UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The assessment of psychopathy in female offenders Strachan, Catherine Elizabeth 1993

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1994-89394x.pdf [ 2.22MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0099215.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099215-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099215-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099215-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099215-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099215-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099215-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE ASSESSMENT OF PSYCHOPATHY IN FEMALE OFFENDERS by Catherine Elizabeth Strachan  B.Sc., University of British Columbia, 1981 M.A., University of British Columbia, 1987 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Psychology) We accept this thesis as conforming uired standard to e  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 1993 (c)  Catherine Strachan,  1993  In  presenting  this thesis  in  partial fulfilment  of the  requirements  for an  advanced  degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  (Signature)  Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6 (2/88)  Abstract The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) use with a female population.  for  Seventy—five women who were  either incarcerated or on probation were assessed using interview and file information.  In addition,  all subjects  completed a battery of self—report inventories that were theoretically relevant to the PCL-R.  The results strongly  supported the appropriateness of the PCL-R for use with female offenders. The psychometric properties were excellent indicating a homogeneous and unidimensional scale.  The factor  analysis confirmed a two factor structure representing two distinct aspects of psychopathy; the personological and behavioural dimensions.  The pattern of correlations obtained  from the self—report inventories was highly similar to that obtained with male samples,  further suggesting that the same  construct is being measured in both sexes. The implications of these findings in terms of the construct of psychopathy and explanations of women’s criminality are discussed as well as future research and practical implications.  ii  Table of Contents  ii  Abstract  iii  Table of Contents List of Tables  V  vii  List of Figures  Viii  Acknowledgements  1  Introduction Theories of Female Criminality  2  Women and Psychopathy  9  Methodological Issues  16  The Psychopathy Checklist  20 27  Method Subjects  27  Measures  28  Procedures  32  PCL-R  32  Personality disorders  33 34  Results Factor Structure  36  Concurrent Validity: Antisocial Personality Disorder.  44  Concurrent Validity: Prototypicality Ratings  47  Convergent Validity: Violent Crime  50  Convergent Validity: Demographic Variables  51  iii  Concurrent,  Convergent and Discriminant Validity:  Self-Report Inventories  55  Convergent validity  55  Concurrent validity  61  Discriminant validity  61 62  Discussion  68  Psychopathy and Women The manifestation of psychopathy  68  Prevalence rates in forensic and 70  general populations Limitations  71  Theoretical and Clinical Implications  74  Theories of female crime  75  Treatment implications  75  Future Research and Practical Implications  77  Conclusion  79  References  80  Appendices  89  A.  PCL—R Scoresheet  89  B.  DSM-III—R Antisocial Personality Disorder Criteria  90  C.  PCL—R Interview:  D.  Self-Report Inventories  115  E.  Correlation Matrix of the PCL-R Items  135  Female Version  iv  92  List of Tables  Table 1.  Correlates of the PCL/PCL-R and Its Factors 23  for Male Offenders Table 2.  Descriptive Statistics and Interrater Reliabilities of the PCL-R for Samples of Female and Male Offenders  Table 3.  35  Descriptive Statistics and Item-Total Correlations for Each PCL-R Item for Samples of Female and Male Offenders  Table 4.  Pattern Matrix for Unweighted Least Squares 40  Factor Analysis Table 5.  37  Congruence Coefficients for Corresponding Factors Between The Present Sample and Other Samples of Female and Male Offenders  Table 6.  42  Descriptive Statistics and Interrater Reliabilities for the PCL-R Factor 1 for Samples of Female and Male Offenders  Table 7.  45  Descriptive Statistics and Interrater Reliabilities for the PCL-R Factor 2 for Samples of Female and Male Offenders  Table 8.  46  Correlations Between APD Diagnoses and the PCL-R and Its Factors for Female and Male Offenders  48 V  Table 9.  Correlations Between Prototypicality Ratings of Three Personality Disorders and the PCL-R and Its Factors for Samples of Female and 49  Male Offenders Table 10.  Correlations Between the PCL-R and Its Factors and Selected Demographic Variables  Table 11.  Semi-partial Correlations with Failure to 54  Parent Table 12.  53  Correlations Between Five Self-Report Inventories and the PCL-R and Its Factors for Samples of Female and Male Offenders  Table 13.  56  Correlations of the PCL-R and Its Factors with the Interpersonal Adjective Scale for Female and Male Offenders  vi  59  List of Figures  Figure 1.  Position of the PCL-R and Factors 1 and 2 on the Interpersonal Circumplex  vii  60  Acknowledgements I would like to thank my committee members, Drs. Janet Werker, Jim Enns and Don Dutton for their time and constructive comments. I would particularly like to thank my thesis advisor, Dr. Robert Hare, for his valuable feedback, his support during the course of this research and his guidance. I would also like to recognize the many lab members who gave of their time to assist with ratings, data collection Their assistance was very much and data analysis. appreciated This research was made possible by the cooperation of the inmates and staff of British Columbia’s Correctional Centre for Women, particularly John Pasterek who consistently facilitated the implementation of this project. I would also like to thank my colleagues, Dr. Jessica McFarlane for her unflagging optimism, encouragement and support and Barbara McGregor for her many thoughtful editorial comments and her sense of humour. Most importantly, I would like to thank my husband, Jim.  viii  1  Introduction  Much of what we know about psychopathy is based on the study of males, particularly male offenders. The lack of research into female psychopathy is closely linked to the neglect of female criminality as an important topic for research.  Indeed,  the most common laments in articles on  female offenders have to do with the paucity of empirical work and the predominance of sex role biases in theories of female criminality.  The reasons for the neglect of female psychopathy  by the research community have much to with the general lack of interest in female criminality.  For this reason,  a brief  overview of theory and research on female criminality is presented. There are several factors that serve to reduce interest in female criminality.  For example, the rate of female  offending over time and across cultures is very low (Johnson, Smart,  1982; U.S.  1976; Wilson & Herrnstein,  1985).  In Canada, the  and Britain women account for only 15% of reported  crimes.  Moreover,  (Johnson, women.  1982)  only 3% of offenders incarcerated in Canada  and 4% of those in the U.S.  (Widom,  1984)  are  Consequently, unlike the high numbers of male  offenders who have created a pressing need for assessment and treatment, In fact,  female offenders have not demanded much attention.  their low numbers have inadverently contributed to  2 the indifference of the criminal justice system and society in general. A second contributing factor to the neglect of research on female crime is the persistence of theories based on stereotypic and biased perceptions of women.  These theories  have indirectly influenced research on female psychopathy.  Theories of Female Criminality Early criminologists were convinced that there was a biological or physiological basis for an inherent evil in female offenders.  Lombroso  (1895;  cited in Smart,  produced the first major work in this area,  1976)  arguing that the  biological constitution of women was incompatible with crime and that women,  being more conservative than men by nature,  did not commit crime.  Men,  on the other hand, were active and  aggressive due to their evolutionary superiority,  and crime  was a natural extension of their less conservative nature. Thus,  in order for a woman to commit a criminal act,  assumed to have a biological abnormality,  she was  the presence of  which was ascertained not only from the crime itself but from the offender’s obvious lack of maternalinstinct. Lombroso’s theory faded with a lack of empirical support, but his premise of biological determinism did not. century later Pollak  (1961)  Half a  argued that the sex discrepancy in  crime rates was false; women simply masked their crimes. Pollak believed that all women were inherently deceitful and  3 cunning and that this innate quality of womanhood was a direct result of their physiology.  Pollak reasoned that while men  were not able to hide their sexual arousal or lack of it, women were physiologically able to deceive men in this regard and,  as a consequence, became adept at lying and manipulation.  In fact,  Pollak saw women as the instigators of crime,  either  through manipulating men into performing the criminal act for them or by committing their crimes against their husbands or children in the home where it would go undetected.  Pollak  further argued that menstruation, pregnancy and menopause would increase criminal activity because women would seek revenge against these constant reminders of their inferior status.  Ironically, Pollak also believed that women went  unpunished for their crimes largely because of male chivalry within the criminal justice system. Thomas  (1923)  discussed female offenders with less  contempt than did Lombroso or Pollack but nonetheless believed that these women were simply unable to adjust to the “natural” female sex role of passivity and nurturance.  Although he  demonstrated a compassionate paternalism toward his subjects and recognized the influence of “social” variables such as poverty and the desire for “pretty things”, he also placed great emphasis on sexual promiscuity as being evidence of maladjustment and delinquency. In the l960s and l970s there was a dramatic increase in crime rates in both Canada and the United States  (Wilson &  4 Herrnstein,  1985).  Criminologists pointed to the post war  baby boom as a partial explanation for this phenomenon.  They  noted that the males born in those years arrived at the age group with the highest rate of criminal activity during the 60s and 70s.  The increase in female crime, however, was not  attributed to the population increase,  but rather to the  deleterious effects of the women’s movement  (Adler,  1975).  Adler proposed that as women strove to be more like their male counterparts,  so would their crimes.  She predicted that the  advent of the women’s liberation movement would create a new breed of female criminals: more defiant, hardened,  and violent  as a result of women emulating male behaviour. Adler’s theory continues to be a focal point for research, the results of which have failed to support her position & Roberg,  (Campbell, Mackenzie & Robinson, 1985; Widom,  1984).  1987; Lasley,  Kuhl,  In fact, most studies have  found the opposite relationship: Female offenders report greater acceptance of the traditional feminine role than do non—offenders and the severity of their crimes is directly related to their degree of adherence to a feminine or masculine identity.  Streifel and Steffensxneier  (1989),  in a  study of alternative explanations of sex differences in crime, found no support for the emancipation hypothesis liberation as a cause of increased crime rates)  (women’s but did find  support for the economic marginalization hypothesis: As  5 women’s economic situation worsens,  their involvement in crime  increases. By far the most popular and enduring biological explanation for women’s criminality centers on the menstrual cycle.  Beginning with Lombroso and Pollak  (1961),  reviews of  female criminality invariably entertain a discussion of the potential havoc wrought by raging hormones Wilson & Herrnstein,  1985).  (Widorn,  1988;  The contemporary version of this  long—standing argument has taken the form of premenstrual syndrome or PMS.  Researchers such as Dalton  (1977)  propose  that the hormonal changes occurring with menstruation are causally related to an increase in antisocial or criminal behaviour.  However,  empirical support for the existence of  PMS and its potential to facilitate criminal behaviour is largely non-existent. The basic premise of PMS  (that mood swings occur as a  result of menstrual hormonal changes) etiology  (a progesterone deficiency)  and its proposed are questionable.  Research using prospective designs has found no significant differences between men’s and women’s mood states throughout the month.  For example, McFarlane, Martin and Williams  (1988)  found no sex differences in mood states across a two—month period; the greatest mood fluctuations for both men and women corresponded to a weekly cycle of mood elevations on Fridays and Saturdays.  Furthermore,  double—blind,  cross—over studies  of progesterone—supplement treatment programs  (progesterone  6 and a placebo control)  have found significant effects of equal  magnitude for both progesterone and the placebo Perry, Alagna, Blumenthal & Herz,  1984;  (Hamilton,  Sampson,  1979).  The acceptance of PMS as an explanation of women’s criminality is due largely to Dalton’s  (1977)  research showing  correlations. between PMS and antisocial or criminal behaviour in British schoolgirls, women awaiting trial, Holloway Prison.  and inmates at  Dalton reported that acts of disobedience or  criminality occur with disproportionately high frequency during the premenstrum and the paramenstrum phases of the cycle.  However,  Dalton has conducted only retrospective  studies that are subject to the well—documented bias of stereotypic beliefs concerning menstruation (Ruble & Brook— Gunn,  1979;  Slade,  1984).  Harry and Balcer  review of menstruation and crime, empirical literature, that,  “In our opinion,  (1987),  in their  further criticized the  including Dalton’s work,  and concluded  the existing studies are so severely  flawed and have such inconsistent findings as to be virtually useless except to stimulate future research.” more recent review Kendall  (1991)  (p.  318)  In a  examined——within a  sociopolitical context--the role of PMS in the criminal justice system.  She concluded that PMS should not be legally  recognized because,  although it may benefit individual women  in having their sentences reduced,  it promotes the oppression  of women as a group by accepting the medicalization of women’s social and political reality.  7 While PMS epitomizes the biological notion of an inherent female pathology,  psychopathology has frequently been invoked  as an explanation of female criminality.  Widom (1978)  reviewed several studies that attempted to ascertain the extent of emotional instability or mental imbalance among female criminals;  some of these studies cited socioeconomic or  situational variables,  such as divorce or poor education,  signs of psychiatric abnormality. Glueck  (1934)  For example,  as  Glueck and  considered prostitution and illegitimate  children to be evidence of a mental imbalance.  Widoin (1978)  suggested that the origin of this perception lies partly in social and psychological variables. are so rare, unstable,  Because women offenders  they may be seen as especially abnormal and  a perception that may be further bolstered by their  deviance from the female sex role.  Moreover, many behaviours  that were considered diagnostic of instability,  such as  neurotic symptoms, were also associated with the feminine sex role.  Control groups,  however, were not used and the base  rates of these “abnormalities” in the general population were not established.  Unfortunately,  this approach has had a  hangover effect, with subsequent research being geared toward viewing female offenders as unstable neurotics and overshadowing other less sex role—compatible diagnoses, as psychopathy. Clearly,  the majority of these theories have not  contributed to an objective consideration of women’s  such  8 criminality. Rather,  the fixation on biological and sex—role  based theories has, not surprisingly,  contributed to an  indifference toward researching alternative explanations.’ Meaningful research has been impeded by the necessity to empirically address these theories,  and the resources that  might have been spent on more realistic explanations have been wasted on correcting false stereotypes. An additional reason for the neglect of research on psychopathy in female offenders may have been the use of sex— role stereotypes that rigidif led society’s view of women. Women were seen as inherently nurturant and self—sacrificing and, by implication, unable to be psychopathic.  The concept  of womanhood was the antithesis of psychopathy and,  since  women were viewed in terms of their sex—role stereotypes, the thought of a woman being so far removed from her “biological” role of loving caregiver was deemed almost impossible. (1984)  Widom  noted that the diagnosis of personality disorders is  influenced to a large extent by sex role expectations, with the result that psychopathy is rarely diagnosed in women because of its incompatibility with the female sex role. Consequently, psychopathy was, and to some extent still is,  iThis is not to dismiss all biological theories of crime, but only those empirically unsupported theories based on stereotypes of women.  9 considered largely a male disorder. Attitudes have changed considerably, particularly in light of the increase in women’s crime in the 1970s.  In fact,  the upswing in female offenses and the media’s mostly exaggerated coverage of this trend  (Faith,  1987)  to promote the credibility of female psychopathy.  have helped In addition,  the feminist movement has exposed the inaccuracies in women’s sex role stereotypes and has campaigned for the acceptance of women in non—stereotypic roles.  As a result,  society appears  to be more willing to accept the notion of female psychopathy.  Women and Psychopathy Although the etiology and measurement of psychopathy have long been debated, there is a consensus as to its clinical features.  Psychopathy is marked by a consistent pattern of  antisocial,  irresponsible and impulsive behaviours combined  with an inability to experience strong affective ties to friends or family, anxiety or guilt  to develop loyalities,  (Cleckley,  1976; Hare,  or to experience  1986).  The psychopath  is interpersonally glib, manipulative and charming,  often in  pursuit of an illegal and always self—serving goal.  Because  of the propensity for psychopaths to engage in antisocial behaviours, context.  the construct is particularly useful in a forensic  Studies with male inmates have found that  psychopaths commit a greater number of criminal offenses than do nonpsychopaths  (Hart & Hare,  1989; Kosson,  Smith & Newman,  10 1990)  and have a higher rate of conviction for violent  offenses both inside and out of the prison setting McPherson,  1984;  Serin,  1991).  Moreover,  (Hare &  several studies have  found that psychopathy is a strong predictor of recidivism and violence in male federal offenders 1993; Hart, Kropp, Barbaree,  & Hare,  1990; Wong,  Quite clearly,  1988;  (Harris,  Serin,  Rice & Quinsey,  1991;  Serin,  Peters &  1984).  the construct of psychopathy could not be  further removed from the stereotypes of femininity and motherhood.  Yet, there are many women——well represented in the  media-- who exhibit the full array of psychopathic traits. Two examples are Diane Downs,  convicted of murdering her daughter  and of the attempted murders of her other two children in order to win back the affections of her lover, Hindley,  the accomplice to Ian Brady,  and Myra  a serial child killer in  Britain. Many people can recall one or two——perhaps less extreme——examples from their own experience: A family member or an acquaintance who possessed many psychopathic traits. However,  even when they satisfy most or all of the  criteria for psychopathy, we still tend to avoid seeing women as psychopathic.  Perhaps stereotypical thinking has narrowed  our perceptions so that we require justification before we can see women outside of their typical sex roles,  Consequently, we  find ourselves trying to generate theoretical explanations for the obvious:  That women may exhibit certain negative  behaviours and personality traits usually attributed to men.  11 Nevertheless,  it is surprising--given its discriminative  and predictive abilities with male offenders--that the construct of psychopathy has not been incorporated into the study of female criminality. The 1960s and 1970s saw the beginning of work in this area, with a handful of studies that speculated as to the prevalence of psychopathy in female prison populations.  However, the main objective of these  studies was to examine some other aspect of female criminality,  such as emotional instability or profiles of  criminality; rates of psychopathy were reported as just one of several other diagnostic categories. (1962)  For example, Woodside  examined “instability” in women offenders and found  that roughly 2% of the 139 women admitted to Holloway Prison over a six—month period were diagnosed as psychopathic, defined by the British Mental Health Act Section 4 of the MHA (1959)  (MHA)  as  of 1959.  describes Psychopathic Disorder as  “a persistent disorder or disability of mind including subnormality of intelligence)  (whether or not  which results in  abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the patient and requires or is susceptible to medical treatment.” Similarly, Tennent, Hands  (1971)  McQuaid,  Loughnane and  reported that 39% of their sample of female  arsonists were classified as psychopaths according to the MHA. In a study of shoplifters, Gibbens,  Palmer and Prince  (1971)  found that psychopathic offenders made up approximately 5% of their sample.  12 Cloninger and Guze  (1970)  studied the relation between  psychiatric illness and female criminality.  Using exclusively  behavioural criteria for sociopathy, they found that 65% of female offenders had a principal diagnosis of sociopathy. Sociopathy was defined as a history of police trouble plus at least two of the following:  a history of excessive fighting;  school delinquency; a poor job record; being a runaway. also acceptable  For women, (Guze,  a period of wanderlust;  a history of prostitution was  Goodwin and Crane,  1969).  They also  found that the prevalence of hysteria among female offenders was “20 times greater.. .than in the general population,” p.309)  suggesting that there may be a strong association  between hysteria and sociopathy.  Cloninger & Guze  (1973)  found  that 90% of recidivists from a sample of 66 female felons had a diagnosis of sociopathy. Moreover, study, Martin,  Cloninger & Guze  in a six—year followup  (1978)  found that sociopathy  was one of the most powerful predictors of recidivism. In a large scale longitudinal study, Robins followed sociopathic delinquents into adulthood. sample was predominantly male, as sociopaths in adulthood.  (1966) Although her  27% of 141 girls were diagnosed  These women reported having had  more disturbed family backgrounds than did sociopathic men and,  as juveniles, having been referred to the clinic for  their sexual activity more often than boys.  Robins’ definition  of sociopathy was based on satisfying at least five of 19 criteria or areas of the subject’s life,  only two of which  13 (lack of guilt and pathological lying) personological trait.  The remaining 17 items were specific  such as work history,  behaviours, Daniel,  involved a  Harris and Husain  arrests and drug use.  (1981)  studied psychiatric  disorders in female offenders, dividing their sample into a young age group  (17-39 years of age)  and a mid-life group  (40-  54 years of age). The authors used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders II)  (second edition; DSM  classification system in which antisocial personality was  described in very general terms referring to socially deviant behaviours and personality traits,  such as callousness,  selfishness and an inability to feel guilt. There were no specific criteria given,  only a general description of an  unsocialized and callous individual with antisocial behaviour None of the women in the mid—life group received a  patterns.  diagnosis of antisocial personality; however, was quite small group, at 40%.  (nl8).  Conversely,  the sample size  among the young age  antisocial personality was the most common diagnosis, In a similar study looking specifically at homicidal  offenders,  young offenders were most often diagnosed as  antisocial personality with drug abuse  (56.3%), whereas the  mid—life offenders were characterized by a history of alcoholism and physical abuse by their spouses who, subsequently, 1983)  became their victims  (Husain,  Daniel & Harris,  14 Similar results have been obtained in studies that used the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (third edition; DSM—III, personality disorder of criteria.  1980)  (APD);  criteria for antisocial  see Appendix B for a complete list  Robertson, Bankier and Schwartz  (1987)  reported  that 60% of their sample of 91 Canadian female offenders received a diagnosis of APD.  In an American study,  29 of 100  female offenders were classified as APD; the only other diagnosis that was more common was that of alcohol abuse and/or dependence  (36%).  Brownstone and Swaminath  studied Canadian female criminals and,  (Ninth Revision;  found that 38.5% were personality disordered,  majority being Antisocial Disorder  (8%)  also  using the criteria of  the International Classification of Diseases ICD-9),  (1989)  the  or Hysterical Personality  (10%). The ICD-9 criteria for Antisocial Personality  Disorder are cited in a single paragraph; no specific criteria are listed and the individual is described as affectively cold and callous with a disregard for social norms and a pattern of antisocial behaviour. The above studies applied traditional diagnostic taxonomies to female offenders. Only a few studies have developed empirical typologies of female offenders. A study by Butler and Adams Inventory  (1966)  (Jesness,  used the Jesness Psychological  1962)  with delinquent girls.  They  identified three types of delinquents, two of which were characterized by psychopathic traits.  In a study of adult  15 women,  Chester  (1976;  cited in Wiclom,  behavioural dimensions of criminality juvenile delinquency, status)  1978)  (an early onset of  recidivism, hostility,  but, unfortunately,  and socioeconomic  did not focus on personality  To fill this gap, Widom (1978)  variables.  delineated four  developed an  empirical taxonomy of female offenders based on personality variables and pathology. inventories  Using a variety of self-report  (Special Hospitals Assessment of Personality and  Socialization; Blackburn,  1974,  cited in Widom,  1978), Widom  cluster-analyzed the data and identified four major types. One type typified the Cleckley-like psychopath, smallest group,  but it was the  consisting of only four out of 66 subjects  (6.1%). With respect to experimental research, report.  Simon, Holzberg and Unger  (1951)  there is little to  administered a  social judgment task to psychopathic and “normal” women in which satisfying one’s own needs was in conflict with the needs of others.  Psychopathic women were identified by a  psychiatrist’s diagnosis, the basis of which was not specified.  In an open—ended answer format,  the responses from  psychopathic women were more often concerned with satisfying their own needs than the needs of others.  However,  no group  differences were obtained with a multiple-choice format  (which  the authors argued would provide clues to socially desirable answers).  Apparently,  the psychopaths were able to recognize  the socially correct answer when prompted,  but when they were  16 deprived of any situational clues they regressed to a more characteristically self—centered response. Maas  (1966)  found that sociopathic women,  basis of MMPI profiles,  defined on the  demonstrated a greater emotional  distance from and lack of identification with significant others in their lives than did nonsociopaths. Eisenman  (1967)  Bernard and  examined the effects of social versus monetary  reinforcement in a learning paradigm; they predicted that female sociopaths would show better task performance when conditioned with the monetary reinforcement than with social reinforcement.  However,  the opposite occurred.  The authors  argued that the results did not support Cleckley’s theory of semantic dementia——a dissociation between the affective and denotative meaning of language--as the primary deficit in psychopaths.  Methodological Issues On balance, there is sufficient reason to believe that psychopathy is an important construct in female criminality. However, issues.  the literature review raised two major methodological The first issue concerns the extent to which sex role  stereotypes influence the assessment and/or diagnosis of women.  Specifically,  to what extent are women not labelled as  psychopathic or APD due to sex role stereotypic expectations? Several authors have hypothesized that histrionic personality disorder  (HPD)  and/or hysteria are actually the female  17 equivalents of APD Widom,  1978).  (Cloninger & Guze,  1970;  Spalt,  1980;  The underlying disorder is seen as the same for  both sexes but the behavioural manifestations differ according to differential socialization (based on sex roles).  APD is  couched in more masculine terms and HPD in more feminine ones. Moreover,  the criteria for HPD are remarkably similar to those  of psychopathy,  particularly in terms of personality traits.  For example, HPD includes disturbances in interpersonal relationships,  such as shallowness  appealing and charming), others,  (although superficially  egocentricity,  inconsiderate of  quickly bored, prone to manipulative suicidal gestures  and behaviours that are overly dramatic,  a craving for novelty  and stimulation, and irrational angry outbursts 1980).  (DSM-III,  This description does not differ markedly from that of  psychopathy. Warner  (1978)  found that even when the clinical features  of their patients were the same, mental health professionals tended to label men more frequently as APD and women more frequently as HPD. Widiger  (1989)  In a replication of this study,  Ford and  confirmed that there was a sex-based bias in  the diagnosis of APD and HPD.  Although there was not a sex  bias in terms of the presence or absence of individual criteria,  clinicians’ overall diagnoses were still influenced  by the sex of the subject.  These results suggest that  previous estimates of psychopathy or APD among women may be  18 spuriously low and that they may reflect a trend to label female psychopaths as histrionic. The second methodological concern is the definition of psychopathy and its operationalization into diagnostic criteria.  As is evident from the above review,  a variety of  methods have been used to define and diagnose psychopathy in female offenders,  each based on a different conception of the  disorder and each with a unique set of criteria.  These  criteria have ranged from a single psychiatric decision or a score on a measure of socialization to MMPI profiles.  Some  classification systems require that a minimum number of specific criteria be met Crane,  1969; Robins,  (DSM-III, APD,  1980; Guze,  Goodwin &  1966), while other typologies have simply  provided a general description of the disorder with few specific criteria Consequently,  (DSM—II,  1968;  ICD—9,  1979; MHA,  1959)  the lack of conceptual and criterial consensus  across studies reduces the utility of the empirical findings. In fact,  it is impossible to interpret differing results or to  summarize the research because it is not clear if the same disorder is being measured. These measures of psychopathy are not only disparite, they also have a strong behavioural focus, characterological traits. Crane  (1969)  to the neglect of  For example, Guze,  and the English MHA (1959)  Goodwin and  both give brief  descriptions of psychopathy couched exclusively in behavioural terms  (Hare & Harpur,  1986).  19 One exception to the pervasive behavioural approach is a study by Martinez  (1972) who converted Cleckley’s criteria  into a 16—item checklist, with each item rated on a scale ranging from one to ten.  Two sergeants and a correctional  officer rated 45 female inmates.  Unfortunately, the  operationalization of the criteria was in terms of observable behaviours and the only instrument used as an external validity check was the IvIMPI.  Martinez found that her scale  was significantly correlated with the MMPI Ma  (Hypomania)  scale but not with the Pd (Psychopathic Deviate)  scale.  In  spite of these problems the study is noteworthy because it is one of only a few attempts to include personological criteria in the assessment of psychopathy in female offenders. Currently, most studies of female offenders use the DSM— III or DSM-III-R criteria for APD. (Hare,  1983; Millon,  1981; Wulach,  However, many investigators 1983)  have criticized APD  for being too much a behavioural measure of social deviancy and for ignoring the more personological variables that are thought to be at the core of psychopathy.  Cleckley (1976)  placed great emphasis on personality traits in his description of psychopathy; he stated that simple acts of social deviancy do not necessarily signify the disorder, unless they are accompanied by the characteristic affective features. Moreover,  the connection between APD and criminality is a  circular argument because APD is defined in terms of criminal or antisocial behaviours,  a problem that the PCL-R largely  20 avoids by including affective and interpersonal traits and behaviours in the assessment of psychopathy. Assessment tools that rely primarily on behavioural indications of social deviance cannot provide an incomplete picture of the disorder. The Axis II Work Group of the American Psychiatric Association’s Task Force on DSM-IV has acknowledged the shortcomings of the current APD criteria and suggested possible changes,  including a need to simplify the criteria  and to place less emphasis on antisocial behaviours.  Field  trials have been established to evaluate four criteria sets: 1)  the current DSM-III-R criteria; 2)  the DSM-III-R criteria;  3)  lCD-b  personality disorder;, and 4)  a shortened version of  criteria for dyssocial  a set of criteria derived from  the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare,  1991).  The Psychopathy Checklist An alternative measure for the assessment of psychopathy is the Psychopathy Checklist (Hare,  1991).  psychopathy, components  (PCL)  Based on Cleckley’s  and its revision, (1976)  the PCL-R  concept of  it encompasses both personality and behavioural  (Hare,  1986; Harpur, Hakstian & Hare,  1989).  The  PCL—R consists of 20 items rated on three-point scales, with a total score that can range from 0 to 40  (see Appendix A).  Ratings are based on interviews and inspection of institutional and medical files. A criterion cutoff score of 30 yields a prevalence rate of 15-20% among male inmates.  The  21 reliability and validity of the PCL-R have been well established with male offenders.  In forensic and psychiatric  facilities PCL-R scores approximate a normal distribution, with means ranging from 20.1 to 23.9 and standard deviations The alpha coefficient ranges from .85 to .89  from 67 to 9.0.  and the mean inter—item correlation is between .23 and .30. The interrater reliability is generally high,  ranging from .85  Factor analysis of several different samples  to .94.  (five  prison samples and three forensic psychiatric samples) revealed an underlying two—dimensional structure: (items 1,2,4,5,6,7,8 and 16)  Harpur, Hakstian,  Factor 1  reflects interpersonal and  affective traits, whereas Factor 2 3,9,10,12,13,14,15,18,  has  and 19)  (items  reflects social deviance  Forth, Hart & Newman,  (Hare,  1990).  Measures of convergent and discriminant validity have used a variety of clinical and self—report measures,  resulting  in a pattern of correlations consistent with theoretical predictions  (Harpur, Hare & Hakstian,  1989).  Table 1  illustrates how the PCL/PCL-R and its factors correlate with APD ratings and six self—report measures of personality in male offenders.  It is apparent that scales that measure  personality traits are correlated most strongly with Factor 1 and those that measure social deviancy most strongly with Factor 2.  For example,  trait anxiety,  State Trait Anxiety Inventory 1970),  as measured by the  (Spielberger,  is most strongly correlated  Gorsuch & Lushene,  (negatively)  with Factor 1,  22  which is congruent with the theory that psychopaths experience little anxiety or subjective distress.  such as the Interpersonal Adjective  interpersonal behaviour, Scale  (IAS-R; Wiggins, Index  (IRI;  1979)  Davis,  Similarly, measures of  and the Interpersonal Reactivity  1983)  are negatively correlated with  Factor 1.  Depression,  as measured by the Beck Depression  Inventory  (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock & Erbaugh,  1961),  is  negatively correlated with high PCL scores, possibly indicating an absence of emotions that can lead to depressive states such as severe anxiety, guilt or sadness.  Conversely,  prototypicality ratings of narcissism are positively correlated with Factor 1, reflecting an overlap between the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy and narcissistic personality disorder.  Factor 2, however,  is more highly  correlated with behavioural measures of social deviancy,  such  as the socialization scale of the California Personality Inventory  (CPI-So; Gough,  1969)  and APD diagnoses.  Though the PCL-R is a reliable and valid measure of psychopathy in male inmates, study of female offenders.  it has rarely been applied to the Loucks  (1985)  made PCL assessments  of 86 women at the Kingston Penitentiary in Ontario.  The  overall mean of 19 was somewhat lower than that typically found for men, items 1  and the means and item—total correlations for  (superficial charm)  and 3  (grandiose) were low.  Interrater reliability was not reported.  In addition,  a small  number of subjects were included in the study even though they  23  Table 1 Correlates of the PCL/PCL-R and Its Factors for Male Offenders  N  Factor 1  2  PCL total score  APD  176  .32  .63  .54  BDI  247  —.12  —.09  —.14  SRP—II  100  .50  .44  .54  STAI-Trait Anxiety  247 111  -.22 —.20  -.02 .18  —.13 .01  NPI  100  .33  .34  .34  IRI  100  perpsective-taking  -.15  -.17  -.13  fantasy  —.05  .00  —.01  empathic concerns  -.32  -.27  -.33  personal distress  -.31  -.18  -.33  .35  -.01  .19  —.26  —.29  —.30  IAS—R dominance love  113  Note. Data for male offenders taken from Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991).  24 declined to participate: They were rated on the basis of the researcher’s past interactions with the women.  Given the  irregularities in data collection and the lack of interrater reliability data, Neary  (1990)  Loucks’ findings are problematic. used the PCL-R to assess 60 black and 60  white female inmates in Missouri.  She obtained a normal  distribution of scores, with a mean of 21.1 and a standard deviation of 6.49, values that were similar to those reported (Hare,  for male offenders was very high slightly lower  (.94) (.15)  1991).  The interrater reliability  but the mean inter-item correlation was than the value of  .20 or above usually  indicative of a unidimensional scale. Neary  (1990)  did not  factor analyze her data to examine the underlying structure of the scale,  nor did she use a sufficiently extensive battery of  self—report measures to establish convergent and discriminant validity for the PCL-R or its factors. following scales,  She included the  all of which are behavioural measures and  relevant to Factor 2 only: the MNPI—Pd scale, scale, the Sensation Seeking Scale APD diagnoses.  (SSS;  the CPI—So  Zuckerman,  1979),  and  Correlations between these measures and the  PCL-R were similar to those previously obtained with male  samples,  and provide evidence of the validity of the PCL-R as  a measure of at least the social deviance component of psychopathy. To date,  no study has properly evaluated the validity of  the PCL-R with female offenders. Given the history of sex bias  25 in this area,  the low rates of female offending,  and the fact  that the PCL-R was developed with a male population,  it is  essential that the issue of sex differences be carefully Cloninger and Guze (1970)  considered.  and Widom (1984)  have  stated that it is reasonable to assume that there are significant differences between male and female psychopaths, differences that should occur primarily in the behavioural manifestations of the disorder. Cleckley  (1976)  describes the psychopath as a  manipulator: A smooth talking con artist and prolific liar who feels no guilt or remorse for his or her antisocial acts. Unable to form close,  lasting affective ties with others,  these people use relationships as an opportunity to exploit people’s trust.  If psychopathy exists in women,  and there  appears considerable evidence to suggest that it does,  and if  a specific cluster of personality traits is at the core of the disorder as Cleckley (1976)  and Hare (1986)  contend, then it  should be possible to identify this cluster in female offenders.  However, there may be differences in the  behavioural expression of these traits.  For example, due to a  more vigilant supervision of young girls and higher expectations for social conformity,  female psychopaths may not  demonstrate the same degree of early behaviour problems or juvenile delinquency as do their male counterparts. In addition, women shoulder most of the responsibility for raising children. Because this is an important and time  26 consuming role for women,  and because it involves strong  affective attachments with others,  it is likely that  psychopathic women differ from nonpsychopathic women in their childrearing practices.  In this regard, Robins  (1966)  reported  that sociopathic women were less likely than other women to have children and,  if they did have children, the children  were more likely to be raised by foster or surrogate parents. Thus,  some behavioural criteria established with a male sample  may not be useful indicators of psychopathy in women, whereas other activities, such as parenting may prove to be better indicators. The above discussion leads to the prediction that the personality traits described by PCL-R Factor 1 can be identified in female offenders and that the psychometric properties of Factor 1 will be consistent with those obtained from male offenders.  Factor 2, however, may not reflect the  behavioural component of psychopathy as accurately in females as it does in males.  Unfortunately,  it is difficult to  predict specifically which Factor 2 items,  if any, will  differentiate between the sexes. The present study had four objectives:  (1)  to assess the  psychometric properties of the PCL-R in a population of female offenders;  (2)  to establish convergent and discriminant  validity by examining the pattern of correlations between the PCL-R and self-report measures, prototypicality ratings of personality disorders, and DSM-III-R diagnoses and ratings;  27 (3)  to determine if the factor structure of the PCL-R in  female offenders is congruent with the structure found in male offenders;  and (4)  to determine if some PCL-R items are less  appropriate for female than for male offenders. In general,  the psychometric properties and the  correlates of the PCL—R should be much the same in female offenders as they are in male offenders. However,  it is  possible that not all of the Factor 2 items will prove as useful with females as they are with males.  Method  Subiects The subjects were 75 female offenders either incarcerated or on probation in the Lower Mainland area of Vancouver, Canada.  During the period of data collection the older  institutions that housed female offenders were closed and new facilities were opened. As a result, from several different facilities.  inmates were recruited  Forty inmates from Lakeside  Correctional Centre and two inmates from the Twin Maples facility participated prior to the closing of these institutions.  Two women were on probation and 32 inmates from  the new Burnaby Correctional Centre for Women also agreed to participate.  All subjects were volunteers and each received  $20.00 for her participation.  28 The age of the subjects ranged from 19 to 56 years, with an average of 31.4 years; majority  80% were below 39 years of age.  (69.3%) were White; 25.3% were Native Indian,  The  4% were  Black and the remaining 1.3% were of mixed racial origin. Inmates suffering from serious mental disorders are usually incarcerated at forensic psychiatric hospitals and,  therefore,  the sample was relatively free of psychotic inmates  (one  inmate had been diagnosed with a psychotic disorder but was being treated with anti-psychotic medication at the time of the interview). The average number of years of education was 10.5 years, with a minimum of grade 6 and a maximum of five years of university  (one woman had obtained a teaching certificate).  Only 26.7% of the subjects had completed grade 12.  Thirty-nine  of the 75 subjects were in a maximum security facility or unit within the institution, security unit,  34 were in a minimum or medium  and two were on probation.  Measures Subjects were first interviewed and then administered the questionnaires.  Half of the women completed both parts of the  study in one session lasting approximately three hours. others completed the questionnaires in a second, session.  The  one—hour  Several questions were added to the PCL—R interview  to address specific areas or problems of relevance to women and for possible use as material for new items.  (Refer to  29 Appendix C for the modified version of the interview format.) The additional questions inquired about sexual assault in childhood and in adulthood, physical abuse in intimate relationships,  and the extent of the subjects’  involvement in  raising her children. The battery of self-report measures is briefly described below.  (See Appendix D for details). Because of their  theoretical relations to psychopathy,  all of these measures  (Interpersonal Reactivity Index; Davis, Young & Warren,  Davis,  Hull,  1987; California Personality Inventory-  Socialization subscale; Gough, Inventory; Raskin & Hall,  1979)  psychopathy in male offenders. Inventory  1983;  1969; Narcissistic Personality have been used in the study of I included the Beck Depression  (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock & Erbaugh,  the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Gorsuch & Lushene;  1970)  -  Trait  1961)  and  (Spielberger,  even though their correlations with  the PCL-R typically are relatively small and fluctuate across Because of their theoretical relations to  samples.  psychopathy,  and because there are data on their correlations  with male offenders, purposes.  I decided to include them for comparative  Each of these instruments has acceptable reliability  (with the possible exception of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index for which little data are available).  1)  Beck Depression Inventory  Mock & Erbaugh,  1961)  (BDI; Beck, Ward, Mendelson,  is a well-established measure of  30 depression.  There are 21 multiple-choice items.  The subject  circles one or more choices that best describe her emotional state over the past week.  Total scores of 10 to 18 indicate a  mild to moderate depression,  scores of 19 to 29 indicate a  moderate to severe depression,  and scores of 30 or above  indicate an extremely severe depression.  The Interpersonal Reactivity Index  2)  Hull,  Davis,  Young & Warren,  1987)  (IRI; Davis,  1983;  consists of 28 items.  The  subject rates,  on a five—point scale, how well each item  describes her.  The IRI measures two types of empathy on four  separate subscales: perspective—taking, concern,  fantasy,  empathic  and personal distress. The first two scales are  combined to provide a score on cognitive empathy and the last two scales provide a score on emotional empathy.  3) Hall,  (NPI; Raskin &  The Narcissistic Personality Inventory  1979)  population.  is designed to measure narcissism in a normal There are 40 pairs of statements. The subject  chooses the member of each pair that best describes her.  The  NPI reflects several traits that are similar to psychopathy: grandiosity,  4)  seif—centeredness, and a sense of entitlement.  The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait  developed by Spielberger, Gorsuch and Lushene self-reported trait anxiety  (STAI),  (1970),  measures  (trait referring to the subject’s  31 general level of anxiety). rated on a four—point scale,  It consists of 20 items,  each  indicating how often and in what  circumstances she feels anxious.  The California Personality Inventory-Socialization  5) subscale  (CPI—So; Gough,  1969)  consists of 54 true—false items  based on Gough’s role—taking model of personality. A low score indicates low socialization.  In males,  the So scale is  negatively correlated with the social deviance component of psychopathy,  6)  as reflected in the PCL-R Factor 2.  The Interpersonal Adlective Scale  (IAS-R, Wiggins,  Trapnell & Phillips,  is a self-report  1979; Wiggins,  1988)  scale that assesses an individual’s usual style of interpersonal behaviour.  The revised version consists of 64  adjectives on which the subjects rate themselves.  Scores are  then computed on the two major dimensions of interpersonal behaviour——Dominance and Love——and are plotted on the interpersonal circumplex.  7) (SRP—II)  The revised version of the Self-Report Psychopathy scale  the PCL-R. scale.  (Hare,  1985; Harpur & Hare,  It contains 60 items,  1991)  is based on  each rated on a seven-point  32 Procedure PCL-R. Two independent ratings on the PCL-R were obtained for each subject. Raters were either trained research assistants or trained graduate students.  Subjects were  interviewed following the format of the PCL-R interview schedule and all interviews were videotaped. Ratings were based on the interview material and file information and,  in  the event that information was not available to score an item, it was omitted and the total score was prorated. Each item was scored on a three—point scale (0 to 2)  reflecting the degree  to which the item applied to the individual. Potential scores could range from 0 to 40. All items were rated according to standard scoring procedures (Hare,  1991). The only item that  required discussion among raters was item 9, parasitic lifestyle; raters were cautioned not to use,  as a basis for  scoring this item, evidence of dependency——such as homemaker—— that could be consonant with traditional sex role expectations.  High scores on this item required evidence of  exploitation or of living of f others quite distinct from the socially acceptable role of homemaker.  Subjects also completed  a battery of seven self—report questionnaires above)  (described  theoretically related to the construct of psychopathy,  as measured by the PCL-R. Because the sample was too small to conduct an exploratory factor analysis, a common factor analysis with a forced two—factor solution was performed.  Congruence  33  coefficients with the male two—factor solution of greater than .85 were to be interpreted as indicating that the corresponding factors were equivalent 1977;  (Havre & Ten Berge,  cited in Harpur, Hare & Hakstian, Personality Disorders.  DSM-III-R,  1988).  Prototypicality ratings of three  Cluster B personality disorders  narcissistic,  and borderline)  (histrionic,  were obtained from a subsample  of 40 offenders to examine the association between psychopathy and other personality disorders. Prototypicality ratings were based on the number and severity of DSM-III-R symptoms of the disorder and,  unlike diagnosis, were not constrained by formal  DSM-III-R decision-making rules  (Hart & Hare,  1989). Ratings  were based on the interview and file material and conducted by an independent rater,  a Ph.D.  level graduate student with  considerable clinical experience.  A three—point scale was  used, with 0 indicating an absence of the symptom, indicating its possible presence, definite presence.  1  and 2 indicating its  A total score was obtained for each  personality disorder by summing the scores for each symptom. In addition,  two independent APD diagnoses, based on DSM  III-R criteria, were obtained for each subject B).  (see Appendix  Raters were blind to the PCL-R and other DSM-III-R  ratings.  Subjects were rated on a three point scale:  indicating definitely not APD, 2 indicating definitely APD.  0  1 indicating possibly APD,  and  34 Results  Table 2 presents the descriptive and psychometric statistics for the PCL-R in the sample of female offenders, along with comparative data from the pooled sample of male offenders described in Hare (1991).  The distribution of  scores was very similar to that obtained with male offenders. However, the criterion  the percentage of scores (30)  (base rate)  at or above  for psychopathy was greater for female than  2 The interrater reliability was determined for male off enders. by computing intraclass correlation coefficients & Fleiss,  1979)  (ICC;  Shrout  which take into account differences in the  anchor points used by different raters. The ICC5 for PCL-R total scores were uniformly high.  The kappa coefficient for  interrater agreement on the presence above)  (a PCL—R score of 30 or  or absence of psychopathy was .78.  Cronbach’s coefficient alpha and the mean inter—item correlation were very similar to those obtained with male offenders,  suggesting that the PCL-R has high internal  consistency and can be regarded as a homogeneous scale that measures a unidimensional construct in both female and male  2The mean,  standard deviation and base rate  and 32% respectively)  (26.7,  6.33  for Native Indian inmates did not differ  markedly from the other three samples.  35 Table 2  Descriptive Statistics and Interrater Reliabilities of the PCL-R for Samples of Female and Male Offenders  Female Offenders  Male Offenders  Statistic  Present sample  Neary sample  Mean  24.49  21.13  23.63  7.45  6.49  7.92  alpha coefficient  .87  .77  .87  base rate  31%  11%  15—20%  mean inter—item correlation  .25  .15  .26  Standard Deviation  ICC single rating  .92  .83  averaged rating  .96  .91  Note. Data for male offenders based on pooled data from seven samples of prison inmates (N=1192) as described in the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991). Base rate refers to the percentage of subjects who scored 30 or above on the PCL-R.  36 offenders  (Harpur et al.,  1989).  Individual item means,  standard deviations and item—total  correlations are presented in Table 3. Most item—total correlations were close to .5, with three exceptions. The item-total correlation for items 1 2  charm), was  .08,  below,  (grandiose sense of self) .19 and .09,  (glibness, and 4  superficial  (pathological lying)  respectively. However,  as indicated  each of these three items loaded on Factor 1,  moderately correlated with the Factor 1 total score and .36,  respectively).  Inclusion of these items  and were (.46,  .65,  either  increased or did not change the alpha coefficient for Factor 1.  Factor Structure Previous research has shown that the PCL—R has two correlated factors,  one consisting of the personality traits  central to psychopathy and the other consisting of attributes reflecting social deviance. correlate approximately .5,  The two factors typically and have different patterns of  correlations with a variety of external variables.  These  patterns have been replicated in several male samples further descriptions of procedures and data, Hakstian & Hare,  (for  see Harpur,  1988). Unfortunately, the size of the present  sample was considerably smaller than that required for a good exploratory factor analysis. Instead,  I conducted an unweighted least—squares common  37 Table 3 Descriptive Statistics and Item-Total Correlations for Each PCL—R Item for Samples of Female and Male Offenders  Male  Female  Item Total  Item Total  r  r  Item  1.10  .62  .08  .79  .75  .48  2)  Glibness/superficial charm Grandiose  .91  .61  .19  .85  .76  .52  3)  Proneness to boredom  1.47  .64  .71  1.39  .72  .57  4)  Pathological lying  .96  .61  .09  .96  .76  .54  5)  Conning/manipulative  1.40  .63  .39  1.02  .79  .57  6)  Lack of remorse  1.50  .60  .61  1.45  .70  .51  7)  Shallow affect  1.19  .67  .61  1.15  .75  .53  8)  Lack of empathy  1.47  .61  .63  1.25  .72  .61  9)  Parasitic lifestyle  1.19  .73  .64  1.11  .70  .39  10)Poor behavioural controls  1.31  .78  .62  1.23  .78  .42  11)Promiscuous sexual behaviour 12)Early behaviour problems  1.26  .84  .52  1.12  .85  .38  .67  .70  .39  .99  .85  .43  13)Lack of realistic plans  1.17  .68  .60  1.28  .74  .46  l4)Impulsivity  1.59  .57  .68  1.52  .66  .51  15)Irresponsibility  1.48  .64  .63  1.41  .68  .51  1)  (table continues)  38  Table 3 continues Descriptive Statistics and Item-Total Correlations for Each PCL—R Item for Samples of Female and Male Offenders  Item  N  Female Item Total SD r  Male Item Total MSD r  16) Failure to accept responsibility  1.41  .54  .31  1.17  .78  .39  l7)Many marital relationships  1.20  .83  .43  .67  .79  .30  .69  .78  .41  1.12  .89  .36  19)Poor risk for release  1.33  .58  .29  1.31  .80  .35  20)Criminal versatility  1.01  .86  .52  .92  .82  .42  l8)Juvenile delinquency  Note. Data for male offenders based on a pooled sample of male inmates and forensic patients (N=1632) as described in the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991).  39 factor analysis with an oblique rotation, which allows for correlations between factors  (Harpur et al.,  1989).  Given  that theory and past research predict a two—factor structure, 3 The pattern a forced two—factor solution was performed. matrix is presented in Table 4. correlation matrix.)  (Refer to Appendix E for the  In order to assess factor equivalence,  congruence coefficients for corresponding factors were calculated between the current sample and pooled factor loadings across a number of male samples Hakstian,  Forth, Hart & Newman,  sample and Neary’s  (1990)  1990),  (see Hare,  Harpur,  and between the current  sample of female offenders.  The  congruence coefficients are presented in Table 5. A two—factor solution was clearly supported by the data and accounted for approximately 48% of the variance.  The  congruence coefficient for Factors 1 and 2 of the current sample and the pooled male samples satisfied the criteria of .85 for factor equivalence Harpur,  Hare & Hakstian,  (Haven & Ten Berge,  1988).  1977; cited in  Similar results were obtained  when the present data were compared with Neary’s  (1990)  data.  The item composition of the two factors was highly similar to that obtained with male samples.  As expected,  items  1,2,4,5,6,7 and 8——core personality traits——loaded above .4 on  3The same analysis was performed on raw data kindly provided by Neary.  40 Table 4 Pattern Matrix for Unweighted Least Scrnares Factor Analysis  Factor 1  Factor 2  Item 1  .66997  —.25291  Item 2  .87478  —.22920  Item 3  .23665  .67962  Item 4  .44037  —.13919  Item 5  .55925  .10983  Item 6  .57769  .38763  Item 7  .61352  .36565  Item 8  .54550  .43537  Item 9  —.02931  .77655  Item 10  —.00382  .71304  Item 11  —.04055  .62232  Item 12  .13752  .37749  Item 13  .04494  .66765  Item 14  .07931  .72192  Item 15  .04272  .71689  (table continues)  41  Table 4 continues Pattern Matrix for Unweighted Least Squares Analysis  Factor 1  Factor 2  Item 16  .33093  .20612  Item 17  —.08414  .57095  Item 18  —.10092  .53517  Item 19  —.01581  .33663  Item 20  —.24445  .77459  42  Table 5 Congruence Coefficients for Corresponding Factors Between The Present Sample and Other Samples of Female and Male Offenders  Present Sample  Pooled Male Sample  Factor 1 Pooled male sample  .91  Neary’s female sample  .85  .85 Factor 2  Pooled male sample  .91  Neary’s female sample  .90  .87  Note. The data for the male sample are based on pooled factor loadings across a number of male samples (see Hare et. al., 1990 for further details of sample composition). Neary’s data taken from Neary (1990).  43 Factor 1. .33.  Item 16  Items 6,7,  .43 on Factor 2. much higher,  (failure to accept responsibility) and 8,  however,  However,  loaded at  also loaded between .38 and  their loadings on Factor 1 were  ranging from .54 to .61.  Of the remaining 11 items,  9 loaded above .4 on Factor 2;  the remaining items--12 and 19--loaded .37 and .33, on Factor 2.  respectively,  Items 11  (many marital relationships)  and 20  (sexual promiscuity),  17  (criminal versatility)  loaded on Factor 2 in the present sample whereas these items failed to load on either Factor 1 or Factor 2 in the pooled male sample.  In Neary’s  above .4 on Factor 2.  (1990)  sample,  only item 11 loaded  It thus appears that the entire set of  items that loaded on Factor 2 in the present sample and in Neary’s  (1990)  sample was not identical to that found with  male offenders. However, the two female samples were relatively small,  and the fact that the Factor 2 item  compositions of these samples were not identical to that obtained with pooled samples of male offenders may simply be the result of sampling error. The descriptive statistics and interrater reliabilities for each factor are presented in Tables 6 and 7.  The means  and standard deviations for Factors 1 and 2 were very similar to those found in previous research with male offenders.  The  interrater reliability and internal consistency of Factors 1 and 2 were high. The internal consistency and item homogeneity were higher for Factor 2 than for Factor 1,  perhaps a  44  reflection of the relatively objective,  behavioural criteria  for Factor 2 and the clinical judgments required to score the items in Factor 1.  Concurrent Validity: Antisocial Personality Disorder Antisocial Personality Disorder  (APD)  is the category in  the DSM-III—R which most closely resembles psychopathy, defined here.  as  The two are not conceptually equivalent,  however; APD focuses mainly on antisocial behaviours, criminality,  and social deviance and does not require the  presence of personality traits described in the PCL-R. As a result,  it is easier for an inmate to satisfy the criteria for  APD than to receive a high PCL-R score. Not surprisingly, APD has been found to be more strongly correlated with Factor 2 than with Factor 1 in male offenders. The Kappa coefficient of interrater agreement for the presence or absence of APD was  .65,  and the percentage of the  sample that received a diagnosis of APD was 55%. A diagnosis of APD was based on the average of two independent ratings so that a score of 1.5 or greater indicated the presence of the disorder. This is somewhat lower than the prevalence of APD (approximately 70 offenders.  -  80%)  typically found in samples of male  In Neary’s sample of female offenders,  rate of APD was 62%.  the base  Given that APD reflects largely criminal  or antisocial activity and that women appear to engage in or be involved in crime to a lesser degree than are men,  it is  45  Table 6 Descriptive Statistics and Interrater Reliabilities for the  PCL—R Factor 1 for Samples of Female and Male Offenders  Statistic  Male  Female  Factor 1 Mean  9.95  8.93  Standard Deviation  3.25  3.93  .82  .84  .35  .40  single rating  .76  .72  averaged rating  .88  .86  Alpha Coefficient Mean Inter—Item Correlation ICC  Data for male offenders are based on pooled data from Note. seven samples of prison inmates. (N=1l92; Hare, 1991).  46 Table 7 Descriptive Statistics and Interrater Reliabilities for the PCL—R Factor 2 for Samples of Female and Male Offenders  Statistic  Male  Female  Factor 2 10.90  11.69  Standard Deviation  4.14  3.90  Alpha Coefficient  .85  .77  .39  .28  single rating  .88  .83  averaged rating  .94  .91  Mean  Mean Inter—Item Correlation ICC  Data for male offenders are based on pooled data from Note. seven samples of prison inmates. (N=1l92; Hare,1991).  47 not suprising that the base rate for APD may be somewhat lower among female offenders than among male offenders. The pattern of correlations between the PCL-R and APD was similar to that found with male offenders  (see Table 8). The  probability of a PCL-R psychopath receiving a diagnosis of APD was  .71.  Conversely, the probability of a APD offender  receiving a PcL-R diagnosis of psychopathy was  .42 indicating  that the concepts are similar but asymmetrically related,  and  that psychopathy is the more exclusive diagnosis. The same asymmetrical association between the PCL-R and APD is found with male offenders.  Concurrent Validity:  Prototypicality Ratings  Prototypicality ratings  (10-point scale)  were obtained  for three DSM-III-R Cluster B personality disorders relevant to psychopathy: Histrionic, narcissistic, & Hare  (1989)  and borderline.  Hart  found that the PCL-R total score was positively  correlated with antisocial, narcissistic and histrionic (Cluster B)  personality disorders but uncorrelated or  negatively correlated with ratings of other personality disorders in a sample of male forensic patients. The correlation between the PCL—R and each personality disorder is presented in Table 9. As with male offenders,  the PCL-R was  strongly correlated with ratings of narcissistic and histrionic personality disorders. The PCL-R was correlated with borderline personality disorder in female offenders but not in male offenders.  48 Table 8 Correlations Between APD Diagnoses and the PCL-R and its Factors for Female and Male Offenders  Female Offenders  APD  PCL-R total score Factor 1  .02  Factor 2  Male Offenders PCL—R total score  .54  Factor 1  .32  Factor 2  .63  Note. Data for male offenders based on sample 1 from the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991). APD refers to DSM III—R Antisocial Personality Disorder. ** p<.001.  49  Table 9 Correlations Between Prototypicality Ratings of Three Personality Disorders and the PCL-R and Its Factors for Samples of Female and Male Offenders  Female  Personality Disorder  Male  PCL-R Factor total score 1 2  PCL-R Factor total score 1 2  Histrionic  •45**  •37*  .38*  .33  .37  .27  Narcissistic  ,42**  .40*  •33*  .39  .49  .24  Borderline  •47**  .17  •47*  .13  —.03  .26  Note. Data for male offenders based on data from sample 8 described in the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991). ** p<.01, * p<.05.  50  Convergent Validity: Violent Crime There is extensive evidence on the association between psychopathy and male violence. example,  Hart and Hare  (1989),  for  found that even when items related to criminal  activities were omitted from the calculation of the total score, the PCL-R correlated .35 with the total number of offenses and .30 with the number of violent offenses in a sample of male offenders.  Kosson, Newman and Smith  (1990)  obtained similar results with sample of male white and black inmates.  Serin  (1991)  reported that the psychopathic inmates  in his sample, as defined by the PCL-R, were significantly more likely to be violent and to have committed a violent offense than were other inmates. Given the personality of psychopaths,  there is no reason to assume that a similar  association does not occur with female offenders. There was some difficulty in examining the psychopathycrime relationship in the present sample: Many of the files did not contain a complete record of federal and provincial convictions, and it was not always possible to determine the total number of offenses committed by an inmate. For this reason,  I scored each record for the presence or absence of  prior convictions and for the presence or absence of convictions or charges for violent offenses for which the offender was currently incarcerated or on probation.  Violent  51 offenses included murder, escape,  and assault  attempted murder,  (see Hart, Kropp & Hare,  All of the psychopaths, nonpsychopaths, convictions  (  kidnapping,  arson,  1988).  but only 69% of the  in this sample had one or more prior  (1)=9.Ol, p<.005). 2 X  Sixty-three percent of the  psychopaths had been convicted of one or more violent offenses; the rate for the nonpsychopaths was 33%, (l)=4.55, p<.04). The correlation between the PCL-R scores 2 (X and the presence or absence of a violent offense  (for which  the offender was currently incarcerated) was significant at .35  (p<.002).  (Item 10,  poor behavioural controls, was  eliminated for this calculation as it is often scored on the basis of violent behaviour.)  The psychopaths were more likely  to have had a prior conviction and clearly tended to be more violent than the nonpsychopaths.  Convergent Validity: Demographic Variables Forty-one percent of all subjects reported that they had engaged in prostitution.  Sixty-four percent stated that they  had been addicted to cocaine and/or heroin,  and 51% considered  themselves alcoholic. Many women said they had experienced unwanted pregnancies and 44% said that they had had one or more abortions. children and,  The majority of women  of these,  (68%)  had one or more  61% reported that their children had  been either apprehended or had voluntarily been given into someone else’s care.  52 Psychopaths were significantly more likely to have (l)=9..34, p= .002), to have been 2 engaged in prostitution (X (l)=15.52, p<.000l), and 2 addicted to cocaine and/or heroin (X to have abdicated care of their children to another party (l)=6.9l, p<.009) 2 (X  than were nonpsychopaths. Group  comparisons were supplemented by correlational analyses where appropriate and Table 10 presents the correlations between these variables and the PCL-R. Given the nature of psychopathy,  it is not surprising  that the psychopathic women engaged in prostitution and drug abuse. However,  it could be argued that abdicating care of  one’s children was the result of drug abuse or the lifestyle associated with prostitution rather than a direct consequence of psychopathy.  In order to address this issue,  semi-partial  correlations among these variables (PCL—R, drug use and prostitution) were calculated. The results,  shown in Table 11,  indicate that the PCL-R was strongly related to the failure to parent even when the effects of drug abuse and prostitution had been removed. Psychopathy thus appears to be associated with the voluntary or involuntary abdication of parental responsibility. This finding is consistent with Robins’  (1966)  report that the sociopathic women in her study were less likely than other women to have children,  and that the  children of the sociopaths were more likely to be raised by surrogate parents.  53 Table 10 Correlations Between PCL-R and Its Factors and Selected Demographic Variables  Variable  Factors  PCL-R total score  1  2  •44*  Failure to Parent (Children placed in other’s care)  .62**  .26  Drug Addiction (cocaine/heroin)  •53**  .29*  Prostitution  .50**  .21  Note. Item 11 (sexual promiscuity) was removed for the calculation of the correlates with prostitution. ** p<.00l, * p<.05.  54  Table 11 Semi—partial Correlations With Failure to Parent  Variable  Semi-Partial Correlation  PCL total score Cocaine and/or Heroin Addiction Prostitution  **p<.001  .06 -.03  55 Some additional demographic variables were examined. Thirty-one percent of the subjects reported that they had been physically abused in childhood; 46% reported that they had been sexually abused in childhood and 38% said they had been sexually assaulted in either adolescence or adulthood.  There  were no significant differences between the psychopathic and nonpsychopathic inmates on these variables. In addition, abused as adults.  63 percent said they had been physically PCL—R scores of 30 or above were  significantly associated with reports of having been physically abused in adult relationships  1)=9.07, p.OO3). (X ( 2  It may be that psychopathic women are more attracted than are other women to the often volatile and confrontative nature of violent relationships.  Concurrent,  Convergent and Discriminant Validity:  Self-Report  Inventories To examine concurrent, validity,  convergent and discriminant  correlations were measured with self—report  questionnaires known to have a differential pattern of associations with the PCL-R. Table 12)  The pattern of correlations  (see  was very similar to that found with male samples.  Convergent Validity. As expected, the California Personality Inventory—Socialization subscale was strongly correlated  (negatively) with PCL-R total and Factor 2 scores,  56 Table 12 Correlations Between Five Self-Report Inventories and the PCL R and Its Factors for Samples of Female and Male Offenders  Female  Male PCL-R total  Factor 2  1  Factor 2  .05  —.14  .12  —.14  —.12  —.09  .13  —.14  .27*  —.13  —.22  —.02  —.48**  —.04  —.60**  —.31  —.06  —.44  PCL-R total  Variable  1  Beck Depression Inventory STAI—Trait Anxiety CPI-Socialization Scale  Narcissism Personality .18  .28*  .08  .34  .33  .34  SRP—Total  .64**  .21  .68**  .54  .50  .44  SRP—F1  .15  .14  .09  .54  .48  .39  SRP—F2  .65**  .19  .70**  .40  .39  .35  Inventory Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-Il  (table continues)  57  Table 12 continues Correlations Between Five Self-Report Inventories and the PCL R and Its Factors for Samples of Female and Male Offenders  Male  Female  Variable  PCL-R total  1  Factor 2  PCL-R total  1  Factor 2  Interpersonal Reactivity Index Perspective taking -.31* Fantasy Empathic Concern Personal Distress  -.11  -.36*  -.13  -.15  -.17  .12  .15  .03  —.01  —.05  .00  -.22  -.09  -.24  -.33  -.32  -.27  .20  .01  —.33  —.31  —.18  .27*  Note. Data for male offenders based on either sample 1 or sample A-i as described in the Hare Psychopathy Checklist Revised (Hare, 1991). SRP-II data for male offenders from Harpur & Hare (1991). ** p<.OOl, *p<.05  58 but was uncorrelated with Factor 1 scores. A similar pattern has been obtained with male offenders. The Narcissism Personality Inventory was positively associated with Factor 1, reflecting the similarities between the psychopathic personality and the self-focused, aggrandizing nature of the narcissist.  self—  Studies with male  offenders have found correlations between the Narcissism Personality Inventory and both factors suggesting that Factor 2 may include more personological traits in male samples than in female samples. The revised edition of the Interpersonal Adjective Scale, which evaluates an individual’s characteristic style of interpersonal interaction, provides scores on the two major dimensions of Dominance and Love; this interaction typically is plotted on the interpersonal circumplex.  Table 13 presents  the correlations between the PCL-R and the dimensions of Dominance and Love.  The PCL—R total score correlated  positively with the Dominance dimension and negatively with the Love dimension.  Factor 1 correlated significantly with  the Dominance dimension and Factor 2 correlated negatively with the Love dimension.  Figure 1 shows the position of the  PCL—R and its factors on the interpersonal circuxaplex. similar pattern was observed by Foreman (1988)  A  in a study of  male inmates; the PCL—R total score and Factor 1 correlated with the Arrogant-calculating dimension and Factor 2 correlated with the Cold-hearted dimension.  59  Table 13 Correlations of the PCL-R and Its Factors with the Interpersonal Adjective Scale for Female and Male Offenders  Factor  PCL-R total score  Dimension  2  1  Female Sample Dominance Love  .25* —.  42**  .32* —.16  .16 —.  42**  Male Sample Dominance Love  .19  .35  —.01  —.30  —.26  —.29  Note. Data for male sample based on Sample 1 as described in the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare (1991). * p<.05 ** p<.001,  60 Figure 1 Position of the PCL-R and Factors 1 and 2 on the Interpersonal Circumplex  Assured—Dominant .5  Arrogant— Calculating -.  Gregarious— Extraverted  PCL—R to  ColdHearted  Warm.5 Agreeable  5  AloofIntroverted  Unassuming Ingenuous  —.5 Unassured—Submiss ive  61 Concurrent Validity. The Self-Report Psychopathy Checklist  correlated strongly with the PCL-R total  (SRP-II)  and Factor 2 scores.  The SRP-II was designed as a self—report  version of PCL-R Factors 1 and 2 SRP-F2 respectively).  (designated as SRP-Fl and  SRP-Fl and SRP-F2 have been found to  correlate with the corresponding PCL factors in male samples. Similarly, scores.  SRP-F2 correlated with the PCL total and Factor 2  However,  SRP—Fl did not correlate with Factor 1 in  the present sample.  Perhaps women are more socialized to  describe themselves in empathic and caring terms than are men and,  therefore, are less likely to obtain high scores on a  self—report. subscale of psychopathic traits. Discriminant Validity. Given that the affective deficit of psychopaths presumably makes it difficult for them to experience “true” depression,  a negative correlation between  the Beck Depression Inventory  (BDI)  and PCL-R scores was  expected. As Table 12 indicates, the BDI was not significantly correlated with the PCL-R or its factors,  although its  association with Factor 1 was in the negative direction. Similarly,  trait anxiety  (the STAI)  was expected to  correlate negatively with the PCL-R. According to theory, psychopaths should rarely experience anxiety due to their shallow affect and lack of remorse. The correla1ions between the STAI and the PCL-R total and Factor 1 scores were not significant,  although Factor 1 showed a negative association  with STAI scores similar to the trend found with male  62 offenders. A modest, positive correlation was found with Factor 2. The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis et. can be subdivided into two cognitive dimensions  1987)  and perspective—taking),  al.,  (fantasy  and two affective dimensions  (empathic concern and personal distress).  Research with male  offenders has found the PCL—R and Factors 1 and 2 to correlate negatively with all subscales of the IRI except the fantasy dimension.  In the present sample,  negative correlations were  obtained between the PCL-R total and Factor 2 scores and the perspective-taking dimension. The dimension of empathic concern was negatively——but not significantly——correlated with PCL—R Total and Factor 2 scores. The dimension of personal distress correlated modestly with Factor 2. As suggested above,  self—reports obtained from women may be heavily  influenced by sex—based socialization processes that encourage them to see themselves as caring and nurturant individuals. Consequently,  women may be less likely than men to self-report  unempathic or uncaring thoughts or behaviours.  Discussion  The descriptive statistics, interrater reliability,  internal consistency,  factor structure,  and correlates of  the PCL—R in the present sample of female offenders were much the same as those typically found with samples of male  63 offenders  (Hare,  1991). These results are consistent with the  proposition that the PCL-R is a reliable and valid measure of the psychopathy construct in female offenders. Although the mean PCL—R score in the present sample was not much different from that obtained with samples of male offenders,  the percentage of female offenders  (31)  who  received a score of at least 30 was higher than that found with male offenders  (15 to 20).  One reason for the high  percentage of psychopathic female inmates may have been that over half the sample were classified as maximum security. During the course of data collection,  Corrections Canada  closed its local minimum security facility and kept only its maximum security facility operational in preparation for the opening of a larger institution.  The new facility,  the Burnaby  Correctional Centre for Women, was meant to accommodate all security levels and was designed to service the entire province.  The maximum security unit was opened first,  received women from Lakeside,  and it  as well as some federal inmates  from Kingston Prison for Women in Ontario.  As a result,  for a  period of several months the only incarcerated offenders available for participation in this study were maximum security level inmates.  An attempt was made to balance this  by approaching probation services and enlisting women on probation in the community.  This approach was relatively  unsuccessful because few women were on probation at the time; only two women on probation participated in the study.  Because  64 of these situational factors maximum security inmates were over—represented in this sample. A maxiumum security assignment usually implies a greater perception of danger,  threat of escape,  or the anticipation of  management problems and would logically be associated with a higher PCL-R score.  In fact, Hare and McPherson  (1984)  found  that inmates who scored in the high range of the PCL were significantly more likely to engage in violent and aggressive behaviour while in prison than were other inmates. (1984)  Wong  obtained similar results with samples of White and  Native inmates:  PCL total scores were strongly associated with  the number of institutional of fences and the degree of violence and threat involved in these of fences.  In addition,  Wong found that PCL scores were higher in maximum security facilities than in lower security levels; as many as 30% of federal inmates in maximum security facilities were diagnosed as psychopathic. With these considerations in mind,  I reanalyzed the  present data to determine if PCL—R scores were related to the security level of the subjects. (SD  =  8.42)  5.07)  The mean PCL—R score was 27.3  for the maximum security inmates and 21.4  for the minimum and medium security inmates.  (  =  Forty—four  percent of the maximum security inmates and 19% of the minimum and medium security inmates  received a score of 30 or more.  It therefore appears that the high percentage of female psychopathic inmates was a reflection of the relatively large  65 number of high security—-and possibly dangerous or troublesome——inmates in the sample. The reliability of PCL-R assessments in this study, well as in Neary’s  (1990)  as  study, was as high as that usually  obtained with male offenders. Researchers apparently have little difficulty in making reliable PCL-R assessments of female offenders. The two—factor structure found with male offenders was replicated, although several items that loaded on Factor 2 do not load on this factor in samples of male offenders. The PCL-R and its factors were associated with other putative measures of psychopathy and related constructs, including DSM—III-R diagnoses of APD, prototypicality ratings of three DSM-III-R Cluster B personality disorders (narcissistic, histrionic, borderline), psychopathy inventory.  and a self—report  The PCL-R and its factors were also  related to a variety of measures theoretically related to psychopathy.  Thus,  PCL-R and Factor 1 scores were related to  self—report measures of narcissism, and drug addiction.  