Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
DOI 10.1007/s10578-016-0638-3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Relationship Between Early Life Events, Parental
Attachment, and Psychopathic Tendencies in Adolescent
Detainees
Erica J. Christian1 • Christine L. Meltzer1 • Linda L. Thede2 • David S. Kosson1
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract Despite increasing interest in understanding
psychopathic traits in youth, the role of early environ-
mental factors in the development of psychopathic traits is
not well understood. No prior studies have directly exam-
ined the relationship between early life events and psy-
chopathic traits. We examined links between life events in
the first 4 years of life and indices of the core affective and
interpersonal components of psychopathy. Additionally,
we examined relationships between early life events, psy-
chopathic traits, and attachment to parents among 206
adjudicated adolescents. Results indicated that the total
number of early life events was positively correlated with
indices of the affective component of psychopathy.
Moreover, psychopathic traits moderated the relationship
between the number of early life events and later reports of
attachment to parents. Findings suggest that early envi-
ronmental factors could have important implications for the
development of psychopathic traits and may impact
attachment to parents for youth with psychopathic traits.
Keywords Psychopathic traits
Life events

Attachment
Adolescents
Environmental factors
& Erica J. Christian
Erica.Christian@my.rfums.org
1 these two facets comprise the dimension commonly refer-
Department of Psychology, Rosalind Franklin University of
Medicine and Science, 3333 Green Bay Road,
North Chicago, IL 60064, USA
2
Thede Family Center for Autism and Neurodevelopmental
Disorders, Colorado Springs, CO, USA
Introduction
The Relationship Between Early Life Events
and Psychopathic Tendencies in Adolescents
Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by
interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, and antisocial features
which are associated with a variety of maladaptive attitudes
and behaviors [1]. Researchers have become increasingly
interested in studies of youth displaying psychopathic traits
in order to better understand the developmental trajectory
associated with this disorder. Although researchers have
warned against labeling children and adolescents as psy-
chopathic [2, 3], research has demonstrated that a small
subset of children who exhibit psychopathic traits can be
identified [4, 5]. Among youth, psychopathic traits are
associated with many of the same behaviors seen in adults,
including violent criminal behaviors, high recidivism rates
for violent and nonviolent crime, institutional maladjust-
ment, and a pattern of emotional and cognitive deficits
similar to those seen in adult psychopathy [6, 7]. The
Psychopathy Check List: Youth Version (PCL: YV) [8] is a
well-validated clinical measure of psychopathic traits in
youth that was based on adult measures but modified to be
sensitive to the roles and lifestyles of adolescents. The
measure is comprised of four underlying facets: affective,
interpersonal, lifestyle, and antisocial. The affective facet
measures traits such as shallow affect and lack of remorse
or guilt, whereas the interpersonal facet measures traits
such as superficial charm and pathological lying. Together
red to as Factor 1. The lifestyle facet measures character-
istics such as parasitic behavior and need for stimulation,
whereas the antisocial facet captures juvenile delinquency
and revocation of conditional release. Together the lifestyle
123

and antisocial facets comprise the dimension commonly
referred to as Factor 2.
Several theorists have argued explicitly that early
environmental factors are relevant to the development of
psychopathy. McCord and McCord [9] hypothesized that
parental rejection, lack of parental attachment, neglect,
brutal and erratic punishment and emotional deprivation all
contribute to the development of psychopathy. Similarly,
Maher [10] suggested that inconsistent parenting promotes
the development of psychopathic traits. Several early
studies provided empirical links between parenting factors
and outcomes related to antisocial behavior. For example,
there is evidence that ineffective parenting and inconsistent
parenting contribute to the development of some psycho-
pathic traits [11, 12]. As discussed shortly, we argue that
most prior studies of links between environmental adver-
sity and psychopathic traits have not examined early life
events per se. Consequently, we address this relationship in
the current study.
Despite the growing body of literature on psychopathic
traits in youth, most research has only indirectly investi-
gated the etiology of psychopathic traits. Recent behavior
genetic studies have established that genetic factors con-
tribute substantially to variance in personality traits asso-
ciated with psychopathy [13, 14]. Although fewer studies
have focused on environmental factors in the etiology of
psychopathy, behavior genetic studies also indicate an
important role for nonshared environmental factors in the
development of psychopathic traits [13, 15], and it is often
suggested that genetic and environmental factors likely
interact in the development of most personality disorders,
including psychopathy [16–18].
Recent psychopathy research suggests the importance of
some specific environmental factors. Vitacco et al. [19]
reported links between poor and inconsistent parenting and
levels of some psychopathic traits. Kimonis et al. [20]
found relationships between exposure to community vio-
lence and self-reported callous-unemotional (CU) traits in a
sample of adolescent males. Schraft et al. [21] found that
higher levels of childhood exposure to violence in the
home and community were associated with higher levels of
PCL: YV-measured psychopathic traits. Similarly, Kri-
scher and Sevecke [22] found a relationship between
physical and emotional traumatization and PCL: YV scores
among delinquent male adolescents. Marshall and Cooke
[23] reported that retrospective reports of parental antipa-
thy, indifference and neglect were positively associated
with psychopathic features in adulthood. These studies
suggest that environmental factors could contribute to the
etiology of psychopathy, although it must be acknowledged
that evidence of relationships between environmental fac-
tors and psychopathic traits could reflect an active gene-
123
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
environment correlation rather than reflecting a true envi-
ronmental cause.
