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

Abstract

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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10862-018-9659-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The DSM-5 Limited Prosocial Emotions Specifier for Conduct Disorder: Comorbid Problems, Prognosis, and Antecedents

“…Such findings also tentatively suggest that CP+LPE and PPP classifications can both inform CP heterogeneity, but should not be used interchangeably. In line with a series of studies, [18][19][20] we provide preliminary support for recent recommendations to consider the multidimensional psychopathy construct for subtyping purposes. 43 Yet, it is unclear how to categorically define the interpersonal and behavioral psychopathy components, indicating that findings must be carefully interpreted, and cannot be used to firmly conclude that the LPE specifier and PPP do not substantially overlap.…”

“…15,16,17 This trend is challenged by evidence that youth high on all psychopathy components can be differentiated from those high on the CU component alone. [18][19][20] Yet, it has not been tested if individuals with the LPE subtype also score simultaneously high on the interpersonal and behavioural psychopathy components. Hence, the idea that the LPE subtype of CP greatly represents the multidimensional psychopathy construct remains highly speculative.…”

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

“…A repeated measures effect size ( d RM ) was calculated as the average-based change statistics over the time of treatment ( Morris and DeShon, 2002 ; Lenhard and Lenhard, 2016 ). Also change statistics were calculated separately for the subgroup of adolescents with elevated levels of CU traits at the start of treatment, using a cut-off of 0.5 SD above the mean as done in several previous studies ( Viding et al, 2008 ; van Baardewijk et al, 2009 ; Andershed et al, 2018 ; Frogner et al, 2018 ). We examined the relationship between change in CU traits and change in the continuous outcome measures by correlation analyses.…”

Predictors of adult outcomes in clinically- and legally-ascertained youth with externalizing problems

“…Third, not all measures were administered for every sample ( Table 1 ), diminishing effective sample size (and hence statistical power) for a number of covariates. Fourth, despite considerable interest in the contributions in possible connections between callous-unemotional (CU) traits and EP [ 21 , 67 , 68 ], such measures were unavailable for the present sample, though the utility of CU traits in examining persistence of EP is a point of controversy [ 67 , 69 , 70 ]. Fifth, our measures of legal outcomes did not distinguish between qualitatively different types of crime (e.g., violent versus non-violent crimes), perhaps masking type-specific contributions of psychosocial predictors.…”