University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Psychophysiological reactivity to stress, psychopathic traits, and developmental trajectories of antisocial behavior: a prospective, longitudinal study

(USC Thesis Other)

Psychophysiological reactivity to stress, psychopathic traits, and developmental trajectories of antisocial behavior: a prospective, longitudinal study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 1

Psychophysiological reactivity to stress, psychopathic traits, and developmental
trajectories of antisocial behavior: A prospective, longitudinal study

Leslie Berntsen

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Psychology

Degree conferred: May 2015

University of Southern California

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 2
Table of Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 5
Developmental Trajectories of Antisocial Behavior ....................................................... 5
Life-Course Persistent (LCP) Antisocial Behavior ......................................................... 6
Adolescent-Limited/Onset (AL/AO) Antisocial Behavior ............................................. 7
Childhood-Limited Antisocial Behavior ......................................................................... 8
The Current Study ........................................................................................................... 9
Methods ............................................................................................................................ 10
Participants .................................................................................................................... 10
Sample Demographics .................................................................................................. 11
Procedure and Materials ............................................................................................... 12
Countdown Task ....................................................................................................... 12
Countdown Task: Data Analysis .......................................................................... 12
Child Psychopathy Scale ........................................................................................... 13
Results ............................................................................................................................... 13
Psychophysiological Results ......................................................................................... 13
Wave 1 Countdown ................................................................................................... 13
Wave 3 Countdown ................................................................................................... 14
Longitudinal Change by Component ........................................................................ 14
Psychopathic Traits ....................................................................................................... 15
Factor 1: Disinhibited/Aggressive ............................................................................ 15
Factor 2: Manipulative/Deceitful .............................................................................. 16
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 3
Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 17
Cardiac Hyperreactivity to Stress: A Prospective Biomarker of Adolescent-Onset
Antisocial Behavior ...................................................................................................... 17
Trajectory Group Specificity of Psychopathic Traits Across Childhood and
Adolescence .................................................................................................................. 18
Limitations and Future Directions ................................................................................ 19
References ......................................................................................................................... 21
List of Appendices ............................................................................................................ 27
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... 31
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... 33

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 4
Abstract
There are multiple pathways to antisocial behavior, including early-onset/life-
course persistent, adolescent-onset/limited, childhood-limited, and low/non-offending, all
of which are characterized by unique sets of risk/protective factors. One major goal of
research in developmental psychopathology is to identify these factors in order to inform
future efforts at early intervention and prevention. After identifying distinct ASB
trajectory groups based on longitudinal data from the Southern California Twin Study of
Risk Factors for Antisocial Behavior, we set out to explore how physiological responses
to stress and psychopathic traits differ among members of these groups during both
childhood (ages 9-10) and adolescence (ages 14-15). Two particularly novel findings
emerged: (1) during childhood, future adolescent-onset offenders exhibited cardiac
hyperreactivity to an aversive stimulus and (2) different trajectories of antisocial behavior
yielded distinct trajectories of psychopathic traits. These findings add to a growing body
of research that attests to the dynamic nature of antisocial behavior across the lifespan.