Because psychopathy is commonly understood as a
multidimensional construct, with both affective and
interpersonal components that are considered relatively
specific to psychopathy as well as lifestyle and antisocial
components which are associated with other forms of
externalizing psychopathology (e.g., conduct disorder,
antisocial personality disorder), it is of some interest that
most prior studies suggest that relationships between
psychopathic traits and environmental adversity are lim-
ited largely to the lifestyle and antisocial components of
psychopathy. For example, both Krischer and Sevecke
[22] and Schraft et al. [21] reported that child maltreat-
ment was associated with ratings on the lifestyle and
antisocial facets of psychopathy. There are fewer links in
the existing literature between environmental adversity
and the interpersonal facet of psychopathy [but see 19,
21]. Some recent studies have found links between early
environmental factors such as prenatal maternal risks [24],
parenting styles [25], and preschool negative family cli-
mate [26] and higher levels of CU traits. We wondered
whether the lack of evidence for relationships between the
affective and interpersonal features and environmental
adversity in most studies and the recent evidence for
prenatal maternal risks [24] and early life environment
[26] could reflect the possibility that the relationships are
different for early environment versus for later childhood
environment. Moreover, in spite of the recent increased
interest in early life environment, there appear to be no
prior studies of early discrete life events.
Life Events
Prior studies have demonstrated relationships between life
events and several forms of psychopathology including
mood disorders, psychotic disorders, and personality dis-
orders. For example, negative life events appear to predict
the subsequent development of depression and suicidal
behavior [27–29]. However, only a few prior studies have
examined relationships between life events and psycho-
pathic traits. Among children with conduct disorder,
Deutsch and Erickson [30] reported that under-socialized
juvenile delinquents had experienced more stressful life
events in the first 4 years of life than socialized juvenile
delinquents. Recently, among adult offenders, Riser et al.
[31] reported that retrospective ratings of the number of
years a biological father had been involved in participants’
lives before age four was inversely related to their psy-
chopathy total scores and interpersonal facet scores; con-
versely, in the same study, the number of years that a non-
biological father was involved before age four was
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
positively related to psychopathy scores. However, to our
knowledge, no prior published studies have directly
examined relationships between early life events and psy-
chopathic traits in youth. Therefore, the current study was
designed to examine the relationship between psychopathic
traits and major life events during the first 4 years of life.
In this study, our goal was to examine important early life
events which impacted the parent–child relationship and
the family. Early life events were examined regardless of
their assumed emotional valiance, which is subjective.
Different individuals may experience the same life event as
positive, negative, or neutral. For a complete listing of life
events used in this study, refer to Table 2.
Attachment
One prominent explanation for the importance of early life
events is attachment theory. According to this perspective,
styles of attachment to caregivers are established early in
childhood and have important implications for subsequent
emotional functioning and behavior throughout childhood
and adulthood. Life events that interfere with an adult’s
ability to care for a child and develop and maintain
attachment may disrupt the parent–child attachment pro-
cess and contribute to the development of psychopathology
[32]. Examples include types of life events that would
physically separate parents from children or that would
reduce parents’ emotional involvement with their children
[32]. Insecure attachment has been linked to a variety of
negative outcomes, including severe psychopathology and
aggressive behaviors [33–36]. Disturbances of attachment
are also prominent in clinical descriptions of psychopathy
[9, 37], and several studies have reported that psychopathic
traits were associated with poorer attachment to parents
among both youth [5, 38] and adults [23]. Flight and Forth
[38] found that poor attachment was related to higher
psychopathy scores, particularly for the behavioral and
antisocial features of the disorder. To our knowledge, no
prior studies have examined the relationship between early
life events and later attachment in a sample of youth
assessed for psychopathic traits. Consequently, the present
study was also designed to examine this issue. In summary,
we examined the relationship between the total number of
life events in the first 4 years of life and total scores on the
PCL: YV, as well as scores on the four facets of psy-
chopathy. We hypothesized that total number of early life
events would correlate positively with ratings on the
affective and interpersonal facets of psychopathy. Again,
these particular features are especially important because
they are considered the core traits of psychopathy that
distinguish it from other related disorders. Finally, we
examined psychopathic traits as a moderator of the
relationship between early life events and later parental
attachment.
Method
Participants
This study utilized data from 206 adolescents in two dif-
ferent samples. The first sample consisted of 80 adjudicated
adolescent delinquents who were tested while on probation
in North Carolina. The participants ranged in age from 12
to 16 with an average age of 14.5 years. The ethnic com-
position of the sample was as follows: 66.7 % African
American adolescents, 27.2 % European American ado-
lescents, and 6.1 % who identified as ‘‘Other’’.
The second sample consisted of approximately 126
adolescents detained in a juvenile detention facility near
Chicago, IL. An analysis of this subsample indicates that
the ethnic makeup was approximately 27.2 % African
American, 28.6 % European American, 32.9 % Latino/a,
and 5.6 % multi-racial youth. The analysis also indicated
that the participants ranged in age from 11 to 17 years old
(mean = 15.64 years; SD = 1.13). This sample represents
a subset of adolescent participants from a larger project
whose parent or guardian provided early life events
information.
Procedures
As stated above, participants in the current study were
drawn from two different samples. In the first sample,
participants were recruited and tested while on probation in
Guilford County, North Carolina. Participants in the second
sample were recruited and tested at a detention center
outside of Chicago, IL as part of a larger study. All par-
ticipants and their parents or guardians were informed
about the nature of the risks and benefits of participation in
the study. In both Sample 1 and Sample 2, adults gave
consent, and youth gave assent, and both studies operated
under full approval of the relevant Institutional Review
Board (at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro
and at Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Sci-
ence, respectively).
Adolescents in both samples completed a series of
questionnaires and interviews. In both cases, early life
events data were collected from adolescent participants’
parent or guardian. A complete review of court records was
conducted for each participant to verify and supplement
information collected from interviews and self-reports.
Other measures not used for this study were collected during
the testing sessions as part of a larger project [e.g. 5, 21].
123

Measures
Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL: YV) [8]
The Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version is a 20-item
expert rater measure used to assess psychopathic traits in
adolescents. The PCL: YV is based on Hare’s Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), a clinical measure of psy-
chopathic traits in adults, but was modified in order to
account for the unique characteristics and roles of adoles-
cents. Like the PCL-R, the PCL: YV assesses four distinct
components of psychopathy. Prior studies indicate
acceptable internal consistency and interrater agreement
for ratings on the affective, interpersonal, lifestyle, and
antisocial facets [39–41]. Each of the twenty items are
rated on a 3-point ordinal scale (0 = item does not apply;
1 = a match in some respects but with some exceptions;
2 = a reasonably good match). The authors of the instru-
ment caution strongly against any cutoffs for youth and
against labeling any adolescents as psychopathic, due to
concerns about the impact of pejorative labels and to lack
of sufficient information about stability of psychopathic
traits in youth. In completing PCL: YV ratings, raters are
trained to consider such factors as the frequency of
behavior, the number of domains in which the behavior
appears, and the duration of behavior. Items on the measure
include impression management, pathological lying, lack
of remorse, shallow affect, and criminal versatility.
Checklist ratings are based on an integration of information
from multiple sources, including the following: semi-
structured interviews with the adolescent participants (in-
cluding multiple life domains as suggested in the PCL: YV
manual); direct behavioral observations of the adolescent
participant throughout the study meeting period by mem-
bers of the research team; interviews with the parents or
guardians of the adolescent participants in which parents
report about their child’s behavior throughout their lifetime
(Sample 1 only); and comprehensive reviews of any
available institutional files which may document behavior
relevant to PCL: YV rankings. As noted earlier, high scores
on the PCL: YV are associated with violent behavior [7],
recidivism [6], emotional processing deficits, and neural
anomalies similar to those seen in adults with psychopathic
traits [42–45].
Ratings of Life Events
For this study, we obtained parents’ or other caregivers’
ratings of the number of 14 distinct life events that
occurred during the first 4 years of each youth’s life. The
14 items for this study were drawn from the two different
life events questionnaires based on the criteria that they
were worded identically (or nearly identically) in both
123
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
measures (see Table 2 for a direct comparison of items).
The measures of early life events were drawn from the
following two different questionnaires in order to increase
our total sample size to ensure the study would have suf-
ficient power to examine any relationship between early
life events and psychopathic traits: the Children’s Life
Events Questionnaire (CLEQ) and the Teen Life Events
Survey (TLES). The CLEQ [30] is a 32-item life events
scale that assesses early life events. Although the majority
of the items address life events typically considered neg-
ative (e.g., death of a parent, incarceration of a parent),
some of the items refer to events that could be considered
positive or ambiguous (e.g., birth of a new sibling).
Although many of the 14 life events appear to reflect
independent occurrences, measures of internal consistency,
as in prior studies using life events measures [46, 47],
revealed some degree of internal consistency. In Sample 1,
the alpha coefficient was .77 for the entire measure (of 32
items) and .58 for the 14 items used in this study. The
TLES is a 39-item measure of life events and the ages at
which they occurred, which includes the first 4 years of life
(the only events examined) in the current study. This
measure was developed for this study by selecting life
events from other common life events scales [48, 49]. An
analysis of internal consistency for the TLES with a sample
size of 80 yielded an alpha coefficient of .83 providing
evidence for good internal consistency of the scores (using
all 39 items); the alpha coefficient for the 14 items used in
this study was .67.
For both the CLEQ and the TLES, parents or guardians
who had known the child since birth completed the form by
indicating whether or not each event occurred in the first
4 years of life, as well as the child’s age at the time of the
event. Life event items include events such as death of a
parent, loss of job by a parent, and divorce of parents (see
Table 2 for a complete listing). The total life events score
recorded was the simple sum of the number of life events
that occurred between the ages of 0–47 months. Specific
life events were scored dichotomously as either present or
absent.
Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA) [50]
The IPPA is a self-report measure of attachment developed
for use with adolescents that was completed by participants
only in Sample 1. The IPPA consists of subscales that
assess subjective aspects of attachment security separately
for parents/caretakers and peers, with higher scores indi-
cating poorer attachment. In this study, only the 28-item
parental attachment scale was used. Samples of items on
this scale include the following: ‘‘My mother/father
understands me’’; ‘‘My mother/father accepts me as I am’’;
‘‘I don’t get much attention from my mother/father.’’
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
Parental attachment scores yield adequate internal consis-
tency, a = .94 for parent attachment [50, 51].
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Scores on most variables were distributed normally; a
square root transformation was used to correct positive
skewness in the index of life events and to correct negative
skewness in PCL: YV Factor 1 scores. In addition, affec-
tive facet scores were kurtotic (kurtosis = -1.11, p \ .01).
However, kurtosis corrections introduced substantial
skewness; therefore, principal analyses utilized untrans-
formed affective facet scores. A comparison of analyses
with raw versus transformed scores indicated a very similar
pattern of findings.1 Correlational analyses were conducted
between scores of all variables used in the current study
(see Table 1).
Principal Analyses
Pearson correlations indicated no overall relationship
between early life events scores and PCL: YV total scores,
r (204) = .10, p = .17. Affective facet scores were sig-
nificantly and positively correlated with total early life
events scores, r (202) = .15, p = .04, and the correlation
between interpersonal facet scores and early life events
scores approached significance, r (204) = .12, p = .08. In
contrast, lifestyle and antisocial facet scores were not
correlated with early life events scores, r (204) = .03,
p = .72; r (201) = -.01, p = .94.
Multiple regressions were conducted to assess whether
indices of psychopathic traits interacted with early life
event scores to predict levels of parental attachment as
measured by scores on the IPPA. In each regression, ratings
on a component of psychopathy and early life event scores
were entered in the first step, and the interaction term was
entered in the second. Two of the three interactions
examined proved significant. The regression for Factor 1
scores revealed, in addition to a main effect for life events,
b = -3.41, p \ .03, a significant Life events 9 Factor 1
interaction, b = 3.46, p = .03 (see Fig. 1). The Life events
X Interpersonal facet interaction was also significant,
b = .62, p \ .05 (see Fig. 2). Finally, the Life
1
The only difference in the pattern of results for transformed and
untransformed variables was that the Affective facet X Life events
interaction predicting attachment scores based on untransformed life
events scores was marginally significant (p = .05) yet the interaction
based on transformed life events scores only approached significance
(p = .09).
events 9 Affective facet interaction was not significant,
b = .531, p \ .09.
Simple slope analyses were conducted to unpack the two
significant interactions by calculating F1 and interpersonal
facet scores centered at the mean, 1 SD below the mean,
and 1 SD above the mean. With respect to the Life
events 9 Factor 1 interaction, we observed a significant
negative relationship between number of life events and
IPPA parental attachment scores at all levels of F1 (all
ps B .03, b s = -4.63, -3.41, -2.19 for low, mean, and
high levels of F1). However, the negative relationship
between IPPA scores and life events was stronger for youth
low in Factor 1 traits than for youth higher in these psy-
chopathic traits. In short, a greater number of life events
was associated with higher levels of attachment to parents,
and this relationship was stronger for youth who were low
in Factor 1 than for youth who were higher in Factor 1.
Analysis of the significant Life Events X Interpersonal
facet interaction yielded somewhat similar findings. For
adolescents low in interpersonal traits, a greater number of
these life events was associated with nonsignificantly bet-
ter attachment to parents. Conversely, for adolescents high
in interpersonal traits, a greater number of life events was
associated with nonsignificantly poorer attachment to
parents (low: b = -.176, p \ .16, mean: b = -.015,
p \ .89, high: b = .228, p \ .13).
Discussion
We examined the relationship between early life events and
the development of psychopathic traits in youth. Early life
events appear to be important environmental risk factors
for several types of psychopathology; however, no prior
published studies have examined this issue with respect to
psychopathic traits.
We found significant associations between various PCL:
YV psychopathy scores and early life events. More
specifically, we found an association between the total
number of early life events and higher scores on the
affective facet of psychopathy. Additionally, we found a
correlation that approached significance with a small to
medium effect size between the total number of life events
and higher interpersonal facet scores. These findings, like
most of the correlations found in this study, represent either
small or small to medium effect sizes. As such, we
acknowledge that the findings suggest only a modest
relationship between life events and psychopathic traits.
As noted above, the majority of prior studies addressing
environmental factors have suggested that environmental
correlates are usually associated with Factor 2 psychopathy
traits. For example, Harpur et al. [52] found that the quality
of family background was strongly correlated with Factor 2
123
 Child Psychiatry Hum Dev

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

characteristics and these environmental correlates.

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

123
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
to different components of psychopathy. The current
results add to growing evidence suggesting reliable rela-
tionships between environmental factors and Factor 1
traits.
