child psychopathic traits moderate relationships between parental affect and child aggression

NEW RESEARCH

Child Psychopathic Traits ModerateRelationships Between Parental Affect and

Child AggressionMichelle T. Yeh, Ph.D., Pan Chen, Ph.D., Adrian Raine, Ph.D., Laura A. Baker, Ph.D.,

Kristen C. Jacobson, Ph.D.

Objective: Previous studies show that children with psychopathic traits may be less responsive toparenting. Although harsh/inconsistent parenting is associated with increased problem behaviorsin children low on psychopathic traits, children high on psychopathic traits show consistently highlevels of problem behavior regardless of negative parenting. Moderating effects of child psycho-pathic traits on positive dimensions of parenting have not been explored. Method: We appliedmulti-level regression models to test for interactions between child psychopathic traits andboth positive and negative parental affect on individual differences in both reactive andproactive aggression, in a community-based sample of 1,158 children aged 9 through 10 yearsof age. Results: There were significant associations between child psychopathic traits andpositive and negative parental affect with both forms of aggression. Child psychopathic traitsalso moderated effects of positive and negative parental affect. Children low on psychopathictraits showed decreasing reactive aggression as positive parental affect increased, andincreasing levels of reactive aggression as negative parental affect increased, but children highon psychopathic traits showed more stable levels of reactive aggression regardless of levels ofparental affect. Proactive aggression was more strongly associated with negative parentalaffect among children with higher levels of psychopathic traits. Conclusions: In a commu-nity sample of preadolescent children, child psychopathic traits were shown to moderatethe effects of parental affect on aggression. Reactive aggression in children high on psycho-pathic traits appears less responsive to variations in either positive or negative parenting. Incontrast, child psychopathic traits may exacerbate the effects of high levels of negative parentaleffect on proactive aggression. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 2011;50(10):1054–1064. Key Words: psychopathy, parenting, aggression, parental affect

yscldah

RaEics

T he distinct constellation of psychopathicpersonality traits, including interpersonalcharacteristics (e.g., manipulativeness, su-

perficial charm), deviant behavior (e.g., irrespon-sibility, impulsivity), and affect (e.g., shallowemotions, lack of empathy), explains some of theheterogeneity of child problem behavior. Psycho-pathic adults and adolescents have been shownto exhibit low physiological arousal in aversivesituations, suggesting a deficit in avoidancelearning.1-5 Psychopathic youth are less sensitiveto punishment cues6,7 and to threat and distress

This article is discussed in an editorial by Dr. Benjamin Lahey on

cpage 975.

JOURN

1054 www.jaacap.org

cues,8 and show deficits in moral reasoning9 andempathy.10 Importantly, antisocial behavior of

outh with psychopathic traits tends to be moreevere11 and chronic12 than youth without psy-hopathic traits. These differences have stimu-ated the need to better understand the etiology,evelopment, and manifestation of psychopathy;ccordingly, research on juvenile psychopathyas gained momentum in recent years.

elationships Between Psychopathy, Parenting,nd Antisocial Behaviorvidence from a small number of previous stud-

es suggests that psychopathic traits may makehildren less amenable to shaping influencesuch as parental discipline and socialization, fa-
ilitating antisocial behavior. The first study of
AL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD & ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY

VOLUME 50 NUMBER 10 OCTOBER 2011

ltafppepprocctCpvlofuhcpbcp

RTipglapwam

CHILD PSYCHOPATHY AND AGGRESSION

this kind13 was conducted in a sample of 136clinic-referred and 30 community-based childrenaged 6 to 13 years of age, using parent andteacher ratings on the Callous-Unemotional (CU)traits subscale of the Antisocial Screening ProcessDevice14 to measure child psychopathic traits.Parental reports of ineffective parenting were pos-itively related to both parent- and teacher-reportedsymptoms of oppositional defiant disorder (ODD)and conduct disorder (CD) in children with lowlevels of CU traits. However, ineffective parentingdid not predict ODD and CD symptoms for chil-dren high on CU traits.

A similar study was conducted in a sample of8-year-old children at high and low risk foraggression, using a composite measure of inef-fective parenting practices that included harsh,inconsistent, and intrusive parenting, and poorparental monitoring and supervision.15 Signifi-cant interactions between child psychopathictraits and poor parenting were found when CUtraits were measured continuously, and the out-come was teacher report of externalizing behav-ior or peer-nominated aggression. Significant in-teractions between CU traits and parent reportsof both harsh punishment and low parentalwarmth were also found in a large communitysample of girls 7 through 8 years of age, withassociations between ODD and CD symptomsand either index of dysfunctional parenting be-ing stronger at lower levels of CU traits.16

Edens et al.17 extended prior research by in-vestigating whether interactions between parent-ing and psychopathy differed depending on howpsychopathy was operationalized, using a sam-ple of adolescent juvenile male offenders. Usingdifferent factors from the self-report Youth Ver-sion of the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised(PCL-YV),18 results partially replicated previousstudies, in that delinquent behavior increasedwith higher levels of harsh and inconsistent par-enting only for boys low on the Affective Deficitfactor of the PCL-YV. A reverse pattern wasfound for the Interpersonal factor of the PCL-YV: the association between harsh/inconsis-tent parental discipline and antisocial behaviorwas weaker among juveniles with lower Inter-personal scores than those with higher Inter-personal scores. No significant interactionswere found for the Antisocial or Behavioralfactors of the PCL-YV.

