|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ADOLESCENT
PSYCHOPATHY AND REPERTORY GRIDS:
PRELIMINARY DATA AND FOCUSED CASE STUDY
|
|
|
Kenneth W. Sewell*, Keith
R. Cruise** |
|
|
*Department of Psychology, University of
North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA
**Department of Psychology and Philosophy, Sam Houston State
University, Huntsville, Texas, USA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Criminal offending by
adolescents is a
serious problem. Often, chronic and serious adolescent offenders are
conceptualized
via a downward extension of the adult construct of “psychopathy”.
Despite the
obvious implications of social processes in psychopathic
characteristics, most
measurement tools fail to incorporate social processes in the
assessment method
of this construct. Thus, these tools often lead to classification
without clear
implications for treatment. The present paper presents the use of
specialized
repertory grids to assess psychopathy per se as well as other social
construction in adolescent offenders. Two case examples are discussed,
along
with their grid results, to illustrate the potential utility of these
methods. The
paper concludes with a discussion of the implications and future of
constructivist assessment of psychopathy.
Key
Words: adolescents; psychopathy;
repertory
grid |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INTRODUCTION
Adolescent
offending
Criminal
activity by children and adolescents represents a significant social
concern as
represented by rising rates of serious criminal offenses committed by
ever
increasing groups of younger offenders (Hoge, 2000; Snyder &
Sickmund,
1999). The response to juvenile offenses in much of the United States has been an increase in punitive
sanctions and ‘get tough’ policies such as the increased use of waiver
into
adult court and mandatory sentencing.
It is
estimated that a small percentage (approximately 15%) of offenders are
responsible for a large proportion of serious criminal acts
(approximately 50
to 60%) among adolescents (Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 1999;
Farrington, 1983;
Moffit, 1993). These are the young offenders who progress to similar
rates of
offending as adults (see Loeber, 1991). This relatively small
proportion of
serious juvenile offenders have been described as a distinct group who
begin
offending at an early age and engage in a wide array of antisocial acts
ranging
from property crime to serious forms of aggression (Foote, 1997).
Psychopathy
in adolescence
The
construct of ‘psychopathy’ as a clinical syndrome has been applied as a
discriminating variable in the identification and classification of
children
who will develop chronic offending careers (Lynam, 1996, 1997; Forth
&
Mailloux, 2000; Frick, Barry, & Boudin, 2000). In a review of the
extant
research regarding the predictive validity of psychopathy, a consistent
association between psychopathy and aggressive behavior was
demonstrated across
11 studies with an average correlation of .30 (range .19 to .67). This
robust,
consistent finding is moderated by the limited number of studies with
prospective designs examining the association between psychopathy and
later
acts of violence (Edens, Skeem, Cruise, & Caufmann,
2000).
Despite
the need for a viable means to identify and intervene with antisocial
youth,
caution is warranted in the direct downward extension of the
psychopathy
construct from adults (Edens, Skeem, Cruise, & Caufmann, 2000;
Grisso,
1998). There are several important issues that remain to be fully
understood.
First,
the temporal stability of the construct in children and adolescents
remains to
be demonstrated. Can an adolescent merit a diagnosis of psychopathy at
a
particular time, and then not merit that diagnosis at a later time?
Temporal
stability in this context is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, a lack
of temporal
stability (e.g., if the same person could merit differing diagnoses
over a
short time period with no intervening explanation) would impede the
ability to
use the construct in a predictive manner. On the other hand, rigid
temporal
stability (e.g., if it were the case that ‘once a psychopath, always a
psychopath’) suggests that psychopathy is a descriptive construct for
which
psychological interventions are not relevant. All too often, the latter
of
these extreme possibilities is assumed (that psychopathy is static and
unchangeable). Nonetheless, there is a straightforward lack of evidence
to
suggest that the construct is even stable, let alone unchangeable.
Clearly if
psychopathy in adolescence is to prove useful, demonstration is needed
that
psychopathy is generally stable, measurement identifies a proportion of
young
offenders on a developmental trajectory of severe antisocial behavior,
yet capable
of changing under specifiable circumstances.
Second,
it is inherently hazardous to apply to adolescents diagnostic criteria
validated on adults without investigating potential developmental
differences
in their applicability. Examples of this hazard in the realm of
psychopathy
include the explicit downward extension of adult criteria of parasitic
lifestyle, impulsivity, and irresponsibility. What does it mean to say
that an
adolescent does or does not lead a parasitic lifestyle (i.e., lives
‘off of’ the
income and/or good will of others)? Surely it means something different
for an
adolescent than for an adult given that all adolescents are dependent
on adults
to some degree. Adolescence is generally considered a time of inherent
impulsivity, irresponsibility, and so forth. In order for such traits
to be
considered diagnostically relevant, do they simply need to be extreme?
Such
traits in adults (even at moderate levels) imply a developmental
failure;
extremity of such traits in adolescents might be problematic, but they
do not
clearly imply developmental failure in analogous ways. Additionally,
within the
adolescent developmental period, normative developmental changes are
expected
that impact the adolescents’ cognitive capacities, emotional
regulation, and
complexities of social relationships. Extremity on a ‘psychopathic’
trait
likely needs age-relevant criteria. The field awaits a comprehensive
formulation of adolescent psychopathy that is both theoretically and
developmentally
sound.
