Juvenile Delinquency and Psychopathic Traits

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to analyze the role of psychopathic traits in juvenile delinquency. Using a sample of 543 young males from the Juvenile Detention Centers of the Portuguese Ministry of Justice and from schools in the Lisbon region, a group of high psychopathic traits (n = 281) and a group of low psychopathic traits (n = 262) were formed based on the Portuguese version of Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD). Results showed that youths with high psychopathic traits start engaging in criminal activities earlier in life, come into contact with the justice system earlier in life, and have higher levels of conduct disorder, behavior problems, and delinquent behaviors as well as lower levels of self-esteem.

Keywords

juvenile delinquency psychopathic traits APSD

Juvenile delinquency is an increasingly notable phenomenon is today’s societies; it can acquire various forms and be understood in distinct ways. Antisocial behaviors in youths are intrinsically related to the inability or unwillingness to conform to the norms of a particular society and respect authority or the rights of other individuals (Frick, 1998). Those behaviors can take on a lighter form (e.g., school absenteeism) or can have markedly serious aspects (e.g., rape, homicide); such acts are often associated and do not occur as isolated incidents.

Acts such as shoplifting or attacking a person differ in the gravity with which they are looked at by the authorities and the common law-abiding citizens. Although many youths are sporadically involved in antisocial or illegal acts, only a small minority commit serious acts in a persistent manner. That small minority, however, accounts for a substantial portion of delinquent acts committed (e.g., Elliott & Ageton, 1980; Henry, Caspi, Moffitt, & Silva, 1996; Loeber & Farrington, 2001; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1995), which considerably increases the importance of proceeding with their investigation.

Currently, there has been renewed interest in the study of juvenile delinquency and the development of new theories and research hypotheses (e.g., Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2006; Patterson & Yoerger, 2002). Prominent authors in this area of research (e.g., Farrington, Loeber, & Kalb, 2001) emphasize the need to encourage research aimed at the study of serious and persistent delinquent youths to accumulate consistent scientific evidence that can then substantiate interventions, in terms of therapeutic efficacy as well as cost/benefit.

Research conducted in recent decades has led to the conclusion that serious antisocial behaviors are disproportionately concentrated in male youths, and that when such behaviors are initiated early on, they are highly stable throughout the life course (Hawkins, Laub, & Lauritsen, 1998; Lipsey & Derzon, 1998). Studies that investigated this issue suggest that the best predictors of antisocial behavior in children and youths are individual and family characteristics. The best predictor of future antisocial behavior is past antisocial behavior (Tremblay & LeMarquand, 2001; Wasserman & Seracini, 2001).

The application of the psychopathy construct to adolescents in the context of juvenile delinquency has recently been gaining increasing importance in research, despite its long history in the biomedical and psychological sciences (Vaughn & Howard, 2005). There has been accumulating evidence for an association of this construct with greater stability and frequency of antisocial behaviors, more serious and violent delinquent behaviors, early onset of criminal activity, early arrests by police, and early convictions (e.g., Forth & Book, 2010; Kruh, Frick, & Clements, 2005; Van Baardewijk, Vermeiren, Stegge, & Doreleijers, 2011).

Psychopathy is generally conceptualized as a syndrome that remains throughout life and encompasses a constellation of extreme interpersonal, emotional, behavioral, and lifestyle traits. Adult men diagnosed as psychopaths tend to demonstrate proactive violent behaviors more frequently, motivated by instrumental reasons such as material gains and revenge (e.g., Serin, 1991). Psychopathic traits, which can be defined from the dimensional point of view, refer to a manipulative, deceitful, callous, and remorseless pattern that has come to be associated with a more serious, persistent, and violent early-onset type of antisocial behavior in adult men, with a preference for exciting and dangerous activities (e.g., Andershed, Gustafson, Kerr, & Stattin, 2002; Frick, Kimonis, Dandreaux, & Farrel, 2003; Vitacco et al., 2002).

In the past, the study of psychopathy by forensic psychologists and psychopathologists focused almost exclusively on adult men (Verona, Sadeh, & Javdani, 2010; Verona & Vitale, 2006). However, more recently some researchers (e.g., Frick, 1998; Lynam, 1996, 1997) have modified the nomological network of psychopathy and adapted existing psychopathy research instruments to children, adolescents, and women. These authors argue that children who show a combination of impulsivity, hyperactivity, and attention deficit, as well as conduct disorder, have a particularly deleterious variant of conduct disorder that makes them similar to adult psychopaths. These children can be identified by using measures of psychopathy, antisocial behavior, and laboratory tasks designed to evaluate response modulation (e.g., difficulty in delaying gratification).

