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 Brigham Young University, School of Family Life, Provo, UT 84602, USAb 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 2009Received in revised form 2 October 2009Accepted 8 October 2009Available online 8 November 2009

Keywords:PsychopathyMediaAggressionRelational aggressionTelevisionDomestic violence

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.10.018

* Corresponding author. Address: 2087 JFSB, BrighUT 84602, USA. Tel.: +1 801 422 6949.

E-mail address: smcoyne@byu.edu (S.M. Coyne).

a b s t r a c t

The aim of the current study was to examine the association between psychopathic features and variousforms of relationship aggression in a non-clinical population. Additionally, exposure to media aggressionwas examined as a potential mediator of the relationship between psychopathy and aggression. Partici-pants consisted of a total of 337 individuals who either reported on their current or most recent relation-ship. Results revealed that secondary psychopathy traits were related to both types of aggressionmeasured in the current study (physical aggression and romantic relational aggression). Additionally, pri-mary psychopathy traits were related to romantic relational aggression. Though exposure to mediaaggression (both physical and relational forms) was related to perpetration of relationship aggression,such exposure did not mediate the relationship between psychopathy and aggression.

� 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Psychopathy has long been a focus of the public, media, and re-search community. Defined by features such as lacking conscienceand feelings for others, psychopaths use charm, manipulation, andsometimes violence to get what they want (Hare, 1996). The liter-ature suggests that psychopathy is multi-dimensional, with indi-vidual components (e.g. factor-1 and factor-2, Hare, 1991, or thefour facets, Hare, 2003) demonstrating continuous rather than cat-egorical qualities. It is therefore possible for a ‘psychopath’ to dem-onstrate few of the core psychological traits expected. Thisknowledge has led scholars such as Skeem, Poythress, Edens,Lilienfeld, and Cale (2003) to suggest that distinctions should bemade on the basis of ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ psychopathy, theformer demonstrating the core affective traits whereas the latterbeing more behaviorally derived.

Karpman (1941) first proposed the primary–secondary psycho-path distinction. Although both types manifested a disregard forthe rights and feeling of others, as well as antisocial behavior,Karpman believed that primary psychopathy was the result of acongenital affective deficit whereas secondary psychopathy wasthe result of an adaptation to adverse early experiences. Primarypsychopaths were believed to be motivated by reward (instrumen-

ll rights reserved.

am Young University, Provo,

tal behavior), whereas secondary psychopaths were motivated byemotion (reactive behavior). Subsequent research has providedsupport for this distinction, finding that the traits of primarypsychopathy may be the result of low levels of anxiety, whereasthe features of secondary psychopathy may be the result of highlevels of negative affect and impulsivity. There is broad researchsupport for the existence of primary and secondary psychopathytraits (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 isthought to be perpetrated by individuals with psychopathic fea-tures (Hare, 1996). However, not all such individuals use violenceto get what they desire. Indeed, many ‘‘successful” psychopathsfunction reasonably well in society, with many holding positionsof power within academia, business, and other industries (e.g.,Board & Fritzon, 2005; Lynam, Whiteside, & Jones, 1999). Althoughegocentric, callous, and manipulative (traits of primary psychopa-thy), these individuals usually lack the more overtly antisocialattributes found in secondary psychopathy, attributes that typi-cally result in contact with the criminal justice system. Accordingto the Warrior Hawk hypothesis (see Book & Quinsey, 2004), suchindividuals avoid violent behavior, particularly if they feel their

S.M. Coyne et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 288–293 289

behavior would be discovered. Instead, discretion and moremanipulative types of behavior are likely to better suit their needs.

Most research on the aggression and psychopathy relationshiphas focused on physical violence (e.g., Martinez et al., 2007). How-ever, there is a growing body of research suggesting that individu-als with psychopathic traits are also more likely to use relationalaggression (e.g., Coyne & Thomas, 2008; Schmeelk, Sylvers, &Lilienfeld, 2008; Warren & Clarbour, 2009). Such aggression aimsto harm relationships or the social structure as a whole (e.g., socialexclusion, relationship manipulation, spreading rumors) and islinked to a variety of psychosocial problems for victims (e.g., Craig,1998).

