Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Aggress Behav. 2014 Jul 8;41(4):346–352. doi: 10.1002/ab.21549

Impulsive versus Premeditated Aggression in the Prediction of Violent Criminal Recidivism

Marc T Swogger 1, Zach Walsh 2, Michael Christie 1, Brittany M Priddy 3, Kenneth R Conner 1,4
PMCID: PMC4449320  NIHMSID: NIHMS680430  PMID: 25043811

Abstract

Past aggression is a potent predictor of future aggression and informs the prediction of violent criminal recidivism. However, aggression is a heterogeneous construct and different types of aggression may confer different levels of risk for future violence. In this prospective study of 91 adults in a pretrial diversion program, we examined a) premeditated versus impulsive aggression in the prediction of violent recidivism during a one-year follow-up period, and b) whether either type of aggression would have incremental validity in the prediction of violent recidivism after taking into account frequency of past general aggression. Findings indicate that premeditated, but not impulsive, aggression predicts violent recidivism. Moreover, premeditated aggression remained a predictor of recidivism even with general aggression frequency in the model. Results provide preliminary evidence that the assessment of premeditated aggression provides relevant information for the management of violent offenders.

Interpersonal aggression is a multifaceted social and public health problem (Kazdin, 2011), and identifying factors that predict aggression is an international research priority (WHO, 2002). Rates of aggression are high among individuals with histories of criminal behavior (Swogger, Walsh, Houston, Cashman-Brown, & Conner, 2010), and reducing criminal recidivism that involves physically aggressive acts (hereafter referred to as violent recidivism)1 is of particular concern given potential harm to the victim, the offending individual, and the community. Identifying factors that lead to violent recidivism may lead to improved management and treatment of individuals involved in the criminal justice system.

Actuarial risk assessment measures, which combine variables associated with aggressive behavior to calculate an individual’s risk for future violence, are more accurate than most structured clinical measures and unstructured clinical judgment (see Yang, Wong, & Coid, 2010, for a review). These measures have been criticized for producing false-positives on one hand and a failure to identify cases on the other (Large & Nielssen, 2011; Mossman, 2009), leaving room for improvement through the identification of new individual-level variables that predict violent recidivism. Of previously identified variables, prior aggression is among the strongest predictors of future acts of aggression (Blomhoff, Seim, & Friis, 1990; Fazel, Buxrud, Ruchkin, & Grann, 2010). Aggression is a heterogeneous construct; different types of aggression may confer different levels of risk for violent recidivism. Moreover, fine-grained assessments of aggression enable a better understanding of the motivations of violent offenders.

One fundamental distinction in the classification of aggressive behavior is between impulsive and premeditated aggression. Impulsive aggression (akin to “reactive” aggression)2 occurs in response to a perceived threat or provocation (Berkowitz, 1993). This type of aggression involves affective arousal and resulting disinhibition, leading to a rapid and poorly considered behavioral response. Premeditated aggression (akin to “proactive” aggression), in contrast, is often premeditated and is behavior that is useful to obtaining some subsidiary goal (Berkowitz, 1993). The impulsive/premeditated aggression distinction can inform assessments of treatment prognosis and violence risk management (Eaves, Douglas, Webster, Ogloff, & Hart, 2000). The distinction may also increase specificity in our understanding of the link between past and future violence. However, we are unable to identify prior studies that have examined the distinct utility of impulsive versus premeditated aggression for predicting violent recidivism.

Impulsive aggression is broadly associated with negative affect and related psychopathology in both correctional and non-correctional samples (Miller & Lynam, 2006; Swogger, et al., 2010; Tweed & Dutton, 1998). Studies have linked impulsive aggression to high levels of guilt, hostility, neuroticism, and trait anger (Chase, O’Leary, & Heyman, 2001; Gauthier, Furr, Mathias, Marsh-Richard, & Dougherty, 2009; Miller & Lynam, 2006; Shoham, Askenasy, Rahav, Chard, & Addi, 1989). Similarly, impulsive aggression has been linked to anxiety-related disorders, depression, borderline personality, antisociality, and alcohol and drug problems (Stanford, Houston, & Baldridge, 2008; Swogger et al., 2010). The frustration-aggression hypothesis (Berkowitz, 1989) provides a model for understanding the link between psychopathology and impulsive aggression. In this model, negative affective states that occur in response to frustration or social stress may turn to anger and increase the propensity for impulsive aggression. Indeed, experimental studies designed to induce negative affective states have demonstrated a link between negative emotionality and aggressive tendencies (Netter, Hennig, Rohrmann, Wyhlidal, & Hain-Hermann, 1998; Verona, Patrick, & Lang, 2002).

Premeditated aggression can be viewed through the lens of social-cognitive learning theory (Bandura, 1986). In this theory, aggression is behavior that has been acquired and reinforced through acquisition of rewards that follow it. Premeditated aggression is less common and less closely tied to general psychopathology than impulsive aggression, but is associated with psychopathic personality traits (Walsh, Swogger, & Kosson, 2009; Woodworth & Porter, 2002). Psychopathy, a personality disorder characterized by lack of empathy and remorse, superficial charm, pathological lying, and marked antisocial behavior, involves deficient emotionality that may contribute to the capacity for premeditated aggression. In an early study, Cornell et al. (1996) found that criminal offenders who had committed one or more premeditated violent acts had higher psychopathy scores, as measured by the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) than offenders whose aggression histories consisted of impulsive aggression only. Subsequently, the link between psychopathy and premeditated aggression has been demonstrated in youth and adults across a number of measures of premeditated aggression (Flight & Forth, 2007; Swogger et al., 2010; Vitacco, Neumann, Caldwell, Leistico, Van Rybroek, 2006, & Walsh et al., 2009). Notably, psychopathy is closely tied to violent recidivism (Leistico, Salekin, DeCoster, & Rogers, 2008), with PCL-R scores yielding moderate to large effect sizes in the prediction of violent recidivism that generalize well across offender age, country, setting, and race and ethnicity (Hare, Clark, Grann, & Thornton, 2000; Leistico et al., 2008).

Although there is considerable evidence for the reliability and validity of the impulsive/premeditated aggression distinction (Cornell et al., 1996; Poulin & Boivin, 2000; Walsh et al., 2009), most prior studies of these subtypes of aggression classify criminal offenders or aggressive acts into distinct categories of either impulsive or premeditated aggression (e.g., Helfritz & Stanford, 2006; Walsh et al., 2009; Woodworth & Porter, 2002). However, because many aggressive individuals engage in both impulsive and premeditatedly aggressive acts, such use of categorical rather than continuous variables can produce misleading results (Beauchaine, 2003) and obscure the relative propensity for each type of aggression at the level of the individual violent actor. Studies of aggression that concurrently examine continuous measures of both impulsive and premeditated aggression provide a more comprehensive assessment by allowing for the examination of the extent to which specific outcomes are associated with both impulsive and premeditated aggression.

This prospective study is the first to examine tendencies toward impulsive and premeditated aggression at baseline as predictors of violent recidivism, and has two complementary aims: First, we aimed to examine whether tendencies toward impulsive and premeditated aggression were distinctly predictive of violent recidivism. We predicted that premeditated aggression, representing the rarer and potentially more severe form of violence (Reidy, Shelley-Tramblay, & Lilienfeld, 2011), and by virtue of its relationship to psychopathy, would confer risk for violent recidivism. We also examined whether impulsive aggression conferred such risk. Our second aim was to examine whether the assessment of tendencies toward impulsive or premeditated aggression would achieve incremental validity by adding uniquely to the prediction of violent recidivism after we accounted for frequency of general aggression.

Method

Participants

Participants were 91 adults participating in a pretrial supervision day reporting program subsequent to being charged with a crime. Table 1 describes the sample. The mean number of lifetime violent charges (including robbery, assault, murder, weapons charges, kidnapping, arson, criminal damage to property, and sex crimes; Walsh, Swogger, & Kosson, 2004) for the sample was 3.5 (SD = 5.1).

Table 1.

Sample descriptive statistics and means on aggression measures.

