Triarchic Model of Psychopathy and Intimate Partner Violence: An Empirical Study on the Italian Community

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious and recurrent phenomenon in many societies with severe physical and psychological consequences. In the present study, we aimed to explore the role of triarchic dimensions of psychopathy (disinhibition, boldness, and meanness) across gender in this occurrence. A questionnaire on inflicted (self) and experienced (partner) IPV and the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure were administered to a sample of 1,149 individuals from the Italian community. In general, self and partner IPV were moderately correlated. Bayesian regression analysis showed that disinhibition was positively correlated to both self and partner IPV (psychological and physical). In addition, boldness was negatively associated with perpetrated psychological IPV. Interactions by gender showed that meanness was positively related to perpetrated IPV in women (psychological and physical), whereas men with disinhibition features inflicted more physical violence than women. A high externalizing tendency (i.e., disinhibition) is therefore an important correlate of both perpetrated and reported IPV; moreover, boldness was associated with less psychological violence in general, whereas the effect of meanness depended on the gender of the individuals involved. Interestingly, the association between IPV and self-reported delinquent activities was low in magnitude (Spearman’s Rho around .20) suggesting limited overlap between these two constructs.

Keywords

triarchic model of psychopathy intimate partner violence gender externalizing features manipulativeness

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) includes physical violence, sexual violence, threats of physical or sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression (including coercive tactics) by a current or former intimate partner. IPV may occur among cohabitating or non-cohabitating romantic or sexual partners and among opposite or same-sex couples.

A few decades of research have shown that sexual violence and IPV are major public health problems with serious long-term physical and mental health consequences, as well as significant social and public health costs (e.g., Breiding et al., 2008; Desmarais et al., 2012; Logan & Cole, 2007). For instance, data from the United States National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (tNISVS, 2022) showed that about 1 in 4 women (30 million) and 1 in 10 men (12.1 million) experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner and reported an IPV-related impact during their lifetime. The majority of victims first experienced these or other forms of violence by that partner before age 25 (71.1% women and 55.8% men) and a significant number first experienced IPV prior to age 18 (25.8% women and 14.6% men). Across all types of violence, most of both female and male victims reported experiencing violence from one perpetrator.

In Italy, 13.6% of women (2 million 800 thousand) have suffered physical or sexual violence from partners or former partners. The most serious forms of violence in Italy are perpetrated by partners, relatives, or friends. Rapes were committed in 62.7% of cases by partners, 3.6% by relatives, and 9.4% by friends. Even physical violence (such as slapping, kicking, punching, and biting) is mostly perpetrated by present or past partners (ISTAT, 2014). Most of the women who had an abusive partner in the past left him precisely because of the violence they suffered (68.6%). Lastly, for women who suffered violence during pregnancy, in just under one out of four cases (23.9%) the violence decreased, while for 11.3% of women, it even increased and for 5.7% it started (ISTAT, 2014).

Many survivors of these forms of violence can experience physical injury, and mental health consequences such as depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and suicide attempts, and other health consequences. Victims were more likely to report frequent headaches, chronic pain, difficulty with sleeping, activity limitations, poor physical health, and poor mental health than men and women who did not experience these forms of violence (tNISVS, 2022).

Risk for IPV perpetration includes factors within the community, family, and the individual (Benson et al., 2003). In terms of individual differences influencing IPV, psychopathy has been indicated in the literature as a prominent factor. Psychopathy is defined by traits that exacerbate violence and antisocial risk, including lack of remorse, manipulativeness, shallow emotion, callousness, and persistent violation of social norms (Cooke et al., 2012; Hare, 2003; see also Leistico et al., 2008).

In earlier studies, individuals with psychopathy were more likely to commit IPV compared to non-psychopathic individuals (Grann & Wedin, 2002; see Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 2003; Huss & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2000). Likewise, total psychopathy scores have been reported as useful predictors of IPV (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Marshall & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2010).

An important caveat of such studies is the lack of attention to specific psychopathy dimensions: theory and psychometric work suggests that psychopathy can be conceptualized as multidimensional (Benning et al., 2003; Hare, 2003). Therefore, researchers have called for the integration of different dimensions of psychopathy in the same model to elucidate the specific mechanisms that link psychopathy to offending (Lilienfeld, 2018) and establish the relative importance of these dimensions to different outcomes (Ridder & Kosson, 2018). Turning to IPV, individuals with strong affective deficits tend to show little affiliation and this may promote violence toward intimate partners; or, interpersonal deficits of psychopathy may lead an individual to manipulate and use dominance and control against his/her partner. Lastly, features of impulsivity, irresponsibility, and reckless disregard for the safety of others may facilitate the use of violence in intimate relationships.

The few existing studies have focused almost exclusively on the two factors of the Psychopathy Check List (PCL; Hare, 1991, 2003), namely the interpersonal-affective factor (commonly termed Factor 1), involving manipulation, callousness, lack of remorse, and lack of empathy and the impulsive-antisocial factor (Factor 2) reflecting risk-taking, irresponsibility, aggressiveness, and antisocial conduct. Unfortunately, these studies have not provided clear conclusions. A meta-analysis including 43 studies with adults (13,476 participants, 67% men) across 10 countries, evidenced that psychopathy typically emerged as the strongest predictor of IPV above other known risk factors, but the relationship between psychopathy factors (1 and 2) and IPV was inconclusive (Robertson et al., 2020). Shaffer and Colleagues (2021) examined the role of 885 male adolescents interpersonal-affective, and impulsive-antisocial psychopathic features and developmental risk factors in trajectories of physical IPV in young adulthood. Results showed that only the lifestyle-antisocial features (Factor 2) were associated with IPV. On the contrary, in previous research, Mager and Colleagues (2014) found that the interpersonal-affective factor of psychopathy (Factor 1) played a unique role in mutual violence in women. No doubt that more research on the role of psychopathy features in IPV as well as the moderating effect of gender is warranted.

