Hostile Attribution Bias as a Mediator of the Relationships of Psychopathy and Narcissism With Aggression
| Author | Diana M. Falkenbach,Helen Law |
| Date | 01 August 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0306624X17742614 |
| Published date | 01 August 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2017
Article
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
Hostile Attribution Bias as a
Comparative Criminology
2018, Vol. 62(11) 3355 –3371
Mediator of the Relationships
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
of Psychopathy and
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17742614
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X17742614
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo
Narcissism With Aggression
Helen Law1 and Diana M. Falkenbach1
Abstract
Hostile attribution bias (HAB), the tendency to perceive hostility in ambiguous
situations, has been linked to aggressive outcomes, such as reactive aggression.
HAB has been connected to personality types involving hostile beliefs and reactive
aggression, including narcissism and psychopathy. Specifically, secondary psychopathy
is associated with HAB and reactive aggression. Despite research and theory connecting
these constructs, few studies have examined if HAB mediates the relationships among
psychopathy, narcissism, and aggression. The current study explores this possible
mediation in an urban college sample. Narcissism was associated with aggression but
not hostile aggression or HAB. Reactive aggression and HAB were both associated
with psychopathy, but there were no mediation relationships. The associations with
aggression may be, therefore, due to underlying traits of secondary psychopathy
rather than the hostile attributions to which the traits contribute; consequently,
treatments focused on reducing aggressive responses by correcting interpretations
of social situations may not be successful.
Keywords
hostile attribution bias, aggression, psychopathy, narcissism, mediators of aggression,
hostility
1John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, NY, USA
Corresponding Author:
Diana M. Falkenbach, Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 524 West 59th
Street, Room 10.65.07, New York, NY 10019, USA.
Email: dfalkenbach@jjay.cuny.edu
3356
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(11)
Hostile Attribution Bias (HAB)
HAB is associated with aggression in response to a perceived threat (i.e., reactive
aggression; Bailey & Ostrov, 2008; Godleski & Ostrov, 2010; Lobbestael, Cima, &
Arntz, 2013; Matthews & Norris, 2006). Studying the roots of these attributions may
be the key to understanding, treating, and preventing aggressive behavior (Wilkowski
& Robinson, 2008). One explanation of HAB offered by social information processing
(SIP; Crick & Dodge, 1994) theory posits that social cues are interpreted in terms of
personal bias and beliefs (Dodge, 1980; Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, & Ruderman, 1978) and
influence attributions and behavior (Taylor & Fiske, 1975). Ambiguous social cues
lead to more complex information processing, and thus, multiple interpretations
become possible. In some cases, hostile attributions arise from faulty processing of
ambiguous cues, which then lead to aggression; this deficit in processing is known as
HAB (Crick & Dodge, 1994).
Early HAB researchers found that aggressive children were more likely to interpret
ambiguous situations as hostile (Dodge, 1980). These patterns follow children through-
out adolescence and into adulthood where they may continue to manifest as acts of
aggression (Tremblay & Belchevski, 2004). Recent literature also indicates that auto-
matic hostile interpretations meaningfully contribute to reactive anger and aggression
(Wilkowski & Robinson, 2008). Evaluation of treatments for individuals with HAB
suggests that they can learn to properly assess social situations, resulting in fewer
incidents of aggression (Hudley & Graham, 1993; Sukhodolsky, Golub, Stone, &
Orban, 2005). HAB is comorbid with a number of disorders known for their associa-
tions with aggression (Walters, 2009), including narcissism and psychopathy
(Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Serin, 1991). If HAB is present in individuals
with these disorders, treatments used for HAB may reduce aggressive responses.
Studying the links among narcissism, psychopathy, and HAB may provide more direct
information about aggressive responses and illuminate possible treatment options.
HAB and Narcissism
Raskin and Terry (1988) defined narcissism as self-admiration, grandiose ideas, defen-
siveness in response to criticism, exploitativeness, and a lack of empathy. Narcissism
has been associated with aggression (Ang & Yusof, 2005; Barry et al., 2007), specifi-
cally reactive aggression (Bukowski, Schwartzman, Santo, Bagwell, & Adams, 2009).
