اختلالات فکری و روانی در مجرمان نوجوان: آیا می توان خلق و خو و دلبستگی به عنوان پیش سازهای توسعه قوی در نظر گرفت؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|34287||2002||24 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Clinical Psychology Review, Volume 22, Issue 5, June 2002, Pages 729–752
Attempts to predict adult psychopathy generally focus on aggressive and antisocial behavior exhibited in childhood and adolescence. Yet, children with conduct problems constitute a heterogeneous group, and many of the unique interpersonal and affective features associated with the construct of psychopathy only apply to a small subset of children displaying antisocial behavior. The current review seeks to derive an understanding of the specific precursors of the apparently amoral, affectionless, and self-centered orientation that psychopathic youngsters display towards other people. The focus is on the notions of temperament and attachment in early childhood, and their links to the emergence of moral emotions later in life. Based on a developmental perspective, the data currently available are examined, highlighting the insights gained from this body of work and outlining the conceptual and methodological challenges that still need to be addressed.
The concept of psychopathy has a long and prominent history in clinical psychology and criminology. Public imagination has always been fascinated by psychopathic individuals who are viewed as a breed apart from the class of “normal criminals,” in that they are peculiarly vicious and dangerous. Early accounts of this condition suggested that it represented a form of “moral insanity” Blair et al., 1995 and Benn, 1999. In fact, age-old popular images of madmen and violent maniacs emerged from these initial conceptualizations (see Adshead, 1999, Benn, 1999, Gillett, 1999, Harold & Elliott, 1999 and Slovenko, 1999). Decades of heated debates focused on the free will of these moral transgressors, and on whether they were capable of “understanding” the consequences of their acts (Pinel, 1801/1962; Selmer, 1841 as cited in Millon, Simonsen, & Birket-Smith, 1998). Until the second part of the twentieth century, insight into the mind and behavior of psychopaths was mostly gained through clinical characterizations of these individuals (e.g., McCord & McCord, 1964). For example, in his highly influential book “The mask of insanity,” Chekley (1941) offered a thorough description of the psychopath's primary traits: guiltlessness, incapacity for object love, impulsivity, emotional shallowness, and superficial social charm. Attempts to study this condition from a research perspective have been more recent, and have until now mostly served to validate clinical accounts. Based on both clinical and empirical work, current conceptualizations of psychopathy emphasize a personality disorder defined by a constellation of behavioral, interpersonal, and affective characteristics Hare, 1993, Hare, 1998 and Hart & Hare, 1997. Behaviorally, psychopathic individuals are risk-taking, sensation seekers who act impulsively and get involved in a variety of criminal activities. Interpersonally, they have been described as grandiose, egocentric, manipulative, arrogant, and cold-hearted. Affectively, they display shallow emotions and are unable to form strong emotional bonds with others. Among the trademarks of this condition, it has been suggested that psychopaths fail to experience or appreciate the emotional significance of events Christianson et al., 1996 and Hare, 1998. Clinicians and researchers generally emphasize a profound lack of remorse, guilt, and empathy, as well as a callous disregard for the feelings, rights, and welfare of others Forth & Burke, 1998, Frick, 1998, Hare, 1991, Hare, 1993, Hart & Hare, 1997 and Lynam, 1996. It is a well-known finding that over the lifespan, psychopathy and other related disorders (e.g., oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, antisocial personality disorder [APD]) are more prevalent in males than in females Offord et al., 1986, Offord et al., 1991, Salekin et al., 2001 and Salekin et al., 1997. In fact, results of several national surveys (e.g., Epidemiological Catchment Area study, National Comorbidity Survey) indicate that the disorder is five to seven times more common in men than in women (see Paris, 1998). Some authors (e.g., Hamilton, Rothbart, & Dawes, 1986) contend that this gender difference can in part be explained by the fact that prevailing conceptualizations of psychopathy, which focus largely on antisocial acts and aggressive behavior, are less applicable to women. Because girls and women are typically not expected to engage in aggressive antisocial behavior and are actively discouraged from behaving against societal norms (Maccoby, 1986 and Silverthorn & Frick, 1999), it has been suggested that personality components of the disorder (e.g., lack of empathy and remorse, superficiality) may be more predictive when studying female psychopathy. In essence, the argument is that differing symptom pictures exist for psychopathic males and females, and that women tend to be less aggressive than men. Although the hypothesis of two disparate gender-related psychopathy constructs is consistent with several clinical accounts of the disorder (see Rutherford, Alterman, Cacciola, & Snider, 1995), further systematic inquiry is required to provide greater insight into the role of gender in the manifestation of psychopathy. Because of its strong association with criminal conduct (see Blackburn, 1998), psychopathy is known to have devastating consequences for the individual as well as for society at large. Indeed, psychopaths are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime in our society, and they are among the most violent and persistent of offenders Forth & Burke, 1998, Hare, 1981, Hare et al., 1988 and Loeber, 1988. Hare and McPherson (1984) reported that psychopathic offenders are charged with significantly more thefts, robberies, assaults, and possessions of a weapon per year out of prison, and more escape attempts while in prison, than are nonpsychopathic offenders. Not only are psychopathic offenders more prolific and violent, but they are also more likely than other offenders to recidivate when released from prison Harris et al., 1991, Hart et al., 1988 and Serin et al., 1990. Among individuals with psychopathic tendencies who are detained for the perpetration of severe crimes, the lifetime prevalence of mental problems such as major depression, bipolar disorder, and personality disorders is generally elevated compared to population norms (Andersen et al., 1996 and Rasmussen et al., 1999). Such findings of high comorbidity in prison inmates raise difficult questions regarding causal links between mental disorders and psychopathy. Based on the data currently available, it is difficult to ascertain whether the mental disorders and high levels of subjective distress among inmates existed before detention or developed during the detention. Consequently, at present, no firm conclusion regarding the role of psychiatric disorders in the development of psychopathy can be established. To systematically capture the dispositions and traits that distinguish psychopaths from others who routinely engage in criminal conduct, Hare, Hart, and Harpur (1991) and Harpur, Hare, and Haksian (1989) developed a two-factor model of psychopathy. Two partially independent dimensions of behavior emerged from their research, which together predict chronic and severe patterns of maladjustment (Christian, Frick, Hill, Tyler, & Frazer, 1997). One dimension includes the interpersonal and emotional traits that have been the hallmarks of the psychopathic personality. The second dimension includes the unstable (e.g., multiple marriages, poor employment history) and antisocial (e.g., multiple arrests, aggression) tendencies that have been defining features of APD (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994). Based on this model, Hare and colleagues designed the original and revised Psychopathy Checklist (PCL and PCL-R; Hare, 1980 and Hare, 1991), which represent reliable and valid tools to assess psychopathy in adults (Hare et al., 1990). The authors of these instruments devoted considerable effort developing rating scales that could capture the key features of psychopathy, and help to differentiate this disorder from APD and other types of conduct problems. In the past, a focus on behavioral symptoms, to the exclusion of affective and interpersonal characteristics, had created confusion between the two categories of deviance, and had led to the overdiagnosis of psychopathy in criminal populations (Hart & Hare, 1997). In recent years, the use of the PCL and PCL-R has enabled researchers and clinicians to make great strides in the accurate diagnosis of psychopathy. From a social policy perspective, however, it helps little to be able to identify psychopaths in adulthood, since they form a group known to be recalcitrant to efforts at rehabilitation (Lynam, 1996). In order to design and implement effective interventions that will significantly reduce the prevalence of this disorder, early identification of the chronic offender and insight into the precursors of the psychopathic condition appear essential.