Poster #70 - Associations Between Peer Victimization and Callous-unemotional Traits: The Role of Parents and Teachers

• In Event: Poster Session 12

Abstract

Introduction: Research has shown that youth with callous-unemotional (CU) traits are at greater risk of future delinquency, aggression, and antisocial behavior (Frick & White, 2008). While CU traits are largely attributed to genetic influences, mounting evidence suggests that environmental factors may play an important role in their presentation (Henry et al., 2015). To date, previous work has mostly examined CU traits and social relationships broadly (e.g., peer functioning; Matlasz et al., 2020), and to a lesser extent, peer victimization (Fung & Raine, 2012). Furthermore, considerable research has focused on associations between youth with CU traits and relationships with parents and teachers (e.g., Crum et al., 2015; Kahn et al., 2016). However, relatively little is known about how parents and teachers may influence the association between peer victimization and CU traits. The present cross-sectional study aims to address this gap in the literature.
Method: The sample consisted of 260 children (51.2% boys; 50.8% Hispanic) in the 3rd through 5th grade from two elementary schools in West South-Central region of the United States. Homeroom teachers (N = 29) reported on youth's callous-unemotional traits and student-teacher conflict. Child-reports were used to assess parental hostility, social support (i.e., parent and teacher), and peer victimization experiences. Multiple regression models were estimated within SAS to investigate concurrent associations between peer victimization and CU traits, considering the moderating roles of parent hostility, parent support, teacher support, and teacher conflict.
Results: Gender was associated with CU traits in the main effects model, such that higher levels were observed among boys. Teacher conflict was also associated with higher levels of CU traits, but this effect was qualified by a significant interaction with peer victimization (see Figure 1). Specifically, peer victimization was positively associated with CU traits only when levels of teacher conflict were low, b = .15, SE = .07, p = .05. At high levels of teacher conflict, levels of CU traits were high and stable, regardless of the effect of peer victimization, b = –.09, SE = .06, p = .16. Teacher support, parent hostility, and parent support were not uniquely related to CU traits, nor did they interact with peer victimization in the prediction of CU traits.
Discussion: Findings from this study are consistent with previous research revealing a link between teacher conflict and CU traits in elementary school-age samples (e.g., Crum et al., 2015). CU traits were high and stable at higher levels of teacher conflict, regardless of peer victimization. Thus, negative teacher interactions may have a particularly detrimental impact on youth’s presentation of CU traits. Interestingly, peer victimization was positively associated with CU traits only at low levels of teacher conflict. It appears that youth who do not experience negative interactions with teachers are more susceptible to the effects of negative interactions with peers. Further research is necessary to examine whether these associations persist over time.

Authors

• Carlos Roryver Sanchez, Texas Tech University
  Presenting Author

• John L Cooley, Texas Tech University