Psychopathy factor interactions and co-occurring psychopathology: Does measurement approach matter?

The 2 dimensions of psychopathy as operationalized by various measurement tools show differential associations with psychopathology; however, evidence suggests that the statistical interaction of Factor 1 (F1) and Factor 2 (F2) may be important in understanding associations with psychopathology. Findings regarding the interactive effects of F1 and F2 are mixed, as both potentiating and protective effects have emerged. Moreover, approaches to measuring F1 (e.g., clinical interview vs. self-report) are based on different conceptualizations of F1, which may influence the interactive effects. The current study aims to (a) elucidate the influence of F1 and F2 on psychopathology by using both variable-centered and person-centered approaches and (b) determine whether the measurement of F1 influences the interactive effects of F1 and F2 by comparing the strength of interactive effects across F1 measures in a sample of over 1,500 offenders. Across analytic methods, there were very few cases in which F1 statistically influenced the association between F2 and psychopathology, such that F1 failed to evidence either potentiating or protective effects on F2. Furthermore, the conceptualization of F1 across psychopathy measures did not impact the interactive effects of F1 and F2. These findings suggest that F2 is probably driving the relations between psychopathy and other forms of psychopathology and that F1 may play less of a role in interacting with F2 than previously believed.