Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women perpetrated by their male partners carries numerous health costs, including serious short- and long-term physical, mental, sexual, and reproductive health problems for victims, as well as other behavioral and emotional disturbance in indirect victims such as children (World Health Organization, 2021). Beyond documenting its prevalence and impact, it is essential to analyze the main causes and/or underlying risk factors of IPV perpetration from a multidisciplinary lens, which includes a biopsychosocial perspective (Gracia et al., 2025; Gracia et al., 2021; Hardesty & Ogolsky, 2020). The deeper our knowledge regarding these main causes of violence proneness in IPV perpetrators, the better our ability to target their therapeutic needs, potentially facilitating the development of effective therapeutic programs to reduce future IPV recidivism (Lila & Gilchrist, 2023). In this context, considering both reactive and proactive aggression in IPV perpetrators is particularly relevant, as these complementary forms of violence may be partly explained by different underlying mechanisms and may require partially differentiated intervention strategies (Romero-Martínez et al., 2022).

The General Aggression Model (GAM) applied to IPV (DeWall, Anderson, et al., 2011) conceives proneness to this kind of violence as the result of the interaction between personal factors (e.g., personality traits, sociodemographic factors, attitudes toward IPV, genetic vulnerability, etc.) in combination with situational factors (e.g., presence of aggressive cues, frustration, provocation, incentives, alcohol misuse, among others). The interaction between the above-mentioned variables reduces the threshold for perpetrating IPV (decision on action) through their effects on cognition, emotion, and arousal (inner states) when coping with certain stimulus and/or stressful circumstances.

Out of all the personal risk factors for violence proneness in IPV perpetrators, several scholars have remarked the importance of certain personality traits, especially, psychopathic traits, which seem instrumental in explaining chronic anger expression (Kosson et al., 2020) and IPV perpetration (Collison & Lynam, 2021; Cunha et al., 2021; Iyican & Babcock, 2018; Lila et al., 2012; Santos-Hermoso et al., 2022). This personality is composed of traits such as lack of remorse, manipulativeness, callousness, shallow emotion, and persistent antisocial behaviors (Hare, 2003). However, it is necessary to bear in mind that the analysis of traits that compose psychopathy tend to be differently associated with aggression and violence (Porter y Woodworth, 2006; Skeem & Mulvey, 2001; Thomson et al., 2019).

To properly understand the association between psychopathy and the distinct forms of violence, it is necessary to differentiate from the two factors that Hare (1991, 2003) established for psychopathy. Accordingly, Factor 1 includes two facets. One of the facets is related to affective traits (e.g., the inability to bond affectively with others, a reduced or absent capacity to feel emotions, lack of remorse, etc.) and the other one is related to interpersonal aspects (e.g., the use of lies, manipulation, a sense of superiority and grandiosity, etc). Factor 2 consists of two additional facets, lifestyle (e.g., the need for continuous stimulation, impulsivity, parasite style of life, etc.) and antisocial facets (e.g., poor behavioral control, juvenile delinquency, criminal versatility, etc.) (Hare, 1991, 2003). As stated by a meta-analysis (Blais et al., 2014), Factor 1 tends to be associated with proactive violence (deliberate, cool-blooded, calculated, and instrumental aggression), while Factor 2 is closely related to emotionally-driven or reactive violence (impulsive and spontaneous aggression). However, these conclusions were not unanimous and exhibited a considerable heterogeneity across studies (Blais et al., 2014; Hecht et al., 2016). This variation in the association between both factors of psychopathy and both types of aggressive behaviors could be due to specific methodological issues and a lack of consideration of the impact of several potential confounding variables that might interfere or moderate the association between the above-mentioned variables. Given that there was no complete agreement regarding the relationship between the two factors of psychopathy and the different types of expression of aggression and violence (reactive and proactive) and based on the GAM (DeWall, Anderson et al., 2011), it was relevant to include some moderating factors to help reduce this heterogeneity.

