Journal of Personality Disorders, 26, 2012, 513-523
© 2012 The Guilford Press
COMPARISON OF HEXACO-PI-R AND NEO PI-R
GAUGHAN ET AL.
Examining the utility of
general models of personality
in the study of psychopathy:
A comparison of the HEXACO-PI-R
and NEO PI-R
Eric T. Gaughan, PhD, Joshua D. Miller, PhD,
and Donald R. Lynam, PhD
The Five-Factor model is one of the most popular models of general personality but recently a competing model, the HEXACO, has been put forth as
an alternative. In the current study, we compare the two models by examining the interrelations between their primary measures, the Revised NEO
Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and the Revised HEXACO Personality
Inventory (HEXACO-PI-R), and their relations with psychopathy in a
sample of undergraduates (N = 290). Results revealed good convergence
between conceptually related personality traits. Both inventories accounted
for substantial proportions of variance in psychopathy scores although
the HEXACO-PI-R accounted for a larger proportion. The findings are
discussed in relation to the HEXACO domain of Emotionality, which functions differently than NEO PI-R Neuroticism. The results suggest that both
measures assess psychopathy-related traits, but the HEXACO-PI-R may
offer a slight advantage.
Psychopathy is characterized by traits such as egocentricity, callousness, manipulativeness, and impulsivity. Over the last 15 years, a number of researchers have explored the idea that psychopathy can be understood as a configuration of extreme levels of general traits (Benning, Patrick, Blonigen, Hicks,
& Iacono, 2005; Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leukefeld, 2001). Research with
a number of personality models, including Tellegen’s (1985) three-factor
model and the Five-Factor Model (FFM; McCrae & Costa, 1990), has demonstrated that these models of personality are generally successful in predicting the different facets of psychopathy (e.g., Benning et al.; Gaughan, Miller,
Pryor, & Lynam, 2009).
The FFM, as operationalized by the Revised NEO Personality Inventory
(NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992), has been used in much of this research.
Recently, a competing model of personality, the HEXACO model (Lee &
This article was accepted under the editorship of Paul S. Links.
From University of Georgia (E.T.G., J.D.M.); and Purdue University (D.R.L.)
Address correspondence to Joshua D. Miller, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens,
GA 30602-3013; E-mail: jdmiller@uga.edu
513
514
GAUGHAN ET AL.
Ashton, 2004), has been offered as an alternative. Although the HEXACO
model, as operationalized by the Revised HEXACO Personality Inventory
(HEXACO-PI-R; Lee & Ashton, 2006), includes five broad personality domains similar to those found in the FFM, it also contains a sixth factor,
Honesty-Humility, which may be particularly relevant to psychopathy. Unfortunately, little research has simultaneously compared these two specific
models in relation to psychopathy.
Five-Factor Model and Psychopathy
The FFM, as operationalized by the NEO PI-R, is composed of five broad
domains, i.e., Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness to experience
(O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C) and each of these dimensions is further composed of six lower order facets, which are important
to the precise characterization of personality pathology (Axelrod, Widiger,
Trull, & Corbitt, 1997). A wealth of research has been devoted to the study
of the relations between the FFM and psychopathy (e.g., Lynam, 2002) and
the findings have been consistent across sources and populations. A metaanalytic review (Lynam & Derefinko, 2006) indicates that psychopathy is
most strongly associated, inversely, with A (weighted mean r = -.52) and C
(weighted mean r = -.38). In general, the scales associated with the interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy or traditional Factor 1 aspects
of psychopathy (e.g., manipulativeness, lack of remorse) are primarily negatively related to A, whereas the scales related to antisocial behavior or Factor
2 aspects of psychopathy are negatively related to both A and C.
HEXACO Model and Psychopathy
The HEXACO model is the result of lexical studies of diverse languages that
support six major dimensions of personality (Ashton & Lee, 2001; Ashton
et al., 2004). Five of these dimensions represent variants of the broad FFM
factors with the sixth factor believed to be absent from the Big Five (i.e.,
Honesty-Humility). As operationalized by the original HEXACO-PI (Lee &
Ashton, 2004) and its revision the HEXACO-PI-R (Lee & Ashton, 2006),
each of the six higher order domains is composed of four lower order facets.
