(Transcript of the email in a readable font)
Please find my attached proposal for the 2010 ISRA conference.
My preference would to present an Oral Paper, however I would do a poster if necessary.
If any other information is required feel free to email me or reach me via phone at 914
629 0193.
Thank you,
Shanah Einzig
Title: Difference in gender prevalence rates in psychopathy: Do the constructs of overt
and covert aggression provide answers?
Authors: Shanah Einzig, MA John Jay College of Criminal Justice & Dr. Diana M
Falkenback, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Abstract:
Current research has identified two types of aggression, overt (physical or verbal) and
covert (relational), with men displaying more overt aggression and women displaying
more covert aggression (Bjorqvist, Osterman, & Lagerspetz, 1994; Little, Jones, Henrich,
& Hawley, 2003). Aggression is often linked with psychopathy, a set of characteristics
that are typically divided into interpersonal traits (F1; Factor 1) such as charm,
grandiosity, narcissism and lack of empathy, and behavioral traits (F2; Factor 2) such as
impulsivity, antisocial behavior and delinquency. Closer examination of psychopathy
indicates that aggression is more specifically linked with F2 traits. The literature suggests
that there are no sex differences in the traits of F1, however sex differences appear in F2
(Strand & Belfrage, 2005) psychopathic traits, with women scoring lower on assessments
of these traits. The current study aims to determine if: 1) sex differences exist in
psychopathy total and factor scores using the Psychopathic Personality Inventory
(Lilienfield & Andrews, 1996); 2) sex difference exist in overt and covert aggression as
measured by the Little Aggression Inventory (Little, Jones, Henrich, & Hawley, 2003);
and 3) these differences in overt/covert aggression explain the sex differences on the PPIII. Preliminary findings with 100 undergraduate psychology students showed that men
and women did not differ significantly on total or F2 psychopathy scores, but women
scored higher on F1. Analyses revealed that there was not a correlation between sex and
overt/covert aggression. The research did not support the hypothesis that overt/covert
aggression explains the sex differences in psychopathy. There are potentially important
clinical implications, particularly in terms of the assessment of psychopathy in women,
where findings suggest that sex differences in the expression of aggression need to be
considered when assessing women.
Summary:
General Aggression
Aggression, a construct that has been defined and studied in numerous ways, continues to
be better understood in men than women. Less is known about female aggression,
including the motivational factors that cause women to be aggressive, how women
express aggression, and the developmental course of aggression in woman (Penny &
Morett, 2007). Most research suggests that men are more aggressive (e.g., Baron and
Richardson, 1994), however, those results may be due to differences in form of
aggression used. Men tend to employ more obvious, or overt aggression (e.g., kicking,
hitting, punching), described as verbal or physical aggression where there is harm, or
threat of harm caused to others (Craig, 1998; Crick & Grotpeter, 1995; Prinstein,
Boergers, & Vernbert, 2001). Women use more subtle, or covert, forms of aggression
(e.g., gossip, refusal of friendship, ostracize, manipulating a relationship) (Bjorkqvist, et
al., 1994; Little et al., 2003), which tend to be more non-verbal and indirect (Crick, 1996;
Cullerton-Sen & Crick, 2005; Paquette & Underwood, 1999).
Psychopathy
Psychopathy is a disorder incorporating the characteristics of several personality
disorders. Cleckley (1941) and Hare (1994) described the psychopath as manipulative,
egocentric, impulsive and lacking empathy. Psychopathic traits are typically clustered
into two factors; F1 corresponds to interpersonal and affective traits such as lying,
grandiosity and lack of remorse and empathy, and F2 consists of social deviance and
antisocial behaviors including impulsivity, juvenile delinquency, and poor behavioral
controls (Berardino, Meloy, Sherman, & Jacobs, 2005; Hare, 1991).
While research supports the construct validity and assessment of psychopathy in
males, there is some controversy about psychopathy in females (Jackson et al., 2002;
Strand & Belfrage, 2005). Vitale and colleagues (2002) found that the base rates of
psychopathy in female offenders range from 9 to 23 percent compared to 15 to 30 percent
in men. Additioanlly, females receive lower scores than males on the Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003; Jackson et al., 2002; Vitale & Newman, 2001),
leading some to implement a cutoff score adjustment in order to diagnose psychopathy in
females (Jackson, Rodgers, Neumann, & Lambert, 2002; Vitale, Smith, Brinkley, &
Newmann, 2002).
