Detecting Antisocial Behavior In Children

The thesis of the article was to evaluate and determine what a good way of testing for psychopathic tendencies in children in hopes of being able to address and treat individuals before they became dangerous or otherwise in worse condition (Lynam). The research team employed three evaluations, six different tests, and battery of validity checkers to try and isolate the exact characteristics that actually would flag a child being disturbed. The research was gathered from five hundred and eight volunteers, half were considered normal and made the control group and the other group was considered at risk or at high risk of having psychiatric problems. The research was conducted in public schools over a period of many years, testing them at ten years old and then monitoring them for four or more years to see how their tests matched up with their development. All participants were boys, and all were in the fourth grade when they stated the tests. 30% Were classified as at risk and another 30% were classified as normal, and the final group was randomized to make a control. 42% Of the participants' families were on welfare, and 41% were from single parent house holds. As a longitudinal study the tests were able to be validated fairly well in comparison to the material being tested. One of the corner stones of the study was that childhood psychopathy has been treated as a special case to the criteria, however in this study the researchers used adult standards of psychopathy as well as the original standards as a means of also testing the validity of the tests used. Six objectives were made for the study; 1) Children with at risk parents and care givers should score highest on the tests as well as be the most frequent and severe offenders. 2) Psychopathic children should be stable in offending as well rather then non-psychopathic children. 3) Psychopathic children should be impulsive. 4) Psychopathic children should correlate negatively with internalizing disorders and positively correlate with externalizing disorders. 5) Scores on tests should predict delinquency above known predictors. And 6) Scores on tests should predict delinquency above and beyond conceptions and subtypes of antisocial behavior. The study began with a self report from the subject, an evaluation from the primary care giver, and then an evaluation from the teacher of the child. After the initial evaluations, a short background check was performed to help classify and group the children into sections based on socioeconomical status, marital status of parents, grades, frequency of delinquency, and other such groups (should be noted that children were grouped in several groups to see if correlations existed within one of the said groups). Scales used to test psychopathic tendencies were; impulsivity, time perception, Stroop Color and Word Association Test, Trail Making Test, Delay of gratification task, card-playing task, Eysneck Impulsiveness Scale, Teacher-rated impulsivity, Observer ratings of implusivity, White et al., an IQ test, social class. A big concern of the researchers was whether or not a child from a broken home would be more likely to show antisocial behavior, especially with nearly half of the subjects being of such homes from

both of the at risk children and not at risk children. To add in the validation to insure such concerns were addressed the self reports contained questions asked on adult antisocial tests, excluding; rape, public drunkenness, and other higher crimes and dulled down the language to help them understand the questions. Within these self reports hierarchies of delinquencies were established ranging from general delinquencies, petty theft, and violence. Also these tests were given two or more times to study the frequency and closeness of answers given. The results were more or less what the researchers projected their findings to be. They found that children from broken homes developed social problems more often. Children who were impulsive were more likely to have psychological problems but not as high in psychopathy as they had believed those scores would be. Those who self reported impulsiveness scored almost even (.25 and .26) against their teacher evaluation, and only .11 off from were the children scored on the impulsivity scales ( table 3). Also positive correlations between stability of delinquencies and psychopathic behavior was found as displayed by the score of .32 in general delinquency at age ten and then .39 at age thirteen (table 1). Overall delinquency showed a -.56 correlation in the stable non-delinquent, and a .88 in the stable and seriously delinquent children with displaying antisocial behavior (table 2). The researchers felt that their tests did not answer any questions of behavior for good, but instead validated and supported studies given before this study. The biggest point of the study was to interweave the concepts of adult psychopathy and childhood psychopathy, which they felt was validated. The researchers also felt that conduct problems and antisocial behavior are not interchangeable based upon there study. Also many of the test given found personality to be a larger factor in predicting antisocial behavior then previously thought. The book supported just about everything the study reported (Comer). It says,”Most people with antisocial personality disorder have displayed...misbehavior before they were 15, including truancy, running away, physical cruelty to animals...and setting fires”(394). It agrees that they are impulsive, and often detached from social norms (395). Also the book agrees that getting into fights and be altogether delinquent is very normal to a sociopath (396). I feel that this was a very good study that was well planed and carried out. However, the book also states however that people with antisocial personality disorder are much more likely to lie repeatedly (395) which would undoubtedly misrepresent any actual figures. Also the study was dealing with children from shaky family backgrounds which means that much of the delinquencies could be normal acting out for the children in question. I also felt that the research is incomplete as I would like to see how girls would react in the same tests. The other criticism I have for the study was the fact that it was not blinded, I feel that children especially of this age would be more likely to act in ways different to their norm if they know they are being asked about their behavior. Besides that I thought

this was a very good article, I especially liked how they treat the subjects as if they were adults, a very important and over looked idea I feel.