At this time there are limited extant data comparing the measures of the
HEXACO-PI and the FFM. For example, research employing an abbreviated measure of the FFM (i.e., the NEO Five-Factor Inventory; NEO FFI;
Costa & McCrae, 1992) demonstrated that HEXACO dimensions manifested expected convergent correlations with their counterparts in the FFM
(e.g., Ashton, Lee, Visser, & Pozzebon, 2008). HEXACO Honesty-Humility,
the sixth personality domain, was primarily associated with FFM A and to
a lesser extent with C. Unfortunately, there is little published research that
that has compared the bivariate relations between the full-length measures
(i.e., NEO PI-R and HEXACO-PI-R of these models, cf., De Vries, De Vries,
De Hoogh, & Feij, 2009). Moreover, the research comparing the statistical
predictive abilities of measures of these two models with regards to impor-
COMPARISON OF HEXACO-PI-R AND NEO PI-R
515
tant individual difference constructs has only recently started to accumulate.
For example, Ashton and Lee (2008) found that the HEXACO-PI domains
explained more variance in measures of materialism and delinquency than
the NEO PI-R domains; De Vries and colleagues (2009) found a similar pattern of results for measures of egoism.
Initial research examining psychopathy from the perspective of the
HEXACO model has focused primarily on the Honesty-Humility dimension. Several studies (Ashton, Lee, & Son, 2000; Lee & Ashton, 2004; Lee
& Ashton, 2005) have found significant correlations between the HEXACO
domains and psychopathy traits, particularly the domain and facets of Honesty-Humility. For example, Lee and Ashton (2005) examined the relations
between psychopathy and both the HEXACO model and the Big Five. In
this study, the primary psychopathy scale showed the strongest correlation
with Honesty-Humility and its four facets, although it was also significantly
negatively correlated with Big Five A. It should be noted that the domains of
the Big Five were measured with the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue,
& Kentle, 1991) and not the NEO PI-R, which is important because two
NEO PI-R Agreeableness facets, straightforwardness and modesty, have been
found to be strongly related to Honesty-Humility (Ashton & Lee, 2005). Although the correlation between psychopathy and Big Five A was significant,
this association likely would have been stronger with the inclusion of content
found in these facets.
Current Study
The current study examines the utility of the HEXACO-PI-R and NEO PI-R
personality inventories in assessing the traits related to psychopathy by testing their statistical predictive abilities. We first examine the convergent validity of the NEO PI-R and HEXACO-PI-R domains. Following this, we
examine the correlations between the two inventories’ domains and facets
and psychopathy scores. To determine whether either measure is better able
to account for the various factors of psychopathy, the amount of variability
explained by each inventory is then compared. Consistent with past research,
we expect the HEXACO-PI-R and NEO PI-R to demonstrate good convergent validity and expect that HEXACO Honesty-Humility will be strongly
correlated with NEO PI-R Agreeableness. We also expect that domains related to A (A; Honesty-Humility) and C will prove to be the strongest correlates of psychopathy.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 290 undergraduate (51% female) students at a large Southeastern university. Of those participants for whom data on race is available
(N = 237), 82% were White, 9% were Black, and 6% were Asian. The average age was 19.37 years (SD = 2.94).
516
GAUGHAN ET AL.
Participants gave written informed consent, completed the battery of
questionnaires (given in counterbalanced order), and received research credit
for participating. All Institutional Review Board requirements were followed
throughout the study.
Measures
NEO PI-R. The NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 240-item selfreport measure of the FFM. Each of these five domains is underlain by six
facets. In the current study, coefficient alphas for the facets ranged from .57
to .83 (median = .75) and from .89 to .91 for the domains.
