Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

Vol. 15, No. 2, July 2008, 224–236

Child and Adolescent Psychopathy: Stability and Change1

Randall T. Salekina, Jill Rosenbaumb and Zina Leeb
a
Department of Psychology, Center for the Prevention of Youth Behavior Problems,
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA; bDepartment of Psychology,
University of Alabama, USA

This article introduces the concept of child and adolescent psychopathy and discusses
the reasons why the concept might be developmentally appropriate. Past research has
suggested that child psychopathy might be inapplicable to youth because the symptoms
cannot be reliably distinguished from features of normative adolescent development.
Also, concerns have been raised regarding the possibility that the syndrome does not
closely resemble the adult construct of psychopathy. Studies addressing the reliability
and construct validity of psychopathy have shown that the concept does appear to be
reliably distinguished from normal adolescent development and that the concept has a
reasonable degree of construct validity. This article discusses research on the reliability
and validity of child and adolescent psychopathy. In addition, it discusses the possibility
of change in psychopathic symptoms over time and points to potential protective
factors and directions for future research.
Key words: adolescents; change; children; protective; psychopathy; stability.

There has been a significant increase in the
research on child and adolescent psycho-
pathy since the early work of Benjamin
Karpman and Hervey Cleckley (Cleckley,
1941; Karpman, 1949, 1950; Salekin &
Frick, 2005). Specifically, in the mid-1990s,
interest in the child psychopathy concept
was initiated by the work of Frick,
O’Brien, Wootton, and McBurnett (1994)
and Lynam (1996) when they developed
child psychopathy measures to system-
atically study the symptoms of psychopa-
thy in youth. Forth, Hare, and Hart (1990)
also initiated work on psychopathy in
youth using an altered version of the adult
Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, 1985).
These efforts began because it was thought
that the research had great potential for
increasing our understanding of the etiol-
ogy of the disorder, as well as improving
the effectiveness of treatment programs for
youth with psychopathic features, in order
to improve the lives of youth and reduce
negative outcomes that affect others (poor
relationships, aggression, general and vio-
lent recidivism; Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell,
1996).
Since the early work of Forth et al.
(1990), Frick et al. (1994) and Lynam
(1996) there has been a dramatic increase
in the research on psychopathy as it applies
to children and adolescents. This research

Part of this paper was presented at the 3rd International Congress of Psychology and Law,
Adelaide, Australia, 8 July 2007.
Correspondence: Randall T. Salekin, Department of Psychology, University of Alabama, PO Box
870348, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA. Email: rsalekin@bama.ua.edu
ISSN 1321-8719 print/ISSN 1934-1687 online
Ó 2008 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law
DOI: 10.1080/13218710802014519
http://www.informaworld.com

has demonstrated that the indices of child
psychopathy have structural homogeneity,
interrater reliability, and a similar factor
structure to that of adult psychopathy
(Frick, Bodin, & Barry, 2000; Salekin,
Brannen, Zalot, Leistico, & Neumann,
2006; Vincent & Hart, 2002). This research
is important as a first step because it shows
that there appears to be scale coherence,
agreement across raters, as well as a similar
factor structure to adult psychopathy.
Other structural questions such as the
prevalence of psychopathy have been
addressed in order to determine if the rates
of the purported childhood syndrome are
similar to that of adult samples. Research
thus far has shown that the prevalence rate
of child psychopathy is no higher than that
of adult psychopathy. In detention centers
the prevalence rate is typically around 20%
(Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003). This
indirect evidence would suggest that psy-
chopathy symptoms are not normative or
mimicked by the developmental stage of
adolescence. In addition to these data, item
response theory has contributed to our
understanding of the psychopathy concept
in both boys and girls (Schrum & Salekin,
2006; Vincent, 2002). This research has
shown that the items of psychopathy
function similarly to those of adult psycho-
pathy. That is, at high levels of the
construct, as measured by the Psychopathy
Checklist-Youth Version (PCL:YV; Forth
et al. 2003), most youth receive top scores
(2) on a given item; at low levels of the
construct, youth receive low scores (0) on a
given symptom; and, at medium levels of
the concept, youth receive mid-level scores
(1) on symptoms.
In summary, the foregoing tells us that
child and adolescent psychopathy has a
similar prevalence rate, scale homogeneity
and interrater agreement, as well as simi-
larity in item functioning and factor
structure (Salekin et al., 2006) to that of
adult psychopathy. But does it have the
same meaning with children as it does with
Child and Adolescent Psychopathy 225
adults? This question is partially addressed
through construct validity research.
Child and Adolescent Psychopathy:
Nomological Net
Research has been initiated to test whether
psychopathy has a similar nomological net
to that of adult psychopathy. Much of this
research has shown that child and adoles-
cent psychopathy looks similar to adult
psychopathy, although there are some
differences (Lynam, Caspi, Moffitt, Loe-
ber, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 2007; Salekin,
2006). With respect to similarities, there is
a substantial amount of research to show
that psychopathy in youth appears to be
linked to cognitive and affective processes
(Blair & Coles, 2000; Blair, Peschardt,
Budhani, Mitchell, & Pine, 2006; Salekin,
Neumann, Leistico, & Zalot, 2004), traits
from models of general personality (Ly-
nam, Caspi, Moffitt, Raine, Loeber, &
Stouthamer-Loeber, 2005; Salekin, Leisti-
co, Trobst, Schrum, & Lochman, 2005),
inhibition (Vitale et al., 2005), and other
DSM pathology as expected (Salekin,
Neumann, Leistico, DiCicco, & Duros,
2004). This research has shown that the
nomological net surrounding child psycho-
pathy is somewhat similar to that of adult
psychopathy. But, as noted above, there
are differences such as higher than expected
scores with anxiety (Kosson et al., 2002)
and not all performance task studies align
with the adult literature (Salekin, 2006).
