Child Psychiatry Hum Dev

DOI 10.1007/s10578-016-0638-3

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The Relationship Between Early Life Events, Parental

Attachment, and Psychopathic Tendencies in Adolescent
Detainees
Erica J. Christian1 • Christine L. Meltzer1 • Linda L. Thede2 • David S. Kosson1

Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract Despite increasing interest in understanding Introduction

psychopathic traits in youth, the role of early environ-
mental factors in the development of psychopathic traits is The Relationship Between Early Life Events
not well understood. No prior studies have directly exam- and Psychopathic Tendencies in Adolescents
ined the relationship between early life events and psy-
chopathic traits. We examined links between life events in Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by
the first 4 years of life and indices of the core affective and interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and antisocial features
interpersonal components of psychopathy. Additionally, which are associated with a variety of maladaptive attitudes
we examined relationships between early life events, psy- and behaviors [1]. Researchers have become increasingly
chopathic traits, and attachment to parents among 206 interested in studies of youth displaying psychopathic traits
adjudicated adolescents. Results indicated that the total in order to better understand the developmental trajectory
number of early life events was positively correlated with associated with this disorder. Although researchers have
indices of the affective component of psychopathy. warned against labeling children and adolescents as psy-
Moreover, psychopathic traits moderated the relationship chopathic [2, 3], research has demonstrated that a small
between the number of early life events and later reports of subset of children who exhibit psychopathic traits can be
attachment to parents. Findings suggest that early envi- identified [4, 5]. Among youth, psychopathic traits are
ronmental factors could have important implications for the associated with many of the same behaviors seen in adults,
development of psychopathic traits and may impact including violent criminal behaviors, high recidivism rates
attachment to parents for youth with psychopathic traits. for violent and nonviolent crime, institutional maladjust-
ment, and a pattern of emotional and cognitive deficits
Keywords Psychopathic traits
Life events
similar to those seen in adult psychopathy [6, 7]. The
Attachment
Adolescents
Environmental factors Psychopathy Check List: Youth Version (PCL: YV) [8] is a
well-validated clinical measure of psychopathic traits in
youth that was based on adult measures but modified to be
sensitive to the roles and lifestyles of adolescents. The
measure is comprised of four underlying facets: affective,
interpersonal, lifestyle, and antisocial. The affective facet
measures traits such as shallow affect and lack of remorse
& Erica J. Christian or guilt, whereas the interpersonal facet measures traits
[email protected] such as superficial charm and pathological lying. Together
1 these two facets comprise the dimension commonly refer-
Department of Psychology, Rosalind Franklin University of
Medicine and Science, 3333 Green Bay Road, red to as Factor 1. The lifestyle facet measures character-
North Chicago, IL 60064, USA istics such as parasitic behavior and need for stimulation,
2
Thede Family Center for Autism and Neurodevelopmental whereas the antisocial facet captures juvenile delinquency
Disorders, Colorado Springs, CO, USA and revocation of conditional release. Together the lifestyle

123
 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev

and antisocial facets comprise the dimension commonly environment correlation rather than reflecting a true envi-
referred to as Factor 2. ronmental cause.
Several theorists have argued explicitly that early Because psychopathy is commonly understood as a
environmental factors are relevant to the development of multidimensional construct, with both affective and
psychopathy. McCord and McCord [9] hypothesized that interpersonal components that are considered relatively
parental rejection, lack of parental attachment, neglect, specific to psychopathy as well as lifestyle and antisocial
brutal and erratic punishment and emotional deprivation all components which are associated with other forms of
contribute to the development of psychopathy. Similarly, externalizing psychopathology (e.g., conduct disorder,
Maher [10] suggested that inconsistent parenting promotes antisocial personality disorder), it is of some interest that
the development of psychopathic traits. Several early most prior studies suggest that relationships between
studies provided empirical links between parenting factors psychopathic traits and environmental adversity are lim-
and outcomes related to antisocial behavior. For example, ited largely to the lifestyle and antisocial components of
there is evidence that ineffective parenting and inconsistent psychopathy. For example, both Krischer and Sevecke
parenting contribute to the development of some psycho- [22] and Schraft et al. [21] reported that child maltreat-
pathic traits [11, 12]. As discussed shortly, we argue that ment was associated with ratings on the lifestyle and
most prior studies of links between environmental adver- antisocial facets of psychopathy. There are fewer links in
sity and psychopathic traits have not examined early life the existing literature between environmental adversity
events per se. Consequently, we address this relationship in and the interpersonal facet of psychopathy [but see 19,
the current study. 21]. Some recent studies have found links between early
Despite the growing body of literature on psychopathic environmental factors such as prenatal maternal risks [24],
traits in youth, most research has only indirectly investi- parenting styles [25], and preschool negative family cli-
gated the etiology of psychopathic traits. Recent behavior mate [26] and higher levels of CU traits. We wondered
genetic studies have established that genetic factors con- whether the lack of evidence for relationships between the
tribute substantially to variance in personality traits asso- affective and interpersonal features and environmental
ciated with psychopathy [13, 14]. Although fewer studies adversity in most studies and the recent evidence for
have focused on environmental factors in the etiology of prenatal maternal risks [24] and early life environment
psychopathy, behavior genetic studies also indicate an [26] could reflect the possibility that the relationships are
important role for nonshared environmental factors in the different for early environment versus for later childhood
development of psychopathic traits [13, 15], and it is often environment. Moreover, in spite of the recent increased
suggested that genetic and environmental factors likely interest in early life environment, there appear to be no
interact in the development of most personality disorders, prior studies of early discrete life events.
including psychopathy [16–18].
Recent psychopathy research suggests the importance of Life Events
some specific environmental factors. Vitacco et al. [19]
reported links between poor and inconsistent parenting and Prior studies have demonstrated relationships between life
levels of some psychopathic traits. Kimonis et al. [20] events and several forms of psychopathology including
found relationships between exposure to community vio- mood disorders, psychotic disorders, and personality dis-
lence and self-reported callous-unemotional (CU) traits in a orders. For example, negative life events appear to predict
sample of adolescent males. Schraft et al. [21] found that the subsequent development of depression and suicidal
higher levels of childhood exposure to violence in the behavior [27–29]. However, only a few prior studies have
home and community were associated with higher levels of examined relationships between life events and psycho-
PCL: YV-measured psychopathic traits. Similarly, Kri- pathic traits. Among children with conduct disorder,
scher and Sevecke [22] found a relationship between Deutsch and Erickson [30] reported that under-socialized
physical and emotional traumatization and PCL: YV scores juvenile delinquents had experienced more stressful life
among delinquent male adolescents. Marshall and Cooke events in the first 4 years of life than socialized juvenile
[23] reported that retrospective reports of parental antipa- delinquents. Recently, among adult offenders, Riser et al.
thy, indifference and neglect were positively associated [31] reported that retrospective ratings of the number of
with psychopathic features in adulthood. These studies years a biological father had been involved in participants’
suggest that environmental factors could contribute to the lives before age four was inversely related to their psy-
etiology of psychopathy, although it must be acknowledged chopathy total scores and interpersonal facet scores; con-
that evidence of relationships between environmental fac- versely, in the same study, the number of years that a non-
tors and psychopathic traits could reflect an active gene- biological father was involved before age four was

