Open Access

Do seriously offending girls differ from their age- and offence type-matched male counterparts on psychopathic traits or psychopathy-related background variables?

  • Nina Lindberg1, 7Email author,
  • Svetlana Oshukova2,
  • Jouko Miettunen3, 4, 5 and
  • Riittakerttu Kaltiala-Heino6, 8
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health201610:38

DOI: 10.1186/s13034-016-0128-1

Received: 24 November 2015

Accepted: 12 October 2016

Published: 1 November 2016

Abstract

Background

More research is needed to improve our understanding of the manifestation of psychopathic traits in violently offending girls. Our aim here was to assess psychopathic traits and psychopathy-related background variables in a Finnish nationwide consecutive sample of girls charged with violent crimes and referred to a pretrial forensic psychiatric examination. These girls were then compared to their male counterparts.

Methods

The forensic psychiatric examination statements of 15- to 17-year-old juveniles who underwent a pretrial forensic psychiatric examination over a 31-year period (1980–2010) were reviewed. For each non-psychotic girl with a normal IQ (n = 25), an age- and offence type-matched male control was randomly selected. Offence and offender characteristics were collected from the forensic psychiatric examination reports, and a file-based assessment of psychopathic traits was performed using the Hare psychopathy checklist-youth version.

Results

Approximately every third girl exhibited high traits of psychopathy, and no significant difference was observed between the genders. Focusing on the underlying factor and item scores, the girls scored significantly lower than boys on the Antisocial factor. Their interpersonal relationships were significantly more unstable and they significantly more often exhibited a history of child sexual abuse. During the index offence the girls were significantly less frequently intoxicated, and their victims were significantly more often family members or current or ex-intimates but significantly less often strangers.

Conclusions

Although violently offending girls and boys do not differ on psychopathy total scores, significant gender differences exist on underlying factor and item scores as well as in background- and offence-related variables. Interventions should take into account these special features of violent girls.

Keywords

Adolescence Delinquency Gender Girl Offending Psychopathic traits

Background

A personality trait is a fairly stable way of experiencing and perceiving oneself as well as perceiving and relating to others. Psychopathy is a constellation of interpersonal (dishonest charm, grandiosity, lying, and manipulative behavior) affective (remorselessness, unemotionality, and callousness) and behavioral (thrill-seeking, impulsivity, and irresponsibility) traits [1]. Current conceptualizations see psychopathic traits on a dimensional continuum, where psychopathy is a malicious version of the extremes of normal personality traits [2]. In 2013, a subtype of conduct disorder characterized by callous-unemotional traits was introduced in the fifth version of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM 5) [3]. The specifier “with limited prosocial emotions (LPE)” is used when an individual, suffering from conduct disorder, exhibits two or more of the following characteristics in multiple relationships or settings over a 12-month period: (1) lack of remorse or guilt, (2) callousness/lack of empathy, (3) shallow or deficient affect, and (4) unconcern about his/her performance. Psychopathic traits are relatively stable over time, from childhood through adolescence to adulthood [4, 5]. On the other hand, traits can change across favorable development and treatment [6]. Research findings on gender differences in psychopathic traits in adolescence are mixed, with some studies reporting overall higher psychopathic tendencies among boys than among girls, and others finding no gender difference [7]. Higher psychopathy scores for boys than for girls tend to emerge in samples recruited from community settings, while studies among institutionalized youth have reported fewer differences in psychopathic scores across the genders [7]. Evidence also indicates different expression of psychopathy in girls and boys where, among girls, the interpersonal and affective features more clearly capture psychopathy than do the behavioral ones [8].

In light of current literature, psychopathy is strongly associated with genetic and neurobiological background [9], but also environmental factors seem to have an influence on its development [10]. Broken families, institutional or foster home placements, low parental care, harsh discipline, physical and psychological abuse, parents’ antisocial and criminal behavior, parents’ mental health and substance use problems, delinquent siblings, large family size, school difficulties, and mental health problems in childhood and/or adolescence are all associated with elevated psychopathic traits [1116]. The literature suggests that there are differences in the origins of and developmental pathways to psychopathy between the genders [17]. Evidence supports a lower heritability of psychopathic traits [1820] as well as a greater role of family-related risk factors in girls than in boys [21]. However, according to a recent study by Ficks et al. [22], the etiology of psychopathic traits in youth seems to be highly similar for girls and boys.

Juvenile psychopathy is becoming an increasingly important construct in judicial systems [17]. Offenders with strong psychopathic traits typically begin their antisocial and criminal activities at a relatively young age and continue to engage in these activities throughout their lifespan [23]. In addition, their use of violence tends to be more instrumental, dispassionate, and predatory than that of other offenders [24]. They also re-offend more quickly and more often following release from custody than do other offenders [25, 26]. Elevated traits of psychopathy relate to severity of violence [27], and affective-interpersonal features of psychopathy predict more frequent use of sadistic violence, repeated violence against the same victim, and violence resulting in more serious victim injuries [28]. Psychopathic traits associate with a greater likelihood of an adolescent to offend in groups and to be in a gang, as well as to take a leadership role in group crimes [29].

