Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma

ISSN: 1092-6771 (Print) 1545-083X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wamt20

Childhood Physical Abuse and Sociopathy: Is This

Link Magnified among Firstborn Children?

Alan R. King

To cite this article: Alan R. King (2014) Childhood Physical Abuse and Sociopathy: Is This Link
Magnified among Firstborn Children?, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 23:9,
963-981, DOI: 10.1080/10926771.2014.953718

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2014.953718

Published online: 09 Sep 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 631

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wamt20
Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 23:963–981, 2014
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1092-6771 print/1545-083X online
DOI: 10.1080/10926771.2014.953718

LONG-TERM EFFECTS FOR SURVIVORS

OF CHILDHOOD MALTREATMENT

Childhood Physical Abuse and Sociopathy:

Is This Link Magnified among
Firstborn Children?

ALAN R. KING
Department of Psychology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota, USA

The Psychopathic Deviate scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI–2) provides a valid psychometric
index of sociopathic tendencies in both clinical and nonclinical
samples. Childhood physical abuse has provided a robust predic-
tor of sociopathic penchants. The link between childhood physical
abuse and MMPI–2 Psychopathic Deviate scores was examined
( N = 322) as a function of birth order. A significant child-
hood physical abuse by birth order interaction was found ( p <
.0001, η2 = .62) with a 6-fold increase in relative risk of a
Psychopathic Deviate elevation (T > 70) found for firstborn par-
ticipants. Childhood physical abuse predicted Psychopathic Deviate
scores for firstborn ( r = .50, p < .0001, d = 1.15) and middle-born
( r = .24, p = .006, d = .49) offspring. Harris–Lingoes subscale
scores suggested firstborns felt selectively alienated from self and
others in response to childhood physical abuse experiences.

KEYWORDS aggression, emotional abuse, exposure to violence,

family, maltreatment, physical abuse, school violence, trauma,
victim

Received 10 April 2013; revised 25 October 2013; accepted 31 October 2013.

Address correspondence to Alan R. King, Department of Psychology, University of North
Dakota, P.O. Box 8380, Grand Forks, ND 58202–8380. E-mail: alan.king@und.edu

963
964 A. R. King

It has been decades since Marston (1928) cautioned that perceived pow-
erlessness in antagonistic parent–child relationships often engendered pre-
dictable, even normative, compensatory victim efforts to dominate, rather
than comply with, others. Childhood maltreatment today remains a prime
suspect in the coarsening of attitudes and behavior that underlies the clinical
symptom cluster known as sociopathy. Social learning theory has empha-
sized the role of modeling in the acquisition of sociopathic inclinations
(Maxfield & Widom, 1996). Mediational models (White & Widom, 2003)
have drawn attention to secondary problems associated with childhood
maltreatment (e.g., self-esteem issues, hostility, maladaptive coping behav-
ior, hyperactivity, substance abuse, etc.) that might also contribute to the
steepening of sociopathy developmental trajectories. Descriptions of cul-
tural mechanisms of transmission are also available (deMause, 2010), with
exaggerated paternal projections of masculinity implicated as a driving force.

THE CONSTRUCT OF “SOCIOPATHY”

The operational definition of antisocial personality disorder (APD) pro-

vided in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.
[DSM–5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) emphasizes the behavioral
manifestations of the syndrome (e.g., nonconformity, deceitfulness, impulsiv-
ity, aggressiveness, reckless disregard, personal irresponsibility, absence of
warm emotions including remorse). The term psychopath has been increas-
ingly reserved over the years for that most severe, often violent, subset
(roughly 25%–33%) of antisocial personalities that breach the high diagnos-
tic threshold set by the Psychopathy Check List (PCL–R; Hare, 1980,1991).
Sociopathy remains an older term that has been used as a general ref-
erence to the full dimensional range of collective attributes described by
psychopathy researchers.
The Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI–2; McKinley & Hathaway, 1944) has pro-
vided the most widely researched self-report measure of the trait cluster
described as psychopathy initially by Cleckley (1941) in his pioneering work.
Structured interview data provided by the PCL–R have provided the best
source of concurrent validation for the Pd scale. Graham (2000) summa-
rized available empirical data regarding the validity of the Pd scale. Higher
Pd scores have been associated with independent evidence of lying cheat-
ing, stealing, sexual acting out, stormy family relationships, rebelliousness,
egocentricity, impulsivity, impatience, and many other sociopathic clinical
attributes (pp. 71–72). Pd elevations pose a major source of clinical and
prognostic concern.
Karpman (1941) proposed Cleckley’s (1941) concept of psychopathy
should be distinguished from a “secondary” variant that occurred in
 Childhood Physical Abuse and Sociopathy 965

response to environmental stressors. One common assumption has been

that Cleckley’s “primary” psychopathy is largely inherited and intractable,
whereas “secondary” sociopaths are instead often conflicted, anxious,
sometimes empathic, and potentially amendable to intervention efforts.
Subsequent researchers have reinforced Karpman’s caution that sociopathy
can often be conceptualized as survival strategies secondary to chaotic
and highly stressful environmental challenges that demand resourceful
coping responses such as allegiance to culturally alienated groups, val-
ues, and standards. In this regard, the Harris–Lingoes subscales of the
MMPI–2 Pd dimension have proved helpful in distinguishing the two vari-
ants of psychopathy. Lilienfeld (1999) provided evidence that individuals
with Pd elevations derived largely from the Harris–Lingoes Pd4 (Social
Alienation) and Pd5 (Social Alienation) subscales reflected secondary as
opposed to primary psychopathic attributes. Graham (2000) described social
alienation (Pd4 ) as feelings of isolation, loneliness, estrangement, unhappi-
ness, remorse, guilt, self-consciousness, and externalized blame for personal
shortcomings. He linked self-alienation (Pd5 ) to concentration problems,
difficulty settling down, viewing life as uninteresting and unrewarding,
excessive drinking, excessive drinking, and regrets for unclearly speci-
fied past misdeeds. Juvenile delinquency and other primary psychopathy
attributes identified by Cleckley are more closely aligned with Authority
Problems (Pd2 ); and to a lesser extent, Familial Discord (Pd1 ) and Social
Imperturbability (Pd3 ). In fact, Meloy and Gacono (1995) found PCL–R scores
in their sample correlated significantly with only the Pd2 subscale.

