Psychopathic traits are associated with destructive relational behaviors. Individuals higher in psychopathy are more likely to be aggressive (Webster et al., 2016), promiscuous (Khan et al., 2017), and abusive to their romantic partners (Carton & Egan, 2017). However, despite the potential for serious harm, research examining the impacts of psychopathic traits on partner well-being is limited. The few studies considering partner well-being impacts have either relied on cross-sectional data, small and unrepresentative samples, or unidimensional measures of psychopathy (e.g., Smith et al., 2014; Weiss et al., 2018). Moreover, studies have often focused on a small range of well-being indicators or included samples where only one member of a couple participated (e.g., Forth et al., 2022; Weiss et al., 2018), leaving broader and reciprocal impacts unexamined. As a result, a comprehensive understanding of how psychopathic traits predict partner well-being remains elusive.
Two recent studies address these gaps using large-scale dyadic data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (NZAVS). The first applies causal inference methods to estimate how increases in psychopathic traits affect a wide range of partner well-being indicators over both short and longer time spans. The second examines whether the relational difficulties associated with psychopathy extend beyond the home and “spill over” into partners’ professional lives. Together, these studies provide robust evidence for how psychopathic traits shape the lives of romantic partners, both within relationships and across major life domains.
Study 1: Causal Effects of Psychopathy on Partner Well-Being
The first study (Hissey et al., 2025a) used dyadic panel data and causal inference techniques to estimate the effects of psychopathy on partner well-being. As psychopathy cannot be experimentally manipulated, the study used advanced statistical techniques designed to estimate causal effects from observational data. This approach allowed the estimation of causal effects while adjusting for confounding, reverse causation, and dyadic interdependence.
Psychopathy was measured using a 24‑item NZAVS scale that captures four facets (Antagonism, Disinhibition, Emotional Stability, and Narcissism), as well as Global Psychopathy. Partner well-being was assessed across eight domains: relationship satisfaction, relationship conflict, psychological distress, anxiety, depression, self-esteem, life satisfaction, and personal well-being.
Study 1a used three waves of data (baseline, exposure, and outcome) to estimate the one-year causal effects of increasing psychopathy. The results suggested no reliable causal effects of Antagonism, Disinhibition, Emotional Stability, or Narcissism on partner well-being. However, a one-unit increase in Global Psychopathy increased partner anxiety and increased partner perceptions of relationship conflict. Interestingly, it also increased partner self-esteem, a counterintuitive finding potentially reflecting the socially dominant or superficially confident presentation associated with psychopathy. Overall, these findings suggest that psychopathy’s harmful effects emerge most clearly when its facets co-occur, rather than when they increase independently.
Study 1b extended the analysis to a six-wave design, modelling the effects of increasing psychopathy over four consecutive years and examining partner well-being in the fifth year. The results revealed a clearer and more consistent pattern of partner detriment. Increasing Antagonism led to greater relationship conflict and reduced partner personal well-being and life satisfaction. Increasing Disinhibition reduced partner relationship satisfaction, personal well-being, and life satisfaction. Increasing Emotional Stability decreased partner psychological distress, depression, and anxiety, and increased partner life satisfaction, though it also increased perceived relationship conflict. Increasing Narcissism increased partner depression and reduced partner self-esteem. Finally, increasing Global Psychopathy decreased partner personal well-being, self-esteem, and relationship satisfaction, and increased psychological distress, depression, and relationship conflict.
Taken together, Study 1a and Study 1b demonstrate that psychopathy has detrimental causal effects on partner well-being, with the most substantial harms emerging when Global Psychopathy is elevated across multiple years. The convergence of traits, as well as their persistence, appears to be the key driver of partner harm.
Study 2: Do Psychopathy’s Relational Harms Spill Over into Partners’ Work Lives?
The second paper (Hissey et al., 2025b) examined whether the negative relational impacts of psychopathy extend into partners’ professional lives. Using cross-sectional and longitudinal dyadic data from 490 employed couples, the study tested whether psychopathy predicted partner job satisfaction or occupational prestige, and whether relationship satisfaction mediated these associations.
Psychopathy was measured using a 15‑item NZAVS scale capturing Fearless Dominance, Self-centered Impulsivity, and Coldheartedness, as well as Global Psychopathy. Professional success was operationalised as job satisfaction and occupational prestige (derived from the New Zealand Socioeconomic Index).
Across both cross-sectional and longitudinal models, the study found little evidence that psychopathy harms partners’ professional success. Global Psychopathy was not linked to partner relationship satisfaction, job satisfaction or occupational prestige. However, some facet-level effects did emerge. Coldheartedness was negatively associated with partner occupational prestige cross-sectionally, and Self-centered Impulsivity predicted lower partner relationship satisfaction over time. Surprisingly, Self-centered Impulsivity also predicted higher partner occupational prestige longitudinally, possibly reflecting compensatory investment in work when home life is strained. Overall, effects were inconsistent and did not form a coherent pattern of partner disadvantage.
General Discussion
Across both studies, a consistent picture emerges. Psychopathic traits clearly and causally harm partner well-being, particularly when multiple traits are elevated across multiple years. Study 1a showed that short-term increases in Global Psychopathy heighten partner anxiety and conflict, while Study 1b demonstrated that sustained psychopathy erodes partner self-esteem, life satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and psychological well-being. These findings provide the strongest evidence to date that psychopathy leads to lower partner well-being.
However, Study 2 indicates that these relational harms do not reliably spill over into partners’ professional lives. While psychopathy undermines relationship quality, partners appear largely insulated from these workplace consequences. This suggests that the interpersonal harms of psychopathy are most influential within the intimate relational sphere and may not generalise to partners’ broader life domains.
Together, these studies highlight the importance of examining psychopathic traits within dyadic and longitudinal frameworks. They demonstrate that psychopathy’s interpersonal costs are real, cumulative, and consequential, but also that these costs may be domain-specific, affecting partners’ emotional and relational well-being more than their professional lives.
References
Carton, H., & Egan, V. (2017). The dark triad and intimate partner violence. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.040
Forth, A., Sezlik, S., Lee, S., Ritchie, M., Logan, J., & Ellingwood, H. (2022). Toxic relationships: The experiences and effects of psychopathy in romantic relationships. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 66(15), 1627–1658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211049187
Hissey, A., Eisenbarth, H., Hammond, M., Sibley, C. G., & Bulbulia, J. (2025a). Causal Effect of Psychopathy on Partner Well‐Being: A National Longitudinal Study. Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.70042
Hissey, A., Hammond, M., Bulbulia, J., Sibley, C.G., Zubielevitch, E., & Eisenbarth, E. (2025b). Associations between psychopathy, relationship satisfaction and professional success in couples. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000706
Khan, R., Brewer, G., Kim, S., & Centifani, L. C. M. (2017). Students, sex, and psychopathy: Borderline and psychopathy personality traits are differently related to women and men’s use of sexual coercion, partner poaching, and promiscuity. Personality and Individual Differences, 107, 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.027
Smith, C. V., Hadden, B.W., Webster, G. D., Jonason, P. K., Gesselman, A. N., & Crysel, L. C. (2014). Mutually attracted or repulsed? Actor–partner interdependence models of Dark Triad traits and relationship outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.044
Webster, G. D., Gesselman, A. N., Crysel, L. C., Brunell, A. B., Jonason, P. K., Hadden, B. W., & Smith, C. V. (2016). An actor-partner interdependence model of the Dark Triad and aggression in couples: Relationship duration moderates the link between psychopathy and argumentativeness. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.05.065
Weiss, B., Lavner, J. A., & Miller, J. D. (2018). Self- and partner-reported psychopathic traits’ relations with couples’ communication, martial satisfaction trajectories, and divorce in a longitudinal sample. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9(3), 239–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000233