The research carried out so far suggests that the juvenile psychopathy construct that has accumulated the most consistent evidence is the tridimensional factorial structure, which contains the callous/unemotional, impulsivity, and narcissism traits dimensions. The literature has highlighted the role of callous/unemotional traits, defined as an affective (e.g., absence of guilt, restraint of emotion displayed) and interpersonal (e.g., lack of empathy) style, which emerges as a distinct dimension; it has been referred that such traits can enable the distinction of a more severe and aggressive type of juvenile delinquents (Caputo, Frick, & Brosky, 1999; Kruh et al., 2005) in a way that the other impulsivity and narcissism dimensions cannot.

Some of the most interesting characteristics common between psychopathic traits and antisocial behaviors (Forth & Book, 2010) are their strong mutual association and their high stability from childhood to adulthood (Farrington, 1989; Huesmann, Eron, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1984; Moffitt, 1993). Comorbidity of psychopathic traits with other disorders is high and may even be considered the rule (Frick, 1998). There has been increasing evidence that minors diagnosed with comorbid combinations of disruptive behavior disorders and attention deficit (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [4th ed., text rev.; DSM-IV-TR]; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000) exhibit a particularly severe and aggressive type of antisocial behavior, similar to that of adults with psychopathy (Barry et al., 2000; Leistico, Salekin, DeCoster, & Rogers, 2008; Lynam, 1996, 1998).

After analyzing the relationship between juvenile psychopathy and externalizing psychopathology as defined in terms of disruptive behaviors, Salekin, Leistico, Neumann, DiCicco, and Duros (2004) concluded that there were moderate high correlations (r = .36-.49) between them. Sevecke and Kosson (2010) demonstrated the existence of a retrospective link between psychopathy in adults and conduct disorders in childhood, such as early onset of antisocial behavior, chronic violence, various crimes, and impulsivity. Myers, Burket, and Harris (1995) studied the relationship between psychopathy and certain forms of psychopathology in hospitalized adolescents, and found statistically significant positive correlations of psychopathy with conduct disorder and with antisocial behaviors. Frick, Barry, and Bodin (2000) found strong and significant correlations (R = .52-.65; p ≤ .001) between the dimensions of the Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD; impulsivity, narcissism, and callous/unemotional traits) and conduct disorder.

Low self-esteem is a construct that has been classically associated with juvenile delinquency, but its relation to psychopathic traits is under investigation and remains unclear. For a long time, psychologists, sociologists, and criminologists have considered that self-esteem correlates importantly with antisocial behavior (Caldwell, Beutler, Ross, & Silver, 2006; Mason, 2001) but have not investigated its relation to psychopathic traits. Low self-esteem can lead young people to associate with other young people with antisocial behaviors. Barnow, Lucht, and Freyberger (2005) showed how teenagers with low self-esteem are rejected more frequently by their peers and how this rejection produces a vicious cycle that amplifies violent behavior. Other empirical evidence (e.g., Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996; Toch, 1993) shows that young people with low self-esteem tend to engage in antisocial behaviors more frequently and that this leads to an increase of their self-esteem.

Juvenile psychopathy is an important area of study, but there is a lack of research on this topic, especially in European samples. To our knowledge, this is the first study examining juvenile psychopathic traits in a large forensic sample of Portuguese adolescents. Bearing in mind the theoretical framework mentioned above, this study aimed to test two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Young people with high psychopathic traits show significantly higher values of conduct disorder, behavior problems, and delinquent behaviors, as well as lower values of self-esteem.

Hypothesis 2: Scores obtained from behavior problems, delinquent behaviors, and self-esteem measurements are associated with high or low psychopathic traits group membership.

Method

Participants

The final sample was made up of 543 male participants recruited from a forensic context and a school context; of this total, 281 participants formed the group with high psychopathic traits (high APSD; n = 281; M = 15.97 years; SD = 1.5 years; range = 13-20 years) and 262 participants formed the group with low psychopathic traits (low APSD; n = 262; M = 15.94 years; SD = 1.5 years; range = 12-20 years).

Table 1 shows data regarding the origin, number, and respective percentage of participants per APSD group.

Table 1.

Frequency and Percentage of Participants for the Low APSD and High APSD Groups.

	Low APSD < 11	High APSD ≥ 12	n	%
Forensic sample	54	167	221	40.6
School sample	208	113	322	59.3
Total sample	262	281	543	100

Note: APSD = Antisocial Process Screening Device.

