Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 288–293
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Mean on the screen: Psychopathy, relationship aggression,
and aggression in the media
Sarah M. Coyne a,*, David A. Nelson a, Nicola Graham-Kevan b, Emily Keister a, David M. Grant a
a
b
Brigham Young University, School of Family Life, Provo, UT 84602, USA
University of Central Lancashire, Department of Psychology, Preston, UK PR1 2HE, UK
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 7 May 2009
Received in revised form 2 October 2009
Accepted 8 October 2009
Available online 8 November 2009
Keywords:
Psychopathy
Media
Aggression
Relational aggression
Television
Domestic violence
a b s t r a c t
The aim of the current study was to examine the association between psychopathic features and various
forms of relationship aggression in a non-clinical population. Additionally, exposure to media aggression
was examined as a potential mediator of the relationship between psychopathy and aggression. Participants consisted of a total of 337 individuals who either reported on their current or most recent relationship. Results revealed that secondary psychopathy traits were related to both types of aggression
measured in the current study (physical aggression and romantic relational aggression). Additionally, primary psychopathy traits were related to romantic relational aggression. Though exposure to media
aggression (both physical and relational forms) was related to perpetration of relationship aggression,
such exposure did not mediate the relationship between psychopathy and aggression.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Psychopathy has long been a focus of the public, media, and research community. Defined by features such as lacking conscience
and feelings for others, psychopaths use charm, manipulation, and
sometimes violence to get what they want (Hare, 1996). The literature suggests that psychopathy is multi-dimensional, with individual components (e.g. factor-1 and factor-2, Hare, 1991, or the
four facets, Hare, 2003) demonstrating continuous rather than categorical qualities. It is therefore possible for a ‘psychopath’ to demonstrate few of the core psychological traits expected. This
knowledge has led scholars such as Skeem, Poythress, Edens,
Lilienfeld, and Cale (2003) to suggest that distinctions should be
made on the basis of ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ psychopathy, the
former demonstrating the core affective traits whereas the latter
being more behaviorally derived.
Karpman (1941) first proposed the primary–secondary psychopath distinction. Although both types manifested a disregard for
the rights and feeling of others, as well as antisocial behavior,
Karpman believed that primary psychopathy was the result of a
congenital affective deficit whereas secondary psychopathy was
the result of an adaptation to adverse early experiences. Primary
psychopaths were believed to be motivated by reward (instrumen* Corresponding author. Address: 2087 JFSB, Brigham Young University, Provo,
UT 84602, USA. Tel.: +1 801 422 6949.
E-mail address: smcoyne@byu.edu (S.M. Coyne).
0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.10.018
tal behavior), whereas secondary psychopaths were motivated by
emotion (reactive behavior). Subsequent research has provided
support for this distinction, finding that the traits of primary
psychopathy may be the result of low levels of anxiety, whereas
the features of secondary psychopathy may be the result of high
levels of negative affect and impulsivity. There is broad research
support for the existence of primary and secondary psychopathy
traits (Falkenbach, Poythress, & Creevy, 2008; Ray, Poythress,
Weir, & Rickelm, 2009; Wareham, Dembo, Poythress, Childs, &
Schmeidler, 2009) (for a review see Poythress & Skeem, 2007).
1.1. Aggression
A disproportionately large amount of violence and crime is
thought to be perpetrated by individuals with psychopathic features (Hare, 1996). However, not all such individuals use violence
to get what they desire. Indeed, many ‘‘successful” psychopaths
function reasonably well in society, with many holding positions
of power within academia, business, and other industries (e.g.,
Board & Fritzon, 2005; Lynam, Whiteside, & Jones, 1999). Although
egocentric, callous, and manipulative (traits of primary psychopathy), these individuals usually lack the more overtly antisocial
attributes found in secondary psychopathy, attributes that typically result in contact with the criminal justice system. According
to the Warrior Hawk hypothesis (see Book & Quinsey, 2004), such
individuals avoid violent behavior, particularly if they feel their
S.M. Coyne et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 288–293
behavior would be discovered. Instead, discretion and more
manipulative types of behavior are likely to better suit their needs.
