psychopathy, aggression, and cheating behavior: a test of the cheater–hawk hypothesis

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 1105–1115

Psychopathy, aggression, and cheating behavior:A test of the Cheater–Hawk hypothesis

Sarah M. Coyne a,*, Tiffany J. Thomas b

a Brigham Young University, School of Family Life, JFSB 2087, Provo, UT 84602, USAb University of Central Lancashire, Preston, England, United Kingdom

Received 10 July 2007; received in revised form 30 October 2007; accepted 2 November 2007

Abstract

According to Book and Quinsey (2004), the Cheater–Hawk hypothesis adequately explains the use ofboth cheating behavior and aggression in psychopaths. This study aimed to test this hypothesis by exam-ining the association between primary and secondary psychopathy, cheating behavior, indirect aggression(also called relational aggression), and direct aggression using a non-institutionalized sample of Universitystudents. Primary psychopathy was related to cheating behavior, indirect and direct aggression, showingsupport for the Cheater–Hawk hypothesis. However, secondary psychopathy was only related to directand indirect aggression. Primary psychopathy was also better predicted by indirect aggression, while sec-ondary psychopathy was better predicted by direct aggression. As a whole the results partially support theCheater–Hawk hypothesis, but appear to depend on the type of psychopathy and the type of aggressionmeasured.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Psychopathy; Indirect aggression; Academic dishonesty; Relational aggression; Cheating

0191-8869/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.002

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 801 422 6949.E-mail address: [email protected] (S.M. Coyne).

mailto:[email protected]

1106 S.M. Coyne, T.J. Thomas / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 1105–1115

1. Introduction

Psychopaths have captured the imagination of the media and the research community in recentyears; not only because of the brutal and often uncaring way they treat people, but because oftheir near inability to be reformed (e.g. Barbaree, 2005). Robert Hare (1996: 25) described psycho-paths as ‘‘. . .predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation and violence to control oth-ers. . .Lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they cold-bloodedly take what they wantand to do as they please . . .they are responsible for a markedly disproportionate amount of seriouscrime, violence and social distress in society.’’

Most research reveals that there are two types of psychopaths (Cleckley, 1976; Newman, Mac-Coon, Vaughn, & Sadeh, 2005). Primary psychopaths are individuals who generally show low lev-els of anxiety, empathy, fearlessness and emotion due to some intrinsic deficit rather than due toenvironmental or emotional difficulties. Secondary psychopaths show more impulsiveness, anxi-ety, empathy, and guilt than their primary counterparts. Their antisocial behavior is viewednot as an intrinsic deficit but rather as a result of environmental disadvantage, neurotic anxiety,psychotic thinking, low intelligence levels or other attributes that increase the likelihood for anti-social behavior (Lykken, 1995).

Although psychopaths are often caught and imprisoned for their crimes, many more ‘‘success-ful’’ psychopaths live in the community. These are individuals who may possess many of thesame attributes of their unsuccessful counterparts; however, they do not have the same historyof arrest and incarceration. Successful psychopaths operate well in mainstream society and mayuse their traits to ‘‘get ahead’’ at University (Lynam, Whiteside, & Jones, 1999), business (Board& Fritzon, 2005) and in other organizations (Babiak, 1995, 1996). These individuals have acharming facade and are very good at manipulating and using those around them to achievesuccess.

From an evolutionary perspective psychopathy can be explained using the Cheater and War-rior Hawk hypotheses (Book & Quinsey, 2004). These two hypotheses focus on two psycho-pathic traits, namely cheating and aggression. According to these views, psychopathy can beadaptive. This is particularly true for successful psychopaths who are good at using othersfor their own benefit while putting up a charming facade so as not to be caught out. TheCheater hypothesis explains the manipulativeness and cheating behavior of psychopaths. Itbuilds upon game theory and is best exemplified by using the ‘‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’’ gamewhere an individual must decide whether to cooperate with or cheat a group of people in orderto maximise his/her own benefits. Psychopaths have been shown to exploit others to benefitthemselves, both in Prisoner’s Dilemma games (e.g. Widom, 1976) and in real life (e.g. Mealey,1995; Seto, Khattar, Lalumiere, & Quinsey, 1997). This cheating may even go beyond the so-cial aspect to actual cheating and dishonesty in financial, business, and academic life. Forexample, in a non-clinical population, Nathanson, Paulhus, and Williams (2006) found thatpsychopathy was a strong predictor of cheating on examinations, even after controlling forscholastic competence. According to the Cheater hypothesis, one reason that psychopaths‘‘cheat’’ is because they have low levels of empathy, yet strong levels of indignation when theyfeel wronged.

