Callous-Unemotional Traits, Harm-Effect Moral Reasoning, and Bullying Among Swedish Children

Abstract

BackgroundAlthough callous-unemotional (CU) traits have been associated with bullying among children and adolescents, relatively little is known about whether each of the three sub-constructs of CU traits—callous, uncaring, and unemotional—are associated with bullying when they are considered concurrently in the analysis.ObjectiveThis study was the first to examine in a single model whether callous, uncaring, and unemotional traits are directly related to the perpetration of bullying and to harm-effect moral reasoning in bullying among children as well as whether these three CU traits are indirectly related to bullying mediated by harm-effect moral reasoning.MethodsSelf-reported data on CU traits, harm-effect moral reasoning in bullying situations, and bullying perpetration were collected from 381 children from 13 schools in Sweden. Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses.ResultsWhen all three sub-constructs of CU traits were included in a single model, greater callousness and uncaring were directly associated with greater bullying. In contrast, greater harm-effect moral reasoning was associated with less bullying. Moreover, greater callousness and unemotional were indirectly associated with greater bullying through the reduced use of harm-effect moral reasoning.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that all three CU traits are important to address, although their associations with bullying took some different paths, and that callousness appears to be the most important CU trait in relation to bullying.

<p>Does the Interplay of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Moral Disengagement Underpin Disruptive Behavior? A Systematic Review</p>

“…The distortion of consequences is often highlighted in the literature on aggression, attesting that aggressive youths estimate more positive outcomes than negative ones as a result of their negative behavior. 37,38 Moreover, the misrepresentation may involve active efforts to discredit evidence of the harm they cause. Finally, at recipient level, dehumanization divests people of human qualitiesviewing persons as subhuman objectsand attribution of blame permit to perceive aggressive actions as justifiable reactions resulting from the same target of their behavior.…”

“…Specifically, research selected were N=4 longitudinal studies 13,15,46,48 and N=9 cross-sectional studies. 11,12,38,40,47,[50][51][52]54 With regard to the Countries in which the studies examined were carried out, N=6 studies were carried out in the USA, 11,13,15,40,50,52 N=3 in Italy, 12,46,47 and the others in Netherland, 48 Canada, 51 Sweden, 38 and France. 54…”

“…On the basis of the journal in which the articles were published, it is clear that these concern different fields of research: clinical, developmental and criminological. Furthermore, across all 13 studies examined, N = 4 focused on community samples, 12,38,48,54 and one study focused on high-risk sample; 13 furthermore, N = 6 studies considered adjudicated juvenile delinquent 11,15,40,[50][51][52] and N = 2 considered samples of adolescents diagnosed with disruptive behavior disorder. 46,47 Interestingly, studies on sample of adolescents diagnosed with DBD were performed only in Italy, while studies on juvenile offenders or adjudicated delinquent were carried out mostly in the USA.…”

“…65 As regards the CU traits, one study used report form questionnaire filled out by parents 46 (APSD-PR) and another study used cross informant measure 13 (CADS, filled out by parents and youths). However, most studies used self-report questionnaires: YPI, 11,15,54 YPI-SCV, 12 ICU-Y, 38,40,47,52 Dirty Dozen, 48 PCL: YV 50 and the 17item version of PCL. 51 Finally, N = 2 studies used in addiction the self-report questionnaire APSD.…”

“…40,52 Some studies did not report Cronbach's alpha for measures to assess CU traits, 40,51 while Cronbach's alpha reported by the other studies ranged from 0.71 to 0.90. Studies on community samples have assessed aggressive or delinquent behaviors with different selfreport measures: Aggressive behavior 24 items selfreport scale, 12,66 Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire, 48,67 Direct and indirect aggression scale, 48,68 Self-Report of Delinquency Questionnaire, 13,69 The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire, 38 and the Questionnaire de Délinquance Autorévélée. 54,70 Cronbach's alpha for these measures ranged from 0.81 to 0.92.…”