Although there is mounting evidence that
youth with affective features of psychopathy are
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CHILD & ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY


ess influenced by negative aspects of their care-akers’ behavior, most studies have not separatedffectional components of negative parentingrom behavioral components. In addition, norior study has examined whether child psycho-athic traits moderate the effects of positive par-nting on child antisocial behavior. There is am-le evidence for protective effects of positivearenting behavior (e.g., parental warmth, pa-ental involvement, and parent–child closeness)n the development of problem behavior inhildhood and adolescence,19-23 but whetherhild psychopathic traits moderate these protec-ive effects is unknown. In The Mask of Sanity,leckley’s24 seminal monograph on psycho-athic personalities, case studies describe indi-iduals who came from ostensibly “good” fami-

ies with concerned, competent parents. This isften reflected in the media, when friends andamily describe how many psychopathic individ-als appear to be brought up in normal, lovingomes. Thus, the moderating effect of child psy-hopathic traits previously found on negativearenting may also operate on positive parentingehavior: problem behavior of children with psy-hopathic traits may be less amenable to therotective effects of positive parental affect.

eactive Versus Proactive Aggressiono date, most of the small number of studies

nvestigating interactions between child psycho-athic traits and parenting have focused oneneral antisocial behavior (e.g., CD, ODD, de-

inquency). Only one study has specifically ex-mined the moderating effects of child psycho-athic traits on aggressive behavior.15 Previousork has distinguished reactive and proactive

ggression on the basis of both function andotivation.25-28 Although reactive aggression

represents hostile or angry responses to per-ceived threats or provocations, proactive aggres-sion refers to deliberate behaviors that are aimedat obtaining desired goals and are motivated bythe anticipation of rewards.29 Reactive and pro-active aggression are related to different anteced-ents. For example, harsh parenting is more pre-dictive of reactive aggression,30-32 whereasindulgent parenting is more strongly associatedwith proactive aggression.33 Importantly, re-search on psychopathic traits suggests thatreactive aggression is more strongly linked tonegative emotionality,34,35 whereas proactive ag-
gression is more closely linked to decreased
1055www.jaacap.org

oo

rpt

tp

io

As

H(euAv

a(

YEH et al.

emotional reactivity36,37 and an increased ten-dency to exhibit a callous and unemotional re-sponse to threats or provocations.38 As such,child psychopathic traits may show differentinteractions with parenting for reactive versusproactive aggression.

The Present StudyThere is emerging evidence that children high onpsychopathic traits may be less responsive to theeffects of parenting. However, prior studies havefocused exclusively on negative aspects of par-enting, and have most often combined both af-fective and behavioral measures of negative par-enting into a single index. The present studyspecifically investigates whether psychopathictraits moderate associations between affectionaldimensions of parenting and childhood aggres-sion in a large, diverse, community sample ofchildren. We further extend prior research byconsidering both positive and negative parentalaffect, and by examining moderating effects onboth reactive and proactive forms of aggression.We hypothesized that aggressive behavioramong children with higher levels of psycho-pathic traits would be less strongly associatedwith either positive or negative parental affectcompared with that in children with lower levelsof psychopathic traits.

METHODParticipantsThe current sample consisted of 1,210 twin children, 9through 10 years of age, from 605 families participat-ing in the first wave of the USC Twin Study.39 Familieswith twin children of eligible age were sent lettersdescribing the study. Approximately 70% of the 860families eligible for recruitment participated in thestudy. The sample is representative of the ethnic andsocio-economic diversity of the greater Los Angelesarea.39

ProcedureChildren and their caregivers participated in a 6- to8-hour on-campus testing and interview session.39

Most caregivers (91.4%) were biological mothers. Fam-ilies were monetarily compensated for their efforts.The study protocol was approved by the USC Institu-tional Review Board. A Certificate of Confidentialitywas obtained from the National Institute of Mental
Health to protect the privacy of participants. i
JOURN

1056 www.jaacap.org

MeasuresOutcome Measures.Reactive and proactive aggression. Aggression wasmeasured via child self-report using the 23-item Reac-tive-Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ).40 Re-active aggression was assessed with 11 items (e.g.,damaged things because you felt mad) and proactiveaggression was measured with 12 items (e.g., hadfights to show who was on top). Responses werescored on a three-point scale (1 � Never, 2 � Some-times, 3 � Often). Factor analysis of the RPQ with

ther samples has supported the two-factor structuref the RPQ.40-42 Prior studies using the RPQ indicate

good construct validity and reliability of the twosubscales.40,42,43 Scale scores of reactive (male: � �0.75; female: � � 0.75) and proactive aggression (male:� � 0.73; female: � � 0.69) were created by averagingesponses to relevant items. Proactive aggression wasositively skewed (skewness � 2.82) and was log

ransformed for analyses.Predictors.Psychopathic traits. Child psychopathic personalityraits were measured using a modified version of thearent-report Child Psychopathy Scale (CPS),44 com-

prising 55 yes/no items. A total CPS score was ob-tained by averaging all items (male: � � 0.85; female:� � 0.83).Positive and negative parental affect. Parental affectwas measured using child responses to a 30-item affectquestionnaire adapted from Hetherington et al.45 Sim-lar items have been used in another large family studyf adolescent development.46 Positive affect (POS) was

measured by 25 items (e.g., “How often does yourcaregiver praise you for something you’ve done?”).Negative affect (NEG) was measured by five items(e.g., “How often does your caregiver criticize you?”).Items were scored on a five-point Likert-type scale(1 � Never, 2 � Rarely, 3 � Sometimes, 4 � Often, 5 �

lways) and were averaged to create separate sub-cales for POS (male: � � 0.89; female: � � 0.89) and

NEG (male: � � 0.53; female: � � 0.60).Covariates.Gender. A dummy variable for gender was included inall analyses, where 0 � female (51.5%) and 1 � male(48.5%).Race/ethnicity. The sample included white (27.1%),

ispanic (37.1%), African American (13.9%), Asian4.7%), and mixed-ethnicity (17.2%) children. Race/thnicity was included as a covariate in all analysessing dummy variables for the Hispanic, Africanmerican, Asian, and mixed groups, assigning indi-iduals of white ethnicity to the reference group.

