Child and Adolescent Psychopathy

Abstract

This review paper discusses the construct of child and adolescent psychopathy and outlines controversy about the topic as well as some of the reasons that it might be developmentally appropriate. Past research has suggested that child psychopathy may be inapplicable to youth because the symptoms cannot be reliably distinguished from features of normative adolescent development. Concerns have also been raised regarding the possibility that the syndrome does not closely resemble the adult construct of psychopathy. We conclude that there is some truth to both sides of this story. Research shows that child psychopathy has a considerable degree of reliability and construct validity; however, there are also some important developmental differences. Furthermore, emerging evidence indicates potential changes in psychopathic symptoms over time and the important role of protective factors. Although, current research suggests that the concept of child psychopathy may be like an impressionist painting (i.e., clearer from a distance but messier as one gets closer), we argue this is not necessarily problematic from a developmental perspective. However, we conclude that a rigorous set of research studies will be needed to further advance our understanding of child psychopathy and the way it manifests itself over time.

Youth psychopathy: Differential correlates of callous-unemotional traits, narcissism, and impulsivity

“…In addition, the partly differing associations between the behavioral measures and the psychopathy dimensions in children, adolescents and adults illustrate the need for caution in generalizing findings over the lifespan. Although the psychopathy dimensions seem to have considerable construct validity in children and adolescents, there exist a number of important differences with the picture seen in adult psychopathy [76]. Given the intense social, behavioral and biological changes that occur between childhood, adolescence and adulthood, one should be cautious when talking about psychopathy in children [77][78][79].…”

Can the causal mechanisms underlying chronic, serious, and violent offending trajectories be elucidated using the psychopathy construct?

“…It was not until near the mid-twentieth century that Cleckley (1941) fully specified sixteen traits that are the basis of contemporary psychopathy measurement instruments, initially Hare's (1980) PCL. There are a number of other measures of psychopathy (see Salekin & Lynam, 2010), but because of the perception of the PCL instruments as the 'gold standard' measurement tools (Edens, Skeem, Cruise, & Cauffman, 2001) due to their high degree of reliability and validity (Hart & Cook, 2012), showing that even the strongest measurement tools depart substantially from the clinical description of the construct is the best way to illustrate the need for new and more comprehensive measurement tools.…”

The role of psychopathic traits and developmental risk factors on offending trajectories from early adolescence to adulthood: A prospective study of incarcerated youth

“…Most research thus far, largely relying on versions of Hare and his colleagues' "gold standard" Psychopathy Checklist (PCL), has focused on shorter-term violent, non-violent, and general recidivism outcomes (Corrado, Vincent, Hart, & Cohen, 2004;Edens & Campbell, 2007;Edens, Skeem, Cruise, & Cauffman, 2001;Salekin & Lynam, 2010;Vincent, Odgers, McCormick, & Corrado, 2008). Although symptoms of psychopathy such as a callous and unemotional disposition, usually combined, were more frequently incorporated into developmental criminology child/adolescent/young adult studies (e.g., Loeber et al, 2001), these symptoms do not encompass the full psychopathy construct.…”

“…As expected, given intense and controversial debate about various validity issues concerning the use of the PCL for adults, especially concerning predictive validity (e.g., tautological concerns regarding the use of antisocial behavior items to predict recidivism; Skeem & Cooke, 2010) and the theoretically justifiable number and labeling of the PCL-R's factor/facet structure (Cooke & Michie, 2001;Hare & Neumann, 2005), the use of the PCL: YV and these other instruments raised even more validity issues. The controversy included ethical concerns regarding the labeling of children and adolescents as psychopaths and premature use of the PCL: YV as a risk prediction instrument in juvenile/youth justice settings and in sentencing and treatment planning (e.g., Edens et al, 2001;Salekin, Rosenbaum, Lee, & Lester, 2009). In addition, there have been internal validity concerns about children and adolescents completing self-report instruments.…”

“…In addition, there have been internal validity concerns about children and adolescents completing self-report instruments. A related issue involves the appropriateness of using self-administered instruments in general and community samples of children and youth versus structured instruments for clinical and custodial samples (see Kotler and McMahon (2010) for a comparison of all these instruments and Salekin and Lynam (2010) for broader discussion of these validity issues).…”