Abstract
This study re-examines whether a new instrument, Child Problematic Traits Inventory, can assess core traits of psychopathy in children. A sample of 309, 3-5 year olds, (mean age 4 ), were recruited from 3 medium sized Swedish communities. Results show that items from the test load in three dimensions: Grandiose/Deceitful,
Callous/Unemotional and Impulsivity, Need for stimulation. They are related to symptoms of Conduct- and Oppositional Defiant Disorder, fearlessness, proactive- and relational aggression. The study presents evidence that psychopathic like traits can be meaningfully studied in young children and that the Child Problematic Traits Inventory is a valid instrument for assessing these traits. Future longitudinal research is needed to see whether this construct is stable and predictive for future psychopathic disorder.
Keywords: Psychopathy, core traits, children, conduct problems.
Helena Lenke & Sofia Olsen
Henrik Andershed & Anna-Karin Andershed Psychology C
HT-07 Örebro University
Mätning av grundläggande psykopatiska personlighetsdrag Validering av Child Problematic Traits Inventory
Institutionen för beteende-, social- och rättsvetenskap Örebro universitet
Sammanfattning
Studien replikerar om ett nytt instrument, Child Problematic Traits Inventory, kan mäta grundläggande psykopatiska personlighetsdrag hos barn, 3-5 år. Försökspersonerna bestod av 309, 3-5 åringar (medelålder 4) från tre medelstora svenska kommuner. Resultat visar att frågor från Child Problematic Traits Inventory laddar och formar tre dimensioner, en Grandiose/Decieteful en Callous/Unemotional och en Impulsivity/Need for Stimulation. Dessa tre dimensioner är
relaterade till symptom av trotssyndrom, uppförandestörning, oräddhet samt proaktiv och relationell aggression. Studien visar att psykopatiliknande drag kan bli meningsfullt studerande i barn och att Child Problematic Traits Inventory är ett bra instrument för att mäta detta. Framtida longitudinell forskning är nödvändig för att
undersöka om psykopati liknande personlighetsdrag är stabila över tid samt predicerar psykopati.
Nyckelord: Psykopati, personlighetsdrag, förskolebarn, uppförandestörning, trotssyndrom.
Measuring Psychopathic Core Traits in Children
Re-examining the Validity of the Child Problematic Traits Inventory
Society is troubled by acts of abuse, violence, manipulation and criminality, resulting in tremendous costs. Some of these acts are committed by people, youths as well as adults, who exhibit a constellation of problematic personality traits that we usually call psychopathy. Youth and adults characterized by these personality traits were once children. If traits of psychopathy could be identified at an early age, we could perhaps minimize the likelihood for them growing up as potentially dangerous to the people around them. The purpose of the present study is to investigate in how we could go about in doing this, and at what age this would be appropriate.
Individuals with psychopathic (and/or antisocial-) personality disorder can be described as:
“(…) intraspecies predators who use charm, manipulation, intimidation, and violence to control others and to satisfy their
own selfish needs. Lacking in ‘conscience’ and in feelings for others, they cold-bloodedly take what they want and do as they
please, without the slightest sense of guilt or regret” (Hare, 1998, p. 196).
Psychopathic core traits usually fall into three dimensions, with one affective (lack of empathic feelings), one interpersonal (egocentricity and manipulativeness) and one behavioral dimension (impulsivity and irresponsibility) (Forth & Book, 2007). The first assessments of the psychopathic syndrome among adults were conducted with the Hare Psychopathy
Checklist, PCL. To be diagnosed with the disorder an individual has to score high on several of the typical characteristics (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2007).