A theoretical model of psychopathy that could advance our knowledge in the field is the Triarchic Model of Psychopathy (Patrick et al., 2009). This model was formulated to reconcile alternative conceptions of psychopathy represented in historic writings and contemporary assessment instruments and to address persisting unresolved issues (see Patrick, 2022 for a thorough review). The model proposes that contrasting perspectives and apparent contradictions in the existing literature can be reconciled by conceiving of psychopathy as encompassing three distinct but intersecting phenotypic tendencies: disinhibition, boldness, and meanness.

Disinhibition refers to a general proneness toward impulse control problems, entailing a lack of planfulness, a focus on immediate versus delayed gratification, difficulty in controlling emotions and urges, and weak behavioral restraint; boldness encompasses tendencies toward social assurance and self-confidence, calmness, and poise in the face of stress or danger, rapid recovery from aversive experiences, and tolerance or preference for uncertainty and risk. It reflects the intersection of stress immunity, thrill-adventure seeking, and dominance (Benning et al., 2003, 2005; Kramer et al., 2011). Lastly, meanness includes deficient empathy, inability to bond with others, uncooperativeness, exploitativeness, and empowerment through cruelty and destructive acts; it can be viewed as a disaffiliated agency—an orientation entailing active pursuit of goals and resources without concern for and at the expense of others.

These three components are not viewed as elements or indicators of a unitary higher-order psychopathy construct, but instead as distinguishable phenotypes that can be operationalized and investigated separately, as well as in relation to one another. In this respect, the constructs of the model can be viewed as building blocks for alternative conceptions of psychopathy and differing variants of the condition that have been described (e.g., psychiatric and criminological, primary and secondary, successful and unsuccessful, aggressive and non-aggressive, anxious and non-anxious).

Importantly, these three dimensions are conceptualized as biobehavioral traits, that is behavioral propensities with a basis in biology (Patrick et al., 2012; see also Patrick, Iacono et al. 2019; Patrick & Drislane, 2015) and they readily connect to established models of general personality including the Five Factor Model (Poy et al., 2014) and Tellegen’s (2011) multidimensional personality framework (Brislin et al., 2015).

A large number of studies have established the reliability and validity of the triarchic model (Patrick, 2022). To illustrate, the triarchic trait constructs are represented to varying degrees in alternative historical accounts of psychopathy (see Crego & Widiger, 2016; Patrick, 2018) and different instruments for assessing it (Drislane & Patrick, 2017; Patrick & Drislane, 2015; Sellbom et al., 2016). They are consistently related to antisocial outcomes (e.g., Bertoldi et al., 2022; Drislane et al., 2022; Sica et al., 2021) and other mental disorders (e.g., Lynam et al., 2018; Palumbo et al., 2023).

Overall, this model appears particularly fruitful and useful to inquire into socially relevant phenomena such as IPV.

The Current Study

In the current study, we wanted to ascertain whether and how the psychopathy dimensions indexed in the triarchic model of psychopathy were related to IPV. First, there are no studies employing this important theoretical model of psychopathy in relation to IPV. Second, we investigated the impact of psychopathy on both the perception and reporting of IPV. Lastly, there is no investigation of this kind in Italy: providing data on this topic in a culture different from those where such studies are typically performed, it is particularly important considering the frequency and severity of IPV in this country.

As a secondary analysis, we also wanted to clarify the role of gender in moderating the relationship between psychopathy and IPV. For instance, whereas Fanti and Colleagues (2016) found no significant sex differences in the associations between triarchic traits and antisocial conduct in a community sample, another research on prisoners showed stronger associations for the disinhibition trait with substance use problems, self-harm, and staff ratings of prison misbehavior among females compared to males (Sica et al., 2021; see also Verona & Vitale, 2018). Hence, the role of such traits in IPV according to gender needs to be further explored.

The study hypotheses were the following:

(a) Disinhibition and meanness should be related to IPV, given their well-known links with aggression and, in case of meanness, lack of empathy;

(b) Boldness should be no or negatively related to interpersonal violence. Such a trait is associated with self-confidence, manipulativeness, and the ability to handle stressful situations—characteristics that would be expected either to diminish the use of violence in interpersonal relationships or not be related at all to IPV.

Lastly, given the scarcity of studies and the lack of consistent findings, we did not have specific hypotheses about the interaction between gender and psychopathy traits.

Method

Participants

A Google Forms link for the study survey was shared on Facebook and WhatsApp, inviting undergraduate students and their family/acquaintances to participate, and relying on the snowball principle to reach a large number of participants. Participants were 1,678 individuals from the nation of Italy (42.3% undergraduate students and 57.7% from the community) who completed an online large battery of questionnaires about a generic “survey on personality characteristics,” which also included the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM; Patrick, 2010) and a measure of IPV (see below).

In all, 284 individuals did not respond to most questionnaires and were therefore excluded. To enhance the quality of the collected data, the Triarchic Assessment Procedure for Inconsistent Responding (TAPIR; Mowle et al., 2017) was also performed on the remaining sample. The TAPIR index identified 211 participants who answered the TriPM inconsistently and were also excluded. Based on the foregoing exclusions, the dataset was composed of 1,183 participants; however, 34 additional participants did not respond to the questionnaire on IPV behaviors, leaving a final sample of 1,149 individuals. The mean age was 31.3 years (SD = 14.8), and 45.8% were female. The mean education level was 14.0 years (SD = 2.8). Regarding relationship status, 69.5% were single, 26.5% were married or cohabitating, and 3.1% were separated or divorced, 0.8% were widows, or widowers.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Firenze in conformity with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were advised of the study’s aims and provided informed consent before completing the study measures.

Measures

Triarchic Psychopathy Measure

The TriPM (Patrick, 2010) is a 58-item questionnaire; its items are rated on a four-point Likert scale from 0 (false) to 3 (true). The TriPM’s Boldness scale (19 items) taps features related to fearless dominance; TriPM’s Meanness (19 items) and Disinhibition (20 items) scales index the callous-aggression and general externalizing (disinhibition) factors, respectively. The Italian version of the TriPM has shown excellent validity and reliability in both community and incarcerated samples (e.g., Brislin et al., 2019; Sica et al., 2015). In the current sample, all three scales showed good internal consistency reliability (Boldness: α = .82; Meanness: α = .90; Disinhibition: α = .87).

Victimization Questionnaire (VQ)

The VQ asks participants to respond according to behaviors enacted in their current or most recent heterosexual¹ relationships within the last year. Items are rated as to the frequency of the violent behavior ranging from 0 (never) to 4 (more than one time a month). Participants responded to each item twice: once for themselves (self-IPV) and once for their partner (partner-IPV). The questionnaire includes 30 behavior-specific questions that assess psychological aggression, including expressive aggression and coercive control; control of reproductive or sexual health; physical violence; sexual violence; and stalking. Questions were drawn from the list of victimization questions used in the United States National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (tNISVS; 2014 Appendix C, pp. 106–109) and adapted to the Italian language.

The instructions of the questionnaire were the following:

Regardless of how close a couple is, sometimes it can happen that you disagree, be annoyed by the other person, want different things from the other, have arguments or quarrels because you are in a bad mood, tired or for other reasons. This questionnaire is divided into two parts. The first part is a list of things you may have done when you disagreed with your partner; the second part is a list of things you may have suffered when you disagreed with your partner.

The 30 VQ items were subjected to a principal component factor analysis with Promax Rotation (separately for self and other-IPV). Cattell’s scree test and the factor interpretability indicated a two-factor solution which explained the 46% (self-IPV) and 56% (partner-IPV) of the total variance: Psychological Violence and Threat (“I mocked my partner in front of others or purposely humiliated her/him”; I continually demanded to know where my partner was and what he was doing”; 10 items, alpha = .78 for self-IPV, .87 for partner-IPV); Restriction and Physical Violence (“I prevented my partner from leaving the house”; I hit my partner hard; 20 items alpha = .93 for self-IPV, .95 for partner-IPV).

Data Analysis

Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (ρ) were computed to quantify the bivariate correlations among study variables since the highly skewed nature of the IPV scores; following Cohen’s (1988) classification, large correlations were defined as .50 and above, medium correlations between .30 and .49, and small correlations between .10 and .29.

Cohen’s d was employed to evaluate the differences by sex on the same variables (.20 = small; .50 = medium; .80 = large).

Because psychological and physical IPV were highly skewed and there were many participants reporting no IPV during the last year (Self-IPV: Psychological = 590 (51.3%), Physical = 876 (76%); Partner-IPV: Psychological = 685 (60%), Physical = 916 (80%), we employed a Bayesian regression analysis to predict the role of psychopathy traits and the other study variables in IPV. Bayesian methods are considered preferable to the maximum likelihood approach to data analysis because they provide a more flexible and robust framework for handling complex models and non-normally distributed variables. In our Bayesian regression models, we standardized the predictor variables, allowing us to interpret the posterior partial regression coefficients as beta weights, akin to the frequentist approach.

Also, credibility intervals are provided to evaluate the value of the coefficients: like the confidence interval, a wider credibility interval indicates greater uncertainty or less information about the true value of the parameter. Conversely, a narrower credibility interval indicates greater precision or more information. In addition, if a credibility interval contains zero, the observed data do not provide strong evidence for the parameter being different from zero. This could indicate that the parameter is not relevant to the analysis.

This analysis was carried out through the BRM function of the BRMS package in the R statistical environment, version 4.2.3 (R Core Team, 2023), whereas significant interaction terms were explored using the plot-model function of the SJMISC package. Data are available from the first author on request.

Results

Table 1 displays descriptive statistics for the different study variables and bivariate correlations among them. The two subscales of Self- and Partner-IPV (Psychological, Physical) were each moderately intercorrelated (ρ_s = .54 and .56, respectively), and ρ_s for counterpart Self- and Partner-IPV subscales were also moderate (ρ_s = .58 for Psychological and .48 for Physical). Within the TriPM, Boldness correlated negligibly with Disinhibition (ρ = −.05) but positively with Meanness (ρ = .24), and Disinhibition and Meanness correlated to a moderate degree (ρ = .56). TriPM Boldness related significantly at the bivariate level to psychological Self IPV (ρ = −.07) only, but TriPM Disinhibition and Meanness each related significantly (albeit modestly, ρ_s = .13–.32) to subscale scores for both forms of IPV.

Table 1.

Bivariate Correlations (Spearman’s rho) Among the Study Variables. In the Bottom of the Table, Descriptives Statistics and the Magnitude of Gender Differences for Each Variable are Also Reported.

Study Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Self-IPV Psychological	—	.54**	.58**	.39**	−.07*	.32**	.18**	.01
2. Self-IPV Physical		—	.44**	.48**	−.02	.27**	.15**	−.04
3. Partner-IPV Psychological			—	.56**	−.03	.25**	.15**	.02
4. Partner-IPV Physical				—	.00	.24**	.13**	−.02
5. Boldness					—	−.05	.24**	.08**
6. Disinhibition						—	.56**	−.11**
7. Meanness							—	−.10**
8. Education								—
Mean	1.93	0.96	1.87	1.02	26.56	13.64	11.60	14.04
SD	3.50	4.10	4.18	4.83	8.27	8.08	8.70	2.83
Range	0–28	0–54	0–40	0–60	2–55	0–58	0–53	5–29
Skewness	3.21	8.19	4.18	8.33	−0.34	1.44	1.35	.017
Kurtosis	13.54	77.04	22.13	77.70	−0.28	3.52	2.50	−1.97
Cohen’s d	−.12	.06	.10	.16	.71	.24	.70	−.21

Notes. d is for comparing men to women (d > 0 higher for men, d < 0 higher for women). IPV = Intimate partner violence.

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

Education was not related to scores on either Self- or Partner-IPV subscale (Psychological, Physical), whereas Boldness was positively associated with education (ρ = .08) and Disinhibition and Meanness were negatively related to this variable (−.11 and −.10, respectively). In any case, all these figures were negligible in magnitude.