Although psychopathy has general con-
struct validity, a great deal of this research
has been conducted at single time-points
and the question has been raised as to
whether there is temporal stability to the
syndrome. That is, do child psychopaths
later become adult psychopaths?
Psychopathy Across Time: Stability
Seagrave and Grisso (2002) noted that if
the concept was to be valuable, it must
226 R.T. Salekin et al.
demonstrate temporal stability. That is,
child psychopaths should later become
adult psychopaths. A handful of studies
have emerged on the topic of temporal
stability. One of the first studies on the
stability of psychopathy was conducted by
Frick, Kimonis, Dandreaux, and Farell
(2003). These researchers investigated the
stability of psychopathy in 100 non-re-
ferred community-based children over a 4-
year period. Frick et al. found high
stability coefficients for parent (.80) and
cross-informant (average of .53) reports.
In addition to that study, Lynam,
Caspi, Moffitt, Loeber, and Stouthamer-
Loeber (2007) were the first to examine the
linkage between childhood psychopathy
and adult psychopathy. Specifically, Ly-
nam et al. (2007) examined the temporal
stability of psychopathy assessed at age 13
using the mother report of the Child
Psychopathy Scale (CPS; Lynam, 1997)
and psychopathy assessed at age 24 using
the PCL–Screening Version (PCL-SV;
Hart, Cox, & Hare, 1995) with over 200
participants. Lynam et al. (2007) found
that psychopathy from childhood into
young adulthood was modestly stable
(r ¼ .31). Stability across the four facet
model showed slightly stronger correla-
tions for traditional factor 2 items; the
correlations were .17 (interpersonal), .15
(affective), .30 (lifestyle), and .33
(antisocial).
Glenn, Raine, Venables, and Mednick
(2007), using a different approach, exam-
ined whether temperament and psychophy-
siology serve as very early indicators in life
for those with psychopathic personality in
adulthood. These authors tested whether
individuals who are more psychopathic in
adulthood would exhibit less fear and
inhibition and more excitement seeking
and sociability at age 3. In addition, they
asked whether such individuals would also
demonstrate reduced age 3 skin conduc-
tance responsivity. In a community sample
of 335 3-year-olds, behavioral measures of
temperament were taken and electrodermal
activity recorded in response to both
orienting and aversive tones. Later, in
adulthood (age 28), the Hare Self-Report
Psychopathy Scale–II (SRP-II; Hare, 1991)
was administered. The authors found that
individuals scoring high on the SRP-II had
been significantly less fearful and inhibited
at age three. They were more sociable and
had longer skin conductance half-life
recovery times to aversive stimuli com-
pared with controls. Not all findings were
as expected in that study. Specifically,
contrary to the authors’ hypotheses, parti-
cipants also had increased autonomic
arousal and skin conductance orienting.
Nonetheless, the findings of Glenn et al.
(2007) partially suggest that there is a
prospective link between temperament
and psychophysiology in very young chil-
dren and high scores on a psychopathic
personality measure in adulthood. In
addition to these studies, there now exists
more studies that have shown that psycho-
pathy is modestly stable across childhood
and into late adolescence, with some also
showing stability into adulthood as men-
tioned (Pardini & Loeber, 2008).
Psychopathy and Negative Outcomes
In the adult literature, psychopathy has
been linked to negative outcomes such as
violent and non-violent offending (Salekin
et al.,1996). Subsequent meta-analytic stu-
dies have shown that there is a similar
relationship evidenced with adolescents.
For instance, Leistico, Salekin, DeCoster,
and Rogers (2008) have shown that psy-
chopathy manifests a similar magnitude of
correlation to that of adult studies. Be-
cause many of these studies had short
follow-up time spans and/or used ‘‘follow-
back’’ designs, we recently examined the
relation between psychopathy and general
and violent recidivism prospectively from
adolescence to young adulthood and found
continuity in offending across this critical

window in time (see Salekin, in press). This
study is important because it suggests that
not only is there stability in the traits but
also stability in offending that occurs into
adulthood. Other negative outcomes have
not been traced as thoroughly, but alcohol
and drug use are likely to be two other
factors that impact functioning.
The Importance of Stability and Change
Studies on temporal stability and recidi-
vism highlight both stability and change in
the psychopathy concept from childhood
to adolescence to adulthood and their
behavior across these important develop-
mental stages. These findings are intriguing
because they indicate that, although the
concept may have some similarity to
adulthood, it also shows change. The next
important question for researchers is to
determine what factors account for the
change. In a recent special issue on child
psychopathy (Salekin & Lochman, 2008),
researchers have begun to address these
important questions. These studies exam-
ine psychopathy in children and adoles-
cents developmentally across time,
considering not only risk factors but also
focusing on protective factors. These stu-
dies are important because they allow for a
better understanding of the factors that
help youth develop meaningful prosocial
lives. More specifically by conducting
longitudinal investigations, intervention
strategies can be more appropriately iden-
tified and interventions designed in an
effort to prevent psychopathic character-
istics in youth before they lead to more
chronic personality features and, more
broadly, societal problems.