The criterion used to form these groups was based on the cutoff score of 12 from the Portuguese validation of the Antisocial Process Screening Device–Self-Report (APSD-SR; Pechorro, 2011; Pechorro, Marôco, Poiares, & Vieira, 2011a); this cutoff score was considered best in terms of combined values of sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Instruments

The APSD-SR (Frick & Hare, 2001; Muñoz & Frick, 2007) is a multidimensional 20-item measure designed to assess psychopathic traits in adolescents. Originally named the Psychopathy Screening Device (PSD), it was modeled after the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003). Each item is scored on a 3-point ordinal scale (0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = often); higher scores mean an increased presence of the traits in question. The total score, as well as each dimension score, is obtained by adding the respective items. Some studies (e.g., Frick, O’Brien, Wootton, & McBurnett, 1994) reported two main factors: callous/unemotional traits (CU; tapping interpersonal and affective dimensions of psychopathy, such as lack of guilt and absence of empathy) and an impulsivity/conduct problems factor (I-CP; tapping behavioral aspects of conduct problems and impulse control problems). Another study (Frick et al., 2000) in a community sample reported three main factors: callous/unemotional traits factor (CU) and an I-CP factor which is subdivided into two further factors, namely, narcissism (Nar) and impulsivity (Imp). Higher scores indicate an increased presence of the characteristics associated with each factor. The Portuguese validation of the APSD-SR (Pechorro, 2011; Pechorro et al., 2011a) was used. The internal consistency for the present study, estimated by Cronbach’s alpha, was as follows: Total APSD = .75; I-CP = .77; CU = .56.

The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire–Self-Response (SDQ-SR; Goodman, Meltzer, & Bailey, 1998) is a short behavioral questionnaire aimed at preadolescents and adolescents made up of 25 items, rated on a 3-point ordinal scale (0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = often). The SDQ consists of five dimensions: Emotional Symptoms (ES), Conduct Problems (CP), Hyperactivity (H), Peer Problems (PP), and Prosocial Behavior (P). Internal consistency for the present study, estimated by Cronbach’s alpha, was as follows: ES = .51; CP = .46; H = .52; PP = .43; P = .61. These results are low but still acceptable for exploratory research purposes (DeVellis, 1991). Removal of items did not have a significant effect on alpha values. The official Portuguese translation (http://www.sdqinfo.org) of the SDQ-SR was used (Pechorro, 2011; Pechorro, Poiares, & Vieira, 2011) as a part of a pilot study on its psychometric properties.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1989) is a brief self-report measure which evaluates self-esteem in adolescents and adults. The RSES can be scored by simply adding the 10 items on a 4-point ordinal scale (0 = strongly disagree, 1 = disagree, 2 = agree, 3 = strongly agree), after reversing the appropriate items (namely, Items 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9). Higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem. Internal consistency for the present study, estimated by Cronbach’s alpha, was .79. A Portuguese version of the RSES was used and validated (Pechorro, 2011; Pechorro, Marôco, Poiares, & Vieira, 2011b).

The Adapted Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (ASRDS; Carroll, Durkin, Houghton, & Hattie, 1996; Carroll, Houghton, Durkin, & Hattie, 2009) is a self-report measure consisting of 38 items, which assesses adolescent involvement in illegal and antisocial activities. The ASRDS score can be obtained by adding the items from a 3-point ordinal scale (0 = never, 1 = sometimes, 2 = often), where higher scores signify greater involvement in criminal activities. Internal consistency for this study, estimated by Cronbach’s alpha, was .96. A Portuguese version of the ASRDS was used and validated (Pechorro, 2011).

The Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) Short Composite (MCSDS-SF) version was designed by Ballard (1992) from the original Marlowe–Crowne scale; it is recognized as a composite subscale and is currently probably the most used of all the subscales that have been derived from the original MCSDS. A Portuguese version of the MCSDS-SF, especially translated and adapted for adolescents, was used and validated (Pechorro, 2011). Internal consistency for the present study (using a 12-items version of the MCSDS-SF), estimated by Kuder–Richardson coefficient, was .60.

In addition, a questionnaire was constructed to describe the sociodemographic and criminal characteristics of the participants and to analyze the moderating effect of these variables. This questionnaire includes questions about participants’ age, nationality, ethnic group, gender, rural versus urban origin, level of schooling completed, parents’ socioeconomic status, parents’ marital status, engagement in illegal activities, age of first problems with the law, and so on.

Procedures

The age range for youth participation in the study was previously set between 12 and 20 years because this is the age range when young people are amenable to interventions under the Portuguese judicial system’s Educational Guardianship Act (Lei Tutelar-Educativa). We chose to use only male participants due to the relative scarcity of girls admitted to the Portuguese Juvenile Detention Centers (Centros Educativos). Each questionnaire was preceded by an informed consent form in which participants were informed of the voluntary and confidential nature of participation in the study.