Today, many researchers believe that the core traits of psychopathy can be seen and measured at a younger age, based on the assumption that the disorder develops over a longer period of time rather than just suddenly appear in adulthood (Forth & Book, 2007; Salekin, 2006). A growing interest in how the disorder develops has led to new tests like the youth version of the original checklist, PCL-YV (Forth & Book, 2007; Salekin, 2006). When comparing adults results, from PCL-R with adolescent results on PCL-YV, similar patterns were found suggesting that the PCL-YV is measuring psychoapthy like traits in adolescents (Salekin, 2006). Adolescents with psychopathy like traits have got high scores on each dimension. An important aspect of interest is whether this construct in youth is predictive or not for the adult psychopathic construct. The answer to that question is probably yes,
according to recent research. It seems like having psychopathy like traits in adolescence increase the vulnerability for having them in adulthood (Forth & Book, 2007).
For younger children, the field of psychopathy and psychopathic core traits is relatively unexplored. As mentioned before, this disorder is probably not a sudden onset phenomenon but a syndrome that develops over time. Research indicates that this process starts already early in childhood (Salekin, 2006; Glenn, Raine, Venables & Mednick, 2007). Evidence has shown that personality traits in children are fairly stable, and stability increase with age (Forth & Book, 2007). A longitudinal study demonstrated a link between early childhood behaviors (at age three) and adult psychopathic personality (Glenn, Raine, Venables, & Mednick, 2007). It is critical to spot these behaviors and core traits of
psychopathy as early as possible since treatment of adult full blown psychopaths has shown unsuccessfull (Babiak, P. & Hare, R. D., 2006).
The purpose of this study is to replicate a study which investigated whether a newly developed test, the Child Problematic Traits Inventory (CPTI; Andershed & Forsman, 2004), is a valid measurement of psychopathic like traits in three- to five-year-old children. More
specifically, we ask whether psychopathic traits can be measured in a meaningful way in children this young, using the Child Problematic Traits Inventory (CPTI)? If psychopathic traits (similar for those found in adults) can be found and measured in preschool children, interventions can be implemented at an early age, which has shown to have a great probability of success (Andershed & Forsman, unpublished).
The previous study to be replicated (Andershed & Forsman) investigated the assessment of psychopathic personality traits in 182 preschool children, age 3-5. The
instrument (CPTI) was based on the three-dimensional psychopathic personality constellation including interpersonal, affective and behavioral characteristics. Questions of investigation were if core traits of psychopathy are related to externalizing behaviour problems (such as Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder) and fearlessness, as found in previous research (Andershed & Forsman). Teachers were given statements concerning behaviors reflecting psychopathic personality traits, and were then to evaluate how well the statements fitted the child’s overall behavior. The CPTI consists of 29 items. Some examples of traits are grandiosity, lying and manipulation, callousness and lack of empathy, lack of remorse and guilt, impulsivity, and need for stimulation. Results showed that items measuring grandiosity and lying and manipulation loaded together and formed a dimension called Grandiose, Deceitful (GD). Items measuring traits like lack of empathy, callousness and lack of remorse and guilt formed a dimension called Callous, Unemotional (CU). Finally, traits like
impulsivity and need for stimulation loaded together and formed a dimension called Impulsivity and Need for Stimulation (INS). All three dimensions showed high internal consistency. In summary, the previous study found that psychopathic core traits can be found and measured in preschool children, in a meaningful way. The results looked similar to previous research made on adolescents and adults (Salekin, 2006). Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder and fearlessness were all associated to the three dimensions,
both when conducting zero-order correlations, and partial correlations when controlling for age and ethnicity (Andershed & Forsman). To validate these results a replication is necessary.
Apart from validating the CPTI and the construct of psychopathic traits in childhood, this study will also explore overlaps between psychopathy and other symptoms of mental disorders, such as Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder (DSM-IV-TR, 2000) and fearlessness. When assessing psychopathic like traits in children considerations needs to be taken regarding their age. It is reasonable to expect that they express them in different ways compared to adults. Violent behavior and aggression have shown to be possible pathways for developing this disorder (Anderhed & Andershed, 2005), therefore we will investigate this further. Aggression is a part of conduct problems, but there are many different types of aggression. Many times proactive aggression is discussed in relation to reactive aggression and overt agression with relational aggression. (Brown et al., 1996) Boys and girls have shown to express aggression in different ways (Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997). Proactive aggression includes physical damage or the threat of such damage (e.g., pushing, hitting, kicking, or threatening to beat up a peer) (Brown et al., 1996). Relational aggression includes for example social exclusion and spreading of rumors (Crick, Casas & Mosher, 1997). It is apparent from previous research that preschool children express both forms of aggression although one of the forms is usually dominant within the individual (Brown et al., 1996). Earlier findings indicate that preschool boys are significantly more proactively aggressive and less relationally aggressive. Girls on the contrary, express more relational aggression and less proactive aggression (Crick, Casas, & Mosher, 1997). Based on these findings we want to investigate these two types of aggression (proactive and relational) in this study. If results show that boys express more proactive-, and girls more relational aggression and they
associate with scores on CPTI, it may be necessary to include different types of aggression in this scale. Furthermore, we expect a gender difference. Namely, that boys correlate stronger
with proactive aggression and girls correlate stronger with relational aggression. Previous research has shown that boys have a higher prevalence of psychopathy (Andershed & Andershed, 2005). Therefore we expect boys to have higher scores on the CPTI. Hypotheses
First, in line with the previous study (Andershed & Forsman, 2004) this study expect items of CPTI to form a distinct three dimension structure with interrelated dimensions.
Second, symptoms of Conduct Disorder and Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and fearlessness did in the previous study show to overlap with psychopathy like traits. Therefore we expect these three variables of symptoms to be correlated to scores on CPTI.
Third, we expect to find a correlation between proactive- and relational aggression and scores on CPTI. We also expect boys to have a stronger correlation with scores on CPTI and proactive aggression, and girls to have a stronger correlation with relational aggression and scores on CPTI when comparing correlations.
Fourth, since males show a higher prevalence in adult psychopathy we expect boys to score higher on the CPTI.
Fifth, when controlling for age and etnicity, will any of the three CPTI dimensions, (GD, CU and INS) correlate with any of the other variables mentioned before as symptoms of Conduct-, Oppositional Defiant Disorder and fearlessness did in the previous study?
Method Sample
The target sample consists of 486 3- to 5-year-olds, recruited through preschools in Örebro (total population approx. 129.000, population of 3-5-year-olds approx. 4.200), Kumla (total population approx. 20.000, population of 3-5-year-olds approx. 740), and Linköping (total population approx. 140.000, population of 3-5-year-olds approx. 4.600) with a
asked to complete questionnaires concerning themselves (parents only) and the child.
Participating preschools are rewarded with a book, and among participating parents there is a lottery for cinema tickets.
Table 1. Distribution across communities, preschools, and preschool units.
Of the 486 distributed questionnaires, responses were collected from 298 (61%) preschool teachers, and 239 (49%) parents. Questionnaires for 228 (47%) children were completed by both preschool teachers and parents. With regard to consent, 43 (8.85%) parents did not want to participate in the project; 3 (0.6%) did not want to respond to the
questionnaire on behalf of their children; and 0 (0%) declined participation on part of the preschool teachers. Three (0.6%) questionnaires were never collected from the preschool by the parents. Remaining questionnaires were picked up, but were never completed and returned. Community Number of preschools Number of preschool units Kumla 6 11 Linköping 1 2 Örebro 10 28 Total 17 41
Measures
The Child Problematic Traits Inventory (CPTI) consists of 29 items measuring psychopathy like traits (see Table2 for description of items). Responses are given by preschool teachers on a four point lickert scale (1= Does not apply at all, 2= Does not apply well, 3= Applies fairly well, 4= Applies very well). The instrument is developed on the basis of previous research on characteristics of full-blown adult psychopaths (Andershed & Forsman). Hence, some characteristics of adult psychopaths are not applicable to preschool children, for example promiscuous sexual behavior and criminality, and therefore excluded from the questionnaire. Reliability analysis of this scale showed good internal consistency, Cronbach’s Alpha = .96 (boys =.96, girls .94).