However, aggression is also strongly associated with psychopathy (e.g., Miller & Lynam, 2003;Stafford & Cornell, 2003), something that the Cheater hypothesis does not explain. Conversely,

S.M. Coyne, T.J. Thomas / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 1105–1115 1107

the Warrior Hawk hypothesis aims to explain aggression differences, also building on game theorythrough the use of the Hawk-Dove Game (Dawkins, 1976). In this game, a participant is generallydescribed as a hawk who intensely fights the situation or a dove who runs away. In the game,hawks generally win. Psychopaths have been described as ‘‘prober-retaliators’’, a subsection ofhawks who are impulsively aggressive when others would consider it inappropriate. Again, suchaggression can be adaptive especially if the individual is not caught.

Book and Quinsey (2004) investigated the question of whether psychopaths were Cheaters orWarrior Hawks. As it stands, the Cheater hypothesis explains why psychopaths would cheat,but does not explain their tendency to use aggression to serve their purposes. On the other hand,the Warrior Hawk hypothesis explains why psychopaths use aggression, but completely ignoreswhy they are more likely to cheat. Book and Quinsey (2004) found that psychopathic inmatesscored higher on measures of indignation and aggression with a lower level of behavioral inhibi-tion to cheating, supporting both hypotheses. The authors concluded that to fully describe psy-chopaths, one must use the ‘‘Cheater–Hawk Hypothesis’’, and conclude that psychopaths arelikely to cheat, and to use aggression to achieve their aims.

Although Book and Quinsey’s (2004) hypothesis is useful in describing psychopathy, it fails toaccount for the differences in primary and secondary psychopaths. It also is based on an incarcer-ated psychopathic population whilst ignoring the more successful psychopaths functioning insociety. The hypothesis also focuses on physical violence, whilst ignoring other types of aggres-sion. For example, indirect aggression is a type of behavior that may be used more frequentlyby successful psychopaths as it allows them to manipulate those around them, whilst remaininganonymous. Examples include social exclusion, manipulating relationships, spreading rumors,etc. (see Archer & Coyne, 2005 for a review). Indirect aggression has been linked to psychopathyin a women’s prison (Ben-Horin, 2001) and in school age girls (Marsee, Silverthorn, & Frick,2005), but has never been examined in an adult non-clinical population. It has also never beenexamined in conjunction with cheating behavior. Therefore, the aim of the current study is to testthe ‘‘Cheater–Hawk hypothesis’’ by examining cheating and aggressive behavior in a non-clinicalsample, focusing on the differences between primary and secondary psychopaths. A more thor-ough understanding of how aggression, cheating behavior, and psychopathy relate will help to in-form theory, research, and therapy in the future.

1.1. Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: In support of the Cheater–Hawk hypothesis, we predict that primary psychopa-thy will be associated with high levels of cheating behavior and high levels of both direct andindirect aggression. Primary psychopaths have been found to have low levels of guilt, empathy,and anxiety making cheating particular likely (e.g. Brinkley, Newman, & Widiger, 2004; Cleck-ley, 1976). They have also been shown to score high on fearlessness, a trait that is correlatedwith aggressive behavior (Raine, Reynolds, & Venables, 1998).Hypothesis 2: In contrary to the Cheater–Hawk hypothesis, we predict that secondary psychop-athy will only be associated with indirect and direct aggression, but not cheating behavior.Although secondary psychopaths show high levels of impulsiveness which would predictaggression, they are also found to have higher levels of guilt and anxiety than primary psycho-paths making cheating less likely (e.g. Cleckley, 1976; Newman et al., 2005).