HEXACO-PI-R. The HEXACO-PI-R (Lee & Ashton, 2006) is a 200-item
self-report measure of the HEXACO model of personality, which includes
six broad domains of eXtraversion, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, Emotionality, and Honesty-Humility. Each of these six
domains is underlain by four facets. In the current study, alphas for the facets
ranged from .71 to .89 (median = .81) and from .89 to .92 for the domains.
Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: Version III (SRP-III). The SRP-III (Williams,
Paulhus, & Hare, 2007) is a 64-item measure of psychopathy that provides a
global score (SRP-T), as well as scores for four subscales: Interpersonal Manipulation (SRP-IPM), Callous Affect (SRP-CA), Erratic Life Style (SRP-ELS),
and Anti-Social Behavior (SRP-ASB). Alphas for SRP T, SRP-IPM, SRP-CA,
SRP-ELS, and SRP-ASB were .94, .87, .85, .86, and .80, respectively.
Results
Relations between the Personality Inventories
In order to control for Type 1 error, only results significant at p < .01 are
interpreted.
In general, the domains of each model converged with the nominally
corresponding domains from the other model (see Table 1) with correlations
ranging from .52 (N–Emotionality) to .86 (E–eXtraversion).1 NEO PI-R A
manifested equally strong correlations with both HEXACO PI-R Agreeableness (r = .68) and Honesty-Humility (r = .67).2 Simultaneous regression
analyses were conducted using the domains from each model to predict individual domains of the other model. Overall, the NEO PI-R domains accounted for between 50% and 80% of the variance in the HEXACO-PI-R
domains, with an average of 62%; the HEXACO-PI-R domains accounted
for between 63% and 76% of the variance in the NEO PI-R domains, with
an average of .70.
1. All of the bivariate correlations were examined separately for men and women. As fewer than 3% of
the correlations were significantly different across gender, all subsequent analyses were conducted with a
combined data set that included both men and women
2. A complete table of correlations between the facets of the HEXACO-PI-R and NEO PI-R is available
upon request from the corresponding author.
COMPARISON OF HEXACO-PI-R AND NEO PI-R
517
TABLE 1. Correlations Between the Domains of the HEXACO-PI-R and NEO PI-R
Honesty Humility
N
E
O
A
C
R2
-.23*
-.11
.15
.67*
.15
.50*
Emotionality
.52*
.07
.18*
.27*
.11
.51*
eXtraversion
-.50*
.86*
.17*
.03
.21*
.80*
Agreeableness
-.38*
.05
.12
.68*
.11
.52*
Conscientiousness
-.13
.11
-.08
.22*
.87*
.76*
Openness
-.05
.09
.76*
.16*
-.05
.60*
Adjusted R2
.64*
.76*
.63*
.71*
.76*
(.70)
(.62)
Note. N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; Parentheses =
mean R2. *p ≤ .01.
Relations between the Personality Inventories
and Psychopathy
Next, we examined the correlations between the personality domains and
facets and the psychopathy scores. Both personality models manifested meaningful relations with the psychopathy factors. Overall, NEO PI-R A (mean r =
-.55) and C (mean r = -.27) manifested the largest effect sizes of the FFM domains across the psychopathy scores (see Table 2).3 From the HEXACO-PI-R
perspective (see Table 3), four of the six domains bore substantial relations
with psychopathy; Honesty-Humility (mean r = -.48), Emotionality (mean r =
-.42), Conscientiousness (mean r = -.30), and Agreeableness (mean r = -.28).
Simultaneous regression analyses were then conducted in which the NEO
PI-R or HEXACO-PI-R domains were used to predict the psychopathy scores
(see Table 4). On average, the NEO PI-R domains accounted for 40% of the
variance, whereas the HEXACO PI-R domains accounted for 49%.4, 5
Discussion
General models of personality are useful for understanding psychopathy
(Benning et al., 2005; Miller et al., 2001), however, the majority of this re3. Individual correlations between each personality trait and the five psychopathy scores were transformed using the Fisher-Z transformation before being averaged and then transformed back before reporting the mean effect size (e.g., the mean correlation between HEXACO Honesty-Humility and the five
SRP-III psychopathy scores).