Lastly, for the three TriPM scales (Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition), sex differences were found, with men scoring higher than women on each.

Triarchic Traits and IPV: Bayesian Regression Analyses

In the Bayesian regression analyses, which evaluated unique associations for each of the TriPM scales when controlling for their overlap (shared variance), Boldness and Disinhibition showed negative and positive associations, respectively, with inflicted psychological victimization (see Table 2). In addition, TriPM Disinhibition was associated positively with perpetrated physical victimization. Disinhibition also consistently predicted reported violence by participant partners, both psychological and physical (Table 2).²

Table 2.

Bayesian Regression Results for Psychopathy Facets. Values Show the Posterior Means of the Partial Regression Coefficients.

TriPM	Self-IPV Psychological	Self-IPV Physical	Partner-IPV Psychological	Partner-IPV Physical
Boldness	−0.23 (−0.04, −0.30)	0.02 (−0.21, 0.26)	0.10 (−0.15, 0.36)	0.21 (−0.08, 0.50)
Disinhibition	1.10 (0.84, 1.30)	1.00 (0.69, 1.30)	1.10 (0.75, 1.40)	0.95 (0.19, 0.59)
Meanness	0.18 (−0.08, 0.45)	0.19 (−0.12, 0.51)	−0.05 (−0.37, 0.27)	0.06 (−0.03, 0.42)

Notes. Posterior partial regression coefficients can be interpreted as beta weights; the 95% credibility interval is in parentheses (see Method section). IPV = intimate partner violence.

The analyses including participant gender as a factor revealed some notable interactions (Table 3)³: Meanness was a significant predictor of perpetrated psychological and physical violence in women (Figures 1 and 2), whereas disinhibition was especially associated with physical IPV in men (Figure 3).

Table 3.

Bayesian Regression Results for Psychopathy Facets and Their Interactions with Gender. Values Show the Posterior Means of the Partial Regression Coefficients.

Covariates	Self-IPV Psychological	Self-IPV Physical	Partner-IPV Psychological	Partner-IPV Physical
Gender	0.87 (0.45, 1.30)	0.21 (−0.30, 0.71)	−0.20 (−0.72, 0.32)	−0.44 (−1.00, 0.15)
Boldness	−0.15 (−0.43, 0.12)	−0.03 (−0.37, 0.30)	−0.03 (−0.38, 0.32)	−0.02 (−0.42, 0.39)
Disinhibition	1.10 (0.82, 1.5)	1.10 (0.82, 1.50)	1.20 (0.82, 1.60)	1.20 (0.74, 1.70)
Meanness	0.07 (−0.28, 0.43)	0.07 (−0.28, 0.43)	−0.04 (−0.47, 0.37)	0.01 (−0.47, 0.51)
Gender × Boldness	0.02 (−0.39, 0.43)	0.13 (−0.36, 0.43)	0.24 (−0.28, 0.77)	0.40 (−0.21, 0.99)
Gender × Meanness	0.64 (0.08, 1.20)	0.97 (0.31, 1.60)	−0.12 (−0.78, 0.54)	−0.07 (−0.89, 0.72)
Gender × Disinhibition	−0.25 (−0.78, 0.28)	−0.83 (−1.4, −0.23)	−0.35 (−1.00, 0.28)	−0.62 (−1.40, 0.13)

Notes. Men were coded as “0” and women as “1”; posterior partial regression coefficients can be interpreted as beta weights; 95% credibility Interval in parentheses (see Method section). IPV = intimate partner violence.

Figure 1.

Interaction between meanness and gender in predicting psychological violence.

Figure 2.

Interaction between meanness and gender in predicting physical violence.

Figure 3.

Interaction between disinhibition and gender in predicting physical violence.

Discussion

The worrying prevalence of violence in the context of an intimate relationship calls for an in-depth exploration of this phenomenon. In Italy, for example, IPV is one of the leading causes of homicide and a source of the most severe psychological and physical negative consequences for the individual. In addition, sadly, IPV is a frequent occurrence: in our sample, 23.7% of participants declared to have perpetrated in the last year at least one form of physical violence against his/her partner and 20.3% to have suffered at least one instance of physical violence from his/her partner.

The current study aimed to clarify the role of triarchic psychopathy traits both in perpetrated and suffered IPV. In fact, previous research has been inconsistent in identifying which psychopathy features are putatively more related to this phenomenon. Our results confirm the role of psychopathy in this form of violence and extend the current knowledge in that they offer novel indications about the psychological aspects of psychopathy in IPV.

Self-IPV

Consistent with our hypotheses, in the regression model, disinhibition and boldness were, respectively, positively and negatively associated with IPV. This confirms that triarchic traits represent important individual characteristics associated with IPV also in the nonclinical population.

The triarchic traits are in fact considered specific bio-behavioral vulnerabilities along a dimensional continuum. In particular, disinhibition involves frontal-brain-based differences in the capability to restrain behavior and regulate emotional reactivity (Patrick et al., 2012), and it shows robust associations with Factor 2 of the PCL-R. Actually, the association between disinhibition and externalizing problems and behavior is well documented in adults (e.g., Drislane et al., 2019) as well as in children (e.g., Green et al., 2020; Sica et al., 2020).

In accordance with our hypotheses, a negative correlation was observed between boldness and psychological IPV, with no significant associations found regarding physical IPV. It is plausible that the self-assuredness and adeptness in managing stressful situations inherent to individuals with a disposition toward boldness may lead them to employ interpersonal manipulation and persuasion tactics to fulfill their relational objectives. Consequently, individuals high in boldness may not find it necessary to resort to threats or overtly violent strategies when navigating interpersonal conflicts. For example, partners in such relationships may perceive coercive control exerted by one partner as a common and acceptable behavior within the context of the relationship. This characterization of boldness and the possible consequence for the couple dynamics well aligns with Cleckley’s (1941, 1976) description of psychopathy, which encompasses a lack of social concern and skill for influencing others (also see Crego & Widiger, 2016).

