205 t(158) = -186 p =
065
54
Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianism
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=085 F(3160)=492 p=003 (∆Rsup2=045 F(2160)=394 p=021) High or Low Choice to Lie 703 256 208 275 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -173 178 -102 - 98 331 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -314 257 -128 -122 223 Step 3 Rsup2=125 F(5158)=452 p=001 (∆Rsup2=041 F(2158)=367 p=028) High or Low Choice to Lie 688 252 204 273 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -166 195 -098 - 85 397 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -165 273 -067 - 60 547 PPI-RSF Total Scores -017 192 -010 - 09 930 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -507 273 -205 -186 065 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics
Second hierarchical regression LPSP total scores The second hierarchical regression
used LPSP total scores as the psychopathy measure In the first step of the regression the Choice
to Lie condition was entered as a predictor In the second step standardized total MACH-IV
scores and the standardized interaction term of MACH-IV total scores were entered In the third
step standardized LPSP total scores and the standardized interaction term of total LPSP scores
with choice condition were entered as a predictor Results are shown in Table 4 As can be seen
inclusion of total LPSP scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment did not
significantly increase predictive power above and beyond MACH-IV scores ∆Rsup2= 026
F(2158)= 233 p=101
55
Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (LPSP) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianism
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=085 F(3160)=492 p=003 (∆Rsup2=045 F(2160)=394 p=021) High or Low Choice to Lie 703 256 208 275 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -173 178 -102 - 98 331 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -314 257 -128 -122 223 Step 3 Rsup2=111 F(5158)=394 p=002 (∆Rsup2=026 F(2158)=233 p=101) High or Low Choice to Lie 712 254 211 281 006 MACH-IV Total Scores -282 212 -167 -133 186 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -023 296 -009 - 08 939 LPSP Total Scores 188 204 111 92 358 Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -609 297 -238 -205 042 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics
32 Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory Analysis Incremental Prediction of Task Enjoyment by Machiavellianism
The analyses reported thus far were confirmatory and based on a priori hypotheses A
series of exploratory analyses were also carried out as reported in the following sections of the
Results In the first set of exploratory analyses two hierarchical multiple regressions were run to
identify whether MACH-IV total scores incrementally predicted Self-Reported Enjoyment of the
abacus task above and beyond the predictive power of psychopathy scores
First hierarchical regression Incremental predictive power of MACH-IV total scores
over PPI-R SF total scores The first exploratory analysis was conducted to examine whether
MACH-IV scores incrementally increased prediction of abacus task enjoyment above and
beyond the predictive power of PPI-R SF scores A hierarchical regression was conducted In
step one the Choice to Lie condition was entered in step two standardized PPI-R SF total
56
scores and the standardized interaction term of total PPI-R SF scores with choice condition was
entered and finally in step three the standardized total MACH-IV scores and the standardized
interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice condition were entered As can be seen in
Table 5 the inclusion of MACH-IV total scores and their interaction with Choice Condition did
not significantly increase predictive power ∆Rsup2= 020 F(2158)= 185 p= 160
Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF)
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=105 F(3160)=623 plt001 (∆Rsup2=065 F(2160)=582 p=004) High or Low Choice to Lie 661 252 196 262 010 PPI-RSF Total Score -089 173 -053 -52 607 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -536 254 -216 -211 036 Step 3 Rsup2=125 F(5158)=452 p=001 (∆Rsup2=020 F(2158)=185 p=160) High or Low Choice to Lie 688 252 204 273 007 PPI-RSF Total Scores -017 192 -010 -09 930 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -507 273 -205 -186 065 MACH-IV Total Scores -166 195 -098 -85 397 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -165 273 -067 -60 547 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Significant alpha levels are in bold Moderate alpha levels are in italics Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Second hierarchical regression Incremental predictive power of MACH-IV total scores
over LPSP total scores A similar hierarchical multiple regression was performed to examine
whether MACH-IV scores incrementally increase prediction of abacus task enjoyment above and
beyond the predictive power of LPSP scores An incremental hierarchical regression was
conducted In step one the Choice to Lie condition was entered in step two standardized LPSP
57
total scores and the standardized interaction term of total LPSP scores with choice condition was
entered and finally in step three the standardized total MACH-IV scores and the standardized
interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice condition were entered As can be seen in
Table 6 the results of this analysis like the previous one were not significant ∆Rsup2= 022
F(2158)= 198 p= 142 The inclusion of Machiavellianism in the regression equation did not
significantly increase predictive power above and beyond the predictive power of LPSP scores
Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (LPSP)
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=089 F(3160)=518 p=002 (∆Rsup2=049 F(2160)=430 p=015) High or Low Choice to Lie 699 255 207 274 007
LPSP Total Score 037 171 022 22 827
Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -603 258 -236 -234 021 Step 3 Rsup2=111 F(5158)=394 p=002 (∆Rsup2=022 F(2158)=198 p=142) High or Low Choice to Lie 712 254 211 281 006 LPSP Total Scores 188 204 111 92 358 Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -609 297 -238 -205 042 MACH-IV Total Scores -282 212 -167 -133 186 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -023 296 -009 -08 939 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Significant alpha levels are in bold Moderate alpha levels are in italics Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Exploratory Analysis PPI-R SF Subscales as Predictors
The second set of exploratory multiple regressions was conducted using the eight
subscales of the PPI-R SF and their interaction with Choice Condition as predictors Each
subscale measures a different unique aspect of psychopathy The goal of the analyses was to
58
determine which aspects of psychopathy were related to self-reported abacus task enjoyment
A series of multiple linear regressions were conducted with abacus task enjoyment as the
criterion In each multiple regression the predictors were Choice to Lie condition the
standardized total score of the individual PPI-R subscale and the interaction term of the
standardized individual subscale total score with Choice to Lie condition Results are shown in
Table 2 All of the PPI-R SF subscales except for the Stress Immunity and Social Influence
subscales had significant model equations In addition three subscales also produced significant
interactions with choice condition in predicting level of task enjoyment (a) Machiavellian
Egocentricity standardized β of the interaction = -295 t(163) = -281 p = 006 (b)
Fearlessness standardized β of the interaction = -274 t(163) = -247 p = 015 (c) Rebellious
Nonconformity standardized β of the interaction = -243 t(163) = -230 p = 023 The
remaining five subscales did not have interactions with choice condition that significantly
predicted task enjoyment
Exploratory Analysis PPI-R SF Factors as Predictors
Next two multiple regressions were carried out one for each of the two factors of the
PPI-R SF The intention of these analyses was to determine if these factors of psychopathy
(cognitive traits or behavioral traits) would account for the lack of cognitive dissonance found in
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy
First multiple regression The Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R SF The Fearless
Dominance factor (PPI-R SF-1-FD) is comprised of three of the eight subscales of the PPI-R
SF the Social Influence subscale the Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscale A
multiple regression was run with Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test as the criterion and
Choice Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) the standardized PPI-R SF-
59
1-FD total scores and the interaction of Choice Condition with the standardized PPI-R SF-1-FD
total scores as the predictors Results of the multiple regression are shown in Table 2 As can be
seen the model in the regression equation was statistically significant Rsup2 = 053 F(3160) =
296 p = 034 However the interaction of PPI-R SF-1-FD total scores and choice condition
was not statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -167
t(163) = -146 p = 146
Second multiple regression The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF Next
a similar multiple regression was run replacing the PPI-RSF-1-FD with the Self-Centered
Impulsivity factor scale scores (PPI-R SF-2-SCI) The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor is
comprised of the Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale
and the Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale of the PPI-R SF Results of the model in the multiple
regression equation were statistically significant Rsup2 = 115 F(3160) = 690 p lt 001 In addition
the interaction between the PPI-R SF-2-SCI and choice condition was statistically significant as
well standardized β = -220 t(163) = -2213 p = 028 These results suggested that the more
behavioral antisocial behavior characteristics of psychopathy (impulsivity blame
externalization lack of planning abilities) impacted cognitive dissonance arousal
Exploratory Analysis LPSP Factor Scales as Predictors
The next set of exploratory analyses were conducted on the LPSPrsquos two factor scales
The LPSP breaks into a Primary Psychopathy Scale and a Secondary Psychopathy Scale The
Primary Scale identifies the more cognitively based aspects of psychopathy much as the PPI-R
SF-1-FD Factor does The Secondary Psychopathy Scale of the LPSP measures the behaviorally
based dimensions of psychopathy (impulsivity asociality) much like the PPI-R SF-2-SCI
60
Factor Two hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine the interaction between each of
the LPSP factor scales and choice condition in predicting abacus task enjoyment
First multiple regression LPSP Primary Factor scores First a multiple regression was
employed with the Choice to Lie condition the standardized Primary Factor total scores of the
LPSP and the interaction term of the standardized Primary Factor total scores with the Choice to
Lie condition as the predictors Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test was the criterion in
the multiple regression The results of the regression model equation were statistically significant
Rsup2 = 073 F(3160) = 420 p = 007 However the results of the interaction between the Primary
Factor and choice condition only approached statistical significance standardized β = -199
t(163) = -192 p = 057
Second multiple regression LPSP Secondary Factor scores The Secondary factor of the
LPSP accounts for the environmental behaviorally based traits associated with psychopathy
(impulsivity asociality) A multiple regression was run replacing the LPSP Primary factor scores
with the LPSP Secondary factor scores In other words the predictors were Choice to Lie
condition standardized LPSP Secondary factor scores and the interaction of Choice to Lie with
standardized LPSP Secondary factor scores Again Self-Reported Enjoyment of the Abacus task
was the criterion Results of the multiple regression model equation were statistically significant
Rsup2 = 063 F(3160) = 359 p = 015 However results of the interaction between the Secondary
factor of the LPSP and choice condition were not statistically significant standardized β = -161
t(163) = -1452 p = 148
This analysis of the LPSP Primary and Secondary factor scales suggests that the
cognitive dimensions of psychopathy may best account for a lack of cognitive dissonance in this
experiment These results support the notion that it is these cognitive deficits assessed by the
61
Primary Scale of the LPSP (lack of guilt callousness lack of concern for others) that best
account for individuals with higher levels of psychopathy not experiencing the attitude shift
found in people with lower levels of psychopathy
Exploratory Analysis MACH-IV Subscales as predictors
The next set of exploratory analyses examined the five subscales of the MACH-IV as
predictors of task enjoyment when interacting with Choice to Lie condition Though the
interaction of total MACH-IV scores and choice condition was not a significant predictor of a
lack of task enjoyment the subscales were analyzed using multiple regression in order to
determine if any aspect of MACH might account for a lack of cognitive dissonance in
individuals with higher levels of MACH In the regressions the predictors were Choice to Lie
condition the standardized MACH-IV subscale total scores and the standardized interaction
term of total MACH-IV subscale scores with Choice to Lie condition Results are reported in
Table 2 All of the regression model equations for each subscale were statistically significant
Though all model equations were significant only the interaction of choice condition with the
Flattery subscale of the MACH-IV was significant in predicting reported abacus task enjoyment
standardized β = -204 t(163) = -200 p = 047 The interaction terms of the remaining four
subscales of the MACH-IV were not significant
Exploratory Analysis Follow-up Multiple Regression Analyses with No-Lie Participants
Removed
As previously indicated all multiple regressions reported here were run a second time
but including only the sub-set of participants who lied to the confederate (N=158) The results of
these follow-up multiple regressions (with N = 158) all led to the same substantive conclusions
as the analyses already reported (with N = 164) with one exception The only analysis that
62
changed significantly was the multiple linear regression looking at the interaction between the
Primary factor of the LPSP and choice condition In the original multiple regression (N = 164)
this interaction only approached statistical significance In the follow-up multiple regression (N
= 158) this interaction attained statistical significance standardized β = -216 t(157) = -202 p =
045
Exploratory Analysis Correlations of Psychopathy and Machiavellian measures
Pearsonrsquos r correlations were run on the three psychopathy and MACH measures and
their respective factors and subscales to identify associations among the measures
Correlations of psychopathy and Machiavellianism total scores Correlations among the
PPI-RSF LPSP and MACH-IV total scores are reported in Table 7 As can be seen all three
measures were significantly correlated with each other The largest correlation was between
MACH-IV and LPSP total scores r = 510 p lt 01
Table 7 Correlations Between the Total Scores of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measures
PPIRSF Total Score
LPSP Total Score
MACH-IV Total Score
PPIRSF Total Score 1
LPSP Total Score
345dagger 1
MACH-IV Total Score
376dagger 510dagger 1
Note dagger Correlations significant at the 01 level
Correlations of PPI-R SF and LPSP factor scores Pearsonrsquos r correlations were run on
the factors of the PPI-R SF and the LPSP in order to illuminate the relationship among these
factors in the present sample of participants Results are shown in Table 8
63
First the PPIR SF total score correlated significantly with both the Primary (r = 322 p
lt01) and the Secondary (r = 212 p lt 01) factor scores of the LPSP The PPI-R SF Factor Two
Scale of Self-Centered Impulsivity (behavioral characteristics of psychopathy) positively
correlated with the LPSP total (r = 509 p lt01) Primary (r = 368 p lt 01) and Secondary (r =
498 p lt 01) factors In contrast the PPI-R SF Factor One Scale of Fearless Dominance (PPI-
R SF-1-FD) correlated significantly only with the Secondary Scale of the LPSP (r = -156 p lt
05) This correlation indicates that as scores on the PPI-R SF-1-FD increase scores on the
LPSP Secondary Scale decrease However it should be noted that this correlation is very weak
Correlations of PPI-R and MACH-IV factor scores and subscale scores As can be seen
in Table 8 the PPI-R SF total score correlated significantly with all of the MACH subscales
except for the Cynicism subscale Interestingly PPI-R SF Factor 2 Self-Centered Impulsivity
which assesses the behavioral characteristics of psychopathy correlated significantly with the
MACH-IV total score (r = 478) and all of the subscales of the MACH-IV Deceit (r = 383)
Flattery (r = 210) Immorality (r = 297) Cynicism (r = 242) and Residual (r = 279) at p lt 01
level of significance PPI-R SF Factor 1 Fearless Dominance which assesses the cognitive
aspects of psychopathy did not significantly correlate with the MACH-IV total score or any of
its subscales These exploratory findings suggest that the Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the
PPI-R SF accounts for the relationship of MACH-IV scores with PPIRSF scores
Correlations of LPSP and MACH-IV factor scores and subscale scores As shown in
Table 8 MACH-IV total scores significantly correlated with both the Primary (r = 467 p lt01)
and Secondary (r = 327 p lt 01) factors of the LPSP The LPSP total score and factor scales
(Primary and Secondary) correlated significantly with the total MACH-IV score and all of the
MACH-IV subscales except for the Flattery subscale (see Table 8 for the correlations) This
64
finding is interesting because the Flattery subscale was the only element of the MACH-IV found
to be a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment in the interaction with choice condition
mentioned previously and yet it did not correlate with the LPSP at all
65
Tab
le 8
Cor
rela
tions
Bet
wee
n th
e P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
MA
CH
-IV
The
ir F
acto
rs a
nd S
ubsc
ales
Not
e
dagger C
orre
latio
n si
gnifi
cant
at
01 le
vel
Cor
rela
tion
sign
ific
ant a
t 05
leve
l P
redi
ctor
Abb
revi
atio
ns P
PIR
= P
PI-R
SF
tota
l sco
re P
1FD
= P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 1
ndash F
earl
ess
Dom
inan
ce F
acto
r Sco
re P
2SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f Cen
tere
d Im
puls
ivity
Fac
tor S
core
M
Ego
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
rici
ty s
ubsc
ale
Soc
In =
PPI
-RS
F So
cial
Influ
ence
sub
scal
e F
ear =
PPI
-RS
F Fe
arle
ssne
ss s
ubsc
ale
Col
d =
PPI-
RS
F C
oldh
eart
edne
ss s
ubsc
ale
R
ebel
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
= P
PI-R
SF
Bla
me
Ext
erna
lizat
ion
Subs
cale
Car
e =
PPI-
RS
F C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Str
ess
= PP
I-R
SF
Stre
ss
Imm
unity
sub
scal
e L
PSP
= L
PSP
tota
l sco
re P
rim
e =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le S
econ
= L
PSP
Seco
ndar
y su
bsca
le M
AC
H =
MA
CH
-IV
tota
l sco
re D
ece
= M
AC
H-I
V D
ecei
t sub
scal
e F
lat =
M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
or =
MA
CH
-IV
Imm
oral
ity s
ubsc
ale
Cyn
= M
AC
H-I
V C
ynic
ism
sub
scal
e R
esid
= M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1PPIR
1
2P1FD
761
dagger 1
3P2SCI
771
dagger 240
dagger 1
4M Ego
516
dagger 068
712
dagger 1
5Soc In
471
dagger 658
dagger 141
087
1
6Fear
645
dagger 727
dagger 362
dagger 104
244
dagger 1
7Cold
443
dagger 232
dagger 124
191
071
076
1
8Rebel
738
dagger 478
dagger 717
dagger 357
dagger 231
dagger 522
dagger 147
1
9Blm E
264
dagger -129
629
dagger 348
dagger -047
090
-194
161
1
10Care
500
dagger 210
dagger 540
dagger 175
101
203
dagger 229
dagger 305
dagger 041
1
11Stres
476
dagger 711
dagger 000
-044
198
258
dagger 330
dagger 240
dagger -306
dagger 132
1
12LPSP
345
dagger -024
509
dagger 534
dagger -018
065
209
dagger 241
dagger 369
dagger 186
-097
1
13Prime
322
dagger 059
368
dagger 473
dagger 082
031
275
dagger 171
219
dagger 105
015
902
dagger 1
14Secon
212
dagger -156
498
dagger 370
dagger -183
090
-011
241
dagger 443
dagger 233
dagger -243
dagger 664
dagger 277
dagger 1
15MACH
376
dagger 076
478
dagger 477
dagger 150
105
182
244
dagger 278
dagger 264
dagger -083
510
dagger 467
dagger 327
dagger 1
16Dece
356
dagger 085
383
dagger 380
dagger 096
121
320
dagger 190
094
384
dagger -033
312
dagger 295
dagger 185
631
dagger 1
17Flat
189
030
210
dagger 192
200
-019
186
087
062
236
dagger -097
139
118
104
570
dagger 304
dagger 1
18Immor
176
-003
297
dagger 276
dagger 022
069
-013
143
296
dagger 040
-093
405
dagger 345
dagger 306
dagger 589
dagger 153
202
dagger 1
19Cyn
152
030
242
dagger 316
dagger -025
092
-052
160
092
072
-008
449
dagger 449
dagger 223
dagger 454
dagger 169
057
152
1
20Resid
231
dagger 073
279
dagger 266
dagger 133
049
086
146
231
dagger 076
-019
248
dagger 226
dagger 161
689
dagger 244
dagger 213
dagger 197
175
1
66
Exploratory Analyses Multiple Regressions with Self-Reported Guilt as the Criterion and Level
of Psychopathy and MACH as Predictors
In addition to the multiple regressions that were run with Self-Reported Enjoyment
Rating of the abacus task as the criterion and the interaction between choice level and
psychopathy (and MACH) level as the predictors identical multiple regressions were conducted
with level of guilt as the criterion in the place of Self-Reported Level of Enjoyment Multiple
regressions were run where the predictors were Choice to Lie condition standardized
psychopathy and MACH measure total factor and subscale scores (individually) and the
interaction of Choice to Lie with PPI-R SF LPSP or MACH scales In these analyses level of
guilt was the criterion On the post experimental questionnaire two questions assessed
participantsrsquo level of guilt for telling the ldquofuture participantrdquo that the abacus task was fun These
two guilt related questions correlated highly with one another (r = 789) and so their scores were
added together and a new variable called ldquoGuiltrdquo was created from their sum
Multiple regressions on the interaction between choice and level of psychopathy (and
MACH) The goal of these exploratory analyses was to further explore the role that guilt plays
during cognitive dissonance arousal Results of all multiple regression analyses with guilt as the
criterion are presented in Table 9 As can be seen the interaction between level of psychopathy
(and MACH) and choice condition as predictors of guilt was only significant for the Self
Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF The multiple regression model equation for the
Self Centered Impulsivity factor was statistically significant Rsup2 = 056 F(3160) = 314 p = 027
In addition results of the interaction between the Self Centered Impulsivity factor and choice
condition were statistically significant standardized β = 232 t(163) = 225 p = 026
Interestingly this regression was not only significant but also positive All other interactions of
67
total subscale and factor scales of the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV with choice condition
were not significant in predicting participantsrsquo level of self-reported guilt
The fact that all other total scores subscales and factor scales did not attain significant
interactions with choice condition using guilt as the criterion makes sense when considering
cognitive dissonance theory The cognitive dissonance literature indicates that there should not
be an interaction on guilt because participants strive to reduce their feelings of guilt after
engaging in counterattitudinal behavior discrepant with their beliefs Therefore participants with
low levels of psychopathy after misleading the confederate in the High Choice condition would
have immediately experienced cognitive dissonance and thus their attitude would have shifted
towards enjoying the task in order to reduce the psychological tension produced by voluntarily
misleading the ldquofuture participantrdquo Therefore by the time they answered the guilt questions on
the post-experimental questionnaire they would not feel guilt because their attitude had shifted
to be in favor of the task
Main effects for relationship between psychopathy and guilt Finally an important result
of these exploratory analyses was that significant main effects were found between level of
psychopathy (measured by the PPI-R SF) and participantsrsquo level of guilt following the deception
task Specifically the PPI-R SF total score both factor scores (Fearless Dominance and Self
Centered Impulsivity) the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale and the Stress Immunity subscale
had significant model predictor equations (see Table 9) The model equation for the Fearlessness
subscale approached significance F(3160) = 243 p = 068 as well
After model equations were accounted for the PPI-R SF had a significant relationship
with level of guilt such that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy experienced less guilt
than participants with lower levels of psychopathy across choice conditions (standardized β = -
68
359 t(163) = -346 p = 001) In addition both factor scales of the PPI-R SF (Fearless
Dominance and Self Centered Impulsivity) were significant in predicting guilt (standardized β =
-292 t(163) = -257 p = 011 standardized β = -314 t(163) = -305 p = 003) respectively
Finally three of the PPI-R SF subscales reached significance in predicting level of guilt in
participants as well Fearlessness Stress Immunity and Rebellious Nonconformity The
Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscales load on the Fearless Dominance factor
of the PPI-R SF which is important to note because this factor assesses the cognitive aspects of
psychopathy including lack of guilt and lack of remorse Therefore these results provide support
for the validity of the PPI-R SF in assessing psychopathic traits such as guiltlessness
69
Tab
le 9
M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts C
rite
rion
is S
elf-
Rep
orte
d G
uilt
Aft
er M
isle
adin
g th
e C
onfe
dera
te
Pre
dict
ors
are
the
P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
and
MA
CH
-IV
Tot
al S
core
s an
d Su
bsca
les
Eac
h R
ow R
epre
sent
s R
esul
ts F
rom
One
Mul
tiple
Reg
ress
ion
Ov
eral
l Mo
del
High
L
ow C
hoic
e
Psyc
hopa
thy
Ma
ch P
redi
ctor
In
tera
ctio
n
Pred
icto
r
F
(df)
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
PPI-
RSF
456
(3160)
00
4
046
597
006
08
938
-1419
410
-359
-346
00
1
851
600
147
142
158
PPI FD
361
(3160)
01
5
-003
603
lt001
-01
996
-1151
449
-292
-257
01
1
309
607
058
51
611
PPI SCI
314
(3160)
02
7
055
605
007
09
928
-1237
406
-314
-305
00
3
1376
611
232
225
026
Mach Ego
95
(3160)
417
091
618
012
15
883
-627
438
-159
-143
154
1018
620
182
164
103
Soc Infl
32
(3160)
811
029
623
004
05
963
-047
474
-012
-10
921
-356
631
-068
-56
574
Fearless
243
(3160)
068
018
609
002
03
977
-1166
448
-296
-260
01
0
875
612
162
143
155
Coldhrt
52
(3160)
671
132
621
017
21
832
-446
471
-113
-95
346
113
628
021
18
857
Rebel
743
(3160)
lt00
1
050
583
006
09
931
-1718
407
-435
-422
lt00
1
833
585
147
142
156
Blm Ext
157
(3160)
199
062
613
008
10
919
-330
449
-084
-73
464
1190
616
220
193
055
Carefree
126
(3160)
290
-067
622
-009
-11
914
-814
425
-206
-192
057
669
625
115
107
287
Stress
426
(3160)
00
6
177
599
023
30
768
-972
421
-246
-231
02
2
-199
601
-035
-33
742
LPSP
41
(3160)
744
090
621
011
15
885
-445
415
-113
-107
286
577
627
097
92
359
Primary
39
(3160)
764
090
621
011
15
885
-443
425
-112
-104
299
549
624
095
88
381
Second
17
(3160)
919
080
622
010
13
897
-301
450
-076
-67
505
386
624
071
62
537
MACH
-IV
02
(3160)
996
076
623
010
12
903
-085
433
-021
-20
845
116
625
020
19
852
Deceit
15
(3160)
928
071
622
009
11
910
-172
406
-043
-42
673
421
634
068
66
508
Flattery
25
(3160)
864
100
622
013
16
872
-320
416
-081
-77
443
150
628
025
24
812
Immoral
85
(3160)
468
082
618
010
13
894
396
443
100
89
373
-968
620
-175
-156
121
Cynicism
52
(3160)
669
040
620
005
06
949
368
472
093
78
436
032
627
006
05
960
Residual
19
(3160)
900
069
621
009
11
912
-309
410
-078
-75
452
326
630
054
52
606
Not
e
Sig
nific
ant p
val
ues
(p lt
05)
are
in b
old
p v
alue
s ap
proa
chin
g si
gnif
ican
ce (lt
10)
are
in it
alic
s
Pre
dict
or A
bbre
viat
ions
PPI
-RS
F =
PPI-
RS
F to
tal s
core
PPI
FD
= P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 1
ndash F
earle
ss D
omin
ance
Fac
tor S
core
PPI
SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f Cen
tere
d
Impu
lsiv
ity F
acto
r Sco
re M
ach
Ego
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
rici
ty s
ubsc
ale
Soc
Infl
= PP
I-R
SF
Soci
al In
fluen
ce s
ubsc
ale
Fea
rless
= P
PI-R
SF
Fear
less
ness
sub
scal
e
Col
dhrt
= PP
I-R
SF
Col
dhea
rted
ness
sub
scal
e R
ebel
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
xt =
PPI
-RS
F B
lam
e E
xter
naliz
atio
n Su
bsca
le C
aref
ree
= PP
I-R
SF
C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Stre
ss Im
un =
PPI
-RS
F St
ress
Imm
unity
sub
scal
e L
PSP
= LP
SP to
tal s
core
Pri
mar
y =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le S
econ
d =
LPSP
Sec
onda
ry
subs
cale
MA
CH
-IV
= M
AC
H-I
V to
tal s
core
Dec
eit =
MA
CH
-IV
Dec
eit s
ubsc
ale
Fla
ttery
= M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
oral
= M
AC
H-I
V Im
mor
ality
sub
scal
e C
ynic
ism
=
MA
CH
-IV
Cyn
icis
m s
ubsc
ale
Res
idua
l = M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
Mod
el A
bbre
viat
ions
Un-
Stzd
β =
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Bet
a S
td E
rr =
Sta
ndar
d E
rror
Stz
d β
= St
anda
rdiz
ed B
eta
70
Exploratory Analyses Factor Analyses of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measures
In order to assess what specific constructs the self-report psychopathy and
Machiavellianism measures were identifying several factor analyses were conducted The goal
of these analyses was twofold First the intention was to categorize the unique traits of
psychopathy and MACH that were being identified in the participants by these measures and
second to distinguish overall factors of these personality traits that are similar across measures
Factor analysis of PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV total scores The total scores of the
PPI-R LPSP and MACH-IV were factor analyzed using principal axis factor analysis Squared
multiple correlations were used to estimate communalities in the initial factor pattern and
solutions were iterated four times Only one component in a preliminary principal components
analysis had an eigenvalue greater than 1 (1826) and the scree plot of the eigenvalues indicated
a clear break after one factor However for exploratory purposes three-factor and two-factor
factor analytic solutions were also attempted The three-factor solution yielded three factors
each corresponding to the three original variables The two-factor solution yielded one large
primary factor and a second factor with only trivial loadings (all loadings lt 25) Therefore the
one-factor solution was selected as the most informative Oblique rotation was performed using
Promax As can be seen in Table 10 one clearly defined factor emerged from the three variables
The factor appears to tap psychopathic and Machiavellian tendencies and thus has been named
Psychopathic Machiavellianism
Table 10 Factor Solutions Between PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores
Measure Psychopathic
Machiavellianism PPI-R SF Total Score 505 LPSP Total Score 687 MACH-IV Total Score 743
71
Factor analysis of all psychopathy and Machiavellianism items A second factor analysis
was run using all of the individual items from the three self-report measures of psychopathy and
Machiavellianism (PPI-R SF LPSP MACH-IV) Squared multiple correlations were used to
estimate communalities in the initial factor pattern Thirty-two components with eigenvalues
greater than 1 emerged from a preliminary principle component analysis and the scree plot
indicated there were approximately 25 to 35 factors
A principal axis factor analysis with Promax rotation was performed extracting 32
factors However only 15 of the 32 factors had two or more factor loadings greater than 50
Therefore several additional factor solutions were attempted to determine how many relevant
meaningful factors were present Finally it was determined that a nine-factor solution yielded the
largest number of interpretable factors with each factor including at least two variables with
loadings greater than 50 (see Table 11) Upon analyzing the items that loaded into each of the
nine factors names were identified for each factor based on the common characteristics of the
items The nine factors are Machiavellian Success Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Immunity
Feelings of Persecution Inability to Plan Social Disregard Interpersonal Ease Manipulative
Deceit and Social Frustration
72
Table 11 Factor Loadings of Total Item Factor Analysis
Factor Original Item
Mach Succes
Thrill Seek
Stress Immun Persec Inabl
Plan Social Dsrgrd
Intper Ease
Manip Deceit
Soc Frustr
L2 654 069 -068 217 070 -042 -184 -006 -092 L4 595 -044 044 117 044 136 029 039 064 L1 586 060 -009 106 127 -235 195 -023 -099 L3 576 097 027 023 144 -046 013 007 098 L5 551 -073 131 -047 022 026 205 -041 028 L12 -516 -010 -180 000 156 147 066 073 181 L8 466 030 082 -162 093 -021 109 022 076 L14 -428 -032 150 -103 202 023 131 224 230 L15 -402 053 -078 -039 146 000 -023 -215 260 L6 387 001 040 050 108 -183 -212 -038 132 L7 368 -121 -216 162 165 -095 -154 116 -008 M9 -322 -099 -009 154 100 -300 -076 -191 039 L26 320 165 054 101 051 073 -198 034 042 L11 318 222 -223 -116 059 -030 007 -078 219 M7 -288 108 -090 -102 -014 -006 -085 -158 -168 M17 -225 031 136 012 -018 -160 200 210 070 M3 -195 -159 -087 -057 -017 060 077 002 -037 M16 -179 108 -012 -141 -115 -170 -168 008 -052 P53 074 655 052 -031 -075 061 -179 -014 066 P5 -034 637 032 -128 -154 077 -138 -115 063 P38 050 555 207 034 -038 011 010 -143 -086 P22 080 535 -013 -261 023 043 003 069 045 P9 063 514 -060 179 -002 -148 -023 -130 010 P19 059 -475 057 022 049 -074 -052 -068 115 P16 051 468 -166 103 -108 -059 -015 -088 104 P1 157 -407 037 046 095 019 -047 -145 183 P52 -033 407 -199 050 -123 073 128 175 -058 P36 157 353 020 130 -014 145 143 156 -039 P30 148 308 -267 161 024 -059 -049 205 125 P47 -126 261 -067 069 -015 -029 134 135 237 P4 -117 259 -250 098 046 219 116 107 033 P14 251 251 -110 005 -109 064 117 -168 088 P48 114 031 733 054 073 -042 023 -035 005 P39 022 086 660 134 128 066 -007 103 -051 P28 080 -073 609 -008 -017 183 -061 187 093 P11 153 007 563 -118 -141 266 -026 051 112 P26 -089 -111 543 091 141 074 -037 075 001 P13 -004 039 -506 -095 129 144 -034 084 -135 M14 084 -035 359 209 -062 -125 211 069 -164 P2 -027 189 -335 125 -193 005 173 083 074 P23 176 050 -309 033 -190 082 108 075 266 M19 -188 -022 250 -069 -150 -116 088 043 -054 M2 -219 -015 240 176 -233 -101 114 054 223 M20 -048 -039 226 064 -158 -178 165 049 -121 P41 012 -047 -009 636 -081 -004 058 038 096 L25 011 -033 061 591 -093 -048 -050 -112 054 P50 -019 016 024 583 021 104 049 -020 209 P24 085 012 211 546 -065 049 073 094 -106 P6 100 147 153 490 -028 -050 072 072 -036 P34 163 -039 055 440 046 154 004 -010 058 L24 141 -093 -172 373 -078 -074 -075 -040 186 M18 005 028 104 -329 -005 -129 023 179 -057 M6 -059 -157 -193 -261 146 -019 031 -129 -448E-005 P42 099 -181 073 -073 542 057 020 -006 023 P40 148 -231 018 -220 521 -001 005 -026 033 L23 003 -268 -162 -030 516 086 085 -188 070 M8 -091 -003 -077 103 -504 -044 -117 -056 -045 P51 035 -096 -050 -042 447 -217 -091 -023 153 P33 123 071 178 164 447 -042 144 -261 042 P49 056 -025 -056 -138 394 215 -169 -059 019 M10 282 -018 046 -162 -374 -041 134 -105 119 P20 254 003 063 -132 370 026 049 226 -287 L10 -294 313 014 -246 366 -174 027 004 220 P56 144 083 -144 186 -354 072 061 136 269 M5 021 040 -001 -154 -350 -077 -050 192 238
73
Factor Original Item
Mach Succes
Thrill Seek
Stress Immun
Persec
Inabl Plan
Social Dsrgrd
Intper Ease
Manip Deceit
Soc
Frustr M13 124 105 157 -226 -311 -216 050 -073 163 L19 -089 054 -123 089 286 -129 -004 045 -063 P45 -207 -081 211 045 270 255 023 -068 043 L21 -077 -179 056 170 -229 042 -118 195 187 P37 111 235 211 017 024 592 -112 -115 017 P12 044 149 138 -123 057 571 023 003 110 P27 -144 -152 013 056 052 547 057 095 081 P10 -096 -031 -030 065 -023 453 042 -110 -090 P55 -184 -010 -177 183 -031 419 -035 051 -010 P54 094 -076 -127 -024 339 406 163 024 151 P25 -064 128 192 275 -051 392 087 -284 022 M12 -115 -023 -024 002 -220 245 -052 -120 -130 P21 067 -141 077 154 112 -038 740 -057 130 P15 -059 138 -189 099 160 144 556 -128 054 P18 103 001 -135 -028 097 028 533 -021 -237 P32 023 037 -126 159 167 -088 -532 093 -016 P29 -067 211 -109 014 089 -199 528 -130 037 P17 133 401 250 -067 132 016 456 011 -085 P32 004 171 026 -039 269 -027 -454 174 -147 P43 071 046 112 -059 029 -021 -143 557 286 M1 -330 104 013 007 040 -115 102 -512 106 L9 363 -112 -006 -046 044 -113 085 491 120 L20 -108 030 004 035 -085 002 -043 463 -082 L18 -232 055 199 085 -004 -055 -263 446 025 P35 118 -031 -024 -029 -011 -083 -145 419 171 M15 036 -053 018 -161 -282 -094 088 332 081 P31 -030 176 213 160 198 -074 -102 319 224 L16 -154 -015 020 024 162 153 144 -185 164 L22 024 -112 063 204 128 107 -156 117 527 L17 -168 124 -069 090 048 054 000 180 518 P7 070 -190 243 173 -011 -023 205 025 487 P46 229 -086 172 098 009 -145 067 -156 448 P3 -022 073 297 034 -100 288 -202 -105 392 P44 109 084 013 224 077 -051 -199 046 280 M11 038 056 -087 -113 019 144 093 -025 266 M4 -205 046 092 080 080 -037 -123 -177 -263 L13 143 -030 -189 -079 -140 -124 028 139 238 Note Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation converged in 9 iterations Factor loadings gt 40 are in bold Abbreviations Original Item Number= The item number from each of the three self-report measures used in this study L = LPSP P = PPI-R SF M = MACH-IV (ex P48 = Item 48 on the PPI-R SF) Mach Succes = Machiavellian Success Thrill Seek = Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Immun = Stress Immunity Persec = Feelings of Persecution Inabl Plan = Inability to Plan Social Dsrgrd = Social Disregard Intper Ease = Interpersonal Ease Manip Deceit = Manipulative Deceit Soc Frust = Social Frustration
Factor analysis of PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV subscales Finally a principal axis
factor analysis of the subscales of the three self-report measures of psychopathy and
Machiavellianism was conducted Squared multiple correlations were used to estimate
communalities in the initial factor pattern In a preliminary principal components analysis five
components had eigenvalues greater than 1 (3410 2093 1422 1209 1128) and the scree plot
of the eigenvalues indicated a break around five factors
74
Oblique rotation of the initial principal axis pattern was performed using Promax A
three four and six factor solution was attempted in addition to the five factor solution In
comparing the pattern matrices between factor models each factor in the three-factor model was
interpretable and had at least two loadings greater than 50 whereas the five-factor model
included one factor that did not have at least two loadings greater than 50 In addition the four-
and five-factor models would not converge in fewer than 25 iterations The three-factor model
compared to the four and five-factor models also had the most meaningful factor loadings in
terms of shared characteristics among the subscales in each factor Therefore the three-factor
model was selected Table 12 reports the factor loadings for the three-factor model Based on the
common characteristics shared by the subscales in their respective factors the following factor
names were assigned Antisocial Behavior Coldhearted Callousness and Thrill Seeking
75
Table 12 Factor Loadings of the Psychopathy and MACH Measures Subscales Factor
Subscale Antisocial Behavior
Coldhearted Callousness
Thrill Seeking
PPI Blame Ext 707 -152 032 LPSP Secondary 630 050 023 PPI Mach Ego 467 401 070 PPI Stress Immun -455 148 421 MACH Cynicism 424 149 -016 MACH Flattery 302 191 020 PPI Coldhrt -307 638 035 MACH Deceit 130 588 -015 LPSP Primary 341 486 -071 MACH Immoral 088 397 -081 PPI Carefree 033 309 226 MACH Residual 251 261 004 PPI Rebel 209 -011 752 PPI Fearless 056 -168 746 PPI Social Influ -131 125 295 Note Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation converged in 6 iterations Factor loadings gt 30 appear in bold Subscale Abbreviations PPI Blame Ext = PPI-RSF Blame Externalization subscale LPSP Secondary = LPSP Secondary subscale PPI Mach Ego = PPI-RSF Machiavellianism Egocentricity subscale PPI Stress Immun = PPI-RSF Stress Immunity subscale MACH Cynicism = MACH-IVCynicism subscale MACH Flattery = MACH-IV Flattery subscale PPI Coldhrt = PPI-RSFColdheartedness subscale MACH Deceit = MACH-IV Deceit subscale LPSP Primary = LPSP Primary subscale MACH Immoral = MACH-IV Immorality subscale PPI Carefree = PPI-RSF Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale MACH Residual = MACH-IV Residual Subscale PPI Rebel = PPI-RSF Rebellious Nonconformity subscale PPI Fearless = PPI-RSF Fearlessness subscale PPI Social Influ = PPI-RSF Social Influence subscale
76
Chapter 4 Discussion
Four findings of the present study are particularly notable First as predicted the classic
cognitive dissonance effect was replicated in the sample as a whole That is participants in the
High Choice to Lie Condition reported enjoying the abacus task more than participants in the
Low Choice to Lie Condition Second as predicted a significant interaction was found between
Choice Condition and level of psychopathy as measured by the PPI-R SF and the LPSP
Specifically the classic cognitive dissonance effect was found among participants with lower
levels of psychopathic traits but not among participants with higher levels of psychopathic traits
Third contrary to prediction no significant interaction was found between Choice Condition and
level of Machiavellianism as measured by the MACH-IV Fourth level of psychopathy
demonstrated incremental predictive power over level of MACH in predicting abacus task
enjoyment Each of these four findings is discussed below
41 Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effect
One important finding of the current study was a significant main effect of Choice
Condition on abacus task enjoyment Specifically individuals in the High Choice to Lie
condition reported enjoying the abacus task more than participants in the Low Choice to Lie
condition
This finding replicates the results of two earlier studies that examined cognitive
dissonance in a similar manner In studies by Cooper and Worchel (1970) and Festinger and
Carlsmith (1959) participants performed a tedious task and then were asked to mislead a fellow-
student (actually a confederate) that the task was enjoyable Half of participants were given only
a weak external motivation to deceive the fellow-student (low monetary reward or half of an
experimental credit) whereas the other half of participants were given a stronger external
77
motivation to deceive the fellow-student (a high monetary reward or multiple experimental
credits) In both of these studies participants with weak external motivation to engage in the
deception reported enjoying the task more than did participants with stronger external
motivation
The main difference between the current study and the Cooper and Worchel (1970) and
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) studies is that external motivation (high or low) was manipulated
by the aforementioned researchers whereas we manipulated participantsrsquo level of perceived
choice However there is a close conceptual relationship between level of external motivation
and level of perceived choice from the perspective of cognitive dissonance theory Previous
research has indicated that both choice manipulation and external motivation have similar effects
in creating cognitive dissonance In both cases external justification is being manipulated
Participants in the low choice (direct instruction) condition attribute their actions to the influence
of external pressures that forced them to perform the dissonant behavior Participants rationalize
that if given the choice they would not have engaged in the behavior and thus cognitive
dissonance is avoided The same conclusion is drawn when participants are given high external
motivation to engage in a dissonant behavior such as a high monetary reward Participants again
rely on the external justification of high reward to explain their engagement in the dissonant act
They rationalize their dissonant behavior by relying on the high reward as justification for
behaving in uncharacteristically Participants in the high reward condition rationalize that if the
reward was not present as external justification then they would not have engaged in the task
which results in a lack of cognitive dissonance as well Alternatively participants with either
high choice (voluntary participation) or low reward cannot rely on external justification because
none exists in these conditions Thus attitude shift results from the need to ameliorate their
78
cognitive dissonance Overall external justification is needed to alleviate cognitive dissonance
arousal and this justification is provided by either an external motivation (reward) manipulation
or by a low choice manipulation
Self-perceived choice has frequently been used as the independent variable in cognitive
dissonance studies As in our experiment these earlier studies found that self-perceived choice
(ie High versus Low Choice) had a significant main effect on cognitive dissonance Several of
these studies reported that participants experienced an attitude shift toward being in favor of an
undesirable task or belief only when they felt free choice to engage in the dissonant behavior
such as misleading a confederate or writing a counterattitudinal essay (Brehm amp Cohn 1962
Chatzisarantis Hagger amp Wang 2008 Cooper 1971 Davis amp Jones 1960 Festinger amp
Carlsmith 1959 Linder Cooper amp Jones 1967 Seacuteneacutemeaud amp Somat 2009 Sherman 1970)
Therefore the current experiment has added empirical support to the body of cognitive
dissonance research examining choice condition as a predictor of attitude shift
42 Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonance
The main hypothesis of this study was that people with low levels of psychopathy would
experience cognitive dissonance about engaging in deception whereas individuals with higher
levels of psychopathy would not experience cognitive dissonance
PPI-R SF total scores and cognitive dissonance Results supported our hypothesis in
regard to psychopathy when measured by total scores on the PPI-R SF Participants with higher
total scores on the PPI-R SF reported significantly less enjoyment of the abacus task on the post-
experimental questionnaire than participants with lower levels of psychopathy Specifically the
interaction between Choice to Lie condition and total PPI-R SF scores was significant in
predicting abacus task enjoyment standardized β = -216 p =036 True to our prediction
79
participants with low to non-existent levels of psychopathy experienced cognitive dissonance
only when in the High Choice to Lie condition and not in the Low Choice to Lie condition
Consistent with earlier studies (Cooper amp Worchel 1970 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959) it
appears that low psychopathy participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition perceived that they
had a strong external motivation for misleading their fellow-student (direct instruction to lie)
Thus they did not experience cognitive dissonance and could (accurately) rate the abacus task as
boring However low psychopathy participants in the High Choice to Lie condition did not
perceive that they had a strong external motivation for misleading their fellow student (they
voluntarily agreed to tell the lie after being asked) The participants experienced cognitive
dissonance in the form of psychological tension or guilt which they reduced by convincing
themselves that the abacus task was actually interesting as they had told their fellow student
On the other hand participants with higher levels of psychopathy reported disliking the
abacus task on the post-experimental questionnaire regardless of the Choice to Lie condition they
were in It appears that participants with higher levels of psychopathy did not experience
cognitive dissonance (ie psychological tension or guilt) about misleading a fellow student
Consequently these participants did not experience a need to change their view of the abacus
task or to rate it as more enjoyable than it really was
PPI-R SF subscales on cognitive dissonance Exploratory analyses were conducted
using the eight subscales of the PPI-R SF Each subscale measures a different facet of
psychopathy The goal of analyzing each subscale individually was to examine which aspects of
psychopathy if any were related to a lack of cognitive dissonance Three subscales produced
significant interactions with choice condition in predicting level of task enjoyment
Machiavellian Egocentricity (ME) Fearlessness (F) and Rebellious Nonconformity (RN) The
80
Machiavellian Egocentricity and Rebellious Nonconformity subscales load on the Self Centered
Impulsivity factor (antisocial behavior traits of psychopathy) of the PPI-R SF while the
Fearlessness subscale loads on the Fearless Dominance factor (cognitive personality based traits
of psychopathy) of the PPI-R SF
The Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale identifies aggressive self-centered tendencies
when interacting with other individuals (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003
Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996) Items from this subscale include ldquoI could be a good con-artistrdquo ldquoI
sometimes lie to see if I can get someone to believe merdquo and ldquoI tell people the part of the truth
they want to hearrdquo This scale seems to identify psychopathic characteristics that would allow for
individuals to have a lack of psychological tension or guilt over misleading others Thus in the
present experiment it appears that these traits may have inhibited participantsrsquo experience of
cognitive dissonance over lying to the confederate The significant interaction of the ME scale
and choice condition suggests that the participants in our study who lacked concern for
misleading others or even prided themselves in their ability to mislead others (as the scale
predicts) did not experience guilt or psychological stress
The Fearlessness (F) subscale of the PPI-R SF identifies willingness to engage in risky
behavior with a lack of regard for the negative consequences of onersquos actions The Rebellious
Nonconformity subscale (RN) indicates reckless behavior with a lack of concern for future
consequences (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Lilienfeld amp Andrews
1996) These scales are similar in that higher scores on the scales indicate an inability to
comprehend future negative consequences of onersquos actions These subscales also were
substantially correlated in the present study (r = 522) In regard to the current experiment it may
be that participants who scored higher on the Fearlessness and Rebellious Nonconformity
81
subscales were unable to comprehend or feel concern for the negative impact their deceptive
actions could have on their fellow student Thus participants with higher levels of fearlessness
and rebellious nonconformity may have experienced less psychological tension and less
cognitive dissonance about engaging in the deception than did participants with low levels of
these traits Because these findings are exploratory further studies should analyze these variables
so that strong conclusions can be made
PPI-R SF factors on cognitive dissonance In exploratory analyses the Self-Centered
Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF was the only factor to have a significant interaction with
choice condition in predicting abacus task enjoyment That is the dissonance effect was found
among participants with low scores on the PPI-R SF Self Centered Impulsivity factor but not
among participants with high scores The Self Centered Impulsivity factor is comprised of the
Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale and the Carefree
Nonplanfulness subscale of the PPI-R SF The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF
has been found in the literature to correlate with the behavioral traits associated with
psychopathy such as a DSM diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder lower education
levels lower employment rates lower SES and increased drug and alcohol abuse (Benning
Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003) Therefore the present results suggest that the
behavioral antisocial behavior characteristics of psychopathy (impulsivity blame
externalization lack of planning abilities) affected participantsrsquo experience of guilt-induced
cognitive dissonance
In contrast the interaction between the Fearless Dominance (FD) factor of the PPI-R SF
and choice condition was not a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment The Fearless
Dominance factor is characterized by low trait anxiety social dominance and fearlessness when
82
engaging in risky actions Individuals who score higher on the Fearless Dominance factor of the
PPI-R SF are often described as the more ldquosuccessful psychopathrdquo because they are
characterized by higher SES more advanced education and a lack of substance abuse (Benning
Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003) as compared to the type of psychopathy predicted by
the PPI-R SF Self Centered Impulsivity factor In fact studies have found that the two factors of
the PPI-R SF are orthogonal (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Lilienfeld amp
Fowler 2006) Therefore the present results suggest that individuals with higher scores on the
Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R SF may have the propensity to experience cognitive
dissonance more than individuals with the more antisocial traits of psychopathy (as measured by
the Self Centered Impulsivity Factor)
LPSP total scores on cognitive dissonance The effect of psychopathy on cognitive
dissonance was also examined using scores from the LPSP Similar to the results using the PPI-
R SF the interaction of LPSP total scores and choice condition was statistically significant in
predicting level of task enjoyment Specifically a significant relationship did not exist between
LPSP scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie
condition However in accordance with our prediction there was a significant negative
correlation between LPSP total scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie
condition This result further supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of
psychopathy would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher
levels would not
LPSP factor scores on cognitive dissonance Both the Primary and Secondary factors of
the LPSP were examined in exploratory analyses to see if one factorrsquos constellation of
psychopathic traits better accounted for a lack of cognitive dissonance than the other The
83
findings of this analysis implicate the cognitive (callousness fearless dominance low trait
anxiety) characteristics of psychopathy (as measured by the Primary factor) rather than the
external behavioral markers (as measured by the Secondary factor) as cues to understanding the
cognitive differences found in individuals with higher levels of psychopathy The results of the
interaction between the Primary (Cognitive) Factor and choice condition approached statistical
significance (unless the data was analyzed with the six individuals who did not lie factored out)
Further analysis of the data found that the interaction of LPSP Secondary (Behavioral) factor
scores with choice condition was not a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment
Interestingly these analyses of the LPSP factor scales yielded results that seem contrary
to the results concerning the PPI-R SF factor scales As already noted the PPI-R SF factor scale
analysis suggested that the behavioral characteristics of psychopathy (as measured by the PPI-R
Self Centered Impulsivity factor) were related to the absence of a cognitive dissonance effect In
contrast however the LPSP Secondary (behavioral) factor was not significantly related to
whether the cognitive dissonance effect was found Instead the findings for the LPSP Primary
(cognitive) factor approached significance
The conflicting findings regarding the PPI-R and LPSP factor scales may be partially
explained by the fact that the LPSPrsquos Primary and Secondary factors have not shown a consistent
relationship to other scales that measure the behavioral and cognitive dimensions of psychopathy
(Skeem amp Lilienfeld 2004) Levenson and colleagues (1995) reported that the two factors of the
LPSP mirrored the two factors of the PPI-R and the PCL-R However the discriminant and
convergent validity of the LPSP factor scales have been inconclusive in several studies For
example a study by Lilienfeld Skeem and Poythress (2004) found that the LPSP Primary
(cognitive) factor (callousness lack of guilt or remorse low trait anxiety) of the LPSP was more
84
correlated with the secondary (Self Centered Impulsivity) factor of the PPI-R (r = 62) than with
the primary (Fearless Dominance) factor of the PPI-R (r = 16)
In addition to the study by Lilienfeld et al (2004) other researchers have obtained results
indicating that the Primary (cognitive) Scale of the LPSP correlates higher with the secondary
factor of the PPI-R (Self Centered Impulsivity) rather than the with the primary factor of the PPI-
R (Fearless Dominance Wilson Frick amp Clements 1999 Lilienfeld amp Hess 2001)
Furthermore the Primary (cognitive) scale of the LPSP appears to correlate more highly with
antisocial behaviors rather than with the callous cognitive traits it was designed to measure
(Lilienfeld Skeem amp Poythress 2004 McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto 1998) Therefore the
discrepancy in the results between the PPI-R SF factor scales and the LPSP factor scales in the
current study might be a result of the LPSP Primary scale not being discriminant or divergent
enough from the antisocial behavior characteristics that are measured by the Secondary Scale of
the LPSP and by the factor scales of other measures like the PPI-R In other words perhaps the
Primary Scale of the LPSP is not accurately identifying just the cognitive personality-based traits
of psychopathy that is was designed to measure and thus this imprecision of the factor is what
led to the seemingly inconsistent results concerning the PPI-R SF and LPSP factors
Table 13 reports the significant (and insignificant) interactions between choice condition
and level of psychopathy by individual subscale and factor scale scores This table specifically
sorts the subscales and factor scales by the main psychopathy factors evidenced in the literature
(cognitive or behavioral) that the subscales and factors load on Past studies have consistently
confirmed the subscales arranged below load on the factor indicated (either the more behavioral
factor or the more cognitive affective factor) (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Iacono
2005 Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Edens Lilienfeld Poythress Patrick
85
amp Test 2008 Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995 Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996 Lilienfeld amp
Widows 2005 Patrick Edens Poythress Lilienfeld amp Benning 2006 Poythress amp Skeem
2006 Uzieblo Verschuere amp Crombez 2007) By separating the significant subscale and factor
score results in the current study by the respective factor they have been shown to load on
(cognitive or behavioral) the difference in our somewhat mixed results becomes clearer The
results evidence that in the current study Secondary psychopathy (Factor 2 antisociality
impulsivity inability to plan thrill seeking behavior) seems to relate more to a lack of cognitive
dissonance in the sample of participants
86
Table 13 Interactions of Psychopathy Subscales and Factor Scales with Choice Condition by the Two Factor (Cognitive or Behavioral) Psychopathy Solution Demonstrated by Past Research (Self-Reported Enjoyment as Criterion)
Cognitive Affective Factor Antisocial Behavior Factor FactorSubscale Stdz β t p Stdz β t p PPI FD Factor -167 -146 146 PPI Soc Infl 057 48 631 PPI Fearless -274 -247 015 PPI Stress Imm -101 -93 352 LPSP Primary -199 -192 057 PPI SCI Factor -220 -221 028 PPI Mach Ego -295 -281 006 PPI Rebel -243 -230 023 PPI Blm Ext -036 -32 747 PPI Carefree 068 66 511 LPSP Second -161 -145 148 Note Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics Predictor Abbreviations PPI FD Factor = PPIRSF Factor 1 ndash Fearless Dominance Factor PPI Soc Infl = PPI-RSF Social Influence subscale PPI Fearlessness = PPI-RSF Fearlessness subscale PPI Stress Imun = PPI-RSF Stress Immunity subscale LPSP Primary = LPSP Primary subscale PPI SCI Factor = PPIRSF Factor 2-Self Centered Impulsivity Factor PPI Mach Ego = PPI-RSF Machiavellianism Egocentricity subscale PPI Rebel = PPI-RSF Rebellious Nonconformity subscale PPI Blm Extern = PPI-RSF Blame Externalization subscale PPI Carefree = PPI-RSF Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale LPSP Second = LPSP Secondary subscale The PPI-RSF Colheartedness Scale is not included because it has not been shown to load on the Two Factor Solution Model Abbreviations Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Possible Reasons for the Lack of Cognitive Dissonance in High Psychopathy Individuals
The results of the current study indicate that the more psychopathic traits a participant
reported including the callous unemotional traits such as a lack of guilt remorse or concern for
others the less likely the participant was to exhibit the classic cognitive dissonance effect It is
important to consider possible explanations for these results
Psychopathy and lack of guilt One of the main traits linked to psychopathy is a callous
lack of guilt (Hart amp Hare 1997 Hare 1993 Lykken 2006 McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto
1998) This lack of guilt and concern for others may be the cognitive deficit that allows for
psychopathic individuals to commit violent crimes or manipulate others If this is the case then it
is important to determine if a lack of guilt is occurring significantly more in individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy compared to individuals with low or non-existent levels of
psychopathy Previous studies have examined guilt in individuals with psychopathy and have
87
almost universally found that individuals with high psychopathy lack guilt (Cima Tonnaer amp
Lobbestael 2007 Hare 1993 Walsh amp Wu 2008)
Though a lack of guilt has already been strongly associated with psychopathy in the
literature it is important to now try to find the underlying cognitive pathways and mechanisms
that are behind the inability to feel guilt in high psychopathic individuals Understanding the
cognitive deficits of individuals with higher levels of psychopathy can lead to better assessment
strategies and possible intervention models to curb maladaptive behaviors at an early age This
study attempted to identify the role that guilt plays in eliciting cognitive dissonance by assessing
dissonance effects in individuals with varying levels of guilt capabilities (high versus low
psychopaths) The use of psychopathy as a moderating variable for cognitive dissonance is based
on empirical research that has found a lack of guilt and contentiousness in individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy
Guilt and cognitive dissonance Cognitive dissonance has long been thought to be a
universal feature of human behavior Since the discovery of cognitive dissonance by Festinger in
1957 many other researchers have replicated the phenomenon with great success in a multitude
of situations and across stimuli (for a review see Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) The main theory
of cognitive dissonance that this project intended to analyze with regard to psychopathy was
Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory (1984) due to its focus on guilt as the catalyst for attitude
shift
According to Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory (1984) one of the crucial
components for creating the attitude shift found in cognitive dissonance is that individuals must
feel guilt (that their actions have brought negative consequences to themselves or others) The
current study incorporated the New Look Theory by having participants voluntarily lie to
88
someone else about a boring task being enjoyable Our hypothesis hinged on the theory that low
psychopathy individuals would change their beliefs about the task (they would think it was fun)
in order to relieve the guilt felt over misleading another individual In contrast since cognitive
dissonance occurs due to guilt induction we believed and found that individuals with higher
levels of psychopathy (low guilt) did not experience dissonance Therefore the results of this
study provide further evidence of the callous lack of guilt evidenced in psychopaths while
supporting Cooper and Faziorsquos (1984) theory that cognitive dissonance is invoked by guilt
43 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonance
Machiavellianism is characterized by the deliberate incorporation of callous unemotional
behaviors with the goal of achieving success and domination through the use of the asocial affect
and behaviors (Christie amp Geis 1970 Wastell amp Booth 2003 Wilson Near amp Miller 1996)
The centrality of success seems to be a characteristic of MACH that distinguishes it from
psychopathy Individuals with higher levels of MACH seem to engage in callous manipulative
behaviors in order to achieve preconceived goals whereas psychopathic individuals do not
necessarily plan their behavior to the same degree In fact several of the core traits associated
with psychopathy involve a lack of planning ability impulsivity and antisocial behavior that
often involves illegal and violent activities (Hare 1993)
Due to the callous guilt free traits associated with MACH the current study
hypothesized incorrectly that high MACH individuals in the High Choice (and high guilt)
condition would report significantly less enjoyment of the boring abacus task than individuals
with low MACH
MACH-IV total scores on cognitive dissonance It was hypothesized that the interaction
between MACH and choice condition would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment of
89
the abacus task However this interaction was not statistically significant Level of
Machiavellianism did not impact an individualrsquos self-rated level of enjoyment on the abacus task
These results were surprising given the fact that MACH has significantly related to a lack of
predicted attitude shift in past studies of guilt induced cognitive dissonance (Bogart 1971
Bogart et al 1970 Epstein 1969) Though these previous studies on MACH did not
specifically intend to analyze guilt-induction as the dissonance invoking stimulus they did use
methodology that would create guilt in participants
Unlike the current study these previous experiments found significant differences
between individuals with higher versus lower levels of MACH Also in opposition with the
current findings these previous studies (Bogart 1971 Bogart Geis Levy amp Zimbardo 1970
Epstein 1968) found that individuals with high MACH were able to experience cognitive
dissonance often in the opposite experimental condition to the individuals with low MACH who
experienced cognitive dissonance These studies termed this effect ldquoanti-dissonancerdquo The
current study however found no significant evidence of an anti-dissonance effect in our
participants In fact the results for the MACH-IV scores exhibited a weak version of the
interaction pattern that was seen with the two psychopathy predictors Specifically the MACH-
IV total scores had a significant negative correlation with Self-Reported Task Enjoyment in the
High Choice Group (r = -295 p lt 01) but not in the Low Choice group (r = -104 p = 354)
Such findings seem to suggest that Machiavellianism like psychopathy influences cognitive
dissonance effects However as already reported the crucial analysis regarding this hypothesis
based on an interaction term of Machiavellianism with Choice condition did not attain statistical
significance
90
It is possible that the present study failed to find a significant interaction between choice
and level of MACH in predicting attitude shift because the MACH-IV is outdated The MACH
measure was created in 1970 and has not been altered since that time In addition many of the
items on the measure use wording from Niccolo Machiavellirsquos writing which dates back to 1513
Further many of the items may be considered somewhat sexist in current society as they focus
on men exclusively Participantsrsquo responses may have been effected by this gender exclusivity
Therefore concepts and items may not be current enough to be accurately identifying MACH
characteristics in our sample Given results from the present and earlier research the failure to
find a significant interaction between choice condition and Machiavellianism in the present study
may well represent a Type II error
44 Psychopathy Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment (Over MACH)
A hypothesis of the current study was that psychopathy would incrementally predict
abacus task enjoyment and the cognitive dissonance effect above and beyond the predictive
power of the MACH Results regarding this hypothesis were inconclusive Inclusion of PPI-R
SF scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment significantly increased predictive
power above and beyond scores on the MACH-IV Although there was a significant increase in
predictive power when adding PPI-R SF scores to the MACH-IV scores the beta for the
interaction between PPI-R SF scores and choice condition was only approached statistical
significance When total scores of the LPSP replaced the PPI-R SF scores the results were not
significant Inclusion of total LPSP scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment
did not significantly increase predictive power above and beyond MACH-IV scores Therefore it
seems that the hypothesis in regard to psychopathy incrementally predicting abacus task
91
enjoyment above MACH was neither confirmed nor disconfirmed in the present study More
research examining the issue is needed
Conversely two exploratory hierarchical multiple regressions were run to identify
whether MACH-IV total scores incrementally predicted Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus
task above and beyond the predictive power of psychopathy scores When both the PPI-R SF
and the LPSP were used as predictors MACH did not significantly predict Self-Reported Level
of Enjoyment over psychopathy These results suggest though only in a preliminary way that
level of MACH does not incrementally predict cognitive dissonance effects above and beyond
the predictive power of level of psychopathy
45 Additional Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory Guilt Analysis
Multiple regressions were conducted with level of guilt as the criterion in the place of
enjoyment rating These analyses were exploratory with the goal of further exploring the role
that guilt plays during cognitive dissonance arousal and maintenance Results of these analyses
indicated that the interaction between psychopathy measures and choice conditions did not
generally significantly predict guilt In fact there was no reason to expect these interactions to
be significant based on cognitive dissonance theory The cognitive dissonance literature argues
that participants strive to reduce their feelings of guilt after engaging in counterattitudinal
behavior discrepant with their beliefs Thus participants with low levels of psychopathy who
were in the High Choice to Lie condition would be expected to change their attitudes about lying
to reduce their feelings of guilt immediately after telling the ldquofuture participantrdquo that the abacus
task was fun Therefore their reported guilt level on the post experimental questionnaire should
not be significant Due to cognitive dissonance these participants would have already reduced
92
their level of guilt to low or non-existent levels by the time they were answering the questions on
the post experimental questionnaire
Main effects for relationship between psychopathy and guilt An important result of these
exploratory analyses was that significant main effects were found between level of psychopathy
(measured by the PPI-R SF) and level of guilt that participants reported concerning their
participation in the study Specifically the PPI-R SF had a significant relationship with level of
guilt such that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy experienced less guilt than
participants with lower levels of psychopathy across choice conditions In addition both factor
scales of the PPI-R SF (Fearless Dominance and Self Centered Impulsivity) were significant in
predicting guilt Finally three of the PPI-R SF subscales reached significance in predicting level
of guilt in participants Fearlessness Stress Immunity Rebellious Nonconformity The
Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscales load on the Fearless Dominance factor
of the PPI-R SF which is important to note because this factor assesses the cognitive aspects of
psychopathy including lack of guilt and lack of remorse Therefore these results provide support
for the validity of the PPI-R SF in assessing psychopathic traits such as guiltlessness
Exploratory Factor Analyses
Three factor analyses were conducted on the self-report psychopathy and MACH
measures utilized in the present study The goal of these analyses was to categorize the
individual traits of psychopathy and MACH that were being identified in the participants by the
measures and to distinguish overall factors of these personality traits that are similar across
measures
The first factor analysis found that the total scores of the three measures loaded together
as one factor The second factor analysis found that all of the items combined loaded on nine
93
interpretable factors Machiavellian Success Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Impunity Feelings
of Persecution Inability to Plan Social Disregard Interpersonal Ease Manipulative Deceit and
Social Frustration Each factor was found to represent unique characteristics of psychopathy and
MACH Finally a third factor analysis was run on the combined subscales of the measures This
analysis yielded three interpretable factors Antisocial Behavior Coldhearted Callousness and
Thrill Seeking Though these factor analyses yielded factors that mirror others identified in the
literature (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Hare 1991 Levenson et al
1995 Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996) the sample size of 164 participants was too small to draw
significant or important conclusions from these factor analyses
94
Limitations and Future Directions
The present study had several limitations One potential limitation was the sole use of
self-report measures for detecting psychopathy Though the self-report measures that were used
in the current study have been validated as measures of psychopathy (Levesnon et al 1995
Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996 Lilienfeld amp Fowler 2006 Lilienfeld amp Hess 2001) the use of a
measure such as the Psychopathy Checklist ndash Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991) might have shed
additional light on the levels of psychopathy among our participants Psychopathy scores on the
PCL-R are obtained from a semi-structured clinical interview of the participant as well as
background and collateral information (Hare 1991) Therefore the information about the
participantrsquos personality is derived from multiple sources rather than just self-report A future
replication of this study would benefit from also assessing level of psychopathy with the PCL-R
or the PCL-R SV (Hart amp Hare 1995) which is a screening version of the PCL-R
A second limitation might have been the type of task used to illicit cognitive dissonance
The study had participants move wooden balls back and forth across an abacus for 20 minutes
Though this study attained significant results perhaps the length of time may not have been long
enough to induce boredom in all participants Future studies could increase the amount of time
participants are instructed to move balls across the abacus For example the original cognitive
dissonance study by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) had participants turn pegs in a peg-board for
one hour That length of time would most likely ensure boredom in participants It is important to
note however that the time limit of 20 minutes employed in the present study was the same as in
the study by Cooper and Worchel (1970) in which significant results were obtained when
participants engaged in the boring task for 20 minutes
95
In addition the use of the abacus task as the stimuli could have impacted the results
because some participants may have actually found the task enjoyable and thus genuinely
reported enjoying the task on the post-experimental questionnaire This would confound our
results because cognitive dissonance was not enacted in those participants In order to combat the
possible issue the use of counterattitudinal essays as the stimulus would be a useful option for
future studies Counterattitudinal essays involve writing in favor of an issue that one is
adamantly against The use of counterattitudinal essays has been incorporated into the majority
of cognitive dissonance studies (for a review see Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Studies have
shown that when participants write in favor of an issue that they are opposed to this elicits
cognitive dissonance (Baumeister amp Tice 1984 Elkin amp Leippe 1986 Harmon-Jones amp Mills
1999 Linder Cooper amp Jones 1967 Seacuteneacutemeaud amp Somat 2009) Counterattitudinal essays
have also been used in studying cognitive dissonance effects in participants with MACH
(Burgoon Miller amp Tubbs 1972) with significant effects
Simply writing counter-attitudinal essays would not necessarily invoke guilt The present
study tested the hypothesis that guilt-invoking tasks create cognitive dissonance in individuals
with low psychopathic traits but not individuals with high psychopathic traits Therefore the
present results might not be replicated in a study that simply required the writing of counter-
attitudinal essays However a variant on this task exists in which writing a counter-attitudinal
essay is used to persuade other individuals to a viewpoint with which the writer strongly
disagrees This task of writing a counter-attitudinal essay to persuade others is likely to evoke
guilt and according to the hypotheses of the present study would be predicted to create a
cognitive dissonance effect in participants with higher levels of psychopathy but not in
participants with low levels of psychopathy A control condition would be necessary in which
96
some participants just write the counter-attitudinal essays while others write counter-attitudinal
essays that are then used to persuade other individuals In this way we would be better able to
determine whether any cognitive dissonance effects observed were due to guilt
Guilt has been manipulated in participants with the use of counterattitudinal essays The
primary way that researcherrsquos incorporate guilt was to have the participant write a
counterattitudinal essay and read it (or give it) to a panel of individuals with the intention of
persuading the panel to be in favor of the topic to which the participant is actually against In this
way participants feel guilt for attempting to convince others to support something that the
participant actually opposes For example a study by Elliot and Devine (1994) had their college
student sample of participants write essays in favor of a tuition raise for all students at their
university Before writing the counterattitudinal essays participants were initially screened to
make sure they were against a tuition increase on campus Participants were told that the essay
they wrote (pro-tuition increase) would be read by the university Board of Trustees to help
determine if the tuition raise should be implemented Participantsrsquo guilt was activated because
they were led to believe that their essay might cause a tuition increase for themselves and their
peers Results of the study found a significant shift in attitude towards being in favor of the
tuition increase after participants had written the essay The authors surmised that it was the
negative consequences that their actions (writing the pro-tuition increase essay) could cause
others that led to the attitude shift Replicating the current study with the use of counterattitudinal
essays that manipulate guilt rather than the abacus task may elicit stronger effects by eliminating
the participantsrsquo chance of genuinely enjoying the abacus task
A third limitation the current study concerns its generalizability to new populations of
participants This study analyzed level of psychopathy exclusively among college
97
undergraduates It is unclear whether the results obtained in this population will generalize to
groups with higher levels of psychopathy such as violent offenders or repeat-offender juvenile
delinquents Attempting a replication in a sample of violent offenders or juvenile delinquents
would be a valuable step in understanding how the construct of psychopathy impacts cognitive
dissonance
A fourth possible limitation was the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of participants
Approximately eighty-five percent of participants were Hispanic and thus the generalizability of
the results to non-Hispanic populations can be questioned However psychopathy has been
shown to be a universal construct across ethnicities including Anglo Americans (Cooke Kosson
amp Michie 2001 Hare 1996) African Americans (Cooke Kosson amp Michie 2001 Skeem et
al 2004 Swogger Walsh amp Kosson 2008) and Hispanics (Sullivan Abramowitz Lopez amp
Kosson 2006 Valdez Kaplan amp Codina 2000) MACH too has been shown to appear in
Hispanics (Martinez 1981) Therefore this limitation may not be a serious one
Though ethnicity may not have impacted our results cultural characteristics are another
limitation to consider Culture may impact the expression of psychopathic traits A recent study
by Smith and Madjarov (2008) found that individuals from Bulgaria evidenced higher levels of
psychopathy and Machiavellianism than Americans (as measured by the LPSP and MACH-IV)
The authors attributed the higher levels of psychopathic and MACH tendencies to the coercive
nature of the Bulgarian culture which teaches the youth to look out for themselves above all else
The authors deduced that the personality characteristics of psychopathy and MACH allow for
better survival outcomes in Bulgaria and thus the traits have flourished there as adaptive rather
than abnormal
98
The current study was conducted in a university on the US-Mexico border where
acculturation to American society varies in the university population Many students commute
over the border daily from Mexico to attend classes and are not highly acculturated to US
culture Based on the Smith and Madjarov (2008) study and the location of the current
experiment level of acculturation may have impacted our results and should be accounted for in
future studies
An additional future direction would be that this study spurs psychopathy and cognitive
dissonance research in new routes As previously mentioned only one other study has examined
the effects of psychopathy on cognitive dissonance (Weir 2007) However Weirrsquos study
contained methodological weaknesses (eg no control group for comparison purposes) and was
not designed to address how psychopathic traits impact cognitive dissonance in guilt-inducing
situations Clearly more studies need to be conducted in order to examine if the significant
results found in the present study will hold across other age groups populations (such as violent
offenders) and cultures The results of this study could assist in better understanding the
cognitive and emotional characteristics of psychopathy
In addition the results of this study pose new ideas for cognitive dissonance research
The results of the current study suggest that level of psychopathy could potentially be
confounding cognitive dissonance studies that rely on guilt or adverse consequences as the
mechanism of dissonance arousal Further replications of the present study are needed in the
literature to examine the robustness of our results and their impact on cognitive dissonance
arousal
99
Conclusions
Until now cognitive dissonance has been assumed to be a general cognitive effect found
in all individuals The results of this study suggest that this assumption may be incorrect In the
present study individuals with higher levels of psychopathy did not seem to experience guilt-
induced dissonance arousal It may be that past studies might have yielded stronger cognitive
dissonance effects if they had excluded participants with above-average levels of psychopathic
traits
In addition the lack of a significant finding in regard to level of MACH indicates that
more research needs to be conducted in assessing what maladaptive cognitive and behavioral
impacts Machiavellianism has on individuals and how MACH truly relates to psychopathy
Understanding the cognitive characteristics of psychopathy (and MACH) is important
due to the negative impact that individuals with these characteristics can cause society For
example individuals with higher levels of psychopathy are four times more likely to recidivate
after being released from prison (Hare 1993 Hemphill Hare amp Wong 1998) are arrested at
earlier ages are more likely to use weapons and violence in their offenses and have higher rates
of offending than individuals without psychopathy (Hart amp Hare 1997 Hare amp McPherson
1984) It is important to discover what specific cognitive and emotional characteristics lead some
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy to develop and behave maladaptively in society If
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy do not experience cognitive dissonance after lying
to someone else this finding points not only to a lack of guilt in such individuals but also to a
unique cognitive and emotional temperament that may be lacking dissonance arousal
100
References
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed) Washington DC Author Aronson E (1968) Dissonance theory Progress and problems In R Abelson E Aronson W McGuire T Newcomb M Rosenberg amp P Tannenbaum (Eds) Theories of cognitive consistency A sourcebook (pp5-27) Chicago Illinois Rand McNally Austin E J Farrelly D Black C amp Moore H (2007) Emotional intelligence Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation Does EI have a dark side Personality and Individual Differences 43 179-189 Baumeister R F amp Tice D M (1984) Role of self-presentation and choice in cognitive dissonance under forced compliance Necessary or sufficient causes Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(1) 5-13 Bogart K (1971) Machiavellianism and individual differences in response to cognitive inconsistency Journal of Social Psychology 85 111-119 Bogart K Geis F Levy M amp Zimbardo P (1970) No dissonance for Machiavellians In P G Zimbardo (Ed) The cognitive control of motivation The consequences of choice and motivation (pp 251-263) Glenview Illinois Scott Foresman and Company Brehm J W amp Cohen A R (1962) Explorations in cognitive dissonance New York Wiley Burgoon M Miller G R amp Tubbs S L (1972) Machiavellianism justification and attitude change following counterattitudinal advocacy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 22 366-371 Chapman A L Gremore T M amp Farmer R F (2003) Psychometric analysis of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory with female inmates Journal of Personality Assessment 80(2) 164-172 Chatzisarantis N L D Hagger M S amp Wang J C K (2008) An experimental test of cognitive dissonance theory in the domain of physical exercise Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 20(1) 97-115 Christie R (1970a) Why Machiavelli In R Christie amp F Geis (Eds) Studies in Machiavellianism (pp1-9) New York Academic Press Christie R (1970b) Relationships between Machiavellianism and measures of ability opinion and personality In R Christie amp F Geis (Eds) Studies in Machiavellianism (pp35-52) New York Academic Press Christie R amp Geis F L (1970) Studies in Machiavellianism New York Academic Press
101
Cima M Tonnaer F amp Lobbestael J (2007) Moral emotions in predatory and impulsive offenders using implicit measures Netherlands Journal of Psychology 63(4) 144-155 Cleckley H (1976) The mask of sanity (5th ed) St Louis C V Mosby (Originally published 1941) Cooke D J Kosson D S amp Michie C (2001) Psychopathy and ethnicity Structural item and test generalizability of the Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (PCL-R) in Caucasian and African American participants Psychological Assessment 13(4) 531-542 Cooper J (1971) Personal responsibility and dissonance The role of foreseen consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18(3) 354-363 Cooper J (1999) Unwanted consequences and the self In search of the motivation for dissonance reduction In E Harmon-Jones amp J Mills (Eds) Cognitive dissonance Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp149-173) Washington DC American Psychological Association Cooper J amp Fazio R H (1984) A new look at dissonance theory In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental psychology (Vol 17 pp 229-262) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Cooper J amp Worchel S (1970) Role of undesired consequences in arousing cognitive dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(2) 199-206 Croyle R amp Cooper J (1983) Dissonance arousal Physiological evidence Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 782-791 Davis K E amp Jones E E (1960) Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61(3) 402-410 Edens J Marcus D Lilienfeld S O amp Poythress N G (2006) Psychopathic not psychopath Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of psychopathy Journal of Abnormal Psychology 115(1) 131-144 Elkin R A amp Leippe M R (1986) Physiological arousal dissonance and attitude change Evidence for a dissonance-arousal link and a ldquodonrsquot remind merdquo effect Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 55-65 Elliot A J amp Devine P G (1994) On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance Dissonance as psychological discomfort Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(3) 382-394 Epstein G F (1969) Machiavelli and the devilrsquos advocate Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 11(1) 38-41
102
Fehr B Samsom D amp Paulhus D L (1992) The construct of Machiavellianism Twenty years later In CD Spielberger amp J N Butcher (Eds) Advances in personality assessment (pp 77-116) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance Stanford CA Stanford University Press Festinger L amp Carlsmith J M (1959) Cognitive consequences of forced compliance Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58 203-210 Fowles D C (1980) The three arousal model Implications of Grayrsquos two-factor learning theory for heart rate electrodermal activity and psychopathy Psychophysiology 17 87-104 Goethals G R amp Cooper J (1972) Role of intention and postbehavioral consequence in the arousal of cognitive dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23 293- 301 Greenwald H A (1967) Active psychotherapy New York Atherton Hare R D (1978) Psychopathy and electrodermal responses to nonsignal stimulation Biological Psychology 6 237-246 Hare R D (1985) Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psycopathy Journal of Clinical and Counseling Psychology 53 7-16 Hare R D (1991) Manual for the Hare Psycopathy Checklist-Revised Toronto
Multi-Health Systems
Hare R D (1993) Without conscience The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us New York Pocket Books Hare R D amp McPherson L M (1984) Violent and aggressive behavior by criminal psychopaths International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 7(1) 35-50 Hare R D amp Neumann C S (2006) The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy Development structural properties and new directions In C J Patrick (Ed) Handbook of psychopathy (pp 58-88) New York The Guilford Press Harmon-Jones E amp Mills J (1999) An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory In E Harmon-Jones amp J Mills (Eds) Cognitive dissonance Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp3-21) Washington DC American Psychological Association Harpur T J Hare R D amp Hakstian A R (1989) Two factor conceptualization of psychopathy Construct validity and assessment implications Psychological Assessment A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1 6-17
103
Hart S D amp Hare R D (1995) Psychopathy and risk assessment Issues in Criminological amp Legal Psychology 24 63-67 Hart S D amp Hare R D (1997) Psychopathy Assessment and association with criminal conduct In D M Stoff J Breiling amp J D Master (Eds) Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp 22-35) NY John Wiley and Sons Hemphill J F Hare R D amp Wong S (1998) Psychopathy and recidivism A review Legal and Criminological Psychology 3(1) 139-170 Karpman B (1941) On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types The symptomatic and the idiopathic Journal of Criminology and Psychopathology 3 112- 137 Karpman B (1948) The myth of the psychopathic personality American Journal of Psychiatry 104 523-534 Levenson M (1990) Risk taking and personality Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 1073-1081 Levenson M Kiehl K amp Fitzpatrick C (1995) Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(1) 151-158 Lilienfeld SO (1994) Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy Clinical Psychology Review 14 17-38 Lilienfeld SO amp Andrews BP (1996) Development and preliminary validation of a self report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations Journal of Personality Assessment 66 488-524 Lilienfeld S O amp Hess T H (2001) Psychopathic personality traits and somatization Sex differences and the mediating role of negative emotionality Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 23(1) 11-24 Lilienfeld S O Skeem J L amp Poythress N G (2004 March) Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society Scottsdale AZ Lilienfeld S O amp Widows M R (2005) PPI-R professional manual Lutz FL Psychological Assessment Resources Linder D E Cooper J amp Jones E E (1967) Decision freedom as a determinant of the role of incentive magnitude in attitude change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6 245-254
104
Lyyken D T (1957) A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55 6-10 Lykken D T (1995) The antisocial personalities Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Lynam D R Whiteside S amp Jones S (1999) Self-reported psychopathy A validation study Journal of Personality Assessment 73(1) 110-132 Machiavelli N (1981) The Prince New York Bantam Books (Original work published 1513) Marcus D K amp Edens J F (2004) A taxometric analysis of psychopathic personality Journal of Abnormal Psychology 113 626-635 Martinez D C (1981) Differences among Chicano and White students on items of Machiavellianism scale Psychological Reports 48(2) 433-434
McHoskey J W Worzel W amp Szyarto C (1998) Machiavellianism and psychopathy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 192-210 Meloy J R (1998) The psychopathic mind Maryland Rowman amp Littlefield Publishers Inc
Murrie D C amp Cornell D G (2002) Psychopathy screening of incarcerated juveniles A comparison of measures Psychological Assessment 14 390-396 Patrick C J (Ed) (2006) Handbook of psychopathy New York The Guilford Press Patrick C J Bradley R H amp Lang P J (1993) Emotion in the criminal psychopath Startle reflex modulation Journal of Abnormal Psychology 102(1) 82-92 Pethman T M amp Erlandsson S I (2002) Aberrant self-promotion or subclinical psychopathy in a Swedish general population The Psychological Record 52 33-50 Porter S (1996) Without conscious or without active conscious The etiology of psychopathy revisited Aggression and Violent Behavior 1 179-189 Raine A (2002) Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adults A review Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 30 311ndash326 Ray J J amp Ray J A (1982) Some apparent advantages of subclinical psychopathy Journal of Social Psychology 117 135-142 Rutherford M J Cacciola J S amp Alterman A I (1999) Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in cocaine-dependent women American Journal of Psyciatry 156 849-856
105
Saruk S (1975) A comparison of Machiavellianism values and locus of control in psychopathic groups (Doctoral Dissertation Unites States International University 1975) Dissertation Abstracts International 36 458-B Seacuteneacutemeaud C amp Somat A (2009) Dissonance arousal and persistence in attitude change Swiss Journal of Psychology 68(1) 25-31 Shadish W R Cook T D amp Campbell D T (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (pp 230) Boston MA Houghton Mifflin Company Sherman S J (1970) Attitudinal effects of unforeseen consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(3) 510-520 Skeem J amp Lilienfeld S O (2004 March) Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society Scottsdale AZ Skinner N F (1982) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism IV Machiavellianism and psychopathology Social Behavior and Personality 10(2) 201-203 Skinner N F (1988) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism VI Machiavellianism and the psychopath Social Behavior and Personality 16 33-37 Smith R J (1999) Psychopathic behavior and issues of treatment New Ideas in Psychology 17 165-176 Smith E R amp Mackie D (Eds) (2000) Social Psychology (2nd ed)Kendallville IN Taylor amp Francis Smith R J amp Madjarov G (2008) Machiavellianism and psychopathy An East-West note Social Behavior and Personality 36(2) 255-256 Steele C M amp Liu T J (1983) Dissonance processes as self affirmation Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 5-19 Strelau J (1983) A regulative theory of temperament Australian Journal of Psychology 35 305-317 Sullivan E A Abramowitz C S Lopez M amp Kosson D S (2006) Reliability and construct validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised for Latino European American and African American male inmates Psychological Assessment 18(4) 382-392 Swogger M T Walsh Z amp Kosson D S (2008) Psychopathy subtypes among African American county jail inmates Criminal Justice and Behavior 35(12) 1484-1499
106
Valdez A Kaplan C D amp Codina E (2000) Psychopathy among Mexican American gang members A comparative study International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44(1) 46-58 Walsh A amp Wu H-H (2008) Differentiating antisocial personality disorder psychopathy and sociopathy Evolutionary genetic neurological and sociological considerations Criminal Justice Studies A Critical Journal of Crime Law amp Society 21(2) 135-152 Wastell C amp Booth A (2003) Machiavellianism An alexithymic perspective Journal of Social amp Clinical Psychology 22(6) 730-744 Weir J M (2007) Subtyping psychopathy Exploring the roles of degree of punishment cognitive dissonance and optimism Dissertation Abstracts International Section B The Sciences and Engineering 68(4-B) 2694 Wilson D L Frick P J amp Clements C B (1999) Gender somatization and psychopathic traits in a college sample Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 21(3) 221-235 Wilson D S Near D amp Miller R R (1996) Machiavellianism A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures Psychological Bulletin 119(2) 285-299 Zanna M P amp Cooper J (1974) Dissonance and the pill An attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29 703-709 Zanna M P Goethals G R amp Cooper J (1975) Misleading vs mistreating another person as consequences producing self-justificatory attitude change European Journal of Social Psychology 5 133-137
107
Appendix A
Script to be Used With High perceived choice Group
ldquoThank you for your participation in this task Irsquod like to explain what this has been all about so
you have some idea of why you were doing this task There are actually 2 groups in the
experiment In one group the group you were just in we bring the participant in and give him or
her no introduction to the experiment That is all we tell them is the instructions for how to do
the task and they have no idea what the experiment is really about or what they will have to do
But the other group before they begin the task we like to prep them What I mean by this is that
while they are still waiting in the hall we tell them what the experiment is going to be about so
we tell them it is a reaction task that they will be timed and they will be pushing balls along an
abacus etc Most importantly we also tell them that the task is going to be fun and enjoyable We
do this because we want to see if having a positive attitude about the task before you begin will
affect your ability on the task What we are interested in is comparing the performance of people
who know nothing about the experiment such as yourself with those people who expect the task
to be interesting and exciting
So normally we have another student who works for us and that student preps the person
while they are still in the hall so tells them about the task and that it is going to be fun and then
brings the person in to me to do the task However that person couldnrsquot be here today
Now I have an unusual request that I have to make I talked to my advisor Dr Wood and he
suggested that I might ask my real participant to talk to the next participant for me
You donrsquot have to but if you would be willing to do this for me all I would ask you to do
is to tell the next participant who is now in the hall that this task is fun and enjoyable So Irsquod
take you into the hall introduce you to the next person and then give you about 1 minute to
108
begin your conversation and tell him or her that this experimental task will be fun Itrsquos up to you
of course but do you think you could help me out by doing this for me
109
Appendix A
Script for Use With the Low perceived choice Group
ldquoThank you for your participation in this task Irsquod like to explain what this has been all about so
you have some idea of why you were doing this task There are actually 2 groups in the
experiment In one group the group you were just in we bring the participant in and give him or
her no introduction to the experiment That is all we tell them is what they need to know to do
the task and they have no idea what the experiment is really about or what they will have to do
But the other group before they begin the task we tell them what the experiment is going to be
about and that it is going to be fun and enjoyable We do this because we want to see if having a
positive attitude about the task before you begin will affect your ability on the task So normally
we have another student who works for us and what I do is take him into the hall that you were
just in and introduce him as though he had just finished the experiment This paid student then
starts a conversation with the next participant and tells him or her about the experiment and how
interesting and fun it was What we are interested in of course is comparing the performance of
people who know nothing about the experiment such as yourself with those people who expect
the task to be interesting and exciting
Now I have an unusual request I have to make The student that we have hired to talk to
the next participant about the study couldnt make it today He just called a few minutes ago My
advisor told me to just have one of my actual participants do it So what you will have to do is to
tell the next participant who is now in the hall that this task is exciting interesting and
enjoyable Irsquoll take you into the hall introduce you to the next participant and then give you
about 2 minutes to begin your conversation and tell him or her that this experimental task will be
fun Are you ready
110
Appendix B
Demographic Information
Age _____
Gender _____
Ethnicity (check only one)
Mexican American ____
Mexican National ____
Hispanic ____
Caucasian ____
Asian ____
African American ____
Other ____
111
Appendix B
University of Texas Psychology Department
Post Experiment Evaluation Form
This form is to be completed immediately following participation in a UTEP Psychology experiment The department is evaluating the research that is currently being conducted and would like your opinion on the effectiveness of the experiment you just participated in Please take the time to fill out this brief survey Please circle the answer that best describes your feelings about the experiment you just participated in Your responses will remain confidential and will only be reviewed by departmental staff Once you have completed the survey place it in the envelope provided for you and seal the envelope
The following items are about the experiment you just participated in Please circle how much you agree with the following statement
1 The task in this experiment was enjoyable
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
2 I feel that I learned a lot from this experiment
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
112
3 I feel that the results of this study will have scientific value
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
4 I would enjoy participating in future experiments similar to this one
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly 5 I felt guilty during this experiment
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly 6 I felt comfortable at all times during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
113
7 I felt that I had free will at all times during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
8 I felt pressured by the experimenter during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
114
Appendix C Date _________________
LPSP
Listed below are a number of statements Each represents a commonly held opinion and there are no right or wrong answers You will probably disagree with some items and agree with others Please read each statement carefully and circle the number which best describes the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement or the extent to which each statement applies to you
ITEM Strongly Disagree
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Strongly Agree
1 Success is based on survival of the fittest I am not concerned about the losers
1 2 3 4
2 For me whatrsquos right is whatever I can get away with
1 2 3 4
3 In todayrsquos world I feel justified in doing anything I can get away with to succeed
1 2 3 4
4 My main purpose in life is getting as many goodies as I can
1 2 3 4
5 Making a lot of money is my most important goal
1 2 3 4
6 I let others worry about higher values my main concern is with the bottom line
1 2 3 4
7 People who are stupid enough to get ripped off usually deserve it
1 2 3 4
8 Looking out for myself is my top priority
1 2 3 4
9 I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do
1 2 3 4
10 I would be upset if my success came at someone elsersquos expense
1 2 3 4
115
Appendix C (LPSP Continued)
ITEM Disagree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Agree Strongly
11 I often admire a really clever scam 1 2 3 4
12 I make a point of trying not to hurt others in pursuit of my goals
1 2 3 4
13 I enjoy manipulating other peoplersquos feelings
1 2 3 4
14 I feel bad if my words or actions cause someone else to feel emotional pain
1 2 3 4
15 Even if I were trying very hard to sell something I wouldnrsquot lie about it
1 2 3 4
16 Cheating is not justified because it is unfair to others
1 2 3 4
17 I find myself in the same kinds of trouble time after time
1 2 3 4
18 I am often bored 1 2 3 4
19 I find that I am able to pursue one goal for a long time
1 2 3 4
20 I donrsquot plan anything very far in advance
1 2 3 4
21 I quickly lose interest in tasks I start 1 2 3 4
22 Most of my problems are due to the fact that other people just donrsquot understand me
1 2 3 4
23 Before I do anything I carefully consider the possible consequences
1 2 3 4
24 I have been in a lot of shouting matches with other people
1 2 3 4
25 When I get frustrated I often let off steam by blowing my top
1 2 3 4
26 Love is overrated 1 2 3 4
116
Appendix D
PPI-R SF
This test measures different personality characteristics ndash that is the ways in which peoplersquos personality styles make them different from each other Read each statement carefully and decide how false or true it is as a description of you Then mark the best choice by circling the number that corresponds to your answer Use the answer choices provided below 1 = False 2 = Mostly False 3 = Mostly True 4 = True Even if you feel that an item is neither false nor true as applied to you or if you are unsure about what response to make please answer all of the items If you cannot make up your mind about an item select the choice that is closest to your opinion Here is a sample item
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True
I enjoy going to the movies 1 2 3 4 If it is true that you enjoy going to the movies circle the 4 to the right of the question as shown below
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True
I enjoy going to the movies 1 2 3
If it is mostly false that you enjoy going to the movies you would circle the 2 to the right of the item and so on Try to be as honest as you can and be sure to give your own opinion about whether each item is false or true about you Now please begin by circling the response next to the item that best represents your opinion about yourself
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 1 Dangerous activities like skydiving scare me more than they do most people
1
2
3
4
2 I have always seen myself as something of a rebel
1
2
3
4
3 I am easily flustered in pressured situations
1
2
3
4
4 I would find the job of a movie stunt person exciting
1
2
3
4
4
117
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 5 I might like to hang out with people who drift from city to city with no permanent home
1
2
3
4
6 A lot of people have tried to ldquostab me in the backrdquo
1
2
3
4
7 I get mad if I donrsquot receive special favors I deserve
1
2
3
4
8 I am hardly ever the center of attention
1
2
3
4
9 It might be exciting to be on a plane that was about to crash but somehow landed safely
1
2
3
4
10 A lot of times I worry when a friend is having personal problems
1
2
3
4
11 I tend to get crabby and irritable when I have too many things to do
1
2
3
4
12 I get mad when I hear about the injustices in the world
1
2
3
4
13 I donrsquot let everyday hassles get on my nerves
1
2
3
4
14 I could be a good con artist
1
2
3
4
15 I have a talent for getting people to talk to me
1
2
3
4
16 I might like to travel around the country with some motorcyclists and cause trouble
1
2
3
4
17 In conversations Irsquom the one who does most of the talking
1
2
3
4
18 I feel sure of myself when Im around other people
1
2
3
4
19 Parachute jumping would really scare me
1
2
3
4
118
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 20 When people lend me something I try to get it back to them quickly
1
2
3
4
21 I like to stand out in a crowd
1
2
3
4
22 It would be fun to fly a small airplane by myself
1
2
3
4
23 In school or at work I try to stretch the rules just to see what I can get away with
1
2
3
4
24 Irsquove often been betrayed by people I trusted
1
2
3
4
25 It would break my heart to see a poor or homeless person walking the streets at night
1
2
3
4
26 Some people say that I am a ldquoworry wartrdquo
1
2
3
4
27 It bothers me a lot when I see someone crying
1
2
3
4
28 I get stressed out when Irsquom ldquojugglingrdquo too many tasks
1
2
3
4
29 Itrsquos easy for me to go up to a stranger and introduce myself
1
2
3
4
30 I donrsquot care about following the ldquorulesrdquo I make up my own rules as I go along
1
2
3
4
31 Irsquove been the victim of a lot of bad luck
1
2
3
4
32 Im hardly ever the life of the party
1
2
3
4
33 Irsquove thought a lot about my long-term career goals
1
2
3
4
34 Some people have gone out of their way to make my life difficult
1
2
3
4
119
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 35 I sometimes lie just to see if I can get someone to believe me
1
2
3
4
36 I like my life to be unpredictable and surprising
1
2
3
4
37 I get very upset when I see photographs of starving people
1
2
3
4
38 I might like flying across the ocean in a hot-air balloon
1
2
3
4
39 I worry about things even when therersquos no reason to
1
2
3
4
40 When I am doing something important like taking a test or doing my taxes I check it over first
1
2
3
4
41 People I thought were my ldquofriendsrdquo have gotten me into trouble
1
2
3
4
42 I think long and hard before I make big decisions
1
2
3
4
43 I tell people only the part of the truth they want to hear
1
2
3
4
44 I get blamed for many things that arenrsquot my fault
1
2
3
4
45 I feel bad about myself after I tell a lie
1
2
3
4
46 I quickly get annoyed with people who do not give me what I want
1
2
3
4
47 I would like to have a wild hairstyle
1
2
3
4
48 Irsquom the kind of person who gets ldquostressed outrdquo pretty easily
1
2
3
4
49 I usually think about what Irsquom going to say before I say it
1
2
3
4
120
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 50 Some people have made up stories about me to get me in trouble
1
2
3
4
51 I watch my finances closely
1
2
3
4
52 I am a daredevil
1
2
3
4
53 I would like to hitchhike across the country with no plans
1
2
3
4
54 I try to use my best manners when Irsquom around other people
1
2
3
4
55 I often place my friendsrsquo needs above my own
1
2
3
4
56 If I canrsquot change the rules I try to get others to bend them for me
1
2
3
4
121
Appendix E
MACH Scale (IV)
Below are twenty statements Please read each one and consider your level of agreement Rate each statement using the following scale and record your answers by circling the answer next to each statement that is most representative of how you feel 1 Strongly Agree ndash I agree completely with this statement 2 Somewhat Agree ndash I agree with this statement but not entirely 3 No Opinion ndash I have no opinion about this statement 4 Somewhat Disagree ndash I disagree with this statement but not entirely 5 Strongly Disagree ndash I disagree completely with this statement
Item Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
No Opinion
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1) The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear
1 2 3 4 5
2) When you ask someone to do something for youyou it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which might carry more weight
1 2 3 4 5
3) Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble
1 2 3 4 5
4) It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there
1 2 3 4 5
5) Honesty is the best policy in all cases 1 2 3 4 5
6) Itrsquos safe to assume that all people have a vicious streak that will come out when they are given a chance
1 2 3 4 5
7) Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so
1 2 3 4 5
8) One should take action only when sure it is morally right
1 2 3 4 5
9) It is wise to flatter important people 1 2 3 4 5
122
Appendix E ( MACH-IV Continued)
Item Strongly
Agree Somewhat
Agree No
Opinion Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
10) All in all it is better to be humble and honest than important and dishonest
1 2 3 4 5
11) Barnum was very wrong when he said therersquos a sucker born every minute
1 2 3 4 5
12) People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death
1 2 3 4 5
13) It is possible to be good in all respects 1 2 3 4 5
14) Most people are basically good and kind 1 2 3 4 5
15) There is no excuse for lying to someone else
1 2 3 4 5
16) Most men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their property
1 2 3 4 5
17) Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean moral lives
1 2 3 4 5
18) Generally speaking men wonrsquot work hard unless they are forced to do so
1 2 3 4 5
19) The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught
1 2 3 4 5
20) Most men are brave 1 2 3 4 5
123
Appendix F
Informed Consent Form
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Form for Research Involving Human Subjects
Protocol Title Personality effects on reaction time
Principal Investigator Ashley Murray BA
UTEP Psychology
Introduction
You are being asked to take part voluntarily in the research project described below Before agreeing to take part in this research study it is important that you read the consent form that describes the study Please ask the study researcher or the study staff to explain any words or information that you do not clearly understand
Why is this study being done
You have been asked to take part in a research study looking at how certain personality types differ on reaction times You will be asked to complete 3 separate personality surveys and a reaction time measure Approximately 150 students will be participating in this study at UTEP You are being asked to be in the study because you are currently enrolled as a student at UTEP and are 18 years of age or older
If you decide to enroll in this study your involvement will last approximately an hour and a half
What is involved in the study
If you agree to take part in this study the research team will provide you with a brief demographics form and three personality measures Please fill out all forms and do not skip through the packet Please answer every question to the best of your ability After you have finished answering all of the questions please let the experimenter know You will also be asked
124
to complete a brief peg turning task that measures your physical reaction abilities Your performance on the task will be monitored by the experimenter
What if I want to withdraw or am asked to withdraw from this study
Taking part in this study is voluntary You have the right to choose not to take part in this study If you do not take part in the study there will be no penalty There are no risks or harms related to participating in this study
If you choose to take part you have the right to stop at any time However we encourage you to talk to a member of the research group so that they know why you are leaving the study If there are any new findings during the study that may affect whether you want to continue to take part you will be told about them
Who do I call if I have questions or problems
You may ask any questions you have now If you have questions later you may call Ashley Murray (915-474-5784) or Dr James Wood (915-474-6570)
If you have questions or concerns about your participation as a research subject please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTEP Contact Ms Lola Norton (Institutional Coordinator for Research Review) at (915) 747-7939 or irborsputepedu
What about confidentiality
1 Your part in this study is confidential None of the information will identify you by name All records will be handled only by the research team and will be kept securely locked in a file cabinet when not in use
125
Authorization Statement
I have read each page of this paper about the study (or it was read to me) I know that being in this study is voluntary and I choose to be in this study I know I can stop being in this study without penalty I will get a copy of this consent form now and can get information on results of the study later if I wish
Participant Name Date
Participant Signature Time
Experimenter Signature ___________________________________
126
Post Experimental Informed Consent
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Form for Research Involving Human Subjects
Protocol Title The effects of psychopathy on cognitive dissonance
Principal Investigator Ashley Murray BA
UTEP Psychology
Introduction
The purpose of this research project is to examine how individuals with different personality characteristics react when they are asked to deceive someone else Please ask the study researcher or the study staff to explain any words or information that you do not clearly understand
Why is this study being done
You have been asked to take part in a research study looking at how certain personality types differ on reacting to feelings of guilt You were asked to complete 3 separate personality surveys and an abacus task Approximately 150 students will be participating in this study at UTEP You were recruited to the study because you are currently enrolled as a student at UTEP and are 18 years of age or older
Thank you for participating in this study Your participation as well as the participation of others will help us better understand how different people react when asked to deceive someone else
127
What is involved in the study
During this experiment you were asked to talk with another research participant and tell him or her that the study was enjoyable However you now understand that in reality this person was really just a member of the research team who was pretending to be a research participant Therefore your conversation with him or her did not affect her emotionally or in any other way
The anonymity of your individual responses will be maintained at all times and only group data will be identified and reported
In addition it is very important to the current researchers that you do NOT tell anyone else about what you did here today The integrity of peoplersquos responses is reliant on them not knowing what is about to happen If you tell people ahead of time what to expect their answers and actions will not be accurate and this could negatively affect the outcomes of the study Therefore you will not tell anyone about the details of this experiment or what you did here today
Who do I call if I have questions or problems
You may ask any questions you have now If you have questions later you may call or Ashley Murray (915-474-5784) or Dr James Wood (915-474-6570)
If you have questions or concerns about your participation as a research subject please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTEP Contact Ms Lola Norton (Institutional Coordinator for Research Review) at (915) 747-7939 or irborsputepedu
What about confidentiality
Your part in this study is confidential None of the information will identify you by name All records will be handled only by the research team and will be kept securely locked in a file cabinet when not in use
128
Authorization Statement
I have read each page of this paper about the study (or it was read to me) I know that being in this study is voluntary and I chose to be in this study I know I can stop being in this study without penalty
In addition it is very important that I do NOT tell anyone else about what I did here today The integrity of future participantsrsquo responses depends on them not knowing what is about to happen in this experiment Therefore I agree not to share with my friends or classmates (especially friends or classmates in my psychology classes) any details about what I did here today
By signing this form I understand that I am giving the experimenter permission to use my data
Participant Name Date
Participant Signature Time
Experimenter Signature __________________________________
129
Appendix G
Debriefing Script
ldquoThank you for participating in this study At this time I want to explain the study to you As
you will recall after completing the task where you moved balls back and forth on an abacus you
were asked to tell the next waiting participant that the task he or she was about to complete would
be enjoyable Your conversation with that waiting participant was actually one of the main points
of the experiment The reason why that conversation was important is because we are interested in
how different personality characteristics affect the way individuals respond to guilt The bigger
purpose of the current experiment is to see what personality characteristics make some people feel
guilt while other people do not experience guilt The way that we tried to create guilt today was by
having you tell the next waiting participant that they would enjoy the abacus task Studying guilt
reactions is important to psychology research because it can help us identify the cognitive
processes that people with differing personality characteristics use when they experience guilt
This is an important aspect of human behavior to study and we apologize that in order to examine
guilt reactions we had to mislead you briefly today
At this time we would like to explain that the person you spoke to and told that the abacus task
was going to be enjoyable was actually my research assistant and was only pretending to be a
future participant He (she) was not affected in any negative way by what you said to him (her)
and did not have to perform the peg turning task It was necessary that you think that my research
assistant was a future participant in the study so that your reactions would be genuine for the study
to get honest and accurate results
You should not feel bad for agreeing to tell my assistant that the task would be fun
Psychologists have been doing this kind of experiment for 50 years and nearly everyone agrees to
130
say that the experiment is more enjoyable than it really is You reacted in the same way that the
majority of participants in these kinds of experiments do
Again I would like to remind you that all of your answers and everything you did here today
for this experiment will remain confidential and anonymous Only I and my small research team
will have access to the data collected here today and you are not identified in any way in the data
collected
If you do feel upset or uneasy about your participation in this experiment you can talk to my
mentor Dr James Wood or you can contact the UTEP Counseling Center and I will provide that
contact information to you Do you feel a need to talk with Dr Wood or someone at the counseling
center about this
Finally it is EXTREMELY important that other students do not find out about the purpose of
this experiment If they do we will not be able to run this research anymore Students must come
into our lab with no idea about what the study is actually about Please do not speak to any other
students about this study especially psychology students We will be running this study for about a
year so please do not talk other students about this experiment
Do you understand everything I have said to you Do you have any questions
Again thank you for participating in this study todayrdquo
131
Appendix G
No-Lie Debriefing Script
ldquoThank you for participating in this study At this time I want to explain the study to you As
you will recall after completing the task where you moved balls back and forth on an abacus you
were asked to tell the next waiting participant that the task he or she was about to complete would
be enjoyable Your conversation with that waiting participant was actually one of the main points
of the experiment The reason why that conversation was important is because we are interested in
how different personality characteristics affect the way individuals respond to guilt The bigger
purpose of the current experiment is to see what personality characteristics make some people feel
guilt while other people do not experience guilt The way that we tried to create guilt today was by
having you tell the next waiting participant that they would enjoy the abacus task Studying guilt
reactions is important to psychology research because it can help us identify the cognitive
processes that people with differing personality characteristics use when they experience guilt
This is an important aspect of human behavior to study and we apologize that in order to examine
guilt reactions we had to mislead you briefly today
At this time we would like to explain that the person who acted as the waiting participant was
actually my research assistant and was only pretending to be a future participant He (she) was not
going to be affected in any negative way by what you said to him (her) and did not have to
perform the abacus task It was necessary that you think that my research assistant was a future
participant in the study so that your reactions would be genuine for the study to get honest and
accurate results
Again I would like to remind you that all of your answers and everything you did here today
for this experiment will remain confidential and anonymous Only I and my small research team
132
will have access to the data collected here today and you are not identified in any way in the data
collected
If you do feel upset or uneasy about your participation in this experiment you can talk to my
mentor Dr James Wood or you can contact the UTEP Counseling Center and I will provide that
contact information to you Do you feel a need to talk with Dr Wood or someone at the counseling
center about this
Finally it is EXTREMELY important that other students do not find out about the purpose of
this experiment If they do we will not be able to run this research anymore Students must come
into our lab with no idea about what the study is actually about Please do not speak to any other
students about this study especially psychology students We will be running this study for about a
year so please do not talk other students about this experiment
Do you understand everything I have said to you Do you have any questionsrdquo
Again thank you for participating in this study today
133
Appendix H
Confederate Guilt Manipulation Check Form
I ___________________________ who acted as a confederate for the current study verify that
The participant told me that the task would be fun enjoyable
The participant told me that the task would be fun enjoyable BUT also told me they had to tell me it was enjoyable
The participant told me that the task would be boring
The participant told me about the task BUT did NOT tell me it would be fun enjoyable
The participant did not tell me anything about the experiment
The participant did not talk to me at all
The participant told me that the task would be fun BUT only after being prompted by me
Participant _________
134
Curriculum Vita
Ashley Anne Murray daughter of Scott and Greta Murray was born in Denver CO She
was raised throughout Texas and Montana and in 2006 graduated with High Honors from the
University of Montana with a BA in psychology (research emphasis) While pursuing her
undergraduate degree she was awarded the Kain-McKay Scholarship in recognition of her
achievements in the field of psychology and was in the Phi Kappa Phi Honors Society She also
was employed at the campus Student Assault Resource Center where she provided counseling
and assessments for survivors of domestic violence and rape Upon completion of her BA
Ashley was accepted to the Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology Program at The University of
Texas at El Paso During her graduate studies at UTEP she completed a 350 hour clinical
internship with the PATH Program of The Aliviane Organization at the Opportunity Center of El
Paso Homeless Shelter Through the internship she provided assessments therapy and group
facilitation to homeless individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse
disorders Throughout her graduate studies Ashley worked on multiple projects in two clinical
labs and has worked on manuscripts and presented several posters at national psychology
conferences At UTEP she has worked as a teaching assistant and instructor in the psychology
department She will be going on to obtain her clinical PhD at Simon Fraser University in the
fall of 2009
Permanent Address 2810 Palm Dr
Billings MT 59102
- University of Texas at El Paso
- DigitalCommonsUTEP
-
- 2009-01-01
-
- The effects of psychopathy and Machiavellianism on cognitive dissonance
-
- Ashley Anne Murray
-
- Recommended Citation
-
- Introduction
- Why is this study being done
- Introduction
- Why is this study being done
-
THE EFFECTS OF PSYCHOPATHY AND MACHIAVELLIANISM
ON COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
ASHLEY ANNE MURRAY
Department of Psychology
APPROVED
____________________________________ James M Wood PhD Chair
____________________________________ Theodore V Cooper PhD
____________________________________ Matthew H Scullin PhD
____________________________________ Theodore R Curry PhD
____________________________________ Patricia DWitherspoon PhD Dean of the Graduate School
Copyright
By
Ashley Anne Murray
2009
Dedications
This thesis is dedicated to my parents for their continued encouragement and support
THE EFFECTS OF PSYCHOPATHY AND MACHIAVELLIANISM ON
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
By
ASHLEY ANNE MURRAY BA
THESIS
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at El Paso
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
May 2009
v
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr James Wood for his wisdom knowledge and patience in guiding me
through this process In addition special thanks to Dr Scott Lilienfeld for assisting as an outside
consultant and lending his expertise in psychopathy research to this project
vi
Abstract
Psychopathic traits include a lack of guilt a lack of remorse callousness and antisocial behaviors
such as impulsivity and aggression The current study examined the effects of psychopathic traits
as measured by the Psychopathic Personality Inventory ndash Revised Short Form (PPI-R SF
Lilienfeld amp Widows 2005) and the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales
(LPSP Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995) and of Machiavellianism (MACH) as measured
by the MACH-IV (Christie amp Geis 1970) on cognitive dissonance in a sample of 164
participants The induced compliance paradigm of cognitive dissonance was implemented by
instructing each participant to complete a boring task inspired by the seminal cognitive
dissonance experiment by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) Afterward feelings of guilt and
psychological unease were induced by asking the participant to mislead a second participant
(actually a confederate) by telling him that the task was enjoyable Participantsrsquo level of guilt
over telling the lie was experimentally manipulated Half of the participants were directly and
firmly instructed to tell the lie (low perceived choice low guilt condition) whereas the other half
of the participants were politely requested but not instructed to tell the lie (high perceived
choice high guilt condition) As predicted participants low in psychopathy (as measured by the
PPI-R SF and LPSP) exhibited the classic cognitive dissonance effect whereas participants high
in psychopathy did not exhibit the effect Results for MACH were not significant The
implications of these results are important for cognitive dissonance research because they point
to a subset of the population (psychopaths) possibly confounding results of past studies on
cognitive dissonance In addition the results point to definitive cognitive differences between
individuals with varying levels of psychopathy
vii
Table of Contents
Dedicationhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipiii
Acknowledgementshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipv
Abstracthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipvi
Table of Contentshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipvii
List of Tableshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipix
List of Figureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipx
Chapter 1 Introductionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1
11 Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1
12 Justification for the Current Studyrsquos Procedural Designhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7
13 Cooperrsquos New Look Theory of Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10
14 Psychopathy Effects on Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12
15 Machiavellianismhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20
16 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip23
17 Hypotheses of the Present Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip29
Chapter 2 Methodshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip32
Chapter 3 Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip41
31 Confirmatory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip44
32 Exploratory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55
Chapter 4 Discussionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76
41 Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effecthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76
42 Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip78
43 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip88
44 Psychopathy Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment (Over MACH)hellip90
viii
45 Additional Exploratory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip91
Limitations and Future Directionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip94
Conclusionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip99
Referenceshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip100
Appendix Ahelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip107
Appendix Bhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip110
Appendix Chelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip114
Appendix Dhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip116
Appendix Ehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip121
Appendix Fhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip123
Appendix Ghelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip129
Appendix Hhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip133
Curriculum Vitahelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip134
ix
List of Tables
Table 1 Descriptive Information for the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Predictors and Dependent Variablehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43 Table 2 Multiple Regression Results Criterion is Self-Reported Enjoyment of the Abacus Tasks Predictors are the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores and Subscales Each Row Represents Results From One Multiple Regressionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip50 Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (PPI-RSF) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianismhellip54 Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (LPSP) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianismhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55 Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56 Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (LPSP)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57 Table 7 Correlations Between the Total Scores of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip62 Table 8 Correlations Between the PPI-R SF LPSP MACH-IV Their Factors and Subscales65 Table 9 Multiple Regression Results Criterion is Self-Reported Guilt After Misleading the Confederate Predictors are the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores and Subscales Each Row Represents Results From One Multiple Regressionhelliphelliphelliphelliphellip69 Table 10 Factor Solutions Between PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scorehelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70 Table 11 Factor Loadings of Total Item Factor Analysishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip72 Table 12 Factor Loadings of the Psychopathy and MACH Measures Subscaleshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip75 Table 13 Interactions of Psychopathy Subscales and Factor Scales with Choice Condition by the Two Factor (Cognitive or Behavioral) Psychopathy Solution Demonstrated by Past Research (Self-Reported Enjoyment as Criterion)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip86
x
List of Figures
Figure 1 Main Effect for Mean Task Enjoyment Across Choice Conditionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45 Figure 2 Relationship of PPI-R SF Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 Figure 3 Relationship of PPI-R SF Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 Figure 4 Relationship of LPSP Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49 Figure 5 Relationship of LPSP Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49 Figure 6 Relationship of MACH-IV Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52 Figure 7 Relationship of MACH-IV Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Psychopathy is a personality construct that has demonstrated negative consequences for
society For example individuals with psychopathy are overrepresented in prison populations
and commit more violent crimes (Hare 1996) Though psychopathy is represented in
approximately one to five percent of the population it is represented in 15-25 of prison
populations (Hare 1996) To date there is no identifiable treatment for psychopathy and no
definitive understanding of the causes or etiology of this construct Therefore it is important to
identify the specific pervasive and maladaptive cognitive aspects of psychopathy in order to
better treat and assess this personality construct One of the first steps in this process is to
identify how individuals with psychopathy differ cognitively and emotionally from people who
lack these traits The current study intends to identify a significant difference between
individuals with higher and lower levels of psychopathy in regard to how they experience
cognitive dissonance and more specifically guilt
11 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a well researched psychological phenomenon that is defined as
the tendency to change a previously held belief or moral to justify a behavior the person is asked
to perform (Festinger 1957) The key feature of cognitive dissonance that seems to cause
individuals to change their cognitions following a dissonant action or thought is a feeling of
unease (tension) that immediately follows the performance of the behavior Therefore it is
theorized that people alter their beliefs in order to reduce the unpleasant feelings that arise due to
the inconsistency among their cognitions and actions (Aronson 1968 Festinger 1957 Harmon-
Jones amp Mills 1999) Cognitive dissonance involves complex cognitive restructuring and for
this reason the attitude change that results is often pervasive (Smith amp Mackie 2000) This
2
phenomenon has been consistently demonstrated in research and is considered a universal pattern
of behavior across individuals
The theory of cognitive dissonance was originally proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957
He found that when people have little or no external justification for performing a behavior that
goes against their personally held beliefs they will often change their preexisting beliefs to
match the action For example in a landmark study of cognitive dissonance Festinger and
Carlsmith (1959) asked participants to perform a boring task (turning pegs on a board) and then
asked them to tell the next participant (a confederate) that the task would be enjoyable for either
a $1 or $20 compensation The authors found that participants who were paid the smaller amount
($1) and thus had very little external justification for lying to the confederate later reported to
the experimenter that they enjoyed the hour-long peg turning task much more that the
participants who were paid $20 Festinger and Carlsmith surmised that the results of this study
demonstrated that the participants who were paid $20 to mislead a confederate had a high
enough external justification for lying and did not experience sufficient psychological tension
over the discrepancy between their cognitions and behaviors to warrant an attitude shift
However participants who were only paid $1 to mislead the confederate experienced higher
levels of psychological unease over the lie because of the insignificant amount of external
justification and thus had to rely on attitude shift to ameliorate their negative feelings
Cognitive dissonance research defines peoplersquos actions and beliefs as either consonant or
dissonant with one another Consonant cognitions are thoughts that are in accordance with a
personrsquos other thoughts or behaviors (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) For example if a person
felt concern about the environment and decided to volunteer every Saturday to pick up litter on
the highway he would have consonant cognitions and behaviors (they match) On the other
3
hand if two cognitions are not relevant to one another or a thought does not match onersquos
behavior they are said to be dissonant and create inner turmoil within the person which then
motivates the individual to reduce the dissonance An example of this would be if a person was
raised to believe that stealing was wrong and then stole petty merchandise Once this dissonant
action is performed the individual must then find a way to reduce the internal unease that the
behavior created
According to Smith and Mackie (2000) in order for cognitive dissonance to arise and
create an attitude shift four conditions must be met First the individual must perceive his or her
behavior to be inconsistent with what he or she would normally be inclined to do Next the
person must take responsibility for freely engaging in the behavior In order for this condition to
be met the amount of external justification must be reduced or eliminated (ie no reward or
punishment for completing the task) Third negative physiological arousal needs to take place
for the individual to want to change the way they feel Finally the individual must attribute the
negative arousal to the action that he or she has just committed (Smith amp Mackie 2000)
People reduce dissonance in many ways (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Examples of
how people reduce dissonance include a) attempts to remove the dissonant cognition (ie a
smoker would try to stop thinking about the negative aspects of smoking on health) b) reduce
the importance of the dissonant cognition (ie a smoker placing higher importance on being
more likely to die in a car accident than by smoking) c) increasing the importance of consonant
cognitions over dissonant ones (ie smoking is enjoyable and makes me feel relaxed which is
important to me) (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) As one can see all of these methods of
reducing dissonance involve focusing onersquos thoughts and emotions away from the dissonant
cognition (ie smoking is bad for me)
4
Cognitive Dissonance Psychological Tension and Physiological Arousal
Conceptually Festinger (1957) theorized that cognitive dissonance contains ldquodrive-likerdquo
properties that manifest as psychological tension and unease and that the psychological unease
can also manifest as physical tensions Once a person experiences the psychological and physical
unease then often an attitude shift occurs that alleviates the tensions An example that lends
support for this theory that physiological arousal precedes cognitive dissonance came from a
study conducted by Zanna and Cooper (1974) The researchers wanted to identify the physical
arousal properties associated with cognitive dissonance Zanna and Cooper gave participants a
placebo pill and told 13 of them that the pill made people feel tense 13 that the pill caused
relaxation and the final 13 that the pill had no effect Next the authors instructed participants
(under the guise of a different experiment) to write a counterattitudinal essay advocating a
campus ban of inflammatory speakers under high or low perceived choice Participants in the
low perceived choice condition were directly instructed to write the counterattitudinal essay
whereas people in the high perceived choice group were politely asked to write the essay giving
them the choice to perform the dissonant action which is a key factor in eliciting the tension
associated with cognitive dissonance The dependent measure of this study was the amount of
attitude shift participants reported experiencing on a post experimental questionnaire
Participants were given a questionnaire before the study began that assessed their preference for
adopting a campus ban on inflammatory speakers and only participants who opposed the ban
were included in the study The questionnaire asked participants to identify on a 31 point Likert
scale how much they were in favor of a campus ban on inflammatory speakers After the essay
writing manipulation portion of the experiment (where participants under high and low perceived
choice wrote a pro-ban essay) their opinion of the campus ban was again assessed with the same
5
31 point Likert scale In addition the effectiveness of the choice manipulation was assessed on
the post experimental questionnaire with the question ldquoHow free did you feel to decline to
participate in this Ivy League Administrators research projectrdquo
In the study by Zanna and Cooper (1974) an attitude shift (between the pre and post
experimental questionnaires) toward favoring the speaker ban was the expected results for the
control and relaxation inducing pill groups The authors anticipated this attitude shift due to the
previous research of Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) They hypothesized that if participants had
no external justification for feeling negatively about writing a pro-ban essay when they
previously had spoken against the ban then they must change their cognitions as previously
suggested by Festinger (1957) in his cognitive dissonance theory In accordance with Zanna and
Cooperrsquos hypotheses results indicated that the individuals who were in the tension-inducing pill
group reported significantly lower attitude shift because they were able to attribute their
tenseness and negative feelings about performing the dissonant actions to the pill rather than to
their internal turmoil On the other hand participants in the relaxation pill group evidenced the
opposite reaction these individuals experienced more attitude shift after writing the
counterattitudinal essay due to their inability to attribute their tense feelings to an external source
(the pill) In other words the people in the relaxation pill group were unable to locate an external
source that explained their feelings of unease and thus had to rely on attitude shift to ameliorate
the tension they felt over the discrepancy between their beliefs and actions
Zanna and Cooper (1974) also found that choice had an impact on attitude shift such that
participants in the high perceived choice group evidenced more attitude shift than participants in
the low perceived choice group This finding further demonstrates the need for external
justification to avoid attitude shift participants who were given the choice to write the
6
counterattitudinal essay experienced more tension than the participants who were directly told to
write the essay because of the perceived free will they exercised in writing the statements that
went against their beliefs Thus it appears that attitude shift is most likely to occur when
individuals feel they freely chose to engage in the behavior and did not have any form of external
justification for performing the dissonant action
Cognitive Dissonance and the Induced Compliance Paradigm
Within the dissonance literature several paradigms have been used to elicit attitude shift
in participants (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Of these paradigms the most common is the
induced compliance paradigm (ICP) which is used in the current study The induced compliance
paradigm typically requires participants to perform an undesirable task which arouses dissonance
once performed The key to this paradigm is to induce the participant to engage in an activity
that due to personal predispositions he or she would not ordinarily engage in In addition there
must be low or nonexistent external justification to carry out the negative behavior The absence
of external justification is important because otherwise if external rewards or punishments for
the activity are present the participant will use them to rationalize their actions and dissonance
will not be aroused In the ICP attitude shift is expected to occur when the participant is induced
to perform a counterattitudinal behavior in the absence of external justification
Counterattitudinal behaviors are any that involve doing or saying something that one does
not agree with or would not normally advocate Examples used in cognitive dissonance studies
include writing counterattitudinal essays that have may have negative consequences for other
people (Elkin amp Leippe 1986 Steele amp Liu 1983) or lying to someone about a task being
enjoyable when it was not (Cooper amp Worchel 1970 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959) Within the
ICP participants are provoked by a researcher to perform the counterattitudinal behavior through
7
the manipulation of the participantrsquos amount of choice or reward For example the peg turning
cognitive dissonance study previously mentioned (conducted by Festinger and Carlsmith in
1959) was the first study to use the ICP and reward manipulation (through the use of $1 or $20
to mislead the confederate) was used to induce cognitive dissonance effects These researchers
found that if a person publically behaves in a manner that misrepresents his personal beliefs he
will experience cognitive dissonance and that the magnitude of the dissonance will increase
when there are fewer reasons for complying (such as less reward or more perceived free choice)
A famous study by Linder Cooper and Jones (1967) demonstrated that choice
manipulation within the ICP can induce cognitive dissonance and thus attitude shift
Linder and colleagues asked participants to write an essay (using either high or low perceived
choice manipulation) supporting the ban of Communist speakers at their institution knowing that
the majority of students did not support this ban Participants were screened to make sure that
they did not agree with the ban and then were either directly instructed to write the supportive
essay (the Low perceived choice group) or asked politely to write the pro-ban essay (High
perceived choice group) Results indicated that participants in the high perceived choice group
experienced more attitude shift after completion of the essay toward being in favor of a
Communist speaker campus ban than people in the low perceived choice group Linder and
colleagues interpreted these results as evidence that when people perceive that they have free
will to engage in a dissonant action they cognitively justify their actions (via an attitude or belief
shift) to reduce the negative feelings the dissonant action produced
12 Justification for the Current Studyrsquos Procedural Design
The procedures outlined for the current study were selected due to the significant attitude
shift results that were obtained by using these tasks in two previous experiments First Festinger
and Carlsmith (1959) implemented the peg board task in their original study on cognitive
8
dissonance Participants in the study were required to turn the pegs for one hour and then lie to
the next participant (a confederate) about the task being enjoyable The primary difference
between the Festinger and Carlsmith study and the current proposal is that the former paid
participants either $1 or $20 in order to identify what amount of external justification would lead
to more attitude shift The authors found that the participants in the $20 group had much less
attitude shift about the task because they were able to use the external justification of lying for
$20 whereas participants in the $1 group evidenced significantly more attitude shift due to the
lack of any external justification for lying The authors surmised that $1 was not enough money
to justify lying for participants so they instead had to change their own cognitions to make sense
of their actions (lying to a stranger) thus they convinced themselves that the abacus task wan not
boring
A second important study used a boring task while asking participants to lie to a
confederate Cooper and Worchel (1970) replicated the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study
but rather than using money as the external justification for lying they used small amounts of
experimental credit (1 extra credit vs 5 extra credit) to induce attitude shift However
regardless of the amount of extra credit the authors offered 98 of participants agreed to the
deception task which indicates that the script the experimenters used was effective in inducing
participantsrsquo compliance to lie The current experiment is using the Experimenter and
Confederate Scripts from the study by Cooper and Worchel with only a few minor modifications
to the original scripts For example the Cooper and Worchel study only manipulated a High
perceived choice group so their script was altered slightly in the present study so that it could
also be used for the Low perceived choice group
9
Justification for using the high perceived choice condition to elicit attitude shift comes
from an experiment conducted by Zanna Goethals amp Cooper (1975) Their study implemented
the peg board task and asked participants to lie to a confederate that the task was enjoyable (they
only used the high perceived choice condition to elicit guilt) The study had participants do the
peg turning task for 20 minutes (as opposed to the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study which
required participants to do the task for one hour) Through asking participants to voluntarily
deceive the next participant the authors found that all participants (n=76) agreed to tell the next
participant (really a confederate) that the peg turning task was enjoyable They obtained this
100 compliance rate simply by asking the participant to tell the next person (a confederate) that
the peg turning task was enjoyable The study by Zanna and colleagues also provides support
that conducting the peg turning task for only 20 minutes still induces sufficient boredom in
participants In addition the study found a significant attitude shift toward reporting enjoying a
dull task when voluntarily lying to a confederate (F = 848 plt001) as compared to a control
group who did not have to lie
Finally a study by Elkin and Leippe (1986) used both high and low perceived choice
groups to examine different rates of attitude shift toward a previously counterattitudinal belief
(supporting the implementation of a student parking fee) In the high perceived choice group
participants were given the option to write a counterattitudinal essay (supporting the parking
fee) while in the low perceived choice group participants were told directly to write the
counterattitudinal essay Participantrsquos feeling of guilt was manipulated by telling them that the
counterattitudinal essay they wrote would be used by a panel and may possibly persuade them to
implement the parking fee on the campus Results indicated that all subjects participated in
writing the counterattitudinal essay (100 compliance rates) regardless of what group they were
10
in and subjects in the high perceived choice group evidenced more attitude shift towards paying
for parking than participants in the low perceived choice group The authors concluded that this
attitude shift occurred due to the participantsrsquo lack of external justification for writing the
counterattitudinal essay (they agreed voluntarily to write it) which in turn caused feelings of
guilt for voluntarily lying to the confederate These results indicate that people are apt to perform
counterattitudinal behaviors even when given a high perceived choice not to Due to the studyrsquos
significant attitude shift (cognitive dissonance) results in the High perceived choice group as
opposed to the Low perceived choice group who did not get strong attitude shift results the
current study will compare high and low perceived choice groups to attain the different levels of
cognitive dissonance
Upon discovering the links between free choice and reward leading to attitude shift when
a dissonant act is completed cognitive dissonance researchers attempted to identify specific
components of decision making that would further explain the effects of cognitive dissonance
The key features that have been postulated to explain how and why cognitive dissonance creates
attitude shift include experiencing feelings of personal guilt (Cooper amp Fazio 1984) public
commitment (Aronson 1968) and perceived free choice to commit the behavior (Brehm amp
Cohen 1962) Researchers have come up with competing theories to explain the resulting
cognitive shift that accompanies dissonance and one of the most prominent theories is the New
Look theory
13 Cooperrsquos New Look Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
The New Look theory posits that the effects of dissonance are a result of feeling
personally responsible for instigating future negative consequences for oneself or more often for
others (Cooper amp Fazio 1984) Cooper and Fazio suggested in this theory that aversive
11
consequences are necessary for the arousal of dissonance The authors defined aversive events as
those that block onersquos self interest or events that the individual would rather avoid due to their
undesirable nature The New Look theory posits that the degree of dissonance aroused in an
individual is dependent on the amount of desire a person has to avoid the negative consequences
Cooper and Fazio term this phenomenon dissonance motivation The New Look theory identifies
the consequence of an action as the cause of the subsequent attitude shift The consequence must
be salient and must cause the individual enough distress to warrant attitude shift
Support for this theory came from a study conducted by Goethals and Cooper (1972)
These researchers induced participants (known to be in favor of drinking alcohol) to deliver an
anti-drinking speech to a panel of people Half of the subjects were informed that their speech
convinced the panel that allowing drinking on campus was a bad idea while the other half of
participants were told that the speech they made had no effect on the listeners Results indicated
that only the participants who were led to believe that their speech had a negative effect on the
panel (their speech convinced the panel that drinking was bad) experienced attitude shift toward
being in favor of a drinking ban on campus The participants who were told that they did not
convince the panel did not experience attitude shift toward being against drinking on campus
The authors concluded that unless the participant feels that he negatively impacted another
person then he will not experience enough guilt and dissonance to warrant an attitude shift
Cooper and Worchel (1970) further demonstrated evidence for the New Look theory in
their experiment which replicated the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) peg turning task However
in their study participants were asked to deceive a confederate (only a high perceived choice
group) for a small amount of experimental credit (1 credit or 5 credits) Results indicated that
participants who felt they had the free will to deceive another person and did so experienced
12
such a negative consequence that in order to alleviate feelings of internal unease they changed
their own attitude and reported enjoying the peg turning task more than a control group who did
not have to lie to another person (who experienced no aversive consequence to their behavior)
Therefore Cooper in his New Look theory postulated that most people experience cognitive
dissonance following an aversive act that impacts another person or the self negatively
especially when the negative act violates normative social standards (Cooper 1999)
The aforementioned aspects of Cooperrsquos New Look theory are crucial to the current study
because we hypothesized that the average person will experience cognitive dissonance and thus
attitude change after committing an aversive act (lying to a confederate) which they felt they
freely chose to do The current experiment intended to explore Cooperrsquos New Look theory to not
only validate it in a normal population but also to test its effectiveness in a subpopulation that
experiences lower levels of guilt and remorse The current experiment intended to explore
Cooperrsquos New Look theory to not only validate it in a normal population but also to test its
effectiveness in a subpopulation that experiences lower levels of guilt and remorse If the theory
is correct that cognitive dissonance effects are due to feelings of tension or unease over having
caused negative consequences to another individual then it is the hypothesis of the current
researchers that individuals who felt less guilt over breaking social norms would not be as
cognitively affected by lying to another person Therefore the person with less ability to
experience guilt would not experience psychological distress from lying and ultimately therefore
not have an attitude shift
14 Psychopathy Effects on Cognitive Dissonance
The New Look theory proposes that an important cause of cognitive dissonance is often
the feeling of remorse that an individual experiences after performing a counterattitudinal
13
behavior with negative consequences for another person The questions naturally arise How
would individuals with little or no guilt perform on a cognitive dissonance task that arouses
guilt Would people lacking these cognitive reactions experience cognitive dissonance and
attitude shift following a dissonant action In order to answer these questions one must first
identify a group of people that consistently exhibit a lack of concern for others such as
individuals with psychopathic traits
Psychopathy is a pervasive heterogeneous personality construct that is particularly salient
for the current study due to the callous nature of individuals with these traits Psychopaths are
individuals who exhibit no remorse are callous unemotional and lack concern for societyrsquos
morays In addition they are often impulsive antisocial manipulative and do not have strong
social bonds with others (Hare 1993 Patrick 2006) Approximately one percent of the
population meets criteria for the diagnosis of psychopathy though 15-25 of the prison
population is diagnosed with psychopathy (Hare 1996) Within the criminal population
individuals with psychopathy are not only overrepresented but they also commit more violent
crimes (over half in the United States) and recidivate four times more often than prisoners
without psychopathy (Hare 1993) As one can see these crime statistics make this population a
danger to society and thus it is important to attempt to identify what underlying cognitive and
behavioral differences exist in people with psychopathy
Psychopathy is often discussed in relation to antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) by
many scholars (Hare 1993 Lilienfeld 1994) because of the high number of correlated traits
between the two personality constructs Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is classified as
an Axis II Cluster B disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV-TR) (American
Psychological Association APA 1994) Cluster B disorders are ones in which the individual
14
exhibits unpredictable impulsive or dramatic behavior The DSM IV-TR criteria necessary for a
diagnosis of ASPD includes impulsive and aggressive behavior conduct disorder (CD) in
childhood a history of criminal acts and violent disregard for others (APA 1994)
Psychopathy is differentiated from ASPD in that psychopathy incorporates the cognitive
and internal states of the individual in addition to his or her external behaviors (Hare 1999) In
fact the cognitive and interpersonal features of psychopathy are considered to be the most
crucial defining aspects of the personality construct (Patrick 2006) Psychopaths have
demonstrated an inability to internalize their culturersquos moral or legal standards and therefore
many people with psychopathy do not abide by these rules
Historically Phillipe Pinel was the first scientist to document the condition of
psychopathy in the early 19th century (Meloy 1998) Pinel noted that psychopaths exhibited no
remorse or internal restraint Hervey Cleckley (1941 1976) furthered research on psychopathy in
his book The Mask of Sanity Cleckley (1976) proposed that psychopathy is a personality
construct which arises in childhood He also was the first to define several cognitive and
affective characteristics of psychopathy such as superficial charm emotional shallowness
deceitfulness egocentricity irresponsibility and (most central for the current study) a lack of
remorse shame or guilt In addition he found that psychopaths often externalize the blame for
their negative actions are extremely impulsive and do not learn from punishment
Within psychopathy research there has been some debate as to whether the construct is
taxonic or dimensional (Hare 1991 Marcus amp Edens 2004) For example the Psychopathy
Checklist Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991) which is one of the prominent ways of assessing
psychopathy assigns individuals with an overall score on a scale from 0 to 40 with a cut off
score of 29 generally indicating the threshold for a psychopathy diagnosis (Hare 1991 Hare amp
15
Neumann 2006) The use of a cut-off seems to suggest a taxonic perspective However use of
the scale indicates that the higher the score the more psychopathic traits an individual expresses
which is also consistent with a dimensional view of psychopathy Recent studies have used the
PCL-R to examine the dimensional aspects of psychopathy and have consistently come to the
conclusion that psychopathy should be viewed as a continuum (Edens Marcus Lilienfeld amp
Poythress 2006 Marcus amp Edens 2004) Aside from looking at psychopathy on a continuum it
is also important to examine the construct from multiple perspectives such as behaviorally and
cognitively
Two Factor Model of Psychopathy
Today a Two Factor Model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991) is one of the
primary models used to evaluate psychopathy (Hare amp Neumann 2006 Harpur Hare amp
Hakstian 1989 Murrie amp Cornell 2002 Rutherford Cacciola amp Alterman 1999) The Two
Factor model assesses both behavioral cues and intrinsic or internal personality traits to define
psychopathy (Chapman Gremore amp Farmer 2003 Hare 1991 Pethman amp Erlandsson 2002)
and is the bases for the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991 Lykken 1995)
which is the principal assessment tool used to identify clinical psychopathy Within the Two
Factor theory the first factor describes the internal disposition of the individual and includes
eight items believed to gauge psychopathy from a cognitive angle These personality traits
include superficial charm a grandiose sense of self worth lack of empathy or guilt pathological
lying and cunning manipulativeness (Hare 1991 Raine 2002) The second factor outlines the
behavioral actions of an individual with psychopathic tendencies and includes nine items used to
assess a psychopathic personality These traits include early problem behaviors poor behavioral
controls and impulsivity (Hare 1991 Rutherford et al 1999) Based on the aforementioned
16
cognitive components of psychopathy the current researchers propose that these individuals will
not experience the same degree of psychological unease from lying to a confederate that the non
psychopathic individuals involved in the study
Primary and Secondary Model of Psychopathy
A second differentiation model of psychopathy was proposed by Karpman (1941 1948)
Karpman following the work of Cleckley divided psychopathy into two subcategories primary
and secondary psychopathy It is important to note that the primary and secondary views of
psychopathy mirror the Two Factor Model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991) In both
instances the primary factor (Factor 1) encompasses the cognitive affective traits of
psychopathy while the secondary factor (Factor 2) assesses the more antisocial behavior
characteristics of psychopathy
Individuals with primary psychopathy evidence cognitive manifestations of the construct
such as low to non-existent trait anxiety callousness and a lack of guilt or remorse They tend to
be unresponsive to treatment efforts and often have more severe symptoms associated with
psychopathy (Karpman 1941) For example Karpman (1948) found that primary psychopaths
are more apt to carry out their deceptive and manipulative behavior to reach an end goal
displaying a callous lack of emotion or concern for others whereas secondary psychopaths will
occasionally act with higher human emotions such as empathy
Secondary psychopathy is believed to come about through the effects of environmental
stressors and life events such as severe child physical or sexual abuse (Porter 1996) The
manifestation of secondary psychopathy which has also been called sociopathy (Lykken 1995)
is mostly behavioral in nature and secondary psychopaths tend to carry out the antisocial and
deviant behavior as a reaction to deep emotional conflict or anger rather than a callous
17
disregard for others (Karpman 1941) Overall primary psychopaths seem to have a permanent
deficit in functioning whereas secondary psychopathy encompasses a dysfunction created by
aversive environmental factors However it is important to note that both primary and secondary
psychopaths to some degree evidence manipulative and callous behavior and display a lack of
regard for others (Karpman 1948)
Support for the view that psychopaths lack psychological distress comes in part from a
study conducted by Patrick Bradley and Lang (1993) The researchers attempted to elicit a
startle reflex in psychopaths and non-psychopaths (as diagnosed by the PCL-R) by blasting a
loud noise while having the participants view either pleasant or unpleasant photographs Results
showed that psychopaths exhibited a much smaller startle response to the noise when viewing the
stimuli (both positive and negative pictures) as compared to the non-psychopaths In addition
Patrick and colleagues found a negative correlation between the PCL-R Factor One scores (lack
of guilt lack of remorse etc) and the level of eye-blink reaction Eye blink reactions to the
startle noise were measured with Beckman miniature Ag-AgCl electrodes positioned at the
orbicularis oculi muscle beneath the participantrsquos left eye The authors found that non
psychopathic individualsrsquo eyes tend to blink more frequently than in psychopaths when aversive
stimuli are presented
Therefore these results seem to indicate that individuals with high Factor One traits
seem to evidence very little anxiety and less psychological distress towards aversive stimuli The
results of this study show that individuals higher in psychopathic traits experience less of a
physiological and thus perhaps less of a cognitive reaction to aversive stimuli In addition a
study conducted by Ray and Ray (1982) demonstrated that people high in psychopathy do not
seem to care as much about what others think of them The study found a negative correlation
18
between social desirability (as measured by the Marlow-Crowne social desirability scales) and
psychopathy (r = -32 p = 05) This finding also supports the current studyrsquos hypothesis that
individuals high on psychopathic traits will be less likely than other individuals to experience
psychological unease over lying to a confederate or undergo an attitude shift to diminish this
discomfort
Cognitive dissonance studies have consistently demonstrated that individuals not only
shift their attitude following a dissonant act but also experience physical symptoms of distress as
well For example a study conducted by Croyle and Cooper (1983) found that people have a
heightened skin conductance responses following the ldquovoluntaryrdquo commitment of a writing a
counterattitudinal essay Though no direct cognitive dissonance studies manipulating guilt have
been replicated using psychopaths studies that have used aversive stimuli such as the
anticipation of being blasted with a loud noise (80 to 120dB) have indicated that psychopaths
(compared to non-psychopath controls) evidence a hyporesponsive physical reaction (as
measured by electrodermal measurements) to the aversive stimuli (Hare 1978) Harersquos study
along with others like it (see Fowles 1980 Lykken 1957) indicate that psychopaths do not
seem to experience anxiety at the same level that non-psychopathic individuals do Therefore it
would follow that through the reduced physiological anxiety response identified in individuals
with psychopathy they will be unable to experience the psychological unease associated with the
adverse stimulus (lying to a confederate) and thus not experience an attitude shift
Past Research on Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonance
Only one study has attempted to assess the effect of psychopathy on cognitive
dissonance A doctoral dissertation by Weir (2007) examined cognitive dissonance in a sample
of 150 males from a drug treatment facility All participants had been in prison or jail and had a
19
history of criminal activity Level of psychopathy was assessed using the LPSP Participants at
the start of this study filled out an attitudes measure that assessed their opinions about the
judicial system treatment of criminals and drug abuse Later in the experiment cognitive
dissonance was induced by having participants copy a counterattitudinal statement from a sheet
of paper that dealt with being in favor of harsher punishments for criminals and drug offenders
(views that these men would adamantly oppose) After participants copied the counterattitudinal
statements they were instructed to tear up what they had written At the end of the study Weir
again assessed participantsrsquo attitudes regarding the judicial system treatment of criminals and
drug abuse with the same attitudes measure employed at the very beginning of the study The
pre and post-test use of the attitudes measure was to identify if participantsrsquo opinions had shifted
toward being in favor of harsher punishments for criminals after writing counterattitudinally in
favor of it
Weir hypothesized that primary psychopaths would experience cognitive dissonance
significantly less than individuals with secondary psychopathy or non-psychopathic individuals
because of the callous unemotional traits that are principally associated with primary
psychopathy However results of Weirrsquos study found no significant difference across the three
groups for attitude change following the dissonance inducing task The analysis did find minor
differences between the groups such that primary psychopaths did seem less effected by writing
the counterattitudinal essays than the secondary and non-psychopaths but again the results were
not significant Weir (2007) concluded that individuals with higher levels of primary
psychopathy were deficient but not completely incapable of experiencing dissonance following
an aversive behavior
20
An important confound of Weirrsquos study was the lack of a control group All participants
wrote the counterattitudinal essay so there was not a neutral group to compare the participantsrsquo
attitude shift following the essay copying to Due to the lack of a control group it is impossible to
know whether the experimental manipulation induced a dissonance effect in any of the groups
Though his study did assess cognitive dissonance it is still very different than the current study
because Weir was not using guilt as the catalyst for attitude shift
The current study examines the effect of guilt (or a lack of guilt) on cognitive dissonance
while the counterattitudinal essayrsquos used as the dissonance stimuli in Weirrsquos study did not cause
participants to feel guilt Weir was not manipulating guilt in participants but rather their
cognitive reactions to discrepant behaviors and beliefs (physically writing in favor of something
they cognitively disagreed with) Therefore though relevant to more general issues concerning
cognitive dissonance and psychopathy his study was not directly relevant to the question of
whether guilt-inducing manipulations evoke cognitive dissonance effects among individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy
15 Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism (MACH) is considered to be a similar concept to psychopathy
(McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto 1998 Saruk 1975) Both personality constructs are
characterized by callousness manipulation of others and a disregard for social norms and morals
(Christie amp Geis 1970 Skinner 1988) Based on these shared characteristics many researchers
have come to believe that the concepts may be the same but are just being labeled differently by
different branches of psychology (McHoskey et al 1998) Psychopathy is typically studied by
clinical psychologists whereas MACH has been primarily researched in the fields of social and
personality psychology
21
However other investigators (Wastell amp Booth 2003 Wilson Near amp Miller 1996)
have pointed to MACH as an instrumental construct that is incorporated as a strategic way to
pursue goals MACHs tend to be calculating and rational and engage in ruthless activity to attain
goals that are important to them Psychopaths on the other hand are often much less self-
controlled and more impulsive while exhibiting a dearth of planning abilities This may be one
of the main differences between MACH and psychopathy and this difference seems to point to
cognitive distinctions between the two personality traits
Christie (1970b) formulated the personality construct of MACH based on the writings of
16th century political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli Machiavellirsquos (1513) classic book The
Prince recommended that would-be rulers take a ruthless and cold-blooded approach to
governance Accordingly Christie identified the traits of an individual with high MACH as
using ldquosuccessfulrdquo manipulation for personal gain a lack of concern for moral standards and a
purely instrumental approach to interpersonal relationships The MACH-IV is the principal
measure used to identify Machiavellianism today It was developed in 1970 by Christie and Geis
(1970) and is a self report assessment containing 20 questions that tap the traits of MACH
Research attempting to explore the distinctions between psychopathy and MACH has
found Machiavellians to evidence many shared traits with both primary and secondary
psychopathy For example MACH characteristics related to Factor 1 of the PCL-R and primary
psychopathy (as measured by the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales LPSP
Levenson et al 1995) include callousness manipulation and a lack of anxiety (Smith 1999)
Qualities of Machiavellianism have also been found in secondary psychopathy such as a thrill
seeking behavior and a heightened need for external stimulation (Strelau 1983) In addition a
study conducted by McHoskey and colleagues (1998) found that high scores on the MACH-IV
22
and high scores on the LPSP significantly correlated (r = 62) Smith and Griffith (1978) also
found a significant though modest correlation between the MMPI (Pd) scale and the MACH-IV
(r = 25) using a sample of 66 college students These findings support the theory that MACH
and psychopathy diagnoses have features in common and may in fact be tapping similar
personality constructs McHoskey and colleagues concluded after his study that psychopathy and
MACH should be more integrated in the literature
However other researchers have argued that there are crucial differences between
psychopathy and Machiavellianism For example Smith (1999) has argued that many people
with Machiavellianism are more apt to resemble a ldquosuccessful psychopathrdquo as they tend to not
have as many legal problems as primary psychopaths do and are often overrepresented in the
business industry as successful employees In addition other studies have resulted in smaller
correlations between MACH and psychopathy (see Greenwald 1967 Christie 1970a) For
example Saruk (1975) compared MACH scores with psychopathy scores on the Psychopathic
Deviate (Pd) scale of the MMPI with incarcerated inmates as participants and found no
significant correlation between the two personality constructs However many researchers today
have advised against using the Pd scale of the MMPI to gauge psychopathy due to the unreliable
results this scale has offered when studying psychopathy (Patrick 2006) and MACH (Skinner
1982) in the past
Additional distinctions in the current literature between MACH and psychopathy are that
MACHs tend be more represented in higher SES families and have higher economic standing
than the majority of psychopaths (especially secondary psychopaths) (McHoskey et al 1998
Smith 1999) As a result of the aforementioned literature MACH is most often associated with
ldquosuccessfulrdquo psychopathy or non institutionalized psychopaths (Christie 1970a)
23
16 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonance
Though the literature is very sparse regarding the relationship between psychopathy and
cognitive dissonance a few studies have investigated the relationship between MACH and
cognitive dissonance Four of the studies are relevant to the current proposal due to the way that
the researchers manipulated dissonance arousal One hindrance in comparing the current study to
previous ones on MACH and cognitive dissonance is that at the time these former studies were
conducted Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory of cognitive dissonance arousal had not been
formulated and thus guilt had not been considered as the cause of dissonance arousal at that
point in time
Bogart Geis Levy and Zimbardo (1970) assessed the impact of social cohesiveness
(liking a partner versus not liking a partner) between high and low MACHs in a cognitive
dissonance paradigm Participantsrsquo level of MACH and self-reported level of morality were pre-
assessed using the MACH-IV Next high and low MACHs were enticed to cheat on a test by a
confederate posing as their partner in the experiment The partnerrsquos level of prestige was
manipulated For half of participants the fake partner was presented as a high prestige partner (a
graduate law school student with high grades) and the remaining participants were told that their
partner was of low prestige (an industrial arts undergraduate student with poor grades) Bogart
and colleagues hypothesized that after cheating low MACHs in the low external justification
group (low prestige partners) would decrease their self-reported ratings of morality (identify
themselves as less moral than before) in order to cognitively justify their cheating behavior Each
participant was left alone in a room with their high or low prestige partner to complete a test
containing un-solvable questions After a while the fake partner ldquohappened uponrdquo answers to the
questions on a desk in the room and attempted to get the participant to cheat with him by copying
24
the answers from the found answer sheet After the cheating manipulation the participantrsquos level
of MACH (self-reported morality rating) was assessed again using the MACH-IV
The results of the study concluded that both high and low MACHs succumbed to
cheating at approximately the same rate (50 [1632] of high MACHS and 46 [1328] of low
MACHs) However Bogart and colleagues (1970) found that high MACHs were more
instrumental in their cheating behavior such that they cheated significantly more with the high
prestige partner than with the low prestige partner Low MACHs cheated an equal amount across
low and high prestige partner pairings In addition Bogart and colleagues identified an ldquoanti-
dissonantrdquo effect such that high MACHs actually increased their self-ratings of morality by
reporting that they were more moral after cheating when paired with a low prestige partner (low
external justification condition) whereas low MACHs as predicted decreased their self-ratings
of morality (reported they were less moral) when paired with low prestige partners (low external
justification condition) In other words when high MACHs were in the condition with no
external justification present for their actions and thus would have to rely on changing their
thoughts to match their behaviors they did not undergo this attitude shift rather they seemed to
create more dissonance between their thoughts and actions by reporting themselves as more
moral after cheating with the low prestige partner This is opposite to the classical cognitive
dissonant studies where participants experience an attitude shift that matches their behaviors
when little or no external justification is present to explain their actions
In contrast the classic dissonance effect was exhibited by participants in the Bogart et al
(1970) study with low levels of MACH they reported that they were not moral individuals after
they cheated with a low prestige partner Therefore it appears high MACH individuals are
25
relying on unique aspects of the situation other than external justification to create attitude
change
A very similar experiment was reported by Bogart (1971) in which she again assessed the
effect of MACH on cognitive dissonance by enticing participants cheat on a task with a high or
low prestige partner However in this experiment a control group was employed to assess
differences between high and low MACHs who were asked to cheat as opposed to those who
were not asked to cheat As in the earlier study by Bogart et al (1970) participantsrsquo level of
MACH and self-reported level of morality were pre-assessed Next high and low MACHs were
persuaded to cheat on an essay writing assignment by a confederate posing as their partner in the
experiment The partnerrsquos level of prestige was manipulated this time in four different ways to
include their fake level of MACH as well The four categories of fake participants included High
MACH High Prestige (graduate law student) High MACH Low Prestige (business
administration student) Low MACH High Prestige (physics major) and Low MACH Low
Prestige (industrial arts student) Results indicated that high MACH participants cheated
significantly more than low MACHs (66 of high MACHs versus 41 of low MACHs) and
that they discriminated their cheating significantly more than low MACHs such that high
MACHs cheated more with the high prestige partners than the low prestige partners (81 versus
56) As in the previous study by Bogart et al (1970) an anti-dissonance effect was again found
for High MACH participants such that high MACHs again increased their self-ratings of
morality (reported they were more moral) when in the low external justification condition (paired
with low prestige partners) while low MACHs decreased their self-ratings of morality (reported
they were less moral) when in the low external justification condition (paired with low prestige
partners) This study also pointed to a difference between high and low MACHs experience of
26
cognitive dissonance by identifying the abnormal anti-dissonance reaction from individuals with
higher levels of MACH
A study by Epstein (1969) used a methodology that apparently induced guilt in
participants Epstein examined the difference between high and low MACH participantsrsquo ability
to be persuaded by induced counterattitudinal behavior Epstein pre-assessed participantsrsquo level
of MACH (with the MACH-IV) and through the use of a median split chose a sample of 40 high
MACH men and 40 low MACH men She told them that they were involved in a radio debate on
fluoridating water supplies Epstein also pre-assessed their position on water fluoridation to
make sure all participants were in favor of the procedure Half of the participants were in the
non-role playing condition (20 high MACHs and 20 low MACHs) They were instructed to read
a counterattitudinal essay against fluoridating water in town and then were post-experimentally
assessed about their position on water fluoridation to see if reading the essay had created an
attitude shift in these participants The other half of participants were in the role playing
condition They not only read the counterattitudinal essay but next they were asked to deliver an
impromptu speech against fluoridation that would be recorded and played on radio stations
across the state In the taped speech the participants had to give their name and advocate for a
ban on fluoridation which was dissonant to their personal beliefs After delivering the speech
they too were post-experimentally assessed about their position on water fluoridation to see if
their opinion had changed to be more against fluoridation Results indicated an interaction
between high and low MACHs with the role playing conditions High MACHs in the non-role
playing condition evidenced significantly more attitude change than the high MACHs in the role-
playing condition and more attitude change than the low MACHs in the non-role playing
condition This too is an anti-dissonance effect in that dissonance has been shown to produce
27
attitude change when people perform behaviors that go against their personal beliefs and in the
case of the non-role playing condition the participants did not engage in any dissonant behavior
they simply read a counterattitudinal essay written by someone else Conversely as predicted
low MACHs in the role-playing condition evidenced significantly more attitude change towards
being against fluoridation than high MACHs in the role-playing condition In addition low
MACHs in the role playing condition evidenced the most attitude change out of any condition
The finding that low MACHs experienced the most attitude shift when they had to give a speech
on the radio against fluoridation supports the classic cognitive dissonance phenomenon In
addition the role playing low MACH results potentially relate to our study if their attitudes
shifted because they felt guilt for publically denouncing a belief that they held Epsteinrsquos study is
relevant to the current study due to the methodology she used in the role playing condition
Participants were asked to publically (via a radio broadcast) deliver a speech advocating for
beliefs that they opposed Therefore because delivering a public anti-fluoridation speech would
most likely produce feelings of guilt in participants Epsteinrsquos study provides some support for
the current studyrsquos predicted results
One final study on MACH and cognitive dissonance is loosely related to the current
study although in this final example the experimental methodology did not induce guilt in
participants Burgoon Miller amp Tubbs (1972) had participants write counterattitudinal essays
advocating the removal of college student draft deferments under high and low justification In
the study justification was manipulated with classroom credits participants in the high
justification group received five classroom credits for agreeing to write the counterattitudinal
essay and participants in the low justification group received only one credit for writing the
essay Results indicated a significant interaction between level of justification (high versus low)
28
and level of MACH (high versus low) Low MACH participants experienced attitude shift
toward being in favor of draft deferments when in the low justification group This was
consistent with the classic cognitive dissonance effect When low MACH participants had no
external justification for writing the essay they changed their beliefs to match their actions In
contrast high MACHs experienced attitude shift toward being in favor of the draft deferments
only when in the high justification group but not in the low justification group The authors
explain this relationship by using incentive theory They posit that high MACHs attitudes are
persuaded by rewards which stems from their desire to gain power and prestige (and rewards)
with no regard for other people
Burgoon et al (1972) explained their findings as reflecting high MACHsrsquo lack of
concern about lying or moral standards Christie and Geis (1970) have also discussed the
findings of Burgoon et al and conjectured that they reflect the high MACHrsquos lack of concern for
other people Specifically Christie and Geis suggest that high MACHs view people more as
objects to be manipulated rather than as people with feelings and emotions
The main difference between the current study and that of Burgoon et al (1972) is that
our study assessed cognitive dissonance through the use of guilt induction while their study did
not induce guilt in participants The methodology involved in their experiment was not designed
to create guilt in participants rather it was simply created to examine attitude shift after
performing a counterattitudinal act with no negative consequences Therefore though Burgoon
and colleaguesrsquo study assessed cognitive dissonance effects in participants with MACH it does
not appear directly relevant to the hypothesis underlying the present study
Overall past research has demonstrated that individuals high in MACH are resistant to
the classic cognitive dissonance effects of attitude shift after performing a behavior that they
29
cognitively oppose In fact the past research has shown that individuals with high MACH often
experience attitude shift in the opposite direction or conditions that low MACHs do These
results have been explained as consequences of the underlying personality characteristics that
high MACH individuals possess (callousness manipulative nature and lack of regard for others)
Since these characteristics are also traits of psychopathy (especially primary psychopathy) it is
reasonable to expect that the negative associations demonstrated between MACH and cognitive
dissonance will also be found between psychopathy and cognitive dissonance in the present
study
17 Hypotheses of the Present Study
Cognitive dissonance studies analyzing the affects of MACH have shown a significant
effect such that high MACHs do not evidence the classic attitude shift following the
performance of a dissonant act The current study sought to determine whether individuals with
high psychopathy scores exhibit a similar pattern
In the current study we analyzed guilt-induced cognitive dissonance effects in individuals
with varying levels of psychopathy Participantsrsquo level of psychopathy (and MACH) was
identified by having them fill out two self report measures on psychopathy and one self-report
measure on MACH They completed a boring abacus task that involved manually pushing balls
one at a time across an abacus for 20 minutes After the task the participants were either politely
asked (High perceived choice to lie group) or directly instructed (Low perceived choice to lie
group) to tell a fellow student (actually a confederate) that the abacus task was enjoyable After
misleading the confederate the participants completed a post-experimental questionnaire that
assessed their personal enjoyment of the abacus task and their level of guilt over deceiving
another person
30
First it was hypothesized that the classic cognitive dissonance effect would be replicated
We expected that regardless of psychopathy or MACH level participants in the High Choice to
Lie condition would evidence more attitude shift towards enjoying the abacus task than
participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition These results were expected to be a replication
of the classic Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study except that instead of manipulating reward
we would demonstrate the effect using choice as the dissonance manipulator
The second hypothesis was that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy (and
MACH) would report disliking the abacus task (as measured by the post experimental
questionnaire) across both the High and Low perceived choice to lie groups We expected these
results due to the lack of guilt commonly found in individuals with higher levels of psychopathy
and MACH Therefore we theorized that individuals with high levels of psychopathy would not
experience guilt even when they felt that they voluntarily (High perceived choice to lie group)
chose to mislead another participant Due to this lack of guilt the high psychopathy (and high
MACH) participant would not have had the attitude shift associated with cognitive dissonance
and would not report enjoying the abacus task
The third hypothesis pertained to the individuals with low or nonexistent levels of
psychopathy and MACH We predicted that participants with low levels of psychopathy would
report enjoying the abacus task more after lying to a future participant only if they were in the
High perceived choice to lie group These results were believed to be due to the guilt inducing
nature of voluntarily agreeing to lie to a person as opposed to the Low perceived choice group
where participants were told directly to lie to the next participant as part of the study
requirements These results were also expected for people who scored low in Machiavellianism
due to the similarities between the two personality constructs
31
The fourth hypothesis was that psychopathy would better account for a demonstrated lack
of guilt than would MACH Though this hypothesis did not have a strong empirically supported
theoretical background we were interested in learning whether the psychopathy construct would
yield different results from MACH suggesting that the psychopathy construct is including
relevant and distinct personality dimensions that the MACH construct does not include
In addition this study explored the relationship between primary and secondary
psychopathy with the level of self reported abacus task enjoyment Specifically the study
examined differences in the reported level of abacus task enjoyment between individuals with
high scores on primary as compared to secondary psychopathy Also the study explored
particular facets of psychopathy (such as callousness) and their relationship to reported
enjoyment of the abacus task
32
Chapter 2 Method
Participants
The current study was conducted with 164 (103 females 61 males) undergraduate
students at the University of Texas El Paso The sample size for the current study was
determined by examining past research on cognitive dissonance effects on MACH These studies
typically included 50 to 80 participants and yielded statistically significant results We
conservatively concluded that the present study should include approximately twice as many
participants as these earlier studies to ensure appropriate power for the current study
Participantsrsquo ages ranged from 18 to 44 years (M =1966 years SD = 317 years) with 823
between the ages of 18 to 20 The ethnicity of the sample was predominately Hispanic (854)
with the remaining participantsrsquo ethnicities Anglo-American (67) African American (18)
Asian (6) and Other (55) Participants were drawn from Introductory Psychology courses at
the University of Texas El Paso and were given 15 experimental credits for their participation
Measures
The Psychopathic Personality InventorymdashRevised Short Form (PPI-R SF Lilienfeld amp
Widows 2005)
The current study used the Psychopathic Personality Inventory ndash Revised Short Form
(PPI-R SF) which is a shortened version of the PPI-R It is a self-report measure of subclinical
psychopathic tendencies The PPI-R SF contains 56 items that are scored using a Likert scale
between 1 and 4 (1=False 2=Mostly False 3=Mostly True 4=True) The PPI-R SF yields one
overall total score and two factor scores (Fearless Dominance [FD] and Self-Centered
Impulsivity [SCI] ) as well as scores on eight content scales (a) Machiavellian Egocentricity
(ME 20 items) (b) Social Influence (SOI previously Social Potency 18 items) (c)
Coldheartedness (C 16 items) (d) Carefree Nonplanfulness (CN 19 items) (e) Fearlessness (F
33
14 items) (f) Blame Externalization (BE 15 items) (g) Rebellious Nonconformity (RN
previously Impulsive Nonconformity 16 items) and (h) Stress Immunity (STI 13 items) The
Fearless Dominance factor includes the Social Influence Fearlessness and Stress Immunity
content scales and the Self Centered Impulsivity factor is comprised of the Machiavellian
Egocentricity Rebellious Nonconformity Carefree Nonplanfulness and Blame Externalization
content scales (the Coldheartedness content scale is part of the overall total but is considered
separate from either of the two summed factors (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger
2003) These factors correspond to the two-factor structure (PPI-I and PPI-2) of the original
version of the PPI which are also similar to the Two Factor Structure of psychopathy proposed
by Hare (1991) in the Psychopathy ChecklistmdashRevised Specifically the Fearless Dominance
factor assesses the cognitive deficits of psychopathy while the Self Centered Impulsivity factor
reviews the antisocial behavior traits of psychopathy
Currently there are no published studies that have analyzed the reliability and validity of
the PPI-R SF but because it is a shortened version of the PPI-R (it is comprised of the 7 highest
loading questions from each of the eight subscales of the PPI-R) the demonstrated psychometric
properties of the PPI and PPI-R are relevant to evaluating the PPI-R SF
Lilienfeld and Andrews (1996) evaluated the convergent and discriminant validities of
the PPI with an undergraduate sample and found evidence of convergent validity with the
California Psychological Inventory Socialization scale (r = -59) Levensonrsquos (1990)
Psychopathy Scale (r = 37) and with the Hare (1985) Self Report Psychopathy ScalemdashRevised
(r = 91) Lilienfeld and Widows (1995) demonstrated internal consistencies for the PPI-R
overall total and content scales to range from α = 78 to α = 92 They also found test-retest
reliabilities (mean test-retest interval = 1994 days) to range from r = 82 to r = 93 The PPI-R
34
has been found to correlate significantly with both the Self-Report Psychopathy ScalendashII (SRP-
II Hare Harpur amp Hemphill 1989) and the LPSP (Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995) as
well as with self-report measures of antisocial personality disorder substance use sensation
seeking and pathological functioning (Lilienfeld amp Widows 2005)
Levensonrsquos Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales (LPSP Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick
1995)
The LPSP is a 26-item self report measure that identifies both behavioral and emotional
aspects of psychopathy The measure breaks down into two subscales Primary Psychopathy (16
items) and Secondary Psychopathy (10 items) Each item is scored on a 1 to 4 point Likert Scale
(1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Agree Strongly) Levenson and colleagues
(1995) found that the Primary scale has good internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos alpha = 82) and
that the Secondary scale had marginal internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos alpha = 63) In addition
they found that the two scales correlate moderately (r = 40) Lynam and colleagues (1999)
found convergent validity between the PPI and the LPSP to be moderately high (r= 64)
MACH-IV Scale (Christie amp Geis 1970) The MACH-IV is a 20-item self-report measure that identifies Machiavellianism which
is characterized by being callous manipulative and behaving in a way that only benefits oneself
The items are arranged in a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very Strongly Agree) to 5 (Very
Strongly Disagree) with 3 being a neutral choice (No Opinion) Internal reliability has been
found to be rather consistent with studies demonstrating moderate alpha coefficients α=74
(Austin Farrelly Black amp Moore 2007) and α=70 (Fehr Samsom amp Paulhus 1992) Christie
and Geis (1970) found split half reliabilities from 69 to 88 Finally Machiavellianism has
35
shown moderate correlations with primary (r = 65 plt001) and secondary psychopathy (r = 49
plt001) as measured by the LPSP (McHoskey et al 1998)
Post-experimental Questionnaire
The post experimental questionnaire was administered after the participant completed the
abacus task and after they misled the confederate in the experiment The questionnaire was
based on the post experimental measure used in the Cooper and Worchel (1970) study on
cognitive dissonance The measure contains eight items that assess how enjoyable the participant
perceived the abacus task how guilty they felt for lying to the confederate and how voluntary
the person felt the deceiving of the confederate was (see Appendix B) The item assessing
participantsrsquo enjoyment of the abacus task was the primary dependent measure of the current
study
The questionnaire was designed so that it appeared to be a survey conducted by the
Psychology Department attempting to analyze how effective all of the departmental research
was The questionnaire was sealed into an envelope by the participant upon completion in order
to create the illusion of the confidentiality of their answers from the experimenter The
questionnaire was designed to appear separate from the current experiment in order to prevent
any biasing of participantsrsquo responses by compliance effects (ie participants answering the way
they perceive the experimenter would want them to answer) The majority of the questions on
this questionnaire were obtained from the Cooper and Worchel post experimental questionnaire
The main adaptation the current study made to the original measure was the use of a 1-7 point
Likert scale to rate responses instead of the 1-31 point Likert scale utilized by Cooper and
Worchel In addition in the present study the last 2 questions on the questionnaire were changed
36
to identify how voluntary the participant found the task to be and if the deceiving of the
confederate elicited feelings of guilt in the participant
Demographics Form
A brief demographics form was presented at the beginning of the packet of psychopathy
and MACH self report measures (Appendix B) It was given before the self-report measures and
assessed participantsrsquo age gender and ethnicity This form took approximately one minute to
complete
Procedure Participants were Introductory Psychology students recruited through an online computer
experiment program provided by the University of Texas at El Paso and were given 15
experimental credits for their involvement in the current study Upon entering the lab the
participant was seated in the hall to wait for the experimenter Meanwhile the experimenter text-
messaged the confederate to let him (or her) know that the participant had arrived Upon
receiving the text message the confederate knew to wait approximately 15 minutes before
entering the lab and acting out their role Next the participant was guided into a room and given
an informed consent form (Appendix F) which was explained to them The form explained the
confidential nature of the study and that the study was about personality traitsrsquo influence on
motor skills and reaction time After the experimenter explained the consent form the participant
read and signed the form
Abacus Task
An abacus task was implemented to induce boredom in participants The task was loosely
modeled on the boring peg turning task used in the Cooper and Worchel (1970) and Festinger
and Carlsmith (1959) experiments on cognitive dissonance In the abacus task a large abacus
37
was placed flat on the table in front of the participant He or she was instructed to move the
wooden balls one at a time across the abacus using only their right hand The participant was
instructed to slide the balls across the abacus one at a time starting at the top row and moving
down the board until they reached the bottom row Once he or she had slid all of the balls (one
at a time) to the right side of the abacus the participant was instructed to start at the top again
and to slide the balls back across the abacus one at a time beginning at the top row and moving
down the abacus until they had reached the bottom row again Participants were told to work at
their own ldquonaturalrdquo pace and to continue sliding balls across the abacus one at a time going row
by row until instructed to stop After 10 minutes the experimenter instructed the participant to
stop and then start the task over with their left hand instead of their right hand During this task
the experimenter was seated directly across from the participant with a clipboard and a stopwatch
and acted as though she was monitoring the participantrsquos progress (eg occasionally writing
notes on the clipboard and appearing to time the participantrsquos progress with the stopwatch)
Approximately 15 minutes into the task a knock was heard on the door and the
confederate came into the room to ask if this was where the experiment was being held The
experimenter looked up and quickly told the confederate that he was in the right place and asked
him to wait in the hall until she was done running the current participant The confederate
apologized for his interruption shut the door behind him and sat in the hall to wait for his
interaction with the participant While waiting in the hall the confederate pretended to be doing
homework or listening to his Ipod to give the illusion that he was just another participant waiting
to do the experiment After the participant had moved the balls across the abacus with his or her
left hand for 10 minutes the experimenter signaled the participant to stop the task The abacus
task lasted 20 minutes 10 minutes per hand
38
Choice Conditions
After the abacus task was completed the experimenter stopped the participant and recited
from memory one of the Post Abacus Task scripts to the participant For half of participants the
experimenter recited from memory the High Perceived Choice to Lie script (see Appendix A)
and the other half of the participants were recited the Low Perceived Choice to Lie script
(Appendix A) The scripts were alternated randomly between participants Following the choice
manipulation portion of the experiment and guilt induction participants were given the post
experimental questionnaire to complete as this was the main dependent measure of the study
High Perceived Choice to Lie Group
In the High Perceived Choice to Lie condition the experimenter politely asked the
participant to tell the next waiting participant (the confederate waiting in the hall) that the abacus
task was fun and interesting (see Appendix A) The participant was informed that telling the
person waiting in the hall about the task being enjoyable was not required but that their
assistance would be greatly appreciated Once the participant agreed to the task (this study had a
100 compliance rate) he or she was taken into the hall where the ldquofuturerdquo participant (actually
a confederate) was seated and waiting The (real) participant was introduced to the confederate
and the experimenter explained to the fake participant that she had to set up quickly in the other
lab room so the current participant was going to explain the experiment to him while she was
gone The experimenter then excused herself and left the hallway The real participant was given
about two minutes to tell the second (bogus) participant that the task was enjoyable If the
participant freely told the confederate that the task was going to be fun (927 of participants)
then the fake participant thanked the real participant as follows ldquoGreat Irsquom really glad to hear
that this is a fun experiment because all of the other experiments I have had so far have really
39
been boring Thanks for telling merdquo If the participant did not freely say that the task was
enjoyable the confederate attempted to prompt them by asking ldquoSo how was itrdquo This
manipulation got an additional 37 of participants to verbalize that the task was fun and the
confederate also thanked them with the same statement reported above The statement thanking
the participant for the information about their enjoyable rating of the task was intended to
increase the real participantrsquos guilt about lying Following the short conversation with the
confederate the experimenter went back into the hall and led the participant into the other lab
room After she had shut the lab room door behind them the confederate filled out the
Confederate Manipulation Check form (Appendix H) The confederate checked the box on the
form that indicated whether or not the real participant told him directly if the task was fun if he
had to prompt the participant or if the participant did not tell him the task was enjoyable Upon
filling out the Confederate Manipulation Check form the confederate put the form in its box in
the lab and promptly left
Low Perceived Choice to Lie Group
In the Low Perceived Choice to Lie condition the experimenter directly instructed (not
requested) the participant to tell the next (fake) participant that the abacus task was fun and
interesting (see Appendix A) Upon consent from the participant the experimenter led him into
the hall and introduced him to the confederate who was waiting as the future participant
Identical procedures to the ones explained for participants in the High Perceived Choice to Lie
group occurred at this point
Post-experimental Questionnaire
Once participants had interacted with the confederate and been taken into the second lab
room they were given the post-experimental questionnaire The post-experimental questionnaire
40
(Appendix B) contained eight items that quantified how enjoyable the participant found the
abacus task to be and assessed their self-reported feelings of guilt after misleading the
confederate The questionnaire was presented to seem like it was not part of the current
experiment but rather a general Psychology Department survey being conducted to assess
departmental research being performed that semester The questionnaire was administered with
an envelope and the participant was instructed to seal their questionnaire inside the envelope
after completing it to promote the sense of confidentiality of their answers from the
experimenter The experimenter explained the questionnaire to the participant To prevent
possible compliance effects the experimenter reiterated that she was not supposed to see the
participantrsquos answers because the questionnaire was supposed to remain anonymous and was not
part of the current study
After the participant completed the post-experimental questionnaire and sealed it into the
envelope he or she was given a packet containing the LPSP [Appendix C] PPI-R SF [Appendix
D]) and MACH-IV [Appendix E]) and the demographics form (Appendix B) and asked to
complete these questionnaires The packet of measures took approximately 30 minutes to
complete After the participants filled out all of the self-report measures they were debriefed as
to the true nature of the experiment and asked to sign a second informed consent form (Appendix
F) that outlined to them the true purposes of the experiment A debriefing script was used to
ensure that all participants received the same information about the experiment (see Appendix
G) They were asked not to share with anyone the actual purpose and procedures of the
experiment in order to prevent future participants from knowing ahead of time what the
experiment was about Participants were given 15 experimental credits for their participation
41
Chapter 3 Results
Manipulation Check
There were 82 participants in the High Choice to Lie group and 82 participants in the
Low Choice to Lie condition All participants verbally agreed with the researcher that they
would tell the confederate that the task was enjoyable A manipulation check was performed to
determine whether they actually kept their agreement The confederate marked on a form
(Appendix G) whether or not the participant told him or her that the task was enjoyable Results
of the manipulation check indicated that 152 (927) of the participants complied with the
researcherrsquos suggestion and told the confederate that the task would be enjoyable An additional
six (37) told the confederate that the abacus task would be enjoyable but only after they were
prompted by the confederate asking ldquoHow was the taskrdquo One (6) participant told the
confederate that the task was enjoyable but added that he was instructed by the researcher to say
so Three participants (18) never told the confederate that the task was enjoyable Two
participants (12) told the confederate that the task was boring To preserve randomization
analyses for the study were run on all participants (N = 164) including those who failed to report
that the task was enjoyable This approach to the analysis of experimental findings is known as
ldquointent-to-treat analysisrdquo and yields an unbiased estimate of the effects of being assigned to each
experimental condition (Shadish Cook amp Campbell 2002) However as will be reported later
in the Results supplementary analyses were also run that excluded the six participants who
failed to tell the confederate that the task was enjoyable
Descriptive Statistics
Before running analyses procedures were carried out for dealing with missing data
Seven participants did not fill out the psychopathy and Machiavellianism self-report measures
42
completely Specifically each of the seven neglected to answer precisely one item on a single
scale Scores for the missing items were imputed individually using regression using the
summed score of the other items on the same scale as the predictor and the missing item score as
the criterion
Descriptive statistics were then calculated for participantsrsquo self-reported abacus task
enjoyment for their total scores on the psychopathy and Machiavellianism self-report measures
and for their respective factor scores and subscales scores (see Table 1)
43
Table 1 Descriptive Information for the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Predictors and Dependent Variable (N=164)
Mean Standard
Deviation Minimum Maximum
Total Enjoyment Rating of Abacus Task
401 169 100 700
High Choice to Lie Enjoyment Rating of Task
434 162 100 700
Low Choice to Lie Enjoyment Rating of Task
367 171 100 700
PPI-R SF Total Score 12565 1628 9000 17000
Fearless Dominance Factor
5605 912 2800 7600
Self-Centered Impulsive Factor
5436 989 3500 8400
Machiavellian Egocentricity 1360 352 700 2500
Social Influence 1888 400 700 2800
Fearlessness 1898 448 700 2800 Coldheartedness 1523 387 800 2600 Rebellious Nonconformity 1399 415 700 2400
Blame Externalization 1416 419 700 2600