Collection of questionnaires in the forensic context was carried out individually after obtaining authorization from the General Directorate of Reintegration and Prison Services–Ministry of Justice (Direcção-Geral de Reinserção e Serviços Prisionais–Ministério da Justiça). All the detainees from the six existing Juvenile Detention Centers managed by the Portuguese Ministry of Justice were informed about the nature of the study and asked to participate. The participation rate was around 92%. Not all young people agreed or were able to participate; reasons included refusal to participate (6%), inability to participate due to not understanding the language (1%), and inability to participate due to security issues (1%). The main author of this study collaborated personally with the directors of each detention center to motivate young people to participate in the study, clarifying any questions that arose regarding participation. No incentives to encourage participation were given, but the fact that detention centers’ directors were personally involved in encouraging participation might have contributed to increase the participation rate, given that in the Portuguese cultural reality, detained youths hold director figures in high regard. All questionnaires of those who participated were appropriately completed.

The collection of questionnaires in the school context took place after having obtained permission from the Directorate General of Innovation and Curricular Development, Ministry of Education (Direcção-Geral de Inovação e de Desenvolvimento Curricular–Ministério da Educação). Twelve elementary/secondary schools from the greater Lisbon areas were randomly selected, of which 4 agreed to participate. Reasons for nonparticipation included the systematic absence of a response to collaboration requests made by the researcher, alleged internal school organization issues that made collaboration impossible, as well as the refusal to collaborate due to the forensic content of the questionnaire. The schools that accepted to participate requested that participation of each student should be previously authorized by written consent, signed by their parent/guardian. In the end, about 13% of participants were excluded due to not belonging to the age range established or to reasons such as returning incomplete, blank, or illegible questionnaires.

Questionnaire data which were considered valid (i.e., appropriately completed by participants within the selected age range) were analyzed using SPSS v19 (IBM SPSS, 2010). Following data entry, 10% of questionnaires were randomly selected, so as to evaluate the quality of their entry. The quality was considered very good as practically no entry errors were detected. Then the high psychopathic traits (high APSD) and low psychopathic traits (low APSD) groups were formed; the main criterion used to form these groups was the cutoff score of 12 on the final scores of the Portuguese version of the APSD-SR (Pechorro et al., 2011a).

Regarding comparisons and correlations, parametric techniques were used with normal distributions (asymmetry and kurtosis between –2 and 2). Nonparametric tests were used when the distribution was not normal, namely, the Mann–Whitney U test. Binary logistic regression was also used (coding of the dependent variable: low APSD group = 0, high APSD group = 1). Effect size and power calculations were made (as described in Marôco, 2010) to clarify the degree of accuracy/reliability of the statistical judgments and the strength of the relationship between the variables; the following values were obtained: SDQ-SR ES scale (η_p² = .00; power = .19), SDQ-SR CP scale (r = –.54; power = .95), SDQ-SR H scale (η_p² = .10; power = 1); SDQ-SR PP scale (η_p² = .03; power = .99); SDQ-SR P scale (η_p² = .07; power = 1); RSES (η_p² = .06; power = 1); ASRDS (r = –.57; power = .95); MCSDS-SF (η_p² = .14; power = 1).

Results

In the initial phase of data treatment, variables of the sociodemographic questionnaire were analyzed. Results showed statistically significant differences between the high APSD and low APSD groups regarding ethnicity (χ² = 14.929; p ≤ .01), level of schooling completed (F Welch [F_W] = 57.694; p ≤ .001), socioeconomic status (U = 25,258; p ≤ .05), parents’ marital status (χ² = 34.957; p ≤ .001), number of siblings/half-siblings (U = 27,523.5; p ≤ .001), and the taking of psychiatric drugs (χ² = 34.178; p ≤ .001). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups regarding the variables age, nationality, and rural versus urban origin. These results showed that the high APSD group contained fewer White European participants (Portuguese juvenile detention centers have disproportionate numbers of non-White juveniles), fewer years of schooling finished, participants whose parents had lower socioeconomic statuses, whose parents were more often divorced/separated or deceased, who had more siblings/half-siblings and who were taking more psychiatric drugs.

The results of the criminal variables were then analyzed. Results showed statistically significant differences between the high APSD and low APSD groups regarding engagement in illegal activities (χ² = 120.212; p ≤ .001), age of onset of criminal activities (F = 7.546; p ≤ .01), problems with the law (χ² = 86.206; p ≤ .001), age of first problem with the law (F = 14.102; p ≤ .001), entry into a Juvenile Detention Center (χ² = 84.828; p ≤ .001), age of first entry into a Juvenile Detention Center (F = 7.896; p ≤ .01) and diagnosis of DSM-IV-TR’s conduct disorder (χ² = 18.346; p ≤ .001). These results showed that the participants from the high APSD group were proportionately more involved in illegal activities, the start of those criminal activities had been earlier, they had had proportionately more problems with the law, were younger when they first had problems with the law, had entered a Juvenile Detention Center proportionately more often, and were younger when they had first entered a Juvenile Detention Center. These data are consistent with studies linking the psychopathy construct to earlier onset of criminal activity and to earlier encounters with the police and the courts.