2. Method

2.1. Participants

A total of 234 participants (75% female) from a large University in the northwest of Englandtook part in the study. The mean age of participants was 21.26 years (SD = 4.63). The majority ofthe sample were White-British ethnicity (87.6%).

2.2. Materials

A series of questionnaires were used in the study. The first section recorded basic demographiccharacteristics. To assess psychopathy, Levenson, Kiehl, and Fitzpatrick’s (1995) 26-item ‘‘Psy-chopathy Scale’’ was used. The questionnaire assessed Primary psychopathy and included itemsmeasuring selfishness, inability to care and manipulativeness, (e.g., ‘‘In today’s world, I feel jus-tified in doing anything I can get away with to succeed’’). It also assessed Secondary psychopathyand included items measuring impulsivity and a self-defeating lifestyle, (e.g., ‘‘I am often bored.’’).All responses to items used a 4-point Likert Scale (1 = disagree strongly, 4 = agree strongly).Cronbach’s alpha for primary psychopathy was acceptable (a = 0.81), but was slightly belowthe cut-off point for secondary psychopathy (a = 0.65). When combined, the overall reliabilityof the scales was high (a = 0.81).

Cheating behavior was examined by using an academic dishonesty scale based on current Uni-versity guidelines. The eight-item scale focused on three core areas; Plagiarism according to Uni-versity guidelines, Examination issues in accordance to University expectations, and Assessmentmisconduct with regards to payment for completion of assignments by another individual. Partic-ipants were simply asked to admit if they had committed any of these in their academic career andresponses were summed to give each participant a total academic dishonesty score. Reliability forthis measure was acceptable (a = 0.72).

Indirect aggression was assessed using Forrest, Eatough, and Shevlin (2005) 25-item ‘‘IndirectAggression Questionnaire (IAQ)’’. Three different forms of indirect aggression are measured bythe IAQ. The guilt induction subscale measured behavior that intentionally plays upon guiltand emotions (e.g., ‘‘used my relationship with them to try and get them to change a decision’’).The malicious humour subscale measured behavior that was ‘‘rational appearing’’, that seemedinnocent or harmless if questioned (e.g., ‘‘ played a nasty practical joke on them’’). The socialexclusion subscale involved items that concern being excluded from a group or social situation(e.g., ‘‘spread rumors about them’’). Participants rated how frequently they engaged in eachbehavior using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = regularly). As this scale generally produceshighly skewed data (e.g. Coyne, Manning, Ringer, & Bailey, 2007; Forrest et al., 2005) we mod-ified the instructions slightly. Instead of asking participants to only restrict behavior to the previ-ous 12 months, we omitted the time frame, asking participants to report on their behaviorgenerally. When screening the data, this appeared to reduce the skew. Reliability was acceptablefor each indirectly aggressive behavior of Guilt Induction, Malicious Humour and Social Exclu-sionary, (a = 0.82, a = 0.89 and a = 0.85, respectively) and for the overall scale (a = 0.93).

Direct aggression was measured using Buss and Perry (1992) 29-item ‘‘Aggression Question-naire’’. This questionnaire is probably the most frequently used measure of direct aggression and


consists of four subscales including ‘‘anger’’, ‘‘physical aggression’’, ‘‘hostility’’, and ‘‘verbalaggression’’. Participants were asked to rate their behavior on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = extremelyuncharacteristic of me, 5 = extremely characteristic of me). Reliability was acceptable for all sub-scales (anger, a = 0.82; physical aggression, a = 0.86; hostility, a = 0.78; verbal aggression, a =0.74) and for the overall scale (a = 0.91).

3. Results

A series of analyses were conducted to assess the relationships between psychopathy, aggres-sion, and cheating behavior. Other characteristics known to impact aggressive behavior (i.e. gen-der, age) were also examined in conjunction with the above.

3.1. Preliminary analyses

Overall, nearly 40% of undergraduate students admitted to some form of cheating. The mostcommon form of cheating was plagiarising information from a book/journal (19.2%) followedby looking at others work during examinations (15%) and using disallowed memory aids (e.g.writing on arm) during examinations (10.7%). This high number was somewhat surprising as itcould be expected that students who used dishonesty in their University degree would be similarlydishonest in reporting their behavior. However, the current sample does not seem to reflect thisalthough it is possible that the percentage is under represented slightly.

