10.1177/1073191105278740ASSESSMENT Hunt et al. / CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE BART

Construct Validity of the BalloonAnalog Risk Task (BART)Associations With Psychopathy and Impulsivity

Melissa K. HuntDerek R. HopkoRobert BareUniversity of Tennessee–Knoxville

C. W. LejuezUniversity of Maryland–College Park

E. V. RobinsonUniversity of Tennessee–Knoxville

To continue research assessing the validity of the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART) as ameasure of risk taking, the BART was administered to a nonforensic sample of individualswith varying levels of psychopathic characteristics. Construct validity of the BART was eval-uated by measuring risk-taking behavior in relation to self-reported psychopathy, anxiety,psychophysiological data, and demographic variables. Supporting the construct validity ofthe BART, while controlling for variance accounted for by interrelated variables in the con-text of hierarchical regression analyses, higher self-reported psychopathy was significantlypredictive of increased risk taking on the BART. Findings also revealed interesting genderdifferences in self-reported psychopathy and a trend for men to engage in riskier behavior.Limitations and research directions are presented.

Keywords: construct validity; antisocial behavior; BART; impulsivity; psychopathy; risk taking; SRP-II

Risk taking is defined as engagement in behaviors thatsimultaneously involve a high potential for punishmentand opportunity for reward (Leigh, 1999). Considering thenegative psychological, medical, legal, and interpersonalconsequences associated with high-risk behaviors, re-searchers have attempted to better understand this phe-nomenon (Byrnes, Miller, & Schafer, 1999; DiClemente,Hansen, & Ponton, 1995; Leigh, 1999; Ramirez, 2002;Zuckerman, Ball, & Black, 1990). As part of this process,there has been much focus on developing reliable andvalid assessment approaches for measuring risk-takingbehaviors, largely through use of self-report instruments

that assess sensation seeking (Zuckerman, Eysenck, &Eysenck, 1978), venturesomeness (Eysenck, Pearson,Easting, & Allsopp, 1985), impulsivity (Barratt, 1985;Eysenck et al., 1985), and deficits in behavioral constraint(Tellegen, 1982). Although these constructs overlap withrisk taking, none fully capture its multidimensional nature,and currently, there exists no universally accepted mea-sure for assessing risk taking (Lejuez et al., 2002; Wills,Sandy, & Yaeger, 2002). Additionally, exclusive relianceon self-report measures may be associated with problemsthat include response biases, inflation of method variancedue to a unimodal assessment strategy, misunderstanding

Address correspondence to Derek R. Hopko, University of Tennessee–Knoxville, Department of Psychology, 307 Austin Peay Build-ing, Knoxville, TN 37996-0900; e-mail: dhopko@utk.edu.

Assessment, Volume 12, No. 4, December 2005 416-428DOI: 10.1177/1073191105278740© 2005 Sage Publications

of questionnaire items, or strategic responding (or malin-gering) to appear less risky (Rogers & Cruise, 2000). Self-report measures therefore may be less useful (than directbehavioral measures) in predicting high-risk behaviors(Andrew & Cronin, 1997; Greene et al., 2000; Lejuezet al., 2002).

In an effort to address these limitations and assess risktaking from a multimethod approach, several behavioralrisk tasks have been developed that include the delay dis-counting procedure (Petry, 2001), gambling task (Grant,Contoreggi, & London, 2000), a computerized risk-takingtask (Rogers et al., 1999), behavioral choice tasks (S.Mitchell, 1999), and a card task simulating real-life deci-sion making (Bechara, Damasio, Damasio, & Anderson,1994). Convergent validity of these tasks with self-reportedrisk taking, sensation seeking, and impulsivity has notbeen demonstrated consistently, however, and evidence islimited for their ecological validity in relation to risk-takingbehavior outside the laboratory (Bentler & McCain, 1976;Gullone & Moore, 2000; S. Mitchell, 1999; Pack, Crosby,& St. Lawrence, 2001; Petry, 2001; Stuart, 1998; Whiteet al., 1994).

The Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al.,2002) is a novel behavioral measure of risk taking designedto address limitations of self-report measures and maximizethe breadth of risk-taking assessment. To date, constructvalidity of the BART has been demonstrated via moderateassociations with various real-world risk-taking behav-iors. For example, increased risk taking on the BART wassignificantly related to alcohol and drug use, cigarettesmoking, gambling, theft, aggression, and unprotectedsexual intercourse in both adolescent (r = .33 to .48; Aklin,Lejuez, Zvolensky, Kahler, & Gwadz, 2005; Lejuez,Aklin, Zvolensky, & Pedulla, 2003) and adult samples (r =.25 to .44; Lejuez et al., 2002; Lejuez, Simmons, Aklin,Daughters, & Dvir, 2004). Risk taking on the BART wasalso related to smoking behavior (r = .39; Lejuez, Aklin,Jones, et al., 2003) and accounted for significant incre-mental validity in predicting use of MDMA, or ecstasy, be-yond that accounted for by polysubstance use, impulsivity,sensation seeking, and gender (Hopko et al., in press). Inrelation to common self-report measures (Aklin et al.,2005; Lejuez et al., 2002; Lejuez, Aklin, Zvolensky, et al.,2003) BART scores were significantly associated with theSensation Seeking Scale (SSS; r = .33 to 35; Zuckermanet al., 1978), Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS; r = .23 to.28; Barratt, 1985), and the Eysenck Impulsiveness Scale(r = .24; Eysenck et al., 1985).

In an independent area of research, psychopathy alsohas been strongly associated with impulsivity, sensationseeking, and risk taking (Bigler, 2001; Blackburn &Maybury, 1985; Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, 1990; D.

Mitchell, Colledge, Leonard, & Blair, 2002; Thornquist &Zuckerman, 1995; Zuckerman, 2002; Zuckerman et al.,1978). Demonstrated quite consistently, psychopathic in-dividuals more frequently engage in higher risk activitiesthat include violent behaviors (Brown & Forth, 1997;Gretton, Hare, & Catchpole, 2004; Hare, 1999), high-risksexual behaviors (Capaldi, Stoolmiller, Clark, & Owen,2002; Fals-Stewart et al., 2003), drug and alcohol abuse(Ladd & Petry, 2003), pathological gambling (Blair,Colledge, & Mitchell, 2001; Blaszczynski, Steel, &McConaghy, 1997; Steel & Blaszczynski, 1996), suicidalbehaviors (Verona, Patrick, & Joiner, 2001), and institu-tional misconduct following incarceration (Buffington-Vollum, Edens, Johnson, & Johnson, 2002).

The most common measure of psychopathic behaviorsis the clinician-administered Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1980, 1991a). Factor analyses ofthe PCL-R generally reveal a two-dimensional factorstructure of psychopathy (Hare, Harpur, Hakstian, Forth,& Hart, 1990; Harpur, Hakstian, & Hare, 1988; Harpur,Hare, & Hakstian, 1989; but see Cooke & Michie, 2001), amodel less convincingly demonstrated with the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-II (SRP-II; Hare, Harpur, &Hemphill, 1989; Williams & Paulhus, 2004). An Emo-tional Detachment factor (Factor I) reflects interpersonaland affective characteristics such as egocentricity, lack ofremorse, callousness, lack of emotionality or empathy,and a grandiose sense of self-worth (Hare, Hart, & Harpur,1991). This factor has been associated with decreased anx-iety (Harpur et al., 1989). In contrast, Factor II reflectschronically unstable behaviors that include impulsive, ir-responsible, and related antisocial behaviors (Bonta, Law,& Hanson, 1998; Hare, Clark, Grann, & Thornton, 2000;Harpur et al., 1989; Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1996;Smith & Newman, 1990). Important for the present study,research suggests that this factor structure may generalizeto nonforensic samples and that psychopathy may repre-sent a dimensional as opposed to a categorical entity(Bare, Hopko, & Armento, 2004; Forth, Brown, Hart, &Hare, 1996; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996; Lynam, White-side, & Jones, 1999; Marcus, John, & Edens, 2004;Widiger, 1998).

