An Examination of the Criminological Consequences and Correlates of Remorselessness During Adolescence

Abstract

Warr recently proposed that remorselessness may offer a useful explanation for understanding persistence and desistance from criminal offending. While early empirical evidence supports this framework, not only is replication needed but there is also a need to consider potential determinants of remorselessness. Using data from the Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, we examine the extent to which remorselessness relates to self-reported violence and aggression as well as several potential correlates of remorselessness. Our findings show that remorselessness during adolescence is associated with a higher likelihood of both self-reported violence and aggression even after controlling for self-control, peer violence, parenting, prior violence, and several other covariates. We also find that males and persons who associate with violent peers are more likely to evince higher remorselessness, while individuals exposed to higher quality parenting evince lower remorselessness. Implications of our findings are discussed.

Keywords

remorse juveniles violence aggression psychopathy

I would like to make it crystal clear, I do not regret what I did…I am not sorry.

—Dylan Roof, convicted for hate crime shooting at the Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in 2015.

In a recent article, Warr (2016) tasked the field of criminology to reconsider the important role that emotions play with respect to persistence or desistance from crime. In particular, he highlighted the important emotion of regret as something that would be related to desistance from crime, especially in that it conveys a “desire for undoing” (p. 233, emphasis in original). As well, Warr (2016) also indicated that regret is closely associated with another individual characteristic, remorse, where the individual recognizes the harm they caused by way of their crime and, in turn, acknowledges “personal culpability” (p. 234). To the extent that an offender feels remorse for their wrongdoing, it is anticipated that they will be less likely to offend in the future. When comparing regret and remorse, Warr hypothesized that remorse may be the more relevant of the two with respect to fewer instances of offending (p. 234).

The linkage of the concept of remorselessness to offending has received some attention in psychology, with encouraging results (see Spice, 2013; Spice, Vilojean, Douglas, & Hart, 2015). In criminology, Flexon and Meldrum (2013) examined the association between psychopathy (remorselessness, unemotionality, and callousness) and violence—finding a positive relationship between the individual characteristics and violence. Most recently, in the first explicit empirical investigation of Warr’s remorse-based hypothesis in a sample of serious adolescent offenders, Piquero (2017) found that remorse-resistant adolescents incurred a higher number of rearrests 7 years after the offenders responded to several questions designed to measure remorse. Conversely, offenders who were more prone to remorse were rearrested for fewer offenses even after controlling for several key confounding variables. Although Piquero’s (2017) work serves as a useful first test, it remains the sole criminological study investigating Warr’s framework and is constrained by its reliance on a select sample and its use of official arrest records. Thus, the generalizability of Warr’s remorse hypothesis remains to be examined—as does an examination of the factors that may be determinants of remorse.

In this study, we use longitudinal data from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD), which collected data on a wide variety of factors related to development beyond childcare that enables consideration of factors contributing to antisocial and violent behavior across childhood and into adolescence. We use these data to investigate (1) the extent to which remorselessness is related to self-reported offending and aggression as well as (2) the sources of remorselessness. We recognize that Warr’s concept of remorse occupies much common conceptual ground with the existing individual characteristic of psychopathy. Importantly, however, remorselessness is typically not disaggregated from larger psychopathy measures and as such deserves to be empirically studied in and of itself. As a result, we anticipate that there could potentially be a high degree of overlap between both psychopathy and remorselessness, but anticipate as well that remorselessness will still be independent enough from aspects of psychopathy to act as a stand-alone correlate of antisocial behavior. Before we turn our attention to the data, methods, and results, we first provide an overview of the concept of psychopathy and how it may be linked (but still separate from) remorselessness.

Psychopathic Traits and Antisocial Behavior

Individual differences may share common ground with both remorse/regret and criminal activity, with one of the most commonly investigated constructs being psychopathy (Forth, Brown, Hart, & Hare, 1996; Hare, 1968, 1978, 1980, 1996, 1999; Hare & Vertommen, 1991; Harpur & Hare, 1990). In general, psychopathy is a psychological construct that often characterizes individuals who exhibit antisocial behavior (e.g., Flexon & Meldrum, 2013). Specifically, the nature of psychopathy itself demonstrates that individuals show “grandiosity, lack of empathy, lack of remorse, and a failure to accept responsibility for transgression” (Seagrave & Grisso, 2002, p. 226, emphasis added; see also, Cleckley, 1976). Oftentimes, psychopathic individuals demonstrate low inhibitory control and seek easy gratification and satisfaction, leading to a predisposition of low resistance to impulses (Cleckley, 1976) and injecting excitement into their lives, akin to expectations from the general theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Given the relatively large body of literature surrounding psychopathy, some studies have directed attention to the origins of this behavior, including an array of genetic, biological, and social influences (Blair, Mitchell, & Blair, 2005; McCord, 1982).

As the concept of remorselessness is captured under the umbrella of psychopathy, it is useful to highlight prior work assessing the sources of psychopathy that may be informative to identifying potential sources of remorselessness. In particular, we focus on genetic and biological influences, as some research indicates that the affective components of psychopathy (and likely remorselessness as part of psychopathy) are the most heritable. Following this discussion, we review evidence concerning the influence of social factors on psychopathic traits.

Genetic and Biological Influences on Psychopathic Traits

There is some recognition in the literature that psychopathy may be a genetically heritable trait that is passed down from generation to generation (Caspi et al., 2002; Hare, 1968; Lykken, 1957, 1995; Martens, 2002; Miles & Carey, 1997; Rhee & Waldman, 2002). The basis for this thinking is the demonstration of family members across generations who exhibit (and/or share) similar antisocial tendencies, leading to the possibility of a genetic or physiological trait that results in phenotypically aggressive responses. Some research indicates that the production and regulation of the neurotransmitter serotonin may be related to the monitoring and maintaining of aggressive stimuli (Bell, Abrams, & Nutt, 2001; Brown, Goodwin, Ballenger, Goyer, & Major, 1979; Lee & Coccaro, 2001; Swann, 2003). Research supporting some level of genetic heritability of psychopathic traits has also emerged from twin studies. For example, using data from the Twins Early Development Study, Viding, Blair, Moffitt, and Plomin (2005) demonstrated that children at age 7 evince high levels of antisocial behavior in conjunction with callous–unemotional traits. The conclusion drawn from their study suggests that genetic influences yield a sizable influence in explaining the variation of the affective dimensions of psychopathy (cf. Taylor, Loney, Bobadilla, Iacono, & McGue, 2003).