123
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev

positively related to psychopathy scores. However, to our relationship between early life events and later parental
knowledge, no prior published studies have directly attachment.
examined relationships between early life events and psy-
chopathic traits in youth. Therefore, the current study was
designed to examine the relationship between psychopathic Method
traits and major life events during the first 4 years of life.
In this study, our goal was to examine important early life Participants
events which impacted the parent–child relationship and
the family. Early life events were examined regardless of This study utilized data from 206 adolescents in two dif-
their assumed emotional valiance, which is subjective. ferent samples. The first sample consisted of 80 adjudicated
Different individuals may experience the same life event as adolescent delinquents who were tested while on probation
positive, negative, or neutral. For a complete listing of life in North Carolina. The participants ranged in age from 12
events used in this study, refer to Table 2. to 16 with an average age of 14.5 years. The ethnic com-
position of the sample was as follows: 66.7 % African
Attachment American adolescents, 27.2 % European American ado-
lescents, and 6.1 % who identified as ‘‘Other’’.
One prominent explanation for the importance of early life The second sample consisted of approximately 126
events is attachment theory. According to this perspective, adolescents detained in a juvenile detention facility near
styles of attachment to caregivers are established early in Chicago, IL. An analysis of this subsample indicates that
childhood and have important implications for subsequent the ethnic makeup was approximately 27.2 % African
emotional functioning and behavior throughout childhood American, 28.6 % European American, 32.9 % Latino/a,
and adulthood. Life events that interfere with an adult’s and 5.6 % multi-racial youth. The analysis also indicated
ability to care for a child and develop and maintain that the participants ranged in age from 11 to 17 years old
attachment may disrupt the parent–child attachment pro- (mean = 15.64 years; SD = 1.13). This sample represents
cess and contribute to the development of psychopathology a subset of adolescent participants from a larger project
[32]. Examples include types of life events that would whose parent or guardian provided early life events
physically separate parents from children or that would information.
reduce parents’ emotional involvement with their children
[32]. Insecure attachment has been linked to a variety of Procedures
negative outcomes, including severe psychopathology and
aggressive behaviors [33–36]. Disturbances of attachment As stated above, participants in the current study were
are also prominent in clinical descriptions of psychopathy drawn from two different samples. In the first sample,
[9, 37], and several studies have reported that psychopathic participants were recruited and tested while on probation in
traits were associated with poorer attachment to parents Guilford County, North Carolina. Participants in the second
among both youth [5, 38] and adults [23]. Flight and Forth sample were recruited and tested at a detention center
[38] found that poor attachment was related to higher outside of Chicago, IL as part of a larger study. All par-
psychopathy scores, particularly for the behavioral and ticipants and their parents or guardians were informed
antisocial features of the disorder. To our knowledge, no about the nature of the risks and benefits of participation in
prior studies have examined the relationship between early the study. In both Sample 1 and Sample 2, adults gave
life events and later attachment in a sample of youth consent, and youth gave assent, and both studies operated
assessed for psychopathic traits. Consequently, the present under full approval of the relevant Institutional Review
study was also designed to examine this issue. In summary, Board (at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro
we examined the relationship between the total number of and at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Sci-
life events in the first 4 years of life and total scores on the ence, respectively).
PCL: YV, as well as scores on the four facets of psy- Adolescents in both samples completed a series of
chopathy. We hypothesized that total number of early life questionnaires and interviews. In both cases, early life
events would correlate positively with ratings on the events data were collected from adolescent participants’
affective and interpersonal facets of psychopathy. Again, parent or guardian. A complete review of court records was
these particular features are especially important because conducted for each participant to verify and supplement
they are considered the core traits of psychopathy that information collected from interviews and self-reports.
distinguish it from other related disorders. Finally, we Other measures not used for this study were collected during
examined psychopathic traits as a moderator of the the testing sessions as part of a larger project [e.g. 5, 21].