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 5
Antisocial behavior (ASB)—that which violates well-established social norms
and/or the rights of others—occurs at tremendous cost to society. As such, early detection
of risk and protective factors for antisocial behavior is not only an interesting academic
endeavor, but also a growing public health concern (Eddy, Reid, & Curry, 2002).
However, the study of antisocial behavior is often complicated by the issue of equifinality,
insofar as multiple pathways can lead to the outcome in question (Cicchetti & Rogosch,
1996; Frick & Viding, 2009).
Developmental trajectories of antisocial behavior
One of the leading theoretical models to highlight the temporal heterogeneity of
antisocial behavior is Terrie Moffitt’s (1993) developmental taxonomy of crime.
According to this model, antisocial (i.e. delinquent) behavior across the lifespan can take
one of two forms—life-course persistent (LCP) or adolescent-limited (AL)—each with its
own unique time course and risk factors. Life-course persistent ASB begins at a very
early age, arises as the combined result of neuropsychological deficits and a negative,
“criminogenic” environment, and is considered a form of psychopathology. Depending
on their age, offenders on the life-course persistent path will likely receive a diagnosis of
conduct disorder (<18 years old) or antisocial personality disorder (≥18 years old) at
some point in their lives. Conversely, adolescent-limited ASB has largely been framed as
a normative developmental phenomenon that arises primarily as the result of social
pressures and gradually ends as the gap between physical and psychological maturity
narrows (Barnes & Beaver, 2010; Moffitt & Caspi, 2001).
Since the advent of the developmental taxonomy, several other ASB trajectory
groups have been identified. These include childhood-limited offenders whose initially
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 6
high levels of ASB decline throughout adolescence (Raine et al., 2005) and subgroup of
“ensnared” AL offenders (termed adolescent-onset (AO) offenders) who maintain
relatively high levels of ASB during adulthood, despite a later age of onset than LCP
offenders (for a review, see Piquero, Diamond, Jennings, & Reingle, 2013). However, a
vast majority of empirical attention has focused on identifying risk factors that might
presage life-course persistent ASB, rather than the dynamic developmental processes
associated with increases or decreases in antisocial tendencies across the lifespan.
Life-course persistent (LCP) antisocial behavior
Meta-analyses indicate that antisocial behavior, broadly construed, is moderately
heritable, with genetic and non-shared environmental influences contributing equally to
the total observed variance (Rhee & Waldman, 2002). Molecular genetic studies have
identified several candidate genes potentially implicated in the genesis of chronic ASB,
including certain alleles of the monoamine oxidase (MAOA) and serotonin transporter
(5-HTT) genes (for a review, see Gunter, Vaughn, & Philibert, 2010) These genes often
interact with environmental factors to exert physiological, psychological, and neural
effects and produce antisocial outcomes (for reviews, see Moffitt, 2005; Raine, 2008).
Autonomic hypoactivity is one of the most robust physiological correlates of
antisocial behavior across the lifespan. Low electrodermal activity (both at rest and
during tasks) has been reliably associated with antisocial behavior (Lorber, 2004).
Although there is consistent evidence of low resting heart rate as a biomarker of
antisocial behavior during childhood and adolescence (Lorber, 2004; Ortiz & Raine,
2004), the findings on cardiac reactivity are more mixed. High cardiac reactivity has been
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 7
associated with conduct problems and aggression during childhood and adolescence, but
not with the psychopathic traits that often underlie them (Lorber, 2004).
Psychologically, children with the highest, most stable levels of delinquency
across development also exhibit the highest levels of callous-unemotional (CU)
psychopathic traits (Frick, Stickle, Dandreaux, Farrell, & Kimonis, 2005). These traits,
which include a lack of guilt and tendency to manipulate others, also appear to be
relatively stable from childhood to adolescence (Frick & White, 2008). On the neural
level, life-course persistent antisocial behavior has been reliably associated with
structural deficits in frontal cortex and subcortical structures and functional impairments
in moral reasoning (Raine & Yang, 2006; Yang & Raine, 2009)
Adolescent-limited/onset (AL/AO) antisocial behavior
Although antisocial behavior that first emerges during adolescence can reach the
same levels of severity as life-course persistent ASB, the two forms appear to follow
different etiological pathways. In the original study of LCP and AL offenders from the
Dunedin birth cohort, childhood predictors were found to distinguish the two subtypes.
Specifically, life-course persistent offenders exhibited neurocognitive deficits and
conduct problems and were exposed to a negative family environment from an early age,
whereas adolescent-limited offenders did not share these risk factors (Moffitt, 1993;
Moffitt & Caspi, 2001). As a result, empirical attention has long been paid to
environmental risk factors thought to exert their effects solely during the teenage years.
However, focus has recently begun to shift to the study of prospective risk factors and
biological correlates.
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 8
While adolescent offending is significantly influenced by genetic factors, it is not
as heritable as life-course persistent offending or lifelong abstention (Barnes, Beaver, &
Boutwell, 2011). Studies exploring childhood predictors of adolescent-onset offending
are somewhat rare, but nevertheless provide initial evidence that there are indeed risk
factors not originally accounted for in Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy. In particular,
thought and attention problems and withdrawn behaviors during childhood have been
found to predict adolescent-onset offending that continues into adulthood (Buck, Verhulst,
van Marle, van der Ende, 2009).
There is also a growing body of research showing that, during adolescence,
adolescent offenders exhibit impairments typically thought to be reserved for those on the
life-course persistent path. In particular, relative to healthy controls, adolescent offenders
have also exhibited deficits in fear conditioning and reduced startle amplitudes (Fairchild,
van Goozen, Stollery, & Goodyer, 2008), more risky decisions during laboratory
decision-making paradigms (Fairchild et al., 2009), impaired recognition of fearful facial
expressions (Fairchild, van Goozen, Calder, Stollery, & Goodyer, 2009), reduced
amygdala volume (Fairchild et al., 2011), and reduced amygdala activation in response to
fearful faces (Passamonti et al., 2010). Additionally, adolescent-onset offenders have
been found to exhibit internalizing symptoms during adolescence, but not during
childhood (Aguilar, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 2000).
Childhood-limited antisocial behavior
Childhood-limited offenders (who exhibit steadily decreasing levels of antisocial
behavior through late childhood and adolescence) are an admittedly understudied group.
Although they do appear to share some of the same early neuropsychological deficits as
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 9
life-course persistent offenders, these impairments do not improve with time, even as
antisocial behavior decreases (Raine et al., 2005). There are, however, protective factors
that differentiate childhood-limited from life-course persistent offenders. Namely, life-
course persistent offenders were subject to harsh parenting during early childhood,
maternal anxiety during gestation, and higher familial predisposition to conduct problems,
among other risk factors, while childhood-limited offenders were not (Barker & Maughan,
2009; Veenstra, Lindenberg, Verhulst, Ormel, 2009). To our knowledge, the
psychophysiology of individuals on the childhood-limited path remains uninvestigated.
The current study
Our goals are for the present research are twofold. First, we seek to explore how
physiological responses to stress and psychopathic traits differ among members of the
aforementioned ASB trajectory groups during both childhood and adolescence. Second,
we seek to determine whether developmental changes in antisocial behavior are
associated with concomitant physiological and trait-based changes. For example, do
adolescent-onset offenders come to physiologically and psychologically resemble early-
onset offenders at the height of their offending? Likewise, do childhood-limited offenders
come to resemble non-offenders as their levels of antisocial behavior come to resemble
non-offenders? Here, we specifically rely on caregiver reports to assess psychopathic
traits and a countdown paradigm to assess physiological (specifically cardiac) responses
to stress (both described in further detail in the Methods section). Previous studies
employing the countdown task have primarily focused on the relationship between
autonomic responses to the task and psychopathy, rather than antisocial behavior, broadly
construed, but have found consistent evidence for higher anticipatory heart rate
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 10
acceleration in participants high on psychopathic traits (Hare, Frazelle, & Cox, 1978;
Wang, Baker, Gao, Raine, & Lozano, 2012).
Methods
Participants
Participants were drawn from the University of Southern California Study of Risk
Factors for Antisocial Behavior (RFAB). RFAB is a longitudinal twin study of the
interplay of genetic, environmental, biological, and social risk factors on the development
of antisocial and aggressive behaviors. Participating families were recruited from the
greater Los Angeles metropolitan area and the sample is representative of the ethnic and
socioeconomic diversity of the region. The project is currently in its fifth wave of data
collection and the total sample contains 780 twin and triplet pairs born between 1990 and
1995 (see Baker et al., 2013 for further details on study design and methodology).
Based on latent class analyses (LCA) performed on a randomly selected twin
from each pair, five distinct delinquency trajectory groups have been identified in our
sample. These groups were formed based on primary caregivers’ responses to the
delinquency subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991). In the
CBCL, symptom counts for each subscale are computed by summing responses to each
constituent item, scored from 0 to 2 (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, 2 =
very true or often true; see Appendix A for a list of items). The five delinquency
trajectory groups differ by symptoms’ severity, age of onset, and stability over time and
include: early onset offenders (stable high), adolescent-onset
1
offenders (increasing),