The number of studies focusing on psychopathic traits in offending girls is limited, most probably due to the small number of female offenders overall [30, 31], yet they seem to represent a growing population [32]. In a study by Schrum and Salekin [8] among 123 girls aged 11–18 years from two American detention centers, as many as 16.9 % exhibited significant traits of psychopathy (the psychopathy checklist—youth version [PCL-YV] > 25). In a study by Campbell et al. [33] among 226 Canadian incarcerated 12- to 19-year-old youngsters (girls: 17 %), girls and boys did not significantly differ from each other in psychopathic traits. In this sample, the most frequent convictions in both genders were non-violent offences (86 %) and the base rate of high psychopathic traits (PCL-YV > 25) was relatively low (9.4 %). Accordingly, no gender difference was reported by Salekin et al. [34] among 114 children and adolescents (girls: 29.8 %) recruited from an American detention center. The crimes of these youngsters included mainly thefts, assaults, and other violent offences. However, in a German sample of 90 incarcerated boys and 123 girls aged 14- to 19 years, boys exhibited significantly higher traits of psychopathy (both total and underlying factor scores) than did girls [35]. In this sample, 71.6 % of the adolescents had been convicted of at least one violent criminal act. With regard gender differences, 36.3 % of the detained girls had never been convicted of a violent crime versus only 20.2 % of the boys. Further, in a Canadian sample of 142 youngsters (76 boys and 66 girls) aged 12- to 18 years, who had been actively involved in the local criminal justice system and/or who had been diagnosed as having a severe conduct disorder, boys exhibited significantly higher affective-interpersonal traits of psychopathy than did girls, but no gender difference was observed on the behavioral component of psychopathy [36]. In this sample, the vast majority (96 %) reported being involved in at least one violent act in the course of their lives. Girls reported engaging in significantly fewer types of violent crimes than did boys. With regard to non-violent offences, no statistically significant gender difference was observed.

To summarize, there is a need for further research to improve our understanding of the manifestation of psychopathic character traits in offending girls. The aim of this study was to assess psychopathic traits as well as psychopathy-related background variables in a Finnish nationwide sample of juvenile girls charged with violent offences and referred to a pretrial forensic psychiatric examination and to compare these girls with their age- and offence-matched male counterparts. Our hypotheses were that we would find a subgroup of girls exhibiting high traits of psychopathy and that the gender differences would be minimal in this special population of highly violent underaged criminals.

Sample and methods

Sample and procedure

Information was obtained from the National Institute of Health and Welfare, which organizes the forensic psychiatric examinations in Finland. According to Finnish law, courts decide whether a forensic examination is needed. After deciding on the examination, the court asks the National Institute of Health and Welfare to arrange it. Forensic psychiatric examinations are inpatient evaluations lasting approximately 2 months, and include data gathered from various sources (family members, relatives, and medical, criminal, school, child welfare, and military records), psychiatric evaluation, standardized psychological tests, interviews conducted by a multi-professional team, evaluation of the offender’s physical condition, and continuous observation of the offender by hospital staff. The final forensic psychiatric report includes an opinion on the level of criminal responsibility, a possible psychiatric diagnosis, and an assessment as to whether or not the offender fulfils the criteria for involuntary psychiatric care. The overall quality and reliability of Finnish forensic psychiatric examinations are considered high by both courts and scientists [37]. In Finland, psychiatric classification according to the International Classification of Diseases—Eighth Revision (ICD-8) [38] served in clinical practice between 1968 and 1986 and was replaced by the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, third edition, revised (DSM-III-R) [39], which was used between the years 1987 and 1995. Since 1996, ICD-10 [40] has been in use.

In Finland, the minimum age of criminal liability is 15 years. As part of a large research project on Finnish juvenile pretrial offenders, forensic psychiatric examination reports of all 15- to 17-year-old offenders who underwent the examination in 1.1.1980–31.12.2010 were collected from the archives of the National Institute of Health and Welfare. Forensic psychiatric examination reports were retrospectively reviewed. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Helsinki University Hospital and the pertinent institutional authorities.

Assessment of psychopathic traits

The psychopathy checklist—youth version (PCL-YV) [41], which is an adaptation of the psychopathy checklist—revised (PCL-R) [42], was used to assess psychopathic traits. Each of the 20 PCL-YV items is rated as 0 (absent), 1 (present to some degree or contradictory data), 2 (definitely present), or omitted if the information was insufficient. To aid in the scoring and determination of each trait, the manual provides an item description and some behavioral examples [41]. An individual’s assessment is rejected if it contains more than five omitted items [41]. The total score can range from 0 to 40, with higher scores reflecting a greater number of psychopathic traits. The total PCL score is dimensional, but in research settings categorical diagnoses are used as well. There is no recommended cut-off score for use with the PCL-YV, but on the PCL-R total scores ranging from 30 to 40 are considered diagnostic of psychopathy [43]. In line with recommendations of a lower cut-off score for European populations [4446], a cut-off score of 25 has been used in studies performed in Scandinavian countries [4749] and a score of 20 is sometimes considered to be a cut-off for “medium psychopathy” [50]. The PCL-YV items can be summed to yield four factors: factor I or the interpersonal factor (items: impression management, grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, manipulation for personal gain), factor II or the affective factor (items: lack of remorse/guilt, shallow affect, callous/lack of empathy, failure to accept responsibility), factor III or the behavioral factor (items: stimulation-seeking, parasitic orientation, lack of goals, impulsivity, irresponsibility), and factor IV or the antisocial factor (items: poor anger control, early behavior problems, serious criminal behavior, serious violation of conditional release, criminal versatility). Although PCL assessments should be based on both a review of file information and a semi-structured interview, several studies have shown that PCL assessments can reliably be made for both adults [5154] and adolescents [28, 5558] without the interview when sufficient file information is available. In this study, the scoring was done by one officially trained female rater (NL). After this, 20 (40 %) reports were randomly chosen and rated by one independent male rater to assess inter-rater reliability. The inter-rater agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation (ICC). The ICC was 0.886 for PCL-YV total score, 0.748 for factor 1 score, 0.890 for factor 2 score, 0.868 for factor 3 score and 0.844 for factor 4 score. All correlations were significant (p < 0.001). The internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha, was 0.89 for all items, 0.86 for factor 1, and 0.79 for factor 2, 0.84 for factor 3, and 0.74 for factor 4.

