an examination of the factor structure of the psychopathy checklist

measure of psychopathy may be limited when applied to female populations. This begs
the question: why might there be gender differences in the expression of psychopathy?
First, societal norms and expectations may serve to inhibit overt antisocial behaviours in
females leading to a restriction of range in this domain. Second, some researchers have
suggested that a higher level of psychopathic traits may be needed before females
break gender-specific norms and engage in aggressive acts with a minimal amount of
anxiety or remorse arising from their behaviours (Broidy, Cauffman, Espelage,
Mazerolle, & Piquero, 2003; Verona & Vitale, 2006). Collectively, these two hypotheses
imply that the assessment of personality-based psychopathic traits (e.g., egocentricity,
callousness, and manipulation) may be more sensitive at detecting psychopathy in
females rather than the behavioural features, which is evident among this particular
sample.
Some descriptive findings that detail the nature of female violence are also worthy
of further discussion. First, previous research and theory concerning adult violent
offenders has suggested that it is often difficult to classify violence as either reactive or
instrumental, and that violence is likely a combination of both reactivity and
instrumentality (e.g., Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Woodworth & Porter, 2002).
Examination of the breakdown of offenses committed by the female youth in this study
into four categories (as outlined by Woodworth & Porter, 2002) provides support for this
notion. Specifically, although the near majority (44.3%) of the offenses were considered
to be reactive in nature, there was a roughly equal split into the other three categories.
Notably, a large proportion (82.9%) of the violent offences that these girls engaged in
had some reactive component; less than one-fifth (17.2%) were purely instrumentally
72