Coyne and Thomas (2008) found that individuals with primarypsychopathic traits were particularly likely to use relationalaggression to manipulate those around them. However, they spec-ulate that individuals with psychopathic traits may use aggressiondifferently, depending on the target of the aggression. Some evolu-tionary theorists (Dawkins, 1976), indicate that aggression in closerelationships may be particularly problematic, as the individual isnot likely to remain anonymous, and the partner may eventuallyleave the relationship. However, various forms of partner aggres-sion can be crafted to carefully manipulate and control one’s part-ner into a mindset of denial and need for the aggressor. Forexample, romantic relational aggression (Linder, Crick, & Collins,2002) specifically focuses on manipulating the relationship to con-trol one’s partner (e.g., threatening to leave the relationship shouldthe individual not comply with the aggressor’s wishes).

Such aggression in romantic relationships may be particularlycommon by individuals with psychopathic traits. Indeed, the rela-tionship between psychopathy and abuse has been noted in severalstudies (e.g., Huss & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2006; Swogger,Walsh, & Kosson, 2007). However, the vast majority of this re-search focuses on physical forms of abuse in a clinical populationand typically examines psychopathy as a unified construct as op-posed to examining subtypes. Accordingly, one of the primary aimsof this study is to examine the relationship between primary andsecondary psychopathy traits and romantic relationship abuse,with a particular focus on romantic relational aggression in anon-clinical population.

1.2. Media

One factor often examined when explaining aggressive behavioris the media. Some studies have found that viewing violence in themedia can increase aggressive thoughts and behavior, both in theshort and long term (Anderson et al., 2003). Other research has alsorevealed that viewing relational forms of aggression in the mediacan also affect both physically and relationally aggressive behavior(e.g., Coyne et al., 2008). Accordingly, examining even subtle formsof aggression in the media is important when determining the ef-fect of media exposure on subsequent behavior.

However, research examining the link between media violenceand subsequent aggression has come under recent criticism.Browne and Hamilton-Giachritsis (2005) argue that though thereis clear evidence for a short term effect of viewing media violence,the long-term effects on aggressive behavior and crime are weak orinconsistent. Additionally, after correcting for publication bias, arecent meta-analysis (Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009) found only a verysmall 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 mediato fulfill certain needs, such as having an aggressive personality.According to this theory, personality may drive any relationshipbetween media and violence.

Additionally, the General Aggression Model (GAM; Anderson &Bushman, 2002) notes that personality may influence the media

violence effect in two other important ways. First, long-term expo-sure to media violence can shape an individual’s personality, par-ticularly those facets of personality related to aggressive behavior(Huesmann, 1986). Second, certain personality characteristicsseem to mediate the effect of viewing media violence on subse-quent aggressive behavior in the short term. For example, whenZilmann and Weaver (1997) exposed adults to gratuitous mediaviolence, only males high in psychoticism showed increased accep-tance of aggressive conflict resolution. On the other hand, Fergu-son, Cruz, Martinez, Rueda, Ferguson, and Negy (2008) found thatalthough personality was related to engagement in crime, expo-sure to media violence was not.

To our knowledge, it is unknown whether psychopathic traitsand media violence are related. Indeed, it is possible that individu-als with such traits may be particularly vulnerable to media effects.First, these individuals may be more prone to enactment of aggres-sion, with a highly elaborate system of aggression-related scripts inmemory. Secondly, individuals with primary psychopathic featuresare unlikely to empathize with victims of on-screen violence, oneof the characteristics that often buffers the effect of media violenceon aggression (see Donnerstein, Slaby, & Eron, 1994). Accordingly,exposure to media aggression may particularly enhance the likeli-hood for engagement in aggressive behavior for those with psycho-pathic traits.

1.3. Aims and hypotheses

There are two main purposes to this study. Firstly, we aim to as-sess the relationship between psychopathy traits and relationshipaggression in a non-clinical population. It is expected that all formsof aggression will be associated with both types of psychopathytraits. However, since primary psychopathy is characterized byan aptitude for manipulating people and relationships for theirown advantage (Hare, 1996), it is expected that the use of romanticrelational aggression would be particularly associated with pri-mary psychopathy traits.