Given the extant literature that suggests a strong associ-ation between risk taking and psychopathic characteris-tics, the current study examined the construct validity ofthe BART as a measure of risk taking among (nonforensic)individuals with varying levels of self-reported psychopa-thy. This study was important for further assessing thepsychometric properties and clinical utility of the BARTas well as evaluating whether behavioral patterns exhib-ited by psychopaths might generalize to a nonforensicsample. To assess the convergent validity of the BART as a

Hunt et al. / CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE BART 417

measure of risk taking, interrelations of BART perfor-mance with measures of psychopathy and impulsivitywere examined. Psychopathic traits were assessed usingthe SRP-II and the Authority Problems subscale (Pd2) ofthe Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2(MMPI-2; Harris & Lingoes, 1955). The Authority Prob-lems subscale was utilized given data suggesting strongerassociations with measures of psychopathy and antisocialbehaviors relative to other Pd scales (Lilienfeld, 1999) andthe documented utility of this scale in predicting high-riskbehaviors (Osberg & Poland, 2001). The SRP-II was usedto capture the two broader dimensions of psychopathy(Hare, 1980; Hare et al., 1991). A measure of impulsivity(i.e., the BIS) was employed because of the demonstratedrelationship between impulsivity and risk taking (Lejuezet al., 2002; Whiteside & Lynam, 2003).

Because individuals with psychopathic traits engage inhigh-risk (antisocial) behaviors more frequently thannonpsychopathic individuals, our primary hypothesis wasthat higher SRP-II (Factor II) antisocial behavior scoreswould account for significant incremental variance be-yond the SRP-II (Factor I) emotional detachment scoreand other self-report measures in predicting risk taking onthe BART. Second, consistent with research supporting in-creased risk taking in low-anxiety individuals (Hagopian& Ollendick, 1994; Schmitt, Brinkley, & Newman, 1999),data suggesting that decreased physiological responsivityis often concomitant with decreased self-reported anxiety(cf. Barlow, 2002), and findings that decreased physiolog-ical reactivity and self-reported anxiety are evident innonclinical samples of individuals high in psychopathictraits and behaviors (Bare et al., 2004; Block, 1957; Jones,1950), we predicted that (decreased) anxiety as assessedvia both self-report and physiological measures would ac-count for significant variance in predicting risky behavior.Finally, given data that suggest potential gender differ-ences in risk taking and antisocial behavior patterns (Fel-ton, Gibson, & Sanbonmatsu, 2003; Hamburger,Lilienfeld, & Hogben, 1996; Martins, Tavares, daSilva-Lobo, Galetti, & Gentil, 2004; Stein & Nyamathi, 2000),we predicted that both self-reported psychopathy andbehavioral risk taking would differ as a function of gender.

METHOD

Participants

Participants included 80 university undergraduate stu-dents at the University of Tennessee. The mean age of par-ticipants was 18.9 years (SD = 3.0). Sixty-two percent (n =58) were female. Ethnic distribution was as follows: 79%

Caucasian (n = 63), 13% African American (n = 11), 5%Asian (n = 4), and 3% Latino (n = 2).

Assessment Instruments

The SRP-II (Hare, 1991b; Hare et al., 1989) is a 60-itemself-report measure of psychopathic traits. The instrumentwas developed as an analogue to the clinician-administeredPCL-R (Hare, 1991a). Similar to the PCL-R, two factors(Emotional Detachment, Antisocial Behavior) initiallywere proposed for the SRP-II (Hare et al., 1989), althoughsubsequent factor analyses revealed a somewhat modified(but empirically weak) two-factor solution that includedEmotional Stability and Manipulative Trouble Making(Williams & Paulhus, 2004). Given the inadequacy of thislatter factor solution and our objective of maintaining con-sistency with more traditional conceptualizations of psy-chopathy, we maintained the original factor designationand scoring procedures (Hare et al., 1989). Although theoptimal factor structure of the SRP-II admittedly is unde-termined, there are some data to support its scientific util-ity. For example, the SRP-II has strong predictive validityfor delinquency (Williams & Paulhus, 2004) and corre-lates moderately with the Diagnostic and Statistical Man-ual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) antisocial personalitydisorder criteria (r = .41; Widiger et al., 1996; as well aswith Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II antisocialpersonality disorder scale scores) and the PCL-R (r = .54;Hare, 1991b). Convergent validity of the SRP-II is sup-ported by significant correlations with MMPI-2 Psycho-pathic Deviate subscales (Lilienfeld, 1999), thePsychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld &Andrews, 1996), peer ratings on Cleckley’s psychopathycriteria, and Levenson’s Primary and Secondary Psychop-athy Scales (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995).Higher scores on the SRP-II have been found to be associ-ated with increased lying and narcissistic behavior as wellas decreased empathy (Zagon & Jackson, 1994). The coef-ficient alpha for the SRP-II was .83 in the present study(Factor I: α = .75; Factor II: α = .79).

The BIS (Barratt, 1985) is a 34-item, self-report mea-sure of impulsivity. The scale includes questions that ad-dress cognitive impulsivity (making quick cognitivedecisions), motor impulsivity (acting without thinking),and nonplanning impulsivity (lack of concern about thefuture). Barratt (1985) demonstrated excellent internalconsistency for the measure with alpha coefficients rang-ing from .89 to .92. In the present study, impulsivity wascalculated by summing the three subscales. The coeffi-cient alpha for the BIS was .86 in the present study.

Authority Problems (Pd2) is the second of fivesubscales developed by Harris and Lingoes (1955) for the

418 ASSESSMENT

Psychopathic Deviate Scale (Scale 4) of the MMPI. Theitems used for the present study are from the latest versionof the instrument, the MMPI-2. The Pd2 subscale corre-lates higher than other Pd subscales with most measures ofantisocial personality styles and may be a better indicatorof primary psychopathy (Friedman, Lewak, Nichols, &Webb, 2001). Note that in the present context, the Pd2scale was administered in isolation from the other MMPI-2 Pd subscales. The coefficient alpha for the Pd2 was .76 inthe present study.

The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI; Beck & Steer,1993) is a 21-item measure designed specifically to distin-guish cognitive and somatic symptoms of anxiety fromthose of depression. Good psychometric properties havebeen demonstrated for the measure among multiple sam-ples (cf. Antony, Orsillo, & Roemer 2001). The coefficientalpha for the BAI was .80 in the present study.

The BART is a computer-simulated assessment of risk-taking behavior. In this task, a small simulated balloon andballoon pump are presented on a computer screen alongwith a reset button labeled “Collect $$$” and a permanentmoney-earned display labeled “Total Earned.” Partici-pants were asked to use the computer mouse to click theballoon pump to inflate the balloon to a desired level. Par-ticipants were given no detailed information about theprobability of a balloon exploding but were told, “At somepoint, each balloon will explode, and this explosion couldoccur as early as the first pump or as late as the point atwhich the balloon would expand to fill the entire computerscreen.” Each click on the pump inflated the balloon onedegree (about 0.125 inches in all directions). With eachpump, $0.05 was accrued in a temporary reserve (theamount of money in this reserve is never indicated to theparticipant). When a balloon was pumped past its individ-ual explosion point, an explosive sound effect was gener-ated from the computer. When a balloon exploded, allmoney in the temporary bank was lost, and the nextuninflated balloon appeared on the screen. At any pointduring each balloon trial, the participant could stop pump-ing the balloon and click the “Collect $$$” button. Click-ing this button would transfer all money from thetemporary bank to the permanent bank, during which thenew total earned would be incrementally updated cent bycent while a slot machine payoff sound effect played. Af-ter each balloon explosion or money collection, the partic-ipant’s exposure to that balloon ended and a new balloonappeared. Following instructions and practice trials, theexperimental block was administered until 30 trials werecompleted. Note that participants did not actually receivethe final sum of money stored in the permanent bank. In-stead, they were informed that their objective was to obtainthe largest amount of money possible while avoidingballoon explosions with a gift certificate being awarded

(postexperimentally) to the individual accumulating thegreatest amount of money.

