This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]

On: 10 November 2014, At: 10:54

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wfpp20

Predictors of Reactive and Instrumental

Aggression in Jail Detainees: An Initial
Examination
a a
Jennifer A. Steadham MS & Richard Rogers PhD
a
Department of Psychology , University of North Texas , Denton ,
Texas
Published online: 04 Nov 2013.

To cite this article: Jennifer A. Steadham MS & Richard Rogers PhD (2013) Predictors of Reactive
and Instrumental Aggression in Jail Detainees: An Initial Examination, Journal of Forensic Psychology
Practice, 13:5, 411-428, DOI: 10.1080/15228932.2013.847350

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2013.847350

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 13:411–428, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1522-8932 print/1522-9092 online
DOI: 10.1080/15228932.2013.847350

Predictors of Reactive and Instrumental

Aggression in Jail Detainees: An Initial
Examination

JENNIFER A. STEADHAM, MS and RICHARD ROGERS, PhD

Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

Antisocial personality disorder (APD) and psychopathy have been

extensively researched in relationship to criminal behavior and
aggression. Comparatively few studies have evaluated these clini-
cal constructs for subtypes of aggression, specifically reactive and
instrumental aggression. Moreover, published studies tend to focus
on extremes, either prisoners in maximum-security facilities or
college samples. The current study utilized jail detainees on a min-
imum-security unit to retrospectively examine their self-reported
reactive and instrumental aggression. Because conduct disorder
(CD) is required for APD, the combined APD-CD symptomatology
was used to predict subtypes of aggression. As a comparative anal-
ysis, facet scores on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised were also
used as predictors. Results of the current study have implications
for forensic practice by utilizing aggression as a multi-dimen-
sional construct in conjunction with personality traits (e.g., facets
of psychopathy) in risk assessments.

KEYWORDS aggression, reactive, instrumental, psychopathy,

antisocial

INTRODUCTION

Historical perspectives of aggression have been wide in scope and imprecise

in definition. For instance, even the intent of the aggressor is a source of
disagreement among prominent scholars (Bandura, 1973; Berkowitz, 1993;
Buss, 1961; Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939). More recently,

Address correspondence to Jennifer A. Steadham, Department of Psychology, University

of North Texas, 1611 W. Mulberry Street, Denton, TX 76205. E-mail: jsteadham@unt.edu

411
 412 J. A. Steadham and R. Rogers

the general construct of aggression has been reconceptualized as paired

subtypes, including form veersus function (Little, Jones, Henrich, & Hawley,
2003), physical versus relational (i.e., Crick, Bigbee, & Howes, 1996), and
overt versus covert (i.e., Verona, Reed, Curtin, & Pole, 2007). The current
study is concerned with the function of aggression (Little et al., 2003), specif-
ically with regard to its primary motivation. From this perspective, reactive
and instrumental aggression have emerged as important and distinct subtypes
of aggression (see Cornell et al., 1996).
Reactive and instrumental aggression subtypes are best delineated by
their internal or external goals. Reactive aggression is meant to cause injury
with revenge as its goal (Berkowitz, 1993; Bushman & Anderson, 2001). It is
thought to serve internal motives, such as the release of anger (Stanford et al.,
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

2003). In contrast, instrumental aggression is primarily motivated by external

incentives, such as the gain of power or money (Cornell et al., 1996). These
two subtypes of aggression also differ with respect to degree of planning or
preparation. That is, reactive aggression is frequently impulsive and sponta-
neous, whereas instrumental aggression is typically planned (Cornell et al.,
1996).
Despite these distinctions, reactive and instrumental aggression sub-
types often overlap substantially with moderately high correlations observed
among adult populations (e.g., r = .74 [Cima, Tonnaer, & Lobbestael, 2007];
r = .70 [Ostrov & Houston, 2008]). In addition, many instrumental acts also
include a degree of reactivity (Cornell et al., 1996). As a core element of
aggression, Cornell and colleagues described reactive aggression as “the most
basic form of aggression among criminal offenders” (p. 788). The observed
overlap has led some scholars (e.g., Bushman & Anderson, 2001) to question
the continued utility of the reactive-instrumental distinction. However, others
(e.g., Merk, Orobio de Castro, Koops, & Matthys, 2005) argue compellingly
for clinical relevance, given differences in their antecedents and subsequent
treatment interventions. If considered dimensionally, the limits of categorical
classification are circumvented.

RELEVANCE OF REACTIVE AND INSTRUMENTAL AGGRESSION

The subtypes of aggression may have differential predictive utility in certain

clinical and forensic populations (e.g., patients with aggressive histories and
prison inmates). For risk assessment, a meta-analysis by Walters (2011) found
reactive aggression to be slightly more predictive of any future arrests, includ-
ing felonies, than instrumental aggression. Likewise, subtypes of aggression
are also relevant to recidivism. For instance, Peterson, Skeem, Hart, Vidal,
and Keith (2010) found marginally higher recidivism rates among parolees
for reactive aggression (26%) than instrumental aggression (20%), based
on a 12-month follow-up. However, the design of these studies forces the
 Reactive and Instrumental Aggression in Jail Detainees 413

categorization of offenders as either reactive or instrumental and did not

consider the magnitude of either subtype.
The reactive-instrumental distinction also holds clinical relevance for
management issues within inpatient facilities. For example, research on
forensic inpatients (McDermott, Quanbeck, Busse, Yastro, & Scott, 2008;
Vitacco et al., 2009) found reactive aggression to be far more common within
this population. Given the nature of reactive aggression (i.e., the possibil-
ity of sudden violence toward staff or other inpatients), early and effective
interventions remain clinical priorities for forensic facilities.

