Early Psychological Predictors of Criminality: The Role of Impulsivity and Affective Empathy in Antisocial Behavior and Crime Prevention

Abstract

In the United States alone, millions of dollars are spent annually on efforts to address criminal justice issues, including court costs, policing expenses, prison expenditures, and other financial impacts. Predicting future criminal behavior by recognizing early warning signs, specifically impulsivity and a lack of or reduction in affective empathy, could enable social organizations and administrators to identify individuals potentially predisposed to criminal behavior and design preventive measures in advance of negative impacts. In order to seek relevant sources, the fields of criminology and developmental psychology were accessed through Google Scholar research. After using previous university research studies by psychologists to evaluate intervention strategies, my research found links between early warning signs, such as animal cruelty, theft, and shoplifting, with future criminal behavior.In addition, I evaluated programs, like the KiVa anti-bullying program and the INTEMO+ emotional intelligence training program, which have proven successful in preventive treatment. I then propose a future study intended to measure the potential effectiveness of combining these successful interventions to provide at-risk adolescents with treatments in the development of impulse control and empathy.  The study’s findings are anticipated to inform more effective preventative strategies within educational and juvenile justice systems, ultimately contributing to the reduction of future criminal behavior.

Introduction

Criminal behavior represents a significant societal issue with profound social and economic repercussions. The consequences of criminal activities extend beyond immediate victims, affecting communities and the economy through increased security costs, legal proceedings, and incarceration expenses. Specifically, the Bureau of Justice Statistics documents that, in 2019, the U.S. spent over $451 million on total justice-related expenditures, including prisons, police, judges, and attorneys¹. Thus, understanding and preventing criminal behavior, particularly from its early roots in childhood, is a critical goal for fostering safer societies and reducing the burden on the criminal justice system.

Current research highlights the significance of early identification and intervention in children exhibiting behaviors linked to future antisocial and criminal activities². Two specific childhood behaviors have been prominently associated with such negative outcomes: impulsivity³ and deficits in affective empathy⁴. These traits often manifest in early, observable actions such as animal cruelty, theft, and shoplifting, which can serve as precursors to more severe forms of antisocial behavior⁵.

The tragic case of Eric Harris, one of the perpetrators of the Columbine High School massacre, underscores the link between early signs of violent tendencies and later criminal acts. Harris reportedly mutilated animals and engaged in theft, behaviors indicative of a profound lack of empathy and high impulsivity⁶. Another notorious example is Albert DeSalvo, infamously known as the Boston Strangler, who murdered 13 women during the 1960s. DeSalvo’s childhood was marked by animal cruelty, reflecting a similar combination of impulsivity and a lack of empathy⁶,⁷. While these are extreme examples, the research reviewed in this paper shows that impulsivity and impaired empathy are key predictors of many other forms of criminal behavior, making them relevant to the broader spectrum of crime and its impact on society.

In other words, there is a troubling correlation between these early warning signs—specifically high impulsivity and low empathy—and later criminality⁴.  Studies indicate that children exhibiting high levels of impulsivity and low empathy are more likely to engage in delinquent behaviors and violence as they grow older⁸,⁹. As I return to in more detail below, current intervention strategies hope to change the child’s impulsive behavior by encouraging improved emotional awareness. More specifically, efforts may utilize typical 10-lesson workshops including role-play, visual reminders, and teacher-led mediation, in order to help children develop greater emotional regulation and impulse control²,¹⁰.

However, the effectiveness of these strategies varies, and there is an ongoing need for research to refine and improve these approaches.  This paper will critically review current research on the early predictors of criminal and antisocial behavior, focusing specifically on impulsivity and affective empathy as key psychological traits that can be identified and potentially mitigated during childhood and adolescence. After reviewing the literature, I will propose a study aimed at further understanding the impact of interventions on impulsivity and affective empathy in reducing the likelihood of future criminal behavior among at-risk youth.

Predictors of Criminality and Antisocial Behavior Among Adolescents

Many predictors of criminality and antisocial behavior have been identified, particularly those stemming from factors in childhood and adolescence that influence the development of such behaviors in later life. The research conducted by Viemero¹¹highlights several critical predictors, including parental aggression and rejection, as well as previous acts of aggression by the individuals themselves. Additionally, the study considers the influence of media exposure, specifically the viewing of violence on television during childhood, and the presence of aggressive, indifferent, and delinquent behaviors during adolescence¹⁰.

