Psychophysiological Reactivity Profiles of Partner-Violent Men With Borderline or Psychopathic Personality Features: The Role of Empathy

Abstract

Borderline and psychopathic features have been linked to unique psychophysiological reactivity profiles. Studies have suggested that levels of psychophysiological reactivity for partner-violent men cannot be attributed to personality features alone. This study tested cognitive and affective empathy as moderators of relations between borderline personality, Factor 1 psychopathy, and psychophysiological reactivity using a community sample of 135 male participants and their female partners. Cognitive empathy moderated the relation between borderline personality features and heart rate reactivity. Affective empathy moderated the relation between Factor 1 psychopathy features and heart rate reactivity. However, directions of these interactions were contrary to original predictions. Understanding unique empathy deficits may be beneficial for identifying ways to minimize relationship conflict, manage arousal, and decrease violence.

Keywords

borderline personality psychopathy psychophysiological reactivity intimate partner violence

Researchers have instituted many frameworks through which to characterize partner-violent men, including but not limited to, their use of proactive or reactive violence (Chase, O’Leary, & Heyman, 2001), personality disorders (Ross & Babcock, 2009), heart rate change (Gottman, Jacobson, Rushe, & Shortt, 1995), control tactics (Johnson, 2008), and attachment styles (Babcock, Jacobson, Gottman, & Yerington, 2000). Although these distinctions provide a useful foundation, they often fail to consider the significant overlap of features and behaviors that are present in different types of partner-violent men. To synthesize the multiple typologies of partner-violent men, Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) developed a meta-typology based on severity of violence, generality of violence, and personality and psychopathological characteristics. The subtypes they created include generally violent/antisocial, borderline/dysphoric, and family-only men. Although this meta-typology encompasses important differences among partner-violent men, it nonetheless fails to sufficiently account for the overlap of characteristics. In particular, features of borderline personality disorder (BPD) and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) are highly comorbid, sharing symptoms such as impulsivity and externalizing problems (Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge, and Tolin (1996). As such, the current study contrasted borderline personality features and a theoretically distinct factor of psychopathy, rather than antisocial personality, among partner-violent men.

Borderline and Psychopathic Features and Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

Researchers have demonstrated that a BPD diagnosis—which is characterized by various combinations of pervasive instability in interpersonal relationships, poor self-image, emotion regulation deficits, and fears of real or perceived abandonment—increases the propensity for men to be violent with intimate partners (Costa & Babcock, 2008). Although BPD has traditionally been conceptualized by the presence of self-directed aggression, researchers have investigated connections between a range of BPD characteristics and externalizing behaviors related to violence, including mood instability, anger, feelings of jealousy, and fear of abandonment (Liu et al., 2012). In the context of mood disturbances, “affective instability” and “unstable, intense relationships” specifically account for a significant portion of violence escalation in these individuals (Raine, 1993). Further supporting the link between BPD and violence, researchers identified the association between BPD and severe forms of violence even after controlling for Axis I disorders like depression and anxiety (Bouchard, Sabourin, Lussier, & Villeneuve, 2009).

Although ASPD and BPD have shared developmental origins (Waltz, Babcock, Jacobson, & Gottman, 2000), psychopathy, on the contrary, is conceptually distinct from BPD. Psychopathy is broadly conceptualized by diminished remorse, manipulativeness, callousness, deceitfulness, and violation of social norms (Hare, 2003) and is a strong predictor of both general violence and IPV (Leistico, Salekin, DeCoster, & Rogers, 2008). Psychopathic partner-violent men tend to have little investment in moral values, be impulsive, lack remorse, and tend to manipulate others (Fowler & Westen, 2011). Researchers have elucidated that the relation between Factor 1 psychopathy and IPV is especially strong in men (Mager, Bresin, & Verona, 2014). The two-factor structure of psychopathy is well recognized and organizes features into two higher order factors, which contain little to no overlap in characteristics (Benning, Patrick, Hicks, Blonigen, & Krueger, 2003). Factor 1 is the interpersonal-affective factor of psychopathy and is characterized by superficial charm, grandiosity, and deceitfulness. Factor 1 psychopathy is particularly distinguishable from both BPD and ASPD since its hallmark features of callousness and unemotional disregard for others are not part of the conceptualization of either of these personality disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Factor 2 psychopathy, the impulsive-antisocial factor, includes features such as risk taking, aggressiveness, and disregard for the safety of others. Although this factor represents externalizing behavior problems that are related to those in ASPD (Patrick, Hicks, Krueger, & Lang, 2005) and BPD (Verona, Sprague, & Javdani, 2012), the construct of psychopathy overall is conceptually distinct from both ASPD and BPD.

Babcock Canady et al. (2005) conducted an exploratory factor analysis of borderline personality and antisocial personality and discovered that these personality constructs yielded a one-factor solution, which was corroborated by a confirmatory factor analysis. However, when treated as two factors, borderline personality and antisocial personality were strongly positively correlated. In addition, borderline personality and Factor 1 psychopathy were negatively related and all subscales of the Personality Assessment Inventory–Borderline Scale (PAI-BOR; Morey, 1991) were uniquely distinct from Factor 1 psychopathy. These results further exemplify why contrasting borderline personality with Factor 1 psychopathy—rather than antisocial personality—would be more conducive to identifying differences across subtypes of partner-violent men.