interpersonal behaviours  PCL-R and Factor 2 scores were related to  self—report measures of socialization and interpersonal behaviours, violent crime, prior convictions, drug abuse and abdication of parenting. Discriminant validation was partially provided by the lack of  (or negative)  correlation of the PCL-R with self  report measures of depression,  anxiety and empathy. Although  66 PCL—R and Factor 2 scores were negatively correlated with the perspective-taking subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, most of the correlations with depression, empathy were not significant. has revealed modest, and depression,  Research with male offenders  negative correlations between the PCL—R  anxiety and empathy.  One explanation for  these findings is that all three scales Inventory,  anxiety and  (Beck Depression  State—Trait Anxiety Inventory and Interpersonal  Reactivity Index)  are self—report measures involving affect.  Psychopaths appear to experience less affect than do most people,  and we might expect this to be reflected in their  self-reports of affect.  But their self-reports may be less  straightforward than this.  Although psychopaths may have  difficulty in experiencing normal emotions,  they may be quite  adept at using the same words that others use to describe emotional states.  Consequently,  their words may convey an  emotional state that they in fact do not experience. In a study of changes in voice patterns due to emotionality  (Williamson, Alpert,  Louth & Hare,  1993),  psychopathic and nonpsychopathic inmates differed significantly. When speaking of affective as opposed to neutral events,  the nonpsychopathic inmates exhibited an  increase in expressiveness and decrease in pauses between words in their voice patterns typically found with normal subjects.  The psychopathic subjects exhibited the opposite  67 patterns;  less expressiveness and more pauses when speaking of  emotional events. (Strachan, Harpur & Hare,  In a similar study  1991),  psychopathic inmates were asked to write about an emotionally positive event and an emotionally negative one. Afterwards, subjects completed affect—rating scales. However, affect ratings,  only one  (anxiety)  out of 27  differed significantly  between the psychopathic and nonpsychopathic subjects.  It  would appear that psychopaths are able to select the appropriate affect in writing but when less obvious and less controllable indicators of affect are analyzed in voice patterns),  (e.g.  changes  their affective deficit becomes apparent.  This may also be the case with self—report measures of depression,  anxiety and empathy in which individuals are  presented with written alternatives and required simply to indicate the extent to which these apply to themselves. With these written cues and their social knowledge of emotional events, psychopaths may be fairly adept at appropriately describing what would be——for most people——an emotional event. In addition,  this effect may be somewhat exacerbated in  female offenders due to sex based socialization effects for women to describe themselves as more emotional and empathic than men. As a result, psychopaths)  female offenders  (including  may be even less inclined to self—report low  levels of empathy and emotional sensitivity.  68 Psychopathy and Women The results of this study support the argument that it is possible to make reliable and valid assessments of psychopathy in female offenders. Not only were the PCL—R scores of the women in this sample as high as those comparable samples of male offenders,  almost one-third of the women scored at or  above the criterion for psychopathy.  These women clearly  exhibited a potent mix of “unfeminine” traits and behaviours: remorselessness, empathy,  shallow affect,  antisocial behaviour,  impulsivity and irresponsibility.  surprising to find that there were few,  In fact,  if any,  lack of  it was  real sex  differences in the personality traits or behaviours exhibited by offenders.  The manifestation of psychopathy. Although there was no theoretical basis to expect sex differences in the core affective deficit of psychopathy, differential socialization theory and the low rates of female offending suggested that the behavioural expression of the disorder might be different in females than it is in males. Specifically,  I expected that Factor 2 of the PCL-R might not  adequately reflect socially deviant behavior in women. However,  the data proved otherwise.  The composition of Factor  2 appears to be appropriate for the assessment of social deviance in both male and female offenders.  69 I also expected that female offenders would have had fewer childhood behaviour problems than male offenders,  based  on the assumption that girls experience greater supervision and less tolerance for acting out or antisocial behaviour than do boys.  Their relatively low scores on Items 12  behaviour problems)  and 18  (juvenile delinquency)  consistent with this view (see Table 3). in Neary’s  (1990)  (early is  The female offenders  samples also obtained relatively low score  on these two items. The only PCL-R items that appeared at all problematic were in Factor 1:  Items 1  (glibness/superficial charm),  (grandiose sense of self worth),  and 4  2  (pathological lying).  Their item—total correlations were low and did not appear to contribute to the scale’s homogeneity. 4 were all highly correlated (.46, with the Factor 1 total score.  However,  .65 and .36,  items 1,  2 and  respectively)  The low item-total correlations  for items 1 and 2 are consistent with clinical impressions of the women:  Few demonstrated the degree of charm and  grandiosity so often seen with male offenders.  Most of the  women were quite talkative and open about their personal lives,  attitudes and feelings——perhaps more so than male  offenders.  But these qualities are quite different from the  grandiosity, glibness and superficial charm required to receive high scores on items 1 and 2. It is unlikely that these findings reflect a genuine sex difference in the expression of psychopathy.  In Neary’s  (1990)  70 study of female offenders, correlations for items 1, respectively)  study.  16,  2,  and 4  (.23,  the item—total .41 and  .48,  were higher than they were in the present study.  On the other hand, (items 5,  for example,  17,  some of her other item—total correlations 19) were lower than those found in this  The most reasonable explanation of these sample  differences, offenders,  and of the differences between female and male  is sampling variance. Additional,  larger samples of  female offenders are needed to settle the issue.  Prevalence rates in forensic and general populations. Thirty—one percent of the females in the present sample, and 11% of those in Neary’s  (1990) American sample,  received a  PCL-R score of at least 30. Although it is not possible to draw firm conclusions from these findings about the prevalence of psychopathy in female offenders,  it is apparent that a  substantial proportion of these offenders meet the criteria for the disorder. Without data from nonof fenders,  it is impossible to  provide responsible estimates of the prevalence of psychopathy in the general population, male or female.  The DSM-III—R  estimates a prevalence rate of APD of approximately 3% in the male general population and 1% in the female general population,  and states that APD is much more common in males  than in females. (1991)  In a recent epidemiological study,  Robins  also found that base rates of APD in the general  71 population were five times higher in men than in women: for men versus 0.8% for women. However,  4.5%  these rates refer to a  disorder not entirely synonymous with psychopathy.  Because APD  is more a measure of socially deviant behaviours than of psychopathy,  one interpretation is that in the general  population there. may be behavioural differences between men and women in the manifestation of psychopathy.  Conversely,  there may be fewer psychopathic women than men in the general population.  But there are few empirical data currently  available on the issue.  Limitations A number of factors must be considered when evaluating the results of this study. female,  First,  the interviewers were all  and it is therefore difficult to determine if the low  item—total correlations obtained for several Factor 1 items reflect a sex difference in some personality traits or are simply the result of the psychopathic offenders not bothering to “turn on the charm” for the interviewers.  Had the  interviewers been male these women might have been more charming, manipulative,  and self—aggrandizing.  However,  studies with male offenders have found that the level of charm and grandiosity exhibited by the offender is largely unaffected by the sex of the interviewer  (Hare,  1991).  A second limitation of this study is that the sample was relatively small. Research on female criminality in British  72 Columbia is constrained by the low numbers of female offenders incarcerated at any given time.  During the study this problem  was compounded by an unexpected dip in female crime. As a result,  the time and effort needed to obtain the sample were  considerable.  It may be necessary for researchers in different  institutions and jurisdictions to combine their efforts in order to obtain large samples of female offenders. In general,  the PCL—R appears to be a good measure of  psychopathy in female offenders. Nonetheless,  a comprehensive  research program on female psychopathy should include exploration of other possible traits or behaviours not included on the PCL-R that may be indicative of the disorder. The demographic information suggested that there are possible alternative areas that might prove useful as material for additional PCL-R items.  For example,  Robins’  (1966)  contention  that the sociopathic women in her study were less likely than other women to have children and more likely to have their children raised by surrogate parents, in this study.  is partially supported  Though psychopathic and nonpsychopathic women  did not differ in number of children,  there was a strong  association between abdicating care of one’s children and the PCL-R total score.  These findings suggest that behaviours  other than those listed on the PCL-R might be reliable indicators of psychopathy in women. Widom’s  (1978)  study is an example of an approach that  might address this possibility. As discussed briefly above,  73 Widom (1978)  used empirical classification procedures to  subdivide female offenders into homogeneous subgroups based on personality and personality pathology.  She administered ten  self—report personality inventories and employed a cluster analysis procedure to classify the personality profiles into mutually exclusive groups or profile types.  The advantage of  this method is that few prior assumptions are made of the personalities of the subgroups and,  as a result,  they are  established based on the data rather than on theoretical assumptions or prior empirical findings.  Using this method,  Widom was able to identify a hostile, undersocialized, aggressive and impulsive subtype which she felt closely resembled the psychopath as described by Cleckley Hare  (1976)  and  (1986) Widom’s  (1978)  approach could be expanded by including  not only self—report measures of personality,  but also self—  report inventories for various past and present behaviours,  as  well as others’ reports on the subject’s behaviours and personality traits. multiple sources,  With a broad range of information from  cluster—analysis procedures might provide us  with a broad description of the behaviours and personalities of the female psychopath.  Given that Widom’s study supports  the construct of psychopathy in female offenders by the PCL—R),  (as described  a more comprehensive study may provide even  stronger validation of the current PCL—R items and/or suggest alternative ones.  74 Thus far,  the discussion has been limited to those women  convicted of a criminal offense,  a highly select group that  represents only a tiny fraction of the general female population.  Although we may be able to draw some tentative  conclusions about the manifestation of psychopathy among female offenders, there are no data to indicate the extent to which these findings apply to women in the general population. Given the large sex differences in criminal involvement and base rates of APD,  it may be that psychopathic women in the  general population demonstrate less criminal and overt antisocial behaviours,  and find more socially acceptable  behaviours through which to express the disorder,  than do men.  Theoretical and Clinical Implications The results of the present study indicate that psychopathy is a very robust construct cutting across many demographic boundaries.  Studies with male offenders  male offenders  (Forth, Hart & Hare, 1990; Wong,  (Hare,  1990), 1984)  and a number of  Smith & Newman,  cultures  (af Klinterberg, Humble & Schalling, 1992)  1992; Haapasalo  consistently support the applicability and  validity of the PCL-R with these diverse populations. with nonoffender groups  (Hart, Hare & Forth,  mentally disordered patients Nunez & White,  young  racial groups  (Kosson,  & Pulkkinen,  1991),  1992)  1993)  (Heilbrun, Hart, Hare,  and Gustafson,  have also found the PCL-R to be a  reliable and valid measure.  Studies  75 Psychopathy,  as measured by the PCL-R,  appears equally  applicable to women and men with surprisingly few, modifications required. on women,  if any,  There are very little data available  but the two studies to date support psychopathy as  an heuristic and appropriate construct with a female forensic population.  Theoretically, there is no reason to assume that  psychopathy is limited to any particular demographic group.  Theories of female crime. Psychopathy may be as important for understanding female crime as it is for understanding male crime.  Recognizing the  existence of psychopathy may even have a positive impact on the study of female criminality. inarginalization, poverty,  Theories of economic  and the recent recognition of many  female killers as victims of spousal abuse portray female offenders in a highly sympathetic light.  Psychopathy offers  some balance to these protrayals allowing us to understand those offenders who are not sympathetic and offend for self— centered and callous reasons.  Treatment implications. The distinction between psychopathic and other female offenders has some implications for treatment and intervention. Male psychopathic inmates are very poor candidates for treatment. Greenwood  (1990)  For example,  Ogloff, Wong and  found that psychopathic offenders showed  76 significantly less improvement and were less motivated than other inmates. A more recent study by Rice, Harris and Cormier (1992)  found that treatment produced negative effects with  psychopathic inmates; treated nonpsychopaths exhibited lower rates of recidivism but treated psychopaths exhibited higher rates of violent recidivism,  than did their untreated  counterparts. Given the stable, disorder,  long—term nature of the  these findings are consistent with clinical  impressions that permanent,  substantial changes are very  difficult to create in psychopathic personalities. Without research into treatment outcomes with female psychopaths,  it is premature to assume that the results will  be the same as with male offenders.  However,  it is likely  that psychopathic women will produce equally disappointing treatment results.  If female psychopathic inmates are not  amenable to current treatment techniques but respond well to tight supervision, then resources might be redirected to developing effective supervision strategies.  In addition,  the  evaluation of treatment programs for offenders may be more accurately appraised when psychopathic participants are identified and their progress,  or lack thereof,  is analyzed  separately from nonpsychopathic participants. These concerns also extend to the nonforensic clinical setting where the accurate diagnosis and treatment of women has often been clouded by irrelevant biases.  Research such as  the present study may encourage clinicans to diagnose women as  77 psychopathic or APD when appropriate,  rather than to assign  diagnoses on the basis of sex—role factors.  Of particular  concern to this study is the issue of sex bias in the criteria for histrionic personality disorder  (HPD).  Given the  consistent finding that HPDis couched in terms more readily applicable to, than in men,  and therefore more often diagnosed in, women  estimates of APD and psychopathy among female  offenders and women in the general population may be artifically low as a result of the tendency to overdiagnose HPD. This is an important theoretical and practical issue because epidemiological data serve as a basis for explanations for female crime,  social and rehabilitative programs,  treatment interventions.  and  Certainly high base rates of  psychopathy would lead to dramatically different conclusions as to the etiology,  treatment and prognosis of female  offenders than would high rates of histrionic personality disorder or other types of disorders.  Continued research on  the prevalence and manifestations of psychopathy in women may provide a credible diagnostic alternative,  lessening reliance  on sex biased categories and encouraging more realistic goals for treatment and rehabilitation.  Future Research and Practical Implications Questions about prevalence, manifestation,  and assessment  in forensic and nonforensic settings can only be answered with  78 more research.  In order to fully explore female psychopathy,  it is important to continue to examine the ways in which psychopathic women are different from nonpsychopathic women, and, possibly,  from psychopathic men.  The sorts of laboratory studies that have uncovered distinctive physiological and cognitive patterns in male psychopaths should also be used in the study of female psychopathy.  On a more practical level,  an important avenue  for future research would be an analysis of the predictive power of the PCL—R in terms of response to treatment and rehabilitation, behaviour while incarcerated, recidivism upon release.  and rates of  Past research with male offenders  has shown the PCL—R to be predictive of poor treatment outcome (Ogloff, Wong & Greenwood, 1992),  violent and aggressive institutional behaviour  McPherson, (Hart, Wong,  1990; Rice, Harris & Cormier,  1984;  Serin,  Kropp & Hare, 1984;  Serin,  1991)  1988;  1991).  (Hare &  and high rates of recidivism  Serin, Peters & Barbaree,  1990;  It is reasonable to expect that if  the PCL—R measures the same personality construct in female and male offenders,  it  powers in both sexes.  will demonstrate similar predictive This type of research would have obvious  practical implications for female forensic populations in terms of management issues while institutionalized, participation in rehabilitation programs and parole decisions.  79 Conclusion Though the findings of this study are most appropriately seen as simply the beginning of the validation process of the PCL-R with female offenders, they are strengthened by the multi-method nature of the data, which included self-report ratings and other’s ratings of personality traits and behaviours.  The overall pattern of associations between the  PCL-R and a variety of external criteria was theoretically consistent with the construct of psychopathy. The data were remarkably consistent with previous research with male offenders and suggest that the same construct is being measured in both sexes. The present research examines the generalizability of psychopathy and the applicability of the PCL-R to a female forensic population.  It provides an alternative theoretical  basis for explanations of female criminality and offers further impetus for examining sex biases in the diagnoses of female offenders. Both the construct of psychopathy and the study of women in general should benefit from this study; the theoretical scope and application of psychopathy is broadened and,  although it may seem somewhat ironic that a disorder as  negative in nature as psychopathy might benefit women, application of concepts  (both negative and positive)  the  to the  study of women that are free from sex role stereotypes can be seen as useful.  80  References Diagnostic and American Psychiatric Association. (1968). Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author. Diagnostic and American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: Author. The rise of the new Sisters in crime: Adler, F. (1975). New York: Mcgraw-Hill. female criminal. Beck, A., Ward, C., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, An inventory for measuring depression. (1961). Archives of General Psychiatry, 4, 561-571.  J.  Verbal conditioning in Bernard, J., & Eisenman, R. (1967). sociopaths with social and monetary reinforcement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,6(2), 203 —206. Brownstone, D.Y., & Swaminath, M.B. (1989). Violent behaviour Canadian and psychiatric diagnosis in female offenders. Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 190-194. Typologies of delinquent Butler, E., & Adams, S. (1966). Social Forces, 44, girls: Some alternative approaches. 401—407. Female Campbell, C., MacKenzie,D., & Robinson, J. (1987). offenders: Criminal behaviour and gender—role Psychological Reports, 60(3), 867—873. identity. Cleckley, H.  (1976).  The mask of sanity.  St. Louis: Mosby.  Psychiatric illness and (1970). Cloninger, C., & Guze, S. female criminality: The role of sociopathy and hysteria American Journal of Psychiatry, in the antisocial woman. 127, 303—311. (1973). Psychiatric illnesses in Cloninger, C., & Guze, S. the families of female criminals: A study of 288 first— British Journal of Psychiatry, 122, degree relatives. 697—703.  81 Psychiatric disorders (1973). Cloninger, C., & Guze, S. and criminal recidivism. Archives of General Psychiatry, 29, 266—269. (1979). Commission on Professional and Hospital Activities. International Classification of Diseases: Clinical Modification, (9th revision). Ann Arbour,MI: Edwards Bros. Menstruation and accidents. Dalton, K. (1960). Journal, 2, 1425—1426. Dalton, K. (1968). 2, 1386—1388.  British  Menstruation and examinations.  Lancet,  Dalton, K. (1977). The premenstrual syndrome and progesterone Chicago: Year Book Medical Publications. therapy. (1981). Female offenders referred Daniel, A., & Harris, P. Bulletin of the for pretrial psychiatric evaluation. American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 9, 40-47. Differences Daniel, A., Harris, P., & Husain, S. (1981). between midlife female offenders and those younger than American Journal of Psychiatry, 138, 1225—1228. 40. (1988). Daniel, A., Robins, A., Reid, J., & Wilfley, D. Lifetime and six—month prevalence of psychiatric disorders among sentenced female offenders. Bullentin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 16. Measuring individual differences in Davis, M. (1983). empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), —126. Davis, N., Hull, J., Young, Emotional reactions to influence of cognitive Personality and Social  113  R., & Warren, G. (1987). dramatic film stimuli: The and emotional empathy. Journal of Psychology, 52, 126—133.  Faith, K. (1987). Media, myths and masculinization: In E. Adelberg and C. Currie Images of women in prison. (Eds.), Too few to count. Vancouver, B.C.:Press Gang. Ford,  Sex bias in the diagnosis of N., & Widiger, T. (1989). Journal histrionic and antisocial personality disorders. of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 301—305.  82 Foreman, M. (1988). Psychopathy and interpersonal behaviour. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Forth, A., Hart, psychopathy Assessment: Psychology,  S., & Hare, R. (1990). Assessment of in male young offenders. Psychological A Journal of Consulting and Clinical 2, 342-344.  (1971). Mental health Gibbens, T., Palmer, C. & Prince, J. British Medical Journal, 3, 612aspects of shoplifting. 615. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E.T. (1934). women. New York:Knopf.  Five hundred delinguent  Manual for the California Psychological Gough, H. (1969). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Inventory. Press. Guze,  Criminality and S., Goodwin, D., & Crane, J. (1969). psychiatric disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 20, 583—591.  Hamilton, J., Parry, B., Alagna, S., Blumenthal, S., & Premenstrual mood changes: A guide to Herz, E. (1984). Psychiatric Annals, 14, 426 evaluation and treatment. —435. Haapasalo, J. (1992). Psychopathy as a descriptive construct of personality among offenders. Jyvaskla Studies in Education, Psychology, and Social Science, No. 84. University of Jyvaskla, Jyvaskla, Finland. Hare,  Comparison of the procedures for the R. (1985). Journal of Consulting and assessment of psychopathy. Clinical Psychology, 53, 7—16.  Hare,  Twenty years of experience with the Cleckley R. (1986). psychopath. In W. Reid, D. Dorr, J. Walk, J. Bonner New York: Norton (Eds.), Unmasking the psychopath.  Hare,  The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised R. (1991). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.  Hare,  R. (1991). The PCL-R and the Effects of the Sex of the Interviewer. Unpublished data. Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.  83 Hare,  Weak data, strong conclusions: R., & Harpur, T. (1986). Some comments on Howard, Bailey and Newman’s use of the Psychopathy Checklist. Personality and Individual Differences, 7(2), 147—151.  Hare,  R., Harpur, T., Hakstian, A., Forth, A., Hart, S.,& Newman, J. (1990). The Psychopathy Checklist: Reliability and factor structure. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 2, 338—341.  Hare, R., & McPherson, L. (1984). Violent and aggressive behaviour by criminal psychopaths. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 2, 35-50. Harman, H., H. (1976). Modern Factor Analysis. University of Chicago Press  Chicago:  Factor structure Harpur, T., Hakstian, A., & Hare, R. (1988). Journal of Consulting and of the psychopathy checklist. Clinical psychology, 56(5), 741—747. Harpur, T., & Hare, R. (1991). The Self—Report Psychopathy Scale-Revised. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois. Two-factor (1989). Harpur, T., Hare, R., & Hakstian, A. Construct validity and psychopathy: conceptualization of Assessment: Psychological assessment implications. A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 6—17. Harris, G., Rice, M., & Cormier, C. (1991). Psychopathy and violent recidivism. Law and Human Behaviour, 15, 6, 625 —637. Harry, B. & Balcer, C. (1987). Menstruation and crime: A critical review of the literature from the clinical Behavioural Sciences and the criminology perspective. 5(3), 307—321. Hart,  Discriminant validity of the S., & Hare, R. (1989). in a forensic psychiatric checklist psychopathy population. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1(3), 211—218.  84 Hart,  S.D., Hare, R.D., & Forth, A.E. (1993). Psychopathy as a risk marker for violence: Development and validation of a screening version of the Revised Psychopathy Checklist. In J. Monahan & H. Steadman (Eds.), Violence and mental disorder: Developments in risk assessment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Hart,  The revised S., Hare R., & Harpur, T. (1990). psychopathy checklist (PCL-R): An overview for researchers and clinicians. In P. McReynolds and J. Rosen (Eds.) Advances in Psychological Assessment. New York: Plenum.  Hart,  Performance of the S., Kropp, P., & Hare, R. (1988). male psychopath following conditional release from prison. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(2), 227—232.  Helibrun, K., Hart, S.D., Hare, R.D., Gustaf son, D., Nunez, C., & White, A. (1992). Inpatient and post-discharge aggression in mentally disordered offenders: The role of psychopathy. Manuscript in preparation. A study of (1983). Husain, A., Daniel, A., & Harris, p. young age and mid-life homicidal women admitted to a Canadian psychiatric hospital for pre-trial evaluation. Journal of Psychiatry, 28, 109-113. Getting the facts straight: A statistical Johnson, H. (1987). Too few In E. Adelbergand C. Currie (Eds.), overview. Vancouver, B.C.: Press Gang Publishers. to count. Kendall, K. (1991). The politics of premenstrual syndrome: Implications for feminist justice. The Journal of Human Justice, 2, 77—98. af Klinterberg, B., Humble, K., & Schalling, D. (1992). Personality and psychopathy of males with a history of early criminal behavior. European Journal of Personality, 245—266. ,  Evaluating the Kosson, D., Smith, S., & Newman, J. (1990). construct validity of psychopathy on Black and White male Three preliminary studies. Journal of Abnormal inmates: Psychology, 99, 250—259.  85 Relationships of (1985). Lasley, J., Kuhi. A., & Roberg, R. nontraditional sex—role attitudes to severity of women’s Psychological Reports, 56, 155 criminal behaviour. —158. Kingston Penitenniary for Unpublished data. Loucks, A. Women. Kingston, Ontario. Cathexes toward significant others by Maas, J. (1966). Archives of General Psychiatry, sociopathic women. 15(5), 516—522. Female (1978). Martin, R., Cloninger, R., & Guze, S. Archives criminality and the prediction of recidivism. of General Psychiatry, 35, 207-214. (1988). Mood McFarlane, J., Martin, C., & Williams, T. fluctuations: Women versus men and menstrual versus other cycles. Psychology of Women quarterly, 12, 201-223. Millon, T. (1981). Disorders of Personality: New York: Wiley.  DSM—III, Axis II.  Neary, A. (1990). DSM-III and psychopathy checklist assessment of Antisocial Personality Disorder in Unpublished doctoral black and white female felons. dissertation, University of Missouri, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A. Ogloff, J., Wong, S., & Greenwood, A. (1990). Treating criminal psychopaths in therapeutic community program. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 8, 81—90. Pollak, A.  0. S.  (1961). Barnes.  The criminality of women.  New York:  A narcissistic personality Raskin, R., & Hall, C. (1979). inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590. Rice, M.E., Harris, G.T., & Cormier, C.A. (1992). An evaluation of a maximum security therapeutic community for psychopaths and other mentally disordered offenders. Law and Human Behavior, , 399-412. Robertson, R., Bankier, R., & Schwartz, female offender: A Canadian study. of Psychiatry, 32, 749—755.  The L. (1987). Canadian Journal  86 Robins, L., Tipp, J., & Przybeck, T. (1991). Antisocial personality. In L.N. Robins & D. Regier (Eds.), Psychiatric disorders in America: The Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study. (pp. 258-290). New York: Free Press. Menstrual symptoms: (1979). Ruble, D., & Brooks-Gunn, J. Journal of Behavioural A social—cognitive analysis. Medicine, 2(2), 171—194. A double— Premenstrual syndrome: Sampson, C. (1979). blind controlled trial of progesterone and placebo. British Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 209-215. Psychopathy and violence in criminals. Serin, R. (1991). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6, 423-431. Serin, R., Peters, R., & Barbaree, H. (1990). Predictors of psychopathy and release outcome in a criminal population. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and 419—422. Clinical Psychology,  a,  A study of Simon, B., Holzberg, J., & Unger, J. (1951). Psychiatric judgment in the psychopathic personality. Quarterly, 25, 132-150. Premenstrual emotional changes in (1984). Slade, P. Journal of Psychosomatic Fact or fiction. normal women: Research, 28(1), 1—7. Women, crime and criminology. Smart, C. (1976). Routledge and Kegan Paul.  London:  Hysteria and antisocial personality: Spalt, L. (1980). The Journal of Nervous and Mental A single disorder? Disease. 168(8), 456—464. Spielberger, C., Gorsuch, R., & Lushene, R. for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press.  Manual (1970). Palo Alto, CA:  Strachan, C., Harpur, T., & Hare, R. (1991). Affective and Cognitive Responses of Psychopaths to Emotional Events. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Streifel, C., & Steffensmeier, D. (1989). The status of women and women’s involvement in crime: A Cross—sectional examination of gender differences in rates of offending. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.  87  Tennent, T., McQuaid, A., Loughnane, T., & Hands, A. British Journal of Psychiatry, (1971). Female arsonists. 119, 497—502. Thomas, W. (1923). Brown.  The unadlusted girl. Boston:  Little,  The diagnosis of antisocial and hysterical Warner, R. (1978). Journal personality disorders: An example of sex bias. 839-845. Disease, 166, and Mental of Nervous An empirical classification of female (1978a). Widom, C. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 5(1), 35-52. offenders. (l978b). Toward an understanding of female Widom, C. criminality. Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 8, 245-308. Sex roles, criminality and (1984). Widom, C. psychopathology. In C. Widom (Ed.), Sex roles and New York: Plenum Press. psychopathology. Biology and female crime. Widom, C., & Ames, A. (1988). T. E. Moff it and S.A. Mednick (Eds.), Biological Boston: Nijhoff. contributions to crime causation.  In  A psychological taxonomy of traitWiggins, J. (1979). Journal descriptive terms: The interpersonal domain. of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 395-412. Wiggins, J., Trapnell, P., & Phillips, N. (1988). Psychometric and geometric characteristics of the revised Multivariate Interpersonal Adjective Scales (IAS-R). Behavioural Research, 23, 517-530. Williamson, S., Alpert, M., Louth, S.., & Hare, R. (1993). Affect and the Speech of Psychopaths. Unpublished manuscript. Champaign, Illinois. Williamson, S., Harpur, T., & Hare, R. (1991). Abnormal processing of affective words by psychopaths. Psychophysiology, 28, 260-273. (1985). Wilson, J., & Herrnstein, R. New York: Simon and Schuster. Wong,  Crime and human nature.  S. (1984). Criminal and institutional behaviours of psychopaths. Programs Branch Users Report. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Ministry of the Solicitor-General of Canada.  ()(D ‘-O 0•D HI 00 •frbr-t CD CflCD UI H 0Cf 0)1  H0)0  “H-  0)  Ct H-  Ct  C)  0  H-  H-  C)  H  CD Ct  C)  0)  I:-’  II  0 H 0) DI  H  (11  CD  0  H  r1  H  H-  0)  H  C)  0  I%) D’ (.  oa  OH ‘J.O  -  CD°  <CD CD  Q  0 0  0) H  0) Ct H 0  Ct CD  H  •  -  .  QO  H W— H-H  <  H (DO  r1  0)  .OHrtN  U1c-1CD 0) (flO CD Cfl.Q —0)  Lj_I  0 H CD 0)  I—’  O  CD UI CD 0)  H  CD 0  Ct  00  OHHCfl  rt  UI  H  I-H  W 4I-  C) H-  •Z  0)CD  H  TJ hi..  (DI -UI CD Z(D  H(fl HP)  -)  CfJ ZCD  •  HC0t2 .OH0)’— H•  H-  .  CD •  OO  t--  F-rtO O’.<(-i  0)).— flf—’Fc-1-H-’D  O H• P)  tJO•  CflCi  (D’ I1  C)  H 0)  H-  CD I—JICD <0) CD  C)  N  89  Appendix A  PCL—R SCORESHEET TOTAL SCORE:  Subject: Date:  Prorateci score:  40  Prototypicality:  (S of 2’.)  Rater:  SCORE:  ITEM: 1. Glibness/superficial charm  0  1  2  omit  2. Grandiose sense of self-worth  0  1  2  omit  3. Proneness to boredom/need for stimulation  0  1  2  omit  4. Pathological lying  0  1  2  omit  5. Conning/manipulative  0  1  2  omit  6. Lack of remorse  0  1  2  omit  7. Shallow affect  0  1  2  omit  8. Lack of empathy  0  1  2  omit  9. Parasitic lifestyle  0  1  2  omit  10. Poor behavioral controls  0  1  2  omit  11. Promiscuous sexual behavior  0  1  2  omit  12. Early behavior problems  0  1  2  omit  13. Lack of realistic long—term plans  0  1  2  omit  14. Impulsivity  0  1  2  omit  15. Irresponsibility  0  1  2  omit  16. Failure to accept responsibility for own actions  0  1  2  omit  17. Many marital relationships  0  1  2  omit  18. Juvenile delinquency  0  1  2  omit  19. Poor risk for conditional release  0  1  2  omit  0  1  2  omit  20. Criminal versatility  .  VALIDITY RATING On the basis of the quality of the interview and collateral information, indicate your confidence in the validity of your PCI. rating:  /  / 1 Low  2  3 Moderate  /____  4  5 High  of British Columbia @Copyright 1989 by Robert D. Hare, University  90  Appendix B DSK—III-R 301.70 (Antisocial Personality Disorder) Rater:_______________  Subject: Criteria Satisfied:  A B C D  Final Diagnosis:  Date: 9 0 1 2  Unknown N0tAPD Possible APD Definite APD 9  A. Current age at least 18  0  1  2  B. Evidence of Conduct Disorder with onset before age 15, as indicated by 9 0 1 2 a history of three or more of the following: (1) was often truant  9  0  1  2  (2) ran away from home at least twice while living in parental or parental surrogate home  9  0  1  2  (3) often initiated physical fights  9  0  1  2  (4) used a weapon in more than one fight  9  0  1  2  (5) forced someone into sexual activity with him or her  9  0  (6) was physically cruel to animals  9  0  1  2  (7) was physically cruel to other people  9  0  1  2  (8) deliberately destroyed others’ property (other than by fire—setting)  9  0  1  2  (9) deliberately engaged in fire-setting  9  0  1  2  (10) often lied (other than to avoid physical or sexual abuse)  9  0  1  2  (11) has stolen without confrontation of a victim on more than one occasion (including forgery)  9  0  1  2  9  0  (12) has stolen with confrontation of a victim (e.g., 0 purse-snatching, extortion, armed robbery) mugging  ....  2  2  C. A pattern of irresponsible and antisocial behavior since the age of 15, 9 0 1 2 as indicated by at least four of the following (1)  is unable to sustain consistent work behavior, as indicated by any of the following (including similar behavior in academic settings if the person isastudent) (a) significant unemployment for six months or more within five years when expected to work and work was available (b) repeated absences from work unexplained by illness in self or family (C) abandonment of several jobs without realistic plans for others  9  0  1  2  91  (2) fails to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior, as indicated by repeatedly performing antisocial acts that are grounds for arrest (whether arrested or not), e.g., destroying property, harassing others, stealing, pursuing an illegal occupation  9  0  1  2  9  0  1  2  (4) repeatedly fails to honor financial obligations, as indicated by defaulting on debts or failing to provide child support or support for other dependents on a regular basis  9  0  1  2  (5) fails to plan ahead, or is impulsive, as indicated by one or both of the following  9  0  1  2  9  0  1  2  (7) is reckless regarding his or her own or others’ personal safety, as indicated by driving while intoxicated, or 9 recurrent speeding  0  1  2  (8) if a parent or guardian, lacks ability to function as a responsible parent, as indicated by one or more of the following:  9  0  9  0  2  9  0  2  (3)  is irritable and aggressive, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults (not required by one’s job or to defend someone or oneself), including spouseor child-beating  (a) traveling from place to place prearranged job or clear goal of travel or clear idea about travel would terminate (b) lack of a fixed address for a  without a for the period when the month or more  (6) has no regard for the truth, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or “conning” others for personal profit or pleasure  2  (a) malnutrition of child (b) child’s illness resulting from lack of minimal hygiene standards (c) failure to obtain medical care for a seriously ill child (d) child’s dependence on neighbours or nonresident relatives for food or shelter (e) failure to arrange for a caretaker for young child when parent is away from home (f) repeated squandering, on personal items, of money required for household necessities (9) has never sustained a totally monogamous relationship for more than one year (10)  lacks remorse (feels justified in having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another)  D. Occurrence of antisocial behavior not exclusively during the course of 2 9 0 Schizophrenia or manic episodes  92  Appendix C PCL Interview: p. PCL-R Interview:  A. 1.  Female Version  SUBJECT INFORMATION ID!:________________________________________  2. Ethnicity: 3. Age:_____________________________________ 4.  Date of Birth:________________________________  5.  Place of Birth:  6.  Gender:________________________________________  7.  Handedness:____________________________________  8.  First Language:_______________________________  9.  Education Level:______________________________  B.  INTERVIEW INFORMATION  1.  Interviewer:___________________________________  2.  Interviewed at:_______________________________  3.  Type of Setting:______________________________  4.  Date  of  Interview:  5. Observed by:_________________________________  C. RATER INFORMATION 1. Rater:________________________________________ 2.  Date of Rating:  3.  Interview Type:_____ a) Live b) Audiotape c) Videotape  1989 by R. D. Hare Department of Psychology University of British Columbia C Copyright  1  93  PCL Interview: p. 2 D. SCHOOL ADJUSTMENT 1. How many different elementary schools did you attend?  **  Why did you change schools?  2. How many secondary schools did you attend?  **  Why did you change schools?  3. What was your attendance like in school?  **  How often did you skip out? Why? At what age(s)?  4. What kind of grades did you get in school?  **  Did you ever fail a grade? Why? At what age(s)?  5. Did you like school?  **  Did you find it boring? Did you have any trouble paying attention?  **  How would your teachers have described you (day—dreamer, hyper, etc.)?  6. How did you get along with other kids at school?  **  Did you have any close friends?  94  PCL Interview: p. 3 7. How was your behavior at school?  ** Did you get into physical fights? How often? At what age(s)? What percent of the time did you start them? Have you ever used a weapon in a fight? How many times? Did you ever hurt someone badly? Age(s)?  **  **  Did you get into trouble for anything else (disturbing the class, being drunk/stoned at school, cheating, stealing, etc.)? How often? At what age(s)?  Were you ever suspended or expelled? How often? What for? At what age(s)?  8. Did you graduate from high school?  IF NO, ASK: ** Did you quit school? Why?  9. What did you do after leaving school?  10. Have you done any upgrading or taken any technical or vocational courses?  **  Describe it. How did you do?  95  PCL Interview: p.  4  E. WORK HISTORY 1. What kind of work have you done in the past (including housewife and looking after children)?  2. How many different jobs do you think you have had?  3. What was your longest job? What was the shortest?  ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ABOUT THREE OF FOUR OF THE INDIVIDUAL’S LONGEST OR MOST RECENT JOBS: ** ** If housewife was listed the folowing questions should still be asked ** What was the position? What were the duties? ** How long did you do that for? How old were you when you started? How old were you when you stopped? ** Did you enjoy it? Did you find it boring? How was the money? or were you fired? ** Why did you leave that job? Did you quit, Financial/personal enjoyment  Ages/Dates To: From:  Position & Duties  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  Why left?  96  PCL Interview: p. 5 IF INDIVIDUAL WORKED IN THE HOME THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS CAN STILL BE ASKED. 4. Are you a reliable employee? (If applying to work at home might ask questions such as: Did you get your children off to school on time?)  **  Are you a hard worker?  **  Did you ever get in trouble at work (for being late or absent, drinking/using drugs at work, etc.)? How often? At what age(s)?  **  Have you ever been fired? How often? At what age(s)?  5. Did you ever leave a job with no other job in sight?  **  How often? Why? At what age(s)?  6. Have you ever been unemployed? (If was unemployed but at home looking after children then this should be noted)  **  How often? At what age(s)? For how long? How did you support yourself?  **  Were you looking for work? How seriously?  7. Have you ever collected UI, welfare, or some other form of social assistance?  **  How many times? At what age(s)?  8. On the Street, how do you usually support yourself?  **  Did you ever rely on someone else for food, money or lodging? At what age(s)? For how long?  **  Did you ever support yourself through crime (e.g., selling drugs, thefts, mugging or rolling people, prostitution, pimping, frauds)? At what age(s)?  97  PCL Interview: p. 6 F. CAREER GOALS 1.  like to have? Is there any trade or occupation you would  **  planned or prepared for this How long have you wanted to do this? Have you do you require? trade/occupation in any way? What training  2. What are your plans after release?  **  t yourself? Where are you going to live? How will you suppor  3. Do you have any long—term goals?  **  Where would you like to be in ten years?  goals? 4. What problems might you have in achieving those  98  PCL Interview: p. G. FINANCES 1.  Have you ever had a bank loan or a personal loan?  **  How many? At what age(s)? Did you pay it (them) back? Why/why not?  2. How is your credit rating?  **  Did you ever fall behind on payment of your bills? How often? At what age ( s)?  H. HEALTH 1. Do you have any serious medical problems  **  (seizures, severe headaches)?  Describe them. When did they start? Are you presently on any medication?  2. How is your hearing and eyesight? Did you have any problems learning to read?  3. Have you ever been seen by a psychologist or psychiatrist?  **  **  What for? At what age(s)? In prison, or on the street? What was the diagnosis? What treatment(s) did you receive?  Have you ever been hospitalized for mental or emotional problems? What for? At what age(s)?  7  99  PCL Interview: p. 8  4. Were you ever on medications for your nerves?  **  What medications? What dosages? What for? Who prescribed them?  5. As a child were you ever diagnosed as “hyperactive”?  **  By whom? At what age(s)? Did you receive treatment?  6. As an adult or child were you ever diagnosed as being a “borderline” or “histrionic” personality?  **  By whom? At what age(s)? Did you receive treatment?  7. As an adult or child have you ever cut or slashed your arms?  8. Have you ever tried to commit suicide?  **  How many times? Why? At what age(s)? Were the attempts serious, or were they a means of getting attention?  9. Do you think you have PMS? If so, why?  10. Have you ever had an abortion? If so, how many? What made you decide to have an abortion.  100  PCL Interview: p. 9 I.  FAMILY LIFE  1. Were you raised by your natural parents?  **  r family, group Did you ever live with anyone else (step/adoptive/foste there? live to come you did How home, etc.)? Who? At what age(s)?  HOME(S): ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRIMARY PARENTAL ** What was your home life like?  Were they How did you get along with your parent(s)? Describe them. they ever on Were living? a for do they did affectionate towards you? What welfare? **  **  **  **  **  **  they ever Did they get along well together? Did they argue much? Did you? have physical fights? Did they ever separate? How did this affect  Do you have any brothers or sisters? How did you get along with them?  often did Were things strict at your house? Were there lots of rules? How Why? How age(s)? what At etc.)? steal, away, run (lie, rules you break the s? were you punished? How was your behavior compared to your sibling  happened? Did anybody in your home have any troubles with the law? Who? What  al problems? Who? Did anybody in your home have any serious mental or physic What about problems with alcohol or drugs?  101  PCL Interview: p. 10 E HOME(S): T THE INDIVIDUAL’S PRIMARY SURROGAT ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ABOU ** What was life there like?  **  **  **  **  you get along with them? Who else lived there? How did  lots of rules? How often did you Were things strict there? Were there etc.)? At what age(s)? Why? How , steal break the rules (lie, run away, were you punished?  ? les with the law? Who? What happened Did anybody there have any troub  What about us mental or physical problems? Who? Did anybody there have any serio alcohol or drug problems?  102  PCL Interview: p. 11 2. Were you ever abused physically or emotionally?  **  By whom? At what age(s)? What happened?  3. Did you ever run away from home overnight?  **  parents? Why? How many times? At what age(s)? Did you contact your  4. How old were you when you left home?  **  Why? At what age(s)? What did you do?  plans? t 5. Have you ever hit the road” and traveled withou real  **  did you go? At what age(s)? What was the longest time you were gone? Where going? were you anyone What did you do? Did you tell  s? When? 6. What is the longest time you have lived without a fixed addres  7. What is your relationship with your family like now?  **  How often do you have contact with them?  **  What are they doing now? How are they?  103  PCL Interview: p. J. MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS 1.  How many live—in relationships have you had? (INCLUDE BOTH HETEROSEXUAL AND HOMOSEXUAL)  **  How many times have you been married or lived common—law?  IF THE INDIVIDUAL HAS HAD NUMEROUS RELATIONSHIPS, ASK: ** Why have you had so many relationships?  IF THE INDIVIDUAL DENIES ANY LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS, ASK: Have you ever had a serious boyfriend (or girlfriend)? ** Have you ever had a homosexual relationship? **  FOR THREE OF THE LONGEST OR MOST RECENT LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS, ASK: ** How long did the relationship last? How old were you when it started? ** Describe your partner. What did you like best about your partner? Were you in love with your partner, or was it just a physical relationship? ** Was the relationship stable? Did you argue much? Did you ever have physical fights? ** Why did the relationship end? How long did it take you to get over it? Type of Relationshio  Ages/Dates From:  Dpscriotien  --  —  I  I  I I  I  I  12  104  PCL Interview: p. 2. Have you ever been deeply in love?  **  WLth who?  3. Have you ever had relationships with more than one person at the same time?  **  Tell me about it.  4. Have you ever been unfaithful to any of your partners?  **  How often? At what age(s)?  **  Did your partner ever find out? How did your partner react?  13  105  PCL Interview: p. K.  SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS  1. Have you ever been sexually abused? ** By whom? ** Was it ongoing or just once? ** How many different abusers were there?  2. How old were you when you first had a sexual relationship?  **  Was it with a stable partner, or a casual acquaintance?  3. How many different 8exual partners have you had?  **  How many were casual acquaintances (“one night stands”)?  4. Before age 13, did someone ever force you into sexual activity? Did you ever force anyone into sexual activity?  14  106  PCL Interview: p.  15  L. CHILDREN  1. Do you have any children or step-children? Who was the father(s)? How long did you know him (them)?  2. How old are they now? What are their birthdates? What grade are they in at school?  3. How is your relationship with your children? How often do you have contact with them? Who has been primarily responsible for raising them?  4. Have you ever failed to take care of your children?  107  PCL Interview: p. 16  5. Have your children ever been apprehended?  6. Are their father(s) involved in their uprbringing?  7. Do their father(s) pay child support? Have you ever had to pay child support?  8. Have you ever used your children to get money?  9. How do you support your children?  108  PCL Interview: p. 17 H. DRUG USE, ETC. 1. Do you use alcohol or drugs?  **  What types? Since what age(s)?  **  you ever addicted? Did you ever seriously abuse alcohol or drugs? Were  **  ion, etc.)? Why do you use drugs (stimulation, escape, relaxat  **  when drunk or Did you ever do anything dangerous or get into trouble d, etc.)? arreste get fights, into get ed, impair while stoned (drive  2. Do you like to speed or take chances when you drive?  **  ng or reckless driving? How Have you ever been stopped by the police for speedi often?  3. Do you ever do crazy or dangerous things for fun?  **  What types of things? At what age(s)?  4. How often do you get into physical fights?  **  you ever caused Have you ever lost control”? What was the worst injury someone?  109  PCL Interview: p. 18 N. CHILDHOOD/ADOLESCENT ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR vandalize a school or someone else’s 1. When you were young, did you do anything like from your parents or tell alot of steal fun, for s property, set fires, hurt animal lies?  **  How often? At what age(s)?  **  ed? How did it affect you? Did you ever get caught? How were you punish  **  nds? Who was the leader? Were you alone, with a boyfriend, other girlfrie  as a child? 2. Did you ever get into trouble with the police BELOW) AND 12 AGE MEANS (“CHILD”  **  What for? At what age(s)?  3. Were you ever arrested as a juvenile? (“.JUVENILE” MEANS AGE 17 AND BELOW)  **  you convicted? How many times? At what age(s)? What for? Were  **  Who was the leader? Were you alone, with a boyfriend, other girlfriends?  crime? 4. How old were you when you first started doing  **  What kinds of things did you do?  **  ? Did you ever commit crimes and not get caught What?  110  PCL Interview: p.  19  0. ADULT ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 1. What are you serving time for right now? How long is your sentence?  FOR EACH SPECIFIC OFFENSE, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: ** What happened? What did you do? What do the police say that you did? ** Was the offense spontaneous, or was it planned? ** Were you the only person involved, with a boyfriend, or were you with others? ** Did you know the victim? ** Were you drunk or stoned at the time of the offense? ** How did you get arrested? ** Who was the leader? Description Offense  2. Do you feel this sentence is fair? What kind of job did your lawyer do?  3. Do you think your current charges (or sentence) will have any effect on your life? What type?  111  PCL Interview: p. 20 4. What other types of offenses have you been arrested for as an adult?  **  What is the most serious of fen8e you have ever committed? Describe it.  5. Who or what is to blame for your offenses?  **  Why do you commit crime?  Why did you start crime?  IF THE INDIVIDUAL TAXES PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: ** What could you have done to avoid committing the offense? ** Have you ever tried to stop crime? How?  6.  What factors would help keep you out of crime?  7.  Do you regret having committed your offenses?  **  Why/why not?  112  PCL Interview: p. 21 8. What effect have your crimes had on the victims?  **  with How do feel about the effect on the victims? Have you had contact them?  planned? 9. Are your crimes usually impulsive (spur—of—the—moment) or  10. How do you feel when you are doing a crime?  **  Are you nervous? Excited? Scared?  **  Do you like doing crime?  11. Did you ever commit crimes and not get caught?  **  What types? How often? At what age(s)?  (unlawfully at 12. Have you ever breached parole or probation, escaped, gone UAL court)? large), or had a FTA (fail to appear at  **  Which one(s)? How often? At what age(s)?  13. Have you ever used aliases?  **  How often? Why?  113  PCL Interview: p. 22 P. GENERAL QUESTIONS guilty or that you were sorry you 1. Have you ever done anything that made you feel ? crime) than had done (other  **  2.  What did you do? Why did you feel badly about it?  If the price were right,  **  is there anything you would not do?  What?  you get bored easily? 3. When you work at something for a long time, do  4. Do you lie a lot?  **  How often? Are you good at it?  ulate? 5. Do you think that people are easy to “con” or manip  **  Do you ever do it? What are some examples?  6. Do people tell you that you have a “bad-temper”?  **  What types of things get you really angry?  **  What do you do when you are angry?  7. How many close friends do you have?  **  with them? How long have you known them? Do you keep in touch  **  to have someone close? What makes a “close friend”? Is it important for you  114  PCL Interview: p. 23 8. How do you feel about yourself?  **  scale of 1 to 10. How is your self—esteem? Rate your self—image on a  9. Has anyone close to you died?  **  you go to the funeral? How did that affect you? How did you handle it? Did  IF NO, ASK: How did that affect you? How ** Has anyone close to you ever been seriously ill? did you handle it? Did you go to the hospital?  10. What is the most depressed you have ever been?  11. What is the happiest you have ever been?  12. Are you satisfied with your life so far?  would you describe as your Is there anything missing in your life? What? What s? main failure **  115  Appendix D  3E( INVENTORY  ____  Name_______________________________  Date____________________  ments. Please read each group Oa this questionnaire are groups of state statement in each group which out the one of statements carefully. Then pick feeling the PAST VEF, INCLUDING TODAYS been have you way the beat describes t you picked. If several statements in men state Circle the number beside the circle each one. !-e sure to read all the the group seem to apply equally veil ing your choice. statements in each roup before mak 1.  0 1 2 3  1 1 I I  do not feel sad. feel sad. of it. am sad all the time and I can’t snap out it. stand t can’ I that am so sad or unhappy  2.  0 1 2 3  I 1 I I  the future. am not particularly discouraged about e. futur the t abou feel discouraged feel I have nothing to look forward to. that things cannot improve. feel that the future is hopeless and  3.  0 1 2 3  I do not feel like a failure. average person. I feel I have failed more than the see is a lot -of failures. can As I look back on my life, all I n. perso a as re failu I feel I am a complete  4,  0 1 2 3  1 I I I  s as I used to. get as much satisfaction out of thing to. used way I the s don’t enjoy thing anything anymore. don’t get real satisfaction out of g. ythin ever vith d am dissatisfied or bore  5.  0 I 2 3  I I 1 I  don’t feel particularly guilty. . feel guilty a good part of the time . time the of moat y guilt quite feel feel guilty all of the time.  6.  0 1 2 3  I I I I  don’t feel I as being pwifshed. feel I may be punished. expect to be punished. feel I as being punished.  7.  0 1 2 3  I 1 I 1  don’t feel disappointed in myself. as disappointed in myself. as disgusted with myself. bate myself.  8.  0 1 2 3  1 1 I I  ody else. don’t feel I am any worse than anyb es or mistakes. ness weak my for elf mys as critical of s. fault my blame myself .11 the time for ens. happ that bad g ythin ever blame myself for  9.  0 I 2 3  I I I 1  myself. don’t have any thoughts of killing I would not carry them out. but elf, mys g killin of have thoughts would like to kill myself. would kill myself if I bad the chance.  116  Page 2 10. 0 1 2 3  1 I I I  don’t cry anymore than usual. cry more now than I used to. cry all the time now. used to be able to cry, but nov I can’t cry even though I want to.  11. 0 1 2 3  I I I 1  am no more irritated now than I ever am. get annoyed or irritated more easily than I used to. feel irritated all the tine nov. don’t get irritated at all by the things that used to irritate me.  12. 0 I 2 3  I I 1 I  have not lost interest in other people. am less interested in other people than I used to be. have lost most of my interest in other people. have lost all of my interest in other people.  13. 0 1 2 3  I I 1 I  make decisions about as well as I ever could. put off making decisions more than I used to. have greater difficulty in making decisions than before. can’t make decisions at all anymore.  14. 0 I don’t feel. I look any worse than I used to. 1 I an worried that I am looking old or unattractive. make me 2 I feel that there are permanent changes in my appearance that look unattractive. 3 1 believe that I look ugly. 15. 0 1 2 3  I can work about as veil as before. It takes an extra effort to get started at doing something’. 1 have to push myself very bard to do anything. 1 can’t do any work at all.  16. 0 I can sleep as well as usual. 1 I don’t sleep an veil as I used to. bard to get back 2 I wake up 1—2 hours earlier than usual and find it to sleep. and cannot get back 3 I wake up several hours earlier than I used to to sleep. don’t get more tired than usual. get tired more easily than I used to. get tired from doing almost anything. an too tired to do anything.  17. 0 1 2 3  I I 1 1  18. 0 I 2 3  y appetite i.e no worse than usual. Ify appetite is not as good as it used to be. fly appetite is much worse now. 1 have no apetite at all anymore.  19. 0 1 2 3  I I I I  haven’t lost much weight, if any, lately. have lost more than 5 poimds. have lost more than 10 pound.. have lost more than 15 pounds.  I am purposely trying to lose weight by eating less. No Y•s —  —  117  Page 3 h than usual. 20. 0 I am no more worried about my healt such as aches and pains, or upset ms proble al physic about d 1 I am worrie stonach, or constipation. ms and it’. hard to think of 2 1 am very .worried.aboutyphysical proble much else. ms that 1 cannot think about 3 I am so worried about my physical proble anything else. 21. 0 1 2 3  I I I I  est in sex. have not noticed any recent change in my inter be. to used I than sex in ested inter am less am much less interested in sex now. have lost interest in sex completely.  118  Name or ID#_______________________  Male_  Female_ Age____  V  DAVIS IRI  Instructions: The following statements inquire about your thoughts and feelings in a variety of situations. For each item, indicate how well it describes you by choosing the appropriate number on the scale at the top of each page. When you have decided on you answer, fill in the number next to the item.  ANSWER SCALE:  2 Does not Describe me well  Describes me very well  There are no “right” or “wrong” answers. Please read each item carefully and be sure to answer all items.  