J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:165–177
DOI 10.1007/s10964-012-9820-5
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH
Maternal Care, Maltreatment and Callous-Unemotional Traits
Among Urban Male Juvenile Offenders
Eva R. Kimonis • Brittany Cross • Aisha Howard
Kathleen Donoghue
Received: 25 June 2012 / Accepted: 11 September 2012 / Published online: 30 September 2012
 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012
Abstract Callous-unemotional (CU) traits (i.e., lack of
empathy/guilt, uncaring attitudes) are believed to be a
developmental antecedent to adult psychopathy and iden-
tify antisocial youth at risk for severe and persistent
aggression. The psychosocial histories of antisocial and
aggressive individuals with psychopathic traits are char-
acterized by abusive or unaffectionate parenting; however,
there is a gap in the literature regarding the unique impact
of these factors on adolescent offenders. The purpose of the
present study was to examine the contribution of maternal
warmth and affection (i.e., care) to dimensions of CU traits
and aggression, after accounting for the influence of vari-
ous types of childhood maltreatment. We investigated this
aim in a sample of 227 urban male adolescent offenders
housed in residential facilities. Results indicated that low
maternal care was significantly associated with greater total
CU traits and uncaring and callousness dimensions, even
after controlling for the effects of various types of child-
hood abuse and neglect. Furthermore, there was a signifi-
cant interaction between CU traits and care, such that
E. R. Kimonis (&)
B. Cross
A. Howard
K. Donoghue
Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, Louis de la Parte
Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida,
13301 Bruce B. Downs Blvd. MHC2639, Tampa, FL 33612,
USA
e-mail: ekimonis@usf.edu
Present Address:
A. Howard
Department of Psychology, University of Chicago at Urbana-
Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, IL, USA
Present Address:
K. Donoghue
School of Social Work, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI,
USA
•
aggression was highest among youths scoring high on CU
traits who were exposed to low levels of maternal care.
These findings draw attention to the importance of mater-
nal bonding to CU traits and related aggressive behaviors
among antisocial youth.
Keywords Callous-unemotional traits
Attachment