Offender- and offence-related variables

Data on demographics, family-related characteristics [parents’ divorce, parental psychiatric and substance use problems, family size (more than four children in the family), institutional/foster home placements, criminality of near relatives], problems related to school (failure to pass grade in primary/secondary schools, attending special education), psychiatric (mental health contacts), social (client of social services, witnessing/subject of physical violence at childhood home, sexual abuse), and criminal history (previous non-violent and violent offending and the index offence (intoxication, more than one victim, more than one offender, victim-offender relationship [family or (ex-)intimate, acquaintance, stranger], signs of instrumental violence were gathered from the forensic psychiatric evaluation reports. All items were rated categorically as 1 (=present) or 0 (=absent). After one rater (NL) had coded all the cases, 20 (40 %) randomly selected reports were coded by an independent male rater in order to ensure that variables were unambiguous enough to guarantee reliable subjective interpretations of their presence/absence. Interrater agreement was assessed using Cohen’s kappa (κ) [59]. According to the Landis and Koch guidelines [60], all variables showed substantial (0.61–0.80) or almost perfect (0.81–1) agreement.

Statistical analysis

We conducted a multivariate analysis (MANOVA) across the four factors of the PCL-YV. We continued with the Independent samples t test, the Likelihood ratio Chi square test, and Fisher’s exact test to compare the groups. Findings were considered significant when p < 0.05. The phi (φ) coefficient was used as an effect size measure for the Chi square test, and Cohen’s d for the Independent samples t test. The magnitude of the φ coefficient was interpreted as follows: 0.1 as small, 0.3 as moderate, and 0.5 as large effect, and respectively, Cohen’s d as follows: 0.2 as small, 0.5 as moderate, and 0.8 as large effect [61]. We conducted data analyses with the SPSS statistical software package version 22.

Results

During the study period altogether 266 adolescents aged 15–17 years underwent a forensic psychiatric examination, 29 (10.9 %) of whom were girls. Of these juveniles, 4 girls and 21 boys suffered from intellectual disability or a current psychotic disorder (mainly schizophrenia) and were excluded from further analyses since it is questionable whether a youngster with abnormally low IQ or acute symptoms of psychosis can be scored with the PCL-YV. The remaining 25 girls with a mean age of 16.3 (SD 0.74) years were all native Finns and charged with violent offences, including murder (n = 5), attempted murder (n = 4), manslaughter (n = 2), attempted manslaughter (n = 7), aggravated assault (n = 2), arson (n = 3), and violent robbery (n = 2). Nineteen (76.0 %) of them showed a history of previous offending and 8 (32.0 %) had a history of violent offending (mainly assaults) before the index crime. Twenty (80 %) girls had been arrested before the index offence, but none of them had been imprisoned. Most girls were diagnosed with a conduct disorder or a personality disorder (n = 21), but four girls had no mental disorder. For each girl, an age- and offence type-matched male control of Finnish origin was randomly selected from the national data.

The comparisons between girls and boys are presented in Table 1. Approximately every third girl exhibited significant (PCL-YV > 25) psychopathic traits, and no significant difference was observed between the genders. MANOVA revealed significant gender differences in factor structure (Wilk’s Λ = 0.733, F (4.45) = 4.10, p = 0.006, η2 = 0.27). Girls scored significantly lower on the antisocial factor, including poor anger control, early behavioral problems, and criminal versatility, than boys. Girls also scored lower on stimulation-seeking, impulsivity, and irresponsibility, which load onto the Behavioral factor. There was a tendency for girls to score higher on the affective factor, but the difference did not reach statistical significance. Girls scored significantly higher on the item “unstable interpersonal relationships”, and they also showed a tendency to score higher on the item “Impersonal sexual behavior”.
Table 1

Comparisons between a nationwide sample of girls charged with violent offences and referred to a pretrial forensic psychiatric examination (n = 25) and their age- and offence-matched male counterparts

 

Girls

Boys

Statisticsa

p

Effect size

PCL-YV

 Total score mean (SD)

19.76 (8.52)

20.32 (6.50)

t = −0.261

0.795

d = −0.073

 Factor 1 (interpersonal)

1.56 (2.18)

1.68 (1.86)

t = −0.209

0.835

d = −0.060

 Factor 2 (affective)

4.44 (2.38)

3.24 (2.33)

t = 1.793

0.079

d = 0.518

 Factor 3 (behavioral)

6.44 (2.83)

7.64 (1.87)

t = −1.770

0.083

d = 0.511

 Factor 4 (antisocial)

5.52 (2.62)

6.88 (1.74)

t = −2.164

0.035

d = 0.624

 Total score > 30

3/25 (12.0 %)

3/25 (12.0 %)

#

1.000

NA

 Total score > 25

8/25 (32.0 %)

7/25 (28.0 %)

X2 = 0.095

0.758

φ = −0.044

 Total score > 20

16/25 (64.0 %)

14/25 (56.0 %)

X2 = 0.333

0.564

φ = −0.082

Item mean (SD)

 Impression management

0.44 (0.58)

0.48 (0.51)

t = −0.209

0.795

d = 0.060

 Grandiose sense of self-worth

0.32 (0.56)

0.40 (0.65)

t = 0.469

0.641

d = 0.135

 Stimulation-seeking

1.44 (0.71)

1.92 (0.28)

t = −3.142

0.003

d = 0.907

 Pathological lying

0.32 (0.69)

0.40 (0.76)

t = −0.389

0.699

d = 0.113

 Manipulation for personal gain

0.52 (0.77)

0.36 (0.70)

t = 0.769

0.446

d = 0.222

 Lack of remorse/guilt

1.32 (0.75)

0.92 (0.76)

t = 1.876

0.067

d = 0.542

 Shallow affect

0.88 (0.83)

0.72 (0.69)

t = 0.745

0.460

d = 0.215

 Callous/lack of empathy

1.00 (0.71)

0.72 (0.61)

t = 1.495

0.141

d = 0.432

 Parasitic orientation

0.64 (0.76)

0.84 (0.80)

t = −0.908

0.368

d = 0.262

 Poor anger control

1.36 (0.70)

1.84 (0.37)

t = −3.024

0.004

d = 0.873

 Impersonal sexual behavior

0.80 (0.96)

0.36 (0.64)

t = 1.912

0.062

d = 0.552

 Early problem behavior

1.20 (0.91)

1.68 (0.56)

t = −2.245

0.039

d = 0.648

 Lack of goals

1.52 (0.71)

1.40 (0.76)

t = 0.574

0.569

d = 0.166

 Impulsivity

1.56 (0.71)

1.92 (0.28)

t = −2.357

0.023

d = 0.680

 Irresponsibility

1.28 (0.69)

1.64 (0.57)

t = −2.034

0.048

d = 0.587

 Failure to accept responsibility

1.24 (0.60)

0.88 (0.73)

t = 1.915

0.061

d = 0.553

 Unstable interpersonal relationships

1.00 (0.96)

0.28 (0.61)

t = 3.166

0.003

d = 0.914

 Serious criminal behavior

1.48 (0.51)

1.60 (0.50)

t = −0.840

0.405

d = 0.242

 Serious violation of conditional release

0.48 (0.65)

0.32 (0.48)

t = 0.990

0.327

d = 0.286

 Criminal versatility

1.00 (0.82)

1.48 (0.71)

t = −2.213

0.032

d = 0.639

Background variables

 Childhood (0–12 years) home

  Parents’ divorce

16/25 (64.0 %)

17/24 (70.8 %)

X2 = 0.260

0.610

φ = 0.073

  Mother’s substance use problems

10/25 (40.0 %)

5/25 (20.0 %)

#

0.217

NA

  Father’s substance use problems

14/24 (58.3 %)

17/24 (70.8 %)

X2 = 0.820

0.365

φ = 0.131

  Mother’s psychiatric problems

5/25 (20.0 %)

8/25 (32.0 %)

#

0.520

NA

  Father’s psychiatric problems

3/24 (12.5 %)

6/24 (25.0 %)

#

0.461

NA

  Witnessing physical violence

13/25 (52.0 %)

12/25 (48.0 %)

X2 = 0.080

0.777

φ = −0.400

  Subject of physical violence

15/25 (60.0 %)

9/25 (36.0 %)

X2 = 2.885

0.089

φ = −0.240

  More than four children in the family

11/25 (44.0 %)

9/25 (36.0 %)

X2 = 0.333

0.564

φ = −0.082

  Institutional/foster home placement

7/25 (28.0 %)

10/25 (40.0 %)

X2 = 0.802

0.370

φ = 0.127

 Other childhood (0–12 years) variables

  Subject of sexual abuse

9/25 (36.0 %)

0/25 (0.0 %)

#

0.001

NA

  Mental health contact

8/25 (32.0 %)

9/25 (36.0 %)

X2 = 0.089

0.765

φ = 0.042

  Client of social services

15/25 (60.0 %)

18/25 (72.0 %)

X2 = 0.802

0.370

φ = 0.127

 Criminality of near relatives

  Mother’s criminality

1/25 (4.0 %)

0/25 (0.0 %)

#

1.000

NA

  Father’s criminality

7/24 (28.0 %)

8/24 (32.0 %)

X2 = 0.097

0.755

φ = 0.045

  Delinquent sibling/s

8/25 (32.0 %)

10/25 (40.0 %)

X2 = 0.347

0.556

φ = 0.083

  Homicide history of parents or near relatives

5/25 (20.0 %)

2/25 (8.0 %)

#

0.417

NA

 School performance in primary and secondary schools

  Failure to pass grade at school

14/25 (56.0 %)

14/25 (56.0 %)

X2 = 0.082

0.774

φ = −0.041

  Attending special education

11/25 (44.0 %)

14/25 (56.0 %)

X2 = 0.720

0.396

φ = 0.120

Offence-related variables

 History of previous offending

19/25 (76.0 %)

21/25 (84.0 %)

X2 = 0.500

0.480

φ = 0.100

 History of violent offending

8/25 (32.0 %)

12/25 (48.0 %)

X2 = 1.333

0.246

φ = 0.163

 Current alcohol use disorder

15/25 (60.0 %)

15/25 (60.0 %)

X2 = 0.000

1.000

φ = 0.000

 Intoxicated during index offence

15/25 (60.0 %)

22/25 (88.0 %)

X2 = 5.094

0.024

φ = 0.319

 More than one offender

15/25 (60.0 %)

10/25 (40.0 %)

X2 = 2.000

0.157

φ = −0.200

 More than one victim

3/25 (12.0 %)

5/24 (20.8 %)

#

0.463

NA

 Victim-offender relationship

  Family or (ex-) intimate

9/24 (37.5 %)

0/24 (0.0 %)

#

0.001

NA

  Acquaintance

11/24 (45.8 %)

5/24 (20.8 %)

#

0.062

NA

  Stranger

4/24 (16.7 %)

19/24 (79.2 %)

#

<0.001

NA

  Index offence characterized with instrumental violence

7/25 (28 %)

9/25 (36 %)

X2 = 0.368

0.544

φ = 0.086

Independent samples t test (t), the Chi square test (χ2), and the Fisher’s exact test (#) are used for comparing the groups. Effect sizes are reported: d Cohen’s d, φ = phi

Statistically significant differences are in italics

NA not applicable

With regard to background variables, girls had been significantly more often sexually abused as children than boys. There was also a tendency for girls to more often have been subjects of physical violence in the childhood home. With regard to offender- and offence-related variables, girls were significantly less often intoxicated during the index offence, and their victims were significantly more often family members or current or ex-intimates but less often strangers.