Carefree Nonplanfulness 1262 329 700 2300
Stress Immunity 1820 453 700 2800 LPSP Total Score 5018 903 3000 7300
LPSP Primary Factor 3062 702 1600 4900
LPSP Secondary Factor 1956 405 1100 3100
MACH-IV Total Score 5296 833 3500 7600
Deceit 850 284 400 1600 Flattery 563 209 200 1000 Immoral 883 241 300 1500 Cynicism 1066 296 500 2000 Residual 1934 359 1000 2900 Note Total scale scores are in bold Factor scale scores are in italics Subscales are presented in regular font
44
31 Confirmatory Analyses
Hypothesis 1 Replication of the Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effect
A regression was performed to determine whether the classic cognitive dissonance effect
reported in earlier research was reproduced in the present study The main dependent variable in
this analysis was participants self-report ratings of how much they enjoyed the abacus task (Self-
Reported Enjoyment) The independent variable was Choice Condition (High Choice to Lie
versus Low Choice to Lie) In this analysis and all other analyses High Choice to Lie was coded
as ldquo1rdquo and Low Choice to Lie as ldquo0rdquo Based on prior studies of cognitive dissonance it was
predicted that that participants in the High Choice to Lie condition would report higher levels of
enjoyment than participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition A linear regression was
conducted and as predicted a significant difference in abacus task enjoyment was found
between the High and Low Choice to Lie groups Rsup2 = 039 F (1162) = 666 p = 011
standardized β = 199 t(163) = 258 p = 011 A one-way ANOVA was also conducted and
yielded exactly the same results as the regression F(1162) = 666 p = 011 d = 402 The High
Choice to Lie group had a mean enjoyment rating of 434 (SD = 162) (on a 1 to 7 rating scale
with 1 being no enjoyment of the task and 7 being high enjoyment of the task) while the Low
Choice to Lie group reported a mean enjoyment rating of 367 (SD = 171) on the same scale (see
Figure 1) These results indicate that participants in the High Choice to Lie group who felt that
they had more choice whether to mislead the confederate about the task being enjoyable
reported enjoying the task more than participants in the Low choice to lie group
45
Figure 1 Main effect for mean task enjoyment across choice conditions r = 199
Hypothesis 2 amp 3 Relationship Between Task Enjoyment and Choice Level Will Vary With
Psychopathy Level
The main hypothesis of the study was that individuals with lower levels of psychopathy
(and Machiavellianism) would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect by reporting higher
enjoyment of the abacus task in the High Choice to Lie Condition than in the Low Choice to Lie
Condition whereas individuals with higher levels of psychopathy would not report more
enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie than in the Low Choice to Lie condition In other words a
significant interaction was hypothesized between choice condition and level of psychopathy (and
Machiavellianism) in the prediction of self-reported enjoyment In order to test this hypothesis
three multiple regressions were conducted using the two psychopathy measures and the single
Machiavellianism measure
46
First multiple regression PPI-R SF total scores In the first multiple regression the
criterion was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice
Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) PPI-R SF total scores and the
interaction of Choice Condition with PPI-RSF scores It was hypothesized that the interaction
term would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple regression
are shown in Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was statistically
significant Rsup2 = 105 F(3160) = 623 p lt 001
As hypothesized the interaction of PPI-R SF total scores and choice condition was
statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -216 t(163) = -
211 p =036 (Table 2) Figures 2 and 3 depict this interaction graphically As can be seen in
Figure 2 there was not a significant relationship between PPI-R SF scores and Self-Reported
Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -054 t(81) =
-486 p =628 In contrast there was a significant relationship between PPI-R SF scores and
Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -374 t(81) = -
361 p =001 This finding thus supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of
psychopathy would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher
levels would not
47
Figure 2 Relationship of PPI-R SF total scores to reported level of task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie condition only Standardized β = -054 p = 628
Figure 3 Relationship of PPI-R SF total scores to reported level of task enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie condition only Standardized β = -374 p = 001
48
Second multiple regression LPSP total scores In the second multiple regression the criterion
was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice Condition (High
Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) LPSP total scores and the interaction of Choice
Condition with LPSP scores Again it was hypothesized that the interaction term would
significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple regression are shown in
Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was statistically significant Rsup2 =
089 F(3160) = 518 p = 002
As hypothesized the interaction of LPSP total scores and choice condition was
statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -236 t(163) = -
234 p = 021 The interaction is depicted graphically by choice condition in Figures 4 and 5
As can be seen from Figure 4 there was not a significant relationship between LPSP scores and
Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β
= 023 t(81) = 208 p =836 In contrast there was a significant negative relationship between
LPSP scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β =
-327 t(81) = -309 p =003 (Figure 5) Thus this finding like the finding concerning the PPI-
R SF supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of psychopathy would show
the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher levels would not
49
Figure 4 Relationship of LPSP total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = 023 p = 836
Figure 5 Relationship of LPSP total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash High Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -327 p = 003
50
T
able
2 M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts C
rite
rion
is S
elf-
Rep
orte
d E
njoy
men
t of t
he A
bacu
s T
asks
P
redi
ctor
s ar
e th
e P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
an
d M
AC
H-I
V T
otal
Sco
res
and
Subs
cale
s E
ach
Row
Rep
rese
nts
Res
ults
Fro
m O
ne M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n
Over
all
Mode
l
High
L
ow C
hoic
e
Psyc
hopa
thy
Ma
ch P
redi
ctor
In
tera
ctio
n
Pred
icto
r
F
(df)
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
PPIR
SF
Tot
623
(3160)
lt00
1
661
252
196
262
010
-089
173
-053
-52
607
-536
254
-216
-211
036
PPIRSF1-FD
296
(3160)
03
4
670
260
198
258
011
175
194
104
91
366
-382
262
-167
-146
146
PPIRSF2-SCI
690
(3160)
lt00
1
657
251
195
262
010
-123
168
-073
-73
466
-561
254
-220
-221
028
Mach Egocen
730
(3160)
lt00
1
721
251
214
287
005
024
178
014
14
892
-708
252
-295
-281
006
Soc Influ
230
(3160)
079
677
263
201
258
011
-034
200
-020
-17
867
128
266
057
48
631
Fearlessness
487
(3160)
00
3
660
256
196
258
011
177
188
105
94
348
-634
257
-274
-247
015
Coldhrtnes
577
(3160)
00
1
733
254
217
288
004
-488
193
-288
-253
012
153
257
068
59
554
Rebel Non
445
(3160)
00
5
668
256
198
261
010
142
179
084
80
428
-590
257
-243
-230
023
Blm Extern
296
(3160)
03
4
678
260
201
261
010
-144
190
-085
-76
451
-084
261
-036
-32
747
Carefree
490
(3160)
00
3
570
258
169
221
029
-430
176
-254
-244
016
171
260
068
66
511
Stress Imun
257
(3160)
056
665
261
197
255
012
179
183
106
98
330
-245
262
-101
-93
352
LPSP
Tot
al
518
(3160)
00
2
699
255
207
274
007
037
171
022
22
827
-603
258
-236
-234
021
Primary
420
(3160)
00
7
691
257
205
269
008
041
176
024
23
815
-495
259
-199
-192
057
Secondary
359
(3160)
01
5
682
258
202
264
009
018
187
101
09
926
-377
259
-161
-145
148
MACH
-IV
Tot
492
(3160)
00
3
703
256
208
275
007
-173
178
-102
-98
331
-314
257
-128
122
223
Deceit
508
(3160)
00
2
696
255
206
273
007
-374
167
-221
-224
026
011
260
004
04
965
Flattery
368
(3160)
01
3
682
258
202
264
009
162
173
096
94
351
-523
261
-204
-200
047
Immoral
454
(3160)
00
4
705
256
209
275
007
-360
184
-213
-196
052
052
257
022
20
840
Cynicism
270
(3160)
04
8
680
261
201
261
010
002
198
001
01
991
-212
264
-094
-81
422
Residual
302
(3160)
03
2
667
260
198
257
011
052
171
031
30
762
-354
264
-136
-135
181
Not
e
Sign
ific
ant p
val
ues
(p lt
05)
are
in b
old
p v
alue
s ap
proa
chin
g si
gnifi
canc
e (lt
10)
are
in it
alic
s
Pre
dict
or A
bbre
viat
ions
PPI
RS
F To
t =
PPI-
RS
F to
tal s
core
PPI
RS
F1-F
D =
PPI
RS
F Fa
ctor
1 ndash
Fea
rless
Dom
inan
ce F
acto
r Sco
re P
PIR
SF2
-SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f C
ente
red
Impu
lsiv
ity F
acto
r Sco
re M
ach
Ego
cen
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
ricity
sub
scal
e S
oc I
nflu
= P
PI-R
SF
Soci
al In
fluen
ce s
ubsc
ale
Fea
rles
snes
s =
PPI-
RS
F
Fear
less
ness
sub
scal
e C
oldh
rtnes
= P
PI-R
SF
Col
dhea
rted
ness
sub
scal
e R
ebel
Non
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
xter
n =
PPI
-RS
F B
lam
e E
xter
naliz
atio
n
subs
cale
Car
efre
e =
PPI-
RS
F C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Str
ess
Imun
= P
PI-R
SF
Stre
ss Im
mun
ity s
ubsc
ale
LPS
P To
tal =
LPS
P to
tal s
core
Pri
mar
y =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le
Seco
ndar
y =
LPSP
Sec
onda
ry s
ubsc
ale
MA
CH
-IV
Tot
= M
AC
H-I
V to
tal s
core
Dec
eit =
MA
CH
-IV
Dec
eit s
ubsc
ale
Fla
ttery
= M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
oral
= M
AC
H-I
V
Imm
oral
ity s
ubsc
ale
Cyn
icis
m =
MA
CH
-IV
Cyn
icis
m s
ubsc
ale
Res
idua
l = M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
Mod
el A
bbre
viat
ions
Un-
Stzd
β =
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Bet
a S
td E
rr =
Sta
ndar
d E
rror
Stz
d β
= St
anda
rdiz
ed B
eta
51
Third multiple regression Mach-IV total scores In the third multiple regression the
criterion was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice
Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) Mach-IV total scores and the
interaction of Choice Condition with Mach-IV scores Again it was hypothesized that the
interaction term would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple
regression are shown in Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was
statistically significant Rsup2 = 085 F(3160) = 492 p = 003
Contrary to prediction the interaction of Mach-IV total scores and choice condition was
not statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -128 t(163) =
-122 p = 223 Thus this finding failed to support the hypothesis that individuals with lower
levels of Machiavellianism would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that
individuals with higher levels would not The pattern of data is depicted graphically by choice
condition in Figures 6 and 7 As can be seen from Figure 6 there was not a significant
relationship between MACH-IV scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the
Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -104 t(81) = -932 p =354 In contrast there
was a significant negative relationship between MACH-IV scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment
in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -295 t(81) = -276 p =007 (Figure 7)
Although one of the standardized betas (-104) was non-significant and the other (-295) was
significant the difference between the two betas was not significant so the predicted interaction
did not attain statistical significance
52
Figure 6 Relationship of MACH-IV total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -104 p = 354
Figure 7 Relationship of MACH-IV total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash High Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -295 p = 007
53
Hypothesis 4 Level of Psychopathy Will Incrementally Predict Abacus Task Enjoyment
The second main hypothesis was that psychopathy scores would incrementally predict
Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task above and beyond the predictive power of
Machiavellianism To test this hypothesis two hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted
using Self-Reported Enjoyment as the criterion
First hierarchical regression PPI-R SF total scores The first hierarchical regression
used PPI-R SF total scores as the psychopathy measure In the first step of the regression the
Choice to Lie condition was entered as a predictor In the second step standardized total
MACH-IV scores and the standardized interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice
condition were entered In the third step standardized PPI-R SF total scores and the
standardized interaction term of total PPI-R SF scores with choice condition were entered as a
predictor Results are shown in Table 3 As can be seen inclusion of PPI-R SF scores and their
interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment significantly increased predictive power above and
beyond scores on the MACH-IV ∆Rsup2 = 041 F(2158) = 367 p = 028 Although the change in
Rsup2 was significant it is important to note that the standardized beta for the PPI-R SF total scores
was not significant in predicting task enjoyment when added to MACH-IV scores in predicting
task enjoyment standardized β = -010 t(158) = -09 p = 930 In addition the standardized beta
for the interaction between PPI-R SF scores and choice condition only approached significance
when added to MACH-IV scores in block three (standardized β = -205 t(158) = -186 p =
065
54
Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianism
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=085 F(3160)=492 p=003 (∆Rsup2=045 F(2160)=394 p=021) High or Low Choice to Lie 703 256 208 275 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -173 178 -102 - 98 331 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -314 257 -128 -122 223 Step 3 Rsup2=125 F(5158)=452 p=001 (∆Rsup2=041 F(2158)=367 p=028) High or Low Choice to Lie 688 252 204 273 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -166 195 -098 - 85 397 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -165 273 -067 - 60 547 PPI-RSF Total Scores -017 192 -010 - 09 930 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -507 273 -205 -186 065 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics
Second hierarchical regression LPSP total scores The second hierarchical regression
used LPSP total scores as the psychopathy measure In the first step of the regression the Choice
to Lie condition was entered as a predictor In the second step standardized total MACH-IV
scores and the standardized interaction term of MACH-IV total scores were entered In the third
step standardized LPSP total scores and the standardized interaction term of total LPSP scores
with choice condition were entered as a predictor Results are shown in Table 4 As can be seen
inclusion of total LPSP scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment did not
significantly increase predictive power above and beyond MACH-IV scores ∆Rsup2= 026
F(2158)= 233 p=101
55
Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (LPSP) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianism
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=085 F(3160)=492 p=003 (∆Rsup2=045 F(2160)=394 p=021) High or Low Choice to Lie 703 256 208 275 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -173 178 -102 - 98 331 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -314 257 -128 -122 223 Step 3 Rsup2=111 F(5158)=394 p=002 (∆Rsup2=026 F(2158)=233 p=101) High or Low Choice to Lie 712 254 211 281 006 MACH-IV Total Scores -282 212 -167 -133 186 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -023 296 -009 - 08 939 LPSP Total Scores 188 204 111 92 358 Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -609 297 -238 -205 042 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics
32 Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory Analysis Incremental Prediction of Task Enjoyment by Machiavellianism
The analyses reported thus far were confirmatory and based on a priori hypotheses A
series of exploratory analyses were also carried out as reported in the following sections of the
Results In the first set of exploratory analyses two hierarchical multiple regressions were run to
identify whether MACH-IV total scores incrementally predicted Self-Reported Enjoyment of the
abacus task above and beyond the predictive power of psychopathy scores
First hierarchical regression Incremental predictive power of MACH-IV total scores
over PPI-R SF total scores The first exploratory analysis was conducted to examine whether
MACH-IV scores incrementally increased prediction of abacus task enjoyment above and
beyond the predictive power of PPI-R SF scores A hierarchical regression was conducted In
step one the Choice to Lie condition was entered in step two standardized PPI-R SF total
56
scores and the standardized interaction term of total PPI-R SF scores with choice condition was
entered and finally in step three the standardized total MACH-IV scores and the standardized
interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice condition were entered As can be seen in
Table 5 the inclusion of MACH-IV total scores and their interaction with Choice Condition did
not significantly increase predictive power ∆Rsup2= 020 F(2158)= 185 p= 160
Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF)
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=105 F(3160)=623 plt001 (∆Rsup2=065 F(2160)=582 p=004) High or Low Choice to Lie 661 252 196 262 010 PPI-RSF Total Score -089 173 -053 -52 607 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -536 254 -216 -211 036 Step 3 Rsup2=125 F(5158)=452 p=001 (∆Rsup2=020 F(2158)=185 p=160) High or Low Choice to Lie 688 252 204 273 007 PPI-RSF Total Scores -017 192 -010 -09 930 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -507 273 -205 -186 065 MACH-IV Total Scores -166 195 -098 -85 397 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -165 273 -067 -60 547 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Significant alpha levels are in bold Moderate alpha levels are in italics Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Second hierarchical regression Incremental predictive power of MACH-IV total scores
over LPSP total scores A similar hierarchical multiple regression was performed to examine
whether MACH-IV scores incrementally increase prediction of abacus task enjoyment above and
beyond the predictive power of LPSP scores An incremental hierarchical regression was
conducted In step one the Choice to Lie condition was entered in step two standardized LPSP
57
total scores and the standardized interaction term of total LPSP scores with choice condition was
entered and finally in step three the standardized total MACH-IV scores and the standardized
interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice condition were entered As can be seen in
Table 6 the results of this analysis like the previous one were not significant ∆Rsup2= 022
F(2158)= 198 p= 142 The inclusion of Machiavellianism in the regression equation did not
significantly increase predictive power above and beyond the predictive power of LPSP scores
Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (LPSP)
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=089 F(3160)=518 p=002 (∆Rsup2=049 F(2160)=430 p=015) High or Low Choice to Lie 699 255 207 274 007
LPSP Total Score 037 171 022 22 827
Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -603 258 -236 -234 021 Step 3 Rsup2=111 F(5158)=394 p=002 (∆Rsup2=022 F(2158)=198 p=142) High or Low Choice to Lie 712 254 211 281 006 LPSP Total Scores 188 204 111 92 358 Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -609 297 -238 -205 042 MACH-IV Total Scores -282 212 -167 -133 186 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -023 296 -009 -08 939 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Significant alpha levels are in bold Moderate alpha levels are in italics Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Exploratory Analysis PPI-R SF Subscales as Predictors
The second set of exploratory multiple regressions was conducted using the eight
subscales of the PPI-R SF and their interaction with Choice Condition as predictors Each
subscale measures a different unique aspect of psychopathy The goal of the analyses was to
58
determine which aspects of psychopathy were related to self-reported abacus task enjoyment
A series of multiple linear regressions were conducted with abacus task enjoyment as the
criterion In each multiple regression the predictors were Choice to Lie condition the
standardized total score of the individual PPI-R subscale and the interaction term of the
standardized individual subscale total score with Choice to Lie condition Results are shown in
Table 2 All of the PPI-R SF subscales except for the Stress Immunity and Social Influence
subscales had significant model equations In addition three subscales also produced significant
interactions with choice condition in predicting level of task enjoyment (a) Machiavellian
Egocentricity standardized β of the interaction = -295 t(163) = -281 p = 006 (b)
Fearlessness standardized β of the interaction = -274 t(163) = -247 p = 015 (c) Rebellious
Nonconformity standardized β of the interaction = -243 t(163) = -230 p = 023 The
remaining five subscales did not have interactions with choice condition that significantly
predicted task enjoyment
Exploratory Analysis PPI-R SF Factors as Predictors
Next two multiple regressions were carried out one for each of the two factors of the
PPI-R SF The intention of these analyses was to determine if these factors of psychopathy
(cognitive traits or behavioral traits) would account for the lack of cognitive dissonance found in
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy
First multiple regression The Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R SF The Fearless
Dominance factor (PPI-R SF-1-FD) is comprised of three of the eight subscales of the PPI-R
SF the Social Influence subscale the Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscale A
multiple regression was run with Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test as the criterion and
Choice Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) the standardized PPI-R SF-
59
1-FD total scores and the interaction of Choice Condition with the standardized PPI-R SF-1-FD
total scores as the predictors Results of the multiple regression are shown in Table 2 As can be
seen the model in the regression equation was statistically significant Rsup2 = 053 F(3160) =
296 p = 034 However the interaction of PPI-R SF-1-FD total scores and choice condition
was not statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -167
t(163) = -146 p = 146
Second multiple regression The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF Next
a similar multiple regression was run replacing the PPI-RSF-1-FD with the Self-Centered
Impulsivity factor scale scores (PPI-R SF-2-SCI) The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor is
comprised of the Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale
and the Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale of the PPI-R SF Results of the model in the multiple
regression equation were statistically significant Rsup2 = 115 F(3160) = 690 p lt 001 In addition
the interaction between the PPI-R SF-2-SCI and choice condition was statistically significant as
well standardized β = -220 t(163) = -2213 p = 028 These results suggested that the more
behavioral antisocial behavior characteristics of psychopathy (impulsivity blame
externalization lack of planning abilities) impacted cognitive dissonance arousal
Exploratory Analysis LPSP Factor Scales as Predictors
The next set of exploratory analyses were conducted on the LPSPrsquos two factor scales
The LPSP breaks into a Primary Psychopathy Scale and a Secondary Psychopathy Scale The
Primary Scale identifies the more cognitively based aspects of psychopathy much as the PPI-R
SF-1-FD Factor does The Secondary Psychopathy Scale of the LPSP measures the behaviorally
based dimensions of psychopathy (impulsivity asociality) much like the PPI-R SF-2-SCI
60
Factor Two hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine the interaction between each of
the LPSP factor scales and choice condition in predicting abacus task enjoyment
First multiple regression LPSP Primary Factor scores First a multiple regression was
employed with the Choice to Lie condition the standardized Primary Factor total scores of the
LPSP and the interaction term of the standardized Primary Factor total scores with the Choice to
Lie condition as the predictors Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test was the criterion in
the multiple regression The results of the regression model equation were statistically significant
Rsup2 = 073 F(3160) = 420 p = 007 However the results of the interaction between the Primary
Factor and choice condition only approached statistical significance standardized β = -199
t(163) = -192 p = 057
Second multiple regression LPSP Secondary Factor scores The Secondary factor of the
LPSP accounts for the environmental behaviorally based traits associated with psychopathy
(impulsivity asociality) A multiple regression was run replacing the LPSP Primary factor scores
with the LPSP Secondary factor scores In other words the predictors were Choice to Lie
condition standardized LPSP Secondary factor scores and the interaction of Choice to Lie with
standardized LPSP Secondary factor scores Again Self-Reported Enjoyment of the Abacus task
was the criterion Results of the multiple regression model equation were statistically significant
Rsup2 = 063 F(3160) = 359 p = 015 However results of the interaction between the Secondary
factor of the LPSP and choice condition were not statistically significant standardized β = -161
t(163) = -1452 p = 148
This analysis of the LPSP Primary and Secondary factor scales suggests that the
cognitive dimensions of psychopathy may best account for a lack of cognitive dissonance in this
experiment These results support the notion that it is these cognitive deficits assessed by the
61
Primary Scale of the LPSP (lack of guilt callousness lack of concern for others) that best
account for individuals with higher levels of psychopathy not experiencing the attitude shift
found in people with lower levels of psychopathy
Exploratory Analysis MACH-IV Subscales as predictors
The next set of exploratory analyses examined the five subscales of the MACH-IV as
predictors of task enjoyment when interacting with Choice to Lie condition Though the
interaction of total MACH-IV scores and choice condition was not a significant predictor of a
lack of task enjoyment the subscales were analyzed using multiple regression in order to
determine if any aspect of MACH might account for a lack of cognitive dissonance in
individuals with higher levels of MACH In the regressions the predictors were Choice to Lie
condition the standardized MACH-IV subscale total scores and the standardized interaction
term of total MACH-IV subscale scores with Choice to Lie condition Results are reported in
Table 2 All of the regression model equations for each subscale were statistically significant
Though all model equations were significant only the interaction of choice condition with the
Flattery subscale of the MACH-IV was significant in predicting reported abacus task enjoyment
standardized β = -204 t(163) = -200 p = 047 The interaction terms of the remaining four
subscales of the MACH-IV were not significant
Exploratory Analysis Follow-up Multiple Regression Analyses with No-Lie Participants
Removed
As previously indicated all multiple regressions reported here were run a second time
but including only the sub-set of participants who lied to the confederate (N=158) The results of
these follow-up multiple regressions (with N = 158) all led to the same substantive conclusions
as the analyses already reported (with N = 164) with one exception The only analysis that
62
changed significantly was the multiple linear regression looking at the interaction between the
Primary factor of the LPSP and choice condition In the original multiple regression (N = 164)
this interaction only approached statistical significance In the follow-up multiple regression (N
= 158) this interaction attained statistical significance standardized β = -216 t(157) = -202 p =
045
Exploratory Analysis Correlations of Psychopathy and Machiavellian measures
Pearsonrsquos r correlations were run on the three psychopathy and MACH measures and
their respective factors and subscales to identify associations among the measures
Correlations of psychopathy and Machiavellianism total scores Correlations among the
PPI-RSF LPSP and MACH-IV total scores are reported in Table 7 As can be seen all three
measures were significantly correlated with each other The largest correlation was between
MACH-IV and LPSP total scores r = 510 p lt 01
Table 7 Correlations Between the Total Scores of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measures
PPIRSF Total Score
LPSP Total Score
MACH-IV Total Score
PPIRSF Total Score 1
LPSP Total Score
345dagger 1
MACH-IV Total Score
376dagger 510dagger 1
Note dagger Correlations significant at the 01 level
Correlations of PPI-R SF and LPSP factor scores Pearsonrsquos r correlations were run on
the factors of the PPI-R SF and the LPSP in order to illuminate the relationship among these
factors in the present sample of participants Results are shown in Table 8
63
First the PPIR SF total score correlated significantly with both the Primary (r = 322 p
lt01) and the Secondary (r = 212 p lt 01) factor scores of the LPSP The PPI-R SF Factor Two
Scale of Self-Centered Impulsivity (behavioral characteristics of psychopathy) positively
correlated with the LPSP total (r = 509 p lt01) Primary (r = 368 p lt 01) and Secondary (r =
498 p lt 01) factors In contrast the PPI-R SF Factor One Scale of Fearless Dominance (PPI-
R SF-1-FD) correlated significantly only with the Secondary Scale of the LPSP (r = -156 p lt
05) This correlation indicates that as scores on the PPI-R SF-1-FD increase scores on the
LPSP Secondary Scale decrease However it should be noted that this correlation is very weak
Correlations of PPI-R and MACH-IV factor scores and subscale scores As can be seen
in Table 8 the PPI-R SF total score correlated significantly with all of the MACH subscales
except for the Cynicism subscale Interestingly PPI-R SF Factor 2 Self-Centered Impulsivity
which assesses the behavioral characteristics of psychopathy correlated significantly with the
MACH-IV total score (r = 478) and all of the subscales of the MACH-IV Deceit (r = 383)
Flattery (r = 210) Immorality (r = 297) Cynicism (r = 242) and Residual (r = 279) at p lt 01
level of significance PPI-R SF Factor 1 Fearless Dominance which assesses the cognitive
aspects of psychopathy did not significantly correlate with the MACH-IV total score or any of
its subscales These exploratory findings suggest that the Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the
PPI-R SF accounts for the relationship of MACH-IV scores with PPIRSF scores
Correlations of LPSP and MACH-IV factor scores and subscale scores As shown in
Table 8 MACH-IV total scores significantly correlated with both the Primary (r = 467 p lt01)
and Secondary (r = 327 p lt 01) factors of the LPSP The LPSP total score and factor scales
(Primary and Secondary) correlated significantly with the total MACH-IV score and all of the
MACH-IV subscales except for the Flattery subscale (see Table 8 for the correlations) This
64
finding is interesting because the Flattery subscale was the only element of the MACH-IV found
to be a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment in the interaction with choice condition
mentioned previously and yet it did not correlate with the LPSP at all
65
Tab
le 8
Cor
rela
tions
Bet
wee
n th
e P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
MA
CH
-IV
The
ir F
acto
rs a
nd S
ubsc
ales
Not
e
dagger C
orre
latio
n si
gnifi
cant
at
01 le
vel
Cor
rela
tion
sign
ific
ant a
t 05
leve
l P
redi
ctor
Abb
revi
atio
ns P
PIR
= P
PI-R
SF
tota
l sco
re P
1FD
= P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 1
ndash F
earl
ess
Dom
inan
ce F
acto
r Sco
re P
2SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f Cen
tere
d Im
puls
ivity
Fac
tor S
core
M
Ego
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
rici
ty s
ubsc
ale
Soc
In =
PPI
-RS
F So
cial
Influ
ence
sub
scal
e F
ear =
PPI
-RS
F Fe
arle
ssne
ss s
ubsc
ale
Col
d =
PPI-
RS
F C
oldh
eart
edne
ss s
ubsc
ale
R
ebel
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
= P
PI-R
SF
Bla
me
Ext
erna
lizat
ion
Subs
cale
Car
e =
PPI-
RS
F C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Str
ess
= PP
I-R
SF
Stre
ss
Imm
unity
sub
scal
e L
PSP
= L
PSP
tota
l sco
re P
rim
e =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le S
econ
= L
PSP
Seco
ndar
y su
bsca
le M
AC
H =
MA
CH
-IV
tota
l sco
re D
ece
= M
AC
H-I
V D
ecei
t sub
scal
e F
lat =
M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
or =
MA
CH
-IV
Imm
oral
ity s
ubsc
ale
Cyn
= M
AC
H-I
V C
ynic
ism
sub
scal
e R
esid
= M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1PPIR
1
2P1FD
761
dagger 1
3P2SCI
771
dagger 240
dagger 1
4M Ego
516
dagger 068
712
dagger 1
5Soc In
471
dagger 658
dagger 141
087
1
6Fear
645
dagger 727
dagger 362
dagger 104
244
dagger 1
7Cold
443
dagger 232
dagger 124
191
071
076
1
8Rebel
738
dagger 478
dagger 717
dagger 357
dagger 231
dagger 522
dagger 147
1
9Blm E
264
dagger -129
629
dagger 348
dagger -047
090
-194
161
1
10Care
500
dagger 210
dagger 540
dagger 175
101
203
dagger 229
dagger 305
dagger 041
1
11Stres
476
dagger 711
dagger 000
-044
198
258
dagger 330
dagger 240
dagger -306
dagger 132
1
12LPSP
345
dagger -024
509
dagger 534
dagger -018
065
209
dagger 241
dagger 369
dagger 186
-097
1
13Prime
322
dagger 059
368
dagger 473
dagger 082
031
275
dagger 171
219
dagger 105
015
902
dagger 1
14Secon
212
dagger -156
498
dagger 370
dagger -183
090
-011
241
dagger 443
dagger 233
dagger -243
dagger 664
dagger 277
dagger 1
15MACH
376
dagger 076
478
dagger 477
dagger 150
105
182
244
dagger 278
dagger 264
dagger -083
510
dagger 467
dagger 327
dagger 1
16Dece
356
dagger 085
383
dagger 380
dagger 096
121
320
dagger 190
094
384
dagger -033
312
dagger 295
dagger 185
631
dagger 1
17Flat
189
030
210
dagger 192
200
-019
186
087
062
236
dagger -097
139
118
104
570
dagger 304
dagger 1
18Immor
176
-003
297
dagger 276
dagger 022
069
-013
143
296
dagger 040
-093
405
dagger 345
dagger 306
dagger 589
dagger 153
202
dagger 1
19Cyn
152
030
242
dagger 316
dagger -025
092
-052
160
092
072
-008
449
dagger 449
dagger 223
dagger 454
dagger 169
057
152
1
20Resid
231
dagger 073
279
dagger 266
dagger 133
049
086
146
231
dagger 076
-019
248
dagger 226
dagger 161
689
dagger 244
dagger 213
dagger 197
175
1
66
Exploratory Analyses Multiple Regressions with Self-Reported Guilt as the Criterion and Level
of Psychopathy and MACH as Predictors
In addition to the multiple regressions that were run with Self-Reported Enjoyment
Rating of the abacus task as the criterion and the interaction between choice level and
psychopathy (and MACH) level as the predictors identical multiple regressions were conducted
with level of guilt as the criterion in the place of Self-Reported Level of Enjoyment Multiple
regressions were run where the predictors were Choice to Lie condition standardized
psychopathy and MACH measure total factor and subscale scores (individually) and the
interaction of Choice to Lie with PPI-R SF LPSP or MACH scales In these analyses level of
guilt was the criterion On the post experimental questionnaire two questions assessed
participantsrsquo level of guilt for telling the ldquofuture participantrdquo that the abacus task was fun These
two guilt related questions correlated highly with one another (r = 789) and so their scores were
added together and a new variable called ldquoGuiltrdquo was created from their sum
Multiple regressions on the interaction between choice and level of psychopathy (and
MACH) The goal of these exploratory analyses was to further explore the role that guilt plays
during cognitive dissonance arousal Results of all multiple regression analyses with guilt as the
criterion are presented in Table 9 As can be seen the interaction between level of psychopathy
(and MACH) and choice condition as predictors of guilt was only significant for the Self
Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF The multiple regression model equation for the
Self Centered Impulsivity factor was statistically significant Rsup2 = 056 F(3160) = 314 p = 027
In addition results of the interaction between the Self Centered Impulsivity factor and choice
condition were statistically significant standardized β = 232 t(163) = 225 p = 026
Interestingly this regression was not only significant but also positive All other interactions of
67
total subscale and factor scales of the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV with choice condition
were not significant in predicting participantsrsquo level of self-reported guilt
The fact that all other total scores subscales and factor scales did not attain significant
interactions with choice condition using guilt as the criterion makes sense when considering
cognitive dissonance theory The cognitive dissonance literature indicates that there should not
be an interaction on guilt because participants strive to reduce their feelings of guilt after
engaging in counterattitudinal behavior discrepant with their beliefs Therefore participants with
low levels of psychopathy after misleading the confederate in the High Choice condition would
have immediately experienced cognitive dissonance and thus their attitude would have shifted
towards enjoying the task in order to reduce the psychological tension produced by voluntarily
misleading the ldquofuture participantrdquo Therefore by the time they answered the guilt questions on
the post-experimental questionnaire they would not feel guilt because their attitude had shifted
to be in favor of the task
Main effects for relationship between psychopathy and guilt Finally an important result
of these exploratory analyses was that significant main effects were found between level of
psychopathy (measured by the PPI-R SF) and participantsrsquo level of guilt following the deception
task Specifically the PPI-R SF total score both factor scores (Fearless Dominance and Self
Centered Impulsivity) the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale and the Stress Immunity subscale
had significant model predictor equations (see Table 9) The model equation for the Fearlessness
subscale approached significance F(3160) = 243 p = 068 as well
After model equations were accounted for the PPI-R SF had a significant relationship
with level of guilt such that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy experienced less guilt
than participants with lower levels of psychopathy across choice conditions (standardized β = -
68
359 t(163) = -346 p = 001) In addition both factor scales of the PPI-R SF (Fearless
Dominance and Self Centered Impulsivity) were significant in predicting guilt (standardized β =
-292 t(163) = -257 p = 011 standardized β = -314 t(163) = -305 p = 003) respectively
Finally three of the PPI-R SF subscales reached significance in predicting level of guilt in
participants as well Fearlessness Stress Immunity and Rebellious Nonconformity The
Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscales load on the Fearless Dominance factor
of the PPI-R SF which is important to note because this factor assesses the cognitive aspects of
psychopathy including lack of guilt and lack of remorse Therefore these results provide support
for the validity of the PPI-R SF in assessing psychopathic traits such as guiltlessness
69
Tab
le 9
M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts C
rite
rion
is S
elf-
Rep
orte
d G
uilt
Aft
er M
isle
adin
g th
e C
onfe
dera
te
Pre
dict
ors
are
the
P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
and
MA
CH
-IV
Tot
al S
core
s an
d Su
bsca
les
Eac
h R
ow R
epre
sent
s R
esul
ts F
rom
One
Mul
tiple
Reg
ress
ion
Ov
eral
l Mo
del
High
L
ow C
hoic
e
Psyc
hopa
thy
Ma
ch P
redi
ctor
In
tera
ctio
n
Pred
icto
r
F
(df)
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
PPI-
RSF
456
(3160)
00
4
046
597
006
08
938
-1419
410
-359
-346
00
1
851
600
147
142
158
PPI FD
361
(3160)
01
5
-003
603
lt001
-01
996
-1151
449
-292
-257
01
1
309
607
058
51
611
PPI SCI
314
(3160)
02
7
055
605
007
09
928
-1237
406
-314
-305
00
3
1376
611
232
225
026
Mach Ego
95
(3160)
417
091
618
012
15
883
-627
438
-159
-143
154
1018
620
182
164
103
Soc Infl
32
(3160)
811
029
623
004
05
963
-047
474
-012
-10
921
-356
631
-068
-56
574
Fearless
243
(3160)
068
018
609
002
03
977
-1166
448
-296
-260
01
0
875
612
162
143
155
Coldhrt
52
(3160)
671
132
621
017
21
832
-446
471
-113
-95
346
113
628
021
18
857
Rebel
743
(3160)
lt00
1
050
583
006
09
931
-1718
407
-435
-422
lt00
1
833
585
147
142
156
Blm Ext
157
(3160)
199
062
613
008
10
919
-330
449
-084
-73
464
1190
616
220
193
055
Carefree
126
(3160)
290
-067
622
-009
-11
914
-814
425
-206
-192
057
669
625
115
107
287
Stress
426
(3160)
00
6
177
599
023
30
768
-972
421
-246
-231
02
2
-199
601
-035
-33
742
LPSP
41
(3160)
744
090
621
011
15
885
-445
415
-113
-107
286
577
627
097
92
359
Primary
39
(3160)
764
090
621
011
15
885
-443
425
-112
-104
299
549
624
095
88
381
Second
17
(3160)
919
080
622
010
13
897
-301
450
-076
-67
505
386
624
071
62
537
MACH
-IV
02
(3160)
996
076
623
010
12
903
-085
433
-021
-20
845
116
625
020
19
852
Deceit
15
(3160)
928
071
622
009
11
910
-172
406
-043
-42
673
421
634
068
66
508
Flattery
25
(3160)
864
100
622
013
16
872
-320
416
-081
-77
443
150
628
025
24
812
Immoral
85
(3160)
468
082
618
010
13
894
396
443
100
89
373
-968
620
-175
-156
121
Cynicism
52
(3160)
669
040
620
005
06
949
368
472
093
78
436
032
627
006
05
960
Residual
19
(3160)
900
069
621
009
11
912
-309
410
-078
-75
452
326
630
054
52
606
Not
e
Sig
nific
ant p
val
ues
(p lt
05)
are
in b
old
p v
alue
s ap
proa
chin
g si
gnif
ican
ce (lt
10)
are
in it
alic
s
Pre
dict
or A
bbre
viat
ions
PPI
-RS
F =
PPI-
RS
F to
tal s
core
PPI
FD
= P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 1
ndash F
earle
ss D
omin
ance
Fac
tor S
core
PPI
SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f Cen
tere
d
Impu
lsiv
ity F
acto
r Sco
re M
ach
Ego
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
rici
ty s
ubsc
ale
Soc
Infl
= PP
I-R
SF
Soci
al In
fluen
ce s
ubsc
ale
Fea
rless
= P
PI-R
SF
Fear
less
ness
sub
scal
e
Col
dhrt
= PP
I-R
SF
Col
dhea
rted
ness
sub
scal
e R
ebel
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
xt =
PPI
-RS
F B
lam
e E
xter
naliz
atio
n Su
bsca
le C
aref
ree
= PP
I-R
SF
C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Stre
ss Im
un =
PPI
-RS
F St
ress
Imm
unity
sub
scal
e L
PSP
= LP
SP to
tal s
core
Pri
mar
y =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le S
econ
d =
LPSP
Sec
onda
ry
subs
cale
MA
CH
-IV
= M
AC
H-I
V to
tal s
core
Dec
eit =
MA
CH
-IV
Dec
eit s
ubsc
ale
Fla
ttery
= M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
oral
= M
AC
H-I
V Im
mor
ality
sub
scal
e C
ynic
ism
=
MA
CH
-IV
Cyn
icis
m s
ubsc
ale
Res
idua
l = M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
Mod
el A
bbre
viat
ions
Un-
Stzd
β =
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Bet
a S
td E
rr =
Sta
ndar
d E
rror
Stz
d β
= St
anda
rdiz
ed B
eta
70
Exploratory Analyses Factor Analyses of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measures
In order to assess what specific constructs the self-report psychopathy and
Machiavellianism measures were identifying several factor analyses were conducted The goal
of these analyses was twofold First the intention was to categorize the unique traits of
psychopathy and MACH that were being identified in the participants by these measures and
second to distinguish overall factors of these personality traits that are similar across measures
Factor analysis of PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV total scores The total scores of the
PPI-R LPSP and MACH-IV were factor analyzed using principal axis factor analysis Squared
multiple correlations were used to estimate communalities in the initial factor pattern and
solutions were iterated four times Only one component in a preliminary principal components
analysis had an eigenvalue greater than 1 (1826) and the scree plot of the eigenvalues indicated
a clear break after one factor However for exploratory purposes three-factor and two-factor
factor analytic solutions were also attempted The three-factor solution yielded three factors
each corresponding to the three original variables The two-factor solution yielded one large
primary factor and a second factor with only trivial loadings (all loadings lt 25) Therefore the
one-factor solution was selected as the most informative Oblique rotation was performed using
Promax As can be seen in Table 10 one clearly defined factor emerged from the three variables
The factor appears to tap psychopathic and Machiavellian tendencies and thus has been named
Psychopathic Machiavellianism
Table 10 Factor Solutions Between PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores
Measure Psychopathic
Machiavellianism PPI-R SF Total Score 505 LPSP Total Score 687 MACH-IV Total Score 743
71
Factor analysis of all psychopathy and Machiavellianism items A second factor analysis
was run using all of the individual items from the three self-report measures of psychopathy and
Machiavellianism (PPI-R SF LPSP MACH-IV) Squared multiple correlations were used to
estimate communalities in the initial factor pattern Thirty-two components with eigenvalues
greater than 1 emerged from a preliminary principle component analysis and the scree plot
indicated there were approximately 25 to 35 factors
A principal axis factor analysis with Promax rotation was performed extracting 32
factors However only 15 of the 32 factors had two or more factor loadings greater than 50
Therefore several additional factor solutions were attempted to determine how many relevant
meaningful factors were present Finally it was determined that a nine-factor solution yielded the
largest number of interpretable factors with each factor including at least two variables with
loadings greater than 50 (see Table 11) Upon analyzing the items that loaded into each of the
nine factors names were identified for each factor based on the common characteristics of the
items The nine factors are Machiavellian Success Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Immunity
Feelings of Persecution Inability to Plan Social Disregard Interpersonal Ease Manipulative
Deceit and Social Frustration
72
Table 11 Factor Loadings of Total Item Factor Analysis
Factor Original Item
Mach Succes
Thrill Seek
Stress Immun Persec Inabl
Plan Social Dsrgrd
Intper Ease
Manip Deceit
Soc Frustr
L2 654 069 -068 217 070 -042 -184 -006 -092 L4 595 -044 044 117 044 136 029 039 064 L1 586 060 -009 106 127 -235 195 -023 -099 L3 576 097 027 023 144 -046 013 007 098 L5 551 -073 131 -047 022 026 205 -041 028 L12 -516 -010 -180 000 156 147 066 073 181 L8 466 030 082 -162 093 -021 109 022 076 L14 -428 -032 150 -103 202 023 131 224 230 L15 -402 053 -078 -039 146 000 -023 -215 260 L6 387 001 040 050 108 -183 -212 -038 132 L7 368 -121 -216 162 165 -095 -154 116 -008 M9 -322 -099 -009 154 100 -300 -076 -191 039 L26 320 165 054 101 051 073 -198 034 042 L11 318 222 -223 -116 059 -030 007 -078 219 M7 -288 108 -090 -102 -014 -006 -085 -158 -168 M17 -225 031 136 012 -018 -160 200 210 070 M3 -195 -159 -087 -057 -017 060 077 002 -037 M16 -179 108 -012 -141 -115 -170 -168 008 -052 P53 074 655 052 -031 -075 061 -179 -014 066 P5 -034 637 032 -128 -154 077 -138 -115 063 P38 050 555 207 034 -038 011 010 -143 -086 P22 080 535 -013 -261 023 043 003 069 045 P9 063 514 -060 179 -002 -148 -023 -130 010 P19 059 -475 057 022 049 -074 -052 -068 115 P16 051 468 -166 103 -108 -059 -015 -088 104 P1 157 -407 037 046 095 019 -047 -145 183 P52 -033 407 -199 050 -123 073 128 175 -058 P36 157 353 020 130 -014 145 143 156 -039 P30 148 308 -267 161 024 -059 -049 205 125 P47 -126 261 -067 069 -015 -029 134 135 237 P4 -117 259 -250 098 046 219 116 107 033 P14 251 251 -110 005 -109 064 117 -168 088 P48 114 031 733 054 073 -042 023 -035 005 P39 022 086 660 134 128 066 -007 103 -051 P28 080 -073 609 -008 -017 183 -061 187 093 P11 153 007 563 -118 -141 266 -026 051 112 P26 -089 -111 543 091 141 074 -037 075 001 P13 -004 039 -506 -095 129 144 -034 084 -135 M14 084 -035 359 209 -062 -125 211 069 -164 P2 -027 189 -335 125 -193 005 173 083 074 P23 176 050 -309 033 -190 082 108 075 266 M19 -188 -022 250 -069 -150 -116 088 043 -054 M2 -219 -015 240 176 -233 -101 114 054 223 M20 -048 -039 226 064 -158 -178 165 049 -121 P41 012 -047 -009 636 -081 -004 058 038 096 L25 011 -033 061 591 -093 -048 -050 -112 054 P50 -019 016 024 583 021 104 049 -020 209 P24 085 012 211 546 -065 049 073 094 -106 P6 100 147 153 490 -028 -050 072 072 -036 P34 163 -039 055 440 046 154 004 -010 058 L24 141 -093 -172 373 -078 -074 -075 -040 186 M18 005 028 104 -329 -005 -129 023 179 -057 M6 -059 -157 -193 -261 146 -019 031 -129 -448E-005 P42 099 -181 073 -073 542 057 020 -006 023 P40 148 -231 018 -220 521 -001 005 -026 033 L23 003 -268 -162 -030 516 086 085 -188 070 M8 -091 -003 -077 103 -504 -044 -117 -056 -045 P51 035 -096 -050 -042 447 -217 -091 -023 153 P33 123 071 178 164 447 -042 144 -261 042 P49 056 -025 -056 -138 394 215 -169 -059 019 M10 282 -018 046 -162 -374 -041 134 -105 119 P20 254 003 063 -132 370 026 049 226 -287 L10 -294 313 014 -246 366 -174 027 004 220 P56 144 083 -144 186 -354 072 061 136 269 M5 021 040 -001 -154 -350 -077 -050 192 238
73
Factor Original Item
Mach Succes
Thrill Seek
Stress Immun
Persec
Inabl Plan
Social Dsrgrd
Intper Ease
Manip Deceit
Soc
Frustr M13 124 105 157 -226 -311 -216 050 -073 163 L19 -089 054 -123 089 286 -129 -004 045 -063 P45 -207 -081 211 045 270 255 023 -068 043 L21 -077 -179 056 170 -229 042 -118 195 187 P37 111 235 211 017 024 592 -112 -115 017 P12 044 149 138 -123 057 571 023 003 110 P27 -144 -152 013 056 052 547 057 095 081 P10 -096 -031 -030 065 -023 453 042 -110 -090 P55 -184 -010 -177 183 -031 419 -035 051 -010 P54 094 -076 -127 -024 339 406 163 024 151 P25 -064 128 192 275 -051 392 087 -284 022 M12 -115 -023 -024 002 -220 245 -052 -120 -130 P21 067 -141 077 154 112 -038 740 -057 130 P15 -059 138 -189 099 160 144 556 -128 054 P18 103 001 -135 -028 097 028 533 -021 -237 P32 023 037 -126 159 167 -088 -532 093 -016 P29 -067 211 -109 014 089 -199 528 -130 037 P17 133 401 250 -067 132 016 456 011 -085 P32 004 171 026 -039 269 -027 -454 174 -147 P43 071 046 112 -059 029 -021 -143 557 286 M1 -330 104 013 007 040 -115 102 -512 106 L9 363 -112 -006 -046 044 -113 085 491 120 L20 -108 030 004 035 -085 002 -043 463 -082 L18 -232 055 199 085 -004 -055 -263 446 025 P35 118 -031 -024 -029 -011 -083 -145 419 171 M15 036 -053 018 -161 -282 -094 088 332 081 P31 -030 176 213 160 198 -074 -102 319 224 L16 -154 -015 020 024 162 153 144 -185 164 L22 024 -112 063 204 128 107 -156 117 527 L17 -168 124 -069 090 048 054 000 180 518 P7 070 -190 243 173 -011 -023 205 025 487 P46 229 -086 172 098 009 -145 067 -156 448 P3 -022 073 297 034 -100 288 -202 -105 392 P44 109 084 013 224 077 -051 -199 046 280 M11 038 056 -087 -113 019 144 093 -025 266 M4 -205 046 092 080 080 -037 -123 -177 -263 L13 143 -030 -189 -079 -140 -124 028 139 238 Note Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation converged in 9 iterations Factor loadings gt 40 are in bold Abbreviations Original Item Number= The item number from each of the three self-report measures used in this study L = LPSP P = PPI-R SF M = MACH-IV (ex P48 = Item 48 on the PPI-R SF) Mach Succes = Machiavellian Success Thrill Seek = Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Immun = Stress Immunity Persec = Feelings of Persecution Inabl Plan = Inability to Plan Social Dsrgrd = Social Disregard Intper Ease = Interpersonal Ease Manip Deceit = Manipulative Deceit Soc Frust = Social Frustration
Factor analysis of PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV subscales Finally a principal axis
factor analysis of the subscales of the three self-report measures of psychopathy and
Machiavellianism was conducted Squared multiple correlations were used to estimate
communalities in the initial factor pattern In a preliminary principal components analysis five
components had eigenvalues greater than 1 (3410 2093 1422 1209 1128) and the scree plot
of the eigenvalues indicated a break around five factors
74
Oblique rotation of the initial principal axis pattern was performed using Promax A
three four and six factor solution was attempted in addition to the five factor solution In
comparing the pattern matrices between factor models each factor in the three-factor model was
interpretable and had at least two loadings greater than 50 whereas the five-factor model
included one factor that did not have at least two loadings greater than 50 In addition the four-
and five-factor models would not converge in fewer than 25 iterations The three-factor model
compared to the four and five-factor models also had the most meaningful factor loadings in
terms of shared characteristics among the subscales in each factor Therefore the three-factor
model was selected Table 12 reports the factor loadings for the three-factor model Based on the
common characteristics shared by the subscales in their respective factors the following factor
names were assigned Antisocial Behavior Coldhearted Callousness and Thrill Seeking
75
Table 12 Factor Loadings of the Psychopathy and MACH Measures Subscales Factor
Subscale Antisocial Behavior
Coldhearted Callousness
Thrill Seeking
PPI Blame Ext 707 -152 032 LPSP Secondary 630 050 023 PPI Mach Ego 467 401 070 PPI Stress Immun -455 148 421 MACH Cynicism 424 149 -016 MACH Flattery 302 191 020 PPI Coldhrt -307 638 035 MACH Deceit 130 588 -015 LPSP Primary 341 486 -071 MACH Immoral 088 397 -081 PPI Carefree 033 309 226 MACH Residual 251 261 004 PPI Rebel 209 -011 752 PPI Fearless 056 -168 746 PPI Social Influ -131 125 295 Note Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation converged in 6 iterations Factor loadings gt 30 appear in bold Subscale Abbreviations PPI Blame Ext = PPI-RSF Blame Externalization subscale LPSP Secondary = LPSP Secondary subscale PPI Mach Ego = PPI-RSF Machiavellianism Egocentricity subscale PPI Stress Immun = PPI-RSF Stress Immunity subscale MACH Cynicism = MACH-IVCynicism subscale MACH Flattery = MACH-IV Flattery subscale PPI Coldhrt = PPI-RSFColdheartedness subscale MACH Deceit = MACH-IV Deceit subscale LPSP Primary = LPSP Primary subscale MACH Immoral = MACH-IV Immorality subscale PPI Carefree = PPI-RSF Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale MACH Residual = MACH-IV Residual Subscale PPI Rebel = PPI-RSF Rebellious Nonconformity subscale PPI Fearless = PPI-RSF Fearlessness subscale PPI Social Influ = PPI-RSF Social Influence subscale
76
Chapter 4 Discussion
Four findings of the present study are particularly notable First as predicted the classic
cognitive dissonance effect was replicated in the sample as a whole That is participants in the
High Choice to Lie Condition reported enjoying the abacus task more than participants in the
Low Choice to Lie Condition Second as predicted a significant interaction was found between
Choice Condition and level of psychopathy as measured by the PPI-R SF and the LPSP
Specifically the classic cognitive dissonance effect was found among participants with lower
levels of psychopathic traits but not among participants with higher levels of psychopathic traits
Third contrary to prediction no significant interaction was found between Choice Condition and
level of Machiavellianism as measured by the MACH-IV Fourth level of psychopathy
demonstrated incremental predictive power over level of MACH in predicting abacus task
enjoyment Each of these four findings is discussed below
41 Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effect
One important finding of the current study was a significant main effect of Choice
Condition on abacus task enjoyment Specifically individuals in the High Choice to Lie
condition reported enjoying the abacus task more than participants in the Low Choice to Lie
condition
This finding replicates the results of two earlier studies that examined cognitive
dissonance in a similar manner In studies by Cooper and Worchel (1970) and Festinger and
Carlsmith (1959) participants performed a tedious task and then were asked to mislead a fellow-
student (actually a confederate) that the task was enjoyable Half of participants were given only
a weak external motivation to deceive the fellow-student (low monetary reward or half of an
experimental credit) whereas the other half of participants were given a stronger external
77
motivation to deceive the fellow-student (a high monetary reward or multiple experimental
credits) In both of these studies participants with weak external motivation to engage in the
deception reported enjoying the task more than did participants with stronger external
motivation
The main difference between the current study and the Cooper and Worchel (1970) and
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) studies is that external motivation (high or low) was manipulated
by the aforementioned researchers whereas we manipulated participantsrsquo level of perceived
choice However there is a close conceptual relationship between level of external motivation
and level of perceived choice from the perspective of cognitive dissonance theory Previous
research has indicated that both choice manipulation and external motivation have similar effects
in creating cognitive dissonance In both cases external justification is being manipulated
Participants in the low choice (direct instruction) condition attribute their actions to the influence
of external pressures that forced them to perform the dissonant behavior Participants rationalize
that if given the choice they would not have engaged in the behavior and thus cognitive
dissonance is avoided The same conclusion is drawn when participants are given high external
motivation to engage in a dissonant behavior such as a high monetary reward Participants again
rely on the external justification of high reward to explain their engagement in the dissonant act
They rationalize their dissonant behavior by relying on the high reward as justification for
behaving in uncharacteristically Participants in the high reward condition rationalize that if the
reward was not present as external justification then they would not have engaged in the task
which results in a lack of cognitive dissonance as well Alternatively participants with either
high choice (voluntary participation) or low reward cannot rely on external justification because
none exists in these conditions Thus attitude shift results from the need to ameliorate their
78
cognitive dissonance Overall external justification is needed to alleviate cognitive dissonance
arousal and this justification is provided by either an external motivation (reward) manipulation
or by a low choice manipulation
Self-perceived choice has frequently been used as the independent variable in cognitive
dissonance studies As in our experiment these earlier studies found that self-perceived choice
(ie High versus Low Choice) had a significant main effect on cognitive dissonance Several of
these studies reported that participants experienced an attitude shift toward being in favor of an
undesirable task or belief only when they felt free choice to engage in the dissonant behavior
such as misleading a confederate or writing a counterattitudinal essay (Brehm amp Cohn 1962
Chatzisarantis Hagger amp Wang 2008 Cooper 1971 Davis amp Jones 1960 Festinger amp
Carlsmith 1959 Linder Cooper amp Jones 1967 Seacuteneacutemeaud amp Somat 2009 Sherman 1970)
Therefore the current experiment has added empirical support to the body of cognitive
dissonance research examining choice condition as a predictor of attitude shift
42 Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonance
The main hypothesis of this study was that people with low levels of psychopathy would
experience cognitive dissonance about engaging in deception whereas individuals with higher
levels of psychopathy would not experience cognitive dissonance
PPI-R SF total scores and cognitive dissonance Results supported our hypothesis in
regard to psychopathy when measured by total scores on the PPI-R SF Participants with higher
total scores on the PPI-R SF reported significantly less enjoyment of the abacus task on the post-
experimental questionnaire than participants with lower levels of psychopathy Specifically the
interaction between Choice to Lie condition and total PPI-R SF scores was significant in
predicting abacus task enjoyment standardized β = -216 p =036 True to our prediction
79
participants with low to non-existent levels of psychopathy experienced cognitive dissonance
only when in the High Choice to Lie condition and not in the Low Choice to Lie condition
Consistent with earlier studies (Cooper amp Worchel 1970 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959) it
appears that low psychopathy participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition perceived that they
had a strong external motivation for misleading their fellow-student (direct instruction to lie)
Thus they did not experience cognitive dissonance and could (accurately) rate the abacus task as
boring However low psychopathy participants in the High Choice to Lie condition did not
perceive that they had a strong external motivation for misleading their fellow student (they
voluntarily agreed to tell the lie after being asked) The participants experienced cognitive
dissonance in the form of psychological tension or guilt which they reduced by convincing
themselves that the abacus task was actually interesting as they had told their fellow student
On the other hand participants with higher levels of psychopathy reported disliking the
abacus task on the post-experimental questionnaire regardless of the Choice to Lie condition they
were in It appears that participants with higher levels of psychopathy did not experience
cognitive dissonance (ie psychological tension or guilt) about misleading a fellow student
Consequently these participants did not experience a need to change their view of the abacus
task or to rate it as more enjoyable than it really was
PPI-R SF subscales on cognitive dissonance Exploratory analyses were conducted
using the eight subscales of the PPI-R SF Each subscale measures a different facet of
psychopathy The goal of analyzing each subscale individually was to examine which aspects of
psychopathy if any were related to a lack of cognitive dissonance Three subscales produced
significant interactions with choice condition in predicting level of task enjoyment
Machiavellian Egocentricity (ME) Fearlessness (F) and Rebellious Nonconformity (RN) The
80
Machiavellian Egocentricity and Rebellious Nonconformity subscales load on the Self Centered
Impulsivity factor (antisocial behavior traits of psychopathy) of the PPI-R SF while the
Fearlessness subscale loads on the Fearless Dominance factor (cognitive personality based traits
of psychopathy) of the PPI-R SF
The Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale identifies aggressive self-centered tendencies
when interacting with other individuals (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003
Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996) Items from this subscale include ldquoI could be a good con-artistrdquo ldquoI
sometimes lie to see if I can get someone to believe merdquo and ldquoI tell people the part of the truth
they want to hearrdquo This scale seems to identify psychopathic characteristics that would allow for
individuals to have a lack of psychological tension or guilt over misleading others Thus in the
present experiment it appears that these traits may have inhibited participantsrsquo experience of
cognitive dissonance over lying to the confederate The significant interaction of the ME scale
and choice condition suggests that the participants in our study who lacked concern for
misleading others or even prided themselves in their ability to mislead others (as the scale
predicts) did not experience guilt or psychological stress
The Fearlessness (F) subscale of the PPI-R SF identifies willingness to engage in risky
behavior with a lack of regard for the negative consequences of onersquos actions The Rebellious
Nonconformity subscale (RN) indicates reckless behavior with a lack of concern for future
consequences (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Lilienfeld amp Andrews
1996) These scales are similar in that higher scores on the scales indicate an inability to
comprehend future negative consequences of onersquos actions These subscales also were
substantially correlated in the present study (r = 522) In regard to the current experiment it may
be that participants who scored higher on the Fearlessness and Rebellious Nonconformity
81
subscales were unable to comprehend or feel concern for the negative impact their deceptive
actions could have on their fellow student Thus participants with higher levels of fearlessness
and rebellious nonconformity may have experienced less psychological tension and less
cognitive dissonance about engaging in the deception than did participants with low levels of
these traits Because these findings are exploratory further studies should analyze these variables
so that strong conclusions can be made
PPI-R SF factors on cognitive dissonance In exploratory analyses the Self-Centered
Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF was the only factor to have a significant interaction with
choice condition in predicting abacus task enjoyment That is the dissonance effect was found
among participants with low scores on the PPI-R SF Self Centered Impulsivity factor but not
among participants with high scores The Self Centered Impulsivity factor is comprised of the
Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale and the Carefree
Nonplanfulness subscale of the PPI-R SF The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF
has been found in the literature to correlate with the behavioral traits associated with
psychopathy such as a DSM diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder lower education
levels lower employment rates lower SES and increased drug and alcohol abuse (Benning
Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003) Therefore the present results suggest that the
behavioral antisocial behavior characteristics of psychopathy (impulsivity blame
externalization lack of planning abilities) affected participantsrsquo experience of guilt-induced
cognitive dissonance
In contrast the interaction between the Fearless Dominance (FD) factor of the PPI-R SF
and choice condition was not a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment The Fearless
Dominance factor is characterized by low trait anxiety social dominance and fearlessness when
82
engaging in risky actions Individuals who score higher on the Fearless Dominance factor of the
PPI-R SF are often described as the more ldquosuccessful psychopathrdquo because they are
characterized by higher SES more advanced education and a lack of substance abuse (Benning
Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003) as compared to the type of psychopathy predicted by
the PPI-R SF Self Centered Impulsivity factor In fact studies have found that the two factors of
the PPI-R SF are orthogonal (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Lilienfeld amp
Fowler 2006) Therefore the present results suggest that individuals with higher scores on the
Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R SF may have the propensity to experience cognitive
dissonance more than individuals with the more antisocial traits of psychopathy (as measured by
the Self Centered Impulsivity Factor)
LPSP total scores on cognitive dissonance The effect of psychopathy on cognitive
dissonance was also examined using scores from the LPSP Similar to the results using the PPI-
R SF the interaction of LPSP total scores and choice condition was statistically significant in
predicting level of task enjoyment Specifically a significant relationship did not exist between
LPSP scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie
condition However in accordance with our prediction there was a significant negative
correlation between LPSP total scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie
condition This result further supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of
psychopathy would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher
levels would not
LPSP factor scores on cognitive dissonance Both the Primary and Secondary factors of
the LPSP were examined in exploratory analyses to see if one factorrsquos constellation of
psychopathic traits better accounted for a lack of cognitive dissonance than the other The
83
findings of this analysis implicate the cognitive (callousness fearless dominance low trait
anxiety) characteristics of psychopathy (as measured by the Primary factor) rather than the
external behavioral markers (as measured by the Secondary factor) as cues to understanding the
cognitive differences found in individuals with higher levels of psychopathy The results of the
interaction between the Primary (Cognitive) Factor and choice condition approached statistical
significance (unless the data was analyzed with the six individuals who did not lie factored out)
Further analysis of the data found that the interaction of LPSP Secondary (Behavioral) factor
scores with choice condition was not a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment
Interestingly these analyses of the LPSP factor scales yielded results that seem contrary
to the results concerning the PPI-R SF factor scales As already noted the PPI-R SF factor scale
analysis suggested that the behavioral characteristics of psychopathy (as measured by the PPI-R
Self Centered Impulsivity factor) were related to the absence of a cognitive dissonance effect In
contrast however the LPSP Secondary (behavioral) factor was not significantly related to
whether the cognitive dissonance effect was found Instead the findings for the LPSP Primary
(cognitive) factor approached significance
The conflicting findings regarding the PPI-R and LPSP factor scales may be partially
explained by the fact that the LPSPrsquos Primary and Secondary factors have not shown a consistent
relationship to other scales that measure the behavioral and cognitive dimensions of psychopathy
(Skeem amp Lilienfeld 2004) Levenson and colleagues (1995) reported that the two factors of the
LPSP mirrored the two factors of the PPI-R and the PCL-R However the discriminant and
convergent validity of the LPSP factor scales have been inconclusive in several studies For
example a study by Lilienfeld Skeem and Poythress (2004) found that the LPSP Primary
(cognitive) factor (callousness lack of guilt or remorse low trait anxiety) of the LPSP was more
84
correlated with the secondary (Self Centered Impulsivity) factor of the PPI-R (r = 62) than with
the primary (Fearless Dominance) factor of the PPI-R (r = 16)
In addition to the study by Lilienfeld et al (2004) other researchers have obtained results
indicating that the Primary (cognitive) Scale of the LPSP correlates higher with the secondary
factor of the PPI-R (Self Centered Impulsivity) rather than the with the primary factor of the PPI-
R (Fearless Dominance Wilson Frick amp Clements 1999 Lilienfeld amp Hess 2001)
Furthermore the Primary (cognitive) scale of the LPSP appears to correlate more highly with
antisocial behaviors rather than with the callous cognitive traits it was designed to measure
(Lilienfeld Skeem amp Poythress 2004 McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto 1998) Therefore the
discrepancy in the results between the PPI-R SF factor scales and the LPSP factor scales in the
current study might be a result of the LPSP Primary scale not being discriminant or divergent
enough from the antisocial behavior characteristics that are measured by the Secondary Scale of
the LPSP and by the factor scales of other measures like the PPI-R In other words perhaps the
Primary Scale of the LPSP is not accurately identifying just the cognitive personality-based traits
of psychopathy that is was designed to measure and thus this imprecision of the factor is what
led to the seemingly inconsistent results concerning the PPI-R SF and LPSP factors
Table 13 reports the significant (and insignificant) interactions between choice condition
and level of psychopathy by individual subscale and factor scale scores This table specifically
sorts the subscales and factor scales by the main psychopathy factors evidenced in the literature
(cognitive or behavioral) that the subscales and factors load on Past studies have consistently
confirmed the subscales arranged below load on the factor indicated (either the more behavioral
factor or the more cognitive affective factor) (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Iacono
2005 Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Edens Lilienfeld Poythress Patrick
85
amp Test 2008 Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995 Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996 Lilienfeld amp
Widows 2005 Patrick Edens Poythress Lilienfeld amp Benning 2006 Poythress amp Skeem
2006 Uzieblo Verschuere amp Crombez 2007) By separating the significant subscale and factor
score results in the current study by the respective factor they have been shown to load on
(cognitive or behavioral) the difference in our somewhat mixed results becomes clearer The
results evidence that in the current study Secondary psychopathy (Factor 2 antisociality
impulsivity inability to plan thrill seeking behavior) seems to relate more to a lack of cognitive
dissonance in the sample of participants
86
Table 13 Interactions of Psychopathy Subscales and Factor Scales with Choice Condition by the Two Factor (Cognitive or Behavioral) Psychopathy Solution Demonstrated by Past Research (Self-Reported Enjoyment as Criterion)
Cognitive Affective Factor Antisocial Behavior Factor FactorSubscale Stdz β t p Stdz β t p PPI FD Factor -167 -146 146 PPI Soc Infl 057 48 631 PPI Fearless -274 -247 015 PPI Stress Imm -101 -93 352 LPSP Primary -199 -192 057 PPI SCI Factor -220 -221 028 PPI Mach Ego -295 -281 006 PPI Rebel -243 -230 023 PPI Blm Ext -036 -32 747 PPI Carefree 068 66 511 LPSP Second -161 -145 148 Note Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics Predictor Abbreviations PPI FD Factor = PPIRSF Factor 1 ndash Fearless Dominance Factor PPI Soc Infl = PPI-RSF Social Influence subscale PPI Fearlessness = PPI-RSF Fearlessness subscale PPI Stress Imun = PPI-RSF Stress Immunity subscale LPSP Primary = LPSP Primary subscale PPI SCI Factor = PPIRSF Factor 2-Self Centered Impulsivity Factor PPI Mach Ego = PPI-RSF Machiavellianism Egocentricity subscale PPI Rebel = PPI-RSF Rebellious Nonconformity subscale PPI Blm Extern = PPI-RSF Blame Externalization subscale PPI Carefree = PPI-RSF Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale LPSP Second = LPSP Secondary subscale The PPI-RSF Colheartedness Scale is not included because it has not been shown to load on the Two Factor Solution Model Abbreviations Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Possible Reasons for the Lack of Cognitive Dissonance in High Psychopathy Individuals
The results of the current study indicate that the more psychopathic traits a participant
reported including the callous unemotional traits such as a lack of guilt remorse or concern for
others the less likely the participant was to exhibit the classic cognitive dissonance effect It is
important to consider possible explanations for these results
Psychopathy and lack of guilt One of the main traits linked to psychopathy is a callous
lack of guilt (Hart amp Hare 1997 Hare 1993 Lykken 2006 McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto
1998) This lack of guilt and concern for others may be the cognitive deficit that allows for
psychopathic individuals to commit violent crimes or manipulate others If this is the case then it
is important to determine if a lack of guilt is occurring significantly more in individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy compared to individuals with low or non-existent levels of
psychopathy Previous studies have examined guilt in individuals with psychopathy and have
87
almost universally found that individuals with high psychopathy lack guilt (Cima Tonnaer amp
Lobbestael 2007 Hare 1993 Walsh amp Wu 2008)
Though a lack of guilt has already been strongly associated with psychopathy in the
literature it is important to now try to find the underlying cognitive pathways and mechanisms
that are behind the inability to feel guilt in high psychopathic individuals Understanding the
cognitive deficits of individuals with higher levels of psychopathy can lead to better assessment
strategies and possible intervention models to curb maladaptive behaviors at an early age This
study attempted to identify the role that guilt plays in eliciting cognitive dissonance by assessing
dissonance effects in individuals with varying levels of guilt capabilities (high versus low
psychopaths) The use of psychopathy as a moderating variable for cognitive dissonance is based
on empirical research that has found a lack of guilt and contentiousness in individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy
Guilt and cognitive dissonance Cognitive dissonance has long been thought to be a
universal feature of human behavior Since the discovery of cognitive dissonance by Festinger in
1957 many other researchers have replicated the phenomenon with great success in a multitude
of situations and across stimuli (for a review see Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) The main theory
of cognitive dissonance that this project intended to analyze with regard to psychopathy was
Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory (1984) due to its focus on guilt as the catalyst for attitude
shift
According to Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory (1984) one of the crucial
components for creating the attitude shift found in cognitive dissonance is that individuals must
feel guilt (that their actions have brought negative consequences to themselves or others) The
current study incorporated the New Look Theory by having participants voluntarily lie to
88
someone else about a boring task being enjoyable Our hypothesis hinged on the theory that low
psychopathy individuals would change their beliefs about the task (they would think it was fun)
in order to relieve the guilt felt over misleading another individual In contrast since cognitive
dissonance occurs due to guilt induction we believed and found that individuals with higher
levels of psychopathy (low guilt) did not experience dissonance Therefore the results of this
study provide further evidence of the callous lack of guilt evidenced in psychopaths while
supporting Cooper and Faziorsquos (1984) theory that cognitive dissonance is invoked by guilt
43 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonance
Machiavellianism is characterized by the deliberate incorporation of callous unemotional
behaviors with the goal of achieving success and domination through the use of the asocial affect
and behaviors (Christie amp Geis 1970 Wastell amp Booth 2003 Wilson Near amp Miller 1996)
The centrality of success seems to be a characteristic of MACH that distinguishes it from
psychopathy Individuals with higher levels of MACH seem to engage in callous manipulative
behaviors in order to achieve preconceived goals whereas psychopathic individuals do not
necessarily plan their behavior to the same degree In fact several of the core traits associated
with psychopathy involve a lack of planning ability impulsivity and antisocial behavior that
often involves illegal and violent activities (Hare 1993)
Due to the callous guilt free traits associated with MACH the current study
hypothesized incorrectly that high MACH individuals in the High Choice (and high guilt)
condition would report significantly less enjoyment of the boring abacus task than individuals
with low MACH
MACH-IV total scores on cognitive dissonance It was hypothesized that the interaction
between MACH and choice condition would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment of
89
the abacus task However this interaction was not statistically significant Level of
Machiavellianism did not impact an individualrsquos self-rated level of enjoyment on the abacus task
These results were surprising given the fact that MACH has significantly related to a lack of
predicted attitude shift in past studies of guilt induced cognitive dissonance (Bogart 1971
Bogart et al 1970 Epstein 1969) Though these previous studies on MACH did not
specifically intend to analyze guilt-induction as the dissonance invoking stimulus they did use
methodology that would create guilt in participants
Unlike the current study these previous experiments found significant differences
between individuals with higher versus lower levels of MACH Also in opposition with the
current findings these previous studies (Bogart 1971 Bogart Geis Levy amp Zimbardo 1970
Epstein 1968) found that individuals with high MACH were able to experience cognitive
dissonance often in the opposite experimental condition to the individuals with low MACH who
experienced cognitive dissonance These studies termed this effect ldquoanti-dissonancerdquo The
current study however found no significant evidence of an anti-dissonance effect in our
participants In fact the results for the MACH-IV scores exhibited a weak version of the
interaction pattern that was seen with the two psychopathy predictors Specifically the MACH-
IV total scores had a significant negative correlation with Self-Reported Task Enjoyment in the
High Choice Group (r = -295 p lt 01) but not in the Low Choice group (r = -104 p = 354)
Such findings seem to suggest that Machiavellianism like psychopathy influences cognitive
dissonance effects However as already reported the crucial analysis regarding this hypothesis
based on an interaction term of Machiavellianism with Choice condition did not attain statistical
significance
90
It is possible that the present study failed to find a significant interaction between choice
and level of MACH in predicting attitude shift because the MACH-IV is outdated The MACH
measure was created in 1970 and has not been altered since that time In addition many of the
items on the measure use wording from Niccolo Machiavellirsquos writing which dates back to 1513
Further many of the items may be considered somewhat sexist in current society as they focus
on men exclusively Participantsrsquo responses may have been effected by this gender exclusivity
Therefore concepts and items may not be current enough to be accurately identifying MACH
characteristics in our sample Given results from the present and earlier research the failure to
find a significant interaction between choice condition and Machiavellianism in the present study
may well represent a Type II error
44 Psychopathy Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment (Over MACH)
A hypothesis of the current study was that psychopathy would incrementally predict
abacus task enjoyment and the cognitive dissonance effect above and beyond the predictive
power of the MACH Results regarding this hypothesis were inconclusive Inclusion of PPI-R
SF scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment significantly increased predictive
power above and beyond scores on the MACH-IV Although there was a significant increase in
predictive power when adding PPI-R SF scores to the MACH-IV scores the beta for the
interaction between PPI-R SF scores and choice condition was only approached statistical
significance When total scores of the LPSP replaced the PPI-R SF scores the results were not
significant Inclusion of total LPSP scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment
did not significantly increase predictive power above and beyond MACH-IV scores Therefore it
seems that the hypothesis in regard to psychopathy incrementally predicting abacus task
91
enjoyment above MACH was neither confirmed nor disconfirmed in the present study More
research examining the issue is needed
Conversely two exploratory hierarchical multiple regressions were run to identify
whether MACH-IV total scores incrementally predicted Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus
task above and beyond the predictive power of psychopathy scores When both the PPI-R SF
and the LPSP were used as predictors MACH did not significantly predict Self-Reported Level
of Enjoyment over psychopathy These results suggest though only in a preliminary way that
level of MACH does not incrementally predict cognitive dissonance effects above and beyond
the predictive power of level of psychopathy
45 Additional Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory Guilt Analysis
Multiple regressions were conducted with level of guilt as the criterion in the place of
enjoyment rating These analyses were exploratory with the goal of further exploring the role
that guilt plays during cognitive dissonance arousal and maintenance Results of these analyses
indicated that the interaction between psychopathy measures and choice conditions did not
generally significantly predict guilt In fact there was no reason to expect these interactions to
be significant based on cognitive dissonance theory The cognitive dissonance literature argues
that participants strive to reduce their feelings of guilt after engaging in counterattitudinal
behavior discrepant with their beliefs Thus participants with low levels of psychopathy who
were in the High Choice to Lie condition would be expected to change their attitudes about lying
to reduce their feelings of guilt immediately after telling the ldquofuture participantrdquo that the abacus
task was fun Therefore their reported guilt level on the post experimental questionnaire should
not be significant Due to cognitive dissonance these participants would have already reduced
92
their level of guilt to low or non-existent levels by the time they were answering the questions on
the post experimental questionnaire
Main effects for relationship between psychopathy and guilt An important result of these
exploratory analyses was that significant main effects were found between level of psychopathy
(measured by the PPI-R SF) and level of guilt that participants reported concerning their
participation in the study Specifically the PPI-R SF had a significant relationship with level of
guilt such that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy experienced less guilt than
participants with lower levels of psychopathy across choice conditions In addition both factor
scales of the PPI-R SF (Fearless Dominance and Self Centered Impulsivity) were significant in
predicting guilt Finally three of the PPI-R SF subscales reached significance in predicting level
of guilt in participants Fearlessness Stress Immunity Rebellious Nonconformity The
Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscales load on the Fearless Dominance factor
of the PPI-R SF which is important to note because this factor assesses the cognitive aspects of
psychopathy including lack of guilt and lack of remorse Therefore these results provide support
for the validity of the PPI-R SF in assessing psychopathic traits such as guiltlessness
Exploratory Factor Analyses
Three factor analyses were conducted on the self-report psychopathy and MACH
measures utilized in the present study The goal of these analyses was to categorize the
individual traits of psychopathy and MACH that were being identified in the participants by the
measures and to distinguish overall factors of these personality traits that are similar across
measures
The first factor analysis found that the total scores of the three measures loaded together
as one factor The second factor analysis found that all of the items combined loaded on nine
93
interpretable factors Machiavellian Success Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Impunity Feelings
of Persecution Inability to Plan Social Disregard Interpersonal Ease Manipulative Deceit and
Social Frustration Each factor was found to represent unique characteristics of psychopathy and
MACH Finally a third factor analysis was run on the combined subscales of the measures This
analysis yielded three interpretable factors Antisocial Behavior Coldhearted Callousness and
Thrill Seeking Though these factor analyses yielded factors that mirror others identified in the
literature (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Hare 1991 Levenson et al
1995 Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996) the sample size of 164 participants was too small to draw
significant or important conclusions from these factor analyses
94
Limitations and Future Directions
The present study had several limitations One potential limitation was the sole use of
self-report measures for detecting psychopathy Though the self-report measures that were used
in the current study have been validated as measures of psychopathy (Levesnon et al 1995
Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996 Lilienfeld amp Fowler 2006 Lilienfeld amp Hess 2001) the use of a
measure such as the Psychopathy Checklist ndash Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991) might have shed
additional light on the levels of psychopathy among our participants Psychopathy scores on the
PCL-R are obtained from a semi-structured clinical interview of the participant as well as
background and collateral information (Hare 1991) Therefore the information about the
participantrsquos personality is derived from multiple sources rather than just self-report A future
replication of this study would benefit from also assessing level of psychopathy with the PCL-R
or the PCL-R SV (Hart amp Hare 1995) which is a screening version of the PCL-R
A second limitation might have been the type of task used to illicit cognitive dissonance
The study had participants move wooden balls back and forth across an abacus for 20 minutes
Though this study attained significant results perhaps the length of time may not have been long
enough to induce boredom in all participants Future studies could increase the amount of time
participants are instructed to move balls across the abacus For example the original cognitive
dissonance study by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) had participants turn pegs in a peg-board for
one hour That length of time would most likely ensure boredom in participants It is important to
note however that the time limit of 20 minutes employed in the present study was the same as in
the study by Cooper and Worchel (1970) in which significant results were obtained when
participants engaged in the boring task for 20 minutes
95
In addition the use of the abacus task as the stimuli could have impacted the results
because some participants may have actually found the task enjoyable and thus genuinely
reported enjoying the task on the post-experimental questionnaire This would confound our
results because cognitive dissonance was not enacted in those participants In order to combat the
possible issue the use of counterattitudinal essays as the stimulus would be a useful option for
future studies Counterattitudinal essays involve writing in favor of an issue that one is
adamantly against The use of counterattitudinal essays has been incorporated into the majority
of cognitive dissonance studies (for a review see Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Studies have
shown that when participants write in favor of an issue that they are opposed to this elicits
cognitive dissonance (Baumeister amp Tice 1984 Elkin amp Leippe 1986 Harmon-Jones amp Mills
1999 Linder Cooper amp Jones 1967 Seacuteneacutemeaud amp Somat 2009) Counterattitudinal essays
have also been used in studying cognitive dissonance effects in participants with MACH
(Burgoon Miller amp Tubbs 1972) with significant effects
Simply writing counter-attitudinal essays would not necessarily invoke guilt The present
study tested the hypothesis that guilt-invoking tasks create cognitive dissonance in individuals
with low psychopathic traits but not individuals with high psychopathic traits Therefore the
present results might not be replicated in a study that simply required the writing of counter-
attitudinal essays However a variant on this task exists in which writing a counter-attitudinal
essay is used to persuade other individuals to a viewpoint with which the writer strongly
disagrees This task of writing a counter-attitudinal essay to persuade others is likely to evoke
guilt and according to the hypotheses of the present study would be predicted to create a
cognitive dissonance effect in participants with higher levels of psychopathy but not in
participants with low levels of psychopathy A control condition would be necessary in which
96
some participants just write the counter-attitudinal essays while others write counter-attitudinal
essays that are then used to persuade other individuals In this way we would be better able to
determine whether any cognitive dissonance effects observed were due to guilt
Guilt has been manipulated in participants with the use of counterattitudinal essays The
primary way that researcherrsquos incorporate guilt was to have the participant write a
counterattitudinal essay and read it (or give it) to a panel of individuals with the intention of
persuading the panel to be in favor of the topic to which the participant is actually against In this
way participants feel guilt for attempting to convince others to support something that the
participant actually opposes For example a study by Elliot and Devine (1994) had their college
student sample of participants write essays in favor of a tuition raise for all students at their
university Before writing the counterattitudinal essays participants were initially screened to
make sure they were against a tuition increase on campus Participants were told that the essay
they wrote (pro-tuition increase) would be read by the university Board of Trustees to help
determine if the tuition raise should be implemented Participantsrsquo guilt was activated because
they were led to believe that their essay might cause a tuition increase for themselves and their
peers Results of the study found a significant shift in attitude towards being in favor of the
tuition increase after participants had written the essay The authors surmised that it was the
negative consequences that their actions (writing the pro-tuition increase essay) could cause
others that led to the attitude shift Replicating the current study with the use of counterattitudinal
essays that manipulate guilt rather than the abacus task may elicit stronger effects by eliminating
the participantsrsquo chance of genuinely enjoying the abacus task
A third limitation the current study concerns its generalizability to new populations of
participants This study analyzed level of psychopathy exclusively among college
97
undergraduates It is unclear whether the results obtained in this population will generalize to
groups with higher levels of psychopathy such as violent offenders or repeat-offender juvenile
delinquents Attempting a replication in a sample of violent offenders or juvenile delinquents
would be a valuable step in understanding how the construct of psychopathy impacts cognitive
dissonance
A fourth possible limitation was the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of participants
Approximately eighty-five percent of participants were Hispanic and thus the generalizability of
the results to non-Hispanic populations can be questioned However psychopathy has been
shown to be a universal construct across ethnicities including Anglo Americans (Cooke Kosson
amp Michie 2001 Hare 1996) African Americans (Cooke Kosson amp Michie 2001 Skeem et
al 2004 Swogger Walsh amp Kosson 2008) and Hispanics (Sullivan Abramowitz Lopez amp
Kosson 2006 Valdez Kaplan amp Codina 2000) MACH too has been shown to appear in
Hispanics (Martinez 1981) Therefore this limitation may not be a serious one
Though ethnicity may not have impacted our results cultural characteristics are another
limitation to consider Culture may impact the expression of psychopathic traits A recent study
by Smith and Madjarov (2008) found that individuals from Bulgaria evidenced higher levels of
psychopathy and Machiavellianism than Americans (as measured by the LPSP and MACH-IV)
The authors attributed the higher levels of psychopathic and MACH tendencies to the coercive
nature of the Bulgarian culture which teaches the youth to look out for themselves above all else
The authors deduced that the personality characteristics of psychopathy and MACH allow for
better survival outcomes in Bulgaria and thus the traits have flourished there as adaptive rather
than abnormal
98
The current study was conducted in a university on the US-Mexico border where
acculturation to American society varies in the university population Many students commute
over the border daily from Mexico to attend classes and are not highly acculturated to US
culture Based on the Smith and Madjarov (2008) study and the location of the current
experiment level of acculturation may have impacted our results and should be accounted for in
future studies
An additional future direction would be that this study spurs psychopathy and cognitive
dissonance research in new routes As previously mentioned only one other study has examined
the effects of psychopathy on cognitive dissonance (Weir 2007) However Weirrsquos study
contained methodological weaknesses (eg no control group for comparison purposes) and was
not designed to address how psychopathic traits impact cognitive dissonance in guilt-inducing
situations Clearly more studies need to be conducted in order to examine if the significant
results found in the present study will hold across other age groups populations (such as violent
offenders) and cultures The results of this study could assist in better understanding the
cognitive and emotional characteristics of psychopathy
In addition the results of this study pose new ideas for cognitive dissonance research
The results of the current study suggest that level of psychopathy could potentially be
confounding cognitive dissonance studies that rely on guilt or adverse consequences as the
mechanism of dissonance arousal Further replications of the present study are needed in the
literature to examine the robustness of our results and their impact on cognitive dissonance
arousal
99
Conclusions
Until now cognitive dissonance has been assumed to be a general cognitive effect found
in all individuals The results of this study suggest that this assumption may be incorrect In the
present study individuals with higher levels of psychopathy did not seem to experience guilt-
induced dissonance arousal It may be that past studies might have yielded stronger cognitive
dissonance effects if they had excluded participants with above-average levels of psychopathic
traits
In addition the lack of a significant finding in regard to level of MACH indicates that
more research needs to be conducted in assessing what maladaptive cognitive and behavioral
impacts Machiavellianism has on individuals and how MACH truly relates to psychopathy
Understanding the cognitive characteristics of psychopathy (and MACH) is important
due to the negative impact that individuals with these characteristics can cause society For
example individuals with higher levels of psychopathy are four times more likely to recidivate
after being released from prison (Hare 1993 Hemphill Hare amp Wong 1998) are arrested at
earlier ages are more likely to use weapons and violence in their offenses and have higher rates
of offending than individuals without psychopathy (Hart amp Hare 1997 Hare amp McPherson
1984) It is important to discover what specific cognitive and emotional characteristics lead some
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy to develop and behave maladaptively in society If
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy do not experience cognitive dissonance after lying
to someone else this finding points not only to a lack of guilt in such individuals but also to a
unique cognitive and emotional temperament that may be lacking dissonance arousal
100
References
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed) Washington DC Author Aronson E (1968) Dissonance theory Progress and problems In R Abelson E Aronson W McGuire T Newcomb M Rosenberg amp P Tannenbaum (Eds) Theories of cognitive consistency A sourcebook (pp5-27) Chicago Illinois Rand McNally Austin E J Farrelly D Black C amp Moore H (2007) Emotional intelligence Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation Does EI have a dark side Personality and Individual Differences 43 179-189 Baumeister R F amp Tice D M (1984) Role of self-presentation and choice in cognitive dissonance under forced compliance Necessary or sufficient causes Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(1) 5-13 Bogart K (1971) Machiavellianism and individual differences in response to cognitive inconsistency Journal of Social Psychology 85 111-119 Bogart K Geis F Levy M amp Zimbardo P (1970) No dissonance for Machiavellians In P G Zimbardo (Ed) The cognitive control of motivation The consequences of choice and motivation (pp 251-263) Glenview Illinois Scott Foresman and Company Brehm J W amp Cohen A R (1962) Explorations in cognitive dissonance New York Wiley Burgoon M Miller G R amp Tubbs S L (1972) Machiavellianism justification and attitude change following counterattitudinal advocacy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 22 366-371 Chapman A L Gremore T M amp Farmer R F (2003) Psychometric analysis of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory with female inmates Journal of Personality Assessment 80(2) 164-172 Chatzisarantis N L D Hagger M S amp Wang J C K (2008) An experimental test of cognitive dissonance theory in the domain of physical exercise Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 20(1) 97-115 Christie R (1970a) Why Machiavelli In R Christie amp F Geis (Eds) Studies in Machiavellianism (pp1-9) New York Academic Press Christie R (1970b) Relationships between Machiavellianism and measures of ability opinion and personality In R Christie amp F Geis (Eds) Studies in Machiavellianism (pp35-52) New York Academic Press Christie R amp Geis F L (1970) Studies in Machiavellianism New York Academic Press
101
Cima M Tonnaer F amp Lobbestael J (2007) Moral emotions in predatory and impulsive offenders using implicit measures Netherlands Journal of Psychology 63(4) 144-155 Cleckley H (1976) The mask of sanity (5th ed) St Louis C V Mosby (Originally published 1941) Cooke D J Kosson D S amp Michie C (2001) Psychopathy and ethnicity Structural item and test generalizability of the Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (PCL-R) in Caucasian and African American participants Psychological Assessment 13(4) 531-542 Cooper J (1971) Personal responsibility and dissonance The role of foreseen consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18(3) 354-363 Cooper J (1999) Unwanted consequences and the self In search of the motivation for dissonance reduction In E Harmon-Jones amp J Mills (Eds) Cognitive dissonance Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp149-173) Washington DC American Psychological Association Cooper J amp Fazio R H (1984) A new look at dissonance theory In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental psychology (Vol 17 pp 229-262) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Cooper J amp Worchel S (1970) Role of undesired consequences in arousing cognitive dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(2) 199-206 Croyle R amp Cooper J (1983) Dissonance arousal Physiological evidence Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 782-791 Davis K E amp Jones E E (1960) Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61(3) 402-410 Edens J Marcus D Lilienfeld S O amp Poythress N G (2006) Psychopathic not psychopath Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of psychopathy Journal of Abnormal Psychology 115(1) 131-144 Elkin R A amp Leippe M R (1986) Physiological arousal dissonance and attitude change Evidence for a dissonance-arousal link and a ldquodonrsquot remind merdquo effect Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 55-65 Elliot A J amp Devine P G (1994) On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance Dissonance as psychological discomfort Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(3) 382-394 Epstein G F (1969) Machiavelli and the devilrsquos advocate Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 11(1) 38-41
102
Fehr B Samsom D amp Paulhus D L (1992) The construct of Machiavellianism Twenty years later In CD Spielberger amp J N Butcher (Eds) Advances in personality assessment (pp 77-116) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance Stanford CA Stanford University Press Festinger L amp Carlsmith J M (1959) Cognitive consequences of forced compliance Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58 203-210 Fowles D C (1980) The three arousal model Implications of Grayrsquos two-factor learning theory for heart rate electrodermal activity and psychopathy Psychophysiology 17 87-104 Goethals G R amp Cooper J (1972) Role of intention and postbehavioral consequence in the arousal of cognitive dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23 293- 301 Greenwald H A (1967) Active psychotherapy New York Atherton Hare R D (1978) Psychopathy and electrodermal responses to nonsignal stimulation Biological Psychology 6 237-246 Hare R D (1985) Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psycopathy Journal of Clinical and Counseling Psychology 53 7-16 Hare R D (1991) Manual for the Hare Psycopathy Checklist-Revised Toronto
Multi-Health Systems
Hare R D (1993) Without conscience The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us New York Pocket Books Hare R D amp McPherson L M (1984) Violent and aggressive behavior by criminal psychopaths International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 7(1) 35-50 Hare R D amp Neumann C S (2006) The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy Development structural properties and new directions In C J Patrick (Ed) Handbook of psychopathy (pp 58-88) New York The Guilford Press Harmon-Jones E amp Mills J (1999) An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory In E Harmon-Jones amp J Mills (Eds) Cognitive dissonance Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp3-21) Washington DC American Psychological Association Harpur T J Hare R D amp Hakstian A R (1989) Two factor conceptualization of psychopathy Construct validity and assessment implications Psychological Assessment A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1 6-17
103
Hart S D amp Hare R D (1995) Psychopathy and risk assessment Issues in Criminological amp Legal Psychology 24 63-67 Hart S D amp Hare R D (1997) Psychopathy Assessment and association with criminal conduct In D M Stoff J Breiling amp J D Master (Eds) Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp 22-35) NY John Wiley and Sons Hemphill J F Hare R D amp Wong S (1998) Psychopathy and recidivism A review Legal and Criminological Psychology 3(1) 139-170 Karpman B (1941) On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types The symptomatic and the idiopathic Journal of Criminology and Psychopathology 3 112- 137 Karpman B (1948) The myth of the psychopathic personality American Journal of Psychiatry 104 523-534 Levenson M (1990) Risk taking and personality Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 1073-1081 Levenson M Kiehl K amp Fitzpatrick C (1995) Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(1) 151-158 Lilienfeld SO (1994) Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy Clinical Psychology Review 14 17-38 Lilienfeld SO amp Andrews BP (1996) Development and preliminary validation of a self report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations Journal of Personality Assessment 66 488-524 Lilienfeld S O amp Hess T H (2001) Psychopathic personality traits and somatization Sex differences and the mediating role of negative emotionality Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 23(1) 11-24 Lilienfeld S O Skeem J L amp Poythress N G (2004 March) Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society Scottsdale AZ Lilienfeld S O amp Widows M R (2005) PPI-R professional manual Lutz FL Psychological Assessment Resources Linder D E Cooper J amp Jones E E (1967) Decision freedom as a determinant of the role of incentive magnitude in attitude change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6 245-254
104
Lyyken D T (1957) A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55 6-10 Lykken D T (1995) The antisocial personalities Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Lynam D R Whiteside S amp Jones S (1999) Self-reported psychopathy A validation study Journal of Personality Assessment 73(1) 110-132 Machiavelli N (1981) The Prince New York Bantam Books (Original work published 1513) Marcus D K amp Edens J F (2004) A taxometric analysis of psychopathic personality Journal of Abnormal Psychology 113 626-635 Martinez D C (1981) Differences among Chicano and White students on items of Machiavellianism scale Psychological Reports 48(2) 433-434
McHoskey J W Worzel W amp Szyarto C (1998) Machiavellianism and psychopathy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 192-210 Meloy J R (1998) The psychopathic mind Maryland Rowman amp Littlefield Publishers Inc
Murrie D C amp Cornell D G (2002) Psychopathy screening of incarcerated juveniles A comparison of measures Psychological Assessment 14 390-396 Patrick C J (Ed) (2006) Handbook of psychopathy New York The Guilford Press Patrick C J Bradley R H amp Lang P J (1993) Emotion in the criminal psychopath Startle reflex modulation Journal of Abnormal Psychology 102(1) 82-92 Pethman T M amp Erlandsson S I (2002) Aberrant self-promotion or subclinical psychopathy in a Swedish general population The Psychological Record 52 33-50 Porter S (1996) Without conscious or without active conscious The etiology of psychopathy revisited Aggression and Violent Behavior 1 179-189 Raine A (2002) Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adults A review Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 30 311ndash326 Ray J J amp Ray J A (1982) Some apparent advantages of subclinical psychopathy Journal of Social Psychology 117 135-142 Rutherford M J Cacciola J S amp Alterman A I (1999) Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in cocaine-dependent women American Journal of Psyciatry 156 849-856
105
Saruk S (1975) A comparison of Machiavellianism values and locus of control in psychopathic groups (Doctoral Dissertation Unites States International University 1975) Dissertation Abstracts International 36 458-B Seacuteneacutemeaud C amp Somat A (2009) Dissonance arousal and persistence in attitude change Swiss Journal of Psychology 68(1) 25-31 Shadish W R Cook T D amp Campbell D T (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (pp 230) Boston MA Houghton Mifflin Company Sherman S J (1970) Attitudinal effects of unforeseen consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(3) 510-520 Skeem J amp Lilienfeld S O (2004 March) Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society Scottsdale AZ Skinner N F (1982) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism IV Machiavellianism and psychopathology Social Behavior and Personality 10(2) 201-203 Skinner N F (1988) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism VI Machiavellianism and the psychopath Social Behavior and Personality 16 33-37 Smith R J (1999) Psychopathic behavior and issues of treatment New Ideas in Psychology 17 165-176 Smith E R amp Mackie D (Eds) (2000) Social Psychology (2nd ed)Kendallville IN Taylor amp Francis Smith R J amp Madjarov G (2008) Machiavellianism and psychopathy An East-West note Social Behavior and Personality 36(2) 255-256 Steele C M amp Liu T J (1983) Dissonance processes as self affirmation Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 5-19 Strelau J (1983) A regulative theory of temperament Australian Journal of Psychology 35 305-317 Sullivan E A Abramowitz C S Lopez M amp Kosson D S (2006) Reliability and construct validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised for Latino European American and African American male inmates Psychological Assessment 18(4) 382-392 Swogger M T Walsh Z amp Kosson D S (2008) Psychopathy subtypes among African American county jail inmates Criminal Justice and Behavior 35(12) 1484-1499
106
Valdez A Kaplan C D amp Codina E (2000) Psychopathy among Mexican American gang members A comparative study International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44(1) 46-58 Walsh A amp Wu H-H (2008) Differentiating antisocial personality disorder psychopathy and sociopathy Evolutionary genetic neurological and sociological considerations Criminal Justice Studies A Critical Journal of Crime Law amp Society 21(2) 135-152 Wastell C amp Booth A (2003) Machiavellianism An alexithymic perspective Journal of Social amp Clinical Psychology 22(6) 730-744 Weir J M (2007) Subtyping psychopathy Exploring the roles of degree of punishment cognitive dissonance and optimism Dissertation Abstracts International Section B The Sciences and Engineering 68(4-B) 2694 Wilson D L Frick P J amp Clements C B (1999) Gender somatization and psychopathic traits in a college sample Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 21(3) 221-235 Wilson D S Near D amp Miller R R (1996) Machiavellianism A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures Psychological Bulletin 119(2) 285-299 Zanna M P amp Cooper J (1974) Dissonance and the pill An attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29 703-709 Zanna M P Goethals G R amp Cooper J (1975) Misleading vs mistreating another person as consequences producing self-justificatory attitude change European Journal of Social Psychology 5 133-137
107
Appendix A
Script to be Used With High perceived choice Group
ldquoThank you for your participation in this task Irsquod like to explain what this has been all about so
you have some idea of why you were doing this task There are actually 2 groups in the
experiment In one group the group you were just in we bring the participant in and give him or
her no introduction to the experiment That is all we tell them is the instructions for how to do
the task and they have no idea what the experiment is really about or what they will have to do
But the other group before they begin the task we like to prep them What I mean by this is that
while they are still waiting in the hall we tell them what the experiment is going to be about so
we tell them it is a reaction task that they will be timed and they will be pushing balls along an
abacus etc Most importantly we also tell them that the task is going to be fun and enjoyable We
do this because we want to see if having a positive attitude about the task before you begin will
affect your ability on the task What we are interested in is comparing the performance of people
who know nothing about the experiment such as yourself with those people who expect the task
to be interesting and exciting
So normally we have another student who works for us and that student preps the person
while they are still in the hall so tells them about the task and that it is going to be fun and then
brings the person in to me to do the task However that person couldnrsquot be here today
Now I have an unusual request that I have to make I talked to my advisor Dr Wood and he
suggested that I might ask my real participant to talk to the next participant for me
You donrsquot have to but if you would be willing to do this for me all I would ask you to do
is to tell the next participant who is now in the hall that this task is fun and enjoyable So Irsquod
take you into the hall introduce you to the next person and then give you about 1 minute to
108
begin your conversation and tell him or her that this experimental task will be fun Itrsquos up to you
of course but do you think you could help me out by doing this for me
109
Appendix A
Script for Use With the Low perceived choice Group
ldquoThank you for your participation in this task Irsquod like to explain what this has been all about so
you have some idea of why you were doing this task There are actually 2 groups in the
experiment In one group the group you were just in we bring the participant in and give him or
her no introduction to the experiment That is all we tell them is what they need to know to do
the task and they have no idea what the experiment is really about or what they will have to do
But the other group before they begin the task we tell them what the experiment is going to be
about and that it is going to be fun and enjoyable We do this because we want to see if having a
positive attitude about the task before you begin will affect your ability on the task So normally
we have another student who works for us and what I do is take him into the hall that you were
just in and introduce him as though he had just finished the experiment This paid student then
starts a conversation with the next participant and tells him or her about the experiment and how
interesting and fun it was What we are interested in of course is comparing the performance of
people who know nothing about the experiment such as yourself with those people who expect
the task to be interesting and exciting
Now I have an unusual request I have to make The student that we have hired to talk to
the next participant about the study couldnt make it today He just called a few minutes ago My
advisor told me to just have one of my actual participants do it So what you will have to do is to
tell the next participant who is now in the hall that this task is exciting interesting and
enjoyable Irsquoll take you into the hall introduce you to the next participant and then give you
about 2 minutes to begin your conversation and tell him or her that this experimental task will be
fun Are you ready
110
Appendix B
Demographic Information
Age _____
Gender _____
Ethnicity (check only one)
Mexican American ____
Mexican National ____
Hispanic ____
Caucasian ____
Asian ____
African American ____
Other ____
111
Appendix B
University of Texas Psychology Department
Post Experiment Evaluation Form
This form is to be completed immediately following participation in a UTEP Psychology experiment The department is evaluating the research that is currently being conducted and would like your opinion on the effectiveness of the experiment you just participated in Please take the time to fill out this brief survey Please circle the answer that best describes your feelings about the experiment you just participated in Your responses will remain confidential and will only be reviewed by departmental staff Once you have completed the survey place it in the envelope provided for you and seal the envelope
The following items are about the experiment you just participated in Please circle how much you agree with the following statement
1 The task in this experiment was enjoyable
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
2 I feel that I learned a lot from this experiment
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
112
3 I feel that the results of this study will have scientific value
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
4 I would enjoy participating in future experiments similar to this one
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly 5 I felt guilty during this experiment
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly 6 I felt comfortable at all times during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
113
7 I felt that I had free will at all times during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
8 I felt pressured by the experimenter during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
114
Appendix C Date _________________
LPSP
Listed below are a number of statements Each represents a commonly held opinion and there are no right or wrong answers You will probably disagree with some items and agree with others Please read each statement carefully and circle the number which best describes the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement or the extent to which each statement applies to you
ITEM Strongly Disagree
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Strongly Agree
1 Success is based on survival of the fittest I am not concerned about the losers
1 2 3 4
2 For me whatrsquos right is whatever I can get away with
1 2 3 4
3 In todayrsquos world I feel justified in doing anything I can get away with to succeed
1 2 3 4
4 My main purpose in life is getting as many goodies as I can
1 2 3 4
5 Making a lot of money is my most important goal
1 2 3 4
6 I let others worry about higher values my main concern is with the bottom line
1 2 3 4
7 People who are stupid enough to get ripped off usually deserve it
1 2 3 4
8 Looking out for myself is my top priority
1 2 3 4
9 I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do
1 2 3 4
10 I would be upset if my success came at someone elsersquos expense
1 2 3 4
115
Appendix C (LPSP Continued)
ITEM Disagree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Agree Strongly
11 I often admire a really clever scam 1 2 3 4
12 I make a point of trying not to hurt others in pursuit of my goals
1 2 3 4
13 I enjoy manipulating other peoplersquos feelings
1 2 3 4
14 I feel bad if my words or actions cause someone else to feel emotional pain
1 2 3 4
15 Even if I were trying very hard to sell something I wouldnrsquot lie about it
1 2 3 4
16 Cheating is not justified because it is unfair to others
1 2 3 4
17 I find myself in the same kinds of trouble time after time
1 2 3 4
18 I am often bored 1 2 3 4
19 I find that I am able to pursue one goal for a long time
1 2 3 4
20 I donrsquot plan anything very far in advance
1 2 3 4
21 I quickly lose interest in tasks I start 1 2 3 4
22 Most of my problems are due to the fact that other people just donrsquot understand me
1 2 3 4
23 Before I do anything I carefully consider the possible consequences
1 2 3 4
24 I have been in a lot of shouting matches with other people
1 2 3 4
25 When I get frustrated I often let off steam by blowing my top
1 2 3 4
26 Love is overrated 1 2 3 4
116
Appendix D
PPI-R SF
This test measures different personality characteristics ndash that is the ways in which peoplersquos personality styles make them different from each other Read each statement carefully and decide how false or true it is as a description of you Then mark the best choice by circling the number that corresponds to your answer Use the answer choices provided below 1 = False 2 = Mostly False 3 = Mostly True 4 = True Even if you feel that an item is neither false nor true as applied to you or if you are unsure about what response to make please answer all of the items If you cannot make up your mind about an item select the choice that is closest to your opinion Here is a sample item
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True
I enjoy going to the movies 1 2 3 4 If it is true that you enjoy going to the movies circle the 4 to the right of the question as shown below
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True
I enjoy going to the movies 1 2 3
If it is mostly false that you enjoy going to the movies you would circle the 2 to the right of the item and so on Try to be as honest as you can and be sure to give your own opinion about whether each item is false or true about you Now please begin by circling the response next to the item that best represents your opinion about yourself
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 1 Dangerous activities like skydiving scare me more than they do most people
1
2
3
4
2 I have always seen myself as something of a rebel
1
2
3
4
3 I am easily flustered in pressured situations
1
2
3
4
4 I would find the job of a movie stunt person exciting
1
2
3
4
4
117
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 5 I might like to hang out with people who drift from city to city with no permanent home
1
2
3
4
6 A lot of people have tried to ldquostab me in the backrdquo
1
2
3
4
7 I get mad if I donrsquot receive special favors I deserve
1
2
3
4
8 I am hardly ever the center of attention
1
2
3
4
9 It might be exciting to be on a plane that was about to crash but somehow landed safely
1
2
3
4
10 A lot of times I worry when a friend is having personal problems
1
2
3
4
11 I tend to get crabby and irritable when I have too many things to do
1
2
3
4
12 I get mad when I hear about the injustices in the world
1
2
3
4
13 I donrsquot let everyday hassles get on my nerves
1
2
3
4
14 I could be a good con artist
1
2
3
4
15 I have a talent for getting people to talk to me
1
2
3
4
16 I might like to travel around the country with some motorcyclists and cause trouble
1
2
3
4
17 In conversations Irsquom the one who does most of the talking
1
2
3
4
18 I feel sure of myself when Im around other people
1
2
3
4
19 Parachute jumping would really scare me
1
2
3
4
118
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 20 When people lend me something I try to get it back to them quickly
1
2
3
4
21 I like to stand out in a crowd
1
2
3
4
22 It would be fun to fly a small airplane by myself
1
2
3
4
23 In school or at work I try to stretch the rules just to see what I can get away with
1
2
3
4
24 Irsquove often been betrayed by people I trusted
1
2
3
4
25 It would break my heart to see a poor or homeless person walking the streets at night
1
2
3
4
26 Some people say that I am a ldquoworry wartrdquo
1
2
3
4
27 It bothers me a lot when I see someone crying
1
2
3
4
28 I get stressed out when Irsquom ldquojugglingrdquo too many tasks
1
2
3
4
29 Itrsquos easy for me to go up to a stranger and introduce myself
1
2
3
4
30 I donrsquot care about following the ldquorulesrdquo I make up my own rules as I go along
1
2
3
4
31 Irsquove been the victim of a lot of bad luck
1
2
3
4
32 Im hardly ever the life of the party
1
2
3
4
33 Irsquove thought a lot about my long-term career goals
1
2
3
4
34 Some people have gone out of their way to make my life difficult
1
2
3
4
119
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 35 I sometimes lie just to see if I can get someone to believe me
1
2
3
4
36 I like my life to be unpredictable and surprising
1
2
3
4
37 I get very upset when I see photographs of starving people
1
2
3
4
38 I might like flying across the ocean in a hot-air balloon
1
2
3
4
39 I worry about things even when therersquos no reason to
1
2
3
4
40 When I am doing something important like taking a test or doing my taxes I check it over first
1
2
3
4
41 People I thought were my ldquofriendsrdquo have gotten me into trouble
1
2
3
4
42 I think long and hard before I make big decisions
1
2
3
4
43 I tell people only the part of the truth they want to hear
1
2
3
4
44 I get blamed for many things that arenrsquot my fault
1
2
3
4
45 I feel bad about myself after I tell a lie
1
2
3
4
46 I quickly get annoyed with people who do not give me what I want
1
2
3
4
47 I would like to have a wild hairstyle
1
2
3
4
48 Irsquom the kind of person who gets ldquostressed outrdquo pretty easily
1
2
3
4
49 I usually think about what Irsquom going to say before I say it
1
2
3
4
120
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 50 Some people have made up stories about me to get me in trouble
1
2
3
4
51 I watch my finances closely
1
2
3
4
52 I am a daredevil
1
2
3
4
53 I would like to hitchhike across the country with no plans
1
2
3
4
54 I try to use my best manners when Irsquom around other people
1
2
3
4
55 I often place my friendsrsquo needs above my own
1
2
3
4
56 If I canrsquot change the rules I try to get others to bend them for me
1
2
3
4
121
Appendix E
MACH Scale (IV)
Below are twenty statements Please read each one and consider your level of agreement Rate each statement using the following scale and record your answers by circling the answer next to each statement that is most representative of how you feel 1 Strongly Agree ndash I agree completely with this statement 2 Somewhat Agree ndash I agree with this statement but not entirely 3 No Opinion ndash I have no opinion about this statement 4 Somewhat Disagree ndash I disagree with this statement but not entirely 5 Strongly Disagree ndash I disagree completely with this statement
Item Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
No Opinion
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1) The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear
1 2 3 4 5
2) When you ask someone to do something for youyou it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which might carry more weight
1 2 3 4 5
3) Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble
1 2 3 4 5
4) It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there
1 2 3 4 5
5) Honesty is the best policy in all cases 1 2 3 4 5
6) Itrsquos safe to assume that all people have a vicious streak that will come out when they are given a chance
1 2 3 4 5
7) Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so
1 2 3 4 5
8) One should take action only when sure it is morally right
1 2 3 4 5
9) It is wise to flatter important people 1 2 3 4 5
122
Appendix E ( MACH-IV Continued)
Item Strongly
Agree Somewhat
Agree No
Opinion Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
10) All in all it is better to be humble and honest than important and dishonest
1 2 3 4 5
11) Barnum was very wrong when he said therersquos a sucker born every minute
1 2 3 4 5
12) People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death
1 2 3 4 5
13) It is possible to be good in all respects 1 2 3 4 5
14) Most people are basically good and kind 1 2 3 4 5
15) There is no excuse for lying to someone else
1 2 3 4 5
16) Most men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their property
1 2 3 4 5
17) Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean moral lives
1 2 3 4 5
18) Generally speaking men wonrsquot work hard unless they are forced to do so
1 2 3 4 5
19) The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught
1 2 3 4 5
20) Most men are brave 1 2 3 4 5
123
Appendix F
Informed Consent Form
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Form for Research Involving Human Subjects
Protocol Title Personality effects on reaction time
Principal Investigator Ashley Murray BA
UTEP Psychology
Introduction
You are being asked to take part voluntarily in the research project described below Before agreeing to take part in this research study it is important that you read the consent form that describes the study Please ask the study researcher or the study staff to explain any words or information that you do not clearly understand
Why is this study being done
You have been asked to take part in a research study looking at how certain personality types differ on reaction times You will be asked to complete 3 separate personality surveys and a reaction time measure Approximately 150 students will be participating in this study at UTEP You are being asked to be in the study because you are currently enrolled as a student at UTEP and are 18 years of age or older
If you decide to enroll in this study your involvement will last approximately an hour and a half
What is involved in the study
If you agree to take part in this study the research team will provide you with a brief demographics form and three personality measures Please fill out all forms and do not skip through the packet Please answer every question to the best of your ability After you have finished answering all of the questions please let the experimenter know You will also be asked
124
to complete a brief peg turning task that measures your physical reaction abilities Your performance on the task will be monitored by the experimenter
What if I want to withdraw or am asked to withdraw from this study
Taking part in this study is voluntary You have the right to choose not to take part in this study If you do not take part in the study there will be no penalty There are no risks or harms related to participating in this study
If you choose to take part you have the right to stop at any time However we encourage you to talk to a member of the research group so that they know why you are leaving the study If there are any new findings during the study that may affect whether you want to continue to take part you will be told about them
Who do I call if I have questions or problems
You may ask any questions you have now If you have questions later you may call Ashley Murray (915-474-5784) or Dr James Wood (915-474-6570)
If you have questions or concerns about your participation as a research subject please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTEP Contact Ms Lola Norton (Institutional Coordinator for Research Review) at (915) 747-7939 or irborsputepedu
What about confidentiality
1 Your part in this study is confidential None of the information will identify you by name All records will be handled only by the research team and will be kept securely locked in a file cabinet when not in use
125
Authorization Statement
I have read each page of this paper about the study (or it was read to me) I know that being in this study is voluntary and I choose to be in this study I know I can stop being in this study without penalty I will get a copy of this consent form now and can get information on results of the study later if I wish
Participant Name Date
Participant Signature Time
Experimenter Signature ___________________________________
126
Post Experimental Informed Consent
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Form for Research Involving Human Subjects
Protocol Title The effects of psychopathy on cognitive dissonance
Principal Investigator Ashley Murray BA
UTEP Psychology
Introduction
The purpose of this research project is to examine how individuals with different personality characteristics react when they are asked to deceive someone else Please ask the study researcher or the study staff to explain any words or information that you do not clearly understand
Why is this study being done
You have been asked to take part in a research study looking at how certain personality types differ on reacting to feelings of guilt You were asked to complete 3 separate personality surveys and an abacus task Approximately 150 students will be participating in this study at UTEP You were recruited to the study because you are currently enrolled as a student at UTEP and are 18 years of age or older
Thank you for participating in this study Your participation as well as the participation of others will help us better understand how different people react when asked to deceive someone else
127
What is involved in the study
During this experiment you were asked to talk with another research participant and tell him or her that the study was enjoyable However you now understand that in reality this person was really just a member of the research team who was pretending to be a research participant Therefore your conversation with him or her did not affect her emotionally or in any other way
The anonymity of your individual responses will be maintained at all times and only group data will be identified and reported
In addition it is very important to the current researchers that you do NOT tell anyone else about what you did here today The integrity of peoplersquos responses is reliant on them not knowing what is about to happen If you tell people ahead of time what to expect their answers and actions will not be accurate and this could negatively affect the outcomes of the study Therefore you will not tell anyone about the details of this experiment or what you did here today
Who do I call if I have questions or problems
You may ask any questions you have now If you have questions later you may call or Ashley Murray (915-474-5784) or Dr James Wood (915-474-6570)
If you have questions or concerns about your participation as a research subject please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTEP Contact Ms Lola Norton (Institutional Coordinator for Research Review) at (915) 747-7939 or irborsputepedu
What about confidentiality
Your part in this study is confidential None of the information will identify you by name All records will be handled only by the research team and will be kept securely locked in a file cabinet when not in use
128
Authorization Statement
I have read each page of this paper about the study (or it was read to me) I know that being in this study is voluntary and I chose to be in this study I know I can stop being in this study without penalty
In addition it is very important that I do NOT tell anyone else about what I did here today The integrity of future participantsrsquo responses depends on them not knowing what is about to happen in this experiment Therefore I agree not to share with my friends or classmates (especially friends or classmates in my psychology classes) any details about what I did here today
By signing this form I understand that I am giving the experimenter permission to use my data
Participant Name Date
Participant Signature Time
Experimenter Signature __________________________________
129
Appendix G
Debriefing Script
ldquoThank you for participating in this study At this time I want to explain the study to you As
you will recall after completing the task where you moved balls back and forth on an abacus you
were asked to tell the next waiting participant that the task he or she was about to complete would
be enjoyable Your conversation with that waiting participant was actually one of the main points
of the experiment The reason why that conversation was important is because we are interested in
how different personality characteristics affect the way individuals respond to guilt The bigger
purpose of the current experiment is to see what personality characteristics make some people feel
guilt while other people do not experience guilt The way that we tried to create guilt today was by
having you tell the next waiting participant that they would enjoy the abacus task Studying guilt
reactions is important to psychology research because it can help us identify the cognitive
processes that people with differing personality characteristics use when they experience guilt
This is an important aspect of human behavior to study and we apologize that in order to examine
guilt reactions we had to mislead you briefly today
At this time we would like to explain that the person you spoke to and told that the abacus task
was going to be enjoyable was actually my research assistant and was only pretending to be a
future participant He (she) was not affected in any negative way by what you said to him (her)
and did not have to perform the peg turning task It was necessary that you think that my research
assistant was a future participant in the study so that your reactions would be genuine for the study
to get honest and accurate results
You should not feel bad for agreeing to tell my assistant that the task would be fun
Psychologists have been doing this kind of experiment for 50 years and nearly everyone agrees to
130
say that the experiment is more enjoyable than it really is You reacted in the same way that the
majority of participants in these kinds of experiments do
Again I would like to remind you that all of your answers and everything you did here today
for this experiment will remain confidential and anonymous Only I and my small research team
will have access to the data collected here today and you are not identified in any way in the data
collected
If you do feel upset or uneasy about your participation in this experiment you can talk to my
mentor Dr James Wood or you can contact the UTEP Counseling Center and I will provide that
contact information to you Do you feel a need to talk with Dr Wood or someone at the counseling
center about this
Finally it is EXTREMELY important that other students do not find out about the purpose of
this experiment If they do we will not be able to run this research anymore Students must come
into our lab with no idea about what the study is actually about Please do not speak to any other
students about this study especially psychology students We will be running this study for about a
year so please do not talk other students about this experiment
Do you understand everything I have said to you Do you have any questions
Again thank you for participating in this study todayrdquo
131
Appendix G
No-Lie Debriefing Script
ldquoThank you for participating in this study At this time I want to explain the study to you As
you will recall after completing the task where you moved balls back and forth on an abacus you
were asked to tell the next waiting participant that the task he or she was about to complete would
be enjoyable Your conversation with that waiting participant was actually one of the main points
of the experiment The reason why that conversation was important is because we are interested in
how different personality characteristics affect the way individuals respond to guilt The bigger
purpose of the current experiment is to see what personality characteristics make some people feel
guilt while other people do not experience guilt The way that we tried to create guilt today was by
having you tell the next waiting participant that they would enjoy the abacus task Studying guilt
reactions is important to psychology research because it can help us identify the cognitive
processes that people with differing personality characteristics use when they experience guilt
This is an important aspect of human behavior to study and we apologize that in order to examine
guilt reactions we had to mislead you briefly today
At this time we would like to explain that the person who acted as the waiting participant was
actually my research assistant and was only pretending to be a future participant He (she) was not
going to be affected in any negative way by what you said to him (her) and did not have to
perform the abacus task It was necessary that you think that my research assistant was a future
participant in the study so that your reactions would be genuine for the study to get honest and
accurate results
Again I would like to remind you that all of your answers and everything you did here today
for this experiment will remain confidential and anonymous Only I and my small research team
132
will have access to the data collected here today and you are not identified in any way in the data
collected
If you do feel upset or uneasy about your participation in this experiment you can talk to my
mentor Dr James Wood or you can contact the UTEP Counseling Center and I will provide that
contact information to you Do you feel a need to talk with Dr Wood or someone at the counseling
center about this
Finally it is EXTREMELY important that other students do not find out about the purpose of
this experiment If they do we will not be able to run this research anymore Students must come
into our lab with no idea about what the study is actually about Please do not speak to any other
students about this study especially psychology students We will be running this study for about a
year so please do not talk other students about this experiment
Do you understand everything I have said to you Do you have any questionsrdquo
Again thank you for participating in this study today
133
Appendix H
Confederate Guilt Manipulation Check Form
I ___________________________ who acted as a confederate for the current study verify that
The participant told me that the task would be fun enjoyable
The participant told me that the task would be fun enjoyable BUT also told me they had to tell me it was enjoyable
The participant told me that the task would be boring
The participant told me about the task BUT did NOT tell me it would be fun enjoyable
The participant did not tell me anything about the experiment
The participant did not talk to me at all
The participant told me that the task would be fun BUT only after being prompted by me
Participant _________
134
Curriculum Vita
Ashley Anne Murray daughter of Scott and Greta Murray was born in Denver CO She
was raised throughout Texas and Montana and in 2006 graduated with High Honors from the
University of Montana with a BA in psychology (research emphasis) While pursuing her
undergraduate degree she was awarded the Kain-McKay Scholarship in recognition of her
achievements in the field of psychology and was in the Phi Kappa Phi Honors Society She also
was employed at the campus Student Assault Resource Center where she provided counseling
and assessments for survivors of domestic violence and rape Upon completion of her BA
Ashley was accepted to the Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology Program at The University of
Texas at El Paso During her graduate studies at UTEP she completed a 350 hour clinical
internship with the PATH Program of The Aliviane Organization at the Opportunity Center of El
Paso Homeless Shelter Through the internship she provided assessments therapy and group
facilitation to homeless individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse
disorders Throughout her graduate studies Ashley worked on multiple projects in two clinical
labs and has worked on manuscripts and presented several posters at national psychology
conferences At UTEP she has worked as a teaching assistant and instructor in the psychology
department She will be going on to obtain her clinical PhD at Simon Fraser University in the
fall of 2009
Permanent Address 2810 Palm Dr
Billings MT 59102
- University of Texas at El Paso
- DigitalCommonsUTEP
-
- 2009-01-01
-
- The effects of psychopathy and Machiavellianism on cognitive dissonance
-
- Ashley Anne Murray
-
- Recommended Citation
-
- Introduction
- Why is this study being done
- Introduction
- Why is this study being done
-
Copyright
By
Ashley Anne Murray
2009
Dedications
This thesis is dedicated to my parents for their continued encouragement and support
THE EFFECTS OF PSYCHOPATHY AND MACHIAVELLIANISM ON
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
By
ASHLEY ANNE MURRAY BA
THESIS
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at El Paso
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
May 2009
v
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr James Wood for his wisdom knowledge and patience in guiding me
through this process In addition special thanks to Dr Scott Lilienfeld for assisting as an outside
consultant and lending his expertise in psychopathy research to this project
vi
Abstract
Psychopathic traits include a lack of guilt a lack of remorse callousness and antisocial behaviors
such as impulsivity and aggression The current study examined the effects of psychopathic traits
as measured by the Psychopathic Personality Inventory ndash Revised Short Form (PPI-R SF
Lilienfeld amp Widows 2005) and the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales
(LPSP Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995) and of Machiavellianism (MACH) as measured
by the MACH-IV (Christie amp Geis 1970) on cognitive dissonance in a sample of 164
participants The induced compliance paradigm of cognitive dissonance was implemented by
instructing each participant to complete a boring task inspired by the seminal cognitive
dissonance experiment by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) Afterward feelings of guilt and
psychological unease were induced by asking the participant to mislead a second participant
(actually a confederate) by telling him that the task was enjoyable Participantsrsquo level of guilt
over telling the lie was experimentally manipulated Half of the participants were directly and
firmly instructed to tell the lie (low perceived choice low guilt condition) whereas the other half
of the participants were politely requested but not instructed to tell the lie (high perceived
choice high guilt condition) As predicted participants low in psychopathy (as measured by the
PPI-R SF and LPSP) exhibited the classic cognitive dissonance effect whereas participants high
in psychopathy did not exhibit the effect Results for MACH were not significant The
implications of these results are important for cognitive dissonance research because they point
to a subset of the population (psychopaths) possibly confounding results of past studies on
cognitive dissonance In addition the results point to definitive cognitive differences between
individuals with varying levels of psychopathy
vii
Table of Contents
Dedicationhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipiii
Acknowledgementshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipv
Abstracthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipvi
Table of Contentshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipvii
List of Tableshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipix
List of Figureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipx
Chapter 1 Introductionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1
11 Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1
12 Justification for the Current Studyrsquos Procedural Designhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7
13 Cooperrsquos New Look Theory of Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10
14 Psychopathy Effects on Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12
15 Machiavellianismhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20
16 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip23
17 Hypotheses of the Present Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip29
Chapter 2 Methodshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip32
Chapter 3 Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip41
31 Confirmatory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip44
32 Exploratory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55
Chapter 4 Discussionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76
41 Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effecthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76
42 Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip78
43 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip88
44 Psychopathy Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment (Over MACH)hellip90
viii
45 Additional Exploratory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip91
Limitations and Future Directionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip94
Conclusionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip99
Referenceshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip100
Appendix Ahelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip107
Appendix Bhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip110
Appendix Chelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip114
Appendix Dhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip116
Appendix Ehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip121
Appendix Fhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip123
Appendix Ghelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip129
Appendix Hhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip133
Curriculum Vitahelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip134
ix
List of Tables
Table 1 Descriptive Information for the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Predictors and Dependent Variablehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43 Table 2 Multiple Regression Results Criterion is Self-Reported Enjoyment of the Abacus Tasks Predictors are the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores and Subscales Each Row Represents Results From One Multiple Regressionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip50 Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (PPI-RSF) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianismhellip54 Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (LPSP) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianismhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55 Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56 Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (LPSP)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57 Table 7 Correlations Between the Total Scores of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip62 Table 8 Correlations Between the PPI-R SF LPSP MACH-IV Their Factors and Subscales65 Table 9 Multiple Regression Results Criterion is Self-Reported Guilt After Misleading the Confederate Predictors are the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores and Subscales Each Row Represents Results From One Multiple Regressionhelliphelliphelliphelliphellip69 Table 10 Factor Solutions Between PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scorehelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70 Table 11 Factor Loadings of Total Item Factor Analysishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip72 Table 12 Factor Loadings of the Psychopathy and MACH Measures Subscaleshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip75 Table 13 Interactions of Psychopathy Subscales and Factor Scales with Choice Condition by the Two Factor (Cognitive or Behavioral) Psychopathy Solution Demonstrated by Past Research (Self-Reported Enjoyment as Criterion)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip86
x
List of Figures
Figure 1 Main Effect for Mean Task Enjoyment Across Choice Conditionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45 Figure 2 Relationship of PPI-R SF Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 Figure 3 Relationship of PPI-R SF Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 Figure 4 Relationship of LPSP Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49 Figure 5 Relationship of LPSP Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49 Figure 6 Relationship of MACH-IV Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52 Figure 7 Relationship of MACH-IV Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Psychopathy is a personality construct that has demonstrated negative consequences for
society For example individuals with psychopathy are overrepresented in prison populations
and commit more violent crimes (Hare 1996) Though psychopathy is represented in
approximately one to five percent of the population it is represented in 15-25 of prison
populations (Hare 1996) To date there is no identifiable treatment for psychopathy and no
definitive understanding of the causes or etiology of this construct Therefore it is important to
identify the specific pervasive and maladaptive cognitive aspects of psychopathy in order to
better treat and assess this personality construct One of the first steps in this process is to
identify how individuals with psychopathy differ cognitively and emotionally from people who
lack these traits The current study intends to identify a significant difference between
individuals with higher and lower levels of psychopathy in regard to how they experience
cognitive dissonance and more specifically guilt
11 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a well researched psychological phenomenon that is defined as
the tendency to change a previously held belief or moral to justify a behavior the person is asked
to perform (Festinger 1957) The key feature of cognitive dissonance that seems to cause
individuals to change their cognitions following a dissonant action or thought is a feeling of
unease (tension) that immediately follows the performance of the behavior Therefore it is
theorized that people alter their beliefs in order to reduce the unpleasant feelings that arise due to
the inconsistency among their cognitions and actions (Aronson 1968 Festinger 1957 Harmon-
Jones amp Mills 1999) Cognitive dissonance involves complex cognitive restructuring and for
this reason the attitude change that results is often pervasive (Smith amp Mackie 2000) This
2
phenomenon has been consistently demonstrated in research and is considered a universal pattern
of behavior across individuals
The theory of cognitive dissonance was originally proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957
He found that when people have little or no external justification for performing a behavior that
goes against their personally held beliefs they will often change their preexisting beliefs to
match the action For example in a landmark study of cognitive dissonance Festinger and
Carlsmith (1959) asked participants to perform a boring task (turning pegs on a board) and then
asked them to tell the next participant (a confederate) that the task would be enjoyable for either
a $1 or $20 compensation The authors found that participants who were paid the smaller amount
($1) and thus had very little external justification for lying to the confederate later reported to
the experimenter that they enjoyed the hour-long peg turning task much more that the
participants who were paid $20 Festinger and Carlsmith surmised that the results of this study
demonstrated that the participants who were paid $20 to mislead a confederate had a high
enough external justification for lying and did not experience sufficient psychological tension
over the discrepancy between their cognitions and behaviors to warrant an attitude shift
However participants who were only paid $1 to mislead the confederate experienced higher
levels of psychological unease over the lie because of the insignificant amount of external
justification and thus had to rely on attitude shift to ameliorate their negative feelings
Cognitive dissonance research defines peoplersquos actions and beliefs as either consonant or
dissonant with one another Consonant cognitions are thoughts that are in accordance with a
personrsquos other thoughts or behaviors (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) For example if a person
felt concern about the environment and decided to volunteer every Saturday to pick up litter on
the highway he would have consonant cognitions and behaviors (they match) On the other
3
hand if two cognitions are not relevant to one another or a thought does not match onersquos
behavior they are said to be dissonant and create inner turmoil within the person which then
motivates the individual to reduce the dissonance An example of this would be if a person was
raised to believe that stealing was wrong and then stole petty merchandise Once this dissonant
action is performed the individual must then find a way to reduce the internal unease that the
behavior created
According to Smith and Mackie (2000) in order for cognitive dissonance to arise and
create an attitude shift four conditions must be met First the individual must perceive his or her
behavior to be inconsistent with what he or she would normally be inclined to do Next the
person must take responsibility for freely engaging in the behavior In order for this condition to
be met the amount of external justification must be reduced or eliminated (ie no reward or
punishment for completing the task) Third negative physiological arousal needs to take place
for the individual to want to change the way they feel Finally the individual must attribute the
negative arousal to the action that he or she has just committed (Smith amp Mackie 2000)
People reduce dissonance in many ways (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Examples of
how people reduce dissonance include a) attempts to remove the dissonant cognition (ie a
smoker would try to stop thinking about the negative aspects of smoking on health) b) reduce
the importance of the dissonant cognition (ie a smoker placing higher importance on being
more likely to die in a car accident than by smoking) c) increasing the importance of consonant
cognitions over dissonant ones (ie smoking is enjoyable and makes me feel relaxed which is
important to me) (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) As one can see all of these methods of
reducing dissonance involve focusing onersquos thoughts and emotions away from the dissonant
cognition (ie smoking is bad for me)
4
Cognitive Dissonance Psychological Tension and Physiological Arousal
Conceptually Festinger (1957) theorized that cognitive dissonance contains ldquodrive-likerdquo
properties that manifest as psychological tension and unease and that the psychological unease
can also manifest as physical tensions Once a person experiences the psychological and physical
unease then often an attitude shift occurs that alleviates the tensions An example that lends
support for this theory that physiological arousal precedes cognitive dissonance came from a
study conducted by Zanna and Cooper (1974) The researchers wanted to identify the physical
arousal properties associated with cognitive dissonance Zanna and Cooper gave participants a
placebo pill and told 13 of them that the pill made people feel tense 13 that the pill caused
relaxation and the final 13 that the pill had no effect Next the authors instructed participants
(under the guise of a different experiment) to write a counterattitudinal essay advocating a
campus ban of inflammatory speakers under high or low perceived choice Participants in the
low perceived choice condition were directly instructed to write the counterattitudinal essay
whereas people in the high perceived choice group were politely asked to write the essay giving
them the choice to perform the dissonant action which is a key factor in eliciting the tension
associated with cognitive dissonance The dependent measure of this study was the amount of
attitude shift participants reported experiencing on a post experimental questionnaire
Participants were given a questionnaire before the study began that assessed their preference for
adopting a campus ban on inflammatory speakers and only participants who opposed the ban
were included in the study The questionnaire asked participants to identify on a 31 point Likert
scale how much they were in favor of a campus ban on inflammatory speakers After the essay
writing manipulation portion of the experiment (where participants under high and low perceived
choice wrote a pro-ban essay) their opinion of the campus ban was again assessed with the same
5
31 point Likert scale In addition the effectiveness of the choice manipulation was assessed on
the post experimental questionnaire with the question ldquoHow free did you feel to decline to
participate in this Ivy League Administrators research projectrdquo
In the study by Zanna and Cooper (1974) an attitude shift (between the pre and post
experimental questionnaires) toward favoring the speaker ban was the expected results for the
control and relaxation inducing pill groups The authors anticipated this attitude shift due to the
previous research of Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) They hypothesized that if participants had
no external justification for feeling negatively about writing a pro-ban essay when they
previously had spoken against the ban then they must change their cognitions as previously
suggested by Festinger (1957) in his cognitive dissonance theory In accordance with Zanna and
Cooperrsquos hypotheses results indicated that the individuals who were in the tension-inducing pill
group reported significantly lower attitude shift because they were able to attribute their
tenseness and negative feelings about performing the dissonant actions to the pill rather than to
their internal turmoil On the other hand participants in the relaxation pill group evidenced the
opposite reaction these individuals experienced more attitude shift after writing the
counterattitudinal essay due to their inability to attribute their tense feelings to an external source
(the pill) In other words the people in the relaxation pill group were unable to locate an external
source that explained their feelings of unease and thus had to rely on attitude shift to ameliorate
the tension they felt over the discrepancy between their beliefs and actions
Zanna and Cooper (1974) also found that choice had an impact on attitude shift such that
participants in the high perceived choice group evidenced more attitude shift than participants in
the low perceived choice group This finding further demonstrates the need for external
justification to avoid attitude shift participants who were given the choice to write the
6
counterattitudinal essay experienced more tension than the participants who were directly told to
write the essay because of the perceived free will they exercised in writing the statements that
went against their beliefs Thus it appears that attitude shift is most likely to occur when
individuals feel they freely chose to engage in the behavior and did not have any form of external
justification for performing the dissonant action
Cognitive Dissonance and the Induced Compliance Paradigm
Within the dissonance literature several paradigms have been used to elicit attitude shift
in participants (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Of these paradigms the most common is the
induced compliance paradigm (ICP) which is used in the current study The induced compliance
paradigm typically requires participants to perform an undesirable task which arouses dissonance
once performed The key to this paradigm is to induce the participant to engage in an activity
that due to personal predispositions he or she would not ordinarily engage in In addition there
must be low or nonexistent external justification to carry out the negative behavior The absence
of external justification is important because otherwise if external rewards or punishments for
the activity are present the participant will use them to rationalize their actions and dissonance
will not be aroused In the ICP attitude shift is expected to occur when the participant is induced
to perform a counterattitudinal behavior in the absence of external justification
Counterattitudinal behaviors are any that involve doing or saying something that one does
not agree with or would not normally advocate Examples used in cognitive dissonance studies
include writing counterattitudinal essays that have may have negative consequences for other
people (Elkin amp Leippe 1986 Steele amp Liu 1983) or lying to someone about a task being
enjoyable when it was not (Cooper amp Worchel 1970 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959) Within the
ICP participants are provoked by a researcher to perform the counterattitudinal behavior through
7
the manipulation of the participantrsquos amount of choice or reward For example the peg turning
cognitive dissonance study previously mentioned (conducted by Festinger and Carlsmith in
1959) was the first study to use the ICP and reward manipulation (through the use of $1 or $20
to mislead the confederate) was used to induce cognitive dissonance effects These researchers
found that if a person publically behaves in a manner that misrepresents his personal beliefs he
will experience cognitive dissonance and that the magnitude of the dissonance will increase
when there are fewer reasons for complying (such as less reward or more perceived free choice)
A famous study by Linder Cooper and Jones (1967) demonstrated that choice
manipulation within the ICP can induce cognitive dissonance and thus attitude shift
Linder and colleagues asked participants to write an essay (using either high or low perceived
choice manipulation) supporting the ban of Communist speakers at their institution knowing that
the majority of students did not support this ban Participants were screened to make sure that
they did not agree with the ban and then were either directly instructed to write the supportive
essay (the Low perceived choice group) or asked politely to write the pro-ban essay (High
perceived choice group) Results indicated that participants in the high perceived choice group
experienced more attitude shift after completion of the essay toward being in favor of a
Communist speaker campus ban than people in the low perceived choice group Linder and
colleagues interpreted these results as evidence that when people perceive that they have free
will to engage in a dissonant action they cognitively justify their actions (via an attitude or belief
shift) to reduce the negative feelings the dissonant action produced
12 Justification for the Current Studyrsquos Procedural Design
The procedures outlined for the current study were selected due to the significant attitude
shift results that were obtained by using these tasks in two previous experiments First Festinger
and Carlsmith (1959) implemented the peg board task in their original study on cognitive
8
dissonance Participants in the study were required to turn the pegs for one hour and then lie to
the next participant (a confederate) about the task being enjoyable The primary difference
between the Festinger and Carlsmith study and the current proposal is that the former paid
participants either $1 or $20 in order to identify what amount of external justification would lead
to more attitude shift The authors found that the participants in the $20 group had much less
attitude shift about the task because they were able to use the external justification of lying for
$20 whereas participants in the $1 group evidenced significantly more attitude shift due to the
lack of any external justification for lying The authors surmised that $1 was not enough money
to justify lying for participants so they instead had to change their own cognitions to make sense
of their actions (lying to a stranger) thus they convinced themselves that the abacus task wan not
boring
A second important study used a boring task while asking participants to lie to a
confederate Cooper and Worchel (1970) replicated the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study
but rather than using money as the external justification for lying they used small amounts of
experimental credit (1 extra credit vs 5 extra credit) to induce attitude shift However
regardless of the amount of extra credit the authors offered 98 of participants agreed to the
deception task which indicates that the script the experimenters used was effective in inducing
participantsrsquo compliance to lie The current experiment is using the Experimenter and
Confederate Scripts from the study by Cooper and Worchel with only a few minor modifications
to the original scripts For example the Cooper and Worchel study only manipulated a High
perceived choice group so their script was altered slightly in the present study so that it could
also be used for the Low perceived choice group
9
Justification for using the high perceived choice condition to elicit attitude shift comes
from an experiment conducted by Zanna Goethals amp Cooper (1975) Their study implemented
the peg board task and asked participants to lie to a confederate that the task was enjoyable (they
only used the high perceived choice condition to elicit guilt) The study had participants do the
peg turning task for 20 minutes (as opposed to the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study which
required participants to do the task for one hour) Through asking participants to voluntarily
deceive the next participant the authors found that all participants (n=76) agreed to tell the next
participant (really a confederate) that the peg turning task was enjoyable They obtained this
100 compliance rate simply by asking the participant to tell the next person (a confederate) that
the peg turning task was enjoyable The study by Zanna and colleagues also provides support
that conducting the peg turning task for only 20 minutes still induces sufficient boredom in
participants In addition the study found a significant attitude shift toward reporting enjoying a
dull task when voluntarily lying to a confederate (F = 848 plt001) as compared to a control
group who did not have to lie
Finally a study by Elkin and Leippe (1986) used both high and low perceived choice
groups to examine different rates of attitude shift toward a previously counterattitudinal belief
(supporting the implementation of a student parking fee) In the high perceived choice group
participants were given the option to write a counterattitudinal essay (supporting the parking
fee) while in the low perceived choice group participants were told directly to write the
counterattitudinal essay Participantrsquos feeling of guilt was manipulated by telling them that the
counterattitudinal essay they wrote would be used by a panel and may possibly persuade them to
implement the parking fee on the campus Results indicated that all subjects participated in
writing the counterattitudinal essay (100 compliance rates) regardless of what group they were
10
in and subjects in the high perceived choice group evidenced more attitude shift towards paying
for parking than participants in the low perceived choice group The authors concluded that this
attitude shift occurred due to the participantsrsquo lack of external justification for writing the
counterattitudinal essay (they agreed voluntarily to write it) which in turn caused feelings of
guilt for voluntarily lying to the confederate These results indicate that people are apt to perform
counterattitudinal behaviors even when given a high perceived choice not to Due to the studyrsquos
significant attitude shift (cognitive dissonance) results in the High perceived choice group as
opposed to the Low perceived choice group who did not get strong attitude shift results the
current study will compare high and low perceived choice groups to attain the different levels of
cognitive dissonance
Upon discovering the links between free choice and reward leading to attitude shift when
a dissonant act is completed cognitive dissonance researchers attempted to identify specific
components of decision making that would further explain the effects of cognitive dissonance
The key features that have been postulated to explain how and why cognitive dissonance creates
attitude shift include experiencing feelings of personal guilt (Cooper amp Fazio 1984) public
commitment (Aronson 1968) and perceived free choice to commit the behavior (Brehm amp
Cohen 1962) Researchers have come up with competing theories to explain the resulting
cognitive shift that accompanies dissonance and one of the most prominent theories is the New
Look theory
13 Cooperrsquos New Look Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
The New Look theory posits that the effects of dissonance are a result of feeling
personally responsible for instigating future negative consequences for oneself or more often for
others (Cooper amp Fazio 1984) Cooper and Fazio suggested in this theory that aversive
11
consequences are necessary for the arousal of dissonance The authors defined aversive events as
those that block onersquos self interest or events that the individual would rather avoid due to their
undesirable nature The New Look theory posits that the degree of dissonance aroused in an
individual is dependent on the amount of desire a person has to avoid the negative consequences
Cooper and Fazio term this phenomenon dissonance motivation The New Look theory identifies
the consequence of an action as the cause of the subsequent attitude shift The consequence must
be salient and must cause the individual enough distress to warrant attitude shift
Support for this theory came from a study conducted by Goethals and Cooper (1972)
These researchers induced participants (known to be in favor of drinking alcohol) to deliver an
anti-drinking speech to a panel of people Half of the subjects were informed that their speech
convinced the panel that allowing drinking on campus was a bad idea while the other half of
participants were told that the speech they made had no effect on the listeners Results indicated
that only the participants who were led to believe that their speech had a negative effect on the
panel (their speech convinced the panel that drinking was bad) experienced attitude shift toward
being in favor of a drinking ban on campus The participants who were told that they did not
convince the panel did not experience attitude shift toward being against drinking on campus
The authors concluded that unless the participant feels that he negatively impacted another
person then he will not experience enough guilt and dissonance to warrant an attitude shift
Cooper and Worchel (1970) further demonstrated evidence for the New Look theory in
their experiment which replicated the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) peg turning task However
in their study participants were asked to deceive a confederate (only a high perceived choice
group) for a small amount of experimental credit (1 credit or 5 credits) Results indicated that
participants who felt they had the free will to deceive another person and did so experienced
12
such a negative consequence that in order to alleviate feelings of internal unease they changed
their own attitude and reported enjoying the peg turning task more than a control group who did
not have to lie to another person (who experienced no aversive consequence to their behavior)
Therefore Cooper in his New Look theory postulated that most people experience cognitive
dissonance following an aversive act that impacts another person or the self negatively
especially when the negative act violates normative social standards (Cooper 1999)
The aforementioned aspects of Cooperrsquos New Look theory are crucial to the current study
because we hypothesized that the average person will experience cognitive dissonance and thus
attitude change after committing an aversive act (lying to a confederate) which they felt they
freely chose to do The current experiment intended to explore Cooperrsquos New Look theory to not
only validate it in a normal population but also to test its effectiveness in a subpopulation that
experiences lower levels of guilt and remorse The current experiment intended to explore
Cooperrsquos New Look theory to not only validate it in a normal population but also to test its
effectiveness in a subpopulation that experiences lower levels of guilt and remorse If the theory
is correct that cognitive dissonance effects are due to feelings of tension or unease over having
caused negative consequences to another individual then it is the hypothesis of the current
researchers that individuals who felt less guilt over breaking social norms would not be as
cognitively affected by lying to another person Therefore the person with less ability to
experience guilt would not experience psychological distress from lying and ultimately therefore
not have an attitude shift
14 Psychopathy Effects on Cognitive Dissonance
The New Look theory proposes that an important cause of cognitive dissonance is often
the feeling of remorse that an individual experiences after performing a counterattitudinal
13
behavior with negative consequences for another person The questions naturally arise How
would individuals with little or no guilt perform on a cognitive dissonance task that arouses
guilt Would people lacking these cognitive reactions experience cognitive dissonance and
attitude shift following a dissonant action In order to answer these questions one must first
identify a group of people that consistently exhibit a lack of concern for others such as
individuals with psychopathic traits
Psychopathy is a pervasive heterogeneous personality construct that is particularly salient
for the current study due to the callous nature of individuals with these traits Psychopaths are
individuals who exhibit no remorse are callous unemotional and lack concern for societyrsquos
morays In addition they are often impulsive antisocial manipulative and do not have strong
social bonds with others (Hare 1993 Patrick 2006) Approximately one percent of the
population meets criteria for the diagnosis of psychopathy though 15-25 of the prison
population is diagnosed with psychopathy (Hare 1996) Within the criminal population
individuals with psychopathy are not only overrepresented but they also commit more violent
crimes (over half in the United States) and recidivate four times more often than prisoners
without psychopathy (Hare 1993) As one can see these crime statistics make this population a
danger to society and thus it is important to attempt to identify what underlying cognitive and
behavioral differences exist in people with psychopathy
Psychopathy is often discussed in relation to antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) by
many scholars (Hare 1993 Lilienfeld 1994) because of the high number of correlated traits
between the two personality constructs Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is classified as
an Axis II Cluster B disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV-TR) (American
Psychological Association APA 1994) Cluster B disorders are ones in which the individual
14
exhibits unpredictable impulsive or dramatic behavior The DSM IV-TR criteria necessary for a
diagnosis of ASPD includes impulsive and aggressive behavior conduct disorder (CD) in
childhood a history of criminal acts and violent disregard for others (APA 1994)
Psychopathy is differentiated from ASPD in that psychopathy incorporates the cognitive
and internal states of the individual in addition to his or her external behaviors (Hare 1999) In
fact the cognitive and interpersonal features of psychopathy are considered to be the most
crucial defining aspects of the personality construct (Patrick 2006) Psychopaths have
demonstrated an inability to internalize their culturersquos moral or legal standards and therefore
many people with psychopathy do not abide by these rules
Historically Phillipe Pinel was the first scientist to document the condition of
psychopathy in the early 19th century (Meloy 1998) Pinel noted that psychopaths exhibited no
remorse or internal restraint Hervey Cleckley (1941 1976) furthered research on psychopathy in
his book The Mask of Sanity Cleckley (1976) proposed that psychopathy is a personality
construct which arises in childhood He also was the first to define several cognitive and
affective characteristics of psychopathy such as superficial charm emotional shallowness
deceitfulness egocentricity irresponsibility and (most central for the current study) a lack of
remorse shame or guilt In addition he found that psychopaths often externalize the blame for
their negative actions are extremely impulsive and do not learn from punishment
Within psychopathy research there has been some debate as to whether the construct is
taxonic or dimensional (Hare 1991 Marcus amp Edens 2004) For example the Psychopathy
Checklist Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991) which is one of the prominent ways of assessing
psychopathy assigns individuals with an overall score on a scale from 0 to 40 with a cut off
score of 29 generally indicating the threshold for a psychopathy diagnosis (Hare 1991 Hare amp
15
Neumann 2006) The use of a cut-off seems to suggest a taxonic perspective However use of
the scale indicates that the higher the score the more psychopathic traits an individual expresses
which is also consistent with a dimensional view of psychopathy Recent studies have used the
PCL-R to examine the dimensional aspects of psychopathy and have consistently come to the
conclusion that psychopathy should be viewed as a continuum (Edens Marcus Lilienfeld amp
Poythress 2006 Marcus amp Edens 2004) Aside from looking at psychopathy on a continuum it
is also important to examine the construct from multiple perspectives such as behaviorally and
cognitively
Two Factor Model of Psychopathy
Today a Two Factor Model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991) is one of the
primary models used to evaluate psychopathy (Hare amp Neumann 2006 Harpur Hare amp
Hakstian 1989 Murrie amp Cornell 2002 Rutherford Cacciola amp Alterman 1999) The Two
Factor model assesses both behavioral cues and intrinsic or internal personality traits to define
psychopathy (Chapman Gremore amp Farmer 2003 Hare 1991 Pethman amp Erlandsson 2002)
and is the bases for the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991 Lykken 1995)
which is the principal assessment tool used to identify clinical psychopathy Within the Two
Factor theory the first factor describes the internal disposition of the individual and includes
eight items believed to gauge psychopathy from a cognitive angle These personality traits
include superficial charm a grandiose sense of self worth lack of empathy or guilt pathological
lying and cunning manipulativeness (Hare 1991 Raine 2002) The second factor outlines the
behavioral actions of an individual with psychopathic tendencies and includes nine items used to
assess a psychopathic personality These traits include early problem behaviors poor behavioral
controls and impulsivity (Hare 1991 Rutherford et al 1999) Based on the aforementioned
16
cognitive components of psychopathy the current researchers propose that these individuals will
not experience the same degree of psychological unease from lying to a confederate that the non
psychopathic individuals involved in the study
Primary and Secondary Model of Psychopathy
A second differentiation model of psychopathy was proposed by Karpman (1941 1948)
Karpman following the work of Cleckley divided psychopathy into two subcategories primary
and secondary psychopathy It is important to note that the primary and secondary views of
psychopathy mirror the Two Factor Model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991) In both
instances the primary factor (Factor 1) encompasses the cognitive affective traits of
psychopathy while the secondary factor (Factor 2) assesses the more antisocial behavior
characteristics of psychopathy
Individuals with primary psychopathy evidence cognitive manifestations of the construct
such as low to non-existent trait anxiety callousness and a lack of guilt or remorse They tend to
be unresponsive to treatment efforts and often have more severe symptoms associated with
psychopathy (Karpman 1941) For example Karpman (1948) found that primary psychopaths
are more apt to carry out their deceptive and manipulative behavior to reach an end goal
displaying a callous lack of emotion or concern for others whereas secondary psychopaths will
occasionally act with higher human emotions such as empathy
Secondary psychopathy is believed to come about through the effects of environmental
stressors and life events such as severe child physical or sexual abuse (Porter 1996) The
manifestation of secondary psychopathy which has also been called sociopathy (Lykken 1995)
is mostly behavioral in nature and secondary psychopaths tend to carry out the antisocial and
deviant behavior as a reaction to deep emotional conflict or anger rather than a callous
17
disregard for others (Karpman 1941) Overall primary psychopaths seem to have a permanent
deficit in functioning whereas secondary psychopathy encompasses a dysfunction created by
aversive environmental factors However it is important to note that both primary and secondary
psychopaths to some degree evidence manipulative and callous behavior and display a lack of
regard for others (Karpman 1948)
Support for the view that psychopaths lack psychological distress comes in part from a
study conducted by Patrick Bradley and Lang (1993) The researchers attempted to elicit a
startle reflex in psychopaths and non-psychopaths (as diagnosed by the PCL-R) by blasting a
loud noise while having the participants view either pleasant or unpleasant photographs Results
showed that psychopaths exhibited a much smaller startle response to the noise when viewing the
stimuli (both positive and negative pictures) as compared to the non-psychopaths In addition
Patrick and colleagues found a negative correlation between the PCL-R Factor One scores (lack
of guilt lack of remorse etc) and the level of eye-blink reaction Eye blink reactions to the
startle noise were measured with Beckman miniature Ag-AgCl electrodes positioned at the
orbicularis oculi muscle beneath the participantrsquos left eye The authors found that non
psychopathic individualsrsquo eyes tend to blink more frequently than in psychopaths when aversive
stimuli are presented
Therefore these results seem to indicate that individuals with high Factor One traits
seem to evidence very little anxiety and less psychological distress towards aversive stimuli The
results of this study show that individuals higher in psychopathic traits experience less of a
physiological and thus perhaps less of a cognitive reaction to aversive stimuli In addition a
study conducted by Ray and Ray (1982) demonstrated that people high in psychopathy do not
seem to care as much about what others think of them The study found a negative correlation
18
between social desirability (as measured by the Marlow-Crowne social desirability scales) and
psychopathy (r = -32 p = 05) This finding also supports the current studyrsquos hypothesis that
individuals high on psychopathic traits will be less likely than other individuals to experience
psychological unease over lying to a confederate or undergo an attitude shift to diminish this
discomfort
Cognitive dissonance studies have consistently demonstrated that individuals not only
shift their attitude following a dissonant act but also experience physical symptoms of distress as
well For example a study conducted by Croyle and Cooper (1983) found that people have a
heightened skin conductance responses following the ldquovoluntaryrdquo commitment of a writing a
counterattitudinal essay Though no direct cognitive dissonance studies manipulating guilt have
been replicated using psychopaths studies that have used aversive stimuli such as the
anticipation of being blasted with a loud noise (80 to 120dB) have indicated that psychopaths
(compared to non-psychopath controls) evidence a hyporesponsive physical reaction (as
measured by electrodermal measurements) to the aversive stimuli (Hare 1978) Harersquos study
along with others like it (see Fowles 1980 Lykken 1957) indicate that psychopaths do not
seem to experience anxiety at the same level that non-psychopathic individuals do Therefore it
would follow that through the reduced physiological anxiety response identified in individuals
with psychopathy they will be unable to experience the psychological unease associated with the
adverse stimulus (lying to a confederate) and thus not experience an attitude shift
Past Research on Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonance
Only one study has attempted to assess the effect of psychopathy on cognitive
dissonance A doctoral dissertation by Weir (2007) examined cognitive dissonance in a sample
of 150 males from a drug treatment facility All participants had been in prison or jail and had a
19
history of criminal activity Level of psychopathy was assessed using the LPSP Participants at
the start of this study filled out an attitudes measure that assessed their opinions about the
judicial system treatment of criminals and drug abuse Later in the experiment cognitive
dissonance was induced by having participants copy a counterattitudinal statement from a sheet
of paper that dealt with being in favor of harsher punishments for criminals and drug offenders
(views that these men would adamantly oppose) After participants copied the counterattitudinal
statements they were instructed to tear up what they had written At the end of the study Weir
again assessed participantsrsquo attitudes regarding the judicial system treatment of criminals and
drug abuse with the same attitudes measure employed at the very beginning of the study The
pre and post-test use of the attitudes measure was to identify if participantsrsquo opinions had shifted
toward being in favor of harsher punishments for criminals after writing counterattitudinally in
favor of it
Weir hypothesized that primary psychopaths would experience cognitive dissonance
significantly less than individuals with secondary psychopathy or non-psychopathic individuals
because of the callous unemotional traits that are principally associated with primary
psychopathy However results of Weirrsquos study found no significant difference across the three
groups for attitude change following the dissonance inducing task The analysis did find minor
differences between the groups such that primary psychopaths did seem less effected by writing
the counterattitudinal essays than the secondary and non-psychopaths but again the results were
not significant Weir (2007) concluded that individuals with higher levels of primary
psychopathy were deficient but not completely incapable of experiencing dissonance following
an aversive behavior
20
An important confound of Weirrsquos study was the lack of a control group All participants
wrote the counterattitudinal essay so there was not a neutral group to compare the participantsrsquo
attitude shift following the essay copying to Due to the lack of a control group it is impossible to
know whether the experimental manipulation induced a dissonance effect in any of the groups
Though his study did assess cognitive dissonance it is still very different than the current study
because Weir was not using guilt as the catalyst for attitude shift
The current study examines the effect of guilt (or a lack of guilt) on cognitive dissonance
while the counterattitudinal essayrsquos used as the dissonance stimuli in Weirrsquos study did not cause
participants to feel guilt Weir was not manipulating guilt in participants but rather their
cognitive reactions to discrepant behaviors and beliefs (physically writing in favor of something
they cognitively disagreed with) Therefore though relevant to more general issues concerning
cognitive dissonance and psychopathy his study was not directly relevant to the question of
whether guilt-inducing manipulations evoke cognitive dissonance effects among individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy
15 Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism (MACH) is considered to be a similar concept to psychopathy
(McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto 1998 Saruk 1975) Both personality constructs are
characterized by callousness manipulation of others and a disregard for social norms and morals
(Christie amp Geis 1970 Skinner 1988) Based on these shared characteristics many researchers
have come to believe that the concepts may be the same but are just being labeled differently by
different branches of psychology (McHoskey et al 1998) Psychopathy is typically studied by
clinical psychologists whereas MACH has been primarily researched in the fields of social and
personality psychology
21
However other investigators (Wastell amp Booth 2003 Wilson Near amp Miller 1996)
have pointed to MACH as an instrumental construct that is incorporated as a strategic way to
pursue goals MACHs tend to be calculating and rational and engage in ruthless activity to attain
goals that are important to them Psychopaths on the other hand are often much less self-
controlled and more impulsive while exhibiting a dearth of planning abilities This may be one
of the main differences between MACH and psychopathy and this difference seems to point to
cognitive distinctions between the two personality traits
Christie (1970b) formulated the personality construct of MACH based on the writings of
16th century political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli Machiavellirsquos (1513) classic book The
Prince recommended that would-be rulers take a ruthless and cold-blooded approach to
governance Accordingly Christie identified the traits of an individual with high MACH as
using ldquosuccessfulrdquo manipulation for personal gain a lack of concern for moral standards and a
purely instrumental approach to interpersonal relationships The MACH-IV is the principal
measure used to identify Machiavellianism today It was developed in 1970 by Christie and Geis
(1970) and is a self report assessment containing 20 questions that tap the traits of MACH
Research attempting to explore the distinctions between psychopathy and MACH has
found Machiavellians to evidence many shared traits with both primary and secondary
psychopathy For example MACH characteristics related to Factor 1 of the PCL-R and primary
psychopathy (as measured by the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales LPSP
Levenson et al 1995) include callousness manipulation and a lack of anxiety (Smith 1999)
Qualities of Machiavellianism have also been found in secondary psychopathy such as a thrill
seeking behavior and a heightened need for external stimulation (Strelau 1983) In addition a
study conducted by McHoskey and colleagues (1998) found that high scores on the MACH-IV
22
and high scores on the LPSP significantly correlated (r = 62) Smith and Griffith (1978) also
found a significant though modest correlation between the MMPI (Pd) scale and the MACH-IV
(r = 25) using a sample of 66 college students These findings support the theory that MACH
and psychopathy diagnoses have features in common and may in fact be tapping similar
personality constructs McHoskey and colleagues concluded after his study that psychopathy and
MACH should be more integrated in the literature
However other researchers have argued that there are crucial differences between
psychopathy and Machiavellianism For example Smith (1999) has argued that many people
with Machiavellianism are more apt to resemble a ldquosuccessful psychopathrdquo as they tend to not
have as many legal problems as primary psychopaths do and are often overrepresented in the
business industry as successful employees In addition other studies have resulted in smaller
correlations between MACH and psychopathy (see Greenwald 1967 Christie 1970a) For
example Saruk (1975) compared MACH scores with psychopathy scores on the Psychopathic
Deviate (Pd) scale of the MMPI with incarcerated inmates as participants and found no
significant correlation between the two personality constructs However many researchers today
have advised against using the Pd scale of the MMPI to gauge psychopathy due to the unreliable
results this scale has offered when studying psychopathy (Patrick 2006) and MACH (Skinner
1982) in the past
Additional distinctions in the current literature between MACH and psychopathy are that
MACHs tend be more represented in higher SES families and have higher economic standing
than the majority of psychopaths (especially secondary psychopaths) (McHoskey et al 1998
Smith 1999) As a result of the aforementioned literature MACH is most often associated with
ldquosuccessfulrdquo psychopathy or non institutionalized psychopaths (Christie 1970a)
23
16 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonance
Though the literature is very sparse regarding the relationship between psychopathy and
cognitive dissonance a few studies have investigated the relationship between MACH and
cognitive dissonance Four of the studies are relevant to the current proposal due to the way that
the researchers manipulated dissonance arousal One hindrance in comparing the current study to
previous ones on MACH and cognitive dissonance is that at the time these former studies were
conducted Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory of cognitive dissonance arousal had not been
formulated and thus guilt had not been considered as the cause of dissonance arousal at that
point in time
Bogart Geis Levy and Zimbardo (1970) assessed the impact of social cohesiveness
(liking a partner versus not liking a partner) between high and low MACHs in a cognitive
dissonance paradigm Participantsrsquo level of MACH and self-reported level of morality were pre-
assessed using the MACH-IV Next high and low MACHs were enticed to cheat on a test by a
confederate posing as their partner in the experiment The partnerrsquos level of prestige was
manipulated For half of participants the fake partner was presented as a high prestige partner (a
graduate law school student with high grades) and the remaining participants were told that their
partner was of low prestige (an industrial arts undergraduate student with poor grades) Bogart
and colleagues hypothesized that after cheating low MACHs in the low external justification
group (low prestige partners) would decrease their self-reported ratings of morality (identify
themselves as less moral than before) in order to cognitively justify their cheating behavior Each
participant was left alone in a room with their high or low prestige partner to complete a test
containing un-solvable questions After a while the fake partner ldquohappened uponrdquo answers to the
questions on a desk in the room and attempted to get the participant to cheat with him by copying
24
the answers from the found answer sheet After the cheating manipulation the participantrsquos level
of MACH (self-reported morality rating) was assessed again using the MACH-IV
The results of the study concluded that both high and low MACHs succumbed to
cheating at approximately the same rate (50 [1632] of high MACHS and 46 [1328] of low
MACHs) However Bogart and colleagues (1970) found that high MACHs were more
instrumental in their cheating behavior such that they cheated significantly more with the high
prestige partner than with the low prestige partner Low MACHs cheated an equal amount across
low and high prestige partner pairings In addition Bogart and colleagues identified an ldquoanti-
dissonantrdquo effect such that high MACHs actually increased their self-ratings of morality by
reporting that they were more moral after cheating when paired with a low prestige partner (low
external justification condition) whereas low MACHs as predicted decreased their self-ratings
of morality (reported they were less moral) when paired with low prestige partners (low external
justification condition) In other words when high MACHs were in the condition with no
external justification present for their actions and thus would have to rely on changing their
thoughts to match their behaviors they did not undergo this attitude shift rather they seemed to
create more dissonance between their thoughts and actions by reporting themselves as more
moral after cheating with the low prestige partner This is opposite to the classical cognitive
dissonant studies where participants experience an attitude shift that matches their behaviors
when little or no external justification is present to explain their actions
In contrast the classic dissonance effect was exhibited by participants in the Bogart et al
(1970) study with low levels of MACH they reported that they were not moral individuals after
they cheated with a low prestige partner Therefore it appears high MACH individuals are
25
relying on unique aspects of the situation other than external justification to create attitude
change
A very similar experiment was reported by Bogart (1971) in which she again assessed the
effect of MACH on cognitive dissonance by enticing participants cheat on a task with a high or
low prestige partner However in this experiment a control group was employed to assess
differences between high and low MACHs who were asked to cheat as opposed to those who
were not asked to cheat As in the earlier study by Bogart et al (1970) participantsrsquo level of
MACH and self-reported level of morality were pre-assessed Next high and low MACHs were
persuaded to cheat on an essay writing assignment by a confederate posing as their partner in the
experiment The partnerrsquos level of prestige was manipulated this time in four different ways to
include their fake level of MACH as well The four categories of fake participants included High
MACH High Prestige (graduate law student) High MACH Low Prestige (business
administration student) Low MACH High Prestige (physics major) and Low MACH Low
Prestige (industrial arts student) Results indicated that high MACH participants cheated
significantly more than low MACHs (66 of high MACHs versus 41 of low MACHs) and
that they discriminated their cheating significantly more than low MACHs such that high
MACHs cheated more with the high prestige partners than the low prestige partners (81 versus
56) As in the previous study by Bogart et al (1970) an anti-dissonance effect was again found
for High MACH participants such that high MACHs again increased their self-ratings of
morality (reported they were more moral) when in the low external justification condition (paired
with low prestige partners) while low MACHs decreased their self-ratings of morality (reported
they were less moral) when in the low external justification condition (paired with low prestige
partners) This study also pointed to a difference between high and low MACHs experience of
26
cognitive dissonance by identifying the abnormal anti-dissonance reaction from individuals with
higher levels of MACH
A study by Epstein (1969) used a methodology that apparently induced guilt in
participants Epstein examined the difference between high and low MACH participantsrsquo ability
to be persuaded by induced counterattitudinal behavior Epstein pre-assessed participantsrsquo level
of MACH (with the MACH-IV) and through the use of a median split chose a sample of 40 high
MACH men and 40 low MACH men She told them that they were involved in a radio debate on
fluoridating water supplies Epstein also pre-assessed their position on water fluoridation to
make sure all participants were in favor of the procedure Half of the participants were in the
non-role playing condition (20 high MACHs and 20 low MACHs) They were instructed to read
a counterattitudinal essay against fluoridating water in town and then were post-experimentally
assessed about their position on water fluoridation to see if reading the essay had created an
attitude shift in these participants The other half of participants were in the role playing
condition They not only read the counterattitudinal essay but next they were asked to deliver an
impromptu speech against fluoridation that would be recorded and played on radio stations
across the state In the taped speech the participants had to give their name and advocate for a
ban on fluoridation which was dissonant to their personal beliefs After delivering the speech
they too were post-experimentally assessed about their position on water fluoridation to see if
their opinion had changed to be more against fluoridation Results indicated an interaction
between high and low MACHs with the role playing conditions High MACHs in the non-role
playing condition evidenced significantly more attitude change than the high MACHs in the role-
playing condition and more attitude change than the low MACHs in the non-role playing
condition This too is an anti-dissonance effect in that dissonance has been shown to produce
27
attitude change when people perform behaviors that go against their personal beliefs and in the
case of the non-role playing condition the participants did not engage in any dissonant behavior
they simply read a counterattitudinal essay written by someone else Conversely as predicted
low MACHs in the role-playing condition evidenced significantly more attitude change towards
being against fluoridation than high MACHs in the role-playing condition In addition low
MACHs in the role playing condition evidenced the most attitude change out of any condition
The finding that low MACHs experienced the most attitude shift when they had to give a speech
on the radio against fluoridation supports the classic cognitive dissonance phenomenon In
addition the role playing low MACH results potentially relate to our study if their attitudes
shifted because they felt guilt for publically denouncing a belief that they held Epsteinrsquos study is
relevant to the current study due to the methodology she used in the role playing condition
Participants were asked to publically (via a radio broadcast) deliver a speech advocating for
beliefs that they opposed Therefore because delivering a public anti-fluoridation speech would
most likely produce feelings of guilt in participants Epsteinrsquos study provides some support for
the current studyrsquos predicted results
One final study on MACH and cognitive dissonance is loosely related to the current
study although in this final example the experimental methodology did not induce guilt in
participants Burgoon Miller amp Tubbs (1972) had participants write counterattitudinal essays
advocating the removal of college student draft deferments under high and low justification In
the study justification was manipulated with classroom credits participants in the high
justification group received five classroom credits for agreeing to write the counterattitudinal
essay and participants in the low justification group received only one credit for writing the
essay Results indicated a significant interaction between level of justification (high versus low)
28
and level of MACH (high versus low) Low MACH participants experienced attitude shift
toward being in favor of draft deferments when in the low justification group This was
consistent with the classic cognitive dissonance effect When low MACH participants had no
external justification for writing the essay they changed their beliefs to match their actions In
contrast high MACHs experienced attitude shift toward being in favor of the draft deferments
only when in the high justification group but not in the low justification group The authors
explain this relationship by using incentive theory They posit that high MACHs attitudes are
persuaded by rewards which stems from their desire to gain power and prestige (and rewards)
with no regard for other people
Burgoon et al (1972) explained their findings as reflecting high MACHsrsquo lack of
concern about lying or moral standards Christie and Geis (1970) have also discussed the
findings of Burgoon et al and conjectured that they reflect the high MACHrsquos lack of concern for
other people Specifically Christie and Geis suggest that high MACHs view people more as
objects to be manipulated rather than as people with feelings and emotions
The main difference between the current study and that of Burgoon et al (1972) is that
our study assessed cognitive dissonance through the use of guilt induction while their study did
not induce guilt in participants The methodology involved in their experiment was not designed
to create guilt in participants rather it was simply created to examine attitude shift after
performing a counterattitudinal act with no negative consequences Therefore though Burgoon
and colleaguesrsquo study assessed cognitive dissonance effects in participants with MACH it does
not appear directly relevant to the hypothesis underlying the present study
Overall past research has demonstrated that individuals high in MACH are resistant to
the classic cognitive dissonance effects of attitude shift after performing a behavior that they
29
cognitively oppose In fact the past research has shown that individuals with high MACH often
experience attitude shift in the opposite direction or conditions that low MACHs do These
results have been explained as consequences of the underlying personality characteristics that
high MACH individuals possess (callousness manipulative nature and lack of regard for others)
Since these characteristics are also traits of psychopathy (especially primary psychopathy) it is
reasonable to expect that the negative associations demonstrated between MACH and cognitive
dissonance will also be found between psychopathy and cognitive dissonance in the present
study
17 Hypotheses of the Present Study
Cognitive dissonance studies analyzing the affects of MACH have shown a significant
effect such that high MACHs do not evidence the classic attitude shift following the
performance of a dissonant act The current study sought to determine whether individuals with
high psychopathy scores exhibit a similar pattern
In the current study we analyzed guilt-induced cognitive dissonance effects in individuals
with varying levels of psychopathy Participantsrsquo level of psychopathy (and MACH) was
identified by having them fill out two self report measures on psychopathy and one self-report
measure on MACH They completed a boring abacus task that involved manually pushing balls
one at a time across an abacus for 20 minutes After the task the participants were either politely
asked (High perceived choice to lie group) or directly instructed (Low perceived choice to lie
group) to tell a fellow student (actually a confederate) that the abacus task was enjoyable After
misleading the confederate the participants completed a post-experimental questionnaire that
assessed their personal enjoyment of the abacus task and their level of guilt over deceiving
another person
30
First it was hypothesized that the classic cognitive dissonance effect would be replicated
We expected that regardless of psychopathy or MACH level participants in the High Choice to
Lie condition would evidence more attitude shift towards enjoying the abacus task than
participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition These results were expected to be a replication
of the classic Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study except that instead of manipulating reward
we would demonstrate the effect using choice as the dissonance manipulator
The second hypothesis was that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy (and
MACH) would report disliking the abacus task (as measured by the post experimental
questionnaire) across both the High and Low perceived choice to lie groups We expected these
results due to the lack of guilt commonly found in individuals with higher levels of psychopathy
and MACH Therefore we theorized that individuals with high levels of psychopathy would not
experience guilt even when they felt that they voluntarily (High perceived choice to lie group)
chose to mislead another participant Due to this lack of guilt the high psychopathy (and high
MACH) participant would not have had the attitude shift associated with cognitive dissonance
and would not report enjoying the abacus task
The third hypothesis pertained to the individuals with low or nonexistent levels of
psychopathy and MACH We predicted that participants with low levels of psychopathy would
report enjoying the abacus task more after lying to a future participant only if they were in the
High perceived choice to lie group These results were believed to be due to the guilt inducing
nature of voluntarily agreeing to lie to a person as opposed to the Low perceived choice group
where participants were told directly to lie to the next participant as part of the study
requirements These results were also expected for people who scored low in Machiavellianism
due to the similarities between the two personality constructs
31
The fourth hypothesis was that psychopathy would better account for a demonstrated lack
of guilt than would MACH Though this hypothesis did not have a strong empirically supported
theoretical background we were interested in learning whether the psychopathy construct would
yield different results from MACH suggesting that the psychopathy construct is including
relevant and distinct personality dimensions that the MACH construct does not include
In addition this study explored the relationship between primary and secondary
psychopathy with the level of self reported abacus task enjoyment Specifically the study
examined differences in the reported level of abacus task enjoyment between individuals with
high scores on primary as compared to secondary psychopathy Also the study explored
particular facets of psychopathy (such as callousness) and their relationship to reported
enjoyment of the abacus task
32
Chapter 2 Method
Participants
The current study was conducted with 164 (103 females 61 males) undergraduate
students at the University of Texas El Paso The sample size for the current study was
determined by examining past research on cognitive dissonance effects on MACH These studies
typically included 50 to 80 participants and yielded statistically significant results We
conservatively concluded that the present study should include approximately twice as many
participants as these earlier studies to ensure appropriate power for the current study
Participantsrsquo ages ranged from 18 to 44 years (M =1966 years SD = 317 years) with 823
between the ages of 18 to 20 The ethnicity of the sample was predominately Hispanic (854)
with the remaining participantsrsquo ethnicities Anglo-American (67) African American (18)
Asian (6) and Other (55) Participants were drawn from Introductory Psychology courses at
the University of Texas El Paso and were given 15 experimental credits for their participation
Measures
The Psychopathic Personality InventorymdashRevised Short Form (PPI-R SF Lilienfeld amp
Widows 2005)
The current study used the Psychopathic Personality Inventory ndash Revised Short Form
(PPI-R SF) which is a shortened version of the PPI-R It is a self-report measure of subclinical
psychopathic tendencies The PPI-R SF contains 56 items that are scored using a Likert scale
between 1 and 4 (1=False 2=Mostly False 3=Mostly True 4=True) The PPI-R SF yields one
overall total score and two factor scores (Fearless Dominance [FD] and Self-Centered
Impulsivity [SCI] ) as well as scores on eight content scales (a) Machiavellian Egocentricity
(ME 20 items) (b) Social Influence (SOI previously Social Potency 18 items) (c)
Coldheartedness (C 16 items) (d) Carefree Nonplanfulness (CN 19 items) (e) Fearlessness (F
33
14 items) (f) Blame Externalization (BE 15 items) (g) Rebellious Nonconformity (RN
previously Impulsive Nonconformity 16 items) and (h) Stress Immunity (STI 13 items) The
Fearless Dominance factor includes the Social Influence Fearlessness and Stress Immunity
content scales and the Self Centered Impulsivity factor is comprised of the Machiavellian
Egocentricity Rebellious Nonconformity Carefree Nonplanfulness and Blame Externalization
content scales (the Coldheartedness content scale is part of the overall total but is considered
separate from either of the two summed factors (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger
2003) These factors correspond to the two-factor structure (PPI-I and PPI-2) of the original
version of the PPI which are also similar to the Two Factor Structure of psychopathy proposed
by Hare (1991) in the Psychopathy ChecklistmdashRevised Specifically the Fearless Dominance
factor assesses the cognitive deficits of psychopathy while the Self Centered Impulsivity factor
reviews the antisocial behavior traits of psychopathy
Currently there are no published studies that have analyzed the reliability and validity of
the PPI-R SF but because it is a shortened version of the PPI-R (it is comprised of the 7 highest
loading questions from each of the eight subscales of the PPI-R) the demonstrated psychometric
properties of the PPI and PPI-R are relevant to evaluating the PPI-R SF
Lilienfeld and Andrews (1996) evaluated the convergent and discriminant validities of
the PPI with an undergraduate sample and found evidence of convergent validity with the
California Psychological Inventory Socialization scale (r = -59) Levensonrsquos (1990)
Psychopathy Scale (r = 37) and with the Hare (1985) Self Report Psychopathy ScalemdashRevised
(r = 91) Lilienfeld and Widows (1995) demonstrated internal consistencies for the PPI-R
overall total and content scales to range from α = 78 to α = 92 They also found test-retest
reliabilities (mean test-retest interval = 1994 days) to range from r = 82 to r = 93 The PPI-R
34
has been found to correlate significantly with both the Self-Report Psychopathy ScalendashII (SRP-
II Hare Harpur amp Hemphill 1989) and the LPSP (Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995) as
well as with self-report measures of antisocial personality disorder substance use sensation
seeking and pathological functioning (Lilienfeld amp Widows 2005)
Levensonrsquos Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales (LPSP Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick
1995)
The LPSP is a 26-item self report measure that identifies both behavioral and emotional
aspects of psychopathy The measure breaks down into two subscales Primary Psychopathy (16
items) and Secondary Psychopathy (10 items) Each item is scored on a 1 to 4 point Likert Scale
(1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Agree Strongly) Levenson and colleagues
(1995) found that the Primary scale has good internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos alpha = 82) and
that the Secondary scale had marginal internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos alpha = 63) In addition
they found that the two scales correlate moderately (r = 40) Lynam and colleagues (1999)
found convergent validity between the PPI and the LPSP to be moderately high (r= 64)
MACH-IV Scale (Christie amp Geis 1970) The MACH-IV is a 20-item self-report measure that identifies Machiavellianism which
is characterized by being callous manipulative and behaving in a way that only benefits oneself
The items are arranged in a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very Strongly Agree) to 5 (Very
Strongly Disagree) with 3 being a neutral choice (No Opinion) Internal reliability has been
found to be rather consistent with studies demonstrating moderate alpha coefficients α=74
(Austin Farrelly Black amp Moore 2007) and α=70 (Fehr Samsom amp Paulhus 1992) Christie
and Geis (1970) found split half reliabilities from 69 to 88 Finally Machiavellianism has
35
shown moderate correlations with primary (r = 65 plt001) and secondary psychopathy (r = 49
plt001) as measured by the LPSP (McHoskey et al 1998)
Post-experimental Questionnaire
The post experimental questionnaire was administered after the participant completed the
abacus task and after they misled the confederate in the experiment The questionnaire was
based on the post experimental measure used in the Cooper and Worchel (1970) study on
cognitive dissonance The measure contains eight items that assess how enjoyable the participant
perceived the abacus task how guilty they felt for lying to the confederate and how voluntary
the person felt the deceiving of the confederate was (see Appendix B) The item assessing
participantsrsquo enjoyment of the abacus task was the primary dependent measure of the current
study
The questionnaire was designed so that it appeared to be a survey conducted by the
Psychology Department attempting to analyze how effective all of the departmental research
was The questionnaire was sealed into an envelope by the participant upon completion in order
to create the illusion of the confidentiality of their answers from the experimenter The
questionnaire was designed to appear separate from the current experiment in order to prevent
