AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR

Volume 34, pages 319328 (2008)

Effects of Psychopathy Traits on Unprovoked Aggression

Dennis E. Reidy, Amos Zeichner, and Marc A. Martinez
Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Research has demonstrated that risk of violent behavior is high in individuals who display psychopathic traits. However, prediction
of general aggression, and in particular unprovoked aggression, in nonforensic men who possess such traits has received little
experimental attention to date. This study examined the role of psychopathic traits in the prediction of unprovoked aggression in a
nonforensic sample. One hundred and ve men completed the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scales and competed in a sham
aggression paradigm. These men were identied as unprovoked aggressors, provoked aggressors, and provoked nonaggressors
contingent on their responses to the experimental paradigm. Findings indicated that men with high levels of psychopathic traits had
a 30% greater probability of becoming aggressive in the absence of provocation relative to those with lower psychopathic traits.
Results also indicated that unprovoked aggressors evinced more general aggression when provocation was initiated. Findings are
discussed in terms of the importance of trait-based risk factors in the prediction of seemingly random, unprovoked aggression.
r 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Aggr. Behav. 34:319328, 2008.

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Keywords: unprovoked aggression; psychopathy; GAM; provocation

INTRODUCTION

Aggression research focuses on discovering what

biological, environmental, psychological, and social
factors inuence aggressive behavior, and on how to
use these discoveries to reduce unwarranted aggression. These factors can be categorized as features of
the situation or as features of the person in the
situation [Anderson and Bushman, 2002; p 34].
Under the General Aggression Model (GAM), a
three-component process for the development of
aggression exists in which (1) the person and
the situation are Inputs that (2) activate Routes
(i.e., cognitions, affect, and arousal) that (3) are
evaluated through an appraisal and decision-making
process that leads to Outcomes (i.e., aggressive or
nonaggressive response). According to the GAM,
provocation is a situational input. Moreover,
an important determinant of aggressive behavior
in the general population is provocation [Berkowitz,
1993; Geen, 2001; Lau et al., 1995] and, according
to Anderson and Bushman [2002], provocation
may be the most important single cause of human
aggression (p 37). Indeed, crime statistics indicate
that provocation is a major concomitant of societal
aggression [Bushman and Anderson, 1998]. If
provocation is, in fact, a necessary ingredient
for aggression, it would indicate that constitutional
r 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

inputs in the GAM may have a relatively

weaker effect in producing an aggressive outcome.
Extant empirical research offers partial support to
this claim.
Hammock and Richardson [1992] examined the
relationship between aggression and predictor variables including the presence of an aggressive
learning history, gender of target, gender of subject,
gender-role orientation, aggressive tendencies, and
provocation. Provocation, dened as electric shocks
administered to participants, was identied as the
most powerful predictor, accounting for 81% of the
total explained variance. Furthermore, studies have
shown that as the intensity of provocation increases,
the intensity of aggression with which the provoked
individual responds also increases [Lau et al., 1995;
Santor et al., 2003].
Caprara et al. [1983] conducted a series of
experiments on the effect of personality on aggression provoked by attack on self-esteem. Findings
Correspondence to: Amos Zeichner, Department of Psychology,
University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-3013.
E-mail: zeichner@uga.edu

Received 6 August 2007; Revised 23 October 2007; Accepted 23

October 2007
Published online 17 December 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.
interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ab.20238

320 Reidy et al.

indicated that normally nonaggressive persons

were successfully provoked to engage in aggressive
behavior. In fact, provocation has been conceptualized as a determinant required for eliciting aggression in normal, healthy individuals [Berkowitz,
1988; Caprara et al., 1983]. As such, it is arguably
less common and more pathological for an individual to initiate violent behavior in the absence of
provocation.
In spite of abundant support for the aggressionpromoting corollary of provocation, serial killings,
campus violence, and similar events reafrm that
some of the most severe acts of aggression
are unprovoked. Consequently, person inputs as
conceptualized in the GAM deserve closer scrutiny.
Presently, not much research is available on the link
between dispositional variables and unprovoked
aggression. According to Bushman and Anderson
[1998], eld investigations that address the effect of
provocation on aggression do not typically include a
no provocation control condition. In a metaanalysis of gender differences in the effects of
provocation on aggression, Bettencourt and Miller
[1996] did not identify a single eld experiment that
included a no provocation condition and a recent
meta-analysis identied a number of laboratory
studies in which the unprovoked condition
was dened as provocation at low levels of noxious
stimuli [Bettencourt et al., 2006]. Thus, it is
important to further distill the nature of unprovoked aggression in laboratory-based studies.
To date, the bulk of studies addressing dispositional variables and aggression have focused on
aggression-enhancing traits. Dispositional variables
such as sexual prejudice [Parrott and Zeichner,
2005], trait anger [Parrott and Zeichner, 2002],
hypermasculinity [Parrott and Zeichner, 2003],
narcissism [Bushman and Baumeister, 1998;
Martinez et al., 2008], entitlement [Campbell et al.,
2004; Reidy et al., 2007b], and impulsivity [Scarpa
and Raine, 2000] have been studied and found
to be consistent predictors of aggression. In
contrast, research has attributed aggression-inhibiting effects to certain dispositional factors. For
example, Richardson et al. [1998] examined the
extent to which such traits decreased aggressive
verbal responding and increased prosocial verbal
responding. These authors found that perspective
taking, a component of empathy, was associated
with the inhibition of aggressive responding
and the maintenance of prosocial behavior when
faced with aggressive provocation. Giancola [2003]
also conrmed the aggression-inhibiting effects of
empathy. Consequently, individuals who lack the
Aggr. Behav.