AGGRESSION, PSYCHOPATHY, AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY

Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

DISORDER

In forensic contexts, reactive and instrumental aggression subtypes have

demonstrated distinct associations with psychopathy (Cornell et al., 1996;
Woodworth & Porter, 2002). Utilizing Hare’s (2003) four-facet model of
psychopathy, Facets 1 and 2 are more highly associated with instrumen-
tal aggression, whereas Facets 3 and 4 are consistently linked with reactive
aggression (Cima et al., 2007; Stafford & Cornell, 2003). These relationships
are conceptually understandable. For example, Facets 1 and 2 and instru-
mental aggression share planned manipulation of others and a callous lack
of empathy. Likewise, Facets 3 and 4 are characterized by impulsivity and
antisocial behavior, as is reactive aggression.
Besides psychopathy, both types of aggression have also been inves-
tigated in relation to antisocial personality disorder (APD). APD and
psychopathy share common features (American Psychiatric Association
[APA], 2000), but APD criteria de-emphasizes core personality characteris-
tics (interpersonal and affective features) that form the basis of Facets 1 and
2. In addition, psychopathy is generally believed to be a superior predictor
of aggression; however, side-by-side comparisons using the same samples
have produced mixed results (Rogstad & Rogers, 2012).
The current study addresses several methodological issues related to
samples and the categorization of reactive and instrumental aggression.
For samples, past studies tend to be polarized, using either very aggres-
sive (e.g., maximum-security prison inmates; Cima et al., 2007; Cornell
et al., 2006; Woodworth & Porter, 2002) or non-aggressive (e.g., under-
graduate students; Falkenbach, Poythress, & Creevy, 2008; Miller & Lynam,
2006; Reidy, Zeichner, & Martinez, 2008; Reidy, Zeichner, Miller, & Martinez,
2007) samples. The current study focuses on a middle group, jail detainees
on a minimum-security unit. Regarding the categorization of aggression,
most previous studies (e.g., Cornell et al., 1996; Falkenbach et al., 2008;
Woodworth & Porter, 2002) have forced the categorization of aggression,
often relying only on a coding of criminal offenses. As an alternative, the
 414 J. A. Steadham and R. Rogers

current investigation utilizes a dimensional analysis via Reactive-Proactive

Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ; Raine et al., 2006).
The current study has several interrelated objectives. Given the dearth
of research with side-by-side comparisons, the primary objective is to exam-
ine the utility of psychopathy and APD—individually and combined—as
predictors of reactive and instrumental aggression. As more specific pre-
dictors, facets of psychopathy and components of APD are also investigated.
Finally, because impulsivity has often been linked to aggression (Barratt,
1991; Bushman & Anderson, 2001), it is included as a competing hypothesis
to psychopathy and APD.
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

METHOD
Participants
The final sample consisted of 93 pre- and post-trial detainees recruited from
general population at a minimum-security county jail in the Dallas–Ft. Worth
metroplex. Despite their placement, most offenders had a substantial history
of prior arrests (M = 9.00, SD = 11.88). Moreover, one-third reported com-
mitting a violent offense in the past that was most commonly aggravated
assault.
Participants were excluded from the study for only two criteria. Issues
of comorbidity, especially with psychotic symptoms (e.g., lack of insight),
may cloud Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) ratings (Hare, 2003).
Therefore, participants were screened for current psychotic symptoms.
In addition, participants were excluded if they read below a sixth grade
reading level in order to ensure adequate comprehension of self-report
measures.

Screening Measures
PSYCHOTIC DISORDER AND MOOD DISORDER WITH PSYCHOTIC FEATURES
MODULES, MINI INTERNATIONAL NEUROPSYCHIATRIC INTERVIEW
The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI; Sheehan et al.,
1998) is a brief, structured diagnostic interview intended to be used as a
screening measure for Axis I disorders. The current study used only the
two modules that screen for psychotic symptoms. These modules show high
agreement with well-established diagnostic interviews (see Sheehan et al.,
1998).

WIDE RANGE ACHIEVEMENT TEST–FOURTH EDITION

The Wide Range Achievement Test–Fourth Edition (WRAT-4; Wilkinson &
Robertson, 2006) is a brief, standardized assessment of academic skills.
WRAT-4 Reading Composite scores are strongly correlated (r = .78) with
 Reactive and Instrumental Aggression in Jail Detainees 415

Reading Composite scores on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test,

Second Edition (Psychological Corporation, 2002).

Primary Measures
REACTIVE-PROACTIVE AGGRESSION QUESTIONNAIRE
The Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ; Raine et al., 2006)
is a self-report measure used to assess an overall pattern of aggressive
responses using a 3-point Likert-type scale (0 = never, 1 = sometimes,
2 = often). As evidence of convergent validity, RPQ scales are related to
behavioral and personality correlates, such as violence, delinquency, and
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

impulsivity (Raine et al., 2006). Although it was developed for use with
children and adolescents, the RPQ has evidenced acceptable to excellent
internal consistency (Reactive scale α = .80 to .85; Proactive scale α = .70 to
.87) when used with adult prison inmates (Cima et al., 2007; Lynam, Hoyle,
& Newman, 2006). Both scales are used as dimensional outcome variables
in the current study.

PSYCHOPATHY CHECKLIST-REVISED, 2ND EDITION

The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 2003) is a semi-structured inter-
view often considered the “gold standard” in the assessment of psychopathy.
In addition to a total score, the PCL-R provides four facet scores, namely
Interpersonal (Facet 1), Affective (Facet 2), Lifestyle (Facet 3), and Antisocial
(Facet 4). The Interpersonal facet consists of the superficial charm and patho-
logical lying features of psychopathy, whereas the Affect facet is composed
of a lack of remorse and empathy. In contrast, the Lifestyle facet is character-
ized by irresponsibility and impulsivity, and the Antisocial facet is composed
of behavioral indicators of psychopathy, like criminal versatility and difficulty
controlling anger. Scores on the PCL-R have been able to successfully predict
aggressive behaviors in adolescent inpatients (Stafford & Cornell, 2003) and
violent recidivism in offenders (Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1996; Serin, 1996).