Protective Factors and Child Psychopathy
The most common variables to study when
examining protective factors include genet-
ic and neurocognitive (Blair et al., 2006;
Viding, Blair, Moffitt, & Plomin, 2005),
Child and Adolescent Psychopathy 227
temperamental and emotional (e.g., Frick,
Lilienfeld, Ellis, Loney, & Silverthorn,
1999; Salekin, 2006), and environmental,
social, peer and parenting variables (Lyk-
ken, 1995).
With respect to parenting variables,
recent studies have shown that both
monitoring and supervision appear to
have little impact on adolescents. Specifi-
cally, Pardini and Loeber (2008) examined
developmental changes in callousness
across 4 years in adolescence using growth
curve modeling with a community sample
of 506 boys. They discovered that although
the mean interpersonal callousness trajec-
tory for the entire sample was relatively
flat, there existed individual variability in
both the initial status and rate of change
over time. In their study, conduct problems
and parent–child communication difficul-
ties were the best predictors of elevated
levels of interpersonal callousness through-
out adolescence.
With respect to the examination of
protective factors, there was little evidence
that parents or peers substantially influ-
enced within-individual changes in callous-
ness features during this period. In the
Pardini and Loeber (2008) study, parenting
variables predicted higher initial callous-
ness in adolescence, but a dysfunctional
parent–child communication style emerged
as the most robust predictor of chronic
levels of callousness across time. These
findings are consistent with prior research
on this topic (Carlo, Fabes, Laible, &
Kupanoff, 1999; Fowles & Kochanska,
2000; Kochanska, 1997; Kochanska &
Murray, 2000; Laible & Thompson,
2002). It is important to note that in the
Pardini and Loeber study, parent–child
relationship quality appeared to be more
important than poor discipline practices
(physical punishment, inconsistent disci-
pline) in predicting chronic levels of
callousness in boys. Peer factors were
related to higher levels of callousness at
initial assessment, but these relations were
228 R.T. Salekin et al.
reduced to non-significant after accounting
for other disruptive behavior and parent-
ing covariates (oppositional defiant disor-
der/conduct disorder, attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, parenting vari-
ables). Thus, this study suggests that peer
factors may not substantially influence
changes in callousness across adolescence.
Despite the low impact of protective
factors in the Pardini and Loeber study,
one interesting result from the study was
the high degree of variability in callousness
growth trajectories, with some individuals
experiencing swift decreases in callousness
and others experiencing increases in cal-
lousness across the developmental period.
Therefore, although there is growing em-
pirical support to suggest that features of a
callous style are relatively stable across
adolescence, the findings from their study
also suggest that some boys show substan-
tive change (including a reduction) in
psychopathy characteristics across time.
Larsson, Viding, and Plomin (2008)
compared early parenting characteristics
in children with varying levels of callous
traits and antisocial behavior. Four groups
were generated on the basis of teacher
assessments: high callous and low antiso-
cial behavior (n ¼ 378), high callous and
high antisocial behavior (n ¼ 234), low
callous and high antisocial behavior
(n ¼ 210), and controls (n ¼ 3608). The
results from that study suggested three
primary findings. First, the high antisocial
group and the high antisocial behavior
only children exhibited greater early nega-
tive parenting characteristics than high
callous low antisocial behavior group and
controls. Second, these greater levels of
negative parenting characteristics in high
callous and high antisocial behavior boys
and in high antisocial low callousness
group children were explained by early
child effects on parenting. Third, heritabil-
ity estimates for callous children in the high
callous and high antisocial behavior group
and the high callous low antisocial
behavior group were of a similar magni-
tude. Therefore, these authors found that
early parenting characteristics were no
longer significantly associated once early
childhood conduct problems and hyperac-
tivity were taken into account. Impor-
tantly, the authors note that their findings
do not rule out effects of parenting on
children’s behavior given the bidirectional
effects thought to exist between parenting
characteristics and children’s antisocial
behavior. They also suggested that locating
genes responsible for the high heritability
in callous traits will enable future research
to examine hypotheses about common and
unique etiological processes in callous and
antisocial behavior.
Mũnoz, Kerr, and Bésı́c (2008) long-
itudinally examined peer relationships of
psychopathic youth in a Swedish school
system (N ¼ 667). Their sample of chil-
dren ranged from ages 10 to 18 over 4
years. The measure used to index psycho-
pathy in that study was the Youth
Psychopathy Inventory (Andershed,
Kerr, Stattin, & Levander, 2002). Mũnoz
et al. specifically investigated peer rela-
tionship quality and delinquency of stably
high or stably low psychopathic adoles-
cents over a 4-year period. Interestingly,
the results from that study showed that
the youths who were high on psycho-
pathic traits had friends, and these friend-
ships were fairly stable. Also, the
friendships were not unilateral. Peers, in
turn, selected youths who were high on
psychopathic traits as friends approxi-
mately as often as did the peers of youths
who were low on these traits (these
findings held primarily for boys). Even
more surprisingly, friends of the highly
psychopathic youth did not see their
friendships as particularly unsupportive
or conflictual. But youths who were high
on psychopathic features perceived con-
flict in these same relationships. Mũnoz
et al. noted that their findings show a
tendency for youths high on psychopathic

traits to misperceive certain aspects of
relationships, which is similar to previous
work with aggressive youth (Lochman,
1987; Lochman & Dodge, 1998).
Mũnoz et al. also suggest that one
possibility for the connection between
callousness and friendships is that adoles-
cents who are high on psychopathic traits
have less trouble finding peers. In addition,
Mũnoz et al. make the supposition that
friendships with these children might be
based in part on their willingness to
participate in antisocial behavior as a part
of ‘‘normative’’ adolescent growth. Mũnoz
et al. also found that the commission of
delinquent activities was more frequent in
the relationships of youths who were high
on psychopathic traits than in the relation-
ships of youths who were low; thus the
results do not support the notion that
youths who are high on psychopathic traits
act alone (Quay, 1993). As the authors’
point out, however, this does not eliminate
the possibility that youths in the high
psychopathy group committed delinquent
acts alone as well as with their peers.
A key finding in the Mũnoz et al. study
is that youths who were high on psycho-
pathic characteristics were protected from
increasing delinquency when they had at
least one school friend. Delinquency, in
fact, decreased for these individuals,
whereas it increased for those who went 1
year or more without nominating a school
friend. Mũnoz et al. suggested that these
individuals may have less opportunity to
associate with free-time peers (i.e., neigh-
borhood peers), which could prove to be
protective. Another possibility is the role of
parents or school success may be asso-
ciated with the kind of friendships these
individuals choose. Specifically, parents
with good monitoring skills and youth
establishing competence in school may be
two factors that help guide adolescents
who have psychopathic traits away from
delinquent neighborhood peers toward
school peers.
Child and Adolescent Psychopathy 229
Lynam, Loeber, and Stouthamer-Loe-
ber (2008) searched for moderators of the
relation between psychopathy assessed at
age 13 using the mother-reported Child-
hood Psychopathy Scale (Lynam, 1997)
and psychopathy in adulthood (age 24
years) assessed with the PCL-SV (Hart
et al., 1995) with 271 participants. Thirteen
potential moderators were examined in-
cluding demographic (i.e., race, family
structure, family socioeconomic status
[SES], and neighborhood SES), parenting
(physical punishment, inconsistent disci-
pline, lax supervision, and positive parent-
ing), peer delinquency, personal
delinquency, and other individual variables
(i.e., verbal IQ, behavioral impulsivity, and
cognitive impulsivity). Moderators were
tested for the total psychopathy score at
age 24 as well as for each of the four PCL-
SV facets. After loosening the criterion for
statistical significance (p 5.10), Lynam
et al. found that eight out of a possible
65 interactions were statistically significant.
Boys who are high in psychopathy at age
13 remained high at age 24 regardless of
their status on the moderators. Lynam
et al. note that the important changes
across time occurred for boys who were
low in psychopathy at age 13. Boys low in
psychopathy at age 13 who grew up with
more affluent families, had fewer delin-
quent peers, and experienced less physical
punishment remained low in psychopathy
across this relatively large time span. But,
boys low in psychopathy at age 13 who
grew up in less affluent families, experi-
enced more physical punishment, and had
delinquent peers became more psycho-
pathic over time. According to Lynam
et al. (2008), this latter group of boys
account for the reduced stability of psy-
chopathy across time.
The results from this study are impor-
tant because they suggest that family SES,
physical punishment, and delinquent peers
may be contributors to adult psychopathy.
This appears to be the case among boys
230 R.T. Salekin et al.
who are not already psychopathic at age
13. Lynam et al. note that it may also be
the case that these variables were operative
previously among the boys who were
psychopathic at age 13 and that their
effects are now contained within the more
proximal measure of psychopathy at age
13.
When reducing psychopathy to the
component level, the Lynam et al. study
provides some other clues as to the
potential protective factors for psychopa-
thy. Specifically, Lynam et al. found that
parental SES moderated child psychopathy
for PCL-SV facets 2 (deficient affect) and 3
(impulsivity/irresponsibility), whereas phy-
sical punishment and peer delinquency
moderated the total score and facets 1
(deceitfulness and manipulation) and 4
(antisocial behavior). Lynam et al. indi-
cated that their findings have other im-
plications for how we think about
psychopathy. Specifically, psychopathy
may very well be a multidimensional
concept and several researchers have sug-
gested that psychopathy represents a com-
bination of personality traits drawn from
diverse domains (Lynam & Derefinko,
2006; Salekin, Leistico, Trobst, Schrum,
& Lochman, 2005) and their work may
underscore the potential importance of
studying psychopathy and protective fac-
tors from a multifaceted perspective. Over-
all, the Lynam et al. results suggest that
psychopathy is an inborn temperament not
particularly impacted by classic agents of
socialization (e.g., Lykken, 1995; Wootton,
Frick, Shelton, & Silverthorn, 1997).
Barry, Barry, Deming, and Lochman
(2008) conducted a longitudinal investiga-
tion of the stability of psychopathic char-
acteristics within a group of aggressive
children (N ¼ 80). Their data were col-
lected from children, as well as their
parents, teachers, and peers. That study
examined how social relationships moder-
ate changes in psychopathy as indexed
by the APSD. Findings indicated that
psychopathic characteristics were relatively
stable across time-points and social rela-
tionship variables were generally correlated
with psychopathic characteristics. Further-
more, findings from the Barry et al. study
showed that self-report of social compe-
tence moderated change from Time 1 to
Time 2 narcissism based on parent report,
and both peer-rated social preference
and teacher-rated social competence mod-
erated change from Time 1 to Time 3
impulsive-conduct problems. These results
suggested that social relationships and
teacher competence are potentially valu-
able points of intervention when children
present with psychopathic characteristics.
