Personality Traits of Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence (1)

1
RunningHead: PERSONAILITYTRAITSOF MALE PERPETRATORS
Personality Traits of Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence
Donna L. LaPalm
Regis University

2
PERSONALITYTRAITSOF MALE PERPETRATORS
Abstract
As it concerns the crime of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), an ongoing endeavor in the research
world is to attempt to get a better understanding of who is predicted to abuse their intimate
partners—both current and past as well. What antecedents do they exhibit before, and during the
relationship that may help professionals and laymen alike, to understand the characteristics of
such criminality? In order to help prevent IPV, and possibly treat the perpetrator--personality
traits of the offender need to be evaluated. Maladaptive personality traits are found in both male,
and female perpetrators of IPV. As posited by theorists McCrae and Costa within the Five Factor
Theory—both male and female offenders are low on agreeableness. In yet other instances,
research posits that where the theorist Eysenck’s Factory Theory was involved-it has been shown
that both female and male perpetrators may score high on both the neuroticism (N), and the
psychoticism scales (P). Multiple studies done on IPV cite that neither female, nor male
offenders are guilty more often than the other gender—while others postulate that females tend
to be victimized more often, more chronically, and more severely than male victims. Multiple
other researchers however speculate that the female victim, and the male perpetrator, both share
the trait of low adaptive behaviors, as well as low agreeableness.

3
Personality Traits of Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence
With the topic theory of personality as it relates to psychology, and the behaviors of those
that abuse their intimate partners, trait theorists have each asserted the number of primary
personality traits for any individual. Moreover, they have also used these trait factors in
conjunction with studying Intimate Partner Violence (IPV).
Two of the more popular utilized theories as it relates to trait factors are a) The Factor
Theory as postulated by Hans J. Eysenck, b) a biological basis as antecedents of Neuroticism,
Psychoticism, & Extroversion, and c) McCrae & Costa’s Five Factor Theory (Feist, & Feist,
2009). All theorists presented, propose that the basis of any human personality is formed around
either three, or five main components (depending on which model is being studied).
Hans J. Eysenck’s Factor Theory
Concerning the personality trait theory as postulated by Eysenck--Feist, & Feist (2009)
state the following:
The personality theory of Hans Eysenck has strong psychometric and biological components.
However, Eysenck contended that psychometric sophistication alone is not sufficient to measure
the structure of human personality, and that personality dimensions arrived at through factor
analytical methods are sterile and meaningless unless they have been shown to possess biological
existence (p. 408).
What theorist Eysenck intended for the reader to contemplate is that any human being has
behavior as it regards repeated behavioral responses to day to day endeavors; however,
individuals also develop personality traits. The behavior of a person develops into a personality

4
trait and becomes somewhat permanent within his or her repertoire. However, personality is
malleable, and there is enough flexibility for change over time and circumstances within one’s
lifetime (Feist, & Feist, 2009).
Dimensions of Personality.
Eysenck proposed that there are three super-traits that form the basis of the personality in
general: the three dimensions of personality that Eysenck hypothesized are as follows: 1)
extroversion (E), 2) neuroticism (N), and 3) psychoticism (P). With each super trait proposed,
each exhibits certain personality traits for any one individual (Feist, & Feist, 2009). Although E,
and N and P, are all encompassing with any individuals, these traits are also what personality
theorists consider to be bipolar. That is, they operate on both ends of the spectrum: in the case
with extroversion, someone can be introverted which is at the polar opposite end of the scale for
that personality trait-type. With N at one end of the spectrum you have neuroticism, or anxiety
driven focus, whereas at the polar opposite side, you have emotional stability. Lastly, with P, a
person may have the super ego on the polar end (with a healthy adaptive mentality), whereas the
psychotic end of the spectrum, an individual exhibits pathological mentalities and behaviors.
Additionally, each super trait can be in conjunction with another of those super traits mentioned
previously. F
or example, an individual may score high on the N scale, and also be high on the E scale,
initiating different disposition, and behavior types for that individual (Feist, & Feist, 2009).
Biology Based Personality.
Also postulated by Eysenck—personality factors E, N, and P are initiated by biology, or
predisposition in each individual. He believed that the majority of the variances in the