123
 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev

Measures measures (see Table 2 for a direct comparison of items).

The measures of early life events were drawn from the
Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL: YV) [8] following two different questionnaires in order to increase
our total sample size to ensure the study would have suf-
The Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version is a 20-item ficient power to examine any relationship between early
expert rater measure used to assess psychopathic traits in life events and psychopathic traits: the Children’s Life
adolescents. The PCL: YV is based on Hare’s Psychopathy Events Questionnaire (CLEQ) and the Teen Life Events
Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), a clinical measure of psy- Survey (TLES). The CLEQ [30] is a 32-item life events
chopathic traits in adults, but was modified in order to scale that assesses early life events. Although the majority
account for the unique characteristics and roles of adoles- of the items address life events typically considered neg-
cents. Like the PCL-R, the PCL: YV assesses four distinct ative (e.g., death of a parent, incarceration of a parent),
components of psychopathy. Prior studies indicate some of the items refer to events that could be considered
acceptable internal consistency and interrater agreement positive or ambiguous (e.g., birth of a new sibling).
for ratings on the affective, interpersonal, lifestyle, and Although many of the 14 life events appear to reflect
antisocial facets [39–41]. Each of the twenty items are independent occurrences, measures of internal consistency,
rated on a 3-point ordinal scale (0 = item does not apply; as in prior studies using life events measures [46, 47],
1 = a match in some respects but with some exceptions; revealed some degree of internal consistency. In Sample 1,
2 = a reasonably good match). The authors of the instru- the alpha coefficient was .77 for the entire measure (of 32
ment caution strongly against any cutoffs for youth and items) and .58 for the 14 items used in this study. The
against labeling any adolescents as psychopathic, due to TLES is a 39-item measure of life events and the ages at
concerns about the impact of pejorative labels and to lack which they occurred, which includes the first 4 years of life
of sufficient information about stability of psychopathic (the only events examined) in the current study. This
traits in youth. In completing PCL: YV ratings, raters are measure was developed for this study by selecting life
trained to consider such factors as the frequency of events from other common life events scales [48, 49]. An
behavior, the number of domains in which the behavior analysis of internal consistency for the TLES with a sample
appears, and the duration of behavior. Items on the measure size of 80 yielded an alpha coefficient of .83 providing
include impression management, pathological lying, lack evidence for good internal consistency of the scores (using
of remorse, shallow affect, and criminal versatility. all 39 items); the alpha coefficient for the 14 items used in
Checklist ratings are based on an integration of information this study was .67.
from multiple sources, including the following: semi- For both the CLEQ and the TLES, parents or guardians
structured interviews with the adolescent participants (in- who had known the child since birth completed the form by
cluding multiple life domains as suggested in the PCL: YV indicating whether or not each event occurred in the first
manual); direct behavioral observations of the adolescent 4 years of life, as well as the child’s age at the time of the
participant throughout the study meeting period by mem- event. Life event items include events such as death of a
bers of the research team; interviews with the parents or parent, loss of job by a parent, and divorce of parents (see
guardians of the adolescent participants in which parents Table 2 for a complete listing). The total life events score
report about their child’s behavior throughout their lifetime recorded was the simple sum of the number of life events
(Sample 1 only); and comprehensive reviews of any that occurred between the ages of 0–47 months. Specific
available institutional files which may document behavior life events were scored dichotomously as either present or
relevant to PCL: YV rankings. As noted earlier, high scores absent.
on the PCL: YV are associated with violent behavior [7],
recidivism [6], emotional processing deficits, and neural Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA) [50]
anomalies similar to those seen in adults with psychopathic
traits [42–45]. The IPPA is a self-report measure of attachment developed
for use with adolescents that was completed by participants
Ratings of Life Events only in Sample 1. The IPPA consists of subscales that
assess subjective aspects of attachment security separately
For this study, we obtained parents’ or other caregivers’ for parents/caretakers and peers, with higher scores indi-
ratings of the number of 14 distinct life events that cating poorer attachment. In this study, only the 28-item
occurred during the first 4 years of each youth’s life. The parental attachment scale was used. Samples of items on
14 items for this study were drawn from the two different this scale include the following: ‘‘My mother/father
life events questionnaires based on the criteria that they understands me’’; ‘‘My mother/father accepts me as I am’’;
were worded identically (or nearly identically) in both ‘‘I don’t get much attention from my mother/father.’’