Juvenile offenders
Psychopathy
Maltreatment
Warmth
Introduction
Antisocial youth with callous-unemotional (CU) traits are
distinguished by characteristics including a lack of remorse
and empathy, inability to express emotion, and uncaring
attitudes and behaviors (Frick 2006). These characteristics
are believed to account for their particularly severe and
persistent patterns of delinquent and aggressive behavior,
which tend to be both reactive (i.e., defensive) and pro-
active (i.e., premeditated, for instrumental gain) in nature
(Frick and White 2008). Compared to antisocial youth
scoring low on CU traits, those scoring high show greater
violent and sexual offending, and also general, violent and
sexual recidivism (Caputo et al. 1999; Gretton et al. 2004).
Among juvenile offenders, aggressive behavior is best
captured by the callousness (i.e., remorselessness, disre-
gard for formal responsibilities) and uncaring (i.e., lack of
caring about ones performance in tasks and for the feelings
of others) dimensions assessed by the Inventory of Callous-
Unemotional Traits (ICU), whereas the latter is uniquely
linked with non-violent forms of delinquency and emo-
tional deficits believed to be core to psychopathic traits
(e.g., low psychophysiological responding; Kimonis et al.
2008a, b). The unemotional dimension (i.e., absence of
emotional expression) of the ICU is most consistently
123
166
negatively associated with low empathy (Roose et al.
2010). Importantly, CU traits in youth are theorized to be a
developmental precursor to psychopathy and are relatively
stable across development (Frick et al. 2003; Obradović
et al. 2007).
Although a significant body of research is devoted to
understanding temperamental and biological underpinnings
of CU traits and psychopathy (Jones et al. 2009; Viding
et al. 2008), relatively less is known about the contribution
of contextual factors to the development of these traits and
their constituent dimensions. Despite the importance of
parenting factors to antisocial behavior in youth more
generally, few studies have examined parental influences
on psychopathic or CU traits. In particular, parent–child
attachment—also referred to as parental bonding—holds a
prominent position in early theoretical literature on psy-
chopathy but has received little attention in contemporary
research. The level of warmth and affection (i.e., care) that
is displayed towards the child has been identified as a
major parent characteristic affecting attachment quality
(Parker et al. 1979) and is also a key characteristics of the
optimal authoritative parenting style (see Steinberg 2001).
Their opposites, coldness and rejection, were linked with
psychopathy decades ago by McCord and McCord (1956)
who concluded that emotional deprivation, lack of affec-
tion and parental rejection lead to the development of a
psychopathic personality, generally, and the core affective
deficits, specifically. In his study, Bowlby (1969) found
that juvenile offenders with a history of maternal depri-
vation showed poor mother–child bonding and early
symptoms of ‘‘affectionless psychopathy,’’ emphasizing
the importance of maternal deprivation and rejecting
mothers, specifically, to the development of psychopathic
personality traits. In a more recent empirical study
employing a formal assessment of psychopathic personality
traits, Kosson et al. (2002) found that male adolescents
scoring high on psychopathy showed less closeness with
their families and poorer parental attachment. With regard
to CU traits specifically, prior research finds that high-
scoring school-age children were less likely to rate their
parents as warm and loving (Cornell and Frick 2007; Frick
et al. 2003; Hipwell et al. 2007; Pardini et al. 2007),
although no prior studies have examined associations with
dimensions of CU traits.
The authors are aware of only three studies to date
employing explicit definitions and measures of parental
bonding to examine associations with psychopathy, none of
which has been conducted with a juvenile population. First,
McCartney et al. (2001) found that adults with psychopathy
who were committed to a maximum-security hospital
reported lower parental care (i.e., warmth, affection,
involvement) on a measure of parental bonding compared
with a control group of individuals with mental illness.
123
J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:165–177
Second, among a sample of undergraduates, Kimbrel et al.
(2007) found that low maternal care was associated with
high secondary psychopathy but not primary psychopathy
scores on the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale
(Levenson et al. 1995). Most recently, Gao et al. (2010)
found that low maternal care was associated with higher
scores on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R,
Hare 2003), particularly its emotional detachment dimen-
sion, among a sample of 333 Mauritian adults. This asso-
ciation held after accounting for the significant influence of
physical abuse, which is of note given findings that mal-
treated children show higher psychopathy scores in adult-
hood (Weiler and Widom 1996; see also O’Neill et al.
2003), as well as greater risk for disturbances in parent–
child attachment (Baer and Martinez 2006), compared with
nonmaltreated controls. These findings highlight the
importance of maternal care, in particular, to the devel-
opment of psychopathic traits.
While parenting factors appear relevant to the devel-
opment of psychopathic traits, research suggests that they
have minimal influence on the development of antisocial
and aggressive behaviors among youth scoring high on
psychopathy or CU traits compared with youth scoring low
(Hipwell et al. 2007; Oxford et al. 2003; Wootton et al.
1997). In the only one of these studies to examine a
juvenile offending population (n = 76), Edens et al. (2008)
found that the emotional detachment dimension of the
Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV)—most
analogous to CU traits—moderated the relationship
between dysfunctional parenting and antisocial behavior.
Specifically, parental discipline perceived as more harsh
and inconsistent by youth was not associated with greater
antisocial behaviors for children scoring high on affective
traits of psychopathy as it was for those scoring low.
Kochanska and colleagues suggest that parental warmth
in particular is critical to the socialization of children with
temperamental styles consistent with CU traits (e.g.,
Fowles and Kochanska 2000; Kochanska 1997). In support
of this idea, among a sample of clinic-referred school-aged
(4–12 years) boys with conduct problems (n = 95), Pasa-
lich et al. (2011) found that conduct problems were greatest
among youth scoring high on CU traits who were exposed
to low levels of parental, and particularly maternal,
warmth. Also, results from another study indicated that low
levels of parental warmth at age 4 differentiated 13 year-
old girls with conduct problems and CU traits from those
with either characteristic alone (Barker et al. 2011). Prior
studies have not yet examined the moderating influence of
parental warmth and care that is necessary for secure par-
ent–child attachment on more severe conduct problems
(i.e., aggressive type) among adolescents with CU traits.
Thus, it is not clear whether the experience of parental care
is effective at reducing not only conduct problems, but also
J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:165–177
the more severe proactive and reactive aggressive behav-
iors that incarcerated, and particularly CU, adolescents are
more likely to engage in, an important aim of the present
study.
Present Study
Despite the established link between parental bonding and
later psychopathic traits among adults, there is a dearth of
research on understanding its influence on the presence of
CU traits and constituent dimensions among adolescents. To
our knowledge, there are no prior studies among adolescents
reporting on the unique influence of parental care beyond the
experience of various types of childhood maltreatment that
are found by some studies to be associated with psychopa-
thy. The present study attempts to address these important
gaps in contemporary knowledge among a sample of
incarcerated American adolescents. The present study aimed
to test the first hypothesis that maternal care (i.e., warmth,
affection, involvement) is positively associated with CU
traits and constituent dimensions of callousness, uncaring,
and unemotional. The second hypothesis tested was that
maternal care contributes unique variance to the statistical
prediction of total and subscale scores on the ICU, beyond
what is contributed by various other types of childhood
maltreatment and particularly physical abuse to replicate
Gao et al.’s (2010) study of adults. The third hypothesis
tested was that CU traits moderate the relationship between
maternal care and aggression, such that aggressive outcomes
are greatest for antisocial youth scoring high on CU traits
who are exposed to low levels of maternal care.
Race/ethnicity was included as a covariate in analyses
given prior research documenting that black youth are more
likely than white youth to be maltreated (U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services 2009), and physically abused or
neglected specifically (Sedlak et al. 2010). Although, find-
ings are inconsistent and may be confounded by poverty-
related risk factors. Such social factors also may explain
higher aggression and violent arrest rates for black com-
pared with white youth (Huizinga et al. 2007). Although,
with respect to perceptions of parental care among adoles-
cents, there do not appear to be consistent racial/ethnic
differences (e.g., Jackson-Newsom et al. 2008).
Method
Participants
Participants included 227 male juvenile offenders adjudi-
cated delinquent and housed in secure confinement facili-
ties in a large city in the southeastern United States. To
167
achieve a representative sample of youth, facilities were
selected for both moderate and high risk level, as well as
housing of youth adjudicated of sexual (n = 103) and
nonsexual (n = 124) offenses. Participants’ most serious
index offenses were extracted from institutional files and
included 36 % contact sexual (n = 81; e.g., sexual assault,
lewd and lascivious conduct), 21 % non-sexual violent
(n = 47, e.g., robbery, assault), 22 % property (n = 50,
e.g., arson, burglary), 13 % procedural/public order
(n = 29, e.g., violation of probation, trespassing), 4 %
drug (n = 8, e.g., possession of marijuana), and 2 % non-
contact sexual (n = 4, e.g., lewd and lascivious exhibition)
offenses; index offenses were not available for 8 youth.
Youth ranged in age between 12 and 19 years (M = 15.73,
SD = 1.27). Only youth not diagnosed with an intellectual
disability or a psychotic disorder were eligible to enroll.
The sample was ethnically heterogeneous with 88 youth
self-identifying as Caucasian (38.8 %), 100 as African
American (44.1 %), 24 as Hispanic (10.6 %), three as
Pacific Islander/Asian (1.3 %), four as Native American
(1.8 %) and eight as mixed race/ethnicity (3.5 %).
Procedure
A University Institutional Review Board and the state’s
Department of Juvenile Justice approved all study proce-
dures. Participants provided in-person assent and their par-
ents provided informed consent to researchers by telephone.
Youth completed several study questionnaires (1–2 h) and
researchers completed a comprehensive review of each
youth’s institutional files. All measures described below
showed good psychometric properties. Internal consisten-
cies are reported in Table 1 and according to George and
Mallery (2003), Cronbach alphas [.9 are excellent, [.8
good, [.7 acceptable, [.6 questionable, [.5 poor, and \.5
unacceptable.
Measures
Demographic Information
Participants self-reported demographic information
including their age and race/ethnicity.
Parental Bonding/Attachment
The Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) is one of the most
widely used instruments to measure parent–child bonding
(Parker et al. 1979). The PBI is a self-report measure that
assesses maternal (n = 25 items) and paternal (n = 25
items) parenting styles, namely care and overprotection.
Only the 25 items assessing maternal bonding were
included in the present study, given the emphasis placed by
123
168 J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:165–177

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for main study variables

Variable Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach’s alpha

Total callous-unemotional traits 25.74 10.12 .11 -.10 .87

Uncaring 11.18 5.30 .04 -.36 .83
Unemotional 8.26 2.90 -.08 .16 .62
Callousness 6.31 4.55 1.08 1.68 .80
Maternal care 26.61 7.11 -.81 .15 .82
Total maltreatment 51.19 16.14 1.87 4.21 .93
Emotional abuse 9.35 4.72 1.35 1.42 .84
Physical abuse 9.04 4.49 1.40 1.68 .81
Sexual abuse 7.85 5.52 1.93 2.42 .95
Emotional neglect 9.04 5.26 1.48 1.24 .85
Physical neglect 7.45 3.44 1.55 2.24 .70
Total aggression 13.84 7.32 1.00 .84 .94
Proactive aggression 6.88 8.11 2.04 6.12 .92
Reactive aggression 13.59 11.40 1.08 1.97 .91

Bowlby (1969) on maternal care in relationship to psy-
chopathic traits. PBI scores exhibited good reliability and
validity in previous research (Parker 1989).
Childhood Maltreatment and Sexual Victimization
The Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) is a 28-item
self-report measure for which five scale scores are
obtained: Physical, Sexual and Emotional Abuse, and
Physical and Emotional Neglect. These scale scores have
been found to be internally consistent in past research with
Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging from .80 to .97.
Additionally, CTQ scores showed a test–retest correlation
of .88 (Bernstein et al. 1994). As shown in Table 1, the
CTQ total score was internally consistent, as were Emo-
tional, Physical and Sexual Abuse and Emotional Neglect
subscale scores; Physical Neglect scores evidenced lower,
but acceptable, internal consistency.
Callous-Unemotional Traits
general factor, ‘‘CU traits,’’ and are interrelated (i.e., by
virtue of their common association with the general factor;
Essau et al. 2006; Fanti et al. 2009; Kimonis et al. 2008a,
b). This also suggests that the use of either a total ICU
score or individual subscale scores is justified. Specifically,
the uncaring subscale taps (lack of) conscientiousness and
achievement striving, the unemotional subscale indexes
tendencies toward concealing versus expressing feelings
and emotions, and the callousness subscale taps irrespon-
sibility, carelessness, disregard for formal responsibilities,
a lack of motivation for doing things well or being on time,
and remorselessness. ICU items were summed to form a
total score and uncaring (8 items, e.g., ‘‘I care about how
well I do at school or work,’’ reversed), unemotional (5
items. e.g., ‘‘I express my feelings openly,’’ reversed), and
callousness (9 items, e.g., ‘‘I do not care who I hurt to get
what I want’’) subscales. The ICU total score and uncaring
and callousness subscale scores showed good internal
consistency, although that for the unemotional subscale
was lower, consistent with prior research (see Table 1).