Psychophysiological Reactivity

Psychopathy and BPD have been examined in previous research according to differences on dimensions of psychophysiological reactivity. Researchers who have investigated psychophysiological processes in psychopaths indicate that these individuals evidence low arousal patterns and skin conductance reactivity (Eysenck, 1997; Newman, Wallace, Schmitt, & Arnett, 1997). It is generally accepted that psychopaths have low fear levels and tend to experience signs of hypoarousal in their psychophysiological processes (Herpertz, Kunert, Schwenger, Eng, & Sass, 1999). Findings on psychophysiological reactivity in individuals with BPD have varied. Many researchers have concluded that individuals with BPD maintain high sensitivity to emotional stimuli, increased psychophysiological reactivity, and rapid changes in affect when exposed to emotional situations (Herpertz et al., 1997; Linehan, 1993). Herpertz et al. (2001) found contrary evidence in their discovery that criminals with BPD did not differ from normal controls on levels of electrodermal responsiveness, facial expression, and affective startle modulation. However, this study only assessed individuals who engaged in general criminality rather than examining potential differences in partner-violent men specifically.

Gottman et al. (1995) performed one of the first studies to identify differences in partner-violent men based on combinations of psychophysiological reactivity, abusiveness, and psychopathology. They identified two distinct types of partner-violent men: Type 1 men evidenced a decrease in heart rate relative to baseline while they participated in a conflict discussion with their female partners, whereas Type 2 men displayed increased heart rate relative to baseline. Type 1 men engaged in more severe violence against their female partners and were more likely to be violent outside of their relationship as compared with Type 2 men. Although psychopathy and borderline personality were not formally assessed, Jacobson and Gottman (1998) subsequently elaborated on what they believed were notable personality differences in Type 1 and Type 2 men: Type 1 men were thought to be psychopathic, calculating, and manipulative, whereas Type 2 men were thought to be dependent and emotionally unstable.

Subsequent efforts to replicate the findings of Gottman et al. (1995) were unsuccessful, further exemplifying the inconsistencies associated with the link between personality and psychophysiological reactivity in partner-violent men (Babcock, Green, Webb, & Graham, 2004; Meehan & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2001). In the Gottman et al. (1995) study, there was insufficient time for obtaining baseline measurements of heart rate reactivity (Babcock, Green, et al., 2004) and marital interaction tasks are generally not tightly standardized (Meehan, Holtzworth-Munroe, 2001). Although subgroups in which men’s heart rates decelerate can be found, there are no differences between Type 1 and Type 2 men based on antisocial, borderline, and psychopathic personality features (Meehan, Holtzworth-Munroe, & Herron, 2001).

These methodological concerns, inconsistent findings, and replication failures prompt questions about other variables that may influence the strength and direction of relations between personality and psychophysiological reactivity in partner-violent men. Although identifying individual influences on psychophysiological reactivity can be a complex process, measurable variables, such as anger and discomfort during an interaction task, could be responsible for influencing heart rate reactivity among different groups of partner-violent men (Meehan et al., 2001). Further investigations of the conditions under which partner-violent men with borderline or psychopathic personality features display unique psychophysiological reactivity profiles during conflict interactions are necessary and can be aided by examining potential moderating influences. Understanding the role of psychophysiological reactivity during conflict situations—especially with the use of a naturalistic emotional task—is crucial for identifying emotion regulation processes across different types of IPV perpetrators and can inform implementation of individually tailored interventions (Babcock, Green, Webb, & Yerington, 2005).

Empathy

Empathy is one such variable that may impact psychophysiological reactivity during an emotional task. Empathy is related to both BPD and psychopathy, but in different ways. In general, empathy is defined as socially relevant awareness through which individuals relate to experiences of others on multiple levels of processing (Davis, 1994). The prosocial abilities consistent with high levels of empathy are inversely related to aggressive behavior. Most researchers agree that empathy is a multifaceted construct that can be expressed both cognitively and emotionally (Duan & Hill, 1996). Cognitive empathy represents the ability to imagine oneself in the situation of another without necessarily emotionally relating to the individual. Affective empathy is defined as one’s emotional response to the emotional expression of another individual (Péloquin & Lafontaine, 2010).

The differential impacts of empathy deficits have also been classified relative to personality features. Researchers have elucidated the presence of empathic dysfunction during socially stressful situations in individuals with qualities associated with BPD (Dziobek et al., 2011). These individuals likely experience hyperarousal when processing emotional representations of others’ mental states (Ripoll, Snyder, Steele, & Siever, 2013). Individuals with borderline personality features are able to successfully identify emotional states of others but are less adept at empathizing through shifting their perspectives. As such, the role of cognitive empathy and how it contributes to the trademark psychophysiological hyperarousal and hypersensitivity to others’ actions and emotions as evidenced in BPD require further investigation.

Conversely, researchers have found negative relations between affective empathy and psychopathy (Blair, 2005; Cox et al., 2012). The relevance of affective empathy is exceptionally pronounced in “dark triad” personalities, which encompass the socially aversive characteristics involved in psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002; Wai & Tiliopoulos, 2012). Psychopathic individuals have poorer empathic accuracy relative to others. This is particularly true of Factor 1 psychopathy, the interpersonal-affective factor of psychopathy. Although psychopathic individuals do not have deficits in cognitive empathy, as they are generally able to successfully identify the perspectives of others, they do have deficits in affective empathy. These affective empathy deficits may be central to the emotional states and behaviors associated with psychopathy, a syndrome marked by propensities to overlook or disregard potential harm to others, have self-oriented motivations, and have an arrogant interpersonal style (Wai & Tiliopoulos, 2012).