5
personality super traits are engaged by biology, while the remainder of what transpires is the
environment (nature, vs. nurture). Across the world, researchers have studied personality factors
in multiple countries. Including twin studies--a higher correlation of identical twins, behaving
similarly, over same gender fraternal twins that are reared together help to tie together the notion
that nature and nurture aide in the personality trait formation because of the results discovered in
the studies. Eysenck specifically states that E, N, and P have predisposition which that belong to
genetics. Lastly—Eysenck suggests that E, N, and P along with genetic predisposition predict a
variety of social behaviors, which include IPV (Feist, & Feist, 2009).
McCrae & Costa’s Five Factor Model
In the 1970’s, through to the 1980’s—theorists McCrae, & Costa began the pursuit of a
more in-depth understanding into trait theory using factor analysis to examine the human
personality (Feist, & Feist, 2009). Beginning with Eysenck’s E, and N—the two theorists began
the research to add another factor to the personality traits of N, and E. McCrae, and Costa did
not adhere to the third factor of P that Eysenck utilized to understand personality theory.
Conversely, they omitted P, and implemented O as a third factor: the O in this new formula
means openness. Openness refers to the mentality of that individual and his or her ability, or
willingness to experience new scenarios. People that score high on the openness scale tend to be
imaginative, curious, and tend to prefer a variety of things. Shortly thereafter, they added the
traits of agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Feist, & Feist, 2009). Subsequently, it has been
postulated in many modern day studies on IPV, that perpetrators of either gender are speculated
to be low on agreeableness. McCrae, and Costa did not include Eysenck’s P on their category of
Five Factor Model, as they believed that “Eysenck’s P mapped onto the low ends of
agreeableness and conscientiousness, but did not tap into openness” (Feist, Feist, 2009; p. 421).

6
The Big Five.
McCrae and Costa posited what theorists have known as the Five Factor Model which
consists of the following traits: extroversion, neuroticism, openness, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness. Feist and Feist (2009) state that N, and E are the most resilient of all of the
traits, and the ones that occur most frequently. McCrae and Costa concur with Eysenck that the
N trait produced in an individual, a personality that tends to be anxious, temperamental, self-
pitying, self-conscious, emotional, and prone to be susceptible to stress related disorders. These
are individuals that would be considered to be high on the N scale. Those that are low on the N
scale tend to be the polar opposite of those that score high: they are calm, even tempered, self-
satisfied, and unemotional. Those who score high on the E scale tend to exhibit a lot of affection,
they tend to be talkative, active, fun loving, and passionate about life (Feist, & Feist, 2009). On
the other hand, those who score low on E traits will show less outward affection, may be a loner,
quiet, and tend to be passive in nature. Those that score high on the scale for openness are
creative, liberal, curious, and are original. Those on the low end of the scale were individuals that
exhibit conservative intellects, are conventional, uncreative, and are not curious. Next—those
that score high on the agreeableness scale will be softhearted, trusting, generous, and good-
natured. However those that are on the low end of the scale show traits of being ruthless, stingy,
critical and irritability to name just some of the traits. Lastly of the five traits as postulated by
McCrae and Costa, is conscientiousness: those that were on the high end of the scale were
conscientious, hardworking, well-organized, punctual, ambitious and persevering. The low end
traits consisted of being negligent, lazy, disorganized, late, and aimless regarding goals. As
stated previously within this research, those who perpetrate IPV are found to score low on the
scale of agreeableness (Feist, & Feist, 2009).

7
Nature vs. Nurture.
Just as Eysenck stated that biology and heredity—as well as environmental influences
aided in personality development, so did McCrae and Costa. Their theory is based upon three
components: 1) biology, 2) objective biology, and 3) external influences. “The Five Factor
Theory rests on a single casual influence on personality traits, namely biology” (Feist & Feist,
2009; p. 426). Genes, hormones, and brain structure all contribute to this process. As it relates to
objective biology, this term is used to describe everything that a person does; that is whatever he,
or she thinks or feels within his or her lifetime. Objective refers to what has happened to the
person-which makes it objective- over how the person views their life’s experience
(subjectivity). Essentially, every one of those objective experience becomes part of the
cumulative human data base.
Concerning the nurture, or environmental influences, societal stimuli helps to cultivate a
personality. Interactions and adaptions in one’s environment, and socializations help to form
personality; this of course is in addition to biology and the five factor traits (Feist, & Feist,
2009).
Biology, Heredity, & Hormonal Influences in Male IPV Perpetrators
According to Romero-Martinez, Lila, Sarinana-Gonzales, Gonzalez, & Moya-Albiol,
(2013), roughly 15%- 70% of women from various places, and social classes have been
victimized by violence at some point in their lives. Some have endured physical, while some
have endured sexual—in some instances both have transpired
Considering a biopsychosocial model, male hormones, and brain imaging have been
utilized in addition to examining the traits of those male offenders that abuse their intimate