ability to take anothers perspective may be at

greater risk for aggression. These studies lend
support to the contention that personality inputs
may be superior predictors of aggression irrespective
of provocation.
A few laboratory-based studies have linked
dispositional input variables to unprovoked aggression. For example, Hammock and Richardson
[1992] found that self-attributed masculinity was
positively correlated with unprovoked aggression,
whereas self-attributed femininity covaried negatively. Bushman [1995] reported on how situational
determinants (i.e., priming with videotaped violence)
interact with disposition (i.e., high in trait aggressiveness) in eliciting aggression dened as aversive
noise blasts administered to an ostensible opponent
in the absence of provocation. Interestingly, Zillman
and Weaver [2007] found that violence-based video
priming led to socially unprovoked aggression only
in men who endorsed high levels of trait aggression,
whereas trait hostility was positively associated with
aggression independent of video priming. Collectively, these data suggest that high levels of these
traits (i.e., masculinity and trait hostility) result in
decient perspective-taking empathy and, as such,
comprise a more pathological combination of traits.
The purpose of this investigation was to use a
pertinent dispositional factor to predict unprovoked
aggression in the context of a laboratory-based
experimental model. By removing the element of
provocation from the initial portion of the laboratory procedure, we were able to assess the importance of the dispositional inputs in the absence of
situational provocation in a controlled laboratory
setting. Pertinently, psychopathy appears to be one
of the strongest dispositional predictors of aggression and violence [Skeem and Mulvey, 2001], and is
thought to be related to the most violent and
pathological forms of aggression [Porter et al., 2003]
including homicides deemed gratuitous and sadistic. The positive relationship between psychopathy
and aggression has also been empirically demonstrated in forensic, psychiatric, and youth populations [Harris et al., 1993; Hart et al., 1994; Porter
and Woodworth, 2005], and other laboratory-based
research has suggested that psychopathy traits are
broadly related to aggression including instrumental
and reactive forms [Reidy et al., 2007a].
Hares original conceptualization of psychopathy
identies two moderately correlated factors: emotional detachment and antisocial behavior [Hare,
1990]. Cooke and Michie [2001] have proposed that
the underlying factor structure of psychopathy is
better understood in terms of a three-factor model.

Unprovoked Aggression 321

More recently, Hare [2003] proposed a four-facet

model. Nevertheless, the two-factor model has been
the most widely researched conceptual basis
of psychopathy [Cale and Lilienfeld, 2006]. Factor
1 (F1) is composed of emotional and interpersonal
aspects, including affective shallowness, absence of
empathy and lack of remorse, supercial charm, and
manipulativeness. Factor 2 (F2) comprises impulsivity, aggression, substance abuse, high sensation
seeking, low socialization, proneness to boredom,
irresponsibility, lack of concern or plans for the
future, and early life behavioral problems and
delinquency [Hare, 2003]. Perhaps most notable
among the psychopaths traits are his/her stunning
lack of empathy, disregard for anothers perspective,
and lack of remorse. These traits likely distinguish
the psychopath from other violent criminals and
aggressive individuals.
Despite robust ndings attributing more severe
violence to diagnosed psychopaths than to their
nonpsychopathic counterparts, this nding is less
often investigated in nonforensic, nonpsychiatric
populations. This is due, in part, to the low
prevalence of clinical levels of psychopathy in the
general population. This gap in the literature is
regrettable because it precludes conclusions relative
to effects of psychopathic traits on common acts of
aggression perpetrated in the general population. It
has been argued that psychopathy represents a
constellation of traits endorsed at extreme levels
[e.g., Benning et al., 2005], and the dimensionality of
the construct is further supported by current
research [Edens et al., 2006; Marcus et al., 2004].
This is bolstered by research on normal populations that identied psychopathy congruent decits
and behavioral sequelae. For example, using a
college sample Reidy et al. [2007c] found that
F1 related to decits in processing sadness
words and F2 related to a bias toward the processing
of anger words in a lexical decision task. Similarly,
Miller and Lynam [2003] used a laboratory
paradigm to show that psychopathic traits predicted
aggressive responding in a college sample.
Edens et al. [2006] suggest that support for the
dimensional nature of psychopathy justies conducting psychopathy-pertinent research in college or
community samples. However, the authors warn
that if certain clinically important behaviors
associated with psychopathy (e.g., serious physical
aggression, severe illicit substance use) tend to
emerge only among individuals with markedly
elevated scores, then psychopathy research on
college or community samples could yield incomplete or misleading conclusions even if psychopathy

were found to be dimensional (p 132). At this

juncture, important questions regarding effects of
psychopathic traits on aggressive behavior in nonforensic samples remain.
As such, true clinical psychopathy was not
assessed in the present sample; rather, psychopathic
traits were assessed via a self-report instrument
designed for specic use in a nonforensic population. We sought to examine the role that psychopathic traits would have in eliciting aggression
before provocation is initiated. With regard to the
nature of the dispositional input, we sought to
examine the effect of F1 (emotional detachment and
lack of empathy) relative to F2 (antisocial behavioral style). We hypothesized that self-reported total
psychopathy scores would predict greater probability of initiating laboratory-based physical aggression
in the absence of provocation. Additionally, because
low perspective-taking empathy is associated with
F1 psychopathy [Hare, 2003], and ndings that
F2 predicts only hostile/reactive aggression [Reidy
et al. 2007a], we hypothesized that F1 would be a
better predictor of unprovoked aggression than F2.
Further, based on aforementioned research [e.g.,
Lau et al., 1995; Santor et al., 2003] indicating that
increasing provocation increases aggressive responding, we expected that those who already aggress in
the absence of provocation would become more
aggressive when provocation is added. We expected
that those who do not inhibit aggression
when unprovoked would respond more aggressively
than their counterparts who aggress only in retaliation to provocation. To our knowledge, no previous
research has compared aggressive behavior of
provoked with that of unprovoked aggressors and,
as such, this hypothesis is exploratory.
Similar to previous studies [e.g., Bushman, 1995;
Hammock and Richardson, 1992; Richardson et al.,
1998], this study investigated aggressive responding
in the context of a competitive interaction between
the participant and a confederate. However, in
contrast to studies in which unprovoked aggression
was dened as a response on a single trial where a
nonresponse option was unavailable to participants or where a low-provocation condition [e.g.,
Bettencourt et al., 2006] was used, our study
provided participants with a block of six unprovoked trials and the option to administer no
aggressive response whatsoever to the confederate
throughout the experiment. Additionally, participants were not primed with any aggression-linked
stimuli. With respect to the GAM, we reasoned that
this paradigm allows identifying, in part, the relative
effect of person and situational inputs such that
Aggr. Behav.