4. The NEO PI-R facets accounted for between 13% and 64% of the variance in the psychopathy scores
with an average R-squared of .51. The HEXACO-PI-R facets accounted for between 22% and 71%
of the variance in the five psychopathy scores with an average R-squared of .56. The analyses with the
HEXACO-PI-R included the Altruism scale.
5. We did not conduct extensive analyses addressing incremental validity of the HEXACO-PI-R and NEO
PI-R due to problems with multicollinearity. We did test whether both of the HEXACO domains of Honesty-Humility and Emotionality provided incremental validity over the FFM domains. Both HEXACO
domains accounted for increased variance in all five psychopathy scores above and beyond that accounted
for by the FFM. The corresponding FFM domains (i.e., N; A) also manifested incremental validity over
the HEXACO domains for four of five scores but accounted for a smaller mean increment.
518
GAUGHAN ET AL.
TABLE 2. Correlations Between the NEO PI-R and SRP-III
Neuroticism
Anxiety
Angry Hostility
Depression
Self-Consciousness
Impulsiveness
Vulnerability
Extraversion
Warmth
Gregariousness
Assertiveness
Activity
Excitement Seeking
Positive Emotions
Openness
Fantasy
Aesthetics
Feelings
Actions
Ideas
Values
Agreeableness
Trust
Straightforwardness
Altruism
Compliance
Modesty
Tendermindedness
Conscientiousness
Competence
Order
Dutifulness
Achievement Striving
Self-Discipline
Deliberation
SRP T
SRP IPM
SRP CA
SRP ELS
SRP ASB
ES
.06
-.16*
.33*
.08
-.12
.22*
-.11
-.04
-.34*
-.06
.19*
.11
.26*
-.37*
-.08
.00
-.15*
-.16*
-.05
.13
-.07
-.66*
-.38*
-.60*
-.56*
-.52*
-.39*
-.43*
-.34*
-.22*
-.17*
-.38*
-.12
-.24*
-.41*
.11
-.07
.34*
.06
-.06
.18*
-.03
-.02
-.27*
-.02
.18*
.12
.20*
-.28*
-.07
.06
-.15
-.06
-.13
.10
-.11
-.72*
-.47*
-.75*
-.53*
-.49*
-.49*
-.41*
-.25*
-.14
-.09
-.37*
-.08
-.19*
-.30*
-.05
-.25*
.34*
.01
-.13
.00
-.23*
-.17*
-.47*
-.15
.17*
.07
.16*
-.51*
-.29*
-.17*
-.29*
-.39*
-.16*
.07
-.25*
-.64*
-.41*
-.41*
-.57*
-.49*
-.35*
-.56*
-.15
-.09
-.07
-.17*
-.05
-.11
-.18*
.08
-.14
.20*
.11
-.15*
.35*
-.06
.09
-.16*
.04
.22*
.16*
.34*
-.20*
.11
.09
-.07
.00
.13
.20*
.14
-.48*
-.19*
-.43*
-.41*
-.47*
-.29*
-.27*
-.47*
-.27*
-.29*
-.42*
-.20*
-.33*
-.57*
.07
-.07
.16*
.08
-.02
.14
-.01
-.07
-.18*
-.08
.03
.00
.12
-.20*
-.01
.00
.03
-.10
.00
.03
-.01
-.27*
-.13
-.32*
-.26*
-.21*
-.10
-.14
-.20*
-.22*
-.06
-.23*
-.04
-.13
-.24*
.05
-.13
.26
.07
-.09
.17
-.08
-.04
-.28
-.05
.15
.09
.21
-.30
-.07
-.01
-.12
-.14
-.04
.10
-.06
-.55
-.31
-.50
-.45
-.42
-.31
-.36
-.27
-.18
-.13
-.30
-.09
-.19
-.33
Note. T = Total; IPM = Interpersonal Manipulation; CA = Callous Affect; ELS = Erratic Life Style; ASB = Antisocial
Behavior. ES = Effect size (average correlations across the five SRP-III scores). *p ≤ .01.
search has focused on the FFM. More recently, an alternative personality
model, the HEXACO, has emerged and gained empirical support (e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2005). Although both models appear to be valuable platforms for
examining personality configuration, little research has compared the respective models using their full-length inventories to determine their convergence
and divergence and examine their relations with psychopathy. The present
research sought to fill this void.