While predictors such as the viewing of violence on television during childhood and the presence of aggressive, indifferent, and delinquent behaviors during adolescence are significant to consider, this paper will focus on the psychological factors of impulsivity and affective empathy.

Because a child’s experience with television violence, indifference by others, and aggressive or delinquent adolescent activities are difficult to control in society, the paper will focus on potential intervention-suitable psychological factors such as individual impulsivity and affective empathy¹¹. These factors are particularly essential because they are more directly linked to the individual’s cognitive and emotional processing, making them more responsive to targeted interventions. Unlike external influences such as media exposure, psychological traits like impulsivity and deficits in affective empathy can be directly addressed through therapeutic and behavioral interventions.

Impulsivity

Common sense suggests that impulsivity is a likely contributor to delinquency because if a teen struggles with self-control, it can be inferred that the teen may act before thinking. Indeed, our natural intuitions are born out by large numbers of studies. For example, the link between impulsivity and future criminality was identified by Bechtold and colleagues (2013) through a study of 701 adjudicated adolescents, asserting that individuals with higher impulsivity were significantly more likely to engage in criminal behavior¹². Impulsivity is defined as a multifaceted construct encompassing various dimensions such as positive urgency (the tendency to act rashly in response to positive emotions), negative urgency (the tendency to act impulsively in response to intense negative emotions such as anxiety, sadness, or anger), lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, and sensation seeking, is a central personality dimension in the causation of crime and delinquency³. Impulsivity influences behavior problems and delinquency, particularly during adolescence, a developmental period characterized by increased emotional intensity and risk-taking behavior³,¹³. The multifaceted nature of impulsivity suggests that different facets may predict different types of antisocial behavior¹⁴. Researchers often measure impulsivity using standardized scales like the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale, a 20-question questionnaire that assesses five different facets of impulsivity (urgency, premeditation, perseverance, sensation seeking, and positive urgency). Studies have found that all facets of impulsivity, as defined by the UPPS-P model, are predictors of aggressive behavior, with negative urgency, positive urgency, and lack of premeditation showing the strongest correlations¹⁵. For example, positive urgency has been found to significantly predict a range of antisocial behaviors, including aggression, rule-breaking, and vandalism³.

Additionally, impulsivity in general is seen as a predictor of violent robbery, fighting, intimate partner violence, and the use of weapons¹⁶. These results suggest that interventions targeting impulsivity, particularly negative and positive urgency and lack of premeditation, could be effective in reducing aggressive and antisocial behaviors. Thus, while impulsivity is a multi-faceted construct, I will be focusing on impulsivity as a broader construct for the purpose of this paper since I will be targeting both impulsivity and affective empathy.

Cognitive Empathy vs Affective Empathy

Likewise, teens with an inability to empathize with the feelings of others can logically be expected to lack the ability to consider, understand, or care about the suffering they inflict on others, which can lead to criminal behavior. Empathy, defined as an awareness that allows a person to connect with others by sharing an emotional experience on both an emotional and intellectual level¹⁰, is a vital social-emotional trait that significantly influences behavior and interpersonal relationships. When discussing predictors of criminal and antisocial behavior, empathy can be categorized into two distinct types: affective empathy and cognitive empathy. Affective empathy involves the capacity to emotionally resonate with others, sharing their emotional experiences as if they were one’s own⁴. In contrast, cognitive empathy refers to the ability to understand and cognitively process the emotions and perspectives of others without necessarily sharing those emotions¹⁷.

Researchers at Leyden University in the Netherlands report that the empathy deficit contributing to antisocial behavior is primarily a lack of affective empathy, rather than a deficiency in cognitive empathy⁴. Affective empathy is essential because it naturally discourages us from harming others. When individuals lack affective empathy, they do not experience the emotional distress that typically arises when witnessing another’s suffering, which can lead to a higher likelihood of engaging in harmful or antisocial behaviors⁴. Furthermore, van Goozen’s research¹⁸ determined that highly aggressive children demonstrate reduced affective empathy, noting that their heart rates dropped while those with greater affective empathy elevated when encountering the distressing emotional experiences of others. This suggests a direct link between lowered affective empathy and increased aggressiveness.

In contrast with affective empathy, cognitive empathy, the understanding of the feelings of others intellectually, does not inherently lead to an emotional reaction. Therefore, cognitive empathy enables individuals to grasp the experience of pain in others but does not stop them from causing harm. Indeed, those who have the tendency toward antisocial behavior can exploit their cognitive understanding of the pain they cause as a tool for manipulation or violence. Therefore, cognitive empathy, despite its role in understanding emotions, is less effective in preventing antisocial behavior compared to affective empathy⁴.