322 Reidy et al.

unprovoked aggressors aggress without being

exposed to situational provocation, provoked
aggressors aggress as a result of interactive effects
of disposition and situational provocation, and
provoked nonaggressors who refrain from aggressing
regardless of provocation.

METHODS

Participants and Experimental Design

Participants were 120 men recruited from an
undergraduate research participant pool. The average age of participants was 19.31 years (SD 5 1.5),
the mean level of education was 14.20 years
(SD 5 1.3), and the modal family income was
$70,000. The sample comprised 72.5% Caucasians,
8.3% Asians, 4.2% Hispanic/Latino, 2.5% Black/
African Americans, 1% Pacic Islander, and 5% did
not specify ethnic/racial background by marking the
category other. As past research on college
samples found that women obtain lower scores on
dimensions of psychopathy, they were excluded
from the study [Forth et al., 1996; Levenson et al.,
1995; Lilienfeld and Andrews, 1996]. Extant data
indicating that most violent crimes are committed by
men [Federal Bureau of InvestigationUniform
Crime Reports, 19932001] lent support for this
exclusion. Of the 120 men who participated in the
experiment, 15 were excluded from analyses because
they reported that they were not misled by the
experimental deception.
Participants were grouped into one of three
categories contingent on when they initiated their
aggressive responding. Participants who aggressed
before receiving provocation were considered
unprovoked aggressors (n 5 56), whereas participants who refrained from responding until provoked
were labeled provoked aggressors (n 5 39). The
third group comprised individuals who did not
initiate aggressive responding at any point during
the course of the task. These individuals were
considered provoked nonaggressors (n 5 10).
Materials
Demographic form. Participants completed a
brief demographic form assessing age, race, education level, and average yearly income to conrm that
groups were equivalent on these variables.
Psychopathy. The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale [LSRP; Levenson et al., 1995] was
patterned after the Hare [1990] Psychopathy Checklist but was designed for use in nonforensic settings
Aggr. Behav.

to assess behavioral features of individuals not

identied as criminals [Epstein et al., 2006]. This
26-item Likert-type scale comprises two subscales
that assess two domains of the psychopathic
personality.1 F1 (Cronbach a 5 .82) reects a
callous, manipulative, and selsh use of others
(e.g., For me, whats right is whatever I can get
away with). F2 (Cronbach a 5 .63) assesses impulsivity and poor behavioral control (e.g., When I
get frustrated, I often let off steam by blowing my
top). Lynam [2002] and Ross et al. [2004] suggest
that the LSRP factors demonstrate divergent relations with general personality traits. Although both
LSRP factors are signicantly related to Antagonism, F2 is more strongly related to Neuroticism
(positively) and Conscientiousness (negatively). This
supports the argument that F1 comprises interpersonal traits such as grandiosity, manipulativeness
and decreased concern for others, whereas F2
comprises a variety of traits including impulsivity,
negative affectivity as well as antagonistic traits
(albeit at a lower level). Average scores and standard
deviations of M 5 31.9 (SD 5 6.5; a 5 .78), M 5 19.0
(SD 5 3.8; a 5 .63), and M 5 50.9 (SD 5 8.6;
a 5 .80) were found for F1, F2, and total trait
psychopathy scores, respectively.
The LSRP was selected to assess psychopathy for
several reasons. First, it was developed for the
purpose of detecting psychopathic features in noninstitutional samples such as this one. Second, the
LSRP is distinct from other existing self-report
measures of psychopathy which only measure the
social deviance component of psychopathy, because
it is designed to assess both social deviance and
callous shallow affect [Miller et al., 2003]. Third, this
measure has been validated in the assessment of
psychopathy in non-forensic undergraduate populations [Lynam et al., 1999; Parrott and Zeichner,
2006] and offending populations [Epstein et al.,
2006]. It has also been shown to correlate with
psychopathy in forensic population [Brinkley et al.,
2001].
Aggression paradigm. The Response Choice
Aggression Paradigm [Zeichner et al., 1999], a
variant of the Taylor Aggression Paradigm [Taylor,
1

Levenson et al. [1995] labeled the two LSRP factors primary and
secondary psychopathy because they argued that this factor
structure, derived from the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, ts
Karpmans [1948] distinction between primary and secondary
psychopathy. However, there is no clear consensus regarding the
existence of these subtypes or whether they are congruent with
various psychopathy factors identied in empirical study. As such,
for the limited scope of this study, we refer to the LSRP factors as F1
and F2.

Unprovoked Aggression 323

TABLE I. Correlations Among Aggression Indices

SI
SD

SDa

SF

.41

.36
.58

SI, shock intensity; SD, shock duration; SF, shock frequency.

a
Measured in milliseconds.
Po0.001.