8
partners (IP). The personality traits, and those biological precursors that may help to engage the
IPV perpetrator behaviors was examined (Romero-Martinez, et al., 2015).
One of the most commonly researched male hormones affiliated with this particular
criminality is Testosterone (T). It is been posited that some violent males are reported to have
higher levels of T opposed to nonviolent males (Romero-Martinez, et al., 2015). It is also
speculated that the fluctuations that can happen in T levels are likely to cause mood swings. This
moodiness may also be attributed to any replacement therapies for hormone loss that help to
cause irritability, anger, and hostility fluxes. Violence, or more specifically violence within
intimate partner (IP) relationships may have an added layer of predictability considering T.
Especially as it concerns hormone replacement therapy, it appears to have a direct influence on
the males affect. For those male perpetrators that are also using alcohol or illicit drugs-- there
also appears to be a direct connect with T, and violence, and their substance use (Romero-
Martinez, et al., 2015).
Additional to the aforementioned, neurocognitive actions, adjacent to T levels may aide
in the perpetuation of the violent behaviors. In essence, what happens in the thought process of
those male offenders, addition to their neurochemistry, (including T) may either drive the violent
behavior, or constrain them (Romero-Martinez, et al., 2015). Comparisons have been done
between nonviolent IPs, and violent IPs: it has been discovered that the violent males being
studied were more prone to react negatively to female facial gestures. They tended to misidentify
mannerisms in their female partners. It has been hypothesized that higher levels of T, have a
cause and effect relationship, to where these hormone levels hinder the facial recognition
mechanism in these male perpetrators. This biological theory, subsequently refers to the notion
that because of this deficit in mechanism (coupled with the T levels), male offenders misread

9
their partners, and feel hostility and inferiority. Subsequently, this possibly starts the violent
behavior upon the female victim (Romero-Martinez, et al., 2015). Also, considering biological
function—the prefrontal cortex deficits are posited to be correlated with male offenders of IPV.
Attention span, executive functions, and verbal abilities are all correlated with those behaviors of
the males being studied after being apprehended for violence. Once again, as mentioned
previously, higher levels of irritability, and physical aggression were discovered to be directly
correlated with IPV. Evidently, as posited by multiple theorists which include Eysenck, and
McCrae, and Costa-- biology does play some role in behavioral traits of those males that are
violent with their intimate partners (Romero-Martinez, et al., 2015).
What Behaviors the Offender May Exhibit
As the previous qualitative data on biological components speculate that hormonal and
brain functions are contributors of violence and IPV, the question of do the personality traits the
male offender exhibit, before, or during the abuse incidences correlate all variances in trait
theory? Is there something he does beforehand on a regular basis that the outside observer can
identify that can help to predict what may transpire next? Are there traits that are identifiable as
the Trait Factor Theory, and the Five Factor Theory postulate? Do these male perpetrators fit into
these models of personality designed by these theorists? Research regarding these particular
criminalities state that there are some congruencies with either personality models as suggested
in the preceding paragraphs. Consequently, there are also behavioral aspects of personalities of
these types of violent individuals, as well as psychodynamics that some hypothesize are
responsible for their violent traits they exhibit.
Without opposition, a more common term, or personality trait directly concerning the
male violent offender is low agreeableness. Additionally, as it concerns the female offender of

10
IPV, this trait is hypothesized to be correlated with the female offender as well. Referring to the
introductory material in this study, McCrae and Costa list low agreeableness as one of the five
traits within their models for understanding personality (Feist, & Feist, 2009). Once again, this is
a trait that is found multiple times within other research endeavors relating to IPV—thus linking
this specific trait with males and IPV.
Low Agreeableness, Neuroticism, and IPV
Speaking specifically about McCrae, and Costa’s trait theory, two of the prominent traits
found to be linked to aggression are low agreeableness, and neuroticism in the male offenders.
Varley-Thorton, Graham-Kevan, & Archer (2010) state that a study conducted has shown
evidence that male offenders of IPV score higher on N then do nonviolent male offenders, and
they also score lower on agreeableness (A). Each of these traits are directly linked to aggression,
therefore linking aggression, violence, and IPV specifically.
Additionally, what other researchers consider to be maladjusted behavioral traits, are
considered to be the figurative building blocks of these personalities that tend to utilize
aggression and violence in their relationships (Varley-Thorton et al., 2010).
As Stead, & Fekken (2014) postulate, the primary, and most common of traits in those
individuals with these abnormal personalities consist of those that are denoted in McCrae, and
Costa’s Big Five. Among this list of traits are: disagreeableness, lack of humility, callousness,
and interpersonal antagonism. In direct correlation with the Big Five traits, McCrae, and Costa
cite the virtually the same characteristics traits of the maladjusted personality with some
differences--but yet similar descriptions of traits.

