Table Of ContentJournal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology Copyright ©2003by
2003, Vol.32, No.1,66–80 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Callous–Unemotional Traits, Impulsivity, and Emotional Processing
in Adolescents With Antisocial Behavior Problems
Bryan R. Loney
Department of Psychology, The Florida State University
Paul J. Frick
Department of Psychology, The University of New Orleans
Carl B. Clements, Mesha L. Ellis, and Kimberly Kerlin
Department of Psychology, The University of Alabama
Examinedtheemotionalreactivityofadolescentswithantisocialbehaviorproblems
using a lexical decision paradigm. Evidence from adult forensic samples indicates
thatpsychopathictraitsareassociatedwithabnormalitiesintheprocessingofemo-
tionalstimuli.Inanattempttoextendthesefindingsearlierindevelopment,thisasso-
ciationwastestedinasampleofadolescents(meanage=16.01;SD=1.32)referred
toadiversionprogramfordelinquentbehavior.Emotionalprocessingwasassessed
by comparing recognition time for emotional words, both positive and negative, to
recognition time for nonemotional words. Consistent with adult findings, the cal-
lous–unemotional(CU)dimensionofpsychopathywasassociatedwithslowerreac-
tiontimestonegativewords.Incontrast,problemsofimpulsecontrolwereassociated
with faster recognition times for negative emotional words. These findings suggest
thatdifferentpatternsofemotionalreactivitymaycharacterizedistinctsubgroupsof
youth with antisocial behavior problems.
Psychopathy refers to a constellation of affective stimuli (Hare, 1986, 1994; Lykken, 1957; Patrick,
(e.g.,povertyofemotions,lackofempathy,andguilt), 1994;Patrick,Bradley,&Lang,1993).Thispatternof
interpersonal(e.g.,calloususeofothersforone’sown findingssupportsatheorythatattributespsychopathic
gain),self-referential(e.g.,inflatedsenseofone’sown behaviortounderactivityofaneurobiologicalsystem
importance),andbehavioral(e.g.,impulsivebehavior sensitive to cues of punishment and frustrative non-
and inadequately motivated violence) characteristics reward(Fowles,1980;Fowles,Kochanska,&Murray,
that have proven important in designating a severe, 2000; Lykken, 1995; Quay, 1993). Gray (1987a,
chronic,anddifficult-to-treatgroupofantisocialadults 1987b)positedsuchasystem,thebehavioralinhibition
(Cleckley, 1976; Hare, 1994). As the assessment of system, composed of prefrontal cortex, hippocampal
thesetraitsandtheirpredictiveutility(e.g.,predicting formation, andseptalareas.
violent recidivism) has become more firmly estab- The potential importance of this theoretical model
lished (Hare, Hart, & Harpur, 1991; Hart & Hare, ofpsychopathictraitsisthatitisconsistentwithrecent
1997),therehasbeenincreasinginterestinunderstand- developmental theories as to how empathy, guilt, and
ingthecausalprocessesassociatedwithpsychopathy. other aspects of the affective components of con-
Oneimportantfocusofthisresearchhasbeentoinves- science develop. Specifically, Blair (1999) and Ko-
tigatehowindividualswithpsychopathictraitsprocess chanska(1993,1997)havesuggestedmultiplereasons
emotionalstimuli.Theoreticalformulationspositinga thatchildrencharacterizedbyatemperamentinvolving
general lack of emotionality (Cleckley, 1976) or a low behavioral inhibition can be at risk for impair-
more specific lack of fearful inhibitions (Lykken, ments in conscience development. For example, low
1957, 1995) have attracted impressive empirical sup- behavioralinhibitioncanplaceachildatriskformiss-
port. For example, using several different psycho- ingsomeoftheearlyprecursorstoempatheticconcern
physiologicalparadigms,researchershaveshownthat that involve emotional arousal evoked by the misfor-
psychopathic traits are associated with a diminished tuneanddistressofothers.Thiscouldleadachildtobe
reactivity to aversive and other emotionally charged relativelyinsensitivetotheprohibitionsandsanctions
of parents and other socializing agents. It could also
create an interpersonal style in which the child be-
RequestsforreprintsshouldbesenttoBryanR.Loney,Depart-
comessofocusedonthepotentialrewardsandgainsin-
ment of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL
32306–1270.E-mail:[email protected] volvedinusingaggressionorotherantisocialmeansto
66
CU TRAITS AND EMOTIONAL PROCESSING
solveinterpersonalconflictsthatheorsheignoresthe Ofnote,whenparticipantswereaskedtoratetheemo-
potentiallyharmfuleffectsofthisbehavioronhimor tionalityofthewordsusedinthelexicaldecisiontask,
herselfandothers.Thereisevidencefromresearchto therewasnodifferencebetweentheratingsofpsycho-
support these potential mechanisms. For example, pathicandnonpsychopathicparticipants.Thedistinc-
youth exhibiting problems of antisocial behavior and tionbetweenperformanceonthelexicaldecisiontask
delinquencywhoalsoshowpsychopathictraitsareless andself-reportratingsofemotionalresponsivenesscan
distressedbythenegativeeffectsoftheirbehavioron beexplainedbyadistinctionbetweenautomaticversus
others (Blair, Jones, Clark, & Smith, 1997; Frick, effortfulappraisalprocesses.Automaticprocessingof
Lilienfeld,Ellis,Loney&Silverthorn,1999),andthey emotional stimuli is rapid and reflexive, whereas ef-
are more impaired in their moral reasoning and em- fortfulprocessinginvolvesthecognitiveinterpretation
pathic concern toward others (Blair, 1999). These ofrelevantstimuli.Mosttheoriesofpsychopathyfocus
youthalsoexpectmoreinstrumentalgain(e.g.,obtain- on the emotional deficit being in the automatic pro-
inggoodsorsocialgoals)fromtheiraggressiveactions cessing of emotional stimuli (Hare, 1994; Lykken,
and are more predatory in their violence than youth 1995;Patrick,1994).Forexample,Cleckley(1976)ar-
with antisocial behavior problems but without these guedthatpersonswithpsychopathycanlearntorepro-
traits(Caputo,Frick,&Brodsky,1999;Kruh,Frick,& duce feelings and can interpret emotions in others;
Clements, in press). however,“thefeelingitselfdoesnotcometopass”(p.
As a result, deficits in emotional processing have 428).Asaresult,thestudyofemotionalprocessingas
been critical to many causal theories of psychopathy it may relate to psychopathy needs to employ para-
and to many theories of potential developmental pre- digms,suchastheemotionallexicaldecisiontask,that
cursorstothisconstruct(Frick,1998b;Frick,Barry,& tap the automatic processing of emotion.
