Psychological Assessment © 2012 American Psychological Association

2013, Vol. 25, No. 1,288-293 1040-3590/13/$ 12.00 DOI : 10.1037/aOO29262

BRIEF REPORT

Factor Structure of the B-Scan 360: A Measure of Corporate Psychopathy

Cynthia Mathieu Robert D. Hare and Daniel N. Jones

Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières University of British Columbia

Paul Bahiak Craig S. Neumann

Anubis-Research, Hopewell Junction, New York University of North Texas

Psychopathy is a clinical construct defined by a cluster of personality traits and behaviors, including
grandiosity, egocentricity, deceptiveness, shallow emotions, lack of empathy or remorse, irresponsibility,
impulsivity, and a tendency to ignore or violate social norms. The majority of empirical research on
psychopathy involves forensic populations most commonly assessed with the Psychopathy Checklist-
Revised (PCL-R), a 20-item rating scale that measures 4 related factors or dimensions (Interpersonal,
Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial) that underpin the superordinate construct of psychopathy. Recentiy,
researchers have tumed their attention to the nature and implications of psychopathic features in the
workplace. This research has been hampered by the lack of an assessment tool geared to the corporate/
organizational worid. Here we describe the B-Scan 360, an instrument that uses ratings of others to
measure psychopathic features in workplace settings. In this study, large samples of participants used an
online survey system to rate their supervisors on the B-Scan 360. Exploratory and confirmatory factor
analyses supported a reliable 20-item, 4-factor model that is consistent with the PCL-R 4-factor model
of psychopathy. Although more research is needed before the B-Scan 360 can be used in organizational
settings, we believe that these results represent an important step forward in the study of corporate
psychopathy.

Keywords: psychopathy, corporate psychopathy, B-Scan, corporate settings

Scholars studying deviant behavior in the workplace have Offenders high on psychopathy generally are at greater risk for
shown strong interest in narcissism and Machiavellianism, but committing such crimes than are other offenders, but this should
only recentiy have researchers tumed their attention to another not obscure the facts that at the measurement level psychopathy is
"dark personality," corporate psychopathy (Babiak & Hare, 2006). dimensional (Guay, Ruscio, Knight, & Hare, 2007), that most
The public commonly associates psychopathy with individuals offenders are not psychopaths, and that many high psychopathy
who murder, rape, assault, rob, or commit other serious crimes. individuals manage to avoid being brought into formal contact
with the criminal justice system (e.g., Babiak, Neumann, & Hare,
2010).
This article was published Online First July 9, 2012.
Cynthia Mathieu, Business Department, Université du Québec à Trois- An intemational standard for the assessment of psychopatiiy in
Rivières, Québec, Canada; Robert D. Hare and Daniel N. Jones, Depart- forensic populations is the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
ment of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British (PCL-R; Hare, 2003), a clinical construct rating scale administered
Columbia, Canada; Paul Babiak, Anubis-Research, Hopewell Junction, by qualified clinicians from interview and collateral information.
New York; Craig S. Neumann, Department of Psychology, University of A derivative of the PCL-R, the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening
North Texas.
Version (PCL: SV; Hart, Cox, & Hare, 1995) is widely used for
Daniel N. Jones is now at the Department of Psychology, University of
assessing psychopathy in civil psychiatric and community popu-
Texas, El Paso.
lations, and is closely related to the PCL-R, both conceptually and
Paul Babiak and Robert D. Hare do not receive any financial compen-
sation directiy from the B-Scan; however, it is being developed for future empirically (Hare, Neumann, & Widiger, in press). The psycho-
commercial purposes. Robert D. Hare receives royalties from the sale of metric properties and correlates of the PCL-R and the PCL: SV are
the PCL-R and its derivatives. This research was supported by grants from well known, and evidence for their reliability and validity as
the Donner Foundation to Cynthia Mathieu, Robert D. Hare, and Craig S. measures of psychopathy is extensive (Hare & Neumann, 2008;
Neumann. We would like to note that all participating coauthors have Hare et al., in press). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) of very
contributed equally to the elaboration of the present article. We thank Kylie large data sets indicate that both instruments can be modeled in
Neufeld for her assistance in preparing this article.
terms of four strongly correlated unidimensional factors (with
Correspondence conceming this article should be addressed to Cynthia
well-delineated item-to-factor relations) that are accounted for by
Mathieu, Business Department, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières,
a single superordinate factor (e.g., Neumann & Hare, 2008; Neu-
P.O. 500, Trois-Rivières, Quebec, G9A 5H7, Canada. E-mail:
cynthia.mathieu @uqtr.ca mann, Hare, & Johansson, in press; Neumann, Hare, & Newman,

