Introduction

         The psychological disorder most commonly affiliated with the criminal justice system is Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD). Based on existing literature from a variety of fields, the association between ASPD and criminal activity can be observed from the diagnostic criteria itself,  which includes an inclination towards “deception, manipulation, [a] disregard for the rights of others, and a lack of remorse for [the disordered individual’s] behaviour” (Fitzgerald & Demakis, 2007). In support of research indicating high levels of interaction between individuals diagnosed with ASPD and the criminal justice system, statistical research regarding detainees arrested for engagement in unlawful behaviour indicates that many people committing illegal acts meet the diagnostic criteria for ASPD (Fitzgerald & Demakis, 2007). Neuropsychological research, as well as research in other fields, has determined several characteristics that tend to prevail as clustered in those who are diagnosed with ASPD, such as attention deficits; cognitive inflexibility; and social ineptness, often leading to the misinterpretation of social cues and inappropriate behavioural responses (Fitzgerald & Demakis, 2007). A direct or single cause for the development of ASPD has not yet been determined. However, the current consensus is that a combination of innate personality characteristics and social/ situational factors either lead to the engagement in or prevention of antisocial behaviour. Situational factors such as a lack of engagement in highly structured leisure activity (Mahoney & Stattin, 2000), adolescent substance abuse (Nardi, et al., 2012), and childhood displays of antisocial behaviour (Braet et al., 2009) have all been positively correlated with higher engagement in antisocial behaviour during adolescence. Longitudinal research from a variety of backgrounds indicates that engagement in antisocial behaviour is highly stable throughout the course of a person’s lifetime: conduct problems during childhood are a strong indication of delinquency and antisocial behaviour during adolescence (Braet et al., 2009). Additionally, youths undergoing treatment for conduct disorders and substance abuse were found to meet the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder in adulthood at a rate of 61%, suggesting that engagement in antisocial behaviour during adolescence, when combined with the risk factor of substance use, is a strong predictor of the development of ASPD (Myers et al., 1998). Considering the relationships existing between personality, environmental, social, and substance-use risk factors and antisocial behaviour, as well as the fact that engagement in antisocial behaviour during childhood and adolescence is a strong predictor of later development of ASPD, the goal of this paper is to identify effective methods for deterring adolescent engagement in antisocial behaviour, thus counteracting the onset of ASPD.

The Findings

          Throughout literature, the terms “ASPD” and “psychopathy” have often been used interchangeably to describe behaviour and tendencies that are the result of an atypical lack of empathy, remorse, and usually engagement in antisocial behaviour. There is, however, a considerable amount of debate regarding whether psychopathy and ASPD are unique and independent disorders— despite their overlapping symptoms. The current consensus in a large amount of literature differentiates the two titles into two separate diagnoses on the basis of their diverging constructs: while the two disorders share many behavioural characteristics, a diagnosis of ASPD emphasizes the atypical behaviour of the disordered individual— stressing the significance of engagement in antisocial behaviours and criminal activity; on the other hand, a clinical diagnosis of psychopathy, preeminence is placed on atypical interpersonal traits and mood of the disordered individual (Fitzgerald & Demakis, 2007).  Fundamentally, in conducting diagnostic interviews for ASPD, the interpersonal state of an individual can be overlooked, leading to some ambiguity regarding the existence of a relationship between ASPD and psychopathy. Some evidence supporting the premise that ASPD and psychopathy are independent disorders comes from a study of criminal offenders in the United States, where it was determined that although the vast majority of the selected offenders met the diagnostic criteria for ASPD, “only 15-20% of the sample met criteria for psychopathy using the Psychopathy Checklist Revised” (Fitzgerald & Demakis, 2007). In order to maximize the efficacy of this paper and accurately identity risk factors for the development of ASPD, ASPD will be treated as a unique and independent disorder separate from psychopathy.

          Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) is a personality disorder predominantly characterized by its behavioural definition: that being, an individual’s “disregard for the rights of others, little empathy for others, a lack of remorse for consequences, and [willingness to engage in] deceit and manipulation for personal gain” (Fitzgerald & Demakis, 2007). Despite the symptomatic variation existing between individuals meeting diagnostic criteria for ASPD, research utilizing neuropsychological assessment has identified several personality characteristics that are relatively constant across individuals meeting diagnostic criteria for ASPD: “cognitive inflexibility, attention deficits, and inappropriate processing of contextual cues in the environment, sometimes leading to poor behavioural choices” (Fitzgerald & Demakis, 2007).

