Effects of the “Limited Prosocial Emotions” Specifier for Conduct Disorder on Juror Perceptions of Juvenile Offenders

• Author: Ashneeta H. Prasad,Eva R. Kimonis
• Published date: 01 October 2018
• Date: 01 October 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818774381
• Subject Matter: Articles

1547

https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818774381

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2018, Vol. 45, No. 10, October 2018, 1547 –1564.

DOI: 10.1177/0093854818774381

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2018 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

EFFECTS OF THE “LIMITED PROSOCIAL

EMOTIONS” SPECIFIER FOR CONDUCT

DISORDER ON JUROR PERCEPTIONS OF

JUVENILE OFFENDERS

ASHNEETA H. PRASAD

EVA R. KIMONIS

University of New South Wales, Sydney

Despite the association that the “Limited Prosocial Emotions” (LPE) specifier for Conduct Disorder (CD) has with psy-

chopathy, little is known about whether the LPE specifier aggravates juvenile proceedings. The present study of 294 juror-

eligible U.S. citizens examined the effects of the LPE specifier on juror perceptions of juvenile offenders. Relative to

undiagnosed offenders, those with a CD or CD+LPE diagnosis were perceived as less amenable to treatment and more

dangerous, and received a more restrictive sentence. A CD+LPE diagnosis did not incrementally increase negative percep-

tions relative to a CD diagnosis. Interestingly, participants recommended less restrictive sentences for youth with a CD+LPE

diagnosis relative to those showing symptoms of CD+LPE without a diagnostic label. Controlling for diagnostic status,

higher levels of perceived callous-unemotional traits in youth predicted negative perceptions and recommendations for more

restrictive sentences. Findings are discussed within the context of the probative value of mental health evidence within legal

settings.

Keywords: psychopathy; juvenile justice; jury research; callous-unemotional traits; Limited Prosocial Emotions; mental

health stigma; juror decision-making; psychopathic traits

Psychopathy is a personality disorder involving significant deficits in socio-emotional

(e.g., diminished empathy) and neurocognitive (e.g., reduced amygdala activity) func-

tioning that is robustly linked with delinquent behavior. Given the long-standing relation-

ship between psychopathy and criminality, there has been extensive research into the

developmental origins of psychopathic traits in an effort to identify childhood risk factors

for chronic antisocial behavior (Kahn, Frick, Youngstrom, Findling, & Youngstrom, 2012).

Decades of research now provide strong support for a unique subgroup of youth with

Conduct Disorder (CD) and co-occurring Callous-Unemotional (CU) traits (e.g., lack of

empathy/remorse, callousness, shallow affect, uncaring attitudes toward school and/or

work) who show distinct cognitive-affective and neurobiological functioning (e.g., impaired

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eva R. Kimonis,

Associate Professor, School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia;

e-mail: e.kimonis@unsw.edu.au.

774381CJBXXX10.1177/0093854818774381Criminal Justice and BehaviorPrasad, Kimonis / LPE and Perceptions

research-article2018

1548 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

emotion recognition and responsivity) that require specific and different treatment needs

relative to their CD only counterparts (Frick & Viding, 2009; Kahn et al., 2012).

In light of surmounting empirical evidence, the American Psychiatric Association (APA)

incorporated a specifier for CD into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; APA, 2013). This “Limited Prosocial Emotions” (LPE) speci-

fier allows for a CD+LPE diagnosis that is applicable to those children and adolescents who

in addition to fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for CD (e.g., aggression toward people and

animals) also exhibit two or more CU traits for 12 months or longer across a range of

contexts.

In a clinical context, the LPE specifier may assist in efficiently conveying useful infor-

mation for treatment and research purposes; however, there is a dearth of research examin-

ing its judicial implications. This is despite the fact that of the approximately 40% of

justice-involved youth with a CD diagnosis, an estimated 36% to 55% show elevated CU

traits (Kimonis et al., 2015; Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, & Mericle, 2002). If

research on the effects of psychopathy diagnoses and traits can serve as an indication of

how the LPE specifier might be received in justice settings, there is cause for concern

among academic and legal circles. Indeed, psychopathy stigma research has revealed that a

psychopathy diagnosis and its associated traits can sometimes result in general, specific,

and criterion labeling effects (Murrie, Cornell, & McCoy, 2005), all of which serve as

aggravating factors to an offender’s legal outcomes (e.g., Boccaccini, Murrie, Clark, &

Cornell, 2008; Edens, Colwell, Desforges, & Fernandez, 2005).

GENERAL LABELING EFFECTS

General labeling effects in a judicial context refer to negatively evaluating an offender

with a mental health diagnosis relative to a nondiagnosed offender who has committed the

same crime. Mock trial studies suggest that relative to nondiagnosed offenders, juvenile and

adult court judges (Jones & Cauffman, 2008) and mock jurors (Edens et al., 2005) select

more punitive punishments (e.g., death sentences) for offenders with a psychopathy diagno-

sis and view them as more dangerous and more likely to violently reoffend. This can be

problematic given the link between psychopathic or CU traits, violent reoffending, and

diminished rehabilitative potential is weaker than originally thought (Asscher et al., 2011;

Hawes, Price, & Dadds, 2014), yet the presence of such a diagnosis may be used to deny

one treatment in some jurisdictions. Nonetheless, findings indicate that the perceived link

between psychopathy and an increased propensity for violence is so firmly established that

it results in both laypersons and legal professionals alike endorsing prejudicial attitudes and

harsher sentencing for offenders with a psychopathy diagnosis (Jones & Cauffman, 2008).

SPECIFIC LABELING EFFECTS

In contrast to adult studies, youth research has demonstrated mixed evidence for specific

labeling effects associated with a psychopathy diagnosis (i.e., when a psychopathy diagno-

sis elicits more prejudicial attitudes relative to other mental health diagnoses; Edens et al.,

2005; Edens, Desforges, Fernandez, & Palac, 2004). For example, Rockett, Murrie, and

Boccaccini (2007) found that forensic clinicians rated youth diagnosed with psychopathy as

being at greater risk for violent reoffending relative to youth diagnosed with CD alone, even