Correlational analyses revealed that primary psychopathy was positively correlated with aca-demic dishonesty, all three types of indirect aggression, and all measures on the AQ. Table 1shows all relevant correlations. Similarly, secondary psychopathy was also positively correlatedwith all three types of indirect aggression and all measures on the AQ. However, it did not signif-icantly correlate with academic dishonesty. When correlated together, primary and secondarypsychopathy showed a moderate positive correlation. Academic dishonesty was also positively

Table 1Correlations for all variables

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Primary psychopathy – .31** .22** .44** .41** .42** .47** .27** .37** .25** .21** .37**

2. Secondary psychopathy – .08 .36** .27** .28** .34** .49** .43** .41** .55** .60**

3. Academic dishonesty – .17* .18* .13* .18* �.02 .09 �.01 �.01 .024. Social exclusion – .72** .71** .85** .31** .31** .33** .26** .39**

5. Malicious humor – .63** .90** .17* .32** .33** .18* .32**

6. Guilt induction – .85** .25** .27** .25** .22** .32**

7. Overall indirect aggression – .27** .34** .35** .25** .39**

8. Hostility – .34** .41** .53** .74**

9. Physical aggression – .42** .58** .80**

10. Verbal aggression – .61** .72**

11. Anger – .85**

12. Overall direct aggression –

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


correlated with all three types of indirect aggression. However, it was not correlated with anymeasures on the AQ. It should be noted that all aggression subscales correlated positively witheach other, as expected. From this point on we will analyze indirect aggression as a whole asthe subscales do not seem to differ on any variable. We will also do the same for the subscaleson the AQ (called direct aggression from this point).

As sex has been shown to influence psychopathy, cheating behavior, and aggression, a MANO-VA was conducted to assess any sex differences. A significant multivariate effect was revealed,F(5,221) = 3.62, p < .01, g2 = .08. When examining the univariate effects, males scored higherthan females on both primary psychopathy, F(1,225) = 14.86, p < .001, g2 = .06, and indirectaggression, F(1,225) = 6.10, p < .05, g2 = .03. No other sex differences were found. Table 2 showsmeans and standard deviations by gender for all variables. As a result of this analysis, gender willbe controlled for in subsequent analyses.

3.2. Main analyses

A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to assess the predictors ofprimary and secondary psychopathy. No outliers were identified from the data set using a p < .001criterion value for Mahalanobis distance. Individual scores were examined using criterion levels ofabove t = 3.29 (p < .001) for Studentized residuals, D = 1 for Cook’s D of influence, and hi = .051for leverage. No score was above the critical levels for each diagnostic analysis, meaning the datawas appropriate for the analysis.

3.2.1. Primary psychopathyThe criterion variable was scores on primary psychopathy, and the predictor variables were sex,

and secondary psychopathy (step 1), cheating behavior, indirect aggression, and direct aggression(step 2). The variables were entered in this order to control for any variance associated with gen-der and secondary psychopathy.

Table 3 shows the unstandardized regression coefficients (B) and intercept, the standardizedregression coefficients (b), Student’s t values (t), significance levels (p), R, R2, and R2 change afterentry of all five predictor variables. The full model accounted for 33% of the variance after all thevariables were entered into the equation, R2 = .33, F (5,226) = 21.78, p < .001. As expected, sex andsecondary psychopathy both emerged as significant predictors in step 1, R2 = .14, F(2,224) = 18.88,

Table 2Means and standard deviations for males and females for all variables

Variables Males Females

M SD M SD

Primary psychopathy** 2.17 .39 1.92 .41Secondary psychopathy 2.20 .45 2.16 .40Academic dishonesty .62 .83 .73 1.41Overall indirect aggression* 1.95 .59 1.74 .53Overall direct aggression 2.67 .62 2.55 .64

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

Table 3Hierarchical regression of variables for primary and secondary psychopathy

Variables B b t p R R2 R2 change

Primary psychopathy

Step 11. Secondary psychopathy** .29 .29 4.64 .001 .38 .14 .142. Sex** �.24 .24 3.83 .001

