Validating a distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy with measures of Gray's BIS and BAS constructs
Validating a distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy with measures of Gray's BIS and BAS constructs
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/0021-843x.114.2.319
复制
发表时间：
2005-05-01
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Sadeh, N
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Newman, JP;MacCoon, DG;Sadeh, N
研究者通常会区分原发性和继发性精神病态（H. 克莱克利，1976；D.T. 莱肯，1995），尽管对于实现这种区分的最佳方法缺乏共识。为了验证为此目的使用R.D. 黑尔（2003）的《精神病态检查表》和G. 威尔士（1956）的《焦虑量表》的有效性，作者使用了J.A. 格雷（1987）的行为抑制系统/行为激活系统（BIS/BAS）的两种测量方法。遵循D.T. 莱肯（1995）和D.C. 福尔斯（1980）的观点，作者假设原发性精神病态与较弱的BIS和正常的BAS相关，而继发性精神病态与较强的BAS和正常的BIS相关。原发性精神病态的结果与预测相符。继发性精神病态的结果明确支持了较强BAS的预测，但对正常BIS的预测提供了混合的支持。
Investigators commonly distinguish between primary and secondary psychopathy (H. Cleckley, 1976; D.T. Lykken, 1995), though there is a lack of consensus regarding the best means to achieve this distinction. To address the validity of using R. D. Hare's (2003) Psychopathy Checklist and the G. Welsh (1956) Anxiety Scale for this purpose, the authors used 2 measures of J. A. Gray's (1987) behavioral inhibition system/behavioral activation system (BIS/BAS). Following D. T. Lykken (1995) and D. C. Fowles (1980), the authors hypothesized that primary psychopathy would be associated with a weak BIS and a normal BAS, whereas secondary psychopathy would be associated with a strong BAS and a normal BIS. Results for primary psychopathy were as predicted. Results for secondary psychopathy clearly supported the strong BAS prediction but provided mixed support for the normal BIS prediction.