Antisocial behavior from a developmental psychopathology

21 Pages·2009·0.17 MB·English

DevelopmentandPsychopathology21(2009),1111–1131
Copyright#CambridgeUniversityPress,2009
doi:10.1017/S0954579409990071
Antisocial behavior from a developmental
psychopathology perspective
PAULJ.FRICKaANDESSIVIDINGb
aUniversityofNewOrleans;andbUniversityCollegeLondon
Abstract
Thispaperreviewsresearchonchronicpatternsofantisocialbehaviorandplacesthisresearchintoadevelopmental
psychopathologyframework.Specifically,researchsuggeststhatthereareatleastthreeimportantpathwaysthroughwhich
childrenandadolescentscandevelopsevereantisocialbehaviors.Onegroupofyouthshowsantisocialbehaviorthat
beginsinadolescence,andtwogroupsshowantisocialbehaviorthatbeginsinchildhoodbutdifferonthepresenceor
absenceofcallous–unemotionaltraits.Inoutliningthesedistinctpathwaystoantisocialbehavior,wehavetriedto
illustratesomekeyconceptsfromdevelopmentalpsychopathologysuchasequifinalityandmultifinality,theimportance
ofunderstandingtheinterfacebetweennormalandabnormaldevelopment,andtheimportanceofusingmultiple
levelsofanalysestoadvancecausaltheories.Finally,wediscusshowthisdevelopmentmodelcanbeusedtoenhance
existinginterventionsforantisocialindividuals.
The study of antisocial, criminal, and aggres- proachforintegratingthelargeanddiversere-
sivebehaviorshasalongandrichresearchhis- search literature on antisocial behavior, used
tory (Binder, 1987). Thisintensive focus from broadlyto refer to criminal andaggressive be-
research is not surprising given that these be- haviors, as well as other behaviorsthat violate
haviors often operate at a very high cost to therightsofothersormajorsocietalnorms.
society,suchascoststovictimsofthesebehav- We think that a developmental psychopathol-
iors and the costs associated with detaining ogy approach for integrating this research could
individuals in an effort to protect potential fu- beimportantforatleasttworeasons.First,adevel-
ture victims (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & opmentalpsychopathologyframeworkprovidesa
Lozano, 2002; Loeber & Farrington, 2001). veryusefulwayforintegratingthediverseresearch
Ofimportance,thesebehaviorshavebeenstud- literaturesintoacoherentcausalmodel.Thiscan
ied from a number of different perspectives, help us to understand the developmental mecha-
including anthropological, evolutionary, soci- nismsthatcanleadtoantisocialbehaviorpatterns
ological, psychological, and biological per- andtotranslatethisresearchintoimplicationsfor
spectives, to name a few. Research from each preventionandtreatment.Second,researchonan-
ofthesedisciplinesprovidesauniqueperspec- tisocialbehaviorprovidesaclearwayofillustrating
tive for understanding the course, causes, and theimportanceofseveralkeydevelopmentalpsy-
most effective interventions for individuals chopathology concepts, such as equifinality and
who show severe antisocial behaviors. In this multifinality,theimportanceofintegratingresearch
paper, and in fitting with this special section, onbothnormalandabnormaldevelopment,andthe
we take a developmental psychopathologyap- importanceofintegratingmultiplelevelofanalyses
(e.g., neurological, social, cognitive, behavioral)
forunderstandingpsychopathologicalconditions.
Address correspondence and reprint requeststo: Paul
One broad question that is often raised in
J. Frick, Department of Psychology, University of New
taking a developmental psychopathology per-
Orleans, 2001 Geology and Psychology Building, New
Orleans,LA70148;E-mail:[email protected]. spective on antisocial behavior is whether or
1111
1112 P.J.FrickandE.Viding
not patterns of antisocial behavior should or sion (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Asso-
shouldnotbeconsideredapsychopathological ciation,2000)betweenargumentative,noncom-
condition, psychiatric disorder, or mental ill- pliant, and oppositional behaviors subsumed
ness (Richters & Cicchetti, 1993; Wakefield, under the diagnosis ofoppositionaldefiantdis-
Pottick,& Kirk, 2002). We think that a devel- order and the aggressive, destructive, deceitful,
opmental psychopathology perspective cannot andnorm-violating behaviorsofconduct disor-
completely address this question because the der.Otherdistinctionshavebeenmadebetween
answerislargelydependentonhowonedefines overt conduct problems involving direct con-
“mentaldisorder”(Lilienfeld,&Marino,1995; frontation (e.g., arguing, fighting, stealing with
Wakefield,1992). Thisis,ifa mentaldisorder confrontation) and covert conduct problems
is defined solely as a pattern of behavior that that do not involve confrontation (e.g., lying,
causes harm for a person (e.g., leads to or stealing without confrontation; Snyder et al.,
putshimorheratriskforimpairmentsinpsy- 2008)orbetweenaggressivebehaviorthatisre-
chological, social, oroccupational functioning active(e.g.,inresponsetorealorperceivedpro-
or for violating the rights of others), then im- vocation) or proactive (e.g., premeditated or for
pairing levels of antisocial behavior would fit instrumental gain) in nature (Card & Little,
well within such a definition of a disorder. In 2006;Marsee&Frick,2007).Stillothermethods
contrast, other definitions, such as those that classify youth based on the trajectory of their
requirethe disruptionof some internalmecha- antisocial behavior over time, such as whether
nism in the person (e.g., Wakefield, 1992), the behavior is high and stable, low and stable,
mayfit forsome antisocial individuals butnot highanddeclining,orlowandincreasing(Broidy
others.Adevelopmentalpsychopathologicalper- etal.,2003;LaCourse,Depere,&Loeber,2008).