As far as the psychometric instruments were concerned, statistically significant differences were found when comparing the groups regarding the SDQ-SR scales, namely, with the scales CP, H, PP, and P (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics, ANOVAs, and U Test for the SDQ-SR.

	Low APSD < 11	High APSD ≥ 12	p ^a
SDQ-SR ES
M (SD)	2.744 (1.507)	2.894 (1.682)	F_W = 1.198
Skewness-Kurtosis	1.166−1.383	0.488− −.256	p = .274
SDQ-SR CP
Mean rank	184.94	352.49	U = 14,001.5
Skewness-Kurtosis	6.021−65.908	0.193− −.606	p ≤ .001
SDQ-SR H
M (SD)	3.522 (1.752)	4.820 (2.109)	F_W = 60.883
Skewness-Kurtosis	0.306− −.144	0.023− −.555	p ≤ .001
SDQ-SR PP
M (SD)	2.103 (1.6)	2.713 (1.716)	F_W = 18.314
Skewness-Kurtosis	1.069-0.901	0.723-0.775	p ≤ .001
SDQ-SR P
M (SD)	7.802 (1.686)	6.854 (1.861)	F = 38.453
Skewness-Kurtosis	−.421−0.566	−.146 −.221	p ≤ .001

Note: SDQ-SR = Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire–Self-Report; APSD = Antisocial Process Screening Device; ES = Emotional Symptoms; F_W = F Welch; CP = Conduct Problems; H = Hyperactivity; PP = Peer Problems; P = Prosocial Behavior.

ANOVA or U Mann–Whitney Test (two-sided).

After comparing the samples regarding the ASRDS, RSES, and MCSDS-SF, statistically significant differences were found in all scales (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics, ANOVAs, and U Test for the ASRDS, RSES, and MCSDS-SF.

	Low APSD < 11	High APSD ≥ 12	p ^a
ASRDS
Mean rank	178.94	358.11	U = 12,429.5
Skewness-Kurtosis	1.846−4.539	0.374− −.871	p ≤ .001
RSES
M (SD)	23.092 (4.195)	20.799 (5.205)	F_W = 32.034
Skewness-Kurtosis	−.565− −.149	−.326− −.123	p ≤ .001
MCSDS-SF
M (SD)	19.36 (2.36)	17.445 (2.361)	F = 88.734
Skewness-Kurtosis	−.322− −.231	.664−1.084	p ≤ .001

Note: ASRDS = Adapted Self-Report Delinquency Scale; RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; MCSDS-SF = Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale–Short Form; F_W = F Welch; APSD = Antisocial Process Screening Device.

ANOVA or U Mann–Whitney Test (two-sided).

We also tested the correlation of the APSD-SR with the ASRDS and the diagnosis of conduct disorder (DSM-IV-TR; APA, 2000). Statistically significant correlations were found both in the case of the ASRDS (r = .64; p ≤ .001) and in the case of conduct disorder (r_pb = .28; p ≤ .001).

To assess the significance of the constructs that were measured, namely, behavioral problems, self-esteem, delinquent behaviors, and social desirability, we utilized binary logistic regression using the Enter method (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) were used to prove the absence of multicollinearity (Leech, Barrett, & Morgan, 2008). The variables for which statistically significant values were not obtained in the model—self-esteem (RSES) and emotional symptoms (SDQ-SR ES)—were removed from the equation, despite both being significant when not in the equation. The variables shown in Table 4, when considered together, were statistically significant regarding group membership.

Table 4.

Binary Logistic Regression Coefficients for the Low APSD and High APSD Groups.

	B	SE	Wald	Exp (B)	p
SDQ-SR CP	0.323	.075	18.309	1.381	p ≤ .001
SDQ-SR H	0.247	.054	20.83	1.28	p ≤ .001
SDQ-SR PP	0.123	.066	3.434	1.131	p = .064
SDQ-SR P	−0.362	.063	33.207	0.696	p ≤ .001
ASRDS	0.091	.011	64.322	1.095	p ≤ .001
MCSDS-SF	−0.224	.044	26.172	0.799	p ≤ .001
Constant	3.05	.904	11.387	21.119	p ≤ .001

Note: APSD = Antisocial Process Screening Device; SDQ-SR = Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire–Self-Report; CP = Conduct Problems; H = Hyperactivity; PP = Peer Problems; P = Prosocial Behavior; ASRDS = Adapted Self-Report Delinquency Scale; MCSDS-SF = Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale–Short Form.

The three highest odds ratios were SDQ-SR CP with 1.38, SDQ-SR H with 1.28, and SDQ-SR PP with 1.13; these indicate that the odds of belonging to the high psychopathic group improved by 1.38 for each unit increase in SDQ-SR CP, by 1.28 for each unit increase in SDQ-SR H, and by 1.13 for every unit increase in SDQ-SR PP (Leech et al., 2008). The model was also used to classify study participants, and an overall correct classification of 82% was observed, which demonstrates the usefulness of the model to classify new observations. The model also showed good sensitivity (75.7%) and high specificity (87.2%).

Discussion

Comparing the male participants of the high psychopathic traits group with the low psychopathic traits group regarding criminal variables, statistically significant differences were found for all the variables analyzed. Results showed that the participants from the high APSD group were proportionately more involved in illegal activities, the start of those criminal activities had been earlier, they had had proportionately more problems with the law, were younger when they first had problems with the law, had entered a Juvenile Detention Center proportionately more often and were younger when they had first entered a Juvenile Detention Center. These data are consistent with studies linking the psychopathy construct to earlier onset of criminal activity and to earlier contacts with the police and the courts.

It was found that proportionately more participants of the high APSD group were diagnosed with conduct disorder (DSM-IV-TR; APA, 2000), and a moderate correlation of the APSD-SR score with conduct disorder was also found. In comparisons regarding the SDQ-SR, the high psychopathic traits group obtained significantly higher values for CP, H, and PP; we also obtained, as expected, a significantly lower value for P. No significant differences were found regarding the ES dimension; however, it is possible that this was due to excessively low power of the statistical test (power = .19) and internal consistency (α = .51). This evidence reinforces the literature that supports the consistent association of psychopathy constructs and conduct disorder (Barry et al., 2000; Leistico et al., 2008; Lynam, 1996; Myers et al., 1995; Salekin et al., 2004).

Comparing the groups regarding the ASRDS, the high psychopathic traits group obtained a significantly higher value for self-reported delinquent behaviors, showing greater frequency and diversity of these behaviors in this group. The high correlation found between the APSD-SR and the ASRDS reinforces the association between psychopathy and delinquent behaviors described in the literature (e.g., Sevecke & Kosson, 2010; Van Baardewijk et al., 2011).

With the RSES and the MCSDS-SF, the high psychopathic traits group obtained significantly lower values regarding self-esteem, findings which are consistent with the literature that classically associates low self-esteem with antisocial behaviors (e.g., Caldwell et al., 2006; Mason, 2001); our findings associate high psychopathic traits with low self-esteem. With regard to social desirability, it may seem like these results are counterintuitive, as higher scores for social desirability could be expected in youths with high psychopathic traits so as to try to portray more positive images of themselves. However, Lilienfeld and Fowler (2006) had already showed that psychopaths frequently report the presence of socially devalued characteristics, such as antisocial behaviors, hostility, and weak impulse control, reliably. Quite frequently, it is wrongly considered that psychopaths are supposedly more adept than nonpsychopaths at manipulating their questionnaire answers. There is however no consistent empirical evidence that supports such a claim, only a few specific clinical observations.

From the results discussed above, we can conclude that there is heterogeneity in the sociodemographic and criminal characterization of male youths belonging to the high psychopathic traits (APSD ≥ 12) and low psychopathic traits groups (APSD < 11), which also manifests itself in terms of the constructs measured by psychometric instruments. We can consider that the construct of psychopathic traits is useful in the characterization of male youths, allowing the variables analyzed from this perspective to highlight a number of issues that characterize them. Therefore, there is evidence that supports the initial hypothesis that young people with high psychopathic traits show significantly higher values of conduct disorder, behavior problems, and delinquent behaviors, as well as lower values of self-esteem.

With regard to the binary logistic regression of the dependent variable low psychopathic (APSD < 11) and high psychopathic groups (APSD ≥ 12), most of the independent variables were statistically significant. Results obtained from the regression model reinforce the role of the interrelationship of psychopathic traits with the behavior problems variables (e.g., Frick, 1998; Frick et al., 2000; Lynam, 1996), considered as related but different constructs. There is therefore also evidence in this case which mostly confirms the hypothesis that was set.

It should, however, be highlighted that not all minors who show severe antisocial behavior together with the diagnosis of conduct disorder should be considered to be potential psychopaths; such a classification should be reserved for a distinct subgroup after suitable assessment (Lynam, 1996). We must stress the importance of the psychopathy construct for the early identification of young people at potential high risk and for the rigorous assessment of young people who have already come into contact with the judicial system, thus promoting an empirically grounded basis to guide interventions.

Our study contributes to the research on juvenile psychopathic traits in European samples. This is the first study examining juvenile psychopathic traits in a large sample of Portuguese adolescents. We hope to promote the investigation of this important construct in the Portuguese ethnic/cultural reality, which may help to identify unique etiological pathways in the development of antisocial behavior (Kotler & McMahon, 2005). The identification of these serious and persistent juvenile delinquents allows some space to improve the therapeutic interventions in terms of costs/benefits given that it becomes possible to focus particularly in them the very scarce available resources. The benefits of focusing interventions in these individuals should be assessed in the future in terms of their recidivism rates. It is, however, necessary to point out some limitations of our study. The use of self-report measures and the low internal consistency of some scale dimensions (e.g., APSD-SR CU, SDQ-SR CP) were limitations; it is recommended that future research in this area should use rating scales and measures that show better internal consistency.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was partially financed by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) of Portugal.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Andershed

Gustafson

Kerr

Stattin

(2002). The usefulness of self-reported psychopathy-like traits in the study of antisocial behaviour among non-referred adolescents. European Journal of Personality, 16, 383-402.

Ballard

(1992). Short forms of the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Psychological Reports, 71, 1155-1160.

Barnow

Lucht

Freyberger

H. J.

(2005). Correlates of aggressive and delinquent conduct problems in adolescence. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 24-39.

Barry

Frick

DeShazo

McCoy

Ellis

Loney

(2000). The importance of callous-unemotional traits for extending the concept of psychopathy to children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109, 335-340.

Baumeister

Smart

Boden

(1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5-33.

Caldwell

Beutler

Ross

Silver

(2006). Brief report: An examination of the relationships between parental monitoring, self-esteem and delinquency among Mexican American male adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 459-464.

Caputo

Frick

Brosky

(1999). Family violence and juvenile sex offending: The potential role of psychopathic traits and negative attitudes toward women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 338-356.

Carroll

Durkin

Houghton

Hattie

(1996). An adaptation of Mak’s self-reported delinquency scale for Western Australian adolescents. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48, 1-7.

10.

Carroll

Houghton

Durkin

Hattie

(2009). Adolescent reputations and risk: Developmental trajectories to delinquency. New York, NY: Springer.

11.

Crowne

Marlowe

(1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.

12.

DeVellis

(1991). Scale development: Theory and applications. London, England: Sage.

13.

Elliott

Ageton

(1980). Reconciling race and class differences in self-reported and official estimates of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 45, 95-110.

14.

Farrington

(1989). Early predictors of adolescent aggression and adult violence. Violence and Victims, 4, 79-100.

15.

Farrington

Loeber

Kalb

(2001). Key research and policy issues. In Loeber

Farrington

(Eds.), Child delinquents: Development, intervention, and service needs (pp. 385-394). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Forth

Book

(2010). Psychopathic traits in children and adolescents. In Salekin

Lynam

(Eds.), Handbook of child and adolescent psychopathy (pp. 251-283). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

17.

Frick

(1998). Conduct disorders and severe antisocial behaviour. New York, NY: Plenum.

18.

Frick

Barry

Bodin

(2000). Applying the concept of psychopathy to children: Implications for the assessment of antisocial youth. In Gacono

(Ed.), The clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 1-24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Frick

Hare

(2001). Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD): Technical manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

20.

Frick

Kimonis

Dandreaux

Farrel

(2003). The 4 year stability of psychopathic traits in non-referred youth. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21, 713-736.

21.

Frick

O’Brien

Wootton

McBurnett

(1994). Psychopathy and conduct problems in children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 700-707.

22.

Goodman

Meltzer

Bailey

(1998). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 7, 125-130.

23.

Hare

(2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised: Technical manual (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

24.

Hawkins

Laub

Lauritsen

(1998). Race, ethnicity, and serious juvenile offending. In Loeber

Farrington

(Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 30-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Henry

Caspi

Moffitt

Silva

(1996). Temperamental and familial predictors of violent and nonviolent criminal convictions: Age 3 to age 18. Developmental Psychology, 32, 614-623.

26.

Huesmann

Eron

Lefkowitz

Walder

(1984). The stability of aggression over time and generations. Developmental Psychology, 20, 1120-1134.

27.

IBM SPSS. (2010). IBM SPSS Statistics Base 19. Chicago, IL: SPSS.

28.

Kotler

McMahon

(2005). Child psychopathy: Theories, measurement, and relations with the development and persistence of conduct problems. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8, 291-325.

29.

Kruh

Frick

Clements

(2005). Historical and personality correlates to the violence patterns of juveniles tried as adults. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 69-96.

30.

Leech

Barrett

Morgan

(2008). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation (3rd ed.). New York, NY: LEA.

31.

Leistico

Salekin

DeCoster

Rogers

(2008). A large-scale meta-analysis relating the Hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 28-45.

32.

Lilienfeld

Fowler

(2006). The self-report assessment of psychopathy: Problems, pitfalls, and promises. In Patrick

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 107-132). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

33.