1967] was used to measure physical aggression.2 The

task is composed of a reaction-time competition
where electrical shocks are received from and
ostensibly administered to a ctitious opponent
who is seated in an adjacent room. Participants
are informed that they have the choice to deliver one
of the ten shock intensities to their opponent after
trials they win or lose as often as they desire,
and that their opponent can make similar choices.
Importantly, the option to refrain partly or entirely
from administering shocks is clearly explained to
participants. Physical aggression is derived from
indices of intensity, duration, and frequency of
shocks delivered. On the basis of the Carlson et al.s
[1989] meta-analysis, which found these measures to
correlate from .70 to .88, indices were interpreted as
representing the same underlying conceptual variable. As such, a composite score was calculated by
summing the z-scores for aggression indices to
derive one succinct general index [Bushman et al.,
1999]. Correlations between individual aggression
indices can be seen in Table I.
Procedure
At the outset, informed consent was obtained
from all participants. To disguise the purpose of the
task as a measure of aggression, a ctitious cover
story was given to participants indicating that the
study was designed to further our understanding of
the relationships among personality attributes,
attitudes, and reaction time. Participants were told
that they would be competing in a reaction-time task
against an opponent who is seated in an adjacent
chamber, and that during the task, they would have
the opportunity to punish their opponent after
each reaction-time trial through the administration
of an electric shock. Furthermore, participants were
2
This paradigm has been used successfully in studies of laboratorybased aggression of gender differences [Zeichner et al., 2003],
psychopathy [Reidy et al., 2007a], narcissism [Martinez et al.,
2008], gender-role stress [Cohn and Zeichner, 2006], sexual prejudice
[Parrott and Zeichner, 2005], and alcohol-mediated aggression
[Parrott and Zeichner, 2002].

informed that their opponent would be similarly

allowed to punish them with electric shocks. The
winner of each trial would be determined by a
computer and the results communicated to participants by an illuminated red Lose light emitting
diodes (LED) or a green Win LED. After a given
participant ostensibly lost or won, a brief inter-trial
interval gave the participant an opportunity to
administer a shock regardless of the trial outcome.
To administer a shock, participants had to press one
of the ten shock buttons that, ostensibly, increased
in shock intensity. However, participants were told
that they could refrain from administering any
shock to their opponent. LEDs provided visual
feedback to participants as to the level of shock
(i.e., 1 through 10) they received from the
confederate. Following instructions, participants
completed the battery of questionnaires. Before
commencement of reaction-time task, participants
overheard their opponent respond to a series of
questions (e.g., How many years of schooling have
you completed? What is your major?) by
intercom system. In actuality, participants heard a
scripted recording of an actor responding to
predesignated questions. Next, led to believe that
the opponent would hear their responses, participants answered identical questions. The purpose of
this procedure was to reinforce the deception that
the opponent was, in fact, another participant. The
content of the questions had no relevance to
experimental performance. Next, each participants
pain tolerance was determined via incrementally
increasing shocks so that no shock administered
during the task would be above his reported pain
level. Pain tolerance (level 10 shock) was
explained to the participant as the maximum level
of pain that they could tolerate. To lead participants to believe that shocking their opponent would
induce pain regardless of which shock they chose to
administer, they were told that shocks used would
range from 55 to 100% of their opponents
maximum. After the determination of the participants pain tolerance, the participant overheard a
scripted interaction between the confederate and the
experimenter performing an identical pain tolerance
determination.
Subsequent to this phase, the experimenter commenced the reaction-time task. Each participant
competed in a total of 30 competitive reaction-time
trials. During the rst six trials, participants received
no provocation (i.e., no shocks from the confederate). Participants who delivered a shock to their
opponent during this phase of the task were assigned
to the unprovoked aggressor group. On compleAggr. Behav.

324 Reidy et al.

tion of the seventh trial, participants received a

shock, ostensibly delivered by the opponent, serving
as the initiation of provocation. Over the subsequent
23 trials, participants received an additional 11
shocks (set at 75100% of personal maximum and
administered at durations set randomly between 0.5
and 1.0 sec) presented in a random order. Each
participant won 15 trials and lost 15 trials in a
single randomized order with all participants receiving the same winlose sequence accompanied by
12 shocks. On completion of the experiment, all
participants were debriefed and given course credit.

RESULTS

Response Choice Aggression Paradigm

Manipulation Check
To ascertain that the manipulation was successful,
participants were interviewed regarding their
impression of their opponent and his fairness
during the task, whether they thought the task was a
good measure of reaction time, how they felt about
administering shocks, and whether they recognized
the voice of their opponent as someone they knew.
In addition to this interview, the experimenter
observed participants behavior during the reaction-time task via a video camera. Behaviors such as
cursing at the opponent or saying the opponents
name served to afrm the deceptions success.
Responses indicating disbelief in the cover story
were considered exclusion criteria. Of 120 participants, 15 indicated that they did not believe the
opponent manipulation and were excluded from
data analyses.
Ordinal Regression Analyses
Owing to the discrete sequential manner in which
category assignment was made, the dependent
variable was considered representative of an underlying ordinal construct. We used this approach in
keeping with Cliff [1993], who suggested that the use
of ordinal analyses offers greater robustness and
power, considers the scale properties of the variable,
and more readily addresses the research question at
hand. Moreover, the use of ordinal regression
provides relative risk likelihood estimates. The
cumulative continuation ratio model was used by
selecting a complimentary loglog function, as it is
ideal for failure time data and measurement of
threshold points. Additionally, this approach seemed
appropriate as the present categories of the response
variable did not reect an arbitrary grouping of an
Aggr. Behav.