Step 21. Indirect aggression** .26 .34 5.39 .001 .56 .33 .192. Direct aggression* .13 .21 2.89 .0043. Academic dishonesty* .05 .15 2.73 .007

Secondary psychopathy

Step 11. Primary psychopathy** .30 .30 4.64 .001 .30 .09 .092. Sex .03 .03 .52 .60

Step 21. Direct aggression** .35 .55 9.12 .001 .62 .38 .292. Indirect aggression+ .09 .12 1.91 .063. Academic dishonesty .01 .04 .68 .50

* p < .01.** p < .001.+ p < .10.


p < .001. After these variables were controlled for, cheating behavior, indirect aggression, and di-rect aggression all significantly predicted primary psychopathy in step 2, R2 = .19, F(3,221) =20.43, p < .001. An examination of the beta values reveals that the best predictor at step 2 was indi-rect aggression. This was followed by direct aggression and lastly academic dishonesty.

3.2.2. Secondary psychopathyA hierarchical multiple regression was also conducted for secondary psychopathy, controlling

for sex and primary psychopathy at step 1. At step 2, the predictor variables were the same asfor the previous analysis. Table 3 shows all relevant results. The full model accounted for 38%of the variance after all variables were entered, R2 = .39, F(5,226) = 27.47, p < .001. At step 1, onlyprimary psychopathy (and not sex) emerged as a significant predictor, R2 = .09, F(2,224) = 10.99,p < .001. At step 2, direct aggression emerged as a significant predictor, R2 = .19, F(3,221) = 20.43,p < .001, and indirect aggression was a predictor at the level of a trend (p = .06). Conversely, aca-demic dishonesty was not a significant predictor of primary psychopathy. When examining thebeta values, the best predictor at step 2 was direct aggression followed by indirect aggression.

4. Discussion

Our results lend some support to the Cheater–Hawk hypothesis (Book & Quinsey, 2004), how-ever, this depended on the type of psychopathy and the type of aggression measured. Specifically,


we found that cheating behavior, indirect aggression, and direct aggression all predicted primarypsychopathy, supporting our first hypothesis and directly supporting the Cheater–Hawk hypoth-esis. Individuals who score high on primary psychopathic traits are those who also show low levelsof empathy, guilt, and anxiety (Cleckley, 1976; Newman et al., 2005). These traits may makecheating easier psychologically, as the individual may have little anxiety about being caughtand little guilt about the cheating act itself.

However, we also found that secondary psychopathy was unrelated to cheating behavior,although it was related to both direct and indirect aggression. Secondary psychopaths show high-er levels of anxiety and guilt than individuals scoring high on primary psychopathy (Newmanet al., 2005). These traits may make cheating behavior less likely as the individual may be moreanxious at the prospect of cheating and feel more guilt when engaging in the behavior itself. Thisshows that the Cheater–Hawk hypothesis (that psychopathy will be related to both aggression andcheating behavior) is type specific, explaining primary psychopathy well, but not secondary.

Interestingly, we also found that aggression was related to primary and secondary psychopathydifferently. For primary psychopathy, indirect aggression was a better predictor than directaggression. The converse was true for secondary psychopathy, with direct aggression being thebetter predictor. This result can be explained by examining the underlying traits related to primaryand secondary psychopathy outlined by Cleckley (1976). Primary psychopaths are individualswho are manipulative and use others to get ahead in life. These individuals are more likely tobe ‘‘successful’’ than secondary psychopaths as their behavior can be acted out anonymously hid-ing their true intentions. Indirect aggression is likely to better meet these needs, as by definition itoften allows the individual to remain anonymous as they spread rumors, gossip behind othersbacks, or carefully destroy and manipulate relationships (Archer & Coyne, 2005). Indirect aggres-sion is rife in the workplace (e.g. Kaukiainen et al., 2001) and often takes the form of more ra-tional and acceptable appearing aggression to the outside eye. Such behavior may seem veryappealing to individuals scoring high on primary psychopathy who appear to utilize it to getahead, at least in the academic world.