The balloons were set to explode on a variable ratio (64responses) schedule, and risk taking (i.e., continued press-ing of the pump) was rewarded to a variable level wherebyfurther risk taking resulted in an adverse outcome (i.e., ex-plosion of the balloon and loss of accrued money); thus,the average breakpoint was 64 pumps. Modeling real-world situations in which excessive risk often produces di-minishing returns and increasing threats to one’s healthand safety, each successive pump on any particular bal-loon trial (a) increased the amount to be lost because of anexplosion and (b) decreased the relative gain of any addi-tional pump. For example, after the first pump, the nextpump risks only the $0.05 accrued in the temporary bankand would increase the possible earnings on that balloonby 100%, yet after the 60th pump, the next pump risks$3.00 accrued in the temporary bank and would increasepossible earnings on that balloon trial only by 1.6%.

The number of balloon pumps and total number of bal-loon explosions on the BART were the primary dependentmeasures. For balloon pumps, adjusted values were usedfor all analyses. Adjusted values were calculated based onthe average number of balloon pumps on those balloonsthat did not explode. These adjusted values were prefera-ble, because including balloon pumps from all trials (in-cluding those in which balloons exploded) would haveresulted in the inclusion of trials in which the participantswere forced to stop pumping because of the explosion. Be-cause the adjusted value consisted only of nonexplosiontrials, it was considered an index of a more adaptive(nonpunitive) form of risk-taking behavior. In contrast,evaluating the frequency of balloon explosions providedan index of a more maladaptive form of risk takingwhereby risk exceeded an acceptable level and ultimatelywas punished (via explosion and loss of money).

Psychophysiological Measurement

Heart rate and skin conductance level were collectedusing a Biopac MP 100 data-collection device at a samplerate of 10 samples per second across all channels usingBiopac’s Acqknowledge Software. Skin conductancelevel (in microsiemens) was obtained using the BiopacGSR100B electrodermal activity amplifier with theTSD103A Ag-AgCl electrodes placed on the middle pha-langes of the middle and ring fingers. Raw electrocardio-gram data were collected using the Biopac ECG100Belectrocardiogram amplifier with disposable Ag/AgClelectrodes aligned in a standard configuration (right andleft sides of the lower rib cage and just below the left clavi-cle). These raw data were converted to obtain heart rate inbeats per minute.

Hunt et al. / CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE BART 419

Physiological response magnitudes were calculated forthe BART by subtracting baseline skin conductance andheart rate from the mean skin conductance and heart raterecorded during the task (i.e., mean – baseline = responsemagnitude). Accordingly, each individual had an index ofresponse magnitude for both skin conductance and heartrate with larger values indicating increased physiologicalresponding.

Procedure

Participants were part of a larger study examining rela-tionships among anxiety, psychopathic traits, and physio-logical responsiveness to guided imagery (Bare, Hopko, &Armento, 2004). Following informed consent procedures,participants completed questionnaires in a randomized or-der: SRP-II (Hare, 1991b), BIS (Barratt, 1985), and theAuthority Problems subscale (Pd2) of the MMPI-2 (Harris& Lingoes, 1955). After completion, participants wereasked to relax for a 5-minute baseline period during whichheart rate and skin conductance data were recorded. Fol-lowing collection of baseline physiological data, theBART was administered while heart rate and skinconductance were recorded.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics

Self-report measures. Men (M = 79.7, SD = 10.0) re-ported significantly higher levels of psychopathic traitsthan women (M = 67.2, SD = 13.1) on the SRP-II, F(1, 73) =13.1, p < .01, η2 = .15. Men also scored significantlyhigher than women on both the emotional detachment(men: M = 34.7, SD = 5.6; women: M = 29.52, SD = 5.98),F (1, 73) = 10.2, p < .01, η2 = .12, and antisocial behaviorfactors of this instrument (men: M = 45.0, SD = 9.3;women: M = 37.5, SD = 11.2), F(1, 74) = 6.4, p < .01, η2 =.08. Consistent with this finding, a significant genderdifference on the MMPI Pd2 scale was observed withmen (M = 3.5, SD = 1.5) reporting more authority prob-lems than women (M = 2.5, SD = 1.1), F(1, 73) = 10.5, p <.01, η2 = .13. The total sample mean for the BIS was 66.9(SD = 10.0), with men (M = 70.3, SD = 8.5) and women(M = 65.8, SD = 10.3) not differing significantly in self-reported impulsivity.

BART performance. The mean number of adjusted bal-loon pumps on the BART for the entire sample was 35.0(SD = 14.3). In general, there was a trend for men (M =40.8, SD = 15.1) to accrue a greater number of balloonpumps than women (M = 33.4, SD = 13.6), F(1, 74) = 3.8,p = .06, η2 = .05. The mean number of balloon explosions

for the total sample was 9.4 (SD = 4.1). Men (M = 10.8, SD =4.3) and women (M = 9.1, SD = 4.0) did not differ signifi-cantly in the number of balloon explosions, F(1, 74) = 2.5,p = .12, η2 = .04.

Bivariate Correlations

Correlations among self-report measures, physiologi-cal indices, gender, and the BART are presented in Table 1.As predicted, there was a significant positive correlationbetween self-reported psychopathy (SRP-II total score)and the number of balloon explosions (r = .29, p = .01).This finding appeared largely reflective of a particular di-mension of psychopathy, with antisocial behavior (SRP-IIFactor II) correlating significantly with both the number ofballoon pumps (BART adjusted, r = .26, p < .05) and thenumber of balloon explosions (r = .33, p < .01). In con-trast, emotional detachment (SRP-II Factor I) did not cor-relate significantly with performance on the BART.Statistical comparisons of dependent rs (Cohen & Cohen,1983) indicated that the antisocial behavior and balloonexplosion correlation (r = .33) was statistically greaterthan the emotional detachment and balloon explosion rela-tion (r = .04), t(77) = 2.05, p < .05. Dependent r analysisdid not yield a significant differential relation between theSRP-II factors and balloon pumps, t(77) = 1.66, p = .10.Neither antisocial behavior nor emotional detachment cor-related significantly with physiological indices (heart rateand skin conductance), although heart rate responsivitywas significantly associated with BART explosions (r =.24). As expected, the differential association between theBAI and SRP-II factors (–.30 vs. .15) also was significant,t(73) = –3.39, p < .01, with somatic anxiety more strongly(and inversely) related to emotional detachment. Consis-tent with the descriptive data, being female was associatedwith decreased emotional detachment and antisocial be-havior scores. Interestingly, self-reported impulsivity wasnot significantly correlated with risk taking as measuredby the BART (r = .08 to .11).

