CU traits Flashcards
what do CU traits refer to?
• CU traits refer to a specific affective (e.g. Absence of guilt, constricted display of emotion) and interpersonal (e.g., failure to show empathy, use of others for one’s own gain).
what are children with CU traits at higher risk of showing?
- Antisocial youth who show CU traits have been shown to exhibit a greater variety and severity of crimes than other youth with conduct problems (Lynam, 1997).
- Children with CU traits and conduct problems - at risk for showing higher levels of aggression, especially proactive aggression and self-reported delinquency. (Frick et al., 2003)
what are CU traits a construct of and what does this help in doing?
• CU traits are a construct of psychopathy used to diagnose children.
CD and CU traits connection study
About 12 to 46% of youth with CD show significant CU traits- Fanti 2013
how has DSM-V consolidated the connection between CU traits and CD?
the, DSM-5 has consolidated this connection between CD and physcopathy, considering the callous unemotional (CU) traits as the LPE specifier for the CD. This specifier, defining a specific subtype of patients with CD, includes symptoms such as lack of remorse or guilt, callous lack of empathy, lack of concern about performance, and shallow or deficient affect.
according to Frick what does the presence of CU traits in children indicate
The presence of CU traits in children and adolescents with CD defines a subclass of children characterized by a poorer adolescence outcome both in clinical and control samples [Frick et al., 2014], with increased risk for developing psychopathy in adulthood, with severe and persistent antisocial behaviour [Frick PJ, Viding 2009].
what is the problem with CU traits
the stability of CU traits is not well established, as not all the children presenting these characteristics at the first evaluation will continue to show them across childhood, and until early adolescence Dadds (2005)
risk factors of CU traits
fearlessness theory
genetic
what do youth with CU traits show abnormalities in processing
In their extensive review Frick et al. [2008] pointed out that youth with CU traits show abnormalities in the processing of punishment cues and in the affective empathy.
Also clear meta analytic evidence that high CU traits are associated with recognising other people’s emotions Dadds et al., 2006- Attention to the eyes and fear-recognition deficits- this inability to recognise facial emotion has been shown in those with antisocial personality disorder (Palamero et al., 2012)
what is the fearlessness theory of CU traits
Fearlessness theory suggests that low amounts of cortisol lead to underarousal, causing impairments in fear processing, a trait seen in CU individuals (Dadds et al., 2009)
genetics and CU traits
Frick et al., 2014- reviewed 9 publications about the heritability of CU traits
Found that genetically accounted variations of CU traits ranged from 42% to 68% and that a great part.
twin studies and CU traits
Twin studies have found CU traits to be highly heritable, and not significantly related to environmental factors such as socioeconomic status, school quality, or parent quality.( Frick and White 2008)
talk about genetic variation of CU traits in conduct disorder
Viding et al., 2005 sample of 7 year old twins. Selected twins high on conduct problems and further divided them into those who were high and low on CU traits. Overall heritability for the high conduct problem group was substantial. LARGE DIFFERENCES between heritability estimate of high CU traits (.81) and low CU traits (.30)
Viding et al., 2007 found same results with same group 2 yrs later.
Interestingly Viding et al., 2005 also found that influence of shared environment was substantial for the group low on CU traits but negligible for the group high on CU traits.
SUGGESTS THAT THEY MAY BE DIFFERENT CONDITIONS
what do Frick and White argue about CU traits
FRICK & WHITE 2008
-argue that use of CU traits (ie their presence or absence)- has great great potential for explaining the causes of the most severe and aggressive patterns of antisocial behavior displayed by youth and that use of these traits to subtype antisocial youth could help to integrate many of the past attempts for defining distinct groups of antisocial youth.
what is there debate over in psychpathy in adult samples
t how many dimensions best capture the construct of psychopathy in adult samples
which 3 dimensions consistently emerge regarding psychopathy
one which includes CU traits labelled as affective factor (Hare 1993) other 2 dimensions include a) arrogant and deceitful interpersonal style involving a narcissistic view of one’s self and conning and manipulative behaviour and b) an impulsive and irresponsible behavioural style involving poorly planned behaviour and proneness to boredom.