Bodin, 2000). One promising paradigm for studying Giventheseresults,thelexicaldecisiontaskcould
howindividualswithpsychopathictraitsprocessemo- be a useful paradigm for studying the automatic pro-
tionalstimuliisalexicaldecisiontaskadaptedbyWil- cessingofemotionalstimuliinyoungersamples.The
liamson,Harpur,andHare(1991)forusewithadultin- lexical decision paradigm allows for the study of the
mates. In this task, participants are presented with automatic processing of emotional stimuli in a way
letterstringsandarethenaskedtoquicklyidentifythe that is less intrusive, less expensive, and does not in-
strings as either words or nonwords. The words are volvetheexposuretohighlyaversivestimulicharacter-
equallydividedamongthreeemotionalvalences.Posi- istic of many psychophysiological paradigms used to
tive words relate to pleasurable emotions (e.g., pas- assesstheemotionalprocessingofpsychopathicadults
sion),acts(e.g.,play),andobjects(e.g.,cake).Nega- (e.g.,Patrick,1994;Patricketal.,1993).Insupportof
tive words vary from stimuli typifying sadness (e.g., extending this line of research to youth, children and
loss), anxiety (e.g., tension), and fear (e.g., scare) to adolescentswithconductproblemswhoshowpsycho-
stimuli associated with violence (e.g., blood) and ag- pathic traits have been found to exhibit deficits that
gression(e.g.,kill).Emotionallyneutralwordsinclude could be consistent with a lack of responsiveness to
words such as item and cup that do not have strong emotionalstimuli.Specifically,youthwiththesetraits
emotional connotations. Non-words were formed by have shown a reward-dominant response style on a
movinganinteriorvowelinthewordsfromthethree computertaskdesignedtoassesssensitivitytopunish-
emotionalcategories(e.g.,blood–bolod).Thedepend- mentcuesafterareward-orientedresponsesetisprimed
ent measure in this task is the difference between (Fisher&Blair,1999;Fricketal.,inpress;O’Brien&
participants’speedofrecognitionforemotionalversus Frick, 1996), and they have reported a preference for
nonemotional words. This measure of response time novel and dangerous activities (Frick et al., 1999, in
facilitationcanbeviewedastheoreticallyassessingthe press).Althoughtheseresultsarepromising,theyare
implicitorautomaticallocationofattentionalresourc- not unambiguous indications of a deficit in the auto-
estoemotionalmaterial(Rusting,1998).Inthiscon- maticprocessingofemotionalstimuliforatleasttwo
ceptualization,facilitationisamarkerofvigilancefor reasons.First,theassessmentofapreferencefornovel
emotional stimuli. and dangerous activities is assessed through child
Williamsonetal.(1991)usedthistaskinasample self-report and, therefore, it is tapping secondary ap-
ofincarceratedadultsandfoundthatthoselowonpsy- praisalofpotentiallydangerousactivities.Second,the
chopathictraitsexhibitedanormativeprofileoffacili- reward-dominant response style could reflect a more
tatedrecognitionforbothpositiveandnegativewords generalcognitivedeficitintheabilitytofocusonrele-
relativetoneutralwords,whereasparticipantshighon vant contextual cues once a response set is formed
psychopathic traits exhibited no such facilitation. In rather than an insensitivity to cues for punishment
fact,thepsychopathicgroupexhibitedtheirslowestre- (Newman, 1998). That is, in past studies of reward
action times to negative word stimuli. These findings dominance, the insensitivity to punishment cues for
supportthecontentionthatpsychopathictraitsarere- youthwithpsychopathictraitswasfoundonlyaftera
latedtodeficitsintheprocessingofemotionalstimuli. reward-oriented response set was primed, making it
67
LONEYET AL.
unclearwhetherpoorperformancewasduetoadeficit itisimportanttohaveameasurethatdistinguishesbe-
in the person’s sensitivity to punishment or to an in- tweenCUtraitsandotheraspectsofpsychopathy,even
abilitytochangefromanestablishedresponseset.Asa ifthisdistinctionmaynotbeimportantforotheruses
result, paradigms such as the emotional lexical deci- oftheconstruct(e.g.,globalscoresinpredictingrecidi-
sion task allow for tests of a person’s automatic pro- vism;Hareetal.,1991)andeveniftheremaybeaddi-
cessingofemotionalstimuliinataskthatdoesnotcon- tionaldivisionsthatmayproveimportantforotherpur-
foundemotionalprocessingwiththeabilitytochange poses (seeLilienfeld, 1992).
a primed response set (see Blair, 1999, and Patrick, Infurthersupportoftheneedtofocusonthoseindi-
1994, for other such paradigms). viduals with antisocial behavior problems who are
Onecriticalissueregardingtheuseofthelexicalde- highonCUtraits,itappearsthatadolescentswhoare
cisiontask,andothermeasuresofemotionalprocess- antisocial and impulsive and who are elevated in CU
ingtostudypotentialemotionaldeficitsrelatedtopsy- traitsmayshowadifferentpatternofemotionprocess-
chopathy,istheneedtoconsiderthemultidimensional ingthansuchyouthwhoarenotelevatedinCUtraits.
nature of psychopathy (see Frick, Bodin, & Barry, Many theories of impulsivity, which is a core dimen-
2000; Frick, O’Brien, Wootton, & McBurnett, 1994; sionofattentiondeficithyperactivitydisorder(ADHD;
Hare et al., 1991). As mentioned previously, the con- American Psychiatric Association, 2000), focus on
structofpsychopathyhasbeendefinedbyaclusterof problemswithpoorlyregulatedaffect,motivation,and
affective, interpersonal, self-referential, and behav- arousal (Barkley, 1997). Consistent with this theory,
ioral characteristics. However, there is great debate childrenandadolescentswhoareimpulsivehavebeen
overhowtoclusterthesecharacteristicstobestrepre- foundtoexhibithighlyarousedresponsestoemotional
sent the psychological dimensions of psychopathy. stimuli, such as negative feedback during a concept-
Factor analyses of these traits have found from two learning task and social communications with peers
(Fricketal.,1994;Harpur,Hare,&Hakstian,1989)to (Cole, Zahn-Waxler, & Smith, 1994; Rosenbaum &
eight(Lilienfeld&Andrews,1996)factorsunderlying Baker,1984).Thesefindingsindicatethatsomeyouth
thesetraits.Furthermore,someresearchershavetaken with conduct problems who are also impulsive could
a unidimensional approach that emphasizes the inter- show a heightened level of reactivity to emotional
correlated nature of these dimensions. This approach stimuli, the opposite pattern of reactivity to that pre-
suggests that psychopathy is best conceptualized as dicted for youth with CU traits.