123
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev

Parental attachment scores yield adequate internal consis- events 9 Affective facet interaction was not significant,
tency, a = .94 for parent attachment [50, 51]. b = .531, p \ .09.
Simple slope analyses were conducted to unpack the two
significant interactions by calculating F1 and interpersonal
Results facet scores centered at the mean, 1 SD below the mean,
and 1 SD above the mean. With respect to the Life
Preliminary Analyses events 9 Factor 1 interaction, we observed a significant
negative relationship between number of life events and
Scores on most variables were distributed normally; a IPPA parental attachment scores at all levels of F1 (all
square root transformation was used to correct positive ps B .03, b s = -4.63, -3.41, -2.19 for low, mean, and
skewness in the index of life events and to correct negative high levels of F1). However, the negative relationship
skewness in PCL: YV Factor 1 scores. In addition, affec- between IPPA scores and life events was stronger for youth
tive facet scores were kurtotic (kurtosis = -1.11, p \ .01). low in Factor 1 traits than for youth higher in these psy-
However, kurtosis corrections introduced substantial chopathic traits. In short, a greater number of life events
skewness; therefore, principal analyses utilized untrans- was associated with higher levels of attachment to parents,
formed affective facet scores. A comparison of analyses and this relationship was stronger for youth who were low
with raw versus transformed scores indicated a very similar in Factor 1 than for youth who were higher in Factor 1.
pattern of findings.1 Correlational analyses were conducted Analysis of the significant Life Events X Interpersonal
between scores of all variables used in the current study facet interaction yielded somewhat similar findings. For
(see Table 1). adolescents low in interpersonal traits, a greater number of
these life events was associated with nonsignificantly bet-
Principal Analyses ter attachment to parents. Conversely, for adolescents high
in interpersonal traits, a greater number of life events was
Pearson correlations indicated no overall relationship associated with nonsignificantly poorer attachment to
between early life events scores and PCL: YV total scores, parents (low: b = -.176, p \ .16, mean: b = -.015,
r (204) = .10, p = .17. Affective facet scores were sig- p \ .89, high: b = .228, p \ .13).
nificantly and positively correlated with total early life
events scores, r (202) = .15, p = .04, and the correlation
between interpersonal facet scores and early life events Discussion
scores approached significance, r (204) = .12, p = .08. In
contrast, lifestyle and antisocial facet scores were not We examined the relationship between early life events and
correlated with early life events scores, r (204) = .03, the development of psychopathic traits in youth. Early life
p = .72; r (201) = -.01, p = .94. events appear to be important environmental risk factors
Multiple regressions were conducted to assess whether for several types of psychopathology; however, no prior
indices of psychopathic traits interacted with early life published studies have examined this issue with respect to
event scores to predict levels of parental attachment as psychopathic traits.
measured by scores on the IPPA. In each regression, ratings We found significant associations between various PCL:
on a component of psychopathy and early life event scores YV psychopathy scores and early life events. More
were entered in the first step, and the interaction term was specifically, we found an association between the total
entered in the second. Two of the three interactions number of early life events and higher scores on the
examined proved significant. The regression for Factor 1 affective facet of psychopathy. Additionally, we found a
scores revealed, in addition to a main effect for life events, correlation that approached significance with a small to
b = -3.41, p \ .03, a significant Life events 9 Factor 1 medium effect size between the total number of life events
interaction, b = 3.46, p = .03 (see Fig. 1). The Life events and higher interpersonal facet scores. These findings, like
X Interpersonal facet interaction was also significant, most of the correlations found in this study, represent either
b = .62, p \ .05 (see Fig. 2). Finally, the Life small or small to medium effect sizes. As such, we
acknowledge that the findings suggest only a modest
relationship between life events and psychopathic traits.
1
The only difference in the pattern of results for transformed and As noted above, the majority of prior studies addressing
untransformed variables was that the Affective facet X Life events environmental factors have suggested that environmental
interaction predicting attachment scores based on untransformed life
correlates are usually associated with Factor 2 psychopathy
events scores was marginally significant (p = .05) yet the interaction
based on transformed life events scores only approached significance traits. For example, Harpur et al. [52] found that the quality
(p = .09). of family background was strongly correlated with Factor 2

123
 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev

Table 1 Correlations between total number of life events and scores on measures of psychopathic traits
Measure IMPTOT PCLTOT AFF INT BEH ANT

TOTAL#LE -.04 .10 .15* .12 .03 -.01

IMPTOT .44** .40** .52** .27** .19*
PCLTOT .77** .78** .79** .74**
AFF .55** .41** .43**
INT .52* .40**
BEH .49**
TOTAL#LE total number of early life events square root transformed, IMPTOT interpersonal measure of psychopathy total score inverse
transformed, PCLTOT Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version Total Score, AFF Affective Facet Score, INT Interpersonal Facet Score, BEH
Behavioral Facet Score, ANT Antisocial Facet Score
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01

rank, whereas PPI-I factor scores, which correlate modestly

with PCL-R Factor 1 score, were uncorrelated with most
environmental risk factors [54].
IPPA Scores**

Poythress et al. [55], using structural equation modeling,

reported that retrospective reports of abuse exerted no
Low Factor 1
direct or indirect effect on interpersonal or affective fea-
Scores tures of psychopathy but were directly related to scores on
High Factor 1 the behavioral facet of psychopathy. Schraft et al. [21] also
Scores reported that exposure to violence in the home was
Low Number of Life Events High Number of Life Events uniquely related to scores on the behavioral facet of psy-
chopathy but not to scores on the interpersonal or affective
Fig. 1 Interaction between Life Events and Factor 1 Scores facet. Recently, Hicks et al. [56] found that the association
between family problems, academic achievement and
engagement, antisocial peer affiliation, and stressful life
events assessed at age 17 and Factor 2 characteristics were
significantly greater than the associations between Factor 1
IPPA Scores **

characteristics and these environmental correlates.