Beyond
the problems (discussed above) with extending the construct of adult
psychopathy downward onto adolescents, constructivist critiques of
current
conceptions of ‘disorder’ offer some compelling reasons for concern
(e.g., Raskin & Lewandowski, 2000).
In general, constructivists
view what are traditionally called ‘disorders’ as constellations of
characteristics
that are problematic not because of some flaw inherent to the
individual, but
rather because of difficulties that result in the person’s life (often
social)
processes. Given the social processes involved in ‘disorder’ (even what
is
defined as a disorder evolves via social negotiation), our conceptions
of
diagnoses should logically include implications for altering the social
interactions and context of the troubled person. Thus, diagnoses are to
be
considered transitive starting points as opposed to conclusory end
points. From
this constructivist point of view, a diagnosis such as psychopathy is
useful
only insofar as it carries information about the ways in which the
person
construes the social world (including the self) and implications for
how that
construing (or, indeed the content and structure of the social world
itself)
might need revision to accommodate more adaptive functioning. The current conception of psychopathy falls
short of this
ideal, particularly in its situating the difficulties in the person’s
psyche
(or character) rather than in the person’s life (social) processes.
Despite
these areas of ambiguity in the adolescent psychopathy literature and
critiques
from constructivists, the construct of adolescent psychopathy is
receiving
increased attention in the clinical and forensic literature with a
predominant
focus on classification and prediction without reference to
developmental and
treatment implications. Thus, the effective measurement of personality
and
behavioral patterns associated with psychopathy in adolescents is
critical. Measurements
that have implications for treatment are particularly desirable, given
the need
to transcend the negative and global assumptions often associated with
the
psychopathy label. Because psychopathy implies disrupted social
relationships,
and because forensic treatments are almost always offered in group
(social)
formats, measures that also address relevant social processes should
prove most
useful. Moreover, assessing this constellation in a manner that
accounts for
treatment and social processes would bring the construct of psychopathy
into a
more tenable relation with constructivist psychology.
Measurement
of psychopathy in adolescence
Recently,
a variety of measures have been developed that utilize interview and
self-report methods to assess psychopathic characteristics in children
and
adolescents. The construction of such measures has relied on the
accepted adult
conceptualization of the clinical construct. The measures include the
Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL-YV; Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003) which
is an interview-based clinician rating scale, and the Antisocial
Process
Screening Device (APSD; Frick & Hare, 2001) which is a self-report
questionnaire designed to be completed by the adolescent and/or a
parent or
other informant (teacher, etc.).
None of
the adolescent psychopathy measures currently in use addresses the
needs identified
above (treatment implications over labeling, social process information
over
characterological attribution, etc.). The present paper explores a
psychopathy
measurement technique based upon Kelly’s (1955) Role Construct
Repertory Grid
(or rep grid) that attempts to address some of these needs and align
itself
with a constructivist framework. The present work used two different
repertory
grids to assess psychopathic self-construction as well as the
construction of
peers and treaters in a group treatment context. This use of rep grid
methods
allows for a unique and novel approach to the evaluation of
psychopathic
characteristics by concurrent evaluation of self-report, construal of
others,
as well as peer ratings. To our knowledge, this approach has not been
utilized
previously in either adult or adolescent research on psychopathy. It is
presented
here in hopes that clinicians and researchers will apply this approach
and/or
similar methods and share their results in the professional literature.
If this
proves useful, assessment methods used with adolescents in
clinical-forensic
and treatment contexts can then reflect broad constructivist values of
individual
understanding over simple diagnoses.
The
methodology will be described in detail and illustrated with two
focused case
examples. Finally, the potentials for the applicability of this
methodology
will be explored, including the need to incorporate
personal-constructional and
social-constructional levels when measuring psychopathy in adolescents.
REP GRID
ASSESSMENT OF ADOLESCENT PSYCHOPATHY
Two
separate grids were constructed to administer to adolescent male
offenders in a
group treatment context (a post-adjudication residential treatment
facility).
Psychopathy Grid
The Psychopathy Grid was
constructed to
correspond to the concepts included in the traditional assessment of
psychopathy. The criteria used in the PCL-YV were converted to bipolar
constructs
using labels understandable to the average teenager (Flesch-Kincaid
reading
level of grade 5.7). These psychopathic traits served as supplied
constructs in
the grid. Additionally, two other dimensions were included as supplied
constructs: anger and agitation. These latter constructs were chosen
because of
the oft-asserted notion that psychopathy implies anger-proneness and
(perhaps
paradoxically) hypo-arousal. Group members rated themselves, each of
their
group treatment peers, and their therapist on 6-point scales anchored
by these
supplied construct poles (see Table 1). The size of the Psychopathy
Grid was 14
(constructs) by 9 (elements, a number dependent upon group size).
