Chelseahuttoportfolio.weebly.com



Sociopathy Analysis Chelsea J. Hutto Valdosta State University Abstract The purpose of this study was to develop a sociopathy scale, and subsequently create a scale which measures the interaction of sociopathy within an organizational setting. This report documents the processes which took place in this analysis, along with the results found. Results of this analysis show the Sociopathy scale to be a two factor, eleven item measure. As such Machiavellianism and Social Egoism along with Workplace Arrogance and Altruism are the included scales within the measure. The measure as a whole has a relatively high reliability. Keywords: sociopathy, workplace arrogance, machiavellianism, social egoism, organizational settings. IntroductionSociopath. The majority of individuals seem to be familiar with this word, but being only vaguely aware of its true meaning or negative connotation. You personally may have interacted with, known, or even worked with one blindly, never truly sure of their motives or true self. They are the ones that are charmingly smooth, overtly interested, and quite alluring – but with an unexpected edge one does not expect or could possibly prepare for (Cangemi & Pfohl, 2009). To illustrate the infinite confusion associated with sociopaths through referencing to Phillipe Pinel as he stated in 1801, “They seem to behave crazily without actually being crazy” (Lykken, 1996). Along with their egotistical attitude, utter disregard for others, and destructive behavior, they are inexplicably rogue, often long gone (and guilt free) before anyone realizes the true damage they have caused (Cangemi & Pfohl, 2009). It is suggested one of the main factors of sociopathy are deficiencies in experiencing the restraining effects of a conscience and empathy toward others (Lykken, 1996). A common issue sociopaths reportedly face is under arousal and “acting out” is one method they can use to satisfy that drive (Fagan and Lira, 1980). Consequently they are often less likely to be able to control or inhibit inappropriate behavior (Fagan & Lira, 1980). Ordinarily it is near to impossible to decipher whether the traits being displayed are due to circumstance, or because they are indicators of a sociopath (Cangemi & Pfohl, 2009). It is typical for researchers (Lykken, 1996) to compare psychopathy to sociopathy due to the similarity and shared nature of their traits. For psychopaths, they too are characterized by a lack of impulse control, lack of empathy and guilt, disregard for social norms, along with antisocial personality (Smith, 1973). Despite that the overlap of traits between psychopaths and sociopaths, the primary distinction between the two is that sociopaths failed to develop these traits due to lack of socialization, whereas psychopaths never developed these traits due to an inherent psychological abnormality (Lykken, 1996). For both psychopaths and sociopaths they are largely unconcerned with the consequences of their actions regardless if it will affect them or others; the nature of these traits are not considered inherently evil, but when paired with an appetite for confrontation and an aggressive personality it is a recipe for catastrophe (Lykke, 1996). In some instances it seems sociopathy could be portrayed as a balance beam, separated by a thin line; where individuals either use their traits to accomplish greatness in ways that others never have before; or the opposite takes place and they use their traits to cause massive destruction and chaos in ways that others never have before. A common misconception of sociopathy is that all sociopaths are criminals; media outlets have played a large role in perpetuating this stereotype by portraying sociopaths as the ultimate symbolism of danger and the evil of all evils (Lykken, 1996). It is often stated that psychopaths commit a disproportionate amount of crimes and are more likely to commit a violent crime when compared to nonpsychopathic criminals (Viding, 2004). Regardless of such findings, there are researchers who also suggest being a sociopath or psychopath is not the equivalent to a predisposition or obligation toward violence or criminality (Johnson et al., 2012 & Lykken, 1996). Despite the overarching theme of uncertainty that has followed sociopathy most of its days, there has been extremely limited research completed to examine the implications it could or may have on everyday life. One of the limitations of existing research is although it discusses the behaviors and traits that are associated with sociopathy, it fails to offer any systematic ways to measure sociopathy. As a result, the primary goal of this study was to establish a scale that could adequately measure the construct of sociopathy. One of the initial steps taken to meet this goal was by operationally defining sociopathy as a psychological construct. As defined, sociopathy is a personality type characterized by a grandiose sense of self, and a disregard for and/or use of other persons in pursuit of their own self-interests. The descriptors