STRUCTURED CLINICAL INTERVIEW FOR DSM-IV AXIS II PERSONALITY

DISORDERS—CONDUCT DISORDER AND ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER
MODULES
The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders
(SCID-II; First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, 1997) is used to assess
symptoms of personality disorders based on DSM-IV criteria. The current
study utilizes only the APD and conduct disorder (CD) modules; these scores
are combined for the APD-CD severity variable and were created by sum-
ming ratings for each item within the two modules (i.e., symptom severity).
 416 J. A. Steadham and R. Rogers

Internal consistency coefficients for the APD and CD modules of the SCID-II
are generally acceptable in correctional populations (Ullrich et al., 2008).

BARRATT IMPULSIVENESS SCALE–VERSION 11

The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale–Version 11 (BIS-11; Barratt, 1959; Patton,
Stanford, & Barratt, 1995) is a 30-item self-report questionnaire designed to
assess the construct of impulsivity on a 4-point scale Likert-type scale. For
the total scale, internal consistency is good (α = .80) within a correctional
sample (Patton et al., 1995).
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

IMPULSIVE-PREMEDITATED AGGRESSION SCALE

The Impulsive-Premeditated Aggression Scale (IPAS; Stanford et al., 2003) is
a 26-item self-report inventory designed to assess Impulsive (i.e., reactive)
and Premeditated (i.e., instrumental) aggression. Each question is evaluated
on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly dis-
agree. In line with traditional approaches, the IPAS has been used to classify
individuals as committing primarily reactive versus instrumental aggression
(Kockler, Stanford, Meloy, Nelson, & Sanford, 2006; Stanford, Houston, &
Baldridge, 2008; Stanford et al, 2003); it was included only to categorize the
sample for descriptive analyses (see Table 1). The scale that yields the higher
score indicates the dominant type of aggression engaged in by the respon-
dent. Reliability coefficients are .72 to .81 for the Premeditated and Impulsive
scales, respectively (Kockler et al., 2006).

TABLE 1 Differences in Demographic and Clinical Variables between Reactive and

Instrumental Aggression Detainee Groups

Reactive (n = 61) Instrumental (n = 22)

Variable M SD M SD F Cohen’s d

Age 31.98 11.21 32.77 10.07 0.08 0.07

Years of education 12.33 1.81 12.73 1.61 0.83 0.23
Prior arrests 9.34 13.65 8.68 8.17 0.05 −0.05
APD-CD severity 32.66 7.30 33.14 7.92 0.07 0.06
PCL-R total 12.16 7.52 13.54 8.85 0.50 0.18
PCL-R Facet 1 1.15 1.68 1.82 1.99 2.33 −0.38
PCL-R Facet 2 2.08 1.95 2.50 2.26 0.68 −0.21
PCL-R Facet 3 4.39 2.79 4.05 2.95 0.24 0.12
PCL-R Facet 4 2.61 2.08 3.40 2.35 1.94 −0.37
BIS-11 total 67.15 15.73 65.77 11.25 0.14 −0.09
Note. Groups were not statistically different for any variables. Reactive aggression = Impulsive scale
of Impulsive-Premeditated Aggression Scale (IPAS; Stanford et al., 2003); Instrumental aggression =
Premeditated scale of IPAS; APD-CD = the SCID-II symptom severity for APD-CD (First et al., 1997);
PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 2003); BIS-11 = Barratt Impulsiveness Scale–Version 11
(Barratt, 1959; Patton et al., 1995).
 Reactive and Instrumental Aggression in Jail Detainees 417

Procedure
Detainees were recruited for the study by individual correctional officers,
who announced the study to several jail pods. Potentially interested partici-
pants were seen individually for a further explanation of the study. Detainees
providing written informed consent were screened for two exclusion criteria
(i.e., psychotic symptoms and low reading comprehension).
The measures were administered in a small office in a hallway near the
residential pods. To maintain confidentiality, correctional officers had visual
contact but could not hear the researcher and participant interactions.
The test administration was standardized for each participant with two
screening measures that were followed, when appropriate, by the primary
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

measures. The MINI was used to screen for psychotic symptoms and the
WRAT-IV for minimum reading level. Individuals who met these exclusion
criteria were excused from the study. For eligible participants, interview-
based measures were administered first in an effort to increase rapport at the
outset of the study. Demographic information was recorded first, followed
by administration of the SCID-II CD and APD modules and the PCL-R. Self-
report measures were subsequently administered in one of two randomized
orders (i.e., order 1: IPAS, BIS-11, RPQ; order 2: RPQ, BIS-11, IPAS).
Researchers were two advanced doctoral students trained in the admin-
istration and scoring of psychological assessment measures. As a check
on inter-rater reliability for interview-based measures, the two researchers
independently rated 14 participants on the PCL-R and SCID-II modules.
Inter-rater reliability was excellent for the SCID-II modules (.92) and PCL-
R total score (.94). PCL-R Facets 1 and 2 had inter-rater reliabilities of .81 and
.82, respectively, while Facets 3 and 4 were slightly higher, at .86 and .84,
respectively.