underlying continuous variable [Anath and Kleinbaum, 1997; Scott et al., 1997]. This model is based
on probability estimates of inclusion in category j
conditional on inclusion in a category greater than j.
Hence, this model can be formulated as follows:

 

log PrY yj x=PrY4yj x
Psychopathy scores were treated as continuous
predictors of group assignment. The ordered
arrangement of the groups was unprovoked aggressors, provoked aggressors, and nonaggressors.
According to West et al. [1996], psychopathy scores
were standardized to allow for meaningful interpretation of effects. That is, as it is not possible to
attain a score of zero for any of the scales on the
LSRP, the interpretation of regression coefcients
would be rendered meaningless. In contrast, standardization of these variables produces a mean,
which has a value of zero and, thus, allows for the
interpretation of coefcients at the average presentation of these traits.
In the rst equation, total psychopathy scores
were entered as the independent variable to establish
whether
psychopathy
predicts
engagement
in unprovoked aggression. The model proved
to be signicant, w2(1, N 5 105) 5 8.03; Po.005,
R2N 5 .09. The negative coefcient for psychopathy,
Wald w2(1, N 5 105) 5 8.51; b 5
.36, Po.005,
indicated that as self-reported psychopathy trait
scores increase the probability of being an unprovoked aggressor (i.e., lower ordinal grouping) also
increases. By exponentiating the regression coefcient for the model, an odds ratio (OR) can be
derived. The OR for the independent variables was
0.70, indicating that a one standard deviation
increase in psychopathy increases the probability
of being an unprovoked aggressor by 30%.
Next, a simultaneous ordinal regression equation
was computed with F1 and F2 of the LSRP to
determine the relative contribution of a given
variable when the other is held constant. For
the full model containing both factors, t statistics
indicated that the model containing both coefcients
signicantly predicted unprovoked aggression,
w2(1, N 5 105) 5 8.40, Po.05, R2N 5 .09. However,
although the coefcient for F1 was signicant,
Wald w2(1, N 5 105) 5 6.22; b 5
.32, P 5 .01, the
coefcient for F2 did not appear to contribute to the
models
predictive
power,
Wald
w2(1,
N 5 105) 5 0.55; b 5
.08, P4.50. The OR for F1
was 0.72, indicating that a one standard deviation
increase in F1 increases the probability of being an
unprovoked aggressor by 28%. A summary of

Unprovoked Aggression 325

TABLE II. Regression Coefcients and Odds Ratios

F1
F2
Total P

TABLE III. Group Aggression Scores and Standard

Deviations by Blocks

Wald w2

OR

.32

6.22
0.55
8.24

0.72
0.91
0.70

28
9
30

.09

.36

F1, Factor 1; F2, Factor 2; Total P, total psychopathy; OR, odds

ratio; %, percentage increase of probability.
Po.01; Po.001.

regression coefcients and ORs is provided in

Table II.
Levels of Unprovoked and Provoked
Aggression
To test the hypothesis that unprovoked aggressors
were more aggressive relative to their provoked
counterparts, a contrast was calculated for aggression composite score. Results indicated that unprovoked aggressors were signicantly more
aggressive than provoked aggressors, t(92) 5 2.59,
P 5 .01, d 5 .54. However, as unprovoked aggressors, by nature of the task, had more opportunities
to aggress, it is possible that the statistical difference
between the two groups can be attributed to the rst
six trials. To test this possibility, aggression variance
of unprovoked trials would need to be removed.
Thus, we rst determined whether unprovoked
aggressors maintained aggressive behavior during
the block of provoked trials. Results of this contrast
indicated that unprovoked aggressors became more
aggressive after provocation was initiated, t(111) 5

2.49, P 5 .01, d 5 .47. As such, data suggest that
unprovoked aggressors did not merely administer
a single shock as a warning; instead, initiated
a pattern of persistent aggression. Therefore,
to remove the variance contributed during the
unprovoked block, aggression of unprovoked
and provoked aggressors evinced during the
nal 24 trials was compared. Results similarly
indicated that unprovoked aggressors evinced more
aggressive behavior than their provoked counterparts, t(92) 5 3.80, Po.001, d 5 .79. Means and
standard deviations of standardized aggression
scores by group and block are given in Table III.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to identify

dispositional risk factors for unprovoked aggression
by means of self-reported psychopathy traits
in a nonforensic, subclinical population. Taken

Block 1
Block 2

Unprovoked
aggressors

Provoked
aggressors

Nonaggressors

0.017 (0.72)
0.316 (0.54)

0 (0)

0.128 (0.57)

0 (0)
0 (0)

Block 1, unprovoked trials 16; Block 2, provoked trials 730.

as a whole, the results suggest that self-reported

general psychopathic traits predicted nearly 30%
greater probability of engaging in unprovoked
aggression and that psychopathic traits typied by
emotional detachment predicted unprovoked aggression to a larger degree than antisocial traits. The
present results indicate that in terms of the GAM,
varied inputs may have differential importance in the
determination of unprovoked aggression. Theorists
have espoused provocation as one of the most
important or, perhaps, a necessary determinant of
aggressive behavior [e.g., Anderson and Bushman,
2002; Berkowitz, 1993; Caprara et al., 1983; Geen,
2001; Lau et al., 1995]. However, the present
investigation, in which participants were truly
unprovoked and unprimed for aggression, demonstrated that trait factors may be more important
than provocation in the perpetration of this type of
aggression. These ndings are congruent with Zillman and Weaver [2007] who found that highly
hostile men committed socially unprovoked aggression regardless of a violent or nonviolent prime.
Relatedly, Richardson et al. [1998] found that
dispositional perspective taking outweighed the
inuence of aggressive provocation in inhibiting
aggressive responding. It is noteworthy that Zillman
and Weaver [2007] found that trait aggressivity did
not demonstrate the same relationship with unprovoked aggression as did trait hostility. The authors
found that trait aggressivity was related to such
aggression only when participants were primed with
aggression stimuli. This may suggest that certain
dispositional factors (e.g., psychopathy, empathy,
hostility) comprise a more pathological combination
of traits that is of greater importance in the
perpetration of unprovoked aggression.
In the present sample, the best indicator of
increased probability of unprovoked aggression
was the degree of F1 psychopathy traits (i.e.,
emotional detachment and lack of empathy) the
individual possessed. This pattern of results is
congruent with recent research suggesting that
distinct personality factors may have specic
Aggr. Behav.