CHILDHOOD MALTREATMENT AS A SOCIOPATHY

ETIOLOGIC SOURCE

Evidence of the elevated risk of sociopathic penchants among maltreated

children and adolescents has been compelling (Fagan, 2005; Ireland, Smith,
& Thornberry, 2002; Smith, Ireland, & Thornberry, 2005; Thornberry, Ireland,
& Smith, 2001; Widom, 1989; Widom & Maxfield, 2001). Smith et al.
(2005) observed the trajectories for criminality, violence, and substance
abuse among urban youth followed from adolescence to early adulthood.
Adolescent maltreatment (physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or neglect)
was predictive of later criminal arrest, violent offending, and drug use.
Childhood physical abuse (CPA) has been associated with reactive
(Ford, Fraleigh, & Conner, 2010) and relational (Cullerton-Sen et al., 2008)
aggression. Moe, King, and Bailly (2004) found higher rates (d = 2.5) of lab-
provoked retaliatory aggression among college men who reported a history
of CPA. CPA has been linked to a range of additional secondary negative
outcomes as well (Miller-Perrin, Perrin, & Kocur, 2009; Scarpa, Haden, &
Abercromby, 2010; Sunday et al., 2011). Briere and Elliott (2003) found
966 A. R. King

higher levels of anxious arousal, depression, anger and irritability, intrusive

thoughts, dissociation, and impaired self-reference among physical abuse
victims.
The role of childhood abuse and neglect in the genesis of adult inti-
mate partner violence (IPV) has also been well established (Capaldi & Clark,
1998; Dutton & Hart, 1992). Boys exposed to domestic violence appear up to
10 times more likely to engage in IPV than counterparts without this devel-
opmental adversity (Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). More recent analyses
have examined mediational factors that might magnify or mitigate this risk.
One structural model accounted for significant IPV variance through anxious
and avoidant attachment styles arising from experiences of childhood vio-
lence (Godbout, Dutton, Lussier, & Sabourin, 2009). White and Widom (2003)
interviewed close to 1,200 adults (age 29) who were identified through court
records to be child maltreatment victims or counterpart controls. Their inter-
views included lifetime symptom counts of APD (DSM–III–R) criteria. APD
in this sample was strongly linked to child maltreatment histories. APD, but
not early life (< age 15) aggression itself, was predictive of adult IPV.

CHILD MALTREATMENT COOCCURRENCE

Children and adolescents are often exposed, simultaneously or sequentially,

to multiple forms of maltreatment. For example, CPA and domestic vio-
lence appear to cooccur at least 50% of the time (Carlson, 1991; McCloskey,
Figueredo, & Koss, 1995; O’Keefe, 1995). These potential research con-
founds limit the extent to which negative outcomes can be attributed to
any specific form of childhood maltreatment. Although strong predictors of
maladjustment have been found, cause and effect links to specific forms of
maltreatment remain elusive.

FIRSTBORN ADVANTAGES AND VULNERABILITIES?

The majority of birth order research has emphasized the relative benefits
accrued by firstborn and only children in the achievement realm. Firstborns,
as a group, have shown significant advantages over their younger siblings
in reading level (Iacovou, 2008), intelligence (Bjerkedal, Kristensen, Skjeret,
& Brevik, 2007), years of education (Black, Devereux, & Salvanes, 2005),
and career attainment. Over 50% of U.S. presidents and Supreme Court jus-
tices, and all of the initial 16 “right stuff” astronauts, were firstborn (Eckstein
et al., 2010). Occupational prestige and birth order have even been found
to correlate (p = .76) at a high level (Eckstein & Kaufman, 2012). Such
benefits have been attributed to confluence (i.e., enhanced intellectual envi-
ronment and opportunities in smaller families) and resource dilution (i.e.,
 Childhood Physical Abuse and Sociopathy 967

finite parental time, energy, and monetary resources to distribute) theoreti-

cal models. Price (2008) interestingly calculated the average firstborn child
receives 20 to 25 more minutes in quality daily parental contact (3,000 hr
from age 4–13) than the average secondborn sibling at the same age.
However, Adler (1935) warned firstborn benefits might often be bal-
anced by neuroticism secondary to excessive feelings of responsibility
and negative emotional reactions in response to the indignity of being
“dethroned.” Kim (2013) recently concluded through a qualitative analysis
that the firstborn “privileges” of Korean Americans were indeed tempered by
the pressure of high expectations. A recent review of 200 birth order studies
found evidence of firstborn traits such as dependence on the approval of
others, vulnerability to stress, fearfulness in new situations, egocentricism,
and disturbing dream content that might suggest higher relative difficulties
in adapting to less-than-optimal developmental challenges (Eckstein et al.,
2010).
Birth order effects should be expected to vary substantially based on the
predictor and outcome variables under consideration. For example, higher
rates of self-injurious (among males) and suicidal (among females) behavior
were found to be highest among middle-born children in one large (N =
2,553) psychiatric sample (Kirkcaldy, Richardson-Vejlgaard, & Siefen, 2009).
In this study, sibship size was also significantly (p < .0001) correlated to
suicidal behavior.
Parental youth and inexperience might elevate the life stress faced by
firstborn or only children. Data generated in the Fragile Families and Child
Wellbeing study (N = 1,597) indicated younger mothers often relied on
harsher (e.g., psychological aggression, physical aggression, spanking, etc.)
forms of parenting (Lee, 2009; Lee & Guterman, 2010). In a related study,
more conflicted parent–adolescent relationships were found at the same
age for firstborn as opposed to second-born siblings (Whiteman, McHale,
& Crouter, 2003). Late adolescent fathers also have been found to be at
increased risk of depression symptoms (Lee, Fagan, & Chen, 2012). In fact,
a recent detailed analysis concluded age 30 was optimal for childbirth in
terms of offspring academic performance (Bonesrønning & Massih, 2011).
This team found maternal education also favorably impacted this optimal
childbearing window.

