Diagnostic Labeling in Juvenile Court: How Do Descriptions of Psychopathy and Conduct Disorder Influence Judges?

Abstract

This study examined the influence of diagnostic criteria and diagnostic labels for psychopathy or conduct disorder on judicial decisions. A national sample of judges (N = 326) rendered hypothetical dispositions based on 1 of 12 mock psychological evaluations. The evaluations varied the presence of 2 sets of diagnostic criteria (antisocial behavioral history and psychopathic personality traits) and 3 diagnostic labels (conduct disorder, psychopathy, no diagnosis) to distinguish diagnostic criterion effects from diagnostic labeling effects. Results revealed substantial effects (Cohen's d = .33–1.27 on 6 of 9 variables) for a history of antisocial behavior. Psychopathic personality features also appeared influential, albeit on fewer variables. There were no negative effects associated with conduct disorder or psychopathy labels. Results suggest that the criteria underlying labels, more than labels themselves, exert influence in juvenile justice contexts.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Sam Houston State University Faculty Research Council for supporting this research.

Notes

¹Two vignettes involved a youth who received a psychopathy diagnosis but was described as not manifesting psychopathy traits. We decided that the benefits of maintaining a fully crossed design outweighed the disadvantage of presenting 2 vignettes that were less plausible than the other 10. Notably, including these two vignettes allows for a direct test of psychopathy labeling effects in the absence of psychopathy traits. We reran study analyses without these two implausible vignettes and found negligible differences from the full-sample results.

²There were fewer than 22 judges in only three study conditions: (a) no antisocial traits, no psychopathy traits, psychopathy diagnosis (n = 13); (b) antisocial traits, psychopathy traits, psychopathy diagnosis (n = 13); and (c) no antisocial traits, psychopathy traits, psychopathy diagnosis (n = 19).

Note: Ns ranged from 260 to 266.

^a Ratings based on a scale of 1 (not familiar) to 4 (very familiar).

^b Ratings based on a scale of 1 (never) to 6 (very often).

Note: The summary of significant effects are the result of a 2 × 2 × 3 analysis of variance with descriptions of history of antisocial behavior (minimal vs. substantial), psychopathic personality traits (psychopathic vs. not psychopathic), and diagnosis (psychopathy, conduct disorder, or none) as the three factors. Statistics for these effects, including effect sizes, are provided in the text.

^a n = 23.

^b n = 20

^c n = 13

^d n = 32

^e n = 32

^f n = 19

^g n = 23

^h n = 22

ⁱ n = 23

^j n = 29

^k n = 24

^l n = 13.