The other primary aim of the study is to test whether viewingmedia aggression mediates the relationship between psychopathyand aggression. Based on the uses and gratifications approach, wepredicted that psychopathy would be related to both types of med-ia aggression, and this would partially mediate the relationship be-tween psychopathy and relationship aggression.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and procedure

The study consisted of 337 participants (55% female) recruitedfrom undergraduate courses at a university. Participant age rangedfrom 18–27 (M = 20.93, SD = 2.31) and the majority describedthemselves as Caucasian (88%). Furthermore, all participants re-ported being heterosexual. Relationship status was fairly mixed,with 23% of participants being married, 44% reporting they weredating someone at the present time, and 34% reporting they werecurrently single (though they had previously been in a relation-ship). Length of relationships ranged from one month to just overeight years (M = 1 year, 6 months; SD = 1 year, 1 month). The mainrequirement for participation was that participants had to havebeen involved in a serious relationship at some point in their adultlife (since graduation from high school). Qualified participantswere given the questionnaire packet and were asked to completeit by the next class period. A debriefing form was given upon com-pletion of the questionnaires. Participants received course creditfor their participation. Completion rates across classrooms rangedfrom 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. PsychopathyTwo forms of psychopathy traits were measured using the 26-

item Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP; Levenson, Kie-hl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). Primary psychopathy included items mea-suring selfishness, inability to care, and manipulativeness (e.g., ‘‘Intoday’s world, I feel justified in doing anything I can get away withto succeed”). Secondary psychopathy included items measuringimpulsivity and a self-defeating lifestyle (e.g., ‘‘When I get frus-trated, I often ‘let off steam’ by blowing my top”). All responsesto items used a 4-point Likert scale (1 = disagree strongly, 4 = agreestrongly). Internal consistency for both primary (a = .74) and sec-ondary psychopathy (a = .68) scales was acceptable, but only afterdeleting one item (‘‘I am often bored”) from the secondary psy-chopathy 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 fre-quently they engaged in each behavior (on a 0 (never) to 6 (morethan 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 physicalaggression in the current study. Though nearly 20% of the samplereported perpetrating at least one act of physical aggressionagainst their partner, four of the most severe items showed no orlittle 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 harm-ing or manipulating relationships, not just individuals. The RRAconsisted of five questions (e.g., ‘‘I try to make my romantic partnerjealous when I am mad at him/her”) measured on a 1 (never) to 7(very often) Likert scale. Again, internal consistency was acceptablefor this measure (a = .73).

2.2.4. Television indexParticipants also listed their three favorite television programs

and rated how frequently they viewed each program on a scaleof 1 (not frequent) to 7 (extremely frequent). All the programslisted by participants were then given out to 69 independentundergraduate raters (52% male, M age = 23.43, SD = 6.44) whowere asked to estimate how much physical violence and relationalaggression (on separate scales) were in each program they werefamiliar with (i.e., viewed regularly). Raters were provided withdetailed definitions and examples of each form of aggression. Rat-ings were based on a 1 (no aggression) to 7 (extreme amounts ofaggression) Likert scale. The raters evaluated a total of 129 differ-ent programs. The mean rating from all the raters of a particularshow (at least two raters per show) were determined. Intercoderreliability was then assessed with two different methods, consis-tent with the pattern set by Huesmann, Moise, Podolski, and Eron,2003. In particular, we determined the means of the inter-ratercorrelations and average absolute discrepancies from the mean.Raters with a high number of consistent negative correlations (sug-gesting lack of care in ratings) were omitted. The resulting meansfor inter-rater correlations were .76 for physical aggression and .65for relational aggression (using Fisher’s z). The average absolutediscrepancy from the mean was .72 for physical aggression and.95 for relational aggression.

Aggression ratings for each program were multiplied by the fre-quency of exposure score to give participants a total media expo-

sure score. This commonly used approach gives programs viewedmore frequently greater weight in the subsequent analyses (e.g.,Huesmann et al., 2003) and is considered more sound than self rat-ings of media content, given the multi-informant method.

3. Results

3.1. Sex differences

Initially, a MANOVA was conducted to explore any sex differ-ences for study scales. This analysis revealed a significant multivar-iate effect, F (6, 330) = 14.20, p < .001, g2 = .21. Table 1 shows theunivariate effects, means, and standard deviations for all variables.Men scored significantly higher than women on primary psychop-athy traits and physical aggression viewed on television. Con-versely, women scored higher on romantic relational aggression,perpetration of physical aggression, and relational aggressionviewed on television. There was no significant sex difference forsecondary psychopathy traits. As a result of the above analyses,all remaining analyses will be conducted separately for men andwomen.