GENDER CONSIDERATIONS

Although gender differences are common in the raw score distributions

for the various MMPI–2 scale dimensions, score interpretations are based
on T scores derived from separate gender-based normative data. T scores
are not designed to vary by gender, and subsequently, interpretive guide-
lines do not typically make gender differentiations. However, gender has
968 A. R. King

been found to interact with other variables in affecting symptoms measured

via the MMPI–2, and the possibility that developmental influences such as
CPA or birth order might have differential impacts on outcome measure-
ments for men and women warrants consideration. In this study, attention
was drawn to potential gender differences in the link between childhood
maltreatment and sociopathy. This association appears to be strong for both
males and females with gender interactions typically not found (Briere &
Elliott, 2003; Farrington, 2003; Krischer & Sevecke, 2008; Weiler & Widom,
1996; Weizmann-Henelius et al., 2010). At least one available study, how-
ever, has shown a gender by birth order interaction (described previously)
on self-injurious behavior (Kirkcaldy et al., 2009).

OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES OF THIS STUDY

The effects of CPA on sociopathy as a function of birth order represents a

potentially important interaction that has been largely unexplored. The CPA–
Pd association in this sample is expected to be strong and to vary as a func-
tion of birth order. Specifically, firstborn and only children are hypothesized
to show relatively higher vulnerability to the effects of CPA on sociopathy
development. Firstborn and only children appear more likely to experience
harsher parent–child interactions given younger and less experienced par-
ents. Relatively higher levels of egocentricity exhibited by older children
might complicate adjustment to the affront of perceived criticism, rejection,
threat, or abuse. Abused firstborn and only children, particularly in the ear-
liest stages, would not be able to derive benefit from sibling support, role
modeling, or depersonalization of shared and unsettling abuse experiences.

METHOD
Procedure
Students enrolled in most undergraduate courses at this state university
were eligible to participate in a research participant pool managed by
the Psychology Department. Prospective participants for this study were
invited to complete a series of surveys and psychological tests (including the
MMPI–2, Violent Experiences Questionnaire [VEQ], Developmental History
Questionnaire [DHQ], & Children of Alcoholics Screening Test [CAST]) at
his or her discretion. Testing for this study required about 90 min and
was completed in privacy usually during the first month of enrollment.
All testing protocols were coded with a six-digit self-generated number
that assured anonymity but eventual matching of their results in the final
database. Participants were not given test feedback, and study objectives
were described in general terms.
 Childhood Physical Abuse and Sociopathy 969

Participants
College students enrolled in selected undergraduate abnormal, personal-
ity, introductory, and clinical psychology courses completed this study for
extra credit in their respective class. Participation required completion of the
MMPI–2, VEQ, DHQ, and CAST. About half of the enrolled students were
estimated to complete the required testing.
Graham (2000) discussed the complexities of evaluating the inter-
pretability of MMPI–2 profiles. Special caution is warranted in assuming
conscious deception (“fake bad”) among more educated respondents who
might instead be showing evidence of adjustment in their reserved self-
disclosure tendencies. Perhaps a more pressing issue in college populations
involves random responding, which can be reliably detected through F scale
elevations that often exceed 100 (Wetter, Baer, Berry, Smith, & Larsen, 1992).
In this study, a decision was made to set the validity thresholds at T scores
of 80, 90, or 80 on the L, F, or K scale, respectively. These more liberal valid-
ity scale cutoffs have been supported for use in college samples (Butcher,
Graham, & Ben-Porath, 1995). These exclusion thresholds led to the omission
of 15 participants in this study.
Participants are classified as oldest (firstborn), middle, youngest, or only
children. A total of 148 potential participants were excluded because they
had fewer than two siblings. This exclusion criterion could not, of course,
be applied to participants classified as only children.

Materials
VIOLENT EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE
The original (King, Tuhy, & Harris, 1989) and revised (King, 2012) VEQ
provide retrospective, face-valid estimates of the frequency with which
respondents were “pushed, shoved, struck, punched, or threatened with
physical violence” during upbringing by “either parent.” The frequency of
these aggressive acts was quantified for four different recording periods
spanning the ages of 5 to 19. A total CPA score is generated by respondents
and interpreted as the number of days per year (maximum set at 104) an
index act of parental physical abuse occurred during the 15-year respective
recording time period. The VEQ CPA scale has been found to be internally
consistent (α = .91) with elevations linked to rates of laboratory-provoked
aggression that far exceeded (d = 2.5) that observed for control participants
(Moe et al., 2004).

MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY–2

The validity, clinical, and Harris–Lingoes subscales of the MMPI–2 were
described previously. All of these scales have been found to possess sound
970 A. R. King

psychometric properties. The scoring and interpretation manual (Butcher,

Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) established internal con-
sistency coefficients for these clinical and validity scales of about .65 in the
normative sample with 1-week test–retest reliabilities ranging from .77 to
.81. Although all of the scales have garnered concurrent validity support
from thousands of studies over the years, this analysis is designed to provide
unique data regarding the association of CPA and clinical Scale 4 (Pd) of the
MMPI–2.