RESULTS
Description of Sample
The original sample was composed of 100 detainees, who provided informed
consent and were not excluded based on the screening measures. However,
seven individuals failed to complete all the measures and were excluded
from the subsequent analyses. Due to oversampling females, the final sample
(N = 93) was composed of comparable numbers of female (n = 48 or
51.6%) and male (n = 45 or 48.4%) detainees. Overall, the average age was
31.67 (SD = 10.62) years. As expected in jail populations, the majority of
detainees (60.2%) were 30 years of age or less. Due partly to the exclusion
of low reading levels, jail detainees in the current study were better educated
(M = 12.39, SD = 1.71 years) than expected based on national estimates.
The majority (55.9%) graduated from high school, more than double the rate
found in a nationwide survey of jail detainees (25.9%; U.S. Department of
 418 J. A. Steadham and R. Rogers

Justice, 2002). Surprisingly, about one-third of the sample (36.6%) received

additional years of schooling past high school, with 5.4% earning a bachelor’s
degree or higher. The sample was ethnically diverse, consisting of 44 (44.1%)
European American, 22 (23.7%) African American, and 26 (28.0%) Hispanic
American. Their current charges ranged widely from a DUI to armed robbery.
As noted, the IPAS was used to categorize participants as Reactive or
Instrumental solely to provide descriptive comparisons (see Table 1). A small
number (n =10; 10.8%) could not be classified, given very similar scores (i.e.,
differences fewer than two points) on the IPAS scales. Consistent with past
research (Cornell et al., 1996; Vitacco et al., 2009), many more detainees
(n = 61; 65.6%) were classified as Reactive than Instrumental (n = 22;
23.7%). Possibly underscoring the limits of a categorical approach, the two
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

groups did not differ on PCL-R total or factor scores. Likewise, both evi-
denced high levels of APD-CD severity and moderate levels of impulsivity
(see Table 1). Several gender differences were observed: Female detainees
were more likely than their male counterparts to be Reactive (43.4% versus
30.1%) than Instrumental (8.4% versus 18.1%; χ 2 = 4.79, p = .03). Because
levels of adult APD were similar (47.9% for males versus 53.3% for females),
the difference in APD diagnosis appears to be due to symptoms of CD. Only
20.0% of females met diagnostic criteria for CD, whereas 33.3% of males
qualified for the diagnosis.
Predictably, reactive and instrumental aggression evidenced a moder-
ately high association (IPAS scales r = .69; see Table 2). For reactive aggres-
sion, most correlates remained in the moderate range (.42 to .69), except
for PCL-R Facets 1 and 2, which were understandably lower (.24 and .28,
respectively). A very different pattern emerged for instrumental aggression,
with APD evidencing a moderately high relationship (.72) followed by PCL-R
Facet 4 (.65) and total score (.60).

TABLE 2 Correlations among Reactive and Instrumental Aggression and Predictor Variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Reactive aggression
2. Instrumental .69∗∗∗
aggression
3. APD-CD severity .52∗∗∗ .72∗∗∗
4. PCL-R total .49∗∗∗ .60∗∗∗ .79∗∗∗
5. PCL-R Facet 1 .24∗∗ .45∗∗∗ .57∗∗∗ .74∗∗∗
6. PCL-R Facet 2 .28∗∗ .47∗∗∗ .65∗∗∗ .85∗∗∗ .63∗∗∗
7. PCL-R Facet 3 .42∗∗∗ .49∗∗∗ .68∗∗∗ .88∗∗∗ .53∗∗∗ .66∗∗∗
8. PCL-R Facet 4 .57∗∗∗ .65∗∗∗ .76∗∗∗ .72∗∗∗ .42∗∗∗ .55∗∗∗ .51∗∗∗
9. BIS-11 total .45∗∗∗ .45∗∗∗ .53∗∗∗ .57∗∗∗ .36∗∗∗ .36∗∗∗ .65∗∗∗ .44∗∗∗
Note. Reactive and instrumental aggression scores are from the Reactive-Proactive Aggression
Questionnaire (RPQ; Raine et al., 2006). For other measures, APD-CD = the SCID-II symptom sever-
ity for APD-CD (First et al., 1997); PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 2003); BIS-11 = Barratt
Impulsiveness Scale–Version 11 (Barratt, 1959; Patton et al., 1995).
∗∗
p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
 Reactive and Instrumental Aggression in Jail Detainees 419

Incremental Validity of APD, Psychopathy, and Impulsivity

Our primary objective was to examine the relative utility of psychopathy
and APD-CD in predicting retrospective reactive and instrumental aggression
based on the self-reported RPQ (see Table 3). APD-CD was entered into
the regression equation first, based on DSM-IV’s wide acceptance in forensic
assessments and its comparative ease of administration (e.g., 5–10 minutes
for the SCID-II APD and CD modules).
For reactive aggression, two models were tested entering PCL-R Facets
1 and 2 or Facets 3 and 4 into the regression equation as second and third
steps, after APD-CD. For both models, impulsivity was entered as the fourth
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

TABLE 3 APD-CD Severity, Psychopathy Facets, and Impulsivity as Predictors of

Retrospective Reactive and Instrumental Aggression

Reactive Aggression Instrumental Aggression

Predictors ß R2 R2 ß R2 R2

Model 1 with PCL-R Facets 1 and 2

Step 1 .27 .27 .52 .52
APD-CD severity .52∗∗∗ .72∗∗∗
Step 2 .004 .27 .002 .52
APD-CD severity .56∗∗∗ .69∗∗∗
PCL-R Facet 1 −.07 .06
Step 3 .003 .27 .000 .52
APD-CD severity .59∗∗∗ .70
PCL-R Facet 1 −.04 .07
PCL-R Facet 2 −.08 −.03
Step 4 .05 .32 .01 .53
APD-CD severity .46∗∗∗ .65∗∗∗
PCL-R Facet 1 −.03 .07
PCL-R Facet 2 −.10 −.04
BIS-11 Total .25∗∗ .09
Model 2 with PCL-R Facets 3 and 4
Step 1 .27 .27 .52 .52
APD-CD severity .52∗∗∗ .72∗∗∗
Step 2 .01 .28 .000 .52
APD-CD severity .40∗∗ .74∗∗∗
PCL-R Facet 3 .14 −.02
Step 3 .10 .38 .02 .55
APD-CD severity .05 .56
PCL-R Facet 3 .13 −.02
PCL-R Facet 4 .47∗∗∗ .23
Step 4 .04 .42 .01 .55
APD-CD severity .01 .54∗∗∗
PCL-R Facet 3 .01 −.08
PCL-R Facet 4 .45∗∗∗ .22
BIS-11 Total .26∗ .12
Reactive aggression = Reactive scale of Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ; Raine et al.,
2006); Instrumental aggression = Proactive scale of RPQ; APD-CD = the SCID-II symptom severity
for APD-CD (First et al., 1997); PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 2003); BIS-11 = Barrat
Impulsiveness Scale–Version 11 (Barratt, 1959; Patton et al., 1995).
∗
p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.
 420 J. A. Steadham and R. Rogers