The Basic Empathy Scale (BES) measures affective and cognitive empathy through questions answered by participants in a standardized form⁹. In a study by Hunnikin et al. (2020)¹⁹, affective empathy was assessed in children with disruptive behavior through their responses to emotionally evocative film clips in which they were asked to rate both their own emotional reactions (affective empathy) and their understanding of the character’s emotions (cognitive empathy). The results indicated that children with higher levels of disruptive behavior exhibited significant impairments in affective empathy, particularly in response to negative emotions, highlighting the link between affective empathy deficits and antisocial behavior.

Empathy and Impulsivity Interventions

Recent research indicates that enhancing empathy and reducing impulsivity could be effective targets for interventions designed to decrease criminal and antisocial behavior. For example, the KiVa anti-bullying program, developed to reduce bullying in schools, includes components specifically designed to increase both cognitive and affective empathy among students. The program has been shown to significantly decrease bullying behaviors and improve emotional understanding and prosocial behavior among participants. The improvements in empathy observed among participants are associated with reduced bullying, a behavior closely related to future antisocial tendencies²⁰. The results noted that in Grades 2–3, the odds of being a victim or a bully were approximately 1.5 times larger in the control schools than in the intervention schools²¹. The KiVa program was evaluated through a randomized controlled trial (RCT), where researchers used a combination of self-reported measures to analyze the program. While the direct link between these empathy enhancements and the prevention of criminal behavior later in life requires further study, the reduction in school-based aggression suggests that empathy-targeted interventions can be a valuable component of broader efforts to prevent antisocial behavior.

Similarly, emotional intelligence (EI) training programs, like the INTEMO+ program of Malaga, have also demonstrated success in improving empathy among adolescents. Over two academic years, the program provided activities designed to enhance emotional perception, understanding, and regulation. Participants in the EI training group exhibited increased empathic concern and reduced personal distress—key components of affective empathy—along with significant reductions in aggressive behaviors². Because improvements in empathy are correlated with reductions in aggression, there is great potential in the use of these interventions to address risk factors for future criminality.

In addition to empathy, impulsivity can be reduced through targeted interventions.  In Brisbane, Australia, the Ability School Engagement Program has succeeded in reducing impulsive behaviors among young people at risk⁷.  Raising awareness of the consequences of an action, ASEP improved students’ ability to control themselves, lessening the link between impulsiveness and antisocial actions, as well as providing improved self-control through procedural justice programs, which emphasize fairness in conflict resolution. Notably, students who participated in ASEP showed greater reductions in both impulsivity and related antisocial behaviors compared to those in a control group⁷. Participants in the control group who scored in the top 25% on impulsivity had over four times greater expected counts of antisocial behavior compared to those who did not score in the top 25%⁷. However, for participants in the ASEP intervention group, impulsivity was not significantly related to antisocial behavior over time, suggesting that the program weakened the impact of impulsivity on antisocial behavior⁷.

Discussion

Gaps in the Current Interventions

Despite their promise, ASEP and the INTEMO program were also found to have important limits in their effectiveness. The most significant issue is the lack of long-term follow-up, which raises questions about the sustainability of the observed benefits over time². Secondly, these programs often rely on self-reported measures, which can be biased by participants’ desire to provide socially desirable responses rather than accurately reflecting their behaviors and attitudes². Moreover, the KiVa program was an intensive, long-term intervention, making it less practical and scalable in many educational settings²⁰. Lastly, even though KiVa was effective in increasing affective empathy, its real-world impact on bullying reduction was minimal, suggesting that this empathy training alone was not enough to prevent bullying. The program would have benefited from additional, more personalized interventions such as targeting moral disengagement and immersive role-playing within the classroom²⁰.

Given the limitations of the current interventions, I will propose a research study focused on enhancing affective empathy and reducing impulsivity among at-risk adolescents, with the goal of preventing future criminal behavior. Specifically, I plan to focus on the lack of long-term follow-up in other programs like ASEP and INTEMO, while also including more strategies that do not rely on self-reported measures.

