Evidence for deficits in reward responsivity in antisocial youth with callous-unemotional traits.

Abstract

This study investigated reward responsivity in youth with high levels of callous-unemotional (CU) traits using a cross-sectional design. Whereas deficits in responding to punishment cues are well established in youth with CU traits, it is unclear whether responsivity to rewarding stimuli is impaired as well. Participants were 148 predominantly Caucasian, adjudicated adolescents between the ages of 11 and 17 (M = 15.1, SD = 1.4) who completed the Balloon Analogue Risk Task as part of a larger battery investigating aggression and social information processing. A Reward Responsivity variable was created to capture changes in participants' responding after receiving a reward. A hierarchical regression analysis indicated that higher levels of CU traits significantly predicted less reward responsivity, above and beyond gender, sensation seeking, and impulsivity. Results support Blair's (2004) Integrated Emotion Systems model that proposes individuals with CU traits are impaired in their responsivity to both appetitive and aversive stimuli.

Throwing Caution to the Wind: Callous-Unemotional Traits and Risk Taking in Adolescents

“…In line with this idea, emergent research using the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al, 2002) suggests that in incarcerated samples, youth high on CU traits demonstrate a decreased reward orientation relative to youths low on CU traits (Marini & Stickle, 2010). Further, the decreased punishment responsivity characteristic of youth high on CU traits is argued to play a minor role in decisions to act out (e.g., Blair, 2010), so that lack of response to punishment is unlikely to fully account for their decidedly antisocial decisions.…”

“…Yet, other research has found high psychopathy adults within community samples are more successful in card playing relative to low psychopathy adults, but not more risky (Belmore & Quinsey, 1994). Likewise, studies of jailed adults (Swogger, 2010) and adolescents (Marini & Stickle, 2010) failed to find an association between psychopathic traits and behavioral risk-taking. These findings suggest that individuals high on CU may be more successful in their risk-taking, if not more risky overall, relative to other individuals.…”

“…In their foundational research using the BART risk-taking paradigm, Marini and Stickle (2010) posit that the BART does not provide adequate punishment for individuals high on CU traits to demonstrate decreased responsivity, although another study shows young children with disruptive behavior disorders evidence deficits in punishment responsivity on the BART (Humphreys & Lee, 2011). An alternative explanation is that their operationalization of subsequent punishment behavior might not adequately tap CU-linked deficits.…”

“…Indeed, research with youths with CU traits has found support for a reward-dominant response style (O'Brien & Frick, 1996). From this evidence, it appears that youths high on CU traits are over-responsive to rewards, but equally it can be argued that youths high on CU traits have problems in managing their behavior in the face of rewards (see Marini & Stickle, 2010). Such regulation deficits would be evident when changing one's behavior to the task demands, but not when acquiring the knowledge of which responses are rewarded.…”

Exploring The Development of Social Responses in Children with Callous and Unemotional Traits: An Examination of The Impact of Hypothesized Reinforcing and Aversive Stimuli

“…However, Marini and Stickle (2010) examined sensitivity to reward in children with CU traits and concluded that these traits also significantly predated a lowered sensitivity to reinforcement. They propose that instead of a one-sided deficit, discrepancies exist in both sensitivity to reward and punishment.…”