used for this scale include: need for recognition, egocentric, disregard for norms, confidence, charismatic, emotional intelligence, and greed. Along with the lack of systematic research on subject, there is also a lack of examination of the possible interaction sociopathy could have in the workplace. This is quite surprising; given personality is one of the most widely measured constructs when it comes to the hiring process. As Johnson et al. (2010) suggests personality is an important predictor of work outcomes. Although there is an implied negative relationship between the two, there has been little evidence to suggest an interaction between sociopathy and the workplace. As a result, the secondary goal of this study was to not only create a scale that adequately measures sociopathy as a psychological construct, but to also create a scale that measures sociopathy specifically in organizational settings. Despite the qualities that could be useful in the workplace such as expert level knowledge, confidence, and charisma; sociopathy usually makes functioning in the organization very difficult (Johnson et al., 2010). When it comes to getting hired, it is not unusual for sociopaths to initially amaze others and get hired on the spot, but when their charisma and confidence turns into arrogance (which eventually turns into destruction) termination is typically not far away (Johnson et al., 2010). It seems that despite various backgrounds or geographical areas, the majority of us can agree we have all met those coworkers or bosses who always think they are superior to everyone else and will cease any opportunity to prove so. Those employees which constantly portray how they are always the best candidate while belittling other competitors. You know the one! Johnson et al. suggests such cases of never ending arrogance, similar to the ones previously described, has wide implications in the workplace and more specifically with job performance (2010). In some cases, arrogance is a necessary quality or at least an unintended side effect of the business, although Johnson et al. suggests individuals who are considered highly arrogant, have likelihood to decreased task performance, cognitive ability, and self-esteem (2010). Given such research and knowledge, it was particularly interesting to be able to examine and create a scale that would measure sociopathy. Especially due to the critical and destructive nature of the construct, it seems somewhat surprising that this particular construct has not been measured in more depth; given our natural curiosity as humans and predisposition to try to understand things that do not go along with our usual trains of thought. A challenge perhaps. Along with our uncontrollable gravitation to the unknown, it is surprising especially in western cultures, that other research has not been conducted to expose sociopathy in the workplace, when this interaction portrayed as old as time, fundamentally embedded within the social threads of the workplace. Despite archaic mindsets sociopathy is not the new bullying. If sociopathy has taught us anything it is that in spite of what appears to be unyielding, it can be moved. Methodology Measures and procedure Items. Items created for this survey were produced through the use of collaboration among a group of graduate level college students. Initially, each student completed a literature review to gather information to create five items that could be used in the scale. Secondly, the items written from each student were compiled; items were then reviewed on an individual and group basis. Item review was accomplished first by examining how the items fit with a general definition of the construct and with other traits that are associated with the construct. Secondly, by examining any formatting errors such wordiness, unfamiliar language, or vagueness which could affect the item negatively. The values were then totaled, and items that did not load positively on these descriptives were then eliminated. After all items were reviewed and compiled, the survey was created.Survey. The survey was posted on the Qualtrics survey portal. After posted, each student then distributed the link to the survey to family, friends, coworkers, and others with a goal of getting ten participants. Upon participation participants were given the option of survey participation along with the surveys commitment to participant confidentiality and privacy. After agreeing, participants were then routed to the Qualtrics website to complete the survey. The survey contained a total of three scales, including a scale measuring sociopathy, workplace arrogance, and altruism. After completing all survey questions, participants were then directed to a debriefing page. Sociopathy. The sociopathy scale requested participant’s rate behaviors and attitudes associated with sociopathy according to their personal values and opinions. This measure was a 24-item scale, in which participants rated items on a 5-point Likert scale (1-strongly disagree, 2-disagree, 3-neutral, 4 – agree, 5- strongly agree). See Table A1 for items included within the Sociopathy Scale. Workplace Arrogance. The second scale included within the measure of Sociopathy was the workplace arrogance scale (Johnson et al., 2010). Participants were asked to rate their opinions and views on attitudes and behaviors that are associated with arrogance in the workplace (N = 25). There are several reasons why this scale was included. First, as Johnson et al. suggests the effects arrogance can have in the workplace such as job and task performance and cognitive ability (2010). Secondly, due to arrogant behaviors also being related to sociopathy, this scale was included to account for convergent validity in the measure (Johnson et al., 2010). Altruism. The third scale included was the altruism scale (Rushton, Chrisjohn, & Fekken, 1981). Participants were asked to rate their tendency toward altruistic acts primarily toward strangers (N = 22) on a 5-point scale ranging from Never (0) to Very Often (4). This scale was included in the survey for many reasons. First, as Conway, Rogelberg, and Pitts suggest altruistic behavior is a critical component in the workplace (2009). Secondly, behaviors associated with altruism (helping and prosocial behaviors) are considered the polar opposite of behaviors associated with sociopathy (greed and antisocial behaviors) (Conway, Rogelberg, & Pitts, 2009). Due to these reasons, this scale was included to account for any discriminant validity in the measure. Demographic information. Demographic information was gathered from participants to use for descriptive and validation purposes. Participants were asked to report their gender, age in years, education level, employment status, hours worked per week, and years they had been employed in their current job. Sample informationThere were 226 participants total that completed the survey based on this sample, in which 199 responses could be used in the analyses. Demographic frequency analysis was completed on this data, but due to missing cases in the analysis, each one may not include a total of 199 participants. Overall demographic information can be found in Figures 1-6. As displayed by the figures, the majorities of participants were female, in the 18-25 age range, and had a bachelor’s degree or some college credit. The majority were employed, working over 40 hours a week, and were employed in their current position for a year or less. Figure 1. Participant gender. Figure 2. Participant age. Figure 3. Participant education level. Figure 4. Participant employment status. Figure 5. Hours worked per week. Figure 6. Employment at current job (in years). To further examine the dimensionality of the sociopathy scale an exploratory factor analysis was conducted. This particular analysis assists the researcher when determining the number of factors which best fit the sample of data. It is through careful examination of eigenvalues and the scree plot that factor structure can be determined. Eigenvalues display the percentage of variance each factor explains along with the scree plot, which is a graphical representation of the eigenvalues reported. By examining such values and graphics, the dimensionality of the sociopathy scale was determined to a three factor structure (See Figure 7).Figure 7. Scree Plot of EFA After the initial EFA was conducted to determine dimensionality, another EFA was conducted to examine the factor loadings of the scale. By running this particular analysis, the items of this scale were further examined to determine if any items did not load significantly on the factors presented or if item cross loading on more than one factor was an issue. This is accomplished through the use of the pattern matrix included within the analysis, which is used to examine factor loadings. If any of the items in the scale did not load significantly on the factors or if cross loading was present, items were removed accordingly.Following the completion of the exploratory factor analysis, a confirmatory factor analysis was completed to confirm the dimensionality of the scale. This analysis was completed after the items that did not load significantly or were cross-loaded in the EFA were removed. It is through the use of indices such as Chi-Square, TLI, RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), and STDYX Standardization, model fit it is evaluated. By examining the values of multiple model-fit indices instead of relying on solely one test, it helps ensures for a more adequately fitting factor model. It is only after examining the results of both EFAs and the CFA the final items were selected to be included in the sociopathy scale. Analysis and ResultsThe EFA’s that were conducted on the sociopathy scale were based of a sample size of 99 participants. When completing this analysis, promax was utilized as the rotation method. As indicated by the eigenvalues, by having a three factor structure the majority of the variance within the scale would be accounted for by these three factors. As indicated separately by factor, factor 1 (22.56%), factor 