Socioeconomic status. Socioeconomic status (SES) wasssessed with the Hollingshead’s Four-Factor IndexHollingshead AB, unpublished manuscript, 1975). Us-
ng caregivers’ self-reported education, occupation,


a.aCg(

0


and income levels. The sample had an average SES of42.36 (SD � 12.09), ranging from 14.00 to 66.00.

Statistical AnalysisAs the current analyses use a community-based twinsample, individual assessments were clustered withinfamilies, which violated assumptions of statistical in-dependence. A multilevel modeling approach usingSPSS47 was used to account for nonindependencebetween children in the same family. Specifically,participants were identified by their own personal IDand by the family ID they shared with their cotwins.By incorporating the family ID as a random effect, thevariance in aggression can be decomposed into vari-ance attributable to differences between individuals,and variance due to differences between families, thelatter of which are accounted for by the randomeffect.48 The multilevel approach thus accounts for theclustered data and allows the model to produce accu-rate standard errors and significance tests.49 Althoughwe did not specify different variance components (i.e.,random effects) for identical and fraternal twins incurrent analyses, when analyses were repeated allow-ing for zygosity differences in variance components,results (available from the senior author) were virtu-ally identical and significance levels for parameterswere unchanged.

Four hierarchical models were specified for reactiveand proactive aggression, respectively. Model 1 was anunconditional means model estimating between-indi-vidual and between-family variation. Model 2 addedcovariates. Model 3 added main effects of CPS andparental affect (POS and NEG). Interactions betweenCPS and parental affect were examined in Model 4(i.e., CPS*POS, CPS*NEG). Two-way interactions withgender and three-way interactions among gender,CPS, and parental affect were tested. However, as nosignificant interaction effects with gender were found,they are not reported in the present study. Given that

TABLE 1 Means, SD, and Intercorrelations Among the M

Pre

1. CPS 2

1. CPS – �0.12. POS �0.14*** –3. NEG 0.16*** �0.24. Reactive 0.13** �0.15. Proactive 0.17*** �0.1Mean (SD), males N � 562 1.26 (0.13) 3.8Mean (SD), females N � 596 1.22 (0.12) 3.9

Note: Data for males are above the diagonal, and data for females arePsychopathy Scale; NEG � parental negative; POS � parental positi

*p � .05, **p � .01, ***p � .001.



reactive and proactive aggression were moderatelycorrelated (see below), models for reactive aggressioncontrolled for proactive aggression, and vice versa. Forinterpretation purposes, all variables were standard-ized. Models were compared using change in loglikelihood (�2LL) statistics, which follow a �2 distri-bution. A significant decrease in �2LL indicates thatthe test model is an improvement over the previousmodel. Significant interaction effects were plotted andinterpreted using methods outlined by Preacher et al.50

RESULTSMissing data were processed with listwise dele-tion, resulting in a value of N � 1,158 (95.7% ofsample). Means and Pearson correlations amongmain study variables are presented in Table 1,separately by gender. To facilitate comparisonwith other samples, raw means and standarddeviations (SD) are given. ANOVA adjusting forthe correlated data revealed significant genderdifference in four of five measures. Boys hadhigher scores on CPS (F1,1156 � 29.44, p � .001),reactive aggression (F1,1156 � 8.13, p � .01), andproactive aggression (F1,1156 � 19.12, p � .001),nd lower scores on POS (F1,1156 � 11.75, p �

001). The correlation between reactive and pro-ctive aggression was r � 0.50 in both genders.orrelations between CPS and measures of ag-ression were significant for both boys and girlsr � 0.13 to 0.19) Correlations with reactive and

proactive aggression were negative for POS (r ��0.07 to �0.18), but positive for NEG (r � 0.22 to.29). All correlations were significant (p � .05)

except for trend-level associations between POSand NEG (r � �0.08, p � .052) and POS andreactive aggression (r � �0.07, p � .08) in males.

Study Variables

rs Outcomes

3. NEG 4. Reactive 5. Proactive

0.18*** 0.18*** 0.19***�0.08 �0.07 �0.18***

– 0.22*** 0.25***0.29*** – 0.50***0.29*** 0.50*** –

0) 2.25 (0.73) 1.66 (0.34) 1.09 (0.17)8) 2.19 (0.75) 1.61 (0.32) 1.06 (0.12)

the diagonal. Descriptive statistics are given for raw data. CPS � Childactive � proactive aggression; Reactive � reactive aggression.

ain

dicto

. POS

0*

0***3***8***0 (0.62 (0.5

belowve; Pro

1057www.jaacap.org

aIs

mt

p

n0�a

YEH et al.

Reactive AggressionResults for reactive aggression are shown inTable 2. Findings from Model 1 revealed statis-tically significant variability in measures ofreactive aggression between individuals (�2 �0.73, p � .001) and between families (�00 � 0.27,p � .001), supporting the use of multilevelmodeling to correct for sample nonindepen-dence. Model 2, which included covariates andproactive aggression, had a significantly betterfit than Model 1 (Table 2). In comparison towhite participants, Hispanic, Asian, andmixed-ethnicity participants reported lowerlevels of reactive aggression. Proactive aggres-sion was significantly and positively related toreactive aggression. SES and gender were notassociated with reactive aggression. Model 3had a significantly better fit than Model 2.Findings indicated a significantly positive maineffect of NEG (� � 0.13, SE � 0.03, p � .001)and a trend-level positive main effect of CPS(� � 0.05, SE � 0.03, p � .07). The main effectof POS was not significant (� � �0.03, SE �

TABLE 2 Multilevel Regression Predicting Reactive AggreNegative Affect

Model 1 M

B SE B

Fixed effectIntercept �0.00 0.03 0.16*SES 0.00Hispanic �0.28**African American �0.07Asian �0.54**Mixed �0.24**Male 0.05Proactive Aggression 0.50**CPSPositive affectNegative affectCPS � positive affectCPS � negative affect

Random effectResidual 0.73*** 0.04 0.55**Intercept 0.27*** 0.04 0.17**

Model fit�2LL 3,241.607 2,86��2LL 37�df

Note: CPS � Child Psychopathy Scale; SES � socioeconomic status.*p � .05, **p � .01, ***p � .001.

0.03, p � .32). Interaction effects between CPS w

JOURN

1058 www.jaacap.org

nd parental affect were examined in Model 4.n comparison to Model 3, Model 4 had aignificantly better fit (��2 � 18.68, �df � 2,

p � .001). Interaction effects between botheasures of parental affect and CPS were sta-

istically significant (CPS*POS: � � 0.08, SE �0.03, p � .01; CPS*NEG: � � �0.07, SE � 0.02,

� .01).To explore the significant interactions between

CPS and parental affect, we plotted relationshipsbetween parental affect and reactive aggression as afunction of different levels of CPS. The simpleslopes of POS and NEG on reactive aggressionwere estimated at a low level of CPS (i.e., 1 SDbelow the mean), the mean level of CPS, and a highlevel of CPS (i.e., 1 SD above the mean). A signifi-cantly negative association between POS and reac-tive aggression was found for individuals with thelow level of CPS (� � �0.11, SE � 0.04, p � .01) but

ot for individuals with the mean (� � �0.03, SE �.03, p � .28) or high levels (� � 0.05, SE � 0.04, p

.14) of CPS (Figure 1). Similarly, the positivessociation between NEG and reactive aggression

by Child Psychopathic Traits and Parental Positive and

2 Model 3 Model 4

SE B SE B SE

0.06 0.18** 0.06 0.20*** 0.060.00 0.01* 0.00 0.01* 0.000.09 �0.29*** 0.08 �0.29*** 0.080.10 �0.10 0.09 �0.09 0.090.14 �0.54*** 0.14 �0.57*** 0.140.09 �0.26** 0.09 �0.26** 0.090.05 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.050.03 0.46*** 0.03 0.47*** 0.03

0.05 0.03 0.05 0.03�0.03 0.03 �0.03 0.03

0.13*** 0.03 0.13*** 0.030.08** 0.03

�0.07** 0.02

0.03 0.53*** 0.03 0.52*** 0.030.03 0.16*** 0.03 0.17*** 0.03

8 2,834.114 2,815.4359*** 34.474*** 18.679***

3 2

ssion

odel

*

*

*

**

8.583.017

as significantly stronger for individuals with the



b

M1lppa


low level of CPS (� � 0.20, SE � 0.04, p � .001) thanindividuals at mean (� � 0.13, SE � 0.03, p � .001)or high (� � 0.07, SE � 0.03, p � .05) levels of CPS(Figure 2).

Proactive AggressionTable 3 presents results for proactive aggression.Variance components from Model 1 revealed

FIGURE 1 Moderating effect of child psychopathic traichild reactive aggression. Note: Reactive aggression hasindividuals with the low level of Child Psychopathy Scaleof CPS.

FIGURE 2 Moderating effect of child psychopathic traichild reactive aggression. Note: Reactive aggression hasthree levels of Child Psychopathy Scale (CPS).



oth between-individual (�2 � 0.75, p � .001) andbetween-family (�00 � 0.25, p � .001) variability.

odel 2 had a significantly better fit than Model(Table 3). Males reported significantly higher

evels of proactive aggression than females. His-anic, African American, and mixed-ethnicityarticipants reported higher levels of proactiveggression than white participants. Reactive ag-

the relationship between parental positive affect andstandardized. Simple slopes were significant for

) but not for individuals with the mean and high levels

the relationship between parental negative affect andstandardized. Simple slopes were significant across all

ts onbeen(CPS

ts onbeen

1059www.jaacap.org

utilcdd

YEH et al.

gression was significantly and positively associ-ated with proactive aggression. The effect of SESwas not significant. Model 3 showed significantlypositive main effects for CPS (� � 0.07, SE � 0.03,p � .05) and NEG (� � 0.10, SE � 0.03, p � .001),and significantly negative main effects for POS(� � �0.10, SE � 0.03, p � .001). Model 4, addinginteraction effects between CPS and parentalaffect, had a significantly better fit than Model 3(��2 � 21.39, �df � 2, p � .001), with a significantinteraction effect between CPS and NEG (� �0.11, SE � 0.02, p � .001). Figure 3 shows thatNEG had significantly positive associations withproactive aggression at mean (� � 0.09, SE �0.03, p � .001) and high levels (� � 0.20, SE �0.03, p � .001) of CPS, but not at low levels of CPS(� � �0.02, SE � 0.04, p � .64).

DISCUSSIONThe present study examined whether psycho-pathic traits in children moderate the typicallyrobust relationships between positive and nega-

TABLE 3 Multilevel Regression Predicting Proactive Aggrand Negative Affect

Model 1 M

B SE B

Fixed effectIntercept 0.00 0.03 �0.24**SES �0.01Hispanic 0.21*African American 0.25**Asian 0.20Mixed 0.23**Male 0.16**Reactive aggression 0.51**CPSPositive affectNegative affectCPS � positive affectCPS � negative affect

Random effectResidual 0.75*** 0.04 0.56**Intercept 0.25*** 0.04 0.16**

Model fit�2LL 3,249.295 2,87��2LL 37�df

Note: CPS � Child Psychopathy Scale; SES � socioeconomic status.*p � .05, **p � .01, ***p � .001.

tive parenting with child reactive and proactive c

JOURN

1060 www.jaacap.org

aggression. Independently, both childhood psy-chopathic traits and negative parental affect werepositively correlated with aggression, whereaspositive parental affect inversely correlated withaggression. However, as expected we found thatlevel of child psychopathic traits significantlymoderated the relationships between parentalaffect and aggression.