Methods

To comprehensively understand the relationship between early psychological predictors and criminal behavior, a systematic literature review was conducted. In order to look for connections between psychological factors and criminality, it was necessary to design the initial phase of the search to target broad terms such as “psychology and crime.” The second step improved our search by using keywords like “psychological predictors of crime,” “impulsivity,” and “affective empathy,” which revealed numerous peer-reviewed articles that identified these traits as key contributors to antisocial behavior. Because the databases included PubMed and Google Scholar, they provided access to a wide range of research in psychology, criminology, and behavioral sciences. The papers written by researchers with a substantial publication record in the field of psychology and crime were prioritized. In addition, Professor Yarrow Dunham from Yale University offered expert guidance on the credibility and relevance of the articles included in this review.

Category	Criteria
Inclusion Criteria	Keywords related to psychology and crime, impulsivity, and affective empathy.
Exclusion Criteria	Cognitive empathy studies external influences that cannot be changed (e.g., television violence, abuse).
Goal number of Papers	Review of 20 papers
Ranking Criteria	Number of participants in each study (higher is better)
	More recent studies prioritized
	Longer follow-up data preferred
	Randomized Controlled Trials prioritized
Search Strategy	Initial studies used broad search terms such as “psychology and crime.” Reviewing abstracts to find theoretical and empirical studies on the link between psychological factors and future antisocial or criminal behavior.

As a means to effectively show the findings, each article was examined using the QALMRI method, a structured process for evaluating scientific research that involves understanding the Question posed by the study, the Alternative hypotheses considered, the Logic and design of the study, the Methods used, the Results obtained, and the Inferences made.

In essence, these methods resulted in an improved organization and thematic analysis of the literature. Dr. Dunham also provided feedback throughout the analysis process. In keeping with our main goal of identifying potentially helpful interventions, the proposed study required critical analysis of the current treatments, such as reducing impulsivity and enhancing affective empathy (e.g., KiVa anti-bullying program and the INTEMO+ emotional intelligence training).  Therefore, it was necessary to assess each strength and limitation, with particular attention to their methodologies, target outcomes, and overall effectiveness. In the end, successful components, such as INTEMO’s focus on emotional regulation and empathy enhancement, were identified as valuable elements worth incorporating into a new, comprehensive intervention. As expected, gaps in existing interventions were also noted, which helped improve the design of the proposed study.

Proposed Study: Intervention on Affective Empathy and Impulsivity Among Adolescents and Its Effect on Trajectories into Criminality

As I stated before, this proposed study will focus on the lack of long-term follow-up in the existing programs listed above, while also providing alternatives to self-reported measures and including more immersive intervention strategies. 

Participants:

Adolescents aged 12 to 17 years who have been identified as having high risk or engaging in criminal behavior will be the main focus of the study. This group will include individuals with a history of behavioral issues, poor academic performance, and socio-economic challenges.

Structure of the Study:

A longitudinal, randomized controlled trial (RCT) design will be incorporated in this study. Participants will be randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a control group. The control group will receive no treatment in order to accurately assess the intervention’s effectiveness compared to the baseline.The intervention will target both affective empathy and impulsivity over a 12-month period, with follow-up assessments at 6, 12, and 24 months post-intervention to track changes in behavior and potential criminal trajectories. Because this is a school-based study, engagement among participants will be high as most students will remain enrolled in their schools throughout the study period, allowing for consistent follow-up. Additionally, to further minimize attrition, there will be compensation strategies, including a bonus incentive for participants who complete the entire study. It is also important to note that this potential study is conducted with the advantage of having access to substantial resources and funding.

Can We Intervene on Both Impulsivity and Empathy in the Same Intervention?

Yes, it is feasible to address both impulsivity and empathy within the same intervention, as both traits are interconnected and influence behavior. Intervening on both simultaneously could be more effective than targeting only one, as improvements in empathy could help reduce impulsive behaviors and vice versa⁹. The intervention could be structured to include distinct components focusing on enhancing emotional regulation (which impacts impulsivity) and increasing empathic understanding, similar to the Emotional Intelligence (EI) training used in the INTEMO program discussed by Castillo et al. (2013)²​.

Measures:

1. Empathy: The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI)²²  will be used to measure different dimensions of empathy, such as empathic concern and perspective-taking​.
2. Impulsivity: The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11)²³will measure impulsivity levels among participants.
3. Antisocial Behavior and Criminality: Self-report questionnaires and official records (if available) will be used to measure antisocial behavior. In addition to these questionnaires, parent and teacher reports will be incorporated to eliminate social desirability bias and to add different perspectives.

