Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2004), vol.

10, 466473

Dolan

Psychopathic personality in young people

Mairead Dolan
Abstract This article is an overview of developments in psychopathy and their application to children and
adolescents. A key question is whether or not psychopathy is stable throughout the lifespan. Some
characteristics indicate phenotypic similarities with adult psychopathy, and current instruments appear
to be measuring similar constructs across the age ranges. Although the literature on developmental
aspects of psychopathy in young people is limited, a number of instruments have been designed to
measure the construct. These tools appear to have reasonable construct, concurrent and predictive
validity, but we cannot yet recommend their routine use in clinical practice or in the criminal justice
system, given the limited evidence base on their predictive validity. At best, they should be viewed as
a means of subtyping potentially high-risk groups with a view to treatment planning.

This article continues the series entitled Lifespan psychiatry,

which considers the developmental psychiatry of adulthood.
Previous articles looked at attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
(Zwi & York, 2004; Invited commentaries: Asherson, 2004 and
Coghill, 2004) and Asperger syndrome (Berney, 2004).

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterised

by a constellation of interpersonal, affective and
behavioural characteristics (Hare, 1998). The early
literature suggested that it was a uni-dimensional
phenomenon, but subsequent studies revealed that
measures of psychopathy had at least a two-factor
structure, comprising an interpersonal/affective
element (factor 1) and a social deviance component
(factor 2). More recently, a three-factor structure has
been proposed (Cooke & Michie, 2001), which
includes:

an arrogant, deceitful interpersonal style,

involving dishonesty, manipulation, grandiosity and glibness;
defective emotional experience, involving lack
of remorse, poor empathy, shallow emotions
and a lack of responsibility for ones own
actions;
behavioural manifestations of impulsiveness,
irresponsibility and sensation-seeking.

Conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder

and psychopathy are often seen as developmental
disorders that span the life course and the terms are
sometimes used interchangeably. There are, however, significant differences between them and their
associated correlates. Whereas conduct disorder and

antisocial personality disorder primarily focus on

behavioural problems, psychopathy, as described
by Hare (1991), emphasises deficits in affective and
interpersonal functioning. Psychopathy is seen as
a higher-order construct, which can now be reliably
be assessed in adults using the Psychopathy
Checklist Revised (PCLR; Hare, 1991). A score
of > 30 on the PCLR indicates prototypical
psychopathy.
The estimated prevalence of adult psychopathy
in the general population is 1%, rising to between
15% and 25% in incarcerated groups. The notion
that individuals identified as PCLR psychopaths
are different from people with a diagnosis of
antisocial personality disorder comes from research
showing that there are high rates (5080%) of
antisocial personality disorder in prison populations, but only 20% of these meet Hares criteria
for psychopathy (Hare, 1998).

Aetiology of psychopathy
The biological and environmental factors responsible for the development and maintenance of
antisocial behaviour and psychopathy are not well
understood. Studies in children and adolescents
(Forth & Burke, 1998) indicate that several family
background variables (e.g. parental rejection,
inconsistent discipline, abuse) are associated with
the development of conduct disorder and psychopathy. However, an independent literature also
suggests that children with conduct disorder,

Mairead Dolan is a reader in forensic psychiatry at the University of Manchester (The Edenfield Centre, Bolton, Salford &
Trafford Mental Health NHS Trust, Prestwich, Manchester M25 3BL, UK. E-mail: [email protected]). Her
research interests include antisocial and psychopathic personality disorders.

466

Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2004), vol. 10. http://apt.rcpsych.org/

Psychopathic personality in young people

particularly those with a history of repeated violent

behaviour, exhibit neuropsychological deficits
(Moffitt & Henry, 1991) and have reduced levels of
arousal, including reduced plasma cortisol levels
(Raine, 1993; McBurnett & Lahey, 1994). These
findings suggest a role for neurobiological factors,
particularly executive (prefrontal) and temporolimbic (amygdala) dysfunction, in the aetiology of
conduct disorder and psychopathy.

The prefrontal cortex and behaviour

There are a number of theories relating to the
neurological basis of antisocial behaviour and
psychopathy. Of those focusing on the prefrontal
cortex, the most prominent are the somatic marker
hypothesis (Damasio, 1994) and the response
modulation deficit hypothesis (for a review see
Newman, 1998).
The somatic marker hypothesis suggests that
damage to the ventromedial cortex results in a failure
of the somatosensory structures to mark experiences
as good or bad, and consequently there is no
mechanism for learning to avoid aversive situations.
This model receives some support from studies of
acquired psychopathy, where subjects show an
attenuated autonomic response to aversive social
stimuli.
The response modulation deficit hypothesis,
which also focuses on the ventromedial prefrontal
cortex, accounts for the risk-taking behaviour and
failure to learn from experience seen in criminals
with psychopathic personality performing
laboratory-based tasks of passive-avoidance
learning. Some support for the response modulation
deficit hypothesis comes from studies revealing that
children with marked callous and unemotional traits
show an insensitivity to punishment cues on a
gambling task (Frick, 1998).

The amygdala and affect

There are also two main theories relating to the
affective characteristics of psychopathy: the
punishment/low-fear theory (Lykken, 1995) and the
violence inhibition mechanism deficit hypothesis
(Blair, 1995). Both models suggest a crucial role
for the amygdala as the seat of dysfunction in
psychopathic individuals. The low-fear model
stresses the aspects of psychopathy related to
sensation-seeking and insensitivity to punishment
(Lykken, 1995; Patrick, 1994), whereas the violence
inhibition mechanism model accounts for the
specific failure of basic emotions (e.g. fear) to result
in autonomic arousal and the inhibition of ongoing
behaviour in individuals with psychopathic

personality.
To date, few of these theories have been extensively
tested in child and adolescent samples. However,
some support for the violence inhibition mechanism
model has emerged in studies showing a selective
impairment in the processing of sad and fearful faces
in children with psychopathic tendencies (Blair et
al, 2001).

The relationship between

callous-unemotional traits
and conduct disorder
Frick (1998) outlined a basic framework for
conceptualising the relationship between what he
termed callous-unemotional traits and conduct
problems in children. In this model, callousunemotional traits develop as part of a unique
temperamental style, low behavioural inhibition,
which makes the child poorly responsive to
socialisation. Kochanska (1993) suggested that
behavioural inhibition is critical in the development
of conscience in young children and reported that
low-fear children did not respond to the type
of socialisation (gentle, non-power, assertive
discipline) that led to conscience development in
more fearful children. Subsequent studies in children
with conduct disorder indicated that the style
parents use to socialise their child has less impact
on the development of conduct problems in children
with callous-unemotional traits, suggesting that
genetic or neurodevelopmental factors make a more
significant contribution in children who are notably
callous.

Psychopathy in children
and adolescents
The existence and assessment of psychopathy in
children and adolescents is a contentious issue
(Edens et al, 2001; Hart et al, 2002; Seagrave & Grisso,
2002). Key concerns centre on the reliability and
validity of current assessment tools, the developmental appropriateness of these measures, how
closely the construct mimics that in adulthood and
the potentially negative impact of attaching a label
of psychopathy to those who have not yet reached
maturity (Box 1).
Frick (2002) argues that psychopathy presents no
more of a challenge than any other measure of
psychopathology in children and adolescents, and
suggests that psychopathy assessment in juveniles
may be a means of early detection and intervention
in high-risk groups.

Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2004), vol. 10. http://apt.rcpsych.org/

467

Dolan

Box 1 Key concerns about psychopathy

assessment in juveniles

How early can psychopathic traits be

reliability detected?
Are there developmentally appropriate
measures of psychopathy for use in children
and adolescents?
What is the prevalence of psychopathy in
childhood and adolescence?
Does its presentation mimic that in adulthood and has it construct and concurrent
validity?
What is the developmental stability of
psychopathy over the lifespan?
What is the predictive validity of current
childhood and adolescent measures of
psychopathy?
What is the impact of attributing a label of
psychopathy in childhood and adolescence?

