When exploring the topic of callous and emotionless children, it is first necessary to not only define the meaning of such traits but to also define and understand them in the backdrop of psychopathy. Psychopathy, as understood by a majority of researchers, is defined with three dimensions. The first of these is ADI, which is defined to be, “an arrogant, deceitful impersonal style.” This dimension includes aspect such a high sense of self-worth and the ability to utilize others through manipulation and deception. The second dimension, DAE, is “deficient affective experience,” and defines the low expression of emotion, such as guilt or remorse. This includes the inability to admit to one’s mistakes. The third dimension is, “an impulsive or responsible behavioral style,” or IIB. This dimension is expressed in rash decision making, “ and a parasitic lifestyle.” Farrington notes that the use of these three dimension as a definition for psychopathy, “has the advantage of avoiding the undesirable and possibly stigmatizing effects of labeling children as ‘psychopaths.’”
One of the most important question that arises when researching callous and emotional children is the etiological variables behind the emergence of such characteristics. While there is no one factor or single cause for psycopathy, there are a few theories that explore the causation of psychopathy. These theories include: “genetics, neurosciences, Callous-Emotional (CU) traits, personality, and environmental influences.”
The genetic theory hypothesizes that psychopathy is primarily influenced by biology, and that environmental factors have little effect in the development of psychopathy. This theory was showcased by Lykken in the Low Fear Hypothesis, which further concluded that the primary method in which to treat psychopathy would be, “exceptional parental practices.” After further research, however, the theory has been updated to include that although environmental factors may not be the dominant reason behind the emergence of psychopathy, it can play a significant role.
The neuroscience perspective comes from the brain’s control of behavior and emotions. Studies have been conducted, which show that individuals with serotonin production issues, have a higher possibility of displaying psychopathic traits. This is due to the fact that an excess of serotonin causes the brain to be influenced, which can heighten the impact and effects of environmental factors.
While callous-unemotional traits are the primary factors which help in diagnosing psychopathy, it essential to differentiate them from traits associated with conduct disorder. To differentiate CU traits from CD traits, Frick and Moffitt created a specifier to further distinguish CU traits. A child would be defined as displaying CU traits if they were diagnosed with conduct disorder, and additionally displayed two or more of the following traits: “lack of remorse or guilt; callous/lack empathy; unconcern about performance (academic, labor or in any other important activity); shallow or deficient affect,” for a duration of 12 months.
To explore the synthesis of personality and psychopathy, the dimensional approach to emotion must be explored. This includes the five-factor personality model. The five-factor personality model uses five factors to organize and characterize human personality. These five factors are openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. Studies show low scores on agreeableness and conscientiousness are commonly linked with child psychopathy (Salekin).
Environmental factors, specifically the relationship and interactions between child and parent, can have a significant impact on the mental health of a child, which can then lead to the possible emergence of psychopathic linked traits, such as callous and emotional behavior. Of immense significance to a child’s healthy mental development is, “a secure attachment, especially with the maternal figure in the first years of life.” McCord and McCord theorized that the neglection of parents is not only the essential factor in psychopathy development, but can also aggravate other external factors, which could then lead to the emergence of callous-emotional traits, “and social detached personality.”
The term child psychopathy is a troublesome one, in that although the factors of adult psychopathy usually stems from experiences and factors from adolescence, to label a child as psychopathic can cause quite a range of issues. However, the process identification and subsequent treatment of these psychopathic factors at an early stage is of great importance. Possible issues that can arise with the labeling of children as psychopaths includes the possible stigmatization of children and potential legal complications. Salekin and Lynam, however, propose that the word psychopath, “should not be used in a damaging way, but rather that the concept be used in a constructive manner to understand better the various types of youth as well as to chart ways to help youth lead more prosocial, productive, and meaningful lives” (Silva).
There are multiple tests used to measure and determine psychopathy in adults, as well as psychopathic factors in children. In 1980, the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) was created by Robert Hare, and was later revised to the PCL-R. The PCL used to factors, interpersonal/affective and social deviance to assess psychopathy. The revised version, PCL-R uses 4 factors: interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and antisocial. These, however, are primarily used to assess psychopathy in adults.
To assess psychopathy in children and adolescents, there are a few methods of measurement to assess psychopathic traits. The measurements include the youth version of the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL:YV), Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD), Child Psychopathy Scale (CPS), Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI), and Psychopathy Content Scale (PCS).