Table 1: Constructs
(with the psychopathic poles denoted by asterices) and elements
comparing the Psychopathy Grid
supplied
psychopathy constructs |
|
|
insincere charmer* vs. sincere genuine
|
|
never brags vs. brags all the time*
|
|
thrill seeker* vs. not a thrill seeker
|
|
honest vs. lies all the time*
|
|
con artist* vs. not a con artist
|
|
is sorry for hurting others vs. is not sorry for hurting
others* |
|
emotions are not believable* vs. emotions are believable
|
|
has concern for others vs. feels no concern for others*
|
|
cannot control anger* vs. manages anger well
|
|
makes realistic plans vs. missing or unrealistic goals*
|
|
denies responsibility for crimes* vs. really accepts
responsibility |
|
thinks things
through vs. acts without thinking* |
|
cannot be counted on* vs. can be counted on
|
|
done small time crimes vs. done lots of hard crimes*
|
additional
supplied constructs |
|
|
makes me feel edgy vs. makes me feel calm
|
|
makes me really mad vs. never makes me mad
|
|
|
elements
|
|
|
therapist
|
|
self
|
|
peers in
treatment group |
There are a variety of indices
that can
easily be examined in the Psychopathy Grid. Several of these are
briefly
described below.
Psychopathic
self-construction
The ratings on the 12
psychopathy
constructs can be averaged and divided by the length of the scale to
derive an
index of the extent to which the psychopathic poles are attributed to
the self.
The potential range of this index is .17-1.0.
Psychopathic
counterpart construction
Like the Psychopathic
Self-Construction
index discussed above, the ratings on the 12 psychopathy constructs can
be
averaged and divided by the length of the scale to derive an index of
the
extent to which the psychopathic poles are attributed to any element.
Given
that the other members of the treatment group (including the therapist)
were
used as elements, this index is calculable on any group member from the
perspective of the examinee. The potential range of this index is
.17-1.0.
Intensity score
The overall
extent to which a person’s grid constructs intercorrelate has been
referred to
as the ‘intensity’ of the grid (Bannister & Fransella, 1966). This
allows
for a rough measure of the simplicity of the construct repertoire
sampled (cf.
Pierce, Sewell, & Cromwell, 1992).
Self/other distances
Pythagorean
distance scores can be calculated between any two elements represented
in the
grid. Thus, the distance (or differentiation) between the self and
every other
element (from the examinee’s perspective) can be derived (Mitterer
&
Adams-Webber, 1988).
Construct
intercorrelations
Simple
correlations between constructs can be calculated to provide
information
regarding linkages between an examinee’s personal dimensions of meaning
(Slater, 1972). Given the large number of correlations potentially
generated,
only specific pairs are examined based upon either their content-based
interest
(e.g. construct pairs that seem likely or unlikely to be related based
upon
semantic/theoretical content) or their extremity of relation (e.g.,
correlations
approaching 1.0, -1.0, or 0)
Social Grid
The Social Grid was constructed
as a tool
to assess the general social construing of the adolescents. By
including
amongst the grid’s elements the self, some treatment group peers, and
some
family members (see Figure 2), a broad sampling of social construction
relevant
to the adolescent’s current life could be elicited. The adolescents
rated each
of the elements on a 6-point scale. The size of the Social Grid was 10
(elicited constructs) by 10 (elements).
Table 2: Construct
Elicitation Method and Element Role Titles Comprising the
Social Grid
Constructs
|
10
triadically elicited bipolar constructs with designated pole valence
|
|
|
Elements
|
self
|
|
mother
or mother-figure |
|
father
or father-figure |
|
therapist
or counselor |
|
peer
you respect |
|
peer
you don’t respect |
|
peer
who will complete the program |
|
peer
who will not complete the program |
|
someone
you trust |
|
self
when graduating from the program |
As with the Psychopathy Grid
described
above, there are a variety of indices that can easily be examined in
the Social
Grid. Several of these are briefly described below.
Construct content
Because
the constructs in the Social Grid are elicited from the examinee, the
semantic
content of the constructs can be examined for thematic consistency,
idiosyncrasies of terminology or oppositeness, and level of abstraction
(e.g.,
physical versus emotional dimensions). Given that elicited constructs
are seen
by examinee’s as more personally meaningful than supplied constructs
(Adams-Webber,
1970), reviewing the contents of such personal constructs can be
informative regarding
how the examinee experiences the world.
Self-esteem
Sewell,
Cromwell, Adams-Webber, and Mitterer (1991) developed a self-esteem
measure for
rating scale grids capable of utilizing the full sensitivity of the
rating
scale. Essentially, the self-esteem index is the proportion of
positivity
attributed to the self across all constructs. The self-esteem index
approaches
zero as the self is rated more negatively across constructs.
Conversely, a
person rating the self at the extreme positive pole of each construct
would
have a self-esteem index of 1.0. Although a variety of other methods
have been
developed to assess self-esteem via grids, this index was chosen
because it
does not rely on an ‘ideal self’ reference point (not present in the
current
grids), and it allows for comparisons across elicited constructs.
Self-graduate-esteem
The ‘Self
at Graduation’ was included as an element in the Social Grid. Thus, the
extent
to which that future state is idealized can be quantified by
calculating the
self-esteem index based upon the ‘Self at Graduation’ element.
Self/other distances
Self/other
distances can be derived from the Social Grid just as described above
in the
Psychopathy Grid section.
Construct
intercorrelations
Construct
intercorrelations can be derived and inspected from the Social Grid
just as described
above in the Psychopathy Grid section.
CASE EXAMPLES
This section will describe two
adolescent
offenders who were given the Psychopathy Grid and Social Grid within
their
shared group treatment context within a post-adjudication residential
treatment
center. Identifying details have been altered to protect the
confidentiality of
the participants. General descriptions of the two adolescents will be
followed
by a detailed presentation of results from their grid examinations to
illustrate how this methodology can be informative within such
adolescent
forensic contexts.
Nathan
Nathan, a 15 year-old boy, had
been in the
treatment program approximately
175 days at the time of the assessment. His adjudicated offenses were
Burglary
of a Habitation, and Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle. There was no
reported drug
or alcohol use in the referral. Nathan’s mother reported that Nathan’s
behavior
problems did not begin until he became an adolescent. She indicated she
is
unable to control or set expectations around his behavior. Other
relevant
family information includes that Nathan’s father was killed in an
accident when
Nathan was 7. Nathan seems to seek the approval of his older brother
who himself
has numerous juvenile court referrals. A pre-placement psychological
evaluation
of Nathan recommended a structured environment, noting risk areas
involving
educational problems, negative peers, and ‘personality’ problems.
John
Also a 15-year-old male, John
had been in
the treatment program
for approximately 200 days at the time of assessment. He was
adjudicated for
charges of Burglary of a Vehicle and Theft of Greater Than $500. John’s
file
suggests a history of physical abuse and academic failure. John seemed
to be
generally cooperative with familial structures while living with his
father but
was reported to be ‘quiet, sneaky, and manipulative’ nonetheless,
leading to
his legal involvements and incarceration. After his incarceration, his
father
appears to have abandoned him altogether. No longer able to live with
his
father, John is facing the prospect of returning to live in another
state with
his mother in a blended family context; this is despite John’s removal
from his
mother’s custody as a young child due to physical abuse from John’s
step-father. John’s pre-placement evaluation identified high-risk areas
involving family, peers, education, and poor attitude. John is seen by
the
treatment staff as presenting a ‘tough guy’ image.
Psychopathy
Grid results
Table 3 shows the Psychopathy
Grid results
for Nathan and John. John sees himself as more psychopathic than does
Nathan, a
configuration that is repeated in their views of each other (although
they view
each other as less psychopathic than their self-assessments portray).
John’s
psychopathy constructs are more intercorrelated than are Nathan’s,
indicating
that, for John, ‘badness’ is something of a monolithic concept. The
average
self/other distances for Nathan and John are roughly comparable; and
John and
Nathan each see the other as very different from himself.
Table 3: Psychopathy
grid results for Nathan and John
Grid
Indices |
Nathan |
John
|
|
|
|
psychopathy
index |
.48
|
.81
|
rating
of peer on psychopathy index |
.63
(John) |
.32
(Nathan) |
intensity
score |
3581.14
|
44562.37
|
average
self/other distances |
.67
|
.73
|
perceived
distance from peer |
.87
(John) |
1.05
(Nathan) |
Although
not a grid index per se, specific construct divergences can be
inspected when
two persons each include the other as elements in their grids. Table 4
shows
the constructs on which Nathan and John diverged, from each of their
separate
perspectives. Nathan anticipates John as an explosive and irresponsible
person
around whom he is not particularly comfortable. John assigned himself
and
Nathan to opposite construct poles on all constructs except ‘done
lots of hard crimes,’ ‘makes realistic plans,’ and ‘really accepts responsibility.’ Clearly,
John sees Nathan as being unlike him in almost all important ways.
Table 4: Construct
Divergence for Nathan and John
Nathan’s
Perspective |
|
Self
|
John
|
|
|
thrill-seeker (6) |
not a thrill-seeker (1) |
manages anger well (1) |
cannot control anger (5) |
really accepts responsibility (2)
|
denies responsibility for crimes (5)
|
can be counted on (2) |
cannot be counted on (6) |
makes me feel calm (2) |
makes me feel edgy (5) |
|
|
Divergence
between John and Nathan from John’s perspective
|
|
|
John
assigned himself and Nathan to opposite construct poles on all
constructs except ‘done lots of hard crimes,’ ‘makes realistic plans,’ and ‘really accepts
responsibility.’ |
Finally,
construct intercorrelations of note are seen in Table 5. Nathan seems
to have
an over-arching construct of dishonesty that, for him, implies many of
the
other psychopathic characteristics. Among other patterns noted, John
shows an
unusual separateness of his constructs of remorsefulness and
responsibility-taking, likely indicating that he sees some value in ‘taking responsibility’ but does not
value ‘feeling sorry’ for hurtful actions.
Social
Grid results
Table 6
shows the constructs produced by Nathan and John during triadic
elicitation. Looking
at Nathan’s constructs, six out of
ten elicited constructs are interpersonal and/or emotional;
the others relate to accountability and motivation for change.
Examining John’s
constructs, a predominant theme of ‘either you are with me or you are
against
me’ emerges (with most social relationships evaluated in terms of their
instrumental value).