one higher order factor encompassing all of the sec- Taken together, these findings lead to the theoreti-
ondary dimensions (e.g., Newman, 1998). cally important possibility that youth with antisocial
Theproblemwithusingaunidimensionalapproach behavior problems who score high on measures of
to conceptualizing psychopathy when studying emo- impulsivity may show high levels of reactivity to
tionalprocessingisthatmostindividualswithantiso- emotional stimuli in the absence of CU traits and
cialbehaviorproblemsshowsomeaspectsofpsychop- underreactivity to emotional stimuli in the presence
athy such as showing problems with impulse control of CU traits (Barry et al., 2000). As a result, it is im-
andadeviantandantisociallifestyleinadultforensic portant that associations between these two dimen-
samples (Hare et al., 1991) and impulsivity, narcis- sionsofpsychopathy(e.g.,CUtraitsandproblemsof
sism,andconductproblemsinclinic-referredsamples impulse control) and measures of emotional process-
ofchildrenandadolescents(Christian,Frick,Hill,Ty- ingarestudiedinawaythatcontrolsforthepresence
ler,&Frazer,1997).Thedifferencebetweenindividu- of the other dimension. Given that CU traits and
alswhoarebothpsychopathicandantisocialandthose impulsivity–conduct problems (I–CP) are positively
whoareantisocialbutnotpsychopathicappearstobe correlatedbutonewouldpredictcorrelationsinoppo-
in the presence or absence of callous–unemotional site directions with measures of emotional reactivity,
(CU) traits (Christian et al., 1997; Hare et al., 1991). the conditions necessary for cooperative suppression
More important, the deficits in emotional processing effects in correlational research are met (Cohen &
seemtobespecificallyassociatedwiththeseaffective Cohen, 1983). Essentially, a suppressor effect occurs
and interpersonal traits, again in both adult (Patrick, when the relation between a predictor and criterion
1994)andchildsamples(Barryetal.,2000).Forexam- variableissignificantlystrengthenedbytheinclusion
ple, Barry et al. reported that it was only those youth ofanadditionalpredictorvariable.Inthepreviousex-
who showed the combination of high CU traits, im- ample, the relation between CU traits and emotional
pulsivity, and conduct problems who exhibited a re- reactivity theoretically should be strengthened by the
ward-dominant response style and a preference for inclusionofimpulsivity–hyperactivitysymptomsinto
thrillandadventure-seekingactivities.Suchcharacter- aregressionequation.Theinclusionofthisthirdvari-
isticswerenotfoundinyouthwhowerehighonmea- ablereleasescriterion-irrelevantvarianceinCUtraits
suresofconductproblemsorimpulsivitywithoutCU that is dampening or suppressing the observed corre-
traits (see also Frick et al., in press). As a result, in lation with emotional reactivity (Tzelgov & Henik,
studyingemotionalprocessingdeficitsinpsychopathy, 1991).
68
CU TRAITS AND EMOTIONAL PROCESSING
Suppressor effects, although rare in psychopathol- using a lexical decision task to see if findings from
ogyresearch,havebeenfoundconsistentlyinpastre- adultsamplescouldbereplicatedinyoungersamples.
search on psychopathy. For example, Patrick (1994; Potential suppression effects involved in controlling
Patrick et al., 1993) found that the CU dimension of fortheseparatedimensionsofpsychopathyandthepo-
psychopathy was uniquely related to attenuated eye- tential moderating role of anxiety were tested. These
blinkstartleresponsetoacousticprobesadministered associationswereinvestigatedinadiversionprogram
during the presence of negative pictorial stimuli, for youth referred to juvenile court for first-time of-
whereas the impulsive–antisocial dimension was fensesandformildoffenses.Thissamplewaschosen
uniquelyrelatedtoheightenedeye-blinkstartle.Simi- basedontheneedtooversampleyouthwithhighrates
larfindingshavebeenreportedinchildsamples.Spe- ofantisocialbehaviorbutstillensurethattherewasa
cifically,inaclinic-referredsampleofyouth,Fricket sufficient range of antisocial behavior present in the
al. (1999) found that a negative correlation between sample.Bothoftheseconditionswereviewedasbeing
CUtraitsandanxietybecamestrongeraftercontrolling importantforincreasingthelikelihoodthatbothofthe
forI–CPinregressionanalyses,asdidthepositivecor- theoreticallyimportantsubgroupsofadolescentswith
relationbetweenI–CPandanxietyaftercontrollingfor antisocial behavior problems, those high on both
CUtraits.Thisfindingwasreplicatedinseveralother CUtraitsandimpulsivity,andthosehighonlyonim-
samplesofadolescentsandcollegestudents(seeFrick, pulsivity would be adequately represented in the
Lilienfeld,Edens,Poythress, &McBurnett, 2000). sample.
One final important issue in studying the relations
amongdimensionsofpsychopathyandemotionalpro-
Method
cessing is the potential moderating role of anxiety.
Contrary to many conceptualizations of the psycho-
Participants
pathic individual (Cleckley, 1976), research has con-
sistentlyshownthatapersonwhoscoreshighonmea- Sixty-five male participants were recruited from a
sures of psychopathy often also scores high on juvenile diversion program in the southern United
measuresofanxiety(Fricketal.,1999,2000,inpress). Statesthatprovidesdaytreatmentforyouthsreferred
Althoughthesefindingsmayseemcontradictorytothe from juvenile court. The program serves adolescents
hypothesized deficient fear response of psychopathic whoareconsideredtobeatlowtomoderateriskandis
individualsdescribedpreviously,traitanxietyandfear- designedtopreventfurtherinvolvementinthejuvenile
fulnessareseparateconstructswithdifferentcognitive court system. Students remain in the program for an
andneuropsychologicalcorrelates(Fricketal.,1999; averageof3to6months,andthefocusisonthedevel-
Lilienfeld,1994).Itisimportanttonotethatprevious opmentofacademicandbehavioralmanagementskills
studiesoftheemotionalprocessingofindividualswith undertheclosesupervisionofacasemanager.Results
psychopathictraitshavefoundthatcontrollingforthe ofstandardizededucationaltestingindicatedthatpar-
presenceofanxietycanleadtosignificantdifferences ticipantsweretypically3to4yearsbehindgradelevel
inresultsoncertainlaboratorytasks.Forexample,in in basic educational achievement. Five participants
bothadults(Newman,Patterson,&Kosson,1987)and were excluded from our analyses due to receiving IQ
young people (O’Brien & Frick, 1996), psychopathic scores below 70. The remaining participants (n = 60)
traits have sometimes been associated with a reward- had an average IQ composite score on the Kaufman
orientedresponsestyleonlyinpersonswhowerealso BriefIntelligenceTest(K–BIT;Kaufman&Kaufman,
lowonanxiety.Thereasonforthismoderatingroleof 1990)of87.47(SD=10.44).Participantsrangedinage
anxietyisnotclear.Itmaybethatindividualswithpsy- from12to18yearswithanaverageageof16.04(SD=
chopathic features and anxiety are etiologically dis- 1.32). The sample had an ethnic composition of 75%
tinct from those with psychopathic features without AfricanAmericanand25%Caucasian.Allofthesede-
anxiety(Blackburn,1983;Lykken,1995),oritmaybe mographic characteristics are consistent with data on
that anxiety disrupts performance on some of these theentirepopulationofadolescentsenrolledinthedi-
laboratory measures (Newman, 1998). For example, versionprogramwhich,atthetimeofthestudy,hadan
anxiety is associated with heightened vigilance for average age of 15.3 years and an ethnic composition
negative emotional stimuli in adults (Barlow, 1991; that was 62% African American.