any biasing of participantsrsquo responses by compliance effects (ie participants answering the way
they perceive the experimenter would want them to answer) The majority of the questions on
this questionnaire were obtained from the Cooper and Worchel post experimental questionnaire
The main adaptation the current study made to the original measure was the use of a 1-7 point
Likert scale to rate responses instead of the 1-31 point Likert scale utilized by Cooper and
Worchel In addition in the present study the last 2 questions on the questionnaire were changed
36
to identify how voluntary the participant found the task to be and if the deceiving of the
confederate elicited feelings of guilt in the participant
Demographics Form
A brief demographics form was presented at the beginning of the packet of psychopathy
and MACH self report measures (Appendix B) It was given before the self-report measures and
assessed participantsrsquo age gender and ethnicity This form took approximately one minute to
complete
Procedure Participants were Introductory Psychology students recruited through an online computer
experiment program provided by the University of Texas at El Paso and were given 15
experimental credits for their involvement in the current study Upon entering the lab the
participant was seated in the hall to wait for the experimenter Meanwhile the experimenter text-
messaged the confederate to let him (or her) know that the participant had arrived Upon
receiving the text message the confederate knew to wait approximately 15 minutes before
entering the lab and acting out their role Next the participant was guided into a room and given
an informed consent form (Appendix F) which was explained to them The form explained the
confidential nature of the study and that the study was about personality traitsrsquo influence on
motor skills and reaction time After the experimenter explained the consent form the participant
read and signed the form
Abacus Task
An abacus task was implemented to induce boredom in participants The task was loosely
modeled on the boring peg turning task used in the Cooper and Worchel (1970) and Festinger
and Carlsmith (1959) experiments on cognitive dissonance In the abacus task a large abacus
37
was placed flat on the table in front of the participant He or she was instructed to move the
wooden balls one at a time across the abacus using only their right hand The participant was
instructed to slide the balls across the abacus one at a time starting at the top row and moving
down the board until they reached the bottom row Once he or she had slid all of the balls (one
at a time) to the right side of the abacus the participant was instructed to start at the top again
and to slide the balls back across the abacus one at a time beginning at the top row and moving
down the abacus until they had reached the bottom row again Participants were told to work at
their own ldquonaturalrdquo pace and to continue sliding balls across the abacus one at a time going row
by row until instructed to stop After 10 minutes the experimenter instructed the participant to
stop and then start the task over with their left hand instead of their right hand During this task
the experimenter was seated directly across from the participant with a clipboard and a stopwatch
and acted as though she was monitoring the participantrsquos progress (eg occasionally writing
notes on the clipboard and appearing to time the participantrsquos progress with the stopwatch)
Approximately 15 minutes into the task a knock was heard on the door and the
confederate came into the room to ask if this was where the experiment was being held The
experimenter looked up and quickly told the confederate that he was in the right place and asked
him to wait in the hall until she was done running the current participant The confederate
apologized for his interruption shut the door behind him and sat in the hall to wait for his
interaction with the participant While waiting in the hall the confederate pretended to be doing
homework or listening to his Ipod to give the illusion that he was just another participant waiting
to do the experiment After the participant had moved the balls across the abacus with his or her
left hand for 10 minutes the experimenter signaled the participant to stop the task The abacus
task lasted 20 minutes 10 minutes per hand
38
Choice Conditions
After the abacus task was completed the experimenter stopped the participant and recited
from memory one of the Post Abacus Task scripts to the participant For half of participants the
experimenter recited from memory the High Perceived Choice to Lie script (see Appendix A)
and the other half of the participants were recited the Low Perceived Choice to Lie script
(Appendix A) The scripts were alternated randomly between participants Following the choice
manipulation portion of the experiment and guilt induction participants were given the post
experimental questionnaire to complete as this was the main dependent measure of the study
High Perceived Choice to Lie Group
In the High Perceived Choice to Lie condition the experimenter politely asked the
participant to tell the next waiting participant (the confederate waiting in the hall) that the abacus
task was fun and interesting (see Appendix A) The participant was informed that telling the
person waiting in the hall about the task being enjoyable was not required but that their
assistance would be greatly appreciated Once the participant agreed to the task (this study had a
100 compliance rate) he or she was taken into the hall where the ldquofuturerdquo participant (actually
a confederate) was seated and waiting The (real) participant was introduced to the confederate
and the experimenter explained to the fake participant that she had to set up quickly in the other
lab room so the current participant was going to explain the experiment to him while she was
gone The experimenter then excused herself and left the hallway The real participant was given
about two minutes to tell the second (bogus) participant that the task was enjoyable If the
participant freely told the confederate that the task was going to be fun (927 of participants)
then the fake participant thanked the real participant as follows ldquoGreat Irsquom really glad to hear
that this is a fun experiment because all of the other experiments I have had so far have really
39
been boring Thanks for telling merdquo If the participant did not freely say that the task was
enjoyable the confederate attempted to prompt them by asking ldquoSo how was itrdquo This
manipulation got an additional 37 of participants to verbalize that the task was fun and the
confederate also thanked them with the same statement reported above The statement thanking
the participant for the information about their enjoyable rating of the task was intended to
increase the real participantrsquos guilt about lying Following the short conversation with the
confederate the experimenter went back into the hall and led the participant into the other lab
room After she had shut the lab room door behind them the confederate filled out the
Confederate Manipulation Check form (Appendix H) The confederate checked the box on the
form that indicated whether or not the real participant told him directly if the task was fun if he
had to prompt the participant or if the participant did not tell him the task was enjoyable Upon
filling out the Confederate Manipulation Check form the confederate put the form in its box in
the lab and promptly left
Low Perceived Choice to Lie Group
In the Low Perceived Choice to Lie condition the experimenter directly instructed (not
requested) the participant to tell the next (fake) participant that the abacus task was fun and
interesting (see Appendix A) Upon consent from the participant the experimenter led him into
the hall and introduced him to the confederate who was waiting as the future participant
Identical procedures to the ones explained for participants in the High Perceived Choice to Lie
group occurred at this point
Post-experimental Questionnaire
Once participants had interacted with the confederate and been taken into the second lab
room they were given the post-experimental questionnaire The post-experimental questionnaire
40
(Appendix B) contained eight items that quantified how enjoyable the participant found the
abacus task to be and assessed their self-reported feelings of guilt after misleading the
confederate The questionnaire was presented to seem like it was not part of the current
experiment but rather a general Psychology Department survey being conducted to assess
departmental research being performed that semester The questionnaire was administered with
an envelope and the participant was instructed to seal their questionnaire inside the envelope
after completing it to promote the sense of confidentiality of their answers from the
experimenter The experimenter explained the questionnaire to the participant To prevent
possible compliance effects the experimenter reiterated that she was not supposed to see the
participantrsquos answers because the questionnaire was supposed to remain anonymous and was not
part of the current study
After the participant completed the post-experimental questionnaire and sealed it into the
envelope he or she was given a packet containing the LPSP [Appendix C] PPI-R SF [Appendix
D]) and MACH-IV [Appendix E]) and the demographics form (Appendix B) and asked to
complete these questionnaires The packet of measures took approximately 30 minutes to
complete After the participants filled out all of the self-report measures they were debriefed as
to the true nature of the experiment and asked to sign a second informed consent form (Appendix
F) that outlined to them the true purposes of the experiment A debriefing script was used to
ensure that all participants received the same information about the experiment (see Appendix
G) They were asked not to share with anyone the actual purpose and procedures of the
experiment in order to prevent future participants from knowing ahead of time what the
experiment was about Participants were given 15 experimental credits for their participation
41
Chapter 3 Results
Manipulation Check
There were 82 participants in the High Choice to Lie group and 82 participants in the
Low Choice to Lie condition All participants verbally agreed with the researcher that they
would tell the confederate that the task was enjoyable A manipulation check was performed to
determine whether they actually kept their agreement The confederate marked on a form
(Appendix G) whether or not the participant told him or her that the task was enjoyable Results
of the manipulation check indicated that 152 (927) of the participants complied with the
researcherrsquos suggestion and told the confederate that the task would be enjoyable An additional
six (37) told the confederate that the abacus task would be enjoyable but only after they were
prompted by the confederate asking ldquoHow was the taskrdquo One (6) participant told the
confederate that the task was enjoyable but added that he was instructed by the researcher to say
so Three participants (18) never told the confederate that the task was enjoyable Two
participants (12) told the confederate that the task was boring To preserve randomization
analyses for the study were run on all participants (N = 164) including those who failed to report
that the task was enjoyable This approach to the analysis of experimental findings is known as
ldquointent-to-treat analysisrdquo and yields an unbiased estimate of the effects of being assigned to each
experimental condition (Shadish Cook amp Campbell 2002) However as will be reported later
in the Results supplementary analyses were also run that excluded the six participants who
failed to tell the confederate that the task was enjoyable
Descriptive Statistics
Before running analyses procedures were carried out for dealing with missing data
Seven participants did not fill out the psychopathy and Machiavellianism self-report measures
42
completely Specifically each of the seven neglected to answer precisely one item on a single
scale Scores for the missing items were imputed individually using regression using the
summed score of the other items on the same scale as the predictor and the missing item score as
the criterion
Descriptive statistics were then calculated for participantsrsquo self-reported abacus task
enjoyment for their total scores on the psychopathy and Machiavellianism self-report measures
and for their respective factor scores and subscales scores (see Table 1)
43
Table 1 Descriptive Information for the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Predictors and Dependent Variable (N=164)
Mean Standard
Deviation Minimum Maximum
Total Enjoyment Rating of Abacus Task
401 169 100 700
High Choice to Lie Enjoyment Rating of Task
434 162 100 700
Low Choice to Lie Enjoyment Rating of Task
367 171 100 700
PPI-R SF Total Score 12565 1628 9000 17000
Fearless Dominance Factor
5605 912 2800 7600
Self-Centered Impulsive Factor
5436 989 3500 8400
Machiavellian Egocentricity 1360 352 700 2500
Social Influence 1888 400 700 2800
Fearlessness 1898 448 700 2800 Coldheartedness 1523 387 800 2600 Rebellious Nonconformity 1399 415 700 2400
Blame Externalization 1416 419 700 2600
Carefree Nonplanfulness 1262 329 700 2300
Stress Immunity 1820 453 700 2800 LPSP Total Score 5018 903 3000 7300
LPSP Primary Factor 3062 702 1600 4900
LPSP Secondary Factor 1956 405 1100 3100
MACH-IV Total Score 5296 833 3500 7600
Deceit 850 284 400 1600 Flattery 563 209 200 1000 Immoral 883 241 300 1500 Cynicism 1066 296 500 2000 Residual 1934 359 1000 2900 Note Total scale scores are in bold Factor scale scores are in italics Subscales are presented in regular font
44
31 Confirmatory Analyses
Hypothesis 1 Replication of the Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effect
A regression was performed to determine whether the classic cognitive dissonance effect
reported in earlier research was reproduced in the present study The main dependent variable in
this analysis was participants self-report ratings of how much they enjoyed the abacus task (Self-
Reported Enjoyment) The independent variable was Choice Condition (High Choice to Lie
versus Low Choice to Lie) In this analysis and all other analyses High Choice to Lie was coded
as ldquo1rdquo and Low Choice to Lie as ldquo0rdquo Based on prior studies of cognitive dissonance it was
predicted that that participants in the High Choice to Lie condition would report higher levels of
enjoyment than participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition A linear regression was
conducted and as predicted a significant difference in abacus task enjoyment was found
between the High and Low Choice to Lie groups Rsup2 = 039 F (1162) = 666 p = 011
standardized β = 199 t(163) = 258 p = 011 A one-way ANOVA was also conducted and
yielded exactly the same results as the regression F(1162) = 666 p = 011 d = 402 The High
Choice to Lie group had a mean enjoyment rating of 434 (SD = 162) (on a 1 to 7 rating scale
with 1 being no enjoyment of the task and 7 being high enjoyment of the task) while the Low
Choice to Lie group reported a mean enjoyment rating of 367 (SD = 171) on the same scale (see
Figure 1) These results indicate that participants in the High Choice to Lie group who felt that
they had more choice whether to mislead the confederate about the task being enjoyable
reported enjoying the task more than participants in the Low choice to lie group
45
Figure 1 Main effect for mean task enjoyment across choice conditions r = 199
Hypothesis 2 amp 3 Relationship Between Task Enjoyment and Choice Level Will Vary With
Psychopathy Level
The main hypothesis of the study was that individuals with lower levels of psychopathy
(and Machiavellianism) would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect by reporting higher
enjoyment of the abacus task in the High Choice to Lie Condition than in the Low Choice to Lie
Condition whereas individuals with higher levels of psychopathy would not report more
enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie than in the Low Choice to Lie condition In other words a
significant interaction was hypothesized between choice condition and level of psychopathy (and
Machiavellianism) in the prediction of self-reported enjoyment In order to test this hypothesis
three multiple regressions were conducted using the two psychopathy measures and the single
Machiavellianism measure
46
First multiple regression PPI-R SF total scores In the first multiple regression the
criterion was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice
Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) PPI-R SF total scores and the
interaction of Choice Condition with PPI-RSF scores It was hypothesized that the interaction
term would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple regression
are shown in Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was statistically
significant Rsup2 = 105 F(3160) = 623 p lt 001
As hypothesized the interaction of PPI-R SF total scores and choice condition was
statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -216 t(163) = -
211 p =036 (Table 2) Figures 2 and 3 depict this interaction graphically As can be seen in
Figure 2 there was not a significant relationship between PPI-R SF scores and Self-Reported
Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -054 t(81) =
-486 p =628 In contrast there was a significant relationship between PPI-R SF scores and
Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -374 t(81) = -
361 p =001 This finding thus supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of
psychopathy would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher
levels would not
47
Figure 2 Relationship of PPI-R SF total scores to reported level of task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie condition only Standardized β = -054 p = 628
Figure 3 Relationship of PPI-R SF total scores to reported level of task enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie condition only Standardized β = -374 p = 001
48
Second multiple regression LPSP total scores In the second multiple regression the criterion
was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice Condition (High
Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) LPSP total scores and the interaction of Choice
Condition with LPSP scores Again it was hypothesized that the interaction term would
significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple regression are shown in
Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was statistically significant Rsup2 =
089 F(3160) = 518 p = 002
As hypothesized the interaction of LPSP total scores and choice condition was
statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -236 t(163) = -
234 p = 021 The interaction is depicted graphically by choice condition in Figures 4 and 5
As can be seen from Figure 4 there was not a significant relationship between LPSP scores and
Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β
= 023 t(81) = 208 p =836 In contrast there was a significant negative relationship between
LPSP scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β =
-327 t(81) = -309 p =003 (Figure 5) Thus this finding like the finding concerning the PPI-
R SF supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of psychopathy would show
the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher levels would not
49
Figure 4 Relationship of LPSP total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = 023 p = 836
Figure 5 Relationship of LPSP total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash High Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -327 p = 003
50
T
able
2 M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts C
rite
rion
is S
elf-
Rep
orte
d E
njoy
men
t of t
he A
bacu
s T
asks
P
redi
ctor
s ar
e th
e P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
an
d M
AC
H-I
V T
otal
Sco
res
and
Subs
cale
s E
ach
Row
Rep
rese
nts
Res
ults
Fro
m O
ne M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n
Over
all
Mode
l
High
L
ow C
hoic
e
Psyc
hopa
thy
Ma
ch P
redi
ctor
In
tera
ctio
n
Pred
icto
r
F
(df)
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
PPIR
SF
Tot
623
(3160)
lt00
1
661
252
196
262
010
-089
173
-053
-52
607
-536
254
-216
-211
036
PPIRSF1-FD
296
(3160)
03
4
670
260
198
258
011
175
194
104
91
366
-382
262
-167
-146
146
PPIRSF2-SCI
690
(3160)
lt00
1
657
251
195
262
010
-123
168
-073
-73
466
-561
254
-220
-221
028
Mach Egocen
730
(3160)
lt00
1
721
251
214
287
005
024
178
014
14
892
-708
252
-295
-281
006
Soc Influ
230
(3160)
079
677
263
201
258
011
-034
200
-020
-17
867
128
266
057
48
631
Fearlessness
487
(3160)
00
3
660
256
196
258
011
177
188
105
94
348
-634
257
-274
-247
015
Coldhrtnes
577
(3160)
00
1
733
254
217
288
004
-488
193
-288
-253
012
153
257
068
59
554
Rebel Non
445
(3160)
00
5
668
256
198
261
010
142
179
084
80
428
-590
257
-243
-230
023
Blm Extern
296
(3160)
03
4
678
260
201
261
010
-144
190
-085
-76
451
-084
261
-036
-32
747
Carefree
490
(3160)
00
3
570
258
169
221
029
-430
176
-254
-244
016
171
260
068
66
511
Stress Imun
257
(3160)
056
665
261
197
255
012
179
183
106
98
330
-245
262
-101
-93
352
LPSP
Tot
al
518
(3160)
00
2
699
255
207
274
007
037
171
022
22
827
-603
258
-236
-234
021
Primary
420
(3160)
00
7
691
257
205
269
008
041
176
024
23
815
-495
259
-199
-192
057
Secondary
359
(3160)
01
5
682
258
202
264
009
018
187
101
09
926
-377
259
-161
-145
148
MACH
-IV
Tot
492
(3160)
00
3
703
256
208
275
007
-173
178
-102
-98
331
-314
257
-128
122
223
Deceit
508
(3160)
00
2
696
255
206
273
007
-374
167
-221
-224
026
011
260
004
04
965
Flattery
368
(3160)
01
3
682
258
202
264
009
162
173
096
94
351
-523
261
-204
-200
047
Immoral
454
(3160)
00
4
705
256
209
275
007
-360
184
-213
-196
052
052
257
022
20
840
Cynicism
270
(3160)
04
8
680
261
201
261
010
002
198
001
01
991
-212
264
-094
-81
422
Residual
302
(3160)
03
2
667
260
198
257
011
052
171
031
30
762
-354
264
-136
-135
181
Not
e
Sign
ific
ant p
val
ues
(p lt
05)
are
in b
old
p v
alue
s ap
proa
chin
g si
gnifi
canc
e (lt
10)
are
in it
alic
s
Pre
dict
or A
bbre
viat
ions
PPI
RS
F To
t =
PPI-
RS
F to
tal s
core
PPI
RS
F1-F
D =
PPI
RS
F Fa
ctor
1 ndash
Fea
rless
Dom
inan
ce F
acto
r Sco
re P
PIR
SF2
-SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f C
ente
red
Impu
lsiv
ity F
acto
r Sco
re M
ach
Ego
cen
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
ricity
sub
scal
e S
oc I
nflu
= P
PI-R
SF
Soci
al In
fluen
ce s
ubsc
ale
Fea
rles
snes
s =
PPI-
RS
F
Fear
less
ness
sub
scal
e C
oldh
rtnes
= P
PI-R
SF
Col
dhea
rted
ness
sub
scal
e R
ebel
Non
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
xter
n =
PPI
-RS
F B
lam
e E
xter
naliz
atio
n
subs
cale
Car
efre
e =
PPI-
RS
F C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Str
ess
Imun
= P
PI-R
SF
Stre
ss Im
mun
ity s
ubsc
ale
LPS
P To
tal =
LPS
P to
tal s
core
Pri
mar
y =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le
Seco
ndar
y =
LPSP
Sec
onda
ry s
ubsc
ale
MA
CH
-IV
Tot
= M
AC
H-I
V to
tal s
core
Dec
eit =
MA
CH
-IV
Dec
eit s
ubsc
ale
Fla
ttery
= M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
oral
= M
AC
H-I
V
Imm
oral
ity s
ubsc
ale
Cyn
icis
m =
MA
CH
-IV
Cyn
icis
m s
ubsc
ale
Res
idua
l = M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
Mod
el A
bbre
viat
ions
Un-
Stzd
β =
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Bet
a S
td E
rr =
Sta
ndar
d E
rror
Stz
d β
= St
anda
rdiz
ed B
eta
51
Third multiple regression Mach-IV total scores In the third multiple regression the
criterion was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice
Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) Mach-IV total scores and the
interaction of Choice Condition with Mach-IV scores Again it was hypothesized that the
interaction term would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple
regression are shown in Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was
statistically significant Rsup2 = 085 F(3160) = 492 p = 003
Contrary to prediction the interaction of Mach-IV total scores and choice condition was
not statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -128 t(163) =
-122 p = 223 Thus this finding failed to support the hypothesis that individuals with lower
levels of Machiavellianism would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that
individuals with higher levels would not The pattern of data is depicted graphically by choice
condition in Figures 6 and 7 As can be seen from Figure 6 there was not a significant
relationship between MACH-IV scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the
Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -104 t(81) = -932 p =354 In contrast there
was a significant negative relationship between MACH-IV scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment
in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -295 t(81) = -276 p =007 (Figure 7)
Although one of the standardized betas (-104) was non-significant and the other (-295) was
significant the difference between the two betas was not significant so the predicted interaction
did not attain statistical significance
52
Figure 6 Relationship of MACH-IV total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -104 p = 354
Figure 7 Relationship of MACH-IV total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash High Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -295 p = 007
53
Hypothesis 4 Level of Psychopathy Will Incrementally Predict Abacus Task Enjoyment
The second main hypothesis was that psychopathy scores would incrementally predict
Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task above and beyond the predictive power of
Machiavellianism To test this hypothesis two hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted
using Self-Reported Enjoyment as the criterion
First hierarchical regression PPI-R SF total scores The first hierarchical regression
used PPI-R SF total scores as the psychopathy measure In the first step of the regression the
Choice to Lie condition was entered as a predictor In the second step standardized total
MACH-IV scores and the standardized interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice
condition were entered In the third step standardized PPI-R SF total scores and the
standardized interaction term of total PPI-R SF scores with choice condition were entered as a
predictor Results are shown in Table 3 As can be seen inclusion of PPI-R SF scores and their
interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment significantly increased predictive power above and
beyond scores on the MACH-IV ∆Rsup2 = 041 F(2158) = 367 p = 028 Although the change in
Rsup2 was significant it is important to note that the standardized beta for the PPI-R SF total scores
was not significant in predicting task enjoyment when added to MACH-IV scores in predicting
task enjoyment standardized β = -010 t(158) = -09 p = 930 In addition the standardized beta
for the interaction between PPI-R SF scores and choice condition only approached significance
when added to MACH-IV scores in block three (standardized β = -205 t(158) = -186 p =
065
54
Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianism
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=085 F(3160)=492 p=003 (∆Rsup2=045 F(2160)=394 p=021) High or Low Choice to Lie 703 256 208 275 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -173 178 -102 - 98 331 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -314 257 -128 -122 223 Step 3 Rsup2=125 F(5158)=452 p=001 (∆Rsup2=041 F(2158)=367 p=028) High or Low Choice to Lie 688 252 204 273 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -166 195 -098 - 85 397 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -165 273 -067 - 60 547 PPI-RSF Total Scores -017 192 -010 - 09 930 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -507 273 -205 -186 065 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics
Second hierarchical regression LPSP total scores The second hierarchical regression
used LPSP total scores as the psychopathy measure In the first step of the regression the Choice
to Lie condition was entered as a predictor In the second step standardized total MACH-IV
scores and the standardized interaction term of MACH-IV total scores were entered In the third
step standardized LPSP total scores and the standardized interaction term of total LPSP scores
with choice condition were entered as a predictor Results are shown in Table 4 As can be seen
inclusion of total LPSP scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment did not
significantly increase predictive power above and beyond MACH-IV scores ∆Rsup2= 026
F(2158)= 233 p=101
55
Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (LPSP) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianism
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=085 F(3160)=492 p=003 (∆Rsup2=045 F(2160)=394 p=021) High or Low Choice to Lie 703 256 208 275 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -173 178 -102 - 98 331 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -314 257 -128 -122 223 Step 3 Rsup2=111 F(5158)=394 p=002 (∆Rsup2=026 F(2158)=233 p=101) High or Low Choice to Lie 712 254 211 281 006 MACH-IV Total Scores -282 212 -167 -133 186 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -023 296 -009 - 08 939 LPSP Total Scores 188 204 111 92 358 Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -609 297 -238 -205 042 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics
32 Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory Analysis Incremental Prediction of Task Enjoyment by Machiavellianism
The analyses reported thus far were confirmatory and based on a priori hypotheses A
series of exploratory analyses were also carried out as reported in the following sections of the
Results In the first set of exploratory analyses two hierarchical multiple regressions were run to
identify whether MACH-IV total scores incrementally predicted Self-Reported Enjoyment of the
abacus task above and beyond the predictive power of psychopathy scores
First hierarchical regression Incremental predictive power of MACH-IV total scores
over PPI-R SF total scores The first exploratory analysis was conducted to examine whether
MACH-IV scores incrementally increased prediction of abacus task enjoyment above and
beyond the predictive power of PPI-R SF scores A hierarchical regression was conducted In
step one the Choice to Lie condition was entered in step two standardized PPI-R SF total
56
scores and the standardized interaction term of total PPI-R SF scores with choice condition was
entered and finally in step three the standardized total MACH-IV scores and the standardized
interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice condition were entered As can be seen in
Table 5 the inclusion of MACH-IV total scores and their interaction with Choice Condition did
not significantly increase predictive power ∆Rsup2= 020 F(2158)= 185 p= 160
Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF)
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=105 F(3160)=623 plt001 (∆Rsup2=065 F(2160)=582 p=004) High or Low Choice to Lie 661 252 196 262 010 PPI-RSF Total Score -089 173 -053 -52 607 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -536 254 -216 -211 036 Step 3 Rsup2=125 F(5158)=452 p=001 (∆Rsup2=020 F(2158)=185 p=160) High or Low Choice to Lie 688 252 204 273 007 PPI-RSF Total Scores -017 192 -010 -09 930 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -507 273 -205 -186 065 MACH-IV Total Scores -166 195 -098 -85 397 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -165 273 -067 -60 547 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Significant alpha levels are in bold Moderate alpha levels are in italics Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Second hierarchical regression Incremental predictive power of MACH-IV total scores
over LPSP total scores A similar hierarchical multiple regression was performed to examine
whether MACH-IV scores incrementally increase prediction of abacus task enjoyment above and
beyond the predictive power of LPSP scores An incremental hierarchical regression was
conducted In step one the Choice to Lie condition was entered in step two standardized LPSP
57
total scores and the standardized interaction term of total LPSP scores with choice condition was
entered and finally in step three the standardized total MACH-IV scores and the standardized
interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice condition were entered As can be seen in
Table 6 the results of this analysis like the previous one were not significant ∆Rsup2= 022
F(2158)= 198 p= 142 The inclusion of Machiavellianism in the regression equation did not
significantly increase predictive power above and beyond the predictive power of LPSP scores
Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (LPSP)
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=089 F(3160)=518 p=002 (∆Rsup2=049 F(2160)=430 p=015) High or Low Choice to Lie 699 255 207 274 007
LPSP Total Score 037 171 022 22 827
Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -603 258 -236 -234 021 Step 3 Rsup2=111 F(5158)=394 p=002 (∆Rsup2=022 F(2158)=198 p=142) High or Low Choice to Lie 712 254 211 281 006 LPSP Total Scores 188 204 111 92 358 Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -609 297 -238 -205 042 MACH-IV Total Scores -282 212 -167 -133 186 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -023 296 -009 -08 939 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Significant alpha levels are in bold Moderate alpha levels are in italics Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Exploratory Analysis PPI-R SF Subscales as Predictors
The second set of exploratory multiple regressions was conducted using the eight
subscales of the PPI-R SF and their interaction with Choice Condition as predictors Each
subscale measures a different unique aspect of psychopathy The goal of the analyses was to
58
determine which aspects of psychopathy were related to self-reported abacus task enjoyment
A series of multiple linear regressions were conducted with abacus task enjoyment as the
criterion In each multiple regression the predictors were Choice to Lie condition the
standardized total score of the individual PPI-R subscale and the interaction term of the
standardized individual subscale total score with Choice to Lie condition Results are shown in
Table 2 All of the PPI-R SF subscales except for the Stress Immunity and Social Influence
subscales had significant model equations In addition three subscales also produced significant
interactions with choice condition in predicting level of task enjoyment (a) Machiavellian
Egocentricity standardized β of the interaction = -295 t(163) = -281 p = 006 (b)
Fearlessness standardized β of the interaction = -274 t(163) = -247 p = 015 (c) Rebellious
Nonconformity standardized β of the interaction = -243 t(163) = -230 p = 023 The
remaining five subscales did not have interactions with choice condition that significantly
predicted task enjoyment
Exploratory Analysis PPI-R SF Factors as Predictors
Next two multiple regressions were carried out one for each of the two factors of the
PPI-R SF The intention of these analyses was to determine if these factors of psychopathy
(cognitive traits or behavioral traits) would account for the lack of cognitive dissonance found in
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy
First multiple regression The Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R SF The Fearless
Dominance factor (PPI-R SF-1-FD) is comprised of three of the eight subscales of the PPI-R
SF the Social Influence subscale the Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscale A
multiple regression was run with Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test as the criterion and
Choice Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) the standardized PPI-R SF-
59
1-FD total scores and the interaction of Choice Condition with the standardized PPI-R SF-1-FD
total scores as the predictors Results of the multiple regression are shown in Table 2 As can be
seen the model in the regression equation was statistically significant Rsup2 = 053 F(3160) =
296 p = 034 However the interaction of PPI-R SF-1-FD total scores and choice condition
was not statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -167
t(163) = -146 p = 146
Second multiple regression The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF Next
a similar multiple regression was run replacing the PPI-RSF-1-FD with the Self-Centered
Impulsivity factor scale scores (PPI-R SF-2-SCI) The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor is
comprised of the Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale
and the Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale of the PPI-R SF Results of the model in the multiple
regression equation were statistically significant Rsup2 = 115 F(3160) = 690 p lt 001 In addition
the interaction between the PPI-R SF-2-SCI and choice condition was statistically significant as
well standardized β = -220 t(163) = -2213 p = 028 These results suggested that the more
behavioral antisocial behavior characteristics of psychopathy (impulsivity blame
externalization lack of planning abilities) impacted cognitive dissonance arousal
Exploratory Analysis LPSP Factor Scales as Predictors
The next set of exploratory analyses were conducted on the LPSPrsquos two factor scales
The LPSP breaks into a Primary Psychopathy Scale and a Secondary Psychopathy Scale The
Primary Scale identifies the more cognitively based aspects of psychopathy much as the PPI-R
SF-1-FD Factor does The Secondary Psychopathy Scale of the LPSP measures the behaviorally
based dimensions of psychopathy (impulsivity asociality) much like the PPI-R SF-2-SCI
60
Factor Two hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine the interaction between each of
the LPSP factor scales and choice condition in predicting abacus task enjoyment
First multiple regression LPSP Primary Factor scores First a multiple regression was
employed with the Choice to Lie condition the standardized Primary Factor total scores of the
LPSP and the interaction term of the standardized Primary Factor total scores with the Choice to
Lie condition as the predictors Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test was the criterion in
the multiple regression The results of the regression model equation were statistically significant
Rsup2 = 073 F(3160) = 420 p = 007 However the results of the interaction between the Primary
Factor and choice condition only approached statistical significance standardized β = -199
t(163) = -192 p = 057
Second multiple regression LPSP Secondary Factor scores The Secondary factor of the
LPSP accounts for the environmental behaviorally based traits associated with psychopathy
(impulsivity asociality) A multiple regression was run replacing the LPSP Primary factor scores
with the LPSP Secondary factor scores In other words the predictors were Choice to Lie
condition standardized LPSP Secondary factor scores and the interaction of Choice to Lie with
standardized LPSP Secondary factor scores Again Self-Reported Enjoyment of the Abacus task
was the criterion Results of the multiple regression model equation were statistically significant
Rsup2 = 063 F(3160) = 359 p = 015 However results of the interaction between the Secondary
factor of the LPSP and choice condition were not statistically significant standardized β = -161
t(163) = -1452 p = 148
This analysis of the LPSP Primary and Secondary factor scales suggests that the
cognitive dimensions of psychopathy may best account for a lack of cognitive dissonance in this
experiment These results support the notion that it is these cognitive deficits assessed by the
61
Primary Scale of the LPSP (lack of guilt callousness lack of concern for others) that best
account for individuals with higher levels of psychopathy not experiencing the attitude shift
found in people with lower levels of psychopathy
Exploratory Analysis MACH-IV Subscales as predictors
The next set of exploratory analyses examined the five subscales of the MACH-IV as
predictors of task enjoyment when interacting with Choice to Lie condition Though the
interaction of total MACH-IV scores and choice condition was not a significant predictor of a
lack of task enjoyment the subscales were analyzed using multiple regression in order to
determine if any aspect of MACH might account for a lack of cognitive dissonance in
individuals with higher levels of MACH In the regressions the predictors were Choice to Lie
condition the standardized MACH-IV subscale total scores and the standardized interaction
term of total MACH-IV subscale scores with Choice to Lie condition Results are reported in
Table 2 All of the regression model equations for each subscale were statistically significant
Though all model equations were significant only the interaction of choice condition with the
Flattery subscale of the MACH-IV was significant in predicting reported abacus task enjoyment
standardized β = -204 t(163) = -200 p = 047 The interaction terms of the remaining four
subscales of the MACH-IV were not significant
Exploratory Analysis Follow-up Multiple Regression Analyses with No-Lie Participants
Removed
As previously indicated all multiple regressions reported here were run a second time
but including only the sub-set of participants who lied to the confederate (N=158) The results of
these follow-up multiple regressions (with N = 158) all led to the same substantive conclusions
as the analyses already reported (with N = 164) with one exception The only analysis that
62
changed significantly was the multiple linear regression looking at the interaction between the
Primary factor of the LPSP and choice condition In the original multiple regression (N = 164)
this interaction only approached statistical significance In the follow-up multiple regression (N
= 158) this interaction attained statistical significance standardized β = -216 t(157) = -202 p =
045
Exploratory Analysis Correlations of Psychopathy and Machiavellian measures
Pearsonrsquos r correlations were run on the three psychopathy and MACH measures and
their respective factors and subscales to identify associations among the measures
Correlations of psychopathy and Machiavellianism total scores Correlations among the
PPI-RSF LPSP and MACH-IV total scores are reported in Table 7 As can be seen all three
measures were significantly correlated with each other The largest correlation was between
MACH-IV and LPSP total scores r = 510 p lt 01
Table 7 Correlations Between the Total Scores of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measures
PPIRSF Total Score
LPSP Total Score
MACH-IV Total Score
PPIRSF Total Score 1
LPSP Total Score
345dagger 1
MACH-IV Total Score
376dagger 510dagger 1
Note dagger Correlations significant at the 01 level
Correlations of PPI-R SF and LPSP factor scores Pearsonrsquos r correlations were run on
the factors of the PPI-R SF and the LPSP in order to illuminate the relationship among these
factors in the present sample of participants Results are shown in Table 8
63
First the PPIR SF total score correlated significantly with both the Primary (r = 322 p
lt01) and the Secondary (r = 212 p lt 01) factor scores of the LPSP The PPI-R SF Factor Two
Scale of Self-Centered Impulsivity (behavioral characteristics of psychopathy) positively
correlated with the LPSP total (r = 509 p lt01) Primary (r = 368 p lt 01) and Secondary (r =
498 p lt 01) factors In contrast the PPI-R SF Factor One Scale of Fearless Dominance (PPI-
R SF-1-FD) correlated significantly only with the Secondary Scale of the LPSP (r = -156 p lt
05) This correlation indicates that as scores on the PPI-R SF-1-FD increase scores on the
LPSP Secondary Scale decrease However it should be noted that this correlation is very weak
Correlations of PPI-R and MACH-IV factor scores and subscale scores As can be seen
in Table 8 the PPI-R SF total score correlated significantly with all of the MACH subscales
except for the Cynicism subscale Interestingly PPI-R SF Factor 2 Self-Centered Impulsivity
which assesses the behavioral characteristics of psychopathy correlated significantly with the
MACH-IV total score (r = 478) and all of the subscales of the MACH-IV Deceit (r = 383)
Flattery (r = 210) Immorality (r = 297) Cynicism (r = 242) and Residual (r = 279) at p lt 01
level of significance PPI-R SF Factor 1 Fearless Dominance which assesses the cognitive
aspects of psychopathy did not significantly correlate with the MACH-IV total score or any of
its subscales These exploratory findings suggest that the Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the
PPI-R SF accounts for the relationship of MACH-IV scores with PPIRSF scores
Correlations of LPSP and MACH-IV factor scores and subscale scores As shown in
Table 8 MACH-IV total scores significantly correlated with both the Primary (r = 467 p lt01)
and Secondary (r = 327 p lt 01) factors of the LPSP The LPSP total score and factor scales
(Primary and Secondary) correlated significantly with the total MACH-IV score and all of the
MACH-IV subscales except for the Flattery subscale (see Table 8 for the correlations) This
64
finding is interesting because the Flattery subscale was the only element of the MACH-IV found
to be a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment in the interaction with choice condition
mentioned previously and yet it did not correlate with the LPSP at all
65
Tab
le 8
Cor
rela
tions
Bet
wee
n th
e P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
MA
CH
-IV
The
ir F
acto
rs a
nd S
ubsc
ales
Not
e
dagger C
orre
latio
n si
gnifi
cant
at
01 le
vel
Cor
rela
tion
sign
ific
ant a
t 05
leve
l P
redi
ctor
Abb
revi
atio
ns P
PIR
= P
PI-R
SF
tota
l sco
re P
1FD
= P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 1
ndash F
earl
ess
Dom
inan
ce F
acto
r Sco
re P
2SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f Cen
tere
d Im
puls
ivity
Fac
tor S
core
M
Ego
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
rici
ty s
ubsc
ale
Soc
In =
PPI
-RS
F So
cial
Influ
ence
sub
scal
e F
ear =
PPI
-RS
F Fe
arle
ssne
ss s
ubsc
ale
Col
d =
PPI-
RS
F C
oldh
eart
edne
ss s
ubsc
ale
R
ebel
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
= P
PI-R
SF
Bla
me
Ext
erna
lizat
ion
Subs
cale
Car
e =
PPI-
RS
F C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Str
ess
= PP
I-R
SF
Stre
ss
Imm
unity
sub
scal
e L
PSP
= L
PSP
tota
l sco
re P
rim
e =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le S
econ
= L
PSP
Seco
ndar
y su
bsca
le M
AC
H =
MA
CH
-IV
tota
l sco
re D
ece
= M
AC
H-I
V D
ecei
t sub
scal
e F
lat =
M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
or =
MA
CH
-IV
Imm
oral
ity s
ubsc
ale
Cyn
= M
AC
H-I
V C
ynic
ism
sub
scal
e R
esid
= M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1PPIR
1
2P1FD
761
dagger 1
3P2SCI
771
dagger 240
dagger 1
4M Ego
516
dagger 068
712
dagger 1
5Soc In
471
dagger 658
dagger 141
087
1
6Fear
645
dagger 727
dagger 362
dagger 104
244
dagger 1
7Cold
443
dagger 232
dagger 124
191
071
076
1
8Rebel
738
dagger 478
dagger 717
dagger 357
dagger 231
dagger 522
dagger 147
1
9Blm E
264
dagger -129
629
dagger 348
dagger -047
090
-194
161
1
10Care
500
dagger 210
dagger 540
dagger 175
101
203
dagger 229
dagger 305
dagger 041
1
11Stres
476
dagger 711
dagger 000
-044
198
258
dagger 330
dagger 240
dagger -306
dagger 132
1
12LPSP
345
dagger -024
509
dagger 534
dagger -018
065
209
dagger 241
dagger 369
dagger 186
-097
1
13Prime
322
dagger 059
368
dagger 473
dagger 082
031
275
dagger 171
219
dagger 105
015
902
dagger 1
14Secon
212
dagger -156
498
dagger 370
dagger -183
090
-011
241
dagger 443
dagger 233
dagger -243
dagger 664
dagger 277
dagger 1
15MACH
376
dagger 076
478
dagger 477
dagger 150
105
182
244
dagger 278
dagger 264
dagger -083
510
dagger 467
dagger 327
dagger 1
16Dece
356
dagger 085
383
dagger 380
dagger 096
121
320
dagger 190
094
384
dagger -033
312
dagger 295
dagger 185
631
dagger 1
17Flat
189
030
210
dagger 192
200
-019
186
087
062
236
dagger -097
139
118
104
570
dagger 304
dagger 1
18Immor
176
-003
297
dagger 276
dagger 022
069
-013
143
296
dagger 040
-093
405
dagger 345
dagger 306
dagger 589
dagger 153
202
dagger 1
19Cyn
152
030
242
dagger 316
dagger -025
092
-052
160
092
072
-008
449
dagger 449
dagger 223
dagger 454
dagger 169
057
152
1
20Resid
231
dagger 073
279
dagger 266
dagger 133
049
086
146
231
dagger 076
-019
248
dagger 226
dagger 161
689
dagger 244
dagger 213
dagger 197
175
1
66
Exploratory Analyses Multiple Regressions with Self-Reported Guilt as the Criterion and Level
of Psychopathy and MACH as Predictors
In addition to the multiple regressions that were run with Self-Reported Enjoyment
Rating of the abacus task as the criterion and the interaction between choice level and
psychopathy (and MACH) level as the predictors identical multiple regressions were conducted
with level of guilt as the criterion in the place of Self-Reported Level of Enjoyment Multiple
regressions were run where the predictors were Choice to Lie condition standardized
psychopathy and MACH measure total factor and subscale scores (individually) and the
interaction of Choice to Lie with PPI-R SF LPSP or MACH scales In these analyses level of
guilt was the criterion On the post experimental questionnaire two questions assessed
participantsrsquo level of guilt for telling the ldquofuture participantrdquo that the abacus task was fun These
two guilt related questions correlated highly with one another (r = 789) and so their scores were
added together and a new variable called ldquoGuiltrdquo was created from their sum
Multiple regressions on the interaction between choice and level of psychopathy (and
MACH) The goal of these exploratory analyses was to further explore the role that guilt plays
during cognitive dissonance arousal Results of all multiple regression analyses with guilt as the
criterion are presented in Table 9 As can be seen the interaction between level of psychopathy
(and MACH) and choice condition as predictors of guilt was only significant for the Self
Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF The multiple regression model equation for the
Self Centered Impulsivity factor was statistically significant Rsup2 = 056 F(3160) = 314 p = 027
In addition results of the interaction between the Self Centered Impulsivity factor and choice
condition were statistically significant standardized β = 232 t(163) = 225 p = 026
Interestingly this regression was not only significant but also positive All other interactions of
67
total subscale and factor scales of the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV with choice condition
were not significant in predicting participantsrsquo level of self-reported guilt
The fact that all other total scores subscales and factor scales did not attain significant
interactions with choice condition using guilt as the criterion makes sense when considering
cognitive dissonance theory The cognitive dissonance literature indicates that there should not
be an interaction on guilt because participants strive to reduce their feelings of guilt after
engaging in counterattitudinal behavior discrepant with their beliefs Therefore participants with
low levels of psychopathy after misleading the confederate in the High Choice condition would
have immediately experienced cognitive dissonance and thus their attitude would have shifted
towards enjoying the task in order to reduce the psychological tension produced by voluntarily
misleading the ldquofuture participantrdquo Therefore by the time they answered the guilt questions on
the post-experimental questionnaire they would not feel guilt because their attitude had shifted
to be in favor of the task
Main effects for relationship between psychopathy and guilt Finally an important result
of these exploratory analyses was that significant main effects were found between level of
psychopathy (measured by the PPI-R SF) and participantsrsquo level of guilt following the deception
task Specifically the PPI-R SF total score both factor scores (Fearless Dominance and Self
Centered Impulsivity) the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale and the Stress Immunity subscale
had significant model predictor equations (see Table 9) The model equation for the Fearlessness
subscale approached significance F(3160) = 243 p = 068 as well
After model equations were accounted for the PPI-R SF had a significant relationship
with level of guilt such that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy experienced less guilt
than participants with lower levels of psychopathy across choice conditions (standardized β = -
68
359 t(163) = -346 p = 001) In addition both factor scales of the PPI-R SF (Fearless
Dominance and Self Centered Impulsivity) were significant in predicting guilt (standardized β =
-292 t(163) = -257 p = 011 standardized β = -314 t(163) = -305 p = 003) respectively
Finally three of the PPI-R SF subscales reached significance in predicting level of guilt in
participants as well Fearlessness Stress Immunity and Rebellious Nonconformity The
Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscales load on the Fearless Dominance factor
of the PPI-R SF which is important to note because this factor assesses the cognitive aspects of
psychopathy including lack of guilt and lack of remorse Therefore these results provide support
for the validity of the PPI-R SF in assessing psychopathic traits such as guiltlessness
69
Tab
le 9
M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts C
rite
rion
is S
elf-
Rep
orte
d G
uilt
Aft
er M
isle
adin
g th
e C
onfe
dera
te
Pre
dict
ors
are
the
P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
and
MA
CH
-IV
Tot
al S
core
s an
d Su
bsca
les
Eac
h R
ow R
epre
sent
s R
esul
ts F
rom
One
Mul
tiple
Reg
ress
ion
Ov
eral
l Mo
del
High
L
ow C
hoic
e
Psyc
hopa
thy
Ma
ch P
redi
ctor
In
tera
ctio
n
Pred
icto
r
F
(df)
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
PPI-
RSF
456
(3160)
00
4
046
597
006
08
938
-1419
410
-359
-346
00
1
851
600
147
142
158
PPI FD
361
(3160)
01
5
-003
603
lt001
-01
996
-1151
449
-292
-257
01
1
309
607
058
51
611
PPI SCI
314
(3160)
02
7
055
605
007
09
928
-1237
406
-314
-305
00
3
1376
611
232
225
026
Mach Ego
95
(3160)
417
091
618
012
15
883
-627
438
-159
-143
154
1018
620
182
164
103
Soc Infl
32
(3160)
811
029
623
004
05
963
-047
474
-012
-10
921
-356
631
-068
-56
574
Fearless
243
(3160)
068
018
609
002
03
977
-1166
448
-296
-260
01
0
875
612
162
143
155
Coldhrt
52
(3160)
671
132
621
017
21
832
-446
471
-113
-95
346
113
628
021
18
857
Rebel
743
(3160)
lt00
1
050
583
006
09
931
-1718
407
-435
-422
lt00
1
833
585
147
142
156
Blm Ext
157
(3160)
199
062
613
008
10
919
-330
449
-084
-73
464
1190
616
220
193
055
Carefree
126
(3160)
290
-067
622
-009
-11
914
-814
425
-206
-192
057
669
625
115
107
287
Stress
426
(3160)
00
6
177
599
023
30
768
-972
421
-246
-231
02
2
-199
601
-035
-33
742
LPSP
41
(3160)
744
090
621
011
15
885
-445
415
-113
-107
286
577
627
097
92
359
Primary
39
(3160)
764
090
621
011
15
885
-443
425
-112
-104
299
549
624
095
88
381
Second
17
(3160)
919
080
622
010
13
897
-301
450
-076
-67
505
386
624
071
62
537
MACH
-IV
02
(3160)
996
076
623
010
12
903
-085
433
-021
-20
845
116
625
020
19
852
Deceit
15
(3160)
928
071
622
009
11
910
-172
406
-043
-42
673
421
634
068
66
508
Flattery
25
(3160)
864
100
622
013
16
872
-320
416
-081
-77
443
150
628
025
24
812
Immoral
85
(3160)
468
082
618
010
13
894
396
443
100
89
373
-968
620
-175
-156
121
Cynicism
52
(3160)
669
040
620
005
06
949
368
472
093
78
436
032
627
006
05
960
Residual
19
(3160)
900
069
621
009
11
912
-309
410
-078
-75
452
326
630
054
52
606
Not
e
Sig
nific
ant p
val
ues
(p lt
05)
are
in b
old
p v
alue
s ap
proa
chin
g si
gnif
ican
ce (lt
10)
are
in it
alic
s
Pre
dict
or A
bbre
viat
ions
PPI
-RS
F =
PPI-
RS
F to
tal s
core
PPI
FD
= P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 1
ndash F
earle
ss D
omin
ance
Fac
tor S
core
PPI
SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f Cen
tere
d
Impu
lsiv
ity F
acto
r Sco
re M
ach
Ego
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
rici
ty s
ubsc
ale
Soc
Infl
= PP
I-R
SF
Soci
al In
fluen
ce s
ubsc
ale
Fea
rless
= P
PI-R
SF
Fear
less
ness
sub
scal
e
Col
dhrt
= PP
I-R
SF
Col
dhea
rted
ness
sub
scal
e R
ebel
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
xt =
PPI
-RS
F B
lam
e E
xter
naliz
atio
n Su
bsca
le C
aref
ree
= PP
I-R
SF
C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Stre
ss Im
un =
PPI
-RS
F St
ress
Imm
unity
sub
scal
e L
PSP
= LP
SP to
tal s
core
Pri
mar
y =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le S
econ
d =
LPSP
Sec
onda
ry
subs
cale
MA
CH
-IV
= M
AC
H-I
V to
tal s
core
Dec
eit =
MA
CH
-IV
Dec
eit s
ubsc
ale
Fla
ttery
= M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
oral
= M
AC
H-I
V Im
mor
ality
sub
scal
e C
ynic
ism
=
MA
CH
-IV
Cyn
icis
m s
ubsc
ale
Res
idua
l = M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
Mod
el A
bbre
viat
ions
Un-
Stzd
β =
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Bet
a S
td E
rr =
Sta
ndar
d E
rror
Stz
d β
= St
anda
rdiz
ed B
eta
70
Exploratory Analyses Factor Analyses of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measures
In order to assess what specific constructs the self-report psychopathy and
Machiavellianism measures were identifying several factor analyses were conducted The goal
of these analyses was twofold First the intention was to categorize the unique traits of
psychopathy and MACH that were being identified in the participants by these measures and
second to distinguish overall factors of these personality traits that are similar across measures
Factor analysis of PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV total scores The total scores of the
PPI-R LPSP and MACH-IV were factor analyzed using principal axis factor analysis Squared
multiple correlations were used to estimate communalities in the initial factor pattern and
solutions were iterated four times Only one component in a preliminary principal components
analysis had an eigenvalue greater than 1 (1826) and the scree plot of the eigenvalues indicated
a clear break after one factor However for exploratory purposes three-factor and two-factor
factor analytic solutions were also attempted The three-factor solution yielded three factors
each corresponding to the three original variables The two-factor solution yielded one large
primary factor and a second factor with only trivial loadings (all loadings lt 25) Therefore the
one-factor solution was selected as the most informative Oblique rotation was performed using
Promax As can be seen in Table 10 one clearly defined factor emerged from the three variables
The factor appears to tap psychopathic and Machiavellian tendencies and thus has been named
Psychopathic Machiavellianism
Table 10 Factor Solutions Between PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores
Measure Psychopathic
Machiavellianism PPI-R SF Total Score 505 LPSP Total Score 687 MACH-IV Total Score 743
71
Factor analysis of all psychopathy and Machiavellianism items A second factor analysis
was run using all of the individual items from the three self-report measures of psychopathy and
Machiavellianism (PPI-R SF LPSP MACH-IV) Squared multiple correlations were used to
estimate communalities in the initial factor pattern Thirty-two components with eigenvalues
greater than 1 emerged from a preliminary principle component analysis and the scree plot
indicated there were approximately 25 to 35 factors
A principal axis factor analysis with Promax rotation was performed extracting 32
factors However only 15 of the 32 factors had two or more factor loadings greater than 50
Therefore several additional factor solutions were attempted to determine how many relevant
meaningful factors were present Finally it was determined that a nine-factor solution yielded the
largest number of interpretable factors with each factor including at least two variables with
loadings greater than 50 (see Table 11) Upon analyzing the items that loaded into each of the
nine factors names were identified for each factor based on the common characteristics of the
items The nine factors are Machiavellian Success Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Immunity
Feelings of Persecution Inability to Plan Social Disregard Interpersonal Ease Manipulative
Deceit and Social Frustration
72
Table 11 Factor Loadings of Total Item Factor Analysis
Factor Original Item
Mach Succes
Thrill Seek
Stress Immun Persec Inabl
Plan Social Dsrgrd
Intper Ease
Manip Deceit
Soc Frustr
L2 654 069 -068 217 070 -042 -184 -006 -092 L4 595 -044 044 117 044 136 029 039 064 L1 586 060 -009 106 127 -235 195 -023 -099 L3 576 097 027 023 144 -046 013 007 098 L5 551 -073 131 -047 022 026 205 -041 028 L12 -516 -010 -180 000 156 147 066 073 181 L8 466 030 082 -162 093 -021 109 022 076 L14 -428 -032 150 -103 202 023 131 224 230 L15 -402 053 -078 -039 146 000 -023 -215 260 L6 387 001 040 050 108 -183 -212 -038 132 L7 368 -121 -216 162 165 -095 -154 116 -008 M9 -322 -099 -009 154 100 -300 -076 -191 039 L26 320 165 054 101 051 073 -198 034 042 L11 318 222 -223 -116 059 -030 007 -078 219 M7 -288 108 -090 -102 -014 -006 -085 -158 -168 M17 -225 031 136 012 -018 -160 200 210 070 M3 -195 -159 -087 -057 -017 060 077 002 -037 M16 -179 108 -012 -141 -115 -170 -168 008 -052 P53 074 655 052 -031 -075 061 -179 -014 066 P5 -034 637 032 -128 -154 077 -138 -115 063 P38 050 555 207 034 -038 011 010 -143 -086 P22 080 535 -013 -261 023 043 003 069 045 P9 063 514 -060 179 -002 -148 -023 -130 010 P19 059 -475 057 022 049 -074 -052 -068 115 P16 051 468 -166 103 -108 -059 -015 -088 104 P1 157 -407 037 046 095 019 -047 -145 183 P52 -033 407 -199 050 -123 073 128 175 -058 P36 157 353 020 130 -014 145 143 156 -039 P30 148 308 -267 161 024 -059 -049 205 125 P47 -126 261 -067 069 -015 -029 134 135 237 P4 -117 259 -250 098 046 219 116 107 033 P14 251 251 -110 005 -109 064 117 -168 088 P48 114 031 733 054 073 -042 023 -035 005 P39 022 086 660 134 128 066 -007 103 -051 P28 080 -073 609 -008 -017 183 -061 187 093 P11 153 007 563 -118 -141 266 -026 051 112 P26 -089 -111 543 091 141 074 -037 075 001 P13 -004 039 -506 -095 129 144 -034 084 -135 M14 084 -035 359 209 -062 -125 211 069 -164 P2 -027 189 -335 125 -193 005 173 083 074 P23 176 050 -309 033 -190 082 108 075 266 M19 -188 -022 250 -069 -150 -116 088 043 -054 M2 -219 -015 240 176 -233 -101 114 054 223 M20 -048 -039 226 064 -158 -178 165 049 -121 P41 012 -047 -009 636 -081 -004 058 038 096 L25 011 -033 061 591 -093 -048 -050 -112 054 P50 -019 016 024 583 021 104 049 -020 209 P24 085 012 211 546 -065 049 073 094 -106 P6 100 147 153 490 -028 -050 072 072 -036 P34 163 -039 055 440 046 154 004 -010 058 L24 141 -093 -172 373 -078 -074 -075 -040 186 M18 005 028 104 -329 -005 -129 023 179 -057 M6 -059 -157 -193 -261 146 -019 031 -129 -448E-005 P42 099 -181 073 -073 542 057 020 -006 023 P40 148 -231 018 -220 521 -001 005 -026 033 L23 003 -268 -162 -030 516 086 085 -188 070 M8 -091 -003 -077 103 -504 -044 -117 -056 -045 P51 035 -096 -050 -042 447 -217 -091 -023 153 P33 123 071 178 164 447 -042 144 -261 042 P49 056 -025 -056 -138 394 215 -169 -059 019 M10 282 -018 046 -162 -374 -041 134 -105 119 P20 254 003 063 -132 370 026 049 226 -287 L10 -294 313 014 -246 366 -174 027 004 220 P56 144 083 -144 186 -354 072 061 136 269 M5 021 040 -001 -154 -350 -077 -050 192 238
73
Factor Original Item
Mach Succes
Thrill Seek
Stress Immun
Persec
Inabl Plan
Social Dsrgrd
Intper Ease
Manip Deceit
Soc
Frustr M13 124 105 157 -226 -311 -216 050 -073 163 L19 -089 054 -123 089 286 -129 -004 045 -063 P45 -207 -081 211 045 270 255 023 -068 043 L21 -077 -179 056 170 -229 042 -118 195 187 P37 111 235 211 017 024 592 -112 -115 017 P12 044 149 138 -123 057 571 023 003 110 P27 -144 -152 013 056 052 547 057 095 081 P10 -096 -031 -030 065 -023 453 042 -110 -090 P55 -184 -010 -177 183 -031 419 -035 051 -010 P54 094 -076 -127 -024 339 406 163 024 151 P25 -064 128 192 275 -051 392 087 -284 022 M12 -115 -023 -024 002 -220 245 -052 -120 -130 P21 067 -141 077 154 112 -038 740 -057 130 P15 -059 138 -189 099 160 144 556 -128 054 P18 103 001 -135 -028 097 028 533 -021 -237 P32 023 037 -126 159 167 -088 -532 093 -016 P29 -067 211 -109 014 089 -199 528 -130 037 P17 133 401 250 -067 132 016 456 011 -085 P32 004 171 026 -039 269 -027 -454 174 -147 P43 071 046 112 -059 029 -021 -143 557 286 M1 -330 104 013 007 040 -115 102 -512 106 L9 363 -112 -006 -046 044 -113 085 491 120 L20 -108 030 004 035 -085 002 -043 463 -082 L18 -232 055 199 085 -004 -055 -263 446 025 P35 118 -031 -024 -029 -011 -083 -145 419 171 M15 036 -053 018 -161 -282 -094 088 332 081 P31 -030 176 213 160 198 -074 -102 319 224 L16 -154 -015 020 024 162 153 144 -185 164 L22 024 -112 063 204 128 107 -156 117 527 L17 -168 124 -069 090 048 054 000 180 518 P7 070 -190 243 173 -011 -023 205 025 487 P46 229 -086 172 098 009 -145 067 -156 448 P3 -022 073 297 034 -100 288 -202 -105 392 P44 109 084 013 224 077 -051 -199 046 280 M11 038 056 -087 -113 019 144 093 -025 266 M4 -205 046 092 080 080 -037 -123 -177 -263 L13 143 -030 -189 -079 -140 -124 028 139 238 Note Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation converged in 9 iterations Factor loadings gt 40 are in bold Abbreviations Original Item Number= The item number from each of the three self-report measures used in this study L = LPSP P = PPI-R SF M = MACH-IV (ex P48 = Item 48 on the PPI-R SF) Mach Succes = Machiavellian Success Thrill Seek = Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Immun = Stress Immunity Persec = Feelings of Persecution Inabl Plan = Inability to Plan Social Dsrgrd = Social Disregard Intper Ease = Interpersonal Ease Manip Deceit = Manipulative Deceit Soc Frust = Social Frustration
Factor analysis of PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV subscales Finally a principal axis
factor analysis of the subscales of the three self-report measures of psychopathy and
Machiavellianism was conducted Squared multiple correlations were used to estimate
communalities in the initial factor pattern In a preliminary principal components analysis five
components had eigenvalues greater than 1 (3410 2093 1422 1209 1128) and the scree plot
of the eigenvalues indicated a break around five factors
74
Oblique rotation of the initial principal axis pattern was performed using Promax A
three four and six factor solution was attempted in addition to the five factor solution In
comparing the pattern matrices between factor models each factor in the three-factor model was
interpretable and had at least two loadings greater than 50 whereas the five-factor model
included one factor that did not have at least two loadings greater than 50 In addition the four-
and five-factor models would not converge in fewer than 25 iterations The three-factor model
compared to the four and five-factor models also had the most meaningful factor loadings in
terms of shared characteristics among the subscales in each factor Therefore the three-factor
model was selected Table 12 reports the factor loadings for the three-factor model Based on the
common characteristics shared by the subscales in their respective factors the following factor
names were assigned Antisocial Behavior Coldhearted Callousness and Thrill Seeking
75
Table 12 Factor Loadings of the Psychopathy and MACH Measures Subscales Factor
Subscale Antisocial Behavior
Coldhearted Callousness
Thrill Seeking
PPI Blame Ext 707 -152 032 LPSP Secondary 630 050 023 PPI Mach Ego 467 401 070 PPI Stress Immun -455 148 421 MACH Cynicism 424 149 -016 MACH Flattery 302 191 020 PPI Coldhrt -307 638 035 MACH Deceit 130 588 -015 LPSP Primary 341 486 -071 MACH Immoral 088 397 -081 PPI Carefree 033 309 226 MACH Residual 251 261 004 PPI Rebel 209 -011 752 PPI Fearless 056 -168 746 PPI Social Influ -131 125 295 Note Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation converged in 6 iterations Factor loadings gt 30 appear in bold Subscale Abbreviations PPI Blame Ext = PPI-RSF Blame Externalization subscale LPSP Secondary = LPSP Secondary subscale PPI Mach Ego = PPI-RSF Machiavellianism Egocentricity subscale PPI Stress Immun = PPI-RSF Stress Immunity subscale MACH Cynicism = MACH-IVCynicism subscale MACH Flattery = MACH-IV Flattery subscale PPI Coldhrt = PPI-RSFColdheartedness subscale MACH Deceit = MACH-IV Deceit subscale LPSP Primary = LPSP Primary subscale MACH Immoral = MACH-IV Immorality subscale PPI Carefree = PPI-RSF Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale MACH Residual = MACH-IV Residual Subscale PPI Rebel = PPI-RSF Rebellious Nonconformity subscale PPI Fearless = PPI-RSF Fearlessness subscale PPI Social Influ = PPI-RSF Social Influence subscale
76
Chapter 4 Discussion
Four findings of the present study are particularly notable First as predicted the classic
cognitive dissonance effect was replicated in the sample as a whole That is participants in the
High Choice to Lie Condition reported enjoying the abacus task more than participants in the
Low Choice to Lie Condition Second as predicted a significant interaction was found between
Choice Condition and level of psychopathy as measured by the PPI-R SF and the LPSP
Specifically the classic cognitive dissonance effect was found among participants with lower
levels of psychopathic traits but not among participants with higher levels of psychopathic traits
Third contrary to prediction no significant interaction was found between Choice Condition and
level of Machiavellianism as measured by the MACH-IV Fourth level of psychopathy
demonstrated incremental predictive power over level of MACH in predicting abacus task
enjoyment Each of these four findings is discussed below
41 Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effect
One important finding of the current study was a significant main effect of Choice
Condition on abacus task enjoyment Specifically individuals in the High Choice to Lie
condition reported enjoying the abacus task more than participants in the Low Choice to Lie
condition
This finding replicates the results of two earlier studies that examined cognitive
dissonance in a similar manner In studies by Cooper and Worchel (1970) and Festinger and
Carlsmith (1959) participants performed a tedious task and then were asked to mislead a fellow-
student (actually a confederate) that the task was enjoyable Half of participants were given only
a weak external motivation to deceive the fellow-student (low monetary reward or half of an
experimental credit) whereas the other half of participants were given a stronger external
77
motivation to deceive the fellow-student (a high monetary reward or multiple experimental
credits) In both of these studies participants with weak external motivation to engage in the
deception reported enjoying the task more than did participants with stronger external
motivation
The main difference between the current study and the Cooper and Worchel (1970) and
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) studies is that external motivation (high or low) was manipulated
by the aforementioned researchers whereas we manipulated participantsrsquo level of perceived
choice However there is a close conceptual relationship between level of external motivation
and level of perceived choice from the perspective of cognitive dissonance theory Previous
research has indicated that both choice manipulation and external motivation have similar effects
in creating cognitive dissonance In both cases external justification is being manipulated
Participants in the low choice (direct instruction) condition attribute their actions to the influence
of external pressures that forced them to perform the dissonant behavior Participants rationalize
that if given the choice they would not have engaged in the behavior and thus cognitive
dissonance is avoided The same conclusion is drawn when participants are given high external
motivation to engage in a dissonant behavior such as a high monetary reward Participants again
rely on the external justification of high reward to explain their engagement in the dissonant act
They rationalize their dissonant behavior by relying on the high reward as justification for
behaving in uncharacteristically Participants in the high reward condition rationalize that if the
reward was not present as external justification then they would not have engaged in the task
which results in a lack of cognitive dissonance as well Alternatively participants with either
high choice (voluntary participation) or low reward cannot rely on external justification because
none exists in these conditions Thus attitude shift results from the need to ameliorate their
78
cognitive dissonance Overall external justification is needed to alleviate cognitive dissonance
arousal and this justification is provided by either an external motivation (reward) manipulation
or by a low choice manipulation
Self-perceived choice has frequently been used as the independent variable in cognitive
dissonance studies As in our experiment these earlier studies found that self-perceived choice
(ie High versus Low Choice) had a significant main effect on cognitive dissonance Several of
these studies reported that participants experienced an attitude shift toward being in favor of an
undesirable task or belief only when they felt free choice to engage in the dissonant behavior
such as misleading a confederate or writing a counterattitudinal essay (Brehm amp Cohn 1962
Chatzisarantis Hagger amp Wang 2008 Cooper 1971 Davis amp Jones 1960 Festinger amp
Carlsmith 1959 Linder Cooper amp Jones 1967 Seacuteneacutemeaud amp Somat 2009 Sherman 1970)
Therefore the current experiment has added empirical support to the body of cognitive
dissonance research examining choice condition as a predictor of attitude shift
42 Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonance
The main hypothesis of this study was that people with low levels of psychopathy would
experience cognitive dissonance about engaging in deception whereas individuals with higher
levels of psychopathy would not experience cognitive dissonance
PPI-R SF total scores and cognitive dissonance Results supported our hypothesis in
regard to psychopathy when measured by total scores on the PPI-R SF Participants with higher
total scores on the PPI-R SF reported significantly less enjoyment of the abacus task on the post-
experimental questionnaire than participants with lower levels of psychopathy Specifically the
interaction between Choice to Lie condition and total PPI-R SF scores was significant in
predicting abacus task enjoyment standardized β = -216 p =036 True to our prediction
79
participants with low to non-existent levels of psychopathy experienced cognitive dissonance
only when in the High Choice to Lie condition and not in the Low Choice to Lie condition
Consistent with earlier studies (Cooper amp Worchel 1970 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959) it
appears that low psychopathy participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition perceived that they
had a strong external motivation for misleading their fellow-student (direct instruction to lie)
Thus they did not experience cognitive dissonance and could (accurately) rate the abacus task as
boring However low psychopathy participants in the High Choice to Lie condition did not
perceive that they had a strong external motivation for misleading their fellow student (they
voluntarily agreed to tell the lie after being asked) The participants experienced cognitive
dissonance in the form of psychological tension or guilt which they reduced by convincing
themselves that the abacus task was actually interesting as they had told their fellow student
On the other hand participants with higher levels of psychopathy reported disliking the
abacus task on the post-experimental questionnaire regardless of the Choice to Lie condition they
were in It appears that participants with higher levels of psychopathy did not experience
cognitive dissonance (ie psychological tension or guilt) about misleading a fellow student
Consequently these participants did not experience a need to change their view of the abacus
task or to rate it as more enjoyable than it really was
PPI-R SF subscales on cognitive dissonance Exploratory analyses were conducted
using the eight subscales of the PPI-R SF Each subscale measures a different facet of
psychopathy The goal of analyzing each subscale individually was to examine which aspects of
psychopathy if any were related to a lack of cognitive dissonance Three subscales produced
significant interactions with choice condition in predicting level of task enjoyment
Machiavellian Egocentricity (ME) Fearlessness (F) and Rebellious Nonconformity (RN) The
80
Machiavellian Egocentricity and Rebellious Nonconformity subscales load on the Self Centered
Impulsivity factor (antisocial behavior traits of psychopathy) of the PPI-R SF while the
Fearlessness subscale loads on the Fearless Dominance factor (cognitive personality based traits
of psychopathy) of the PPI-R SF
The Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale identifies aggressive self-centered tendencies
when interacting with other individuals (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003
Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996) Items from this subscale include ldquoI could be a good con-artistrdquo ldquoI
sometimes lie to see if I can get someone to believe merdquo and ldquoI tell people the part of the truth
they want to hearrdquo This scale seems to identify psychopathic characteristics that would allow for
individuals to have a lack of psychological tension or guilt over misleading others Thus in the
present experiment it appears that these traits may have inhibited participantsrsquo experience of
cognitive dissonance over lying to the confederate The significant interaction of the ME scale
and choice condition suggests that the participants in our study who lacked concern for
misleading others or even prided themselves in their ability to mislead others (as the scale
predicts) did not experience guilt or psychological stress
The Fearlessness (F) subscale of the PPI-R SF identifies willingness to engage in risky
behavior with a lack of regard for the negative consequences of onersquos actions The Rebellious
Nonconformity subscale (RN) indicates reckless behavior with a lack of concern for future
consequences (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Lilienfeld amp Andrews
1996) These scales are similar in that higher scores on the scales indicate an inability to
comprehend future negative consequences of onersquos actions These subscales also were
substantially correlated in the present study (r = 522) In regard to the current experiment it may
be that participants who scored higher on the Fearlessness and Rebellious Nonconformity
81
subscales were unable to comprehend or feel concern for the negative impact their deceptive
actions could have on their fellow student Thus participants with higher levels of fearlessness
and rebellious nonconformity may have experienced less psychological tension and less
cognitive dissonance about engaging in the deception than did participants with low levels of
these traits Because these findings are exploratory further studies should analyze these variables
so that strong conclusions can be made
PPI-R SF factors on cognitive dissonance In exploratory analyses the Self-Centered
Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF was the only factor to have a significant interaction with
choice condition in predicting abacus task enjoyment That is the dissonance effect was found
among participants with low scores on the PPI-R SF Self Centered Impulsivity factor but not
among participants with high scores The Self Centered Impulsivity factor is comprised of the
Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale and the Carefree
Nonplanfulness subscale of the PPI-R SF The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF
has been found in the literature to correlate with the behavioral traits associated with
psychopathy such as a DSM diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder lower education
levels lower employment rates lower SES and increased drug and alcohol abuse (Benning
Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003) Therefore the present results suggest that the
behavioral antisocial behavior characteristics of psychopathy (impulsivity blame
externalization lack of planning abilities) affected participantsrsquo experience of guilt-induced
cognitive dissonance
In contrast the interaction between the Fearless Dominance (FD) factor of the PPI-R SF
and choice condition was not a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment The Fearless
Dominance factor is characterized by low trait anxiety social dominance and fearlessness when
82
engaging in risky actions Individuals who score higher on the Fearless Dominance factor of the
PPI-R SF are often described as the more ldquosuccessful psychopathrdquo because they are
characterized by higher SES more advanced education and a lack of substance abuse (Benning
Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003) as compared to the type of psychopathy predicted by
the PPI-R SF Self Centered Impulsivity factor In fact studies have found that the two factors of
the PPI-R SF are orthogonal (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Lilienfeld amp
Fowler 2006) Therefore the present results suggest that individuals with higher scores on the
Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R SF may have the propensity to experience cognitive
dissonance more than individuals with the more antisocial traits of psychopathy (as measured by
the Self Centered Impulsivity Factor)
LPSP total scores on cognitive dissonance The effect of psychopathy on cognitive
dissonance was also examined using scores from the LPSP Similar to the results using the PPI-
R SF the interaction of LPSP total scores and choice condition was statistically significant in
predicting level of task enjoyment Specifically a significant relationship did not exist between
LPSP scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie
condition However in accordance with our prediction there was a significant negative
correlation between LPSP total scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie
condition This result further supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of
psychopathy would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher
levels would not
LPSP factor scores on cognitive dissonance Both the Primary and Secondary factors of
the LPSP were examined in exploratory analyses to see if one factorrsquos constellation of
psychopathic traits better accounted for a lack of cognitive dissonance than the other The
83
findings of this analysis implicate the cognitive (callousness fearless dominance low trait
anxiety) characteristics of psychopathy (as measured by the Primary factor) rather than the
external behavioral markers (as measured by the Secondary factor) as cues to understanding the
cognitive differences found in individuals with higher levels of psychopathy The results of the
interaction between the Primary (Cognitive) Factor and choice condition approached statistical
significance (unless the data was analyzed with the six individuals who did not lie factored out)
Further analysis of the data found that the interaction of LPSP Secondary (Behavioral) factor
scores with choice condition was not a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment
Interestingly these analyses of the LPSP factor scales yielded results that seem contrary
to the results concerning the PPI-R SF factor scales As already noted the PPI-R SF factor scale
analysis suggested that the behavioral characteristics of psychopathy (as measured by the PPI-R
Self Centered Impulsivity factor) were related to the absence of a cognitive dissonance effect In
contrast however the LPSP Secondary (behavioral) factor was not significantly related to
whether the cognitive dissonance effect was found Instead the findings for the LPSP Primary
(cognitive) factor approached significance
The conflicting findings regarding the PPI-R and LPSP factor scales may be partially
explained by the fact that the LPSPrsquos Primary and Secondary factors have not shown a consistent
relationship to other scales that measure the behavioral and cognitive dimensions of psychopathy
(Skeem amp Lilienfeld 2004) Levenson and colleagues (1995) reported that the two factors of the
LPSP mirrored the two factors of the PPI-R and the PCL-R However the discriminant and
convergent validity of the LPSP factor scales have been inconclusive in several studies For
example a study by Lilienfeld Skeem and Poythress (2004) found that the LPSP Primary
(cognitive) factor (callousness lack of guilt or remorse low trait anxiety) of the LPSP was more
84
correlated with the secondary (Self Centered Impulsivity) factor of the PPI-R (r = 62) than with
the primary (Fearless Dominance) factor of the PPI-R (r = 16)
In addition to the study by Lilienfeld et al (2004) other researchers have obtained results
indicating that the Primary (cognitive) Scale of the LPSP correlates higher with the secondary
factor of the PPI-R (Self Centered Impulsivity) rather than the with the primary factor of the PPI-
R (Fearless Dominance Wilson Frick amp Clements 1999 Lilienfeld amp Hess 2001)
Furthermore the Primary (cognitive) scale of the LPSP appears to correlate more highly with
antisocial behaviors rather than with the callous cognitive traits it was designed to measure
(Lilienfeld Skeem amp Poythress 2004 McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto 1998) Therefore the
discrepancy in the results between the PPI-R SF factor scales and the LPSP factor scales in the
current study might be a result of the LPSP Primary scale not being discriminant or divergent
enough from the antisocial behavior characteristics that are measured by the Secondary Scale of
the LPSP and by the factor scales of other measures like the PPI-R In other words perhaps the
Primary Scale of the LPSP is not accurately identifying just the cognitive personality-based traits
of psychopathy that is was designed to measure and thus this imprecision of the factor is what
led to the seemingly inconsistent results concerning the PPI-R SF and LPSP factors
Table 13 reports the significant (and insignificant) interactions between choice condition
and level of psychopathy by individual subscale and factor scale scores This table specifically
sorts the subscales and factor scales by the main psychopathy factors evidenced in the literature
(cognitive or behavioral) that the subscales and factors load on Past studies have consistently
confirmed the subscales arranged below load on the factor indicated (either the more behavioral
factor or the more cognitive affective factor) (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Iacono
2005 Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Edens Lilienfeld Poythress Patrick
85
amp Test 2008 Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995 Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996 Lilienfeld amp
Widows 2005 Patrick Edens Poythress Lilienfeld amp Benning 2006 Poythress amp Skeem
2006 Uzieblo Verschuere amp Crombez 2007) By separating the significant subscale and factor
score results in the current study by the respective factor they have been shown to load on
(cognitive or behavioral) the difference in our somewhat mixed results becomes clearer The
results evidence that in the current study Secondary psychopathy (Factor 2 antisociality
impulsivity inability to plan thrill seeking behavior) seems to relate more to a lack of cognitive
dissonance in the sample of participants
86
Table 13 Interactions of Psychopathy Subscales and Factor Scales with Choice Condition by the Two Factor (Cognitive or Behavioral) Psychopathy Solution Demonstrated by Past Research (Self-Reported Enjoyment as Criterion)
Cognitive Affective Factor Antisocial Behavior Factor FactorSubscale Stdz β t p Stdz β t p PPI FD Factor -167 -146 146 PPI Soc Infl 057 48 631 PPI Fearless -274 -247 015 PPI Stress Imm -101 -93 352 LPSP Primary -199 -192 057 PPI SCI Factor -220 -221 028 PPI Mach Ego -295 -281 006 PPI Rebel -243 -230 023 PPI Blm Ext -036 -32 747 PPI Carefree 068 66 511 LPSP Second -161 -145 148 Note Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics Predictor Abbreviations PPI FD Factor = PPIRSF Factor 1 ndash Fearless Dominance Factor PPI Soc Infl = PPI-RSF Social Influence subscale PPI Fearlessness = PPI-RSF Fearlessness subscale PPI Stress Imun = PPI-RSF Stress Immunity subscale LPSP Primary = LPSP Primary subscale PPI SCI Factor = PPIRSF Factor 2-Self Centered Impulsivity Factor PPI Mach Ego = PPI-RSF Machiavellianism Egocentricity subscale PPI Rebel = PPI-RSF Rebellious Nonconformity subscale PPI Blm Extern = PPI-RSF Blame Externalization subscale PPI Carefree = PPI-RSF Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale LPSP Second = LPSP Secondary subscale The PPI-RSF Colheartedness Scale is not included because it has not been shown to load on the Two Factor Solution Model Abbreviations Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Possible Reasons for the Lack of Cognitive Dissonance in High Psychopathy Individuals
The results of the current study indicate that the more psychopathic traits a participant
reported including the callous unemotional traits such as a lack of guilt remorse or concern for
others the less likely the participant was to exhibit the classic cognitive dissonance effect It is
important to consider possible explanations for these results
Psychopathy and lack of guilt One of the main traits linked to psychopathy is a callous
lack of guilt (Hart amp Hare 1997 Hare 1993 Lykken 2006 McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto
1998) This lack of guilt and concern for others may be the cognitive deficit that allows for
psychopathic individuals to commit violent crimes or manipulate others If this is the case then it
is important to determine if a lack of guilt is occurring significantly more in individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy compared to individuals with low or non-existent levels of
psychopathy Previous studies have examined guilt in individuals with psychopathy and have
87
almost universally found that individuals with high psychopathy lack guilt (Cima Tonnaer amp
Lobbestael 2007 Hare 1993 Walsh amp Wu 2008)
Though a lack of guilt has already been strongly associated with psychopathy in the
literature it is important to now try to find the underlying cognitive pathways and mechanisms
that are behind the inability to feel guilt in high psychopathic individuals Understanding the
cognitive deficits of individuals with higher levels of psychopathy can lead to better assessment
strategies and possible intervention models to curb maladaptive behaviors at an early age This
study attempted to identify the role that guilt plays in eliciting cognitive dissonance by assessing
dissonance effects in individuals with varying levels of guilt capabilities (high versus low
psychopaths) The use of psychopathy as a moderating variable for cognitive dissonance is based
on empirical research that has found a lack of guilt and contentiousness in individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy
Guilt and cognitive dissonance Cognitive dissonance has long been thought to be a
universal feature of human behavior Since the discovery of cognitive dissonance by Festinger in
1957 many other researchers have replicated the phenomenon with great success in a multitude
of situations and across stimuli (for a review see Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) The main theory
of cognitive dissonance that this project intended to analyze with regard to psychopathy was
Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory (1984) due to its focus on guilt as the catalyst for attitude
shift
According to Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory (1984) one of the crucial
components for creating the attitude shift found in cognitive dissonance is that individuals must
feel guilt (that their actions have brought negative consequences to themselves or others) The
current study incorporated the New Look Theory by having participants voluntarily lie to
88
someone else about a boring task being enjoyable Our hypothesis hinged on the theory that low
psychopathy individuals would change their beliefs about the task (they would think it was fun)
in order to relieve the guilt felt over misleading another individual In contrast since cognitive
dissonance occurs due to guilt induction we believed and found that individuals with higher
levels of psychopathy (low guilt) did not experience dissonance Therefore the results of this
study provide further evidence of the callous lack of guilt evidenced in psychopaths while
supporting Cooper and Faziorsquos (1984) theory that cognitive dissonance is invoked by guilt
43 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonance
Machiavellianism is characterized by the deliberate incorporation of callous unemotional
behaviors with the goal of achieving success and domination through the use of the asocial affect
and behaviors (Christie amp Geis 1970 Wastell amp Booth 2003 Wilson Near amp Miller 1996)
The centrality of success seems to be a characteristic of MACH that distinguishes it from
psychopathy Individuals with higher levels of MACH seem to engage in callous manipulative
behaviors in order to achieve preconceived goals whereas psychopathic individuals do not
necessarily plan their behavior to the same degree In fact several of the core traits associated
with psychopathy involve a lack of planning ability impulsivity and antisocial behavior that
often involves illegal and violent activities (Hare 1993)
Due to the callous guilt free traits associated with MACH the current study
hypothesized incorrectly that high MACH individuals in the High Choice (and high guilt)
condition would report significantly less enjoyment of the boring abacus task than individuals
with low MACH
MACH-IV total scores on cognitive dissonance It was hypothesized that the interaction
between MACH and choice condition would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment of
89
the abacus task However this interaction was not statistically significant Level of
Machiavellianism did not impact an individualrsquos self-rated level of enjoyment on the abacus task
These results were surprising given the fact that MACH has significantly related to a lack of
predicted attitude shift in past studies of guilt induced cognitive dissonance (Bogart 1971
Bogart et al 1970 Epstein 1969) Though these previous studies on MACH did not
specifically intend to analyze guilt-induction as the dissonance invoking stimulus they did use
methodology that would create guilt in participants
Unlike the current study these previous experiments found significant differences
between individuals with higher versus lower levels of MACH Also in opposition with the
current findings these previous studies (Bogart 1971 Bogart Geis Levy amp Zimbardo 1970
Epstein 1968) found that individuals with high MACH were able to experience cognitive
dissonance often in the opposite experimental condition to the individuals with low MACH who
experienced cognitive dissonance These studies termed this effect ldquoanti-dissonancerdquo The
current study however found no significant evidence of an anti-dissonance effect in our
participants In fact the results for the MACH-IV scores exhibited a weak version of the
interaction pattern that was seen with the two psychopathy predictors Specifically the MACH-
IV total scores had a significant negative correlation with Self-Reported Task Enjoyment in the
High Choice Group (r = -295 p lt 01) but not in the Low Choice group (r = -104 p = 354)
Such findings seem to suggest that Machiavellianism like psychopathy influences cognitive
dissonance effects However as already reported the crucial analysis regarding this hypothesis
based on an interaction term of Machiavellianism with Choice condition did not attain statistical
significance
90
It is possible that the present study failed to find a significant interaction between choice
and level of MACH in predicting attitude shift because the MACH-IV is outdated The MACH
measure was created in 1970 and has not been altered since that time In addition many of the
items on the measure use wording from Niccolo Machiavellirsquos writing which dates back to 1513
Further many of the items may be considered somewhat sexist in current society as they focus
on men exclusively Participantsrsquo responses may have been effected by this gender exclusivity
Therefore concepts and items may not be current enough to be accurately identifying MACH
characteristics in our sample Given results from the present and earlier research the failure to
find a significant interaction between choice condition and Machiavellianism in the present study
may well represent a Type II error
44 Psychopathy Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment (Over MACH)
A hypothesis of the current study was that psychopathy would incrementally predict
abacus task enjoyment and the cognitive dissonance effect above and beyond the predictive
power of the MACH Results regarding this hypothesis were inconclusive Inclusion of PPI-R
SF scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment significantly increased predictive
power above and beyond scores on the MACH-IV Although there was a significant increase in
predictive power when adding PPI-R SF scores to the MACH-IV scores the beta for the
interaction between PPI-R SF scores and choice condition was only approached statistical
significance When total scores of the LPSP replaced the PPI-R SF scores the results were not
significant Inclusion of total LPSP scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment
did not significantly increase predictive power above and beyond MACH-IV scores Therefore it
seems that the hypothesis in regard to psychopathy incrementally predicting abacus task
91
enjoyment above MACH was neither confirmed nor disconfirmed in the present study More
research examining the issue is needed
Conversely two exploratory hierarchical multiple regressions were run to identify
whether MACH-IV total scores incrementally predicted Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus
task above and beyond the predictive power of psychopathy scores When both the PPI-R SF
and the LPSP were used as predictors MACH did not significantly predict Self-Reported Level
of Enjoyment over psychopathy These results suggest though only in a preliminary way that
level of MACH does not incrementally predict cognitive dissonance effects above and beyond
the predictive power of level of psychopathy
45 Additional Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory Guilt Analysis
Multiple regressions were conducted with level of guilt as the criterion in the place of
enjoyment rating These analyses were exploratory with the goal of further exploring the role
that guilt plays during cognitive dissonance arousal and maintenance Results of these analyses
indicated that the interaction between psychopathy measures and choice conditions did not
generally significantly predict guilt In fact there was no reason to expect these interactions to
be significant based on cognitive dissonance theory The cognitive dissonance literature argues
that participants strive to reduce their feelings of guilt after engaging in counterattitudinal
behavior discrepant with their beliefs Thus participants with low levels of psychopathy who
were in the High Choice to Lie condition would be expected to change their attitudes about lying
to reduce their feelings of guilt immediately after telling the ldquofuture participantrdquo that the abacus
task was fun Therefore their reported guilt level on the post experimental questionnaire should
not be significant Due to cognitive dissonance these participants would have already reduced
92
their level of guilt to low or non-existent levels by the time they were answering the questions on
the post experimental questionnaire
Main effects for relationship between psychopathy and guilt An important result of these
exploratory analyses was that significant main effects were found between level of psychopathy
(measured by the PPI-R SF) and level of guilt that participants reported concerning their
participation in the study Specifically the PPI-R SF had a significant relationship with level of
guilt such that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy experienced less guilt than
participants with lower levels of psychopathy across choice conditions In addition both factor
scales of the PPI-R SF (Fearless Dominance and Self Centered Impulsivity) were significant in
predicting guilt Finally three of the PPI-R SF subscales reached significance in predicting level
of guilt in participants Fearlessness Stress Immunity Rebellious Nonconformity The
Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscales load on the Fearless Dominance factor
of the PPI-R SF which is important to note because this factor assesses the cognitive aspects of
psychopathy including lack of guilt and lack of remorse Therefore these results provide support
for the validity of the PPI-R SF in assessing psychopathic traits such as guiltlessness
Exploratory Factor Analyses
Three factor analyses were conducted on the self-report psychopathy and MACH
measures utilized in the present study The goal of these analyses was to categorize the
individual traits of psychopathy and MACH that were being identified in the participants by the
measures and to distinguish overall factors of these personality traits that are similar across
measures
The first factor analysis found that the total scores of the three measures loaded together
as one factor The second factor analysis found that all of the items combined loaded on nine
93
interpretable factors Machiavellian Success Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Impunity Feelings
of Persecution Inability to Plan Social Disregard Interpersonal Ease Manipulative Deceit and
Social Frustration Each factor was found to represent unique characteristics of psychopathy and
MACH Finally a third factor analysis was run on the combined subscales of the measures This
analysis yielded three interpretable factors Antisocial Behavior Coldhearted Callousness and
Thrill Seeking Though these factor analyses yielded factors that mirror others identified in the
literature (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Hare 1991 Levenson et al
1995 Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996) the sample size of 164 participants was too small to draw
significant or important conclusions from these factor analyses
94
Limitations and Future Directions
The present study had several limitations One potential limitation was the sole use of
self-report measures for detecting psychopathy Though the self-report measures that were used
in the current study have been validated as measures of psychopathy (Levesnon et al 1995
Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996 Lilienfeld amp Fowler 2006 Lilienfeld amp Hess 2001) the use of a
measure such as the Psychopathy Checklist ndash Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991) might have shed
additional light on the levels of psychopathy among our participants Psychopathy scores on the
PCL-R are obtained from a semi-structured clinical interview of the participant as well as
background and collateral information (Hare 1991) Therefore the information about the
participantrsquos personality is derived from multiple sources rather than just self-report A future
replication of this study would benefit from also assessing level of psychopathy with the PCL-R
or the PCL-R SV (Hart amp Hare 1995) which is a screening version of the PCL-R
A second limitation might have been the type of task used to illicit cognitive dissonance
The study had participants move wooden balls back and forth across an abacus for 20 minutes
Though this study attained significant results perhaps the length of time may not have been long
enough to induce boredom in all participants Future studies could increase the amount of time
participants are instructed to move balls across the abacus For example the original cognitive
dissonance study by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) had participants turn pegs in a peg-board for
one hour That length of time would most likely ensure boredom in participants It is important to
note however that the time limit of 20 minutes employed in the present study was the same as in
the study by Cooper and Worchel (1970) in which significant results were obtained when
participants engaged in the boring task for 20 minutes
95
In addition the use of the abacus task as the stimuli could have impacted the results
because some participants may have actually found the task enjoyable and thus genuinely
reported enjoying the task on the post-experimental questionnaire This would confound our
results because cognitive dissonance was not enacted in those participants In order to combat the
possible issue the use of counterattitudinal essays as the stimulus would be a useful option for
future studies Counterattitudinal essays involve writing in favor of an issue that one is
adamantly against The use of counterattitudinal essays has been incorporated into the majority
of cognitive dissonance studies (for a review see Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Studies have
shown that when participants write in favor of an issue that they are opposed to this elicits
cognitive dissonance (Baumeister amp Tice 1984 Elkin amp Leippe 1986 Harmon-Jones amp Mills
1999 Linder Cooper amp Jones 1967 Seacuteneacutemeaud amp Somat 2009) Counterattitudinal essays
have also been used in studying cognitive dissonance effects in participants with MACH
(Burgoon Miller amp Tubbs 1972) with significant effects
Simply writing counter-attitudinal essays would not necessarily invoke guilt The present
study tested the hypothesis that guilt-invoking tasks create cognitive dissonance in individuals
with low psychopathic traits but not individuals with high psychopathic traits Therefore the
present results might not be replicated in a study that simply required the writing of counter-
attitudinal essays However a variant on this task exists in which writing a counter-attitudinal
essay is used to persuade other individuals to a viewpoint with which the writer strongly
disagrees This task of writing a counter-attitudinal essay to persuade others is likely to evoke
guilt and according to the hypotheses of the present study would be predicted to create a
cognitive dissonance effect in participants with higher levels of psychopathy but not in
participants with low levels of psychopathy A control condition would be necessary in which
96
some participants just write the counter-attitudinal essays while others write counter-attitudinal
essays that are then used to persuade other individuals In this way we would be better able to
determine whether any cognitive dissonance effects observed were due to guilt
Guilt has been manipulated in participants with the use of counterattitudinal essays The
primary way that researcherrsquos incorporate guilt was to have the participant write a
counterattitudinal essay and read it (or give it) to a panel of individuals with the intention of
persuading the panel to be in favor of the topic to which the participant is actually against In this
way participants feel guilt for attempting to convince others to support something that the
participant actually opposes For example a study by Elliot and Devine (1994) had their college
student sample of participants write essays in favor of a tuition raise for all students at their
university Before writing the counterattitudinal essays participants were initially screened to
make sure they were against a tuition increase on campus Participants were told that the essay
they wrote (pro-tuition increase) would be read by the university Board of Trustees to help
determine if the tuition raise should be implemented Participantsrsquo guilt was activated because
they were led to believe that their essay might cause a tuition increase for themselves and their
peers Results of the study found a significant shift in attitude towards being in favor of the
tuition increase after participants had written the essay The authors surmised that it was the
negative consequences that their actions (writing the pro-tuition increase essay) could cause
others that led to the attitude shift Replicating the current study with the use of counterattitudinal
essays that manipulate guilt rather than the abacus task may elicit stronger effects by eliminating
the participantsrsquo chance of genuinely enjoying the abacus task
A third limitation the current study concerns its generalizability to new populations of
participants This study analyzed level of psychopathy exclusively among college
97
undergraduates It is unclear whether the results obtained in this population will generalize to
groups with higher levels of psychopathy such as violent offenders or repeat-offender juvenile
delinquents Attempting a replication in a sample of violent offenders or juvenile delinquents
would be a valuable step in understanding how the construct of psychopathy impacts cognitive
dissonance
A fourth possible limitation was the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of participants
Approximately eighty-five percent of participants were Hispanic and thus the generalizability of
the results to non-Hispanic populations can be questioned However psychopathy has been
shown to be a universal construct across ethnicities including Anglo Americans (Cooke Kosson
amp Michie 2001 Hare 1996) African Americans (Cooke Kosson amp Michie 2001 Skeem et
al 2004 Swogger Walsh amp Kosson 2008) and Hispanics (Sullivan Abramowitz Lopez amp
Kosson 2006 Valdez Kaplan amp Codina 2000) MACH too has been shown to appear in
Hispanics (Martinez 1981) Therefore this limitation may not be a serious one
Though ethnicity may not have impacted our results cultural characteristics are another
limitation to consider Culture may impact the expression of psychopathic traits A recent study
by Smith and Madjarov (2008) found that individuals from Bulgaria evidenced higher levels of
psychopathy and Machiavellianism than Americans (as measured by the LPSP and MACH-IV)
The authors attributed the higher levels of psychopathic and MACH tendencies to the coercive
nature of the Bulgarian culture which teaches the youth to look out for themselves above all else
The authors deduced that the personality characteristics of psychopathy and MACH allow for
better survival outcomes in Bulgaria and thus the traits have flourished there as adaptive rather
than abnormal
98
The current study was conducted in a university on the US-Mexico border where
acculturation to American society varies in the university population Many students commute
over the border daily from Mexico to attend classes and are not highly acculturated to US
culture Based on the Smith and Madjarov (2008) study and the location of the current
experiment level of acculturation may have impacted our results and should be accounted for in
future studies
An additional future direction would be that this study spurs psychopathy and cognitive
dissonance research in new routes As previously mentioned only one other study has examined
the effects of psychopathy on cognitive dissonance (Weir 2007) However Weirrsquos study
contained methodological weaknesses (eg no control group for comparison purposes) and was
not designed to address how psychopathic traits impact cognitive dissonance in guilt-inducing
situations Clearly more studies need to be conducted in order to examine if the significant
results found in the present study will hold across other age groups populations (such as violent
offenders) and cultures The results of this study could assist in better understanding the
cognitive and emotional characteristics of psychopathy
In addition the results of this study pose new ideas for cognitive dissonance research
The results of the current study suggest that level of psychopathy could potentially be
confounding cognitive dissonance studies that rely on guilt or adverse consequences as the
mechanism of dissonance arousal Further replications of the present study are needed in the
literature to examine the robustness of our results and their impact on cognitive dissonance
arousal
99
Conclusions
Until now cognitive dissonance has been assumed to be a general cognitive effect found
in all individuals The results of this study suggest that this assumption may be incorrect In the
present study individuals with higher levels of psychopathy did not seem to experience guilt-
induced dissonance arousal It may be that past studies might have yielded stronger cognitive
dissonance effects if they had excluded participants with above-average levels of psychopathic
traits
In addition the lack of a significant finding in regard to level of MACH indicates that
more research needs to be conducted in assessing what maladaptive cognitive and behavioral
impacts Machiavellianism has on individuals and how MACH truly relates to psychopathy
Understanding the cognitive characteristics of psychopathy (and MACH) is important
due to the negative impact that individuals with these characteristics can cause society For
example individuals with higher levels of psychopathy are four times more likely to recidivate
after being released from prison (Hare 1993 Hemphill Hare amp Wong 1998) are arrested at
earlier ages are more likely to use weapons and violence in their offenses and have higher rates
of offending than individuals without psychopathy (Hart amp Hare 1997 Hare amp McPherson
1984) It is important to discover what specific cognitive and emotional characteristics lead some
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy to develop and behave maladaptively in society If
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy do not experience cognitive dissonance after lying
to someone else this finding points not only to a lack of guilt in such individuals but also to a
unique cognitive and emotional temperament that may be lacking dissonance arousal
100
References
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed) Washington DC Author Aronson E (1968) Dissonance theory Progress and problems In R Abelson E Aronson W McGuire T Newcomb M Rosenberg amp P Tannenbaum (Eds) Theories of cognitive consistency A sourcebook (pp5-27) Chicago Illinois Rand McNally Austin E J Farrelly D Black C amp Moore H (2007) Emotional intelligence Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation Does EI have a dark side Personality and Individual Differences 43 179-189 Baumeister R F amp Tice D M (1984) Role of self-presentation and choice in cognitive dissonance under forced compliance Necessary or sufficient causes Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(1) 5-13 Bogart K (1971) Machiavellianism and individual differences in response to cognitive inconsistency Journal of Social Psychology 85 111-119 Bogart K Geis F Levy M amp Zimbardo P (1970) No dissonance for Machiavellians In P G Zimbardo (Ed) The cognitive control of motivation The consequences of choice and motivation (pp 251-263) Glenview Illinois Scott Foresman and Company Brehm J W amp Cohen A R (1962) Explorations in cognitive dissonance New York Wiley Burgoon M Miller G R amp Tubbs S L (1972) Machiavellianism justification and attitude change following counterattitudinal advocacy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 22 366-371 Chapman A L Gremore T M amp Farmer R F (2003) Psychometric analysis of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory with female inmates Journal of Personality Assessment 80(2) 164-172 Chatzisarantis N L D Hagger M S amp Wang J C K (2008) An experimental test of cognitive dissonance theory in the domain of physical exercise Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 20(1) 97-115 Christie R (1970a) Why Machiavelli In R Christie amp F Geis (Eds) Studies in Machiavellianism (pp1-9) New York Academic Press Christie R (1970b) Relationships between Machiavellianism and measures of ability opinion and personality In R Christie amp F Geis (Eds) Studies in Machiavellianism (pp35-52) New York Academic Press Christie R amp Geis F L (1970) Studies in Machiavellianism New York Academic Press
101
Cima M Tonnaer F amp Lobbestael J (2007) Moral emotions in predatory and impulsive offenders using implicit measures Netherlands Journal of Psychology 63(4) 144-155 Cleckley H (1976) The mask of sanity (5th ed) St Louis C V Mosby (Originally published 1941) Cooke D J Kosson D S amp Michie C (2001) Psychopathy and ethnicity Structural item and test generalizability of the Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (PCL-R) in Caucasian and African American participants Psychological Assessment 13(4) 531-542 Cooper J (1971) Personal responsibility and dissonance The role of foreseen consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18(3) 354-363 Cooper J (1999) Unwanted consequences and the self In search of the motivation for dissonance reduction In E Harmon-Jones amp J Mills (Eds) Cognitive dissonance Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp149-173) Washington DC American Psychological Association Cooper J amp Fazio R H (1984) A new look at dissonance theory In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental psychology (Vol 17 pp 229-262) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Cooper J amp Worchel S (1970) Role of undesired consequences in arousing cognitive dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(2) 199-206 Croyle R amp Cooper J (1983) Dissonance arousal Physiological evidence Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 782-791 Davis K E amp Jones E E (1960) Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61(3) 402-410 Edens J Marcus D Lilienfeld S O amp Poythress N G (2006) Psychopathic not psychopath Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of psychopathy Journal of Abnormal Psychology 115(1) 131-144 Elkin R A amp Leippe M R (1986) Physiological arousal dissonance and attitude change Evidence for a dissonance-arousal link and a ldquodonrsquot remind merdquo effect Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 55-65 Elliot A J amp Devine P G (1994) On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance Dissonance as psychological discomfort Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(3) 382-394 Epstein G F (1969) Machiavelli and the devilrsquos advocate Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 11(1) 38-41
102
Fehr B Samsom D amp Paulhus D L (1992) The construct of Machiavellianism Twenty years later In CD Spielberger amp J N Butcher (Eds) Advances in personality assessment (pp 77-116) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance Stanford CA Stanford University Press Festinger L amp Carlsmith J M (1959) Cognitive consequences of forced compliance Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58 203-210 Fowles D C (1980) The three arousal model Implications of Grayrsquos two-factor learning theory for heart rate electrodermal activity and psychopathy Psychophysiology 17 87-104 Goethals G R amp Cooper J (1972) Role of intention and postbehavioral consequence in the arousal of cognitive dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23 293- 301 Greenwald H A (1967) Active psychotherapy New York Atherton Hare R D (1978) Psychopathy and electrodermal responses to nonsignal stimulation Biological Psychology 6 237-246 Hare R D (1985) Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psycopathy Journal of Clinical and Counseling Psychology 53 7-16 Hare R D (1991) Manual for the Hare Psycopathy Checklist-Revised Toronto
Multi-Health Systems
Hare R D (1993) Without conscience The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us New York Pocket Books Hare R D amp McPherson L M (1984) Violent and aggressive behavior by criminal psychopaths International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 7(1) 35-50 Hare R D amp Neumann C S (2006) The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy Development structural properties and new directions In C J Patrick (Ed) Handbook of psychopathy (pp 58-88) New York The Guilford Press Harmon-Jones E amp Mills J (1999) An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory In E Harmon-Jones amp J Mills (Eds) Cognitive dissonance Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp3-21) Washington DC American Psychological Association Harpur T J Hare R D amp Hakstian A R (1989) Two factor conceptualization of psychopathy Construct validity and assessment implications Psychological Assessment A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1 6-17
103
Hart S D amp Hare R D (1995) Psychopathy and risk assessment Issues in Criminological amp Legal Psychology 24 63-67 Hart S D amp Hare R D (1997) Psychopathy Assessment and association with criminal conduct In D M Stoff J Breiling amp J D Master (Eds) Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp 22-35) NY John Wiley and Sons Hemphill J F Hare R D amp Wong S (1998) Psychopathy and recidivism A review Legal and Criminological Psychology 3(1) 139-170 Karpman B (1941) On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types The symptomatic and the idiopathic Journal of Criminology and Psychopathology 3 112- 137 Karpman B (1948) The myth of the psychopathic personality American Journal of Psychiatry 104 523-534 Levenson M (1990) Risk taking and personality Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 1073-1081 Levenson M Kiehl K amp Fitzpatrick C (1995) Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(1) 151-158 Lilienfeld SO (1994) Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy Clinical Psychology Review 14 17-38 Lilienfeld SO amp Andrews BP (1996) Development and preliminary validation of a self report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations Journal of Personality Assessment 66 488-524 Lilienfeld S O amp Hess T H (2001) Psychopathic personality traits and somatization Sex differences and the mediating role of negative emotionality Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 23(1) 11-24 Lilienfeld S O Skeem J L amp Poythress N G (2004 March) Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society Scottsdale AZ Lilienfeld S O amp Widows M R (2005) PPI-R professional manual Lutz FL Psychological Assessment Resources Linder D E Cooper J amp Jones E E (1967) Decision freedom as a determinant of the role of incentive magnitude in attitude change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6 245-254
104
Lyyken D T (1957) A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55 6-10 Lykken D T (1995) The antisocial personalities Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Lynam D R Whiteside S amp Jones S (1999) Self-reported psychopathy A validation study Journal of Personality Assessment 73(1) 110-132 Machiavelli N (1981) The Prince New York Bantam Books (Original work published 1513) Marcus D K amp Edens J F (2004) A taxometric analysis of psychopathic personality Journal of Abnormal Psychology 113 626-635 Martinez D C (1981) Differences among Chicano and White students on items of Machiavellianism scale Psychological Reports 48(2) 433-434
McHoskey J W Worzel W amp Szyarto C (1998) Machiavellianism and psychopathy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 192-210 Meloy J R (1998) The psychopathic mind Maryland Rowman amp Littlefield Publishers Inc
Murrie D C amp Cornell D G (2002) Psychopathy screening of incarcerated juveniles A comparison of measures Psychological Assessment 14 390-396 Patrick C J (Ed) (2006) Handbook of psychopathy New York The Guilford Press Patrick C J Bradley R H amp Lang P J (1993) Emotion in the criminal psychopath Startle reflex modulation Journal of Abnormal Psychology 102(1) 82-92 Pethman T M amp Erlandsson S I (2002) Aberrant self-promotion or subclinical psychopathy in a Swedish general population The Psychological Record 52 33-50 Porter S (1996) Without conscious or without active conscious The etiology of psychopathy revisited Aggression and Violent Behavior 1 179-189 Raine A (2002) Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adults A review Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 30 311ndash326 Ray J J amp Ray J A (1982) Some apparent advantages of subclinical psychopathy Journal of Social Psychology 117 135-142 Rutherford M J Cacciola J S amp Alterman A I (1999) Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in cocaine-dependent women American Journal of Psyciatry 156 849-856
105
Saruk S (1975) A comparison of Machiavellianism values and locus of control in psychopathic groups (Doctoral Dissertation Unites States International University 1975) Dissertation Abstracts International 36 458-B Seacuteneacutemeaud C amp Somat A (2009) Dissonance arousal and persistence in attitude change Swiss Journal of Psychology 68(1) 25-31 Shadish W R Cook T D amp Campbell D T (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (pp 230) Boston MA Houghton Mifflin Company Sherman S J (1970) Attitudinal effects of unforeseen consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(3) 510-520 Skeem J amp Lilienfeld S O (2004 March) Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society Scottsdale AZ Skinner N F (1982) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism IV Machiavellianism and psychopathology Social Behavior and Personality 10(2) 201-203 Skinner N F (1988) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism VI Machiavellianism and the psychopath Social Behavior and Personality 16 33-37 Smith R J (1999) Psychopathic behavior and issues of treatment New Ideas in Psychology 17 165-176 Smith E R amp Mackie D (Eds) (2000) Social Psychology (2nd ed)Kendallville IN Taylor amp Francis Smith R J amp Madjarov G (2008) Machiavellianism and psychopathy An East-West note Social Behavior and Personality 36(2) 255-256 Steele C M amp Liu T J (1983) Dissonance processes as self affirmation Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 5-19 Strelau J (1983) A regulative theory of temperament Australian Journal of Psychology 35 305-317 Sullivan E A Abramowitz C S Lopez M amp Kosson D S (2006) Reliability and construct validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised for Latino European American and African American male inmates Psychological Assessment 18(4) 382-392 Swogger M T Walsh Z amp Kosson D S (2008) Psychopathy subtypes among African American county jail inmates Criminal Justice and Behavior 35(12) 1484-1499
106
Valdez A Kaplan C D amp Codina E (2000) Psychopathy among Mexican American gang members A comparative study International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44(1) 46-58 Walsh A amp Wu H-H (2008) Differentiating antisocial personality disorder psychopathy and sociopathy Evolutionary genetic neurological and sociological considerations Criminal Justice Studies A Critical Journal of Crime Law amp Society 21(2) 135-152 Wastell C amp Booth A (2003) Machiavellianism An alexithymic perspective Journal of Social amp Clinical Psychology 22(6) 730-744 Weir J M (2007) Subtyping psychopathy Exploring the roles of degree of punishment cognitive dissonance and optimism Dissertation Abstracts International Section B The Sciences and Engineering 68(4-B) 2694 Wilson D L Frick P J amp Clements C B (1999) Gender somatization and psychopathic traits in a college sample Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 21(3) 221-235 Wilson D S Near D amp Miller R R (1996) Machiavellianism A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures Psychological Bulletin 119(2) 285-299 Zanna M P amp Cooper J (1974) Dissonance and the pill An attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29 703-709 Zanna M P Goethals G R amp Cooper J (1975) Misleading vs mistreating another person as consequences producing self-justificatory attitude change European Journal of Social Psychology 5 133-137
107
Appendix A
Script to be Used With High perceived choice Group
ldquoThank you for your participation in this task Irsquod like to explain what this has been all about so
you have some idea of why you were doing this task There are actually 2 groups in the
experiment In one group the group you were just in we bring the participant in and give him or
her no introduction to the experiment That is all we tell them is the instructions for how to do
the task and they have no idea what the experiment is really about or what they will have to do
But the other group before they begin the task we like to prep them What I mean by this is that
while they are still waiting in the hall we tell them what the experiment is going to be about so
we tell them it is a reaction task that they will be timed and they will be pushing balls along an
abacus etc Most importantly we also tell them that the task is going to be fun and enjoyable We
do this because we want to see if having a positive attitude about the task before you begin will
affect your ability on the task What we are interested in is comparing the performance of people
who know nothing about the experiment such as yourself with those people who expect the task
to be interesting and exciting
So normally we have another student who works for us and that student preps the person
while they are still in the hall so tells them about the task and that it is going to be fun and then
brings the person in to me to do the task However that person couldnrsquot be here today
Now I have an unusual request that I have to make I talked to my advisor Dr Wood and he
suggested that I might ask my real participant to talk to the next participant for me
You donrsquot have to but if you would be willing to do this for me all I would ask you to do
is to tell the next participant who is now in the hall that this task is fun and enjoyable So Irsquod
take you into the hall introduce you to the next person and then give you about 1 minute to
108
begin your conversation and tell him or her that this experimental task will be fun Itrsquos up to you
of course but do you think you could help me out by doing this for me
109
Appendix A
Script for Use With the Low perceived choice Group
ldquoThank you for your participation in this task Irsquod like to explain what this has been all about so
you have some idea of why you were doing this task There are actually 2 groups in the
experiment In one group the group you were just in we bring the participant in and give him or
her no introduction to the experiment That is all we tell them is what they need to know to do
the task and they have no idea what the experiment is really about or what they will have to do
But the other group before they begin the task we tell them what the experiment is going to be
about and that it is going to be fun and enjoyable We do this because we want to see if having a
positive attitude about the task before you begin will affect your ability on the task So normally
we have another student who works for us and what I do is take him into the hall that you were
just in and introduce him as though he had just finished the experiment This paid student then
starts a conversation with the next participant and tells him or her about the experiment and how
interesting and fun it was What we are interested in of course is comparing the performance of
people who know nothing about the experiment such as yourself with those people who expect
the task to be interesting and exciting
Now I have an unusual request I have to make The student that we have hired to talk to
the next participant about the study couldnt make it today He just called a few minutes ago My
advisor told me to just have one of my actual participants do it So what you will have to do is to
tell the next participant who is now in the hall that this task is exciting interesting and
enjoyable Irsquoll take you into the hall introduce you to the next participant and then give you
about 2 minutes to begin your conversation and tell him or her that this experimental task will be
fun Are you ready
110
Appendix B
Demographic Information
Age _____
Gender _____
Ethnicity (check only one)
Mexican American ____
Mexican National ____
Hispanic ____
Caucasian ____
Asian ____
African American ____
Other ____
111
Appendix B
University of Texas Psychology Department
Post Experiment Evaluation Form
This form is to be completed immediately following participation in a UTEP Psychology experiment The department is evaluating the research that is currently being conducted and would like your opinion on the effectiveness of the experiment you just participated in Please take the time to fill out this brief survey Please circle the answer that best describes your feelings about the experiment you just participated in Your responses will remain confidential and will only be reviewed by departmental staff Once you have completed the survey place it in the envelope provided for you and seal the envelope
The following items are about the experiment you just participated in Please circle how much you agree with the following statement
1 The task in this experiment was enjoyable
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
2 I feel that I learned a lot from this experiment
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
112
3 I feel that the results of this study will have scientific value
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
4 I would enjoy participating in future experiments similar to this one
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly 5 I felt guilty during this experiment
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly 6 I felt comfortable at all times during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
113
7 I felt that I had free will at all times during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
8 I felt pressured by the experimenter during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
114
Appendix C Date _________________
LPSP
Listed below are a number of statements Each represents a commonly held opinion and there are no right or wrong answers You will probably disagree with some items and agree with others Please read each statement carefully and circle the number which best describes the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement or the extent to which each statement applies to you
ITEM Strongly Disagree
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Strongly Agree
1 Success is based on survival of the fittest I am not concerned about the losers
1 2 3 4
2 For me whatrsquos right is whatever I can get away with
1 2 3 4
3 In todayrsquos world I feel justified in doing anything I can get away with to succeed
1 2 3 4
4 My main purpose in life is getting as many goodies as I can
1 2 3 4
5 Making a lot of money is my most important goal
1 2 3 4
6 I let others worry about higher values my main concern is with the bottom line
1 2 3 4
7 People who are stupid enough to get ripped off usually deserve it
1 2 3 4
8 Looking out for myself is my top priority
1 2 3 4
9 I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do
1 2 3 4
10 I would be upset if my success came at someone elsersquos expense
1 2 3 4
115
Appendix C (LPSP Continued)
ITEM Disagree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Agree Strongly
11 I often admire a really clever scam 1 2 3 4
12 I make a point of trying not to hurt others in pursuit of my goals
1 2 3 4
13 I enjoy manipulating other peoplersquos feelings
1 2 3 4
14 I feel bad if my words or actions cause someone else to feel emotional pain
1 2 3 4
15 Even if I were trying very hard to sell something I wouldnrsquot lie about it
1 2 3 4
16 Cheating is not justified because it is unfair to others
1 2 3 4
17 I find myself in the same kinds of trouble time after time
1 2 3 4
18 I am often bored 1 2 3 4
19 I find that I am able to pursue one goal for a long time
1 2 3 4
20 I donrsquot plan anything very far in advance
1 2 3 4
21 I quickly lose interest in tasks I start 1 2 3 4
22 Most of my problems are due to the fact that other people just donrsquot understand me
1 2 3 4
23 Before I do anything I carefully consider the possible consequences
1 2 3 4
24 I have been in a lot of shouting matches with other people
1 2 3 4
25 When I get frustrated I often let off steam by blowing my top
1 2 3 4
26 Love is overrated 1 2 3 4
116
Appendix D
PPI-R SF
This test measures different personality characteristics ndash that is the ways in which peoplersquos personality styles make them different from each other Read each statement carefully and decide how false or true it is as a description of you Then mark the best choice by circling the number that corresponds to your answer Use the answer choices provided below 1 = False 2 = Mostly False 3 = Mostly True 4 = True Even if you feel that an item is neither false nor true as applied to you or if you are unsure about what response to make please answer all of the items If you cannot make up your mind about an item select the choice that is closest to your opinion Here is a sample item
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True
I enjoy going to the movies 1 2 3 4 If it is true that you enjoy going to the movies circle the 4 to the right of the question as shown below
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True
I enjoy going to the movies 1 2 3
If it is mostly false that you enjoy going to the movies you would circle the 2 to the right of the item and so on Try to be as honest as you can and be sure to give your own opinion about whether each item is false or true about you Now please begin by circling the response next to the item that best represents your opinion about yourself
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 1 Dangerous activities like skydiving scare me more than they do most people
1
2
3
4
2 I have always seen myself as something of a rebel
1
2
3
4
3 I am easily flustered in pressured situations
1
2
3
4
4 I would find the job of a movie stunt person exciting
1
2
3
4
4
117
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 5 I might like to hang out with people who drift from city to city with no permanent home
1
2
3
4
6 A lot of people have tried to ldquostab me in the backrdquo
1
2
3
4
7 I get mad if I donrsquot receive special favors I deserve
1
2
3
4
8 I am hardly ever the center of attention
1
2
3
4
9 It might be exciting to be on a plane that was about to crash but somehow landed safely
1
2
3
4
10 A lot of times I worry when a friend is having personal problems
1
2
3
4
11 I tend to get crabby and irritable when I have too many things to do
1
2
3
4
12 I get mad when I hear about the injustices in the world
1
2
3
4
13 I donrsquot let everyday hassles get on my nerves
1
2
3
4
14 I could be a good con artist
1
2
3
4
15 I have a talent for getting people to talk to me
1
2
3
4
16 I might like to travel around the country with some motorcyclists and cause trouble
1
2
3
4
17 In conversations Irsquom the one who does most of the talking
1
2
3
4
18 I feel sure of myself when Im around other people
1
2
3
4
19 Parachute jumping would really scare me
1
2
3
4
118
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 20 When people lend me something I try to get it back to them quickly
1
2
3
4
21 I like to stand out in a crowd
1
2
3
4
22 It would be fun to fly a small airplane by myself
1
2
3
4
23 In school or at work I try to stretch the rules just to see what I can get away with
1
2
3
4
24 Irsquove often been betrayed by people I trusted
1
2
3
4
25 It would break my heart to see a poor or homeless person walking the streets at night
1
2
3
4
26 Some people say that I am a ldquoworry wartrdquo
1
2
3
4
27 It bothers me a lot when I see someone crying
1
2
3
4
28 I get stressed out when Irsquom ldquojugglingrdquo too many tasks
1
2
3
4
29 Itrsquos easy for me to go up to a stranger and introduce myself
1
2
3
4
30 I donrsquot care about following the ldquorulesrdquo I make up my own rules as I go along
1
2
3
4
31 Irsquove been the victim of a lot of bad luck
1
2
3
4
32 Im hardly ever the life of the party
1
2
3
4
33 Irsquove thought a lot about my long-term career goals
1
2
3
4
34 Some people have gone out of their way to make my life difficult
1
2
3
4
119
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 35 I sometimes lie just to see if I can get someone to believe me
1
2
3
4
36 I like my life to be unpredictable and surprising
1
2
3
4
37 I get very upset when I see photographs of starving people
1
2
3
4
38 I might like flying across the ocean in a hot-air balloon
1
2
3
4
39 I worry about things even when therersquos no reason to
1
2
3
4
40 When I am doing something important like taking a test or doing my taxes I check it over first
1
2
3
4
41 People I thought were my ldquofriendsrdquo have gotten me into trouble
1
2
3
4
42 I think long and hard before I make big decisions
1
2
3
4
43 I tell people only the part of the truth they want to hear
1
2
3
4
44 I get blamed for many things that arenrsquot my fault
1
2
3
4
45 I feel bad about myself after I tell a lie
1
2
3
4
46 I quickly get annoyed with people who do not give me what I want
1
2
3
4
47 I would like to have a wild hairstyle
1
2
3
4
48 Irsquom the kind of person who gets ldquostressed outrdquo pretty easily
1
2
3
4
49 I usually think about what Irsquom going to say before I say it
1
2
3
4
120
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 50 Some people have made up stories about me to get me in trouble
1
2
3
4
51 I watch my finances closely
1
2
3
4
52 I am a daredevil
1
2
3
4
53 I would like to hitchhike across the country with no plans
1
2
3
4
54 I try to use my best manners when Irsquom around other people
1
2
3
4
55 I often place my friendsrsquo needs above my own
1
2
3
4
56 If I canrsquot change the rules I try to get others to bend them for me
1
2
3
4
121
Appendix E
MACH Scale (IV)
Below are twenty statements Please read each one and consider your level of agreement Rate each statement using the following scale and record your answers by circling the answer next to each statement that is most representative of how you feel 1 Strongly Agree ndash I agree completely with this statement 2 Somewhat Agree ndash I agree with this statement but not entirely 3 No Opinion ndash I have no opinion about this statement 4 Somewhat Disagree ndash I disagree with this statement but not entirely 5 Strongly Disagree ndash I disagree completely with this statement
Item Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
No Opinion
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1) The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear
1 2 3 4 5
2) When you ask someone to do something for youyou it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which might carry more weight
1 2 3 4 5
3) Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble
1 2 3 4 5
4) It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there
1 2 3 4 5
5) Honesty is the best policy in all cases 1 2 3 4 5
6) Itrsquos safe to assume that all people have a vicious streak that will come out when they are given a chance
1 2 3 4 5
7) Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so
1 2 3 4 5
8) One should take action only when sure it is morally right
1 2 3 4 5
9) It is wise to flatter important people 1 2 3 4 5
122
Appendix E ( MACH-IV Continued)
Item Strongly
Agree Somewhat
Agree No
Opinion Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
10) All in all it is better to be humble and honest than important and dishonest
1 2 3 4 5
11) Barnum was very wrong when he said therersquos a sucker born every minute
1 2 3 4 5
12) People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death
1 2 3 4 5
13) It is possible to be good in all respects 1 2 3 4 5
14) Most people are basically good and kind 1 2 3 4 5
15) There is no excuse for lying to someone else
1 2 3 4 5
16) Most men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their property
1 2 3 4 5
17) Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean moral lives
1 2 3 4 5
18) Generally speaking men wonrsquot work hard unless they are forced to do so
1 2 3 4 5
19) The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught
1 2 3 4 5
20) Most men are brave 1 2 3 4 5
123
Appendix F
Informed Consent Form
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Form for Research Involving Human Subjects
Protocol Title Personality effects on reaction time
Principal Investigator Ashley Murray BA
UTEP Psychology
Introduction
You are being asked to take part voluntarily in the research project described below Before agreeing to take part in this research study it is important that you read the consent form that describes the study Please ask the study researcher or the study staff to explain any words or information that you do not clearly understand
Why is this study being done
You have been asked to take part in a research study looking at how certain personality types differ on reaction times You will be asked to complete 3 separate personality surveys and a reaction time measure Approximately 150 students will be participating in this study at UTEP You are being asked to be in the study because you are currently enrolled as a student at UTEP and are 18 years of age or older
If you decide to enroll in this study your involvement will last approximately an hour and a half
What is involved in the study
If you agree to take part in this study the research team will provide you with a brief demographics form and three personality measures Please fill out all forms and do not skip through the packet Please answer every question to the best of your ability After you have finished answering all of the questions please let the experimenter know You will also be asked
124
to complete a brief peg turning task that measures your physical reaction abilities Your performance on the task will be monitored by the experimenter
What if I want to withdraw or am asked to withdraw from this study
Taking part in this study is voluntary You have the right to choose not to take part in this study If you do not take part in the study there will be no penalty There are no risks or harms related to participating in this study
If you choose to take part you have the right to stop at any time However we encourage you to talk to a member of the research group so that they know why you are leaving the study If there are any new findings during the study that may affect whether you want to continue to take part you will be told about them
Who do I call if I have questions or problems
You may ask any questions you have now If you have questions later you may call Ashley Murray (915-474-5784) or Dr James Wood (915-474-6570)
If you have questions or concerns about your participation as a research subject please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTEP Contact Ms Lola Norton (Institutional Coordinator for Research Review) at (915) 747-7939 or irborsputepedu
What about confidentiality
1 Your part in this study is confidential None of the information will identify you by name All records will be handled only by the research team and will be kept securely locked in a file cabinet when not in use
125
Authorization Statement
I have read each page of this paper about the study (or it was read to me) I know that being in this study is voluntary and I choose to be in this study I know I can stop being in this study without penalty I will get a copy of this consent form now and can get information on results of the study later if I wish
Participant Name Date
Participant Signature Time
Experimenter Signature ___________________________________
126
Post Experimental Informed Consent
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Form for Research Involving Human Subjects
Protocol Title The effects of psychopathy on cognitive dissonance
Principal Investigator Ashley Murray BA
UTEP Psychology
Introduction
The purpose of this research project is to examine how individuals with different personality characteristics react when they are asked to deceive someone else Please ask the study researcher or the study staff to explain any words or information that you do not clearly understand
Why is this study being done
You have been asked to take part in a research study looking at how certain personality types differ on reacting to feelings of guilt You were asked to complete 3 separate personality surveys and an abacus task Approximately 150 students will be participating in this study at UTEP You were recruited to the study because you are currently enrolled as a student at UTEP and are 18 years of age or older
Thank you for participating in this study Your participation as well as the participation of others will help us better understand how different people react when asked to deceive someone else
127
What is involved in the study
During this experiment you were asked to talk with another research participant and tell him or her that the study was enjoyable However you now understand that in reality this person was really just a member of the research team who was pretending to be a research participant Therefore your conversation with him or her did not affect her emotionally or in any other way
The anonymity of your individual responses will be maintained at all times and only group data will be identified and reported
In addition it is very important to the current researchers that you do NOT tell anyone else about what you did here today The integrity of peoplersquos responses is reliant on them not knowing what is about to happen If you tell people ahead of time what to expect their answers and actions will not be accurate and this could negatively affect the outcomes of the study Therefore you will not tell anyone about the details of this experiment or what you did here today
Who do I call if I have questions or problems
You may ask any questions you have now If you have questions later you may call or Ashley Murray (915-474-5784) or Dr James Wood (915-474-6570)
If you have questions or concerns about your participation as a research subject please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTEP Contact Ms Lola Norton (Institutional Coordinator for Research Review) at (915) 747-7939 or irborsputepedu
What about confidentiality
Your part in this study is confidential None of the information will identify you by name All records will be handled only by the research team and will be kept securely locked in a file cabinet when not in use
128
Authorization Statement
I have read each page of this paper about the study (or it was read to me) I know that being in this study is voluntary and I chose to be in this study I know I can stop being in this study without penalty
In addition it is very important that I do NOT tell anyone else about what I did here today The integrity of future participantsrsquo responses depends on them not knowing what is about to happen in this experiment Therefore I agree not to share with my friends or classmates (especially friends or classmates in my psychology classes) any details about what I did here today
By signing this form I understand that I am giving the experimenter permission to use my data
Participant Name Date
Participant Signature Time
Experimenter Signature __________________________________
129
Appendix G
Debriefing Script
ldquoThank you for participating in this study At this time I want to explain the study to you As
you will recall after completing the task where you moved balls back and forth on an abacus you
were asked to tell the next waiting participant that the task he or she was about to complete would
be enjoyable Your conversation with that waiting participant was actually one of the main points
of the experiment The reason why that conversation was important is because we are interested in
how different personality characteristics affect the way individuals respond to guilt The bigger
purpose of the current experiment is to see what personality characteristics make some people feel
guilt while other people do not experience guilt The way that we tried to create guilt today was by
having you tell the next waiting participant that they would enjoy the abacus task Studying guilt
reactions is important to psychology research because it can help us identify the cognitive
processes that people with differing personality characteristics use when they experience guilt
This is an important aspect of human behavior to study and we apologize that in order to examine
guilt reactions we had to mislead you briefly today
At this time we would like to explain that the person you spoke to and told that the abacus task
was going to be enjoyable was actually my research assistant and was only pretending to be a
future participant He (she) was not affected in any negative way by what you said to him (her)
and did not have to perform the peg turning task It was necessary that you think that my research
assistant was a future participant in the study so that your reactions would be genuine for the study
to get honest and accurate results
You should not feel bad for agreeing to tell my assistant that the task would be fun
Psychologists have been doing this kind of experiment for 50 years and nearly everyone agrees to
130
say that the experiment is more enjoyable than it really is You reacted in the same way that the
majority of participants in these kinds of experiments do
Again I would like to remind you that all of your answers and everything you did here today
for this experiment will remain confidential and anonymous Only I and my small research team
will have access to the data collected here today and you are not identified in any way in the data
collected
If you do feel upset or uneasy about your participation in this experiment you can talk to my
mentor Dr James Wood or you can contact the UTEP Counseling Center and I will provide that
contact information to you Do you feel a need to talk with Dr Wood or someone at the counseling
center about this
Finally it is EXTREMELY important that other students do not find out about the purpose of
this experiment If they do we will not be able to run this research anymore Students must come
into our lab with no idea about what the study is actually about Please do not speak to any other
students about this study especially psychology students We will be running this study for about a
year so please do not talk other students about this experiment
Do you understand everything I have said to you Do you have any questions
Again thank you for participating in this study todayrdquo
131
Appendix G
No-Lie Debriefing Script
ldquoThank you for participating in this study At this time I want to explain the study to you As
you will recall after completing the task where you moved balls back and forth on an abacus you
were asked to tell the next waiting participant that the task he or she was about to complete would
be enjoyable Your conversation with that waiting participant was actually one of the main points
of the experiment The reason why that conversation was important is because we are interested in
how different personality characteristics affect the way individuals respond to guilt The bigger
purpose of the current experiment is to see what personality characteristics make some people feel
guilt while other people do not experience guilt The way that we tried to create guilt today was by
having you tell the next waiting participant that they would enjoy the abacus task Studying guilt
reactions is important to psychology research because it can help us identify the cognitive
processes that people with differing personality characteristics use when they experience guilt
This is an important aspect of human behavior to study and we apologize that in order to examine
guilt reactions we had to mislead you briefly today
At this time we would like to explain that the person who acted as the waiting participant was
actually my research assistant and was only pretending to be a future participant He (she) was not
going to be affected in any negative way by what you said to him (her) and did not have to
perform the abacus task It was necessary that you think that my research assistant was a future
participant in the study so that your reactions would be genuine for the study to get honest and
accurate results
Again I would like to remind you that all of your answers and everything you did here today
for this experiment will remain confidential and anonymous Only I and my small research team
132
will have access to the data collected here today and you are not identified in any way in the data
collected
If you do feel upset or uneasy about your participation in this experiment you can talk to my
mentor Dr James Wood or you can contact the UTEP Counseling Center and I will provide that
contact information to you Do you feel a need to talk with Dr Wood or someone at the counseling
center about this
Finally it is EXTREMELY important that other students do not find out about the purpose of
this experiment If they do we will not be able to run this research anymore Students must come
into our lab with no idea about what the study is actually about Please do not speak to any other
students about this study especially psychology students We will be running this study for about a
year so please do not talk other students about this experiment
Do you understand everything I have said to you Do you have any questionsrdquo
Again thank you for participating in this study today
133
Appendix H
Confederate Guilt Manipulation Check Form
I ___________________________ who acted as a confederate for the current study verify that
The participant told me that the task would be fun enjoyable
The participant told me that the task would be fun enjoyable BUT also told me they had to tell me it was enjoyable
The participant told me that the task would be boring
The participant told me about the task BUT did NOT tell me it would be fun enjoyable
The participant did not tell me anything about the experiment
The participant did not talk to me at all
The participant told me that the task would be fun BUT only after being prompted by me
Participant _________
134
Curriculum Vita
Ashley Anne Murray daughter of Scott and Greta Murray was born in Denver CO She
was raised throughout Texas and Montana and in 2006 graduated with High Honors from the
University of Montana with a BA in psychology (research emphasis) While pursuing her
undergraduate degree she was awarded the Kain-McKay Scholarship in recognition of her
achievements in the field of psychology and was in the Phi Kappa Phi Honors Society She also
was employed at the campus Student Assault Resource Center where she provided counseling
and assessments for survivors of domestic violence and rape Upon completion of her BA
Ashley was accepted to the Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology Program at The University of
Texas at El Paso During her graduate studies at UTEP she completed a 350 hour clinical
internship with the PATH Program of The Aliviane Organization at the Opportunity Center of El
Paso Homeless Shelter Through the internship she provided assessments therapy and group
facilitation to homeless individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse
disorders Throughout her graduate studies Ashley worked on multiple projects in two clinical
labs and has worked on manuscripts and presented several posters at national psychology
conferences At UTEP she has worked as a teaching assistant and instructor in the psychology
department She will be going on to obtain her clinical PhD at Simon Fraser University in the
fall of 2009
Permanent Address 2810 Palm Dr
Billings MT 59102
- University of Texas at El Paso
- DigitalCommonsUTEP
-
- 2009-01-01
-
- The effects of psychopathy and Machiavellianism on cognitive dissonance
-
- Ashley Anne Murray
-
- Recommended Citation
-
- Introduction
- Why is this study being done
- Introduction
- Why is this study being done
-
Dedications
This thesis is dedicated to my parents for their continued encouragement and support
THE EFFECTS OF PSYCHOPATHY AND MACHIAVELLIANISM ON
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
By
ASHLEY ANNE MURRAY BA
THESIS
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at El Paso
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
May 2009
v
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr James Wood for his wisdom knowledge and patience in guiding me
through this process In addition special thanks to Dr Scott Lilienfeld for assisting as an outside
consultant and lending his expertise in psychopathy research to this project
vi
Abstract
Psychopathic traits include a lack of guilt a lack of remorse callousness and antisocial behaviors
such as impulsivity and aggression The current study examined the effects of psychopathic traits
as measured by the Psychopathic Personality Inventory ndash Revised Short Form (PPI-R SF
Lilienfeld amp Widows 2005) and the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales
(LPSP Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995) and of Machiavellianism (MACH) as measured
by the MACH-IV (Christie amp Geis 1970) on cognitive dissonance in a sample of 164
participants The induced compliance paradigm of cognitive dissonance was implemented by
instructing each participant to complete a boring task inspired by the seminal cognitive
dissonance experiment by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) Afterward feelings of guilt and
psychological unease were induced by asking the participant to mislead a second participant
(actually a confederate) by telling him that the task was enjoyable Participantsrsquo level of guilt
over telling the lie was experimentally manipulated Half of the participants were directly and
firmly instructed to tell the lie (low perceived choice low guilt condition) whereas the other half
of the participants were politely requested but not instructed to tell the lie (high perceived
choice high guilt condition) As predicted participants low in psychopathy (as measured by the
PPI-R SF and LPSP) exhibited the classic cognitive dissonance effect whereas participants high
in psychopathy did not exhibit the effect Results for MACH were not significant The
implications of these results are important for cognitive dissonance research because they point
to a subset of the population (psychopaths) possibly confounding results of past studies on
cognitive dissonance In addition the results point to definitive cognitive differences between
individuals with varying levels of psychopathy
vii
Table of Contents
Dedicationhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipiii
Acknowledgementshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipv
Abstracthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipvi
Table of Contentshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipvii
List of Tableshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipix
List of Figureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipx
Chapter 1 Introductionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1
11 Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1
12 Justification for the Current Studyrsquos Procedural Designhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7
13 Cooperrsquos New Look Theory of Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10
14 Psychopathy Effects on Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12
15 Machiavellianismhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20
16 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip23
17 Hypotheses of the Present Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip29
Chapter 2 Methodshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip32
Chapter 3 Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip41
31 Confirmatory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip44
32 Exploratory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55
Chapter 4 Discussionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76
41 Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effecthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76
42 Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip78
43 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip88
44 Psychopathy Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment (Over MACH)hellip90
viii
45 Additional Exploratory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip91
Limitations and Future Directionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip94
Conclusionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip99
Referenceshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip100
Appendix Ahelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip107
Appendix Bhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip110
Appendix Chelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip114
Appendix Dhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip116
Appendix Ehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip121
Appendix Fhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip123
Appendix Ghelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip129
Appendix Hhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip133
Curriculum Vitahelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip134
ix
List of Tables
Table 1 Descriptive Information for the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Predictors and Dependent Variablehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43 Table 2 Multiple Regression Results Criterion is Self-Reported Enjoyment of the Abacus Tasks Predictors are the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores and Subscales Each Row Represents Results From One Multiple Regressionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip50 Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (PPI-RSF) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianismhellip54 Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (LPSP) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianismhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55 Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56 Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (LPSP)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57 Table 7 Correlations Between the Total Scores of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip62 Table 8 Correlations Between the PPI-R SF LPSP MACH-IV Their Factors and Subscales65 Table 9 Multiple Regression Results Criterion is Self-Reported Guilt After Misleading the Confederate Predictors are the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores and Subscales Each Row Represents Results From One Multiple Regressionhelliphelliphelliphelliphellip69 Table 10 Factor Solutions Between PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scorehelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70 Table 11 Factor Loadings of Total Item Factor Analysishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip72 Table 12 Factor Loadings of the Psychopathy and MACH Measures Subscaleshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip75 Table 13 Interactions of Psychopathy Subscales and Factor Scales with Choice Condition by the Two Factor (Cognitive or Behavioral) Psychopathy Solution Demonstrated by Past Research (Self-Reported Enjoyment as Criterion)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip86
x
List of Figures
Figure 1 Main Effect for Mean Task Enjoyment Across Choice Conditionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45 Figure 2 Relationship of PPI-R SF Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 Figure 3 Relationship of PPI-R SF Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 Figure 4 Relationship of LPSP Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49 Figure 5 Relationship of LPSP Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49 Figure 6 Relationship of MACH-IV Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52 Figure 7 Relationship of MACH-IV Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Psychopathy is a personality construct that has demonstrated negative consequences for
society For example individuals with psychopathy are overrepresented in prison populations
and commit more violent crimes (Hare 1996) Though psychopathy is represented in
approximately one to five percent of the population it is represented in 15-25 of prison
populations (Hare 1996) To date there is no identifiable treatment for psychopathy and no
definitive understanding of the causes or etiology of this construct Therefore it is important to
identify the specific pervasive and maladaptive cognitive aspects of psychopathy in order to
better treat and assess this personality construct One of the first steps in this process is to
identify how individuals with psychopathy differ cognitively and emotionally from people who
lack these traits The current study intends to identify a significant difference between
individuals with higher and lower levels of psychopathy in regard to how they experience
cognitive dissonance and more specifically guilt
11 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a well researched psychological phenomenon that is defined as
the tendency to change a previously held belief or moral to justify a behavior the person is asked
to perform (Festinger 1957) The key feature of cognitive dissonance that seems to cause
individuals to change their cognitions following a dissonant action or thought is a feeling of
unease (tension) that immediately follows the performance of the behavior Therefore it is
theorized that people alter their beliefs in order to reduce the unpleasant feelings that arise due to
the inconsistency among their cognitions and actions (Aronson 1968 Festinger 1957 Harmon-
Jones amp Mills 1999) Cognitive dissonance involves complex cognitive restructuring and for
this reason the attitude change that results is often pervasive (Smith amp Mackie 2000) This
2
phenomenon has been consistently demonstrated in research and is considered a universal pattern
of behavior across individuals
The theory of cognitive dissonance was originally proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957
He found that when people have little or no external justification for performing a behavior that
goes against their personally held beliefs they will often change their preexisting beliefs to
match the action For example in a landmark study of cognitive dissonance Festinger and
Carlsmith (1959) asked participants to perform a boring task (turning pegs on a board) and then
asked them to tell the next participant (a confederate) that the task would be enjoyable for either
a $1 or $20 compensation The authors found that participants who were paid the smaller amount
($1) and thus had very little external justification for lying to the confederate later reported to
the experimenter that they enjoyed the hour-long peg turning task much more that the
participants who were paid $20 Festinger and Carlsmith surmised that the results of this study
demonstrated that the participants who were paid $20 to mislead a confederate had a high
enough external justification for lying and did not experience sufficient psychological tension
over the discrepancy between their cognitions and behaviors to warrant an attitude shift
However participants who were only paid $1 to mislead the confederate experienced higher
levels of psychological unease over the lie because of the insignificant amount of external
justification and thus had to rely on attitude shift to ameliorate their negative feelings
Cognitive dissonance research defines peoplersquos actions and beliefs as either consonant or
dissonant with one another Consonant cognitions are thoughts that are in accordance with a
personrsquos other thoughts or behaviors (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) For example if a person
felt concern about the environment and decided to volunteer every Saturday to pick up litter on
the highway he would have consonant cognitions and behaviors (they match) On the other
3
hand if two cognitions are not relevant to one another or a thought does not match onersquos
behavior they are said to be dissonant and create inner turmoil within the person which then
motivates the individual to reduce the dissonance An example of this would be if a person was
raised to believe that stealing was wrong and then stole petty merchandise Once this dissonant
action is performed the individual must then find a way to reduce the internal unease that the
behavior created
According to Smith and Mackie (2000) in order for cognitive dissonance to arise and
create an attitude shift four conditions must be met First the individual must perceive his or her
behavior to be inconsistent with what he or she would normally be inclined to do Next the
person must take responsibility for freely engaging in the behavior In order for this condition to
be met the amount of external justification must be reduced or eliminated (ie no reward or
punishment for completing the task) Third negative physiological arousal needs to take place
for the individual to want to change the way they feel Finally the individual must attribute the
negative arousal to the action that he or she has just committed (Smith amp Mackie 2000)
People reduce dissonance in many ways (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Examples of
how people reduce dissonance include a) attempts to remove the dissonant cognition (ie a
smoker would try to stop thinking about the negative aspects of smoking on health) b) reduce
the importance of the dissonant cognition (ie a smoker placing higher importance on being
more likely to die in a car accident than by smoking) c) increasing the importance of consonant
cognitions over dissonant ones (ie smoking is enjoyable and makes me feel relaxed which is
important to me) (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) As one can see all of these methods of
reducing dissonance involve focusing onersquos thoughts and emotions away from the dissonant
cognition (ie smoking is bad for me)
4
Cognitive Dissonance Psychological Tension and Physiological Arousal
Conceptually Festinger (1957) theorized that cognitive dissonance contains ldquodrive-likerdquo
properties that manifest as psychological tension and unease and that the psychological unease
can also manifest as physical tensions Once a person experiences the psychological and physical
unease then often an attitude shift occurs that alleviates the tensions An example that lends
support for this theory that physiological arousal precedes cognitive dissonance came from a
study conducted by Zanna and Cooper (1974) The researchers wanted to identify the physical
arousal properties associated with cognitive dissonance Zanna and Cooper gave participants a
placebo pill and told 13 of them that the pill made people feel tense 13 that the pill caused
relaxation and the final 13 that the pill had no effect Next the authors instructed participants
(under the guise of a different experiment) to write a counterattitudinal essay advocating a
campus ban of inflammatory speakers under high or low perceived choice Participants in the
low perceived choice condition were directly instructed to write the counterattitudinal essay
whereas people in the high perceived choice group were politely asked to write the essay giving
them the choice to perform the dissonant action which is a key factor in eliciting the tension
associated with cognitive dissonance The dependent measure of this study was the amount of
attitude shift participants reported experiencing on a post experimental questionnaire
Participants were given a questionnaire before the study began that assessed their preference for
adopting a campus ban on inflammatory speakers and only participants who opposed the ban
were included in the study The questionnaire asked participants to identify on a 31 point Likert
scale how much they were in favor of a campus ban on inflammatory speakers After the essay
writing manipulation portion of the experiment (where participants under high and low perceived
choice wrote a pro-ban essay) their opinion of the campus ban was again assessed with the same
5
31 point Likert scale In addition the effectiveness of the choice manipulation was assessed on
the post experimental questionnaire with the question ldquoHow free did you feel to decline to
participate in this Ivy League Administrators research projectrdquo
In the study by Zanna and Cooper (1974) an attitude shift (between the pre and post
experimental questionnaires) toward favoring the speaker ban was the expected results for the
control and relaxation inducing pill groups The authors anticipated this attitude shift due to the
previous research of Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) They hypothesized that if participants had
no external justification for feeling negatively about writing a pro-ban essay when they
previously had spoken against the ban then they must change their cognitions as previously
suggested by Festinger (1957) in his cognitive dissonance theory In accordance with Zanna and
Cooperrsquos hypotheses results indicated that the individuals who were in the tension-inducing pill
group reported significantly lower attitude shift because they were able to attribute their
tenseness and negative feelings about performing the dissonant actions to the pill rather than to
their internal turmoil On the other hand participants in the relaxation pill group evidenced the
opposite reaction these individuals experienced more attitude shift after writing the
counterattitudinal essay due to their inability to attribute their tense feelings to an external source
(the pill) In other words the people in the relaxation pill group were unable to locate an external
source that explained their feelings of unease and thus had to rely on attitude shift to ameliorate
the tension they felt over the discrepancy between their beliefs and actions
Zanna and Cooper (1974) also found that choice had an impact on attitude shift such that
participants in the high perceived choice group evidenced more attitude shift than participants in
the low perceived choice group This finding further demonstrates the need for external
justification to avoid attitude shift participants who were given the choice to write the
6
counterattitudinal essay experienced more tension than the participants who were directly told to
write the essay because of the perceived free will they exercised in writing the statements that
went against their beliefs Thus it appears that attitude shift is most likely to occur when
individuals feel they freely chose to engage in the behavior and did not have any form of external
justification for performing the dissonant action
Cognitive Dissonance and the Induced Compliance Paradigm
Within the dissonance literature several paradigms have been used to elicit attitude shift
in participants (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Of these paradigms the most common is the
induced compliance paradigm (ICP) which is used in the current study The induced compliance
paradigm typically requires participants to perform an undesirable task which arouses dissonance
once performed The key to this paradigm is to induce the participant to engage in an activity
that due to personal predispositions he or she would not ordinarily engage in In addition there
must be low or nonexistent external justification to carry out the negative behavior The absence
of external justification is important because otherwise if external rewards or punishments for
the activity are present the participant will use them to rationalize their actions and dissonance
will not be aroused In the ICP attitude shift is expected to occur when the participant is induced
to perform a counterattitudinal behavior in the absence of external justification
Counterattitudinal behaviors are any that involve doing or saying something that one does
not agree with or would not normally advocate Examples used in cognitive dissonance studies
include writing counterattitudinal essays that have may have negative consequences for other
people (Elkin amp Leippe 1986 Steele amp Liu 1983) or lying to someone about a task being
enjoyable when it was not (Cooper amp Worchel 1970 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959) Within the
ICP participants are provoked by a researcher to perform the counterattitudinal behavior through
7
the manipulation of the participantrsquos amount of choice or reward For example the peg turning
cognitive dissonance study previously mentioned (conducted by Festinger and Carlsmith in
1959) was the first study to use the ICP and reward manipulation (through the use of $1 or $20
to mislead the confederate) was used to induce cognitive dissonance effects These researchers
found that if a person publically behaves in a manner that misrepresents his personal beliefs he
will experience cognitive dissonance and that the magnitude of the dissonance will increase
when there are fewer reasons for complying (such as less reward or more perceived free choice)
A famous study by Linder Cooper and Jones (1967) demonstrated that choice
manipulation within the ICP can induce cognitive dissonance and thus attitude shift
Linder and colleagues asked participants to write an essay (using either high or low perceived
choice manipulation) supporting the ban of Communist speakers at their institution knowing that
the majority of students did not support this ban Participants were screened to make sure that
they did not agree with the ban and then were either directly instructed to write the supportive
essay (the Low perceived choice group) or asked politely to write the pro-ban essay (High
perceived choice group) Results indicated that participants in the high perceived choice group
experienced more attitude shift after completion of the essay toward being in favor of a
Communist speaker campus ban than people in the low perceived choice group Linder and
colleagues interpreted these results as evidence that when people perceive that they have free
will to engage in a dissonant action they cognitively justify their actions (via an attitude or belief
shift) to reduce the negative feelings the dissonant action produced
12 Justification for the Current Studyrsquos Procedural Design
The procedures outlined for the current study were selected due to the significant attitude
shift results that were obtained by using these tasks in two previous experiments First Festinger
and Carlsmith (1959) implemented the peg board task in their original study on cognitive
8
dissonance Participants in the study were required to turn the pegs for one hour and then lie to
the next participant (a confederate) about the task being enjoyable The primary difference
between the Festinger and Carlsmith study and the current proposal is that the former paid
participants either $1 or $20 in order to identify what amount of external justification would lead
to more attitude shift The authors found that the participants in the $20 group had much less
attitude shift about the task because they were able to use the external justification of lying for
$20 whereas participants in the $1 group evidenced significantly more attitude shift due to the
lack of any external justification for lying The authors surmised that $1 was not enough money
to justify lying for participants so they instead had to change their own cognitions to make sense
of their actions (lying to a stranger) thus they convinced themselves that the abacus task wan not
boring
A second important study used a boring task while asking participants to lie to a
confederate Cooper and Worchel (1970) replicated the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study
but rather than using money as the external justification for lying they used small amounts of
experimental credit (1 extra credit vs 5 extra credit) to induce attitude shift However
regardless of the amount of extra credit the authors offered 98 of participants agreed to the
deception task which indicates that the script the experimenters used was effective in inducing
participantsrsquo compliance to lie The current experiment is using the Experimenter and
Confederate Scripts from the study by Cooper and Worchel with only a few minor modifications
to the original scripts For example the Cooper and Worchel study only manipulated a High
perceived choice group so their script was altered slightly in the present study so that it could
also be used for the Low perceived choice group
9
Justification for using the high perceived choice condition to elicit attitude shift comes
from an experiment conducted by Zanna Goethals amp Cooper (1975) Their study implemented
the peg board task and asked participants to lie to a confederate that the task was enjoyable (they
only used the high perceived choice condition to elicit guilt) The study had participants do the
peg turning task for 20 minutes (as opposed to the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study which
required participants to do the task for one hour) Through asking participants to voluntarily
deceive the next participant the authors found that all participants (n=76) agreed to tell the next
participant (really a confederate) that the peg turning task was enjoyable They obtained this
100 compliance rate simply by asking the participant to tell the next person (a confederate) that
the peg turning task was enjoyable The study by Zanna and colleagues also provides support
that conducting the peg turning task for only 20 minutes still induces sufficient boredom in
participants In addition the study found a significant attitude shift toward reporting enjoying a
dull task when voluntarily lying to a confederate (F = 848 plt001) as compared to a control
group who did not have to lie
Finally a study by Elkin and Leippe (1986) used both high and low perceived choice
groups to examine different rates of attitude shift toward a previously counterattitudinal belief
(supporting the implementation of a student parking fee) In the high perceived choice group
participants were given the option to write a counterattitudinal essay (supporting the parking
fee) while in the low perceived choice group participants were told directly to write the
counterattitudinal essay Participantrsquos feeling of guilt was manipulated by telling them that the
counterattitudinal essay they wrote would be used by a panel and may possibly persuade them to
implement the parking fee on the campus Results indicated that all subjects participated in
writing the counterattitudinal essay (100 compliance rates) regardless of what group they were
10
in and subjects in the high perceived choice group evidenced more attitude shift towards paying
for parking than participants in the low perceived choice group The authors concluded that this
attitude shift occurred due to the participantsrsquo lack of external justification for writing the
counterattitudinal essay (they agreed voluntarily to write it) which in turn caused feelings of
guilt for voluntarily lying to the confederate These results indicate that people are apt to perform
counterattitudinal behaviors even when given a high perceived choice not to Due to the studyrsquos
significant attitude shift (cognitive dissonance) results in the High perceived choice group as
opposed to the Low perceived choice group who did not get strong attitude shift results the
current study will compare high and low perceived choice groups to attain the different levels of
cognitive dissonance
Upon discovering the links between free choice and reward leading to attitude shift when
a dissonant act is completed cognitive dissonance researchers attempted to identify specific
components of decision making that would further explain the effects of cognitive dissonance
The key features that have been postulated to explain how and why cognitive dissonance creates
attitude shift include experiencing feelings of personal guilt (Cooper amp Fazio 1984) public
commitment (Aronson 1968) and perceived free choice to commit the behavior (Brehm amp
Cohen 1962) Researchers have come up with competing theories to explain the resulting
cognitive shift that accompanies dissonance and one of the most prominent theories is the New
Look theory
13 Cooperrsquos New Look Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
The New Look theory posits that the effects of dissonance are a result of feeling
personally responsible for instigating future negative consequences for oneself or more often for
others (Cooper amp Fazio 1984) Cooper and Fazio suggested in this theory that aversive
11
consequences are necessary for the arousal of dissonance The authors defined aversive events as
those that block onersquos self interest or events that the individual would rather avoid due to their
undesirable nature The New Look theory posits that the degree of dissonance aroused in an
individual is dependent on the amount of desire a person has to avoid the negative consequences
Cooper and Fazio term this phenomenon dissonance motivation The New Look theory identifies
the consequence of an action as the cause of the subsequent attitude shift The consequence must
be salient and must cause the individual enough distress to warrant attitude shift
Support for this theory came from a study conducted by Goethals and Cooper (1972)
These researchers induced participants (known to be in favor of drinking alcohol) to deliver an
anti-drinking speech to a panel of people Half of the subjects were informed that their speech
convinced the panel that allowing drinking on campus was a bad idea while the other half of
participants were told that the speech they made had no effect on the listeners Results indicated
that only the participants who were led to believe that their speech had a negative effect on the
panel (their speech convinced the panel that drinking was bad) experienced attitude shift toward
being in favor of a drinking ban on campus The participants who were told that they did not
convince the panel did not experience attitude shift toward being against drinking on campus
The authors concluded that unless the participant feels that he negatively impacted another
person then he will not experience enough guilt and dissonance to warrant an attitude shift
Cooper and Worchel (1970) further demonstrated evidence for the New Look theory in
their experiment which replicated the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) peg turning task However
in their study participants were asked to deceive a confederate (only a high perceived choice
group) for a small amount of experimental credit (1 credit or 5 credits) Results indicated that
participants who felt they had the free will to deceive another person and did so experienced
12
such a negative consequence that in order to alleviate feelings of internal unease they changed
their own attitude and reported enjoying the peg turning task more than a control group who did
not have to lie to another person (who experienced no aversive consequence to their behavior)
Therefore Cooper in his New Look theory postulated that most people experience cognitive
dissonance following an aversive act that impacts another person or the self negatively
especially when the negative act violates normative social standards (Cooper 1999)
The aforementioned aspects of Cooperrsquos New Look theory are crucial to the current study
because we hypothesized that the average person will experience cognitive dissonance and thus
attitude change after committing an aversive act (lying to a confederate) which they felt they
freely chose to do The current experiment intended to explore Cooperrsquos New Look theory to not
only validate it in a normal population but also to test its effectiveness in a subpopulation that
experiences lower levels of guilt and remorse The current experiment intended to explore
Cooperrsquos New Look theory to not only validate it in a normal population but also to test its
effectiveness in a subpopulation that experiences lower levels of guilt and remorse If the theory
is correct that cognitive dissonance effects are due to feelings of tension or unease over having
caused negative consequences to another individual then it is the hypothesis of the current
researchers that individuals who felt less guilt over breaking social norms would not be as
cognitively affected by lying to another person Therefore the person with less ability to
experience guilt would not experience psychological distress from lying and ultimately therefore
not have an attitude shift
14 Psychopathy Effects on Cognitive Dissonance
The New Look theory proposes that an important cause of cognitive dissonance is often
the feeling of remorse that an individual experiences after performing a counterattitudinal
13
behavior with negative consequences for another person The questions naturally arise How
would individuals with little or no guilt perform on a cognitive dissonance task that arouses
guilt Would people lacking these cognitive reactions experience cognitive dissonance and
attitude shift following a dissonant action In order to answer these questions one must first
identify a group of people that consistently exhibit a lack of concern for others such as
individuals with psychopathic traits
Psychopathy is a pervasive heterogeneous personality construct that is particularly salient
for the current study due to the callous nature of individuals with these traits Psychopaths are
individuals who exhibit no remorse are callous unemotional and lack concern for societyrsquos
morays In addition they are often impulsive antisocial manipulative and do not have strong
social bonds with others (Hare 1993 Patrick 2006) Approximately one percent of the
population meets criteria for the diagnosis of psychopathy though 15-25 of the prison
population is diagnosed with psychopathy (Hare 1996) Within the criminal population
individuals with psychopathy are not only overrepresented but they also commit more violent
crimes (over half in the United States) and recidivate four times more often than prisoners
without psychopathy (Hare 1993) As one can see these crime statistics make this population a
danger to society and thus it is important to attempt to identify what underlying cognitive and
behavioral differences exist in people with psychopathy
Psychopathy is often discussed in relation to antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) by
many scholars (Hare 1993 Lilienfeld 1994) because of the high number of correlated traits
between the two personality constructs Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is classified as
an Axis II Cluster B disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV-TR) (American
Psychological Association APA 1994) Cluster B disorders are ones in which the individual
14
exhibits unpredictable impulsive or dramatic behavior The DSM IV-TR criteria necessary for a
diagnosis of ASPD includes impulsive and aggressive behavior conduct disorder (CD) in
childhood a history of criminal acts and violent disregard for others (APA 1994)
Psychopathy is differentiated from ASPD in that psychopathy incorporates the cognitive
and internal states of the individual in addition to his or her external behaviors (Hare 1999) In
fact the cognitive and interpersonal features of psychopathy are considered to be the most
crucial defining aspects of the personality construct (Patrick 2006) Psychopaths have
demonstrated an inability to internalize their culturersquos moral or legal standards and therefore
many people with psychopathy do not abide by these rules
Historically Phillipe Pinel was the first scientist to document the condition of
psychopathy in the early 19th century (Meloy 1998) Pinel noted that psychopaths exhibited no
remorse or internal restraint Hervey Cleckley (1941 1976) furthered research on psychopathy in
his book The Mask of Sanity Cleckley (1976) proposed that psychopathy is a personality
construct which arises in childhood He also was the first to define several cognitive and
affective characteristics of psychopathy such as superficial charm emotional shallowness
deceitfulness egocentricity irresponsibility and (most central for the current study) a lack of
remorse shame or guilt In addition he found that psychopaths often externalize the blame for
their negative actions are extremely impulsive and do not learn from punishment
Within psychopathy research there has been some debate as to whether the construct is
taxonic or dimensional (Hare 1991 Marcus amp Edens 2004) For example the Psychopathy
Checklist Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991) which is one of the prominent ways of assessing
psychopathy assigns individuals with an overall score on a scale from 0 to 40 with a cut off
score of 29 generally indicating the threshold for a psychopathy diagnosis (Hare 1991 Hare amp
15
Neumann 2006) The use of a cut-off seems to suggest a taxonic perspective However use of
the scale indicates that the higher the score the more psychopathic traits an individual expresses
which is also consistent with a dimensional view of psychopathy Recent studies have used the
PCL-R to examine the dimensional aspects of psychopathy and have consistently come to the
conclusion that psychopathy should be viewed as a continuum (Edens Marcus Lilienfeld amp
Poythress 2006 Marcus amp Edens 2004) Aside from looking at psychopathy on a continuum it
is also important to examine the construct from multiple perspectives such as behaviorally and
cognitively
Two Factor Model of Psychopathy
Today a Two Factor Model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991) is one of the
primary models used to evaluate psychopathy (Hare amp Neumann 2006 Harpur Hare amp
Hakstian 1989 Murrie amp Cornell 2002 Rutherford Cacciola amp Alterman 1999) The Two
Factor model assesses both behavioral cues and intrinsic or internal personality traits to define
psychopathy (Chapman Gremore amp Farmer 2003 Hare 1991 Pethman amp Erlandsson 2002)
and is the bases for the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991 Lykken 1995)
which is the principal assessment tool used to identify clinical psychopathy Within the Two
Factor theory the first factor describes the internal disposition of the individual and includes
eight items believed to gauge psychopathy from a cognitive angle These personality traits
include superficial charm a grandiose sense of self worth lack of empathy or guilt pathological
lying and cunning manipulativeness (Hare 1991 Raine 2002) The second factor outlines the
behavioral actions of an individual with psychopathic tendencies and includes nine items used to
assess a psychopathic personality These traits include early problem behaviors poor behavioral
controls and impulsivity (Hare 1991 Rutherford et al 1999) Based on the aforementioned
16
cognitive components of psychopathy the current researchers propose that these individuals will
not experience the same degree of psychological unease from lying to a confederate that the non
psychopathic individuals involved in the study
Primary and Secondary Model of Psychopathy
A second differentiation model of psychopathy was proposed by Karpman (1941 1948)
Karpman following the work of Cleckley divided psychopathy into two subcategories primary
and secondary psychopathy It is important to note that the primary and secondary views of
psychopathy mirror the Two Factor Model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991) In both
instances the primary factor (Factor 1) encompasses the cognitive affective traits of
psychopathy while the secondary factor (Factor 2) assesses the more antisocial behavior
characteristics of psychopathy
Individuals with primary psychopathy evidence cognitive manifestations of the construct
such as low to non-existent trait anxiety callousness and a lack of guilt or remorse They tend to
be unresponsive to treatment efforts and often have more severe symptoms associated with
psychopathy (Karpman 1941) For example Karpman (1948) found that primary psychopaths
are more apt to carry out their deceptive and manipulative behavior to reach an end goal
displaying a callous lack of emotion or concern for others whereas secondary psychopaths will
occasionally act with higher human emotions such as empathy
Secondary psychopathy is believed to come about through the effects of environmental
stressors and life events such as severe child physical or sexual abuse (Porter 1996) The
manifestation of secondary psychopathy which has also been called sociopathy (Lykken 1995)
is mostly behavioral in nature and secondary psychopaths tend to carry out the antisocial and
deviant behavior as a reaction to deep emotional conflict or anger rather than a callous
17
disregard for others (Karpman 1941) Overall primary psychopaths seem to have a permanent
deficit in functioning whereas secondary psychopathy encompasses a dysfunction created by
aversive environmental factors However it is important to note that both primary and secondary
psychopaths to some degree evidence manipulative and callous behavior and display a lack of
regard for others (Karpman 1948)
Support for the view that psychopaths lack psychological distress comes in part from a
study conducted by Patrick Bradley and Lang (1993) The researchers attempted to elicit a
startle reflex in psychopaths and non-psychopaths (as diagnosed by the PCL-R) by blasting a
loud noise while having the participants view either pleasant or unpleasant photographs Results
showed that psychopaths exhibited a much smaller startle response to the noise when viewing the
stimuli (both positive and negative pictures) as compared to the non-psychopaths In addition
Patrick and colleagues found a negative correlation between the PCL-R Factor One scores (lack
of guilt lack of remorse etc) and the level of eye-blink reaction Eye blink reactions to the
startle noise were measured with Beckman miniature Ag-AgCl electrodes positioned at the
orbicularis oculi muscle beneath the participantrsquos left eye The authors found that non
psychopathic individualsrsquo eyes tend to blink more frequently than in psychopaths when aversive
stimuli are presented
Therefore these results seem to indicate that individuals with high Factor One traits
seem to evidence very little anxiety and less psychological distress towards aversive stimuli The
results of this study show that individuals higher in psychopathic traits experience less of a
physiological and thus perhaps less of a cognitive reaction to aversive stimuli In addition a
study conducted by Ray and Ray (1982) demonstrated that people high in psychopathy do not
seem to care as much about what others think of them The study found a negative correlation
18
between social desirability (as measured by the Marlow-Crowne social desirability scales) and
psychopathy (r = -32 p = 05) This finding also supports the current studyrsquos hypothesis that
individuals high on psychopathic traits will be less likely than other individuals to experience
psychological unease over lying to a confederate or undergo an attitude shift to diminish this
discomfort
Cognitive dissonance studies have consistently demonstrated that individuals not only
shift their attitude following a dissonant act but also experience physical symptoms of distress as
well For example a study conducted by Croyle and Cooper (1983) found that people have a
heightened skin conductance responses following the ldquovoluntaryrdquo commitment of a writing a
counterattitudinal essay Though no direct cognitive dissonance studies manipulating guilt have
been replicated using psychopaths studies that have used aversive stimuli such as the
anticipation of being blasted with a loud noise (80 to 120dB) have indicated that psychopaths
(compared to non-psychopath controls) evidence a hyporesponsive physical reaction (as
measured by electrodermal measurements) to the aversive stimuli (Hare 1978) Harersquos study
along with others like it (see Fowles 1980 Lykken 1957) indicate that psychopaths do not
seem to experience anxiety at the same level that non-psychopathic individuals do Therefore it
would follow that through the reduced physiological anxiety response identified in individuals
with psychopathy they will be unable to experience the psychological unease associated with the
adverse stimulus (lying to a confederate) and thus not experience an attitude shift
Past Research on Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonance
Only one study has attempted to assess the effect of psychopathy on cognitive
dissonance A doctoral dissertation by Weir (2007) examined cognitive dissonance in a sample
of 150 males from a drug treatment facility All participants had been in prison or jail and had a
19
history of criminal activity Level of psychopathy was assessed using the LPSP Participants at
the start of this study filled out an attitudes measure that assessed their opinions about the
judicial system treatment of criminals and drug abuse Later in the experiment cognitive
dissonance was induced by having participants copy a counterattitudinal statement from a sheet
of paper that dealt with being in favor of harsher punishments for criminals and drug offenders
(views that these men would adamantly oppose) After participants copied the counterattitudinal
statements they were instructed to tear up what they had written At the end of the study Weir
again assessed participantsrsquo attitudes regarding the judicial system treatment of criminals and
drug abuse with the same attitudes measure employed at the very beginning of the study The
pre and post-test use of the attitudes measure was to identify if participantsrsquo opinions had shifted
toward being in favor of harsher punishments for criminals after writing counterattitudinally in
favor of it
Weir hypothesized that primary psychopaths would experience cognitive dissonance
significantly less than individuals with secondary psychopathy or non-psychopathic individuals
because of the callous unemotional traits that are principally associated with primary
psychopathy However results of Weirrsquos study found no significant difference across the three
groups for attitude change following the dissonance inducing task The analysis did find minor
differences between the groups such that primary psychopaths did seem less effected by writing
the counterattitudinal essays than the secondary and non-psychopaths but again the results were
not significant Weir (2007) concluded that individuals with higher levels of primary
psychopathy were deficient but not completely incapable of experiencing dissonance following
an aversive behavior
20
An important confound of Weirrsquos study was the lack of a control group All participants
wrote the counterattitudinal essay so there was not a neutral group to compare the participantsrsquo
attitude shift following the essay copying to Due to the lack of a control group it is impossible to
know whether the experimental manipulation induced a dissonance effect in any of the groups
Though his study did assess cognitive dissonance it is still very different than the current study
because Weir was not using guilt as the catalyst for attitude shift
The current study examines the effect of guilt (or a lack of guilt) on cognitive dissonance
while the counterattitudinal essayrsquos used as the dissonance stimuli in Weirrsquos study did not cause
participants to feel guilt Weir was not manipulating guilt in participants but rather their
cognitive reactions to discrepant behaviors and beliefs (physically writing in favor of something
they cognitively disagreed with) Therefore though relevant to more general issues concerning
cognitive dissonance and psychopathy his study was not directly relevant to the question of
whether guilt-inducing manipulations evoke cognitive dissonance effects among individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy
15 Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism (MACH) is considered to be a similar concept to psychopathy
(McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto 1998 Saruk 1975) Both personality constructs are
characterized by callousness manipulation of others and a disregard for social norms and morals
(Christie amp Geis 1970 Skinner 1988) Based on these shared characteristics many researchers
have come to believe that the concepts may be the same but are just being labeled differently by
different branches of psychology (McHoskey et al 1998) Psychopathy is typically studied by
clinical psychologists whereas MACH has been primarily researched in the fields of social and
personality psychology
21
However other investigators (Wastell amp Booth 2003 Wilson Near amp Miller 1996)
have pointed to MACH as an instrumental construct that is incorporated as a strategic way to
pursue goals MACHs tend to be calculating and rational and engage in ruthless activity to attain
goals that are important to them Psychopaths on the other hand are often much less self-
controlled and more impulsive while exhibiting a dearth of planning abilities This may be one
of the main differences between MACH and psychopathy and this difference seems to point to
cognitive distinctions between the two personality traits
Christie (1970b) formulated the personality construct of MACH based on the writings of
16th century political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli Machiavellirsquos (1513) classic book The
Prince recommended that would-be rulers take a ruthless and cold-blooded approach to
governance Accordingly Christie identified the traits of an individual with high MACH as
using ldquosuccessfulrdquo manipulation for personal gain a lack of concern for moral standards and a
purely instrumental approach to interpersonal relationships The MACH-IV is the principal
measure used to identify Machiavellianism today It was developed in 1970 by Christie and Geis
(1970) and is a self report assessment containing 20 questions that tap the traits of MACH
Research attempting to explore the distinctions between psychopathy and MACH has
found Machiavellians to evidence many shared traits with both primary and secondary
psychopathy For example MACH characteristics related to Factor 1 of the PCL-R and primary
psychopathy (as measured by the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales LPSP
Levenson et al 1995) include callousness manipulation and a lack of anxiety (Smith 1999)
Qualities of Machiavellianism have also been found in secondary psychopathy such as a thrill
seeking behavior and a heightened need for external stimulation (Strelau 1983) In addition a
study conducted by McHoskey and colleagues (1998) found that high scores on the MACH-IV
22
and high scores on the LPSP significantly correlated (r = 62) Smith and Griffith (1978) also
found a significant though modest correlation between the MMPI (Pd) scale and the MACH-IV
(r = 25) using a sample of 66 college students These findings support the theory that MACH
and psychopathy diagnoses have features in common and may in fact be tapping similar
personality constructs McHoskey and colleagues concluded after his study that psychopathy and
MACH should be more integrated in the literature
However other researchers have argued that there are crucial differences between
psychopathy and Machiavellianism For example Smith (1999) has argued that many people
with Machiavellianism are more apt to resemble a ldquosuccessful psychopathrdquo as they tend to not
have as many legal problems as primary psychopaths do and are often overrepresented in the
business industry as successful employees In addition other studies have resulted in smaller
correlations between MACH and psychopathy (see Greenwald 1967 Christie 1970a) For
example Saruk (1975) compared MACH scores with psychopathy scores on the Psychopathic
Deviate (Pd) scale of the MMPI with incarcerated inmates as participants and found no
significant correlation between the two personality constructs However many researchers today
have advised against using the Pd scale of the MMPI to gauge psychopathy due to the unreliable
results this scale has offered when studying psychopathy (Patrick 2006) and MACH (Skinner
1982) in the past
Additional distinctions in the current literature between MACH and psychopathy are that
MACHs tend be more represented in higher SES families and have higher economic standing
than the majority of psychopaths (especially secondary psychopaths) (McHoskey et al 1998
Smith 1999) As a result of the aforementioned literature MACH is most often associated with
ldquosuccessfulrdquo psychopathy or non institutionalized psychopaths (Christie 1970a)
23
16 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonance
Though the literature is very sparse regarding the relationship between psychopathy and
cognitive dissonance a few studies have investigated the relationship between MACH and
cognitive dissonance Four of the studies are relevant to the current proposal due to the way that
the researchers manipulated dissonance arousal One hindrance in comparing the current study to
previous ones on MACH and cognitive dissonance is that at the time these former studies were
conducted Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory of cognitive dissonance arousal had not been
formulated and thus guilt had not been considered as the cause of dissonance arousal at that
point in time
Bogart Geis Levy and Zimbardo (1970) assessed the impact of social cohesiveness
(liking a partner versus not liking a partner) between high and low MACHs in a cognitive
dissonance paradigm Participantsrsquo level of MACH and self-reported level of morality were pre-
assessed using the MACH-IV Next high and low MACHs were enticed to cheat on a test by a
confederate posing as their partner in the experiment The partnerrsquos level of prestige was
manipulated For half of participants the fake partner was presented as a high prestige partner (a
graduate law school student with high grades) and the remaining participants were told that their
partner was of low prestige (an industrial arts undergraduate student with poor grades) Bogart
and colleagues hypothesized that after cheating low MACHs in the low external justification
group (low prestige partners) would decrease their self-reported ratings of morality (identify
themselves as less moral than before) in order to cognitively justify their cheating behavior Each
participant was left alone in a room with their high or low prestige partner to complete a test
containing un-solvable questions After a while the fake partner ldquohappened uponrdquo answers to the
questions on a desk in the room and attempted to get the participant to cheat with him by copying
24
the answers from the found answer sheet After the cheating manipulation the participantrsquos level
of MACH (self-reported morality rating) was assessed again using the MACH-IV
The results of the study concluded that both high and low MACHs succumbed to
cheating at approximately the same rate (50 [1632] of high MACHS and 46 [1328] of low
MACHs) However Bogart and colleagues (1970) found that high MACHs were more
instrumental in their cheating behavior such that they cheated significantly more with the high
prestige partner than with the low prestige partner Low MACHs cheated an equal amount across
low and high prestige partner pairings In addition Bogart and colleagues identified an ldquoanti-
dissonantrdquo effect such that high MACHs actually increased their self-ratings of morality by
reporting that they were more moral after cheating when paired with a low prestige partner (low
external justification condition) whereas low MACHs as predicted decreased their self-ratings
of morality (reported they were less moral) when paired with low prestige partners (low external
justification condition) In other words when high MACHs were in the condition with no
external justification present for their actions and thus would have to rely on changing their
thoughts to match their behaviors they did not undergo this attitude shift rather they seemed to
create more dissonance between their thoughts and actions by reporting themselves as more
moral after cheating with the low prestige partner This is opposite to the classical cognitive
dissonant studies where participants experience an attitude shift that matches their behaviors
when little or no external justification is present to explain their actions
In contrast the classic dissonance effect was exhibited by participants in the Bogart et al
(1970) study with low levels of MACH they reported that they were not moral individuals after
they cheated with a low prestige partner Therefore it appears high MACH individuals are
25
relying on unique aspects of the situation other than external justification to create attitude
change
A very similar experiment was reported by Bogart (1971) in which she again assessed the
effect of MACH on cognitive dissonance by enticing participants cheat on a task with a high or
low prestige partner However in this experiment a control group was employed to assess
differences between high and low MACHs who were asked to cheat as opposed to those who
were not asked to cheat As in the earlier study by Bogart et al (1970) participantsrsquo level of
MACH and self-reported level of morality were pre-assessed Next high and low MACHs were
persuaded to cheat on an essay writing assignment by a confederate posing as their partner in the
experiment The partnerrsquos level of prestige was manipulated this time in four different ways to
include their fake level of MACH as well The four categories of fake participants included High
MACH High Prestige (graduate law student) High MACH Low Prestige (business
administration student) Low MACH High Prestige (physics major) and Low MACH Low
Prestige (industrial arts student) Results indicated that high MACH participants cheated
significantly more than low MACHs (66 of high MACHs versus 41 of low MACHs) and
that they discriminated their cheating significantly more than low MACHs such that high
MACHs cheated more with the high prestige partners than the low prestige partners (81 versus
56) As in the previous study by Bogart et al (1970) an anti-dissonance effect was again found
for High MACH participants such that high MACHs again increased their self-ratings of
morality (reported they were more moral) when in the low external justification condition (paired
with low prestige partners) while low MACHs decreased their self-ratings of morality (reported
they were less moral) when in the low external justification condition (paired with low prestige
partners) This study also pointed to a difference between high and low MACHs experience of
26
cognitive dissonance by identifying the abnormal anti-dissonance reaction from individuals with
higher levels of MACH
A study by Epstein (1969) used a methodology that apparently induced guilt in
participants Epstein examined the difference between high and low MACH participantsrsquo ability
to be persuaded by induced counterattitudinal behavior Epstein pre-assessed participantsrsquo level
of MACH (with the MACH-IV) and through the use of a median split chose a sample of 40 high
MACH men and 40 low MACH men She told them that they were involved in a radio debate on
fluoridating water supplies Epstein also pre-assessed their position on water fluoridation to
make sure all participants were in favor of the procedure Half of the participants were in the
non-role playing condition (20 high MACHs and 20 low MACHs) They were instructed to read
a counterattitudinal essay against fluoridating water in town and then were post-experimentally
assessed about their position on water fluoridation to see if reading the essay had created an
attitude shift in these participants The other half of participants were in the role playing
condition They not only read the counterattitudinal essay but next they were asked to deliver an
impromptu speech against fluoridation that would be recorded and played on radio stations
across the state In the taped speech the participants had to give their name and advocate for a
ban on fluoridation which was dissonant to their personal beliefs After delivering the speech
they too were post-experimentally assessed about their position on water fluoridation to see if
their opinion had changed to be more against fluoridation Results indicated an interaction
between high and low MACHs with the role playing conditions High MACHs in the non-role
playing condition evidenced significantly more attitude change than the high MACHs in the role-
playing condition and more attitude change than the low MACHs in the non-role playing
condition This too is an anti-dissonance effect in that dissonance has been shown to produce
27
attitude change when people perform behaviors that go against their personal beliefs and in the
case of the non-role playing condition the participants did not engage in any dissonant behavior
they simply read a counterattitudinal essay written by someone else Conversely as predicted
low MACHs in the role-playing condition evidenced significantly more attitude change towards
being against fluoridation than high MACHs in the role-playing condition In addition low
MACHs in the role playing condition evidenced the most attitude change out of any condition
The finding that low MACHs experienced the most attitude shift when they had to give a speech
on the radio against fluoridation supports the classic cognitive dissonance phenomenon In
addition the role playing low MACH results potentially relate to our study if their attitudes
shifted because they felt guilt for publically denouncing a belief that they held Epsteinrsquos study is
relevant to the current study due to the methodology she used in the role playing condition
Participants were asked to publically (via a radio broadcast) deliver a speech advocating for
beliefs that they opposed Therefore because delivering a public anti-fluoridation speech would
most likely produce feelings of guilt in participants Epsteinrsquos study provides some support for
the current studyrsquos predicted results
One final study on MACH and cognitive dissonance is loosely related to the current
study although in this final example the experimental methodology did not induce guilt in
participants Burgoon Miller amp Tubbs (1972) had participants write counterattitudinal essays
advocating the removal of college student draft deferments under high and low justification In
the study justification was manipulated with classroom credits participants in the high
justification group received five classroom credits for agreeing to write the counterattitudinal
essay and participants in the low justification group received only one credit for writing the
essay Results indicated a significant interaction between level of justification (high versus low)
28
and level of MACH (high versus low) Low MACH participants experienced attitude shift
toward being in favor of draft deferments when in the low justification group This was
consistent with the classic cognitive dissonance effect When low MACH participants had no
external justification for writing the essay they changed their beliefs to match their actions In
contrast high MACHs experienced attitude shift toward being in favor of the draft deferments
only when in the high justification group but not in the low justification group The authors
