In studies of male offenders there are consistent findings that the PCL: SV predicts criminal history (Barry et al., 2000; Essau et al., 2006). Therefore it was assumed that the PCL: SV measure would do the same for women. It has been suggested that CU traits in females are associated with serious chronic re-offending and a strong predictor of future antisocial behaviour, more so than conduct problems (Dadds et al., 2005; Frick, Cornell, Barry et al., 2003; Frick et al., 2005; Marsee et al., 2005). However, other research has suggested that the PCL: SV is not such a good predictor of criminality in females as it is in males (Salekin et al., 1998; Warren et al., 2005). The PCL: SV has shown mixed results as a good indicator of criminal offending. A recent study of non-psychotic female inmates found that the PCL-R was able to identify a small group of offenders who met the criteria for psychopathy and who also had the predicted high recidivism risk associated with the personality trait (Vitale et al., 2002). However, it has been asserted that “the risk principle” which asserts that risk can be predicted, is less viable when applied to women (Blanchette & Motiuk, 1995) thus the PCL: SV which is often a strong
predictor measure of violence and criminal offending, may not be as predictive of these factors in women.
These claims were assessed in the current sample by examining the relationships between criminal history and PCL: SV F1. In accordance with Salekin and Warren, the PCL: SV F1 components did not predict seriousness or chronicity of criminal history in these female offenders. Furthermore, no correlations emerged between any of the PCL: SV F1 components and criminal history variables.
The empirical support for the PCL-R, and Factor 1 in particular, as a predictor of offending may be weaker for females than for males. The PCL: SV has been researched thoroughly within male populations but very few studies focus on females. The male research highlights the strong validity and reliability of the two-factor structure within the population. Research on the construct validity of the PCL:SV and PCL-R in female samples have found that the PCL-R used for female offenders is robust with similar means and base rates of psychopathy in female offenders as male offenders(Hare, 1991;
Louth, Hare, & Linden, 1998; Rutherford, Cacciola, Alterman, & McKay, 1996; Warren et al., 2003) and good consistency, reliability and item total correlations which were as high as in male samples. (Vitale et al., 2002). However other research has questioned the validity, reliability and factor structure of the PCL-R measure in females with findings suggestive of lower means and lower prevalence of psychopathy amongst female
offenders than male offenders (Loucks & Zamble, 1999; Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1997;
Vitale et al., 2002). For example, it has been found that the PCL-R in women is not significantly related to recidivism in female offenders and only moderately predicts violent recidivism (Salekin et al., 1998) as opposed to males with whom the PCL is highly predictive of violent recidivism (Hare, 1991; Wilson, 2003).
In addition, gender differences have been found in the factor structure of psychopathy and thus females may fit a different two factor model than males (Salekin et al., 1997 {Grann, 2000). For female offenders, the two factors of PCL-R broadly resemble Hare et al.'s (1990) description; F1 being composed of interpersonal traits, and F2, being
composed of socially deviant behaviours. However, the individual items of the PCL-R appear to load differentially to male accounts of psychopathy within these two
dimensions. Males have been distinguished from women by showing more of the F1 traits than females, specifically on the callous/lack of empathy scale of the PCL-R and juvenile delinquency (Grann, 2000).
There is also suggestion that there are gender biases within the PCL. It has been suggested by Grann (2000) that the reasons there are gender differences between male and females on the PCL-R could be attributed to gender biases in the questions,
information in the files and the comorbidity in women. Women who show psychopathic tendencies also show high comorbidity with depression, anxiety and histrionic disorders (Salekin et al., 1998). Therefore a measure of psychopathy for women should account for gender specific socialization, offending, attitudes and mental health issues.
Overall there is contention whether the PCL measures are accurately portraying psychopathy in women. The biggest disagreement is on the factor structure of the PCL and therefore it may be possible that CU traits, juvenile history and a lack of empathy are typical attributes for male psychopathy whereas the female psychopathy is not so callous, less delinquent but more sexually promiscuous than her male counterpart. Consequently F1 components of the PCL: SV may not be accurately assessing CU traits in women.
While studying the factor structure of the PCL: SV in women falls outside the scope of this current project it is interesting to find that none of the items on the F1 scale explained significant variance on the factors of criminal history; seriousness and chronicity. It appears that F1 in the current study does not contribute to any of the criminal history variables that are usually associated with the psychopathy construct. Whether this is because of a female sample or because of flaws in the conceptualization of the measure is debatable.
It is conceivable that because psychopathy is a predictor of violence that violent offenders show more associations with CU traits. The next section examines the potential
differences of offender type on CU traits.