Total (N=91)
Demographic Variables Mean N %
Age 35.4 (11.1)
Gender
 Men 67 73.6
 Women 24 26.4
Race
 White 28 30.8
 Black 56 61.5
 Other Race 7 7.7
Education
 Education < 12 years 54 59.3
 Education ≥ 12 years 37 40.7
Employment
 Unemployed 44 48.4
 On disability 12 13.2
General Aggression 12.3 (7.1)
Premeditated Aggression 35.6 9)
Impulsive Aggression 35.8 (9.4)
Lifetime Violent Charges 3.5 (5.1)
Open in a new tab

Procedures

Following an announcement about the study in a common area of the day reporting program, consenting individuals (n = 267; 73.8% of those approached) completed group-administered, self-report measures and were compensated. A subset of these individuals (n = 100) were then randomly selected to complete a semi-structured interview that assessed education, relationships, family life, and criminal and work history. Measures of premeditated and impulsive aggression were completed after this interview. All invited individuals agreed to participate in the second session and were compensated for their time. Following the interview, participants’ institutional files and a statewide criminal database were reviewed to further assess criminal history. Nine participants were dropped from the analysis due to missing data on aggression measures, leaving a final sample of 91. The study was approved by the University of Rochester Research Subjects Review Board and a Federal certificate of confidentiality was obtained.

Measures

Race and Education

Participants reported race during baseline assessments. Because Black individuals and individuals of other non-White race/ethnicity had the same re-arrest rates (40%), these groups were aggregated into a dichotomous White/Other variable to increase power. Participants also reported education (in years completed).

Impulsive and Premeditated Aggression

The Impulsive-Premeditated Aggression Scales (IPAS; Stanford et al., 2003) consist of statements pertaining to subjects’ general perceptions about acts of aggression that they have perpetrated over their lifetimes on a 5-point Likert scale. A complete listing of items is available in Stanford et al. (2003). In the original study of the IPAS, a community sample of men with anger/aggression problems were administered the 30-item IPAS and principal components analysis yielded impulsive and premeditated factors (Stanford et al., 2003). These two factors were subsequently validated using the IPAS in forensic patients (Kockler, Stanford, Nelson, Meloy, & Sanford, 2006), conduct disordered adolescents (Mathias et al., 2007), college students (Haden, Scarpa, & Stanford, 2008), and substance dependent individuals (Conner, Swogger, & Houston, 2009). We used the 12-item impulsive aggression and 13-item premeditated aggression scales derived from forensic patients (Kockler et al., 2006). In the present study, internal consistency for impulsive (α = .86) and premeditated aggression (α= .82) were good (Kline, 1999).

General Aggression

Frequency of general aggression since age 13 was assessed at baseline using the 5-item aggression subscale of the Life History of Aggression Questionnaire (LHAQ), a reliable and valid measure of overt verbal and physical aggression that yields a continuous score (Coccaro, Berman, & Kavoussi, 1997). The LHAQ uses 0–4 scales to assess the frequency of different types of aggression from “none” to “more events than can be counted”. In the present sample, internal consistency for the aggression subscale was good (α=89).

Violent Recidivism

Violent recidivism during the one-year follow-up period was assessed using state criminal history files, and supplemented with criminal history files from the jail diversion program to create a binary variable indicating the presence versus absence of a new violent charge during the follow-up period. Nineteen individuals (20.9%) were charged with a new violent crime in the year following their baseline research assessment.

Data Analytic Plan

Bivariate analyses were point-biserial correlations that examined predictors’ associations with a binary outcome variable – violent recidivism versus no violent recidivism - during the one year follow-up period. The multivariate analysis was a hierarchical logistic regression with violent recidivism as the criterion variable. On Step One, we planned to include variables that exhibited significant or trend-level bivariate relationships to violent recidivism in order to determine (on Step Two) whether aggression type contributes to the prediction of violent recidivism after controlling for relevant covariates.

Results

There were no bivariate outliers (± 3 SDs from the mean) and a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (Marsaglia, Tsang, & Wang, 2003) indicated that scores on the IPAS did not exhibit significant skewness or kurtosis. Bivariate results are reported in Table 2. Race was associated with violent recidivism during follow-up such that non-white participants were significantly more likely to be charged with a new crime. Frequency of general aggression marginally predicted violent recidivism at follow-up (p = .06). Gender and education level were not associated with recidivism. Premeditated and impulsive aggression were correlated (r=.57). In bivariate analyses, premeditated, but not impulsive aggression was associated with violent recidivism.

Table 2.

Intercorrelations among study variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Female gender - −.13 .19 −.17 .19 .09 .12
2. White race - - .10 .12 .09 −.13 −.29**
3. Impulsive aggression - - - .57** .54** −.08 .14
4. Premeditated aggression - - - - .30** −.13 .21*
5. Frequency of general aggression - - - - - −.04 .20
6. Education level - - - - - - −.15
7. Violent recidivism - - - - - - -
Open in a new tab

Note. Pearson’s r was used for continuous variables (impulsive and premeditated aggression, frequency of general aggression) and point-biserial correlations were used for dichotomous variables (gender, race, violent recidivism)

*

p = .05,

**

<.01

Multivariate Analyses

In the multivariate model (Table 3), race and frequency of general aggression both predicted violent criminal recidivism on Step One. Premeditated aggression was entered as a predictor on Step Two and remained a significant predictor of violent recidivism after controlling for race and general aggression, representing a 9% increase in hazard for violent recidivism for each point on the scale. Lastly, we ran analyses that determined there were no significant predictor X predictor interactions in relation to violent recidivism (ps = .17-.74).3

Table 3.

Logistic regression model predicting violent recidivism during one-year follow-up.

OR 95% C.I. p
Step One
Non-White race 12.90 (1.59–105.01) .017
Frequency of general aggression 1.09 (1.01–1.18) .034
Step Two
Non-White race 17.91 (2.04–157.35) .009
Frequency of general aggression 1.08 (.99–1.17) .075
Premeditated Aggression 1.09 (1.00–1.18) .048
Open in a new tab

Discussion

It is well established that frequency of past violent behavior is a strong predictor of future violence (Fazel et al, 2010). The current study aimed to increase specificity in our understanding of this relationship by asking which of two major subtypes of aggression, impulsive and premeditated, is more predictive of future violence. To our knowledge this was the first study to compare impulsive and premeditated aggression as predictors of violent criminal recidivism. Consistent with our hypothesis, a tendency toward premeditated aggression assessed at baseline predicted violent recidivism during a one-year follow-up period. Moreover, this predictive relationship remained significant after adjusting for general propensity for aggression, suggesting that assessing type of violence provides important information beyond frequency of violent acts. By contrast, impulsive aggression did not predict violent recidivism at a statistically significant level. Consistent with prior research (e.g., Marsee, Weems, & Taylor, 2008), the two types of aggression were highly correlated, suggesting that many individuals exhibit both premeditated and impulsive aggression.

Premeditated aggression is motivated by an external goal and is not necessarily preceded by a potent affective reaction (Woodworth & Porter, 2002). As such, it is “chosen” in a way that impulsive aggression is not. Indeed, some have proposed that premeditated aggression constitutes an overtly learned behavior (Bandura, 1986), that is motivated by anticipated reward (Tuvblad, Raine, Zheng, & Baker, 2009), and as such reflects a consistent adaptive strategy. Consistent with this proposition are reports that children who use premeditated aggression attach a positive value to aggressive behavior for dealing with conflict (Crick & Dodge, 1996), making it more likely that these tendencies will be maintained. Despite these proposed learning bases for premeditated aggression, other research has shown that much of the construct’s stability is accounted for by genetic factors. (Tuvblad et al., 2009). More research is necessary to disentangle the etiology of premeditated aggression. It is not surprising that considerable evidence has linked premeditated violence with psychopathy, a personality disorder that is characterized by the callous, manipulative use of interpersonal violence (Hare, 2003). Additional studies are necessary to determine whether the predictive value of premeditated aggression remains after taking into account psychopathy’s utility in predicting violent recidivism.

By contrast, impulsive aggression, understood using the frustration-aggression model in which aggression is a hostile reaction to frustration (Berkowitz, 1993), did not predict violent recidivism. This may be, in part, due to the unstable nature of pathology shared among impulsively aggressive offenders. Individuals who engage in impulsive aggression are more likely to exhibit forms of psychopathology (e.g., generalized anxiety disorder, posstraumatic stress disorder) for which there are empirically based therapies (e.g., Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Butler, Chapman, Forman, & Beck, 2006) that can reduce the mental health burden. These conditions also wax and wane in severity with environmental circumstances, including substance use and stressful life events (Dohrenwend, 2006). Supporting this idea are recent data indicating that environmental factors (e.g., harsh parenting, peer victimization) contribute heavily to impulsive aggression (Tuvblad et al., 2009).

The finding that a tendency toward premeditated aggression has incremental validity over a measure of general aggression in predicting violent recidivism is intriguing and suggests that the assessment of premeditated aggression may be important for determining risk of violent offending. Tendencies toward premeditated aggression can be readily assessed and our finding of prognostic value for premeditated aggression suggests that it may play a role in the complex and important clinical task of assessing risk for violence.

Non-White race was associated with violent recidivism after we controlled for baseline frequency of general violence. Structural approaches to understanding racial differences in violent crime involve the view that race is best understood as a marker for sociodemographic differences (Sampson, Morenoff & Raudenbush, 2005). Non-White inmates have poorer employment rates upon release, greater economic difficulties, and lower longitudinal wage earning than Whites (Needels, 1996). Whereas these problems lead to greater risk for violent reoffending among non-Whites, this may also reflect the well-documented ethnic disparity in the US criminal justice system’s treatment of White and Non-White individuals (Bales & Piquero, 2012; Meehan & Ponder, 2002; Tonry, 1995).

There were limitations of the study. First, our index of recidivism was based on acts leading to police involvement; violent acts that were not recorded by law enforcement were not included in our outcome. Second, we examined offenders, with unclear generalizability to other populations. Third, our modest sample size restricted statistical power and ruled out examining potential mechanisms of the observed relationships. There were also noteworthy strengths of the study including the use of well-validated measures, the concurrent examination of premeditated and impulsive aggression, and the longitudinal study design. We recommend that future studies of impulsive and premeditated aggression include multiple measures of violence and aggression (e.g., self-report, collateral information) as outcomes, in order to increase sensitivity. Moreover, additional research is necessary to determine whether the assessment of premeditated aggression is useful for improving actuarial measure-based estimates of violence risk.

Acknowledgments

This publication was supported in part by NIDA grant K23 DA027720 to Marc T. Swogger. We thank Craig McNair for research support, Elaine Hart for essential consultation, and Melissa Parkhurst, Laurel Prothero, and Patrick Walsh for data collection.

Footnotes

1

We have operationalized violence and aggression according to prior studies, with aggression being the broader of these overlapping constructs. Aggression, as assessed using the Life History of Aggression Questionnaire (Coccaro, 1997), includes behavior (e.g., yelling, tantrums) that may be less likely to result in arrest than violence, as operationalized by Walsh, Swogger, & Kosson (2004).

2

Whereas impulsive and premeditated aggression as measured in the present study are similar to reactive and proactive aggression as measured using the Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (Raine et al., 2006), the measures are not equivalent (see Teten Tharp et al., 2011).

3

We conducted an additional regression that examined the unique variance in violent recidivism accounted for by premeditated aggression, controlling for race and impulsive aggression. This analysis yielded the same pattern of results as our primary analysis, except that premeditated aggression became a trend (p = .07).

References

  1. Bales WD, Piquero AR. Racial/ethnic differences in sentencing to incarceration. Justice Quarterly. 2012;5:742–773. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2012.659674. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  3. Beauchaine TP. Taxometrics and developmental psychopathology. Developmental Psychopathology. 2003;15(501):527. doi: 10.1017/50954579403000270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Berkowitz L. Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin. 1989;106:59–73. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Berkowitz L. Aggression: its causes, consequences, and control. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  6. Blomhoff S, Seim S, Friis S. Can prediction of violence among psychiatric patients be improved? Hospital and Community Psychiatry. 1990;41:771–775. doi: 10.1176/ps.41.7.771. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Butler AC, Chapman AE, Forman EM, Beck AT. The empirical status of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Clinical Psychology Review. 2006;26:17–31. doi: 10.106/j.cpr.2005.07.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chase KA, O’Leary DK, Heyman RE. Characterizing partner-violent men within the impulsive-premeditated typology model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2001;6:567–572. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.69.3.567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chermack ST, Grogan-Kaylor A, Perron BE, Murray RL, De Chavez P, Walton MA. Violence among men and women in substance use disorder treatment: A multi-level, event- based analysis. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2010;112:194–200. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.06.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Coccaro EF, Berman ME, Kavoussi RJ. Assessment of life history of aggression: Development and psychometric characteristics. Psychiatry Research. 1997;73:147–157. doi: 10.1016/S0165-1781(97)00119-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Conner KR, Swogger MT, Houston RJ. A test of the impulsive aggression – suicidal behavior hypothesis: Is there a case for premeditated aggression? Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2009;118:235–240. doi: 10.1037/a0014659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cornell DG, Warren J, Hawk G, Stafford E, Oram G, Pine D. Psychopathy in premeditated and impulsive violent offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 1986;64:783–790. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.64.4.783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Crick NR, Dodge KA. Social information processing mechanisms in impulsive and premeditated aggression. Child Development. 1996;3:993–1002. doi: 10.2307/1131875. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dohrenwend BP. Inventorying stressful life events as risk factors for psychopathology: toward resolution of the problem of intracategory variability. Psychological Bulletin. 2006;132:477–495. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.477. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Eaves D, Douglas KS, Webster CD, Ogloff JRP, Hart SD. Dangerous and Long-Term Offenders: An Assessment Guide. Burnaby, BC, Canada: Mental Health Law & Policy Institute, Simon Fraser Institute; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fazel S, Buxrud P, Ruchkin V, Grann M. Homicide in discharged patients with schizophrenia and other psychoses: A national case-control study. Schizophrenia Research. 2010;123:263–269. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2010.08.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Flight JI, Forth AE. Premeditatedly violent youths: The roles of psychopathic traits, empathy, and attachment. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2007;34:739–751. doi: 10.1177/0093854807299462. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gauthier KJ, Furr RM, Mathias CW, Marsh-Richard DM, Dougherty DM. Differentiating impulsive and premeditated aggression: Self and informant perspectives among adolescents with personality pathology. Journal of Personality Disorders. 2009;23:76–84. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2009.23.1.76. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Haden SC, Scarpa A, Stanford MS. Validation of the Impulsive/Premeditated Aggression Scale in college students. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma. 2008;17:352–373. doi: 10.1080/10926770802406783. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hare RD. Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised. 2. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi Health Systems; 2003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hare RD, Clark D, Grann M, Thornton D. Psychopathy and the predictive validity of the PCL- R: An international perspective. Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 2000;18:623–645. doi: 10.1002/1099-0798(200010)18:5<623::aid-bsl409>3.0.co;2-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Harris GT, Rice ME, Cormier CA. Psychopathy and violent recidivism. Law and Human Behavior. 1991;15:625–637. doi: 10.1007/BF01065856. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Helfritz LE, Stanford MS. Personality and psychopathology in an impulsive aggressive college sample. Aggressive Behavior. 2006;32:28–37. doi: 10.1002/ab.20103. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Kazdin AE. Conceptualizing the challenge of reducing interpersonal violence. Psychology of Violence. 2011;1:166–187. doi: 10.1037/a0022990. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kline P. The Handbook of Psychological Testing. 2. London: Rutledge; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kockler TR, Stanford MS, Nelson CE, Meloy JR, Sanford K. Characterizing aggressive behavior in a forensic population. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2000;76:80–85. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.76.1.80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Large MM, Nielssen OB. Probability and loss: Two sides of the risk assessment coin. Psychiatric Bulletin. 2011;35:413–418. doi: 10.1192/pb.bp.110.033910. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Leistico AR, Salekin RT, DeCoster J, Rogers R. A meta-analysis relating the Hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and Human Behavior. 2008;32:28–45. doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9096-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Marsaglia G, Tsang WW, Wang J. Evaluating Kolmogorov’s distribution. Journal of Statistical Software. 2003;8:1–4. [Google Scholar]
  30. Marsee MA, Weems CF, Taylor LK. Exploring the association between aggression and anxiety in youth: A look at aggressive subtypes, gender, and social cognition. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2008;17:154–168. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mathias CW, Stanford MS, Marsh DM, Frick PJ, Moeller G, Swann AC, Dougherty DM. Characterizing aggressive behavior with the impulsive/premeditated aggression scale among adolescents with conduct disorder. Psychiatry Research. 2007;151:231–242. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2006.11.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Miller JD, Lynam DR. Impulsive and premeditated aggression: Similarities and differences. Personality and Individual Differences. 2006;41:1469–1480. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Meehan AJ, Ponder MC. Race and place: The ecology of racial profiling African American motorists. Justice Quarterly. 2002;19:399–430. doi: 10.1080/07418820200095291. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Mossman D. The imperfection of protection through detection and intervention: Lessons from three decades of research on the psychiatric assessment of risk. Journal of Legal Medicine. 2009;30:109– 140. doi: 10.1080/01947640802694635. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Needels KE. Go directly to jail and do not collect? A long-term study of recidivism, employment, and earnings patterns among prison releasees. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 1996;33:471–496. doi: 10.1177/0022427896033004005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Netter P, Hennig J, Rohrmann S, Wyhlidal K, Hain-Hermann M. Modification of experimentally induced aggression by temperament dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences. 1998;25:873–887. doi: 10.1016/50191-8869(98)00070-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Poulin F, Boivin M. The role of premeditated and impulsive aggression in the formation of the development of boys’ friendships. Developmental Psychology. 2000;36:233–240. doi: 10.37//0012-1649.36.2.233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Raine A, Dodge K, Loeber R, Gatzke-Kopp L, Lynam DR, Reynolds C, Stouthamer-Loeber Liu. The Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior. 2006;32:159–171. doi: 10.1002/ab.20115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Reidy DE, Shelley-Tramblay JF, Lilienfeld SO. Psychopathy, impulsive aggression, and precarious proclamations: A review of behavioral, cognitive, and biological research. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2011;16:512–524. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2011.06.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Raudenbush S. Social anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in violence. American Journal of Public Health. 2005;95:224–232. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.037705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Shoham SG, Askenasy JJM, Rahav G, Chard F, Addi A. Personality correlates of violent prisoners. Personality and Individual Differences. 1989;10:137–145. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(89)90197-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Stanford MS, Houston RJ, Baldridge RM. Comparison of impulsive and premeditated perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Behavioral Sciences and Law. 2008;26:709–722. doi: 10.1002/bs1.808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Stanford MS, Houston RJ, Mathias CW, Villemarette-Pittman NR, Helfritz LE, Conklin SM. Characterizing aggressive behavior. Assessment. 2003;10:183–190. doi: 10.1177/1073191103010002009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Swogger MT, Walsh Z, Houston RJ, Cashman-Brown S, Conner KR. Psychopathy and Axis I psychiatric disorders among criminal offenders: Relationships to impulsive and premeditated aggression. Aggressive Behavior. 2010;36:45–53. doi: 10.1002/ab.20330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Teten Tharp AL, Sharp C, Stanford MS, Lake SL, Raine A, Kent TA. Correspondence of aggressive behavior classifications among young adults using the Impulsive-Premeditated Aggression Questionnaire and the Reactive Proactive Questionnnaire. Personality and Individual Differences. 2011;50:279–285. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.10.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Tonry M. Malign Neglect: Race, Crime, and Punishment in America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  47. Tuvblad C, Raine A, Zheng M, Baker LA. Genetic and environmental stability differs in impulsive and premeditated aggression. Aggressive Behavior. 2009;35:437–452. doi: 10.1002/ab.20319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Tweed RG, Dutton RG. A comparison of impulsive and premeditated subgroups of batterers. Violence and Victims. 1998;13:217–230. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Verona E, Patrick CJ, Lang AR. A direct assessment of the role of state and trait negative emotion in aggressive behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2002;111:249–258. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.111.2.249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Vitacco MD, Neumann CS, Caldwell MF, Leistico AM, Van Rybroek GJ. Testing factor models of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version and their association with premeditated aggression. Journal of Personality Assessment. 2006;87:74–83. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_06. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Walsh Z, Swogger MT, Kosson DS. Psychopathy, IQ, and violence in European American and African American county jail inmates. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2004;72:1165–1169. doi: 10.1037/0022-006x.72.6.1165. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Walsh Z, Swogger MT, Kosson DS. Psychopathy and premeditated violence: Facet-level relationships. Journal of Personality Disorders. 2009;23:416–424. doi: 10.1521/pedi.2009.23.4.416. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Woodworth M, Porter S. In cold blood: Characteristics of criminal homicides as a function of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2002;111:436–445. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.111.3.436. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. World Health Organization. World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  55. Yang M, Wong SC, Coid J. The efficacy of violence prediction: A meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychological Bulletin. 2010;136:740–767. doi: 10.1037/a0020473. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES