An examination of the developmental propensity model of conduct problems.

HHS Public Access Author manuscript Author Manuscript

J Abnorm Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 May 01. Published in final edited form as: J Abnorm Psychol. 2016 May ; 125(4): 550–564. doi:10.1037/abn0000128.

An Examination of the Developmental Propensity Model of Conduct Problems

Author Manuscript

Soo Hyun Rhee, Naomi P. Friedman, Robin P. Corley, John K. Hewitt, Laura K. Hink, Daniel P. Johnson, Ashley K. Smith Watts, Susan E. Young, JoAnn Robinson, Irwin D. Waldman, and Carolyn Zahn-Waxler Soo Hyun Rhee, Naomi P. Friedman, John K. Hewitt, Laura K. Hink, Daniel P. Johnson, Ashley K. Smith Watts, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado Boulder. Robin P. Corley, Institute for Behavioral Genetics, University of Colorado Boulder. Susan E. Young, Division of Substance Dependence, University of Colorado Denver. JoAnn Robinson, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Connecticut, Irwin D. Waldman, Department of Psychology, Emory University, Carolyn ZahnWaxler, University of Wisconsin–Madison. Daniel P. Johnson is now at VA Boston Healthcare System. Ashley K. Smith Watts is now at Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Alpert Medical School of Brown University

Abstract

Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

The present study tested specific hypotheses advanced by the developmental propensity model of the etiology of conduct problems in the Colorado Longitudinal Twin Study, a prospective, longitudinal, genetically informative sample. High negative emotionality, low behavioral inhibition, low concern and high disregard for others, and low cognitive ability assessed during toddlerhood (age 14 to 36 months) were examined as predictors of conduct problems in later childhood and adolescence (age 4 to 17 years). Each hypothesized antisocial propensity dimension predicted conduct problems, but some predictions may be context specific or due to method covariance. The most robust predictors were observed disregard for others (i.e., responding to others’ distress with active, negative responses such as anger and hostility), general cognitive ability, and language ability, which were associated with conduct problems reported by parents, teachers, and adolescents, and change in observed negative emotionality (i.e., frustration tolerance), which was associated with conduct problems reported by teachers and adolescents. Furthermore, associations between the most robust early predictors and later conduct problems were influenced by the shared environment rather than genes. We conclude that shared environmental influences that promote disregard for others and detract from cognitive and language development during toddlerhood also predispose individuals to conduct problems in later childhood and adolescence. The identification of those shared environmental influences common to early antisocial propensity and later conduct problems is an important future direction, and additional developmental behavior genetic studies examining the interaction between children’s characteristics and socializing influences on conduct problems are needed.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Soo Hyun Rhee, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Campus Box 345, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0345. [email protected]. Preliminary results of this study were presented at the annual meeting of the Behavior Genetics Association on June 25, 2012 in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Rhee et al.

Page 2

Author Manuscript

Keywords conduct problems; antisocial behavior; development; antisocial propensity; etiology

Author Manuscript

Early-onset conduct problems have adverse impact on the individuals with the problems, their families, and society as a whole, making it important that we understand their etiology. The “developmental propensity model” (Lahey & Waldman, 2003) advances specific and testable hypotheses regarding the etiology of conduct problems, proposing negative emotionality, daring, low prosociality, and low cognitive abilities as distinct components of an “antisocial propensity” that influences the development of conduct problems through transactions with the environment. Although this model has been tested and supported in several studies examining older children (6- to 18-year-olds; Lahey et al., 2008; Lahey, Rathouz, Applegate, Tackett, & Waldman, 2010; Taylor, Allan, Mikolajewski, & Hart, 2013; Trentacosta, Hyde, Shaw, & Cheong, 2009; Waldman et al., 2011), prospective longitudinal studies examining whether very early antisocial propensity predicts later conduct problems have not been conducted. To address this gap, the present study examined negative emotionality, low behavioral inhibition, low concern and high disregard for others, and low cognitive ability assessed during toddlerhood (age 14 to 36 months) as predictors of conduct problems in later childhood and adolescence (age 4 to 17).

The Developmental Propensity Model

Author Manuscript

Lahey and Waldman (2003) defined temperament as “substantially heritable and relatively persistent individual differences in global aspects of socio-emotional responding that emerge early in childhood and constitute the foundation for many personality traits later in life,” and psychopathology as “more specific behaviors with serious consequences for adaptive functioning” (p. 80–81). They conducted a literature review to identify temperament constructs that are not part of the definition of conduct problems but are developmental antecedents to conduct problems, and conducted exploratory factor analyses and construct validity analyses that led them to conclude that the dimensions of negative emotionality, daring, and low prosocial behaviors are independent from one another and significantly related to conduct problems. Lahey and Waldman also suggest that low cognitive abilities are another risk factor for conduct problems, and called the three temperamental traits and low cognitive abilities dimensions of “antisocial propensity.” They suggested that the risks for conduct problems can be assessed comprehensively only if the multiple dimensions of antisocial propensity are examined simultaneously.

Author Manuscript

Negative emotionality Negative emotionality is the tendency to experience negative emotions frequently, intensely, and with little provocation. Children with high negative emotionality are easily and intensely upset by frustration, and would find the act of opposing or circumventing frustrating rules and restrictions placed by adults to be reinforcing (Lahey et al., 2008). High negative emotionality also interferes with positive social relationships and socialization of behavior (Waldman et al., 2011). Many researchers have found a positive association between negative emotionality and conduct problems (e.g., Gjone & Stevenson, 1997; Hink et al.,

J Abnorm Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 May 01.

Rhee et al.

Page 3

Author Manuscript

2013), although others have not (e.g., Furnham & Thompson, 1991; John, Caspi, Robins, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1994). Daring

Author Manuscript

Daring is characterized by adventurousness and enjoyment of loud, rough, and risky activities. Lahey and Waldman (2003) note that it is similar to several constructs defined by other researchers, including sensation seeking (Zuckerman, 1996) and novelty seeking (e.g., Cloninger, 1987). Children who are high in daring are hypothesized to be at greater risk of developing conduct problems because they would find the consequences of misbehavior (e.g., running from the police) reinforcing and exciting, whereas children low in daring would find the same experiences aversive and punishing (Lahey et al., 2008; Waldman et al., 2011). The single item “daring” during childhood is a robust predictor of future criminal offending (Farrington & West, 1993), and constructs similar to daring such as novelty seeking (e.g., Hink et al., 2013) have been associated with conduct problems in several studies. Lahey and Waldman note that daring may be inversely associated with Kagan’s construct of behavioral inhibition (e.g., Kagan, Reznick, Snidman, Gibbons, & Johnson, 1988). Studies that classify toddlers as “behaviorally inhibited” or “disinhibited” based on laboratory observations of novel situations such as an unfamiliar adult or toy found that “disinhibited” children are more likely to have later conduct problems (e.g., Biederman et al., 2001). Prosociality

Author Manuscript

Prosociality is a dimension of temperament characterized by dispositional sympathy for others based on theoretical foundations provided by Eisenberg and Mussen (1991), Hoffman (1982), and Zahn-Waxler, Robinson, and Emde (1992). Empathy, the ability to comprehend and emotionally experience another’s distress, is a related construct that may manifest in prosocial behaviors indicating concern for others. Prosociality is hypothesized to facilitate adaptive social bonding and cooperation (e.g., social praise for appropriate behavior being reinforcing to prosocial children; Lahey et al., 2008), whereas children with low prosociality will find the adverse social consequences of their transgressions (e.g., causing distress in their victims) less aversive and punishing (Waldman et al., 2011). There is a significant negative association between empathy and antisocial behavior (Miller & Eisenberg, 1988; Hastings, Zahn-Waxler, Robinson, Usher, & Bridges, 2000) and evidence of common deficits between low empathy and high antisocial behavior (e.g., Shirtcliff et al., 2009). Also, peer ratings on a prosocial behavior scale at age 8 years predicted criminal offenses by age 27 years, even after controlling for early conduct problems and school failure (Haemaelaeinen & Pulkkinen, 1996).

Author Manuscript

Recently, Rhee, Friedman, et al. (2013) examined the association between empathy and conduct problems in the same sample examined here. There was a significant distinction between concern for others in distress (i.e., a composite construct encompassing the behavioral, affective, and cognitive factors associated with empathic and prosocial reactions such as helping and showing concern for the victim) and disregard for others in distress (i.e., responding to others’ distress with active, negative responses such as anger and hostility) assessed during toddlerhood (referred to as “concern for others” and “disregard for others”


Rhee et al.