Narcissistic aggression may be explained by the threatened egotism model, which
states that individuals with unstable self-esteem (e.g., narcissists) are more likely to
respond negatively to circumstances that challenge their grandiose views of them-
selves (Li et al., 2015; Zeigler-Hill, Myers, & Clark, 2010). Research (Baumeister
et al., 1996; Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Spector, 2011) suggests that narcissists
interpret more hostility in social situations and, therefore, react aggressively to thwart
ego threats. As the very definition of HAB includes perceiving hostility in ambiguous
situations, the work of Bushman and Baumeister (1998) suggests HAB may play a key
part in the relationship between narcissism and reactive aggression.
Law and Falkenbach
3357
HAB and Psychopathy
Cleckley (1941) characterized psychopathy as charm, callous/unemotional traits, lim-
ited emotional reaction (e.g., low anxiety), and poor interpersonal connections.
Psychopaths are often one of two types; the primary subtype is similar to Cleckley’s
(1941) description and correlates with grandiose narcissistic traits such as superiority
and dominance (Claes et al., 2009; Falkenbach, Howe, & Falki, 2013). Secondary
psychopaths are prone to excessive emotional reaction, including anxiety and impul-
sivity (Skeem, Poythress, Edens, Lilienfeld, & Cale, 2003) and vulnerable narcissism.
The subtypes are comparable with psychopathy assessment Factors 1 and 2, respec-
tively (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995).
Psychopathy correlates with aggression in criminal (Serin, 1991) and general
(Warren & Clarbour, 2009) populations, but the psychopathy subtypes and factors
relate differentially to the types of aggression (Edens, Poythress, Lilienfeld, Patrick, &
Test, 2008; Falkenbach, Poythress, Falki, & Manchak, 2007). Factor 1 relates signifi-
cantly to proactive aggression (i.e., unprovoked, goal-oriented aggression), whereas
Factor 2 relates significantly to reactive, angry aggression (Birkley, Giancola, &
Lance, 2013; Cima & Raine, 2009; Falkenbach, 2004; Reidy, Zeichner, Miller, &
Martinez, 2007). Cale and Lilienfeld (2006) linked psychopathy with Baumeister
et al.’s (1996) narcissism-linked threatened egotism model. Psychopaths are signifi-
cantly more likely than nonpsychopaths to react with aggression to ego threat; both
factors were associated with self-reports of anger, narcissism, and aggression in reac-
tion to perceived ego threat. However, the relationships with Factor 2 were stronger.
This persistent propensity for violence in psychopaths, particularly secondary psy-
chopaths, may be explained by SIP theory and HAB (Wallace, Vitale, & Newman,
1999). In psychopaths, HAB is thought to develop from deficits in emotional process-
ing and negative interpersonal experiences. As psychopaths also have difficulty attend-
ing to nondominant social cues, they are less able to discern subtle differences between
ambiguous and hostile situations (Maccoon & Newman, 2006); consequently, they
tend to interpret situations as hostile and respond aggressively. The negative feedback
psychopaths receive in turn is perceived as more hostility, which reinforces their hos-
tile interpretations and their decision to use aggression. The cycle continues and the
susceptibility of psychopaths to developing HAB increases as exposure to negative
interpersonal experiences increases (Wallace et al., 1999).
Emotional and empathic deficits in psychopaths may also increase their risk of
developing HAB. A meta-analysis by Dawel, O’Kearney, McKone, and Palermo
(2012) summarizes previous research demonstrating that psychopaths not only seem
to lack concern for the emotions of others but also have a pervasive deficit in recogniz-
ing emotional expressions, including fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise. The vari-
ous methodologies utilized in the literature indicate that primary psychopaths may
have an especially difficult time attending to and empathizing with negative emotion
(Casey, Rogers, Burns, & Yiend, 2013; Delk, Bobadilla, & Lima, 2017; Reidy,
Zeichner, Hunnicutt-Ferguson, & Lilienfeld, 2008). Secondary psychopaths, though
more attentive to negative emotion, still exhibit the same deficits in identifying it
3358
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(11)
(Kimonis, Frick, Cauffman, Goldweber, & Skeem, 2012). This inability to process and
respond to the emotions of others compounds the difficulties psychopaths face in
properly interpreting ambiguous social situations. As a result, interpersonal cues miti-
gating attributions of hostility may go unnoticed by primary psychopaths or be over-
looked by secondary psychopaths in favor of more hostile cues, leading to higher
levels of HAB.
Vitale, Newman, Serin, and Bolt (2005) found significant correlations between fac-
tors of...
To continue reading
Request your trial