Relations between Personality Inventories
One of the primary aims of the current study was to examine how HonestyHumility would be related to the dimensions of the NEO PI-R. Based on
the strong convergence between the domains (r = .67) of Honesty-Humility
and NEO PI-R Agreeableness, it is clear that this sixth factor overlaps substantially with NEO PI-R Agreeableness and assesses similar content. At the
facet level, Honesty-Humility demonstrated its strongest convergence with
the NEO PI-R A facets of straightforwardness (r = .68) and modesty (r =
COMPARISON OF HEXACO-PI-R AND NEO PI-R
519
TABLE 3. Correlations Between the HEXACO-PI-R and the SRP-III
Honesty-Humility
Sincerity
Fairness
Greed Avoidance
Modesty
Emotionality
Fearfulness
Anxiety
Dependence
Sentimentality
eXtraversion
Social Self-Esteem
Social Boldness
Sociability
Liveliness
Agreeableness
Forgiveness
Gentleness
Flexibility
Patience
Conscientiousness
Organization
Diligence
Perfectionism
Prudence
Openness
Aesthetic Appreciation
Inquisitiveness
Creativity
Unconventionality
Altruism
SRP T
SRP IPM
SRP CA
SRP ELS
SRP ASB
ES
-.58*
-.39*
-.66*
-.28*
-.48*
-.51*
-.49*
-.20*
-.33*
-.50*
.00
-.09
.22*
.00
-.20*
-.36*
-.13
-.37*
-.34*
-.29*
-.37*
-.18*
-.19*
-.30*
-.45*
.02
-.15
.09
.08
.09
-.63*
-.66*
-.53*
-.65*
-.37*
-.51*
-.33*
-.28*
-.13
-.22*
-.37*
.01
-.04
.19*
.02
-.17*
-.39*
-.22*
-.41*
-.36*
-.25*
-.28*
-.12
-.16*
-.23*
-.35*
-.02
-.13
.01
.07
.05
-.57*
-.47*
-.26*
-.48*
-.26*
-.44*
-.64*
-.47*
-.26*
-.48*
-.68*
-.09
-.12
.14
-.12
-.24*
-.34*
-.12
-.34*
-.34*
-.29*
-.22*
-.13
-.08
-.20*
-.25*
-.10
-.26*
.06
-.02
-.05
-.74*
-.42*
-.25*
-.55*
-.16*
-.36*
-.42*
-.53*
-.16*
-.23*
-.32*
.10
-.02
.27*
.08
-.08
-.27*
-.06
-.30*
-.28*
-.22*
-.48*
-.27*
-.26*
-.35*
-.58*
.11
-.07
.14
.14
.19*
-.40*
-.31*
-.20*
-.44*
-.11
-.21*
-.23*
-.27*
-.07
-.12
-.23*
-.05
-.13
.11
-.01
-.16*
-.12
-.01
-.10
-.10
-.16*
-.18*
-.05
-.10
-.18*
-.21*
.07
.00
.09
.05
.09
-.30*
-.48
-.32
-.54
-.23
-.39
-.42
-.39
-.16
-.27
-.42
-.01
-.08
.18
-.01
-.16
-.28
-.10
-.29
-.27
-.23
-.30
-.14
-.15
-.24
-.36
.02
-.12
.08
.06
.07
-.52
Note. T = Total; IPM = Interpersonal Manipulation; CA = Callous Affect; ELS = Erratic Life Style; ASB = Antisocial
Behavior; ES = Effect Size (average correlations across the five SRP-III scores). *p ≤.01.
.65). The current results suggest that the Honesty-Humility is reasonably
well-captured by this measure of the FFM.