Page 4

Author Manuscript

throughout the manuscript). Contrary to predictions, lower concern for others did not predict higher conduct problems, but observed disregard for others was a significant and robust predictor of conduct problems assessed by three different informants (parent, teacher, and self reports). These results are consistent with results showing that empathy deficits (such as those accompanying autism spectrum disorders) are not always associated with antisocial behavior (e.g., Jones, Happé, Gilbert, Burneet, & Viding, 2010), and the suggestion that conduct disorder is associated with “active” empathy deficits characterized by aggressive responses to others’ distress rather than “passive” empathy deficits characterized by a lack of interest or capacity for empathy (Decety & Meyer, 2008). Low cognitive abilities

Author Manuscript

Lahey and Waldman (2003) proposed low cognitive abilities as another risk factor for conduct problems. Many studies show a negative association between cognitive abilities and conduct problems (e.g., Bogg & Finn, 2010), which remains after controlling for socioeconomic status, the more frequent detection of less intelligent criminals, and test motivation (e.g., Lynam, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1993; Moffitt & Silva, 1988). Lahey and Waldman (2003) and others (e.g., Manninen et al., 2013) note that deficits in verbal ability may be more strongly related to conduct problems than deficits in nonverbal ability. However, not all studies provide results supporting this hypothesis (e.g., Raine, Yaralian, Reynolds, Venables, & Mednick, 2002). Antisocial propensity dimensions as predictors of conduct problems


Figure 1 depicts the main hypotheses of the developmental propensity model. Lahey and Waldman (2003) hypothesized that genes do not influence conduct problems directly, but indirectly via the four dimensions of antisocial propensity. The three dimensions of temperament are essentially orthogonal, with unique genetic influences; note that the genes influencing negative emotionality, prosociality, and daring also influence conduct problems, but not the other temperament dimensions. In contrast, it is unclear whether cognitivelinguistic deficits are fully independent of the three dimensions of temperament, given evidence that “undercontrolled” youths have lower intelligence scores (Robins, Johns, Caspi, Moffitt, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1996) and suggestions of associations between cognitivelinguistic abilities and negative emotionality (Blair, 2002). Furthermore, the brain’s orienting network, involved in orienting to sensory events, plays an important role in emotional control during infancy (Rothbart, Sheese, Rueda, & Posner, 2011). Also, a recent study of the sample examined here found significant associations between language ability and concern and disregard for others (Rhee, Boeldt, et al., 2013). Therefore, the influences shared in common between cognitive ability and conduct problems also may influence the other temperament dimensions, as indicated by the dashed lines in Figure 1.

Support for the Developmental Propensity Model and the Present Study There is a great deal of support for the developmental propensity model in the literature from several independent samples. First, Lahey et al. (2008) reported the psychometric characteristics of the Child and Adolescent Dispositions Scale (CADS), which measures prosociality, negative emotionality, and daring and was developed to test the developmental


Rhee et al.

Page 5


propensity model of conduct problems. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed evidence of three dispositional dimensions, which were modestly correlated. Caretaker ratings of each disposition accounted for unique variance in both caretaker- and youth-reported CD symptoms, suggesting that the associations between temperament and conduct problems are not simply due to method covariance. Lahey et al. (2010) developed a youth self-report version (CADS-Y), for which the three-factor model also fit best. Again, all three dimensions, which were modestly associated, were significantly associated with both caretaker- and youth-rated CD symptoms. Trentacosta et al. (2009) also found that prosociality, daring, and negative emotionality assessed via the CADS and CADS-Y at age 12 additively and independently predicted a latent antisocial behavior factor with loadings on youth-reported antisocial behavior at age 15, conduct disorder symptoms assessed via a clinical interview at age 15, and court records at age 15–18 assessed during adolescence, after controlling for earlier antisocial behavior. Waldman et al. (2011) showed that lower prosociality, higher negative emotionality, and higher daring were independently associated with conduct disorder (CD) symptoms. There were significant common genetic influences between CD and the three distinct socioemotional dispositions, and the best fitting model suggested that genetic factors for the three dispositions were orthogonal. Taylor et al. (2013) extended the model to a broader externalizing spectrum of child disorders, including CD, inattention, hyperactivity/impulsivity, and oppositional defiant disorder. Their results were similar to Waldman et al.’s, although they found evidence for common genetic influences across antisocial propensity dimensions and externalizing disorders.

Author Manuscript

These results clearly suggest that the three dispositional dimensions of negative emotionality, daring, and prosociality are associated with conduct problems, that these associations are not due to method covariance, and that there are common genetic influences between the antisocial propensity and conduct problems. They are further supported by studies showing that observational measures of negative emotionality (e.g., Hughes, White, Sharpen, & Dunn, 2000), daring (e.g., Biederman et al., 2001), prosociality (e.g., Hastings et al., 2000; Hughes et al., 2000), and low cognitive abilities (e.g., Murray, Irving, Farrington, Colman, & Bloxsom, 2010) are associated with conduct problems. However, additional studies addressing how early antisocial propensity can be measured, how it develops over time, and how early in life it is predictive of later conduct problems are needed. Also, a study examining the prediction of later conduct problems from very early observational measures of all antisocial propensity dimensions simultaneously has yet to be conducted.