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE

The DHQ is a customized self-report questionnaire that assesses family struc-
ture and many different formative events experienced during the course
of upbringing (King, Bailly, & Moe, 2004). Five DHQ items were used
in these analyses (gender, age, birth order, sibship size, parental divorce,
and maternal and paternal relationship closeness). Birth order was assessed
through four questions (i.e., lifetime older and younger biological brothers
and sisters). Sibship size was derived from summation.
The occurrence and age of parental divorce pertained to biological par-
ents. Maternal and paternal closeness was quantified as follows: “How would
you generally describe your relationship with your biological mother/father
during upbringing? 4) strongly favorable; 3) usually favorable; 2) lots of ups
and downs; 1) usually unfavorable; 0) strongly unfavorable.”

CHILDREN OF ALCOHOLICS SCREENING TEST

The CAST (Jones, 1982) is a popular dimensional self-report measure that
identifies indicators of maternal and paternal problem drinking during
upbringing. Scores range from 0 to 30 with those exceeding 5 (25% of norma-
tive sample) established as a valid indicator of parental alcoholism (Charland
& Cote, 1998; Jones, 1983; Lease & Yanico, 1995). CAST internal consistency
has been established as high as .98 (Jones, 1982; Yeatman, Bogart, Geer, &
Sirridge, 1994) with 8-week test–retest reliability at .88 (Clair & Genest, 1992).

Analytic Strategy
This study relies on a three-factor (Gender × Birth Order × CPA) between-
group research design to assess the predictive value of these variables on
the Pd scores generated by the 319 college participants in this sample.
The Birth Order × CPA interaction will represent a focal interest tested
through both bivariate correlation analysis and inferential (analysis of vari-
ance [ANOVA]) statistics. The Fisher z-transformation procedure (Fisher,
1915) provides a popular statistical method of testing whether or not two cor-
relation coefficients, even if derived from samples of unequal size, are equal
 Childhood Physical Abuse and Sociopathy 971

in strength (Bond & Richardson, 2004; Cox, 2008; Ferguson, 1981). Fisher
z-transformation tests will be used to evaluate the significance of CPA–Pd
correlation strength differences found between the birth order cells. A multi-
variate analysis of variance (MANOVA) will be used to assess birth order cell
equivalences for a number of important variables under examination (gen-
der, age, CPA, Pd, history of parental divorce, parental problem drinking, and
parental closeness during upbringing). Collateral bivariate correlation analy-
ses will be conducted to determine if significant CPA–Pd associations extend
similarly to the five Harris–Lingoes Pd subscale dimensions.

RESULTS

The final sample (N = 319), after MMPI–2 validity and birth order exclusions,
was comprised of largely White (93.4%) women (74%). Partial represen-
tation was provided by American Indian (3.3%), Hispanic (0.4%), Asian
(0.4%), and biracial or other (2.5%) students. American Indian students con-
tributing to this university participant pool have been identified previously
as largely Ojibwa or Chippewa in their tribal affiliations. Gender was dis-
tributed similarly across the four birth order groups, χ 2 (3, N = 319) = 3.37,
p = .34.
The Pd and CPA score distributions approximated those found in other
samples. Pd scores were standardized (T scores) and distributed normally.
Extreme Pd score elevations (T > 65) occurred for 12.5% of the sample.
The CPA distribution was positively skewed, with 35.4% of the sample
reporting some history of being pushed, shoved, punched, struck, or threat-
ened with violence between the ages of 5 and 19. CPA was reported by
12.2% as occurring at least once a year over a 15-year recording period
(> 15 total incidents). Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the sample
sorted by birth order. CAST scores varied (M = 5.13, SD = 8.97), but most
(58.4%) participants generated scores of 0 for both parents. Close to 27%
of this sample did indicate maternal (9.4%) or paternal (22.9%) alcoholism
(CAST > 5).

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics for Predictor, Outcome, and Covariate Variables by Birth Order

Age Sibship size Pd (Scale 4) CPA

Birth order n M SD M SD M SD M SD

Only 24 22.79 5.66 0 0 54.54 7.54 0.61 2.75

Oldest 78 24.40 7.25 2.68 1.04 53.42 11.39 3.32 14.26
Middle 135 25.07 7.69 3.83 2.20 52.93 9.03 3.54 14.75
Youngest 82 22.80 4.45 3.24 1.84 52.40 10.67 1.99 9.78
Total 319 24.15 6.78 3.11 2.04 53.04 9.96 2.87 12.91
Note. CPA = childhood physical abuse. Middle > oldest/youngest > only for sibship size.
972 A. R. King

Birth Order and CPA as Predictors of Pd

An ANOVA (general linear model) was used to test the effects of CPA, birth
order, gender, and their interactions on the MMPI–2 Pd scores (see Table 2).
The overall model was significant (p = .0003, η2 = .12). A main effect was
found for CPA (p = .046, η2 = .18) and the CPA × Birth Order interaction
(p = .004, η2 = .62). Main effects were not found for birth order, gender, or
any of the remaining interactions. The results of Table 2 remained the same
when standardized CPA scores were substituted in the analysis.

Pd–CPA Pearson Correlation Analyses

Table 3 shows differences in the strength of the bivariate correlations
between CPA and Pd as a function of birth order. Significant bivariate CPA–Pd
correlations were found for only the oldest and, to a lesser extent, the middle
cohorts. Significant CPA–Pd bivariate correlations were found for oldest (r =
.50, p < .0001, d = 1.15) and middle (r = .50, p < .0001, d = .49) children.
Fisher z transformation comparisons found the overall CPA–Pd association
for the oldest group was significantly stronger than that found for the middle
(p < .05) and youngest (p < .01) cohorts. The middle group was stronger
(p < .05) than the youngest participants (oldest > middle > youngest). Only
children were not distinguished statistically from the other three cohorts.
Firstborn participants showed a statistically stronger correlation (p <
.05) with both the Pd4 (Social Alienation) and Pd5 (Self Alienation) scales
than the other four cohorts. Firstborn correlations between their CPA and Pd4
(r = .48, p < .0001, d = 1.09) and Pd5 (r = .44, p < .0001, d = .98) scores
were substantial. Significant correlation strength differences were otherwise
not found for any of the remaining Harris–Lingoes subscales. The overall

