an examination of the factor structure of the psychopathy checklist

More documents

Recommendations

Info

instrumental/reactive, and (d) purely instrumental. In this model, purely reactive and purely instrumental violence represent the polar ends of a continuum of motivation. However, these extremes are separated by violence that is primarily driven by reactive emotionality, but has some elements of instrumentality, and violence that is primarily driven by instrumental gain, but has some elements of reactivity. It has been suggested (i.e., Vitacco et al., 2006) that viewing instrumental aggression through the lens of psychopathy can provide useful information pertaining to the causes of aggression. The adult psychopathy literature has recognized a substantial connection between psychopathic traits and instrumental aggression (e.g., Cornell et al., 1996; Walsh, Swogger, & Kosson, 2009; Williamson, Hare, Wong, 1987; Woodworth & Porter, 2002). Two studies have arguably been particularly relevant in informing the literature on the nature of psychopathy and instrumental aggression in adult samples. Cornell et al. (1996) completed an important study on the nature of psychopathy and instrumental aggression in 106 male inmates and 50 pre-trial forensic referrals with violent histories. In completing their study, Cornell and colleagues developed an innovative coding system for classifying aggression which assessed six distinct domains: (a) planning, (b) goal directedness, (c) provocation, (d) anger, (e) victim injury, and (f) victim relationship. They found that 50% of PCL–R items were significantly higher in offenders who had histories of instrumental aggression compared with those with no documented history of instrumental aggression. The second study was conducted by Woodworth and Porter (2002) on a sample of 125 Canadian offenders convicted of homicide. Woodworth and Porter rated each homicide on their continuum described earlier in this section. Results indicated that 19
psychopathic offenders were significantly more likely to commit an instrumental homicide (93.3%) than their nonpsychopathic counterparts (48.8%). These researchers attributed the high proportion of instrumental homicides committed by psychopaths to their marked lack of empathy, speculating that empathy and concern for others acts as a deterrent to engaging in instrumental violence. Their analyses revealed that although both Factor 1 and Factor 2 were relevant in understanding this relationship, Factor 1 (e.g., the interpersonal and affective characteristics) was particularly important. Similarly, results from both an early study by Williamson et al. (1987) and a more recent study conducted by Walsh et al. (2009) revealed that among adult offenders, those with high PCL–R scores frequently engaged in violent crimes that were goal directed and purposeful (e.g., for revenge or financial benefit). Further, among a community sample of both men and women, Nouvion and colleagues (Nouvion, Cherek, Lane, Tcheremissine, & Lieving, 2007) found that individuals classified as proactively aggressive (based on behavioural testing) had significantly higher psychopathy scores than those classified as reactively aggressive. Although the link between psychopathy and instrumental violence is well documented in the adult literature, it is less researched among youth samples. However, consistent with the downward extension of psychopathy to adolescence, research has begun to analyze the association between psychopathy and instrumental aggression in juvenile offenders (e.g. Agar, 2009; Carpenter, 2010; Cook, Barese, & Dicataldo, 2010; Flight & Forth, 2007; Kruh, Frick, & Clements, 2005; Murrie et al., 2004; Vitacco et al., 2006). One study conducted by Murrie et al. (2004) evaluated the association between psychopathy and instrumental aggression in 113 incarcerated 20
Page 1 and 2: AN EXAMINATION OF THE FACTOR STRUCT
Page 3 and 4: Preface Ethics approval for this re
Page 5 and 6: 3 Results .........................
Page 7 and 8: List of Tables Table 1 Confirmatory
Page 9 and 10: Acknowledgements I owe my deepest g
Page 11 and 12: To my family and friends, Thank you
Page 13 and 14: among female youth populations, the
Page 15 and 16: Third, it has been suggested that t
Page 17 and 18: only a small proportion of conduct-
Page 19 and 20: irresponsible, and antisocial tende
Page 21 and 22: A long line of research has demonst
Page 23 and 24: females. When a model is considered
Page 25 and 26: to do with whether the measure is w
Page 27 and 28: Understanding the factor structure
Page 29: (Leschied et al., 2001; Moretti, Ca
Page 33 and 34: instrumental aggression. However, w
Page 35 and 36: Given the relationships between the
Page 37 and 38: associated with self-report will be
Page 39 and 40: 1.4.1 Hypotheses The current thesis
Page 41 and 42: ecords, school records, medical rec
Page 43 and 44: 2.2.3 Instrumental-Reactive Coding
Page 45 and 46: eceiving services from YFPS. Althou
Page 47 and 48: 3 Results 3.1 Coding Reliability In
Page 49 and 50: This was followed by acquaintance v
Page 51 and 52: Figure 2. Percentage of cases by se
Page 53 and 54: index that adjusts for model comple
Page 55 and 56: Item 1 Item 2 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6
Page 57 and 58: (1-19), 38.7% scored in the moderat
Page 59 and 60: offences, 28.6% were for revenge or
Page 61 and 62: association between the dichotomous
Page 63 and 64: from the original dataset. In other
Page 65 and 66: in instrumental aggression was acco
Page 67 and 68: etween the dichotomous psychopathy
Page 69 and 70: psychopath based on a cut score of
Page 71 and 72: the three-factor model was unable t
Page 73 and 74: sample since violent offenders are
Page 75 and 76: who also concluded that antisocial
Page 77 and 78: they are less likely to use reactiv
Page 79 and 80: more strongly related to instrument
Page 81 and 82:
Pickard, 2007; Barry, Pickard, & An
Page 83 and 84:
measure of psychopathy may be limit
Page 85 and 86:
Further, based on the relatively lo
Page 87 and 88:
score. Although this is a valid mea
Page 89 and 90:
Having access to a large sample, we
Page 91 and 92:
demonstrated, the utility of differ
Page 93 and 94:
malleable youth sample may facilita
Page 95 and 96:
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: I
Page 97 and 98:
Gender differences in mental health
Page 99 and 100:
Edens, J. F., Skeem, J. L., Cruise,
Page 101 and 102:
Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Barry
Page 103 and 104:
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2006
Page 105 and 106:
Jones, S., Cauffman, E., Miller, J.
Page 107 and 108:
Lynam, D. R. (1996). Early identifi
Page 109 and 110:
Murrie, D. C., Cornell, D. G., Kapl
Page 111 and 112:
of the official and self-reported h
Page 113 and 114:
Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewel
Page 115 and 116:
Stockdale, K. C., Olver, M. E., Won
Page 117 and 118:
Vitale, J. E., & Newman, J. P. (200
Page 119 and 120:
Xie, H., Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B
Page 121 and 122:
Appendix B: Factor Models Table A1
Page 123 and 124:
112
Page 125 and 126:
Appendix E: Coding Scheme and Guide
Page 127 and 128:
PART A: OFFENCE CHARACTERISTICS AND
Page 129 and 130:
PART C: WOODWORTH & PORTER`S INSTRU
show all

an examination of the factor structure of the psychopathy checklist

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?