Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Panel
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Topic Area
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Personal Schedule
Sign In
X (Twitter)
Background
Childhood antisocial behavior (AB) includes delinquent and norm-violating acts, such as aggression, theft, and rule-breaking, which are devastating for children’s long-term mental and physical well-being (Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington, & Milne, 2002), and confer staggering financial costs to society (Rivenbark et al., 2017). Callous-unemotional (CU) traits are important for understanding risk for AB. The behavioral features of children high on CU traits include impaired recognition of fear, distress, or sadness in others, reduced sensitivity to the needs of others, and deficient guilt following transgressions (Frick et al., 2014). Robust evidence shows that CU traits predict severe trajectories of AB across development beginning as young as age 3 (Frick et al., 2014; Waller & Hyde, 2018). Thus, CU traits are considered vital for understanding the etiology of AB and for propelling the development of personalized interventions for AB. However, despite definitions of CU traits commonly referring to “a lack of empathy, guilt, and prosociality”, no prior studies have quantified whether CU traits truly represent the “opposite side of the same coin” from empathy, guilt, and prosociality, or whether there are other underlying features of CU traits that could inform theory, measurement, or treatment. Thus, there is critical need for a review of the meaning of CU traits, including associations with its purported underlying features of low empathy, guilt, and prosociality.
Methods
We conducted a quantitative synthesis of the findings from studies that had explored associations between CU traits and empathy, prosociality, or guilt in children and adolescents (M age<18 years old). To identify studies, we conducted searched electronic databases, with independent screening of studies in relation to inclusion criteria (Figure 1). Our study selection resulted in a final pool of 51 studies. We conducted separate meta-analyses exploring associations between CU traits and empathy, guilt, and prosociality. We also explored associations between CU traits and affective versus cognitive empathy. Finally, we examined a “joint model” exploring the total variance in CU traits explained by guilt, prosociality, and guilt.
Results
We found moderate-to-large negative associations between CU traits and empathy (ρ=-.60), CU traits and guilt (ρ=-.29), and CU traits and prosociality (ρ=-.71) (Figure 2). There was no significant difference in the association between CU traits and cognitive versus affective empathy (Figure 2). Overall, 26% of the total variance in CU traits was accounted for by a joint three-level model including effects related to empathy, guilt, and prosociality. Associations were similar among participants based on age of the sample, gender, or severity of AB.
Conclusions
Our discussion will focus on informing theory, conceptualization, and measurement of CU traits. In particular, we focus on whether CU traits can truly be considered the “opposite side of the same coin” from empathy, guilt, and prosociality, and the extent to which findings are impacted by methodological artifacts, including item content and wording. Our findings are critical for informing the next generation of assessments for CU traits and advancing our knowledge of the developmental mechanisms that increase risk for CU traits.
Rebecca Waller, University of Pennsylvania
Presenting Author
Nicholas Wagner, Boston University
Non-Presenting Author
Matthew Barstead, University of Maryland, College Park
Non-Presenting Author
Anni Subar, University of Michigan
Non-Presenting Author
Kelley Kidwell, University of Michigan
Non-Presenting Author
Janet Hyde, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Non-Presenting Author
Luke W. Hyde, University of Michigan
Non-Presenting Author