See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/294823593

Green-eyed snakes: The associations between psychopathy, jealousy, and

jealousy induction

Article in Personality and Individual Differences · February 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.055

CITATIONS READS

5 343

4 authors, including:

Karlijn Massar Christina Winters

Maastricht University Lancaster University
51 PUBLICATIONS 492 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 5 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Peter K Jonason
Western Sydney University
187 PUBLICATIONS 5,404 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dark side research View project

Maternal Health in Zambia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter K Jonason on 28 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PAID-07313; No of Pages 5
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Green-eyed snakes: The associations between psychopathy, jealousy, and

jealousy induction☆
Karlijn Massar a,⁎, Christina L. Winters a, Sabine Lenz a, Peter K. Jonason b
a
Work & Social Psychology, Maastricht University, The Netherlands
b
School of Social Sciences and Psychology, Western Sydney University, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The available literature on psychopathy suggests that individuals scoring high on primary or secondary psychop-
Received 21 November 2015 athy traits might respond differently to jealousy-arousing situations, but to date this has not been investigated
Received in revised form 28 January 2016 directly. In the current study, we collected responses from 244 women and 103 men who completed measures
Accepted 30 January 2016
of psychopathy, multidimensional jealousy, jealousy induction, and motives for inducing jealousy. Primary psy-
Available online xxxx
chopathy predicted emotional jealousy, jealousy induction, and inducing jealousy to gain control over or to exact
Keywords:
revenge on one's partner. Secondary psychopathy predicted the experience of suspicious and emotional jealousy,
Psychopathy as well as inducing jealousy to test the relationship, gain control/power over one's partner, or gain self-esteem. In
Jealousy addition, primary and secondary psychopathy fully mediated sex differences in the power/control motive for
Jealousy induction jealousy induction, and partially mediated sex differences in emotional jealousy. These findings provide support
Motives for a two-factor model of psychopathy when investigating affective experiences in interpersonal relationships,
and indicate a need for further research on the influence of “dark” personality traits on emotions and behavior
in intimate relationships.
© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Psychopathy is characterized by superficial charm, manipulation, short-term mating preferences (Jonason, Li, Webster, & Schmitt, 2009),
callousness, impulsivity, egocentricity, antisocial behaviors, and a the endorsement of a game-playing love style (Jonason & Kavanagh,
fundamental lack of empathy (e.g., Hare, 2003; Newman, MacCoon, 2010), limited mate retention but enhanced mate poaching (Jonason,
Vaughn, & Sadeh, 2005; Williams, Paulhus, & Hare, 2007). It can Li, & Buss, 2010), and deception (Seto, Khattar, Lalumiere, & Quinsey,
be seen as existing on a continuum, ranging from “successful” 1997). However, not much is known about psychopaths'1 capacity and
(i.e., noncriminal or subclinical psychopaths) to “criminal” (Hare & propensity towards experiencing jealousy.
Neumann, 2008; Hall & Benning, 2006), and may exist in two main Generally, romantic jealousy is defined as the negative emotional
forms: primary and secondary psychopathy (Karpman, 1941; state generated in response to a threatened or actual loss of a valued re-
Poythress & Skeem, 2007). Primary psychopathy is characterized by in- lationship because of the presence of a real or imagined rival (Parrott &
strumental and manipulative tendencies in peer and romantic relation- Smith, 1993). There are at least three forms of jealousy: emotional,
ships, and a lack in emotions such as empathy, anxiety, or remorse behavioral, and cognitive jealousy (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). Emotional
(Hare, 2003; Mealey, 1995; Newman et al., 2005). Secondary psychop- jealousy is best described as an emotional reaction to a perceived threat,
athy includes aspects such as risky and impulsive behaviors, the absence and it is associated with more positive relationship qualities and out-
of long-term goals, and a low frustration tolerance. It is characterized by comes than other types of jealousy (Elphinston, Feeney, & Noller,
high levels of anxiety and is theorized to be more influenced by environ- 2011). Cognitive jealousy revolves around thoughts and worries of the
mental factors than primary psychopathy (Hare, 2003; Mealey, 1995; partner committing an infidelity, whereas behavioral jealousy instigates
Newman et al., 2005). With regard to personal and romantic relation- behaviors such as checking one's partners' belongings and communica-
ships, psychopathic traits are associated with more relationship dissatis- tions for signs of possible infidelities. While emotional jealousy is reac-
faction and distress in both partners (Savard, Sabourin, & Lussier, 2006), tive, cognitive jealousy and behavioral jealousy are pre-emptive, in that
they are rooted in suspicions and anxiety that infidelity will or has
already occurred (Rydell & Bringle, 2007). Together, behavioral and cog-
☆ The data reported in this manuscript were collected during a research internship by nitive jealousy can be conceptualized as suspicious jealousy, and when
Christina L. Winters, towards acquiring the title of Master of Science in Forensic
Psychology at Maastricht University, The Netherlands.
1
⁎ Corresponding author at: Work & Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology & Throughout this paper the term “psychopath” is used as an abbreviation. This term
Neuroscience, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands. does not convey a clinical diagnosis, psychopathology, or a type of person. Rather, it is used
E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Massar). as the short form of “someone scoring high on a measure of subclinical psychopathy”.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.055
0191-8869/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Massar, K., et al., Green-eyed snakes: The associations between psychopathy, jealousy, and jealousy induction, Person-
ality and Individual Differences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.055
2 K. Massar et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