step to examine its incremental validity (see Table 3). Based on past studies,
Facets 3 and 4 but not Facets 1 or 2 were posited to be significant predictors
of reactive aggression. As expected, Facets 1 and 2 were non-significant and
accounted for only a minuscule percentage of the variance (R2 = .004 and
.003, respectively). Included in the fourth step, impulsivity accounted for
a small but significant percentage of the variance (R2 = .05). For Model
2, PCL-R Facet 3 modestly accounted for more variance (R2 = .01) than
APD-CD alone. PCL-R Facet 4, however, contributed significantly to the
model (R2 = .10) and negated the effect of APD-CD. To provide side-
by-side comparisons, we entered PCL-R Facets 3 and 4 first and found
they accounted for marginally more variance than APD-CD (R2 = .35 ver-
sus R2 = .27).1 Entering APD-CD as the second step contributed minimally
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

to the model (R2 = .001).

Instrumental aggression utilized the same two-model approach as reac-
tive aggression with PCL-R Facets 1 and 2 being hypothesized as the
significant contributors. However, APD-CD by itself accounted for a mod-
erately large percentage of the variance (R2 = .52). PCL-R Facet 1 added
virtually nothing (R2 = .002) to the prediction,2 likely due to its generally
low scores (see Table 1). Furthermore, impulsivity contributed practically
no variance (R2 = .01). For side-by-side comparisons, when Facets 1 and
2 were entered first, they accounted for a modest percentage of variance
(R2 = .26).3 As the second step, APD-CD added substantially to the explained
variance (R2 = .26).
APD-CD severity is composed of APD symptoms and four CD clusters,
which vary in their level of aggressiveness. Because these five components
generally evidenced only low to moderate inter-correlations (M r = .26), we
explored their relationships with reactive and instrumental aggression on a
component level to examine whether certain APD traits are better able to
predict retrospective aggression. As summarized in Table 4 the five compo-
nents were entered simultaneously into two separate multiple regressions for
reactive and instrumental aggression. Unexpectedly, results were similar for
both subtypes of aggression, with APD symptoms being the strongest pre-
dictor of both reactive and instrumental aggression scores. Interestingly, the
Deceitfulness or Theft cluster produced significantly negative beta weights
for both subtypes of aggression. It is possible within this population that this

1
For reactive aggression, PCL-R Facets 1 and 2 were significant predictors when entered first (R2 =
.09). Adding APD-CD as a second step significantly improved the entire model (R2 = .19); however,
Factor 1 no longer contributed significantly to the model.
2
As a follow-up, the same analysis was conducted, restricting participants to include only the upper
quartile of PCL-R Factor 1 scorers (n = 27). This procedure significantly increased the average PCL-R total
score to 20.99 (SD = 6.27). However, this restriction did not significantly improve PCL-R Factor 1 R2 for
instrumental aggression (R2 = .01).
3
For instrumental aggression, PCL-R Facets 3 and 4 were significant predictors when entered first
(R2 = .45). When APD-CD severity was added as a second step, it improved the overall model (R2 =
.10), but only Facet 4 remained a significant predictor.
 Reactive and Instrumental Aggression in Jail Detainees 421

TABLE 4 Clusters of Conduct Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder Symptom Severity
as Predictors of Retrospective Reactive and Instrumental Aggressions

Reactive Aggression Instrumental Aggression

Predictors ß R2 ß R2

.63 .76
CD Aggression to people and animals .05 .23
CD Destruction of property −.01 −.05
CD Deceitfulness or theft −.49∗∗ −.24∗
CD Serious violations of rules .04 −.04
Adult APD .84∗∗ .77∗∗
Reactive aggression = Reactive scale of Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ; Raine et al.,
2006); Instrumental aggression = Proactive scale of RPQ; CD and APD = the SCID-II symptom severity
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

for CD and APD (First et al., 1997).

∗
p < .05. ∗∗ p < .001.

cluster serves as a protective factor within a detainee population, especially

for reactive aggression (ß = −.50). Aggression to People and Animals was
a significant predictor of instrumental, but not reactive, aggression scores.
Because the items comprising this cluster consist primarily of physical aggres-
sion, it is unexpected that this cluster would load only onto instrumental
aggression.

DISCUSSION

The current study underscores the importance of examining reactive and

instrumental aggression as dimensional constructs. When examined categor-
ically, no distinct patterns emerged between the two types of aggression
(see Table 1). This result is likely explainable by conceptual limitations of
the IPAS classifications. For example, the classification of reactive aggres-
sion could reflect (a) high scores on both scales but slightly higher for the
Impulsive (reactive) scale, (b) low scores on both scales but slightly lower
for the Premeditated (instrumental) scale, or (c) high scores on Impulsive
and low scores on Premeditated scales. Simply put, the IPAS classification
provides no information regarding the magnitude of aggression subtypes or
the disparity between them. Not to single out the IPAS, the simple coding
of crimes suffers from the same criticisms but adds an additional layer of
subjectivity in its categorizations. At present, we cannot find any compelling
reasons to pursue further research utilizing categorical approaches to reactive
and instrumental aggression.

Psychopathy versus APD

Psychopathy has traditionally been viewed as a strong predictor of aggres-
sion scores, with research supporting the association of Facets 1 and
 422 J. A. Steadham and R. Rogers

2 with instrumental aggression and Facets 3 and 4 with reactive aggression.