1
Since our participants are currently 18-20 years old, it remains unclear whether their
ASB will truly be “adolescent-limited” or “life-course persistent.” Therefore, when
describing our sample, we use the terms “adolescent-onset” and “early onset.”
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 11
childhood-limited offenders (decreasing), low delinquents (stable low), and non-
offenders (Tuvblad et al., in prep). (See Figure 1 for a visualization of these groups’
symptoms over time.)
Participants whose data were included in the present analyses were those who (1)
were the randomly selected twin each pair assigned to an LCA delinquency trajectory
group and (2) who had clean psychophysiological data
2
available for both Waves 1 and 3
for RFAB data collection. Of the 767 participants assigned to an LCA group, 405 had
psychophysiological data available for Wave 1, 361 for Wave 3, and 161 for both Waves
1 and 3. Data on psychopathic traits were also available for all of the aforementioned 161
participants for both waves.
Sample Demographics
During Wave 1 of the study, participants in the present sample (58% female)
ranged in age from 9-11 years old (mean age = 9.59, SD = 0.60). During Wave 3, they
ranged in age from 14-16 years old (mean age = 14.64, SD = 0.55). 40% of our sample
identified as Hispanic, 24% as White, 19% as mixed race, 12% as Black, and 4% as
Asian. Of the 161 participants, and comparable to the results obtained in the complete
latent class analysis, 44% were classified as non-offenders, 30% as low-delinquent
controls, 12% as childhood-limited, 9% as adolescent-onset, and 4% as early-onset.
There were no gender, age, or racial/ethnic differences in trajectory group representation

2
Outlying heart rate values were defined as those that were three or more standard
deviations from the mean value and two or more standard deviations from the next less
extreme value, sampled at every second of the countdown task at each wave. Subjects
with outlying values at any second of the countdown task at any wave were excluded
from analyses.
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 12
in the present sample. (See Table 1 for demographic information on each of the trajectory
groups.)
Procedure and Materials
Countdown task. Twins in the present sample participated in in-lab visits during
Waves 1 and 3. During these visits, psychophysiological data were continuously recorded
during a two-hour battery of tasks, which included the countdown paradigm (Hare &
Craigen, 1974). In this task, participants receive anticipated and unanticipated white noise
bursts (105 dB) through their earphones. The entire task lasts for approximately 230
seconds and consists of five alternating trials: three signaled and two un-signaled. The
time between trials ranged from 40 to 50 seconds. In signaled trials, participants watch
numbers count backward from 12 on a monitor. When the countdown reaches 0, they
receive the white noise burst. In un-signaled trials, participants are unaware when they
will receive the white noise burst. Since signaled trials provide the purest indication of
anticipation of the aversive stimulus, averaged data from only those three trials are
included in the analyses that follow. Technical details regarding physiological data
acquisition can be found elsewhere (Wang, Baker, Gao, Raine, & Lozano, 2012).
Countdown task: Data analysis. Each trial of the countdown task consisted of 21
seconds with a heart rate value (in bpm) interpolated at each second. Seconds 1-4
included the three seconds prior to the start of the countdown as well as the first second
of the countdown (when the monitor read “12”), which were averaged to obtain a pre-
countdown baseline value for each subject. The average of seconds 7-10 (monitor
counting down from 9-6) represents the accelerative (A) component of the triphasic heart
rate curve (Hugdahl, 1995). The average of seconds 14-16 (monitor counting down from
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 13
2-0, which includes the white noise blast) represents the late decelerative (D2)
component of the triphasic curve. Finally, the average of seconds 19-21 (3-5 seconds
post-burst) represents the unconditioned response (UCR) to the stimulus. In order to
account for individual variability in heart rate levels, each subject’s pre-countdown
baseline was subtracted from the averages of the aforementioned components to obtain
three heart rate change scores (A, D2, UCR) per subject.
Child Psychopathy Scale. Participants’ primary caregivers also completed the
Child Psychopathy Scale (CPS; Lynam, 1997), either in-person during their twins’ lab
visit or via postal mail. The CPS is an age-appropriate revision of Hare’s Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991) that assesses interpersonal/affective deficits and
antisocial life characteristics in children and adolescents. Factor analyses performed on
CPS items completed by RFAB participants yield two factors similar to Hare’s original
conceptualization: disinhibited/aggressive (DA) and manipulative/deceitful (MD)
(Bezdjian, Raine, Baker, & Lynam, 2011; Wang et al., 2014). These factors are used the
present analyses. (See Appendix B for a list of items and factor loadings.)
Results
Psychophysiological Results
Wave 1 countdown. An omnibus one-way multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was conducted to determine whether participants in the different
delinquency trajectory groups differ in the three components of the triphasic response
pattern (accelerative, late decelerative, and unconditioned response [UCR]) when they
were 9-11 years old. MANOVA was chosen over a repeated measures analysis since
Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity was violated, χ
2
(2) = 8.273, p =
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 14
0.016. The MANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference in heart rate
responses during the countdown task depending on delinquency trajectory group, F(12,
407.737) = 1.880, p = 0.035; Wilks’ Λ = 0.867, partial η2 = .046.
Using a Bonferroni-corrected alpha level of .017 (.05/3), significant between-
group differences only emerged for the UCR component of the triphasic response pattern,
F(4, 156) = 4.247, p = .003; partial η2 = .098. Post-hoc tests show that adolescent-onset
offenders significantly differentiated themselves from non-offenders (p < .001), low-
delinquents (p = .006), and childhood-limited offenders (p = .001), but not early-onset
offenders (p = .076). Overall between-subject differences for the accelerative and late
decelerative components approached, but did not reach, statistical significance. For the
accelerative component, F(4, 156) = 1.948, p = .105; partial η2 = .048, and for the
decelerative component, F(4, 156) = 2.073, p = .087; partial η2 = .050. However, for both
the accelerative and decelerative components, adolescent-onset offenders were
significantly different from non-offenders, p = .014 and p = .011, respectively. (See
Figure 2 for triphasic response patterns by trajectory group during Wave 1.)
Wave 3 countdown. There was no overall effect of delinquency trajectory group
on heart rate responses when participants were 14 to 16 years old, F(12, 407.737) = 1.157,
p = 0.312; Wilks’ Λ = 0.915, partial η2 = .046. The only significant between-groups
difference (p = .039) for any portion of the response emerged between childhood-limited
offenders and low delinquents for the late decelerative component. (See Figure 3 for
triphasic response patterns by trajectory group during Wave 3.)
Longitudinal change by component. Repeated measures ANOVAs were
performed on each of the three components to assess whether delinquency trajectory
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 15
group membership affects how heart rate responses change over time. For the
accelerative component, there was neither a main effect of time, F(1, 156) = 0.913, p
= .341, nor a time x group interaction, F(4, 156) = 1,762, p = .139. For the late
decelerative component, there was a significant time x group interaction, F(4, 156) =
3.259, p = .013. From Wave 1 to Wave 3, the late decelerative component increased (i.e.
became more negative) for the childhood-limited and adolescent-onset offenders and
decreased (i.e. became less negative) for the non-offenders, and remained relatively
unchanged for low delinquents and early onset offenders, but there were no significant
pairwise comparisons between any of the groups (see Figure 4). For the unconditioned
response (UCR) to the blast, there was a significant main effect of time, F(1, 156) =
12.396, p = .001, with the baseline-corrected response to the blast decreasing over time,
and a significant time x group interaction, F(4, 156) = 3.067, p = .018. The only
significant pairwise comparison emerged between adolescent-onset and childhood-
limited offenders, where the former exhibited a greater change over time than the latter (p
= .031) (see Figure 5).
Psychopathic traits
Factor 1: Disinhibited/Aggressive. A repeated measures ANOVA revealed a
significant relationship between delinquency trajectory group and the change in
disinhibited/aggressive traits from childhood to adolescence, F(4,156) = 3.552, p = .008.
Every post-hoc between-groups comparison was significant at the p < .01 level except for
low delinquents vs. childhood-limited (p = .727) and adolescent-onset vs. early-onset (p
= .281). (See Figure 6 for the longitudinal change in disinhibited/aggressive traits by
trajectory group.) Univariate ANOVAs independently performed on Factor 1 scores from
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 16
Wave 1 and Wave 3 both indicated significant group differences. For Wave 1, F(4, 156)
= 14.602, p < .001. The only pairwise comparisons that were not significant at the p < .05
level were early-onset vs. adolescent-onset (p = .096) and childhood-limited vs.
adolescent-onset (p = .338). For Wave 3, F(4, 156) = 10.361, p < .001. At Wave 3, the
only pairwise comparisons that were not significant at the p < .05 level were childhood-
limited vs. low delinquents (p = .135), adolescent-onset vs. early-onset (p = .839), and
childhood-limited vs. non-offenders (p = .698). (See Figures 7 and 8 for single time-point
group differences in disinhibited/aggressive traits at Waves 1 and 3, respectively.)
Factor 2: Manipulative/Deceitful. Delinquency trajectory group membership
was also significantly related to the change in manipulative/deceitful traits over time,
F(4,156) = 5.841, p < .001. Again, every post-hoc between-groups comparison was
significant at the p < .01 level except for low delinquents vs. childhood-limited (p = .147)
and adolescent-onset vs. early-onset (p = .209). (See Figure 9 for the longitudinal change
in manipulative/deceitful traits by trajectory group.) Univariate ANOVAs performed on
Factor 2 scores indicated significant group differences at both Wave 1 and again at Wave
3. For Wave 1, F(4, 156) = 15.037, p < .001. The only pairwise comparisons that were
not significant at the p < .05 level were early-onset vs. childhood-limited (p = .198),
early-onset vs. adolescent-onset (p = .761), and childhood-limited vs. adolescent-onset (p
= .185). For Wave 3, F(4, 156) = 23.409, p < .001. At Wave 3, the only pairwise
comparisons that were not significant at the p < .05 level were low delinquent vs.
childhood-limited (p = .746), non-offenders vs. childhood-limited (p = .170), and
adolescent-onset vs. early-onset (p = .087). (See Figures 10 and 11 for single time-point
group differences in manipulative/deceitful traits at Waves 1 and 3, respectively.)
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 17
Discussion
In the present study, we explored how physiological reactivity to stress and
psychopathic traits change from childhood to adolescence in relation to specific
developmental trajectories of antisocial behavior. In particular, several of our findings
provide novel contributions to the existing literature that merit further commentary.
Cardiac hyperreactivity to stress: A prospective biomarker of adolescent-onset
antisocial behavior
Previous research has largely focused on the ability of childhood risk factors to
differentiate life-course persistent offenders from both adolescent-limited offenders and
non-delinquent controls (Moffitt & Caspi, 2001; Raine et al., 2005). There have been a
limited number of previous studies investigating prospective risk factors of adolescent-
onset antisocial behavior (Aguilar, Sroufe, Egeland, & Carlson, 2000; Buck, Verhulst,
van Marle, & van der Ende, 2013) and psychophysiological response patterns of
adolescent-onset offenders (albeit during adolescence) (Fairchild, van Goozen, Stollery,
& Goodyear, 2008). To our knowledge, this is the first study to combine both of these
aims.
Here, we provide evidence of one possible prospective biomarker (i.e. cardiac
hyperreactivity to stress) that might presage adolescent-onset antisocial behavior before
the behavior actually occurs. In particular, at ages 9-10, future adolescent-onset offenders
(who, crucially, had not begun to offend yet) evinced a significantly higher change in
heart rate in anticipation and in response to the aversive stimulus (i.e. for components A,
D2, and UCR) than non-offenders. For the immediate response (i.e. UCR) to the white
noise burst, AO offenders significantly differentiated themselves from non-offenders, low
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 18
delinquents, and childhood-limited offenders, but not early onset offenders. However, by
ages 14-16, there were no differences in cardiac responding between adolescent-onset
offenders and any other trajectory group.
Cardiac hyperreactivity to stress has previously been associated with a number of
outcomes, including internalizing psychopathology during childhood (Mezzacappa et al.,
1997; Kagan, Reznick, & Snidman, 1987; cited in Bimmel, van IJzendoorn, Bakermans-
Kranenburg, Juffer, & de Geus, 2008), reactive (i.e. impulsive, unplanned) aggression
during childhood and adolescence (Lorber, 2004), but also desistance from adult criminal
behavior in past adolescent-onset offenders (Raine, Venables, & Williams, 1995). One
potential interpretation of our current findings could be that, during childhood, future AO
offenders might not only be sensitive to lab-induced stressors, but also their environments,
broadly construed. If combined with negative environmental risk factors (e.g., antisocial
peers, low parental monitoring, etc.), this sensitivity could then possibly predispose
certain individuals to a dramatic increase in antisocial behavior during adolescence.
Trajectory group specificity of psychopathic traits across childhood and adolescence
Even though a great deal of previous research attests to the stability of
psychopathic traits across development and the disproportionate prevalence of these traits
among life-course persistent offenders (Frick et al., 2005; Frick & White, 2008), there is
emerging evidence of distinct developmental trajectories of psychopathic (namely
callous-unemotional) traits (Fontaine, Rijsdijk, McCrory, & Viding, 2010). Here, we
provide converging evidence of trajectories of psychopathic traits that map surprisingly
well onto trajectories of antisocial behavior. Namely, during both childhood and
adolescence, adolescent-onset offenders significantly differentiated themselves from non-
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 19
offenders, but not early onset offenders for both factors of psychopathy, which lends
additional support to the idea that AO antisocial behavior is not an entirely normative
phenomenon. Moreover, psychopathic traits in childhood-limited offenders decreased
over time such that, during adolescence, they were no different from non-offenders.
However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the concomitant changes in antisocial
behavior and psychopathic traits cannot speak to the existence of a causal relationship
between the two, or the nature of such a relationship, if one does exist. Our data offer no
conclusions as to whether psychopathic traits increase/decrease as a function of changes
in antisocial behavior, whether antisocial behavior increases/decreases as a function of
changes in psychopathic traits, or whether an unidentified factor might explain the
observed developmental relationship between traits and behavior.
Limitations and future directions
These contributions notwithstanding, there are some limitations of the present
study that should be acknowledged. First, due to our use of a community sample, early-
onset, adolescent-onset, and childhood-limited offenders were underrepresented in
comparison to low delinquents and non-offenders. Although larger sample sizes in the
EO, AO, and CL groups would have been ideal, that such significant effects were
obtained with relatively small sample sizes gives us hope that our findings will be
replicated in the future. On another level, the limited number of adolescent-onset
offenders in our sample reemphasizes the relative rarity of adolescent-onset offending
and challenges the popular conception of antisocial behavior as an expected hallmark of
the teenage years.
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 20
Moreover, since the participants in our cohort currently range in age from 18-20
years old, with data collection ongoing, it remains to be seen whether our current
“adolescent-onset” offenders will continue to exhibit antisocial behavior into adulthood
or whether they will desist, such that “adolescent-limited” becomes a more appropriate
designation. Of course, it is also possible that some will persist while others desist after
adolescence, which would then invite study on risk/protective factors that exert their
effects during late adolescence and early adulthood.
In addition to this question, our current findings also point toward a number of
other fruitful avenues for future research. In particular, we hope to use our sample to
explore whether childhood hyperresponsivity to stress in AO offenders can be observed
via other physiological recording techniques (e.g., electrodermal activity,
electromyographic recording, etc.) that have been frequently employed in the study of
antisocial behavior. We also seek to test the aforementioned hypothesis that negative
social environments promote adolescent-onset antisocial behavior in hyperresponsive
children, as well as explore variables associated with the observed decreases in both
antisocial behavior and psychopathic traits among those on the childhood-limited path.
One of the primary goals of research in this line of work is to identify specific risk
and protective factors for antisocial behavior across the lifespan and use that knowledge
to inform efforts at early detection and prevention. Ideally though, it will also fuel
additional research on the broader question of how and when social contexts might lead
to biological changes that can then facilitate the development—and desistance—of
antisocial tendencies.

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 21
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/4-18, YSR, and TRF profiles.
Burlington: Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.
Aguilar, B., Sroufe, L., Egeland, B., & Carlson, E. (2000). Distinguishing the early-
onset/persistent and adolescence-onset antisocial behavior types: From birth to 16
years. Development and Psychopathology, 12(2), 109-132.
Baker, L. A., Tuvblad, C., Wang, P., Gomez, K., Bezdjian, S., Niv, S., & Raine, A. (2013). The
Southern California Twin Register at the University of Southern California: III. Twin
Research and Human Genetics, 16(1), 336-343.
Barker, E., & Maughan, B. (2009). Differentiating early-onset persistent versus childhood-
limited conduct problem youth. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166(8), 900-908.
Barnes, J. C., & Beaver, K. M. (2010). An empirical examination of adolescence-limited
offending: A direct test of Moffitt's maturity gap thesis. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 38(6), 1176-1185.
Barnes, J. C., Beaver, K. M., & Boutwell, B. B. (2011). Examining the genetic underpinnings to
Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy: A behavior genetic analysis. Criminology, 49(4),
923-954.
Bezdjian, S., Raine, A., Baker, L. A., & Lynam, D. R. (2011). Psychopathic personality in
children: Genetic and environmental contributions. Psychological Medicine, 41(3), 589-
600
Bimmel, N., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans‐Kranenburg, M. J., Juffer, F., & De Geus, E. J.
(2008). Problem behavior and heart rate reactivity in adopted adolescents: longitudinal
and concurrent relations. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18(2), 201-214.
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 22
Buck, N., Verhulst, F., van Marle, H., & van der Ende, J. (2013). Childhood psychopathology
predicts adolescence-onset offending: A longitudinal study. Crime and
Delinquency, 59(5), 718-737.
Cicchetti, D. & Rogosch, F. A. (1996). Equifinality and multifinality in developmental
psychopathology. Development & Psychopathology, 8, 597-600.
Eddy, J. M., Reid, J. B., & Curry, V. (2002). The etiology of youth antisocial behavior,
delinquency, and violence and a public health approach to prevention. In M. R. Shinn, H.
M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II:
Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 27-51). Washington, DC: National Association
of School Psychologists.
Fairchild, G., Passamonti, L., Hurford, G., Hagan, C. C., von dem Hagen, E. A., van Goozen, S.
H., ... & Calder, A. J. (2011). Brain structure abnormalities in early-onset and adolescent-
onset conduct disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 168(6), 624-633.
Fairchild, G., van Goozen, S. H., Calder, A. J., Stollery, S., Goodyer, I. M. (2009). Deficits in
facial expression recognition in male adolescents with early-onset or adolescence-onset
conduct disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 5,
627-636.
Fairchild, G., van Goozen, S. H., Stollery, S., Aitken, M. R. F., Savage, J., Moore, S. C.,
Goodyer, I. M. (2009). Decision making and executive function in male adolescents with
early-onset or adolescence-onset conduct disorder and control subjects. Biological
Psychiatry, 66(2), 162-168.
Fairchild, G., van Goozen, S. H., Stollery, S. J., & Goodyer, I. M. (2008). Fear conditioning and
affective modulation of the startle reflex in male adolescents with early-onset or
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 23
adolescence-onset conduct disorder and healthy control subjects. Biological
Psychiatry, 63(3), 279-285.
Fontaine, N. M., Rijsdijk, F. V., McCrory, E. J., & Viding, E. (2010). Etiology of different
developmental trajectories of callous-unemotional traits. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(7), 656-664.
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.
Frick, P. J., Stickle, T. R., Dandreaux, D. M., Farrell, J. M., & Kimonis, E. R. (2005). Callous–
unemotional traits in predicting the severity and stability of conduct problems and
delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(4), 471-487.
Frick, P. J., & Viding, E. (2009). Antisocial behavior from a developmental psychopathology
perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 21(4), 1111-1131.
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.
Gunter, T. D., Vaughn, M. G., & Philibert, R. A. (2010). Behavioral genetics in antisocial
spectrum disorders and psychopathy: A review of the recent literature. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 28(2), 148-173.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Revised Psychopathy Checklist. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D., & Craigen, D. (1974). Psychopathy and physiological activity in a mixed motive
game situation. Psychophysiology, 11(2), 197-206.
Hare, R. D., Frazelle, J., & Cox, D. N. (1978). Psychopathy and physiological responses to threat
of an aversive stimulus. Psychophysiology, 15(2), 165-172.
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 24
Hugdahl, K. (1995). Psychophysiology: The mind-body perspective. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Kagan, J., Reznick, J. S., & Snidman, N. (1987). The physiology and psychology of behavioral
inhibition. Child Development, 58, 1459–1573.
Lorber, M. F. (2004). Psychophysiology of aggression, psychopathy, and conduct problems: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(4), 531-552.
Lynam, D. R. (1997). Pursuing the psychopath: Capturing the fledgling psychopath in a
nomological net. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(3), 425-438.
Mezzacappa, E., Tremblay, R. E., Kindlon, D., Saul, J. P., Arseneault, L., Seguin, J., ... & Earls,
F. (1997). Anxiety, antisocial behavior, and heart rate regulation in adolescent
males. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38(4), 457-469.
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A
developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674-701.
Moffitt, T. E. (2005). The new look of behavioral genetics in developmental psychopathology:
Gene-environment interplay in antisocial behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 131(4), 533-
554
Moffitt, T. E. & Caspi, A. (2001). Childhood predictors differentiate life-course persistent and
adolescence-limited antisocial pathways among males and females. Development and
Psychopathology, 13, 355-375.
Ortiz, J., & Raine, A. (2004). Heart rate level and antisocial behavior in children and
adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 43(2), 154-162.
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 25
Passamonti, L., Fairchild, G., Goodyer, I. M., Hurford, G., Hagan, C. C., Rowe, J. B., & Calder,
A. J. (2010). Neural abnormalities in early-onset and adolescence-onset conduct
disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(7), 729-738.
Piquero, A. R., Diamond, B. Jennings, W. G., & Reingle, J. M. (2013). Adolescence-limited
offending. In C. L. Gibson & M. D. Krohn (Eds.), Handbook of Life-Course Criminology
(pp. 129-142). New York, NY: Springer.
Raine, A. (2008). From genes to brain to antisocial behavior. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 17(5), 323-328.
Raine, A., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Lynam, D. (2005).
Neurocognitive impairments in boys on the life-course persistent antisocial path. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 114(1), 38-49.
Raine, A., Venables, P. H., & Williams, M. (1995). High autonomic arousal and electrodermal
orienting at age 15 years as protective factors against criminal behavior at age 29
years. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 152(11), 1595-1600.
Raine, A., & Yang, Y. (2006). Neural foundations to moral reasoning and antisocial
behavior. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 1(3), 203-213
Rhee, S. H., & Waldman, I. D. (2002). Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial
behavior: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychological Bulletin, 128(3),
490-529.
Tuvblad, C., Wang, P., Raine, A., & Baker, L. A. (2014). Developmental trajectories in
delinquency from ages 9-18. Manuscript in preparation.
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 26
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J. (2009). Childhood-limited versus
persistent antisocial behavior why do some recover and others do not? The TRAILS
study. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(5), 718-742.
Wang, P., Baker, L. A., Gao, Y., Raine, A., & Lozano, D. I. (2012). Psychopathic traits and
physiological responses to aversive stimuli in children aged 9–11 years. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(5), 759-769.
Wang, P., Gao, Y., Isen, J., Tuvblad, C., Raine, A., & Baker, L. A. (2014). Genetic covariance
between psychopathic traits and anticipatory skin conductance response to threat:
Evidence for a potential endophenotype. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Yang, Y., & Raine, A. (2009). Prefrontal structural and functional brain imaging findings in
antisocial, violent, and psychopathic individuals: a meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research:
Neuroimaging, 174(2), 81-88.

