SIMULACION EN FIELDFLO

Addressing the abovementioned measurement and research design issues is critical because of the potential value that the psychopathy construct has to the field of criminology. Not surprisingly, as the pioneer who developed the “gold standard” instrument for psychopathy, Hare (1998) described psychopathy as perhaps the most important risk factor for the criminal justice system because the construct could meet this purpose of differentiating risk of offending among individuals known to the criminal justice system. Constructs such as psychopathy that can explain within-group variations among offenders, especially variations between relatively minor offenders and the small group of offenders responsible for the majority of all crime are missing from nearly all traditional and even many contemporary criminological theories or models of offending (e.g., Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972). With few exceptions, both traditional and modern theories/developmental models of crime (Agnew, 1992; Akers, Krohn, Lanza-Kaduce, & Radosevich, 1979; Farrington, 2005; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Moffitt, 1993; Sampson & Laub, 2005; Thornberry, 2004) generally have not made reference to personality constructs commonly discussed in forensic psychology (for exceptions see DeLisi & Vaughn, 2014; Vaughn & DeLisi, 2008; Fox, Jennings, & Farrington, 2015). In addition to

lack of disciplinary crossover within criminological theories, there appears to be a preference for parsimony and the use of simple and essentially one-dimensional explanatory criminological constructs compared to complex, multidimensional, and multi- indicator constructs common in the personality based theoretical framework common to forensic psychology (Patrick, 2010; Salekin & Lynam, 2010). Preference for parsimony is especially limited when one dimensional constructs are essentially borrowing aspects of multidimensional constructs. The general theory of crime, for example, exemplifies this theme given that it is based fundamentally on one psychopathy-like symptom—low self- control—to account for offending15_.

The second explanation for the failure to specify such constructs in existing theoretical models relates to the rarity with which serious offenders are examined (Mulvey et al., 2004; Rosenfeld, White, & Esbensen, 2012). The purpose of this dissertation is to begin to identify constructs that help address the question of why some adolescent offenders become involved in chronic offending, persistently serious offending, or persistently violent offending, whereas other adolescent offenders become involved in relatively ubiquitous offenses which are committed at a low frequency and over a shorter period of time. Psychopathy is perhaps the most obvious construct to start with in the attempt to address this type of question. In a series of prior studies, DeLisi and colleagues (e.g., DeLisi & Piquero, 2011; Vaughn & DeLisi, 2008; Vaughn, Howard, & DeLisi, 2008) hypothesized that the similar prevalence of psychopathy and chronic offending was not a coincidence; rather, the approximately five percent of the offender population scoring high on measures of psychopathy were also the same five percent of the offender population meeting the criteria for designation as a chronic offender. In effect, this series of research specified psychopathy as a construct that could theoretically account for why some offenders continue to offend across the life course whereas others desist during adolescence.

15 _{Contrasting the unidimensional nature of the general theory of crime is the complex and multi-trait Five}

Factor model of Personality that has been the standard in psychology (Lynam, 2010). Although parsimony is a valuable attribute of criminology theories, there is also little doubt that temperament, if not personality themes, have been part of, if not essential to, some of the key criminological theories historically (e.g., DeLisi & Vaughn, 2014) and increasingly so in the last several decades (Fox et al., 2015). It is the recognition of the complexity of criminal careers (Piquero, 2008) that helps support the need for a more complex, multidimensional theory of offending.

It is very important; however, to specify the extent to which psychopathy can contribute to explanations of offending. Psychopathy represents a narrow, specific, and rare form of personality in the general population (e.g., Skeem & Mulvey, 2001), whereas general offending represents a broad, generic, and common form of behavior in the general population (e.g., Le Blanc & Fréchette, 1989; Moffitt, 1993). Using a precise instrument to hit a broad target implies that there is much more of the target to be explained. It therefore is inappropriate to argue that psychopathy (a precise instrument) is useful for explaining general offending (a broad target) given that the former is unable to capture the scope of the latter. However, as the target narrows and becomes rarer (e.g., from general offenders to ‘chronic’ offenders), hitting that target requires a greater level of precision than is found with brad constructs such as low self-control (see Figure 3.1 for an illustration of this discussion). Indeed, a large number of studies examining hyperactivity, impulsivity, and other symptoms of low self-control found that these constructs did not vary between chronic and non-chronic offenders (Day et al., 2012; Fergusson et al., 2000; Landsheer & van Dijkum, 2005; Odgers et al., 2008; Piquero, 2008; van der Geest et al., 2009; van Domburgh et al., 2009). However, there does appear to be an overlap between the prevalence of psychopathy and the prevalence of chronic offenders (Vaughn & DeLisi, 2008). At least tentatively then, psychopathy appears to be the type of precise construct necessary to explain the causal mechanisms responsible for the rarer but extremely important (Mulvey et al., 2004; Rosenfeld et al., 2012) chronic, serious, and violent (CSV) offending trajectories.