TABLE 2 Analysis of Variance Results for Childhood Physical Abuse (CPA), Birth Order, and
Gender and the Interaction Factors as Predictors of MMPI–2 Pd Scores

Source df Sum of squares MS F p

Model 14 3760.28 268.59 2.94 .0003

Error 304 27803.27 91.458
Corrected total 318 31563.55

Source df Type III SS MS F p

CPA 1 366.08 366.08 4.00 .046

Gender 1 0.0009 0.0009 0.00 .99
Birth order 3 75.50 25.17 0.28 .84
CPA × Gender 1 28.69 28.69 0.31 .58
CPA × Birth Order 3 1247.60 416.87 4.55 .004
Birth Order × Gender 3 282.34 94.11 1.03 .38
CPA × Birth Order × Gender 2 4.84 2.42 0.03 .97
Note. CPA analyzed as an unstandardized continuous variable. R 2 = .12.
 Childhood Physical Abuse and Sociopathy 973

TABLE 3 Childhood Physical Abuse Bivariate Correlations with Full and Harris–Lingoes Pd
Scores as a Function of Birth Order

Pd Pd1 Pd2 Pd3 Pd4 Pd5

Family Authority Social Social Self-

Birth order N r p Discord Problems Impert. Alienation Alienation

Only 24 .34 .11 −.06 .22 .18 −.02 −.06

Oldest 78 .50∗∗∗∗ <.0001 .23∗ .38∗∗∗ .09 .48∗∗∗∗ .44∗∗∗∗
Middle 135 .24∗∗ .006 .17∗ .17∗ .03 .12 .10
Youngest 82 −.04 .73 .20 .19 .09 −.05 −.03
Total 319 .24∗∗∗∗ .0001
∗ ∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗∗
p < .05. p < .01. p < .001. p < .0001.

CPA–Pd correlation did not differ significantly between the men, r(81) = .34,
p < .002, and women, r(234) = .19, p = .003.

Additional Pd Predictors
Pd scores were higher among older participants, r(314) = .24, p < .0001,
d = .49, and those reporting histories of CPA, r(319) = .24 p < .0001, d =
.49. Pd scores were higher among participants describing concerns about
maternal drinking, r(317) = .18, p = .001, d = .37, or a less favorable mater-
nal relationship, r(311) = –.31, p < .0001, d = .65. Similarly, Pd scores were
found to be relatively higher among participants describing concerns about
paternal drinking, r(317) = .27, p < .0001, d = .56, or a less favorable pater-
nal relationship, r(301) = –.16, p = .006, d = .32. Pd scores were relatively
higher among participants whose parents divorced (prior to age 20) rather
than those raised in intact families (M intact = 52.44, SDintact = 10.18 vs. M div =
55.93, SDdiv = 8.56), F(1, 314) = 5.70, p = .02, d = .35. Pd scores did not
vary significantly as a function of sibship size, r(314) = .04, p = .50.

Birth Order Cell Equivalences

Sibship size differed predictably as a function of birth order, F(3, 311) =
24.29, p < .0001, η2 = .24, but not gender, F(1, 311) = .08, p = .78, or
the Birth Order × Gender interaction, F(3, 311) = .47, p = .70. A post-
hoc Student–Newman–Keuls test indicated sibship size for only children was
significantly smaller than that found for the three remaining cells. Middle
children had significantly more siblings than oldest and youngest.
A MANOVA was used otherwise to establish that none of the collective
or individual remaining variables from this study (CPA, age, parental divorce,
maternal problem drinking, paternal problem drinking, maternal closeness,
or paternal closeness) differed as a function of birth order, gender, or the
Gender × Birth Order interaction, λ(27, 804) = 1.15, p = .28.
974 A. R. King

BIRTH ORDER REGRESSION SLOPES

Figure 1 illustrates CPA–Pd simple regression slope differences as a function

of birth order. Birth order slopes generated from four independent simple
linear regression analyses that relied on standardized CPA scores derived
from Table 1 cell means and standard deviations. The relative strength of
the CPA–Pd association for firstborn participants is shown in the top red
line. CPA provided a statistically significant predictor of Pd for the oldest and
middle cohorts.

CPA as a Categorical Predictor Variable

CPA can be analyzed as a categorical variable using operational cutoffs
for either frequency or severity of abuse. For example, over 12% of this
sample reported more than 15 index incidents as defined by the VEQ.
Prevalence rates for this level of CPA were 4.2%, 12.8%, 7.3%, and 10.4%
for the only, oldest, middle, and youngest birth order cohorts, respectively,
χ 2 (1, N = 319) = 2.3, p = .51. Although meaningful birth order analyses

90
Oldest
85

80

75
MMPI-2 Pd T-Scores

70 Only

65
Middle
60

55

50 Youngest

45

40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Standardized CPA Scores

Birth Order β SE df MS F P
Oldest 5.74 1.13 1,76 2535.62 25.84 < .0001
Only 2.53 1.51 1,22 148.05 2.80 .11
Middle 2.13 0.76 1,133 7.88 610.87 .006
Youngest –0.42 1.19 1,80 14.29 0.12 .73

FIGURE 1 Childhood physical abuse–Pd relationship slope birth order contrasts.