2 (10.21%), and factor 3 (8.51%) with a total of 41.28% of the variance accounted for. As a result, it was determined that based on these values, extracting three factors would best suit the sample of participants within this study. Included in Figure 8 is the factor loadings each item has on the factors once they were determined. Items were eliminated if the item had a factor loading that was not significant, in which a value below .40 was used as an indicator. Items were additionally eliminated if they loaded significantly on more than one factor. As a result items SOC4, SOC8, SOC9, SOC10, SOC14, SOC16, SOC19, SOC22, SOC23, and SOC24 were eliminated. Figure 8.Pattern Matrix Included within EFAFactor123SOC1.362.293-.001SOC2.515-.121.215SOC3.476.200-.060SOC4.688-.249.191SOC5.496.331-.012SOC6.777-.132-.184SOC7.634.354-.055SOC8.217-.475.301SOC9.153.332.239SOC10.249.026.420SOC11.075.332-.406SOC12-.081.051.581SOC13-.105.580.324SOC14.325.215.222SOC15-.083.548.156SOC16-.078.131.235SOC17-.023.149.609SOC18-.191.781-.188SOC19-.131.053.074SOC20-.216-.060.617SOC21.531-.036-.267SOC22.409.026-.410SOC23.132.272-.061SOC24.082.543.219The results of the CFA which was conducted on the sociopathy scale should have been based on a sample size of 100 participants, but due to cases of missing information, eleven participants had to be removed, reducing the sample size to 89 participants. The fit indices which were interpreted in this analysis include Chi-Square test of model fit, TLI, RMSEA, and STDYX Standardization. Each model fit test indicates this measure as having a good model fit. As individually reported by test, Chi-Square (p = 0.19) supports this with a non-significant P value, TLI value (0.95) based off a criterion of .90 or above, RMSEA estimate (0.05) based off a criterion of 0.08 or less and STDYX Standardization (all signification estimates) based off a .40 criterion (See Table BI). Additionally with the items reduced from the EFA, the results of the CFA indicated items SOC11, SOC15, and SOC18 as having a poor fit with the scale. As a result these items were eliminated to ensure for a more adequately fitting model. After conducting both the EFA and the CFA the sociopathy scale was reduced to an 11 item scale, with a two dimensional factor structure. As Figure 9 indicates, items that loaded significantly on Factor 1 include SOC1, SOC2, SOC3, SOC5, SOC7, SOC21, SOC13; items loaded significantly to Factor 2 include SOC6, SOC12, and SOC20. By examining such factor loadings and item content Factor 1 was defined as Machiavellianism and Factor 2 was defined as Social Egoism. Figure 9.STDYX StandardizationTwo-TailedEstimate S.E. Est./S.E. P-ValueF1 BYSOC1 0.640 0.075 8.486 0.000SOC2 0.513 0.091 5.611 0.000SOC3 0.654 0.076 8.613 0.000SOC5 0.395 0.100 3.928 0.000SOC7 0.642 0.075 8.542 0.000SOC17 0.576 0.083 6.906 0.000SOC21 0.448 0.096 4.657 0.000SOC13 0.759 0.062 12.147 0.000F2 BYSOC6 0.790 0.168 4.714 0.000SOC12 0.490 0.143 3.439 0.001SOC20 0.328 0.140 2.335 0.020As discussed previously, the two additional scales included in the sociopathy measure, Workplace Arrogance and Altruism were included to account for convergent and discriminant validity accordingly. As a result, a correlation matrix was conducted to examine the relationship between all of the scales included within the sociopathy measure (See Table C1). As indicated by the correlation matrix, the correlation between Machiavellianism and Workplace Arrogance had the highest significant correlation (r = .55, p < .05). With a moderately high reliability this suggests the two measures are measuring similarly related traits, and also supports claims of the Workplace Arrogance scale as having high convergent validity. The correlation between Machiavellianism and Altruism had no significant relationship (r = -.00). With this being stated, this relationship (or lack of) suggests that these two scales do not measure similarly related traits, and therefore supporting claims of the Altruism scale as having high discriminant validity. In regards to the association between Machiavellianism and Altruism, as displayed in the correlation matrix along with support from researchers, it is not surprising to see this particular relationship in our results (Furtner, Rauthmann, & Sachse, 2011). Secondly, the relationship between Machiavellianism and Social Egoism had a significant correlation (r = .36, p < .01). Since these scales were originally included within the sociopathy scale this moderately high correlation makes sense theoretically and suggests the model measures similar traits. Thirdly, the relationship between Social Egoism and Altruism also had a significant correlation (r = .33, p < .01). With this moderately high correlation, this was not an expected relationship. Despite expectations, participants may want to appear positive in the workplace, are managing impressions, or actually think they are helping the people they work with. Such reasons have wide implications for participant scores, the reliability of the scale, along with the correlation between