experienced to a large degree, can lead to controlling and obsessive After logging on to the online survey, participants were informed
behaviors towards one's partner. about the global aim of the study — the interaction between personality
The experience of jealousy has been described as a “narcissistic traits and relationship processes. Then they provided informed consent
injury” to the psychopath's self-esteem (Spidel et al., 2007), but these and demographic information, and completed the measures listed
statements apply to forensic populations rather than subclinical psycho- below. Ethical approval for all measures and procedures was obtained
pathic individuals. Individuals with primary and secondary psychopath- from the local Ethics Committee of Psychology.
ic traits might respond differentially to jealousy-arousing situations. For
example, primary psychopaths are characterized by callous affect and a 1.2. Materials2
diminished ability to monitor their own emotions (Malterer, Glass, &
Newman, 2008). In response to interpersonal conflict they tend to More detailed instructions and materials, as well as the datafile, can
show inhibited anger (Reidy et al., 2013). We therefore predict that in be found at the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/gz4b5/). Alpha
response to a relationship threat, primary psychopaths are less likely coefficients reported in this section refer to the current data.
to experience emotional and suspicious jealousy. In contrast, secondary The Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-III (SRP-III; Williams et al., 2007)
psychopaths are characterized by an impulsive, anxious, and emotional was used to measure psychopathy. On a 5-point Likert scale (1 =
behavioral style and a diminished capacity to regulate and repair emo- strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) participants indicate agreement
tions (Malterer et al., 2008). Moreover, they react with increased with 64 items. The scale consists of 4 facets which combine to represent
anger in response to conflicts (Reidy et al., 2013). We therefore expect the traditional two-factor model of psychopathy: Primary psychopathy
that after a relationship threat, secondary psychopaths will report emo- consists of callous affect and interpersonal manipulation (Cronbach's
tional and suspicious jealousy. α = .89), and secondary psychopathy consists of erratic lifestyle and an-
Jealousy is not only a result of a real or imagined transgression; it is tisocial behavior (Cronbach's α = .87).
sometimes used as a means to an end. Romantic jealousy induction is a The Short-Form of the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (Elphinston
strategic behavioral process designed to elicit a reactive jealous et al., 2011) is a 17-item scale measuring one's general degree of jealou-
response from a partner to achieve a goal — usually mate retention sy experiences on three different subscales: Emotional, Cognitive, and
(Jonason et al., 2010; Mattingly, Whitson, & Mattingly, 2012). For in- Behavioral jealousy. For the questions of this scale, participants were
stance, women tend to induce jealousy more often than men and they asked to think of their current partner (“X”) in relation to each item.
tend to do so for reasons such as testing the relationship and a desire For emotional jealousy (α = .85), respondents used a 7-point Likert-
for power or control (White, 1980). Furthermore, jealousy induction is type scale (1 = very pleased; 7 = very upset) to rank their degree of
associated with aggression in relationships and a need for control upset in response to a perceived relationship threat, e.g., “X is flirting
(Brainerd, Hunter, Moore, & Thompson, 1996), and it is positively corre- with a member of the opposite sex all the time”. Similarly, on a
lated with jealous thoughts and behaviors (i.e., suspicious jealousy) but 7-point scale (1 = never; 7 = all the time) participants indicated their
not with jealous emotions (Mattingly et al., 2012). self-assessed frequency of jealous thoughts and behaviors. Example
Individuals with psychopathic traits are likely to use jealousy induc- statements are: “I suspect that X may be attracted to someone else”.
tion as a mate retention tactic (Jonason et al., 2010). Overall, inducing Together, these latter jealousy types are conceptualized as Suspicious
jealousy in one's partner tends to be related to relational power and jealousy (Cronbach's α = .84).
control (e.g., Dainton & Gross, 2008; Mattingly et al., 2012). Jealousy in- The Romantic Jealousy Induction Scale was used to measure jealousy
duction might be employed for various reasons like testing the relation- induction (Mattingly et al., 2012). This scale consists of 18 items and is
ship, revenge, power/control, security seeking, and gaining self-esteem designed to measure the endorsement of purposeful practices that are
(Mattingly et al., 2012). Since jealousy induction can be motivated by aimed at making one's partner jealous. It demonstrated excellent inter-
seemingly malevolent reasons (i.e. to get revenge on or control the part- nal consistency (Cronbach's α = .96). Respondents used a 7-point
ner), it is of interest to distinguish the more benign reasons from hurtful Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree), to indicate
ones when examining psychopathy traits of inducers. Because jealousy their agreement with statements such as “I flirt with people in front of X
induction involves manipulating and controlling one's partner, which is in order to make X jealous.”
typical of psychopaths, these individuals might be more likely to induce The Motives for Inducing Romantic Jealousy Scale (Mattingly et al.,
jealousy for these reasons rather than to strengthen their relationship. 2012) is a 22-item scale used to measure the different motivations
In addition, an individual's experience of jealousy may influence the that one has for inducing romantic jealousy in his/her mate. The scale
various motivational drives to induce jealousy in their partner. Specifi- demonstrated overall good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .94)
cally, we expect that primary psychopathy will predict the more malev- and consists of the following subscales: Testing the relationship
olent motives for jealousy induction (power/control and revenge), (e.g., “I want to see if my partner still cares about me”; Cronbach's
whereas secondary psychopathy will be associated with the ‘benign’ α = .90), Taking revenge (e.g., “I want to punish my partner for some-
motives (testing the relationship, security, and gaining self-esteem). In thing bad s/he has done”; Cronbach's α = .88), Obtaining power/con-
addition, since men consistently score higher on psychopathy measures trol (e.g., “I want to be able to control my partner/relationship”;
than women (e.g. Jonason et al., 2010; Jonason et al., 2009), we will ex- Cronbach's α = .82), Seeking security (e.g., “I don't want my partner
plore moderation and mediation of participant sex in the relationships to leave me”; Cronbach's α = .90), and Gaining self-esteem (e.g., “I
between the psychopathy factors and our dependent variables. feel inadequate”; Cronbach's α = .84). Respondents used a 7-point
Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) to indicate
1. Method their level of agreement with each motivation.