 Childhood Physical Abuse and Sociopathy 975

were precluded by these low and uneven cell counts, a more narrow
focus on the oldest cohort proved informative. Pd scores varied substan-
tially between oldest participants with CPA scores of 0 (n = 42), between
0 and 1 (n = 22), and > 1 (n = 14), F(2, 75) = 6.33, p = .003. A post-hoc
analysis (Student–Newman–Keuls) found the participants reporting CPA > 1
(> 15 total incidents) scored significantly higher (p < .05) than those in the
remaining two cells. The Pd difference between the high (M = 62.5, SD =
14.34) and zero (M = 50.88, SD = 9.75) cells translated into a sixfold increase
in the relative risk of a Pd score in excess of 70 (RR = 6.0, CI [1.23, 29.30],
p = .027, d = 1.02).

DISCUSSION

The relationship between sociopathy and childhood maltreatment remains

one of keen interest and urgent importance in the behavioral science litera-
ture. Empirical data establishing this linkage can be found in clinical samples
where prevalence rates for oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder,
APD, and frank criminality and psychopathy appear to surge among child-
hood maltreatment victims. Connections between sociopathy and CPA have
been investigated less frequently within general and college samples. The
significant CPA–Pd association (r = .24, p < .0001) found in the present
college sample further illustrates the robustness of this connection. Indeed,
this strength of association might be minimized in college samples that are
characteristically distinguished by relatively restricted predictor (CPA) and cri-
terion (Pd) variable distributions. The CPA × Birth Order interaction found
in this study was also substantial. The CPA–Pd relationship was statistically
strongest among firstborn participants, followed by middle and then last-born
children (the cell size for only children was perhaps too small for meaningful
comparisons). Firstborn participants who experienced modest levels of CPA
(i.e., > 15 total lifetime incidents) were six times more likely to generate Pd
scores in excess of T = 70 (d = 1.02).

Birth Order Effect Sources?

Confluence and dilution birth order theories have historically attributed the
higher average academic and career success of firstborn and only children
to their disproportionate access to family financial and emotional resources
(Price, 2008). “Special” status might, however, bring unique pressures and
self-esteem needs as cautioned by Adler (1935) and others (Eckstein et al.,
2010; Kim, 2013). Adjustment difficulties in response to perceived criticism,
rejection, threat, or abuse might be magnified among firstborn or only chil-
dren. Further, the relative youth and inexperience of first-time parents could
heighten sources of conflict and ego deflation (Lee, 2009; Lee, et al., 2012;
976 A. R. King

Lee & Guterman, 2010). Victims of frank CPA might not benefit fully from the
support, role modeling, and processing of unsettling experiences that older
siblings might provide.
Data were available in this study to ascertain whether or not birth order
differences in personality traits, resource allocations, stress levels, parenting
qualities, or sibling support were evident. However, neither CPA nor Pd lev-
els were found to vary naturally as a function of birth order alone. Firstborns
in this sample did not recall higher levels of CPA than their counterparts
classified in other birth order positions. Similarly, Pd score distributions did
not differ significantly across the birth orders. Thus, the stronger associa-
tion found between CPA and Pd scores among firstborns in this sample
did not appear to be attributable to naturally occurring differences in abuse
experiences or sociopathic tendencies. Reasons for the selective elevation
of sociopathic attributes among physically abused firstborn offspring seem
elusive.

Potential Birth Order Confounds

A series of collateral analyses were useful in discounting the impact of a
number of potential confounding factors in this research design. Age and
gender were distributed similarly across the birth order cohorts, and none
of the nine gender interactions examined in this study approached statistical
significance. Birth order differences were not observed in parental problem
drinking or maternal or paternal relationship quality. Although sibship size
varied significantly across birth orders, Pd scores across this sample were
unrelated to family size (r = .04). Parental divorce rates did vary signifi-
cantly between the only, oldest, middle, and youngest offspring (32%, 23%,
16%, and 11%, respectively), and Pd scores were found to be lower (d =
.35) among participants from intact families. The only group was the most
impacted, however, and it was not clearly differentiated from the remaining
birth orders in any other meaningful way.

Primary Versus Secondary Sociopathy Effects

The strength of the relationship between CPA and overall Pd scores varied
by birth order (oldest > middle > youngest). The Harris–Lingoes subscales
were helpful in establishing that most of the Pd variance accounted for
by CPA among firstborns was attributable to secondary, rather than pri-
mary, sociopathy symptoms. CPA in this sample was strongly correlated
with both the Pd4 (Social Alienation) and Pd5 (Self Alienation) subscales
for only the firstborn participants. These relationships with the secondary
sociopathy alienation symptoms were not found for any other group.
Significant birth order differences in CPA–Pd correlation strength were not
 Childhood Physical Abuse and Sociopathy 977

found for the remaining Harris–Lingoes subscales thought to reflect primary

symptoms of sociopathy (Family Discord, Authority Problems, and Social
Imperturbability). Thus, CPA predicted relatively higher levels of social and
self-estrangement for the oldest offspring in this sample with elevated fam-
ily discord and authority problems observed to varying degrees across birth
order cohorts.

Limitations and Further Studies

Like most college samples, the external validity of these results might
be limited in predictable ways (e.g., ethnic homogeneity, restricted vari-
able distributions, educational attainment, participant adjustment levels and
adaptability, etc.). These findings might not prove replicable in broader col-
lege, clinical, or general samples. Although efforts were made to monitor a
number of potential birth order confounds, many other remained unidenti-
fied (e.g., cooccurring forms of childhood maltreatment). Future researchers
will hopefully extend these birth order analyses to additional developmental
factors that could prove to be even more meaningful. For example, although
not statistically significant, the trend toward lower and less variable CPA lev-
els within the only cohort was interesting. The parental divorce rate in that
group was also curiously higher. Larger samples could permit the systematic
examination of higher order interactions involving family structure, devel-
opmental history, resiliency factors, and environmental stressors, including
cooccurring forms of childhood maltreatment.