Twenty-two items assessing symptoms of Conduct Disorder (17 items) and
Oppositional Defiant Disorder (5 items) were used (TRF- Teacher Report form, Rescorla et al., 2007, Ivanova et al., 2007). Parents and teachers rated children on a three point scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (3). Some examples of items assessing symptoms of Condcut Disorder were “steals outside the home”, “vandalism” and “runs away from home”. Some examples of items assessing symptoms Oppositional Defiant Disorder were: ”argues”,”stubborn”,”sullen or irriatble” and ”disobeident at home”. Reliability analysis of these scales showed good internal consistency. Cronbach’s Alpha for Conduct Disorder = .69 (boys = .90, girls = .73), Cronbach’s Alpha for Oppositional Defiant Disorder = .66 (boys = .81, girls = .74).
Six items assessing fearlessness (Child Fearlessness Scale, Andershed unpublished) were rated by both parents and teachers on a four point scale ranging from strongly disagree (=1) to strongly agree (=4). Some examples of items assessing fearlessness were “He/she does not seem to be scared of anything”, “He/she is a very fearless person and like to expose him/herself to dangerous things” and “Never gets scared when someone tries to scare
him/her”. Reliability analysis showed god internal consistency. Cronbach’s Alpha = .73 ( boys = .82, girls = .77)
Altogether, 16 items were used to assess proactive (PSBS, Crick Casas & Mosher, 1997) and relational aggression (Brown et al 1996). Proactive aggression were represented by 10 items and six items presented relational aggression. Both parents and teachers rated
children on a 3 degree (proactive aggression) and a 5 degree (relational aggression) lickert scale. Some examples of items assessing proactive aggression were: “Acts out behind teacher's back”, “Has hurt others to win a game” and “Threatens others”. Examples of items assesing relational aggression were: “Tells others not to play with or be a peer's friend”, “When mad at a peer, this child keeps that peer from being in the play group” and “Tells a peer that they won't be invited to their birthday party unless he or she does what the child wants”. Reliability analysis showed good internal consistency. Cronbach’s Alpha for proactive aggression = .59 (boys = .86, girls = .84 ) and for relational aggression = .64 (boys = .86 girls = .84)
Gender and ethnicity were taken from informative questions. Qualified for being included in the ethnicity variable, are those children who’s both parents or the mother only is from a foreign country.
Procedure
First managers and principals of the preschools were informed about the study. When given the permission from the teachers, questionnaires were handed out and information was given to the teachers. Letters with information and questionnaires were handed out, through the preschools, to the parents. Parents were given the opportunity to decide participation on behalf of themselves, their children and the preschool teachers. Both parts were asked to fill in the questionnaires concerning a child’s behavior. Parents filled in one questionnaire regarding their child, while preschool teachers filled in several questionnaires depending on the number
of children attending their preschool. Each teacher reported on the children they knew best. Estimated time spent filling out these questionnaires was approximately 20 minutes for preschool teachers, to 30-40 minutes for parents. We emphasized to all participants to ask questions concerning unclear procedure or information. Depending on each preschool’s schedule, due dates were set and not more than four weeks were given. After approximately half the time, parents and teachers received reminder notes. The study was approved by the Ethics committee at Karolinska Institutet.
Statistical Analyses
A factor analysis will be conducted to see if any of the Child Problematic Traits Inventory items load together in similar dimensions as they did in the first study.
Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient will be used to test correlations with Child
Problematic Trait Inventory scores and symptoms of Conduct Problems and Oppositional Defiant Disorder, fearlessness, proactive-, and relational aggression. In addition to that, partial correlations will be conducted with the same variables, controlling for gender and ethnicity. Finally, an independent t-testwill be used to investigate whether boys score higher than girls on the CPTI. Cronbach’s Alpha has been conducted on all scales independently on boys and girls.
Results Will the 29 CPTI Items Form a Three Factor Structure?