The Barry et al. study provides preliminary
evidence that psychopathic characteristics
among children should be considered
within the context of their social networks.
As such, social networks could potentially
be protective and may be considered
a valuable point of intervention for chil-
dren and adolescents with psychopathic
characteristics.
General Conclusions
Although there has been considerable
debate about the appropriateness of the
concept of psychopathy in children and
adolescents, there is some evidence to
suggest that the syndrome appears to be a
reliable one as currently indexed. More-
over, the structure of psychopathy in
children looks similar to that of adults.
Thus, while some researchers have sug-
gested that many adolescents exhibit im-
pulsivity, irresponsible behavior, and
egocentricity, the bulk of research would
suggest that they do not exhibit these
characteristics to a high degree. Addition-
ally, research has shown that it does appear
to have a reasonable degree of stability and
it also predicts negative outcomes (Leisti-
co, Salekin, DeCoster, & Rogers, 2008; see
also Salekin, in press). However, one of the
interesting findings from the research on

the temporal stability of psychopathy is
that it also shows change for some youth
over time.
A primary aim of extending the concept
of psychopathy to youth is to identify if a
developmental period exists when psycho-
pathic characteristics may be less stable
and perhaps more amenable to change
(Frick et al., 2003; Pardini & Loeber,
2008). By conducting longitudinal investi-
gations, possible inoculants and points of
intervention can be pinpointed in an effort
to prevent early psychopathic characteris-
tics in youth from leading to stable
personality traits, and to persistent deviant
behavior that would have severe implica-
tions for the individual and society.
This article serves as a starting point for
thinking about future studies in this area in
that it suggests studies that incorporate
into their designs variables that allow for
the detection of protective factors. While
the current paper provides evidence for the
notion that childhood psychopathy ap-
pears to be reliable and to show validity,
this is only important to researchers if it
leads to ways to intervene. It is recom-
mended that future studies be longitudinal
in nature, when possible, to capture
changes that might occur across time.
Second, the studies should be relatively
large and diverse, representing referred and
non-referred community-based children
and at-risk youth. Third, studies should
allow for the study of moderators across
major developmental periods where signif-
icant modifications in personality and
behavior might be expected. Fourth, multi-
ple informants or multiple methods for
assessing the constructs could be impor-
tant. Finally, addressing many of the major
risk and socializing agents including genet-
ic and neurocognitive variables (Larsson at
al., 2008; Lynam et al., 2008; Viding et al.,
2005), emotional and temperamental vari-
ables (Larsson et al., 2008; Lynam et al.,
2008), parenting variables (Pardini &
Loeber, 2008; Pardini, Lochman, &
Child and Adolescent Psychopathy 231
Powell, 2007), and social relationships
(Hinshaw & Lee, 2003; Lochman & Way-
land, 1994; Mũnoz et al., 2008) should be
considered and implemented in research
designs.
The primary findings from research in
this area suggest that psychopathy in
children and adolescents looks somewhat
similar to adult psychopathy. The research
to date also suggests that there is both
stability and change in the child psycho-
pathy construct. As with most stable
constructs, few social relationship variables
significantly moderated change during the
time period of early adolescence to young
adulthood. That is, some research has
shown that psychopathic characteristics
might be most influenced by previously
established affective and interpersonal style
during these age periods. Nonetheless, the
studies reviewed in this article regarding
the protective mechanisms for psychopathy
suggest that substantial change occurs
across development even during the ado-
lescent years. Specifically, none of the
longitudinal studies to date have shown
perfect stability from childhood through to
adulthood, indicating change in psycho-
pathy scores across time. Lynam et al.
(2008) found little change for high CPS
scorers but potential changes for low
scorers, and Pardini and Loeber (2008)
demonstrated that some high scorers on a
callousness scale clearly showed a decrease
in their psychopathy scores over time.
Similarly, Mũnoz et al. (2008) and Barry
et al. (2008) demonstrated decreases in
psychopathy scores across time, with
school friendships and social competence
serving as protective factors.
The current article, then, suggests that
parental practices and parent training
interventions may help in the prevention
of callousness in children and adolescents
(e.g., Larsson et al., 2008; Lynam et al.,
2008; Pardini & Loeber, 2008). On this
line, involved and warm parents who also
show consistent and firm discipline
232 R.T. Salekin et al.
practices may prevent their children from
developing many of the affective character-
istics of psychopathy (e.g., Pardini et al.,
2007). The biggest impact of parenting
might occur during the first 5–6 years of
life (e.g., Hoffman, 1983; Kochanska, 1997;
Laible & Thompson, 2002) and change for
youth who have already developed psycho-
pathic characteristics might be consider-
ably more difficult (Larsson et al., 2008;
Lynam et al., 2008; Pardini & Loeber,
2008).
Research from the present review sug-
gests that having a peer who is attending
and committed to school could serve as a
protective factor. This review paper also
suggests that the types of friends youth
have may affect their level of psychopathic
characteristics. Importantly, having a peer
who is attending and committed to school
could serve as a protective factor. These
findings map onto research suggesting the
negative impact of delinquent peers on
aggression. It has been noted that associa-
tions with deviant peers during adolescence
may reinforce the development of callous-
ness and the acceptance of antisocial
behavior (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin,
1999; Henry et al., 2000; Kimonis, Frick,
& Barry, 2004; Pardini & Loeber, 2007;
Larson & Richards, 1991; Piatigorsky &
Hinshaw, 2004).
Social competence and the ability to
make friends may also be associated with a
reduction in psychopathic features over
time. Therefore, although research on the
socializing influence of peers has tradition-
ally focused on negative peer characteris-
tics, this review paper provides hints that it
is also possible that the prosocial peer
relationship may protect adolescents from
developing or maintaining an interperson-
ally callous personality over time (Barry
et al., 2008; Mũnoz et al., 2008). Prosocial
peers may have a positive influence during
adolescence, including promoting the for-
mation of beliefs for helping those in need,
performing well in school settings, and
maintaining supportive relationships
(Carlo et al., 1999; Pardini & Loeber,
2008). Peer relationships are perhaps
more important in adolescence than at
any other time in development. Thus, this
article provides some important informa-
tion on social networks and how social
relationships could potentially serve as
protective factors and should be considered
a valuable point of intervention.
While this review highlights both simi-
larities and differences in the child and
adolescent psychopath it also suggests the
importance of searching for potential
protective factors. There is significant
complexity in identifying factors that
account for declines in psychopathic traits
over time. As such, this article also points
to the need for further research on this
important topic. There are many questions
that remain unanswered. For example,
research has not yet fully determined
whether parenting practices might protect
against the development or maintenance of
psychopathy, even in adolescents. Much
more work is needed on psychopathic
youth and how these youth select their
peers (whether some are delinquent) and/or
whether they are influenced by their peers’
delinquency (and vice versa). In addition,
research is needed on what factors account
for youth having a non-delinquent peer.
Previous research has shown that the peers
of youth high on psychopathic traits
tended to be neighborhood peers. This
suggests that the rewards may be greater
and the consequences less severe for youth
to engage in delinquency in unstructured
environments outside of school grounds.
These suppositions may be somewhat
connected to the preliminary findings that
suggest that having a school peer can
reduce the risk of psychopathy.
This article points to some of the key
ingredients that researchers should consid-
er when designing their research investiga-
tions. Specifically, where possible,
researchers may want to use longitudinal

designs with the inclusion of multiple
protective indices in order to improve their
opportunities for uncovering the protective
mechanisms. In sum, although this review
serves as an important starting point, a
number of questions remain unanswered.
In part, how we conduct our studies on
protective factors will affect how much we
understand about the development of
psychopathy in children. In addition, how
we think about the treatability of the
condition will also impact how we conduct
research in this area, with greater optimism
potentially producing more intervention
innovations. Thus, although some re-
searchers have been concerned about
studying psychopathy in youth because of
its potential harming effects such as its
association with apparent poor treatment
outcome, research has shown that these
claims have likely been overstated and are
not grounded in science (Salekin, 2002;
Salekin, Rogers, & Machin, 2001; Skeem,
Monahan, & Mulvey, 2002). In addition,
this paper underscores the point that, from
a developmental perspective, a chief reason
for studying psychopathic features earlier
in development is to better understand the
potential change that can occur in these
features over time. As research continues
to uncover the developmental processes
that can lead to the features of psycho-
pathy in youth and uncover the sources of
both stability and change in these features
over time, these research findings will have
important theoretical and practical impli-
cations including the improvement of the
well-being of youth with psychopathic
features well into late adolescent and adult
development.
References
Andershed, H., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., &
Levander, S. (2002). Psychopathic traits in
non-referred youths: A new assessment tool.
In E. Blauuw, & L. Sheridan (Eds.),
Psychopaths: Current international perspec-
tives (pp. 131–158). The Hague: Elsevier.
Child and Adolescent Psychopathy 233
Barry, T.D., Barry, C.T., Deming, A.M., &
Lochman, J.E. (2008). Stability of psycho-
pathic characteristics in childhood: The
influence of social relationships. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 35, 244–262.
Blair, R.J.R., & Coles, M. (2000). Expression
recognition and behavioral problems in
early adolescence. Cognitive Development,
15, 421–434.
Blair, R.J.R., Peschardt, K.S., Budhani, S.,
Mitchell, D.G.V., & Pine, D.S. (2006). The
development of psychopathy. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 262–275.
Carlo, G., Fabes, R.A., Laible, D.J., & Kupan-
off, K. (1999). Early adolescence and
prosocial/moral behavior II: The role of
social and contextual influences. Journal of
Early Adolescence, 19, 133–147.
Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity. St.
Louis, MO: Mosby.
Dishion, T.J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999).
When interventions harm: Peer groups and
problem behavior. American Psychologist,
54, 755–764.
Forth, A.E., Hare, R.D., & Hart, S.D. (1990).
Assessment of psychopathy in male young
offenders. Psychological Assessment, 2, 342–
344.
Forth, A.E., Kosson, D.S., & Hare, R.D.
(2003). Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth
Version (PCL: YV). Toronto, ON: Multi-
Health Systems.
Fowles, D.C., & Kochanska, G. (2000). Tem-
perament as a moderator of pathways to
conscience in children: The contribution of
electrodermal activity. Psychophysiology,
37, 788–795.