1.1. Participants & procedure 2. Results

Heterosexual participants in a relationship (specified as lasting at First, t-tests were conducted to examine sex differences (see
least 2 months)were recruited from various sources (e.g., the university Table 1). Men scored significantly higher than women on both factors
student participant pool, MTurk, Facebook, etc.). In total, 244 women
(Mage = 28.00, SD = 9.29) and 103 men (Mage = 31.16, SD = 9.61) par- 2
In addition to the measures reported here, participants completed measures for an-
ticipated. Of these participants, 72% were American, 20.2% were Dutch, other study. These included The Short Dark Triad (Jones & Paulhus, 2014), Mate Guarding
4.3% were German, 2% were Belgian, and 1.5% reported another nation- scale (Buunk & Solano, 2002), and the Desirability of Control Scale (Burger & Cooper,
ality (e.g., Japanese, British, Chilean). 1979). All measures of the survey were administered in random order.

Please cite this article as: Massar, K., et al., Green-eyed snakes: The associations between psychopathy, jealousy, and jealousy induction, Person-
ality and Individual Differences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.055
 K. Massar et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 3

Table 1
Descriptive statistics and sex differences for primary and secondary psychopathy, jealousy experience, and jealousy induction.

M (SD) t-test Hedges' g

Overall Women Men

Primary psychopathy 2.37 (0.53 ) 2.24 (0.49) 2.68 (0.50) −7.82** 0.93
Secondary psychopathy 2.12 (0.62) 2.01 (0.48) 2.37 (0.50) −6.58** 0.79
Emotional jealousy 2.37 (0.85) 2.22 (0.76) 2.74 (0.95) −5.44** 0.65
Suspicious jealousy 1.94 (0.77) 1.95 (0.75) 1.93 (0.82) −0.11 0.01
Jealousy induction 1.43 (0.59) 1.40 (0.54) 1.49 (0.68) −1.31 0.16
Motives for inducing jealousy:
Testing the relationship 3.86 (1.53) 3.91 (1.56) 3.75 (1.45) 0.83 0.09
Taking revenge 2.53 (1.43) 2.48 (1.43) 2.66 (1.43) −0.82 0.09
Obtaining power/control 2.53 (1.27) 2.44 (1.27) 2.74 (1.26) −1.98* 0.24
Seeking security 3.71 (1.90) 3.75 (1.94) 3.62 (1.81) 0.56 0.07
Gaining self-esteem 3.56 (1.62) 3.61 (1.67) 3.44 (1.52) 1.06 0.13

Note. Hedges' g is a measure of effect size that adjusts for unequal sample sizes.
* p b .05, ** p b .01.