link 3 dimensions of psychopathy to CU traits
When the various traits associated with psychopathy are studied in youth, 3 similar dimensions often emerge when using ratings of these traits in preadolescent children from teachers (Frick, Boudin and Barry 2000) and parents (Kotler and McMahon 2005).
support for other dimention rather than CU traits
Argument that other dimensions other than CU traits that are most important for subtyping youth with conduct problems such as the one proposed by Lynam (1996) that focuses on the impulsive and irresponsible dimension as being most critical- support for this comes from evidence that many the impulsive and irresponsible dimension often show the strongest and most consistent correlations with measures of conduct problems, delinquency and other antisocial indices associated with psychopathy (Frick et al., 2000; Kotler & McMahon, 2005; Lynam, 1998).
why is it better to use CT traits to subtype a group of antisocial youth compared to other potential dimensions
For a construct to be important for subtyping within antisocial individuals, it also needs to show important areas of independence from general measures of antisocial behaviour. Ie. if a dimension accounts for the same variance in predicting important external criteria as general antisocial behaviour then the incremental utility of this dimension is limited and unlikely to designate a distinct group within antisocial individuals.
adult samples it is the CU dimension that seems to be most specific to individuals high on psychopathic traits compared to anti-social individuals (Cooke and Michie, 1997)
-some evidence that this may be true for youth e.g. in a sample of detained adolescents, CU trait were higher in violent sex offenders compared to other violent offenders whereas other dimensions of psychopathy did not vary across the cohort (Frick et al., 1999).
who raised the issue regarding stability of CU traits?
• Issue has been raised over whether CU traits are stable enough in children/ adolescents to warrant the designation of ‘traits’ that implies some level of stability (edens et al., 2001).
support for stability of CU traits being not well established
- Lochman et al., 2016, Dadds et al., 2005 - stability of CU traits not well established, as not all the children presenting these characteristics at the first evaluation will continue to show them across childhood, and until early adolescence
- Frick et al., 2003 reported that despite the high level of stability in these traits across their 4 year study period, there were a significant number of youth who decreased their level of CU traits over the course of the study. Further this decrease in the level of decrease of CU traits was related to the level of conduct problems displayed by the child, the SES of the child’s parents, and the quality of parenting the child received. This CU traits do appear to be at least somewhat malleable and seem to be influenced by factors in the childs psychosocial environment.
support for stability of CU traits childhood–> adolescence
- Number of studies now show that these traits are relatively stable from late childhood to early adolescence- assessed by self-report (Munoz and Frick, 2007) or by parental report (Frick et al., 2003).
- Over an even longer follow-up period, Long et al., 2007 also reported relatively high rates of stability for parent and teacher from ages 8-16 again found to be highest in parent ratings.
- Based on these findings there does appear to be relatively high stability in ratings of CU traits from childhood to adolescence.
support for stability of CU traits adolesce–> adulthood
- Findings also from adolescence to adulthood- Kruger et al., 2006 relative stability from 17-24
- Burke et al., 2007 CU traits in clini-referred boys predicted adult measures of psychopathy at ages 18-19.
support that CU traits do designate an important subgroup within antisocial youth
conduct problems and CU traits
CU traits were important for designating a more severe (Christian et al., 1997) and stable (Frick et al , 2005;, Burke et al, 2002) pattern of antisocial behavior within children who showed serious conduct problems.
Violence and CU traits:
CU traits generally showed similar associations to general measures of aggression and violence compared to the other dimensions of psychopathy (Dadds et al., 2005; Frick et al., 2005). As case for conduct CU traits seemed to be important for designating a subgroup of antisocial youth who showed more severe aggression and violence
Frick and White 2008- “suggesting that these traits may be particularly important for designating a unique develop-mental pathway to severe antisocial behavior and aggression