We believe that the most likely explanation for the
different patterns of findings is that events occurring very
early in life may have a different impact than events
occurring later in life. The few prior studies that have
examined early life events employed samples characterized
by antisocial behavior (e.g., juvenile delinquents and
children with conduct disorder) and did not specifically
assess psychopathic features. As noted above, the vast
majority of prior studies of life events and psychopathy did
not specifically examine early life events. Therefore, early
life events in particular may represent an important envi-
ronmental influence on the development of psychopathic
traits. This finding is consistent with some theoretical
perspectives on the development of psychopathy [9].
Overall, our current findings suggest that the influence of
risk factors within the environment, such as early life
events, may extend beyond antisocial and lifestyle traits to
the core affective features of the psychopathy syndrome,
and possibly the interpersonal features as well. However,
because this study only offers preliminary evidence for
these relationships, more research is needed to see whether
these associations could be replicated.
The current study also provided evidence that the rela-
tionship between life events and attachment to parents is
moderated by individual differences in psychopathic traits.
Specifically, an interaction between life events and Factor
1 ratings suggested that greater numbers of life events were
associated with higher levels of attachment to parents for
youth lower in Factor 1 traits but that this relationship was
less robust for youth who were higher in Factor 1. As
postulated above, life events that could be disruptive of
parental attachment may be particularly salient in
explaining the development of the Factor 1 features of
psychopathy. It has previously been demonstrated that
disturbances of parental attachment are prominent in youth
with psychopathic traits [5, 38]. Reasons for these disrup-
tions are largely unknown. Early life events serve as a
potential explanation for the link between poor attachment
and psychopathic traits.
Bowlby’s [32] perspective was that important life events
can be disruptive of attachment. For example, in some
cases, life events may directly interfere with a parent’s
ability to care for a child or may distract a parent, making
him or her less emotionally available for a child (e.g., in
grieving the loss of a child). However, current findings
suggest that, in this sample, larger numbers of disruptive
life events were nonsignificantly associated with better
attachment to parents in youth without psychopathic traits.
Although this result may appear to be at odds with prior
findings, there are, to our knowledge, no prior studies that
have examined these associations in samples of youth with
externalizing psychopathology. Therefore, early life events
may influence affective and interpersonal characteristics of
psychopathy by means of an early disrupted attachment
which interferes in the emotional development of these
children. Because these results represent novel findings,
only additional studies can establish the robustness of these
findings.
Methodological differences between the prior literature
and the current study may help to explain the differences in
findings. For example, Viding et al. [57] examined teacher-
rated CU traits, whereas the current study utilized expert-
rated PCL: YV total and facet scores. Several other studies
utilized self-report measures to assess psychopathic fea-
tures. PCL: YV scores differ in important ways from other
measures of psychopathy. Ratings are obtained by unbiased
experts, rather than teachers, parents, or an individual’s
self-report. Also, even among studies that all use the PCL:
YV, results may differ at the factor versus facet level. For
example, studies that utilize factor scores quantify psy-
chopathy traits in a more generalized manner rather than
parceling out the more specific facets that make up a par-
ticular factor score [52]. As seen in the current study,
environmental factors may uniquely relate to one facet
(i.e., one component of a factor but not the other), in some
cases making it difficult to detect a significant finding at the
factor level of analysis.
A related issue is that several studies of youth have
examined parent ratings, teacher ratings, or self-reported
CU traits rather than ratings on clinical measures of psy-
chopathy. Although CU traits are conceptualized as
reflecting the affective features of psychopathy, CU traits
do not include the interpersonal features of psychopathy.
Moreover, parent and teacher ratings of CU traits and
clinical measures of psychopathy correlate only modestly
with clinical ratings of psychopathic traits [58, 59].
Contrary to popular belief, current research findings
suggest the importance of further investigation into the
early environmental correlates of psychopathic traits in
adolescents. Further research is also needed to probe the
nature of the relationship between early environmental
factors and their impact on attachment and psychopathic
traits in order to better understand how these factors
specifically impact the development of psychopathy.
Limitations
This study had several limitations that warrant discussion.
The cross-sectional design of the study is a primary limi-
tation. This design limits us to describing relationships and
correlations. Additionally, it must be acknowledged that
current evidence of relationships between environmental
123

Table 2 Comparison of exact item wording between the two different life events questionnaires
Item Teen life events survey
number
1 Parents divorced
2 Parents separated (marital)
3 Incarceration of parent for at least 1 year
4 Parent remarried (teen gained step-parent) (stepfather
stepmother)
5 Death of a brother or sister
6 Serious illness requiring hospitalization of your teen
7 Birth of a new brother or sister
8 Significant increase in arguments between parents
9 Brother or sister left home (foster care, college, to live on their
own)
10 Death of a parent
11 Death of a grandparent
12 Discovery of being adopted or being a step-child
13 Loss of a job by parent
14 Addition of a new adult to the home
factors and psychopathic traits could reflect a gene-envi-
ronment correlation rather than a true environmental cause.
A third primary limitation of the current study is the size of
the effects. Each of the associations found in this study had
small or small to medium effect sizes. Therefore, results
suggest only modest associations between early life events
and psychopathic traits.
Other study limitations include the use of self-report
questionnaires to obtain parents’ ratings of the occurrence
of early life events and to assess adolescents’ parental
attachment. Self-report measures potentially introduce
error due to human factors like selective recall, honesty,
and over-reporting. Additionally, it has been recommended
by some experts that attachment in particular should be
measured with specialized interview techniques rather than
self-report measures. Although self-report questionnaires
involve bias, there is no evidence to suggest that parental
recall of events occurring early in their child’s life would
be biased, or that recall biases would covary with a child’s
scores on a measure of psychopathy. Additionally, the
impact/importance of these life events (as shown in
Table 2) increases their salience for parents, which should
reduce susceptibility to poor recall.
Finally, as noted above, we cannot assume the inde-
pendence of all the major life events examined. A subset of
major life events included in this study are considered non-
independent, which refers to the idea that particular life
events may occur as the result of a participant’s influence
or behavior. In this study, it is plausible that a parent’s
behavior, or even a child’s, could contribute to the
123
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
Children’s life events Questionnaire
Divorce of parents
Marital separation of parents
Jail sentence of parent for 1 year or longer (mother/father)
Marriage of parent to step-parent (mother/father)
Death of a brother or sister
Serious illness requiring hospitalization of child
Birth of a brother or sister
Increase in number of arguments between child’s mother and
father
Brother or sister leaving home
Death of parent
Death of grandparent
Discovery of being an adopted child
Loss of job by parent (mother/father)
Addition of third adult to family (relative, friend, etc.)
occurrence of the life events measured. Nevertheless, it
appears unlikely that a child’s behavior before the age of
four contributed substantially to the kinds of life event
examined in this study.
Directions for Future Research
The current study examined the relationship between early
life events and later psychopathic traits. It improved upon
prior studies by utilizing a more validated four facet model
of psychopathy, a larger sample size, and additional mea-
sures of early life events. The results of the current study
stand in contrast to a body of literature which suggests that
environmental etiological correlates are more pertinent to
explaining variation in Factor 2 traits and less useful in
explaining variation in Factor 1 traits. There has been a
general acceptance of this idea in the field despite the
limited data to address it adequately. On the contrary, the
current results imply that early environmental factors are,
to some extent, associated with the characteristics that
make up Factor 1. Results also raise the possibility that
some specific life events may contribute to the develop-
ment of affective or interpersonal psychopathic character-
istics. Findings of the current study suggest the importance
of further investigation into the early environmental cor-
relates of psychopathic traits in adolescents. Further
research is also needed to probe the nature of the rela-
tionship between early environmental factors and psycho-
pathic traits in order to better understand how these factors
specifically impact the development of psychopathy.
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
Summary
Although prior studies have reported relationships between
adverse environmental factors and elevated scores on the
lifestyle and antisocial components of psychopathy, few
prior studies have reported relationships between adverse
environmental factors and indices of the core affective and
interpersonal components. In this study of links between
life events in the first 4 years of life and indices of psy-
chopathy, including the core affective and interpersonal
components of psychopathy, we found that the total num-
ber of early life events was positively correlated with
indices of the affective component of psychopathy.
Moreover, psychopathic traits moderated the relationship
between the number of early life events and later reports of
attachment to parents in a sample of court-involved youth.
The combination of high levels of the core affective and
interpersonal traits of psychopathy and large numbers of
early negative life events was associated with poorer
attachment to parents compared to youth low in such traits.
These findings are consistent with the possibility that early
environmental factors may contribute to the development
of psychopathic traits and may impact the development of
attachment to parents, even among youth with psycho-
pathic traits. These findings suggest the value of further
investigations into early environmental correlates of psy-
chopathy and their impact on the development of psycho-
pathic traits.
Acknowledgments We wish to thank Susan G. Korpai, Rosemarie
Gray, Louise Loud, Leonard Young, Michael Fletcher, Robert Cesar,
the correctional officers, the adolescents at the Depke Juvenile Justice
Complex in Illinois, J. Manley Dodson, and the court counselors of
the Juvenile Services Division of Guilford County for their consistent
support and cooperation of the research reported here. We also thank
the staff of the Greensboro Detention Center and the staff of the
Guilford Technical Community College at the Greensboro and High
Point campuses for allowing us to interview adolescents and their
families there. We thank Melanie Chinchilla, Josh Greco, Hillary
Gorin, Sarah Hampton, Kristin Ridder, Cody Schraft, Rachel Tercek,
Sarah VanMoffaert, and Lindsay Allen Whitman, for assessing par-
ticipants in Illinois and Susan Baird, Deborah Carraway, Susan
Dedmon, Jennifer Kelly, Leslie Loudermilk, Christine McBrien, and
Julie Smith for assessing participants in North Carolina.
References
1. Hare RD (2003) The Hare psychopathy checklist–revised, 2nd
edn. Multi-Health Systems, North Tonawanda
2. Edens JF, Guy LS, Fernandez K (2003) Psychopathic traits pre-
dict attitudes toward a juvenile capital murderer. Behav Sci Law
21:807–828
3. Murrie DC, Boccaccini MT, McCoy W, Cornell DC (2007)
Diagnostic labeling in juvenile court: how do descriptions of
psychopathy and conduct disorder influence judges? J Clin Child
Adoles Psychol 36:228–241
4. Frick P (2009) Extending the construct of psychopathy to youth:
implications for understanding, diagnosing, and treating antiso-
cial children and adolescents. Can J Psychiatry 54:803–812
5. Kosson DS, Cyterski TD, Steuerwald BL, Neumann CS, Walker-
Matthews S (2002) The reliability and validity of the Psy-
chopathy Checklist Youth Version (PCL: YV) in nonincarcerated
adolescent males. Psychol Assess 14:97–109
6. Edens JF, Campbell JS, Weir JM (2007) Youth psychopathy and
criminal recidivism: a meta-analysis of the psychopathy checklist
measures. Law Hum Behav 31:53–75
7. Gretton H, McBride M, Lewis K, O’Shaughnessy R, Hare RD
(1994) Predicting patterns of criminal activity in adolescent
sexual psychopaths. Can Psychol 35:50–58
8. Forth AE, Kosson DS, Hare RD (2003) Hare Psychopathy
Checklist: Youth Version (PCL: YV). Multi-Health Systems,
North Tonawanda
9. McCord W, Mccord J (1964) The psychopath: an essay on the
criminal mind. D. Van Nostrand, Oxford
10. Maher BA (1966) Principles of psychopathology: an experi-
mental approach. McGraw-Hill, Oxford
11. Bacon MK, Child IL, Barry HA (1963) Crosscultural study of
correlates of crime. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 66:291–300
12. McCord J (1979) Some child-rearing antecedents of criminal
behavior in adult men. J Pers Soc Psychol 37:1477–1486
13. Blonigen DM, Carlson SR, Krueger RF, Patrick CJ (2003) A twin
study of self-reported psychopathic personality traits. Person
Individ Differ 35:179–197
14. Viding E, Frick PJ, Plomin R (2007) Aetiology of the relationship
between callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in
7-year-old twins. Br J Psychiatry 190:33–38
15. Brook M, Panizzon MS, Kosson DS, Sullivan EA, Lyons MJ,
Franz CE, Eisen SA, Kremen WS (2010) Psychopathic person-
ality traits in middle-aged male twins: a behavior genetic inves-
tigation. J Pers Disord 24:473–486
16. Livesley WJ (2008) Research trends and directions in the study of
personality disorder. Psychiatr Clin North Am 31:545–559
17. Moffitt TE (2005) The new look of behavioral genetics in
developmental psychopathology: gene-environment interplay in
antisocial behaviors. Psychol Bull 131:533–554
18. Viding E, McCrory EJ (2012) Genetic and neurocognitive con-
tributions to the development of psychopathy. Dev Psychopathol
24:969–983
19. Vitacco, Neumann, Ramos, Roberts (2003) Ineffective parenting:
a precursor to psychopathic traits and delinquency in Hispanic
females. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1008:300–303
20. Kimonis ER, Frick PJ, Munoz LC, Aucoin KJ (2008) Callous-
unemotional traits and the emotional processing of distress cues
in detained boys: testing the moderating role of aggression,
exposure to community violence, and histories of abuse. Dev
Psychopathol 20:569–589
21. Schraft C, Kosson D, McBride C (2013) Exposure to violence
within home and community environments and psychopathic
tendencies in detained adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior
40:1027–1043
22. Krischer M, Sevecke K (2008) Early traumatization and psy-
chopathy in female and male juvenile offenders. Int J Law Psy-
chiatry 31:253–262
23. Marshall L, Cooke D (1999) The childhood experiences of psy-
chopaths: a retrospective study of familial and societal factors.
J Pers Disord 13:211–225
24. Barker ED, Oliver BR, Viding E, Salekin RT, Maughan B (2011)
The impact of prenatal maternal risk, fearless temperament and
early parenting on adolescent callous-unemotional traits: a
14-year longitudinal investigation. J Child Psychol Psychiatry
52(8):878–888
123

25. Childs AW, Fite PJ, Moore TM, Lochman JE, Pardini DA (2014)
Bidirectional associations between parenting behavior and child
callous-unemotional traits: does parental depression moderate
this link? J Abnorm Child Psychol 42(7):1141–1151
26. Fontaine NM, McCrory EJ, Boivin M, Moffitt TE, Viding E
(2011) Predictors and outcomes of joint trajectories of callous–
unemotional traits and conduct problems in childhood. J Abnorm
Psychol 120(3):730
27. Adams D, Overholser J, Spirito A (1994) Stressful life events
associated with adolescent suicide attempts. Can J Psychiatry
93:43–48
28. Brown G, Harris (1989) Life events and measurement. Life
events and illness. Guilford Press, London
29. Hammen C (2005) Stress and depression. Annu Rev Clin Psychol
1:293–319
30. Deutsch L, Erickson M (1989) Early life events as discriminators
of socialized and undersocialized delinquents. J Abnorm Child
Psychol 17:541–551
31. Riser R, Brieman C, Kosson D (2011) The relationship of father
involvement and family structure in psychopathic offenders.
Poster session presented at the meeting of Society for Scientific
Study of Psychopathy, Montreal
32. Bowlby J (1969/1982) Attachment and loss, vol. 1: attachment.
Basic Books, New York
33. Greenberg M, Speltz M, DeKlyen M (1993) The role of attach-
ment in the early development of disruptive behavior problems.
Dev Psychopathol 3:413–430
34. Lyons-Ruth K (1996) Attachment relationships among children
with aggressive behavior problems: the role of disorganized early
attachment patterns. J Consult Clin Psychol 64:64–73
35. Green J, Goldwyn R (2002) Annotation: attachment disorgani-
zation and psychopathology: new findings in attachment research
and their potential implications for developmental psy-
chopathology in childhood. J Child Psychol Psychiatry
43:835–846
36. Lyons-Ruth K, Alpern L, Repacholi B (1993) Disorganized infant
attachment classification and maternal psychosocial problems as
predictors of hostile-aggressive behavior in the preschool class-
room. Child Dev 64:572–585
37. Cleckley H (1976) The mask of sanity. C. V. Mosby, St Louis
(Original work published 1941)
38. Flight J, Forth AE (2007) Instrumentally violent youth: the roles
of empathy, attachment and psychopathy. Crim Just Behav
34:739–751
39. Andershed H, Hodgins S, Tengström A (2007) Convergent
validity of the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI):
association with the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version
(PCL: YV). Assessment 14:144–154
40. Cauffman E, Kimonis ER, Dmitrieva J, Monahan KC (2009) A
multi-method assessment of juvenile psychopathy: comparing the
predictive utility of the PCL: YV, YPI, and NEO PRI. Psychol
Assess 21:528–542
41. Das J, de Ruiter C, Doreleijers T, Hillege S (2009) Reliability and
construct validity of the Dutch Psychopathy Checklist: Youth
Version: findings from a sample of male adolescents in a juvenile
justice treatment institution. Assessment 16:88–102
42. Blair RJR (1995) A cognitive developmental approach to
morality: investigating the psychopath. Cognition 57:1–29
123
Child Psychiatry Hum Dev
43. Blair RJR, Mitchell DGV, Leonard A, Budhani S, Peschardt KS,
Newman C (2004) Passive avoidance learning in individuals with
psychopathy: modulation by reward but not by punishment.
Person Individ Differ 37:1179–1192
44. Marsh AA, Finger EC, Mitchell DG, Reid ME, Sims C, Kosson
DS, Towbin KE, Leibenluft E, Pine DS, Blair RJR (2008)
Reduced amygdala response to fearful expressions in adolescents
with callous-unemotional traits and disruptive behavior disorders.
Am J Psychiatry 165:712–720
45. Marsh AA, Finger EC, Fowler KA, Jurkowitz IT, Schechter JC,
Yu HH, Pine DS, Blair RJR (2011) Reduced amygdala-or-
bitofrontal connectivity during moral judgments in youths with
disruptive behavior disorders and psychopathic traits. Psychiatr
Res Neuroimaging 194:279–286
46. Horesha N, Nachshonic T, Wolmera L, Torena P (2009) A
comparison of life events in suicidal and nonsuicidal adolescents
and young adults with major depression and borderline person-
ality disorder. Compr Psychiatry 50:496–502
47. Bodell L, Smith A, Holm-Denoma J, Gordon KC, Joiner T (2011)
The impact of perceived social support and negative life events
on bulimic symptoms. Eat Behav 12:44–48
48. Coddington DR (1972) The significance of life events as etiologic
factors in the diseases of children: I. A survey of professional
workers. J Psychosom Res 16:7–18
49. Holmes T, Rahe R (1967) The social readjustment rating scale.
J Psychosom Res 11:213–221
50. Armsden GC, Greenberg MT (1987) The inventory of parent and
peer attachment: individual differences and their relationships to
psychological well-being in adolescence. J Youth Adolesc
16:427–454
51. Wampler RS, Downs AB (2010) Parent and peer attachment in
minority males at high risk for delinquency. Clin Soc Work J
38:107–119
52. Harpur TJ, Hare RD, Hakstian AR (1989) Two-factor concep-
tualization of psychopathy: construct validity and assessment
implications. Psychol Assess 1:6–17
53. Hare R, McPherson L, Forth A (1988) Male psychopaths and
their criminal careers. J Consult Clin Psychol 56:710–714
54. Benning S, Patrick C, Hicks B, Blonigen D, Krueger R (2003)
Factor structure of the psychopathic personality inventory:
validity and implications for clinical assessment. Psychol Assess
15:340–350
55. Poythress N, Skeem J, Lilienfeld S (2006) Associations among
early abuse, dissociation, and psychopathy among offenders.
J Abnorm Psychol 115:288–297
56. Hicks B, Carlson M, Blonigen D, Patrick C, Iacono W, McGue M
(2012) Psychopathic personality traits and environmental con-
texts: differential correlates, gender differences, and genetic
mediation. Person Disord Theory Res Treatment 3:209–227
57. Viding E, Blair RJR, Moffitt TE, Plomin R (2005) Evidence for
substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds. J Child
Psychol Psychiatry 46:592–597
58. Burke JD, Loeber R, Lahey BB (2007) Adolescent conduct dis-
order and interpersonal callousness as predictors of psychopathy
in young adults. J Clin Child Adoles Psychol 36:334–346
59. Murrie D, Cornell D (2002) Psychopathy screening of incarcer-
ated juveniles: a comparison of measures. Psychol Assess
14:390–396