Can psychopathic traits be reliably

detected?
The notion that personality disorder and psychopathy can be diagnosed in childhood and
adolescence has provoked debate in the literature.
Some (e.g. Frick, 2002; Lynam, 2002) argue that,
theoretically, personality traits are relatively stable
across adolescence into adulthood and that there
remarkable similarities between the literature on
psychopathy in adults and that emerging on children
and adolescents. Others (e.g. Seagrave & Grisso,
2002) suggest that psychopathy as a construct has a
high false-positive rate in adolescence, as this is
period of considerable developmental change.
Cleckley (1976) also noted that certain transient
developmental behaviours and attributes that arise
in childhood and adolescence resemble psychopathic traits but attenuate with normal development.
For example, adolescents are known to be more
impulsive and have less empathic understanding
than adults, which might result in higher scores on
these items on current psychopathy measures.
To date, there have been no studies looking at the
stability of psychopathic traits across the younger
age range, and such work is needed. In the adult
literature it has been noted that the behavioural items
are less stable than the interpersonal/affective items.
This has led to recent proposals that psychopathy
should focus primarily on callous-unemotional and
affective traits, as these are the core components that
characterise it and they have been found to be
relatively stable, remaining apparent past the age of
40, when the more impulsive, aggressive and
criminal behaviours tend to decline or burn out.

468

Are there developmentally appropriate

measures of psychopathy?
Some researchers have modified adult measures
of psychopathy to take account of developmental
and social/peer-group influences in an attempt to
deal with the above concerns. For example, Forth et
al (2004) modified PCLR items for adolescents.
Others have developed new measures with items
that may be more applicable to children and
adolescents (e.g. Lynam, 1997; Frick, 1998). But
although there are now measures of psychopathy
in childhood and adolescence, four of which are
listed in Box 2, there is a distinct lack of data on
their temporal stability.

What are the psychometric properties

of current psychopathy measures?
To date, there is relatively little literature on the
psychometric properties of measures of psychopathy designed for use with children and adolescents.
Preliminary data (see below) show that the external
correlates of psychopathy in young people are
similar to those seen in affected adults, suggesting
some phenotypic similarities. For the Psychopathy
Checklist: Youth Version (PCLYV) (Boxes 2 & 3)
there is evidence of adequate internal consistency
and interrater reliability for total scores (Forth &
Burke, 1998). However, relatively little is known
about the factor structure of this instrument across
settings, genders and ethnic groups and there have
been no studies of its testretest reliability.
The Psychopathy Screening Device (PSD) was
initially reported to have a two-factor structure
(Frick et al, 1994). The first was labelled the
impulsiveconduct problem scale, and it roughly
corresponded to the social deviance (factor 2) scale
of the adult PCLR. The second was the callousunemotional scale, which roughly corresponded
to the interpersonal/affective (factor 1) scale of
the PCLR. As yet, there are no specific cut-off
scores for the PSD, so a diagnosis of prototypical
psychopathy cannot be made with this instrument.
Data on the psychometric properties of the
Childhood Psychopathy Scale (CPS) is limited and
Lynam (1997) generally uses the total rather than
sub-scale scores in data analyses.
The Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI)
has been shown to have acceptable internal
consistency. Factor analyses have revealed a threefactor structure similar to that reported for adults
(Cooke & Michie, 2001).
To date, there is relatively little information on
whether the self-report (the YPI) and parent/teacherrated (the PSD and CPS) measures are susceptible
to response bias or positive impression management

Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2004), vol. 10. http://apt.rcpsych.org/

Psychopathic personality in young people

Box 2 Current intruments for assessing psychopathy in children and adolescents

Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCLYV; Forth et al (2004)
A clinician-rated scale for use with adolescents aged 1318 years. The PCLYV, like the adult PCLR
from which it was derived, has a two-factor structure, one reflecting the interpersonal and affective
aspects of personality function and the other reflecting the chronic antisocial lifestyle.
Psychopathy Screening Device (PSD; Frick, 1998)
(Also becoming know as the Antisocial Process Screening Device.) This 20-item measure was designed
to measure psychopathy in children aged 6-12 years. It is completed by teachers or parents, rather than
by self-report or interview with the young people themselves, because of concerns about the validity of
childrens accounts of their own emotional and behavioural difficulties (Kamphaus & Frick, 1996).
Childhood Psychopathy Scale (CPS; Lynam, 1997)
A parent/teacher-rated scale designed to assess psychopathy in late childhood and early adolescence.
The 13-item CPS was derived from the Pittsburgh Youth study on 1213-year-old boys and has a set of
items that are similar to the behavioural items on the adult PCLR.
Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI; Andershed et al, 2002)
A self-report, 50-item scale designed for young people of 12 years or older. Its sub-scales include dishonest
charm, grandiosity, lying, manipulation, callousness, unemotionality, remorselessness, irresponsibility
and thrill-seeking. Respondents are asked to rate the degree to which individual statements or items
apply to them. To avoid response distortion and social desirability effects, items are framed as potentially
positive attributes. For example, for dishonest charm a sample item is When I need to, I use my smile and
my charm to use others. The instrument primarily focuses on the core personality traits of the
psychopathic personality constellation, rather than on the behavioural traits associated with it.

(social desirability), and none of these instruments

has a validity scale to check response distortion.

Does the presentation mimic

that in adults?
Several studies have shown parallels between
patterns of offending behaviour in both adults and
adolescents identified as psychopaths. Delinquent
offenders with pronounced psychopathic traits have
an earlier onset of offending (Brandt et al, 1997; Forth
& Burke, 1998), commit more crimes, and reoffend
more often (Forth & Burke, 1998; Myers, 1995)
and more violently (Brandt et al, 1997; Spain et al,
2004) than non-psychopathic criminal youth.
Psychopathy scores have also been found to
correlate significantly with the severity of conduct
problems, antisocial behaviour and delinquency in
adolescents (Forth & Burke, 1998). In children, the
CPS score correlates significantly with measures of
impulsivity and adds incremental validity to the
prediction of delinquency at ages 12 and 13 years.
The PSD impulsiveconduct problem scale has been
shown to correlate with traditional measures of
conduct disorder (Frick et al, 1994). Furthermore,
Christian et al (1997) have also demonstrated that
children with callous-unemotional traits engage in
more persistent antisocial behaviour. In addition,
they exhibit insensitivity to punishment cues

irrespective of whether or not they have conduct

problems (OBrien & Frick, 1996). These findings
appear to fit with similar studies examining
emotional and information-processing deficits in
both adolescents and adults identified as psychopaths and assessed using similar measures (Hare,
1998; Newman, 1998). Studies examining the
validity of the YPI also indicate high correlations
with early behavioural problems, poor behavioural
control and hyperactivityimpulsivity attention
difficulties (Andershed et al, 2002). However, this
measure has not yet been compared with alternative
measures of juvenile psychopathy.

Prevalence of psychopathy
in forensic samples
At present, there are no data on the prevalence of
psychopathy in the juvenile general population.
Using a PCLYV cut-off score of >30 in a population
of adolescents already involved with criminal or
psychiatric services, Forth & Burke (1998) found
rates of psychopathy of 3.5% in young people in
community care, 12% in those on probation and
28.3% in those incarcerated. Brandt et al (1997)
reported a prevalence of 37% in incarcerated youths,
using a PCLYV cut-off score of >28. As there are no
recommended cut-off scores for diagnoses of
psychopathy using the CPS, PSD or YPI, prevalence
rates using these measures have not been reported.

Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2004), vol. 10. http://apt.rcpsych.org/

469

Dolan

Box 3 Item content of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (after Forth et al, 2004)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Impression management Conforms with notions of social desirability, presents him- or herself in a
good light, is superficially charming
Grandiose sense of self-worth Is dominating, opinionated, has an inflated view of own ability
Stimulation-seeking Needs novelty, excitement, is prone to boredom and risk-taking behaviours
Pathological lying Exhibits pervasive lying, lies readily, easily and obviously
Manipulation for personal gain Is deceitful, manipulates, engages in dishonest or fraudulent schemes
that can result in criminal activity
Lack of remorse Has no guilt, lacks concern about the impact of his or her actions on others; justifies
and rationalise their abuse of others
Shallow affect Has only superficial bonds with others, feigns emotion
Callous or lacking empathy Has a profound lack of empathy, views others as objects, has no
appreciation of the needs or feelings of others
Parasitic orientation Exploits others, lives at the expense of friends and family, gets others to do his
or her schoolwork using threats
Poor anger control Is hotheaded, easily offended and reacts aggressively, is easily provoked to violence
Impersonal sexual behaviour Has multiple casual sexual encounters, indiscriminate sexual
relationships, uses coercion and threats
Early behavioural problems Lying, thieving, fire-setting before 10 years of age
Lacks goals Has no interest or understanding of the need for education, lives day-to-day, has
unrealistic aspirations for the future
Impulsivity Acts out frequently, quits school, leaves home on a whim, acts on the spur of the moment,
never considers the consequences of impulsive acts
Irresponsibility Habitually fails to honour obligations or debts, shows reckless behaviour in a variety
of settings, including school and home
Failure to accept responsibility Blames other for his or her problems, claims that he or she was set
up, is unable and unwilling to accept personal responsibility for their actions
Unstable interpersonal relationships Has turbulent extrafamilial relationships, lacks commitment
and loyalty
Serious criminal behaviour Has multiple charges of convictions for criminal activity
Serious violations of conditional release Has two or more escapes from security or breaches of probation
Criminal versatility Engages in at least six different categories of offending behaviour

Overall, there seems to be some evidence that the

base rate of psychopathy in adolescence is higher
(Brandt et al, 1997; Forth & Burke, 1998) than that
reported in adult samples (Hare, 1991, 1998). This
has prompted questions about the validity of current
age-appropriate measures and the stability of
psychopathy over the lifespan (Edens et al, 2001;
Seagrave & Grisso, 2002). If the construct of
psychopathy were valid and stable then one would
expect similar prevalence rates across the lifespan.
It is possible that the inflated scores on adolescent
psychopathy measures are due to higher ratings on
items relating to impulsivity and irresponsibility in
younger samples.

Comorbidity
The only published studies looking at comorbidity
of psychopathy with other psychiatric disorders in

470

adolescent populations have focused on groups with

substance misuse disorders, where the prevalence
of comorbid psychopathy is high (e.g. Brandt et al,
1997; Mailloux et al, 1997). Although the social
deviance component of psychopathy shows item
overlap with the criteria for DSMIV disruptive
behaviour disorders and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), no study has specifically
addressed the nature of the relationship between
psychopathic traits and these disorders in younger
cohorts. This is likely to be an important area for
further research, as deficits in executive function
have been reported in individuals with these
disorders as well as in people who score highly
on the impulsive-aggressive domains of the
psychopathy construct.
The callous-unemotional and interpersonal
aspects of psychopathy share some features with
the pervasive developmental disorders. To date,

Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2004), vol. 10. http://apt.rcpsych.org/

Psychopathic personality in young people

there have been no studies in forensic cohorts to

explore the similarities and differences between
these disorders or the level of comorbidity between
them, despite evidence that autistic-spectrum
disorders are prevalent in criminal samples
(Soderstrom et al, 2004). As amygdala dysfunction
has been implicated in the pathogenesis of both
autism and psychopathy and both disorders are
viewed as involving impairments in social functioning there is a need to clarify how these disorders
can be differentiated so that appropriate treatment
programmes can be developed.

Outcome
In the adult literature there is some evidence that
psychopathy is a significant negative moderator
of treatment outcome (Losel, 1998). To date, two
studies have looked at the relationship between
psychopathy and treatment outcome in adolescents,
but none has considered this in children. Rogers
et al (1997) found modest correlations between
psychopathy scores and ratings of non-compliance
with treatment in 81 adolescent in-patients. ONeill
et al (2003) also reported that psychopathy score was
negatively correlated with attendance rates, quality
of participation and clinical improvement in
adolescents in a substance misuse treatment programme. These findings suggest that psychopathy
may be an important moderator of treatment
outcome in adolescents as in adults, and specialised
programmes may be needed for young people with
psychopathic traits. Forth & Burke (1998) also point
out that juveniles identified as psychopathic may
be more malleable and benefit more from treatment
than their older counterparts

Psychopathy as a predictor of violence?

Psychopathy has been shown to be a robust
predictor of future institutional and post-discharge
violence in adults (Salekin et al, 1996), and the results
of studies in adolescent samples largely concur with
this finding. Psychopathy scores in adolescents have
been found to be associated with both the frequency
of violent recidivism (Forth et al, 1990) and a shorter
time to violent recidivism (Brandt et al, 1997). Studies
of institutional violence indicate moderately strong
correlations between psychopathy score and verbal
and physical aggression (Edens et al, 2001; Spain
et al, 2004).
None of the adolescent studies has examined
which (if any) of the callous-unemotional or
behavioural factors of the psychopathy subscales
contribute most to predictive accuracy. As yet, there
have been no risk prediction studies at all in
children with psychopathic traits.

Are the neurocognitive markers similar

in young people and adults?
From a neurocognitive perspective there is some
evidence that children and adolescents with
psychopathy display deficits on experimental tasks
assessing impulse control and empathy (Blair,
1999; Barry et al, 2000) similar to those seen in
adults (Hare, 1998; Newman, 1998). In children
with emotional and behavioural problems, PSD
scores predicted electrodermal responses to
distress cues and threatening stimuli (Blair, 1999)
as well as differences in moral reasoning (Blair,
1997). This work lends support to Blairs violence
inhibition mechanism model of psychopathy.

Use of psychopathy assessments

in the criminal justice system
A number of researchers and clinicians in the field
have advocated caution in the use of current
psychopathy assessment tools as a means of
informing the criminal justice system on sentence
planning for young people, particularly in light of
the fact that in adults a diagnosis of psychopathy
can result in more severe sentences. Instruments
developed for assessing psychopathy in child and
adolescent populations require further validation
in a variety of populations and settings before they
can be fully accepted. Only then can they be used
with confidence in the criminal justice system.

Conclusions
The assessment of psychopathy in children and
adolescents is a very important area of research
and it is still in its infancy. There seems to be
reasonable evidence that juvenile psychopathy shows
similar correlates (e.g. aggression, neurocognitive
deficits, substance misuse) to adult psychopathy.
Our knowledge about the nature, stability and
consequences of juvenile psychopathy, however, is
still very limited. There have been no published
longitudinal studies of the stability of psychopathy
as assessed by any of the current measures and it
remains unclear to what degree the antisocial
behavioural items that contribute to the psychopathy
label change over time, given what we know about
adolescent-limited antisocial behaviours. The limited
data on the psychometric properties of current
instruments, particularly information on recommended or specific cut-off scores for prototypical
psychopathy, suggest that it is premature to assign
this label to younger cohorts. For this reason many
researchers in this field refer to juveniles with

Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2004), vol. 10. http://apt.rcpsych.org/

471

Dolan

psychopathic characteristics rather than using the

term psychopathy.
However, these instruments do include items we
know to be associated with high-risk behaviours,
and they can inform clinical assessments of risk and
treatment planning.
At present, there is no general agreement on
whether or not psychopathy exists in childhood and
adolescence. A consensus is likely to be reached only
when we have longitudinal studies demonstrating
the stability of psychopathic traits over the lifespan
and evidence that the same aetiological factors
contribute to this disorder at all ages. As there is
significant overlap between the behavioural aspects
of juvenile psychopathy and ADHD and between
the callous-unemotional dimension of psychopathy
and autistic-spectrum disorders, future work needs
to disentangle these constructs from a phenomenological and aetiological perspective.
As yet, there are few treatment outcome studies in
juveniles with psychopathic traits, although the
limited data suggest that these traits might be a
moderator of outcome. Most clinicians view youth
psychopathy as a potentially treatable disorder, and
there is some evidence that identification of psychopathic traits in young people has a number of
benefits, which include:

identifying high-risk offenders;

reducing misclassifications that have negative
ramifications for children and adolescents;
improving and optimising treatment planning
for young people with psychopathic traits,
who may require more intensive and riskfocused therapeutic approaches.

References
Andershed, H., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., et al (2002) Psychopathic
traits in non-referred youths: a new assessment tool. In
Psychopaths Current International Perspectives (eds Blaauw,
E. & Sheridan, L.). The Hague: Elsevier.
Asherson, P. P. (2004) Bridging the service divide. Invited
commentary on Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
in adults. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 10, 257259.
Barry C. T., Frick P. J., DeShazo T. M., et al (2000) The
importance of callous-unemotional traits for extending
the concept of psychopathy to children. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 109, 335340.
Berney, T. (2004) Asperger syndrome from childhood into
adulthood. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 10, 341351.
Blair, R. J. R. (1995) A cognitive developmental approach to
morality: investigating the psychopath. Cognition, 57,
129.
Blair, R. J. R. (1997) Moral reasoning and the child with
psychopathic tendencies. Personality and Individual
Differences, 22, 731739.
Blair, R. J. R. (1999) Responsiveness to distress cues in the
child with psychopathic tendencies. Personality and
Individual Differences, 27, 135145.
Blair, R. J. R., Colledge, E., Murray, L, et al (2001) A selective
impairment in the processing of sad and fearful expressions
in children with psychopathic tendencies? Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 491498.

472

Brandt, J. R., Kennedy, W. A., Patrick, C. J., et al (1997)

Assessment of psychopathy in a population of incarcerated
adolescent offenders. Psychological Assessment, 9, 429435.
Christian, R. E., Frick, P. J., Hill, N., et al (1997) Psychopathy
and conduct problems in children: II. Sub typing children
with conduct problems based on their interpersonal and
affective style. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 233241.
Cleckley, H. (1976) The Mask of Sanity (5th edn). St Louis,
MI: Mosby.
Coghill, D. (2004) Understudied and underrecognised.
Invited commentary on Attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder in adults. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 10,
338340.
Cooke D. J. & Michie C. (2001) Refining the construct of
psychopathy: towards a hierarchical model. Psychological
Assessment, 13, 171188.
Damasio, A. (1994) Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason, and the
Human Brian. New York: Putnam & Sons
Edens J. F., Skeem, J. L., Cruise, K. R., et al (2001) Assessment
of juvenile psychopathy and its association with violence.
A critical review. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 5358.
Forth, A. E. & Burke H. C. (1998) Psychopathy in
adolescence: assessment, violence and developmental
precursors. In Psychopathy: Theory, Research and
Implications for Society (eds D. Cooke, A. Forth & R. Hare),
pp. 205230. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Forth, A. E., Hart, S. D., & Hare, R. D. (1990) Assessment of
psychopathy in male young offenders. Psychological
Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
2, 342344.
Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S. & Hare R. D. (2004) The Hare
Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCLYV) Rating
Guide. Toronto, Ontario: Multi Health Systems.
Frick, P. J. (1998) Callous-unemotional traits and conduct
problems: applying the two-factor model of psychopathy
to children. In Psychopathy: Theory, Research and Implications
for Society (eds D. Cooke, A. Forth & R. Hare), pp. 161
189. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Frick, P. J. (2002) Juvenile psychopathy from a developmental
perspective: Implications for construct development and
use in forensic assessments. Law and Human Behaviour,
26, 247253.
Frick, P. J., OBrien, B. S., Wootton, J. M., et al (1994)
Psychopathy and conduct disorders in children. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 103, 700707.
Hare, R. D. (1991) The Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised.
Toronto: Multi Health Systems.
Hare, R. D (1998) Psychopathy, affect and behaviour. In
Psychopathy: Theory, Research and Implications for Society
(eds D. Cooke, A. Forth & R. Hare), pp. 105-139.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hart, S. D., Watts, K. & Vincent, G. M. (2002) Commentary
on Seagrave and Grisso: Impressions of the state of the
art. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 241245.
Kamphaus, R. W. & Frick, P. J. (1996) Clinical Assessment of
Child and Adolescent Personality and Behavior. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Kochanska, G. (1993) Towards a synthesis of parental
socialisation and child temperament in early development
of conscience. Child Development, 64, 228240.
Kosson, D., Cyterski, T., Steuerwald, B., et al (2001) The
reliability and validity of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth
Version (PCL: VY) in non-incarcerated adolescent males.
Psychological Assessment, 14, 97109.
Losel F (1998) Treatment and management of psychopaths.
In Psychopathy: Theory, Research, and Implications for Society
(eds D. J. Cooke, A. E. Forth, & R. D. Hare), pp. 303355.
Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lykken, D. T (1995) The Antisocial Personalities. Hillsdale.
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lynam D. R. (1997) Pursuing the psychopath: capturing the
fledgling psychopath in a nomological net. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 106, 425438.
Lynam D. R. (2002) Fledgling psychopathy: a view from
personality theory. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 255259.

Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2004), vol. 10. http://apt.rcpsych.org/

Psychopathic personality in young people

Mailloux, D. L., Forth, A. E. & Kroner, D. G. (1997)

