Notes to ask tutor

Moderately strong? Seems reasonable to me? How many are we supposed to use? last semester I went
through and used all the studies I used in my introduction why is it not alright here?

Results Section:

Changed the formatting of (M = 2.3368, SD = 0.32986) to (M=2.3368, SD=0.32968) on all data sets. Changed all subscales of the LSRP to both scales of the LSRP Deleted redundant explanation Changed formatting from (r(208) = 0.180, p = 0.009) to (r(208)=0.180, p=0.009) on all data sets Changed moderately strong positive correlation to strong positive correlation Added that the correlation between impulsivity and primary psychopathy indicates that there is a link between the two. Added specific traits to the passage on further research.

Discussion Section:

Changed Ray, Poythress, Weir & Rickelm (2008) to Ray et al. (2008) Deleted unecessary information on passage on limitation of using self-report checks. Corrected citation in passage on limitation of using self-report checks Reworded passage on limitation of using self-report checks. Reworded limitation on only using university students. Reworded idea of further research. Corrected citation in last paragraph. Changed established to supported in last paragraph

Results The means and standard deviations for the BIS were calculated and show an overall low score (M=2.3368, SD=0.32986), indicating a low level of impulsive behaviour in the noninstitutionalised population tested, with little variation. Means and standard deviations for all of the subscales of the LSRPS were also calculated. Primary psychopathy (M=2.5808, SD=0.865632) and secondary psychopathy (M=3.1316, SD=0.83815) show similarly low scores, but with secondary psychopathy scoring slightly higher than primary psychopathy. Table 1 Mean and standard deviation scores for impulsivity, primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy
_________________________________________________________________________

Mean
Table 1

Standard Deviation

Mean extroversion and introversion scores for the forward (EI) and backwardpaired (IE) groups _________________________________________________________________________ EI group IE group t

______________________________________________________________________

Extroversion Introversion

9.01 6.52

7.60 7.77

3.98* 2.80

_________________________________________________________________________

Correlation coefficients were calculated between the BIS and both subscales of the LSRP. A significantly weak positive correlation was found between impulsivity and primary psychopathy (r(208)=0.180, p=0.009), and a extremely significant strong correlation was found between impulsivity and primary psychopathy (r(208)=0.526, p=0.000). That there is a correlation between primary psychopathy and impulsivity supports the hypothesis that impulsivity is related to primary psychopathy, even though the strong positive correlation between impulsivity and secondary psychopathy supports the hypothesis that secondary psychopathy is more closely linked with secondary psychopathy than primary psychopathy.

The results of the lab are in the lab 4 slides on blackboard. For your tables you need to do 2. 1 illustrates the mean and standard deviation of all the scores on the scale, and the second will illustrate the correlation coefficients of the primary and impulsivity and secondary and impulsivity as well as there associated P values.
Table 1 Mean extroversion and introversion scores for the forward (EI) and backwardpaired (IE) groups _________________________________________________________________________ EI group IE group t

______________________________________________________________________

Extroversion Introversion

9.01 6.52

7.60 7.77

3.98* 2.80

_________________________________________________________________________

Note. *p<.05

Note to self check with Amanda if tables need to be applied tutor says yes but the How to write a research report says that theyre not necessary for only 2 or 3 things. Contradictory information!

Discussion: The current study measured primary and secondary psychopathy subscales among 210 students studying a first-year psychology course using the Leavenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (Levenson et al., 1995) as well as impulsivity, using the Barrat Impulsivity Scale (Patterson, Stanford & Barratt, 1995). On the basis of Ray, Poythress, Weir & Rickelm (2008), it t was hypothesised that there would be a strong positive correlation between impulsivity and secondary psychopathy, and a weak positive correlation between impulsivity and primary psychopathy. As expected there was an extremely significant moderately strong positive correlation between impulsivity and secondary psychopathy,