326 Reidy et al.

relationships to different types of aggression. For

example, Reidy et al. [2007a] found that F1 traits
positively related to both instrumental and hostile/
reactive aggression, whereas F2 psychopathy positively related only to hostile/reactive aggression.3
Similarly, Barry et al. [2007] examined the relationship between subdimensions of psychopathy (narcissism, callous/unemotional traits, and impulsivity)
and found that narcissism predicted both proactive
and reactive aggression, whereas impulsivity
predicted only reactive aggression. However, the
latter authors found that when other traits were
controlled, the callous/unemotional dimension did
not relate to either form of aggression. The
similarity between ndings linking psychopathy
and narcissism to aggression in general may indicate
that narcissism could be linked to increased risk of
unprovoked aggression. In fact, displaced aggression (i.e., aggression directed at an innocent third
party uninvolved in provocation), a form of
unprovoked aggression, has been demonstrated in
individuals who endorse high levels of narcissistic
traits [Martinez et al., 2008; Twenge and Campbell,
2003]. Interestingly, the present ndings indicate
that the predictive strength of dispositional inputs in
terms of unprovoked aggression may depend on
underlying subtraits. Here, aggression-inhibiting
factors such as empathy and adaptive processing
of emotions may have been absent in those with F1
psychopathic traits.
The present ndings also shed light on the nature
of unprovoked aggression and the risk for sustained
aggression that it carries. Although psychopathic
traits of participants predict unprovoked aggression,
the present data also indicate that unprovoked
aggressors evinced more aggression than those who
waited until provocation materialized, even when
variance from unprovoked trials was removed.
These individuals demonstrated a pervasive pattern
of aggressive responding that increased with provocation. As such, unprovoked aggressors were not
merely testing the waters by administering one
minor shock, rather, their aggression was severe and
sustained. Hence, the unprovoked aggressor may
also be the perpetrator whose aggression leads to the
most severe consequences.

3
Bushman and Anderson [2001] have put forth a thoughtful critique
on the hostile versus instrumental dichotomy arguing that the
distinction is problematic because it fails to take into account
aggressive acts in which mixed motives are present and makes
assumptions that often are not met, regarding the level of
automaticity versus control that is present in the two forms of
aggression.

Aggr. Behav.

In this investigation, the motivation of the

unprovoked aggressor was not addressed. Although
it was not our goal to assess motivations for
initiating aggression, such motivational factors are
likely relevant to the predictive value of our ndings.
One possible impetus for this behavior may have
been the consequence of a hostile attribution bias in
which the participant expected their opponent to be
aggressive and attempted to strike rst. Alternatively, in the present sample some unprovoked
aggressors may have derived pleasure from inicting
pain on another individual. Although it is doubtful
that any participants in the present sample reached
clinical levels of psychopathy, it is possible that the
opportunity to cause physical harm to an opponent
generated positive affect and served as the impetus
to initiate aggression.
The ndings of the present investigation must be
interpreted with caution for several reasons. First,
the obtained sample of participants was relatively
homogeneous, as participants were predominantly
single, Caucasian high school graduates who are
enrolled in a university. Certainly, it does not fully
represent the general population. This study would
be strengthened by the inclusion of women,
noncollegiate samples, and greater ethnic diversity.
Second, this investigation does not allow determination of causality, and other factors that were not
accounted for may have affected the relationship
between psychopathy and aggressive behavior.
Third, in considering levels of psychopathic traits
obtained in this study, clinically pathological levels
of psychopathy were not represented in the sample.
Expanding this area of research to forensic populations would increase the predictive validity of the
ndings. This may improve identication of at risk
individuals across settings and at different degrees of
violence. It is particularly important to consider that
we examined a rather potent dispositional factor,
namely, psychopathic traits to predict unprovoked
aggression. Although psychopathy has clear ecological validity, our ndings regarding effects of
dispositional variables on this type of aggression
should not be considered generic but, rather,
indicate that each dispositional variable may have
its own predictive strength. Finally, in this paradigm, we created conditions in which experimental
provocation (in terms of shocks administered to a
participant) was absent. However, it is likely that
each situation is replete with stimuli a potential
perpetrator may nd provoking, and that any
stimulus may have a specic interactive effect with
a given disposition. For example, although participants were not provoked in the initial block of trials,

Unprovoked Aggression 327

they all believed that they could be shocked. Thus,

the unprovoked portion of the task could have been
threat-laden for those individuals with a hostile
attribution bias. As such, future laboratory studies
should seek to investigate the complex nature of
provocation in other paradigms to help elucidate the
causes of this form of aggression.
Although several investigations have addressed
the aggression-eliciting potential of provocation,
none has directly assessed dispositional factors that
would elicit aggression in the absence of provocation. Additionally, the bulk of research addressing
psychopathic violence has not utilized nonforensic
populations. Our study partially addresses these
shortcomings and contributes to the literature
inasmuch as it is the rst to address the dispositional
factors that would contribute to perpetration of
unprovoked aggression. It demonstrates that individuals who possess high levels of psychopathic
traits are more likely to engage in aggression in the
absence of provocation. In this vein, our ndings
lend further support to the GAM as proposed
by Anderson and Bushman [2002] and indicate
that certain person-based inputs may be necessary
determinants of aggressive outcomes. Additionally,
our data support previous research that has found
psychopathic traits to be a reliable predictor
of aggression. Finally, relative to the occurrence
of devastating campus violence and that of other
events of unpredictable aggression, our ndings
underscore the importance of further examination
of person, or dispositional inputs into generation of
seemingly random aggressive behavior.

