Subtypes of female juvenile offenders: A cluster analysis of the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory

Abstract

The current study sought to explore subtypes of adolescents within a sample of female juvenile offenders. Using the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory with 101 female juvenile offenders, a two-step cluster analysis was performed beginning with a Ward's method hierarchical cluster analysis followed by a K-Means iterative partitioning cluster analysis. The results suggest an optimal three-cluster solution, with cluster profiles leading to the following group labels: Externalizing Problems, Depressed/Interpersonally Ambivalent, and Anxious Prosocial. Analysis along the factors of age, race, offense typology and offense chronicity were conducted to further understand the nature of found clusters. Only the effect for race was significant with the Anxious Prosocial and Depressed Intepersonally Ambivalent clusters appearing disproportionately comprised of African American girls. To establish external validity, clusters were compared across scales of the Behavioral Assessment System for Children — Self Report of Personality, and corroborative distinctions between clusters were found here.

Introduction

As has been the case in psychology at-large, the field of delinquency research has been criticized for both lacking sufficient focus upon females and for utilizing an androcentric interpretive bias in those instances when female delinquency has been addressed (Chesney-Lind and Sheldon, 1998, Barnett and Simmons, 2001). Historically, research has not sought to understand the phenomenological worlds of female delinquents, and only recently has psychology begun to burgeon with research specifically targeting this population (MacDonald & Chesney-Lind, 2001). This upswing in interest is partially a byproduct of feminist scholarship, and such theorists' urgings to examine women in their own terms, rather than simply in comparison to males (Crawford & Unger, 2000). Feminist scholars have highlighted evidence of the societal gender biases that girls face within communities as well as within the juvenile justice system (Barnett & Simmons, 2001), and proposed that unique risk factors exist for female delinquency (Acoca & Dedel, 1998). A separate impetus for the recent interest in female offending has been the sharp rises in female delinquency observed in both the U.S. and the U.K. (Hipwell et al., 2002). Similar trends have been identified in South Korea (Kim & Kim, 2005) and Japan (Simizu, 1989). At present a need exists for research into female delinquency that is sensitive to feminist critiques, but which seeks to more fully describe the psychology of girls in the juvenile justice system.

In contrast to the mainstream literature on male delinquency, few research studies exist that explore the within-group variance of personality traits and psychological symptomatology among female juvenile offenders. Within this burgeoning set of female delinquency research some authors have urged more descriptive research be conducted before further etiological research into female delinquency is undertaken (Goodman & Kohlsdorf, 1994). The present study will attempt to contribute to the female delinquency research, by examining psychological diversity within female juvenile offenders. The study will utilize a theoretically based personality instrument, the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (Millon, 1993) to establish the existence of subtypes within a sample of female juvenile offenders. The rationale for such research is based on the fact that similar studies have been conducted with male juvenile offenders (e.g. Felice and Offord, 1971, Aalsma and Lapsley, 2001), and that classification and typology studies have been a historical cornerstone of psychological science (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). In harmony with the urgings of feminist scholars, the present study will also attempt to explore typologies that will specifically generalize to female juvenile offenders, and will seek to interpret findings in the context of theories of female psychosocial development.

Self-report studies have shown that males and females commit status offenses, such as running away from home, at equal rates; in contrast, official arrest statistics show that females are arrested for such offenses at a higher rate than males (Teilmann & Landry, 1981). In fact, in recent years 58% of those arrested for running away have been girls (Chesney-Lind & Shelden 1998). Compared to formal delinquency cases, status offenses are less often referred to the juvenile court system by police, and more often by family members. Critics of the juvenile justice system charge that girls are criminalized for behaviors that do not necessarily reflect psychopathology, or even a threat to either themselves or their community. A separate critique holds that juvenile justice system has not provided gender-specific and developmentally sound interventions for girls (Barnett and Simmons, 2001, Chesney-Lind and Sheldon, 1998). The extent to which “status offenders” share personality traits or manifest similar clinical problems will be an important area of inquiry for the present study.

Another longstanding contentious trend in juvenile justice system in the United States is the disproportional representation of ethnic minority group members. For instance, U.S. data indicates that in 1996 African American youth were referred to the juvenile justice system at a rate twice that of White youth, and the population of African American youth referred exhibited a larger proportion of crimes against person charges than did youth in other racial categories (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). African American youth have been shown to be six times more likely to be incarcerated in public facilities than White youth, even when charged with the same offense (Barnett & Simmons, 2001). As with offense categories, the degree to which race intersects with psychological groupings of female offenders will also be examined in the present study. One important question is whether the disproportional number of African American girls involved in the juvenile justice system reflects a real increase in antisocial behavior and psychopathology or whether such statistics merely reflect biases within the justice system.