Focusing on the personal factors described by GAM, anger rumination becomes relevant in explaining proneness to violence. In fact, it might help clarify the existence of heterogeneity across studies that explore the relationship between psychopathic factors and both proactive and reactive aggression. Anger rumination has been defined as the tendency to pay attention to thoughts and emotions related to anger experiences, increasing the processing of challenging stimuli, generating aggressive thoughts, reducing inhibitions, increasing arousal and, in general, favoring hostile interpretation of certain stimulus (Babcock & Potthoff, 2021; Denson 2013; Hosie et al., 2022; Mozley et al., 2019; Peled & Moretti, 2010; Sarrate-Costa et al., 2022; White & Turner, 2014). Accordingly, it has been concluded that the higher the Factor 1 psychopathy score (measured with Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale), the higher the proneness to proactive aggression, especially among healthy young adults scoring high in anger rumination (Guerra & White, 2017). Furthermore, the higher the Factor 2 score, the higher the proneness to reactive aggression among healthy young adults scoring high in anger rumination (Guerra & White, 2017). Therefore, this suggests that anger rumination contributes to reactive violence proneness and impulsive antisocial acts (Denson, Pedersen, et al., 2011; Li et al., 2019; Witt & Donnelan, 2008). This association would be particularly stronger among individuals who have difficulty regulating their own anger expression, that is, individuals characterized by poor anger control (Denson, Pedersen, et al., 2011; Kosson et al., 2020; Li et al., 2019). This connection is framed within Howard’s Quadripartite Violence Typology, which explains how proneness to violence is higher among individuals with psychopathy or who score high in psychopathic traits (Howard, 2015). Therefore, a high tendency to ruminate on anger may serve as the moderating variable that helps clarify the varying association between psychopathic factors and both forms of aggressive behavior.

Not only is it necessary to pay attention to the personal factors proposed by GAM to better understand the association between psychopathy and aggressive behavior, but also to other important factors such as certain sociodemographic variables, including age and educational or academic level (Blais et al., 2014; Estrada et al., 2021; Gillespie et al., 2023; Gracia et al., 2023; Gracia et al., 2009; Riaz et al., 2021; Hecht et al., 2016; Thomson et al., 2021). Accordingly, the lower the age and the academic level of participants, the stronger the association between psychopathic traits, without differentiating between both factors and both reactive and proactive aggression. Additionally, psychophysiological dysregulation, assessed with psychophysiological markers or the balance between both branches of the autonomous nervous system (ANS), was highlighted as a potential moderator in the association between psychopathic traits and aggression (reactive and proactive) (De Looff et al., 2022; Muñoz-Centifanti et al., 2013). In this regard, individuals who scored high in traits corresponding to Factor 1 of psychopathy and had a low dysregulation between both branches of the ANS exhibited a high proneness to proactive aggression. Finally, it has also been suggested that alcohol misuse explains the association between those variables (Okano et al., 2016; Quigley et al., 2018). In this sense, the higher the alcohol misuse, the higher the risk of emotionally driven violence, including IPV, among individuals scoring high in Factor 2 of psychopathy (e.g., high impulsivity).

Keeping all this in mind, the main objective of this research was to study the relationship between psychopathic traits and violence (reactive and proactive) in a sample of men (IPV perpetrators and controls or community sample), including anger rumination as the moderating variable, controlling for potential confounding variables. According to previous conclusions in this field of research (Blais et al., 2014; Denson, 2013; DeWall, Anderson et al., 2011; Guerra & White, 2017; Hecht et al., 2016; Sarrate-Costa et al., 2022; Witt & Donnelan, 2008), we hypothesized that the higher the Factor 1 of psychopathy score, the higher the proactive aggression, and the higher the Factor 2 of psychopathy, the higher the reactive aggression in both groups of men, being these associations more significant among men scoring high in anger rumination. Additionally, we expected these models to remain significant after controlling for the effect of potential confounding variables such as group, age, educational level, psychophysiological variables, and alcohol misuse.

Characteristics of the sample included in the study are summarized in Table 1.

The main objective of the present study was to investigate the relationships between different facets of psychopathy and reactive and proactive expression of aggression in a group of male IPV perpetrators and controls, paying special attention to the moderating role of anger rumination in this association. In this sense, our data pointed out that all participants scoring high in facet 2 of psychopathy presented high proactive expression of aggression, particularly, in men scoring moderate or high in anger rumination.

Contrary to our initial hypothesis, our data did not support the positive association between Factor 1 and proactive aggression, and Factor 2 entailed high reactive aggression, as stated previously in scientific literature (Blais et al., 2014; Hecht et al., 2016). Our data did not completely contradict previous research, given that authors of meta-analysis have recognized the existence of an association in the sense that we obtained, but it was relatively low and affected by heterogeneity across studies. In fact, our study highlighted that the association with both forms of anger expression was important for facet 2 of psychopathy, but not for facet 1. It should also be kept in mind that the association between these variables was exactly the same for IPV perpetrators and controls, as we controlled the role of ‘group’ for all the analysis, even after controlling for potential confounding variables.