Discussion

An important question is if, and if so, to what extent psychopathic traits manifest differentially as a function of gender. In this nationally representative sample of highly violent adolescents, girls and boys who had committed comparable crimes were also comparable regarding their psychopathic traits; about two-thirds of both genders exhibited elevated psychopathic traits and one-third showed high traits of psychopathy. This is in line with the findings reported by Campbell et al. [33] and Salekin et al. [34] who found equal rates of psychopathy among incarcerated girls and boys. Our findings contradict the findings of Sevecke et al. [35] and Penney et al. [36] who reported that boys in criminal justice processes exhibited higher psychopathic trait scores than girls. In both these studies, however, boys had a history of more numerous violent offences than girls. The gender difference in severity of offending likely contributes to the differences seen on psychopathy scores, as in our sample the genders were matched for their crimes. Further reasons explaining the different finding could be differences in psychopathology other than psychopathy, and perhaps differences in histories of subjection to abuse and trauma. So, it is obvious that the roles of psychopathology and trauma deserve further research. Our findings suggest that those girls who commit equally severe violent crimes than boys also display psychopathic traits to equal extend. Girls with less severe (violent) crimes likely display less psychopathic traits.

Even if girls and boys scored equally high on the PCL-YV total scores, girls scored significantly lower than boys on the antisocial factor. There was also a tendency for girls to score higher on the affective factor and for boys to score higher on the behavioral one, although these differences did not reach statistical significance. These findings differ from those reported by Penney et al. [36], where boys scored higher on both Interpersonal and Affective factors. Penney et al. used a three-factor model of the PCL-YV, excluding largely those items that in the model used here load onto the antisocial factor. Again, the differences between Penney et al.’s report and ours are likely due to the fact that in their sample boys were more violent than girls.

On an item-level, boys expressed significantly higher levels of stimulation-seeking, impulsivity, and irresponsibility, as well as poor anger control, early emotional problems, and criminal versatility, reflecting an antisocial lifestyle, and, diagnostically speaking, an antisocial personality disorder, which is often diagnosed in adult male prisoners [3]. Compared with boys, girls’ relationships showed significantly higher instability, which is one of the core symptoms of borderline personality, a disorder overrepresented among incarcerated women [62]. Although psychopathy is often represented as a unitary construct, it shows heterogeneity with different subtypes and multiple underlying trait dimensions. In adults, preliminary findings indicate an antisocial personality disorder variant as well as a borderline personality disorder variant of psychopathy exist, the latter being more prevalent in females [63]. Our results suggest that same kinds of gender-specific trait variations exist in adolescents. To explore this with cluster analysis methods, considerably larger sample sizes are needed. The authors are aware of one recent study focusing on latent class analyses based on self-assessed general personality traits among 12- to 17-year-old delinquents [64]. The study, based on the quick big five, suggested three personality types, consisting of an emotionally labile, close-minded and goal-oriented class, an under controlled class, and an emotionally labile-careless class. Interestingly, youngsters characterized with both emotional lability and carelessness scored highest on the externalizing behavior including rule-breaking and aggressive behavior as well as on the impulsive-irresponsible factor of the Youth Psychopathic traits Inventory. The authors, however, found no statistically significant gender differences within different personality classes. It is somewhat difficult to compare our results to those of Decuyper et al. [64], since Finnish forensic psychiatric statements typically include thorough descriptions of personality traits related to non-adjustment, but the descriptions of other personality traits remain often limited.

The family backgrounds of our pretrial adolescents were highly troublesome. Findings from studies investigating adverse childhood experiences indicate that they are highly correlated with each other [65], and various kinds of maltreatment are usually experienced simultaneously [66], as was the case here. Compared with a Finnish patient sample collected from one of the two national forensic units treating adolescents with severe mental disorders and violent behaviors [67], the families of pretrial offenders were even more commonly characterized by parental divorce, substance use, and criminality, suggesting an intergenerational cycle of criminality. Despite having being in contact with child welfare services, the offender sample had less commonly been institutionalized or placed in foster homes than the patient sample, so they most probably had been exposed for longer to harmful adverse childhood experiences.

Focusing on gender differences in background variables, only victimization by sexual abuse reached statistical significance. In fact, more than one in three girls, but none of the boys had reported sexual abuse in childhood, which is in line with earlier research reporting that subjection to sexual abuse is more common among female than male young offenders [68]. Victimization by sexual abuse in childhood is associated with a variety of emotional and behavioral problems, including violence, in both population and institutionalized samples [6871]. It predisposes to repeated sexual trauma, drifting repeatedly into emotionally unsatisfactory and abusive relationships, and being incapable of protecting oneself from sexual health problems [72]. The violently offending girls in this sample indeed displayed unstable interpersonal relationships as well as impersonal sexual behavior more commonly than boys. Odgers et al. [73] have suggested that among high-risk girls victimization by abuse might be a better predictor for future violence than psychopathic traits, and that victimization may actually be an etiological factor for elevated psychopathic traits, or traits that mimic psychopathy (particularly deficient affect). Our findings support this speculation, and suggest that victimization in the sexual domain could be particularly distorting for female adolescent development.

Alcohol use disorders were common in our sample, and the majority of adolescents committed the index crime under the influence of alcohol, which is known to characterize Finnish homicide crimes performed by both adults [74] and adolescents [16]. Boys were, however, significantly more often than girls under alcohol intoxication during the index crime. This same gender difference has been reported in adults [75]. In line with the reports from the Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy in Finland [76, 77], victims of girls were often family members or current or previous intimates, and, respectively, those of boys were strangers. It is known that women typically carry out their crime in the context of home, and the violence is bound to their close relationships [75, 78]. To conclude, gender differences observed in our sample resemble in many ways those reported in adult offenders.

Strengths and limitations

As far as the authors know, this is the first study to explore gender differences on psychopathic traits in girls and boys matched for both age and crime. The main strength of this study was its nationwide and comprehensive nature. The Finnish tradition of thorough forensic psychiatric examinations and reliable statistics form a solid basis for register-based studies. In Finland, the clearance rate for violent crimes is high; for example, the mean clearance rate for homicides during 1995–2004 was 92 % [79]. The proportion of females in our sample corresponds quite well with proportion of females in violent crimes, as reported in national statistics of police investigated crime and self-reported juvenile delinquency [77]. The assessments were performed with the PCL-YV, which is regarded as a gold standard for assessing adolescent psychopathic traits. It is a time-consuming method demanding rigorous training, but is more objective than self-report instruments, which are more or less transparent, and thus, inadequate in studying offender populations [80, 81]. Unfortunately, it was not possible to estimate the representativeness of our sample by comparing the number of girls who underwent the pretrial examination with the overall number of girls with violent offending during the 31-year period. However, a previous Finnish study estimated that approximately 60 % of 15- to 17-year-old homicide suspects undergo forensic psychiatric examination [82]. Regardless of the fact that the sample contained all Finnish under aged girls who underwent a forensic psychiatric examination during the 31-year period, the sample size remained small. Despite the high quality and reliability of Finnish forensic psychiatric examinations, the data is not collected primarily for research purposes. The information is not written down in any systematic manner. This means that it was not possible to infer reliably whether the missing data indicated that the variable was actually absent or that the presence of the variable was not written down in the statement. One possible methodological problem is the use of self-reports and reports from relatives in the forensic psychiatric examination statements. Examinees and parents might be reluctant to correctly report adverse conditions or odd behaviors from offender’s childhood. This might lead to under detection of, for example, incidences of mental illness or criminality in the family [83]. On the other hand, as Cannon et al. [84] pointed out, there might be a problem with recall bias when using retrospective data such as mother’s knowledge of child’s early development: the knowledge of child’s adult outcome may influence memories of childhood behavior. Despite these obvious limitations, however, forensic psychiatric examinations are a unique source of information in research on psychopathology and criminality. Taking into account the small sample size, we did not use corrections for multiple testing, but, instead, effects sizes were calculated. With small sample sizes, a difference may be clinically meaningful despite failing to achieve statistical significance. In this study, the fairy large effect sizes hint to this possibility.

Conclusion

Although violently offending girls and boys did not differ in psychopathy total scores, significant gender differences existed on underlying factor and item scores as well as in background- and offence-related variables. Girls were less antisocial, but their relationships were more unstable, and their violence was bound to their close relationships. They also more often reported a history of child sexual abuse. Interventions with violent girls should focus on sexual trauma, appropriate and constructive skills to protect oneself against sexual abuse, and social skills in intimate relationships.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

NL collected the data and worked as the first author, SO and JM performed statistical analyses, RKH planned the study protocol with NL and all authors participated in the writing process. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Adjunct professor Pekka Tani for co-operation as well as the authorities of the Department of Psychiatry, Helsinki University Hospital, and Kellokoski Hospital.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This study has been funded by the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District and Academy of Finland (#268336), however, the funders have had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Forensic Psychiatry, Helsinki University and Helsinki University Hospital
(2)
Psychiatry, Helsinki University and Helsinki University Hospital
(3)
Research Unit for Clinical Neuroscience, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oulu and Oulu University Hospital
(4)
Medical Research Center Oulu, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu
(5)
Center for Life Course Health Research, University of Oulu
(6)
Adolescent Psychiatry, Tampere University and Tampere University Hospital
(7)
Kellokoski Hospital
(8)
Vanha Vaasa Hospital

References

  1. Hare RD. Psychopathy, affect, and behavior. In: Cooke DJ, Forth AE, Hare RD, editors. Psychopathy: theory, research, and implications for society. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1998.Google Scholar
  2. Benning SD, Patrick CJ, Blonigen DM, Hicks BM, Iacono WG. Estimating facets of psychopathy from normal personality traits: a step toward community epidemiological investigations. Assessment. 2005;12:3–18.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Washington: American Psychiatric Press; 2013.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Frick PJ, Ray JV, Thornton LC, Kahn RE. A developmental psychopathology approach to understanding callous-unemotional traits in children and adolescents with serious conduct problems. J Child Psychol Psychiatr. 2014;55:532–48.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Loney BR, Taylor J, Butler MA, Iacono WG. Adolescent psychopathy features: 6-year temporal stability and the prediction of externalizing symptoms during the transition to adulthood. Aggress Behav. 2007;33:242–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Frick PJ, Ray JV, Thornton LC, Kahn RE. A developmental psychopathology approach to understanding callous-unemotional traits in children and adolescents with serious conduct problems. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2014;55:532–48.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Verona E, Sadeh N, Javdani S. The influences of gender and culture on child and adolescent psychopathy. In: Salekin RT, Lynam DR, editors. Handbook of child and adolescent psychopathy. New York: The Guilford Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  8. Schrum CL, Salekin RT. Psychopathy in adolescent female offenders: an item response theory analysis of the psychopathy checklist: youth version. Behav Sci Law. 2006;24:39–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Anderson NE, Kiehl KA. Psychopathy: developmental perspectives and their implications for treatment. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2014;32:103–17.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Daversa MT. Early environmental predictors of the affective and interpersonal constructs of psychopathy. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2010;54:6–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Farrington DP, Ullrich S, Salekin RT. Environmental influences on child and adolescent psychopathy. In: Salekin RT, Lynam DR, editors. Handbook of child and adolescent psychopathy. New York: The Guilford Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  12. Gao Y, Raine A, Chan F, Venables PH, Mednick SA. Early maternal and paternal bonding, childhood physical abuse and adult psychopathic personality. Psychol Med. 2010;40:1007–16.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Hawes DJ, Dadds MR, Frost AD, Hasking PA. Do childhood callous-unemotional traits drive change in parenting practices? J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2011;40:507–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kimonis ER, Cross B, Howard A, Donoghue K. Maternal care, maltreatment and callous-unemotional traits among urban male juvenile offenders. J Youth Adolesc. 2013;42:165–77.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kimonis ER, Centifanti LC, Allen JL, Frick PJ. Reciprocal influences between negative life events and callous-unemotional traits. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2014;42:1287–98.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lindberg N, Laajasalo T, Holi M, Putkonen H, Weizmann-Henelius G, Häkkänen-Nyholm H. Psychopathic traits and offender characteristics—a nationwide consecutive sample of homicidal male adolescents. BMC Psychiatry. 2009;9:18.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Rubio JS, Krieger MA, Finney EJ, Coker KL. A review of the relationship between sociocultural factors and juvenile psychopathy. Aggress Violent Behav. 2014;19:23–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Viding E, Frick PJ, Plomin R. Aetiology of the relationship between callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in childhood. Br J Psychiatry Suppl. 2007;49:33–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Fontaine NM, Rijsdijk FV, McCrory EJ, Viding E. Etiology of different developmental trajectories of callous-unemotional traits. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2010;49:656–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Bezdjian S, Raine A, Baker LA, Lynam DR. Psychopathic personality in children: genetic and environmental contributions. Psychol Med. 2011;41:589–600.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Krischer MK, Sevecke K. Early traumatization and psychopathy in female and male juvenile offenders. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2008;31:253–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ficks CA, Dong L, Waldman ID. Sex differences in the etiology of psychopathic traits in youth. J Abnorm Psychol. 2014;123:406–11.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Forth AE, Burke HC. Psychopathy in adolescence: assessment, violence, and developmental precursors. In: Cooke DJ, Forth AE, Hare RD, editors. Psychopathy: theory, research, and implications for society. Dordrecht: Kluver; 1998.Google Scholar
  24. Frick PJ, Cornell AH, Bodin SD, Dane HA, Barry CT, Loney RB. Callous-unemotional traits and developmental pathways to severe conduct problems. Dev Psychol. 2003;39:246–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Gretton H, McBride M, Hare RD, O’Shaughnessy R, Kumka G. Psychopathy and recidivism in adolescent sex offenders. Crim Justice Behav. 2001;28:427–49.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Langstrom N, Grann M. Psychopathy and violent recidivism among young criminal offenders. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 2002;412:86–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Murrie DC, Cornell DG, Kaplan S, McConville D, Levy-Elkon A. Psychopathy scores and violence among juvenile offenders: a multi-measure study. Behav Sci Law. 2004;22:49–67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kruh IP, Frick PJ, Clements CB. Historical and personality correlates to the violence patterns of juveniles tried as adults. Crim Justice Behav. 2005;32:69–96.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Thornton LC, Frick PJ, Shulman EP, Ray JV, Steinberg L, Cauffman E. Callous-unemotional traits and adolescents’ role in group crime. Law Hum Behav. 2015;39:368–77.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller DJ, Watts A, Jones SE. Does psychopathy manifest divergent relations with components of its nomological network depending on gender? Pers Individ Dif. 2011;50:264–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Salekin RT. Psychopathy in children and adolescents. In: Patrick CJ, editor. Handbook of psychopathy. New York: Guilford Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  32. Moretti MM, Catspole RE, Odgers C. The dark side of girlhood: recent trends, risk factors and trajectories to aggression and violence. Can Child Adolesc Psychiatr Rev. 2005;14:21–5.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Campbell MA, Porter S, Santor D. Psychopathic traits in adolescent offenders: an evaluation to criminal history, clinical, and psychosocial correlates. Behav Sci Law. 2004;22:23–47.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Salekin RT, Leistico AM, Trobst KK, Schrum CL, Lochman JE. Adolescent psychopathy and personality theory- the interpersonal circumplex: expanding evidence of a nomological net. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2005;33:445–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Sevecke K, Kosson DS, Krischer MK. The relationship between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, and psychopathy in adolescent male and female detainees. Behav Sci Law. 2009;27:577–98.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Penney SR, Moretti MM. The relation of psychopathy to concurrent aggression and antisocial behavior in high-risk adolescent girls and boys. Behav Sci Law. 2007;25:21–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Eronen M, Repo E, Vartiainen H, Tiihonen J. Forensic Psychiatric Organization in Finland. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2000;23:541–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. World Health Organization. Manual of the International statistical classification of diseases, injuries, and causes of death. 8th ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1962.Google Scholar
  39. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 3rd ed. Washington: American psychiatric Press; 1987.Google Scholar
  40. World Health Organization. The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1992.Google Scholar
  41. Forth AE, Kosson DS, Hare RD. The Hare PCL:YV. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems; 2003.Google Scholar
  42. Hare RD. The hare psychopathy checklist—revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems; 1991.Google Scholar
  43. Hare RD. The hare psychopathy checklist—revised. 2nd ed. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems; 2003.Google Scholar
  44. Cooke DJ, Michie C. Psychopathy across cultures: North America and Scotland compared. J Abnorm Psychol. 1999;108:58–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Hare RD, Clark D, Grann M, Thornton D. Psychopathy and the predictive validity of the PCL-R: an international perspective. Behav Sci Law. 2000;18:623–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Sullivan EA, Abramowitz CS, Lopez M, Kosson DS. Reliability and construct validity of the psychopathy checklist -revised for Latino, European American, and African American male inmates. Psychol Assess. 2006;18:382–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Putkonen H, Weizmann-Henelius G, Repo-Tiihonen E, Lindberg N, Saarela T, Eronen M, Häkkänen-Nyholm H. Homicide, psychopathy, and aging—a nationwide register-based case-comparison study of homicide offenders aged 60 years or older. J Forensic Sci. 2010;55:1552–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Rasmussen K, Storsaeter O, Levander S. Personality disorders, psychopathy, and crime in a Norwegian prison population. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1999;22:91–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Thomson A, Tiihonen J, Miettunen J, Sailas E, Virkkunen M, Lindberg N. Psychopathic traits among a consecutive sample of Finnish pretrial fire-setting offenders. BMC Psychiatry. 2015;15:44.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Woodworth M, Porter S. In cold blood: characteristics of criminal homicides as a function of psychopathy. J Abnorm Psychol. 2002;111:436–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Alterman AI, Cacciola JS, Rutherford MJ. Reliability of the revised psychopathy checklist in substance abuse patients. Psychol Assess. 1993;5:442–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  52. Grann M, Langstrom N, Tengstrom A, Stalenheim E. Reliability of file-based retrospective ratings of psychopathy with the PCL-R. J Pers Assess. 1998;70:416–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Mossman D. Assessing predictions of violence: being accurate about accuracy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994;62:783–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Wong S. Is Hare’s psychopathy checklist reliable without the interview? Psychol Rep. 1988;62:931–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Brandt JR, Wallace A, Kennedy CJ, Curtin JJ. Assessment of psychopathy in a population of incarcerated adolescent offenders. Psychol Assess. 1997;9:429–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  56. Catschpole EH, Gretton HM. The predictive validity of risk assessment with violent young offenders: a 1-year examination of criminal outcome. Crim Justice Behav. 2003;30:688–707.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Gretton H, Hare RD, Catchpole R. Psychopathy and offending from adolescence to adulthood: a 10-year follow-up. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2004;72:636–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. O’Neill ML, Lidz V, Heilbrun K. Adolescents with psychopathic characteristics in a substance abusing cohort: treatment process and outcomes. Law Hum Behav. 2003;27:299–313.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:155–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Nee C, Farman S. Female prisoners with borderline personality disorder: some promising treatment developments. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2005;15:2–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Sprague J, Javdani S, Sadeh N, Newman JP, Verona E. Borderline personality disorder as a female phenotypic expression of psychopathy? Personal Disord. 2012;3:127–39.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Decuyper M, Colins OF, De Clercq B, Vermeiren R, Broekaert E, Bijttebier P, et al. Latent personality profiles and the relations with psychopathology and psychopathic traits in detained adolescents. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2013;44:217–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, Koss MP, Marks JS. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14:245–58.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Dong M, Anda RF, Felitti VJ, Dube SR, Williamson DF, Thompson TJ, Giles WH. The interrelatedness of multiple forms of childhood abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction. Child Abuse Negl. 2004;28:771–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Kaltiala-Heino R, Eronen M, Putkonen H. Violent girls in adolescent forensic care are more often psychotic and traumatized than boys in the same level of care. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2014. doi:10.1080/14789949.2014.943795 (Published online 12 Aug 2014).Google Scholar
  68. Gore-Felton C, Koopman C, McGarvey E, Hernanzed N, Canterbury RJ. Relationships of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse to emotional and behavioral problems among incarcerated adolescents. J Child Sex Abus. 2001;10:73–88.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Cutajar MC, Mullen PE, Ogloff JR, Thomas SD, Wells DL, Spataro J. Psychopathology in a large cohort of sexually abused children followed up to 43 years. Child Abuse Negl. 2010;34:813–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Gammelgard M, Weizmann-Henelius G, Koivisto A, Eronen M, Kaltiala-Heino R. Gender differences in violence risk profiles. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2012;23:76–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Scott KM, Smith DR, Ellis PM. Prospectively ascertained child maltreatment and its association with DSM-IV mental disorders in young adults. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2010;67:712–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Saewyc EM, Magee LL, Pettingell SE. Teenage pregnancy and associated risk behaviors and sexually abused adolescents. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2004;36:98–105.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Odgers CL, Repucci ND, Moretti M. Nipping psychopathy in the Bud: an examination of the convergent, predictive and theoretical utility of the PCL-YV among adolescent girls. Behav Sci Law. 2005;23:743–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Häkkänen-Nyholm H, Putkonen H, Lindberg N, Holi M, Rovamo T, Weizmann-Henelius G,. Gender differences in Finnish homicide offence characteristics. Forensic Sci Int. 2009;186:75–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Robbins PC, Monahan J, Silver E. Mental disorder, violence and gender. Law Hum Behav. 2003;27:561–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Lehti M. Nuorten henkirikokset 1980–2004. In: Honkatukia P, Kivivuori J, editors. Nuorisorikollisuus: määrä, syyt ja kontrolli. Oikeuspoliittisen tutkimuslaitoksen julkaisuja 221. Helsinki: Oikeuspoliittinen tutkimuslaitos; 2006.Google Scholar
  77. Rikollisuustilanne 2014. Katsauksia 4/2015. Helsinki: Helsingin yliopisto, Kriminologian ja oikeuspolitiikan instituutti; 2015.Google Scholar
  78. Magdol L, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Newman DL, Fagan J, Silva PA. Gender differences in partner violence in a birth cohort of 21-year-olds: bridging the gap between clinical and epidemiological approaches. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997;65:68–78.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. National Statistics. 2007. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=6.
  80. Boonmann C, Jansen LM, Lisette A, Vahl P, Hillege SL, Doreleijers TA, Vermeiren RR. Self-reported psychopathic traits in sexually offending juveniles compared with generally offending juveniles and general population youth. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2015;59:85–95.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Vitacco MJ, Salekin RT, Rogers R. Forensic issues for child and adolescent psychiatry. In: Salekin RT, Lynam DR, editors. Handbook of child and adolescent psychopathy. New York: The Guilford Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  82. Hagelstam C, Häkkänen H. Adolescent homicides in Finland: offence and offender characteristics. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;164:110–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Laajasalo T, Häkkänen H. Backgroud characteristics of mentally ill homicide offenders—a comparison of five diagnostic groups. J Forensic Psychol Psychiatr. 2004;15:451–74.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  84. Cannon M, Jones P, Huttunen M, Tanskanen A, Huttunen T, Rabe-Hesketh S, et al. School performance in Finnish children and later development of schizophrenia. A population-based longitudinal study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56:457–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2016