of psychopathy, emotional jealousy, and the power/control motive for .15, F(3, 329) = 19.83, p b .001), such that the total effect (β = .24,
jealousy induction. Next, controlling for the shared variance between t(329) = 1.98, p = .05) disappeared when the indirect effect was
primary and secondary psychopathy (r(337) = .64, p b .001), we con- added (direct effect β = −.13, t(329) = −1.08, ns). Primary psychop-
ducted partial correlational analyses to explore the relationships be- athy uniquely explained the sex difference in the power/control motive
tween primary and secondary psychopathy and each of the outcome (indirect effect β = .26, 95% CI [.135, .407]; as well as secondary psy-
measures for men and women separately (see Table 2). Significant cor- chopathy, although this effect was weaker (indirect effect β = .03,
relations between secondary psychopathy and suspicious jealousy were 95% CI [.004, .100]). In addition, both primary and secondary psychopa-
found for women (rp(223) = .13, p b .05) and for men (rp(94) = .39, thy together mediated the influence of participants' sex on the power/
p b .01); the difference between these correlations was significant control motive for jealousy induction (indirect effect β = .08, 95% CI
(Fisher's z = 2.26, p b .05). Similarly, the correlation between secondary [.009, .156]).
psychopathy and jealousy induction was significantly stronger for men
(rp(94) = .36, p b .01) than for women (rp(223) = .11, p b .10; Fisher's 3. Discussion
z = 2.14, p b .05).
We performed eight multiple regression analyses, in which primary The aim of this study was to examine the relationships between the
and secondary psychopathy were added as simultaneous predictors two factors of psychopathy, jealousy experiences, and jealousy induc-
(controlling for age and sex; see Table 2). Primary psychopathy predict- tion. Generally, the pattern of our data supports previous findings
ed emotional jealousy, jealousy induction, and the revenge and power/ which indicate that the two factors show opposing relationships
control motives, whereas secondary psychopathy was a predictor of all (Reidy et al., 2013; Seara-Cardoso, Neumann, Roiser, McCrory, & Viding,
variables, with the exception of the revenge and the security motives. 2012). One often reported striking difference between primary and
Since the t-tests revealed sex differences for emotional jealousy and secondary psychopathy is the absence of negative affect, specifically
the motive for control/power, we included interaction terms between anxiety, in primary psychopathy (Del Gaizo & Falkenbach, 2008).
sex and the two factors of psychopathy in the regression analyses to ex- Consistent with this, we found that independent of participants' sex,
plore these further, but we found no indications of moderation.3 primary psychopathy was mainly associated with jealousy induction,
Next, to determine whether the sex differences found for these two for reasons to exact revenge or to obtain power over one's partner. In
variables might be mediated by the psychopathy factors, we conducted addition, fitting in with the impulsive, anxious, and reactive behavioral
process bootstrapped mediation analyses (5000 bootstrap samples; all style reported for individuals with secondary psychopathic traits (Del
variables standardized) including primary and secondary psychopathy Gaizo & Falkenbach, 2008; Yildirim & Derksen, 2015), we found this
simultaneously as mediators.4 These analyses revealed that primary trait was associated with the experience of both forms of jealousy, as
and secondary psychopathy partially mediated sex differences in emo- well as jealousy induction, motivated by a desire to test one's relation-
tional jealousy (total indirect effect β = .21, 95% CI [.108, .347]; R2 = ship or to gain self-esteem.
.14, F(3, 334) = 17.39, p b .001), such that the total effect (β = .62, These results also lend support for the hypothesis put forward in the
t(334) = 5.45, p b .001) was reduced when the indirect effect was literature on subclinical psychopathy that primary psychopathy might
added (direct effect β = .41, t(334) = 3.39, p b .001). Secondary psy- be considered a successful defect-strategy (Ashton, Lee, & Son, 2000;
chopathy uniquely explained part of the sex difference in emotional Mealey, 1995; Jonason & Webster, 2012), characterized by manipula-
jealousy (indirect effect β = .04, 95% CI [.004, .100]). The two mediators tion and deceit in social interactions, and a lack of shame and guilt
together also explained part of the sex difference in emotional jealousy after a moral transgression (Jonason, Strosser, Kroll, Duineveld, &
(indirect effect β = .08, 95% CI [.018, .164), but primary psychopathy Baruffi, 2015; Lyons, 2015a). In contrast, secondary psychopathy is con-
was not a unique independent mediator (indirect effect β = .10, 95% sidered to be a more malleable trait, which develops as the result of a
CI [−.015, .225]. competitive disadvantage due to adverse socioecological circumstances
Further, primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy fully (Mealey, 1995), causing impulsivity and a tendency for risk taking
mediated the relationship between participants' sex and the power/ across different interpersonal domains (Lyons, 2015b). Our results
control motive (total indirect effect β = .37, 95% CI [.249, .519]; R2 = thus highlight the importance of considering the multidimensionality
of psychopathy, and of investigating both factors as variables.
A few sex differences emerged in our study, specifically, in experi-
3
In addition, because psychopathic tendencies might be affected by culture (e.g. Neu- enced emotional jealousy and jealousy induction to obtain power.
mann, Schmitt, Carter, Embley, & Hare, 2012), we checked for moderation by nationality These sex differences were (partially) mediated by both psychopathy
(i.e. American versus Non-American), but we did not find any systematic or coherent dif-
ferences across nationality (all βs b .37, all ps N .07). Therefore, we report results across
factors, suggesting that men's higher scores on these variables were at-
nationalities. tributable to their higher scores on the psychopathy factors. This finding
4
This model is not meant to be treated as developmental or causal. replicates previous research (e.g. Jonason et al., 2009; Lyons, 2015b)

Please cite this article as: Massar, K., et al., Green-eyed snakes: The associations between psychopathy, jealousy, and jealousy induction, Person-
ality and Individual Differences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.055
4 K. Massar et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2016) xxx–xxx

Table 2
Regression coefficientsa and partial correlations using primary and secondary psychopathy to predict jealousy experience, jealousy induction, and jealousy induction motives.