Generally speaking, the literature has identified two primary developmental trajectories when large samples of juvenile offenders have been examined. Specifically, Moffitt's (1993) research has illustrated that one group of adolescents begins behaving in a disruptive and antisocial manner early in life. This group is thought to be characterized by neurological, and psychological deficits within the child that cumulatively interact with toxic, criminogenic environmental conditions. The result for this group is a stable life-course pattern of antisocial behavior. The second group is labeled adolescent-limited offenders. This group is viewed as having a temporary lag in social maturity and decision-making (Moffitt, 1993, Eme and Kavanaugh, 1995).

Male delinquency research is has also focused on the role of coercive family practices (Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989). Such interactions are composed of antisocial behavior modeled by caregivers and extended towards children in interactions between the two. Such parenting practices have been shown to be associated with rejection by members of normal peer groups, and the presence of pervasive academic failure. Eventually, delinquent youth attach to deviant antisocial peer groups, which are thought to then supply, reinforce and maintain the attitudes, worldview and rationalizations necessary for sustained antisocial behavior (Patterson et al., 1989). For girls, the experience of non-nurturing, exploitive, and abusive relationships may also serve as a precursor to involvement in delinquent acts, though little is known about the exact developmental course these experiences take, or if the model offered by the male research holds true for girls (Chesney-Lind & Sheldon, 1998).

As mentioned, the present study will utilize an omnibus personality inventory, the MACI, to discern what distinct psychological subtypes exist within a sample of female juvenile offenders. While the MACI is based on Theodore Millon's (1990) well-delineated theory of psychopathology and personality, the instrument is relatively young and only a small group of empirical studies have investigated the validity of this instrument. In one such study Hiatt and Cornell (1999) found moderate correlations between the Doleful and Depressive Affect scales and clinical diagnoses of depression. Also Grilo, Sonislow, Fehon, Martino and McGlashan (1999) found that the Childhood Abuse scale of the MACI was concurrently predictive of borderline personality traits in adolescent psychiatric in-patients when the effects of depression were controlled for. In examining adolescents with substance abuse histories, Grilo, Fehon, Walker and Martino (1996) found higher scores on the Unruly, Social Insensitivity, Substance Abuse Proneness, and Delinquent Predisposition scales, and lower scores on the Submissive, Sexual Discomfort, and Anxious Feelings scales when compared to non substance abusers. A final study, by Velting, Rathus and Miller (2000) administered the MACI to depressed adolescents referred from clinical settings with and without prior suicide attempts. Results showed more overall personality pathology in the suicide attempter group, and this group also scored higher on the Forceful, and Borderline scales, and lower on the Submissive and Conforming scales.

Additionally, the research of Romm, Bockian and Harvey (1999) using the MACI is of particular interest to the present study. These researchers used factor analysis to examine MACI profiles in a sample of mixed gender youths placed in residential treatment facilities. The researchers identified five factors explaining 77.4% of the variance and applied the following labels: (a) Defiant Externalizers, (b) Intrapunitive Ambivalent Types, (c) Inadequate Avoidants, (d) Self-Deprecating Depressives and (e) Reactive Abused. A major conclusion of the authors of this study was that their results brought considerable support to the existing distinction between internalizing and externalizing problems. Taken as a whole this group of studies provides a basic foundation of external validity for the MACI, though additional empirical scrutiny of the MACI with specific subgroups and alongside behavioral data is still needed.

In response to a delinquency literature that is broad and substantive, but lacks a focus upon gender; feminist perspectives have become increasingly utilized to understand the nature of female offending. Specifically, the feminist criminologist Meda Chesney-Lind (1989) suggests that the juvenile justice system has ignored the connection between girls' physical and sexual victimization and its relationship to their delinquent behaviors. From this perspective female delinquency is reconceived as a reaction to oppressive victimization. There is empirical evidence for this claim, such as a study by Green, Russo, Navratil and Loeber (1999), which found a significantly higher prevalence of both Conduct Disorder and depression for physically or sexually abused girls as compared to non-abused girls. Also, these researchers found that abused girls had an earlier age of onset for Conduct Disorder symptoms. Additionally, feminist scholars have highlighted that adolescence is a “crossroads” for young girls. As girls enter high school physical maturation and the increased sexualization of female gender roles create an environment in which an adolescent girl's means of defining self becomes increasingly dependent upon their ability to garner and maintain interpersonal and romantic attachments (Brown & Gilligan, 1992). In summary, from the feminist authors' perspectives, both physical/sexual abuse and the unique sex-role demands of adolescence in particular may be important etiological ingredients of female delinquency that deserve research attention.