In general, the remaining domains of each personality model demonstrated good convergence with the corresponding domains of the other model with convergent correlations ranging from .52 (HEXACO Emotionality
and FFM N) to .87 (HEXACO and FFM C). As suggested by Lee and Ashton
(2004), FFM N and HEXACO Emotionality are not identical. One substantial difference between the two is that FFM N includes content related to the
experience of both internally (e.g., anxiety) and externally directed negative
affect (e.g., anger), whereas the HEXACO Emotionality domain is limited
to the experience of internally directed affect (e.g., fearfulness, anxiety). As
noted below, this organizational difference appears to play a role in explaining why Emotionality is a stronger correlate of psychopathy than FFM N.
This HEXACO domain also appears to include content that is of particular
relevance to the study of psychopathy (i.e., sentimentality; fearfulness; dependence). It is also worth noting that, on average, the HEXACO accounted
for greater variance in the NEO PI-R domains (mean adjusted R2: .70) than
the NEO PI-R in the HEXACO-PI-R (mean adjusted R2: .62), which may
also contribute to the predictive advantage manifested by the HEXACO in
relation to psychopathy.
520
GAUGHAN ET AL.
TABLE 4. Predictive Validity of the NEO PI-R and HEXACO-PI-R Domains
SRP T
SRP IPM
SRP CA
SRP ELS
SRP ASB
-.15*
-.08
-.26*
-.08
-.04
-.04
Mean R2
NEO PI-R domains
Neuroticism
Extraversion
.01
.03
-.15*
.16*
Openness
.04
.06
-.12*
.13*
.04
Agreeableness
-.66*
-.73*
-.64*
-.45*
-.25*
Conscientiousness
-.24*
-.13*
-.06
-.42*
-.14
R
.50*
.55*
.49*
.43*
.10*
.41
Adjusted R2
.49
.54
.49
.42
.08
.40
Honesty-Humility
-.48*
-.58*
-.34*
-.31*
-.31*
Emotionality
-.44*
-.27
-.63*
-.32*
-.20*
eXtraversion
-.06
-.05
-.16*
.08
-.10
Agreeableness
-.17*
-.16
-.21*
-.14*
-.01
Conscientiousness
-.19*
-.12*
-.01
-.36*
-.08
2
HEXACO-PI-R domains
Openness
.12*
.10
.00
.15*
.12
R2
.64*
.57*
.65*
.50*
.17*
.51
Adjusted R2
.63
.56
.64
.49
.15
.49
Note. T = Total; IPM = Interpersonal Manipulation; CA = Callous Affect; ELS = Erratic Life Style; ASB = Antisocial
Behavior. *p ≤ .01. Reported values are standardized regression coefficients except where otherwise noted (e.g., Rsquared).
The good convergence between the dimensions of the two inventories
was also reflected in findings from the regression analyses. Despite differences in organization and the inclusion of an additional sixth factor in the
HEXACO-PI-R, the current findings indicate substantial (but not perfect)
convergence among the measures.
Personality Inventories and Psychopathy
The correlations between the NEO PI-R with the SRP-III (e.g., Williams
et al., 2007) were extremely consistent with the pattern found in a recent
meta-analytic review of the relations between the FFM and psychopathy
(Decuyper, De Pauw, De Fruyt, De Bolle, & De Clercq, 2009). Specifically,
the scales related to the interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy
were primarily associated with low A, whereas the scales related to the behavioral and deviance aspects of psychopathy were associated with both low
A and C.
The psychopathy scores demonstrated more varied relations with the
HEXACO-PI-R dimensions. Similar to previous work with the HEXACOPI-R (e.g., De Vries, Lee, & Ashton, 2008; Lee & Ashton, 2004), psychopathy was most strongly associated with low Honesty-Humility, although the
current research found significant negative relations with the domains of
Emotionality, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. The strength of the correlations between HEXACO Emotionality and the psychopathy factors was
somewhat surprising given that Emotionality has shown only weak correlations with psychopathy in some (Lee & Ashton, 2004, 2005) but not all (De
COMPARISON OF HEXACO-PI-R AND NEO PI-R
521
Vries et al., 2008) previous research. This discrepancy is most likely due to
differences in content assessed by various self-report psychopathy measures
that differ with regard to the emphasis on the role of low neuroticism.
Although both the NEO PI-R and HEXACO-PI-R domains accounted for substantial variance in the psychopathy scores, the HEXACO-PI-R
demonstrated stronger predictive validity (mean adjusted R2: 49% vs. 40%);
these differences were smaller at the facet level (mean adjusted R2: 56% vs.
51%). Results of the correlation and regression analyses with the HEXACOPI-R suggested that the domain of Emotionality and Honesty-Humility are
the domains most responsible for the additional variance explained by the
HEXACO (rather than just Honesty-Humility). The findings for Emotionality were more unexpected but suggest that the Emotionality facets of sentimentality and fearfulness (both inversely related to psychopathy) may be
particularly important to the assessment of psychopathy, at least as assessed
by the SRP-III.
Implications
The present research suggests that there is substantial overlap in content
between the FFM, as assessed by the NEO PI-R, and the HEXACO model,
as assessed by the HEXACO-PI-R. Both inventories capture traits associated with an antagonistic disposition (e.g., manipulativeness, deceitfulness/
insincerity, callousness, immodesty, lack of empathy) and poor behavioral
inhibition (e.g., Conscientiousness) which have been considered the core personality features of psychopathy (Lynam & Derefinko, 2006). With regards
to relations between the inventories, the additional sixth dimension of the
HEXACO-PI-R, Honesty-Humility, overlaps substantially with FFM Agreeableness. Moreover, the corresponding dimensions of the two inventories
assess similar content, though they organize certain traits somewhat differently, e.g., externalizing forms of negative affect included in N (NEO PI-R)
or A (HEXACO-PI-R).
We believe that the organizational advantage of the HEXACO PI-R lies
not in the addition of the sixth factor, but rather in the composition of Emotionality/Neuroticism which differs across the HEXACO PI-R and NEO PI-R
models. In previous work using the NEO PI-R (see Lynam & Widiger, 2007),
psychopathy has manifested complex relations to the facets of Neuroticism,
characterized by low scores on some facets (e.g., anxiety, depression) and
high scores on the other facets (e.g., angry hostility). At the domain level,
such divergent relations among the N facets often results in negligible relations between psychopathy and N, a finding at odds with traditional conceptions of psychopathy. The facets of Emotionality within the HEXACO PI-R,
which do not include anger or poor impulse control, are uniformly negative
in their relations to psychopathy.
Although the HEXACO-PI-R accounted for more variance than the
NEO PI-R in psychopathy scores, it should be noted that both measures
were successful at predicting psychopathic traits. As has been found with
similar comparisons (e.g., NEO PI-R vs. MPQ; Gaughan et al., 2009), the
differences in predictive ability were greater at the domain level than at the
522
GAUGHAN ET AL.
facet level. Although some have suggested that constructs like psychopathy
are “poorly accommodated by the Big Five” (Lee & Ashton, 2005, p. 1580),
the current study and previous research suggest that this conclusion is limited
to measures of the Big Five (i.e., Big Five Inventory). Because the FFM, as operationalized by the NEO PI-R, includes traits related to straightforwardness
and modesty, which are not included in measures of the Big Five (Ashton
& Lee, 2005), it appears to be better suited at capturing psychopathy and
other maladaptive traits. The wealth of research demonstrating its utility for
understanding psychopathy attests to its ability to accommodate a range of
traits associated with psychopathy.
Limitations and Conclusions
There are several limitations of the present research which may limit the
generalizability of the findings. First, the sample was predominantly White
and included only college students. Future research should examine these
inventories in alternative samples (e.g., community, forensic) with greater
diversity with regard to race, ethnicity, age, and education. Second, the use of
a college sample might have resulted in some degree of restriction of range,
which may have attenuated the current effect sizes. Future studies would be
strengthened by utilizing other sources of information, including interviews
and informant reports. Third, due to the length of the protocol we included
only a single measure of psychopathy.
