Disruptive behaviours at school:
Information processing differentiators of callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems
Chloe Booth
Developmental Risk & Resilience Unit, Department of Psychology & Language Sciences, UCL
Introduction
Results
Children with disruptive behaviours are at risk for low academic
achievement and developing life-course persistent antisocial behaviour
(Viding et al., 2009). Although two children with conduct problems
(CP) may manifest similar disruptive behaviours, these behaviours
could be driven by different underlying vulnerabilities and thus require
different interventions. Callous-unemotional (CU) traits are one of the
best researched markers of different causal pathways to antisocial
behaviour (Frick & Viding, 2009) and can be used to distinguish
between children who are capable of pre-meditated antisocial
behaviour (CP/CU+) and children whose antisocial behaviour is more
impulsive and threat reactive (CP/CU-).
The TOSCA data was first inspected for outliers. Five participants who
had an extreme score of +/- 3 standard deviations from their group
mean were removed from the analysis, leaving 19 participants in the
CP/CU+ group, 16 participants in CP/CU- group, and 26 participants in
the comparison group.
Researchers have suggested that two developmental pathways to
disruptive/antisocial behaviour may exist, one involving low levels of
guilt and empathy and another involving heightened shame (Eisenberg,
2000; Frick & Viding, 2009). Guilt is believed to be critical for moral
actions and the development of conscience, whereas shame has been
shown to be positively correlated with antisocial behaviour. Thus,
whereas guilt is known to promote moral and reparative behaviour,
high levels of shame appear to act in an opposite way (e.g. Tangney,
1998).
This study examined guilt and shame responding in a community
sample of adolescents who were grouped according to their level of CP
and CU. Two vignette based measures were used. We predicted that
CP/CU+ group would show lower levels of guilt responding and that
that CP/CU- group would show higher levels of shame responding as
compared with ability matched comparison children.
Materials and methods
Adolescents aged 11-13 years old were recruited from mainstream
comprehensive secondary schools using opportunity sampling. Study
groups were screened from this sample based on questionnaire and
ability data (final N=66). All groups were matched for age, gender and
IQ (FSIQ of Wechsler Abbreviated Scales of Intelligence; Wechsler,
1999):
Mixed model ANOVA was conducted on the TOSCA measure:
Mixed model ANOVA was conducted on the TOSCA measure:
• There was a significant
(F(2, 61)=4.34 p<0.05).
• There was a significant main effect of group
(F(2, 58)=4.98, p<0.01).
• There was a significant
(F(1, 61)=12.15 p<0.001).
• There was a significant main effect of emotion
(F(3, 174)=83.32, p<0.001).
• There was a significant group x emotion interaction
(F(6, 174)=7.33, p<0.001).
• Questionnaire of Subjective Emotions (QSE; Burnett, 2006) - A
self-report measure with eight short scenarios used to examine the
intensity of guilt and shame felt following imagined transgressions.
main
effect
effect
of
of
group
emotion
Planned comparisons, corrected for multiple comparisons (See Fig. 2):
Planned comparisons were also run using independent samples t-tests
corrected for multiple comparisons (See Fig. 1):
Guilt
• CP/CU+ group showed less guilt than comparison group
(t(45)=-3.953, p<0.001; d’=1.13).
Guilt
• AB/CU+ group scored less than the comparison group for guilt
(t(45)=-2.958, p<0.01; d’=0.84).
• CP/CU- individuals did not score significantly differently on
guilt items than the comparison group (p=.76).
• CP/CU- group did not significantly differ from the comparison
group (p=.52).
Shame
• For shame, CP/CU+ group did not significantly differ from the
comparison group (p=.16).
• CP/CU- group showed more shame than the comparison group
(t(41)=2.466, p<0.02; d’=0.75).
These results show that in the TOSCA task CP/CU+ individuals
displayed less guilt than comparison children, but CP/CU- individuals
did not significantly differ from the comparison group. For shame,
CP/CU+ individuals did not significantly differ from the comparison
group, but CP/CU- individuals showed more shame responding than the
comparison group
Scores by group on Guilt and Shame items from the
Test Of Self-Conscious Affect
• CP groups scored in the top tertile of the sample for CP (indexed
by a combination score on the Conduct Disorder and Oppositional
Defiant Disorder Scales of the Adolescent Symptom Inventory,
Gadow & Sprafkin, 1997).
• These participants were further divided into CU+ (N=20) and
CU- (N=18) groups using a median split on Inventory of
Callous Unemotional Traits (ICU; Frick, 2003).
