Exploring the Relationship Between Cognitive Abilities and Adaptive Components of Psychopathic Traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although multiple studies have suggested a negative relationship between psychopathic traits and cognitive abilities, a few identified positive associations between psychopathic traits and specific executive functions. This study examined the relationship between a set of cognitive functions and the adaptive traits associated with psychopathic personality. Participants ( N = 107) completed measures of psychopathic traits and adaptive personality traits, as well as a series of cognitive-ability-based tasks (measures of working memory, response inhibition, cognitive discrimination, and long-term memory). Results showed that adaptive psychopathic traits were associated with faster response times on measures of working memory, cognitive discrimination, and long-term recall. In contrast, psychopathic traits related to impulsivity were associated with slower response times in incongruent trials of measures of cognitive discrimination and short-term recall. Higher levels of adaptive and psychopathic traits related to fearlessness and dominance were associated with better performance in a working memory task without sacrificing accuracy for speed. These findings further support the multidimensionality of psychopathy; whereas its maladaptive traits are related to cognitive impairments, its adaptive traits seem to be related to cognitive superiority.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".