Frick, P.J., Bodin, S.D., & Barry, C.T. (2000).
Psychopathic traits and conduct problems
in a community sample of clinic referred
sample of children: Further development of
the Psychopathy Screening Device. Psycho-
logical Assessment, 12, 382–393.
Frick, P.J., Kimonis, E.R., Dandreaux, D.M.,
& Farell, J.M. (2003). The four year
stability of psychopathic traits in non-
referred youth. Behavioral Sciences and the
Law, 21, 713–736.
Frick, P.J., Lilienfeld, S.O., Ellis, M., Loney, B.,
& Silverthorn, P. (1999). The association
between anxiety and psychopathy dimen-
sions in children. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 27, 383–392.
Frick, P.J., O’Brien, B.S., Wootton, J.M., &
McBurnett, K. (1994). Psychopathy and
conduct problems in children. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 103, 700–707.
234 R.T. Salekin et al.
Glenn, A.L., Raine, A., Venables, P.H., &
Mednick, S.A. (2007). Early temperament
and psychophysiological precursors of adult
psychopathic personality. Journal of Abnor-
mal Psychology, 116, 508–518.
Hare, R.D. (1985). The Psychopathy Checklist.
Unpublished manuscript, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada.
Hare, R.D. (1991). The Self-Report Psychopathy
Scale-II. Unpublished test, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Hart, S.D., Cox, D.N., & Hare, R.D. (1995).
Manual for the Screening Version of the
Psychopathy Checklist (PCL:SV). Toronto:
Multi Health Systems.
Henry, D., Guerra, N., Huesmann, R., Tolan, P.,
Van Acker, R., & Eron, L. (2000). Normative
influences on aggression in urban elementary
school classrooms. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 28, 59–81.
Hinshaw, S.P., & Lee, S.S. (2003). Conduct and
oppositional defiant disorders. In E.J. Mash,
& R.A. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology.
(2nd ed, pp. 144–198). New York: Guilford.
Hoffman, M.L. (1983). Affective and cognitive
processes in moral internalization. In E.T.
Higgens, D.N. Ruble, & W.W. Hartup
(Eds.), Social cognition and social develop-
ment (pp. 236–274). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Karpman, B. (1949). The psychopathic
delinquent child. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 20, 223–265.
Karpman, B. (1950). Psychopathic behavior in
infants and children: A critical survey of
existing concepts. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 21, 223–272.
Kimonis, E.R., Frick, P.J., & Barry, C.T.
(2004). Callous-unemotional traits and de-
linquent peer affiliation. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 72, 956–966.
Kochanska, G. (1997). Mutually responsive
orientation between mothers and their
young children: Implications for early so-
cialization. Child Development, 68, 94–112.
Kochanska, G., & Murray, K.T. (2000).
Mother-child mutually responsive orienta-
tion and conscience development: From
toddler to early school age. Child Develop-
ment, 62, 284–300.
Kosson, D.S., Cyterski, T.D., Steuerwald, B.L.,
Neumann, C.S., & Walker-Matthews, S.
(2002). The reliability and validity of the
Psychopathy Checklist – Youth Version
in non-incarcerated males. Psychological
Assessment, 14, 97–109.
Laible, D.J., & Thompson, R.A. (2002).
Mother-child conflict in the toddler years:
Lessons in emotion, morality, and relation-
ships. Child Development, 73, 1187–1203.
Larson, R., & Richards, M.H. (1991). Daily
companionship in late childhood and early
adolescence: Changing developmental con-
texts. Child Development, 62, 284–300.
Larsson, H., Viding, E., & Plomin, R. (2008).
Callous-unemotional traits and antisocial
behavior: Genetic, environmental and early
parenting characteristics. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 35, 197–211.
Leistico, A.R., Salekin, R.T., DeCoster, J., &
Rogers, R. (2008). A large-scale meta-
analysis relating the Hare measures of
psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law
and Human Behavior, 32, 28–45.
Lochman, J.E. (1987). Self and peer perceptions
and attributional biases of aggressive and
nonaggressive boys. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 55, 404–410.
Lochman, J.E., & Dodge, K.A. (1998). Distorted
perceptions in dyadic interactions of aggres-
sive and nonaggressive boys: Effects of prior
expectations, context, and boys’ age. Devel-
opment and Psychopathology, 10, 495–512.
Lochman, J.E., & Wayland, K.K. (1994).
Aggression, social acceptance, and race as
predictors of negative adolescent outcomes.
Journal of the American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 1026–1035.
Lykken, D.T. (1995). The antisocial personal-
ities. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
Lynam, D., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T.E., Raine, A.,
Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M.
(2005). Adolescent psychopathy and the
Big Five: Results from two samples. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 431–443.
Lynam, D.R. (1996). Early identification of
chronic offenders: Who is the fledgling
psychopath? Psychological Bulletin, 120,
209–234.
Lynam, D.R. (1997). Pursuing the psychopath:
Capturing the psychopath in a nomological
net. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106,
425–438.
Lynam, D.R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T.E., Loeber,
R., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2007). Long-
itudinal evidence that psychopathy scores in
early adolescence predict adult psychopa-
thy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116,
155–165.
Lynam, D.R., & Derefinko, K. (2006). Psycho-
pathy and personality. In C.J. Patrick (Ed.),
Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 133–155).