11
The depiction of being disagreeable, is in direct line with being low on agreeableness in
the Big Five, as well as an individual being antagonistic. Also, lack of humility can be construed
as the opposite of good-natured which is found when a person scores higher on the agreeableness
scale. In essence it is the polar opposite of this description, thus placing an individual low on the
agreeableness. Lastly as it relates, callousness as posited by authors Stead, & Fekken (2014) is
also placed on the specific trait factor for agreeableness as it relates to the term ruthless. Ruthless
is also hypothesized in the Five Factor Model for personality analysis. An individual possessing
these personality traits tend to exemplify violent behaviors, opposed to those that do not show
aggression, both in and out of IP relationships.
Regarding N, and the Five Factor Model of personality, Stead, & Fekken (2014) state that
persons with higher N traits “tend to experience emotional instability, or negative emotions such
as anger or anxiety” (p. 133). Furthermore McCrae, and Costa also hypothesize that N traits
consist of anxiousness, being emotional, and temperamental as well. These traits are all in
congruence with what other researchers have posited are part of maladjusted personality types.
With both concepts being stated, there appears to be evidence that connects The Big Five trait--
N, as well as other studies done on these emotional instabilities that have postulated. Because of
the distinct similarities, evidence does show that there is a link between the traits of the
maladjusted individual, trait factor N, and violent behaviors. Specifically, IPV is affiliated with
high N, and low A (Stead, & Fekken, 2014).
It stands to reason that juvenile offenders also need to be included as perpetrators of
violence, and more specifically IPV. As it is widely known, adolescents are just as capable of
committing these acts as adults can be. Prior research postulates that there are direct links to
personality traits in juveniles, just as there are adult male perpetrators. Once again, in

12
conjunction with the Big Five Model, traits that can be construed as psychopathy within a
different theoretical framework that correlate behaviors of the adolescent offenders (Stead, &
Fekken, 2014). Some of the traits are the very same that McCrae and Costa postulate within the
Big Five personality model, however there are with variances in their depictions. For example,
the trait of agreeableness is similar to the psychopathy checklist for the juvenile: someone will
show manipulations, superficial charm, as opposed to those that are good natured, and complaint
as found in agreeableness (Stead, & Fekken, 2014).
Those that exhibit psychopathy are also manipulative, also opposed to the compliant
individual within the five trait model. Also, and of importance is the trait of being ruthless, and
the coinciding trait of lacking remorse which is found on the psychopathy checklist. It is clear to
see that there is specific trait similarities between the trait model theory here, and what is
depicted as juvenile psychopathy. It is obvious with the comparisons that both frameworks of
understanding juvenile behaviors belongs in the category of predicting violence in adolescent
individuals. Furthermore it is been discussed that A appears to be the primary antagonist in
which that trait, and the checklist of young psychopathological individuals meet in in the middle
for overlapping behaviors (Stead, & Fekken, 2014). A is strongly, and directly correlated with
psychopathy in juveniles. Additionally, anger and hostility is also strongly connected to both
psychopathy in adolescents, as well as being low on agreeableness as proposed in the Big Five
Model. Low agreeableness tends to lend itself to people that also highly antagonistic, high on
dominance, and tend to have an absence of self-directing affect. All are in line with young
psychopathy, and low agreeableness. In essence, these traits of low agreeableness link the
hypothesis that persons exhibiting low agreeableness tend to be aggressive, and eventually
violent. This in turn leads to the relationship that these types of individuals will act in a violent