288
 B-SCAN
289
2007). The four factors (and for illustrative purposes, the PCL: SV organizational psychologists) in corporate succession plans, not all
items that comprise them) are as follows: Interpersonal (Superfi- of which were possible indicators of psychopathy. The result was
cial, Grandiose, Deceitful), Affective (Lacks remorse. Lacks em- the 113-item Business-Scan 360, referred to here as the B-Scan,
pathy. Doesn't accept responsibility for actions). Lifestyle (Impul- designed as a rating scale in which various members of an orga-
sive, Lacks realistic goals. Irresponsible), and Antisocial (Poor nization rate others, including supervisors, peers, and subordinates
behavioral controls. Adolescent antisocial behavior. Adult antiso- (Babiak & Hare, 2012). The goal of the present study was to
cial behavior). Cooke and Michie (2001) have argued that antiso- determine the factor structure of the B-Scan as a measure of
cial features (the Antisocial factor) should not be included in the psychopathy when used by subordinates to rate their supervisors in
assessment of psychopathy. However, traditional clinical concep- corporate settings.
tions of psychopathy are replete with antisociality, and it is diffi- It has proven difficult to enlist the participation of organizations
cult to understand how the defining traits of the construct could be to validate the B-Scan. Fortutiately, the recent introduction of
measured without reference to antisocial behaviors (Hare, 2003; online internet surveys has made it possible for researchers to
Hare & Neumann, 2008). As Lynam and Miller (in press) put it. collect large amounts of data that are reasonably representative of
populations of interest. Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk;
Antisocial behavior [ASB] plays a clear and prominent role in psy-
www.mturk.com) has proven to be particularly useful in this
chopathy. . . . In fact, if there is an essential behavioral feature in
common across the conceptualizations [of psychopathy], it is the
regard (e.g., Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). MTurk is an
. presence of ASB. Any description of psychopathy is incomplete online marketplace connecting requesters offering payment for
without ASB. completion of human intelligence tasks (HITs) and workers will-
ing to complete such tasks. In terms of generalizability, many
We included antisocial features in the current study of corporate studies report that samples obtained through MTurk are more
psychopathy. representative than studies using student participants (e.g., Beh-
Given the defining features of psychopathy (that is, personality rend, Sharek, Meade, & Wiebe, 2011; Buhrmester et al., 2011).
traits that make it easy to deñ-aud, bilk, scam, dominate, and Mturk is a useful option for employee-focused research (Barger,
control), along with a context that includes loosely regulated Behrend, Sharek, & Sinar, 2011).
financial environments, plenty of opportunities, lax regulatory
oversight, huge rewards and trivial penalties, it is not difficult to
Current Study
suspect that psychopathy should be closely connected to corporate
misbehavior and white-collar crime (Perri, 2011). Early versions of the B-Scan were designed to capture the
four-factor model of psychopathy, but the process was largely
Corporate Psychopathy rational, and the amount of empirical data available was too small
to conduct satisfactory statistical analyses. The 113-item set also
In a recent study of 203 upper-level managers, Babiak, Neu- was rather large for routine use and might have contained items
mann, and Hare (2010) found that the PCL-R—particularly its that were not directly related to the psychopathy construct. In this
interpersonal component—was positively associated with in-house study, we used MTurk to collect two large independent samples of
ratings of Charisma/Presentation style (creativity, strategic think- data fi-om business personnel who rated their supervisors on the
ing and communication skills) and negatively associated with original B-Scan items and on several relevant external variables. In
ratings of Responsibility/Performance (being a team player, lead- Sample 1, we conducted exploratory analyses to delineate the
ership and management skills, and overall accomplishments). The factor structure of the B-Scan. In Sample 2, we conducted a CFA
authors concluded that the ability to charm, manipulate, and de- of the items derived from the analyses in Sample I.
ceive others allowed psychopathic leaders to achieve apparent
success in their careers despite negative performance ratings and
behaviors potentially harmful to the corporation and its personnel. Sample 1: Exploratory Analyses
Others have found psychopathy to be positively related to uneth-
Participants in Sample 1 were 340 working adults recruited on
ical decision making (Stevens, Deuling, & Armenakis, 2012), a
Amazon's MTurk website (57% women; mean age 33.64 years,
recurring theme in the business world during the past few years. At
SD = 11.78; 74% European heritage, 7% African heritage, 7%
first glance, individuals with psychopathic tendencies may seem
East Asian, 4% South Asian, 8% other mixed ethnicities). On
attractive during recruitment and may succeed in the short-term,
MTurk, all participants preselect tasks they wish to complete, for
but we argue that similar to individuals with narcissistic tenden-
which they receive a nominal fee. The task in this case was to "rate
cies, the destructive aspects of the personality will appear in the
your boss's personality." Of those who took the survey, 2%
long-run (Campbell, Hoffman, Campbell, & Marchisio (2011).
reported being a CEO or senior manager, 12% were middle man-
A major impediment to advancing our understanding of corpo- agement, 13% were line management, and 73% did not hold a
rate psychopathy is the unavailability of a suitable instrument for managerial position. Salaries ranged from less than $25K to over
assessing the construct in business settings. Rather than relying on $200K per year. The demographics of participants' immediate
formal clinical assessments or extant self-reports to assess psy- supervisors or bosses were also collected: 40% were women, 75%
chopathy, Babiak and Hare began working several years ago on the were of European heritage, and mean age was 45.8 years {SD =
development of an instrument for rating psychopathic features in 10.0).
corporate and organizational settings. The original item set was The MTurk instructions for the B-Scan ratings were as follows:
based on a multitude of behaviors, attitudes, and judgments con- "Please answer the following questions with respect to your cur-
sidered problematic (by human resources personnel and industrial/ rent (or most recent) boss or supervisor. If you have (or had) more
290 MATHIEU, HARE, JONES, BABL^iK, AND NEUMANN

than one, answer with respect to the most relevant to your career." items with a loading of .40 or greater. In order to create a balanced
Participants responded to each item on a 5-point Likert-like scale scale, we selected the best five from each factor (i.e., items that
(1-5) from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Sample items are were not redundant with another item, had the highest loading,
as follows; Comes across as smooth, polished and charming; and/or had the lowest loading with other factors). The result was a
Shows no regret for making decisions that harm the company, set of 20 items (five per factor) to represent the reduced B-Scan
shareholders, or employees. scale. Finally, these items were subjected to a new technique
In this sample, we used several statistical procedures to explore available in Mplus referred to as exploratory stmctural equations
the underlying dimensions of the initial pool of B-Scan items. The modeling (ESEM). The advantage of ESEM is that items can
first and primary procedure permitted examination of the Parallel freely cross load (EFA), but model fit (SEM) is also estimated. In
Analysis (PA; Horn, 1965) and Velicer's minimal average partial this sense, it is a more open test of a model than conventional CFA,
(MAP; Zwick & Velicer, 1986) criteria for factor extraction. Given which usually involves specific item-to-factor relations. The
that psychopathy scores usually have nonnormal distributions and ESEM identified four factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1.25.
that the items were answered on an ordinal scale, we conducted a With the exception of one item on the Callous/Insensitive factor
PA and MAP on both the polychoric and Pearson correlation ("threatens co-workers"), all items loaded sufficiently on their
matrixes (see Cho, Li, & Bandalos, 2009). We used the statistical respective factor (i.e., >.4O; e.g.. Factor 1 mean loading = .63,
package R (http://www.r-project.org/), which is capable of han- range: .48 to .89; Factor 2 mean loading = .74, range; .65 to .86;
dling a polychoric and Pearson matrix when calculating such Factor 3 mean loading = .74, range: .67 to .82; Factor 4 mean
statistics. To supplement this approach, we examined eigenvalues loading .42, range: .31 to .51). The overall fit of the four-factor
and scree plot graphs—all of which agreed with the PA and MAP ESEM was acceptable (TLI = .97; SRMR = .03). All of these
criteria. values exceed conventional cut-off criteria (Marsh, Hau, & Wen,
The second step was to conduct a series of exploratory factor 2004). Furthermore, each item clearly mapped onto the four well-
analyses (EFAs) in order to isolate factors that fit the Hare Four- known PCL-R-based psychopathy factors (i.e.. Interpersonal,
Factor model of psychopathy. Here we discuss only B-Scan factors Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial). However, given that the
directly related to psychopathy. These EFA procedures were car- B-Scan (latent) factors are meant to have utility in a corporate
ried out with Mplus because of its ability to model nonlinear (i.e., environment, we labeled them as follows; Manipulative/
ordinal) data (Muthen & Muthen, 2010). In all cases, we used the Unethical, Callous/Insensitive, Unreliable/Unfocused, and Intimi-
mean and variance adjusted weighted least squares (WLSMV)
dating/Aggressive. Coefficient alpha (a) for the total scale score
estimation procedure. Given the ordinal nature of the items, the
was .90. Table 1 lists the (manifest or observed) means, standard
items were treated as polytomous and analyzed using polychoric
deviations, mean interitem correlations, factor intercorrelations,
correlations via WLSMV, a preferred method for this analysis
and a for each factor.
(Muthen & Muthen, 2010). We note that use of maximum likeli-
hood resulted in a similar pattem of findings.
Sample 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Results
In Sample 1 we identified a preliminary 20-item B-Scan scale
The results of the PA identified six factors. This solution was consistent with the four PCL-based factors of psychopathy. The
obtained for both polychoric and Pearson solutions. We then next step was to confirm this factor stmcture and its reliability.
entered the data into an EFA procedure, extracting six factors. Two Participants in Sample 2 were 806 working adults recmited on
factors were not directly relevant to psychopathy but were consid-
Amazon's MTurk website. The demographics of participants and
ered important in evaluating corporate potential and performance.
supervisors were similar to those in Sample 1 (59% women; mean
We tentatively described them as an "ability" dimension (e.g., has
age = 30.3, SD = 10.3; 68% European heritage, 12% East Asian,
the knowledge to perform his/her job well) and a "disruptive
5% Latino, 6% African heritage, 4% other mixed ethnicities; 58%
behavior" dimension (e.g., enjoys being dismptive at times). They
were similar to the performance and presentation style ratings of the supervisors were men). In addition, participants reported
identified in the corporate psychopathy study by Babiak and col- that they had known their supervisors for an average of 4.5 years.
leagues (2010). That is, although not directly part of the psychop- After filling out demographics, participants then rated their super-
athy constmct, they appear to be related to corporate performance visors online with the same 113 B-Scan items used in Sample 1, as
and perhaps leadership style. Because the present study's goal was part of a larger study on personalities in business. They received a
to test the viability of a four-factor stmcture of psychopathy, nominal fee for their participation.
similar to other well-established derivatives of the PCL-R, we We conducted a CFA on the 20-item B-Scan model identified in
decided to remove items that loaded on these two factors and items Sample 1. We again used the WLSMV estimation procedure as
that did not sufficiently load on one of the remaining four factors. recommended when analyzing ordinal (i.e., Likert-like) data (Mu-
These two factors will be addressed in future research testing the then & Muthen, 2010). We used the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) and
B-Scan in organizational settings. This left us with a pool of 38 the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) as our primary
items. We then conducted an EFA on these items. The first four tests of model fit. Our current sample (e.g., >500) was sufficient
eigenvalues were greater than 1.5, suggesting a four-factor solu- for testing a model consisting of less than 70 parameters (i.e., 20
tion. The fourth factor, which consisted of aggression-related items in a 4-factor model). Specifically, the 20-item model esti-
items, had only five items with loadings greater than .40, as did mates 46 parameters, which is well within the 10; 1 subjects-to-
manipulation-related items. Two other factors had more than five parameters ratio recotnmended by Bentler (1995).
 B-SCAN
291
Table 1
B-Scan 360 Factors and Total Score: Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Factor
Intercorrelations