The factor analysis showed that item 12 (“Thinks that he/she is more important and valuable than others”) did not significantly load (point .39) in any factor and was therefore excluded. Remaining 28 items formed a three factor structure similar to the previous study, see table 2. Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (5547.30***, df= 378) and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (= .94) suggests it is appropriate to conduct a factor analysis on the data.Alltogether, 8 items loaded together and formed a Grandiose/Decietful dimension, 10 items measuring Calluos
and Unemotional traits loaded together and formed a dimension. And finally 10 items loaded together and formed a Need for Stimulation dimension. The three new dimensions are also interrelated, see table 3. These results suggest that the CPTI is a valid instrument to measure psychopathic like traits in preschool children.
Table 2
Three-factor structure of the CPTI items.
Factors
CU INS GD
Grandiose Decieteful Dimension (GD)
Seem to see himself/herself as superior compared to others. .12 -.01 .61
Thinks that he/she is better than everyone on almost verything. .14 .08 .50
Is often superior and arrogant towards others. .18 -.12 .69
Lies often to avoid problems. -.05 .19 .66
Seem to lie more than other children of the same age. .08 -.11 .71
Often lies to get what he/she wants. -.11 .03 .87
To frequently lie seem to be completeley normal for him/her. .06 -.06 .79
To get people to do what he/she wants, he/she often finds it -.23 .18 .80
efficient to con them.
Callous, Unemotional Dimension (CU)
Seldom expresses sympathy for others. .90 .00 -.21
Often seem to be completely indifferent when other children
are upset. .71 .05 -.01
Does not seem to be upset when others are being hurt. .72 .11 -.02 Often does not seem to care about what other people feel
and think. .81 .03 .05 Usually does not seem to share others’ joy and sorrow. .84 .02 -.17
Is seldom remorseful when he/she has done something not
allowed. .65 .02 .21
Never expresses feelings of guilt when he/she has done
something not allowed. .72 -.03 .1
Never seems to have bad conscience for things that he/she
has done. .56 -.04 .22
Does not express guilt and remorse to the same extent as
other children of the same age. .61 -.13 .24
Sometimes seems completely lack the capability to feel guilt
and remorse. .57 .04 .25
Impulsivity, Need for Stimulation Dimension (INS)
Often does things without thinking ahead. .20 .61 .05
Often has difficulties to with awaiting his/her turn. .23 .72 -.12 Often consumes things immediately rather than saving them. .14 .58 -.03
Does not like waiting. .01 .78 -.01
Provides himself/herself with different things very fast and
eagerly. -.09 .64 .25
Seems to have a great need for change and excitement. -.06 .85 .02 Likes change and that things happen all the time. -.22 .73 .03
Seems to get bored quickly. .17 .70 -.10
Quickly gets tired of things and wants new things to happen all
the time. .12 .79 -.05
Percent of variance explained 44.00 6.94 6.28
Cronbach’s Alpha .93 .92 .90
Note. Principal Component Factor Analysis with an Oblique: Promax rotation with Kaiser Normalization. A Rotation converged in 6 iterations. CU= Callous and Unemotional traits, INS= Impulsivity and Need for Stimulation traits, GD= Grandiose and Deceitful traits.Values in boldface indicate loadings higher than .40. Excluded item: “Thinks that he/she is more important and valuable than others”
Table 3.
Correlations between the three dimensions of the Child Problematic Traits Inventory with boys above and girls below the diagonal.
Grandiose, Callous, Impulsivity, need Deceitful Unemotional for stimulation Grandiose, deceitful --- .67** .63**
Callous, unemotional .63** --- .71**
Impulsivity, need for stimulation .56** .55**
---Note. **p<.01
Correlations Between CPTI Scores and Symptoms of Conduct Disorder-, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Fearlessness.
Parent rated results showed that neither boys nor girl’s scores’ on symptoms of
Conduct-, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder were correlated to scores on CPTI (bear in mind that parents did not rate their children on the CPTI scale). Fearlessness on the contrary, were correlated for both boys (r = ,26**) and girls (r = ,23*) to scores on Child Problematic Traits Inventory. Teacher rated results showed that symptoms of Conduct Disorder (boys: r = . 71***, girls: r = .48***) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (boys: r = .67***, girls: r = . 50***) and fearlessness (boys: r = .50***, girls: r = .493) were all correlated to scores on CPTI for both boys and girls.
Results indicated that both boys and girls use both forms of aggression even though they (at this age) express more proactive aggression (boys, girls: proactive r = .75***, r = .73** & relational r = .54**, r = .63). The correlations give a hint of that there are no gender differences at this age.
Is There a Gender Difference in Scores on Child Problematic Traits Inventory When Comparing Means?
Results showed no gender differences in scores on CPTI when conducting an independent t-test.
Does Any CPTI Dimensions Correlate with Symptoms of Conduct-, or Oppositional Defiant Disorder Fearlessness, Proactive-, Relational Aggression?
Expected results were that variables would correlate to the CPTI dimensions. Reason to control for age and ethnicity was that these could be possible confounding variables. Age and ethnicity did not influence the results. All teacher rated variables were positively correlated to all dimensions. Parent rated results in general showed weaker associations and some variables did not significantly correlated at all, see table 4.
Table 4.
Correlations between the three CPTI dimensions and teacher and parent rated ODD-, CD symptoms, fearlessness, proactive and relational aggression among boys and girls separately.
Boys Girls GD CU INS GD CU INS CD ZO .52*** .36*** .45*** .52*** .36*** .45*** (…) (…) (…) (…) (…) (…) Symptoms PC .72*** .71*** .64*** .43*** .29*** .49*** (.16*) (.32***) (.28**) (…) (…) (…) ODD ZO .51*** .31*** .49*** .51*** .31*** .49*** (…) (…) (…) (…) (…) (…) Symptoms PC .62*** .56*** .67*** .55*** .26*** .51***
(…) (…) (…) (…) (…) (…) Fearlessness ZO .40*** .43*** .40*** .40*** .43*** .40*** (.24**) (…) (.21**) (.24**) (…) (.21**) PC .44*** .55*** .57*** .42*** .44*** .42*** (…) (.28**) (.34***) (.25**) (…) (.21**) Proactive ZO .77*** .54*** .61*** .77*** .54*** .61*** (.28***) (.24**) (.30***) (.28***) (.24**) (.30**) Aggression PC .75*** .73*** .69*** .78*** .54*** .62*** (.30***) (.34***) (.39***) (.29***) (.21**) (.29***) Relational ZO .67*** .44*** .52*** .67*** .44*** .52*** (…) (…) (.22**) (…) (…) (.22**) Aggression PC .58*** .50*** .50*** .64*** .43*** .53*** (.22**) (.25**) (.25**) (…) (…) (.22**) Note. CU = Callous, unemotional dimension; GD = Grandiose, deceitful dimension; INS = Impulsivity, need for stimulation dimension. ZO = Zero-order (Pearson) correlations. PC = Partial correlations controlling for age and ethnic background. Correlations in parenthesis are parent rated, missing values are non significant correlations. *** p<.001, **p<.01, *p<.05
Discussion
We found that the items in the CPTI formed three dimensions. The three dimensions (Grandiose/Deceitful, Callous/Unemotinal, Impulsivity/ Need for Stimulation) were similar to the dimensions of the study we replicated (Andershed & Forsman, unpublished).
Interestingly, one difference was found, namely that item 12 “Thinks that he/she is more important and valuable than others” did not load in any factor (using cut off point .04.). In the previous study, this item loaded in the grandiose/deceitful dimension, although quite close to the cut off point. This result suggests that this item is not suitable for measuring
psychopathic core traits in preschool children. Perhaps this item is more suitable when measuring the construct in adults.
As expected from previous findings (Andershed & Forsman, unpublished), teacher rated Conduct-, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder symptoms and fearlessness scores were all
related to scores on the Child Problematic Traits Inventory. The fact that these variables are associated with each other suggests good external validity, which means that the test is measuring core traits of psychopathy. We also found an association between parents rated fearlessness scores and CPTI scores. But not between parents rated scores on ODD-, and CD symptoms and CPTI scores. These results might depend on that the CPTI is only rated by teachers. Another possible explanation might be that these behaviors are context specified to preschool situation when being around peers (Andershed & Andershed, 2005).
We expected to find a difference in the way children express aggression. We were surprised by this since earlier research suggests this difference (Brown et al., 1996) and most likely the reason is the young age of the children. Can it be that proactive aggression in this age is more common because it does not acquire as much abstract thinking as relational aggression might need. Furthermoreit may be easier for teachers and parents to detect
proactive aggression than relational aggression. Another aspect that can explain our results are whether gender stereotypical aggressive behaviour is internalized or not in children this young. In adulthood we know what is expected from us, based on gender roles. For example, it is perhaps not as acceptable for a woman to express her aggression physically, as it is for a man. She might therefore redirect her aggression in a more “acceptable”, relational way. We believe that our results might be influenced by young children’s lack of understanding about gender roles. They therefore might express both forms.
A limitation of the study is that the questionnaires did not only include items and scales mentioned in this report. In fact, the questionnaires were very comprehensive and took approximately one hour for the parents to fill in, which might be a contributor to the high decline rate. Also, parents with problematic children might be too busy or simply not
motivated to participate, resulting in selective attrition where subjects of particular interest for this study are in fact not part of it.
As stated, children’s behaviors are to a great extent context specified. Therefore, a great strength of the present study is that answers from questionnaires are based on both teacher- and parent ratings. Ratings by both parents and teachers probably give a more fair description of the children’s overall behavior in different environments. Another strength is that this sample is larger than in the replicated study which give our results more statistical power.
If an adult repeatedly violates societal rules, lies, and hurts others, we tend to draw the conclusion that this behavior is not healthy. Here, the distinction between what is considered normal and what is not is rather clear. When assuming that children who express psychopathic personality traits have tendencies or are at risk for developing abnormal behaviors, we also assume that there is a distinction between what is normal and abnormal for preschool children as well. However, if we base that distinction on behavioral observations of full-blown
psychopaths, it is probably not the same for preschool children.
Identifying problematic personality traits that are strongly associated with later negative development also renders it possible to develop new treatment programs, assuming that children at risk for developing psychopathy lack important mental abilities. Treatment for psychopathy in adulthood have, unfortunately, been difficult to achieve. Some claim that it is only possible to alter the deviant behavior of a psychopath, and many see these individuals as impossible cases in treatment (Andershed & Skeem, 2004). Since psychopathy and violent behaviour are linked together, this has consequences for both individuals and society. Adulthood psychopathy has shown to be the single best predictor for relapsing into criminality after being released from prison (Andershed & Skeem, 2004). Therefore, by identifying threatening traits while the stability of the personality is still low, and the traits have not yet become a part of a stable lifestyle for the individual, we could possibly prevent future harm and criminality (Frick, 2007).
In summary, we have presented evidence that psychopathic core traits are possible to assess in preschool children using the Child Problematic Traits Inventory. Still, longitudinal studies are needed to see whether the traits measured by the CPTI are stable over time. There is a risk when applying terms like psychopathy on children the term in it self is for many frightening. However the benefits seem to overcome the potential danger. If we want to prevent psychopathy later in life, it is essential to discuss if this can be detected in childhood. To explore how to prevent individuals from developing psychopathy, we should not let the fear of dangerous terms stop us.
References
American Psychiatric Association, DSM-IV-TR (2000), Washington
Andershed , H. (2007) Stability of psychopathy: A review of the evidence and suggestions of ways forward. Unpblished Manuscript.
Andershed, H., & Andershed, A. K. (2005), Teori och forskning om orsaker och riskfaktorer bakom normbrytande beteende i barndomen In Normbrytande beteende i barndomen (pp. 55-125). Mölnlycke: Elanders Infologistics Väst AB
Andershed, H. & Forsman, M. Child Problematic Traits Inventory (CPTI). Version 2.0. Instructions for scaling. Unpublished Manuscript.
Andershed, H. & Forsman, M. The Child Fearlessness Scale. Instructions for scaling. Unpublished Manuscript.
Andershed, H., Forsman, M. (2004), A Three Dimensional Personality Constellation Realted to Conduct Problems and Fearlessness in Preeschool Children. Unpublished
Manuscript.
Andershed, H & Skeem, J. L. (2004) Psykopati: Aktuell teori och forskning In L. Lidberg & N. Wiklund (Red.), Svensk rättspsykiatri – Psykisk störning, brott och påföljd (s. 455-506). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Babiak, P & Hare, R. D. (2006). Nice Suit, Would a Snake Wear Such a Nice Suit? In Snakes in Suits (1st ed, pp.1-17) New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Babiak, P & Hare, R. D. (2006). What You See May Not Be What You See. In Snakes in suits. (1st ed, pp.35- 63) New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Babiak, P & Hare, R. D. (2006). Who are These People? In Snakes in suits. (1st ed, pp.17- 35)
New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Boyd, D & Bee, H. (2006). Physical and Cognitive Development in Early Childhood. In Lifespan Development (4th ed., pp. 164-194). Boston: Pearson.
Brown, K., Atkins, M. S., Osborne, M. L., & Milnamov, N. (1996). A Revised Teacher Rating Scale For Reactive and Proactive Aggression. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 473-480.
Crick N.R., Casas J.F., Mosher M. (1997) Relational and Overt Aggression in Preschool, Developmental Psychplogy, vol 33, no 4, pp 579-588.
Crick N.R., Casas J.F., Mosher M. (1997) Relational Preschool Social Behavior Scale – Teacher form; PTSB.
Frick, P. J. (2006). Using the Construct of Psychopathy to Understand Antisocial and Violents Youth. In H. Hervé & J. C. Yuille, The Psychopath: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 343-363). Lawrencee Enbaum Associates
Forth, A. E, & Book, A. S. (2006). Psychopathy in Youth: A valid Construct? In H. Hervé & J. C. Yuille, The Psychopath: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 369-383).
Lawrencee Enbaum Associates
Glenn, A.L., Raine, A., Venables, P.H., & Mednick, S.A. (2007), Early Temperamental and Psychophysiological Precursors of Adult Psychopathic Personality, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, vol 116, no.3, pp. 508- 518.
Hare R. D. (1998). Psychopaths and Their Nature: Implications for the Mental Health and Criminal Jutice Systems. In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, R. D. Davis, Psychopathy- Antisocial, Criminal and Violent Behaviour, (pp. 188-215). New York: The Guildford Press
Ivanova et al., (2007). Teacher Report form/ 6-18 TRF. Testing the Teacher’s Report Form syndromes in 20 societies. School Psychology Review, 36, 468-483.
Kreuger, R. F., Markon, K. E., Patric, C. J., Benning, S. D., & Kramer, M. D. (2007), Linking Antisocial Behaviour, Substance Use, and Personality: An Intergrative Quantitative
Model of the Adult Externalizing Spectrum, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, vol 116, no. 4, pp. 645-666.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2007). Personality Disorders. In Abnormal Psychology (4th ed, pp.
421-457) New York: McGraw-Hill
Rescorla et al., (2007). Consistency of teacher-reported problems for students in 21 countries. School Psychology Review, 36, 91-110.
Salekin, R. T. (2006). Psychopathy in Children an Adolescents: Key Issues in
Conceptualization and Assessment. In Patrick, C. J, Handbook of Psycopathy, (pp. 389-409) New York: The Guildford Press