Most researchers have examined empathy deficits in the context of general violence and few have extended these explorations to IPV specifically. However, Covell, Huss, and Langhinrichsen-Rohling (2007) used a multimodal representation of empathy, as evidenced in the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980), to examine a sample of partner-violent men. Results suggested that deficits in perspective taking, a component of cognitive empathy, were associated with perpetrators who tend to feel misunderstood or maligned by others and take their frustration out through the use of violence. The features of these perpetrators are similar to those of BPD. Another subtype contained perpetrators who experienced difficulty relating to the affective experiences of others, were more likely to adopt arrogant interpersonal styles, and were only concerned with how the situations of others affected them personally. These perpetrators appear to resemble psychopathic individuals.

The Current Study

Given previous failures to replicate the Gottman et al.’s (1995) study, additional factors, such as empathy, may be responsible for influencing the strength or direction of relations between personality and psychophysiological reactivity in partner-violent men. Identifying unique empathy deficits within the context of personality features may be an important component to incorporate into future interventions to increase sensitivity to the heterogeneous presenting concerns apparent in perpetrators. In this study, relations between both borderline personality features and Factor 1 psychopathy features and psychophysiological reactivity were initially examined. Although previous studies indicate a positive relation between borderline personality features and psychophysiological reactivity and a negative relation between Factor 1 psychopathy features and psychophysiological reactivity, studies of partner-violent men specifically have not evidenced differential psychophysiological profiles based on personality features alone. As such, the unique effects of cognitive empathy on the borderline personality–psychophysiological reactivity link and affective empathy on the Factor 1 psychopathy–psychophysiological reactivity link were examined in an effort to better explain strength and direction for these relations. We hypothesized the following:

Hypothesis 1: Cognitive empathy will moderate the relation between borderline personality features and psychophysiological reactivity, such that partner-violent men with low scores in cognitive empathy will show a positive relation between borderline personality features and psychophysiological reactivity.

Hypothesis 2: Affective empathy will moderate the relation between Factor 1 psychopathy features and psychophysiological reactivity, such that partner-violent men with low scores in affective empathy will show a negative relation between Factor 1 psychopathy features and psychophysiological reactivity.

Method

Participants

Participants in the current study were recruited as part of a larger project that investigated psychophysiological reactivity and IPV. Newspaper advertisements and flyers were used to recruit “couples experiencing conflict.” For inclusion, participants must have been married or living together as if married for at least 6 months, been at least 18 years of age, been in a heterosexual relationship, and been able to read and write English fluently. The final sample for the current study consisted of 135 male participants and their female partners. Average age for male participants was 32.02 years (SD = 10.21) and average age for female participants was 29.99 (SD = 9.39) years. Of those who reported income, the majority of participants’ yearly household income fell in the range of US$20,000 to US$30,000. Approximately 47% of participants were African American, 14% were Hispanic, 25% were Caucasian, 2% were Asian, and 12% identified as members of other racial and/or ethnic groups. Approximately 33% were high school graduates or earned their General Education Diploma (GED), 47% earned their associate’s or a technical degree, and 10% were college graduates.

Procedure

All study protocols were approved by the university institutional review board. Interested couples were contacted by phone and potential female participants were first administered with the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale–2 (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). For couples to be included in the study, there must have been at least two acts of male-to-female physical violence in the preceding year and the female partner must have not have anticipated future violence from her partner as a result of participating in the study. Women were discouraged from participating if they anticipated increased violence from their partner. Data were collected over two assessment periods, each of which lasted approximately 3 hr. Only males attended the first session and filled out pencil and paper questionnaires. During the second session, both males and females were initially administered with questionnaires, including measures of violence and relationship functioning, and were subsequently reunited for an interview and a marital interaction task (during which psychophysiological reactivity was measured). Participants independently ranked how much difficulty they experience with relationship areas that are typically connected to marital discord using a modified version of the Knox Problem Solving Inventory (Knox, 1971). Following this, couples jointly participated in the Play-by-Play Interview (Hooven, Rushe, & Gottman, 1996) to determine an appropriate topic to discuss during the marital interaction task (Sommer, Iyican, & Babcock, 2016). During the marital interaction task, couples discussed an area of conflict in their relationships. Heart rate and skin conductance were measured continuously over a 4-min baseline period and 7.5-min conflict discussion.

Questionnaire Measures

Borderline personality features

Borderline personality features were assessed among male participants through graduate researchers’ administration of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991). For the current study, only responses to items in the Borderline scale (BOR) were used. The BOR scale contains four six-item subscales: affective instability (BOR-A), negative relationships (BOR-N), identity problems (BOR-I), and self-harm (BOR-S). Responses to items in the four subscales were made on 4-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (false, not at all true) to 4 (very true). The BOR scale of the PAI shows adequate internal consistency (α = .93 in a community sample), convergent validity, and discriminant validity (Gardner & Qualter, 2009; Kurtz, Morey, & Tomarken, 1993; Morey, 1991). In the current study, the PAI-BOR showed adequate internal consistency (α = .74).

Factor 1 psychopathy features

Psychopathy features were assessed among male participants using the 56-item Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Short Form (PPI-SF; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). In addition to the full-length PPI, the short form was also developed by Lilienfeld and is typically used in research settings (Lilienfeld & Hess, 2001). This measure contains eight subscales, each comprised items answered on a 4-point Likert-type scale. Male participants were asked the extent to which they agree with each statement. Responses were made on scales that range from 1 (false) to 4 (true). Social influence, fearlessness, and stress immunity are the subscales that load onto Factor 1 (Benning et al., 2003). For this study, only responses to items for Factor 1 were used. The PPI-SF maintains high internal consistency (α = .85) and adequate discriminant validity. In the current study, the PPI-SF showed adequate internal consistency (α = .70).

Empathy

Empathy was assessed among male participants using the 28-item IRI (Davis, 1980). This measure contains four subscales, each comprised seven items answered on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Responses were made on scales that range from 0 (does not describe me well) to 4 (describes me very well). The Perspective Taking and Fantasy subscales load onto the cognitive empathy factor and the empathic concern, and Personal Distress subscales load onto the affective empathy factor (Péloquin & Lafontaine, 2010). The Perspective Taking subscale measures an individual’s ability to adopt another person’s viewpoint. The Fantasy subscale measures an individual’s ability to identity with figures in fictional scenarios. The Empathic Concern subscale measures an individual’s sentiments of compassion and concern for others. The Personal Distress subscale measures discomfort or anxiety associated with observing others’ negative experiences. Internal consistencies for the full scale range from .71 to .77 and test–retest reliabilities range from .62 to .81 (Davis, 1980). In the current study, the IRI showed adequate internal consistency (α = .77).

Psychophysiological Measures

Heart rate reactivity

Heart rate was measured using three pregelled, 30-mm square Unitrace, alligator-clip-type electrodes which were placed on chests of male participants. The first two electrodes were placed in a bipolar arrangement on opposite sides of the chest. The third electrode was placed on the sternum and acted as a foundation. The interbeat interval (IBI) data analysis program (Long, 1998) recorded R-waves on a second-by-second basis, allowing beats per minute to be determined. Heart rate change was calculated from average heart rate during the 7.5-min conflict discussion minus average heart rate across the 4-min baseline. Increased heart rate is usually indicative of alpha- and beta-adrenergic activation or parasympathetic inhibition.

Skin conductance change

Skin conductance change was measured using two James Long Company Ag/AgCl (1 cm diameter) electrodes, which contained an isotonic solution. The electrodes were placed on the first and third phalanges of each male participant’s nondominant hand. Sweat gland secretion was recorded in microsiemens. Skin conductance change was calculated from average skin conductance during the 7.5-min conflict discussion minus the average skin conductance across the 4-min baseline. Skin conductance is intended to be a relatively robust measure of sympathetic activation.

Results

Moderating Effects of Cognitive and Affective Empathy

Analyses were conducted on demographic characteristics, including age, race, education level, and income. There were no significant associations between demographic characteristics and the dependent variables of heart rate reactivity and skin conductance change. Initial intercorrelations revealed that borderline personality features and Factor 1 psychopathy features were negatively related (r = −.29, p < .01), supporting the notion that these two personality types have distinct underpinnings (see Table 1). Four moderated multiple regressions were performed to test the moderating effects of cognitive and affective empathy. All predictor and moderator variables were centered by subtracting their means, and interaction terms were created. Interaction terms were represented graphically by calculating predicted values of dependent (heart rate reactivity and skin conductance change) variables for those who were one standard deviation above or below the means for predictor (borderline personality features and Factor 1 psychopathy features) and moderator (cognitive empathy and affective empathy) variables (Frazier, Tix, & Barron, 2004). Scoring greater than or equal to one standard deviation above the mean constituted qualifying as “high” on an attribute, whereas scoring greater than or equal to one standard deviation below the mean constituted qualifying as “low.” According to this procedure, 27 individuals qualified as low on borderline personality features, 22 individuals qualified as high on borderline personality features, 14 individuals were low on Factor 1 psychopathy features, 24 individuals were high on Factor 1 psychopathy features, 26 individuals were low on cognitive empathy, 21 individuals were high on cognitive empathy, 13 individuals were low on affective empathy, and 19 individuals were high on affective empathy. Recommendations for establishing moderation were followed (Frazier et al., 2004).

Table 1.

Intercorrelations for Independent, Dependent, and Moderator Variables.

Variable	Factor 1 psychopathy	HR change	SC change	Cognitive empathy	Affective empathy
Borderline personality	−.29**	.11	.09	.05	−.02
Factor 1 psychopathy	—	−.16	.05	.08	−.32**
HR change		—	−.05	.27*	.19
SC change			—	.20	.16
Cognitive empathy				—	.42**
Affective empathy					—

Note. HR = heart rate; SC = skin conductance.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Cognitive empathy as a moderator

It was hypothesized that men low in cognitive empathy would show a positive relation between borderline personality features and both heart rate reactivity and skin conductance change. Multiple regression revealed that there was a significant interaction between borderline personality features and cognitive empathy in predicting heart rate reactivity (β = .36, p < .01; see Table 2). The R² change associated with the interaction term was .13, meaning that the interaction between borderline personality features and cognitive empathy explained an additional 13% of the variance in heart rate reactivity over and above the 9% explained by the first-order effects of borderline personality features and cognitive empathy alone. However, the specific direction of the interaction was contrary to predictions. For men low in cognitive empathy, borderline personality features and heart rate reactivity were negatively related, whereas for men high in cognitive empathy, borderline personality features and heart rate reactivity were positively related (see Figure 1). Multiple regression revealed that there was not a significant interaction between borderline personality features and cognitive empathy in predicting skin conductance change (β = −.13, p = .21). There were no significant main effects for borderline personality features or cognitive empathy in predicting skin conductance change.