Regarding the association of psychopathy and anger rumination, many authors suggest that anger rumination is equally associated with both facets of psychopathy (Denson, 2013; Guerra & White, 2017; Witt & Donnelan, 2008). Nonetheless, our results partly support this association, that is, only participants scoring high in facet 2 of psychopathy with high tendency to ruminate anger tend to express aggression in a proactive manner. In other words, our data allowed us to conclude that participants characterized by irresponsibility, persistent, and versatile antisocial tendencies tend to ruminate anger (e.g., spending time with revenge feelings, hostile interpretation of other intentions, etc.), which, in turn, facilitates proactive or non-emotionally mediated aggression. This is a key point for developing intervention programs, not only focused on emotional regulation modules, but also positive ways of dealing with anger or changing cognitive anger schemas. Future studies should consider including self-control to understand the association between psychopathy and both anger rumination and proactive aggression, as has been previously stated (Denson, Pedersen, et al., 2011; Kosson et al., 2020; Li et al., 2019). This association between personality disorders is especially evident and stronger the lower the self-control (Howard, 2015).

Due to the heterogeneity of the included sample, we controlled for the role of several potential confounding variables such as sociodemographic, alcohol misuse, and emotional regulation. The association between variables was equal in IPV perpetrators and controls. Perhaps this points to the fact that anger rumination increases the relationship between psychopathic traits and the expression of violence in a differentiated manner depending on the instrument employed for assessing psychopathy or aggression instead of the sample assessed. This, in turn, reinforces the need for conducting additional research controlling for several confounding variables, which would help dilucidated the association between facets of psychopathy with anger rumination and anger expression.

Despite the noteworthy strengths of this study, certain limitations should be noted. First, due to the characteristics of the sample, this is a quasi-experimental study. This is because it was not possible to randomly assign or select the sample to the different groups. Moreover, the nature of the study was uncontrolled and was mainly assessed with self-reports, which makes it difficult to establish causal relationships between variables and to reinforce the biases of these instruments, such as social desirability. Furthermore, it would be important to conduct additional research in a larger sample size including a heterogeneous sample, which would in turn increase the external validity of our conclusions. Additionally, it would be important to keep in mind that combining two very different samples might undermine the confidence in their replicability. Another limitation is that psychopathy traits, the manifestation aggression profile, and anger rumination have been assessed by a self-report survey and interviews. Although these measures have been validated previously, they could be biased by the high social desirability (Dutton & Hemphill, 1992). Accordingly, other complementary and more objective forms of measurement (e.g., file reviews) should be included. However, our assessment instruments have reported high internal consistency. Hence, future research should consider these limitations to achieve high quality results. Additionally, the RPQ is specific to physical aggression, a reason why other forms of aggression should be studied.

As a key point, our study reinforces the need to focus interventions to reduce anger expression and anger rumination, especially in interventions focused on IPV perpetrators. Actually, many studies have shown that the reduction of aggressive responses through training in self-control and emotional regulation allowed reducing the tendency of some violent individuals to ruminate angry memories and thoughts (Denson, Capper, et al., 2011; DeWall, Finkel et al., 2011; Finkel et al, 2009). Moreover, it is important to incorporate specialized modules in IPV perpetrators to reduce the tendency to ruminate anger. In this sense, several studies have demonstrated how certain interventions effectively reduce different risk factors, such as emotional regulation and/or coping with couple stress in IPV perpetrators, which, in turn, leads to a low risk of recidivism (Lila et al., 2018, 2020; Romero-Martínez et al., 2019; Romero-Martínez et al., 2022). Hence, this reinforced the need for conducting additional research targeting anger rumination and to assess whether specific interventions help reduce this tendency of dealing with anger.

In conclusion, our results highlight the importance of evaluating and considering new risk factors, especially personality traits and anger rumination, before, during, and after interventions that target IPV perpetrators, given that tendency toward anger rumination has been shown to increase the expression of proactive violence in men exhibiting high levels of antisocial and lifestyle psychopathy traits. Along these lines, targeting anger rumination during treatment may help reduce the risk of physical aggression. This would enable the development of more effective and integrative interventions that aim to reduce the individual, social, health, and economic costs of IPV perpetration.