Strong evidence that callous–unemotional traits are not related to risk-taking task performance

A hypothesized association between callous–unemotional (CU) traits and risk-taking may account for the link between CU traits and real-world risky behaviors, such as illegal behavior. Prior findings show that reward and punishment responsivity differs in relation to CU traits, but is not associated with general risk-taking. However this has only been examined previously with one task, only with a frequentist framework, and with limited interpretation. Here, we expand to another task and to Bayesian analyses. A total of 657 participants (52% female) completed the Inventory of Callous–Unemotional Traits, the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (essentially a gambling task), and the Stoplight driving task, which repeatedly presents participants with riskier or less risky choices to make while driving. We found strong evidence for the null model, in which there is no relation between the two risk-taking tasks and CU traits (R2 = 0.001; BF10 = 1/60.22). These results suggest that general risk-taking does not underlie the real-world risky behavior of people with CU traits. Alternative explanations include a different method of valuing certain outcomes

Proactive and Reactive Aggression Subgroups in Typically Developing Children: The Role of Executive Functioning, Psychophysiology, and Psychopathy

This study aimed to assess whether groups of aggressive children differed on psychopathic traits, and neuropsychological and neurobiological measures of prefrontal functioning consistent with the objectives of their aggression—reactive or proactive. Including 110 typically developing children (9–11 years), a latent class analysis identified a low aggression group, a high reactive aggression group, and a mixed (high reactive and proactive) aggression group. Results show high callous–unemotional traits and low resting respiratory sinus arrhythmia increased the likelihood of children being in the mixed aggression group, when compared to the reactive and low aggression groups. However, deficits in planning and inhibitory control increased the likelihood of children being in the reactive aggression group, when compared to the mixed and low aggression groups. Executive functioning deficits did not differentiate the mixed group from the low aggression group. These findings highlight psychobiological and executive functioning differences that may explain heterogeneity in childhood aggression

A New Trait-Based Model of Child-to-Parent Aggression

Incidents of child-to-parent aggression have been the most under-researched area of domestic violence. The risk factors for child-to-parent aggression are still unknown. This article reviews risk factors that might explain aggression among adolescents. First, an overview of aggression, with a primary focus on child-to-parent aggression is provided. A number of studies on young people’s aggression show callous-unemotional traits as a predictor of aggression toward peers. However, callous-unemotional traits have not been studied in research on parent-directed aggression, even though they have been shown to be related to social dominance and lack of care toward authority figures (of which parents have a key role during adolescence). Thus, a new “Trait-Based Model” is proposed to explain child-to-parent aggression. In the model, the perpetrators of child-to-parent aggression are divided into two types: “generalists”, who are high on callous-unemotional traits and are proposed to perpetrate aggression toward parents as well as toward others outside the family, and “specialists”, who are low on callous-unemotional traits and specifically perpetrate aggression toward parents but not in other contexts. This article argues for future research to investigate the role of personality traits typically predicting differing subtypes of aggression

CAPE for measuring callous-unemotional traits in disadvantaged families: a cross-sectional validation study

Background: Callous-unemotional (CU) traits are important for designating a distinct subgroup of children and adolescents with behaviour problems. As a result, CU traits are now used to form the specifier “with Limited Prosocial Emotions” that is part of the diagnostic criteria for the Conduct Disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition (DSM-5) and International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11). Given this inclusion in major classification systems, it is important to develop and test methods for assessing these traits that can be used in clinical settings. The present study aimed to validate a clinician rating of CU traits, the Clinical Assessment of Prosocial Emotions, Version 1.1 (CAPE 1.1), in a sample of hard-to-reach families referred to a government program designed to prevent the development of behaviour problems in high risk families. Methods: Clinical ratings of children were obtained from 34 families of children ages 3 to 19 (M=12.2; SD=4.3). The ratings on the CAPE 1.1 were based on interviews with both parent and child. Results: Of the sample, 21% (100% male) met the diagnostic cut-off for the specifier according to the CAPE 1.1, and CAPE 1.1 scores were associated with parent ratings of CU traits, psychopathic traits, and externalising behaviours. CAPE 1.1 ratings were also associated with risk for violence obtained from case files. Conclusions: These findings provide preliminary evidence for the validity of the CAPE 1.1 as clinician rated measure of CU traits