indicating that those who display aspects of secondary psychopathy will also display higher levels of impulsivity. There was also a weak positive correlation between impulsivity and primary psychopathy, indicating that those who display the features of primary psychopathy do not display such elevated levels of impulsivity. Herpet et al. (2001)s investigation of the processing of affective information and corresponding affective reaction as displayed in 24 male inmates diagnosed with psychopathy indicated that a defining feature of psychopathy was a pronounced lack of fear in response to aversive occurrences, and that moreover, psychopaths have a deficit in their ability to process affective information, regardless of whether the occurance was of a positive or negative affect (Herpet et al. 2001). This is similar to our results insofar as psychopaths do not appear to have the same fear response that inhibits nonpsychopathic when faced with aversive circumstances, which could quite possibly lead to risk-taking and impulsive behavior. One of the main differences between Herpet et al. (2001)s study and the current investigation is that Herpet et al. (2001) did not distinguish between primary and secondary psycopathy, and there is some suggestion that Herpet et al. (2001) used psychopaths who mostly had traits associated with primary psychopathy rather than secondary psychopathy, as secondary psychopaths show normal to above-normal physiological responses to aversive occurrences. (Cleckly,1988). If this is the case, then Herpet et al. (2001)s results still support those of the current study, as there is still a positive correlation between impulsivity and primary psychopathy. OBoyle and Barratt (1992) found that those with multiple substance abuse had higher impulsivity and higher and EPQ psychoticism score. In OBoyle and Barrat (1992)s results, the EPQ psychotosicm score correlated positively with the the BIS, suggesting that those with multiple substance abuse had both traits associated with psychopathy and impulsivity. Although in our study, no one specifically with substance abuse was tested for traits associated with psychopathy and impulsivity, our results, are similar to OBoyle and Barratt (1992)s that there is a positive correlation between impulsivity and psychopathy whether or not an extraneous factor such as substance dependence is present. However, a difference between our study and OBoyle and Barrat (2001)s, is that they did not differentiate between primary and secondary psychopathy. However, there is some suggestion that those in his study mainly displayed traits associated with secondary psychopathy, as substance abuse is more common amongst secondary psychopaths than primary psychopaths (Magyar, Edens, Lilienfeld, Douglas & Poythress, 2011). If this is the case, then OBoyle and Barrat (1992)s results still support those of the current study, as there is a moderately strong correlation between impulsivity and secondary psychopathy. Ray et al. (2008)s study yielded very similar results to ours. Ray et al. investigated whether there was a difference in the correlation between impulsiveness and primary psychopathy, and the correlation between impulsivity and secondary psychopathy using 92 offenders. Ray et al. (2001)s investigation found that there was a strong positive correlation between all impulsivity traits (sensation seeking, lack of perseverance, premeditation and urgency) and secondary psychopathy. They also found that there was a weak positive correlation between lack of premeditation and nd primary psychopathy. One difference between their results and ours, is that the offenders had a higher overall score for traits associated with primary psychopathy than the the noninstitutionalised participants (Ray et al. 2001), suggesting that impulsivity is related to the traits associated to secondary psychopathy regardless of the extent that they manifest in a person. The weak positive correlation between lack of premeditation and primary psychopathy is also very similar to our results, insofar as lack of premeditation component of the UPPS is similar to the Motor Impulsiveness component of the BIS. Levenson et al. (1995) conducted an investigation that looked at the relationship between primary and secondary psychopathy and sensation seeking in a noninstitutionalised

population. Leavenson et al. hypothesised and subsequently that the adventurousness component (signifying relative fearlessness) would have no relationship with psychopathy, and that both the disinhibition and boredom susceptibility components of the scale would have a positive correlation, because it was most likel Levenson et al. (1995) also found that trait anxiety was strongly positively correlated with secondary psychopathy and weakly correlated with primary psychopathy. Our result support this, we found that traits associated with primary psychopathy were found manifested less in our population less in the population, and relative fearlessness is a trait associated with primary psychopathy. However, impulsivity, like disinhibition and boredom susceptibility, is a trait associated with secondary psychopathy, which is more common in this noninstirutionalised population.