However, several past studies (Cornell et al., 1996; Lynam et al., 1996;
Woodworth & Porter, 2002) target extreme populations (e.g., violent offend-
ers and career prisoners in maximum-security facilities; Hare, 2003) rather
than the more typical offenders found in jail facilities. In forensic prac-
tice, structured assessments of violence (see, e.g., Tardiff & Hughes, 2011)
often emphasize the PCL-R, either alone or as a central component of other
risk measures, such as the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Quinsey,
Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1998).
In contrast to psychopathy, APD is often evaluated in an unstandardized
manner for the clinical interpretation of violence. Rather than systematically
evaluating its components, it is typically applied categorically in terms of
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

presence/absence as a general risk factor (Tardiff & Hughes, 2011). Given

structured measures such as the SCID-II (First et al., 1997), APD-CD can
be reliably assessed from a dimensional perspective. Standardized assess-
ments of APD-CD could place it on an equal footing with the PCL-R as a
structured assessment of violence. By using a dimensional analysis, side-
by-side comparisons (i.e., APD-CD versus the PCL-R) can be conducted
systematically.
Rogers and Rogstad’s (2010) reanalysis of the MacArthur Violence Risk
Assessment Study illustrates the importance of considering the magnitude
of clinical constructs, such as psychopathy and APD, for the prediction of
violence in a large sample of 433 non-forensic patients. They observed the
marked disparities in cut scores: (a) the stringent standard of ≥ 75.0% for
the classification of psychopathy, which is typically used for PCL measures
(e.g., ≥ 30 of 40 on the PCL-R and ≥ 18 of 24 on the PCL: Screening Version
[PCL:SV; Hart, Cox, & Hare, 1995]); and (b) comparatively lax standard of
≥ 40.0% for the diagnosis of APD. When compared at the same standard,
APD was marginally superior (overall correct classification [OCC] = .68) to
the PCL:SV (OCC = .59).4 As illustrated by the Rogers and Rogstad study,
the comparative utility of APD and PCL constructs must be considered on an
even playing field, with cut scores reflecting similar levels of severity.
Taxometric analyses clearly underscored the dimensionality of both
psychopathy (Guay, Ruscio, Knight, & Hare, 2007; Walters, Duncan, &
Mitchell-Perez, 2007) and APD (Marcus, Lilienfeld, Edens, & Poythress, 2006).
Moreover, Hare (2003) acknowledged the importance of dimensional anal-
yses and provides practitioners with T scores and percentile ranks to assist
in clinical interpretations. For the recently released DSM-5, dimensional
analysis is included as an alternative conceptualization of Axis II assess-
ments. Of relevance to the current discussion, the DSM-5 Personality and
Personality Disorders Work Group (American Psychiatric Association, 2013)

4
This comparison was at the 40% (APD) standard; the 75% (PCL-R) standard could not be tested
because too few participants reached this level with APD severity.
 Reactive and Instrumental Aggression in Jail Detainees 423

identified the dimensional approach to personality as an issue to be consid-

ered further in the future. One proposed method sought to combine APD
with psychopathy but without a systematic examination of which specific
components are predictive of clinically relevant constructs, such as aggres-
sion (Skodol et al., 2011). From a research perspective, we would suggest
that the integrity of psychopathy and APD-CD as separate but related con-
structs should be retained in order to test their comparative effectiveness with
respect to particular populations (e.g., typical jail detainees vs. repeatedly
violent offenders) and specific outcomes (e.g., reactive versus instrumental
aggression).
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

Incremental Prediction of Reactive and Instrumental Aggression

Psychopathy has traditionally been viewed as superior to APD in the pre-
diction of general and violent recidivism, although no studies have focused
specifically on reactive and instrumental aggression. The available research
investigated the incremental validity of antisocial traits and psychopathy
when predicting recidivism and institutional aggression. As summarized in
Walters’s (2006) meta-analysis, three separate studies conducted side-by-side
comparisons of the PCL-R and the Antisocial Features (ANT) scale of the
Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 2007) as incremental pre-
dictors of aggression. Walters found no support for the PCL-R providing
incremental predictive utility over the PAI ANT scale alone, a conclusion
based on three studies with different samples comprised of prison inmates
(Walters, Duncan, & Geyer, 2003; Walters & Duncan, 2005) and sex offenders
(Edens, Buffington-Vollum, Colwell, Johnson & Johnson, 2002). As a compet-
ing hypothesis, the PAI ANT has been examined as an incremental predictor
over the PCL-R total score. Only one study (Walters & Duncan, 2005) found
that PAI ANT provided incremental validity to PCL-R in the prediction of re-
arrests versus no re-arrest. At least when relying on the ANT scale, PCL-R
and antisocial traits appear to be similar in their predictive utility.
Results from the current study suggest that in forensic practice, types
of aggression should be examined as separate dimensions rather than aggre-
gated into a general category when evaluating future risk. PCL-R Facets 3 and
4 accounted for slightly more variance than APD-CD for reactive aggression.
This modest improvement might be explainable by the use of a more discrete
construct for the PCL-R than the total APD-CD.5 In sharp contrast, APD-
CD was clearly superior to PCL-R Facets 1 and 2 in predicting instrumental
aggression, accounting for twice the variance at Step 1 (R2 = .52 versus .26).
Although past research (Cima et al., 2007; Stafford & Cornell, 2003) con-
sistently linked affective/interpersonal features of psychopathy (e.g., Facets

5
A much larger sample would be needed to examine the PCL-R facets and APD-CD components.
 424 J. A. Steadham and R. Rogers

1 and 2) with instrumental aggression, neither study considered APD-CD as

a competing hypothesis.