Intervention:

The intervention will consist of a series of workshops and activities modeled after the INTEMO program², which has effectively enhanced emotional intelligence and reduced aggressive behaviors among adolescents​. The researchers will visit the classroom to deliver a one-hour workshop every 3 days. This will total around 120 workshops. The program will include components such as:

• Emotion Recognition and Regulation: Activities that help adolescents identify and manage their emotions.
• Empathy Training: Exercises that promote understanding and sharing of others’ feelings.
• Impulse Control Techniques: Training on strategies to delay gratification and think before acting.

Periodic booster sessions at 6, 12, and 24 months will be included to reinforce learning and monitor progress. The goals of these booster sessions would be to reinforce learned skills (emotional regulation, empathy, impulse control) and to address any challenges or relapses. These booster sessions will each be 90 minutes and will include brief check-ins and reflections, and revisiting core concepts such as emotion recognition, empathy exercises, and impulse control tools.

Predictions:

I predict that adolescents who undergo the intervention will show significant improvements in affective empathy and reductions in impulsivity, subsequently lowering their risk of engaging in criminal behavior. Given past research linking high empathy with lower aggression and healthier social outcomes​, these changes should translate into a lower likelihood of criminal involvement.

Interpretation:

If the predicted outcomes are observed, the study would suggest that early intervention targeting emotional and behavioral regulation can significantly alter the developmental trajectory of at-risk youth, potentially reducing future criminality. Specifically, this research would address crucial gaps in the existing literature. While previous studies have explored empathy or impulsivity on their own, none have examined the effects of intervening on both traits simultaneously within a school-based setting. Thus, if this intervention is successful, it would support the idea that targeting both empathy and impulsivity simultaneously is more effective than addressing either alone. This study would help bridge this existing gap while also providing insight into how emotional training can influence long-term behavioral outcomes.

The school-based, workshop-driven structure of this intervention makes it a scalable and adaptable model for real-world implementation, particularly in underserved or high-risk communities. By demonstrating the practicality and impact of this program within the everyday school environment, the study would create a concrete, evidence-based framework that could be expanded and tailored across various educational and juvenile justice settings. These findings could significantly inform the design of preventative policies and programs, which will shift the focus toward early adolescent support rather than punitive responses after criminal behavior.

Limitations:

The validity of the study may be affected by the self-report measures, as participants might respond in ways they believe are socially desirable, potentially compromising the accuracy of the results. Furthermore, the participants may not accurately report the extent of their criminal behavior. To help mitigate this issue, the teacher and parent reports would be considered as additional sources of information, providing a more accurate result that does not depend on the participant’s own self-report. Additionally, the findings of the study might not be fully applicable to all at-risk youth populations, especially those from diverse cultural or socio-economic backgrounds.

Contingency Plan if the Intervention is not successful:

If no significant effects are found, it may suggest that the intervention needs to be tailored more specifically. In other words, this model may not effectively address the unique challenges faced by different populations. Tailoring could involve changing the content of workshops to be more culturally relevant or incorporating community-specific examples to help student engagement. A possible solution for future work would be to collaborate more closely with local educators, counselors, and cultural experts who understand the values and communication styles of the target population.

Additionally, broader environmental factors such as poverty, abusive home environments, or peer pressure may play a more substantial role in shaping adolescent behavior than previously accounted for. If these environmental influences are too extensive to be overcome by school-based intervention alone, this would point to the need for more family-integrated interventions beyond the classroom. Future research could explore these areas, possibly integrating additional support systems, like family therapy or community engagement.

Conclusion

Novel techniques of youth intervention to prevent future antisocial behavior are urgently needed to address criminality in the United States. In search of better methods, the early predictors of criminal behavior, such as impulsivity and deficits in affective empathy, must be explored. The research reviewed in this paper demonstrates a link between problematic psychological traits and subsequent antisocial and criminal behaviors. By targeting these traits through interventions, it is possible to mitigate impulsivity and raise affective empathy, contributing to a lower trajectory of criminal behavior. A comprehensive understanding of these psychological factors and their influence on criminal behavior will be essential in shaping future preventive measures, fostering safer communities, and reducing the societal impact of crime.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my mentor, Dr. Yarrow Dunham from Yale University, for his guidance and support throughout the writing of this paper.