13
nature in their relationships additional to their romantic relationships outside of their home
environments (Stead, & Fekken, 2014).
Many studies have been done previously linking the poor emotional stability, and low
agreeableness in male perpetrators of IPV. Additionally, lower N scores which are characterized
by emotional instability—and lower scores on the A scale, exhibit those that are suspicious,
critical and antagonistic (Feist, &Feist, 2009). All of these traits have been described in those
who perpetrate IPV against their female partners (Stead, & Fekken, 2014).
Neuroticism and Psychoticism
Appertain to Eysenck’s trait theory as introduced previously, the three factors, or traits
posited by him state that N, produces anxiety driven behaviors which have been affiliated with
male IPV perpetrations (Feist, &Feist, 2009). Additional to the anxiety laden thought processes,
people higher on the scale with N are thought to have moody dispositions in general, and to also
have a harder time calming down once provoked to anger. With this consideration, and the male
perpetrator of IPV, it is clear there is a relationship between 1) Eysenck’s Factor Theory, 2) Male
IPV mentalities, and 3) scoring higher on the N scale (Feist, &Feist, 2009).
Additional to the aforementioned and also relating to Eysenck’s trait theory, P is also
parallel with IPV perpetrations. Those who score higher on the P scale tend to exhibit traits that
exemplify less empathy for others (i.e. their female victims), tend to be more aggressive, and are
often more troublesome overall. In direct correspondence with this personality model, and how
male perpetrators of this particular violence behave, it is clear that there is a relationship with
scoring higher on the scale with P concerning these perpetrators. Psychoticism can refer to a
break with reality (a psychotic episode), but it does necessarily mean that in all aspects. This can

14
also refer to cognitions behind aggressive behaviors such as tough mindedness, recklessness,
hostility, and anger for instances (Feist, &Feist, 2009).
Within in a variance of assessments taken in previous studies, anyone with a high score
for P would be described as solitary, not caring for other people, and troublesome. In the study
done by Boladale, Yetunde, Adesanmi, Olutayo, & Olanrewaju (2014), male perpetrators of IPV
scored higher than females for P, while the opposite holds true with N: males scored lower than
the female participant (control group) for emotional instability. However this difference in
percentages was by a very slim margin. The study as presented by Boladale et al. (2014)
concluded through their research regarding higher scores on the P scale for these male
participants are directly linked to dating violence. It has also been postulated within this
particular study that both P and N traits are predictors of dating violence. Additionally, those that
scored high on the P scale had a six fold increase of dating violence, opposed to those that did
not score high on the P scale. Lastly, those that scored high on the N scale had a two fold
increase in being at risk for perpetrating dating violence: low self-esteem in direct conjunction
with neurotic individuals were also affiliated with those that have committed dating violence.
Furthermore, N, and P traits are most frequently associated with emotional, and psychological
turmoil. Boladale et al., (2014) speculate that it is possible that understanding these correlations
with personality traits, and instabilities may help to prevent violence in adolescence by assisting
with these personality disturbances before dating violence actually occurs.
Referring back to the trait of N in those that perpetrate IPV, Hellmuth, & McNulty
(2008), explain that although N contributes to IPV a great deal, there is also the idea of what the
relationship looks like additional to the N factor. In essence, personality traits such as N, or P
alone are not solely responsible for the violence done to the victim. Someone that scores high on

15
N are strongly linked to adverse outcomes within their romantic relationships—more specifically
IPV-- but other issues may be at hand as well. It is hypothesized that this transpires for many
reasons: one, there appears to be more relationship dissatisfaction, as well as being dissatisfied in
the sex life within the relationship. N is also invariably linked to poor interpersonal skills in
general, which may actually include violent behaviors while in intimate relationships. It is
speculated by Hellmuth & McNulty (2008) that the inability to control emotions, and the higher
levels of anxiety may actually foster the acts of IPV in the male offenders. As mentioned
previously, it appears as though N traits could actually predict IPV, thus possibly allowing
prevention to occur before the act of violence does.
Subsequently, interviewing male batters has shown that they feel they are prompted to
commit the act of violence against their intimate partners because of frustrations over their
circumstances. They believe they have no other avenues to express their frustrations other than
acting out in aggression. Opposed to the trait theorists and their viewpoint on trait factors being
adjacent to IPV, deficits in problems solving skills may also be responsible for male batters
lashing out at their intimate partners. This is according to theorists who emphasis on personality
development is something other than trait factors analysis (Hellmuth & McNulty, 2008).
Moreover, stress tends to play an integral role in IPV in general, but with special emphasis on the
N factor and the relationship between the two. Conversely, it has been conjectured that male
perpetrators of IPV that are high on N traits-paired with poor problem solving skills- are more
prone to use violent behaviors in their relations, whereas females with high scores of N do not
tend to exhibit problem solving skills. Essentially, with IPV-- problem solving skills, and high
levels of N-- excess stress engages the violent behaviors within the male perpetrator.
Types of Abuse Affiliated with These Criminalities