INSERT CONFOUNDING VARIABLE HERE. WHUT IS THIS I DONT EVEN. One of the inherent limitations of this investigation is the complete reliance on self-report surveys. Psychopaths lack insight into their behaviour, which can make it difficult for them to accurately assess when presented with a survey (Jackson & Richards, 2007; Vitacco & Newman, 2007). They also frequently minimise their psychopathy, which makes self-report surveys especially vulnerable to response alterations (Vitacco & Newman 2007), and are proficient at responding in a socially desirable way in experimental settings (Book, Holden, Starzyk, Wasylkiw & Edwards, 2006). Further research may wish to consider taking a more multifaceted approach, using self-report scales such as the LSRP, structured interviews such as the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991), physiological measures, such as the Galvanic Skin response (Book et al., 2006) or cognitive measures such as response time. A further limitation is that the participants of the study are reasonably homogenous, as they are all students studying a first-year psychology student, which is particularly problematic as students differ markedly from the general nonstudent population. (Peterson, 2001; Sears 1986). University students have more have more unstable peer group relationships, stronger cognitive skills and stronger tendencies to comply with authority (Sears, 1986). Peterson (2001) indicated results derives from studies using purely university students differed significantly from the same research conducted on nonstudent participants. Thus, the external validitity of the data is questionable, and further research may like to consider taking a random sample of more diverse partipants, in order to get a more accurate representation of psychopathy in the general noninstitutionalised population. One of the inherent limitations of this investigation is the complete reliance on self-report surveys. Psychopaths lack insight into their behaviour, which can make it difficult for them to accurately assess when presented with a survey (Jackson & Richards, 2007; Vitacco & Newman, 2007). They also frequently minimise their psychopathy, which makes self-report surveys especially vulnerable to response alterations (Vitacco & Newman 2007), and are proficient at responding in a socially desirable way in experimental settings (Book, Holden, Starzyk, Wasylkiw & Edwards, 2006). Further research may wish to consider taking a more multifaceted approach, using self-report scales such as the LSRP, structured interviews such as the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991), physiological measures, such as the Galvanic Skin response (Book et al., 2006) or cognitive measures such as response time. An implication of this study may be that secondary psychopathy, manifested to a lesser degree, is more common than was previously thought. People who, in a nonistitutionalised

population who display high levels of impulsivity may also display many traits of secondary psychopathy without realising it. They are the people who cannot tolerate, are unable to often become bored and are generally irresponsible. The implication is that it is not the fault of these people for their undesirable personality traits, but that they suffer from a condition. (Note to self: This implication sucks; think about it with someone else maybe Dad if he isnt too stressed) There are both short and long term applications of the results from this investigation. Firstly, although psychopathy is relatively uncommon, an estimated 1% of the population (Hare, 1993), they cause a disproportionately large amount of emotional, financial and physical damage (Hare, 1993), and there is currently no treatment for psychopathy, either therapeutic or medical in nature, which is able to create a significant improvement. (Cooke, Forth & Hare, 1997). Thus, any research that allows us to understand psychopathy is important, for if a treatment is ever to be developed, a thorough understanding of psychopathy is crucial, especially at an early stage, where interventions could be developed. Secondly, a possible short-term application is to utilise the BIS as a pre-screening measure for positions of power, especially over those who are vulnerable. In such a position, it is extremely undesirable to have someone who exhibits traits associated with secondary psychopathy, where reckless behaviour and impulsivity could cause severe detrimental effects. Thus, if someone scored highly on the BIS, further follow-ups could be necessitated, and it also has the advantage of being very quick Further research might like to consider exploring more specific traits, (such as sensation seeking, lack of perseverance, lack of premeditation, and urgency) and their relationship to primary and secondary psychopathy, in order to gain a more detailed understanding of how they relate in a noninstitutionalised population, and furthermore how they differ from the associations in an institutionalised population. This could be implemented by replicating the current study and using a number of different impulsivity scales for instance, the UPPS scale (Whiteside and Lynam, 2001). This study aimed to investigate the relationships between impulsivity and primary psychopathy and impulsivity and secondary psychopathy in a noninstitutionalised population. Given the previous literature (Leavenson et al., 1995; Ray et al., 2001), it was hypothesised, and subsequently found, that there would be a weak positive correlation between impulsivity and primary psychopathy, and a strong positive correlation between impulsivity and secondary psychopathy

Given the previous literature (Leavenson et al, 1995; Ray et al., 2001), it was hypothesised, and supported, that there would be a weak positive correlation between impulsivity and primary psychopathy, thus indicating that people displaying traits associated with primary psychopathy also displayed, to a much lesser degree, impulsivity. It was also hypothesised and subsequently supported, that there would be a moderately strong correlation between impulsivity and secondary psychopathy, thus showing that people who displayed traits associated with secondary psychopathy also displayed, to a greater degree, impulsivity. This provides valuable information which can be used to further our understanding of psychopathy in a noninstitutionalised population, but also to allow us to develop pre-screening tools in order to find protopsychology in a nonisnstitutionalised population, which justifies and validates the need for further research

End your discussion with a concluding statement that summarises the main outcome of the study, and ties up loose ends. Finish on a concrete conclusion that doesnt leave the reader feeling either as if you ran out of steam and cant think of anything to say, or that youve only written a concluding statement because it says to in your How to Write Lab Reports book!