REFERENCES

Adler, A. (1935). The fundamental view of individual psychology. International

Journal of Individual Psychology, 1, 1–8.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders: DSM–5 (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
Publishing.
Bjerkedal, T., Kristensen, P., Skjeret, G. A., & Brevik, J. I. (2007). Intelligence
test scores and birth order among young Norwegian men (con-
scripts) analyzed within and between families. Intelligence, 35, 503–514.
doi:10.1016/j.inte11.2007.01.004
Black, S. E., Devereux, P. J., & Salvanes, K. G. 2005. The more the merrier? The
effects of family size and birth order on children’s education. Quarterly Journal
of Economics, 70, 669–700.
Bond, C. F., & Richardson, K. (2004). Seeing the Fisher z-transformation.
Psychometrika, 69, 291–303.
Bonesrønning, H., & Massih, S. S. (2011). Birth order effects on young stu-
dents’ academic achievement. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40, 824–832.
doi:10.1016/j.socec.2011.08.010
978 A. R. King

Briere, J., & Elliott, D. M. (2003). Prevalence and psychological sequelae of

self-reported childhood physical and sexual abuse in a general popula-
tion sample of men and women. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27, 1205–1222.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.008
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989).
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2: Manual for administration and
scoring. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). Methodological problems
and issues in MMPI, MMPI–2, and MMPI–A research. Psychological Assessment,
7, 320–329. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.320
Capaldi, D. M., & Clark, S. (1998). Prospective family predictors of aggression
toward female partners for at-risk young men. Developmental Psychology, 34,
1175–1188. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.6.1175
Carlson, B. E. (1991). Outcomes of physical abuse and observation of marital vio-
lence among adolescents in placement. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6,
526–534. doi:10.1177/088626091006004011
Charland, H., & Cote, G. (1998). The Children of Alcoholics Screening Test
(CAST): Test–retest reliability and concordance validity. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 54, 995–1003. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199811)54:7<995::AID-
JCLP13>3.0.CO;2-F
Clair, D. J., & Genest, M. (1992). The Children of Alcoholics Screening
Test: Reliability and relationship to family environment, adjustment,
and alcohol-related stressors of adolescent offspring of alcoholics.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 414–420. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199205)
48:3<414::AID-JCLP2270480321>3.0.CO;2-N
Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Cox, N. (2008). Speaking Stata: Correlation with confidence, or Fisher’s z revisited.
The Stata Journal, 8, 413–439.
Cullerton-Sen, C., Cassidy, A. R., Murray-Close, D., Cicchetti, D., Crick, N. R., &
Rogosch, F. A. (2008). Childhood maltreatment and the development of rela-
tional and physical aggression: The importance of a gender-informed approach.
Child Development, 79, 1736–1751. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01222.x
deMause, L. (2010). Patriarchal families and national wars. The Journal of
Psychohistory, 38, 2–26.
Dutton, D. G., & Hart, S. D. (1992). Evidence for long-term, specific effects of
childhood abuse and neglect on criminal behavior in men. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 36, 129–137.
doi:10.1177/0306624X9203600205
Eckstein, D. S., Aycock, K. J., Sperber, M. A., McDonald, J., Van Wiesner, V., Watts,
R. E., & Ginsburg, P. (2010). A review of 200 birth-order studies: Lifestyle
characteristics. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 66, 408–434.
Eckstein, D., & Kaufman, J. A. (2012). The role of birth order in personality:
An enduring intellectual legacy of Alfred Adler. The Journal of Individual
Psychology, 68, 60–61.
Fagan, A. A. (2005). The relationship between adolescent physical abuse and crim-
inal offending: Support for an enduring and generalized cycle of violence.
Journal of Family Violence, 20, 279–290. doi:10.1007/s10896-005-6604-7
 Childhood Physical Abuse and Sociopathy 979

Farrington, D. P. (2003). Key results from the first 40 years of the Cambridge study in
deliquent development. New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum.
Ferguson, G. A. (1981). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (5th ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Fisher, R. A. (1915). Frequency distribution of the values of the correlation coefficient
in samples of indefinitely large population. Biomatrika, 10, 507–521.
Ford, J. D., Fraleigh, L. A., & Conner, D. F. (2010). Child abuse and aggression among
seriously emotionally disturbed children. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent
Psychology, 39, 25–34. doi:10.1080/15374410903401104
Godbout, N., Dutton, D., Lussier, Y., & Sabourin, S. (2009). Early exposure to vio-
lence, domestic violence, attachment representations, and martial adjustment.
Personal Relationships, 16, 365–384. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01228.x
Graham, J. R. (2000). MMPI–2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hare, R. D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in
criminal populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 111–120.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(80)90028-8
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. Toronto, ON, Canada:
Multi-Health Systems.
Iacovou, M. (2008). Family size, birth order, and educational attainment. Marriage
and Family Review 42(3), 35–57. doi:10.1300/J002v42n03_03
Ireland, T. O., Smith, C. A., & Thornberry, T. P. (2002). Developmental issues in the
impact of child maltreatment on later delinquency and drug use. Criminology,
40, 359–399. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2002.tb00960.x
Jones, J. W. (1982). Preliminary test manual: The Children of Alcoholics Screening
Test. Chicago, IL: Family Recovery Press.
Jones, J. W. (1983). The Children of Alcoholics Screening Test: A validity study.
Bulletin of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 2, 155–163.
Karpman, B. (1941). On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clin-
ical types: The symptomatic and the idiopathic. Journal of Criminology and
Psychopathology, 3, 112–137.
Kim, H. K. (2013). The experience of Korean American first born or only sons in the
United States: Privilege or burden? Dissertation Abstracts International Section
A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 74(1-A)(E), 2013.
King, A. R. (2012, May). Revision of the Violent Experiences Questionnaire (VEQ–R)
as a self-report screening measure of childhood physical abuse. Paper pre-
sented at the annual convention of the Midwestern Psychological Association,
Chicago, IL.
King, A. R., Bailly, M. D., & Moe, B. K. (2004). External validity considerations
regarding college participant samples comprised substantially of psychology
majors. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. 29, pp.
71–85). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
King, A. R., Tuhy, M. A., & Harris, E. (1989, October). Relationships between the
MMPI and the Violent Experiences Questionnaire (VEQ). Poster presented at the
annual convention of the North Dakota Psychological Association Convention,
Fargo, ND.
980 A. R. King