Regression Analyses

Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were con-ducted to determine the relative value of gender, anxiety,physiological responsivity (i.e., heart rate and skin con-ductance), impulsivity, authority problems, emotional de-tachment, and antisocial behavior scores in predictingBART performance. Given study hypotheses and the find-ing of relatively high bivariate relationships between SRP-II Factor II (Antisocial Behavior) and BART performancevariables, we assessed the incremental value of anxietyand antisocial behavior above that was accounted for byremaining variables. For both regression analyses in

420 ASSESSMENT

which adjusted balloon pumps and explosions were inde-pendently analyzed as criterion variables, the first step ofthe model included gender, impulsivity, authority prob-lems, and emotional detachment. The initial three vari-ables were entered on step 1 to control for their well-documented associations with risk taking (Felton et al.,2003; Gray, 1987; Lilienfeld, 1999; Martins et al., 2004;Osberg & Poland, 2001) and the presently reported strong(bivariate) relationships between gender, self-reportedpsychopathy, and authority problems. SRP-II (EmotionalDetachment) also was included to control for psycho-pathic characteristics presumably less associated with risktaking relative to the SRP-II (Antisocial Behavior) do-main. In step 2 of regression models, we assessed the po-tential incremental value of anxiety (heart rate responsemagnitude, skin conductance response magnitude, self-reported somatic anxiety) in predicting risk taking givenprevious findings that might support such a relationship(Hagopian & Ollendick, 1994; Schmitt et al., 1999) andthe significant association of BART explosions with heartrate responsivity identified in the present study. In the thirdand final step of each hierarchical regression analysis, an-tisocial behavior was added to the model. The purpose forstructuring regression analyses in such a manner was topromote a stringent assessment of whether SRP-II (Anti-social Behavior) would account for significant incremen-tal variance beyond associated variables in predicting(BART) risk-taking behavior. Specifically, although onemight postulate that impulsivity, decreased anxiety, and(female) gender would be associated with increased risktaking (vis-à-vis studies cited in the introduction), antiso-cial behavior patterns such as those assessed by the SRP-II

were hypothesized to be more convergent with BARTperformance given that many items on this scale assess psy-chopathic behaviors that involve considerable risk (Fowles,2000; Gray, 1987; Hare et al., 1989). Although the Antiso-cial Behavior scale on some level also assesses the dimen-sion of impulsivity, the more general and nonspecificantisocial behaviors assessed by the SRP-II were per-ceived as more likely than a direct measure of impulsivity(BIS) to be linked with risk taking. This notion largely wasbased on the often thoughtful and more constrained (i.e.,nonimpulsive) manner by which noninstitutionalized indi-viduals with psychopathic traits engage in high-risk be-haviors (Ishikawa, Raine, Lencz, Bihrle, & Lacasse, 2001;Widom, 1978; Widom & Newman, 1985). For these rea-sons, and considering the nonforensic nature of the sam-ple, the most convincing support for the construct validityof the BART would be evident if the propensity to engagein antisocial behaviors (SRP-II Factor II) accounted forunique variance in predicting BART performance.

For both regression analyses, collinearity statisticswere within the acceptable range (tolerance values R = .61to .97, variable inflation factor R = 1.05 to 1.65; Hair, An-derson, Tatham, & Black, 1995). Results of the regressionanalyses predicting the adjusted number of balloon pumpson the BART are presented in Table 2.1 The first block ofpredictors explained 6% of the variance in adjusted bal-loon pumps with gender (being male) being associatedwith an increased number of pumps. When anxiety vari-ables were added in the second step, the amount of vari-ance increased to 10%, F(7, 66) = 1.05, p = .40 (overallregression model). When antisocial behaviors were addedin the third step, the amount of variance increased to 14%,

Hunt et al. / CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE BART 421

TABLE 1Correlations Among Self-Report Measures, Physiological Reactivity,

Gender, and the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART)

SRPF1 SRPF2 SRPT BIS Pd2 BAI BARTP BARTE BART HR BART SC Gender

SRPF1 —SRPF2 .14 —SRPT .58** .89** —BIS –.03 .52** .40** —Pd2 .31** .36** .44** .07 —BAI –.30** .15 –.01 .19 .14 —BARTP .02 .26* .21 .08 .00 –.04 —BARTE .04 .33** .29* .11 .02 –.08 .93** —BART HR .07 .18 .16 –.13 .10 –.02 .21 .24* —BART SC –.11 –.02 –.06 .00 .01 –.15 .02 .02 .02 —Gender –.35** –.28* –.39** –.19 –.36** .13 –.22* –.18 –.02 –.08 —

NOTE: For gender, male = 1 and female = 2. SRPF1 = Self-Report Psychopathy Scale–II Factor I; SRPF2 = Self-Report Psychopathy Scale–II Factor II;SRPT = Self-Report Psychopathy Scale–II, total score; BIS = Barratt Impulsiveness Scale; Pd2 = Authority Problems subscale on the MinnesotaMultiphasic Personality Inventory–2; BAI = Beck Anxiety Inventory; BARTP = adjusted number of balloon pumps on the BART; BARTE = number of bal-loon explosions on the BART; BART HR = mean heart rate during the BART – baseline heart rate; BART SC = mean skin conductance during the BART –baseline skin conductance.*p < .05. **p < .01.

F(8, 65) = 1.34, p = .24 (overall regression model). Antiso-cial behaviors and gender were just shy of significance inpredicting balloon pumps. Change statistics indicated thatthe addition of antisocial behavior toward predicting ad-justed balloon pumps narrowly missed the conventionallevel of statistical significance, ∆F(1, 65) = 3.14, p = .07.Results of the hierarchical regression predicting the num-ber of balloon explosions are presented in Table 3. Thefirst block of predictors explained 4% of the variance inballoon explosions. When anxiety variables were added inthe second step, the amount of variance increased to 9%with heart rate responsivity significantly associated withrisk taking, t = 1.98, p < .05; F(7, 66) = 1.00, p = .45 (over-all regression model). When antisocial behaviors wereadded in the third step, the amount of variance increased to17%, F(8, 65) = 1.61, p = .13 (overall regression model).Only (increased) antisocial behavior was a significant pre-dictor of balloon explosions, t = 2.35, p = .02, with the ef-fect of heart rate responsivity decreasing in magnitude.Change statistics indicated that the addition of antisocialbehavior toward predicting balloon explosions accountedfor significant additive variance in predicting risk-takingbehavior, ∆F(1, 65) = 5.51, p = .02.2, 3

DISCUSSION

Consistent with a nicely developing literature (Aklinet al., 2005; Lejuez et al., 2002; Lejuez, Aklin, Jones, et al.,2003; Lejuez, Aklin, Zvolensky, et al., 2003; Lejuez et al.,2004), the results generally support the construct validityof the BART (Lejuez et al., 2002). As predicted, risk-takingbehavior on the BART was significantly associated withthe SRP-II Antisocial Behavior factor, which assesses be-havioral correlates of psychopathy. Supporting thediscriminant validity of the task, BART explosions alsowere associated with antisocial behaviors (SRP-II FactorII) to a significantly stronger degree relative to emotionaldetachment (SRP-II Factor I). Interestingly, the correlationof the BART with self-reported impulsivity (r = .11) wassomewhat lower than reported in earlier studies (r = .23 to.28: Aklin et al., 2005; Lejuez et al., 2002), although notsignificantly.4 In addition to supporting the constructvalidity of the BART and given the understudiedpsychometric properties of the SRP-II, it was encourag-ing that convergent validity of the SRP-II Antisocial Be-havior factor was supported via moderate correlationswith authority problems (Pd2) and impulsivity (BIS).

422 ASSESSMENT

TABLE 2Adjusted Balloon Pumps as a Function of Psychopathic Characteristics, Gender, and Anxiety

Independent Variable Standardized Coefficient ( ) SE r t p

Step 1Gender –.27 4.4 –.24 –2.02 .04Impulsivity .01 0.2 .02 0.02 .98Authority problems –.08 1.4 –.07 –0.59 .56Emotional detachment –.05 0.3 –.04 –0.37 .72R2 = .06

Step 2Gender –.26 4.5 –.23 –1.95 .06Impulsivity .04 0.2 .04 0.33 .74Authority problems –.08 1.5 –.07 –0.57 .57Emotional detachment –.08 0.3 –.07 –0.66 .51Heart rate responsivity .20 0.5 .20 1.68 .10Skin conductance responsivity –.02 0.7 –.03 –0.20 .84Somatic anxiety –.07 0.4 –.06 –0.49 .63R2 = .10∆ 2 = .04

Step 3Gender –.24 4.5 –.21 –1.76 .08Impulsivity –.08 0.2 –.07 –0.58 .56Authority problems –.14 1.5 –.13 –1.05 .30Emotional detachment –.09 0.3 –.08 –0.66 .51Heart rate responsivity .16 0.5 .16 1.30 .20Skin conductance responsivity –.02 0.7 –.02 –0.15 .88Somatic anxiety –.08 0.4 –.07 –0.60 .55Antisocial behaviors .26 0.2 .22 1.78 .07R2 = .14∆ 2 = .04

NOTE: Impulsivity was measured by the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, authority problems were measured by the Psychopathic Deviate Scale 2 of the Min-nesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2, emotional detachment was measured by the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale–II Factor I, somatic anxiety wasmeasured by the Beck Anxiety Inventory, and antisocial behaviors were measured by the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale–II Factor II.

Discriminant validity of the SRP-II factors also was sup-ported via higher relations of the Antisocial Behavior fac-tor with self-reported impulsivity (in addition to BARTperformance).

Results of this study also were thought-provoking inthat they are consistent with the few studies examining thephenomenology of psychopathy with nonforensic co-horts. For example, it was demonstrated that college stu-dents who were less physiologically reactive duringaversive tasks exhibited decreased anxiety and were morelikely to be impulsive and nonconforming (Block, 1957;Jones, 1950, 1960). Researchers also have reported de-pressed startle responses and electrodermal hyporeactivity(Bare et al., 2004; Lynam et al., 1999) as well as increasedsubstance use, criminal activity, and improper interper-sonal behaviors in students with psychopathic characteris-tics (Forth et al., 1996; Zagon & Jackson, 1994).Continuing to support a dimensional as opposed to a cate-gorical perspective of psychopathy, it is provocative thatthe present nonforensic sample exhibited high-risk behav-ior on the BART. Importantly, as demonstrated via the sig-nificant association between antisocial behavior and

balloon explosions, individuals with psychopathic traitsare not only more risky but engage in risky behaviors to amaladaptive (and punished) degree. Although thereclearly is shared variance among the criterion variables ofballoon pumps and explosions, maladaptive risk taking asmeasured via the latter variable is in part a function of rein-forced behavior throughout the BART task. Specifically,adaptive risk as measured by adjusted balloon pumps wasjust shy of statistical significance with a trend for individu-als with psychopathic traits to accumulate more money.The problem that becomes evident with the balloon explo-sion data is that these same individuals who are intermit-tently rewarded for risky behavior simply cannotterminate risk-taking behavior before it is punished (i.e.,deficient control mechanism). Taken together, althoughthese results are noteworthy in that the BART was indeedrelated to nonspecific antisocial behavior as assessed bythe SRP-II, it is premature to suggest that BARTperformance is related to psychopathy per se, especiallygiven the unstable factor structure of the SRP-II and itslimited relation with the PCL-R (Hare et al., 1989;Williams & Paulhus, 2004).

Hunt et al. / CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE BART 423

TABLE 3Balloon Explosions as a Function of Psychopathic Characteristics, Gender, and Anxiety

Independent Variable Standardized Coefficient ( ) SE r t p

Step 1Gender –.20 1.3 –.18 –1.51 .13Impulsivity .04 0.1 .04 0.35 .73Authority problems –.05 0.4 –.05 –0.40 .69Emotional detachment –.01 0.1 –.01 –0.06 .96R2 = .04

Step 2Gender –.21 1.3 –.18 –1.52 .13Impulsivity .08 0.1 .08 0.63 .53Authority problems –.07 0.4 –.06 –0.49 .63Emotional detachment –.03 0.1 –.03 –0.25 .81Heart rate responsivity .23 0.1 .24 1.98 .04Skin conductance responsivity –.05 0.2 –.05 –0.42 .67Somatic anxiety –.03 0.1 –.03 –0.25 .81R2 = .09∆ 2 = .05

Step 3Gender –.17 1.3 –.15 –1.30 .20Impulsivity –.08 0.1 –.07 –0.60 .55Authority problems –.15 0.4 –.13 –1.14 .26Emotional detachment –.05 0.1 –.04 –0.37 .72Heart rate responsivity .18 0.1 .18 1.50 .14Skin conductance responsivity –.04 0.2 –.05 –0.37 .72Somatic anxiety –.05 0.1 –.05 –0.39 .70Antisocial behaviors .34 0.1 .28 2.35 .02R2 = .17∆ 2 = .08

NOTE: Impulsivity was measured by the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, authority problems were measured by the Psychopathic Deviate Scale 2 of the Min-nesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2, emotional detachment was measured by the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale–II Factor I, somatic anxiety wasmeasured by the Beck Anxiety Inventory, and antisocial behaviors were measured by the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale–II Factor II.

With regard to our second hypothesis, unlike previousstudies highlighting a relation between decreased anxietyand increased risk taking (Hagopian & Ollendick, 1994;Schmitt et al., 1999), this investigation did not yield a rela-tionship between physiological or self-reported (somatic)anxiety with risk taking. From one perspective, this resultwas unsurprising given the limited relationship of theBART with the SRP-II (Factor I), which is more associatedwith decreased anxiety-related responding (Harpur et al.,1989). The finding also might be expected given method-ological differences with these prior works that includeutilization of different anxiety measures and alternativerisk-taking tasks such as the Bechara et al. (1994) gamblingtask and the go/no-go discrimination task (Newman &Kosson, 1986). Conversely, as psychopathic behaviorshave been associated with a weak behavioral inhibitionsystem and decreased anxiety or fear (Fowles, 2000) to theextent that behaviors of nonforensic individuals high inpsychopathic traits are at all comparable to criminal psy-chopaths, we might have expected an association betweendiminished anxiety and risk taking. Although further re-search is needed to explore the relation of risk taking andanxious (or fearful) responding, these results are support-ive of a more independent conceptualization of the dimen-sions of anxiety and psychopathic characteristics (Schmitt& Newman, 1999).

As predicted, men and women significantly differed onself-reported emotional detachment and antisocial behav-iors with a trend for men to exhibit increased risk taking onthe BART. To date, minimal and equivocal research hasaddressed the psychometric properties of the PCL-R andSRP-II with female samples. For instance, some research-ers have noted comparable PCL-R scores across gender,whereas others have identified gender differences in thefactor structure and gender bias in the appropriateness ofindividual items toward describing behaviors and symp-toms (Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1997; Strachan, Wil-liamson, & Hare, 1990). To our knowledge, the presentinvestigation was the first to identify gender differences onthe SRP-II and the first to explore gender differences onthe BART task. Indeed, because of the preliminary natureof these findings and the equivocal research associatedwith gender differences on the PCL-R, replication usingboth nonforensic and nonclinical female samples isnecessary.

In assessing the relation of physiological reactivity,BART performance, and self-reported psychopathy, nosignificant associations were identified. This finding wassomewhat discrepant from literature linking physiologicalhyporeactivity and psychopathic characteristics innonforensic samples (Bare et al., 2004; Block, 1957;Jones, 1950). Highlighted in the former article, it is proba-ble that physiological responsivity largely is dependent on

sample characteristics (i.e., forensic vs. nonforensic) aswell as stimulus context and outcome measurement. Assuch, one may speculate that a nonsignificant associationbetween electrodermal hyporeactivity and BART perfor-mance suggests that within a nonforensic sample, a risk-taking task may be functionally different from other tasksthat elicit hyporeactivity such as fear-induced guided im-agery (Bare et al., 2004).5 Indeed, the latter task wasstrongly linked with the Emotional Detachment factorwhereas BART performance was linked to the behavioralcorrelates of psychopathy. So although a behaviorally ori-ented experimental task may be inadequate to elicit differ-ential physiological responsivity among individuals highin psychopathy, a more cognitively based paradigm mightbe more effective. A more probable interpretation wouldbe that the guided imagery task involved imagining vi-gnettes describing psychopathic behaviors (Bare et al.,2004), which may be a more salient method of elicitingphysiological change than a more benign task that is per-haps less related to actual psychopathic (or criminal) be-haviors. Whether findings are a product of the (covert orovert) experimental manipulation—more specifically, afunction of stimulus properties regardless of the adminis-tration method—and whether identified relationshipsgeneralize to forensic samples are questions that also meritfurther attention.

In summary, the paucity of research exploring the rela-tions among behavioral risk taking, psychopathic charac-teristics, anxiety, gender, and electrodermal hyporeactivityin nonforensic samples make the results of the study espe-cially intriguing. Results indicate that the BART may be avalid behavioral measure of risk taking that may comple-ment self-report measures designed to assess related con-structs. On the other hand, there has been some mixedsupport for the convergent validity of the BART, particu-larly as it has been only minimally (Aklin et al., 2005;Lejuez et al., 2002) or, in the present study, virtually unas-sociated with impulsivity. Further study is necessary to ex-plore the stability of this finding. A couple of significantmethodological limitations also warrant attention, particu-larly those associated with using the SRP-II as the primarymeasure of psychopathy. First, as mentioned earlier, theSRP-II is not the best-validated self-report psychopathymeasure, with only a modest correlation with the PCL-Rand an understudied factor structure. Second, there is con-cern that the SRP-II primarily assesses the impulsive, irre-sponsible, and antisocial behavior dimension of the PCL-R as opposed to the callous and interpersonal traits (emo-tional detachment) viewed as central to psychopathy(Cooke & Michie, 2001). Indeed, in the present study, theSRP-II total score correlated significantly higher with theAntisocial Behavior factor (r = .89) relative to the Emo-tional Detachment factor (r = .58). Third, as Pd2 subscale

424 ASSESSMENT

items were extracted from the MMPI-2 outside of remain-ing scales and subscales, certain context effects may haveaffected the relations of the Pd2 with other measures andoutcome variables (Nunnaly & Bernstein, 1994). Giventhese concerns, further psychometric work on the SRP-IIis necessary, as is replication of study findings using alter-nate self-report measures of psychopathy such as the PPI(Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) and Levenson’s Primaryand Secondary Psychopathy Scales (Levenson et al.,1995).

Despite these limitations, the results highlight the needto further explore the empirical and clinical usefulness ofthe BART. Among the potential advantages of using theBART task as a psychological assessment tool, given thelimited face validity of the BART relative to self-reportmeasures of psychopathy and related constructs, individu-als completing the BART may be substantially less likelyto either fake good or malinger on this task—a problem in-herent in the assessment of psychopaths (Rogers & Cruise,2000). Second, this behavioral task may be a particularlyappealing alternative for assessing adolescents, especiallythose who may be at high risk for developing conduct dis-order problems. Extending toward forensic samples, italso would be intriguing to examine the predictive validityof the BART in distinguishing between individuals whomeet diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disor-ders and those who are considered psychopaths. Assessingthe predictive validity of the BART as it relates to criminalactivity and, more specifically, violent and economicallydetrimental crimes also would be worthwhile. Such pro-grams of research will help to elucidate theoretical modelsand clinical correlates of psychopathy, which may result inincreased understanding of the etiology, maintenance, andtreatment of psychopathic behaviors.

NOTES

1. Hierarchical regression analyses also were conducted using theWilliams and Paulhus (2004) two-factor model. Similar but weaker find-ings were evident relative to those obtained using the Hare et al. (1989)two-factor model (Emotional Detachment, Antisocial Behavior) in thatafter controlling for relevant variables, Factor I of the Willams andPaulhus model (Manipulative Trouble Making) was marginally associ-ated with both adjusted balloon pumps, t = 1.56, p = .12, and balloon ex-plosions, t = 1.48, p = .14.

2. Note that hierarchical regression results were replicated when con-ducting analyses only on female participants (with gender removed fromthe first step of regression models). Because of the small sample size ofmen, regression analyses could not be conducted in that statistical as-sumptions would have been violated. However, also note that correlativedata analyzed independently by gender yielded similar relationships be-tween adjusted balloon pumps and antisocial behaviors (men: r = .29;women: r = .30) as well as balloon explosions and antisocial behaviors(men: r = .24; women: r = .27).

3. When hierarchical regression analyses were conducted using thesame (variable) steps but using Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART) per-

formance as a predictor (in step 3) and Self-Report Psychopathy Scale–II(SRP-II Antisocial Behaviors) as the criterion variable, similar variablerelationships were evident with BART explosions accounting for signifi-cant incremental variance, t = 2.37, p = .02, and BART adjusted scoresnarrowly missing the conventional significance level, t = 1.78, p = .08, inpredicting antisocial behaviors. Also consistent with the findings, neitherBART explosions, t = –0.25, p = .81, nor adjusted balloon pumps, t = –0.57,p = .57, were significant predictors of SRP-II (Emotional Detachment)scores.

4. Correlations were tested using statistical comparisons of independ-ent rs (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

5. Note that participants in the present study were the same as thosedescribed in the Bare et al. (2004) investigation.

REFERENCES

Aklin, W. M., Lejuez, C. W., Zvolensky, M. J., Kahler, C. W., & Gwadz,M. (2005). Evaluation of behavioral measures of risk-taking propen-sity with inner-city adolescents. Behaviour Research and Therapy,43, 215-228.

Andrew, M., & Cronin, C. (1997). Two measures of sensation seeking aspredictors of alcohol use among high school males. Personality andIndividual Differences, 22, 393-401.

Antony, M. M., Orsillo, S. M., & Roemer, L. (2001). Practitioner’s guideto empirically based measures of anxiety. New York: Kluwer.

Bare, R. L., Hopko, D. R., & Armento, M. E. A. (2004). The relation ofpsychopathic characteristics and anxiety among non-criminals:Physiological and cognitive responses to guided imagery. Journal ofPsychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 225-232.

Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders: The nature and treatmentof anxiety and panic (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Barratt, E. S. (1985). Impulsiveness subtraits: Arousal and informationprocessing. In J. T. Spence & C. E. Itard (Eds.), Motivation, emotion,and personality (pp. 137-146). North Holland, the Netherlands:Elsevier.

Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., Damasio, H., & Anderson, S. W. (1994). In-sensitivity to future consequences following damage to humanprefrontal cortex. Cognition, 50, 7-15.

Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1993). Beck Anxiety Inventory: Manual (2ndedition). San Antonio, TX: Psychiatric Corporation.

Bentler, P. M., & McCain, J. (1976). A multitrait-multimethod analysis ofreflection-impulsivity. Child Development, 47, 218-226.

Bigler, E. D. (2001). Frontal lobe pathology and antisocial personalitydisorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, 609-611.

Blackburn, R., & Maybury, C. (1985). Identifying the psychopath: Therelation of Cleckley’s criteria to the interpersonal domain. Personal-ity and Individual Differences, 6, 375-368.