Primary psychopathyb Secondary psychopathyc

Partial r Partial r

β (t) Women Men β (t) Women Men

Emotional jealousy .13* (1.96) .10 .13 .16* (2.49) .08 .24*
Suspicious jealousy .05 (.74) .05 .03 .27** (3.99) .13* .39**
Jealousy induction .17* (2.47) .21** .03 .26** (3.85) .11 .36**
Testing .05 (.73) .08 −.05 .18* (2.56) .12 .12
Revenge .24** (3.39) .21 .17 .08 (1.14) −.01 .21*
Power/control .30** (4.47) .23** .26* .15* (2.22) .08 .17
Security .10 (1.39) .09 .08 .11 (1.54) .05 .10
Self-esteem −.07 (−.94) −.03 −.12 .22* (3.03) .16* .16

Note. t-value in parentheses; a Controlling for age and participants sex; b Controlling for secondary psychopathy; c Controlling for primary psychopathy.
* p b .05, ** p b .01.

showing that men generally tend to score higher than women do on men. Future research could focus on identifying strategies of conflict
“dark” traits, and especially on psychopathy. Indeed, the negative rela- resolution and relationship maintenance among partnered individuals
tional impact of psychopathy was previously established, and is charac- with psychopathic personality traits, especially in the context of an
terized by a short-term relationship focus, controlling mate retention ego-damaging experience like a partner's infidelity.
tactics, and exploitative behaviors (Jonason, Valentine, Li, & Harbeson, An additional limitation of the current research is that relationship
2011; Jonason, Luevano, & Adams, 2012). variables such as duration, closeness, and satisfaction were left out of
Primary and secondary psychopaths both resort to negative relation- consideration. There are some indications that these variables influence,
ship maintenance strategies once their relationship is threatened. How- and are influenced by, individuals' jealousy experiences and use of jeal-
ever, whereas it has been found that all jealousy induction strategies ousy induction (e.g. Aune & Comstock, 1997). In addition to taking rela-
ultimately lead to dissatisfaction with one's relationship (Mattingly tionship variables into account, future research should also focus on
et al., 2012), our results indicate that primary psychopathic individuals strengthening emotion regulation and inhibitory control among indi-
were likely to induce jealousy in a calculated manner and out of viduals with (secondary) psychopathic traits. Moreover, it seems crucial
malevolent reasons — that is, to gain leverage over their partner or to to include the partner in such interventions. Research indicates that es-
reciprocate a negative experience. Indeed, primary psychopaths are pecially in the case of infidelity and jealousy experiences, couple thera-
characterized by an exploitative and coercive mating style (Figueredo, py will be most effective when it contains intrapersonal therapeutic
Gladden, Sisco, Patch & Jones, 2015; Jonason, 2015), and in males, eleva- interventions such as building self-esteem, as well as a relationship-
tions in these traits have been found to cause increased distress in their specific focus, for example by exploring issues related to power
relationship partners (Savard et al., 2006). (White, 2008).
In contrast, our findings for secondary psychopaths indicate that
they reported inducing jealousy to gain self-esteem, or to test or
strengthen their relationship, and we suggest this is most likely because 5. Conclusion
of insecurities about themselves or their relationship. This finding fits in
with literature on secondary psychopathic individuals' response The current study adds to the growing body of literature on subclin-
pattern, which is largely driven by negative urgency which is defined ical psychopathy and its influence on relationship dynamics. Specifical-
as the tendency to behave rashly and impulsively to reduce distress ly, our results add support to expectations that there are affective
(Anestis, Anestis, & Joiner, 2009). With respect to relationship function- differences in primary and secondary psychopaths, with secondary psy-
ing, research indicates that secondary psychopathy traits both affect and chopaths experiencing greater emotional reactivity, and thus, greater
are exacerbated by couple distress (Savard et al., 2006). Future research levels of jealousy. With regard to the use of jealousy induction as a
could explicitly focus on the relationship maintenance strategies of mate retention strategy, we found support for the manipulative and ex-
primary and secondary psychopathic individuals after a relationship ploitive tendencies of primary psychopaths, and the anxious, insecure
threat, since even in the absence of such a threat, research has shown behavioral style of secondary psychopaths. This research, thus, empha-
that being partnered with an individual with psychopathic traits has sizes the importance of considering both factors of psychopathy sepa-
negative effects on one's relationship satisfaction and commitment rately in future studies.
(Smith et al., 2014).

