Summary by Dr. Louise Wallace
Background
Intimate partner violence is a serious and complex problem, and research has long tried to identify factors that increase the risk of abuse within relationships. This paper focuses on psychopathy, which the authors describe as a personality structure that can involve interpersonal features such as manipulation, affective features such as limited empathy or remorse, and behavioural features such as impulsivity and antisocial behaviour. The authors note that these characteristics may make it more likely that a person uses coercion, aggression, or control within intimate relationships.
The purpose of the paper was to bring together the best available evidence on whether psychopathic traits are associated with intimate partner violence, and whether this association differs depending on the specific dimension or component of psychopathy measured and the type of violence examined.
How the study was done
Azeredo and colleagues carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis. They searched multiple academic databases for studies published between 1983 and May 2024 that examined the relationship between psychopathy measures and intimate partner violence. The search was restricted to articles written in English, Portuguese, Spanish, or French, and the review focused on empirical studies that reported results on psychopathy and violence against an intimate partner. Studies focused on other types of family violence were excluded.
After screening, 35 studies were included in the systematic review, and 30 of these contributed data to meta-analytic procedures (analyses that integrate the evidence from all the studies to obtain overall estimates about these associations). For the main correlational meta-analysis, 26 studies contributed usable data, based on 10,713 participants and 117 effect sizes. The authors used methods which allowed them to include multiple effect sizes from the same study while accounting for differences across studies. They also assessed whether the type of sample and participant gender helped explain differences in results between studies, and they checked whether the findings were impacted by publication bias.
To keep the analysis consistent across studies, the authors used zero-order correlations rather than partial correlations, because partial correlations adjust for scores on different variables across studies and can make it harder to compare the findings from different studies.
What the study found
Across the 35 studies in the systematic review, most reported a positive association between psychopathy and intimate partner violence, meaning higher psychopathy scores were generally linked to higher levels of relationship violence. The authors note that only three studies did not find a significant association.
When results were combined in the main meta-analysis, total psychopathy showed a significant positive association with intimate partner violence, with an average correlation of r = .268 based on 26 studies and 117 effect sizes. This indicates a consistent tendency across studies for higher psychopathic traits to be associated with more violence in intimate relationships. The analysis also identified meaningful variation in effect sizes both within and across studies, supporting the authors’ use of a multi-level approach and suggesting that additional factors may help explain differences in the strength of the association.
The authors also examined the two broad psychopathy dimensions reported in some studies. The interpersonal-affective dimension, often indexed as Factor 1, showed an average association of r = .259 with intimate partner violence. The lifestyle-antisocial dimension, often indexed as Factor 2, showed an average association of r = .162. These analyses were based on fewer studies than the total psychopathy analysis, but higher levels of both dimensions were reliably associated with higher levels of intimate partner violence.
The authors then examined whether psychopathy was linked to different forms of intimate partner violence. They reported significant positive associations between total psychopathy and several commonly studied types of partner violence. The mean associations were r = .264 for physical violence, r = .291 for psychological violence, r = .239 for cyber violence, and r = .184 for sexual violence. These findings suggest that the link between psychopathy and intimate partner violence is not limited to physical assault and also includes non-physical harm such as intimidation, emotional abuse, and online abuse.
The authors also tested whether the size of the psychopathy–IPV association varied by gender, sample type, and psychopathy measure. For the overall association with total psychopathy, and for Factor 1, neither gender nor sample type significantly explained differences across studies. However, when specific forms of violence were examined, the dimension of psychopathy measured did matter in some models. For example, associations were stronger for physical IPV when studies examined Factor 1 and Factor 2 separately than when they used total psychopathy scores. Overall, the findings suggest that the strength of the association may vary depending on how psychopathy is measured, especially for some specific forms of intimate partner violence.
Finally, the authors assessed publication bias and report that they did not find evidence that their findings were impacted by publication bias although they note that it remains possible that unpublished studies could have obtained different findings.
Implications
The existing evidence corroborates an association between psychopathic traits and intimate partner violence. They argue that psychopathy should be treated as an important variable when trying to understand why intimate partner violence occurs and when assessing risk. In practice, this means that professionals should develop the ability to recognise and evaluate psychopathic traits in people who commit intimate partner violence. Increased recognition of perpetrators with psychopathy might help professionals plan more appropriate responses that consider both victim safety and the likelihood of change in the person causing harm.
The paper emphasises that the presence of psychopathic traits in a person does not automatically mean that person will be violent. However, the presence of these traits increases risk of intimate partner violence, so the presence of such traits may be clinically and forensically relevant when combined with other information about an individual and their relationship patterns.
These findings point to the value of intervention approaches that are tailored to the characteristics of the perpetrator rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all model. In some cases, treatment programmes may need to address both relationship violence and the underlying personality features associated with psychopathy. This could include strengthening social and emotional skills, reducing aggressive behaviour, and supporting the development of healthier relationship behaviours.
This paper highlights several gaps in the scientific evidence that limit the implications of this research for some groups of people. More studies with adolescent samples and the use of multiple psychopathy measures are needed. They also recommend more research examining gender differences and the role of race and ethnicity in the links between psychopathy and intimate partner violence, noting that evidence drawn largely from white samples may not generalise well and may risk overlooking the experiences of minority groups.
Citation: Andreia Azeredo, Patrícia Figueiredo, Diana Moreira & Fernando Barbosa (2026) Psychopathy and Violence Between Intimate Partners: Systematic Review with Meta- Analytic Procedure, Victims & Offenders, 21:1, 1-30, doi: 10.1080/15564886.2024.2439940
