Psychopathic Personality Works Better than CU Traits for Predicting Fearlessness and ADHD Symptoms among Children with Conduct Problems

Examining the Association between Psychopathic Traits and Fearlessness among Maximum-Security Incarcerated Male Adolescents

Studies have reported positive associations between youth psychopathy scores and measures of 'fearlessness'. However, prior studies modified fearlessness items to be age appropriate, shifting from assessing hypothetical, extreme forms of physical risk-taking (e.g., flying an airplane) to normative risk-taking (e.g., riding bicycles downhill). We hypothesize that associations between youth psychopathy scores and alternative forms of sensation seeking (i.e., Disinhibition) have been conflated under a false fearlessness label. We tested this hypothesis among incarcerated male adolescents, investigating whether youth psychopathy scores were significantly associated with two different forms of sensation seeking: Disinhibition and Thrill and Adventure Seeking (TAS). Youth psychopathic traits were assessed using the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV), Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD), Child Psychopathy Scale (CPS), Inventory of Callous and Unemotional Traits (ICU), and Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI). Disinhibition and fearlessness (i.e., TAS) were assessed using an unmodified version of the Zuckerman Sensation Seeking Scales (SSS). Consistent with hypotheses, youth psychopathy scores were associated with higher Disinhibition and lower TAS scores. Our results contribute to a growing body of literature suggesting that psychopathic traits, including among adolescents, are not concomitant with physical risk-taking and descriptions of psychopathy including fearlessness distort a precise understanding of psychopathy's core features.

The Relative Importance of Psychopathy Features as Predictors of Externalizing Behaviors in Youth: A Multimethod Examination

Research in youth psychopathy has focused heavily on the affective features (i.e., callous-unemotional [CU] traits) given robust links to severe and chronic forms of externalizing behaviors. Recently, there have been calls to expand the scope of work in this area to examine the importance of other interpersonal (i.e., antagonism) and behavioral (i.e., disinhibition) features of psychopathy. In the present study, we apply an under-utilized statistical approach (i.e., dominance analysis) to assess the relative importance of CU traits, antagonism, and disinhibition in the prediction of externalizing behaviors in youth, cross-sectionally and at 9-month follow-up. Using a multi-informant (youth- and parent-report), multi-method (questionnaire, ecological momentary assessment [EMA]) preregistered approach in a diverse sample of clinically referred youth (Mage = 12.60 years, SD = .95 years, 47% female; 61% racial/ethnic minority), we found youth- and parent-reported psychopathy features accounted for a significant proportion of variance in externalizing behavior cross-sectionally and longitudinally. However, results provided limited support for our preregistered hypotheses. While antagonism and disinhibition had larger general dominance weights relative to CU traits for both youth- and parent-report, most differences were non-significant. Thus, the interpersonal, affective, and behavioral psychopathy features could not be distinguished from one another in terms of their importance in the prediction of externalizing behavior, assessed cross-sectionally or longitudinally. Taken together, the results highlight promising avenues for future research on the relative importance of youth psychopathy features.

Some critical comments on the paper titled "Some critical considerations in applying the construct of psychopathy to research and classification of childhood disruptive behavior disorders"

Frick (2022) presented a narrative review of some literature and made several critical comments regarding the extension of the full psychopathy construct to research and classification of childhood disruptive behavior disorders (DBDs). His arguments cautioned against the use of the multicomponent concept of psychopathy for specification of DBDs for several reasons including definitional issues, symptom sequencing, specifier versus risk factor considerations, potential overlap with other disorders and criteria (e.g., ADHD), and concerns regarding harm. While I agree with Frick (2022) that we need to be cautious when extending personality constructs to the DBDs, the remaining arguments in his paper fall short of calling for the exclusion of psychopathy components in the examination of DBDs. Rather, the counterpoints in this paper further convince that the multidimensional model of psychopathy, when applied to the DBDs, could better facilitate understanding of the etiology and mechanisms for Conduct Disorder (CD), and, it may help us to predict the prognosis and treatment outcomes of children with various forms of DBDs such as CD and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). To have the most informative designs, future research should examine the broad construct to glean a better understanding of psychopathy and the DBDs. Further, research should continue to examine sequencing and external correlates at the component level and to test the incremental value of the multicomponent model of psychopathy to help us better comprehend how each component may facilitate our understanding of the types and severity of conduct problems exhibited by youth with DBDs (i.e., CD, ODD).

Childhood psychopathic traits and mental health outcomes in adolescence: compensatory and protective effects of positive relationships with parents and teachers

We identified mental health outcomes associated with specific developmental trajectories of psychopathic traits across childhood and tested whether positive relationships with parents and teachers have compensatory or protective effects. Participants were 1401 children (52.82% girls) from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development with available data on teacher-reported psychopathic traits (ages 6-12 years) and self-reported mental health outcomes (ages 15-17 years). Parents and teachers reported their levels of positive relationship with the child (ages 6-8 and 10-12 years). Trajectories of psychopathic traits (High-stable, Increasing, Decreasing, and Low-stable) were included as predictors of mental health outcomes (e.g., conduct disorder, anxiety) in structural equation models controlling for child sex, family SES, and earlier psychopathology. Compensatory effects were tested via main effects of positive relationships and protective effects were tested via their interactive effects with trajectories memberships. When compared to the Low-stable trajectory of psychopathic traits, the High-stable, Increasing, and Decreasing trajectories were associated with distinct sets of mental health outcomes, with children from the Increasing trajectory being at higher risk for both externalizing and internalizing psychopathology. Positive relationships with parents and teachers only partially compensated for these effects. Findings suggest that clinicians cannot expect the detrimental effects associated with psychopathic traits to be entirely prevented by children's positive relationships with parents and/or teachers. This study reinforces the importance of providing intensive preventive interventions to elementary school children with high levels of psychopathic traits to prevent the long-term negative consequences associated with these traits.

Interpersonal trauma and its relation to childhood psychopathic traits: what does ADHD and ODD add to the equation?

BACKGROUND

Childhood trauma has demonstrated associations with callous-unemotional traits (e.g., reflecting lack of remorse and guilt, unconcern about own performance). Less is known about associations between trauma and multiple domains of child psychopathic traits. There has also been limited focus on the role of co-occurring disorders to psychopathy traits among children, namely, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and how they interact with childhood trauma.

METHODS

We examined to what degree childhood interpersonal trauma can predict parent-rated psychopathic traits in a large population based Swedish twin sample (N = 5057), using a stringent definition of interpersonal trauma occurring before age 10. Two hundred and fifty-one participants met the interpersonal trauma criteria for analysis. The study explored the additional impact of traits of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD).

RESULTS

Linear regressions demonstrated statistically significant but clinically negligible effects of interpersonal trauma on total and subscale scores of parent-rated psychopathic traits. When exploring interaction effects of ADHD and ODD into the model, the effect increased. There were interaction effects between ODD and trauma in relation to psychopathic traits, suggesting a moderating role of ODD. Having been exposed to trauma before age 10 was significantly associated with higher parent rated psychopathy traits as measured by The Child Problematic Traits Inventory-Short Version (CPTI-SV), however the explained variance was small (0.3-0.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

The results challenge the notion of association between interpersonal trauma and youth psychopathic traits. They also highlight the need to gain an improved understanding of overlap between psychopathic traits, ADHD and ODD for clinical screening purposes and the underlying developmental mechanisms.

Primary and Secondary Variants of Psychopathic Traits in at-Risk Youth: Links with Maltreatment, Aggression, and Empathy

The current study examined whether two variants of psychopathic traits (PT) were identifiable in high-risk youth who had not yet been identified as antisocial, some of whom had documented histories of maltreatment (N = 167, M_age = 14.84), and then whether the variants differed in levels of aggression and empathy. High-PT youth with low anxiety and trauma (i.e., primary variant PT) and high anxiety and trauma (i.e., secondary variant PT) were differentiated. The secondary variant group was comprised largely of youth with documented histories of maltreatment. This group of youth also reported higher levels of proactive and reactive aggression than did the primary variant youth and low-PT youth. All youth reported similar levels of affective empathy and only small differences in cognitive empathy emerged: Primary variant youth reported lower cognitive empathy than low-PT youth. Findings support generalization of two variant groups of youth with psychopathic traits to diverse, high-risk samples not already identified as antisocial and have important implications for policy and practice.

Studying Configurations of Psychopathic Traits: Exploring the Viability of Psychopathic Personality in Early Childhood

The idea that very young children can manifest a constellation of personality traits that looks like psychopathy has rarely been explored. To fill this void, data from 2,247 children, aged 3-6 years (M = 4.25; SD = 0.91), from the Estudio Longitudinal para una Infancia Saludable (ELISA) were utilized. Parents and teachers completed questionnaires at baseline and at 1-year follow-up. Using three parent-rated psychopathy dimensions as indicators, the authors conducted latent profile analysis and arrived at five latent classes: Control (39.2%), Impulsive-Need for Stimulation (34.8%), Grandiose-Deceitful (16.5%), Callous-Unemotional (6.2%), and Putative Psychopathic Personality (PP, 3.3%). Children in the PP class, overall, engaged in higher levels of concurrent, future, and stable conduct problems and reactive and proactive aggression, and lower levels of prosocial behavior, as rated by parents or teachers. Findings also revealed meaningful differences between the remaining four classes. Person-oriented analyses seem to offer a fruitful avenue to identify 3-to 6-year-olds who exhibit a putative psychopathic personality and are at risk for future maladjustment.

Cognitive control and emotional response in attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder comorbidity with disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders

BACKGROUND

This study investigated cognitive and emotional functioning in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorders (DICCD).

METHODS

Thirty patients with ADHD, 26 with DICCD, 22 with ADHD+DICCD were recruited from the outpatient department of Shanghai Changning Mental Health Center, plus 20 healthy controls (HC). Differences between the groups in cognitive and emotional functioning were examined using Golden's Stroop and Emotional Stroop tests. For Emotional Stroop Mean reaction time (RT) of positive word (POS) and negative word (NEG) with color congruence (C) or incongruence (I) were recorded as POS-C, POS-I, NEG-C and NEG-I, respectively.

RESULTS

For Golden's interference scores (IGs), both errors and RTs in the ADHD group were higher than in the other groups. Longer mean RTs of POS-C, POS-I, NEG-C and neural word (NEU) of the ADHD group, and NEG-I of ADHD+DICCD and DICCD groups were observed compared to HC. After 12 weeks of methylphenidate treatment, differences between ADHD subgroups and HC on Golden's Stroop RT disappeared, but differences in Golden's Stroop errors and Emotional Stroop mean RTs remained. The ADHD+DICCD group showed longer mean RTs in NEG-C, NEG-I and NEU of the Emotional Stroop test than the ADHD group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that regardless of emotional responding, deficit in cognitive control is the core symptom of ADHD. However, emotionally biased stimuli may cause response inhibitory dysfunction among DICCD with callous-unemotional traits, and the comorbidity of ADHD and DICCD tends to account for the negative emotional response characteristic of DICCD. These deficits may be eliminated by medication treatment in ADHD, but not the ADHD with comorbid DICCD. Our results support the notion that ADHD with comorbid DICCD is more closely related to DICCD than to ADHD.

Callous-Unemotional Traits Do Not Predict Functional Family Therapy Outcomes for Adolescents With Behavior Problems

Despite the availability of evidence-based treatment models for adolescent behavior problems, little is known about the effectiveness of these programs for adolescents with callous-unemotional (CU) traits. Defined by lack of empathy, lack of guilt, flattened affect and lack of caring, CU traits have been linked to long-term anti-social behavior and unfavorable treatment outcomes and might be negatively related to outcomes in evidence-based programs such as Functional Family Therapy (FFT). This study used a single-group pre-post evaluation design with a sample of 407 adolescents (49.1% female, mean age = 14.4 years, SD = 1.9) receiving FFT to investigate whether outcomes in FFT are predicted by CU traits and to what extent reliable changes in CU traits can be observed. The results showed that although CU traits are related to increased problem severity at baseline, they predicted neither treatment dropout nor post-treatment externalizing behavior and family functioning. CU traits were related to diminished improvement ratings, in particular with respect to parental supervision. Reductions in CU traits were observed across the time of treatment, and these were most profound among adolescents with elevated levels of CU traits at baseline. Further research should investigate whether certain evidence-based treatment components are more suited for adolescents with CU, and if the addition of specific intervention elements for reducing CU-traits could further improve outcomes for this high-risk population.

Bottom-up and top-down approaches to understanding oppositional defiant disorder symptoms during early childhood: a mixed method study

BACKGROUND

Children with clinical levels of conduct problems are at high risk of developing mental health problems such as persistent antisocial behavior or emotional problems in adolescence. Serious conduct problems in childhood also predict poor functioning across other areas of life in early adulthood such as overweight, heavy drinking, social isolation and not in employment or education. It is important to capture those children who are most at risk, early in their development. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) is commonly used in clinical settings, to identify children with conduct problems such as oppositional defiant disorder (ODD).This paper presents a cross-sectional study in a clinical setting, and describes behaviors in 3- to 8-year-olds with ODD. Our aim was to investigate whether there were problematic behaviors that were not captured by the diagnosis of ODD, using two different methods: a clinical approach (bottom-up) and the nosology for the diagnosis of ODD (top-down).

METHOD

Fifty-seven children with clinical levels of ODD participated in the study. The mothers were interviewed with both open questions and with a semi-structured diagnostic interview K-SADS. The data was analyzed using a mixed method, convergent, parallel qualitative/quantitative (QUAL + QUAN) design. For QUAL analysis qualitative content analysis was used, and for QUAN analysis associations between the two data sets, and ages-groups and gender were compared using Chi-square test.

RESULTS

In the top-down approach, the ODD criteria helped to identify and separate commonly occurring oppositional behavior from conduct problems, but in the bottom-up approach, the accepted diagnostic criteria did not capture the entire range of problematic behaviors-especially those behaviors that constitute a risk for antisocial behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows a gap between the diagnoses of ODD and conduct disorder (CD) in younger children. Antisocial behaviors manifest in preschool and early school years are not always sufficiently alarming to meet the diagnosis of CD, nor are they caught in their entirety by the ODD diagnostic tool. One way to verify suspicion of early antisocial behavior in preschool children would be to specify in the ODD diagnosis if there also is subclinical CD.

Callous-Unemotional Traits Only Versus the Multidimensional Psychopathy Construct as Predictors of Various Antisocial Outcomes During Early Adolescence

The aim of this study was to compare callous-unemotional (CU) traits versus the multidimensional psychopathy construct in their ability to predict future and stable antisocial behavior. At baseline, a community sample of 996 Cypriot 12-year old adolescents (52% girls) completed measures that tap conduct problems (CP) and psychopathic traits, including CU. CP, aggression, and substance use were self-reported at 1–3 year follow-ups. Youths were assigned to six mutually exclusive groups based on their baseline levels of CP and psychopathic traits. Youth with CP scoring high on all three psychopathic traits dimensions (Psychopathic Personality + CP) showed the most robust and highest risk for future and stable CP, aggression, and substance use, followed by youth who were high on all three psychopathic traits dimensions but displayed no concurrent CP (Psychopathic Personality Only) and CP youth with low levels of psychopathic traits (CP Only). Youth with CP who merely manifested callous-unemotional traits (Callous-Unemotional + CP) were only at risk for future CP. The findings suggest that the CU traits-based approach for subtyping children with CP is less informative compared to a subtyping approach using various psychopathic traits dimensions in predicting future and stable forms of various antisocial outcomes. These findings and their consistency with prior work indicate the need for additional research to examine the various psychopathic traits dimensions rather than focusing solely on CU traits, especially for CP subtyping purposes.