Table 5: Selected
construct intercorrelations
Youth
|
Constructs
|
Correlation
|
Nathan
|
insincere charmer & lies all the time
|
-.73
|
|
honest & manages anger well
|
-.91
|
|
honest & can be counted on
|
-.91
|
|
denies responsibility for crimes & acts without
thinking |
-.93
|
|
denies responsibility for crimes & can’t be counted on
|
.91
|
|
thinks things through & can be counted on
|
-.84
|
|
makes me feel edgy & makes me mad
|
.87
|
|
|
|
John
|
insincere charmer & thrill seeker
|
.90
|
|
insincere charmer & missing or unrealistic goals
|
-.90
|
|
insincere charmer & acts without thinking
|
-.90
|
|
thrill seeker & acts without thinking
|
-.92
|
|
thrill seeker & cannot be counted on
|
.92
|
|
honest & makes realistic plans
|
.97
|
|
thinks things through & can be counted on
|
-.98
|
Table 6: Elicited
constructs in the Social Grid (preferred
poles marked with +)
Nathan
|
John
|
trusting+ vs. not reliable |
close+ vs. distant |
friendly+ vs. rejecting |
won’t reoffend+ vs. will offend
|
stay out of trouble+ vs. getting into trouble
|
trust+ vs. unhonest |
denying problems vs. accepting problems+
|
handles problems+ vs. making problems
|
wants to change+ vs. doesn’t want to change
|
angry vs. friendly+ |
have attitudes+ vs. doesn’t have an attitude
|
helpful+ vs. unhelpful |
friends+ vs. enemy |
calming+ vs. frustrating |
supportive+ vs. not supportive
|
friendly+ vs. foe |
respectful+ vs. not respectful
|
positive role model+ vs. negative role model
|
loving+ vs. not loving |
family+ vs. stranger |
Table 7
shows the quantitative indices derived from the Social Grid for Nathan
and
John. Although Nathan has a predominantly positive view of self on the
relational/emotional constructs, he is ambivalent about wanting to
change in
that he sees himself as still ‘having an
attitude’ even after graduation. Nathan’s self/other distances show
a
fairly close association between himself and others in the grid
(distance range
of 2.83 to 9.0). The smallest distance is with ‘self at graduation’.
Conversely,
the element John saw as most distant from the self was ‘self at
graduation’ (13.86).
John’s element closest to the self was ‘someone you trust’ (3.74). All
adults
were rated as distant by John.
Table 7: Quantitative
indices from the Social Grid
Grid
Indices |
Nathan
|
John
|
|
|
|
Self-esteem
|
.77
|
.30
|
Self-graduate
esteem |
.87
|
.97
|
Intensity
score |
2210.79
|
1885.12
|
Average
self/other distance |
5.25
|
8.80
|
Regarding
Nathan’s construct intercorrelations, all constructs appear at least
modestly
correlated with ‘trusting vs. not
reliable.’ A similar pattern is present for his construct of ‘loving vs. not loving.’ For John, ‘won’t
reoffend’ shows a strong pattern
of association with all other constructs. Not re-offending is strongly
correlated with ‘trust’, ‘handling problems’,
‘friendly’, ‘helpful’, and ‘calming’.
However,
he rates himself on this construct as a 1 (definitely ‘will
reoffend’). The discrepancy between what John wants to achieve
and his perceived inability to get there seems related to his
conception that
reoffending, for him, is inevitable.
DISCUSSION
AND CONCLUSIONS
Utility
of grid methods with adolescent offenders
Use of
repertory grids in the present clinical context, as demonstrated by the
case
examples presented above, allowed for the constellation of personality
characteristics often termed ‘psychopathic’ to be assessed and
conceptualized
in social context. Not only were we able to evaluate the extent to
which the
boys had adopted a psychopathic role, but also the ways in which
particular
characteristics are construed as making them similar to or different
from their
peers (including each other). Given the high frequency with which group
treatment methods are used with adolescent offenders, and the extent to
which
social functioning is crucial to the development and maintenance of
healthy as
well as unhealthy adaptation, this ecologically sensitive technique of
assessment
seems particularly informative to the clinician wishing to intervene
multisystemically.
The
relation between behavioral problems and self-esteem/self-concept can
be
readily examined using the psychopathy and social grids with troubled
adolescents. A clear example of this is John’s apparent conflict in his
self-construction via the construct of ‘won’t
reoffend versus will reoffend.’ From John’s perspective, the
presence of a
variety of desirable traits implies a strong likelihood that the person
will
not reoffend. John sees this relation as holding for virtually everyone
except himself. Although he ascribes the
same constellation of positive attributes to his projection of the self
that will
graduate from the treatment program, that new-and-improved self will
still be
destined to reoffend. Treaters would certainly want to help John
unravel the
rigidity of his self-construction as destined to reoffend regardless of
how
much he improves his functioning otherwise. This is just one example of
how
constructivist assessment such as the repertory grid can transcend the
pigeonholing process inherent in many clinical assessment tools. This
emphasis
on generating assessment findings that bear clear treatment
implications is
seen by the present authors as the primary benefit to using such
constructivist
assessment tools with troubled adolescents.