Conversely, secondary psychopaths are those individuals who show more impulsiveness, a traitfound to be highly correlated to criminal behavior and possible imprisonment (Newman et al.,2005). A high level of impulsiveness has also been related to direct aggression (e.g. Archer &Webb, 2006; Stanford, Houston, Villemarette-Pittman, & Greve, 2003), but less so with indirectaggression. Therefore, by their very nature, individuals scoring high on secondary psychopathyare more likely to turn to direct forms of aggression to achieve their aims. Since such behavioris more identifiable, and given harsher punishment, this explains why secondary psychopathsare less successful than their primary counterparts.

Aside from the traits mentioned, one mediating factor not measured in this study may be lev-els of intelligence. It is possible that levels of intelligence dictate how successful a psychopathwill be at deceiving and manipulating others. Psychopaths with high levels of intelligence arelikely to be successful at cheating; not only in exams but in real life situations. Nathansonet al. (2006) found that psychopathy was related to cheating behavior at University even aftercontrolling for scholastic competence. However, this was not examined with measures of aggres-sive behavior. As a result, future research may wish to examine whether levels of intelligenceplay a mediating role in the relationship between different forms of psychopathic, aggressive,and cheating behavior.


It should be noted that both primary and secondary psychopathy were related to both types ofaggression, however, the strength of the association varied depending on the type of psychopathy.It appears that although one type of aggression may be favoured and used more frequently, othertypes of aggression are also used. Much research has found a high correlation between the use ofindirect and direct forms of aggression, meaning that an individual who uses one form of aggres-sion is likely to use the other (e.g. Coyne & Archer, 2005).

However, individuals scoring high on psychopathy are not likely to treat all individuals in theirlife equally. Therefore, all relationships would not be subjected to the same amounts of cheatingand aggressive behavior. According to evolutionary theory (e.g. Dawkins, 1976), psychopathswould be more likely to use such behavior against strangers, associates, or colleagues, as com-pared with romantic relationships or family members. Such behavior aimed at closer relationshipsis less likely to be tolerated and may have an impact on levels of overall fitness. When aimed atmore distant relationships, such behavior is less likely to be detected and more likely to be toler-ated, making success more likely and less risky. The current study did not assess all relationshipcontexts; therefore, a more careful examination of how psychopaths use aggression and cheatingbehavior in various contexts would be a useful avenue for future research.

Interestingly, 40% of students reported some form of cheating during University. This figurecorresponds well with other samples (e.g. Pino & Smith, 2003). Although disciplinary hearingsdo occur for cheating behavior, they are rare compared to the reported rate of academic dishon-esty in a University setting (Singhal, 1982). The wider use of technology, such as the ‘‘Turn it in’’program which detects plagiarised statements from the internet, may curb academic dishonesty inthe future. Greater vigilance by staff and harsher penalties may also prove fruitful in preventingcheating behavior from occurring.

One limitation of the current study was the source of information. All questionnaires were selfreport, which are subject to social desirability factors. In the future, it would also be useful toexamine the association between cheating behavior, aggression, and psychopathy in the work-place. Successful psychopaths are particularly likely to achieve in the workplace and many seniorbusiness managers hold some psychopathic traits (Board & Fritzon, 2005). Therefore, it wouldbe useful to understand what behaviors these individuals use to achieve their success. The nextstep would be to examine how to detect such behavior and to prevent it in the workplace. An-other limitation of the study was the large proportion of females compared to males. It is pos-sible that a larger sample of males may have provided different results to the ones obtained.However, given that the focus of the study was on a type of aggression that females use readilyand prefer to more overt forms, we feel that the sample used was adequate in testing the researchquestions.

Overall, this study found some support for the Cheater–Hawk hypothesis in the academic are-na. However, this appears to depend on the type of psychopathy and the type of aggression mea-sured. It should also be noted that a non-clinical sample was used in the present study.Psychopaths in an institutionalized setting may respond very differently than University studentswho are functioning generally well in society. However, our results show that one reason theseindividuals may be so successful in the real world (particularly primary psychopaths), may bethe interplay between cheating and aggressive behavior. Such individuals might not end up asthe more infamous psychopaths, but may well cheat and manipulate their way through Universityand through the upper echelons of society and the business world.


