Callous-Unemotional Traits and Differently Motivated Aggression

• DOI: 10.1177/1541204015577000
• Date: 01 October 2016
• Published date: 01 October 2016
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Callous-Unemotional

Traits and Differently

Motivated Aggression:

An Examination of Variants

in a Noninstitutionalized Sample

Jamie L. Flexon

1

Abstract

Emerging psychopathy in youth is often identified by the presence of callous-unemotional traits,

while variants of psychopathy are recognized to exist in either primary or secondary form. These

variants have been differentially associated with aggressive behavior, as well as dissimilarly motivated

(instrumental, reactionary). The present research evaluates those resembling the variants and the

qualities of aggression associated with them in a noninstitutionalized sample of youth. Findings

suggest that youth resembling the secondary variant demonstrate higher expression of instrumental

and reactive aggression compared to the primary-like variants and non-variants. This finding held

when scrutinized against other covariates in the noninstitutionalized sample. Further distinctions

based on variant type are discussed.

Keywords

primary psychopathy, secondary psychopathy, reactive aggression, instrumental aggression

The presence of callous-unemotional traits (CU traits) in youth is thought to be indicative of nascent

psychopathy (Barry et al., 2000; Fanti, Demetriou, & Kimonis, 2013; Frick, 1995, 2006; Lynam,

1996; Ribeiro da Silva, Rijo, & Salekin, 2012). Much research in this area is devoted to understand-

ing those with CU traits as a homogeneous group (e.g., Blais, Solodukhin, & Forth, 2014; Flexon &

Meldrum, 2013; Flight & Forth, 2007; Reidy, Shelley-Tremblay, & Lilienfeld, 2011). However,

early theorizing postulated that this group was more diverse (Cleckley, 1941/1976; Karpman,

1941), and more contemporary evidence supports disaggregating by variant type (Fanti et al.,

2013; Flexon, 2015; Poythress & Skeem, 2005; Skeem, Johansson, Andershed, Kerr, & Louden,

2007; Skeem, Poythress, Edens, Lilienfeld, & Cale, 2003; Vaughn, Edens, Howard, & Smith, 2009).

1

Department of Criminal Justice, School of International & Public Affairs, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jamie L. Flexon, Department of Criminal Justice, School of International & Public Affairs, Florida International University,

University Park (MMC), PCA 366A, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, FL 33199, USA.

Email: flexonj@fiu.edu

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

2016, Vol. 14(4) 367-389

ªThe Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1541204015577000

yvj.sagepub.com

Specifically, youth with CU traits, as with adults, are argued to be either primary or secondary in

nature (e.g., Falkenbach, Poythress, & Creevy, 2008; Skeem et al., 2003). Underpinning this under-

standing theoretically, primary psychopathy, as postulated by Karpman (1941, 1948) represents

those who are constitutionally psychopathic exhibiting traits of callousness and interpersonal une-

motionality, among other characteristics. The secondary psychopath, however, is not necessarily

born with such deficits; rather, the secondary variant is arguably created through disturbances in

early childhood development, such as through abuse and neglect, and callousness and an unemo-

tional interpersonal style with hostility emerge secondary to the developmental assault. These var-

iants of psychopathic individuals are argued to have dissimilar etiology. This is consistent with

Porter (1996, p. 180) who argued that ‘‘two distinct etiological pathways, one primarily congenital

and one primarily environmental, can culminate phenotypically as a psychopathic personality.’’

Yet, research has shown that among offender populations those scoring high on psychopathy

differ than those with low scores on the construct in their motivations for aggressive behavior

(Chase, O’Leary, & Heyman, 2001; Cleckley, 1941/1976; Cornell et al., 1996; Hart & Dempster,

1997; Reidy et al., 2011; Williamson, Hare, & Wong, 1987; Woodworth & Porter, 2002) and when

psychopathic individuals are disaggregated, motivation differed by variants of psychopathy

(Falkenbach et al., 2008; Kimonis, Skeem, Cauffman, & Dmitrieva, 2011; Skeem et al., 2003). Moti-

vations for aggression examined in this body of research typically were either instrumental or reac-

tive, whereas instrumental aggression is premeditated and aimed toward satisfying some goal and

the reactionary type is a compulsive, emotionally charged form of aggression (e.g., Blais et al.,

2014; Cornell et al., 1996; Flight & Forth, 2007). While research indicates some differences, the

question of whether the primary and secondary variants’ motivation for aggression diverges by var-

iant among the population of youth at large is still unclear. More research is clearly needed to unpack

the heterogeneous contours of these variants and their link with aggressiveness among a broader

population of juveniles in efforts toward understanding and ultimately arresting further malignant

outcomes associated with psychopathy prior to institutionalization.

The purpose of this research is several fold. Initially, this research intends to evaluate whether

findings concerning variants of psychopathy and aggressive behaviorin offender and institutionalized

samples will generalize to a noninstitutionalized sample of youth. That is, are both primary-like and

secondary-like youth implicated in aggressive behavior outside of institutional walls compared to

one another and in comparison to non-variant youth?

1

This is crucial to sort out since much research

concerning psychopathy, whether for youth or adults, involves institutionalized and offender sam-

ples. It is important to recognize that an institutionalized sample may not fully describe the popu-

lation at large of those youth scoring high on callousness and unemotionality. Then, screening

the data specifically for variants (primary-like and secondary-like) among the noninstitutionalized

will enable further inspection of propensity and motivation behind aggressive behavior by allowing

for direct comparisons of those resembling the variants (e.g., Falkenbach et al., 2008; Kimonis et al.,

2011). Hence, this research goes a step further than simply asking whether those resembling the var-

iants differentially engage in violence and aggression by asking whether these groups differ funda-

mentally in their motivations behind aggressive behavior. Research seeking to clarify this point is

clearly needed to adequately inform efforts aimed at desistence. Ancillary to these purposes, such

an investigation will also enable an assessment of those resembling the variants in the noninstitutio-

nalized sample against other known correlates of troublesome, youthful behavior (i.e., parental mon-

itoring and supervision, parental hostility, peer variables, school bonding, and sex), which are used

as controls in the analyses. Vetting in this way will enable researchers to understand any threat of

aggression stemming from primary-like and secondary-like psychopathy against other known risk

factors for problem youth behavior in the general population of adolescents.

To address these concerns, data are culled from the National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development (NICHD)’s Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD). The

368 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 14(4)