119  1  Does not describe me well  a  pg2  I  &  Describes me very well  (001) If I’m sure I’m right about something, I don’t waste much time listening to other people’s arguments. (002) I really get involved with the feelings of the characters in a novel. (003) Sometimes I don’t feel very sorry for other people when they are having problems. (004) I am often quite touched by things that I see happen. (005) When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them. (006) I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both. (007) I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person. (008) I am usually objective when I watch a movie or play, and I don’t often get completely caught up in it. (009) When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don’t feel very much pity for them. (010) Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place. (011) After seeing a play or movie, I have felt as though I were one of the characters. (012) When I am reading an interesting story or novel, I imagine how I would feel if the events in the story were happening to me. (013) I try to look at everybody’s side of a disagreement before I make a decision. (014) I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the “other guyssw point of view.  120  1 Does not describe me well  a  pg 3  I  Describes me very well  (015) Being in a tense emotional situation scares me. (016) When I see someone who badly needs help in an emergency, I go to pieces. (017) I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective. (018) In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and ill—at— ease. (019) When I see someone get hurt, I tend to remain calm. (020) When I watch a good movie, I can very easily put myself in place of a leading character. (021) Becoming extremely involved in a good book or movie is somewhat rare for me. (022) Other people’s misfortune’s do not usually disturb me a great deal. _(023) I sometimes feel helpless when I am in the middle of a very emotional situation. (024) I tend to lose control during emergencies. (025) I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me. (026) I am usually pretty effective in dealing with emergencies. (027) I daydream and fantasize, with some regularity, about things that might happen to me. (028) When I’m upset at someone, I usually try to “put myself in his shoes” for awhile.  121  Name or ID#_____________________  Sex:  N  F  Age:  INSTRUCTIONS Below are a number of pairs of statements with which you may or may not identify. Consider this example: A “I like having authority over people”, versus B “I don’t mind following orders”.Which of these two statements is closer to your own feelings about yourself? If you identify more with “liking to have authority over other people” than with “not minding following orders”, then you would choose option “A”. You may identify with both “A” and “B”. In this case you should choose the statement which seems closer to your personal feelings about yourself. Or, if you do not identify with either statement, select the one which is least objectionable or remote. In other words, read each pair of statements and then choose the one that is closer to your own feelings. Indicate your answer by circling the letter (“A” or “B”) corresponding to this statement. Please circle only one letter for each item and do not skjp any items.  122  pg 2  1.  A B  I have a natural talent for influencing people. I am not good at influencing people.  2.  A B  Modesty doesn’t become me. I am essentially a modest person.  3.  A B  I would do almost anything on a dare. I tend to be a fairly cautious person.  4.  A B  When people compliment me I sometimes get embarrassed. I know that I am good because everybody keeps telling me so.  5.  A  6.  A B  I can usually talk my way out of anything. I try to accept the consequences of my behavior.  7.  A B  I prefer to blend in with the crowd. I like to be the center of attention.  8.  A B  I will be a success. I am not too concerned about success.  9.  A B  I am no better or no worse than most people. I think I am a special person.  10.  A B  I am not sure if I would make a good leader. I see myself as a good leader.  11.  A B  I am assertive. I wish I were more assertive.  12.  A B  I like having authority over other people. I don’t mind following orders.  13.  A B  I find it easy to manipulate people. I don’t like it when I find myself manipulating people.  14.  A B  I insist upon getting the respect that is due me. I usually get the respect that I deserve.  15.  A B  I don’t particularly like to show of f my body. I like to display my body.  The thought of ruling the world frightens the hell out of me. B. If I ruled the world it would be a much better place.  123  pg 3  16.  A B  I can read people like a book. People are sometimes hard to understand.  17.  A B  If I feel competent I am willing to take responsibility for making decisions. I like to take responsibility for making decisions.  18.  A B  I just want to be reasonably happy. I want to amount to something in the eyes of the world.  19.  A B  My body is nothing special. I like to look at my body.  20.  A B  I try not to be a show of f. I am apt to show of f if I get the chance.  21.  A B  I always know what I am doing. Sometimes I am not sure of what I am doing.  22.  A B  I sometimes depend on people to get things done. I rarely depend on anyone else to get things done.  23.  A B  Sometimes I tell good stories. Everybody likes to hear my stories.  24.  A B  I expect a great deal from other people. I like to do things for other people.  25.  A B  I will never be satisfied until I get all that I deserve. I take my satisfactions as they come.  26.  A B  Compliments embarrass me. I like to be complimented.  27.  A B  I have a strong will to power. Power for its own sake doesn’t interest me.  28.  A B  I don’t very much care about new fads and fashions. I like to start new fads and fashions.  29.  A B  I like to look at myself in the mirror. I am not particularly interested in looking at myself in the mirror.  30.  A B  I really like to be the center of attention. It makes me uncomfortable to be the center of attention.  124  pg 4  31.  A B  I can live my life in any way I want to. People can’t always live their lives in terms of what they want.  32.  A B  Being an authority doesn’t mean that much to me. People always seem to recognize my authority.  33.  A B  I would prefer to be a leader. It makes little difference to me whether I am a leader or not.  34.  A B  I am going to be a great person. I hope I am going to be successful.  35.  A B  People sometimes believe what I tell them. I can make anyone believe anything I want them to.  36.  A B  I am a born leader. Leadership is a quality that takes a long time to develop.  37  A B  I wish someone would someday write my biography. I don’t like people to pry into my life for any reason.  38,  A  I get upset when people don’t notice how I look when I go out in public. I don’t mind blending into the crowd when I go out in public.  B 39.  A B  I am more capable than other people. There is a lot that I can learn from other people.  40.  A B  I am much like everybody else. I am an extraordinary person.  125  SELF-EVAUJATION QUEST1ONNMRE STAI FORM Xi NAME  DATE  DIRECTIONS: A number of statements which peop!e have used to describe themselves are given below. Read each state ment and then blacken in the appropriate circle to the right of the statement to indicate how you generally feel There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statemeat but give the answer which seems to describe how you generally feeL 21. IEee! plensant...._  -  k  ilil CD®  -  dl)  Ii)  CD®  CD  22. 1 tire quickly  CD  23. Ifeellilcecrying  CD®  CD®  CD®  CD®  25. 1 am losing out on things because I can’t make up my mind soon enough  CD®  CD®  26. 1 feel rested  CD  ®®  ®  27. I am “calm, coo!, and collected”  CD  ®•CD  CD  28. 1 feel that dii&ulties are piling up so that I cannot overcome them  CD®  CD®  29. 1 worry too much over something that really doesn’t matter  CD®  CD®  CD®  CD®  CD®  CD®  CD®  CD®  33. Ifeelsecure  CD®  CD®  34. 1 try to avoid facing a crisis or difficulty  CD®  CD®  CD®  CD  CD®  CD®  37. Some unimportant thought runs through my mind and bothers me  CD®  CD®  38. I take disappoinbnents so keenly that I can’t put them out of my mind  CD®  CD®  39. Iamasteadyperson  CD®  CD®  24. I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be  ..  ..  30.Iemhappy  -  31. 1 am inclined to take things hard 32. 1 lack senMence  .  3&Ifeelblue.....  ..  36. 1 am content  ..  ..  40. I get in a state of tension or turmoil as I think over my recent concerns and interesta  ..  Copyright © 1968 by Chorle. D. SpieIZerger. Reproduction of this test or o.ny portioli thereof by ony process without written ermcssion of the Pubhsher is prohibited.  126  S 0 SCALE  1.  I often feel that I made a wrong choice in my occupation.  1’  F  2.  1!hen I was going to school I played hooky quite often.  T  F  T  P  3. I think Lincoln was greater than Vashington. 4.  I would do a1ost anything on a  T  P  5.  iith things going as they are, it’s pretty hax to keep up hope of axaounting to something.  T  P  6.  I think I am stricter about right and wrong than most people.  T  P  7.  I as somewhat afraid of the dark.  1’  F’  8.  I hardly ever get excited or thrifled.  7  7  7  F  9. 1iy parents have often disapproved of my friends. 10.  My hose life was always happy.  7  F  11.  I often act on the spur of the soseut without stopping to think.  T  F  12.  My parents have generally let me sake up my own decisions.  r  F  13.  I would rather go without something than ask for a favor.  T  F  14.  I have had sore than my share of things to worry about.  T  P  15,  !lhen Imeet a stranger Iofte think that he is better than Isa.  7  F  16.  Before I do something I try to consider how my friends will react to it.  7  P  17.  I have never been in trouble with the law.  lb  p  18.  In school I was sometimes sent to the principle for cutting up.  7  P  19.  I keep out of troubie at all costs.  ‘1’  F  20.  l4ost of the time I feel happy.  7  F  21 •  I often feel as though I have done something wrong or wicked.  T  P  22.  It is hard for me to act natural when I am with new people.  7  F  23.  I have often gone against my parents wishes.  lb  P  24.  I often think about how I look and what impression I am making upon others.  lb  F  I have never done any heavy drinking.  lb  F  25.  127  S 0 SCALE  -2F  26.  friend. ” I find it easy to “drop’ or “break with a  T  27.  for a job. I get nervous when I have to ask someone  I  28.  to leave home, Sometimes I used to feel that I would like  T  P  I never worry about  T  F  29.  1’  F  T  F  5)!  looks.  31.  s because of my sex I have been in trouble one or more time behavior. rather than try to escape it. I g out of my way to meet trouble fly home life was always very pleasant.  T  F  32.  often than other people do. I seem to do things that I regret more at home as when I am out in hy table manners axe not quite as good company.  T  F  I’  F  to win arguments with me. 35. It is pretty easy for people  T  F  les. 36. I ksow who is responsible for most of my troub  T  F  T  F  ?  F  T  F  I’  F  30.  33. 34.  3?.  when a smart lawyer gets a I get pretty discouraged with the law criminal free.  38.  I have used alcohol excessively.  £10.  I was usually trying to do even when I have gotten into trouble the right thing. enough friends and social life. It is very important to me to have home. I sometimes wanted to run away from  T  F  41.  deal. Life usually hands me a pretty raw  T  F  42.  back. People often talk about me behind my  I’  F  43.  a stranger. I would never play cards (poker) with others sees to be. I don’t think I’m quite as happy as  T  F  T  F  was a youngster. I used to steal sometimes when I and quiet than those of most Iiy home as a child was less peaceful other people. public makes me a.fm.id. Even the idea of giving a talk in  T  F  T  F  T  T  39.  44.  45. £16. 47. 48.  49.  give the teachers lots of As a youngster in school I used to trouble.  T  128  S 0 SCALE  D.  l with a circus or If the pay was right I would like to trave carnival.  51.  T  P  I never cared such for school.  T  P  to each other. The members of ay family were always very close  T  F  52.  53.  hy parents never really ur4erstood me.  T  F  54.  anyone. A person is better off if he doesn’t trust  p  129  Date:  ID Number:______________  ITKRPERSOAL AD3ZCT P1K SCALKS (Fore IAS-R)  On the opposite page is a list of word. that are used to describe Please rate how accurately people’s personal characteristics. each word describes you as a person. Judge how accurately each word describes you on the following scale:  a  Kxtrly Inaccurate  Very Inaccurate  Quite Inaccurate  &  I  Slightly Inaccurate  Slightly Accurate  Quite Accurate  2 Very  Accurate  For example, consider the word SOLD. How accurately does that word describe you as a person? If you think this is a quit. accurate description of you, write the number 6 next to it:  If you think this word is a slightly inaccurate description of you, writ• the number 4 next to it, if it ii very Inaccurat, writ, the number 2 next to it, and so on.  Please be sure to do all of t. If you are uncertain of the eeanirag of a word, consult the definitions provided on the last page.  Extremely Accurate  130  1  1 Zxtremsly Inaccurate  Very  Quite  Inaccurate  Inaccurate  4  4 Slightly Inaccurate  Slightly  Accurate  Quito Accurate  2 Very  Accurate  4 Rztrly Accurate  (01) Introverted  (23) Unsparkling  (45) Unneighbourly  (02) Undemanding  (24) Cunning  (46) Self-confident  (03) Assertive  (25) Meek  (47) Outgoing  (04) Unauthoritative  (26) Uncharitable  (48) Boastful  (05) Uncalculating  (27) Unely  (49) Bashful  (06) Accommodating  (28) Unaggressive  (50) Firm  (29) Jovial  (51) Uncrafty  (08) Charitable  (30) Crafty  (52) Unsociable  (09) Shy  (31) Boastless  (53) Hard—hearted  (10) Uncunning  (32) Domineering  (54; Wily  (11) Coldhearted  (33) Unargumentative  (55) Calculating  (12) Ruthless  (34) Tender  (56) Uncheery  (13) Diseocial  (35) Unsympathetic  (57) Sly  (14) Tender-hearted  (36) Timid  (58) Neighbourly  (15) soft—hearted  (37) Unbold  (59) Warmthless  (16) Cheerful  (38) Forceful  (60) Distant  (17) Dominant  (39) Unwily  (61) cocky  (18) Antisocial  (40) xtraverted  _(07) Kind  (19) Iron-hearted (20) Znthusiaetic _(21) Self-assured (22) Cruel  _(41) Gentle—hearted (42) Persistent (43) Perky (44) Friendly  -  (62; Sympathetic (63) Forceless (64) Tricky  131  I.D.  Age____  0 Male  Female  SRP IL  Instructions: r of statements On the following pages you will find a numbe beliefs and their ribe desc to that have been used by people rs. Read othe of ors behavi and fs belie the behaviors, and or agree you r whethe decide each statement carefully and ree disag or agree you much how ate Indic disagree with it. scale: with each statement according the the following  1  Disagree Strongly  2  Disagree Disagree Moderately slightly  2  Neutral  Agree Slightly  Agree Agree Moderately Strongly  a statement, For example, if you disagree moderately with er agree nor neith you If it. to next write the number “2” “4”, r numbe the write t, men state the with disagree indicating Neutral. these There are no right or wrong answers to any of to them. trick any have ns questio the of none and questions but judge her, anot one to lar simi Some of the questions are ed answer have you if matter not does It y. ratel each one sepa you how ate indic simply y a similar question differentl would respond to to the current statement. Be sure not to miss any questions.  132  2 Disagree Strongly  a  Disagree Disagree Moderately Slightly  2  4  Neutral  Agree Slightly  —  (01) I enjoy driving at high speed.  —  time. (02) I enjoy giving “bossy” people a hard  —  tor. (03) I think I could “beat” a lie detec  —  sly. (04) Sometimes you have to be crafty or  —  Agree Agree Moderately Strongly  because no-one else is (05) It’s best to be dominant and assertive you. for out look going to  —  (06) I worry a lot about possible misfortunes.  —  . (07) I like to change jobs fairly often  —  be. (08) I can be fairly cunning if I have to  —  (09) Everybody likes to hear my stories.  —  say to people. (10) I am usually very careful about what I just for the thrill of it. (11) I have often done something dangerous  —  (12) I wish I were more assertive.  —  . (13) I expect a great deal from other people  —  (14) I’m not at all calculating.  —  confident. (15) I think of myself as self-assured and  —  . (16) I didn’t get into much trouble at school  —  (17) I get a kick out of “conning  —  time. (18) I get in trouble for the same things time after  —  (19) I am very good at most things I try to do.  —  I was a kid. (20) I was never in trouble with the police when  —  someone.  133  Disagree Strongly  —  a  Disagree Disagree Moderately slightly  Neutral  Agree Slightly  Agree Agree Moderately Strongly  straightforward and honest if you (21) It’s more effective to be for you. want people to do things  —  depress me. (22) Being unemployed would  —  (23) I enjoy taking chances.  —  erous just for the thrill of it. (24) I wouldn’t do anything dang  —  ily. (25) 1 often worry unnecessar respect that is due me. (26) I insist upon getting the gs done is to be forceful and persistent. (27) The best way to get thin at school. (28) I got in a lot of trouble  —  en. (29) Rules are made to be brok  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  nt when meeting new people. (30) I usually feel quite confide s is important to me. (31) Not hurting others’ feeling erous job because I like making (32) I would be good at a dang ns. fast decisio hallucinogenic drugs. (33) I have used few, if any, ld probably say I am a kind person. (34) On average my friends wou er. (35) I see myself as a good lead book. (36) I can read people lik, a of anything. (37) I can usually talk my way out ucinogenic drugs. (38) I have used most of the hall appointment because something (39) 1 have sometimes broken an g. more interesting came alon e stakes. (40) I enjoy gambling for larg  134  4  a  Disagree Strongly  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  Disagree Disagree Moderately Slightly  Neutral  Agree Slightly  er. (41) I have a strong will to pow crafty individual. (42) I would describe myself as a partners rather than just one. (43) I prefer having many sexual I get all that I deserve. (44) I will never be satisfied until nt and not worry about the future. (45) One must live only for the prese be a much better place. (46) If I ruled the world it would worried about something that my (47) Sometimes at night I get so p. heart pounds and I can’t fall aslee y or sly. (48) I don’t think of myself as trick something I’ve done. (49) I almost never feel guilty over far you can push someone before (50) It’s sometimes fun to see how they catch on. am lying. (51) People can usually tell if I shy or timid. (52) I wouldn’t describe myself as kes”. (53) Conning people gives me the “sha wrong I feel guilty even though nobody (54) When I do something 1 else knows it.  —  (55) I always know what I am doing.  —  le. (56) I find it easy to manipulate peop  —  (57) I’m a soft-hearted person.  —  2 Agree Agree Moderately Strongly  things. (58) I enjoy drinking and doing wild anding. (59) Ideally people should be undem n in this world and nobody else (60) I am the most important perso matters.  135  Appendix E  Correlation Matrix for the PCL—R Items  Iteinsi  Item 1  1.00  8  9  10  2  3  4  5  6  7  .69  .07  .28  .37  .22  .37  .15 —.12 —.16  1.00  .26  .35  .47  .39  .49  .31 —.11 —.09  1.00 —.05  .28  .45  .40  .42  .56  .49  1.00  .44  .16  .13  .29 —.10  .10  1.00  .37  .47  .37  .11  .17  1.00  .59  .71  .33  .32  1.00  .58  .33  .27  1.00  .41  .38  1.00  .43  Item 2  —  Item 3  —  —  Item 4  —  —  —  Item 5  —  —  —  —  Item 6  —  —  —  —  —  Item 7  —  —  —  —  —  —  Item 8  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  Item9  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  Item 10  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  1.00  (table continues)  136  Correlation Matrix for the PCL-R Items  Itemsi  Item 11  2  —.02 —.08  (continued)  5  6  7  8  9  10  .45 —.07  .13  .25  .32  .21  .48  .38  3  4  Item 12  .01  .04  .31  .05  .14  .28  .36  .35  .23  .33  Item 13  —.02  .03  .50 —.11  .09  .31  .42  .33  .60  .46  Item 14  .00  .01  .58  .10  .16  .30  .40  .39  .56  .66  .63 —.09  .10  .36  .31  .48  .62  .42  .09  .04  .52  .25  .46  .30  .27  Item 15 Item 16  —.03 —.07 .10  .27  .28  Item 17  —.12 —.14  .45 —.10  .09  .22  .20  .22  .43  .41  Item 18  —.22 —.07  .39 —.01  .05  .20  .08  .18  .28  .48  Item 19  —.01 —.03  .12 —.08  .15  .17  .13  .16  .29  .24  Item 20  —.31 —.29  .40 —.19  .18  .20  .26  .19  .63  .59  (table continues)  137  Correlation Matrix for the PCL—R Items  (continued)  Items 11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  1.00  .14  .59  .45  .38  .02  .44  .33  .14  .50  1.00  .16  .34  .42 —.05  .15  .41  .12  .18  1.00  .45  .47  .22  .29  .36  .21  .49  1.00  .49  .16  .40  .45  .26  .51  1.00  .20  .51  .37  .22  .44  .09 —.01  .05  .07  .22  .14  .38  1.00  .14  .38  1.00  .46  Item 11 Item 12  —  Item 13  —  —  Item 14  —  —  —  Item 15  —  —  —  —  Item 16  —  —  —  —  —  Item 17  —  —  —  —  —  —  Item 18  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  Item 19  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  Item2O  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  1.00  1.00  —  1.00  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items