          Literature on ASPD is uncertain to what extent “nature” and “nurture” interact to encourage the development of antisocial personality disorder, but an overwhelming amount of research does indicate that environmental and biological factors are both responsible. During the reign of the behaviourist era, the symptoms defining ASPD were defined as “learned” behaviours— just as all other human behaviours were. However, in more modern times researchers agree that, although influenced by social and environmental factors, there is a biological component to ASPD that is heavily related to brain abnormalities (Fitzgerald & Demakis, 2007). Brain dysfunctions correlated with displays of antisocial behaviour are not necessarily genetic: traumatic head injury (as was the case with Phineas Gage), neurotransmitter imbalances, environmental toxins, substance abuse, as well as genetic factors all have the potential to produce atypical behaviour; including behaviour aligning with the diagnostic criteria of ASPD (Fitzgerald & Demakis, 2007). Intoxication caused by solvent abuse, for example, has been correlated with long term neurological and/ or brain tissue damage (Zeitlin, 1999). Connected to the former, disruption of neurological typical functions has been linked to numerous behavioural and and emotional disorders, such as “depression, suicidal ideation, conduct disorder… schizophrenia and other psychosis” (Zeitlin, 1999). 

          Of all psychological disorders, ASPD is internationally the most commonly associated with the criminal justice system (Fitzgerald & Demakis, 2007). Criminal activity of all varieties are demonstrations of antisocial behaviours. Ergo, it is logical that a personality disorder characterized by acts of antisocial behaviour is the most prevalent in correctional facilities. Increasingly concerning is the recent rise in adolescent engagement in antisocial behaviour: Morales (2008) found that between 1998 and 2008, the number of antisocial acts committed by individuals under the age of 18 had doubled in Brazil— an upward trend that has been reflected in other geographic regions as well (Obando et al., 2014). While meeting the diagnostic criteria for ASPD is not a prerequisite for displays of antisocial behaviour, multiple studies have positively correlated aggression and conduct problems in childhood to engagement in delinquent and antisocial behaviour in adolescence (Braet et al., 2009). Additionally, longitudinal studies have demonstrated that engagement in antisocial behaviour and/ or a diagnosis of conduct disorder in adolescence are both strong prognoses for both ASPD and psychoactive substance use disorders in adulthood (Myers et al., 1998). For example, a longitudinal study of adolescents with a conduct disorder and a comorbid substance abuse disorder revealed that the onset of deviant behaviour before or at 10 years of age, the level of diversity of deviant behaviour engaged in, and the pretreatments for drug use were strong predictors for the progression from antisocial behaviour to the development of ASPD (Myers et al., 1998). In the study by Meyers and colleagues (1998), 61% of the individuals initially interviewed for conduct problems met the diagnostic criteria for ASPD at a follow up interview 4 years later.

          Across literature researching different cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds, substance use in adolescence has been associated with engagement in antisocial behaviour. There are a variety of hypotheses regarding the relationship between substance abuse in young people and engagement in delinquency and antisocial behaviour: the conflict in opinions typically arises in determining whether substance abuse is a cause of antisocial behaviour, or is the result of some psychological disposition that acts as a risk factor for engagement in antisocial behaviour— which is often affiliated with lifestyle accompanied by substance abuse (Nardi et al., 2012). In Brazil, it has been found that among adolescents aged 14-17 years old who experiment with drugs and alcohol, adolescent users of narcotic drugs like cocaine engage in antisocial behaviour and criminal activity at significantly higher rates than their peers (Nardi et al., 2012). Once an adolescent begins substance use, in the majority of cases they will begin to engage with social groups promoting drug use, and because substance use in itself is a form of antisocial behaviour, affiliation with such social groups often leads to a cycle of criminality. Still, despite the observable connections between substance use and antisocial behaviour, research has remained unable to establish a causal relationship between substance use and antisocial behaviour: many studies display evidence supporting the hypothesis that conduct disorders and displays of antisocial behaviour in childhood are strong indicators of substance use in adolescence and adulthood, meanwhile other studies provide evidence suggesting that drug usage is a cause of antisocial behaviour (Nardi et al., 2012).