Blair, R. J. R., Colledge, E., & Mitchell, D. G. V. (2001). Somatic markersand response reversal: Is there orbitofrontal cortex dysfunction inboys with psychopathic tendencies? Journal of Abnormal Child Psy-chology, 29, 499-511.

Blaszczynski, A., Steel, Z., & McConaghy, N. (1997). Impulsivity inpathological gambling: The antisocial impulsivist. Addiction, 92,75-87.

Block, J. (1957). A study of affective responsiveness in a lie-detection sit-uation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 11-15.

Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, K. (1998). The prediction of criminal andviolent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 123-142.

Brown S. L., & Forth, A. E. (1997). Psychopathy and sexual assault:Static risk factors, emotional precursors, and rapist subtypes. Journalof Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 848-857.

Buffington-Vollum, J., Edens, J. F., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, J. K.(2002). Psychopathy as a predictor of institutional misbehavior

Hunt et al. / CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE BART 425

among sex offenders: A prospective replication. Criminal Justice andBehavior, 29, 497-511.

Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differencesin risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367-383.

Capaldi, D. M., Stoolmiller, M., Clark, S., & Owen, L. D. (2002). Hetero-sexual risk behaviors in at-risk young men from early adolescence toyoung adulthood: Prevalence, prediction, and association with STDcontraction. Developmental Psychology, 38, 394-406.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlationanalysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum.

Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy:Towards a hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13, 171-188.

Damasio, A. R., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (1990). Individuals withsociopathic behavior caused by frontal damage fail to respond auto-matically to social stimuli. Behavioural Brain Research, 41, 81-94.

DiClemente, R. J., Hansen, W. B., & Ponton, L. E. (1995). Handbook ofadolescent health risk behavior. New York: Plenum.

Eysenck, S. B. G., Pearson, P. R., Easting, G., & Allsopp, J. F. (1985). Agenorms for impulsiveness, venturesomeness, and empathy in adults.Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 613-619.

Fals-Stewart, W., Birchler, G. R., Hoebbel, C., Kashdan, T. B., Golden, J.,& Parks, K. (2003). An examination of indirect risk of exposure toHIV among wives of substance-abusing men. Drug and Alcohol De-pendence, 70, 65-76.

Felton, J., Gibson, B., & Sanbonmatsu, D. M. (2003). Preference for riskin investing as a function of trait optimism and gender. Journal of Be-havioral Finance, 4, 33-40.

Forth, A. E., Brown, S. L., Hart, S.D., & Hare, R. D. (1996). The assess-ment of psychopathy in male and female noncriminals: Reliabilityand validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 531-543.

Fowles, D. C. (2000). Electrodermal hyporeactivity and antisocial behav-ior: Does anxiety mediate the relationship? Journal of Affective Dis-orders, 61, 177-189.

Friedman, A. F., Lewak, R., Nichols, D. S., & Webb, J. T. (2001). Psycho-logical assessment with the MMPI-2. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Grant, S., Contoreggi, C., & London, E. D. (2000). Drug abusers showimpaired performance in a laboratory test of decision making.Neuropsychologia, 38, 1180-1187.

Gray, J. A., (1987). The psychology of fear and stress (2nd ed.). Cam-bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Greene, K., Kramar, M., Walters, L. H., Rubin, D. L., Hale, J., & Hale, L.(2000). Targeting adolescent risk-taking behaviors: The contributionsof egocentricism and sensation-seeking. Journal of Adolescence, 23,439-461.

Gretton, H. M., Hare, R. D., & Catchpole, R. E. H. (2004). Psychopathyand offending from adolescence to adulthood: A 10-year follow-up.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 636-645.

Gullone, E., & Moore, S. (2000). Adolescent risk-taking and the five-factormodel of personality. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 393-407.

Hagopian, L. P., & Ollendick, T. H. (1994). Behavioral inhibition and testanxiety: An empirical investigation of Gray’s theory. Personality andIndividual Differences, 16, 597-604.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995).Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Hamburger, M. E., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Hogben, M. (1996). Psychopathy,gender, and gender roles: Implications for antisocial and histrionicpersonality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 10, 41-55.

Hare, R. D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy incriminal populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 111-119.

Hare, R. D. (1991a). Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Re-vised. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

Hare, R. D. (1991b). The Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, version 2 (SRP-II). Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia, Van-couver, Canada.

Hare, R. D. (1999). Psychopathy as a risk factor for violence. PsychiatricQuarterly, 70, 181-197.

Hare, R. D., Clark, D., Grann, M., & Thornton, D. (2000). Psychopathyand the predictive validity of the PCL-R: An international perspec-tive. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 623-645.

Hare, R. D., Harpur, T. J., Hakstian, A. R., Forth, A. E., & Hart, S. D.(1990). The Revised Psychopathy Checklist: Reliability and factorstructure. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 2, 338-341.

Hare, R. D., Harpur, T. J., & Hemphill, (1989). Scoring pamphlet for theSelf-Report Psychopathy Scale: SRP-II. Unpublished manuscript, Si-mon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada.

Hare, R. D., Hart, S. D., & Harpur, T. J. (1991). Psychopathy and theDSM-IV criteria for antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Ab-normal Psychology, 100, 391-398.

Harpur, T. J., Hakstian, A. R., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Factor structure ofthe Psychopathy Checklist. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-chology, 56, 741-747.

Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor conceptu-alization of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implica-tions. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 1, 6-17.

Harris, R., & Lingoes, J. (1955). Subscales for the Minnesota MultiphasicPersonality Inventory. Mimeographed materials, The Langley PorterClinic, San Francisco.

Hopko, D. R., Lejuez, C. W., Osborne, A., Daughters, S. B., Aklin, W. M.,Simmons, B. L., et al. (in press). Construct validity of the Balloon An-alog Risk Task (BART): Relationship with MDMA use by inner-citydrug users in residential treatment. Journal of Psychopathology andBehavioral Assessment.

Ishikawa, S. S., Raine, A., Lencz, T., Bihrle, S., & Lacasse, L. (2001). Au-tonomic stress reactivity and executive functions in successful andunsuccessful criminal psychopaths from the community. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 3, 423-432.

Jones, H. E. (1950). The study of patterns of emotional expression. In M. L.Reymert (Ed.), Feelings and emotions: The Moosehart symposium(pp. 161-168). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jones, H. E. (1960). The longitudinal method in the study of personality.In I. Iscoe & H. W. Stevenson (Eds.), Personality development in chil-dren (pp. 3-27). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ladd, G. T., & Petry, N. M. (2003). Antisocial personality in treatmentseeking cocaine abusers: Psychosocial functioning and HIV risk.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 24, 323-330.

Leigh, B. C. (1999). Peril, chance, and adventure: Concepts of risk, alco-hol use, and risky behavior in young adults. Addiction, 94, 371-383.

Lejuez, C. W., Aklin, W. M., Jones, H. A., Richards, J. B., Strong, D. R.,Kahler, C. W., et al. (2003). The Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART)differentiates smokers and nonsmokers. Experimental and ClinicalPsychopharmacology, 11, 26-33.

Lejuez, C. W., Aklin, W. M., Zvolensky, M. J., & Pedulla, C. M. (2003).Evaluation of the Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART) as a predictor ofadolescent real-world risk-taking behaviors. Journal of Adolescence,26, 475-479.

Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E.,Stuart, G. L., et al. (2002). Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risktaking: The Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experi-mental Psychology: Applied, 8, 75-84.

Lejuez, C. W., Simmons, B. L., Aklin, W. M., Daughters, S. B., & Dvir, S.(2004). Risk taking propensity and risky sexual behavior of individu-als in residential substance use treatment. Addictive Behaviors, 29,1643-1647.

Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessingpsychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151-158.

426 ASSESSMENT

Lilienfeld, S. O. (1999). The relation of the MMPI-2 Pd Harris-Lingoessubscales to psychopathy, psychopathy facets, and antisocial behav-ior: Implications for clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Psychology,55, 241-255.

Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminaryvalidation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traitsin noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66,488-524.

Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-Reported psychop-athy: A validation study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 110-132.

Marcus, D. K., John, S. L., & Edens, J. F. (2004). A taxometric analysis ofpsychopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113,626-635.

Martins, S. S., Tavares, H., daSilva-Lobo, D. S., Galetti, A. M., & Gentil, V.(2004). Pathological gambling, gender, and risk-taking behaviors.Addictive Behaviors, 29, 1231-1235.

Mitchell, D. G. V., Colledge, E., Leonard, A., & Blair, R. J. R. (2002).Risky decisions and response reversal: Is there evidence oforbitofrontal cortex dysfunction in psychopathic individuals?Neuropsychologia, 40, 2013-2022.

Mitchell, S. H. (1999). Measures of impulsivity in cigarette smokers andnon-smokers. Psychopharmacology, 146, 455-464.

Newman, T. P., & Kosson, D. S. (1986). Passive avoidance learning inpsychopathic and non-psychopathic offenders. Journal of AbnormalPsychology, 95, 252-256.

Nunnaly, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.).New York: McGraw Hill.

Osberg, T. M., & Poland, D. L. (2001). Validity of the MMPI-2 basic andHarris Lingoes subscales in a forensic sample. Journal of ClinicalPsychology, 57, 1369-1380.

Pack, R. P., Crosby, R. A., & St. Lawrence, J. S. (2001). Associations be-tween adolescents’ sexual risk behavior and scores on sixpsychometric scales: Impulsivity predicts risk. Journal of HIV/AIDSPrevention & Education for Adolescents and Children, 4, 33-47.

Petry, N. (2001). Substance abuse, pathological gambling, and impulsive-ness. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 63, 29-38.

Ramirez, V. J. (2002). The protective effects of community involvementfor HIV risk behavior: A conceptual framework. Health Education,17, 389-403.

Rogers, R. D., & Cruise, K. R. (2000). Malingering and deception amongpsychopaths. In C. B. Gacono (Ed.), The clinical and forensic assess-ment of psychopathy (pp. 269-284). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Rogers, R. D., Owen, A. M., Middleton, H. C., Williams, E. J., Pickard,J. D., Sahakian, B. J., et al. (1999). Choosing between small, likely re-wards and large, unlikely rewards activates inferior and orbitalprefrontal cortex. The Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 9029-9038.

Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1996). A review and meta-analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist and Psychopathy Checklist–Revised: Predictive validity of dangerousness. Clinical Psychology:Science and Practice, 3, 203-215.

Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1997). Construct validity of psy-chopathy in a female offender sample: A multitrait-multidimensionalevaluation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 576-585.

Schmitt, W. A., Brinkley, C. A., & Newman, J. P. (1999). TestingDamasio’s somatic marker hypothesis with psychopathic individuals:Risk takers or risk averse? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108,538-543.

Schmitt, W. A., & Newman, J. P. (1999) Are all psychopathic individualslow-anxious? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 353-358.

Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (1990). Alcohol and drug abuse-dependencedisorders in psychopathic and nonpsychopathic criminal offenders.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 430-439.

Steel, Z., & Blaszczynski, A. (1996). The factorial structure of pathologi-cal gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 3-20.

Stein, J. A., & Nyamathi, A. (2000). Gender differences in behaviouraland psychosocial predictors of HIV testing and return for test resultsin a high risk population. Aids Care, 12, 433-356.

Strachan, K., Williamson, S., & Hare, R. D. (1990). Psychopathy and fe-male offenders. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Co-lumbia, Vancouver, Canada.

Stuart, G. L. (1998). Impulsivity as a predictor of marital violence. Dis-sertation Abstracts International, 59(2-B), 0889. (UMI No.AAM9825523)

Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the Multidimensional PersonalityQuestionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota,Minneapolis.

Thornquist, M. H., & Zuckerman, M. (1995). Psychopathy, passive-avoidance learning and basic dimensions of personality. Personalityand Individual Differences, 19, 525-534.

Verona, E., Patrick, C. J., & Joiner, T. E. (2001). Psychopathy, antisocialpersonality, and suicide risk. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111,462-470.

White, J. L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Bartusch, D. J., Needles, D. J., &Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). Measuring impulsivity and examin-ing its relationship to delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,103, 192-205.

Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2003). Understanding the role ofimpulsivity and externalizing psychopathology in alcohol abuse: Ap-plication of the UPPS Impulsive Behavior Scale. Experimental andClinical Psychopharmacology, 11, 210-217.

Widiger, T. (1998). Psychopathy and normal personality. In D. J. Cooke,A. E. Forth, & R. D. Hare (Eds.), Psychopathy: Theory, research, andimplications for society (pp. 47-68). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:Kluwer.

Widiger, T., Cadoret, R., Hare, R, Robins, L., Rutherford, M., Zanarini,M., et al. (1996). DSM-IV antisocial personality disorder field trial.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 3-16.

Widom, C. S. (1978). A methodology for studying non-institutionalizedpsychopaths. In R. D. Hare & D. Schalling (Eds.), Psychopathic be-havior: Approaches to research (pp. 71-84). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Widom,C.S.,&Newman, J.P. (1985).Characteristicsofnon-institutionalizedpsychopaths. In J. Gunn & D. Farrington (Eds.), Current research inforensic psychiatry and psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 57-80). New York:Wiley.

Williams, K. M., & Paulhus, D. L. (2004). Factor structure of the self-report psychopathy scale (SRP-II) in non-forensic samples. Personal-ity and Individual Differences, 37, 765-778.

Wills, T. A., Sandy, J. M., & Yaeger, A. M. (2002). Stress and smoking inadolescence: A test of directional hypothesis. Health Psychology, 21,122-130.

Zagon, I. K., & Jackson, H. J. (1994). Construct validity of a psychopathymeasure. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 125-135.

Zuckerman, M. (2002). Genetics of sensation seeking. In J. Benjamin &R. P. Ebstein (Eds.), Molecular genetics and human personality (pp.193-210). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Zuckerman, M., Ball, S., & Black, J. (1990). Influences of sensation seek-ing, gender, risk appraisal, and situational motivation on smoking.Addictive Behaviors, 15, 209-220.

Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seekingin England and America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 139-149.

Melissa K. Hunt, M.A., is a graduate student in clinical psychol-ogy at the University of Tennessee. She has interests in behav-ioral assessment, particularly as applied to depression, anxiety,and psychopathy.

Derek R. Hopko, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at the Univer-sity of Tennessee. He graduated from West Virginia University

Hunt et al. / CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF THE BART 427

(2000) and completed his residency and postdoctoral training atthe University of Texas Medical School in Houston. In general,his research and clinical interests are in the areas of mood andanxiety disorders, particularly within the domain of treatmentoutcome research in primary care.

Robert Bare, Ph.D., is a graduate of the clinical psychology pro-gram at the University of Tennessee and currently is on intern-ship at the Federal Correctional Complex in Butner, NorthCarolina. He has primary interests in the assessment and treat-ment of antisocial personality disorder.

C. W. Lejuez, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the University ofMaryland–College Park. His research interests are intranslational research with an emphasis on factors underlyingtreatment failure in mood disorders and addiction.

Emily V. Robinson, B.A., is a graduate of the University of Ten-nessee Department of Psychology.

428 ASSESSMENT