This research aimed to investigate the relationships between magical thinking and paranormal belief among New Zealanders and to compare these results with those produced in an American and South African setting to establish whether culture impacts on these beliefs. It was established that the cultural setting plays a very influential role and largely attributes to the differences in results between each of the three investigations. Although more research is needed in this area to determine many factors relating to magical thinking and belief in the paranormal, it is generally accepted that the Magical Ideation Scale (Eckblad & Chapman, 1983) is suitable as an indicator of schizotypy. This, therefore, validates and justifies the need for further research in this field to help understand the extremely perplexing minds of those suffering from schizophrenia and other, related, schizotypal disorders.

References Bartol, C. R. (1999). Criminal behaviour: A psychosocial approach. 5th ed. NJ: Preutrice Hall. Book, Angela. S., Holden, Ronald. R., Starzyk, Katherine B., Wasylkiw, Lousse., Edwards, Melanie J. (2006). Pyschopathic traits and experimentally induced deception in self-report assessment. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences. 41(4) 601-608 Cleckly, Harvey M. (1988) The mask of sanity. 5th ed. London: Textbook Pub. Cooke, David J., Forth, Adelle E., Hare, Robert D. (1997). Psychopathy: Theory, Research, and Implications for society. New York: Springer Hare, Robert D., (1999). Without Concience: The disturbing world of psychopaths among us. New York: Guilford Press. Herpertz, Sabine C., Werth, Ulrike., Lukas, Gerald., Qunaibi, Mutaz., Schuerkens, Annette., Kunert, Hans-Juergen., Freese , Roland., Flesch, Martin., Mueller-Isberner, Ruediger.,

Osterheider, Micheal., Sass, Henning. (2001). Emotion in criminal offenders with psychopathy and borderline personality disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 58(8) 737-745 Jackson, Rebecca J., Richards, Henry J. (2007). Psychopathy and the five factor model: Self and therapist perceptions of a psychopathic personality. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences. 43(7) 1711-1721 Levenson, Micheal R., Kent A. Kiehl, and Cory M. Fitzpatrick. (1995). Assessing Psychopathic Attributes in a Noninstitutionalised Population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151-158. Lilienfeld, Scott. O., Arkowitz, Hal (December 2007-January 2008.) What Psychopath means. Scientific American Mind, 300(1) 80-81. Lykken, David T. (1995). The Antisocial Personalities. London: Psychology Press. Magyar, Melissa S., Edens, John F. Lilienfeld, Scott O., Douglas, Kevin S., Poythress, Norman. G., (2011). Examining the relationship among substance abuse, negative emotionality and impulsivity among subtypes of antisocial and psychopathic substance abusers. Journal of Criminal Justice. In press. Patrick, Christopher J. (2007). Handbook of Psycopathy. New York: Guilford Press. Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(6), 768-774 Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28 250-261. Oas, Peter. (1985). The psychological assessment of impulsivity: A review. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 3(2), 141-156 OBoyle, Micheal., Barrat, Ernest S. (1993). Impulsivity and DSM-III-R personality disorders. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 14(4), 609-611 Ray, James V., Poythress, Norman G., Weir, John M., Rickelm, Angela. (2008). Relationships between psychopathy and impulsivity in the domain of self-reported personality features. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences,46(2) 83-87 Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 515-530 Vitacco, Micheal J., Neumann, Craig S. (2007). The Clinical Assessment of Psychopathy. In Jackson, Rebecca (Eds.) Learning Forensic Assessment (pp. 129- 152). London: Routlage. Wallace, John. F., Malterer, Melanie B., Newman, Joseph. P. (2009). Mapping Grays BIS and BAS constructs onto Factor 1 and Factor 2 of Hares Psychopathy Checklist Revised. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences. 47(8), 812-816