B-Scan 360 1 M (SO) MIC

Sample 1 (n = 340)
1. Manipulative/Unethical (.76) 3.45 (.76) .36
2. Callous/Insensitive .51 (.99) 2.61 (.99) .54
3. Unreliable/Unfocused .47 .51 (.87) 2.27 (.87) .50
4. Intimidating/Aggressive .46 .64 .44 (.92) 2.91 (.92) .40
5. Total Score .49 .73 .52 .61 (.90) 2.69 (.70) .30
Sample 2 (n = 806)
1. Manipulative/Unethical (.70) 2.94 (.79) .31
2. Callous/Insensitive .48 (.82) 2.54 (.92) .49
3. Unreliable/Unfocused .43 .50 (.82) 2.21 (.81) .48
4; Intimidating/Aggressive .40 .59 .38 (.70) 2.78 (.84) .32
5. Total Score .46 .67 .49 .55 (.88) 2.62 (.65) .27

Note. For all factor intercorrelations, p < .001. Alpha reliability is on the diagonal. Factor scores were calculated using
summed item grouping scores. MIC = mean interitem correlations.

Results and peers to assess corporate psychopathy in others. In Sample 1,

participants rated their supervisors on the original set of B-Scan
The CFA results for the 20-item model (four correlated factors,
items. Exploratory analyses of the items yielded a 20-item, four-factor
five items per factor) selected in Sample 1 had acceptable fit to the
Sample 2 data, x^(75) = 692.46, p < .001, TLI = .93, SRMR = model. In Sample 2, confirmatory factor analyses replicated this
.07. As shown in Figure 1, the resulting model replicated the four model. These results provide initial empirical evidence for a reliable
psychopathy factors found in Sample 1. In addition, the total score structural model of the B-Scan, one that is conceptually similar to the
and each factor score were about as reliable as those in Sample 1 four-factor structure of the PCL-R and its derivatives.
(see Table 1 for means, standard deviations, alphas, mean interitem Within an organizational setting, psychopathic traits are likely to
correlations, and factor intercorrelations). find expression in behaviors that are self-serving, damaging to the
organization and its members, or covertly unethical or illegal, such
General Discussion as manipulation, deception, intimidation, threats, coercion, bully-
ing, fraud, and corruption. The features refiected in the four factors
This study provides support for a four-factor structure of the of the B-Scan seem to be related to workplace deviant behaviors
B-Scan 360, an instrument designed for managers, subordinates. previously described in business literature, such as organizational

Ingratiates him/herself Insensitive

Glib Rarely shows emotions

Uses charm Cold inside

Claims expertise Remorseless

Rationalizes No empathy

Not ioyai Intimidating

No planning Angry

Unfocused Asks harsh questions

Not patient Threatens coworkers

Unreliable Dramatic

Figure 1. Four-factor B-Scan model of psychopathy.