Implications
for the ‘psychopathy construct’
We
believe that the psychopathy grid provides a unique method of
measurement that
has potential to make a substantial contribution to the measurement of
this
construct in adolescents. As previously mentioned, child and adolescent
assessment involve the use of multi-informant, multi-method measurement
strategies (Achenbach, 2000; Kamphaus & Frick, 1996). Current
measures of
adolescent psychopathy have relied on a traditional self-report format
utilizing parallel forms across multiple informants (e.g., the APSD) or
a
combination of a semi-structured clinical interview incorporating
collateral
information (e.g., the PCL:YV). The APSD includes a self-report,
parent, and
teacher/probation officer form. The existing measures lack a contextual
focus
and place the clinician in the expert role of determining the presence
and clinical
severity of psychopathy characteristics.
As
utilized in the current study, the psychopathy grid served multiple
functions
in providing both a self-construal of psychopathic characteristics as
well as
an evaluation of peers who are involved in the treatment program. If
used with
larger groups, the ability to use multiple peer evaluations as
collateral
informant data provides a unique and novel contribution to the
measurement
literature in this area. Researchers have noted problems that arise
when
multiple informants produce inconsistent results (i.e., highly
discrepant
evaluations along the construct of interest). Such discrepancies have
also been
attributed to varied interactions between the rater and subject across
different contexts, and use of open, context-free questions (Wright,
Zakriski,
& Drinkwater, 1999). The use of supplied constructs with a similar
rating
format provides a consistent methodology by which to solicit collateral
information regarding psychopathic characteristics, allowing for a
consistent
and easily interpreted index of psychopathy across the self and peer
informants. The ability to evaluate psychopathic self-construction
within a
specific context (i.e., the current treatment setting) allows treatment
staff
to generate clinically useful inferences regarding the youth engagement
in the
treatment process and identification with peers within the treatment
context.
Agreement and lack of agreement of peer informants on the psychopathy
construct
provides useful information in this context in that
consistency/inconsistency
may be related to psychopathic self-construction of the raters.
Alternatively,
inconsistency in ratings may indicate that the youth completing the
grid does
not find the supplied constructs (i.e., dimensions we perceive as
prototypical
indicators of psychopathy) to be useful discriminating constructs.
From a
measurement perspective, the psychopathy grid provides three levels of
data
that are informative regarding the psychopathy construct. First, the
psychopathic self- and counterpart-construction serve as global markers
of the
construct and how an individual views others along the same dimension.
Second,
the ability to make self-other comparisons on individual psychopathy
characteristics (i.e., convergence and divergence on single constructs)
is also
informative. Traditionally, psychopathy has been defined along
affective/interpersonal dimensions and behavioral dimensions (see Hare
1996,
1998). In addition to comparisons on the global index of psychopathy,
similarities
and differences can also be examined by combining items reflecting both
the
affective/interpersonal and behavioral dimensions.
Third and
perhaps most important, the self/other distance scores provide a
valuable and
unique measurement of the construct within the current treatment
context. Utilizing
a combination of the psychopathy and social grid results, one could
evaluate
the role of the psychopathy construct in the peer identification and
alienation
process. The presence of psychopathy in adult offenders is viewed as
disruptive
to the treatment context (Ogloff, Wong, & Greenwood, 1990) and
results in
poor treatment response (Blackburn, 1993; Losel, 1998; and Serin,
1996). Although
data regarding the treatment of adolescent psychopathy is lacking, a
wealth of
data exists regarding the importance of negative peer group
identification in
increasing or exacerbating juvenile delinquent or adolescent antisocial
behavior (see Dishion & Patterson, 1999; Loeber & Farrington,
2000). By
using treatment peers as elements in the grid, patterns of peer
identification
can be examined which could have a differential impact on treatment
response. For
example, patterns of strong identification with peers who are rated as
psychopathic may suggest a negative treatment response and further
exacerbation
of antisocial tendencies. Peers within the treatment context who are
viewed as
less psychopathic may be characterized as weak and targeted within a
treatment
community. Thus, comparisons using self/other distances may allow for
the
implicit identification of treatment alliances and negative peer
relationships.
Another
related contribution is the ability to evaluate self/other
constructions across
multiple administrations of the psychopathy grid. Across multiple
administrations, fluctuation or stability across self and peer ratings
provides
a unique way to examine the temporal stability of individual
psychopathic
characteristics. For example, early in the treatment process, it is
quite
possible that adolescents may adopt a psychopathic presentation,
similar to the
negative peer group identification, if there are perceived (i.e.,
respect from
other delinquent youth) or real benefits (i.e., protection from harm)
that
could be gained from adopting this role. Variability across construct
and
element ratings could be indicative of ways in which the youth may be
trying
out various psychopathic characteristics and with whom the youth
anticipates
such characteristics as being valuable from a social perspective.
Changes in
self-construction over time could reflect the transient nature of this
role
adoption as the youth engages in the treatment process. However,
stability in
both self and peer ratings, either global via the psychopathy index, or
specific to individual characteristics, could be suggestive of rigid
adherence
to maladaptive constructions and rejection from peers who also evaluate
the
youth as ‘psychopathic.’