CU traits were assessed using the self-report version of the Aggression

24-item Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits—Youth
Version (ICU). ICU items are scored on a four-point Likert
scale from 0 (Not at all true) to 3 (Definitely true), with
higher scores indicating greater CU traits. Prior validation
studies find that ICU total scores are internally consistent
and manifest expected associations with relevant criterion
constructs, supporting their construct validity in youth
(Essau et al. 2006; Fanti et al. 2009; Kimonis et al. 2008a,
b; Roose et al. 2010). Factor analytic studies of the ICU
support a three-factor bifactor model, suggesting that the
measure comprises three subscales (i.e., uncaring, unemo-
tional, and callousness) that are all related to a common
Participants’ self-report of aggression was measured using
the Peer Conflict Scale (PCS; Marsee et al. 2011). The PCS
was developed to improve upon existing tools by providing
a more comprehensive assessment of four dimensions of
aggression (i.e., reactive, proactive, overt, and relational
aggression) and including a sufficient number of items for
each (n = 10), while also limiting items to acts harming
another person. The four PCS subscales include proactive
overt (e.g., ‘‘I am deliberately cruel to others, even if they
haven’t done anything to me’’), proactive relational (e.g.,
‘‘I gossip about others to become popular’’), reactive overt

123
J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:165–177 169

Table 2 Associations among CU traits and main study variables

Variable Total callous-unemotional traits Uncaring Unemotional Callousness Maternal care

Maternal care -.28*** (-.25***) -.29*** (-.27***) -.10 (.04) -.21** (-.08) –
Total maltreatment -.11 (-.07) -.12 (-.06) -.16* (-.14) .01 (.11) -.36***
Emotional abuse -.07 (-.01) -.07 (-.03) -.12 (-.11) .03 (.12) -.38***
Physical abuse -.09 (-.06) -.09 (-.06) -.09 (-.07) -.02 (.06) -.25***
Sexual abuse -.25*** (-.16*) -.26*** (-.17*) -.25*** (-.15*) -.08 (.12) -.05
Emotional neglect .13a (.11) .23*** (.30***) -.02 (-.16*) .08 (-.02) -.53***
Physical neglect .08 (.06) .13a (.17*) -.05 (-.14) .08 (.03) -.49***
Total aggression .39*** (.43***) .22** (-.03**) .13a (.00) .51*** (.55***) -.11
Proactive aggression .41*** (.44***) .26*** (.04) .12 (-.03) .51*** (.52***) -.17*
a
Reactive aggression .33*** (.37***) .17* (-.07) .13 (.03) .45*** (.50***) -.06
This table reports zero-order correlations; values in parentheses are standardized betas after controlling for covariates and other ICU dimensions,
if applicable
a
p = .06; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

(e.g., ‘‘I have gotten into fights, even over small insults
from others’’), and reactive relational (e.g., ‘‘If others make
me mad, I tell their secrets’’). Items are rated on a 4-point
Likert scale from 0 (‘‘Not at all true’’) to 3 (‘‘Definitely
true’’). Total overt and proactive and reactive overt
aggression scores were used in the present study to mea-
sure physical aggression. PCS subscale scores showed
good internal consistency.
Results
Prior to addressing study aims, zero-order correlations
between demographic variables and main study variables
were examined. Black youth scored significantly higher on
total ICU [t(184) = -2.25, p = .03], and uncaring
[t(184) = -2.03, p = .04], unemotional [t(166) = -2.09,
p = .04], but not callousness, subscales compared with
white youth. However, white youth reported exposure to
greater maltreatment than black youth, t(149) = 3.15,
p = .002, with the exception of emotional and physical
neglect. There were no significant differences between
racial/ethnic groups on measures of parent bonding or
aggression. Also, the type of facility from which youth were
recruited was associated with CU traits and maltreatment.
Participants incarcerated in facilities housing youth adjudi-
cated of non-sexual offenses scored higher on the ICU total
and all subscale scores, whereas those from facilities hous-
ing youth adjudicated of a sexual offense had greater his-
tories of all types of maltreatment except emotional and
physical neglect. Thus, in addition to race/ethnicity, facility
was included as a covariate in all analyses described below.
Next, we examined zero-order correlations among the
main study variables (see Table 2). Maternal care was
negatively associated with all types of maltreatment except
sexual abuse. Maternal care was also significantly
negatively correlated with proactive, but not total or reac-
tive, aggression. The overprotection scale of the PBI was not
significantly associated with the main study variables and
since this construct was not a focus of this investigation it
was excluded from subsequent analyses. As expected from
past research, CU traits were significantly positively asso-
ciated with total, proactive and reactive aggression, with
stronger associations for the callousness dimension. Total
maltreatment, emotional and physical abuse were also sig-
nificantly correlated with all types of aggression (rs ranging
from .15, p = .03 to .24, p \ .001). Other types of mal-
treatment were not significantly associated with aggression,
with the exception of emotional neglect and proactive
aggression [r(199) = .15, p = .03]. Total CU traits and
uncaring and unemotional subscales were significantly
negatively associated with sexual abuse. Also, uncaring was
positively associated with emotional neglect.
Aim 1 Whether maternal care relates to CU total and
subscale scores among adolescent offenders.
Zero-order correlations reported in Table 2 revealed a
significant negative association between maternal care and
ICU total, uncaring and callousness subscales, but not the
unemotional subscale. Specifically, boys who reported their
mothers to be less warm, affectionate, and involved in their
lives tended to score higher on CU traits. Hierarchical
multiple regression analyses were conducted to test which
specific dimensions of the ICU accounted for the greatest
variance in maternal care scores. For these analyses,
covariates were entered into the first block and ICU sub-
scale scores were simultaneously entered into the second
block. Standardized betas from these analyses are reported
in parentheses within Table 2. Results indicated that the
uncaring dimension of the ICU drove the association with
maternal care [t(215) = -3.40, p = .001], whereas the
callousness and unemotional subscales did not contribute