The youth version of the Psychopathy Checklist is an adjusted version of the Psychopathy Checklist, which includes input from multiple perspectives, as well as a scale with a range of three points to rate the prominence of certain traits. This assessment is used on children 13 or older. One of the most prominent testing methods, however, is the Antisocial Process Screening Device. This method of assessment includes 20 questions, which can be utilized by parents, teachers, or the child themselves. The questions are answered picking a number from the range 0 to 2. The target age range for this assessment are children as young as 4 years of age, up to age 18.
When determining psychopathy in adults, the PCL-R (revised Psychopathy Checklist) is the most prominent method of testing, as it is a method reliable amidst a variety of testing samples, and has proven useful in reducing the rates of violent recidivism. With the PCL-R assessment, however, “extensive training, lengthy interviews, and access to institutional files to review collateral information,” is required. Thus, when working within a timescale, self-reports prove to be more efficient.
Psychopathy measurement in children is usually assessed through self reports, and parent and caregiver reports. However, this proves a problem when observing youth that are incarcerated, “as they tend to have less adult supervision and typically come from families where parents have not had enough recent contact with the adolescent to provide current ratings of the child’s characteristics.” For this reason, large discrepancies are noted between self-reports and parent or caregiver reports when observing the incarcerated youth population, which is not not noted when observing other populations of youth. (Maurer)
Studies have been done to determine the relationship between psychopathy and gender, if such a relationship exists. In studies regarding adult psychopathy, most of the sample is made up of men, resulting in a biased outcome. In regards to children, however, the, “data suggest that the beginning of the disorder in childhood is rare in girls.” Other psychologists theorize that, “girls tend to present a “delayed-onset” pattern; that is, they start presenting symptoms of the disorder generally during adolescence.” (da Silva, Rijo, Salekin)
The topic of psychopathy treatment is one that is highly contested, the perspectives and studies encompassing a range of possibilities and methods. The one factor, however, that most research concludes to, is the necessity and importance of early intervention. With this in mind, there are a variety of possibilities for treatment of callous and unemotional children, to staunch and fix these traits before they develop into a full fledged psychopathic diagnosis.
The first group of treatment falls into the category of prevention, in which information is provided to parents and caregivers before such traits and characteristics of adolescent psychopathy are observed. Examples of treatment methods within this category are, “home visiting programs, where visitors give mothers advice about child care, nutrition, and child-rearing; preschool intellectual enrichment programs; parent management training; and cognitive-behavioral skills training.” (Farrington)
A major issue in determining treatment for psychopathy is the wide range of etiological variables, which can differ depending on the individual. As an example, a treatment targeted on reducing the effect on the aspect of environmental factors in relation to psychopathy would be limited in its effectiveness due to the possible genetic factors. However, if treatment is targeted on one group of factors, the development of psychopathic characteristics could be altered. Additionally, an innate factor of psychopathy is the lack of willingness to change, an aspect that severely limits the advancement of treatment.
Intervention is the key to treating psychopathy in children, implemented primarily through parents. Parent intervention shapes the environmental factors surrounding a child, as well as greatly influences children’s behavior. While, “harsh and inconsistent parenting and parent-child aggression are associated with the development of child conduct problems, “ a parent who practices, “firm and consistent discipline that focuses on obedience, without harshness,” can be an essential factor in, “staunching the further development of psychopathy.” (McDonald, Dodson, Rosenfield, Jouriles)
The information gathered from research in the field of child psycopathic traits has been progressive, including in its fold advancements and new information, and has also served in, “highlighting that which we do not know.” The field of callous and emotionless traits as expressed in children is still a budding field, with a long future ahead, ripe for new discoveries and exponential growth. Research so far has shown that, “child psychopathy is multidimensional, appears to be observable at an early age, and is relatively stable.” In addition, not only do these traits influence behavior and emotion, but also academic performance, such as IQ. The etiological variables of psychopathy are varied, ranging from environmental to genetic factors, which establishes difficulty in prospective solution methods, as multiple variables must be targeted. In terms of remedy, however, it is generally agreed that intervention is the best form of treatment. Parent intervention is the most effective, and it is essential that intervention is done early, rigorously, and continuously, for results to be effective and productive.