In sum, the HEXACO-PI-R and NEO PI-R are significantly overlapping inventories and are both successful at accounting for the variance in
psychopathy at both the domain and facet level. The use of measures such as
these in psychopathy research is helpful in understanding the basic personality traits underlying the various dimensions of psychopathy.
References
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical
basis for the major dimensions of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15,
327–353.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005). Honesty-humility, the big five, and the five-factor model.
Journal of Personality, 73, 1321–1353.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2008). The prediction
of honesty-humility-related criteria by the
HEXACO and five-factor models of personality. Journal of Research in Personality,
42, 1216–1228.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P.,
de Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., et al. (2004). A
six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 86,
356–366.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Son, C. (2000). Honesty
as the sixth factor of personality: Correlations with Machiavellianism, primary psy-
chopathy, and social adroitness. European
Journal of Personality, 14, 359–369.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Visser, B. A., & Pozzebon,
J. A. (2008). Phobic tendency within the
five-factor and HEXACO models of personality structure. Journal of Research in
Personality, 42, 734–746.
Axelrod, S. R., Widiger, T. A., Trull, T. J., & Corbitt, E. M. (1997). Relations of five-factor
model antagonism facets with personality
disorder symptomatology. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 297–313.
Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Blonigen, D. M.,
Hicks, B. M., & Iacono, W. G. (2005). Estimating facets of psychopathy from normal
personality traits: A step toward community epidemiological investigations. Assessment, 12, 3–18.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised
NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R)
and the NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-
COMPARISON OF HEXACO-PI-R AND NEO PI-R
FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Decuyper, M., De Pauw, S., De Fruyt, F., De Bolle,
M., & De Clercq, B. J. (2009). A metaanalysis of psychopathy-, antisocial PDand FFM associations. European Journal of
Personality, 23, 531–565.
De Vries, R. E., De Vries, A., De Hoogh, A., &
Feij, J. (2009). More than the big five: Egoism and the HEXACO model of personality. European Journal of Personality, 23,
635–654.
De Vries, R.E., Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2008).
The Dutch HEXACO Personality Inventory: Psychometric properties, self-other
agreement, and relations with psychopathy
among low and high acquaintanceship dyads. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90,
142–151.
Gaughan, E. T., Miller, J. D., Pryor, L. R., &
Lynam, D. R. (2009). Comparing two alternative measures of general personality in
the assessment of psychopathy: A test of the
NEO PI-R and the MPQ. Journal of Personality, 77, 965–996.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L.
(1991). The big five inventory-versions 4a
and 54. Berkley, CA: University of California, Berkley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric
properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
39, 329–358.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy,
Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the
five-factor model and the HEXACO model
of personality structure. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1571–1582.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2006). Further assessment of the HEXACO personality inven-
523
tory: Two new facet scales and an observer
report form. Psychological Assessment, 18,
182–191.
Lynam, D. R. (2002). Psychopathy from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. In P. T. Costa & T. A. Widiger (Eds.),
Personality disorders and the five-factor
model of personality (pp. 325–348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Lynam, D. R., & Derefinko, K. J. (2006). Psychopathy and personality. In C. J. Patrick
(Ed.), Handbook of the psychopathy (pp.
133–155). New York: Guilford Press.
Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2007). Using a
general model of personality to identify the
basic elements of psychopathy. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 21, 160–178.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: Guilford
Press.
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Leukefeld, C. (2001). Personality disorders as
extreme variants of common personality
dimensions: Can the five-factor model adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of
Personality, 69, 253–276.
Tellegen, A. (1985). Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing
anxiety, with an emphasis on self-report. In
A. H. Tuma & J. D. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety
and the anxiety disorders (pp. 681–706).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D.
(2007). Capturing the four-factor structure
of psychopathy in college students via selfreport. Journal of Personality Assessment,
88, 205–219.