16
“IPV, or domestic violence consists of physical, psychological, and sexual forms of
abuse, as well as controlling behaviors against an intimate partner” (Presaghi, Manca,
Rodriquez-Franco, & Curcio, 2015; p. 1). With that being stated, the question that is posed, is
what types of personality traits initiate any, or all of these subtypes of IPV? What do each
aspects of these types of violence look like, and what types of behaviors can take place
considering each category of abuse? As it was denoted in the preceding part of this section, IPV
can take the form of one, or all of the following: physical abuse which is the obvious hitting,
punching, shoving, grabbing, and preventing her from leaving moving about (for examples).
There is also psychological abuse which can consist of degrading behavior: for example
he tells his female partner she is stupid, and that his other partner was prettier, or more open
sexually (Presaghi et al., 2015). Threatening the partner with physical violence, death, taking
custody of the children, and sabotage of one’s reputation are all examples of psychological
abuse. Lastly as an example, but not the last of the ways a female victim is psychologically
abused, is the perpetrator withholding affection from his partner (refusal to hug, kiss, and have
sexual intercourse to control her behaviors).
Sexual abuse also transpires within IPV; it is also considered violence because often
women are degraded during acts of sex, and sometimes they are physically abused during the act
of love making. Against their own will or intentions, they are sometimes coerced, or guilt-
tripped into performing sexual acts they are not morally, or physically comfortable with (i.e.
anal, or oral sex). Additionally—controlling behaviors atop of any or all of these subtypes of
abuse frequently occur: deceiving the female partner into staying away from friends, family, and
coworkers, and controlling money and spending (Presaghi et al., 2015). Misleading her by lying,
questioning her about where she goes, and who she comes into contact with, and dictating what

17
clothing she wears, or how much make up she wears are all possible scenarios of controlling
behaviors with the male abuser. Sometimes these tactics of control are obvious, and sometimes
they are small, and covert behaviors. Finally, it is important to include that psychological abuse
happens more often than the other forms of abuse—however, it is also important to state that it is
most often a precursor to physical abuse (Presaghi et al., 2015).
Factor Traits and These Behaviors.
What trait does an individual possess as discussed in the preceding areas of this study,
and what initiates them to act in these ways? Relative to trait theorist Eysenck, and the team of
McCrae and Costa, the traits of N, P, and E were used to examine what exactly signifies, or is
correlated with these types’ criminals. It has been proposed that those that score higher on the
scale of N, are responsible for sexual violence, as well as those that’s score higher on the P scale
(Presaghi et al., 2015). Those that were hypothesized to have detachment issues scored higher on
the N scale, while those that were higher on the P scale also exhibited behaviors of coerciveness,
humiliation, and physical violence with their female partners. Subsequently, those that scored
high on the E scale “did not report significant relationships with any of the 8 factors” polled
within this study (Presaghi et al., 2015; p. 1). Lastly, as P is correlated with humiliation,
coercion, and physical violence in the abuser-- the perpetrators reactions to the break up with
their intimate partners were affiliated with the traits of coercion and humility because of the
separation. Break ups for relationships that have exhibited IPV can prove to be especially
dangerous and volatile for the female victim while exiting the relationship.
After the Relationship is over.

18
It has been postulated by many theorists and professionals that assistant those who have
endured domestic violence, as well as self-reported by laymen, that the most dangerous time is
when the victim leaves her intimate partner.
Often times it takes more than one attempt to leave the former IP; some fail to leave
because they tend to return voluntarily out of love, guilt, or fear-- while some return because they
are coerced with tactics by the former IP (i.e. I’ll commit suicide if you leave me, you will fail if
you leave me, or no one will ever want you besides me). In some occurrences, victims need help
leaving the relationship, and it may take months for the completion of the break up to transpire
(Presaghi et al., 2015). Difficulty of a breakup, can be predictable: victims will often report that
knowing their former IP and realizing what they are capable of makes for a very apprehensive
departure. They are usually afraid their former partners will do any of the things that he had
threatened to do. This is often a threat of lethal IPV, for any combination of him, and her, or
other loved ones.
Also correlating with the Three Factor Model, it is postulated that male perpetrators of
bad break ups in their intimate relationships tend to score higher on the P scale. That is, the traits
of coercion, and humiliation during the relationship are readily predictable of the likely-hood that
there will be violence within the separation of the relationship. Conversely, those that were
speculated to use emotional punishment as their mode in which they abused were less likely to
have violent breakups with their former IP. P is highly correlated with IPV, as well as violent
breakups—while N is also associated with IPV, but not necessarily affiliated with violent
breakups. High E scores had no significant baring on either the IPV, or violent outcomes during
a break up from a former intimate partner (Presaghi et al., 2015).
Adolescence and IPV.