          Although substance abuse is an important subject to address when exploring possible causal factors for antisocial behaviour and ASPD, an abundance of other environmental, social, and biological factors interact to differing degrees in each individual’s life, leading to effects that are variable from person to person. Social interactions, for example, are perceived subjectively, and as has been indicated in Fitzgerald & Demakis (2007), individuals with ASPD interact with others and perceive the social environment in an atypical manner. Research on how the social context and structure of an adolescent’s environment has indicated that the nature of adolescent leisure activities is related to antisocial behaviour (Mahoney & Stattin, 2000). Upon assessing adolescent engagement in community-based leisure activities, and adolescent social relationships between an individual 14 year olds, their peers, and significant adults, Mahoney and Stattin (2000) found a relationship between antisocial behaviour and the level of structure in adolescent leisure activity: “youth participants engaging in highly structured leisure activities displayed low levels of antisocial behaviour… in contrast, anticipants whose leisure activities were low in structure… showed higher levels of antisocial behaviour” (Mahoney & Stattin, 2000). Other studies conducted in different geographic regions have prevailed similar results. For example, a survey of impoverished Canadian youth determined that a primary intervention factor for engagement in antisocial behaviour was participation in community activities under the direction of highly skilled adults (Mahoney & Stattin, 2000). These studies suggests that engaging relationships with their peers, family, and community in adolescence creates preventative factors for engagement in antisocial behaviour, which in turn— as indicated by other research— is a preventative factor for the development of ASPD.

Discussion

          Personality disorders in general require treatment methods that deviate from traditional therapeutic methods due to the nature of atypical behaviour, as well as atypicality variations between affected individuals (Fitzgerald & Demakis, 2007). The symptoms of ASPD, particularly, are difficult to counteract once an individual has ASPD, which is why early intervention through the identification of at risk individuals, paired with implementation preventative factors is essential to the successful counteraction of antisocial behaviour, and risk reduction for the onset of ASPD (Braet et al., 2009). For children and youths, risk for future development of ASPD can be identified by looking at factors in an individual’s life that are related with engagement in antisocial behaviour, such as conduct disorder, substance abuse, a lack of structure in leisure activities, psychological and biological predispositions, among other factors not discussed in this paper. Addressing innate factors that may influence the onset of ASPD may not be productive for the creation of standard preventative programs for engagement in ASPD due to the high levels of variation between individuals, as well as variation in the environmental factors that influence the expression of innate characteristics. However, being able to accurately identify at-risk youth and assess social and environmental risk factors can provide a general framework for minimizing engagement in antisocial behaviour, and thus could minimize the chances of developing ASPD later in life.

References:

Braet, C., Meerschaert, T., Merlevede, E., Bosmans, G., Van Leeuwen, K., & De Mey, W. (2009).

               Prevention of antisocial behaviour: Evaluation of an early intervention programme. European

               Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6(2), 223–240.https:doi.org10.1080/17405620601033194

Fitzgerald, K. L., & Demakis, G. J. (2007). The neuropsychology of antisocial personality disorder.

               Disease-a-Month, 53(3), 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disamonth.2007.04.010

Mahoney, L., Joseph, & Stattin, Hakan (2000). Leisure activities and adolescent antisocial behavior:

               The role of structure and social context. Journal of Adolescence, 23(2), 113–127. https://doi.org

               10.1006/jado.2000.0302

Myers, M. G., Stewart, D. G., & Brown, S. A. (1998). Progression from conduct disorder to

               antisocial personality disorder following treatment for adolescent substance abuse. American

               Journal of Psychiatry, 155(4), 479–485. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.155.4.479 

Nardi, F. L., Cunha, S. M., Bizarro, L., & Dell'Aglio, D. D. (2012). Drug use and antisocial behavior

               among adolescents attending public schools in Brazil. Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy

               34(2), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1590/s2237-60892012000200006 

Obando, D., Trujillo, A., & Trujillo, C. A. (2014). Substance use and antisocial behavior in

               adolescents: The role of family and peer-individual risk and protective factors. Substance Use

               & Misuse, 49(14), 1934–1944. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2014.956365

Zeitlin, H. (1999). Psychiatric comorbidity with substance misuse in children and teenagers. Drug and

               Alcohol Dependence, 55(3), 225–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0376-8716(99)00018-6