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
First of
all, the methods described in the present paper need to be subjected to
the
tests of clinical applicability. The extent that clinicians find the
treatment
implications yielded by these tools to be useful, then the time and
effort
required to conduct the assessments will be invested. Although the
present authors
have attempted to describe a variety of datapoints (indices, etc.)
derivable
from these grids, the possibilities extend far beyond the scope of this
chapter. Thus, clinicians familiar with grid methods are encouraged
examine the
broad structure of these assessments, and experiment with contents or
analyses
in addition to those discussed herein.
Secondly,
the utility of these constructivist assessment techniques needs to be
studied
in relation to other measures of adolescent psychopathy. It is
difficult to
ascertain the potential value of a ‘convergent validity’ study using,
for
example, the psychopathy grid alongside the PCL-YV; given the lack of a
clear
gold standard, the meaning of minimal convergence would be unclear.
However,
the extent to which the two methods can predict useful functional
aspects of
the adolescent’s life can be meaningfully compared. If indices from the
psychopathy grid and/or the social grid can predict recidivism (or
community
survival), social functioning, shifts in attitude toward others, and so
forth,
better than or in addition to the typical diagnostic assessment, then
the value
of the grid assessments will be incontrovertible. Such empirical
studies,
although difficult to perform, are needed to legitimize these
potentially
important tools.
Perhaps
the greatest implication of the current methodology is the possibility
for
generating clinically useful hypotheses about the role of psychopathy
in the
treatment process. As previously mentioned, there is a complete absence
of
studies examining the role of psychopathy in the treatment of
adolescents. We
believe that the grid results allow for the generation of clinically
meaningful
hypotheses about the individual adolescent. For example, the degree to
which an
adolescent offender adheres to a psychopathic role in combination with
high
self-esteem suggests the possibility of treatment resistance. Under
such
circumstances, ensuring a treatment milieu that does not socially
reinforce
this self-construction would be crucial. Group treatment of such
persons might
actually be contraindicated, given the difficulty of managing the
social
reinforcers in such contexts. John’s grid result suggests another
possibility. Adolescents
like John seem to view themselves as psychopathic, distant from others
(both
within the treatment context as well as in broader social contexts), of
low
self-worth, and distant from some perceived ideal (e.g., the state
requisite
for successful completion of the treatment program). Thus, these
adolescents
are likely frustrated with the treatment process and have come to
predict
failure; this morbid prediction then becomes a self-fulfilling
prophecy. With
this latter constellation (as opposed to the high self-esteem
psychopathic
role-player discussed above), the value of a variety of social (e.g.,
group-based)
interventions becomes apparent.
Additionally,
repeated administrations of the two-grid methodology could provide
useful information
about treatment progress. Changes in the psychopathy index relates to
the stability
of the psychopathy construct and adherence (or lack of adherence) to
the
psychopathy role. The social constructions of peers along the
psychopathy
dimension could be monitored as an indicator of individual change.
Finally,
changes in the interaction between the psychopathy self-construction
and
patterns of positive and negative peer identification could be valuable
data
for the clinician.
Clinicians
will continue to measure ‘psychopathy’ in adolescents. Only with
measures that
are consistent with constructivist values and approaches will the great
benefits of constructivist theory be brought to bear in this important
domain. The
present paper represents a first step toward introducing socially
relevant,
ecologically sensitive measures of psychopathic characteristics as a
way to
bring constructivist psychology to the adolescent forensic table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCES
Achenbach,
T. M. (2000). Assessment of psychopathology. In A. Sameroff, M. Lewis,
& S.
Miller (Eds.). Handbook of developmental
psychopathology (p. 41-56). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers.
Adams-Webber,
J. (1970). Elicited versus provided constructs in repertory grid
technique: A review. British Journal of Medical
Psychology,
43, 349-354.
Bannister,
D. & Fransella, F. (1966). A grid test of schizophrenic thought
disorder. British Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 5, 95-102.
Blackburn, R. (1993). Clinical programs
with psychopaths. In K. Howells & C. Hollin (Eds.), Clinical
approaches to mentally disordered offenders (pp. 179-208). Chichester, England: Wiley.
Cottle,
C. C., Lee, R. J., & Heilbrun, K. (1999). The
prediction of criminal recidivism in juveniles: A meta-analysis.
Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Psychological
Association. Boston: MA.
Dishion,
T. J. & Patterson, G. R. (1999). Model building in developmental
psychopathology: A pragmatic approach to understanding and
intervention. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 4,
502-512.
Edens, J. F., Skeem, J. L., Cruise, K. R., &
Caufmann, E. (2000). Assessment
of “juvenile psychopathy” and its association with violence: A critical
review. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18,
1-28.
Farrington,
D. P. (1983). Offending from 10
to 25 years of age. In K. Van Dusen & S.
Mednick (Eds.). Prospective
studies of crime and delinquency
(p. 17-38). Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
Foote, J.
(1997, October). Expert panel issues
report on serious and violent juvenile offenders. Washington DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
Forth, A. E. & Mailloux, D. L.