References

Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational and social aggression. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 9, 212–230.Archer, J., & Webb, I. (2006). The relation between scores on the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire and aggressive

acts, impulsiveness, competitiveness, dominance, and sexual jealousy. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 464–473.Babiak, P. (1995). When psychopaths go to work: A case study of an industrial psychopath. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 44, 171–188.Babiak, P. (1996). Psychopathic manipulation in organizations: Pawns, patrons, and patsies. In D. Cook, A. Forth, J.

Newman, & R. Hare (Eds.). International perspectives on psychopath (Vol. 24, pp. 12–17). Leicester: BritishPsychological Society.

Barbaree, H. E. (2005). Psychopathy, treatment behavior, and recidivism: An extended follow-up of Seto and Barbaree.Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1115–1131.

Ben-Horin, H. C. (2001). The interface between psychopathy and relational aggression in an incarcerated female

population. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 62(1-B), 590.Board, B. J., & Fritzon, K. (2005). Disordered personalities at work. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 17–32.Book, A. S., & Quinsey, V. L. (2004). Psychopaths: Cheaters or Warrior-Hawks?. Personality and Individual Differences

36, 33–45.Brinkley, C. A., Newman, J. P., & Widiger, T. A. (2004). Two approaches to parsing the heterogeneity of psychopathy.

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 69–94.Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,

452–459.Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity (5th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.Coyne, S. M., & Archer, J. (2005). The relationship between indirect and physical aggression on television and in real

life. Social Development, 14, 324–338.Coyne, S. M., Manning, J., Ringer, L., & Bailey, L. (2007). Directional asymmetry (right minus left differences) in digit

ratio (2D:4D) predict indirect aggression in women. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 865–872.Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Forrest, S., Eatough, V., & Shevlin, M. (2005). Measuring adult indirect aggression: The development and

psychometric assessment of the indirect aggression scales. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 84–97.Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54.Kaukiainen, A., Salmivalli, C., Bjorkqvist, K., Osterman, K., Lahtinen, A., Kostamo, A., et al. (2001). Overt and

covert aggression in work settings in relation to the subjective well-being of employees. Aggressive Behavior, 27,360–371.

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.Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Lynam, D., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psychopathy: A validation study. Journal of Personality

Assessment, 73, 110–132.Marsee, M. A., Silverthorn, P., & Frick, P. J. (2005). The association of psychopathic traits with aggression and

delinquency in non-referred boys and girls. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 803–817.Mealey, L. (1995). The socio-biology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,

18, 523–599.Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2003). Psychopathy and the five-factor model of personality: A replication and

extension. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 168–178.Nathanson, C., Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2006). Predictors of a behavioral measure of scholastic cheating:

Personality and competence but not demographics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 97–122.Newman, J. P., MacCoon, D. G., Vaughn, L. J., & Sadeh, N. (2005). Validating a distinction between primary and

secondary psychopathy with measures of Gray’s BIS and BAS constructs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114,319–323.

Pino, N. W., & Smith, W. L. (2003). College students and academic dishonesty. College Student Journal, 37, 490–500.


Raine, A., Reynolds, C., & Venables, P. H. (1998). Fearlessness, stimulation-seeking, and large body size at age 3 years

as early predispositions to childhood aggression at age 11 years. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 745–751.Seto, M. C., Khattar, N. A., Lalumiere, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1997). Deception and sexual strategy in psychopathy.

Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 301–307.Singhal, A. C. (1982). Factors in students’ dishonesty. Psychological Reports, 51, 775–780.Stafford, E., & Cornell, D. G. (2003). Psychopathy scores predict adolescent inpatient aggression. Assessment, 10,

102–112.Stanford, M. S., Houston, R. J., Villemarette-Pittman, N. R., & Greve, K. W. (2003). Premeditated aggression: Clinical

assessment and cognitive psychophysiology. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 773–781.Widom, C. S. (1976). Interpersonal conflict and cooperation in psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85,

330–334.

psychopathy, aggression, and cheating behavior: a test of the cheater–hawk hypothesis

Documents