For reactive aggression, the association be-tween parental negative affect and aggressionwas stronger for children with average or below-average levels of psychopathic traits. These re-sults are consistent with prior studies showingthat children high on psychopathic traits are lessresponsive to harsh and inconsistent disciplinestrategies.13,15,16 Because most prior studies have

sed clinically based samples, our replication ofhese results in a large, community-based samplendicates that the same mechanisms may under-ie individual differences in aggression and psy-hopathic traits across a continuum of clinicallyisordered and nondisordered behaviors. In ad-ition, the present study was the first to specifi-

n by Child Psychopathic Traits, and Parental Positive

2 Model 3 Model 4

SE B SE B SE

0.06 �0.20** 0.06 �0.22*** 0.060.00 �0.00 0.00 �0.00 0.000.09 0.18* 0.08 0.18* 0.080.09 0.23* 0.09 0.21* 0.090.14 0.16 0.14 0.20 0.140.09 0.19* 0.09 0.20* 0.080.05 0.12* 0.05 0.12* 0.050.03 0.46*** 0.03 0.46*** 0.03

0.07* 0.03 0.06* 0.03�0.10*** 0.03 �0.10*** 0.03

0.10*** 0.03 0.09*** 0.03�0.02 0.03

0.11*** 0.02

0.03 0.55*** 0.03 0.53*** 0.030.03 0.15*** 0.03 0.15*** 0.03

2 2,834.101 2,812.7093*** 43.301*** 21.392***

3 2

essio

odel

*

*

**

7.401.897

ally examine whether child psychopathic traits




significantly moderated the protective effects ofpositive parenting on aggression. As hypothe-sized, levels of reactive aggression among chil-dren low on psychopathic traits decreased withincreasing positive parental affect, consistentwith a large body of literature on family pro-cesses.19,20,23 In the presence of elevated psycho-pathic traits, however, positive parenting did notconfer the same protective effects; children highon these traits had more similar levels of reactiveaggression, regardless of how much positive par-enting they reported.

Etiological theories of psychopathy posit that alack of sensitivity to punishment cues and aver-sive stimuli facilitate the development of antiso-cial behavior in youth with psychopathic traits.Our finding that psychopathic traits also inter-acted with positive parental affect implies thatyouth with psychopathic traits may be less af-fected by emotional cues in general, and notsimply negative or punishment situations. This isconsistent with the widely held belief that abnormalsemantic and affective processing and functioning isat the center of the psychopathy construct.24 A grow-ing body of research demonstrates that psychopathicindividuals have difficulty processing emotionalstimuli. For example, psychopathic individuals per-form more poorly than nonpsychopathic individ-uals on tasks determining whether a string of

FIGURE 3 Moderating effect of child psychopathic traichild proactive aggression. Note: Proactive aggression haindividuals with the mean and high levels of Child Psychoof CPS.

letters is a word or a nonword, but only when the



words are affectively valenced,51,52 and event-related potential (ERP) activity in response toeither positively or negatively affect-laden wordsis lower in psychopathic individuals than normalparticipants. Studies using facial expression stim-uli demonstrate that psychopathic individualshave difficulty identifying both positive and neg-ative emotions, and are less physiologically re-sponsive to affect-laden cues.53,54

Neuroscience studies show deficits in neuralcircuitry surrounding emotion recognition andregulation in psychopaths. Results from startle–blink studies indicate that psychopathic individ-uals show deviant response patterns to bothpleasant and unpleasant affective stimuli.55-57 Incomparison to nonpsychopathic individuals,psychopathic individuals are more likely to ex-hibit abnormal brain activation patterns whileviewing facial expressions or affectively valencedpictures.53,58,59 Although these studies have beenperformed primarily with adult populations, theresults of the present study may suggest thatdeficits in neural processing of both positive andnegative emotions associated with psychopathybegin in childhood. If children with psychopathictraits have difficulty discerning emotions and arenot neurologically primed to interpret and useaffective cues in the same way that nonpsycho-pathic individuals are, it is logical that reactive

the relationship between parental negative affect anden standardized. Simple slopes were significant fory Scale (CPS) but not for individuals with the low level

ts ons bepath

aggression, which is triggered by inappropriate

1061www.jaacap.org

YEH et al.

affective response to social stimuli, is largelyunaffected by variations in either parentalwarmth/affection or parental coldness/criticism.

In contrast to results for reactive aggression,the present study found that parental negativeaffect had a stronger association with proactiveaggression for children high on psychopathictraits. Moreover, there was no interaction be-tween child psychopathic traits and parental pos-itive affect for proactive aggression. Although wenote that at least one prior study has reportedincreased sensitivity to harsh/inconsistent par-enting among children high on psychopathy,17

our results regarding the interaction betweenchild psychopathic traits and negative affect forproactive aggression are in contrast to the major-ity of prior studies,13,15,16 and are also in theopposite direction of our results for reactiveaggression. As such, we cannot rule out thepossibility of a stochastic effect, especially giventhe low prevalence of proactive aggression in thiscommunity-based sample of preadolescents.However, the dissimilar pattern of results mayalso be related to etiological differences inthese two forms of aggression. Theoreticalwork distinguishing proactive and reactive ag-gression29 suggests that reactive aggressionoriginates from the frustration–aggressionmodel,60 whereas proactive aggression arisesprimarily through mechanisms based on sociallearning theory.61 It is not unreasonable to hy-pothesize that caregivers who demonstrate higherlevels of negative affect are more likely to modelaggressive behavior. As proactive aggression maybe a learned behavior, it is possible that childrenhigh on psychopathic traits have a greater likeli-hood to model aggressive behavior than childrenlow on psychopathic traits, resulting in higherlevels of proactive aggression. Nevertheless, thedifferent patterns of interactions between childpsychopathic traits and parenting for differentforms of aggressive behavior should be interpretedwith caution; and our results, especially for proac-tive aggression, need to be replicated in othersamples.