spectivecanhelptodefinethevariousdifferent Afurtherclassificationconcern,andonethat
causalpathwaysthatmayleadtoantisocialbe- isparticularlyrelevanttothefocusofthisspecial
havior,someofwhichfitparticulardefinitions issue, isthe relationship between antisocial be-
of mental disorders and others that do not. havior patterns and personality disorders. For
Further, this perspective can uncover factors someclassificationsystems,includingthe most
(e.g.,biological, social) that candisrupt a per- recentversionsoftheDSM(AmericanPsychiat-
son’snormaldevelopmentandleadtotheprob- ricAssociation,1980,1987,2000),chronicpat-
lematicbehavior,againdefiningsomepatterns ternsofsevereantisocialbehaviorandantisocial
that may fit with certain definitions of mental personalitydisorderareconsideredsynonymous
disorders and othersthat do not. Thus, the de- concepts (Robins, 1978). However, there have
velopmental psychopathology perspective can been several alternative approaches to classify-
provideawayofconceptualizingantisocialbe- ingantisocial individualsthatfocusontheper-
havior and its causes that informs the debate sonalitytraitsthatmayunderliethechronicanti-
regarding criteria for a disorder, but it cannot social behavior. For example, individuals with
determinethe“best”methodfordifferentiating chronic patterns of antisocial behavior can be
disorderedandnondisorderedindividuals.This classified based on their pattern of scores on
issue is largely dependent on the purpose for the Big Five personality dimensions. Specifi-
makingthisdistinction. cally, antisocial individuals often are low on
Another broad classification issue relates to the personality dimensions of agreeableness
thegreatdiversityofbehaviorssubsumedunder andconscientiousness(Lynam&Widiger,2001).
the rubric of antisocial behavior (Frick et al., Another example of this approach using per-
1993). This large and heterogeneous set of be- sonality features focuseson the affective (e.g.,
haviors has led to numerous attemptsto define lack of empathy and guilt) and interpersonal
meaningful subtypes of antisocial youth based (e.g., callous use of others and narcissism)
on the particular pattern of behaviors they ex- characteristics that have been hallmarks of the
hibit (fora review,see Frick &Marsee,2006). construct of psychopathy (Cleckley, 1976;
Some examples include the distinction made Hare, 1993; Lykken, 1995). This research has
in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of indicated that not all individuals who show
Mental Disorders—Fourth Edition, Text Revi- chronic antisocial and criminal behavior show
Developmentalpsychopathologyandantisocial 1113
elevatedlevelsofpsychopathictraits.Infact,it between children who begin showing severe
isonlyaminorityofantisocialindividualswho conduct problems and antisocial behavior in
do so. However, the subgroup of antisocial childhood versus thosewhose onset of antiso-
individualswithpsychopathictraitsshowapar- cialbehaviordoesnotemergeuntiladolescence
ticularlysevereandviolentpatternofbehavior (Moffitt,1993,2003;Patterson,1996).Children
(Hemphill, 2007; Leistico, Salekin, DeCoster, inthechildhood-onsetgroupoftenbeginshow-
& Rogers 2008; Porter & Woodworth, 2006) ingmildconductproblemsasearlyaspreschool
and distinct cognitive and emotional deficits orearlyelementaryschool,andtheirbehavioral
compared with other antisocial individuals problems tend to increase in rate and severity
(Blair,Mitchell,&Blair,2005;Patrick,2007). throughout childhood and into adolescence
A common theme of all of these issues in- (Lahey & Loeber, 1994). In contrast, the ado-
volved in the classification of antisocial indi- lescent-onset group does not show significant
vidualsistherecognitionthatthereareimportant behavioralproblemsinchildhood,buttheybe-
subgroupsofantisocialindividualsthatneedto gin exhibiting significant antisocial and delin-
bedefinedbyanyclassificationsystem.Further, quentbehaviorcoincidingwiththeonsetofado-
mostoftheapproachesthathavebeenusedtode- lescence (Moffitt, 2003). In addition to the
finemorehomogeneoussubgroupsofantisocial different patterns of onset, the childhood-onset
individualshavereliedondifferencesinthebe- groupismorelikelytoshowaggressivebehav-
havioral manifestations (e.g., type of behavior, iorsinchildhoodandadolescence,andismore
trajectory of behavior over time) or differences likelytocontinuetoshowantisocialandcriminal
in personality traits (e.g., Big Five dimensions; behaviorintoadulthood(forareview,seeFrick
presenceofpsychopathictraits)tomakedistinc- &Loney,1999).
