Evaluating Variant Callous–Unemotional Traits Among Noninstitutionalized Youth

• Author: Jamie L. Flexon
• Published date: 01 January 2015
• Date: 01 January 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1541204013519829
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Evaluating Variant

Callous–Unemotional Traits

Among Noninstitutionalized

Youth: Implications for

Violence Research and Policy

Jamie L. Flexon

1

Abstract

Variants in the profile of youth with callous–emotional traits have been observed in juvenile and

adult populations, and the presence of such traits has been repeatedly linked with violence. Although

data on this issue are often culled from institutionalized populations, little is known about the

heterogeneous nature of these psychopathic features in the population of youth at large. This

research evaluates these variants in a national sample of youth while examining the intersection of

violence–crime between those resembling the two subsets of primary and secondary psychopathy.

Distinctions based on variant type and promise for more targeted intervention are also discussed.

Keywords

callous–unemotional traits, juvenile psychopathy, primary psychopathy, secondary psychopathy,

violence

Research examining renascent psychopathy has isolated the presence of callous–unemotional traits

(CU traits) in youth as a precursor to adult psychopathy. Concomitantly, a growing body of research

has demonstrated heterogeneous contours among those scoring high on the psychopathy construct,

particularly CU traits, which offer guidance to scholars studying the pathways to juvenile violence.

Specifically, research has demonstrated the presence of a lower anxious primary variant of psycho-

pathy and a high-anxious secondary group (e.g., Fanti, Demetriou, & Kimonis, 2013), whereas the

secondary group is most often identified with hostile, callous behavior among other problematic

traits (e.g., Dean et al., 2013; Skeem, Johansson, Andershed, Kerr, & Louden, 2007). Heterogeneity

observed in psychopathy has been theorized to reflect different etiological pathways that arguably

contribute to divergent expression of affect, impulsivity, and other malignant behaviors observed

between subtypes (Hicks et al., 2012; Skeem et al., 2007).

1

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

Corresponding Author:

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

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

Email: flexonj@fiu.edu

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

2015, Vol. 13(1) 18-40

ªThe Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1541204013519829

yvj.sagepub.com

Importantly, many of the findings related to these variant groups come with a caveat; a reasonable

amount of research has isolated these variant types in institutionalized populations of adolescents

(e.g., Kimonis, Fanti, Isoma, & Donoghue, 2013; Salekin, Worley, & Grimes, 2010). Yet, little is

known about variant types in the general population of youth. This is significant as research suggests

that the features comprising psychopathy represent multidimensional and normally dispersed sets of

characteristics in the population at large (DeLisi, 2009; Edens, Marcus, & Vaughn, 2011; Flexon &

Meldrum, 2013; Murrie et al., 2007). Research has also shown merit in using the psychopathy con-

struct for explaining youth violence in a national sample alongside traditional criminological corre-

lates (Flexon & Meldrum, 2013), while other studies have been successful in isolating variants in a

community sample (Fanti et al., 2013). Such initial findings hold promise and may serve as more

general explanations for crime and violence.

Explorations into variant, renascent psychopathy is beginning to reveal theoretical and empirical

overlap between what can be understood as traditional criminological theory (e.g., self-control the-

ory) and other approaches relying on psychological constructs to explain violence.

1

Research eval-

uating these general traits often involves cluster analysis of those high on traits of callousness,

remorselessness, and low emotional attachment (CU traits), collective traits repeatedly implicated

in the expression of juvenile psychopathy (e.g., Barry et al., 2000), with other characteristics, such

as impulsivity, narcissism, or conduct problems in efforts toward further delineating the features

between groups (Skeem et al., 2007). For example, research has demonstrated that impulsivity is

a factor related to the variant expression of CU traits, though it is not neatly united with the primary

subtype, rather belonging to the high-anxious secondary group (Dean et al., 2013; Kimonis, Frick,

Cauffman, Goldweber, & Skeem, 2012). Since impulsivity, also conceived of as low self-control

(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), is frequently seen with problem behavior in youth and linked with

parenting, examination of these variants on common criminological correlates may serve to inform

our understanding of violence and potential for treatment and intervention. Given the variability and

the notion that some scoring high on CU traits are theoretical products of their environment, addi-

tional research is also needed, which explores how juvenile variants might differ with important cov-

ariates, such as parental investment (e.g., monitoring and supervision) or hostility from one or both

parents, with other criminological covariates (e.g., impulsivity/low self-control), and outcomes (e.g.,

the presence or absence of violence per variant) specific to the noninstitutionalized. Such an under-

standing may also be informative to and help specify individual-level models aimed at explaining

problem behavior generally (e.g., Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).

In short, although much is known about the role of psychopathy generally in populations of

chronic adult offenders and confined youth, few have investigated the constellation of traits that mir-

ror these variant subtypes in noninstitutionalized youth or the manner in which such traits might

inform current criminological investigation of juvenile violence. Hence, this study seeks to evaluate

these variants in a national sample of youth while examining potential covariates to violence

between those resembling the two theoretical subsets, primary (high CU, low anxious) and second-

ary (high CU, anxious) psychopathy. Toward this end, data for the study are culled from the National

Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)’s Study of Early Child Care and Youth

Development (SECCYD). The Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory’s (YPTI) subscales of remorse-

lessness, unemotionality, and callousness (CU Traits) are used in concert with an anxiety/depression

scale to identify these two groups of youth in the general population. Then, variables important to

youth development (i.e., parenting) are evaluated for differential association between these sub-

groups. For example, primary types are postulated to be idiopathic and caused by genetic factors

and the secondary influenced by environmental forces (Karpman, 1941).

2

Might we expect to see

poorer parenting practices associated with the presence of the secondary variant but not necessarily

the primary type among the noninstitutionalized? Next, are other known correlates of delinquency

and psychopathy (i.e., impulsivity) differentially linked to the two types and might this be associated

Flexon 19