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 27
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Child Behavior Checklist Delinquency Subscale Items .............................. 28!
Appendix B: Child Psychopathy Scale Items, Factors, and Subscales ............................. 29!

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 28

Appendix A: Child Behavior Checklist Delinquency Subscale Items (CBCL; Achenbach,
1991)

1. Doesn’t seem to feel guilty after misbehaving
2. Hangs around those who get in trouble
3. Lies or cheats
4. Prefers being with old kids or youths
5. Runs away from home
6. Sets fires
7. Steals at home
8. Steals outside the home
9. Swears or uses obscene language
10. Seems preoccupied with sex
11. Truant, cuts classes, or skips school
12. Uses alcohol or drugs for non-medical purposes
13. Vandalizes

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 29
Appendix B: Child Psychopathy Scale Items, Factors, and Subscales (Bezdjian et al.,
2011; Lynam, 1994; Wang et al., 2014)

Factor 1: Disinhibited/Aggressive

Boredom Susceptibility

1. Are you easily bored?
2. Do you concentrate well on things? (R = reverse-coded)
3. Do you stay away from scary things and places? (R)
4. Do you do dangerous or risky things for the fun of it?
5. Do you need to have things be exciting?

Callousness

1. Are you kind and thoughtful of other people? (R)
2. Are you mean to other people?
3. Do you like to tease and pick on other people?
4. Are you able to tell how other people feel? (R)
5. Do you try not to hurt other people's feelings? (R)

Lack of Planning

1. Do you plan things ahead? (R)
2. Do you set goals for yourself and try to reach them? (R)
3. Do you think about what you want to do with the rest of your life? (R)

Behavioral Disinhibition

1. Are you easily frustrated?
2. Do you get irritated or mad over little things?
3. Do you lose your temper easily?

Impulsivity

1. Do you think before doing or saying something? (R)
2. Do you think about your actions and behavior? (R)
3. Do you have a hard time waiting for things you want?

Unreliable

1. When you start working on something, do you stick with it? (R)
2. Can people count on you? (R)
3. Do you often have to break your promises?

Poverty of Affect
1. Are you a warm and kind person? (R)
DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 30
2. Do you make close friends with other people? (R)
3. Are your moods unpredictable?
4. Are you open with your feelings? (R)
5. Do your feelings come and go quickly?
6. Are you protective of people who are close to you? (R)
7. Do you sometimes fake your feelings?
8. Do you feel things very strongly? (R)
9. Do your feelings change often and quickly?
10. Are your feelings intense? (R)

Factor 2: Manipulative/Deceitful

Glibness
1. Do you try to be the center of attention?
2. Are you talkative?
3. Are you shy? (R)
4. Do you tell stories to make yourself look good?
5. Do you show off to get people to pay attention to you?

Untruthfulness
1. Are you open and honest? (R)
2. Can you be trusted? (R)
3. Are you a good liar?
4. Will you usually tell a lie if you think you can get away with it?
5. Do people usually believe you when you tell a lie?

Manipulative
1. Do you try to act charming or likable in order to get your way?
2. Do you try to take advantage of other people?
3. Do you try to get others to do what you want by getting on their good side?

Lack of Guilt
1. Do you usually feel bad or guilty after doing something wrong? (R)
2. Does it bother you when you do something wrong? (R)
3. Do you wish that you could take back many things that you have done? (R)

Failure to Accept Responsibility
1. Do you try to blame other people for things you have done?
2. When you get in trouble, can you talk your way out of it?
3. Do you think you get blamed for things you did not do?

Parasitic Lifestyle
1. Do you try to see how much you can get away with?
2. Do you take a lot and not give much in return?
3. Do you give or share things? (R)
4. Do you usually return what you borrow? (R)

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 31
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographic Information by Trajectory Group ................................................. 32!

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 32
Table 1: Demographic Information by Trajectory Group

N Age at
Wave 1
Age at
Wave 3
Sex Race/Ethnicity
Non-
Offenders
71 9.57 14.55 68% Female
32% Male
6% Asian
11% Black
28% Caucasian
38% Hispanic
17% Mixed
Low
Delinquents
49 9.60 14.74 55% Female
45% Male
14% Black
18% Caucasian
47% Hispanic
20% Mixed
Childhood-
Limited
20 9.64 14.70 40% Female
60% Male
5% Asian
5% Black
25% Caucasian
30% Hispanic
35% Mixed
Adolescent-
Onset
15 9.55 14.76 47% Female
53% Male
7% Asian
20% Black
20% Caucasian
40% Hispanic
13% Mixed
Early-Onset 6 9.55 14.49 50% Female
50% Male
16.7% Black
33.3% Caucasian
50.0% Hispanic
Total Sample 161 9.59 14.64 58% Female
42% Male
4% Asian
12% Black
24% Caucasian
40% Hispanic
19% Mixed