However, several more recent studies appear to suggest
Low
a role for environmental factors in the core interpersonal
Interpersonal and affective components of psychopathy [24–26].
Scores
High
Because Barker et al. [24] and Fontaine et al. [26] assessed
Interpersonal early life factors, these studies point to the possibility that
Scores
Low Number of Life Events High Number of Life Events
early life difficulties and later childhood difficulties map
onto different components of psychopathy. However, it is
Fig. 2 Interaction between Life Events and Interpersonal Scores. important to keep in mind that Childs et al. [25] found links
Note. IPPA Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment. **Recall that between parenting behaviors and core affective traits.
lower IPPA scores indicate higher levels of parental attachment
Similarly, Schraft et al. [21] and Kimonis et al. [20]
reported links between exposure to community violence
scores and only marginally correlated with Factor 1 scores. and core features of psychopathy. Although these studies
Hare et al. [53] found that a variety of environmental did not examine the age at which youth were exposed to
factors, such as lower occupational class and poorer quality violence, it is likely that these relationships reflect impacts
of family life, were uniquely related to Factor 2. Similarly, after the first few years of life. Consequently, it appears
Benning et al. [54] reported significant differences in the likely that there are environmental impacts both during the
associations of environmental factors to the two factors of earliest and during later years of child development.
the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI): scores on the Although we note that the results are not entirely consistent
PPI social deviance factor, which correlate highly with across studies, some of these findings appear to raise the
scores on PCL-R Factor 2, were significantly related to possibility that early life events and other adverse experi-
environmental factors such as education level and class ences and later life events and experiences may contribute

123
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev

to different components of psychopathy. The current findings, there are, to our knowledge, no prior studies that
results add to growing evidence suggesting reliable rela- have examined these associations in samples of youth with
tionships between environmental factors and Factor 1 externalizing psychopathology. Therefore, early life events
traits. may influence affective and interpersonal characteristics of
We believe that the most likely explanation for the psychopathy by means of an early disrupted attachment
different patterns of findings is that events occurring very which interferes in the emotional development of these
early in life may have a different impact than events children. Because these results represent novel findings,
occurring later in life. The few prior studies that have only additional studies can establish the robustness of these
examined early life events employed samples characterized findings.
by antisocial behavior (e.g., juvenile delinquents and Methodological differences between the prior literature
children with conduct disorder) and did not specifically and the current study may help to explain the differences in
assess psychopathic features. As noted above, the vast findings. For example, Viding et al. [57] examined teacher-
majority of prior studies of life events and psychopathy did rated CU traits, whereas the current study utilized expert-
not specifically examine early life events. Therefore, early rated PCL: YV total and facet scores. Several other studies
life events in particular may represent an important envi- utilized self-report measures to assess psychopathic fea-
ronmental influence on the development of psychopathic tures. PCL: YV scores differ in important ways from other
traits. This finding is consistent with some theoretical measures of psychopathy. Ratings are obtained by unbiased
perspectives on the development of psychopathy [9]. experts, rather than teachers, parents, or an individual’s
Overall, our current findings suggest that the influence of self-report. Also, even among studies that all use the PCL:
risk factors within the environment, such as early life YV, results may differ at the factor versus facet level. For
events, may extend beyond antisocial and lifestyle traits to example, studies that utilize factor scores quantify psy-
the core affective features of the psychopathy syndrome, chopathy traits in a more generalized manner rather than
and possibly the interpersonal features as well. However, parceling out the more specific facets that make up a par-
because this study only offers preliminary evidence for ticular factor score [52]. As seen in the current study,
these relationships, more research is needed to see whether environmental factors may uniquely relate to one facet
these associations could be replicated. (i.e., one component of a factor but not the other), in some
The current study also provided evidence that the rela- cases making it difficult to detect a significant finding at the
tionship between life events and attachment to parents is factor level of analysis.
moderated by individual differences in psychopathic traits. A related issue is that several studies of youth have
Specifically, an interaction between life events and Factor examined parent ratings, teacher ratings, or self-reported
1 ratings suggested that greater numbers of life events were CU traits rather than ratings on clinical measures of psy-
associated with higher levels of attachment to parents for chopathy. Although CU traits are conceptualized as
youth lower in Factor 1 traits but that this relationship was reflecting the affective features of psychopathy, CU traits
less robust for youth who were higher in Factor 1. As do not include the interpersonal features of psychopathy.
postulated above, life events that could be disruptive of Moreover, parent and teacher ratings of CU traits and
parental attachment may be particularly salient in clinical measures of psychopathy correlate only modestly
explaining the development of the Factor 1 features of with clinical ratings of psychopathic traits [58, 59].
psychopathy. It has previously been demonstrated that Contrary to popular belief, current research findings
disturbances of parental attachment are prominent in youth suggest the importance of further investigation into the
with psychopathic traits [5, 38]. Reasons for these disrup- early environmental correlates of psychopathic traits in
tions are largely unknown. Early life events serve as a adolescents. Further research is also needed to probe the
potential explanation for the link between poor attachment nature of the relationship between early environmental
and psychopathic traits. factors and their impact on attachment and psychopathic
Bowlby’s [32] perspective was that important life events traits in order to better understand how these factors
can be disruptive of attachment. For example, in some specifically impact the development of psychopathy.
cases, life events may directly interfere with a parent’s
ability to care for a child or may distract a parent, making Limitations
him or her less emotionally available for a child (e.g., in
grieving the loss of a child). However, current findings This study had several limitations that warrant discussion.
suggest that, in this sample, larger numbers of disruptive The cross-sectional design of the study is a primary limi-
life events were nonsignificantly associated with better tation. This design limits us to describing relationships and
attachment to parents in youth without psychopathic traits. correlations. Additionally, it must be acknowledged that
Although this result may appear to be at odds with prior current evidence of relationships between environmental