292 MATHIEU, HARE, JONES, BABL\K, AND NEUMANN

retaliatory behavior (Skarlicki, Folger, & Tesluk, 1999), work- our instrument may represent such a measure and although more
place bullying (Mathisen, Einarsen, & Mykletun, 2011), and in- research is needed before it can be used in organizational settings,
terpersonal deviance (Bolton, Becker, & Barber, 2010). Further- we think that tiiis first validation study of the B-Scan is an
more, we believe that employees high on psychopathic traits will important step forward in the study of corporate psychopathy.
exhibit few behaviors that facilitate organizational functioning and
many behaviors that harm the organization and its members. Such References
a pattem of behaviors, along with other factors, has been associ-
ated to job performance (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002), an important Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2006). Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to
variable in organizational settings. work. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Babiak, P., & Hare, R. D. (2012). The B-Scan 360 Manual. Manuscript in
preparation.
Implications of These Findings Babiak, P., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2010). Corporate psychopathy:
Talking the walk. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 174-193.
We believe that our findings provide important information
Barger, T., Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., & Sinar, E. F. (2011). I-O and the
about the underlying personality structure of counterproductive crowd: Frequently asked questions about using Mechanical Turk for
work behavior. Thus far, the business literature has focused more research. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 49, 11-18.
on identifying these toxic behaviors than on understanding their Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. S., Meade, A. W., & Wiebe, E. N. (2011). The
origins. We propose that psychopathic features in employees (as viability of crowdsourcing for survey research. Behavior Research
measured by the B-Scan) may help to explain these counterpro- Methods, 43, 800-813. doi:10.3758/sl3428-011-0081-0
ductive behaviors. Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino,
The originality of the B-Scan lies in the fact that it is a 360 CA: Multivariate Software.
degree tool for the evaluation of psychopathic features in business Bolton, L. R., Becker, L. K., & Barber, L. K. (2010). Big five trait
predictors of differential counterproductive work behavior dimensions.
settings. The present study focused on the validation of the B-Scan
Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 537-541. doi:10.1016/
when used to evaluate psychopathic traits in others (data on the
j.paid.2010.03.047
validation of the B-Scan Self, its sister version, will be presented Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechan-
in another manuscript). Given the self-serving and deceptive na- ical Turk: A new source of cheap, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives
ture of the psychopathic personality, corroboration of self-report on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
scores by others is vital, especially in business settings. Even Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, S. M., & Marchisio, G.
trained industrial/organizational (I/O) psychologists, if not made (2011). Narcissism in organizational contexts. Human Resource Man-
aware of problematic evaluations or profiles, may think certain agement Review, 21, 268-284.
individuals are good fits for the organization when, in fact, they are Cho, S. J., Li, F., & Bandalos, D. (2009). Accuracy of the parallel analysis
potentially toxic. Babiak and colleagues (2010) observed that some procedure with polychoric correlations. Educational and Psychological
executives tend to rely on their "gut feeling" to judge candidates Measurement, 69, 748-759. doi:10.1177/0013164409332229
and that "unfortunately, once decision-makers believe that an Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy:
individual has future leader potential, even bad performance re- Towards a hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13, 171-188.
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.171
views or evaluations from subordinates and peers do not seem to
Guay, J. P., Ruscio, J., Knight, R. A., & Hare, R. D. (2007). A taxometric
be able to shake their belief (Babiak et al., 2010, p. 190). The
analysis of the latent structure of psychopathy: Evidence for dimension-
addition of data from a standardized assessment instrument, based ality. Joumal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 701-716. doi:10.1037/
on the observations of others who may work closely with such 0021-843X. 116.4.701
