Table of Contents TOC o “1-3” h z u Abstract PAGEREF _Toc514717546 h 21

Table of Contents
TOC o “1-3” h z u Abstract PAGEREF _Toc514717546 h 21. Introduction PAGEREF _Toc514717547 h 31.1 Background PAGEREF _Toc514717548 h 31.2 Main Issue PAGEREF _Toc514717549 h 52. Literature Review PAGEREF _Toc514717550 h 63. Data and Methodology PAGEREF _Toc514717551 h 73.1 Sampling PAGEREF _Toc514717552 h 73.2 Operationalization of variables PAGEREF _Toc514717553 h 73.3 Youth Psychopathic Trait Inventory PAGEREF _Toc514717554 h 73.4 Rosenberg self-esteem scale PAGEREF _Toc514717555 h 84. Results PAGEREF _Toc514717556 h 105. Discussion PAGEREF _Toc514717557 h 146. Conclusion PAGEREF _Toc514717558 h 157. References: PAGEREF _Toc514717559 h 16APPENDICES PAGEREF _Toc514717560 h 171.1 Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale PAGEREF _Toc514717561 h 181.2 Youth Psychopathic Trait Inventory PAGEREF _Toc514717562 h 19

AbstractIn the materialistic world, everyone is conscious about one’s self and integrity. Especially, the university graduates are more careful about their self-respect in co-education setup, irrespective of gender (Brigham, 1986). The present study aimed to examine the relationship between self-esteem and psychopathic traits in male and female university students. The self-esteem was measured using Rosenberg’s Self Esteem Scale (SES) while psychopathic traits were examined using Youth Psychopathic Inventory (YPI). The results indicated that male students have more psychopathic traits and less self-esteem while the female student’s results indicated their higher self-esteem with lower psychopathic traits. It was also found out that higher psychopathic traits result in lower self-esteem.
Keywords: Self-esteem, Psychopathic traits, Genders

1. Introduction1.1 BackgroundIn Universities most understudies are building up their feeling and character, “their identity.” For some, it is the first run through far from home, and a few understudies are the primary individual from the family to ever go to University. Understudies are discovering things out about themselves and making sense of what University life is about.
Out of the blue, understudies choose whether or not to go to class – with no “primary” to call their folks. They choose whether or not to do their assignments. They choose the amount to work, mingle, gathering, and study, if by any means. Organizing and obligation are conveyed to another level as understudies are accountable for their new world. It can be extremely overpowering. Notwithstanding the greater part of this, understudies are endeavoring to make companions and be “acknowledged” by peers. This is simply the time when regard is especially required.
Being without anyone else out of the blue can be frightening, however in the event that you have the instruments to confront the world, you’ll most likely be significantly more fruitful in it!
Conrath (1986) contend that the most ideal route for a tyke to support a feeling of certainty is to obtain and show skill. Thus, fearlessness will be uncovered with achievement in ability advancement and learning. What’s more, scholarly accomplishment is affected by seen capability, self-sufficiency and inspiration (Weist et al., 1998). In like manner, “we create and keep up our self-idea through the way toward making a move and afterward pondering what we have done and what others reveal to us what we have done. We think about what we have done and can do in contrast with our desires and the desire for others and to the attributes and achievements of others” (Brigham, 1986). In fact, self-idea isn’t intrinsic; it is created or learned over the span of individual collaboration with the earth and thinking about the communication. This dynamic part of self-idea (confidence) is basic as in it can be adjusted or changed. Franken (1994) states that “there is developing collection of research which shows that it is conceivable to change the self-idea. Self-change isn’t something that individuals can will yet rather relies upon the procedure of self-reflection. Through self-reflection, individuals frequently come to see themselves in another, all the more capable way, and it is through this new, more effective method for review the self that individuals can create conceivable selves”. There appears to have an assention between confidence and scholastic accomplishment. It has been contended that understudies to have the capacity to perform well scholastically ought to have positive confidence. Truth be told, it was accounted for that when the level of confidence was improved there was a relating increment in scholastic execution, though, the scholarly execution decay when there was a diminishing in confidence (Covington, 1989). At the end of the day, we can state that as the level of confidence increments there is a comparing accomplishment scores, and as confidence diminishes, accomplishment diminish. It creates the impression that, confidence could have been in all likelihood the outcome rather the reason for scholarly execution (Holly, 1987).
Moreover, sexual orientation is the imperative factor which impact on the development, rise and exhibit of confidence. Various contrasts have been found amongst guys and females in their level of confidence amid puberty since they have a tendency to receive sexual orientation generalizations. In particular, male confidence is believed to be more inspired by objectives described by freedom and self-rule, while confidence in female is more impacted by objectives identified with relationship and affectability (Cross and Slater, 1995). The distinction in confidence can prompt contrast in scholarly accomplishment amongst young men and young ladies. It has been uncovered that young ladies improve the situation in school, get higher evaluations and can move on from secondary school at a more elevated amount than young men (Jacob, 2002). Past examination demonstrated the other persuasive factors in scholarly accomplishment (Kara and Kahraman, 2008).
There are heaps of reasons understudies cheat — absence of readiness, absence of scholarly inclination, sheer apathy. Presently another examination proposes another clarification: identity’s coded as a part of their identity.
Therapists at the University of British Columbia found that understudies who duped in secondary school and school were probably going to meet the criteria for psychopathic identity — the sort that inclines toward a scope of terrible practices, similar to liquor and medication mishandle, tormenting and foolhardy driving. It’s the same indiscreet, hard and introverted identity that describes criminal insane people, however, to be reasonable, understudy con artists scored a great deal bring down on psychopathy polls than real criminal guilty parties.
The analysts found that scholarly miscreants likewise scored high in two other identity characteristics: narcissism (individuals who experience the ill effects of gaudiness, egotism and an outsized feeling of qualification) and Machiavellianism (pessimistic, flippant composes who make it a propensity to control others). Be that as it may, of the three cluttered identities — together referred to brilliantly as the Dark Triad — psychopathy was the main quality altogether connected with understudy deceiving.
There are contrasts amongst people with psychopathic identity attributes in regards to sub-kinds of psychopathy, guiltiness, animosity and exploitation. Psychopathy is found in detained populaces and in the all inclusive community, among people. The examination researched if there were any sexual orientation contrasts amongst people with increased levels of psychopathic characteristics in regards to psychopathy factor scores, guiltiness, hostility and exploitation. A randomized example of 2500 blended sex (52.6 % ladies) members (M=22.15; SD=1.38) from the overall public, matured 20-24, was utilized. Results demonstrated that ladies with psychopathic identity qualities had fundamentally higher conduct inclinations (e.g., impulsivity) on psychopathy than men with psychopathic identity characteristics. Men scored higher on vicious criminal offenses and criminal flexibility and people contrasted in forceful conduct and exploitation. Sexual orientation contrasts in psychopathy highlights may make diverse requirements for treatment.

1.2 Main IssueThe aim of study is to focus on the relationship between the levels of self-esteem and the psychopathic traits among university students and the results are formulated on the basis of gender differences, that is, males and females. All the former studies were conducted on the relationship of psychopathy and self-esteem or the correlation between gender differences and self-esteem, only the present study focuses upon the gender differences of university students in self-esteem and its relationship with psychopathic traits. Moreover, there is a need to understand psychopathic traits in the students who show psychopathy on a minor level in their academic course which is usually not taken seriously for example, cheating and drug abuse etc. Self-esteem plays an explanatory role in the manifestations of psychopathic behaviors and thus needs to be studied in the students to explain their psychopathy.

2. Literature ReviewCounting the creator’s Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, portrays the consequences of a progression of three examinations including almost 600 understudies. In each, the volunteers were requested to round out mysterious identity polls; a few members additionally stepped through examinations of knowledge. Identity questions included: “I jump at the chance to be the focal point of consideration” (i.e., I might be a narcissist), “It’s difficult to excel without compromising all over” (Machiavellianism), and “I have assaulted somebody with the objective of harming them” (psychopathy).
In the primary examination, specialists decided understudies’ past history of tricking through self-reports; in the second, they utilized a target measure of current deceiving the online administration Turn-It-In, which investigates understudies’ composed work for sections duplicated from past papers, scholarly articles and Web pages.
The outcomes as per self-reports showed that 73% of understudies confessed to tricking in any event once in secondary school, a finding that is generally in accordance with gauges from past overviews; rates of Turn-It-In copyright infringement were much lower, at 15%, which is likewise in accordance with past examinations taking a gander at single open doors for swindling. By and large, subsequent to controlling for other identity composes and factors known to foresee scholastic extortion (absence of inclination, for example), psychopathy stayed most emphatically connected with tricking. As indicated by the third and last investigation including 223 students, some detailed that they felt deceiving was a satisfactory method to accomplish their scholastic objectives, for example, getting An’s or winning a grant. “It is eminent that the accomplishment objectives shared by most undergrads trigger bamboozling in mental cases alone,” the writers compose.
Understudies who scored high in psychopathy likewise, typically, tended to report an absence of worry about carrying on genuinely or ethically that is, regardless of whether swindling isn’t right, they truly couldn’t have cared less.
The examination’s creators infer that identity can be utilized to recognize understudies who are probably going to swindle. Issue is, it wouldn’t be morally or basically plausible to prescreen undergrads for psychopathy and in any case psychopathic characteristics are famously difficult to change. “In general,” the writers state, “our character examination recommends that the best way to wipe out duping among insane people is to make it incomprehensible.”
3. Data and Methodology3.1 SamplingSample is selected using the convenience and quota sampling techniques. Easily accessible and equal number of both the genders have been used for the study that is two sample groups of N=33 individuals each used. Some variables of both the groups were controlled as age range from 19 to 23, education up to Masters level, the difference among the two groups was of gender as sample 1 is of females, whereas the sample 2 is of males.

3.2 Operationalization of variablesFor measuring self-esteem Rosenberg self-esteem scale is used develop by Morris Rosenberg in 1965 and for measuring psychopathic traits YPI (youth psychopathic trait inventory) is used developed by Andershed, Kerr, Stattin, and Levander in 2002 (version 3.0) is used.

3.3 Youth Psychopathic Trait InventoryThe youth Psychopathic Trait Inventory (YPI; Andershed, Kerr, Stattin and Levander, 2002) is a self-report measure that assesses psychopathy among youth. Additionally, The measure taps three dimension of phychopathy: Grandiose Manipulative Dimension, Callous Unemotional Dimension, and Impulsive Irresponsible Dimension. The scale contains 50 items to which contestants respond on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “Does not apply at all” to “Applies very well”. Several items are reversely coded, that higher score indicates more psychopathic chracteristics.

Scores are calculated as follow:
For all items except the ones reversely coded:
Scale Scores
Does not apply at all 1
Does not apply well 2
Applies fairly well 3
Applies very well 4
For reversely coded items (23, 35, 45):
Scale Scores
Does not apply at all 4
Does not apply well 3
Applies fairly well 2
Applies very well 1
The higher the scores on YPI the more psychopathic traits are present.

3.4 Rosenberg self-esteem scaleThis scale is developed by Morris Rosenberg in 1965. It includes 10 statements in the self-report measure that relate to self-esteem and self –image. A 4-point ruler reaching from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Every statement includes 3 marks out of which candidate score marks.

Scores are calculated as follows:
For items 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7: For items 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10 (which are reversed in valence):
Strongly agree 3 Strongly Agree 0
Agree 2 Agree 1
Disagree 1 Disagree 2
Strongly Disagree 0 Strongly Disagree 3
The scale ranges from 0-30. Scores between 15 and 25 are within normal range; scores below 15 suggest low self-esteem.

4. ResultsTable-I
Sample: 1=Female University Students N=33
Sample no. Youth Psychopathic Trait Inventory Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
1. 84 27
2. 112 25
3. 144 19
4. 139 18
5. 112 20
6. 101 23
7. 101 28
8. 89 27
9. 133 16
10. 109 16
11. 114 19
12. 122 17
13. 121 23
14. 121 12
15. 126 22
16. 116 26
17. 121 16
18. 108 19
19. 105 25
20. 79 17
21. 110 22
22. 130 28
23. 97 26
24. 104 23
25. 107 23
26. 113 20
27. 115 21
28. 116 24
29. 124 25
30. 129 23
31. 136 21
32. 141 20
33. 148 24

Sample: 2=Male University Students N=33
Sample no. Youth Psychopathic Trait Inventory Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
1. 100 18
2. 151 19
3. 133 23
4. 117 20
5. 118 19
6. 127 11
7. 132 21
8. 121 24
9. 125 15
10. 114 22
11. 134 18
12. 99 20
13. 111 19
14. 130 7
15. 131 16
16. 100 21
17. 108 23
18. 121 26
19. 107 11
20. 103 20
21. 153 8
22. 97 19
23. 114 24
24. 117 19
25. 118 19
26. 120 15
27. 123 17
28. 134 20
29. 135 13
30. 139 14
31. 140 25
32. 140 16
33. 144 20

Table: III
Difference of scores between Sample 1 & 2 N=33
Sample 1 Youth psychopathic Inventory Sample 2 Youth Psychopathic Inventory
1. 84 1. 100
2. 112 2. 151
3. 144 3. 133
4. 139 4. 117
5. 112 5. 118
6. 101 6. 127
7. 101 7. 132
8. 89 8. 121
9. 133 9. 125
10. 109 10. 114
11. 114 11. 134
12. 122 12. 99
13. 121 13. 111
14. 121 14. 130
15. 126 15. 131
16. 116 16. 100
17. 121 17. 108
18. 108 18. 121
19. 105 19. 107
20. 79 20. 103
21. 110 21. 153
22. 130 22. 97
23. 97 23. 114
24. 104 24. 117
25. 107 25. 118
26. 113 26. 120
27. 115 27. 123
28. 116 28. 134
29. 124 29. 135
30. 129 30. 139
31. 136 31. 140
32. 141 32. 140
33. 148 33. 144
Total 3827 Total 4056
Mean X1(YPI) = X N = 382733 Mean X2(YPI) = X N = 405633
= 115.97 = 122.90
Table: IV
Difference of Scores between Sample 1 & 2 N=33
Sample 1 Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale Sample 2 Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale
1. 27 1. 18
2. 25 2. 19
3. 19 3. 23
4. 18 4. 20
5. 20 5. 19
6. 23 6. 11
7. 28 7. 21
8. 27 8. 24
9. 16 9. 15
10. 16 10. 22
11. 19 11. 18
12. 17 12. 20
13. 23 13. 19
14. 12 14. 7
15. 22 15. 16
16. 26 16. 21
17. 16 17. 23
18. 19 18. 26
19. 25 19. 11
20. 17 20. 20
21. 22 21. 8
22. 28 22. 19
23. 26 23. 24
24. 23 24. 19
25. 23 25. 19
26. 20 26. 15
27. 21 27. 17
28. 24 28. 20
29. 25 29. 13
30. 23 30. 14
31. 21 31. 25
32. 20 32. 16
33. 24 33. 20
Total 715 Total 602
Mean X1(RSES) = X N = 71533 Mean X2(RSES) = X N = 60233
= 21.67 = 18.245. DiscussionThe consequences of the present examination demonstrated a huge sexual orientation contrast within the sight of the two builds that are, psychopathy and confidence among the college understudies. The apparatuses used to quantify these develops were YPI (youth psychopathic quality stock) and Rosenberg confidence scale. The expressive examination appears there was an outstanding contrast in the methods for the two examples i.e. test 1 (females) and test 2 (guys). On the confidence scale females scored higher when contrasted with guys. On the psychopathy scale guys scored higher when contrasted with females who scored lower. Along these lines, as a rule one might say that in guys the psychopathic inclinations are higher and confidence is lower. Though in females the psychopathic inclinations are lower and confidence is higher. Another part of these examinations proposes that higher confidence is related with bring down psychopathic inclinations and that lower confidence may prompt creating psychopathic attributes. These outcomes are being affirmed by some different investigations led in past on the comparative or related themes.
There are Five investigations which set up that high confidence or ordinary narcissism is related with great mental wellbeing. In particular, it is (a) contrarily identified with day by day misery and dispositional gloom, (b) conversely identified with day by day and dispositional depression, (c) decidedly identified with every day and dispositional subjective prosperity and couple prosperity, (d) conversely identified with day by day tension, and (e) contrarily identified with dispositional neuroticism. More critical, confidence completely represented the connection amongst narcissism and mental wellbeing. In this manner, narcissism is advantageous for mental wellbeing just seeing that it is related with high confidence. Supplementary examination demonstrated that the connections among narcissism, confidence, and mental wellbeing were generally straight. (Sedikides, Rudich, Eric A., 2013)
Past research offers clashing conclusions with respect to the relationship between confidence, psychopathy like narcissism, and hostility. This investigation elucidated these relationship by inspecting confidence level and dependability as it identifies with the variables of psychopathy and narcissism foreseeing animosity. Self-report evaluations were controlled to 118 students. The confidence precariousness was decidedly associated with animosity. Furthermore, those with the more beneficial parts of narcissism and Factor 1 highlights of psychopathy had high confidence and less animosity, while those with more neurotic narcissism and Factor 2 highlights of psychopathy had bring down confidence and more hostility. (D. M. Falkenbach, J. R. Howe, M. Falki; 2012)6. ConclusionThis research centers around the principle reasons of confidence and concerning why understudies don’t consider academic courses important and furthermore the change of those viewpoints they are making the primary harms youth.
We can state that there is a solid connection amongst psychopathy and confidence and that gender assumes imperative part in it. Anyway more examinations are expected to clear up this relationship and give more point by point and exact data in regards to this connection.
The above outcomes are steady with the thought that essential mental cases have more prominent ability to achieve accomplishment in conventional society then the optional insane people and welcome an immediate trial of this unmistakable investigation in future research.

7. References:Andershed, H., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Levander, S. (2002). Psychopathic traits in non-referred youths: A new assessment tool. In E. Blauuw & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Psychopaths: Current International Perspectives (pp. 131-158). The Hague: Elsevier.

Crandal, R. (1973). The measurement of self-esteem and related constructs, Pp. 80-82 in J.P. Robinson & P.R. Shaver (Eds), Measures of social psychological attitudes. Revised edition. Ann Arbor: ISR.

John Jay College of Criminal Justice, United States; Personality and Individual Differences (Impact Factor: 1.86). 05/2013; 54(7):815–820. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.017
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sedikides, Rudich, Eric A., 2013,; journals
Wylie, R. C. (1974). The self-concept. Revised edition. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.

1.1 Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem ScaleSTATEMENT Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
1. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on an equal plane with others.
2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities..
3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people.
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of.
6. I take a positive attitude toward myself.
7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself.
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself.
9. I certainly feel useless at times.
10. At times I think I am no good at all.
Scores are calculated as follows:
For items 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7:
Strongly agree = 3
Agree = 2
Disagree = 1
Strongly disagree = 0
For items 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10 (which are reversed in valence):
Strongly agree = 0
Agree = 1
Disagree = 2
Strongly disagree = 3
The scale ranges from 0-30. Scores between 15 and 25 are within normal range; scores below 15 suggest low self-esteem.

1.2 Youth Psychopathic Trait InventoryInstructions
This sheet consists of a number of statements that deal with what you think and feel about different things. Read each statement carefully and decide how well the particular statement applies to you. You can choose between four different alternatives on each statement.

Answer each statement as you most often feel and think, not only how you feel right now.

Example: I like reading books. Does not Does not Applies Applies
apply at all apply well fairly well very well
? ? ? ?
Put a mark in the box that corresponds to how you feel.
Do not think too long on each statement.
Answer ALL statements.
Do not put a mark between the alternatives.
Only one answer per statement.
IMPORTANT!!! There are no answers that are “Right” or “Wrong”. You cannot score worse or better than anyone else. We are interested in what you think and feel, not in what is “Right” or “Wrong”.