3.2. Correlations

Correlations between all variables are shown in Table 2. Bothprimary and secondary psychopathies were correlated with bothtypes of aggression for men and women (save for physical aggres-sion and primary psychopathy for women). Additionally, bothforms of psychopathy were positively correlated with physicaland relational aggression viewed on television by men only. Phys-ical and relational aggression viewed on television were positivelycorrelated with both types of aggression for men, but only withRRA for women.

3.3. Main analyses

A series of multiple-group, multivariate multiple regressionswere conducted with the Analysis of Moments Structure (AMOS)software (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999). Each model was run usingfull information, maximum likelihood estimation in order to ac-count for any missing data. Additionally, the models were con-ducted separately for men and women, given the sex differencefound in almost all the main variables.

Initially, we conducted analyses on the relationship betweenpsychopathy and relationship aggression without media aggres-sion in the model (Figs. 1 and 2). For both men and women, sec-ondary 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 mediatorsto the model. To examine the potential mediation of media aggres-sion, we conducted bootstrapping analyses for indirect effectsbased on 2000 bootstrap resamples and a 95% CI. The bootstrap-ping analysis revealed that neither type of media aggression wasa significant mediator for the relationship between either type ofpsychopathy and types of aggression (p > .05 for each indirectpath). Indeed, an inspection of the path coefficients revealed littlechange when media aggression was introduced into the model.Secondary psychopathy still predicts both types of aggression formen and women, and primary psychopathy predicts RRA for wo-men (and for men at the level of a trend). However, some interest-ing findings did emerge regarding media aggression. Firstly, formen, secondary psychopathy predicted the amount of physicalaggression viewed on television which then predicted engagementof physical aggression in relationships. Similarly, secondary psy-chopathy also predicted exposure to relational aggression on tele-

Table 1Means and Standard Deviations for all Variables by Sex of Participant.

Variable Men Women F P g2

Mean SD Mean SD

Primary psychopathy 1.59 .43 1.48 .34 6.17 .01** .02Secondary psychopathy 1.73 .39 1.70 .41 .21 .65 .00Physical aggression .06 .16 .20 .56 8.66 .003** .03Romantic relational aggression 1.31 .48 1.59 .73 16.15 .001*** .05TV physical aggression 12.77 8.06 10.89 6.73 5.42 .02* .02TV relational aggression 14.81 8.20 17.67 8.88 9.25 .003** .03

Note: df for each result is (1, 346).* p < .05.** p < .01.*** p < .001.

Table 2Correlations Between All Variables by Sex of Participant.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Primary psychopathy – .48*** .14+ .26** .25** .21**

Secondary psychopathy .45*** – .25** .30*** .31*** .24**

Physical aggression .05 .31*** – .07 .22** .11Romantic relational aggression .32*** .37*** .35*** – .16* .24**

TV physical aggression .07 .11 .06 .14* – .75(.40)***

TV relational aggression .07 .05 .05 .20** .78(.49)*** –

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 providedcorrelations (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.

PrimaryPsychopathy

SecondaryPsychopathy

TV Physical

TV Relational

PhysicalAggression

Romantic RelationalAggression

0,

e31

0,

e41

-.01.48***

.14 .24*

.24**

.02/.00

.22*/.20*

.14+

.24**/.21** -.12

-.12

.24*

0,

e1

1

0,

e2

1

.73***

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 associationbetween psychopathy and relationship aggression. The figure after the slash mark represents the association between psychopathy and relationship aggression when mediaaggression is added to the model. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001.

S.M. Coyne et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 288–293 291

vision, which in turn predicted engagement in RRA. For women,psychopathy did not predict engagement with either form of med-ia aggression; however, viewing relational aggression on televisiondid predict engagement in RRA.

4. Discussion

The results of this study show psychopathy to be related to rela-tionship aggression, albeit differentially for secondary and primarypsychopathy features. Secondary psychopathy traits were stronglyrelated to both types of aggression for both men and women. Thisprovides evidence that individuals with secondary psychopathictraits are likely to use and abuse, even with those who are most

intimate to them. Indeed, individuals showing secondary psycho-pathic features may find intimate relationships particularly potenttriggers, as such relationships are likely to involve frequent inter-actions, conflicts of interest that are not easily resolved, and highrates of aggression from partners (compared to strangers). This isconsistent with Skeem et al.’s (2003) comment that anger and vio-lence were likely consequences of an individual with secondarypsychopathy traits who anticipated the loss of an interpersonalrelationship.