Most research on the aggression and psychopathy relationship
has focused on physical violence (e.g., Martinez et al., 2007). However, there is a growing body of research suggesting that individuals with psychopathic traits are also more likely to use relational
aggression (e.g., Coyne & Thomas, 2008; Schmeelk, Sylvers, &
Lilienfeld, 2008; Warren & Clarbour, 2009). Such aggression aims
to harm relationships or the social structure as a whole (e.g., social
exclusion, relationship manipulation, spreading rumors) and is
linked to a variety of psychosocial problems for victims (e.g., Craig,
1998).
Coyne and Thomas (2008) found that individuals with primary
psychopathic traits were particularly likely to use relational
aggression to manipulate those around them. However, they speculate that individuals with psychopathic traits may use aggression
differently, depending on the target of the aggression. Some evolutionary theorists (Dawkins, 1976), indicate that aggression in close
relationships may be particularly problematic, as the individual is
not likely to remain anonymous, and the partner may eventually
leave the relationship. However, various forms of partner aggression can be crafted to carefully manipulate and control one’s partner into a mindset of denial and need for the aggressor. For
example, romantic relational aggression (Linder, Crick, & Collins,
2002) specifically focuses on manipulating the relationship to control one’s partner (e.g., threatening to leave the relationship should
the individual not comply with the aggressor’s wishes).
Such aggression in romantic relationships may be particularly
common by individuals with psychopathic traits. Indeed, the relationship between psychopathy and abuse has been noted in several
studies (e.g., Huss & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2006; Swogger,
Walsh, & Kosson, 2007). However, the vast majority of this research focuses on physical forms of abuse in a clinical population
and typically examines psychopathy as a unified construct as opposed to examining subtypes. Accordingly, one of the primary aims
of this study is to examine the relationship between primary and
secondary psychopathy traits and romantic relationship abuse,
with a particular focus on romantic relational aggression in a
non-clinical population.
1.2. Media
One factor often examined when explaining aggressive behavior
is the media. Some studies have found that viewing violence in the
media can increase aggressive thoughts and behavior, both in the
short and long term (Anderson et al., 2003). Other research has also
revealed that viewing relational forms of aggression in the media
can also affect both physically and relationally aggressive behavior
(e.g., Coyne et al., 2008). Accordingly, examining even subtle forms
of aggression in the media is important when determining the effect of media exposure on subsequent behavior.
However, research examining the link between media violence
and subsequent aggression has come under recent criticism.
Browne and Hamilton-Giachritsis (2005) argue that though there
is clear evidence for a short term effect of viewing media violence,
the long-term effects on aggressive behavior and crime are weak or
inconsistent. Additionally, after correcting for publication bias, a
recent meta-analysis (Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009) found only a very
small overall effect size (r = .08) when examining this relationship.
Indeed, according to the uses and gratifications approach (Katz,
Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974), the viewer seeks out violent media
to fulfill certain needs, such as having an aggressive personality.
According to this theory, personality may drive any relationship
between media and violence.
Additionally, the General Aggression Model (GAM; Anderson &
Bushman, 2002) notes that personality may influence the media
289
violence effect in two other important ways. First, long-term exposure to media violence can shape an individual’s personality, particularly those facets of personality related to aggressive behavior
(Huesmann, 1986). Second, certain personality characteristics
seem to mediate the effect of viewing media violence on subsequent aggressive behavior in the short term. For example, when
Zilmann and Weaver (1997) exposed adults to gratuitous media
violence, only males high in psychoticism showed increased acceptance of aggressive conflict resolution. On the other hand, Ferguson, Cruz, Martinez, Rueda, Ferguson, and Negy (2008) found that
although personality was related to engagement in crime, exposure to media violence was not.
To our knowledge, it is unknown whether psychopathic traits
and media violence are related. Indeed, it is possible that individuals with such traits may be particularly vulnerable to media effects.
First, these individuals may be more prone to enactment of aggression, with a highly elaborate system of aggression-related scripts in
memory. Secondly, individuals with primary psychopathic features
are unlikely to empathize with victims of on-screen violence, one
of the characteristics that often buffers the effect of media violence
on aggression (see Donnerstein, Slaby, & Eron, 1994). Accordingly,
exposure to media aggression may particularly enhance the likelihood for engagement in aggressive behavior for those with psychopathic traits.
1.3. Aims and hypotheses
There are two main purposes to this study. Firstly, we aim to assess the relationship between psychopathy traits and relationship
aggression in a non-clinical population. It is expected that all forms
of aggression will be associated with both types of psychopathy
traits. However, since primary psychopathy is characterized by
an aptitude for manipulating people and relationships for their
own advantage (Hare, 1996), it is expected that the use of romantic
relational aggression would be particularly associated with primary psychopathy traits.
The other primary aim of the study is to test whether viewing
media aggression mediates the relationship between psychopathy
and aggression. Based on the uses and gratifications approach, we
predicted that psychopathy would be related to both types of media aggression, and this would partially mediate the relationship between psychopathy and relationship aggression.
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
The study consisted of 337 participants (55% female) recruited
from undergraduate courses at a university. Participant age ranged
from 18–27 (M = 20.93, SD = 2.31) and the majority described
themselves as Caucasian (88%). Furthermore, all participants reported being heterosexual. Relationship status was fairly mixed,
with 23% of participants being married, 44% reporting they were
dating someone at the present time, and 34% reporting they were
currently single (though they had previously been in a relationship). Length of relationships ranged from one month to just over
eight years (M = 1 year, 6 months; SD = 1 year, 1 month). The main
requirement for participation was that participants had to have
been involved in a serious relationship at some point in their adult
life (since graduation from high school). Qualified participants
were given the questionnaire packet and were asked to complete
it by the next class period. A debriefing form was given upon completion of the questionnaires. Participants received course credit
for their participation. Completion rates across classrooms ranged
from 65 to 90% (overall completion rate of 85%).
290
S.M. Coyne et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 288–293
2.2. Questionnaires
2.2.1. Psychopathy
Two forms of psychopathy traits were measured using the 26item Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP; Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). Primary psychopathy included items measuring selfishness, inability to care, and manipulativeness (e.g., ‘‘In
today’s world, I feel justified in doing anything I can get away with
to succeed”). Secondary psychopathy included items measuring
impulsivity and a self-defeating lifestyle (e.g., ‘‘When I get frustrated, I often ‘let off steam’ by blowing my top”). All responses
to items used a 4-point Likert scale (1 = disagree strongly, 4 = agree
strongly). Internal consistency for both primary (a = .74) and secondary psychopathy (a = .68) scales was acceptable, but only after
deleting one item (‘‘I am often bored”) from the secondary psychopathy scale.
2.2.2. Conflict tactics scale (CTS; Straus, 1979)
The CTS consists of 19 behaviors that couples often engage in
when angry with each other. Participants are asked to rate how frequently they engaged in each behavior (on a 0 (never) to 6 (more
than 20 times in the past year) Likert scale) during the past year.
Eleven of the 19 items involve direct physical aggression (e.g.,
kicked, punched, bit) and were used as a measure of physical
aggression in the current study. Though nearly 20% of the sample
reported perpetrating at least one act of physical aggression
against their partner, four of the most severe items showed no or
little variability and were subsequently dropped from the measure.
Internal consistency for the remaining seven items was acceptable
(a = .83).
2.2.3. Romantic relational aggression (RRA; Linder et al., 2002)
Participants’ romantic relational aggression was measured by
the RRA scale. This type of aggression specifically focuses on harming or manipulating relationships, not just individuals. The RRA
consisted of five questions (e.g., ‘‘I try to make my romantic partner
jealous when I am mad at him/her”) measured on a 1 (never) to 7
(very often) Likert scale. Again, internal consistency was acceptable
for this measure (a = .73).
2.2.4. Television index
Participants also listed their three favorite television programs
and rated how frequently they viewed each program on a scale
of 1 (not frequent) to 7 (extremely frequent). All the programs
listed by participants were then given out to 69 independent
undergraduate raters (52% male, M age = 23.43, SD = 6.44) who
were asked to estimate how much physical violence and relational
aggression (on separate scales) were in each program they were
familiar with (i.e., viewed regularly). Raters were provided with
detailed definitions and examples of each form of aggression. Ratings were based on a 1 (no aggression) to 7 (extreme amounts of
aggression) Likert scale. The raters evaluated a total of 129 different programs. The mean rating from all the raters of a particular
show (at least two raters per show) were determined. Intercoder
reliability was then assessed with two different methods, consistent with the pattern set by Huesmann, Moise, Podolski, and Eron,
2003. In particular, we determined the means of the inter-rater
correlations and average absolute discrepancies from the mean.
Raters with a high number of consistent negative correlations (suggesting lack of care in ratings) were omitted. The resulting means
for inter-rater correlations were .76 for physical aggression and .65
for relational aggression (using Fisher’s z). The average absolute
discrepancy from the mean was .72 for physical aggression and
.95 for relational aggression.
Aggression ratings for each program were multiplied by the frequency of exposure score to give participants a total media expo-
sure score. This commonly used approach gives programs viewed
more frequently greater weight in the subsequent analyses (e.g.,
Huesmann et al., 2003) and is considered more sound than self ratings of media content, given the multi-informant method.
3. Results
3.1. Sex differences
Initially, a MANOVA was conducted to explore any sex differences for study scales. This analysis revealed a significant multivariate effect, F (6, 330) = 14.20, p < .001, g2 = .21. Table 1 shows the
univariate effects, means, and standard deviations for all variables.
Men scored significantly higher than women on primary psychopathy traits and physical aggression viewed on television. Conversely, women scored higher on romantic relational aggression,
perpetration of physical aggression, and relational aggression
viewed on television. There was no significant sex difference for
secondary psychopathy traits. As a result of the above analyses,
all remaining analyses will be conducted separately for men and
women.
3.2. Correlations
Correlations between all variables are shown in Table 2. Both
primary and secondary psychopathies were correlated with both
types of aggression for men and women (save for physical aggression and primary psychopathy for women). Additionally, both
forms of psychopathy were positively correlated with physical
and relational aggression viewed on television by men only. Physical and relational aggression viewed on television were positively
correlated with both types of aggression for men, but only with
RRA for women.
3.3. Main analyses
A series of multiple-group, multivariate multiple regressions
were conducted with the Analysis of Moments Structure (AMOS)
software (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). Each model was run using
full information, maximum likelihood estimation in order to account for any missing data. Additionally, the models were conducted separately for men and women, given the sex difference
found in almost all the main variables.
Initially, we conducted analyses on the relationship between
psychopathy and relationship aggression without media aggression in the model (Figs. 1 and 2). For both men and women, secondary psychopathy was related to both forms of aggression,
while primary psychopathy was related to only RRA.
Both types of media aggression were then added as mediators
to the model. To examine the potential mediation of media aggression, we conducted bootstrapping analyses for indirect effects
based on 2000 bootstrap resamples and a 95% CI. The bootstrapping analysis revealed that neither type of media aggression was
a significant mediator for the relationship between either type of
psychopathy and types of aggression (p > .05 for each indirect
path). Indeed, an inspection of the path coefficients revealed little
change when media aggression was introduced into the model.
Secondary psychopathy still predicts both types of aggression for
men and women, and primary psychopathy predicts RRA for women (and for men at the level of a trend). However, some interesting findings did emerge regarding media aggression. Firstly, for
men, secondary psychopathy predicted the amount of physical
aggression viewed on television which then predicted engagement
of physical aggression in relationships. Similarly, secondary psychopathy also predicted exposure to relational aggression on tele-
291
S.M. Coyne et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 288–293
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for all Variables by Sex of Participant.
Variable
Men
Primary psychopathy
Secondary psychopathy
Physical aggression
Romantic relational aggression
TV physical aggression
TV relational aggression
Women
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
1.59
1.73
.06
1.31
12.77
14.81
.43
.39
.16
.48
8.06
8.20
1.48
1.70
.20
1.59
10.89
17.67
.34
.41
.56
.73
6.73
8.88
F
P
g2
6.17
.21
8.66
16.15
5.42
9.25
.01**
.65
.003**
.001***
.02*
.003**
.02
.00
.03
.05
.02
.03
Note: df for each result is (1, 346).
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
*
Table 2
Correlations Between All Variables by Sex of Participant.
Primary psychopathy
Secondary psychopathy
Physical aggression
Romantic relational aggression
TV physical aggression
TV relational aggression
1
2
3
4
5
6
–
.45***
.05
.32***
.07
.07
.48***
–
.31***
.37***
.11
.05
.14+
.25**
–
.35***
.06
.05
.26**
.30***
.07
–
.14*
.20**
.25**
.31***
.22**
.16*
–
.78(.49)***
.21**
.24**
.11
.24**
.75(.40)***
–
Note: Upper diagonal: correlations for men; lower diagonal: correlations for women.
As frequency of viewing the program remains constant for the TV physical and relational ratings, this naturally inflates the strength of the correlation. We have also provided
correlations (in parentheses) of only the aggressive content (and not the frequency of viewing) of the programs. Both are significant at the p < .001 level.
+p < .10.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
0,
e1
1
.02/.00
Primary
Psychopathy
0,
.14
Physical
Aggression
.24*
TV Physical
e3
-.12
.14+
.73***
1
.48***
-.01
.24**/.21**
.24**
Secondary
Psychopathy
-.12
TV Relational
.22*/.20*
.24*
0,
Romantic Relational 1
Aggression
e4
1
0,
e2
Fig. 1. Relation of psychopathy to perpetration of aggression by men as mediated by media aggression. The figure before the slash (/) mark represents the initial association
between psychopathy and relationship aggression. The figure after the slash mark represents the association between psychopathy and relationship aggression when media
aggression is added to the model. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001.
vision, which in turn predicted engagement in RRA. For women,
psychopathy did not predict engagement with either form of media aggression; however, viewing relational aggression on television
did predict engagement in RRA.
4. Discussion
The results of this study show psychopathy to be related to relationship aggression, albeit differentially for secondary and primary
psychopathy features. Secondary psychopathy traits were strongly
related to both types of aggression for both men and women. This
provides evidence that individuals with secondary psychopathic
traits are likely to use and abuse, even with those who are most
intimate to them. Indeed, individuals showing secondary psychopathic features may find intimate relationships particularly potent
triggers, as such relationships are likely to involve frequent interactions, conflicts of interest that are not easily resolved, and high
rates of aggression from partners (compared to strangers). This is
consistent with Skeem et al.’s (2003) comment that anger and violence were likely consequences of an individual with secondary
psychopathy traits who anticipated the loss of an interpersonal
relationship.
Conversely, primary psychopathy features were only related to
romantic relational aggression for both men (at the level of a trend)
and women. These subtle forms of aggression may be less likely to
be recognized by the victimized partner. This may make it easier
292
S.M. Coyne et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 288–293
0,
e1
1
-.12/-.12
Primary
Psychopathy
0,
.03
Physical
Aggression
-.02
TV Physical
e3
.06
.20**/.18*
.79***
1
.45***
.29***
.36***/.36***
.02
Secondary
Psychopathy
.28***/.29***
-.11
TV Relational
.26*
0,
Romantic Relational 1
Aggression
e4
1
0,
e2
Fig. 2. Relation of psychopathy to perpetration of aggression by women as mediated by media aggression. The figure before the slash (/) mark represents the initial
association between psychopathy and relationship aggression. The figure after the slash mark represents the association between psychopathy and relationship aggression
when media aggression is added to the model. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001.
for partners who tend to evince primary psychopathy features to
aggress, since subtle manipulation is key to controlling other individuals. Though Coyne and Thomas (2008) found that primary psychopathy was related to both physical and relational aggression in
non-romantic relationships, we only found an association with
relational aggression when examined in the context of romantic
relationships. Indeed, romantic relational aggression represents a
distinctly useful way to manipulate one’s partner, as such aggression can be very subtle, yet harmful to the victim. Physical aggression, in contrast, is clearly overt, and the victim has a better
understanding of the perpetrator’s intentions and the wrongfulness of such behavior. Therefore, individuals with primary psychopathic tendencies may prefer to tread carefully and use more
subtle tactics to control those around them while remaining outwardly reasonable. This is not to say that if such attempts are
unsuccessful, anger and physical aggression are not also within
their repertoire. It is only to suggest that those with primary psychopathy features may find more overt aggression less successful
and therefore less attractive than more subtle manipulation.