(2000). Psychopathy in youth: What do we know? In C. Gacono (Ed.). The clinical and forensic assessment of
psychopathy (pp. 25-54). Mahweh, NJ: LEA.
Forth, A. E., Kosson, D., S., &
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Psychopathy
Checklist: Youth Version Technical Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Frick, P.
J., & Hare, R. D., (2001). Antisocial
Process Screening Device. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Frick, P.
J., Barry, C. T., & Boudin, S. D. (2000). Applying the concept of
psychopathy to children: Implications for the assessment of antisocial
youth. In
C. Gacono (Ed.). The clinical and
forensic assessment of psychopathy (pp. 3-24). Mahweh, NJ: LEA.
Grisso,
T. (1998). Forensic evaluations of
juveniles. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resources Press.
Hare, R.
D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23,
25-54.
Hare, R.
D. (1998). Psychopathy, affect, and behavior. In D. Cooke, A. Forth, & R. Hare (Eds.), Psychopathy: Theory,
research, and
implications for society (pp. 105-138). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hoge, R.
D., (2001). The juvenile offender: Theory,
research, and applications. Boston: Kluwer.
Kelly, G.
A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs
(2 vols.). New
York: Norton.
Loeber,
R. (1991). Antisocial behavior: More enduring than changeable? Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 30,
393-397.
Loeber,
R. & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Young children who commit crime:
Epidemiology,
developmental origins, risk factors, early interventions, and policy
implications. Development and Psychopathology, 12,
737-762.
Losel, F.
(1998). Treatment and management of psychopaths. In D. Cooke, A. Forth, & R. Hare, (Eds.), Psychopathy:
Theory, research, and
implications for society (pp. 303-374). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Lynam, D.
R. (1996). Early identification of chronic offenders: Who is the
fledgling
psychopath? Psychological Bulletin, 120,
209-234.
Lynam, D.
R. (1997). Pursuing the psychopath: Capturing the fledgling psychopath
in a nomological
net. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106,
425-438.
Mitterer,
J. & Adams-Webber, J. (1988). OMNIGRID: A program for the
construction,
administration, and analysis of repertory grids. In J. C. Mancuso &
M. L.
G. Shaw (Eds.), Cognition and personal
structure: Computer access and analysis (pp. 91-105). New York: Praeger.
Moffit,
T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial
behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological
Review, 100, 674-701.
Ogloff,
J., Wong, S., & Greenwood A. (1990). Treating criminal
psychopaths in a therapeutic community program. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 8, 81-90.
Pierce, D. L.,
Sewell, K. W., & Cromwell, R. L. (1992). Schizophrenia
and depression: Construing and constructing empirical research. In R.
A.
Neimeyer & G. J. Neimeyer (Eds.), Advances
in personal construct psychology (Volume 2) (pp. 151-184). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Raskin, J. D.
& Lewandowski, A. M. (2000). The construction of
disorder as human enterprise. In R. A. Neimeyer & J. D. Raskin
(Eds.), Constructions of disorder: Meaning-making
frameworks for psychotherapy (pp. 15-40). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association Press.
Sewell,
K. W., Cromwell, R. L., Adams-Webber, J., & Mitterer, J. (1991).
OMNIGRID-PC:
A new development in computerized repertory grids. International
Journal of Personal Construct Psychology, 4, 175-192.
Serin, R.
(1995). Treatment responsivity in criminal psychopaths. Forum
on Corrections Research, 7, 23-26.
Slater,
P. (1972). The measurement of consistency in repertory grids. British Journal of Psychiatry, 45,
45-51.
Snyder, H. N. & Sickmund,
M. (1999). Juvenile
offenders and victims: 1999 national report. National
Center for Juvenile Justice.
Wright,
J. C., Zakriski, A. L., & Drinkwater, M. (1999). Developmental
psychopathology and the reciprocal patterning of behavior and
environment: Distinctive
situational and behavioral signatures of internalizing, externalizing,
and
mixed-syndrome children. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 95-107.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABOUT THE
AUTHORS
Kenneth
W. Sewell, Ph.D., Professor and
Director of
Clinical Training at the University of North
Texas
in Denton, Texas.
His current areas of focus include the study and treatment of persons
who have
experienced traumatic events, constructivist assessment methods, and
the evaluation
of competency to stand trial.
email: sewellk@unt.edu
Keith R.
Cruise, Ph.D., MLS,
Assistant Professor of Forensic-Clinical Psychology, Sam Houston State University,
is now serving as the Research Coordinator and Assistant Clinical
Professor of
Public Health within the Louisiana State University Health Sciences
Juvenile
Justice Program. His current clinical and research interests include
the
assessment and treatment of juvenile offenders with a specific focus on
assessing
risk/needs and using this information to guide treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
REFERENCE
Sewell, K. W.,
Cruise, C. R. (2004). Adolescent psychopathy and repertory grids:
preliminary data and focused case study. Personal
Construct Theory & Practice,
1, 92-103
(Retrieved from http://www.pcp-net.org/journal/pctp04/sewell04.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Received: 14 Oct 2004 – Accepted: 13 Dec
2004 -
Published: 30 Dec 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|