tions within antisocial youth. We would argue Forexample,Farrington,Gallagher,Morley,
thatadevelopmentalpsychopathologyapproach St.Ledger,andWest(1988)reportedthatboys
should emphasize potential differences in the who were arrested prior to age 12 showed al-
developmental mechanisms that may underlie most twice as many convictions at two later
thesebehavioralmanifestationsorpersonalityfea- points in time (between the ages of 16 and 18
tures.Thereasonforthisemphasisisthatsome- andbetweentheagesof22and24).Similarly,
times different behavioral manifestations may Robins (1966) reported that boys referred to a
reflect different development processes under- mental health clinic for antisocial behavior
lyingthebehavior.However,itisalsopossible prior to age 11 were twice as likely to receive
thatthesamebehavioralpattern(e.g.,highand adiagnosisofanantisocialpersonalitydisorder
stable levels of antisocial behavior) can come asanadult,comparedtoboyswhobeganshow-
about through very different developmental ing antisocial behaviorafterage 11. As afinal
mechanisms. Thus, in the following sections, example,Moffitt,Caspi,Harrington,andMilne
we outline a model for understanding patterns (2002) reported that, within a birth cohort of
of severe antisocial behavior that focuses 539 males born in New Zealand and followed
largely on the developmental processes that throughage26,the45menwhohaddisplayed
can explain some of the differences in the be- significant conduct problems prior to adoles-
havioralmanifestationsorassociatedpersonal- cencewere more likely to have had acriminal
itytraitsdisplayedbyantisocialindividuals. conviction(55%)andtohaveagreaternumber
ofconvictions(M¼6.9,SD¼11.5)asadults
thanthe121menwhoshowedsignificantcon-
TheConceptsofEquifinalityand
duct problems starting in adolescence (34%;
MultifinalityandSubgroups
M ¼ 3.5, SD ¼ 10.8). Both groups, however,
ofAntisocialYouth
differedfromcontrolswithouthistoriesofcon-
ductproblems(17%;M¼0.6,SD¼3.1).The
Thechildhood-versusadolescent-onset
difference was more dramatic when the focus
distinction
was on convictions for violent offenses, with
Anumberofreviewsoftheliteraturehavesum- the early-onset group being much more likely
marized research supporting the distinction (38%) to be convicted as an adult than either
1114 P.J.FrickandE.Viding
the adolescent-onset (14%) or control (5%) onset group develop their problem behavior
groups. throughatransactionalprocessinvolvingadif-
Thus, the childhood and adolescent sub- ficult and vulnerable child (e.g., impulsive,
types of antisocial youth show very different withverbaldeficits)whoexperiencesaninade-
trajectoriesofantisocialbehavior,bothinterms quate rearing environment (e.g., poor parental
oftheirpatternsofonsetandlife-coursetrajec- supervision, poor quality schools). This dys-
tory. However, if these were the only differ- functional transactional process disrupts the
encesbetweengroups,thismethodforsubtyp- child’ssocializationleadingtopoorsocialrela-
ing would not be much different from other tionswithpersonsbothinside(e.g.,parentsand
approachesthathavefocusedonthedifferentbe- siblings)andoutsidethefamily(e.g.,peersand
havioral trajectories of antisocial behavior over teachers).Thesedisruptionsleadtoenduringvul-
time. Of importance, there is now a rather ex- nerabilitiesthatcannegativelyaffectthe child’s
tensive body of research to suggest that the psychosocial adjustment across multiple devel-
twogroupsalsodifferonanumberofdisposi- opmentalstages.
tional and contextual risk factors that seem to Incontrast,childrenintheadolescent-onset
implicate different developmental processes pathway have problemsthat are more likely to
in the disruptive behaviors of the two groups be limited to adolescence and show fewer risk
(Moffitt, 2002). To summarize these findings, factors. Thus, this group is conceptualized as
childhood-onset conduct problems seem to be showinganexaggerationofthenormativepro-
more strongly related to neuropsychological cess of adolescent rebellion (Moffitt, 2003).
(e.g.,deficitsinexecutivefunctioning)andcogni- Thatis, alladolescentsshow some levelof re-
tive (e.g., low intelligence) deficits (Fergusson, belliousness to parents and other authority
Lynsky,&Horwood,1996;Kratzer&Hodgins, figures (Brezina & Piquero, 2007). This rebel-
1999;Piquero,2001;Raine,Yaralian,Reynolds, liousness ispartof aprocessbywhich thead-
Venables,&Mednick,2002).Further,thechild- olescent begins to develop his or her autono-
hood-onsetgrouphasbeenreportedtoshowmore mous sense of self and his or her unique
temperamental and personality risk factors, identity.AccordingtoMoffitt(2003),thechild
such as impulsivity (McCabe, Hough, Wood, in the adolescent-onset group engages in anti-
& Yeh, 2001; Silverthorn, Frick, & Reynolds, socialanddelinquentbehaviorsasamisguided
2001),attentiondeficits(Fergussonetal.,1996), attempttoobtainasubjectivesenseofmaturity
and problems in emotional regulation (Moffitt, and adult status in a way that is maladaptive
Caspi, Dickson, Silva, & Stanton, 1996). This (e.g., breaking societal norms) but encouraged
grouphasalsobeenshowntocomefromhomes byanantisocialpeergroup.Giventhattheirbe-
withgreaterfamilyinstability,morefamilycon- haviorisviewedasanexaggerationofaprocess
flict, and with parents who use less effective specific to adolescence, and not because of an
parenting strategies (Aguilar, Sroufe, Egeland, enduringvulnerability,theirantisocialbehavior
& Carlson, 2000; McCabe et al., 2001; Patter- is less likely to persist beyond adolescence.
son&Yoerger,1997;Woodward,Fergusson,& However,theymaystillhaveimpairmentsthat
Horwood, 2002). When children within the persist into adulthood because of the conse-
adolescent-onsetgroupdifferfromcontrolchil- quencesoftheiradolescentantisocialbehavior
dren without conduct problems, it is often in (e.g.,acriminalrecord,droppingoutofschool,
showing higher levels of rebelliousness and substanceabuse;Moffitt&Caspi,2001).
being more rejecting of conventional values
(Dandreaux & Frick, 2009; Moffitt et al.,
Callous–unemotional(CU)traitsand
1996).
subgroupsofantisocialyouth
The different outcomes and risk factors for
the two subtypes of antisocial individuals have This distinction between the childhood and
led to theoretical models that propose very adolescent-onset patterns of antisocial behav-
different causal mechanisms operating across iorsillustratesasubgroupingapproachforanti-
the two groups. For example, Moffitt (2003) socialindividualsthatproposesdifferentdevel-
has proposed that children in the childhood- opmental mechanisms underlying the problem
Developmentalpsychopathologyandantisocial 1115
behavioracross groups.Thus,this isanexam- dependentsamples.Tenofthesestudiesshowed
ple of the important concept in developmental aconcurrent association between CU traits and
psychopathology of equifinality, which pro- measuresofaggressive,antisocial,ordelinquent
poses that the same developmental outcome behaviorand14studiesshowedapredictivere-
(e.g., antisocial behavior) can result from very lationship with follow-up intervals ranging
different developmental processes (Cicchetti from6monthsto10years.Theseauthorsfurther
&Rogosch,1996).Itisimportantthatresearch reportedon5studiesshowingthatCUtraitswere
hasbegunextendingtheconceptofequifinality associated with poorer treatment outcomes. Of
forunderstandingantisocialyouthbyexploring importance, these studies included community
whether additional distinctions can be made (n¼6),clinic-referred(n¼4),andforensic(n¼
within groups who show a childhood onset to 13)samples,andtheyincludedsamplesranging
theirantisocialbehavior. inagefrom4to20.
This distinction is based on the presence Oneimportantissueininterpretingthisbody
ofacallousandunemotionalinterpersonalstyle ofresearchisthatCUtraitsseemtopredictlater
characterizedbyalackofguiltandempathyand antisocial behavior even after controlling for
acalloususeofothers.Itissimilartothedistinc- other risk factors (e.g., past criminal offenses,
tion made within samples of antisocial adults druguse,delinquentpeers;Salekin,2008).Fur-
usingtheconstructofpsychopathythatwasde- ther,theassociationbetweenCUtraitsandag-
scribedpreviously.Asnotedpreviously,within gressive behavior could explain some of the
incarceratedadults,thepresenceofpsychopathic typologies proposed for understanding aggres-
traitshasproventodesignateanimportantsub- sive individuals. That is, youth with CU traits
groupofantisocialindividualwhoshowamore notonlyshowamoresevereandpervasivepat-
severe, violent, and difficult to treat pattern of ternofaggressivebehaviorbuttheyalsotendto
antisocial behavior (Hemphill, 2007; Leistico showaggressionthatisbothreactiveandproac-
et al., 2008; Porter & Woodworth, 2006). tive in nature (Enebrink, Andershed, & Lang-
They also show a number of different back- strom, 2005; Frick, Cornell, Barry, Bodin, &
ground and emotional characteristics that Dane, 2003; Kruh, Frick, & Clements, 2005).
seemtosuggestauniqueetiologytotheiranti- In contrast, antisocial youth without CU traits
social behavior (Blair et al., 2005; Patrick, tend to show less aggression overall and,
2007). There is growing evidence that the when they do show aggressive behavior, it
same may be true for antisocial youth who tends to be largely reactive in nature. Further,
showCUtraits. manyofthesocial–cognitiveandaffectivedif-
Specifically,youthwho show the childhood ferencesthathavebeenfoundbetweenreactive
onset to their antisocial behavior tend to score andproactiveaggressionmaybeduetothedif-
higher on measures of CU traits than those ferencesintheirassociationwithCUtraits(Mu-
who show an adolescent onset (Dandreaux noz,Frick,Kimonis,&Aucoin,2008;Pardini,
&Frick,2009;Moffittet al.,1996;Silverthorn Lochman,&Frick,2003;Waschbusch,Walsh,
et al., 2001). Further, several recent qualitative Andrade,King,&Carrey,2007).
(Frick & Dickens,2006;Frick& White,2008) For example, Pardini et al. (2003) studied
and quantitative (Edens, Campbell, & Weir, detained adolescents’ (ages 11–18) responses
2007; Leistico et al., 2008) reviews have been to eight vignettes depicting peers involved in
publishedshowing that CUtraitsare predictive aggressive acts in various age-appropriate so-
of a more severe, stable, andaggressive pattern cial contexts. Youth were asked to respond to
of behavior in antisocial youth. For example, questionsaskinghowlikelyandhowimportant
Edens et al. (2007) conducted a quantitative variouspossibleoutcomestotheaggressivein-
meta-analyses of 21 nonoverlapping samples terpersonal situations were. In this ethnically
showing that measures that include CU traits diverse sample of boys and girls, CU traits
wereassociatedwithgeneralorviolentrecidivism wereassociatedwithresponsesindicatingaten-
with effect sizes of r ¼ .24 or .25, respectively. dencytoemphasizethepositiveandrewarding
FrickandDickens(2006) reportedonaqualita- aspects of aggression, tovalue the importance
tivereviewof24publishedstudiesusing22in- of being dominant in aggressive interactions,
1116 P.J.FrickandE.Viding
and to minimize the potential for punishment CU traits designate an important subgroup of
for being aggressive. All of these social cog- antisocialyouth,thatdifferbothintheseverity
nitivefactorshavebeenassociatedwithproac- andstabilityoftheirbehaviorbutalsoonimpor-
tiveaggressioninpastresearch(Dodge&Pettit, tant emotional, cognitive, and social charac-
2003). Similarly, Munoz et al. (2008) studied teristics. These latter findings could suggest
85 boys (ages 13–18) who had been detained distinct etiologicalmechanisms leading totheir
for delinquent behavior. They reported that antisocialbehavior.Asaresult,liketheresearch
those who showed high rates of both reactive reviewed on the childhood and adolescent-
and proactive aggression showed lower levels onset distinction, this research provides addi-
of emotional reactivity to provocation, consis- tionalevidencesupportingtheconceptofequi-
tent with past research on adolescents who finality in understanding the development of
show proactive aggression (e.g., Pitts, 1997). antisocialbehaviorinyouth.