Notwithstanding, we acknowledge that our explanation is somewhat speculative since we cannot exclude that, theoretically, extreme levels of boldness may lead individuals to psychological or even physical IPV. To illustrate, a recent study on men with a history of serious offending and a diagnosis of personality disorder found that boldness was associated with proactive (i.e., premeditated) but not reactive violence (Gray et al., 2021; see also Cima & Raine, 2009; S. T. Smith et al., 2013). Also, the negative behaviors associated with high boldness may manifest in the interaction of the other triarchic traits. For instance, Drislane and colleagues (2022) found that boldness positively interacted with disinhibition in predicting poor behavior in prison in a sample of incarcerated individuals. No doubt that further research is warranted to elucidate this point.

In addition to disinhibition and boldness, the hypothesized effects of meanness were found in women but not in men: women with higher meanness reported more psychological and physical IPV than men. In women, who typically engage in less IPV (Mager et al., 2014; Swogger et al., 2007), the presence of emotional insensitivity and callousness may have triggered violent behavior and/or amplified disinhibitory tendencies. That is, as meanness is linked to deficiencies in affective and affiliative systems (Palumbo et al., 2020; Viding & McCrory, 2019) that contradict gender norms which dictate that women should be nurturing and cooperative (Eagly, 2009), it is possible that even a minor degree of indifference and insensitivity could be willingly associated with aggressive behavior in women.

On the other hand, and consistent with the above hypothesized mechanism, disinhibition was linked to physical violence, especially in men. In this case, the general proclivity for externalizing behaviors (i.e., aggressive, and uncontrollable emotions/behaviors), inherent in the concept of disinhibition, has overshadowed the potential impact of emotional insensitivity and callousness on IPV in men.

Partner-IPV

The examination of psychopathy traits linked to the perception/reporting of partner-IPV is a novelty in this field of study. Disinhibition was once again linked to violence committed by one’s own partner: this finding supports the idea that certain types of IPV are commonly observed in couples with high levels of conflict, where both partners are easily triggered and lack effective strategies for resolving disputes and differences: as a matter of fact, in our sample self and partner IPV were moderately related.

In fact, disinhibition in the context of interpersonal conflicts may be expressed with a particular erratic and unpredictable behavior leading to a strong reaction by the partner.

In summary, the triarchic model of psychopathy allowed us to better understand the individual differences associated with IPV and to clarify a few inconsistencies in the extant literature. The tendency to externalize (i.e., disinhibition) characterized IPV in both genders with no substantial differences. In the present study, this was the main factor associated with IPV and it is probably an important determinant of the correlation between self- and partner-IPV. Impulsivity, high reactivity, and habitual use of aggression all identify the psychological context in which conflicts can easily escalate into violence. As a matter of fact, high externalizing is generally associated with increased internalizing symptomatology (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978; Krueger, 1999), another factor contributing to conflicts inside couples. Interestingly, earlier studies indicated similar characteristics as correlates of IPV. Shorey and Colleagues (2011) reported a positive correlation between anger and impulsivity—traits relevant to Factor 2 psychopathy—and the perpetration of psychological and physical IPV among a sample of women arrested for domestic violence. Weinstein and Colleagues (2012) found a relationship between borderline symptoms (i.e., disinhibited features) and IPV.

On the other hand, the results about boldness and meanness call for additional studies on individuals convicted of violence against his/her partner.

As a concluding note, it is important to stress that, the lack of correlation between IPV and education indicates that one’s cultural background does not serve as a protective factor against intimate relationship turmoil and violence.

Psychopathy, IPV, and General Violence

One of the main results of our study revealed disinhibition as a predictor of perpetrated and received IPV. Since IPV may take place in a context of escalating violence, it is not unexpected that a trait theoretically and empirically linked to reactive aggression like disinhibition (e.g., Gray et al., 2004; Kennealy et al., 2010; Salekin et al., 1996) has a better predictive value than interpersonal/affective traits (i.e., boldness and meanness), typically more associated with instrumental aggression (Laurell et al., 2010; Vitacco et al., 2009; Weidacker et al., 2017; Woodworth & Porter, 2002).

In addition, this result echoes a vast literature on psychopathy which found features of impulsivity, poor behavioral control, and deficits in delaying gratification all related to aggressive misconducts both in correctional and non-correctional contexts and on adult and adolescent samples (e.g., Drislane et al., 2022; Gray et al., 2004, 2021; Sica et al., 2020). For instance, Drislane et al., (2022) using data for incarcerated males (n = 273) and females (n = 83) found that a latent factor composed of different indicators of disinhibition uniquely related to self-harm, drug use, poor behavior in prison, and poor reintegration prognosis. Gray and Colleagues (2021) showed that disinhibition was associated with criminal convictions and antisocial behavior in prison in a group of 108 male offenders. Sica and colleagues (2020) administered the triarchic constructs along with measures of conduct problems, callous-unemotional traits, attachment style dimensions, negative emotionality, and hyperactivity/inattention to 608 Italian adolescents. The disinhibition dimension of the triarchic model was related most highly to general externalizing outcomes, such as conduct problems and hyperactivity-inattention (for a thorough review, see Patrick & Drislane, 2015).

However, we might wonder whether in our sample IPV is just one of the possible outcomes of a general tendency to commit acts of violence. To investigate this issue, we computed Spearman’s Rho correlations between the four IPV variables and the self-reported delinquent activities of the individuals in our sample. These activities were assessed as part of our battery of questionnaires. In particular, we asked participants to indicate their engagement (Yes/No response) on a 36-item delinquent activities checklist over the past 6 months. In all, 29 of such activities were extracted from the 56-item checklist by Curcio et al. (2015) for their appropriateness in the Italian context, and seven more were added to better represent certain types of acts (cheating and fighting). The 36 items used in the present version had very good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .84; Sica et al., in preparation).

The obtained correlation values averaged around .20. This indicates that IPV is a distinct and separate phenomenon from antisocial behavior, as the correlation strength is relatively low, suggesting limited overlap between these two constructs (see also the conclusions below).