There are several limitations to this study.First, as expected,62,63 regression coefficients forinteractions between parental affect and childpsychopathic traits were small. However, theimpact of these interactions was relatively large.For example, when examining differences in pro-active aggression as a function of both negative
parental affect and child psychopathic traits (Fig-
JOURN

1062 www.jaacap.org

ure 3), there is little difference (�0.20 SD) inaggression across groups when levels of negativeaffect are low. When levels of negative affect arehigh, however, there is a difference in aggressionof �0.90 SD units for children at low versus highlevels of psychopathic traits. Second, participantsfell within a narrow age range, allowing us todraw specific conclusions about associations ofparenting, child psychopathic traits, and aggres-sion in preadolescent children, but limiting gen-eralizability to other ages. Third, data were cross-sectional and do not speak to developmentalprocesses over time. Longitudinal data areneeded to definitively establish causality be-tween parental affect, child psychopathic traits,and aggression. Fourth, we have shown in priorpublications using this sample that aggressionand child psychopathic traits are influenced byboth genetic and environmental factors.64,65

Whether genetic and environmental factors dif-ferentially influence associations between parent-ing and aggression for children high and low onpsychopathic traits has yet to be explored. Fi-nally, although this study is the first to investi-gate interactions between child psychopathictraits and both positive and negative parentalaffect, only one dimension of positive parentingwas examined. Future work should explore in-teractions with other dimensions of positive par-enting (e.g., parental involvement). We intention-ally focused on negative affect, rather than acomposite measure of parental affect and behav-ior (e.g., harsh/inconsistent parenting). Our neg-ative affect measure consisted of five items, andscale reliability was low. Although this couldhave introduced bias into our results, the inter-action between negative affect and child psycho-pathic traits was in the expected direction forreactive aggression, and correlations betweennegative affect and other predictor variableswere consistent with prior research. Neverthe-less, future studies with different measures coulddetermine whether interactions between childpsychopathic traits and negative parenting aremore strongly driven by affectional or behavioralaspects of parenting.

This is the first study in juvenile psychopathyto examine associations among parental affect,child psychopathic traits, and aggression in alarge, community-based sample, using measuresof both positive and negative parental affect. The
bioecological model proposed by Bronfen-



brenner and Ceci emphasizes the role of proxi-mal processes (i.e., the ways in which childreninteract with their environment) in development,but also predicts that the magnitude of associa-tions between proximal processes and child out-comes may vary for children with different indi-vidual characteristics.66 Thus, different parentingstyles may result in similar outcomes for differ-ent children, and different children may responddifferently to the same parenting style. Our find-ings provide support for this hypothesis, show-ing that parents’ expressions of both positive andnegative affect are less strongly associated withreactive aggression for children high on psycho-pathic traits, although these patterns were notfound for proactive aggression. Our results sug-gest that clinicians working with certain typesof behavioral problems in children with psy-chopathic traits need to consider not only al-tering parent– child dynamics, but may alsoneed to help children develop more appropri-ate recognition and response to social and
emotional stimuli. &
of callous-unemotional traits. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1997;65:301-308.



Accepted June 28, 2011.

Drs. Yeh, Chen, and Jacobson are with the University of Chicago. Dr.Baker is with the University of Southern California. Dr. Raine is with theUniversity of Pennsylvania.

This study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health(NIMH) grant R01 MH058354 (L.A.B.), which also provided salarysupport for Drs. Yeh, Raine, Baker, and Jacobson. The NationalInstitutes of Health (NIH) Director’s New Innovator Award DP2OD003021 (K.C.J.) partially supported Drs. Chen and Jacobson’swork on this manuscript.

Drs. Baker and Jacobson contributed equally to this article as seniorauthors. Dr. Yeh completed this work while she was a postdoctoralstudent at the University of Chicago, under the direction of Dr.Jacobson.

The authors thank the staff and students of the University of SouthernCalifornia (USC) Twin Study for their assistance in data collection andscoring. We are also grateful to the families in the USC Twin Study forparticipating in this research.

Disclosure: Drs. Yeh, Chen, Raine, Baker, and Jacobson report nobiomedical financial interests or potential conflicts of interest.

Correspondence to Dr. Kristen C. Jacobson, Department ofPsychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Chicago,5841 S Maryland Avenue, L-466B, Chicago, IL 60637; e-mail:[email protected]

0890-8567/$36.00/©2011 American Academy of Child andAdolescent Psychiatry

DOI: 10.1016/j.jaac.2011.06.013

REFERENCES1. Fowles DC. Electrodermal hyporeactivity and antisocial behavior:

does anxiety mediate the relationship? J Affect Disord. 2000;61:177-189.

2. Fung MT, Raine A, Loeber R, et al. Reduced electrodermal activityin psychopathy-prone adolescents. J Abnorm Psychol. 2005;114:187-196.

3. Glenn AL, Raine A, Venables PH, Mednick SA. Early tempera-mental and psychophysiological precursors of adult psychopathicpersonality. J Abnorm Psychol. 2007;116:508-518.

