- Email: [email protected]
The social dynamics of boys with callous and unemotional traits: Uncooperative and proud of it
Accepted Manuscript The Social Dynamics of Boys with Callous and unemotional Traits: Uncooperative and Proud of it David J. Hawes, Melissa Straiton, Pauline Howie PII: DOI: Reference:
S0092-6566(19)30024-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.02.005 YJRPE 3794
To appear in:
Journal of Research in Personality
Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:
20 December 2018 19 February 2019 20 February 2019
Please cite this article as: Hawes, D.J., Straiton, M., Howie, P., The Social Dynamics of Boys with Callous and unemotional Traits: Uncooperative and Proud of it, Journal of Research in Personality (2019), doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jrp.2019.02.005
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
The Social Dynamics of Boys with Callous and unemotional Traits: Uncooperative and Proud of it
David J. Hawes, Melissa Straiton & Pauline Howie
School of Psychology, The University of Sydney
Correspondence to: David J Hawes, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Australia, NSW 2006. [email protected] Acknowledgements The researchers acknowledge the valuable contributions of the families who participated in this study and the school staff who supported it. This study was not preregistered, and the researchers have no conflicts of interest to declare. In terms of author contributions, the second author was responsible for participant testing and all authors were involved significantly in study conceptualization, data analysis, and write-up.
Abstract This study examined the social dynamics of boys with callous and unemotional (CU) traits when experiencing betrayal by peers and engaging in such betrayal themselves. Participants (n = 90
boys; ages 10-13 years) completed a novel prisoner’s dilemma game in which they could cooperate with, or betray, a computerized co-player. They also reported on their subject experience of emotions during game-play and were provided with bogus feedback regarding the emotions of their co-players. Boys’ CU traits, conduct problems, and anxiety, were indexed independently via parent reports. Higher levels of CU traits were associated with lower rates of cooperation, independent of anxiety and conduct problem severity. Boys’ CU traits were also uniquely associated with greater pride following their betrayal of a co-player.
Keywords: Callous-unemotional traits; psychopathy, peer relationships, cooperation, childhood
The Social Dynamics of Boys with Callous and Unemotional Traits: Uncooperative and Proud of it There is now much evidence that children with callous and unemotional traits (e.g., lack of guilt and empathy, shallow or deficient affect) are at risk for a particularly chronic and severe trajectory of antisocial behavior (Frick, Ray, Thornton, & Kahn, 2014). Anecdotal descriptions of individuals with
CU traits, conceptualized as the affective component of psychopathy, have long referred to shallow and exploitative relationships (Hare, 1999). However, compared to evidence regarding childhood CU traits and aggressive behavior, evidence regarding interpersonal social dynamics remains limited. Few studies to investigate adult or child CU traits have used controlled behavioral paradigms that model social dynamics or elicit prosocial behaviors such as cooperation. The most frequently used paradigm has been the prisoner’s dilemma, often referred to as the iterated prisoner’s dilemma (IPD) when conducted with multiple trials (Luce & Raiffa, 1957). Based on mathematical game theory, the prisoner’s dilemma models relationships that are based on reciprocal altruism, or the reciprocal exchange of favors. Studies using the prisoner’s dilemma with adult samples have provided growing evidence of an association between CU traits and uncooperative behavior in clinical/forensic and community samples (e.g., Curry et al., 2011; Johnston et al., 2014; Rilling et al., 2007). Only one study to our knowledge has used a behavioral paradigm to examine the relationship between CU traits and cooperation/altruism in children or adolescents. Sakai et al. (2012) developed a novel ‘altruism-antisocial’ paradigm in which participants accept or reject a series of offers that include both reward to self and cost to others, in the context of a scenario involving charity donations. In a sample of (n = 35) adolescents aged 14-18 years, CU traits were associated with the extent to which participants were disposed to reward themselves while costing others. The aim of the current study was to examine the social behavior and affect of children with CU traits when experiencing betrayal by peers and engaging in such betrayal themselves. The types of emotional responses examined were selected based on those emphasized in conceptualizations of CU traits: anger, guilt, and pride – the latter of which can be considered the positively valenced inverse of the dimension of shame. Although no previous research has examined the behavioral or affective responses of children and adolescents with CU traits during the prisoner’s dilemma, similar research has found that female adolescents with anxiety/depressive disorders experienced more anger toward coplayers in the IPD than did healthy comparison girls (McClure et al., 2007). Given that features of
anxiety have been found to covary with CU traits and conduct problems (Frick et al., 2014), we also tested whether associations between CU traits and behavioral and affective responses during the IPD were independent of those that may be explained by concurrent anxiety and conduct problems. It was hypothesized, first, that CU traits would be inversely associated with cooperation in the prisoner’s dilemma. With regard to affective responses it was predicted that CU traits would be associated with less guilt and greater pride when betraying a co-player (i.e. defecting), and greater feelings of anger when experiencing betrayal from a co-player. There is much evidence associating CU traits with a reduced sensitivity to cues of distress in others, and the reward-focused behavior of individuals with CU traits appears to be more resistant to interference from peripheral emotional stimuli than that of individuals without such traits (Frick et al., 2014). It was therefore further hypothesized that participants with low levels of CU traits would behave more cooperatively when provided with feedback on the emotion states of their co-players, whereas participants with high levels of CU traits would not.
Method Participants Participants were a community sample of boys aged 10 to 13 years. Children with significant developmental or language delays were excluded from the sample, as were those whose parents’ comprehension of English was not sufficiently fluent to complete the informant-report measures. Study information and questionnaire packages were distributed to parents of eligible children enrolled in three independent schools and one public school in Sydney, Australia’s largest city. A response rate of 35% was seen for the return of completed questionnaires with written consent, resulting in a total sample of n = 90 boys (mean age = 11.29, SD = 0.95). Power analysis indicated that a sample size of approximately N = 85 was needed to detect a medium effect size (consistent with Sakai et al., 2012), with an alpha = .05 and power = 0.80. Socioeconomic status of the sample was characterized using the
Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA), a scale on which the average range for Australian families is represented by scores from 900 to 1100. Participants had a mean ICSEA score of 1128, indicating that participants were from relatively middle to upper-middle class backgrounds.
Measures Informant rating scales. Child CU traits, conduct problems, and anxiety, were measured using parent ratings on the following questionnaires (for additional information see Supplemental Materials). Parent ratings on the Antisocial Process Screening Device (Frick, & Hare, 2002) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997) were scored based on the system developed by Dadds et al. (2005) for indexing unique features of these domains. This method, based on factor analysis, produces a CU traits scale weighted toward the “callous” end of the CU traits spectrum, with a focus on items such as “unkind,” “lacks empathy,” and “doesn’t care about other’s feelings”. It also produces an Antisocial scale concerning general conduct problems, and an Anxiety scale. Compared to the original CU traits subscale of the APSD, this modified scale has been found to show superior reliability in previous research with Australian children (e.g., α = .79 vs. α = .57; Hawes & Dadds, 2005). All scales showed good reliability in the current sample (see Table 1) 1. The Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. Participants were told that they would be playing an online game with a co-player located at another school. Instructions explained that they would be repeatedly presented with the choice to either cooperate or defect with this co-player, who would be presented with these same alternatives, and that they would not be informed of each other’s decision until submitted by both players (for full instructions see Supplemental Materials). The IPD commenced with a practice game consisting of 10 rounds of the standard IPD game, which is devoid of any reference to emotion. No points were scored during this practice game. This was followed by game 1 (Standard IPD), which consisted of 20 rounds of the standard IPD game. Immediately following each trial the
outcome appeared on the participant’s monitor, along with the cumulative score of the participant and co-player. Game 2 (Emotional IPD) was also 20 trials, and served as the emotional feedback condition. The trials in this game were identical to the Standard IPD, except that participants reported on their own affective responses following each trial, and were provided with bogus feedback on the affective responses of their co-player. Participants made subjective ratings of their emotional states on three rating scales that appeared onscreen following each trial. These comprised a global rating of positive/negative affect made by selecting from line drawings of five faces ranging from depictions of ‘very happy’ to ‘very unhappy’. Three further ratings were made concerning the extent to which participants experienced the specific emotions of anger, guilt, and pride, each of which were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., 1 = Very proud; 5 = Not at all proud). These scores were reversed for the purpose of analysis, such that higher scores reflect stronger emotions. The computerized confederate was programmed to begin happy and become increasingly unhappy with every trial for which the participant chose to defect. This strategy was designed to ensure that all participants who defected would experience negative emotional feedback from their co-player (for additional information about the IPD see Supplemental Materials).
Procedure Following approval by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee and the Department of Education, participant information and consent forms were distributed by participating schools to the parents of eligible children, along with questionnaire packages. Schools were visited by the researcher to administer the computer-based IPD with participating boys. Each participant was assigned a random identification number to login to the IPD, and asked to follow the automated prompts and instructions that appeared. Raw data recorded for the IPD were converted into frequencies of cooperation responses per game and frequencies of each possible trial outcome (cooperate-defect;
defect-cooperate; cooperate-cooperate; defect-defect). Frequencies were then converted into rates per game and total rates collapsed across games 1 and 2. Affective responses were converted into indices of affect (guilt, pride, anger) following the final trial of game 2, and indices of affect contingent upon occurrences of defection/cooperation by both the participant and the computerized co-player throughout game-play (for details see Supplemental Materials).
Results Descriptive statistics Means, standard deviations, and reliability statistics for the informant-report measures and indices from the IPD are reported in Table 1, along with bivariate correlations among these variables. Significant bivariate correlations were found between total rates of cooperation in the Emotional IPD and subjective ratings of affect with respect to guilt following defection (r = .37, p = .0003), pride following cooperation (r = .24, p = .29), and pride following defection (r = -.22, p = .03). Frequency of cooperation was also significantly associated at the bivariate level with intensity of anger following defection by a co-player (r = .24, p = .02). Finally, age was significantly correlated with self-reported anger following the co-player’s defection (r = .25, p = .01).
Callous-Unemotional Traits and Peer Cooperation At the bivariate level, CU traits were significantly associated with reduced levels of cooperation in the Standard IPD (r = -.27, p = .009) and Emotional IPD (r = -.22, p = .03). Similarly, high levels of conduct problems were associated with less cooperation, but in the Emotional IPD only (r = -.24, p = .02). Linear regression was used to test for unique predictors of rates of cooperation (dependent variable; DV) in the standard IPD. In order to control for potential overlap between CU traits and other child characteristics, independent variables (IVs) comprised child age, conduct problems, anxiety, and CU traits. When controlling for these variables, a main effect was seen for CU traits ( = .29, SE .20, p
= .03). No other significant effects were found (for full regression coefficients see Supplemental Materials). A mixed between-within subjects ANOVA was then conducted to test whether rates of cooperation changed from the Standard IPD to the Emotional IPD, and whether any change in participant cooperation between these conditions was moderated by CU traits. Level of CU traits was entered as the between-subjects IV, while condition (Standard versus Emotional IPD) was the withinsubjects IV. The DV was the rate of cooperation in each game. No main effect was found for IPD condition, and no interaction seen between CU traits and IPD condition.
Callous-Unemotional Traits and Affective Responses during the Emotional IPD At the bivariate level, CU traits were associated with greater pride following participants’ own defection (r = .24, p = .02). No other child characteristics were directly associated with affective responses to game play in the Emotional IPD. Linear regression was then conducted to examine the unique predictors of affective responses to specific contingencies during game play. Three models were tested, in which each of the three respective contingencies of theoretical relevance to CU traits (guilt following own defection; pride following own defection; anger following co-player defection) served as the respective DV. IVs comprised child age, conduct problems, anxiety, and CU traits. Partial regression coefficients for these analyses are presented in Table 2. In the model testing for predictors of pride following own defection, a main effect was seen for CU traits ( = .29, SE .04, p = .02), such that higher levels of CU traits were associated with greater pride. In the model testing for predictors of anger following co-player defection, a significant main effect was seen for child age ( = .26, SE .15, p = .01), such that older children experienced greater feelings of anger when their co-player defected. No other IVs were significant predictors.
Discussion This study examined associations between CU traits and social cooperation among boys in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma paradigm, and tested whether CU traits accounted for individual differences in emotional responses during game play. As hypothesized, CU traits were associated with reduced levels of cooperation. Importantly, although both CU traits and general conduct problems were associated with poor cooperation at the zero-order level, only CU traits were found to uniquely predict this social behavior. This is consistent with the numerous experimental studies in which adults with psychopathic traits have been shown to be characterized by a lack of social cooperation in performance-based paradigms (Curry et al., 2011; Johnston et al., 2014; Mokros et al., 2008; Rilling et al., 2007), and the one such study that has been conducted in late adolescence (Sakai et al., 2012). It has been proposed that healthy individuals possess an adaptation that biases them toward altruistic behavior for the purpose of eliciting future reciprocation from others (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003), and individuals with higher levels of psychopathy are thought to be lacking in this adaptation. Our findings support this thesis and suggest that this adaptational failure emerges from processes that play out during childhood. The association between CU traits and poor cooperation in our sample was not dependent on the emotional context of game-play, suggesting that boys with high levels of CU traits do not only appear to be more self-serving in situations that may typically elicit increased social cooperation among their low-CU peers. In addition, boys rated by their parents as having higher levels of CU traits were more likely to experience pride following trials in which they themselves defected. As such, these boys not only behaved more uncooperatively, but were more likely to feel pride when doing so. According to clinical accounts and empirical data, adult offenders with psychopathic traits exhibit greater pride in their antisocial behavior and capacity for social manipulation than non-psychopathic offenders (e.g., Hare, 1999). Research with adults has also recently shown that psychopathic traits are associated with an enjoyment of the callous treatment of others, and negatively associated with enjoyment of positive
social interactions (Foulkes, Viding, McCrory, & Neumann, 2014). Our findings regarding experiences of pride among boys with CU traits following instances of defection are consistent with this adult evidence, and with speculation in the developmental literature that the emergence of positive feelings about misconduct is likely to depend on diminished empathy and guilt regarding the distress one causes to others (Cole, Hall, & Radzioch, 2009). Further research is needed to determine if the current findings generalize to clinic-referred youth, and these findings should be considered in light of some study limitations. First, in order to maximize ecological validity participants were told that they were playing an online game with another participant, yet we did not include a manipulation check to assess whether this deception was successful. It should be noted, however, that this omission is shared by previous studies that have examined individual differences associated with performance on the IPD, and there is evidence that participants do not systematically differ in game-play on the IPD as a function of whether or not they believe this deception. Second, in order to maximize statistical power a within-subjects design was used wherein all participants completed both conditions of the respective IPD task. The order of these conditions was not counterbalanced, as the standard IPD would have likely been contaminated by the emotional feedback condition if presented following the emotional IPD. That is, the standard IPD would not have provided a valid context for assessing social responses in the absence of emotional information if participants were primed to the impact of their actions on the wellbeing of the co-player by emotional information presented in the preceding condition. Counterbalancing such conditions would have allowed us to control for potential practice effects, however there is no apparent reason why practice effects should differ systematically as a function of CU traits. Our data add to an emerging body of literature that has utilized neuro-economic games to investigate individual differences underlying interpersonal dysfunction. In future research the IPD could be adapted to further characterize the social and emotional dynamics associated with CU traits in various ways. For example, the salience of emotional cues during affective feedback could be
manipulated to investigate sensitivity to these cues and related attentional processes. With growing evidence that children and adolescence with CU traits are at high-risk for peer problems such as bullying (Frick et al., 2014), paradigms of this kind stand to play a key role in characterizing the processes that drive such problems across childhood and later development.
References
Cole P. M., Hall S. E., Radzioch A. M., Olson S. L., & Sameroff A. J. (2009). Emotional dysregulation and the development of serious misconduct. In Olson S. L., Sameroff A. J. (Eds.), Biopsychosocial regulatory processes in the development of childhood behavioral problems. (pp. 186-211). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Curry, O., Chesters, M., & Viding, E. (2011). The psychopath's dilemma: The effects of psychopathic personality traits in one-shot games. Personality & Individual Differences, 50, 804-809. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.036 Dadds, M. R., Fraser, J., Frost, A., & Hawes, D. (2005). Disentangling the underlying dimensions of psychopathy and conduct problems in childhood: A community study. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 400-410. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.400 Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785-791. doi: 10.1038/nature02043 Foulkes, L, McCrory, E.J., Neumann, C.S., & Viding, E. (2014). Inverted social reward: Associations between psychopathic traits and self-report and experimental measures of social reward. PLoS ONE, 9(8): e106000. Frick, P. J., & Hare, R. D. (2002). The Psychopathy Screening Device. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2014). Annual research review: A developmental psychopathology approach to understanding callous-unemotional traits in children and adolescents with serious conduct problems. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 55(6), 532-548. doi: 10.1037/a0033076 Goodman, R. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 38(5), 581-586. doi: DOI 10.1111/j.14697610.1997.tb01545.x Hare, R. D. (1999). Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among us. New York; Guildford Press.
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(4), 737-741. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.4.737 Johnston, L., Hawes, D. J., & Straiton, M. (2014). Psychopathic traits and social cooperation in the context of emotional feedback. Psychiatry Psychology & Law, 21(5), 767-778. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2014.893550 Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey. New York: Wiley. McClure, E., Parrish, J., Nelson, E., Easter, J., Thorne, J., Rilling, J., Ernst, M. & Pine, D. (2007). Responses to conflict and cooperation in adolescents with anxiety and mood disorders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 567-577. doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9113-8 Rilling, J., Glenn, A., Jairam, M., Pagnoni, G., Goldsmith, D., Elfenbein, H., & Lilienfeld, S. (2007). Neural correlates of social cooperation and non-cooperation as a function of psychopathy. Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 61, 1260-1271. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.07.021 Sakai, J.T., Dalwani, M.S., Gelhorn, H.L., Mikulich-Gilbertson, S.K., & Crowley, T.J. (2012). A behavioral test of accepting benefits that cost others: Associations with conduct problems and unemotionality. PLoS ONE, 7, 1–12. doi: ARTNe3615810.1371/journal.pone.0036158 Footnotes 1. The Inventory of Callous Unemotional Traits was also completed by parents. Full results for the measure are available in Supplemental Materials.
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Informant-report Measures and Rates of Cooperation in the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. Child Age
1
2. Callous-Unemotional traits
-0.07
1
3. Conduct Problems
-0.13
0.61**
1
4. Anxiety
-0.19
0.31**
0.41**
5. Cooperation in Standard IPD 6. Cooperation in Emotional IPD
0.17 0.01
-0.27** -0.22*
-0.15 -0.24*
-0.08 -0.16
1 0.50**
1
7. Pride Following Own Defection
-0.00
0.24*
0.09
0.13
-0.13
-0.22*
1
8. Guilt Following Own Defection
0.20
0.09
-0.04
-0.00
0.23*
0.37**
-0.15
1
9. Anger Following Co-player Defection
0.25*
0.14
0.03
-0.01
0.29**
0.24*
-0.17
-0.68**
1
1
M
11.28
2.91
2.93
2.12
6.35
5.55
2.00
3.44
3.37
SD
0.94
2.81
3.21
2.02
4.36
4.68
1.01
1.32
1.39
-
0.82
0.83
0.67
-
-
-
-
-
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; IPD = Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma.
Table 2 Unique Predictors of Affective Responses during the Emotional Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma
Pride Following Own Defection
Guilt Following Own Defection
Anger Following Co-player Defection
B
SE
B
SE
B
SE
Child age
0.03
-0.11
0.03
0.29
-0.15
0.20
0.39
-0.15
0.26 *
Conduct Problems
-0.04
-0.04
-0.13
-0.05
-0.05
-0.14
0.02
-0.06
-0.05
Anxiety
0.05
-0.05
0.10
0.02
-0.07
0.04
-0.00
-0.07
0.00
Callous-Unemotional Traits
0.10
-0.04
0.29 *
0.08
-0.06
0.18
0.10
-0.06
0.20
Predictor Variable
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01.
CALLOUS UNEMOTIONAL TRAITS AND SOCIAL DYNAMICS
Highlights
The moment-to-moment social dynamics of boys with CU traits were examined
CU traits were associated with increased uncooperative, self-serving peer behavior
Boys with CU traits experienced greater pride when engaging in uncooperative behavior
17
S0092-6566(19)30024-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.02.005 YJRPE 3794
To appear in:
Journal of Research in Personality
Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:
20 December 2018 19 February 2019 20 February 2019
Please cite this article as: Hawes, D.J., Straiton, M., Howie, P., The Social Dynamics of Boys with Callous and unemotional Traits: Uncooperative and Proud of it, Journal of Research in Personality (2019), doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jrp.2019.02.005
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
The Social Dynamics of Boys with Callous and unemotional Traits: Uncooperative and Proud of it
David J. Hawes, Melissa Straiton & Pauline Howie
School of Psychology, The University of Sydney
Correspondence to: David J Hawes, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Australia, NSW 2006. [email protected] Acknowledgements The researchers acknowledge the valuable contributions of the families who participated in this study and the school staff who supported it. This study was not preregistered, and the researchers have no conflicts of interest to declare. In terms of author contributions, the second author was responsible for participant testing and all authors were involved significantly in study conceptualization, data analysis, and write-up.
Abstract This study examined the social dynamics of boys with callous and unemotional (CU) traits when experiencing betrayal by peers and engaging in such betrayal themselves. Participants (n = 90
boys; ages 10-13 years) completed a novel prisoner’s dilemma game in which they could cooperate with, or betray, a computerized co-player. They also reported on their subject experience of emotions during game-play and were provided with bogus feedback regarding the emotions of their co-players. Boys’ CU traits, conduct problems, and anxiety, were indexed independently via parent reports. Higher levels of CU traits were associated with lower rates of cooperation, independent of anxiety and conduct problem severity. Boys’ CU traits were also uniquely associated with greater pride following their betrayal of a co-player.
Keywords: Callous-unemotional traits; psychopathy, peer relationships, cooperation, childhood
The Social Dynamics of Boys with Callous and Unemotional Traits: Uncooperative and Proud of it There is now much evidence that children with callous and unemotional traits (e.g., lack of guilt and empathy, shallow or deficient affect) are at risk for a particularly chronic and severe trajectory of antisocial behavior (Frick, Ray, Thornton, & Kahn, 2014). Anecdotal descriptions of individuals with
CU traits, conceptualized as the affective component of psychopathy, have long referred to shallow and exploitative relationships (Hare, 1999). However, compared to evidence regarding childhood CU traits and aggressive behavior, evidence regarding interpersonal social dynamics remains limited. Few studies to investigate adult or child CU traits have used controlled behavioral paradigms that model social dynamics or elicit prosocial behaviors such as cooperation. The most frequently used paradigm has been the prisoner’s dilemma, often referred to as the iterated prisoner’s dilemma (IPD) when conducted with multiple trials (Luce & Raiffa, 1957). Based on mathematical game theory, the prisoner’s dilemma models relationships that are based on reciprocal altruism, or the reciprocal exchange of favors. Studies using the prisoner’s dilemma with adult samples have provided growing evidence of an association between CU traits and uncooperative behavior in clinical/forensic and community samples (e.g., Curry et al., 2011; Johnston et al., 2014; Rilling et al., 2007). Only one study to our knowledge has used a behavioral paradigm to examine the relationship between CU traits and cooperation/altruism in children or adolescents. Sakai et al. (2012) developed a novel ‘altruism-antisocial’ paradigm in which participants accept or reject a series of offers that include both reward to self and cost to others, in the context of a scenario involving charity donations. In a sample of (n = 35) adolescents aged 14-18 years, CU traits were associated with the extent to which participants were disposed to reward themselves while costing others. The aim of the current study was to examine the social behavior and affect of children with CU traits when experiencing betrayal by peers and engaging in such betrayal themselves. The types of emotional responses examined were selected based on those emphasized in conceptualizations of CU traits: anger, guilt, and pride – the latter of which can be considered the positively valenced inverse of the dimension of shame. Although no previous research has examined the behavioral or affective responses of children and adolescents with CU traits during the prisoner’s dilemma, similar research has found that female adolescents with anxiety/depressive disorders experienced more anger toward coplayers in the IPD than did healthy comparison girls (McClure et al., 2007). Given that features of
anxiety have been found to covary with CU traits and conduct problems (Frick et al., 2014), we also tested whether associations between CU traits and behavioral and affective responses during the IPD were independent of those that may be explained by concurrent anxiety and conduct problems. It was hypothesized, first, that CU traits would be inversely associated with cooperation in the prisoner’s dilemma. With regard to affective responses it was predicted that CU traits would be associated with less guilt and greater pride when betraying a co-player (i.e. defecting), and greater feelings of anger when experiencing betrayal from a co-player. There is much evidence associating CU traits with a reduced sensitivity to cues of distress in others, and the reward-focused behavior of individuals with CU traits appears to be more resistant to interference from peripheral emotional stimuli than that of individuals without such traits (Frick et al., 2014). It was therefore further hypothesized that participants with low levels of CU traits would behave more cooperatively when provided with feedback on the emotion states of their co-players, whereas participants with high levels of CU traits would not.
Method Participants Participants were a community sample of boys aged 10 to 13 years. Children with significant developmental or language delays were excluded from the sample, as were those whose parents’ comprehension of English was not sufficiently fluent to complete the informant-report measures. Study information and questionnaire packages were distributed to parents of eligible children enrolled in three independent schools and one public school in Sydney, Australia’s largest city. A response rate of 35% was seen for the return of completed questionnaires with written consent, resulting in a total sample of n = 90 boys (mean age = 11.29, SD = 0.95). Power analysis indicated that a sample size of approximately N = 85 was needed to detect a medium effect size (consistent with Sakai et al., 2012), with an alpha = .05 and power = 0.80. Socioeconomic status of the sample was characterized using the
Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA), a scale on which the average range for Australian families is represented by scores from 900 to 1100. Participants had a mean ICSEA score of 1128, indicating that participants were from relatively middle to upper-middle class backgrounds.
Measures Informant rating scales. Child CU traits, conduct problems, and anxiety, were measured using parent ratings on the following questionnaires (for additional information see Supplemental Materials). Parent ratings on the Antisocial Process Screening Device (Frick, & Hare, 2002) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 1997) were scored based on the system developed by Dadds et al. (2005) for indexing unique features of these domains. This method, based on factor analysis, produces a CU traits scale weighted toward the “callous” end of the CU traits spectrum, with a focus on items such as “unkind,” “lacks empathy,” and “doesn’t care about other’s feelings”. It also produces an Antisocial scale concerning general conduct problems, and an Anxiety scale. Compared to the original CU traits subscale of the APSD, this modified scale has been found to show superior reliability in previous research with Australian children (e.g., α = .79 vs. α = .57; Hawes & Dadds, 2005). All scales showed good reliability in the current sample (see Table 1) 1. The Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma. Participants were told that they would be playing an online game with a co-player located at another school. Instructions explained that they would be repeatedly presented with the choice to either cooperate or defect with this co-player, who would be presented with these same alternatives, and that they would not be informed of each other’s decision until submitted by both players (for full instructions see Supplemental Materials). The IPD commenced with a practice game consisting of 10 rounds of the standard IPD game, which is devoid of any reference to emotion. No points were scored during this practice game. This was followed by game 1 (Standard IPD), which consisted of 20 rounds of the standard IPD game. Immediately following each trial the
outcome appeared on the participant’s monitor, along with the cumulative score of the participant and co-player. Game 2 (Emotional IPD) was also 20 trials, and served as the emotional feedback condition. The trials in this game were identical to the Standard IPD, except that participants reported on their own affective responses following each trial, and were provided with bogus feedback on the affective responses of their co-player. Participants made subjective ratings of their emotional states on three rating scales that appeared onscreen following each trial. These comprised a global rating of positive/negative affect made by selecting from line drawings of five faces ranging from depictions of ‘very happy’ to ‘very unhappy’. Three further ratings were made concerning the extent to which participants experienced the specific emotions of anger, guilt, and pride, each of which were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (e.g., 1 = Very proud; 5 = Not at all proud). These scores were reversed for the purpose of analysis, such that higher scores reflect stronger emotions. The computerized confederate was programmed to begin happy and become increasingly unhappy with every trial for which the participant chose to defect. This strategy was designed to ensure that all participants who defected would experience negative emotional feedback from their co-player (for additional information about the IPD see Supplemental Materials).
Procedure Following approval by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee and the Department of Education, participant information and consent forms were distributed by participating schools to the parents of eligible children, along with questionnaire packages. Schools were visited by the researcher to administer the computer-based IPD with participating boys. Each participant was assigned a random identification number to login to the IPD, and asked to follow the automated prompts and instructions that appeared. Raw data recorded for the IPD were converted into frequencies of cooperation responses per game and frequencies of each possible trial outcome (cooperate-defect;
defect-cooperate; cooperate-cooperate; defect-defect). Frequencies were then converted into rates per game and total rates collapsed across games 1 and 2. Affective responses were converted into indices of affect (guilt, pride, anger) following the final trial of game 2, and indices of affect contingent upon occurrences of defection/cooperation by both the participant and the computerized co-player throughout game-play (for details see Supplemental Materials).
Results Descriptive statistics Means, standard deviations, and reliability statistics for the informant-report measures and indices from the IPD are reported in Table 1, along with bivariate correlations among these variables. Significant bivariate correlations were found between total rates of cooperation in the Emotional IPD and subjective ratings of affect with respect to guilt following defection (r = .37, p = .0003), pride following cooperation (r = .24, p = .29), and pride following defection (r = -.22, p = .03). Frequency of cooperation was also significantly associated at the bivariate level with intensity of anger following defection by a co-player (r = .24, p = .02). Finally, age was significantly correlated with self-reported anger following the co-player’s defection (r = .25, p = .01).
Callous-Unemotional Traits and Peer Cooperation At the bivariate level, CU traits were significantly associated with reduced levels of cooperation in the Standard IPD (r = -.27, p = .009) and Emotional IPD (r = -.22, p = .03). Similarly, high levels of conduct problems were associated with less cooperation, but in the Emotional IPD only (r = -.24, p = .02). Linear regression was used to test for unique predictors of rates of cooperation (dependent variable; DV) in the standard IPD. In order to control for potential overlap between CU traits and other child characteristics, independent variables (IVs) comprised child age, conduct problems, anxiety, and CU traits. When controlling for these variables, a main effect was seen for CU traits ( = .29, SE .20, p
= .03). No other significant effects were found (for full regression coefficients see Supplemental Materials). A mixed between-within subjects ANOVA was then conducted to test whether rates of cooperation changed from the Standard IPD to the Emotional IPD, and whether any change in participant cooperation between these conditions was moderated by CU traits. Level of CU traits was entered as the between-subjects IV, while condition (Standard versus Emotional IPD) was the withinsubjects IV. The DV was the rate of cooperation in each game. No main effect was found for IPD condition, and no interaction seen between CU traits and IPD condition.
Callous-Unemotional Traits and Affective Responses during the Emotional IPD At the bivariate level, CU traits were associated with greater pride following participants’ own defection (r = .24, p = .02). No other child characteristics were directly associated with affective responses to game play in the Emotional IPD. Linear regression was then conducted to examine the unique predictors of affective responses to specific contingencies during game play. Three models were tested, in which each of the three respective contingencies of theoretical relevance to CU traits (guilt following own defection; pride following own defection; anger following co-player defection) served as the respective DV. IVs comprised child age, conduct problems, anxiety, and CU traits. Partial regression coefficients for these analyses are presented in Table 2. In the model testing for predictors of pride following own defection, a main effect was seen for CU traits ( = .29, SE .04, p = .02), such that higher levels of CU traits were associated with greater pride. In the model testing for predictors of anger following co-player defection, a significant main effect was seen for child age ( = .26, SE .15, p = .01), such that older children experienced greater feelings of anger when their co-player defected. No other IVs were significant predictors.
Discussion This study examined associations between CU traits and social cooperation among boys in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma paradigm, and tested whether CU traits accounted for individual differences in emotional responses during game play. As hypothesized, CU traits were associated with reduced levels of cooperation. Importantly, although both CU traits and general conduct problems were associated with poor cooperation at the zero-order level, only CU traits were found to uniquely predict this social behavior. This is consistent with the numerous experimental studies in which adults with psychopathic traits have been shown to be characterized by a lack of social cooperation in performance-based paradigms (Curry et al., 2011; Johnston et al., 2014; Mokros et al., 2008; Rilling et al., 2007), and the one such study that has been conducted in late adolescence (Sakai et al., 2012). It has been proposed that healthy individuals possess an adaptation that biases them toward altruistic behavior for the purpose of eliciting future reciprocation from others (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003), and individuals with higher levels of psychopathy are thought to be lacking in this adaptation. Our findings support this thesis and suggest that this adaptational failure emerges from processes that play out during childhood. The association between CU traits and poor cooperation in our sample was not dependent on the emotional context of game-play, suggesting that boys with high levels of CU traits do not only appear to be more self-serving in situations that may typically elicit increased social cooperation among their low-CU peers. In addition, boys rated by their parents as having higher levels of CU traits were more likely to experience pride following trials in which they themselves defected. As such, these boys not only behaved more uncooperatively, but were more likely to feel pride when doing so. According to clinical accounts and empirical data, adult offenders with psychopathic traits exhibit greater pride in their antisocial behavior and capacity for social manipulation than non-psychopathic offenders (e.g., Hare, 1999). Research with adults has also recently shown that psychopathic traits are associated with an enjoyment of the callous treatment of others, and negatively associated with enjoyment of positive
social interactions (Foulkes, Viding, McCrory, & Neumann, 2014). Our findings regarding experiences of pride among boys with CU traits following instances of defection are consistent with this adult evidence, and with speculation in the developmental literature that the emergence of positive feelings about misconduct is likely to depend on diminished empathy and guilt regarding the distress one causes to others (Cole, Hall, & Radzioch, 2009). Further research is needed to determine if the current findings generalize to clinic-referred youth, and these findings should be considered in light of some study limitations. First, in order to maximize ecological validity participants were told that they were playing an online game with another participant, yet we did not include a manipulation check to assess whether this deception was successful. It should be noted, however, that this omission is shared by previous studies that have examined individual differences associated with performance on the IPD, and there is evidence that participants do not systematically differ in game-play on the IPD as a function of whether or not they believe this deception. Second, in order to maximize statistical power a within-subjects design was used wherein all participants completed both conditions of the respective IPD task. The order of these conditions was not counterbalanced, as the standard IPD would have likely been contaminated by the emotional feedback condition if presented following the emotional IPD. That is, the standard IPD would not have provided a valid context for assessing social responses in the absence of emotional information if participants were primed to the impact of their actions on the wellbeing of the co-player by emotional information presented in the preceding condition. Counterbalancing such conditions would have allowed us to control for potential practice effects, however there is no apparent reason why practice effects should differ systematically as a function of CU traits. Our data add to an emerging body of literature that has utilized neuro-economic games to investigate individual differences underlying interpersonal dysfunction. In future research the IPD could be adapted to further characterize the social and emotional dynamics associated with CU traits in various ways. For example, the salience of emotional cues during affective feedback could be
manipulated to investigate sensitivity to these cues and related attentional processes. With growing evidence that children and adolescence with CU traits are at high-risk for peer problems such as bullying (Frick et al., 2014), paradigms of this kind stand to play a key role in characterizing the processes that drive such problems across childhood and later development.
References
Cole P. M., Hall S. E., Radzioch A. M., Olson S. L., & Sameroff A. J. (2009). Emotional dysregulation and the development of serious misconduct. In Olson S. L., Sameroff A. J. (Eds.), Biopsychosocial regulatory processes in the development of childhood behavioral problems. (pp. 186-211). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Curry, O., Chesters, M., & Viding, E. (2011). The psychopath's dilemma: The effects of psychopathic personality traits in one-shot games. Personality & Individual Differences, 50, 804-809. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.036 Dadds, M. R., Fraser, J., Frost, A., & Hawes, D. (2005). Disentangling the underlying dimensions of psychopathy and conduct problems in childhood: A community study. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 400-410. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.73.3.400 Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785-791. doi: 10.1038/nature02043 Foulkes, L, McCrory, E.J., Neumann, C.S., & Viding, E. (2014). Inverted social reward: Associations between psychopathic traits and self-report and experimental measures of social reward. PLoS ONE, 9(8): e106000. Frick, P. J., & Hare, R. D. (2002). The Psychopathy Screening Device. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2014). Annual research review: A developmental psychopathology approach to understanding callous-unemotional traits in children and adolescents with serious conduct problems. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 55(6), 532-548. doi: 10.1037/a0033076 Goodman, R. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 38(5), 581-586. doi: DOI 10.1111/j.14697610.1997.tb01545.x Hare, R. D. (1999). Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among us. New York; Guildford Press.
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(4), 737-741. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.4.737 Johnston, L., Hawes, D. J., & Straiton, M. (2014). Psychopathic traits and social cooperation in the context of emotional feedback. Psychiatry Psychology & Law, 21(5), 767-778. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2014.893550 Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey. New York: Wiley. McClure, E., Parrish, J., Nelson, E., Easter, J., Thorne, J., Rilling, J., Ernst, M. & Pine, D. (2007). Responses to conflict and cooperation in adolescents with anxiety and mood disorders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 567-577. doi: 10.1007/s10802-007-9113-8 Rilling, J., Glenn, A., Jairam, M., Pagnoni, G., Goldsmith, D., Elfenbein, H., & Lilienfeld, S. (2007). Neural correlates of social cooperation and non-cooperation as a function of psychopathy. Journal of Biological Psychiatry, 61, 1260-1271. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.07.021 Sakai, J.T., Dalwani, M.S., Gelhorn, H.L., Mikulich-Gilbertson, S.K., & Crowley, T.J. (2012). A behavioral test of accepting benefits that cost others: Associations with conduct problems and unemotionality. PLoS ONE, 7, 1–12. doi: ARTNe3615810.1371/journal.pone.0036158 Footnotes 1. The Inventory of Callous Unemotional Traits was also completed by parents. Full results for the measure are available in Supplemental Materials.
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Informant-report Measures and Rates of Cooperation in the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1. Child Age
1
2. Callous-Unemotional traits
-0.07
1
3. Conduct Problems
-0.13
0.61**
1
4. Anxiety
-0.19
0.31**
0.41**
5. Cooperation in Standard IPD 6. Cooperation in Emotional IPD
0.17 0.01
-0.27** -0.22*
-0.15 -0.24*
-0.08 -0.16
1 0.50**
1
7. Pride Following Own Defection
-0.00
0.24*
0.09
0.13
-0.13
-0.22*
1
8. Guilt Following Own Defection
0.20
0.09
-0.04
-0.00
0.23*
0.37**
-0.15
1
9. Anger Following Co-player Defection
0.25*
0.14
0.03
-0.01
0.29**
0.24*
-0.17
-0.68**
1
1
M
11.28
2.91
2.93
2.12
6.35
5.55
2.00
3.44
3.37
SD
0.94
2.81
3.21
2.02
4.36
4.68
1.01
1.32
1.39
-
0.82
0.83
0.67
-
-
-
-
-
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; IPD = Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma.
Table 2 Unique Predictors of Affective Responses during the Emotional Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma
Pride Following Own Defection
Guilt Following Own Defection
Anger Following Co-player Defection
B
SE
B
SE
B
SE
Child age
0.03
-0.11
0.03
0.29
-0.15
0.20
0.39
-0.15
0.26 *
Conduct Problems
-0.04
-0.04
-0.13
-0.05
-0.05
-0.14
0.02
-0.06
-0.05
Anxiety
0.05
-0.05
0.10
0.02
-0.07
0.04
-0.00
-0.07
0.00
Callous-Unemotional Traits
0.10
-0.04
0.29 *
0.08
-0.06
0.18
0.10
-0.06
0.20
Predictor Variable
Note: *p < .05; **p < .01.
CALLOUS UNEMOTIONAL TRAITS AND SOCIAL DYNAMICS
Highlights
The moment-to-moment social dynamics of boys with CU traits were examined
CU traits were associated with increased uncooperative, self-serving peer behavior
Boys with CU traits experienced greater pride when engaging in uncooperative behavior
17