Limitations and Conclusion

The present research was performed on a substantial sample drawn from the community, with an equal representation of both genders. The study employed reliable measures to evaluate the variables of interest and adopted sophisticated analysis (Bayesian regression). In fact, the traits of psychopathy resulted in a crucial characteristic associated with IPV. Despite these strengths, some limitations are also present.

Our results may not generalize to individuals from other cultures and ethnic backgrounds, nor to clinical or forensic samples. Also, the present study data set did not include demographic variables such as race, ethnicity, and gender identity, precluding the evaluation of moderating effects for this sample. On the contrary, we were able to evaluate the moderating effect of marital status and sample type (undergraduates vs. community): gender-related results remained consistent across different marital status and sample type groups (see Note 3).

To obtain data for a large sample, we collected only self-report measures. Strict reliance on self-report measures can artificially inflate associations due to shared method variance. In addition, although the IPV measure utilized in the present study demonstrated good reliability and validity (expected relation with psychopathy), clearly more study is needed to ascertain its validity in the Italian population.

Also, the current study was cross-sectional: as a result, temporal precedence cannot be established, precluding the ability to make causal interpretations. Nonetheless, the triarchic traits of psychopathy are believed to be liability factors that are shaped by both genetics and experiences. As a result, in a theoretical but substantiated manner, these traits may be regarded as harbingers of aggressive conduct like that observed in cases of IPV.

Lastly, social desirability may have influenced results, as participants may feel inclined to underreport IPV; nonetheless, complete anonymity was ensured throughout the study, and the survey questions were included as part of a battery of measures that did not focus on socially unacceptable conduct.

On the whole, it must be acknowledged that deciphering relational dynamics, which are frequently mutual, can be challenging. In addition, we cannot exclude that men are more likely to justify their IPV by endorsing that their partner also engages in IPV, as there are stronger proscriptions on male violence against female partners than vice versa.

Despite the above limitations, the results were pretty clear: IPV was a relatively common occurrence in an unscreened community sample, and it was linked to psychopathic traits. Moreover, these traits had varying effects on IPV, depending also on the gender of the individuals involved and whether they were the perpetrator or the victim.

From a clinical perspective, these findings indicate the need to carefully monitor couples experiencing challenges, particularly when one partner exhibits disinhibited features. In addition, it is crucial to promote assertive behaviors in such situations, while being mindful about the expression and interpretation of such behaviors as showed by results about boldness. IPV is a pervasive issue in Western societies, and psychopathy plays a presumably not trivial role in its prevalence. Therefore, it is necessary to pay even greater attention to these personality traits.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

Claudio Sica

Gioia Bottesi

Notes

Author Biographies

Claudio Sica, PhD, is a professor at the University of Florence in Italy, where his research focuses on clinical psychology and test development. He has a special interest in personality disorders, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorders, vulnerability markers, and psychopathology, and his work aims to develop and validate innovative tests to assess these conditions.

Corrado Caudek, PhD, is a professor of Quantitative Methods at the University of Florence, Italy. He received his PhD in Experimental Psychology from UVA, USA, and completed his post-doctoral research at the Center for Neural Sciences of NYU, USA. His current research is focused on studying cognitive flexibility in psychopathology, also by using the Ecological Momentary Assessment methodology.

Gioia Bottesi, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Department of General Psychology at the University of Padova in Italy. Her research focuses on identifying transdiagnostic vulnerability factors for emotional disorders in high-risk populations such as adolescents and emerging adults. She also studies the dimensional models of personality disorders and aims to develop innovative and evidence-based psychological interventions to address these conditions.

Ilaria Colpizzi, MSc, is a postgraduate student in Clinical Psychology at the University of Florence, Italy. Her research interests lie in exploring the psychological mechanisms that underlie individual differences in cognitive processing, with a particular focus on vulnerability to eating disorders and cognitive inflexibility in psychopathology.

Anna Malerba, MSc, is a clinical psychology postgraduate student at the Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Italy. Her research interests revolve around exploring the psychological factors that make individuals vulnerable to anxiety, depressive, obsessive-compulsive spectrum, and personality disorders.

Christopher J. Patrick, PhD, is a professor at Florida State University in the United States. His research primarily focuses on the relationships between mental disorders and neurobiological systems, with a particular emphasis on psychopathy, impulse control disorders, and anxiety and mood disorders. He utilizes psychophysiology, neuroimaging, psychometrics, quantitative modeling, and behavioral genetics methods in his research.

References

Achenbach

T. M.

Edelbrock

C. S.

(1978). The classification of child psychopathology: A review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1275–1301. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.6.1275

Benning

S. D.

Patrick

C. J.

Blonigen

D. M.

Hicks

B. M.

Iacono

W. G.

(2005). Estimating facets of psychopathy from normal personality traits: A step toward community epidemiological investigations. Assessment, 12(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191104271223

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. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.340

Benson

M. L.

Fox

G. L.

DeMaris

van Wyk

(2003). Neighborhood disadvantage, individual economic distress and violence against women in intimate relationships. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 207–235. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024930208331

Bertoldi

Tuvblad

Joyner

K.J-

Ganley

Raine

Baker

Latvala

Oskarsson Patrick

(2022). Role of triarchic traits in relations of early resting heart rate with antisocial behavior and broad psychopathology dimensions in later life. Clinical Psychological Science, 11(1), 90–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026221081880

Breiding

M. J.

Black

M. C.

Ryan

G. W.

(2008). Prevalence and risk factors of intimate partner violence in eighteen U.S. states/territories, 2005. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(2), 112–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.10.001

Brislin

S. J.

Cernohorsky

Patrick

C. J.

Drislane

L. E.

Caruso

Giulini

Sica

(2019). Comparing the triarchic and five-factor trait models: relations with psychopathy and other clinical criteria in an incarcerated offender sample. Journal of Personality Disorders, 33(6), 792–817. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2019_33_378

Brislin

S. J.

Drislane

L. E.

Smith

S. T.

Edens

J. F.

Patrick

C. J.

(2015). Development and validation of triarchic psychopathy scales from the multidimensional personality questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 27, 838–851. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000087

Cima

Raine

(2009). Distinct characteristics of psychopathy relate to different subtypes of aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 835–840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.031

10.