19
It goes without speculating to far, that adolescent children also victimize, and are also
victims of IPV-just as adults are. Teen dating violence happens nearly as frequently as that which
is encountered by the female adult victim, and the male adult perpetrator. Some researchers
propose that teen aggression, or adolescent IPV is the specific antecedent to adult IPV (Sherman,
Lynam, & Heyde, 2014). While some may consider adolescence aggressiveness to be normal
teen angst that has room for maturity and growth-- the opposite is true. Adolescent aggression
can be prevented from fostering a more stable pattern of behaviors; if the abusiveness in
relationships is observed earlier on, and intervention interrupts the pattern of behaviors, there
may be promise that the adverse behaviors may cease. Adolescents who become aggressive in
their dating relationships may set a trajectory of patterns of abuse in their future relationships if
intervention is not implemented steadily. Consequently, physical aggression in adult IPV is
preceded by verbal and emotional abusive behavior earlier on in a relationship. In essence, the
couple that had remained together through adolescence when the victim experienced abuse at
first—may also be victimized with further aggression in the form of domestic violence if the
relationship remains together into their adulthood (Sherman et al. , 2014). Also, teens who
become aggressive in their dating relationships may also be predicted to exhibit patterns of
hostility toward other people in overall. Lastly—the use of physical aggression in teen
perpetrators of IPV may be linked with maladaptive conflict resolution, thus developing a more
progressive violence to be used in their future relationships (Presaghi et al., 2015).
As it concerns adolescent abusers, coerciveness and instrumental violence are related to
Psychoticism, and emotional detachment and physical aggression are correlated with the trait of
Neuroticism in teenagers. General peer violence, and delinquent behaviors are also strongly
affiliated with aggression in dating relationships. Lastly -and worthwhile of the mention- is the

20
hypothesis that personality traits are key predictors of antisocial- aggressive- based behaviors
that may lead to dating violence. Male adolescent perpetrators who use aggression with one
dating partner will ultimately move forward to utilize the same aggressive tendencies with
subsequent female intimate partners; it is postulated that this applies to the male offender--but
not female offender of IPV (Presaghi et al., 2015).
Discussion
Although there are similar correlations revolving around the personality traits of both
female and male perpetrators of IPV, each of the genders have their own unique factors to
consider. For example, as posited in the preceding data, adolescent male perpetrators tend to
move forward to another relationship and then continue to abuse within their next romantic
relationships. Females however are just the opposite (Presaghi et al., 2015).
Also, female abusers tend to score more high on the N scale, whereas male offenders
have the tendency to score high on both P, and N scales. In general, men tend to perpetrate more
violence out of the home and the romantic relationship, than females do. Men also tend to be
higher on N, and lower on A, than females who are victimized, or who abuse. Male, and females
may both become victims of IPV, however, men tend to abuse their female partners, over
females abusing their male partners (Presaghi et al., 2015).
Male abuse against the female partner tends to be more instrumental, and more chronic in
trajectory opposed to the offender using expressive (reactive) violence on incidence. Also,
breaking up with the former intimate partner does not necessarily mean violence will stop. Many
abusers with specific personality traits become even less psychologically adjusted during, or
after a breakup within their romantic relationships. Males that have scored higher on the P scale

21
have been shown to be predictive of violent breakups with their former IPs. Specific sub-traits of
those that have scored high on the P scale are those that have shown use of humiliation, and
coercion within their former relationships. After a female victim leaves her relationship, it
becomes especially dangerous for a period of time-and once again-those male violent offenders
who have been shown to score higher on the P scale are predicted to have violent breakups with
their romantic partners. IPV—including teen dating violence is not a passing phenomenon, but is
a growing, and ongoing concern across the world. (Presaghi et al., 2015; & Sherman et al.,
2014).
Lethal IPV.
As stated previously, IPV happens frequently—bad breakups also happen frequently
(Presaghi et al., 2015). Directly related to the latter—lethal IPV also happens frequently, in spite
of popular opinion believing it only happens as frequently as the media reports it. Lethal IPV
refers to two things: either the attempted murder of the intimate partner, or the successful murder
of an intimate partner. Many male perpetrators make attempts on their current, and former
intimate partners. Different weaponry is used, and variances in how long the couple has been
together, and how long they were separated at the time of the crime. Many variables may come
into play with the perpetrators personality, and his psyche. Men who commit lethal IPV may be
what is considered diagnosable in regards to psychoses for example—but not necessarily.
Anticipation for what types of factor traits in those that go on to perform Lethal IPV as it regards
either the Big Five, or The Trait Factor Model, may also be in congruency with the data
presented on bad breakups and the violent nature that transpires there. With those who score
higher on the P scale relating to Eysenck, and low on A scale as it concerns McCrae and Costa--
for male offenders, theorists postulate that instrumental violence is the subtype of violence that is