Conversely, primary psychopathy features were only related toromantic relational aggression for both men (at the level of a trend)and women. These subtle forms of aggression may be less likely tobe recognized by the victimized partner. This may make it easier

PrimaryPsychopathy

SecondaryPsychopathy

TV Physical

TV Relational

PhysicalAggression

Romantic RelationalAggression

0,

e31

0,

e41

.29***.45***

.03 -.02

.02

-.12/-.12

.28***/.29***

.20**/.18*

.36***/.36*** -.11

.06

.26*

0,

e1

1

0,

e2

1

.79***

Fig. 2. Relation of psychopathy to perpetration of aggression by women as mediated by media aggression. The figure before the slash (/) mark represents the initialassociation between psychopathy and relationship aggression. The figure after the slash mark represents the association between psychopathy and relationship aggressionwhen media aggression is added to the model. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001.

292 S.M. Coyne et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 288–293

for partners who tend to evince primary psychopathy features toaggress, since subtle manipulation is key to controlling other indi-viduals. Though Coyne and Thomas (2008) found that primary psy-chopathy was related to both physical and relational aggression innon-romantic relationships, we only found an association withrelational aggression when examined in the context of romanticrelationships. Indeed, romantic relational aggression represents adistinctly useful way to manipulate one’s partner, as such aggres-sion can be very subtle, yet harmful to the victim. Physical aggres-sion, in contrast, is clearly overt, and the victim has a betterunderstanding of the perpetrator’s intentions and the wrongful-ness of such behavior. Therefore, individuals with primary psycho-pathic tendencies may prefer to tread carefully and use moresubtle tactics to control those around them while remaining out-wardly reasonable. This is not to say that if such attempts areunsuccessful, anger and physical aggression are not also withintheir repertoire. It is only to suggest that those with primary psy-chopathy features may find more overt aggression less successfuland therefore less attractive than more subtle manipulation.

The relationship between psychopathy and relationship aggres-sion was not mediated by exposure to media aggression. Instead,this relationship indicated a fairly independent direct effect. How-ever, there were a few findings of note regarding media aggression.Firstly, for men, individuals with secondary psychopathic tenden-cies were more prone to seek out violent media. This is consistentwith the uses and gratifications approach (Katz et al., 1974), whichtheorizes that individuals with a more aggressive personality(including having secondary psychopathy traits) would turn to vio-lence in the media to fulfill a need for aggression. However, thissame relationship was not found for primary psychopathy or rela-tional aggression in the media. Accordingly, individuals with pri-mary traits seem to seek out non-media sources to fulfill theirneeds (which may or may not include aggression).

Furthermore, after controlling for psychopathic tendencies,physical aggression viewed on television predicted engagementin physical aggression for men, while relational aggression viewedon television predicted perpetration of RRA for both men and wo-men. This is consistent with a number of studies showing a rela-tionship between exposure to media aggression and subsequentaggressive behavior (e.g., Anderson et al., 2003). However, as statedpreviously, this effect did not mediate the psychopathy and aggres-sion relationship; instead, media aggression appeared to be havingan independent direct effect on relationship aggression.

As a whole, it appears that psychopathic tendencies and expo-sure to media aggression represent two independent routes forincreasing the likelihood of aggression in relationships. It appears

that it is not necessary for individuals with psychopathic tenden-cies to view media aggression to engage in relationship abuse. Con-versely, having psychopathic tendencies is not a requirement foraggressive behavior after viewing media aggression. Rather, theyboth evince relationship aggression, albeit through differentroutes. It is also possible that associations between psychopathytraits, intimate aggression, and television viewing preferences aredue not to causation, but instead co-occur due to the influence ofshared underlying genetically determined traits such as negativeemotionality and daring (Waldman & Rhee, 2007). Meta-analyticresearch suggests that such underlying traits would directly influ-ence behavior (39% of antisocial traits (which are similar to sec-ondary psychopathy) and 42% of detached traits (which aresimilar to primary psychopathy). This research, however, also sup-ports the notion that these traits would be subject to the additiveinfluences of non-shared environments (61% antisocial and 58% de-tached traits), which in turn supports the contention that mediaviewing may interact with genetic propensities to enhance theirphenotypic appearance (Waldman & Rhee, 2007).