Limitations and Future Directions

The cross-sectional design of the current study allows us to explore
only characterological predictors of retrospective instrumental and reactive
aggression. Longitudinal studies are necessary to examine and understand
how APD-CD and psychopathy contribute to the frequency and intensity
of both types of aggression. Regarding APD-CD, symptoms of conduct dis-
order do not appear to be playing a major role in predicting aggression.
Further studies are needed with typical jail populations on the comparative
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

importance of CD and APD symptoms.

Many jail detainees are apprehended criminals who were not success-
ful at their illegal endeavors.6 Within this context, the current data suggest
that APD-CD may not be best conceptualized in simply an additive fashion
(more conduct disorder symptoms linked to increased aggression). Instead,
certain features may possibly serve as protective factors, such as deceit and
non-confrontational offenses (e.g., theft). Because these symptoms are only
queried for youths, their potential role when observed in adulthood warrants
further study.
Validity generalization is essential to the study of aggression and its sub-
types. Predictors based on extreme populations are likely advantaged by
the salience of the clinical constructs (e.g., severe psychopathic and APD
traits) and the density and prevalence of predicted outcomes (e.g., specific
types of aggression). Further research is needed with specific subtypes of
aggression (reactive and instrumental) in various criminal and non-criminal
populations. Focused research may demonstrate risk, protective, and neu-
tral roles for traditional predictors of aggression when applied to particular
criminal populations, such as chronic substance abusers.

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of

mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NY:
Prentice-Hall.

6
The percentage of truly innocent offenders in jail settings—awaiting trial or wrongly convicted—is
unknown.
 Reactive and Instrumental Aggression in Jail Detainees 425

Barratt, E. S. (1959). Anxiety and impulsiveness related to psychomotor efficiency.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 38, 71–84. doi:10.2466/PMS.9.3.191–198
Barratt, E. S. (1991). Measuring and predicting aggression within the context of a
personality theory. Journal of Neuropsychiatry, 3(2), S35–S39.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on the hos-
tile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review, 108(1),
273–279. doi:10.1037//0033-295X.108.1.273
Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Cima, M., Tonnaer, F., & Lobbestael, J. (2007). Moral emotions in predatory and
impulsive offenders using implicit measures. Netherlands Journal of Psychology,
63(4), 144–155. doi:10.1007/BF03061076
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

Cornell, D. G., Warren, J., Hawk, G., Stafford, E., Oram, G., & Pine, D.
(1996). Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive violent offenders. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(4), 783–790. doi:10.1037/0022-
006X.64.4.783
Crick, N. R., Bigbee, M. A., & Howes, C. (1996). Gender differences in children’s
normative beliefs about aggression: How do I hurt thee? Let me count the ways.
Child Development, 67(3), 1003–1014. doi:10.2307/1131876
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939).
Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Edens, J. F., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Colwell, K. W., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson,
J. K. (2002). Psychopathy and institutional misbehavior among incarcerated
sex offenders: A comparison of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised and the
Personality Assessment Inventory. International Journal of Forensic Mental
Health, 1(1), 49–58. doi:10.1080/14999013.2002.10471160
Falkenbach, D., Poythress, N., & Creevy, C. (2008). The exploration
of subclinical psychopathic subtypes and the relationship with types
of aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 821–832.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.012
First, M. B, Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Benjamin, L. S. (1997).
Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II).
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Guay, J., Ruscio, J., Knight, R. A., & Hare, R. D. (2007). A taxometric analysis of
the latent structure of psychopathy: Evidence for dimensionality. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 116(4), 701–716. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.116.4.701
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised: 2nd Edition. Toronto:
Multi-Health Systems.
Hart, S. D., Cox, D. N., & Hare, R. D. (1995). Manual for the Psychopathy Checklist:
Screening Version (PCL: SV). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Kockler, T. R., Stanford, M. S., Meloy, J. R., Nelson, C. E., & Sanford, K. (2006).
Characterizing aggressive behavior in a forensic population. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 76(1), 80–85. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.76.1.80
Little, T. D., Jones, S. M., Henrich, C. C., & Hawley, P. H. (2003). Disentangling
the ‘whys’ from the ‘whats’ of aggression behavior. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 27(2), 122–133. doi:10/1080/01650250244000128
 426 J. A. Steadham and R. Rogers

Lynam, D. R., Hoyle, R. H., & Newman, J. P. (2006). The perils of partialling:
Cautionary tales from aggression and psychopathy. Assessment, 13, 328–341.
doi:10.1177/1073191106290562
Marcus, D. K., Lilienfeld, S. O., Edens, J. F., & Poythress, N. G. (2006). Is
antisocial personality disorder continuous or categorical? A taxometric analysis.
Psychological Medicine, 36, 1571–1581. doi:10.1017/S0033291706008245
McDermott, B. E., Quanbeck, C. D., Busse, D., Yastro, K., & Scott, C. L. (2008).
The accuracy of risk assessment instruments in the prediction of impulsive
versus predatory aggression. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 759–777.
doi:10.1002/bsl.842
Merk, W., Orobio de Castro, B., Koops, W., & Matthys, W. (2005). The distinc-
tion between reactive and proactive aggression: Utility for theory, diagnosis
and treatment? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2(2), 197–220.
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