Individual psychopathic traits may also be demonstrated differently in women
(Bolt, Hare, Vistale, & Newman, 2004; Chapman, Gremore, & Farmer, 2003; Hamburger
et al., 1996; Rutherford et at., 1995; Salekin et al., 1997). For example, research suggests
impulsiveness in women is shown through self-harm, running away and manipulation,
whereas men demonstrate impulsivity through violent behavior (Forouzan & Cooke,
2005). Additionally, some items on the PCL-R load on the factors differently across sex;
one study found that three items (poor behavioral control, lack of realistic goals, and
impulsivity) loaded on both F1 and F2 for female offenders, whereas these items loaded
on only F2 for men (Salekin and colleagues, 1997). Some research also indicates that the
sex differences on psychopathy are specific to the behaviorally based items of F2, while
men and women tend to score similarly on the personality based items of F1 (Bolt, Hare,
Vitale, & Newman, 2004; Krueger et al, 1994). It is unclear if the lower psychopathy
scores and base rates for women are due to less expression of these traits, a difference of
construct or inaccurate assessment of psychopathy in women.
Psychopathy and Aggression
Although there are various definitions of aggression used in the literature, research has
linked various forms (how it is manifested) and functions (the intention) of aggression to
the construct of psychopathy (Cornell et al., 1996; Harris, Rice, Cormier, 1991; Patrick &
Zempolich, 1998). There are sex differences in the type of aggression displayed, with
males displaying more overt aggression, and there are sex differences specific to F2
psychoapthic traits, with males displaying more of these traits (Forth et al. 1996). Given
that F2 psychopathic traits are typically associated with overt aggression (Bolt, Hare,
Vitale, & Newman, 2004; Hicks et al., 2004; Kennealy et al., 2007), perhaps a more
specific assessment of the type of aggression and the type of psychopathic traits by sex
can explain the rate discrepancies in psychopathy across the sexes.
Current Study
The current study investigated psychopathic traits and aggression across sex. For
psychopathy, it was hypothesized that total psychopathy scores would be lower for
females than males. Additionally, it was speculated that there would be no gender
differences on F1 scores and that men would have higher F2 scores. Secondly, sex
differences in overt and covert aggression were assessed, with the expectation that
women would score lower on the overt scale and there would be no significant sex
differences on the covert scale. Finally, this study investigated the interelations between
psychopathy, aggression and sex. It was hypothesized that that only F2 would correlate
with aggression, and specifically more to overt aggression than covert aggression, and
sex differences in the specific types of aggression would account for the differences in F2
psychopathy scores.
Participants
100 male and female undergraduate students from an urban college.
Results
Contrary to the hypothesis, independent t-tests showed that although men’s PPI Total
scores (M = 456.04, SD = 28.7) were higher than females’ PPI Total scores (M = 439.83,
SD = 40.43), the difference between the two groups only approached significance, (t (97),
p = .08). Additional independent t-tests showed that there was no significant difference
between men (M = 185.61, SD = 27.1) and women (M = 182.84, SD = 25.487), on the
PPI-II (t (97) = .45, p = .65). However, contrary to hypotheses, there were differences
between men (M = 150.65, SD = 16.38) and women (M = 140.42, SD = 22.01) on PPI-I
scores (t (97) = 2.06, p = .04), with men scoring higher.
Further investigation of aggression found that the difference in men and women’s
scores (M= 6.68, SD = 2.75; M = 6.68, SD = 2.72, respectively) on the Little Aggression
Inventory (Little, et al., 2003) subscale measuring overt aggression was non-significant (t
(96) = -.004, p = .99). Independent t-tests showed that men’s LAI Covert scores (M = 8,
SD = 3.28) were not significantly different than women’s (M = 7.58, SD = 2.99) scores (t
(96) = .57, p = .57).
Next, a significant positive correlation was observed between psychopathy and
overt aggression as well as covet aggression (r(97) = .25, p < .005) (r(97) = .36, p <.001,
respectively). Bivariate correlation analyses investigating the relationship between F1 and
overt and covert aggression (r(97) = -.03, p =ns); r(97) = .03, p = ns, respectively)were
not significant. However, F2 was significantly correlated to both overt aggression (r(97)
= .33, p < .01) and covert aggression (r(97) = .42, p < .01).