References
4. Limitations
Anestis, M. D., Anestis, J. C., & Joiner, T. E. (2009). Affective considerations in antisocial be-
Although these results are promising, the present research has some havior: An examination of negative urgency in primary and secondary psychopathy.
Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 668–670.
limitations. One of these is inherent to the study of psychopathy and Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Son, C. (2000). Honesty as the sixth factor of personality: Corre-
emotions, that is, psychopaths are often inaccurate reporters of their lations with Machiavellianism, primary psychopathy, and social adroitness.
own emotional and affective states (e.g. Hare, 2003). Moreover, jealousy European Journal of Personality, 14, 359–368.
Aune, K. S., & Comstock, J. (1997). Effect of relationship length on the experience, expres-
is often regarded as an undesirable emotion, and participants may have sion, and perceived appropriateness of jealousy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137,
underreported their true feelings and motivations. Thus, future research 23–31.
should control for socially desirable responding (Van Hooft & Born, Brainerd, E. G., Hunter, P. A., Moore, D., & Thompson, T. R. (1996). Jealousy induction as a
predictor of power and the use of other control methods in heterosexual relation-
2012), and investigate the possibility of using implicit measures of emo-
ships. Psychological Reports, 79, 1319–1325.
tions. A second limitation deals with our sample, specifically the low Burger, J. M., & Cooper, H. M. (1979). The desirability of control. Motivation and emotion, 3,
number of male participants. Although all cross-sectional results should 381–393.
be interpreted cautiously, this is the case especially for our male partic- Buunk, A. P., & Solano, A. C. (2012). Mate guarding and parental influence on mate choice.
Personal Relationships, 19, 103–112.
ipants. Our small sample could explain the lack of associations found be- Dainton, M., & Gross, J. (2008). The use of negative behaviors to maintain relationships.
tween the psychopathy factors and the motives for jealousy induction in Communication Research Reports, 25, 179–191.

Please cite this article as: Massar, K., et al., Green-eyed snakes: The associations between psychopathy, jealousy, and jealousy induction, Person-
ality and Individual Differences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.055
 K. Massar et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2016) xxx–xxx 5