The relationship between psychopathy and relationship aggression was not mediated by exposure to media aggression. Instead,
this relationship indicated a fairly independent direct effect. However, there were a few findings of note regarding media aggression.
Firstly, for men, individuals with secondary psychopathic tendencies were more prone to seek out violent media. This is consistent
with the uses and gratifications approach (Katz et al., 1974), which
theorizes that individuals with a more aggressive personality
(including having secondary psychopathy traits) would turn to violence in the media to fulfill a need for aggression. However, this
same relationship was not found for primary psychopathy or relational aggression in the media. Accordingly, individuals with primary traits seem to seek out non-media sources to fulfill their
needs (which may or may not include aggression).
Furthermore, after controlling for psychopathic tendencies,
physical aggression viewed on television predicted engagement
in physical aggression for men, while relational aggression viewed
on television predicted perpetration of RRA for both men and women. This is consistent with a number of studies showing a relationship between exposure to media aggression and subsequent
aggressive behavior (e.g., Anderson et al., 2003). However, as stated
previously, this effect did not mediate the psychopathy and aggression relationship; instead, media aggression appeared to be having
an independent direct effect on relationship aggression.
As a whole, it appears that psychopathic tendencies and exposure to media aggression represent two independent routes for
increasing the likelihood of aggression in relationships. It appears
that it is not necessary for individuals with psychopathic tendencies to view media aggression to engage in relationship abuse. Conversely, having psychopathic tendencies is not a requirement for
aggressive behavior after viewing media aggression. Rather, they
both evince relationship aggression, albeit through different
routes. It is also possible that associations between psychopathy
traits, intimate aggression, and television viewing preferences are
due not to causation, but instead co-occur due to the influence of
shared underlying genetically determined traits such as negative
emotionality and daring (Waldman & Rhee, 2007). Meta-analytic
research suggests that such underlying traits would directly influence behavior (39% of antisocial traits (which are similar to secondary psychopathy) and 42% of detached traits (which are
similar to primary psychopathy). This research, however, also supports the notion that these traits would be subject to the additive
influences of non-shared environments (61% antisocial and 58% detached traits), which in turn supports the contention that media
viewing may interact with genetic propensities to enhance their
phenotypic appearance (Waldman & Rhee, 2007).
It should be noted that this study is correlational; as such, we
are unable to make any causal explanations regarding psychopathy, media, or relationship aggression. Experimental studies may
wish to address this in the future. Furthermore, all questionnaires
were self-report, which may encourage underreporting. Accordingly, partner reports could be included in the future to supplement self-reports.
In sum, this is the first study to show evidence that psychopathy
traits are differentially related to various forms of aggression in
romantic relationships in a non-clinical population. Additionally,
this is also the first study to illustrate that psychopathy and exposure to different types of media aggression may have independent
effects on relationship aggression. These findings then suggest that
careful consideration of both personality and environmental influences such as media exposure is needed when examining both the
causes and consequences of relationship aggression.
References
Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J. D., Linz,
D., et al. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science
in the Public Interest, 4, 81–110.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 27–51.
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago: Small Waters.
Board, B. J., & Fritzon, K. (2005). Disordered personalities at work. Psychology, Crime
and Law, 11, 17–32.
Book, A. S., & Quinsey, V. L. (2004). Psychopaths: cheaters or warrior-hawks?
Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 33–45.
S.M. Coyne et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 288–293
Browne, K. D., & Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. (2005). The influence of violent media on
children and adolescents: A public-health approach. Lancet, 365, 702–710.
Coyne, S. M., Nelson, D. A., Lawton, F., Haslam, S., Rooney, L., Titterington, L., et al.
(2008). The effects of viewing physical and relational aggression in the media:
Evidence for a cross-over effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44,
1551–1554.