4. Hare RD. Psychopathy and sensitivity to adrenaline. J AbnormPsychol. 1972;79:138-147.

5. Siddle DAT, Trasler GB. The psychophysiology of psychopathicbehavior. In: Christie MJ, Mellett PG, eds. Foundations of Psy-chosomatics. New York, NY: Wiley; 1981:283-301.

6. Fisher L, Blair RJ. Cognitive impairment and its relationship topsychopathic tendencies in children with emotional and behav-ioral difficulties. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 1998;26:511-519.

7. O’Brien BS, Frick PJ. Reward dominance: associations with anx-iety, conduct problems, and psychopathy in children. J AbnormChild Psychol. 1996;24:223-240.

8. Kimonis ER, Frick PJ, Fazekas H, Loney BR. Psychopathy, aggres-sion, and the processing of emotional stimuli in non-referred girlsand boys. Behav Sci Law. 2006;24:21-37.

9. Blair RJR. Responsiveness to distress cues in the child withpsychopathic tendencies. Pers Individ Diff. 1999;27:135-145.

10. Pardini DA, Lochman JE, Frick PJ. Callous/unemotional traitsand social-cognitive processes in adjudicated youths. J Am AcadChild Adolesc Psychiatry. 2003;42:364-371.

11. Gretton HM, McBride M, Hare RD, O’Shaughnessy R, Kumka G.Psychopathy and recidivism in adolescent sex offenders. CrimJust Behav. 2011;28:427-449.

12. Frick PJ, Stickle TR, Dandreaux DM, Farrell JM, Kimonis ER.Callous-unemotional traits in predicting the severity and stabilityof conduct problems and delinquency. J Abnorm Child Psychol.2005;33:471-487.

13. Wootton JM, Frick PJ, Shelton KK, Silverthorn P. Ineffectiveparenting and childhood conduct problems: the moderating role

14. Frick PJ, Hare RD. Manual for the Antisocial Process ScreeningDevice. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems; 2001.

15. Oxford M, Cavell TA, Hughes JN. Callous/unemotional traitsmoderate the relation between ineffective parenting and childexternalizing problems: a partial replication and extension. J ClinChild Adolesc Psychol. 2003;32:577-585.

16. Hipwell AE, Pardini DA, Loeber R, Sembower M, Keenan K,Stouthamer-Loeber M. Callous-unemotional behaviors in younggirls: shared and unique effects relative to conduct problems. JClin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2007;36:293-304.

17. Edens JF, Skopp NA, Cahill MA. Psychopathic features moderatethe relationship between harsh and inconsistent parental disci-pline and adolescent antisocial behavior. J Clin Child AdolescPsychol. 2008;37:472-476.

18. Forth AE, Kosson DS, Hare RD. Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Youth Version. Toronto, ON, Canada: Multi-Health Systems;2003.

19. Barnes GM, Farrell MP, Cairns A. Parental socialization factorsand adolescent drinking behaviors. J Marriage Fam. 1986;48:27-36.

20. Conger RD, Rueter MR, Conger KJ. The family context of adoles-cent vulnerability and resilience to alcohol use and abuse. SociolStud Child. 1994;6:55-86.

21. Jaccard J, Dittus PJ, Gordon VV. Maternal correlates of adolescentsexual and contraceptive behavior. Fam Plann Perspect. 1996;28:159-165, 185.

22. Resnick MD, Bearman PS, Blum RW, et al. Protecting adolescentsfrom harm. Findings from the National Longitudinal Study onAdolescent Health. JAMA. 1997;278:823-832.

23. Scaramella LV, Conger RD, Simons RL. Parental protective influ-ences and gender-specific increases in adolescent internalizingand externalizing problems. J Res Adolescence. 1999;9:111-141.

24. Cleckley H. The Mask of Sanity, 5th ed. St Louis, MO: Mosby;1976.

25. Dodge KA, Coie JD. Social-information-processing factors inreactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. J PersSoc Psychol. 1987;53:1146-1158.

26. Little TD, Jones SM, Henrich CC, Hawley PH. Disentangling the
“whys” from the “whats” of aggressive behaviour. Int J BehavDev. 2003;27:122-133.
1063www.jaacap.org

mailto:[email protected]

YEH et al.

27. Poulin F, Boivin M. Reactive and proactive aggression: evidenceof a two-factor model. Psychol Assess. 2000;12:115-122.

28. Vitaro F, Gendreau PL, Tremblay RE, Oligny P. Reactive andproactive aggression differentially predict later conduct prob-lems. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1998;39:377-385.

29. Dodge KA. The structure and function of reactive and proactiveaggression. In: Peppler D, Rubin K, eds. The Development andTreatment of Childhood Aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum;1991:201-218.

30. Dodge KA, Bates JE, Pettit GS. Mechanisms in the cycle ofviolence. Science. 1990;250:1678-1683.

31. Dodge KA, Lochman JE, Harnish JD, Bates JE, Pettit GS. Reactiveand proactive aggression in school children and psychiatricallyimpaired chronically assaultive youth. J Abnorm Psychol. 1997;106:37-51.

32. Strassberg Z, Dodge KA, Pettit G, Bates JE. Spanking in the homeand children’s subsequent aggression toward kindergarten peers.Dev Psychopathol. 1994;6:445-461.

33. Xu Y, Farver JA, Zhang Z. Temperament, harsh and indulgentparenting, and Chinese children’s proactive and reactive aggres-sion. Child Dev. 2009;80:244-258.

34. Vitaro F, Brendgen M, Tremblay RE. Reactively and proactivelyaggressive children: antecedent and subsequent characteristics. JChild Psychol Psychiatry. 2002;43:495-505.

