Neurocognitive abilities associated with antisocial behavior with and without callous-unemotional traits in a community sample

Abstract

Objective: Antisocial behavior (aggression, rule breaking) is associated with lower intelligence and executive function deficits. Research has not clarified whether these associations differ with the presence of callous-unemotional (CU) traits, particularly within levels of antisocial behavior observed in the community.

Method: We examined whether antisocial behavior and CU traits were differentially associated with intelligence and executive function metrics in 474 adolescent twins (Mean age = 14.18; SD = 2.20) sampled from birth records to represent youth in the community living in neighborhoods with above average levels of poverty. Intelligence was assessed using standardized scores from the Shipley-2. Executive function was assessed using Go/No-Go and Stop Signal tasks.

Results: Neither antisocial behavior, nor CU traits alone, were associated with cognitive functioning when accounting for demographic factors. However, antisocial behavior and CU traits interacted to predict reaction time variability. At low levels of CU traits, antisocial behavior was associated with higher reaction time variability (traditionally thought to reflect worse sustained attention). At high levels of CU traits, antisocial behavior was associated with lower reaction time variability (thought to reflect better sustained attention).

Conclusion: Elevated antisocial behavior and CU traits may be characterized by a distinct neurocognitive profile compared to elevated antisocial behavior in isolation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Figure 1.. Graphical depiction of model examining associations among antisocial behavior, callous-unemotional traits, and GoNoGo task performance.

In this model, antisocial behavior, callous-unemotional traits, and an interaction term (antisocial behavior x callous-unemotional traits) are included as predictors of performance on the three indices of cognitive functioning measured using the GoNoGo task (i.e., efficiency score, ‘Go’ accuracy, reaction time variability). Sex, age, race, substance use, annual family income, depression symptoms, ADHD symptoms, anxiety symptoms, medication usage, and psychiatric diagnosis are included as covariates.

Figure 2.. CU traits moderate the association between antisocial behavior and reaction time variability.

Note. AB= antisocial behavior. CU traits = callous-unemotional traits. RTV = GoNoGo reaction time variability. Simple slopes plotted at mean levels, 1 SD above the mean, and 1 SD below the mean for CU traits, as recommended by Aiken et al. (1991) and using an online computational tool (Preacher et al., 2006). Models were ran using centered variables of AB (Range −4.24–35.76, Uncentered Range 0–40) and CU traits (Range −16.97–23.03, Uncentered Range 1–41). Star next to line indicates significant slope. At low levels of CU traits (CU Traits < −.32; 51.9% of the sample), higher RTV (worse sustained attention) was significantly related to higher levels of AB. Additionally, at high levels of CU traits (CU Traits > 1.78; 37.6% of the sample), AB was associated with lower RTV (better sustained attention). The horizontal line indicates the level of AB at which these associations are significant (AB > 2.06; 20.9% of the sample).