Discussion
The present study demonstrates no sex differences in overt and covert aggression,
psychopathy total and F2, however women in this sample scored lower on F1
psychopathy traits. When aggression was teased apart as either overt or covert
aggression, the results showed that men and women did not differ significantly in use of
overt aggression or covert aggression. The dichotomy of overt-covert aggression used in
this study is in the initial phases of investigation and in need for more validation research;
it is possible it lacks discriminative validity as the two scales were significantly
correlated (r = .74, p < .01). Further, although the majority of literature indicates the idea
that men use overt aggression more than women, more current research supports that men
decrease their amount of overt aggression as they age. Males develop later than females,
making them more likely to use physical aggression because it does not rely much on
cognitive thinking (Hay, 2007). As boys age, it becomes less socially acceptable for them
to use physical aggression and therefore the energy that was once used for physical overt
aggression is transformed into covert aggression. Adult males may be as capable of using
indirect aggressive strategies because they have acquired verbal and social skills
equivalent to those of adult females (Bjorkqvist, Osterman, & Kaukiainen, 1992;
Kaukiainen et al., 1999). As the current sample is of undergraduates aged 18 to 33 years,
the findings are supported by the developmental theory that at a certain age, typically in
adolescence (Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz & Kaukiainen, 1992), men start to use covert instead
of overt aggression.
Almost all studies, regardless of the measures used, find that men have a higher
scores on psychopathy compared to women (Forth et al., 1996; Hare, 1991, 2003;
Rutherford et al., 1995; Salekin et al., 1997; Strand & Belfrage, 2005). Contrary to
previous findings, results from this study did not reveal any significant differences in
total psychopathy. However the sex difference approached significance, suggesting the
possibility that with a larger sample size a significant difference, similar to those found in
the literature, might be found. Because women in this sample had similar scores on the
overall PPI to men’s scores, a finding dissimilar to most research displaying men scoring
significantly higher than women on overall PPI (Forth, Brown, Hart, & Hare, 1996; Hare,
1991; Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1997 Zagon & Jackson, 1994), and similar aggression
scores, it is understandable that the sex differences in correlation with the two factors of
psychopathy would not be evidenced.
Men should be scoring higher on F2 and should be the same on F1 compared to
women, yet in this sample women scored equal on F2 and higher on F1, keeping the
predicted proportions correct. This finding is consistent with findings from Levenson and
colleagues (1995) as they found that men scored higher on F1.
The current study found that F2 was correlated to both overt and covert
aggression, consistent with the results by Schmeelk and colleagues (2008). F1, which
measures interpersonal features, and thought to be correlated to covert aggression, was
not correlated to either overt or covert aggression. Perhaps theory is wrong in expecting
different types of aggression to be correlated to each factor (Skeem et al, 2003; Warren &
Clabour, 2009) as aggression as a whole is associated with F2 (Walters, 2003), a similar
finding to Schmeelk and colleagues’s (2008) results that relational aggression is
correlated with F2 even though the PPI’s F2 does not contain any precise aggression
items
Contrary to theoretical understandings, the connection between the interpersonal and
behavioral aspects defining psychopathy and the present dependent variables of overt and
covert aggression were comparable across the sexes, similar to findings by Penny and
colleagues (2007).
Limitations
Although this study provides additional understanding of psychoapthic traits and
aggression in females, there are limitations to the interpretation of the conclusions. First,
generalizability of the results may be limited because of the use of an undergraduate
sample. Additionally, the sample size was 100 participants, therefore there may not have
been enough power to find real differences. This lack of power is particularly important
because a number of analyses were approaching significance. Second, although many
research studies utilize self-report measures, there is an ongoing discussion as to the use
of such measures for the assessment of psychopathic traits (Hare, 1993). The use of selfreport measures may influence how honest an individual is in answering the questions.
Future research should validate a non-self-report measure that reliably assesses
psychopathic-like traits in a non-forensic population.
Research has started to define psychopathy in women differently from the terms
used to describe psychopathy in men. Men and women were shown to have similar scores
on the psychopathy measures and measures assessing different types of aggression. As
many of the hypotheses predicted were not supported, further research is necessary in
order to understand female psychopathy and aggression. If the current findings are indeed
replicated in future studies, this means that clinicians have become attuned to the female
psychopath and therefore research should start to provide additional support showing the
limited differences between the psychopathic traits of men and women.