doi:10.1080/17405620444000300
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2006). Reactive and proactive aggression: Similarities
and differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1469–1480.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.004
Morey, L.C. (2007). Personality Assessment Inventory–Professional manual. Lutz, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Ostrov, J. M., & Houston, R. J. (2008). The utility of forms and functions of aggression
in emerging adulthood: Association with personality disorder symptomatology.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 1147–1158. doi:10.1007/s10964-9289-4
Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the
Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(6), 768–774.
doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6<768::AID-JCLP2270510607>3.0.CO;2-1
Peterson, J., Skeem, J. L., Hart, E., Vidal, S., & Keith, F. (2010). Analyzing offense
patterns as a function of mental illness to test the criminalization hypothesis.
Psychiatric Services, 61(12), 1217–1222. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.61.12.1217
Psychological Corporation. (2002). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test: Second
edition. San Antonio, TX: Author.
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (1998). Violent offend-
ers: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Raine, A., Dodge, K., Loeber, R., Gatzke-Kopp, L., Lynam, D., Reynolds, C., . . . Liu, J.
(2006). The Reactive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire: Differential correlates
of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior,
32, 159–171. doi:10.1002/ab.20115
Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Martinez, M. A. (2008). Effects of psychopathy
traits on unprovoked aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 319–328.
doi:10.1002/ab.20238103
Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., Miller, J. D., & Martinez, M. A. (2007). Psychopathy and
aggression: Examining the role of psychopathy factors in predicting laboratory
aggression under hostile and instrumental conditions. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 1244–1251. doi:10.1016/j/jrp.2007.03.001
Rogers, R., & Rogstad, J. E. (2010). Psychopathy and APD in non-forensic patients:
Improved predictions or disparities in cut scores? Journal of Psychopathology
and Behavioral Assessment, 32, 353–362. doi:10.1007/s10862-009-9175-8
 Reactive and Instrumental Aggression in Jail Detainees 427

Rogstad, J. E., & Rogers, R. (2012). Emotional expression deficits in offenders:

Empathy and alexithymia as predictors of psychopathic traits. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1996). A review and meta-analysis of
the Psychopathy Checklist and Psychopathy Checklist-Revised: Predictive valid-
ity of dangerousness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 3, 203–215.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.1996.tb00071.x
Serin, R. C. (1996). Violent recidivism in criminal psychopaths. Law and Human
Behavior, 20(2), 207–217. doi:10.1007/BF01499355
Sheehan, D. V., Lecrubier, Y., Sheehan, K. H., Amorim, P., Janavs, J., Weiller, E., . . .
Dunbar, G. C. (1998). The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI):
The development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview
for DSM-IV and ICD-10. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59(20), 22–33.
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

Skodol, A. E., Bender, D. S., Morey, L. C., Clark, L., Oldham, J. M., Alarcon, R. D.,
. . . Siever, L. J. (2011). Personality disorder types proposed for DSM-5. Journal
of Personality Disorders, 25(2), 136–169. doi:10.1521/pedi.2011.25.2.136
Stafford, E. & Cornell, D. G. (2003). Psychopathy scores predict adolescent inpatient
aggression. Assessment, 10(1), 102–112. doi:10.1177/1073191102250341
Stanford, M. S., Houston, R. J., & Baldridge, R. M. (2008). Comparison of impulsive
and premeditated perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Behavioral Sciences
and the Law, 26, 709–722. doi:10.1002/bsl.808
Stanford, M. S., Houston, R. J., Mathias, C. W., Villamarette-Pittman, N. R., Helfritz,
L. E., & Conklin, S. M. (2003). Characterizing aggressive behavior. Assessment,
10(2), 183–190. doi:10.1177/1073191103252064
Tardiff, K., & Hughes, D. M. (2011). Structural and clinical assessment of risk of vio-
lence. In E. Y. Drogin, R. M. Datillio, R. L., Sadoff, & T. G. Gutheil (Eds.),
Handbook of forensic assessment: Psychological and psychiatric perspectives
(pp. 335–359). New York, NY: Wiley.
Ullrich, S., Deasy, D., Smith, J., Johnson, B., Clarke, M., Broughton, N., . . . Coid, J.
(2008). Detecting personality disorders in the prison population of England and
Wales: Comparing case identification using the SCID-II screen and the SCID-II
clinical interview. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 19, 301–322.
doi:10.1080/14789940802045182
U.S. Department of Justice. (2002). Correctional population of the United States,
2002. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
Verona, E., Reed, A., Curtin, J. J., & Pole, M. (2007). Gender differences in emotional
and overt/covert aggressive responses to stress. Aggressive Behavior, 33(3),
261–271. doi:10.1002/ab.20186
Vitacco, M. J., Van Rybroek, G. J., Rogstad, J., Yahr, L. E., Tomony, J. D., & Saewert,
E. (2009). Predicting short-term institutional aggression in forensic patients: A
multi-trait method for understanding subtypes of aggression. Law and Human
Behavior, 33, 308–319. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9155-7
Walters, G. D. (2006). Risk-appraisal versus self-report in the prediction of crim-
inal justice outcomes: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(3),
279–304. doi:10.1177/0093854805284409
 428 J. A. Steadham and R. Rogers

Walters, G. D. (2011). Predicting recidivism with the psychological inventory of crim-

inal thinking styles and level of service inventory-revised: Screening version.
Law and Human Behavior, 35, 211–220. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9231-7
Walters, G. D., & Duncan, S. A. (2005). Use of the PCL-R and PAI to predict
release outcome in inmates undergoing forensic evaluation. Journal of Forensic
Psychiatry & Psychology, 16(3), 459–476. doi:10.1080/14789940500034405
Walters, G. D., Duncan, S. A., & Geyer, M. D. (2003). Predicting disciplinary adjust-
ment in inmates undergoing forensic evaluation: A direct comparison of the
PCL-R and PAI. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 14(2), 382–393.
doi:10.1080/1478994031000136527
Walters, G. D., Duncan, S. A., & Mitchell-Perez, K. (2007). The latent structure of
psychopathy: A taxometric investigation of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised
in a heterogeneous sample of male prison inmates. Assessment, 14(3), 270–278.
Downloaded by [University of North Texas] at 10:54 10 November 2014

doi:10.1177/1073191107299594
Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006). Wide Range Achievement Test–Fourth
Edition professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Woodworth, M., & Porter, S. (2002). In cold blood: Characteristics of criminal homi-
cides as a function of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(3),
436–445. doi:10.1037//0021-843X.111.3.436