Kirkcaldy, B., Richardson-Vejlgaard, R., & Siefen, G. (2009). Birth order: Self-injurious
and suicidal behaviour among adolescents. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 14,
9–16. doi:10.1080/13548500801983058
Krischer, M. K., & Sevecke, K. (2008). Early traumatization and psychopathy
in female and male juvenile offenders. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 31, 253–262.
Lease, S. H., & Yanico, B. J. (1995). Evidence of validity for the Children of Alcoholics
Screening Test. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development,
27, 200–210.
Lee, Y. (2009). Early motherhood and harsh parenting: The role of
human, social, and cultural capital. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 625–637.
doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.02.007
Lee, Y., Fagan, J., & Chen, W. (2012). Do late adolescent fathers have more
depressive symptoms than older fathers? Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
41, 1366–1381. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9717-8
Lee, Y., & Guterman, N. B. (2010). Young mother–father dyads and mater-
nal harsh parenting behavior. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34, 874–885. doi:
10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.06.001
Lilienfeld, S. O. (1999). The relation of the MMPI–2 Pd Harris–Lingoes
subscales to psychopathy, psychopathy facets, and antisocial behavior:
Implications for clinical practice. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 241–255.
doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199902)55:2<241::AID-JCLP12>3.0.CO;2-I
Marston, W. M. (1928). The emotions of normal people. Oxford, UK: Harcourt &
Brace.
Maxfield, M. G., & Widom, C. S. (1996). The cycle of violence: Revisited six years
later. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 150, 390–395.
McCloskey, L. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Koss, M. P. (1995). The effects of systemic family
violence on children’s mental health. Child Development, 66(5), 1239–1261.
doi:10.2307/1131645
McKinley, J., & Hathaway, S. R. (1944). The MMPI: Hysteria, hypomania,
and psychopathic deviate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28, 153–174. doi:
10.1037/h0059245
Meloy, J. R., & Gacono, C. (1995). Assessing the psychopathic personality. In
J. Butcher (Ed.), Clinical personality assessment: Practical approaches (pp.
410–422). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Miller-Perrin, C. L., Perrin, R. D., & Kocur, J. L. (2009). Parental physical and psy-
chological aggression: Psychological symptoms in young adults. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 33, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.001
Moe, B. K., King, A. R., & Bailly, M. D. (2004). Retrospective accounts of recurrent
parental physical abuse as a predictor of adult laboratory-induced aggression.
Aggressive Behavior, 30, 217–228. doi:10.1002/ab.20019
O’Keefe, M. (1995). Predictors of child abuse in maritally violent families. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 10, 3–25. doi:10.1177/088626095010001001
Price, J. (2008). Parent–child quality time: Does birth order matter? Journal of Human
Resources, 43, 240–265.
Scarpa, A., Haden, S. C., & Abercromby, J. M. (2010). Pathways linking child physical
abuse, depression, and aggressiveness across genders. Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 757–776. doi:10.1080/10926771.2010.515167
 Childhood Physical Abuse and Sociopathy 981

Smith, C., Ireland, T. O., & Thornberry, T. P. (2005). Adolescent maltreatment

and its impact on young adult antisocial behavior. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29,
1099–1119. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.02.011
Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence
in the American family. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Sunday, S., Kline, M., Labruna, V., Pelcovitz, D., Salzinger, S., & Kaplan, S. (2011).
The role of adolescent physical abuse in adult intimate partner violence. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 3773–3789. doi:10.1177/0886260511403760
Thornberry, T. P., Ireland, T. O., & Smith, C. A. (2001). The importance of timing: The
varying impact of childhood and adolescent maltreatment on multiple problem
outcomes. Developmental Psychopathology, 13, 957–979.
Weiler, B. L., & Widom, C. S. (1996). Psychopathy and violent behaviour in
abused and neglected young adults. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health,
6, 253–271. doi:10.1002/cbm.99
Weizmann-Henelius, G., Gro, M., Putkonen, H., Eronen, M., Lindberg, N., &
Hakkanen-Nyholm, H. (2010). Psychopathy and gender differences in childhood
psychosocial characteristics in homicide offenders—A nationwide register-
based study. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 21, 801–814.
doi:10.1080/14789949.2010.506616
Wetter, M. W., Baer, R. A., Berry, D. T. R., Smith, G. T., & Larsen, L. H. (1992).
Sensitivity of MMPI–2 validity scales to random responding and malingering.
Psychological Assessment, 4, 369–374. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.3.369
White, H. R., & Widom, C. S. (2003). Intimate partner violence among abused and
neglected children in young adulthood: The mediating effects of early aggres-
sion, antisocial personality, hostility and alcohol problems. Aggressive Behavior,
29, 332–345. doi:10.1002/ab.10074
Whiteman, S. D., McHale, S. M., & Crouter, A. C. (2003). What parents learn from
experience: The first child as a first draft? Journal of Marriage and Family, 65,
608–621. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00608.x
Widom, C. S. (1989). Does violence beget violence: A critical examination of the
literature. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 3–28. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.3
Widom, C. S., & Maxfield, M. G. (2001). An update on the cycle of violence.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Yeatman, F. R., Bogart, C. J., Geer, F. A., & Sirridge, S. T. (1994). The Children of
Alcoholics Screening Test: Internal consistency, factor structure, and relationship
to measures of family environment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 931–936.
doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199411)50:6<931::AID-JCLP2270500618>3.0.CO;2-M