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 33
List of Figures
!
Figure 1: Childhood Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Delinquency Symptom Counts Over
Time .................................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 2: Triphasic Response Pattern, Wave 1…………………………………………. 35
Figure 3: Triphasic Response Pattern, Wave 3 ................................................................. 36!
Figure 4: Change in Baseline-Corrected D2 Component Across Waves ......................... 37!
Figure 5: Change in Baseline-Corrected UCR Component Across Waves ...................... 38!
Figure 6: Change in Disinhibited/Aggressive Traits Across Waves ................................ 39!
Figure 7: Disinhibited/Aggressive Traits by Trajectory Group, Wave 1 .......................... 40!
Figure 8: Disinhibited/Aggressive Traits by Trajectory Group, Wave 3 .......................... 41!
Figure 9: Change in Manipulative/Deceitful Traits Across Waves .................................. 42!
Figure 10: Manipulative/Deceitful Traits by Trajectory Group, Wave 1 ......................... 43!
Figure 11: Manipulative/Deceitful Traits by Trajectory Group, Wave 3 ......................... 44!

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 34
Figure 1: Childhood Behavior Checklist (CBCL) Delinquency Symptom Counts Over
Time

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 35
Figure 2: Triphasic Response Pattern, Wave 1

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 36
Figure 3: Triphasic Response Pattern, Wave 3

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 37
Figure 4: Change in Baseline-Corrected D2 Component Across Waves

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 38
Figure 5: Change in Baseline-Corrected UCR Component Across Waves

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 39
Figure 6: Change in Disinhibited/Aggressive Traits Across Waves

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 40
Figure 7: Disinhibited/Aggressive Traits by Trajectory Group, Wave 1

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 41
Figure 8: Disinhibited/Aggressive Traits by Trajectory Group, Wave 3

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 42
Figure 9: Change in Manipulative/Deceitful Traits Across Waves

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 43
Figure 10: Manipulative/Deceitful Traits by Trajectory Group, Wave 1

DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 44
Figure 11: Manipulative/Deceitful Traits by Trajectory Group, Wave 3

Abstract (if available)

Abstract There are multiple pathways to antisocial behavior, including early‐onset/life‐course persistent, adolescent‐onset/limited, childhood‐limited, and low/non‐offending, all of which are characterized by unique sets of risk/protective factors. One major goal of research in developmental psychopathology is to identify these factors in order to inform future efforts at early intervention and prevention. After identifying distinct ASB trajectory groups based on longitudinal data from the Southern California Twin Study of Risk Factors for Antisocial Behavior, we set out to explore how physiological responses to stress and psychopathic traits differ among members of these groups during both childhood (ages 9-10) and adolescence (ages 14-15). Two particularly novel findings emerged: (1) during childhood, future adolescent‐onset offenders exhibited cardiac hyperreactivity to an aversive stimulus and (2) different trajectories of antisocial behavior yielded distinct trajectories of psychopathic traits. These findings add to a growing body of research that attests to the dynamic nature of antisocial behavior across the lifespan.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Nice by nature? A twin study of the development and physiology of prosocial personality

PDF

Different genetic and environmental structures for the overlap of three antisocial behavior factors with alcohol initiation

PDF

The development of electrodermal fear conditioning from ages 3 to 8 years and relationships with antisocial behavior at age 8 years

PDF

Psychometric and biometric evaluation of psychopathic personality traits in 9 and 10 year old twins

PDF

Early temperamental and psychophysiological precursors of adult psychopathic personality

PDF

Patterns of EEG spectral power in 9-10 year old twins and their relationships with aggressive and nonaggressive antisocial behavior in childhood and adolescence

PDF

Psychophysiological and behavioral characteristics of individuals with both antisocial personality disorder and schizophrenia-spectrum personality disorder

PDF

Developmental etiology of reactive and proactive aggression, electrodermal reactivity and their relationships: a twin study

PDF

Multivariate biometric modeling among multiple traits across different raters in child externalizing behavior studies

PDF

Construct validity of psychopathic personality traits in a cohort of young twins

PDF

Psychopathic traits and the fronto-amygdala circuit in a community sample: the role of trait anxiety

PDF

Perception of experimentally manipulated state extraversion and extraversion-linked behaviors

PDF

Adolescent life stress and the cortisol awakening response: the moderating roles of emotion regulation, attachment, and gender

PDF

Biometric models of psychopathic traits in adolescence: a comparison of item-level and sum-score approaches

PDF

A comparison of standard and alternative measurement models for dealing with skewed data with applications to longitudinal data on the child psychopathy scale

PDF

Antecedents of marijuana initiation

PDF

Risky behaviors, interpersonal conflict, and their relation to fluctuations in adolescents’ diurnal HPA rhythms

PDF

Examining the longitudinal relationships between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior among a sample of maltreated and non-maltreated adolescents

PDF

The relationship between pubertal timing and delinquent behavior in maltreated male and female adolescents

PDF

A longitudinal study of sexual minority stress and behavioral health in sexual minority adolescents

Asset Metadata

Creator Berntsen, Leslie (author)

Core Title Psychophysiological reactivity to stress, psychopathic traits, and developmental trajectories of antisocial behavior: a prospective, longitudinal study

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 04/17/2015

Defense Date 05/15/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag adolescence,antisocial behavior,delinquency,Development,OAI-PMH Harvest,psychopathic traits,psychophysiology

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Baker, Laura A. (committee chair), Dawson, Michael Edward (committee member), Farver, Jo Ann M. (committee member)

Creator Email leslie.berntsen@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-551843

Unique identifier UC11297518

Identifier etd-BerntsenLe-3330.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-551843 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BerntsenLe-3330.pdf

Dmrecord 551843

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Berntsen, Leslie

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA