Community violence exposure and callous–unemotional traits in adolescents: Testing parental support as a promotive versus protective factor

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 yrs, SD = 1.56 yrs; 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.

The Latent Threat of Community Violence: Indirect Exposure to Local Homicides and Adolescents’ Mental Health in Colombia

“…Lastly, in keeping with prior work that has failed to find evidence of social support serving as a buffer for mental health in the face of community violence (Davis et al., ; Paxton et al., ), we did not find social support to be a significant moderator of the relation between local‐area homicide and adolescent mental health. The lack of a significant moderation may suggest that availability of support alone is not enough to buffer the detrimental effects of living in a homicide‐ridden area where adolescents may feel constantly threatened.…”

“…Some studies provide support for this hypothesis (e.g., O'Donnell, Schwab–Stone, & Muyeed, ; Ozer & Weinstein, ; Rosario, Salzinger, Feldman, & Ng‐Mak, ). However, others have failed to find evidence of social support serving as a protective factor against the manifestation of mental health problems associated with exposure to community violence (Davis, Ammons, Dahl, & Kliewer, ; Paxton, Robinson, Shah, & Schoeny, ). But no one, to our knowledge, has examined the protective role of social support in the relation between indirect exposure to local‐area homicides, accounting for direct exposures, and youth mental health.…”

Emotional Desensitization to Violence Contributes to Adolescents’ Violent Behavior

“…Psychopathic traits have been consistently associated with more aggressive and violent behavior, particularly with instrumental aggression (Frick & Dickens, 2006), which is also consistent with the link between emotional desensitization and greater violent delinquency found in this study. Interestingly, psychopathic traits also have been associated with higher exposure to community violence among urban youth and male juvenile delinquents (Davis, Ammons, Dahl, & Kliewer, 2015; Howard, Kimonis, Munoz, & Frick, 2012), although neither study had the data to link violence exposure with an increase in psychopathy over time. More longitudinal research is needed to clarify the relationships between violence exposure, emotional desensitization, psychopathic traits, and violent behavior.…”

Conduct problems in youth and the RDoC approach: A developmental, evolutionary-based view

“…Unlike the model of genetically rooted amygdala hyposensitivity (or perhaps alongside it), we propose that at this early phase it is not lack of emotion expression but lack of engagement with the caregiver's emotion mirroring that identifies the CU group. However, it remains unclear whether the parallel findings of early deficits in mind-mindedness in the parents of high-CU individuals are transmitted through passive, active, or reactive gene-environment correlations (Barker, Oliver, Viding, Salekin, & Maughan, 2011;Dadds, Allen, et al, 2014;Davis, Ammons, Dahl, & Kliewer, 2015;Hawes, Dadds, Frost, & Hasking, 2011;Hyde, Waller, & Burt, 2014;Kochanska, Kim, Boldt, & Yoon, 2013;Kroneman et al, 2011;Pardini et al, 2007;Salihovic, Kerr, Ozdemir, CONDUCT DISORDER AND THE RDoC 34 & Pakalniskiene, 2012;Waller et al, 2012;Waller, Gardner, et al, 2015;Waller, Shaw, et al, 2015;Willoughby, Mills-Koonce, Propper, & Waschbusch, 2013).…”