do childhood callous-unemotional traits drive change in parenting practices?
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Auburn University Libraries]On: 17 November 2014, At: 09:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcap20
Do Childhood Callous-Unemotional Traits Drive Changein Parenting Practices?David J. Hawes a , Mark R. Dadds b , Aaron D.J. Frost c & Penelope A. Hasking da School of Psychology , The University of Sydneyb School of Psychology , The University of New South Walesc School of Psychology , Griffith Universityd School of Psychology and Psychiatry , Monash UniversityPublished online: 04 Jul 2011.
To cite this article: David J. Hawes , Mark R. Dadds , Aaron D.J. Frost & Penelope A. Hasking (2011) Do Childhood Callous-Unemotional Traits Drive Change in Parenting Practices?, Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40:4, 507-518,DOI: 10.1080/15374416.2011.581624
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2011.581624
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
REGULAR ARTICLES
Do Childhood Callous-Unemotional Traits DriveChange in Parenting Practices?
David J. Hawes
School of Psychology, The University of Sydney
Mark R. Dadds
School of Psychology, The University of New South Wales
Aaron D.J. Frost
School of Psychology, Griffith University
Penelope A. Hasking
School of Psychology and Psychiatry, Monash University
This study examined the relationship between callous-unemotional (CU) traits andparenting practices over time in a mixed-sex community cohort (N¼ 1,008; 52.6% boys),aged 3 to 10 years (M¼ 6.5, SD¼ 1.3). Measures of CU traits, externalizing psycho-pathology, parenting practices, and socioeconomic risk factors were collected atbaseline, and parenting practices and CU traits were reassessed at 12-month follow-up.CU traits uniquely accounted for change in three domains of parenting (inconsistentdiscipline, punishment, and parental involvement). Likewise, multiple domains of par-enting (positive parenting, parental involvement, and poor monitoring=supervision)uniquely predicted change in CU traits. These seemingly bidirectional dynamics betweenCU traits and parenting were found to be largely moderated by child age and sex.Results partially replicate previous findings regarding the association between qualityof parenting and prospective change in CU traits, and provide initial evidence thatCU traits disrupt parenting practices over time.
It has been more than three decades since Patterson(1976) declared the aggressive child both ‘‘victim andarchitect of a coercive system.’’ Bidirectional parent–child dynamics are at the heart of Patterson’s (1982)influential ‘‘coercion theory,’’ in which they are
conceptualized as self-perpetuating reinforcement trapsbased on escape-avoidance conditioning. Escalatingcycles of harsh and inconsistent discipline are seen toreinforce a child’s aggressive and oppositional behavior,whereas extinguishing prosocial behavior. Child beha-vior functions in turn to disrupt consistent discipline,punish positive parenting practices, and reinforce harshand coercive parenting—thereby feeding back intorecurrent cycles of parent–child coercion. Much pro-gress has been made in characterizing the mechanismsthrough which these parenting processes operate onchild outcomes (see Dishion & Patterson, 2006).However, child-to-parent (i.e., child-driven) effects inthe families of children with conduct problems have
This research was supported in part by funding from the National
Health and Medical Research Council. Thanks to the many families
who participated, to Dr Jenny Fraser for her assistance on the project,
and to Dr Margaret Charles for her input on statistical issues. Thanks
also to the anonymous reviewers who provided valuable feedback on
an earlier draft of this article.Correspondence should be addressed to David J. Hawes, School of
Psychology, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail:
Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(4), 507–518, 2011
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1537-4416 print=1537-4424 online
DOI: 10.1080/15374416.2011.581624
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aub
urn
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
44 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
received comparatively little attention (Burke, Pardini,& Loeber, 2008). This omission may be particularlynoteworthy given that in families of children with con-duct problems, child-to-parent effects appear to begreater than parent-to-child effects (Burke et al., 2008;Hipwell et al., 2008; Huh, Tristan, Wade, & Stice,2006; Larsson, Viding, & Plomin, 2008; Verhoeven,Junger, van Aken, Dekovic, & van Aken, 2010).
There is some evidence that child-driven effects in thefamilies of children with conduct problems may besomewhat specific to different forms of externalizingpsychopathology, with findings that diagnostic featuresof oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct dis-order (CD), and attention-deficit=hyperactivity disorder(ADHD) may impact differentially on parenting overtime. For example, Burke et al. (2008) reported thatfeatures of ODD, but not CD, predicted increases intimid discipline (i.e., reluctance to engage in disciplinarypractices due to concerns that the child will respond withhostile behavior) in a community sample of (n¼ 177)boys followed longitudinally between the ages of 7 and17. Likewise, there is evidence that although ADHD isassociated with disruptions to parenting, these effectsmay be attributable largely to comorbid conduct pro-blems. For example, numerous studies have found thatfeatures of ADHD are not uniquely associated withquality of parenting once features of ODD=CD areincluded in predictive models (e.g., Bussing et al.,2003; Podolski & Nigg, 2001; Stormshak, Bierman,McMahon, & Lengua, 2000).
These findings suggest that to characterize child-driven effects on parenting in the families of childrenwith conduct problems, it is necessary to account forthe heterogeneity of childhood antisocial behavior. Ofparticular relevance to this issue appears to be the sub-typing of conduct problems based on the presence ofhigh versus low levels of callous-unemotional (CU)traits (i.e., low levels of guilt and empathy), with grow-ing evidence that CU traits and parenting processesinteract in important ways. There is now considerableevidence that conduct problems follow distinct devel-opmental trajectories in children with high versus lowlevels of CU traits and that these trajectories areassociated with somewhat unique causal processes (seeFrick & Viding, 2009). Although much of this evi-dence comes from samples of school-aged childrenand adolescents, support for the application of the CUtraits construct in early childhood has also been demon-strated (e.g., Cornell & Frick, 2007; Kimonis et al.,2006).
There is growing evidence that the effects of negativeparenting on conduct problems are moderated by CUtraits, such that negative parenting is less directlyassociated with conduct problems in children withhigh levels of CU traits (Hipwell et al., 2007; Oxford,
Cavell, & Hughes, 2003; Wootton, Frick, Shelton, &Silverthorn, 1997). Likewise, twin research has foundthat not only are high levels of CU traits highly heritablebut also the conduct problems exhibited by childrenwith high levels of CU traits are under strong geneticcontrol. Conversely, conduct problems among childrenwith low levels of CU traits show moderate shared-environment influence and only modest heritability(Viding, Blair, Moffitt, & Plomin, 2005). Clinicalresearch has provided consistent evidence, showing thatboys with clinic-referred ODD and high levels of CUtraits benefit less from behavioral parent training inter-vention than those with low levels of CU traits (Hawes& Dadds, 2005, 2007).
Somewhat less research has examined the role of spe-cific forms of parenting in the development of CU traits,and findings have been mixed. Pardini, Lochman, andPowell (2007) found that CU traits were highly stableover 1 year in a mixed-sex sample of children (aged9–12 years; n¼ 120) with elevated levels of aggressionbut were also predicted by specific parenting practices.High levels of corporal punishment (but not inconsistentdiscipline) were associated with increased CU traits overtime, whereas high levels of parenting warmth=involve-ment predicted decreased levels of CU traits. Althoughthis would suggest that quality of parenting may func-tion as a nonshared environmental risk factor for thedevelopment and amplification of CU traits, a longitudi-nal study by Viding, Nathalie, Fontaine et al. (2009)using a monozygotic twin differences design did notsupport this. As parenting was operationalized andmeasured somewhat differently in these studies, theextent to which methodological differences may accountfor these seemingly divergent findings remains unclear.
We are aware of no studies to date that have exam-ined the influence of child CU traits on quality of par-enting. There is, however, evidence to suggest that CUtraits may be associated with unique child-driven effectsin families of children with conduct problems. Using alongitudinal genetically informative design, Larsson,Viding, and Plomin (2008) examined the parenting his-tories of 7-year-old children (N¼ 4,430 twins) with highversus low levels of CU traits. Follow-back analysisshowed that high levels of CU traits at age 7 were asso-ciated with negative parenting (‘‘harsh discipline’’ and‘‘negative feelings’’) in early childhood (ages 3–4 years).Of interest, this adverse parenting history was evidentfor children with high levels of CU traits independentof conduct problem severity. That is, although 7-year-olds with conduct problems and high levels of CU traitswere found to have received negative parenting at ages 3to 4, this was also the case for children with high levelsof CU traits but no conduct problems. Like the studiespreviously noted, the authors found that prospectivechange in quality of parenting was primarily the result
508 HAWES, DADDS, FROST, HASKING
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aub
urn
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
44 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
of child (rather than parent) variables. However, as CUtraits were not measured at Time 1, it was not possiblefor this study to determine whether this change wasrelated to CU traits per se (Larsson, Viding, &Plomin, 2008).
Larsson, Viding, and Plomin (2008) speculated thatchildhood CU traits may be implicated in an evocativegene–environment correlation, whereby a child’s geneti-cally based CU traits shape his or her environment byeliciting harsh discipline, in turn amplifying existingconduct problems and CU traits. This position is con-sistent with previous findings from this longitudinalsample showing that a significant component of theantisocial behavior that evokes negative parenting isgenetically influenced behavior (Larsson, Viding,Rijsdijk, & Plomin, 2008) and that the antisocial beha-vior of children with high levels of CU traits is underparticularly strong genetic control (Viding et al., 2005).
This position is also consistent with Dadds andSalmon’s (2003) model of punishment insensitivity—acharacteristic generally recognized as a marker for CUtraits. Experimental research has found that childrenwith CU traits are somewhat insensitive to punishmentcues, especially when a reward-oriented response set isprimed (Fisher & Blair, 1998; O’Brien & Frick, 1996;Pardini, Lochman, & Frick, 2003). Likewise, boys withCU traits appear to be less responsive to the punishmentcomponents of interventions for conduct problemsthan those components based on reward=positive-reinforcement (Hawes & Dadds, 2005, 2007). Drawingon conditioning studies in the animal literature, Daddsand Salmon argued that although some individualsmay be predisposed to punishment insensitivity due toa fearless=underaroused temperament, it is also possiblefor environmental conditions to shape punishmentinsensitivity through classical and operant conditioning.They further predicted that, in families of children withconduct problems, punishment insensitivity specificallymay function to evoke the increasingly harsh and incon-sistent conditions that characterize families of childrenwith conduct problems. The authors speculated thatthe poor avoidance learning exhibited by children withCU traits (e.g., Vitale et al., 2005) may lead parents toincrease the amplitude of punishments in the hope ofincreasing their effectiveness. It is assumed that thisprocess will be compounded by the child’s failure torecognize parents’ subtle gestures of disapproval, dueto the impaired processing of emotional cues in thesechildren (see Blair & Mitchell, 2009, for review). Asescalations in the severity of punishment are met withlimited success, it is expected that this punishment willalso become increasingly inconsistent (Dadds & Salmon,2003).
The aim of this study was to examine bidirectionalparent–child dynamics in the relationship between CU
traits and parenting practices across early and middlechildhood. Of particular interest were the effects ofCU traits on change in parenting practices, which havenot been tested in previous research. The current studywas informed by a number of key findings related tochild-driven effects in families of children with conductproblems. First, there is some evidence to suggest thatthe nature of child-driven family dynamics associatedwith conduct problems may change across development.For example, it has been reported that child-to-parenteffects may increase in magnitude during periods oftransition that place stress on the family system, suchas entry to schooling (age 5–6 years) and the transitionto adolescence (age 11–12 years; Gross, Shaw, &Moilanen, 2008; Pardini, Fite, & Burke, 2008). As such,a specific aim of the current study was to examine therelative impact of CU traits and related features ofexternalizing problems on parenting across differentdevelopmental periods. Second, although some researchinto bidirectional parent–child dynamics has relied onglobal or unidimensional indices of parenting (e.g.,negative parenting; Larrson, Viding, & Plomin, 2008),those that have measured multiple dimensions of parent-ing have generally found some to be more sensitive tochild-driven effects than others (e.g., Burke et al.,2008). The current study therefore also examined howchild-driven effects associated with CU traits wererelated specific dimensions of parenting across theserespective periods. Third, it appears that in order tocharacterize child-driven effects within parent–childdynamics, the broader social contexts in which thesedynamics are occurring must be taken into account.For example, Burke et al. (2008) found that althoughchildren’s ODD symptoms were associated with disrup-tions to numerous dimensions of parenting (i.e., poorcommunication, positive involvement, poor supervision,timid discipline), a number of these associations were nolonger apparent when controlling for covariates relatedto structural=demographic family-level characteristics.The current study examined the effects of CU traits onparenting in the context of broader ecological variables.
It was predicted, first, that the parenting received bychildren with high levels of CU traits would deterioratein quality over time. Of primary interest were the dys-functional parenting practices that have been associatedmost strongly with risk for antisocial behavior (Frick,Christian & Wootton, 1999; Shelton, Frick, & Wootton,1996). It was expected that CU traits would be associa-ted with escalating patterns of corporal punishment andinconsistent discipline, and reduced levels of parentalinvolvement and positive reinforcement of desirablechild behavior. Second, it was hypothesized that theeffects of CU traits on prospective parenting would beindependent of the effects of other features of externaliz-ing problems (i.e., conduct problems and hyperactivity)
CHILDHOOD CALLOUS-UNEMOTIONAL TRAITS 509
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aub
urn
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
44 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
and common ecological risk factors (i.e., sole parentstatus, low parental education, low household income,and parental depression=anxiety=stress). Third, basedon the findings of Pardini et al. (2007), it was predictedthat parenting characterized by high levels of warmthand involvement would be associated with reducedlevels of CU traits over time, whereas harsh=punitiveparenting would function to amplify these traits.Finally, based on developmental evidence of age-relatedchanges in child-to-parent and parent-to-child effects inchildhood trajectories of antisocial behavior (e.g., Fricket al., 1999; Gross et al., 2008; Pardini et al., 2008), itwas predicted that bidirectional dynamics between CUtraits and parenting would vary in children of differentages. As limited evidence is available as to how agemay moderate the relationship between CU traits andspecific domains of parenting, the examination of suchdevelopmental effects was exploratory.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 1,008 children (52.6% boys) betweenthe ages of 3 and 10 years (M¼ 6.5, SD¼ 1.3). A subsetof the sample (n¼ 781) have been reported on previouslyin research examining the association between CU traitsand other forms of child psychopathology (Dadds,Fraser, Frost, & Hawes, 2005). The additional 227included in the current sample were drawn from thesame population and have not been reported on in pre-vious publications. Participants were recruited from 27elementary schools in Brisbane, Australia’s third largestcity. These schools were chosen to represent the fullrange of inner-city and suburban locations of differingsocioeconomic status. Total household income rangedfrom less than $20,000 (4%), $20,000 to $30,000 (8%),$30,000 to $70,000 (50%), to more than $70,000 (38%).Parent levels of education ranged from completion ofelementary school (1%), to high school junior certificate(24%), high school senior certificate (26%), and tertiaryeducation (university= apprenticeship; 49%). The majo-rity of families (87%) comprised two caregivers; 13%comprised sole parents.
Procedure
Permission to conduct the research was obtainedfrom the Griffith University Human Research EthicsCommittee (Brisbane, Australia) and from the equiva-lent educational committees that govern research inthe participating schools. The test battery was distri-buted through the schools to all children within the rel-evant age ranges and sent home to parents. Information
sheets and consent forms were included that explainedthe nature of the research and the requirements of theparticipants. Participation was not compensated. Com-pleted questionnaires were returned to the researchersin self-addressed envelopes with return rates rangingfrom 32.5% to 74.8% across schools (M¼ 67.3). Allquestionnaires were completed by the parent who wasthe primary caregiver for the child, who in the vastmajority of cases was the mother. Of the 1,274 childrenwhose parents completed the Time 1 parent-report mea-sures, 1,008 (79%) completed Time 2 measures 12months later. As reported previously for this sample,variations in return rates were not associated with sam-ple characteristics, according to the means, standarddeviations, and ranges of all demographic and childand parent variables (see Dadds et al., 2005).
Measures
Strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ;Goodman, 1997). The 25-item SDQ screens for childbehavior and psychopathology on five subscales: Hyper-activity, Conduct Problems, Emotional Symptoms, PeerProblems, and Prosocial Behavior. The psychometricproperties of the measure have been supported throughextensive evaluations with clinic-referred and commun-ity populations. For example, in a representativecommunity sample of young Australian children(N¼ 1,359; ages 4–9 years) coefficient alphas acrossthe SDQ subscales ranged from .59 to .82 and theConduct Problems scale correlated r¼ .35, p< .01 withteacher ratings of aggression and r¼ .24, p< .01 withseverity of combined ODD and CD features accordingto diagnostic interviews (Hawes & Dadds, 2004).
Antisocial process screening device (APSD; Frick &Hare, 2002). The 20-item APSD assesses childhoodfeatures of psychopathy on three subscales. Items in thefirst subscale correspond to CU traits (e.g., ‘‘Unconcernedabout the feelings of others,’’ ‘‘Feels bad or guilty when hehas done something wrong’’). The second subscale,Impulsivity, represents poor impulse control (e.g., ‘‘Actswithout thinking of the consequences’’). The third sub-scale, Narcissism, includes items related to egocentricityand inflated views of one’s self (e.g., ‘‘Thinks he=she ismore important than others’’). Following the methodreported by Dadds et al. (2005), items from the SDQand APSD were pooled to create scales for CU traitsand Antisocial behavior (i.e., general conduct problems)that have been found to demonstrate greater reliabilitythan the original corresponding scales from those instru-ments. This new CU traits scale comprises the originalCU traits items from the APSD plus (negatively corre-lated) items from the Prosocial Behavior scale of the
510 HAWES, DADDS, FROST, HASKING
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aub
urn
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
44 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
SDQ. The new Antisocial scale consists of items fromthe Impulsivity and Narcissism scales of the APSD, andthe Conduct Problems scale of the SDQ. Antisocial scoreswere therefore used to index general child conductproblems in the current study. The internal consistencyof the revised CU traits scale has been found to besuperior to that of the original CU traits scale of theAPSD in previously reported samples (e.g., a¼ .79 vs.a¼ .57; Hawes & Dadds, 2005). Likewise, the constructvalidity of this scale has been supported in researchassociating CU traits with poor fear recognition inchildren and adolescents viewing emotional face stimuli(Dadds et al., 2006).
The Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ;Shelton et al., 1996) was used to assess parenting prac-tices. The APQ consists of 42 items presented with a5-point endorsement scale (Never, Almost Never,Sometimes, Often, Always). Items are divided into fivesubscales: Poor Monitoring=Supervision, InconsistentDiscipline, Corporal Punishment, Parental Involvement,and Positive Parenting (i.e., responding to desirablechild behavior with positive reinforcement). The mea-sure has been subject to extensive measurement researchacross a range of populations and is regarded as a validand reliable index of parenting practices (McMahon &Frick, 2007). The five-factor structure of the APQ hasbeen supported in two large-cohort studies (Elgar,Waschbusch, Dadds, & Sigvaldason, 2007; Essau,Sasagawa, & Frick, 2006). Scores on the APQ have beenfound to discriminate between the parenting receivedby children (aged 6–13 years) in clinic and communitysamples (Shelton et al., 1996), and the subscales havebeen found to demonstrate moderate to high internalconsistency and good test–retest reliability in a represen-tative community cohort (Dadds, Maujean, & Fraser,2003). Furthermore, in a sample of clinic-referred boyswith conduct problems, Hawes and Dadds (2006) foundthat parent reports on the measure converged wellwith observations of parents’ use of praise and harsh=aversive parenting. APQ scores were also found toreflect change in parenting practices across treatmentand covary with clinical child outcomes following aparenting intervention (Hawes & Dadds, 2006).
The depression anxiety and stress scales 21(DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). ThisDASS-21 is a 21-item self-report measure of depression,anxiety, and stress, commonly used for research andclinical purposes. Psychometric evaluation of the mea-sure in a representative community adult sample in theUnited Kingdom (N¼ 1,794) showed strong internalconsistency across the three scales and total scores(a¼ .88 for Depression, a¼ .82 for Anxiety, a¼ .90 forStress; a¼ .93 for DASS total; Henry & Crawford,
2005). Subscale correlations with the Beck DepressionInventory (Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979) and BeckAnxiety Inventory (Beck & Steer, 1990) ranging from.69 to .85 in clinical samples also support the concurrentvalidity of the measure (Antony, Bieling, Cox, Enns, &Swinson, 1998). The current study used DASS totalscores to index parental depression, anxiety, and stressglobally; these total scores showed high internal consist-ency (a¼ .90) in our sample.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics and correlations among the keyvariables measured at Time 1 and 2 are presented inTable 1. Correlations between Time 1 and 2 measuresof the five parenting domains ranged from r¼ .60 tor¼ .71, indicating high levels of temporal stability. Highlevels of stability were also seen for CU Traits (r¼ .70),antisocial (r¼ .73), and hyperactivity (r¼ .77) scores.Significant intercorrelations were seen among thesedimensions, with Time 1 CU traits positively associatedwith Time 1 Antisocial (r¼ .53), and time 1 hyperactiv-ity (r¼ .53). CU traits, antisocial, and hyperactivityscores were also each associated with each of the fourparenting domains, both concurrently and across time.High levels of CU traits were significantly associatedwith low levels of parental involvement and positiveparenting practices, and greater inconsistent discipline,corporal punishment, and poor monitoring=supervision.These same parenting correlates were also found forantisocial and hyperactivity.
Predicting Change in Parenting Practices
Data analytic plan. The effects of CU traits onparenting were examined in linear regression analysessimilar to those previously used to test the effects ofparenting practices on prospective change in CU traits(Pardini et al., 2007). A separate hierarchical regressionwas performed for each of the five domains of parentingindexed by the APQ (corporal punishment, inconsistentdiscipline, parental involvement, positive parenting,poor monitoring=supervision). In each of these regres-sions Time 2 measure of the respective parenting domainwas the dependent variable, with independent variablestested in four blocks. Block 1 consisted of the time 1measure of the respective parenting domain as well astime 1 antisocial and hyperactivity scores, DASS totalscores, and demographic=structural family characteris-tics (sole parent status; only child status; mothers’ levelof education). To examine the effects of antisocial scoreson parenting before controlling for CU traits, Time 1
CHILDHOOD CALLOUS-UNEMOTIONAL TRAITS 511
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aub
urn
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
44 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
TABLE1
DescriptiveStatisticsandCorrelationsAmongPrimary
StudyVariables
12
34
56
78
910
11
12
13
14
15
16
1.ChildCU
TraitsT1
1.69��
.53��
.43��
.53��
.45��
.23��
.22��
.31��
.31��
�.28��
�.20��
�.39��
�.31��
.19��
.16��
2.ChildCU
TraitsT2
1.45��
.57��
.46��
.53��
.18��
.21��
.26��
.33��
�.30��
�.32��
�.38��
�.37��
.18��
.24��
3.ChildAntisocialT1
1.72��
.53��
.48��
.21��
.19��
.31��
.29��
�.18��
�.13��
�.28��
�.23��
.22��
.17��
4.ChildAntisocialT2
1.46��
.56��
.15��
.22��
.28��
.39��
�.18��
�.16��
�.28��
�.28��
.17��
.22��
5.ChildHyperactivityT1
1.77��
.22��
.20��
.31��
.27��
�.15��
�.09��
�.35��
�.27��
.17��
.17��
6.ChildHyperactivityT2
1.18��
.18��
.29��
.32��
�.16��
�.12��
�.32��
�.31��
.19��
.25��
7.CorporalPunishmentT1
1.62��
.23��
.18��
�.10��
�.08�
�.18��
�.16��
.17��
.15��
8.CorporalPunishmentT2
1.21��
.25��
�.09��
�.09��
�.17��
�.15��
.15��
.13��
9.InconsistentDisciplineT1
1.66��
�.21��
�.14��
�.28��
�.25��
.32��
.20��
10.InconsistentDisciplineT2
1�.20��
�.23��
�.28��
�.30��
.20��
.26��
11.PositiveParentingT1
1.59��
.53��
.42��
�.21��
�.19��
12.PositiveParentingT2
1.38��
.53��
�.13��
�.23��
13.ParentalInvolvem
entT1
1.70��
�.27��
�.24��
14.ParentalInvolvem
entT2
1�.28��
�.35��
15.Monitoring=SupervisionT1
1.50��
16.Monitoring=SupervisionT2
.1
M4.20
3.94
4.17
4.21
6.23
6.10
5.65
5.23
13.74
13.44
25.93
25.76
40.60
41.29
12.16
11.97
SD
3.12
3.18
3.58
3.71
3.92
4.07
1.65
1.60
3.32
3.45
2.65
2.70
4.54
4.22
3.08
2.83
a.80
.82
.82
.83
.83
.83
.60
.62
.72
.76
.77
.78
.75
.74
.64
.63
Note:T1¼Tim
e1assessm
ent;T2¼Tim
e2assessm
ent.
� p<.05.��p<.01.
512
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aub
urn
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
44 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
scores for CU traits were entered in Block 2. To testchild age and sex as potential moderators of the keychild variables (antisocial, CU traits, and hyperactivity),Blocks 3 and 4 consisted of the respective two-way(antisocial� age, antisocial� sex, CU traits� age, CUtraits� sex, hyperactivity� age, hyperactivity� sex),and three-way (antisocial� age� sex, CU traits�age� sex, hyperactivity� age� sex) interaction termsfor these variables.
As recommended when testing interaction terms inregression (Aiken & West, 1991), all predictor variableswere first centered. The Variance Inflation Factor(Velleman, 1981) was also calculated for each model tocheck that they were not affected by multicollinearity.The maximum value among all regressions conducted(including those described later) was 4.25; models aredeemed uninterpretable when Variance Inflation Factorvalues reach 10 (Belseley, Kuh, & Welsch, 1980). Signifi-cant interaction terms were probed post hoc using theestablished method of simple slope analysis outlined byAiken and West (1991), which is recommended for inter-preting moderational effects in child and family research(Holmbeck, 2002). Using this method, conditional mod-erator variables, corresponding to �1 SD from thecentred value for each participant, were computed to testthe significance of the respective independent variable athigh=low levels of the moderator variable.
Positive parenting. The variables that predictedchange in parenting practices over time are presented
in Table 2. Consistent with the stability in parentingpractices already noted, Time 2 measures of parentingwere predicted by the respective Time 1 parentingdomains in all models. For positive parenting, no childor family variables other than Time 1 positive parentingwere found to predict positive parenting at Time 2. Sig-nificant predictors of change over time in other domainsof parenting were as follows.
Inconsistent discipline. In the prediction of changein inconsistent discipline, significant main effects wereseen for child age, sole parent status, and CU traits.The direction of coefficients indicate that InconsistentDiscipline occurred at increased levels among older chil-dren, those from sole parent families, and those withhigher levels of CU traits. As no significant effects werefound for any of the interaction terms, a reduced modelconsisting of Blocks 1 and 2 was interpreted.
Poor monitoring=supervision. In the prediction ofchange in poor monitoring and supervision, significantmain effects were seen for child age, sole parent status,DASS total scores, and hyperactivity. The direction ofcoefficients indicate that poor monitoring=supervisionoccurred at increased levels among older children; thosefrom sole parent families; those with higher levels ofhyperactivity; and those whose parents suffered fromhigher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. As thesignificant predictor variables were all within Block 1,
TABLE 2
Predictors of 12-Month Change in Parenting Practices
Block Predictor Variable
Inconsistent
Discipline
Corporal
Punishment
Positive
Parenting
Parental
Involvement
Monitoring=
Supervision
1 Time 1 parenting .60�� .59�� .57�� .66�� .44��
Child age .06� �.04 �.03 �.10�� .10��
Child sex �.01 .02 .02 .02 .02
Sole parent status .07�� �.09�� �.02 �.02 .08��
Maternal level of education �.03 �.02 �.02 .02 .00
Household income .02 �.04 .01 .00 �.03
Parent DASS total score .04 �.03 �.01 �.06� .06�
Child hyperactivity .00 .12� .01 �.05 .07�
Child antisocial .04 �.03 �.00 .04 �.01
2 Child CU traits .10�� .02 — �.01 —
3 Child Hyperactivity�Sex — �.13� — .08 —
Child Antisocial�Sex — .12� — �.06 —
Child CU Traits� Sex — .02 — �.04 —
Child Hyperactivity�Age — .01 — �.03 —
Child Antisocial�Age — �.03 — �.01 —
Child CU Traits�Age — .08� — .11� —
4 Child Hyperactivity�Age� Sex — — — .14�� —
Child Antisocial�Age�Sex — — — .00 —
Child CU Traits�Age� Sex — — — �.14�� —
Note: All parameter estimates are standardized betas. DASS¼Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales; CU¼ callous-unemotional.�p< .05. ��p< .01.
CHILDHOOD CALLOUS-UNEMOTIONAL TRAITS 513
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aub
urn
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
44 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
a reduced model comprising this block alone wasinterpreted.
Parental involvement. Parental involvement waspredicted by child age and DASS total scores. The direc-tion of coefficients indicate that older children receiveddecreased levels of involvement over time, as did thosewhose parents suffered from higher levels of depression,anxiety, and stress. The interaction term hyperactivi-ty� age� sex was also significant, as was that for CUtraits� age� sex. Post hoc probing indicated that highlevels of hyperactivity were associated with decreasedparental involvement in girls only, and only for thosein the lower age range of the sample (B¼�.09,SE¼ .05, p¼ .05). High levels of CU traits were associa-ted with decreased parental involvement, but onlyamong older boys (B¼�.08, SE¼ .05, p¼ .04) andyounger girls (B¼�.12, SE¼ .07, p¼ .01).
Corporal punishment. Among demographic=struc-tural family variables, sole parent status was the onlysignificant predictor of corporal punishment over time.The interaction term for antisocial� sex was also signifi-cant, as was that for hyperactivity� sex, and CUtraits� age. Post hoc probing indicated that high anti-social scores were associated with increased corporal
punishment over time, but only among boys (B¼ .10,SE¼ .01, p¼ .00). Conversely, high levels of hyper-activity were associated with high levels of corporalpunishment over time, but for girls only (B¼ .08,SE¼ .01, p¼ .03). As shown in Figure 1a, high levelsof CU traits were associated with increased corporalpunishment irrespective of sex, but only among childrenin the upper age range of the sample (B¼ .14, SE¼ .01,p¼ .00). As no three-way interaction terms were signifi-cant in predicting Time 2 corporal punishment, the finalblock of the regression was omitted from the modelinterpreted here.
Predicting Change in CU Traits
Predictors of CU traits at Time 2 were examined in ahierarchical linear regression in which Time 1 measuresof CU traits were included as a covariate. Other inde-pendent variables in Block 1 included the samedemographic=structural family characteristics used inthe previous analysis (child age and sex; sole parent sta-tus; only child status; mothers’ level of education) andeach of the five respective parenting domains. Block 2consisted of two-way interaction terms for the five par-enting domains and age, followed by those for sex,whereas Block 3 comprised the respective three-wayinteraction terms for each parenting domain, child age,
FIGURE 1 (a) Interaction between callous-unemotional (CU) traits and child age in predicting Time 2 corporal punishment (z scores) after con-
trolling for Time 1 corporal punishment. (b) Interaction between poor monitoring=supervision and child age in predicting Time 2 CU traits (z scores)
after controlling for Time 1 CU traits. (c) Interaction between parental involvement and sex in predicting Time 2 CU traits (z scores) after controlling
for Time 1 CU traits. (d) Interaction between positive parenting practices and sex in predicting Time 2 CU traits (z scores) after controlling for Time 1
CU traits.
514 HAWES, DADDS, FROST, HASKING
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aub
urn
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
44 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
and sex. Time 2 levels of CU traits were predicted byTime 1 levels, indicating a high degree of stability. Childsex and positive parenting were both significant as maineffects, as well as in the positive parenting� sex interac-tion term. Significant effects were also seen for poormonitoring=supervision� age and parental involve-ment� sex; no three-way interaction terms were signifi-cant. As shown in Figure 1b, poor monitoring=supervision predicted increased levels of CU traitsacross time but only within the lower age range of thesample (B¼ .15, SE¼ .03, p¼ .00). High levels ofparental involvement predicted decreased levels of CUtraits but this was stronger for boys (B¼�.15,SE¼ .02, p¼ .00) than girls (B¼� .08, SE¼ .02,p¼ .01; see Figure 1c). Conversely, high levels of posi-tive parenting practices were more strongly associatedwith decreased levels of CU traits in girls (B¼� .13,SE¼ .04, p¼ .00) than boys (B¼�.08, SE¼ .03,p¼ .01; see Figure 1d).
DISCUSSION
This study examined the relationship between CU traitsand parenting practices in terms of bidirectional parent–child dynamics across early and middle childhood. Aspredicted, CU traits uniquely accounted for change inparenting practices over time, and likewise, parentingpractices were found to account for change in CU traits.It is important to note that the association between CUtraits and parenting was independent of associationswith other externalizing (i.e., general conduct problemsand hyperactivity) and common ecological risk factors(e.g., parental depression, socioeconomic adversity).Furthermore, these dynamics were found to be moder-ated in part by child age and sex.
CU traits predicted change in three out of the fivedomains of parenting examined: corporal punishment,inconsistent discipline, and parental involvement. Theywere associated with increased levels of inconsistentdiscipline irrespective of child age and sex, and increasedlevels of corporal punishment among older childrenonly. CU traits were associated with reduced levels ofparental involvement in older boys, and younger girls,specifically. Of these parenting domains, only corporalpunishment showed effects for conduct problems thatwere independent of those for CU traits. Of interest,change in inconsistent discipline was initially predictedby conduct problems; however, this effect became non-significant when CU traits were entered as a covariate.Furthermore, unlike CU traits, conduct problems werenot associated with change in either of the parentingdimensions related to warmth (i.e., positive parentingand parental involvement). Thus, despite the smalleffect sizes that characterized the prediction afforded
by CU traits, they predicted change in parentingpractices somewhat more robustly than did conductproblems.
Change in CU traits over time was predicted by theparenting domains of positive parenting, parentalinvolvement, and poor monitoring=supervision. Onceagain, these effects were largely moderated by age andsex. Although positive parenting and parental involve-ment each predicted change in CU traits in both boysand girls, this change was associated predominantlywith positive parenting in girls and parental involvementin boys. These findings are consistent with those inPardini et al. (2007), with the exception of corporal pun-ishment, which did not predict change in CU traits inour sample. Sample characteristics might account forthis discrepancy, with Pardini et al. (2007) sampling onlychildren with existing conduct problems.
Poor monitoring=supervision was associated withincreased levels of CU traits over time, but at youngerages only. This age effect is interesting, given that poormonitoring and supervision have been most stronglyassociated with risk for conduct problems during theadolescent years. As discussed elsewhere, poor monitor-ing and supervision in adolescence is assumed to have avery different meaning than in early childhood (Burkeet al., 2008), where it is related less to the regulationof peer activities and more to the quality of family pro-cesses in the home.
Our overall pattern of results therefore suggests thatthe specific domains of parenting that predicted changein CU traits are largely distinct from those affected byCU traits. The only parenting domain implicated inboth child- and parent-driven effects was parentalinvolvement. Our findings also add to existing evidence(Pardini et al., 2007) that parental involvement andeffective use of positive reinforcement are related to tem-poral levels of CU traits, whereas inconsistent disciplineis not. We did, however, find that that CU traits pre-dicted increases in inconsistent discipline over time. Assuch, it is possible that CU traits may in part confer riskfor chronic trajectories of antisocial behavior by shapingincreasingly inconsistent patterns of discipline, which isan established risk factor for conduct problems (Fricket al., 1999).
Our findings are in line with Dadds and Salmon’s(2003) model of punishment insensitivity, which predictsthat among children with conduct problems, CU traitsaccount for unique effects on parenting practices. Themodel predicts that specific correlates of CU traits—namely, poor avoidance learning and impaired proces-sing of emotional cues—may operate to elicit escalatingpatterns of harsh and inconsistent discipline. These find-ings are also consistent with the thesis that the develop-mental trajectories of children with high levels of CUtraits may be shaped by an evocative gene–environment
CHILDHOOD CALLOUS-UNEMOTIONAL TRAITS 515
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aub
urn
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
44 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
correlation (Larsson, Viding, & Plomin, 2008). At thesame time, it is possible that genetic similaritiesbetween children with CU traits and their parentsmay function to enhance bidirectional parent–childdynamics in these families. That is, parents may besomewhat predisposed to respond poorly to the beha-vior of a child with CU traits if they themselves alsocarry such traits.
The high heritability that has been found for CUtraits supports this assumption (Viding et al., 2005).
Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice
Clinical research has previously found that youngboys with conduct problems and high levels of CUtraits benefit less from behavioral parent training thanthose without CU traits (Hawes & Dadds, 2005). Thisfinding is consistent with broader evidence that CUtraits moderate the association between negative par-enting and the development of conduct problems(see Frick & Viding, 2009). The current findings raisethe question of whether these compromised outcomesmay simply be explained by the adverse effects ofCU traits on parenting. Available evidence does not,however, support this possibility.1 It appears, then,that the routine assessment of childhood CU traitsin clinical settings may be of value in identifying casesat risk of limited or less durable therapeutic responseas well as providing treatment-planning indicationsbased on child age and sex. Although it is assumedthat parent-training therapists continually monitorparents’ implementation and maintenance of the par-enting practices targeted in treatment, the current find-ings suggest that, when treating children with highlevels of CU traits, inconsistent limit-setting shouldbe prioritized when reviewing parenting practices. In
addition, it appears that enhancing parental involve-ment, and overcoming the reinstatement of harsh,overreactive discipline, may be high priority targetswhen such cases involve boys entering puberty. Alter-natively, it appears that for girls presenting with con-duct problems and CU traits in early childhood, aparticular emphasis on parental involvement may beindicated.
Although child age and sex were both found tomoderate the effects of CU traits on parenting (and viceversa), conclusions regarding developmental or sex-specific processes should remain tentative until repli-cated in other samples. It is possible that the detectionof effects within some age=sex cohorts and not othersmay in part reflect the methodological limitations ofthe study. A key limitation was the exclusive use ofparent-report data, and therefore shared method vari-ance. Although this allowed for large-cohort testing,the detection of such effects might have been enhancedthrough the multi-informant=multimethod measure-ment of CU traits and parenting variables, and assess-ments that discriminate between specific externalizingdiagnoses. In addition, due to the high level of temporalstability seen in the parenting variables, extending theprospective follow-up period beyond 12 months mayalso have allowed for the improved detection of theseeffects. However, for this same reason, the brevity ofthe follow-up period can be seen to have provided aparticularly conservative test of the dynamic bidirec-tional effects examined here. Finally, although the focusof this study was on the parenting practices that havebeen most directly associated with risk for conduct pro-blems (see Dishion & Patterson, 2006), it is possible thatCU traits may also disrupt other dimensions of parent-ing and family functioning. Given that Parental Involve-ment was the single domain of parenting to be bothdisrupted by CU traits and associated with change inCU traits, conceptually related dynamics such as qualityof attachment security, and parental responsiveness tochild emotion, may represent key areas for furtherinvestigation.
In conclusion, we found that high levels of CU traitsappear to drive change in quality of parenting overtime. Previous findings regarding the associationbetween problematic parenting and prospective changein CU traits (Pardini et al., 2007) were partially repli-cated, suggesting that bidirectional parent–childdynamics may play a role in shaping developmentaltrajectories associated with CU traits. Of interest, thesedynamics appear to be largely moderated by child ageand sex. These findings add to growing evidence thatCU traits interact with parenting processes acrossdevelopment and may provide specific indications forthe delivery of family-based interventions for conductproblems.
1To answer this question, the logistic regression reported by Hawes
and Dadds (2005, i.e., predicting diagnostic status at 6-month
follow-up in boys [aged 4–8 years] treated for oppositional defiant dis-
order) was rerun based on the findings of the current study. The inde-
pendent variables in the original regression consisted of demographic
and pretreatment child variables (pretreatment severity of oppositional
defiant disorder, pretreatment CU traits, mother’s education, child
age, number of sessions attended) as well as parenting variables
derived from direct observation of parent–child interactions (total
amount of correctly implemented descriptive praise, the total amount
of correctly implemented time-out, and the total amount of harsh=
aversive parenting). Although parent-report data on parenting prac-
tices were collected for this sample using the APQ, they were not used
in the original study due to the availability of observational data. For
the purpose of the current study we were therefore able to rerun this
analysis, including pretreatment APQ scores for inconsistent discipline,
which was the parenting domain found to be most sensitive to the
effects of CU traits in boys of this age. Inconsistent discipline neither
contributed to the prediction of diagnostic outcomes at follow-up nor
canceled the original effect for CU traits (statistical values available
upon request).
516 HAWES, DADDS, FROST, HASKING
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aub
urn
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
44 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R.
P. (1998). Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item ver-
sions of the Depression anxiety stress scales in clinical groups and
a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 10, 176–181.
Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive
therapy of depression: A treatment manual. New York: Guilford.
Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1990). Beck Anxiety Inventory manual. San
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Belseley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnos-
tics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New
York: Wiley.
Blair, R. J. R., & Mitchell, D. G. V. (2009). Psychopathy, attention
and emotion. Psychological Medicine, 39, 543–555.
Burke, J. D., Pardini, D. A., & Loeber, R. (2008). Reciprocal relation-
ships between parenting behavior and disruptive psychopathology
from childhood through adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 36, 679–692.
Bussing, R., Gary, F. A., Mason, D. M., Leon, C. E., Sinha, K., &
Garvan, C. W. (2003). Child temperament, hyperactivity and care-
giver strain: Exploring relationships in an epidemiological sample.
Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,
42, 184–192.
Cornell, A. H., & Frick, P. J. (2007). The contribution of parenting
styles and behavioral inhibition to the development of conscience
in preschool children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 36, 305–318.
Dadds, M. R., Fraser, J., Frost, A., & Hawes, D. J. (2005). Dis-
entangling the underlying dimensions of psychopathy and conduct
problems in childhood: A community study. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 73, 400–410.
Dadds, M. R., Perry, Y., Hawes, D. J., Merz, S., Riddell, A., Haines,
D., et al. (2006). Attention to the eyes and fear-recognition
deficits in child psychopathy. British Journal of Psychiatry, 189,
280–281.
Dadds, M. R., & Salmon, K. (2003). Learning and temperament as
alternate pathways to punishment insensitivity in antisocial children.
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 69–86.
Dadds, M. R., Maujean, A., & Fraser, J. A. (2003). Parenting and con-
duct problems in children: Australian data and psychometric
properties of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire. Australian
Psychologist, 38, 238–241.
Dishion, T. J., & Patterson, G. R. (2006). The development and ecol-
ogy of antisocial behavior. In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.),
Developmental psychopathology. Vol. 3: Risk, disorder, and adap-
tation (Rev. Ed., pp. 503–541). New York: Wiley & Sons.
Elgar, F. J., Waschbusch, D. A., Dadds, M. R., & Sigvaldason, N.
(2007). Development and validation of a short form of the Alabama
Parenting Questionnaire. Journal Child and Family Studies, 16,
243–259.
Essau, C. A., Sasagawa, S., & Frick, P. J. (2006). Callous-unemotional
traits in a community sample of adolescents. Assessment, 13,
454–469.
Fisher, L., & Blair, R. J. R. (1998). Cognitive impairment and its
relationship to psychopathic tendencies in children with emotional
and behavioral difficulties. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
26, 511–519.
Frick, P. J., Christian, R. C., & Wootton, J. M. (1999). Age trends in
the association between parenting practices and conduct problems.
Behavior Modification, 23, 106–128.
Frick, P. J., & Hare, R. D. (2002). The Psychopathy Screening Device.
Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Frick, P. J., & Viding, E. (2009). Antisocial behavior from a develop-
mental psychopathology perspective. Development and Psychopath-
ology, 21, 1111–1131.
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A
research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38,
581–586.
Gross, H. E., Shaw, D. S., & Moilanen, K. L. (2008). Reciprocal asso-
ciations between boys’ externalizing problems and mothers’ depress-
ive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 693–709.
Hawes, D. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2004). Australian data and
psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties ques-
tionnaire. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38,
644–651.
Hawes, D. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2005). The treatment of conduct
problems in children with callous-unemotional traits. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 737–741.
Hawes, D. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2006). Assessing parenting practices
through parent-report and direct observation during parent-
training. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 555–568.
Hawes, D. J., & Dadds, M. R. (2007). Stability and malleability of
callous-unemotional traits during treatment for childhood conduct
problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35,
347–355.
Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short form version of the
Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS–21): Construct validity and
normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 44, 227–239.
Hipwell, A., Keenan, K., Kasza, K., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber,
M., & Bean, T. (2008). Reciprocal influences between girls’ conduct
problems and depression, and parental punishment and warmth: A
six year prospective analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
36, 663–677.
Hipwell, A. E., Pardini, D. A., Loeber, R., Sembower, M., Keenan, K.,
& Stouthamar-Loeber, M. (2007). Callous-unemotional behaviors in
young girls. Shared and unique effects relative to conduct problem.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 293–304.
Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post-hoc probing of significant moderational
and mediational effects in studies of pediatric populations. Journal
of Pediatric Psychology, 27, 87–96.
Huh, D., Tristan, J., Wade, E., & Stice, E. (2006). Does problem beha-
vior elicit poor parenting?: A prospective study of adolescent girls.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 21, 185–204.
Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., Boris, N. W., Smyke, A. T., Zeanah, C.
H., Cornell, A. H., et al. (2006). Callous-unemotional traits, beha-
vioral inhibition, and parenting: Independent predictors of
aggression in a high risk pre-school sample. Journal of Child and
Family Studies, 15, 745–756.
Larsson, H., Viding, E., & Plomin, R. (2008). Callous-unemotional
traits and antisocial behavior: Genetic, environmental, and early
parenting characteristics. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35,
197–211.
Larsson, H., Viding, E., Rijsdijk, F. V., & Plomin, R. (2008). Relation-
ships between parental negativity and childhood antisocial behavior
over time: A bidirectional effects model in a longitudinal genetically
informative design. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36,
633–645.
Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the Depression
Anxiety Stress Scales (2nd ed.). Sydney, Australia: Psychology
Foundation.
McMahon, R. J., & Frick, P. J. (2007). Conduct and oppositional
disorders. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Assessment of
childhood disorders (4th ed. pp. 132–183). New York: Guilford.
O’Brien, B. S., & Frick, P. J. (1996). Reward dominance: Associations
with anxiety, conduct problems, and psychopathy in children.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24, 223–240.
CHILDHOOD CALLOUS-UNEMOTIONAL TRAITS 517
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aub
urn
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
44 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014
Oxford, M., Cavell, T. A., & Hughes, J. N. (2003). Callous-
unemotional traits moderate the relation between ineffective
parenting and child externalizing problems: A partial replication
and extension. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
32, 577–585.
Pardini, D. A., Fite, P. J., & Burke, J. D. (2008). Bidirectional associa-
tions between parenting practices and conduct problems in boys
from childhood to adolescence: The moderating effect of age and
African–American ethnicity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
36, 647–662.
Pardini, D. A., Lochman, J. E., & Frick, P. J. (2003). Callous-
unemotional traits and social cognitive processes in adjudicated
youth: Exploring the schema of juveniles with psychopathic traits.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 42, 364–371.
Pardini, D. A., Lochman, J. E., & Powell, N. (2007). The development
of callous-unemotional traits and antisocial behavior in children:
Are there shared and=or unique predictors? Journal of Clinical Child
and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 319–333.
Patterson, G. R. (1976). The aggressive child: Victim and architect of a
coercive system. In E. J. Marsh, L. A. Hamerlynck, & L. C. Handy
(Eds.), Behavior modification and families: Theory and research
(pp. 267–316). New York: Brunner=Mazel.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Podolski, C. L., & Nigg, J. T. (2001). Parent stress and coping in
relation to child hyperactivity severity and associated child disrup-
tive behavior problems. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30,
501–511.
Shelton, K. K., Frick, P. J., & Wootton, J. (1996). The assessment of
parenting practices in families of elementary school-aged children.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 25, 317–327.
Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., McMahon, R. J., & Lengua, L. J.
(2000). Parenting practices and child disruptive behavior problems in
early elementary school. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 17–29.
Velleman, P. F. (1981). Efficient computing of regression diagnostics.
American Statistician, 35, 234–242.
Verhoeven, M., Junger, M., van Aken, C., Dekovic, M., & van Aken,
M. A. G. (2010). Parenting and children’s externalizing behavior:
Bidirectionality during toddlerhood. Journal of Applied Developmen-
tal Psychology, 31, 93–105.
Viding, E., Blair, J. R., Moffitt, T. E., & Plomin, R. (2005). Evidence
for substantial genetic risk for psychopathy in 7-year-olds. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 592–597.
Viding, E., Fontaine,N.M.G.,Oliver, B. R., & Plomin,R. (2009).Nega-
tive parental discipline, conduct problems and callous-unemotional
traits: Monozygotic twin differences study. The British Journal of
Psychiatry, 195(5), 414–419.
Vitale, J. E., Newman, J. P., Bates, J. E., Goodnight, J., Dodge, K. A.,
& Pettit, G. (2005). Deficient behavioral inhibition and anomalous
selective attention in a community sample of adolescents with
psychopathic traits and low-anxiety traits. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 33, 461–470.
Wootton, J. M., Frick, P. J., Shelton, K. K., & Silverthorn, P. (1997).
Ineffective parenting and childhood conduct problems: The moder-
ating role of callous-unemotional traits. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 65, 301–308.
518 HAWES, DADDS, FROST, HASKING
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Aub
urn
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ries
] at
09:
44 1
7 N
ovem
ber
2014