Across several other twin studies (e.g., Add Health, Minnesota Twin Family Study, Southern California Twin Project; Twins Early Development Study; Twin Study of Child and Adolescent Development), heritability estimates related to the affective aspects of psychopathy have ranged from 30% to 81% (Beaver, Barnes, May, & Schwartz, 2011; Blonigen et al., 2006; Larsson, Andershed, & Lichtenstein, 2006; Larsson et al., 2007; Taylor et al., 2003; Viding, Blair, Moffitt, & Plomin, 2005). Additional twin research also finds that heritability influences the expression of manipulative and callous emotions (Bezdijian et al., 2011; Viding, Jones, Frick, Moffitt, & Plomin, 2008), with Henry, Pingault, Boivin, Rijsdijk, and Viding (2016, p. 410) reporting a substantial degree of common genetic contributions across callous–unemotional traits in the Twins Early Development Study. Yet, while a large body of research suggests that the affective dimension of psychopathy can be attributed, in good proportion, to genetic factors, it is important to bear in mind that there is not a pure genetic heritability of psychopathy, and it may be the case that the risk of developing psychopathic tendencies is heightened with the introduction of environmental factors (Caspi et al., 2002; Martens, 2002; Tibbetts & Piquero, 1999; Rhee & Waldman, 2002).

Some of the most promising research findings on the origins of psychopathy come from studies of the amygdala region within the brain. The amygdala has been shown to correlate with decision-making practices, morality, and empathy, all of which are related to psychopathy (Jacobson & Sapolsky, 1991). Development of this section of the brain may be slow to progress over time, especially in gray areas related to decision-making, morality, and empathy (De Brito et al., 2009; Rijsdijk et al., 2010). Almost universally, neuro-scans of gray matter demonstrate that the amygdala plays an important role in regulating emotional empathy, a key feature of psychopathy (Blair, 2007; DeLisi, Umphress, & Vaughn, 2009; Elliot, 1978; Harenski, Harenski, Shane, & Kiehl, 2010; Rotenberg, 1978).¹ Importantly, however, dysfunction in this region of the brain is not wholly deterministic of antisocial expression; more often than not, these issues reveal themselves via external stressors that increase one’s risk of exhibiting their predisposed likelihood of antisocial behavior (Elliot, 1978; McCord, 1982; Rotenberg, 1978).

Social Influences on Psychopathic Traits

McCord (1982) highlights that psychopaths have a history of experiencing poor parenting and growing up in a loveless home (Craft, Stephenson, & Granger, 1964; Greer, 1964; Gregory, 1958; Oltman & Friedman, 1967). In large part, this is hypothesized to relate to a child’s development and their ability to manage goals, empathize with other people, and inhibit impulsive desires (Bowlby, 1982; Cleckley, 1976). Similarly, Porter (1996) concurs with this hypothesis, commenting on the potential problems of inadequate emotional coping skills due to emotionally damaging experiences with parental figures. Ties to managing emotional control are often associated with parenting practices and may include socioeconomic status, maternal involvement, and breastfeeding of an infant (Beaver, Ferguson, & Lynn-Whaley, 2010; Blair et al., 2005). If accurate, a lack of attachment with a parent could lead to inhibited morality, resulting in antisocial tendencies (DeKlyen, Speltz, & Greenberg, 1998; Saltaris, 2002; see also Hirschi, 1969). Similar to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) hypothesis, inadequate parenting may present a greater risk for one to exhibit aggressive and psychopathic behaviors. In the under/nonsocialized environment, one can experience poor parenting, food shortages, and other interactions damaging to social development (Vaughn, Salas-Wright, Naeger, Huang, & Piquero, 2016). The key part that comes into play here is how individual differences are influenced by social environments, as they may be particularly informative for ascertaining whether an individual possesses a heightened risk for antisocial or psychopathic tendencies in the long term (Beaver, Vaughn, DeLisi, & Higgins, 2010).

Oftentimes, there are inconsistencies with the relationship between family variables and psychopathy, but there typically tends to be a strong influence on mid-level psychopathy as measured by the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) (Forth & Burke, 1998; Hare, 1998; Marshall & Cooke, 1999). At upper extreme values, family response through better parenting demonstrates a lowered overall effect in the exhibition of negative behavior. In this sense, poor parenting and its subsequent effects on antisocial behavior may be conditioned by one’s preexisting level of psychopathy.

Among other social influences, the role of peers may provide a means of contributing to interpersonal callousness behavior that may lead to antisocial behaviors. There is evidence that peer delinquency may exacerbate social maladjustment and facilitate the acceptance of rule-breaking behaviors (Dishion, Spracklen, Andrews, & Patterson, 1996). Along this front, it has been shown through longitudinal designs that youth exhibiting callousness tend to associate more frequently with deviant peers (Byrd, Hawes, Loeber, & Pardini, 2016; Pardini & Loeber, 2008; Pardini, Loeber, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2005). As well, Flexon and Meldrum (2013) documented a cross-sectional correlation between peer violence and psychopathy (r = .34). It is also possible that potential interactions between individual characteristics and social factors can influence developmental processes in terms of the stability of interpersonal callousness over time (Byrd et al., 2016). However, in a study examining moderators of the relationship between psychopathy assessed at age 13 and psychopathy assessed at age 24, Lynam, Loeber, and Stouthamer-Loeber (2008, p. 236) found that “the relation between age-13 psychopathy and Facet 4 [of the PCL: SV] scores at age 24 [was] stronger at lower levels of peer delinquency than higher levels of peer delinquency.” Accordingly, the relationship between internalized callous traits and the potential socializing effects from peer influences is worthy of additional research.

Conceptual Overlap Between Psychopathy and Remorselessness

Emotions can play a unique role in understanding human behaviors (Warr, 2016), especially those that influence antisocial behavior. An increasing amount of scholarly attention is being devoted toward understanding the impact that negative emotionality may have on human behaviors. Indeed, the American Psychiatric Association (1994) underlined the possibility that absence of regret can be associated with antisocial personality disorder. Similarly, in criminology, callousness and a lack of empathy/remorse have been shown to be indicative of psychopathy and may be an important component to understanding the stability of criminal careers (Piquero, 2017; Warr, 2016).

Remorselessness is often related to the concept of psychopathy and used as a component for measurement purposes (Ansel, Barry, Gillen, & Herrington, 2015). The lack of feeling with respect to any kind of action and regret corresponds with psychopathic tendencies. Yet, despite remorselessness being considered a key aspect of psychopathy, it has not been the norm to see the disaggregation of a psychopathy scale into its component parts. Psychopathy scales are typically composed of subscales designed to measure various dimensions of psychopathy (e.g., callousness, unemotionality, remorselessness). Each of the factors associated with psychopathy is then aggregated together to create a psychopathy index used to predict some outcome of interest.

There may, of course, be some utility in disaggregating psychopathy scales to predict delinquent or aggressive behavior (see Colins, Vermeiren, De Bolle, & Broekaert, 2012; Corrado, McCuish, Hart, & DeLisi, 2015). Remorselessness, for example, is conceptually unique from psychopathy, yet is used to build the general construct. Despite the availability of remorselessness subscales as predictors, little is known about the ability of remorselessness to uniquely predict various forms of antisocial behavior. One exception is provided by Ansel, Barry, Gillen, and Herrington (2015). These authors examined separate scales of psychopathy² and disaggregated each scale into its component subscales to predict antisocial behavior (measured by parental reports of conduct, aggression, and delinquent activity [violent, drug, property, and status offenses]). Their analysis suggests that there is indeed some utility in disaggregating psychopathy measures into various submetrics. Specifically, remorselessness, as well as callousness, demonstrated statistically significant effects in predicting antisocial outcomes (Ansel et al., 2015). And as was noted earlier, Piquero (2017) found that remorselessness was associated with a higher frequency of rearrests by the end of an 84-month study period.