REFERENCES
Anath CV, Kleinbaum DG. 1997. Regression models for ordinal
responses: A review of methods and applications. Int J Epidemiol
26:13231333.
Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. 2002. Human aggression. Ann Rev
Psychol 53:2751.
Barry TD, Thompson AH, Barry CT, Lochman JE, Adler K, Hill K.
2007. The importance of narcissism in predicting proactive and
reactive aggression in moderately to highly aggressive children.
Aggr Behav 33:185280.
Benning SD, Patrick CJ, Blonigen D, Hicks BM, Iacono WG. 2005.
Estimating facets of psychopathy from normal personality traits:
A step toward community epidemiological investigations. Assessment 12:318.
Berkowitz L. 1988. Frustrations, appraisals, and aversively stimulated aggression. Aggr Behav 14:311.
Berkowitz L. 1993. Pain and aggression: Some ndings and
implications. Motiv Emotion 17:277293.
Bettencourt BA, Miller N. 1996. Gender differences in aggression as
a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 119:
422447.

Bettencourt BA, Tally A, Benjamin AJ, Valentine J. 2006.

Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and
neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull
132:751777.
Brinkley CA, Schmitt WA, Smith SS, Newman JP. 2001. Construct
validation of a self-report psychopathy scale: Does Levensons
Self-Report Psychopathy Scale measure the same constructs as
Hares Psychopathy Checklist-Revised? Pers Individ Differences
31:10211038.
Bushman BJ. 1995. Moderating role of trait aggressiveness in the
effects of violent media on aggression. J Pers Soc Psychol
69:950960.
Bushman BJ, Anderson CA. 1998. Methodology in the study of
aggression: Integrating experimental and nonexperimental ndings.
In: Green RG, Donnerstein EI (eds): Aggression: Theoretical and
Empirical Views, Vol. 1, New York: Academic Press, pp 2348.
Bushman BJ, Anderson CA. 2001. Is it time to pull the plug on the
hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychol Rev
108:273279.
Bushman BJ, Baumeister RF. 1998. Threatened egotism, narcissism,
self-esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or
self-hate lead to violence? J Pers Soc Psychol 75:219229.
Bushman BJ, Baumeister RF, Stack AD. 1999. Catharsis, aggression,
and persuasive inuence: Self-fullling or self-defeating prophecies? J Pers Soc Psychol 76:367376.
Cale EM, Lilienfeld SO. 2006. Psychopathy factors and risk for
aggressive behavior: A test of the threatened egotism hypothesis. Law Hum Behav 30:5174.
Campbell WK, Bonacci AM, Shelton J, Exline JJ, Bushman BJ.
2004. Psychological entitlement: Interpersonal consequences and
validation of a self-report measure. J Pers Assess 83:2945.
Caprara GV, Renzi P, Alcini P, DImperio D, Travaglia G. 1983.
Instigation to aggress and escalation of aggression examined
from a personological perspective: The role of irritability and of
emotional susceptibility. Aggr Behav 9:345351.
Carlson M, Marcus-Newhall A, Miller N. 1989. Evidence for a general
construct of aggression. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 15:377389.
Cliff N. 1993. Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer
ordinal questions. Psychol Bull 114:494509.
Cohn A, Zeichner A. 2006. Effects of masculine identity and gender
role stress on aggression in men. Psychol Men Masc 7:179190.
Cooke DJ, Michie C. 2001. Rening the construct of psychopathy:
Towards a hierarchical model. Psychol Assess 13:171188.
Edens JF, Marcus D, Lilienfeld SO, Poythress NG. 2006. Psychopathic, not psychopath: Taxometric evidence for the dimensional
structure of psychopathy. J Abnorm Psychol 115:131144.
Epstein MK, Poythress NG, Brandon KO. 2006. The self report
psychopathy scale and passive avoidance: A validation of race
and gender effects. Assessment 13:197207.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. 19932001. Uniform Crime Reports
for the United States, Age-Specic Arrest Rates and RaceSpecic Arrest Rates for Selected Offenses, 19932001, Washington, DC: US GPO: US Department of Justice.
Forth AE, Brown SL, Hart SD, Hare RD. 1996. The assessment of
psychopathy in male and female noncriminals: Reliability and
validity. Pers Individ Differences 20:531543.
Geen RG. 2001. Human Aggression, 2nd edition. Philadelphia, PA:
Open University Press.
Giancola PR. 2003. The moderating effects of dispositional empathy
on alcohol-related aggression in men and women. J Abnorm
Psychol 112:275281.
Hammock GS, Richardson DR. 1992. Predictors of aggression. Aggr
Behav 18:219229.

Aggr. Behav.