It should be noted that this study is correlational; as such, weare unable to make any causal explanations regarding psychopa-thy, media, or relationship aggression. Experimental studies maywish to address this in the future. Furthermore, all questionnaireswere self-report, which may encourage underreporting. Accord-ingly, partner reports could be included in the future to supple-ment self-reports.

In sum, this is the first study to show evidence that psychopathytraits are differentially related to various forms of aggression inromantic relationships in a non-clinical population. Additionally,this is also the first study to illustrate that psychopathy and expo-sure to different types of media aggression may have independenteffects on relationship aggression. These findings then suggest thatcareful consideration of both personality and environmental influ-ences such as media exposure is needed when examining both thecauses 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 Sciencein the Public Interest, 4, 81–110.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review ofPsychology, 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) 288–293 293

Browne, K. D., & Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. (2005). The influence of violent media onchildren 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 cheatingbehavior: A test of the Cheater-Hawk hypothesis. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 44, 1105–1115.

Craig, W. (1998). The relationship among bullying, victimization, depression,anxiety, and aggression in elementary school children. Personality andIndividual 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: Apsychosocial perspective on violence and youth (pp. 219–250). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Falkenbach, D., Poythress, N., & Creevy, C. (2008). The exploration of subclinicalpsychopathic 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 personalityand violent crime in young adults. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment andTrauma, 17, 395–414.

Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2009). The public health risks of media violence. Ameta-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. CriminalJustice 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 betweenexposure to media violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer. Journal ofSocial Issues, 42, 125–139.

Huesmann, R., Moise, J., Podolski, C., & Eron, L. (2003). Longitudinal relationsbetween children’s exposure to television violence and their later aggressiveand violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992. DevelopmentalPsychology, 39, 201–221.

Huss, M. T., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2006). Identification of the psychopathicbatterer: The clinical, legal, and policy implications. Aggression and ViolentBehavior, 5, 403–422.

Karpman, B. (1941). On the need for separating psychopathy into two distinctclinical types: Symptomatic and idiopathic. Journal of Criminology andPsychopathology, 3, 112–137.

Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication bythe 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 psychopathicattributes in a non-institutionalized population. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 68, 151–158.

Linder, J. R., Crick, N. R., & Collins, W. A. (2002). Relational aggression andvictimization in young adults’ romantic relationships: Associations withperceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationship quality. SocialDevelopment, 11, 69–86.

Lynam, D., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psychopathy: A validationstudy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 110–132.

Poythress, N. G., & Skeem, J. L. (2007). Disaggregating psychopathy: Where and howto look for subtypes, (pp. 172–192). In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook ofPsychopathy (pp. 205–250). The Guilford Press: New York.

Ray, J., Poythress, N., Weir, J., & Rickelm, A. (2009). Relationships betweenpsychopathy and impulsivity in the domain of self-reported personalityfeatures. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 83–87.

Schmeelk, K. M., Sylvers, P., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2008). Trait correlates of relationalaggression in a nonclinical sample: DSM-IV personality disorders andpsychopathy. 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 ofpsychopathy and their implications for risk assessment. Aggression and ViolentBehavior, 513, 546.

Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence. The ConflictTactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75–88.

Swogger, M. T., Walsh, Z., & Kosson, D. S. (2007). Domestic violence andpsychopathic traits: Distinguishing the antisocial batterer from otherantisocial offenders. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 253–260.

Waldman, I. D., & Rhee, S. H. (2007). Genetic and environmental influences onpsychopathy and antisocial behavior. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook ofPsychopathy (pp. 205–250). The Guilford Press: New York.

Wareham, J., Dembo, R., Poythress, N., Childs, K., & Schmeidler, J. (2009). A latentclass factor approach to identifying subtypes of juvenile diversion youths basedon psychopathic features. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 71–95.

Warren, G. C., & Clarbour, J. (2009). Relationship between psychopathy andindirect aggression use in a noncriminal population. Aggressive Behavior, 35,408–421.

Zilmann, D., & Weaver, J. B. (1997). Psychoticism in the effect of prolongedexposure to gratuitous media violence on the acceptance of violence as apreferred means of conflict resolution. Personality and Individual Differences,22, 613–627.