Figure 3.2: An illustration of the specificity psychopathy and the similar specificity of chronic, serious, and violent offending trajectories

By focusing on CSV offending trajectories, the group of offenders that psychopathy is hypothesized to help explain is quite small in scope, yet consistent with concerns about the discrepancies in the prevalence of symptoms of psychopathy in general population samples versus their prevalence in offending samples. Explaining why relatively few individuals persist in offending across the life course has indeed been a long-standing focus of criminological theories and research (e.g., DeLisi, 2005; Nagin & Land, 1993; Moffitt, 1993; Tracy, Wolfgang, & Figlio, 1990; Wolfgang et al., 1972). A greater challenge has been identifying covariates that help discriminate between offending trajectories limited to adolescence and offending trajectories that begin offending in childhood or adolescence and continue throughout adulthood stages (Blokland, Nagin, & Nieuwbeerta, 2005; Day et al., 2012; Fergusson, Horwood, & Nagin, 2000; Landsheer & van Dijkum, 2005; Nagin, Farrington, & Moffitt, 1995; Odgers et al., 2008; van der Geest, Blokland, & Bijleveld, 2009; van Domburgh, Vermeiren, Blokland, & Doreleijers, 2009; Ward et al., 2010).

That psychopathy is suitable for the explanation of these trajectories is not a novel assertion. For instance, DeLisi and Vaughn (2008) argued that the relationship between psychopathy and crime variables may be strongest when examining serious and violent offenders. Historically, they traced comparisons between the prevalence of psychopathy and the prevalence of Wolfgang’s chronic offenders in one of the original and classic cohort studies, and called for more research connecting these two groups across the life course. The asserted relative stability of psychopathy (e.g., Lynam, Loeber, & Stouthamer- Loeber, 2008) implies that an individual with symptoms of psychopathy will be at a continued risk to offend throughout the life course. This theory and policy related analysis perspective requires prospective longitudinal research that utilizes more than simple measures of recidivism, which exclude important parameters of criminal careers and, therefore, cannot accurately identify the heterogeneous and heterotypical chronic, serious, and violent offending trajectories (Lussier, McCuish, & Corrado, 2015; McCuish et al., 2015). Again, the intended scope of this tentative explication of the role of psychopathy in the development of offending necessarily focuses more narrowly on CSV offending trajectories.

Nagin (2005) described a trajectory as a quantitative pattern of offending over time that captured important criminal career parameters such as onset, persistence, and desistance. Trajectories can therefore be used to explain the evolution of crime across the life course (Nagin, 2005; Nagin & Tremblay, 2005). Specification of the symptoms of psychopathy acting as causal mechanisms of CSV offending trajectories is only useful if these CSV trajectories can be identified in statistical models that facilitate the testing of psychopathy as a predictor of different trajectories. Reviews of existing trajectory studies (e.g., Jennings & Reingle, 2012; Piquero, 2008) provide tentative empirical support for the assertion that although offending is best described by a continuous distribution, this distribution can be approximated by discrete categories (trajectories) of offenders that may reflect distinct etiologies (Nagin, 2005). CSV offending trajectories represent three of these discrete categories, and symptoms of psychopathy represent the etiological factor responsible for the specific course of offending behavior. Below, the hypothesized causal mechanisms describing why psychopathy might be related to these types of offending trajectories is outlined in greater detail. These causal mechanisms are not directly tested in this dissertation, but nevertheless it is important to begin specifying not just who engages in crime, but why crime happens (see Wikstrom & Treiber, 2016).

3.4.1.

The Chronic Offending Trajectory

Chronic offending trajectories describe involvement in a high-rate and versatile pattern of offending that persists across the life course (at least until mature adulthood). This trajectory pattern has been identified in virtually all trajectory studies, regardless of sample type (Jennings & Reingle, 2012; Piquero, 2008), though many of these studies did not provide examples of true life course persistent offenders since the length of follow-up rarely extended into middle adulthood (c.f., Blokland et al., 2005; Sampson & Laub, 2003). The chronic offending trajectory is expected to consist of offenders frequently involved less serious offenses (e.g., property offenses, violating conditions of court orders, minor assaults). Similar to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) classic relationship between low self-control and offending, involvement in these offenses likely requires a risky/opportunistic lifestyle that provides the consistent offending opportunities. This routine pattern of offending opportunities typically requires relatively little skill, planning, or effort to facilitate a chronic criminal career. Certain symptoms of psychopathy will not

only influence chronic offending, but also the likelihood of a particular lifestyle exposing the offender to the opportunities required for involvement in a chronic criminal career. Specifically, individuals with a number of behavioral symptoms of psychopathy can be characterized as impulsive, sensation seeking, and irresponsible, which likely will influence the offender’s lifestyle in various ways. For example, such an individual will likely be disinterested in school or maintaining employment, freeing up their time to be involved in antisocial activities. Substance abuse is also a characteristic of individuals scoring high on the lifestyle facet of the PCL:YV (e.g., Forth et al., 2003). A drug-using lifestyle will help create offending opportunities through (a) the pharmacological effects of different substances, (b) the financial needs of the user, and (c) the culture of violence associated with the drug market (Goldstein, 1985). In the absence of involvement in conventional activities (e.g., school and work) to occupy time and address financial needs, combined with involvement in substance use and other risky activities, individuals characterized by certain symptoms of psychopathy are likely to be frequently exposed to offending opportunities. Behavioral symptoms will also be primarily responsible for the likelihood that an offender will capitalize on these opportunities and to react to offending opportunities due to behavioral symptoms similar to low self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).

3.4.2.

The Serious Offending Trajectory

A less chronic but more serious offending trajectory describes individuals that spend a substantial amount of time in custody, especially relative to their total number of convictions. This greater amount of time incarcerated is related to this group’s tendency to commit both violent and non-violent offenses of a serious nature at a consistent rate across the life course. The frequency of offending for this group is lower than for the chronic offending trajectory particularly because serious offenders will spend a greater amount of time incarcerated. For these persistently serious offenders, their symptoms of psychopathy are not seen as compelling them specifically to offend. Instead, these offenders are characterized by a strong imperative to exert interpersonal dominance over others. Involvement in serious offenses represents one outlet for satiating this deeply embedded motive. These individuals do not engage in a high rate of offending characteristic of the chronic offending trajectory. Behavioral symptoms may also play a

role. For example, impulsivity and sensation seeking may constitute a barrier to accessing non-criminal outlets to address their desire to interpersonally dominate others.

3.4.3.

The Violent Offending Trajectory

Finally, violence trajectories describe individuals involved in a high rate of predominantly (but not exclusively) acts of violence. Violent offending that persists across the life course requires a personality profile dominated by a lack of attachment to others combined with the absence of emotional depth and unstable emotions. In their situational action theory, Wikström and Treiber (2009) specify the different symptoms that would (a) increase an individual’s propensity for violence, (b) create an environment around the offender conducive to violence, and (c) reduce the likelihood that the offender would be deterred from involvement in violence. Wikstrom and Treiber’s (2009) notion of propensity for violence is hypothesized to be primarily influenced by higher scores on the lifestyle facet of the PCL:YV. These authors’ situational component of violence involvement is expected to be influenced by interpersonal symptoms that create conflict with others. Finally, the deterrence aspect of situational action theory is expected to be negated by affective symptoms that prevent attachment or emotional connection to others. Emotional and attachment deficits have long been hypothesized to be associated specifically with violent behavior (Hare, 1981; Harpur & Hare, 1994; Harris, Rice, & Cormier, 1991; Hart & Dempster, 1997; Weiler & Widom, 1996; Yablonsky, 1970). Those offenders falling towards the highest end of this spectrum of emotional deficits are expected to be most strongly associated with a criminal career characterized by persistent violence.

3.5. Integration of the Psychopathy Construct within