New York: Guilford Press.

Lynam, D.R., Loeber, R., & Stouthamer-
Loeber, M. (2008). The stability of psycho-
pathy from adolescence to adulthood: The
search for moderators. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 35, 228–243.
Mũnoz, L.C., Kerr, M., & Bésı́c, N. (2008). A
matter of perspective: The peer relation-
ships of youths with psychopathic person-
ality traits. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
35, 212–227.
Pardini, D.A., Lochman, J.E., & Powell, N.
(2007). Shared or unique developmental
pathways to callous–unemotional traits
and antisocial behavior in children? Journal
of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
36, 319–333.
Pardini, D.A., & Loeber, R. (2008). Interperso-
nal and affective features of psychopathy in
children and adolescents: Advancing the
developmental perspective. Journal of Clin-
ical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36,
269–275.
Piatigosky, A., & Hinshaw, S.P. (2004).
Psychopathic traits in boys with and with-
out attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder:
Concurrent and longitudinal correlates.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32,
535–550.
Quay, H.C. (1993). The psychobiology of
undersocialized aggressive conduct
disorder: A theoretical perspective.
Development and Psychopathology, 5, 165–
180.
Salekin, R.T. (2002). Psychopathy and thera-
peutic pessimism: Clinical lore or clinical
reality? Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 79–
112.
Salekin, R.T. (2006). Psychopathy in children
and adolescents: Key issues in conceptuali-
zation and assessment. In C.J. Patrick (Ed.),
Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 389–414).
New York: Guilford.
Salekin, R.T. (in press). Psychopathy and
recidivism from mid-adolescence to young
adulthood: Cumulating legal problems
and limiting life opportunities. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology.
Salekin, R.T., Brannen, D.A., Zalot, Z.A.,
Leistico, A.R., & Neumann, C.S. (2006).
Factor structure of psychopathy in youth:
Testing the new four factor model. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 33, 135–157.
Salekin, R.T., & Frick, P.J. (2005).
Psychopathy in children and adolescence:
The need for a developmental perspective.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33,
403–409.
Child and Adolescent Psychopathy 235
Salekin, R.T., Leistico, A.M., Trobst, K.K.,
Schrum, C., & Lochman, J.E. (2005).
Adolescent psychopathy and personality the-
ory – the interpersonal circumplex: Expand-
ing evidence of a nomological net. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 445–460.
Salekin, R.T., & Lochman, J.E. (2008). Child
and adolescent psychopathy: The search for
protective factors. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 35, 159–172.
Salekin, R.T., Neumann, C.S., Leistico, A.R.,
DiCicco, T.M., & Duros, R.L. (2004).
Psychopathy and comorbidity in a young
offender sample: Taking a closer look at
psychopathy’s potential importance over
the disruptive behavior disorders. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 416–427.
Salekin, R.T., Neumann, C.S., Leistico, A.R., &
Zalot, A.A. (2004). Psychopathy in youth
and intelligence: An investigation of Cleck-
ley’s hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Child
and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 731–742.
Salekin, R.T., Rogers, R., & Machin, D. (2001).
Psychopathy in youth: Pursuing diagnostic
accuracy. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
30, 173–195.
Salekin, R.T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K.W.
(1996). A review and meta-analysis of the
Psychopathy Checklist and Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised: Predictive validity of
dangerousness. Clinical Psychology: Science
and Practice, 3, 203–215.
Schrum, C., & Salekin, R.T. (2006). Psycho-
pathy in adolescent female offenders: An
item response theory analysis of the Psycho-
pathy Checklist-Youth Version. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 24, 39–63.
Seagrave, D., & Grisso, T. (2002). Adolescent
development and the measurement of juve-
nile psychopathy. Law and Human Beha-
vior, 26, 219–240.
Skeem, J.L., Monahan, J., & Mulvey, E.P.
(2002). Psychopathy, treatment involve-
ment, and subsequent violence among civil
psychiatric patients. Law and Human Beha-
vior, 26, 577–603.
Viding, E., Blair, R.J.R., Moffitt, T.E., &
Plomin, R. (2005). Evidence for substantial
genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year olds.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
46, 592–597.
Vincent, G.M. (2002). Investigating the legiti-
macy of adolescent psychopathy assessments:
Contributions of item response theory.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Simon
Fraser University, Burnaby, British Colum-
bia, Canada.
236 R.T. Salekin et al.

Vincent, G.M., & Hart, S.D. (2002). Psycho- Wootton, J.M., Frick, P.J., Shelton, K.K., &
pathy in childhood and adolescence: Im- Silverthorn, P. (1997). Ineffective parenting
plications for the assessment and and childhood conduct problems: The
management of multi-problem youths. In moderating role of callous-unemotional
R.R. Corrado, R. Roesch, S.D. Hart, & traits. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
J.K. Gierowski (Eds.), Multi-problem youth: Psychology, 65, 301–308.
A foundation for comparative research on
needs, interventions, and outcomes (NATO
Science Series: Life Sciences; pp. 150–163).
Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Vitale, J.E., Newman, J.P., Bates, J.E., Good-
night, J., Dodge, K.A., & Pettit, G.S.
(2005). Deficient behavioral inhibition and
anomalous selective attention in a commu-
nity sample of adolescents with psycho-
pathic traits and low anxiety traits. Journal
of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 461–470.