Psychometrics

1. Running head: SOCIOPATHY SCALE 1
Development of a Sociopathy Scale
Samuel Dunham
Valdosta State University

2. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 2
Abstract
For this project, Dr. Natalie Wright’s psychometrics class created a scale that would be
used to measure sociopathy in individuals. The class followed the guidelines set by Hinkin
(1998) to practice and demonstrate the test construction process. After conducting an EFA and
CFA, many items were removed from the scale in an attempt to make it more reliable and valid.
There were some problematic findings that could impact how much validity the scale is
perceived to have in measuring sociopathy. With the results of the analyses, it would probably be
wise for the test to continue being developed.

3. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 3
For this project, the purpose was for the class to develop a scale for the construct of
sociopathy. To do so, the class followed the guidelines set by Hinkin (1998), which will be
discussed more specifically later in this technical report. Then the class conducted both an EFA
and a CFA to determine how many factors may be present in the scale to and determine model
fit. Reliability estimates of the scale were taken to determine whether they would produce
consistent scores. Finally, a decision was made as to whether the reliability was acceptable for
the created sociopathy scale and evidence of validity was also gathered.
The construct of sociopathy is an interesting topic that may have implications in the work
environment; however, there are not many sociopathy scales in use today. It should be noted that
sociopathy is a complex construct and as a result, the research in the area is relatively limited. In
one of the first pieces of research on sociopathy, not only was anti-social behavior considered an
essential aspect of sociopath, but that the level of anxiety could separate sociopaths into either
the category of a primary sociopath or of the secondary sociopath (Lyyken, 1957). Along those
lines, Fagan & Lira (1980) suggest that primary sociopaths exhibit more anti-social behaviors
than secondary sociopaths or those who are not classified as sociopaths. Secondary sociopaths
were defined as sociopaths that “learn to control inappropriate responses that have been
previously punished.” It is also said that their antisocial behavior is “a result of frustration or
inner conflict. “Despite the limitations present in sociopathy, more research has been done in the
area of psychopathy research. For example, Caponecchia, Sun, & Wyatt (2012) suggest that
labeling anyone in the workplace a psychopath is extremely difficult and in most cases, the use
of the term is not appropriate. This is because the term “psychopath” is not fully understood and
the construct has not been fully developed; this makes it very easy to mislabel an individual as a
psychopath (which could have damaging results for the individual and those around them).

4. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 4
Psychopathy and sociopathy seem to touch on some of the same underlying principles and
because of that, sociopathy has also been difficult to define and is probably misused a great deal
in labeling individuals.
For the purposes of this project, the class defined sociopathy as 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.” One component in this definition that should be noted is the
construct of narcissism. Prior research suggests that those high in “grandiose narcissism” have
less attachment avoidance (Rohmann, Neumann, Herner, & Bierhoff, 2012) which is relevant
because sociopathic people should be able to find attachment with other individuals. However,
the reason for that attachment is to get what they desire from the relationship. Narcissism has
also recently been examined in a workplace setting, primarily in the context of narcissism levels
in CEOs and how it impacts organizational change (Gerstner, König, Enders & Hambrick, 2013)
The study had results that would suggest that the narcissism by CEOs concerning organizational
outcomes would be mediated by perceptions of their actions by an audience (e.g. other
organization employees). The more their actions are observed by their audience, the more likely
CEOs will be to do aggressively narcissistic behaviors.
Methodology
The class generally followed the guidelines set by Hinkin (1998) in the construction of
the sociopathy scale. First, the items were generated. Then, the survey was given out for people
to take. After that, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to initially reduce the number
of items in the scale. Then, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to determine
the best model fit for the data and to reduce the number of items again. Finally, the class

5. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 5
examined the convergent and discriminant validity evidence results from the CFA output. For
this project, we were unable to replicate the process to a new sample.
The first step was to determine what descriptors the construct domain for sociopathy
contained. During one class period, the class came together and came up with ideas for possibly
relevant descriptors that may catch the essence of the sociopathy construct domain. There were
many suggestions, but the final descriptors included were the following: Need for recognition,
Egocentric, Disregard for norms, Confidence, Charismatic, Emotional intelligence, and Greed.
The other descriptors were removed for the following reasons: they were not thought to be vital
to the sociopathy construct, creating items for the descriptor would be difficult, and/or the
descriptor could only be measured using behavioral questions, which raised the possibility of
social desirability in item responses. Afterwards the class decided upon some scales that would
demonstrate convergent and discriminant validity for the sociopathy scale.
Then the class wrote items that would be considered for inclusion in the sociopathy scale.
Each person was given the task to write questions that covered the descriptors in the sociopathy
domain. After that was completed all of the items were compiled together and the class had to
determine which items to keep and which ones to get rid of. In total, 115 items were created.
Each person was assigned four questions to go through and score each item on set criteria. In the
criteria, points were added to the item’s score according to how well the question fit with the
sociopathy construct domain and question clarity. Points were subtracted from the item’s score if
the item contained any item writing errors or would not produce variance. Then the scores were
aggregated to produce a final score for each item. It was determined that items that obtained the
highest scores would be kept and the others would be deleted. In all, there were 31 items kept.
Then the class examined the highest scoring items and removed items that seemed to duplicate

6. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 6
other kept questions leaving 24 items (For a listing of those items see Appendix A). The wording
for each item was also examined to reduce as much possible error associated with the items as
possible.
Once those items were revised and finalized, the surveys were conducted using the
Qualtrics survey software system. The class was asked to get at least ten people to conduct the
survey. The class was able to get people to take the survey through word of mouth, asking, and
putting the link for the survey on Facebook. The survey was kept up for three weeks and then the
results were gathered from all of the surveys. After the survey was closes, there were 226
respondents. Then Dr. Natalie Wright complied all of the data on an SPSS data file and each
person in the class conducted their own EFA. In total, the data from 199 individuals were kept
for use in the EFA and CFA. Participants with missing data were excluded from the analyses
because they would not provide a substantial amount of relevant information concerning the
scale.
The sample consisted of a wide variety of different types of respondents. The sample
used for this scale validation process was primarily young and female. Females accounted for
approximately 67 percent of the respondents. Approximately half of the respondents were in the
18-25 year old age bracket (50.3 percent). The majority of respondents either had some college
education or claimed to have a bachelor’s degree as their highest education with a these
education levels accounting for a total of 63.3 percent of the respondents. 76.4 percent of the
sample was employed at the time of the survey. Overall, the average time working per week was
fairly broad (See Appendix B). 48.8 percent of survey respondents worked 31 hours or more per
week, while 38.7 percent worked 30 hours a week or less. Approximately 57 percent of the
respondents had worked at their place of employment for either 3 three years or less.

7. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 7
To determine whether the sociopathy scale was accurately measuring sociopathy,
convergent and discriminant validity evidence was sought through the use of other scales. In
order to determine convergent validity, a workplace arrogance measure that Johnson et al. (2010)
used was included (For item listing see Appendix C), and to find evidence of discriminant
validity, an altruism measure used by Rushton, Chrisjohn, & Fekken. (1981) was also included
with the sociopathy scale (For item listing see Appendix D). The measure of workplace
arrogance was used as evidence of convergent validity because it is in line with our
operationalized definition; primarily that they would have “a grandiose sense of self.” Because of
this, there is an expectation that workplace aggression and sociopathy share some similarities and
as a result there should be some relation between the two constructs. The measure of altruism
was used for discriminant validity evidence because it would contradict the last part of the
definition; “a disregard for and/or use of other persons in pursuit of their own self-interests.”
Altruism is the complete opposite of this and as a result, the expectation would be for there to be
no relation (or a completely negative one) between sociopathy and altruism. In other words,
people’s levels of one of the construct should not be influencing their levels on the other
construct.
In order to determine the dimensionality of the sociopathy scale, both an EFA and a CFA
were conducted. For the EFA, the purpose of its use was to determine how many factors could be
driving the sociopathy scale. Because there are not many sociopathy scales in use, there were not
a lot of theoretical considerations to use in figuring out the factor structure of the scale. The EFA
was able to give an estimate of the number of factors that were thought to be accounting for a
considerable portion of the variance in the scale responses. It was also used to determine how
items were loading on the particular factors. If items loaded relatively strongly on at more than

8. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 8
one factor, then the item was removed. The factor loadings were used as a measurement to
determine not only what factors the items were loading on, but also to determine whether the
item should be removed from the scale.
The CFA was used to check the data for model fit and to see if our EFA factor results
would stay consistent in terms of the number of factors and whether any additional items may
have needed to be removed from the scale. The CFA was used to compare the scale data to a
model that would best explain its dimensionality.
After the CFA was conducted, items that created problems for the model fit were
removed from the scale. The model was able to be identified, but the items were removed to
improve the model fit. Items that were able to load strongly on only one factor in the EFA and
helped the model identify in the CFA were kept for final inclusion in the scale. In total, we began
the project with a pool of 115 items for inclusion. Afterwards, through our item scoring criteria,
31 items were considered for placement in the scale. Then, the class agreed to keep 24 of the 31
items after a thorough analysis of each item. After the EFA was conducted, 14 items remained in
the survey because the other ten items either did not load strongly on any factors or loaded
strongly on more than one factor. Finally, after the CFA was done, only 11 of the original 115
questions were kept in the final sociopathy scale.
Analysis and Results
Of the 199 participants who were included for the final analyses, 99 were included in the
EFA. Maximum Likelihood was the extraction method that was chosen for use in this particular
EFA. I used Promax for the factor rotation and initially, there were eight factors extracted based
on the Kaiser criterion of having an eigenvalue higher than one. However, it appeared to be the
case that the factor loading information was not very beneficial and was non-interpretable. After

9. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 9
looking at the data, the decision was made to extract three factors from the model. The scree plot
curve appears to flatten at the third, fourth, and fifth factors (depending on the person looking at
the plot). Since the ideal number of factors that should be extracted is one less than the factor
number where it flattens, that would suggest that the proper number of factors to extract is
between two and four. EFAs were run with two, three, and four factors specified and the EFA
that was the most interpretable was the one with three factors specified. Factor 1 had an
eigenvalue of 5.414 and accounted for 22.558% of the variance. Factor 2 had an eigenvalue of
2.450 and accounted for 10.210% of the variance. Finally, Factor 3 had an eigenvalue of 2.042
and accounted for 8.508% of the variance.
Table 1
Factor
Item 1 2 3
SOC1 .384 .279 .008
SOC2 .537 -.172 .205
SOC3 .479 .172 -.039
SOC4 .687 -.296 .183
SOC5 .534 .302 -.010
SOC6 .775 -.134 -.189
SOC7 .665 .332 -.047
SOC8 .248 -.507 .245
SOC9 .154 .272 .283
SOC10 .251 -.050 .455
SOC11 .048 .359 -.367
SOC12 -.085 -.015 .608

10. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 10
SOC13 -.086 .523 .377
SOC14 .320 .179 .250
SOC15 -.049 .531 .179
SOC16 -.090 .110 .247
SOC17 -.018 .067 .640
SOC18 -.185 .770 -.129
SOC19 -.130 .060 .077
SOC20 -.208 -.105 .608
SOC21 .530 -.048 -.262
SOC22 .425 .070 -.434
SOC23 .133 .275 -.053
SOC24 .092 .490 .265
Note: Loadings > .4 were considered strong, Loadings between .3-.4 were considered
acceptable, Loadings <.3 were considered weak.
A number of items were deleted from inclusion in the CFA due to cross loading or
loading on all factors. The following items were removed after the EFA because they either cross
loaded or did not load particularly strong on any factor: SOC4, SOC8, SOC9, SOC10, SOC14,
SOC16, SOC19, SOC22, SOC23, and SOC24. Some additional items were removed from the
CFA because they were not a good fit with any proposed model. The number of factors extracted
from the EFA and CFA differed because the EFA freely allows items to load on as many factors
as can be extracted. This means that the researcher must interpret the results and determine how
many factors should be extracted from the EFA. In a CFA, the models are already set; the data is
required to fit to the model of best fit, meaning that the CFA gives the researcher the amount of
factors that should be extracted. The following items were removed in the CFA: SOC11, SOC15,

11. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 11
and SOC18. By removing those items, the model fit was improved significantly. Initially, the
CFA was run with the 100 participants that were not used in the EFA; however, some data had to
be excluded from the CFA. The final sample for the CFA came out to include the responses of
89 respondents. The information of some respondents had to be removed because they were
missing too much data. Overall, the fit indices were encouraging because they demonstrate
evidence that the model is appropriate for the data. The Chi-Square Test of Model Fit was not
significant, which is evidence of good model fit, X2 (43, N=89) = 51.048, p = .1868. The CFI and
TLI indices both showed evidence of good model fit with both having values higher than .90.
The CFI value was .958 and the TLI value was .946. The RMSEA estimate was .046, which also
provided model fit evidence because the value is less than .08.
Table 2
F1 BY Estimate S.E. Two-tailed p-Value
SOC1 - I tell people
what they want to
hear so that they will
give me what I want.
.640 .075 .000
SOC2 - I am better at
most things than
others.
.513 .091 .000
SOC3 - Success is
based on the survival
of the fittest.
.654 .076 .000
SOC5 - Looking out
for myself is my top
priority.
.395 .100 .000
SOC7 - My feelings
are more important
than those of others.
.642 .075 .000
SOC17 - I like to be
the center of attention.
.576 .083 .000
SOC21 - I believe the
end justifies the
means.
.448 .096 .000
SOC13 - It is okay to
break rules when they
.759 .062 .000

12. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 12
interfere with my
goals.
F2 BY Estimate S.E. Two-Tailed p-Value
SOC6 - I can tell
immediately whether
a coworker will be
useful to me.
.790 .168 .000
SOC12 - I fit in with
any crowd.
.490 .143 .001
SOC20 - People look
to me for leadership
and guidance in team
projects.
.328 .140 .020
Factor 1 appears to be measuring “Machiavellianism” and Factor 2 appears to be
measuring “social egotism.” In order to determine the names of the factors, every item for each
of the two factors was examined to see if there were any common themes or constructs contained
in the factor item pairings. Factor 1 items seemed to touch on a selfishness trait and a sense of
superiority. These aspects were in line with “Machiavellianism,” which is why the factor was
named as such. Factor 2 items appeared to key in on the ego and social aspects of sociopathy.
That is why it was labeled “social egotism.” Factor 1 appears to be fine, while Factor 2 has a
slight problem with SOC20. However, because the content of the item seems to be in line with
the content of the other two items associated with Factor 2, I believe that the item is fine being
included in the scale.
Table 3
SOC Scale F1 SOC Scale F2 ALT Scale WA Scale
SOC Scale 1 Person
Correlation
1
Sig. (2-
Tailed)
SOC Scale 2 Person
Correlation
.360** 1
Sig. (2-
Tailed)
.000

13. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 13
ALT Scale Person
Correlation
-.001 .332** 1
Sig. (2-
Tailed)
.986 .000
WA Scale Person
Correlation
.555** .066 -.175* 1
Sig. (2-
Tailed)
.000 .404 .025
Note: *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-Tailed). Listwise N = 164. **Correlation is
significant at the .01 level (2-Tailed).
Looking at Table 3, the results are in line with the expected relationships. Factors 1 and 2
of the sociopathy scale were hypothesized to be related and they appear to be. The workplace
arrogance scale and Factor 1 were expected to be related and the results are reasonable. It was
anticipated that there would an inverse relationship between altruism and workplace arrogance
scales, and the data appears to support that assertion. There was an inverse relationship expected
between Factor 1 and Altruism and that is not supported in the matrix. The relationship virtually
has no correlation which does not provide evidence of discriminant validity. There are some
issues with Factor 2 also. Factor 2 was not expected to correlate strongly with altruism and it
does. It was also expected to strongly correlate with workplace arrogance and it did not. Both of
those are problematic because they hurt the amount of validity that we can assume the scale has.
In examining Factor 2 of the sociopathy scale, there are only three items. Because the sample
size is so small, it is feasible that a good bit of random error found its way into the data. The
correlation could also be small because there is some aspect of the sociopathy domain that is not
being measured. It is even possible that there may be some contamination in the items that are
leading to the correlations. I believe that the correlations are the result of some key descriptors of
sociopathy not being covered along with the possibility that there was some form of
contamination in the items that load on Factor 2. In particular, the content of items SOC12 and
SOC20 appear to be measuring something other than sociopathy. Their content seems to be more

14. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 14
associated with leadership than it does with sociopathy. Considering those points, I believe that
the data contained in Table 3 does not provide enough evidence of convergent validity (with the
workplace arrogance scale) and discriminant validity (with the altruism scale) for the sociopathy
scale. As a result, this should lead to the conclusion that the scale may not be accurately
measuring what it is intended to measure. Overall, there is not a great deal of confidence that the
sociopathy scale is measuring the essential aspects of sociopathic attitudes.
Only including the 11 items that were kept through the EFA and CFA, the reliability
estimates were taken for both factors. The reliability estimate for Factor 1 was approximately .78
and the reliabiltity estimate for Factor 2 was .39. The reliability estimate for Factor 1 is
acceptable because it exceeds the widely accepted minimum Cronbach’s Alpha value of .70.
However, the reliability estimate for Factor 2 is very problematic and that factor will need to be
re-evaluated because it raises the possibility that test takers may be reading the questions
differently or that the factor is not really measuring any essential aspects of sociopathy. The
major concern would be whether the scale is covering enough of the content domain of
sociopathy to be valid. Considering that this was scale was constructed from scratch, I feel fairly
comfortable that Factor 1 appears to be fairly reliable with its reliability estimate value.
Unfortunately, I am not comfortable making the claim that Factor 2 is measuring the essential
aspects of the sociopathy construct domain. In fact, the content of the items appear to covering
another construct more than it is measuring sociopathy. If that is true, then the low reliability
estimate would make sense.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Overall, the finalized sociopathy scale appears to be relatively reliable and has promising
validity evidence. The reliability estimate is acceptable and ideal with a value over .70 and there

15. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 15
is validity evidence found in the EFA and CFA results. However, there does not appear to be any
substantial evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for the scale in looking at the
correlations between the sociopathy scale and the other included measures. This could be
problematic in terms of the scale’s utility and needs to be addressed. The decision was made to
extract three factors from the EFA, remove cross loaded and lowly loaded items, and then run the
CFA. After running the CFA, the model only specified two factors which appear to be
appropriate considering the questions that were kept in the sociopathy scale. In the CFA, the
model identified, but the model created a better fit when a three items were removed. The best
model for the particular data used in the CFA was the two factor model. The two factors
extracted from the model were named “Machiavellianism” and “social egotism.”
One major issue in this scale development process is that we did not have a chance to
follow the sixth step in Hinkin (1998) by replicating the process to see if results were
generalizable to other populations. Because of this limitation, we should be careful in how much
weight we put on sociopathy scale scores because they may not generalize to other populations.
Another limitation was the sample size that was used for validating the scale. The numbers were
fairly low for both the EFA and CFA, which could have impacted the results that were obtained
from them. For these analyses, larger sample sizes are typically wanted and we were unable to do
so with this particular project. This limitation was also expounded because we had to use the
same sample and divide the data to run the EFA and CFA, so it possible to deduce that the
population was essentially the same for both analyses, which should typically be avoided.
In terms of future research, researchers should look to not only learn how sociopathy
manifests itself outside of the prison environment, but should also look to come up with an
operational definition for sociopathy and create a scale that can measure it with considerable

16. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 16
reliability and validity. Sociopathy is a relatively new topic of interest in the psychological field
and learning more about it could be beneficial for not only individuals, but for organizations and
other larger groupings of people. I believe that it would be beneficial for researchers to
specifically examine how sociopathy affects people in the workplace and whether it is as bad as
it is assumed to be. There is a possibility that sociopathy could be a trait that drives individuals to
better performance, but we will never know until we examine it to see if it holds true in an
applied setting. For the specific sociopathy scale, future research should look to compare
correlations between the sociopathy scale used for this report and some other measures that can
provide more evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. There were some unexpected
correlations among the factors that need to be examined. In future research, it would be wise to
include some other descriptors that would be covered by the inclusion of more items in the scale.
Descriptors that could primarily be of interest are antisocial tendencies and “emotional
unresponsiveness.” The idea behind “emotional unresponsiveness” is that sociopaths may not
experience many emotions concerning other people. It would also be beneficial to set more time
for the scale development process to be completed. Because of class time and semester time
limits, data collection took a while and every other step in the development process was rushed
due to time constraints.

17. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 17
References
Caponecchia, C., Sun, A., & Wyatt, A. (2012). 'Psychopaths' at work? Implications of lay
persons' use of labels and behavioural criteria for psychopathy. Journal Of Business
Ethics, 107(4), 399-408. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1049-9
Fagan, T. J., & Lira, F. T. (1980). The primary and secondary sociopathic personality:
Differences in frequency and severity of antisocial behavior. Journal Of Abnormal
Psychology, 89(3), 493-496. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.89.3.493
Gerstner, W., König, A., Enders, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2013). CEO narcissism, audience
engagement, and organizational adoption of technological discontinuities. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 58(2), 257-291. doi:10.1177/0001839213488773
Hinken, T.R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey
questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104. doi:
10.1177/109442819800100106
Johnson, R., Silverman, S., 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: 10.1080/08959285.2010.515279
Lykken, D. T. (1957). A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. The Journal Of
Abnormal And Social Psychology, 55(1), 6-10. doi:10.1037/h0047232
Rohmann, E., Neumann, E., Herner, M., & Bierhoff, H. (2012). Grandiose and vulnerable
narcissism: Self-construal, attachment, and love in romantic relationships. European
Psychologist, 17(4), 279-290. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000100
Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R.D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and the
self-report altruism sale. Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 292-302.

18. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 18
Appendix A
Sociopathy
Item Code
Item Text
SOC1 I tell people what they want to hear so that they will give me what I want.
SOC2 I am better at most things than others.
SOC3 Success is based on the survival of the fittest.
SOC4 Achieving job status is important to me.
SOC5 Looking out for myself is my top priority.
SOC6 I can tell immediately whether a coworker will be useful to me.
SOC7 My feelings are more important than those of others.
SOC8 Others find me likable.
SOC9 I prefer to do what I want despite others' expectations.
SOC10 I like when my colleagues recognize me for my accomplishments.
SOC11 Other people see me as compassionate. (Reverse-scored)
SOC12 I fit in with any crowd.
SOC13 It is okay to break rules when they interfere with my goals.
SOC14 It is okay to further one’s position in the workplace at any cost.
SOC15 It is important to think about the needs of other people before my own. (Reverse
scored)
SOC16 I am confident in my own abilities.
SOC17 I like to be the center of attention.
SOC18 I am concerned about my coworkers' feelings if I succeed and they do not.
(Reverse scored)
SOC19 It is not possible to work your way up in a company without some conflict.
SOC20 People look to me for leadership and guidance in team projects.
SOC21 I believe the end justifies the means.

19. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 19
SOC22 I tend to disengage myself from others throughout the work day.
SOC23 The organization's success is more important than personal success. (Reverse
scored)
SOC24 The more power I have in a company the better off the company will be.
Note: 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither disagree nor agree, 4=agree, 5=strongly
agree.

20. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 20
Appendix B
Hours N Percent of
Sample
Less Than 20 45 22.6%
21-30 32 16.1%
31-40 46 23.1%
Over 40 51 25.6%
Missing 25 12.6%
Total 199 100.00%

21. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 21
Appendix C
Workplace
Arrogance
Item Code
Item Text
WA1 Believes that s/he knows better than everyone else in any given situation
WA2 Makes decisions that impact others without listening to their input
WA3 Uses non-verbal behaviors like glaring or staring to make people uncomfortable
WA4 Criticizes others
WA5 Belittles his/her employees publicly
WA6 Asserts authority in situations when s/he does not have the required information
WA7 Discredits others’ ideas during meetings and often makes those individuals look
bad
WA8 Shoots down other people’s ideas in public
WA9 Exhibits different behaviors with subordinates than with supervisors
WA10 Makes unrealistic time demands on others
WA11 Does not find it necessary to explain his/her decisions to others
WA12 Willing to listen to others’ opinions, ideas, or perspectives
WA13 Welcomes constructive feedback
WA15 Never criticizes other employees in a threatening manner
WA16 Realizes that it does not always have to be ‘his/her way or the highway’
WA17 Avoids getting angry when his/her ideas are criticized
WA18 Takes him/herself too seriously
WA19 Gives others credit for their ideas
WA20 Is considerate of others’workloads
WA21 Is willing to take credit for success as well as blame for failure

22. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 22
WA22 Does not mind doing menial tasks
WA23 Can get others to pay attention without getting emotionally ‘heated up’
WA24 Promises to address subordinates’ complaints with every intention of working to
resolve them
WA25 Does not see him/herself as being too important for some tasks
WA26 Puts organizational objectives before his/her personal agenda
Note: 1=very inaccurate, 2=inaccurate, 3=neither inaccurate nor accurate, 4=accurate, 5=very
accurate.

23. SOCIOPATHY SCALE 23
Appendix D
Altruism
Item Code
Item Text
ALT1 I have helped push a stranger's car that was broken down or out of gas.
ALT2 I have given directions to a stranger.
ALT3 I have made change for a stranger.
ALT4 I have given money to a charity.
ALT5 I have given money to a stranger who needed it (or asked me for it).
ALT6 I have donated goods or clothes to a charity.
ALT7 I have done volunteer work for a charity.
ALT8 I have donated blood.
ALT9 I have helped carry a stranger's belongings (books, parcels, etc).
ALT10 I have delayed an elevator and held the door open for a stranger.
ALT11 I have allowed someone to go ahead of me in a lineup (in the supermarket, at a
copy machine, at a fast-food restaurant).
ALT12 I have given a stranger a lift in my car.
ALT13 l have pointed out a clerk's error (in a bank, at the supermarket) in undercharging
me for an item.
ALT14 I have let a neighbor whom I didn't know too well borrow an item of some value
to me (eg, a dish, tools, etc).
ALT15 I have bought 'charity' holiday cards deliberately because I knew it was a good
cause.
ALT16 I have helped a classmate who I did not know that well with an assignment when
my knowledge was greater than his or hers.
ALT17 I have, before being asked, voluntarily looked after a neighbor's pets or children
without being paid for it.
ALT18 I have offered to help a handicapped or elderly stranger across a street.
ALT19 I have offered my seat on a bus or train to a stranger who was standing.
ALT20 I have helped an acquaintance to move households.
Note: 1=never, 2=once, 3=more than once, 4=often, 5=very often.