Accordingly, given the potential importance of remorse with respect to desistance from crime, it is important to assess its predictive ability with respect to antisocial behavior, especially because much prior research has focused largely on the overall construct of psychopathy, leaving a gap in our understanding of the unique contribution that each of its underlying dimensions make for explaining antisocial and violent behavior. Isolating remorselessness could provide unique insights with respect to antisocial behaviors. Research on this front will enhance not only theoretical work on persistence and desistance but may also provide insight on possible avenues to consider for policy and practice.

The Current Study

Over the past two decades, there has been a renewed emphasis on the potential importance of individual characteristics (e.g., personality characteristics, individual traits, or emotions) for predicting antisocial behavior. In this study, we focus on one of the more recently advanced explanations for continued criminal offending, Warr’s (2016) remorselessness hypothesis. In addition to considering the direct effect of this key theoretical construct on offending, which we hypothesize will be positively related to separate measures of violent offending and aggression, we devote attention to the potential determinants of remorse. While Warr did not offer much by way of prediction with respect to such correlates, and as such our work here is more exploratory in nature, we are guided by the literature reviewed above regarding some of the important factors associated with the individual characteristic of psychopathy. Our article also builds on previous research in that it examines offending using self-reported data (whereas the single previous test of Warr’s hypothesis used official arrest records) and we also control for many other individual-level risk factors when examining the relationship between remorselessness and violent offending and aggression.

Method

Data and Procedures

The data used in this study come from the NICHD SECCYD, conducted from 1991 through 2007. The main purpose of the SECCYD was to examine how variations in early childcare are related to developmental outcomes in childhood and into adolescence. A significant amount of attention was also given to the collection of data on personality characteristics, delinquent behavior, and several correlates of delinquency. Study families were recruited for inclusion in the SECCYD at hospitals in 10 cities that were selected after the lead investigators reviewed applications submitted by researchers at major universities across the continental United States. The sites were selected on the basis of the quality of the applications received and not as a part of a random sampling procedure. Although the data cannot be considered nationally representative, the selected sites represent a diverse set of cities.³

Recruitment of the study families in 1991 focused on roughly 5,400 families who were identified based on recent births at hospitals in the 10 cities. Of the families eligible for inclusion in the study, 3,015 were conditionally randomly sampled and contacted for an interview 2 weeks after the birth of their child.⁴ However, some families could not be reached or refused to participate, and others experienced circumstances that interfered with their ability to participate in the study (e.g., the child remained in the hospital for an extended period). The total number of families eligible for inclusion and willing to participate in the study was 1,526. One month after the birth of their child, each family was contacted for the first major interview. Of the 1,526 families, 1,364 (89%) completed the 1-month interview and were enrolled in the long-term study. The resulting sample was relatively diverse: 20% of the children were non-White, 10% had mothers who had not completed high school, and 13% of the mothers were not married at the time of the child’s birth. Data were then collected on/from the study child, their family, and other individuals, such as childcare workers and teachers, a total of 12 times in the ensuing years, with the final wave of data collection occurring when the study children were 15 years old.

The current study focuses on data collected at the final two waves—Grade 6 and age 15. Specifically, measures for remorselessness, violent behavior, and aggression, along with key covariates, were available at the age 15 wave of data collection. In addition, we utilize data collected at the Grade 6 wave of data collection to control for prior violence and to investigate the potential correlates of remorselessness at age 15. Of the 1,364 study families that completed the initial 1-month interview, complete data for the variables utilized in the current study were available for 907 adolescents from these families (just over 1,000 families were retained for the entire duration of the SECCYD [birth to age 15]). To consider whether the sample of 907 families was different from the 457 additional SECCYD families that are not included in our analyses, we made comparisons with respect to five demographic variables measured at the 1-month postbirth interview: child’s sex, child’s race, family structure, maternal age, and maternal education. The 457 families excluded from our analyses (because they either dropped out of the study or had missing data on key variables) were slightly more likely to have a child that was male (χ² = 3.29, p = .07), slightly more likely to be non-White (χ² = 2.86, p = .11), less likely to have a traditional two-parent nuclear family structure (χ² = 13.40, p < .001), had younger mothers at the time the target child was born (t = 4.99, p < .001), and had mothers with lower levels of education at the time the target child was born (t = 4.27, p < .001). We include controls for each of these variables in our statistical models. Additional information about the SECCYD recruitment procedures is available from the NICHD’s Early Child Care Research Network (2001).

Dependent Variables

Violent behavior

The study data collected at age 15 contained information on a number of violent behaviors self-reported by study adolescents, who completed audio and computer-assisted self-interviews, adapted from Conger and Elder (1994). In reference to eight different acts, adolescents were asked, “How many times in the past year have you…[act]?” “Never” (0), “once or twice” (1), and “more than twice” (2) were offered as response categories. The items were: threatening to beat someone up, taking part in a gang fight, attacking someone to hurt them, getting in a fight between other kids, using a weapon to threaten someone, threatening to attack someone with a weapon, beating someone up without a weapon, and beating someone up with a weapon. These items were selected from a larger inventory of items measuring other forms of delinquency including substance use and nonviolent forms of delinquency. For our purposes, we recoded each item to reflect whether the respondent did or did not report engaging in each act at least once. The dichotomized items were then summed together for the analyses to create a variety index of self-reported violent behavior (α = .68). A variety index was used in light of research indicating that variety indices are more internally consistent and more stable than frequency scales (Bendixen, Endresen, & Olweus, 2003; Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis, 1981).⁵

Aggression

At age 15, study adolescents self-reported their involvement in aggressive behavior based on items adapted from Little, Jones, Henrich, and Hawley (2003). Specifically, adolescents responded to 18 different statements including the following: “I often start fights to get what I want,” “I’m the kind of person who says mean things about others,” “If others make me mad or upset, I often hurt them,” and “When I’m threatened by someone, I often threaten back.” Response categories were: “not at all true” (1), “a little true” (2), “somewhat true” (3), and “completely true” (4). The 18 items were averaged together to create a scaled measure of aggressive behavior (α = .86). For the analyses, we log transformed the measure given that the original distribution of values for the aggression scale exhibited positive skew.

Independent Variables

Remorselessness

There is little consensus in the literature regarding the ideal measurement strategy for remorse/remorselessness (Proeve & Tudor, 2010). Fortunately, the SECCYD collected the same type of remorse measure used by Piquero (2017) in his empirical analysis of Warr’s framework. Herein, the key independent variable of interest is a 5-item measure of remorselessness at age 15 drawn from the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI) developed by Andershed, Kerr, Stattin, and Levander (2002). Specifically, adolescents responded to the following statements: “I have the ability not to feel guilt and regret about things that I think other people would feel guilty about,” “I seldom regret things I do, even if other people feel that they are wrong,” “When someone finds out about something that I’ve done wrong, I feel more angry than guilty,” “To feel guilty and remorseful about things you have done that have hurt other people is a sign of weakness,” and “To feel guilt and regret when you have done something wrong is a waste of time.” Response categories were “does not apply at all” (1), “does not apply well” (2), “applies fairly well” (3), and “applies very well” (4). The items were averaged together for the analyses (α = .69); higher scores reflect greater remorselessness.

Unemotionality and callousness

In addition to the measure for remorselessness drawn from the YPI, 5-item measures for unemotionality and callousness assessed at age 15 were included in the models predicting violence and aggression. The 5 items measuring unemotionality were: “I usually feel calm when other people are scared,” “To be nervous and worried is a sign of weakness,” “What scares others usually doesn’t scare me,” “I don’t understand how people can be touched enough to cry by looking at things on TV or movies,” and “I don’t let my feelings affect me as much as other people’s feelings seem to affect them.” The 5 items measuring callousness were: “I think that crying is a sign of weakness, even if no one sees you,” “When other people have problems, it is often their own fault, therefore, one should not help them,” “It’s important to me not to hurt other people’s feelings” (reverse coded), “I often become sad or moved by watching sad things on TV or film” (reverse coded), and “I usually become sad when I see other people crying or being sad” (reverse coded). The items measuring unemotionality and callousness each had the same response options as the items measuring remorselessness, and as with the items measuring remorselessness, the 5 items measuring unemotionality (α = .66) and callousness (α = .62) were averaged together for the analyses.

Prior violence

The analyses included a 3-item measure for self-reported violence from the Grade 6 wave of data collection.⁶ The 3 items reference threatening to beat someone up, taking part in a gang fight, and getting into a fist fight with another person; response options paralleled those from the age 15 items measuring violent behavior. The 3 items were averaged together for the analyses, and the scaled measure served as a control for prior violence in the models predicting age 15 violence and aggression⁷ and as a predictor variable for models examining the potential causes of remorselessness.⁸

Low self-control

The measure of low self-control consists of five behavioral indicators drawn from survey items answered by mothers of the study adolescents at both Grade 6 and age 15. These items come from the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1991), which is the basis for measures of low self-control appearing in several studies (e.g., Chapple, 2005; Hay & Forrest, 2006; Meldrum, Young, Burt, & Piquero, 2013). Mothers were asked to respond to various statements by indicating whether it was “not true” (0), “somewhat true” (1), or “very” or “often” true (2) of their child. The five statements used to measure low self-control were: “My child can’t concentrate or pay attention,” “My child cannot sit still, is restless, or is hyperactive,” “My child is impulsive or acts without thinking,” “My child is stubborn, sullen, or irritable,” and “My child throws temper tantrums or is hot tempered.” All items were coded so that higher scores reflect lower self-control, and the items were averaged together (α = .73 at Grade 6; α = .75 at age 15). For the models predicting violence and aggression at age 15, the measure for low self-control at age 15 is included, whereas the measure for low self-control at Grade 6 is included in the models predicting remorselessness.

Peer violence

Peer violence was measured at Grade 6 and at age 15 based on reports of adolescent perceptions of whether their friends have ever engaged in three behaviors: threatening to beat someone up, taking part in a gang fight, and getting into a fist fight with another person. Response options for the items at Grade 6 and age 15 were “none of them” (0), “one or a few of them” (1), and “almost all of them” (2). The items were averaged together for the analyses, with higher scores indicative of associating with more friends who commit violence (α = .63 at Grade 6; α = .70 at age 15). For the models predicting violence and aggression at age 15, the measure for peer violence at age 15 is included, whereas the measure for peer violence at Grade 6 is included in the models predicting remorselessness.

Parental socialization

Parental socialization was measured at Grade 6 and at age 15 based on maternal and adolescent reports reflecting parental attachment, monitoring, warmth, and the avoidance of harshness. In total, 29 different items measure parental socialization at each wave, with 6 items based on reports of maternal attachment (e.g., “I share affection and have a warm relationship with my child”), 6 items based on adolescent reports of parental monitoring (e.g., “Your parents know where you go throughout the day on the weekend”), and 17 items based on adolescent reports of maternal warmth/avoidance of harshness (e.g., “When you and your mother spend time together, how often does she understand the way you feel about things?”). Details concerning each of the 29 items can be found in Hay, Meldrum, Widdowson, and Piquero (2016), but two things are worth noting. First, not all of the items were measured on the same scale, so all items were first standardized and then averaged together at each of the two waves to construct a global measure of parental socialization; higher scores indicate more effective parental socialization. Second, the internal consistency of the 29-item measure at Grade 6 and at age 15 is strong (α = .88 at Grade 6; α = .90 at age 15). For the models predicting violence and aggression at age 15, the measure for parental socialization at age 15 is included, whereas the measure for parental socialization at Grade 6 is included in the models predicting remorselessness.

Demographic variables

As referred to in the attrition analysis previously described, our models include controls for five demographic variables assessed at the outset of the SECCYD. These include the child’s race (non-White = 1 and White = 0), sex (male = 1 and female = 0), and the mother’s age and level of education (with the latter measured continuously as years of education). We also control for family structure at the time of the child’s birth (1 = two biological parents in the household and 0 = all others). Given the cohort design on the SECCYD, age was treated as a constant. The descriptive statistics for all variables are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variable	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Demographics at birth
Child sex (male = 1)	0.50	–	0	1
Child race (non-White =1)	0.22	–	0	1
Maternal age	28.65	5.55	18	46
Maternal education	14.44	2.45	7	21
Family structure (two-parent nuclear = 1)	0.74	–	0	1
Covariates at Grade 6
Prior violence (α = .47)	0.08	0.22	0	1.67
Low self-control (α = .73)	0.35	0.38	0	2.00
Peer violence (α = .63)	0.18	0.32	0	2.00
Parental socialization (α = .88)	0.01	0.48	−2.58	0.75
Covariates at age 15
Unemotionality (α = .66)	2.16	0.59	1	4.00
Callousness (α = .62)	1.88	0.54	1	4.00
Low self-control (α = .75)	0.31	0.37	0	2.00
Peer violence (α = .70)	0.38	0.44	0	2.00
Parental socialization (α = .90)	0.00	0.52	−2.32	0.98
Key independent variable
Remorselessness at age 15^a (α = .69)	1.84	0.57	1	4.00
Dependent variables at age 15
Variety index of violence (α = .68)	0.43	0.99	0	8
Aggression (untransformed; α = .86)	1.38	0.34	1	3.33

Note. N = 907. SD = standard deviation.

^aRemorselessness is also a dependent variable in the final series of models.

Analytic Method

To address our hypothesis regarding the association between remorselessness and violent behavior, we estimate a series of negative binomial regressions where violent behavior at age 15 is the dependent variable and remorselessness is the key independent variable. Negative binomial regression is employed for this portion of the analysis given the count nature of the variety index of violent behavior and the fact that the variance for the measure (.98) exceeds its mean (.43). We begin by estimating the effect of remorselessness on violence when excluding all other variables. We then consider in a step-wise manner the extent to which adding (1) demographic controls and (2) competing covariates to the model does or does not render the effect of remorselessness insignificant. This portion of the analysis concludes with a final model in which a control for prior violence is added to further assess the robustness of the association between remorselessness and violence.

To address our hypothesis focused on the association between remorselessness and the continuous measure for aggression at age 15, we estimated a series of ordinary least square (OLS) regressions.⁹ Specifically, we follow the same procedure just described pertaining to the focus on violence by first estimating the effect of remorselessness on aggression when excluding all other variables, and then adding the demographic controls and competing covariates to the model. A final model is then presented in which the control for prior violence is added to further assess the robustness of the association between remorselessness and aggression.

To investigate potential determinants of remorselessness, we estimate two OLS regressions where remorselessness at age 15 is the dependent variable and the demographic controls and measures for low self-control, peer violence, parenting, and violence measured at age 12 are examined as predictors. The first model examines the influence of the demographic variables, and the second model adds the covariates measured at age 12. Overall, our analyses consider the association between remorselessness and separate measures of violence and aggression, as well as the potential causes of remorselessness.

Results

The Relationship Between Remorselessness and Self-Reported Violence

Table 2 displays the results pertaining to the association between remorselessness and self-reported violence. Providing initial support for our hypothesis, Model 1 reveals a significant association between remorselessness and violence (b = 1.16, p < .001). The addition of the demographic control variables in Model 2 does little to attenuate this association, as it remains significant (b = 0.97, p < .001). Model 2 also reveals positive effects on violence for being male (b = 0.65, p < .001) and non-White (b = 0.65, p < .001), and a negative effect of coming from a two-parent nuclear family (b = −0.56, p < .01). Moving to Model 3, which adds the competing covariates, the results show the effect for remorselessness remains statistically significant, although the magnitude of the effect size is smaller (b = 0.39, p = .004) relative to the effect size reported in Model 2. Whether this attenuation indicates the association between remorselessness and violence is (1) partially spurious or (2) that this association is mediated by the covariates is beyond the current focus, but what is clear is that the effect of remorselessness on violence remains when controlling for a number of important covariates.

Table 2.

Negative Binomial Regressions of Violence at Age 15 on Remorselessness and Controls.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
Predictors	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Remorselessness	1.16***	.13	0.97***	.13	0.39**	.13	0.40**	.13
Male (= 1)			0.65***	.15	0.28	.15	0.23	.15
Non-White (= 1)			0.65***	.16	0.43**	.14	0.32*	.14
Maternal age			0.01	.02	0.02	.01	0.02	.01
Maternal education			−0.02	.03	−0.01	.03	0.00	.03
Family structure			−0.56**	.18	−0.28	.15	−0.29	.15
Unemotionality					0.04	.13	0.01	.13
Callousness					0.37**	.14	0.37**	.14
Low self-control					0.15	.16	0.10	.16
Peer violence					1.37***	.13	1.26***	.13
Parental socialization					−0.40**	.12	−0.38**	.12
Prior violence							0.79***	.22
α	2.03	.31	1.55	.26	0.41	.14	0.39	.13
Log likelihood	−728		−699		−615		−608
AIC	1,462		1,415		1,255		1,243
BIC	1,476		1,453		1,318		1,311
Nagelkerke R ²	.105		.173		.353		.366

Note. N = 907. SE = standard error; AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Model 3 also shows that the effect for non-White remains significant (b = 0.43, p = .002) and that three of the competing covariates have statistically significant effects. Specifically, callousness (b = 0.37, p = .007) and peer violence (b = 1.38, p < .001) are positively associated with violence, while parental socialization has a negative effect (b = −0.40, p = .001). As anticipated, Model 4, which adds the control for prior violence, shows the effect for prior violence is significant (b = 0.78, p < .001). Nonetheless, remorselessness remains significant (b = 0.40, p = .003), as do the effects for non-White, callousness, peer violence, and parental socialization. Standardization of the variable for remorselessness prior to model estimation and the use of the equation: 100 × (e ^{β × δ} − 1) to estimate percent change indicates that a 1SD increase in remorselessness is associated with a 25% increase in delinquency (100 × [e ^{.227 × 1} − 1] = 25.4), net of all covariates in Model 4. These results, then, support our hypothesis and demonstrate that, after controlling for a range of competing variables and prior violence, a significant association between remorselessness and violence remains.¹⁰

The Relationship Between Remorselessness and Aggression

Table 3 displays the results pertaining to the association between remorselessness and aggression. As hypothesized, Model 1 reveals a significant association between remorselessness and aggression (β = .36, p < .001). In Model 2, which adds the demographic control variables, the association between remorselessness and aggression remains virtually unchanged (β = .32, p < .001). Model 2 also shows positive effects on aggression for being male (β = .08, p < .05) and non-White (β = .15, p < .001). Model 3, which adds the competing covariates, shows that the effect for remorselessness remains significant, although as was true when the focus was violence, the magnitude of the effect size (β = .15, p < .001) reported in Model 3 is about half that reported in Model 2.¹¹ Model 3 also shows that the effect for non-White remains significant (β = .10, p = .001) and that three of the competing covariates have significant effects on aggression. Specifically, callousness (β = .08, p < .05) and peer violence (β = .37, p < .001) are positively associated with aggression, while parental socialization is negatively associated with aggression (β = −.15, p < .001). Model 4, which adds the control for prior violence, shows that the effect for prior violence on aggression is significant (β = .12, p < .001). Still, the effect for remorselessness remains significant (β = .15, p < .001) and unchanged from Model 3. The effects for non-White, callousness, peer violence, and parental socialization also remain significant. Overall, the results reported in Table 3 support our hypothesis by showing that, after controlling for competing variables and prior violence, the positive association between remorselessness and aggression remains.

Table 3.

OLS Regressions of Aggression at Age 15 on Remorselessness and Controls.

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3			Model 4
Predictors	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β	b	SE	β
Remorselessness	.14***	.01	.36	.12***	.01	.32	.06***	.01	.15	.06***	.01	.15
Male (=1)				.03*	.01	.08	−.00	.01	−.00	−.00	.01	−.00
Non-White (=1)				.08***	.02	.15	.06**	.02	.10	.06**	.02	.10
Maternal age				.00	.00	.05	.00	.00	.07	.00	.00	.07
Maternal education				−.00	.00	−.02	.00	.00	.02	.00	.00	.02
Family structure				−.03	.02	−.05	−.00	.02	−.00	−.00	.02	−.00
Unemotionality							−.00	.01	−.01	−.00	.01	−.01
Callousness							.03*	.01	.08	.03*	.01	.08
Low self-control							.03	.02	.05	.03	.02	.05
Peer violence							.18***	.02	.37	.17***	.02	.33
Parental socialization							−.06**	.01	−.15	−.06**	.01	−.15
Prior violence										.13***	.03	.12
Adjusted R ²	.126			.155			.327			.339

Note. N = 907. OLS = ordinary least squares; b = unstandardized coefficient; SE = standard error; β = standardized coefficient.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two tailed).

Assessing the Determinants of Remorselessness

Table 4 presents the models pertaining to the potential correlates of remorselessness. Model 1, which considers only the effects for the demographic variables, reveals a significant, positive effect for being male (β = .19, p < .001) and a significant, negative effect for maternal education at birth (β = −.11, p < .001). Marginally significant effects are also found for being non-White (β = .06, p = .07) and maternal age at birth (β = −.07, p = .09). Model 2, which adds the covariates measured at age 12, shows that peer violence has a significant, positive effect on remorselessness (β = .11, p < .01), while parental socialization (β = −.12, p < .001) and maternal education at birth (β = −.08, p < .05) exert negative effects. These are important findings in the sense that they are similar to results reported in the extant research on the sources of psychopathy and especially poor self-control, with its attendant focus on parental socialization. Neither low self-control nor prior violence is a significant predictor of remorselessness.

Table 4.

OLS Regressions of Remorselessness at Age 15.

	Model 1			Model 2
Predictors	b	SE	β	b	SE	β
Male (=1)	.21***	.04	.19	.17***	.04	.15
Non-White (=1)	.09	.05	.06	.05	.05	.04
Maternal age	−.01	.01	−.07	−.00	.01	−.04
Maternal education	−.02**	.01	−.11	−.02*	.01	−.08
Family structure	−.07	.05	−.05	−.05	.05	−.04
Low self-control				.04	.05	.03
Peer violence				.19***	.07	.11
Parental socialization				−.14***	.04	−.12
Prior violence				.09	.10	.03
Adjusted R ²	.082			.118

Note. N = 907. OLS = ordinary least squares; B = unstandardized coefficient; SE = standard error; β = standardized coefficient.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Discussion

Recently, Warr (2016) advanced the hypothesis that focused on a previously underinvestigated individual characteristic for understanding persistent offending: remorse. Specifically, he argued that to the extent offenders are remorseful for their transgressions, the likelihood of continued offending is lessened. Conversely, the more remorselessness is felt by an offender, the higher the likelihood of continued criminal offending would be. To be sure, while remorselessness occupies much common conceptual ground with psychopathy, it typically has not been disaggregated from more general psychopathy measures. And while there has been some related work exploring remorselessness as an independent correlate of antisocial behavior (see Spice, 2013; Spice et al., 2015), there has been only one explicit empirical investigation of Warr’s hypothesis in the criminological domain. In that study, Piquero (2017) found that a self-reported measure of remorselessness was associated with a higher number of official rearrests in a 7-year longitudinal study of a sample of serious adolescent offenders. In this study, we extended Piquero’s research by examining the effect of remorselessness on self-reported violence and aggression and also investigating potential correlates of remorselessness. We also build upon Flexon and Meldrum’s (2013) work by considering whether remorselessness has a unique effect on violence (and aggression) independent of other aspects of psychopathy (i.e., callousness and unemotionality). Two additional features of our study that are worth highlighting are its use of a large, national sample of persons followed from childhood to mid-adolescence and its control for several important variables that occupy some common ground with remorse and which themselves have been predictive of antisocial and criminal behavior.

Our study led to three primary conclusions. First, remorselessness was associated with a higher likelihood of self-reported violence. Second, remorselessness was associated with a higher likelihood of aggression. Importantly, both of these associations held even after controlling for important correlates of both remorselessness and offending, including self-control, peer violence, and prior violence. Third, we found that males and those who associate with violent peers were more likely to evince higher remorselessness, while effective parental socialization served to lower self-reported remorselessness.

These are important findings not only because they replicate the previously observed finding linking remorselessness to offending in a sample of serious adolescent offenders (Piquero, 2017) but also because the replication was performed using the same measure of remorselessness, with a different sampling frame, two different outcome variables, and controls for important rival correlates of both remorselessness and criminal offending. At the same time, there are some limitations that need to be acknowledged. For example, our analyses were restricted to the adolescent time period, thereby leaving any linkage of remorselessness to criminal offending in adulthood unknown. This is important to consider in future research because adolescence is a time of much cognitive and emotional development and where juveniles may be influenced by peers more so than at any other time in their lives (Steinberg & Morris, 2001). How individual characteristics, like remorselessness, relate to antisocial behavior, including violence but also other crime types, at different stages of the life course would be appropriate for future work. Second, the two empirical studies that have successfully linked remorselessness to offending have yet to consider demographic differences. Given the observed sex differences in terms of criminal offending and related individual-level correlates of crime, future research should carefully consider how gender may moderate the remorselessness–offending relationship.

Third, as our work was nonexperimental in nature, we could not rule out all possible sources of confounding, including heritability, which has been shown to be important for psychopathy. Although we did have controls for several key variables, future work should consider a wider range of risk factors. For example, future research efforts should consider the impact of genetic, biological, and neurological disorders with respect to the onset and development of remorselessness, just as has been done when the focus has been the broader construct of psychopathy. Fourth, despite the fact that participants were sampled from a variety of cities across the United States, the cities were not drawn at random, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings. Along this line, three-fourths of the sample used in this study lived in two-parent nuclear homes at the age of 15, less than a quarter of the sample was composed of non-Whites, and the average years of schooling completed by the participant’s mothers was over 14. Whether our findings would equally apply to more economically and socially disadvantaged individuals, then, remains an open question. Lastly, much of the extant research has considered remorselessness as a trait-like characteristic, yet there may be traction to be gained by considering whether remorselessness may also operate in a state-like manner. This kind of work has been fruitful in the general strain theory area (Mazerolle, Piquero, & Capowich, 2003) and we recommend attending to it within Warr’s framework as well.

Given the consistent results that have started to appear in the psychological and criminological literatures with respect to remorselessness and offending, violence, and aggression, it appears that, as a correlate, it belongs at the table, so to speak, with regard to being a key correlate of antisocial behavior. We encourage future research to explore the potential effect of remorselessness in other life domains as well as to examine potential demographic differences in remorselessness in general and then across crime types in particular. And perhaps more importantly, to return to Dylann Roof’s unremorseful comments noted at the outset of the paper, it may be worth considering the possibility that remorselessness could also be associated with offending in the first place and not just subsequent reoffending.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or the National Institutes of Health (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their assistance in the preparation of this article. The Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD) was conducted by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Achenbach

T. M.

(1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 profile. Burlington: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Andershed

Kerr

Stattin

Levander

(2002). Psychopathic traits in non-referred youths: A new assessment tool. In Blauuw

Sheridan

(Eds.), Psychopaths: Current international perspectives (pp. 131–158). The Hague, the Netherlands: Elsevier.

Ansel

L. L.

Barry

C. T.

Gillen

C. T. A.

Herrington

L. L.

(2015). An analysis of four self-report measures of adolescent callous–unemotional traits: Exploring unique prediction of delinquency, aggression, and conduct problems. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavior Assessment, 37, 207–216.

Beaver

K. M.

Barnes

J. C.

May

J. S.

Schwartz

J. A.

(2011). Psychopathic personality traits, genetic risk, and gene–environment correlations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 896–912.

Beaver

K. M.

Ferguson

C. J.

Lynn-Whaley

(2010). The association between parenting and levels of self-control: A genetically informative analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1045–1065.

Beaver

K. M.

Vaughn

M. G.

DeLisi

Higgins

G. E.

(2010). The biosocial correlates of neuropsychological deficits: Results from the national longitudinal study of adolescent health. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 878–894.

Bell

Abrams

Nutt

(2001). Tryptophan depletion and its implications for psychiatry. British Journal of Psychiatry, 178, 399–405.

Bendixen

Endresen

I. M.

Olweus

(2003). Variety and frequency scales of antisocial involvement: Which one is better? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8, 135–150.

10.

Bezdjian

Raine

Baker

L. A.

Lynam

D. R.

(2011). Psychopathic personality in children: Genetic and environmental contributions. Psychological Medicine, 41, 589–600.

11.

Blair

R. J. R.

(2007). The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 387–392.

12.

Blair

Mitchell

Blair

(2005). The psychopath: Emotion and the brain. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

13.

Blonigen

D. M.

Hicks

B. M.

Krueger

R. F.

Patrick

C. J.

Iacono

W. G.

(2006). Continuity and change in psychopathic traits as measured via normal-range personality: A longitudinal-biometric study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 85–95.

14.

Bowlby

(1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 664–678.

15.

Brown

G. L.

Goodwin

F. K.

Ballenger

J. C.

Goyer

P. F.

Major

L. F.

(1979). Aggression in humans correlates with cerbrospinal fluid amine metabolites. Psychiatry Research, 1, 131–139.

16.

Byrd

A. L.

Hawes

S. W.

Loeber

Pardini

D. A.

(2016). Interpersonal callousness from childhood to adolescence: Developmental trajectories and early risk factors. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. doi:10.1080/15374416.2016.1144190

17.

Caspi

McClay

Moffitt

T. E.

Mill

Martin

Craig

I. W.

… Poulton

(2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297, 851–854.

18.

Chapple

C. L.

(2005). Self-control, peer relations, and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 22, 89–106.

19.

Cleckley

(1976). The mask of sanity. St. Louis, MO: The C.V. Mosby.

20.

Colins

O. F.

Vermeiren

De Bolle

Broekaert

(2012). Self-reported psychopathic-like traits as predictors of recidivism detained male adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1421–1435.

21.

Conger

R. D.

Elder

G. H.

(1994). Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

22.

Corrado

R. R.

McCuish

E. C.

Hart

S. D.

DeLisi

(2015). The role of psychopathic traits and developmental risk factors on offending trajectories from early adolescence to adulthood: A prospective study of incarcerated youth. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 357–368.

23.

Craft

Stephenson

Granger

(1964). A controlled trial of authoritarian and self-governing regimes with adolescent psychopaths. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 34, 543–554.

24.

De Brito

S. A.

Mechelli

Wilke

Laurens

K. R.

Jones

A. P.

Barker

G. J.

… Viding

(2009). Size matters: Increased grey matter in boys with conduct problems and callous-unemotional traits. Brain, 132, 843–852.

25.

DeKlyen

Speltz

M. L.

Greenberg

M. T.

(1998). Fathering and early onset conduct problems: Positive and negative parenting, father–son attachment, and the marital context. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 3–21.

26.

DeLisi

Umphress

Z. R.

Vaughn

M. G.

(2009). The criminology of the amygdala. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 1241–1252.

27.

Dishion

T. J.

Spracklen

K. M.

Andrews

D. W.

Patterson

G. R.

(1996). Deviancy training in male adolescent friendships. Behavior Therapy, 27, 373–390.

28.

Elliot

F. A.

(1978). Neurological aspects of antisocial behavior. In Reid

W. H.

(Ed.), The psychopath: A comprehensive study of antisocial disorders and behaviors (pp. 146–189). New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

29.

Essau

C. A.

Sasagawa

Frick

P. J.

(2006). Callous–unemotional traits in a community sample of adolescents. Assessment, 13, 454–469.

30.

Flexon

J. L.

Meldrum

R. C.

(2013). Adolescent psychopathic traits and violent delinquency: Additive and nonadditive effects with key criminological variables. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11, 349–369.

31.

Forth

A. E.

Brown

S. L.

Hart

S. D.

Hare

R. D.

(1996). The assessment of psychopathy in male and female criminals: Reliability and validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 531–543.

32.

Forth

A. E.

Burke

H. C.

(1998). Psychopathy in adolescents: Assessment, violence, and developmental precursors. In Hare

R. D.

(Ed.), Psychopathy: Theory, research, and implications for society (pp. 205–230). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

33.

Frick

Hare

R. D.

(2001). The antisocial process screening device (APSD). Toronto, Canada: Multi-Healthy Systems.

34.

Gottfredson

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

35.

Greer

(1964). The relationship between parental loss and attempted suicide: A control study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 110, 698–705.

36.

Gregory

(1958). Studies of parental deprivation in psychiatric pateints. American Journal of Psychiatry, 115, 432–442.

37.

Hare

R. D.

(1968). Psychopathy, autonomic functioning and the orienting response. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73, 1–24.

38.

Hare

R. D.

(1978). Psychopathy and electrodermal responses to nonsignal stimulation. Biological Psychology, 6, 237–246.

39.

Hare

R. D.

(1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in criminal populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 111–119.

40.

Hare

R. D.

(1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25–54.

41.

Hare

R. D.

(1998). The Hare PCL-R: Some issues concerning its use and misuse. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 101–122.

42.

Hare

R. D.

(1999). Psychopathy as a risk factor for violence. Psychiatric Quarterly, 70, 181–197.

43.

Hare

R. D.

Vertommen

(1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. Vancouver, BC: Multi-Health Systems, Incorporated.

44.

Harenski

C. L.

Harenski

K. A.

Shane

M. S.

Kiehl

K. A.

(2010). Aberrant neural processing of moral violations in criminal psychopaths. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 863–874.

45.

Harpur

T. J.

Hare

R. D.

(1990). Psychopathy and attention. Advances in Psychology, 69, 429–444.

46.

Hay

Forrest

(2006). The development of self-control: Examining self-control theory’s stability thesis. Criminology, 44, 739–774.

47.

Hay

Meldrum

R. C.

Widdowson

A. O.

Piquero

A. R.

(2016). Early aggression and later delinquency: Considering the redirecting role of good parenting. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 15(4), 374–395 doi:10.1177/1541204016631805

48.

Henry

Pingault

J. B.

Boivin

Rijsdijk

Viding

(2016). Genetic and environmental aetiology of the dimensions of callous–unemotional traits. Psychological Medicine, 46, 405–414.

49.

Hindelang

M. J.

Hirschi

Weis

J. G.

(1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

50.

Hirschi

(1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.

51.

Jacobson

Sapolsky

(1991). The role of the hippocampus in feedback regulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis. Endocrine Reviews, 12, 118–134.

52.

Kimonis

E. R.

Frick

P. J.

Skeem

J. L.

Marsee

M. A.

Cruise

Munoz

L. C.

… Morris

A. S.

(2008). Assessing callous -unemotional traits in adolescent offenders: Validation of the Inventory of Callous -Unemotional Traits. International journal of law and psychiatry, 31(3), 241–252.

53.

Larsson

Andershed

Lichtenstein

(2006). A genetic factor explains most of the variation in the psychopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 221–230.

54.

Larsson

Tuvbald

Rijsdijk

F. V.

Andershed

Grann

Lichtenstein

(2007). A common genetic factor explains the association between psychopathic personality and antisocial behavior. Psychological Medicine, 37, 15–26.

55.

Lee

Coccaro

(2001). The neuropsychopharmacology of criminality and aggression. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46, 35–44.

56.

Little

Henrich

Jones

Hawley

(2003). Disentangling the “whys” from the “whats” of aggressive behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 122–133.

57.

Lykken

D. T.

(1957). A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 55, 6–10.

58.

Lykken

D. T.

(1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology Press.

59.

Lynam

D. R.

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

60.

Lynam

D. R.

Loeber

Stouthamer-Loeber

(2008). The stability of psychopathy from adolescence into adulthood: The search for moderators. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 228–243.

61.

Marshall

L. A.

Cooke

D. J.

(1999). The childhood experiences of psychopaths: A retrospective study of familial and societal factors. Journal of Personality Disorders, 13, 211–225.

62.

Martens

W. H. J.

(2002). The hidden suffering of the psychopath. Psychiatric Times, 19, 1–7.

63.

Mazerolle

Piquero

A. R.

Capowich

G. E.

(2003). Examining the links between strain, situational and dispositional anger, and crime: Further specifying and testing general strain theory. Youth & Society, 35, 131–157.

64.

McCord

W. M.

(1982). The psychopath and milieu therapy: A longitudinal study. New York, NY: Academic Press.

65.

Meldrum

R. C.

Young

J. T.

Burt

C. H.

Piquero

A. R.

(2013). Maternal versus adolescent reports of self-control: Implications for testing the general theory of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 24–32.

66.

Michl

Meindl

Meister

Born

Engel

R. R.

Reiser

Hennig-Fast

(2014). Neurobiological underpinnings of shame and guilt: A pilot fMRI study. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9, 150–157.

67.

Miles

D. R.

Carey

(1997). Genetic and environmental architecture of human aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 207–217.

68.

Monahan

K. C.

Piquero

A. R.

(2009). Investigating the longitudinal relation between offending frequency and offending variety. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 653–673.

69.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2001). Nonmaternal care and family factors in early development: An overview of the NICHD study of early child care. Applied Developmental Psychology, 22, 457–492.

70.

Oltman

J. E.

Friedman

(1967). Parental deprivation in psychiatric conditions. 3. (In personality disorders and other conditions). Diseases of the Nervous System, 28, 298–303.

71.

Pardini

D. A.

Loeber

(2008). Interpersonal callousness trajectories across adolescence: Early social influences and adult outcomes. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 35, 173–196.

72.

Pardini

D. A.

Loeber

Stouthamer-Loeber

(2005). Developmental shifts in parent and peer influences on boys’ beliefs about delinquent behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15, 299–323.

73.

Piquero

A. R.

(2017). “No remorse, no repent”: Linking lack of remorse to criminal offending in a sample of serious adolescent offenders. Justice Quarterly, 34, 350–376.

74.

Porter

(1996). Without conscience or without active conscience? The etiology of psychopathy revisited. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 179–189.

75.

Poythress

N. G.

Douglas

K. S.

Falkenbach

Cruise

Lee

Murrie

D. C.

Vitacco

(2006). Internal consistency reliability of the self-report antisocial process screening device. Assessment, 13, 107–113.

76.

Proeve

Tudor

(2010). Remorse: Psychological and jurisprudential perspectives. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

77.

Raine

Yang

(2006). Neural foundations to moral reasoning and antisocial behavior. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1, 203–213.

78.

Rhee

S. H.

Waldman

I. D.

(2002). Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 490–529.

79.

Rijsdijk

F. V.

Viding

De Brito

Forgiarini

Mechelli

Jones

A. P.

McCrory

(2010). Heritable variations in gray matter concentrations as a potential endophenotype for psychopathic traits. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67, 406–413.

80.

Rotenberg

(1978). Psychopathy, insensitivity, and sensitivization. Professional Psychology, 49, 167–171.

81.

Saltaris

(2002). Psychopathy in juvenile offenders: Can temperament and attachment be considered as robust developmental precursors? Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 729–752.

82.

Seagrave

Grisso

(2002). Adolescent development and the measurement of juvenile psychopathy. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 219–239.

83.

Seara-Cardoso

Sebastian

C. L.

McCrory

Foulkes

Buon

Roiser

J. P.

Viding

(2016). Anticipation of guilt for everyday moral transgressions: The role of the anterior insula and the influence of interpersonal psychopathic traits. Scientific Reports, 6, Article number: 36273.

84.

Spice

(2013). Remorse, psychopathology, psychopathic characteristics, and recidivism among adolescent offenders (Doctoral dissertation), Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia.

85.

Spice

Vilojean

J. L.

Douglas

K. S.

Hart

(2015). Remorse, psychopathology, and psychopathy among adolescent offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 451–462.

86.

Steinberg

Morris

A. S.

(2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83–110.

87.

Swann

A. C.

(2003). Neuroreceptor mechanisms of aggression and its treatment. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 64, 26–35.

88.

Taylor

Loney

B. R.

Bobadilla

Iacono

W. G.

McGue

(2003). Genetic and environmental influences on psychopathy trait dimensions in a community sample of male twins. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 633–645.

89.

Tibbetts

S. G.

Piquero

A. R.

(1999). The influence of gender, low birth weight, and disadvantaged environment in predicting early onset of offending: A test of Moffitt’s interactional hypothesis. Criminology, 37, 843–878.

90.

Vaughn

M. G.

Salas-Wright

C. P.

Naeger

Huang

Piquero

A. R.

(2016). Childhood reports of food neglect and impulse control problems and violence in adulthood. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13, 389.

91.

Viding

Blair

R. J. R.

Moffitt

T. E.

Plomin

(2005). Evidence for substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 592–597.

92.

Viding

Jones

A. P.

Frick

P. J.

Moffitt

T. E.

Plomin

(2008). Heritability of antisocial behavior at age 9: Do callous–unemotional traits matter? Developmental Science, 11, 17–22.

93.

Warr

(2016). Crime and regret. Emotion Review, 8, 231–239.