Table 2.

Multiple Regression Testing Moderating Effects of Cognitive Empathy in Predicting Heart Rate Reactivity.

Step and variable	B	SE B	95% CI	β	R ²
Step 1
Borderline personality	.18	.18	[−0.16, 0.53]	.12
Cognitive empathy	.63	.25	[0.13, 1.13]	.28	.09*
Step 2
Borderline Personality × Cognitive Empathy	.07	.02	[0.03, 0.10]	.36	.13**

Note. CI = confidence interval.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 1.

Borderline personality features and cognitive empathy interaction on heart rate reactivity.

Affective empathy as a moderator

It was hypothesized that in conditions of low affective empathy, men would show a positive relation between Factor 1 psychopathy features and both heart rate reactivity and skin conductance change. Multiple regression revealed that there was a significant interaction between Factor 1 psychopathy features and affective empathy in predicting heart rate reactivity (β = −.43, p < .001; see Table 3). The R² change associated with the interaction term was .15, meaning that the interaction between Factor 1 psychopathy features and affective empathy explained an additional 15% of the variance in heart rate reactivity over and above the 5% explained by the first-order effects of Factor 1 psychopathy features and affective empathy alone. However, the specific direction of the interaction was also contrary to predictions. For men low in affective empathy, Factor 1 psychopathy features and heart rate reactivity were positively related, whereas for men high in affective empathy, Factor 1 psychopathy features and heart rate reactivity were negatively related (see Figure 2). Multiple regression revealed that there was not a significant interaction between Factor 1 psychopathy features and affective empathy in predicting skin conductance change (β = .15, p = .19). There were no significant main effects for Factor 1 psychopathy features and affective empathy in predicting skin conductance change.

Table 3.

Multiple Regression Testing Moderating Effects of Affective Empathy in Predicting Heart Rate Reactivity.

Step and variable	B	SE B	95% CI	β	R ²
Step 1
Factor 1 psychopathy	−.27	.23	[−0.73, 0.20]	−.13
Affective empathy	.42	.30	[−0.17, 1.01]	.16	.05
Step 2
Factor 1 Psychopathy × Affective Empathy	−.15	.04	[−0.22, −0.07]	−.43	.15***

Note. CI = confidence interval.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 2.

Factor 1 psychopathy features and affective empathy interaction on heart rate reactivity.

Discussion

This study tested the respective impacts of cognitive and affective empathy levels in partner-violent men with features of borderline personality and Factor 1 psychopathy. Cognitive and affective empathy were found to moderate relations between personality variables and heart rate reactivity only. Similar to previous studies that failed to replicate the Gottman et al.’s (1995) typologies, the results of this study do not suggest that there are differential psychophysiological profiles of partner-violent men based on personality features alone (Babcock, Green, Webb, & Graham, 2004; Meehan, & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2001).

Although there was an interaction between cognitive empathy and borderline personality features in predicting heart rate reactivity, the type of interaction proved to be contrary to predictions. There was a negative relation between borderline personality features and heart rate reactivity for men with low cognitive empathy, but a positive relation for men with high cognitive empathy. These findings suggest that, for partner-violent men with high levels of borderline personality features and cognitive empathy deficits, their psychophysiological profiles may actually resemble the hyporeactivity typically evidenced in men with psychopathic features. Conversely, in cases of high cognitive empathy, the tendency for men with borderline personality features to be disproportionately personally affected by the experiences of others may lead them to display psychophysiological hyperreactivity in times of conflict with their partners. This corroborates other evidence of problematic interpersonal consequences associated with hypermentalizing in individuals with borderline personality features (Ripoll et al., 2013), which may result from an overactive resonance with the mental states of others and weaker abilities to modulate emotional reactions. Hypermentalizing is a social cognitive process defined by overly attributing intentions, ideas, beliefs, and wishes to other people. This process of evaluating the mental states of others in a biased way can lead to interpersonal misunderstandings and problematic interactions (Sharp, 2014). For individuals with elevated borderline personality features, the predisposition to hypermentalize may prompt psychophysiological arousal (i.e., heart rate reactivity) in such a way that inhibits problem-solving capacities and contributes to further dysfunction in relationships. As such, these individuals may be subjected to additional psychophysiological consequences, including enhanced activity of the amygdala, which is a brain structure involved in experiencing emotions (Frick et al., 2012). Specifically, previous research has shown that individuals with borderline personality features evidence amygdala hyperreactivity and lack of habituation when evaluating interpersonal stimuli (Hazlett et al., 2012; New et al., 2009). Amygdala hyperreactivity manifests during displays of aggression, which theoretically may result from hypersensitivity to stressors in intimate relationships.

