NCJ Number
197981
Journal
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation Volume: 35 Issue: 2 Dated: 2002 Pages: 31-49
Date Published
2002
Length
19 pages
Annotation
This article describes a study undertaken to see whether identifiable sub-groups within anti-social personality disorder (ASPD) could be distinguished.
Abstract
Fifty to 80 percent of adult males in prison are diagnosed with ASPD. ASPD is defined by recklessness, impulsiveness, disregard for the rights of others, and illegal behavior. Researchers disagree over whether or not there are distinguishable sub-groups or types within the ASPD classification. Distinguishing sub-groups may be useful in guiding intervention efforts. Randomly selected records for 12 inmates between ages 19 and 29 were inspected anonymously. The sample was scored on a checklist for symptoms of ASPD. The PCL-R (psychopathy) was scored from the record for each inmate without the use of an interview. From these cases it seems evident that there are at least two dimensions which might be used to differentiate among ASPD cases. The first is aggressiveness, reflected in increasing scores on the ASPD checklist. The second is callous disregard for others, reflected in higher scores on the PCL-R. However, these scores need to be considered as separate dimensions for conceptual reasons and because of treatment implications. Inmates that are low on both PCL-R and the ASPD checklist might respond to a mentoring program where they could learn job skills. Inmates low on the PCL-R but high on anti-social aggressiveness could benefit from anger management training followed by relapse prevention training. Treatment of inmates with high PCL-R scores must be approached with caution. There is no known effective treatment for psychopaths, and some treatments are known to increase recidivism rates, especially those that promote peer interactions. Inmates that are high on both PCL-R and ASPD seem particularly dangerous and in need of close supervision. Inmates high on the PCL-R but low on ASPD are persistently manipulative, exploitative, and detached from other people. They might not require as close supervision as the other psychopathic group since they are less likely to be overtly aggressive and are relatively impervious to influence attempts. These findings are in need of replication with a larger sample. 1 figure, 73 references, 1 appendix