Lipsey

Derzon

(1998). Predictors of violent or serious delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In Loeber

Farrington

(Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 84-105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

34.

Loeber

Farrington

(2001). The significance of child delinquency. In Loeber

Farrington

(Eds.), Child delinquents: Development, intervention and service needs (pp. 1-24). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

35.

Lynam

(1996). Early identification of chronic offenders: Who is the fledgling psychopath? Psychological Bulletin, 120, 209-243.

36.

Lynam

(1997). Pursuing the psychopath: Capturing the fledgling psychopath in a nomological net. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 425-438.

37.

Lynam

(1998). Early identification of the fledgling psychopath: Locating the psychopathic child in the current literature. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 566-575.

38.

Marôco

(2010). Statistical analysis with PASW Statistics (ex-SPSS). Pêro Pinheiro: ReportNumber.

39.

Mason

(2001). Self-esteem and delinquency revisited (again): A test of Kaplan’s self-derogation theory of delinquency using latent growth curve modeling. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 83-102.

40.

Moffitt

(1993). Adolescent-limited and life-persistent antisocial behaviour: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674-701.

41.

Moffitt

Caspi

Rutter

Silva

(2006). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour: Conduct disorder, delinquency and violence in the Dunedin longitudinal study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

42.

Muñoz

Frick

(2007). The reliability, stability, and predictive utility of the self-report version of the Antisocial Process Screening Device. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 48, 299-312.

43.

Myers

Burket

Harris

(1995). Adolescent psychopathy in relation to delinquent behaviors, conduct disorders, and personality disorders. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40, 436-440.

44.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1995). Introduction. In Howell

(Ed.), Guide for implementing the comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders (pp. 1-6). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

45.

Patterson

Yoerger

(2002). A developmental model for early- and late-onset antisocial behavior. In Reid

J. B.

Snyder

Patterson

G. R.

(Eds.), Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention (pp. 147-172). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

46.

Pechorro

(2011). Juvenile delinquency: Study of some psychological and relational variables with an emphasis on psychopathic traits (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.

47.

Pechorro

Marôco

Poiares

Vieira

(2011a). Validation of the Portuguese version of the Antisocial Process Screening Device Self-Report with a focus on delinquent behavior and behavior problems. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0306624X11427174

48.

Pechorro

Marôco

Poiares

Vieira

(2011b). Validation of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale with Portuguese adolescents in forensic and school contexts. Arquivos de Medicina, 25, 174-179.

49.

Pechorro

Poiares

Vieira

(2011). Psychometric properties of the Portuguese self-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Revista de Psiquiatria Consiliar e de Ligação, 16/19, 99-109.

50.

Rosenberg

(1989). Society and the adolescent self-image (Rev. ed.). Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.

51.

Salekin

Leistico

Neumann

DiCicco

Duros

(2004). Psychopathy and comorbidity in a young offender sample: Taking a closer look at psychopathy’s potential importance over disruptive behavior disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 416-427.

52.

Serin

(1991). Psychopathy and violence in criminals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 423-431.

53.

Sevecke

Kosson

(2010). Relationships of child and adolescent psychopathy to other forms of psychopathology. In Salekin

Lynam

(Eds.), Handbook of child and adolescent psychopathy (pp. 284-314). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

54.

Tabachnick

Fidell

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

55.

Toch

(1993). Good violence and bad violence: Through self-presentations of aggressors accounts and war stories. In Felson

Tedeschi

(Eds.), Aggression and violence: Social interactionist perspectives (pp. 193-206). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

56.

Tremblay

LeMarquand

(2001). Individual risk and protective factors. In Loeber

Farrington

(Eds.), Child delinquents: Development, intervention, and service needs (pp. 137-164). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

57.

Van Baardewijk

Vermeiren

Stegge

Doreleijers

(2011). Self-reported psychopathic traits in children: Their stability and concurrent and prospective association with conduct problems and aggression. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 33, 236-245.

58.

Vaughn

Howard

(2005). The construct of psychopathy and its potential contribution to the study of serious, violent, and chronic youth offending. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3, 235-252.

59.

Verona

Sadeh

Javdani

(2010). The influences of gender and culture on child and adolescent psychopathy. In Salekin

Lynam

(Eds.), Handbook of child and adolescent psychopathy (pp. 317-342). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

60.

Verona

Vitale

(2006). Psychopathy in women. In Patrick

(Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 415-436). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

61.

Vitacco

Neumann

Robertson

Durrant

(2002). Contributions of impulsivity and callousness in the assessment of adjudicated male adolescents: A prospective study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78(1), 87-103.

62.

Wasserman

Seracini

(2001). Family risk factors and interventions. In Loeber

Farrington

(Eds.), Child delinquents: Development, intervention, and service needs (pp. 165-190). Thousand Oaks: Sage.