Research has demonstrated, in Western nations, men and women are both perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence (IPV). However, to the best of our knowledge, IPV and the Dark Tetrad (Machiavellianism, subclinical narcissism, subclinical psychopathy, and subclinical sadism) have not been included in this research fully. We investigated how these dark personalities influenced the perpetration of IPV in a cross-cultural study between Sweden and the United Kingdom through surveys with university students. We furthermore compared IPV perpetration with same-sex aggression of a non-romantic partner to explore sex- and aggression-specific effects. In a sample of 342 participants, our main findings were the following: (a) the only significant difference in IPV perpetration was women were more verbally aggressive; (b) men reported more verbal and physical same-sex aggression of a non-romantic partner; (c) men scored higher on all the Dark Tetrad personalities regardless of culture, while the Swedish sample scored significantly higher on subclinical narcissism and sadism; (d) the Dark Tetrad and aggression perpetration were significantly correlated; (e) different Dark Tetrad personalities predicted different forms of aggression perpetration with some gender differences; and (f) being high on subclinical psychopathy predicted most types of aggression regardless of target. Our study highlights that dark personalities engage in particular types of aggression, which helps to determine how and when distinctive personalities aggress for potential interventions.

We examine whether individual differences exist in reactions to toxic situations, reviewing historical examples of massacres. The social psychological research on the question consists of the famous Milgram experiment on obedience and the Stanford Prison Experiment. Although these studies show the power of situations in eliciting aggression towards targets, they overlook an essential aspect of real world behaviours ‐ the innovation of imaginative sadistic sequences that go beyond the orders given. We argue that analogue studies are too limited to capture these situations and that social psychological research has been too limited in its assessment of key relevant individual traits, one of which is a potential for sadism. Furthermore, we raise concerns about whether ‘snapshot’ analogue research can capture the transitional processes central to an understanding of real world reactions to toxicity.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore if a ringing cell phone could impact cognitive performance as well as being agitating to provoke aggressive reactions. The study investigated variables that could impact a participant’s willingness to aggress and retaliate, such as sensitivity to arousal and dark personalities (DRPs), Machiavellianism, narcissism, and subclinical psychopathy and sadism. Design/methodology/approach There were 128 participants (77 women and 51 men). The cognitive load task consisted of forming anagrams while being in a high or low provocation condition. Participants were subsequently asked how willing they would be to allow one out-group member to be harmed in favor of saving several in-group members. Three personality measures were used: two measuring DRPs and one measuring arousal sensitivity. Findings The authors discovered that older age and subclinical psychopathy were significant predictors for the willingness to aggress. Those in the high provocation condition retaliated the most against the experimenter, and a participant’s English ability was the only variable that predicted good performance on the cognitive task. Originality/value The results warrant further research into how personality types, aggression, and everyday, multiple arousal sources intertwine to inform personalized evidence-based interventions. Organizational and educational psychologists could also use this research to in form how offices and schools are run.

In this chapter, we investigate the various forms of family violence (FV)—intimate partner violence (IPV), child abuse, and the underresearched sibling‐to‐sibling violence. They are all unique types of FV with their own predictor variables for perpetrators and victims. Both IPV and child abuse have low incidence rates while sibling violence is the most common form of FV. However, as can be seen, they do, at times, intertwine with some similar underlying explanations, such as negative childhood experiences, social learning theory, and personality dynamics. All forms of FV indicate both perpetrators and victims experience long‐term negative impacts and consequences ranging from depression to high‐risk behaviors, such as substance abuse. These factors highlight the importance of researching FV in further understanding intervention and prevention.

No abstract