Williams,Mathews,&MacLeod,1996)aswellaschil-
drenandadolescents(Taghavi,Neshat-Doost,Moradi,
Measures
Yule,&Dalgleish,1999;Vasey,Daleiden,Williams,&
Brown,1995).Asaresult,fluctuationsinanxietysymp- Lexical decision task (Williamson et al., 1991).
toms may mask unique associations between psycho- Thelexicaldecisiontaskpresentsparticipantswithase-
pathic traits and indexes of emotional processing. riesofletterstrings.Theseletterstringsincludeemo-
Basedontheseconsiderations,wetestedtheassoci- tionallyladenandneutralwords,aswellasnonwords.
ationamongCUtraits,I–CP,andemotionalreactivity Nonwordswereformedbyalteringoneletterofeach
69
LONEYET AL.
real word contained in the task (e.g., bomb–bemb). lowedtotakealongerbreak.Thewordsandtheircom-
EmotionalityofthewordswasderivedfromTogliaand panion nonwords were randomly presented within
Battig’s(1978)wordnorms.Frequencyofusagedata each block.
were derived from Kucera and Francis (1967). The Twoscoreswerecalculatedfordataanalyses.Aposi-
length,numberofsyllables,imagery/concreteness,and tive difference score (NEU–POS) was calculated by
frequencyofusageofthewordswerebalancedacross subtractingeachparticipant’saverageresponsetimeto
wordtype.TheWilliamsonetal.(1991)taskwasmodi- positivewordsfromhisaverageresponsetimetoneutral
fiedforusewithadolescentsbyusingonlywordscom- words. A negative difference score (NEU–NEG) was
posedoffourlettersorlessthathadaconcretenessrating calculatedbysubtractingeachparticipant’saveragere-
of2.75orgreater(Toglia&Battig,1978)suchasglad sponse time to negative words from his average re-
(positive),bomb(negative),andboot(neutral).Inad- sponsetimetoneutralwords.Thesedifferencescores
dition, words were presented horizontally rather than assesstheamountofrecognitiontimefacilitationexhib-
verticallyandwerenotrepeatedduringthetask.There- ited in response to affective stimuli. Response times
sultingtaskconsistedof36practicetrialsand180exper- werenotincludedinanalysesif(a)thevaluedeviated
imentaltrialscontaininganequalnumberofwordsand morethan2.5SDfromanindividualparticipant’sover-
nonwords.Examplesofthepositive,negative,andneu- allmeanresponsetimeforthetask,toensurethatafew
tralstimulicontainedinthetaskareincludedinTable1. outlierdatapointsdidnothaveadisproportionateinflu-
Priortoparticipatinginthetask,participantscompleted enceonparticipants’scoresor(b)theresponsetimecor-
aratingscaleinventoryonwhichtheyratedtheemotion- responded to an incorrectly identified word stimulus.
alityofeachwordona5-pointLikert-typescale.Scores Additionally, facilitation scores (i.e., NEU–POS and
of 1 represent an extreme negative rating, scores of 5 NEU–NEGscores)deviatingmorethan2.75SDfrom
representanextremepositiverating,andscoresof3rep- thesamplemeanwereexcludedfromanalysestofurther
resentneutralemotionalratings. minimizetheinfluenceofoutlierdataonresponsetime
Following completion of the scale, participants findings.Thisresultedin3participantsbeingremoved
were seated at a computer and instructed on how to fromNEU–NEGcomparisonsand1participantbeing
completethetask.Participantsweretoldtodepressed removedfromNEU–POScomparisons.Finally,toen-
eithera“yes”(“V”)keyifthelettersonscreenspelled sureanacceptablelevelofwordknowledge,dataforone
arealwordortodepressthe“no”(“N”)keyiftheletter participantwithlessthana70%accuracyratewereex-
stringsdidnotformarealword.Theparticipantswere cludedfromanalyses.
instructedtomakeadecision“asquicklyaspossible,
whilestillbeingaccurate.”Theletterstringsweredis- Antisocial Process Screening Device (APSD;
played in the center of a black computer screen. The Frick & Hare, 2001). The APSD is a 20-item rat-
heightandwidthoftheletterswere.5cmand.2cm,re- ing scale designed to assess traits associated with the
spectively. These dimensions produce lexical stimuli constructofpsychopathysimilartothoseassessedby
thatareapproximately.5cmtalland1cmwide.Each thePsychopathyChecklist–Revised(Hare,1991),one
letterstringremainedonthecomputerscreenuntilthe of the most widely used measures of psychopathy in
participant responded. After each response, partici- adultforensicsamples.TheAPSD,formerlyknownas
pantsweregivenabreakof2,000msecbeforetheap- thePsychopathyScreeningDevice,wasoriginallyde-
pearanceofthenextlexicalstimulus.Oncompletionof signedtoassessthesetraitsbasedonratingsbyparents
2practiceblocksconsistingof18stimulieach,partici- and teachers in preadolescents (Frick et al., 1994). A
pantsbegantheactualtaskconsistingof10blocksof self-reportscalewasusedinthisadolescentsamplefor
18 stimuli separated by 20-sec break intervals. After several reasons. First, there is evidence that the reli-
completionofthefirstfiveblocks,participantswereal- ability and validity of child report for assessing most
types of child psychopathology increases in adoles-
cence as the validity of parent and teacher report de-
Table 1. Example Lexical Decision Task Word Stimuli
creases(Kamphaus&Frick,1996).Thismaybeespe-
by Category
cially important when assessing covert behavior or
Positive Words Negative Words Neutral Words affectivestylesthatmaynotbeevidenttoobserversof
thechild’sbehavior.Second,theimportanceofself-re-
cure mad page
gold pain lift portwasparticularlyrelevanttothissampleinwhich
tree rake mile the participants often came from very dysfunctional
born limp fly families with significant histories of previous out-of-
mild bad snap
homeplacements.Furthermore,theparticipants’short
glad flea sale
timeinthediversionprogramdidnotallowforteach-
cake gun call
ers to become very familiar with their personalities,
Note:Wordswerecategorizedonthebasisofemotionalcontent(i.e.,
andtheobservationsoccurredinaverycontrolledcon-
positive,negative,orneutral)usingTogliaandBattig’swordnorms
text.Finally,thisself-reportversionoftheAPSDhas
(1978).
70
CU TRAITS AND EMOTIONAL PROCESSING
successfullybeenusedtodifferentiatesubgroupsofju- hyperactivity–impulsivitysymptomswereusedinanal-
venile offenders in other adolescent samples (Caputo yses. Symptoms on the YI–4 are rated on a 4-point
etal.,1999;Kruhetal.,inpress;Silverthorn,Frick,& Likert-type scale with ranges of 0 (never), 1 (some-
Reynolds,2001),andotherself-reportmeasureshave times),2(often),and3(veryoften).Asrecommendedby
provenusefulforassessingpsychopathictraitsinado- GadowandSprafkin(1999),asymptomwasconsidered
lescent and young adult samples (Lilienfeld & An- presentifitwasratedbytheparticipantasbeingdis-
drews, 1996;Lynam,Whiteside, & Jones, 1999). played often or very often. This method of obtaining
Similar to the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised, it self-reportratingsofADHDsymptomsdemonstrated
appearsthatpsychopathictraitsassessedbytheAPSD goodconvergencewithrelatedoppositionaldefiantdis-
formmultipledimensionsinyouth(Fricketal.,2000), orderandconductdisordersymptomsontheYI–4(r=
although the self-report version of the APSD has not .45and.36,respectively)andthedelinquencyandag-
beensubjectedtofactoranalysestodate.Thetwo-fac- gressionsubscalesoftheYouthSelfReport(r=.40and
torstructurereportedbyFricketal.(1994)wasusedin .51, respectively) in an adolescent clinic sample
this study because, (a) as mentioned in the introduc- (Gadow&Sprafkin,1999).Inthissample,thehyperac-
tion, it is important to separate the CU dimension of tivity–impulsivity symptoms exhibited an acceptable
psychopathy from other dimensions of the construct levelofinternalconsistency(coefficientα=.72).
whenstudyingmeasuresofemotionalprocessing;(b)
thetwo-factorstructurehasproventobethemostap- RevisedChildren’sManifestAnxietyScale(RCMAS;
propriate for clinic-referred or adjudicated samples Reynolds&Richmond,1985). The RCMAS is a
(Fricketal.,2000);and(c)itisthestructurethathas 37-itemself-reportinventoryusedtoassessanxietyin
beenusedinpastresearchusingtheself-reportversion childrenandadolescentsfrom6to19yearsold.Itcon-
ofthescaleinadjudicatedadolescentsamples(Caputo sists of a simple format in which respondents answer
et al., 1999; Kruh et al., in press; Silverthorn et al., “yes”or“no”toaseriesofstatements.TheTotalAnxi-
2001).ThetwosubscalesoftheAPSDincludeasix- etyscorehasproventohaveacceptablelevelsofreli-
itemCUscalethatassessestheaffectiveandinterper- ability in adolescent samples and correlates highly
sonal dimensions of psychopathy (e.g., lacks guilt, withothermeasuresoftraitanxiety(Reynolds&Rich-
doesnotshowemotions,lacksempathy),whereasthe mond, 1985). Additionally, the RCMAS contains a
10-item I–CP scale assesses the self-referential (e.g., nine-item Lie scale assessing children’s tendency to
thinksheorsheismoreimportantthanothers)andbe- presentthemselvesinafavorablelight(e.g.,“Iamal-
havioral dimensions (e.g., acts without thinking, gets waysnicetoeveryone”).Giventhisstudy’srelianceon
bored easily) of psychopathy. self-report methodology, Lie scale scores were intro-
TheinternalconsistencyestimatesfortheCU(coef- ducedintoprincipalanalysestotestforevidenceofbi-
ficientα=.49)andI–CPscales(coefficientα=.75)in asedandsociallydesirableresponding.Similartothe
thissamplewerelowtomoderate,respectively.How- TotalAnxietyscore,theLiescalehasdemonstratedad-
ever, item-total correlations did not reveal any items equate psychometric properties (Reynolds & Rich-
that,ifeliminated,wouldhavesubstantiallyincreased mond, 1985). In this sample, there was evidence of
theinternalconsistencyofsubscales.Moreimportant, stronginternalconsistencyoftheTotalAnxietyscore
therearerelativelyfewitemsontheCUscale,andsub- (coefficientα=.86)butmoremoderateinternalcon-
stantial changes in its content may have altered the sistency of the briefer Lie scale (coefficientα= .65).
constructasithasbeendefinedinpaststudiesofemo-
tionalprocessing.Becauseoftheheterogeneityofthe K–BIT(Kaufman&Kaufman,1990). TheK–BIT
itemsontheI–CPsubscaleoftheAPSD,withonlya isabriefintelligencemeasureusedtoassessverbaland
minorityoftheitemsassessingbehaviorstraditionally nonverbalintellectualfunctioningofindividuals4to90
associated with impulsivity (Burns, 2000), analyses yearsofage.Scoresfortwosubteststappingverbaland
assessing associations between impulsivity and emo- nonverbalabilitiescanbeusedtoformacompositeIQ
tional processing did not rely solely on this scale but scorethatisroughlyequivalenttothefull-scaleIQcon-
also tested associations using items assessing the tained on measures such as the Wechsler Intelligence
symptomsofimpulsivity-hyperactivityfromtheDiag- Scale for Children (Wechsler, 1974). The K–BIT is a
nosticandStatisticalManualofMentalDisorders(4th usefulresearchmeasuregiventheminimaltimedemands
ed. [DSM–IV], American Psychiatric Association, anddemonstrationofadequatepsychometricproperties.
1994) criteria forADHD. Forexample,forindividualsages13to19,standardiza-
tionstudiesrevealedatest–retestreliabilityestimateof
Youth Inventory–4 (YI–4; Gadow & Sprafkin, .93fortheK–BITIQcomposite.Further,thecomposite
1999). TheYI–4isanadolescentself-reportcheck- IQscorecorrelated.80and.75withfull-scaleIQscores
listthatassessesDSM–IVsymptomatologyforthemost fromtheWechslerIntelligenceScaleforChildren–Re-
commondisordersofchildhoodandadolescence.For vised(Wechsler,1974)andWechslerAdultIntelligence
thisstudy,onlytheitemscorrespondingtotheADHD Scale–Revised(Wechsler,1981),respectively.
71
LONEYET AL.
Procedure below average in overall intelligence and somewhat
higherthannormativesamplesonanxietyandADHD
The guardian of each participant was approached
symptoms, the only scales for which normative data
for consent during routine meetings with the child’s
are available (Gadow & Sprafkin, 1999; Reynolds &
casemanager.Theywereinformedthatfailuretopar-
Richmond,1985).However,thesecharacteristicswere
ticipate would in no way affect their child’s status in
expectedforasampleofadolescentswhowerecourt-
the diversion program. All adolescents with parental
referred for delinquent activity.1 Table 3 contains
consent were provided with a full description of the
zero-order correlations of the main study variables.
study and were asked to provide assent for participa-
Noneofthemainstudyvariablesweresignificantlyas-
tion.Participantsweretestedintwophases.Inthefirst
sociatedwithageorIQ.Ethnicitywasnotincludedin
phase, each participant was administered the K–BIT,
thecorrelationmatrixduetotheskewednatureofthe
the self-report indexes (i.e., APSD, RCMAS, YI–4),
distribution; however, correlation analyses indicated
andthepencil-and-papermeasureoftheemotionality
minimalassociationswithmainstudyvariablessuchas
of the computer task words. Participants were then
theCUsubscaleoftheAPSD(r=.14,p=ns)andthe
givenabreakbeforebeingadministeredthelexicalde-
responsetimefacilitationindexes(r=–.08,p=nsfor
cision task. The length of time between assessments
positivefacilitationindex;r=–.01,p=nsfornegative
variedfromapproximately30minto2weeks.Follow-
facilitationindex).ScoresontheCUscaleoftheAPSD
ingcompletionofthelexicaldecisiontask,eachpartic-
showedamodestandnonsignificantnegativecorrela-
ipant was presented with a certificate of appreciation
tionwiththeindexofresponsetimefacilitationtoneg-
for their participation and each participant was
ative emotional words (r = –.21, p = ns), whereas
awarded“goodbehavior”pointsusedasincentivesby
ADHD symptoms exhibited nonsignificant correla-
thediversionprogramthatcanbeexchangedformer-
tionsofsimilarmagnitudebutdifferentdirectiontothe
chandise (e.g., candy) and privileges (e.g., time off).
indexesofresponsetimefacilitationforbothpositive
The point range used as incentive for participation in
(r=.15,p=ns)andnegativewords(r=.16,p=ns).Al-
thestudywasthesameamountofpointsthatcouldbe
though nonsignificant, these CU and ADHD correla-
obtained for excellent behavior during a similar time
tionswereinoppositedirectionsaspredictedandmet
frame in the normal milieu of the program.
theconditionsforpotentialcooperativesuppressoref-
fects that were tested in multiple regression analyses.
Results
Main Regression Analyses
Preliminary Analyses
The primary analyses for the study were multiple
Table2containsthedistributionsofthemainstudy
regressionanalysesconductedtotesttheindependent
variables, all of which seemed to show an adequate
associations of CU traits and the measures of im-
range to detect the hypothesized associations. These
pulsivity (i.e., APSD I–CP and ADHD impulsiv-
distributions suggest that the sample was somewhat
ity–hyperactivitysymptoms)withthemeasuresofre-
sponsetimefacilitation.Theseanalysesalsotestedfor
Table 2. Distribution of Predictor and Criterion Variables potential interaction effects. A two-step hierarchical
procedure was used introducing CU and impulsivity
Variable M SD Range
maineffects(Step1)followedbytheCU*Impulsivity
Age 16.04 1.32 12.66 – 18.66
RCMAS 9.12 5.70 1 – 23
K–BIT Composite IQ 87.47 10.44 71 – 112
1Priortoconductingbivariateandmultivariateanalyses,testsof
APSD CU 5.22 2.23 1 – 12
normalitywereconductedontheresponsetimefacilitationscores.
APSD I–CP 8.23 3.81 1 – 18
Theseanalyseswereconductedbasedonresearchsuggestingthatre-
APSD Total 16.55 6.95 5 – 35
sponsetimescoresareusuallyskewedtosuchanextentastopoten-
ADHD 7.39 4.32 0 – 20
tiallyviolatetheassumptionsofthegenerallinearmodel(Andrews
Neu–Pos 30.22 57.76 –74.73 – 176.53
& Heathcote, 2001). A Kolmogorov–Smirnov one-sample test of
Neu–Neg –3.68 58.03 –177.31 – 150.52
normalityindicatedthattheNEU–POSscoreexhibitedacharacteris-
Note:RCMAS=totalanxietyscorefromtheRevisedChildren’s ticpositiveskewthatviolatedtheassumptionofnormality(K–Sd=
ManifestAnxietyScale;K–BIT=KaufmanBriefIntelligenceTest; .15,p<.01).Incontrast,theNEU–NEGscoreapproximatedthenor-
APSDCU=callousandunemotionaltraitsontheAntisocialProcess maldistribution(K–Sd=.10,p=ns).Asaresultoftheseprelimi-
Screening Device (APSD); APSD I–CP = impulsivity–conduct naryanalyses,theNEU–POSscorewassubjectedtoalogarithmic
problemsontheAPSD;ADHD=attention-deficit/hyperactivitydis- transformation and reexamined for normality. The transformed
orderhyperactivityandimpulsivitysymptomsontheYouth’sInven- NEU–POSscoremorecloselyapproximatedthenormaldistribution
tory–4;Neu–Pos=averageresponsetimetoneutralwordtrialsmi- (K–Sd=.07,p=ns).Allanalyses,includingtheNEU–POSscore,
nustheaverageresponsetimetopositivewordtrialsonthelexical wereconductedseparatelyusingtheactualandtransformedvalues
decisiontask;Neu–Neg=averageresponsetimetoneutralwordtri- withnosubstantivedifferencesintheresults.Giventhegreaterease
alsminustheaverageresponsetimetonegativewordtrials.N=58 of interpreting the actual response time values, the analyses that are
for Neu–Pos data;N= 56 for Neu–Neg data. presented used thenontransformedvalues.
72
CU TRAITS AND EMOTIONAL PROCESSING
Table 3. Correlations Among Demographic Variables, Psychopathy, ADHD, and Indexes of Response Time Facilitation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. IQ 1.00
2. Age 0.08 1.00
3. RCMAS –0.13 –0.09 1.00
4. APSD CU –0.01 –0.15 0.24 1.00
5. APSD I–CP 0.06 –0.23 0.42* 0.66* 1.00
6. APSD Total 0.04 –0.23 0.38* 0.86* 0.93* 1.00
7. ADHD –0.14 –0.13 0.55* 0.35* 0.48* 0.50* 1.00
8. Neu–Pos –0.03 –0.10 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.15 1.00
9. Neu–Neg 0.02 0.07 –0.06 –0.21 0.03 –0.07 0.16 0.34* 1.00
Note:IQ=K–BITCompositeintelligencequotient;RCMAS=totalanxietyscorefromtheRevisedChildren’sManifestAnxietyScale;APSD
CU=callousandunemotionaltraitsontheAntisocialProcessScreeningDevice(APSD);APSDI–CP=impulsivity–conductproblemsonthe
APSD;APSDTotal=totalscoreontheAPSD;ADHD=attention–deficit/hyperactivitydisorderhyperactivityandimpulsivitysymptomsonthe
Youth’sInventory–4;Neu–Pos=averageresponsetimetoneutralwordtrialsminustheaverageresponsetimetopositivewordtrialsonthelexical
decisiontask;Neu–Neg=averageresponsetimetoneutralwordtrialsminustheaverageresponsetimetonegativewordtrials.N=58for
Neu–Pos comparisons;N= 56 for Neu–Neg comparisons.
*p< .05.
interaction term (Step 2). Analyses were conducted activitysymptomsfortheI–CPsubscalescores.Simi-
first with APSD I–CP symptoms as the measure of lar to the previous regression analyses, significant ef-
impulsivity and next with ADHD impulsivity–hyper- fectswereagainlimitedtotheresponsefacilitationin-
activitysymptomsasthemeasureofimpulsivity.The dex for negative words. CU traits were negatively
resultsfromtheseanalysesarepresentedinTable4.An related to response facilitation (sr = –.29, p < .05),
emphasiswasplacedonsemipartial(sr)correlationco- whereasADHDsymptomsexhibitedapositiveassoci-
efficientsintheseregressionanalysesgivenaninterest ationwiththenegativefacilitationindex(sr=.25,p=
in describing the proportion of overall criterion vari- .05). None of the interaction terms significantly en-
anceuniquelypredictedbyeachvariable.Incontrastto hancedthepredictionofeitheroftheresponsetimefa-
partial correlation coefficients, semipartial correla- cilitationindexes.Additionally,theinclusionofanxi-
tionsaremoredirectlycomparabletooneanotherand etytotalscoresdidnotaltertheresults.Anxietydidnot
to zero-order correlations. contributeindependentlytothepredictionofthefacili-
ThetopofTable4presentsdataontheindependent tationscoresasamaineffectorininteractionwiththe
contributions of CU and I–CP symptoms to the re- CU andADHDvariables.
sponse time scores. As predicted, there were signifi- Tofurtherexplorethesuppressioneffectsinvolved
cant regression effects for the NEU–NEG score that intherelationbetweendimensionsofpsychopathyand
supportedadivergencebetweenCUandI–CPdimen- the emotional facilitation index, the results of the re-
sions.Specifically,therewasasignificantnegativeas- gressionanalyseswereusedtoplothypotheticalfacili-
sociation between the CU subscale and the response tationscoresforparticipantsexhibitingvaryinglevels
facilitationindextonegativewords(sr=–.32,p<.05) ofCUandI–CPscores.Usingproceduresoutlinedby
whencontrollingfortheI–CPdimension.Incontrast, CohenandCohen(1983),thiswasperformedbyfirst
therewasanonsignificantbutpositivecorrelationbe- calculatingCUandI–CPvaluesthatwere2SDabove
tween I–CP and the negative facilitation index when and below the sample mean as indicated in Table 2.
controllingforCUtraits(sr=.24,p=.08).Contraryto These values were subsequently introduced into a re-
prediction, neither of the APSD subscales exhibited gression equation containing the unstandardized beta
strongassociationswiththepositiveresponsetimefa- coefficients for the CU, I–CP, and intercept variables
cilitationindex(CU:sr=.02,p=ns;I–CP:sr=.03,p= providedinTable4toobtainpredictedresponsefacili-
ns).Theadditionofinteractiontermsdidnotcontrib- tation scores at various levels of CU traits and I–CP.
ute to the prediction of either facilitation index. Fur- Thepredictedresponsefacilitationscoreforindividu-
thermore,theinclusionofanxietytotalscoresasanad- alsexhibitinglowlevelsofCUtraitsandlowscoreson
ditional main effect in Step 1 and as two separate theI–CPscalewas6.70msec,indicatingaslightfacili-
interactionterms(CU*AnxietyandCU*I–CP)inStep tationeffectfornegativeemotionalwords.Incontrast,
2oftheanalysesdidnotaltertheinitialfindings.Anxi- thepredictedvalueforparticipantswithlowlevelsof
ety did not exhibit a main effect (sr = –0.10, p = ns), CUtraitsbuthighI–CPscoresshowedaverystrongfa-
and the interaction terms did not contribute signifi- cilitation effect (79.82 msec). Participants with high
cantly to the prediction of the facilitation scores. CU and low I–CP scores (–88.65 msec) and partici-
The bottom of Table 4 presents analogous regres- pants with high CU and I–CP scores (–15.81 msec)
sion analyses substituting ADHD impulsivity–hyper- bothshowedpredictedscoresthatwerenegative.Simi-
73
LONEYET AL.
Table 4. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Response Time Facilitation
Psychopathy Dimensions Neu–Pos Score Neu–Neg Score
B sr B sr
Step 1 (R2= .00) (R2= .10)
Intercept 21.26 — 12.20 —
APSDCU 0.78 0.02 –10.72 –0.32*
APSDI–CP 0.59 0.03 4.78 0.24
Step 2 (R2= .02) (R2= .14)
CU*I–CP 0.88 0.13 –1.38 –0.20
CU andADHDSymptoms Neu–Pos Score Neu–Neg Score
B sr B sr
Step 1 (R2= .02) (R2= .11*)
Intercept 15.14 — 10.60 —
APSDCU 0.13 0.00 –7.76 –0.29*
ADHD 1.95 0.14 3.58 0.25+
Step 2 (R2= .02) (R2= .11)
CU*ADHD 0.22 0.03 0.04 0.01
Note:APSDCU=callousandunemotionaltraitsontheAntisocialProcessScreeningDevice(APSD);APSDI–CP=impulsivity–conductprob-
lems on the APSD; ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder hyperactivity and impulsivity symptoms on the Youth’s Inventory–4;
Neu–Pos=averageresponsetimetoneutralwordtrialsminustheaverageresponsetimetopositivewordtrials;Neu–Neg=averageresponsetime
toneutralwordtrialsminustheaverageresponsetimetonegativewordtrials;B=unstandardizedbetacoefficient;sr=semipartialcorrelationco-
efficientindicatingtheindependentcontributionofeachpredictorvariabletothepredictionofthedifferencescores.Semipartialcorrelationsfor
interactionsusedcenteredvariablestoincreasetheinterpretabilityofparameterestimates;N=58forNeu–Poscomparisons;N=56forNeu–Neg
comparisons.
+p= .05. *p< .05.
larresultswereobtainedusingtheregressionequation and rationality of the cluster solution. The resulting
withADHDsymptoms. clustersincludedacontrolclusterapproachingthesam-
Thesepredictedvaluesfortheresponsetimefacili- plemeanonallsymptomcategories(n=23),a“normal”
tationindexbasedontheregressionequationsreported clusterscoringwellbelowthesamplemeanonallsymp-
in Table 4 are consistent with study hypotheses. Im- tomcategories(n=22),aclustersolelyelevatedonI–CP
pulsivityandconductproblems,intheabsenceofsig- and ADHD symptoms (impulsive-only; n = 7), and
nificantCUtraits,wererelatedtofacilitatedrespond- a cluster elevated only on both APSD subscales
ing to emotional stimuli. In contrast, high scores on (CU–I–CP;n=8).Thissampledidnotcontainyouth
impulsivityandconductproblems,inconjunctionwith solelyelevatedinCUtraits.Therefore,corresponding
high levels of CU traits, led to reduced facilitation, predictedvaluesderivedfromtheregressionanalyses
similar to results found for adults with psychopathic shouldbeinterpretedcautiously.
traits.However,theseresultsarebasedonthedistribu- Table 5 contains descriptive information on the
tionandpatternsofcorrelationsamongvariablesinthe clusters and a comparison of these clusters on the re-
sample, and the predicted values do not represent ac- sponse facilitation indexes using an analysis of vari-
tual scores of individual participants who differ on ance framework. Group differences on the response
these dimensions. It is not clear from these analyses time variables were limited to comparisons involving
howmanyparticipantsactuallyfallintothesecatego- theresponsefacilitationindexfornegativewords,F(3,
ries in the sample. 52)=3.16,p<.05,withtheresultssupportingthepre-
Toaddressthisissue,aperson-centeredclusteranal- dicted effects for three of the four groups. As pre-
ysis was conducted using standardized scores (i.e., z dicted,thecontrolclusterthatwasaroundthesample
scores)onthemeasuresofCUtraits,I–CP,andADHD. meanontheAPSDsubscalescoresandADHDsymp-
These standardized scores were subjected to the toms showed an expected slight facilitation effect to
FASTCLUSprocedureoftheStatisticalAnalysisSys- negative words that is typical in normative samples.
tem(SASInstituteInc.,1990).Thisprocedureplaces Second,theCU–I–CPclusterexhibitedtheleastfacili-
participantsintodisjointclustersbasedonsimilaritiesin tationtonegativestimuliwithanegativevaluesuggest-
theirsymptomendorsementusingthenearestcentroid ingslowerresponsetimestonegativewords.Third,the
sortingmethod(Bernstein,1988).Ascreeplotanalysis impulsive-only cluster exhibited the greatest facilita-
ofthevarianceexplainedbyincreasingnumbersofclus- tion to negative words.
terssupportedafour-clustersolution.Thesefourclus- Theoneclusterthatdidnotfitwithexpectationsis
tersmaximizedtheoverallvarianceaccountedforbythe the cluster labeled as “normal,” which scored below
clusters (R2 = 0.64) while maintaining the parsimony the sample mean on APSD scores and ADHD symp-
74
CU TRAITS AND EMOTIONAL PROCESSING
Table 5. Cluster Composition and Comparisons on Indices of Response Time Facilitation
Controla “Normal”b Impulsive-Onlyc CU I–CPd
Cluster Composition M SD M SD M SD M SD F(3,56) F(3,54)
APSDCU 0.15a 0.46 –0.91b 0.61 0.54a 0.68 1.58c 0.67 41.55**
APSDI–CP 0.14a 0.68 –0.93b 0.50 1.14c 0.37 1.15c 0.69 37.46**
ADHD 0.06a 0.61 –0.71b 0.55 2.01c 0.65 0.02a 0.60 37.68**
Facilitation Indexes
Neu–Pos 24.66 57.51 25.71 52.55 55.67 73.82 35.08 62.08 0.57
Neu–Neg 10.74ac 53.34 –11.58abc 49.66 29.16c 64.95 –47.73bd 63.19 3.16*
Note:APSDCU=callousandunemotionaltraitsontheAntisocialProcessScreeningDevice(APSD);APSDI–CP=impulsivity–conductprob-
lemsontheAPSD;ADHD=attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorderhyperactivityandimpulsivitysymptomsontheYouth’sInventory–4;Cluster
compositionmeansandstandarddeviationsarebasedonstandardizedvalues(i.e.,zscores);Neu–Pos=averageresponsetimetoneutralwordtri-
alsminustheaverageresponsetimetopositivewordtrials.Neu–Neg=averageresponsetimetoneutralwordtrialsminustheaverageresponse
timetonegativewordtrials.Meanswithdifferentsubscriptsweresignificantlydifferent(p<.05)inpairwisecomparisonsusingindependent
measuresttests;n=22and21forthecontroland“normal”groups,respectively,forNeu–Poscomparisons;n=20and21forthecontroland
“normal” groups, respectively, forNeu–Neg comparisons.
an= 23.bn= 22.cn= 7.dn= 8.
*p< .05. **p< .001.
toms.Thisclustershowedalackofresponsefacilita- ative facilitation index, a possibility made even more
tion effect to negative words that is more like the re- plausible by the low internal consistency of the CU
sponses of the CU–I–CP cluster and not a normative scale.Totestthispossibility,theCUscalewasregressed
pattern of facilitation. One possible explanation for ontotheI–CPsubscaleandresidualizedvaluesforthe
this finding is that this cluster contained a mixture of CUscale(i.e.,thevarianceintheCUscaleleftaftercon-
participants with some truly exhibiting low levels of trollingforI–CPscores)werecalculatedforeachpartic-
relevant symptomatology and others exhibiting traits ipant. These residualized scores were correlated with
associated with psychopathy but responding in a so- eachitemontheCUscaletodetermineifcertainitems
cially desirable fashion. To examine this hypothesis, accountedformoreofthevarianceintheresidualized
participantswithLiescalescoresontheRCMASatthe variable.Anexaminationofthezero-ordercorrelations
upper quartile of the sample (i.e., greater than 4), betweeneachoftheAPSDitemsandtheresidualizedCU
whichalsocorrespondstoarecommendedclinicalcut- scoreindicatedthatallsixitemsincludedontheCUscale
off for socially desirable responding (Reynolds & weresignificantlyandfairlyconsistentlyassociatedwith
Richmond, 1985), were identified. Nine participants theresidualizedvariable(r=.31to.50,p<.05).Further-
metthiscriterion,and7ofthesecamefromthenormal more,theresidualizedvariablewasnotsignificantlyre-
cluster. When these 7 individuals were removed, the latedtoanyotherAPSDitems.Asaresult,theassocia-
meanresponsetimefacilitationindexforthisgroupbe- tionswiththenegativefacilitationindexdoesnotappear
came more like an expected normative pattern of re- tobeaccountedforbyafewoftheitemsontheCUscale.
sponding (M = .98, SD = 46.27), with participants Finally, analyses were conducted on participants’
showing a slight facilitation effect to negative words. ratingsoftheemotionalityofthewordsusedinthelexi-
cal decision task. Overall, positive words were rated
morepositivelythanneutralwords,whichwererated
Follow-Up Analyses
more positively than negative words, F(2, 116) =
Afewadditionalanalyseswereconductedtoclarify 152.39,p<.0001,supportingthevalidityoftheemo-
andexpandonthemainanalyses.First,regressionanal- tionalvalenceattributedtothewords.Additionally,CU
yseswererepeatedenteringRCMASLiescalescoresto traitsdidnotexhibittheindependentrelationtonegative
controlfortheeffectofpotentialself-reportbiaseson wordratingsthatwasfoundforfacilitationscoresonthe
thefindings.TheinclusionofLiescalescoresdidnotal- lexicaldecisiontask.Forexample,CUtraitsexhibiteda
teranyoftheregressionfindings.Second,itispossible minimalrelationtonegativewordratingswhencontrol-
thatcontrollingforimpulsivitysuppressedthevariance lingforI–CPandADHDsymptoms(sr=.07,p=ns),de-
ofsomeitemsontheCUscalesthatwerenotasstrongly spite a clear association with the negative facilitation
associatedwithabnormalitiesinemotionalprocessing.2 scoreinananalogousanalysis(sr=–.32,p<.05).
In doing so, it allowed those items that were more
strongly associated with emotional processing to ac-
countforagreaterpercentageofthevarianceintheneg- Discussion
Researchinadultsampleshaslinkedpsychopathic
2Wewouldliketothankananonymousreviewerforraisingthis
traitstoanunderlyingimpairmentintheprocessingof
possibility and providing a method for testing it.
75
Description:Callous–Unemotional Traits, Impulsivity, and Emotional Processing in Adolescents With Antisocial Behavior Problems. Bryan R. Loney. Department of