Del Gaizo, A. L., & Falkenbach, D. M. (2008). Primary and secondary psychopathic-traits Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model.
and their relationship to perception and experience of emotion. Personality and Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 523–541.
Individual Differences, 45, 206–212. Neumann, C. S., Schmitt, D. S., Carter, R., Embley, I., & Hare, R. D. (2012). Psychopathic
Elphinston, R. A., Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (2011). Measuring romantic jealousy: Valida- traits in females and males across the globe. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30,
tion of the multidimensional jealousy scale in Australian samples. Australian Journal 557–574.
of Psychology, 63, 243–251. Newman, J. P., MacCoon, D. G., Vaughn, L. J., & Sadeh, N. (2005). Validating a distinction
Figueredo, A. J., Gladden, P. R., Sisco, M. M., Patch, E. A., & Jones, D. N. (2015). The unholy between primary and secondary psychopathy with measures of Gray's BIS and BAS
trinity: The dark triad, coercion, and Brunswik-Symmetry. Evolutionary Psychology, constructs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 319–323.
13, 435–454. Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy.
Hall, J. R., & Benning, S. D. (2006). The “successful” psychopath: Adaptive and subclinical Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 906–920.
manifestations of psychopathy in the general population. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Hand- Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. P. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and
book of psychopathy (pp. 459–478). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Personal Relationships, 6, 181–196.
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON: Multi- Poythress, N. G., & Skeem, J. L. (2007). Disaggregating psychopathy: Where and how to
Health Systems. look for subtypes. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 172–192).
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217–246. Reidy, D. E., Wilson, L. F., Sloan, C. A., Cohn, A. M., Smart, L. M., & Zeichner, A. (2013). Psy-
Jonason, P. K. (2015). An evolutionary perspective on interpersonal violence: Sex differ- chopathic traits and men's anger response to interpersonal conflict: A pilot study.
ences and personality links. In M. DeLisi, & M. G. Vaugh (Eds.), International handbook Personality and Individual Differences, 55, 957–961.
of biosocial criminology (pp. 32–45). New York, NY: Routledge. Rydell, R. J., & Bringle, R. G. (2007). Differentiating reactive and suspicious jealousy. Social
Jonason, P. K., & Kavanagh, P. (2010). The dark side of love: Love styles and the dark triad. Behavior and Personality, 35, 1099–1114.
Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 606–610. Savard, C., Sabourin, S., & Lussier, Y. (2006). Male sub-threshold psychopathic traits and
Jonason, P. K., & Webster, G. D. (2012). A protean approach to social influence: Dark triad couple distress. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 931–942.
personalities and social influence tactics. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, Seara-Cardoso, A., Neumann, C., Roiser, J., McCrory, E., & Viding, E. (2012). Investigating
521–526. associations between empathy, morality and psychopathic personality traits in the
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., & Buss, D. M. (2010). The costs and benefits of the dark triad: Im- general population. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 67–71.
plications for mate poaching and mate retention tactics. Personality and Individual Seto, M. C., Khattar, N. A., Lalumiere, M. L., & Quinsey, V. L. (1997). Deception and sexual