explain this relationship by using incentive theory They posit that high MACHs attitudes are
persuaded by rewards which stems from their desire to gain power and prestige (and rewards)
with no regard for other people
Burgoon et al (1972) explained their findings as reflecting high MACHsrsquo lack of
concern about lying or moral standards Christie and Geis (1970) have also discussed the
findings of Burgoon et al and conjectured that they reflect the high MACHrsquos lack of concern for
other people Specifically Christie and Geis suggest that high MACHs view people more as
objects to be manipulated rather than as people with feelings and emotions
The main difference between the current study and that of Burgoon et al (1972) is that
our study assessed cognitive dissonance through the use of guilt induction while their study did
not induce guilt in participants The methodology involved in their experiment was not designed
to create guilt in participants rather it was simply created to examine attitude shift after
performing a counterattitudinal act with no negative consequences Therefore though Burgoon
and colleaguesrsquo study assessed cognitive dissonance effects in participants with MACH it does
not appear directly relevant to the hypothesis underlying the present study
Overall past research has demonstrated that individuals high in MACH are resistant to
the classic cognitive dissonance effects of attitude shift after performing a behavior that they
29
cognitively oppose In fact the past research has shown that individuals with high MACH often
experience attitude shift in the opposite direction or conditions that low MACHs do These
results have been explained as consequences of the underlying personality characteristics that
high MACH individuals possess (callousness manipulative nature and lack of regard for others)
Since these characteristics are also traits of psychopathy (especially primary psychopathy) it is
reasonable to expect that the negative associations demonstrated between MACH and cognitive
dissonance will also be found between psychopathy and cognitive dissonance in the present
study
17 Hypotheses of the Present Study
Cognitive dissonance studies analyzing the affects of MACH have shown a significant
effect such that high MACHs do not evidence the classic attitude shift following the
performance of a dissonant act The current study sought to determine whether individuals with
high psychopathy scores exhibit a similar pattern
In the current study we analyzed guilt-induced cognitive dissonance effects in individuals
with varying levels of psychopathy Participantsrsquo level of psychopathy (and MACH) was
identified by having them fill out two self report measures on psychopathy and one self-report
measure on MACH They completed a boring abacus task that involved manually pushing balls
one at a time across an abacus for 20 minutes After the task the participants were either politely
asked (High perceived choice to lie group) or directly instructed (Low perceived choice to lie
group) to tell a fellow student (actually a confederate) that the abacus task was enjoyable After
misleading the confederate the participants completed a post-experimental questionnaire that
assessed their personal enjoyment of the abacus task and their level of guilt over deceiving
another person
30
First it was hypothesized that the classic cognitive dissonance effect would be replicated
We expected that regardless of psychopathy or MACH level participants in the High Choice to
Lie condition would evidence more attitude shift towards enjoying the abacus task than
participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition These results were expected to be a replication
of the classic Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study except that instead of manipulating reward
we would demonstrate the effect using choice as the dissonance manipulator
The second hypothesis was that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy (and
MACH) would report disliking the abacus task (as measured by the post experimental
questionnaire) across both the High and Low perceived choice to lie groups We expected these
results due to the lack of guilt commonly found in individuals with higher levels of psychopathy
and MACH Therefore we theorized that individuals with high levels of psychopathy would not
experience guilt even when they felt that they voluntarily (High perceived choice to lie group)
chose to mislead another participant Due to this lack of guilt the high psychopathy (and high
MACH) participant would not have had the attitude shift associated with cognitive dissonance
and would not report enjoying the abacus task
The third hypothesis pertained to the individuals with low or nonexistent levels of
psychopathy and MACH We predicted that participants with low levels of psychopathy would
report enjoying the abacus task more after lying to a future participant only if they were in the
High perceived choice to lie group These results were believed to be due to the guilt inducing
nature of voluntarily agreeing to lie to a person as opposed to the Low perceived choice group
where participants were told directly to lie to the next participant as part of the study
requirements These results were also expected for people who scored low in Machiavellianism
due to the similarities between the two personality constructs
31
The fourth hypothesis was that psychopathy would better account for a demonstrated lack
of guilt than would MACH Though this hypothesis did not have a strong empirically supported
theoretical background we were interested in learning whether the psychopathy construct would
yield different results from MACH suggesting that the psychopathy construct is including
relevant and distinct personality dimensions that the MACH construct does not include
In addition this study explored the relationship between primary and secondary
psychopathy with the level of self reported abacus task enjoyment Specifically the study
examined differences in the reported level of abacus task enjoyment between individuals with
high scores on primary as compared to secondary psychopathy Also the study explored
particular facets of psychopathy (such as callousness) and their relationship to reported
enjoyment of the abacus task
32
Chapter 2 Method
Participants
The current study was conducted with 164 (103 females 61 males) undergraduate
students at the University of Texas El Paso The sample size for the current study was
determined by examining past research on cognitive dissonance effects on MACH These studies
typically included 50 to 80 participants and yielded statistically significant results We
conservatively concluded that the present study should include approximately twice as many
participants as these earlier studies to ensure appropriate power for the current study
Participantsrsquo ages ranged from 18 to 44 years (M =1966 years SD = 317 years) with 823
between the ages of 18 to 20 The ethnicity of the sample was predominately Hispanic (854)
with the remaining participantsrsquo ethnicities Anglo-American (67) African American (18)
Asian (6) and Other (55) Participants were drawn from Introductory Psychology courses at
the University of Texas El Paso and were given 15 experimental credits for their participation
Measures
The Psychopathic Personality InventorymdashRevised Short Form (PPI-R SF Lilienfeld amp
Widows 2005)
The current study used the Psychopathic Personality Inventory ndash Revised Short Form
(PPI-R SF) which is a shortened version of the PPI-R It is a self-report measure of subclinical
psychopathic tendencies The PPI-R SF contains 56 items that are scored using a Likert scale
between 1 and 4 (1=False 2=Mostly False 3=Mostly True 4=True) The PPI-R SF yields one
overall total score and two factor scores (Fearless Dominance [FD] and Self-Centered
Impulsivity [SCI] ) as well as scores on eight content scales (a) Machiavellian Egocentricity
(ME 20 items) (b) Social Influence (SOI previously Social Potency 18 items) (c)
Coldheartedness (C 16 items) (d) Carefree Nonplanfulness (CN 19 items) (e) Fearlessness (F
33
14 items) (f) Blame Externalization (BE 15 items) (g) Rebellious Nonconformity (RN
previously Impulsive Nonconformity 16 items) and (h) Stress Immunity (STI 13 items) The
Fearless Dominance factor includes the Social Influence Fearlessness and Stress Immunity
content scales and the Self Centered Impulsivity factor is comprised of the Machiavellian
Egocentricity Rebellious Nonconformity Carefree Nonplanfulness and Blame Externalization
content scales (the Coldheartedness content scale is part of the overall total but is considered
separate from either of the two summed factors (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger
2003) These factors correspond to the two-factor structure (PPI-I and PPI-2) of the original
version of the PPI which are also similar to the Two Factor Structure of psychopathy proposed
by Hare (1991) in the Psychopathy ChecklistmdashRevised Specifically the Fearless Dominance
factor assesses the cognitive deficits of psychopathy while the Self Centered Impulsivity factor
reviews the antisocial behavior traits of psychopathy
Currently there are no published studies that have analyzed the reliability and validity of
the PPI-R SF but because it is a shortened version of the PPI-R (it is comprised of the 7 highest
loading questions from each of the eight subscales of the PPI-R) the demonstrated psychometric
properties of the PPI and PPI-R are relevant to evaluating the PPI-R SF
Lilienfeld and Andrews (1996) evaluated the convergent and discriminant validities of
the PPI with an undergraduate sample and found evidence of convergent validity with the
California Psychological Inventory Socialization scale (r = -59) Levensonrsquos (1990)
Psychopathy Scale (r = 37) and with the Hare (1985) Self Report Psychopathy ScalemdashRevised
(r = 91) Lilienfeld and Widows (1995) demonstrated internal consistencies for the PPI-R
overall total and content scales to range from α = 78 to α = 92 They also found test-retest
reliabilities (mean test-retest interval = 1994 days) to range from r = 82 to r = 93 The PPI-R
34
has been found to correlate significantly with both the Self-Report Psychopathy ScalendashII (SRP-
II Hare Harpur amp Hemphill 1989) and the LPSP (Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995) as
well as with self-report measures of antisocial personality disorder substance use sensation
seeking and pathological functioning (Lilienfeld amp Widows 2005)
Levensonrsquos Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales (LPSP Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick
1995)
The LPSP is a 26-item self report measure that identifies both behavioral and emotional
aspects of psychopathy The measure breaks down into two subscales Primary Psychopathy (16
items) and Secondary Psychopathy (10 items) Each item is scored on a 1 to 4 point Likert Scale
(1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Agree Strongly) Levenson and colleagues
(1995) found that the Primary scale has good internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos alpha = 82) and
that the Secondary scale had marginal internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos alpha = 63) In addition
they found that the two scales correlate moderately (r = 40) Lynam and colleagues (1999)
found convergent validity between the PPI and the LPSP to be moderately high (r= 64)
MACH-IV Scale (Christie amp Geis 1970) The MACH-IV is a 20-item self-report measure that identifies Machiavellianism which
is characterized by being callous manipulative and behaving in a way that only benefits oneself
The items are arranged in a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very Strongly Agree) to 5 (Very
Strongly Disagree) with 3 being a neutral choice (No Opinion) Internal reliability has been
found to be rather consistent with studies demonstrating moderate alpha coefficients α=74
(Austin Farrelly Black amp Moore 2007) and α=70 (Fehr Samsom amp Paulhus 1992) Christie
and Geis (1970) found split half reliabilities from 69 to 88 Finally Machiavellianism has
35
shown moderate correlations with primary (r = 65 plt001) and secondary psychopathy (r = 49
plt001) as measured by the LPSP (McHoskey et al 1998)
Post-experimental Questionnaire
The post experimental questionnaire was administered after the participant completed the
abacus task and after they misled the confederate in the experiment The questionnaire was
based on the post experimental measure used in the Cooper and Worchel (1970) study on
cognitive dissonance The measure contains eight items that assess how enjoyable the participant
perceived the abacus task how guilty they felt for lying to the confederate and how voluntary
the person felt the deceiving of the confederate was (see Appendix B) The item assessing
participantsrsquo enjoyment of the abacus task was the primary dependent measure of the current
study
The questionnaire was designed so that it appeared to be a survey conducted by the
Psychology Department attempting to analyze how effective all of the departmental research
was The questionnaire was sealed into an envelope by the participant upon completion in order
to create the illusion of the confidentiality of their answers from the experimenter The
questionnaire was designed to appear separate from the current experiment in order to prevent
any biasing of participantsrsquo responses by compliance effects (ie participants answering the way
they perceive the experimenter would want them to answer) The majority of the questions on
this questionnaire were obtained from the Cooper and Worchel post experimental questionnaire
The main adaptation the current study made to the original measure was the use of a 1-7 point
Likert scale to rate responses instead of the 1-31 point Likert scale utilized by Cooper and
Worchel In addition in the present study the last 2 questions on the questionnaire were changed
36
to identify how voluntary the participant found the task to be and if the deceiving of the
confederate elicited feelings of guilt in the participant
Demographics Form
A brief demographics form was presented at the beginning of the packet of psychopathy
and MACH self report measures (Appendix B) It was given before the self-report measures and
assessed participantsrsquo age gender and ethnicity This form took approximately one minute to
complete
Procedure Participants were Introductory Psychology students recruited through an online computer
experiment program provided by the University of Texas at El Paso and were given 15
experimental credits for their involvement in the current study Upon entering the lab the
participant was seated in the hall to wait for the experimenter Meanwhile the experimenter text-
messaged the confederate to let him (or her) know that the participant had arrived Upon
receiving the text message the confederate knew to wait approximately 15 minutes before
entering the lab and acting out their role Next the participant was guided into a room and given
an informed consent form (Appendix F) which was explained to them The form explained the
confidential nature of the study and that the study was about personality traitsrsquo influence on
motor skills and reaction time After the experimenter explained the consent form the participant
read and signed the form
Abacus Task
An abacus task was implemented to induce boredom in participants The task was loosely
modeled on the boring peg turning task used in the Cooper and Worchel (1970) and Festinger
and Carlsmith (1959) experiments on cognitive dissonance In the abacus task a large abacus
37
was placed flat on the table in front of the participant He or she was instructed to move the
wooden balls one at a time across the abacus using only their right hand The participant was
instructed to slide the balls across the abacus one at a time starting at the top row and moving
down the board until they reached the bottom row Once he or she had slid all of the balls (one
at a time) to the right side of the abacus the participant was instructed to start at the top again
and to slide the balls back across the abacus one at a time beginning at the top row and moving
down the abacus until they had reached the bottom row again Participants were told to work at
their own ldquonaturalrdquo pace and to continue sliding balls across the abacus one at a time going row
by row until instructed to stop After 10 minutes the experimenter instructed the participant to
stop and then start the task over with their left hand instead of their right hand During this task
the experimenter was seated directly across from the participant with a clipboard and a stopwatch
and acted as though she was monitoring the participantrsquos progress (eg occasionally writing
notes on the clipboard and appearing to time the participantrsquos progress with the stopwatch)
Approximately 15 minutes into the task a knock was heard on the door and the
confederate came into the room to ask if this was where the experiment was being held The
experimenter looked up and quickly told the confederate that he was in the right place and asked
him to wait in the hall until she was done running the current participant The confederate
apologized for his interruption shut the door behind him and sat in the hall to wait for his
interaction with the participant While waiting in the hall the confederate pretended to be doing
homework or listening to his Ipod to give the illusion that he was just another participant waiting
to do the experiment After the participant had moved the balls across the abacus with his or her
left hand for 10 minutes the experimenter signaled the participant to stop the task The abacus
task lasted 20 minutes 10 minutes per hand
38
Choice Conditions
After the abacus task was completed the experimenter stopped the participant and recited
from memory one of the Post Abacus Task scripts to the participant For half of participants the
experimenter recited from memory the High Perceived Choice to Lie script (see Appendix A)
and the other half of the participants were recited the Low Perceived Choice to Lie script
(Appendix A) The scripts were alternated randomly between participants Following the choice
manipulation portion of the experiment and guilt induction participants were given the post
experimental questionnaire to complete as this was the main dependent measure of the study
High Perceived Choice to Lie Group
In the High Perceived Choice to Lie condition the experimenter politely asked the
participant to tell the next waiting participant (the confederate waiting in the hall) that the abacus
task was fun and interesting (see Appendix A) The participant was informed that telling the
person waiting in the hall about the task being enjoyable was not required but that their
assistance would be greatly appreciated Once the participant agreed to the task (this study had a
100 compliance rate) he or she was taken into the hall where the ldquofuturerdquo participant (actually
a confederate) was seated and waiting The (real) participant was introduced to the confederate
and the experimenter explained to the fake participant that she had to set up quickly in the other
lab room so the current participant was going to explain the experiment to him while she was
gone The experimenter then excused herself and left the hallway The real participant was given
about two minutes to tell the second (bogus) participant that the task was enjoyable If the
participant freely told the confederate that the task was going to be fun (927 of participants)
then the fake participant thanked the real participant as follows ldquoGreat Irsquom really glad to hear
that this is a fun experiment because all of the other experiments I have had so far have really
39
been boring Thanks for telling merdquo If the participant did not freely say that the task was
enjoyable the confederate attempted to prompt them by asking ldquoSo how was itrdquo This
manipulation got an additional 37 of participants to verbalize that the task was fun and the
confederate also thanked them with the same statement reported above The statement thanking
the participant for the information about their enjoyable rating of the task was intended to
increase the real participantrsquos guilt about lying Following the short conversation with the
confederate the experimenter went back into the hall and led the participant into the other lab
room After she had shut the lab room door behind them the confederate filled out the
Confederate Manipulation Check form (Appendix H) The confederate checked the box on the
form that indicated whether or not the real participant told him directly if the task was fun if he
had to prompt the participant or if the participant did not tell him the task was enjoyable Upon
filling out the Confederate Manipulation Check form the confederate put the form in its box in
the lab and promptly left
Low Perceived Choice to Lie Group
In the Low Perceived Choice to Lie condition the experimenter directly instructed (not
requested) the participant to tell the next (fake) participant that the abacus task was fun and
interesting (see Appendix A) Upon consent from the participant the experimenter led him into
the hall and introduced him to the confederate who was waiting as the future participant
Identical procedures to the ones explained for participants in the High Perceived Choice to Lie
group occurred at this point
Post-experimental Questionnaire
Once participants had interacted with the confederate and been taken into the second lab
room they were given the post-experimental questionnaire The post-experimental questionnaire
40
(Appendix B) contained eight items that quantified how enjoyable the participant found the
abacus task to be and assessed their self-reported feelings of guilt after misleading the
confederate The questionnaire was presented to seem like it was not part of the current
experiment but rather a general Psychology Department survey being conducted to assess
departmental research being performed that semester The questionnaire was administered with
an envelope and the participant was instructed to seal their questionnaire inside the envelope
after completing it to promote the sense of confidentiality of their answers from the
experimenter The experimenter explained the questionnaire to the participant To prevent
possible compliance effects the experimenter reiterated that she was not supposed to see the
participantrsquos answers because the questionnaire was supposed to remain anonymous and was not
part of the current study
After the participant completed the post-experimental questionnaire and sealed it into the
envelope he or she was given a packet containing the LPSP [Appendix C] PPI-R SF [Appendix
D]) and MACH-IV [Appendix E]) and the demographics form (Appendix B) and asked to
complete these questionnaires The packet of measures took approximately 30 minutes to
complete After the participants filled out all of the self-report measures they were debriefed as
to the true nature of the experiment and asked to sign a second informed consent form (Appendix
F) that outlined to them the true purposes of the experiment A debriefing script was used to
ensure that all participants received the same information about the experiment (see Appendix
G) They were asked not to share with anyone the actual purpose and procedures of the
experiment in order to prevent future participants from knowing ahead of time what the
experiment was about Participants were given 15 experimental credits for their participation
41
Chapter 3 Results
Manipulation Check
There were 82 participants in the High Choice to Lie group and 82 participants in the
Low Choice to Lie condition All participants verbally agreed with the researcher that they
would tell the confederate that the task was enjoyable A manipulation check was performed to
determine whether they actually kept their agreement The confederate marked on a form
(Appendix G) whether or not the participant told him or her that the task was enjoyable Results
of the manipulation check indicated that 152 (927) of the participants complied with the
researcherrsquos suggestion and told the confederate that the task would be enjoyable An additional
six (37) told the confederate that the abacus task would be enjoyable but only after they were
prompted by the confederate asking ldquoHow was the taskrdquo One (6) participant told the
confederate that the task was enjoyable but added that he was instructed by the researcher to say
so Three participants (18) never told the confederate that the task was enjoyable Two
participants (12) told the confederate that the task was boring To preserve randomization
analyses for the study were run on all participants (N = 164) including those who failed to report
that the task was enjoyable This approach to the analysis of experimental findings is known as
ldquointent-to-treat analysisrdquo and yields an unbiased estimate of the effects of being assigned to each
experimental condition (Shadish Cook amp Campbell 2002) However as will be reported later
in the Results supplementary analyses were also run that excluded the six participants who
failed to tell the confederate that the task was enjoyable
Descriptive Statistics
Before running analyses procedures were carried out for dealing with missing data
Seven participants did not fill out the psychopathy and Machiavellianism self-report measures
42
completely Specifically each of the seven neglected to answer precisely one item on a single
scale Scores for the missing items were imputed individually using regression using the
summed score of the other items on the same scale as the predictor and the missing item score as
the criterion
Descriptive statistics were then calculated for participantsrsquo self-reported abacus task
enjoyment for their total scores on the psychopathy and Machiavellianism self-report measures
and for their respective factor scores and subscales scores (see Table 1)
43
Table 1 Descriptive Information for the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Predictors and Dependent Variable (N=164)
Mean Standard
Deviation Minimum Maximum
Total Enjoyment Rating of Abacus Task
401 169 100 700
High Choice to Lie Enjoyment Rating of Task
434 162 100 700
Low Choice to Lie Enjoyment Rating of Task
367 171 100 700
PPI-R SF Total Score 12565 1628 9000 17000
Fearless Dominance Factor
5605 912 2800 7600
Self-Centered Impulsive Factor
5436 989 3500 8400
Machiavellian Egocentricity 1360 352 700 2500
Social Influence 1888 400 700 2800
Fearlessness 1898 448 700 2800 Coldheartedness 1523 387 800 2600 Rebellious Nonconformity 1399 415 700 2400
Blame Externalization 1416 419 700 2600
Carefree Nonplanfulness 1262 329 700 2300
Stress Immunity 1820 453 700 2800 LPSP Total Score 5018 903 3000 7300
LPSP Primary Factor 3062 702 1600 4900
LPSP Secondary Factor 1956 405 1100 3100
MACH-IV Total Score 5296 833 3500 7600
Deceit 850 284 400 1600 Flattery 563 209 200 1000 Immoral 883 241 300 1500 Cynicism 1066 296 500 2000 Residual 1934 359 1000 2900 Note Total scale scores are in bold Factor scale scores are in italics Subscales are presented in regular font
44
31 Confirmatory Analyses
Hypothesis 1 Replication of the Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effect
A regression was performed to determine whether the classic cognitive dissonance effect
reported in earlier research was reproduced in the present study The main dependent variable in
this analysis was participants self-report ratings of how much they enjoyed the abacus task (Self-
Reported Enjoyment) The independent variable was Choice Condition (High Choice to Lie
versus Low Choice to Lie) In this analysis and all other analyses High Choice to Lie was coded
as ldquo1rdquo and Low Choice to Lie as ldquo0rdquo Based on prior studies of cognitive dissonance it was
predicted that that participants in the High Choice to Lie condition would report higher levels of
enjoyment than participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition A linear regression was
conducted and as predicted a significant difference in abacus task enjoyment was found
between the High and Low Choice to Lie groups Rsup2 = 039 F (1162) = 666 p = 011
standardized β = 199 t(163) = 258 p = 011 A one-way ANOVA was also conducted and
yielded exactly the same results as the regression F(1162) = 666 p = 011 d = 402 The High
Choice to Lie group had a mean enjoyment rating of 434 (SD = 162) (on a 1 to 7 rating scale
with 1 being no enjoyment of the task and 7 being high enjoyment of the task) while the Low
Choice to Lie group reported a mean enjoyment rating of 367 (SD = 171) on the same scale (see
Figure 1) These results indicate that participants in the High Choice to Lie group who felt that
they had more choice whether to mislead the confederate about the task being enjoyable
reported enjoying the task more than participants in the Low choice to lie group
45
Figure 1 Main effect for mean task enjoyment across choice conditions r = 199
Hypothesis 2 amp 3 Relationship Between Task Enjoyment and Choice Level Will Vary With
Psychopathy Level
The main hypothesis of the study was that individuals with lower levels of psychopathy
(and Machiavellianism) would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect by reporting higher
enjoyment of the abacus task in the High Choice to Lie Condition than in the Low Choice to Lie
Condition whereas individuals with higher levels of psychopathy would not report more
enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie than in the Low Choice to Lie condition In other words a
significant interaction was hypothesized between choice condition and level of psychopathy (and
Machiavellianism) in the prediction of self-reported enjoyment In order to test this hypothesis
three multiple regressions were conducted using the two psychopathy measures and the single
Machiavellianism measure
46
First multiple regression PPI-R SF total scores In the first multiple regression the
criterion was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice
Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) PPI-R SF total scores and the
interaction of Choice Condition with PPI-RSF scores It was hypothesized that the interaction
term would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple regression
are shown in Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was statistically
significant Rsup2 = 105 F(3160) = 623 p lt 001
As hypothesized the interaction of PPI-R SF total scores and choice condition was
statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -216 t(163) = -
211 p =036 (Table 2) Figures 2 and 3 depict this interaction graphically As can be seen in
Figure 2 there was not a significant relationship between PPI-R SF scores and Self-Reported
Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -054 t(81) =
-486 p =628 In contrast there was a significant relationship between PPI-R SF scores and
Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -374 t(81) = -
361 p =001 This finding thus supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of
psychopathy would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher
levels would not
47
Figure 2 Relationship of PPI-R SF total scores to reported level of task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie condition only Standardized β = -054 p = 628
Figure 3 Relationship of PPI-R SF total scores to reported level of task enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie condition only Standardized β = -374 p = 001
48
Second multiple regression LPSP total scores In the second multiple regression the criterion
was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice Condition (High
Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) LPSP total scores and the interaction of Choice
Condition with LPSP scores Again it was hypothesized that the interaction term would
significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple regression are shown in
Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was statistically significant Rsup2 =
089 F(3160) = 518 p = 002
As hypothesized the interaction of LPSP total scores and choice condition was
statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -236 t(163) = -
234 p = 021 The interaction is depicted graphically by choice condition in Figures 4 and 5
As can be seen from Figure 4 there was not a significant relationship between LPSP scores and
Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β
= 023 t(81) = 208 p =836 In contrast there was a significant negative relationship between
LPSP scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β =
-327 t(81) = -309 p =003 (Figure 5) Thus this finding like the finding concerning the PPI-
R SF supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of psychopathy would show
the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher levels would not
49
Figure 4 Relationship of LPSP total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = 023 p = 836
Figure 5 Relationship of LPSP total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash High Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -327 p = 003
50
T
able
2 M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts C
rite
rion
is S
elf-
Rep
orte
d E
njoy
men
t of t
he A
bacu
s T
asks
P
redi
ctor
s ar
e th
e P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
an
d M
AC
H-I
V T
otal
Sco
res
and
Subs
cale
s E
ach
Row
Rep
rese
nts
Res
ults
Fro
m O
ne M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n
Over
all
Mode
l
High
L
ow C
hoic
e
Psyc
hopa
thy
Ma
ch P
redi
ctor
In
tera
ctio
n
Pred
icto
r
F
(df)
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
PPIR
SF
Tot
623
(3160)
lt00
1
661
252
196
262
010
-089
173
-053
-52
607
-536
254
-216
-211
036
PPIRSF1-FD
296
(3160)
03
4
670
260
198
258
011
175
194
104
91
366
-382
262
-167
-146
146
PPIRSF2-SCI
690
(3160)
lt00
1
657
251
195
262
010
-123
168
-073
-73
466
-561
254
-220
-221
028
Mach Egocen
730
(3160)
lt00
1
721
251
214
287
005
024
178
014
14
892
-708
252
-295
-281
006
Soc Influ
230
(3160)
079
677
263
201
258
011
-034
200
-020
-17
867
128
266
057
48
631
Fearlessness
487
(3160)
00
3
660
256
196
258
011
177
188
105
94
348
-634
257
-274
-247
015
Coldhrtnes
577
(3160)
00
1
733
254
217
288
004
-488
193
-288
-253
012
153
257
068
59
554
Rebel Non
445
(3160)
00
5
668
256
198
261
010
142
179
084
80
428
-590
257
-243
-230
023
Blm Extern
296
(3160)
03
4
678
260
201
261
010
-144
190
-085
-76
451
-084
261
-036
-32
747
Carefree
490
(3160)
00
3
570
258
169
221
029
-430
176
-254
-244
016
171
260
068
66
511
Stress Imun
257
(3160)
056
665
261
197
255
012
179
183
106
98
330
-245
262
-101
-93
352
LPSP
Tot
al
518
(3160)
00
2
699
255
207
274
007
037
171
022
22
827
-603
258
-236
-234
021
Primary
420
(3160)
00
7
691
257
205
269
008
041
176
024
23
815
-495
259
-199
-192
057
Secondary
359
(3160)
01
5
682
258
202
264
009
018
187
101
09
926
-377
259
-161
-145
148
MACH
-IV
Tot
492
(3160)
00
3
703
256
208
275
007
-173
178
-102
-98
331
-314
257
-128
122
223
Deceit
508
(3160)
00
2
696
255
206
273
007
-374
167
-221
-224
026
011
260
004
04
965
Flattery
368
(3160)
01
3
682
258
202
264
009
162
173
096
94
351
-523
261
-204
-200
047
Immoral
454
(3160)
00
4
705
256
209
275
007
-360
184
-213
-196
052
052
257
022
20
840
Cynicism
270
(3160)
04
8
680
261
201
261
010
002
198
001
01
991
-212
264
-094
-81
422
Residual
302
(3160)
03
2
667
260
198
257
011
052
171
031
30
762
-354
264
-136
-135
181
Not
e
Sign
ific
ant p
val
ues
(p lt
05)
are
in b
old
p v
alue
s ap
proa
chin
g si
gnifi
canc
e (lt
10)
are
in it
alic
s
Pre
dict
or A
bbre
viat
ions
PPI
RS
F To
t =
PPI-
RS
F to
tal s
core
PPI
RS
F1-F
D =
PPI
RS
F Fa
ctor
1 ndash
Fea
rless
Dom
inan
ce F
acto
r Sco
re P
PIR
SF2
-SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f C
ente
red
Impu
lsiv
ity F
acto
r Sco
re M
ach
Ego
cen
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
ricity
sub
scal
e S
oc I
nflu
= P
PI-R
SF
Soci
al In
fluen
ce s
ubsc
ale
Fea
rles
snes
s =
PPI-
RS
F
Fear
less
ness
sub
scal
e C
oldh
rtnes
= P
PI-R
SF
Col
dhea
rted
ness
sub
scal
e R
ebel
Non
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
xter
n =
PPI
-RS
F B
lam
e E
xter
naliz
atio
n
subs
cale
Car
efre
e =
PPI-
RS
F C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Str
ess
Imun
= P
PI-R
SF
Stre
ss Im
mun
ity s
ubsc
ale
LPS
P To
tal =
LPS
P to
tal s
core
Pri
mar
y =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le
Seco
ndar
y =
LPSP
Sec
onda
ry s
ubsc
ale
MA
CH
-IV
Tot
= M
AC
H-I
V to
tal s
core
Dec
eit =
MA
CH
-IV
Dec
eit s
ubsc
ale
Fla
ttery
= M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
oral
= M
AC
H-I
V
Imm
oral
ity s
ubsc
ale
Cyn
icis
m =
MA
CH
-IV
Cyn
icis
m s
ubsc
ale
Res
idua
l = M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
Mod
el A
bbre
viat
ions
Un-
Stzd
β =
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Bet
a S
td E
rr =
Sta
ndar
d E
rror
Stz
d β
= St
anda
rdiz
ed B
eta
51
Third multiple regression Mach-IV total scores In the third multiple regression the
criterion was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice
Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) Mach-IV total scores and the
interaction of Choice Condition with Mach-IV scores Again it was hypothesized that the
interaction term would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple
regression are shown in Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was
statistically significant Rsup2 = 085 F(3160) = 492 p = 003
Contrary to prediction the interaction of Mach-IV total scores and choice condition was
not statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -128 t(163) =
-122 p = 223 Thus this finding failed to support the hypothesis that individuals with lower
levels of Machiavellianism would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that
individuals with higher levels would not The pattern of data is depicted graphically by choice
condition in Figures 6 and 7 As can be seen from Figure 6 there was not a significant
relationship between MACH-IV scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the
Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -104 t(81) = -932 p =354 In contrast there
was a significant negative relationship between MACH-IV scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment
in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -295 t(81) = -276 p =007 (Figure 7)
Although one of the standardized betas (-104) was non-significant and the other (-295) was
significant the difference between the two betas was not significant so the predicted interaction
did not attain statistical significance
52
Figure 6 Relationship of MACH-IV total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -104 p = 354
Figure 7 Relationship of MACH-IV total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash High Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -295 p = 007
53
Hypothesis 4 Level of Psychopathy Will Incrementally Predict Abacus Task Enjoyment
The second main hypothesis was that psychopathy scores would incrementally predict
Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task above and beyond the predictive power of
Machiavellianism To test this hypothesis two hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted
using Self-Reported Enjoyment as the criterion
First hierarchical regression PPI-R SF total scores The first hierarchical regression
used PPI-R SF total scores as the psychopathy measure In the first step of the regression the
Choice to Lie condition was entered as a predictor In the second step standardized total
MACH-IV scores and the standardized interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice
condition were entered In the third step standardized PPI-R SF total scores and the
standardized interaction term of total PPI-R SF scores with choice condition were entered as a
predictor Results are shown in Table 3 As can be seen inclusion of PPI-R SF scores and their
interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment significantly increased predictive power above and
beyond scores on the MACH-IV ∆Rsup2 = 041 F(2158) = 367 p = 028 Although the change in
Rsup2 was significant it is important to note that the standardized beta for the PPI-R SF total scores
was not significant in predicting task enjoyment when added to MACH-IV scores in predicting
task enjoyment standardized β = -010 t(158) = -09 p = 930 In addition the standardized beta
for the interaction between PPI-R SF scores and choice condition only approached significance
when added to MACH-IV scores in block three (standardized β = -205 t(158) = -186 p =
065
54
Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianism
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=085 F(3160)=492 p=003 (∆Rsup2=045 F(2160)=394 p=021) High or Low Choice to Lie 703 256 208 275 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -173 178 -102 - 98 331 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -314 257 -128 -122 223 Step 3 Rsup2=125 F(5158)=452 p=001 (∆Rsup2=041 F(2158)=367 p=028) High or Low Choice to Lie 688 252 204 273 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -166 195 -098 - 85 397 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -165 273 -067 - 60 547 PPI-RSF Total Scores -017 192 -010 - 09 930 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -507 273 -205 -186 065 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics
Second hierarchical regression LPSP total scores The second hierarchical regression
used LPSP total scores as the psychopathy measure In the first step of the regression the Choice
to Lie condition was entered as a predictor In the second step standardized total MACH-IV
scores and the standardized interaction term of MACH-IV total scores were entered In the third
step standardized LPSP total scores and the standardized interaction term of total LPSP scores
with choice condition were entered as a predictor Results are shown in Table 4 As can be seen
inclusion of total LPSP scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment did not
significantly increase predictive power above and beyond MACH-IV scores ∆Rsup2= 026
F(2158)= 233 p=101
55
Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (LPSP) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianism
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=085 F(3160)=492 p=003 (∆Rsup2=045 F(2160)=394 p=021) High or Low Choice to Lie 703 256 208 275 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -173 178 -102 - 98 331 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -314 257 -128 -122 223 Step 3 Rsup2=111 F(5158)=394 p=002 (∆Rsup2=026 F(2158)=233 p=101) High or Low Choice to Lie 712 254 211 281 006 MACH-IV Total Scores -282 212 -167 -133 186 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -023 296 -009 - 08 939 LPSP Total Scores 188 204 111 92 358 Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -609 297 -238 -205 042 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics
32 Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory Analysis Incremental Prediction of Task Enjoyment by Machiavellianism
The analyses reported thus far were confirmatory and based on a priori hypotheses A
series of exploratory analyses were also carried out as reported in the following sections of the
Results In the first set of exploratory analyses two hierarchical multiple regressions were run to
identify whether MACH-IV total scores incrementally predicted Self-Reported Enjoyment of the
abacus task above and beyond the predictive power of psychopathy scores
First hierarchical regression Incremental predictive power of MACH-IV total scores
over PPI-R SF total scores The first exploratory analysis was conducted to examine whether
MACH-IV scores incrementally increased prediction of abacus task enjoyment above and
beyond the predictive power of PPI-R SF scores A hierarchical regression was conducted In
step one the Choice to Lie condition was entered in step two standardized PPI-R SF total
56
scores and the standardized interaction term of total PPI-R SF scores with choice condition was
entered and finally in step three the standardized total MACH-IV scores and the standardized
interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice condition were entered As can be seen in
Table 5 the inclusion of MACH-IV total scores and their interaction with Choice Condition did
not significantly increase predictive power ∆Rsup2= 020 F(2158)= 185 p= 160
Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF)
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=105 F(3160)=623 plt001 (∆Rsup2=065 F(2160)=582 p=004) High or Low Choice to Lie 661 252 196 262 010 PPI-RSF Total Score -089 173 -053 -52 607 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -536 254 -216 -211 036 Step 3 Rsup2=125 F(5158)=452 p=001 (∆Rsup2=020 F(2158)=185 p=160) High or Low Choice to Lie 688 252 204 273 007 PPI-RSF Total Scores -017 192 -010 -09 930 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -507 273 -205 -186 065 MACH-IV Total Scores -166 195 -098 -85 397 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -165 273 -067 -60 547 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Significant alpha levels are in bold Moderate alpha levels are in italics Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Second hierarchical regression Incremental predictive power of MACH-IV total scores
over LPSP total scores A similar hierarchical multiple regression was performed to examine
whether MACH-IV scores incrementally increase prediction of abacus task enjoyment above and
beyond the predictive power of LPSP scores An incremental hierarchical regression was
conducted In step one the Choice to Lie condition was entered in step two standardized LPSP
57
total scores and the standardized interaction term of total LPSP scores with choice condition was
entered and finally in step three the standardized total MACH-IV scores and the standardized
interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice condition were entered As can be seen in
Table 6 the results of this analysis like the previous one were not significant ∆Rsup2= 022
F(2158)= 198 p= 142 The inclusion of Machiavellianism in the regression equation did not
significantly increase predictive power above and beyond the predictive power of LPSP scores
Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (LPSP)
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=089 F(3160)=518 p=002 (∆Rsup2=049 F(2160)=430 p=015) High or Low Choice to Lie 699 255 207 274 007
LPSP Total Score 037 171 022 22 827
Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -603 258 -236 -234 021 Step 3 Rsup2=111 F(5158)=394 p=002 (∆Rsup2=022 F(2158)=198 p=142) High or Low Choice to Lie 712 254 211 281 006 LPSP Total Scores 188 204 111 92 358 Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -609 297 -238 -205 042 MACH-IV Total Scores -282 212 -167 -133 186 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -023 296 -009 -08 939 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Significant alpha levels are in bold Moderate alpha levels are in italics Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Exploratory Analysis PPI-R SF Subscales as Predictors
The second set of exploratory multiple regressions was conducted using the eight
subscales of the PPI-R SF and their interaction with Choice Condition as predictors Each
subscale measures a different unique aspect of psychopathy The goal of the analyses was to
58
determine which aspects of psychopathy were related to self-reported abacus task enjoyment
A series of multiple linear regressions were conducted with abacus task enjoyment as the
criterion In each multiple regression the predictors were Choice to Lie condition the
standardized total score of the individual PPI-R subscale and the interaction term of the
standardized individual subscale total score with Choice to Lie condition Results are shown in
Table 2 All of the PPI-R SF subscales except for the Stress Immunity and Social Influence
subscales had significant model equations In addition three subscales also produced significant
interactions with choice condition in predicting level of task enjoyment (a) Machiavellian
Egocentricity standardized β of the interaction = -295 t(163) = -281 p = 006 (b)
Fearlessness standardized β of the interaction = -274 t(163) = -247 p = 015 (c) Rebellious
Nonconformity standardized β of the interaction = -243 t(163) = -230 p = 023 The
remaining five subscales did not have interactions with choice condition that significantly
predicted task enjoyment
Exploratory Analysis PPI-R SF Factors as Predictors
Next two multiple regressions were carried out one for each of the two factors of the
PPI-R SF The intention of these analyses was to determine if these factors of psychopathy
(cognitive traits or behavioral traits) would account for the lack of cognitive dissonance found in
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy
First multiple regression The Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R SF The Fearless
Dominance factor (PPI-R SF-1-FD) is comprised of three of the eight subscales of the PPI-R
SF the Social Influence subscale the Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscale A
multiple regression was run with Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test as the criterion and
Choice Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) the standardized PPI-R SF-
59
1-FD total scores and the interaction of Choice Condition with the standardized PPI-R SF-1-FD
total scores as the predictors Results of the multiple regression are shown in Table 2 As can be
seen the model in the regression equation was statistically significant Rsup2 = 053 F(3160) =
296 p = 034 However the interaction of PPI-R SF-1-FD total scores and choice condition
was not statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -167
t(163) = -146 p = 146
Second multiple regression The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF Next
a similar multiple regression was run replacing the PPI-RSF-1-FD with the Self-Centered
Impulsivity factor scale scores (PPI-R SF-2-SCI) The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor is
comprised of the Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale
and the Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale of the PPI-R SF Results of the model in the multiple
regression equation were statistically significant Rsup2 = 115 F(3160) = 690 p lt 001 In addition
the interaction between the PPI-R SF-2-SCI and choice condition was statistically significant as
well standardized β = -220 t(163) = -2213 p = 028 These results suggested that the more
behavioral antisocial behavior characteristics of psychopathy (impulsivity blame
externalization lack of planning abilities) impacted cognitive dissonance arousal
Exploratory Analysis LPSP Factor Scales as Predictors
The next set of exploratory analyses were conducted on the LPSPrsquos two factor scales
The LPSP breaks into a Primary Psychopathy Scale and a Secondary Psychopathy Scale The
Primary Scale identifies the more cognitively based aspects of psychopathy much as the PPI-R
SF-1-FD Factor does The Secondary Psychopathy Scale of the LPSP measures the behaviorally
based dimensions of psychopathy (impulsivity asociality) much like the PPI-R SF-2-SCI
60
Factor Two hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine the interaction between each of
the LPSP factor scales and choice condition in predicting abacus task enjoyment
First multiple regression LPSP Primary Factor scores First a multiple regression was
employed with the Choice to Lie condition the standardized Primary Factor total scores of the
LPSP and the interaction term of the standardized Primary Factor total scores with the Choice to
Lie condition as the predictors Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test was the criterion in
the multiple regression The results of the regression model equation were statistically significant
Rsup2 = 073 F(3160) = 420 p = 007 However the results of the interaction between the Primary
Factor and choice condition only approached statistical significance standardized β = -199
t(163) = -192 p = 057
Second multiple regression LPSP Secondary Factor scores The Secondary factor of the
LPSP accounts for the environmental behaviorally based traits associated with psychopathy
(impulsivity asociality) A multiple regression was run replacing the LPSP Primary factor scores
with the LPSP Secondary factor scores In other words the predictors were Choice to Lie
condition standardized LPSP Secondary factor scores and the interaction of Choice to Lie with
standardized LPSP Secondary factor scores Again Self-Reported Enjoyment of the Abacus task
was the criterion Results of the multiple regression model equation were statistically significant
Rsup2 = 063 F(3160) = 359 p = 015 However results of the interaction between the Secondary
factor of the LPSP and choice condition were not statistically significant standardized β = -161
t(163) = -1452 p = 148
This analysis of the LPSP Primary and Secondary factor scales suggests that the
cognitive dimensions of psychopathy may best account for a lack of cognitive dissonance in this
experiment These results support the notion that it is these cognitive deficits assessed by the
61
Primary Scale of the LPSP (lack of guilt callousness lack of concern for others) that best
account for individuals with higher levels of psychopathy not experiencing the attitude shift
found in people with lower levels of psychopathy
Exploratory Analysis MACH-IV Subscales as predictors
The next set of exploratory analyses examined the five subscales of the MACH-IV as
predictors of task enjoyment when interacting with Choice to Lie condition Though the
interaction of total MACH-IV scores and choice condition was not a significant predictor of a
lack of task enjoyment the subscales were analyzed using multiple regression in order to
determine if any aspect of MACH might account for a lack of cognitive dissonance in
individuals with higher levels of MACH In the regressions the predictors were Choice to Lie
condition the standardized MACH-IV subscale total scores and the standardized interaction
term of total MACH-IV subscale scores with Choice to Lie condition Results are reported in
Table 2 All of the regression model equations for each subscale were statistically significant
Though all model equations were significant only the interaction of choice condition with the
Flattery subscale of the MACH-IV was significant in predicting reported abacus task enjoyment
standardized β = -204 t(163) = -200 p = 047 The interaction terms of the remaining four
subscales of the MACH-IV were not significant
Exploratory Analysis Follow-up Multiple Regression Analyses with No-Lie Participants
Removed
As previously indicated all multiple regressions reported here were run a second time
but including only the sub-set of participants who lied to the confederate (N=158) The results of
these follow-up multiple regressions (with N = 158) all led to the same substantive conclusions
as the analyses already reported (with N = 164) with one exception The only analysis that
62
changed significantly was the multiple linear regression looking at the interaction between the
Primary factor of the LPSP and choice condition In the original multiple regression (N = 164)
this interaction only approached statistical significance In the follow-up multiple regression (N
= 158) this interaction attained statistical significance standardized β = -216 t(157) = -202 p =
045
Exploratory Analysis Correlations of Psychopathy and Machiavellian measures
Pearsonrsquos r correlations were run on the three psychopathy and MACH measures and
their respective factors and subscales to identify associations among the measures
Correlations of psychopathy and Machiavellianism total scores Correlations among the
PPI-RSF LPSP and MACH-IV total scores are reported in Table 7 As can be seen all three
measures were significantly correlated with each other The largest correlation was between
MACH-IV and LPSP total scores r = 510 p lt 01
Table 7 Correlations Between the Total Scores of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measures
PPIRSF Total Score
LPSP Total Score
MACH-IV Total Score
PPIRSF Total Score 1
LPSP Total Score
345dagger 1
MACH-IV Total Score
376dagger 510dagger 1
Note dagger Correlations significant at the 01 level
Correlations of PPI-R SF and LPSP factor scores Pearsonrsquos r correlations were run on
the factors of the PPI-R SF and the LPSP in order to illuminate the relationship among these
factors in the present sample of participants Results are shown in Table 8
63
First the PPIR SF total score correlated significantly with both the Primary (r = 322 p
lt01) and the Secondary (r = 212 p lt 01) factor scores of the LPSP The PPI-R SF Factor Two
Scale of Self-Centered Impulsivity (behavioral characteristics of psychopathy) positively
correlated with the LPSP total (r = 509 p lt01) Primary (r = 368 p lt 01) and Secondary (r =
498 p lt 01) factors In contrast the PPI-R SF Factor One Scale of Fearless Dominance (PPI-
R SF-1-FD) correlated significantly only with the Secondary Scale of the LPSP (r = -156 p lt
05) This correlation indicates that as scores on the PPI-R SF-1-FD increase scores on the
LPSP Secondary Scale decrease However it should be noted that this correlation is very weak
Correlations of PPI-R and MACH-IV factor scores and subscale scores As can be seen
in Table 8 the PPI-R SF total score correlated significantly with all of the MACH subscales
except for the Cynicism subscale Interestingly PPI-R SF Factor 2 Self-Centered Impulsivity
which assesses the behavioral characteristics of psychopathy correlated significantly with the
MACH-IV total score (r = 478) and all of the subscales of the MACH-IV Deceit (r = 383)
Flattery (r = 210) Immorality (r = 297) Cynicism (r = 242) and Residual (r = 279) at p lt 01
level of significance PPI-R SF Factor 1 Fearless Dominance which assesses the cognitive
aspects of psychopathy did not significantly correlate with the MACH-IV total score or any of
its subscales These exploratory findings suggest that the Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the
PPI-R SF accounts for the relationship of MACH-IV scores with PPIRSF scores
Correlations of LPSP and MACH-IV factor scores and subscale scores As shown in
Table 8 MACH-IV total scores significantly correlated with both the Primary (r = 467 p lt01)
and Secondary (r = 327 p lt 01) factors of the LPSP The LPSP total score and factor scales
(Primary and Secondary) correlated significantly with the total MACH-IV score and all of the
MACH-IV subscales except for the Flattery subscale (see Table 8 for the correlations) This
64
finding is interesting because the Flattery subscale was the only element of the MACH-IV found
to be a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment in the interaction with choice condition
mentioned previously and yet it did not correlate with the LPSP at all
65
Tab
le 8
Cor
rela
tions
Bet
wee
n th
e P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
MA
CH
-IV
The
ir F
acto
rs a
nd S
ubsc
ales
Not
e
dagger C
orre
latio
n si
gnifi
cant
at
01 le
vel
Cor
rela
tion
sign
ific
ant a
t 05
leve
l P
redi
ctor
Abb
revi
atio
ns P
PIR
= P
PI-R
SF
tota
l sco
re P
1FD
= P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 1
ndash F
earl
ess
Dom
inan
ce F
acto
r Sco
re P
2SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f Cen
tere
d Im
puls
ivity
Fac
tor S
core
M
Ego
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
rici
ty s
ubsc
ale
Soc
In =
PPI
-RS
F So
cial
Influ
ence
sub
scal
e F
ear =
PPI
-RS
F Fe
arle
ssne
ss s
ubsc
ale
Col
d =
PPI-
RS
F C
oldh
eart
edne
ss s
ubsc
ale
R
ebel
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
= P
PI-R
SF
Bla
me
Ext
erna
lizat
ion
Subs
cale
Car
e =
PPI-
RS
F C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Str
ess
= PP
I-R
SF
Stre
ss
Imm
unity
sub
scal
e L
PSP
= L
PSP
tota
l sco
re P
rim
e =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le S
econ
= L
PSP
Seco
ndar
y su
bsca
le M
AC
H =
MA
CH
-IV
tota
l sco
re D
ece
= M
AC
H-I
V D
ecei
t sub
scal
e F
lat =
M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
or =
MA
CH
-IV
Imm
oral
ity s
ubsc
ale
Cyn
= M
AC
H-I
V C
ynic
ism
sub
scal
e R
esid
= M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1PPIR
1
2P1FD
761
dagger 1
3P2SCI
771
dagger 240
dagger 1
4M Ego
516
dagger 068
712
dagger 1
5Soc In
471
dagger 658
dagger 141
087
1
6Fear
645
dagger 727
dagger 362
dagger 104
244
dagger 1
7Cold
443
dagger 232
dagger 124
191
071
076
1
8Rebel
738
dagger 478
dagger 717
dagger 357
dagger 231
dagger 522
dagger 147
1
9Blm E
264
dagger -129
629
dagger 348
dagger -047
090
-194
161
1
10Care
500
dagger 210
dagger 540
dagger 175
101
203
dagger 229
dagger 305
dagger 041
1
11Stres
476
dagger 711
dagger 000
-044
198
258
dagger 330
dagger 240
dagger -306
dagger 132
1
12LPSP
345
dagger -024
509
dagger 534
dagger -018
065
209
dagger 241
dagger 369
dagger 186
-097
1
13Prime
322
dagger 059
368
dagger 473
dagger 082
031
275
dagger 171
219
dagger 105
015
902
dagger 1
14Secon
212
dagger -156
498
dagger 370
dagger -183
090
-011
241
dagger 443
dagger 233
dagger -243
dagger 664
dagger 277
dagger 1
15MACH
376
dagger 076
478
dagger 477
dagger 150
105
182
244
dagger 278
dagger 264
dagger -083
510
dagger 467
dagger 327
dagger 1
16Dece
356
dagger 085
383
dagger 380
dagger 096
121
320
dagger 190
094
384
dagger -033
312
dagger 295
dagger 185
631
dagger 1
17Flat
189
030
210
dagger 192
200
-019
186
087
062
236
dagger -097
139
118
104
570
dagger 304
dagger 1
18Immor
176
-003
297
dagger 276
dagger 022
069
-013
143
296
dagger 040
-093
405
dagger 345
dagger 306
dagger 589
dagger 153
202
dagger 1
19Cyn
152
030
242
dagger 316
dagger -025
092
-052
160
092
072
-008
449
dagger 449
dagger 223
dagger 454
dagger 169
057
152
1
20Resid
231
dagger 073
279
dagger 266
dagger 133
049
086
146
231
dagger 076
-019
248
dagger 226
dagger 161
689
dagger 244
dagger 213
dagger 197
175
1
66
Exploratory Analyses Multiple Regressions with Self-Reported Guilt as the Criterion and Level
of Psychopathy and MACH as Predictors
In addition to the multiple regressions that were run with Self-Reported Enjoyment
Rating of the abacus task as the criterion and the interaction between choice level and
psychopathy (and MACH) level as the predictors identical multiple regressions were conducted
with level of guilt as the criterion in the place of Self-Reported Level of Enjoyment Multiple
regressions were run where the predictors were Choice to Lie condition standardized
psychopathy and MACH measure total factor and subscale scores (individually) and the
interaction of Choice to Lie with PPI-R SF LPSP or MACH scales In these analyses level of
guilt was the criterion On the post experimental questionnaire two questions assessed
participantsrsquo level of guilt for telling the ldquofuture participantrdquo that the abacus task was fun These
two guilt related questions correlated highly with one another (r = 789) and so their scores were
added together and a new variable called ldquoGuiltrdquo was created from their sum
Multiple regressions on the interaction between choice and level of psychopathy (and
MACH) The goal of these exploratory analyses was to further explore the role that guilt plays
during cognitive dissonance arousal Results of all multiple regression analyses with guilt as the
criterion are presented in Table 9 As can be seen the interaction between level of psychopathy
(and MACH) and choice condition as predictors of guilt was only significant for the Self
Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF The multiple regression model equation for the
Self Centered Impulsivity factor was statistically significant Rsup2 = 056 F(3160) = 314 p = 027
In addition results of the interaction between the Self Centered Impulsivity factor and choice
condition were statistically significant standardized β = 232 t(163) = 225 p = 026
Interestingly this regression was not only significant but also positive All other interactions of
67
total subscale and factor scales of the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV with choice condition
were not significant in predicting participantsrsquo level of self-reported guilt
The fact that all other total scores subscales and factor scales did not attain significant
interactions with choice condition using guilt as the criterion makes sense when considering
cognitive dissonance theory The cognitive dissonance literature indicates that there should not
be an interaction on guilt because participants strive to reduce their feelings of guilt after
engaging in counterattitudinal behavior discrepant with their beliefs Therefore participants with
low levels of psychopathy after misleading the confederate in the High Choice condition would
have immediately experienced cognitive dissonance and thus their attitude would have shifted
towards enjoying the task in order to reduce the psychological tension produced by voluntarily
misleading the ldquofuture participantrdquo Therefore by the time they answered the guilt questions on
the post-experimental questionnaire they would not feel guilt because their attitude had shifted
to be in favor of the task
Main effects for relationship between psychopathy and guilt Finally an important result
of these exploratory analyses was that significant main effects were found between level of
psychopathy (measured by the PPI-R SF) and participantsrsquo level of guilt following the deception
task Specifically the PPI-R SF total score both factor scores (Fearless Dominance and Self
Centered Impulsivity) the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale and the Stress Immunity subscale
had significant model predictor equations (see Table 9) The model equation for the Fearlessness
subscale approached significance F(3160) = 243 p = 068 as well
After model equations were accounted for the PPI-R SF had a significant relationship
with level of guilt such that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy experienced less guilt
than participants with lower levels of psychopathy across choice conditions (standardized β = -
68
359 t(163) = -346 p = 001) In addition both factor scales of the PPI-R SF (Fearless
Dominance and Self Centered Impulsivity) were significant in predicting guilt (standardized β =
-292 t(163) = -257 p = 011 standardized β = -314 t(163) = -305 p = 003) respectively
Finally three of the PPI-R SF subscales reached significance in predicting level of guilt in
participants as well Fearlessness Stress Immunity and Rebellious Nonconformity The
Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscales load on the Fearless Dominance factor
of the PPI-R SF which is important to note because this factor assesses the cognitive aspects of
psychopathy including lack of guilt and lack of remorse Therefore these results provide support
for the validity of the PPI-R SF in assessing psychopathic traits such as guiltlessness
69
Tab
le 9
M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts C
rite
rion
is S
elf-
Rep
orte
d G
uilt
Aft
er M
isle
adin
g th
e C
onfe
dera
te
Pre
dict
ors
are
the
P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
and
MA
CH
-IV
Tot
al S
core
s an
d Su
bsca
les
Eac
h R
ow R
epre
sent
s R
esul
ts F
rom
One
Mul
tiple
Reg
ress
ion
Ov
eral
l Mo
del
High
L
ow C
hoic
e
Psyc
hopa
thy
Ma
ch P
redi
ctor
In
tera
ctio
n
Pred
icto
r
F
(df)
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
PPI-
RSF
456
(3160)
00
4
046
597
006
08
938
-1419
410
-359
-346
00
1
851
600
147
142
158
PPI FD
361
(3160)
01
5
-003
603
lt001
-01
996
-1151
449
-292
-257
01
1
309
607
058
51
611
PPI SCI
314
(3160)
02
7
055
605
007
09
928
-1237
406
-314
-305
00
3
1376
611
232
225
026
Mach Ego
95
(3160)
417
091
618
012
15
883
-627
438
-159
-143
154
1018
620
182
164
103
Soc Infl
32
(3160)
811
029
623
004
05
963
-047
474
-012
-10
921
-356
631
-068
-56
574
Fearless
243
(3160)
068
018
609
002
03
977
-1166
448
-296
-260
01
0
875
612
162
143
155
Coldhrt
52
(3160)
671
132
621
017
21
832
-446
471
-113
-95
346
113
628
021
18
857
Rebel
743
(3160)
lt00
1
050
583
006
09
931
-1718
407
-435
-422
lt00
1
833
585
147
142
156
Blm Ext
157
(3160)
199
062
613
008
10
919
-330
449
-084
-73
464
1190
616
220
193
055
Carefree
126
(3160)
290
-067
622
-009
-11
914
-814
425
-206
-192
057
669
625
115
107
287
Stress
426
(3160)
00
6
177
599
023
30
768
-972
421
-246
-231
02
2
-199
601
-035
-33
742
LPSP
41
(3160)
744
090
621
011
15
885
-445
415
-113
-107
286
577
627
097
92
359
Primary
39
(3160)
764
090
621
011
15
885
-443
425
-112
-104
299
549
624
095
88
381
Second
17
(3160)
919
080
622
010
13
897
-301
450
-076
-67
505
386
624
071
62
537
MACH
-IV
02
(3160)
996
076
623
010
12
903
-085
433
-021
-20
845
116
625
020
19
852
Deceit
15
(3160)
928
071
622
009
11
910
-172
406
-043
-42
673
421
634
068
66
508
Flattery
25
(3160)
864
100
622
013
16
872
-320
416
-081
-77
443
150
628
025
24
812
Immoral
85
(3160)
468
082
618
010
13
894
396
443
100
89
373
-968
620
-175
-156
121
Cynicism
52
(3160)
669
040
620
005
06
949
368
472
093
78
436
032
627
006
05
960
Residual
19
(3160)
900
069
621
009
11
912
-309
410
-078
-75
452
326
630
054
52
606
Not
e
Sig
nific
ant p
val
ues
(p lt
05)
are
in b
old
p v
alue
s ap
proa
chin
g si
gnif
ican
ce (lt
10)
are
in it
alic
s
Pre
dict
or A
bbre
viat
ions
PPI
-RS
F =
PPI-
RS
F to
tal s
core
PPI
FD
= P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 1
ndash F
earle
ss D
omin
ance
Fac
tor S
core
PPI
SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f Cen
tere
d
Impu
lsiv
ity F
acto
r Sco
re M
ach
Ego
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
rici
ty s
ubsc
ale
Soc
Infl
= PP
I-R
SF
Soci
al In
fluen
ce s
ubsc
ale
Fea
rless
= P
PI-R
SF
Fear
less
ness
sub
scal
e
Col
dhrt
= PP
I-R
SF
Col
dhea
rted
ness
sub
scal
e R
ebel
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
xt =
PPI
-RS
F B
lam
e E
xter
naliz
atio
n Su
bsca
le C
aref
ree
= PP
I-R
SF
C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Stre
ss Im
un =
PPI
-RS
F St
ress
Imm
unity
sub
scal
e L
PSP
= LP
SP to
tal s
core
Pri
mar
y =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le S
econ
d =
LPSP
Sec
onda
ry
subs
cale
MA
CH
-IV
= M
AC
H-I
V to
tal s
core
Dec
eit =
MA
CH
-IV
Dec
eit s
ubsc
ale
Fla
ttery
= M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
oral
= M
AC
H-I
V Im
mor
ality
sub
scal
e C
ynic
ism
=
MA
CH
-IV
Cyn
icis
m s
ubsc
ale
Res
idua
l = M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
Mod
el A
bbre
viat
ions
Un-
Stzd
β =
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Bet
a S
td E
rr =
Sta
ndar
d E
rror
Stz
d β
= St
anda
rdiz
ed B
eta
70
Exploratory Analyses Factor Analyses of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measures
In order to assess what specific constructs the self-report psychopathy and
Machiavellianism measures were identifying several factor analyses were conducted The goal
of these analyses was twofold First the intention was to categorize the unique traits of
psychopathy and MACH that were being identified in the participants by these measures and
second to distinguish overall factors of these personality traits that are similar across measures
Factor analysis of PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV total scores The total scores of the
PPI-R LPSP and MACH-IV were factor analyzed using principal axis factor analysis Squared
multiple correlations were used to estimate communalities in the initial factor pattern and
solutions were iterated four times Only one component in a preliminary principal components
analysis had an eigenvalue greater than 1 (1826) and the scree plot of the eigenvalues indicated
a clear break after one factor However for exploratory purposes three-factor and two-factor
factor analytic solutions were also attempted The three-factor solution yielded three factors
each corresponding to the three original variables The two-factor solution yielded one large
primary factor and a second factor with only trivial loadings (all loadings lt 25) Therefore the
one-factor solution was selected as the most informative Oblique rotation was performed using
Promax As can be seen in Table 10 one clearly defined factor emerged from the three variables
The factor appears to tap psychopathic and Machiavellian tendencies and thus has been named
Psychopathic Machiavellianism
Table 10 Factor Solutions Between PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores
Measure Psychopathic
Machiavellianism PPI-R SF Total Score 505 LPSP Total Score 687 MACH-IV Total Score 743
71
Factor analysis of all psychopathy and Machiavellianism items A second factor analysis
was run using all of the individual items from the three self-report measures of psychopathy and
Machiavellianism (PPI-R SF LPSP MACH-IV) Squared multiple correlations were used to
estimate communalities in the initial factor pattern Thirty-two components with eigenvalues
greater than 1 emerged from a preliminary principle component analysis and the scree plot
indicated there were approximately 25 to 35 factors
A principal axis factor analysis with Promax rotation was performed extracting 32
factors However only 15 of the 32 factors had two or more factor loadings greater than 50
Therefore several additional factor solutions were attempted to determine how many relevant
meaningful factors were present Finally it was determined that a nine-factor solution yielded the
largest number of interpretable factors with each factor including at least two variables with
loadings greater than 50 (see Table 11) Upon analyzing the items that loaded into each of the
nine factors names were identified for each factor based on the common characteristics of the
items The nine factors are Machiavellian Success Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Immunity
Feelings of Persecution Inability to Plan Social Disregard Interpersonal Ease Manipulative
Deceit and Social Frustration
72
Table 11 Factor Loadings of Total Item Factor Analysis
Factor Original Item
Mach Succes
Thrill Seek
Stress Immun Persec Inabl
Plan Social Dsrgrd
Intper Ease
Manip Deceit
Soc Frustr
L2 654 069 -068 217 070 -042 -184 -006 -092 L4 595 -044 044 117 044 136 029 039 064 L1 586 060 -009 106 127 -235 195 -023 -099 L3 576 097 027 023 144 -046 013 007 098 L5 551 -073 131 -047 022 026 205 -041 028 L12 -516 -010 -180 000 156 147 066 073 181 L8 466 030 082 -162 093 -021 109 022 076 L14 -428 -032 150 -103 202 023 131 224 230 L15 -402 053 -078 -039 146 000 -023 -215 260 L6 387 001 040 050 108 -183 -212 -038 132 L7 368 -121 -216 162 165 -095 -154 116 -008 M9 -322 -099 -009 154 100 -300 -076 -191 039 L26 320 165 054 101 051 073 -198 034 042 L11 318 222 -223 -116 059 -030 007 -078 219 M7 -288 108 -090 -102 -014 -006 -085 -158 -168 M17 -225 031 136 012 -018 -160 200 210 070 M3 -195 -159 -087 -057 -017 060 077 002 -037 M16 -179 108 -012 -141 -115 -170 -168 008 -052 P53 074 655 052 -031 -075 061 -179 -014 066 P5 -034 637 032 -128 -154 077 -138 -115 063 P38 050 555 207 034 -038 011 010 -143 -086 P22 080 535 -013 -261 023 043 003 069 045 P9 063 514 -060 179 -002 -148 -023 -130 010 P19 059 -475 057 022 049 -074 -052 -068 115 P16 051 468 -166 103 -108 -059 -015 -088 104 P1 157 -407 037 046 095 019 -047 -145 183 P52 -033 407 -199 050 -123 073 128 175 -058 P36 157 353 020 130 -014 145 143 156 -039 P30 148 308 -267 161 024 -059 -049 205 125 P47 -126 261 -067 069 -015 -029 134 135 237 P4 -117 259 -250 098 046 219 116 107 033 P14 251 251 -110 005 -109 064 117 -168 088 P48 114 031 733 054 073 -042 023 -035 005 P39 022 086 660 134 128 066 -007 103 -051 P28 080 -073 609 -008 -017 183 -061 187 093 P11 153 007 563 -118 -141 266 -026 051 112 P26 -089 -111 543 091 141 074 -037 075 001 P13 -004 039 -506 -095 129 144 -034 084 -135 M14 084 -035 359 209 -062 -125 211 069 -164 P2 -027 189 -335 125 -193 005 173 083 074 P23 176 050 -309 033 -190 082 108 075 266 M19 -188 -022 250 -069 -150 -116 088 043 -054 M2 -219 -015 240 176 -233 -101 114 054 223 M20 -048 -039 226 064 -158 -178 165 049 -121 P41 012 -047 -009 636 -081 -004 058 038 096 L25 011 -033 061 591 -093 -048 -050 -112 054 P50 -019 016 024 583 021 104 049 -020 209 P24 085 012 211 546 -065 049 073 094 -106 P6 100 147 153 490 -028 -050 072 072 -036 P34 163 -039 055 440 046 154 004 -010 058 L24 141 -093 -172 373 -078 -074 -075 -040 186 M18 005 028 104 -329 -005 -129 023 179 -057 M6 -059 -157 -193 -261 146 -019 031 -129 -448E-005 P42 099 -181 073 -073 542 057 020 -006 023 P40 148 -231 018 -220 521 -001 005 -026 033 L23 003 -268 -162 -030 516 086 085 -188 070 M8 -091 -003 -077 103 -504 -044 -117 -056 -045 P51 035 -096 -050 -042 447 -217 -091 -023 153 P33 123 071 178 164 447 -042 144 -261 042 P49 056 -025 -056 -138 394 215 -169 -059 019 M10 282 -018 046 -162 -374 -041 134 -105 119 P20 254 003 063 -132 370 026 049 226 -287 L10 -294 313 014 -246 366 -174 027 004 220 P56 144 083 -144 186 -354 072 061 136 269 M5 021 040 -001 -154 -350 -077 -050 192 238
73
Factor Original Item
Mach Succes
Thrill Seek
Stress Immun
Persec
Inabl Plan
Social Dsrgrd
Intper Ease
Manip Deceit
Soc
Frustr M13 124 105 157 -226 -311 -216 050 -073 163 L19 -089 054 -123 089 286 -129 -004 045 -063 P45 -207 -081 211 045 270 255 023 -068 043 L21 -077 -179 056 170 -229 042 -118 195 187 P37 111 235 211 017 024 592 -112 -115 017 P12 044 149 138 -123 057 571 023 003 110 P27 -144 -152 013 056 052 547 057 095 081 P10 -096 -031 -030 065 -023 453 042 -110 -090 P55 -184 -010 -177 183 -031 419 -035 051 -010 P54 094 -076 -127 -024 339 406 163 024 151 P25 -064 128 192 275 -051 392 087 -284 022 M12 -115 -023 -024 002 -220 245 -052 -120 -130 P21 067 -141 077 154 112 -038 740 -057 130 P15 -059 138 -189 099 160 144 556 -128 054 P18 103 001 -135 -028 097 028 533 -021 -237 P32 023 037 -126 159 167 -088 -532 093 -016 P29 -067 211 -109 014 089 -199 528 -130 037 P17 133 401 250 -067 132 016 456 011 -085 P32 004 171 026 -039 269 -027 -454 174 -147 P43 071 046 112 -059 029 -021 -143 557 286 M1 -330 104 013 007 040 -115 102 -512 106 L9 363 -112 -006 -046 044 -113 085 491 120 L20 -108 030 004 035 -085 002 -043 463 -082 L18 -232 055 199 085 -004 -055 -263 446 025 P35 118 -031 -024 -029 -011 -083 -145 419 171 M15 036 -053 018 -161 -282 -094 088 332 081 P31 -030 176 213 160 198 -074 -102 319 224 L16 -154 -015 020 024 162 153 144 -185 164 L22 024 -112 063 204 128 107 -156 117 527 L17 -168 124 -069 090 048 054 000 180 518 P7 070 -190 243 173 -011 -023 205 025 487 P46 229 -086 172 098 009 -145 067 -156 448 P3 -022 073 297 034 -100 288 -202 -105 392 P44 109 084 013 224 077 -051 -199 046 280 M11 038 056 -087 -113 019 144 093 -025 266 M4 -205 046 092 080 080 -037 -123 -177 -263 L13 143 -030 -189 -079 -140 -124 028 139 238 Note Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation converged in 9 iterations Factor loadings gt 40 are in bold Abbreviations Original Item Number= The item number from each of the three self-report measures used in this study L = LPSP P = PPI-R SF M = MACH-IV (ex P48 = Item 48 on the PPI-R SF) Mach Succes = Machiavellian Success Thrill Seek = Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Immun = Stress Immunity Persec = Feelings of Persecution Inabl Plan = Inability to Plan Social Dsrgrd = Social Disregard Intper Ease = Interpersonal Ease Manip Deceit = Manipulative Deceit Soc Frust = Social Frustration
Factor analysis of PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV subscales Finally a principal axis
factor analysis of the subscales of the three self-report measures of psychopathy and
Machiavellianism was conducted Squared multiple correlations were used to estimate
communalities in the initial factor pattern In a preliminary principal components analysis five
components had eigenvalues greater than 1 (3410 2093 1422 1209 1128) and the scree plot
of the eigenvalues indicated a break around five factors
74
Oblique rotation of the initial principal axis pattern was performed using Promax A
three four and six factor solution was attempted in addition to the five factor solution In
comparing the pattern matrices between factor models each factor in the three-factor model was
interpretable and had at least two loadings greater than 50 whereas the five-factor model
included one factor that did not have at least two loadings greater than 50 In addition the four-
and five-factor models would not converge in fewer than 25 iterations The three-factor model
compared to the four and five-factor models also had the most meaningful factor loadings in
terms of shared characteristics among the subscales in each factor Therefore the three-factor
model was selected Table 12 reports the factor loadings for the three-factor model Based on the
common characteristics shared by the subscales in their respective factors the following factor
names were assigned Antisocial Behavior Coldhearted Callousness and Thrill Seeking
75
Table 12 Factor Loadings of the Psychopathy and MACH Measures Subscales Factor
Subscale Antisocial Behavior
Coldhearted Callousness
Thrill Seeking
PPI Blame Ext 707 -152 032 LPSP Secondary 630 050 023 PPI Mach Ego 467 401 070 PPI Stress Immun -455 148 421 MACH Cynicism 424 149 -016 MACH Flattery 302 191 020 PPI Coldhrt -307 638 035 MACH Deceit 130 588 -015 LPSP Primary 341 486 -071 MACH Immoral 088 397 -081 PPI Carefree 033 309 226 MACH Residual 251 261 004 PPI Rebel 209 -011 752 PPI Fearless 056 -168 746 PPI Social Influ -131 125 295 Note Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation converged in 6 iterations Factor loadings gt 30 appear in bold Subscale Abbreviations PPI Blame Ext = PPI-RSF Blame Externalization subscale LPSP Secondary = LPSP Secondary subscale PPI Mach Ego = PPI-RSF Machiavellianism Egocentricity subscale PPI Stress Immun = PPI-RSF Stress Immunity subscale MACH Cynicism = MACH-IVCynicism subscale MACH Flattery = MACH-IV Flattery subscale PPI Coldhrt = PPI-RSFColdheartedness subscale MACH Deceit = MACH-IV Deceit subscale LPSP Primary = LPSP Primary subscale MACH Immoral = MACH-IV Immorality subscale PPI Carefree = PPI-RSF Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale MACH Residual = MACH-IV Residual Subscale PPI Rebel = PPI-RSF Rebellious Nonconformity subscale PPI Fearless = PPI-RSF Fearlessness subscale PPI Social Influ = PPI-RSF Social Influence subscale
76
Chapter 4 Discussion
Four findings of the present study are particularly notable First as predicted the classic
cognitive dissonance effect was replicated in the sample as a whole That is participants in the
High Choice to Lie Condition reported enjoying the abacus task more than participants in the
Low Choice to Lie Condition Second as predicted a significant interaction was found between
Choice Condition and level of psychopathy as measured by the PPI-R SF and the LPSP
Specifically the classic cognitive dissonance effect was found among participants with lower
levels of psychopathic traits but not among participants with higher levels of psychopathic traits
Third contrary to prediction no significant interaction was found between Choice Condition and
level of Machiavellianism as measured by the MACH-IV Fourth level of psychopathy
demonstrated incremental predictive power over level of MACH in predicting abacus task
enjoyment Each of these four findings is discussed below
41 Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effect
One important finding of the current study was a significant main effect of Choice
Condition on abacus task enjoyment Specifically individuals in the High Choice to Lie
condition reported enjoying the abacus task more than participants in the Low Choice to Lie
condition
This finding replicates the results of two earlier studies that examined cognitive
dissonance in a similar manner In studies by Cooper and Worchel (1970) and Festinger and
Carlsmith (1959) participants performed a tedious task and then were asked to mislead a fellow-
student (actually a confederate) that the task was enjoyable Half of participants were given only
a weak external motivation to deceive the fellow-student (low monetary reward or half of an
experimental credit) whereas the other half of participants were given a stronger external
77
motivation to deceive the fellow-student (a high monetary reward or multiple experimental
credits) In both of these studies participants with weak external motivation to engage in the
deception reported enjoying the task more than did participants with stronger external
motivation
The main difference between the current study and the Cooper and Worchel (1970) and
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) studies is that external motivation (high or low) was manipulated
by the aforementioned researchers whereas we manipulated participantsrsquo level of perceived
choice However there is a close conceptual relationship between level of external motivation
and level of perceived choice from the perspective of cognitive dissonance theory Previous
research has indicated that both choice manipulation and external motivation have similar effects
in creating cognitive dissonance In both cases external justification is being manipulated
Participants in the low choice (direct instruction) condition attribute their actions to the influence
of external pressures that forced them to perform the dissonant behavior Participants rationalize
that if given the choice they would not have engaged in the behavior and thus cognitive
dissonance is avoided The same conclusion is drawn when participants are given high external
motivation to engage in a dissonant behavior such as a high monetary reward Participants again
rely on the external justification of high reward to explain their engagement in the dissonant act
They rationalize their dissonant behavior by relying on the high reward as justification for
behaving in uncharacteristically Participants in the high reward condition rationalize that if the
reward was not present as external justification then they would not have engaged in the task
which results in a lack of cognitive dissonance as well Alternatively participants with either
high choice (voluntary participation) or low reward cannot rely on external justification because
none exists in these conditions Thus attitude shift results from the need to ameliorate their
78
cognitive dissonance Overall external justification is needed to alleviate cognitive dissonance
arousal and this justification is provided by either an external motivation (reward) manipulation
or by a low choice manipulation
Self-perceived choice has frequently been used as the independent variable in cognitive
dissonance studies As in our experiment these earlier studies found that self-perceived choice
(ie High versus Low Choice) had a significant main effect on cognitive dissonance Several of
these studies reported that participants experienced an attitude shift toward being in favor of an
undesirable task or belief only when they felt free choice to engage in the dissonant behavior
such as misleading a confederate or writing a counterattitudinal essay (Brehm amp Cohn 1962
Chatzisarantis Hagger amp Wang 2008 Cooper 1971 Davis amp Jones 1960 Festinger amp
Carlsmith 1959 Linder Cooper amp Jones 1967 Seacuteneacutemeaud amp Somat 2009 Sherman 1970)
Therefore the current experiment has added empirical support to the body of cognitive
dissonance research examining choice condition as a predictor of attitude shift
42 Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonance
The main hypothesis of this study was that people with low levels of psychopathy would
experience cognitive dissonance about engaging in deception whereas individuals with higher
levels of psychopathy would not experience cognitive dissonance
PPI-R SF total scores and cognitive dissonance Results supported our hypothesis in
regard to psychopathy when measured by total scores on the PPI-R SF Participants with higher
total scores on the PPI-R SF reported significantly less enjoyment of the abacus task on the post-
experimental questionnaire than participants with lower levels of psychopathy Specifically the
interaction between Choice to Lie condition and total PPI-R SF scores was significant in
predicting abacus task enjoyment standardized β = -216 p =036 True to our prediction
79
participants with low to non-existent levels of psychopathy experienced cognitive dissonance
only when in the High Choice to Lie condition and not in the Low Choice to Lie condition
Consistent with earlier studies (Cooper amp Worchel 1970 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959) it
appears that low psychopathy participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition perceived that they
had a strong external motivation for misleading their fellow-student (direct instruction to lie)
Thus they did not experience cognitive dissonance and could (accurately) rate the abacus task as
boring However low psychopathy participants in the High Choice to Lie condition did not
perceive that they had a strong external motivation for misleading their fellow student (they
voluntarily agreed to tell the lie after being asked) The participants experienced cognitive
dissonance in the form of psychological tension or guilt which they reduced by convincing
themselves that the abacus task was actually interesting as they had told their fellow student
On the other hand participants with higher levels of psychopathy reported disliking the
abacus task on the post-experimental questionnaire regardless of the Choice to Lie condition they
were in It appears that participants with higher levels of psychopathy did not experience
cognitive dissonance (ie psychological tension or guilt) about misleading a fellow student
Consequently these participants did not experience a need to change their view of the abacus
task or to rate it as more enjoyable than it really was
PPI-R SF subscales on cognitive dissonance Exploratory analyses were conducted
using the eight subscales of the PPI-R SF Each subscale measures a different facet of
psychopathy The goal of analyzing each subscale individually was to examine which aspects of
psychopathy if any were related to a lack of cognitive dissonance Three subscales produced
significant interactions with choice condition in predicting level of task enjoyment
Machiavellian Egocentricity (ME) Fearlessness (F) and Rebellious Nonconformity (RN) The
80
Machiavellian Egocentricity and Rebellious Nonconformity subscales load on the Self Centered
Impulsivity factor (antisocial behavior traits of psychopathy) of the PPI-R SF while the
Fearlessness subscale loads on the Fearless Dominance factor (cognitive personality based traits
of psychopathy) of the PPI-R SF
The Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale identifies aggressive self-centered tendencies
when interacting with other individuals (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003
Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996) Items from this subscale include ldquoI could be a good con-artistrdquo ldquoI
sometimes lie to see if I can get someone to believe merdquo and ldquoI tell people the part of the truth
they want to hearrdquo This scale seems to identify psychopathic characteristics that would allow for
individuals to have a lack of psychological tension or guilt over misleading others Thus in the
present experiment it appears that these traits may have inhibited participantsrsquo experience of
cognitive dissonance over lying to the confederate The significant interaction of the ME scale
and choice condition suggests that the participants in our study who lacked concern for
misleading others or even prided themselves in their ability to mislead others (as the scale
predicts) did not experience guilt or psychological stress
The Fearlessness (F) subscale of the PPI-R SF identifies willingness to engage in risky
behavior with a lack of regard for the negative consequences of onersquos actions The Rebellious
Nonconformity subscale (RN) indicates reckless behavior with a lack of concern for future
consequences (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Lilienfeld amp Andrews
1996) These scales are similar in that higher scores on the scales indicate an inability to
comprehend future negative consequences of onersquos actions These subscales also were
substantially correlated in the present study (r = 522) In regard to the current experiment it may
be that participants who scored higher on the Fearlessness and Rebellious Nonconformity
81
subscales were unable to comprehend or feel concern for the negative impact their deceptive
actions could have on their fellow student Thus participants with higher levels of fearlessness
and rebellious nonconformity may have experienced less psychological tension and less
cognitive dissonance about engaging in the deception than did participants with low levels of
these traits Because these findings are exploratory further studies should analyze these variables
so that strong conclusions can be made
PPI-R SF factors on cognitive dissonance In exploratory analyses the Self-Centered
Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF was the only factor to have a significant interaction with
choice condition in predicting abacus task enjoyment That is the dissonance effect was found
among participants with low scores on the PPI-R SF Self Centered Impulsivity factor but not
among participants with high scores The Self Centered Impulsivity factor is comprised of the
Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale and the Carefree
Nonplanfulness subscale of the PPI-R SF The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF
has been found in the literature to correlate with the behavioral traits associated with
psychopathy such as a DSM diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder lower education
levels lower employment rates lower SES and increased drug and alcohol abuse (Benning
Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003) Therefore the present results suggest that the
behavioral antisocial behavior characteristics of psychopathy (impulsivity blame
externalization lack of planning abilities) affected participantsrsquo experience of guilt-induced
cognitive dissonance
In contrast the interaction between the Fearless Dominance (FD) factor of the PPI-R SF
and choice condition was not a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment The Fearless
Dominance factor is characterized by low trait anxiety social dominance and fearlessness when
82
engaging in risky actions Individuals who score higher on the Fearless Dominance factor of the
PPI-R SF are often described as the more ldquosuccessful psychopathrdquo because they are
characterized by higher SES more advanced education and a lack of substance abuse (Benning
Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003) as compared to the type of psychopathy predicted by
the PPI-R SF Self Centered Impulsivity factor In fact studies have found that the two factors of
the PPI-R SF are orthogonal (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Lilienfeld amp
Fowler 2006) Therefore the present results suggest that individuals with higher scores on the
Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R SF may have the propensity to experience cognitive
dissonance more than individuals with the more antisocial traits of psychopathy (as measured by
the Self Centered Impulsivity Factor)
LPSP total scores on cognitive dissonance The effect of psychopathy on cognitive
dissonance was also examined using scores from the LPSP Similar to the results using the PPI-
R SF the interaction of LPSP total scores and choice condition was statistically significant in
predicting level of task enjoyment Specifically a significant relationship did not exist between
LPSP scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie
condition However in accordance with our prediction there was a significant negative
correlation between LPSP total scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie
condition This result further supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of
psychopathy would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher
levels would not
LPSP factor scores on cognitive dissonance Both the Primary and Secondary factors of
the LPSP were examined in exploratory analyses to see if one factorrsquos constellation of
psychopathic traits better accounted for a lack of cognitive dissonance than the other The
83
findings of this analysis implicate the cognitive (callousness fearless dominance low trait
anxiety) characteristics of psychopathy (as measured by the Primary factor) rather than the
external behavioral markers (as measured by the Secondary factor) as cues to understanding the
cognitive differences found in individuals with higher levels of psychopathy The results of the
interaction between the Primary (Cognitive) Factor and choice condition approached statistical
significance (unless the data was analyzed with the six individuals who did not lie factored out)
Further analysis of the data found that the interaction of LPSP Secondary (Behavioral) factor
scores with choice condition was not a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment
Interestingly these analyses of the LPSP factor scales yielded results that seem contrary
to the results concerning the PPI-R SF factor scales As already noted the PPI-R SF factor scale
analysis suggested that the behavioral characteristics of psychopathy (as measured by the PPI-R
Self Centered Impulsivity factor) were related to the absence of a cognitive dissonance effect In
contrast however the LPSP Secondary (behavioral) factor was not significantly related to
whether the cognitive dissonance effect was found Instead the findings for the LPSP Primary
(cognitive) factor approached significance
The conflicting findings regarding the PPI-R and LPSP factor scales may be partially
explained by the fact that the LPSPrsquos Primary and Secondary factors have not shown a consistent
relationship to other scales that measure the behavioral and cognitive dimensions of psychopathy
(Skeem amp Lilienfeld 2004) Levenson and colleagues (1995) reported that the two factors of the
LPSP mirrored the two factors of the PPI-R and the PCL-R However the discriminant and
convergent validity of the LPSP factor scales have been inconclusive in several studies For
example a study by Lilienfeld Skeem and Poythress (2004) found that the LPSP Primary
(cognitive) factor (callousness lack of guilt or remorse low trait anxiety) of the LPSP was more
84
correlated with the secondary (Self Centered Impulsivity) factor of the PPI-R (r = 62) than with
the primary (Fearless Dominance) factor of the PPI-R (r = 16)
In addition to the study by Lilienfeld et al (2004) other researchers have obtained results
indicating that the Primary (cognitive) Scale of the LPSP correlates higher with the secondary
factor of the PPI-R (Self Centered Impulsivity) rather than the with the primary factor of the PPI-
R (Fearless Dominance Wilson Frick amp Clements 1999 Lilienfeld amp Hess 2001)
Furthermore the Primary (cognitive) scale of the LPSP appears to correlate more highly with
antisocial behaviors rather than with the callous cognitive traits it was designed to measure
(Lilienfeld Skeem amp Poythress 2004 McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto 1998) Therefore the
discrepancy in the results between the PPI-R SF factor scales and the LPSP factor scales in the
current study might be a result of the LPSP Primary scale not being discriminant or divergent
enough from the antisocial behavior characteristics that are measured by the Secondary Scale of
the LPSP and by the factor scales of other measures like the PPI-R In other words perhaps the
Primary Scale of the LPSP is not accurately identifying just the cognitive personality-based traits
of psychopathy that is was designed to measure and thus this imprecision of the factor is what
led to the seemingly inconsistent results concerning the PPI-R SF and LPSP factors
Table 13 reports the significant (and insignificant) interactions between choice condition
and level of psychopathy by individual subscale and factor scale scores This table specifically
sorts the subscales and factor scales by the main psychopathy factors evidenced in the literature
(cognitive or behavioral) that the subscales and factors load on Past studies have consistently
confirmed the subscales arranged below load on the factor indicated (either the more behavioral
factor or the more cognitive affective factor) (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Iacono
2005 Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Edens Lilienfeld Poythress Patrick
85
amp Test 2008 Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995 Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996 Lilienfeld amp
Widows 2005 Patrick Edens Poythress Lilienfeld amp Benning 2006 Poythress amp Skeem
2006 Uzieblo Verschuere amp Crombez 2007) By separating the significant subscale and factor
score results in the current study by the respective factor they have been shown to load on
(cognitive or behavioral) the difference in our somewhat mixed results becomes clearer The
results evidence that in the current study Secondary psychopathy (Factor 2 antisociality
impulsivity inability to plan thrill seeking behavior) seems to relate more to a lack of cognitive
dissonance in the sample of participants
86
Table 13 Interactions of Psychopathy Subscales and Factor Scales with Choice Condition by the Two Factor (Cognitive or Behavioral) Psychopathy Solution Demonstrated by Past Research (Self-Reported Enjoyment as Criterion)
Cognitive Affective Factor Antisocial Behavior Factor FactorSubscale Stdz β t p Stdz β t p PPI FD Factor -167 -146 146 PPI Soc Infl 057 48 631 PPI Fearless -274 -247 015 PPI Stress Imm -101 -93 352 LPSP Primary -199 -192 057 PPI SCI Factor -220 -221 028 PPI Mach Ego -295 -281 006 PPI Rebel -243 -230 023 PPI Blm Ext -036 -32 747 PPI Carefree 068 66 511 LPSP Second -161 -145 148 Note Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics Predictor Abbreviations PPI FD Factor = PPIRSF Factor 1 ndash Fearless Dominance Factor PPI Soc Infl = PPI-RSF Social Influence subscale PPI Fearlessness = PPI-RSF Fearlessness subscale PPI Stress Imun = PPI-RSF Stress Immunity subscale LPSP Primary = LPSP Primary subscale PPI SCI Factor = PPIRSF Factor 2-Self Centered Impulsivity Factor PPI Mach Ego = PPI-RSF Machiavellianism Egocentricity subscale PPI Rebel = PPI-RSF Rebellious Nonconformity subscale PPI Blm Extern = PPI-RSF Blame Externalization subscale PPI Carefree = PPI-RSF Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale LPSP Second = LPSP Secondary subscale The PPI-RSF Colheartedness Scale is not included because it has not been shown to load on the Two Factor Solution Model Abbreviations Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Possible Reasons for the Lack of Cognitive Dissonance in High Psychopathy Individuals
The results of the current study indicate that the more psychopathic traits a participant
reported including the callous unemotional traits such as a lack of guilt remorse or concern for
others the less likely the participant was to exhibit the classic cognitive dissonance effect It is
important to consider possible explanations for these results
Psychopathy and lack of guilt One of the main traits linked to psychopathy is a callous
lack of guilt (Hart amp Hare 1997 Hare 1993 Lykken 2006 McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto
1998) This lack of guilt and concern for others may be the cognitive deficit that allows for
psychopathic individuals to commit violent crimes or manipulate others If this is the case then it
is important to determine if a lack of guilt is occurring significantly more in individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy compared to individuals with low or non-existent levels of
psychopathy Previous studies have examined guilt in individuals with psychopathy and have
87
almost universally found that individuals with high psychopathy lack guilt (Cima Tonnaer amp
Lobbestael 2007 Hare 1993 Walsh amp Wu 2008)
Though a lack of guilt has already been strongly associated with psychopathy in the
literature it is important to now try to find the underlying cognitive pathways and mechanisms
that are behind the inability to feel guilt in high psychopathic individuals Understanding the
cognitive deficits of individuals with higher levels of psychopathy can lead to better assessment
strategies and possible intervention models to curb maladaptive behaviors at an early age This
study attempted to identify the role that guilt plays in eliciting cognitive dissonance by assessing
dissonance effects in individuals with varying levels of guilt capabilities (high versus low
psychopaths) The use of psychopathy as a moderating variable for cognitive dissonance is based
on empirical research that has found a lack of guilt and contentiousness in individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy
Guilt and cognitive dissonance Cognitive dissonance has long been thought to be a
universal feature of human behavior Since the discovery of cognitive dissonance by Festinger in
1957 many other researchers have replicated the phenomenon with great success in a multitude
of situations and across stimuli (for a review see Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) The main theory
of cognitive dissonance that this project intended to analyze with regard to psychopathy was
Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory (1984) due to its focus on guilt as the catalyst for attitude
shift
According to Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory (1984) one of the crucial
components for creating the attitude shift found in cognitive dissonance is that individuals must
feel guilt (that their actions have brought negative consequences to themselves or others) The
current study incorporated the New Look Theory by having participants voluntarily lie to
88
someone else about a boring task being enjoyable Our hypothesis hinged on the theory that low
psychopathy individuals would change their beliefs about the task (they would think it was fun)
in order to relieve the guilt felt over misleading another individual In contrast since cognitive
dissonance occurs due to guilt induction we believed and found that individuals with higher
levels of psychopathy (low guilt) did not experience dissonance Therefore the results of this
study provide further evidence of the callous lack of guilt evidenced in psychopaths while
supporting Cooper and Faziorsquos (1984) theory that cognitive dissonance is invoked by guilt
43 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonance
Machiavellianism is characterized by the deliberate incorporation of callous unemotional
behaviors with the goal of achieving success and domination through the use of the asocial affect
and behaviors (Christie amp Geis 1970 Wastell amp Booth 2003 Wilson Near amp Miller 1996)
The centrality of success seems to be a characteristic of MACH that distinguishes it from
psychopathy Individuals with higher levels of MACH seem to engage in callous manipulative
behaviors in order to achieve preconceived goals whereas psychopathic individuals do not
necessarily plan their behavior to the same degree In fact several of the core traits associated
with psychopathy involve a lack of planning ability impulsivity and antisocial behavior that
often involves illegal and violent activities (Hare 1993)
Due to the callous guilt free traits associated with MACH the current study
hypothesized incorrectly that high MACH individuals in the High Choice (and high guilt)
condition would report significantly less enjoyment of the boring abacus task than individuals
with low MACH
MACH-IV total scores on cognitive dissonance It was hypothesized that the interaction
between MACH and choice condition would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment of
89
the abacus task However this interaction was not statistically significant Level of
Machiavellianism did not impact an individualrsquos self-rated level of enjoyment on the abacus task
These results were surprising given the fact that MACH has significantly related to a lack of
predicted attitude shift in past studies of guilt induced cognitive dissonance (Bogart 1971
Bogart et al 1970 Epstein 1969) Though these previous studies on MACH did not
specifically intend to analyze guilt-induction as the dissonance invoking stimulus they did use
methodology that would create guilt in participants
Unlike the current study these previous experiments found significant differences
between individuals with higher versus lower levels of MACH Also in opposition with the
current findings these previous studies (Bogart 1971 Bogart Geis Levy amp Zimbardo 1970
Epstein 1968) found that individuals with high MACH were able to experience cognitive
dissonance often in the opposite experimental condition to the individuals with low MACH who
experienced cognitive dissonance These studies termed this effect ldquoanti-dissonancerdquo The
current study however found no significant evidence of an anti-dissonance effect in our
participants In fact the results for the MACH-IV scores exhibited a weak version of the
interaction pattern that was seen with the two psychopathy predictors Specifically the MACH-
IV total scores had a significant negative correlation with Self-Reported Task Enjoyment in the
High Choice Group (r = -295 p lt 01) but not in the Low Choice group (r = -104 p = 354)
Such findings seem to suggest that Machiavellianism like psychopathy influences cognitive
dissonance effects However as already reported the crucial analysis regarding this hypothesis
based on an interaction term of Machiavellianism with Choice condition did not attain statistical
significance
90
It is possible that the present study failed to find a significant interaction between choice
and level of MACH in predicting attitude shift because the MACH-IV is outdated The MACH
measure was created in 1970 and has not been altered since that time In addition many of the
items on the measure use wording from Niccolo Machiavellirsquos writing which dates back to 1513
Further many of the items may be considered somewhat sexist in current society as they focus
on men exclusively Participantsrsquo responses may have been effected by this gender exclusivity
Therefore concepts and items may not be current enough to be accurately identifying MACH
characteristics in our sample Given results from the present and earlier research the failure to
find a significant interaction between choice condition and Machiavellianism in the present study
may well represent a Type II error
44 Psychopathy Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment (Over MACH)
A hypothesis of the current study was that psychopathy would incrementally predict
abacus task enjoyment and the cognitive dissonance effect above and beyond the predictive
power of the MACH Results regarding this hypothesis were inconclusive Inclusion of PPI-R
SF scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment significantly increased predictive
power above and beyond scores on the MACH-IV Although there was a significant increase in
predictive power when adding PPI-R SF scores to the MACH-IV scores the beta for the
interaction between PPI-R SF scores and choice condition was only approached statistical
significance When total scores of the LPSP replaced the PPI-R SF scores the results were not
significant Inclusion of total LPSP scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment
did not significantly increase predictive power above and beyond MACH-IV scores Therefore it
seems that the hypothesis in regard to psychopathy incrementally predicting abacus task
91
enjoyment above MACH was neither confirmed nor disconfirmed in the present study More
research examining the issue is needed
Conversely two exploratory hierarchical multiple regressions were run to identify
whether MACH-IV total scores incrementally predicted Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus
task above and beyond the predictive power of psychopathy scores When both the PPI-R SF
and the LPSP were used as predictors MACH did not significantly predict Self-Reported Level
of Enjoyment over psychopathy These results suggest though only in a preliminary way that
level of MACH does not incrementally predict cognitive dissonance effects above and beyond
the predictive power of level of psychopathy
45 Additional Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory Guilt Analysis
Multiple regressions were conducted with level of guilt as the criterion in the place of
enjoyment rating These analyses were exploratory with the goal of further exploring the role
that guilt plays during cognitive dissonance arousal and maintenance Results of these analyses
indicated that the interaction between psychopathy measures and choice conditions did not
generally significantly predict guilt In fact there was no reason to expect these interactions to
be significant based on cognitive dissonance theory The cognitive dissonance literature argues
that participants strive to reduce their feelings of guilt after engaging in counterattitudinal
behavior discrepant with their beliefs Thus participants with low levels of psychopathy who
were in the High Choice to Lie condition would be expected to change their attitudes about lying
to reduce their feelings of guilt immediately after telling the ldquofuture participantrdquo that the abacus
task was fun Therefore their reported guilt level on the post experimental questionnaire should
not be significant Due to cognitive dissonance these participants would have already reduced
92
their level of guilt to low or non-existent levels by the time they were answering the questions on
the post experimental questionnaire
Main effects for relationship between psychopathy and guilt An important result of these
exploratory analyses was that significant main effects were found between level of psychopathy
(measured by the PPI-R SF) and level of guilt that participants reported concerning their
participation in the study Specifically the PPI-R SF had a significant relationship with level of
guilt such that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy experienced less guilt than
participants with lower levels of psychopathy across choice conditions In addition both factor
scales of the PPI-R SF (Fearless Dominance and Self Centered Impulsivity) were significant in
predicting guilt Finally three of the PPI-R SF subscales reached significance in predicting level
of guilt in participants Fearlessness Stress Immunity Rebellious Nonconformity The
Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscales load on the Fearless Dominance factor
of the PPI-R SF which is important to note because this factor assesses the cognitive aspects of
psychopathy including lack of guilt and lack of remorse Therefore these results provide support
for the validity of the PPI-R SF in assessing psychopathic traits such as guiltlessness
Exploratory Factor Analyses
Three factor analyses were conducted on the self-report psychopathy and MACH
measures utilized in the present study The goal of these analyses was to categorize the
individual traits of psychopathy and MACH that were being identified in the participants by the
measures and to distinguish overall factors of these personality traits that are similar across
measures
The first factor analysis found that the total scores of the three measures loaded together
as one factor The second factor analysis found that all of the items combined loaded on nine
93
interpretable factors Machiavellian Success Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Impunity Feelings
of Persecution Inability to Plan Social Disregard Interpersonal Ease Manipulative Deceit and
Social Frustration Each factor was found to represent unique characteristics of psychopathy and
MACH Finally a third factor analysis was run on the combined subscales of the measures This
analysis yielded three interpretable factors Antisocial Behavior Coldhearted Callousness and
Thrill Seeking Though these factor analyses yielded factors that mirror others identified in the
literature (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Hare 1991 Levenson et al
1995 Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996) the sample size of 164 participants was too small to draw
significant or important conclusions from these factor analyses
94
Limitations and Future Directions
The present study had several limitations One potential limitation was the sole use of
self-report measures for detecting psychopathy Though the self-report measures that were used
in the current study have been validated as measures of psychopathy (Levesnon et al 1995
Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996 Lilienfeld amp Fowler 2006 Lilienfeld amp Hess 2001) the use of a
measure such as the Psychopathy Checklist ndash Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991) might have shed
additional light on the levels of psychopathy among our participants Psychopathy scores on the
PCL-R are obtained from a semi-structured clinical interview of the participant as well as
background and collateral information (Hare 1991) Therefore the information about the
participantrsquos personality is derived from multiple sources rather than just self-report A future
replication of this study would benefit from also assessing level of psychopathy with the PCL-R
or the PCL-R SV (Hart amp Hare 1995) which is a screening version of the PCL-R
A second limitation might have been the type of task used to illicit cognitive dissonance
The study had participants move wooden balls back and forth across an abacus for 20 minutes
Though this study attained significant results perhaps the length of time may not have been long
enough to induce boredom in all participants Future studies could increase the amount of time
participants are instructed to move balls across the abacus For example the original cognitive
dissonance study by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) had participants turn pegs in a peg-board for
one hour That length of time would most likely ensure boredom in participants It is important to
note however that the time limit of 20 minutes employed in the present study was the same as in
the study by Cooper and Worchel (1970) in which significant results were obtained when
participants engaged in the boring task for 20 minutes
95
In addition the use of the abacus task as the stimuli could have impacted the results
because some participants may have actually found the task enjoyable and thus genuinely
reported enjoying the task on the post-experimental questionnaire This would confound our
results because cognitive dissonance was not enacted in those participants In order to combat the
possible issue the use of counterattitudinal essays as the stimulus would be a useful option for
future studies Counterattitudinal essays involve writing in favor of an issue that one is
adamantly against The use of counterattitudinal essays has been incorporated into the majority
of cognitive dissonance studies (for a review see Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Studies have
shown that when participants write in favor of an issue that they are opposed to this elicits
cognitive dissonance (Baumeister amp Tice 1984 Elkin amp Leippe 1986 Harmon-Jones amp Mills
1999 Linder Cooper amp Jones 1967 Seacuteneacutemeaud amp Somat 2009) Counterattitudinal essays
have also been used in studying cognitive dissonance effects in participants with MACH
(Burgoon Miller amp Tubbs 1972) with significant effects
Simply writing counter-attitudinal essays would not necessarily invoke guilt The present
study tested the hypothesis that guilt-invoking tasks create cognitive dissonance in individuals
with low psychopathic traits but not individuals with high psychopathic traits Therefore the
present results might not be replicated in a study that simply required the writing of counter-
attitudinal essays However a variant on this task exists in which writing a counter-attitudinal
essay is used to persuade other individuals to a viewpoint with which the writer strongly
disagrees This task of writing a counter-attitudinal essay to persuade others is likely to evoke
guilt and according to the hypotheses of the present study would be predicted to create a
cognitive dissonance effect in participants with higher levels of psychopathy but not in
participants with low levels of psychopathy A control condition would be necessary in which
96
some participants just write the counter-attitudinal essays while others write counter-attitudinal
essays that are then used to persuade other individuals In this way we would be better able to
determine whether any cognitive dissonance effects observed were due to guilt
Guilt has been manipulated in participants with the use of counterattitudinal essays The
primary way that researcherrsquos incorporate guilt was to have the participant write a
counterattitudinal essay and read it (or give it) to a panel of individuals with the intention of
persuading the panel to be in favor of the topic to which the participant is actually against In this
way participants feel guilt for attempting to convince others to support something that the
participant actually opposes For example a study by Elliot and Devine (1994) had their college
student sample of participants write essays in favor of a tuition raise for all students at their
university Before writing the counterattitudinal essays participants were initially screened to
make sure they were against a tuition increase on campus Participants were told that the essay
they wrote (pro-tuition increase) would be read by the university Board of Trustees to help
determine if the tuition raise should be implemented Participantsrsquo guilt was activated because
they were led to believe that their essay might cause a tuition increase for themselves and their
peers Results of the study found a significant shift in attitude towards being in favor of the
tuition increase after participants had written the essay The authors surmised that it was the
negative consequences that their actions (writing the pro-tuition increase essay) could cause
others that led to the attitude shift Replicating the current study with the use of counterattitudinal
essays that manipulate guilt rather than the abacus task may elicit stronger effects by eliminating
the participantsrsquo chance of genuinely enjoying the abacus task
A third limitation the current study concerns its generalizability to new populations of
participants This study analyzed level of psychopathy exclusively among college
97
undergraduates It is unclear whether the results obtained in this population will generalize to
groups with higher levels of psychopathy such as violent offenders or repeat-offender juvenile
delinquents Attempting a replication in a sample of violent offenders or juvenile delinquents
would be a valuable step in understanding how the construct of psychopathy impacts cognitive
dissonance
A fourth possible limitation was the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of participants
Approximately eighty-five percent of participants were Hispanic and thus the generalizability of
the results to non-Hispanic populations can be questioned However psychopathy has been
shown to be a universal construct across ethnicities including Anglo Americans (Cooke Kosson
amp Michie 2001 Hare 1996) African Americans (Cooke Kosson amp Michie 2001 Skeem et
al 2004 Swogger Walsh amp Kosson 2008) and Hispanics (Sullivan Abramowitz Lopez amp
Kosson 2006 Valdez Kaplan amp Codina 2000) MACH too has been shown to appear in
Hispanics (Martinez 1981) Therefore this limitation may not be a serious one
Though ethnicity may not have impacted our results cultural characteristics are another
limitation to consider Culture may impact the expression of psychopathic traits A recent study
by Smith and Madjarov (2008) found that individuals from Bulgaria evidenced higher levels of
psychopathy and Machiavellianism than Americans (as measured by the LPSP and MACH-IV)
The authors attributed the higher levels of psychopathic and MACH tendencies to the coercive
nature of the Bulgarian culture which teaches the youth to look out for themselves above all else
The authors deduced that the personality characteristics of psychopathy and MACH allow for
better survival outcomes in Bulgaria and thus the traits have flourished there as adaptive rather
than abnormal
98
The current study was conducted in a university on the US-Mexico border where
acculturation to American society varies in the university population Many students commute
over the border daily from Mexico to attend classes and are not highly acculturated to US
culture Based on the Smith and Madjarov (2008) study and the location of the current
experiment level of acculturation may have impacted our results and should be accounted for in
future studies
An additional future direction would be that this study spurs psychopathy and cognitive
dissonance research in new routes As previously mentioned only one other study has examined
the effects of psychopathy on cognitive dissonance (Weir 2007) However Weirrsquos study
contained methodological weaknesses (eg no control group for comparison purposes) and was
not designed to address how psychopathic traits impact cognitive dissonance in guilt-inducing
situations Clearly more studies need to be conducted in order to examine if the significant
results found in the present study will hold across other age groups populations (such as violent
offenders) and cultures The results of this study could assist in better understanding the
cognitive and emotional characteristics of psychopathy
In addition the results of this study pose new ideas for cognitive dissonance research
The results of the current study suggest that level of psychopathy could potentially be
confounding cognitive dissonance studies that rely on guilt or adverse consequences as the
mechanism of dissonance arousal Further replications of the present study are needed in the
literature to examine the robustness of our results and their impact on cognitive dissonance
arousal
99
Conclusions
Until now cognitive dissonance has been assumed to be a general cognitive effect found
in all individuals The results of this study suggest that this assumption may be incorrect In the
present study individuals with higher levels of psychopathy did not seem to experience guilt-
induced dissonance arousal It may be that past studies might have yielded stronger cognitive
dissonance effects if they had excluded participants with above-average levels of psychopathic
traits
In addition the lack of a significant finding in regard to level of MACH indicates that
more research needs to be conducted in assessing what maladaptive cognitive and behavioral
impacts Machiavellianism has on individuals and how MACH truly relates to psychopathy
Understanding the cognitive characteristics of psychopathy (and MACH) is important
due to the negative impact that individuals with these characteristics can cause society For
example individuals with higher levels of psychopathy are four times more likely to recidivate
after being released from prison (Hare 1993 Hemphill Hare amp Wong 1998) are arrested at
earlier ages are more likely to use weapons and violence in their offenses and have higher rates
of offending than individuals without psychopathy (Hart amp Hare 1997 Hare amp McPherson
1984) It is important to discover what specific cognitive and emotional characteristics lead some
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy to develop and behave maladaptively in society If
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy do not experience cognitive dissonance after lying
to someone else this finding points not only to a lack of guilt in such individuals but also to a
unique cognitive and emotional temperament that may be lacking dissonance arousal
100
References
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed) Washington DC Author Aronson E (1968) Dissonance theory Progress and problems In R Abelson E Aronson W McGuire T Newcomb M Rosenberg amp P Tannenbaum (Eds) Theories of cognitive consistency A sourcebook (pp5-27) Chicago Illinois Rand McNally Austin E J Farrelly D Black C amp Moore H (2007) Emotional intelligence Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation Does EI have a dark side Personality and Individual Differences 43 179-189 Baumeister R F amp Tice D M (1984) Role of self-presentation and choice in cognitive dissonance under forced compliance Necessary or sufficient causes Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(1) 5-13 Bogart K (1971) Machiavellianism and individual differences in response to cognitive inconsistency Journal of Social Psychology 85 111-119 Bogart K Geis F Levy M amp Zimbardo P (1970) No dissonance for Machiavellians In P G Zimbardo (Ed) The cognitive control of motivation The consequences of choice and motivation (pp 251-263) Glenview Illinois Scott Foresman and Company Brehm J W amp Cohen A R (1962) Explorations in cognitive dissonance New York Wiley Burgoon M Miller G R amp Tubbs S L (1972) Machiavellianism justification and attitude change following counterattitudinal advocacy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 22 366-371 Chapman A L Gremore T M amp Farmer R F (2003) Psychometric analysis of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory with female inmates Journal of Personality Assessment 80(2) 164-172 Chatzisarantis N L D Hagger M S amp Wang J C K (2008) An experimental test of cognitive dissonance theory in the domain of physical exercise Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 20(1) 97-115 Christie R (1970a) Why Machiavelli In R Christie amp F Geis (Eds) Studies in Machiavellianism (pp1-9) New York Academic Press Christie R (1970b) Relationships between Machiavellianism and measures of ability opinion and personality In R Christie amp F Geis (Eds) Studies in Machiavellianism (pp35-52) New York Academic Press Christie R amp Geis F L (1970) Studies in Machiavellianism New York Academic Press
101
Cima M Tonnaer F amp Lobbestael J (2007) Moral emotions in predatory and impulsive offenders using implicit measures Netherlands Journal of Psychology 63(4) 144-155 Cleckley H (1976) The mask of sanity (5th ed) St Louis C V Mosby (Originally published 1941) Cooke D J Kosson D S amp Michie C (2001) Psychopathy and ethnicity Structural item and test generalizability of the Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (PCL-R) in Caucasian and African American participants Psychological Assessment 13(4) 531-542 Cooper J (1971) Personal responsibility and dissonance The role of foreseen consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18(3) 354-363 Cooper J (1999) Unwanted consequences and the self In search of the motivation for dissonance reduction In E Harmon-Jones amp J Mills (Eds) Cognitive dissonance Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp149-173) Washington DC American Psychological Association Cooper J amp Fazio R H (1984) A new look at dissonance theory In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental psychology (Vol 17 pp 229-262) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Cooper J amp Worchel S (1970) Role of undesired consequences in arousing cognitive dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(2) 199-206 Croyle R amp Cooper J (1983) Dissonance arousal Physiological evidence Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 782-791 Davis K E amp Jones E E (1960) Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61(3) 402-410 Edens J Marcus D Lilienfeld S O amp Poythress N G (2006) Psychopathic not psychopath Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of psychopathy Journal of Abnormal Psychology 115(1) 131-144 Elkin R A amp Leippe M R (1986) Physiological arousal dissonance and attitude change Evidence for a dissonance-arousal link and a ldquodonrsquot remind merdquo effect Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 55-65 Elliot A J amp Devine P G (1994) On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance Dissonance as psychological discomfort Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(3) 382-394 Epstein G F (1969) Machiavelli and the devilrsquos advocate Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 11(1) 38-41
102
Fehr B Samsom D amp Paulhus D L (1992) The construct of Machiavellianism Twenty years later In CD Spielberger amp J N Butcher (Eds) Advances in personality assessment (pp 77-116) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance Stanford CA Stanford University Press Festinger L amp Carlsmith J M (1959) Cognitive consequences of forced compliance Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58 203-210 Fowles D C (1980) The three arousal model Implications of Grayrsquos two-factor learning theory for heart rate electrodermal activity and psychopathy Psychophysiology 17 87-104 Goethals G R amp Cooper J (1972) Role of intention and postbehavioral consequence in the arousal of cognitive dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23 293- 301 Greenwald H A (1967) Active psychotherapy New York Atherton Hare R D (1978) Psychopathy and electrodermal responses to nonsignal stimulation Biological Psychology 6 237-246 Hare R D (1985) Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psycopathy Journal of Clinical and Counseling Psychology 53 7-16 Hare R D (1991) Manual for the Hare Psycopathy Checklist-Revised Toronto
Multi-Health Systems
Hare R D (1993) Without conscience The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us New York Pocket Books Hare R D amp McPherson L M (1984) Violent and aggressive behavior by criminal psychopaths International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 7(1) 35-50 Hare R D amp Neumann C S (2006) The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy Development structural properties and new directions In C J Patrick (Ed) Handbook of psychopathy (pp 58-88) New York The Guilford Press Harmon-Jones E amp Mills J (1999) An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory In E Harmon-Jones amp J Mills (Eds) Cognitive dissonance Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp3-21) Washington DC American Psychological Association Harpur T J Hare R D amp Hakstian A R (1989) Two factor conceptualization of psychopathy Construct validity and assessment implications Psychological Assessment A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1 6-17
103
Hart S D amp Hare R D (1995) Psychopathy and risk assessment Issues in Criminological amp Legal Psychology 24 63-67 Hart S D amp Hare R D (1997) Psychopathy Assessment and association with criminal conduct In D M Stoff J Breiling amp J D Master (Eds) Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp 22-35) NY John Wiley and Sons Hemphill J F Hare R D amp Wong S (1998) Psychopathy and recidivism A review Legal and Criminological Psychology 3(1) 139-170 Karpman B (1941) On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types The symptomatic and the idiopathic Journal of Criminology and Psychopathology 3 112- 137 Karpman B (1948) The myth of the psychopathic personality American Journal of Psychiatry 104 523-534 Levenson M (1990) Risk taking and personality Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 1073-1081 Levenson M Kiehl K amp Fitzpatrick C (1995) Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(1) 151-158 Lilienfeld SO (1994) Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy Clinical Psychology Review 14 17-38 Lilienfeld SO amp Andrews BP (1996) Development and preliminary validation of a self report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations Journal of Personality Assessment 66 488-524 Lilienfeld S O amp Hess T H (2001) Psychopathic personality traits and somatization Sex differences and the mediating role of negative emotionality Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 23(1) 11-24 Lilienfeld S O Skeem J L amp Poythress N G (2004 March) Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society Scottsdale AZ Lilienfeld S O amp Widows M R (2005) PPI-R professional manual Lutz FL Psychological Assessment Resources Linder D E Cooper J amp Jones E E (1967) Decision freedom as a determinant of the role of incentive magnitude in attitude change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6 245-254
104
Lyyken D T (1957) A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55 6-10 Lykken D T (1995) The antisocial personalities Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Lynam D R Whiteside S amp Jones S (1999) Self-reported psychopathy A validation study Journal of Personality Assessment 73(1) 110-132 Machiavelli N (1981) The Prince New York Bantam Books (Original work published 1513) Marcus D K amp Edens J F (2004) A taxometric analysis of psychopathic personality Journal of Abnormal Psychology 113 626-635 Martinez D C (1981) Differences among Chicano and White students on items of Machiavellianism scale Psychological Reports 48(2) 433-434
McHoskey J W Worzel W amp Szyarto C (1998) Machiavellianism and psychopathy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 192-210 Meloy J R (1998) The psychopathic mind Maryland Rowman amp Littlefield Publishers Inc
Murrie D C amp Cornell D G (2002) Psychopathy screening of incarcerated juveniles A comparison of measures Psychological Assessment 14 390-396 Patrick C J (Ed) (2006) Handbook of psychopathy New York The Guilford Press Patrick C J Bradley R H amp Lang P J (1993) Emotion in the criminal psychopath Startle reflex modulation Journal of Abnormal Psychology 102(1) 82-92 Pethman T M amp Erlandsson S I (2002) Aberrant self-promotion or subclinical psychopathy in a Swedish general population The Psychological Record 52 33-50 Porter S (1996) Without conscious or without active conscious The etiology of psychopathy revisited Aggression and Violent Behavior 1 179-189 Raine A (2002) Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adults A review Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 30 311ndash326 Ray J J amp Ray J A (1982) Some apparent advantages of subclinical psychopathy Journal of Social Psychology 117 135-142 Rutherford M J Cacciola J S amp Alterman A I (1999) Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in cocaine-dependent women American Journal of Psyciatry 156 849-856
105
Saruk S (1975) A comparison of Machiavellianism values and locus of control in psychopathic groups (Doctoral Dissertation Unites States International University 1975) Dissertation Abstracts International 36 458-B Seacuteneacutemeaud C amp Somat A (2009) Dissonance arousal and persistence in attitude change Swiss Journal of Psychology 68(1) 25-31 Shadish W R Cook T D amp Campbell D T (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (pp 230) Boston MA Houghton Mifflin Company Sherman S J (1970) Attitudinal effects of unforeseen consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(3) 510-520 Skeem J amp Lilienfeld S O (2004 March) Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society Scottsdale AZ Skinner N F (1982) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism IV Machiavellianism and psychopathology Social Behavior and Personality 10(2) 201-203 Skinner N F (1988) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism VI Machiavellianism and the psychopath Social Behavior and Personality 16 33-37 Smith R J (1999) Psychopathic behavior and issues of treatment New Ideas in Psychology 17 165-176 Smith E R amp Mackie D (Eds) (2000) Social Psychology (2nd ed)Kendallville IN Taylor amp Francis Smith R J amp Madjarov G (2008) Machiavellianism and psychopathy An East-West note Social Behavior and Personality 36(2) 255-256 Steele C M amp Liu T J (1983) Dissonance processes as self affirmation Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 5-19 Strelau J (1983) A regulative theory of temperament Australian Journal of Psychology 35 305-317 Sullivan E A Abramowitz C S Lopez M amp Kosson D S (2006) Reliability and construct validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised for Latino European American and African American male inmates Psychological Assessment 18(4) 382-392 Swogger M T Walsh Z amp Kosson D S (2008) Psychopathy subtypes among African American county jail inmates Criminal Justice and Behavior 35(12) 1484-1499
106
Valdez A Kaplan C D amp Codina E (2000) Psychopathy among Mexican American gang members A comparative study International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44(1) 46-58 Walsh A amp Wu H-H (2008) Differentiating antisocial personality disorder psychopathy and sociopathy Evolutionary genetic neurological and sociological considerations Criminal Justice Studies A Critical Journal of Crime Law amp Society 21(2) 135-152 Wastell C amp Booth A (2003) Machiavellianism An alexithymic perspective Journal of Social amp Clinical Psychology 22(6) 730-744 Weir J M (2007) Subtyping psychopathy Exploring the roles of degree of punishment cognitive dissonance and optimism Dissertation Abstracts International Section B The Sciences and Engineering 68(4-B) 2694 Wilson D L Frick P J amp Clements C B (1999) Gender somatization and psychopathic traits in a college sample Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 21(3) 221-235 Wilson D S Near D amp Miller R R (1996) Machiavellianism A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures Psychological Bulletin 119(2) 285-299 Zanna M P amp Cooper J (1974) Dissonance and the pill An attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29 703-709 Zanna M P Goethals G R amp Cooper J (1975) Misleading vs mistreating another person as consequences producing self-justificatory attitude change European Journal of Social Psychology 5 133-137
107
Appendix A
Script to be Used With High perceived choice Group
ldquoThank you for your participation in this task Irsquod like to explain what this has been all about so
you have some idea of why you were doing this task There are actually 2 groups in the
experiment In one group the group you were just in we bring the participant in and give him or
her no introduction to the experiment That is all we tell them is the instructions for how to do
the task and they have no idea what the experiment is really about or what they will have to do
But the other group before they begin the task we like to prep them What I mean by this is that
while they are still waiting in the hall we tell them what the experiment is going to be about so
we tell them it is a reaction task that they will be timed and they will be pushing balls along an
abacus etc Most importantly we also tell them that the task is going to be fun and enjoyable We
do this because we want to see if having a positive attitude about the task before you begin will
affect your ability on the task What we are interested in is comparing the performance of people
who know nothing about the experiment such as yourself with those people who expect the task
to be interesting and exciting
So normally we have another student who works for us and that student preps the person
while they are still in the hall so tells them about the task and that it is going to be fun and then
brings the person in to me to do the task However that person couldnrsquot be here today
Now I have an unusual request that I have to make I talked to my advisor Dr Wood and he
suggested that I might ask my real participant to talk to the next participant for me
You donrsquot have to but if you would be willing to do this for me all I would ask you to do
is to tell the next participant who is now in the hall that this task is fun and enjoyable So Irsquod
take you into the hall introduce you to the next person and then give you about 1 minute to
108
begin your conversation and tell him or her that this experimental task will be fun Itrsquos up to you
of course but do you think you could help me out by doing this for me
109
Appendix A
Script for Use With the Low perceived choice Group
ldquoThank you for your participation in this task Irsquod like to explain what this has been all about so
you have some idea of why you were doing this task There are actually 2 groups in the
experiment In one group the group you were just in we bring the participant in and give him or
her no introduction to the experiment That is all we tell them is what they need to know to do
the task and they have no idea what the experiment is really about or what they will have to do
But the other group before they begin the task we tell them what the experiment is going to be
about and that it is going to be fun and enjoyable We do this because we want to see if having a
positive attitude about the task before you begin will affect your ability on the task So normally
we have another student who works for us and what I do is take him into the hall that you were
just in and introduce him as though he had just finished the experiment This paid student then
starts a conversation with the next participant and tells him or her about the experiment and how
interesting and fun it was What we are interested in of course is comparing the performance of
people who know nothing about the experiment such as yourself with those people who expect
the task to be interesting and exciting
Now I have an unusual request I have to make The student that we have hired to talk to
the next participant about the study couldnt make it today He just called a few minutes ago My
advisor told me to just have one of my actual participants do it So what you will have to do is to
tell the next participant who is now in the hall that this task is exciting interesting and
enjoyable Irsquoll take you into the hall introduce you to the next participant and then give you
about 2 minutes to begin your conversation and tell him or her that this experimental task will be
fun Are you ready
110
Appendix B
Demographic Information
Age _____
Gender _____
Ethnicity (check only one)
Mexican American ____
Mexican National ____
Hispanic ____
Caucasian ____
Asian ____
African American ____
Other ____
111
Appendix B
University of Texas Psychology Department
Post Experiment Evaluation Form
This form is to be completed immediately following participation in a UTEP Psychology experiment The department is evaluating the research that is currently being conducted and would like your opinion on the effectiveness of the experiment you just participated in Please take the time to fill out this brief survey Please circle the answer that best describes your feelings about the experiment you just participated in Your responses will remain confidential and will only be reviewed by departmental staff Once you have completed the survey place it in the envelope provided for you and seal the envelope
The following items are about the experiment you just participated in Please circle how much you agree with the following statement
1 The task in this experiment was enjoyable
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
2 I feel that I learned a lot from this experiment
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
112
3 I feel that the results of this study will have scientific value
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
4 I would enjoy participating in future experiments similar to this one
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly 5 I felt guilty during this experiment
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly 6 I felt comfortable at all times during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
113
7 I felt that I had free will at all times during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
8 I felt pressured by the experimenter during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
114
Appendix C Date _________________
LPSP
Listed below are a number of statements Each represents a commonly held opinion and there are no right or wrong answers You will probably disagree with some items and agree with others Please read each statement carefully and circle the number which best describes the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement or the extent to which each statement applies to you
ITEM Strongly Disagree
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Strongly Agree
1 Success is based on survival of the fittest I am not concerned about the losers
1 2 3 4
2 For me whatrsquos right is whatever I can get away with
1 2 3 4
3 In todayrsquos world I feel justified in doing anything I can get away with to succeed
1 2 3 4
4 My main purpose in life is getting as many goodies as I can
1 2 3 4
5 Making a lot of money is my most important goal
1 2 3 4
6 I let others worry about higher values my main concern is with the bottom line
1 2 3 4
7 People who are stupid enough to get ripped off usually deserve it
1 2 3 4
8 Looking out for myself is my top priority
1 2 3 4
9 I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do
1 2 3 4
10 I would be upset if my success came at someone elsersquos expense
1 2 3 4
115
Appendix C (LPSP Continued)
ITEM Disagree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Agree Strongly
11 I often admire a really clever scam 1 2 3 4
12 I make a point of trying not to hurt others in pursuit of my goals
1 2 3 4
13 I enjoy manipulating other peoplersquos feelings
1 2 3 4
14 I feel bad if my words or actions cause someone else to feel emotional pain
1 2 3 4
15 Even if I were trying very hard to sell something I wouldnrsquot lie about it
1 2 3 4
16 Cheating is not justified because it is unfair to others
1 2 3 4
17 I find myself in the same kinds of trouble time after time
1 2 3 4
18 I am often bored 1 2 3 4
19 I find that I am able to pursue one goal for a long time
1 2 3 4
20 I donrsquot plan anything very far in advance
1 2 3 4
21 I quickly lose interest in tasks I start 1 2 3 4
22 Most of my problems are due to the fact that other people just donrsquot understand me
1 2 3 4
23 Before I do anything I carefully consider the possible consequences
1 2 3 4
24 I have been in a lot of shouting matches with other people
1 2 3 4
25 When I get frustrated I often let off steam by blowing my top
1 2 3 4
26 Love is overrated 1 2 3 4
116
Appendix D
PPI-R SF
This test measures different personality characteristics ndash that is the ways in which peoplersquos personality styles make them different from each other Read each statement carefully and decide how false or true it is as a description of you Then mark the best choice by circling the number that corresponds to your answer Use the answer choices provided below 1 = False 2 = Mostly False 3 = Mostly True 4 = True Even if you feel that an item is neither false nor true as applied to you or if you are unsure about what response to make please answer all of the items If you cannot make up your mind about an item select the choice that is closest to your opinion Here is a sample item
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True
I enjoy going to the movies 1 2 3 4 If it is true that you enjoy going to the movies circle the 4 to the right of the question as shown below
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True
I enjoy going to the movies 1 2 3
If it is mostly false that you enjoy going to the movies you would circle the 2 to the right of the item and so on Try to be as honest as you can and be sure to give your own opinion about whether each item is false or true about you Now please begin by circling the response next to the item that best represents your opinion about yourself
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 1 Dangerous activities like skydiving scare me more than they do most people
1
2
3
4
2 I have always seen myself as something of a rebel
1
2
3
4
3 I am easily flustered in pressured situations
1
2
3
4
4 I would find the job of a movie stunt person exciting
1
2
3
4
4
117
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 5 I might like to hang out with people who drift from city to city with no permanent home
1
2
3
4
6 A lot of people have tried to ldquostab me in the backrdquo
1
2
3
4
7 I get mad if I donrsquot receive special favors I deserve
1
2
3
4
8 I am hardly ever the center of attention
1
2
3
4
9 It might be exciting to be on a plane that was about to crash but somehow landed safely
1
2
3
4
10 A lot of times I worry when a friend is having personal problems
1
2
3
4
11 I tend to get crabby and irritable when I have too many things to do
1
2
3
4
12 I get mad when I hear about the injustices in the world
1
2
3
4
13 I donrsquot let everyday hassles get on my nerves
1
2
3
4
14 I could be a good con artist
1
2
3
4
15 I have a talent for getting people to talk to me
1
2
3
4
16 I might like to travel around the country with some motorcyclists and cause trouble
1
2
3
4
17 In conversations Irsquom the one who does most of the talking
1
2
3
4
18 I feel sure of myself when Im around other people
1
2
3
4
19 Parachute jumping would really scare me
1
2
3
4
118
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 20 When people lend me something I try to get it back to them quickly
1
2
3
4
21 I like to stand out in a crowd
1
2
3
4
22 It would be fun to fly a small airplane by myself
1
2
3
4
23 In school or at work I try to stretch the rules just to see what I can get away with
1
2
3
4
24 Irsquove often been betrayed by people I trusted
1
2
3
4
25 It would break my heart to see a poor or homeless person walking the streets at night
1
2
3
4
26 Some people say that I am a ldquoworry wartrdquo
1
2
3
4
27 It bothers me a lot when I see someone crying
1
2
3
4
28 I get stressed out when Irsquom ldquojugglingrdquo too many tasks
1
2
3
4
29 Itrsquos easy for me to go up to a stranger and introduce myself
1
2
3
4
30 I donrsquot care about following the ldquorulesrdquo I make up my own rules as I go along
1
2
3
4
31 Irsquove been the victim of a lot of bad luck
1
2
3
4
32 Im hardly ever the life of the party
1
2
3
4
33 Irsquove thought a lot about my long-term career goals
1
2
3
4
34 Some people have gone out of their way to make my life difficult
1
2
3
4
119
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 35 I sometimes lie just to see if I can get someone to believe me
1
2
3
4
36 I like my life to be unpredictable and surprising
1
2
3
4
37 I get very upset when I see photographs of starving people
1
2
3
4
38 I might like flying across the ocean in a hot-air balloon
1
2
3
4
39 I worry about things even when therersquos no reason to
1
2
3
4
40 When I am doing something important like taking a test or doing my taxes I check it over first
1
2
3
4
41 People I thought were my ldquofriendsrdquo have gotten me into trouble
1
2
3
4
42 I think long and hard before I make big decisions
1
2
3
4
43 I tell people only the part of the truth they want to hear
1
2
3
4
44 I get blamed for many things that arenrsquot my fault
1
2
3
4
45 I feel bad about myself after I tell a lie
1
2
3
4
46 I quickly get annoyed with people who do not give me what I want
1
2
3
4
47 I would like to have a wild hairstyle
1
2
3
4
48 Irsquom the kind of person who gets ldquostressed outrdquo pretty easily
1
2
3
4
49 I usually think about what Irsquom going to say before I say it
1
2
3
4
120
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 50 Some people have made up stories about me to get me in trouble
1
2
3
4
51 I watch my finances closely
1
2
3
4
52 I am a daredevil
1
2
3
4
53 I would like to hitchhike across the country with no plans
1
2
3
4
54 I try to use my best manners when Irsquom around other people
1
2
3
4
55 I often place my friendsrsquo needs above my own
1
2
3
4
56 If I canrsquot change the rules I try to get others to bend them for me
1
2
3
4
121
Appendix E
MACH Scale (IV)
Below are twenty statements Please read each one and consider your level of agreement Rate each statement using the following scale and record your answers by circling the answer next to each statement that is most representative of how you feel 1 Strongly Agree ndash I agree completely with this statement 2 Somewhat Agree ndash I agree with this statement but not entirely 3 No Opinion ndash I have no opinion about this statement 4 Somewhat Disagree ndash I disagree with this statement but not entirely 5 Strongly Disagree ndash I disagree completely with this statement
Item Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
No Opinion
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1) The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear
1 2 3 4 5
2) When you ask someone to do something for youyou it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which might carry more weight
1 2 3 4 5
3) Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble
1 2 3 4 5
4) It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there
1 2 3 4 5
5) Honesty is the best policy in all cases 1 2 3 4 5
6) Itrsquos safe to assume that all people have a vicious streak that will come out when they are given a chance
1 2 3 4 5
7) Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so
1 2 3 4 5
8) One should take action only when sure it is morally right
1 2 3 4 5
9) It is wise to flatter important people 1 2 3 4 5
122
Appendix E ( MACH-IV Continued)
Item Strongly
Agree Somewhat
Agree No
Opinion Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
10) All in all it is better to be humble and honest than important and dishonest
1 2 3 4 5
11) Barnum was very wrong when he said therersquos a sucker born every minute
1 2 3 4 5
12) People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death
1 2 3 4 5
13) It is possible to be good in all respects 1 2 3 4 5
14) Most people are basically good and kind 1 2 3 4 5
15) There is no excuse for lying to someone else
1 2 3 4 5
16) Most men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their property
1 2 3 4 5
17) Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean moral lives
1 2 3 4 5
18) Generally speaking men wonrsquot work hard unless they are forced to do so
1 2 3 4 5
19) The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught
1 2 3 4 5
20) Most men are brave 1 2 3 4 5
123
Appendix F
Informed Consent Form
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Form for Research Involving Human Subjects
Protocol Title Personality effects on reaction time
Principal Investigator Ashley Murray BA
UTEP Psychology
Introduction
You are being asked to take part voluntarily in the research project described below Before agreeing to take part in this research study it is important that you read the consent form that describes the study Please ask the study researcher or the study staff to explain any words or information that you do not clearly understand
Why is this study being done
You have been asked to take part in a research study looking at how certain personality types differ on reaction times You will be asked to complete 3 separate personality surveys and a reaction time measure Approximately 150 students will be participating in this study at UTEP You are being asked to be in the study because you are currently enrolled as a student at UTEP and are 18 years of age or older
If you decide to enroll in this study your involvement will last approximately an hour and a half
What is involved in the study
If you agree to take part in this study the research team will provide you with a brief demographics form and three personality measures Please fill out all forms and do not skip through the packet Please answer every question to the best of your ability After you have finished answering all of the questions please let the experimenter know You will also be asked
124
to complete a brief peg turning task that measures your physical reaction abilities Your performance on the task will be monitored by the experimenter
What if I want to withdraw or am asked to withdraw from this study
Taking part in this study is voluntary You have the right to choose not to take part in this study If you do not take part in the study there will be no penalty There are no risks or harms related to participating in this study
If you choose to take part you have the right to stop at any time However we encourage you to talk to a member of the research group so that they know why you are leaving the study If there are any new findings during the study that may affect whether you want to continue to take part you will be told about them
Who do I call if I have questions or problems
You may ask any questions you have now If you have questions later you may call Ashley Murray (915-474-5784) or Dr James Wood (915-474-6570)
If you have questions or concerns about your participation as a research subject please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTEP Contact Ms Lola Norton (Institutional Coordinator for Research Review) at (915) 747-7939 or irborsputepedu
What about confidentiality
1 Your part in this study is confidential None of the information will identify you by name All records will be handled only by the research team and will be kept securely locked in a file cabinet when not in use
125
Authorization Statement
I have read each page of this paper about the study (or it was read to me) I know that being in this study is voluntary and I choose to be in this study I know I can stop being in this study without penalty I will get a copy of this consent form now and can get information on results of the study later if I wish
Participant Name Date
Participant Signature Time
Experimenter Signature ___________________________________
126
Post Experimental Informed Consent
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Form for Research Involving Human Subjects
Protocol Title The effects of psychopathy on cognitive dissonance
Principal Investigator Ashley Murray BA
UTEP Psychology
Introduction
The purpose of this research project is to examine how individuals with different personality characteristics react when they are asked to deceive someone else Please ask the study researcher or the study staff to explain any words or information that you do not clearly understand
Why is this study being done
You have been asked to take part in a research study looking at how certain personality types differ on reacting to feelings of guilt You were asked to complete 3 separate personality surveys and an abacus task Approximately 150 students will be participating in this study at UTEP You were recruited to the study because you are currently enrolled as a student at UTEP and are 18 years of age or older
Thank you for participating in this study Your participation as well as the participation of others will help us better understand how different people react when asked to deceive someone else
127
What is involved in the study
During this experiment you were asked to talk with another research participant and tell him or her that the study was enjoyable However you now understand that in reality this person was really just a member of the research team who was pretending to be a research participant Therefore your conversation with him or her did not affect her emotionally or in any other way
The anonymity of your individual responses will be maintained at all times and only group data will be identified and reported
In addition it is very important to the current researchers that you do NOT tell anyone else about what you did here today The integrity of peoplersquos responses is reliant on them not knowing what is about to happen If you tell people ahead of time what to expect their answers and actions will not be accurate and this could negatively affect the outcomes of the study Therefore you will not tell anyone about the details of this experiment or what you did here today
Who do I call if I have questions or problems
You may ask any questions you have now If you have questions later you may call or Ashley Murray (915-474-5784) or Dr James Wood (915-474-6570)
If you have questions or concerns about your participation as a research subject please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTEP Contact Ms Lola Norton (Institutional Coordinator for Research Review) at (915) 747-7939 or irborsputepedu
What about confidentiality
Your part in this study is confidential None of the information will identify you by name All records will be handled only by the research team and will be kept securely locked in a file cabinet when not in use
128
Authorization Statement
I have read each page of this paper about the study (or it was read to me) I know that being in this study is voluntary and I chose to be in this study I know I can stop being in this study without penalty
In addition it is very important that I do NOT tell anyone else about what I did here today The integrity of future participantsrsquo responses depends on them not knowing what is about to happen in this experiment Therefore I agree not to share with my friends or classmates (especially friends or classmates in my psychology classes) any details about what I did here today
By signing this form I understand that I am giving the experimenter permission to use my data
Participant Name Date
Participant Signature Time
Experimenter Signature __________________________________
129
Appendix G
Debriefing Script
ldquoThank you for participating in this study At this time I want to explain the study to you As
you will recall after completing the task where you moved balls back and forth on an abacus you
were asked to tell the next waiting participant that the task he or she was about to complete would
be enjoyable Your conversation with that waiting participant was actually one of the main points
of the experiment The reason why that conversation was important is because we are interested in
how different personality characteristics affect the way individuals respond to guilt The bigger
purpose of the current experiment is to see what personality characteristics make some people feel
guilt while other people do not experience guilt The way that we tried to create guilt today was by
having you tell the next waiting participant that they would enjoy the abacus task Studying guilt
reactions is important to psychology research because it can help us identify the cognitive
processes that people with differing personality characteristics use when they experience guilt
This is an important aspect of human behavior to study and we apologize that in order to examine
guilt reactions we had to mislead you briefly today
At this time we would like to explain that the person you spoke to and told that the abacus task
was going to be enjoyable was actually my research assistant and was only pretending to be a
future participant He (she) was not affected in any negative way by what you said to him (her)
and did not have to perform the peg turning task It was necessary that you think that my research
assistant was a future participant in the study so that your reactions would be genuine for the study
to get honest and accurate results
You should not feel bad for agreeing to tell my assistant that the task would be fun
Psychologists have been doing this kind of experiment for 50 years and nearly everyone agrees to
130
say that the experiment is more enjoyable than it really is You reacted in the same way that the
majority of participants in these kinds of experiments do
Again I would like to remind you that all of your answers and everything you did here today
for this experiment will remain confidential and anonymous Only I and my small research team
will have access to the data collected here today and you are not identified in any way in the data
collected
If you do feel upset or uneasy about your participation in this experiment you can talk to my
mentor Dr James Wood or you can contact the UTEP Counseling Center and I will provide that
contact information to you Do you feel a need to talk with Dr Wood or someone at the counseling
center about this
Finally it is EXTREMELY important that other students do not find out about the purpose of
this experiment If they do we will not be able to run this research anymore Students must come
into our lab with no idea about what the study is actually about Please do not speak to any other
students about this study especially psychology students We will be running this study for about a
year so please do not talk other students about this experiment
Do you understand everything I have said to you Do you have any questions
Again thank you for participating in this study todayrdquo
131
Appendix G
No-Lie Debriefing Script
ldquoThank you for participating in this study At this time I want to explain the study to you As
you will recall after completing the task where you moved balls back and forth on an abacus you
were asked to tell the next waiting participant that the task he or she was about to complete would
be enjoyable Your conversation with that waiting participant was actually one of the main points
of the experiment The reason why that conversation was important is because we are interested in
how different personality characteristics affect the way individuals respond to guilt The bigger
purpose of the current experiment is to see what personality characteristics make some people feel
guilt while other people do not experience guilt The way that we tried to create guilt today was by
having you tell the next waiting participant that they would enjoy the abacus task Studying guilt
reactions is important to psychology research because it can help us identify the cognitive
processes that people with differing personality characteristics use when they experience guilt
This is an important aspect of human behavior to study and we apologize that in order to examine
guilt reactions we had to mislead you briefly today
At this time we would like to explain that the person who acted as the waiting participant was
actually my research assistant and was only pretending to be a future participant He (she) was not
going to be affected in any negative way by what you said to him (her) and did not have to
perform the abacus task It was necessary that you think that my research assistant was a future
participant in the study so that your reactions would be genuine for the study to get honest and
accurate results
Again I would like to remind you that all of your answers and everything you did here today
for this experiment will remain confidential and anonymous Only I and my small research team
132
will have access to the data collected here today and you are not identified in any way in the data
collected
If you do feel upset or uneasy about your participation in this experiment you can talk to my
mentor Dr James Wood or you can contact the UTEP Counseling Center and I will provide that
contact information to you Do you feel a need to talk with Dr Wood or someone at the counseling
center about this
Finally it is EXTREMELY important that other students do not find out about the purpose of
this experiment If they do we will not be able to run this research anymore Students must come
into our lab with no idea about what the study is actually about Please do not speak to any other
students about this study especially psychology students We will be running this study for about a
year so please do not talk other students about this experiment
Do you understand everything I have said to you Do you have any questionsrdquo
Again thank you for participating in this study today
133
Appendix H
Confederate Guilt Manipulation Check Form
I ___________________________ who acted as a confederate for the current study verify that
The participant told me that the task would be fun enjoyable
The participant told me that the task would be fun enjoyable BUT also told me they had to tell me it was enjoyable
The participant told me that the task would be boring
The participant told me about the task BUT did NOT tell me it would be fun enjoyable
The participant did not tell me anything about the experiment
The participant did not talk to me at all
The participant told me that the task would be fun BUT only after being prompted by me
Participant _________
134
Curriculum Vita
Ashley Anne Murray daughter of Scott and Greta Murray was born in Denver CO She
was raised throughout Texas and Montana and in 2006 graduated with High Honors from the
University of Montana with a BA in psychology (research emphasis) While pursuing her
undergraduate degree she was awarded the Kain-McKay Scholarship in recognition of her
achievements in the field of psychology and was in the Phi Kappa Phi Honors Society She also
was employed at the campus Student Assault Resource Center where she provided counseling
and assessments for survivors of domestic violence and rape Upon completion of her BA
Ashley was accepted to the Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology Program at The University of
Texas at El Paso During her graduate studies at UTEP she completed a 350 hour clinical
internship with the PATH Program of The Aliviane Organization at the Opportunity Center of El
Paso Homeless Shelter Through the internship she provided assessments therapy and group
facilitation to homeless individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse
disorders Throughout her graduate studies Ashley worked on multiple projects in two clinical
labs and has worked on manuscripts and presented several posters at national psychology
conferences At UTEP she has worked as a teaching assistant and instructor in the psychology
department She will be going on to obtain her clinical PhD at Simon Fraser University in the
fall of 2009
Permanent Address 2810 Palm Dr
Billings MT 59102
- University of Texas at El Paso
- DigitalCommonsUTEP
-
- 2009-01-01
-
- The effects of psychopathy and Machiavellianism on cognitive dissonance
-
- Ashley Anne Murray
-
- Recommended Citation
-
- Introduction
- Why is this study being done
- Introduction
- Why is this study being done
-
THE EFFECTS OF PSYCHOPATHY AND MACHIAVELLIANISM ON
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
By
ASHLEY ANNE MURRAY BA
THESIS
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at El Paso
in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO
May 2009
v
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr James Wood for his wisdom knowledge and patience in guiding me
through this process In addition special thanks to Dr Scott Lilienfeld for assisting as an outside
consultant and lending his expertise in psychopathy research to this project
vi
Abstract
Psychopathic traits include a lack of guilt a lack of remorse callousness and antisocial behaviors
such as impulsivity and aggression The current study examined the effects of psychopathic traits
as measured by the Psychopathic Personality Inventory ndash Revised Short Form (PPI-R SF
Lilienfeld amp Widows 2005) and the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales
(LPSP Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995) and of Machiavellianism (MACH) as measured
by the MACH-IV (Christie amp Geis 1970) on cognitive dissonance in a sample of 164
participants The induced compliance paradigm of cognitive dissonance was implemented by
instructing each participant to complete a boring task inspired by the seminal cognitive
dissonance experiment by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) Afterward feelings of guilt and
psychological unease were induced by asking the participant to mislead a second participant
(actually a confederate) by telling him that the task was enjoyable Participantsrsquo level of guilt
over telling the lie was experimentally manipulated Half of the participants were directly and
firmly instructed to tell the lie (low perceived choice low guilt condition) whereas the other half
of the participants were politely requested but not instructed to tell the lie (high perceived
choice high guilt condition) As predicted participants low in psychopathy (as measured by the
PPI-R SF and LPSP) exhibited the classic cognitive dissonance effect whereas participants high
in psychopathy did not exhibit the effect Results for MACH were not significant The
implications of these results are important for cognitive dissonance research because they point
to a subset of the population (psychopaths) possibly confounding results of past studies on
cognitive dissonance In addition the results point to definitive cognitive differences between
individuals with varying levels of psychopathy
vii
Table of Contents
Dedicationhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipiii
Acknowledgementshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipv
Abstracthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipvi
Table of Contentshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipvii
List of Tableshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipix
List of Figureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipx
Chapter 1 Introductionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1
11 Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1
12 Justification for the Current Studyrsquos Procedural Designhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7
13 Cooperrsquos New Look Theory of Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10
14 Psychopathy Effects on Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12
15 Machiavellianismhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20
16 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip23
17 Hypotheses of the Present Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip29
Chapter 2 Methodshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip32
Chapter 3 Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip41
31 Confirmatory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip44
32 Exploratory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55
Chapter 4 Discussionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76
41 Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effecthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76
42 Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip78
43 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip88
44 Psychopathy Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment (Over MACH)hellip90
viii
45 Additional Exploratory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip91
Limitations and Future Directionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip94
Conclusionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip99
Referenceshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip100
Appendix Ahelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip107
Appendix Bhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip110
Appendix Chelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip114
Appendix Dhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip116
Appendix Ehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip121
Appendix Fhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip123
Appendix Ghelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip129
Appendix Hhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip133
Curriculum Vitahelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip134
ix
List of Tables
Table 1 Descriptive Information for the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Predictors and Dependent Variablehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43 Table 2 Multiple Regression Results Criterion is Self-Reported Enjoyment of the Abacus Tasks Predictors are the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores and Subscales Each Row Represents Results From One Multiple Regressionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip50 Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (PPI-RSF) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianismhellip54 Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (LPSP) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianismhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55 Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56 Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (LPSP)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57 Table 7 Correlations Between the Total Scores of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip62 Table 8 Correlations Between the PPI-R SF LPSP MACH-IV Their Factors and Subscales65 Table 9 Multiple Regression Results Criterion is Self-Reported Guilt After Misleading the Confederate Predictors are the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores and Subscales Each Row Represents Results From One Multiple Regressionhelliphelliphelliphelliphellip69 Table 10 Factor Solutions Between PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scorehelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70 Table 11 Factor Loadings of Total Item Factor Analysishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip72 Table 12 Factor Loadings of the Psychopathy and MACH Measures Subscaleshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip75 Table 13 Interactions of Psychopathy Subscales and Factor Scales with Choice Condition by the Two Factor (Cognitive or Behavioral) Psychopathy Solution Demonstrated by Past Research (Self-Reported Enjoyment as Criterion)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip86
x
List of Figures
Figure 1 Main Effect for Mean Task Enjoyment Across Choice Conditionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45 Figure 2 Relationship of PPI-R SF Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 Figure 3 Relationship of PPI-R SF Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 Figure 4 Relationship of LPSP Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49 Figure 5 Relationship of LPSP Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49 Figure 6 Relationship of MACH-IV Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52 Figure 7 Relationship of MACH-IV Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Psychopathy is a personality construct that has demonstrated negative consequences for
society For example individuals with psychopathy are overrepresented in prison populations
and commit more violent crimes (Hare 1996) Though psychopathy is represented in
approximately one to five percent of the population it is represented in 15-25 of prison
populations (Hare 1996) To date there is no identifiable treatment for psychopathy and no
definitive understanding of the causes or etiology of this construct Therefore it is important to
identify the specific pervasive and maladaptive cognitive aspects of psychopathy in order to
better treat and assess this personality construct One of the first steps in this process is to
identify how individuals with psychopathy differ cognitively and emotionally from people who
lack these traits The current study intends to identify a significant difference between
individuals with higher and lower levels of psychopathy in regard to how they experience
cognitive dissonance and more specifically guilt
11 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a well researched psychological phenomenon that is defined as
the tendency to change a previously held belief or moral to justify a behavior the person is asked
to perform (Festinger 1957) The key feature of cognitive dissonance that seems to cause
individuals to change their cognitions following a dissonant action or thought is a feeling of
unease (tension) that immediately follows the performance of the behavior Therefore it is
theorized that people alter their beliefs in order to reduce the unpleasant feelings that arise due to
the inconsistency among their cognitions and actions (Aronson 1968 Festinger 1957 Harmon-
Jones amp Mills 1999) Cognitive dissonance involves complex cognitive restructuring and for
this reason the attitude change that results is often pervasive (Smith amp Mackie 2000) This
2
phenomenon has been consistently demonstrated in research and is considered a universal pattern
of behavior across individuals
The theory of cognitive dissonance was originally proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957
He found that when people have little or no external justification for performing a behavior that
goes against their personally held beliefs they will often change their preexisting beliefs to
match the action For example in a landmark study of cognitive dissonance Festinger and
Carlsmith (1959) asked participants to perform a boring task (turning pegs on a board) and then
asked them to tell the next participant (a confederate) that the task would be enjoyable for either
a $1 or $20 compensation The authors found that participants who were paid the smaller amount
($1) and thus had very little external justification for lying to the confederate later reported to
the experimenter that they enjoyed the hour-long peg turning task much more that the
participants who were paid $20 Festinger and Carlsmith surmised that the results of this study
demonstrated that the participants who were paid $20 to mislead a confederate had a high
enough external justification for lying and did not experience sufficient psychological tension
over the discrepancy between their cognitions and behaviors to warrant an attitude shift
However participants who were only paid $1 to mislead the confederate experienced higher
levels of psychological unease over the lie because of the insignificant amount of external
justification and thus had to rely on attitude shift to ameliorate their negative feelings
Cognitive dissonance research defines peoplersquos actions and beliefs as either consonant or
dissonant with one another Consonant cognitions are thoughts that are in accordance with a
personrsquos other thoughts or behaviors (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) For example if a person
felt concern about the environment and decided to volunteer every Saturday to pick up litter on
the highway he would have consonant cognitions and behaviors (they match) On the other
3
hand if two cognitions are not relevant to one another or a thought does not match onersquos
behavior they are said to be dissonant and create inner turmoil within the person which then
motivates the individual to reduce the dissonance An example of this would be if a person was
raised to believe that stealing was wrong and then stole petty merchandise Once this dissonant
action is performed the individual must then find a way to reduce the internal unease that the
behavior created
According to Smith and Mackie (2000) in order for cognitive dissonance to arise and
create an attitude shift four conditions must be met First the individual must perceive his or her
behavior to be inconsistent with what he or she would normally be inclined to do Next the
person must take responsibility for freely engaging in the behavior In order for this condition to
be met the amount of external justification must be reduced or eliminated (ie no reward or
punishment for completing the task) Third negative physiological arousal needs to take place
for the individual to want to change the way they feel Finally the individual must attribute the
negative arousal to the action that he or she has just committed (Smith amp Mackie 2000)
People reduce dissonance in many ways (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Examples of
how people reduce dissonance include a) attempts to remove the dissonant cognition (ie a
smoker would try to stop thinking about the negative aspects of smoking on health) b) reduce
the importance of the dissonant cognition (ie a smoker placing higher importance on being
more likely to die in a car accident than by smoking) c) increasing the importance of consonant
cognitions over dissonant ones (ie smoking is enjoyable and makes me feel relaxed which is
important to me) (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) As one can see all of these methods of
reducing dissonance involve focusing onersquos thoughts and emotions away from the dissonant
cognition (ie smoking is bad for me)
4
Cognitive Dissonance Psychological Tension and Physiological Arousal
Conceptually Festinger (1957) theorized that cognitive dissonance contains ldquodrive-likerdquo
properties that manifest as psychological tension and unease and that the psychological unease
can also manifest as physical tensions Once a person experiences the psychological and physical
unease then often an attitude shift occurs that alleviates the tensions An example that lends
support for this theory that physiological arousal precedes cognitive dissonance came from a
study conducted by Zanna and Cooper (1974) The researchers wanted to identify the physical
arousal properties associated with cognitive dissonance Zanna and Cooper gave participants a
placebo pill and told 13 of them that the pill made people feel tense 13 that the pill caused
relaxation and the final 13 that the pill had no effect Next the authors instructed participants
(under the guise of a different experiment) to write a counterattitudinal essay advocating a
campus ban of inflammatory speakers under high or low perceived choice Participants in the
low perceived choice condition were directly instructed to write the counterattitudinal essay
whereas people in the high perceived choice group were politely asked to write the essay giving
them the choice to perform the dissonant action which is a key factor in eliciting the tension
associated with cognitive dissonance The dependent measure of this study was the amount of
attitude shift participants reported experiencing on a post experimental questionnaire
Participants were given a questionnaire before the study began that assessed their preference for
adopting a campus ban on inflammatory speakers and only participants who opposed the ban
were included in the study The questionnaire asked participants to identify on a 31 point Likert
scale how much they were in favor of a campus ban on inflammatory speakers After the essay
writing manipulation portion of the experiment (where participants under high and low perceived
choice wrote a pro-ban essay) their opinion of the campus ban was again assessed with the same
5
31 point Likert scale In addition the effectiveness of the choice manipulation was assessed on
the post experimental questionnaire with the question ldquoHow free did you feel to decline to
participate in this Ivy League Administrators research projectrdquo
In the study by Zanna and Cooper (1974) an attitude shift (between the pre and post
experimental questionnaires) toward favoring the speaker ban was the expected results for the
control and relaxation inducing pill groups The authors anticipated this attitude shift due to the
previous research of Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) They hypothesized that if participants had
no external justification for feeling negatively about writing a pro-ban essay when they
previously had spoken against the ban then they must change their cognitions as previously
suggested by Festinger (1957) in his cognitive dissonance theory In accordance with Zanna and
Cooperrsquos hypotheses results indicated that the individuals who were in the tension-inducing pill
group reported significantly lower attitude shift because they were able to attribute their
tenseness and negative feelings about performing the dissonant actions to the pill rather than to
their internal turmoil On the other hand participants in the relaxation pill group evidenced the
opposite reaction these individuals experienced more attitude shift after writing the
counterattitudinal essay due to their inability to attribute their tense feelings to an external source
(the pill) In other words the people in the relaxation pill group were unable to locate an external
source that explained their feelings of unease and thus had to rely on attitude shift to ameliorate
the tension they felt over the discrepancy between their beliefs and actions
Zanna and Cooper (1974) also found that choice had an impact on attitude shift such that
participants in the high perceived choice group evidenced more attitude shift than participants in
the low perceived choice group This finding further demonstrates the need for external
justification to avoid attitude shift participants who were given the choice to write the
6
counterattitudinal essay experienced more tension than the participants who were directly told to
write the essay because of the perceived free will they exercised in writing the statements that
went against their beliefs Thus it appears that attitude shift is most likely to occur when
individuals feel they freely chose to engage in the behavior and did not have any form of external
justification for performing the dissonant action
Cognitive Dissonance and the Induced Compliance Paradigm
Within the dissonance literature several paradigms have been used to elicit attitude shift
in participants (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Of these paradigms the most common is the
induced compliance paradigm (ICP) which is used in the current study The induced compliance
paradigm typically requires participants to perform an undesirable task which arouses dissonance
once performed The key to this paradigm is to induce the participant to engage in an activity
that due to personal predispositions he or she would not ordinarily engage in In addition there
must be low or nonexistent external justification to carry out the negative behavior The absence
of external justification is important because otherwise if external rewards or punishments for
the activity are present the participant will use them to rationalize their actions and dissonance
will not be aroused In the ICP attitude shift is expected to occur when the participant is induced
to perform a counterattitudinal behavior in the absence of external justification
Counterattitudinal behaviors are any that involve doing or saying something that one does
not agree with or would not normally advocate Examples used in cognitive dissonance studies
include writing counterattitudinal essays that have may have negative consequences for other
people (Elkin amp Leippe 1986 Steele amp Liu 1983) or lying to someone about a task being
enjoyable when it was not (Cooper amp Worchel 1970 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959) Within the
ICP participants are provoked by a researcher to perform the counterattitudinal behavior through
7
the manipulation of the participantrsquos amount of choice or reward For example the peg turning
cognitive dissonance study previously mentioned (conducted by Festinger and Carlsmith in
1959) was the first study to use the ICP and reward manipulation (through the use of $1 or $20
to mislead the confederate) was used to induce cognitive dissonance effects These researchers
found that if a person publically behaves in a manner that misrepresents his personal beliefs he
will experience cognitive dissonance and that the magnitude of the dissonance will increase
when there are fewer reasons for complying (such as less reward or more perceived free choice)
A famous study by Linder Cooper and Jones (1967) demonstrated that choice
manipulation within the ICP can induce cognitive dissonance and thus attitude shift
Linder and colleagues asked participants to write an essay (using either high or low perceived
choice manipulation) supporting the ban of Communist speakers at their institution knowing that
the majority of students did not support this ban Participants were screened to make sure that
they did not agree with the ban and then were either directly instructed to write the supportive
essay (the Low perceived choice group) or asked politely to write the pro-ban essay (High
perceived choice group) Results indicated that participants in the high perceived choice group
experienced more attitude shift after completion of the essay toward being in favor of a
Communist speaker campus ban than people in the low perceived choice group Linder and
colleagues interpreted these results as evidence that when people perceive that they have free
will to engage in a dissonant action they cognitively justify their actions (via an attitude or belief
shift) to reduce the negative feelings the dissonant action produced
12 Justification for the Current Studyrsquos Procedural Design
The procedures outlined for the current study were selected due to the significant attitude
shift results that were obtained by using these tasks in two previous experiments First Festinger
and Carlsmith (1959) implemented the peg board task in their original study on cognitive
8
dissonance Participants in the study were required to turn the pegs for one hour and then lie to
the next participant (a confederate) about the task being enjoyable The primary difference
between the Festinger and Carlsmith study and the current proposal is that the former paid
participants either $1 or $20 in order to identify what amount of external justification would lead
to more attitude shift The authors found that the participants in the $20 group had much less
attitude shift about the task because they were able to use the external justification of lying for
$20 whereas participants in the $1 group evidenced significantly more attitude shift due to the
lack of any external justification for lying The authors surmised that $1 was not enough money
to justify lying for participants so they instead had to change their own cognitions to make sense
of their actions (lying to a stranger) thus they convinced themselves that the abacus task wan not
boring
A second important study used a boring task while asking participants to lie to a
confederate Cooper and Worchel (1970) replicated the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study
but rather than using money as the external justification for lying they used small amounts of
experimental credit (1 extra credit vs 5 extra credit) to induce attitude shift However
regardless of the amount of extra credit the authors offered 98 of participants agreed to the
deception task which indicates that the script the experimenters used was effective in inducing
participantsrsquo compliance to lie The current experiment is using the Experimenter and
Confederate Scripts from the study by Cooper and Worchel with only a few minor modifications
to the original scripts For example the Cooper and Worchel study only manipulated a High
perceived choice group so their script was altered slightly in the present study so that it could
also be used for the Low perceived choice group
9
Justification for using the high perceived choice condition to elicit attitude shift comes
from an experiment conducted by Zanna Goethals amp Cooper (1975) Their study implemented
the peg board task and asked participants to lie to a confederate that the task was enjoyable (they
only used the high perceived choice condition to elicit guilt) The study had participants do the
peg turning task for 20 minutes (as opposed to the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study which
required participants to do the task for one hour) Through asking participants to voluntarily
deceive the next participant the authors found that all participants (n=76) agreed to tell the next
participant (really a confederate) that the peg turning task was enjoyable They obtained this
100 compliance rate simply by asking the participant to tell the next person (a confederate) that
the peg turning task was enjoyable The study by Zanna and colleagues also provides support
that conducting the peg turning task for only 20 minutes still induces sufficient boredom in
participants In addition the study found a significant attitude shift toward reporting enjoying a
dull task when voluntarily lying to a confederate (F = 848 plt001) as compared to a control
group who did not have to lie
Finally a study by Elkin and Leippe (1986) used both high and low perceived choice
groups to examine different rates of attitude shift toward a previously counterattitudinal belief
(supporting the implementation of a student parking fee) In the high perceived choice group
participants were given the option to write a counterattitudinal essay (supporting the parking
fee) while in the low perceived choice group participants were told directly to write the
counterattitudinal essay Participantrsquos feeling of guilt was manipulated by telling them that the
counterattitudinal essay they wrote would be used by a panel and may possibly persuade them to
implement the parking fee on the campus Results indicated that all subjects participated in
writing the counterattitudinal essay (100 compliance rates) regardless of what group they were
10
in and subjects in the high perceived choice group evidenced more attitude shift towards paying
for parking than participants in the low perceived choice group The authors concluded that this
attitude shift occurred due to the participantsrsquo lack of external justification for writing the
counterattitudinal essay (they agreed voluntarily to write it) which in turn caused feelings of
guilt for voluntarily lying to the confederate These results indicate that people are apt to perform
counterattitudinal behaviors even when given a high perceived choice not to Due to the studyrsquos
significant attitude shift (cognitive dissonance) results in the High perceived choice group as
opposed to the Low perceived choice group who did not get strong attitude shift results the
current study will compare high and low perceived choice groups to attain the different levels of
cognitive dissonance
Upon discovering the links between free choice and reward leading to attitude shift when
a dissonant act is completed cognitive dissonance researchers attempted to identify specific
components of decision making that would further explain the effects of cognitive dissonance
The key features that have been postulated to explain how and why cognitive dissonance creates
attitude shift include experiencing feelings of personal guilt (Cooper amp Fazio 1984) public
commitment (Aronson 1968) and perceived free choice to commit the behavior (Brehm amp
Cohen 1962) Researchers have come up with competing theories to explain the resulting
cognitive shift that accompanies dissonance and one of the most prominent theories is the New
Look theory
13 Cooperrsquos New Look Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
The New Look theory posits that the effects of dissonance are a result of feeling
personally responsible for instigating future negative consequences for oneself or more often for
others (Cooper amp Fazio 1984) Cooper and Fazio suggested in this theory that aversive
11
consequences are necessary for the arousal of dissonance The authors defined aversive events as
those that block onersquos self interest or events that the individual would rather avoid due to their
undesirable nature The New Look theory posits that the degree of dissonance aroused in an
individual is dependent on the amount of desire a person has to avoid the negative consequences
Cooper and Fazio term this phenomenon dissonance motivation The New Look theory identifies
the consequence of an action as the cause of the subsequent attitude shift The consequence must
be salient and must cause the individual enough distress to warrant attitude shift
Support for this theory came from a study conducted by Goethals and Cooper (1972)
These researchers induced participants (known to be in favor of drinking alcohol) to deliver an
anti-drinking speech to a panel of people Half of the subjects were informed that their speech
convinced the panel that allowing drinking on campus was a bad idea while the other half of
participants were told that the speech they made had no effect on the listeners Results indicated
that only the participants who were led to believe that their speech had a negative effect on the
panel (their speech convinced the panel that drinking was bad) experienced attitude shift toward
being in favor of a drinking ban on campus The participants who were told that they did not
convince the panel did not experience attitude shift toward being against drinking on campus
The authors concluded that unless the participant feels that he negatively impacted another
person then he will not experience enough guilt and dissonance to warrant an attitude shift
Cooper and Worchel (1970) further demonstrated evidence for the New Look theory in
their experiment which replicated the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) peg turning task However
in their study participants were asked to deceive a confederate (only a high perceived choice
group) for a small amount of experimental credit (1 credit or 5 credits) Results indicated that
participants who felt they had the free will to deceive another person and did so experienced
12
such a negative consequence that in order to alleviate feelings of internal unease they changed
their own attitude and reported enjoying the peg turning task more than a control group who did
not have to lie to another person (who experienced no aversive consequence to their behavior)
Therefore Cooper in his New Look theory postulated that most people experience cognitive
dissonance following an aversive act that impacts another person or the self negatively
especially when the negative act violates normative social standards (Cooper 1999)
The aforementioned aspects of Cooperrsquos New Look theory are crucial to the current study
because we hypothesized that the average person will experience cognitive dissonance and thus
attitude change after committing an aversive act (lying to a confederate) which they felt they
freely chose to do The current experiment intended to explore Cooperrsquos New Look theory to not
only validate it in a normal population but also to test its effectiveness in a subpopulation that
experiences lower levels of guilt and remorse The current experiment intended to explore
Cooperrsquos New Look theory to not only validate it in a normal population but also to test its
effectiveness in a subpopulation that experiences lower levels of guilt and remorse If the theory
is correct that cognitive dissonance effects are due to feelings of tension or unease over having
caused negative consequences to another individual then it is the hypothesis of the current
researchers that individuals who felt less guilt over breaking social norms would not be as
cognitively affected by lying to another person Therefore the person with less ability to
experience guilt would not experience psychological distress from lying and ultimately therefore
not have an attitude shift
14 Psychopathy Effects on Cognitive Dissonance
The New Look theory proposes that an important cause of cognitive dissonance is often
the feeling of remorse that an individual experiences after performing a counterattitudinal
13
behavior with negative consequences for another person The questions naturally arise How
would individuals with little or no guilt perform on a cognitive dissonance task that arouses
guilt Would people lacking these cognitive reactions experience cognitive dissonance and
attitude shift following a dissonant action In order to answer these questions one must first
identify a group of people that consistently exhibit a lack of concern for others such as
individuals with psychopathic traits
Psychopathy is a pervasive heterogeneous personality construct that is particularly salient
for the current study due to the callous nature of individuals with these traits Psychopaths are
individuals who exhibit no remorse are callous unemotional and lack concern for societyrsquos
morays In addition they are often impulsive antisocial manipulative and do not have strong
social bonds with others (Hare 1993 Patrick 2006) Approximately one percent of the
population meets criteria for the diagnosis of psychopathy though 15-25 of the prison
population is diagnosed with psychopathy (Hare 1996) Within the criminal population
individuals with psychopathy are not only overrepresented but they also commit more violent
crimes (over half in the United States) and recidivate four times more often than prisoners
without psychopathy (Hare 1993) As one can see these crime statistics make this population a
danger to society and thus it is important to attempt to identify what underlying cognitive and
behavioral differences exist in people with psychopathy
Psychopathy is often discussed in relation to antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) by
many scholars (Hare 1993 Lilienfeld 1994) because of the high number of correlated traits
between the two personality constructs Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is classified as
an Axis II Cluster B disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV-TR) (American
Psychological Association APA 1994) Cluster B disorders are ones in which the individual
14
exhibits unpredictable impulsive or dramatic behavior The DSM IV-TR criteria necessary for a
diagnosis of ASPD includes impulsive and aggressive behavior conduct disorder (CD) in
childhood a history of criminal acts and violent disregard for others (APA 1994)
Psychopathy is differentiated from ASPD in that psychopathy incorporates the cognitive
and internal states of the individual in addition to his or her external behaviors (Hare 1999) In
fact the cognitive and interpersonal features of psychopathy are considered to be the most
crucial defining aspects of the personality construct (Patrick 2006) Psychopaths have
demonstrated an inability to internalize their culturersquos moral or legal standards and therefore
many people with psychopathy do not abide by these rules
Historically Phillipe Pinel was the first scientist to document the condition of
psychopathy in the early 19th century (Meloy 1998) Pinel noted that psychopaths exhibited no
remorse or internal restraint Hervey Cleckley (1941 1976) furthered research on psychopathy in
his book The Mask of Sanity Cleckley (1976) proposed that psychopathy is a personality
construct which arises in childhood He also was the first to define several cognitive and
affective characteristics of psychopathy such as superficial charm emotional shallowness
deceitfulness egocentricity irresponsibility and (most central for the current study) a lack of
remorse shame or guilt In addition he found that psychopaths often externalize the blame for
their negative actions are extremely impulsive and do not learn from punishment
Within psychopathy research there has been some debate as to whether the construct is
taxonic or dimensional (Hare 1991 Marcus amp Edens 2004) For example the Psychopathy
Checklist Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991) which is one of the prominent ways of assessing
psychopathy assigns individuals with an overall score on a scale from 0 to 40 with a cut off
score of 29 generally indicating the threshold for a psychopathy diagnosis (Hare 1991 Hare amp
15
Neumann 2006) The use of a cut-off seems to suggest a taxonic perspective However use of
the scale indicates that the higher the score the more psychopathic traits an individual expresses
which is also consistent with a dimensional view of psychopathy Recent studies have used the
PCL-R to examine the dimensional aspects of psychopathy and have consistently come to the
conclusion that psychopathy should be viewed as a continuum (Edens Marcus Lilienfeld amp
Poythress 2006 Marcus amp Edens 2004) Aside from looking at psychopathy on a continuum it
is also important to examine the construct from multiple perspectives such as behaviorally and
cognitively
Two Factor Model of Psychopathy
Today a Two Factor Model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991) is one of the
primary models used to evaluate psychopathy (Hare amp Neumann 2006 Harpur Hare amp
Hakstian 1989 Murrie amp Cornell 2002 Rutherford Cacciola amp Alterman 1999) The Two
Factor model assesses both behavioral cues and intrinsic or internal personality traits to define
psychopathy (Chapman Gremore amp Farmer 2003 Hare 1991 Pethman amp Erlandsson 2002)
and is the bases for the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991 Lykken 1995)
which is the principal assessment tool used to identify clinical psychopathy Within the Two
Factor theory the first factor describes the internal disposition of the individual and includes
eight items believed to gauge psychopathy from a cognitive angle These personality traits
include superficial charm a grandiose sense of self worth lack of empathy or guilt pathological
lying and cunning manipulativeness (Hare 1991 Raine 2002) The second factor outlines the
behavioral actions of an individual with psychopathic tendencies and includes nine items used to
assess a psychopathic personality These traits include early problem behaviors poor behavioral
controls and impulsivity (Hare 1991 Rutherford et al 1999) Based on the aforementioned
16
cognitive components of psychopathy the current researchers propose that these individuals will
not experience the same degree of psychological unease from lying to a confederate that the non
psychopathic individuals involved in the study
Primary and Secondary Model of Psychopathy
A second differentiation model of psychopathy was proposed by Karpman (1941 1948)
Karpman following the work of Cleckley divided psychopathy into two subcategories primary
and secondary psychopathy It is important to note that the primary and secondary views of
psychopathy mirror the Two Factor Model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991) In both
instances the primary factor (Factor 1) encompasses the cognitive affective traits of
psychopathy while the secondary factor (Factor 2) assesses the more antisocial behavior
characteristics of psychopathy
Individuals with primary psychopathy evidence cognitive manifestations of the construct
such as low to non-existent trait anxiety callousness and a lack of guilt or remorse They tend to
be unresponsive to treatment efforts and often have more severe symptoms associated with
psychopathy (Karpman 1941) For example Karpman (1948) found that primary psychopaths
are more apt to carry out their deceptive and manipulative behavior to reach an end goal
displaying a callous lack of emotion or concern for others whereas secondary psychopaths will
occasionally act with higher human emotions such as empathy
Secondary psychopathy is believed to come about through the effects of environmental
stressors and life events such as severe child physical or sexual abuse (Porter 1996) The
manifestation of secondary psychopathy which has also been called sociopathy (Lykken 1995)
is mostly behavioral in nature and secondary psychopaths tend to carry out the antisocial and
deviant behavior as a reaction to deep emotional conflict or anger rather than a callous
17
disregard for others (Karpman 1941) Overall primary psychopaths seem to have a permanent
deficit in functioning whereas secondary psychopathy encompasses a dysfunction created by
aversive environmental factors However it is important to note that both primary and secondary
psychopaths to some degree evidence manipulative and callous behavior and display a lack of
regard for others (Karpman 1948)
Support for the view that psychopaths lack psychological distress comes in part from a
study conducted by Patrick Bradley and Lang (1993) The researchers attempted to elicit a
startle reflex in psychopaths and non-psychopaths (as diagnosed by the PCL-R) by blasting a
loud noise while having the participants view either pleasant or unpleasant photographs Results
showed that psychopaths exhibited a much smaller startle response to the noise when viewing the
stimuli (both positive and negative pictures) as compared to the non-psychopaths In addition
Patrick and colleagues found a negative correlation between the PCL-R Factor One scores (lack
of guilt lack of remorse etc) and the level of eye-blink reaction Eye blink reactions to the
startle noise were measured with Beckman miniature Ag-AgCl electrodes positioned at the
orbicularis oculi muscle beneath the participantrsquos left eye The authors found that non
psychopathic individualsrsquo eyes tend to blink more frequently than in psychopaths when aversive
stimuli are presented
Therefore these results seem to indicate that individuals with high Factor One traits
seem to evidence very little anxiety and less psychological distress towards aversive stimuli The
results of this study show that individuals higher in psychopathic traits experience less of a
physiological and thus perhaps less of a cognitive reaction to aversive stimuli In addition a
study conducted by Ray and Ray (1982) demonstrated that people high in psychopathy do not
seem to care as much about what others think of them The study found a negative correlation
18
between social desirability (as measured by the Marlow-Crowne social desirability scales) and
psychopathy (r = -32 p = 05) This finding also supports the current studyrsquos hypothesis that
individuals high on psychopathic traits will be less likely than other individuals to experience
psychological unease over lying to a confederate or undergo an attitude shift to diminish this
discomfort
Cognitive dissonance studies have consistently demonstrated that individuals not only
shift their attitude following a dissonant act but also experience physical symptoms of distress as
well For example a study conducted by Croyle and Cooper (1983) found that people have a
heightened skin conductance responses following the ldquovoluntaryrdquo commitment of a writing a
counterattitudinal essay Though no direct cognitive dissonance studies manipulating guilt have
been replicated using psychopaths studies that have used aversive stimuli such as the
anticipation of being blasted with a loud noise (80 to 120dB) have indicated that psychopaths
(compared to non-psychopath controls) evidence a hyporesponsive physical reaction (as
measured by electrodermal measurements) to the aversive stimuli (Hare 1978) Harersquos study
along with others like it (see Fowles 1980 Lykken 1957) indicate that psychopaths do not
seem to experience anxiety at the same level that non-psychopathic individuals do Therefore it
would follow that through the reduced physiological anxiety response identified in individuals
with psychopathy they will be unable to experience the psychological unease associated with the
adverse stimulus (lying to a confederate) and thus not experience an attitude shift
Past Research on Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonance
Only one study has attempted to assess the effect of psychopathy on cognitive
dissonance A doctoral dissertation by Weir (2007) examined cognitive dissonance in a sample
of 150 males from a drug treatment facility All participants had been in prison or jail and had a
19
history of criminal activity Level of psychopathy was assessed using the LPSP Participants at
the start of this study filled out an attitudes measure that assessed their opinions about the
judicial system treatment of criminals and drug abuse Later in the experiment cognitive
dissonance was induced by having participants copy a counterattitudinal statement from a sheet
of paper that dealt with being in favor of harsher punishments for criminals and drug offenders
(views that these men would adamantly oppose) After participants copied the counterattitudinal
statements they were instructed to tear up what they had written At the end of the study Weir
again assessed participantsrsquo attitudes regarding the judicial system treatment of criminals and
drug abuse with the same attitudes measure employed at the very beginning of the study The
pre and post-test use of the attitudes measure was to identify if participantsrsquo opinions had shifted
toward being in favor of harsher punishments for criminals after writing counterattitudinally in
favor of it
Weir hypothesized that primary psychopaths would experience cognitive dissonance
significantly less than individuals with secondary psychopathy or non-psychopathic individuals
because of the callous unemotional traits that are principally associated with primary
psychopathy However results of Weirrsquos study found no significant difference across the three
groups for attitude change following the dissonance inducing task The analysis did find minor
differences between the groups such that primary psychopaths did seem less effected by writing
the counterattitudinal essays than the secondary and non-psychopaths but again the results were
not significant Weir (2007) concluded that individuals with higher levels of primary
psychopathy were deficient but not completely incapable of experiencing dissonance following
an aversive behavior
20
An important confound of Weirrsquos study was the lack of a control group All participants
wrote the counterattitudinal essay so there was not a neutral group to compare the participantsrsquo
attitude shift following the essay copying to Due to the lack of a control group it is impossible to
know whether the experimental manipulation induced a dissonance effect in any of the groups
Though his study did assess cognitive dissonance it is still very different than the current study
because Weir was not using guilt as the catalyst for attitude shift
The current study examines the effect of guilt (or a lack of guilt) on cognitive dissonance
while the counterattitudinal essayrsquos used as the dissonance stimuli in Weirrsquos study did not cause
participants to feel guilt Weir was not manipulating guilt in participants but rather their
cognitive reactions to discrepant behaviors and beliefs (physically writing in favor of something
they cognitively disagreed with) Therefore though relevant to more general issues concerning
cognitive dissonance and psychopathy his study was not directly relevant to the question of
whether guilt-inducing manipulations evoke cognitive dissonance effects among individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy
15 Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism (MACH) is considered to be a similar concept to psychopathy
(McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto 1998 Saruk 1975) Both personality constructs are
characterized by callousness manipulation of others and a disregard for social norms and morals
(Christie amp Geis 1970 Skinner 1988) Based on these shared characteristics many researchers
have come to believe that the concepts may be the same but are just being labeled differently by
different branches of psychology (McHoskey et al 1998) Psychopathy is typically studied by
clinical psychologists whereas MACH has been primarily researched in the fields of social and
personality psychology
21
However other investigators (Wastell amp Booth 2003 Wilson Near amp Miller 1996)
have pointed to MACH as an instrumental construct that is incorporated as a strategic way to
pursue goals MACHs tend to be calculating and rational and engage in ruthless activity to attain
goals that are important to them Psychopaths on the other hand are often much less self-
controlled and more impulsive while exhibiting a dearth of planning abilities This may be one
of the main differences between MACH and psychopathy and this difference seems to point to
cognitive distinctions between the two personality traits
Christie (1970b) formulated the personality construct of MACH based on the writings of
16th century political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli Machiavellirsquos (1513) classic book The
Prince recommended that would-be rulers take a ruthless and cold-blooded approach to
governance Accordingly Christie identified the traits of an individual with high MACH as
using ldquosuccessfulrdquo manipulation for personal gain a lack of concern for moral standards and a
purely instrumental approach to interpersonal relationships The MACH-IV is the principal
measure used to identify Machiavellianism today It was developed in 1970 by Christie and Geis
(1970) and is a self report assessment containing 20 questions that tap the traits of MACH
Research attempting to explore the distinctions between psychopathy and MACH has
found Machiavellians to evidence many shared traits with both primary and secondary
psychopathy For example MACH characteristics related to Factor 1 of the PCL-R and primary
psychopathy (as measured by the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales LPSP
Levenson et al 1995) include callousness manipulation and a lack of anxiety (Smith 1999)
Qualities of Machiavellianism have also been found in secondary psychopathy such as a thrill
seeking behavior and a heightened need for external stimulation (Strelau 1983) In addition a
study conducted by McHoskey and colleagues (1998) found that high scores on the MACH-IV
22
and high scores on the LPSP significantly correlated (r = 62) Smith and Griffith (1978) also
found a significant though modest correlation between the MMPI (Pd) scale and the MACH-IV
(r = 25) using a sample of 66 college students These findings support the theory that MACH
and psychopathy diagnoses have features in common and may in fact be tapping similar
personality constructs McHoskey and colleagues concluded after his study that psychopathy and
MACH should be more integrated in the literature
However other researchers have argued that there are crucial differences between
psychopathy and Machiavellianism For example Smith (1999) has argued that many people
with Machiavellianism are more apt to resemble a ldquosuccessful psychopathrdquo as they tend to not
have as many legal problems as primary psychopaths do and are often overrepresented in the
business industry as successful employees In addition other studies have resulted in smaller
correlations between MACH and psychopathy (see Greenwald 1967 Christie 1970a) For
example Saruk (1975) compared MACH scores with psychopathy scores on the Psychopathic
Deviate (Pd) scale of the MMPI with incarcerated inmates as participants and found no
significant correlation between the two personality constructs However many researchers today
have advised against using the Pd scale of the MMPI to gauge psychopathy due to the unreliable
results this scale has offered when studying psychopathy (Patrick 2006) and MACH (Skinner
1982) in the past
Additional distinctions in the current literature between MACH and psychopathy are that
MACHs tend be more represented in higher SES families and have higher economic standing
than the majority of psychopaths (especially secondary psychopaths) (McHoskey et al 1998
Smith 1999) As a result of the aforementioned literature MACH is most often associated with
ldquosuccessfulrdquo psychopathy or non institutionalized psychopaths (Christie 1970a)
23
16 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonance
Though the literature is very sparse regarding the relationship between psychopathy and
cognitive dissonance a few studies have investigated the relationship between MACH and
cognitive dissonance Four of the studies are relevant to the current proposal due to the way that
the researchers manipulated dissonance arousal One hindrance in comparing the current study to
previous ones on MACH and cognitive dissonance is that at the time these former studies were
conducted Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory of cognitive dissonance arousal had not been
formulated and thus guilt had not been considered as the cause of dissonance arousal at that
point in time
Bogart Geis Levy and Zimbardo (1970) assessed the impact of social cohesiveness
(liking a partner versus not liking a partner) between high and low MACHs in a cognitive
dissonance paradigm Participantsrsquo level of MACH and self-reported level of morality were pre-
assessed using the MACH-IV Next high and low MACHs were enticed to cheat on a test by a
confederate posing as their partner in the experiment The partnerrsquos level of prestige was
manipulated For half of participants the fake partner was presented as a high prestige partner (a
graduate law school student with high grades) and the remaining participants were told that their
partner was of low prestige (an industrial arts undergraduate student with poor grades) Bogart
and colleagues hypothesized that after cheating low MACHs in the low external justification
group (low prestige partners) would decrease their self-reported ratings of morality (identify
themselves as less moral than before) in order to cognitively justify their cheating behavior Each
participant was left alone in a room with their high or low prestige partner to complete a test
containing un-solvable questions After a while the fake partner ldquohappened uponrdquo answers to the
questions on a desk in the room and attempted to get the participant to cheat with him by copying
24
the answers from the found answer sheet After the cheating manipulation the participantrsquos level
of MACH (self-reported morality rating) was assessed again using the MACH-IV
The results of the study concluded that both high and low MACHs succumbed to
cheating at approximately the same rate (50 [1632] of high MACHS and 46 [1328] of low
MACHs) However Bogart and colleagues (1970) found that high MACHs were more
instrumental in their cheating behavior such that they cheated significantly more with the high
prestige partner than with the low prestige partner Low MACHs cheated an equal amount across
low and high prestige partner pairings In addition Bogart and colleagues identified an ldquoanti-
dissonantrdquo effect such that high MACHs actually increased their self-ratings of morality by
reporting that they were more moral after cheating when paired with a low prestige partner (low
external justification condition) whereas low MACHs as predicted decreased their self-ratings
of morality (reported they were less moral) when paired with low prestige partners (low external
justification condition) In other words when high MACHs were in the condition with no
external justification present for their actions and thus would have to rely on changing their
thoughts to match their behaviors they did not undergo this attitude shift rather they seemed to
create more dissonance between their thoughts and actions by reporting themselves as more
moral after cheating with the low prestige partner This is opposite to the classical cognitive
dissonant studies where participants experience an attitude shift that matches their behaviors
when little or no external justification is present to explain their actions
In contrast the classic dissonance effect was exhibited by participants in the Bogart et al
(1970) study with low levels of MACH they reported that they were not moral individuals after
they cheated with a low prestige partner Therefore it appears high MACH individuals are
25
relying on unique aspects of the situation other than external justification to create attitude
change
A very similar experiment was reported by Bogart (1971) in which she again assessed the
effect of MACH on cognitive dissonance by enticing participants cheat on a task with a high or
low prestige partner However in this experiment a control group was employed to assess
differences between high and low MACHs who were asked to cheat as opposed to those who
were not asked to cheat As in the earlier study by Bogart et al (1970) participantsrsquo level of
MACH and self-reported level of morality were pre-assessed Next high and low MACHs were
persuaded to cheat on an essay writing assignment by a confederate posing as their partner in the
experiment The partnerrsquos level of prestige was manipulated this time in four different ways to
include their fake level of MACH as well The four categories of fake participants included High
MACH High Prestige (graduate law student) High MACH Low Prestige (business
administration student) Low MACH High Prestige (physics major) and Low MACH Low
Prestige (industrial arts student) Results indicated that high MACH participants cheated
significantly more than low MACHs (66 of high MACHs versus 41 of low MACHs) and
that they discriminated their cheating significantly more than low MACHs such that high
MACHs cheated more with the high prestige partners than the low prestige partners (81 versus
56) As in the previous study by Bogart et al (1970) an anti-dissonance effect was again found
for High MACH participants such that high MACHs again increased their self-ratings of
morality (reported they were more moral) when in the low external justification condition (paired
with low prestige partners) while low MACHs decreased their self-ratings of morality (reported
they were less moral) when in the low external justification condition (paired with low prestige
partners) This study also pointed to a difference between high and low MACHs experience of
26
cognitive dissonance by identifying the abnormal anti-dissonance reaction from individuals with
higher levels of MACH
A study by Epstein (1969) used a methodology that apparently induced guilt in
participants Epstein examined the difference between high and low MACH participantsrsquo ability
to be persuaded by induced counterattitudinal behavior Epstein pre-assessed participantsrsquo level
of MACH (with the MACH-IV) and through the use of a median split chose a sample of 40 high
MACH men and 40 low MACH men She told them that they were involved in a radio debate on
fluoridating water supplies Epstein also pre-assessed their position on water fluoridation to
make sure all participants were in favor of the procedure Half of the participants were in the
non-role playing condition (20 high MACHs and 20 low MACHs) They were instructed to read
a counterattitudinal essay against fluoridating water in town and then were post-experimentally
assessed about their position on water fluoridation to see if reading the essay had created an
attitude shift in these participants The other half of participants were in the role playing
condition They not only read the counterattitudinal essay but next they were asked to deliver an
impromptu speech against fluoridation that would be recorded and played on radio stations
across the state In the taped speech the participants had to give their name and advocate for a
ban on fluoridation which was dissonant to their personal beliefs After delivering the speech
they too were post-experimentally assessed about their position on water fluoridation to see if
their opinion had changed to be more against fluoridation Results indicated an interaction
between high and low MACHs with the role playing conditions High MACHs in the non-role
playing condition evidenced significantly more attitude change than the high MACHs in the role-
playing condition and more attitude change than the low MACHs in the non-role playing
condition This too is an anti-dissonance effect in that dissonance has been shown to produce
27
attitude change when people perform behaviors that go against their personal beliefs and in the
case of the non-role playing condition the participants did not engage in any dissonant behavior
they simply read a counterattitudinal essay written by someone else Conversely as predicted
low MACHs in the role-playing condition evidenced significantly more attitude change towards
being against fluoridation than high MACHs in the role-playing condition In addition low
MACHs in the role playing condition evidenced the most attitude change out of any condition
The finding that low MACHs experienced the most attitude shift when they had to give a speech
on the radio against fluoridation supports the classic cognitive dissonance phenomenon In
addition the role playing low MACH results potentially relate to our study if their attitudes
shifted because they felt guilt for publically denouncing a belief that they held Epsteinrsquos study is
relevant to the current study due to the methodology she used in the role playing condition
Participants were asked to publically (via a radio broadcast) deliver a speech advocating for
beliefs that they opposed Therefore because delivering a public anti-fluoridation speech would
most likely produce feelings of guilt in participants Epsteinrsquos study provides some support for
the current studyrsquos predicted results
One final study on MACH and cognitive dissonance is loosely related to the current
study although in this final example the experimental methodology did not induce guilt in
participants Burgoon Miller amp Tubbs (1972) had participants write counterattitudinal essays
advocating the removal of college student draft deferments under high and low justification In
the study justification was manipulated with classroom credits participants in the high
justification group received five classroom credits for agreeing to write the counterattitudinal
essay and participants in the low justification group received only one credit for writing the
essay Results indicated a significant interaction between level of justification (high versus low)
28
and level of MACH (high versus low) Low MACH participants experienced attitude shift
toward being in favor of draft deferments when in the low justification group This was
consistent with the classic cognitive dissonance effect When low MACH participants had no
external justification for writing the essay they changed their beliefs to match their actions In
contrast high MACHs experienced attitude shift toward being in favor of the draft deferments
only when in the high justification group but not in the low justification group The authors
explain this relationship by using incentive theory They posit that high MACHs attitudes are
persuaded by rewards which stems from their desire to gain power and prestige (and rewards)
with no regard for other people
Burgoon et al (1972) explained their findings as reflecting high MACHsrsquo lack of
concern about lying or moral standards Christie and Geis (1970) have also discussed the
findings of Burgoon et al and conjectured that they reflect the high MACHrsquos lack of concern for
other people Specifically Christie and Geis suggest that high MACHs view people more as
objects to be manipulated rather than as people with feelings and emotions
The main difference between the current study and that of Burgoon et al (1972) is that
our study assessed cognitive dissonance through the use of guilt induction while their study did
not induce guilt in participants The methodology involved in their experiment was not designed
to create guilt in participants rather it was simply created to examine attitude shift after
performing a counterattitudinal act with no negative consequences Therefore though Burgoon
and colleaguesrsquo study assessed cognitive dissonance effects in participants with MACH it does
not appear directly relevant to the hypothesis underlying the present study
Overall past research has demonstrated that individuals high in MACH are resistant to
the classic cognitive dissonance effects of attitude shift after performing a behavior that they
29
cognitively oppose In fact the past research has shown that individuals with high MACH often
experience attitude shift in the opposite direction or conditions that low MACHs do These
results have been explained as consequences of the underlying personality characteristics that
high MACH individuals possess (callousness manipulative nature and lack of regard for others)
Since these characteristics are also traits of psychopathy (especially primary psychopathy) it is
reasonable to expect that the negative associations demonstrated between MACH and cognitive
dissonance will also be found between psychopathy and cognitive dissonance in the present
study
17 Hypotheses of the Present Study
Cognitive dissonance studies analyzing the affects of MACH have shown a significant
effect such that high MACHs do not evidence the classic attitude shift following the
performance of a dissonant act The current study sought to determine whether individuals with
high psychopathy scores exhibit a similar pattern
In the current study we analyzed guilt-induced cognitive dissonance effects in individuals
with varying levels of psychopathy Participantsrsquo level of psychopathy (and MACH) was
identified by having them fill out two self report measures on psychopathy and one self-report
measure on MACH They completed a boring abacus task that involved manually pushing balls
one at a time across an abacus for 20 minutes After the task the participants were either politely
asked (High perceived choice to lie group) or directly instructed (Low perceived choice to lie
group) to tell a fellow student (actually a confederate) that the abacus task was enjoyable After
misleading the confederate the participants completed a post-experimental questionnaire that
assessed their personal enjoyment of the abacus task and their level of guilt over deceiving
another person
30
First it was hypothesized that the classic cognitive dissonance effect would be replicated
We expected that regardless of psychopathy or MACH level participants in the High Choice to
Lie condition would evidence more attitude shift towards enjoying the abacus task than
participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition These results were expected to be a replication
of the classic Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study except that instead of manipulating reward
we would demonstrate the effect using choice as the dissonance manipulator
The second hypothesis was that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy (and
MACH) would report disliking the abacus task (as measured by the post experimental
questionnaire) across both the High and Low perceived choice to lie groups We expected these
results due to the lack of guilt commonly found in individuals with higher levels of psychopathy
and MACH Therefore we theorized that individuals with high levels of psychopathy would not
experience guilt even when they felt that they voluntarily (High perceived choice to lie group)
chose to mislead another participant Due to this lack of guilt the high psychopathy (and high
MACH) participant would not have had the attitude shift associated with cognitive dissonance
and would not report enjoying the abacus task
The third hypothesis pertained to the individuals with low or nonexistent levels of
psychopathy and MACH We predicted that participants with low levels of psychopathy would
report enjoying the abacus task more after lying to a future participant only if they were in the
High perceived choice to lie group These results were believed to be due to the guilt inducing
nature of voluntarily agreeing to lie to a person as opposed to the Low perceived choice group
where participants were told directly to lie to the next participant as part of the study
requirements These results were also expected for people who scored low in Machiavellianism
due to the similarities between the two personality constructs
31
The fourth hypothesis was that psychopathy would better account for a demonstrated lack
of guilt than would MACH Though this hypothesis did not have a strong empirically supported
theoretical background we were interested in learning whether the psychopathy construct would
yield different results from MACH suggesting that the psychopathy construct is including
relevant and distinct personality dimensions that the MACH construct does not include
In addition this study explored the relationship between primary and secondary
psychopathy with the level of self reported abacus task enjoyment Specifically the study
examined differences in the reported level of abacus task enjoyment between individuals with
high scores on primary as compared to secondary psychopathy Also the study explored
particular facets of psychopathy (such as callousness) and their relationship to reported
enjoyment of the abacus task
32
Chapter 2 Method
Participants
The current study was conducted with 164 (103 females 61 males) undergraduate
students at the University of Texas El Paso The sample size for the current study was
determined by examining past research on cognitive dissonance effects on MACH These studies
typically included 50 to 80 participants and yielded statistically significant results We
conservatively concluded that the present study should include approximately twice as many
participants as these earlier studies to ensure appropriate power for the current study
Participantsrsquo ages ranged from 18 to 44 years (M =1966 years SD = 317 years) with 823
between the ages of 18 to 20 The ethnicity of the sample was predominately Hispanic (854)
with the remaining participantsrsquo ethnicities Anglo-American (67) African American (18)
Asian (6) and Other (55) Participants were drawn from Introductory Psychology courses at
the University of Texas El Paso and were given 15 experimental credits for their participation
Measures
The Psychopathic Personality InventorymdashRevised Short Form (PPI-R SF Lilienfeld amp
Widows 2005)
The current study used the Psychopathic Personality Inventory ndash Revised Short Form
(PPI-R SF) which is a shortened version of the PPI-R It is a self-report measure of subclinical
psychopathic tendencies The PPI-R SF contains 56 items that are scored using a Likert scale
between 1 and 4 (1=False 2=Mostly False 3=Mostly True 4=True) The PPI-R SF yields one
overall total score and two factor scores (Fearless Dominance [FD] and Self-Centered
Impulsivity [SCI] ) as well as scores on eight content scales (a) Machiavellian Egocentricity
(ME 20 items) (b) Social Influence (SOI previously Social Potency 18 items) (c)
Coldheartedness (C 16 items) (d) Carefree Nonplanfulness (CN 19 items) (e) Fearlessness (F
33
14 items) (f) Blame Externalization (BE 15 items) (g) Rebellious Nonconformity (RN
previously Impulsive Nonconformity 16 items) and (h) Stress Immunity (STI 13 items) The
Fearless Dominance factor includes the Social Influence Fearlessness and Stress Immunity
content scales and the Self Centered Impulsivity factor is comprised of the Machiavellian
Egocentricity Rebellious Nonconformity Carefree Nonplanfulness and Blame Externalization
content scales (the Coldheartedness content scale is part of the overall total but is considered
separate from either of the two summed factors (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger
2003) These factors correspond to the two-factor structure (PPI-I and PPI-2) of the original
version of the PPI which are also similar to the Two Factor Structure of psychopathy proposed
by Hare (1991) in the Psychopathy ChecklistmdashRevised Specifically the Fearless Dominance
factor assesses the cognitive deficits of psychopathy while the Self Centered Impulsivity factor
reviews the antisocial behavior traits of psychopathy
Currently there are no published studies that have analyzed the reliability and validity of
the PPI-R SF but because it is a shortened version of the PPI-R (it is comprised of the 7 highest
loading questions from each of the eight subscales of the PPI-R) the demonstrated psychometric
properties of the PPI and PPI-R are relevant to evaluating the PPI-R SF
Lilienfeld and Andrews (1996) evaluated the convergent and discriminant validities of
the PPI with an undergraduate sample and found evidence of convergent validity with the
California Psychological Inventory Socialization scale (r = -59) Levensonrsquos (1990)
Psychopathy Scale (r = 37) and with the Hare (1985) Self Report Psychopathy ScalemdashRevised
(r = 91) Lilienfeld and Widows (1995) demonstrated internal consistencies for the PPI-R
overall total and content scales to range from α = 78 to α = 92 They also found test-retest
reliabilities (mean test-retest interval = 1994 days) to range from r = 82 to r = 93 The PPI-R
34
has been found to correlate significantly with both the Self-Report Psychopathy ScalendashII (SRP-
II Hare Harpur amp Hemphill 1989) and the LPSP (Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995) as
well as with self-report measures of antisocial personality disorder substance use sensation
seeking and pathological functioning (Lilienfeld amp Widows 2005)
Levensonrsquos Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales (LPSP Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick
1995)
The LPSP is a 26-item self report measure that identifies both behavioral and emotional
aspects of psychopathy The measure breaks down into two subscales Primary Psychopathy (16
items) and Secondary Psychopathy (10 items) Each item is scored on a 1 to 4 point Likert Scale
(1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Agree Strongly) Levenson and colleagues
(1995) found that the Primary scale has good internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos alpha = 82) and
that the Secondary scale had marginal internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos alpha = 63) In addition
they found that the two scales correlate moderately (r = 40) Lynam and colleagues (1999)
found convergent validity between the PPI and the LPSP to be moderately high (r= 64)
MACH-IV Scale (Christie amp Geis 1970) The MACH-IV is a 20-item self-report measure that identifies Machiavellianism which
is characterized by being callous manipulative and behaving in a way that only benefits oneself
The items are arranged in a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very Strongly Agree) to 5 (Very
Strongly Disagree) with 3 being a neutral choice (No Opinion) Internal reliability has been
found to be rather consistent with studies demonstrating moderate alpha coefficients α=74
(Austin Farrelly Black amp Moore 2007) and α=70 (Fehr Samsom amp Paulhus 1992) Christie
and Geis (1970) found split half reliabilities from 69 to 88 Finally Machiavellianism has
35
shown moderate correlations with primary (r = 65 plt001) and secondary psychopathy (r = 49
plt001) as measured by the LPSP (McHoskey et al 1998)
Post-experimental Questionnaire
The post experimental questionnaire was administered after the participant completed the
abacus task and after they misled the confederate in the experiment The questionnaire was
based on the post experimental measure used in the Cooper and Worchel (1970) study on
cognitive dissonance The measure contains eight items that assess how enjoyable the participant
perceived the abacus task how guilty they felt for lying to the confederate and how voluntary
the person felt the deceiving of the confederate was (see Appendix B) The item assessing
participantsrsquo enjoyment of the abacus task was the primary dependent measure of the current
study
The questionnaire was designed so that it appeared to be a survey conducted by the
Psychology Department attempting to analyze how effective all of the departmental research
was The questionnaire was sealed into an envelope by the participant upon completion in order
to create the illusion of the confidentiality of their answers from the experimenter The
questionnaire was designed to appear separate from the current experiment in order to prevent
any biasing of participantsrsquo responses by compliance effects (ie participants answering the way
they perceive the experimenter would want them to answer) The majority of the questions on
this questionnaire were obtained from the Cooper and Worchel post experimental questionnaire
The main adaptation the current study made to the original measure was the use of a 1-7 point
Likert scale to rate responses instead of the 1-31 point Likert scale utilized by Cooper and
Worchel In addition in the present study the last 2 questions on the questionnaire were changed
36
to identify how voluntary the participant found the task to be and if the deceiving of the
confederate elicited feelings of guilt in the participant
Demographics Form
A brief demographics form was presented at the beginning of the packet of psychopathy
and MACH self report measures (Appendix B) It was given before the self-report measures and
assessed participantsrsquo age gender and ethnicity This form took approximately one minute to
complete
Procedure Participants were Introductory Psychology students recruited through an online computer
experiment program provided by the University of Texas at El Paso and were given 15
experimental credits for their involvement in the current study Upon entering the lab the
participant was seated in the hall to wait for the experimenter Meanwhile the experimenter text-
messaged the confederate to let him (or her) know that the participant had arrived Upon
receiving the text message the confederate knew to wait approximately 15 minutes before
entering the lab and acting out their role Next the participant was guided into a room and given
an informed consent form (Appendix F) which was explained to them The form explained the
confidential nature of the study and that the study was about personality traitsrsquo influence on
motor skills and reaction time After the experimenter explained the consent form the participant
read and signed the form
Abacus Task
An abacus task was implemented to induce boredom in participants The task was loosely
modeled on the boring peg turning task used in the Cooper and Worchel (1970) and Festinger
and Carlsmith (1959) experiments on cognitive dissonance In the abacus task a large abacus
37
was placed flat on the table in front of the participant He or she was instructed to move the
wooden balls one at a time across the abacus using only their right hand The participant was
instructed to slide the balls across the abacus one at a time starting at the top row and moving
down the board until they reached the bottom row Once he or she had slid all of the balls (one
at a time) to the right side of the abacus the participant was instructed to start at the top again
and to slide the balls back across the abacus one at a time beginning at the top row and moving
down the abacus until they had reached the bottom row again Participants were told to work at
their own ldquonaturalrdquo pace and to continue sliding balls across the abacus one at a time going row
by row until instructed to stop After 10 minutes the experimenter instructed the participant to
stop and then start the task over with their left hand instead of their right hand During this task
the experimenter was seated directly across from the participant with a clipboard and a stopwatch
and acted as though she was monitoring the participantrsquos progress (eg occasionally writing
notes on the clipboard and appearing to time the participantrsquos progress with the stopwatch)
Approximately 15 minutes into the task a knock was heard on the door and the
confederate came into the room to ask if this was where the experiment was being held The
experimenter looked up and quickly told the confederate that he was in the right place and asked
him to wait in the hall until she was done running the current participant The confederate
apologized for his interruption shut the door behind him and sat in the hall to wait for his
interaction with the participant While waiting in the hall the confederate pretended to be doing
homework or listening to his Ipod to give the illusion that he was just another participant waiting
to do the experiment After the participant had moved the balls across the abacus with his or her
left hand for 10 minutes the experimenter signaled the participant to stop the task The abacus
task lasted 20 minutes 10 minutes per hand
38
Choice Conditions
After the abacus task was completed the experimenter stopped the participant and recited
from memory one of the Post Abacus Task scripts to the participant For half of participants the
experimenter recited from memory the High Perceived Choice to Lie script (see Appendix A)
and the other half of the participants were recited the Low Perceived Choice to Lie script
(Appendix A) The scripts were alternated randomly between participants Following the choice
manipulation portion of the experiment and guilt induction participants were given the post
experimental questionnaire to complete as this was the main dependent measure of the study
High Perceived Choice to Lie Group
In the High Perceived Choice to Lie condition the experimenter politely asked the
participant to tell the next waiting participant (the confederate waiting in the hall) that the abacus
task was fun and interesting (see Appendix A) The participant was informed that telling the
person waiting in the hall about the task being enjoyable was not required but that their
assistance would be greatly appreciated Once the participant agreed to the task (this study had a
100 compliance rate) he or she was taken into the hall where the ldquofuturerdquo participant (actually
a confederate) was seated and waiting The (real) participant was introduced to the confederate
and the experimenter explained to the fake participant that she had to set up quickly in the other
lab room so the current participant was going to explain the experiment to him while she was
gone The experimenter then excused herself and left the hallway The real participant was given
about two minutes to tell the second (bogus) participant that the task was enjoyable If the
participant freely told the confederate that the task was going to be fun (927 of participants)
then the fake participant thanked the real participant as follows ldquoGreat Irsquom really glad to hear
that this is a fun experiment because all of the other experiments I have had so far have really
39
been boring Thanks for telling merdquo If the participant did not freely say that the task was
enjoyable the confederate attempted to prompt them by asking ldquoSo how was itrdquo This
manipulation got an additional 37 of participants to verbalize that the task was fun and the
confederate also thanked them with the same statement reported above The statement thanking
the participant for the information about their enjoyable rating of the task was intended to
increase the real participantrsquos guilt about lying Following the short conversation with the
confederate the experimenter went back into the hall and led the participant into the other lab
room After she had shut the lab room door behind them the confederate filled out the
Confederate Manipulation Check form (Appendix H) The confederate checked the box on the
form that indicated whether or not the real participant told him directly if the task was fun if he
had to prompt the participant or if the participant did not tell him the task was enjoyable Upon
filling out the Confederate Manipulation Check form the confederate put the form in its box in
the lab and promptly left
Low Perceived Choice to Lie Group
In the Low Perceived Choice to Lie condition the experimenter directly instructed (not
requested) the participant to tell the next (fake) participant that the abacus task was fun and
interesting (see Appendix A) Upon consent from the participant the experimenter led him into
the hall and introduced him to the confederate who was waiting as the future participant
Identical procedures to the ones explained for participants in the High Perceived Choice to Lie
group occurred at this point
Post-experimental Questionnaire
Once participants had interacted with the confederate and been taken into the second lab
room they were given the post-experimental questionnaire The post-experimental questionnaire
40
(Appendix B) contained eight items that quantified how enjoyable the participant found the
abacus task to be and assessed their self-reported feelings of guilt after misleading the
confederate The questionnaire was presented to seem like it was not part of the current
experiment but rather a general Psychology Department survey being conducted to assess
departmental research being performed that semester The questionnaire was administered with
an envelope and the participant was instructed to seal their questionnaire inside the envelope
after completing it to promote the sense of confidentiality of their answers from the
experimenter The experimenter explained the questionnaire to the participant To prevent
possible compliance effects the experimenter reiterated that she was not supposed to see the
participantrsquos answers because the questionnaire was supposed to remain anonymous and was not
part of the current study
After the participant completed the post-experimental questionnaire and sealed it into the
envelope he or she was given a packet containing the LPSP [Appendix C] PPI-R SF [Appendix
D]) and MACH-IV [Appendix E]) and the demographics form (Appendix B) and asked to
complete these questionnaires The packet of measures took approximately 30 minutes to
complete After the participants filled out all of the self-report measures they were debriefed as
to the true nature of the experiment and asked to sign a second informed consent form (Appendix
F) that outlined to them the true purposes of the experiment A debriefing script was used to
ensure that all participants received the same information about the experiment (see Appendix
G) They were asked not to share with anyone the actual purpose and procedures of the
experiment in order to prevent future participants from knowing ahead of time what the
experiment was about Participants were given 15 experimental credits for their participation
41
Chapter 3 Results
Manipulation Check
There were 82 participants in the High Choice to Lie group and 82 participants in the
Low Choice to Lie condition All participants verbally agreed with the researcher that they
would tell the confederate that the task was enjoyable A manipulation check was performed to
determine whether they actually kept their agreement The confederate marked on a form
(Appendix G) whether or not the participant told him or her that the task was enjoyable Results
of the manipulation check indicated that 152 (927) of the participants complied with the
researcherrsquos suggestion and told the confederate that the task would be enjoyable An additional
six (37) told the confederate that the abacus task would be enjoyable but only after they were
prompted by the confederate asking ldquoHow was the taskrdquo One (6) participant told the
confederate that the task was enjoyable but added that he was instructed by the researcher to say
so Three participants (18) never told the confederate that the task was enjoyable Two
participants (12) told the confederate that the task was boring To preserve randomization
analyses for the study were run on all participants (N = 164) including those who failed to report
that the task was enjoyable This approach to the analysis of experimental findings is known as
ldquointent-to-treat analysisrdquo and yields an unbiased estimate of the effects of being assigned to each
experimental condition (Shadish Cook amp Campbell 2002) However as will be reported later
in the Results supplementary analyses were also run that excluded the six participants who
failed to tell the confederate that the task was enjoyable
Descriptive Statistics
Before running analyses procedures were carried out for dealing with missing data
Seven participants did not fill out the psychopathy and Machiavellianism self-report measures
42
completely Specifically each of the seven neglected to answer precisely one item on a single
scale Scores for the missing items were imputed individually using regression using the
summed score of the other items on the same scale as the predictor and the missing item score as
the criterion
Descriptive statistics were then calculated for participantsrsquo self-reported abacus task
enjoyment for their total scores on the psychopathy and Machiavellianism self-report measures
and for their respective factor scores and subscales scores (see Table 1)
43
Table 1 Descriptive Information for the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Predictors and Dependent Variable (N=164)
Mean Standard
Deviation Minimum Maximum
Total Enjoyment Rating of Abacus Task
401 169 100 700
High Choice to Lie Enjoyment Rating of Task
434 162 100 700
Low Choice to Lie Enjoyment Rating of Task
367 171 100 700
PPI-R SF Total Score 12565 1628 9000 17000
Fearless Dominance Factor
5605 912 2800 7600
Self-Centered Impulsive Factor
5436 989 3500 8400
Machiavellian Egocentricity 1360 352 700 2500
Social Influence 1888 400 700 2800
Fearlessness 1898 448 700 2800 Coldheartedness 1523 387 800 2600 Rebellious Nonconformity 1399 415 700 2400
Blame Externalization 1416 419 700 2600
Carefree Nonplanfulness 1262 329 700 2300
Stress Immunity 1820 453 700 2800 LPSP Total Score 5018 903 3000 7300
LPSP Primary Factor 3062 702 1600 4900
LPSP Secondary Factor 1956 405 1100 3100
MACH-IV Total Score 5296 833 3500 7600
Deceit 850 284 400 1600 Flattery 563 209 200 1000 Immoral 883 241 300 1500 Cynicism 1066 296 500 2000 Residual 1934 359 1000 2900 Note Total scale scores are in bold Factor scale scores are in italics Subscales are presented in regular font
44
31 Confirmatory Analyses
Hypothesis 1 Replication of the Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effect
A regression was performed to determine whether the classic cognitive dissonance effect
reported in earlier research was reproduced in the present study The main dependent variable in
this analysis was participants self-report ratings of how much they enjoyed the abacus task (Self-
Reported Enjoyment) The independent variable was Choice Condition (High Choice to Lie
versus Low Choice to Lie) In this analysis and all other analyses High Choice to Lie was coded
as ldquo1rdquo and Low Choice to Lie as ldquo0rdquo Based on prior studies of cognitive dissonance it was
predicted that that participants in the High Choice to Lie condition would report higher levels of
enjoyment than participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition A linear regression was
conducted and as predicted a significant difference in abacus task enjoyment was found
between the High and Low Choice to Lie groups Rsup2 = 039 F (1162) = 666 p = 011
standardized β = 199 t(163) = 258 p = 011 A one-way ANOVA was also conducted and
yielded exactly the same results as the regression F(1162) = 666 p = 011 d = 402 The High
Choice to Lie group had a mean enjoyment rating of 434 (SD = 162) (on a 1 to 7 rating scale
with 1 being no enjoyment of the task and 7 being high enjoyment of the task) while the Low
Choice to Lie group reported a mean enjoyment rating of 367 (SD = 171) on the same scale (see
Figure 1) These results indicate that participants in the High Choice to Lie group who felt that
they had more choice whether to mislead the confederate about the task being enjoyable
reported enjoying the task more than participants in the Low choice to lie group
45
Figure 1 Main effect for mean task enjoyment across choice conditions r = 199
Hypothesis 2 amp 3 Relationship Between Task Enjoyment and Choice Level Will Vary With
Psychopathy Level
The main hypothesis of the study was that individuals with lower levels of psychopathy
(and Machiavellianism) would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect by reporting higher
enjoyment of the abacus task in the High Choice to Lie Condition than in the Low Choice to Lie
Condition whereas individuals with higher levels of psychopathy would not report more
enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie than in the Low Choice to Lie condition In other words a
significant interaction was hypothesized between choice condition and level of psychopathy (and
Machiavellianism) in the prediction of self-reported enjoyment In order to test this hypothesis
three multiple regressions were conducted using the two psychopathy measures and the single
Machiavellianism measure
46
First multiple regression PPI-R SF total scores In the first multiple regression the
criterion was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice
Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) PPI-R SF total scores and the
interaction of Choice Condition with PPI-RSF scores It was hypothesized that the interaction
term would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple regression
are shown in Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was statistically
significant Rsup2 = 105 F(3160) = 623 p lt 001
As hypothesized the interaction of PPI-R SF total scores and choice condition was
statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -216 t(163) = -
211 p =036 (Table 2) Figures 2 and 3 depict this interaction graphically As can be seen in
Figure 2 there was not a significant relationship between PPI-R SF scores and Self-Reported
Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -054 t(81) =
-486 p =628 In contrast there was a significant relationship between PPI-R SF scores and
Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -374 t(81) = -
361 p =001 This finding thus supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of
psychopathy would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher
levels would not
47
Figure 2 Relationship of PPI-R SF total scores to reported level of task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie condition only Standardized β = -054 p = 628
Figure 3 Relationship of PPI-R SF total scores to reported level of task enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie condition only Standardized β = -374 p = 001
48
Second multiple regression LPSP total scores In the second multiple regression the criterion
was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice Condition (High
Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) LPSP total scores and the interaction of Choice
Condition with LPSP scores Again it was hypothesized that the interaction term would
significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple regression are shown in
Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was statistically significant Rsup2 =
089 F(3160) = 518 p = 002
As hypothesized the interaction of LPSP total scores and choice condition was
statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -236 t(163) = -
234 p = 021 The interaction is depicted graphically by choice condition in Figures 4 and 5
As can be seen from Figure 4 there was not a significant relationship between LPSP scores and
Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β
= 023 t(81) = 208 p =836 In contrast there was a significant negative relationship between
LPSP scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β =
-327 t(81) = -309 p =003 (Figure 5) Thus this finding like the finding concerning the PPI-
R SF supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of psychopathy would show
the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher levels would not
49
Figure 4 Relationship of LPSP total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = 023 p = 836
Figure 5 Relationship of LPSP total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash High Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -327 p = 003
50
T
able
2 M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts C
rite
rion
is S
elf-
Rep
orte
d E
njoy
men
t of t
he A
bacu
s T
asks
P
redi
ctor
s ar
e th
e P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
an
d M
AC
H-I
V T
otal
Sco
res
and
Subs
cale
s E
ach
Row
Rep
rese
nts
Res
ults
Fro
m O
ne M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n
Over
all
Mode
l
High
L
ow C
hoic
e
Psyc
hopa
thy
Ma
ch P
redi
ctor
In
tera
ctio
n
Pred
icto
r
F
(df)
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
PPIR
SF
Tot
623
(3160)
lt00
1
661
252
196
262
010
-089
173
-053
-52
607
-536
254
-216
-211
036
PPIRSF1-FD
296
(3160)
03
4
670
260
198
258
011
175
194
104
91
366
-382
262
-167
-146
146
PPIRSF2-SCI
690
(3160)
lt00
1
657
251
195
262
010
-123
168
-073
-73
466
-561
254
-220
-221
028
Mach Egocen
730
(3160)
lt00
1
721
251
214
287
005
024
178
014
14
892
-708
252
-295
-281
006
Soc Influ
230
(3160)
079
677
263
201
258
011
-034
200
-020
-17
867
128
266
057
48
631
Fearlessness
487
(3160)
00
3
660
256
196
258
011
177
188
105
94
348
-634
257
-274
-247
015
Coldhrtnes
577
(3160)
00
1
733
254
217
288
004
-488
193
-288
-253
012
153
257
068
59
554
Rebel Non
445
(3160)
00
5
668
256
198
261
010
142
179
084
80
428
-590
257
-243
-230
023
Blm Extern
296
(3160)
03
4
678
260
201
261
010
-144
190
-085
-76
451
-084
261
-036
-32
747
Carefree
490
(3160)
00
3
570
258
169
221
029
-430
176
-254
-244
016
171
260
068
66
511
Stress Imun
257
(3160)
056
665
261
197
255
012
179
183
106
98
330
-245
262
-101
-93
352
LPSP
Tot
al
518
(3160)
00
2
699
255
207
274
007
037
171
022
22
827
-603
258
-236
-234
021
Primary
420
(3160)
00
7
691
257
205
269
008
041
176
024
23
815
-495
259
-199
-192
057
Secondary
359
(3160)
01
5
682
258
202
264
009
018
187
101
09
926
-377
259
-161
-145
148
MACH
-IV
Tot
492
(3160)
00
3
703
256
208
275
007
-173
178
-102
-98
331
-314
257
-128
122
223
Deceit
508
(3160)
00
2
696
255
206
273
007
-374
167
-221
-224
026
011
260
004
04
965
Flattery
368
(3160)
01
3
682
258
202
264
009
162
173
096
94
351
-523
261
-204
-200
047
Immoral
454
(3160)
00
4
705
256
209
275
007
-360
184
-213
-196
052
052
257
022
20
840
Cynicism
270
(3160)
04
8
680
261
201
261
010
002
198
001
01
991
-212
264
-094
-81
422
Residual
302
(3160)
03
2
667
260
198
257
011
052
171
031
30
762
-354
264
-136
-135
181
Not
e
Sign
ific
ant p
val
ues
(p lt
05)
are
in b
old
p v
alue
s ap
proa
chin
g si
gnifi
canc
e (lt
10)
are
in it
alic
s
Pre
dict
or A
bbre
viat
ions
PPI
RS
F To
t =
PPI-
RS
F to
tal s
core
PPI
RS
F1-F
D =
PPI
RS
F Fa
ctor
1 ndash
Fea
rless
Dom
inan
ce F
acto
r Sco
re P
PIR
SF2
-SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f C
ente
red
Impu
lsiv
ity F
acto
r Sco
re M
ach
Ego
cen
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
ricity
sub
scal
e S
oc I
nflu
= P
PI-R
SF
Soci
al In
fluen
ce s
ubsc
ale
Fea
rles
snes
s =
PPI-
RS
F
Fear
less
ness
sub
scal
e C
oldh
rtnes
= P
PI-R
SF
Col
dhea
rted
ness
sub
scal
e R
ebel
Non
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
xter
n =
PPI
-RS
F B
lam
e E
xter
naliz
atio
n
subs
cale
Car
efre
e =
PPI-
RS
F C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Str
ess
Imun
= P
PI-R
SF
Stre
ss Im
mun
ity s
ubsc
ale
LPS
P To
tal =
LPS
P to
tal s
core
Pri
mar
y =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le
Seco
ndar
y =
LPSP
Sec
onda
ry s
ubsc
ale
MA
CH
-IV
Tot
= M
AC
H-I
V to
tal s
core
Dec
eit =
MA
CH
-IV
Dec
eit s
ubsc
ale
Fla
ttery
= M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
oral
= M
AC
H-I
V
Imm
oral
ity s
ubsc
ale
Cyn
icis
m =
MA
CH
-IV
Cyn
icis
m s
ubsc
ale
Res
idua
l = M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
Mod
el A
bbre
viat
ions
Un-
Stzd
β =
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Bet
a S
td E
rr =
Sta
ndar
d E
rror
Stz
d β
= St
anda
rdiz
ed B
eta
51
Third multiple regression Mach-IV total scores In the third multiple regression the
criterion was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice
Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) Mach-IV total scores and the
interaction of Choice Condition with Mach-IV scores Again it was hypothesized that the
interaction term would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple
regression are shown in Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was
statistically significant Rsup2 = 085 F(3160) = 492 p = 003
Contrary to prediction the interaction of Mach-IV total scores and choice condition was
not statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -128 t(163) =
-122 p = 223 Thus this finding failed to support the hypothesis that individuals with lower
levels of Machiavellianism would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that
individuals with higher levels would not The pattern of data is depicted graphically by choice
condition in Figures 6 and 7 As can be seen from Figure 6 there was not a significant
relationship between MACH-IV scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the
Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -104 t(81) = -932 p =354 In contrast there
was a significant negative relationship between MACH-IV scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment
in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -295 t(81) = -276 p =007 (Figure 7)
Although one of the standardized betas (-104) was non-significant and the other (-295) was
significant the difference between the two betas was not significant so the predicted interaction
did not attain statistical significance
52
Figure 6 Relationship of MACH-IV total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -104 p = 354
Figure 7 Relationship of MACH-IV total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash High Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -295 p = 007
53
Hypothesis 4 Level of Psychopathy Will Incrementally Predict Abacus Task Enjoyment
The second main hypothesis was that psychopathy scores would incrementally predict
Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task above and beyond the predictive power of
Machiavellianism To test this hypothesis two hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted
using Self-Reported Enjoyment as the criterion
First hierarchical regression PPI-R SF total scores The first hierarchical regression
used PPI-R SF total scores as the psychopathy measure In the first step of the regression the
Choice to Lie condition was entered as a predictor In the second step standardized total
MACH-IV scores and the standardized interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice
condition were entered In the third step standardized PPI-R SF total scores and the
standardized interaction term of total PPI-R SF scores with choice condition were entered as a
predictor Results are shown in Table 3 As can be seen inclusion of PPI-R SF scores and their
interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment significantly increased predictive power above and
beyond scores on the MACH-IV ∆Rsup2 = 041 F(2158) = 367 p = 028 Although the change in
Rsup2 was significant it is important to note that the standardized beta for the PPI-R SF total scores
was not significant in predicting task enjoyment when added to MACH-IV scores in predicting
task enjoyment standardized β = -010 t(158) = -09 p = 930 In addition the standardized beta
for the interaction between PPI-R SF scores and choice condition only approached significance
when added to MACH-IV scores in block three (standardized β = -205 t(158) = -186 p =
065
54
Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianism
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=085 F(3160)=492 p=003 (∆Rsup2=045 F(2160)=394 p=021) High or Low Choice to Lie 703 256 208 275 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -173 178 -102 - 98 331 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -314 257 -128 -122 223 Step 3 Rsup2=125 F(5158)=452 p=001 (∆Rsup2=041 F(2158)=367 p=028) High or Low Choice to Lie 688 252 204 273 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -166 195 -098 - 85 397 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -165 273 -067 - 60 547 PPI-RSF Total Scores -017 192 -010 - 09 930 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -507 273 -205 -186 065 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics
Second hierarchical regression LPSP total scores The second hierarchical regression
used LPSP total scores as the psychopathy measure In the first step of the regression the Choice
to Lie condition was entered as a predictor In the second step standardized total MACH-IV
scores and the standardized interaction term of MACH-IV total scores were entered In the third
step standardized LPSP total scores and the standardized interaction term of total LPSP scores
with choice condition were entered as a predictor Results are shown in Table 4 As can be seen
inclusion of total LPSP scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment did not
significantly increase predictive power above and beyond MACH-IV scores ∆Rsup2= 026
F(2158)= 233 p=101
55
Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (LPSP) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianism
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=085 F(3160)=492 p=003 (∆Rsup2=045 F(2160)=394 p=021) High or Low Choice to Lie 703 256 208 275 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -173 178 -102 - 98 331 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -314 257 -128 -122 223 Step 3 Rsup2=111 F(5158)=394 p=002 (∆Rsup2=026 F(2158)=233 p=101) High or Low Choice to Lie 712 254 211 281 006 MACH-IV Total Scores -282 212 -167 -133 186 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -023 296 -009 - 08 939 LPSP Total Scores 188 204 111 92 358 Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -609 297 -238 -205 042 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics
32 Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory Analysis Incremental Prediction of Task Enjoyment by Machiavellianism
The analyses reported thus far were confirmatory and based on a priori hypotheses A
series of exploratory analyses were also carried out as reported in the following sections of the
Results In the first set of exploratory analyses two hierarchical multiple regressions were run to
identify whether MACH-IV total scores incrementally predicted Self-Reported Enjoyment of the
abacus task above and beyond the predictive power of psychopathy scores
First hierarchical regression Incremental predictive power of MACH-IV total scores
over PPI-R SF total scores The first exploratory analysis was conducted to examine whether
MACH-IV scores incrementally increased prediction of abacus task enjoyment above and
beyond the predictive power of PPI-R SF scores A hierarchical regression was conducted In
step one the Choice to Lie condition was entered in step two standardized PPI-R SF total
56
scores and the standardized interaction term of total PPI-R SF scores with choice condition was
entered and finally in step three the standardized total MACH-IV scores and the standardized
interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice condition were entered As can be seen in
Table 5 the inclusion of MACH-IV total scores and their interaction with Choice Condition did
not significantly increase predictive power ∆Rsup2= 020 F(2158)= 185 p= 160
Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF)
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=105 F(3160)=623 plt001 (∆Rsup2=065 F(2160)=582 p=004) High or Low Choice to Lie 661 252 196 262 010 PPI-RSF Total Score -089 173 -053 -52 607 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -536 254 -216 -211 036 Step 3 Rsup2=125 F(5158)=452 p=001 (∆Rsup2=020 F(2158)=185 p=160) High or Low Choice to Lie 688 252 204 273 007 PPI-RSF Total Scores -017 192 -010 -09 930 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -507 273 -205 -186 065 MACH-IV Total Scores -166 195 -098 -85 397 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -165 273 -067 -60 547 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Significant alpha levels are in bold Moderate alpha levels are in italics Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Second hierarchical regression Incremental predictive power of MACH-IV total scores
over LPSP total scores A similar hierarchical multiple regression was performed to examine
whether MACH-IV scores incrementally increase prediction of abacus task enjoyment above and
beyond the predictive power of LPSP scores An incremental hierarchical regression was
conducted In step one the Choice to Lie condition was entered in step two standardized LPSP
57
total scores and the standardized interaction term of total LPSP scores with choice condition was
entered and finally in step three the standardized total MACH-IV scores and the standardized
interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice condition were entered As can be seen in
Table 6 the results of this analysis like the previous one were not significant ∆Rsup2= 022
F(2158)= 198 p= 142 The inclusion of Machiavellianism in the regression equation did not
significantly increase predictive power above and beyond the predictive power of LPSP scores
Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (LPSP)
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=089 F(3160)=518 p=002 (∆Rsup2=049 F(2160)=430 p=015) High or Low Choice to Lie 699 255 207 274 007
LPSP Total Score 037 171 022 22 827
Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -603 258 -236 -234 021 Step 3 Rsup2=111 F(5158)=394 p=002 (∆Rsup2=022 F(2158)=198 p=142) High or Low Choice to Lie 712 254 211 281 006 LPSP Total Scores 188 204 111 92 358 Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -609 297 -238 -205 042 MACH-IV Total Scores -282 212 -167 -133 186 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -023 296 -009 -08 939 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Significant alpha levels are in bold Moderate alpha levels are in italics Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Exploratory Analysis PPI-R SF Subscales as Predictors
The second set of exploratory multiple regressions was conducted using the eight
subscales of the PPI-R SF and their interaction with Choice Condition as predictors Each
subscale measures a different unique aspect of psychopathy The goal of the analyses was to
58
determine which aspects of psychopathy were related to self-reported abacus task enjoyment
A series of multiple linear regressions were conducted with abacus task enjoyment as the
criterion In each multiple regression the predictors were Choice to Lie condition the
standardized total score of the individual PPI-R subscale and the interaction term of the
standardized individual subscale total score with Choice to Lie condition Results are shown in
Table 2 All of the PPI-R SF subscales except for the Stress Immunity and Social Influence
subscales had significant model equations In addition three subscales also produced significant
interactions with choice condition in predicting level of task enjoyment (a) Machiavellian
Egocentricity standardized β of the interaction = -295 t(163) = -281 p = 006 (b)
Fearlessness standardized β of the interaction = -274 t(163) = -247 p = 015 (c) Rebellious
Nonconformity standardized β of the interaction = -243 t(163) = -230 p = 023 The
remaining five subscales did not have interactions with choice condition that significantly
predicted task enjoyment
Exploratory Analysis PPI-R SF Factors as Predictors
Next two multiple regressions were carried out one for each of the two factors of the
PPI-R SF The intention of these analyses was to determine if these factors of psychopathy
(cognitive traits or behavioral traits) would account for the lack of cognitive dissonance found in
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy
First multiple regression The Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R SF The Fearless
Dominance factor (PPI-R SF-1-FD) is comprised of three of the eight subscales of the PPI-R
SF the Social Influence subscale the Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscale A
multiple regression was run with Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test as the criterion and
Choice Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) the standardized PPI-R SF-
59
1-FD total scores and the interaction of Choice Condition with the standardized PPI-R SF-1-FD
total scores as the predictors Results of the multiple regression are shown in Table 2 As can be
seen the model in the regression equation was statistically significant Rsup2 = 053 F(3160) =
296 p = 034 However the interaction of PPI-R SF-1-FD total scores and choice condition
was not statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -167
t(163) = -146 p = 146
Second multiple regression The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF Next
a similar multiple regression was run replacing the PPI-RSF-1-FD with the Self-Centered
Impulsivity factor scale scores (PPI-R SF-2-SCI) The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor is
comprised of the Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale
and the Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale of the PPI-R SF Results of the model in the multiple
regression equation were statistically significant Rsup2 = 115 F(3160) = 690 p lt 001 In addition
the interaction between the PPI-R SF-2-SCI and choice condition was statistically significant as
well standardized β = -220 t(163) = -2213 p = 028 These results suggested that the more
behavioral antisocial behavior characteristics of psychopathy (impulsivity blame
externalization lack of planning abilities) impacted cognitive dissonance arousal
Exploratory Analysis LPSP Factor Scales as Predictors
The next set of exploratory analyses were conducted on the LPSPrsquos two factor scales
The LPSP breaks into a Primary Psychopathy Scale and a Secondary Psychopathy Scale The
Primary Scale identifies the more cognitively based aspects of psychopathy much as the PPI-R
SF-1-FD Factor does The Secondary Psychopathy Scale of the LPSP measures the behaviorally
based dimensions of psychopathy (impulsivity asociality) much like the PPI-R SF-2-SCI
60
Factor Two hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine the interaction between each of
the LPSP factor scales and choice condition in predicting abacus task enjoyment
First multiple regression LPSP Primary Factor scores First a multiple regression was
employed with the Choice to Lie condition the standardized Primary Factor total scores of the
LPSP and the interaction term of the standardized Primary Factor total scores with the Choice to
Lie condition as the predictors Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test was the criterion in
the multiple regression The results of the regression model equation were statistically significant
Rsup2 = 073 F(3160) = 420 p = 007 However the results of the interaction between the Primary
Factor and choice condition only approached statistical significance standardized β = -199
t(163) = -192 p = 057
Second multiple regression LPSP Secondary Factor scores The Secondary factor of the
LPSP accounts for the environmental behaviorally based traits associated with psychopathy
(impulsivity asociality) A multiple regression was run replacing the LPSP Primary factor scores
with the LPSP Secondary factor scores In other words the predictors were Choice to Lie
condition standardized LPSP Secondary factor scores and the interaction of Choice to Lie with
standardized LPSP Secondary factor scores Again Self-Reported Enjoyment of the Abacus task
was the criterion Results of the multiple regression model equation were statistically significant
Rsup2 = 063 F(3160) = 359 p = 015 However results of the interaction between the Secondary
factor of the LPSP and choice condition were not statistically significant standardized β = -161
t(163) = -1452 p = 148
This analysis of the LPSP Primary and Secondary factor scales suggests that the
cognitive dimensions of psychopathy may best account for a lack of cognitive dissonance in this
experiment These results support the notion that it is these cognitive deficits assessed by the
61
Primary Scale of the LPSP (lack of guilt callousness lack of concern for others) that best
account for individuals with higher levels of psychopathy not experiencing the attitude shift
found in people with lower levels of psychopathy
Exploratory Analysis MACH-IV Subscales as predictors
The next set of exploratory analyses examined the five subscales of the MACH-IV as
predictors of task enjoyment when interacting with Choice to Lie condition Though the
interaction of total MACH-IV scores and choice condition was not a significant predictor of a
lack of task enjoyment the subscales were analyzed using multiple regression in order to
determine if any aspect of MACH might account for a lack of cognitive dissonance in
individuals with higher levels of MACH In the regressions the predictors were Choice to Lie
condition the standardized MACH-IV subscale total scores and the standardized interaction
term of total MACH-IV subscale scores with Choice to Lie condition Results are reported in
Table 2 All of the regression model equations for each subscale were statistically significant
Though all model equations were significant only the interaction of choice condition with the
Flattery subscale of the MACH-IV was significant in predicting reported abacus task enjoyment
standardized β = -204 t(163) = -200 p = 047 The interaction terms of the remaining four
subscales of the MACH-IV were not significant
Exploratory Analysis Follow-up Multiple Regression Analyses with No-Lie Participants
Removed
As previously indicated all multiple regressions reported here were run a second time
but including only the sub-set of participants who lied to the confederate (N=158) The results of
these follow-up multiple regressions (with N = 158) all led to the same substantive conclusions
as the analyses already reported (with N = 164) with one exception The only analysis that
62
changed significantly was the multiple linear regression looking at the interaction between the
Primary factor of the LPSP and choice condition In the original multiple regression (N = 164)
this interaction only approached statistical significance In the follow-up multiple regression (N
= 158) this interaction attained statistical significance standardized β = -216 t(157) = -202 p =
045
Exploratory Analysis Correlations of Psychopathy and Machiavellian measures
Pearsonrsquos r correlations were run on the three psychopathy and MACH measures and
their respective factors and subscales to identify associations among the measures
Correlations of psychopathy and Machiavellianism total scores Correlations among the
PPI-RSF LPSP and MACH-IV total scores are reported in Table 7 As can be seen all three
measures were significantly correlated with each other The largest correlation was between
MACH-IV and LPSP total scores r = 510 p lt 01
Table 7 Correlations Between the Total Scores of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measures
PPIRSF Total Score
LPSP Total Score
MACH-IV Total Score
PPIRSF Total Score 1
LPSP Total Score
345dagger 1
MACH-IV Total Score
376dagger 510dagger 1
Note dagger Correlations significant at the 01 level
Correlations of PPI-R SF and LPSP factor scores Pearsonrsquos r correlations were run on
the factors of the PPI-R SF and the LPSP in order to illuminate the relationship among these
factors in the present sample of participants Results are shown in Table 8
63
First the PPIR SF total score correlated significantly with both the Primary (r = 322 p
lt01) and the Secondary (r = 212 p lt 01) factor scores of the LPSP The PPI-R SF Factor Two
Scale of Self-Centered Impulsivity (behavioral characteristics of psychopathy) positively
correlated with the LPSP total (r = 509 p lt01) Primary (r = 368 p lt 01) and Secondary (r =
498 p lt 01) factors In contrast the PPI-R SF Factor One Scale of Fearless Dominance (PPI-
R SF-1-FD) correlated significantly only with the Secondary Scale of the LPSP (r = -156 p lt
05) This correlation indicates that as scores on the PPI-R SF-1-FD increase scores on the
LPSP Secondary Scale decrease However it should be noted that this correlation is very weak
Correlations of PPI-R and MACH-IV factor scores and subscale scores As can be seen
in Table 8 the PPI-R SF total score correlated significantly with all of the MACH subscales
except for the Cynicism subscale Interestingly PPI-R SF Factor 2 Self-Centered Impulsivity
which assesses the behavioral characteristics of psychopathy correlated significantly with the
MACH-IV total score (r = 478) and all of the subscales of the MACH-IV Deceit (r = 383)
Flattery (r = 210) Immorality (r = 297) Cynicism (r = 242) and Residual (r = 279) at p lt 01
level of significance PPI-R SF Factor 1 Fearless Dominance which assesses the cognitive
aspects of psychopathy did not significantly correlate with the MACH-IV total score or any of
its subscales These exploratory findings suggest that the Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the
PPI-R SF accounts for the relationship of MACH-IV scores with PPIRSF scores
Correlations of LPSP and MACH-IV factor scores and subscale scores As shown in
Table 8 MACH-IV total scores significantly correlated with both the Primary (r = 467 p lt01)
and Secondary (r = 327 p lt 01) factors of the LPSP The LPSP total score and factor scales
(Primary and Secondary) correlated significantly with the total MACH-IV score and all of the
MACH-IV subscales except for the Flattery subscale (see Table 8 for the correlations) This
64
finding is interesting because the Flattery subscale was the only element of the MACH-IV found
to be a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment in the interaction with choice condition
mentioned previously and yet it did not correlate with the LPSP at all
65
Tab
le 8
Cor
rela
tions
Bet
wee
n th
e P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
MA
CH
-IV
The
ir F
acto
rs a
nd S
ubsc
ales
Not
e
dagger C
orre
latio
n si
gnifi
cant
at
01 le
vel
Cor
rela
tion
sign
ific
ant a
t 05
leve
l P
redi
ctor
Abb
revi
atio
ns P
PIR
= P
PI-R
SF
tota
l sco
re P
1FD
= P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 1
ndash F
earl
ess
Dom
inan
ce F
acto
r Sco
re P
2SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f Cen
tere
d Im
puls
ivity
Fac
tor S
core
M
Ego
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
rici
ty s
ubsc
ale
Soc
In =
PPI
-RS
F So
cial
Influ
ence
sub
scal
e F
ear =
PPI
-RS
F Fe
arle
ssne
ss s
ubsc
ale
Col
d =
PPI-
RS
F C
oldh
eart
edne
ss s
ubsc
ale
R
ebel
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
= P
PI-R
SF
Bla
me
Ext
erna
lizat
ion
Subs
cale
Car
e =
PPI-
RS
F C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Str
ess
= PP
I-R
SF
Stre
ss
Imm
unity
sub
scal
e L
PSP
= L
PSP
tota
l sco
re P
rim
e =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le S
econ
= L
PSP
Seco
ndar
y su
bsca
le M
AC
H =
MA
CH
-IV
tota
l sco
re D
ece
= M
AC
H-I
V D
ecei
t sub
scal
e F
lat =
M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
or =
MA
CH
-IV
Imm
oral
ity s
ubsc
ale
Cyn
= M
AC
H-I
V C
ynic
ism
sub
scal
e R
esid
= M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1PPIR
1
2P1FD
761
dagger 1
3P2SCI
771
dagger 240
dagger 1
4M Ego
516
dagger 068
712
dagger 1
5Soc In
471
dagger 658
dagger 141
087
1
6Fear
645
dagger 727
dagger 362
dagger 104
244
dagger 1
7Cold
443
dagger 232
dagger 124
191
071
076
1
8Rebel
738
dagger 478
dagger 717
dagger 357
dagger 231
dagger 522
dagger 147
1
9Blm E
264
dagger -129
629
dagger 348
dagger -047
090
-194
161
1
10Care
500
dagger 210
dagger 540
dagger 175
101
203
dagger 229
dagger 305
dagger 041
1
11Stres
476
dagger 711
dagger 000
-044
198
258
dagger 330
dagger 240
dagger -306
dagger 132
1
12LPSP
345
dagger -024
509
dagger 534
dagger -018
065
209
dagger 241
dagger 369
dagger 186
-097
1
13Prime
322
dagger 059
368
dagger 473
dagger 082
031
275
dagger 171
219
dagger 105
015
902
dagger 1
14Secon
212
dagger -156
498
dagger 370
dagger -183
090
-011
241
dagger 443
dagger 233
dagger -243
dagger 664
dagger 277
dagger 1
15MACH
376
dagger 076
478
dagger 477
dagger 150
105
182
244
dagger 278
dagger 264
dagger -083
510
dagger 467
dagger 327
dagger 1
16Dece
356
dagger 085
383
dagger 380
dagger 096
121
320
dagger 190
094
384
dagger -033
312
dagger 295
dagger 185
631
dagger 1
17Flat
189
030
210
dagger 192
200
-019
186
087
062
236
dagger -097
139
118
104
570
dagger 304
dagger 1
18Immor
176
-003
297
dagger 276
dagger 022
069
-013
143
296
dagger 040
-093
405
dagger 345
dagger 306
dagger 589
dagger 153
202
dagger 1
19Cyn
152
030
242
dagger 316
dagger -025
092
-052
160
092
072
-008
449
dagger 449
dagger 223
dagger 454
dagger 169
057
152
1
20Resid
231
dagger 073
279
dagger 266
dagger 133
049
086
146
231
dagger 076
-019
248
dagger 226
dagger 161
689
dagger 244
dagger 213
dagger 197
175
1
66
Exploratory Analyses Multiple Regressions with Self-Reported Guilt as the Criterion and Level
of Psychopathy and MACH as Predictors
In addition to the multiple regressions that were run with Self-Reported Enjoyment
Rating of the abacus task as the criterion and the interaction between choice level and
psychopathy (and MACH) level as the predictors identical multiple regressions were conducted
with level of guilt as the criterion in the place of Self-Reported Level of Enjoyment Multiple
regressions were run where the predictors were Choice to Lie condition standardized
psychopathy and MACH measure total factor and subscale scores (individually) and the
interaction of Choice to Lie with PPI-R SF LPSP or MACH scales In these analyses level of
guilt was the criterion On the post experimental questionnaire two questions assessed
participantsrsquo level of guilt for telling the ldquofuture participantrdquo that the abacus task was fun These
two guilt related questions correlated highly with one another (r = 789) and so their scores were
added together and a new variable called ldquoGuiltrdquo was created from their sum
Multiple regressions on the interaction between choice and level of psychopathy (and
MACH) The goal of these exploratory analyses was to further explore the role that guilt plays
during cognitive dissonance arousal Results of all multiple regression analyses with guilt as the
criterion are presented in Table 9 As can be seen the interaction between level of psychopathy
(and MACH) and choice condition as predictors of guilt was only significant for the Self
Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF The multiple regression model equation for the
Self Centered Impulsivity factor was statistically significant Rsup2 = 056 F(3160) = 314 p = 027
In addition results of the interaction between the Self Centered Impulsivity factor and choice
condition were statistically significant standardized β = 232 t(163) = 225 p = 026
Interestingly this regression was not only significant but also positive All other interactions of
67
total subscale and factor scales of the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV with choice condition
were not significant in predicting participantsrsquo level of self-reported guilt
The fact that all other total scores subscales and factor scales did not attain significant
interactions with choice condition using guilt as the criterion makes sense when considering
cognitive dissonance theory The cognitive dissonance literature indicates that there should not
be an interaction on guilt because participants strive to reduce their feelings of guilt after
engaging in counterattitudinal behavior discrepant with their beliefs Therefore participants with
low levels of psychopathy after misleading the confederate in the High Choice condition would
have immediately experienced cognitive dissonance and thus their attitude would have shifted
towards enjoying the task in order to reduce the psychological tension produced by voluntarily
misleading the ldquofuture participantrdquo Therefore by the time they answered the guilt questions on
the post-experimental questionnaire they would not feel guilt because their attitude had shifted
to be in favor of the task
Main effects for relationship between psychopathy and guilt Finally an important result
of these exploratory analyses was that significant main effects were found between level of
psychopathy (measured by the PPI-R SF) and participantsrsquo level of guilt following the deception
task Specifically the PPI-R SF total score both factor scores (Fearless Dominance and Self
Centered Impulsivity) the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale and the Stress Immunity subscale
had significant model predictor equations (see Table 9) The model equation for the Fearlessness
subscale approached significance F(3160) = 243 p = 068 as well
After model equations were accounted for the PPI-R SF had a significant relationship
with level of guilt such that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy experienced less guilt
than participants with lower levels of psychopathy across choice conditions (standardized β = -
68
359 t(163) = -346 p = 001) In addition both factor scales of the PPI-R SF (Fearless
Dominance and Self Centered Impulsivity) were significant in predicting guilt (standardized β =
-292 t(163) = -257 p = 011 standardized β = -314 t(163) = -305 p = 003) respectively
Finally three of the PPI-R SF subscales reached significance in predicting level of guilt in
participants as well Fearlessness Stress Immunity and Rebellious Nonconformity The
Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscales load on the Fearless Dominance factor
of the PPI-R SF which is important to note because this factor assesses the cognitive aspects of
psychopathy including lack of guilt and lack of remorse Therefore these results provide support
for the validity of the PPI-R SF in assessing psychopathic traits such as guiltlessness
69
Tab
le 9
M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts C
rite
rion
is S
elf-
Rep
orte
d G
uilt
Aft
er M
isle
adin
g th
e C
onfe
dera
te
Pre
dict
ors
are
the
P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
and
MA
CH
-IV
Tot
al S
core
s an
d Su
bsca
les
Eac
h R
ow R
epre
sent
s R
esul
ts F
rom
One
Mul
tiple
Reg
ress
ion
Ov
eral
l Mo
del
High
L
ow C
hoic
e
Psyc
hopa
thy
Ma
ch P
redi
ctor
In
tera
ctio
n
Pred
icto
r
F
(df)
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
PPI-
RSF
456
(3160)
00
4
046
597
006
08
938
-1419
410
-359
-346
00
1
851
600
147
142
158
PPI FD
361
(3160)
01
5
-003
603
lt001
-01
996
-1151
449
-292
-257
01
1
309
607
058
51
611
PPI SCI
314
(3160)
02
7
055
605
007
09
928
-1237
406
-314
-305
00
3
1376
611
232
225
026
Mach Ego
95
(3160)
417
091
618
012
15
883
-627
438
-159
-143
154
1018
620
182
164
103
Soc Infl
32
(3160)
811
029
623
004
05
963
-047
474
-012
-10
921
-356
631
-068
-56
574
Fearless
243
(3160)
068
018
609
002
03
977
-1166
448
-296
-260
01
0
875
612
162
143
155
Coldhrt
52
(3160)
671
132
621
017
21
832
-446
471
-113
-95
346
113
628
021
18
857
Rebel
743
(3160)
lt00
1
050
583
006
09
931
-1718
407
-435
-422
lt00
1
833
585
147
142
156
Blm Ext
157
(3160)
199
062
613
008
10
919
-330
449
-084
-73
464
1190
616
220
193
055
Carefree
126
(3160)
290
-067
622
-009
-11
914
-814
425
-206
-192
057
669
625
115
107
287
Stress
426
(3160)
00
6
177
599
023
30
768
-972
421
-246
-231
02
2
-199
601
-035
-33
742
LPSP
41
(3160)
744
090
621
011
15
885
-445
415
-113
-107
286
577
627
097
92
359
Primary
39
(3160)
764
090
621
011
15
885
-443
425
-112
-104
299
549
624
095
88
381
Second
17
(3160)
919
080
622
010
13
897
-301
450
-076
-67
505
386
624
071
62
537
MACH
-IV
02
(3160)
996
076
623
010
12
903
-085
433
-021
-20
845
116
625
020
19
852
Deceit
15
(3160)
928
071
622
009
11
910
-172
406
-043
-42
673
421
634
068
66
508
Flattery
25
(3160)
864
100
622
013
16
872
-320
416
-081
-77
443
150
628
025
24
812
Immoral
85
(3160)
468
082
618
010
13
894
396
443
100
89
373
-968
620
-175
-156
121
Cynicism
52
(3160)
669
040
620
005
06
949
368
472
093
78
436
032
627
006
05
960
Residual
19
(3160)
900
069
621
009
11
912
-309
410
-078
-75
452
326
630
054
52
606
Not
e
Sig
nific
ant p
val
ues
(p lt
05)
are
in b
old
p v
alue
s ap
proa
chin
g si
gnif
ican
ce (lt
10)
are
in it
alic
s
Pre
dict
or A
bbre
viat
ions
PPI
-RS
F =
PPI-
RS
F to
tal s
core
PPI
FD
= P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 1
ndash F
earle
ss D
omin
ance
Fac
tor S
core
PPI
SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f Cen
tere
d
Impu
lsiv
ity F
acto
r Sco
re M
ach
Ego
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
rici
ty s
ubsc
ale
Soc
Infl
= PP
I-R
SF
Soci
al In
fluen
ce s
ubsc
ale
Fea
rless
= P
PI-R
SF
Fear
less
ness
sub
scal
e
Col
dhrt
= PP
I-R
SF
Col
dhea
rted
ness
sub
scal
e R
ebel
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
xt =
PPI
-RS
F B
lam
e E
xter
naliz
atio
n Su
bsca
le C
aref
ree
= PP
I-R
SF
C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Stre
ss Im
un =
PPI
-RS
F St
ress
Imm
unity
sub
scal
e L
PSP
= LP
SP to
tal s
core
Pri
mar
y =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le S
econ
d =
LPSP
Sec
onda
ry
subs
cale
MA
CH
-IV
= M
AC
H-I
V to
tal s
core
Dec
eit =
MA
CH
-IV
Dec
eit s
ubsc
ale
Fla
ttery
= M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
oral
= M
AC
H-I
V Im
mor
ality
sub
scal
e C
ynic
ism
=
MA
CH
-IV
Cyn
icis
m s
ubsc
ale
Res
idua
l = M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
Mod
el A
bbre
viat
ions
Un-
Stzd
β =
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Bet
a S
td E
rr =
Sta
ndar
d E
rror
Stz
d β
= St
anda
rdiz
ed B
eta
70
Exploratory Analyses Factor Analyses of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measures
In order to assess what specific constructs the self-report psychopathy and
Machiavellianism measures were identifying several factor analyses were conducted The goal
of these analyses was twofold First the intention was to categorize the unique traits of
psychopathy and MACH that were being identified in the participants by these measures and
second to distinguish overall factors of these personality traits that are similar across measures
Factor analysis of PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV total scores The total scores of the
PPI-R LPSP and MACH-IV were factor analyzed using principal axis factor analysis Squared
multiple correlations were used to estimate communalities in the initial factor pattern and
solutions were iterated four times Only one component in a preliminary principal components
analysis had an eigenvalue greater than 1 (1826) and the scree plot of the eigenvalues indicated
a clear break after one factor However for exploratory purposes three-factor and two-factor
factor analytic solutions were also attempted The three-factor solution yielded three factors
each corresponding to the three original variables The two-factor solution yielded one large
primary factor and a second factor with only trivial loadings (all loadings lt 25) Therefore the
one-factor solution was selected as the most informative Oblique rotation was performed using
Promax As can be seen in Table 10 one clearly defined factor emerged from the three variables
The factor appears to tap psychopathic and Machiavellian tendencies and thus has been named
Psychopathic Machiavellianism
Table 10 Factor Solutions Between PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores
Measure Psychopathic
Machiavellianism PPI-R SF Total Score 505 LPSP Total Score 687 MACH-IV Total Score 743
71
Factor analysis of all psychopathy and Machiavellianism items A second factor analysis
was run using all of the individual items from the three self-report measures of psychopathy and
Machiavellianism (PPI-R SF LPSP MACH-IV) Squared multiple correlations were used to
estimate communalities in the initial factor pattern Thirty-two components with eigenvalues
greater than 1 emerged from a preliminary principle component analysis and the scree plot
indicated there were approximately 25 to 35 factors
A principal axis factor analysis with Promax rotation was performed extracting 32
factors However only 15 of the 32 factors had two or more factor loadings greater than 50
Therefore several additional factor solutions were attempted to determine how many relevant
meaningful factors were present Finally it was determined that a nine-factor solution yielded the
largest number of interpretable factors with each factor including at least two variables with
loadings greater than 50 (see Table 11) Upon analyzing the items that loaded into each of the
nine factors names were identified for each factor based on the common characteristics of the
items The nine factors are Machiavellian Success Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Immunity
Feelings of Persecution Inability to Plan Social Disregard Interpersonal Ease Manipulative
Deceit and Social Frustration
72
Table 11 Factor Loadings of Total Item Factor Analysis
Factor Original Item
Mach Succes
Thrill Seek
Stress Immun Persec Inabl
Plan Social Dsrgrd
Intper Ease
Manip Deceit
Soc Frustr
L2 654 069 -068 217 070 -042 -184 -006 -092 L4 595 -044 044 117 044 136 029 039 064 L1 586 060 -009 106 127 -235 195 -023 -099 L3 576 097 027 023 144 -046 013 007 098 L5 551 -073 131 -047 022 026 205 -041 028 L12 -516 -010 -180 000 156 147 066 073 181 L8 466 030 082 -162 093 -021 109 022 076 L14 -428 -032 150 -103 202 023 131 224 230 L15 -402 053 -078 -039 146 000 -023 -215 260 L6 387 001 040 050 108 -183 -212 -038 132 L7 368 -121 -216 162 165 -095 -154 116 -008 M9 -322 -099 -009 154 100 -300 -076 -191 039 L26 320 165 054 101 051 073 -198 034 042 L11 318 222 -223 -116 059 -030 007 -078 219 M7 -288 108 -090 -102 -014 -006 -085 -158 -168 M17 -225 031 136 012 -018 -160 200 210 070 M3 -195 -159 -087 -057 -017 060 077 002 -037 M16 -179 108 -012 -141 -115 -170 -168 008 -052 P53 074 655 052 -031 -075 061 -179 -014 066 P5 -034 637 032 -128 -154 077 -138 -115 063 P38 050 555 207 034 -038 011 010 -143 -086 P22 080 535 -013 -261 023 043 003 069 045 P9 063 514 -060 179 -002 -148 -023 -130 010 P19 059 -475 057 022 049 -074 -052 -068 115 P16 051 468 -166 103 -108 -059 -015 -088 104 P1 157 -407 037 046 095 019 -047 -145 183 P52 -033 407 -199 050 -123 073 128 175 -058 P36 157 353 020 130 -014 145 143 156 -039 P30 148 308 -267 161 024 -059 -049 205 125 P47 -126 261 -067 069 -015 -029 134 135 237 P4 -117 259 -250 098 046 219 116 107 033 P14 251 251 -110 005 -109 064 117 -168 088 P48 114 031 733 054 073 -042 023 -035 005 P39 022 086 660 134 128 066 -007 103 -051 P28 080 -073 609 -008 -017 183 -061 187 093 P11 153 007 563 -118 -141 266 -026 051 112 P26 -089 -111 543 091 141 074 -037 075 001 P13 -004 039 -506 -095 129 144 -034 084 -135 M14 084 -035 359 209 -062 -125 211 069 -164 P2 -027 189 -335 125 -193 005 173 083 074 P23 176 050 -309 033 -190 082 108 075 266 M19 -188 -022 250 -069 -150 -116 088 043 -054 M2 -219 -015 240 176 -233 -101 114 054 223 M20 -048 -039 226 064 -158 -178 165 049 -121 P41 012 -047 -009 636 -081 -004 058 038 096 L25 011 -033 061 591 -093 -048 -050 -112 054 P50 -019 016 024 583 021 104 049 -020 209 P24 085 012 211 546 -065 049 073 094 -106 P6 100 147 153 490 -028 -050 072 072 -036 P34 163 -039 055 440 046 154 004 -010 058 L24 141 -093 -172 373 -078 -074 -075 -040 186 M18 005 028 104 -329 -005 -129 023 179 -057 M6 -059 -157 -193 -261 146 -019 031 -129 -448E-005 P42 099 -181 073 -073 542 057 020 -006 023 P40 148 -231 018 -220 521 -001 005 -026 033 L23 003 -268 -162 -030 516 086 085 -188 070 M8 -091 -003 -077 103 -504 -044 -117 -056 -045 P51 035 -096 -050 -042 447 -217 -091 -023 153 P33 123 071 178 164 447 -042 144 -261 042 P49 056 -025 -056 -138 394 215 -169 -059 019 M10 282 -018 046 -162 -374 -041 134 -105 119 P20 254 003 063 -132 370 026 049 226 -287 L10 -294 313 014 -246 366 -174 027 004 220 P56 144 083 -144 186 -354 072 061 136 269 M5 021 040 -001 -154 -350 -077 -050 192 238
73
Factor Original Item
Mach Succes
Thrill Seek
Stress Immun
Persec
Inabl Plan
Social Dsrgrd
Intper Ease
Manip Deceit
Soc
Frustr M13 124 105 157 -226 -311 -216 050 -073 163 L19 -089 054 -123 089 286 -129 -004 045 -063 P45 -207 -081 211 045 270 255 023 -068 043 L21 -077 -179 056 170 -229 042 -118 195 187 P37 111 235 211 017 024 592 -112 -115 017 P12 044 149 138 -123 057 571 023 003 110 P27 -144 -152 013 056 052 547 057 095 081 P10 -096 -031 -030 065 -023 453 042 -110 -090 P55 -184 -010 -177 183 -031 419 -035 051 -010 P54 094 -076 -127 -024 339 406 163 024 151 P25 -064 128 192 275 -051 392 087 -284 022 M12 -115 -023 -024 002 -220 245 -052 -120 -130 P21 067 -141 077 154 112 -038 740 -057 130 P15 -059 138 -189 099 160 144 556 -128 054 P18 103 001 -135 -028 097 028 533 -021 -237 P32 023 037 -126 159 167 -088 -532 093 -016 P29 -067 211 -109 014 089 -199 528 -130 037 P17 133 401 250 -067 132 016 456 011 -085 P32 004 171 026 -039 269 -027 -454 174 -147 P43 071 046 112 -059 029 -021 -143 557 286 M1 -330 104 013 007 040 -115 102 -512 106 L9 363 -112 -006 -046 044 -113 085 491 120 L20 -108 030 004 035 -085 002 -043 463 -082 L18 -232 055 199 085 -004 -055 -263 446 025 P35 118 -031 -024 -029 -011 -083 -145 419 171 M15 036 -053 018 -161 -282 -094 088 332 081 P31 -030 176 213 160 198 -074 -102 319 224 L16 -154 -015 020 024 162 153 144 -185 164 L22 024 -112 063 204 128 107 -156 117 527 L17 -168 124 -069 090 048 054 000 180 518 P7 070 -190 243 173 -011 -023 205 025 487 P46 229 -086 172 098 009 -145 067 -156 448 P3 -022 073 297 034 -100 288 -202 -105 392 P44 109 084 013 224 077 -051 -199 046 280 M11 038 056 -087 -113 019 144 093 -025 266 M4 -205 046 092 080 080 -037 -123 -177 -263 L13 143 -030 -189 -079 -140 -124 028 139 238 Note Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation converged in 9 iterations Factor loadings gt 40 are in bold Abbreviations Original Item Number= The item number from each of the three self-report measures used in this study L = LPSP P = PPI-R SF M = MACH-IV (ex P48 = Item 48 on the PPI-R SF) Mach Succes = Machiavellian Success Thrill Seek = Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Immun = Stress Immunity Persec = Feelings of Persecution Inabl Plan = Inability to Plan Social Dsrgrd = Social Disregard Intper Ease = Interpersonal Ease Manip Deceit = Manipulative Deceit Soc Frust = Social Frustration
Factor analysis of PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV subscales Finally a principal axis
factor analysis of the subscales of the three self-report measures of psychopathy and
Machiavellianism was conducted Squared multiple correlations were used to estimate
communalities in the initial factor pattern In a preliminary principal components analysis five
components had eigenvalues greater than 1 (3410 2093 1422 1209 1128) and the scree plot
of the eigenvalues indicated a break around five factors
74
Oblique rotation of the initial principal axis pattern was performed using Promax A
three four and six factor solution was attempted in addition to the five factor solution In
comparing the pattern matrices between factor models each factor in the three-factor model was
interpretable and had at least two loadings greater than 50 whereas the five-factor model
included one factor that did not have at least two loadings greater than 50 In addition the four-
and five-factor models would not converge in fewer than 25 iterations The three-factor model
compared to the four and five-factor models also had the most meaningful factor loadings in
terms of shared characteristics among the subscales in each factor Therefore the three-factor
model was selected Table 12 reports the factor loadings for the three-factor model Based on the
common characteristics shared by the subscales in their respective factors the following factor
names were assigned Antisocial Behavior Coldhearted Callousness and Thrill Seeking
75
Table 12 Factor Loadings of the Psychopathy and MACH Measures Subscales Factor
Subscale Antisocial Behavior
Coldhearted Callousness
Thrill Seeking
PPI Blame Ext 707 -152 032 LPSP Secondary 630 050 023 PPI Mach Ego 467 401 070 PPI Stress Immun -455 148 421 MACH Cynicism 424 149 -016 MACH Flattery 302 191 020 PPI Coldhrt -307 638 035 MACH Deceit 130 588 -015 LPSP Primary 341 486 -071 MACH Immoral 088 397 -081 PPI Carefree 033 309 226 MACH Residual 251 261 004 PPI Rebel 209 -011 752 PPI Fearless 056 -168 746 PPI Social Influ -131 125 295 Note Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation converged in 6 iterations Factor loadings gt 30 appear in bold Subscale Abbreviations PPI Blame Ext = PPI-RSF Blame Externalization subscale LPSP Secondary = LPSP Secondary subscale PPI Mach Ego = PPI-RSF Machiavellianism Egocentricity subscale PPI Stress Immun = PPI-RSF Stress Immunity subscale MACH Cynicism = MACH-IVCynicism subscale MACH Flattery = MACH-IV Flattery subscale PPI Coldhrt = PPI-RSFColdheartedness subscale MACH Deceit = MACH-IV Deceit subscale LPSP Primary = LPSP Primary subscale MACH Immoral = MACH-IV Immorality subscale PPI Carefree = PPI-RSF Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale MACH Residual = MACH-IV Residual Subscale PPI Rebel = PPI-RSF Rebellious Nonconformity subscale PPI Fearless = PPI-RSF Fearlessness subscale PPI Social Influ = PPI-RSF Social Influence subscale
76
Chapter 4 Discussion
Four findings of the present study are particularly notable First as predicted the classic
cognitive dissonance effect was replicated in the sample as a whole That is participants in the
High Choice to Lie Condition reported enjoying the abacus task more than participants in the
Low Choice to Lie Condition Second as predicted a significant interaction was found between
Choice Condition and level of psychopathy as measured by the PPI-R SF and the LPSP
Specifically the classic cognitive dissonance effect was found among participants with lower
levels of psychopathic traits but not among participants with higher levels of psychopathic traits
Third contrary to prediction no significant interaction was found between Choice Condition and
level of Machiavellianism as measured by the MACH-IV Fourth level of psychopathy
demonstrated incremental predictive power over level of MACH in predicting abacus task
enjoyment Each of these four findings is discussed below
41 Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effect
One important finding of the current study was a significant main effect of Choice
Condition on abacus task enjoyment Specifically individuals in the High Choice to Lie
condition reported enjoying the abacus task more than participants in the Low Choice to Lie
condition
This finding replicates the results of two earlier studies that examined cognitive
dissonance in a similar manner In studies by Cooper and Worchel (1970) and Festinger and
Carlsmith (1959) participants performed a tedious task and then were asked to mislead a fellow-
student (actually a confederate) that the task was enjoyable Half of participants were given only
a weak external motivation to deceive the fellow-student (low monetary reward or half of an
experimental credit) whereas the other half of participants were given a stronger external
77
motivation to deceive the fellow-student (a high monetary reward or multiple experimental
credits) In both of these studies participants with weak external motivation to engage in the
deception reported enjoying the task more than did participants with stronger external
motivation
The main difference between the current study and the Cooper and Worchel (1970) and
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) studies is that external motivation (high or low) was manipulated
by the aforementioned researchers whereas we manipulated participantsrsquo level of perceived
choice However there is a close conceptual relationship between level of external motivation
and level of perceived choice from the perspective of cognitive dissonance theory Previous
research has indicated that both choice manipulation and external motivation have similar effects
in creating cognitive dissonance In both cases external justification is being manipulated
Participants in the low choice (direct instruction) condition attribute their actions to the influence
of external pressures that forced them to perform the dissonant behavior Participants rationalize
that if given the choice they would not have engaged in the behavior and thus cognitive
dissonance is avoided The same conclusion is drawn when participants are given high external
motivation to engage in a dissonant behavior such as a high monetary reward Participants again
rely on the external justification of high reward to explain their engagement in the dissonant act
They rationalize their dissonant behavior by relying on the high reward as justification for
behaving in uncharacteristically Participants in the high reward condition rationalize that if the
reward was not present as external justification then they would not have engaged in the task
which results in a lack of cognitive dissonance as well Alternatively participants with either
high choice (voluntary participation) or low reward cannot rely on external justification because
none exists in these conditions Thus attitude shift results from the need to ameliorate their
78
cognitive dissonance Overall external justification is needed to alleviate cognitive dissonance
arousal and this justification is provided by either an external motivation (reward) manipulation
or by a low choice manipulation
Self-perceived choice has frequently been used as the independent variable in cognitive
dissonance studies As in our experiment these earlier studies found that self-perceived choice
(ie High versus Low Choice) had a significant main effect on cognitive dissonance Several of
these studies reported that participants experienced an attitude shift toward being in favor of an
undesirable task or belief only when they felt free choice to engage in the dissonant behavior
such as misleading a confederate or writing a counterattitudinal essay (Brehm amp Cohn 1962
Chatzisarantis Hagger amp Wang 2008 Cooper 1971 Davis amp Jones 1960 Festinger amp
Carlsmith 1959 Linder Cooper amp Jones 1967 Seacuteneacutemeaud amp Somat 2009 Sherman 1970)
Therefore the current experiment has added empirical support to the body of cognitive
dissonance research examining choice condition as a predictor of attitude shift
42 Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonance
The main hypothesis of this study was that people with low levels of psychopathy would
experience cognitive dissonance about engaging in deception whereas individuals with higher
levels of psychopathy would not experience cognitive dissonance
PPI-R SF total scores and cognitive dissonance Results supported our hypothesis in
regard to psychopathy when measured by total scores on the PPI-R SF Participants with higher
total scores on the PPI-R SF reported significantly less enjoyment of the abacus task on the post-
experimental questionnaire than participants with lower levels of psychopathy Specifically the
interaction between Choice to Lie condition and total PPI-R SF scores was significant in
predicting abacus task enjoyment standardized β = -216 p =036 True to our prediction
79
participants with low to non-existent levels of psychopathy experienced cognitive dissonance
only when in the High Choice to Lie condition and not in the Low Choice to Lie condition
Consistent with earlier studies (Cooper amp Worchel 1970 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959) it
appears that low psychopathy participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition perceived that they
had a strong external motivation for misleading their fellow-student (direct instruction to lie)
Thus they did not experience cognitive dissonance and could (accurately) rate the abacus task as
boring However low psychopathy participants in the High Choice to Lie condition did not
perceive that they had a strong external motivation for misleading their fellow student (they
voluntarily agreed to tell the lie after being asked) The participants experienced cognitive
dissonance in the form of psychological tension or guilt which they reduced by convincing
themselves that the abacus task was actually interesting as they had told their fellow student
On the other hand participants with higher levels of psychopathy reported disliking the
abacus task on the post-experimental questionnaire regardless of the Choice to Lie condition they
were in It appears that participants with higher levels of psychopathy did not experience
cognitive dissonance (ie psychological tension or guilt) about misleading a fellow student
Consequently these participants did not experience a need to change their view of the abacus
task or to rate it as more enjoyable than it really was
PPI-R SF subscales on cognitive dissonance Exploratory analyses were conducted
using the eight subscales of the PPI-R SF Each subscale measures a different facet of
psychopathy The goal of analyzing each subscale individually was to examine which aspects of
psychopathy if any were related to a lack of cognitive dissonance Three subscales produced
significant interactions with choice condition in predicting level of task enjoyment
Machiavellian Egocentricity (ME) Fearlessness (F) and Rebellious Nonconformity (RN) The
80
Machiavellian Egocentricity and Rebellious Nonconformity subscales load on the Self Centered
Impulsivity factor (antisocial behavior traits of psychopathy) of the PPI-R SF while the
Fearlessness subscale loads on the Fearless Dominance factor (cognitive personality based traits
of psychopathy) of the PPI-R SF
The Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale identifies aggressive self-centered tendencies
when interacting with other individuals (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003
Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996) Items from this subscale include ldquoI could be a good con-artistrdquo ldquoI
sometimes lie to see if I can get someone to believe merdquo and ldquoI tell people the part of the truth
they want to hearrdquo This scale seems to identify psychopathic characteristics that would allow for
individuals to have a lack of psychological tension or guilt over misleading others Thus in the
present experiment it appears that these traits may have inhibited participantsrsquo experience of
cognitive dissonance over lying to the confederate The significant interaction of the ME scale
and choice condition suggests that the participants in our study who lacked concern for
misleading others or even prided themselves in their ability to mislead others (as the scale
predicts) did not experience guilt or psychological stress
The Fearlessness (F) subscale of the PPI-R SF identifies willingness to engage in risky
behavior with a lack of regard for the negative consequences of onersquos actions The Rebellious
Nonconformity subscale (RN) indicates reckless behavior with a lack of concern for future
consequences (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Lilienfeld amp Andrews
1996) These scales are similar in that higher scores on the scales indicate an inability to
comprehend future negative consequences of onersquos actions These subscales also were
substantially correlated in the present study (r = 522) In regard to the current experiment it may
be that participants who scored higher on the Fearlessness and Rebellious Nonconformity
81
subscales were unable to comprehend or feel concern for the negative impact their deceptive
actions could have on their fellow student Thus participants with higher levels of fearlessness
and rebellious nonconformity may have experienced less psychological tension and less
cognitive dissonance about engaging in the deception than did participants with low levels of
these traits Because these findings are exploratory further studies should analyze these variables
so that strong conclusions can be made
PPI-R SF factors on cognitive dissonance In exploratory analyses the Self-Centered
Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF was the only factor to have a significant interaction with
choice condition in predicting abacus task enjoyment That is the dissonance effect was found
among participants with low scores on the PPI-R SF Self Centered Impulsivity factor but not
among participants with high scores The Self Centered Impulsivity factor is comprised of the
Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale and the Carefree
Nonplanfulness subscale of the PPI-R SF The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF
has been found in the literature to correlate with the behavioral traits associated with
psychopathy such as a DSM diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder lower education
levels lower employment rates lower SES and increased drug and alcohol abuse (Benning
Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003) Therefore the present results suggest that the
behavioral antisocial behavior characteristics of psychopathy (impulsivity blame
externalization lack of planning abilities) affected participantsrsquo experience of guilt-induced
cognitive dissonance
In contrast the interaction between the Fearless Dominance (FD) factor of the PPI-R SF
and choice condition was not a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment The Fearless
Dominance factor is characterized by low trait anxiety social dominance and fearlessness when
82
engaging in risky actions Individuals who score higher on the Fearless Dominance factor of the
PPI-R SF are often described as the more ldquosuccessful psychopathrdquo because they are
characterized by higher SES more advanced education and a lack of substance abuse (Benning
Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003) as compared to the type of psychopathy predicted by
the PPI-R SF Self Centered Impulsivity factor In fact studies have found that the two factors of
the PPI-R SF are orthogonal (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Lilienfeld amp
Fowler 2006) Therefore the present results suggest that individuals with higher scores on the
Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R SF may have the propensity to experience cognitive
dissonance more than individuals with the more antisocial traits of psychopathy (as measured by
the Self Centered Impulsivity Factor)
LPSP total scores on cognitive dissonance The effect of psychopathy on cognitive
dissonance was also examined using scores from the LPSP Similar to the results using the PPI-
R SF the interaction of LPSP total scores and choice condition was statistically significant in
predicting level of task enjoyment Specifically a significant relationship did not exist between
LPSP scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie
condition However in accordance with our prediction there was a significant negative
correlation between LPSP total scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie
condition This result further supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of
psychopathy would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher
levels would not
LPSP factor scores on cognitive dissonance Both the Primary and Secondary factors of
the LPSP were examined in exploratory analyses to see if one factorrsquos constellation of
psychopathic traits better accounted for a lack of cognitive dissonance than the other The
83
findings of this analysis implicate the cognitive (callousness fearless dominance low trait
anxiety) characteristics of psychopathy (as measured by the Primary factor) rather than the
external behavioral markers (as measured by the Secondary factor) as cues to understanding the
cognitive differences found in individuals with higher levels of psychopathy The results of the
interaction between the Primary (Cognitive) Factor and choice condition approached statistical
significance (unless the data was analyzed with the six individuals who did not lie factored out)
Further analysis of the data found that the interaction of LPSP Secondary (Behavioral) factor
scores with choice condition was not a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment
Interestingly these analyses of the LPSP factor scales yielded results that seem contrary
to the results concerning the PPI-R SF factor scales As already noted the PPI-R SF factor scale
analysis suggested that the behavioral characteristics of psychopathy (as measured by the PPI-R
Self Centered Impulsivity factor) were related to the absence of a cognitive dissonance effect In
contrast however the LPSP Secondary (behavioral) factor was not significantly related to
whether the cognitive dissonance effect was found Instead the findings for the LPSP Primary
(cognitive) factor approached significance
The conflicting findings regarding the PPI-R and LPSP factor scales may be partially
explained by the fact that the LPSPrsquos Primary and Secondary factors have not shown a consistent
relationship to other scales that measure the behavioral and cognitive dimensions of psychopathy
(Skeem amp Lilienfeld 2004) Levenson and colleagues (1995) reported that the two factors of the
LPSP mirrored the two factors of the PPI-R and the PCL-R However the discriminant and
convergent validity of the LPSP factor scales have been inconclusive in several studies For
example a study by Lilienfeld Skeem and Poythress (2004) found that the LPSP Primary
(cognitive) factor (callousness lack of guilt or remorse low trait anxiety) of the LPSP was more
84
correlated with the secondary (Self Centered Impulsivity) factor of the PPI-R (r = 62) than with
the primary (Fearless Dominance) factor of the PPI-R (r = 16)
In addition to the study by Lilienfeld et al (2004) other researchers have obtained results
indicating that the Primary (cognitive) Scale of the LPSP correlates higher with the secondary
factor of the PPI-R (Self Centered Impulsivity) rather than the with the primary factor of the PPI-
R (Fearless Dominance Wilson Frick amp Clements 1999 Lilienfeld amp Hess 2001)
Furthermore the Primary (cognitive) scale of the LPSP appears to correlate more highly with
antisocial behaviors rather than with the callous cognitive traits it was designed to measure
(Lilienfeld Skeem amp Poythress 2004 McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto 1998) Therefore the
discrepancy in the results between the PPI-R SF factor scales and the LPSP factor scales in the
current study might be a result of the LPSP Primary scale not being discriminant or divergent
enough from the antisocial behavior characteristics that are measured by the Secondary Scale of
the LPSP and by the factor scales of other measures like the PPI-R In other words perhaps the
Primary Scale of the LPSP is not accurately identifying just the cognitive personality-based traits
of psychopathy that is was designed to measure and thus this imprecision of the factor is what
led to the seemingly inconsistent results concerning the PPI-R SF and LPSP factors
Table 13 reports the significant (and insignificant) interactions between choice condition
and level of psychopathy by individual subscale and factor scale scores This table specifically
sorts the subscales and factor scales by the main psychopathy factors evidenced in the literature
(cognitive or behavioral) that the subscales and factors load on Past studies have consistently
confirmed the subscales arranged below load on the factor indicated (either the more behavioral
factor or the more cognitive affective factor) (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Iacono
2005 Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Edens Lilienfeld Poythress Patrick
85
amp Test 2008 Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995 Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996 Lilienfeld amp
Widows 2005 Patrick Edens Poythress Lilienfeld amp Benning 2006 Poythress amp Skeem
2006 Uzieblo Verschuere amp Crombez 2007) By separating the significant subscale and factor
score results in the current study by the respective factor they have been shown to load on
(cognitive or behavioral) the difference in our somewhat mixed results becomes clearer The
results evidence that in the current study Secondary psychopathy (Factor 2 antisociality
impulsivity inability to plan thrill seeking behavior) seems to relate more to a lack of cognitive
dissonance in the sample of participants
86
Table 13 Interactions of Psychopathy Subscales and Factor Scales with Choice Condition by the Two Factor (Cognitive or Behavioral) Psychopathy Solution Demonstrated by Past Research (Self-Reported Enjoyment as Criterion)
Cognitive Affective Factor Antisocial Behavior Factor FactorSubscale Stdz β t p Stdz β t p PPI FD Factor -167 -146 146 PPI Soc Infl 057 48 631 PPI Fearless -274 -247 015 PPI Stress Imm -101 -93 352 LPSP Primary -199 -192 057 PPI SCI Factor -220 -221 028 PPI Mach Ego -295 -281 006 PPI Rebel -243 -230 023 PPI Blm Ext -036 -32 747 PPI Carefree 068 66 511 LPSP Second -161 -145 148 Note Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics Predictor Abbreviations PPI FD Factor = PPIRSF Factor 1 ndash Fearless Dominance Factor PPI Soc Infl = PPI-RSF Social Influence subscale PPI Fearlessness = PPI-RSF Fearlessness subscale PPI Stress Imun = PPI-RSF Stress Immunity subscale LPSP Primary = LPSP Primary subscale PPI SCI Factor = PPIRSF Factor 2-Self Centered Impulsivity Factor PPI Mach Ego = PPI-RSF Machiavellianism Egocentricity subscale PPI Rebel = PPI-RSF Rebellious Nonconformity subscale PPI Blm Extern = PPI-RSF Blame Externalization subscale PPI Carefree = PPI-RSF Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale LPSP Second = LPSP Secondary subscale The PPI-RSF Colheartedness Scale is not included because it has not been shown to load on the Two Factor Solution Model Abbreviations Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Possible Reasons for the Lack of Cognitive Dissonance in High Psychopathy Individuals
The results of the current study indicate that the more psychopathic traits a participant
reported including the callous unemotional traits such as a lack of guilt remorse or concern for
others the less likely the participant was to exhibit the classic cognitive dissonance effect It is
important to consider possible explanations for these results
Psychopathy and lack of guilt One of the main traits linked to psychopathy is a callous
lack of guilt (Hart amp Hare 1997 Hare 1993 Lykken 2006 McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto
1998) This lack of guilt and concern for others may be the cognitive deficit that allows for
psychopathic individuals to commit violent crimes or manipulate others If this is the case then it
is important to determine if a lack of guilt is occurring significantly more in individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy compared to individuals with low or non-existent levels of
psychopathy Previous studies have examined guilt in individuals with psychopathy and have
87
almost universally found that individuals with high psychopathy lack guilt (Cima Tonnaer amp
Lobbestael 2007 Hare 1993 Walsh amp Wu 2008)
Though a lack of guilt has already been strongly associated with psychopathy in the
literature it is important to now try to find the underlying cognitive pathways and mechanisms
that are behind the inability to feel guilt in high psychopathic individuals Understanding the
cognitive deficits of individuals with higher levels of psychopathy can lead to better assessment
strategies and possible intervention models to curb maladaptive behaviors at an early age This
study attempted to identify the role that guilt plays in eliciting cognitive dissonance by assessing
dissonance effects in individuals with varying levels of guilt capabilities (high versus low
psychopaths) The use of psychopathy as a moderating variable for cognitive dissonance is based
on empirical research that has found a lack of guilt and contentiousness in individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy
Guilt and cognitive dissonance Cognitive dissonance has long been thought to be a
universal feature of human behavior Since the discovery of cognitive dissonance by Festinger in
1957 many other researchers have replicated the phenomenon with great success in a multitude
of situations and across stimuli (for a review see Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) The main theory
of cognitive dissonance that this project intended to analyze with regard to psychopathy was
Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory (1984) due to its focus on guilt as the catalyst for attitude
shift
According to Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory (1984) one of the crucial
components for creating the attitude shift found in cognitive dissonance is that individuals must
feel guilt (that their actions have brought negative consequences to themselves or others) The
current study incorporated the New Look Theory by having participants voluntarily lie to
88
someone else about a boring task being enjoyable Our hypothesis hinged on the theory that low
psychopathy individuals would change their beliefs about the task (they would think it was fun)
in order to relieve the guilt felt over misleading another individual In contrast since cognitive
dissonance occurs due to guilt induction we believed and found that individuals with higher
levels of psychopathy (low guilt) did not experience dissonance Therefore the results of this
study provide further evidence of the callous lack of guilt evidenced in psychopaths while
supporting Cooper and Faziorsquos (1984) theory that cognitive dissonance is invoked by guilt
43 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonance
Machiavellianism is characterized by the deliberate incorporation of callous unemotional
behaviors with the goal of achieving success and domination through the use of the asocial affect
and behaviors (Christie amp Geis 1970 Wastell amp Booth 2003 Wilson Near amp Miller 1996)
The centrality of success seems to be a characteristic of MACH that distinguishes it from
psychopathy Individuals with higher levels of MACH seem to engage in callous manipulative
behaviors in order to achieve preconceived goals whereas psychopathic individuals do not
necessarily plan their behavior to the same degree In fact several of the core traits associated
with psychopathy involve a lack of planning ability impulsivity and antisocial behavior that
often involves illegal and violent activities (Hare 1993)
Due to the callous guilt free traits associated with MACH the current study
hypothesized incorrectly that high MACH individuals in the High Choice (and high guilt)
condition would report significantly less enjoyment of the boring abacus task than individuals
with low MACH
MACH-IV total scores on cognitive dissonance It was hypothesized that the interaction
between MACH and choice condition would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment of
89
the abacus task However this interaction was not statistically significant Level of
Machiavellianism did not impact an individualrsquos self-rated level of enjoyment on the abacus task
These results were surprising given the fact that MACH has significantly related to a lack of
predicted attitude shift in past studies of guilt induced cognitive dissonance (Bogart 1971
Bogart et al 1970 Epstein 1969) Though these previous studies on MACH did not
specifically intend to analyze guilt-induction as the dissonance invoking stimulus they did use
methodology that would create guilt in participants
Unlike the current study these previous experiments found significant differences
between individuals with higher versus lower levels of MACH Also in opposition with the
current findings these previous studies (Bogart 1971 Bogart Geis Levy amp Zimbardo 1970
Epstein 1968) found that individuals with high MACH were able to experience cognitive
dissonance often in the opposite experimental condition to the individuals with low MACH who
experienced cognitive dissonance These studies termed this effect ldquoanti-dissonancerdquo The
current study however found no significant evidence of an anti-dissonance effect in our
participants In fact the results for the MACH-IV scores exhibited a weak version of the
interaction pattern that was seen with the two psychopathy predictors Specifically the MACH-
IV total scores had a significant negative correlation with Self-Reported Task Enjoyment in the
High Choice Group (r = -295 p lt 01) but not in the Low Choice group (r = -104 p = 354)
Such findings seem to suggest that Machiavellianism like psychopathy influences cognitive
dissonance effects However as already reported the crucial analysis regarding this hypothesis
based on an interaction term of Machiavellianism with Choice condition did not attain statistical
significance
90
It is possible that the present study failed to find a significant interaction between choice
and level of MACH in predicting attitude shift because the MACH-IV is outdated The MACH
measure was created in 1970 and has not been altered since that time In addition many of the
items on the measure use wording from Niccolo Machiavellirsquos writing which dates back to 1513
Further many of the items may be considered somewhat sexist in current society as they focus
on men exclusively Participantsrsquo responses may have been effected by this gender exclusivity
Therefore concepts and items may not be current enough to be accurately identifying MACH
characteristics in our sample Given results from the present and earlier research the failure to
find a significant interaction between choice condition and Machiavellianism in the present study
may well represent a Type II error
44 Psychopathy Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment (Over MACH)
A hypothesis of the current study was that psychopathy would incrementally predict
abacus task enjoyment and the cognitive dissonance effect above and beyond the predictive
power of the MACH Results regarding this hypothesis were inconclusive Inclusion of PPI-R
SF scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment significantly increased predictive
power above and beyond scores on the MACH-IV Although there was a significant increase in
predictive power when adding PPI-R SF scores to the MACH-IV scores the beta for the
interaction between PPI-R SF scores and choice condition was only approached statistical
significance When total scores of the LPSP replaced the PPI-R SF scores the results were not
significant Inclusion of total LPSP scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment
did not significantly increase predictive power above and beyond MACH-IV scores Therefore it
seems that the hypothesis in regard to psychopathy incrementally predicting abacus task
91
enjoyment above MACH was neither confirmed nor disconfirmed in the present study More
research examining the issue is needed
Conversely two exploratory hierarchical multiple regressions were run to identify
whether MACH-IV total scores incrementally predicted Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus
task above and beyond the predictive power of psychopathy scores When both the PPI-R SF
and the LPSP were used as predictors MACH did not significantly predict Self-Reported Level
of Enjoyment over psychopathy These results suggest though only in a preliminary way that
level of MACH does not incrementally predict cognitive dissonance effects above and beyond
the predictive power of level of psychopathy
45 Additional Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory Guilt Analysis
Multiple regressions were conducted with level of guilt as the criterion in the place of
enjoyment rating These analyses were exploratory with the goal of further exploring the role
that guilt plays during cognitive dissonance arousal and maintenance Results of these analyses
indicated that the interaction between psychopathy measures and choice conditions did not
generally significantly predict guilt In fact there was no reason to expect these interactions to
be significant based on cognitive dissonance theory The cognitive dissonance literature argues
that participants strive to reduce their feelings of guilt after engaging in counterattitudinal
behavior discrepant with their beliefs Thus participants with low levels of psychopathy who
were in the High Choice to Lie condition would be expected to change their attitudes about lying
to reduce their feelings of guilt immediately after telling the ldquofuture participantrdquo that the abacus
task was fun Therefore their reported guilt level on the post experimental questionnaire should
not be significant Due to cognitive dissonance these participants would have already reduced
92
their level of guilt to low or non-existent levels by the time they were answering the questions on
the post experimental questionnaire
Main effects for relationship between psychopathy and guilt An important result of these
exploratory analyses was that significant main effects were found between level of psychopathy
(measured by the PPI-R SF) and level of guilt that participants reported concerning their
participation in the study Specifically the PPI-R SF had a significant relationship with level of
guilt such that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy experienced less guilt than
participants with lower levels of psychopathy across choice conditions In addition both factor
scales of the PPI-R SF (Fearless Dominance and Self Centered Impulsivity) were significant in
predicting guilt Finally three of the PPI-R SF subscales reached significance in predicting level
of guilt in participants Fearlessness Stress Immunity Rebellious Nonconformity The
Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscales load on the Fearless Dominance factor
of the PPI-R SF which is important to note because this factor assesses the cognitive aspects of
psychopathy including lack of guilt and lack of remorse Therefore these results provide support
for the validity of the PPI-R SF in assessing psychopathic traits such as guiltlessness
Exploratory Factor Analyses
Three factor analyses were conducted on the self-report psychopathy and MACH
measures utilized in the present study The goal of these analyses was to categorize the
individual traits of psychopathy and MACH that were being identified in the participants by the
measures and to distinguish overall factors of these personality traits that are similar across
measures
The first factor analysis found that the total scores of the three measures loaded together
as one factor The second factor analysis found that all of the items combined loaded on nine
93
interpretable factors Machiavellian Success Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Impunity Feelings
of Persecution Inability to Plan Social Disregard Interpersonal Ease Manipulative Deceit and
Social Frustration Each factor was found to represent unique characteristics of psychopathy and
MACH Finally a third factor analysis was run on the combined subscales of the measures This
analysis yielded three interpretable factors Antisocial Behavior Coldhearted Callousness and
Thrill Seeking Though these factor analyses yielded factors that mirror others identified in the
literature (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Hare 1991 Levenson et al
1995 Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996) the sample size of 164 participants was too small to draw
significant or important conclusions from these factor analyses
94
Limitations and Future Directions
The present study had several limitations One potential limitation was the sole use of
self-report measures for detecting psychopathy Though the self-report measures that were used
in the current study have been validated as measures of psychopathy (Levesnon et al 1995
Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996 Lilienfeld amp Fowler 2006 Lilienfeld amp Hess 2001) the use of a
measure such as the Psychopathy Checklist ndash Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991) might have shed
additional light on the levels of psychopathy among our participants Psychopathy scores on the
PCL-R are obtained from a semi-structured clinical interview of the participant as well as
background and collateral information (Hare 1991) Therefore the information about the
participantrsquos personality is derived from multiple sources rather than just self-report A future
replication of this study would benefit from also assessing level of psychopathy with the PCL-R
or the PCL-R SV (Hart amp Hare 1995) which is a screening version of the PCL-R
A second limitation might have been the type of task used to illicit cognitive dissonance
The study had participants move wooden balls back and forth across an abacus for 20 minutes
Though this study attained significant results perhaps the length of time may not have been long
enough to induce boredom in all participants Future studies could increase the amount of time
participants are instructed to move balls across the abacus For example the original cognitive
dissonance study by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) had participants turn pegs in a peg-board for
one hour That length of time would most likely ensure boredom in participants It is important to
note however that the time limit of 20 minutes employed in the present study was the same as in
the study by Cooper and Worchel (1970) in which significant results were obtained when
participants engaged in the boring task for 20 minutes
95
In addition the use of the abacus task as the stimuli could have impacted the results
because some participants may have actually found the task enjoyable and thus genuinely
reported enjoying the task on the post-experimental questionnaire This would confound our
results because cognitive dissonance was not enacted in those participants In order to combat the
possible issue the use of counterattitudinal essays as the stimulus would be a useful option for
future studies Counterattitudinal essays involve writing in favor of an issue that one is
adamantly against The use of counterattitudinal essays has been incorporated into the majority
of cognitive dissonance studies (for a review see Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Studies have
shown that when participants write in favor of an issue that they are opposed to this elicits
cognitive dissonance (Baumeister amp Tice 1984 Elkin amp Leippe 1986 Harmon-Jones amp Mills
1999 Linder Cooper amp Jones 1967 Seacuteneacutemeaud amp Somat 2009) Counterattitudinal essays
have also been used in studying cognitive dissonance effects in participants with MACH
(Burgoon Miller amp Tubbs 1972) with significant effects
Simply writing counter-attitudinal essays would not necessarily invoke guilt The present
study tested the hypothesis that guilt-invoking tasks create cognitive dissonance in individuals
with low psychopathic traits but not individuals with high psychopathic traits Therefore the
present results might not be replicated in a study that simply required the writing of counter-
attitudinal essays However a variant on this task exists in which writing a counter-attitudinal
essay is used to persuade other individuals to a viewpoint with which the writer strongly
disagrees This task of writing a counter-attitudinal essay to persuade others is likely to evoke
guilt and according to the hypotheses of the present study would be predicted to create a
cognitive dissonance effect in participants with higher levels of psychopathy but not in
participants with low levels of psychopathy A control condition would be necessary in which
96
some participants just write the counter-attitudinal essays while others write counter-attitudinal
essays that are then used to persuade other individuals In this way we would be better able to
determine whether any cognitive dissonance effects observed were due to guilt
Guilt has been manipulated in participants with the use of counterattitudinal essays The
primary way that researcherrsquos incorporate guilt was to have the participant write a
counterattitudinal essay and read it (or give it) to a panel of individuals with the intention of
persuading the panel to be in favor of the topic to which the participant is actually against In this
way participants feel guilt for attempting to convince others to support something that the
participant actually opposes For example a study by Elliot and Devine (1994) had their college
student sample of participants write essays in favor of a tuition raise for all students at their
university Before writing the counterattitudinal essays participants were initially screened to
make sure they were against a tuition increase on campus Participants were told that the essay
they wrote (pro-tuition increase) would be read by the university Board of Trustees to help
determine if the tuition raise should be implemented Participantsrsquo guilt was activated because
they were led to believe that their essay might cause a tuition increase for themselves and their
peers Results of the study found a significant shift in attitude towards being in favor of the
tuition increase after participants had written the essay The authors surmised that it was the
negative consequences that their actions (writing the pro-tuition increase essay) could cause
others that led to the attitude shift Replicating the current study with the use of counterattitudinal
essays that manipulate guilt rather than the abacus task may elicit stronger effects by eliminating
the participantsrsquo chance of genuinely enjoying the abacus task
A third limitation the current study concerns its generalizability to new populations of
participants This study analyzed level of psychopathy exclusively among college
97
undergraduates It is unclear whether the results obtained in this population will generalize to
groups with higher levels of psychopathy such as violent offenders or repeat-offender juvenile
delinquents Attempting a replication in a sample of violent offenders or juvenile delinquents
would be a valuable step in understanding how the construct of psychopathy impacts cognitive
dissonance
A fourth possible limitation was the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of participants
Approximately eighty-five percent of participants were Hispanic and thus the generalizability of
the results to non-Hispanic populations can be questioned However psychopathy has been
shown to be a universal construct across ethnicities including Anglo Americans (Cooke Kosson
amp Michie 2001 Hare 1996) African Americans (Cooke Kosson amp Michie 2001 Skeem et
al 2004 Swogger Walsh amp Kosson 2008) and Hispanics (Sullivan Abramowitz Lopez amp
Kosson 2006 Valdez Kaplan amp Codina 2000) MACH too has been shown to appear in
Hispanics (Martinez 1981) Therefore this limitation may not be a serious one
Though ethnicity may not have impacted our results cultural characteristics are another
limitation to consider Culture may impact the expression of psychopathic traits A recent study
by Smith and Madjarov (2008) found that individuals from Bulgaria evidenced higher levels of
psychopathy and Machiavellianism than Americans (as measured by the LPSP and MACH-IV)
The authors attributed the higher levels of psychopathic and MACH tendencies to the coercive
nature of the Bulgarian culture which teaches the youth to look out for themselves above all else
The authors deduced that the personality characteristics of psychopathy and MACH allow for
better survival outcomes in Bulgaria and thus the traits have flourished there as adaptive rather
than abnormal
98
The current study was conducted in a university on the US-Mexico border where
acculturation to American society varies in the university population Many students commute
over the border daily from Mexico to attend classes and are not highly acculturated to US
culture Based on the Smith and Madjarov (2008) study and the location of the current
experiment level of acculturation may have impacted our results and should be accounted for in
future studies
An additional future direction would be that this study spurs psychopathy and cognitive
dissonance research in new routes As previously mentioned only one other study has examined
the effects of psychopathy on cognitive dissonance (Weir 2007) However Weirrsquos study
contained methodological weaknesses (eg no control group for comparison purposes) and was
not designed to address how psychopathic traits impact cognitive dissonance in guilt-inducing
situations Clearly more studies need to be conducted in order to examine if the significant
results found in the present study will hold across other age groups populations (such as violent
offenders) and cultures The results of this study could assist in better understanding the
cognitive and emotional characteristics of psychopathy
In addition the results of this study pose new ideas for cognitive dissonance research
The results of the current study suggest that level of psychopathy could potentially be
confounding cognitive dissonance studies that rely on guilt or adverse consequences as the
mechanism of dissonance arousal Further replications of the present study are needed in the
literature to examine the robustness of our results and their impact on cognitive dissonance
arousal
99
Conclusions
Until now cognitive dissonance has been assumed to be a general cognitive effect found
in all individuals The results of this study suggest that this assumption may be incorrect In the
present study individuals with higher levels of psychopathy did not seem to experience guilt-
induced dissonance arousal It may be that past studies might have yielded stronger cognitive
dissonance effects if they had excluded participants with above-average levels of psychopathic
traits
In addition the lack of a significant finding in regard to level of MACH indicates that
more research needs to be conducted in assessing what maladaptive cognitive and behavioral
impacts Machiavellianism has on individuals and how MACH truly relates to psychopathy
Understanding the cognitive characteristics of psychopathy (and MACH) is important
due to the negative impact that individuals with these characteristics can cause society For
example individuals with higher levels of psychopathy are four times more likely to recidivate
after being released from prison (Hare 1993 Hemphill Hare amp Wong 1998) are arrested at
earlier ages are more likely to use weapons and violence in their offenses and have higher rates
of offending than individuals without psychopathy (Hart amp Hare 1997 Hare amp McPherson
1984) It is important to discover what specific cognitive and emotional characteristics lead some
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy to develop and behave maladaptively in society If
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy do not experience cognitive dissonance after lying
to someone else this finding points not only to a lack of guilt in such individuals but also to a
unique cognitive and emotional temperament that may be lacking dissonance arousal
100
References
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed) Washington DC Author Aronson E (1968) Dissonance theory Progress and problems In R Abelson E Aronson W McGuire T Newcomb M Rosenberg amp P Tannenbaum (Eds) Theories of cognitive consistency A sourcebook (pp5-27) Chicago Illinois Rand McNally Austin E J Farrelly D Black C amp Moore H (2007) Emotional intelligence Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation Does EI have a dark side Personality and Individual Differences 43 179-189 Baumeister R F amp Tice D M (1984) Role of self-presentation and choice in cognitive dissonance under forced compliance Necessary or sufficient causes Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(1) 5-13 Bogart K (1971) Machiavellianism and individual differences in response to cognitive inconsistency Journal of Social Psychology 85 111-119 Bogart K Geis F Levy M amp Zimbardo P (1970) No dissonance for Machiavellians In P G Zimbardo (Ed) The cognitive control of motivation The consequences of choice and motivation (pp 251-263) Glenview Illinois Scott Foresman and Company Brehm J W amp Cohen A R (1962) Explorations in cognitive dissonance New York Wiley Burgoon M Miller G R amp Tubbs S L (1972) Machiavellianism justification and attitude change following counterattitudinal advocacy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 22 366-371 Chapman A L Gremore T M amp Farmer R F (2003) Psychometric analysis of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory with female inmates Journal of Personality Assessment 80(2) 164-172 Chatzisarantis N L D Hagger M S amp Wang J C K (2008) An experimental test of cognitive dissonance theory in the domain of physical exercise Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 20(1) 97-115 Christie R (1970a) Why Machiavelli In R Christie amp F Geis (Eds) Studies in Machiavellianism (pp1-9) New York Academic Press Christie R (1970b) Relationships between Machiavellianism and measures of ability opinion and personality In R Christie amp F Geis (Eds) Studies in Machiavellianism (pp35-52) New York Academic Press Christie R amp Geis F L (1970) Studies in Machiavellianism New York Academic Press
101
Cima M Tonnaer F amp Lobbestael J (2007) Moral emotions in predatory and impulsive offenders using implicit measures Netherlands Journal of Psychology 63(4) 144-155 Cleckley H (1976) The mask of sanity (5th ed) St Louis C V Mosby (Originally published 1941) Cooke D J Kosson D S amp Michie C (2001) Psychopathy and ethnicity Structural item and test generalizability of the Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (PCL-R) in Caucasian and African American participants Psychological Assessment 13(4) 531-542 Cooper J (1971) Personal responsibility and dissonance The role of foreseen consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18(3) 354-363 Cooper J (1999) Unwanted consequences and the self In search of the motivation for dissonance reduction In E Harmon-Jones amp J Mills (Eds) Cognitive dissonance Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp149-173) Washington DC American Psychological Association Cooper J amp Fazio R H (1984) A new look at dissonance theory In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental psychology (Vol 17 pp 229-262) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Cooper J amp Worchel S (1970) Role of undesired consequences in arousing cognitive dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(2) 199-206 Croyle R amp Cooper J (1983) Dissonance arousal Physiological evidence Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 782-791 Davis K E amp Jones E E (1960) Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61(3) 402-410 Edens J Marcus D Lilienfeld S O amp Poythress N G (2006) Psychopathic not psychopath Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of psychopathy Journal of Abnormal Psychology 115(1) 131-144 Elkin R A amp Leippe M R (1986) Physiological arousal dissonance and attitude change Evidence for a dissonance-arousal link and a ldquodonrsquot remind merdquo effect Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 55-65 Elliot A J amp Devine P G (1994) On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance Dissonance as psychological discomfort Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(3) 382-394 Epstein G F (1969) Machiavelli and the devilrsquos advocate Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 11(1) 38-41
102
Fehr B Samsom D amp Paulhus D L (1992) The construct of Machiavellianism Twenty years later In CD Spielberger amp J N Butcher (Eds) Advances in personality assessment (pp 77-116) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance Stanford CA Stanford University Press Festinger L amp Carlsmith J M (1959) Cognitive consequences of forced compliance Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58 203-210 Fowles D C (1980) The three arousal model Implications of Grayrsquos two-factor learning theory for heart rate electrodermal activity and psychopathy Psychophysiology 17 87-104 Goethals G R amp Cooper J (1972) Role of intention and postbehavioral consequence in the arousal of cognitive dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23 293- 301 Greenwald H A (1967) Active psychotherapy New York Atherton Hare R D (1978) Psychopathy and electrodermal responses to nonsignal stimulation Biological Psychology 6 237-246 Hare R D (1985) Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psycopathy Journal of Clinical and Counseling Psychology 53 7-16 Hare R D (1991) Manual for the Hare Psycopathy Checklist-Revised Toronto
Multi-Health Systems
Hare R D (1993) Without conscience The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us New York Pocket Books Hare R D amp McPherson L M (1984) Violent and aggressive behavior by criminal psychopaths International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 7(1) 35-50 Hare R D amp Neumann C S (2006) The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy Development structural properties and new directions In C J Patrick (Ed) Handbook of psychopathy (pp 58-88) New York The Guilford Press Harmon-Jones E amp Mills J (1999) An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory In E Harmon-Jones amp J Mills (Eds) Cognitive dissonance Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp3-21) Washington DC American Psychological Association Harpur T J Hare R D amp Hakstian A R (1989) Two factor conceptualization of psychopathy Construct validity and assessment implications Psychological Assessment A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1 6-17
103
Hart S D amp Hare R D (1995) Psychopathy and risk assessment Issues in Criminological amp Legal Psychology 24 63-67 Hart S D amp Hare R D (1997) Psychopathy Assessment and association with criminal conduct In D M Stoff J Breiling amp J D Master (Eds) Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp 22-35) NY John Wiley and Sons Hemphill J F Hare R D amp Wong S (1998) Psychopathy and recidivism A review Legal and Criminological Psychology 3(1) 139-170 Karpman B (1941) On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types The symptomatic and the idiopathic Journal of Criminology and Psychopathology 3 112- 137 Karpman B (1948) The myth of the psychopathic personality American Journal of Psychiatry 104 523-534 Levenson M (1990) Risk taking and personality Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 1073-1081 Levenson M Kiehl K amp Fitzpatrick C (1995) Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(1) 151-158 Lilienfeld SO (1994) Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy Clinical Psychology Review 14 17-38 Lilienfeld SO amp Andrews BP (1996) Development and preliminary validation of a self report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations Journal of Personality Assessment 66 488-524 Lilienfeld S O amp Hess T H (2001) Psychopathic personality traits and somatization Sex differences and the mediating role of negative emotionality Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 23(1) 11-24 Lilienfeld S O Skeem J L amp Poythress N G (2004 March) Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society Scottsdale AZ Lilienfeld S O amp Widows M R (2005) PPI-R professional manual Lutz FL Psychological Assessment Resources Linder D E Cooper J amp Jones E E (1967) Decision freedom as a determinant of the role of incentive magnitude in attitude change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6 245-254
104
Lyyken D T (1957) A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55 6-10 Lykken D T (1995) The antisocial personalities Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Lynam D R Whiteside S amp Jones S (1999) Self-reported psychopathy A validation study Journal of Personality Assessment 73(1) 110-132 Machiavelli N (1981) The Prince New York Bantam Books (Original work published 1513) Marcus D K amp Edens J F (2004) A taxometric analysis of psychopathic personality Journal of Abnormal Psychology 113 626-635 Martinez D C (1981) Differences among Chicano and White students on items of Machiavellianism scale Psychological Reports 48(2) 433-434
McHoskey J W Worzel W amp Szyarto C (1998) Machiavellianism and psychopathy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 192-210 Meloy J R (1998) The psychopathic mind Maryland Rowman amp Littlefield Publishers Inc
Murrie D C amp Cornell D G (2002) Psychopathy screening of incarcerated juveniles A comparison of measures Psychological Assessment 14 390-396 Patrick C J (Ed) (2006) Handbook of psychopathy New York The Guilford Press Patrick C J Bradley R H amp Lang P J (1993) Emotion in the criminal psychopath Startle reflex modulation Journal of Abnormal Psychology 102(1) 82-92 Pethman T M amp Erlandsson S I (2002) Aberrant self-promotion or subclinical psychopathy in a Swedish general population The Psychological Record 52 33-50 Porter S (1996) Without conscious or without active conscious The etiology of psychopathy revisited Aggression and Violent Behavior 1 179-189 Raine A (2002) Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adults A review Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 30 311ndash326 Ray J J amp Ray J A (1982) Some apparent advantages of subclinical psychopathy Journal of Social Psychology 117 135-142 Rutherford M J Cacciola J S amp Alterman A I (1999) Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in cocaine-dependent women American Journal of Psyciatry 156 849-856
105
Saruk S (1975) A comparison of Machiavellianism values and locus of control in psychopathic groups (Doctoral Dissertation Unites States International University 1975) Dissertation Abstracts International 36 458-B Seacuteneacutemeaud C amp Somat A (2009) Dissonance arousal and persistence in attitude change Swiss Journal of Psychology 68(1) 25-31 Shadish W R Cook T D amp Campbell D T (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (pp 230) Boston MA Houghton Mifflin Company Sherman S J (1970) Attitudinal effects of unforeseen consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(3) 510-520 Skeem J amp Lilienfeld S O (2004 March) Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society Scottsdale AZ Skinner N F (1982) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism IV Machiavellianism and psychopathology Social Behavior and Personality 10(2) 201-203 Skinner N F (1988) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism VI Machiavellianism and the psychopath Social Behavior and Personality 16 33-37 Smith R J (1999) Psychopathic behavior and issues of treatment New Ideas in Psychology 17 165-176 Smith E R amp Mackie D (Eds) (2000) Social Psychology (2nd ed)Kendallville IN Taylor amp Francis Smith R J amp Madjarov G (2008) Machiavellianism and psychopathy An East-West note Social Behavior and Personality 36(2) 255-256 Steele C M amp Liu T J (1983) Dissonance processes as self affirmation Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 5-19 Strelau J (1983) A regulative theory of temperament Australian Journal of Psychology 35 305-317 Sullivan E A Abramowitz C S Lopez M amp Kosson D S (2006) Reliability and construct validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised for Latino European American and African American male inmates Psychological Assessment 18(4) 382-392 Swogger M T Walsh Z amp Kosson D S (2008) Psychopathy subtypes among African American county jail inmates Criminal Justice and Behavior 35(12) 1484-1499
106
Valdez A Kaplan C D amp Codina E (2000) Psychopathy among Mexican American gang members A comparative study International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44(1) 46-58 Walsh A amp Wu H-H (2008) Differentiating antisocial personality disorder psychopathy and sociopathy Evolutionary genetic neurological and sociological considerations Criminal Justice Studies A Critical Journal of Crime Law amp Society 21(2) 135-152 Wastell C amp Booth A (2003) Machiavellianism An alexithymic perspective Journal of Social amp Clinical Psychology 22(6) 730-744 Weir J M (2007) Subtyping psychopathy Exploring the roles of degree of punishment cognitive dissonance and optimism Dissertation Abstracts International Section B The Sciences and Engineering 68(4-B) 2694 Wilson D L Frick P J amp Clements C B (1999) Gender somatization and psychopathic traits in a college sample Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 21(3) 221-235 Wilson D S Near D amp Miller R R (1996) Machiavellianism A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures Psychological Bulletin 119(2) 285-299 Zanna M P amp Cooper J (1974) Dissonance and the pill An attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29 703-709 Zanna M P Goethals G R amp Cooper J (1975) Misleading vs mistreating another person as consequences producing self-justificatory attitude change European Journal of Social Psychology 5 133-137
107
Appendix A
Script to be Used With High perceived choice Group
ldquoThank you for your participation in this task Irsquod like to explain what this has been all about so
you have some idea of why you were doing this task There are actually 2 groups in the
experiment In one group the group you were just in we bring the participant in and give him or
her no introduction to the experiment That is all we tell them is the instructions for how to do
the task and they have no idea what the experiment is really about or what they will have to do
But the other group before they begin the task we like to prep them What I mean by this is that
while they are still waiting in the hall we tell them what the experiment is going to be about so
we tell them it is a reaction task that they will be timed and they will be pushing balls along an
abacus etc Most importantly we also tell them that the task is going to be fun and enjoyable We
do this because we want to see if having a positive attitude about the task before you begin will
affect your ability on the task What we are interested in is comparing the performance of people
who know nothing about the experiment such as yourself with those people who expect the task
to be interesting and exciting
So normally we have another student who works for us and that student preps the person
while they are still in the hall so tells them about the task and that it is going to be fun and then
brings the person in to me to do the task However that person couldnrsquot be here today
Now I have an unusual request that I have to make I talked to my advisor Dr Wood and he
suggested that I might ask my real participant to talk to the next participant for me
You donrsquot have to but if you would be willing to do this for me all I would ask you to do
is to tell the next participant who is now in the hall that this task is fun and enjoyable So Irsquod
take you into the hall introduce you to the next person and then give you about 1 minute to
108
begin your conversation and tell him or her that this experimental task will be fun Itrsquos up to you
of course but do you think you could help me out by doing this for me
109
Appendix A
Script for Use With the Low perceived choice Group
ldquoThank you for your participation in this task Irsquod like to explain what this has been all about so
you have some idea of why you were doing this task There are actually 2 groups in the
experiment In one group the group you were just in we bring the participant in and give him or
her no introduction to the experiment That is all we tell them is what they need to know to do
the task and they have no idea what the experiment is really about or what they will have to do
But the other group before they begin the task we tell them what the experiment is going to be
about and that it is going to be fun and enjoyable We do this because we want to see if having a
positive attitude about the task before you begin will affect your ability on the task So normally
we have another student who works for us and what I do is take him into the hall that you were
just in and introduce him as though he had just finished the experiment This paid student then
starts a conversation with the next participant and tells him or her about the experiment and how
interesting and fun it was What we are interested in of course is comparing the performance of
people who know nothing about the experiment such as yourself with those people who expect
the task to be interesting and exciting
Now I have an unusual request I have to make The student that we have hired to talk to
the next participant about the study couldnt make it today He just called a few minutes ago My
advisor told me to just have one of my actual participants do it So what you will have to do is to
tell the next participant who is now in the hall that this task is exciting interesting and
enjoyable Irsquoll take you into the hall introduce you to the next participant and then give you
about 2 minutes to begin your conversation and tell him or her that this experimental task will be
fun Are you ready
110
Appendix B
Demographic Information
Age _____
Gender _____
Ethnicity (check only one)
Mexican American ____
Mexican National ____
Hispanic ____
Caucasian ____
Asian ____
African American ____
Other ____
111
Appendix B
University of Texas Psychology Department
Post Experiment Evaluation Form
This form is to be completed immediately following participation in a UTEP Psychology experiment The department is evaluating the research that is currently being conducted and would like your opinion on the effectiveness of the experiment you just participated in Please take the time to fill out this brief survey Please circle the answer that best describes your feelings about the experiment you just participated in Your responses will remain confidential and will only be reviewed by departmental staff Once you have completed the survey place it in the envelope provided for you and seal the envelope
The following items are about the experiment you just participated in Please circle how much you agree with the following statement
1 The task in this experiment was enjoyable
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
2 I feel that I learned a lot from this experiment
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
112
3 I feel that the results of this study will have scientific value
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
4 I would enjoy participating in future experiments similar to this one
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly 5 I felt guilty during this experiment
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly 6 I felt comfortable at all times during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
113
7 I felt that I had free will at all times during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
8 I felt pressured by the experimenter during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
114
Appendix C Date _________________
LPSP
Listed below are a number of statements Each represents a commonly held opinion and there are no right or wrong answers You will probably disagree with some items and agree with others Please read each statement carefully and circle the number which best describes the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement or the extent to which each statement applies to you
ITEM Strongly Disagree
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Strongly Agree
1 Success is based on survival of the fittest I am not concerned about the losers
1 2 3 4
2 For me whatrsquos right is whatever I can get away with
1 2 3 4
3 In todayrsquos world I feel justified in doing anything I can get away with to succeed
1 2 3 4
4 My main purpose in life is getting as many goodies as I can
1 2 3 4
5 Making a lot of money is my most important goal
1 2 3 4
6 I let others worry about higher values my main concern is with the bottom line
1 2 3 4
7 People who are stupid enough to get ripped off usually deserve it
1 2 3 4
8 Looking out for myself is my top priority
1 2 3 4
9 I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do
1 2 3 4
10 I would be upset if my success came at someone elsersquos expense
1 2 3 4
115
Appendix C (LPSP Continued)
ITEM Disagree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Agree Strongly
11 I often admire a really clever scam 1 2 3 4
12 I make a point of trying not to hurt others in pursuit of my goals
1 2 3 4
13 I enjoy manipulating other peoplersquos feelings
1 2 3 4
14 I feel bad if my words or actions cause someone else to feel emotional pain
1 2 3 4
15 Even if I were trying very hard to sell something I wouldnrsquot lie about it
1 2 3 4
16 Cheating is not justified because it is unfair to others
1 2 3 4
17 I find myself in the same kinds of trouble time after time
1 2 3 4
18 I am often bored 1 2 3 4
19 I find that I am able to pursue one goal for a long time
1 2 3 4
20 I donrsquot plan anything very far in advance
1 2 3 4
21 I quickly lose interest in tasks I start 1 2 3 4
22 Most of my problems are due to the fact that other people just donrsquot understand me
1 2 3 4
23 Before I do anything I carefully consider the possible consequences
1 2 3 4
24 I have been in a lot of shouting matches with other people
1 2 3 4
25 When I get frustrated I often let off steam by blowing my top
1 2 3 4
26 Love is overrated 1 2 3 4
116
Appendix D
PPI-R SF
This test measures different personality characteristics ndash that is the ways in which peoplersquos personality styles make them different from each other Read each statement carefully and decide how false or true it is as a description of you Then mark the best choice by circling the number that corresponds to your answer Use the answer choices provided below 1 = False 2 = Mostly False 3 = Mostly True 4 = True Even if you feel that an item is neither false nor true as applied to you or if you are unsure about what response to make please answer all of the items If you cannot make up your mind about an item select the choice that is closest to your opinion Here is a sample item
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True
I enjoy going to the movies 1 2 3 4 If it is true that you enjoy going to the movies circle the 4 to the right of the question as shown below
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True
I enjoy going to the movies 1 2 3
If it is mostly false that you enjoy going to the movies you would circle the 2 to the right of the item and so on Try to be as honest as you can and be sure to give your own opinion about whether each item is false or true about you Now please begin by circling the response next to the item that best represents your opinion about yourself
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 1 Dangerous activities like skydiving scare me more than they do most people
1
2
3
4
2 I have always seen myself as something of a rebel
1
2
3
4
3 I am easily flustered in pressured situations
1
2
3
4
4 I would find the job of a movie stunt person exciting
1
2
3
4
4
117
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 5 I might like to hang out with people who drift from city to city with no permanent home
1
2
3
4
6 A lot of people have tried to ldquostab me in the backrdquo
1
2
3
4
7 I get mad if I donrsquot receive special favors I deserve
1
2
3
4
8 I am hardly ever the center of attention
1
2
3
4
9 It might be exciting to be on a plane that was about to crash but somehow landed safely
1
2
3
4
10 A lot of times I worry when a friend is having personal problems
1
2
3
4
11 I tend to get crabby and irritable when I have too many things to do
1
2
3
4
12 I get mad when I hear about the injustices in the world
1
2
3
4
13 I donrsquot let everyday hassles get on my nerves
1
2
3
4
14 I could be a good con artist
1
2
3
4
15 I have a talent for getting people to talk to me
1
2
3
4
16 I might like to travel around the country with some motorcyclists and cause trouble
1
2
3
4
17 In conversations Irsquom the one who does most of the talking
1
2
3
4
18 I feel sure of myself when Im around other people
1
2
3
4
19 Parachute jumping would really scare me
1
2
3
4
118
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 20 When people lend me something I try to get it back to them quickly
1
2
3
4
21 I like to stand out in a crowd
1
2
3
4
22 It would be fun to fly a small airplane by myself
1
2
3
4
23 In school or at work I try to stretch the rules just to see what I can get away with
1
2
3
4
24 Irsquove often been betrayed by people I trusted
1
2
3
4
25 It would break my heart to see a poor or homeless person walking the streets at night
1
2
3
4
26 Some people say that I am a ldquoworry wartrdquo
1
2
3
4
27 It bothers me a lot when I see someone crying
1
2
3
4
28 I get stressed out when Irsquom ldquojugglingrdquo too many tasks
1
2
3
4
29 Itrsquos easy for me to go up to a stranger and introduce myself
1
2
3
4
30 I donrsquot care about following the ldquorulesrdquo I make up my own rules as I go along
1
2
3
4
31 Irsquove been the victim of a lot of bad luck
1
2
3
4
32 Im hardly ever the life of the party
1
2
3
4
33 Irsquove thought a lot about my long-term career goals
1
2
3
4
34 Some people have gone out of their way to make my life difficult
1
2
3
4
119
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 35 I sometimes lie just to see if I can get someone to believe me
1
2
3
4
36 I like my life to be unpredictable and surprising
1
2
3
4
37 I get very upset when I see photographs of starving people
1
2
3
4
38 I might like flying across the ocean in a hot-air balloon
1
2
3
4
39 I worry about things even when therersquos no reason to
1
2
3
4
40 When I am doing something important like taking a test or doing my taxes I check it over first
1
2
3
4
41 People I thought were my ldquofriendsrdquo have gotten me into trouble
1
2
3
4
42 I think long and hard before I make big decisions
1
2
3
4
43 I tell people only the part of the truth they want to hear
1
2
3
4
44 I get blamed for many things that arenrsquot my fault
1
2
3
4
45 I feel bad about myself after I tell a lie
1
2
3
4
46 I quickly get annoyed with people who do not give me what I want
1
2
3
4
47 I would like to have a wild hairstyle
1
2
3
4
48 Irsquom the kind of person who gets ldquostressed outrdquo pretty easily
1
2
3
4
49 I usually think about what Irsquom going to say before I say it
1
2
3
4
120
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 50 Some people have made up stories about me to get me in trouble
1
2
3
4
51 I watch my finances closely
1
2
3
4
52 I am a daredevil
1
2
3
4
53 I would like to hitchhike across the country with no plans
1
2
3
4
54 I try to use my best manners when Irsquom around other people
1
2
3
4
55 I often place my friendsrsquo needs above my own
1
2
3
4
56 If I canrsquot change the rules I try to get others to bend them for me
1
2
3
4
121
Appendix E
MACH Scale (IV)
Below are twenty statements Please read each one and consider your level of agreement Rate each statement using the following scale and record your answers by circling the answer next to each statement that is most representative of how you feel 1 Strongly Agree ndash I agree completely with this statement 2 Somewhat Agree ndash I agree with this statement but not entirely 3 No Opinion ndash I have no opinion about this statement 4 Somewhat Disagree ndash I disagree with this statement but not entirely 5 Strongly Disagree ndash I disagree completely with this statement
Item Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
No Opinion
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1) The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear
1 2 3 4 5
2) When you ask someone to do something for youyou it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which might carry more weight
1 2 3 4 5
3) Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble
1 2 3 4 5
4) It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there
1 2 3 4 5
5) Honesty is the best policy in all cases 1 2 3 4 5
6) Itrsquos safe to assume that all people have a vicious streak that will come out when they are given a chance
1 2 3 4 5
7) Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so
1 2 3 4 5
8) One should take action only when sure it is morally right
1 2 3 4 5
9) It is wise to flatter important people 1 2 3 4 5
122
Appendix E ( MACH-IV Continued)
Item Strongly
Agree Somewhat
Agree No
Opinion Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
10) All in all it is better to be humble and honest than important and dishonest
1 2 3 4 5
11) Barnum was very wrong when he said therersquos a sucker born every minute
1 2 3 4 5
12) People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death
1 2 3 4 5
13) It is possible to be good in all respects 1 2 3 4 5
14) Most people are basically good and kind 1 2 3 4 5
15) There is no excuse for lying to someone else
1 2 3 4 5
16) Most men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their property
1 2 3 4 5
17) Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean moral lives
1 2 3 4 5
18) Generally speaking men wonrsquot work hard unless they are forced to do so
1 2 3 4 5
19) The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught
1 2 3 4 5
20) Most men are brave 1 2 3 4 5
123
Appendix F
Informed Consent Form
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Form for Research Involving Human Subjects
Protocol Title Personality effects on reaction time
Principal Investigator Ashley Murray BA
UTEP Psychology
Introduction
You are being asked to take part voluntarily in the research project described below Before agreeing to take part in this research study it is important that you read the consent form that describes the study Please ask the study researcher or the study staff to explain any words or information that you do not clearly understand
Why is this study being done
You have been asked to take part in a research study looking at how certain personality types differ on reaction times You will be asked to complete 3 separate personality surveys and a reaction time measure Approximately 150 students will be participating in this study at UTEP You are being asked to be in the study because you are currently enrolled as a student at UTEP and are 18 years of age or older
If you decide to enroll in this study your involvement will last approximately an hour and a half
What is involved in the study
If you agree to take part in this study the research team will provide you with a brief demographics form and three personality measures Please fill out all forms and do not skip through the packet Please answer every question to the best of your ability After you have finished answering all of the questions please let the experimenter know You will also be asked
124
to complete a brief peg turning task that measures your physical reaction abilities Your performance on the task will be monitored by the experimenter
What if I want to withdraw or am asked to withdraw from this study
Taking part in this study is voluntary You have the right to choose not to take part in this study If you do not take part in the study there will be no penalty There are no risks or harms related to participating in this study
If you choose to take part you have the right to stop at any time However we encourage you to talk to a member of the research group so that they know why you are leaving the study If there are any new findings during the study that may affect whether you want to continue to take part you will be told about them
Who do I call if I have questions or problems
You may ask any questions you have now If you have questions later you may call Ashley Murray (915-474-5784) or Dr James Wood (915-474-6570)
If you have questions or concerns about your participation as a research subject please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTEP Contact Ms Lola Norton (Institutional Coordinator for Research Review) at (915) 747-7939 or irborsputepedu
What about confidentiality
1 Your part in this study is confidential None of the information will identify you by name All records will be handled only by the research team and will be kept securely locked in a file cabinet when not in use
125
Authorization Statement
I have read each page of this paper about the study (or it was read to me) I know that being in this study is voluntary and I choose to be in this study I know I can stop being in this study without penalty I will get a copy of this consent form now and can get information on results of the study later if I wish
Participant Name Date
Participant Signature Time
Experimenter Signature ___________________________________
126
Post Experimental Informed Consent
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Form for Research Involving Human Subjects
Protocol Title The effects of psychopathy on cognitive dissonance
Principal Investigator Ashley Murray BA
UTEP Psychology
Introduction
The purpose of this research project is to examine how individuals with different personality characteristics react when they are asked to deceive someone else Please ask the study researcher or the study staff to explain any words or information that you do not clearly understand
Why is this study being done
You have been asked to take part in a research study looking at how certain personality types differ on reacting to feelings of guilt You were asked to complete 3 separate personality surveys and an abacus task Approximately 150 students will be participating in this study at UTEP You were recruited to the study because you are currently enrolled as a student at UTEP and are 18 years of age or older
Thank you for participating in this study Your participation as well as the participation of others will help us better understand how different people react when asked to deceive someone else
127
What is involved in the study
During this experiment you were asked to talk with another research participant and tell him or her that the study was enjoyable However you now understand that in reality this person was really just a member of the research team who was pretending to be a research participant Therefore your conversation with him or her did not affect her emotionally or in any other way
The anonymity of your individual responses will be maintained at all times and only group data will be identified and reported
In addition it is very important to the current researchers that you do NOT tell anyone else about what you did here today The integrity of peoplersquos responses is reliant on them not knowing what is about to happen If you tell people ahead of time what to expect their answers and actions will not be accurate and this could negatively affect the outcomes of the study Therefore you will not tell anyone about the details of this experiment or what you did here today
Who do I call if I have questions or problems
You may ask any questions you have now If you have questions later you may call or Ashley Murray (915-474-5784) or Dr James Wood (915-474-6570)
If you have questions or concerns about your participation as a research subject please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTEP Contact Ms Lola Norton (Institutional Coordinator for Research Review) at (915) 747-7939 or irborsputepedu
What about confidentiality
Your part in this study is confidential None of the information will identify you by name All records will be handled only by the research team and will be kept securely locked in a file cabinet when not in use
128
Authorization Statement
I have read each page of this paper about the study (or it was read to me) I know that being in this study is voluntary and I chose to be in this study I know I can stop being in this study without penalty
In addition it is very important that I do NOT tell anyone else about what I did here today The integrity of future participantsrsquo responses depends on them not knowing what is about to happen in this experiment Therefore I agree not to share with my friends or classmates (especially friends or classmates in my psychology classes) any details about what I did here today
By signing this form I understand that I am giving the experimenter permission to use my data
Participant Name Date
Participant Signature Time
Experimenter Signature __________________________________
129
Appendix G
Debriefing Script
ldquoThank you for participating in this study At this time I want to explain the study to you As
you will recall after completing the task where you moved balls back and forth on an abacus you
were asked to tell the next waiting participant that the task he or she was about to complete would
be enjoyable Your conversation with that waiting participant was actually one of the main points
of the experiment The reason why that conversation was important is because we are interested in
how different personality characteristics affect the way individuals respond to guilt The bigger
purpose of the current experiment is to see what personality characteristics make some people feel
guilt while other people do not experience guilt The way that we tried to create guilt today was by
having you tell the next waiting participant that they would enjoy the abacus task Studying guilt
reactions is important to psychology research because it can help us identify the cognitive
processes that people with differing personality characteristics use when they experience guilt
This is an important aspect of human behavior to study and we apologize that in order to examine
guilt reactions we had to mislead you briefly today
At this time we would like to explain that the person you spoke to and told that the abacus task
was going to be enjoyable was actually my research assistant and was only pretending to be a
future participant He (she) was not affected in any negative way by what you said to him (her)
and did not have to perform the peg turning task It was necessary that you think that my research
assistant was a future participant in the study so that your reactions would be genuine for the study
to get honest and accurate results
You should not feel bad for agreeing to tell my assistant that the task would be fun
Psychologists have been doing this kind of experiment for 50 years and nearly everyone agrees to
130
say that the experiment is more enjoyable than it really is You reacted in the same way that the
majority of participants in these kinds of experiments do
Again I would like to remind you that all of your answers and everything you did here today
for this experiment will remain confidential and anonymous Only I and my small research team
will have access to the data collected here today and you are not identified in any way in the data
collected
If you do feel upset or uneasy about your participation in this experiment you can talk to my
mentor Dr James Wood or you can contact the UTEP Counseling Center and I will provide that
contact information to you Do you feel a need to talk with Dr Wood or someone at the counseling
center about this
Finally it is EXTREMELY important that other students do not find out about the purpose of
this experiment If they do we will not be able to run this research anymore Students must come
into our lab with no idea about what the study is actually about Please do not speak to any other
students about this study especially psychology students We will be running this study for about a
year so please do not talk other students about this experiment
Do you understand everything I have said to you Do you have any questions
Again thank you for participating in this study todayrdquo
131
Appendix G
No-Lie Debriefing Script
ldquoThank you for participating in this study At this time I want to explain the study to you As
you will recall after completing the task where you moved balls back and forth on an abacus you
were asked to tell the next waiting participant that the task he or she was about to complete would
be enjoyable Your conversation with that waiting participant was actually one of the main points
of the experiment The reason why that conversation was important is because we are interested in
how different personality characteristics affect the way individuals respond to guilt The bigger
purpose of the current experiment is to see what personality characteristics make some people feel
guilt while other people do not experience guilt The way that we tried to create guilt today was by
having you tell the next waiting participant that they would enjoy the abacus task Studying guilt
reactions is important to psychology research because it can help us identify the cognitive
processes that people with differing personality characteristics use when they experience guilt
This is an important aspect of human behavior to study and we apologize that in order to examine
guilt reactions we had to mislead you briefly today
At this time we would like to explain that the person who acted as the waiting participant was
actually my research assistant and was only pretending to be a future participant He (she) was not
going to be affected in any negative way by what you said to him (her) and did not have to
perform the abacus task It was necessary that you think that my research assistant was a future
participant in the study so that your reactions would be genuine for the study to get honest and
accurate results
Again I would like to remind you that all of your answers and everything you did here today
for this experiment will remain confidential and anonymous Only I and my small research team
132
will have access to the data collected here today and you are not identified in any way in the data
collected
If you do feel upset or uneasy about your participation in this experiment you can talk to my
mentor Dr James Wood or you can contact the UTEP Counseling Center and I will provide that
contact information to you Do you feel a need to talk with Dr Wood or someone at the counseling
center about this
Finally it is EXTREMELY important that other students do not find out about the purpose of
this experiment If they do we will not be able to run this research anymore Students must come
into our lab with no idea about what the study is actually about Please do not speak to any other
students about this study especially psychology students We will be running this study for about a
year so please do not talk other students about this experiment
Do you understand everything I have said to you Do you have any questionsrdquo
Again thank you for participating in this study today
133
Appendix H
Confederate Guilt Manipulation Check Form
I ___________________________ who acted as a confederate for the current study verify that
The participant told me that the task would be fun enjoyable
The participant told me that the task would be fun enjoyable BUT also told me they had to tell me it was enjoyable
The participant told me that the task would be boring
The participant told me about the task BUT did NOT tell me it would be fun enjoyable
The participant did not tell me anything about the experiment
The participant did not talk to me at all
The participant told me that the task would be fun BUT only after being prompted by me
Participant _________
134
Curriculum Vita
Ashley Anne Murray daughter of Scott and Greta Murray was born in Denver CO She
was raised throughout Texas and Montana and in 2006 graduated with High Honors from the
University of Montana with a BA in psychology (research emphasis) While pursuing her
undergraduate degree she was awarded the Kain-McKay Scholarship in recognition of her
achievements in the field of psychology and was in the Phi Kappa Phi Honors Society She also
was employed at the campus Student Assault Resource Center where she provided counseling
and assessments for survivors of domestic violence and rape Upon completion of her BA
Ashley was accepted to the Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology Program at The University of
Texas at El Paso During her graduate studies at UTEP she completed a 350 hour clinical
internship with the PATH Program of The Aliviane Organization at the Opportunity Center of El
Paso Homeless Shelter Through the internship she provided assessments therapy and group
facilitation to homeless individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse
disorders Throughout her graduate studies Ashley worked on multiple projects in two clinical
labs and has worked on manuscripts and presented several posters at national psychology
conferences At UTEP she has worked as a teaching assistant and instructor in the psychology
department She will be going on to obtain her clinical PhD at Simon Fraser University in the
fall of 2009
Permanent Address 2810 Palm Dr
Billings MT 59102
- University of Texas at El Paso
- DigitalCommonsUTEP
-
- 2009-01-01
-
- The effects of psychopathy and Machiavellianism on cognitive dissonance
-
- Ashley Anne Murray
-
- Recommended Citation
-
- Introduction
- Why is this study being done
- Introduction
- Why is this study being done
-
v
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Dr James Wood for his wisdom knowledge and patience in guiding me
through this process In addition special thanks to Dr Scott Lilienfeld for assisting as an outside
consultant and lending his expertise in psychopathy research to this project
vi
Abstract
Psychopathic traits include a lack of guilt a lack of remorse callousness and antisocial behaviors
such as impulsivity and aggression The current study examined the effects of psychopathic traits
as measured by the Psychopathic Personality Inventory ndash Revised Short Form (PPI-R SF
Lilienfeld amp Widows 2005) and the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales
(LPSP Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995) and of Machiavellianism (MACH) as measured
by the MACH-IV (Christie amp Geis 1970) on cognitive dissonance in a sample of 164
participants The induced compliance paradigm of cognitive dissonance was implemented by
instructing each participant to complete a boring task inspired by the seminal cognitive
dissonance experiment by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) Afterward feelings of guilt and
psychological unease were induced by asking the participant to mislead a second participant
(actually a confederate) by telling him that the task was enjoyable Participantsrsquo level of guilt
over telling the lie was experimentally manipulated Half of the participants were directly and
firmly instructed to tell the lie (low perceived choice low guilt condition) whereas the other half
of the participants were politely requested but not instructed to tell the lie (high perceived
choice high guilt condition) As predicted participants low in psychopathy (as measured by the
PPI-R SF and LPSP) exhibited the classic cognitive dissonance effect whereas participants high
in psychopathy did not exhibit the effect Results for MACH were not significant The
implications of these results are important for cognitive dissonance research because they point
to a subset of the population (psychopaths) possibly confounding results of past studies on
cognitive dissonance In addition the results point to definitive cognitive differences between
individuals with varying levels of psychopathy
vii
Table of Contents
Dedicationhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipiii
Acknowledgementshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipv
Abstracthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipvi
Table of Contentshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipvii
List of Tableshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipix
List of Figureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipx
Chapter 1 Introductionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1
11 Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1
12 Justification for the Current Studyrsquos Procedural Designhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7
13 Cooperrsquos New Look Theory of Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10
14 Psychopathy Effects on Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12
15 Machiavellianismhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20
16 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip23
17 Hypotheses of the Present Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip29
Chapter 2 Methodshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip32
Chapter 3 Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip41
31 Confirmatory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip44
32 Exploratory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55
Chapter 4 Discussionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76
41 Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effecthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76
42 Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip78
43 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip88
44 Psychopathy Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment (Over MACH)hellip90
viii
45 Additional Exploratory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip91
Limitations and Future Directionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip94
Conclusionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip99
Referenceshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip100
Appendix Ahelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip107
Appendix Bhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip110
Appendix Chelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip114
Appendix Dhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip116
Appendix Ehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip121
Appendix Fhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip123
Appendix Ghelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip129
Appendix Hhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip133
Curriculum Vitahelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip134
ix
List of Tables
Table 1 Descriptive Information for the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Predictors and Dependent Variablehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43 Table 2 Multiple Regression Results Criterion is Self-Reported Enjoyment of the Abacus Tasks Predictors are the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores and Subscales Each Row Represents Results From One Multiple Regressionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip50 Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (PPI-RSF) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianismhellip54 Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (LPSP) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianismhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55 Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56 Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (LPSP)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57 Table 7 Correlations Between the Total Scores of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip62 Table 8 Correlations Between the PPI-R SF LPSP MACH-IV Their Factors and Subscales65 Table 9 Multiple Regression Results Criterion is Self-Reported Guilt After Misleading the Confederate Predictors are the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores and Subscales Each Row Represents Results From One Multiple Regressionhelliphelliphelliphelliphellip69 Table 10 Factor Solutions Between PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scorehelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70 Table 11 Factor Loadings of Total Item Factor Analysishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip72 Table 12 Factor Loadings of the Psychopathy and MACH Measures Subscaleshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip75 Table 13 Interactions of Psychopathy Subscales and Factor Scales with Choice Condition by the Two Factor (Cognitive or Behavioral) Psychopathy Solution Demonstrated by Past Research (Self-Reported Enjoyment as Criterion)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip86
x
List of Figures
Figure 1 Main Effect for Mean Task Enjoyment Across Choice Conditionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45 Figure 2 Relationship of PPI-R SF Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 Figure 3 Relationship of PPI-R SF Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 Figure 4 Relationship of LPSP Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49 Figure 5 Relationship of LPSP Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49 Figure 6 Relationship of MACH-IV Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52 Figure 7 Relationship of MACH-IV Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Psychopathy is a personality construct that has demonstrated negative consequences for
society For example individuals with psychopathy are overrepresented in prison populations
and commit more violent crimes (Hare 1996) Though psychopathy is represented in
approximately one to five percent of the population it is represented in 15-25 of prison
populations (Hare 1996) To date there is no identifiable treatment for psychopathy and no
definitive understanding of the causes or etiology of this construct Therefore it is important to
identify the specific pervasive and maladaptive cognitive aspects of psychopathy in order to
better treat and assess this personality construct One of the first steps in this process is to
identify how individuals with psychopathy differ cognitively and emotionally from people who
lack these traits The current study intends to identify a significant difference between
individuals with higher and lower levels of psychopathy in regard to how they experience
cognitive dissonance and more specifically guilt
11 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a well researched psychological phenomenon that is defined as
the tendency to change a previously held belief or moral to justify a behavior the person is asked
to perform (Festinger 1957) The key feature of cognitive dissonance that seems to cause
individuals to change their cognitions following a dissonant action or thought is a feeling of
unease (tension) that immediately follows the performance of the behavior Therefore it is
theorized that people alter their beliefs in order to reduce the unpleasant feelings that arise due to
the inconsistency among their cognitions and actions (Aronson 1968 Festinger 1957 Harmon-
Jones amp Mills 1999) Cognitive dissonance involves complex cognitive restructuring and for
this reason the attitude change that results is often pervasive (Smith amp Mackie 2000) This
2
phenomenon has been consistently demonstrated in research and is considered a universal pattern
of behavior across individuals
The theory of cognitive dissonance was originally proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957
He found that when people have little or no external justification for performing a behavior that
goes against their personally held beliefs they will often change their preexisting beliefs to
match the action For example in a landmark study of cognitive dissonance Festinger and
Carlsmith (1959) asked participants to perform a boring task (turning pegs on a board) and then
asked them to tell the next participant (a confederate) that the task would be enjoyable for either
a $1 or $20 compensation The authors found that participants who were paid the smaller amount
($1) and thus had very little external justification for lying to the confederate later reported to
the experimenter that they enjoyed the hour-long peg turning task much more that the
participants who were paid $20 Festinger and Carlsmith surmised that the results of this study
demonstrated that the participants who were paid $20 to mislead a confederate had a high
enough external justification for lying and did not experience sufficient psychological tension
over the discrepancy between their cognitions and behaviors to warrant an attitude shift
However participants who were only paid $1 to mislead the confederate experienced higher
levels of psychological unease over the lie because of the insignificant amount of external
justification and thus had to rely on attitude shift to ameliorate their negative feelings
Cognitive dissonance research defines peoplersquos actions and beliefs as either consonant or
dissonant with one another Consonant cognitions are thoughts that are in accordance with a
personrsquos other thoughts or behaviors (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) For example if a person
felt concern about the environment and decided to volunteer every Saturday to pick up litter on
the highway he would have consonant cognitions and behaviors (they match) On the other
3
hand if two cognitions are not relevant to one another or a thought does not match onersquos
behavior they are said to be dissonant and create inner turmoil within the person which then
motivates the individual to reduce the dissonance An example of this would be if a person was
raised to believe that stealing was wrong and then stole petty merchandise Once this dissonant
action is performed the individual must then find a way to reduce the internal unease that the
behavior created
According to Smith and Mackie (2000) in order for cognitive dissonance to arise and
create an attitude shift four conditions must be met First the individual must perceive his or her
behavior to be inconsistent with what he or she would normally be inclined to do Next the
person must take responsibility for freely engaging in the behavior In order for this condition to
be met the amount of external justification must be reduced or eliminated (ie no reward or
punishment for completing the task) Third negative physiological arousal needs to take place
for the individual to want to change the way they feel Finally the individual must attribute the
negative arousal to the action that he or she has just committed (Smith amp Mackie 2000)
People reduce dissonance in many ways (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Examples of
how people reduce dissonance include a) attempts to remove the dissonant cognition (ie a
smoker would try to stop thinking about the negative aspects of smoking on health) b) reduce
the importance of the dissonant cognition (ie a smoker placing higher importance on being
more likely to die in a car accident than by smoking) c) increasing the importance of consonant
cognitions over dissonant ones (ie smoking is enjoyable and makes me feel relaxed which is
important to me) (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) As one can see all of these methods of
reducing dissonance involve focusing onersquos thoughts and emotions away from the dissonant
cognition (ie smoking is bad for me)
4
Cognitive Dissonance Psychological Tension and Physiological Arousal
Conceptually Festinger (1957) theorized that cognitive dissonance contains ldquodrive-likerdquo
properties that manifest as psychological tension and unease and that the psychological unease
can also manifest as physical tensions Once a person experiences the psychological and physical
unease then often an attitude shift occurs that alleviates the tensions An example that lends
support for this theory that physiological arousal precedes cognitive dissonance came from a
study conducted by Zanna and Cooper (1974) The researchers wanted to identify the physical
arousal properties associated with cognitive dissonance Zanna and Cooper gave participants a
placebo pill and told 13 of them that the pill made people feel tense 13 that the pill caused
relaxation and the final 13 that the pill had no effect Next the authors instructed participants
(under the guise of a different experiment) to write a counterattitudinal essay advocating a
campus ban of inflammatory speakers under high or low perceived choice Participants in the
low perceived choice condition were directly instructed to write the counterattitudinal essay
whereas people in the high perceived choice group were politely asked to write the essay giving
them the choice to perform the dissonant action which is a key factor in eliciting the tension
associated with cognitive dissonance The dependent measure of this study was the amount of
attitude shift participants reported experiencing on a post experimental questionnaire
Participants were given a questionnaire before the study began that assessed their preference for
adopting a campus ban on inflammatory speakers and only participants who opposed the ban
were included in the study The questionnaire asked participants to identify on a 31 point Likert
scale how much they were in favor of a campus ban on inflammatory speakers After the essay
writing manipulation portion of the experiment (where participants under high and low perceived
choice wrote a pro-ban essay) their opinion of the campus ban was again assessed with the same
5
31 point Likert scale In addition the effectiveness of the choice manipulation was assessed on
the post experimental questionnaire with the question ldquoHow free did you feel to decline to
participate in this Ivy League Administrators research projectrdquo
In the study by Zanna and Cooper (1974) an attitude shift (between the pre and post
experimental questionnaires) toward favoring the speaker ban was the expected results for the
control and relaxation inducing pill groups The authors anticipated this attitude shift due to the
previous research of Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) They hypothesized that if participants had
no external justification for feeling negatively about writing a pro-ban essay when they
previously had spoken against the ban then they must change their cognitions as previously
suggested by Festinger (1957) in his cognitive dissonance theory In accordance with Zanna and
Cooperrsquos hypotheses results indicated that the individuals who were in the tension-inducing pill
group reported significantly lower attitude shift because they were able to attribute their
tenseness and negative feelings about performing the dissonant actions to the pill rather than to
their internal turmoil On the other hand participants in the relaxation pill group evidenced the
opposite reaction these individuals experienced more attitude shift after writing the
counterattitudinal essay due to their inability to attribute their tense feelings to an external source
(the pill) In other words the people in the relaxation pill group were unable to locate an external
source that explained their feelings of unease and thus had to rely on attitude shift to ameliorate
the tension they felt over the discrepancy between their beliefs and actions
Zanna and Cooper (1974) also found that choice had an impact on attitude shift such that
participants in the high perceived choice group evidenced more attitude shift than participants in
the low perceived choice group This finding further demonstrates the need for external
justification to avoid attitude shift participants who were given the choice to write the
6
counterattitudinal essay experienced more tension than the participants who were directly told to
write the essay because of the perceived free will they exercised in writing the statements that
went against their beliefs Thus it appears that attitude shift is most likely to occur when
individuals feel they freely chose to engage in the behavior and did not have any form of external
justification for performing the dissonant action
Cognitive Dissonance and the Induced Compliance Paradigm
Within the dissonance literature several paradigms have been used to elicit attitude shift
in participants (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Of these paradigms the most common is the
induced compliance paradigm (ICP) which is used in the current study The induced compliance
paradigm typically requires participants to perform an undesirable task which arouses dissonance
once performed The key to this paradigm is to induce the participant to engage in an activity
that due to personal predispositions he or she would not ordinarily engage in In addition there
must be low or nonexistent external justification to carry out the negative behavior The absence
of external justification is important because otherwise if external rewards or punishments for
the activity are present the participant will use them to rationalize their actions and dissonance
will not be aroused In the ICP attitude shift is expected to occur when the participant is induced
to perform a counterattitudinal behavior in the absence of external justification
Counterattitudinal behaviors are any that involve doing or saying something that one does
not agree with or would not normally advocate Examples used in cognitive dissonance studies
include writing counterattitudinal essays that have may have negative consequences for other
people (Elkin amp Leippe 1986 Steele amp Liu 1983) or lying to someone about a task being
enjoyable when it was not (Cooper amp Worchel 1970 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959) Within the
ICP participants are provoked by a researcher to perform the counterattitudinal behavior through
7
the manipulation of the participantrsquos amount of choice or reward For example the peg turning
cognitive dissonance study previously mentioned (conducted by Festinger and Carlsmith in
1959) was the first study to use the ICP and reward manipulation (through the use of $1 or $20
to mislead the confederate) was used to induce cognitive dissonance effects These researchers
found that if a person publically behaves in a manner that misrepresents his personal beliefs he
will experience cognitive dissonance and that the magnitude of the dissonance will increase
when there are fewer reasons for complying (such as less reward or more perceived free choice)
A famous study by Linder Cooper and Jones (1967) demonstrated that choice
manipulation within the ICP can induce cognitive dissonance and thus attitude shift
Linder and colleagues asked participants to write an essay (using either high or low perceived
choice manipulation) supporting the ban of Communist speakers at their institution knowing that
the majority of students did not support this ban Participants were screened to make sure that
they did not agree with the ban and then were either directly instructed to write the supportive
essay (the Low perceived choice group) or asked politely to write the pro-ban essay (High
perceived choice group) Results indicated that participants in the high perceived choice group
experienced more attitude shift after completion of the essay toward being in favor of a
Communist speaker campus ban than people in the low perceived choice group Linder and
colleagues interpreted these results as evidence that when people perceive that they have free
will to engage in a dissonant action they cognitively justify their actions (via an attitude or belief
shift) to reduce the negative feelings the dissonant action produced
12 Justification for the Current Studyrsquos Procedural Design
The procedures outlined for the current study were selected due to the significant attitude
shift results that were obtained by using these tasks in two previous experiments First Festinger
and Carlsmith (1959) implemented the peg board task in their original study on cognitive
8
dissonance Participants in the study were required to turn the pegs for one hour and then lie to
the next participant (a confederate) about the task being enjoyable The primary difference
between the Festinger and Carlsmith study and the current proposal is that the former paid
participants either $1 or $20 in order to identify what amount of external justification would lead
to more attitude shift The authors found that the participants in the $20 group had much less
attitude shift about the task because they were able to use the external justification of lying for
$20 whereas participants in the $1 group evidenced significantly more attitude shift due to the
lack of any external justification for lying The authors surmised that $1 was not enough money
to justify lying for participants so they instead had to change their own cognitions to make sense
of their actions (lying to a stranger) thus they convinced themselves that the abacus task wan not
boring
A second important study used a boring task while asking participants to lie to a
confederate Cooper and Worchel (1970) replicated the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study
but rather than using money as the external justification for lying they used small amounts of
experimental credit (1 extra credit vs 5 extra credit) to induce attitude shift However
regardless of the amount of extra credit the authors offered 98 of participants agreed to the
deception task which indicates that the script the experimenters used was effective in inducing
participantsrsquo compliance to lie The current experiment is using the Experimenter and
Confederate Scripts from the study by Cooper and Worchel with only a few minor modifications
to the original scripts For example the Cooper and Worchel study only manipulated a High
perceived choice group so their script was altered slightly in the present study so that it could
also be used for the Low perceived choice group
9
Justification for using the high perceived choice condition to elicit attitude shift comes
from an experiment conducted by Zanna Goethals amp Cooper (1975) Their study implemented
the peg board task and asked participants to lie to a confederate that the task was enjoyable (they
only used the high perceived choice condition to elicit guilt) The study had participants do the
peg turning task for 20 minutes (as opposed to the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study which
required participants to do the task for one hour) Through asking participants to voluntarily
deceive the next participant the authors found that all participants (n=76) agreed to tell the next
participant (really a confederate) that the peg turning task was enjoyable They obtained this
100 compliance rate simply by asking the participant to tell the next person (a confederate) that
the peg turning task was enjoyable The study by Zanna and colleagues also provides support
that conducting the peg turning task for only 20 minutes still induces sufficient boredom in
participants In addition the study found a significant attitude shift toward reporting enjoying a
dull task when voluntarily lying to a confederate (F = 848 plt001) as compared to a control
group who did not have to lie
Finally a study by Elkin and Leippe (1986) used both high and low perceived choice
groups to examine different rates of attitude shift toward a previously counterattitudinal belief
(supporting the implementation of a student parking fee) In the high perceived choice group
participants were given the option to write a counterattitudinal essay (supporting the parking
fee) while in the low perceived choice group participants were told directly to write the
counterattitudinal essay Participantrsquos feeling of guilt was manipulated by telling them that the
counterattitudinal essay they wrote would be used by a panel and may possibly persuade them to
implement the parking fee on the campus Results indicated that all subjects participated in
writing the counterattitudinal essay (100 compliance rates) regardless of what group they were
10
in and subjects in the high perceived choice group evidenced more attitude shift towards paying
for parking than participants in the low perceived choice group The authors concluded that this
attitude shift occurred due to the participantsrsquo lack of external justification for writing the
counterattitudinal essay (they agreed voluntarily to write it) which in turn caused feelings of
guilt for voluntarily lying to the confederate These results indicate that people are apt to perform
counterattitudinal behaviors even when given a high perceived choice not to Due to the studyrsquos
significant attitude shift (cognitive dissonance) results in the High perceived choice group as
opposed to the Low perceived choice group who did not get strong attitude shift results the
current study will compare high and low perceived choice groups to attain the different levels of
cognitive dissonance
Upon discovering the links between free choice and reward leading to attitude shift when
a dissonant act is completed cognitive dissonance researchers attempted to identify specific
components of decision making that would further explain the effects of cognitive dissonance
The key features that have been postulated to explain how and why cognitive dissonance creates
attitude shift include experiencing feelings of personal guilt (Cooper amp Fazio 1984) public
commitment (Aronson 1968) and perceived free choice to commit the behavior (Brehm amp
Cohen 1962) Researchers have come up with competing theories to explain the resulting
cognitive shift that accompanies dissonance and one of the most prominent theories is the New
Look theory
13 Cooperrsquos New Look Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
The New Look theory posits that the effects of dissonance are a result of feeling
personally responsible for instigating future negative consequences for oneself or more often for
others (Cooper amp Fazio 1984) Cooper and Fazio suggested in this theory that aversive
11
consequences are necessary for the arousal of dissonance The authors defined aversive events as
those that block onersquos self interest or events that the individual would rather avoid due to their
undesirable nature The New Look theory posits that the degree of dissonance aroused in an
individual is dependent on the amount of desire a person has to avoid the negative consequences
Cooper and Fazio term this phenomenon dissonance motivation The New Look theory identifies
the consequence of an action as the cause of the subsequent attitude shift The consequence must
be salient and must cause the individual enough distress to warrant attitude shift
Support for this theory came from a study conducted by Goethals and Cooper (1972)
These researchers induced participants (known to be in favor of drinking alcohol) to deliver an
anti-drinking speech to a panel of people Half of the subjects were informed that their speech
convinced the panel that allowing drinking on campus was a bad idea while the other half of
participants were told that the speech they made had no effect on the listeners Results indicated
that only the participants who were led to believe that their speech had a negative effect on the
panel (their speech convinced the panel that drinking was bad) experienced attitude shift toward
being in favor of a drinking ban on campus The participants who were told that they did not
convince the panel did not experience attitude shift toward being against drinking on campus
The authors concluded that unless the participant feels that he negatively impacted another
person then he will not experience enough guilt and dissonance to warrant an attitude shift
Cooper and Worchel (1970) further demonstrated evidence for the New Look theory in
their experiment which replicated the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) peg turning task However
in their study participants were asked to deceive a confederate (only a high perceived choice
group) for a small amount of experimental credit (1 credit or 5 credits) Results indicated that
participants who felt they had the free will to deceive another person and did so experienced
12
such a negative consequence that in order to alleviate feelings of internal unease they changed
their own attitude and reported enjoying the peg turning task more than a control group who did
not have to lie to another person (who experienced no aversive consequence to their behavior)
Therefore Cooper in his New Look theory postulated that most people experience cognitive
dissonance following an aversive act that impacts another person or the self negatively
especially when the negative act violates normative social standards (Cooper 1999)
The aforementioned aspects of Cooperrsquos New Look theory are crucial to the current study
because we hypothesized that the average person will experience cognitive dissonance and thus
attitude change after committing an aversive act (lying to a confederate) which they felt they
freely chose to do The current experiment intended to explore Cooperrsquos New Look theory to not
only validate it in a normal population but also to test its effectiveness in a subpopulation that
experiences lower levels of guilt and remorse The current experiment intended to explore
Cooperrsquos New Look theory to not only validate it in a normal population but also to test its
effectiveness in a subpopulation that experiences lower levels of guilt and remorse If the theory
is correct that cognitive dissonance effects are due to feelings of tension or unease over having
caused negative consequences to another individual then it is the hypothesis of the current
researchers that individuals who felt less guilt over breaking social norms would not be as
cognitively affected by lying to another person Therefore the person with less ability to
experience guilt would not experience psychological distress from lying and ultimately therefore
not have an attitude shift
14 Psychopathy Effects on Cognitive Dissonance
The New Look theory proposes that an important cause of cognitive dissonance is often
the feeling of remorse that an individual experiences after performing a counterattitudinal
13
behavior with negative consequences for another person The questions naturally arise How
would individuals with little or no guilt perform on a cognitive dissonance task that arouses
guilt Would people lacking these cognitive reactions experience cognitive dissonance and
attitude shift following a dissonant action In order to answer these questions one must first
identify a group of people that consistently exhibit a lack of concern for others such as
individuals with psychopathic traits
Psychopathy is a pervasive heterogeneous personality construct that is particularly salient
for the current study due to the callous nature of individuals with these traits Psychopaths are
individuals who exhibit no remorse are callous unemotional and lack concern for societyrsquos
morays In addition they are often impulsive antisocial manipulative and do not have strong
social bonds with others (Hare 1993 Patrick 2006) Approximately one percent of the
population meets criteria for the diagnosis of psychopathy though 15-25 of the prison
population is diagnosed with psychopathy (Hare 1996) Within the criminal population
individuals with psychopathy are not only overrepresented but they also commit more violent
crimes (over half in the United States) and recidivate four times more often than prisoners
without psychopathy (Hare 1993) As one can see these crime statistics make this population a
danger to society and thus it is important to attempt to identify what underlying cognitive and
behavioral differences exist in people with psychopathy
Psychopathy is often discussed in relation to antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) by
many scholars (Hare 1993 Lilienfeld 1994) because of the high number of correlated traits
between the two personality constructs Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is classified as
an Axis II Cluster B disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV-TR) (American
Psychological Association APA 1994) Cluster B disorders are ones in which the individual
14
exhibits unpredictable impulsive or dramatic behavior The DSM IV-TR criteria necessary for a
diagnosis of ASPD includes impulsive and aggressive behavior conduct disorder (CD) in
childhood a history of criminal acts and violent disregard for others (APA 1994)
Psychopathy is differentiated from ASPD in that psychopathy incorporates the cognitive
and internal states of the individual in addition to his or her external behaviors (Hare 1999) In
fact the cognitive and interpersonal features of psychopathy are considered to be the most
crucial defining aspects of the personality construct (Patrick 2006) Psychopaths have
demonstrated an inability to internalize their culturersquos moral or legal standards and therefore
many people with psychopathy do not abide by these rules
Historically Phillipe Pinel was the first scientist to document the condition of
psychopathy in the early 19th century (Meloy 1998) Pinel noted that psychopaths exhibited no
remorse or internal restraint Hervey Cleckley (1941 1976) furthered research on psychopathy in
his book The Mask of Sanity Cleckley (1976) proposed that psychopathy is a personality
construct which arises in childhood He also was the first to define several cognitive and
affective characteristics of psychopathy such as superficial charm emotional shallowness
deceitfulness egocentricity irresponsibility and (most central for the current study) a lack of
remorse shame or guilt In addition he found that psychopaths often externalize the blame for
their negative actions are extremely impulsive and do not learn from punishment
Within psychopathy research there has been some debate as to whether the construct is
taxonic or dimensional (Hare 1991 Marcus amp Edens 2004) For example the Psychopathy
Checklist Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991) which is one of the prominent ways of assessing
psychopathy assigns individuals with an overall score on a scale from 0 to 40 with a cut off
score of 29 generally indicating the threshold for a psychopathy diagnosis (Hare 1991 Hare amp
15
Neumann 2006) The use of a cut-off seems to suggest a taxonic perspective However use of
the scale indicates that the higher the score the more psychopathic traits an individual expresses
which is also consistent with a dimensional view of psychopathy Recent studies have used the
PCL-R to examine the dimensional aspects of psychopathy and have consistently come to the
conclusion that psychopathy should be viewed as a continuum (Edens Marcus Lilienfeld amp
Poythress 2006 Marcus amp Edens 2004) Aside from looking at psychopathy on a continuum it
is also important to examine the construct from multiple perspectives such as behaviorally and
cognitively
Two Factor Model of Psychopathy
Today a Two Factor Model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991) is one of the
primary models used to evaluate psychopathy (Hare amp Neumann 2006 Harpur Hare amp
Hakstian 1989 Murrie amp Cornell 2002 Rutherford Cacciola amp Alterman 1999) The Two
Factor model assesses both behavioral cues and intrinsic or internal personality traits to define
psychopathy (Chapman Gremore amp Farmer 2003 Hare 1991 Pethman amp Erlandsson 2002)
and is the bases for the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991 Lykken 1995)
which is the principal assessment tool used to identify clinical psychopathy Within the Two
Factor theory the first factor describes the internal disposition of the individual and includes
eight items believed to gauge psychopathy from a cognitive angle These personality traits
include superficial charm a grandiose sense of self worth lack of empathy or guilt pathological
lying and cunning manipulativeness (Hare 1991 Raine 2002) The second factor outlines the
behavioral actions of an individual with psychopathic tendencies and includes nine items used to
assess a psychopathic personality These traits include early problem behaviors poor behavioral
controls and impulsivity (Hare 1991 Rutherford et al 1999) Based on the aforementioned
16
cognitive components of psychopathy the current researchers propose that these individuals will
not experience the same degree of psychological unease from lying to a confederate that the non
psychopathic individuals involved in the study
Primary and Secondary Model of Psychopathy
A second differentiation model of psychopathy was proposed by Karpman (1941 1948)
Karpman following the work of Cleckley divided psychopathy into two subcategories primary
and secondary psychopathy It is important to note that the primary and secondary views of
psychopathy mirror the Two Factor Model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991) In both
instances the primary factor (Factor 1) encompasses the cognitive affective traits of
psychopathy while the secondary factor (Factor 2) assesses the more antisocial behavior
characteristics of psychopathy
Individuals with primary psychopathy evidence cognitive manifestations of the construct
such as low to non-existent trait anxiety callousness and a lack of guilt or remorse They tend to
be unresponsive to treatment efforts and often have more severe symptoms associated with
psychopathy (Karpman 1941) For example Karpman (1948) found that primary psychopaths
are more apt to carry out their deceptive and manipulative behavior to reach an end goal
displaying a callous lack of emotion or concern for others whereas secondary psychopaths will
occasionally act with higher human emotions such as empathy
Secondary psychopathy is believed to come about through the effects of environmental
stressors and life events such as severe child physical or sexual abuse (Porter 1996) The
manifestation of secondary psychopathy which has also been called sociopathy (Lykken 1995)
is mostly behavioral in nature and secondary psychopaths tend to carry out the antisocial and
deviant behavior as a reaction to deep emotional conflict or anger rather than a callous
17
disregard for others (Karpman 1941) Overall primary psychopaths seem to have a permanent
deficit in functioning whereas secondary psychopathy encompasses a dysfunction created by
aversive environmental factors However it is important to note that both primary and secondary
psychopaths to some degree evidence manipulative and callous behavior and display a lack of
regard for others (Karpman 1948)
Support for the view that psychopaths lack psychological distress comes in part from a
study conducted by Patrick Bradley and Lang (1993) The researchers attempted to elicit a
startle reflex in psychopaths and non-psychopaths (as diagnosed by the PCL-R) by blasting a
loud noise while having the participants view either pleasant or unpleasant photographs Results
showed that psychopaths exhibited a much smaller startle response to the noise when viewing the
stimuli (both positive and negative pictures) as compared to the non-psychopaths In addition
Patrick and colleagues found a negative correlation between the PCL-R Factor One scores (lack
of guilt lack of remorse etc) and the level of eye-blink reaction Eye blink reactions to the
startle noise were measured with Beckman miniature Ag-AgCl electrodes positioned at the
orbicularis oculi muscle beneath the participantrsquos left eye The authors found that non
psychopathic individualsrsquo eyes tend to blink more frequently than in psychopaths when aversive
stimuli are presented
Therefore these results seem to indicate that individuals with high Factor One traits
seem to evidence very little anxiety and less psychological distress towards aversive stimuli The
results of this study show that individuals higher in psychopathic traits experience less of a
physiological and thus perhaps less of a cognitive reaction to aversive stimuli In addition a
study conducted by Ray and Ray (1982) demonstrated that people high in psychopathy do not
seem to care as much about what others think of them The study found a negative correlation
18
between social desirability (as measured by the Marlow-Crowne social desirability scales) and
psychopathy (r = -32 p = 05) This finding also supports the current studyrsquos hypothesis that
individuals high on psychopathic traits will be less likely than other individuals to experience
psychological unease over lying to a confederate or undergo an attitude shift to diminish this
discomfort
Cognitive dissonance studies have consistently demonstrated that individuals not only
shift their attitude following a dissonant act but also experience physical symptoms of distress as
well For example a study conducted by Croyle and Cooper (1983) found that people have a
heightened skin conductance responses following the ldquovoluntaryrdquo commitment of a writing a
counterattitudinal essay Though no direct cognitive dissonance studies manipulating guilt have
been replicated using psychopaths studies that have used aversive stimuli such as the
anticipation of being blasted with a loud noise (80 to 120dB) have indicated that psychopaths
(compared to non-psychopath controls) evidence a hyporesponsive physical reaction (as
measured by electrodermal measurements) to the aversive stimuli (Hare 1978) Harersquos study
along with others like it (see Fowles 1980 Lykken 1957) indicate that psychopaths do not
seem to experience anxiety at the same level that non-psychopathic individuals do Therefore it
would follow that through the reduced physiological anxiety response identified in individuals
with psychopathy they will be unable to experience the psychological unease associated with the
adverse stimulus (lying to a confederate) and thus not experience an attitude shift
Past Research on Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonance
Only one study has attempted to assess the effect of psychopathy on cognitive
dissonance A doctoral dissertation by Weir (2007) examined cognitive dissonance in a sample
of 150 males from a drug treatment facility All participants had been in prison or jail and had a
19
history of criminal activity Level of psychopathy was assessed using the LPSP Participants at
the start of this study filled out an attitudes measure that assessed their opinions about the
judicial system treatment of criminals and drug abuse Later in the experiment cognitive
dissonance was induced by having participants copy a counterattitudinal statement from a sheet
of paper that dealt with being in favor of harsher punishments for criminals and drug offenders
(views that these men would adamantly oppose) After participants copied the counterattitudinal
statements they were instructed to tear up what they had written At the end of the study Weir
again assessed participantsrsquo attitudes regarding the judicial system treatment of criminals and
drug abuse with the same attitudes measure employed at the very beginning of the study The
pre and post-test use of the attitudes measure was to identify if participantsrsquo opinions had shifted
toward being in favor of harsher punishments for criminals after writing counterattitudinally in
favor of it
Weir hypothesized that primary psychopaths would experience cognitive dissonance
significantly less than individuals with secondary psychopathy or non-psychopathic individuals
because of the callous unemotional traits that are principally associated with primary
psychopathy However results of Weirrsquos study found no significant difference across the three
groups for attitude change following the dissonance inducing task The analysis did find minor
differences between the groups such that primary psychopaths did seem less effected by writing
the counterattitudinal essays than the secondary and non-psychopaths but again the results were
not significant Weir (2007) concluded that individuals with higher levels of primary
psychopathy were deficient but not completely incapable of experiencing dissonance following
an aversive behavior
20
An important confound of Weirrsquos study was the lack of a control group All participants
wrote the counterattitudinal essay so there was not a neutral group to compare the participantsrsquo
attitude shift following the essay copying to Due to the lack of a control group it is impossible to
know whether the experimental manipulation induced a dissonance effect in any of the groups
Though his study did assess cognitive dissonance it is still very different than the current study
because Weir was not using guilt as the catalyst for attitude shift
The current study examines the effect of guilt (or a lack of guilt) on cognitive dissonance
while the counterattitudinal essayrsquos used as the dissonance stimuli in Weirrsquos study did not cause
participants to feel guilt Weir was not manipulating guilt in participants but rather their
cognitive reactions to discrepant behaviors and beliefs (physically writing in favor of something
they cognitively disagreed with) Therefore though relevant to more general issues concerning
cognitive dissonance and psychopathy his study was not directly relevant to the question of
whether guilt-inducing manipulations evoke cognitive dissonance effects among individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy
15 Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism (MACH) is considered to be a similar concept to psychopathy
(McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto 1998 Saruk 1975) Both personality constructs are
characterized by callousness manipulation of others and a disregard for social norms and morals
(Christie amp Geis 1970 Skinner 1988) Based on these shared characteristics many researchers
have come to believe that the concepts may be the same but are just being labeled differently by
different branches of psychology (McHoskey et al 1998) Psychopathy is typically studied by
clinical psychologists whereas MACH has been primarily researched in the fields of social and
personality psychology
21
However other investigators (Wastell amp Booth 2003 Wilson Near amp Miller 1996)
have pointed to MACH as an instrumental construct that is incorporated as a strategic way to
pursue goals MACHs tend to be calculating and rational and engage in ruthless activity to attain
goals that are important to them Psychopaths on the other hand are often much less self-
controlled and more impulsive while exhibiting a dearth of planning abilities This may be one
of the main differences between MACH and psychopathy and this difference seems to point to
cognitive distinctions between the two personality traits
Christie (1970b) formulated the personality construct of MACH based on the writings of
16th century political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli Machiavellirsquos (1513) classic book The
Prince recommended that would-be rulers take a ruthless and cold-blooded approach to
governance Accordingly Christie identified the traits of an individual with high MACH as
using ldquosuccessfulrdquo manipulation for personal gain a lack of concern for moral standards and a
purely instrumental approach to interpersonal relationships The MACH-IV is the principal
measure used to identify Machiavellianism today It was developed in 1970 by Christie and Geis
(1970) and is a self report assessment containing 20 questions that tap the traits of MACH
Research attempting to explore the distinctions between psychopathy and MACH has
found Machiavellians to evidence many shared traits with both primary and secondary
psychopathy For example MACH characteristics related to Factor 1 of the PCL-R and primary
psychopathy (as measured by the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales LPSP
Levenson et al 1995) include callousness manipulation and a lack of anxiety (Smith 1999)
Qualities of Machiavellianism have also been found in secondary psychopathy such as a thrill
seeking behavior and a heightened need for external stimulation (Strelau 1983) In addition a
study conducted by McHoskey and colleagues (1998) found that high scores on the MACH-IV
22
and high scores on the LPSP significantly correlated (r = 62) Smith and Griffith (1978) also
found a significant though modest correlation between the MMPI (Pd) scale and the MACH-IV
(r = 25) using a sample of 66 college students These findings support the theory that MACH
and psychopathy diagnoses have features in common and may in fact be tapping similar
personality constructs McHoskey and colleagues concluded after his study that psychopathy and
MACH should be more integrated in the literature
However other researchers have argued that there are crucial differences between
psychopathy and Machiavellianism For example Smith (1999) has argued that many people
with Machiavellianism are more apt to resemble a ldquosuccessful psychopathrdquo as they tend to not
have as many legal problems as primary psychopaths do and are often overrepresented in the
business industry as successful employees In addition other studies have resulted in smaller
correlations between MACH and psychopathy (see Greenwald 1967 Christie 1970a) For
example Saruk (1975) compared MACH scores with psychopathy scores on the Psychopathic
Deviate (Pd) scale of the MMPI with incarcerated inmates as participants and found no
significant correlation between the two personality constructs However many researchers today
have advised against using the Pd scale of the MMPI to gauge psychopathy due to the unreliable
results this scale has offered when studying psychopathy (Patrick 2006) and MACH (Skinner
1982) in the past
Additional distinctions in the current literature between MACH and psychopathy are that
MACHs tend be more represented in higher SES families and have higher economic standing
than the majority of psychopaths (especially secondary psychopaths) (McHoskey et al 1998
Smith 1999) As a result of the aforementioned literature MACH is most often associated with
ldquosuccessfulrdquo psychopathy or non institutionalized psychopaths (Christie 1970a)
23
16 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonance
Though the literature is very sparse regarding the relationship between psychopathy and
cognitive dissonance a few studies have investigated the relationship between MACH and
cognitive dissonance Four of the studies are relevant to the current proposal due to the way that
the researchers manipulated dissonance arousal One hindrance in comparing the current study to
previous ones on MACH and cognitive dissonance is that at the time these former studies were
conducted Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory of cognitive dissonance arousal had not been
formulated and thus guilt had not been considered as the cause of dissonance arousal at that
point in time
Bogart Geis Levy and Zimbardo (1970) assessed the impact of social cohesiveness
(liking a partner versus not liking a partner) between high and low MACHs in a cognitive
dissonance paradigm Participantsrsquo level of MACH and self-reported level of morality were pre-
assessed using the MACH-IV Next high and low MACHs were enticed to cheat on a test by a
confederate posing as their partner in the experiment The partnerrsquos level of prestige was
manipulated For half of participants the fake partner was presented as a high prestige partner (a
graduate law school student with high grades) and the remaining participants were told that their
partner was of low prestige (an industrial arts undergraduate student with poor grades) Bogart
and colleagues hypothesized that after cheating low MACHs in the low external justification
group (low prestige partners) would decrease their self-reported ratings of morality (identify
themselves as less moral than before) in order to cognitively justify their cheating behavior Each
participant was left alone in a room with their high or low prestige partner to complete a test
containing un-solvable questions After a while the fake partner ldquohappened uponrdquo answers to the
questions on a desk in the room and attempted to get the participant to cheat with him by copying
24
the answers from the found answer sheet After the cheating manipulation the participantrsquos level
of MACH (self-reported morality rating) was assessed again using the MACH-IV
The results of the study concluded that both high and low MACHs succumbed to
cheating at approximately the same rate (50 [1632] of high MACHS and 46 [1328] of low
MACHs) However Bogart and colleagues (1970) found that high MACHs were more
instrumental in their cheating behavior such that they cheated significantly more with the high
prestige partner than with the low prestige partner Low MACHs cheated an equal amount across
low and high prestige partner pairings In addition Bogart and colleagues identified an ldquoanti-
dissonantrdquo effect such that high MACHs actually increased their self-ratings of morality by
reporting that they were more moral after cheating when paired with a low prestige partner (low
external justification condition) whereas low MACHs as predicted decreased their self-ratings
of morality (reported they were less moral) when paired with low prestige partners (low external
justification condition) In other words when high MACHs were in the condition with no
external justification present for their actions and thus would have to rely on changing their
thoughts to match their behaviors they did not undergo this attitude shift rather they seemed to
create more dissonance between their thoughts and actions by reporting themselves as more
moral after cheating with the low prestige partner This is opposite to the classical cognitive
dissonant studies where participants experience an attitude shift that matches their behaviors
when little or no external justification is present to explain their actions
In contrast the classic dissonance effect was exhibited by participants in the Bogart et al
(1970) study with low levels of MACH they reported that they were not moral individuals after
they cheated with a low prestige partner Therefore it appears high MACH individuals are
25
relying on unique aspects of the situation other than external justification to create attitude
change
A very similar experiment was reported by Bogart (1971) in which she again assessed the
effect of MACH on cognitive dissonance by enticing participants cheat on a task with a high or
low prestige partner However in this experiment a control group was employed to assess
differences between high and low MACHs who were asked to cheat as opposed to those who
were not asked to cheat As in the earlier study by Bogart et al (1970) participantsrsquo level of
MACH and self-reported level of morality were pre-assessed Next high and low MACHs were
persuaded to cheat on an essay writing assignment by a confederate posing as their partner in the
experiment The partnerrsquos level of prestige was manipulated this time in four different ways to
include their fake level of MACH as well The four categories of fake participants included High
MACH High Prestige (graduate law student) High MACH Low Prestige (business
administration student) Low MACH High Prestige (physics major) and Low MACH Low
Prestige (industrial arts student) Results indicated that high MACH participants cheated
significantly more than low MACHs (66 of high MACHs versus 41 of low MACHs) and
that they discriminated their cheating significantly more than low MACHs such that high
MACHs cheated more with the high prestige partners than the low prestige partners (81 versus
56) As in the previous study by Bogart et al (1970) an anti-dissonance effect was again found
for High MACH participants such that high MACHs again increased their self-ratings of
morality (reported they were more moral) when in the low external justification condition (paired
with low prestige partners) while low MACHs decreased their self-ratings of morality (reported
they were less moral) when in the low external justification condition (paired with low prestige
partners) This study also pointed to a difference between high and low MACHs experience of
26
cognitive dissonance by identifying the abnormal anti-dissonance reaction from individuals with
higher levels of MACH
A study by Epstein (1969) used a methodology that apparently induced guilt in
participants Epstein examined the difference between high and low MACH participantsrsquo ability
to be persuaded by induced counterattitudinal behavior Epstein pre-assessed participantsrsquo level
of MACH (with the MACH-IV) and through the use of a median split chose a sample of 40 high
MACH men and 40 low MACH men She told them that they were involved in a radio debate on
fluoridating water supplies Epstein also pre-assessed their position on water fluoridation to
make sure all participants were in favor of the procedure Half of the participants were in the
non-role playing condition (20 high MACHs and 20 low MACHs) They were instructed to read
a counterattitudinal essay against fluoridating water in town and then were post-experimentally
assessed about their position on water fluoridation to see if reading the essay had created an
attitude shift in these participants The other half of participants were in the role playing
condition They not only read the counterattitudinal essay but next they were asked to deliver an
impromptu speech against fluoridation that would be recorded and played on radio stations
across the state In the taped speech the participants had to give their name and advocate for a
ban on fluoridation which was dissonant to their personal beliefs After delivering the speech
they too were post-experimentally assessed about their position on water fluoridation to see if
their opinion had changed to be more against fluoridation Results indicated an interaction
between high and low MACHs with the role playing conditions High MACHs in the non-role
playing condition evidenced significantly more attitude change than the high MACHs in the role-
playing condition and more attitude change than the low MACHs in the non-role playing
condition This too is an anti-dissonance effect in that dissonance has been shown to produce
27
attitude change when people perform behaviors that go against their personal beliefs and in the
case of the non-role playing condition the participants did not engage in any dissonant behavior
they simply read a counterattitudinal essay written by someone else Conversely as predicted
low MACHs in the role-playing condition evidenced significantly more attitude change towards
being against fluoridation than high MACHs in the role-playing condition In addition low
MACHs in the role playing condition evidenced the most attitude change out of any condition
The finding that low MACHs experienced the most attitude shift when they had to give a speech
on the radio against fluoridation supports the classic cognitive dissonance phenomenon In
addition the role playing low MACH results potentially relate to our study if their attitudes
shifted because they felt guilt for publically denouncing a belief that they held Epsteinrsquos study is
relevant to the current study due to the methodology she used in the role playing condition
Participants were asked to publically (via a radio broadcast) deliver a speech advocating for
beliefs that they opposed Therefore because delivering a public anti-fluoridation speech would
most likely produce feelings of guilt in participants Epsteinrsquos study provides some support for
the current studyrsquos predicted results
One final study on MACH and cognitive dissonance is loosely related to the current
study although in this final example the experimental methodology did not induce guilt in
participants Burgoon Miller amp Tubbs (1972) had participants write counterattitudinal essays
advocating the removal of college student draft deferments under high and low justification In
the study justification was manipulated with classroom credits participants in the high
justification group received five classroom credits for agreeing to write the counterattitudinal
essay and participants in the low justification group received only one credit for writing the
essay Results indicated a significant interaction between level of justification (high versus low)
28
and level of MACH (high versus low) Low MACH participants experienced attitude shift
toward being in favor of draft deferments when in the low justification group This was
consistent with the classic cognitive dissonance effect When low MACH participants had no
external justification for writing the essay they changed their beliefs to match their actions In
contrast high MACHs experienced attitude shift toward being in favor of the draft deferments
only when in the high justification group but not in the low justification group The authors
explain this relationship by using incentive theory They posit that high MACHs attitudes are
persuaded by rewards which stems from their desire to gain power and prestige (and rewards)
with no regard for other people
Burgoon et al (1972) explained their findings as reflecting high MACHsrsquo lack of
concern about lying or moral standards Christie and Geis (1970) have also discussed the
findings of Burgoon et al and conjectured that they reflect the high MACHrsquos lack of concern for
other people Specifically Christie and Geis suggest that high MACHs view people more as
objects to be manipulated rather than as people with feelings and emotions
The main difference between the current study and that of Burgoon et al (1972) is that
our study assessed cognitive dissonance through the use of guilt induction while their study did
not induce guilt in participants The methodology involved in their experiment was not designed
to create guilt in participants rather it was simply created to examine attitude shift after
performing a counterattitudinal act with no negative consequences Therefore though Burgoon
and colleaguesrsquo study assessed cognitive dissonance effects in participants with MACH it does
not appear directly relevant to the hypothesis underlying the present study
Overall past research has demonstrated that individuals high in MACH are resistant to
the classic cognitive dissonance effects of attitude shift after performing a behavior that they
29
cognitively oppose In fact the past research has shown that individuals with high MACH often
experience attitude shift in the opposite direction or conditions that low MACHs do These
results have been explained as consequences of the underlying personality characteristics that
high MACH individuals possess (callousness manipulative nature and lack of regard for others)
Since these characteristics are also traits of psychopathy (especially primary psychopathy) it is
reasonable to expect that the negative associations demonstrated between MACH and cognitive
dissonance will also be found between psychopathy and cognitive dissonance in the present
study
17 Hypotheses of the Present Study
Cognitive dissonance studies analyzing the affects of MACH have shown a significant
effect such that high MACHs do not evidence the classic attitude shift following the
performance of a dissonant act The current study sought to determine whether individuals with
high psychopathy scores exhibit a similar pattern
In the current study we analyzed guilt-induced cognitive dissonance effects in individuals
with varying levels of psychopathy Participantsrsquo level of psychopathy (and MACH) was
identified by having them fill out two self report measures on psychopathy and one self-report
measure on MACH They completed a boring abacus task that involved manually pushing balls
one at a time across an abacus for 20 minutes After the task the participants were either politely
asked (High perceived choice to lie group) or directly instructed (Low perceived choice to lie
group) to tell a fellow student (actually a confederate) that the abacus task was enjoyable After
misleading the confederate the participants completed a post-experimental questionnaire that
assessed their personal enjoyment of the abacus task and their level of guilt over deceiving
another person
30
First it was hypothesized that the classic cognitive dissonance effect would be replicated
We expected that regardless of psychopathy or MACH level participants in the High Choice to
Lie condition would evidence more attitude shift towards enjoying the abacus task than
participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition These results were expected to be a replication
of the classic Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study except that instead of manipulating reward
we would demonstrate the effect using choice as the dissonance manipulator
The second hypothesis was that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy (and
MACH) would report disliking the abacus task (as measured by the post experimental
questionnaire) across both the High and Low perceived choice to lie groups We expected these
results due to the lack of guilt commonly found in individuals with higher levels of psychopathy
and MACH Therefore we theorized that individuals with high levels of psychopathy would not
experience guilt even when they felt that they voluntarily (High perceived choice to lie group)
chose to mislead another participant Due to this lack of guilt the high psychopathy (and high
MACH) participant would not have had the attitude shift associated with cognitive dissonance
and would not report enjoying the abacus task
The third hypothesis pertained to the individuals with low or nonexistent levels of
psychopathy and MACH We predicted that participants with low levels of psychopathy would
report enjoying the abacus task more after lying to a future participant only if they were in the
High perceived choice to lie group These results were believed to be due to the guilt inducing
nature of voluntarily agreeing to lie to a person as opposed to the Low perceived choice group
where participants were told directly to lie to the next participant as part of the study
requirements These results were also expected for people who scored low in Machiavellianism
due to the similarities between the two personality constructs
31
The fourth hypothesis was that psychopathy would better account for a demonstrated lack
of guilt than would MACH Though this hypothesis did not have a strong empirically supported
theoretical background we were interested in learning whether the psychopathy construct would
yield different results from MACH suggesting that the psychopathy construct is including
relevant and distinct personality dimensions that the MACH construct does not include
In addition this study explored the relationship between primary and secondary
psychopathy with the level of self reported abacus task enjoyment Specifically the study
examined differences in the reported level of abacus task enjoyment between individuals with
high scores on primary as compared to secondary psychopathy Also the study explored
particular facets of psychopathy (such as callousness) and their relationship to reported
enjoyment of the abacus task
32
Chapter 2 Method
Participants
The current study was conducted with 164 (103 females 61 males) undergraduate
students at the University of Texas El Paso The sample size for the current study was
determined by examining past research on cognitive dissonance effects on MACH These studies
typically included 50 to 80 participants and yielded statistically significant results We
conservatively concluded that the present study should include approximately twice as many
participants as these earlier studies to ensure appropriate power for the current study
Participantsrsquo ages ranged from 18 to 44 years (M =1966 years SD = 317 years) with 823
between the ages of 18 to 20 The ethnicity of the sample was predominately Hispanic (854)
with the remaining participantsrsquo ethnicities Anglo-American (67) African American (18)
Asian (6) and Other (55) Participants were drawn from Introductory Psychology courses at
the University of Texas El Paso and were given 15 experimental credits for their participation
Measures
The Psychopathic Personality InventorymdashRevised Short Form (PPI-R SF Lilienfeld amp
Widows 2005)
The current study used the Psychopathic Personality Inventory ndash Revised Short Form
(PPI-R SF) which is a shortened version of the PPI-R It is a self-report measure of subclinical
psychopathic tendencies The PPI-R SF contains 56 items that are scored using a Likert scale
between 1 and 4 (1=False 2=Mostly False 3=Mostly True 4=True) The PPI-R SF yields one
overall total score and two factor scores (Fearless Dominance [FD] and Self-Centered
Impulsivity [SCI] ) as well as scores on eight content scales (a) Machiavellian Egocentricity
(ME 20 items) (b) Social Influence (SOI previously Social Potency 18 items) (c)
Coldheartedness (C 16 items) (d) Carefree Nonplanfulness (CN 19 items) (e) Fearlessness (F
33
14 items) (f) Blame Externalization (BE 15 items) (g) Rebellious Nonconformity (RN
previously Impulsive Nonconformity 16 items) and (h) Stress Immunity (STI 13 items) The
Fearless Dominance factor includes the Social Influence Fearlessness and Stress Immunity
content scales and the Self Centered Impulsivity factor is comprised of the Machiavellian
Egocentricity Rebellious Nonconformity Carefree Nonplanfulness and Blame Externalization
content scales (the Coldheartedness content scale is part of the overall total but is considered
separate from either of the two summed factors (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger
2003) These factors correspond to the two-factor structure (PPI-I and PPI-2) of the original
version of the PPI which are also similar to the Two Factor Structure of psychopathy proposed
by Hare (1991) in the Psychopathy ChecklistmdashRevised Specifically the Fearless Dominance
factor assesses the cognitive deficits of psychopathy while the Self Centered Impulsivity factor
reviews the antisocial behavior traits of psychopathy
Currently there are no published studies that have analyzed the reliability and validity of
the PPI-R SF but because it is a shortened version of the PPI-R (it is comprised of the 7 highest
loading questions from each of the eight subscales of the PPI-R) the demonstrated psychometric
properties of the PPI and PPI-R are relevant to evaluating the PPI-R SF
Lilienfeld and Andrews (1996) evaluated the convergent and discriminant validities of
the PPI with an undergraduate sample and found evidence of convergent validity with the
California Psychological Inventory Socialization scale (r = -59) Levensonrsquos (1990)
Psychopathy Scale (r = 37) and with the Hare (1985) Self Report Psychopathy ScalemdashRevised
(r = 91) Lilienfeld and Widows (1995) demonstrated internal consistencies for the PPI-R
overall total and content scales to range from α = 78 to α = 92 They also found test-retest
reliabilities (mean test-retest interval = 1994 days) to range from r = 82 to r = 93 The PPI-R
34
has been found to correlate significantly with both the Self-Report Psychopathy ScalendashII (SRP-
II Hare Harpur amp Hemphill 1989) and the LPSP (Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995) as
well as with self-report measures of antisocial personality disorder substance use sensation
seeking and pathological functioning (Lilienfeld amp Widows 2005)
Levensonrsquos Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales (LPSP Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick
1995)
The LPSP is a 26-item self report measure that identifies both behavioral and emotional
aspects of psychopathy The measure breaks down into two subscales Primary Psychopathy (16
items) and Secondary Psychopathy (10 items) Each item is scored on a 1 to 4 point Likert Scale
(1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Agree Strongly) Levenson and colleagues
(1995) found that the Primary scale has good internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos alpha = 82) and
that the Secondary scale had marginal internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos alpha = 63) In addition
they found that the two scales correlate moderately (r = 40) Lynam and colleagues (1999)
found convergent validity between the PPI and the LPSP to be moderately high (r= 64)
MACH-IV Scale (Christie amp Geis 1970) The MACH-IV is a 20-item self-report measure that identifies Machiavellianism which
is characterized by being callous manipulative and behaving in a way that only benefits oneself
The items are arranged in a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very Strongly Agree) to 5 (Very
Strongly Disagree) with 3 being a neutral choice (No Opinion) Internal reliability has been
found to be rather consistent with studies demonstrating moderate alpha coefficients α=74
(Austin Farrelly Black amp Moore 2007) and α=70 (Fehr Samsom amp Paulhus 1992) Christie
and Geis (1970) found split half reliabilities from 69 to 88 Finally Machiavellianism has
35
shown moderate correlations with primary (r = 65 plt001) and secondary psychopathy (r = 49
plt001) as measured by the LPSP (McHoskey et al 1998)
Post-experimental Questionnaire
The post experimental questionnaire was administered after the participant completed the
abacus task and after they misled the confederate in the experiment The questionnaire was
based on the post experimental measure used in the Cooper and Worchel (1970) study on
cognitive dissonance The measure contains eight items that assess how enjoyable the participant
perceived the abacus task how guilty they felt for lying to the confederate and how voluntary
the person felt the deceiving of the confederate was (see Appendix B) The item assessing
participantsrsquo enjoyment of the abacus task was the primary dependent measure of the current
study
The questionnaire was designed so that it appeared to be a survey conducted by the
Psychology Department attempting to analyze how effective all of the departmental research
was The questionnaire was sealed into an envelope by the participant upon completion in order
to create the illusion of the confidentiality of their answers from the experimenter The
questionnaire was designed to appear separate from the current experiment in order to prevent
any biasing of participantsrsquo responses by compliance effects (ie participants answering the way
they perceive the experimenter would want them to answer) The majority of the questions on
this questionnaire were obtained from the Cooper and Worchel post experimental questionnaire
The main adaptation the current study made to the original measure was the use of a 1-7 point
Likert scale to rate responses instead of the 1-31 point Likert scale utilized by Cooper and
Worchel In addition in the present study the last 2 questions on the questionnaire were changed
36
to identify how voluntary the participant found the task to be and if the deceiving of the
confederate elicited feelings of guilt in the participant
Demographics Form
A brief demographics form was presented at the beginning of the packet of psychopathy
and MACH self report measures (Appendix B) It was given before the self-report measures and
assessed participantsrsquo age gender and ethnicity This form took approximately one minute to
complete
Procedure Participants were Introductory Psychology students recruited through an online computer
experiment program provided by the University of Texas at El Paso and were given 15
experimental credits for their involvement in the current study Upon entering the lab the
participant was seated in the hall to wait for the experimenter Meanwhile the experimenter text-
messaged the confederate to let him (or her) know that the participant had arrived Upon
receiving the text message the confederate knew to wait approximately 15 minutes before
entering the lab and acting out their role Next the participant was guided into a room and given
an informed consent form (Appendix F) which was explained to them The form explained the
confidential nature of the study and that the study was about personality traitsrsquo influence on
motor skills and reaction time After the experimenter explained the consent form the participant
read and signed the form
Abacus Task
An abacus task was implemented to induce boredom in participants The task was loosely
modeled on the boring peg turning task used in the Cooper and Worchel (1970) and Festinger
and Carlsmith (1959) experiments on cognitive dissonance In the abacus task a large abacus
37
was placed flat on the table in front of the participant He or she was instructed to move the
wooden balls one at a time across the abacus using only their right hand The participant was
instructed to slide the balls across the abacus one at a time starting at the top row and moving
down the board until they reached the bottom row Once he or she had slid all of the balls (one
at a time) to the right side of the abacus the participant was instructed to start at the top again
and to slide the balls back across the abacus one at a time beginning at the top row and moving
down the abacus until they had reached the bottom row again Participants were told to work at
their own ldquonaturalrdquo pace and to continue sliding balls across the abacus one at a time going row
by row until instructed to stop After 10 minutes the experimenter instructed the participant to
stop and then start the task over with their left hand instead of their right hand During this task
the experimenter was seated directly across from the participant with a clipboard and a stopwatch
and acted as though she was monitoring the participantrsquos progress (eg occasionally writing
notes on the clipboard and appearing to time the participantrsquos progress with the stopwatch)
Approximately 15 minutes into the task a knock was heard on the door and the
confederate came into the room to ask if this was where the experiment was being held The
experimenter looked up and quickly told the confederate that he was in the right place and asked
him to wait in the hall until she was done running the current participant The confederate
apologized for his interruption shut the door behind him and sat in the hall to wait for his
interaction with the participant While waiting in the hall the confederate pretended to be doing
homework or listening to his Ipod to give the illusion that he was just another participant waiting
to do the experiment After the participant had moved the balls across the abacus with his or her
left hand for 10 minutes the experimenter signaled the participant to stop the task The abacus
task lasted 20 minutes 10 minutes per hand
38
Choice Conditions
After the abacus task was completed the experimenter stopped the participant and recited
from memory one of the Post Abacus Task scripts to the participant For half of participants the
experimenter recited from memory the High Perceived Choice to Lie script (see Appendix A)
and the other half of the participants were recited the Low Perceived Choice to Lie script
(Appendix A) The scripts were alternated randomly between participants Following the choice
manipulation portion of the experiment and guilt induction participants were given the post
experimental questionnaire to complete as this was the main dependent measure of the study
High Perceived Choice to Lie Group
In the High Perceived Choice to Lie condition the experimenter politely asked the
participant to tell the next waiting participant (the confederate waiting in the hall) that the abacus
task was fun and interesting (see Appendix A) The participant was informed that telling the
person waiting in the hall about the task being enjoyable was not required but that their
assistance would be greatly appreciated Once the participant agreed to the task (this study had a
100 compliance rate) he or she was taken into the hall where the ldquofuturerdquo participant (actually
a confederate) was seated and waiting The (real) participant was introduced to the confederate
and the experimenter explained to the fake participant that she had to set up quickly in the other
lab room so the current participant was going to explain the experiment to him while she was
gone The experimenter then excused herself and left the hallway The real participant was given
about two minutes to tell the second (bogus) participant that the task was enjoyable If the
participant freely told the confederate that the task was going to be fun (927 of participants)
then the fake participant thanked the real participant as follows ldquoGreat Irsquom really glad to hear
that this is a fun experiment because all of the other experiments I have had so far have really
39
been boring Thanks for telling merdquo If the participant did not freely say that the task was
enjoyable the confederate attempted to prompt them by asking ldquoSo how was itrdquo This
manipulation got an additional 37 of participants to verbalize that the task was fun and the
confederate also thanked them with the same statement reported above The statement thanking
the participant for the information about their enjoyable rating of the task was intended to
increase the real participantrsquos guilt about lying Following the short conversation with the
confederate the experimenter went back into the hall and led the participant into the other lab
room After she had shut the lab room door behind them the confederate filled out the
Confederate Manipulation Check form (Appendix H) The confederate checked the box on the
form that indicated whether or not the real participant told him directly if the task was fun if he
had to prompt the participant or if the participant did not tell him the task was enjoyable Upon
filling out the Confederate Manipulation Check form the confederate put the form in its box in
the lab and promptly left
Low Perceived Choice to Lie Group
In the Low Perceived Choice to Lie condition the experimenter directly instructed (not
requested) the participant to tell the next (fake) participant that the abacus task was fun and
interesting (see Appendix A) Upon consent from the participant the experimenter led him into
the hall and introduced him to the confederate who was waiting as the future participant
Identical procedures to the ones explained for participants in the High Perceived Choice to Lie
group occurred at this point
Post-experimental Questionnaire
Once participants had interacted with the confederate and been taken into the second lab
room they were given the post-experimental questionnaire The post-experimental questionnaire
40
(Appendix B) contained eight items that quantified how enjoyable the participant found the
abacus task to be and assessed their self-reported feelings of guilt after misleading the
confederate The questionnaire was presented to seem like it was not part of the current
experiment but rather a general Psychology Department survey being conducted to assess
departmental research being performed that semester The questionnaire was administered with
an envelope and the participant was instructed to seal their questionnaire inside the envelope
after completing it to promote the sense of confidentiality of their answers from the
experimenter The experimenter explained the questionnaire to the participant To prevent
possible compliance effects the experimenter reiterated that she was not supposed to see the
participantrsquos answers because the questionnaire was supposed to remain anonymous and was not
part of the current study
After the participant completed the post-experimental questionnaire and sealed it into the
envelope he or she was given a packet containing the LPSP [Appendix C] PPI-R SF [Appendix
D]) and MACH-IV [Appendix E]) and the demographics form (Appendix B) and asked to
complete these questionnaires The packet of measures took approximately 30 minutes to
complete After the participants filled out all of the self-report measures they were debriefed as
to the true nature of the experiment and asked to sign a second informed consent form (Appendix
F) that outlined to them the true purposes of the experiment A debriefing script was used to
ensure that all participants received the same information about the experiment (see Appendix
G) They were asked not to share with anyone the actual purpose and procedures of the
experiment in order to prevent future participants from knowing ahead of time what the
experiment was about Participants were given 15 experimental credits for their participation
41
Chapter 3 Results
Manipulation Check
There were 82 participants in the High Choice to Lie group and 82 participants in the
Low Choice to Lie condition All participants verbally agreed with the researcher that they
would tell the confederate that the task was enjoyable A manipulation check was performed to
determine whether they actually kept their agreement The confederate marked on a form
(Appendix G) whether or not the participant told him or her that the task was enjoyable Results
of the manipulation check indicated that 152 (927) of the participants complied with the
researcherrsquos suggestion and told the confederate that the task would be enjoyable An additional
six (37) told the confederate that the abacus task would be enjoyable but only after they were
prompted by the confederate asking ldquoHow was the taskrdquo One (6) participant told the
confederate that the task was enjoyable but added that he was instructed by the researcher to say
so Three participants (18) never told the confederate that the task was enjoyable Two
participants (12) told the confederate that the task was boring To preserve randomization
analyses for the study were run on all participants (N = 164) including those who failed to report
that the task was enjoyable This approach to the analysis of experimental findings is known as
ldquointent-to-treat analysisrdquo and yields an unbiased estimate of the effects of being assigned to each
experimental condition (Shadish Cook amp Campbell 2002) However as will be reported later
in the Results supplementary analyses were also run that excluded the six participants who
failed to tell the confederate that the task was enjoyable
Descriptive Statistics
Before running analyses procedures were carried out for dealing with missing data
Seven participants did not fill out the psychopathy and Machiavellianism self-report measures
42
completely Specifically each of the seven neglected to answer precisely one item on a single
scale Scores for the missing items were imputed individually using regression using the
summed score of the other items on the same scale as the predictor and the missing item score as
the criterion
Descriptive statistics were then calculated for participantsrsquo self-reported abacus task
enjoyment for their total scores on the psychopathy and Machiavellianism self-report measures
and for their respective factor scores and subscales scores (see Table 1)
43
Table 1 Descriptive Information for the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Predictors and Dependent Variable (N=164)
Mean Standard
Deviation Minimum Maximum
Total Enjoyment Rating of Abacus Task
401 169 100 700
High Choice to Lie Enjoyment Rating of Task
434 162 100 700
Low Choice to Lie Enjoyment Rating of Task
367 171 100 700
PPI-R SF Total Score 12565 1628 9000 17000
Fearless Dominance Factor
5605 912 2800 7600
Self-Centered Impulsive Factor
5436 989 3500 8400
Machiavellian Egocentricity 1360 352 700 2500
Social Influence 1888 400 700 2800
Fearlessness 1898 448 700 2800 Coldheartedness 1523 387 800 2600 Rebellious Nonconformity 1399 415 700 2400
Blame Externalization 1416 419 700 2600
Carefree Nonplanfulness 1262 329 700 2300
Stress Immunity 1820 453 700 2800 LPSP Total Score 5018 903 3000 7300
LPSP Primary Factor 3062 702 1600 4900
LPSP Secondary Factor 1956 405 1100 3100
MACH-IV Total Score 5296 833 3500 7600
Deceit 850 284 400 1600 Flattery 563 209 200 1000 Immoral 883 241 300 1500 Cynicism 1066 296 500 2000 Residual 1934 359 1000 2900 Note Total scale scores are in bold Factor scale scores are in italics Subscales are presented in regular font
44
31 Confirmatory Analyses
Hypothesis 1 Replication of the Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effect
A regression was performed to determine whether the classic cognitive dissonance effect
reported in earlier research was reproduced in the present study The main dependent variable in
this analysis was participants self-report ratings of how much they enjoyed the abacus task (Self-
Reported Enjoyment) The independent variable was Choice Condition (High Choice to Lie
versus Low Choice to Lie) In this analysis and all other analyses High Choice to Lie was coded
as ldquo1rdquo and Low Choice to Lie as ldquo0rdquo Based on prior studies of cognitive dissonance it was
predicted that that participants in the High Choice to Lie condition would report higher levels of
enjoyment than participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition A linear regression was
conducted and as predicted a significant difference in abacus task enjoyment was found
between the High and Low Choice to Lie groups Rsup2 = 039 F (1162) = 666 p = 011
standardized β = 199 t(163) = 258 p = 011 A one-way ANOVA was also conducted and
yielded exactly the same results as the regression F(1162) = 666 p = 011 d = 402 The High
Choice to Lie group had a mean enjoyment rating of 434 (SD = 162) (on a 1 to 7 rating scale
with 1 being no enjoyment of the task and 7 being high enjoyment of the task) while the Low
Choice to Lie group reported a mean enjoyment rating of 367 (SD = 171) on the same scale (see
Figure 1) These results indicate that participants in the High Choice to Lie group who felt that
they had more choice whether to mislead the confederate about the task being enjoyable
reported enjoying the task more than participants in the Low choice to lie group
45
Figure 1 Main effect for mean task enjoyment across choice conditions r = 199
Hypothesis 2 amp 3 Relationship Between Task Enjoyment and Choice Level Will Vary With
Psychopathy Level
The main hypothesis of the study was that individuals with lower levels of psychopathy
(and Machiavellianism) would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect by reporting higher
enjoyment of the abacus task in the High Choice to Lie Condition than in the Low Choice to Lie
Condition whereas individuals with higher levels of psychopathy would not report more
enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie than in the Low Choice to Lie condition In other words a
significant interaction was hypothesized between choice condition and level of psychopathy (and
Machiavellianism) in the prediction of self-reported enjoyment In order to test this hypothesis
three multiple regressions were conducted using the two psychopathy measures and the single
Machiavellianism measure
46
First multiple regression PPI-R SF total scores In the first multiple regression the
criterion was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice
Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) PPI-R SF total scores and the
interaction of Choice Condition with PPI-RSF scores It was hypothesized that the interaction
term would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple regression
are shown in Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was statistically
significant Rsup2 = 105 F(3160) = 623 p lt 001
As hypothesized the interaction of PPI-R SF total scores and choice condition was
statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -216 t(163) = -
211 p =036 (Table 2) Figures 2 and 3 depict this interaction graphically As can be seen in
Figure 2 there was not a significant relationship between PPI-R SF scores and Self-Reported
Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -054 t(81) =
-486 p =628 In contrast there was a significant relationship between PPI-R SF scores and
Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -374 t(81) = -
361 p =001 This finding thus supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of
psychopathy would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher
levels would not
47
Figure 2 Relationship of PPI-R SF total scores to reported level of task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie condition only Standardized β = -054 p = 628
Figure 3 Relationship of PPI-R SF total scores to reported level of task enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie condition only Standardized β = -374 p = 001
48
Second multiple regression LPSP total scores In the second multiple regression the criterion
was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice Condition (High
Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) LPSP total scores and the interaction of Choice
Condition with LPSP scores Again it was hypothesized that the interaction term would
significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple regression are shown in
Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was statistically significant Rsup2 =
089 F(3160) = 518 p = 002
As hypothesized the interaction of LPSP total scores and choice condition was
statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -236 t(163) = -
234 p = 021 The interaction is depicted graphically by choice condition in Figures 4 and 5
As can be seen from Figure 4 there was not a significant relationship between LPSP scores and
Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β
= 023 t(81) = 208 p =836 In contrast there was a significant negative relationship between
LPSP scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β =
-327 t(81) = -309 p =003 (Figure 5) Thus this finding like the finding concerning the PPI-
R SF supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of psychopathy would show
the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher levels would not
49
Figure 4 Relationship of LPSP total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = 023 p = 836
Figure 5 Relationship of LPSP total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash High Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -327 p = 003
50
T
able
2 M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts C
rite
rion
is S
elf-
Rep
orte
d E
njoy
men
t of t
he A
bacu
s T
asks
P
redi
ctor
s ar
e th
e P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
an
d M
AC
H-I
V T
otal
Sco
res
and
Subs
cale
s E
ach
Row
Rep
rese
nts
Res
ults
Fro
m O
ne M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n
Over
all
Mode
l
High
L
ow C
hoic
e
Psyc
hopa
thy
Ma
ch P
redi
ctor
In
tera
ctio
n
Pred
icto
r
F
(df)
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
PPIR
SF
Tot
623
(3160)
lt00
1
661
252
196
262
010
-089
173
-053
-52
607
-536
254
-216
-211
036
PPIRSF1-FD
296
(3160)
03
4
670
260
198
258
011
175
194
104
91
366
-382
262
-167
-146
146
PPIRSF2-SCI
690
(3160)
lt00
1
657
251
195
262
010
-123
168
-073
-73
466
-561
254
-220
-221
028
Mach Egocen
730
(3160)
lt00
1
721
251
214
287
005
024
178
014
14
892
-708
252
-295
-281
006
Soc Influ
230
(3160)
079
677
263
201
258
011
-034
200
-020
-17
867
128
266
057
48
631
Fearlessness
487
(3160)
00
3
660
256
196
258
011
177
188
105
94
348
-634
257
-274
-247
015
Coldhrtnes
577
(3160)
00
1
733
254
217
288
004
-488
193
-288
-253
012
153
257
068
59
554
Rebel Non
445
(3160)
00
5
668
256
198
261
010
142
179
084
80
428
-590
257
-243
-230
023
Blm Extern
296
(3160)
03
4
678
260
201
261
010
-144
190
-085
-76
451
-084
261
-036
-32
747
Carefree
490
(3160)
00
3
570
258
169
221
029
-430
176
-254
-244
016
171
260
068
66
511
Stress Imun
257
(3160)
056
665
261
197
255
012
179
183
106
98
330
-245
262
-101
-93
352
LPSP
Tot
al
518
(3160)
00
2
699
255
207
274
007
037
171
022
22
827
-603
258
-236
-234
021
Primary
420
(3160)
00
7
691
257
205
269
008
041
176
024
23
815
-495
259
-199
-192
057
Secondary
359
(3160)
01
5
682
258
202
264
009
018
187
101
09
926
-377
259
-161
-145
148
MACH
-IV
Tot
492
(3160)
00
3
703
256
208
275
007
-173
178
-102
-98
331
-314
257
-128
122
223
Deceit
508
(3160)
00
2
696
255
206
273
007
-374
167
-221
-224
026
011
260
004
04
965
Flattery
368
(3160)
01
3
682
258
202
264
009
162
173
096
94
351
-523
261
-204
-200
047
Immoral
454
(3160)
00
4
705
256
209
275
007
-360
184
-213
-196
052
052
257
022
20
840
Cynicism
270
(3160)
04
8
680
261
201
261
010
002
198
001
01
991
-212
264
-094
-81
422
Residual
302
(3160)
03
2
667
260
198
257
011
052
171
031
30
762
-354
264
-136
-135
181
Not
e
Sign
ific
ant p
val
ues
(p lt
05)
are
in b
old
p v
alue
s ap
proa
chin
g si
gnifi
canc
e (lt
10)
are
in it
alic
s
Pre
dict
or A
bbre
viat
ions
PPI
RS
F To
t =
PPI-
RS
F to
tal s
core
PPI
RS
F1-F
D =
PPI
RS
F Fa
ctor
1 ndash
Fea
rless
Dom
inan
ce F
acto
r Sco
re P
PIR
SF2
-SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f C
ente
red
Impu
lsiv
ity F
acto
r Sco
re M
ach
Ego
cen
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
ricity
sub
scal
e S
oc I
nflu
= P
PI-R
SF
Soci
al In
fluen
ce s
ubsc
ale
Fea
rles
snes
s =
PPI-
RS
F
Fear
less
ness
sub
scal
e C
oldh
rtnes
= P
PI-R
SF
Col
dhea
rted
ness
sub
scal
e R
ebel
Non
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
xter
n =
PPI
-RS
F B
lam
e E
xter
naliz
atio
n
subs
cale
Car
efre
e =
PPI-
RS
F C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Str
ess
Imun
= P
PI-R
SF
Stre
ss Im
mun
ity s
ubsc
ale
LPS
P To
tal =
LPS
P to
tal s
core
Pri
mar
y =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le
Seco
ndar
y =
LPSP
Sec
onda
ry s
ubsc
ale
MA
CH
-IV
Tot
= M
AC
H-I
V to
tal s
core
Dec
eit =
MA
CH
-IV
Dec
eit s
ubsc
ale
Fla
ttery
= M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
oral
= M
AC
H-I
V
Imm
oral
ity s
ubsc
ale
Cyn
icis
m =
MA
CH
-IV
Cyn
icis
m s
ubsc
ale
Res
idua
l = M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
Mod
el A
bbre
viat
ions
Un-
Stzd
β =
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Bet
a S
td E
rr =
Sta
ndar
d E
rror
Stz
d β
= St
anda
rdiz
ed B
eta
51
Third multiple regression Mach-IV total scores In the third multiple regression the
criterion was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice
Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) Mach-IV total scores and the
interaction of Choice Condition with Mach-IV scores Again it was hypothesized that the
interaction term would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple
regression are shown in Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was
statistically significant Rsup2 = 085 F(3160) = 492 p = 003
Contrary to prediction the interaction of Mach-IV total scores and choice condition was
not statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -128 t(163) =
-122 p = 223 Thus this finding failed to support the hypothesis that individuals with lower
levels of Machiavellianism would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that
individuals with higher levels would not The pattern of data is depicted graphically by choice
condition in Figures 6 and 7 As can be seen from Figure 6 there was not a significant
relationship between MACH-IV scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the
Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -104 t(81) = -932 p =354 In contrast there
was a significant negative relationship between MACH-IV scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment
in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -295 t(81) = -276 p =007 (Figure 7)
Although one of the standardized betas (-104) was non-significant and the other (-295) was
significant the difference between the two betas was not significant so the predicted interaction
did not attain statistical significance
52
Figure 6 Relationship of MACH-IV total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -104 p = 354
Figure 7 Relationship of MACH-IV total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash High Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -295 p = 007
53
Hypothesis 4 Level of Psychopathy Will Incrementally Predict Abacus Task Enjoyment
The second main hypothesis was that psychopathy scores would incrementally predict
Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task above and beyond the predictive power of
Machiavellianism To test this hypothesis two hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted
using Self-Reported Enjoyment as the criterion
First hierarchical regression PPI-R SF total scores The first hierarchical regression
used PPI-R SF total scores as the psychopathy measure In the first step of the regression the
Choice to Lie condition was entered as a predictor In the second step standardized total
MACH-IV scores and the standardized interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice
condition were entered In the third step standardized PPI-R SF total scores and the
standardized interaction term of total PPI-R SF scores with choice condition were entered as a
predictor Results are shown in Table 3 As can be seen inclusion of PPI-R SF scores and their
interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment significantly increased predictive power above and
beyond scores on the MACH-IV ∆Rsup2 = 041 F(2158) = 367 p = 028 Although the change in
Rsup2 was significant it is important to note that the standardized beta for the PPI-R SF total scores
was not significant in predicting task enjoyment when added to MACH-IV scores in predicting
task enjoyment standardized β = -010 t(158) = -09 p = 930 In addition the standardized beta
for the interaction between PPI-R SF scores and choice condition only approached significance
when added to MACH-IV scores in block three (standardized β = -205 t(158) = -186 p =
065
54
Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianism
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=085 F(3160)=492 p=003 (∆Rsup2=045 F(2160)=394 p=021) High or Low Choice to Lie 703 256 208 275 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -173 178 -102 - 98 331 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -314 257 -128 -122 223 Step 3 Rsup2=125 F(5158)=452 p=001 (∆Rsup2=041 F(2158)=367 p=028) High or Low Choice to Lie 688 252 204 273 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -166 195 -098 - 85 397 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -165 273 -067 - 60 547 PPI-RSF Total Scores -017 192 -010 - 09 930 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -507 273 -205 -186 065 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics
Second hierarchical regression LPSP total scores The second hierarchical regression
used LPSP total scores as the psychopathy measure In the first step of the regression the Choice
to Lie condition was entered as a predictor In the second step standardized total MACH-IV
scores and the standardized interaction term of MACH-IV total scores were entered In the third
step standardized LPSP total scores and the standardized interaction term of total LPSP scores
with choice condition were entered as a predictor Results are shown in Table 4 As can be seen
inclusion of total LPSP scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment did not
significantly increase predictive power above and beyond MACH-IV scores ∆Rsup2= 026
F(2158)= 233 p=101
55
Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (LPSP) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianism
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=085 F(3160)=492 p=003 (∆Rsup2=045 F(2160)=394 p=021) High or Low Choice to Lie 703 256 208 275 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -173 178 -102 - 98 331 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -314 257 -128 -122 223 Step 3 Rsup2=111 F(5158)=394 p=002 (∆Rsup2=026 F(2158)=233 p=101) High or Low Choice to Lie 712 254 211 281 006 MACH-IV Total Scores -282 212 -167 -133 186 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -023 296 -009 - 08 939 LPSP Total Scores 188 204 111 92 358 Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -609 297 -238 -205 042 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics
32 Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory Analysis Incremental Prediction of Task Enjoyment by Machiavellianism
The analyses reported thus far were confirmatory and based on a priori hypotheses A
series of exploratory analyses were also carried out as reported in the following sections of the
Results In the first set of exploratory analyses two hierarchical multiple regressions were run to
identify whether MACH-IV total scores incrementally predicted Self-Reported Enjoyment of the
abacus task above and beyond the predictive power of psychopathy scores
First hierarchical regression Incremental predictive power of MACH-IV total scores
over PPI-R SF total scores The first exploratory analysis was conducted to examine whether
MACH-IV scores incrementally increased prediction of abacus task enjoyment above and
beyond the predictive power of PPI-R SF scores A hierarchical regression was conducted In
step one the Choice to Lie condition was entered in step two standardized PPI-R SF total
56
scores and the standardized interaction term of total PPI-R SF scores with choice condition was
entered and finally in step three the standardized total MACH-IV scores and the standardized
interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice condition were entered As can be seen in
Table 5 the inclusion of MACH-IV total scores and their interaction with Choice Condition did
not significantly increase predictive power ∆Rsup2= 020 F(2158)= 185 p= 160
Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF)
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=105 F(3160)=623 plt001 (∆Rsup2=065 F(2160)=582 p=004) High or Low Choice to Lie 661 252 196 262 010 PPI-RSF Total Score -089 173 -053 -52 607 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -536 254 -216 -211 036 Step 3 Rsup2=125 F(5158)=452 p=001 (∆Rsup2=020 F(2158)=185 p=160) High or Low Choice to Lie 688 252 204 273 007 PPI-RSF Total Scores -017 192 -010 -09 930 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -507 273 -205 -186 065 MACH-IV Total Scores -166 195 -098 -85 397 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -165 273 -067 -60 547 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Significant alpha levels are in bold Moderate alpha levels are in italics Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Second hierarchical regression Incremental predictive power of MACH-IV total scores
over LPSP total scores A similar hierarchical multiple regression was performed to examine
whether MACH-IV scores incrementally increase prediction of abacus task enjoyment above and
beyond the predictive power of LPSP scores An incremental hierarchical regression was
conducted In step one the Choice to Lie condition was entered in step two standardized LPSP
57
total scores and the standardized interaction term of total LPSP scores with choice condition was
entered and finally in step three the standardized total MACH-IV scores and the standardized
interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice condition were entered As can be seen in
Table 6 the results of this analysis like the previous one were not significant ∆Rsup2= 022
F(2158)= 198 p= 142 The inclusion of Machiavellianism in the regression equation did not
significantly increase predictive power above and beyond the predictive power of LPSP scores
Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (LPSP)
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=089 F(3160)=518 p=002 (∆Rsup2=049 F(2160)=430 p=015) High or Low Choice to Lie 699 255 207 274 007
LPSP Total Score 037 171 022 22 827
Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -603 258 -236 -234 021 Step 3 Rsup2=111 F(5158)=394 p=002 (∆Rsup2=022 F(2158)=198 p=142) High or Low Choice to Lie 712 254 211 281 006 LPSP Total Scores 188 204 111 92 358 Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -609 297 -238 -205 042 MACH-IV Total Scores -282 212 -167 -133 186 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -023 296 -009 -08 939 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Significant alpha levels are in bold Moderate alpha levels are in italics Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Exploratory Analysis PPI-R SF Subscales as Predictors
The second set of exploratory multiple regressions was conducted using the eight
subscales of the PPI-R SF and their interaction with Choice Condition as predictors Each
subscale measures a different unique aspect of psychopathy The goal of the analyses was to
58
determine which aspects of psychopathy were related to self-reported abacus task enjoyment
A series of multiple linear regressions were conducted with abacus task enjoyment as the
criterion In each multiple regression the predictors were Choice to Lie condition the
standardized total score of the individual PPI-R subscale and the interaction term of the
standardized individual subscale total score with Choice to Lie condition Results are shown in
Table 2 All of the PPI-R SF subscales except for the Stress Immunity and Social Influence
subscales had significant model equations In addition three subscales also produced significant
interactions with choice condition in predicting level of task enjoyment (a) Machiavellian
Egocentricity standardized β of the interaction = -295 t(163) = -281 p = 006 (b)
Fearlessness standardized β of the interaction = -274 t(163) = -247 p = 015 (c) Rebellious
Nonconformity standardized β of the interaction = -243 t(163) = -230 p = 023 The
remaining five subscales did not have interactions with choice condition that significantly
predicted task enjoyment
Exploratory Analysis PPI-R SF Factors as Predictors
Next two multiple regressions were carried out one for each of the two factors of the
PPI-R SF The intention of these analyses was to determine if these factors of psychopathy
(cognitive traits or behavioral traits) would account for the lack of cognitive dissonance found in
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy
First multiple regression The Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R SF The Fearless
Dominance factor (PPI-R SF-1-FD) is comprised of three of the eight subscales of the PPI-R
SF the Social Influence subscale the Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscale A
multiple regression was run with Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test as the criterion and
Choice Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) the standardized PPI-R SF-
59
1-FD total scores and the interaction of Choice Condition with the standardized PPI-R SF-1-FD
total scores as the predictors Results of the multiple regression are shown in Table 2 As can be
seen the model in the regression equation was statistically significant Rsup2 = 053 F(3160) =
296 p = 034 However the interaction of PPI-R SF-1-FD total scores and choice condition
was not statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -167
t(163) = -146 p = 146
Second multiple regression The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF Next
a similar multiple regression was run replacing the PPI-RSF-1-FD with the Self-Centered
Impulsivity factor scale scores (PPI-R SF-2-SCI) The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor is
comprised of the Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale
and the Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale of the PPI-R SF Results of the model in the multiple
regression equation were statistically significant Rsup2 = 115 F(3160) = 690 p lt 001 In addition
the interaction between the PPI-R SF-2-SCI and choice condition was statistically significant as
well standardized β = -220 t(163) = -2213 p = 028 These results suggested that the more
behavioral antisocial behavior characteristics of psychopathy (impulsivity blame
externalization lack of planning abilities) impacted cognitive dissonance arousal
Exploratory Analysis LPSP Factor Scales as Predictors
The next set of exploratory analyses were conducted on the LPSPrsquos two factor scales
The LPSP breaks into a Primary Psychopathy Scale and a Secondary Psychopathy Scale The
Primary Scale identifies the more cognitively based aspects of psychopathy much as the PPI-R
SF-1-FD Factor does The Secondary Psychopathy Scale of the LPSP measures the behaviorally
based dimensions of psychopathy (impulsivity asociality) much like the PPI-R SF-2-SCI
60
Factor Two hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine the interaction between each of
the LPSP factor scales and choice condition in predicting abacus task enjoyment
First multiple regression LPSP Primary Factor scores First a multiple regression was
employed with the Choice to Lie condition the standardized Primary Factor total scores of the
LPSP and the interaction term of the standardized Primary Factor total scores with the Choice to
Lie condition as the predictors Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test was the criterion in
the multiple regression The results of the regression model equation were statistically significant
Rsup2 = 073 F(3160) = 420 p = 007 However the results of the interaction between the Primary
Factor and choice condition only approached statistical significance standardized β = -199
t(163) = -192 p = 057
Second multiple regression LPSP Secondary Factor scores The Secondary factor of the
LPSP accounts for the environmental behaviorally based traits associated with psychopathy
(impulsivity asociality) A multiple regression was run replacing the LPSP Primary factor scores
with the LPSP Secondary factor scores In other words the predictors were Choice to Lie
condition standardized LPSP Secondary factor scores and the interaction of Choice to Lie with
standardized LPSP Secondary factor scores Again Self-Reported Enjoyment of the Abacus task
was the criterion Results of the multiple regression model equation were statistically significant
Rsup2 = 063 F(3160) = 359 p = 015 However results of the interaction between the Secondary
factor of the LPSP and choice condition were not statistically significant standardized β = -161
t(163) = -1452 p = 148
This analysis of the LPSP Primary and Secondary factor scales suggests that the
cognitive dimensions of psychopathy may best account for a lack of cognitive dissonance in this
experiment These results support the notion that it is these cognitive deficits assessed by the
61
Primary Scale of the LPSP (lack of guilt callousness lack of concern for others) that best
account for individuals with higher levels of psychopathy not experiencing the attitude shift
found in people with lower levels of psychopathy
Exploratory Analysis MACH-IV Subscales as predictors
The next set of exploratory analyses examined the five subscales of the MACH-IV as
predictors of task enjoyment when interacting with Choice to Lie condition Though the
interaction of total MACH-IV scores and choice condition was not a significant predictor of a
lack of task enjoyment the subscales were analyzed using multiple regression in order to
determine if any aspect of MACH might account for a lack of cognitive dissonance in
individuals with higher levels of MACH In the regressions the predictors were Choice to Lie
condition the standardized MACH-IV subscale total scores and the standardized interaction
term of total MACH-IV subscale scores with Choice to Lie condition Results are reported in
Table 2 All of the regression model equations for each subscale were statistically significant
Though all model equations were significant only the interaction of choice condition with the
Flattery subscale of the MACH-IV was significant in predicting reported abacus task enjoyment
standardized β = -204 t(163) = -200 p = 047 The interaction terms of the remaining four
subscales of the MACH-IV were not significant
Exploratory Analysis Follow-up Multiple Regression Analyses with No-Lie Participants
Removed
As previously indicated all multiple regressions reported here were run a second time
but including only the sub-set of participants who lied to the confederate (N=158) The results of
these follow-up multiple regressions (with N = 158) all led to the same substantive conclusions
as the analyses already reported (with N = 164) with one exception The only analysis that
62
changed significantly was the multiple linear regression looking at the interaction between the
Primary factor of the LPSP and choice condition In the original multiple regression (N = 164)
this interaction only approached statistical significance In the follow-up multiple regression (N
= 158) this interaction attained statistical significance standardized β = -216 t(157) = -202 p =
045
Exploratory Analysis Correlations of Psychopathy and Machiavellian measures
Pearsonrsquos r correlations were run on the three psychopathy and MACH measures and
their respective factors and subscales to identify associations among the measures
Correlations of psychopathy and Machiavellianism total scores Correlations among the
PPI-RSF LPSP and MACH-IV total scores are reported in Table 7 As can be seen all three
measures were significantly correlated with each other The largest correlation was between
MACH-IV and LPSP total scores r = 510 p lt 01
Table 7 Correlations Between the Total Scores of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measures
PPIRSF Total Score
LPSP Total Score
MACH-IV Total Score
PPIRSF Total Score 1
LPSP Total Score
345dagger 1
MACH-IV Total Score
376dagger 510dagger 1
Note dagger Correlations significant at the 01 level
Correlations of PPI-R SF and LPSP factor scores Pearsonrsquos r correlations were run on
the factors of the PPI-R SF and the LPSP in order to illuminate the relationship among these
factors in the present sample of participants Results are shown in Table 8
63
First the PPIR SF total score correlated significantly with both the Primary (r = 322 p
lt01) and the Secondary (r = 212 p lt 01) factor scores of the LPSP The PPI-R SF Factor Two
Scale of Self-Centered Impulsivity (behavioral characteristics of psychopathy) positively
correlated with the LPSP total (r = 509 p lt01) Primary (r = 368 p lt 01) and Secondary (r =
498 p lt 01) factors In contrast the PPI-R SF Factor One Scale of Fearless Dominance (PPI-
R SF-1-FD) correlated significantly only with the Secondary Scale of the LPSP (r = -156 p lt
05) This correlation indicates that as scores on the PPI-R SF-1-FD increase scores on the
LPSP Secondary Scale decrease However it should be noted that this correlation is very weak
Correlations of PPI-R and MACH-IV factor scores and subscale scores As can be seen
in Table 8 the PPI-R SF total score correlated significantly with all of the MACH subscales
except for the Cynicism subscale Interestingly PPI-R SF Factor 2 Self-Centered Impulsivity
which assesses the behavioral characteristics of psychopathy correlated significantly with the
MACH-IV total score (r = 478) and all of the subscales of the MACH-IV Deceit (r = 383)
Flattery (r = 210) Immorality (r = 297) Cynicism (r = 242) and Residual (r = 279) at p lt 01
level of significance PPI-R SF Factor 1 Fearless Dominance which assesses the cognitive
aspects of psychopathy did not significantly correlate with the MACH-IV total score or any of
its subscales These exploratory findings suggest that the Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the
PPI-R SF accounts for the relationship of MACH-IV scores with PPIRSF scores
Correlations of LPSP and MACH-IV factor scores and subscale scores As shown in
Table 8 MACH-IV total scores significantly correlated with both the Primary (r = 467 p lt01)
and Secondary (r = 327 p lt 01) factors of the LPSP The LPSP total score and factor scales
(Primary and Secondary) correlated significantly with the total MACH-IV score and all of the
MACH-IV subscales except for the Flattery subscale (see Table 8 for the correlations) This
64
finding is interesting because the Flattery subscale was the only element of the MACH-IV found
to be a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment in the interaction with choice condition
mentioned previously and yet it did not correlate with the LPSP at all
65
Tab
le 8
Cor
rela
tions
Bet
wee
n th
e P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
MA
CH
-IV
The
ir F
acto
rs a
nd S
ubsc
ales
Not
e
dagger C
orre
latio
n si
gnifi
cant
at
01 le
vel
Cor
rela
tion
sign
ific
ant a
t 05
leve
l P
redi
ctor
Abb
revi
atio
ns P
PIR
= P
PI-R
SF
tota
l sco
re P
1FD
= P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 1
ndash F
earl
ess
Dom
inan
ce F
acto
r Sco
re P
2SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f Cen
tere
d Im
puls
ivity
Fac
tor S
core
M
Ego
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
rici
ty s
ubsc
ale
Soc
In =
PPI
-RS
F So
cial
Influ
ence
sub
scal
e F
ear =
PPI
-RS
F Fe
arle
ssne
ss s
ubsc
ale
Col
d =
PPI-
RS
F C
oldh
eart
edne
ss s
ubsc
ale
R
ebel
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
= P
PI-R
SF
Bla
me
Ext
erna
lizat
ion
Subs
cale
Car
e =
PPI-
RS
F C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Str
ess
= PP
I-R
SF
Stre
ss
Imm
unity
sub
scal
e L
PSP
= L
PSP
tota
l sco
re P
rim
e =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le S
econ
= L
PSP
Seco
ndar
y su
bsca
le M
AC
H =
MA
CH
-IV
tota
l sco
re D
ece
= M
AC
H-I
V D
ecei
t sub
scal
e F
lat =
M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
or =
MA
CH
-IV
Imm
oral
ity s
ubsc
ale
Cyn
= M
AC
H-I
V C
ynic
ism
sub
scal
e R
esid
= M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1PPIR
1
2P1FD
761
dagger 1
3P2SCI
771
dagger 240
dagger 1
4M Ego
516
dagger 068
712
dagger 1
5Soc In
471
dagger 658
dagger 141
087
1
6Fear
645
dagger 727
dagger 362
dagger 104
244
dagger 1
7Cold
443
dagger 232
dagger 124
191
071
076
1
8Rebel
738
dagger 478
dagger 717
dagger 357
dagger 231
dagger 522
dagger 147
1
9Blm E
264
dagger -129
629
dagger 348
dagger -047
090
-194
161
1
10Care
500
dagger 210
dagger 540
dagger 175
101
203
dagger 229
dagger 305
dagger 041
1
11Stres
476
dagger 711
dagger 000
-044
198
258
dagger 330
dagger 240
dagger -306
dagger 132
1
12LPSP
345
dagger -024
509
dagger 534
dagger -018
065
209
dagger 241
dagger 369
dagger 186
-097
1
13Prime
322
dagger 059
368
dagger 473
dagger 082
031
275
dagger 171
219
dagger 105
015
902
dagger 1
14Secon
212
dagger -156
498
dagger 370
dagger -183
090
-011
241
dagger 443
dagger 233
dagger -243
dagger 664
dagger 277
dagger 1
15MACH
376
dagger 076
478
dagger 477
dagger 150
105
182
244
dagger 278
dagger 264
dagger -083
510
dagger 467
dagger 327
dagger 1
16Dece
356
dagger 085
383
dagger 380
dagger 096
121
320
dagger 190
094
384
dagger -033
312
dagger 295
dagger 185
631
dagger 1
17Flat
189
030
210
dagger 192
200
-019
186
087
062
236
dagger -097
139
118
104
570
dagger 304
dagger 1
18Immor
176
-003
297
dagger 276
dagger 022
069
-013
143
296
dagger 040
-093
405
dagger 345
dagger 306
dagger 589
dagger 153
202
dagger 1
19Cyn
152
030
242
dagger 316
dagger -025
092
-052
160
092
072
-008
449
dagger 449
dagger 223
dagger 454
dagger 169
057
152
1
20Resid
231
dagger 073
279
dagger 266
dagger 133
049
086
146
231
dagger 076
-019
248
dagger 226
dagger 161
689
dagger 244
dagger 213
dagger 197
175
1
66
Exploratory Analyses Multiple Regressions with Self-Reported Guilt as the Criterion and Level
of Psychopathy and MACH as Predictors
In addition to the multiple regressions that were run with Self-Reported Enjoyment
Rating of the abacus task as the criterion and the interaction between choice level and
psychopathy (and MACH) level as the predictors identical multiple regressions were conducted
with level of guilt as the criterion in the place of Self-Reported Level of Enjoyment Multiple
regressions were run where the predictors were Choice to Lie condition standardized
psychopathy and MACH measure total factor and subscale scores (individually) and the
interaction of Choice to Lie with PPI-R SF LPSP or MACH scales In these analyses level of
guilt was the criterion On the post experimental questionnaire two questions assessed
participantsrsquo level of guilt for telling the ldquofuture participantrdquo that the abacus task was fun These
two guilt related questions correlated highly with one another (r = 789) and so their scores were
added together and a new variable called ldquoGuiltrdquo was created from their sum
Multiple regressions on the interaction between choice and level of psychopathy (and
MACH) The goal of these exploratory analyses was to further explore the role that guilt plays
during cognitive dissonance arousal Results of all multiple regression analyses with guilt as the
criterion are presented in Table 9 As can be seen the interaction between level of psychopathy
(and MACH) and choice condition as predictors of guilt was only significant for the Self
Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF The multiple regression model equation for the
Self Centered Impulsivity factor was statistically significant Rsup2 = 056 F(3160) = 314 p = 027
In addition results of the interaction between the Self Centered Impulsivity factor and choice
condition were statistically significant standardized β = 232 t(163) = 225 p = 026
Interestingly this regression was not only significant but also positive All other interactions of
67
total subscale and factor scales of the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV with choice condition
were not significant in predicting participantsrsquo level of self-reported guilt
The fact that all other total scores subscales and factor scales did not attain significant
interactions with choice condition using guilt as the criterion makes sense when considering
cognitive dissonance theory The cognitive dissonance literature indicates that there should not
be an interaction on guilt because participants strive to reduce their feelings of guilt after
engaging in counterattitudinal behavior discrepant with their beliefs Therefore participants with
low levels of psychopathy after misleading the confederate in the High Choice condition would
have immediately experienced cognitive dissonance and thus their attitude would have shifted
towards enjoying the task in order to reduce the psychological tension produced by voluntarily
misleading the ldquofuture participantrdquo Therefore by the time they answered the guilt questions on
the post-experimental questionnaire they would not feel guilt because their attitude had shifted
to be in favor of the task
Main effects for relationship between psychopathy and guilt Finally an important result
of these exploratory analyses was that significant main effects were found between level of
psychopathy (measured by the PPI-R SF) and participantsrsquo level of guilt following the deception
task Specifically the PPI-R SF total score both factor scores (Fearless Dominance and Self
Centered Impulsivity) the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale and the Stress Immunity subscale
had significant model predictor equations (see Table 9) The model equation for the Fearlessness
subscale approached significance F(3160) = 243 p = 068 as well
After model equations were accounted for the PPI-R SF had a significant relationship
with level of guilt such that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy experienced less guilt
than participants with lower levels of psychopathy across choice conditions (standardized β = -
68
359 t(163) = -346 p = 001) In addition both factor scales of the PPI-R SF (Fearless
Dominance and Self Centered Impulsivity) were significant in predicting guilt (standardized β =
-292 t(163) = -257 p = 011 standardized β = -314 t(163) = -305 p = 003) respectively
Finally three of the PPI-R SF subscales reached significance in predicting level of guilt in
participants as well Fearlessness Stress Immunity and Rebellious Nonconformity The
Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscales load on the Fearless Dominance factor
of the PPI-R SF which is important to note because this factor assesses the cognitive aspects of
psychopathy including lack of guilt and lack of remorse Therefore these results provide support
for the validity of the PPI-R SF in assessing psychopathic traits such as guiltlessness
69
Tab
le 9
M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts C
rite
rion
is S
elf-
Rep
orte
d G
uilt
Aft
er M
isle
adin
g th
e C
onfe
dera
te
Pre
dict
ors
are
the
P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
and
MA
CH
-IV
Tot
al S
core
s an
d Su
bsca
les
Eac
h R
ow R
epre
sent
s R
esul
ts F
rom
One
Mul
tiple
Reg
ress
ion
Ov
eral
l Mo
del
High
L
ow C
hoic
e
Psyc
hopa
thy
Ma
ch P
redi
ctor
In
tera
ctio
n
Pred
icto
r
F
(df)
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
PPI-
RSF
456
(3160)
00
4
046
597
006
08
938
-1419
410
-359
-346
00
1
851
600
147
142
158
PPI FD
361
(3160)
01
5
-003
603
lt001
-01
996
-1151
449
-292
-257
01
1
309
607
058
51
611
PPI SCI
314
(3160)
02
7
055
605
007
09
928
-1237
406
-314
-305
00
3
1376
611
232
225
026
Mach Ego
95
(3160)
417
091
618
012
15
883
-627
438
-159
-143
154
1018
620
182
164
103
Soc Infl
32
(3160)
811
029
623
004
05
963
-047
474
-012
-10
921
-356
631
-068
-56
574
Fearless
243
(3160)
068
018
609
002
03
977
-1166
448
-296
-260
01
0
875
612
162
143
155
Coldhrt
52
(3160)
671
132
621
017
21
832
-446
471
-113
-95
346
113
628
021
18
857
Rebel
743
(3160)
lt00
1
050
583
006
09
931
-1718
407
-435
-422
lt00
1
833
585
147
142
156
Blm Ext
157
(3160)
199
062
613
008
10
919
-330
449
-084
-73
464
1190
616
220
193
055
Carefree
126
(3160)
290
-067
622
-009
-11
914
-814
425
-206
-192
057
669
625
115
107
287
Stress
426
(3160)
00
6
177
599
023
30
768
-972
421
-246
-231
02
2
-199
601
-035
-33
742
LPSP
41
(3160)
744
090
621
011
15
885
-445
415
-113
-107
286
577
627
097
92
359
Primary
39
(3160)
764
090
621
011
15
885
-443
425
-112
-104
299
549
624
095
88
381
Second
17
(3160)
919
080
622
010
13
897
-301
450
-076
-67
505
386
624
071
62
537
MACH
-IV
02
(3160)
996
076
623
010
12
903
-085
433
-021
-20
845
116
625
020
19
852
Deceit
15
(3160)
928
071
622
009
11
910
-172
406
-043
-42
673
421
634
068
66
508
Flattery
25
(3160)
864
100
622
013
16
872
-320
416
-081
-77
443
150
628
025
24
812
Immoral
85
(3160)
468
082
618
010
13
894
396
443
100
89
373
-968
620
-175
-156
121
Cynicism
52
(3160)
669
040
620
005
06
949
368
472
093
78
436
032
627
006
05
960
Residual
19
(3160)
900
069
621
009
11
912
-309
410
-078
-75
452
326
630
054
52
606
Not
e
Sig
nific
ant p
val
ues
(p lt
05)
are
in b
old
p v
alue
s ap
proa
chin
g si
gnif
ican
ce (lt
10)
are
in it
alic
s
Pre
dict
or A
bbre
viat
ions
PPI
-RS
F =
PPI-
RS
F to
tal s
core
PPI
FD
= P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 1
ndash F
earle
ss D
omin
ance
Fac
tor S
core
PPI
SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f Cen
tere
d
Impu
lsiv
ity F
acto
r Sco
re M
ach
Ego
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
rici
ty s
ubsc
ale
Soc
Infl
= PP
I-R
SF
Soci
al In
fluen
ce s
ubsc
ale
Fea
rless
= P
PI-R
SF
Fear
less
ness
sub
scal
e
Col
dhrt
= PP
I-R
SF
Col
dhea
rted
ness
sub
scal
e R
ebel
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
xt =
PPI
-RS
F B
lam
e E
xter
naliz
atio
n Su
bsca
le C
aref
ree
= PP
I-R
SF
C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Stre
ss Im
un =
PPI
-RS
F St
ress
Imm
unity
sub
scal
e L
PSP
= LP
SP to
tal s
core
Pri
mar
y =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le S
econ
d =
LPSP
Sec
onda
ry
subs
cale
MA
CH
-IV
= M
AC
H-I
V to
tal s
core
Dec
eit =
MA
CH
-IV
Dec
eit s
ubsc
ale
Fla
ttery
= M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
oral
= M
AC
H-I
V Im
mor
ality
sub
scal
e C
ynic
ism
=
MA
CH
-IV
Cyn
icis
m s
ubsc
ale
Res
idua
l = M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
Mod
el A
bbre
viat
ions
Un-
Stzd
β =
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Bet
a S
td E
rr =
Sta
ndar
d E
rror
Stz
d β
= St
anda
rdiz
ed B
eta
70
Exploratory Analyses Factor Analyses of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measures
In order to assess what specific constructs the self-report psychopathy and
Machiavellianism measures were identifying several factor analyses were conducted The goal
of these analyses was twofold First the intention was to categorize the unique traits of
psychopathy and MACH that were being identified in the participants by these measures and
second to distinguish overall factors of these personality traits that are similar across measures
Factor analysis of PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV total scores The total scores of the
PPI-R LPSP and MACH-IV were factor analyzed using principal axis factor analysis Squared
multiple correlations were used to estimate communalities in the initial factor pattern and
solutions were iterated four times Only one component in a preliminary principal components
analysis had an eigenvalue greater than 1 (1826) and the scree plot of the eigenvalues indicated
a clear break after one factor However for exploratory purposes three-factor and two-factor
factor analytic solutions were also attempted The three-factor solution yielded three factors
each corresponding to the three original variables The two-factor solution yielded one large
primary factor and a second factor with only trivial loadings (all loadings lt 25) Therefore the
one-factor solution was selected as the most informative Oblique rotation was performed using
Promax As can be seen in Table 10 one clearly defined factor emerged from the three variables
The factor appears to tap psychopathic and Machiavellian tendencies and thus has been named
Psychopathic Machiavellianism
Table 10 Factor Solutions Between PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores
Measure Psychopathic
Machiavellianism PPI-R SF Total Score 505 LPSP Total Score 687 MACH-IV Total Score 743
71
Factor analysis of all psychopathy and Machiavellianism items A second factor analysis
was run using all of the individual items from the three self-report measures of psychopathy and
Machiavellianism (PPI-R SF LPSP MACH-IV) Squared multiple correlations were used to
estimate communalities in the initial factor pattern Thirty-two components with eigenvalues
greater than 1 emerged from a preliminary principle component analysis and the scree plot
indicated there were approximately 25 to 35 factors
A principal axis factor analysis with Promax rotation was performed extracting 32
factors However only 15 of the 32 factors had two or more factor loadings greater than 50
Therefore several additional factor solutions were attempted to determine how many relevant
meaningful factors were present Finally it was determined that a nine-factor solution yielded the
largest number of interpretable factors with each factor including at least two variables with
loadings greater than 50 (see Table 11) Upon analyzing the items that loaded into each of the
nine factors names were identified for each factor based on the common characteristics of the
items The nine factors are Machiavellian Success Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Immunity
Feelings of Persecution Inability to Plan Social Disregard Interpersonal Ease Manipulative
Deceit and Social Frustration
72
Table 11 Factor Loadings of Total Item Factor Analysis
Factor Original Item
Mach Succes
Thrill Seek
Stress Immun Persec Inabl
Plan Social Dsrgrd
Intper Ease
Manip Deceit
Soc Frustr
L2 654 069 -068 217 070 -042 -184 -006 -092 L4 595 -044 044 117 044 136 029 039 064 L1 586 060 -009 106 127 -235 195 -023 -099 L3 576 097 027 023 144 -046 013 007 098 L5 551 -073 131 -047 022 026 205 -041 028 L12 -516 -010 -180 000 156 147 066 073 181 L8 466 030 082 -162 093 -021 109 022 076 L14 -428 -032 150 -103 202 023 131 224 230 L15 -402 053 -078 -039 146 000 -023 -215 260 L6 387 001 040 050 108 -183 -212 -038 132 L7 368 -121 -216 162 165 -095 -154 116 -008 M9 -322 -099 -009 154 100 -300 -076 -191 039 L26 320 165 054 101 051 073 -198 034 042 L11 318 222 -223 -116 059 -030 007 -078 219 M7 -288 108 -090 -102 -014 -006 -085 -158 -168 M17 -225 031 136 012 -018 -160 200 210 070 M3 -195 -159 -087 -057 -017 060 077 002 -037 M16 -179 108 -012 -141 -115 -170 -168 008 -052 P53 074 655 052 -031 -075 061 -179 -014 066 P5 -034 637 032 -128 -154 077 -138 -115 063 P38 050 555 207 034 -038 011 010 -143 -086 P22 080 535 -013 -261 023 043 003 069 045 P9 063 514 -060 179 -002 -148 -023 -130 010 P19 059 -475 057 022 049 -074 -052 -068 115 P16 051 468 -166 103 -108 -059 -015 -088 104 P1 157 -407 037 046 095 019 -047 -145 183 P52 -033 407 -199 050 -123 073 128 175 -058 P36 157 353 020 130 -014 145 143 156 -039 P30 148 308 -267 161 024 -059 -049 205 125 P47 -126 261 -067 069 -015 -029 134 135 237 P4 -117 259 -250 098 046 219 116 107 033 P14 251 251 -110 005 -109 064 117 -168 088 P48 114 031 733 054 073 -042 023 -035 005 P39 022 086 660 134 128 066 -007 103 -051 P28 080 -073 609 -008 -017 183 -061 187 093 P11 153 007 563 -118 -141 266 -026 051 112 P26 -089 -111 543 091 141 074 -037 075 001 P13 -004 039 -506 -095 129 144 -034 084 -135 M14 084 -035 359 209 -062 -125 211 069 -164 P2 -027 189 -335 125 -193 005 173 083 074 P23 176 050 -309 033 -190 082 108 075 266 M19 -188 -022 250 -069 -150 -116 088 043 -054 M2 -219 -015 240 176 -233 -101 114 054 223 M20 -048 -039 226 064 -158 -178 165 049 -121 P41 012 -047 -009 636 -081 -004 058 038 096 L25 011 -033 061 591 -093 -048 -050 -112 054 P50 -019 016 024 583 021 104 049 -020 209 P24 085 012 211 546 -065 049 073 094 -106 P6 100 147 153 490 -028 -050 072 072 -036 P34 163 -039 055 440 046 154 004 -010 058 L24 141 -093 -172 373 -078 -074 -075 -040 186 M18 005 028 104 -329 -005 -129 023 179 -057 M6 -059 -157 -193 -261 146 -019 031 -129 -448E-005 P42 099 -181 073 -073 542 057 020 -006 023 P40 148 -231 018 -220 521 -001 005 -026 033 L23 003 -268 -162 -030 516 086 085 -188 070 M8 -091 -003 -077 103 -504 -044 -117 -056 -045 P51 035 -096 -050 -042 447 -217 -091 -023 153 P33 123 071 178 164 447 -042 144 -261 042 P49 056 -025 -056 -138 394 215 -169 -059 019 M10 282 -018 046 -162 -374 -041 134 -105 119 P20 254 003 063 -132 370 026 049 226 -287 L10 -294 313 014 -246 366 -174 027 004 220 P56 144 083 -144 186 -354 072 061 136 269 M5 021 040 -001 -154 -350 -077 -050 192 238
73
Factor Original Item
Mach Succes
Thrill Seek
Stress Immun
Persec
Inabl Plan
Social Dsrgrd
Intper Ease
Manip Deceit
Soc
Frustr M13 124 105 157 -226 -311 -216 050 -073 163 L19 -089 054 -123 089 286 -129 -004 045 -063 P45 -207 -081 211 045 270 255 023 -068 043 L21 -077 -179 056 170 -229 042 -118 195 187 P37 111 235 211 017 024 592 -112 -115 017 P12 044 149 138 -123 057 571 023 003 110 P27 -144 -152 013 056 052 547 057 095 081 P10 -096 -031 -030 065 -023 453 042 -110 -090 P55 -184 -010 -177 183 -031 419 -035 051 -010 P54 094 -076 -127 -024 339 406 163 024 151 P25 -064 128 192 275 -051 392 087 -284 022 M12 -115 -023 -024 002 -220 245 -052 -120 -130 P21 067 -141 077 154 112 -038 740 -057 130 P15 -059 138 -189 099 160 144 556 -128 054 P18 103 001 -135 -028 097 028 533 -021 -237 P32 023 037 -126 159 167 -088 -532 093 -016 P29 -067 211 -109 014 089 -199 528 -130 037 P17 133 401 250 -067 132 016 456 011 -085 P32 004 171 026 -039 269 -027 -454 174 -147 P43 071 046 112 -059 029 -021 -143 557 286 M1 -330 104 013 007 040 -115 102 -512 106 L9 363 -112 -006 -046 044 -113 085 491 120 L20 -108 030 004 035 -085 002 -043 463 -082 L18 -232 055 199 085 -004 -055 -263 446 025 P35 118 -031 -024 -029 -011 -083 -145 419 171 M15 036 -053 018 -161 -282 -094 088 332 081 P31 -030 176 213 160 198 -074 -102 319 224 L16 -154 -015 020 024 162 153 144 -185 164 L22 024 -112 063 204 128 107 -156 117 527 L17 -168 124 -069 090 048 054 000 180 518 P7 070 -190 243 173 -011 -023 205 025 487 P46 229 -086 172 098 009 -145 067 -156 448 P3 -022 073 297 034 -100 288 -202 -105 392 P44 109 084 013 224 077 -051 -199 046 280 M11 038 056 -087 -113 019 144 093 -025 266 M4 -205 046 092 080 080 -037 -123 -177 -263 L13 143 -030 -189 -079 -140 -124 028 139 238 Note Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation converged in 9 iterations Factor loadings gt 40 are in bold Abbreviations Original Item Number= The item number from each of the three self-report measures used in this study L = LPSP P = PPI-R SF M = MACH-IV (ex P48 = Item 48 on the PPI-R SF) Mach Succes = Machiavellian Success Thrill Seek = Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Immun = Stress Immunity Persec = Feelings of Persecution Inabl Plan = Inability to Plan Social Dsrgrd = Social Disregard Intper Ease = Interpersonal Ease Manip Deceit = Manipulative Deceit Soc Frust = Social Frustration
Factor analysis of PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV subscales Finally a principal axis
factor analysis of the subscales of the three self-report measures of psychopathy and
Machiavellianism was conducted Squared multiple correlations were used to estimate
communalities in the initial factor pattern In a preliminary principal components analysis five
components had eigenvalues greater than 1 (3410 2093 1422 1209 1128) and the scree plot
of the eigenvalues indicated a break around five factors
74
Oblique rotation of the initial principal axis pattern was performed using Promax A
three four and six factor solution was attempted in addition to the five factor solution In
comparing the pattern matrices between factor models each factor in the three-factor model was
interpretable and had at least two loadings greater than 50 whereas the five-factor model
included one factor that did not have at least two loadings greater than 50 In addition the four-
and five-factor models would not converge in fewer than 25 iterations The three-factor model
compared to the four and five-factor models also had the most meaningful factor loadings in
terms of shared characteristics among the subscales in each factor Therefore the three-factor
model was selected Table 12 reports the factor loadings for the three-factor model Based on the
common characteristics shared by the subscales in their respective factors the following factor
names were assigned Antisocial Behavior Coldhearted Callousness and Thrill Seeking
75
Table 12 Factor Loadings of the Psychopathy and MACH Measures Subscales Factor
Subscale Antisocial Behavior
Coldhearted Callousness
Thrill Seeking
PPI Blame Ext 707 -152 032 LPSP Secondary 630 050 023 PPI Mach Ego 467 401 070 PPI Stress Immun -455 148 421 MACH Cynicism 424 149 -016 MACH Flattery 302 191 020 PPI Coldhrt -307 638 035 MACH Deceit 130 588 -015 LPSP Primary 341 486 -071 MACH Immoral 088 397 -081 PPI Carefree 033 309 226 MACH Residual 251 261 004 PPI Rebel 209 -011 752 PPI Fearless 056 -168 746 PPI Social Influ -131 125 295 Note Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation converged in 6 iterations Factor loadings gt 30 appear in bold Subscale Abbreviations PPI Blame Ext = PPI-RSF Blame Externalization subscale LPSP Secondary = LPSP Secondary subscale PPI Mach Ego = PPI-RSF Machiavellianism Egocentricity subscale PPI Stress Immun = PPI-RSF Stress Immunity subscale MACH Cynicism = MACH-IVCynicism subscale MACH Flattery = MACH-IV Flattery subscale PPI Coldhrt = PPI-RSFColdheartedness subscale MACH Deceit = MACH-IV Deceit subscale LPSP Primary = LPSP Primary subscale MACH Immoral = MACH-IV Immorality subscale PPI Carefree = PPI-RSF Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale MACH Residual = MACH-IV Residual Subscale PPI Rebel = PPI-RSF Rebellious Nonconformity subscale PPI Fearless = PPI-RSF Fearlessness subscale PPI Social Influ = PPI-RSF Social Influence subscale
76
Chapter 4 Discussion
Four findings of the present study are particularly notable First as predicted the classic
cognitive dissonance effect was replicated in the sample as a whole That is participants in the
High Choice to Lie Condition reported enjoying the abacus task more than participants in the
Low Choice to Lie Condition Second as predicted a significant interaction was found between
Choice Condition and level of psychopathy as measured by the PPI-R SF and the LPSP
Specifically the classic cognitive dissonance effect was found among participants with lower
levels of psychopathic traits but not among participants with higher levels of psychopathic traits
Third contrary to prediction no significant interaction was found between Choice Condition and
level of Machiavellianism as measured by the MACH-IV Fourth level of psychopathy
demonstrated incremental predictive power over level of MACH in predicting abacus task
enjoyment Each of these four findings is discussed below
41 Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effect
One important finding of the current study was a significant main effect of Choice
Condition on abacus task enjoyment Specifically individuals in the High Choice to Lie
condition reported enjoying the abacus task more than participants in the Low Choice to Lie
condition
This finding replicates the results of two earlier studies that examined cognitive
dissonance in a similar manner In studies by Cooper and Worchel (1970) and Festinger and
Carlsmith (1959) participants performed a tedious task and then were asked to mislead a fellow-
student (actually a confederate) that the task was enjoyable Half of participants were given only
a weak external motivation to deceive the fellow-student (low monetary reward or half of an
experimental credit) whereas the other half of participants were given a stronger external
77
motivation to deceive the fellow-student (a high monetary reward or multiple experimental
credits) In both of these studies participants with weak external motivation to engage in the
deception reported enjoying the task more than did participants with stronger external
motivation
The main difference between the current study and the Cooper and Worchel (1970) and
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) studies is that external motivation (high or low) was manipulated
by the aforementioned researchers whereas we manipulated participantsrsquo level of perceived
choice However there is a close conceptual relationship between level of external motivation
and level of perceived choice from the perspective of cognitive dissonance theory Previous
research has indicated that both choice manipulation and external motivation have similar effects
in creating cognitive dissonance In both cases external justification is being manipulated
Participants in the low choice (direct instruction) condition attribute their actions to the influence
of external pressures that forced them to perform the dissonant behavior Participants rationalize
that if given the choice they would not have engaged in the behavior and thus cognitive
dissonance is avoided The same conclusion is drawn when participants are given high external
motivation to engage in a dissonant behavior such as a high monetary reward Participants again
rely on the external justification of high reward to explain their engagement in the dissonant act
They rationalize their dissonant behavior by relying on the high reward as justification for
behaving in uncharacteristically Participants in the high reward condition rationalize that if the
reward was not present as external justification then they would not have engaged in the task
which results in a lack of cognitive dissonance as well Alternatively participants with either
high choice (voluntary participation) or low reward cannot rely on external justification because
none exists in these conditions Thus attitude shift results from the need to ameliorate their
78
cognitive dissonance Overall external justification is needed to alleviate cognitive dissonance
arousal and this justification is provided by either an external motivation (reward) manipulation
or by a low choice manipulation
Self-perceived choice has frequently been used as the independent variable in cognitive
dissonance studies As in our experiment these earlier studies found that self-perceived choice
(ie High versus Low Choice) had a significant main effect on cognitive dissonance Several of
these studies reported that participants experienced an attitude shift toward being in favor of an
undesirable task or belief only when they felt free choice to engage in the dissonant behavior
such as misleading a confederate or writing a counterattitudinal essay (Brehm amp Cohn 1962
Chatzisarantis Hagger amp Wang 2008 Cooper 1971 Davis amp Jones 1960 Festinger amp
Carlsmith 1959 Linder Cooper amp Jones 1967 Seacuteneacutemeaud amp Somat 2009 Sherman 1970)
Therefore the current experiment has added empirical support to the body of cognitive
dissonance research examining choice condition as a predictor of attitude shift
42 Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonance
The main hypothesis of this study was that people with low levels of psychopathy would
experience cognitive dissonance about engaging in deception whereas individuals with higher
levels of psychopathy would not experience cognitive dissonance
PPI-R SF total scores and cognitive dissonance Results supported our hypothesis in
regard to psychopathy when measured by total scores on the PPI-R SF Participants with higher
total scores on the PPI-R SF reported significantly less enjoyment of the abacus task on the post-
experimental questionnaire than participants with lower levels of psychopathy Specifically the
interaction between Choice to Lie condition and total PPI-R SF scores was significant in
predicting abacus task enjoyment standardized β = -216 p =036 True to our prediction
79
participants with low to non-existent levels of psychopathy experienced cognitive dissonance
only when in the High Choice to Lie condition and not in the Low Choice to Lie condition
Consistent with earlier studies (Cooper amp Worchel 1970 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959) it
appears that low psychopathy participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition perceived that they
had a strong external motivation for misleading their fellow-student (direct instruction to lie)
Thus they did not experience cognitive dissonance and could (accurately) rate the abacus task as
boring However low psychopathy participants in the High Choice to Lie condition did not
perceive that they had a strong external motivation for misleading their fellow student (they
voluntarily agreed to tell the lie after being asked) The participants experienced cognitive
dissonance in the form of psychological tension or guilt which they reduced by convincing
themselves that the abacus task was actually interesting as they had told their fellow student
On the other hand participants with higher levels of psychopathy reported disliking the
abacus task on the post-experimental questionnaire regardless of the Choice to Lie condition they
were in It appears that participants with higher levels of psychopathy did not experience
cognitive dissonance (ie psychological tension or guilt) about misleading a fellow student
Consequently these participants did not experience a need to change their view of the abacus
task or to rate it as more enjoyable than it really was
PPI-R SF subscales on cognitive dissonance Exploratory analyses were conducted
using the eight subscales of the PPI-R SF Each subscale measures a different facet of
psychopathy The goal of analyzing each subscale individually was to examine which aspects of
psychopathy if any were related to a lack of cognitive dissonance Three subscales produced
significant interactions with choice condition in predicting level of task enjoyment
Machiavellian Egocentricity (ME) Fearlessness (F) and Rebellious Nonconformity (RN) The
80
Machiavellian Egocentricity and Rebellious Nonconformity subscales load on the Self Centered
Impulsivity factor (antisocial behavior traits of psychopathy) of the PPI-R SF while the
Fearlessness subscale loads on the Fearless Dominance factor (cognitive personality based traits
of psychopathy) of the PPI-R SF
The Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale identifies aggressive self-centered tendencies
when interacting with other individuals (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003
Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996) Items from this subscale include ldquoI could be a good con-artistrdquo ldquoI
sometimes lie to see if I can get someone to believe merdquo and ldquoI tell people the part of the truth
they want to hearrdquo This scale seems to identify psychopathic characteristics that would allow for
individuals to have a lack of psychological tension or guilt over misleading others Thus in the
present experiment it appears that these traits may have inhibited participantsrsquo experience of
cognitive dissonance over lying to the confederate The significant interaction of the ME scale
and choice condition suggests that the participants in our study who lacked concern for
misleading others or even prided themselves in their ability to mislead others (as the scale
predicts) did not experience guilt or psychological stress
The Fearlessness (F) subscale of the PPI-R SF identifies willingness to engage in risky
behavior with a lack of regard for the negative consequences of onersquos actions The Rebellious
Nonconformity subscale (RN) indicates reckless behavior with a lack of concern for future
consequences (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Lilienfeld amp Andrews
1996) These scales are similar in that higher scores on the scales indicate an inability to
comprehend future negative consequences of onersquos actions These subscales also were
substantially correlated in the present study (r = 522) In regard to the current experiment it may
be that participants who scored higher on the Fearlessness and Rebellious Nonconformity
81
subscales were unable to comprehend or feel concern for the negative impact their deceptive
actions could have on their fellow student Thus participants with higher levels of fearlessness
and rebellious nonconformity may have experienced less psychological tension and less
cognitive dissonance about engaging in the deception than did participants with low levels of
these traits Because these findings are exploratory further studies should analyze these variables
so that strong conclusions can be made
PPI-R SF factors on cognitive dissonance In exploratory analyses the Self-Centered
Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF was the only factor to have a significant interaction with
choice condition in predicting abacus task enjoyment That is the dissonance effect was found
among participants with low scores on the PPI-R SF Self Centered Impulsivity factor but not
among participants with high scores The Self Centered Impulsivity factor is comprised of the
Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale and the Carefree
Nonplanfulness subscale of the PPI-R SF The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF
has been found in the literature to correlate with the behavioral traits associated with
psychopathy such as a DSM diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder lower education
levels lower employment rates lower SES and increased drug and alcohol abuse (Benning
Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003) Therefore the present results suggest that the
behavioral antisocial behavior characteristics of psychopathy (impulsivity blame
externalization lack of planning abilities) affected participantsrsquo experience of guilt-induced
cognitive dissonance
In contrast the interaction between the Fearless Dominance (FD) factor of the PPI-R SF
and choice condition was not a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment The Fearless
Dominance factor is characterized by low trait anxiety social dominance and fearlessness when
82
engaging in risky actions Individuals who score higher on the Fearless Dominance factor of the
PPI-R SF are often described as the more ldquosuccessful psychopathrdquo because they are
characterized by higher SES more advanced education and a lack of substance abuse (Benning
Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003) as compared to the type of psychopathy predicted by
the PPI-R SF Self Centered Impulsivity factor In fact studies have found that the two factors of
the PPI-R SF are orthogonal (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Lilienfeld amp
Fowler 2006) Therefore the present results suggest that individuals with higher scores on the
Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R SF may have the propensity to experience cognitive
dissonance more than individuals with the more antisocial traits of psychopathy (as measured by
the Self Centered Impulsivity Factor)
LPSP total scores on cognitive dissonance The effect of psychopathy on cognitive
dissonance was also examined using scores from the LPSP Similar to the results using the PPI-
R SF the interaction of LPSP total scores and choice condition was statistically significant in
predicting level of task enjoyment Specifically a significant relationship did not exist between
LPSP scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie
condition However in accordance with our prediction there was a significant negative
correlation between LPSP total scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie
condition This result further supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of
psychopathy would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher
levels would not
LPSP factor scores on cognitive dissonance Both the Primary and Secondary factors of
the LPSP were examined in exploratory analyses to see if one factorrsquos constellation of
psychopathic traits better accounted for a lack of cognitive dissonance than the other The
83
findings of this analysis implicate the cognitive (callousness fearless dominance low trait
anxiety) characteristics of psychopathy (as measured by the Primary factor) rather than the
external behavioral markers (as measured by the Secondary factor) as cues to understanding the
cognitive differences found in individuals with higher levels of psychopathy The results of the
interaction between the Primary (Cognitive) Factor and choice condition approached statistical
significance (unless the data was analyzed with the six individuals who did not lie factored out)
Further analysis of the data found that the interaction of LPSP Secondary (Behavioral) factor
scores with choice condition was not a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment
Interestingly these analyses of the LPSP factor scales yielded results that seem contrary
to the results concerning the PPI-R SF factor scales As already noted the PPI-R SF factor scale
analysis suggested that the behavioral characteristics of psychopathy (as measured by the PPI-R
Self Centered Impulsivity factor) were related to the absence of a cognitive dissonance effect In
contrast however the LPSP Secondary (behavioral) factor was not significantly related to
whether the cognitive dissonance effect was found Instead the findings for the LPSP Primary
(cognitive) factor approached significance
The conflicting findings regarding the PPI-R and LPSP factor scales may be partially
explained by the fact that the LPSPrsquos Primary and Secondary factors have not shown a consistent
relationship to other scales that measure the behavioral and cognitive dimensions of psychopathy
(Skeem amp Lilienfeld 2004) Levenson and colleagues (1995) reported that the two factors of the
LPSP mirrored the two factors of the PPI-R and the PCL-R However the discriminant and
convergent validity of the LPSP factor scales have been inconclusive in several studies For
example a study by Lilienfeld Skeem and Poythress (2004) found that the LPSP Primary
(cognitive) factor (callousness lack of guilt or remorse low trait anxiety) of the LPSP was more
84
correlated with the secondary (Self Centered Impulsivity) factor of the PPI-R (r = 62) than with
the primary (Fearless Dominance) factor of the PPI-R (r = 16)
In addition to the study by Lilienfeld et al (2004) other researchers have obtained results
indicating that the Primary (cognitive) Scale of the LPSP correlates higher with the secondary
factor of the PPI-R (Self Centered Impulsivity) rather than the with the primary factor of the PPI-
R (Fearless Dominance Wilson Frick amp Clements 1999 Lilienfeld amp Hess 2001)
Furthermore the Primary (cognitive) scale of the LPSP appears to correlate more highly with
antisocial behaviors rather than with the callous cognitive traits it was designed to measure
(Lilienfeld Skeem amp Poythress 2004 McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto 1998) Therefore the
discrepancy in the results between the PPI-R SF factor scales and the LPSP factor scales in the
current study might be a result of the LPSP Primary scale not being discriminant or divergent
enough from the antisocial behavior characteristics that are measured by the Secondary Scale of
the LPSP and by the factor scales of other measures like the PPI-R In other words perhaps the
Primary Scale of the LPSP is not accurately identifying just the cognitive personality-based traits
of psychopathy that is was designed to measure and thus this imprecision of the factor is what
led to the seemingly inconsistent results concerning the PPI-R SF and LPSP factors
Table 13 reports the significant (and insignificant) interactions between choice condition
and level of psychopathy by individual subscale and factor scale scores This table specifically
sorts the subscales and factor scales by the main psychopathy factors evidenced in the literature
(cognitive or behavioral) that the subscales and factors load on Past studies have consistently
confirmed the subscales arranged below load on the factor indicated (either the more behavioral
factor or the more cognitive affective factor) (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Iacono
2005 Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Edens Lilienfeld Poythress Patrick
85
amp Test 2008 Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995 Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996 Lilienfeld amp
Widows 2005 Patrick Edens Poythress Lilienfeld amp Benning 2006 Poythress amp Skeem
2006 Uzieblo Verschuere amp Crombez 2007) By separating the significant subscale and factor
score results in the current study by the respective factor they have been shown to load on
(cognitive or behavioral) the difference in our somewhat mixed results becomes clearer The
results evidence that in the current study Secondary psychopathy (Factor 2 antisociality
impulsivity inability to plan thrill seeking behavior) seems to relate more to a lack of cognitive
dissonance in the sample of participants
86
Table 13 Interactions of Psychopathy Subscales and Factor Scales with Choice Condition by the Two Factor (Cognitive or Behavioral) Psychopathy Solution Demonstrated by Past Research (Self-Reported Enjoyment as Criterion)
Cognitive Affective Factor Antisocial Behavior Factor FactorSubscale Stdz β t p Stdz β t p PPI FD Factor -167 -146 146 PPI Soc Infl 057 48 631 PPI Fearless -274 -247 015 PPI Stress Imm -101 -93 352 LPSP Primary -199 -192 057 PPI SCI Factor -220 -221 028 PPI Mach Ego -295 -281 006 PPI Rebel -243 -230 023 PPI Blm Ext -036 -32 747 PPI Carefree 068 66 511 LPSP Second -161 -145 148 Note Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics Predictor Abbreviations PPI FD Factor = PPIRSF Factor 1 ndash Fearless Dominance Factor PPI Soc Infl = PPI-RSF Social Influence subscale PPI Fearlessness = PPI-RSF Fearlessness subscale PPI Stress Imun = PPI-RSF Stress Immunity subscale LPSP Primary = LPSP Primary subscale PPI SCI Factor = PPIRSF Factor 2-Self Centered Impulsivity Factor PPI Mach Ego = PPI-RSF Machiavellianism Egocentricity subscale PPI Rebel = PPI-RSF Rebellious Nonconformity subscale PPI Blm Extern = PPI-RSF Blame Externalization subscale PPI Carefree = PPI-RSF Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale LPSP Second = LPSP Secondary subscale The PPI-RSF Colheartedness Scale is not included because it has not been shown to load on the Two Factor Solution Model Abbreviations Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Possible Reasons for the Lack of Cognitive Dissonance in High Psychopathy Individuals
The results of the current study indicate that the more psychopathic traits a participant
reported including the callous unemotional traits such as a lack of guilt remorse or concern for
others the less likely the participant was to exhibit the classic cognitive dissonance effect It is
important to consider possible explanations for these results
Psychopathy and lack of guilt One of the main traits linked to psychopathy is a callous
lack of guilt (Hart amp Hare 1997 Hare 1993 Lykken 2006 McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto
1998) This lack of guilt and concern for others may be the cognitive deficit that allows for
psychopathic individuals to commit violent crimes or manipulate others If this is the case then it
is important to determine if a lack of guilt is occurring significantly more in individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy compared to individuals with low or non-existent levels of
psychopathy Previous studies have examined guilt in individuals with psychopathy and have
87
almost universally found that individuals with high psychopathy lack guilt (Cima Tonnaer amp
Lobbestael 2007 Hare 1993 Walsh amp Wu 2008)
Though a lack of guilt has already been strongly associated with psychopathy in the
literature it is important to now try to find the underlying cognitive pathways and mechanisms
that are behind the inability to feel guilt in high psychopathic individuals Understanding the
cognitive deficits of individuals with higher levels of psychopathy can lead to better assessment
strategies and possible intervention models to curb maladaptive behaviors at an early age This
study attempted to identify the role that guilt plays in eliciting cognitive dissonance by assessing
dissonance effects in individuals with varying levels of guilt capabilities (high versus low
psychopaths) The use of psychopathy as a moderating variable for cognitive dissonance is based
on empirical research that has found a lack of guilt and contentiousness in individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy
Guilt and cognitive dissonance Cognitive dissonance has long been thought to be a
universal feature of human behavior Since the discovery of cognitive dissonance by Festinger in
1957 many other researchers have replicated the phenomenon with great success in a multitude
of situations and across stimuli (for a review see Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) The main theory
of cognitive dissonance that this project intended to analyze with regard to psychopathy was
Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory (1984) due to its focus on guilt as the catalyst for attitude
shift
According to Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory (1984) one of the crucial
components for creating the attitude shift found in cognitive dissonance is that individuals must
feel guilt (that their actions have brought negative consequences to themselves or others) The
current study incorporated the New Look Theory by having participants voluntarily lie to
88
someone else about a boring task being enjoyable Our hypothesis hinged on the theory that low
psychopathy individuals would change their beliefs about the task (they would think it was fun)
in order to relieve the guilt felt over misleading another individual In contrast since cognitive
dissonance occurs due to guilt induction we believed and found that individuals with higher
levels of psychopathy (low guilt) did not experience dissonance Therefore the results of this
study provide further evidence of the callous lack of guilt evidenced in psychopaths while
supporting Cooper and Faziorsquos (1984) theory that cognitive dissonance is invoked by guilt
43 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonance
Machiavellianism is characterized by the deliberate incorporation of callous unemotional
behaviors with the goal of achieving success and domination through the use of the asocial affect
and behaviors (Christie amp Geis 1970 Wastell amp Booth 2003 Wilson Near amp Miller 1996)
The centrality of success seems to be a characteristic of MACH that distinguishes it from
psychopathy Individuals with higher levels of MACH seem to engage in callous manipulative
behaviors in order to achieve preconceived goals whereas psychopathic individuals do not
necessarily plan their behavior to the same degree In fact several of the core traits associated
with psychopathy involve a lack of planning ability impulsivity and antisocial behavior that
often involves illegal and violent activities (Hare 1993)
Due to the callous guilt free traits associated with MACH the current study
hypothesized incorrectly that high MACH individuals in the High Choice (and high guilt)
condition would report significantly less enjoyment of the boring abacus task than individuals
with low MACH
MACH-IV total scores on cognitive dissonance It was hypothesized that the interaction
between MACH and choice condition would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment of
89
the abacus task However this interaction was not statistically significant Level of
Machiavellianism did not impact an individualrsquos self-rated level of enjoyment on the abacus task
These results were surprising given the fact that MACH has significantly related to a lack of
predicted attitude shift in past studies of guilt induced cognitive dissonance (Bogart 1971
Bogart et al 1970 Epstein 1969) Though these previous studies on MACH did not
specifically intend to analyze guilt-induction as the dissonance invoking stimulus they did use
methodology that would create guilt in participants
Unlike the current study these previous experiments found significant differences
between individuals with higher versus lower levels of MACH Also in opposition with the
current findings these previous studies (Bogart 1971 Bogart Geis Levy amp Zimbardo 1970
Epstein 1968) found that individuals with high MACH were able to experience cognitive
dissonance often in the opposite experimental condition to the individuals with low MACH who
experienced cognitive dissonance These studies termed this effect ldquoanti-dissonancerdquo The
current study however found no significant evidence of an anti-dissonance effect in our
participants In fact the results for the MACH-IV scores exhibited a weak version of the
interaction pattern that was seen with the two psychopathy predictors Specifically the MACH-
IV total scores had a significant negative correlation with Self-Reported Task Enjoyment in the
High Choice Group (r = -295 p lt 01) but not in the Low Choice group (r = -104 p = 354)
Such findings seem to suggest that Machiavellianism like psychopathy influences cognitive
dissonance effects However as already reported the crucial analysis regarding this hypothesis
based on an interaction term of Machiavellianism with Choice condition did not attain statistical
significance
90
It is possible that the present study failed to find a significant interaction between choice
and level of MACH in predicting attitude shift because the MACH-IV is outdated The MACH
measure was created in 1970 and has not been altered since that time In addition many of the
items on the measure use wording from Niccolo Machiavellirsquos writing which dates back to 1513
Further many of the items may be considered somewhat sexist in current society as they focus
on men exclusively Participantsrsquo responses may have been effected by this gender exclusivity
Therefore concepts and items may not be current enough to be accurately identifying MACH
characteristics in our sample Given results from the present and earlier research the failure to
find a significant interaction between choice condition and Machiavellianism in the present study
may well represent a Type II error
44 Psychopathy Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment (Over MACH)
A hypothesis of the current study was that psychopathy would incrementally predict
abacus task enjoyment and the cognitive dissonance effect above and beyond the predictive
power of the MACH Results regarding this hypothesis were inconclusive Inclusion of PPI-R
SF scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment significantly increased predictive
power above and beyond scores on the MACH-IV Although there was a significant increase in
predictive power when adding PPI-R SF scores to the MACH-IV scores the beta for the
interaction between PPI-R SF scores and choice condition was only approached statistical
significance When total scores of the LPSP replaced the PPI-R SF scores the results were not
significant Inclusion of total LPSP scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment
did not significantly increase predictive power above and beyond MACH-IV scores Therefore it
seems that the hypothesis in regard to psychopathy incrementally predicting abacus task
91
enjoyment above MACH was neither confirmed nor disconfirmed in the present study More
research examining the issue is needed
Conversely two exploratory hierarchical multiple regressions were run to identify
whether MACH-IV total scores incrementally predicted Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus
task above and beyond the predictive power of psychopathy scores When both the PPI-R SF
and the LPSP were used as predictors MACH did not significantly predict Self-Reported Level
of Enjoyment over psychopathy These results suggest though only in a preliminary way that
level of MACH does not incrementally predict cognitive dissonance effects above and beyond
the predictive power of level of psychopathy
45 Additional Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory Guilt Analysis
Multiple regressions were conducted with level of guilt as the criterion in the place of
enjoyment rating These analyses were exploratory with the goal of further exploring the role
that guilt plays during cognitive dissonance arousal and maintenance Results of these analyses
indicated that the interaction between psychopathy measures and choice conditions did not
generally significantly predict guilt In fact there was no reason to expect these interactions to
be significant based on cognitive dissonance theory The cognitive dissonance literature argues
that participants strive to reduce their feelings of guilt after engaging in counterattitudinal
behavior discrepant with their beliefs Thus participants with low levels of psychopathy who
were in the High Choice to Lie condition would be expected to change their attitudes about lying
to reduce their feelings of guilt immediately after telling the ldquofuture participantrdquo that the abacus
task was fun Therefore their reported guilt level on the post experimental questionnaire should
not be significant Due to cognitive dissonance these participants would have already reduced
92
their level of guilt to low or non-existent levels by the time they were answering the questions on
the post experimental questionnaire
Main effects for relationship between psychopathy and guilt An important result of these
exploratory analyses was that significant main effects were found between level of psychopathy
(measured by the PPI-R SF) and level of guilt that participants reported concerning their
participation in the study Specifically the PPI-R SF had a significant relationship with level of
guilt such that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy experienced less guilt than
participants with lower levels of psychopathy across choice conditions In addition both factor
scales of the PPI-R SF (Fearless Dominance and Self Centered Impulsivity) were significant in
predicting guilt Finally three of the PPI-R SF subscales reached significance in predicting level
of guilt in participants Fearlessness Stress Immunity Rebellious Nonconformity The
Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscales load on the Fearless Dominance factor
of the PPI-R SF which is important to note because this factor assesses the cognitive aspects of
psychopathy including lack of guilt and lack of remorse Therefore these results provide support
for the validity of the PPI-R SF in assessing psychopathic traits such as guiltlessness
Exploratory Factor Analyses
Three factor analyses were conducted on the self-report psychopathy and MACH
measures utilized in the present study The goal of these analyses was to categorize the
individual traits of psychopathy and MACH that were being identified in the participants by the
measures and to distinguish overall factors of these personality traits that are similar across
measures
The first factor analysis found that the total scores of the three measures loaded together
as one factor The second factor analysis found that all of the items combined loaded on nine
93
interpretable factors Machiavellian Success Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Impunity Feelings
of Persecution Inability to Plan Social Disregard Interpersonal Ease Manipulative Deceit and
Social Frustration Each factor was found to represent unique characteristics of psychopathy and
MACH Finally a third factor analysis was run on the combined subscales of the measures This
analysis yielded three interpretable factors Antisocial Behavior Coldhearted Callousness and
Thrill Seeking Though these factor analyses yielded factors that mirror others identified in the
literature (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Hare 1991 Levenson et al
1995 Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996) the sample size of 164 participants was too small to draw
significant or important conclusions from these factor analyses
94
Limitations and Future Directions
The present study had several limitations One potential limitation was the sole use of
self-report measures for detecting psychopathy Though the self-report measures that were used
in the current study have been validated as measures of psychopathy (Levesnon et al 1995
Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996 Lilienfeld amp Fowler 2006 Lilienfeld amp Hess 2001) the use of a
measure such as the Psychopathy Checklist ndash Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991) might have shed
additional light on the levels of psychopathy among our participants Psychopathy scores on the
PCL-R are obtained from a semi-structured clinical interview of the participant as well as
background and collateral information (Hare 1991) Therefore the information about the
participantrsquos personality is derived from multiple sources rather than just self-report A future
replication of this study would benefit from also assessing level of psychopathy with the PCL-R
or the PCL-R SV (Hart amp Hare 1995) which is a screening version of the PCL-R
A second limitation might have been the type of task used to illicit cognitive dissonance
The study had participants move wooden balls back and forth across an abacus for 20 minutes
Though this study attained significant results perhaps the length of time may not have been long
enough to induce boredom in all participants Future studies could increase the amount of time
participants are instructed to move balls across the abacus For example the original cognitive
dissonance study by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) had participants turn pegs in a peg-board for
one hour That length of time would most likely ensure boredom in participants It is important to
note however that the time limit of 20 minutes employed in the present study was the same as in
the study by Cooper and Worchel (1970) in which significant results were obtained when
participants engaged in the boring task for 20 minutes
95
In addition the use of the abacus task as the stimuli could have impacted the results
because some participants may have actually found the task enjoyable and thus genuinely
reported enjoying the task on the post-experimental questionnaire This would confound our
results because cognitive dissonance was not enacted in those participants In order to combat the
possible issue the use of counterattitudinal essays as the stimulus would be a useful option for
future studies Counterattitudinal essays involve writing in favor of an issue that one is
adamantly against The use of counterattitudinal essays has been incorporated into the majority
of cognitive dissonance studies (for a review see Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Studies have
shown that when participants write in favor of an issue that they are opposed to this elicits
cognitive dissonance (Baumeister amp Tice 1984 Elkin amp Leippe 1986 Harmon-Jones amp Mills
1999 Linder Cooper amp Jones 1967 Seacuteneacutemeaud amp Somat 2009) Counterattitudinal essays
have also been used in studying cognitive dissonance effects in participants with MACH
(Burgoon Miller amp Tubbs 1972) with significant effects
Simply writing counter-attitudinal essays would not necessarily invoke guilt The present
study tested the hypothesis that guilt-invoking tasks create cognitive dissonance in individuals
with low psychopathic traits but not individuals with high psychopathic traits Therefore the
present results might not be replicated in a study that simply required the writing of counter-
attitudinal essays However a variant on this task exists in which writing a counter-attitudinal
essay is used to persuade other individuals to a viewpoint with which the writer strongly
disagrees This task of writing a counter-attitudinal essay to persuade others is likely to evoke
guilt and according to the hypotheses of the present study would be predicted to create a
cognitive dissonance effect in participants with higher levels of psychopathy but not in
participants with low levels of psychopathy A control condition would be necessary in which
96
some participants just write the counter-attitudinal essays while others write counter-attitudinal
essays that are then used to persuade other individuals In this way we would be better able to
determine whether any cognitive dissonance effects observed were due to guilt
Guilt has been manipulated in participants with the use of counterattitudinal essays The
primary way that researcherrsquos incorporate guilt was to have the participant write a
counterattitudinal essay and read it (or give it) to a panel of individuals with the intention of
persuading the panel to be in favor of the topic to which the participant is actually against In this
way participants feel guilt for attempting to convince others to support something that the
participant actually opposes For example a study by Elliot and Devine (1994) had their college
student sample of participants write essays in favor of a tuition raise for all students at their
university Before writing the counterattitudinal essays participants were initially screened to
make sure they were against a tuition increase on campus Participants were told that the essay
they wrote (pro-tuition increase) would be read by the university Board of Trustees to help
determine if the tuition raise should be implemented Participantsrsquo guilt was activated because
they were led to believe that their essay might cause a tuition increase for themselves and their
peers Results of the study found a significant shift in attitude towards being in favor of the
tuition increase after participants had written the essay The authors surmised that it was the
negative consequences that their actions (writing the pro-tuition increase essay) could cause
others that led to the attitude shift Replicating the current study with the use of counterattitudinal
essays that manipulate guilt rather than the abacus task may elicit stronger effects by eliminating
the participantsrsquo chance of genuinely enjoying the abacus task
A third limitation the current study concerns its generalizability to new populations of
participants This study analyzed level of psychopathy exclusively among college
97
undergraduates It is unclear whether the results obtained in this population will generalize to
groups with higher levels of psychopathy such as violent offenders or repeat-offender juvenile
delinquents Attempting a replication in a sample of violent offenders or juvenile delinquents
would be a valuable step in understanding how the construct of psychopathy impacts cognitive
dissonance
A fourth possible limitation was the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of participants
Approximately eighty-five percent of participants were Hispanic and thus the generalizability of
the results to non-Hispanic populations can be questioned However psychopathy has been
shown to be a universal construct across ethnicities including Anglo Americans (Cooke Kosson
amp Michie 2001 Hare 1996) African Americans (Cooke Kosson amp Michie 2001 Skeem et
al 2004 Swogger Walsh amp Kosson 2008) and Hispanics (Sullivan Abramowitz Lopez amp
Kosson 2006 Valdez Kaplan amp Codina 2000) MACH too has been shown to appear in
Hispanics (Martinez 1981) Therefore this limitation may not be a serious one
Though ethnicity may not have impacted our results cultural characteristics are another
limitation to consider Culture may impact the expression of psychopathic traits A recent study
by Smith and Madjarov (2008) found that individuals from Bulgaria evidenced higher levels of
psychopathy and Machiavellianism than Americans (as measured by the LPSP and MACH-IV)
The authors attributed the higher levels of psychopathic and MACH tendencies to the coercive
nature of the Bulgarian culture which teaches the youth to look out for themselves above all else
The authors deduced that the personality characteristics of psychopathy and MACH allow for
better survival outcomes in Bulgaria and thus the traits have flourished there as adaptive rather
than abnormal
98
The current study was conducted in a university on the US-Mexico border where
acculturation to American society varies in the university population Many students commute
over the border daily from Mexico to attend classes and are not highly acculturated to US
culture Based on the Smith and Madjarov (2008) study and the location of the current
experiment level of acculturation may have impacted our results and should be accounted for in
future studies
An additional future direction would be that this study spurs psychopathy and cognitive
dissonance research in new routes As previously mentioned only one other study has examined
the effects of psychopathy on cognitive dissonance (Weir 2007) However Weirrsquos study
contained methodological weaknesses (eg no control group for comparison purposes) and was
not designed to address how psychopathic traits impact cognitive dissonance in guilt-inducing
situations Clearly more studies need to be conducted in order to examine if the significant
results found in the present study will hold across other age groups populations (such as violent
offenders) and cultures The results of this study could assist in better understanding the
cognitive and emotional characteristics of psychopathy
In addition the results of this study pose new ideas for cognitive dissonance research
The results of the current study suggest that level of psychopathy could potentially be
confounding cognitive dissonance studies that rely on guilt or adverse consequences as the
mechanism of dissonance arousal Further replications of the present study are needed in the
literature to examine the robustness of our results and their impact on cognitive dissonance
arousal
99
Conclusions
Until now cognitive dissonance has been assumed to be a general cognitive effect found
in all individuals The results of this study suggest that this assumption may be incorrect In the
present study individuals with higher levels of psychopathy did not seem to experience guilt-
induced dissonance arousal It may be that past studies might have yielded stronger cognitive
dissonance effects if they had excluded participants with above-average levels of psychopathic
traits
In addition the lack of a significant finding in regard to level of MACH indicates that
more research needs to be conducted in assessing what maladaptive cognitive and behavioral
impacts Machiavellianism has on individuals and how MACH truly relates to psychopathy
Understanding the cognitive characteristics of psychopathy (and MACH) is important
due to the negative impact that individuals with these characteristics can cause society For
example individuals with higher levels of psychopathy are four times more likely to recidivate
after being released from prison (Hare 1993 Hemphill Hare amp Wong 1998) are arrested at
earlier ages are more likely to use weapons and violence in their offenses and have higher rates
of offending than individuals without psychopathy (Hart amp Hare 1997 Hare amp McPherson
1984) It is important to discover what specific cognitive and emotional characteristics lead some
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy to develop and behave maladaptively in society If
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy do not experience cognitive dissonance after lying
to someone else this finding points not only to a lack of guilt in such individuals but also to a
unique cognitive and emotional temperament that may be lacking dissonance arousal
100
References
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed) Washington DC Author Aronson E (1968) Dissonance theory Progress and problems In R Abelson E Aronson W McGuire T Newcomb M Rosenberg amp P Tannenbaum (Eds) Theories of cognitive consistency A sourcebook (pp5-27) Chicago Illinois Rand McNally Austin E J Farrelly D Black C amp Moore H (2007) Emotional intelligence Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation Does EI have a dark side Personality and Individual Differences 43 179-189 Baumeister R F amp Tice D M (1984) Role of self-presentation and choice in cognitive dissonance under forced compliance Necessary or sufficient causes Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(1) 5-13 Bogart K (1971) Machiavellianism and individual differences in response to cognitive inconsistency Journal of Social Psychology 85 111-119 Bogart K Geis F Levy M amp Zimbardo P (1970) No dissonance for Machiavellians In P G Zimbardo (Ed) The cognitive control of motivation The consequences of choice and motivation (pp 251-263) Glenview Illinois Scott Foresman and Company Brehm J W amp Cohen A R (1962) Explorations in cognitive dissonance New York Wiley Burgoon M Miller G R amp Tubbs S L (1972) Machiavellianism justification and attitude change following counterattitudinal advocacy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 22 366-371 Chapman A L Gremore T M amp Farmer R F (2003) Psychometric analysis of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory with female inmates Journal of Personality Assessment 80(2) 164-172 Chatzisarantis N L D Hagger M S amp Wang J C K (2008) An experimental test of cognitive dissonance theory in the domain of physical exercise Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 20(1) 97-115 Christie R (1970a) Why Machiavelli In R Christie amp F Geis (Eds) Studies in Machiavellianism (pp1-9) New York Academic Press Christie R (1970b) Relationships between Machiavellianism and measures of ability opinion and personality In R Christie amp F Geis (Eds) Studies in Machiavellianism (pp35-52) New York Academic Press Christie R amp Geis F L (1970) Studies in Machiavellianism New York Academic Press
101
Cima M Tonnaer F amp Lobbestael J (2007) Moral emotions in predatory and impulsive offenders using implicit measures Netherlands Journal of Psychology 63(4) 144-155 Cleckley H (1976) The mask of sanity (5th ed) St Louis C V Mosby (Originally published 1941) Cooke D J Kosson D S amp Michie C (2001) Psychopathy and ethnicity Structural item and test generalizability of the Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (PCL-R) in Caucasian and African American participants Psychological Assessment 13(4) 531-542 Cooper J (1971) Personal responsibility and dissonance The role of foreseen consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18(3) 354-363 Cooper J (1999) Unwanted consequences and the self In search of the motivation for dissonance reduction In E Harmon-Jones amp J Mills (Eds) Cognitive dissonance Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp149-173) Washington DC American Psychological Association Cooper J amp Fazio R H (1984) A new look at dissonance theory In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental psychology (Vol 17 pp 229-262) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Cooper J amp Worchel S (1970) Role of undesired consequences in arousing cognitive dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(2) 199-206 Croyle R amp Cooper J (1983) Dissonance arousal Physiological evidence Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 782-791 Davis K E amp Jones E E (1960) Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61(3) 402-410 Edens J Marcus D Lilienfeld S O amp Poythress N G (2006) Psychopathic not psychopath Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of psychopathy Journal of Abnormal Psychology 115(1) 131-144 Elkin R A amp Leippe M R (1986) Physiological arousal dissonance and attitude change Evidence for a dissonance-arousal link and a ldquodonrsquot remind merdquo effect Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 55-65 Elliot A J amp Devine P G (1994) On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance Dissonance as psychological discomfort Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(3) 382-394 Epstein G F (1969) Machiavelli and the devilrsquos advocate Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 11(1) 38-41
102
Fehr B Samsom D amp Paulhus D L (1992) The construct of Machiavellianism Twenty years later In CD Spielberger amp J N Butcher (Eds) Advances in personality assessment (pp 77-116) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance Stanford CA Stanford University Press Festinger L amp Carlsmith J M (1959) Cognitive consequences of forced compliance Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58 203-210 Fowles D C (1980) The three arousal model Implications of Grayrsquos two-factor learning theory for heart rate electrodermal activity and psychopathy Psychophysiology 17 87-104 Goethals G R amp Cooper J (1972) Role of intention and postbehavioral consequence in the arousal of cognitive dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23 293- 301 Greenwald H A (1967) Active psychotherapy New York Atherton Hare R D (1978) Psychopathy and electrodermal responses to nonsignal stimulation Biological Psychology 6 237-246 Hare R D (1985) Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psycopathy Journal of Clinical and Counseling Psychology 53 7-16 Hare R D (1991) Manual for the Hare Psycopathy Checklist-Revised Toronto
Multi-Health Systems
Hare R D (1993) Without conscience The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us New York Pocket Books Hare R D amp McPherson L M (1984) Violent and aggressive behavior by criminal psychopaths International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 7(1) 35-50 Hare R D amp Neumann C S (2006) The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy Development structural properties and new directions In C J Patrick (Ed) Handbook of psychopathy (pp 58-88) New York The Guilford Press Harmon-Jones E amp Mills J (1999) An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory In E Harmon-Jones amp J Mills (Eds) Cognitive dissonance Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp3-21) Washington DC American Psychological Association Harpur T J Hare R D amp Hakstian A R (1989) Two factor conceptualization of psychopathy Construct validity and assessment implications Psychological Assessment A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1 6-17
103
Hart S D amp Hare R D (1995) Psychopathy and risk assessment Issues in Criminological amp Legal Psychology 24 63-67 Hart S D amp Hare R D (1997) Psychopathy Assessment and association with criminal conduct In D M Stoff J Breiling amp J D Master (Eds) Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp 22-35) NY John Wiley and Sons Hemphill J F Hare R D amp Wong S (1998) Psychopathy and recidivism A review Legal and Criminological Psychology 3(1) 139-170 Karpman B (1941) On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types The symptomatic and the idiopathic Journal of Criminology and Psychopathology 3 112- 137 Karpman B (1948) The myth of the psychopathic personality American Journal of Psychiatry 104 523-534 Levenson M (1990) Risk taking and personality Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 1073-1081 Levenson M Kiehl K amp Fitzpatrick C (1995) Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(1) 151-158 Lilienfeld SO (1994) Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy Clinical Psychology Review 14 17-38 Lilienfeld SO amp Andrews BP (1996) Development and preliminary validation of a self report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations Journal of Personality Assessment 66 488-524 Lilienfeld S O amp Hess T H (2001) Psychopathic personality traits and somatization Sex differences and the mediating role of negative emotionality Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 23(1) 11-24 Lilienfeld S O Skeem J L amp Poythress N G (2004 March) Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society Scottsdale AZ Lilienfeld S O amp Widows M R (2005) PPI-R professional manual Lutz FL Psychological Assessment Resources Linder D E Cooper J amp Jones E E (1967) Decision freedom as a determinant of the role of incentive magnitude in attitude change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6 245-254
104
Lyyken D T (1957) A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55 6-10 Lykken D T (1995) The antisocial personalities Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Lynam D R Whiteside S amp Jones S (1999) Self-reported psychopathy A validation study Journal of Personality Assessment 73(1) 110-132 Machiavelli N (1981) The Prince New York Bantam Books (Original work published 1513) Marcus D K amp Edens J F (2004) A taxometric analysis of psychopathic personality Journal of Abnormal Psychology 113 626-635 Martinez D C (1981) Differences among Chicano and White students on items of Machiavellianism scale Psychological Reports 48(2) 433-434
McHoskey J W Worzel W amp Szyarto C (1998) Machiavellianism and psychopathy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 192-210 Meloy J R (1998) The psychopathic mind Maryland Rowman amp Littlefield Publishers Inc
Murrie D C amp Cornell D G (2002) Psychopathy screening of incarcerated juveniles A comparison of measures Psychological Assessment 14 390-396 Patrick C J (Ed) (2006) Handbook of psychopathy New York The Guilford Press Patrick C J Bradley R H amp Lang P J (1993) Emotion in the criminal psychopath Startle reflex modulation Journal of Abnormal Psychology 102(1) 82-92 Pethman T M amp Erlandsson S I (2002) Aberrant self-promotion or subclinical psychopathy in a Swedish general population The Psychological Record 52 33-50 Porter S (1996) Without conscious or without active conscious The etiology of psychopathy revisited Aggression and Violent Behavior 1 179-189 Raine A (2002) Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adults A review Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 30 311ndash326 Ray J J amp Ray J A (1982) Some apparent advantages of subclinical psychopathy Journal of Social Psychology 117 135-142 Rutherford M J Cacciola J S amp Alterman A I (1999) Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in cocaine-dependent women American Journal of Psyciatry 156 849-856
105
Saruk S (1975) A comparison of Machiavellianism values and locus of control in psychopathic groups (Doctoral Dissertation Unites States International University 1975) Dissertation Abstracts International 36 458-B Seacuteneacutemeaud C amp Somat A (2009) Dissonance arousal and persistence in attitude change Swiss Journal of Psychology 68(1) 25-31 Shadish W R Cook T D amp Campbell D T (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (pp 230) Boston MA Houghton Mifflin Company Sherman S J (1970) Attitudinal effects of unforeseen consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(3) 510-520 Skeem J amp Lilienfeld S O (2004 March) Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society Scottsdale AZ Skinner N F (1982) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism IV Machiavellianism and psychopathology Social Behavior and Personality 10(2) 201-203 Skinner N F (1988) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism VI Machiavellianism and the psychopath Social Behavior and Personality 16 33-37 Smith R J (1999) Psychopathic behavior and issues of treatment New Ideas in Psychology 17 165-176 Smith E R amp Mackie D (Eds) (2000) Social Psychology (2nd ed)Kendallville IN Taylor amp Francis Smith R J amp Madjarov G (2008) Machiavellianism and psychopathy An East-West note Social Behavior and Personality 36(2) 255-256 Steele C M amp Liu T J (1983) Dissonance processes as self affirmation Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 5-19 Strelau J (1983) A regulative theory of temperament Australian Journal of Psychology 35 305-317 Sullivan E A Abramowitz C S Lopez M amp Kosson D S (2006) Reliability and construct validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised for Latino European American and African American male inmates Psychological Assessment 18(4) 382-392 Swogger M T Walsh Z amp Kosson D S (2008) Psychopathy subtypes among African American county jail inmates Criminal Justice and Behavior 35(12) 1484-1499
106
Valdez A Kaplan C D amp Codina E (2000) Psychopathy among Mexican American gang members A comparative study International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44(1) 46-58 Walsh A amp Wu H-H (2008) Differentiating antisocial personality disorder psychopathy and sociopathy Evolutionary genetic neurological and sociological considerations Criminal Justice Studies A Critical Journal of Crime Law amp Society 21(2) 135-152 Wastell C amp Booth A (2003) Machiavellianism An alexithymic perspective Journal of Social amp Clinical Psychology 22(6) 730-744 Weir J M (2007) Subtyping psychopathy Exploring the roles of degree of punishment cognitive dissonance and optimism Dissertation Abstracts International Section B The Sciences and Engineering 68(4-B) 2694 Wilson D L Frick P J amp Clements C B (1999) Gender somatization and psychopathic traits in a college sample Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 21(3) 221-235 Wilson D S Near D amp Miller R R (1996) Machiavellianism A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures Psychological Bulletin 119(2) 285-299 Zanna M P amp Cooper J (1974) Dissonance and the pill An attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29 703-709 Zanna M P Goethals G R amp Cooper J (1975) Misleading vs mistreating another person as consequences producing self-justificatory attitude change European Journal of Social Psychology 5 133-137
107
Appendix A
Script to be Used With High perceived choice Group
ldquoThank you for your participation in this task Irsquod like to explain what this has been all about so
you have some idea of why you were doing this task There are actually 2 groups in the
experiment In one group the group you were just in we bring the participant in and give him or
her no introduction to the experiment That is all we tell them is the instructions for how to do
the task and they have no idea what the experiment is really about or what they will have to do
But the other group before they begin the task we like to prep them What I mean by this is that
while they are still waiting in the hall we tell them what the experiment is going to be about so
we tell them it is a reaction task that they will be timed and they will be pushing balls along an
abacus etc Most importantly we also tell them that the task is going to be fun and enjoyable We
do this because we want to see if having a positive attitude about the task before you begin will
affect your ability on the task What we are interested in is comparing the performance of people
who know nothing about the experiment such as yourself with those people who expect the task
to be interesting and exciting
So normally we have another student who works for us and that student preps the person
while they are still in the hall so tells them about the task and that it is going to be fun and then
brings the person in to me to do the task However that person couldnrsquot be here today
Now I have an unusual request that I have to make I talked to my advisor Dr Wood and he
suggested that I might ask my real participant to talk to the next participant for me
You donrsquot have to but if you would be willing to do this for me all I would ask you to do
is to tell the next participant who is now in the hall that this task is fun and enjoyable So Irsquod
take you into the hall introduce you to the next person and then give you about 1 minute to
108
begin your conversation and tell him or her that this experimental task will be fun Itrsquos up to you
of course but do you think you could help me out by doing this for me
109
Appendix A
Script for Use With the Low perceived choice Group
ldquoThank you for your participation in this task Irsquod like to explain what this has been all about so
you have some idea of why you were doing this task There are actually 2 groups in the
experiment In one group the group you were just in we bring the participant in and give him or
her no introduction to the experiment That is all we tell them is what they need to know to do
the task and they have no idea what the experiment is really about or what they will have to do
But the other group before they begin the task we tell them what the experiment is going to be
about and that it is going to be fun and enjoyable We do this because we want to see if having a
positive attitude about the task before you begin will affect your ability on the task So normally
we have another student who works for us and what I do is take him into the hall that you were
just in and introduce him as though he had just finished the experiment This paid student then
starts a conversation with the next participant and tells him or her about the experiment and how
interesting and fun it was What we are interested in of course is comparing the performance of
people who know nothing about the experiment such as yourself with those people who expect
the task to be interesting and exciting
Now I have an unusual request I have to make The student that we have hired to talk to
the next participant about the study couldnt make it today He just called a few minutes ago My
advisor told me to just have one of my actual participants do it So what you will have to do is to
tell the next participant who is now in the hall that this task is exciting interesting and
enjoyable Irsquoll take you into the hall introduce you to the next participant and then give you
about 2 minutes to begin your conversation and tell him or her that this experimental task will be
fun Are you ready
110
Appendix B
Demographic Information
Age _____
Gender _____
Ethnicity (check only one)
Mexican American ____
Mexican National ____
Hispanic ____
Caucasian ____
Asian ____
African American ____
Other ____
111
Appendix B
University of Texas Psychology Department
Post Experiment Evaluation Form
This form is to be completed immediately following participation in a UTEP Psychology experiment The department is evaluating the research that is currently being conducted and would like your opinion on the effectiveness of the experiment you just participated in Please take the time to fill out this brief survey Please circle the answer that best describes your feelings about the experiment you just participated in Your responses will remain confidential and will only be reviewed by departmental staff Once you have completed the survey place it in the envelope provided for you and seal the envelope
The following items are about the experiment you just participated in Please circle how much you agree with the following statement
1 The task in this experiment was enjoyable
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
2 I feel that I learned a lot from this experiment
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
112
3 I feel that the results of this study will have scientific value
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
4 I would enjoy participating in future experiments similar to this one
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly 5 I felt guilty during this experiment
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly 6 I felt comfortable at all times during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
113
7 I felt that I had free will at all times during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
8 I felt pressured by the experimenter during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
114
Appendix C Date _________________
LPSP
Listed below are a number of statements Each represents a commonly held opinion and there are no right or wrong answers You will probably disagree with some items and agree with others Please read each statement carefully and circle the number which best describes the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement or the extent to which each statement applies to you
ITEM Strongly Disagree
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Strongly Agree
1 Success is based on survival of the fittest I am not concerned about the losers
1 2 3 4
2 For me whatrsquos right is whatever I can get away with
1 2 3 4
3 In todayrsquos world I feel justified in doing anything I can get away with to succeed
1 2 3 4
4 My main purpose in life is getting as many goodies as I can
1 2 3 4
5 Making a lot of money is my most important goal
1 2 3 4
6 I let others worry about higher values my main concern is with the bottom line
1 2 3 4
7 People who are stupid enough to get ripped off usually deserve it
1 2 3 4
8 Looking out for myself is my top priority
1 2 3 4
9 I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do
1 2 3 4
10 I would be upset if my success came at someone elsersquos expense
1 2 3 4
115
Appendix C (LPSP Continued)
ITEM Disagree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Agree Strongly
11 I often admire a really clever scam 1 2 3 4
12 I make a point of trying not to hurt others in pursuit of my goals
1 2 3 4
13 I enjoy manipulating other peoplersquos feelings
1 2 3 4
14 I feel bad if my words or actions cause someone else to feel emotional pain
1 2 3 4
15 Even if I were trying very hard to sell something I wouldnrsquot lie about it
1 2 3 4
16 Cheating is not justified because it is unfair to others
1 2 3 4
17 I find myself in the same kinds of trouble time after time
1 2 3 4
18 I am often bored 1 2 3 4
19 I find that I am able to pursue one goal for a long time
1 2 3 4
20 I donrsquot plan anything very far in advance
1 2 3 4
21 I quickly lose interest in tasks I start 1 2 3 4
22 Most of my problems are due to the fact that other people just donrsquot understand me
1 2 3 4
23 Before I do anything I carefully consider the possible consequences
1 2 3 4
24 I have been in a lot of shouting matches with other people
1 2 3 4
25 When I get frustrated I often let off steam by blowing my top
1 2 3 4
26 Love is overrated 1 2 3 4
116
Appendix D
PPI-R SF
This test measures different personality characteristics ndash that is the ways in which peoplersquos personality styles make them different from each other Read each statement carefully and decide how false or true it is as a description of you Then mark the best choice by circling the number that corresponds to your answer Use the answer choices provided below 1 = False 2 = Mostly False 3 = Mostly True 4 = True Even if you feel that an item is neither false nor true as applied to you or if you are unsure about what response to make please answer all of the items If you cannot make up your mind about an item select the choice that is closest to your opinion Here is a sample item
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True
I enjoy going to the movies 1 2 3 4 If it is true that you enjoy going to the movies circle the 4 to the right of the question as shown below
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True
I enjoy going to the movies 1 2 3
If it is mostly false that you enjoy going to the movies you would circle the 2 to the right of the item and so on Try to be as honest as you can and be sure to give your own opinion about whether each item is false or true about you Now please begin by circling the response next to the item that best represents your opinion about yourself
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 1 Dangerous activities like skydiving scare me more than they do most people
1
2
3
4
2 I have always seen myself as something of a rebel
1
2
3
4
3 I am easily flustered in pressured situations
1
2
3
4
4 I would find the job of a movie stunt person exciting
1
2
3
4
4
117
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 5 I might like to hang out with people who drift from city to city with no permanent home
1
2
3
4
6 A lot of people have tried to ldquostab me in the backrdquo
1
2
3
4
7 I get mad if I donrsquot receive special favors I deserve
1
2
3
4
8 I am hardly ever the center of attention
1
2
3
4
9 It might be exciting to be on a plane that was about to crash but somehow landed safely
1
2
3
4
10 A lot of times I worry when a friend is having personal problems
1
2
3
4
11 I tend to get crabby and irritable when I have too many things to do
1
2
3
4
12 I get mad when I hear about the injustices in the world
1
2
3
4
13 I donrsquot let everyday hassles get on my nerves
1
2
3
4
14 I could be a good con artist
1
2
3
4
15 I have a talent for getting people to talk to me
1
2
3
4
16 I might like to travel around the country with some motorcyclists and cause trouble
1
2
3
4
17 In conversations Irsquom the one who does most of the talking
1
2
3
4
18 I feel sure of myself when Im around other people
1
2
3
4
19 Parachute jumping would really scare me
1
2
3
4
118
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 20 When people lend me something I try to get it back to them quickly
1
2
3
4
21 I like to stand out in a crowd
1
2
3
4
22 It would be fun to fly a small airplane by myself
1
2
3
4
23 In school or at work I try to stretch the rules just to see what I can get away with
1
2
3
4
24 Irsquove often been betrayed by people I trusted
1
2
3
4
25 It would break my heart to see a poor or homeless person walking the streets at night
1
2
3
4
26 Some people say that I am a ldquoworry wartrdquo
1
2
3
4
27 It bothers me a lot when I see someone crying
1
2
3
4
28 I get stressed out when Irsquom ldquojugglingrdquo too many tasks
1
2
3
4
29 Itrsquos easy for me to go up to a stranger and introduce myself
1
2
3
4
30 I donrsquot care about following the ldquorulesrdquo I make up my own rules as I go along
1
2
3
4
31 Irsquove been the victim of a lot of bad luck
1
2
3
4
32 Im hardly ever the life of the party
1
2
3
4
33 Irsquove thought a lot about my long-term career goals
1
2
3
4
34 Some people have gone out of their way to make my life difficult
1
2
3
4
119
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 35 I sometimes lie just to see if I can get someone to believe me
1
2
3
4
36 I like my life to be unpredictable and surprising
1
2
3
4
37 I get very upset when I see photographs of starving people
1
2
3
4
38 I might like flying across the ocean in a hot-air balloon
1
2
3
4
39 I worry about things even when therersquos no reason to
1
2
3
4
40 When I am doing something important like taking a test or doing my taxes I check it over first
1
2
3
4
41 People I thought were my ldquofriendsrdquo have gotten me into trouble
1
2
3
4
42 I think long and hard before I make big decisions
1
2
3
4
43 I tell people only the part of the truth they want to hear
1
2
3
4
44 I get blamed for many things that arenrsquot my fault
1
2
3
4
45 I feel bad about myself after I tell a lie
1
2
3
4
46 I quickly get annoyed with people who do not give me what I want
1
2
3
4
47 I would like to have a wild hairstyle
1
2
3
4
48 Irsquom the kind of person who gets ldquostressed outrdquo pretty easily
1
2
3
4
49 I usually think about what Irsquom going to say before I say it
1
2
3
4
120
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 50 Some people have made up stories about me to get me in trouble
1
2
3
4
51 I watch my finances closely
1
2
3
4
52 I am a daredevil
1
2
3
4
53 I would like to hitchhike across the country with no plans
1
2
3
4
54 I try to use my best manners when Irsquom around other people
1
2
3
4
55 I often place my friendsrsquo needs above my own
1
2
3
4
56 If I canrsquot change the rules I try to get others to bend them for me
1
2
3
4
121
Appendix E
MACH Scale (IV)
Below are twenty statements Please read each one and consider your level of agreement Rate each statement using the following scale and record your answers by circling the answer next to each statement that is most representative of how you feel 1 Strongly Agree ndash I agree completely with this statement 2 Somewhat Agree ndash I agree with this statement but not entirely 3 No Opinion ndash I have no opinion about this statement 4 Somewhat Disagree ndash I disagree with this statement but not entirely 5 Strongly Disagree ndash I disagree completely with this statement
Item Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
No Opinion
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1) The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear
1 2 3 4 5
2) When you ask someone to do something for youyou it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which might carry more weight
1 2 3 4 5
3) Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble
1 2 3 4 5
4) It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there
1 2 3 4 5
5) Honesty is the best policy in all cases 1 2 3 4 5
6) Itrsquos safe to assume that all people have a vicious streak that will come out when they are given a chance
1 2 3 4 5
7) Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so
1 2 3 4 5
8) One should take action only when sure it is morally right
1 2 3 4 5
9) It is wise to flatter important people 1 2 3 4 5
122
Appendix E ( MACH-IV Continued)
Item Strongly
Agree Somewhat
Agree No
Opinion Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
10) All in all it is better to be humble and honest than important and dishonest
1 2 3 4 5
11) Barnum was very wrong when he said therersquos a sucker born every minute
1 2 3 4 5
12) People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death
1 2 3 4 5
13) It is possible to be good in all respects 1 2 3 4 5
14) Most people are basically good and kind 1 2 3 4 5
15) There is no excuse for lying to someone else
1 2 3 4 5
16) Most men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their property
1 2 3 4 5
17) Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean moral lives
1 2 3 4 5
18) Generally speaking men wonrsquot work hard unless they are forced to do so
1 2 3 4 5
19) The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught
1 2 3 4 5
20) Most men are brave 1 2 3 4 5
123
Appendix F
Informed Consent Form
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Form for Research Involving Human Subjects
Protocol Title Personality effects on reaction time
Principal Investigator Ashley Murray BA
UTEP Psychology
Introduction
You are being asked to take part voluntarily in the research project described below Before agreeing to take part in this research study it is important that you read the consent form that describes the study Please ask the study researcher or the study staff to explain any words or information that you do not clearly understand
Why is this study being done
You have been asked to take part in a research study looking at how certain personality types differ on reaction times You will be asked to complete 3 separate personality surveys and a reaction time measure Approximately 150 students will be participating in this study at UTEP You are being asked to be in the study because you are currently enrolled as a student at UTEP and are 18 years of age or older
If you decide to enroll in this study your involvement will last approximately an hour and a half
What is involved in the study
If you agree to take part in this study the research team will provide you with a brief demographics form and three personality measures Please fill out all forms and do not skip through the packet Please answer every question to the best of your ability After you have finished answering all of the questions please let the experimenter know You will also be asked
124
to complete a brief peg turning task that measures your physical reaction abilities Your performance on the task will be monitored by the experimenter
What if I want to withdraw or am asked to withdraw from this study
Taking part in this study is voluntary You have the right to choose not to take part in this study If you do not take part in the study there will be no penalty There are no risks or harms related to participating in this study
If you choose to take part you have the right to stop at any time However we encourage you to talk to a member of the research group so that they know why you are leaving the study If there are any new findings during the study that may affect whether you want to continue to take part you will be told about them
Who do I call if I have questions or problems
You may ask any questions you have now If you have questions later you may call Ashley Murray (915-474-5784) or Dr James Wood (915-474-6570)
If you have questions or concerns about your participation as a research subject please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTEP Contact Ms Lola Norton (Institutional Coordinator for Research Review) at (915) 747-7939 or irborsputepedu
What about confidentiality
1 Your part in this study is confidential None of the information will identify you by name All records will be handled only by the research team and will be kept securely locked in a file cabinet when not in use
125
Authorization Statement
I have read each page of this paper about the study (or it was read to me) I know that being in this study is voluntary and I choose to be in this study I know I can stop being in this study without penalty I will get a copy of this consent form now and can get information on results of the study later if I wish
Participant Name Date
Participant Signature Time
Experimenter Signature ___________________________________
126
Post Experimental Informed Consent
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Form for Research Involving Human Subjects
Protocol Title The effects of psychopathy on cognitive dissonance
Principal Investigator Ashley Murray BA
UTEP Psychology
Introduction
The purpose of this research project is to examine how individuals with different personality characteristics react when they are asked to deceive someone else Please ask the study researcher or the study staff to explain any words or information that you do not clearly understand
Why is this study being done
You have been asked to take part in a research study looking at how certain personality types differ on reacting to feelings of guilt You were asked to complete 3 separate personality surveys and an abacus task Approximately 150 students will be participating in this study at UTEP You were recruited to the study because you are currently enrolled as a student at UTEP and are 18 years of age or older
Thank you for participating in this study Your participation as well as the participation of others will help us better understand how different people react when asked to deceive someone else
127
What is involved in the study
During this experiment you were asked to talk with another research participant and tell him or her that the study was enjoyable However you now understand that in reality this person was really just a member of the research team who was pretending to be a research participant Therefore your conversation with him or her did not affect her emotionally or in any other way
The anonymity of your individual responses will be maintained at all times and only group data will be identified and reported
In addition it is very important to the current researchers that you do NOT tell anyone else about what you did here today The integrity of peoplersquos responses is reliant on them not knowing what is about to happen If you tell people ahead of time what to expect their answers and actions will not be accurate and this could negatively affect the outcomes of the study Therefore you will not tell anyone about the details of this experiment or what you did here today
Who do I call if I have questions or problems
You may ask any questions you have now If you have questions later you may call or Ashley Murray (915-474-5784) or Dr James Wood (915-474-6570)
If you have questions or concerns about your participation as a research subject please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTEP Contact Ms Lola Norton (Institutional Coordinator for Research Review) at (915) 747-7939 or irborsputepedu
What about confidentiality
Your part in this study is confidential None of the information will identify you by name All records will be handled only by the research team and will be kept securely locked in a file cabinet when not in use
128
Authorization Statement
I have read each page of this paper about the study (or it was read to me) I know that being in this study is voluntary and I chose to be in this study I know I can stop being in this study without penalty
In addition it is very important that I do NOT tell anyone else about what I did here today The integrity of future participantsrsquo responses depends on them not knowing what is about to happen in this experiment Therefore I agree not to share with my friends or classmates (especially friends or classmates in my psychology classes) any details about what I did here today
By signing this form I understand that I am giving the experimenter permission to use my data
Participant Name Date
Participant Signature Time
Experimenter Signature __________________________________
129
Appendix G
Debriefing Script
ldquoThank you for participating in this study At this time I want to explain the study to you As
you will recall after completing the task where you moved balls back and forth on an abacus you
were asked to tell the next waiting participant that the task he or she was about to complete would
be enjoyable Your conversation with that waiting participant was actually one of the main points
of the experiment The reason why that conversation was important is because we are interested in
how different personality characteristics affect the way individuals respond to guilt The bigger
purpose of the current experiment is to see what personality characteristics make some people feel
guilt while other people do not experience guilt The way that we tried to create guilt today was by
having you tell the next waiting participant that they would enjoy the abacus task Studying guilt
reactions is important to psychology research because it can help us identify the cognitive
processes that people with differing personality characteristics use when they experience guilt
This is an important aspect of human behavior to study and we apologize that in order to examine
guilt reactions we had to mislead you briefly today
At this time we would like to explain that the person you spoke to and told that the abacus task
was going to be enjoyable was actually my research assistant and was only pretending to be a
future participant He (she) was not affected in any negative way by what you said to him (her)
and did not have to perform the peg turning task It was necessary that you think that my research
assistant was a future participant in the study so that your reactions would be genuine for the study
to get honest and accurate results
You should not feel bad for agreeing to tell my assistant that the task would be fun
Psychologists have been doing this kind of experiment for 50 years and nearly everyone agrees to
130
say that the experiment is more enjoyable than it really is You reacted in the same way that the
majority of participants in these kinds of experiments do
Again I would like to remind you that all of your answers and everything you did here today
for this experiment will remain confidential and anonymous Only I and my small research team
will have access to the data collected here today and you are not identified in any way in the data
collected
If you do feel upset or uneasy about your participation in this experiment you can talk to my
mentor Dr James Wood or you can contact the UTEP Counseling Center and I will provide that
contact information to you Do you feel a need to talk with Dr Wood or someone at the counseling
center about this
Finally it is EXTREMELY important that other students do not find out about the purpose of
this experiment If they do we will not be able to run this research anymore Students must come
into our lab with no idea about what the study is actually about Please do not speak to any other
students about this study especially psychology students We will be running this study for about a
year so please do not talk other students about this experiment
Do you understand everything I have said to you Do you have any questions
Again thank you for participating in this study todayrdquo
131
Appendix G
No-Lie Debriefing Script
ldquoThank you for participating in this study At this time I want to explain the study to you As
you will recall after completing the task where you moved balls back and forth on an abacus you
were asked to tell the next waiting participant that the task he or she was about to complete would
be enjoyable Your conversation with that waiting participant was actually one of the main points
of the experiment The reason why that conversation was important is because we are interested in
how different personality characteristics affect the way individuals respond to guilt The bigger
purpose of the current experiment is to see what personality characteristics make some people feel
guilt while other people do not experience guilt The way that we tried to create guilt today was by
having you tell the next waiting participant that they would enjoy the abacus task Studying guilt
reactions is important to psychology research because it can help us identify the cognitive
processes that people with differing personality characteristics use when they experience guilt
This is an important aspect of human behavior to study and we apologize that in order to examine
guilt reactions we had to mislead you briefly today
At this time we would like to explain that the person who acted as the waiting participant was
actually my research assistant and was only pretending to be a future participant He (she) was not
going to be affected in any negative way by what you said to him (her) and did not have to
perform the abacus task It was necessary that you think that my research assistant was a future
participant in the study so that your reactions would be genuine for the study to get honest and
accurate results
Again I would like to remind you that all of your answers and everything you did here today
for this experiment will remain confidential and anonymous Only I and my small research team
132
will have access to the data collected here today and you are not identified in any way in the data
collected
If you do feel upset or uneasy about your participation in this experiment you can talk to my
mentor Dr James Wood or you can contact the UTEP Counseling Center and I will provide that
contact information to you Do you feel a need to talk with Dr Wood or someone at the counseling
center about this
Finally it is EXTREMELY important that other students do not find out about the purpose of
this experiment If they do we will not be able to run this research anymore Students must come
into our lab with no idea about what the study is actually about Please do not speak to any other
students about this study especially psychology students We will be running this study for about a
year so please do not talk other students about this experiment
Do you understand everything I have said to you Do you have any questionsrdquo
Again thank you for participating in this study today
133
Appendix H
Confederate Guilt Manipulation Check Form
I ___________________________ who acted as a confederate for the current study verify that
The participant told me that the task would be fun enjoyable
The participant told me that the task would be fun enjoyable BUT also told me they had to tell me it was enjoyable
The participant told me that the task would be boring
The participant told me about the task BUT did NOT tell me it would be fun enjoyable
The participant did not tell me anything about the experiment
The participant did not talk to me at all
The participant told me that the task would be fun BUT only after being prompted by me
Participant _________
134
Curriculum Vita
Ashley Anne Murray daughter of Scott and Greta Murray was born in Denver CO She
was raised throughout Texas and Montana and in 2006 graduated with High Honors from the
University of Montana with a BA in psychology (research emphasis) While pursuing her
undergraduate degree she was awarded the Kain-McKay Scholarship in recognition of her
achievements in the field of psychology and was in the Phi Kappa Phi Honors Society She also
was employed at the campus Student Assault Resource Center where she provided counseling
and assessments for survivors of domestic violence and rape Upon completion of her BA
Ashley was accepted to the Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology Program at The University of
Texas at El Paso During her graduate studies at UTEP she completed a 350 hour clinical
internship with the PATH Program of The Aliviane Organization at the Opportunity Center of El
Paso Homeless Shelter Through the internship she provided assessments therapy and group
facilitation to homeless individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse
disorders Throughout her graduate studies Ashley worked on multiple projects in two clinical
labs and has worked on manuscripts and presented several posters at national psychology
conferences At UTEP she has worked as a teaching assistant and instructor in the psychology
department She will be going on to obtain her clinical PhD at Simon Fraser University in the
fall of 2009
Permanent Address 2810 Palm Dr
Billings MT 59102
- University of Texas at El Paso
- DigitalCommonsUTEP
-
- 2009-01-01
-
- The effects of psychopathy and Machiavellianism on cognitive dissonance
-
- Ashley Anne Murray
-
- Recommended Citation
-
- Introduction
- Why is this study being done
- Introduction
- Why is this study being done
-
vi
Abstract
Psychopathic traits include a lack of guilt a lack of remorse callousness and antisocial behaviors
such as impulsivity and aggression The current study examined the effects of psychopathic traits
as measured by the Psychopathic Personality Inventory ndash Revised Short Form (PPI-R SF
Lilienfeld amp Widows 2005) and the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales
(LPSP Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995) and of Machiavellianism (MACH) as measured
by the MACH-IV (Christie amp Geis 1970) on cognitive dissonance in a sample of 164
participants The induced compliance paradigm of cognitive dissonance was implemented by
instructing each participant to complete a boring task inspired by the seminal cognitive
dissonance experiment by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) Afterward feelings of guilt and
psychological unease were induced by asking the participant to mislead a second participant
(actually a confederate) by telling him that the task was enjoyable Participantsrsquo level of guilt
over telling the lie was experimentally manipulated Half of the participants were directly and
firmly instructed to tell the lie (low perceived choice low guilt condition) whereas the other half
of the participants were politely requested but not instructed to tell the lie (high perceived
choice high guilt condition) As predicted participants low in psychopathy (as measured by the
PPI-R SF and LPSP) exhibited the classic cognitive dissonance effect whereas participants high
in psychopathy did not exhibit the effect Results for MACH were not significant The
implications of these results are important for cognitive dissonance research because they point
to a subset of the population (psychopaths) possibly confounding results of past studies on
cognitive dissonance In addition the results point to definitive cognitive differences between
individuals with varying levels of psychopathy
vii
Table of Contents
Dedicationhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipiii
Acknowledgementshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipv
Abstracthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipvi
Table of Contentshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipvii
List of Tableshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipix
List of Figureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipx
Chapter 1 Introductionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1
11 Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1
12 Justification for the Current Studyrsquos Procedural Designhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7
13 Cooperrsquos New Look Theory of Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10
14 Psychopathy Effects on Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12
15 Machiavellianismhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20
16 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip23
17 Hypotheses of the Present Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip29
Chapter 2 Methodshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip32
Chapter 3 Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip41
31 Confirmatory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip44
32 Exploratory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55
Chapter 4 Discussionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76
41 Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effecthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76
42 Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip78
43 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip88
44 Psychopathy Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment (Over MACH)hellip90
viii
45 Additional Exploratory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip91
Limitations and Future Directionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip94
Conclusionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip99
Referenceshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip100
Appendix Ahelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip107
Appendix Bhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip110
Appendix Chelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip114
Appendix Dhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip116
Appendix Ehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip121
Appendix Fhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip123
Appendix Ghelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip129
Appendix Hhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip133
Curriculum Vitahelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip134
ix
List of Tables
Table 1 Descriptive Information for the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Predictors and Dependent Variablehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43 Table 2 Multiple Regression Results Criterion is Self-Reported Enjoyment of the Abacus Tasks Predictors are the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores and Subscales Each Row Represents Results From One Multiple Regressionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip50 Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (PPI-RSF) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianismhellip54 Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (LPSP) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianismhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55 Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56 Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (LPSP)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57 Table 7 Correlations Between the Total Scores of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip62 Table 8 Correlations Between the PPI-R SF LPSP MACH-IV Their Factors and Subscales65 Table 9 Multiple Regression Results Criterion is Self-Reported Guilt After Misleading the Confederate Predictors are the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores and Subscales Each Row Represents Results From One Multiple Regressionhelliphelliphelliphelliphellip69 Table 10 Factor Solutions Between PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scorehelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70 Table 11 Factor Loadings of Total Item Factor Analysishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip72 Table 12 Factor Loadings of the Psychopathy and MACH Measures Subscaleshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip75 Table 13 Interactions of Psychopathy Subscales and Factor Scales with Choice Condition by the Two Factor (Cognitive or Behavioral) Psychopathy Solution Demonstrated by Past Research (Self-Reported Enjoyment as Criterion)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip86
x
List of Figures
Figure 1 Main Effect for Mean Task Enjoyment Across Choice Conditionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45 Figure 2 Relationship of PPI-R SF Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 Figure 3 Relationship of PPI-R SF Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 Figure 4 Relationship of LPSP Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49 Figure 5 Relationship of LPSP Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49 Figure 6 Relationship of MACH-IV Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52 Figure 7 Relationship of MACH-IV Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Psychopathy is a personality construct that has demonstrated negative consequences for
society For example individuals with psychopathy are overrepresented in prison populations
and commit more violent crimes (Hare 1996) Though psychopathy is represented in
approximately one to five percent of the population it is represented in 15-25 of prison
populations (Hare 1996) To date there is no identifiable treatment for psychopathy and no
definitive understanding of the causes or etiology of this construct Therefore it is important to
identify the specific pervasive and maladaptive cognitive aspects of psychopathy in order to
better treat and assess this personality construct One of the first steps in this process is to
identify how individuals with psychopathy differ cognitively and emotionally from people who
lack these traits The current study intends to identify a significant difference between
individuals with higher and lower levels of psychopathy in regard to how they experience
cognitive dissonance and more specifically guilt
11 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a well researched psychological phenomenon that is defined as
the tendency to change a previously held belief or moral to justify a behavior the person is asked
to perform (Festinger 1957) The key feature of cognitive dissonance that seems to cause
individuals to change their cognitions following a dissonant action or thought is a feeling of
unease (tension) that immediately follows the performance of the behavior Therefore it is
theorized that people alter their beliefs in order to reduce the unpleasant feelings that arise due to
the inconsistency among their cognitions and actions (Aronson 1968 Festinger 1957 Harmon-
Jones amp Mills 1999) Cognitive dissonance involves complex cognitive restructuring and for
this reason the attitude change that results is often pervasive (Smith amp Mackie 2000) This
2
phenomenon has been consistently demonstrated in research and is considered a universal pattern
of behavior across individuals
The theory of cognitive dissonance was originally proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957
He found that when people have little or no external justification for performing a behavior that
goes against their personally held beliefs they will often change their preexisting beliefs to
match the action For example in a landmark study of cognitive dissonance Festinger and
Carlsmith (1959) asked participants to perform a boring task (turning pegs on a board) and then
asked them to tell the next participant (a confederate) that the task would be enjoyable for either
a $1 or $20 compensation The authors found that participants who were paid the smaller amount
($1) and thus had very little external justification for lying to the confederate later reported to
the experimenter that they enjoyed the hour-long peg turning task much more that the
participants who were paid $20 Festinger and Carlsmith surmised that the results of this study
demonstrated that the participants who were paid $20 to mislead a confederate had a high
enough external justification for lying and did not experience sufficient psychological tension
over the discrepancy between their cognitions and behaviors to warrant an attitude shift
However participants who were only paid $1 to mislead the confederate experienced higher
levels of psychological unease over the lie because of the insignificant amount of external
justification and thus had to rely on attitude shift to ameliorate their negative feelings
Cognitive dissonance research defines peoplersquos actions and beliefs as either consonant or
dissonant with one another Consonant cognitions are thoughts that are in accordance with a
personrsquos other thoughts or behaviors (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) For example if a person
felt concern about the environment and decided to volunteer every Saturday to pick up litter on
the highway he would have consonant cognitions and behaviors (they match) On the other
3
hand if two cognitions are not relevant to one another or a thought does not match onersquos
behavior they are said to be dissonant and create inner turmoil within the person which then
motivates the individual to reduce the dissonance An example of this would be if a person was
raised to believe that stealing was wrong and then stole petty merchandise Once this dissonant
action is performed the individual must then find a way to reduce the internal unease that the
behavior created
According to Smith and Mackie (2000) in order for cognitive dissonance to arise and
create an attitude shift four conditions must be met First the individual must perceive his or her
behavior to be inconsistent with what he or she would normally be inclined to do Next the
person must take responsibility for freely engaging in the behavior In order for this condition to
be met the amount of external justification must be reduced or eliminated (ie no reward or
punishment for completing the task) Third negative physiological arousal needs to take place
for the individual to want to change the way they feel Finally the individual must attribute the
negative arousal to the action that he or she has just committed (Smith amp Mackie 2000)
People reduce dissonance in many ways (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Examples of
how people reduce dissonance include a) attempts to remove the dissonant cognition (ie a
smoker would try to stop thinking about the negative aspects of smoking on health) b) reduce
the importance of the dissonant cognition (ie a smoker placing higher importance on being
more likely to die in a car accident than by smoking) c) increasing the importance of consonant
cognitions over dissonant ones (ie smoking is enjoyable and makes me feel relaxed which is
important to me) (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) As one can see all of these methods of
reducing dissonance involve focusing onersquos thoughts and emotions away from the dissonant
cognition (ie smoking is bad for me)
4
Cognitive Dissonance Psychological Tension and Physiological Arousal
Conceptually Festinger (1957) theorized that cognitive dissonance contains ldquodrive-likerdquo
properties that manifest as psychological tension and unease and that the psychological unease
can also manifest as physical tensions Once a person experiences the psychological and physical
unease then often an attitude shift occurs that alleviates the tensions An example that lends
support for this theory that physiological arousal precedes cognitive dissonance came from a
study conducted by Zanna and Cooper (1974) The researchers wanted to identify the physical
arousal properties associated with cognitive dissonance Zanna and Cooper gave participants a
placebo pill and told 13 of them that the pill made people feel tense 13 that the pill caused
relaxation and the final 13 that the pill had no effect Next the authors instructed participants
(under the guise of a different experiment) to write a counterattitudinal essay advocating a
campus ban of inflammatory speakers under high or low perceived choice Participants in the
low perceived choice condition were directly instructed to write the counterattitudinal essay
whereas people in the high perceived choice group were politely asked to write the essay giving
them the choice to perform the dissonant action which is a key factor in eliciting the tension
associated with cognitive dissonance The dependent measure of this study was the amount of
attitude shift participants reported experiencing on a post experimental questionnaire
Participants were given a questionnaire before the study began that assessed their preference for
adopting a campus ban on inflammatory speakers and only participants who opposed the ban
were included in the study The questionnaire asked participants to identify on a 31 point Likert
scale how much they were in favor of a campus ban on inflammatory speakers After the essay
writing manipulation portion of the experiment (where participants under high and low perceived
choice wrote a pro-ban essay) their opinion of the campus ban was again assessed with the same
5
31 point Likert scale In addition the effectiveness of the choice manipulation was assessed on
the post experimental questionnaire with the question ldquoHow free did you feel to decline to
participate in this Ivy League Administrators research projectrdquo
In the study by Zanna and Cooper (1974) an attitude shift (between the pre and post
experimental questionnaires) toward favoring the speaker ban was the expected results for the
control and relaxation inducing pill groups The authors anticipated this attitude shift due to the
previous research of Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) They hypothesized that if participants had
no external justification for feeling negatively about writing a pro-ban essay when they
previously had spoken against the ban then they must change their cognitions as previously
suggested by Festinger (1957) in his cognitive dissonance theory In accordance with Zanna and
Cooperrsquos hypotheses results indicated that the individuals who were in the tension-inducing pill
group reported significantly lower attitude shift because they were able to attribute their
tenseness and negative feelings about performing the dissonant actions to the pill rather than to
their internal turmoil On the other hand participants in the relaxation pill group evidenced the
opposite reaction these individuals experienced more attitude shift after writing the
counterattitudinal essay due to their inability to attribute their tense feelings to an external source
(the pill) In other words the people in the relaxation pill group were unable to locate an external
source that explained their feelings of unease and thus had to rely on attitude shift to ameliorate
the tension they felt over the discrepancy between their beliefs and actions
Zanna and Cooper (1974) also found that choice had an impact on attitude shift such that
participants in the high perceived choice group evidenced more attitude shift than participants in
the low perceived choice group This finding further demonstrates the need for external
justification to avoid attitude shift participants who were given the choice to write the
6
counterattitudinal essay experienced more tension than the participants who were directly told to
write the essay because of the perceived free will they exercised in writing the statements that
went against their beliefs Thus it appears that attitude shift is most likely to occur when
individuals feel they freely chose to engage in the behavior and did not have any form of external
justification for performing the dissonant action
Cognitive Dissonance and the Induced Compliance Paradigm
Within the dissonance literature several paradigms have been used to elicit attitude shift
in participants (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Of these paradigms the most common is the
induced compliance paradigm (ICP) which is used in the current study The induced compliance
paradigm typically requires participants to perform an undesirable task which arouses dissonance
once performed The key to this paradigm is to induce the participant to engage in an activity
that due to personal predispositions he or she would not ordinarily engage in In addition there
must be low or nonexistent external justification to carry out the negative behavior The absence
of external justification is important because otherwise if external rewards or punishments for
the activity are present the participant will use them to rationalize their actions and dissonance
will not be aroused In the ICP attitude shift is expected to occur when the participant is induced
to perform a counterattitudinal behavior in the absence of external justification
Counterattitudinal behaviors are any that involve doing or saying something that one does
not agree with or would not normally advocate Examples used in cognitive dissonance studies
include writing counterattitudinal essays that have may have negative consequences for other
people (Elkin amp Leippe 1986 Steele amp Liu 1983) or lying to someone about a task being
enjoyable when it was not (Cooper amp Worchel 1970 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959) Within the
ICP participants are provoked by a researcher to perform the counterattitudinal behavior through
7
the manipulation of the participantrsquos amount of choice or reward For example the peg turning
cognitive dissonance study previously mentioned (conducted by Festinger and Carlsmith in
1959) was the first study to use the ICP and reward manipulation (through the use of $1 or $20
to mislead the confederate) was used to induce cognitive dissonance effects These researchers
found that if a person publically behaves in a manner that misrepresents his personal beliefs he
will experience cognitive dissonance and that the magnitude of the dissonance will increase
when there are fewer reasons for complying (such as less reward or more perceived free choice)
A famous study by Linder Cooper and Jones (1967) demonstrated that choice
manipulation within the ICP can induce cognitive dissonance and thus attitude shift
Linder and colleagues asked participants to write an essay (using either high or low perceived
choice manipulation) supporting the ban of Communist speakers at their institution knowing that
the majority of students did not support this ban Participants were screened to make sure that
they did not agree with the ban and then were either directly instructed to write the supportive
essay (the Low perceived choice group) or asked politely to write the pro-ban essay (High
perceived choice group) Results indicated that participants in the high perceived choice group
experienced more attitude shift after completion of the essay toward being in favor of a
Communist speaker campus ban than people in the low perceived choice group Linder and
colleagues interpreted these results as evidence that when people perceive that they have free
will to engage in a dissonant action they cognitively justify their actions (via an attitude or belief
shift) to reduce the negative feelings the dissonant action produced
12 Justification for the Current Studyrsquos Procedural Design
The procedures outlined for the current study were selected due to the significant attitude
shift results that were obtained by using these tasks in two previous experiments First Festinger
and Carlsmith (1959) implemented the peg board task in their original study on cognitive
8
dissonance Participants in the study were required to turn the pegs for one hour and then lie to
the next participant (a confederate) about the task being enjoyable The primary difference
between the Festinger and Carlsmith study and the current proposal is that the former paid
participants either $1 or $20 in order to identify what amount of external justification would lead
to more attitude shift The authors found that the participants in the $20 group had much less
attitude shift about the task because they were able to use the external justification of lying for
$20 whereas participants in the $1 group evidenced significantly more attitude shift due to the
lack of any external justification for lying The authors surmised that $1 was not enough money
to justify lying for participants so they instead had to change their own cognitions to make sense
of their actions (lying to a stranger) thus they convinced themselves that the abacus task wan not
boring
A second important study used a boring task while asking participants to lie to a
confederate Cooper and Worchel (1970) replicated the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study
but rather than using money as the external justification for lying they used small amounts of
experimental credit (1 extra credit vs 5 extra credit) to induce attitude shift However
regardless of the amount of extra credit the authors offered 98 of participants agreed to the
deception task which indicates that the script the experimenters used was effective in inducing
participantsrsquo compliance to lie The current experiment is using the Experimenter and
Confederate Scripts from the study by Cooper and Worchel with only a few minor modifications
to the original scripts For example the Cooper and Worchel study only manipulated a High
perceived choice group so their script was altered slightly in the present study so that it could
also be used for the Low perceived choice group
9
Justification for using the high perceived choice condition to elicit attitude shift comes
from an experiment conducted by Zanna Goethals amp Cooper (1975) Their study implemented
the peg board task and asked participants to lie to a confederate that the task was enjoyable (they
only used the high perceived choice condition to elicit guilt) The study had participants do the
peg turning task for 20 minutes (as opposed to the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study which
required participants to do the task for one hour) Through asking participants to voluntarily
deceive the next participant the authors found that all participants (n=76) agreed to tell the next
participant (really a confederate) that the peg turning task was enjoyable They obtained this
100 compliance rate simply by asking the participant to tell the next person (a confederate) that
the peg turning task was enjoyable The study by Zanna and colleagues also provides support
that conducting the peg turning task for only 20 minutes still induces sufficient boredom in
participants In addition the study found a significant attitude shift toward reporting enjoying a
dull task when voluntarily lying to a confederate (F = 848 plt001) as compared to a control
group who did not have to lie
Finally a study by Elkin and Leippe (1986) used both high and low perceived choice
groups to examine different rates of attitude shift toward a previously counterattitudinal belief
(supporting the implementation of a student parking fee) In the high perceived choice group
participants were given the option to write a counterattitudinal essay (supporting the parking
fee) while in the low perceived choice group participants were told directly to write the
counterattitudinal essay Participantrsquos feeling of guilt was manipulated by telling them that the
counterattitudinal essay they wrote would be used by a panel and may possibly persuade them to
implement the parking fee on the campus Results indicated that all subjects participated in
writing the counterattitudinal essay (100 compliance rates) regardless of what group they were
10
in and subjects in the high perceived choice group evidenced more attitude shift towards paying
for parking than participants in the low perceived choice group The authors concluded that this
attitude shift occurred due to the participantsrsquo lack of external justification for writing the
counterattitudinal essay (they agreed voluntarily to write it) which in turn caused feelings of
guilt for voluntarily lying to the confederate These results indicate that people are apt to perform
counterattitudinal behaviors even when given a high perceived choice not to Due to the studyrsquos
significant attitude shift (cognitive dissonance) results in the High perceived choice group as
opposed to the Low perceived choice group who did not get strong attitude shift results the
current study will compare high and low perceived choice groups to attain the different levels of
cognitive dissonance
Upon discovering the links between free choice and reward leading to attitude shift when
a dissonant act is completed cognitive dissonance researchers attempted to identify specific
components of decision making that would further explain the effects of cognitive dissonance
The key features that have been postulated to explain how and why cognitive dissonance creates
attitude shift include experiencing feelings of personal guilt (Cooper amp Fazio 1984) public
commitment (Aronson 1968) and perceived free choice to commit the behavior (Brehm amp
Cohen 1962) Researchers have come up with competing theories to explain the resulting
cognitive shift that accompanies dissonance and one of the most prominent theories is the New
Look theory
13 Cooperrsquos New Look Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
The New Look theory posits that the effects of dissonance are a result of feeling
personally responsible for instigating future negative consequences for oneself or more often for
others (Cooper amp Fazio 1984) Cooper and Fazio suggested in this theory that aversive
11
consequences are necessary for the arousal of dissonance The authors defined aversive events as
those that block onersquos self interest or events that the individual would rather avoid due to their
undesirable nature The New Look theory posits that the degree of dissonance aroused in an
individual is dependent on the amount of desire a person has to avoid the negative consequences
Cooper and Fazio term this phenomenon dissonance motivation The New Look theory identifies
the consequence of an action as the cause of the subsequent attitude shift The consequence must
be salient and must cause the individual enough distress to warrant attitude shift
Support for this theory came from a study conducted by Goethals and Cooper (1972)
These researchers induced participants (known to be in favor of drinking alcohol) to deliver an
anti-drinking speech to a panel of people Half of the subjects were informed that their speech
convinced the panel that allowing drinking on campus was a bad idea while the other half of
participants were told that the speech they made had no effect on the listeners Results indicated
that only the participants who were led to believe that their speech had a negative effect on the
panel (their speech convinced the panel that drinking was bad) experienced attitude shift toward
being in favor of a drinking ban on campus The participants who were told that they did not
convince the panel did not experience attitude shift toward being against drinking on campus
The authors concluded that unless the participant feels that he negatively impacted another
person then he will not experience enough guilt and dissonance to warrant an attitude shift
Cooper and Worchel (1970) further demonstrated evidence for the New Look theory in
their experiment which replicated the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) peg turning task However
in their study participants were asked to deceive a confederate (only a high perceived choice
group) for a small amount of experimental credit (1 credit or 5 credits) Results indicated that
participants who felt they had the free will to deceive another person and did so experienced
12
such a negative consequence that in order to alleviate feelings of internal unease they changed
their own attitude and reported enjoying the peg turning task more than a control group who did
not have to lie to another person (who experienced no aversive consequence to their behavior)
Therefore Cooper in his New Look theory postulated that most people experience cognitive
dissonance following an aversive act that impacts another person or the self negatively
especially when the negative act violates normative social standards (Cooper 1999)
The aforementioned aspects of Cooperrsquos New Look theory are crucial to the current study
because we hypothesized that the average person will experience cognitive dissonance and thus
attitude change after committing an aversive act (lying to a confederate) which they felt they
freely chose to do The current experiment intended to explore Cooperrsquos New Look theory to not
only validate it in a normal population but also to test its effectiveness in a subpopulation that
experiences lower levels of guilt and remorse The current experiment intended to explore
Cooperrsquos New Look theory to not only validate it in a normal population but also to test its
effectiveness in a subpopulation that experiences lower levels of guilt and remorse If the theory
is correct that cognitive dissonance effects are due to feelings of tension or unease over having
caused negative consequences to another individual then it is the hypothesis of the current
researchers that individuals who felt less guilt over breaking social norms would not be as
cognitively affected by lying to another person Therefore the person with less ability to
experience guilt would not experience psychological distress from lying and ultimately therefore
not have an attitude shift
14 Psychopathy Effects on Cognitive Dissonance
The New Look theory proposes that an important cause of cognitive dissonance is often
the feeling of remorse that an individual experiences after performing a counterattitudinal
13
behavior with negative consequences for another person The questions naturally arise How
would individuals with little or no guilt perform on a cognitive dissonance task that arouses
guilt Would people lacking these cognitive reactions experience cognitive dissonance and
attitude shift following a dissonant action In order to answer these questions one must first
identify a group of people that consistently exhibit a lack of concern for others such as
individuals with psychopathic traits
Psychopathy is a pervasive heterogeneous personality construct that is particularly salient
for the current study due to the callous nature of individuals with these traits Psychopaths are
individuals who exhibit no remorse are callous unemotional and lack concern for societyrsquos
morays In addition they are often impulsive antisocial manipulative and do not have strong
social bonds with others (Hare 1993 Patrick 2006) Approximately one percent of the
population meets criteria for the diagnosis of psychopathy though 15-25 of the prison
population is diagnosed with psychopathy (Hare 1996) Within the criminal population
individuals with psychopathy are not only overrepresented but they also commit more violent
crimes (over half in the United States) and recidivate four times more often than prisoners
without psychopathy (Hare 1993) As one can see these crime statistics make this population a
danger to society and thus it is important to attempt to identify what underlying cognitive and
behavioral differences exist in people with psychopathy
Psychopathy is often discussed in relation to antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) by
many scholars (Hare 1993 Lilienfeld 1994) because of the high number of correlated traits
between the two personality constructs Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is classified as
an Axis II Cluster B disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV-TR) (American
Psychological Association APA 1994) Cluster B disorders are ones in which the individual
14
exhibits unpredictable impulsive or dramatic behavior The DSM IV-TR criteria necessary for a
diagnosis of ASPD includes impulsive and aggressive behavior conduct disorder (CD) in
childhood a history of criminal acts and violent disregard for others (APA 1994)
Psychopathy is differentiated from ASPD in that psychopathy incorporates the cognitive
and internal states of the individual in addition to his or her external behaviors (Hare 1999) In
fact the cognitive and interpersonal features of psychopathy are considered to be the most
crucial defining aspects of the personality construct (Patrick 2006) Psychopaths have
demonstrated an inability to internalize their culturersquos moral or legal standards and therefore
many people with psychopathy do not abide by these rules
Historically Phillipe Pinel was the first scientist to document the condition of
psychopathy in the early 19th century (Meloy 1998) Pinel noted that psychopaths exhibited no
remorse or internal restraint Hervey Cleckley (1941 1976) furthered research on psychopathy in
his book The Mask of Sanity Cleckley (1976) proposed that psychopathy is a personality
construct which arises in childhood He also was the first to define several cognitive and
affective characteristics of psychopathy such as superficial charm emotional shallowness
deceitfulness egocentricity irresponsibility and (most central for the current study) a lack of
remorse shame or guilt In addition he found that psychopaths often externalize the blame for
their negative actions are extremely impulsive and do not learn from punishment
Within psychopathy research there has been some debate as to whether the construct is
taxonic or dimensional (Hare 1991 Marcus amp Edens 2004) For example the Psychopathy
Checklist Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991) which is one of the prominent ways of assessing
psychopathy assigns individuals with an overall score on a scale from 0 to 40 with a cut off
score of 29 generally indicating the threshold for a psychopathy diagnosis (Hare 1991 Hare amp
15
Neumann 2006) The use of a cut-off seems to suggest a taxonic perspective However use of
the scale indicates that the higher the score the more psychopathic traits an individual expresses
which is also consistent with a dimensional view of psychopathy Recent studies have used the
PCL-R to examine the dimensional aspects of psychopathy and have consistently come to the
conclusion that psychopathy should be viewed as a continuum (Edens Marcus Lilienfeld amp
Poythress 2006 Marcus amp Edens 2004) Aside from looking at psychopathy on a continuum it
is also important to examine the construct from multiple perspectives such as behaviorally and
cognitively
Two Factor Model of Psychopathy
Today a Two Factor Model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991) is one of the
primary models used to evaluate psychopathy (Hare amp Neumann 2006 Harpur Hare amp
Hakstian 1989 Murrie amp Cornell 2002 Rutherford Cacciola amp Alterman 1999) The Two
Factor model assesses both behavioral cues and intrinsic or internal personality traits to define
psychopathy (Chapman Gremore amp Farmer 2003 Hare 1991 Pethman amp Erlandsson 2002)
and is the bases for the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991 Lykken 1995)
which is the principal assessment tool used to identify clinical psychopathy Within the Two
Factor theory the first factor describes the internal disposition of the individual and includes
eight items believed to gauge psychopathy from a cognitive angle These personality traits
include superficial charm a grandiose sense of self worth lack of empathy or guilt pathological
lying and cunning manipulativeness (Hare 1991 Raine 2002) The second factor outlines the
behavioral actions of an individual with psychopathic tendencies and includes nine items used to
assess a psychopathic personality These traits include early problem behaviors poor behavioral
controls and impulsivity (Hare 1991 Rutherford et al 1999) Based on the aforementioned
16
cognitive components of psychopathy the current researchers propose that these individuals will
not experience the same degree of psychological unease from lying to a confederate that the non
psychopathic individuals involved in the study
Primary and Secondary Model of Psychopathy
A second differentiation model of psychopathy was proposed by Karpman (1941 1948)
Karpman following the work of Cleckley divided psychopathy into two subcategories primary
and secondary psychopathy It is important to note that the primary and secondary views of
psychopathy mirror the Two Factor Model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991) In both
instances the primary factor (Factor 1) encompasses the cognitive affective traits of
psychopathy while the secondary factor (Factor 2) assesses the more antisocial behavior
characteristics of psychopathy
Individuals with primary psychopathy evidence cognitive manifestations of the construct
such as low to non-existent trait anxiety callousness and a lack of guilt or remorse They tend to
be unresponsive to treatment efforts and often have more severe symptoms associated with
psychopathy (Karpman 1941) For example Karpman (1948) found that primary psychopaths
are more apt to carry out their deceptive and manipulative behavior to reach an end goal
displaying a callous lack of emotion or concern for others whereas secondary psychopaths will
occasionally act with higher human emotions such as empathy
Secondary psychopathy is believed to come about through the effects of environmental
stressors and life events such as severe child physical or sexual abuse (Porter 1996) The
manifestation of secondary psychopathy which has also been called sociopathy (Lykken 1995)
is mostly behavioral in nature and secondary psychopaths tend to carry out the antisocial and
deviant behavior as a reaction to deep emotional conflict or anger rather than a callous
17
disregard for others (Karpman 1941) Overall primary psychopaths seem to have a permanent
deficit in functioning whereas secondary psychopathy encompasses a dysfunction created by
aversive environmental factors However it is important to note that both primary and secondary
psychopaths to some degree evidence manipulative and callous behavior and display a lack of
regard for others (Karpman 1948)
Support for the view that psychopaths lack psychological distress comes in part from a
study conducted by Patrick Bradley and Lang (1993) The researchers attempted to elicit a
startle reflex in psychopaths and non-psychopaths (as diagnosed by the PCL-R) by blasting a
loud noise while having the participants view either pleasant or unpleasant photographs Results
showed that psychopaths exhibited a much smaller startle response to the noise when viewing the
stimuli (both positive and negative pictures) as compared to the non-psychopaths In addition
Patrick and colleagues found a negative correlation between the PCL-R Factor One scores (lack
of guilt lack of remorse etc) and the level of eye-blink reaction Eye blink reactions to the
startle noise were measured with Beckman miniature Ag-AgCl electrodes positioned at the
orbicularis oculi muscle beneath the participantrsquos left eye The authors found that non
psychopathic individualsrsquo eyes tend to blink more frequently than in psychopaths when aversive
stimuli are presented
Therefore these results seem to indicate that individuals with high Factor One traits
seem to evidence very little anxiety and less psychological distress towards aversive stimuli The
results of this study show that individuals higher in psychopathic traits experience less of a
physiological and thus perhaps less of a cognitive reaction to aversive stimuli In addition a
study conducted by Ray and Ray (1982) demonstrated that people high in psychopathy do not
seem to care as much about what others think of them The study found a negative correlation
18
between social desirability (as measured by the Marlow-Crowne social desirability scales) and
psychopathy (r = -32 p = 05) This finding also supports the current studyrsquos hypothesis that
individuals high on psychopathic traits will be less likely than other individuals to experience
psychological unease over lying to a confederate or undergo an attitude shift to diminish this
discomfort
Cognitive dissonance studies have consistently demonstrated that individuals not only
shift their attitude following a dissonant act but also experience physical symptoms of distress as
well For example a study conducted by Croyle and Cooper (1983) found that people have a
heightened skin conductance responses following the ldquovoluntaryrdquo commitment of a writing a
counterattitudinal essay Though no direct cognitive dissonance studies manipulating guilt have
been replicated using psychopaths studies that have used aversive stimuli such as the
anticipation of being blasted with a loud noise (80 to 120dB) have indicated that psychopaths
(compared to non-psychopath controls) evidence a hyporesponsive physical reaction (as
measured by electrodermal measurements) to the aversive stimuli (Hare 1978) Harersquos study
along with others like it (see Fowles 1980 Lykken 1957) indicate that psychopaths do not
seem to experience anxiety at the same level that non-psychopathic individuals do Therefore it
would follow that through the reduced physiological anxiety response identified in individuals
with psychopathy they will be unable to experience the psychological unease associated with the
adverse stimulus (lying to a confederate) and thus not experience an attitude shift
Past Research on Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonance
Only one study has attempted to assess the effect of psychopathy on cognitive
dissonance A doctoral dissertation by Weir (2007) examined cognitive dissonance in a sample
of 150 males from a drug treatment facility All participants had been in prison or jail and had a
19
history of criminal activity Level of psychopathy was assessed using the LPSP Participants at
the start of this study filled out an attitudes measure that assessed their opinions about the
judicial system treatment of criminals and drug abuse Later in the experiment cognitive
dissonance was induced by having participants copy a counterattitudinal statement from a sheet
of paper that dealt with being in favor of harsher punishments for criminals and drug offenders
(views that these men would adamantly oppose) After participants copied the counterattitudinal
statements they were instructed to tear up what they had written At the end of the study Weir
again assessed participantsrsquo attitudes regarding the judicial system treatment of criminals and
drug abuse with the same attitudes measure employed at the very beginning of the study The
pre and post-test use of the attitudes measure was to identify if participantsrsquo opinions had shifted
toward being in favor of harsher punishments for criminals after writing counterattitudinally in
favor of it
Weir hypothesized that primary psychopaths would experience cognitive dissonance
significantly less than individuals with secondary psychopathy or non-psychopathic individuals
because of the callous unemotional traits that are principally associated with primary
psychopathy However results of Weirrsquos study found no significant difference across the three
groups for attitude change following the dissonance inducing task The analysis did find minor
differences between the groups such that primary psychopaths did seem less effected by writing
the counterattitudinal essays than the secondary and non-psychopaths but again the results were
not significant Weir (2007) concluded that individuals with higher levels of primary
psychopathy were deficient but not completely incapable of experiencing dissonance following
an aversive behavior
20
An important confound of Weirrsquos study was the lack of a control group All participants
wrote the counterattitudinal essay so there was not a neutral group to compare the participantsrsquo
attitude shift following the essay copying to Due to the lack of a control group it is impossible to
know whether the experimental manipulation induced a dissonance effect in any of the groups
Though his study did assess cognitive dissonance it is still very different than the current study
because Weir was not using guilt as the catalyst for attitude shift
The current study examines the effect of guilt (or a lack of guilt) on cognitive dissonance
while the counterattitudinal essayrsquos used as the dissonance stimuli in Weirrsquos study did not cause
participants to feel guilt Weir was not manipulating guilt in participants but rather their
cognitive reactions to discrepant behaviors and beliefs (physically writing in favor of something
they cognitively disagreed with) Therefore though relevant to more general issues concerning
cognitive dissonance and psychopathy his study was not directly relevant to the question of
whether guilt-inducing manipulations evoke cognitive dissonance effects among individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy
15 Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism (MACH) is considered to be a similar concept to psychopathy
(McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto 1998 Saruk 1975) Both personality constructs are
characterized by callousness manipulation of others and a disregard for social norms and morals
(Christie amp Geis 1970 Skinner 1988) Based on these shared characteristics many researchers
have come to believe that the concepts may be the same but are just being labeled differently by
different branches of psychology (McHoskey et al 1998) Psychopathy is typically studied by
clinical psychologists whereas MACH has been primarily researched in the fields of social and
personality psychology
21
However other investigators (Wastell amp Booth 2003 Wilson Near amp Miller 1996)
have pointed to MACH as an instrumental construct that is incorporated as a strategic way to
pursue goals MACHs tend to be calculating and rational and engage in ruthless activity to attain
goals that are important to them Psychopaths on the other hand are often much less self-
controlled and more impulsive while exhibiting a dearth of planning abilities This may be one
of the main differences between MACH and psychopathy and this difference seems to point to
cognitive distinctions between the two personality traits
Christie (1970b) formulated the personality construct of MACH based on the writings of
16th century political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli Machiavellirsquos (1513) classic book The
Prince recommended that would-be rulers take a ruthless and cold-blooded approach to
governance Accordingly Christie identified the traits of an individual with high MACH as
using ldquosuccessfulrdquo manipulation for personal gain a lack of concern for moral standards and a
purely instrumental approach to interpersonal relationships The MACH-IV is the principal
measure used to identify Machiavellianism today It was developed in 1970 by Christie and Geis
(1970) and is a self report assessment containing 20 questions that tap the traits of MACH
Research attempting to explore the distinctions between psychopathy and MACH has
found Machiavellians to evidence many shared traits with both primary and secondary
psychopathy For example MACH characteristics related to Factor 1 of the PCL-R and primary
psychopathy (as measured by the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales LPSP
Levenson et al 1995) include callousness manipulation and a lack of anxiety (Smith 1999)
Qualities of Machiavellianism have also been found in secondary psychopathy such as a thrill
seeking behavior and a heightened need for external stimulation (Strelau 1983) In addition a
study conducted by McHoskey and colleagues (1998) found that high scores on the MACH-IV
22
and high scores on the LPSP significantly correlated (r = 62) Smith and Griffith (1978) also
found a significant though modest correlation between the MMPI (Pd) scale and the MACH-IV
(r = 25) using a sample of 66 college students These findings support the theory that MACH
and psychopathy diagnoses have features in common and may in fact be tapping similar
personality constructs McHoskey and colleagues concluded after his study that psychopathy and
MACH should be more integrated in the literature
However other researchers have argued that there are crucial differences between
psychopathy and Machiavellianism For example Smith (1999) has argued that many people
with Machiavellianism are more apt to resemble a ldquosuccessful psychopathrdquo as they tend to not
have as many legal problems as primary psychopaths do and are often overrepresented in the
business industry as successful employees In addition other studies have resulted in smaller
correlations between MACH and psychopathy (see Greenwald 1967 Christie 1970a) For
example Saruk (1975) compared MACH scores with psychopathy scores on the Psychopathic
Deviate (Pd) scale of the MMPI with incarcerated inmates as participants and found no
significant correlation between the two personality constructs However many researchers today
have advised against using the Pd scale of the MMPI to gauge psychopathy due to the unreliable
results this scale has offered when studying psychopathy (Patrick 2006) and MACH (Skinner
1982) in the past
Additional distinctions in the current literature between MACH and psychopathy are that
MACHs tend be more represented in higher SES families and have higher economic standing
than the majority of psychopaths (especially secondary psychopaths) (McHoskey et al 1998
Smith 1999) As a result of the aforementioned literature MACH is most often associated with
ldquosuccessfulrdquo psychopathy or non institutionalized psychopaths (Christie 1970a)
23
16 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonance
Though the literature is very sparse regarding the relationship between psychopathy and
cognitive dissonance a few studies have investigated the relationship between MACH and
cognitive dissonance Four of the studies are relevant to the current proposal due to the way that
the researchers manipulated dissonance arousal One hindrance in comparing the current study to
previous ones on MACH and cognitive dissonance is that at the time these former studies were
conducted Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory of cognitive dissonance arousal had not been
formulated and thus guilt had not been considered as the cause of dissonance arousal at that
point in time
Bogart Geis Levy and Zimbardo (1970) assessed the impact of social cohesiveness
(liking a partner versus not liking a partner) between high and low MACHs in a cognitive
dissonance paradigm Participantsrsquo level of MACH and self-reported level of morality were pre-
assessed using the MACH-IV Next high and low MACHs were enticed to cheat on a test by a
confederate posing as their partner in the experiment The partnerrsquos level of prestige was
manipulated For half of participants the fake partner was presented as a high prestige partner (a
graduate law school student with high grades) and the remaining participants were told that their
partner was of low prestige (an industrial arts undergraduate student with poor grades) Bogart
and colleagues hypothesized that after cheating low MACHs in the low external justification
group (low prestige partners) would decrease their self-reported ratings of morality (identify
themselves as less moral than before) in order to cognitively justify their cheating behavior Each
participant was left alone in a room with their high or low prestige partner to complete a test
containing un-solvable questions After a while the fake partner ldquohappened uponrdquo answers to the
questions on a desk in the room and attempted to get the participant to cheat with him by copying
24
the answers from the found answer sheet After the cheating manipulation the participantrsquos level
of MACH (self-reported morality rating) was assessed again using the MACH-IV
The results of the study concluded that both high and low MACHs succumbed to
cheating at approximately the same rate (50 [1632] of high MACHS and 46 [1328] of low
MACHs) However Bogart and colleagues (1970) found that high MACHs were more
instrumental in their cheating behavior such that they cheated significantly more with the high
prestige partner than with the low prestige partner Low MACHs cheated an equal amount across
low and high prestige partner pairings In addition Bogart and colleagues identified an ldquoanti-
dissonantrdquo effect such that high MACHs actually increased their self-ratings of morality by
reporting that they were more moral after cheating when paired with a low prestige partner (low
external justification condition) whereas low MACHs as predicted decreased their self-ratings
of morality (reported they were less moral) when paired with low prestige partners (low external
justification condition) In other words when high MACHs were in the condition with no
external justification present for their actions and thus would have to rely on changing their
thoughts to match their behaviors they did not undergo this attitude shift rather they seemed to
create more dissonance between their thoughts and actions by reporting themselves as more
moral after cheating with the low prestige partner This is opposite to the classical cognitive
dissonant studies where participants experience an attitude shift that matches their behaviors
when little or no external justification is present to explain their actions
In contrast the classic dissonance effect was exhibited by participants in the Bogart et al
(1970) study with low levels of MACH they reported that they were not moral individuals after
they cheated with a low prestige partner Therefore it appears high MACH individuals are
25
relying on unique aspects of the situation other than external justification to create attitude
change
A very similar experiment was reported by Bogart (1971) in which she again assessed the
effect of MACH on cognitive dissonance by enticing participants cheat on a task with a high or
low prestige partner However in this experiment a control group was employed to assess
differences between high and low MACHs who were asked to cheat as opposed to those who
were not asked to cheat As in the earlier study by Bogart et al (1970) participantsrsquo level of
MACH and self-reported level of morality were pre-assessed Next high and low MACHs were
persuaded to cheat on an essay writing assignment by a confederate posing as their partner in the
experiment The partnerrsquos level of prestige was manipulated this time in four different ways to
include their fake level of MACH as well The four categories of fake participants included High
MACH High Prestige (graduate law student) High MACH Low Prestige (business
administration student) Low MACH High Prestige (physics major) and Low MACH Low
Prestige (industrial arts student) Results indicated that high MACH participants cheated
significantly more than low MACHs (66 of high MACHs versus 41 of low MACHs) and
that they discriminated their cheating significantly more than low MACHs such that high
MACHs cheated more with the high prestige partners than the low prestige partners (81 versus
56) As in the previous study by Bogart et al (1970) an anti-dissonance effect was again found
for High MACH participants such that high MACHs again increased their self-ratings of
morality (reported they were more moral) when in the low external justification condition (paired
with low prestige partners) while low MACHs decreased their self-ratings of morality (reported
they were less moral) when in the low external justification condition (paired with low prestige
partners) This study also pointed to a difference between high and low MACHs experience of
26
cognitive dissonance by identifying the abnormal anti-dissonance reaction from individuals with
higher levels of MACH
A study by Epstein (1969) used a methodology that apparently induced guilt in
participants Epstein examined the difference between high and low MACH participantsrsquo ability
to be persuaded by induced counterattitudinal behavior Epstein pre-assessed participantsrsquo level
of MACH (with the MACH-IV) and through the use of a median split chose a sample of 40 high
MACH men and 40 low MACH men She told them that they were involved in a radio debate on
fluoridating water supplies Epstein also pre-assessed their position on water fluoridation to
make sure all participants were in favor of the procedure Half of the participants were in the
non-role playing condition (20 high MACHs and 20 low MACHs) They were instructed to read
a counterattitudinal essay against fluoridating water in town and then were post-experimentally
assessed about their position on water fluoridation to see if reading the essay had created an
attitude shift in these participants The other half of participants were in the role playing
condition They not only read the counterattitudinal essay but next they were asked to deliver an
impromptu speech against fluoridation that would be recorded and played on radio stations
across the state In the taped speech the participants had to give their name and advocate for a
ban on fluoridation which was dissonant to their personal beliefs After delivering the speech
they too were post-experimentally assessed about their position on water fluoridation to see if
their opinion had changed to be more against fluoridation Results indicated an interaction
between high and low MACHs with the role playing conditions High MACHs in the non-role
playing condition evidenced significantly more attitude change than the high MACHs in the role-
playing condition and more attitude change than the low MACHs in the non-role playing
condition This too is an anti-dissonance effect in that dissonance has been shown to produce
27
attitude change when people perform behaviors that go against their personal beliefs and in the
case of the non-role playing condition the participants did not engage in any dissonant behavior
they simply read a counterattitudinal essay written by someone else Conversely as predicted
low MACHs in the role-playing condition evidenced significantly more attitude change towards
being against fluoridation than high MACHs in the role-playing condition In addition low
MACHs in the role playing condition evidenced the most attitude change out of any condition
The finding that low MACHs experienced the most attitude shift when they had to give a speech
on the radio against fluoridation supports the classic cognitive dissonance phenomenon In
addition the role playing low MACH results potentially relate to our study if their attitudes
shifted because they felt guilt for publically denouncing a belief that they held Epsteinrsquos study is
relevant to the current study due to the methodology she used in the role playing condition
Participants were asked to publically (via a radio broadcast) deliver a speech advocating for
beliefs that they opposed Therefore because delivering a public anti-fluoridation speech would
most likely produce feelings of guilt in participants Epsteinrsquos study provides some support for
the current studyrsquos predicted results
One final study on MACH and cognitive dissonance is loosely related to the current
study although in this final example the experimental methodology did not induce guilt in
participants Burgoon Miller amp Tubbs (1972) had participants write counterattitudinal essays
advocating the removal of college student draft deferments under high and low justification In
the study justification was manipulated with classroom credits participants in the high
justification group received five classroom credits for agreeing to write the counterattitudinal
essay and participants in the low justification group received only one credit for writing the
essay Results indicated a significant interaction between level of justification (high versus low)
28
and level of MACH (high versus low) Low MACH participants experienced attitude shift
toward being in favor of draft deferments when in the low justification group This was
consistent with the classic cognitive dissonance effect When low MACH participants had no
external justification for writing the essay they changed their beliefs to match their actions In
contrast high MACHs experienced attitude shift toward being in favor of the draft deferments
only when in the high justification group but not in the low justification group The authors
explain this relationship by using incentive theory They posit that high MACHs attitudes are
persuaded by rewards which stems from their desire to gain power and prestige (and rewards)
with no regard for other people
Burgoon et al (1972) explained their findings as reflecting high MACHsrsquo lack of
concern about lying or moral standards Christie and Geis (1970) have also discussed the
findings of Burgoon et al and conjectured that they reflect the high MACHrsquos lack of concern for
other people Specifically Christie and Geis suggest that high MACHs view people more as
objects to be manipulated rather than as people with feelings and emotions
The main difference between the current study and that of Burgoon et al (1972) is that
our study assessed cognitive dissonance through the use of guilt induction while their study did
not induce guilt in participants The methodology involved in their experiment was not designed
to create guilt in participants rather it was simply created to examine attitude shift after
performing a counterattitudinal act with no negative consequences Therefore though Burgoon
and colleaguesrsquo study assessed cognitive dissonance effects in participants with MACH it does
not appear directly relevant to the hypothesis underlying the present study
Overall past research has demonstrated that individuals high in MACH are resistant to
the classic cognitive dissonance effects of attitude shift after performing a behavior that they
29
cognitively oppose In fact the past research has shown that individuals with high MACH often
experience attitude shift in the opposite direction or conditions that low MACHs do These
results have been explained as consequences of the underlying personality characteristics that
high MACH individuals possess (callousness manipulative nature and lack of regard for others)
Since these characteristics are also traits of psychopathy (especially primary psychopathy) it is
reasonable to expect that the negative associations demonstrated between MACH and cognitive
dissonance will also be found between psychopathy and cognitive dissonance in the present
study
17 Hypotheses of the Present Study
Cognitive dissonance studies analyzing the affects of MACH have shown a significant
effect such that high MACHs do not evidence the classic attitude shift following the
performance of a dissonant act The current study sought to determine whether individuals with
high psychopathy scores exhibit a similar pattern
In the current study we analyzed guilt-induced cognitive dissonance effects in individuals
with varying levels of psychopathy Participantsrsquo level of psychopathy (and MACH) was
identified by having them fill out two self report measures on psychopathy and one self-report
measure on MACH They completed a boring abacus task that involved manually pushing balls
one at a time across an abacus for 20 minutes After the task the participants were either politely
asked (High perceived choice to lie group) or directly instructed (Low perceived choice to lie
group) to tell a fellow student (actually a confederate) that the abacus task was enjoyable After
misleading the confederate the participants completed a post-experimental questionnaire that
assessed their personal enjoyment of the abacus task and their level of guilt over deceiving
another person
30
First it was hypothesized that the classic cognitive dissonance effect would be replicated
We expected that regardless of psychopathy or MACH level participants in the High Choice to
Lie condition would evidence more attitude shift towards enjoying the abacus task than
participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition These results were expected to be a replication
of the classic Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study except that instead of manipulating reward
we would demonstrate the effect using choice as the dissonance manipulator
The second hypothesis was that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy (and
MACH) would report disliking the abacus task (as measured by the post experimental
questionnaire) across both the High and Low perceived choice to lie groups We expected these
results due to the lack of guilt commonly found in individuals with higher levels of psychopathy
and MACH Therefore we theorized that individuals with high levels of psychopathy would not
experience guilt even when they felt that they voluntarily (High perceived choice to lie group)
chose to mislead another participant Due to this lack of guilt the high psychopathy (and high
MACH) participant would not have had the attitude shift associated with cognitive dissonance
and would not report enjoying the abacus task
The third hypothesis pertained to the individuals with low or nonexistent levels of
psychopathy and MACH We predicted that participants with low levels of psychopathy would
report enjoying the abacus task more after lying to a future participant only if they were in the
High perceived choice to lie group These results were believed to be due to the guilt inducing
nature of voluntarily agreeing to lie to a person as opposed to the Low perceived choice group
where participants were told directly to lie to the next participant as part of the study
requirements These results were also expected for people who scored low in Machiavellianism
due to the similarities between the two personality constructs
31
The fourth hypothesis was that psychopathy would better account for a demonstrated lack
of guilt than would MACH Though this hypothesis did not have a strong empirically supported
theoretical background we were interested in learning whether the psychopathy construct would
yield different results from MACH suggesting that the psychopathy construct is including
relevant and distinct personality dimensions that the MACH construct does not include
In addition this study explored the relationship between primary and secondary
psychopathy with the level of self reported abacus task enjoyment Specifically the study
examined differences in the reported level of abacus task enjoyment between individuals with
high scores on primary as compared to secondary psychopathy Also the study explored
particular facets of psychopathy (such as callousness) and their relationship to reported
enjoyment of the abacus task
32
Chapter 2 Method
Participants
The current study was conducted with 164 (103 females 61 males) undergraduate
students at the University of Texas El Paso The sample size for the current study was
determined by examining past research on cognitive dissonance effects on MACH These studies
typically included 50 to 80 participants and yielded statistically significant results We
conservatively concluded that the present study should include approximately twice as many
participants as these earlier studies to ensure appropriate power for the current study
Participantsrsquo ages ranged from 18 to 44 years (M =1966 years SD = 317 years) with 823
between the ages of 18 to 20 The ethnicity of the sample was predominately Hispanic (854)
with the remaining participantsrsquo ethnicities Anglo-American (67) African American (18)
Asian (6) and Other (55) Participants were drawn from Introductory Psychology courses at
the University of Texas El Paso and were given 15 experimental credits for their participation
Measures
The Psychopathic Personality InventorymdashRevised Short Form (PPI-R SF Lilienfeld amp
Widows 2005)
The current study used the Psychopathic Personality Inventory ndash Revised Short Form
(PPI-R SF) which is a shortened version of the PPI-R It is a self-report measure of subclinical
psychopathic tendencies The PPI-R SF contains 56 items that are scored using a Likert scale
between 1 and 4 (1=False 2=Mostly False 3=Mostly True 4=True) The PPI-R SF yields one
overall total score and two factor scores (Fearless Dominance [FD] and Self-Centered
Impulsivity [SCI] ) as well as scores on eight content scales (a) Machiavellian Egocentricity
(ME 20 items) (b) Social Influence (SOI previously Social Potency 18 items) (c)
Coldheartedness (C 16 items) (d) Carefree Nonplanfulness (CN 19 items) (e) Fearlessness (F
33
14 items) (f) Blame Externalization (BE 15 items) (g) Rebellious Nonconformity (RN
previously Impulsive Nonconformity 16 items) and (h) Stress Immunity (STI 13 items) The
Fearless Dominance factor includes the Social Influence Fearlessness and Stress Immunity
content scales and the Self Centered Impulsivity factor is comprised of the Machiavellian
Egocentricity Rebellious Nonconformity Carefree Nonplanfulness and Blame Externalization
content scales (the Coldheartedness content scale is part of the overall total but is considered
separate from either of the two summed factors (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger
2003) These factors correspond to the two-factor structure (PPI-I and PPI-2) of the original
version of the PPI which are also similar to the Two Factor Structure of psychopathy proposed
by Hare (1991) in the Psychopathy ChecklistmdashRevised Specifically the Fearless Dominance
factor assesses the cognitive deficits of psychopathy while the Self Centered Impulsivity factor
reviews the antisocial behavior traits of psychopathy
Currently there are no published studies that have analyzed the reliability and validity of
the PPI-R SF but because it is a shortened version of the PPI-R (it is comprised of the 7 highest
loading questions from each of the eight subscales of the PPI-R) the demonstrated psychometric
properties of the PPI and PPI-R are relevant to evaluating the PPI-R SF
Lilienfeld and Andrews (1996) evaluated the convergent and discriminant validities of
the PPI with an undergraduate sample and found evidence of convergent validity with the
California Psychological Inventory Socialization scale (r = -59) Levensonrsquos (1990)
Psychopathy Scale (r = 37) and with the Hare (1985) Self Report Psychopathy ScalemdashRevised
(r = 91) Lilienfeld and Widows (1995) demonstrated internal consistencies for the PPI-R
overall total and content scales to range from α = 78 to α = 92 They also found test-retest
reliabilities (mean test-retest interval = 1994 days) to range from r = 82 to r = 93 The PPI-R
34
has been found to correlate significantly with both the Self-Report Psychopathy ScalendashII (SRP-
II Hare Harpur amp Hemphill 1989) and the LPSP (Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995) as
well as with self-report measures of antisocial personality disorder substance use sensation
seeking and pathological functioning (Lilienfeld amp Widows 2005)
Levensonrsquos Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales (LPSP Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick
1995)
The LPSP is a 26-item self report measure that identifies both behavioral and emotional
aspects of psychopathy The measure breaks down into two subscales Primary Psychopathy (16
items) and Secondary Psychopathy (10 items) Each item is scored on a 1 to 4 point Likert Scale
(1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Agree Strongly) Levenson and colleagues
(1995) found that the Primary scale has good internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos alpha = 82) and
that the Secondary scale had marginal internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos alpha = 63) In addition
they found that the two scales correlate moderately (r = 40) Lynam and colleagues (1999)
found convergent validity between the PPI and the LPSP to be moderately high (r= 64)
MACH-IV Scale (Christie amp Geis 1970) The MACH-IV is a 20-item self-report measure that identifies Machiavellianism which
is characterized by being callous manipulative and behaving in a way that only benefits oneself
The items are arranged in a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very Strongly Agree) to 5 (Very
Strongly Disagree) with 3 being a neutral choice (No Opinion) Internal reliability has been
found to be rather consistent with studies demonstrating moderate alpha coefficients α=74
(Austin Farrelly Black amp Moore 2007) and α=70 (Fehr Samsom amp Paulhus 1992) Christie
and Geis (1970) found split half reliabilities from 69 to 88 Finally Machiavellianism has
35
shown moderate correlations with primary (r = 65 plt001) and secondary psychopathy (r = 49
plt001) as measured by the LPSP (McHoskey et al 1998)
Post-experimental Questionnaire
The post experimental questionnaire was administered after the participant completed the
abacus task and after they misled the confederate in the experiment The questionnaire was
based on the post experimental measure used in the Cooper and Worchel (1970) study on
cognitive dissonance The measure contains eight items that assess how enjoyable the participant
perceived the abacus task how guilty they felt for lying to the confederate and how voluntary
the person felt the deceiving of the confederate was (see Appendix B) The item assessing
participantsrsquo enjoyment of the abacus task was the primary dependent measure of the current
study
The questionnaire was designed so that it appeared to be a survey conducted by the
Psychology Department attempting to analyze how effective all of the departmental research
was The questionnaire was sealed into an envelope by the participant upon completion in order
to create the illusion of the confidentiality of their answers from the experimenter The
questionnaire was designed to appear separate from the current experiment in order to prevent
any biasing of participantsrsquo responses by compliance effects (ie participants answering the way
they perceive the experimenter would want them to answer) The majority of the questions on
this questionnaire were obtained from the Cooper and Worchel post experimental questionnaire
The main adaptation the current study made to the original measure was the use of a 1-7 point
Likert scale to rate responses instead of the 1-31 point Likert scale utilized by Cooper and
Worchel In addition in the present study the last 2 questions on the questionnaire were changed
36
to identify how voluntary the participant found the task to be and if the deceiving of the
confederate elicited feelings of guilt in the participant
Demographics Form
A brief demographics form was presented at the beginning of the packet of psychopathy
and MACH self report measures (Appendix B) It was given before the self-report measures and
assessed participantsrsquo age gender and ethnicity This form took approximately one minute to
complete
Procedure Participants were Introductory Psychology students recruited through an online computer
experiment program provided by the University of Texas at El Paso and were given 15
experimental credits for their involvement in the current study Upon entering the lab the
participant was seated in the hall to wait for the experimenter Meanwhile the experimenter text-
messaged the confederate to let him (or her) know that the participant had arrived Upon
receiving the text message the confederate knew to wait approximately 15 minutes before
entering the lab and acting out their role Next the participant was guided into a room and given
an informed consent form (Appendix F) which was explained to them The form explained the
confidential nature of the study and that the study was about personality traitsrsquo influence on
motor skills and reaction time After the experimenter explained the consent form the participant
read and signed the form
Abacus Task
An abacus task was implemented to induce boredom in participants The task was loosely
modeled on the boring peg turning task used in the Cooper and Worchel (1970) and Festinger
and Carlsmith (1959) experiments on cognitive dissonance In the abacus task a large abacus
37
was placed flat on the table in front of the participant He or she was instructed to move the
wooden balls one at a time across the abacus using only their right hand The participant was
instructed to slide the balls across the abacus one at a time starting at the top row and moving
down the board until they reached the bottom row Once he or she had slid all of the balls (one
at a time) to the right side of the abacus the participant was instructed to start at the top again
and to slide the balls back across the abacus one at a time beginning at the top row and moving
down the abacus until they had reached the bottom row again Participants were told to work at
their own ldquonaturalrdquo pace and to continue sliding balls across the abacus one at a time going row
by row until instructed to stop After 10 minutes the experimenter instructed the participant to
stop and then start the task over with their left hand instead of their right hand During this task
the experimenter was seated directly across from the participant with a clipboard and a stopwatch
and acted as though she was monitoring the participantrsquos progress (eg occasionally writing
notes on the clipboard and appearing to time the participantrsquos progress with the stopwatch)
Approximately 15 minutes into the task a knock was heard on the door and the
confederate came into the room to ask if this was where the experiment was being held The
experimenter looked up and quickly told the confederate that he was in the right place and asked
him to wait in the hall until she was done running the current participant The confederate
apologized for his interruption shut the door behind him and sat in the hall to wait for his
interaction with the participant While waiting in the hall the confederate pretended to be doing
homework or listening to his Ipod to give the illusion that he was just another participant waiting
to do the experiment After the participant had moved the balls across the abacus with his or her
left hand for 10 minutes the experimenter signaled the participant to stop the task The abacus
task lasted 20 minutes 10 minutes per hand
38
Choice Conditions
After the abacus task was completed the experimenter stopped the participant and recited
from memory one of the Post Abacus Task scripts to the participant For half of participants the
experimenter recited from memory the High Perceived Choice to Lie script (see Appendix A)
and the other half of the participants were recited the Low Perceived Choice to Lie script
(Appendix A) The scripts were alternated randomly between participants Following the choice
manipulation portion of the experiment and guilt induction participants were given the post
experimental questionnaire to complete as this was the main dependent measure of the study
High Perceived Choice to Lie Group
In the High Perceived Choice to Lie condition the experimenter politely asked the
participant to tell the next waiting participant (the confederate waiting in the hall) that the abacus
task was fun and interesting (see Appendix A) The participant was informed that telling the
person waiting in the hall about the task being enjoyable was not required but that their
assistance would be greatly appreciated Once the participant agreed to the task (this study had a
100 compliance rate) he or she was taken into the hall where the ldquofuturerdquo participant (actually
a confederate) was seated and waiting The (real) participant was introduced to the confederate
and the experimenter explained to the fake participant that she had to set up quickly in the other
lab room so the current participant was going to explain the experiment to him while she was
gone The experimenter then excused herself and left the hallway The real participant was given
about two minutes to tell the second (bogus) participant that the task was enjoyable If the
participant freely told the confederate that the task was going to be fun (927 of participants)
then the fake participant thanked the real participant as follows ldquoGreat Irsquom really glad to hear
that this is a fun experiment because all of the other experiments I have had so far have really
39
been boring Thanks for telling merdquo If the participant did not freely say that the task was
enjoyable the confederate attempted to prompt them by asking ldquoSo how was itrdquo This
manipulation got an additional 37 of participants to verbalize that the task was fun and the
confederate also thanked them with the same statement reported above The statement thanking
the participant for the information about their enjoyable rating of the task was intended to
increase the real participantrsquos guilt about lying Following the short conversation with the
confederate the experimenter went back into the hall and led the participant into the other lab
room After she had shut the lab room door behind them the confederate filled out the
Confederate Manipulation Check form (Appendix H) The confederate checked the box on the
form that indicated whether or not the real participant told him directly if the task was fun if he
had to prompt the participant or if the participant did not tell him the task was enjoyable Upon
filling out the Confederate Manipulation Check form the confederate put the form in its box in
the lab and promptly left
Low Perceived Choice to Lie Group
In the Low Perceived Choice to Lie condition the experimenter directly instructed (not
requested) the participant to tell the next (fake) participant that the abacus task was fun and
interesting (see Appendix A) Upon consent from the participant the experimenter led him into
the hall and introduced him to the confederate who was waiting as the future participant
Identical procedures to the ones explained for participants in the High Perceived Choice to Lie
group occurred at this point
Post-experimental Questionnaire
Once participants had interacted with the confederate and been taken into the second lab
room they were given the post-experimental questionnaire The post-experimental questionnaire
40
(Appendix B) contained eight items that quantified how enjoyable the participant found the
abacus task to be and assessed their self-reported feelings of guilt after misleading the
confederate The questionnaire was presented to seem like it was not part of the current
experiment but rather a general Psychology Department survey being conducted to assess
departmental research being performed that semester The questionnaire was administered with
an envelope and the participant was instructed to seal their questionnaire inside the envelope
after completing it to promote the sense of confidentiality of their answers from the
experimenter The experimenter explained the questionnaire to the participant To prevent
possible compliance effects the experimenter reiterated that she was not supposed to see the
participantrsquos answers because the questionnaire was supposed to remain anonymous and was not
part of the current study
After the participant completed the post-experimental questionnaire and sealed it into the
envelope he or she was given a packet containing the LPSP [Appendix C] PPI-R SF [Appendix
D]) and MACH-IV [Appendix E]) and the demographics form (Appendix B) and asked to
complete these questionnaires The packet of measures took approximately 30 minutes to
complete After the participants filled out all of the self-report measures they were debriefed as
to the true nature of the experiment and asked to sign a second informed consent form (Appendix
F) that outlined to them the true purposes of the experiment A debriefing script was used to
ensure that all participants received the same information about the experiment (see Appendix
G) They were asked not to share with anyone the actual purpose and procedures of the
experiment in order to prevent future participants from knowing ahead of time what the
experiment was about Participants were given 15 experimental credits for their participation
41
Chapter 3 Results
Manipulation Check
There were 82 participants in the High Choice to Lie group and 82 participants in the
Low Choice to Lie condition All participants verbally agreed with the researcher that they
would tell the confederate that the task was enjoyable A manipulation check was performed to
determine whether they actually kept their agreement The confederate marked on a form
(Appendix G) whether or not the participant told him or her that the task was enjoyable Results
of the manipulation check indicated that 152 (927) of the participants complied with the
researcherrsquos suggestion and told the confederate that the task would be enjoyable An additional
six (37) told the confederate that the abacus task would be enjoyable but only after they were
prompted by the confederate asking ldquoHow was the taskrdquo One (6) participant told the
confederate that the task was enjoyable but added that he was instructed by the researcher to say
so Three participants (18) never told the confederate that the task was enjoyable Two
participants (12) told the confederate that the task was boring To preserve randomization
analyses for the study were run on all participants (N = 164) including those who failed to report
that the task was enjoyable This approach to the analysis of experimental findings is known as
ldquointent-to-treat analysisrdquo and yields an unbiased estimate of the effects of being assigned to each
experimental condition (Shadish Cook amp Campbell 2002) However as will be reported later
in the Results supplementary analyses were also run that excluded the six participants who
failed to tell the confederate that the task was enjoyable
Descriptive Statistics
Before running analyses procedures were carried out for dealing with missing data
Seven participants did not fill out the psychopathy and Machiavellianism self-report measures
42
completely Specifically each of the seven neglected to answer precisely one item on a single
scale Scores for the missing items were imputed individually using regression using the
summed score of the other items on the same scale as the predictor and the missing item score as
the criterion
Descriptive statistics were then calculated for participantsrsquo self-reported abacus task
enjoyment for their total scores on the psychopathy and Machiavellianism self-report measures
and for their respective factor scores and subscales scores (see Table 1)
43
Table 1 Descriptive Information for the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Predictors and Dependent Variable (N=164)
Mean Standard
Deviation Minimum Maximum
Total Enjoyment Rating of Abacus Task
401 169 100 700
High Choice to Lie Enjoyment Rating of Task
434 162 100 700
Low Choice to Lie Enjoyment Rating of Task
367 171 100 700
PPI-R SF Total Score 12565 1628 9000 17000
Fearless Dominance Factor
5605 912 2800 7600
Self-Centered Impulsive Factor
5436 989 3500 8400
Machiavellian Egocentricity 1360 352 700 2500
Social Influence 1888 400 700 2800
Fearlessness 1898 448 700 2800 Coldheartedness 1523 387 800 2600 Rebellious Nonconformity 1399 415 700 2400
Blame Externalization 1416 419 700 2600
Carefree Nonplanfulness 1262 329 700 2300
Stress Immunity 1820 453 700 2800 LPSP Total Score 5018 903 3000 7300
LPSP Primary Factor 3062 702 1600 4900
LPSP Secondary Factor 1956 405 1100 3100
MACH-IV Total Score 5296 833 3500 7600
Deceit 850 284 400 1600 Flattery 563 209 200 1000 Immoral 883 241 300 1500 Cynicism 1066 296 500 2000 Residual 1934 359 1000 2900 Note Total scale scores are in bold Factor scale scores are in italics Subscales are presented in regular font
44
31 Confirmatory Analyses
Hypothesis 1 Replication of the Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effect
A regression was performed to determine whether the classic cognitive dissonance effect
reported in earlier research was reproduced in the present study The main dependent variable in
this analysis was participants self-report ratings of how much they enjoyed the abacus task (Self-
Reported Enjoyment) The independent variable was Choice Condition (High Choice to Lie
versus Low Choice to Lie) In this analysis and all other analyses High Choice to Lie was coded
as ldquo1rdquo and Low Choice to Lie as ldquo0rdquo Based on prior studies of cognitive dissonance it was
predicted that that participants in the High Choice to Lie condition would report higher levels of
enjoyment than participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition A linear regression was
conducted and as predicted a significant difference in abacus task enjoyment was found
between the High and Low Choice to Lie groups Rsup2 = 039 F (1162) = 666 p = 011
standardized β = 199 t(163) = 258 p = 011 A one-way ANOVA was also conducted and
yielded exactly the same results as the regression F(1162) = 666 p = 011 d = 402 The High
Choice to Lie group had a mean enjoyment rating of 434 (SD = 162) (on a 1 to 7 rating scale
with 1 being no enjoyment of the task and 7 being high enjoyment of the task) while the Low
Choice to Lie group reported a mean enjoyment rating of 367 (SD = 171) on the same scale (see
Figure 1) These results indicate that participants in the High Choice to Lie group who felt that
they had more choice whether to mislead the confederate about the task being enjoyable
reported enjoying the task more than participants in the Low choice to lie group
45
Figure 1 Main effect for mean task enjoyment across choice conditions r = 199
Hypothesis 2 amp 3 Relationship Between Task Enjoyment and Choice Level Will Vary With
Psychopathy Level
The main hypothesis of the study was that individuals with lower levels of psychopathy
(and Machiavellianism) would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect by reporting higher
enjoyment of the abacus task in the High Choice to Lie Condition than in the Low Choice to Lie
Condition whereas individuals with higher levels of psychopathy would not report more
enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie than in the Low Choice to Lie condition In other words a
significant interaction was hypothesized between choice condition and level of psychopathy (and
Machiavellianism) in the prediction of self-reported enjoyment In order to test this hypothesis
three multiple regressions were conducted using the two psychopathy measures and the single
Machiavellianism measure
46
First multiple regression PPI-R SF total scores In the first multiple regression the
criterion was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice
Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) PPI-R SF total scores and the
interaction of Choice Condition with PPI-RSF scores It was hypothesized that the interaction
term would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple regression
are shown in Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was statistically
significant Rsup2 = 105 F(3160) = 623 p lt 001
As hypothesized the interaction of PPI-R SF total scores and choice condition was
statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -216 t(163) = -
211 p =036 (Table 2) Figures 2 and 3 depict this interaction graphically As can be seen in
Figure 2 there was not a significant relationship between PPI-R SF scores and Self-Reported
Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -054 t(81) =
-486 p =628 In contrast there was a significant relationship between PPI-R SF scores and
Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -374 t(81) = -
361 p =001 This finding thus supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of
psychopathy would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher
levels would not
47
Figure 2 Relationship of PPI-R SF total scores to reported level of task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie condition only Standardized β = -054 p = 628
Figure 3 Relationship of PPI-R SF total scores to reported level of task enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie condition only Standardized β = -374 p = 001
48
Second multiple regression LPSP total scores In the second multiple regression the criterion
was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice Condition (High
Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) LPSP total scores and the interaction of Choice
Condition with LPSP scores Again it was hypothesized that the interaction term would
significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple regression are shown in
Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was statistically significant Rsup2 =
089 F(3160) = 518 p = 002
As hypothesized the interaction of LPSP total scores and choice condition was
statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -236 t(163) = -
234 p = 021 The interaction is depicted graphically by choice condition in Figures 4 and 5
As can be seen from Figure 4 there was not a significant relationship between LPSP scores and
Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β
= 023 t(81) = 208 p =836 In contrast there was a significant negative relationship between
LPSP scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β =
-327 t(81) = -309 p =003 (Figure 5) Thus this finding like the finding concerning the PPI-
R SF supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of psychopathy would show
the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher levels would not
49
Figure 4 Relationship of LPSP total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = 023 p = 836
Figure 5 Relationship of LPSP total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash High Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -327 p = 003
50
T
able
2 M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts C
rite
rion
is S
elf-
Rep
orte
d E
njoy
men
t of t
he A
bacu
s T
asks
P
redi
ctor
s ar
e th
e P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
an
d M
AC
H-I
V T
otal
Sco
res
and
Subs
cale
s E
ach
Row
Rep
rese
nts
Res
ults
Fro
m O
ne M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n
Over
all
Mode
l
High
L
ow C
hoic
e
Psyc
hopa
thy
Ma
ch P
redi
ctor
In
tera
ctio
n
Pred
icto
r
F
(df)
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
PPIR
SF
Tot
623
(3160)
lt00
1
661
252
196
262
010
-089
173
-053
-52
607
-536
254
-216
-211
036
PPIRSF1-FD
296
(3160)
03
4
670
260
198
258
011
175
194
104
91
366
-382
262
-167
-146
146
PPIRSF2-SCI
690
(3160)
lt00
1
657
251
195
262
010
-123
168
-073
-73
466
-561
254
-220
-221
028
Mach Egocen
730
(3160)
lt00
1
721
251
214
287
005
024
178
014
14
892
-708
252
-295
-281
006
Soc Influ
230
(3160)
079
677
263
201
258
011
-034
200
-020
-17
867
128
266
057
48
631
Fearlessness
487
(3160)
00
3
660
256
196
258
011
177
188
105
94
348
-634
257
-274
-247
015
Coldhrtnes
577
(3160)
00
1
733
254
217
288
004
-488
193
-288
-253
012
153
257
068
59
554
Rebel Non
445
(3160)
00
5
668
256
198
261
010
142
179
084
80
428
-590
257
-243
-230
023
Blm Extern
296
(3160)
03
4
678
260
201
261
010
-144
190
-085
-76
451
-084
261
-036
-32
747
Carefree
490
(3160)
00
3
570
258
169
221
029
-430
176
-254
-244
016
171
260
068
66
511
Stress Imun
257
(3160)
056
665
261
197
255
012
179
183
106
98
330
-245
262
-101
-93
352
LPSP
Tot
al
518
(3160)
00
2
699
255
207
274
007
037
171
022
22
827
-603
258
-236
-234
021
Primary
420
(3160)
00
7
691
257
205
269
008
041
176
024
23
815
-495
259
-199
-192
057
Secondary
359
(3160)
01
5
682
258
202
264
009
018
187
101
09
926
-377
259
-161
-145
148
MACH
-IV
Tot
492
(3160)
00
3
703
256
208
275
007
-173
178
-102
-98
331
-314
257
-128
122
223
Deceit
508
(3160)
00
2
696
255
206
273
007
-374
167
-221
-224
026
011
260
004
04
965
Flattery
368
(3160)
01
3
682
258
202
264
009
162
173
096
94
351
-523
261
-204
-200
047
Immoral
454
(3160)
00
4
705
256
209
275
007
-360
184
-213
-196
052
052
257
022
20
840
Cynicism
270
(3160)
04
8
680
261
201
261
010
002
198
001
01
991
-212
264
-094
-81
422
Residual
302
(3160)
03
2
667
260
198
257
011
052
171
031
30
762
-354
264
-136
-135
181
Not
e
Sign
ific
ant p
val
ues
(p lt
05)
are
in b
old
p v
alue
s ap
proa
chin
g si
gnifi
canc
e (lt
10)
are
in it
alic
s
Pre
dict
or A
bbre
viat
ions
PPI
RS
F To
t =
PPI-
RS
F to
tal s
core
PPI
RS
F1-F
D =
PPI
RS
F Fa
ctor
1 ndash
Fea
rless
Dom
inan
ce F
acto
r Sco
re P
PIR
SF2
-SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f C
ente
red
Impu
lsiv
ity F
acto
r Sco
re M
ach
Ego
cen
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
ricity
sub
scal
e S
oc I
nflu
= P
PI-R
SF
Soci
al In
fluen
ce s
ubsc
ale
Fea
rles
snes
s =
PPI-
RS
F
Fear
less
ness
sub
scal
e C
oldh
rtnes
= P
PI-R
SF
Col
dhea
rted
ness
sub
scal
e R
ebel
Non
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
xter
n =
PPI
-RS
F B
lam
e E
xter
naliz
atio
n
subs
cale
Car
efre
e =
PPI-
RS
F C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Str
ess
Imun
= P
PI-R
SF
Stre
ss Im
mun
ity s
ubsc
ale
LPS
P To
tal =
LPS
P to
tal s
core
Pri
mar
y =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le
Seco
ndar
y =
LPSP
Sec
onda
ry s
ubsc
ale
MA
CH
-IV
Tot
= M
AC
H-I
V to
tal s
core
Dec
eit =
MA
CH
-IV
Dec
eit s
ubsc
ale
Fla
ttery
= M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
oral
= M
AC
H-I
V
Imm
oral
ity s
ubsc
ale
Cyn
icis
m =
MA
CH
-IV
Cyn
icis
m s
ubsc
ale
Res
idua
l = M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
Mod
el A
bbre
viat
ions
Un-
Stzd
β =
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Bet
a S
td E
rr =
Sta
ndar
d E
rror
Stz
d β
= St
anda
rdiz
ed B
eta
51
Third multiple regression Mach-IV total scores In the third multiple regression the
criterion was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice
Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) Mach-IV total scores and the
interaction of Choice Condition with Mach-IV scores Again it was hypothesized that the
interaction term would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple
regression are shown in Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was
statistically significant Rsup2 = 085 F(3160) = 492 p = 003
Contrary to prediction the interaction of Mach-IV total scores and choice condition was
not statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -128 t(163) =
-122 p = 223 Thus this finding failed to support the hypothesis that individuals with lower
levels of Machiavellianism would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that
individuals with higher levels would not The pattern of data is depicted graphically by choice
condition in Figures 6 and 7 As can be seen from Figure 6 there was not a significant
relationship between MACH-IV scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the
Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -104 t(81) = -932 p =354 In contrast there
was a significant negative relationship between MACH-IV scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment
in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -295 t(81) = -276 p =007 (Figure 7)
Although one of the standardized betas (-104) was non-significant and the other (-295) was
significant the difference between the two betas was not significant so the predicted interaction
did not attain statistical significance
52
Figure 6 Relationship of MACH-IV total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -104 p = 354
Figure 7 Relationship of MACH-IV total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash High Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -295 p = 007
53
Hypothesis 4 Level of Psychopathy Will Incrementally Predict Abacus Task Enjoyment
The second main hypothesis was that psychopathy scores would incrementally predict
Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task above and beyond the predictive power of
Machiavellianism To test this hypothesis two hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted
using Self-Reported Enjoyment as the criterion
First hierarchical regression PPI-R SF total scores The first hierarchical regression
used PPI-R SF total scores as the psychopathy measure In the first step of the regression the
Choice to Lie condition was entered as a predictor In the second step standardized total
MACH-IV scores and the standardized interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice
condition were entered In the third step standardized PPI-R SF total scores and the
standardized interaction term of total PPI-R SF scores with choice condition were entered as a
predictor Results are shown in Table 3 As can be seen inclusion of PPI-R SF scores and their
interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment significantly increased predictive power above and
beyond scores on the MACH-IV ∆Rsup2 = 041 F(2158) = 367 p = 028 Although the change in
Rsup2 was significant it is important to note that the standardized beta for the PPI-R SF total scores
was not significant in predicting task enjoyment when added to MACH-IV scores in predicting
task enjoyment standardized β = -010 t(158) = -09 p = 930 In addition the standardized beta
for the interaction between PPI-R SF scores and choice condition only approached significance
when added to MACH-IV scores in block three (standardized β = -205 t(158) = -186 p =
065
54
Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianism
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=085 F(3160)=492 p=003 (∆Rsup2=045 F(2160)=394 p=021) High or Low Choice to Lie 703 256 208 275 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -173 178 -102 - 98 331 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -314 257 -128 -122 223 Step 3 Rsup2=125 F(5158)=452 p=001 (∆Rsup2=041 F(2158)=367 p=028) High or Low Choice to Lie 688 252 204 273 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -166 195 -098 - 85 397 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -165 273 -067 - 60 547 PPI-RSF Total Scores -017 192 -010 - 09 930 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -507 273 -205 -186 065 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics
Second hierarchical regression LPSP total scores The second hierarchical regression
used LPSP total scores as the psychopathy measure In the first step of the regression the Choice
to Lie condition was entered as a predictor In the second step standardized total MACH-IV
scores and the standardized interaction term of MACH-IV total scores were entered In the third
step standardized LPSP total scores and the standardized interaction term of total LPSP scores
with choice condition were entered as a predictor Results are shown in Table 4 As can be seen
inclusion of total LPSP scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment did not
significantly increase predictive power above and beyond MACH-IV scores ∆Rsup2= 026
F(2158)= 233 p=101
55
Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (LPSP) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianism
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=085 F(3160)=492 p=003 (∆Rsup2=045 F(2160)=394 p=021) High or Low Choice to Lie 703 256 208 275 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -173 178 -102 - 98 331 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -314 257 -128 -122 223 Step 3 Rsup2=111 F(5158)=394 p=002 (∆Rsup2=026 F(2158)=233 p=101) High or Low Choice to Lie 712 254 211 281 006 MACH-IV Total Scores -282 212 -167 -133 186 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -023 296 -009 - 08 939 LPSP Total Scores 188 204 111 92 358 Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -609 297 -238 -205 042 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics
32 Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory Analysis Incremental Prediction of Task Enjoyment by Machiavellianism
The analyses reported thus far were confirmatory and based on a priori hypotheses A
series of exploratory analyses were also carried out as reported in the following sections of the
Results In the first set of exploratory analyses two hierarchical multiple regressions were run to
identify whether MACH-IV total scores incrementally predicted Self-Reported Enjoyment of the
abacus task above and beyond the predictive power of psychopathy scores
First hierarchical regression Incremental predictive power of MACH-IV total scores
over PPI-R SF total scores The first exploratory analysis was conducted to examine whether
MACH-IV scores incrementally increased prediction of abacus task enjoyment above and
beyond the predictive power of PPI-R SF scores A hierarchical regression was conducted In
step one the Choice to Lie condition was entered in step two standardized PPI-R SF total
56
scores and the standardized interaction term of total PPI-R SF scores with choice condition was
entered and finally in step three the standardized total MACH-IV scores and the standardized
interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice condition were entered As can be seen in
Table 5 the inclusion of MACH-IV total scores and their interaction with Choice Condition did
not significantly increase predictive power ∆Rsup2= 020 F(2158)= 185 p= 160
Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF)
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=105 F(3160)=623 plt001 (∆Rsup2=065 F(2160)=582 p=004) High or Low Choice to Lie 661 252 196 262 010 PPI-RSF Total Score -089 173 -053 -52 607 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -536 254 -216 -211 036 Step 3 Rsup2=125 F(5158)=452 p=001 (∆Rsup2=020 F(2158)=185 p=160) High or Low Choice to Lie 688 252 204 273 007 PPI-RSF Total Scores -017 192 -010 -09 930 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -507 273 -205 -186 065 MACH-IV Total Scores -166 195 -098 -85 397 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -165 273 -067 -60 547 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Significant alpha levels are in bold Moderate alpha levels are in italics Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Second hierarchical regression Incremental predictive power of MACH-IV total scores
over LPSP total scores A similar hierarchical multiple regression was performed to examine
whether MACH-IV scores incrementally increase prediction of abacus task enjoyment above and
beyond the predictive power of LPSP scores An incremental hierarchical regression was
conducted In step one the Choice to Lie condition was entered in step two standardized LPSP
57
total scores and the standardized interaction term of total LPSP scores with choice condition was
entered and finally in step three the standardized total MACH-IV scores and the standardized
interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice condition were entered As can be seen in
Table 6 the results of this analysis like the previous one were not significant ∆Rsup2= 022
F(2158)= 198 p= 142 The inclusion of Machiavellianism in the regression equation did not
significantly increase predictive power above and beyond the predictive power of LPSP scores
Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (LPSP)
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=089 F(3160)=518 p=002 (∆Rsup2=049 F(2160)=430 p=015) High or Low Choice to Lie 699 255 207 274 007
LPSP Total Score 037 171 022 22 827
Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -603 258 -236 -234 021 Step 3 Rsup2=111 F(5158)=394 p=002 (∆Rsup2=022 F(2158)=198 p=142) High or Low Choice to Lie 712 254 211 281 006 LPSP Total Scores 188 204 111 92 358 Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -609 297 -238 -205 042 MACH-IV Total Scores -282 212 -167 -133 186 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -023 296 -009 -08 939 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Significant alpha levels are in bold Moderate alpha levels are in italics Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Exploratory Analysis PPI-R SF Subscales as Predictors
The second set of exploratory multiple regressions was conducted using the eight
subscales of the PPI-R SF and their interaction with Choice Condition as predictors Each
subscale measures a different unique aspect of psychopathy The goal of the analyses was to
58
determine which aspects of psychopathy were related to self-reported abacus task enjoyment
A series of multiple linear regressions were conducted with abacus task enjoyment as the
criterion In each multiple regression the predictors were Choice to Lie condition the
standardized total score of the individual PPI-R subscale and the interaction term of the
standardized individual subscale total score with Choice to Lie condition Results are shown in
Table 2 All of the PPI-R SF subscales except for the Stress Immunity and Social Influence
subscales had significant model equations In addition three subscales also produced significant
interactions with choice condition in predicting level of task enjoyment (a) Machiavellian
Egocentricity standardized β of the interaction = -295 t(163) = -281 p = 006 (b)
Fearlessness standardized β of the interaction = -274 t(163) = -247 p = 015 (c) Rebellious
Nonconformity standardized β of the interaction = -243 t(163) = -230 p = 023 The
remaining five subscales did not have interactions with choice condition that significantly
predicted task enjoyment
Exploratory Analysis PPI-R SF Factors as Predictors
Next two multiple regressions were carried out one for each of the two factors of the
PPI-R SF The intention of these analyses was to determine if these factors of psychopathy
(cognitive traits or behavioral traits) would account for the lack of cognitive dissonance found in
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy
First multiple regression The Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R SF The Fearless
Dominance factor (PPI-R SF-1-FD) is comprised of three of the eight subscales of the PPI-R
SF the Social Influence subscale the Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscale A
multiple regression was run with Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test as the criterion and
Choice Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) the standardized PPI-R SF-
59
1-FD total scores and the interaction of Choice Condition with the standardized PPI-R SF-1-FD
total scores as the predictors Results of the multiple regression are shown in Table 2 As can be
seen the model in the regression equation was statistically significant Rsup2 = 053 F(3160) =
296 p = 034 However the interaction of PPI-R SF-1-FD total scores and choice condition
was not statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -167
t(163) = -146 p = 146
Second multiple regression The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF Next
a similar multiple regression was run replacing the PPI-RSF-1-FD with the Self-Centered
Impulsivity factor scale scores (PPI-R SF-2-SCI) The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor is
comprised of the Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale
and the Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale of the PPI-R SF Results of the model in the multiple
regression equation were statistically significant Rsup2 = 115 F(3160) = 690 p lt 001 In addition
the interaction between the PPI-R SF-2-SCI and choice condition was statistically significant as
well standardized β = -220 t(163) = -2213 p = 028 These results suggested that the more
behavioral antisocial behavior characteristics of psychopathy (impulsivity blame
externalization lack of planning abilities) impacted cognitive dissonance arousal
Exploratory Analysis LPSP Factor Scales as Predictors
The next set of exploratory analyses were conducted on the LPSPrsquos two factor scales
The LPSP breaks into a Primary Psychopathy Scale and a Secondary Psychopathy Scale The
Primary Scale identifies the more cognitively based aspects of psychopathy much as the PPI-R
SF-1-FD Factor does The Secondary Psychopathy Scale of the LPSP measures the behaviorally
based dimensions of psychopathy (impulsivity asociality) much like the PPI-R SF-2-SCI
60
Factor Two hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine the interaction between each of
the LPSP factor scales and choice condition in predicting abacus task enjoyment
First multiple regression LPSP Primary Factor scores First a multiple regression was
employed with the Choice to Lie condition the standardized Primary Factor total scores of the
LPSP and the interaction term of the standardized Primary Factor total scores with the Choice to
Lie condition as the predictors Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test was the criterion in
the multiple regression The results of the regression model equation were statistically significant
Rsup2 = 073 F(3160) = 420 p = 007 However the results of the interaction between the Primary
Factor and choice condition only approached statistical significance standardized β = -199
t(163) = -192 p = 057
Second multiple regression LPSP Secondary Factor scores The Secondary factor of the
LPSP accounts for the environmental behaviorally based traits associated with psychopathy
(impulsivity asociality) A multiple regression was run replacing the LPSP Primary factor scores
with the LPSP Secondary factor scores In other words the predictors were Choice to Lie
condition standardized LPSP Secondary factor scores and the interaction of Choice to Lie with
standardized LPSP Secondary factor scores Again Self-Reported Enjoyment of the Abacus task
was the criterion Results of the multiple regression model equation were statistically significant
Rsup2 = 063 F(3160) = 359 p = 015 However results of the interaction between the Secondary
factor of the LPSP and choice condition were not statistically significant standardized β = -161
t(163) = -1452 p = 148
This analysis of the LPSP Primary and Secondary factor scales suggests that the
cognitive dimensions of psychopathy may best account for a lack of cognitive dissonance in this
experiment These results support the notion that it is these cognitive deficits assessed by the
61
Primary Scale of the LPSP (lack of guilt callousness lack of concern for others) that best
account for individuals with higher levels of psychopathy not experiencing the attitude shift
found in people with lower levels of psychopathy
Exploratory Analysis MACH-IV Subscales as predictors
The next set of exploratory analyses examined the five subscales of the MACH-IV as
predictors of task enjoyment when interacting with Choice to Lie condition Though the
interaction of total MACH-IV scores and choice condition was not a significant predictor of a
lack of task enjoyment the subscales were analyzed using multiple regression in order to
determine if any aspect of MACH might account for a lack of cognitive dissonance in
individuals with higher levels of MACH In the regressions the predictors were Choice to Lie
condition the standardized MACH-IV subscale total scores and the standardized interaction
term of total MACH-IV subscale scores with Choice to Lie condition Results are reported in
Table 2 All of the regression model equations for each subscale were statistically significant
Though all model equations were significant only the interaction of choice condition with the
Flattery subscale of the MACH-IV was significant in predicting reported abacus task enjoyment
standardized β = -204 t(163) = -200 p = 047 The interaction terms of the remaining four
subscales of the MACH-IV were not significant
Exploratory Analysis Follow-up Multiple Regression Analyses with No-Lie Participants
Removed
As previously indicated all multiple regressions reported here were run a second time
but including only the sub-set of participants who lied to the confederate (N=158) The results of
these follow-up multiple regressions (with N = 158) all led to the same substantive conclusions
as the analyses already reported (with N = 164) with one exception The only analysis that
62
changed significantly was the multiple linear regression looking at the interaction between the
Primary factor of the LPSP and choice condition In the original multiple regression (N = 164)
this interaction only approached statistical significance In the follow-up multiple regression (N
= 158) this interaction attained statistical significance standardized β = -216 t(157) = -202 p =
045
Exploratory Analysis Correlations of Psychopathy and Machiavellian measures
Pearsonrsquos r correlations were run on the three psychopathy and MACH measures and
their respective factors and subscales to identify associations among the measures
Correlations of psychopathy and Machiavellianism total scores Correlations among the
PPI-RSF LPSP and MACH-IV total scores are reported in Table 7 As can be seen all three
measures were significantly correlated with each other The largest correlation was between
MACH-IV and LPSP total scores r = 510 p lt 01
Table 7 Correlations Between the Total Scores of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measures
PPIRSF Total Score
LPSP Total Score
MACH-IV Total Score
PPIRSF Total Score 1
LPSP Total Score
345dagger 1
MACH-IV Total Score
376dagger 510dagger 1
Note dagger Correlations significant at the 01 level
Correlations of PPI-R SF and LPSP factor scores Pearsonrsquos r correlations were run on
the factors of the PPI-R SF and the LPSP in order to illuminate the relationship among these
factors in the present sample of participants Results are shown in Table 8
63
First the PPIR SF total score correlated significantly with both the Primary (r = 322 p
lt01) and the Secondary (r = 212 p lt 01) factor scores of the LPSP The PPI-R SF Factor Two
Scale of Self-Centered Impulsivity (behavioral characteristics of psychopathy) positively
correlated with the LPSP total (r = 509 p lt01) Primary (r = 368 p lt 01) and Secondary (r =
498 p lt 01) factors In contrast the PPI-R SF Factor One Scale of Fearless Dominance (PPI-
R SF-1-FD) correlated significantly only with the Secondary Scale of the LPSP (r = -156 p lt
05) This correlation indicates that as scores on the PPI-R SF-1-FD increase scores on the
LPSP Secondary Scale decrease However it should be noted that this correlation is very weak
Correlations of PPI-R and MACH-IV factor scores and subscale scores As can be seen
in Table 8 the PPI-R SF total score correlated significantly with all of the MACH subscales
except for the Cynicism subscale Interestingly PPI-R SF Factor 2 Self-Centered Impulsivity
which assesses the behavioral characteristics of psychopathy correlated significantly with the
MACH-IV total score (r = 478) and all of the subscales of the MACH-IV Deceit (r = 383)
Flattery (r = 210) Immorality (r = 297) Cynicism (r = 242) and Residual (r = 279) at p lt 01
level of significance PPI-R SF Factor 1 Fearless Dominance which assesses the cognitive
aspects of psychopathy did not significantly correlate with the MACH-IV total score or any of
its subscales These exploratory findings suggest that the Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the
PPI-R SF accounts for the relationship of MACH-IV scores with PPIRSF scores
Correlations of LPSP and MACH-IV factor scores and subscale scores As shown in
Table 8 MACH-IV total scores significantly correlated with both the Primary (r = 467 p lt01)
and Secondary (r = 327 p lt 01) factors of the LPSP The LPSP total score and factor scales
(Primary and Secondary) correlated significantly with the total MACH-IV score and all of the
MACH-IV subscales except for the Flattery subscale (see Table 8 for the correlations) This
64
finding is interesting because the Flattery subscale was the only element of the MACH-IV found
to be a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment in the interaction with choice condition
mentioned previously and yet it did not correlate with the LPSP at all
65
Tab
le 8
Cor
rela
tions
Bet
wee
n th
e P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
MA
CH
-IV
The
ir F
acto
rs a
nd S
ubsc
ales
Not
e
dagger C
orre
latio
n si
gnifi
cant
at
01 le
vel
Cor
rela
tion
sign
ific
ant a
t 05
leve
l P
redi
ctor
Abb
revi
atio
ns P
PIR
= P
PI-R
SF
tota
l sco
re P
1FD
= P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 1
ndash F
earl
ess
Dom
inan
ce F
acto
r Sco
re P
2SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f Cen
tere
d Im
puls
ivity
Fac
tor S
core
M
Ego
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
rici
ty s
ubsc
ale
Soc
In =
PPI
-RS
F So
cial
Influ
ence
sub
scal
e F
ear =
PPI
-RS
F Fe
arle
ssne
ss s
ubsc
ale
Col
d =
PPI-
RS
F C
oldh
eart
edne
ss s
ubsc
ale
R
ebel
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
= P
PI-R
SF
Bla
me
Ext
erna
lizat
ion
Subs
cale
Car
e =
PPI-
RS
F C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Str
ess
= PP
I-R
SF
Stre
ss
Imm
unity
sub
scal
e L
PSP
= L
PSP
tota
l sco
re P
rim
e =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le S
econ
= L
PSP
Seco
ndar
y su
bsca
le M
AC
H =
MA
CH
-IV
tota
l sco
re D
ece
= M
AC
H-I
V D
ecei
t sub
scal
e F
lat =
M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
or =
MA
CH
-IV
Imm
oral
ity s
ubsc
ale
Cyn
= M
AC
H-I
V C
ynic
ism
sub
scal
e R
esid
= M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1PPIR
1
2P1FD
761
dagger 1
3P2SCI
771
dagger 240
dagger 1
4M Ego
516
dagger 068
712
dagger 1
5Soc In
471
dagger 658
dagger 141
087
1
6Fear
645
dagger 727
dagger 362
dagger 104
244
dagger 1
7Cold
443
dagger 232
dagger 124
191
071
076
1
8Rebel
738
dagger 478
dagger 717
dagger 357
dagger 231
dagger 522
dagger 147
1
9Blm E
264
dagger -129
629
dagger 348
dagger -047
090
-194
161
1
10Care
500
dagger 210
dagger 540
dagger 175
101
203
dagger 229
dagger 305
dagger 041
1
11Stres
476
dagger 711
dagger 000
-044
198
258
dagger 330
dagger 240
dagger -306
dagger 132
1
12LPSP
345
dagger -024
509
dagger 534
dagger -018
065
209
dagger 241
dagger 369
dagger 186
-097
1
13Prime
322
dagger 059
368
dagger 473
dagger 082
031
275
dagger 171
219
dagger 105
015
902
dagger 1
14Secon
212
dagger -156
498
dagger 370
dagger -183
090
-011
241
dagger 443
dagger 233
dagger -243
dagger 664
dagger 277
dagger 1
15MACH
376
dagger 076
478
dagger 477
dagger 150
105
182
244
dagger 278
dagger 264
dagger -083
510
dagger 467
dagger 327
dagger 1
16Dece
356
dagger 085
383
dagger 380
dagger 096
121
320
dagger 190
094
384
dagger -033
312
dagger 295
dagger 185
631
dagger 1
17Flat
189
030
210
dagger 192
200
-019
186
087
062
236
dagger -097
139
118
104
570
dagger 304
dagger 1
18Immor
176
-003
297
dagger 276
dagger 022
069
-013
143
296
dagger 040
-093
405
dagger 345
dagger 306
dagger 589
dagger 153
202
dagger 1
19Cyn
152
030
242
dagger 316
dagger -025
092
-052
160
092
072
-008
449
dagger 449
dagger 223
dagger 454
dagger 169
057
152
1
20Resid
231
dagger 073
279
dagger 266
dagger 133
049
086
146
231
dagger 076
-019
248
dagger 226
dagger 161
689
dagger 244
dagger 213
dagger 197
175
1
66
Exploratory Analyses Multiple Regressions with Self-Reported Guilt as the Criterion and Level
of Psychopathy and MACH as Predictors
In addition to the multiple regressions that were run with Self-Reported Enjoyment
Rating of the abacus task as the criterion and the interaction between choice level and
psychopathy (and MACH) level as the predictors identical multiple regressions were conducted
with level of guilt as the criterion in the place of Self-Reported Level of Enjoyment Multiple
regressions were run where the predictors were Choice to Lie condition standardized
psychopathy and MACH measure total factor and subscale scores (individually) and the
interaction of Choice to Lie with PPI-R SF LPSP or MACH scales In these analyses level of
guilt was the criterion On the post experimental questionnaire two questions assessed
participantsrsquo level of guilt for telling the ldquofuture participantrdquo that the abacus task was fun These
two guilt related questions correlated highly with one another (r = 789) and so their scores were
added together and a new variable called ldquoGuiltrdquo was created from their sum
Multiple regressions on the interaction between choice and level of psychopathy (and
MACH) The goal of these exploratory analyses was to further explore the role that guilt plays
during cognitive dissonance arousal Results of all multiple regression analyses with guilt as the
criterion are presented in Table 9 As can be seen the interaction between level of psychopathy
(and MACH) and choice condition as predictors of guilt was only significant for the Self
Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF The multiple regression model equation for the
Self Centered Impulsivity factor was statistically significant Rsup2 = 056 F(3160) = 314 p = 027
In addition results of the interaction between the Self Centered Impulsivity factor and choice
condition were statistically significant standardized β = 232 t(163) = 225 p = 026
Interestingly this regression was not only significant but also positive All other interactions of
67
total subscale and factor scales of the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV with choice condition
were not significant in predicting participantsrsquo level of self-reported guilt
The fact that all other total scores subscales and factor scales did not attain significant
interactions with choice condition using guilt as the criterion makes sense when considering
cognitive dissonance theory The cognitive dissonance literature indicates that there should not
be an interaction on guilt because participants strive to reduce their feelings of guilt after
engaging in counterattitudinal behavior discrepant with their beliefs Therefore participants with
low levels of psychopathy after misleading the confederate in the High Choice condition would
have immediately experienced cognitive dissonance and thus their attitude would have shifted
towards enjoying the task in order to reduce the psychological tension produced by voluntarily
misleading the ldquofuture participantrdquo Therefore by the time they answered the guilt questions on
the post-experimental questionnaire they would not feel guilt because their attitude had shifted
to be in favor of the task
Main effects for relationship between psychopathy and guilt Finally an important result
of these exploratory analyses was that significant main effects were found between level of
psychopathy (measured by the PPI-R SF) and participantsrsquo level of guilt following the deception
task Specifically the PPI-R SF total score both factor scores (Fearless Dominance and Self
Centered Impulsivity) the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale and the Stress Immunity subscale
had significant model predictor equations (see Table 9) The model equation for the Fearlessness
subscale approached significance F(3160) = 243 p = 068 as well
After model equations were accounted for the PPI-R SF had a significant relationship
with level of guilt such that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy experienced less guilt
than participants with lower levels of psychopathy across choice conditions (standardized β = -
68
359 t(163) = -346 p = 001) In addition both factor scales of the PPI-R SF (Fearless
Dominance and Self Centered Impulsivity) were significant in predicting guilt (standardized β =
-292 t(163) = -257 p = 011 standardized β = -314 t(163) = -305 p = 003) respectively
Finally three of the PPI-R SF subscales reached significance in predicting level of guilt in
participants as well Fearlessness Stress Immunity and Rebellious Nonconformity The
Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscales load on the Fearless Dominance factor
of the PPI-R SF which is important to note because this factor assesses the cognitive aspects of
psychopathy including lack of guilt and lack of remorse Therefore these results provide support
for the validity of the PPI-R SF in assessing psychopathic traits such as guiltlessness
69
Tab
le 9
M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts C
rite
rion
is S
elf-
Rep
orte
d G
uilt
Aft
er M
isle
adin
g th
e C
onfe
dera
te
Pre
dict
ors
are
the
P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
and
MA
CH
-IV
Tot
al S
core
s an
d Su
bsca
les
Eac
h R
ow R
epre
sent
s R
esul
ts F
rom
One
Mul
tiple
Reg
ress
ion
Ov
eral
l Mo
del
High
L
ow C
hoic
e
Psyc
hopa
thy
Ma
ch P
redi
ctor
In
tera
ctio
n
Pred
icto
r
F
(df)
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
PPI-
RSF
456
(3160)
00
4
046
597
006
08
938
-1419
410
-359
-346
00
1
851
600
147
142
158
PPI FD
361
(3160)
01
5
-003
603
lt001
-01
996
-1151
449
-292
-257
01
1
309
607
058
51
611
PPI SCI
314
(3160)
02
7
055
605
007
09
928
-1237
406
-314
-305
00
3
1376
611
232
225
026
Mach Ego
95
(3160)
417
091
618
012
15
883
-627
438
-159
-143
154
1018
620
182
164
103
Soc Infl
32
(3160)
811
029
623
004
05
963
-047
474
-012
-10
921
-356
631
-068
-56
574
Fearless
243
(3160)
068
018
609
002
03
977
-1166
448
-296
-260
01
0
875
612
162
143
155
Coldhrt
52
(3160)
671
132
621
017
21
832
-446
471
-113
-95
346
113
628
021
18
857
Rebel
743
(3160)
lt00
1
050
583
006
09
931
-1718
407
-435
-422
lt00
1
833
585
147
142
156
Blm Ext
157
(3160)
199
062
613
008
10
919
-330
449
-084
-73
464
1190
616
220
193
055
Carefree
126
(3160)
290
-067
622
-009
-11
914
-814
425
-206
-192
057
669
625
115
107
287
Stress
426
(3160)
00
6
177
599
023
30
768
-972
421
-246
-231
02
2
-199
601
-035
-33
742
LPSP
41
(3160)
744
090
621
011
15
885
-445
415
-113
-107
286
577
627
097
92
359
Primary
39
(3160)
764
090
621
011
15
885
-443
425
-112
-104
299
549
624
095
88
381
Second
17
(3160)
919
080
622
010
13
897
-301
450
-076
-67
505
386
624
071
62
537
MACH
-IV
02
(3160)
996
076
623
010
12
903
-085
433
-021
-20
845
116
625
020
19
852
Deceit
15
(3160)
928
071
622
009
11
910
-172
406
-043
-42
673
421
634
068
66
508
Flattery
25
(3160)
864
100
622
013
16
872
-320
416
-081
-77
443
150
628
025
24
812
Immoral
85
(3160)
468
082
618
010
13
894
396
443
100
89
373
-968
620
-175
-156
121
Cynicism
52
(3160)
669
040
620
005
06
949
368
472
093
78
436
032
627
006
05
960
Residual
19
(3160)
900
069
621
009
11
912
-309
410
-078
-75
452
326
630
054
52
606
Not
e
Sig
nific
ant p
val
ues
(p lt
05)
are
in b
old
p v
alue
s ap
proa
chin
g si
gnif
ican
ce (lt
10)
are
in it
alic
s
Pre
dict
or A
bbre
viat
ions
PPI
-RS
F =
PPI-
RS
F to
tal s
core
PPI
FD
= P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 1
ndash F
earle
ss D
omin
ance
Fac
tor S
core
PPI
SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f Cen
tere
d
Impu
lsiv
ity F
acto
r Sco
re M
ach
Ego
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
rici
ty s
ubsc
ale
Soc
Infl
= PP
I-R
SF
Soci
al In
fluen
ce s
ubsc
ale
Fea
rless
= P
PI-R
SF
Fear
less
ness
sub
scal
e
Col
dhrt
= PP
I-R
SF
Col
dhea
rted
ness
sub
scal
e R
ebel
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
xt =
PPI
-RS
F B
lam
e E
xter
naliz
atio
n Su
bsca
le C
aref
ree
= PP
I-R
SF
C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Stre
ss Im
un =
PPI
-RS
F St
ress
Imm
unity
sub
scal
e L
PSP
= LP
SP to
tal s
core
Pri
mar
y =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le S
econ
d =
LPSP
Sec
onda
ry
subs
cale
MA
CH
-IV
= M
AC
H-I
V to
tal s
core
Dec
eit =
MA
CH
-IV
Dec
eit s
ubsc
ale
Fla
ttery
= M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
oral
= M
AC
H-I
V Im
mor
ality
sub
scal
e C
ynic
ism
=
MA
CH
-IV
Cyn
icis
m s
ubsc
ale
Res
idua
l = M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
Mod
el A
bbre
viat
ions
Un-
Stzd
β =
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Bet
a S
td E
rr =
Sta
ndar
d E
rror
Stz
d β
= St
anda
rdiz
ed B
eta
70
Exploratory Analyses Factor Analyses of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measures
In order to assess what specific constructs the self-report psychopathy and
Machiavellianism measures were identifying several factor analyses were conducted The goal
of these analyses was twofold First the intention was to categorize the unique traits of
psychopathy and MACH that were being identified in the participants by these measures and
second to distinguish overall factors of these personality traits that are similar across measures
Factor analysis of PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV total scores The total scores of the
PPI-R LPSP and MACH-IV were factor analyzed using principal axis factor analysis Squared
multiple correlations were used to estimate communalities in the initial factor pattern and
solutions were iterated four times Only one component in a preliminary principal components
analysis had an eigenvalue greater than 1 (1826) and the scree plot of the eigenvalues indicated
a clear break after one factor However for exploratory purposes three-factor and two-factor
factor analytic solutions were also attempted The three-factor solution yielded three factors
each corresponding to the three original variables The two-factor solution yielded one large
primary factor and a second factor with only trivial loadings (all loadings lt 25) Therefore the
one-factor solution was selected as the most informative Oblique rotation was performed using
Promax As can be seen in Table 10 one clearly defined factor emerged from the three variables
The factor appears to tap psychopathic and Machiavellian tendencies and thus has been named
Psychopathic Machiavellianism
Table 10 Factor Solutions Between PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores
Measure Psychopathic
Machiavellianism PPI-R SF Total Score 505 LPSP Total Score 687 MACH-IV Total Score 743
71
Factor analysis of all psychopathy and Machiavellianism items A second factor analysis
was run using all of the individual items from the three self-report measures of psychopathy and
Machiavellianism (PPI-R SF LPSP MACH-IV) Squared multiple correlations were used to
estimate communalities in the initial factor pattern Thirty-two components with eigenvalues
greater than 1 emerged from a preliminary principle component analysis and the scree plot
indicated there were approximately 25 to 35 factors
A principal axis factor analysis with Promax rotation was performed extracting 32
factors However only 15 of the 32 factors had two or more factor loadings greater than 50
Therefore several additional factor solutions were attempted to determine how many relevant
meaningful factors were present Finally it was determined that a nine-factor solution yielded the
largest number of interpretable factors with each factor including at least two variables with
loadings greater than 50 (see Table 11) Upon analyzing the items that loaded into each of the
nine factors names were identified for each factor based on the common characteristics of the
items The nine factors are Machiavellian Success Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Immunity
Feelings of Persecution Inability to Plan Social Disregard Interpersonal Ease Manipulative
Deceit and Social Frustration
72
Table 11 Factor Loadings of Total Item Factor Analysis
Factor Original Item
Mach Succes
Thrill Seek
Stress Immun Persec Inabl
Plan Social Dsrgrd
Intper Ease
Manip Deceit
Soc Frustr
L2 654 069 -068 217 070 -042 -184 -006 -092 L4 595 -044 044 117 044 136 029 039 064 L1 586 060 -009 106 127 -235 195 -023 -099 L3 576 097 027 023 144 -046 013 007 098 L5 551 -073 131 -047 022 026 205 -041 028 L12 -516 -010 -180 000 156 147 066 073 181 L8 466 030 082 -162 093 -021 109 022 076 L14 -428 -032 150 -103 202 023 131 224 230 L15 -402 053 -078 -039 146 000 -023 -215 260 L6 387 001 040 050 108 -183 -212 -038 132 L7 368 -121 -216 162 165 -095 -154 116 -008 M9 -322 -099 -009 154 100 -300 -076 -191 039 L26 320 165 054 101 051 073 -198 034 042 L11 318 222 -223 -116 059 -030 007 -078 219 M7 -288 108 -090 -102 -014 -006 -085 -158 -168 M17 -225 031 136 012 -018 -160 200 210 070 M3 -195 -159 -087 -057 -017 060 077 002 -037 M16 -179 108 -012 -141 -115 -170 -168 008 -052 P53 074 655 052 -031 -075 061 -179 -014 066 P5 -034 637 032 -128 -154 077 -138 -115 063 P38 050 555 207 034 -038 011 010 -143 -086 P22 080 535 -013 -261 023 043 003 069 045 P9 063 514 -060 179 -002 -148 -023 -130 010 P19 059 -475 057 022 049 -074 -052 -068 115 P16 051 468 -166 103 -108 -059 -015 -088 104 P1 157 -407 037 046 095 019 -047 -145 183 P52 -033 407 -199 050 -123 073 128 175 -058 P36 157 353 020 130 -014 145 143 156 -039 P30 148 308 -267 161 024 -059 -049 205 125 P47 -126 261 -067 069 -015 -029 134 135 237 P4 -117 259 -250 098 046 219 116 107 033 P14 251 251 -110 005 -109 064 117 -168 088 P48 114 031 733 054 073 -042 023 -035 005 P39 022 086 660 134 128 066 -007 103 -051 P28 080 -073 609 -008 -017 183 -061 187 093 P11 153 007 563 -118 -141 266 -026 051 112 P26 -089 -111 543 091 141 074 -037 075 001 P13 -004 039 -506 -095 129 144 -034 084 -135 M14 084 -035 359 209 -062 -125 211 069 -164 P2 -027 189 -335 125 -193 005 173 083 074 P23 176 050 -309 033 -190 082 108 075 266 M19 -188 -022 250 -069 -150 -116 088 043 -054 M2 -219 -015 240 176 -233 -101 114 054 223 M20 -048 -039 226 064 -158 -178 165 049 -121 P41 012 -047 -009 636 -081 -004 058 038 096 L25 011 -033 061 591 -093 -048 -050 -112 054 P50 -019 016 024 583 021 104 049 -020 209 P24 085 012 211 546 -065 049 073 094 -106 P6 100 147 153 490 -028 -050 072 072 -036 P34 163 -039 055 440 046 154 004 -010 058 L24 141 -093 -172 373 -078 -074 -075 -040 186 M18 005 028 104 -329 -005 -129 023 179 -057 M6 -059 -157 -193 -261 146 -019 031 -129 -448E-005 P42 099 -181 073 -073 542 057 020 -006 023 P40 148 -231 018 -220 521 -001 005 -026 033 L23 003 -268 -162 -030 516 086 085 -188 070 M8 -091 -003 -077 103 -504 -044 -117 -056 -045 P51 035 -096 -050 -042 447 -217 -091 -023 153 P33 123 071 178 164 447 -042 144 -261 042 P49 056 -025 -056 -138 394 215 -169 -059 019 M10 282 -018 046 -162 -374 -041 134 -105 119 P20 254 003 063 -132 370 026 049 226 -287 L10 -294 313 014 -246 366 -174 027 004 220 P56 144 083 -144 186 -354 072 061 136 269 M5 021 040 -001 -154 -350 -077 -050 192 238
73
Factor Original Item
Mach Succes
Thrill Seek
Stress Immun
Persec
Inabl Plan
Social Dsrgrd
Intper Ease
Manip Deceit
Soc
Frustr M13 124 105 157 -226 -311 -216 050 -073 163 L19 -089 054 -123 089 286 -129 -004 045 -063 P45 -207 -081 211 045 270 255 023 -068 043 L21 -077 -179 056 170 -229 042 -118 195 187 P37 111 235 211 017 024 592 -112 -115 017 P12 044 149 138 -123 057 571 023 003 110 P27 -144 -152 013 056 052 547 057 095 081 P10 -096 -031 -030 065 -023 453 042 -110 -090 P55 -184 -010 -177 183 -031 419 -035 051 -010 P54 094 -076 -127 -024 339 406 163 024 151 P25 -064 128 192 275 -051 392 087 -284 022 M12 -115 -023 -024 002 -220 245 -052 -120 -130 P21 067 -141 077 154 112 -038 740 -057 130 P15 -059 138 -189 099 160 144 556 -128 054 P18 103 001 -135 -028 097 028 533 -021 -237 P32 023 037 -126 159 167 -088 -532 093 -016 P29 -067 211 -109 014 089 -199 528 -130 037 P17 133 401 250 -067 132 016 456 011 -085 P32 004 171 026 -039 269 -027 -454 174 -147 P43 071 046 112 -059 029 -021 -143 557 286 M1 -330 104 013 007 040 -115 102 -512 106 L9 363 -112 -006 -046 044 -113 085 491 120 L20 -108 030 004 035 -085 002 -043 463 -082 L18 -232 055 199 085 -004 -055 -263 446 025 P35 118 -031 -024 -029 -011 -083 -145 419 171 M15 036 -053 018 -161 -282 -094 088 332 081 P31 -030 176 213 160 198 -074 -102 319 224 L16 -154 -015 020 024 162 153 144 -185 164 L22 024 -112 063 204 128 107 -156 117 527 L17 -168 124 -069 090 048 054 000 180 518 P7 070 -190 243 173 -011 -023 205 025 487 P46 229 -086 172 098 009 -145 067 -156 448 P3 -022 073 297 034 -100 288 -202 -105 392 P44 109 084 013 224 077 -051 -199 046 280 M11 038 056 -087 -113 019 144 093 -025 266 M4 -205 046 092 080 080 -037 -123 -177 -263 L13 143 -030 -189 -079 -140 -124 028 139 238 Note Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation converged in 9 iterations Factor loadings gt 40 are in bold Abbreviations Original Item Number= The item number from each of the three self-report measures used in this study L = LPSP P = PPI-R SF M = MACH-IV (ex P48 = Item 48 on the PPI-R SF) Mach Succes = Machiavellian Success Thrill Seek = Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Immun = Stress Immunity Persec = Feelings of Persecution Inabl Plan = Inability to Plan Social Dsrgrd = Social Disregard Intper Ease = Interpersonal Ease Manip Deceit = Manipulative Deceit Soc Frust = Social Frustration
Factor analysis of PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV subscales Finally a principal axis
factor analysis of the subscales of the three self-report measures of psychopathy and
Machiavellianism was conducted Squared multiple correlations were used to estimate
communalities in the initial factor pattern In a preliminary principal components analysis five
components had eigenvalues greater than 1 (3410 2093 1422 1209 1128) and the scree plot
of the eigenvalues indicated a break around five factors
74
Oblique rotation of the initial principal axis pattern was performed using Promax A
three four and six factor solution was attempted in addition to the five factor solution In
comparing the pattern matrices between factor models each factor in the three-factor model was
interpretable and had at least two loadings greater than 50 whereas the five-factor model
included one factor that did not have at least two loadings greater than 50 In addition the four-
and five-factor models would not converge in fewer than 25 iterations The three-factor model
compared to the four and five-factor models also had the most meaningful factor loadings in
terms of shared characteristics among the subscales in each factor Therefore the three-factor
model was selected Table 12 reports the factor loadings for the three-factor model Based on the
common characteristics shared by the subscales in their respective factors the following factor
names were assigned Antisocial Behavior Coldhearted Callousness and Thrill Seeking
75
Table 12 Factor Loadings of the Psychopathy and MACH Measures Subscales Factor
Subscale Antisocial Behavior
Coldhearted Callousness
Thrill Seeking
PPI Blame Ext 707 -152 032 LPSP Secondary 630 050 023 PPI Mach Ego 467 401 070 PPI Stress Immun -455 148 421 MACH Cynicism 424 149 -016 MACH Flattery 302 191 020 PPI Coldhrt -307 638 035 MACH Deceit 130 588 -015 LPSP Primary 341 486 -071 MACH Immoral 088 397 -081 PPI Carefree 033 309 226 MACH Residual 251 261 004 PPI Rebel 209 -011 752 PPI Fearless 056 -168 746 PPI Social Influ -131 125 295 Note Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation converged in 6 iterations Factor loadings gt 30 appear in bold Subscale Abbreviations PPI Blame Ext = PPI-RSF Blame Externalization subscale LPSP Secondary = LPSP Secondary subscale PPI Mach Ego = PPI-RSF Machiavellianism Egocentricity subscale PPI Stress Immun = PPI-RSF Stress Immunity subscale MACH Cynicism = MACH-IVCynicism subscale MACH Flattery = MACH-IV Flattery subscale PPI Coldhrt = PPI-RSFColdheartedness subscale MACH Deceit = MACH-IV Deceit subscale LPSP Primary = LPSP Primary subscale MACH Immoral = MACH-IV Immorality subscale PPI Carefree = PPI-RSF Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale MACH Residual = MACH-IV Residual Subscale PPI Rebel = PPI-RSF Rebellious Nonconformity subscale PPI Fearless = PPI-RSF Fearlessness subscale PPI Social Influ = PPI-RSF Social Influence subscale
76
Chapter 4 Discussion
Four findings of the present study are particularly notable First as predicted the classic
cognitive dissonance effect was replicated in the sample as a whole That is participants in the
High Choice to Lie Condition reported enjoying the abacus task more than participants in the
Low Choice to Lie Condition Second as predicted a significant interaction was found between
Choice Condition and level of psychopathy as measured by the PPI-R SF and the LPSP
Specifically the classic cognitive dissonance effect was found among participants with lower
levels of psychopathic traits but not among participants with higher levels of psychopathic traits
Third contrary to prediction no significant interaction was found between Choice Condition and
level of Machiavellianism as measured by the MACH-IV Fourth level of psychopathy
demonstrated incremental predictive power over level of MACH in predicting abacus task
enjoyment Each of these four findings is discussed below
41 Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effect
One important finding of the current study was a significant main effect of Choice
Condition on abacus task enjoyment Specifically individuals in the High Choice to Lie
condition reported enjoying the abacus task more than participants in the Low Choice to Lie
condition
This finding replicates the results of two earlier studies that examined cognitive
dissonance in a similar manner In studies by Cooper and Worchel (1970) and Festinger and
Carlsmith (1959) participants performed a tedious task and then were asked to mislead a fellow-
student (actually a confederate) that the task was enjoyable Half of participants were given only
a weak external motivation to deceive the fellow-student (low monetary reward or half of an
experimental credit) whereas the other half of participants were given a stronger external
77
motivation to deceive the fellow-student (a high monetary reward or multiple experimental
credits) In both of these studies participants with weak external motivation to engage in the
deception reported enjoying the task more than did participants with stronger external
motivation
The main difference between the current study and the Cooper and Worchel (1970) and
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) studies is that external motivation (high or low) was manipulated
by the aforementioned researchers whereas we manipulated participantsrsquo level of perceived
choice However there is a close conceptual relationship between level of external motivation
and level of perceived choice from the perspective of cognitive dissonance theory Previous
research has indicated that both choice manipulation and external motivation have similar effects
in creating cognitive dissonance In both cases external justification is being manipulated
Participants in the low choice (direct instruction) condition attribute their actions to the influence
of external pressures that forced them to perform the dissonant behavior Participants rationalize
that if given the choice they would not have engaged in the behavior and thus cognitive
dissonance is avoided The same conclusion is drawn when participants are given high external
motivation to engage in a dissonant behavior such as a high monetary reward Participants again
rely on the external justification of high reward to explain their engagement in the dissonant act
They rationalize their dissonant behavior by relying on the high reward as justification for
behaving in uncharacteristically Participants in the high reward condition rationalize that if the
reward was not present as external justification then they would not have engaged in the task
which results in a lack of cognitive dissonance as well Alternatively participants with either
high choice (voluntary participation) or low reward cannot rely on external justification because
none exists in these conditions Thus attitude shift results from the need to ameliorate their
78
cognitive dissonance Overall external justification is needed to alleviate cognitive dissonance
arousal and this justification is provided by either an external motivation (reward) manipulation
or by a low choice manipulation
Self-perceived choice has frequently been used as the independent variable in cognitive
dissonance studies As in our experiment these earlier studies found that self-perceived choice
(ie High versus Low Choice) had a significant main effect on cognitive dissonance Several of
these studies reported that participants experienced an attitude shift toward being in favor of an
undesirable task or belief only when they felt free choice to engage in the dissonant behavior
such as misleading a confederate or writing a counterattitudinal essay (Brehm amp Cohn 1962
Chatzisarantis Hagger amp Wang 2008 Cooper 1971 Davis amp Jones 1960 Festinger amp
Carlsmith 1959 Linder Cooper amp Jones 1967 Seacuteneacutemeaud amp Somat 2009 Sherman 1970)
Therefore the current experiment has added empirical support to the body of cognitive
dissonance research examining choice condition as a predictor of attitude shift
42 Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonance
The main hypothesis of this study was that people with low levels of psychopathy would
experience cognitive dissonance about engaging in deception whereas individuals with higher
levels of psychopathy would not experience cognitive dissonance
PPI-R SF total scores and cognitive dissonance Results supported our hypothesis in
regard to psychopathy when measured by total scores on the PPI-R SF Participants with higher
total scores on the PPI-R SF reported significantly less enjoyment of the abacus task on the post-
experimental questionnaire than participants with lower levels of psychopathy Specifically the
interaction between Choice to Lie condition and total PPI-R SF scores was significant in
predicting abacus task enjoyment standardized β = -216 p =036 True to our prediction
79
participants with low to non-existent levels of psychopathy experienced cognitive dissonance
only when in the High Choice to Lie condition and not in the Low Choice to Lie condition
Consistent with earlier studies (Cooper amp Worchel 1970 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959) it
appears that low psychopathy participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition perceived that they
had a strong external motivation for misleading their fellow-student (direct instruction to lie)
Thus they did not experience cognitive dissonance and could (accurately) rate the abacus task as
boring However low psychopathy participants in the High Choice to Lie condition did not
perceive that they had a strong external motivation for misleading their fellow student (they
voluntarily agreed to tell the lie after being asked) The participants experienced cognitive
dissonance in the form of psychological tension or guilt which they reduced by convincing
themselves that the abacus task was actually interesting as they had told their fellow student
On the other hand participants with higher levels of psychopathy reported disliking the
abacus task on the post-experimental questionnaire regardless of the Choice to Lie condition they
were in It appears that participants with higher levels of psychopathy did not experience
cognitive dissonance (ie psychological tension or guilt) about misleading a fellow student
Consequently these participants did not experience a need to change their view of the abacus
task or to rate it as more enjoyable than it really was
PPI-R SF subscales on cognitive dissonance Exploratory analyses were conducted
using the eight subscales of the PPI-R SF Each subscale measures a different facet of
psychopathy The goal of analyzing each subscale individually was to examine which aspects of
psychopathy if any were related to a lack of cognitive dissonance Three subscales produced
significant interactions with choice condition in predicting level of task enjoyment
Machiavellian Egocentricity (ME) Fearlessness (F) and Rebellious Nonconformity (RN) The
80
Machiavellian Egocentricity and Rebellious Nonconformity subscales load on the Self Centered
Impulsivity factor (antisocial behavior traits of psychopathy) of the PPI-R SF while the
Fearlessness subscale loads on the Fearless Dominance factor (cognitive personality based traits
of psychopathy) of the PPI-R SF
The Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale identifies aggressive self-centered tendencies
when interacting with other individuals (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003
Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996) Items from this subscale include ldquoI could be a good con-artistrdquo ldquoI
sometimes lie to see if I can get someone to believe merdquo and ldquoI tell people the part of the truth
they want to hearrdquo This scale seems to identify psychopathic characteristics that would allow for
individuals to have a lack of psychological tension or guilt over misleading others Thus in the
present experiment it appears that these traits may have inhibited participantsrsquo experience of
cognitive dissonance over lying to the confederate The significant interaction of the ME scale
and choice condition suggests that the participants in our study who lacked concern for
misleading others or even prided themselves in their ability to mislead others (as the scale
predicts) did not experience guilt or psychological stress
The Fearlessness (F) subscale of the PPI-R SF identifies willingness to engage in risky
behavior with a lack of regard for the negative consequences of onersquos actions The Rebellious
Nonconformity subscale (RN) indicates reckless behavior with a lack of concern for future
consequences (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Lilienfeld amp Andrews
1996) These scales are similar in that higher scores on the scales indicate an inability to
comprehend future negative consequences of onersquos actions These subscales also were
substantially correlated in the present study (r = 522) In regard to the current experiment it may
be that participants who scored higher on the Fearlessness and Rebellious Nonconformity
81
subscales were unable to comprehend or feel concern for the negative impact their deceptive
actions could have on their fellow student Thus participants with higher levels of fearlessness
and rebellious nonconformity may have experienced less psychological tension and less
cognitive dissonance about engaging in the deception than did participants with low levels of
these traits Because these findings are exploratory further studies should analyze these variables
so that strong conclusions can be made
PPI-R SF factors on cognitive dissonance In exploratory analyses the Self-Centered
Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF was the only factor to have a significant interaction with
choice condition in predicting abacus task enjoyment That is the dissonance effect was found
among participants with low scores on the PPI-R SF Self Centered Impulsivity factor but not
among participants with high scores The Self Centered Impulsivity factor is comprised of the
Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale and the Carefree
Nonplanfulness subscale of the PPI-R SF The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF
has been found in the literature to correlate with the behavioral traits associated with
psychopathy such as a DSM diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder lower education
levels lower employment rates lower SES and increased drug and alcohol abuse (Benning
Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003) Therefore the present results suggest that the
behavioral antisocial behavior characteristics of psychopathy (impulsivity blame
externalization lack of planning abilities) affected participantsrsquo experience of guilt-induced
cognitive dissonance
In contrast the interaction between the Fearless Dominance (FD) factor of the PPI-R SF
and choice condition was not a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment The Fearless
Dominance factor is characterized by low trait anxiety social dominance and fearlessness when
82
engaging in risky actions Individuals who score higher on the Fearless Dominance factor of the
PPI-R SF are often described as the more ldquosuccessful psychopathrdquo because they are
characterized by higher SES more advanced education and a lack of substance abuse (Benning
Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003) as compared to the type of psychopathy predicted by
the PPI-R SF Self Centered Impulsivity factor In fact studies have found that the two factors of
the PPI-R SF are orthogonal (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Lilienfeld amp
Fowler 2006) Therefore the present results suggest that individuals with higher scores on the
Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R SF may have the propensity to experience cognitive
dissonance more than individuals with the more antisocial traits of psychopathy (as measured by
the Self Centered Impulsivity Factor)
LPSP total scores on cognitive dissonance The effect of psychopathy on cognitive
dissonance was also examined using scores from the LPSP Similar to the results using the PPI-
R SF the interaction of LPSP total scores and choice condition was statistically significant in
predicting level of task enjoyment Specifically a significant relationship did not exist between
LPSP scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie
condition However in accordance with our prediction there was a significant negative
correlation between LPSP total scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie
condition This result further supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of
psychopathy would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher
levels would not
LPSP factor scores on cognitive dissonance Both the Primary and Secondary factors of
the LPSP were examined in exploratory analyses to see if one factorrsquos constellation of
psychopathic traits better accounted for a lack of cognitive dissonance than the other The
83
findings of this analysis implicate the cognitive (callousness fearless dominance low trait
anxiety) characteristics of psychopathy (as measured by the Primary factor) rather than the
external behavioral markers (as measured by the Secondary factor) as cues to understanding the
cognitive differences found in individuals with higher levels of psychopathy The results of the
interaction between the Primary (Cognitive) Factor and choice condition approached statistical
significance (unless the data was analyzed with the six individuals who did not lie factored out)
Further analysis of the data found that the interaction of LPSP Secondary (Behavioral) factor
scores with choice condition was not a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment
Interestingly these analyses of the LPSP factor scales yielded results that seem contrary
to the results concerning the PPI-R SF factor scales As already noted the PPI-R SF factor scale
analysis suggested that the behavioral characteristics of psychopathy (as measured by the PPI-R
Self Centered Impulsivity factor) were related to the absence of a cognitive dissonance effect In
contrast however the LPSP Secondary (behavioral) factor was not significantly related to
whether the cognitive dissonance effect was found Instead the findings for the LPSP Primary
(cognitive) factor approached significance
The conflicting findings regarding the PPI-R and LPSP factor scales may be partially
explained by the fact that the LPSPrsquos Primary and Secondary factors have not shown a consistent
relationship to other scales that measure the behavioral and cognitive dimensions of psychopathy
(Skeem amp Lilienfeld 2004) Levenson and colleagues (1995) reported that the two factors of the
LPSP mirrored the two factors of the PPI-R and the PCL-R However the discriminant and
convergent validity of the LPSP factor scales have been inconclusive in several studies For
example a study by Lilienfeld Skeem and Poythress (2004) found that the LPSP Primary
(cognitive) factor (callousness lack of guilt or remorse low trait anxiety) of the LPSP was more
84
correlated with the secondary (Self Centered Impulsivity) factor of the PPI-R (r = 62) than with
the primary (Fearless Dominance) factor of the PPI-R (r = 16)
In addition to the study by Lilienfeld et al (2004) other researchers have obtained results
indicating that the Primary (cognitive) Scale of the LPSP correlates higher with the secondary
factor of the PPI-R (Self Centered Impulsivity) rather than the with the primary factor of the PPI-
R (Fearless Dominance Wilson Frick amp Clements 1999 Lilienfeld amp Hess 2001)
Furthermore the Primary (cognitive) scale of the LPSP appears to correlate more highly with
antisocial behaviors rather than with the callous cognitive traits it was designed to measure
(Lilienfeld Skeem amp Poythress 2004 McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto 1998) Therefore the
discrepancy in the results between the PPI-R SF factor scales and the LPSP factor scales in the
current study might be a result of the LPSP Primary scale not being discriminant or divergent
enough from the antisocial behavior characteristics that are measured by the Secondary Scale of
the LPSP and by the factor scales of other measures like the PPI-R In other words perhaps the
Primary Scale of the LPSP is not accurately identifying just the cognitive personality-based traits
of psychopathy that is was designed to measure and thus this imprecision of the factor is what
led to the seemingly inconsistent results concerning the PPI-R SF and LPSP factors
Table 13 reports the significant (and insignificant) interactions between choice condition
and level of psychopathy by individual subscale and factor scale scores This table specifically
sorts the subscales and factor scales by the main psychopathy factors evidenced in the literature
(cognitive or behavioral) that the subscales and factors load on Past studies have consistently
confirmed the subscales arranged below load on the factor indicated (either the more behavioral
factor or the more cognitive affective factor) (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Iacono
2005 Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Edens Lilienfeld Poythress Patrick
85
amp Test 2008 Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995 Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996 Lilienfeld amp
Widows 2005 Patrick Edens Poythress Lilienfeld amp Benning 2006 Poythress amp Skeem
2006 Uzieblo Verschuere amp Crombez 2007) By separating the significant subscale and factor
score results in the current study by the respective factor they have been shown to load on
(cognitive or behavioral) the difference in our somewhat mixed results becomes clearer The
results evidence that in the current study Secondary psychopathy (Factor 2 antisociality
impulsivity inability to plan thrill seeking behavior) seems to relate more to a lack of cognitive
dissonance in the sample of participants
86
Table 13 Interactions of Psychopathy Subscales and Factor Scales with Choice Condition by the Two Factor (Cognitive or Behavioral) Psychopathy Solution Demonstrated by Past Research (Self-Reported Enjoyment as Criterion)
Cognitive Affective Factor Antisocial Behavior Factor FactorSubscale Stdz β t p Stdz β t p PPI FD Factor -167 -146 146 PPI Soc Infl 057 48 631 PPI Fearless -274 -247 015 PPI Stress Imm -101 -93 352 LPSP Primary -199 -192 057 PPI SCI Factor -220 -221 028 PPI Mach Ego -295 -281 006 PPI Rebel -243 -230 023 PPI Blm Ext -036 -32 747 PPI Carefree 068 66 511 LPSP Second -161 -145 148 Note Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics Predictor Abbreviations PPI FD Factor = PPIRSF Factor 1 ndash Fearless Dominance Factor PPI Soc Infl = PPI-RSF Social Influence subscale PPI Fearlessness = PPI-RSF Fearlessness subscale PPI Stress Imun = PPI-RSF Stress Immunity subscale LPSP Primary = LPSP Primary subscale PPI SCI Factor = PPIRSF Factor 2-Self Centered Impulsivity Factor PPI Mach Ego = PPI-RSF Machiavellianism Egocentricity subscale PPI Rebel = PPI-RSF Rebellious Nonconformity subscale PPI Blm Extern = PPI-RSF Blame Externalization subscale PPI Carefree = PPI-RSF Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale LPSP Second = LPSP Secondary subscale The PPI-RSF Colheartedness Scale is not included because it has not been shown to load on the Two Factor Solution Model Abbreviations Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Possible Reasons for the Lack of Cognitive Dissonance in High Psychopathy Individuals
The results of the current study indicate that the more psychopathic traits a participant
reported including the callous unemotional traits such as a lack of guilt remorse or concern for
others the less likely the participant was to exhibit the classic cognitive dissonance effect It is
important to consider possible explanations for these results
Psychopathy and lack of guilt One of the main traits linked to psychopathy is a callous
lack of guilt (Hart amp Hare 1997 Hare 1993 Lykken 2006 McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto
1998) This lack of guilt and concern for others may be the cognitive deficit that allows for
psychopathic individuals to commit violent crimes or manipulate others If this is the case then it
is important to determine if a lack of guilt is occurring significantly more in individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy compared to individuals with low or non-existent levels of
psychopathy Previous studies have examined guilt in individuals with psychopathy and have
87
almost universally found that individuals with high psychopathy lack guilt (Cima Tonnaer amp
Lobbestael 2007 Hare 1993 Walsh amp Wu 2008)
Though a lack of guilt has already been strongly associated with psychopathy in the
literature it is important to now try to find the underlying cognitive pathways and mechanisms
that are behind the inability to feel guilt in high psychopathic individuals Understanding the
cognitive deficits of individuals with higher levels of psychopathy can lead to better assessment
strategies and possible intervention models to curb maladaptive behaviors at an early age This
study attempted to identify the role that guilt plays in eliciting cognitive dissonance by assessing
dissonance effects in individuals with varying levels of guilt capabilities (high versus low
psychopaths) The use of psychopathy as a moderating variable for cognitive dissonance is based
on empirical research that has found a lack of guilt and contentiousness in individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy
Guilt and cognitive dissonance Cognitive dissonance has long been thought to be a
universal feature of human behavior Since the discovery of cognitive dissonance by Festinger in
1957 many other researchers have replicated the phenomenon with great success in a multitude
of situations and across stimuli (for a review see Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) The main theory
of cognitive dissonance that this project intended to analyze with regard to psychopathy was
Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory (1984) due to its focus on guilt as the catalyst for attitude
shift
According to Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory (1984) one of the crucial
components for creating the attitude shift found in cognitive dissonance is that individuals must
feel guilt (that their actions have brought negative consequences to themselves or others) The
current study incorporated the New Look Theory by having participants voluntarily lie to
88
someone else about a boring task being enjoyable Our hypothesis hinged on the theory that low
psychopathy individuals would change their beliefs about the task (they would think it was fun)
in order to relieve the guilt felt over misleading another individual In contrast since cognitive
dissonance occurs due to guilt induction we believed and found that individuals with higher
levels of psychopathy (low guilt) did not experience dissonance Therefore the results of this
study provide further evidence of the callous lack of guilt evidenced in psychopaths while
supporting Cooper and Faziorsquos (1984) theory that cognitive dissonance is invoked by guilt
43 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonance
Machiavellianism is characterized by the deliberate incorporation of callous unemotional
behaviors with the goal of achieving success and domination through the use of the asocial affect
and behaviors (Christie amp Geis 1970 Wastell amp Booth 2003 Wilson Near amp Miller 1996)
The centrality of success seems to be a characteristic of MACH that distinguishes it from
psychopathy Individuals with higher levels of MACH seem to engage in callous manipulative
behaviors in order to achieve preconceived goals whereas psychopathic individuals do not
necessarily plan their behavior to the same degree In fact several of the core traits associated
with psychopathy involve a lack of planning ability impulsivity and antisocial behavior that
often involves illegal and violent activities (Hare 1993)
Due to the callous guilt free traits associated with MACH the current study
hypothesized incorrectly that high MACH individuals in the High Choice (and high guilt)
condition would report significantly less enjoyment of the boring abacus task than individuals
with low MACH
MACH-IV total scores on cognitive dissonance It was hypothesized that the interaction
between MACH and choice condition would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment of
89
the abacus task However this interaction was not statistically significant Level of
Machiavellianism did not impact an individualrsquos self-rated level of enjoyment on the abacus task
These results were surprising given the fact that MACH has significantly related to a lack of
predicted attitude shift in past studies of guilt induced cognitive dissonance (Bogart 1971
Bogart et al 1970 Epstein 1969) Though these previous studies on MACH did not
specifically intend to analyze guilt-induction as the dissonance invoking stimulus they did use
methodology that would create guilt in participants
Unlike the current study these previous experiments found significant differences
between individuals with higher versus lower levels of MACH Also in opposition with the
current findings these previous studies (Bogart 1971 Bogart Geis Levy amp Zimbardo 1970
Epstein 1968) found that individuals with high MACH were able to experience cognitive
dissonance often in the opposite experimental condition to the individuals with low MACH who
experienced cognitive dissonance These studies termed this effect ldquoanti-dissonancerdquo The
current study however found no significant evidence of an anti-dissonance effect in our
participants In fact the results for the MACH-IV scores exhibited a weak version of the
interaction pattern that was seen with the two psychopathy predictors Specifically the MACH-
IV total scores had a significant negative correlation with Self-Reported Task Enjoyment in the
High Choice Group (r = -295 p lt 01) but not in the Low Choice group (r = -104 p = 354)
Such findings seem to suggest that Machiavellianism like psychopathy influences cognitive
dissonance effects However as already reported the crucial analysis regarding this hypothesis
based on an interaction term of Machiavellianism with Choice condition did not attain statistical
significance
90
It is possible that the present study failed to find a significant interaction between choice
and level of MACH in predicting attitude shift because the MACH-IV is outdated The MACH
measure was created in 1970 and has not been altered since that time In addition many of the
items on the measure use wording from Niccolo Machiavellirsquos writing which dates back to 1513
Further many of the items may be considered somewhat sexist in current society as they focus
on men exclusively Participantsrsquo responses may have been effected by this gender exclusivity
Therefore concepts and items may not be current enough to be accurately identifying MACH
characteristics in our sample Given results from the present and earlier research the failure to
find a significant interaction between choice condition and Machiavellianism in the present study
may well represent a Type II error
44 Psychopathy Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment (Over MACH)
A hypothesis of the current study was that psychopathy would incrementally predict
abacus task enjoyment and the cognitive dissonance effect above and beyond the predictive
power of the MACH Results regarding this hypothesis were inconclusive Inclusion of PPI-R
SF scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment significantly increased predictive
power above and beyond scores on the MACH-IV Although there was a significant increase in
predictive power when adding PPI-R SF scores to the MACH-IV scores the beta for the
interaction between PPI-R SF scores and choice condition was only approached statistical
significance When total scores of the LPSP replaced the PPI-R SF scores the results were not
significant Inclusion of total LPSP scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment
did not significantly increase predictive power above and beyond MACH-IV scores Therefore it
seems that the hypothesis in regard to psychopathy incrementally predicting abacus task
91
enjoyment above MACH was neither confirmed nor disconfirmed in the present study More
research examining the issue is needed
Conversely two exploratory hierarchical multiple regressions were run to identify
whether MACH-IV total scores incrementally predicted Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus
task above and beyond the predictive power of psychopathy scores When both the PPI-R SF
and the LPSP were used as predictors MACH did not significantly predict Self-Reported Level
of Enjoyment over psychopathy These results suggest though only in a preliminary way that
level of MACH does not incrementally predict cognitive dissonance effects above and beyond
the predictive power of level of psychopathy
45 Additional Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory Guilt Analysis
Multiple regressions were conducted with level of guilt as the criterion in the place of
enjoyment rating These analyses were exploratory with the goal of further exploring the role
that guilt plays during cognitive dissonance arousal and maintenance Results of these analyses
indicated that the interaction between psychopathy measures and choice conditions did not
generally significantly predict guilt In fact there was no reason to expect these interactions to
be significant based on cognitive dissonance theory The cognitive dissonance literature argues
that participants strive to reduce their feelings of guilt after engaging in counterattitudinal
behavior discrepant with their beliefs Thus participants with low levels of psychopathy who
were in the High Choice to Lie condition would be expected to change their attitudes about lying
to reduce their feelings of guilt immediately after telling the ldquofuture participantrdquo that the abacus
task was fun Therefore their reported guilt level on the post experimental questionnaire should
not be significant Due to cognitive dissonance these participants would have already reduced
92
their level of guilt to low or non-existent levels by the time they were answering the questions on
the post experimental questionnaire
Main effects for relationship between psychopathy and guilt An important result of these
exploratory analyses was that significant main effects were found between level of psychopathy
(measured by the PPI-R SF) and level of guilt that participants reported concerning their
participation in the study Specifically the PPI-R SF had a significant relationship with level of
guilt such that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy experienced less guilt than
participants with lower levels of psychopathy across choice conditions In addition both factor
scales of the PPI-R SF (Fearless Dominance and Self Centered Impulsivity) were significant in
predicting guilt Finally three of the PPI-R SF subscales reached significance in predicting level
of guilt in participants Fearlessness Stress Immunity Rebellious Nonconformity The
Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscales load on the Fearless Dominance factor
of the PPI-R SF which is important to note because this factor assesses the cognitive aspects of
psychopathy including lack of guilt and lack of remorse Therefore these results provide support
for the validity of the PPI-R SF in assessing psychopathic traits such as guiltlessness
Exploratory Factor Analyses
Three factor analyses were conducted on the self-report psychopathy and MACH
measures utilized in the present study The goal of these analyses was to categorize the
individual traits of psychopathy and MACH that were being identified in the participants by the
measures and to distinguish overall factors of these personality traits that are similar across
measures
The first factor analysis found that the total scores of the three measures loaded together
as one factor The second factor analysis found that all of the items combined loaded on nine
93
interpretable factors Machiavellian Success Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Impunity Feelings
of Persecution Inability to Plan Social Disregard Interpersonal Ease Manipulative Deceit and
Social Frustration Each factor was found to represent unique characteristics of psychopathy and
MACH Finally a third factor analysis was run on the combined subscales of the measures This
analysis yielded three interpretable factors Antisocial Behavior Coldhearted Callousness and
Thrill Seeking Though these factor analyses yielded factors that mirror others identified in the
literature (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Hare 1991 Levenson et al
1995 Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996) the sample size of 164 participants was too small to draw
significant or important conclusions from these factor analyses
94
Limitations and Future Directions
The present study had several limitations One potential limitation was the sole use of
self-report measures for detecting psychopathy Though the self-report measures that were used
in the current study have been validated as measures of psychopathy (Levesnon et al 1995
Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996 Lilienfeld amp Fowler 2006 Lilienfeld amp Hess 2001) the use of a
measure such as the Psychopathy Checklist ndash Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991) might have shed
additional light on the levels of psychopathy among our participants Psychopathy scores on the
PCL-R are obtained from a semi-structured clinical interview of the participant as well as
background and collateral information (Hare 1991) Therefore the information about the
participantrsquos personality is derived from multiple sources rather than just self-report A future
replication of this study would benefit from also assessing level of psychopathy with the PCL-R
or the PCL-R SV (Hart amp Hare 1995) which is a screening version of the PCL-R
A second limitation might have been the type of task used to illicit cognitive dissonance
The study had participants move wooden balls back and forth across an abacus for 20 minutes
Though this study attained significant results perhaps the length of time may not have been long
enough to induce boredom in all participants Future studies could increase the amount of time
participants are instructed to move balls across the abacus For example the original cognitive
dissonance study by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) had participants turn pegs in a peg-board for
one hour That length of time would most likely ensure boredom in participants It is important to
note however that the time limit of 20 minutes employed in the present study was the same as in
the study by Cooper and Worchel (1970) in which significant results were obtained when
participants engaged in the boring task for 20 minutes
95
In addition the use of the abacus task as the stimuli could have impacted the results
because some participants may have actually found the task enjoyable and thus genuinely
reported enjoying the task on the post-experimental questionnaire This would confound our
results because cognitive dissonance was not enacted in those participants In order to combat the
possible issue the use of counterattitudinal essays as the stimulus would be a useful option for
future studies Counterattitudinal essays involve writing in favor of an issue that one is
adamantly against The use of counterattitudinal essays has been incorporated into the majority
of cognitive dissonance studies (for a review see Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Studies have
shown that when participants write in favor of an issue that they are opposed to this elicits
cognitive dissonance (Baumeister amp Tice 1984 Elkin amp Leippe 1986 Harmon-Jones amp Mills
1999 Linder Cooper amp Jones 1967 Seacuteneacutemeaud amp Somat 2009) Counterattitudinal essays
have also been used in studying cognitive dissonance effects in participants with MACH
(Burgoon Miller amp Tubbs 1972) with significant effects
Simply writing counter-attitudinal essays would not necessarily invoke guilt The present
study tested the hypothesis that guilt-invoking tasks create cognitive dissonance in individuals
with low psychopathic traits but not individuals with high psychopathic traits Therefore the
present results might not be replicated in a study that simply required the writing of counter-
attitudinal essays However a variant on this task exists in which writing a counter-attitudinal
essay is used to persuade other individuals to a viewpoint with which the writer strongly
disagrees This task of writing a counter-attitudinal essay to persuade others is likely to evoke
guilt and according to the hypotheses of the present study would be predicted to create a
cognitive dissonance effect in participants with higher levels of psychopathy but not in
participants with low levels of psychopathy A control condition would be necessary in which
96
some participants just write the counter-attitudinal essays while others write counter-attitudinal
essays that are then used to persuade other individuals In this way we would be better able to
determine whether any cognitive dissonance effects observed were due to guilt
Guilt has been manipulated in participants with the use of counterattitudinal essays The
primary way that researcherrsquos incorporate guilt was to have the participant write a
counterattitudinal essay and read it (or give it) to a panel of individuals with the intention of
persuading the panel to be in favor of the topic to which the participant is actually against In this
way participants feel guilt for attempting to convince others to support something that the
participant actually opposes For example a study by Elliot and Devine (1994) had their college
student sample of participants write essays in favor of a tuition raise for all students at their
university Before writing the counterattitudinal essays participants were initially screened to
make sure they were against a tuition increase on campus Participants were told that the essay
they wrote (pro-tuition increase) would be read by the university Board of Trustees to help
determine if the tuition raise should be implemented Participantsrsquo guilt was activated because
they were led to believe that their essay might cause a tuition increase for themselves and their
peers Results of the study found a significant shift in attitude towards being in favor of the
tuition increase after participants had written the essay The authors surmised that it was the
negative consequences that their actions (writing the pro-tuition increase essay) could cause
others that led to the attitude shift Replicating the current study with the use of counterattitudinal
essays that manipulate guilt rather than the abacus task may elicit stronger effects by eliminating
the participantsrsquo chance of genuinely enjoying the abacus task
A third limitation the current study concerns its generalizability to new populations of
participants This study analyzed level of psychopathy exclusively among college
97
undergraduates It is unclear whether the results obtained in this population will generalize to
groups with higher levels of psychopathy such as violent offenders or repeat-offender juvenile
delinquents Attempting a replication in a sample of violent offenders or juvenile delinquents
would be a valuable step in understanding how the construct of psychopathy impacts cognitive
dissonance
A fourth possible limitation was the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of participants
Approximately eighty-five percent of participants were Hispanic and thus the generalizability of
the results to non-Hispanic populations can be questioned However psychopathy has been
shown to be a universal construct across ethnicities including Anglo Americans (Cooke Kosson
amp Michie 2001 Hare 1996) African Americans (Cooke Kosson amp Michie 2001 Skeem et
al 2004 Swogger Walsh amp Kosson 2008) and Hispanics (Sullivan Abramowitz Lopez amp
Kosson 2006 Valdez Kaplan amp Codina 2000) MACH too has been shown to appear in
Hispanics (Martinez 1981) Therefore this limitation may not be a serious one
Though ethnicity may not have impacted our results cultural characteristics are another
limitation to consider Culture may impact the expression of psychopathic traits A recent study
by Smith and Madjarov (2008) found that individuals from Bulgaria evidenced higher levels of
psychopathy and Machiavellianism than Americans (as measured by the LPSP and MACH-IV)
The authors attributed the higher levels of psychopathic and MACH tendencies to the coercive
nature of the Bulgarian culture which teaches the youth to look out for themselves above all else
The authors deduced that the personality characteristics of psychopathy and MACH allow for
better survival outcomes in Bulgaria and thus the traits have flourished there as adaptive rather
than abnormal
98
The current study was conducted in a university on the US-Mexico border where
acculturation to American society varies in the university population Many students commute
over the border daily from Mexico to attend classes and are not highly acculturated to US
culture Based on the Smith and Madjarov (2008) study and the location of the current
experiment level of acculturation may have impacted our results and should be accounted for in
future studies
An additional future direction would be that this study spurs psychopathy and cognitive
dissonance research in new routes As previously mentioned only one other study has examined
the effects of psychopathy on cognitive dissonance (Weir 2007) However Weirrsquos study
contained methodological weaknesses (eg no control group for comparison purposes) and was
not designed to address how psychopathic traits impact cognitive dissonance in guilt-inducing
situations Clearly more studies need to be conducted in order to examine if the significant
results found in the present study will hold across other age groups populations (such as violent
offenders) and cultures The results of this study could assist in better understanding the
cognitive and emotional characteristics of psychopathy
In addition the results of this study pose new ideas for cognitive dissonance research
The results of the current study suggest that level of psychopathy could potentially be
confounding cognitive dissonance studies that rely on guilt or adverse consequences as the
mechanism of dissonance arousal Further replications of the present study are needed in the
literature to examine the robustness of our results and their impact on cognitive dissonance
arousal
99
Conclusions
Until now cognitive dissonance has been assumed to be a general cognitive effect found
in all individuals The results of this study suggest that this assumption may be incorrect In the
present study individuals with higher levels of psychopathy did not seem to experience guilt-
induced dissonance arousal It may be that past studies might have yielded stronger cognitive
dissonance effects if they had excluded participants with above-average levels of psychopathic
traits
In addition the lack of a significant finding in regard to level of MACH indicates that
more research needs to be conducted in assessing what maladaptive cognitive and behavioral
impacts Machiavellianism has on individuals and how MACH truly relates to psychopathy
Understanding the cognitive characteristics of psychopathy (and MACH) is important
due to the negative impact that individuals with these characteristics can cause society For
example individuals with higher levels of psychopathy are four times more likely to recidivate
after being released from prison (Hare 1993 Hemphill Hare amp Wong 1998) are arrested at
earlier ages are more likely to use weapons and violence in their offenses and have higher rates
of offending than individuals without psychopathy (Hart amp Hare 1997 Hare amp McPherson
1984) It is important to discover what specific cognitive and emotional characteristics lead some
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy to develop and behave maladaptively in society If
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy do not experience cognitive dissonance after lying
to someone else this finding points not only to a lack of guilt in such individuals but also to a
unique cognitive and emotional temperament that may be lacking dissonance arousal
100
References
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed) Washington DC Author Aronson E (1968) Dissonance theory Progress and problems In R Abelson E Aronson W McGuire T Newcomb M Rosenberg amp P Tannenbaum (Eds) Theories of cognitive consistency A sourcebook (pp5-27) Chicago Illinois Rand McNally Austin E J Farrelly D Black C amp Moore H (2007) Emotional intelligence Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation Does EI have a dark side Personality and Individual Differences 43 179-189 Baumeister R F amp Tice D M (1984) Role of self-presentation and choice in cognitive dissonance under forced compliance Necessary or sufficient causes Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(1) 5-13 Bogart K (1971) Machiavellianism and individual differences in response to cognitive inconsistency Journal of Social Psychology 85 111-119 Bogart K Geis F Levy M amp Zimbardo P (1970) No dissonance for Machiavellians In P G Zimbardo (Ed) The cognitive control of motivation The consequences of choice and motivation (pp 251-263) Glenview Illinois Scott Foresman and Company Brehm J W amp Cohen A R (1962) Explorations in cognitive dissonance New York Wiley Burgoon M Miller G R amp Tubbs S L (1972) Machiavellianism justification and attitude change following counterattitudinal advocacy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 22 366-371 Chapman A L Gremore T M amp Farmer R F (2003) Psychometric analysis of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory with female inmates Journal of Personality Assessment 80(2) 164-172 Chatzisarantis N L D Hagger M S amp Wang J C K (2008) An experimental test of cognitive dissonance theory in the domain of physical exercise Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 20(1) 97-115 Christie R (1970a) Why Machiavelli In R Christie amp F Geis (Eds) Studies in Machiavellianism (pp1-9) New York Academic Press Christie R (1970b) Relationships between Machiavellianism and measures of ability opinion and personality In R Christie amp F Geis (Eds) Studies in Machiavellianism (pp35-52) New York Academic Press Christie R amp Geis F L (1970) Studies in Machiavellianism New York Academic Press
101
Cima M Tonnaer F amp Lobbestael J (2007) Moral emotions in predatory and impulsive offenders using implicit measures Netherlands Journal of Psychology 63(4) 144-155 Cleckley H (1976) The mask of sanity (5th ed) St Louis C V Mosby (Originally published 1941) Cooke D J Kosson D S amp Michie C (2001) Psychopathy and ethnicity Structural item and test generalizability of the Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (PCL-R) in Caucasian and African American participants Psychological Assessment 13(4) 531-542 Cooper J (1971) Personal responsibility and dissonance The role of foreseen consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18(3) 354-363 Cooper J (1999) Unwanted consequences and the self In search of the motivation for dissonance reduction In E Harmon-Jones amp J Mills (Eds) Cognitive dissonance Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp149-173) Washington DC American Psychological Association Cooper J amp Fazio R H (1984) A new look at dissonance theory In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental psychology (Vol 17 pp 229-262) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Cooper J amp Worchel S (1970) Role of undesired consequences in arousing cognitive dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(2) 199-206 Croyle R amp Cooper J (1983) Dissonance arousal Physiological evidence Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 782-791 Davis K E amp Jones E E (1960) Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61(3) 402-410 Edens J Marcus D Lilienfeld S O amp Poythress N G (2006) Psychopathic not psychopath Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of psychopathy Journal of Abnormal Psychology 115(1) 131-144 Elkin R A amp Leippe M R (1986) Physiological arousal dissonance and attitude change Evidence for a dissonance-arousal link and a ldquodonrsquot remind merdquo effect Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 55-65 Elliot A J amp Devine P G (1994) On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance Dissonance as psychological discomfort Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(3) 382-394 Epstein G F (1969) Machiavelli and the devilrsquos advocate Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 11(1) 38-41
102
Fehr B Samsom D amp Paulhus D L (1992) The construct of Machiavellianism Twenty years later In CD Spielberger amp J N Butcher (Eds) Advances in personality assessment (pp 77-116) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance Stanford CA Stanford University Press Festinger L amp Carlsmith J M (1959) Cognitive consequences of forced compliance Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58 203-210 Fowles D C (1980) The three arousal model Implications of Grayrsquos two-factor learning theory for heart rate electrodermal activity and psychopathy Psychophysiology 17 87-104 Goethals G R amp Cooper J (1972) Role of intention and postbehavioral consequence in the arousal of cognitive dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23 293- 301 Greenwald H A (1967) Active psychotherapy New York Atherton Hare R D (1978) Psychopathy and electrodermal responses to nonsignal stimulation Biological Psychology 6 237-246 Hare R D (1985) Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psycopathy Journal of Clinical and Counseling Psychology 53 7-16 Hare R D (1991) Manual for the Hare Psycopathy Checklist-Revised Toronto
Multi-Health Systems
Hare R D (1993) Without conscience The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us New York Pocket Books Hare R D amp McPherson L M (1984) Violent and aggressive behavior by criminal psychopaths International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 7(1) 35-50 Hare R D amp Neumann C S (2006) The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy Development structural properties and new directions In C J Patrick (Ed) Handbook of psychopathy (pp 58-88) New York The Guilford Press Harmon-Jones E amp Mills J (1999) An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory In E Harmon-Jones amp J Mills (Eds) Cognitive dissonance Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp3-21) Washington DC American Psychological Association Harpur T J Hare R D amp Hakstian A R (1989) Two factor conceptualization of psychopathy Construct validity and assessment implications Psychological Assessment A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1 6-17
103
Hart S D amp Hare R D (1995) Psychopathy and risk assessment Issues in Criminological amp Legal Psychology 24 63-67 Hart S D amp Hare R D (1997) Psychopathy Assessment and association with criminal conduct In D M Stoff J Breiling amp J D Master (Eds) Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp 22-35) NY John Wiley and Sons Hemphill J F Hare R D amp Wong S (1998) Psychopathy and recidivism A review Legal and Criminological Psychology 3(1) 139-170 Karpman B (1941) On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types The symptomatic and the idiopathic Journal of Criminology and Psychopathology 3 112- 137 Karpman B (1948) The myth of the psychopathic personality American Journal of Psychiatry 104 523-534 Levenson M (1990) Risk taking and personality Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 1073-1081 Levenson M Kiehl K amp Fitzpatrick C (1995) Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(1) 151-158 Lilienfeld SO (1994) Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy Clinical Psychology Review 14 17-38 Lilienfeld SO amp Andrews BP (1996) Development and preliminary validation of a self report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations Journal of Personality Assessment 66 488-524 Lilienfeld S O amp Hess T H (2001) Psychopathic personality traits and somatization Sex differences and the mediating role of negative emotionality Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 23(1) 11-24 Lilienfeld S O Skeem J L amp Poythress N G (2004 March) Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society Scottsdale AZ Lilienfeld S O amp Widows M R (2005) PPI-R professional manual Lutz FL Psychological Assessment Resources Linder D E Cooper J amp Jones E E (1967) Decision freedom as a determinant of the role of incentive magnitude in attitude change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6 245-254
104
Lyyken D T (1957) A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55 6-10 Lykken D T (1995) The antisocial personalities Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Lynam D R Whiteside S amp Jones S (1999) Self-reported psychopathy A validation study Journal of Personality Assessment 73(1) 110-132 Machiavelli N (1981) The Prince New York Bantam Books (Original work published 1513) Marcus D K amp Edens J F (2004) A taxometric analysis of psychopathic personality Journal of Abnormal Psychology 113 626-635 Martinez D C (1981) Differences among Chicano and White students on items of Machiavellianism scale Psychological Reports 48(2) 433-434
McHoskey J W Worzel W amp Szyarto C (1998) Machiavellianism and psychopathy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 192-210 Meloy J R (1998) The psychopathic mind Maryland Rowman amp Littlefield Publishers Inc
Murrie D C amp Cornell D G (2002) Psychopathy screening of incarcerated juveniles A comparison of measures Psychological Assessment 14 390-396 Patrick C J (Ed) (2006) Handbook of psychopathy New York The Guilford Press Patrick C J Bradley R H amp Lang P J (1993) Emotion in the criminal psychopath Startle reflex modulation Journal of Abnormal Psychology 102(1) 82-92 Pethman T M amp Erlandsson S I (2002) Aberrant self-promotion or subclinical psychopathy in a Swedish general population The Psychological Record 52 33-50 Porter S (1996) Without conscious or without active conscious The etiology of psychopathy revisited Aggression and Violent Behavior 1 179-189 Raine A (2002) Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adults A review Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 30 311ndash326 Ray J J amp Ray J A (1982) Some apparent advantages of subclinical psychopathy Journal of Social Psychology 117 135-142 Rutherford M J Cacciola J S amp Alterman A I (1999) Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in cocaine-dependent women American Journal of Psyciatry 156 849-856
105
Saruk S (1975) A comparison of Machiavellianism values and locus of control in psychopathic groups (Doctoral Dissertation Unites States International University 1975) Dissertation Abstracts International 36 458-B Seacuteneacutemeaud C amp Somat A (2009) Dissonance arousal and persistence in attitude change Swiss Journal of Psychology 68(1) 25-31 Shadish W R Cook T D amp Campbell D T (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (pp 230) Boston MA Houghton Mifflin Company Sherman S J (1970) Attitudinal effects of unforeseen consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(3) 510-520 Skeem J amp Lilienfeld S O (2004 March) Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society Scottsdale AZ Skinner N F (1982) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism IV Machiavellianism and psychopathology Social Behavior and Personality 10(2) 201-203 Skinner N F (1988) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism VI Machiavellianism and the psychopath Social Behavior and Personality 16 33-37 Smith R J (1999) Psychopathic behavior and issues of treatment New Ideas in Psychology 17 165-176 Smith E R amp Mackie D (Eds) (2000) Social Psychology (2nd ed)Kendallville IN Taylor amp Francis Smith R J amp Madjarov G (2008) Machiavellianism and psychopathy An East-West note Social Behavior and Personality 36(2) 255-256 Steele C M amp Liu T J (1983) Dissonance processes as self affirmation Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 5-19 Strelau J (1983) A regulative theory of temperament Australian Journal of Psychology 35 305-317 Sullivan E A Abramowitz C S Lopez M amp Kosson D S (2006) Reliability and construct validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised for Latino European American and African American male inmates Psychological Assessment 18(4) 382-392 Swogger M T Walsh Z amp Kosson D S (2008) Psychopathy subtypes among African American county jail inmates Criminal Justice and Behavior 35(12) 1484-1499
106
Valdez A Kaplan C D amp Codina E (2000) Psychopathy among Mexican American gang members A comparative study International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44(1) 46-58 Walsh A amp Wu H-H (2008) Differentiating antisocial personality disorder psychopathy and sociopathy Evolutionary genetic neurological and sociological considerations Criminal Justice Studies A Critical Journal of Crime Law amp Society 21(2) 135-152 Wastell C amp Booth A (2003) Machiavellianism An alexithymic perspective Journal of Social amp Clinical Psychology 22(6) 730-744 Weir J M (2007) Subtyping psychopathy Exploring the roles of degree of punishment cognitive dissonance and optimism Dissertation Abstracts International Section B The Sciences and Engineering 68(4-B) 2694 Wilson D L Frick P J amp Clements C B (1999) Gender somatization and psychopathic traits in a college sample Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 21(3) 221-235 Wilson D S Near D amp Miller R R (1996) Machiavellianism A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures Psychological Bulletin 119(2) 285-299 Zanna M P amp Cooper J (1974) Dissonance and the pill An attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29 703-709 Zanna M P Goethals G R amp Cooper J (1975) Misleading vs mistreating another person as consequences producing self-justificatory attitude change European Journal of Social Psychology 5 133-137
107
Appendix A
Script to be Used With High perceived choice Group
ldquoThank you for your participation in this task Irsquod like to explain what this has been all about so
you have some idea of why you were doing this task There are actually 2 groups in the
experiment In one group the group you were just in we bring the participant in and give him or
her no introduction to the experiment That is all we tell them is the instructions for how to do
the task and they have no idea what the experiment is really about or what they will have to do
But the other group before they begin the task we like to prep them What I mean by this is that
while they are still waiting in the hall we tell them what the experiment is going to be about so
we tell them it is a reaction task that they will be timed and they will be pushing balls along an
abacus etc Most importantly we also tell them that the task is going to be fun and enjoyable We
do this because we want to see if having a positive attitude about the task before you begin will
affect your ability on the task What we are interested in is comparing the performance of people
who know nothing about the experiment such as yourself with those people who expect the task
to be interesting and exciting
So normally we have another student who works for us and that student preps the person
while they are still in the hall so tells them about the task and that it is going to be fun and then
brings the person in to me to do the task However that person couldnrsquot be here today
Now I have an unusual request that I have to make I talked to my advisor Dr Wood and he
suggested that I might ask my real participant to talk to the next participant for me
You donrsquot have to but if you would be willing to do this for me all I would ask you to do
is to tell the next participant who is now in the hall that this task is fun and enjoyable So Irsquod
take you into the hall introduce you to the next person and then give you about 1 minute to
108
begin your conversation and tell him or her that this experimental task will be fun Itrsquos up to you
of course but do you think you could help me out by doing this for me
109
Appendix A
Script for Use With the Low perceived choice Group
ldquoThank you for your participation in this task Irsquod like to explain what this has been all about so
you have some idea of why you were doing this task There are actually 2 groups in the
experiment In one group the group you were just in we bring the participant in and give him or
her no introduction to the experiment That is all we tell them is what they need to know to do
the task and they have no idea what the experiment is really about or what they will have to do
But the other group before they begin the task we tell them what the experiment is going to be
about and that it is going to be fun and enjoyable We do this because we want to see if having a
positive attitude about the task before you begin will affect your ability on the task So normally
we have another student who works for us and what I do is take him into the hall that you were
just in and introduce him as though he had just finished the experiment This paid student then
starts a conversation with the next participant and tells him or her about the experiment and how
interesting and fun it was What we are interested in of course is comparing the performance of
people who know nothing about the experiment such as yourself with those people who expect
the task to be interesting and exciting
Now I have an unusual request I have to make The student that we have hired to talk to
the next participant about the study couldnt make it today He just called a few minutes ago My
advisor told me to just have one of my actual participants do it So what you will have to do is to
tell the next participant who is now in the hall that this task is exciting interesting and
enjoyable Irsquoll take you into the hall introduce you to the next participant and then give you
about 2 minutes to begin your conversation and tell him or her that this experimental task will be
fun Are you ready
110
Appendix B
Demographic Information
Age _____
Gender _____
Ethnicity (check only one)
Mexican American ____
Mexican National ____
Hispanic ____
Caucasian ____
Asian ____
African American ____
Other ____
111
Appendix B
University of Texas Psychology Department
Post Experiment Evaluation Form
This form is to be completed immediately following participation in a UTEP Psychology experiment The department is evaluating the research that is currently being conducted and would like your opinion on the effectiveness of the experiment you just participated in Please take the time to fill out this brief survey Please circle the answer that best describes your feelings about the experiment you just participated in Your responses will remain confidential and will only be reviewed by departmental staff Once you have completed the survey place it in the envelope provided for you and seal the envelope
The following items are about the experiment you just participated in Please circle how much you agree with the following statement
1 The task in this experiment was enjoyable
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
2 I feel that I learned a lot from this experiment
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
112
3 I feel that the results of this study will have scientific value
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
4 I would enjoy participating in future experiments similar to this one
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly 5 I felt guilty during this experiment
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly 6 I felt comfortable at all times during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
113
7 I felt that I had free will at all times during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
8 I felt pressured by the experimenter during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
114
Appendix C Date _________________
LPSP
Listed below are a number of statements Each represents a commonly held opinion and there are no right or wrong answers You will probably disagree with some items and agree with others Please read each statement carefully and circle the number which best describes the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement or the extent to which each statement applies to you
ITEM Strongly Disagree
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Strongly Agree
1 Success is based on survival of the fittest I am not concerned about the losers
1 2 3 4
2 For me whatrsquos right is whatever I can get away with
1 2 3 4
3 In todayrsquos world I feel justified in doing anything I can get away with to succeed
1 2 3 4
4 My main purpose in life is getting as many goodies as I can
1 2 3 4
5 Making a lot of money is my most important goal
1 2 3 4
6 I let others worry about higher values my main concern is with the bottom line
1 2 3 4
7 People who are stupid enough to get ripped off usually deserve it
1 2 3 4
8 Looking out for myself is my top priority
1 2 3 4
9 I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do
1 2 3 4
10 I would be upset if my success came at someone elsersquos expense
1 2 3 4
115
Appendix C (LPSP Continued)
ITEM Disagree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Agree Strongly
11 I often admire a really clever scam 1 2 3 4
12 I make a point of trying not to hurt others in pursuit of my goals
1 2 3 4
13 I enjoy manipulating other peoplersquos feelings
1 2 3 4
14 I feel bad if my words or actions cause someone else to feel emotional pain
1 2 3 4
15 Even if I were trying very hard to sell something I wouldnrsquot lie about it
1 2 3 4
16 Cheating is not justified because it is unfair to others
1 2 3 4
17 I find myself in the same kinds of trouble time after time
1 2 3 4
18 I am often bored 1 2 3 4
19 I find that I am able to pursue one goal for a long time
1 2 3 4
20 I donrsquot plan anything very far in advance
1 2 3 4
21 I quickly lose interest in tasks I start 1 2 3 4
22 Most of my problems are due to the fact that other people just donrsquot understand me
1 2 3 4
23 Before I do anything I carefully consider the possible consequences
1 2 3 4
24 I have been in a lot of shouting matches with other people
1 2 3 4
25 When I get frustrated I often let off steam by blowing my top
1 2 3 4
26 Love is overrated 1 2 3 4
116
Appendix D
PPI-R SF
This test measures different personality characteristics ndash that is the ways in which peoplersquos personality styles make them different from each other Read each statement carefully and decide how false or true it is as a description of you Then mark the best choice by circling the number that corresponds to your answer Use the answer choices provided below 1 = False 2 = Mostly False 3 = Mostly True 4 = True Even if you feel that an item is neither false nor true as applied to you or if you are unsure about what response to make please answer all of the items If you cannot make up your mind about an item select the choice that is closest to your opinion Here is a sample item
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True
I enjoy going to the movies 1 2 3 4 If it is true that you enjoy going to the movies circle the 4 to the right of the question as shown below
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True
I enjoy going to the movies 1 2 3
If it is mostly false that you enjoy going to the movies you would circle the 2 to the right of the item and so on Try to be as honest as you can and be sure to give your own opinion about whether each item is false or true about you Now please begin by circling the response next to the item that best represents your opinion about yourself
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 1 Dangerous activities like skydiving scare me more than they do most people
1
2
3
4
2 I have always seen myself as something of a rebel
1
2
3
4
3 I am easily flustered in pressured situations
1
2
3
4
4 I would find the job of a movie stunt person exciting
1
2
3
4
4
117
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 5 I might like to hang out with people who drift from city to city with no permanent home
1
2
3
4
6 A lot of people have tried to ldquostab me in the backrdquo
1
2
3
4
7 I get mad if I donrsquot receive special favors I deserve
1
2
3
4
8 I am hardly ever the center of attention
1
2
3
4
9 It might be exciting to be on a plane that was about to crash but somehow landed safely
1
2
3
4
10 A lot of times I worry when a friend is having personal problems
1
2
3
4
11 I tend to get crabby and irritable when I have too many things to do
1
2
3
4
12 I get mad when I hear about the injustices in the world
1
2
3
4
13 I donrsquot let everyday hassles get on my nerves
1
2
3
4
14 I could be a good con artist
1
2
3
4
15 I have a talent for getting people to talk to me
1
2
3
4
16 I might like to travel around the country with some motorcyclists and cause trouble
1
2
3
4
17 In conversations Irsquom the one who does most of the talking
1
2
3
4
18 I feel sure of myself when Im around other people
1
2
3
4
19 Parachute jumping would really scare me
1
2
3
4
118
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 20 When people lend me something I try to get it back to them quickly
1
2
3
4
21 I like to stand out in a crowd
1
2
3
4
22 It would be fun to fly a small airplane by myself
1
2
3
4
23 In school or at work I try to stretch the rules just to see what I can get away with
1
2
3
4
24 Irsquove often been betrayed by people I trusted
1
2
3
4
25 It would break my heart to see a poor or homeless person walking the streets at night
1
2
3
4
26 Some people say that I am a ldquoworry wartrdquo
1
2
3
4
27 It bothers me a lot when I see someone crying
1
2
3
4
28 I get stressed out when Irsquom ldquojugglingrdquo too many tasks
1
2
3
4
29 Itrsquos easy for me to go up to a stranger and introduce myself
1
2
3
4
30 I donrsquot care about following the ldquorulesrdquo I make up my own rules as I go along
1
2
3
4
31 Irsquove been the victim of a lot of bad luck
1
2
3
4
32 Im hardly ever the life of the party
1
2
3
4
33 Irsquove thought a lot about my long-term career goals
1
2
3
4
34 Some people have gone out of their way to make my life difficult
1
2
3
4
119
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 35 I sometimes lie just to see if I can get someone to believe me
1
2
3
4
36 I like my life to be unpredictable and surprising
1
2
3
4
37 I get very upset when I see photographs of starving people
1
2
3
4
38 I might like flying across the ocean in a hot-air balloon
1
2
3
4
39 I worry about things even when therersquos no reason to
1
2
3
4
40 When I am doing something important like taking a test or doing my taxes I check it over first
1
2
3
4
41 People I thought were my ldquofriendsrdquo have gotten me into trouble
1
2
3
4
42 I think long and hard before I make big decisions
1
2
3
4
43 I tell people only the part of the truth they want to hear
1
2
3
4
44 I get blamed for many things that arenrsquot my fault
1
2
3
4
45 I feel bad about myself after I tell a lie
1
2
3
4
46 I quickly get annoyed with people who do not give me what I want
1
2
3
4
47 I would like to have a wild hairstyle
1
2
3
4
48 Irsquom the kind of person who gets ldquostressed outrdquo pretty easily
1
2
3
4
49 I usually think about what Irsquom going to say before I say it
1
2
3
4
120
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 50 Some people have made up stories about me to get me in trouble
1
2
3
4
51 I watch my finances closely
1
2
3
4
52 I am a daredevil
1
2
3
4
53 I would like to hitchhike across the country with no plans
1
2
3
4
54 I try to use my best manners when Irsquom around other people
1
2
3
4
55 I often place my friendsrsquo needs above my own
1
2
3
4
56 If I canrsquot change the rules I try to get others to bend them for me
1
2
3
4
121
Appendix E
MACH Scale (IV)
Below are twenty statements Please read each one and consider your level of agreement Rate each statement using the following scale and record your answers by circling the answer next to each statement that is most representative of how you feel 1 Strongly Agree ndash I agree completely with this statement 2 Somewhat Agree ndash I agree with this statement but not entirely 3 No Opinion ndash I have no opinion about this statement 4 Somewhat Disagree ndash I disagree with this statement but not entirely 5 Strongly Disagree ndash I disagree completely with this statement
Item Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
No Opinion
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1) The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear
1 2 3 4 5
2) When you ask someone to do something for youyou it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which might carry more weight
1 2 3 4 5
3) Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble
1 2 3 4 5
4) It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there
1 2 3 4 5
5) Honesty is the best policy in all cases 1 2 3 4 5
6) Itrsquos safe to assume that all people have a vicious streak that will come out when they are given a chance
1 2 3 4 5
7) Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so
1 2 3 4 5
8) One should take action only when sure it is morally right
1 2 3 4 5
9) It is wise to flatter important people 1 2 3 4 5
122
Appendix E ( MACH-IV Continued)
Item Strongly
Agree Somewhat
Agree No
Opinion Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
10) All in all it is better to be humble and honest than important and dishonest
1 2 3 4 5
11) Barnum was very wrong when he said therersquos a sucker born every minute
1 2 3 4 5
12) People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death
1 2 3 4 5
13) It is possible to be good in all respects 1 2 3 4 5
14) Most people are basically good and kind 1 2 3 4 5
15) There is no excuse for lying to someone else
1 2 3 4 5
16) Most men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their property
1 2 3 4 5
17) Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean moral lives
1 2 3 4 5
18) Generally speaking men wonrsquot work hard unless they are forced to do so
1 2 3 4 5
19) The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught
1 2 3 4 5
20) Most men are brave 1 2 3 4 5
123
Appendix F
Informed Consent Form
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Form for Research Involving Human Subjects
Protocol Title Personality effects on reaction time
Principal Investigator Ashley Murray BA
UTEP Psychology
Introduction
You are being asked to take part voluntarily in the research project described below Before agreeing to take part in this research study it is important that you read the consent form that describes the study Please ask the study researcher or the study staff to explain any words or information that you do not clearly understand
Why is this study being done
You have been asked to take part in a research study looking at how certain personality types differ on reaction times You will be asked to complete 3 separate personality surveys and a reaction time measure Approximately 150 students will be participating in this study at UTEP You are being asked to be in the study because you are currently enrolled as a student at UTEP and are 18 years of age or older
If you decide to enroll in this study your involvement will last approximately an hour and a half
What is involved in the study
If you agree to take part in this study the research team will provide you with a brief demographics form and three personality measures Please fill out all forms and do not skip through the packet Please answer every question to the best of your ability After you have finished answering all of the questions please let the experimenter know You will also be asked
124
to complete a brief peg turning task that measures your physical reaction abilities Your performance on the task will be monitored by the experimenter
What if I want to withdraw or am asked to withdraw from this study
Taking part in this study is voluntary You have the right to choose not to take part in this study If you do not take part in the study there will be no penalty There are no risks or harms related to participating in this study
If you choose to take part you have the right to stop at any time However we encourage you to talk to a member of the research group so that they know why you are leaving the study If there are any new findings during the study that may affect whether you want to continue to take part you will be told about them
Who do I call if I have questions or problems
You may ask any questions you have now If you have questions later you may call Ashley Murray (915-474-5784) or Dr James Wood (915-474-6570)
If you have questions or concerns about your participation as a research subject please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTEP Contact Ms Lola Norton (Institutional Coordinator for Research Review) at (915) 747-7939 or irborsputepedu
What about confidentiality
1 Your part in this study is confidential None of the information will identify you by name All records will be handled only by the research team and will be kept securely locked in a file cabinet when not in use
125
Authorization Statement
I have read each page of this paper about the study (or it was read to me) I know that being in this study is voluntary and I choose to be in this study I know I can stop being in this study without penalty I will get a copy of this consent form now and can get information on results of the study later if I wish
Participant Name Date
Participant Signature Time
Experimenter Signature ___________________________________
126
Post Experimental Informed Consent
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Form for Research Involving Human Subjects
Protocol Title The effects of psychopathy on cognitive dissonance
Principal Investigator Ashley Murray BA
UTEP Psychology
Introduction
The purpose of this research project is to examine how individuals with different personality characteristics react when they are asked to deceive someone else Please ask the study researcher or the study staff to explain any words or information that you do not clearly understand
Why is this study being done
You have been asked to take part in a research study looking at how certain personality types differ on reacting to feelings of guilt You were asked to complete 3 separate personality surveys and an abacus task Approximately 150 students will be participating in this study at UTEP You were recruited to the study because you are currently enrolled as a student at UTEP and are 18 years of age or older
Thank you for participating in this study Your participation as well as the participation of others will help us better understand how different people react when asked to deceive someone else
127
What is involved in the study
During this experiment you were asked to talk with another research participant and tell him or her that the study was enjoyable However you now understand that in reality this person was really just a member of the research team who was pretending to be a research participant Therefore your conversation with him or her did not affect her emotionally or in any other way
The anonymity of your individual responses will be maintained at all times and only group data will be identified and reported
In addition it is very important to the current researchers that you do NOT tell anyone else about what you did here today The integrity of peoplersquos responses is reliant on them not knowing what is about to happen If you tell people ahead of time what to expect their answers and actions will not be accurate and this could negatively affect the outcomes of the study Therefore you will not tell anyone about the details of this experiment or what you did here today
Who do I call if I have questions or problems
You may ask any questions you have now If you have questions later you may call or Ashley Murray (915-474-5784) or Dr James Wood (915-474-6570)
If you have questions or concerns about your participation as a research subject please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTEP Contact Ms Lola Norton (Institutional Coordinator for Research Review) at (915) 747-7939 or irborsputepedu
What about confidentiality
Your part in this study is confidential None of the information will identify you by name All records will be handled only by the research team and will be kept securely locked in a file cabinet when not in use
128
Authorization Statement
I have read each page of this paper about the study (or it was read to me) I know that being in this study is voluntary and I chose to be in this study I know I can stop being in this study without penalty
In addition it is very important that I do NOT tell anyone else about what I did here today The integrity of future participantsrsquo responses depends on them not knowing what is about to happen in this experiment Therefore I agree not to share with my friends or classmates (especially friends or classmates in my psychology classes) any details about what I did here today
By signing this form I understand that I am giving the experimenter permission to use my data
Participant Name Date
Participant Signature Time
Experimenter Signature __________________________________
129
Appendix G
Debriefing Script
ldquoThank you for participating in this study At this time I want to explain the study to you As
you will recall after completing the task where you moved balls back and forth on an abacus you
were asked to tell the next waiting participant that the task he or she was about to complete would
be enjoyable Your conversation with that waiting participant was actually one of the main points
of the experiment The reason why that conversation was important is because we are interested in
how different personality characteristics affect the way individuals respond to guilt The bigger
purpose of the current experiment is to see what personality characteristics make some people feel
guilt while other people do not experience guilt The way that we tried to create guilt today was by
having you tell the next waiting participant that they would enjoy the abacus task Studying guilt
reactions is important to psychology research because it can help us identify the cognitive
processes that people with differing personality characteristics use when they experience guilt
This is an important aspect of human behavior to study and we apologize that in order to examine
guilt reactions we had to mislead you briefly today
At this time we would like to explain that the person you spoke to and told that the abacus task
was going to be enjoyable was actually my research assistant and was only pretending to be a
future participant He (she) was not affected in any negative way by what you said to him (her)
and did not have to perform the peg turning task It was necessary that you think that my research
assistant was a future participant in the study so that your reactions would be genuine for the study
to get honest and accurate results
You should not feel bad for agreeing to tell my assistant that the task would be fun
Psychologists have been doing this kind of experiment for 50 years and nearly everyone agrees to
130
say that the experiment is more enjoyable than it really is You reacted in the same way that the
majority of participants in these kinds of experiments do
Again I would like to remind you that all of your answers and everything you did here today
for this experiment will remain confidential and anonymous Only I and my small research team
will have access to the data collected here today and you are not identified in any way in the data
collected
If you do feel upset or uneasy about your participation in this experiment you can talk to my
mentor Dr James Wood or you can contact the UTEP Counseling Center and I will provide that
contact information to you Do you feel a need to talk with Dr Wood or someone at the counseling
center about this
Finally it is EXTREMELY important that other students do not find out about the purpose of
this experiment If they do we will not be able to run this research anymore Students must come
into our lab with no idea about what the study is actually about Please do not speak to any other
students about this study especially psychology students We will be running this study for about a
year so please do not talk other students about this experiment
Do you understand everything I have said to you Do you have any questions
Again thank you for participating in this study todayrdquo
131
Appendix G
No-Lie Debriefing Script
ldquoThank you for participating in this study At this time I want to explain the study to you As
you will recall after completing the task where you moved balls back and forth on an abacus you
were asked to tell the next waiting participant that the task he or she was about to complete would
be enjoyable Your conversation with that waiting participant was actually one of the main points
of the experiment The reason why that conversation was important is because we are interested in
how different personality characteristics affect the way individuals respond to guilt The bigger
purpose of the current experiment is to see what personality characteristics make some people feel
guilt while other people do not experience guilt The way that we tried to create guilt today was by
having you tell the next waiting participant that they would enjoy the abacus task Studying guilt
reactions is important to psychology research because it can help us identify the cognitive
processes that people with differing personality characteristics use when they experience guilt
This is an important aspect of human behavior to study and we apologize that in order to examine
guilt reactions we had to mislead you briefly today
At this time we would like to explain that the person who acted as the waiting participant was
actually my research assistant and was only pretending to be a future participant He (she) was not
going to be affected in any negative way by what you said to him (her) and did not have to
perform the abacus task It was necessary that you think that my research assistant was a future
participant in the study so that your reactions would be genuine for the study to get honest and
accurate results
Again I would like to remind you that all of your answers and everything you did here today
for this experiment will remain confidential and anonymous Only I and my small research team
132
will have access to the data collected here today and you are not identified in any way in the data
collected
If you do feel upset or uneasy about your participation in this experiment you can talk to my
mentor Dr James Wood or you can contact the UTEP Counseling Center and I will provide that
contact information to you Do you feel a need to talk with Dr Wood or someone at the counseling
center about this
Finally it is EXTREMELY important that other students do not find out about the purpose of
this experiment If they do we will not be able to run this research anymore Students must come
into our lab with no idea about what the study is actually about Please do not speak to any other
students about this study especially psychology students We will be running this study for about a
year so please do not talk other students about this experiment
Do you understand everything I have said to you Do you have any questionsrdquo
Again thank you for participating in this study today
133
Appendix H
Confederate Guilt Manipulation Check Form
I ___________________________ who acted as a confederate for the current study verify that
The participant told me that the task would be fun enjoyable
The participant told me that the task would be fun enjoyable BUT also told me they had to tell me it was enjoyable
The participant told me that the task would be boring
The participant told me about the task BUT did NOT tell me it would be fun enjoyable
The participant did not tell me anything about the experiment
The participant did not talk to me at all
The participant told me that the task would be fun BUT only after being prompted by me
Participant _________
134
Curriculum Vita
Ashley Anne Murray daughter of Scott and Greta Murray was born in Denver CO She
was raised throughout Texas and Montana and in 2006 graduated with High Honors from the
University of Montana with a BA in psychology (research emphasis) While pursuing her
undergraduate degree she was awarded the Kain-McKay Scholarship in recognition of her
achievements in the field of psychology and was in the Phi Kappa Phi Honors Society She also
was employed at the campus Student Assault Resource Center where she provided counseling
and assessments for survivors of domestic violence and rape Upon completion of her BA
Ashley was accepted to the Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology Program at The University of
Texas at El Paso During her graduate studies at UTEP she completed a 350 hour clinical
internship with the PATH Program of The Aliviane Organization at the Opportunity Center of El
Paso Homeless Shelter Through the internship she provided assessments therapy and group
facilitation to homeless individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse
disorders Throughout her graduate studies Ashley worked on multiple projects in two clinical
labs and has worked on manuscripts and presented several posters at national psychology
conferences At UTEP she has worked as a teaching assistant and instructor in the psychology
department She will be going on to obtain her clinical PhD at Simon Fraser University in the
fall of 2009
Permanent Address 2810 Palm Dr
Billings MT 59102
- University of Texas at El Paso
- DigitalCommonsUTEP
-
- 2009-01-01
-
- The effects of psychopathy and Machiavellianism on cognitive dissonance
-
- Ashley Anne Murray
-
- Recommended Citation
-
- Introduction
- Why is this study being done
- Introduction
- Why is this study being done
-
vii
Table of Contents
Dedicationhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipiii
Acknowledgementshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipv
Abstracthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipvi
Table of Contentshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipvii
List of Tableshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipix
List of Figureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellipx
Chapter 1 Introductionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1
11 Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1
12 Justification for the Current Studyrsquos Procedural Designhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip7
13 Cooperrsquos New Look Theory of Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip10
14 Psychopathy Effects on Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12
15 Machiavellianismhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip20
16 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip23
17 Hypotheses of the Present Studyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip29
Chapter 2 Methodshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip32
Chapter 3 Resultshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip41
31 Confirmatory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip44
32 Exploratory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55
Chapter 4 Discussionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76
41 Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effecthelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip76
42 Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip78
43 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonancehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip88
44 Psychopathy Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment (Over MACH)hellip90
viii
45 Additional Exploratory Analyseshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip91
Limitations and Future Directionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip94
Conclusionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip99
Referenceshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip100
Appendix Ahelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip107
Appendix Bhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip110
Appendix Chelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip114
Appendix Dhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip116
Appendix Ehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip121
Appendix Fhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip123
Appendix Ghelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip129
Appendix Hhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip133
Curriculum Vitahelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip134
ix
List of Tables
Table 1 Descriptive Information for the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Predictors and Dependent Variablehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip43 Table 2 Multiple Regression Results Criterion is Self-Reported Enjoyment of the Abacus Tasks Predictors are the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores and Subscales Each Row Represents Results From One Multiple Regressionhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip50 Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (PPI-RSF) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianismhellip54 Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (LPSP) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianismhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip55 Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip56 Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (LPSP)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip57 Table 7 Correlations Between the Total Scores of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measureshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip62 Table 8 Correlations Between the PPI-R SF LPSP MACH-IV Their Factors and Subscales65 Table 9 Multiple Regression Results Criterion is Self-Reported Guilt After Misleading the Confederate Predictors are the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores and Subscales Each Row Represents Results From One Multiple Regressionhelliphelliphelliphelliphellip69 Table 10 Factor Solutions Between PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scorehelliphelliphelliphelliphellip70 Table 11 Factor Loadings of Total Item Factor Analysishelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip72 Table 12 Factor Loadings of the Psychopathy and MACH Measures Subscaleshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip75 Table 13 Interactions of Psychopathy Subscales and Factor Scales with Choice Condition by the Two Factor (Cognitive or Behavioral) Psychopathy Solution Demonstrated by Past Research (Self-Reported Enjoyment as Criterion)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip86
x
List of Figures
Figure 1 Main Effect for Mean Task Enjoyment Across Choice Conditionshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip45 Figure 2 Relationship of PPI-R SF Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 Figure 3 Relationship of PPI-R SF Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 Figure 4 Relationship of LPSP Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49 Figure 5 Relationship of LPSP Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip49 Figure 6 Relationship of MACH-IV Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52 Figure 7 Relationship of MACH-IV Total Scores to Reported Level of Task Enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie Condition Onlyhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip52
1
Chapter 1 Introduction
Psychopathy is a personality construct that has demonstrated negative consequences for
society For example individuals with psychopathy are overrepresented in prison populations
and commit more violent crimes (Hare 1996) Though psychopathy is represented in
approximately one to five percent of the population it is represented in 15-25 of prison
populations (Hare 1996) To date there is no identifiable treatment for psychopathy and no
definitive understanding of the causes or etiology of this construct Therefore it is important to
identify the specific pervasive and maladaptive cognitive aspects of psychopathy in order to
better treat and assess this personality construct One of the first steps in this process is to
identify how individuals with psychopathy differ cognitively and emotionally from people who
lack these traits The current study intends to identify a significant difference between
individuals with higher and lower levels of psychopathy in regard to how they experience
cognitive dissonance and more specifically guilt
11 Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a well researched psychological phenomenon that is defined as
the tendency to change a previously held belief or moral to justify a behavior the person is asked
to perform (Festinger 1957) The key feature of cognitive dissonance that seems to cause
individuals to change their cognitions following a dissonant action or thought is a feeling of
unease (tension) that immediately follows the performance of the behavior Therefore it is
theorized that people alter their beliefs in order to reduce the unpleasant feelings that arise due to
the inconsistency among their cognitions and actions (Aronson 1968 Festinger 1957 Harmon-
Jones amp Mills 1999) Cognitive dissonance involves complex cognitive restructuring and for
this reason the attitude change that results is often pervasive (Smith amp Mackie 2000) This
2
phenomenon has been consistently demonstrated in research and is considered a universal pattern
of behavior across individuals
The theory of cognitive dissonance was originally proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957
He found that when people have little or no external justification for performing a behavior that
goes against their personally held beliefs they will often change their preexisting beliefs to
match the action For example in a landmark study of cognitive dissonance Festinger and
Carlsmith (1959) asked participants to perform a boring task (turning pegs on a board) and then
asked them to tell the next participant (a confederate) that the task would be enjoyable for either
a $1 or $20 compensation The authors found that participants who were paid the smaller amount
($1) and thus had very little external justification for lying to the confederate later reported to
the experimenter that they enjoyed the hour-long peg turning task much more that the
participants who were paid $20 Festinger and Carlsmith surmised that the results of this study
demonstrated that the participants who were paid $20 to mislead a confederate had a high
enough external justification for lying and did not experience sufficient psychological tension
over the discrepancy between their cognitions and behaviors to warrant an attitude shift
However participants who were only paid $1 to mislead the confederate experienced higher
levels of psychological unease over the lie because of the insignificant amount of external
justification and thus had to rely on attitude shift to ameliorate their negative feelings
Cognitive dissonance research defines peoplersquos actions and beliefs as either consonant or
dissonant with one another Consonant cognitions are thoughts that are in accordance with a
personrsquos other thoughts or behaviors (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) For example if a person
felt concern about the environment and decided to volunteer every Saturday to pick up litter on
the highway he would have consonant cognitions and behaviors (they match) On the other
3
hand if two cognitions are not relevant to one another or a thought does not match onersquos
behavior they are said to be dissonant and create inner turmoil within the person which then
motivates the individual to reduce the dissonance An example of this would be if a person was
raised to believe that stealing was wrong and then stole petty merchandise Once this dissonant
action is performed the individual must then find a way to reduce the internal unease that the
behavior created
According to Smith and Mackie (2000) in order for cognitive dissonance to arise and
create an attitude shift four conditions must be met First the individual must perceive his or her
behavior to be inconsistent with what he or she would normally be inclined to do Next the
person must take responsibility for freely engaging in the behavior In order for this condition to
be met the amount of external justification must be reduced or eliminated (ie no reward or
punishment for completing the task) Third negative physiological arousal needs to take place
for the individual to want to change the way they feel Finally the individual must attribute the
negative arousal to the action that he or she has just committed (Smith amp Mackie 2000)
People reduce dissonance in many ways (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Examples of
how people reduce dissonance include a) attempts to remove the dissonant cognition (ie a
smoker would try to stop thinking about the negative aspects of smoking on health) b) reduce
the importance of the dissonant cognition (ie a smoker placing higher importance on being
more likely to die in a car accident than by smoking) c) increasing the importance of consonant
cognitions over dissonant ones (ie smoking is enjoyable and makes me feel relaxed which is
important to me) (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) As one can see all of these methods of
reducing dissonance involve focusing onersquos thoughts and emotions away from the dissonant
cognition (ie smoking is bad for me)
4
Cognitive Dissonance Psychological Tension and Physiological Arousal
Conceptually Festinger (1957) theorized that cognitive dissonance contains ldquodrive-likerdquo
properties that manifest as psychological tension and unease and that the psychological unease
can also manifest as physical tensions Once a person experiences the psychological and physical
unease then often an attitude shift occurs that alleviates the tensions An example that lends
support for this theory that physiological arousal precedes cognitive dissonance came from a
study conducted by Zanna and Cooper (1974) The researchers wanted to identify the physical
arousal properties associated with cognitive dissonance Zanna and Cooper gave participants a
placebo pill and told 13 of them that the pill made people feel tense 13 that the pill caused
relaxation and the final 13 that the pill had no effect Next the authors instructed participants
(under the guise of a different experiment) to write a counterattitudinal essay advocating a
campus ban of inflammatory speakers under high or low perceived choice Participants in the
low perceived choice condition were directly instructed to write the counterattitudinal essay
whereas people in the high perceived choice group were politely asked to write the essay giving
them the choice to perform the dissonant action which is a key factor in eliciting the tension
associated with cognitive dissonance The dependent measure of this study was the amount of
attitude shift participants reported experiencing on a post experimental questionnaire
Participants were given a questionnaire before the study began that assessed their preference for
adopting a campus ban on inflammatory speakers and only participants who opposed the ban
were included in the study The questionnaire asked participants to identify on a 31 point Likert
scale how much they were in favor of a campus ban on inflammatory speakers After the essay
writing manipulation portion of the experiment (where participants under high and low perceived
choice wrote a pro-ban essay) their opinion of the campus ban was again assessed with the same
5
31 point Likert scale In addition the effectiveness of the choice manipulation was assessed on
the post experimental questionnaire with the question ldquoHow free did you feel to decline to
participate in this Ivy League Administrators research projectrdquo
In the study by Zanna and Cooper (1974) an attitude shift (between the pre and post
experimental questionnaires) toward favoring the speaker ban was the expected results for the
control and relaxation inducing pill groups The authors anticipated this attitude shift due to the
previous research of Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) They hypothesized that if participants had
no external justification for feeling negatively about writing a pro-ban essay when they
previously had spoken against the ban then they must change their cognitions as previously
suggested by Festinger (1957) in his cognitive dissonance theory In accordance with Zanna and
Cooperrsquos hypotheses results indicated that the individuals who were in the tension-inducing pill
group reported significantly lower attitude shift because they were able to attribute their
tenseness and negative feelings about performing the dissonant actions to the pill rather than to
their internal turmoil On the other hand participants in the relaxation pill group evidenced the
opposite reaction these individuals experienced more attitude shift after writing the
counterattitudinal essay due to their inability to attribute their tense feelings to an external source
(the pill) In other words the people in the relaxation pill group were unable to locate an external
source that explained their feelings of unease and thus had to rely on attitude shift to ameliorate
the tension they felt over the discrepancy between their beliefs and actions
Zanna and Cooper (1974) also found that choice had an impact on attitude shift such that
participants in the high perceived choice group evidenced more attitude shift than participants in
the low perceived choice group This finding further demonstrates the need for external
justification to avoid attitude shift participants who were given the choice to write the
6
counterattitudinal essay experienced more tension than the participants who were directly told to
write the essay because of the perceived free will they exercised in writing the statements that
went against their beliefs Thus it appears that attitude shift is most likely to occur when
individuals feel they freely chose to engage in the behavior and did not have any form of external
justification for performing the dissonant action
Cognitive Dissonance and the Induced Compliance Paradigm
Within the dissonance literature several paradigms have been used to elicit attitude shift
in participants (Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Of these paradigms the most common is the
induced compliance paradigm (ICP) which is used in the current study The induced compliance
paradigm typically requires participants to perform an undesirable task which arouses dissonance
once performed The key to this paradigm is to induce the participant to engage in an activity
that due to personal predispositions he or she would not ordinarily engage in In addition there
must be low or nonexistent external justification to carry out the negative behavior The absence
of external justification is important because otherwise if external rewards or punishments for
the activity are present the participant will use them to rationalize their actions and dissonance
will not be aroused In the ICP attitude shift is expected to occur when the participant is induced
to perform a counterattitudinal behavior in the absence of external justification
Counterattitudinal behaviors are any that involve doing or saying something that one does
not agree with or would not normally advocate Examples used in cognitive dissonance studies
include writing counterattitudinal essays that have may have negative consequences for other
people (Elkin amp Leippe 1986 Steele amp Liu 1983) or lying to someone about a task being
enjoyable when it was not (Cooper amp Worchel 1970 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959) Within the
ICP participants are provoked by a researcher to perform the counterattitudinal behavior through
7
the manipulation of the participantrsquos amount of choice or reward For example the peg turning
cognitive dissonance study previously mentioned (conducted by Festinger and Carlsmith in
1959) was the first study to use the ICP and reward manipulation (through the use of $1 or $20
to mislead the confederate) was used to induce cognitive dissonance effects These researchers
found that if a person publically behaves in a manner that misrepresents his personal beliefs he
will experience cognitive dissonance and that the magnitude of the dissonance will increase
when there are fewer reasons for complying (such as less reward or more perceived free choice)
A famous study by Linder Cooper and Jones (1967) demonstrated that choice
manipulation within the ICP can induce cognitive dissonance and thus attitude shift
Linder and colleagues asked participants to write an essay (using either high or low perceived
choice manipulation) supporting the ban of Communist speakers at their institution knowing that
the majority of students did not support this ban Participants were screened to make sure that
they did not agree with the ban and then were either directly instructed to write the supportive
essay (the Low perceived choice group) or asked politely to write the pro-ban essay (High
perceived choice group) Results indicated that participants in the high perceived choice group
experienced more attitude shift after completion of the essay toward being in favor of a
Communist speaker campus ban than people in the low perceived choice group Linder and
colleagues interpreted these results as evidence that when people perceive that they have free
will to engage in a dissonant action they cognitively justify their actions (via an attitude or belief
shift) to reduce the negative feelings the dissonant action produced
12 Justification for the Current Studyrsquos Procedural Design
The procedures outlined for the current study were selected due to the significant attitude
shift results that were obtained by using these tasks in two previous experiments First Festinger
and Carlsmith (1959) implemented the peg board task in their original study on cognitive
8
dissonance Participants in the study were required to turn the pegs for one hour and then lie to
the next participant (a confederate) about the task being enjoyable The primary difference
between the Festinger and Carlsmith study and the current proposal is that the former paid
participants either $1 or $20 in order to identify what amount of external justification would lead
to more attitude shift The authors found that the participants in the $20 group had much less
attitude shift about the task because they were able to use the external justification of lying for
$20 whereas participants in the $1 group evidenced significantly more attitude shift due to the
lack of any external justification for lying The authors surmised that $1 was not enough money
to justify lying for participants so they instead had to change their own cognitions to make sense
of their actions (lying to a stranger) thus they convinced themselves that the abacus task wan not
boring
A second important study used a boring task while asking participants to lie to a
confederate Cooper and Worchel (1970) replicated the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study
but rather than using money as the external justification for lying they used small amounts of
experimental credit (1 extra credit vs 5 extra credit) to induce attitude shift However
regardless of the amount of extra credit the authors offered 98 of participants agreed to the
deception task which indicates that the script the experimenters used was effective in inducing
participantsrsquo compliance to lie The current experiment is using the Experimenter and
Confederate Scripts from the study by Cooper and Worchel with only a few minor modifications
to the original scripts For example the Cooper and Worchel study only manipulated a High
perceived choice group so their script was altered slightly in the present study so that it could
also be used for the Low perceived choice group
9
Justification for using the high perceived choice condition to elicit attitude shift comes
from an experiment conducted by Zanna Goethals amp Cooper (1975) Their study implemented
the peg board task and asked participants to lie to a confederate that the task was enjoyable (they
only used the high perceived choice condition to elicit guilt) The study had participants do the
peg turning task for 20 minutes (as opposed to the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study which
required participants to do the task for one hour) Through asking participants to voluntarily
deceive the next participant the authors found that all participants (n=76) agreed to tell the next
participant (really a confederate) that the peg turning task was enjoyable They obtained this
100 compliance rate simply by asking the participant to tell the next person (a confederate) that
the peg turning task was enjoyable The study by Zanna and colleagues also provides support
that conducting the peg turning task for only 20 minutes still induces sufficient boredom in
participants In addition the study found a significant attitude shift toward reporting enjoying a
dull task when voluntarily lying to a confederate (F = 848 plt001) as compared to a control
group who did not have to lie
Finally a study by Elkin and Leippe (1986) used both high and low perceived choice
groups to examine different rates of attitude shift toward a previously counterattitudinal belief
(supporting the implementation of a student parking fee) In the high perceived choice group
participants were given the option to write a counterattitudinal essay (supporting the parking
fee) while in the low perceived choice group participants were told directly to write the
counterattitudinal essay Participantrsquos feeling of guilt was manipulated by telling them that the
counterattitudinal essay they wrote would be used by a panel and may possibly persuade them to
implement the parking fee on the campus Results indicated that all subjects participated in
writing the counterattitudinal essay (100 compliance rates) regardless of what group they were
10
in and subjects in the high perceived choice group evidenced more attitude shift towards paying
for parking than participants in the low perceived choice group The authors concluded that this
attitude shift occurred due to the participantsrsquo lack of external justification for writing the
counterattitudinal essay (they agreed voluntarily to write it) which in turn caused feelings of
guilt for voluntarily lying to the confederate These results indicate that people are apt to perform
counterattitudinal behaviors even when given a high perceived choice not to Due to the studyrsquos
significant attitude shift (cognitive dissonance) results in the High perceived choice group as
opposed to the Low perceived choice group who did not get strong attitude shift results the
current study will compare high and low perceived choice groups to attain the different levels of
cognitive dissonance
Upon discovering the links between free choice and reward leading to attitude shift when
a dissonant act is completed cognitive dissonance researchers attempted to identify specific
components of decision making that would further explain the effects of cognitive dissonance
The key features that have been postulated to explain how and why cognitive dissonance creates
attitude shift include experiencing feelings of personal guilt (Cooper amp Fazio 1984) public
commitment (Aronson 1968) and perceived free choice to commit the behavior (Brehm amp
Cohen 1962) Researchers have come up with competing theories to explain the resulting
cognitive shift that accompanies dissonance and one of the most prominent theories is the New
Look theory
13 Cooperrsquos New Look Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
The New Look theory posits that the effects of dissonance are a result of feeling
personally responsible for instigating future negative consequences for oneself or more often for
others (Cooper amp Fazio 1984) Cooper and Fazio suggested in this theory that aversive
11
consequences are necessary for the arousal of dissonance The authors defined aversive events as
those that block onersquos self interest or events that the individual would rather avoid due to their
undesirable nature The New Look theory posits that the degree of dissonance aroused in an
individual is dependent on the amount of desire a person has to avoid the negative consequences
Cooper and Fazio term this phenomenon dissonance motivation The New Look theory identifies
the consequence of an action as the cause of the subsequent attitude shift The consequence must
be salient and must cause the individual enough distress to warrant attitude shift
Support for this theory came from a study conducted by Goethals and Cooper (1972)
These researchers induced participants (known to be in favor of drinking alcohol) to deliver an
anti-drinking speech to a panel of people Half of the subjects were informed that their speech
convinced the panel that allowing drinking on campus was a bad idea while the other half of
participants were told that the speech they made had no effect on the listeners Results indicated
that only the participants who were led to believe that their speech had a negative effect on the
panel (their speech convinced the panel that drinking was bad) experienced attitude shift toward
being in favor of a drinking ban on campus The participants who were told that they did not
convince the panel did not experience attitude shift toward being against drinking on campus
The authors concluded that unless the participant feels that he negatively impacted another
person then he will not experience enough guilt and dissonance to warrant an attitude shift
Cooper and Worchel (1970) further demonstrated evidence for the New Look theory in
their experiment which replicated the Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) peg turning task However
in their study participants were asked to deceive a confederate (only a high perceived choice
group) for a small amount of experimental credit (1 credit or 5 credits) Results indicated that
participants who felt they had the free will to deceive another person and did so experienced
12
such a negative consequence that in order to alleviate feelings of internal unease they changed
their own attitude and reported enjoying the peg turning task more than a control group who did
not have to lie to another person (who experienced no aversive consequence to their behavior)
Therefore Cooper in his New Look theory postulated that most people experience cognitive
dissonance following an aversive act that impacts another person or the self negatively
especially when the negative act violates normative social standards (Cooper 1999)
The aforementioned aspects of Cooperrsquos New Look theory are crucial to the current study
because we hypothesized that the average person will experience cognitive dissonance and thus
attitude change after committing an aversive act (lying to a confederate) which they felt they
freely chose to do The current experiment intended to explore Cooperrsquos New Look theory to not
only validate it in a normal population but also to test its effectiveness in a subpopulation that
experiences lower levels of guilt and remorse The current experiment intended to explore
Cooperrsquos New Look theory to not only validate it in a normal population but also to test its
effectiveness in a subpopulation that experiences lower levels of guilt and remorse If the theory
is correct that cognitive dissonance effects are due to feelings of tension or unease over having
caused negative consequences to another individual then it is the hypothesis of the current
researchers that individuals who felt less guilt over breaking social norms would not be as
cognitively affected by lying to another person Therefore the person with less ability to
experience guilt would not experience psychological distress from lying and ultimately therefore
not have an attitude shift
14 Psychopathy Effects on Cognitive Dissonance
The New Look theory proposes that an important cause of cognitive dissonance is often
the feeling of remorse that an individual experiences after performing a counterattitudinal
13
behavior with negative consequences for another person The questions naturally arise How
would individuals with little or no guilt perform on a cognitive dissonance task that arouses
guilt Would people lacking these cognitive reactions experience cognitive dissonance and
attitude shift following a dissonant action In order to answer these questions one must first
identify a group of people that consistently exhibit a lack of concern for others such as
individuals with psychopathic traits
Psychopathy is a pervasive heterogeneous personality construct that is particularly salient
for the current study due to the callous nature of individuals with these traits Psychopaths are
individuals who exhibit no remorse are callous unemotional and lack concern for societyrsquos
morays In addition they are often impulsive antisocial manipulative and do not have strong
social bonds with others (Hare 1993 Patrick 2006) Approximately one percent of the
population meets criteria for the diagnosis of psychopathy though 15-25 of the prison
population is diagnosed with psychopathy (Hare 1996) Within the criminal population
individuals with psychopathy are not only overrepresented but they also commit more violent
crimes (over half in the United States) and recidivate four times more often than prisoners
without psychopathy (Hare 1993) As one can see these crime statistics make this population a
danger to society and thus it is important to attempt to identify what underlying cognitive and
behavioral differences exist in people with psychopathy
Psychopathy is often discussed in relation to antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) by
many scholars (Hare 1993 Lilienfeld 1994) because of the high number of correlated traits
between the two personality constructs Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) is classified as
an Axis II Cluster B disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV-TR) (American
Psychological Association APA 1994) Cluster B disorders are ones in which the individual
14
exhibits unpredictable impulsive or dramatic behavior The DSM IV-TR criteria necessary for a
diagnosis of ASPD includes impulsive and aggressive behavior conduct disorder (CD) in
childhood a history of criminal acts and violent disregard for others (APA 1994)
Psychopathy is differentiated from ASPD in that psychopathy incorporates the cognitive
and internal states of the individual in addition to his or her external behaviors (Hare 1999) In
fact the cognitive and interpersonal features of psychopathy are considered to be the most
crucial defining aspects of the personality construct (Patrick 2006) Psychopaths have
demonstrated an inability to internalize their culturersquos moral or legal standards and therefore
many people with psychopathy do not abide by these rules
Historically Phillipe Pinel was the first scientist to document the condition of
psychopathy in the early 19th century (Meloy 1998) Pinel noted that psychopaths exhibited no
remorse or internal restraint Hervey Cleckley (1941 1976) furthered research on psychopathy in
his book The Mask of Sanity Cleckley (1976) proposed that psychopathy is a personality
construct which arises in childhood He also was the first to define several cognitive and
affective characteristics of psychopathy such as superficial charm emotional shallowness
deceitfulness egocentricity irresponsibility and (most central for the current study) a lack of
remorse shame or guilt In addition he found that psychopaths often externalize the blame for
their negative actions are extremely impulsive and do not learn from punishment
Within psychopathy research there has been some debate as to whether the construct is
taxonic or dimensional (Hare 1991 Marcus amp Edens 2004) For example the Psychopathy
Checklist Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991) which is one of the prominent ways of assessing
psychopathy assigns individuals with an overall score on a scale from 0 to 40 with a cut off
score of 29 generally indicating the threshold for a psychopathy diagnosis (Hare 1991 Hare amp
15
Neumann 2006) The use of a cut-off seems to suggest a taxonic perspective However use of
the scale indicates that the higher the score the more psychopathic traits an individual expresses
which is also consistent with a dimensional view of psychopathy Recent studies have used the
PCL-R to examine the dimensional aspects of psychopathy and have consistently come to the
conclusion that psychopathy should be viewed as a continuum (Edens Marcus Lilienfeld amp
Poythress 2006 Marcus amp Edens 2004) Aside from looking at psychopathy on a continuum it
is also important to examine the construct from multiple perspectives such as behaviorally and
cognitively
Two Factor Model of Psychopathy
Today a Two Factor Model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991) is one of the
primary models used to evaluate psychopathy (Hare amp Neumann 2006 Harpur Hare amp
Hakstian 1989 Murrie amp Cornell 2002 Rutherford Cacciola amp Alterman 1999) The Two
Factor model assesses both behavioral cues and intrinsic or internal personality traits to define
psychopathy (Chapman Gremore amp Farmer 2003 Hare 1991 Pethman amp Erlandsson 2002)
and is the bases for the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991 Lykken 1995)
which is the principal assessment tool used to identify clinical psychopathy Within the Two
Factor theory the first factor describes the internal disposition of the individual and includes
eight items believed to gauge psychopathy from a cognitive angle These personality traits
include superficial charm a grandiose sense of self worth lack of empathy or guilt pathological
lying and cunning manipulativeness (Hare 1991 Raine 2002) The second factor outlines the
behavioral actions of an individual with psychopathic tendencies and includes nine items used to
assess a psychopathic personality These traits include early problem behaviors poor behavioral
controls and impulsivity (Hare 1991 Rutherford et al 1999) Based on the aforementioned
16
cognitive components of psychopathy the current researchers propose that these individuals will
not experience the same degree of psychological unease from lying to a confederate that the non
psychopathic individuals involved in the study
Primary and Secondary Model of Psychopathy
A second differentiation model of psychopathy was proposed by Karpman (1941 1948)
Karpman following the work of Cleckley divided psychopathy into two subcategories primary
and secondary psychopathy It is important to note that the primary and secondary views of
psychopathy mirror the Two Factor Model of psychopathy proposed by Hare (1991) In both
instances the primary factor (Factor 1) encompasses the cognitive affective traits of
psychopathy while the secondary factor (Factor 2) assesses the more antisocial behavior
characteristics of psychopathy
Individuals with primary psychopathy evidence cognitive manifestations of the construct
such as low to non-existent trait anxiety callousness and a lack of guilt or remorse They tend to
be unresponsive to treatment efforts and often have more severe symptoms associated with
psychopathy (Karpman 1941) For example Karpman (1948) found that primary psychopaths
are more apt to carry out their deceptive and manipulative behavior to reach an end goal
displaying a callous lack of emotion or concern for others whereas secondary psychopaths will
occasionally act with higher human emotions such as empathy
Secondary psychopathy is believed to come about through the effects of environmental
stressors and life events such as severe child physical or sexual abuse (Porter 1996) The
manifestation of secondary psychopathy which has also been called sociopathy (Lykken 1995)
is mostly behavioral in nature and secondary psychopaths tend to carry out the antisocial and
deviant behavior as a reaction to deep emotional conflict or anger rather than a callous
17
disregard for others (Karpman 1941) Overall primary psychopaths seem to have a permanent
deficit in functioning whereas secondary psychopathy encompasses a dysfunction created by
aversive environmental factors However it is important to note that both primary and secondary
psychopaths to some degree evidence manipulative and callous behavior and display a lack of
regard for others (Karpman 1948)
Support for the view that psychopaths lack psychological distress comes in part from a
study conducted by Patrick Bradley and Lang (1993) The researchers attempted to elicit a
startle reflex in psychopaths and non-psychopaths (as diagnosed by the PCL-R) by blasting a
loud noise while having the participants view either pleasant or unpleasant photographs Results
showed that psychopaths exhibited a much smaller startle response to the noise when viewing the
stimuli (both positive and negative pictures) as compared to the non-psychopaths In addition
Patrick and colleagues found a negative correlation between the PCL-R Factor One scores (lack
of guilt lack of remorse etc) and the level of eye-blink reaction Eye blink reactions to the
startle noise were measured with Beckman miniature Ag-AgCl electrodes positioned at the
orbicularis oculi muscle beneath the participantrsquos left eye The authors found that non
psychopathic individualsrsquo eyes tend to blink more frequently than in psychopaths when aversive
stimuli are presented
Therefore these results seem to indicate that individuals with high Factor One traits
seem to evidence very little anxiety and less psychological distress towards aversive stimuli The
results of this study show that individuals higher in psychopathic traits experience less of a
physiological and thus perhaps less of a cognitive reaction to aversive stimuli In addition a
study conducted by Ray and Ray (1982) demonstrated that people high in psychopathy do not
seem to care as much about what others think of them The study found a negative correlation
18
between social desirability (as measured by the Marlow-Crowne social desirability scales) and
psychopathy (r = -32 p = 05) This finding also supports the current studyrsquos hypothesis that
individuals high on psychopathic traits will be less likely than other individuals to experience
psychological unease over lying to a confederate or undergo an attitude shift to diminish this
discomfort
Cognitive dissonance studies have consistently demonstrated that individuals not only
shift their attitude following a dissonant act but also experience physical symptoms of distress as
well For example a study conducted by Croyle and Cooper (1983) found that people have a
heightened skin conductance responses following the ldquovoluntaryrdquo commitment of a writing a
counterattitudinal essay Though no direct cognitive dissonance studies manipulating guilt have
been replicated using psychopaths studies that have used aversive stimuli such as the
anticipation of being blasted with a loud noise (80 to 120dB) have indicated that psychopaths
(compared to non-psychopath controls) evidence a hyporesponsive physical reaction (as
measured by electrodermal measurements) to the aversive stimuli (Hare 1978) Harersquos study
along with others like it (see Fowles 1980 Lykken 1957) indicate that psychopaths do not
seem to experience anxiety at the same level that non-psychopathic individuals do Therefore it
would follow that through the reduced physiological anxiety response identified in individuals
with psychopathy they will be unable to experience the psychological unease associated with the
adverse stimulus (lying to a confederate) and thus not experience an attitude shift
Past Research on Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonance
Only one study has attempted to assess the effect of psychopathy on cognitive
dissonance A doctoral dissertation by Weir (2007) examined cognitive dissonance in a sample
of 150 males from a drug treatment facility All participants had been in prison or jail and had a
19
history of criminal activity Level of psychopathy was assessed using the LPSP Participants at
the start of this study filled out an attitudes measure that assessed their opinions about the
judicial system treatment of criminals and drug abuse Later in the experiment cognitive
dissonance was induced by having participants copy a counterattitudinal statement from a sheet
of paper that dealt with being in favor of harsher punishments for criminals and drug offenders
(views that these men would adamantly oppose) After participants copied the counterattitudinal
statements they were instructed to tear up what they had written At the end of the study Weir
again assessed participantsrsquo attitudes regarding the judicial system treatment of criminals and
drug abuse with the same attitudes measure employed at the very beginning of the study The
pre and post-test use of the attitudes measure was to identify if participantsrsquo opinions had shifted
toward being in favor of harsher punishments for criminals after writing counterattitudinally in
favor of it
Weir hypothesized that primary psychopaths would experience cognitive dissonance
significantly less than individuals with secondary psychopathy or non-psychopathic individuals
because of the callous unemotional traits that are principally associated with primary
psychopathy However results of Weirrsquos study found no significant difference across the three
groups for attitude change following the dissonance inducing task The analysis did find minor
differences between the groups such that primary psychopaths did seem less effected by writing
the counterattitudinal essays than the secondary and non-psychopaths but again the results were
not significant Weir (2007) concluded that individuals with higher levels of primary
psychopathy were deficient but not completely incapable of experiencing dissonance following
an aversive behavior
20
An important confound of Weirrsquos study was the lack of a control group All participants
wrote the counterattitudinal essay so there was not a neutral group to compare the participantsrsquo
attitude shift following the essay copying to Due to the lack of a control group it is impossible to
know whether the experimental manipulation induced a dissonance effect in any of the groups
Though his study did assess cognitive dissonance it is still very different than the current study
because Weir was not using guilt as the catalyst for attitude shift
The current study examines the effect of guilt (or a lack of guilt) on cognitive dissonance
while the counterattitudinal essayrsquos used as the dissonance stimuli in Weirrsquos study did not cause
participants to feel guilt Weir was not manipulating guilt in participants but rather their
cognitive reactions to discrepant behaviors and beliefs (physically writing in favor of something
they cognitively disagreed with) Therefore though relevant to more general issues concerning
cognitive dissonance and psychopathy his study was not directly relevant to the question of
whether guilt-inducing manipulations evoke cognitive dissonance effects among individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy
15 Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism (MACH) is considered to be a similar concept to psychopathy
(McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto 1998 Saruk 1975) Both personality constructs are
characterized by callousness manipulation of others and a disregard for social norms and morals
(Christie amp Geis 1970 Skinner 1988) Based on these shared characteristics many researchers
have come to believe that the concepts may be the same but are just being labeled differently by
different branches of psychology (McHoskey et al 1998) Psychopathy is typically studied by
clinical psychologists whereas MACH has been primarily researched in the fields of social and
personality psychology
21
However other investigators (Wastell amp Booth 2003 Wilson Near amp Miller 1996)
have pointed to MACH as an instrumental construct that is incorporated as a strategic way to
pursue goals MACHs tend to be calculating and rational and engage in ruthless activity to attain
goals that are important to them Psychopaths on the other hand are often much less self-
controlled and more impulsive while exhibiting a dearth of planning abilities This may be one
of the main differences between MACH and psychopathy and this difference seems to point to
cognitive distinctions between the two personality traits
Christie (1970b) formulated the personality construct of MACH based on the writings of
16th century political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli Machiavellirsquos (1513) classic book The
Prince recommended that would-be rulers take a ruthless and cold-blooded approach to
governance Accordingly Christie identified the traits of an individual with high MACH as
using ldquosuccessfulrdquo manipulation for personal gain a lack of concern for moral standards and a
purely instrumental approach to interpersonal relationships The MACH-IV is the principal
measure used to identify Machiavellianism today It was developed in 1970 by Christie and Geis
(1970) and is a self report assessment containing 20 questions that tap the traits of MACH
Research attempting to explore the distinctions between psychopathy and MACH has
found Machiavellians to evidence many shared traits with both primary and secondary
psychopathy For example MACH characteristics related to Factor 1 of the PCL-R and primary
psychopathy (as measured by the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales LPSP
Levenson et al 1995) include callousness manipulation and a lack of anxiety (Smith 1999)
Qualities of Machiavellianism have also been found in secondary psychopathy such as a thrill
seeking behavior and a heightened need for external stimulation (Strelau 1983) In addition a
study conducted by McHoskey and colleagues (1998) found that high scores on the MACH-IV
22
and high scores on the LPSP significantly correlated (r = 62) Smith and Griffith (1978) also
found a significant though modest correlation between the MMPI (Pd) scale and the MACH-IV
(r = 25) using a sample of 66 college students These findings support the theory that MACH
and psychopathy diagnoses have features in common and may in fact be tapping similar
personality constructs McHoskey and colleagues concluded after his study that psychopathy and
MACH should be more integrated in the literature
However other researchers have argued that there are crucial differences between
psychopathy and Machiavellianism For example Smith (1999) has argued that many people
with Machiavellianism are more apt to resemble a ldquosuccessful psychopathrdquo as they tend to not
have as many legal problems as primary psychopaths do and are often overrepresented in the
business industry as successful employees In addition other studies have resulted in smaller
correlations between MACH and psychopathy (see Greenwald 1967 Christie 1970a) For
example Saruk (1975) compared MACH scores with psychopathy scores on the Psychopathic
Deviate (Pd) scale of the MMPI with incarcerated inmates as participants and found no
significant correlation between the two personality constructs However many researchers today
have advised against using the Pd scale of the MMPI to gauge psychopathy due to the unreliable
results this scale has offered when studying psychopathy (Patrick 2006) and MACH (Skinner
1982) in the past
Additional distinctions in the current literature between MACH and psychopathy are that
MACHs tend be more represented in higher SES families and have higher economic standing
than the majority of psychopaths (especially secondary psychopaths) (McHoskey et al 1998
Smith 1999) As a result of the aforementioned literature MACH is most often associated with
ldquosuccessfulrdquo psychopathy or non institutionalized psychopaths (Christie 1970a)
23
16 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonance
Though the literature is very sparse regarding the relationship between psychopathy and
cognitive dissonance a few studies have investigated the relationship between MACH and
cognitive dissonance Four of the studies are relevant to the current proposal due to the way that
the researchers manipulated dissonance arousal One hindrance in comparing the current study to
previous ones on MACH and cognitive dissonance is that at the time these former studies were
conducted Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory of cognitive dissonance arousal had not been
formulated and thus guilt had not been considered as the cause of dissonance arousal at that
point in time
Bogart Geis Levy and Zimbardo (1970) assessed the impact of social cohesiveness
(liking a partner versus not liking a partner) between high and low MACHs in a cognitive
dissonance paradigm Participantsrsquo level of MACH and self-reported level of morality were pre-
assessed using the MACH-IV Next high and low MACHs were enticed to cheat on a test by a
confederate posing as their partner in the experiment The partnerrsquos level of prestige was
manipulated For half of participants the fake partner was presented as a high prestige partner (a
graduate law school student with high grades) and the remaining participants were told that their
partner was of low prestige (an industrial arts undergraduate student with poor grades) Bogart
and colleagues hypothesized that after cheating low MACHs in the low external justification
group (low prestige partners) would decrease their self-reported ratings of morality (identify
themselves as less moral than before) in order to cognitively justify their cheating behavior Each
participant was left alone in a room with their high or low prestige partner to complete a test
containing un-solvable questions After a while the fake partner ldquohappened uponrdquo answers to the
questions on a desk in the room and attempted to get the participant to cheat with him by copying
24
the answers from the found answer sheet After the cheating manipulation the participantrsquos level
of MACH (self-reported morality rating) was assessed again using the MACH-IV
The results of the study concluded that both high and low MACHs succumbed to
cheating at approximately the same rate (50 [1632] of high MACHS and 46 [1328] of low
MACHs) However Bogart and colleagues (1970) found that high MACHs were more
instrumental in their cheating behavior such that they cheated significantly more with the high
prestige partner than with the low prestige partner Low MACHs cheated an equal amount across
low and high prestige partner pairings In addition Bogart and colleagues identified an ldquoanti-
dissonantrdquo effect such that high MACHs actually increased their self-ratings of morality by
reporting that they were more moral after cheating when paired with a low prestige partner (low
external justification condition) whereas low MACHs as predicted decreased their self-ratings
of morality (reported they were less moral) when paired with low prestige partners (low external
justification condition) In other words when high MACHs were in the condition with no
external justification present for their actions and thus would have to rely on changing their
thoughts to match their behaviors they did not undergo this attitude shift rather they seemed to
create more dissonance between their thoughts and actions by reporting themselves as more
moral after cheating with the low prestige partner This is opposite to the classical cognitive
dissonant studies where participants experience an attitude shift that matches their behaviors
when little or no external justification is present to explain their actions
In contrast the classic dissonance effect was exhibited by participants in the Bogart et al
(1970) study with low levels of MACH they reported that they were not moral individuals after
they cheated with a low prestige partner Therefore it appears high MACH individuals are
25
relying on unique aspects of the situation other than external justification to create attitude
change
A very similar experiment was reported by Bogart (1971) in which she again assessed the
effect of MACH on cognitive dissonance by enticing participants cheat on a task with a high or
low prestige partner However in this experiment a control group was employed to assess
differences between high and low MACHs who were asked to cheat as opposed to those who
were not asked to cheat As in the earlier study by Bogart et al (1970) participantsrsquo level of
MACH and self-reported level of morality were pre-assessed Next high and low MACHs were
persuaded to cheat on an essay writing assignment by a confederate posing as their partner in the
experiment The partnerrsquos level of prestige was manipulated this time in four different ways to
include their fake level of MACH as well The four categories of fake participants included High
MACH High Prestige (graduate law student) High MACH Low Prestige (business
administration student) Low MACH High Prestige (physics major) and Low MACH Low
Prestige (industrial arts student) Results indicated that high MACH participants cheated
significantly more than low MACHs (66 of high MACHs versus 41 of low MACHs) and
that they discriminated their cheating significantly more than low MACHs such that high
MACHs cheated more with the high prestige partners than the low prestige partners (81 versus
56) As in the previous study by Bogart et al (1970) an anti-dissonance effect was again found
for High MACH participants such that high MACHs again increased their self-ratings of
morality (reported they were more moral) when in the low external justification condition (paired
with low prestige partners) while low MACHs decreased their self-ratings of morality (reported
they were less moral) when in the low external justification condition (paired with low prestige
partners) This study also pointed to a difference between high and low MACHs experience of
26
cognitive dissonance by identifying the abnormal anti-dissonance reaction from individuals with
higher levels of MACH
A study by Epstein (1969) used a methodology that apparently induced guilt in
participants Epstein examined the difference between high and low MACH participantsrsquo ability
to be persuaded by induced counterattitudinal behavior Epstein pre-assessed participantsrsquo level
of MACH (with the MACH-IV) and through the use of a median split chose a sample of 40 high
MACH men and 40 low MACH men She told them that they were involved in a radio debate on
fluoridating water supplies Epstein also pre-assessed their position on water fluoridation to
make sure all participants were in favor of the procedure Half of the participants were in the
non-role playing condition (20 high MACHs and 20 low MACHs) They were instructed to read
a counterattitudinal essay against fluoridating water in town and then were post-experimentally
assessed about their position on water fluoridation to see if reading the essay had created an
attitude shift in these participants The other half of participants were in the role playing
condition They not only read the counterattitudinal essay but next they were asked to deliver an
impromptu speech against fluoridation that would be recorded and played on radio stations
across the state In the taped speech the participants had to give their name and advocate for a
ban on fluoridation which was dissonant to their personal beliefs After delivering the speech
they too were post-experimentally assessed about their position on water fluoridation to see if
their opinion had changed to be more against fluoridation Results indicated an interaction
between high and low MACHs with the role playing conditions High MACHs in the non-role
playing condition evidenced significantly more attitude change than the high MACHs in the role-
playing condition and more attitude change than the low MACHs in the non-role playing
condition This too is an anti-dissonance effect in that dissonance has been shown to produce
27
attitude change when people perform behaviors that go against their personal beliefs and in the
case of the non-role playing condition the participants did not engage in any dissonant behavior
they simply read a counterattitudinal essay written by someone else Conversely as predicted
low MACHs in the role-playing condition evidenced significantly more attitude change towards
being against fluoridation than high MACHs in the role-playing condition In addition low
MACHs in the role playing condition evidenced the most attitude change out of any condition
The finding that low MACHs experienced the most attitude shift when they had to give a speech
on the radio against fluoridation supports the classic cognitive dissonance phenomenon In
addition the role playing low MACH results potentially relate to our study if their attitudes
shifted because they felt guilt for publically denouncing a belief that they held Epsteinrsquos study is
relevant to the current study due to the methodology she used in the role playing condition
Participants were asked to publically (via a radio broadcast) deliver a speech advocating for
beliefs that they opposed Therefore because delivering a public anti-fluoridation speech would
most likely produce feelings of guilt in participants Epsteinrsquos study provides some support for
the current studyrsquos predicted results
One final study on MACH and cognitive dissonance is loosely related to the current
study although in this final example the experimental methodology did not induce guilt in
participants Burgoon Miller amp Tubbs (1972) had participants write counterattitudinal essays
advocating the removal of college student draft deferments under high and low justification In
the study justification was manipulated with classroom credits participants in the high
justification group received five classroom credits for agreeing to write the counterattitudinal
essay and participants in the low justification group received only one credit for writing the
essay Results indicated a significant interaction between level of justification (high versus low)
28
and level of MACH (high versus low) Low MACH participants experienced attitude shift
toward being in favor of draft deferments when in the low justification group This was
consistent with the classic cognitive dissonance effect When low MACH participants had no
external justification for writing the essay they changed their beliefs to match their actions In
contrast high MACHs experienced attitude shift toward being in favor of the draft deferments
only when in the high justification group but not in the low justification group The authors
explain this relationship by using incentive theory They posit that high MACHs attitudes are
persuaded by rewards which stems from their desire to gain power and prestige (and rewards)
with no regard for other people
Burgoon et al (1972) explained their findings as reflecting high MACHsrsquo lack of
concern about lying or moral standards Christie and Geis (1970) have also discussed the
findings of Burgoon et al and conjectured that they reflect the high MACHrsquos lack of concern for
other people Specifically Christie and Geis suggest that high MACHs view people more as
objects to be manipulated rather than as people with feelings and emotions
The main difference between the current study and that of Burgoon et al (1972) is that
our study assessed cognitive dissonance through the use of guilt induction while their study did
not induce guilt in participants The methodology involved in their experiment was not designed
to create guilt in participants rather it was simply created to examine attitude shift after
performing a counterattitudinal act with no negative consequences Therefore though Burgoon
and colleaguesrsquo study assessed cognitive dissonance effects in participants with MACH it does
not appear directly relevant to the hypothesis underlying the present study
Overall past research has demonstrated that individuals high in MACH are resistant to
the classic cognitive dissonance effects of attitude shift after performing a behavior that they
29
cognitively oppose In fact the past research has shown that individuals with high MACH often
experience attitude shift in the opposite direction or conditions that low MACHs do These
results have been explained as consequences of the underlying personality characteristics that
high MACH individuals possess (callousness manipulative nature and lack of regard for others)
Since these characteristics are also traits of psychopathy (especially primary psychopathy) it is
reasonable to expect that the negative associations demonstrated between MACH and cognitive
dissonance will also be found between psychopathy and cognitive dissonance in the present
study
17 Hypotheses of the Present Study
Cognitive dissonance studies analyzing the affects of MACH have shown a significant
effect such that high MACHs do not evidence the classic attitude shift following the
performance of a dissonant act The current study sought to determine whether individuals with
high psychopathy scores exhibit a similar pattern
In the current study we analyzed guilt-induced cognitive dissonance effects in individuals
with varying levels of psychopathy Participantsrsquo level of psychopathy (and MACH) was
identified by having them fill out two self report measures on psychopathy and one self-report
measure on MACH They completed a boring abacus task that involved manually pushing balls
one at a time across an abacus for 20 minutes After the task the participants were either politely
asked (High perceived choice to lie group) or directly instructed (Low perceived choice to lie
group) to tell a fellow student (actually a confederate) that the abacus task was enjoyable After
misleading the confederate the participants completed a post-experimental questionnaire that
assessed their personal enjoyment of the abacus task and their level of guilt over deceiving
another person
30
First it was hypothesized that the classic cognitive dissonance effect would be replicated
We expected that regardless of psychopathy or MACH level participants in the High Choice to
Lie condition would evidence more attitude shift towards enjoying the abacus task than
participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition These results were expected to be a replication
of the classic Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) study except that instead of manipulating reward
we would demonstrate the effect using choice as the dissonance manipulator
The second hypothesis was that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy (and
MACH) would report disliking the abacus task (as measured by the post experimental
questionnaire) across both the High and Low perceived choice to lie groups We expected these
results due to the lack of guilt commonly found in individuals with higher levels of psychopathy
and MACH Therefore we theorized that individuals with high levels of psychopathy would not
experience guilt even when they felt that they voluntarily (High perceived choice to lie group)
chose to mislead another participant Due to this lack of guilt the high psychopathy (and high
MACH) participant would not have had the attitude shift associated with cognitive dissonance
and would not report enjoying the abacus task
The third hypothesis pertained to the individuals with low or nonexistent levels of
psychopathy and MACH We predicted that participants with low levels of psychopathy would
report enjoying the abacus task more after lying to a future participant only if they were in the
High perceived choice to lie group These results were believed to be due to the guilt inducing
nature of voluntarily agreeing to lie to a person as opposed to the Low perceived choice group
where participants were told directly to lie to the next participant as part of the study
requirements These results were also expected for people who scored low in Machiavellianism
due to the similarities between the two personality constructs
31
The fourth hypothesis was that psychopathy would better account for a demonstrated lack
of guilt than would MACH Though this hypothesis did not have a strong empirically supported
theoretical background we were interested in learning whether the psychopathy construct would
yield different results from MACH suggesting that the psychopathy construct is including
relevant and distinct personality dimensions that the MACH construct does not include
In addition this study explored the relationship between primary and secondary
psychopathy with the level of self reported abacus task enjoyment Specifically the study
examined differences in the reported level of abacus task enjoyment between individuals with
high scores on primary as compared to secondary psychopathy Also the study explored
particular facets of psychopathy (such as callousness) and their relationship to reported
enjoyment of the abacus task
32
Chapter 2 Method
Participants
The current study was conducted with 164 (103 females 61 males) undergraduate
students at the University of Texas El Paso The sample size for the current study was
determined by examining past research on cognitive dissonance effects on MACH These studies
typically included 50 to 80 participants and yielded statistically significant results We
conservatively concluded that the present study should include approximately twice as many
participants as these earlier studies to ensure appropriate power for the current study
Participantsrsquo ages ranged from 18 to 44 years (M =1966 years SD = 317 years) with 823
between the ages of 18 to 20 The ethnicity of the sample was predominately Hispanic (854)
with the remaining participantsrsquo ethnicities Anglo-American (67) African American (18)
Asian (6) and Other (55) Participants were drawn from Introductory Psychology courses at
the University of Texas El Paso and were given 15 experimental credits for their participation
Measures
The Psychopathic Personality InventorymdashRevised Short Form (PPI-R SF Lilienfeld amp
Widows 2005)
The current study used the Psychopathic Personality Inventory ndash Revised Short Form
(PPI-R SF) which is a shortened version of the PPI-R It is a self-report measure of subclinical
psychopathic tendencies The PPI-R SF contains 56 items that are scored using a Likert scale
between 1 and 4 (1=False 2=Mostly False 3=Mostly True 4=True) The PPI-R SF yields one
overall total score and two factor scores (Fearless Dominance [FD] and Self-Centered
Impulsivity [SCI] ) as well as scores on eight content scales (a) Machiavellian Egocentricity
(ME 20 items) (b) Social Influence (SOI previously Social Potency 18 items) (c)
Coldheartedness (C 16 items) (d) Carefree Nonplanfulness (CN 19 items) (e) Fearlessness (F
33
14 items) (f) Blame Externalization (BE 15 items) (g) Rebellious Nonconformity (RN
previously Impulsive Nonconformity 16 items) and (h) Stress Immunity (STI 13 items) The
Fearless Dominance factor includes the Social Influence Fearlessness and Stress Immunity
content scales and the Self Centered Impulsivity factor is comprised of the Machiavellian
Egocentricity Rebellious Nonconformity Carefree Nonplanfulness and Blame Externalization
content scales (the Coldheartedness content scale is part of the overall total but is considered
separate from either of the two summed factors (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger
2003) These factors correspond to the two-factor structure (PPI-I and PPI-2) of the original
version of the PPI which are also similar to the Two Factor Structure of psychopathy proposed
by Hare (1991) in the Psychopathy ChecklistmdashRevised Specifically the Fearless Dominance
factor assesses the cognitive deficits of psychopathy while the Self Centered Impulsivity factor
reviews the antisocial behavior traits of psychopathy
Currently there are no published studies that have analyzed the reliability and validity of
the PPI-R SF but because it is a shortened version of the PPI-R (it is comprised of the 7 highest
loading questions from each of the eight subscales of the PPI-R) the demonstrated psychometric
properties of the PPI and PPI-R are relevant to evaluating the PPI-R SF
Lilienfeld and Andrews (1996) evaluated the convergent and discriminant validities of
the PPI with an undergraduate sample and found evidence of convergent validity with the
California Psychological Inventory Socialization scale (r = -59) Levensonrsquos (1990)
Psychopathy Scale (r = 37) and with the Hare (1985) Self Report Psychopathy ScalemdashRevised
(r = 91) Lilienfeld and Widows (1995) demonstrated internal consistencies for the PPI-R
overall total and content scales to range from α = 78 to α = 92 They also found test-retest
reliabilities (mean test-retest interval = 1994 days) to range from r = 82 to r = 93 The PPI-R
34
has been found to correlate significantly with both the Self-Report Psychopathy ScalendashII (SRP-
II Hare Harpur amp Hemphill 1989) and the LPSP (Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995) as
well as with self-report measures of antisocial personality disorder substance use sensation
seeking and pathological functioning (Lilienfeld amp Widows 2005)
Levensonrsquos Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Scales (LPSP Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick
1995)
The LPSP is a 26-item self report measure that identifies both behavioral and emotional
aspects of psychopathy The measure breaks down into two subscales Primary Psychopathy (16
items) and Secondary Psychopathy (10 items) Each item is scored on a 1 to 4 point Likert Scale
(1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Agree Strongly) Levenson and colleagues
(1995) found that the Primary scale has good internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos alpha = 82) and
that the Secondary scale had marginal internal consistency (Cronbachrsquos alpha = 63) In addition
they found that the two scales correlate moderately (r = 40) Lynam and colleagues (1999)
found convergent validity between the PPI and the LPSP to be moderately high (r= 64)
MACH-IV Scale (Christie amp Geis 1970) The MACH-IV is a 20-item self-report measure that identifies Machiavellianism which
is characterized by being callous manipulative and behaving in a way that only benefits oneself
The items are arranged in a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Very Strongly Agree) to 5 (Very
Strongly Disagree) with 3 being a neutral choice (No Opinion) Internal reliability has been
found to be rather consistent with studies demonstrating moderate alpha coefficients α=74
(Austin Farrelly Black amp Moore 2007) and α=70 (Fehr Samsom amp Paulhus 1992) Christie
and Geis (1970) found split half reliabilities from 69 to 88 Finally Machiavellianism has
35
shown moderate correlations with primary (r = 65 plt001) and secondary psychopathy (r = 49
plt001) as measured by the LPSP (McHoskey et al 1998)
Post-experimental Questionnaire
The post experimental questionnaire was administered after the participant completed the
abacus task and after they misled the confederate in the experiment The questionnaire was
based on the post experimental measure used in the Cooper and Worchel (1970) study on
cognitive dissonance The measure contains eight items that assess how enjoyable the participant
perceived the abacus task how guilty they felt for lying to the confederate and how voluntary
the person felt the deceiving of the confederate was (see Appendix B) The item assessing
participantsrsquo enjoyment of the abacus task was the primary dependent measure of the current
study
The questionnaire was designed so that it appeared to be a survey conducted by the
Psychology Department attempting to analyze how effective all of the departmental research
was The questionnaire was sealed into an envelope by the participant upon completion in order
to create the illusion of the confidentiality of their answers from the experimenter The
questionnaire was designed to appear separate from the current experiment in order to prevent
any biasing of participantsrsquo responses by compliance effects (ie participants answering the way
they perceive the experimenter would want them to answer) The majority of the questions on
this questionnaire were obtained from the Cooper and Worchel post experimental questionnaire
The main adaptation the current study made to the original measure was the use of a 1-7 point
Likert scale to rate responses instead of the 1-31 point Likert scale utilized by Cooper and
Worchel In addition in the present study the last 2 questions on the questionnaire were changed
36
to identify how voluntary the participant found the task to be and if the deceiving of the
confederate elicited feelings of guilt in the participant
Demographics Form
A brief demographics form was presented at the beginning of the packet of psychopathy
and MACH self report measures (Appendix B) It was given before the self-report measures and
assessed participantsrsquo age gender and ethnicity This form took approximately one minute to
complete
Procedure Participants were Introductory Psychology students recruited through an online computer
experiment program provided by the University of Texas at El Paso and were given 15
experimental credits for their involvement in the current study Upon entering the lab the
participant was seated in the hall to wait for the experimenter Meanwhile the experimenter text-
messaged the confederate to let him (or her) know that the participant had arrived Upon
receiving the text message the confederate knew to wait approximately 15 minutes before
entering the lab and acting out their role Next the participant was guided into a room and given
an informed consent form (Appendix F) which was explained to them The form explained the
confidential nature of the study and that the study was about personality traitsrsquo influence on
motor skills and reaction time After the experimenter explained the consent form the participant
read and signed the form
Abacus Task
An abacus task was implemented to induce boredom in participants The task was loosely
modeled on the boring peg turning task used in the Cooper and Worchel (1970) and Festinger
and Carlsmith (1959) experiments on cognitive dissonance In the abacus task a large abacus
37
was placed flat on the table in front of the participant He or she was instructed to move the
wooden balls one at a time across the abacus using only their right hand The participant was
instructed to slide the balls across the abacus one at a time starting at the top row and moving
down the board until they reached the bottom row Once he or she had slid all of the balls (one
at a time) to the right side of the abacus the participant was instructed to start at the top again
and to slide the balls back across the abacus one at a time beginning at the top row and moving
down the abacus until they had reached the bottom row again Participants were told to work at
their own ldquonaturalrdquo pace and to continue sliding balls across the abacus one at a time going row
by row until instructed to stop After 10 minutes the experimenter instructed the participant to
stop and then start the task over with their left hand instead of their right hand During this task
the experimenter was seated directly across from the participant with a clipboard and a stopwatch
and acted as though she was monitoring the participantrsquos progress (eg occasionally writing
notes on the clipboard and appearing to time the participantrsquos progress with the stopwatch)
Approximately 15 minutes into the task a knock was heard on the door and the
confederate came into the room to ask if this was where the experiment was being held The
experimenter looked up and quickly told the confederate that he was in the right place and asked
him to wait in the hall until she was done running the current participant The confederate
apologized for his interruption shut the door behind him and sat in the hall to wait for his
interaction with the participant While waiting in the hall the confederate pretended to be doing
homework or listening to his Ipod to give the illusion that he was just another participant waiting
to do the experiment After the participant had moved the balls across the abacus with his or her
left hand for 10 minutes the experimenter signaled the participant to stop the task The abacus
task lasted 20 minutes 10 minutes per hand
38
Choice Conditions
After the abacus task was completed the experimenter stopped the participant and recited
from memory one of the Post Abacus Task scripts to the participant For half of participants the
experimenter recited from memory the High Perceived Choice to Lie script (see Appendix A)
and the other half of the participants were recited the Low Perceived Choice to Lie script
(Appendix A) The scripts were alternated randomly between participants Following the choice
manipulation portion of the experiment and guilt induction participants were given the post
experimental questionnaire to complete as this was the main dependent measure of the study
High Perceived Choice to Lie Group
In the High Perceived Choice to Lie condition the experimenter politely asked the
participant to tell the next waiting participant (the confederate waiting in the hall) that the abacus
task was fun and interesting (see Appendix A) The participant was informed that telling the
person waiting in the hall about the task being enjoyable was not required but that their
assistance would be greatly appreciated Once the participant agreed to the task (this study had a
100 compliance rate) he or she was taken into the hall where the ldquofuturerdquo participant (actually
a confederate) was seated and waiting The (real) participant was introduced to the confederate
and the experimenter explained to the fake participant that she had to set up quickly in the other
lab room so the current participant was going to explain the experiment to him while she was
gone The experimenter then excused herself and left the hallway The real participant was given
about two minutes to tell the second (bogus) participant that the task was enjoyable If the
participant freely told the confederate that the task was going to be fun (927 of participants)
then the fake participant thanked the real participant as follows ldquoGreat Irsquom really glad to hear
that this is a fun experiment because all of the other experiments I have had so far have really
39
been boring Thanks for telling merdquo If the participant did not freely say that the task was
enjoyable the confederate attempted to prompt them by asking ldquoSo how was itrdquo This
manipulation got an additional 37 of participants to verbalize that the task was fun and the
confederate also thanked them with the same statement reported above The statement thanking
the participant for the information about their enjoyable rating of the task was intended to
increase the real participantrsquos guilt about lying Following the short conversation with the
confederate the experimenter went back into the hall and led the participant into the other lab
room After she had shut the lab room door behind them the confederate filled out the
Confederate Manipulation Check form (Appendix H) The confederate checked the box on the
form that indicated whether or not the real participant told him directly if the task was fun if he
had to prompt the participant or if the participant did not tell him the task was enjoyable Upon
filling out the Confederate Manipulation Check form the confederate put the form in its box in
the lab and promptly left
Low Perceived Choice to Lie Group
In the Low Perceived Choice to Lie condition the experimenter directly instructed (not
requested) the participant to tell the next (fake) participant that the abacus task was fun and
interesting (see Appendix A) Upon consent from the participant the experimenter led him into
the hall and introduced him to the confederate who was waiting as the future participant
Identical procedures to the ones explained for participants in the High Perceived Choice to Lie
group occurred at this point
Post-experimental Questionnaire
Once participants had interacted with the confederate and been taken into the second lab
room they were given the post-experimental questionnaire The post-experimental questionnaire
40
(Appendix B) contained eight items that quantified how enjoyable the participant found the
abacus task to be and assessed their self-reported feelings of guilt after misleading the
confederate The questionnaire was presented to seem like it was not part of the current
experiment but rather a general Psychology Department survey being conducted to assess
departmental research being performed that semester The questionnaire was administered with
an envelope and the participant was instructed to seal their questionnaire inside the envelope
after completing it to promote the sense of confidentiality of their answers from the
experimenter The experimenter explained the questionnaire to the participant To prevent
possible compliance effects the experimenter reiterated that she was not supposed to see the
participantrsquos answers because the questionnaire was supposed to remain anonymous and was not
part of the current study
After the participant completed the post-experimental questionnaire and sealed it into the
envelope he or she was given a packet containing the LPSP [Appendix C] PPI-R SF [Appendix
D]) and MACH-IV [Appendix E]) and the demographics form (Appendix B) and asked to
complete these questionnaires The packet of measures took approximately 30 minutes to
complete After the participants filled out all of the self-report measures they were debriefed as
to the true nature of the experiment and asked to sign a second informed consent form (Appendix
F) that outlined to them the true purposes of the experiment A debriefing script was used to
ensure that all participants received the same information about the experiment (see Appendix
G) They were asked not to share with anyone the actual purpose and procedures of the
experiment in order to prevent future participants from knowing ahead of time what the
experiment was about Participants were given 15 experimental credits for their participation
41
Chapter 3 Results
Manipulation Check
There were 82 participants in the High Choice to Lie group and 82 participants in the
Low Choice to Lie condition All participants verbally agreed with the researcher that they
would tell the confederate that the task was enjoyable A manipulation check was performed to
determine whether they actually kept their agreement The confederate marked on a form
(Appendix G) whether or not the participant told him or her that the task was enjoyable Results
of the manipulation check indicated that 152 (927) of the participants complied with the
researcherrsquos suggestion and told the confederate that the task would be enjoyable An additional
six (37) told the confederate that the abacus task would be enjoyable but only after they were
prompted by the confederate asking ldquoHow was the taskrdquo One (6) participant told the
confederate that the task was enjoyable but added that he was instructed by the researcher to say
so Three participants (18) never told the confederate that the task was enjoyable Two
participants (12) told the confederate that the task was boring To preserve randomization
analyses for the study were run on all participants (N = 164) including those who failed to report
that the task was enjoyable This approach to the analysis of experimental findings is known as
ldquointent-to-treat analysisrdquo and yields an unbiased estimate of the effects of being assigned to each
experimental condition (Shadish Cook amp Campbell 2002) However as will be reported later
in the Results supplementary analyses were also run that excluded the six participants who
failed to tell the confederate that the task was enjoyable
Descriptive Statistics
Before running analyses procedures were carried out for dealing with missing data
Seven participants did not fill out the psychopathy and Machiavellianism self-report measures
42
completely Specifically each of the seven neglected to answer precisely one item on a single
scale Scores for the missing items were imputed individually using regression using the
summed score of the other items on the same scale as the predictor and the missing item score as
the criterion
Descriptive statistics were then calculated for participantsrsquo self-reported abacus task
enjoyment for their total scores on the psychopathy and Machiavellianism self-report measures
and for their respective factor scores and subscales scores (see Table 1)
43
Table 1 Descriptive Information for the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Predictors and Dependent Variable (N=164)
Mean Standard
Deviation Minimum Maximum
Total Enjoyment Rating of Abacus Task
401 169 100 700
High Choice to Lie Enjoyment Rating of Task
434 162 100 700
Low Choice to Lie Enjoyment Rating of Task
367 171 100 700
PPI-R SF Total Score 12565 1628 9000 17000
Fearless Dominance Factor
5605 912 2800 7600
Self-Centered Impulsive Factor
5436 989 3500 8400
Machiavellian Egocentricity 1360 352 700 2500
Social Influence 1888 400 700 2800
Fearlessness 1898 448 700 2800 Coldheartedness 1523 387 800 2600 Rebellious Nonconformity 1399 415 700 2400
Blame Externalization 1416 419 700 2600
Carefree Nonplanfulness 1262 329 700 2300
Stress Immunity 1820 453 700 2800 LPSP Total Score 5018 903 3000 7300
LPSP Primary Factor 3062 702 1600 4900
LPSP Secondary Factor 1956 405 1100 3100
MACH-IV Total Score 5296 833 3500 7600
Deceit 850 284 400 1600 Flattery 563 209 200 1000 Immoral 883 241 300 1500 Cynicism 1066 296 500 2000 Residual 1934 359 1000 2900 Note Total scale scores are in bold Factor scale scores are in italics Subscales are presented in regular font
44
31 Confirmatory Analyses
Hypothesis 1 Replication of the Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effect
A regression was performed to determine whether the classic cognitive dissonance effect
reported in earlier research was reproduced in the present study The main dependent variable in
this analysis was participants self-report ratings of how much they enjoyed the abacus task (Self-
Reported Enjoyment) The independent variable was Choice Condition (High Choice to Lie
versus Low Choice to Lie) In this analysis and all other analyses High Choice to Lie was coded
as ldquo1rdquo and Low Choice to Lie as ldquo0rdquo Based on prior studies of cognitive dissonance it was
predicted that that participants in the High Choice to Lie condition would report higher levels of
enjoyment than participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition A linear regression was
conducted and as predicted a significant difference in abacus task enjoyment was found
between the High and Low Choice to Lie groups Rsup2 = 039 F (1162) = 666 p = 011
standardized β = 199 t(163) = 258 p = 011 A one-way ANOVA was also conducted and
yielded exactly the same results as the regression F(1162) = 666 p = 011 d = 402 The High
Choice to Lie group had a mean enjoyment rating of 434 (SD = 162) (on a 1 to 7 rating scale
with 1 being no enjoyment of the task and 7 being high enjoyment of the task) while the Low
Choice to Lie group reported a mean enjoyment rating of 367 (SD = 171) on the same scale (see
Figure 1) These results indicate that participants in the High Choice to Lie group who felt that
they had more choice whether to mislead the confederate about the task being enjoyable
reported enjoying the task more than participants in the Low choice to lie group
45
Figure 1 Main effect for mean task enjoyment across choice conditions r = 199
Hypothesis 2 amp 3 Relationship Between Task Enjoyment and Choice Level Will Vary With
Psychopathy Level
The main hypothesis of the study was that individuals with lower levels of psychopathy
(and Machiavellianism) would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect by reporting higher
enjoyment of the abacus task in the High Choice to Lie Condition than in the Low Choice to Lie
Condition whereas individuals with higher levels of psychopathy would not report more
enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie than in the Low Choice to Lie condition In other words a
significant interaction was hypothesized between choice condition and level of psychopathy (and
Machiavellianism) in the prediction of self-reported enjoyment In order to test this hypothesis
three multiple regressions were conducted using the two psychopathy measures and the single
Machiavellianism measure
46
First multiple regression PPI-R SF total scores In the first multiple regression the
criterion was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice
Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) PPI-R SF total scores and the
interaction of Choice Condition with PPI-RSF scores It was hypothesized that the interaction
term would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple regression
are shown in Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was statistically
significant Rsup2 = 105 F(3160) = 623 p lt 001
As hypothesized the interaction of PPI-R SF total scores and choice condition was
statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -216 t(163) = -
211 p =036 (Table 2) Figures 2 and 3 depict this interaction graphically As can be seen in
Figure 2 there was not a significant relationship between PPI-R SF scores and Self-Reported
Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -054 t(81) =
-486 p =628 In contrast there was a significant relationship between PPI-R SF scores and
Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -374 t(81) = -
361 p =001 This finding thus supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of
psychopathy would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher
levels would not
47
Figure 2 Relationship of PPI-R SF total scores to reported level of task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to Lie condition only Standardized β = -054 p = 628
Figure 3 Relationship of PPI-R SF total scores to reported level of task enjoyment ndash High Choice to Lie condition only Standardized β = -374 p = 001
48
Second multiple regression LPSP total scores In the second multiple regression the criterion
was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice Condition (High
Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) LPSP total scores and the interaction of Choice
Condition with LPSP scores Again it was hypothesized that the interaction term would
significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple regression are shown in
Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was statistically significant Rsup2 =
089 F(3160) = 518 p = 002
As hypothesized the interaction of LPSP total scores and choice condition was
statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -236 t(163) = -
234 p = 021 The interaction is depicted graphically by choice condition in Figures 4 and 5
As can be seen from Figure 4 there was not a significant relationship between LPSP scores and
Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β
= 023 t(81) = 208 p =836 In contrast there was a significant negative relationship between
LPSP scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β =
-327 t(81) = -309 p =003 (Figure 5) Thus this finding like the finding concerning the PPI-
R SF supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of psychopathy would show
the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher levels would not
49
Figure 4 Relationship of LPSP total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = 023 p = 836
Figure 5 Relationship of LPSP total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash High Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -327 p = 003
50
T
able
2 M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts C
rite
rion
is S
elf-
Rep
orte
d E
njoy
men
t of t
he A
bacu
s T
asks
P
redi
ctor
s ar
e th
e P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
an
d M
AC
H-I
V T
otal
Sco
res
and
Subs
cale
s E
ach
Row
Rep
rese
nts
Res
ults
Fro
m O
ne M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n
Over
all
Mode
l
High
L
ow C
hoic
e
Psyc
hopa
thy
Ma
ch P
redi
ctor
In
tera
ctio
n
Pred
icto
r
F
(df)
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
PPIR
SF
Tot
623
(3160)
lt00
1
661
252
196
262
010
-089
173
-053
-52
607
-536
254
-216
-211
036
PPIRSF1-FD
296
(3160)
03
4
670
260
198
258
011
175
194
104
91
366
-382
262
-167
-146
146
PPIRSF2-SCI
690
(3160)
lt00
1
657
251
195
262
010
-123
168
-073
-73
466
-561
254
-220
-221
028
Mach Egocen
730
(3160)
lt00
1
721
251
214
287
005
024
178
014
14
892
-708
252
-295
-281
006
Soc Influ
230
(3160)
079
677
263
201
258
011
-034
200
-020
-17
867
128
266
057
48
631
Fearlessness
487
(3160)
00
3
660
256
196
258
011
177
188
105
94
348
-634
257
-274
-247
015
Coldhrtnes
577
(3160)
00
1
733
254
217
288
004
-488
193
-288
-253
012
153
257
068
59
554
Rebel Non
445
(3160)
00
5
668
256
198
261
010
142
179
084
80
428
-590
257
-243
-230
023
Blm Extern
296
(3160)
03
4
678
260
201
261
010
-144
190
-085
-76
451
-084
261
-036
-32
747
Carefree
490
(3160)
00
3
570
258
169
221
029
-430
176
-254
-244
016
171
260
068
66
511
Stress Imun
257
(3160)
056
665
261
197
255
012
179
183
106
98
330
-245
262
-101
-93
352
LPSP
Tot
al
518
(3160)
00
2
699
255
207
274
007
037
171
022
22
827
-603
258
-236
-234
021
Primary
420
(3160)
00
7
691
257
205
269
008
041
176
024
23
815
-495
259
-199
-192
057
Secondary
359
(3160)
01
5
682
258
202
264
009
018
187
101
09
926
-377
259
-161
-145
148
MACH
-IV
Tot
492
(3160)
00
3
703
256
208
275
007
-173
178
-102
-98
331
-314
257
-128
122
223
Deceit
508
(3160)
00
2
696
255
206
273
007
-374
167
-221
-224
026
011
260
004
04
965
Flattery
368
(3160)
01
3
682
258
202
264
009
162
173
096
94
351
-523
261
-204
-200
047
Immoral
454
(3160)
00
4
705
256
209
275
007
-360
184
-213
-196
052
052
257
022
20
840
Cynicism
270
(3160)
04
8
680
261
201
261
010
002
198
001
01
991
-212
264
-094
-81
422
Residual
302
(3160)
03
2
667
260
198
257
011
052
171
031
30
762
-354
264
-136
-135
181
Not
e
Sign
ific
ant p
val
ues
(p lt
05)
are
in b
old
p v
alue
s ap
proa
chin
g si
gnifi
canc
e (lt
10)
are
in it
alic
s
Pre
dict
or A
bbre
viat
ions
PPI
RS
F To
t =
PPI-
RS
F to
tal s
core
PPI
RS
F1-F
D =
PPI
RS
F Fa
ctor
1 ndash
Fea
rless
Dom
inan
ce F
acto
r Sco
re P
PIR
SF2
-SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f C
ente
red
Impu
lsiv
ity F
acto
r Sco
re M
ach
Ego
cen
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
ricity
sub
scal
e S
oc I
nflu
= P
PI-R
SF
Soci
al In
fluen
ce s
ubsc
ale
Fea
rles
snes
s =
PPI-
RS
F
Fear
less
ness
sub
scal
e C
oldh
rtnes
= P
PI-R
SF
Col
dhea
rted
ness
sub
scal
e R
ebel
Non
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
xter
n =
PPI
-RS
F B
lam
e E
xter
naliz
atio
n
subs
cale
Car
efre
e =
PPI-
RS
F C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Str
ess
Imun
= P
PI-R
SF
Stre
ss Im
mun
ity s
ubsc
ale
LPS
P To
tal =
LPS
P to
tal s
core
Pri
mar
y =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le
Seco
ndar
y =
LPSP
Sec
onda
ry s
ubsc
ale
MA
CH
-IV
Tot
= M
AC
H-I
V to
tal s
core
Dec
eit =
MA
CH
-IV
Dec
eit s
ubsc
ale
Fla
ttery
= M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
oral
= M
AC
H-I
V
Imm
oral
ity s
ubsc
ale
Cyn
icis
m =
MA
CH
-IV
Cyn
icis
m s
ubsc
ale
Res
idua
l = M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
Mod
el A
bbre
viat
ions
Un-
Stzd
β =
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Bet
a S
td E
rr =
Sta
ndar
d E
rror
Stz
d β
= St
anda
rdiz
ed B
eta
51
Third multiple regression Mach-IV total scores In the third multiple regression the
criterion was Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test and the predictors were Choice
Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) Mach-IV total scores and the
interaction of Choice Condition with Mach-IV scores Again it was hypothesized that the
interaction term would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment Results of the multiple
regression are shown in Table 2 As can be seen the model in the regression equation was
statistically significant Rsup2 = 085 F(3160) = 492 p = 003
Contrary to prediction the interaction of Mach-IV total scores and choice condition was
not statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -128 t(163) =
-122 p = 223 Thus this finding failed to support the hypothesis that individuals with lower
levels of Machiavellianism would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that
individuals with higher levels would not The pattern of data is depicted graphically by choice
condition in Figures 6 and 7 As can be seen from Figure 6 there was not a significant
relationship between MACH-IV scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the
Low Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -104 t(81) = -932 p =354 In contrast there
was a significant negative relationship between MACH-IV scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment
in the High Choice to Lie condition standardized β = -295 t(81) = -276 p =007 (Figure 7)
Although one of the standardized betas (-104) was non-significant and the other (-295) was
significant the difference between the two betas was not significant so the predicted interaction
did not attain statistical significance
52
Figure 6 Relationship of MACH-IV total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash Low Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -104 p = 354
Figure 7 Relationship of MACH-IV total scores to reported level of abacus task enjoyment ndash High Choice to lie condition only Standardized β = -295 p = 007
53
Hypothesis 4 Level of Psychopathy Will Incrementally Predict Abacus Task Enjoyment
The second main hypothesis was that psychopathy scores would incrementally predict
Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task above and beyond the predictive power of
Machiavellianism To test this hypothesis two hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted
using Self-Reported Enjoyment as the criterion
First hierarchical regression PPI-R SF total scores The first hierarchical regression
used PPI-R SF total scores as the psychopathy measure In the first step of the regression the
Choice to Lie condition was entered as a predictor In the second step standardized total
MACH-IV scores and the standardized interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice
condition were entered In the third step standardized PPI-R SF total scores and the
standardized interaction term of total PPI-R SF scores with choice condition were entered as a
predictor Results are shown in Table 3 As can be seen inclusion of PPI-R SF scores and their
interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment significantly increased predictive power above and
beyond scores on the MACH-IV ∆Rsup2 = 041 F(2158) = 367 p = 028 Although the change in
Rsup2 was significant it is important to note that the standardized beta for the PPI-R SF total scores
was not significant in predicting task enjoyment when added to MACH-IV scores in predicting
task enjoyment standardized β = -010 t(158) = -09 p = 930 In addition the standardized beta
for the interaction between PPI-R SF scores and choice condition only approached significance
when added to MACH-IV scores in block three (standardized β = -205 t(158) = -186 p =
065
54
Table 3 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianism
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=085 F(3160)=492 p=003 (∆Rsup2=045 F(2160)=394 p=021) High or Low Choice to Lie 703 256 208 275 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -173 178 -102 - 98 331 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -314 257 -128 -122 223 Step 3 Rsup2=125 F(5158)=452 p=001 (∆Rsup2=041 F(2158)=367 p=028) High or Low Choice to Lie 688 252 204 273 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -166 195 -098 - 85 397 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -165 273 -067 - 60 547 PPI-RSF Total Scores -017 192 -010 - 09 930 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -507 273 -205 -186 065 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics
Second hierarchical regression LPSP total scores The second hierarchical regression
used LPSP total scores as the psychopathy measure In the first step of the regression the Choice
to Lie condition was entered as a predictor In the second step standardized total MACH-IV
scores and the standardized interaction term of MACH-IV total scores were entered In the third
step standardized LPSP total scores and the standardized interaction term of total LPSP scores
with choice condition were entered as a predictor Results are shown in Table 4 As can be seen
inclusion of total LPSP scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment did not
significantly increase predictive power above and beyond MACH-IV scores ∆Rsup2= 026
F(2158)= 233 p=101
55
Table 4 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Psychopathy (LPSP) Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment Above Level of Machiavellianism
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=085 F(3160)=492 p=003 (∆Rsup2=045 F(2160)=394 p=021) High or Low Choice to Lie 703 256 208 275 007 MACH-IV Total Scores -173 178 -102 - 98 331 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -314 257 -128 -122 223 Step 3 Rsup2=111 F(5158)=394 p=002 (∆Rsup2=026 F(2158)=233 p=101) High or Low Choice to Lie 712 254 211 281 006 MACH-IV Total Scores -282 212 -167 -133 186 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -023 296 -009 - 08 939 LPSP Total Scores 188 204 111 92 358 Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -609 297 -238 -205 042 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics
32 Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory Analysis Incremental Prediction of Task Enjoyment by Machiavellianism
The analyses reported thus far were confirmatory and based on a priori hypotheses A
series of exploratory analyses were also carried out as reported in the following sections of the
Results In the first set of exploratory analyses two hierarchical multiple regressions were run to
identify whether MACH-IV total scores incrementally predicted Self-Reported Enjoyment of the
abacus task above and beyond the predictive power of psychopathy scores
First hierarchical regression Incremental predictive power of MACH-IV total scores
over PPI-R SF total scores The first exploratory analysis was conducted to examine whether
MACH-IV scores incrementally increased prediction of abacus task enjoyment above and
beyond the predictive power of PPI-R SF scores A hierarchical regression was conducted In
step one the Choice to Lie condition was entered in step two standardized PPI-R SF total
56
scores and the standardized interaction term of total PPI-R SF scores with choice condition was
entered and finally in step three the standardized total MACH-IV scores and the standardized
interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice condition were entered As can be seen in
Table 5 the inclusion of MACH-IV total scores and their interaction with Choice Condition did
not significantly increase predictive power ∆Rsup2= 020 F(2158)= 185 p= 160
Table 5 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (PPI-R SF)
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=105 F(3160)=623 plt001 (∆Rsup2=065 F(2160)=582 p=004) High or Low Choice to Lie 661 252 196 262 010 PPI-RSF Total Score -089 173 -053 -52 607 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -536 254 -216 -211 036 Step 3 Rsup2=125 F(5158)=452 p=001 (∆Rsup2=020 F(2158)=185 p=160) High or Low Choice to Lie 688 252 204 273 007 PPI-RSF Total Scores -017 192 -010 -09 930 Interaction PPI-RSF amp Choice to Lie -507 273 -205 -186 065 MACH-IV Total Scores -166 195 -098 -85 397 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -165 273 -067 -60 547 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Significant alpha levels are in bold Moderate alpha levels are in italics Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Second hierarchical regression Incremental predictive power of MACH-IV total scores
over LPSP total scores A similar hierarchical multiple regression was performed to examine
whether MACH-IV scores incrementally increase prediction of abacus task enjoyment above and
beyond the predictive power of LPSP scores An incremental hierarchical regression was
conducted In step one the Choice to Lie condition was entered in step two standardized LPSP
57
total scores and the standardized interaction term of total LPSP scores with choice condition was
entered and finally in step three the standardized total MACH-IV scores and the standardized
interaction term of MACH-IV total scores with choice condition were entered As can be seen in
Table 6 the results of this analysis like the previous one were not significant ∆Rsup2= 022
F(2158)= 198 p= 142 The inclusion of Machiavellianism in the regression equation did not
significantly increase predictive power above and beyond the predictive power of LPSP scores
Table 6 Hierarchical Multiple Regression Results Level of Machiavellianism Incrementally Predicting Abacus Enjoyment Over Level of Psychopathy (LPSP)
Criterion and Predictor Un-Stzd β
Std Err
Stzd β t p
Step 1 Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011 (∆Rsup2=039 F(1162)=666 p=011) High or Low Choice to Lie 671 260 199 258 011 Step 2 Rsup2=089 F(3160)=518 p=002 (∆Rsup2=049 F(2160)=430 p=015) High or Low Choice to Lie 699 255 207 274 007
LPSP Total Score 037 171 022 22 827
Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -603 258 -236 -234 021 Step 3 Rsup2=111 F(5158)=394 p=002 (∆Rsup2=022 F(2158)=198 p=142) High or Low Choice to Lie 712 254 211 281 006 LPSP Total Scores 188 204 111 92 358 Interaction LPSP amp Choice to Lie -609 297 -238 -205 042 MACH-IV Total Scores -282 212 -167 -133 186 Interaction MACH-IV amp Choice to Lie -023 296 -009 -08 939 Note ∆Rsup2= Rsup2 change from Step 1 to Step 2 and from Step 2 to Step 3 Significant alpha levels are in bold Moderate alpha levels are in italics Model Abbreviations Un-Stzd β = Unstandardized Beta Std Err = Standard Error Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Exploratory Analysis PPI-R SF Subscales as Predictors
The second set of exploratory multiple regressions was conducted using the eight
subscales of the PPI-R SF and their interaction with Choice Condition as predictors Each
subscale measures a different unique aspect of psychopathy The goal of the analyses was to
58
determine which aspects of psychopathy were related to self-reported abacus task enjoyment
A series of multiple linear regressions were conducted with abacus task enjoyment as the
criterion In each multiple regression the predictors were Choice to Lie condition the
standardized total score of the individual PPI-R subscale and the interaction term of the
standardized individual subscale total score with Choice to Lie condition Results are shown in
Table 2 All of the PPI-R SF subscales except for the Stress Immunity and Social Influence
subscales had significant model equations In addition three subscales also produced significant
interactions with choice condition in predicting level of task enjoyment (a) Machiavellian
Egocentricity standardized β of the interaction = -295 t(163) = -281 p = 006 (b)
Fearlessness standardized β of the interaction = -274 t(163) = -247 p = 015 (c) Rebellious
Nonconformity standardized β of the interaction = -243 t(163) = -230 p = 023 The
remaining five subscales did not have interactions with choice condition that significantly
predicted task enjoyment
Exploratory Analysis PPI-R SF Factors as Predictors
Next two multiple regressions were carried out one for each of the two factors of the
PPI-R SF The intention of these analyses was to determine if these factors of psychopathy
(cognitive traits or behavioral traits) would account for the lack of cognitive dissonance found in
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy
First multiple regression The Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R SF The Fearless
Dominance factor (PPI-R SF-1-FD) is comprised of three of the eight subscales of the PPI-R
SF the Social Influence subscale the Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscale A
multiple regression was run with Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test as the criterion and
Choice Condition (High Choice to Lie versus Low Choice to Lie) the standardized PPI-R SF-
59
1-FD total scores and the interaction of Choice Condition with the standardized PPI-R SF-1-FD
total scores as the predictors Results of the multiple regression are shown in Table 2 As can be
seen the model in the regression equation was statistically significant Rsup2 = 053 F(3160) =
296 p = 034 However the interaction of PPI-R SF-1-FD total scores and choice condition
was not statistically significant in predicting level of task enjoyment standardized β = -167
t(163) = -146 p = 146
Second multiple regression The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF Next
a similar multiple regression was run replacing the PPI-RSF-1-FD with the Self-Centered
Impulsivity factor scale scores (PPI-R SF-2-SCI) The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor is
comprised of the Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale
and the Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale of the PPI-R SF Results of the model in the multiple
regression equation were statistically significant Rsup2 = 115 F(3160) = 690 p lt 001 In addition
the interaction between the PPI-R SF-2-SCI and choice condition was statistically significant as
well standardized β = -220 t(163) = -2213 p = 028 These results suggested that the more
behavioral antisocial behavior characteristics of psychopathy (impulsivity blame
externalization lack of planning abilities) impacted cognitive dissonance arousal
Exploratory Analysis LPSP Factor Scales as Predictors
The next set of exploratory analyses were conducted on the LPSPrsquos two factor scales
The LPSP breaks into a Primary Psychopathy Scale and a Secondary Psychopathy Scale The
Primary Scale identifies the more cognitively based aspects of psychopathy much as the PPI-R
SF-1-FD Factor does The Secondary Psychopathy Scale of the LPSP measures the behaviorally
based dimensions of psychopathy (impulsivity asociality) much like the PPI-R SF-2-SCI
60
Factor Two hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine the interaction between each of
the LPSP factor scales and choice condition in predicting abacus task enjoyment
First multiple regression LPSP Primary Factor scores First a multiple regression was
employed with the Choice to Lie condition the standardized Primary Factor total scores of the
LPSP and the interaction term of the standardized Primary Factor total scores with the Choice to
Lie condition as the predictors Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus test was the criterion in
the multiple regression The results of the regression model equation were statistically significant
Rsup2 = 073 F(3160) = 420 p = 007 However the results of the interaction between the Primary
Factor and choice condition only approached statistical significance standardized β = -199
t(163) = -192 p = 057
Second multiple regression LPSP Secondary Factor scores The Secondary factor of the
LPSP accounts for the environmental behaviorally based traits associated with psychopathy
(impulsivity asociality) A multiple regression was run replacing the LPSP Primary factor scores
with the LPSP Secondary factor scores In other words the predictors were Choice to Lie
condition standardized LPSP Secondary factor scores and the interaction of Choice to Lie with
standardized LPSP Secondary factor scores Again Self-Reported Enjoyment of the Abacus task
was the criterion Results of the multiple regression model equation were statistically significant
Rsup2 = 063 F(3160) = 359 p = 015 However results of the interaction between the Secondary
factor of the LPSP and choice condition were not statistically significant standardized β = -161
t(163) = -1452 p = 148
This analysis of the LPSP Primary and Secondary factor scales suggests that the
cognitive dimensions of psychopathy may best account for a lack of cognitive dissonance in this
experiment These results support the notion that it is these cognitive deficits assessed by the
61
Primary Scale of the LPSP (lack of guilt callousness lack of concern for others) that best
account for individuals with higher levels of psychopathy not experiencing the attitude shift
found in people with lower levels of psychopathy
Exploratory Analysis MACH-IV Subscales as predictors
The next set of exploratory analyses examined the five subscales of the MACH-IV as
predictors of task enjoyment when interacting with Choice to Lie condition Though the
interaction of total MACH-IV scores and choice condition was not a significant predictor of a
lack of task enjoyment the subscales were analyzed using multiple regression in order to
determine if any aspect of MACH might account for a lack of cognitive dissonance in
individuals with higher levels of MACH In the regressions the predictors were Choice to Lie
condition the standardized MACH-IV subscale total scores and the standardized interaction
term of total MACH-IV subscale scores with Choice to Lie condition Results are reported in
Table 2 All of the regression model equations for each subscale were statistically significant
Though all model equations were significant only the interaction of choice condition with the
Flattery subscale of the MACH-IV was significant in predicting reported abacus task enjoyment
standardized β = -204 t(163) = -200 p = 047 The interaction terms of the remaining four
subscales of the MACH-IV were not significant
Exploratory Analysis Follow-up Multiple Regression Analyses with No-Lie Participants
Removed
As previously indicated all multiple regressions reported here were run a second time
but including only the sub-set of participants who lied to the confederate (N=158) The results of
these follow-up multiple regressions (with N = 158) all led to the same substantive conclusions
as the analyses already reported (with N = 164) with one exception The only analysis that
62
changed significantly was the multiple linear regression looking at the interaction between the
Primary factor of the LPSP and choice condition In the original multiple regression (N = 164)
this interaction only approached statistical significance In the follow-up multiple regression (N
= 158) this interaction attained statistical significance standardized β = -216 t(157) = -202 p =
045
Exploratory Analysis Correlations of Psychopathy and Machiavellian measures
Pearsonrsquos r correlations were run on the three psychopathy and MACH measures and
their respective factors and subscales to identify associations among the measures
Correlations of psychopathy and Machiavellianism total scores Correlations among the
PPI-RSF LPSP and MACH-IV total scores are reported in Table 7 As can be seen all three
measures were significantly correlated with each other The largest correlation was between
MACH-IV and LPSP total scores r = 510 p lt 01
Table 7 Correlations Between the Total Scores of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measures
PPIRSF Total Score
LPSP Total Score
MACH-IV Total Score
PPIRSF Total Score 1
LPSP Total Score
345dagger 1
MACH-IV Total Score
376dagger 510dagger 1
Note dagger Correlations significant at the 01 level
Correlations of PPI-R SF and LPSP factor scores Pearsonrsquos r correlations were run on
the factors of the PPI-R SF and the LPSP in order to illuminate the relationship among these
factors in the present sample of participants Results are shown in Table 8
63
First the PPIR SF total score correlated significantly with both the Primary (r = 322 p
lt01) and the Secondary (r = 212 p lt 01) factor scores of the LPSP The PPI-R SF Factor Two
Scale of Self-Centered Impulsivity (behavioral characteristics of psychopathy) positively
correlated with the LPSP total (r = 509 p lt01) Primary (r = 368 p lt 01) and Secondary (r =
498 p lt 01) factors In contrast the PPI-R SF Factor One Scale of Fearless Dominance (PPI-
R SF-1-FD) correlated significantly only with the Secondary Scale of the LPSP (r = -156 p lt
05) This correlation indicates that as scores on the PPI-R SF-1-FD increase scores on the
LPSP Secondary Scale decrease However it should be noted that this correlation is very weak
Correlations of PPI-R and MACH-IV factor scores and subscale scores As can be seen
in Table 8 the PPI-R SF total score correlated significantly with all of the MACH subscales
except for the Cynicism subscale Interestingly PPI-R SF Factor 2 Self-Centered Impulsivity
which assesses the behavioral characteristics of psychopathy correlated significantly with the
MACH-IV total score (r = 478) and all of the subscales of the MACH-IV Deceit (r = 383)
Flattery (r = 210) Immorality (r = 297) Cynicism (r = 242) and Residual (r = 279) at p lt 01
level of significance PPI-R SF Factor 1 Fearless Dominance which assesses the cognitive
aspects of psychopathy did not significantly correlate with the MACH-IV total score or any of
its subscales These exploratory findings suggest that the Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the
PPI-R SF accounts for the relationship of MACH-IV scores with PPIRSF scores
Correlations of LPSP and MACH-IV factor scores and subscale scores As shown in
Table 8 MACH-IV total scores significantly correlated with both the Primary (r = 467 p lt01)
and Secondary (r = 327 p lt 01) factors of the LPSP The LPSP total score and factor scales
(Primary and Secondary) correlated significantly with the total MACH-IV score and all of the
MACH-IV subscales except for the Flattery subscale (see Table 8 for the correlations) This
64
finding is interesting because the Flattery subscale was the only element of the MACH-IV found
to be a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment in the interaction with choice condition
mentioned previously and yet it did not correlate with the LPSP at all
65
Tab
le 8
Cor
rela
tions
Bet
wee
n th
e P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
MA
CH
-IV
The
ir F
acto
rs a
nd S
ubsc
ales
Not
e
dagger C
orre
latio
n si
gnifi
cant
at
01 le
vel
Cor
rela
tion
sign
ific
ant a
t 05
leve
l P
redi
ctor
Abb
revi
atio
ns P
PIR
= P
PI-R
SF
tota
l sco
re P
1FD
= P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 1
ndash F
earl
ess
Dom
inan
ce F
acto
r Sco
re P
2SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f Cen
tere
d Im
puls
ivity
Fac
tor S
core
M
Ego
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
rici
ty s
ubsc
ale
Soc
In =
PPI
-RS
F So
cial
Influ
ence
sub
scal
e F
ear =
PPI
-RS
F Fe
arle
ssne
ss s
ubsc
ale
Col
d =
PPI-
RS
F C
oldh
eart
edne
ss s
ubsc
ale
R
ebel
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
= P
PI-R
SF
Bla
me
Ext
erna
lizat
ion
Subs
cale
Car
e =
PPI-
RS
F C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Str
ess
= PP
I-R
SF
Stre
ss
Imm
unity
sub
scal
e L
PSP
= L
PSP
tota
l sco
re P
rim
e =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le S
econ
= L
PSP
Seco
ndar
y su
bsca
le M
AC
H =
MA
CH
-IV
tota
l sco
re D
ece
= M
AC
H-I
V D
ecei
t sub
scal
e F
lat =
M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
or =
MA
CH
-IV
Imm
oral
ity s
ubsc
ale
Cyn
= M
AC
H-I
V C
ynic
ism
sub
scal
e R
esid
= M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1PPIR
1
2P1FD
761
dagger 1
3P2SCI
771
dagger 240
dagger 1
4M Ego
516
dagger 068
712
dagger 1
5Soc In
471
dagger 658
dagger 141
087
1
6Fear
645
dagger 727
dagger 362
dagger 104
244
dagger 1
7Cold
443
dagger 232
dagger 124
191
071
076
1
8Rebel
738
dagger 478
dagger 717
dagger 357
dagger 231
dagger 522
dagger 147
1
9Blm E
264
dagger -129
629
dagger 348
dagger -047
090
-194
161
1
10Care
500
dagger 210
dagger 540
dagger 175
101
203
dagger 229
dagger 305
dagger 041
1
11Stres
476
dagger 711
dagger 000
-044
198
258
dagger 330
dagger 240
dagger -306
dagger 132
1
12LPSP
345
dagger -024
509
dagger 534
dagger -018
065
209
dagger 241
dagger 369
dagger 186
-097
1
13Prime
322
dagger 059
368
dagger 473
dagger 082
031
275
dagger 171
219
dagger 105
015
902
dagger 1
14Secon
212
dagger -156
498
dagger 370
dagger -183
090
-011
241
dagger 443
dagger 233
dagger -243
dagger 664
dagger 277
dagger 1
15MACH
376
dagger 076
478
dagger 477
dagger 150
105
182
244
dagger 278
dagger 264
dagger -083
510
dagger 467
dagger 327
dagger 1
16Dece
356
dagger 085
383
dagger 380
dagger 096
121
320
dagger 190
094
384
dagger -033
312
dagger 295
dagger 185
631
dagger 1
17Flat
189
030
210
dagger 192
200
-019
186
087
062
236
dagger -097
139
118
104
570
dagger 304
dagger 1
18Immor
176
-003
297
dagger 276
dagger 022
069
-013
143
296
dagger 040
-093
405
dagger 345
dagger 306
dagger 589
dagger 153
202
dagger 1
19Cyn
152
030
242
dagger 316
dagger -025
092
-052
160
092
072
-008
449
dagger 449
dagger 223
dagger 454
dagger 169
057
152
1
20Resid
231
dagger 073
279
dagger 266
dagger 133
049
086
146
231
dagger 076
-019
248
dagger 226
dagger 161
689
dagger 244
dagger 213
dagger 197
175
1
66
Exploratory Analyses Multiple Regressions with Self-Reported Guilt as the Criterion and Level
of Psychopathy and MACH as Predictors
In addition to the multiple regressions that were run with Self-Reported Enjoyment
Rating of the abacus task as the criterion and the interaction between choice level and
psychopathy (and MACH) level as the predictors identical multiple regressions were conducted
with level of guilt as the criterion in the place of Self-Reported Level of Enjoyment Multiple
regressions were run where the predictors were Choice to Lie condition standardized
psychopathy and MACH measure total factor and subscale scores (individually) and the
interaction of Choice to Lie with PPI-R SF LPSP or MACH scales In these analyses level of
guilt was the criterion On the post experimental questionnaire two questions assessed
participantsrsquo level of guilt for telling the ldquofuture participantrdquo that the abacus task was fun These
two guilt related questions correlated highly with one another (r = 789) and so their scores were
added together and a new variable called ldquoGuiltrdquo was created from their sum
Multiple regressions on the interaction between choice and level of psychopathy (and
MACH) The goal of these exploratory analyses was to further explore the role that guilt plays
during cognitive dissonance arousal Results of all multiple regression analyses with guilt as the
criterion are presented in Table 9 As can be seen the interaction between level of psychopathy
(and MACH) and choice condition as predictors of guilt was only significant for the Self
Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF The multiple regression model equation for the
Self Centered Impulsivity factor was statistically significant Rsup2 = 056 F(3160) = 314 p = 027
In addition results of the interaction between the Self Centered Impulsivity factor and choice
condition were statistically significant standardized β = 232 t(163) = 225 p = 026
Interestingly this regression was not only significant but also positive All other interactions of
67
total subscale and factor scales of the PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV with choice condition
were not significant in predicting participantsrsquo level of self-reported guilt
The fact that all other total scores subscales and factor scales did not attain significant
interactions with choice condition using guilt as the criterion makes sense when considering
cognitive dissonance theory The cognitive dissonance literature indicates that there should not
be an interaction on guilt because participants strive to reduce their feelings of guilt after
engaging in counterattitudinal behavior discrepant with their beliefs Therefore participants with
low levels of psychopathy after misleading the confederate in the High Choice condition would
have immediately experienced cognitive dissonance and thus their attitude would have shifted
towards enjoying the task in order to reduce the psychological tension produced by voluntarily
misleading the ldquofuture participantrdquo Therefore by the time they answered the guilt questions on
the post-experimental questionnaire they would not feel guilt because their attitude had shifted
to be in favor of the task
Main effects for relationship between psychopathy and guilt Finally an important result
of these exploratory analyses was that significant main effects were found between level of
psychopathy (measured by the PPI-R SF) and participantsrsquo level of guilt following the deception
task Specifically the PPI-R SF total score both factor scores (Fearless Dominance and Self
Centered Impulsivity) the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale and the Stress Immunity subscale
had significant model predictor equations (see Table 9) The model equation for the Fearlessness
subscale approached significance F(3160) = 243 p = 068 as well
After model equations were accounted for the PPI-R SF had a significant relationship
with level of guilt such that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy experienced less guilt
than participants with lower levels of psychopathy across choice conditions (standardized β = -
68
359 t(163) = -346 p = 001) In addition both factor scales of the PPI-R SF (Fearless
Dominance and Self Centered Impulsivity) were significant in predicting guilt (standardized β =
-292 t(163) = -257 p = 011 standardized β = -314 t(163) = -305 p = 003) respectively
Finally three of the PPI-R SF subscales reached significance in predicting level of guilt in
participants as well Fearlessness Stress Immunity and Rebellious Nonconformity The
Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscales load on the Fearless Dominance factor
of the PPI-R SF which is important to note because this factor assesses the cognitive aspects of
psychopathy including lack of guilt and lack of remorse Therefore these results provide support
for the validity of the PPI-R SF in assessing psychopathic traits such as guiltlessness
69
Tab
le 9
M
ultip
le R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts C
rite
rion
is S
elf-
Rep
orte
d G
uilt
Aft
er M
isle
adin
g th
e C
onfe
dera
te
Pre
dict
ors
are
the
P
PI-
R S
F L
PSP
and
MA
CH
-IV
Tot
al S
core
s an
d Su
bsca
les
Eac
h R
ow R
epre
sent
s R
esul
ts F
rom
One
Mul
tiple
Reg
ress
ion
Ov
eral
l Mo
del
High
L
ow C
hoic
e
Psyc
hopa
thy
Ma
ch P
redi
ctor
In
tera
ctio
n
Pred
icto
r
F
(df)
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
Un-
Stzd
β
Std
Err
Stzd
β
t
p
PPI-
RSF
456
(3160)
00
4
046
597
006
08
938
-1419
410
-359
-346
00
1
851
600
147
142
158
PPI FD
361
(3160)
01
5
-003
603
lt001
-01
996
-1151
449
-292
-257
01
1
309
607
058
51
611
PPI SCI
314
(3160)
02
7
055
605
007
09
928
-1237
406
-314
-305
00
3
1376
611
232
225
026
Mach Ego
95
(3160)
417
091
618
012
15
883
-627
438
-159
-143
154
1018
620
182
164
103
Soc Infl
32
(3160)
811
029
623
004
05
963
-047
474
-012
-10
921
-356
631
-068
-56
574
Fearless
243
(3160)
068
018
609
002
03
977
-1166
448
-296
-260
01
0
875
612
162
143
155
Coldhrt
52
(3160)
671
132
621
017
21
832
-446
471
-113
-95
346
113
628
021
18
857
Rebel
743
(3160)
lt00
1
050
583
006
09
931
-1718
407
-435
-422
lt00
1
833
585
147
142
156
Blm Ext
157
(3160)
199
062
613
008
10
919
-330
449
-084
-73
464
1190
616
220
193
055
Carefree
126
(3160)
290
-067
622
-009
-11
914
-814
425
-206
-192
057
669
625
115
107
287
Stress
426
(3160)
00
6
177
599
023
30
768
-972
421
-246
-231
02
2
-199
601
-035
-33
742
LPSP
41
(3160)
744
090
621
011
15
885
-445
415
-113
-107
286
577
627
097
92
359
Primary
39
(3160)
764
090
621
011
15
885
-443
425
-112
-104
299
549
624
095
88
381
Second
17
(3160)
919
080
622
010
13
897
-301
450
-076
-67
505
386
624
071
62
537
MACH
-IV
02
(3160)
996
076
623
010
12
903
-085
433
-021
-20
845
116
625
020
19
852
Deceit
15
(3160)
928
071
622
009
11
910
-172
406
-043
-42
673
421
634
068
66
508
Flattery
25
(3160)
864
100
622
013
16
872
-320
416
-081
-77
443
150
628
025
24
812
Immoral
85
(3160)
468
082
618
010
13
894
396
443
100
89
373
-968
620
-175
-156
121
Cynicism
52
(3160)
669
040
620
005
06
949
368
472
093
78
436
032
627
006
05
960
Residual
19
(3160)
900
069
621
009
11
912
-309
410
-078
-75
452
326
630
054
52
606
Not
e
Sig
nific
ant p
val
ues
(p lt
05)
are
in b
old
p v
alue
s ap
proa
chin
g si
gnif
ican
ce (lt
10)
are
in it
alic
s
Pre
dict
or A
bbre
viat
ions
PPI
-RS
F =
PPI-
RS
F to
tal s
core
PPI
FD
= P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 1
ndash F
earle
ss D
omin
ance
Fac
tor S
core
PPI
SC
I = P
PIR
SF
Fact
or 2
-Sel
f Cen
tere
d
Impu
lsiv
ity F
acto
r Sco
re M
ach
Ego
= P
PI-R
SF
Mac
hiav
ellia
nism
Ego
cent
rici
ty s
ubsc
ale
Soc
Infl
= PP
I-R
SF
Soci
al In
fluen
ce s
ubsc
ale
Fea
rless
= P
PI-R
SF
Fear
less
ness
sub
scal
e
Col
dhrt
= PP
I-R
SF
Col
dhea
rted
ness
sub
scal
e R
ebel
= P
PI-R
SF
Reb
ellio
us N
onco
nfor
mity
sub
scal
e B
lm E
xt =
PPI
-RS
F B
lam
e E
xter
naliz
atio
n Su
bsca
le C
aref
ree
= PP
I-R
SF
C
aref
ree
Non
plan
fuln
ess
subs
cale
Stre
ss Im
un =
PPI
-RS
F St
ress
Imm
unity
sub
scal
e L
PSP
= LP
SP to
tal s
core
Pri
mar
y =
LPSP
Pri
mar
y su
bsca
le S
econ
d =
LPSP
Sec
onda
ry
subs
cale
MA
CH
-IV
= M
AC
H-I
V to
tal s
core
Dec
eit =
MA
CH
-IV
Dec
eit s
ubsc
ale
Fla
ttery
= M
AC
H-I
V F
latte
ry s
ubsc
ale
Imm
oral
= M
AC
H-I
V Im
mor
ality
sub
scal
e C
ynic
ism
=
MA
CH
-IV
Cyn
icis
m s
ubsc
ale
Res
idua
l = M
AC
H-I
V R
esid
ual s
ubsc
ale
scor
e
Mod
el A
bbre
viat
ions
Un-
Stzd
β =
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Bet
a S
td E
rr =
Sta
ndar
d E
rror
Stz
d β
= St
anda
rdiz
ed B
eta
70
Exploratory Analyses Factor Analyses of the Psychopathy and Machiavellianism Measures
In order to assess what specific constructs the self-report psychopathy and
Machiavellianism measures were identifying several factor analyses were conducted The goal
of these analyses was twofold First the intention was to categorize the unique traits of
psychopathy and MACH that were being identified in the participants by these measures and
second to distinguish overall factors of these personality traits that are similar across measures
Factor analysis of PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV total scores The total scores of the
PPI-R LPSP and MACH-IV were factor analyzed using principal axis factor analysis Squared
multiple correlations were used to estimate communalities in the initial factor pattern and
solutions were iterated four times Only one component in a preliminary principal components
analysis had an eigenvalue greater than 1 (1826) and the scree plot of the eigenvalues indicated
a clear break after one factor However for exploratory purposes three-factor and two-factor
factor analytic solutions were also attempted The three-factor solution yielded three factors
each corresponding to the three original variables The two-factor solution yielded one large
primary factor and a second factor with only trivial loadings (all loadings lt 25) Therefore the
one-factor solution was selected as the most informative Oblique rotation was performed using
Promax As can be seen in Table 10 one clearly defined factor emerged from the three variables
The factor appears to tap psychopathic and Machiavellian tendencies and thus has been named
Psychopathic Machiavellianism
Table 10 Factor Solutions Between PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV Total Scores
Measure Psychopathic
Machiavellianism PPI-R SF Total Score 505 LPSP Total Score 687 MACH-IV Total Score 743
71
Factor analysis of all psychopathy and Machiavellianism items A second factor analysis
was run using all of the individual items from the three self-report measures of psychopathy and
Machiavellianism (PPI-R SF LPSP MACH-IV) Squared multiple correlations were used to
estimate communalities in the initial factor pattern Thirty-two components with eigenvalues
greater than 1 emerged from a preliminary principle component analysis and the scree plot
indicated there were approximately 25 to 35 factors
A principal axis factor analysis with Promax rotation was performed extracting 32
factors However only 15 of the 32 factors had two or more factor loadings greater than 50
Therefore several additional factor solutions were attempted to determine how many relevant
meaningful factors were present Finally it was determined that a nine-factor solution yielded the
largest number of interpretable factors with each factor including at least two variables with
loadings greater than 50 (see Table 11) Upon analyzing the items that loaded into each of the
nine factors names were identified for each factor based on the common characteristics of the
items The nine factors are Machiavellian Success Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Immunity
Feelings of Persecution Inability to Plan Social Disregard Interpersonal Ease Manipulative
Deceit and Social Frustration
72
Table 11 Factor Loadings of Total Item Factor Analysis
Factor Original Item
Mach Succes
Thrill Seek
Stress Immun Persec Inabl
Plan Social Dsrgrd
Intper Ease
Manip Deceit
Soc Frustr
L2 654 069 -068 217 070 -042 -184 -006 -092 L4 595 -044 044 117 044 136 029 039 064 L1 586 060 -009 106 127 -235 195 -023 -099 L3 576 097 027 023 144 -046 013 007 098 L5 551 -073 131 -047 022 026 205 -041 028 L12 -516 -010 -180 000 156 147 066 073 181 L8 466 030 082 -162 093 -021 109 022 076 L14 -428 -032 150 -103 202 023 131 224 230 L15 -402 053 -078 -039 146 000 -023 -215 260 L6 387 001 040 050 108 -183 -212 -038 132 L7 368 -121 -216 162 165 -095 -154 116 -008 M9 -322 -099 -009 154 100 -300 -076 -191 039 L26 320 165 054 101 051 073 -198 034 042 L11 318 222 -223 -116 059 -030 007 -078 219 M7 -288 108 -090 -102 -014 -006 -085 -158 -168 M17 -225 031 136 012 -018 -160 200 210 070 M3 -195 -159 -087 -057 -017 060 077 002 -037 M16 -179 108 -012 -141 -115 -170 -168 008 -052 P53 074 655 052 -031 -075 061 -179 -014 066 P5 -034 637 032 -128 -154 077 -138 -115 063 P38 050 555 207 034 -038 011 010 -143 -086 P22 080 535 -013 -261 023 043 003 069 045 P9 063 514 -060 179 -002 -148 -023 -130 010 P19 059 -475 057 022 049 -074 -052 -068 115 P16 051 468 -166 103 -108 -059 -015 -088 104 P1 157 -407 037 046 095 019 -047 -145 183 P52 -033 407 -199 050 -123 073 128 175 -058 P36 157 353 020 130 -014 145 143 156 -039 P30 148 308 -267 161 024 -059 -049 205 125 P47 -126 261 -067 069 -015 -029 134 135 237 P4 -117 259 -250 098 046 219 116 107 033 P14 251 251 -110 005 -109 064 117 -168 088 P48 114 031 733 054 073 -042 023 -035 005 P39 022 086 660 134 128 066 -007 103 -051 P28 080 -073 609 -008 -017 183 -061 187 093 P11 153 007 563 -118 -141 266 -026 051 112 P26 -089 -111 543 091 141 074 -037 075 001 P13 -004 039 -506 -095 129 144 -034 084 -135 M14 084 -035 359 209 -062 -125 211 069 -164 P2 -027 189 -335 125 -193 005 173 083 074 P23 176 050 -309 033 -190 082 108 075 266 M19 -188 -022 250 -069 -150 -116 088 043 -054 M2 -219 -015 240 176 -233 -101 114 054 223 M20 -048 -039 226 064 -158 -178 165 049 -121 P41 012 -047 -009 636 -081 -004 058 038 096 L25 011 -033 061 591 -093 -048 -050 -112 054 P50 -019 016 024 583 021 104 049 -020 209 P24 085 012 211 546 -065 049 073 094 -106 P6 100 147 153 490 -028 -050 072 072 -036 P34 163 -039 055 440 046 154 004 -010 058 L24 141 -093 -172 373 -078 -074 -075 -040 186 M18 005 028 104 -329 -005 -129 023 179 -057 M6 -059 -157 -193 -261 146 -019 031 -129 -448E-005 P42 099 -181 073 -073 542 057 020 -006 023 P40 148 -231 018 -220 521 -001 005 -026 033 L23 003 -268 -162 -030 516 086 085 -188 070 M8 -091 -003 -077 103 -504 -044 -117 -056 -045 P51 035 -096 -050 -042 447 -217 -091 -023 153 P33 123 071 178 164 447 -042 144 -261 042 P49 056 -025 -056 -138 394 215 -169 -059 019 M10 282 -018 046 -162 -374 -041 134 -105 119 P20 254 003 063 -132 370 026 049 226 -287 L10 -294 313 014 -246 366 -174 027 004 220 P56 144 083 -144 186 -354 072 061 136 269 M5 021 040 -001 -154 -350 -077 -050 192 238
73
Factor Original Item
Mach Succes
Thrill Seek
Stress Immun
Persec
Inabl Plan
Social Dsrgrd
Intper Ease
Manip Deceit
Soc
Frustr M13 124 105 157 -226 -311 -216 050 -073 163 L19 -089 054 -123 089 286 -129 -004 045 -063 P45 -207 -081 211 045 270 255 023 -068 043 L21 -077 -179 056 170 -229 042 -118 195 187 P37 111 235 211 017 024 592 -112 -115 017 P12 044 149 138 -123 057 571 023 003 110 P27 -144 -152 013 056 052 547 057 095 081 P10 -096 -031 -030 065 -023 453 042 -110 -090 P55 -184 -010 -177 183 -031 419 -035 051 -010 P54 094 -076 -127 -024 339 406 163 024 151 P25 -064 128 192 275 -051 392 087 -284 022 M12 -115 -023 -024 002 -220 245 -052 -120 -130 P21 067 -141 077 154 112 -038 740 -057 130 P15 -059 138 -189 099 160 144 556 -128 054 P18 103 001 -135 -028 097 028 533 -021 -237 P32 023 037 -126 159 167 -088 -532 093 -016 P29 -067 211 -109 014 089 -199 528 -130 037 P17 133 401 250 -067 132 016 456 011 -085 P32 004 171 026 -039 269 -027 -454 174 -147 P43 071 046 112 -059 029 -021 -143 557 286 M1 -330 104 013 007 040 -115 102 -512 106 L9 363 -112 -006 -046 044 -113 085 491 120 L20 -108 030 004 035 -085 002 -043 463 -082 L18 -232 055 199 085 -004 -055 -263 446 025 P35 118 -031 -024 -029 -011 -083 -145 419 171 M15 036 -053 018 -161 -282 -094 088 332 081 P31 -030 176 213 160 198 -074 -102 319 224 L16 -154 -015 020 024 162 153 144 -185 164 L22 024 -112 063 204 128 107 -156 117 527 L17 -168 124 -069 090 048 054 000 180 518 P7 070 -190 243 173 -011 -023 205 025 487 P46 229 -086 172 098 009 -145 067 -156 448 P3 -022 073 297 034 -100 288 -202 -105 392 P44 109 084 013 224 077 -051 -199 046 280 M11 038 056 -087 -113 019 144 093 -025 266 M4 -205 046 092 080 080 -037 -123 -177 -263 L13 143 -030 -189 -079 -140 -124 028 139 238 Note Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation converged in 9 iterations Factor loadings gt 40 are in bold Abbreviations Original Item Number= The item number from each of the three self-report measures used in this study L = LPSP P = PPI-R SF M = MACH-IV (ex P48 = Item 48 on the PPI-R SF) Mach Succes = Machiavellian Success Thrill Seek = Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Immun = Stress Immunity Persec = Feelings of Persecution Inabl Plan = Inability to Plan Social Dsrgrd = Social Disregard Intper Ease = Interpersonal Ease Manip Deceit = Manipulative Deceit Soc Frust = Social Frustration
Factor analysis of PPI-R SF LPSP and MACH-IV subscales Finally a principal axis
factor analysis of the subscales of the three self-report measures of psychopathy and
Machiavellianism was conducted Squared multiple correlations were used to estimate
communalities in the initial factor pattern In a preliminary principal components analysis five
components had eigenvalues greater than 1 (3410 2093 1422 1209 1128) and the scree plot
of the eigenvalues indicated a break around five factors
74
Oblique rotation of the initial principal axis pattern was performed using Promax A
three four and six factor solution was attempted in addition to the five factor solution In
comparing the pattern matrices between factor models each factor in the three-factor model was
interpretable and had at least two loadings greater than 50 whereas the five-factor model
included one factor that did not have at least two loadings greater than 50 In addition the four-
and five-factor models would not converge in fewer than 25 iterations The three-factor model
compared to the four and five-factor models also had the most meaningful factor loadings in
terms of shared characteristics among the subscales in each factor Therefore the three-factor
model was selected Table 12 reports the factor loadings for the three-factor model Based on the
common characteristics shared by the subscales in their respective factors the following factor
names were assigned Antisocial Behavior Coldhearted Callousness and Thrill Seeking
75
Table 12 Factor Loadings of the Psychopathy and MACH Measures Subscales Factor
Subscale Antisocial Behavior
Coldhearted Callousness
Thrill Seeking
PPI Blame Ext 707 -152 032 LPSP Secondary 630 050 023 PPI Mach Ego 467 401 070 PPI Stress Immun -455 148 421 MACH Cynicism 424 149 -016 MACH Flattery 302 191 020 PPI Coldhrt -307 638 035 MACH Deceit 130 588 -015 LPSP Primary 341 486 -071 MACH Immoral 088 397 -081 PPI Carefree 033 309 226 MACH Residual 251 261 004 PPI Rebel 209 -011 752 PPI Fearless 056 -168 746 PPI Social Influ -131 125 295 Note Extraction Method Principal Axis Factoring with Promax Rotation converged in 6 iterations Factor loadings gt 30 appear in bold Subscale Abbreviations PPI Blame Ext = PPI-RSF Blame Externalization subscale LPSP Secondary = LPSP Secondary subscale PPI Mach Ego = PPI-RSF Machiavellianism Egocentricity subscale PPI Stress Immun = PPI-RSF Stress Immunity subscale MACH Cynicism = MACH-IVCynicism subscale MACH Flattery = MACH-IV Flattery subscale PPI Coldhrt = PPI-RSFColdheartedness subscale MACH Deceit = MACH-IV Deceit subscale LPSP Primary = LPSP Primary subscale MACH Immoral = MACH-IV Immorality subscale PPI Carefree = PPI-RSF Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale MACH Residual = MACH-IV Residual Subscale PPI Rebel = PPI-RSF Rebellious Nonconformity subscale PPI Fearless = PPI-RSF Fearlessness subscale PPI Social Influ = PPI-RSF Social Influence subscale
76
Chapter 4 Discussion
Four findings of the present study are particularly notable First as predicted the classic
cognitive dissonance effect was replicated in the sample as a whole That is participants in the
High Choice to Lie Condition reported enjoying the abacus task more than participants in the
Low Choice to Lie Condition Second as predicted a significant interaction was found between
Choice Condition and level of psychopathy as measured by the PPI-R SF and the LPSP
Specifically the classic cognitive dissonance effect was found among participants with lower
levels of psychopathic traits but not among participants with higher levels of psychopathic traits
Third contrary to prediction no significant interaction was found between Choice Condition and
level of Machiavellianism as measured by the MACH-IV Fourth level of psychopathy
demonstrated incremental predictive power over level of MACH in predicting abacus task
enjoyment Each of these four findings is discussed below
41 Classic Cognitive Dissonance Effect
One important finding of the current study was a significant main effect of Choice
Condition on abacus task enjoyment Specifically individuals in the High Choice to Lie
condition reported enjoying the abacus task more than participants in the Low Choice to Lie
condition
This finding replicates the results of two earlier studies that examined cognitive
dissonance in a similar manner In studies by Cooper and Worchel (1970) and Festinger and
Carlsmith (1959) participants performed a tedious task and then were asked to mislead a fellow-
student (actually a confederate) that the task was enjoyable Half of participants were given only
a weak external motivation to deceive the fellow-student (low monetary reward or half of an
experimental credit) whereas the other half of participants were given a stronger external
77
motivation to deceive the fellow-student (a high monetary reward or multiple experimental
credits) In both of these studies participants with weak external motivation to engage in the
deception reported enjoying the task more than did participants with stronger external
motivation
The main difference between the current study and the Cooper and Worchel (1970) and
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) studies is that external motivation (high or low) was manipulated
by the aforementioned researchers whereas we manipulated participantsrsquo level of perceived
choice However there is a close conceptual relationship between level of external motivation
and level of perceived choice from the perspective of cognitive dissonance theory Previous
research has indicated that both choice manipulation and external motivation have similar effects
in creating cognitive dissonance In both cases external justification is being manipulated
Participants in the low choice (direct instruction) condition attribute their actions to the influence
of external pressures that forced them to perform the dissonant behavior Participants rationalize
that if given the choice they would not have engaged in the behavior and thus cognitive
dissonance is avoided The same conclusion is drawn when participants are given high external
motivation to engage in a dissonant behavior such as a high monetary reward Participants again
rely on the external justification of high reward to explain their engagement in the dissonant act
They rationalize their dissonant behavior by relying on the high reward as justification for
behaving in uncharacteristically Participants in the high reward condition rationalize that if the
reward was not present as external justification then they would not have engaged in the task
which results in a lack of cognitive dissonance as well Alternatively participants with either
high choice (voluntary participation) or low reward cannot rely on external justification because
none exists in these conditions Thus attitude shift results from the need to ameliorate their
78
cognitive dissonance Overall external justification is needed to alleviate cognitive dissonance
arousal and this justification is provided by either an external motivation (reward) manipulation
or by a low choice manipulation
Self-perceived choice has frequently been used as the independent variable in cognitive
dissonance studies As in our experiment these earlier studies found that self-perceived choice
(ie High versus Low Choice) had a significant main effect on cognitive dissonance Several of
these studies reported that participants experienced an attitude shift toward being in favor of an
undesirable task or belief only when they felt free choice to engage in the dissonant behavior
such as misleading a confederate or writing a counterattitudinal essay (Brehm amp Cohn 1962
Chatzisarantis Hagger amp Wang 2008 Cooper 1971 Davis amp Jones 1960 Festinger amp
Carlsmith 1959 Linder Cooper amp Jones 1967 Seacuteneacutemeaud amp Somat 2009 Sherman 1970)
Therefore the current experiment has added empirical support to the body of cognitive
dissonance research examining choice condition as a predictor of attitude shift
42 Psychopathy and Cognitive Dissonance
The main hypothesis of this study was that people with low levels of psychopathy would
experience cognitive dissonance about engaging in deception whereas individuals with higher
levels of psychopathy would not experience cognitive dissonance
PPI-R SF total scores and cognitive dissonance Results supported our hypothesis in
regard to psychopathy when measured by total scores on the PPI-R SF Participants with higher
total scores on the PPI-R SF reported significantly less enjoyment of the abacus task on the post-
experimental questionnaire than participants with lower levels of psychopathy Specifically the
interaction between Choice to Lie condition and total PPI-R SF scores was significant in
predicting abacus task enjoyment standardized β = -216 p =036 True to our prediction
79
participants with low to non-existent levels of psychopathy experienced cognitive dissonance
only when in the High Choice to Lie condition and not in the Low Choice to Lie condition
Consistent with earlier studies (Cooper amp Worchel 1970 Festinger amp Carlsmith 1959) it
appears that low psychopathy participants in the Low Choice to Lie condition perceived that they
had a strong external motivation for misleading their fellow-student (direct instruction to lie)
Thus they did not experience cognitive dissonance and could (accurately) rate the abacus task as
boring However low psychopathy participants in the High Choice to Lie condition did not
perceive that they had a strong external motivation for misleading their fellow student (they
voluntarily agreed to tell the lie after being asked) The participants experienced cognitive
dissonance in the form of psychological tension or guilt which they reduced by convincing
themselves that the abacus task was actually interesting as they had told their fellow student
On the other hand participants with higher levels of psychopathy reported disliking the
abacus task on the post-experimental questionnaire regardless of the Choice to Lie condition they
were in It appears that participants with higher levels of psychopathy did not experience
cognitive dissonance (ie psychological tension or guilt) about misleading a fellow student
Consequently these participants did not experience a need to change their view of the abacus
task or to rate it as more enjoyable than it really was
PPI-R SF subscales on cognitive dissonance Exploratory analyses were conducted
using the eight subscales of the PPI-R SF Each subscale measures a different facet of
psychopathy The goal of analyzing each subscale individually was to examine which aspects of
psychopathy if any were related to a lack of cognitive dissonance Three subscales produced
significant interactions with choice condition in predicting level of task enjoyment
Machiavellian Egocentricity (ME) Fearlessness (F) and Rebellious Nonconformity (RN) The
80
Machiavellian Egocentricity and Rebellious Nonconformity subscales load on the Self Centered
Impulsivity factor (antisocial behavior traits of psychopathy) of the PPI-R SF while the
Fearlessness subscale loads on the Fearless Dominance factor (cognitive personality based traits
of psychopathy) of the PPI-R SF
The Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale identifies aggressive self-centered tendencies
when interacting with other individuals (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003
Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996) Items from this subscale include ldquoI could be a good con-artistrdquo ldquoI
sometimes lie to see if I can get someone to believe merdquo and ldquoI tell people the part of the truth
they want to hearrdquo This scale seems to identify psychopathic characteristics that would allow for
individuals to have a lack of psychological tension or guilt over misleading others Thus in the
present experiment it appears that these traits may have inhibited participantsrsquo experience of
cognitive dissonance over lying to the confederate The significant interaction of the ME scale
and choice condition suggests that the participants in our study who lacked concern for
misleading others or even prided themselves in their ability to mislead others (as the scale
predicts) did not experience guilt or psychological stress
The Fearlessness (F) subscale of the PPI-R SF identifies willingness to engage in risky
behavior with a lack of regard for the negative consequences of onersquos actions The Rebellious
Nonconformity subscale (RN) indicates reckless behavior with a lack of concern for future
consequences (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Lilienfeld amp Andrews
1996) These scales are similar in that higher scores on the scales indicate an inability to
comprehend future negative consequences of onersquos actions These subscales also were
substantially correlated in the present study (r = 522) In regard to the current experiment it may
be that participants who scored higher on the Fearlessness and Rebellious Nonconformity
81
subscales were unable to comprehend or feel concern for the negative impact their deceptive
actions could have on their fellow student Thus participants with higher levels of fearlessness
and rebellious nonconformity may have experienced less psychological tension and less
cognitive dissonance about engaging in the deception than did participants with low levels of
these traits Because these findings are exploratory further studies should analyze these variables
so that strong conclusions can be made
PPI-R SF factors on cognitive dissonance In exploratory analyses the Self-Centered
Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF was the only factor to have a significant interaction with
choice condition in predicting abacus task enjoyment That is the dissonance effect was found
among participants with low scores on the PPI-R SF Self Centered Impulsivity factor but not
among participants with high scores The Self Centered Impulsivity factor is comprised of the
Machiavellian Egocentricity subscale the Rebellious Nonconformity subscale and the Carefree
Nonplanfulness subscale of the PPI-R SF The Self-Centered Impulsivity factor of the PPI-R SF
has been found in the literature to correlate with the behavioral traits associated with
psychopathy such as a DSM diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder lower education
levels lower employment rates lower SES and increased drug and alcohol abuse (Benning
Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003) Therefore the present results suggest that the
behavioral antisocial behavior characteristics of psychopathy (impulsivity blame
externalization lack of planning abilities) affected participantsrsquo experience of guilt-induced
cognitive dissonance
In contrast the interaction between the Fearless Dominance (FD) factor of the PPI-R SF
and choice condition was not a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment The Fearless
Dominance factor is characterized by low trait anxiety social dominance and fearlessness when
82
engaging in risky actions Individuals who score higher on the Fearless Dominance factor of the
PPI-R SF are often described as the more ldquosuccessful psychopathrdquo because they are
characterized by higher SES more advanced education and a lack of substance abuse (Benning
Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003) as compared to the type of psychopathy predicted by
the PPI-R SF Self Centered Impulsivity factor In fact studies have found that the two factors of
the PPI-R SF are orthogonal (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Lilienfeld amp
Fowler 2006) Therefore the present results suggest that individuals with higher scores on the
Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R SF may have the propensity to experience cognitive
dissonance more than individuals with the more antisocial traits of psychopathy (as measured by
the Self Centered Impulsivity Factor)
LPSP total scores on cognitive dissonance The effect of psychopathy on cognitive
dissonance was also examined using scores from the LPSP Similar to the results using the PPI-
R SF the interaction of LPSP total scores and choice condition was statistically significant in
predicting level of task enjoyment Specifically a significant relationship did not exist between
LPSP scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus task in the Low Choice to Lie
condition However in accordance with our prediction there was a significant negative
correlation between LPSP total scores and Self-Reported Enjoyment in the High Choice to Lie
condition This result further supported the hypothesis that individuals with lower levels of
psychopathy would show the classic cognitive dissonance effect but that individuals with higher
levels would not
LPSP factor scores on cognitive dissonance Both the Primary and Secondary factors of
the LPSP were examined in exploratory analyses to see if one factorrsquos constellation of
psychopathic traits better accounted for a lack of cognitive dissonance than the other The
83
findings of this analysis implicate the cognitive (callousness fearless dominance low trait
anxiety) characteristics of psychopathy (as measured by the Primary factor) rather than the
external behavioral markers (as measured by the Secondary factor) as cues to understanding the
cognitive differences found in individuals with higher levels of psychopathy The results of the
interaction between the Primary (Cognitive) Factor and choice condition approached statistical
significance (unless the data was analyzed with the six individuals who did not lie factored out)
Further analysis of the data found that the interaction of LPSP Secondary (Behavioral) factor
scores with choice condition was not a significant predictor of abacus task enjoyment
Interestingly these analyses of the LPSP factor scales yielded results that seem contrary
to the results concerning the PPI-R SF factor scales As already noted the PPI-R SF factor scale
analysis suggested that the behavioral characteristics of psychopathy (as measured by the PPI-R
Self Centered Impulsivity factor) were related to the absence of a cognitive dissonance effect In
contrast however the LPSP Secondary (behavioral) factor was not significantly related to
whether the cognitive dissonance effect was found Instead the findings for the LPSP Primary
(cognitive) factor approached significance
The conflicting findings regarding the PPI-R and LPSP factor scales may be partially
explained by the fact that the LPSPrsquos Primary and Secondary factors have not shown a consistent
relationship to other scales that measure the behavioral and cognitive dimensions of psychopathy
(Skeem amp Lilienfeld 2004) Levenson and colleagues (1995) reported that the two factors of the
LPSP mirrored the two factors of the PPI-R and the PCL-R However the discriminant and
convergent validity of the LPSP factor scales have been inconclusive in several studies For
example a study by Lilienfeld Skeem and Poythress (2004) found that the LPSP Primary
(cognitive) factor (callousness lack of guilt or remorse low trait anxiety) of the LPSP was more
84
correlated with the secondary (Self Centered Impulsivity) factor of the PPI-R (r = 62) than with
the primary (Fearless Dominance) factor of the PPI-R (r = 16)
In addition to the study by Lilienfeld et al (2004) other researchers have obtained results
indicating that the Primary (cognitive) Scale of the LPSP correlates higher with the secondary
factor of the PPI-R (Self Centered Impulsivity) rather than the with the primary factor of the PPI-
R (Fearless Dominance Wilson Frick amp Clements 1999 Lilienfeld amp Hess 2001)
Furthermore the Primary (cognitive) scale of the LPSP appears to correlate more highly with
antisocial behaviors rather than with the callous cognitive traits it was designed to measure
(Lilienfeld Skeem amp Poythress 2004 McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto 1998) Therefore the
discrepancy in the results between the PPI-R SF factor scales and the LPSP factor scales in the
current study might be a result of the LPSP Primary scale not being discriminant or divergent
enough from the antisocial behavior characteristics that are measured by the Secondary Scale of
the LPSP and by the factor scales of other measures like the PPI-R In other words perhaps the
Primary Scale of the LPSP is not accurately identifying just the cognitive personality-based traits
of psychopathy that is was designed to measure and thus this imprecision of the factor is what
led to the seemingly inconsistent results concerning the PPI-R SF and LPSP factors
Table 13 reports the significant (and insignificant) interactions between choice condition
and level of psychopathy by individual subscale and factor scale scores This table specifically
sorts the subscales and factor scales by the main psychopathy factors evidenced in the literature
(cognitive or behavioral) that the subscales and factors load on Past studies have consistently
confirmed the subscales arranged below load on the factor indicated (either the more behavioral
factor or the more cognitive affective factor) (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Iacono
2005 Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Edens Lilienfeld Poythress Patrick
85
amp Test 2008 Levenson Kiehl amp Fitzpatrick 1995 Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996 Lilienfeld amp
Widows 2005 Patrick Edens Poythress Lilienfeld amp Benning 2006 Poythress amp Skeem
2006 Uzieblo Verschuere amp Crombez 2007) By separating the significant subscale and factor
score results in the current study by the respective factor they have been shown to load on
(cognitive or behavioral) the difference in our somewhat mixed results becomes clearer The
results evidence that in the current study Secondary psychopathy (Factor 2 antisociality
impulsivity inability to plan thrill seeking behavior) seems to relate more to a lack of cognitive
dissonance in the sample of participants
86
Table 13 Interactions of Psychopathy Subscales and Factor Scales with Choice Condition by the Two Factor (Cognitive or Behavioral) Psychopathy Solution Demonstrated by Past Research (Self-Reported Enjoyment as Criterion)
Cognitive Affective Factor Antisocial Behavior Factor FactorSubscale Stdz β t p Stdz β t p PPI FD Factor -167 -146 146 PPI Soc Infl 057 48 631 PPI Fearless -274 -247 015 PPI Stress Imm -101 -93 352 LPSP Primary -199 -192 057 PPI SCI Factor -220 -221 028 PPI Mach Ego -295 -281 006 PPI Rebel -243 -230 023 PPI Blm Ext -036 -32 747 PPI Carefree 068 66 511 LPSP Second -161 -145 148 Note Significant p values (p lt 05) are in bold p values approaching significance (lt10) are in italics Predictor Abbreviations PPI FD Factor = PPIRSF Factor 1 ndash Fearless Dominance Factor PPI Soc Infl = PPI-RSF Social Influence subscale PPI Fearlessness = PPI-RSF Fearlessness subscale PPI Stress Imun = PPI-RSF Stress Immunity subscale LPSP Primary = LPSP Primary subscale PPI SCI Factor = PPIRSF Factor 2-Self Centered Impulsivity Factor PPI Mach Ego = PPI-RSF Machiavellianism Egocentricity subscale PPI Rebel = PPI-RSF Rebellious Nonconformity subscale PPI Blm Extern = PPI-RSF Blame Externalization subscale PPI Carefree = PPI-RSF Carefree Nonplanfulness subscale LPSP Second = LPSP Secondary subscale The PPI-RSF Colheartedness Scale is not included because it has not been shown to load on the Two Factor Solution Model Abbreviations Stzd β = Standardized Beta
Possible Reasons for the Lack of Cognitive Dissonance in High Psychopathy Individuals
The results of the current study indicate that the more psychopathic traits a participant
reported including the callous unemotional traits such as a lack of guilt remorse or concern for
others the less likely the participant was to exhibit the classic cognitive dissonance effect It is
important to consider possible explanations for these results
Psychopathy and lack of guilt One of the main traits linked to psychopathy is a callous
lack of guilt (Hart amp Hare 1997 Hare 1993 Lykken 2006 McHoskey Worzel amp Szyarto
1998) This lack of guilt and concern for others may be the cognitive deficit that allows for
psychopathic individuals to commit violent crimes or manipulate others If this is the case then it
is important to determine if a lack of guilt is occurring significantly more in individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy compared to individuals with low or non-existent levels of
psychopathy Previous studies have examined guilt in individuals with psychopathy and have
87
almost universally found that individuals with high psychopathy lack guilt (Cima Tonnaer amp
Lobbestael 2007 Hare 1993 Walsh amp Wu 2008)
Though a lack of guilt has already been strongly associated with psychopathy in the
literature it is important to now try to find the underlying cognitive pathways and mechanisms
that are behind the inability to feel guilt in high psychopathic individuals Understanding the
cognitive deficits of individuals with higher levels of psychopathy can lead to better assessment
strategies and possible intervention models to curb maladaptive behaviors at an early age This
study attempted to identify the role that guilt plays in eliciting cognitive dissonance by assessing
dissonance effects in individuals with varying levels of guilt capabilities (high versus low
psychopaths) The use of psychopathy as a moderating variable for cognitive dissonance is based
on empirical research that has found a lack of guilt and contentiousness in individuals with
higher levels of psychopathy
Guilt and cognitive dissonance Cognitive dissonance has long been thought to be a
universal feature of human behavior Since the discovery of cognitive dissonance by Festinger in
1957 many other researchers have replicated the phenomenon with great success in a multitude
of situations and across stimuli (for a review see Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) The main theory
of cognitive dissonance that this project intended to analyze with regard to psychopathy was
Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory (1984) due to its focus on guilt as the catalyst for attitude
shift
According to Cooper and Faziorsquos New Look Theory (1984) one of the crucial
components for creating the attitude shift found in cognitive dissonance is that individuals must
feel guilt (that their actions have brought negative consequences to themselves or others) The
current study incorporated the New Look Theory by having participants voluntarily lie to
88
someone else about a boring task being enjoyable Our hypothesis hinged on the theory that low
psychopathy individuals would change their beliefs about the task (they would think it was fun)
in order to relieve the guilt felt over misleading another individual In contrast since cognitive
dissonance occurs due to guilt induction we believed and found that individuals with higher
levels of psychopathy (low guilt) did not experience dissonance Therefore the results of this
study provide further evidence of the callous lack of guilt evidenced in psychopaths while
supporting Cooper and Faziorsquos (1984) theory that cognitive dissonance is invoked by guilt
43 Machiavellianism and Cognitive Dissonance
Machiavellianism is characterized by the deliberate incorporation of callous unemotional
behaviors with the goal of achieving success and domination through the use of the asocial affect
and behaviors (Christie amp Geis 1970 Wastell amp Booth 2003 Wilson Near amp Miller 1996)
The centrality of success seems to be a characteristic of MACH that distinguishes it from
psychopathy Individuals with higher levels of MACH seem to engage in callous manipulative
behaviors in order to achieve preconceived goals whereas psychopathic individuals do not
necessarily plan their behavior to the same degree In fact several of the core traits associated
with psychopathy involve a lack of planning ability impulsivity and antisocial behavior that
often involves illegal and violent activities (Hare 1993)
Due to the callous guilt free traits associated with MACH the current study
hypothesized incorrectly that high MACH individuals in the High Choice (and high guilt)
condition would report significantly less enjoyment of the boring abacus task than individuals
with low MACH
MACH-IV total scores on cognitive dissonance It was hypothesized that the interaction
between MACH and choice condition would significantly predict Self-Reported Enjoyment of
89
the abacus task However this interaction was not statistically significant Level of
Machiavellianism did not impact an individualrsquos self-rated level of enjoyment on the abacus task
These results were surprising given the fact that MACH has significantly related to a lack of
predicted attitude shift in past studies of guilt induced cognitive dissonance (Bogart 1971
Bogart et al 1970 Epstein 1969) Though these previous studies on MACH did not
specifically intend to analyze guilt-induction as the dissonance invoking stimulus they did use
methodology that would create guilt in participants
Unlike the current study these previous experiments found significant differences
between individuals with higher versus lower levels of MACH Also in opposition with the
current findings these previous studies (Bogart 1971 Bogart Geis Levy amp Zimbardo 1970
Epstein 1968) found that individuals with high MACH were able to experience cognitive
dissonance often in the opposite experimental condition to the individuals with low MACH who
experienced cognitive dissonance These studies termed this effect ldquoanti-dissonancerdquo The
current study however found no significant evidence of an anti-dissonance effect in our
participants In fact the results for the MACH-IV scores exhibited a weak version of the
interaction pattern that was seen with the two psychopathy predictors Specifically the MACH-
IV total scores had a significant negative correlation with Self-Reported Task Enjoyment in the
High Choice Group (r = -295 p lt 01) but not in the Low Choice group (r = -104 p = 354)
Such findings seem to suggest that Machiavellianism like psychopathy influences cognitive
dissonance effects However as already reported the crucial analysis regarding this hypothesis
based on an interaction term of Machiavellianism with Choice condition did not attain statistical
significance
90
It is possible that the present study failed to find a significant interaction between choice
and level of MACH in predicting attitude shift because the MACH-IV is outdated The MACH
measure was created in 1970 and has not been altered since that time In addition many of the
items on the measure use wording from Niccolo Machiavellirsquos writing which dates back to 1513
Further many of the items may be considered somewhat sexist in current society as they focus
on men exclusively Participantsrsquo responses may have been effected by this gender exclusivity
Therefore concepts and items may not be current enough to be accurately identifying MACH
characteristics in our sample Given results from the present and earlier research the failure to
find a significant interaction between choice condition and Machiavellianism in the present study
may well represent a Type II error
44 Psychopathy Incrementally Predicting Abacus Task Enjoyment (Over MACH)
A hypothesis of the current study was that psychopathy would incrementally predict
abacus task enjoyment and the cognitive dissonance effect above and beyond the predictive
power of the MACH Results regarding this hypothesis were inconclusive Inclusion of PPI-R
SF scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment significantly increased predictive
power above and beyond scores on the MACH-IV Although there was a significant increase in
predictive power when adding PPI-R SF scores to the MACH-IV scores the beta for the
interaction between PPI-R SF scores and choice condition was only approached statistical
significance When total scores of the LPSP replaced the PPI-R SF scores the results were not
significant Inclusion of total LPSP scores and their interaction with Self-Reported Enjoyment
did not significantly increase predictive power above and beyond MACH-IV scores Therefore it
seems that the hypothesis in regard to psychopathy incrementally predicting abacus task
91
enjoyment above MACH was neither confirmed nor disconfirmed in the present study More
research examining the issue is needed
Conversely two exploratory hierarchical multiple regressions were run to identify
whether MACH-IV total scores incrementally predicted Self-Reported Enjoyment of the abacus
task above and beyond the predictive power of psychopathy scores When both the PPI-R SF
and the LPSP were used as predictors MACH did not significantly predict Self-Reported Level
of Enjoyment over psychopathy These results suggest though only in a preliminary way that
level of MACH does not incrementally predict cognitive dissonance effects above and beyond
the predictive power of level of psychopathy
45 Additional Exploratory Analyses
Exploratory Guilt Analysis
Multiple regressions were conducted with level of guilt as the criterion in the place of
enjoyment rating These analyses were exploratory with the goal of further exploring the role
that guilt plays during cognitive dissonance arousal and maintenance Results of these analyses
indicated that the interaction between psychopathy measures and choice conditions did not
generally significantly predict guilt In fact there was no reason to expect these interactions to
be significant based on cognitive dissonance theory The cognitive dissonance literature argues
that participants strive to reduce their feelings of guilt after engaging in counterattitudinal
behavior discrepant with their beliefs Thus participants with low levels of psychopathy who
were in the High Choice to Lie condition would be expected to change their attitudes about lying
to reduce their feelings of guilt immediately after telling the ldquofuture participantrdquo that the abacus
task was fun Therefore their reported guilt level on the post experimental questionnaire should
not be significant Due to cognitive dissonance these participants would have already reduced
92
their level of guilt to low or non-existent levels by the time they were answering the questions on
the post experimental questionnaire
Main effects for relationship between psychopathy and guilt An important result of these
exploratory analyses was that significant main effects were found between level of psychopathy
(measured by the PPI-R SF) and level of guilt that participants reported concerning their
participation in the study Specifically the PPI-R SF had a significant relationship with level of
guilt such that individuals with higher levels of psychopathy experienced less guilt than
participants with lower levels of psychopathy across choice conditions In addition both factor
scales of the PPI-R SF (Fearless Dominance and Self Centered Impulsivity) were significant in
predicting guilt Finally three of the PPI-R SF subscales reached significance in predicting level
of guilt in participants Fearlessness Stress Immunity Rebellious Nonconformity The
Fearlessness subscale and the Stress Immunity subscales load on the Fearless Dominance factor
of the PPI-R SF which is important to note because this factor assesses the cognitive aspects of
psychopathy including lack of guilt and lack of remorse Therefore these results provide support
for the validity of the PPI-R SF in assessing psychopathic traits such as guiltlessness
Exploratory Factor Analyses
Three factor analyses were conducted on the self-report psychopathy and MACH
measures utilized in the present study The goal of these analyses was to categorize the
individual traits of psychopathy and MACH that were being identified in the participants by the
measures and to distinguish overall factors of these personality traits that are similar across
measures
The first factor analysis found that the total scores of the three measures loaded together
as one factor The second factor analysis found that all of the items combined loaded on nine
93
interpretable factors Machiavellian Success Thrill Seeking Behavior Stress Impunity Feelings
of Persecution Inability to Plan Social Disregard Interpersonal Ease Manipulative Deceit and
Social Frustration Each factor was found to represent unique characteristics of psychopathy and
MACH Finally a third factor analysis was run on the combined subscales of the measures This
analysis yielded three interpretable factors Antisocial Behavior Coldhearted Callousness and
Thrill Seeking Though these factor analyses yielded factors that mirror others identified in the
literature (Benning Patrick Hicks Blonigen amp Krueger 2003 Hare 1991 Levenson et al
1995 Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996) the sample size of 164 participants was too small to draw
significant or important conclusions from these factor analyses
94
Limitations and Future Directions
The present study had several limitations One potential limitation was the sole use of
self-report measures for detecting psychopathy Though the self-report measures that were used
in the current study have been validated as measures of psychopathy (Levesnon et al 1995
Lilienfeld amp Andrews 1996 Lilienfeld amp Fowler 2006 Lilienfeld amp Hess 2001) the use of a
measure such as the Psychopathy Checklist ndash Revised (PCL-R Hare 1991) might have shed
additional light on the levels of psychopathy among our participants Psychopathy scores on the
PCL-R are obtained from a semi-structured clinical interview of the participant as well as
background and collateral information (Hare 1991) Therefore the information about the
participantrsquos personality is derived from multiple sources rather than just self-report A future
replication of this study would benefit from also assessing level of psychopathy with the PCL-R
or the PCL-R SV (Hart amp Hare 1995) which is a screening version of the PCL-R
A second limitation might have been the type of task used to illicit cognitive dissonance
The study had participants move wooden balls back and forth across an abacus for 20 minutes
Though this study attained significant results perhaps the length of time may not have been long
enough to induce boredom in all participants Future studies could increase the amount of time
participants are instructed to move balls across the abacus For example the original cognitive
dissonance study by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) had participants turn pegs in a peg-board for
one hour That length of time would most likely ensure boredom in participants It is important to
note however that the time limit of 20 minutes employed in the present study was the same as in
the study by Cooper and Worchel (1970) in which significant results were obtained when
participants engaged in the boring task for 20 minutes
95
In addition the use of the abacus task as the stimuli could have impacted the results
because some participants may have actually found the task enjoyable and thus genuinely
reported enjoying the task on the post-experimental questionnaire This would confound our
results because cognitive dissonance was not enacted in those participants In order to combat the
possible issue the use of counterattitudinal essays as the stimulus would be a useful option for
future studies Counterattitudinal essays involve writing in favor of an issue that one is
adamantly against The use of counterattitudinal essays has been incorporated into the majority
of cognitive dissonance studies (for a review see Harmon-Jones amp Mills 1999) Studies have
shown that when participants write in favor of an issue that they are opposed to this elicits
cognitive dissonance (Baumeister amp Tice 1984 Elkin amp Leippe 1986 Harmon-Jones amp Mills
1999 Linder Cooper amp Jones 1967 Seacuteneacutemeaud amp Somat 2009) Counterattitudinal essays
have also been used in studying cognitive dissonance effects in participants with MACH
(Burgoon Miller amp Tubbs 1972) with significant effects
Simply writing counter-attitudinal essays would not necessarily invoke guilt The present
study tested the hypothesis that guilt-invoking tasks create cognitive dissonance in individuals
with low psychopathic traits but not individuals with high psychopathic traits Therefore the
present results might not be replicated in a study that simply required the writing of counter-
attitudinal essays However a variant on this task exists in which writing a counter-attitudinal
essay is used to persuade other individuals to a viewpoint with which the writer strongly
disagrees This task of writing a counter-attitudinal essay to persuade others is likely to evoke
guilt and according to the hypotheses of the present study would be predicted to create a
cognitive dissonance effect in participants with higher levels of psychopathy but not in
participants with low levels of psychopathy A control condition would be necessary in which
96
some participants just write the counter-attitudinal essays while others write counter-attitudinal
essays that are then used to persuade other individuals In this way we would be better able to
determine whether any cognitive dissonance effects observed were due to guilt
Guilt has been manipulated in participants with the use of counterattitudinal essays The
primary way that researcherrsquos incorporate guilt was to have the participant write a
counterattitudinal essay and read it (or give it) to a panel of individuals with the intention of
persuading the panel to be in favor of the topic to which the participant is actually against In this
way participants feel guilt for attempting to convince others to support something that the
participant actually opposes For example a study by Elliot and Devine (1994) had their college
student sample of participants write essays in favor of a tuition raise for all students at their
university Before writing the counterattitudinal essays participants were initially screened to
make sure they were against a tuition increase on campus Participants were told that the essay
they wrote (pro-tuition increase) would be read by the university Board of Trustees to help
determine if the tuition raise should be implemented Participantsrsquo guilt was activated because
they were led to believe that their essay might cause a tuition increase for themselves and their
peers Results of the study found a significant shift in attitude towards being in favor of the
tuition increase after participants had written the essay The authors surmised that it was the
negative consequences that their actions (writing the pro-tuition increase essay) could cause
others that led to the attitude shift Replicating the current study with the use of counterattitudinal
essays that manipulate guilt rather than the abacus task may elicit stronger effects by eliminating
the participantsrsquo chance of genuinely enjoying the abacus task
A third limitation the current study concerns its generalizability to new populations of
participants This study analyzed level of psychopathy exclusively among college
97
undergraduates It is unclear whether the results obtained in this population will generalize to
groups with higher levels of psychopathy such as violent offenders or repeat-offender juvenile
delinquents Attempting a replication in a sample of violent offenders or juvenile delinquents
would be a valuable step in understanding how the construct of psychopathy impacts cognitive
dissonance
A fourth possible limitation was the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of participants
Approximately eighty-five percent of participants were Hispanic and thus the generalizability of
the results to non-Hispanic populations can be questioned However psychopathy has been
shown to be a universal construct across ethnicities including Anglo Americans (Cooke Kosson
amp Michie 2001 Hare 1996) African Americans (Cooke Kosson amp Michie 2001 Skeem et
al 2004 Swogger Walsh amp Kosson 2008) and Hispanics (Sullivan Abramowitz Lopez amp
Kosson 2006 Valdez Kaplan amp Codina 2000) MACH too has been shown to appear in
Hispanics (Martinez 1981) Therefore this limitation may not be a serious one
Though ethnicity may not have impacted our results cultural characteristics are another
limitation to consider Culture may impact the expression of psychopathic traits A recent study
by Smith and Madjarov (2008) found that individuals from Bulgaria evidenced higher levels of
psychopathy and Machiavellianism than Americans (as measured by the LPSP and MACH-IV)
The authors attributed the higher levels of psychopathic and MACH tendencies to the coercive
nature of the Bulgarian culture which teaches the youth to look out for themselves above all else
The authors deduced that the personality characteristics of psychopathy and MACH allow for
better survival outcomes in Bulgaria and thus the traits have flourished there as adaptive rather
than abnormal
98
The current study was conducted in a university on the US-Mexico border where
acculturation to American society varies in the university population Many students commute
over the border daily from Mexico to attend classes and are not highly acculturated to US
culture Based on the Smith and Madjarov (2008) study and the location of the current
experiment level of acculturation may have impacted our results and should be accounted for in
future studies
An additional future direction would be that this study spurs psychopathy and cognitive
dissonance research in new routes As previously mentioned only one other study has examined
the effects of psychopathy on cognitive dissonance (Weir 2007) However Weirrsquos study
contained methodological weaknesses (eg no control group for comparison purposes) and was
not designed to address how psychopathic traits impact cognitive dissonance in guilt-inducing
situations Clearly more studies need to be conducted in order to examine if the significant
results found in the present study will hold across other age groups populations (such as violent
offenders) and cultures The results of this study could assist in better understanding the
cognitive and emotional characteristics of psychopathy
In addition the results of this study pose new ideas for cognitive dissonance research
The results of the current study suggest that level of psychopathy could potentially be
confounding cognitive dissonance studies that rely on guilt or adverse consequences as the
mechanism of dissonance arousal Further replications of the present study are needed in the
literature to examine the robustness of our results and their impact on cognitive dissonance
arousal
99
Conclusions
Until now cognitive dissonance has been assumed to be a general cognitive effect found
in all individuals The results of this study suggest that this assumption may be incorrect In the
present study individuals with higher levels of psychopathy did not seem to experience guilt-
induced dissonance arousal It may be that past studies might have yielded stronger cognitive
dissonance effects if they had excluded participants with above-average levels of psychopathic
traits
In addition the lack of a significant finding in regard to level of MACH indicates that
more research needs to be conducted in assessing what maladaptive cognitive and behavioral
impacts Machiavellianism has on individuals and how MACH truly relates to psychopathy
Understanding the cognitive characteristics of psychopathy (and MACH) is important
due to the negative impact that individuals with these characteristics can cause society For
example individuals with higher levels of psychopathy are four times more likely to recidivate
after being released from prison (Hare 1993 Hemphill Hare amp Wong 1998) are arrested at
earlier ages are more likely to use weapons and violence in their offenses and have higher rates
of offending than individuals without psychopathy (Hart amp Hare 1997 Hare amp McPherson
1984) It is important to discover what specific cognitive and emotional characteristics lead some
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy to develop and behave maladaptively in society If
individuals with higher levels of psychopathy do not experience cognitive dissonance after lying
to someone else this finding points not only to a lack of guilt in such individuals but also to a
unique cognitive and emotional temperament that may be lacking dissonance arousal
100
References
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed) Washington DC Author Aronson E (1968) Dissonance theory Progress and problems In R Abelson E Aronson W McGuire T Newcomb M Rosenberg amp P Tannenbaum (Eds) Theories of cognitive consistency A sourcebook (pp5-27) Chicago Illinois Rand McNally Austin E J Farrelly D Black C amp Moore H (2007) Emotional intelligence Machiavellianism and emotional manipulation Does EI have a dark side Personality and Individual Differences 43 179-189 Baumeister R F amp Tice D M (1984) Role of self-presentation and choice in cognitive dissonance under forced compliance Necessary or sufficient causes Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46(1) 5-13 Bogart K (1971) Machiavellianism and individual differences in response to cognitive inconsistency Journal of Social Psychology 85 111-119 Bogart K Geis F Levy M amp Zimbardo P (1970) No dissonance for Machiavellians In P G Zimbardo (Ed) The cognitive control of motivation The consequences of choice and motivation (pp 251-263) Glenview Illinois Scott Foresman and Company Brehm J W amp Cohen A R (1962) Explorations in cognitive dissonance New York Wiley Burgoon M Miller G R amp Tubbs S L (1972) Machiavellianism justification and attitude change following counterattitudinal advocacy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 22 366-371 Chapman A L Gremore T M amp Farmer R F (2003) Psychometric analysis of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory with female inmates Journal of Personality Assessment 80(2) 164-172 Chatzisarantis N L D Hagger M S amp Wang J C K (2008) An experimental test of cognitive dissonance theory in the domain of physical exercise Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 20(1) 97-115 Christie R (1970a) Why Machiavelli In R Christie amp F Geis (Eds) Studies in Machiavellianism (pp1-9) New York Academic Press Christie R (1970b) Relationships between Machiavellianism and measures of ability opinion and personality In R Christie amp F Geis (Eds) Studies in Machiavellianism (pp35-52) New York Academic Press Christie R amp Geis F L (1970) Studies in Machiavellianism New York Academic Press
101
Cima M Tonnaer F amp Lobbestael J (2007) Moral emotions in predatory and impulsive offenders using implicit measures Netherlands Journal of Psychology 63(4) 144-155 Cleckley H (1976) The mask of sanity (5th ed) St Louis C V Mosby (Originally published 1941) Cooke D J Kosson D S amp Michie C (2001) Psychopathy and ethnicity Structural item and test generalizability of the Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (PCL-R) in Caucasian and African American participants Psychological Assessment 13(4) 531-542 Cooper J (1971) Personal responsibility and dissonance The role of foreseen consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18(3) 354-363 Cooper J (1999) Unwanted consequences and the self In search of the motivation for dissonance reduction In E Harmon-Jones amp J Mills (Eds) Cognitive dissonance Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp149-173) Washington DC American Psychological Association Cooper J amp Fazio R H (1984) A new look at dissonance theory In L Berkowitz (Ed) Advances in experimental psychology (Vol 17 pp 229-262) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Cooper J amp Worchel S (1970) Role of undesired consequences in arousing cognitive dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(2) 199-206 Croyle R amp Cooper J (1983) Dissonance arousal Physiological evidence Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 782-791 Davis K E amp Jones E E (1960) Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 61(3) 402-410 Edens J Marcus D Lilienfeld S O amp Poythress N G (2006) Psychopathic not psychopath Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of psychopathy Journal of Abnormal Psychology 115(1) 131-144 Elkin R A amp Leippe M R (1986) Physiological arousal dissonance and attitude change Evidence for a dissonance-arousal link and a ldquodonrsquot remind merdquo effect Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 55-65 Elliot A J amp Devine P G (1994) On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance Dissonance as psychological discomfort Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(3) 382-394 Epstein G F (1969) Machiavelli and the devilrsquos advocate Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 11(1) 38-41
102
Fehr B Samsom D amp Paulhus D L (1992) The construct of Machiavellianism Twenty years later In CD Spielberger amp J N Butcher (Eds) Advances in personality assessment (pp 77-116) Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance Stanford CA Stanford University Press Festinger L amp Carlsmith J M (1959) Cognitive consequences of forced compliance Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58 203-210 Fowles D C (1980) The three arousal model Implications of Grayrsquos two-factor learning theory for heart rate electrodermal activity and psychopathy Psychophysiology 17 87-104 Goethals G R amp Cooper J (1972) Role of intention and postbehavioral consequence in the arousal of cognitive dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23 293- 301 Greenwald H A (1967) Active psychotherapy New York Atherton Hare R D (1978) Psychopathy and electrodermal responses to nonsignal stimulation Biological Psychology 6 237-246 Hare R D (1985) Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psycopathy Journal of Clinical and Counseling Psychology 53 7-16 Hare R D (1991) Manual for the Hare Psycopathy Checklist-Revised Toronto
Multi-Health Systems
Hare R D (1993) Without conscience The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us New York Pocket Books Hare R D amp McPherson L M (1984) Violent and aggressive behavior by criminal psychopaths International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 7(1) 35-50 Hare R D amp Neumann C S (2006) The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy Development structural properties and new directions In C J Patrick (Ed) Handbook of psychopathy (pp 58-88) New York The Guilford Press Harmon-Jones E amp Mills J (1999) An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory In E Harmon-Jones amp J Mills (Eds) Cognitive dissonance Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp3-21) Washington DC American Psychological Association Harpur T J Hare R D amp Hakstian A R (1989) Two factor conceptualization of psychopathy Construct validity and assessment implications Psychological Assessment A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1 6-17
103
Hart S D amp Hare R D (1995) Psychopathy and risk assessment Issues in Criminological amp Legal Psychology 24 63-67 Hart S D amp Hare R D (1997) Psychopathy Assessment and association with criminal conduct In D M Stoff J Breiling amp J D Master (Eds) Handbook of antisocial behavior (pp 22-35) NY John Wiley and Sons Hemphill J F Hare R D amp Wong S (1998) Psychopathy and recidivism A review Legal and Criminological Psychology 3(1) 139-170 Karpman B (1941) On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types The symptomatic and the idiopathic Journal of Criminology and Psychopathology 3 112- 137 Karpman B (1948) The myth of the psychopathic personality American Journal of Psychiatry 104 523-534 Levenson M (1990) Risk taking and personality Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58 1073-1081 Levenson M Kiehl K amp Fitzpatrick C (1995) Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(1) 151-158 Lilienfeld SO (1994) Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy Clinical Psychology Review 14 17-38 Lilienfeld SO amp Andrews BP (1996) Development and preliminary validation of a self report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations Journal of Personality Assessment 66 488-524 Lilienfeld S O amp Hess T H (2001) Psychopathic personality traits and somatization Sex differences and the mediating role of negative emotionality Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 23(1) 11-24 Lilienfeld S O Skeem J L amp Poythress N G (2004 March) Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society Scottsdale AZ Lilienfeld S O amp Widows M R (2005) PPI-R professional manual Lutz FL Psychological Assessment Resources Linder D E Cooper J amp Jones E E (1967) Decision freedom as a determinant of the role of incentive magnitude in attitude change Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6 245-254
104
Lyyken D T (1957) A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55 6-10 Lykken D T (1995) The antisocial personalities Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Lynam D R Whiteside S amp Jones S (1999) Self-reported psychopathy A validation study Journal of Personality Assessment 73(1) 110-132 Machiavelli N (1981) The Prince New York Bantam Books (Original work published 1513) Marcus D K amp Edens J F (2004) A taxometric analysis of psychopathic personality Journal of Abnormal Psychology 113 626-635 Martinez D C (1981) Differences among Chicano and White students on items of Machiavellianism scale Psychological Reports 48(2) 433-434
McHoskey J W Worzel W amp Szyarto C (1998) Machiavellianism and psychopathy Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74 192-210 Meloy J R (1998) The psychopathic mind Maryland Rowman amp Littlefield Publishers Inc
Murrie D C amp Cornell D G (2002) Psychopathy screening of incarcerated juveniles A comparison of measures Psychological Assessment 14 390-396 Patrick C J (Ed) (2006) Handbook of psychopathy New York The Guilford Press Patrick C J Bradley R H amp Lang P J (1993) Emotion in the criminal psychopath Startle reflex modulation Journal of Abnormal Psychology 102(1) 82-92 Pethman T M amp Erlandsson S I (2002) Aberrant self-promotion or subclinical psychopathy in a Swedish general population The Psychological Record 52 33-50 Porter S (1996) Without conscious or without active conscious The etiology of psychopathy revisited Aggression and Violent Behavior 1 179-189 Raine A (2002) Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adults A review Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 30 311ndash326 Ray J J amp Ray J A (1982) Some apparent advantages of subclinical psychopathy Journal of Social Psychology 117 135-142 Rutherford M J Cacciola J S amp Alterman A I (1999) Antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in cocaine-dependent women American Journal of Psyciatry 156 849-856
105
Saruk S (1975) A comparison of Machiavellianism values and locus of control in psychopathic groups (Doctoral Dissertation Unites States International University 1975) Dissertation Abstracts International 36 458-B Seacuteneacutemeaud C amp Somat A (2009) Dissonance arousal and persistence in attitude change Swiss Journal of Psychology 68(1) 25-31 Shadish W R Cook T D amp Campbell D T (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (pp 230) Boston MA Houghton Mifflin Company Sherman S J (1970) Attitudinal effects of unforeseen consequences Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16(3) 510-520 Skeem J amp Lilienfeld S O (2004 March) Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society Scottsdale AZ Skinner N F (1982) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism IV Machiavellianism and psychopathology Social Behavior and Personality 10(2) 201-203 Skinner N F (1988) Personality correlates of Machiavellianism VI Machiavellianism and the psychopath Social Behavior and Personality 16 33-37 Smith R J (1999) Psychopathic behavior and issues of treatment New Ideas in Psychology 17 165-176 Smith E R amp Mackie D (Eds) (2000) Social Psychology (2nd ed)Kendallville IN Taylor amp Francis Smith R J amp Madjarov G (2008) Machiavellianism and psychopathy An East-West note Social Behavior and Personality 36(2) 255-256 Steele C M amp Liu T J (1983) Dissonance processes as self affirmation Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 5-19 Strelau J (1983) A regulative theory of temperament Australian Journal of Psychology 35 305-317 Sullivan E A Abramowitz C S Lopez M amp Kosson D S (2006) Reliability and construct validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised for Latino European American and African American male inmates Psychological Assessment 18(4) 382-392 Swogger M T Walsh Z amp Kosson D S (2008) Psychopathy subtypes among African American county jail inmates Criminal Justice and Behavior 35(12) 1484-1499
106
Valdez A Kaplan C D amp Codina E (2000) Psychopathy among Mexican American gang members A comparative study International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44(1) 46-58 Walsh A amp Wu H-H (2008) Differentiating antisocial personality disorder psychopathy and sociopathy Evolutionary genetic neurological and sociological considerations Criminal Justice Studies A Critical Journal of Crime Law amp Society 21(2) 135-152 Wastell C amp Booth A (2003) Machiavellianism An alexithymic perspective Journal of Social amp Clinical Psychology 22(6) 730-744 Weir J M (2007) Subtyping psychopathy Exploring the roles of degree of punishment cognitive dissonance and optimism Dissertation Abstracts International Section B The Sciences and Engineering 68(4-B) 2694 Wilson D L Frick P J amp Clements C B (1999) Gender somatization and psychopathic traits in a college sample Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 21(3) 221-235 Wilson D S Near D amp Miller R R (1996) Machiavellianism A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures Psychological Bulletin 119(2) 285-299 Zanna M P amp Cooper J (1974) Dissonance and the pill An attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29 703-709 Zanna M P Goethals G R amp Cooper J (1975) Misleading vs mistreating another person as consequences producing self-justificatory attitude change European Journal of Social Psychology 5 133-137
107
Appendix A
Script to be Used With High perceived choice Group
ldquoThank you for your participation in this task Irsquod like to explain what this has been all about so
you have some idea of why you were doing this task There are actually 2 groups in the
experiment In one group the group you were just in we bring the participant in and give him or
her no introduction to the experiment That is all we tell them is the instructions for how to do
the task and they have no idea what the experiment is really about or what they will have to do
But the other group before they begin the task we like to prep them What I mean by this is that
while they are still waiting in the hall we tell them what the experiment is going to be about so
we tell them it is a reaction task that they will be timed and they will be pushing balls along an
abacus etc Most importantly we also tell them that the task is going to be fun and enjoyable We
do this because we want to see if having a positive attitude about the task before you begin will
affect your ability on the task What we are interested in is comparing the performance of people
who know nothing about the experiment such as yourself with those people who expect the task
to be interesting and exciting
So normally we have another student who works for us and that student preps the person
while they are still in the hall so tells them about the task and that it is going to be fun and then
brings the person in to me to do the task However that person couldnrsquot be here today
Now I have an unusual request that I have to make I talked to my advisor Dr Wood and he
suggested that I might ask my real participant to talk to the next participant for me
You donrsquot have to but if you would be willing to do this for me all I would ask you to do
is to tell the next participant who is now in the hall that this task is fun and enjoyable So Irsquod
take you into the hall introduce you to the next person and then give you about 1 minute to
108
begin your conversation and tell him or her that this experimental task will be fun Itrsquos up to you
of course but do you think you could help me out by doing this for me
109
Appendix A
Script for Use With the Low perceived choice Group
ldquoThank you for your participation in this task Irsquod like to explain what this has been all about so
you have some idea of why you were doing this task There are actually 2 groups in the
experiment In one group the group you were just in we bring the participant in and give him or
her no introduction to the experiment That is all we tell them is what they need to know to do
the task and they have no idea what the experiment is really about or what they will have to do
But the other group before they begin the task we tell them what the experiment is going to be
about and that it is going to be fun and enjoyable We do this because we want to see if having a
positive attitude about the task before you begin will affect your ability on the task So normally
we have another student who works for us and what I do is take him into the hall that you were
just in and introduce him as though he had just finished the experiment This paid student then
starts a conversation with the next participant and tells him or her about the experiment and how
interesting and fun it was What we are interested in of course is comparing the performance of
people who know nothing about the experiment such as yourself with those people who expect
the task to be interesting and exciting
Now I have an unusual request I have to make The student that we have hired to talk to
the next participant about the study couldnt make it today He just called a few minutes ago My
advisor told me to just have one of my actual participants do it So what you will have to do is to
tell the next participant who is now in the hall that this task is exciting interesting and
enjoyable Irsquoll take you into the hall introduce you to the next participant and then give you
about 2 minutes to begin your conversation and tell him or her that this experimental task will be
fun Are you ready
110
Appendix B
Demographic Information
Age _____
Gender _____
Ethnicity (check only one)
Mexican American ____
Mexican National ____
Hispanic ____
Caucasian ____
Asian ____
African American ____
Other ____
111
Appendix B
University of Texas Psychology Department
Post Experiment Evaluation Form
This form is to be completed immediately following participation in a UTEP Psychology experiment The department is evaluating the research that is currently being conducted and would like your opinion on the effectiveness of the experiment you just participated in Please take the time to fill out this brief survey Please circle the answer that best describes your feelings about the experiment you just participated in Your responses will remain confidential and will only be reviewed by departmental staff Once you have completed the survey place it in the envelope provided for you and seal the envelope
The following items are about the experiment you just participated in Please circle how much you agree with the following statement
1 The task in this experiment was enjoyable
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
2 I feel that I learned a lot from this experiment
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
112
3 I feel that the results of this study will have scientific value
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
4 I would enjoy participating in future experiments similar to this one
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly 5 I felt guilty during this experiment
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly 6 I felt comfortable at all times during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
113
7 I felt that I had free will at all times during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
8 I felt pressured by the experimenter during this study
1 = Disagree Strongly 2 = Disagree Moderately 3 = Disagree Slightly 4 = Undecided 5 = Agree Slightly 6 = Agree Moderately 7 = Agree Strongly
114
Appendix C Date _________________
LPSP
Listed below are a number of statements Each represents a commonly held opinion and there are no right or wrong answers You will probably disagree with some items and agree with others Please read each statement carefully and circle the number which best describes the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement or the extent to which each statement applies to you
ITEM Strongly Disagree
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Strongly Agree
1 Success is based on survival of the fittest I am not concerned about the losers
1 2 3 4
2 For me whatrsquos right is whatever I can get away with
1 2 3 4
3 In todayrsquos world I feel justified in doing anything I can get away with to succeed
1 2 3 4
4 My main purpose in life is getting as many goodies as I can
1 2 3 4
5 Making a lot of money is my most important goal
1 2 3 4
6 I let others worry about higher values my main concern is with the bottom line
1 2 3 4
7 People who are stupid enough to get ripped off usually deserve it
1 2 3 4
8 Looking out for myself is my top priority
1 2 3 4
9 I tell other people what they want to hear so that they will do what I want them to do
1 2 3 4
10 I would be upset if my success came at someone elsersquos expense
1 2 3 4
115
Appendix C (LPSP Continued)
ITEM Disagree Strongly
Disagree Somewhat
Agree Somewhat
Agree Strongly
11 I often admire a really clever scam 1 2 3 4
12 I make a point of trying not to hurt others in pursuit of my goals
1 2 3 4
13 I enjoy manipulating other peoplersquos feelings
1 2 3 4
14 I feel bad if my words or actions cause someone else to feel emotional pain
1 2 3 4
15 Even if I were trying very hard to sell something I wouldnrsquot lie about it
1 2 3 4
16 Cheating is not justified because it is unfair to others
1 2 3 4
17 I find myself in the same kinds of trouble time after time
1 2 3 4
18 I am often bored 1 2 3 4
19 I find that I am able to pursue one goal for a long time
1 2 3 4
20 I donrsquot plan anything very far in advance
1 2 3 4
21 I quickly lose interest in tasks I start 1 2 3 4
22 Most of my problems are due to the fact that other people just donrsquot understand me
1 2 3 4
23 Before I do anything I carefully consider the possible consequences
1 2 3 4
24 I have been in a lot of shouting matches with other people
1 2 3 4
25 When I get frustrated I often let off steam by blowing my top
1 2 3 4
26 Love is overrated 1 2 3 4
116
Appendix D
PPI-R SF
This test measures different personality characteristics ndash that is the ways in which peoplersquos personality styles make them different from each other Read each statement carefully and decide how false or true it is as a description of you Then mark the best choice by circling the number that corresponds to your answer Use the answer choices provided below 1 = False 2 = Mostly False 3 = Mostly True 4 = True Even if you feel that an item is neither false nor true as applied to you or if you are unsure about what response to make please answer all of the items If you cannot make up your mind about an item select the choice that is closest to your opinion Here is a sample item
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True
I enjoy going to the movies 1 2 3 4 If it is true that you enjoy going to the movies circle the 4 to the right of the question as shown below
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True
I enjoy going to the movies 1 2 3
If it is mostly false that you enjoy going to the movies you would circle the 2 to the right of the item and so on Try to be as honest as you can and be sure to give your own opinion about whether each item is false or true about you Now please begin by circling the response next to the item that best represents your opinion about yourself
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 1 Dangerous activities like skydiving scare me more than they do most people
1
2
3
4
2 I have always seen myself as something of a rebel
1
2
3
4
3 I am easily flustered in pressured situations
1
2
3
4
4 I would find the job of a movie stunt person exciting
1
2
3
4
4
117
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 5 I might like to hang out with people who drift from city to city with no permanent home
1
2
3
4
6 A lot of people have tried to ldquostab me in the backrdquo
1
2
3
4
7 I get mad if I donrsquot receive special favors I deserve
1
2
3
4
8 I am hardly ever the center of attention
1
2
3
4
9 It might be exciting to be on a plane that was about to crash but somehow landed safely
1
2
3
4
10 A lot of times I worry when a friend is having personal problems
1
2
3
4
11 I tend to get crabby and irritable when I have too many things to do
1
2
3
4
12 I get mad when I hear about the injustices in the world
1
2
3
4
13 I donrsquot let everyday hassles get on my nerves
1
2
3
4
14 I could be a good con artist
1
2
3
4
15 I have a talent for getting people to talk to me
1
2
3
4
16 I might like to travel around the country with some motorcyclists and cause trouble
1
2
3
4
17 In conversations Irsquom the one who does most of the talking
1
2
3
4
18 I feel sure of myself when Im around other people
1
2
3
4
19 Parachute jumping would really scare me
1
2
3
4
118
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 20 When people lend me something I try to get it back to them quickly
1
2
3
4
21 I like to stand out in a crowd
1
2
3
4
22 It would be fun to fly a small airplane by myself
1
2
3
4
23 In school or at work I try to stretch the rules just to see what I can get away with
1
2
3
4
24 Irsquove often been betrayed by people I trusted
1
2
3
4
25 It would break my heart to see a poor or homeless person walking the streets at night
1
2
3
4
26 Some people say that I am a ldquoworry wartrdquo
1
2
3
4
27 It bothers me a lot when I see someone crying
1
2
3
4
28 I get stressed out when Irsquom ldquojugglingrdquo too many tasks
1
2
3
4
29 Itrsquos easy for me to go up to a stranger and introduce myself
1
2
3
4
30 I donrsquot care about following the ldquorulesrdquo I make up my own rules as I go along
1
2
3
4
31 Irsquove been the victim of a lot of bad luck
1
2
3
4
32 Im hardly ever the life of the party
1
2
3
4
33 Irsquove thought a lot about my long-term career goals
1
2
3
4
34 Some people have gone out of their way to make my life difficult
1
2
3
4
119
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 35 I sometimes lie just to see if I can get someone to believe me
1
2
3
4
36 I like my life to be unpredictable and surprising
1
2
3
4
37 I get very upset when I see photographs of starving people
1
2
3
4
38 I might like flying across the ocean in a hot-air balloon
1
2
3
4
39 I worry about things even when therersquos no reason to
1
2
3
4
40 When I am doing something important like taking a test or doing my taxes I check it over first
1
2
3
4
41 People I thought were my ldquofriendsrdquo have gotten me into trouble
1
2
3
4
42 I think long and hard before I make big decisions
1
2
3
4
43 I tell people only the part of the truth they want to hear
1
2
3
4
44 I get blamed for many things that arenrsquot my fault
1
2
3
4
45 I feel bad about myself after I tell a lie
1
2
3
4
46 I quickly get annoyed with people who do not give me what I want
1
2
3
4
47 I would like to have a wild hairstyle
1
2
3
4
48 Irsquom the kind of person who gets ldquostressed outrdquo pretty easily
1
2
3
4
49 I usually think about what Irsquom going to say before I say it
1
2
3
4
120
ITEM False Mostly False Mostly True True 50 Some people have made up stories about me to get me in trouble
1
2
3
4
51 I watch my finances closely
1
2
3
4
52 I am a daredevil
1
2
3
4
53 I would like to hitchhike across the country with no plans
1
2
3
4
54 I try to use my best manners when Irsquom around other people
1
2
3
4
55 I often place my friendsrsquo needs above my own
1
2
3
4
56 If I canrsquot change the rules I try to get others to bend them for me
1
2
3
4
121
Appendix E
MACH Scale (IV)
Below are twenty statements Please read each one and consider your level of agreement Rate each statement using the following scale and record your answers by circling the answer next to each statement that is most representative of how you feel 1 Strongly Agree ndash I agree completely with this statement 2 Somewhat Agree ndash I agree with this statement but not entirely 3 No Opinion ndash I have no opinion about this statement 4 Somewhat Disagree ndash I disagree with this statement but not entirely 5 Strongly Disagree ndash I disagree completely with this statement
Item Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
No Opinion
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
1) The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear
1 2 3 4 5
2) When you ask someone to do something for youyou it is best to give the real reasons for wanting it rather than giving reasons which might carry more weight
1 2 3 4 5
3) Anyone who completely trusts anyone else is asking for trouble
1 2 3 4 5
4) It is hard to get ahead without cutting corners here and there
1 2 3 4 5
5) Honesty is the best policy in all cases 1 2 3 4 5
6) Itrsquos safe to assume that all people have a vicious streak that will come out when they are given a chance
1 2 3 4 5
7) Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so
1 2 3 4 5
8) One should take action only when sure it is morally right
1 2 3 4 5
9) It is wise to flatter important people 1 2 3 4 5
122
Appendix E ( MACH-IV Continued)
Item Strongly
Agree Somewhat
Agree No
Opinion Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Disagree
10) All in all it is better to be humble and honest than important and dishonest
1 2 3 4 5
11) Barnum was very wrong when he said therersquos a sucker born every minute
1 2 3 4 5
12) People suffering from incurable diseases should have the choice of being put painlessly to death
1 2 3 4 5
13) It is possible to be good in all respects 1 2 3 4 5
14) Most people are basically good and kind 1 2 3 4 5
15) There is no excuse for lying to someone else
1 2 3 4 5
16) Most men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their property
1 2 3 4 5
17) Most people who get ahead in the world lead clean moral lives
1 2 3 4 5
18) Generally speaking men wonrsquot work hard unless they are forced to do so
1 2 3 4 5
19) The biggest difference between most criminals and other people is that criminals are stupid enough to get caught
1 2 3 4 5
20) Most men are brave 1 2 3 4 5
123
Appendix F
Informed Consent Form
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Form for Research Involving Human Subjects
Protocol Title Personality effects on reaction time
Principal Investigator Ashley Murray BA
UTEP Psychology
Introduction
You are being asked to take part voluntarily in the research project described below Before agreeing to take part in this research study it is important that you read the consent form that describes the study Please ask the study researcher or the study staff to explain any words or information that you do not clearly understand
Why is this study being done
You have been asked to take part in a research study looking at how certain personality types differ on reaction times You will be asked to complete 3 separate personality surveys and a reaction time measure Approximately 150 students will be participating in this study at UTEP You are being asked to be in the study because you are currently enrolled as a student at UTEP and are 18 years of age or older
If you decide to enroll in this study your involvement will last approximately an hour and a half
What is involved in the study
If you agree to take part in this study the research team will provide you with a brief demographics form and three personality measures Please fill out all forms and do not skip through the packet Please answer every question to the best of your ability After you have finished answering all of the questions please let the experimenter know You will also be asked
124
to complete a brief peg turning task that measures your physical reaction abilities Your performance on the task will be monitored by the experimenter
What if I want to withdraw or am asked to withdraw from this study
Taking part in this study is voluntary You have the right to choose not to take part in this study If you do not take part in the study there will be no penalty There are no risks or harms related to participating in this study
If you choose to take part you have the right to stop at any time However we encourage you to talk to a member of the research group so that they know why you are leaving the study If there are any new findings during the study that may affect whether you want to continue to take part you will be told about them
Who do I call if I have questions or problems
You may ask any questions you have now If you have questions later you may call Ashley Murray (915-474-5784) or Dr James Wood (915-474-6570)
If you have questions or concerns about your participation as a research subject please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTEP Contact Ms Lola Norton (Institutional Coordinator for Research Review) at (915) 747-7939 or irborsputepedu
What about confidentiality
1 Your part in this study is confidential None of the information will identify you by name All records will be handled only by the research team and will be kept securely locked in a file cabinet when not in use
125
Authorization Statement
I have read each page of this paper about the study (or it was read to me) I know that being in this study is voluntary and I choose to be in this study I know I can stop being in this study without penalty I will get a copy of this consent form now and can get information on results of the study later if I wish
Participant Name Date
Participant Signature Time
Experimenter Signature ___________________________________
126
Post Experimental Informed Consent
University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) Institutional Review Board
Informed Consent Form for Research Involving Human Subjects
Protocol Title The effects of psychopathy on cognitive dissonance
Principal Investigator Ashley Murray BA
UTEP Psychology
Introduction
The purpose of this research project is to examine how individuals with different personality characteristics react when they are asked to deceive someone else Please ask the study researcher or the study staff to explain any words or information that you do not clearly understand
Why is this study being done
You have been asked to take part in a research study looking at how certain personality types differ on reacting to feelings of guilt You were asked to complete 3 separate personality surveys and an abacus task Approximately 150 students will be participating in this study at UTEP You were recruited to the study because you are currently enrolled as a student at UTEP and are 18 years of age or older
Thank you for participating in this study Your participation as well as the participation of others will help us better understand how different people react when asked to deceive someone else
127
What is involved in the study
During this experiment you were asked to talk with another research participant and tell him or her that the study was enjoyable However you now understand that in reality this person was really just a member of the research team who was pretending to be a research participant Therefore your conversation with him or her did not affect her emotionally or in any other way
The anonymity of your individual responses will be maintained at all times and only group data will be identified and reported
In addition it is very important to the current researchers that you do NOT tell anyone else about what you did here today The integrity of peoplersquos responses is reliant on them not knowing what is about to happen If you tell people ahead of time what to expect their answers and actions will not be accurate and this could negatively affect the outcomes of the study Therefore you will not tell anyone about the details of this experiment or what you did here today
Who do I call if I have questions or problems
You may ask any questions you have now If you have questions later you may call or Ashley Murray (915-474-5784) or Dr James Wood (915-474-6570)
If you have questions or concerns about your participation as a research subject please contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at UTEP Contact Ms Lola Norton (Institutional Coordinator for Research Review) at (915) 747-7939 or irborsputepedu
What about confidentiality
Your part in this study is confidential None of the information will identify you by name All records will be handled only by the research team and will be kept securely locked in a file cabinet when not in use
128
Authorization Statement
I have read each page of this paper about the study (or it was read to me) I know that being in this study is voluntary and I chose to be in this study I know I can stop being in this study without penalty
In addition it is very important that I do NOT tell anyone else about what I did here today The integrity of future participantsrsquo responses depends on them not knowing what is about to happen in this experiment Therefore I agree not to share with my friends or classmates (especially friends or classmates in my psychology classes) any details about what I did here today
By signing this form I understand that I am giving the experimenter permission to use my data
Participant Name Date
Participant Signature Time
Experimenter Signature __________________________________
129
Appendix G
Debriefing Script
ldquoThank you for participating in this study At this time I want to explain the study to you As
you will recall after completing the task where you moved balls back and forth on an abacus you
were asked to tell the next waiting participant that the task he or she was about to complete would
be enjoyable Your conversation with that waiting participant was actually one of the main points
of the experiment The reason why that conversation was important is because we are interested in
how different personality characteristics affect the way individuals respond to guilt The bigger
purpose of the current experiment is to see what personality characteristics make some people feel
guilt while other people do not experience guilt The way that we tried to create guilt today was by
having you tell the next waiting participant that they would enjoy the abacus task Studying guilt
reactions is important to psychology research because it can help us identify the cognitive
processes that people with differing personality characteristics use when they experience guilt
This is an important aspect of human behavior to study and we apologize that in order to examine
guilt reactions we had to mislead you briefly today
At this time we would like to explain that the person you spoke to and told that the abacus task
was going to be enjoyable was actually my research assistant and was only pretending to be a
future participant He (she) was not affected in any negative way by what you said to him (her)
and did not have to perform the peg turning task It was necessary that you think that my research
assistant was a future participant in the study so that your reactions would be genuine for the study
to get honest and accurate results
You should not feel bad for agreeing to tell my assistant that the task would be fun
Psychologists have been doing this kind of experiment for 50 years and nearly everyone agrees to
130
say that the experiment is more enjoyable than it really is You reacted in the same way that the
majority of participants in these kinds of experiments do
Again I would like to remind you that all of your answers and everything you did here today
for this experiment will remain confidential and anonymous Only I and my small research team
will have access to the data collected here today and you are not identified in any way in the data
collected
If you do feel upset or uneasy about your participation in this experiment you can talk to my
mentor Dr James Wood or you can contact the UTEP Counseling Center and I will provide that
contact information to you Do you feel a need to talk with Dr Wood or someone at the counseling
center about this
Finally it is EXTREMELY important that other students do not find out about the purpose of
this experiment If they do we will not be able to run this research anymore Students must come
into our lab with no idea about what the study is actually about Please do not speak to any other
students about this study especially psychology students We will be running this study for about a
year so please do not talk other students about this experiment
Do you understand everything I have said to you Do you have any questions
Again thank you for participating in this study todayrdquo
131
Appendix G
No-Lie Debriefing Script
ldquoThank you for participating in this study At this time I want to explain the study to you As
you will recall after completing the task where you moved balls back and forth on an abacus you
were asked to tell the next waiting participant that the task he or she was about to complete would
be enjoyable Your conversation with that waiting participant was actually one of the main points
of the experiment The reason why that conversation was important is because we are interested in
how different personality characteristics affect the way individuals respond to guilt The bigger
purpose of the current experiment is to see what personality characteristics make some people feel
guilt while other people do not experience guilt The way that we tried to create guilt today was by
having you tell the next waiting participant that they would enjoy the abacus task Studying guilt
reactions is important to psychology research because it can help us identify the cognitive
processes that people with differing personality characteristics use when they experience guilt
This is an important aspect of human behavior to study and we apologize that in order to examine
guilt reactions we had to mislead you briefly today
At this time we would like to explain that the person who acted as the waiting participant was
actually my research assistant and was only pretending to be a future participant He (she) was not
going to be affected in any negative way by what you said to him (her) and did not have to
perform the abacus task It was necessary that you think that my research assistant was a future
participant in the study so that your reactions would be genuine for the study to get honest and
accurate results
Again I would like to remind you that all of your answers and everything you did here today
for this experiment will remain confidential and anonymous Only I and my small research team
132
will have access to the data collected here today and you are not identified in any way in the data
collected
If you do feel upset or uneasy about your participation in this experiment you can talk to my
mentor Dr James Wood or you can contact the UTEP Counseling Center and I will provide that
contact information to you Do you feel a need to talk with Dr Wood or someone at the counseling
center about this
Finally it is EXTREMELY important that other students do not find out about the purpose of
this experiment If they do we will not be able to run this research anymore Students must come
into our lab with no idea about what the study is actually about Please do not speak to any other
students about this study especially psychology students We will be running this study for about a
year so please do not talk other students about this experiment
Do you understand everything I have said to you Do you have any questionsrdquo
Again thank you for participating in this study today
133
Appendix H
Confederate Guilt Manipulation Check Form
I ___________________________ who acted as a confederate for the current study verify that
The participant told me that the task would be fun enjoyable
The participant told me that the task would be fun enjoyable BUT also told me they had to tell me it was enjoyable
The participant told me that the task would be boring
The participant told me about the task BUT did NOT tell me it would be fun enjoyable
The participant did not tell me anything about the experiment
The participant did not talk to me at all
The participant told me that the task would be fun BUT only after being prompted by me
Participant _________
134
Curriculum Vita
Ashley Anne Murray daughter of Scott and Greta Murray was born in Denver CO She
was raised throughout Texas and Montana and in 2006 graduated with High Honors from the
University of Montana with a BA in psychology (research emphasis) While pursuing her
undergraduate degree she was awarded the Kain-McKay Scholarship in recognition of her
achievements in the field of psychology and was in the Phi Kappa Phi Honors Society She also
was employed at the campus Student Assault Resource Center where she provided counseling
and assessments for survivors of domestic violence and rape Upon completion of her BA
Ashley was accepted to the Master of Arts in Clinical Psychology Program at The University of
Texas at El Paso During her graduate studies at UTEP she completed a 350 hour clinical
internship with the PATH Program of The Aliviane Organization at the Opportunity Center of El
Paso Homeless Shelter Through the internship she provided assessments therapy and group
facilitation to homeless individuals with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse
disorders Throughout her graduate studies Ashley worked on multiple projects in two clinical
labs and has worked on manuscripts and presented several posters at national psychology
conferences At UTEP she has worked as a teaching assistant and instructor in the psychology
department She will be going on to obtain her clinical PhD at Simon Fraser University in the
fall of 2009
Permanent Address 2810 Palm Dr
Billings MT 59102
- University of Texas at El Paso
- DigitalCommonsUTEP
-
- 2009-01-01
-
- The effects of psychopathy and Machiavellianism on cognitive dissonance
-
- Ashley Anne Murray
-
- Recommended Citation
-
- Introduction
- Why is this study being done
- Introduction
- Why is this study being done
-