Measures
• Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA-3; Tangney, Dearing,
Wagner, & Gramzow, 2000) - A self-report measure designed to
examine shame- and guilt-proneness. Participants rate the likelihood of
responding in a particular way following each scenario.
main
• However there was no statistically significant group x emotion
interaction (F(2, 61)=0.253 p=0.777).
This study suggests that different moral emotion processing profiles
may explain why different subgroups of children with
disruptive/antisocial behaviours can find it difficult to perform
reparative actions and behave in a morally acceptable way. Disruptive
behaviours performed by CP/CU+ individuals may be attributable to
low guilt, making it easier for them to continue aggressing against
other people. Lack of guilt may also prevent children with CP/CU+
from performing reparative actions after transgressions and thus lead
to continued behavioural problems. This study also suggests, albeit in
a less clear-cut fashion, that CP/CU- may be associated with excessive
shame, which could result in avoidance of addressing one’s disruptive
behaviours.
These results have implications for interventions that address
disruptive behaviours. As children with CP are a heterogeneous group
with different pathways leading to disruptive behaviours, the most
successful types of intervention will be those that are individualised
for the particular risky behaviour that the child is displaying, targeting
specific information and affective processing styles. For example,
interventions for CP/CU+ should capitalise on socially acceptable
rewards and seek to boost the weak ability to empathise. Conversely,
CP/CU- children may benefit from school programmes that teach
about controlling emotions and managing aggression.
Shame
• For shame items, there were no significant differences between
CP/CU+ and comparisons (p=.11).
• There was no significant differences between CP/CU- and
comparisons (p=.68).
Literature cited
Similar to the TOSCA findings, CP/CU+ individuals showed less guilt
responding, but CP/CU- individuals did not differ significantly from
comparison group on the QSE measure. However, for shame items,
there were no significant differences between any of the groups on the
QSE measure. It is unclear what drives the discrepant finding for
shame in CP/CU- group in the two tasks. It could be that the TOSCA
task is more sensitive in measuring excessive shame attributions
because it does not directly ask about feeling ashamed.
Scores by group on Guilt and Shame items from the
Questionnaire of Subjective Emotions
35
55
• Comparison group (no CP and low CU scores) was also selected
(N=28).
Outlier inspection of the QSE data revealed two participants who had
an extreme score of +/- 3 standard deviations from their group mean.
These individuals were removed from the analysis, leaving 20
participants in CP/CU+ group, 17 participants in CP/CU- group, and
27 participants in the comparison group.
Conclusions
Burnett, S. (2006). The Questionnaire of Subjective Emotions. Unpublished rating scale,
University College London.
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 51, 665-697.
Frick, P. J. (2003). The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. Unpublished rating scale,
University of New Orleans.
Frick, P. J. & Viding, E. (2009). Antisocial behavior from a developmental psychopathology
perspective. Development and Psychopathology 21, 1111-1131.
Gadow, K. D., & Sprafkin, J. (1997). Adolescent Symptom Inventory 4: Screening Manual.
New York: Checkmate Plus.
Tangney, J. P. (1998). How does guilt differ from shame? In J. Bybee (Ed.), Guilt and
children (pp. 1-17). San Diego: Academic Press.
Tangney, J. P., Dearing, R., Wagner, P. E., & Gramzow, R. (2000). The Test of SelfConscious Affect – 3 (TOSCA-3). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.
Viding, E., Simmonds, E., Petrides, K. V., Frederickson, N. (2009). The contribution of
callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems to bullying in early adolescence.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 50(4), 471-481.
50
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children - Third Edition. San Antonio,
TX: Psychological Corporation.
30
45
40
CP/CU+
CP/CUComparison
TOSCA
Score
35
30
QSE
25
Score
CP/CU+
CP/CUComparison
20
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Essi Viding for supervising this project and Carol Cuthell for
her help in recruiting participants.
For further information
25
Please contact chloe.booth.09@ucl.ac.uk or e.viding@ucl.ac.uk
20
More information on this and related projects can be obtained from the
Developmental Risk and Resilience Unit website:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/clinical-psychology/Research-Groups/DVR
15
Guilt
Shame
Figure 1. Scores by group on Guilt and Shame items from the Test Of Self-Conscious Affect measure.
Note: CP/CU+ = Conduct Problems with Callous-Unemotional traits;
CP/CU- = Conduct Problems without Callous-Unemotional Traits.
Guilt
Shame
Figure 2. Scores by group on Guilt and Shame items from the Questionnaire of Subjective Emotions.
Note: CP/CU+ = Conduct Problems with Callous-Unemotional traits
CP/CU- = Conduct Problems without Callous-Unemotional Traits.
This
poster
can
be
found
online
at
www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucjtchb