Case Study

delisis_delinq_9th_2014_ch04.pdf

C H A P T E R 4 Psychological Theories

behavior, including psychodynamic, behavioral, moral development, and personality theories.

• Learn about aggression as the raw material of delinquent behavior and about the specific childhood psychiatric diagnoses of oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder.

• Grasp psychopathy as an important theory of antisocial behavior.

• Explore the characteristics and behaviors of psychopathic youths, the causes of psychopathy, and the ways that psychopathic youths are treated.

• Assess ways that psychological theories inform delinquency prevention.

Key Terms personality 112

psychopathology 112

antisocial personality 112

psychodynamic theory 112

attachment theory 114

Oedipus complex 115

behavioral theory 115

social cognition 116

moral disengagement 118

morality of constraint 119

morality of cooperation 119

egocentric bias 120

Five Factor Model of Personality 121

reactive aggression 124

proactive aggression 124

indirect aggression 124

direct aggression 124

oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) 126

prodrome 126

comorbidity 127

conduct disorder 127

psychopathy 129

etiological 133

sociopath 133

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 111

For more than a century, the study of crime in the United States has been dominated by soci- ologists. For this reason, most conceptualiza- tions of delinquency and most theories that are covered in this section of the text derive from a sociological perspective. However, it is likely that many students do not “naturally” see things from a sociological perspective. Instead, many people view things from an individual-level perspective, and their conceptualization of what makes an individual delinquent often drifts toward psycho- logical and psychiatric perspectives. In terms of delinquency, delinquents may be seen as persons who have a host of individual flaws, which in some way explain why they engage in deviant, antisocial, or delinquent conduct.

Psychological Theories Proponents of this view—that individual defects lie at the heart of delinquency—are not alone. Some criminologists also believe the cause of delinquency is psychological. After all, many delinquents live in dysfunctional homes and often find themselves in conflict with family members, neighbors, peers, classmates, and teachers. The existence of such an environment is a “red flag” that these youth may have disturbed personali- ties or a mental disturbance that causes them to commit crime. Support for this view comes from the fact that many delinquents do display anti- social characteristics. Nevertheless, psycholo- gists disagree on why many delinquent youth are

mentally disturbed and why these disturbances result in negative behaviors.

This chapter showcases broad psychological approaches to understanding delinquency. The first approach focuses on the formation of the personality, which is a set of characteristics that describe a person’s beliefs, ways of thinking, motivations, and behaviors. Although some con- sistencies in personality may be noted across the population, each individual’s personality is truly unique. Two of these theories of delinquency— psychodynamic theory and behavioral theory— are influential not just within criminology; their central ideas are also familiar to those outside of academia. Also included in this realm is the pre- dominant conceptualization of the personality, known as the Five Factor Model of Personality.

The second approach is more psychiatric in nature and focuses on psychopathology, which is a set of behaviors and attitudes that show clinical evi- dence of a psychological impairment. Interestingly, psychologists have shifted the focus on personal- ity as it relates to behavior to a focus on antisocial personality, which is the set of characteristics that describe a person’s deviant beliefs, deviant ways of thinking, deviant motivations, and antisocial behaviors. Four broad areas of psychopathology— aggression, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, and psychopathy—are reviewed here because of their close relationship with juvenile delinquency.

� Psychodynamic Theory According to psychodynamic theory, unconscious mental processes that develop in early childhood control our personality. The author of this theory was Austrian physician Sigmund Freud, who theo- rized that the personality consists of three parts: the id, the ego, and the superego (see Box 4.1, the “Theory in a Nutshell” feature).1

The id, which is present at birth, consists of blind, unreasoning, instinctual desires and motives. It represents basic biological and psy- chological drives—the id does not differentiate between fantasy and reality. The id also is antisocial and knows no rules, boundaries, or limitations. If left unchecked, it will destroy the person.

The ego grows from the id and represents the problem-solving dimension of the personality; it deals with reality, differentiating it from fantasy. It teaches children to delay gratification because act- ing on impulse will get them into trouble.

personality The set of characteristics that describe a person’s beliefs, ways of thinking, motivations, and behaviors.

psychopathology The set of behaviors and attitudes that show clinical evidence of a psychological impairment.

antisocial personality The set of characteristics that describe a person’s deviant beliefs, deviant ways of thinking, deviant motivations, and antisocial behaviors.

psychodynamic theory Theory stating that unconscious mental processes that develop in early childhood control an individual’s personality.

K E Y T E R M S

1 1 2 C H A P T E R 4 � Psychological Theories

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 112

social disorganization where crime is explained in ecological terms by neighborhood factors such as poverty, residential turnover, ethnic heteroge- neity and other factors and anomie where crime is explained by differential access to the means to achieve culturally defined goals. Alexander and Healy observed that criminals disproportionately come from lower-class areas despite the fact that most residents living in lower socioeconomic areas are not criminals. Many people reared in poor environments use their adversity as motivation to increase their class position or simply live their life without tremendous contemplation of their social position (in psychodynamic theory, this channel- ing of energy from the negative to the positive is a defense mechanism known as sublimation). On the other hand, others “suffering from ill-digested

Sigmund Freud Box 4.1 Theory in a Nutshell

Freud believed that unconscious mental processes developed in early childhood control the personality. The personality consists of three parts: the id, the ego, and the superego. In mentally healthy children, the three parts of

the personality work together. When these parts are in conflict, children may become maladjusted and primed to engage in delinquency.

Sigmund Freud pioneered the study of the human personality as well as the importance of early childhood experiences in framing later life experiences.

Co ur

te sy

o f t

he L

ib ra

ry o

f C on

gr es

s, P

ri nt

s an

d Ph

ot og

ra ph

s D

iv is

io n,

ep ro

du ct

io n

nu m

be r L

C- U

SZ 62

-1 23

The superego develops from the ego and comprises the moral code, norms, and values the child has acquired. It is responsible for feelings of guilt and shame and is more closely aligned with the conscience.

In mentally healthy children, the three parts of the personality work together. When the parts are in conflict, however, children may become maladjusted and primed to engage in delin- quency (Figure 4.1). Although Freud did not write much specifically about delinquency, his work did influence criminologists, who took his ideas and applied them to the study of crime. Franz Alexander and William Healy conducted crimino- logical research during the 1930s and were peers of the then emerging and subsequently influen- tial sociological perspectives on crime, such as

FIGURE 4.1 Mapping Delinquency Theory: Sigmund Freud

Ego

Superego

Personality in Conflict =

Delinquency

Psychological Theories 1 1 3

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 113

infantile hostilities and resentments against the members of the family has reason, because of his social handicaps, to replace his original hostilities with an aggressive antisocial behavior, he will be more likely to develop into a criminal.”2

For example, one important theoretical dis- ciple of Freud was John Bowlby, who developed attachment theory (see Box 4.2, the “A Window on Delinquency” feature). Attachment theory suggests that the enduring affective bond between child and caregiver (usually parents) is significantly related to child development because it provides a variety of benefits that serve as buffers or pro- tective factors against the development of antiso- cial behavior. First, attachment helps to morally socialize children to understand the standards of behavior in society (in Freudian language,

In John Bowlby’s work, the attachment process occurs in four stages of infant development. In the first phase, dur- ing the first 2 to 3 months of life, infants do not generally differentiate between people and attend to the environ- ment in a generally unspecific way. However, infants do make eye contact with parents/caregivers and will cry, grasp fingers, and even smile. In the second phase, infants are able to distinguish their primary caregivers and can recognize them by smell and sight (the adage that an infant can smell his or her mother when she walks into a room is relevant here). It is during this stage that attachment behaviors such as crying are better resolved by caregiv- ers than strangers. In the third stage, occurring around 6 to 8 months, infants direct attachment behaviors exclusively toward their mothers/caregivers and use their mothers as a “secure base” to explore their environment. If sepa- rated from their mothers, infants express anger and sad- ness and then display characteristic responses when their mothers return depending on the security of their attach- ment (these responses are explored in the next section). In the fourth phase, children have a mental understand- ing of their caregiver relationship and how their caregiver responds to their attachment signals.

About 70% of children develop a secure attachment, which is the healthy, normative type. About 20% develop an insecure/avoidant attachment characterized by nega- tive emotions, maternal inconsistency, and susceptibility to internalizing problems, such as anxiety and depression. About 10% of children develop an insecure/ambivalent attachment that is also characterized by negative emo- tions and maternal inconsistency as well as susceptibility for internalizing and externalizing symptoms.

A fourth type of attachment occurs when abuse, neglect, and maltreatment disrupt the normal development of infant–parent attachment. This is known as disorganized attachment and is most centrally related to conduct prob- lems and delinquency. Marinus van Ijzendoorn and his colleagues have documented that youth who display dis- organized attachment suffer from an array of psychologi- cal and behavioral problems, including disrupted ability to cope with stress, dissociation, aggression, externalizing problems, conduct problems, delinquency, and crime. Although Freud has the name recognition, Bowlby’s work has been equally important in specifying how early child- hood experiences lay the foundation for behavioral health and its consequences.

Attachment and Delinquency Box 4.2 A Window on Delinquency

Sources: Marinus van Ijzendoorn, Carlo Schuengel, and Marian Bakermans-Kranenburg, “Disorganized Attachment in Early Childhood: Meta- Analysis of Precursors, Concomitants, and Sequelae,” Development and Psychopathology 11:225–249 (1999); Chantal Cyr, Eveline Euser, Marian Bakermans-Kranenburg, and Marinus van Ijzendoorn, “Attachment Security and Disorganization in Maltreating and High-Risk Families: A Series of Meta-Analyses,” Development and Psychopathology 22:87–108 (2010).

attachment helps the superego to develop). Second, attachment helps children to regulate their emotions and conduct so that they can func- tion at home, in school, and in society. Third, attachment instills self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-concept in children because of the confidence and support that the parent relationship provides. These skills help children to survive in society and also to be resilient when faced with adversity.3

Other criminologists’ theories have generally blamed delinquency on children having either an underdeveloped or overdeveloped superego. In the case of an underdeveloped superego, the socializa- tion process is viewed as having been inadequate or incomplete. As a consequence, the superego is too weak to curb the impulses and drives of the id. The child’s behavior becomes a direct expression of

1 1 4 C H A P T E R 4 � Psychological Theories

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 114

the id—for example, “If you want something steal it.” Other delinquent behavior may be indirect. Although socialization inhibits the open expres- sion of unacceptable urges, those urges never com- pletely disappear; instead, they may merely become unconscious. Thus delinquent behavior may be a symbolic expression of unconscious impulses. For example, an adolescent with an unresolved Oedipus complex is perceived as having an unconscious desire for the exclusive love of the parent of the opposite sex, which includes jealousy toward the parent of the same sex and the unconscious wish for that parent’s death. A son with Oedipus com- plex may “murder” his father in a figurative way, such as forging checks drawn on his bank account or killing a person who represents the authority of his father, such as a police officer.

Sometimes delinquent behavior is the result of too much socialization, which produces an overde- veloped superego. Impulses and urges of the id may elicit strong disapproval from the superego. This ongoing conflict causes the ego to experience guilt and anxiety. Because the ego knows that punish- ment must follow crime, it naturally leads the child to crime so as to minimize guilt. To ensure pun- ishment, the ego will unconsciously leave behind clues, thereby ensuring the perpetrator is caught.

Psychodynamic theory is widely subscribed to by practicing psychologists who apply the theory in the treatment of adolescent offenders. Critics worry that this theory rests on some questionable assumptions. For instance, there is no evidence of a causal link between a child’s “state of mind” and his or her behavior. It also is debatable whether personality consists of an id, ego, and superego. These traits were constructed by Freud, and there is no scientific evidence that any or all of the ele- ments are present.

� Behavioral Theory In contrast to psychodynamic theory, behavioral theory proposes that behavior reflects our interactions with others throughout our lifetime (Figure 4.2). One leading behaviorist was psy- chologist B. F. Skinner, who applied the scientific method to his studies, rather than relying on unob- servable mental processes as did Freud. Skinner theorized that children learn conformity and devi- ance from the punishments and reinforcements they receive in response to their behavior. He believed the environment shapes behavior. Children iden- tify which aspects of their environment they find

FIGURE 4.2 Mapping Delinquency Theory: Behavioral Theory

Observing Social

Interactions

Participating in Social

Interactions

Experiencing Fictional or Vicarious

Social Interactions

Our Own Thoughts,

Feelings, and Behaviors

pleasing and which ones are painful, and their behavior responds to the consequences that the environment produces (see Box 4.3, the “Theory in a Nutshell” feature). Skinner concluded that children repeat rewarded behavior and terminate punished behavior.4

Some behaviorists have used Skinner’s theory as a springboard to expand these ideas. Albert Bandura argues that learning and experiences couple with values and expectations to determine behavior. In his social learning theory, Bandura suggests that children learn by modeling and

attachment theory Theory stating that the enduring affective bond between child and caregiver (usually parents) is importantly related to child development because it provides a variety of benefits that serve as buffers or protective factors against the development of antisocial behavior.

Oedipus complex A condition in which a child has an unconscious desire for the exclusive love of the parent of the opposite sex, which includes jealousy toward the parent of the same sex and the unconscious wish for that parent’s death.

behavioral theory Theory suggesting that behavior reflects our interactions with others throughout our lifetime.

K E Y T E R M S

Psychological Theories 1 1 5

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 115

imitating others. They learn to be aggressive from their life experiences and learn aggression in dif- ferent ways—for instance, by seeing parents argue, watching their friends fight, viewing violence on television and motion pictures, playing violent video games, and listening to “gangsta” rap music. In particular, children learn that aggression is sometimes acceptable and can produce a desired outcome (see Box 4.4, the “Theory in a Nutshell” feature).5

Bandura also pioneered the concept of self- efficacy, which is the belief in one’s capabilities to carry out the necessary courses of action in every- day situations. Presumably if a person has weak self-efficacy, then he or she is less confident in his or her own abilities to handle interactions with others and, therefore, might be more susceptible to the influences of others.

Bandura’s work and the general spirit of social learning theory have informed psycho- logical approaches that focus on social cogni- tion. Generally, social cognition focuses on how people perceive, think, learn, and come to behave in particular ways as a result of the interactions with their social world. The social world includes observations of and participation in real social interactions, such as with parents and peers, and fictional social interactions, such as with the media. Theoretically, social cognition shows how a person’s predispositions interact with situational and environmental factors to produce behavior.6

If Bandura is correct, then might children learn to be aggressive and commit violent crimes from what they see in the media? Is there a relationship between media violence and crime? Criminologists

Skinner argued that behavior is a consequence of the reinforcements and punishments it produces. Delinquents

have their delinquency reinforced (and not punished) by others, either intentionally or unintentionally.

B. F. Skinner Box 4.3 Theory in a Nutshell

social cognition A discipline that focuses on how people perceive, think, learn, and come to behave in particular ways as a result of the interactions with their social world. The social world includes observations of and participation in real social interactions, such as with parents and peers, and fictional social interactions, such as with the media.

K E Y T E R M

If children learn behaviors by watching and imitating others, what consequences should there be for adults who behave badly in the presence of children? Jail? Prison? Sterilization? Treatment?

ill /i

St oc

kp ho

have studied these questions for about 80 years. In 1933, Herbert Blumer concluded from conversa- tions with young people that movies did influence their behavior.7 Decades later, evidence contin- ues to suggest that films still have this power. For instance:8

• In 1979, shortly after release of The Warriors, three murders were committed that bore striking resemblances to acts in the film.

• Roughly 20 deaths have been blamed on The Deer Hunter. One incident involved a teenager who died after shooting himself with a .38- caliber handgun while playing Russian roulette, just as in the movie.

• The would-be assassin of President Reagan, John Hinckley, Jr., identified with Travis Bickle, the character played by Robert De Niro in Taxi Driver. After seeing the film 15 times, Hinckley became obsessed with actress Jodie Foster, who played the teenage prostitute. In Taxi Driver, Bickle entertained the thought of assassinating a political candidate and stopped only after the plan had failed.

• Four days after watching Born Innocent, three teenage girls attacked a 9-year-old girl on a Cal- ifornia beach and raped her with a bottle, just as had happened in the movie. The victim’s

1 1 6 C H A P T E R 4 � Psychological Theories

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 116

mother filed an $11 million negligence suit against NBC, accusing the company of being responsible for the rape. The Supreme Court ruled that networks are not liable for damages unless they willfully seek to induce violence.

• When Boyz N’ the Hood was released in July 1990, two people were killed and more than 30 injured near or outside movie theaters.

• Research has linked the film Natural Born Kill- ers to at least 100 murders.

• Former Senator Robert Dole suggested that Columbia Pictures should share the blame for the torching of New York City subway clerk Harry Kaufman, the victim of a copycat crime based on a scene in Money Train.

• Following the premier of Juice, a movie about four African American juveniles who get involved in a robbery that ends in murder, vio- lence broke out at theaters across the country. In Chicago, a 16-year-old was shot and killed by a stray bullet from a fight between two boys waiting for tickets to the last show. In Phila- delphia, an 18-year-old was paralyzed from the chest down after he was shot coming out of the movie. In New York City, a 16-year-old was stabbed in a theater during a quarrel with another teenager.

• Two teens obsessed with Scream and Scream II were convicted of murder. They stabbed their victim 45 times with four knives and a screw- driver. In the movies, victims were knifed by killers obsessed with horror movies.

• A 9-year-old girl hanged herself with a shoe- lace while reenacting a scene from The Man in the Iron Mask.

• Newscasters have blamed at least one school shooting on Comedy Central’s television show South Park, and MTV’s Jackass was blamed when a 13-year-old Connecticut boy laid him- self across a barbecue grill and suffered severe burns. Experts have also blamed Tomb Raider, a video game, for the precipitous increase in violent crime committed by adolescent females.

Bandura thinks children learn how to behave from oth- ers whose behaviors they model and imitate. Delinquent behavior is learned from direct, face-to-face interaction or

by observing others in person or symbolically in literature, films, television, music, and video games.

Albert Bandura Box 4.4 Theory in a Nutshell

A persistent stream of data suggests a strong connection between children seeing violent enter- tainment and then behaving aggressively. Viewing violent entertainment affects children in at least one of three ways:

1. Children see violence as an effective way to settle conflicts.

2. Children become emotionally desensitized toward violence in real life.

3. Entertainment violence feeds the perception that the world is a violent and mean place and increases the fear of victimization.

In spite of the strong evidence supporting a relationship between media depictions of violence and real-world behavior, some criminologists believe that other factors are equally or more likely to cause juvenile violence. They think juve- nile violence stems more from family breakdown, peer influence, youths’ individual level of aggres- sion, and the proliferation of guns in society, rather than from media violence. For example, Christopher Ferguson reports that the effects of playing video games on violent delinquency have been exaggerated. In his own research, Ferguson finds no statistical link between video game play- ing and delinquency once other variables, such as gender, exposure to family violence, and aggres- sive personality traits, are considered.9

Although some studies suggest that media- depicted violence has only a short-lived influence on children’s behavior, other research consistently reports the opposite.10 Rowell Huesmann and his colleagues have linked violent television viewing at ages 6 to 9 to adult aggression in members of both sexes. They surveyed 329 adults in the late 1970s, interviewing both the individuals and their spouses or friends about their television viewing habits; they then checked the study participants’ crime records 20 years later. As children, the par- ticipants were rated for exposure to televised vio- lence after they chose 8 favorite shows from 80 popular shows for their age group and indicated how much they watched them. The researchers

Psychological Theories 1 1 7

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 117

also assessed these programs for amount of physical violence. As young adults, the men who scored in the top 20% on childhood exposure to violence were approximately twice as likely as other men to have pushed, grabbed, or shoved their wives dur- ing an argument in the year preceding the inter- view. Women in the top 20% were roughly twice as likely as other women to have thrown something at their husbands.11

A related study by Gina Wingood and her col- leagues found that teens that spend more time watching the sex and violence depicted in “gang- sta” rap music videos are more likely to practice those behaviors in real life. After studying 522 Afri- can American girls between the ages of 14 and 18 from nonurban, lower socioeconomic neighbor- hoods, the researchers found that compared to those who never or rarely watched these videos, the girls who viewed these “gangsta” videos for at least 14 hours per week were far more likely to practice numerous problematic behaviors. Compared to their peers, these girls were12

• Three times more likely to hit a teacher • Nearly three times more likely to get arrested • Twice as likely to have multiple sexual partners • Almost twice as likely to get a sexually transmit-

ted disease, use drugs, or drink alcohol

These and the many hundreds of other studies on the topic of media violence, aggression, and crime have led the American Psychological Asso- ciation to conclude that viewing violence on TV and other mass media does promote aggressive behav- ior, particularly in children.

In addition to showing the powerful effects of the media on adolescent behavior, youth violence and juvenile justice studies suggest that young people are underdeveloped in terms of the cog- nitive and moral appreciation of their behavior. Instances in which adolescents exhibit impulsive and violent behavior during or after the course of using violent media demonstrate that youths may display a temporary or sustained lack of apprecia- tion for the moral issues related to their behavior. The broader role of morality as it applies to delin- quency is explored next.

� Moral Development Theory Recall from Bandura’s work that social cognition is the way that people perceive, think, learn, and come to behave in particular ways as a result of the interactions with their social world. The social world includes observations of and participation in real social interactions, such as with parents and peers, and fictional social interactions (e.g., the media). Bandura also theorized about the impor- tance of moral disengagement, which refers to an individual’s tendency to use mechanisms condu- cive to a selective disengagement of moral cen- sure. By doing things such as blaming their victims, moral disengagement allows people to engage in self-serving behaviors that are in contrast with moral principles while not experiencing negative self-evaluative emotions such as guilt.13

Despite Bandura’s work on moral disengage- ment, behavioral theory has been more broadly

Research suggests that chronic exposure to “gangsta” rap vid- eos increases the likelihood of hitting a teacher, getting arrested, being sexually promiscuous, and using drugs. Do the lives and personas of “gangsta” rappers such as 50 Cent (pictured here), contribute to delinquency? What lifestyle and behaviors do “gangsta” rap videos portray?

S m

ith /F

ea tu

re fla

sh /S

hu tte

rS to

ck , I

nc .

moral disengagement An individual’s tendency to use mechanisms conducive to a selective disengagement from moral censure.

K E Y T E R M

1 1 8 C H A P T E R 4 � Psychological Theories

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 118

criticized for not sufficiently taking into account other basic psychological differences between peo- ple that might help explain why individual-level differences in delinquency occur. Two of the most important psychological features that can affect how people respond to their environment are cog- nitive development (particularly as illuminated by the research by Jean Piaget) and moral develop- ment (particularly as discussed in the research by Lawrence Kohlberg).

Jean Piaget is best known for his work examin- ing the development of thinking processes among children. One of his most significant contribu- tions to the field of psychology was his recogni- tion that the cognitive and moral development of children and adults are different. Through thou- sands of hours of observing children in clinical and community settings, Piaget developed a the- ory that outlined how children’s cognitive abilities develop.

1. The sensorimotor stage occurs from birth to approximately age 24 months. It encom- passes the development of object perma- nence (that is, the understanding that objects remain in certain places even if they are not being observed), reflexive behavior, and goal- oriented behavior.

2. The preoperational stage occurs from approxi- mately ages 2 to 7 years. In this stage, chil- dren learn how to use symbols or words to represent objects such as people. In other words, language ability and the apprecia- tion of language occur during this time. Also, children’s thinking is egocentric and self-centered.

3. The concrete operational stage spans ages 8 to 11 and is characterized by the development of logical thought. During this time, think- ing becomes broader and problem solving is less egocentric. In short, there is a realization that the world does not center on one’s own thoughts and wants.

4. The formal operational stage occurs from age 12 onward. During this developmental stage, people can think abstractly and make sense of hypothetical situations.

Piaget also constructed a theory of moral devel- opment to illustrate how children symbolize and organize social rules and make judgments on the basis of that organization. In other words, as children develop cognitively, they also develop morally. Piaget believed that moral reasoning developed in two stages: (1) morality of constraint

and (2) morality of cooperation. In the morality of constraint stage, children think rigidly about moral concepts and believe that people who break rules must be punished. In the morality of cooperation stage, children employ greater moral flexibility and learn that there are no absolute moral stan- dards for behavior. Around age 7, children’s view of morality shifts from one of constraint to coop- eration as they realize that good and bad are rela- tive terms that depend on people’s intentions and other factors.14

Although Piaget’s work has been hugely influ- ential in psychology, his theory of moral develop- ment has not received unanimous support. Some critics suggest that morality does not develop at all, but instead is an innate feature of humanity.15 The idea of an innate moral sense was even noted by the 19th-century English naturalist Charles Darwin:

Of all the differences between man and the lower animals, the moral sense or conscience is by far the most important . . . It is summed up in that short but imperious word ought, so full of high significance. It is the most noble of all the attributes of man, leading him without a moment’s hesitation to risk his life for that of a fellow-creature; or after due deliberation, impelled simply by the deep feeling of right or duty, to sacrifice it in some great cause.16

Current research from evolutionary psychology and neuroscience reports that the human moral sense is housed anatomically in the limbic system of the brain. In particular, the amygdala, which controls emotions, fear, and empathy, plays a key role in the development of morality.

Other critics of Piaget’s two-stage process insisted that his model was too simplistic and did not accurately capture the ways that young people develop. One of the most influential theories of moral development put forth since Piaget’s work has been the moral reasoning model advanced

morality of constraint In Piaget’s theory, the stage of development where children think rigidly about moral concepts and believe that people who break rules must be punished.

morality of cooperation In Piaget’s theory, the stage of development where children employ greater moral flexibility and learn that there are no absolute moral standards about behavior.

K E Y T E R M S

Psychological Theories 1 1 9

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 119

by Lawrence Kohlberg. According to Kohlberg, moral development proceeds along three levels:17

• In the preconventional level, children’s entire lives are governed by the rules established by others—usually the child’s parents. At this level, children are almost entirely self- interested and generally obey rules simply to avoid punishment.

• In the conventional level, children adopt and abide by the rules of others and will at times subordinate their own interests to conform to others. At this level, there is increased appre- ciation of social norms and the recognition of social order.

• In the postconventional level, people learn how to create their own rules in terms of the values and ethical principles they have chosen to fol- low. At this stage, people also recognize their involvement in the tacit social contract that binds people in a society.

In keeping with this model, Kohlberg believed that youths who were morally immature were more likely to engage in antisocial behaviors than morally mature youths who recognized that delinquency was wrong. In his view, “Maturity of moral thought should predict maturity of moral action. This means that specific forms of moral action require specific forms of moral thought as prerequisites, that judgment–action relationship is best thought of as the correspondence between the general ‘maturity’ of the individual’s moral judgment and the maturity of his moral action.”18 According to Kohlberg, an important part of moral development centers on the capacity with which individuals can minimize their own wishes and desires so as to better fit in with others.

Over the years, researchers have consistently documented a relationship between moral devel- opment or morality generally, and delinquency. Compared to adolescents who are not delinquent, delinquent youths are delayed or immature in their moral development and have an almost child- like self-centeredness. With this kind of egocen- tric bias, the primary motivation for thought and behavior is to satisfy one’s self- interest. Because delinquent youths are perceived as having lower

moral development, treatment programs attempt to improve their social skills and social decision- making processes to increase their awareness that others exist and that life is more than “me, me, me.”19

How do these theories match up with real-life behavior? In a study of 152 male delinquents selected from a detention center in Scotland, Stavros Kiriakidis found that delinquents scored significantly higher on a moral disengagement scale compared to a community sample of ado- lescents. Youths with higher moral disengage- ment (and thus lower morality) were more likely to come from homes served by a social worker, had more unstable living situations, and had higher levels of drug use. More important, stud- ies have shown that morality has predictive effects on delinquency even when researchers control for other known correlates of adolescent antisocial behavior.20

Greater immorality is also found among more violent and psychiatrically disturbed offenders. Ais- ling O’Kane and her colleagues found that persons who have more psychopathic personalities have less developed moral reasoning skills. Overall, the relationship between morality and delinquency is clear. Geert Jan Stams and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 50 studies to investigate whether delinquents had different moral development than their nondelinquent peers. The overall effect size—the average statistical effect across studies— was moderate to strong: Delinquents are less moral than their prosocial peers. In addition, the moral disparities are greatest when the delinquents are more severe, violent, and psychopathic.21

Although theorists such as Piaget and Kohlberg suggested that morality develops over time, more recent research has shown that morality is rela- tively stable. Marinella Paciello and her colleagues conducted an important study of stability and change of morality (or moral disengagement) as it relates to delinquency. Among their most impor- tant findings:22

• Four developmental pathways of moral dis- engagement were identified: One group of youths was always moral, one group had slight moral disengagement at age 14 that declined quickly thereafter, one group had moder- ately high moral disengagement until age 16 that declined quickly thereafter, and a small group had moderate to high levels of moral disengagement across adolescence and into adulthood.

egocentric bias A condition in which the primary motivation of thought and behavior is related to satisfying one’s self-interest.

K E Y T E R M

1 2 0 C H A P T E R 4 � Psychological Theories

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 120

• Youths with the greatest levels of moral disengagement were the most delinquent, were the most aggressive, and committed the most acts of violence compared to youths with lower levels of moral disengagement.

• Girls demonstrated greater morality (or less moral disengagement) than boys.

• Youths with lower moral disengagement were more likely to feel guilty about their delin- quent behavior.

• The members of the most severe group in terms of moral disengagement were also rated by their peers as the most aggressive.

In sum, morality is an important part of a per- son’s psychology because it speaks to the individu- al’s ability to use aggression, or refrain from using aggression, when deciding whether to pursue self- interest or conform to the greater social good. Morality is also related to the broader concept of personality, the topic that is explored next.

� Personality Theory The basic point of personality theory is that the set of traits that typify an individual’s perso- nality have important implications for his or her behavior—both conventional and delinquent. In other words, personality theory attempts to study the “character” of a person, taking a perspective that has obvious implications for delinquency. Even as psychologists such as Freud and Skinner were developing their psychodynamic and behav- ioral approaches, other researchers were studying ways to scientifically understand the personal- ity and the ways that it influences behavior. For instance, in 1934, University of Chicago psycholo- gist L. L. Thurstone described his research along these lines:

Sixty adjectives that are in common use for describing people were given to each of 1,300 raters. Each rater was asked to think of a person whom he knew well and to underline every adjective that he might use in a conversational description of that person . . . The coefficients for the sixty personality traits were then analyzed by means of multiple factor methods, and we found that five factors are sufficient to account for the coefficients. It is of considerable psychological interest to know that the whole list of sixty adjectives can be accounted for by postulating only five independent common factors. . . . We did not

foresee that the list could be accounted for by as few factors. This fact leads us to surmise that the scientific description of personality may not be quite so hopelessly complex as it is some- times thought to be.23

The five dimensions that Thurstone found decades ago are today known as the Five Factor Model of Personality, sometimes referred to as the Big Five.24 The Five Factor Model of Personality is a structural model of personality as measured by an instrument called the NEO Personality Inventory, which was developed by Paul Costa and Robert McCrae. The following five factors and six fac- ets within each factor capture the essence of the human personality (see Figure 4.3):25

1. Neuroticism is assessed by the following facets: anxiety, hostility, depression, self- consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability to stress.

2. Extraversion is assessed by the following facets: warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, and positive emotion.

3. Openness to experiences is assessed by the follow- ing facets: fantasy, aesthetic, feelings, actions, ideas, and values.

4. Agreeableness is assessed by the following facets: trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compli- ance, modesty, and tender mindedness.

5. Conscientiousness is assessed by the follow- ing facets: competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and deliberation.

Five Factor Model of Personality The major model of personality, in which the determinants of personality include neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experiences, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.

K E Y T E R M

FIGURE 4.3 The Five Factor Model of Personality

Extraversion

NeuroticismPersonalityOpenness to Experience

Conscientiousness Agreeableness

Psychological Theories 1 2 1

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 121

Although everyone’s personality is a little bit different, certain traits or groupings of traits consistently tend to appear together in the same person. Take conscientiousness, for example. If a person scores very highly on all facets of conscien- tiousness, then the person is a competent, orderly, duty-driven, ambitious, self-disciplined delibera- tor. This psychological profile describes a person who is probably successful, because these are the raw characteristics of a high-achieving person.

The same logic works when applying personal- ity traits to young people involved in delinquency. Imagine a person who scores highly on hostility and impulsiveness, is very cold, and lacks con- cern for others. This psychological profile depicts someone who could easily victimize others, in part

because of the collection of antisocial personality traits that he or she possesses. In fact, Donald Lynam and Thomas Widiger recently used the Five Factor Model to illustrate how only a few per- sonality traits, such as angry hostility, low affect or weak conscience, and interpersonal assertiveness, can form the basis for serious personality disorders such as psychopathy (which is explored in depth later in this chapter). See Box 4.5, for a closer look at the enduring effects of personality.26

Personality researchers have also identified the “Dark Triad,” which includes narcissism or self-obsession, Machiavellianism (the ability to manipulate and exploit others), and subclinical psychopathy. Although these people present with antisocial traits, they do not have them to such a

Is personality enduring and stable or subject to change? The evidence is more supportive of the former position. Although there are phases in the life span where personal- ity characteristics appear in flux, the evidence for a mostly fixed personality profile is stronger. Increasingly, research- ers are demonstrating the long shadow that is cast by per- sonality—and the overlapping problems that stem from negative/antisocial personality traits.

Alissa Goodman, Robert Joyce, and James Smith exam- ined the longitudinal consequences of early life psycho- logical functioning drawing on data from the National Child Development Study, which is a continuing study of nearly 18,000 children born in England during March 1958. Children with more negative personality features and generally lower psychological functioning suffered from these conditions throughout their lives. The wide- ranging implications included greater employment prob- lems, less wealth, and reduced social mobility. Childhood personality/psychological deficits resulted in nearly 30% reduced earnings by age 50 and a host of other prob- lems including marital instability, lower agreeableness, lower conscientiousness, more emotional instability, and reduced self-efficacy.

Criminological epidemiologists recently examined the social welfare burden of personality disorders in

the United States drawing on data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, a nationally representative sample of more than 43,000 adults. They found that diagnoses for any personality dis- order significantly predicted receipt of Medicaid, Supple- mentary Security Income, and Food Stamps. Moreover, persons who were diagnosed with Antisocial Personality Disorder—the personality disorder that most directly corresponds to a criminal personality—were significantly more likely to receive Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Women, Infant, and Children (WIC) assistance. These costs add to already large monetary costs that serious criminal offend- ers, particularly those with personality disorders, impose on society.

Meta-analytic research confirms that certain person- ality features are significantly associated with conduct problems during childhood, delinquency during ado- lescence, and substance abuse, crime, and violence during adulthood. In a nutshell, antisocial individuals have low agreeableness, low conscientiousness, low constraint, and high extraversion (especially impulsivity and sensation-seeking). In this sense, personality is not only central for understanding crime, but also central for understanding human development and its implications for society.

The Long Shadow of Personality Box 4.5 A Window on Delinquency

Sources: Alissa Goodman, Robert Joyce, and James Smith, “The Long Shadow Cast by Childhood Physical and Mental Problems on Adult Life,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108:6032–6037 (2011); Michael Vaughn, Qiang Fu, Kevin Beaver, Matt DeLisi, Brian Perron, and Matthew Howard, “Are Personality Disorders Associated with Social Welfare Burden in the United States?” Journal of Personality Disorders 24:709–720 (2010); Mark Ruiz, Aaron Pincus, and John Schinka, “Externalizing Pathology and the Five-Factor Model: A Meta-Analysis of Personality Traits Associated with Antisocial Personality Disorder, Substance Use Disorder, and Their Co-Occurrence,” Journal of Personality Disorders 22:365–388 (2008).

1 2 2 C H A P T E R 4 � Psychological Theories

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 122

degree that they meet the diagnostic criteria. For instance, personality researchers surveyed college students to examine the relationships between their personalities and behaviors. It was discov- ered that males who were narcissistic, somewhat psychopathic, and Machiavellian had more sexual partners and reported that they were frequently seeking brief sexual affairs. In others words, the study confirmed the popular notion that “bad boys get the girls.” Moreover, these findings suggest that one facet of psychopathy that is often overlooked is that males with psychopathic traits tend to have prolific, albeit impersonal, sex lives. Research on the Dark Triad has shown that not all psychopathic traits are necessarily bad, particularly if they are present at subclinical levels. For instance, nar- cissism correlates with cognitive ability and can enhance work productivity and mastery of one’s work. Subclinical psychopaths also score very low on neuroticism, which means that they rarely feel stressed. The impulsive lifestyle of the subclini- cal psychopath is also alluring to some because it is characterized by excitement seeking and little boredom—traits that also lend themselves to sex- ual adventurousness.27

Researchers have found important personality differences between delinquents and nondelin- quents. In 1967, Gordon Waldo and Simon Dinitz reviewed 94 studies of the personality–delinquency link and found that 81% reported significant dif- ferences between the two groups.28 In 1988, Robert Ross and Bambi Ross reviewed the personality and cognitive traits of delinquents:

Many delinquents evidence developmental delays in the acquisition of a number of cognitive skills which are essential for social adaptation . . . many fail to stop and think before they act. . . . Many delinquents believe that what happens to them depends on fate, chance, or luck. Many offenders are almost totally egocentric. . . . Offenders encounter frequent interpersonal problems because they do not think about how others will feel.29

Recently, Avshalom Caspi and his colleagues examined the relationship between personal- ity traits and delinquency among two samples of youth, one selected from a Dunedin, New Zealand, cohort and the other from the Pittsburgh Youth Study. The personality correlates of delinquency

were strong and consistent across the different countries, in different age cohorts, across gen- der, and across race. Youths with greater delin- quent participation tended to have personalities characterized by negative emotionality and weak constraint. The importance of this combination is that when negative emotionality or the tendency to experience aversive affective states is accompa- nied by weak constraint or poor impulse control, negative emotions may be translated more readily into antisocial acts.30

To further explore potential group differences in personality and to assess their relationship to delinquency, Estrella Romero and her associates studied more than 1,000 male and female adoles- cents in school and a group of institutionalized male delinquents. They found that impulsivity and sensation seeking were strongly related to delin- quency among groups of youth who were either “normal” or incarcerated.31

Joshua Miller and Donald Lynam reviewed 59 studies using the Five Factor Model or other structural personality models and found consis- tent links between antisocial personality traits and involvement in delinquency. Shayne Jones, Miller, and Lynam recently reviewed 53 studies to explore the association between the Five Fac- tor Model and outcome measures for antisocial behavior and aggression. Overall, effect sizes for three of the five factors were significantly associ- ated with antisocial behavior. There was a positive link between neuroticism and antisocial behavior, indicating that people who experience greater levels of negative emotionality, such as anger and hostility, are more likely to commit crime. Larger effect sizes were found for agreeableness and conscientiousness, with more antagonistic and less conscientious domains associated with antisocial behavior. All five factors were signifi- cantly associated with aggression. The direction for neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscien- tiousness was the same for aggression. In addi- tion, extraversion and openness to experience were negatively correlated with aggression.32 At the most extreme level, antisocial personality traits can come together in a person to such a degree that the person seems almost designed to engage in delinquency and other maladaptive behaviors. These types of psychopathology are examined next.

Psychological Theories 1 2 3

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 123

Aggression Aggression is a troubling part of U.S. culture. Upwards of 75% of U.S. children between the ages of 8 and 11 have been targeted by bullies during school recess periods. This bullying is not always physical in nature. Instead, many times it involves children telling secrets to create fear and uncer- tainty in other children. Other forms of bullying include social ostracism, rumor spreading, and formation of secret clubs.

Many types of behaviors can be categorized as aggressive. For instance, lying, stealing, and vandalism are often used as visible indicators of aggression. Although disruptive and socially annoy- ing, these types of behaviors do not necessarily constitute acts of aggression and certainly are not signs of serious or chronic offending in adoles- cence and adulthood. As a result, scholars often divide aggression into different components, each reflecting a relatively distinct set of behaviors. The underlying assumption is that different types of aggression may have different causes and may differentially relate to the odds of engaging in delinquent behaviors later in life.

One of the most important distinctions made by psychologists is between reactive and instrumen- tal aggression. Reactive aggression is impulsive, thoughtless, or unplanned; is driven by anger; and occurs as a reaction to some perceived prov- ocation. It is also sometimes called hot-blooded, affective, angry, defensive, impulsive, or hostile aggression. Proactive aggression, by contrast, entails a premeditated means of obtaining some instru- mental goal in addition to harming the victim.33 The most extreme example of proactive aggression

is found among serial sexual murderers, who stalk and kill their victims to satisfy deviant sexual inter- ests. Proactive aggression is also sometimes called instrumental or (most commonly) cold-blooded aggression.34

Of these two types of aggression—proactive and reactive—proactive aggression is considered to be more severe because it describes a person who plans or calculates the use of aggressive force on another person. Youths who score highly on proac- tive aggression during childhood are significantly more likely to be diagnosed later with a behav- ioral disorder and to be involved in serious delin- quency.35 In other words, proactive aggression is predatory in nature. Reactive aggression is consid- ered the “normal” type of aggression, because it illustrates the use of force in response to a real or perceived wrong; that is, it is defensive in nature.

An important caveat must be recognized when thinking about proactive and reactive aggression: If someone is extremely aggressive, he or she will be generally aggressive in all types of situations. Edward Barker and his colleagues recently found that if adolescent boys were identified as very aggressive on proactive forms, they were 100% likely to also be identified as very aggressive on reactive forms.36

Another distinction made by scholars who are trying to define aggression is between indi- rect aggression and direct aggression. Indirect aggression is usually verbal and covert and includes actions such as gossiping and ostracism. Direct aggression, in contrast, is typically physical and overt and includes behaviors such as hitting, kick- ing, punching, and biting. In general, females are more likely than males to use indirect aggression, whereas males are more likely than females to use direct aggression.

Although both forms of aggression have impor- tant ramifications, direct aggression is most appli- cable to the etiology of criminal behaviors. For instance, when Noel Card and colleagues con- ducted a meta-analysis of 148 studies of child and adolescent direct and indirect aggression, they found that direct aggression is more strongly asso- ciated with externalizing behaviors, poor peer relations, and low prosocial behavior. By compari- son, indirect aggression (more common among females) was more strongly associated with inter- nalizing problems but higher prosocial behavior— or less delinquency. Across the 148 studies, the correlation between direct and indirect aggression was strong (r = .76). In other words, children and adolescents who are prone to using one form of

reactive aggression Aggression that is impulsive, thoughtless or unplanned, driven by anger, and occurring as a reaction to some per- ceived provocation.

proactive aggression Aggression that includes a premeditated means of obtain- ing some instrumental goal in addition to harming the victim.

indirect aggression Aggression that is usually verbal and covert; it includes actions such as gossiping and ostracism.

direct aggression Aggression that is typically physical and overt; it includes behaviors such as hitting, kicking, punching, and biting.

K E Y T E R M S

1 2 4 C H A P T E R 4 � Psychological Theories

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 124

aggression are also likely to use the other form, although there are important distinctions between them.37

Simply focusing on direct aggression leaves a lot of room for ambiguity and treats all forms of direct aggression as the same. As an example, consider two males, both of whom engaged in a serious physical fight in the past week. One of the males launched an unprovoked attack against an elderly woman. The other male, in contrast, was jumped by a group of teenagers and fought back in self- defense. Clearly, these two types of direct aggres- sion are different and, therefore, it is essential that the definition of aggression be able to differenti- ate between the two. In the preceding example, the behaviors were the same—both males were fighting—but their intentions were quite differ- ent. For one male, using aggression was a way of inflicting harm on someone; for the other male, using aggression was a defense mechanism.38

Aggression is evident during infancy. For this reason, many behavioral scientists focus on psy- chological constructs such as aggression when conducting research on delinquency. Their logic goes like this: If aggression is the raw material of what will one day become delinquent and criminal behavior, it must be important and better under- stood. In recent years, a group of researchers spearheaded by Richard Tremblay have examined aggressive behaviors in very young children and tracked them throughout childhood. The results of their studies have been quite striking:39

• Some children begin using aggression— including hitting and kicking—well before their first birthday and, in some cases, around 7 or 8 months of age.

• More than 80% of children in Tremblay’s studies began using physical aggression by the age of 17 months.

• Within childhood, the peak age at which chil- dren use aggression and violence is around 2 to 3 years.

• After age 3, rates of aggression decline until midadolescence.

• Other types of antisocial behaviors that are not necessarily aggressive are also almost uni- versal behaviors among children. For exam- ple, 90% of children in Tremblay’s studies took things from others.

• With greater age, all of these types of behaviors become less prevalent.

Although important differences can be delin- eated between reactive and proactive aggression and indirect and direct aggression, there are also commonalities between these concepts. A wealth of studies has been conducted to examine the stability of antisocial behaviors, including violent aggression, over the life course and the results have been remarkably consistent. Across sam- ples, generations, and countries, and regardless of the sample analyzed and the methodological techniques employed, extremely high levels of relative stability in aggressive behaviors have been observed. In a classic article, Dan Olweus reviewed studies that had examined the stability of aggres- sive behavior over time, discovering that aggres- sion was extremely stable, even more so than IQ scores.40

Findings from more recent reviews have upheld the conclusions in Olweus’s original article by showing that aggressive and violent behaviors are highly stable across long periods of the life course. Moreover, persons with the highest degrees of

The use of aggression is a universal and normal part of early childhood. Fortunately most people develop the social skills needed to control aggressive thoughts. For those who do not adequately control themselves, aggression can contribute to serious behavioral disorders and delinquency.

ak i/

Sh ut

te rS

to ck

, I nc

Aggression 1 2 5

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 125

stability tend to score extremely high or extremely low on aggression. In other words, people who are the most aggressive (or the least aggressive) at one point in time are likely to be characterized as the most aggressive (or the least aggressive) at another point in time. Change, in other words, is highly unlikely. With this information in hand, it is probably not too surprising to learn that one of the best predictors of future delinquency is a history of aggressive behavior in childhood and adolescence.41

The reason that aggression remains relatively stable over time is because it is intertwined with other facets of the personality that deal with self- regulatory behaviors. Children and adolescents who experience actions as being guided by their own free will rather than external forces or who are self-determined, are self-motivated when faced with difficult or aversive situations, and can manage their moods and self-soothe during stress are also less likely to use aggression. Nevertheless, many aspects of self-regulatory behavior and cognition are positively related to aggression:42

• Tendency toward distraction • Inability to visualize goals and intentions and

keep them in mind • Negative emotions, such as anxiety • Lack of appropriate coping strategies when

faced with failure • Tendency toward doing what one likes as

opposed to doing what is necessary • Inability to “down-regulate” negative affect

once it occurs • Inability to restore positive affect after it has

been dampened

In sum, aggression is a normal response to envi- ronmental annoyances. Everyone is aggressive from time to time. No one is exempt. The commonplace existence of aggression is most evident in infants and toddlers, who aggressively impose their will on others when things do not go their way. For- tunately, most people dramatically reduce their use of aggression over the life course—but some do not. For some people, aggression becomes

a routine part of life. The clinical disorders dis- cussed next illustrate how severe the use of aggres- sion can become.

Oppositional Defiant Disorder Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior lasting at least 6 months, during which four or more of the following characteristics are present:

1. Often loses temper 2. Often argues with adults 3. Often actively defies or refuses to comply with

adults’ requests or rules 4. Often deliberately annoys people 5. Often blames others for his or her mistakes or

misbehavior 6. Is often touchy or easily annoyed by others 7. Is often angry and resentful 8. Is often spiteful or vindictive

To differentiate oppositional defiant disorder from other childhood misbehavior, these crite- ria must occur more frequently than is typically observed in individuals of comparable age and developmental level.

The behaviors associated with oppositional defiant disorder cause clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning. Children with this disorder are not psychotic and do not suffer from mood disorders, however. Between 2 and 15% of all children meet the diagnostic criteria for oppositional defiant dis- order.43

Oppositional defiant disorder can best be understood as the precursor to conduct disorder. Virtually all children who are diagnosed with con- duct disorder also had oppositional defiant disor- der. The relationship is not perfectly reciprocal, however: Of those who are diagnosed with oppo- sitional defiant disorder, only 50% will later be diagnosed with conduct disorder. In a way, opposi- tional defiant disorder serves as a bridge between aggression and conduct disorder. The character- istics of oppositional defiant disorder read like a recipe for having disputes and confrontations with others.44

Joseph Biederman and his colleagues evalu- ated whether oppositional defiant disorder is a prodrome—that is, an early, nonspecific symptom (or set of symptoms) indicating the start of a dis- ease before specific symptoms of conduct disor- der appear. Among a sample of children who had

oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) A clinical disorder characterized by a pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior.

prodrome A precursor of early symptoms; a warning sign of another disease or disorder.

K E Y T E R M S

1 2 6 C H A P T E R 4 � Psychological Theories

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 126

behavioral disorders, 32% of those with oppositional defiant disorder also had conduct disorder. All but one child with conduct disorder also had opposi- tional defiant disorder that preceded the onset of conduct disorder by several years. Children with both oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder at the same time—a condition known as comorbidity—had more severe symptoms of the dis- orders, had more additional psychiatric disorders, exhibited lower functioning, and demonstrated more abnormal behaviors. In sum, Biederman and his colleagues found that children with more severe oppositional defiant disorder are very likely to develop conduct disorder during adolescence.45

Another disorder that is commonly comorbid with oppositional defiant disorder is ADHD. In a study of nearly 100 preschool boys, ages 4–5, with oppositional defiant disorder, nearly half also met the diagnostic criteria for ADHD. When the boys were assessed 2 years later, when they were in first grade, 76% of them had both oppositional defiant disorder and ADHD.46

What is troubling about these forms of psycho- pathology is that they do not simply go away, but rather require extensive treatment and behavioral interventions to alleviate their symptoms. Often, parents of children with oppositional defiant dis- order are overwhelmed by the situation and have difficulty helping their child to appropriately deal with the disorder. When oppositional defiant disorder goes untreated, it usually culminates in conduct disorder—and it may also culminate in contacts with the juvenile justice system.

For instance, Linda Teplin and her associates found that more than 40% of youths in detention centers in Chicago had diagnoses of oppositional defiant and/or conduct disorder.47 Indeed, the

Teens who are excessively argumentative, annoying, hostile, spiteful, and prone to conflict with others show clinical signs of oppositional defiant disorder. Left untreated, the condition can worsen into more troubling behavioral problems.

er a/

Th in

ks to

ck prevalence of oppositional defiant disorder is so high among youths in juvenile facilities that staff members have sought to develop ways to better handle those who have oppositional defiant dis- order. For example, staff members often refuse to argue with youth, allow youth time to vent and express their frustrations without penalty, redirect their attention and anger, and gener- ally “pick their battles” so that each interpersonal exchange between youths with oppositional defi- ant disorder and treatment and educational staff is not characterized by conflict.48

Conduct Disorder Conduct disorder is a repetitive and persistent pat- tern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated. For children or adolescents to be diagnosed with conduct disorder, they must dem- onstrate three or more of the following criteria in the previous 12 months, with at least one criterion being met in the past 6 months:49

1. Aggression toward people and animals a. Often bullies people, threatens, or intimi-

dates others b. Often initiates physical fights c. Has used a weapon that can cause serious

physical harm to others d. Has been physically cruel to people e. Has been physically cruel to animals f. Has stolen while confronting a victim, such

as robbery g. Has forced someone into sexual activity

2. Destruction of property a. Has deliberately engaged in fire setting

with the intention of causing serious dam- age

b. Has deliberately destroyed other’s property (other than by fire)

comorbidity The co-occurrence of two or more disorders.

conduct disorder A repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated.

K E Y T E R M S

Conduct Disorder 1 2 7

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 127

3. Deceitfulness or theft a. Has broken into someone else’s house,

building, or car b. Often lies to obtain goods or favors or to

avoid obligations c. Has stolen items of nontrivial values with-

out confronting a victim, such as by shop- lifting

4. Serious violations of rules a. Often stays out at night despite parental

prohibitions, beginning before age 13 years b. Has run away from home overnight at least

twice while living in parental home c. Is often truant from school beginning

before age 13 years 5. Disturbances in behavior that cause signifi-

cant impairment in social, academic, or occu- pational functioning.

Conduct disorder affects between 3 and 5% of preadolescent boys and between 6 and 8% of ado- lescent boys. Its prevalence is much higher in boys than in girls, with the gender-based ratio being approximately 4:1 in childhood and 2:1 during adolescence. Conduct-disordered children create a host of problems for their parents, teachers, and others. Because of their aggressive and antisocial behavior, youths with conduct disorder frequently get into trouble and are likely to be suspended and expelled from school.50

One of the major interpersonal issues with conduct-disordered children is their difficulty

in regulating or handling their emotions. They readily become aggressive not only in emotional situations, but also in the course of seemingly normal social interactions.51 Carla Sharp and col- leagues found that children with conduct prob- lems respond negatively even to very neutral situations or stimuli. They have a relatively con- stant belief that others are against them—known as hostile attribution bias—and as such respond negatively to others.52 In addition, children with conduct disorder are often shunned by their con- ventional peers, who may fear their erratic and volatile behavior. The social isolation and the recognition that their own antisocial behavior is causing them problems often contribute to the development of substance abuse problems among conduct-disordered youth.53

The long-term outcomes in untreated conduct- disordered children are poor and include the following problems:

• Drug addiction • Alcoholism • Anxiety and depression • School dropout • Peer rejection • Social isolation • Victimization • Financial problems • Poor work history • Unstable marital relationships • Arrests and incarcerations

One of the more troubling aspects of conduct disorder centers on callous–unemotional traits, which are characteristics that suggest a deficiency in the ability to empathize with others. Children and ado- lescents who demonstrate callous– unemotional traits generally do not show their feelings or emo- tions, are not helpful if someone is hurt or upset, do not feel bad or guilty when they do something wrong, have few if any friends, are inconsiderate of others’ feelings, are not kind to younger children, and are not concerned about how they perform in school. Put simply, they are callous and emotion- ally cold.

Callous–unemotional traits are strongly corre- lated with conduct disorder and other behavioral problems. When these traits and antisocial behav- iors do occur together, the cause is generally genetic in origin. For instance, when Essi Viding and her colleagues recently studied callous–unemotional traits and antisocial behavior among 3,687 twin pairs, they found that 67% of the variation in

Children and adolescents with conduct disorder face a lifetime of hardships, including a chronic and often serious delinquent career.

ou /S

hu tte

rS to

ck , I

nc .

1 2 8 C H A P T E R 4 � Psychological Theories

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 128

extreme callous–unemotional traits among 7-year- old children was attributable to genes. When the researchers examined extreme antisocial behavior in 7-year-olds with psychopathic tendencies, genes accounted for 81% of the variation. A subsequent study found that 71% of conduct problems in boys and 77% of such problems in girls were attribut- able to genetic influences.54

Some youths use aggression frequently and as a preferred means to handle interpersonal exchanges. These adolescents are at considerable risk for developing both oppositional defiant dis- order and conduct disorder, and they usually com- mit delinquency at high levels. If left unchecked, these forms of psychopathology—especially when they include evidence of callous–unemotional traits—devolve into what is considered the most destructive personality disorder, psychopathy.

Psychopathy The 1924 abduction and murder of 14-year-old Bobby Franks by Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb shocked the country and remains one of the most disturbing crimes in U.S. history. Both of the young men came from prominent Chicago families and were brilliant students at the Uni- versity of Chicago. On the surface, they seemed very unlikely to commit such an atrocious act of violence. As the case unfolded, however, the char- acter of Leopold and Loeb became more star- tling. The crime had been perpetrated merely to see if they could get away with it, and the young victim had been selected at random. In part due

to their superior intelligence, Leopold and Loeb viewed themselves as superior to others and had personalities characterized by a grandiose sense of self-worth, self-absorption, indifference to the victim and his family, and an apparent lack of con- science.55 In short, they were psychopathic.

Psychopathy is a personality disorder that impairs interpersonal, affective, and behavioral functions and is closely linked to serious antisocial behavior. The disorder is significantly more likely to occur in boys as opposed to girls and does not discrimi- nate by race, ethnicity, social class, or country of origin. In other words, psychopaths have been found in many racial groups and in many different countries.

Several core characteristics are associated with psychopathic individuals. They tend to be aggres- sive, self-centered or narcissistic, impulsive, and prone to risky activities. They often begin getting into trouble very early in life, even as early as age 3 (see Box 4.6), engage in a wide variety of antisocial behaviors, and are prolific criminals.

The list of characteristics presented so far describes many serious, nonpsychopathic offend- ers as well as psychopaths. It is the other, more dis- turbing characteristics, however, that distinguish psychopaths from other individuals. Psychopathic delinquents are callous, lack guilt feelings, and have little to no fear or anxiety. They are exploit- ative, manipulative, deceptive, and seemingly unable to form warm relationships with other peo- ple. They are without conscience and appear to be impervious to efforts by the juvenile and criminal justice systems to intervene in their path toward serious criminal offending.56

Philippe Pinel was the first person to clinically study the construct of psychopathy with the pub- lication of his A Treatise on Insanity in 1801 (his psychopathy concept was referred to as manie sans délire). Pinel described a diagnosis for people who exhibited uncontrolled rage and outland- ishly immoral behavior that was without psychotic features such as delusions. In other words, these people seemed to be extremely dangerous, yet simultaneously remained in control of their emo- tions and mental health.57 In 1835, James Pritchard

psychopathy A personality disorder that impairs interpersonal, affective, and behavioral functions and is closely linked to serious antisocial behavior.

K E Y T E R M

Brilliant, successful, affluent, and psychopathic, the 1924 murder of Bobby Franks by Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb horrified the nation and to this day is considered one of the most shocking crimes in American history.

ng er

/H ul

to n

Ar ch

iv e/

G et

ty Im

ag es

Psychopathy 1 2 9

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 129

called the disorder “moral insanity,” again noting that serious criminal conduct occurred without mental defect in these individuals.58 Many other physicians, psychiatrists, and correctional clini- cians also studied psychopathy throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

The “modern” understanding of psychopathy was crystallized in 1941 with the publication of Hervey Cleckley’s The Mask of Sanity. His work was the most systematic clinical study of psychopa- thy and laid the groundwork for contemporary research in this field. Among his many contribu- tions, Cleckley described the sheer antisocial dif- ferences between psychopaths and even the most delinquent youths:

In repetitive delinquent behavior, the subject often seems to be going a certain distance along the course that a full psychopath follows to the end. In the less severe disorder, antisocial or self-defeating activities are frequently more circumscribed and may stand out against a larger background of

One of the most heated controversies in psychological criminology centers on whether the theory of psychopa- thy should be applied to children and adolescents. This kind of application, which is known as the downward extension of psychopathy, takes information created from research on the antisocial personalities and behav- iors of adults and superimposes it on youths. Labeling a child or adolescent as “psychopathic” can have seri- ous implications for the youth’s liberty and treatment options.

Andrea Glenn and her colleagues examined the temperament and psychophysiological responses among children at age 3 and conducted a follow-up when they were age 28. The findings from their research were intriguing:

• Those individuals with higher psychopathy scores in adulthood were significantly less fearful

and inhibited at age 3 than those with lower psychopathy scores in adulthood.

• Psychopathic adults scored higher on stimulation-seeking measures at age 3 than did less psychopathic adults.

Glenn et al.’s work was the first study to demonstrate a prospective relationship between characteristics of preschool children and psychopathic-like personality in adulthood. It suggests that at least some biological and temperamental predispositions toward psychopathic personality may be in place even at a very young age. This makes perfect sense since all personality features are moderately heritable—which means that variance in them stems from genetic factors. As more researchers conduct longitudinal studies that track research subjects from the prenatal phase to death, it is likely that the long-term impli- cations of our psychological makeup will become clearer.

Psychopathic at Age 3? Box 4.6 Delinquency Controversy

Sources: Michael Rutter, “Psychopathy in Childhood: Is It a Meaningful Diagnosis?” British Journal of Psychiatry 200:175–176 (2012); Carla Sharp and Sarah Kine, “The Assessment of Juvenile Psychopathy: Strengths and Weaknesses of Currently Used Questionnaire Measures,” Child and Adolescent Mental Health 13:85–95 (2008); Andrea Glenn, Adrian Raine, Peter Venables, and Sarnoff Mednick, “Early Temperamental and Psychophysiological Precursors of Adult Psychopathic Personality,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 116:508–518 (2007); Randall Salekin and Paul Frick, “Psychopathy in Children and Adolescents: The Need for a Developmental Perspective,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 33:403–409 (2005).

successful adaptation. The borderlines between chronic delinquency and what we have called the psychopath merge in this area. 59

Cleckley identified 16 features of psychopathic individuals:60

1. Superficial charm and “good” intelligence 2. Absence of delusions and other signs of

irrational thinking 3. Absence of “nervousness” or psychoneurotic

manifestations 4. Unreliability 5. Untruthfulness and insincerity 6. Lack of remorse or shame 7. Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior 8. Poor judgment and failure to learn by

experience 9. Pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for

love 10. General poverty in major affective reactions 11. Specific loss of insight

1 3 0 C H A P T E R 4 � Psychological Theories

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 130

12. Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relationships

13. Fantastic behavior with drink and sometimes without

14. Suicide rarely carried out 15. Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly inte-

grated 16. Failure to follow any life plan

Over the past 40 years, the major scholar in the area of psychopathy has been Robert Hare. He has developed an assessment tool called the Psy- chopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R). As shown in Figure 4.4, current conceptualizations of psy- chopathy cover interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and antisocial behavior dimensions.61 Each area of psychopathy comprises various traits, behaviors,

and characteristics; statistically, these traits are strongly correlated with one another. What this means is that the current study of psychopathy is very similar to the historical study of personality (and antisocial personality) in that relatively few traits are used to describe a person with the clini- cal disorder.

The majority of research on psychopaths has centered on adult criminals in prisons or psychi- atric hospitals. Through this work, researchers have discovered that offenders demonstrate psy- chopathic characteristics throughout their lives, even in early childhood and adolescence. Clearly, then, juvenile psychopathy is an important area of research for understanding the disorder and developing ways to prevent it or reduce its nega- tive effects.

FIGURE 4.4 Psychopathy Dimensions

Adapted from Robert Hare and Craig Neumann, “Psychopathy as a Clinical and Empirical Construct,” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 4:217–245 (2008).

Interpersonal Deficits

Glib Grandiose Self-Worth

Pathological Lying Manipulative

Affective Lack of Guilt

Shallow Affect Callous/Lacks Empathy

Fails to Accept Responsibility

Lifestyle Stimulation-Seeking

Impulsivity Irresponsible

Parasitic Orientation Lack Realistic Goals

Antisocial Poor Behavioral Control Early Onset of Problems

Juvenile Delinquency Criminal Versatility

Revocation of Release

Psychopathy 1 3 1

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 131

The application of the “psychopathy” label to children and adolescents has occurred for many decades. For example, in 1964 William McCord and Joan McCord expressed concerns that serious violent crime was the work of adolescent psycho- paths.62 In 1966, Lee Robins described children who appeared in local psychiatric clinics as follows: “Boys [who] had a history of truancy, theft, stay- ing out late, and refusing to obey parents. They lied gratuitously, and showed little guilt over their behavior. They were generally irresponsible.”63 Technically, Robins referred to these children as “sociopathic,” indicating that their antisocial behavior seemed to be produced largely by the abusive, impoverished home environments in which they were raised (the distinction between psychopathy and sociopathy is described later in this section).

In the 1980s, as crime rates increased and crimi- nology focused more attention on the most serious types of offenders, serious juvenile offenders also began to receive more scrutiny from researchers. In recent years, criminologists in several countries have produced an impressive knowledge base on psychopathic traits among juvenile offenders. Some of their primary characteristics and behav- iors are described next.

� Characteristics and Behaviors of Psychopathic Youth

Criminologists have found that a certain set of traits typifies psychopathic youths. In particu- lar, Donald Lynam and his colleagues suggest that juvenile psychopathy can be understood as a constellation of personality characteristics that contribute to delinquent behavior. This person- ality profile is quite negative, unfortunately. Psy- chopathic youths are very disagreeable and often are suspicious, deceptive, exploitative, arrogant, tough minded, and aggressive. They are low in conscientiousness and constraint (recall the Five Factor Model), which means that they impulsively seek to satisfy their own needs with no concern for the feelings of other people.64

Paul Frick and his colleagues studied a sample of more than 1,100 children in third, fourth, sixth, or seventh grades to examine the stability of psycho- pathic traits. Like previous researchers, they found that the most psychopathic children (their aver- age age was 10 years) were highly impulsive, highly narcissistic, and highly callous and unemotional

toward others. Moreover, these characteristics remained relatively stable over a 4-year follow-up period. Frick et al.’s research suggests that psycho- pathic traits develop early in life and, once estab- lished, are likely to persist throughout the life course.65 In fact, recent research has found that scores on psychopathic tests among youths aged 13 are strongly correlated with psychopathy scores at age 24. Put simply, juvenile psychopathy often gives way to psychopathy in adulthood.66

If the personality profile of psychopathic youths is troubling, the behavioral profile is even more unsettling, particularly among institutionalized juvenile offenders. Mary Ann Campbell and her colleagues found that psychopathic youths are among the most aggressive, antisocial, and delin- quent children within detention centers. Although they are the most prone to externalizing their problems (e.g., by hurting others), they are the least prone to internalizing their problems (e.g., by hurting themselves). In other words, psychopathic youths do not feel “stressed” about engaging in serious antisocial behavior. They also tend to have the most serious criminal records, have often been suspended or expelled from school, have multiple placements in foster homes and juvenile deten- tion centers, and experience more abuse during early childhood.67 In a similar vein, several other scholars have found that youths who present psy- chopathic traits have multifaceted involvement in delinquent behaviors.68

Unfortunately, psychopathic youths appear to be impervious to the legal and moral bases of pun- ishment. They simply do not respond to punish- ment by correcting their behavior; instead, they appear to be unmoved.69

Compared to serious delinquents who are not psychopathic, juvenile psychopaths are notewor- thy for their sustained criminal activity, continued criminal activity while under the supervision of the juvenile justice system, and high recidivism rates upon reentering society. For example, Michael Vaughn and his colleagues studied the effects of psychopathic traits on delinquent careers among a population of institutionalized delinquents in Missouri. They found that adolescents with psycho- pathic personality features were 300% more likely to have an early onset of criminal behavior, be contacted by police, and be processed by the juve- nile court. In addition, youths with psychopathic traits were significantly more likely to become adult career criminals. Among delinquent girls, Vaughn and his colleagues found that narcissistic

1 3 2 C H A P T E R 4 � Psychological Theories

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 132

and impulsive youths were more likely to commit violent and property crimes.70

Diana Falkenbach and her associates studied psychopathic features among 69 children who had been arrested and placed in a juvenile diversion program. These researchers found that youths with psychopathic traits were more likely to not comply with the program and to be rearrested.71 Based on data for Canadian youths between the ages of 12 and 18, Raymond Corrado and his col- leagues determined that psychopathic youths are significantly more likely to commit general, vio- lent, and nonviolent delinquent acts than youths who are not psychopathic. Moreover, psychopathic youths commit crimes faster and with greater fre- quency.72

Even while incarcerated, psychopathic youths tend to present more problems than their non- psychopathic counterparts. When Daniel Murrie and his associates studied institutionalized youths in Virginia, they found that prior record for crimes of violence, record of violence that did not result in arrest, violence while incarcer- ated, assaulting other correctional residents with weapons, and inflicting great bodily harm were significantly correlated with psychopathy.73 Similarly, among 85 adjudicated delinquents in Florida who were between the ages of 11 and 18, psychopathic youths accumulated more disciplin- ary infractions, committed more violent acts, and had worse treatment outcomes than nonpsycho- pathic children.74

What is remarkable about psychopathic per- sonality traits is that their predictive validity is often more powerful than some biological and sociological correlates of crime. Michael Vaughn and his colleagues studied psychopathic traits among youths who were emancipated or leav- ing the foster care system, in a quest to deter- mine those traits’ effect on various delinquent outcomes. The psychopathic trait relating to coldness or unemotionality turned out to be the strongest predictor of number of arrests, exceed- ing the importance of male gender and being more than twice as powerful as having deviant peers and living in a disadvantaged neighbor- hood. Narcissism predicted arrests comparably to having deviant peers and living in a bad neigh- borhood. The psychopathic trait relating to fear- lessness was the strongest predictor of drug sales and illegal money earning, ahead of correlates such as gender, deviant peers, and neighbor- hood factors.75

� What Causes Psychopathy? What causes some youngsters to be glib, deceit- ful, manipulative, callous, irresponsible, impul- sive, mean, lacking in guilt, and so easily able to victimize others? Is their pathology innate? Did something happen to them that produced psy- chopathy? Does some combination of nature and nurture produce psychopathy? Based on the weight of the evidence, the best answer appears to be that psychopathy is produced by a combination of biopsychological and sociological factors—in other words, both nature and nurture.

Some behavioral scientists have distinguished between primary and secondary psychopaths as a way to explore etiological (causal) factors of antiso- cial behavior. Primary psychopaths are persons who have brain abnormalities that impair their ability to process and express emotion, such as empa- thy. Their antisocial behavior is largely innate.76 Research by James Blair and his colleagues indi- cates that certain genetic factors produce neu- rotransmitter dysfunction, which in turn reduces the ability of the amygdala (the almond-shaped groups of neurons in the brain that control our emotional ability) to process emotional learn- ing and hence impairs the individual’s ability to socially relate to others.77 Significantly, even the most biologically centered explanation (like Blair et al.’s theory) also points to the importance of the social environment in developing antisocial behav- ior. In other words, even primary psychopaths respond to the influence of others in determining their behavior.

Secondary psychopaths have the same characteris- tics as primary psychopaths; however, the pathol- ogy in the secondary psychopath is developed, often as an adaptation to some severe trauma in early life, and usually as the result of parental abuse or rejection. Because of the importance of early- life trauma in developing secondary psychopathy, many criminologists use the term sociopath to distinguish persons with psychopathic character- istics that are largely the result of early life abuse and neglect. As noted by Anthony Walsh and

etiological Relating to the cause of a behavior.

sociopath A person who shows psychopathic characteristics that are largely the result of early-life abuse and neglect.

K E Y T E R M S

Psychopathy 1 3 3

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 133

Huei-Hsia Wu, “Sociopathy appears to be a condi- tion less strongly tied to genotype than psychopa- thy and more tied to development in extremely adverse environments rife with abuse, neglect, and violence.”78

Donald Lynam has shown how these constitu- tional (biological) and environmental (sociologi- cal) factors interact to produce psychopathy in young people. Children who present with severe hyperactivity, impulsivity, and attention problems often suffer from conduct problems (e.g., con- duct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder). These children are very difficult to parent and manage in school, and their behavior often alien- ates them from conventional peers, resulting in social isolation and labeling. Over time, the anti- social aspects of their behavior become reinforced or exacerbated, while the positive aspects of their behavior become more infrequent and difficult to reinforce. Unless a major treatment interven- tion occurs, these “fledgling psychopaths” may develop into the most serious, violent, and chronic delinquents.79

� Treatment of Psychopathic Youth Whether prevention and treatment programs that specifically address the needs of juvenile psychopaths might prove successful is unknown because almost all of the evaluation research has been conducted on adult offenders. By and large, criminal justice treatments attempt to increase the prosocial abilities of offenders. In the case of psychopathic offenders, the emphasis is placed on increasing empathy through intensive cognitive therapy and behavioral modification.

Amazingly, prior research shows that in some circumstances, treatment actually makes psycho- paths more dangerous. For example, Marnie Rice and her colleagues evaluated an intensive therapeutic community program that included up to 80 hours of intensive group therapy per week. Whereas the treatment reduced recidivism among 146 nonpsychopathic offenders, it increased recidivism among 146 psychopathic offenders. By learning to adopt others’ perspective and behave in socially acceptable ways, psychopaths were able to enhance their ability to manipulate, exploit, and victimize others.80 Robert Hare and his col- leagues similarly found that recidivism rates for psychopathic offenders who had taken social skills and anger management classes were higher

than those without treatment.81 Indeed, in their comprehensive review of the literature on treat- ment of psychopaths, Grant Harris and Marnie Rice concluded that “there is no evidence that any treatment yet applied to psychopaths has been shown to be effective in reducing violence or crime.”82

Despite this grim assessment, the people who have the most contact with psychopathic juvenile delinquents—probation and detention officers within the juvenile justice system—believe that the most violent and antisocial youths can be rehabili- tated. Keith Cruise and his colleagues surveyed 424 juvenile detention and probation officers and found that many had hope that the most severe juvenile offenders could be reformed. Nearly 61% felt that psychopathic youths are candidates for rehabilitation, and nearly 63% of probation offi- cers believed that psychopathy could be changed. This study suggests that even those with the most frequent contact with juvenile offenders still detect admirable traits that suggest the youths are amenable to turning their lives around.83

Recent experimental research is also promis- ing for treating psychopathic children. Yoast van Baardewijk and colleagues conducted an experi- ment where participants played a computer- based competitive reaction-time game against a simulated opponent by blasting him or her with loud noise through a headphone. In one condi- tion, the victim experienced considerable distress and in the other condition, the victim expressed no distress. They found that more psychopathic children were more aggressive and likely to blast their opponents with noise. However, when faced with the distress that their aggression was causing, psychopathic youths were less likely to be aggres- sive again.84 This shows that the disorder is not immutable and that children with psychopathic tendencies can learn to respond appropriately to the suffering of others.

Moreover, in the end, it may simply be too expen- sive not to treat serious delinquents who present psychopathic traits. Individual criminal careers ultimately cost society substantially more than $1 million per offender in assorted victimization and criminal justice costs with the costs of chronic offenders and homicide offenders in the range of $10–20 million per offender.85 Recent research by Michael Caldwell and his colleagues found that for every $1 spent to provide intensive treatment to violent, psychopathic delinquents, $7 in various costs was saved or effectively prevented.86

1 3 4 C H A P T E R 4 � Psychological Theories

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 134

The treatment of youthful psychopathic offenders must borrow heavily from the treatment of juvenile homicide offenders. Both groups rep- resent the extremes of delinquency and point to the need for intensive, multifaceted, and sustained treatment. Kathleen Heide and Eldra Solomon present the following treatment protocol for the most violent of juvenile offenders:87

• Comprehensive cognitive behavioral restruc- turing

• Prosocial skills training • Positive peer communities • Anger management and appropriate emo-

tional release • Empathy training • Clear, firm, and consistent discipline • Drug and alcohol counseling and education • Transitional treatment, including family

counseling when appropriate • Aftercare • Psychopharmacological management • Educational and vocational programs and

other activities that promote prosocial oppor- tunities for success

Psychological Theory and Delinquency Prevention

Psychological theories recommend two strategies for preventing delinquency, both of which are widely practiced today.

According to psychodynamic theory, if chil- dren’s instinctual drives are not controlled, they will experience internal conflicts that will manifest themselves in delinquent behavior. In this view, delinquency is a symptom of deep-seated psycho- logical problems, and offenders need counseling to acquire an understanding of the cause of their mental disturbance. The use of psychodynamic theory in juvenile justice peaked in the 1950s when influential groups championed counseling, group therapy, and other respectable and solid correc- tional techniques. In turn, these and other groups seized upon the idea embedded in psychodynamic theory that it was possible to identify “predelin- quents” before they committed crime; today these children are labeled “at-risk” youths. Prevention programs were developed for children in need. These antidelinquency programs marked the beginning of the child-guidance movement, the

goal of which was to neutralize latent delinquency in the preadolescent.

In contrast, behavioral theories attribute delinquency to the interaction between children and their environment. Social policies derived from this approach emphasize teaching children alternative ways of living. One very popular appli- cation of behavioral theory is behavior modification therapy, a method for changing behavior through conditioning. Behavior modification was widely practiced in the late 20th century to treat mal- adaptive behaviors such as overeating, drug use, alcoholism, and smoking. Two behavior modification therapies used then, and still prac- ticed today, are aversion therapy and operant conditioning.

In aversion therapy, children are taught to con- nect unwanted behavior with punishment. For example, juvenile alcohol offenders may receive treatment where they must ingest a drug that causes nausea or vomiting if they drink alcohol. The underlying idea of this aversion therapy is that children will connect drinking with unpleasant- ness and stop drinking to avoid the ill effect.

Operant conditioning uses rewards to reinforce desired behavior and punishment to abort behav- ior. One application of operant conditioning with juvenile delinquents is found inside the walls of many juvenile reformatories, where a token economy—a system of handing out points that can be exchanged for privileges such as watching tele- vision and punishing behavior by taking those same privileges away—is in place.

Stephen Scott and his colleagues conducted a study where adults who had conduct disorder as children were compared to adults who had milder conduct problems as children and adults with no childhood psychopathology. By age 28, the costs imposed by persons diagnosed with conduct disorder at age 10 were 10 times higher than the costs associated with persons without diagnoses and nearly four times higher than the cost associated with persons with milder behav- ior problems. These costs included delinquency, crime, and victimization costs; extra educational costs; foster and residential care; health care; and criminal justice interventions. In other words, childhood psychopathology is a major predictor of how much an individual will cost society in the long term.88

In recognition of the high costs imposed by delin- quents with personality and behavioral disorders,

Psychological Theory and Delinquency Prevention 1 3 5

29/11/12 11:03 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 135

many prevention programs in the United States have sprung up to assist youths with these forms of psychopathology. Many programs include par- ent training, which educates parents about the most effective ways to manage and reduce their children’s problem behaviors. Often the parent training incorporates behavioral family therapy, where both parents and child work with clinicians to address the antisocial behaviors and seek ways to change them to healthy behaviors.89

Allen Grove and his colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 45 studies that were designed to prevent problems associated with aggression, conduct disorder, and oppositional defiant dis- order among 9,366 children. They found that overall the prevention studies reflected a small, positive effect on the symptoms of oppositional defiant and conduct disorders up to 2 years after the completion of the intervention. Programs were best at reducing property damage, such as vandalism, followed by mitigation of oppositional behaviors directed toward parents and teachers,

and aggression. However, Grove and his col- leagues temper the promising findings stemming from prevention efforts with this assessment of the causes of oppositional defiant and conduct disorders:

The knowledge that prevention programs as a whole are having a small effect over time on symptoms of ODD and CD is a sobering reminder of how difficult it is to prevent disorders with such a wide array of causes. A child born with a low resting heart rate to a father who regularly attacks his mother living in an area of town where it is just as likely to hear gunfire as it is to hear children playing has a lot of strikes against him. Even if he is motivated to learn positive ways to deal with his anger through a school-based prevention program, he will return home every day to an environment equipped to destroy the gains he made in school that day. Or, if his mother learns positive ways to handle his anger through behavioral parent training, as soon as

In 1995, John DiIulio gained national attention and created controversy among academics when he predicted that a wave of young, violent, mostly minority, remorseless juve- nile delinquents known as super-predators would plague the United States and increase crime rates. DiIulio devel- oped his idea after an address to a district attorneys asso- ciation where he heard stories from prosecutors that a sea change had occurred regarding the character and age of

violent criminals. The new criminals were perceived to be more frightening than previous generations of offenders and were arriving at this point at shockingly younger ages. Several practitioners commented to DiIulio that youths still in elementary school were frequently armed, would inflict remorseless violence on impulse, and fundamen- tally lacked respect for human life. According to DiIulio,

Super-Predators: Fact or Fiction? Box 4.7 Delinquency Controversy

19801976 2004 1976 2004 0%

10%

20%

40%

30%

1985 1990 1995 2000

Offenders

White males, ages 14–24 (%) African American males, ages 14–24 (%)

Victims

Population

1980 0%

10%

20%

40%

30%

1985 1990 1995 2000

Offenders

Victims

Population

Young Males as a Proportion of the Population, Homicide Victims, and Homicide Offenders, 1976–2004 Source: James Fox and Morris Zawitz, Homicide Trends in the United States (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2006).

1 3 6 C H A P T E R 4 � Psychological Theories

29/11/12 11:04 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 136

Sources: John DiIulio, “The Coming of the Super-Predators,” Weekly Standard, November 27, 1995, pp. 23–28; James Fox and Morris Zawitz, Homicide Trends in the United States (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2006); Matt DeLisi, Brendan Dooley, and Kevin Beaver, “Super-Predators Revisited,” pages 21–30 in Karen Froeling (ed.), Criminology Research Focus (New York: Nova, 2007).

the criminality of these youths was driven by moral poverty, which he defined as follows:

[T]he poverty of being without loving, capable, respon- sible adults to teach right from wrong. It is the poverty of being without parents and other authorities who habitu- ate you to feel joy at others’ joy, pain at others’ pain, happi- ness when you do right, and remorse when you do wrong. It is the poverty of growing up in the virtual absence of people who teach morality by their own everyday exam- ple and who insist that you follow suit. In the extreme, moral poverty is the poverty of growing up surrounded by deviant, delinquent, and criminal adults in abusive, violence-ridden, fatherless, Godless, and jobless settings.

DiIulio’s prediction that a wave of super-predators was poised to run amok was made during the midst of the most sustained and impressive declines in crime in U.S. history. Because his prediction was at odds with the prevailing feelings of public safety and because DiIulio’s strident style ruffled the feathers of academics, the super-predator thesis was usually ignored and considered to be conserva- tive ideology. But was it?

As evidenced by the current body of homicide, gangs, and criminal careers literature, there are obvious simi- larities between today’s serious juvenile offender and the super-predator thesis advanced by DiIulio. Then and now, young males from the most impoverished neighborhoods in the nation’s largest cities disproportionately use lethal violence as a means to settle disputes, establish respect, or simply perpetuate ongoing criminal behavior. This behavior is particularly problematic among young African American males (see the accompanying graphs).

The homicide offending and victimization data are incontrovertible in this regard. It is well known that homi- cide offenders, gang members, and psychopaths are likely to come from considerable and often extreme adversity. This adversity may include child abuse victimization, pov- erty, family substance abuse, parental criminality, and the like. Background characteristics such as these are readily reconcilable to the idea of moral poverty, which subsumes the oppression and disadvantaged life circumstances of young people who are at increased risk for serious violent criminal behavior.

Super-Predators: Fact or Fiction? (continued)

Psychopathic offenders are noteworthy for the extremity of their violence. In the community, they are the most active, versatile, and relentless offenders; in prison, they are among the most violent and noncompliant inmates.

Several criminologists have explored the nature of offending by psychopathic individuals. For example, Stephen Porter and his colleagues compared murders committed by psychopaths and nonpsychopaths among inmates in Canadian prisons. They found that murders committed by psychopaths were more often characterized by sadism and more gratuitous violence (e.g., stabbings with dozens or hundreds of entry wounds) than were killings by nonpsychopathic offenders. In fact, more than 82 percent of psychopathic offenders committed these types of murders compared to 52 percent of nonpsycho- pathic offenders.

Katherine Ramsland researched psychopathic violence among children and adolescents and unearthed several

cases that confirm the more serious nature of the violent acts committed by psychopaths:

• In 1979, 16-year-old Brenda Spencer received a rifle for her birthday. She used it to shoot children at an elementary school near her San Diego home, wounding nine and killing two. A reporter asked her later why she had done it. Her answer: “I don’t like Mondays. This livens up the day.”

• In 1993, two bodies were found on a country road in Ellis County, Texas—one male, one female. The boy, 14, had been shot, but the 13-year-old girl had been stripped, raped, and dismembered. Her head and hands were missing. The killer turned out to be Jason Massey, who had decided he was going to become the worst serial killer that Texas had ever seen. He tortured animals, stalked another young woman, and revered killers like Ted Bundy. Massey was nine

Psychopaths and Violence Box 4.8 A Window on Delinquency

(continued)

Psychological Theory and Delinquency Prevention 1 3 7

29/11/12 11:04 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 137

she gets home she may have to defend herself and her son from his father’s abuse.90 (Reprinted from Allen Grove, Steven Evans, Dena Pastor, and Samantha Mack, “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Follow-up Studies of Programs Designed to Prevent the Primary Symptoms of Oppositional Defiant and Conduct Disorders,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 13:169–184 (2008), p. 181, with permission from Elsevier.)

Other studies have found that prevention programs for conduct disorder can significantly reduce the amount of time serious delinquents spend in jail, their risk of being arrested, and the speed with which they are subsequently arrested.91

Wrap Up

Thinking About Juvenile Delinquency: Conclusions

This chapter has showcased the broad psychological approaches taken to understanding how our inner- most thoughts, attitudes, and individual character- istics translate into delinquency. Psychodynamic theory and behavioral theory point to the ele- ments of the personality (id, ego, and superego), mental processes, and the ways that we learn from the environment to define our own personality as an explanation for our conduct. Structural models of the personality, such as the Five Factor Model of Personality, identify core personality character- istics and facets within those characteristics as ways to describe a person’s beliefs, ways of thinking,

motivations, and behaviors. Over time, psycholo- gists have moved from simply studying the per- sonality to studying antisocial personalities in an attempt to show how the psychological profile of a person’s traits reflects how and why he or she may engage in delinquent behavior.

Another psychological approach to studying delinquency stems from the field of psychiatry and focuses on psychopathology—that is, the set of behaviors and attitudes that show clinical evi- dence of psychological impairment. One of the most basic psychological constructs with impli- cations for delinquency is aggression. Although aggression is a universal concept and a measure that everyone has used (especially during child- hood), it becomes the primary way to respond to others for a small group of youths. If aggression becomes worse, it can spill over into conflictive behavior with parents, peers, and teachers, and ultimately may result in serious clinical diagnosis, such as oppositional defiant disorder and its suc- cessor, conduct disorder. If antisocial attitudes and behaviors persist, children and adolescents are at risk for psychopathy, the most serious personality disorder. Youths with these forms of psychopathol- ogy are at risk for serious and lifelong criminal behavior; as a consequence, the effective preven- tion and treatment of these disorders is important for both the individual and for society as a whole.

The quote from Allen Grove in the previous sec- tion about the multiple etiological bases of delin- quency attests that there is more to our behavior than our own psychological makeup. Taking a different perspective, sociologists develop delin- quency theories of their own that highlight the

years old when he killed his first cat, and he added dozens more feline victims over the years, along with dogs and even six cows. He had a long list of potential victims, and his diaries were filled with fantasies of rape, torture, and cannibalism of female victims. Massey was a loner who believed he served a “master” who gave him knowledge and power. He was obsessed with bringing girls under his control and having their dead bodies in his possession.

• Nine-year-old Jeffrey Bailey, Jr., pushed a three- year-old friend into the deep part of a motel pool in

Florida in 1986. He wanted to see someone drown. As the boy sank to the bottom, Jeffrey pulled up a chair to watch. When it was finished, he went home. When he was questioned, he was more engaged in being the center of attention than in demonstrating any kind of remorse for what he had done. About the murder, he was nonchalant.

Given these disturbing images, it is clear why juvenile psychopathy is such an important area of research to enable the prevention of serious youth violence.

Sources: Stephen Porter, Michael Woodworth, Jeff Earle, Jeff Drugge, and Douglas Boer, “Characteristics of Sexual Homicides Committed by Psychopathic and Non-psychopathic Offenders,” Law and Human Behavior 27:457–470 (2003); Robert Hare, “Psychopathy as a Risk Factor for Violence,” Psychiatric Quarterly 70:181–197 (1999); Katherine Ramsland, “The Childhood Psychopath: Bad Seed or Bad Parents?”, available at http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/psychopath/1.html, accessed March 15, 2009.

Psychopaths and Violence (continued)

1 3 8 C H A P T E R 4 � Psychological Theories

29/11/12 11:04 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 138

role of social forces that influence and mold the ways we think, feel, believe, and behave.

Chapter Spotlight

• Psychodynamic theory explores the ways that early life experiences influence the personal- ity, which in turn affects behavior.

• Behavioral theory asserts that behavior is the outcome of social interactions that occure throughout the life course. People learn by observing and imitating what they see and experience.

• Important differences may be discerned between delinquents and nondelinquents in terms of their moral developments, sociabil- ity, and personality features.

• Oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder are among the most severe psychiat- ric diagnoses of childhood; both are strongly related to antisocial behavior.

• Psychopathy is a severe personality disorder that is evident in childhood and adolescence and has clear connections with many forms of delinquency.

• There is strong overlap between psychopa- thy and serious, violent, and chronic juvenile delinquency.

Critical Thinking

1. Even if violent media images contribute to delinquency, what can be done about them? Should video games and violent, R-rated mov- ies be censored? Who decides which material is appropriate and which material should be censored? Does this practice lead to problems that are greater than juvenile delinquency?

2. Have you ever observed toddler behavior? In what ways are toddlers aggressive toward them- selves, other toddlers, older children, and their parents? Are these examples of aggression upsetting or normal? Which types of aggressive behavior do you feel would be cause for alarm?

3. Males and females are differentially prone to use direct and indirect aggression. Are gen- der differences in delinquency reflective of powerful psychological differences between boys and girls? If so, what are some of the psychological differences between the sexes?

4. Cynics would say that all adolescents argue with their parents, fail to comply with their

parents’ rules, are often reluctant to follow school rules, and are full of negative emotions. Does this statement mean that all adolescents have oppositional defiant disorder? What are the essential differences between psychopa- thology and normal adolescent angst?

5. As scientific discoveries produce more knowledge about how genes influence per- sonality, do you foresee a point where the precise genetic cause of psychopathy will be known? If so, what should be done with that information?

Notes 1. Sigmund Freud, The Standard Edition of the Complete

Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (London: Hogarth Press, 1925).

2. Franz Alexander and William Healy, Roots of Crime (New York: Knopf, 1935); Franz Alexander, “Psychoanalysis and Social Disorganization,” American Journal of Sociology 42:781–813 (1937), p. 783; August Aichhorn, Wayward Youth (New York: Viking Press, 1936); Fritz Redl and David Wineman, Children Who Hate (New York: Free Press, 1951).

3. John Bowlby, Maternal Care and Mental Health (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1951); John Bowlby, Attachment and Loss: Volume 1 Attachment (New York: Basic Books, 1969); John Bowlby, Attachment and Loss: Volume 2. Separation: Anxiety and Anger (New York: Basic Books, 1973); John Bowlby Attachment and Loss: Volume 3. Loss: Sadness and Depression (New York: Basic Books, 1980); John Bowlby, A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development (New York: Basic Books, 1988).

4. B. F. Skinner, The Behavior of Organisms (New York: Appleton, 1938); B. F. Skinner, “Are Theories of Learn- ing Necessary?” Psychological Review 57:211–220 (1950); B. F. Skinner, Science and Human Behavior (New York: Macmillan, 1953).

5. Albert Bandura, Social Learning Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1977).

6. L. Rowell Huesmann and Lucyna Kirwil, “Why Observing Violence Increases the Risk of Violent Behavior by the Observer,” pages 545–570 in Daniel Flannery, Alexander Vazsonyi, and Irwin Waldman (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior and Aggression (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

7. Herbert Blumer, Movies, Delinquency, and Crime (New York: Macmillan, 1933).

8. Scott Snyder, “Movies and Juvenile Delinquency: An Overview,” Adolescence 26:121–132 (1991).

9. Christopher Ferguson, “Evidence for Publication Bias in Video Game Violence Effects Literature: A Meta- Analytic Review,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 12:470– 482 (2007); Christopher Ferguson, Stephanie Rueda,

Notes 1 3 9

29/11/12 11:04 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 139

Amanda Cruz, Diana Ferguson, Stacey Fritz, and Shawn Smith, “Violent Video Games and Aggression: Causal Relationship or Byproduct of Family Violence and Intrinsic Violence Motivation?” Criminal Justice and Behavior 35:311–332 (2008).

10. Jonathan Freedman, “Effect of Television Violence and Aggression,” Psychological Bulletin 96:227–246 (1984); Jonathan Freedman, “Television Violence and Aggres- sion: A Rejoinder,” Psychological Bulletin 100:372–378 (1986).

11. L. Rowell Huesmann, Jessica Moise-Titus, Cheryl-Lynn Podolski, and Leonard Eron, “Longitudinal Relations between Children’s Exposure to TV Violence and Their Aggressive and Violent Behavior in Young Adult- hood,” Developmental Psychology 39:201–221 (2003).

12. Gina Wingood, Ralph Clemente, Jay Bernhardt, Kathy Hareton, Susan Davies, Alyssa Robillard, and Edward Hook, “A Prospective Study of Exposure to Rap Music Videos and African American Female Adolescents’ Health,” American Journal of Public Health 93:437–439 (2003).

13. Albert Bandura, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986); Albert Bandura, “Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities,” Personality and Social Psychology 3:193–209 (1999); Albert Bandura, “Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective,” Annual Review of Psychology 52:1–26 (2001); Albert Bandura, “Toward a Psychology of Human Agency,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 1:164–180 (2006).

14. Jean Piaget, The Moral Judgment of the Child (London: Kegan Paul, 1932).

15. James Q. Wilson, The Moral Sense (New York: The Free Press, 1993).

16. Charles Darwin cited in Marc Hauser, Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong (New York: HarperCollins, 2006), p. ix.

17. Lawrence Kohlberg, The Development of Modes of Moral Thinking and Choice in the Years Ten to Sixteen, unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1958; Lawrence Kohlberg, Essays on Moral Development (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981).

18. Lawrence Kohlberg, “The Development of Children’s Orientations Towards a Moral Order,” Vita Humana 6:11–13 (1963), p. 11.

19. John Gibbs, Granville Potter, Albert Barriga, and Albert Liau, “Developing the Helping Skills and Prosocial Motivation of Aggressive Adolescents in Peer Group Networks,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 1:285–305 (1996).

20. Stavros Kiriakidis, “Moral Disengagement: Relation to Delinquency and Independence from Indices of Social Dysfunction,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 52:571–583 (2008).

21. Aisling O’Kane, Diane Fawcett, and Ronald Blackburn, “Psychopathy and Moral Reasoning: Comparison of Two Classifications,” Personality and Individual Differences 20:505–514 (1996); Geert Jan Stams, Daniel Brugman,

Maja Dekovic, Lenny van Rosmalen, Peter van der Laan, and John Gibbs, “The Moral Judgment of Juve- nile Delinquents: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 34:697–713 (2006).

22. Marinella Paciello, Robert Fida, Carlo Tramontano, Catia Lupinetti, and Gian Vittorio-Caprara, “Stability and Change of Moral Disengagement and Its Impact on Aggression and Violence in Late Adolescence,” Child Development 79:1288–1309 (2008); also see, Louis Charland, “Moral Nature of the DSM-IV Cluster B Personality Disorders,” Journal of Personality Disorders 20:116–125 (2006).

23. L. L. Thurstone, “The Vectors of Mind,” Psychological Review 41:1–32 (1934), pp. 12–14.

24. Lewis Goldberg, “An Alternative Description of Person- ality: The Big-Five Factor Structure,” Journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology 59:1216–1229 (1990).

25. Paul Costa and Robert McCrae, “Personality in Adult- hood: A 6-Year Longitudinal Study of Self-Reports and Spouse Ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54:853–863 (1988); Robert McCrae and Paul Costa, Personality in Adulthood (New York: Guilford Press, 1990).

26. Donald Lynam and Thomas Widiger, “Using a General Model of Personality to Identify the Basic Elements of Psychopathy,” Journal of Personality Disorders 21:160– 178 (2007).

27. Delroy Paulhus and Kevin Williams, “The Dark Triad of Personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy,” Journal of Research in Personality 36:556– 563 (2002); Sharon Jakobwitz and Vincent Egan, “The Dark Triad and Normal Personality Traits,” Personality and Individual Differences 40:331–339 (2006); Livia Veselka, Julie Schermer, and Philip Vernon, “The Dark Triad and an Expanded Framework of Personality,” Personality and Individual Differences, in press (2012).

28. Gordon Waldo and Simon Dinitz, “Personality Attributes of the Criminal: An Analysis of Research Studies, 1950–1965,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 4:185–202 (1967).

29. Robert Ross and Bambi Ross, “Delinquency Prevention through Cognitive Training,” New Education 10:70–75 (1988), p. 71.

30. Avshalom Caspi, Terrie Moffitt, Phil Silva, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, Robert Krueger, and Pamela Schmutte, “Are Some People Crime-Prone? Replica- tions of the Personality–Crime Relationship across Countries, Genders, Races, and Methods,” Criminology 32:163–196 (1994).

31. Estrella Romero, Angeles Luengo, and Jorge Sobral, “Personality and Antisocial Behavior: Study of Temperamental Dimensions,” Personality and Individual Differences 31:329–348 (2001).

32. Joshua Miller and Donald Lynam, “Structural Models of Personality and Their Relation to Antisocial Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Criminology 39:765–798 (2001); Shayne Jones, Joshua Miller, and Donald Lynam, “Personality, Antisocial Behavior, and Aggression:

1 4 0 C H A P T E R 4 � Psychological Theories

29/11/12 11:04 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 140

A Meta-Analytic Review,” Journal of Criminal Justice 39:329-337 (2011).

33. Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman, “Human Aggres- sion,” Annual Review of Psychology 53:27–51 (2002).

34. Frank Vitaro, Mara Brendgen, and Edward Barker, “Subtypes of Aggressive Behavior: A Developmental Perspective,” International Journal of Behavioral Develop- ment 30:12–19 (2006).

35. Frank Vitaro, Paul Gendreau, Richard Tremblay, and Patrice Oligny, “Reactive and Proactive Aggression Differentially Predict Later Conduct Problems,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 39:377–385 (1999); Frank Vitaro, Mara Brendgen, and Richard Trem- blay, “Reactively and Proactively Aggressive Children: Antecedent and Subsequent Characteristics,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 43:495–505 (2002).

36. Edward Barker, Richard Tremblay, Daniel Nagin, Frank Vitaro, and Eric Lacourse, “Development of Male Proactive and Reactive Physical Aggression during Adolescence,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47:783–790 (2006).

37. Noel Card, Brian Stucky, Gita Sawalani, and Todd Lit- tle, “Direct and Indirect Aggression during Childhood and Adolescence: A Meta-Analytic Review of Gender Differences, Intercorrelations, and Relations to Malad- justment,” Child Development 79:1185–1229 (2008).

38. Kevin Beaver, “Aggression and Crime,” in J. Mitchell Miller (ed.), 21st Century Criminology: A Reference Hand- book (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2009).

39. Richard Tremblay, “The Development of Aggressive Behavior during Childhood: What Have We Learned in the Past Century?” International Journal of Behavioral Development 24: 129–141 (2000); Richard Tremblay, “Prevention of Youth Violence: Why Not Start at the Beginning?” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 34:481– 487 (2006); Richard Tremblay et al., “The Search for the Age of ‘Onset’ of Physical Aggression: Rousseau and Bandura Revisited,” Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 9:8–23 (1999).

40. Dan Olweus, “Stability of Aggressive Reaction Patterns in Males: A Review,” Psychological Bulletin 86:852–875 (1979).

41. Rolf Loeber and Dale Hay, “Key Issues in the Develop- ment of Aggression and Violence from Childhood to Early Adulthood,” Annual Review of Psychology 48:371– 410 (1997).

42. Thomas Ross and María Isabel Fontao, “The Relation- ship of Self-Regulation and Aggression: An Empirical Test of Personality Systems Interaction Theory,” Interna- tional Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Crimi- nology 52:554–570 (2008).

43. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition text revision (DSM-IV-TR) (Washington, DC: Author, 2000).

44. Paul Frick, Benjamin Lahey, Rolf Loeber, Lynne Tannenbaum, Yolanda Van Horn, Mary Christ, Elizabeth Hart, and Kelly Hanson, “Oppositional Defi- ant Disorder and Conduct Disorder: A Meta-Analytic Review of Factor Analyses and Cross-Validation in a

Clinic Sample,” Clinical Psychology Review 13:319–340 (1993); Benjamin Lahey, Rolf Loeber, Herbert Quay, Paul Frick, and James Grimm, “Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder: Issues to Be Resolved for DSM-IV,” Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 31:539–546 (1992).

45. Joseph Biederman, Stephen Faraone, Sharon Mil- berger, Jennifer Jetton, Lisa Chen, Eric Mick, Ross Greene, and Ronald Russell, “Is Childhood Opposi- tional Defiant Disorder a Precursor to Adolescent Con- duct Disorder? Findings from a Four-Year Follow-up Study of Children with ADHD,” Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 35:1193–1204 (1996).

46. Matthew Speltz, Jon McClellan, Michelle DeKlyen, and Karen Jones, “Preschool Boys with Oppositional Defiant Disorder: Clinical Presentation and Diagnos- tic Change,” Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 38:838–845 (1999); C. von Polier, Thomas Vloet, and Beate Herpertz-Dahlmann, “ADHD and Delinquency: A Developmental Perspective,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law, in press (2012).

47. Linda Teplin, Karen Abram, Gary McClelland, Mina Dulcan, and Amy Mericle, “Psychiatric Disorders of Youth in Detention,” Archives of General Psychiatry 59:1133–1143 (2002).

48. J. T. Jackson, “Juvenile Delinquents and Oppositional Defiant Disorder: Students’ and Educators’ Responses,” Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services 12:73–77 (1997); Amy Byrd, Rolf Loeber, and Dustin Pardini, “Understanding Desisting and Persisting Forms of Delinquency: The Unique Contributions of Disruptive Behavior Disorders and Interpersonal Callousness,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 53:371-380 (2012).

49. American Psychiatric Association, note 43. 50. Rolf Loeber, Jeffrey Burke, Benjamin Lahey, Alaina

Winters, and Marcie Zera, “Oppositional Defiant and Conduct Disorder: A Review of the Past 10 Years, Part I,” Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 39:1468–1482 (2000); Paul Frick and Carrie Dickens, “Current Perspectives on Conduct Disorder,” Current Psychiatry Reports 8:59–72 (2006); Byrd et al., note 48.

51. Paul Frick and Amanda Sheffield Morris, “Tempera- ment and Developmental Pathways to Conduct Prob- lems,” Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 33:54–68 (2004).

52. Carla Sharp, Nancy Peterson, and Ian Goodyear, “Emotional Reactivity and the Emergence of Conduct Problems and Emotional Symptoms in 7- to 11-Year Olds: A 1-Year Follow-up Study,” Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 47:565–573 (2008).

53. Aldis Putnins, “Substance Abuse among Young Offend- ers: Thrills, Bad Feelings, or Bad Behavior?” Substance Use & Misuse 41:415–422 (2006).

54. Essi Viding, James Blair, Terrie Moffitt, and Robert Plomin, “Evidence for Substantial Genetic Risk for

Notes 1 4 1

29/11/12 11:04 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 141

Psychopathy in 7-Year-Olds,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46:592–597 (2005); Essi Viding, Paul Frick, and Robert Plomin, “Aetiology of the Relation- ship between Callous–Unemotional Traits and Con- duct Problems in Children,” British Journal of Psychiatry 190:33–38 (2007); Essi Viding and Eamon McCrory, “Why Should We Care About Measuring Callous- Unemotional Traits in Children?” British Journal of Psy- chiatry 200:177–178 (2012).

55. Simon Baatz, For the Thrill of It: Leopold, Loeb, and the Murder That Shocked Chicago (New York: Harper, 2008).

56. Robert Hare, “Psychopathy: A Clinical Construct Whose Time Has Come,” Criminal Justice & Behavior 23:25–54 (1996); Christopher Patrick, Handbook of Psychopathy (New York: Guilford Press, 2006); Hughes Herve and John Yuille, The Psychopath: Theory, Research, and Practice (Mahwah, NJ: LEA Press, 2006).

57. Philippe Pinel, A Treatise on Insanity (New York: Hafner, 1801/1962).

58. James Pritchard, A Treatise on Insanity and Other Disor- ders Affecting the Mind (London: Sherwood, Gilbert, and Piper, 1835).

59. Hervey Cleckley, The Mask of Sanity (St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby, 1941), p. 268.

60. Cleckley, note 59. 61. Robert Hare and Craig Neumann, “Psychopathy as

a Clinical and Empirical Construct,” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 4:217–246 (2008).

62. William McCord and Joan McCord, The Psychopath: An Essay on the Criminal Mind (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1964).

63. Lee Robins, Deviant Children Grown Up (Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1966), p. 157.

64. Donald Lynam, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie Moffitt, Adrian Raine, Rolf Loeber, and Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, “Adolescent Psychopathy and the Big Five: Results from Two Samples,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 33:431–443 (2005).

65. Paul Frick, Eva Kimonis, Danielle Dandreaux, and Jamie Farell, “The 4-Year Stability of Psychopathic Traits in Non-Referred Youth,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 21:713–736 (2003).

66. Donald Lynam, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie Moffitt, Rolf Loeber, and Magda Stouthamer-Loeber, “Longitudi- nal Evidence That Psychopathy Scores in Early Adoles- cence Predict Adult Psychopathy,” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 116:155–165 (2007).

67. Mary Ann Campbell, Stephen Porter, and Darcy Santor, “Psychopathic Traits in Adolescent Offenders: An Eval- uation of Criminal History, Clinical, and Psychosocial Correlates,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 22:23–47 (2004).

68. Michael Vitacco and Richard Rogers, “Predictors of Adolescent Psychopathy,” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 29:374–382 (2001); John Edens, Jennifer Skeem, Keith Cruise, and Elizabeth Cauffman, “Assessment of ‘Juvenile Psychopathy’ and Its Associa-

tion with Violence: A Critical Review,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 19:53–80 (2001); Matthew Howard, James Williams, Michael Vaughn, and Tonya Edmond, “Prom- ises and Perils of a Psychopathology of Crime: The Troubling Case of Juvenile Psychopathy,” Journal of Law and Policy 13:441–483 (2004).

69. Robert Blair, “Responsiveness to Distress Cues in the Child with Psychopathic Tendencies,” Personality and Individual Differences 27:135–145 (1999); Lisa Fisher and Robert Blair, “Cognitive Impairment and its Relation- ship to Psychopathic Tendencies in Children with Emo- tional and Behavioral Difficulties,” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 26:787–805 (1998).

70. Michael Vaughn, Matthew Howard, and Matt DeLisi, “Psychopathic Personality Traits and Delinquent Careers: An Empirical Examination,” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 31:1–20 (2008); Michael Vaughn and Matt DeLisi, “Were Wolfgang’s Chronic Offenders Psychopaths? On the Convergent Validity between Psychopathy and Career Criminality,” Journal of Criminal Justice 36:33–42 (2008); Michael Vaughn, Christina Newhill, Matt DeLisi, Kevin Beaver, and Matthew Howard, “An Investigation of Psychopathic Features among Delinquent Girls: Violence, Theft, and Drug Abuse” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 6:221–245 (2008).

71. Diana Falkenbach, Norman Poythress, and Kathleen Heide, “Psychopathic Features in a Juvenile Diversion Population,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 21:787–805 (2003).

72. Raymond Corrado, Gina Vincent, Stephen Hart, and Irwin Cohen, “Predictive Validity of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version for General and Violent Recid- ivism,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 22:5–22 (2004); Heather Gretton, Michelle McBride, Robert Hare, Roy O’Shaughnessy, and Gary Kumka, “Psychopathy and Recidivism in Adolescent Sex Offenders,” Criminal Jus- tice and Behavior 28:427–449 (2001).

73. Daniel Murrie, Dewey Cornell, Sebastian Kaplan, David McConville, and Andrea Levy-Elkon, “Psychopa- thy Scores and Violence among Juvenile Offenders: A Multi-Measure Study,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 22:49–67 (2004).

74. Sarah Spain, Kevin Douglas, Norman Poythress, and Monica Epstein, “The Relationship between Psycho- pathic Features, Violence, and Treatment Outcome,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 22:85–102 (2004).

75. Michael Vaughn, Christine Litschge, Matt DeLisi, Kevin Beaver, and Curtis McMillen, “Psychopathic Personality Features and Risks for Criminal Justice System Involve- ment Among Emancipating Foster Youth,” Children and Youth Services Review 30:1101–1110 (2008).

76. Benjamin Karpman, “Conscience in the Psychopath: Another Version,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 18:455–491 (1948); David Lykken, “A Study of Anxiety in Sociopathic Personality,” Journal of Abnormal Psychol- ogy 55:6–10 (1957).

1 4 2 C H A P T E R 4 � Psychological Theories

29/11/12 11:04 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 142

77. James Blair, Derek Mitchell, and Katrina Blair, The Psychopath: Emotion and the Brain (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005).

78. Anthony Walsh and Huei-Hsia Wu, “Differentiating Antisocial Personality Disorder, Psychopathy, and Sociopathy: Evolutionary, Genetic, Neurological, and Sociological Considerations,” Criminal Justice Studies 21:135–152, p. 148.

79. Donald Lynam, “Early Identification of Chronic Offenders: Who Is the Fledgling Psychopath?” Psycho- logical Bulletin 120:209–234 (1996); Donald Lynam, “Pursuing the Psychopath: Capturing the Fledgling Psy- chopath in a Nomological Net,” Journal of Abnormal Psy- chology 106:425–438 (1997); Donald Lynam and Lauren Gudonis, “The Development of Psychopathy,” Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 1:31–407 (2005).

80. Marnie Rice, Grant Harris, and Catherine Cormier, “A Follow-up of Rapists Assessed in a Maximum Secu- rity Psychiatric Facility,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 5:435–448 (1992).

81. Robert Hare, Danny Clark, Martin Grann, and David Thornton, “Psychopathy and the Predictive Validity of the PCL-R: An International Perspective,” Behavioral Sci- ences and the Law 18:623–645 (2000).

82. Grant Harris and Marnie Rice, “Treatment of Psy- chopathy: A Review of Empirical Findings,” page 568 in Christopher Patrick (ed.), Handbook of Psychopathy (New York: Guilford Press, 2006).

83. Keith Cruise, Lori Colwell, Phillip Lyons, and Michael Baker, “Prototypical Analysis of Adolescent Psychopa- thy: Investigating the Juvenile Justice Perspective,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 21:829–846 (2003).

84. Yoast van Baardewijk, Hedy Stegge, Brad Bushman, and Robert Vermeiren, “Psychopathic Traits, Victim Distress and Aggression in Children,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 50:718–725 (2009).

85. Mark Cohen, The Costs of Crime and Justice (London: Routledge, 2005); Matt DeLisi, Anna Kosloski, Molly Sween, Emily Hachmeister, Matt Moore, and Alan Drury, “Murder by Numbers: Monetary Costs Imposed by a Sample of Homicide Offenders,” Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology 21:501–512 (2010).

86. Michael Caldwell, Michael Vitacco, and Gregory Van Rybroek, “Are Violent Delinquents Worth Treating? A Cost–Benefit Analysis,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43:148–168 (2006).

87. Kathleen Heide and Eldra Solomon, “Treating Today’s Juvenile Homicide Offenders,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 1:5–31 (2003); Kathleen Heide, “Youth Homicide: A Review of the Literature and a Blueprint for Action,” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 47:6–36 (2003).

88. Stephen Scott, Martin Knapp, Juliet Henderson, and Barbara Maughan, “Financial Costs of Social Exclu- sion: Follow-up Study of Antisocial Children into Adult- hood,” British Medical Journal 323:191 (2001).

89. Robert McMahon, “Diagnosis, Assessment, and Treat- ment of Externalizing Problems in Children: The Role of Longitudinal Data,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62:901–917 (1994).

90. Allen Grove, Steven Evans, Dena Pastor, and Samantha Mack, “A Meta-Analytic Examination of Follow-up Studies of Programs Designed to Prevent the Primary Symptoms of Oppositional Defiant and Conduct Disor- ders,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 13:169–184 (2008), p. 181.

91. Sue Woolfenden, K. Williams, and Jennifer Peat, “Family and Parenting Interventions for Conduct Disorder and Delinquency: A Meta-Analysis of Random- ized Controlled Trials,” Archives of Disease in Childhood 86:251–256 (2002).

Notes 1 4 3

29/11/12 11:04 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 143

29/11/12 11:04 PM9781449645496_CH04_Print.indd 144