35. Ortiz MÁC, Gándara VdB. Study on the relations betweentemperament, aggression, and anger in children. Aggress Behav.2006;32:207-215.

36. Hubbard JA, Smithmyer CM, Ramsden SR, et al. Observational,physiological, and self-report measures of children’s anger: rela-tions to reactive versus proactive aggression. Child Dev. 2002;73:1101-1118.

37. Pitts TB. Reduced heart rate levels in aggressive children. Bioso-cial Bases of Violence. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1997:317-320.

38. Frick PJ, Cornell AH, Barry CT, Bodin SD, Dane HE. Callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in the prediction ofconduct problem severity, aggression, and self-report of delin-quency. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2003;31:457-470.

39. Baker LA, Barton M, Lozano DI, Raine A, Fowler JH. TheSouthern California Twin Register at the University of SouthernCalifornia: II. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2006;9:933-940.

40. Raine A, Dodge K, Loeber R, et al. The Reactive-ProactiveAggression Questionnaire: Differential Correlates of Reactive andProactive Aggression in Adolescent Boys. Aggress Behav. 2006;32:159-171.

41. Fossati A, Raine A, Borroni S, et al. A cross-cultural study of thepsychometric properties of the Reactive–Proactive AggressionQuestionnaire among Italian nonclinical adolescents. PsycholAssess. 2009;21:131-135.

42. Fung ALC, Raine A, Gao Y. Cross cultural generalizability of theReactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire (RPQ). J PersonalAssess. 2009;91:473-479.

43. Cima M, Raine A. Distinct characteristics of psychopathy relate todifferent subtypes of aggression. Pers Individ Diff. 2009;47:835-840.

44. Lynam DR, Gudonis L. The development of psychopathy. AnnuRev Clin Psychol. 2005;1:381-407.

45. Hetherington EM, Clingempeel WG, Anderson ER, et al. Copingwith Marital Transitions: a Family Systems Perspective. Mono-graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 1992;57:1-14.

46. Reiss D, Plomin R, Hetherington EM, et al. The separate worlds ofteenage siblings: an introduction to the study of the nonshared
environment and adolescent development. In: Hetherington EM,Reiss D, Plomin R, eds. Separate Social Worlds of Siblings: the
JOURN

1064 www.jaacap.org

Impact of Nonshared Environment on Development. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum;1994:63-109.

47. Peugh JL, Enders CK. Using the SPSS Mixed Procedure to FitCross-Sectional and Longitudinal Multilevel Models. Educ Psy-chol Meas. 2005;65:717.

48. Teachman J, Crowder K. Multilevel models in family research:some conceptual and methodological issues. J Marriage Fam.2002;64:280-294.

49. Papp LM. Capturing the interplay among within- and between-person processes using multilevel modeling techniques. ApplPrev Psychol. 2004;11:115-124.

50. Preacher KJ, Curran PJ, Bauer DJ. Computational tools for prob-ing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevelmodeling, and latent curve analysis. J Educ Behav Stat. 2006;31:437-448.

51. Lorenz AR, Newman JP. Deficient response modulation andemotion processing in low-anxious Caucasian psychopathic of-fenders: results from a lexical decision task. Emotion. 2002;2:91-104.

52. Williamson S, Harpur TJ, Hare RD. Abnormal processing ofaffective words by psychopaths. Psychophysiology. 1991;28:260-273.

53. Deeley Q, Daly E, Surguladze S, et al. Facial emotion processing incriminal psychopathy. Preliminary functional magnetic reso-nance imaging study. Br J Psychiatry. 2006;189:533-539.

54. Hastings ME, Tangney JP, Stuewig J. Psychopathy and identifi-cation of facial expressions of emotion. Personal Individual Diff.2008;44:1474-1483.

55. Patrick CJ, Bradley MM, Lang PJ. Emotion in the criminalpsychopath: startle reflex modulation. J Abnorm Psychol. 1993;102:82-92.

56. Herpertz SC, Werth U, Lukas G, et al. Emotion in criminaloffenders with psychopathy and borderline personality disorder.Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58:737-745.

57. Levenston GK, Patrick CJ, Bradley MM, Lang PJ. The psychopathas observer: emotion and attention in picture processing. J Ab-norm Psychol. 2000;109:373-385.

58. Muller JL, Sommer M, Wagner V, et al. Abnormalities in emotionprocessing within cortical and subcortical regions in criminalpsychopaths: evidence from a functional magnetic resonanceimaging study using pictures with emotional content. Biol Psy-chiatry. 2003;54:152-162.

59. Gordon HL, Baird AA, End A. Functional differences amongthose high and low on a trait measure of psychopathy. BiolPsychiatry. 2004;56:516-521.

60. Berkowitz L. Aggression: a Social Psychological Analysis: NewYork, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1962.

61. Bandura A. Aggression: a Social Learning Analysis: Oxford,England: Prentice-Hall; 1973.

62. Frazier PA, Tix AP, Barron KE. Testing moderator and mediatoreffects in counseling psychology research. J Counsel Psychol.2004;51:115-134.

63. McClelland GH, Judd CM. Statistical difficulties of detectinginteractions and moderator effects. Psychol Bull. 1993;114:376-390.

64. Bezdjian S, Raine A, Baker LA, Lynam DR. Psychopathic person-ality in children: genetic and environmental contributions. Psy-chol Med. 2011;41:589-600.

65. Baker LA, Raine A, Liu J, Jacobson KC. Differential genetic andenvironmental influences on reactive and proactive aggression inchildren. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2008;36:1265-1278.

66. Bronfenbrenner U, Ceci SJ. Nature-nurture reconceptualized in
developmental perspective: a bioecological model. Psychol Rev.1994;101:568-586.


child psychopathic traits moderate relationships between parental affect and child aggression

Documents