Antisocial behavior from a developmental psychopathology perspective.

Department of Psychology, University of New Orleans, 2001 Geology and Psychology Building, New Orleans, LA 70148, USA.
Development and Psychopathology (Impact Factor: 4.89). 11/2009; 21(4):1111-31. DOI: 10.1017/S0954579409990071
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This paper reviews research on chronic patterns of antisocial behavior and places this research into a developmental psychopathology framework. Specifically, research suggests that there are at least three important pathways through which children and adolescents can develop severe antisocial behaviors. One group of youth shows antisocial behavior that begins in adolescence, and two groups show antisocial behavior that begins in childhood but differ on the presence or absence of callous-unemotional traits. In outlining these distinct pathways to antisocial behavior, we have tried to illustrate some key concepts from developmental psychopathology such as equifinality and multifinality, the importance of understanding the interface between normal and abnormal development, and the importance of using multiple levels of analyses to advance causal theories. Finally, we discuss how this development model can be used to enhance existing interventions for antisocial individuals.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although callous–unemotional (CU) traits are associated with maladjustment in youth, literature predicting CU using prospective designs is rare. In the present study we examine associations between exposure to community violence, supportive relationships with caregivers, and CU in a sample of 236 low-income youth (M age = 13.00 years, SD = 1.56 years; 43% male; 92% African American) participating in a 3-wave longitudinal study of violence exposure and adjustment. Both promotive and protective models of linkages between exposure to community violence, support, and CU were investigated. Given known sex differences in CU, sex was explored as a moderator. Regression analysis revealed that witnessing and hearing about community violence, aggregated over 2 waves, were positively associated with CU at the final study wave. Supportive relationships with caregivers, aggregated over 2 waves, were negatively associated with CU but did not interact with violence exposure, suggesting that supportive relationships with caregivers has a promotive but not a protective association with CU in the context of exposure to violence. The pattern of associations did not vary by sex. This study informs our understanding of factors that contribute to the development of CU.
    Personality and Individual Differences 04/2015; 77. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.024 · 1.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Being aggressive has been related to fearlessness, low empathy and premeditated antisocial behaviors. The current study examined how school bullies and victims respond to affective situations presented through imagery. It was hypothesized that victims would perceive fear imagery as more fearful than bul-lies, demonstrating their proneness to fear and high behavioral inhibition. Bullies were expected to per-ceive fear imagery as less fearful and experience less negative affect, based on their callous-unemotional characteristics. Children participated in a tone-cued imagery experiment during which they imagined for 8 s twelve pre-normed scripts describing fear, anger, joy and pleasant relaxation. Children rated their experienced emotions of fear, anger, joy and sadness for each scene. Bullies responded with low levels of fear to fear imagery and across emotion types and reported overall higher positive affect, even during provocative anger scenes. In contrast, victims responded with higher fear, anger and sadness. The varied emotional responses appeared to be partly explained by group differences in behavioral inhibition, which was high in victims. Results are discussed in light of aggression theories and potential interventions.
    Personality and Individual Differences 05/2015; 78(78):29-33. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.011 · 1.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The factorial structure of the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU; Frick 2004) has been inconsistent across previous studies using different rater versions (self-report, parent, teacher) and versions in different languages applied to both clinical and nonreferred samples predominantly of adolescents. The present study examined the factorial structure of the parent-report version of the ICU in a clinical sample of boys aged 6–12 years with Oppositional Defiant Disorder/Conduct Disorder (n = 131) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Results from the CFA supported previous findings, but even the preferred model with three independent factors (Callousness, Uncaring, and Unemotional) showed inadequate model fit. Subsequent EFA revealed a three-factor model consisting of two new subscales (Callousness/Lack of Guilt or Remorse, Unconcerned about Performance) and the original subscale Unemotional. Internal consistencies of the three subscales and total score were satisfactory, and intercorrelations of the subscales were weak, except for a moderate correlation between the subscales Callousness/Lack of Guilt or Remorse and Unconcerned about Performance. The corresponding subscales of the original and new versions were highly correlated. As expected, the ICU subscale Callousness/Lack of Guilt or Remorse showed associations with other measures of aggressive and oppositional behavior. The other two ICU subscales were not associated with aggression or oppositional/antisocial behavior, but Unconcerned about Performance correlated with a measure of attention problems and Unemotional correlated with the internalizing problem withdrawn. The implications of these findings are discussed, especially as a callous unemotional specifier for the diagnosis of Conduct Disorder is included in DSM-5.
    Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 12/2014; 36(4):519-529. DOI:10.1007/s10862-014-9420-7 · 1.55 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 21, 2014