In addition to the conceptual arguments of feminist scholars, a small but substantive body of empirical literature has identified specific risk factors contributing to female delinquency. In a study funded by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Acoca and Dedel (1998) conducted a systematic analysis of girls in the California Juvenile Justice System. From this research specific pathways towards female delinquency were introduced. They found that the most frequently occurring first step along a girl's trajectory towards delinquency was an experience of victimization. Additionally, girls who had experienced abuse had often first entered the system as runaways attempting to escape abuse at home. Even when more serious offenses were analyzed, such as assault, these were found to usually be the result of mutual violence with parents, which were often initiated by the parents. A high rate of physical and sexual victimization continues for girls once they became incarcerated. This study also noted that African American and Hispanic girls were disproportionately represented in the California juvenile justice system. Finally, the study identified the significant dearth of programs within the system that were specifically intended to address the needs and unique causes of female delinquency. Acoca and Dedel's (1998) study highlights how the individual girl as well as social forces and institutional practice come together to initiate and maintain female delinquent behavior in ways that are gender-specific.

Silverthorn and Frick (1999) have hypothesized a delayed-onset trajectory for female offenders, based upon the existing epidemiological evidence of sex differences in offense patterns. These authors believe that more severely antisocial female offenders are a relatively homogenous group than are their male counterparts in regards to when their antisocial behavior begins and the likelihood of continuing these behaviors into adulthood. They argue that antisocial females have been shown to exhibit a profile of family discord and neuropsychological deficits that is similar to Moffitt's (1993) description of life-course persistent offenders. However, unlike their male counterparts with similar risk factors; these girls' antisocial behavior does not intensify until mid to late adolescence. Girls who have been accumulating these delinquency risk factors in childhood begin acting out in adolescence as the stress and social pressures of this period rise and the existing parental supports and emphasis on traditional gender roles declines. Silverhorn and Frick's (1999) perspective points out that some female delinquency may be as much due to the removal of childhood protective factors during adolescence, as it is the presence of pathogenic factors within the childhood. Arguing similarly, Bennett, Farrington and Huesmann (2005) assert that gender differences related to social cognition patterns are what lie behind male/female delinquency patterns. Specifically, these authors argue that girls acquire prosocial cognitive skills earlier in life, e.g. empathy and perspective taking, and that girls are less prone to neurocognitive deficits often associated with antisocial behavior than are boys. This may explain both why boys are at greater risk in general for delinquent outcomes, as well as why girls appear to emerge with delinquent behaviors only upon reaching adolescence.

Other studies have noted specific differences in samples of male and female juvenile offenders. Calhoun (2001) found that significant differences existed in self-reported behaviors and emotional symptoms of male and female offenders. This study found female offenders to report more external locus of control, higher levels of perceived social stress, anxiety, and depression. Additionally, females reported poorer relations with parents than male offenders, and lower self-esteem. The author linked the results to the importance of relationships and internalizing problems in understanding female offending. Also, Fejes-Mendoza, Miller and Eppler (1995) examined data from multiple domains in a sample of incarcerated female juvenile offenders. From their analysis they identified specific obstacles to positive, prosocial developmental outcomes for these girls. Chief among these were academic underachievement, substance abuse, highly dysfunctional, invalidating and abusive interpersonal relationships, histories of neuro-cognitive deficits and special education needs, siblings involved in antisocial behavior, and extremely limited personal resources to cope with and adapt to environmental demands.

The above research suggests the need to delineate specific developmental trajectories and etiological factors for female juvenile offenders. Girls are treated differently than boys, experience different developmental demands, and appear to develop antisocial and risky behaviors through a somewhat different set of processes than boys. Despite these clear differences, a much of the etiology of delinquency is likely similar across boys and girls. This idea is also supported by longitudinal research findings such as a study by Gorman-Smith and Loeber (2005), which found a general consistency between the developmental paths of boys and girls towards antisocial behavior. Also, Pajer (1998) found that, similar to findings with males, antisocial girls had significant negative adult outcomes. Specifically, the author found that, compared to non-antisocial peers, antisocial girls had higher mortality rates, a 10–40% increase in adult antisocial behavior, higher rates of adult psychiatric problems as well as higher rates of dysfunctional and abusive adult relationships. Still, the existing research is disproportionately generous with theories of male delinquency trajectories, and lacking well researched gender specific theories of female delinquency trajectories and causal factors. Feminist scholars, in particular, have argued (Chesney-Lind and Sheldon, 1998, Crawford and Unger, 2000), what is missing from the mainstream empirical approaches to dissecting female behavior is an integration of the unique experiences of being female with the broad-based knowledge of how adolescents become delinquent. A first step in this process is exploring subtypes and groupings within female juvenile offenders. Examination of these subtypes within females rather than comparing them to boys allows the clinical and phenomenological perspective of the girls to come to the fore.