123
170
significant unique variance to its statistical prediction.
Together the ICU subscales explained a significant pro-
portion of variance in maternal care scores [R2 = .08, F(3,
215) = 5.35, p \ .001].
Aim 2 Whether maternal care relates to CU traits beyond
the influence of childhood maltreatment.
A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses
were conducted to test whether maternal care added
incremental variance to the statistical prediction of ICU
total and subscale scores after controlling for CTQ subscale
scores. For these analyses, covariates were entered into the
first block, CTQ subscale scores were entered into the
second block, and maternal care scores were entered into
the third block to predict total and ICU subscale scores. As
depicted in Table 3, results indicated that maternal care
explained a significant proportion of unique variance in
total ICU scores beyond covariates and CTQ scores
[DR2 = .04, F(1, 187) = 5.80, p \ .001]. Results indi-
cated that of all types of maltreatment, only sexual abuse
accounted for significant variance in ICU scores, although
in the opposite direction from expectations. Statistically
predicting the uncaring and callousness subscales of the
ICU, maternal care again added incremental variance,
beyond all forms of maltreatment [DR2 = .03, F(1,
187) = 7.16, p \ .001 and DR2 = .04, F(1, 187) = 2.81,
p = .006, respectively]. Maternal care was not associated
with the unemotional ICU subscale. Contrary to Gao
et al.’s (2010) study with adults, physical abuse was not
significantly associated with CU traits across analyses in
this sample of youth. Furthermore, none of the various
types of maltreatment were consistently associated with
ICU scores across analyses, although sexual abuse was
negatively associated with uncaring and unemotional sub-
scales and emotional neglect was positively associated with
uncaring, contributing unique variance to its statistical
prediction. These results suggest that boys reporting the
experience of low maternal care scored higher on uncaring
and callousness traits, and the experience of emotional
neglect further increased uncaring scores.
Aim 3 Whether CU traits moderate the relationship
between maternal bonding and aggression
Results of zero-order correlations reported above are
consistent with robust research documenting a link between
CU traits and reactive and proactive types of aggression. To
test whether CU traits interacted with maternal care to sta-
tistically predict aggression, a series of hierarchical regres-
sion analyses were conducted. These analyses were repeated
to examine the moderating effects of ICU subscales on
maternal care statistically predicting each type of aggres-
sion. ICU scores and maternal care were centered prior to
creating interaction terms to avoid problems with
123
J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:165–177
multicollinearity (see Holmbeck 2002). For all regression
models, covariates were entered into the first block. In the
first model, maternal care and total ICU scores were entered
into the second block; in subsequent models ICU subscales
were entered as predictors. The interaction term was entered
into the third block. As shown in Table 4, results indicated a
significant interaction between maternal care and total
ICU scores in statistically predicting total [DR2 = .02, F(1,
213) = 9.78, p \ .001] and reactive [DR2 = .03, F(1,
213) = 7.97, p \ .001], but not proactive, aggression. Post
hoc probing procedures, as described by Holmbeck (2002),
were used to graph the form of the significant interaction
effects. The slopes and their level of significance at low and
high levels of total ICU scores are reported in Fig. 1a for
total aggression and 1b for reactive aggression. Separate
regression analyses for ICU subscales revealed a significant
interaction between the callousness subscale, specifically,
and maternal care in statistically predicting reactive overt
aggression [DR2 = .02, F(1, 214) = 4.63, p \ .05]. The
form of this interaction was similar to that reported for the
ICU total score depicted in Fig. 1b. These findings suggest
that beyond the already strong link between callousness
traits and aggression, low maternal care further increases
risk for aggressive behavior that is defensive and retaliatory
in nature. Given the skewed distribution of the aggression
variables, analyses were repeated using square root trans-
formations and results were analogous.
Discussion
Parental warmth is an important component of parent–child
attachment that has been relatively understudied in rela-
tionship to the development of psychopathic and CU traits,
and related antisocial behaviors. The present study extends
prior literature conducted with adult and child samples
(Gao et al. 2010; Pardini et al. 2007) to support a link
between maternal warmth and CU traits among adolescent
male offenders. Specifically, incarcerated youth reporting
lower levels of maternal warmth and involvement (i.e.,
care) scored higher on a measure of CU traits than youth
exposed to high levels of maternal care. This study also
contributes several other novel findings to the literature.
Specifically, the uncaring dimension of the ICU, which is
uniquely linked with emotional deficits believed to be core
to psychopathic traits (i.e., low psychophysiological
responding), was most strongly negatively associated with
maternal care. Also, although maltreated children are more
likely to show attachment problems than are nonmaltreated
children (Baer and Martinez 2006), maternal care remained
a significant correlate to CU traits after accounting for the
variance contributed by a childhood history of various
types of maltreatment, and physical abuse specifically,
J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:165–177 171

Table 3 Regression analyses predicting ICU total and subscale scores

Model 1 2 3 4
Dependent variable
Step Predictors Total ICU Uncaring Unemotional Callousness
Std. beta Std. beta Std. beta Std. beta

1 Race/ethnicity .07 .04 .07 .05

Facility .30*** .30*** .18* .21**
R2 = .10*** R2 = .09*** R2 = .04* R2 = .15*
2 Race/ethnicity .01 -.04 .05 .03
Facility .22** .19** .12 .20*
Emotional abuse .10 .05 .00 .17
Physical abuse -.07 -.08 .00 -.07
Sexual abuse -.25** -.27** -.19* -.11
Emotional neglect .12 .28** .01 -.07
Physical neglect .06 .02 -.02 .13
2 2 2 2
DR = .06* DR = .11*** DR = .03 DR = .02
3 Race/ethnicity .00 -.05 .05 .02
Facility .21** .18* .11 .19*
Emotional abuse .00 -.04 -.05 .08
Physical abuse -.06 -.07 .01 -.06
Sexual abuse -.18a -.21* -.16 -.05
Emotional neglect .06 .22* -.02 -.13
Physical neglect .00 -.03 -.05 .08
Maternal care -.26** -.23** -.12 -.24**
DR2 = .04** DR2 = .03** DR2 = .01 DR2 = .04**
ICU inventory of callous-unemotional traits, maltreatment scores are from the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire
a
p = .05; * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

replicating Gao et al.’s (2010) finding with adults. This
finding suggest that the bonding with a parent that comes
from a relationship characterized by affection and
involvement may be more important to the development of
CU traits than is abusive parenting.
Among the various maltreatment types examined,
however, emotional neglect was most strongly positively
associated with CU traits. This finding is important con-
sidering that neglect is by far the most prevalent type of
maltreatment, accounting for over three quarters of all
2009 US cases (U.S. DHHS 2009). Finally, findings indi-
cate that youth reporting high levels of CU traits—namely
callousness that tends to be specifically associated with
violent over non-violent forms of delinquency—who
reported exposure to low levels of maternal care were at
greatest risk for aggression, particularly reactive aggres-
sion, compared with those who experienced high levels of
maternal care. These findings suggest an additive effect of
parental bonding on aggression beyond callousness traits.
Conversely, high maternal warmth and affection appeared
to attenuate aggressive behavior among incarcerated youth
scoring high on CU traits. An interesting and unexpected
finding was that in this sample of offenders, roughly 40 %
of which were adjudicated of a sexual offense and the
remainder of non-sexual offenses, youth who reported a
history of sexual abuse tended to score lower on CU traits.
This finding is consistent with specialized theories of
sexual offending (i.e., sexual offending has a unique eti-
ology compared to other offending) that suggest that
juveniles adjudicated for sexual offenses are less antisocial
than other delinquent youth (see Seto and Lalumière 2010).
Findings are discussed in turn below with respect to the
broader literature and their implications for developmental
theory and practice.
Low Maternal Care is Associated with High CU Traits,
Beyond the Influence of Childhood Maltreatment
Our finding that maternal care is relevant to psychopathic
traits beyond the experience of maltreatment replicates
results reported by Gao et al. (2010) among adults, and
extends them to an urban adolescent male sample reporting
on various types of childhood maltreatment. Similarly,
school-age children with CU traits were less likely to rate
their parents as warm and loving (Cornell and Frick 2007;
Frick et al. 2003; Pardini et al. 2007). Together, these

123
172 J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:165–177

Table 4 Regression analyses predicting total, reactive, and proactive aggression

Model 1 2 3
Dependent variable Total aggression Reactive aggression Proactive aggression
Step Predictors Std. beta Std. beta Std. beta

1 Race/ethnicity -.09 -.09 -.07

Facility .03 .02 .04
2 2 2
R = .01 R = .01 R = .01
2 Race/ethnicity -.11 -.11 -.11
Facility -.10 -.09 -.09
Maternal care -.02 .02 -.08
Total ICU .41*** .37*** .41***
2 2 2
DR = .16*** DR = .12*** DR = .17***
3 Race/ethnicity -.11 -.11 -.10
Facility -.11 -.10 -.10
Maternal care .00 .05 -.06
Total ICU .43*** .39*** .42***
Care 9 ICU -.15* -.18** -.08
DR2 = .02* DR2 = .03** DR2 = .01
ICU inventory of callous-unemotional traits
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

(a) 30 developmental periods. These findings might explain

High Care
β = .57, p < .001
inconsistencies in the link between psychopathic traits and
Low Care
Total Aggression

25 abuse history reported in prior research and they suggest

β = .29,p = .001 that low levels of affection and involvement between
20 mother and child, which oftentimes accompanies mal-
treatment, may be more important to the development of
15 emotional detachment features of psychopathy than are
abusive experiences, per se. (Although, it is important to
10 note that our measure of maltreatment also captured abu-
Low ICU Total High ICU Total sive behaviors perpetrated by caregivers other than youths’
mothers). However, our findings also suggest that parental
(b) 20 maltreatment, and neglect in particular, may have an
High Care additive affect on the development of CU traits. Similarly,
Reactive Aggression

Low Care β = .55, p < .001

Gao et al. (2010) found that a greater history of abuse
15
among adults experiencing low levels of maternal care was
β = .22, p = .01 associated with higher psychopathy scores. Consistent with
this study, our findings also highlight the importance of
10
maternal care, in particular, to the development of psy-
chopathy. Similarly, prior research finds that low maternal
care is more consistently associated with adult psychopa-
5
Low ICU Total High ICU Total thology, including antisocial personality disorder, than is
paternal care (Enns et al. 2002; see also Levenson et al.
Fig. 1 Interaction between maternal care and CU traits on a total 1995).
aggression and b reactive aggression
McCord and McCord (1956) believed that ‘‘psychopathy
flourishes in an atmosphere of rejection… [and that]
findings are consistent with theory supporting the relevance emotional deprivation precipitate[s] a psychopathic per-
of emotional deprivation and neglect to psychopathic traits sonality’’ (p. 61). However, correlation does not imply
(Bowlby 1969; McCord and McCord 1956), across causation, and the cross-sectional design of the present

123
J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:165–177
study precludes any inferences regarding whether poor
parental bonding leads to the development of CU traits or is a
consequence of them. For example, children with CU traits
evoke more dysfunctional, and particularly, less involved
parenting from their caregivers (Muñoz et al. 2011; Hawes
et al. 2011). Temperamentally fearless young children who
are at risk for insensitivity to emotional stimuli and a lack of
emotional reciprocity may evoke unresponsive and, over
time, neglectful parenting from their caregivers. Through
their lack of reciprocity in emotional interactions, these
children may communicate to their parents that they do not
need them to be emotionally available. Combined with
displays of, sometimes overt, aversion to parental affection,
this may over time lead parents and other caregivers to
disengage from or to reject their CU child. It is also possible
that common genetic influences between parent and child
could account for both low levels of parental bonding as well
as high levels of child CU traits. Similarly, evidence for
‘‘active’’ gene-environment correlations suggests that heri-
table traits consistent with psychopathy (i.e., disinhibition)
increase the likelihood of exposure to traumatic experiences
(Jang et al. 2003). Alternatively, some suggest that psy-
chopathy is primarily genetically determined and that psy-
chopathic parents may be more likely to maltreat their
children who would also be more likely to show the same
psychopathic traits whether or not they experience mal-
treatment (Hare 1993; O’Neill et al. 2003). Future rigorous
longitudinal and behavioral genetic research that includes
measures of psychopathic or CU traits in parent and child, as
well as measures of bonding, are needed to tease out the
influence of genetics versus environment on the link
between poor parental attachment and psychopathic per-
sonality traits. Whatever the relative contribution of genetics
versus environment, these findings highlight the relevance
of familial factors, particularly maternal bonding, to devel-
opmental theories of psychopathy and CU traits in youth.
However, it is important to note that we did not include a
measure of paternal bonding, which is important given meta-
analytic research reporting that fathers may generally have a
greater influence on children’s antisocial behaviors than
mothers (Hoeve et al. 2009). Also, Pasalich et al. (2011)
found that CU traits were significantly associated with low
paternal (r = -.40, p \ .01), but not maternal (r = -.06),
warmth coded from 5-min speech samples. Dadds et al.
(2011) also found that deficits in eye gaze were only evident
for boys scoring high on CU traits during interactions with
their fathers (Dadds et al. 2011).
Maternal Bonding Interacts with CU Traits to Predict
Aggression Among Adolescent Offenders
The findings of a significant interaction between CU traits
and parental care add to an already persuasive set of results
173
suggesting that the influence of parenting factors on anti-
social behaviors differs for youth according to the presence
of CU traits (e.g., Edens et al. 2008; Wootton et al. 1997).
Consistent with the biological emphasis in the literature,
some argue that the development of antisocial behaviors
among youth high on CU traits is primarily due to genetic
and neurobiological factors (Pardini and Loeber 2007), and
there is behavioral genetic research to support this premise
(Viding et al. 2008). Whereas a robust set of findings offers
persuasive support that negative parenting factors have
little influence on the development of antisocial behaviors
for youth high on CU traits, in contrast, our results are
consistent with the broader literature suggesting that posi-
tive parenting factors may contribute to reduced aggressive
behavior among those youth. For example, Pardini et al.
(2007) found that parental warmth and involvement pre-
dicted a reduction in CU traits one year later. These authors
suggested that parental warmth may actually protect chil-
dren with low fearfulness from developing CU features at
all, which has important implications for prevention
research. Conversely, our findings suggest that children
with CU traits who are exposed to emotionally cold and
uninvolved parenting may be at greatest risk for severe
conduct problems and aggression, specifically.
What is less well understood is the mechanism
explaining the link between maternal care and reductions in
antisocial behavior, for which there are several possibili-
ties. First, it is possible that warm and involved mothers
provide greater opportunities for emotional learning to
their children with CU traits who have poorly developed
amygdala regions of the brain, which are responsible for
emotional responding (e.g., Jones et al. 2009). Similarly,
Kochanska and colleagues argue that the affective quality
of the parent–child relationship is critical to the develop-
ment of conscience for children who show the fearless
temperament that is believed to give rise to CU traits (e.g.,
Fowles and Kochanska 2000; Kochanska 1997). Similarly,
developmental theories of psychopathy highlight how an
intact ability to respond emotionally to others’ distress cues
is critical for moral socialization and the prevention of
transgressive behaviors (Blair 1995). Steinberg (2001)
suggests that parental warmth and involvement makes
children more receptive to parental influence. Similarly,
Pasalich et al. (2011) hypothesize that increasing parental
warmth may lead children high on CU traits to experience
greater pleasure from interactions with their caregivers,
allowing them to benefit more from parents’ attempts at
socialization.
Third, it is possible that parents allow fewer opportu-
nities for aggression with more involved parenting,
although this appears less likely for this incarcerated ado-
lescent sample. However, uninvolved parenting is linked
with greater affiliation with delinquent peers who may
123
174
share similar familial experiences. In a prior study of
community youth that did not examine parental bonding,
youth high on CU traits showed the greatest risk for affil-
iation with deviant peers across adolescence (Kimonis et al.
2004). Poor relationships with parents may lead these
youth to instead bond with like-minded antisocial youth
who encourage one another’s continued and increasingly
delinquent behaviors. Furthermore, youth high on CU traits
who reside in high-risk urban neighborhoods are more
likely to engage in delinquent behaviors than are youth
who score low on CU traits (Meier et al. 2008).
Study Limitations
While these findings draw attention to the importance of
maternal bonding to CU traits and related aggressive
behaviors among antisocial youth, they must be considered
within the context of several study limitations. First, this
study employed primarily self-report measures of bonding,
maltreatment and CU traits, which have their limitations
relative to multi-method approaches. It is possible that
shared method variance may have inflated associations.
Interestingly, incarcerated white boys reported greater
maltreatment than black boys despite prior research sug-
gesting no significant racial/ethnic differences (Lau et al.
2003); however, this finding may be explained by prior
research suggesting that blacks are less likely than whites
to perceive harsh parenting as abusive (Thombs et al.
2007). Second, as elaborated above, the cross-sectional
design of this study renders any developmental perspec-
tives or causal interpretations speculative. The field could
benefit from future longitudinal research to understand
whether low maternal care leads to the later development
of CU traits, develops downstream from them, or both. It
also would be beneficial to examine this question while
considering other forms of violence exposure, such as
domestic or community violence, the latter of which was
found to be associated with CU traits (Kimonis et al.
2008a, b). Third, given our focus on a sample of incar-
cerated adolescent boys, which was due in part to limited
access to a large population of girls in the study region,
future research is needed to test whether findings general-
ize to incarcerated girls as well as to community youth. At
least one longitudinal study suggests that they would. This
study found that low levels of parental warmth were
associated with CU traits among school-aged urban, com-
munity girls (r = .18, p \ .01), and that their combination
predicted chronic high levels of conduct problems (Kron-
eman et al. 2011; cf. Hipwell et al. 2007). Finally, the size
of the study sample may have limited power to detect some
significant associations, such as for maltreatment out-
comes. Despite these limitations, the consistency of our
findings with literature employing adult samples provides
123
J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:165–177
confidence in them and fills an important gap in the liter-
ature. Furthermore, the recall of dysfunctional and abusive
parenting experiences by adolescents in this sample has the
advantage of being more proximal to that recalled by adult
participants in prior studies. In sum, converging findings
from prospective and concurrent study designs draw
attention to the potential critical importance of specific
components of parental bonding in contributing to the
development of psychopathic traits in youth.
Practical Implications and Conclusions
The present findings have important implications for prac-
tice and particularly for the prevention of violence among
incarcerated youth. Our findings suggest that boys scoring
high on CU traits, irrespective of race/ethnicity, whose
mothers show low levels of warmth should be targeted for
intervention. Importantly, programs aimed at strengthening
parental, and particularly maternal affection and involve-
ment among young children showing high levels of CU
traits, may be important for reducing the later development
of aggressive behavior. For example, one study found that
the component of a parenting intervention that focused on
increasing parental praise and attention to positive child
behaviors reduced conduct problems among children high
on CU traits, whereas the component focusing on punish-
ment to increase child socialization was less effective for
them compared with low CU-scoring youth (Hawes and
Dadds 2005). Kroneman et al. (2011) found that the influ-
ence of parental warmth on antisocial behaviors was stron-
gest in childhood and was equivalent to that for children low
on CU traits by early adolescence. This suggests that inter-
ventions to alter parenting styles to increase warmth may
have the greatest effect when implemented in younger
children. Of significance, intervention approaches fostering
increased parental warmth and attachment among young
children with conduct problems exposed to abusive parent-
ing practices have been found to reduce the incidence of re-
victimization, as well as juvenile delinquency (Chaffin et al.
2004, 2011). It is unlikely that any preventive intervention
that fosters greater parental warmth will have iatrogenic
effects regardless of the child’s level of CU traits. However,
future longitudinal research is needed to examine whether
children high on CU traits exposed to interventions that
increase parental warmth and involvement to improve par-
ent–child bonding show as much benefit as for children low
on CU traits.
In summary, our findings suggest that incarcerated
adolescent boys whose mothers exhibit low levels of
warmth and involvement—core components of parent–
child bonding—show elevated CU traits. Furthermore,
when youth high on CU traits are exposed to low levels of
J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:165–177
maternal care they show greater aggression than those
exposed to higher levels of care, and youth low on CU
traits. Although longitudinal studies are needed to deter-
mine causal relationships, the consistency of findings
across developmental periods suggests that maternal care
must be incorporated into developmental theory for psy-
chopathy. The inadequacy of this core prerequisite for
secure parent–child bonding likely plays a role in the
impaired moral socialization of children with CU traits
(Kochanska 1997). Increasing parental warmth appears to
be an important goal for intervention and prevention of CU
traits, particularly when applied early in development when
attachment relationships develop, and with children
showing early temperamental risk factors.
Acknowledgments This study was funded by the University of
South Florida. EK conceived of the study and its design and coor-
dinated and contributed major portions of the writing and statistical
analysis and interpretation of the data for the initial draft of the
manuscript and its revision; BC performed and wrote up results of
statistical analyses and contributed to their interpretation as well as
substantial writing of the initial draft of the manuscript; AH partici-
pated in collecting the study data, performed a portion of the statis-
tical analyses and contributed to their interpretation, as well as writing
sections of the initial draft of the results section of the manuscript; KD
participated in the coordination and collection of study data, as well
as contributing sections of the writing for the initial draft of the
method section of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the
final manuscript. We thank Melissa Harrison and Vimbai Mudimu for
managing the project and research assistants, Jessica Branch, Nicole
Graham, Cailey Miller, Edward Perin, and Aaron Stewart for their
assistance with data collection. We also thank the youth who par-
ticipated in this study and the facility staff who facilitated data
collection.
References
Baer, J. C., & Martinez, C. D. (2006). Child maltreatment and insecure
attachment: A meta-analysis. Journal of Reproductive and Infant
Psychology, 24(3), 187–197. doi:10.1080/02646830600821231.
Barker, E. D., Oliver, B. R., Viding, E., Salekin, R. T., & Maughan,
B. (2011). The impact of prenatal maternal risk, fearless
temperament and early parenting on adolescent callous-unemo-
tional traits: A 14-year longitudinal investigation. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(8), 878–888. doi:10.1111/
j.1469-7610.2011.02397.x.
Bernstein, D. P., Fink, L., Handelsman, L., & Foote, J. (1994). Initial
reliability and validity of a new retrospective measure of child
abuse and neglect. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 151(8),
1132–1136.
Blair, R. J. R. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to
morality: Investigating the psychopath. Cognition, 57(1), 1–29.
doi:10.1016/0010-0277(95)00676-P.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Disruption of affectional bonds and its effects on
behavior. Canada’s Mental Health Supplement, 59, 12.
Caputo, A. A., Frick, P. J., & Brodsky, S. L. (1999). Family violence
and juvenile sex offending: The potential mediating role of
psychopathic traits and negative attitudes toward women.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(3), 338–356. doi:10.1177/
0093854899026003004.
175
Chaffin, M., Funderburk, B., Bard, D., Valle, L. A., & Gurwitch, R.
(2011). A combined motivation and parent–child interaction
therapy package reduces child welfare recidivism in a random-
ized dismantling field trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 79(1), 84–95. doi:10.1037/a0021227.
Chaffin, M., Silovsky, J. F., Funderburk, B., Velle, L., Brestan, E. V.,
Balachova, T., et al. (2004). Parent-child interaction therapy with
physically abusive parents: Efficacy for reducing future abuse
reports. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(3),
500–510. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.500.
Cornell, A. H., & Frick, P. J. (2007). The moderating effects of
parenting styles in the association between behavioral inhibition
and parent-reported guilt and empathy in preschool children.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(3),
305–318. doi:10.1080/15374410701444181.
Dadds, M. R., Jambrak, J., Pasalich, D., Hawes, D. J., & Brennan, J.
(2011). Impaired attention to the eyes of attachment figures and
the developmental origins of psychopathy. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(3), 238–245. doi:10.1111/j.
1469-7610.2010.02323.x.
Edens, J. F., Skopp, N. A., & Cahill, M. A. (2008). Psychopathic
features moderate the relationship between harsh and inconsis-
tent parental discipline and adolescent antisocial behavior.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 37(2),
472–476. doi:10.1080/15374410801955938.
Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., & Clara, I. I. (2002). Parental bonding and
adult psychopathology: Results from the US National Comor-
bidity Survey. Psychological Medicine, 32(6), 997–1008. doi:
10.1017/S0033291702005937.
Essau, C. A., Sasagawa, S., & Frick, P. J. (2006). Callous-
unemotional traits in a community sample of adolescents.
Assessment, 13(4), 454–469. doi:10.1177/1073191106287354.
Fanti, K. A., Frick, P. J., & Georgiou, S. (2009). Linking callous-
unemotional traits to instrumental and non-instrumental forms of
aggression. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assess-
ment, 31(4), 285–298. doi:10.1007/s10862-008-9111-3.
Fowles, D. C., & Kochanska, G. (2000). Temperament as a moderator
of pathways to conscience in children: The contribution of
electrodermal activity. Psychophysiology, 37(6), 788–795. doi:
10.1017/S0048577200981848.
Frick, P. J. (2006). Developmental pathways to conduct disorder.
Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America,
15(2), 311–331. doi:10.1016/j.chc.2005.11.003.
Frick, P. J., Kimonis, E. R., Dandreaux, D. M., & Farrell, J. M.
(2003). The 4 year stability of psychopathic traits in non-referred
youth. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21(6), 713–736. doi:
10.1002/bsl.568.
Frick, P. J., & White, S. F. (2008). Research review: The importance
of callous-unemotional traits for developmental models of
aggressive and antisocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 49(4), 359–375. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.
01862.x.
Gao, Y., Raine, A., Chan, F., Venables, P. H., & Mednick, S. A.
(2010). Early maternal and paternal bonding, childhood physical
abuse and adult psychopathic personality. Psychological Med-
icine: A Journal of Research in Psychiatry and the Allied
Sciences, 40(6), 1007–1016. doi:10.1017/S0033291709991279.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A
simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
Gretton, H. M., Hare, R. D., & Catchpole, R. E. H. (2004).
Psychopathy and offending from adolescence to adulthood: A
10-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 72(4), 636–645. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.4.636.
Hare, R. (1993). Without conscience. The disturbing world of the
psychopaths among us. New York: Pocket Books.
123
176
Hare, R. D. (2003). Hare psychopathy checklist-revised (PCL-R): 2nd
edition, technical manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
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.
Hawes, D. J., Dadds, M. R., Frost, A. D. J., & Hasking, P. A. (2011). Do
childhood callous-unemotional traits drive change in parenting
practices? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
40(4), 507–518. doi:10.1080/15374416.2011.581624.
Hipwell, A. E., Pardini, D. A., Loeber, R., Sembower, M., Keenan,
K., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (2007). Callous-unemotional
behaviors in young girls: Shared and unique effects relative to
conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 36(3), 293–304. doi:10.1080/15374410701444165.
Hoeve, M., Dubas, J. S., Eichelsheim, V. I., van der Laan, P. H.,
Smeenk, W., & Gerris, J. R. M. (2009). The relationship between
parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnor-
mal Child Psychology, 37(6), 749–775. doi:10.1007/s10802-
009-9310-8.
Holmbeck, G. N. (2002). Post hoc probing of significant moderational
and mediational effects in studies of pediatric populations.
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 27(1), 87–96.
Huizinga, D., Thornberry, T., Knight, K., & Lovegroove, P. (2007).
Disproportionate minority contact in the juvenile justice system:
A study of differential minority arrest/referral to court in three
cities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Jackson-Newsom, J., Buchanan, C. M., & McDonald, R. M. (2008).
Parenting and perceived maternal warmth in European American
and African American adolescent. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 70(1), 62–75.
Jang, K. L., Stein, M. B., Taylor, S., Asmundson, G. J. G., &
Livesley, W. J. (2003). Exposure to traumatic events and
experiences: Aetiological relationships with personality func-
tion. Psychiatry Research, 120(1), 61–69. doi:10.1016/S0165-
1781(03)00172-0.
Jones, A. P., Laurens, K. R., Herba, C. M., Barker, G. J., & Viding, E.
(2009). Amygdala hypoactivity to fearful faces in boys with
conduct problems and callous-unemotional traits. The American
Journal of Psychiatry, 166(1), 95–102. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.
2008.07071050.
Kimbrel, N. A., Nelson-Gray, R. O., & Mitchell, J. T. (2007).
Reinforcement sensitivity and maternal style as predictors of
psychopathology. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(6),
1139–1149. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.028.
Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., & Barry, C. T. (2004). Callous-
unemotional traits and delinquent peer affiliation. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72(6), 956–966. doi:
10.1037/0022-006X.72.6.956.
Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., Munoz, L. C., & Aucoin, K. J. (2008a).
Callous-unemotional traits and the emotional processing of
distress cues in detained boys: Testing the moderating role of
aggression, exposure to community violence, and histories of
abuse. Development and Psychopathology, 20(2), 569–589. doi:
10.1017/S095457940800028X.
Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., Skeem, J. L., Marsee, M. A., Cruise, K.,
Munoz, L. C., et al. (2008b). Assessing callous-unemotional
traits in adolescent offenders: Validation of the inventory of
callous-unemotional traits. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 31(3), 241–252. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.04.002.
Kochanska, G. (1997). Multiple pathways to conscience for children
with different temperaments: From toddlerhood to age 5.
Developmental Psychology, 33(2), 228–240. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.33.2.228.
Kosson, D. S., Cyterski, T. D., Steuerwald, B. L., Neumann, C. S., &
Walker-Matthews, S. (2002). The reliability and validity of the
123
J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:165–177
psychopathy checklist: Youth version (PCL:YV) in nonincar-
cerated adolescent males. Psychological Assessment, 14(1),
97–109. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.14.1.97.
Kroneman, L. M., Hipwell, A. E., Loeber, R., Koot, H. M., & Pardini,
D. A. (2011). Contextual risk factors as predictors of disruptive
behavior disorder trajectories in girls: The moderating effect of
callous-unemotional features. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 52(2), 167–175. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.023
00.x.
Lau, A. S., McCabe, K. M., Yeh, M., Garland, A. F., Hough, R. L., &
Landsverk, J. (2003). Race/ethnicity and rates of self-reported
maltreatment among high-risk youth in public sectors of care.
Child Maltreatment, 8(3), 183–194. doi:10.1177/107755950
3254141.
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing
psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 151–158.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.151.
Marsee, M. A., Barry, C. T., Childs, K. K., Frick, P. J., Kimonis, E.
R., Munoz, L., et al. (2011). Assessing the forms and functions
of aggression using self-report: Factor structure and invariance
of the peer conflict scale in youth. Psychological Assessment,
23(3), 792–804. doi:10.1037/a0023369.
McCartney, M., Duggan, C., Collins, M., & Larkin, E. P. (2001). Are
perceptions of parenting and interpersonal functioning related in
those with personality disorder? Evidence from patients detained
in a high secure setting. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy,
8(3), 191–197. doi:10.1002/cpp.289.
McCord, W. M., & McCord, J. (1956). Psychopathy and delinquency.
New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.
Meier, M. H., Slutske, W. S., Arndt, S., & Cadoret, R. J. (2008).
Impulsive and callous traits are more strongly associated with
delinquent behavior in higher risk neighborhoods among boys
and girls. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117(2), 377–385.
doi:10.1037/0021-843X.117.2.377.
Muñoz, L. C., Pakalniskiene, V., & Frick, P. J. (2011). Parental
monitoring and youth behavior problems: Moderation by
callous-unemotional traits over time. European Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 20(5), 261–269. doi:10.1007/s00787-
011-0172-6.
O’Neill, M. L., Lidz, V., & Heilbrun, K. (2003). Adolescents with
psychopathic characteristics in a substance abusing cohort:
Treatment process and outcomes. Law and Human Behavior,
27(3), 299–313. doi:10.1023/A:1023435924569.
Obradović, J., Pardini, D. A., Long, J. D., & Loeber, R. (2007).
Measuring interpersonal callousness in boys from childhood to
adolescence: An examination of longitudinal invariance and
temporal stability. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 36(3), 276–292. doi:10.1080/15374410701441633.
Oxford, M., Cavell, T. A., & Hughes, J. N. (2003). Callous/
unemotional traits moderate the relation between ineffective
parenting and child externalizing problems: A partial replication
and extension. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychol-
ogy, 32(4), 577–585. doi:10.1207/S15374424JCCP3204_10.
Pardini, D. A., Lochman, J. E., & Powell, N. (2007). The develop-
ment of callous-unemotional traits and antisocial behavior in
children: Are there shared and/or unique predictors? Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(3), 319–333. doi:
10.1080/15374410701444215.
Pardini, D. A., & Loeber, R. (2007). Interpersonal and affective
features of psychopathy in children and adolescents: Advancing
a developmental perspective. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 36(3), 269–275. doi:10.1080/15374
410701441575.
Parker, G. (1989). The parental bonding instrument: Psychometric
properties reviewed. Psychiatric Developments, 4, 317–335.
J Youth Adolescence (2013) 42:165–177
Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L. B. (1979). A parental bonding
instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52(1), 1–10.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8341.1979.tb02487.x.
Pasalich, D. S., Dadds, M. R., Hawes, D. J., & Brennan, J. (2011). Do
callous-unemotional traits moderate the relative importance of
parental coercion versus warmth in child conduct problems? An
observational study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
52(12), 1308–1315. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02435.x.
Roose, A., Bijttebier, P., Decoene, S., Claes, L., & Frick, P. J. (2010).
Assessing the affective features of psychopathy in adolescence:
A further validation of the Inventory of Callous and Unemo-
tional traits. Assessment, 17(1), 44–57. doi:10.1177/10731911
09344153.
Sedlak, A. J., McPherson, K., & Das, B. (2010). Fourth national
incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS-4): Supplemen-
tary analyses of race differences in child maltreatment rates in
the NIS-4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.
Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2010). What is so special about
male adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of
explanations using meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
136(4), 526–575. doi:10.1037/a0019700.
Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent-adolescent
relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 11(1), 1–19.
Thombs, B. D., Bennett, W., Ziegelstein, R. C., Bernstein, D. P.,
Scher, C. D., & Forde, D. R. (2007). Cultural sensitivity in
screening adults for a history of childhood abuse: Evidence from
a community sample. Journal of General Internal Medicine,
22(3), 368–373.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families. Administration on Children, Youth and
Families, Children’s Bureau. Child Maltreatment 2009 [Online].
Available at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm09/
cm09.pdf. Accessed August 27, 2012.
Viding, E., Jones, A. P., Frick, P. J., Moffitt, T. E., & Plomin, R.
(2008). Heritability of antisocial behaviour at 9: Do callous-
unemotional traits matter? Developmental Science, 11(1), 17–22.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00648.x.
177
Weiler, B. L., & Widom, C. S. (1996). Psychopathy and violent
behaviour in abused and neglected young adults. Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health, 6(3), 253–271. doi:10.1002/
cbm.99.
Wootton, J. M., Frick, P. J., Shelton, K. K., & Silverthorn, P. (1997).
Ineffective parenting and childhood conduct problems: The
moderating role of callous-unemotional traits. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(2), 301–308. doi:10.1037/
0022-006X.65.2.292.b.
Author Biographies
Eva R. Kimonis is an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Mental Health Law and Policy, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental
Health Institute, University of South Florida. She received her MS
and PhD degrees from the University of New Orleans’ Department of
Psychology. Her major research interests include callous-unemotional
traits and psychopathy, antisocial and aggressive behavior, emotion,
and the influence of maltreatment and trauma.
Brittany Cross is a project coordinator in the Department of Mental
Health Law and Policy, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health
Institute, University of South Florida. She received her MA in
Criminology from the University of South Florida. Her major
research interests include mental health, personality, and psychology
and law.
Aisha Howard is a graduate student in the Clinical-Community
Psychology doctorate program at the University of Illinois at Urbana
Champaign. Her major research interests include psychophysiological
and emotional processing in antisocial behavior.
Kathleen Donoghue is a graduate student in the School of Social
Work at Wayne State University. Her major research interests include
antisocial and psychopathic traits in youth, domestic violence, and
family systems.
123