Intimate partner violence (IPV) is global public health issue and refers to the violence committed by a partner in the context of an intimate relationship, regardless of whether or not it is legally recognized. This review aims to analyze the personality characteristics present in victims of IPV, addressing the causes and consequences of the abusive relationship. Studies focusing on female victims were obtained through multiple databases, following the Cochrane Collaboration procedures. Of the 87 documents collected, 31 were retained for further analysis and considered eligible for inclusion, with ten studies from manual search being included. The objectives, methodological aspects (sample/instruments), and main conclusions were extracted from each study. The results suggest that women tend to become victims when they experience violence during childhood, when they are economically dependent, lack social support, and fear for their lives. The consequences consist of physical and psychological sequelae that remain throughout life. There are personality traits that make the victim susceptible to remaining in an abusive relationship. Women who have experienced IPV obtained higher scores in schizoid, avoidant, self-destructive, schizotypal, borderline, and paranoid personality scales. Therefore, female victims exhibit characteristics such as low personal self-esteem, family and social isolation, dependency (economic and emotional), insecurity, inferiority, submissiveness, and pacification. This review is particularly useful for clinical practice and intervention with victims of IPV, by bringing to light specific personality traits, cognitive schemas and/or possible diagnoses that are most common among these victims and make them more vulnerable to remaining in abusive relationships.

This study tested whether combining the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) with the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) would increase sensitivity in the detection of experimentally feigned mental health problems, compared to using either test alone. Additionally, it also evaluated (a) the effects of administration order of these two tests and (b) the cultural and linguistic applicability of these tests to a European Portuguese population. The IOP-29 and TOMM were administered to a community sample of 100 nonclinical, adult volunteers from Portugal, with the instruction to feign mental health problems. Half were instructed to feign mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) symptoms, half were instructed to feign major depression. Administration order had no effects on the tests' scores, and both measures produced excellent sensitivity values, ranging from .82 to .98 for the TOMM, and from .88 to 1.00 for the IOP-29, when using standard a-priori cutoff scores. More importantly, combining the results of TOMM with those of IOP-29 notably increased sensitivity compared to using either test alone. This study thus supports the use of the IOP-29 together with the TOMM in multi-method symptom validity assessments and provides initial evidence that both tests can be used also in Portugal.

No abstract

No abstract

The current meta-analysis included 431 records (N= 123,414) to comprehensively explore the complex interaction between psychopathy, antisocial behavior, and empathy. First, empathy domains (cognitive and affective) were used to provide critical insights for distinguishing antisocial behavior from psychopathy. Cognitive empathy was more impaired in antisocial groups (gcognitive= -.40; gaffective= -.11), while high psychopathy samples displayed larger deficits in affective empathy (gaffective= -.44; gcognitive= -.23), although this dissociation was not clear in correlational analyses. Secondly, the specific associations between empathy domains and psychopathy dimensions were evaluated. Psychopathy traits closely related to antisocial behavior were mildly associated with both empathy domains (r= -.07 to -.14). Callous-affective traits were largely associated with affective empathy (r= -.32 to -.35) and moderately correlated to cognitive empathy (r= -.26). Diverging results were found for the interpersonal dimension, as boldness-adaptive manifestations were unrelated to cognitive empathy (r= .05), while non-adaptive interpersonal traits were negatively associated with both empathy domains (rcognitive= -.14; raffective= -.25). Overall, these findings suggest that: (1) psychopathy and antisocial behavior display distinct empathic profiles; (2) psychopathy dimensions are differentially associated with cognitive and affective empathy; (3) the interaction between interpersonal traits and empathic processes is different across the conceptual models of psychopathy.