Affective empathy levels appeared to influence heart rate reactivity substantially for men with low levels of Factor 1 psychopathy features only. This suggests that when levels of Factor 1 psychopathy features are low, those with low affective empathy demonstrate evidence of heart rate hyporeactivity, whereas those with high affective empathy demonstrate increased heart rate reactivity. In cases of high Factor 1 psychopathy features, the difference in heart rate reactivity according to affective empathy levels diminishes. High levels of Factor 1 psychopathy features may buffer the effects of affective empathy levels on heart rate reactivity of partner-violent men. Perhaps men with high levels of Factor 1 psychopathy features are more adept at maintaining low reactivity that would normally result from emotional empathy and better able to control their arousal states. Although it appears that controlling arousal level may be advantageous, it may prompt negative consequences of emotional detachment, including uninhibited aggression (Leistico et al., 2008).

Neither cognitive nor affective empathy moderated relations between personality variables and skin conductance change. This finding is surprising considering previous evidence reflecting the differential patterns of skin conductance change associated with both BPD and psychopathy (Eysenck, 1997; Herpertz et al., 1997; Newman et al., 1997). Heart rate reactivity has been designated as an important and robust indicator of both trait hostility and displays of hostility during marital interactions, which would be particularly relevant for IPV perpetrators (Gottman et al., 1995). Although this does not explain the lack of effects for skin conductance change, it serves as a potential reason why heart rate reactivity among partner-violent men in the current study was specifically impacted.

Limitations and Future Directions

The current study is not without limitations. First, the reliance on self-report data may limit the generalizability of findings. Second, considering the cross-sectional nature of this study, interpretations about causal relations cannot be made. The current study suggests that, depending on levels of empathy, borderline personality features and Factor 1 psychopathy features are correlates of directions of heart rate reactivity. Assumptions about their temporal relations, however, cannot be made. Third, since psychopathy has a prominent feature of deceitfulness, a stand-alone self-report measure such as the PPI-SF, which does not have a validity scale, may not sufficiently capture its presence. Although some researchers have criticized the use of the PPI-SF in place of the full-length PPI, they acknowledge the PPI-SF as a useful tool for research studies due to its brevity and efficiency for use in community samples for which criminal records are not routinely available (Kastner, Sellbom, Lilienfeld, & Reynolds, 2012). Fourth, this study used a community sample of partner-violent men with a range of violence severity. Thus, findings may not generalize to court-mandated participants or those in forensic settings. The limitations of the sample in the current study may also account for the unpredicted findings. In the current study, 20% qualified as low and 16% qualified as high on borderline personality features, whereas 10% qualified as low and 18% qualified as high on Factor 1 psychopathy features. Furthermore, 19% qualified as low and 16% qualified as high on cognitive empathy, whereas 10% qualified as low and 14% qualified as high on affective empathy. In court-mandated or forensic samples, there would likely be a larger number of individuals scoring high on borderline personality features and Factor 1 psychopathy. In addition, recruiting a larger sample in which personality pathology and IPV are more severe would allow for more robust analyses of how low versus high cognitive and affective empathy scores influence relations between personality features and psychophysiological reactivity.

The purpose of this study was to identify potential moderators of the links between personality and psychophysiological reactivity in partner-violent men. Instead of contrasting borderline personality and antisocial personality features, this study elucidated conceptual differences between borderline personality features and Factor 1 psychopathy features. Despite the aforementioned limitations, this study was strengthened by an ethnically diverse community sample. Since this study was cross-sectional, future studies would benefit from longitudinal, multitime point investigations of the relations between personality features, empathy, and psychophysiological reactivity to establish causal relations. Moreover, further studies would benefit from examining dyadic influences on psychophysiological reactivity by examining heart rate reactivity and skin conductance change in both partner-violent men and their partners simultaneously during a conflict interaction. Last, future researchers are encouraged to explore the interplay of personality and psychophysiological reactivity in other samples of partner-violent men, such as those in court-mandated or forensic settings.

Clinical Implications

Clinical implications include treatment matching for partner-violent men with different personality and empathy profiles. Clinicians are advised to consider both types of empathy separately insofar as how they impact heart rate reactivity among violent men in times of conflict with intimates. Men who are overly sensitive to the experiences of others, as evidenced by high levels of cognitive empathy, may benefit from cognitive restructuring tools and relaxation strategies to use during conflict interactions. However, men who have deficits in affective empathy may benefit from treatments that prioritize enhancing emotional connectedness and decreasing the likelihood of resorting to violence as a solution. Recently, researchers have suggested that lack of empathy may not be due to an inability to be empathetic, but rather a lack of motivation to express concern for others (Arbuckle & Cunningham, 2012), indicating more promise for the utility of intervention. Recognizing and addressing unique empathy levels in partner-violent men may aid in transcending the one-size-fits-all approach that currently dominates IPV intervention by facilitating the assignment of men with unique features and behaviors to appropriately tailored treatment types.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.

Arbuckle

N. L.

Cunningham

W. A.

(2012). Understanding everyday psychopathy: Shared group identity leads to concern for others among undergraduates higher in psychopathy. Social Cognition, 30, 564-583. doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.5.564

Babcock

J. C.

Canady

B. E.

Yates

D. W.

Ross

J. M.

Senior

A. C.

Costa

(2005, August). Autonomic reactivity and borderline features among intimate partner abusers. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. Washington, DC.

Babcock

J. C.

Green

C. E.

Robie

(2004). Does batterers’ treatment work? A meta-analytic review of domestic violence treatment. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1023-1053. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2002.07.001

Babcock

J. C.

Green

C. E.

Webb

S. A.

Graham

K. H.

(2004). A second failure to replicate the Gottman et al. (1995) typology of men who abuse intimate partners . . . and possible reasons why. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 396-400. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.396

Babcock

J. C.

Green

C. E.

Webb

S. A.

Yerington

T. P.

(2005). Psychophysiological profiles of batterers: Autonomic emotional reactivity as it predicts the antisocial spectrum of behavior among intimate partner abusers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 444-455. doi:10.1037/0021-843x.114.3.444

Babcock

J. C.

Jacobson

N. S.

Gottman

J. M.

Yerington

T. P.

(2000). Attachment, emotional regulation, and the function of marital violence: Differences between secure, preoccupied and dismissing violent and nonviolent husbands. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 391-409.

Benning

S. D.

Patrick

C. J.

Hicks

B. M.

Blonigen

D. M.

Krueger

R. F.

(2003). Factor structure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory: Validity and implications for clinical assessment. Psychological Assessment, 15, 340-350. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.340

Blair

R. J.

(2005). Responding to the emotions of others: Dissociating forms of empathy through the study of typical and psychiatric populations. Consciousness and Cognition, 14, 698-718. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2005.06.004

10.

Bouchard

Sabourin

Lussier

Villeneuve

(2009). Relationship quality and stability in couples when one partner suffers from borderline personality disorder. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 35, 446-455. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00151.x

11.

Chase

K. A.

O’Leary

K. D.

Heyman

R. E.

(2001). Categorizing partner-violent men within the reactive-proactive typology model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69, 567-572. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.69.3.567

12.

Costa

D. M.

Babcock

J. C.

(2008). Articulated thoughts of intimate partner abusive men during anger arousal: Correlates with personality disorder features. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 295-402. doi:10.1007/s10896-008-9163-x

13.

Covell

C. N.

Huss

M. T.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

(2007). Empathic deficits among male batterers: A multidimensional approach. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 165-174. doi:10.1007/s10896-007-9066-2

14.

Cox

C. L.

Uddin

L. Q.

Di Martino

Castellanos

F. X.

Milham

M. P.

Kelly

(2012). The balance between feeling and knowing: Affective and cognitive empathy are reflected in the brain’s intrinsic functional dynamics. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 727-737. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr051

15.

Davis

M. H.

(1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85-104.

16.

Davis

M. H.

(1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Madison, WI: Westview Press.

17.

Duan

Hill

C. E.

(1996). The current state of empathy research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 261-274. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.43.3.261

18.

Dziobek

Preissler

Grozdanovic

Heuser

Heekeren

H. R.

Roepke

(2011). Neuronal correlates of altered empathy and social cognition in borderline personality disorder. Neuroimage, 57, 539-548. doi:1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.005

19.

Eysenck

H. J.

(1997). Personality and the biosocial model of anti-social and criminal behaviour. In Raine

Brennan

Farrington

Mednick

(Eds.), Biosocial bases of violence. New York, NY: Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-4648-8_2

20.

Fowler

K. A.

Westen

(2011). Subtyping male perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 607-639. doi:10.1177/0886260510365853

21.

Frazier

P. A.

Tix

A. P.

Barron

K. E.

(2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115-134. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.157

22.

Frick

Lang

Kotchoubey

Sieswerda

Dinu-Biringer

Berger

. . . Barnow

(2012). Hypersensitivity in borderline personality disorder during mindreading. PLoS ONE, 7, e41650. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041650

23.

Gardner

Qualter

(2009). Reliability and validity of three screening measures of borderline personality disorder in a nonclinical population. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 636-641. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.01.005

24.

Gottman

J. M.

Jacobson

N. S.

Rushe

R. H.

Shortt

J. W.

(1995). The relationship between heart rate reactivity, emotionally aggressive behavior, and general violence in batterers. Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 227-248. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.9.3.227

25.

Hamberger

L. K.

Lohr

J. M.

Bonge

Tolin

D. F.

(1996). A large sample empirical typology of male spouse abusers and its relationship to dimensions of abuse. Violence and Victims, 11, 277-292.

26.

Hare

R. D.

(2003). Manual for the psychopathy checklist—Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

27.

Hazlett

E. A.

Zhang

New

A. S.

Zelmanova

Goldstein

K. E.

Haznedar

M. M.

. . . Chu

K.-W.

(2012). Potentiated amygdala response to repeated emotional pictures in borderline personality disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 72, 448-456. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.03.027

28.

Herpertz

S. C.

Gretzer

Steinmeyer

E. M.

Muehlbauer

Schuerkens

Sass

(1997). Affective instability and impulsivity in personality disorder: Results of an experimental study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 44, 31-37. doi:10.1016/s0165-0327(97)01444-4

29.

Herpertz

S. C.

Kunert

Schwenger

U. B.

Eng

Sass

(1999). Affective responsiveness in borderline personality disorder: A psychophysiological approach. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 1550-1556. doi:10.1176/ajp.156.10.1550

30.

Herpertz

S. C.

Werth

Lukas

Qunaibi

Schuerkens

Kunert

H. J.

. . . Sass

(2001). Emotion in criminal offenders with psychopathy and borderline personality disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, 737-745. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.58.8.737

31.

Holtzworth-Munroe

Stuart

G. L.

(1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 476-497. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.476

32.

Hooven

Rushe

Gottman

J. M.

(1996). The play-by-play interview. In Gottman

J. M.

(Ed.), What predicts divorce? The measures (pp. 1-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

33.

Jacobson

N. S.

Gottman

J. M.

(1998). When men batter: New insights into ending abusive relationships. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

34.

Johnson

M. P.

(2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

35.

Kastner

R. M.

Sellbom

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Reynolds

C. R.

(2012). A comparison of the psychometric properties of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory full-length and short-form versions. Psychological Assessment, 24, 261-267. doi:10.1037/a0025832

36.

Knox

(1971). Marriage happiness. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

37.

Kurtz

J. E.

Morey

L. C.

Tomarken

A. J.

(1993). The concurrent validity of three self-report measures of borderline personality disorder. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 15, 255-266. doi:10.1007/bf01371382

38.

Leistico

Salekin

DeCoster

Rogers

(2008). A large scale meta-analysis relating the Hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 28-45. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9096-6

39.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Andrews

B. P.

(1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 488-524. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_3

40.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

Hess

T. H.

(2001). Psychopathic personality traits and somatization: Sex differences and the mediating role of negative emotionality. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23, 11-24. doi:10.1023/a:1011035306061

41.

Linehan

M. M.

(1993). Cognitive behavioral therapy of borderline personality disorder. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

42.

Liu

Zhang

Brady

H. J.

Cao

Zhang

(2012). Relation between childhood maltreatment and severe intrafamilial male-perpetrated physical violence in Chinese community: The mediating role of borderline and antisocial personality disorder features. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 64-76. doi:10.1002/ab.20417

43.

Long

(1998). IBI Analysis: Reference guide. Caroga Lake, NY: James Long Company.

44.

Mager

K. L.

Bresin

Verona

(2014). Gender, psychopathy factors, and intimate partner violence. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 257-267. doi:10.1037/per0000072

45.

Meehan

J. C.

Holtzworth-Munroe

(2001). Heart rate reactivity in male batterers: A second look at the evidence. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 415-424. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.415

46.

Meehan

J. C.

Holtzworth-Munroe

Herron

(2001). Maritally violent men’s heart rate reactivity to marital interactions: A failure to replicate the Gottman et al. (1995) typology. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 394-408. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.394

47.

Morey

L. C.

(1991). Personality Assessment Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

48.

New

A. S.

Hazlett

E. A.

Newmark

R. E.

Zhang

Triebwasser

Meyerson

. . .Buchsbaum

M. S.

(2009). Laboratory induced aggression: A positron emission tomography study of aggressive individuals with borderline personality disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 66, 1107-1114. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.07.015

49.

Newman

J. P.

Wallace

J. F.

Schmitt

W. A.

Arnett

P. A.

(1997). Behavioral inhibition system functioning in anxious, impulsive, and psychopathic individuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 583-592. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(97)00078-0

50.

Patrick

C. J.

Hicks

B. M.

Krueger

R. F.

Lang

A. R.

(2005). Relations between psychopathy facets and externalizing in a criminal offender sample. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 339-356. doi:10.1521/pedi.2005.19.4.339

51.

Paulhus

D. L.

Williams

K. M.

(2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556-563. doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(02)00505-6

52.

Péloquin

Lafontaine

M.-F.

(2010). Measuring empathy in couples: Validity and reliability of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index for couples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 146-157. doi:10.1080/00223890903510399

53.

Raine

(1993). Features of borderline personality and violence. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 49, 277-281. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199303)49:2<277::AID-JCLP2270490222>3.0.CO;2-C

54.

Ripoll

L. H.

Snyder

Steele

Siever

L. J.

(2013). The neurobiology of empathy in borderline personality disorder. Current Psychiatry Reports, 15, Article 344. doi:10.1007/s11920-012-0344-1

55.

Ross

J. M.

Babcock

J. C.

(2009). Proactive and reactive violence among intimate partner violent men diagnosed with antisocial and borderline personality disorder. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 607-617. doi:10.1007/s10896-009-9259-y

56.

Sharp

(2014). The social-cognitive basis of BPD: A theory of hypermentalizing. In Sharp

Tackett

J. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of borderline personality disorder in children and adolescents (Vol. 1, pp. 211-225). New York, NY: Springer.

57.

Sommer

Iyican

Babcock

(2016). The relation between contempt, anger, and intimate partner violence: A dyadic approach. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0886260516665107

58.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316. doi:10.1177/019251396017003001

59.

Verona

Sprague

Javdani

(2012). Gender and factor-level interactions in psychopathy: Implications for self-directed violence risk and borderline personality disorder symptoms. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 247-262. doi:10.1037/a0025945

60.

Wai

Tiliopoulos

(2012). The affective and cognitive empathic nature of the dark triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 794-799. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.008

61.

Waltz

Babcock

J. C.

Jacobson

N. S.

Gottman

J. M.

(2000). Testing a typology of batterers. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 658-669. doi:10.1037/0022-006x.68.4.658