Cleckley

(1941). The mask of sanity; an attempt to reinterpret the so-called psychopathic personality (p. 298). Mosby.

11.

Cleckley

H. M.

(1976). The mask of sanity: An attempt to clarify some issues about the so-called psychopathic personality (5th ed.). Mosby.

12.

Cohen

(1988). Set correlation and contingency tables. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12(4), 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168801200410

13.

Cooke

D. J.

Hart

S. D.

Logan

Michie

(2012). Explicating the construct of psychopathy: development and validation of a conceptual model, the comprehensive assessment of psychopathic personality (CAPP). International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11(4), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2012.746759

14.

Crego

Widiger

T. A.

(2016). Convergent and discriminant validity of alternative measures of maladaptive personality traits. Psychological Assessment, 28, 1561–1575. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000282

15.

Curcio

A. L.

Mak

A. S.

Knott

V. E.

(2015). The Australian self-report delinquency scale: A revision. Australian Journal of Psychology, 67(3), 166–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12075

16.

Desmarais

S. L.

Reeves

K. A.

Nicholls

T. L.

Telford

R. P.

Fiebert

M. S.

(2012). #1 Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relationships: Part 1. Rates of male and female victimization. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.e1

17.

Drislane

L. E.

Patrick

C. J.

(2017). Integrating alternative conceptions of psychopathic personality: A latent variable model of triarchic psychopathy constructs. Journal of Personality Disorders, 31(1), 110–132. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2016_30_240

18.

Drislane

L. E.

Sellbom

Brislin

S. J.

Strickland

C. M.

Christian

Wygant

D. B.

Krueger

R. F.

Patrick

C. J.

(2019). Improving characterization of psychopathy within the DSM-5 AMPD: Creation and validation of PID-5 triarchic scales. Personality Disorders, 10(6), 511–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000345

19.

Drislane

L. E.

Sica

Lowman

K. L.

Colpizzi

Joyner

K. J.

Bottesi

Patrick

C. J.

(2022). Latent variable model of triarchic psychopathy constructs in an incarcerated offender sample: Factor reliability and validity. Psychological Assessment, 34, 899–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001158

20.

Eagly

A. H.

(2009). The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist, 64, 644–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.644

21.

Fanti

K. A.

Kyranides

M. N.

Drislane

L. E.

Colins

O. F.

Andershed

(2016). Validation of the Greek cypriot translation of the triarchic psychopathy measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(2), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1077452

22.

Grann

Wedin

(2002). Risk factors for recidivism among spousal assault and spousal homicide offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 8, 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160208401806

23.

Gray

N. S.

Blumenthal

Shuker

Fonagy

Snowden

R. J.

(2021). The triarchic model of psychopathy and antisocial behavior: Results from an offender population with personality disorder. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36, NP9130–NP9152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519853404

24.

Gray

N. S.

Hill

McGleish

Timmons

MacCulloch

M. J.

Snowden

R. J.

(2004). Prediction of violence and self-harm in mentally disordered offenders: A prospective study of the efficacy of HCR-20, PCL-R and psychiatric symptomology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.523

25.

Green

L. M.

Palumbo

I. M.

Shishido

Kesner

J. E.

Latzman

R. D.

(2020). Social problems in children: Exploring the contribution of triarchic traits and parenting. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 51(1), 151–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-019-00918-0

26.

Hare

R. D.

(1991). Psychopathy checklist—revised. Psychological Assessment. https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Ft01167-000

27.

Hare

R. D.

(2003). The hare psychopathy checklist revised (2nd ed.). Multi-Health Systems.

28.

Holtzworth-Munroe

Meehan

J. C.

Herron

Rehman

Stuart

G. L.

(2003). Do subtypes of maritally violent men continue to differ over time? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(4), 728–740. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006x.71.4.728

29.

Holtzworth-Munroe

Stuart

G. L.

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

30.

Huss

M. T.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

(2000). Identification of the psychopathic batterer: The clinical, legal, and policy implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5(4), 403–422.

31.

ISTAT (2014). Violenza sulle donne. Istat

32.

Kennealy

P. J.

Skeem

J. L.

Walters

G. D.

Camp

(2010). Do core interpersonal and affective traits of PCL-R psychopathy interact with antisocial behaviour and disinhibition to predict violence? Psychological Assessment, 22, 569–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019618

33.

Kramer

M. D.

Patrick

C. J.

Krueger

R. F.

Gasperi

(2011). Delineating physiologic defensive reactivity in the domain of self-report: Phenotypic and etiologic structure of dispositional fear. Psychological Medicine, 42(06), 1305–1320. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291711002194.

34.

Krueger

R. F.

(1999). The structure of common mental disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56(10), 921–926. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.56.10.921

35.

Laurell

Belfrage

Hellstrom

(2010). Facets on the psychopathy checklist screening version and instrumental violence in forensic psychiatric patients. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 20, 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.779

36.

Leistico

A.-M. R.

Salekin

R. T.

DeCoster

Rogers

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

37.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(2018). The multidimensional nature of psychopathy: Five recommendations for research. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 40, 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9657-7

38.

Logan

T. K.

Cole

(2007). The impact of partner stalking on mental health and protective order outcomes over time. Violence and Victims, 22(5), 546–562. https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007782312168

39.

Lynam

D. R.

Miller

J. D.

Derefinko

K. J.

(2018). Psychopathy and personality: An articulation of the benefits of a trait-based approach. In Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. 259–280). The Guilford Press.

40.

Mager

K. L.

Bresin

Verona

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

41.

Marshall

A. D.

Holtzworth-Munroe

(2010). Recognition of wives’ emotional expressions: A mechanism in the relationship between psychopathology and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017952

42.