Psychopathy and substance use in adolescent male
offenders. Psychological Reports, 80, 529530.
McBurnett, K. & Lahey, B. B. (1994) Psychophysiological
and neuroendocrine correlates of conduct disorder and
antisocial behaviour in children and adolescents. In
Progress in Experimental Personality & Psychopathology
Research (eds D. C Fowles, P. Sutker & S. Goodman),
pp.199231. New York: Springer.
Moffitt, T. E. & Henry, B. (1991) Neuropsychological studies
of juvenile delinquency and violence: a review. In
Neuropsychology of Aggression (ed. J. S. Milner), pp. 131
140. Norwell: Kluwer Academic.
Myers, W. C., Burket, R. C. & Harris, H. E. (1995) Adolescent
psychopathy in relation to delinquent behaviours, conduct
disorder, and personality disorder. Journal of Forensic
Sciences, 40, 436440.
Newman, J. P. (1998) Psychopathic behaviour: An
information processing perspective. In Psychopathy: Theory,
Research, and Implications for Society (eds D. J. Cooke, A. E.
Forth & R. D. Hare), pp. 81104. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
OBrien, B. S. & Frick, P. J. (1996) Reward dominance:
Associations with anxiety conduct problems and
psychopathy in children. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 24, 223240.
ONeill, M., Lidz, V. & Heilbrun K. (2003) Adolescents with
psychopathic characteristics in a substance-abusing
cohort. Treatment process and outcomes. Law and Human
Behavior, 27, 299313.
Patrick, C. J. (1994) Emotion and psychopathy: startling
new insights. Psychophysiology, 31, 319330.
Raine, A. (1993) The Psychopathology of Crime: Criminal
Behavior as a Clinical Ddisorder. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Rogers, R., Johansen, J., Chang, J. J., et al (1997) Predictors of
adolescent psychopathy: oppositional and conductdisordered symptoms. Journal of the American Academy of
Psychiatry and the Law, 25, 261271.
Salekin, R., Rogers, R. & Sewell, K. (1996) A review and
meta-analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist and
Psychopathy Checklist Revised: predictive validity of
dangerousness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 3,
203215.
Seagrave, D. & Grisso, T. (2002) Adolescent development
and the measurement of juvenile psychopathy. Law and
Human Behavior, 26, 219239.
Soderstrom, H., Sjodin, A.-K. & Carlstedt, A. F. (2004) Adult
psychopathic personality with childhood-onset hyperactivity and conduct disorder: a central problem
constellation in forensic psychiatry. Psychiatry Research,
121, 271280.
Spain, S. E., Douglas, K. S., Poythress, N. G., et al (2004) The
relationship between psychopathic features, violence and
treatment outcomes: the comparison of three youth
measures of psychopathic features. Behavioural Sciences
and the Law, 22, 85102.
Zwi, M. & York, A. (2004) Attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder in adults: validity unknown. Advances in
Psychiatric Treatment, 10, 248256.

2 Regarding measures of psychopathy for those under

18 years old
a there are no available measures of psychopathy for
those under 18 years old
b there are several self-report, informant-rated and
interview measures for those under 18 years old
c current instruments provide well-validated cut-off
scores for making a prototypical diagnosis
d the instruments for those under 13 years old are based
on either self-report or informant-rated measures
e the only current interview schedule is for those aged
1318 years.
3 Which of the following measures have been
independently validated in a variety of international settings and groups?
a the Psychopathy Checklist Youth Version
b the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory
c the Child Psychopathy Scale
d all of the above
e none of the above.
4 Psychopathy in childhood and adolescence is
associated with:
a earlier onset of antisocial behaviour
b more criminal convictions
c more violent offences
d substance misuse
e potentially poorer response to treatment.
5 Psychopathy in childhood and adolescence is:
a well recognised and a stable diagnosis across age
ranges and from childhood to adulthood
b potentially useful in subtyping those who may be at
high risk and need specialist interventions
c associated with neurocognitive (empathy and impulse
control) deficits similar to those seen in adults with
this disorder
d routinely assessed and used in sentence planning by
the criminal justice system
e a potentially stigmatising label for a child or
adolescent.

MCQs
1 Which of the following best answer the question Is
psychopathy the same as conduct disorder and
antisocial personality?
a yes
b no
c it overlaps with antisocial personality
d it overlaps with conduct disorder
e not all conduct disorder and antisocial personality
disorders meet the criteria for psychopathy.

MCQ answers
1
a
b
c
d
e

F
F
T
T
T

2
a
b
c
d
e

Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2004), vol. 10. http://apt.rcpsych.org/

F
T
F
T
T

3
a
b
c
d
e

F
F
F
F
T

4
a
b
c
d
e

T
T
T
T
T

5
a
b
c
d
e

F
T
T
F
T

473