persons, could counterbalance inaccurate perceptions. Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the Hare Revised Psychopathy Checklist
(2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. •
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and
Limitations and Future Research empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217-246.
doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452
The results are based on a sample from MTurk and may not
Hare, R. D., Neumann, C. S., & Widiger, T. A. (in press). Psychopathy. In
generalize to other means of collecting B-Scan data from organi- T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of personality disorders.
zations or corporate environments. We chose MTurk because it New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
provided us with data from a wide array of individuals with Hart, S. D., Cox, D. N., & Hare, R. D. (1995). Manual for the Psychopathy
different occupations and supervisors, and different work environ- Checklist: Screening Version (PCL: SV). Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
ments and settings. Given such diversity of participants, it is Multi-Health Systems.
unlikely that the results would be limited to a particular work Hom, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor
environment. Nevertheless, MTurk samples have limitations that analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185. doi:10.1007/BF02289447
could potentially affect extemal validity, such as the facts that Lynam, D. R., & Miller, J. D. (in press). Fearless dominance and psychop-
employees are not all from the same organization and that orga- athy: Response to Lilienfeld et al. Personality Disorders: Theory, Re-
nizational context and other variables cannot be controlled. We search, and Treatment.
believe that future research using corporate samples is needed in Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules:
Conmient on hypothesis testing approaches to setting cutoff values for
order to establish generalizability as well as the predictive validity
fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999).
of B-Scan scores and organizational variables. findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341. doi:10.1207/
In sum, given the destmctive nature of individuals high on sl5328007semll03_2
psychopathic features, the development of a sound and reliable Mathisen, G. E., Einarsen, S., & Mykletun, R. (2011). The relationship
business-friendly measure is badly tieeded. Our results suggest that between supervisor personality, supervisors' perceived stress and work-
 B-SCAN 293
place bullying. Joumal of Business Ethics, 99, 637-651. doi:10.1007/ Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task,
S10551-010-0674-Z citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2010). Mplus: The comprehensive performance: A policy-capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychol-
modeling program for applied researchers: User's guide. Los Angeles, ogy, 87, 66-80. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.l.66
CA: Author. Skarlicki, D., Folger, R., & Tesluk, P. (1999). Personality as a moderator
Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2008). Psychopathic traits in a large in the relationship between fairness and retaliation. Academy of Man-
community sample: Links to violence, alcohol use, and intelligence. agement Joumal, 42, 100-108. doi: 10.2307/256877
Joumal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 893-899. doi: Stevens, G. W., Deuling, J. K., & Armenakis, A. A. (2012). Successful
10.1037/0022-006X.76.5.893 psychopaths: Are they unethical decision-makers and why? Journal of
Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Johansson, P. (in press). The Psychopathy Business Ethics, 105, 139-149. doi:10.1007/sl0551-011-0963-l
Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), low anxiety, and fearlessness. Personality Zwick, W. R., &Velicer, W. F. (1986). Factor influencing five rules for
Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin,
Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., & Newman, J. P. (2007). The super-ordinate 99, 432-442. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.99.3.432
nature of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Joumal of Personality
Disorders, 21, 102-117. doi:10.1521/pedi.2007.21.2.102
Perri, F. S. (2011). White-collar criminals: The "kinder, gentler" offender? Received October 1, 2011
Joumal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 8, 217-241. Revision received May 5, 2012
. doi:10.1002/jip.l40 Accepted May 9, 2012
Copyright of Psychological Assessment is the property of American Psychological Association and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.