Mowle

E. N.

Kelley

S. E.

Edens

J. F.

Donnellan

M. B.

Smith

S. T.

Wygant

D. B.

Sellbom

(2017). Development of an inconsistent responding scale for the triarchic psychopathy measure. Psychological Assessment, 29, 990–1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000395

43.

Palumbo

I. M.

Perkins

E. R.

Yancey

J. R.

Brislin

S. J.

Patrick

C. J.

Latzman

R. D.

(2020). Toward a multimodal measurement model for the neurobehavioral trait of affiliative capacity. Personality Neuroscience, 3, e11. https://doi.org/10.1017/pen.2020.9

44.

Palumbo

I. M.

Sica

Patrick

C. J.

Latzman

R. D.

(2023). Situating psychopathy within the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) among Italian community-dwelling adults. Journal of Personality Disorders, 37(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2023.37.1.49

45.

Patrick

C. J.

(2010). Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM). Quest. Meas., Florida State University, Tallahassee. https://www.phenxtoolkit.org/protocols/view/121601

46.

Patrick

C. J.

(2018). Psychopathy as masked pathology. In Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. 3–21). The Guilford Press.

47.

Patrick

C. J.

(2022). Psychopathy: Current knowledge and future directions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 18, 387–415. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-072720-012851

48.

Patrick

C. J.

Drislane

L. E.

(2015). Triarchic model of psychopathy: Origins, operationalizations, and observed linkages with personality and general psychopathology. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 627–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12119

49.

Patrick

C. J.

Durbin

C. E.

Moser

J. S.

(2012). Reconceptualizing antisocial deviance in neurobehavioral terms. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 1047–1071. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579412000533

50.

Patrick

C. J.

Fowles

D. C.

Krueger

R. F.

(2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 913–938. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000492

51.

Patrick

C. J.

Iacono

W. G.

Venables

N. C.

(2019). Incorporating neurophysiological measures into clinical assessments: Fundamental challenges and a strategy for addressing them. Psychological Assessment, 31, 1512–1529. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000713

52.

Poy

Segarra

Esteller

À.

López

Moltó

(2014). FFM description of the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy in men and women. Psychological Assessment, 26, 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034642

53.

R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/

54.

Ridder

K. A.

Kosson

D. S.

(2018). Investigating the components of psychopathic traits in youth offenders. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 40, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9654-x

55.

Robertson

E. L.

Walker

T. M.

Frick

P. J.

(2020). Intimate partner violence perpetration and psychopathy: A comprehensive review. European Psychologist, 25(2), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000397

56.

Salekin

Rogers

Sewell

(1996). A review and meta-analysis of the psychopathy checklist and psychopathy checklist–revised: Predictive validity of dangerousness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 3, 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.1996.tb00071.x

57.

Shorey

R. C.

Brasfield

Febres

Stuart

G. L.

(2011). An examination of the association between difficulties with emotion regulation and dating violence perpetration. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 20(8), 870–885. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2011.629342

58.

Sica

Ciucci

Baroncelli

Frick

P. J.

Patrick

C. J.

(2020). Not just for adults: Using the triarchic model of psychopathy to inform developmental models of conduct problems in adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 49(6), 897–911. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2019.1574228

59.

Sica

Drislane

Caudek

Angrilli

Bottesi

Cerea

Ghisi

(2015). A test of the construct validity of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure in an Italian community sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.015

60.

Sica

Perkins

E. R.

Joyner

K. J.

Caudek

Bottesi

Caruso

Giulini

Ghisi

Patrick

C. J.

(2021). Testing for sex differences in the nomological network of the triarchic model of psychopathy in incarcerated individuals. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 43(4), 960–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-021-09897-w

61.

Sellbom

Drislane

L. E.

Johnson

A. K.

Goodwin

B. E.

Phillips

T. R.

Patrick

C. J.

(2016). Development and validation of MMPI-2-RF scales for indexing triarchic psychopathy constructs. Assessment, 23(5), 527–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115590853

62.

Shaffer

C. S.

Gatner

D. T.

McCuish

Douglas

K. S.

Viljoen

J. L.

(2021). The role of psychopathic features and developmental risk factors in trajectories of physical intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 11(6), 549–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000313

63.

Smith

S. T.

Edens

J. F.

McDermott

B. E.

(2013). Fearless dominance and selfcentered impulsivity interact to predict predatory aggression among forensic psychiatric inpatients. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 12, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2012.76018

64.

Swogger

M. T.

Walsh

Kosson

D. S.

(2007). Domestic violence and psychopathic traits: Distinguishing the antisocial batterer from other antisocial offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20185

65.

Tellegen

(2011). Multidimensional personality questionnaire–276 (MPQ-276), research kit. University of Minnesota Press.

66.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010 summary report (2014). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention.

67.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 Report on Intimate Partner Violence (2022). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention.

68.

Verona

Vitale

(2018). Psychopathy in women: Assessment, manifestations, and etiology. In Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. 259–281). The Guilford Press.

69.

Viding

McCrory

(2019). Towards understanding atypical social affiliation in psychopathy. The Lancet Psychiatry, 6(5), 437–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30049-5

70.

Vitacco

M. J.

Van Rybroek

G. J.

Rogstad

J. E.

Yahr

L. E.

Tomony

J. D.

Saewert

(2009). Predicting short-term institutional aggression in forensic patients: A multi-trait method for understanding subtypes of aggression. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9155-7

71.

Weidacker

O’Farrell

K. R.

Gray

N. S.

Johnston

S. J.

Snowden

R. J.

(2017). Psychopathy and impulsivity: The relationship of the triarchic model of psychopathy to different forms of impulsivity in offenders and community participants. Personality and Individual Differences, 114, 134–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.069

72.

Weinstein

Gleason

M. E. J.

Oltmanns

T. F.

(2012). Borderline but not antisocial personality disorder symptoms are related to self-reported partner aggression in late middle-age. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 692–698. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028994

73.

Woodworth

Porter

(2002). In cold blood: Characteristics of criminal homicides as a function of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(3), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.111.3.436