USPP

Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics

Back to Index of Criminal Profiles

of the October 2002 Washington, D.C.-Area Sniper

Aubrey Immelman

October 9, 2002

In the absence of any specific criminal evidence, and based solely on rational consideration of likely personality configurations consistent with the known behavior patterns of the individual responsible for the October 2002 shooting spree in the Washington, DC area, it appears most likely that the sniper has a sadistic personality pattern, possibly modulated by negativistic and paranoid tendencies. Theodore Millon (1996), a leading authority on personality disorders, has labeled this personality composite the tyrannical sadist. Though technically not an antisocial personality, the actions of individuals with this personality amalgam are frequently of an antisocial nature; hence, the syndrome has also been labeled tyrannical psychopathy (Millon & Davis, 1998, p. 169). The tyrannical sadist syndrome is described below, followed by more specific descriptions of the sadistic, negativistic, and paranoid personality patterns.

The Tyrannical Sadist

Theodore Millon (1996) describes the tyrannically sadistic syndrome as follows:

Along with the malevolent antisocial [i.e., an antisocial personality with sadistic and paranoid features], the tyrannical sadist stands among the most frightening and cruel of the personality disorder subtypes. Both relate to others in an attacking, intimidating, and overwhelming way, frequently accusatory and abusive, and almost invariably destructive. Some are crudely assaultive and distressingly “evil,” whereas others are physically restrained, but overwhelm their victims by unrelenting criticism and bitter tirades. There is a verbally or physically overbearing character to their assaults, and minor resistances or weaknesses seem to stimulate tyrannical sadists, encouraging attack rather than deterring and slowing them down. It is the forcefulness, the unrestrained character, and the indiscriminate anger that is most notable. Descriptively, these sadists appear to relish the act of menacing and brutalizing others; forcing their victims to cower and submit seems to provide them with a special sense of satisfaction. Among those who are not physically brutal, we see verbally cutting and scathing commentaries that are both accusatory and demeaning. Many intentionally heighten and dramatize their surly, abusive, inhumane, and unmerciful behaviors. Although these individuals are in many respects the purest form of the “psychopathic” sadist, they do exhibit some features of other personality types, most notably the negativistic and/or the paranoid.

    What is also especially distinctive is the desire and willingness of these sadists to go out of their way to be unmerciful and inhumane in their violence. More than any other personality, they derive deep satisfaction in creating suffering and in seeing its effect on others. Their mean-spirited disposition leads them to abandon universally held constraints that limit the viciousness of one’s personal actions. In contrast to the explosive sadist [i.e., a sadistic personality with borderline features], for whom hostility serves primarily as a discharge of pent-up feelings, tyrannical sadists employ violence as an intentionally utilized instrument to inspire terror and intimidation. Moreover, they can self-consciously observe and reflect on the consequences of his violence, and do so with a deep sense of satisfaction. Many other sadists, by contrast, experience second thoughts and feel a measure of contrition about the violence they have produced.

    Often calculating and cool, tyrannical sadists are selective in their choice of victims, identifying scapegoats who are not likely to react with counterviolence. These sadists employ violence to secure cooperation and obeisance from their victims. Quite frequently, they display a disproportionate level of abusiveness and intimidation to impress not only the victim but also those who observe the sadist’s unconstrained power. . . .

    Much of what drives the tyrannical subtype is their fear that others may recognize their inner insecurities and low sense of self-esteem. To overcome these deeply felt inner weaknesses, tyrannizing sadists have learned that they can feel superior by overwhelming others by the force of their physical power and brutal vindictiveness. “I am superior to you, I can defeat you in all things that matter, I will triumph over you despite your past achievements and superior talents. In the end, I will be the victor.” Once unleashed, the power of vindication draws on deep fantasies of cruel and unmitigated revenge. There are no internal brakes to constrain them until their fury is spent. There is little remorse for the fury of their violence and the destructive consequences they create. The subjugation or elimination of others has become the primary goal. (pp. 489–490)

The Sadistic (Dominant) Pattern

    The sadistic (dominant, or abusive) personality pattern, as do all personality patterns, occurs on a continuum ranging from normal to maladaptive. At the well-adjusted pole are strong-willed, commanding, assertive personalities. Slightly exaggerated features occur in forceful, intimidating, controlling personalities. In its most deeply ingrained, inflexible form, the sadistic pattern displays itself in domineering, belligerent, highly aggressive behavior patterns.

    Stephen Strack (1997) offers the following description of the normal (forceful; i.e., assertive or controlling) prototype of the sadistic pattern:

[These individuals] seem driven to prove their worthiness. They are characterized by an assertive, dominant, and tough-minded personal style. They tend to be strong-willed, ambitious, competitive, and self-determined. . . . In work settings, these personalities are often driven to excel. They work hard to achieve their goals, are competitive, and do well where they can take control or work independently. In supervisory or leadership positions, these persons usually take charge and see to it that a job gets done. (From Strack, 1997, p. 490, with minor modifications)

All personality patterns have predictable, reliable, observable psychological indicators. The diagnostic features of the sadistic pattern with respect to each of the eight fundamental attribute domains assessed in Millon’s (1996) psychodiagnostic model are summarized below.

    Expressive behavior.  The core diagnostic feature of the expressive acts of dominant individuals is assertiveness; they are tough, strong-willed, outspoken, competitive, and unsentimental. More exaggerated variants of this pattern are characteristically forceful; they are controlling, contentious, and at times overbearing, their power-oriented tendencies being evident in occasional intransigence, stubbornness, and coercive behaviors. When they feel strongly about something, these individuals can be quite blunt, brusque, and impatient, with sudden, abrupt outbursts of an unwarranted or precipitous nature. The most extreme variants of this pattern are aggressive; they are intimidating, domineering, argumentative, and precipitously belligerent. They derive pleasure from humiliating others and can be quite malicious. For this reason, people often shy away from these personalities, sensing them to be cold, callous, and insensitive to the feelings of others. All variants of this pattern tend to view tender emotions as a sign of weakness, avoid expressions of warmth and intimacy, and are suspicious of gentility, compassion, and kindness. Many insist on being seen as faultless; however, they invariably are inflexible and dogmatic, rarely conceding on any issue—even in the face of evidence negating the validity of their position. They have a low frustration threshold and are especially sensitive to reproach or deprecation. When pushed on personal matters, they can become furious and are likely to respond reflexively and often vindictively, especially when feeling humiliated or belittled. Thus, they are easily provoked to attack, their first inclination being to dominate and demean their adversaries. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 483, 487)

    Interpersonal conduct.  The core diagnostic feature of the interpersonal conduct of dominant individuals is their commanding presence; they are powerful, authoritative, directive, and persuasive. More exaggerated variants of this pattern are characteristically intimidating; they tend to be abrasive, contentious, coercive, and combative, often dictate to others, and are willing and able to humiliate others to evoke compliance. Their strategy of assertion and dominance has an important instrumental purpose in interpersonal relations, as most people are intimidated by hostility, sarcasm, criticism, and threats. Thus, these personalities are adept at having their way by browbeating others into respect and submission. The most extreme variants of this pattern are belligerent; they reveal satisfaction in intimidating, coercing, and humiliating others. Individuals with all gradations of this pattern frequently find a successful niche for themselves in roles where hostile and belligerent behaviors are socially sanctioned or admired, thus providing an outlet for vengeful hostility cloaked in the guise of social responsibility. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 484; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 32)

    Cognitive style.  The core diagnostic feature of the cognitive style of dominant individuals is its opinionated nature; they are outspoken, emphatic, and adamant, holding strong beliefs that they vigorously defend. More exaggerated variants of this pattern tend to be dogmatic; they are inflexible and closed-minded, lacking objectivity and clinging obstinately to preconceived ideas, beliefs, and values. The most extreme variants of this pattern are narrow-mindedly bigoted; they are socially intolerant and inherently prejudiced, especially toward envied or derogated social groups. Some of these individuals have a crude, callous exterior and seem coarsely unperceptive. This notwithstanding, all variants of this pattern are finely attuned to the subtle elements of human interaction, keenly aware of the moods and feelings of others, and skilled at using others’ foibles and sensitivities to manipulate them for their own purposes. The more extreme variants of this pattern, in particular, are quick to turn another’s perceived weaknesses to their own advantage—often in an intentionally callous manner—by upsetting the other’s equilibrium in their quest to dominate and control. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 484–485)

    Mood/temperament.  The core diagnostic feature of the characteristic mood and temperament of dominant individuals is irritability; they have an excitable temper that they may at times find difficult to control. More exaggerated variants of this pattern tend to be cold and unfriendly; they are disinclined to experience and express tender feelings, and have a volatile temper that flares readily into contentious argument and physical belligerence. The most extreme variants of this pattern evince pervasive hostility and anger; they are fractious, mean-spirited, and malicious, with callous disregard for the rights of others. Their volcanic temper seems perpetually primed to erupt, sometimes into physical belligerence. More than any other personality type, people with the extreme variant of this pattern are willing to do harm and persecute others if necessary to have their way. All variants of the pattern are prone to anger and to a greater or lesser extent deficient in the capacity to share warm or tender feelings, to experience genuine affection and love for another, or to empathize with the needs of others. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 486; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 32)

    Self-image.  The core diagnostic feature of the self-image of dominant individuals is that they view themselves as assertive; they perceive themselves as forthright, unsentimental, and bold. More exaggerated variants of this pattern recognize their fundamentally competitive nature; they are strong-willed, energetic, and commanding, and may take pride in describing themselves as tough and realistically hardheaded. More exaggerated variants of this pattern perceive themselves as powerful; they are combative, viewing themselves as self-reliant, unyielding, and strong—hard-boiled, perhaps, but unflinching, honest, and realistic. They seem proud to characterize themselves as competitive, vigorous, and militantly hardheaded, which is consistent of their “dog-eat-dog” view of the world. Though more extreme variants may enhance their sense of self by overvaluing aspects of themselves that present a pugnacious, domineering, and power-oriented image, it is rare for these personalities to acknowledge malicious or vindictive motives. Thus, hostile behavior on their part is typically framed in prosocial terms, which enhances their sense of self. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 485; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 32)

    Regulatory mechanisms.  The core diagnostic feature of the regulatory (i.e., ego-defense) mechanisms of highly dominant individuals is isolation; they are able to detach themselves emotionally from the impact of their aggressive acts upon others. These personalities may have learned that there are times when it is best to restrain and transmute their more aggressive thoughts and feelings. Thus, they may soften and redirect their hostility, typically by employing the mechanisms of rationalization, sublimation, and projection, all of which lend themselves in some fashion to finding plausible and socially acceptable excuses for less than admirable impulses and actions. Thus, blunt directness may be rationalized as signifying frankness and honesty, a lack of hypocrisy, and a willingness to face issues head on. On the longer term, socially sanctioned resolution (i.e., sublimation) of hostile urges is seen in the competitive occupations to which these aggressive personalities gravitate. Finally, these personalities may preempt the disapproval they anticipate from others by projecting their hostility onto them, thereby justifying their aggressive actions as mere counteraction to unjust persecution. Individuals with extreme, malignant variations of this pattern may engage in group scapegoating, viewing the objects of their violations impersonally as despised symbols of a devalued people, empty of dignity and deserving degradation. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 485–486)

    Object representations.  The core diagnostic feature of the internalized object representations of highly dominant individuals is their pernicious nature. Characteristically, there is a marked paucity of tender and sentimental objects, and an underdevelopment of images that activate feelings of shame or guilt. The inner templates that guide the perceptions and behaviors of individuals with extreme, malignant variations of this pattern are composed of aggressive feelings and memories, and images comprising harsh relationships and malicious attitudes. Consequently, their life experience is recast to reflect the expectancy of hostility and the need to preempt it. These dynamics undergird a “jungle philosophy” of life where the only perceived recourse is to act in a bold, critical, assertive, and ruthless manner. Of particular note is the harsh, antihumanistic disposition of the more extreme variants among these personalities. Some are adept at pointing out the hypocrisy and ineffectuality of so-called “do-gooders.” Others justify their toughness and cunning by pointing to the hostile and exploitative behavior of others; to them, the only way to survive in this world is to dominate and control. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 485)

    Morphologic organization.  The core diagnostic feature of the morphologic organization of highly dominant individuals is its eruptiveness; powerful energies are so forceful that they periodically overwhelm these personalities’ otherwise adequate modulating controls, defense operations, and expressive channels, resulting in the harsh behavior commonly seen in these personalities. This tendency is exacerbated by the unrestrained expression of intense and explosive emotions stemming from early life experiences. Moreover, these personalities dread the thought of being vulnerable, of being deceived, and of being humiliated. Viewing people as basically ruthless, these personalities are driven to gain power over others, to dominate them and outmaneuver or outfox them at their own game. Personal feelings are regarded as a sign of weakness and dismissed as mere maudlin sentimentality. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 486)

The Negativistic (Contentious) Pattern

The negativistic (contentious) personality pattern, as do all personality patterns, occurs on a continuum ranging from normal to maladaptive. At the well-adjusted pole are cynical, headstrong, resolute personalities. Exaggerated negativistic features occur in complaining, irksome, oppositional personalities. In its most deeply ingrained, inflexible form, the negativistic pattern displays itself in caustic, contrary, negativistic behavior patterns.

    Millon (1994) describes the normal (complaining; i.e., resolute or oppositional) prototype of the negativistic pattern as follows:

[These individuals] often assert that they have been treated unfairly, that little of what they have done has been appreciated, and that they have been blamed for things that they did not do. Opportunities seem not to have worked out well for them and they “know” that good things don’t last. Often resentful of what they see as unfair demands placed on them, they may be disinclined to carry out responsibilities as well as they could. Ambivalent about their lives and relationships, they may get into problematic wrangles and disappointments as they vacillate between acceptance one time and resistance the next. When matters go well, they can be productive and constructively independent-minded, willing to speak out to remedy troublesome issues. (p. 34)

    Strack (1997) provides the following portrait of the normal (sensitive; i.e., resolute or oppositional) prototype of the negativistic pattern:

[Negativistic] personalities tend to be unconventional and individualistic in their response to the world. They march to the beat of a different drummer and are frequently unhappy with the status quo. They may be quick to challenge rules or authority deemed arbitrary and unjust. They may also harbor resentment without expressing it directly and may revert to passive-aggressive behavior to make their feelings known. Many sensitive [i.e., normal-range negativistic] people feel as if they don’t fit in, and view themselves as lacking in interpersonal skills. In fact, to others they often appear awkward, nervous, or distracted, and seem angry or dissatisfied with themselves and others. They can be indecisive and have fluctuating moods and interests. An air of uncertainty and general dissatisfaction may reflect an underlying dependency and sense of personal inadequacy. With their best side forward, sensitive [negativistic] persons can be spontaneous, creative, and willing to speak out for what they believe in. These qualities make them especially suited to jobs that are not rule-bound, that give them a certain independence from supervision, and that require unusual duties or creative expression. (From Strack, 1997, pp. 490–491, with minor modifications)

    As stated before, all personality patterns have predictable, reliable, observable psychological indicators. The diagnostic features of the negativistic pattern with respect to each of the eight fundamental attribute domains assessed in Millon’s (1996) psychodiagnostic model are summarized below.

    Expressive behavior.  The core diagnostic feature of the expressive acts of contentious individuals is nonconformity; they are individualistic and independent, tend to be outspoken or unconventional, and are frequently unhappy with the status quo. Thus, they are quick to challenge rules or authority deemed arbitrary and unjust. More exaggerated variants of this pattern are resistant; they are stubborn and oppositional, may act in a procrastinating, irksome, or intentionally inefficient manner, and frequently complain of being misunderstood or unappreciated. Individuals who display the most pronounced variant of this pattern are resentful; they are obstinate and negativistic, often revealing gratification in demoralizing and undermining the pleasures and aspirations of others. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 549–550; Strack, 1997, pp. 490–491)

    Interpersonal conduct.  The core diagnostic feature of the interpersonal conduct of contentious individuals is their unyielding manner; they are superficially acquiescent but fundamentally determined and resolute, even willful, in their independence strivings. More exaggerated variants of this pattern are characteristically obdurate; they are oppositional, recalcitrant, mulish, quarrelsome, or disputatious, often vacillating between contrite acquiescence and assertive, hostile independence, which may be revealed in a pattern of inconsistent or unpredictable attitudes and behaviors. Individuals with the most extreme manifestation of this pattern are truculent; they are contrary, obstructive, or insolent, chronically complaining and overtly resisting performance demands. At times, they may be defiant, sabotaging performance expectations and displaying envy and pique towards those more fortunate. Their acts are concurrently or sequentially obstructive and intolerant of others, and they express predominantly negative, often incompatible, views and attitudes. (Millon, 1996, pp. 550–551)

    Cognitive style.  The core diagnostic feature of the cognitive style of contentious individuals is its freethinking nature; they are inherently critical, skeptical, cynical, and doubting, with a seemingly ingrained tendency to question authority. Their preference for indirect expression of aggressive intent may be reflected in a propensity for sarcasm or barbed humor. More exaggerated variants of this pattern are habitually griping; they display a questioning, querulous, grumbling mindset. Consequently, they tend to approach positive events with disbelief and future possibilities with pessimism, anger, or trepidation. Individuals who display the most pronounced variant of this pattern are overtly negativistic; they are disdainful, caustic, and acerbic, displaying a misanthropic view of life and voicing demoralizing or caustic commentary toward those experiencing good fortune. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 551–552)

    Mood/temperament.  The core diagnostic feature of the characteristic mood and temperament of contentious individuals is moodiness; they are typically sensitive or discontented. Owing to their hypersensitivity, their emotional equilibrium is easily upset, resulting in frequent displays of pessimistic, distraught, or despondent mood. More exaggerated variants of this pattern are more overtly touchy and irritable; they are testy or petulant, and frequently impatient, nettled, or fretful. They are especially prone to displays of sullen, obstinate, resentful moodiness. The most extreme variants of this pattern are chronically disgruntled; they are irate, temperamental, agitated, or peevish, followed in turn by sullen and moody withdrawal. They tend to be petulant and impatient, unreasonably scorn those in authority, and report being easily annoyed, frustrated, or disappointed by others. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 551–552; Millon & Everly, 1985, p. 33)

    Self-image.  The core diagnostic feature of the self-perception of contentious individuals is dissatisfaction; they recognize themselves as being generally discontented or cynical about life. More exaggerated variants of this pattern feel disillusioned; they view themselves as being misunderstood, luckless, unappreciated, jinxed, or demeaned by others. They may have an abiding sense of having been wronged or cheated, that little has worked out well for them. The most extreme variants of this pattern experience a pervasive sense of discontentment; they recognize themselves as being embittered, disgruntled, and disillusioned with life. (Adapted from Millon, 1994, p. 33; Millon, 1996, p. 552)

    Regulatory mechanisms.  The core diagnostic feature of the unconscious regulatory (i.e., ego-defense) mechanisms of highly contentious individuals is displacement; they discharge anger and other troublesome emotions either precipitously or by employing unconscious maneuvers to shift them from their instigator to settings or persons of lesser significance. As a consequence, they vent disapproval or resentment by substitute or passive means, such as acting inept or perplexed or behaving in a forgetful or indolent manner. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 552–553)

    Object representations.  The core diagnostic feature of the internalized object representations of highly contentious individuals is vacillation; internalized representations of the past comprise a complex of countervailing relationships, setting in motion contradictory feelings, conflicting inclinations, and incompatible memories that are driven by the desire to degrade the achievements and pleasures of others, without necessarily appearing so. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, p. 552)

    Morphologic organization.  The core diagnostic feature of the morphological organization of highly contentious individuals is its divergence; there is a clear division in the pattern of morphologic structures such that coping and defensive maneuvers are often directed toward incompatible goals, leaving major conflicts unresolved and full psychic cohesion often impossible because fulfillment of one drive or need inevitably nullifies or reverses another. (Adapted from Millon, 1996, pp. 553)

The Paranoid (Distrusting) Pattern

    There is no normal variant of the paranoid pattern; according to Millon (1996),

it is hard to conceive [of] normal paranoids. Although a number of these individuals restrain their markedly distorted beliefs and assumptions from public view, at no point does their fundamental paranoid inclination manifest itself in an acceptable, no less successful personality style. (p. 705)

    John Oldham and Lois Morris (1995), with their notion of a so-called vigilant style, nonetheless attempt to describe an adaptive version of the paranoid pattern:

Nothing escapes the notice of . . . [people who have a] Vigilant personality style. These individuals possess an exceptional awareness of their environment. . . . Their sensory antennae, continuously scanning the people and situations around them, alert them immediately to what is awry, out of place, dissonant, or dangerous, especially in their dealings with other people. Vigilant types have a special kind of hearing. They are immediately aware of mixed messages, the hidden motivations, the evasions, and the subtlest distortions of the truth that elude or delude less gifted observers. With such a focus, Vigilant individuals naturally assume the roles of social critic, watchdog, ombudsman, and crusader in their private or our public domain, ready to spring upon the improprieties—especially the abuses of power—that poison human affairs. (p. 157)

 Plausible Occupational History

    The Washington DC-area sniper, who is most likely a white male in his thirties, may have recently been fired from or resigned from his job under contentious circumstances. It is conceivable that, like many sadistic personalities, the sniper had found a niche for himself in a job that naturally allowed him to make life difficult for others; that is, an occupation in which vengeful hostility, aggressive intent, and belligerent behaviors can be channeled into socially sanctioned spheres. Indeed, aggression may be so integral to his character that his hobbies, pastimes, and recreational activities convey a common theme of violence. Thus, in addition to a variety of firearms or other weapons, he may have a collection of books and videos about weapons and war. If employed in a supervisory capacity, he likely was inclined to make a public spectacle of intimidating, humiliating, and demeaning his subordinates, leaving no doubt as to whom was in charge. In this regard, he may have enjoyed a modicum of occupational success, though ultimately his threatening and belligerent manner or abuse of power was bound to backfire, resulting in his eventual dismissal or fall from grace. Domineering and controlling behaviors that previously enjoyed the imprimatur of social sanction consequently degenerated into vengeful acts directed against arbitrary victims (Millon, 1996, pp. 499–500; Millon & Davis, 2000, pp. 512–514).

Theoretical Perspectives on Potential Psychological Motives

    From a psychodynamic perspective, the speculations of Erich Fromm (1973) on the malignancy of the sadistic character offer a glimpse into the possible mindset of the sniper: “The essence of sadism, according to Fromm, is the passion to have absolute control over another living being, who thereby becomes the property of the omnipotent controller. Broadening the base of psychoanalysis, Fromm regards the need for absolute control as an existential reaction to the human situation. By becoming the god of those controlled, that is, by controlling life and death itself, the sadist escapes impotence through the sensation of power” (Millon & Davis, 2000, p. 519). Thus, sadism serves as compensation for powerlessness in the face of the vagaries of life’s rewards.

    From an interpersonal perspective, the fundamental goal of sadism “is to intimidate, humiliate, exploit, manipulate, frustrate, and depersonalize.” Sadists are fascinated as much by the victims’ awareness that they are at their mercy as by their actual control over their victims. “In its most malignant form, sadism is self-conscious, planned, and organized” (Millon & Davis, 2000, p. 522).

    From a cognitive perspective, sadistic personalities, though repressing their own vulnerability and inferiority, have sophisticated mental models and a keen understanding of the insecurities and fears of others, which they skillfully use as ammunition to intimidate and coerce (Millon & Davis, 2000, p. 524).

    The biological foundations of the sadistic personality have not been empirically established. It has been suggested, however, that sadism may be associated with a mesomorphic physique: “Every bully needs some surplus of height and muscle to maintain a position of dominance that makes social aggression rewarding.” Others merely victimize those smaller and weaker than themselves (Millon & Davis, 2000, p. 525).

 References

Fromm, E. (1973). The anatomy of human destructiveness. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Millon, T. (with Weiss, L. G., Millon, C. M., & Davis, R. D.). (1994). Millon Index of Personality Styles manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Millon, T. (with Davis, R. D.). (1996). Disorders of personality: DSM–IV and beyond (2^nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Millon, T., & Davis, R. D. (2000). Personality disorders in modern life. New York: Wiley.

Millon, T., & Everly, G. S., Jr. (1985). Personality and its disorders: A biosocial learning approach. New York: Wiley.

Oldham, J. M., & Morris, L. B. (1995). The new personality self-portrait (Rev. ed.). New York: Bantam Books.

Strack, S. (1997). The PACL: Gauging normal personality styles. In T. Millon (Ed.), The Millon inventories: Clinical and personality assessment (pp. 477–497). New York: Guilford.

Page maintained by Aubrey Immelman

www.csbsju.edu/Research/Sniper.html

Last updated October 10, 2002