However,thisreducedreactivitytoprovocation Before discussing the different etiological
wasonlyfoundforthosewhowerealsohighon mechanisms and their relationship with normal
CUtraits.Finally,Frick,Cornell,Bodin,Dane, developmental processes, it is also important
Barry, and Loney (2003) reported that a ten- tonotethat research onCUtraits alsosupports
dency to attribute hostile intent to the actions therelatedconceptofmultifinality,whichrecog-
of others (i.e., a hostile attribution biase) that nizesthatthesameriskfactorscanhavemultiple
has been associated with reactive forms of ag- developmentaloutcomes.Specifically,asnoted
gression was only found in boys with conduct previously,onecharacteristicofyouthwithCU
problemswhodidnotshowCUtraits. traitsisthepresenceofafearless,thrillseeking,
FrickandWhite(2008)providedacompre- andbehaviorallyuninhibitedtemperament.Con-
hensive review of this research on the social, sistentwiththeimportanceofthistemperament
cognitive,andemotionalcharacteristicsofanti- for the development of CU traits, Cornell and
social youth with and without CU traits. First, Frick (2007) reported that preschool children
they reviewed four studies showing that the whowereratedbytheirteachersasbeingbehav-
conduct problems in youth without CU traits iorally uninhibited were more at risk for show-
are more strongly related to dysfunctional par- ing problems in empathy and guilt than other
entingpractices(seealsoEdens,Skopp,&Ca- children.However,theyalsoreportedthatunin-
hill, 2008). Second, they reviewed 10 studies hibited preschoolers showed enhanced con-
showing differences in how antisocial youth science development if they experienced con-
with and without CU traits process emotional sistent discipline and a parenting style that
stimuli, with youth high on CU traits showing emphasized a strong and obedience-oriented
deficitsintheprocessingofnegativeemotional (i.e.,authoritarian)approachtoparenting.These
stimuli and, even more specifically, deficits to authorssuggestedthattheunderarousalexhibited
signs of fear and distress in others. Third, an- by fearless children may require parents to
other10studieswerereviewedshowingdistinct incorporate stronger methods of socialization
cognitive characteristics of antisocial youth that bring arousal levels into an optimal range
with CU traits, such as being less sensitive to for the child to internalize parental norms for
punishment cues, especially when a reward prosocial behavior (Fowles & Kochanska,
orientedresponsesetisprimed,showingmore 2000; Kochanska, DeVet, Goldman, Murray,
positive outcome expectancies in aggressive &Putnam,1994).Thus,thesametemperamen-
situations with peers, and being more likely tal risk factor (i.e., fearless and uninhibited)
to exhibit verbal deficits than other antisocial could have different outcomes (i.e., normal or
youth. Fourth, they reviewed seven studies deficient conscience development) depending
showingthatyouthwithCUtraitshaveunique onthetypeofparentingthechildexperiences.
personality characteristics, such as showing AsimilarpossibilityhasbeenproposedbyPat-
more fearless or thrill seeking behaviors and rick(inpress)whosuggeststhatthesametem-
lesstraitanxietyorneuroticism. peramentoffearlessnesscanleadsomechildren
Thus, taken together, there is now a fairly tobecome“bold”andothers“mean”depending
substantial body of research to suggest that onthepresenceofothertemperamentaltraitsor
Developmentalpsychopathologyandantisocial 1117
dependingonthepresenceofcertaintypesofso- associations between a fearless temperament
cializingenvironments. andlowerscoresonmeasuresofconsciencede-
velopment. Further, this research has led to a
numberoftheoriestoexplainthislink.Forex-
TheInterfaceBetweenNormaland
ample, fearless children may be less likely to
AbnormalDevelopment
experience transgression-related arousal in re-
sponse to behavior that has been punished by
Understandingdevelopmentalmechanisms
others (Kochanska, 1993; Newman, 1987). In
The research reviewed in the previous section addition, children with this temperament may
clearly suggests that there are important sub- be less likely to experience empathic arousal
groupsofantisocialyouthwhoareatdifferen- linked to the distress in others (Blair, 1999).
tialriskforcontinuingtheirantisocialbehavior Inshort,thetemperamentaldeficitsindifferent
intoadulthoodandwhoshowdifferentpatterns aspects of emotional reactivity could make
ofrisk factorsthatcouldsuggestetiologies in- itmoredifficultforachildtodevelopappropri-
volving distinct developmental mechanisms. ate levels of guilt, empathy, and other dimen-
As noted previously, based on the differences sions of conscience that, at its extreme, could
inthecourseandcorrelatestoantisocialbehav- result in CU traits and severe patterns of anti-
ior for youth with adolescent-onset antisocial socialbehavior.Consistentwiththistheoretical
behavior, Moffitt (2003) proposed that these model, Pardini (2006) reported that the asso-
childrenshowanexaggerationofthenormative ciationbetweenfearlessnessandviolentdelin-
process of adolescent rebellion. In contrast, quency was mediated by the presence of CU
childreninthechildhood-onsetgroupshowsig- traitsinasampleofadjudicatedadolescents.
nificantproblemsinadjustmentacrossmultiple As noted previously, children with child-
developmental stages. Further, as also noted hood-onset antisocial behavior but without
above,theyalsoshowmorenumerousandmore CUtraitsshowverydifferentdispositional(e.g.,
severe dispositional and environmental risk impulsivity, low verbal intelligence, poor emo-
factors associated with their behavior problems. tional regulation) and contextual (e.g., higher
However, within this group, those who show rates of family dysfunction) risk factors. Most
CU traits seem to show different characteristics importantly, the children in this group show
that could suggest some differences in which high rates of anxiety (Andershed, Gustafson,
developmental mechanisms may be involved Kerr & Stattin, 2002; Frick, Lilienfeld, Ellis,
intheirantisocialpropensities. Loney, & Silverthorn, 1999; Pardini, Lochman,
Specifically, the research reviewed pre- & Powell, 2007), they do not typically show
viously suggests that children with CU traits problems in empathy and guilt (Pardini et al.,
designate agroupof childrenwith severecon- 2003),andtheyappeartobedistressedbytheef-
duct problems who show a distinct tempera- fects of their behavior on others (Loney, Frick,
mental style, characterized by a preference for Clemens, Ellis, & Kerlin, 2003; Pardini et al.,
dangerousandnovelstimuli,areward-oriented 2003).Thus,theantisocialbehaviorinthisgroup
responsestyle,andalackofreactivitytoemo- doesnotseemtobeeasilyexplainedbydeficitsin
tional stimuli that signify distress in others. consciencedevelopment.
The bold and fearlesstemperamental style has Given the many different types of risk fac-
been variously labeled as low fearfulness tors that are found in this group, it is likely
(Rothbart&Bates,1998),lowbehavioralinhi- thatthereareanumberofdifferentcausalpro-
bition (Kagan & Snidman, 1991), low harm cessesthatcouldleadtotheimpulsiveandanti-
avoidance (Cloninger, 1987), or high daring socialbehaviorexhibitedbytheseyouth(Frick
(Lahey & Waldman, 2003). Of importance, & Morris, 2004). For example, in this group,
therehavebeenanumberofstudiesofnormally thereisastrongassociationbetweenineffective
developingchildrendocumentingbothconcur- parenting practices and their antisocial behav-
rent (e.g., Fowles & Kochanska, 2000; Ko- ior. Thus, it is possible that children in this
chanska,Gross,Lin,&Nichols,2002)andpre- grouparenotsocializedadequatelyand,asare-
dictive (Rothbart, Ahadi, & Hershey, 1994) sult,donotlearntoappropriatelyregulatetheir
1118 P.J.FrickandE.Viding
behavior in response to environmental contin- Potentialgenderdifferences
gencies(Kochanskaetal.,2002).Anothercon-
sistentfindingforantisocialyouthwithoutCU Ingeneral,themajorityofresearchonantisocial
traitsisthattheyoftenhaveproblemsregulating behaviorinyouthhasfocusedonthesamplesof
their emotions. That is, children in this group boys. Thus, the applicability of these develop-
appear to show a temperament characterized mental modelsto girls is open to question. One
by strong emotional reactivity, a deficit in the consistentfindingisthatachildhoodonsettose-
skillsneededtoadequatelyregulatetheiremo- vere antisocial and aggressive behavior is much
tional reactivity, or both (Frick & Morris, rarer in girlsthan in boys (Hipwell et al., 2002;
2004).Theseproblemsinemotionalregulation Moffitt & Capsi, 2001; White & Piquero,
can result in the child committing impulsive 2004). However, despite the predominance of
and unplanned aggressive and antisocial acts adolescent onset in antisocial girls, there is evi-
for which he or she may be remorseful after- dence that girls with severe conduct problems
ward but may still have difficulty controlling show poor outcomes in adulthood and show a
in the future (Pardini et al., 2003). Such prob- largenumberofthedispositionalandcontextual
lemsinregulatingemotionwouldalsoexplain risk factorsthat are more characteristic of child-
the findings that the aggressive behavior dis- hood-onsetantisocialbehavior inboys(Frick&
playedbythisgrouptendstobeconfinedtore- Dickens,2006).
active forms of aggression (Frick, Kimonis, Toreconcilethesefindings,Silverthornand
Dandreaux,&Farrell,2003;Kruhetal.,2005). Frick(1999)proposedamodificationofthede-
velopmental model outlined abovewhich they
labeledasadelayed-onsetpathwaytoantisocial
Differenttypesofdeviationsfromnormal
behaviorforgirls.Theseauthorsproposedthat
development
antisocialandaggressivebehavioringirlsshow
Thus, this developmental model of antisocial the same causal mechanisms asthose outlined
behaviorspecifiesthreesubgroupsofantisocial previouslyforchildhood-onsetboys.However,
individualsthatdifferonthedevelopmentaltra- theirsevereantisocialbehaviorisoftendelayed
jectory of their antisocial behavior and on the until adolescence coinciding with biological
developmentalmechanismsthatseemtobein- (e.g., hormonal changes associated with pu-
volved in their problem behavior. Like symp- berty) and psychosocial (e.g., less parental
tomsofmostformsofpsychopathology,some monitoring and supervision; greater contact
level of antisocial and aggressive behavior is withdeviantpeers)changesthatencouragean-
normal in children and adolescents (Moffitt tisocialbehavioringirlswithpredisposingvul-
et al., 1996). Therefore, it is critical to deter- nerabilities (e.g., CU; problems in emotional
mine the relationship between normal and ab- regulation).Inaninitialtestofthistheory,adju-
normalpatternsofantisocialbehavior.Thede- dicatedadolescentgirlswholargelyshowedan
velopmental models outlined above illustrate adolescent onset to their antisocial behavior
two ways that abnormal antisocial behavior alsoshowedhighlevelsofCUtraits,problems
can differ from normal development. Specifi- with impulse control, and a number of other
cally, the problems in adjustment experienced social and temperamental vulnerabilities that
by the adolescent-onset group seem to be weremoresimilartochildhood-onsetboysthan
more specific to a single developmental stage to adolescent-onset boys (Silverthorn et al.,
(i.e., adolescence) and result from a failure to 2001).Despitethisinitialpositivefinding,addi-
adequatelyadjusttothedevelopmentaldemands tionaltestsofthismodelhavebeenmoremixed
(e.g.,separationandindividuationfromparents) (Laheyetal.,2006;McCabeetal.,2001;Moffitt
ofthatstage.Incontrast,bothgroupswhoshow &Caspi,2001;White&Piquero,2004).
a childhood onset to their antisocial behavior Asaresultoftheseconflictingfindings,the
showriskfactors(e.g.,emotionalandcognitive predictionsmadefromthedelayed-onsettheory
deficits) that negatively affect development requirefurthertesting.Also,itispossiblethat,
across multiple stages, albeit in different ways although many girls may not show the overt
forthetwogroups. antisocialandaggressivebehaviorpriortoado-
Developmentalpsychopathologyandantisocial 1119
lescence,theymayshowotherformsofantiso- thisresearchsuggeststhatsomepatternsofan-
cialbehaviorsuchasrelationalaggression.Re- tisocial behavior are more stable than others.
lationalaggressioncanbedefinedasbehaviors Unfortunately, there are no clear guidelines to
thatseektoharmanotherchild’ssocialrelation- suggestwhatlevelofstabilityinantisocialbe-
ships (e.g., telling lies about them, excluding havior would be sufficient towarrant designa-
themfromsocialevents)ratherthanphysically tion as a personality disorder. Further, even if
harming the child (Crick & Grotpeter, 1996) apatternofbehaviorisnothighlystable,such
Several studies have shown that when girls as adolescent-onset conduct problems, it may
behave aggressively, they are more likely to stillleadtosignificantimpairmentsandwarrant
chooserelationalaggression(ratherthanphysi- treatment (Dandreaux & Frick, 2009; Moffitt
cal or overt aggression) as a strategy for use etal.,1996).
withinthepeergroup(Crick,1996;Crick,Ca- The issue of stability may be even more
sas,&Mosher,1997;Crick&Grotpeter,1995; important if one focuses on the personality
Lagerspetz,Bjo¨rkqvist,&Peltonen,1988;Os- traits that may lead to antisocial behavior.
trov & Keating, 2004). Of importance, rela- That is, an important consideration is whether
tionalaggressionsharessomeofthesamerisk CUtraitsarestableenoughinchildrenorado-
factors as those reviewed previously as being lescents to warrant the designation of “traits”
associated with antisocial behavior, including thatimpliessomelevelofcontinuityacrossde-
impulsivity (Zalecki & Hinshaw, 2004) and velopment (Edens, Skeem, Cruise, & Cauf-
CU traits (Marsee & Frick, 2007). Therefore, mann, 2001; Seagrave & Grisso, 2002). There
itmaybethatgirlswithriskfactorsforantiso- arenowanumberofstudiesshowingthatthese
cial behavior display relational aggressive be- traitsarerelativelystablefromlatechildhoodto
haviors prior to adolescence, giving them the earlyadolescence both when assessed byself-
appearance of showing an adolescent onset, if report (Munoz&Frick,2007)orbyparentre-
suchbehaviorsarenotassessed. port (Frick, Kimonis, et al., 2003). For exam-
ple, Frick, Kimonis, et al. (2003) reported a
stability estimate of .71 using an intraclass
Stablepersonalitytraitsversus
correlation coefficient across 4 years for CU
developmentaltransitions
traits in a sample of children with an average
Asnotedpreviously,thereissomedebateasto ageof10.65attheinitialassessment.Thislevel
whether antisocial personality should be de- of stability for parent report is much higher
finedsolelybyaconsistentpatternofantisocial than is typically reported for parent ratings of
behaviororbytheunderlyingpersonalitytraits others aspects of children’s adjustment (Ver-
that can lead to this pattern of behavior. In ei- hulst, Koot, & Berden, 1990). With respect to
thercase,thereissomeassumptionofstability younger children, Dadds, Frazer, Frost, and
across development. In fact, many definitions Hawes (2005) found moderate 1-year stability
of antisocial personality disorder require the estimates for parent-reported CU traits (r ¼
presenceofantisocialbehaviorstartinginchild- .55)inacommunitysampleofAustralianchil-
hoodoradolescence(AmericanPsychiatricAs- drenwhowere4to9yearsofage.Usingamore
sociation, 2000). Prospective studies of either extendedfollow-upperiod(i.e.,9years),Obra-
clinicreferred(Lahey,Loeber,Burke,&Apple- dovic, Pardini, Long, and Loeber (2007) re-
gate,2005;Robins,1966)orcommunitypartic- ported relatively highrates of stability for par-
ipants(Moffittetal.,2002)havesuggestedthat ent (r ¼ .50) but modest levels of stability for
between 14 and 54% of children with severe teacher ratings (r ¼ .27) ratings of CU traits
conduct problems will showan antisocial per- for boys between the ages of 8 and 16. Bloni-
sonality disorder as adults. Further, as noted gen, Hicks, Kruger, Patrick, and Iacono
previously, children with a childhood onset to (2006) reported that CU traits were relatively
their conduct problems (Moffitt, 2003) and stable (r ¼ .60) from late adolescence (age
those with CU traits (Frick & Dickens, 2006; 17) into early adulthood (age 24). Further,
Frick & White, 2008) seem to show a more Loney, Taylor, Butler, and Iacono (2007) re-
stable pattern of antisocial behavior. Thus, ported that CU traits in adolescence (ages 16–
1120 P.J.FrickandE.Viding
18)weresignificantlystable(intraclasscorrela- traits.Inrecentyears,therehavebeensubstantial
tioncoefficient¼.40)overa6-yearfollow-up increases in the number of studies exploring
period. Finally, two studies have shown that biological vulnerabilities to antisocial behav-
measuresofCUtraitsassessedpriortoadoles- ior(Raine&Yang,2006).Inthissection,wepro-
cenceweresignificantlyassociatedwithsimilar vide a selective review of genetic and brain
measures in adulthood, even after controlling imaging(focusingonfunctionalmagneticreso-
forotherchildhoodriskfactors(Burke,Loeber, nance imaging [fMRI]) studies with antisocial
&Lahey,2007;Lynam,Caspi,Moffitt,Loeber, individualsand,inparticular,reviewingseveral
&Stouthamer-Loeber,2007). areasofresearchthatcouldadvanceourunder-
Basedonthesefindings,thestabilityofCU standing of the different developmental path-
ratingsacrossdevelopmentappearstobebetter waystoantisocialbehavior.
orequivalenttoothertraitindicesacrosschild-
hoodtoadolescenceandearlyadulthood.How-
Behavioralgeneticstudies
ever, there is no agreed on metric regarding
whatlevelofstabilitywouldwarranttheclassi- There have been a large number of studies
fication ofa “stable trait.” Critically,evenrea- showing moderate heritability and nonshared
sonablyhighlevelsofstabilitywouldnotimply environmental influence, as well as modest
that CU traits are unchangeable. For example, shared environmental influence on antisocial
Frick, Kimonis, et al. (2003) reported that, behavior (e.g., Mason & Frick, 1994; Rhee &
despitethehighlevelofstabilityinthesetraits Waldman, 2002). In other words, individual
across their 4-year study period, there were a differencesinsusceptibilitytoantisocialbehav-
significant number of youth who decreased in ior have both a heritable and environmental
their level of CU traits over the course of the component. In recent years, there have been
study (for a similar pattern of change over a severallinesofresearchthathaveattemptedto
longerperiodofdevelopment,seealsoLynam go beyond this basic partitioning of genetic
etal.,2007).Further,thisdecreaseinthelevel and environmental influencesto antisocial be-
ofCUtraitswasrelatedtothelevelofconduct havior that could be especially important for
problemsdisplayedbythechild,thesocioeco- understandingthedifferentdevelopmentalpath-
nomic status of the child’s parents, and the waysthatmayleadtoseverepatternsofantiso-
quality of parenting the child received. Thus, cialbehavior.
CUtraitsdoappeartobeatleastsomewhatmal- First,twinandadoptionstudieshavedemon-
leable and changes in their level across devel- strated several important types of gene–envi-
opment seem to be influenced by factors in ronmentcorrelationsandgene–environmentin-
thechild’spsychosocialenvironment. teractions. For example, risk factors that have
been traditionally conceptualized as environ-
mental (e.g., parenting reactions) mayactually
TheImportanceofMultipleLevels
beevokedpartlybytheheritabletemperamental
ofAnalysis
features of the child (gene–environment corre-
Fromthereviewprovidedabove,itisclearthat lation; Larsson, Viding, Rijsdijk, & Plomin,
subgroupsofantisocialyouthdifferinanumber 2008).Further,geneticallyinfluencedindividual
ofimportantwaysbehaviorally.Thatis,theycan differences in the sensitivity to environmental
differintheirtimingofonset,thestabilityoftheir riskfactorssuchasmaltreatment(gene–environ-
behavior, and the level and type of aggression ment interaction) are also important in explain-
that is displayed. Further, we have also noted ingvarianceinantisocialbehavior.Specifically,
severalwaysthatthesesubgroupsdifferintheir research has suggested that genes regulating
emotional, cognitive, social, and interpersonal serotonergic neurotransmission, in particular
functioning.Understandingdifferencesoneach monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), are important
of these levels provides important information forexplainingindividualdifferencesinantiso-
forchartingthevariedmechanisms(e.g.,deficits cialbehavior(Buckholtz&Meyer-Lindenberg,
in conscience; poor emotional regulation) that 2008). However, the genetic vulnerability to
maybeinvolvedinthedevelopmentofantisocial antisocial behavior conferred by the MAOA