References

1. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Justice expenditure and employment tool (JEET). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. https://bjs.ojp.gov/jeet (n.d.) (2022). [↩]
2. R. Castillo, J. M. Salguero, P. Fernández-Berrocal, N. Balluerka. Effects of an emotional intelligence intervention on aggression and empathy among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences. 54, 58-63 (2013). [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩]
3. L. Maneiro, J. A. Gómez-Fraguela, O. Cutrín, E. Romero. Impulsivity traits as correlates of antisocial behaviour in adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences. 104, 417-422 (2017). [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩]
4. L. Van Zonneveld, E. Platje, L. M. J. de Sonneville, S. H. M. van Goozen, H. Swaab. Affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and social attention in children at high risk of criminal behaviour. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 8, 291 (2017). [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩]
5. R. Waller, L. W. Hyde. Callous-unemotional behaviors in early childhood: The development of empathy and prosociality gone awry. Current Opinion in Psychology. 20, 11–16 (2018).​ [↩]
6. A. Arluke, E. Madfis. Animal abuse as a warning sign of school massacres. Homicide Studies. 18, 7–22 (2014). [↩] [↩]
7. L. S. Meisels. The role and the responsibility of the veterinarian in animal cruelty cases. Large Animal – Practice Management & Legal Issues. 447, (2005). [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩] [↩]
8. S. M. Cardwell, L. Mazerolle, S. Bennett, A. R. Piquero. Changing the relationship between impulsivity and antisocial behavior: The impact of a school engagement program. Crime & Delinquency. 65, 1076-1101 (2019). [↩]
9. N. Trivedi-Bateman, Z. Crook. The optimal application of empathy interventions to reduce antisocial behaviour and crime: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 65, 101692 (2022). [↩] [↩] [↩]
10. A. Justice. The relationship of empathy and impulsivity to the Dark Tetrad of personality. Abilene Christian University Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 15, (2016). [↩] [↩] [↩]
11. V. Viemerö. Factors in childhood that predict later criminal behavior. Aggressive Behavior. 22, 87-97 (1996). [↩] [↩]
12. J. Bechtold, C. Cavanagh, E. P. Shulman, E. Cauffman. Does mother know best? Adolescent and mother reports of impulsivity and subsequent delinquency. J Youth Adolesc. 43, 1903–1913 (2014). [↩]
13. R. Waller, L. W. Hyde. Callous-unemotional behaviors in early childhood: The development of empathy and prosociality gone awry. Current Opinion in Psychology. 20, 11–16 (2018)​. [↩]
14. K. Bresin. Impulsivity and aggression: A meta-analysis using the UPPS model of impulsivity. Journal of Aggressive Behavior. 32, 88–104 (2020).​ [↩]
15. K. Bresin. Impulsivity and aggression: A meta-analysis using the UPPS model of impulsivity. Journal of Aggressive Behavior. 32, 88–104 (2020)​. [↩]
16. K. Derefinko, C. N. DeWall, A. V. Metze, E. C. Walsh, D. R. Lynam. Do different facets of impulsivity predict different types of aggression? Aggress Behav. 37, 223–233 (2011). [↩]
17. Z. Ma. Empathy and criminal motivation: Relationship and prevention. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences RETPS. 22, 854–858 (2023).​ [↩]
18. S. H. M. van Goozen, S. Wells, A. Wells, R. Gardner. Indicators of affective empathy in children at risk for antisocial behaviour. Developmental Psychology. 56, 123–134 (2020). [↩]
19. L. M. Hunnikin, A. E. Wells, D. P. Ash, S. H. M. van Goozen. The nature and extent of emotion recognition and empathy impairments in children showing disruptive behaviour referred into a crime prevention programme. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 29, 363–371 (2020).​ [↩]
20. C. F. Garandeau, L. Laninga-Wijnen, C. Salmivalli. Effects of the KiVa anti-bullying program on affective and cognitive empathy in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology. 51, 515–529 (2022). [↩] [↩] [↩]
21. A. Kärnä, M. Voeten, T. D. Little, E. Alanen, E. Poskiparta, C. Salmivalli. Effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 1–3 and 7–9. Journal of Educational Psychology. 105, 535–551 (2013). [↩]
22. D. Bilitza. IRI: The international standard for the ionosphere. Advances in Radio Science. 16, 1–11 (2018). [↩]
23. A. G. Vasconcelos, L. Malloy-Diniz, H. Correa. Systematic review of psychometric properties of Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Version 11 (BIS-11). Clinical Neuropsychiatry. 9, 61–74 (2012). [↩]