Coyne, S. M., & Thomas, T. J. (2008). Psychopathy, aggression, and cheating
behavior: A test of the Cheater-Hawk hypothesis. Personality and Individual
Differences, 44, 1105–1115.
Craig, W. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression,
anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality and
Individual Differences, 24, 123–130.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Donnerstein, E., Slaby, R. G., & Eron, L. D. (1994). The mass media and youth
aggression. In L. D. Eron, J. Gentry, & P. Schlegel (Eds.), Reason to hope: A
psychosocial perspective on violence and youth (pp. 219–250). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Falkenbach, D., Poythress, N., & Creevy, C. (2008). The exploration of subclinical
psychopathic subtypes and the relationship with types of aggression.
Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 821–832.
Ferguson, C. J., Cruz, A. M., Martinez, D., Rueda, S. M., Ferguson, D. E., & Negy, C.
(2008). Personality, parental, and media influences on aggressive personality
and violent crime in young adults. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and
Trauma, 17, 395–414.
Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2009). The public health risks of media violence. A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Pediatrics, 154, 759–763.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Psychopathy Checklist—Revised manual. Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54.
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Psychopathy Checklist—Revised manual (2nd ed.). Toronto,
Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Huesmann, L. R. (1986). Psychological processes promoting the relation between
exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer. Journal of
Social Issues, 42, 125–139.
Huesmann, R., Moise, J., Podolski, C., & Eron, L. (2003). Longitudinal relations
between children’s exposure to television violence and their later aggressive
and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992. Developmental
Psychology, 39, 201–221.
Huss, M. T., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2006). Identification of the psychopathic
batterer: The clinical, legal, and policy implications. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 5, 403–422.
Karpman, B. (1941). On the need for separating psychopathy into two distinct
clinical types: Symptomatic and idiopathic. Journal of Criminology and
Psychopathology, 3, 112–137.
293
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by
the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communication:
Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19–32). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic
attributes in a non-institutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 151–158.
Linder, J. R., Crick, N. R., & Collins, W. A. (2002). Relational aggression and
victimization in young adults’ romantic relationships: Associations with
perceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationship quality. Social
Development, 11, 69–86.
Lynam, D., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psychopathy: A validation
study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 110–132.
Poythress, N. G., & Skeem, J. L. (2007). Disaggregating psychopathy: Where and how
to look for subtypes, (pp. 172–192). In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of
Psychopathy (pp. 205–250). The Guilford Press: New York.
Ray, J., Poythress, N., Weir, J., & Rickelm, A. (2009). Relationships between
psychopathy and impulsivity in the domain of self-reported personality
features. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 83–87.
Schmeelk, K. M., Sylvers, P., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2008). Trait correlates of relational
aggression in a nonclinical sample: DSM-IV personality disorders and
psychopathy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22, 269–283.
Skeem, J. L., Poythress, N., Edens, J. F., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Cale, E. M. (2003).
Psychopathic personality or personalities? Exploring potential variants of
psychopathy and their implications for risk assessment. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 513, 546.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence. The Conflict
Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88.
Swogger, M. T., Walsh, Z., & Kosson, D. S. (2007). Domestic violence and
psychopathic traits: Distinguishing the antisocial batterer from other
antisocial offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 253–260.
Waldman, I. D., & Rhee, S. H. (2007). Genetic and environmental influences on
psychopathy and antisocial behavior. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of
Psychopathy (pp. 205–250). The Guilford Press: New York.
Wareham, J., Dembo, R., Poythress, N., Childs, K., & Schmeidler, J. (2009). A latent
class factor approach to identifying subtypes of juvenile diversion youths based
on psychopathic features. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 71–95.
Warren, G. C., & Clarbour, J. (2009). Relationship between psychopathy and
indirect aggression use in a noncriminal population. Aggressive Behavior, 35,
408–421.
Zilmann, D., & Weaver, J. B. (1997). Psychoticism in the effect of prolonged
exposure to gratuitous media violence on the acceptance of violence as a
preferred means of conflict resolution. Personality and Individual Differences,
22, 613–627.