123
 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev

Table 2 Comparison of exact item wording between the two different life events questionnaires
Item Teen life events survey Children’s life events Questionnaire
number

1 Parents divorced Divorce of parents

2 Parents separated (marital) Marital separation of parents
3 Incarceration of parent for at least 1 year Jail sentence of parent for 1 year or longer (mother/father)
4 Parent remarried (teen gained step-parent) (stepfather Marriage of parent to step-parent (mother/father)
stepmother)
5 Death of a brother or sister Death of a brother or sister
6 Serious illness requiring hospitalization of your teen Serious illness requiring hospitalization of child
7 Birth of a new brother or sister Birth of a brother or sister
8 Significant increase in arguments between parents Increase in number of arguments between child’s mother and
father
9 Brother or sister left home (foster care, college, to live on their Brother or sister leaving home
own)
10 Death of a parent Death of parent
11 Death of a grandparent Death of grandparent
12 Discovery of being adopted or being a step-child Discovery of being an adopted child
13 Loss of a job by parent Loss of job by parent (mother/father)
14 Addition of a new adult to the home Addition of third adult to family (relative, friend, etc.)

factors and psychopathic traits could reflect a gene-envi- occurrence of the life events measured. Nevertheless, it
ronment correlation rather than a true environmental cause. appears unlikely that a child’s behavior before the age of
A third primary limitation of the current study is the size of four contributed substantially to the kinds of life event
the effects. Each of the associations found in this study had examined in this study.
small or small to medium effect sizes. Therefore, results
suggest only modest associations between early life events Directions for Future Research
and psychopathic traits.
Other study limitations include the use of self-report The current study examined the relationship between early
questionnaires to obtain parents’ ratings of the occurrence life events and later psychopathic traits. It improved upon
of early life events and to assess adolescents’ parental prior studies by utilizing a more validated four facet model
attachment. Self-report measures potentially introduce of psychopathy, a larger sample size, and additional mea-
error due to human factors like selective recall, honesty, sures of early life events. The results of the current study
and over-reporting. Additionally, it has been recommended stand in contrast to a body of literature which suggests that
by some experts that attachment in particular should be environmental etiological correlates are more pertinent to
measured with specialized interview techniques rather than explaining variation in Factor 2 traits and less useful in
self-report measures. Although self-report questionnaires explaining variation in Factor 1 traits. There has been a
involve bias, there is no evidence to suggest that parental general acceptance of this idea in the field despite the
recall of events occurring early in their child’s life would limited data to address it adequately. On the contrary, the
be biased, or that recall biases would covary with a child’s current results imply that early environmental factors are,
scores on a measure of psychopathy. Additionally, the to some extent, associated with the characteristics that
impact/importance of these life events (as shown in make up Factor 1. Results also raise the possibility that
Table 2) increases their salience for parents, which should some specific life events may contribute to the develop-
reduce susceptibility to poor recall. ment of affective or interpersonal psychopathic character-
Finally, as noted above, we cannot assume the inde- istics. Findings of the current study suggest the importance
pendence of all the major life events examined. A subset of of further investigation into the early environmental cor-
major life events included in this study are considered non- relates of psychopathic traits in adolescents. Further
independent, which refers to the idea that particular life research is also needed to probe the nature of the rela-
events may occur as the result of a participant’s influence tionship between early environmental factors and psycho-
or behavior. In this study, it is plausible that a parent’s pathic traits in order to better understand how these factors
behavior, or even a child’s, could contribute to the specifically impact the development of psychopathy.

123
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev

Summary 4. Frick P (2009) Extending the construct of psychopathy to youth:

implications for understanding, diagnosing, and treating antiso-
cial children and adolescents. Can J Psychiatry 54:803–812
Although prior studies have reported relationships between 5. Kosson DS, Cyterski TD, Steuerwald BL, Neumann CS, Walker-
adverse environmental factors and elevated scores on the Matthews S (2002) The reliability and validity of the Psy-
lifestyle and antisocial components of psychopathy, few chopathy Checklist Youth Version (PCL: YV) in nonincarcerated
adolescent males. Psychol Assess 14:97–109
prior studies have reported relationships between adverse
6. Edens JF, Campbell JS, Weir JM (2007) Youth psychopathy and
environmental factors and indices of the core affective and criminal recidivism: a meta-analysis of the psychopathy checklist
interpersonal components. In this study of links between measures. Law Hum Behav 31:53–75
life events in the first 4 years of life and indices of psy- 7. Gretton H, McBride M, Lewis K, O’Shaughnessy R, Hare RD
(1994) Predicting patterns of criminal activity in adolescent
chopathy, including the core affective and interpersonal
sexual psychopaths. Can Psychol 35:50–58
components of psychopathy, we found that the total num- 8. Forth AE, Kosson DS, Hare RD (2003) Hare Psychopathy
ber of early life events was positively correlated with Checklist: Youth Version (PCL: YV). Multi-Health Systems,
indices of the affective component of psychopathy. North Tonawanda
9. McCord W, Mccord J (1964) The psychopath: an essay on the
Moreover, psychopathic traits moderated the relationship
criminal mind. D. Van Nostrand, Oxford
between the number of early life events and later reports of 10. Maher BA (1966) Principles of psychopathology: an experi-
attachment to parents in a sample of court-involved youth. mental approach. McGraw-Hill, Oxford
The combination of high levels of the core affective and 11. Bacon MK, Child IL, Barry HA (1963) Crosscultural study of
correlates of crime. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 66:291–300
interpersonal traits of psychopathy and large numbers of
12. McCord J (1979) Some child-rearing antecedents of criminal
early negative life events was associated with poorer behavior in adult men. J Pers Soc Psychol 37:1477–1486
attachment to parents compared to youth low in such traits. 13. Blonigen DM, Carlson SR, Krueger RF, Patrick CJ (2003) A twin
These findings are consistent with the possibility that early study of self-reported psychopathic personality traits. Person
Individ Differ 35:179–197
environmental factors may contribute to the development
14. Viding E, Frick PJ, Plomin R (2007) Aetiology of the relationship
of psychopathic traits and may impact the development of between callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in
attachment to parents, even among youth with psycho- 7-year-old twins. Br J Psychiatry 190:33–38
pathic traits. These findings suggest the value of further 15. Brook M, Panizzon MS, Kosson DS, Sullivan EA, Lyons MJ,
Franz CE, Eisen SA, Kremen WS (2010) Psychopathic person-
investigations into early environmental correlates of psy-
ality traits in middle-aged male twins: a behavior genetic inves-
chopathy and their impact on the development of psycho- tigation. J Pers Disord 24:473–486
pathic traits. 16. Livesley WJ (2008) Research trends and directions in the study of
personality disorder. Psychiatr Clin North Am 31:545–559
Acknowledgments We wish to thank Susan G. Korpai, Rosemarie 17. Moffitt TE (2005) The new look of behavioral genetics in
Gray, Louise Loud, Leonard Young, Michael Fletcher, Robert Cesar, developmental psychopathology: gene-environment interplay in
the correctional officers, the adolescents at the Depke Juvenile Justice antisocial behaviors. Psychol Bull 131:533–554
Complex in Illinois, J. Manley Dodson, and the court counselors of 18. Viding E, McCrory EJ (2012) Genetic and neurocognitive con-
the Juvenile Services Division of Guilford County for their consistent tributions to the development of psychopathy. Dev Psychopathol
support and cooperation of the research reported here. We also thank 24:969–983
the staff of the Greensboro Detention Center and the staff of the 19. Vitacco, Neumann, Ramos, Roberts (2003) Ineffective parenting:
Guilford Technical Community College at the Greensboro and High a precursor to psychopathic traits and delinquency in Hispanic
Point campuses for allowing us to interview adolescents and their females. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1008:300–303
families there. We thank Melanie Chinchilla, Josh Greco, Hillary 20. Kimonis ER, Frick PJ, Munoz LC, Aucoin KJ (2008) Callous-
Gorin, Sarah Hampton, Kristin Ridder, Cody Schraft, Rachel Tercek, unemotional traits and the emotional processing of distress cues
Sarah VanMoffaert, and Lindsay Allen Whitman, for assessing par- in detained boys: testing the moderating role of aggression,
ticipants in Illinois and Susan Baird, Deborah Carraway, Susan exposure to community violence, and histories of abuse. Dev
Dedmon, Jennifer Kelly, Leslie Loudermilk, Christine McBrien, and Psychopathol 20:569–589
Julie Smith for assessing participants in North Carolina. 21. Schraft C, Kosson D, McBride C (2013) Exposure to violence
within home and community environments and psychopathic
tendencies in detained adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior
40:1027–1043
References 22. Krischer M, Sevecke K (2008) Early traumatization and psy-
chopathy in female and male juvenile offenders. Int J Law Psy-
1. Hare RD (2003) The Hare psychopathy checklist–revised, 2nd chiatry 31:253–262
edn. Multi-Health Systems, North Tonawanda 23. Marshall L, Cooke D (1999) The childhood experiences of psy-
2. Edens JF, Guy LS, Fernandez K (2003) Psychopathic traits pre- chopaths: a retrospective study of familial and societal factors.
dict attitudes toward a juvenile capital murderer. Behav Sci Law J Pers Disord 13:211–225
21:807–828 24. Barker ED, Oliver BR, Viding E, Salekin RT, Maughan B (2011)
3. Murrie DC, Boccaccini MT, McCoy W, Cornell DC (2007) The impact of prenatal maternal risk, fearless temperament and
Diagnostic labeling in juvenile court: how do descriptions of early parenting on adolescent callous-unemotional traits: a
psychopathy and conduct disorder influence judges? J Clin Child 14-year longitudinal investigation. J Child Psychol Psychiatry
Adoles Psychol 36:228–241 52(8):878–888

123
 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev

25. Childs AW, Fite PJ, Moore TM, Lochman JE, Pardini DA (2014) 43. Blair RJR, Mitchell DGV, Leonard A, Budhani S, Peschardt KS,
Bidirectional associations between parenting behavior and child Newman C (2004) Passive avoidance learning in individuals with
callous-unemotional traits: does parental depression moderate psychopathy: modulation by reward but not by punishment.
this link? J Abnorm Child Psychol 42(7):1141–1151 Person Individ Differ 37:1179–1192
26. Fontaine NM, McCrory EJ, Boivin M, Moffitt TE, Viding E 44. Marsh AA, Finger EC, Mitchell DG, Reid ME, Sims C, Kosson
(2011) Predictors and outcomes of joint trajectories of callous– DS, Towbin KE, Leibenluft E, Pine DS, Blair RJR (2008)
unemotional traits and conduct problems in childhood. J Abnorm Reduced amygdala response to fearful expressions in adolescents
Psychol 120(3):730 with callous-unemotional traits and disruptive behavior disorders.
27. Adams D, Overholser J, Spirito A (1994) Stressful life events Am J Psychiatry 165:712–720
associated with adolescent suicide attempts. Can J Psychiatry 45. Marsh AA, Finger EC, Fowler KA, Jurkowitz IT, Schechter JC,
93:43–48 Yu HH, Pine DS, Blair RJR (2011) Reduced amygdala-or-
28. Brown G, Harris (1989) Life events and measurement. Life bitofrontal connectivity during moral judgments in youths with
events and illness. Guilford Press, London disruptive behavior disorders and psychopathic traits. Psychiatr
29. Hammen C (2005) Stress and depression. Annu Rev Clin Psychol Res Neuroimaging 194:279–286
1:293–319 46. Horesha N, Nachshonic T, Wolmera L, Torena P (2009) A
30. Deutsch L, Erickson M (1989) Early life events as discriminators comparison of life events in suicidal and nonsuicidal adolescents
of socialized and undersocialized delinquents. J Abnorm Child and young adults with major depression and borderline person-
Psychol 17:541–551 ality disorder. Compr Psychiatry 50:496–502
31. Riser R, Brieman C, Kosson D (2011) The relationship of father 47. Bodell L, Smith A, Holm-Denoma J, Gordon KC, Joiner T (2011)
involvement and family structure in psychopathic offenders. The impact of perceived social support and negative life events
Poster session presented at the meeting of Society for Scientific on bulimic symptoms. Eat Behav 12:44–48
Study of Psychopathy, Montreal 48. Coddington DR (1972) The significance of life events as etiologic
32. Bowlby J (1969/1982) Attachment and loss, vol. 1: attachment. factors in the diseases of children: I. A survey of professional
Basic Books, New York workers. J Psychosom Res 16:7–18
33. Greenberg M, Speltz M, DeKlyen M (1993) The role of attach- 49. Holmes T, Rahe R (1967) The social readjustment rating scale.
ment in the early development of disruptive behavior problems. J Psychosom Res 11:213–221
Dev Psychopathol 3:413–430 50. Armsden GC, Greenberg MT (1987) The inventory of parent and
34. Lyons-Ruth K (1996) Attachment relationships among children peer attachment: individual differences and their relationships to
with aggressive behavior problems: the role of disorganized early psychological well-being in adolescence. J Youth Adolesc
attachment patterns. J Consult Clin Psychol 64:64–73 16:427–454
35. Green J, Goldwyn R (2002) Annotation: attachment disorgani- 51. Wampler RS, Downs AB (2010) Parent and peer attachment in
zation and psychopathology: new findings in attachment research minority males at high risk for delinquency. Clin Soc Work J
and their potential implications for developmental psy- 38:107–119
chopathology in childhood. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 52. Harpur TJ, Hare RD, Hakstian AR (1989) Two-factor concep-
43:835–846 tualization of psychopathy: construct validity and assessment
36. Lyons-Ruth K, Alpern L, Repacholi B (1993) Disorganized infant implications. Psychol Assess 1:6–17
attachment classification and maternal psychosocial problems as 53. Hare R, McPherson L, Forth A (1988) Male psychopaths and
predictors of hostile-aggressive behavior in the preschool class- their criminal careers. J Consult Clin Psychol 56:710–714
room. Child Dev 64:572–585 54. Benning S, Patrick C, Hicks B, Blonigen D, Krueger R (2003)
37. Cleckley H (1976) The mask of sanity. C. V. Mosby, St Louis Factor structure of the psychopathic personality inventory:
(Original work published 1941) validity and implications for clinical assessment. Psychol Assess
38. Flight J, Forth AE (2007) Instrumentally violent youth: the roles 15:340–350
of empathy, attachment and psychopathy. Crim Just Behav 55. Poythress N, Skeem J, Lilienfeld S (2006) Associations among
34:739–751 early abuse, dissociation, and psychopathy among offenders.
39. Andershed H, Hodgins S, Tengström A (2007) Convergent J Abnorm Psychol 115:288–297
validity of the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI): 56. Hicks B, Carlson M, Blonigen D, Patrick C, Iacono W, McGue M
association with the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (2012) Psychopathic personality traits and environmental con-
(PCL: YV). Assessment 14:144–154 texts: differential correlates, gender differences, and genetic
40. Cauffman E, Kimonis ER, Dmitrieva J, Monahan KC (2009) A mediation. Person Disord Theory Res Treatment 3:209–227
multi-method assessment of juvenile psychopathy: comparing the 57. Viding E, Blair RJR, Moffitt TE, Plomin R (2005) Evidence for
predictive utility of the PCL: YV, YPI, and NEO PRI. Psychol substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds. J Child
Assess 21:528–542 Psychol Psychiatry 46:592–597
41. Das J, de Ruiter C, Doreleijers T, Hillege S (2009) Reliability and 58. Burke JD, Loeber R, Lahey BB (2007) Adolescent conduct dis-
construct validity of the Dutch Psychopathy Checklist: Youth order and interpersonal callousness as predictors of psychopathy
Version: findings from a sample of male adolescents in a juvenile in young adults. J Clin Child Adoles Psychol 36:334–346
justice treatment institution. Assessment 16:88–102 59. Murrie D, Cornell D (2002) Psychopathy screening of incarcer-
42. Blair RJR (1995) A cognitive developmental approach to ated juveniles: a comparison of measures. Psychol Assess
morality: investigating the psychopath. Cognition 57:1–29 14:390–396

123