328 Reidy et al.

Hare RD. 1990. The Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-II. Unpublished
test, Vancouver, Canada: Department of Psychology, University
of British Columbia.
Hare RD. 2003. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, 2nd
edition (PCL-R), Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Harris GT, Rice ME, Quinsey VL. 1993. Violent recidivism of
mentally disordered offenders: The development of a statistical
prediction instrument. Crim Justice Behav 20:315335.
Hart SD, Hare RD, Forth AE. 1994. Psychopathy as a risk marker
for violence: Development and validation of a screening
version of the Revised Psychopathy Checklist. In: Monahan J,
Steadman H (eds): Violence and Mental Disorder: Developments
in Risk Assessment, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp
8198.
Karpman B. 1948. The myth of the psychopathic personality. Am J
Psychiatry 104:523534.
Lau MA, Pihl RO, Peterson JB. 1995. Provocation, acute alcohol
intoxication, cognitive performance, and aggression. J Abnorm
Psychol 104:150155.
Levenson MR, Kiehl KA, Fitzpatrick CM. 1995. Assessing
psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population.
J Pers Soc Psychol 68:151158.
Lilienfeld SO, Andrews BP. 1996. Development and preliminary
validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality
traits in noncriminal populations. J Pers Assess 66:488524.
Lynam DR. 2002. Psychopathy from the perspective of the Five Factor
Model. In: Costa PT, Widiger TA (eds): Personality Disorders and
the Five-factor Model of Personality, 2nd edition, Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association, pp 325350.
Lynam DR, Whiteside S, Jones S. 1999. Self-reported psychopathy:
A validation study. J Pers Assess 73:110132.
Marcus DK, John S, Edens JF. 2004. A taxometric analysis of
psychopathic personality. J Abnorm Psychol 113:626635.
Martinez MA, Zeichner A, Reidy DE, Miller JD. 2008. Narcissism
and displaced aggression: Effects of positive, negative, and
delayed feedback. Pers Individ Differences 44:140149.
Miller JD, Lynam DR. 2003. Psychopathy and the ve-factor model
of personality: A replication and extension. J Pers Assess
81:168178.
Miller JD, Flory K, Lynam DR, Leukefeld C. 2003. A test of the
four-factor model of impulsivity-related traits. Pers Individ
Differences 34:14031418.
Parrott DJ, Zeichner A. 2002. Effects of alcohol and trait anger on
physical aggression. J Stud Alcohol 63:196204.
Parrott DJ, Zeichner A. 2003. Effects of hypermasculinity
on physical aggression against women. Psychol Men Mascul
4:7078.
Parrott DJ, Zeichner A. 2005. Effects of sexual prejudice and anger
on physical aggression toward gay and heterosexual men. Psychol
Men Mascul 6:317.
Parrott DJ, Zeichner A. 2006. Effect of psychopathy on physical
aggression toward gay men. J Interpers Violence 21:390410.
Porter S, Woodworth M. 2005. Psychopathy and aggression. In:
Patrick CJ (ed): Handbook of Psychopathy, New York: Guilford
Press, pp 481494.

Aggr. Behav.

Porter S, Woodworth M, Earle J, Drugge J, Boer D. 2003.

Characteristics of sexual homicides committed by psychopathic and nonpsychopathic offenders. Law Hum Behav
27:459470.
Reidy DE, Zeichner A, Miller JD, Martinez MA. 2007a. Psychopathy and aggression: Examining the role of psychopathy factors
in predicting laboratory aggression under hostile and instrumental conditions. J Res Pers 41:12441251.
Reidy DE, Zeichner A, Foster JD, Martinez MA. 2007b. Effects
of narcissistic entitlement and exploitativeness on human
physical aggression. Pers Individ Differences. DOI: 10.1016/
j.pald.2007.10.015.
Reidy DE, Hunnicutt-Ferguson K, Zeichner A, Martinez MA,
Lilieneld S. 2007c. Psychopathy traits and cognitive processing
of affective information: Results of a lexical decision task. Cogn
Emotion. DOI: 10.1080/D2699930701745663.
Richardson DR, Green LR, Lago T. 1998. The relationship between
perspective-taking and nonaggressive responding in the face of an
attack. J Pers 66:235256.
Ross SR, Lutz CJ, Bailey SE. 2004. Psychopathy and the ve factor
model in a noninstitutionalized sample: A domain and facet level
analysis. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 26:213223.
Santor DA, Ingram A, Kusumakar V. 2003. Inuence of executive
functioning difculties on verbal aggression in adolescents:
Moderating effects of winning and losing and increasing and
decreasing levels of provocation. Aggr Behav 29:475488.
Scarpa A, Raine A. 2000. Violence associated with anger
and impulsivity. In: Borod JC (ed): The Neuropsychology
of Emotion, London: Oxford University Press, pp 320339.
Scott SC, Goldberg MS, Mayo NE. 1997. Statistical assessment
of ordinal outcomes in comparative studies. J Clin Epidem
50:4555.
Skeem JL, Mulvey EP. 2001. Psychopathy and community violence
among civil psychiatric patients: Results from the MacArthur
Violence Risk Assessment Study. J Consult Clin Psychol
69:358374.
Taylor S. 1967. Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as
a function of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression.
J Pers 35:297310.
Twenge JM, Campbell WK. 2003. Isnt it fun to get the respect that
were going to deserve? Narcissism, social rejection, and
aggression. J Pers Soc Psychol 29:261272.
West SG, Aiken AS, Krull JL. 1996. Experimental personality
designs: analyzing categorical by continuous variable interactions. J Pers 64:148.
Zeichner A, Frey FC, Parrott DJ, Butryn M. 1999. Measurement of
laboratory aggression: A new response choice paradigm. Psychol
Rep 82:12291237.
Zeichner A, Parrott DJ, Frey FC. 2003. Gender differences in
laboratory aggression under response choice conditions. Aggr
Behav 29:95106.
Zillman D, Weaver JB. 2007. Aggressive personality traits in the
effects of violent imagery on unprovoked impulsive aggression.
J Res Pers 41:753771.