scales. Fourthly, the relationship between Workplace Arrogance and Altruism had a negative correlation (r = -.18, p < .05). These results suggest the scales do not measure similarly related traits; as these scales were included to account for convergent and discriminant validity, respectively this relationship is expected. Lastly, the relationship between Social Egoism and Workplace Arrogance had no significant correlation (r = .07). This correlation was not expected, since the Workplace Arrogance scale was included to account for convergent validity of sociopathy, which Social Egoism is a factor of. As discussed previously, participant scores may be affected by impression management or by wanting to appear positively in the workplace. Additionally, the lack of correlation between these two scales has wide implications for the reliability of the scale along with the correlation between scales. Reliability information for Sociopathy scale was conducted by analyzing all parts of the scale; this analysis was conducted on a sample size of 199 participants. The parts of the scale include Machiavellianism (α = .78), Social Egoism (α = .39), Workplace Arrogance (α = .88), and Altruism (α = .88). Overall the reliability of the sociopathy scale is relatively high, although the Social Egoism scale does not have a high enough reliability. The results of this scale could be affected by the number of items included in the scale (N = 3) as compared to the number of items included in the other scales it is small. In addition to the number of items possibly affecting the reliability of the scale, it could also have implications for the correlation among scales which were discussed previously.Conclusions and Recommendations In summary, the reliability of the complete measure of sociopathy is relatively high, although the reliability of the Social Egoism scale could have wide implications in regards to reliability of the measure as a whole in addition to the correlation among scales. Another limitation of this study is the sample size (N = 199) which could affect the results of this study along with generalizability. With these limitations in mind, I would recommend any research conducted in the future, seek to obtain a significantly larger sample size, in addition to further examining the relationship between Social Egoism and the other scales. Based on the relatively small nature of the scale, I feel confident that the cost of the measure will be relatively low especially compared to other personality measures. With the likelihood of the scale being financial feasible, I suggest the usability of the scale will be likely increase as well. Additionally, with the exclusive nature of the scale, I feel confident it will be a widely sought out measure. As the measure stands as is, I would recommend the use of this scale. As with all scales which are the first of its kind, there will always be room for improvement. I do feel the measure would adequately measure the construct of sociopathy in the workplace and in turn possibly open up room for solutions and recommendations for dealing with sociopathy in organizational settings in the future. References Cangemi, J.P., & Pfohl, W. (2009). Sociopaths in high places. Organization Development Journal, 27(2), 85-96. Conway, J.M., Rogelberg, S.G., & Pitts, V.E. (2009. Workplace helping: Interactive effects of personality and momentary positive affect. Human Performance, 22, 321-339. doi: 10.1080/08959280903120279Furtner, J.F., Rauthmann, J.F., & Sachse, P. (2011). The self-loving self-leader:An examination of the relationship between self-leadership and the dark triad. Social Behaviors and Personality, 39(3)369-380. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2011.39.3.369Johnson, R.E., Silverman, S.B., Shyamsunder, A., Swee, H., Rodopman, O.B., Cho, E., & Bauer, J. (2010). Acting superior but actually inferior?: Correlates and consequences of workplace arrogance. Human Performance, 23, 403-427. doi: 10.1080/08959285.2010.515279Lykken, D.T. (1996). Psychopathy, sociopathy, and crime. Society, 30-38. Pagan, T.J., & Lira, F.T. (1980). Short reports the primary and secondary sociopathic personality: Differences in frequency and severity of antisocial behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 89(3), 493-496. Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R.D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism sale an. Personality Individual Differences, 1, 292-302.Smith, R.J. (1973). Some thoughts on psychopathy. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 10(4), 354-358. Viding, E. (2004). Annotation: Understanding the development of psychopathy. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry Centre, 45(8), 1329-1337. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00323.Appendix ATable AISociopathy Scale ItemsSOC1I tell people what they want to hear so that they will give me what I want.SOC2I am better at most things than others.SOC3Success is based on the survival of the fittest.SOC4Achieving job status is important to me.SOC5Looking out for myself is my top priority.SOC6I can tell immediately whether a coworker will be useful to me.SOC7My feelings are more important than those of others.SOC8Others find me likable.SOC9I prefer to do what I want despite others' expectations.SOC10I like when my colleagues recognize me for my accomplishments.SOC11Other people see me as compassionate. (Reverse-scored)SOC12I fit in with any crowd.aSOC13It is okay to break rules when they interfere with my goals.SOC14It is okay to further one’s position in the workplace at any cost.SOC15It is important to think about the needs of other people before my own. (Reverse scored)SOC16I am confident in my own abilities.SOC17I like to be the center of attention.SOC18I am concerned about my coworkers' feelings if I succeed and they do not. (Reverse scored)SOC19It is not possible to work your way up in a company without some conflict.SOC20People look to me for leadership and guidance in team projects.SOC21I believe the end justifies the means.SOC22I tend to disengage myself from others throughout the work day.SOC23The organization's success is more important than personal success. (Reverse scored)SOC24The more power I have in a company the better off the company will be.Table AIIWorkplace Arrogance Scale Items WA1Believes that s/he knows better than everyone else in any given situationWA2Makes decisions that impact others without listening to their inputWA3Uses non-verbal behaviors like glaring or staring to make people uncomfortableWA4Criticizes othersWA5Belittles his/her employees publiclyWA6Asserts authority in situations when s/he does not have the required informationWA7Discredits others’ ideas during meetings and often makes those individuals look badWA8Shoots down other people’s ideas in publicWA9Exhibits different behaviors with subordinates than with supervisorsWA10Makes unrealistic time demands on othersWA11Does not find it necessary to explain his/her decisions to othersWA12Willing to listen to others’ opinions, ideas, or perspectivesWA13Welcomes constructive feedbackWA15Never criticizes other employees in a threatening mannerWA16Realizes that it does not always have to be ‘his/her way or the highway’WA17Avoids getting angry when his/her ideas are criticizedWA18Takes him/herself too seriouslyWA19Gives others credit for their ideasWA20Is considerate of others’workloadsWA21Is willing to take credit for success as well as blame for failureWA22Does not mind doing menial tasksWA23Can get others to pay attention without getting emotionally ‘heated up’WA24Promises to address subordinates’ complaints with every intention of working to resolve themWA25Does not see him/herself as being too important for some tasksWA26Puts organizational objectives before his/her personal agendaTable AIII Altruism Scale Items ALT1I have helped push a stranger's car that was broken down or out of gas.ALT2I have given directions to a stranger.ALT3I have made change for a stranger.ALT4I have given money to a charity.ALT5I have given money to a stranger who needed it (or asked me for it).ALT6I have donated goods or clothes to a charity.ALT7I have done volunteer work for a charity.ALT8I have donated blood.ALT9I have helped carry a stranger's belongings (books, parcels, etc.).ALT10I have delayed an elevator and held the door open for a stranger.ALT11I have allowed someone to go ahead of me in a lineup (in the supermarket, at a copy machine, at a fast-food restaurant).ALT12I have given a stranger a lift in my car.ALT13l have pointed out a clerk's error (in a bank, at the supermarket) in undercharging me for an item.ALT14I have let a neighbor whom I didn't know too well borrow an item of some value to me (eg, a dish, tools, etc).ALT15I have bought 'charity' holiday cards deliberately because I knew it was a good cause.ALT16I have helped a classmate who I did not know that well with an assignment when my knowledge was greater than his or hers.ALT17I have, before being asked, voluntarily looked after a neighbor's pets or children without being paid for it.ALT18I have offered to help a handicapped or elderly stranger across a street.ALT19I have offered my seat on a bus or train to a stranger who was standing.ALT20I have helped an acquaintance to move households.Appendices BTable BIModel Fit Indices as reported in CFAChi-Square Test of Model FitValue 51.048Degrees of Freedom 43P-Value 0.1868CFI/TLICFI 0.958TLI 0.946RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error Of Approximation)Estimate 0.04690 Percent C.I. 0.000 0.089Probability RMSEA <= .05 0.527Appendices CTable CICorrelation Matrix ?MachiavellianismSocial EgoismAltruismWorkplace ArroganceMachiavellianismPearson Correlation1???Sig. (2-tailed)????Social EgoismPearson Correlation.36**1??Sig. (2-tailed)0???AltruismPearson Correlation0.33**1?Sig. (2-tailed)0.990??Workplace ArrogancePearson Correlation.55**0.07-.18*1Sig. (2-tailed)00.40.03?** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).* Correlation is significant at the 0.005 level (2-tailed). ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download