Does not Does not Applies Applies apply at all apply well fairly well very well 1. I like to be where exciting things happen. ? ? ? ? 2. I usually feel calm when other people are scared. ? ? ? ? 3. I prefer to spend my money right away rather than ? ? ? ? save it. 4. I get bored quickly when there is too little change. ? ? ? ? 5. I have probably skipped school or work more than ? ? ? ? most other people. 6. It’s easy for me to charm and seduce others to get ? ? ? ? what I want from them. 7. It’s fun to make up stories and try to get people to ? ? ? ? believe them. 8. I have the ability not to feel guilt and regret about ? ? ? ? things that I think other people would feel guilty about. 9. I consider myself as a pretty impulsive person. ? ? ? ? 10. I’m better than everyone on almost everything. ? ? ? ? 11. I can make people believe almost anything. ? ? ? ? 12. I think that crying is a sign of weakness, even if ? ? ? ? no one sees you. 13. If I won a lot of money in the lottery I would quit ? ? ? ? school or work and just do things that are fun. 14. I have the ability to con people by using my ? ? ? ? charm and smile. 15. I am good at getting people to believe in me when ? ? ? ? I make something up. 16. I have often been late to work or classes in school. ? ? ? ? 17. When other people have problems, it is often their ? ? ? ? own fault, therefore, one should not help them. 18. It often happens that I talk first and think later. ? ? ? ? 19. I have talents that go far beyond other people’s. ? ? ? ? Does not Does not Applies Applies apply at all apply well fairly well very well 20. It’s easy for me to manipulate people. ? ? ? ? 21. I seldom regret things I do, even if other people ? ? ? ? feel that they are wrong. 22. I like to do things just for the thrill of it. ? ? ? ? 23. It’s important to me not to hurt other people’s ? ? ? ? feelings. 24. Sometimes I lie for no reason, other than because ? ? ? ? it’s fun. 25. To be nervous and worried is a sign of weakness. ? ? ? ? 26. If I get the chance to do something fun, I do it ? ? ? ? no matter what I had been doing before. 27. When someone asks me something, I usually have ? ? ? ? a quick answer that sounds believable, even if I’ve just made it up. 28. When someone finds out about something that ? ? ? ? I’ve done wrong, I feel more angry than guilty. 29. I get bored quickly by doing the same thing over ? ? ? ? and over. 30. The world would be a better place if I were in ? ? ? ? charge. 31. To get people to do what I want, I often find it ? ? ? ? efficient to con them. 32. It often happens that I do things without thinking ? ? ? ? ahead. 33. Pretty often I act charming and nice, even with ? ? ? ? people I don’t like, in order to get what I want. 34. It has happened several times that I’ve borrowed ? ? ? ? something and then lost it. 35. I often become sad or moved by watching sad ? ? ? ? things on TV or film. 36. What scares others usually doesn’t scare me. ? ? ? ?
Does not Does not Applies Applies
apply at all apply well fairly well very well
37. I’m more important and valuable than other ? ? ? ?
people. 38. When I need to, I use my smile and my charm to ? ? ? ?
use others. 39. I don’t understand how people can be touched ? ? ? ?
enough to cry by looking at things on TV or movie. 40. I often don’t/didn’t have my school or work ? ? ? ?
assignments done on time. 41. I am destined to become a well-known important ? ? ? ?
and influential person. 42. I like to do exciting and dangerous things, even if ? ? ? ?
it is forbidden or illegal. 43. Sometimes I find myself lying without any ? ? ? ?
particular reason. 44. To feel guilty and remorseful about things you ? ? ? ?
have done that have hurt other people is a sign of weakness. 45. I don’t let my feelings affect me as much as other ? ? ? ?
people’s feelings seem to affect them. 46. It has happened that I’ve taken advantage of ? ? ? ?
(used) someone in order to get what I want. 47. I like to spice up and exaggerate when I tell ? ? ? ?
about something. 48. To feel guilt and regret when you have done ? ? ? ?
something wrong is a waste of time. 49. I usually become sad when I see other people ? ? ? ?
crying or being sad. 50. I’ve often gotten into trouble because I’ve lied too ? ? ? ?