22
used in lethal IPV. Also, traits such as possessiveness, jealousy can be placed into the same
category of being low on the A scale as someone that exhibits chronic suspiciousness. This
correlates with McCrae and Costa in The Big Five factor analysis. (Haggstrom, & Petersson,
n.d.; & Feist, & Feist, 2009).
Traits and Sub-Traits Associated with Violent Break-ups
Violent Breakups Trait Factors are on Higher the P Scale
Sub Traits are Coercion and Humiliation
Presaghi et al. (2015)
Trait Factors Related to Male Perpetrators of IPV

23
•No Significant
Correlationto
IPV
•Adults
•Coercion,
Humiliation,
and Physical
/Sexual Abuse
•Emotional
Detachment
N
traits
P
traits
E
traits
IPV

24
•No Significant
Correlation to
IPV/Dating
Violence
•Adolescence
•Instrumental
Violence, and
Coercion
•Physcial Abuse,
and Emotional
Detachment
N
traits
P
traits
E
traits
IPV

25
References
Boladale, M. ; Yetunde, O. ; Adesanmi, A. ; Olutayo, A. ; Olanrewaju, I. (2014). Personality
Profiles and Psychopathology among Students Exposed to Dating Violence at the
Obafemi AWOLOWO University, Ile-lfe; Journal of Interpersonal Violence; DOI:
10.1177/0886260514532718.
Feist, J. & Feist, G. J. (2009). Theories of Personality; seventh edition;c.14; p.408-427;
McGraw-Hill Companies; New York, NY.
Haggstrom, E. & Petersson, J. (n.d.). Characteristics of Intimate Partner Homicide Perpetrators;
Institute of Health Sciences; Mid Sweden; Retrieved from http://miun.diva-portal.org.
Hellmuth, J. C. & Mc Nulty (2008). Neuroticism, Marital Violence, and the Moderating Role of
Stress and behavioral Skills; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; v.95; e.1; p.
166-180; Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com.dml.regis.edu.

26
Presaghi, F.; Manca, M.; Rodriquez-Franco, L.; Curcio, G. (2015). A Questionnaire for the
Assessment of Violent Behaviors in Young Couples; the Italian Version of Dating Violence
Questionnaire (DVQ); DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126089.
Romero-Martinez, A.; Lila, M.; Sarinana-Gonzales, P.; Gonzalez, E.; & Moya-Albiol, L. (2013).
High Testosterone Levels and Sensitivity to Acute Stress in Perpetrators of Domestic Violence
with Low Cognitive Flexibility and Impairment in Their Emotional Decoding Process: A
Preliminary Study; Aggressive Behavior; v. 39; p. 355-369; Psychology Department, University
of Valencia; Department of Social Psychology, University of Valencia, Valencia Spain; DOI:
10.1002/ab.21490.
Sherman, E. D.; Lynam, D.R.; & Heyde, B. (2014). Agreeableness Accounts for the Factor
Structure of the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory; Journal of Personality
Disorders;v.28;e.2;p.262-280; doi: 10.1521/pedi_2013_27_124.
Stead, R. & Fekken, G.C. (2014) Agreeableness at the Core of the Dark Triad of Personality;
Individual Differential Research; v.12; e.4-a; p.131-141; Retrieved from
httpp://www.idr-journal.com.
Varley-Thorton, A. J. ; Graham-Kevan, N.; Archer, J. (2010). Adaptive and Maladaptive
Personality Traits as Predictors of Violent and Nonviolent Offending Behavior in Men

27
and Women; v.36;e.3;p.177-186; School of Psychology, university of Central Lancashire,
Preston, Lancashire, United Kingdom; DOI: 10.1002/ab.20340.

Personality Traits of Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence (1)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Personality Traits of Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence (1)

Similar to Personality Traits of Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence (1) (20)

Personality Traits of Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence (1)