Differences, 48, 373–378. strategy in psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 301–307.
Jonason, P. K., Li, N. P., Webster, G. D., & Schmitt, D. P. (2009). The dark triad: Facilitating a Smith, C. V., Hadden, B. W., Webster, G. D., Jonason, P. K., Gesselman, A. N., & Crysel, L. C.
short-term mating strategy in men. European Journal of Personality, 23, 5–18. (2014). Mutually attracted or repulsed? Actor–partner interdependence models of
Jonason, P. K., Luevano, V. X., & Adams, H. M. (2012). How the dark triad traits predict re- dark triad traits and relationship outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences,
lationship choices. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 180–184. 67, 35–41.
Jonason, P. K., Strosser, G. L., Kroll, C. H., Duineveld, J. J., & Baruffi, S. A. (2015). Valuing my- Spidel, A., Vincent, G. M., Huss, M. T., Winters, J., Thomas, L., & Dutton, D. G. (2007). The
self over others: The dark triad traits and moral and social values. Personality and psychopathic batterer: Subtyping perpetrators of domestic violence. In H. F. Hervé,
Individual Differences, 81, 102–106. & J. C. Yuille (Eds.), The psychopath: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 327–340).
Jonason, P. K., Valentine, K. A., Li, N. P., & Harbeson, C. L. (2011). Mate-selection and the Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
dark triad: Facilitating a short-term mating strategy and creating a volatile environ- Van Hooft, E. A. J., & Born, M. Ph. (2012). Intentional response distortion on personality
ment. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 759–763. tests: Using eye-tracking to understand response processes when faking. Journal of
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short dark triad (SD3): A brief mea- Applied Psychology, 97, 301–316.
sure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28–41. White, G. L. (1980). Inducing jealousy: A power perspective. Personality and Social
Karpman, B. (1941). On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical Psychology Bulletin, 6, 222–227.
types: The symptomatic and the idiopathic. Journal of Criminal Psychopathology, 3, White, G. L. (2008). Romantic jealousy: Therapists' perceptions of causes, consequences,
112–137. and treatments. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 7, 210–229.
Lyons, M. T. (2015a). Evidence for an evolutionary cheater strategy: Relationships be- Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Capturing the four-factor structure of
tween primary and secondary psychopathy, parenting, and shame and guilt. The psychopathy in college students via self-report. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88,
Journal of Psychology, 149, 570–581. 205–219.
Lyons, M. T. (2015b). Risk anything! Secondary, rather than primary psychopathy, is as- Yildirim, B. O., & Derksen, J. J. L. (2015). Clarifying the heterogeneity in psychopathic sam-
sociated with diverse risk-taking in evolutionarily relevant domains. Evolutionary ples: Towards a new continuum of primary and secondary psychopathy. Aggression
Behavioral Sciences, 9, 197–203. and Violent Behavior, 24, 9–41.
Malterer, M. B., Glass, S. J., & Newman, J. P. (2008). Psychopathy and trait emotional intel-
ligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 735–745.
Mattingly, B. A., Whitson, D., & Mattingly, M. J. (2012). Development of the romantic
jealousy-induction scale and the motives for inducing romantic jealousy scale.
Current Psychology, 3, 263–281.

Please cite this article as: Massar, K., et al., Green-eyed snakes: The associations between psychopathy, jealousy, and jealousy induction, Person-
ality and Individual Differences (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.055
View publication stats