Author Manuscript

To address these gaps, the present study examined the associations between antisocial propensity dimensions assessed during toddlerhood (14 to 36 months) and conduct problems assessed in childhood and adolescence (4 to 17 years). We examined the earliest available antisocial propensity assessments, given that a major unanswered question regarding the developmental propensity model of conduct problems is how early antisocial propensity can be measured. Lahey et al. (2003) predicted that the model should be extended to the earliest phases of the development of conduct problems, and that antisocial propensity dimensions can be assessed reliably before preschool. Also, the preschool years are an important period during which humans learn to regulate the use of physical aggression (Tremblay et al., 2004) and prevention and intervention efforts may be particularly effective (Shaw, 2013). In the present study, antisocial propensity dimensions examined included negative emotionality, J Abnorm Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 May 01.

Rhee et al.

Page 6

Author Manuscript

behavioral inhibition (a construct that may be inversely associated with daring), concern and disregard for others (constructs closely related to prosociality), general cognitive ability, and language ability. These dimensions were chosen given the similarity of the constructs available to those discussed in the original model, and because the reliability and validity of these assessments in toddlerhood were established in previous studies (Rhee et al., 2012; Rhee, Boeldt, et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2012).

Author Manuscript

Lahey and Waldman (2003) noted that the greatest threat to the validity of the developmental propensity model is that associations may be due to method covariance; i.e., participants’ answers to questions regarding antisocial propensity may influence their answers to questions about conduct problems. They noted that characteristics of the ideal study testing the developmental propensity model include: 1) examination of the hypotheses in a representative sample to avoid sampling biases that create false correlations; 2) different informants for antisocial propensity and conduct problems to reduce the potential effect of method covariance; 3) prospective, longitudinal data beginning early in childhood to test predictions about future development of conduct problems; and 4) a genetically informative population-based sample to test hypotheses regarding common genetic influences.

Author Manuscript

The present study examined the developmental propensity model in the Colorado Longitudinal Twin Study (LTS), which has all of the characteristics of the ideal study, including a representative sample, both parent-reported and observed assessments of antisocial propensity, a longitudinal design examining the prospective association between antisocial propensity and conduct problems assessed by three informants, and a genetically informative sample. Three main questions were addressed: 1) Does each antisocial propensity dimension predict conduct problems across informants (i.e., parent-, teacher-, and self-reported conduct problems)?; 2) Do the antisocial propensity dimensions independently predict conduct problems after controlling for common variance?; 3) Are the covariances between antisocial propensity dimensions and conduct problems due to genetic or environmental influences?

Method Participants

Author Manuscript

Participants were recruited from the Colorado Longitudinal Twin Study, a sample of 483 same-sex twin pairs (966 individuals). Parents of twins born in the state of Colorado between 1986 and 1990 were initially contacted via the Colorado Department of Health. Enrolled participants met health criteria (birth weight not lower than 1000 grams and gestational age of at least 34 weeks) and lived within a two-hour drive of Boulder, CO. More than 50% of the families initially contacted met the inclusion criteria and enrolled in the study. The ethnicity distribution of the LTS (86.6% Caucasian, 8.5% Hispanic, 0.7% African–American, 1.2% Asian, and 2.9% other), corresponds well to that reported for Boulder County, Colorado in the United States Census in 1990 (89.5% Caucasian, 3.8% Hispanic, 0.9% African–American, 2.4% Asian, and 3.4% other). Of the parents, 5% did not complete high school, 29% completed high school without post-secondary education, 49% had some post-secondary education, and 17% had some graduate-level education; the mean number of years of education was 14.29 years for mothers and 14.42 years for fathers. J Abnorm Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 May 01.

Rhee et al.

Page 7

Author Manuscript

The present study examined 956 individuals (484 females and 472 males; 261 monozygotic [MZ] twin pairs and 215 dizygotic [DZ] twin pairs1) who had data for at least one measure. Appendix 1 in the Supplemental Online Materials presents the sample size for each measure. Written informed consent was obtained from the parents after complete description of the study. More details regarding the LTS are available in Rhea, Gross, Haberstick, and Corley (2006; 2013). Details regarding the home and laboratory visits that occurred at ages 14, 20, 24, and 36 months are elaborated in Robinson, McGrath, and Corley (2001). Procedure

Author Manuscript

Zygosity was determined using tester ratings of twin similarity on 10 physical characteristics (Nichols & Bilbro, 1966) each time the twins were seen in person across the ages. Twins rated highly similar were coded as MZ, and those with two or more features rated only somewhat similar or not at all similar were coded DZ. Zygosity was considered unambiguous if 85% of the raters agreed, and blood testing was used to resolve ambiguity in nine twin pairs. Zygosity ratings were confirmed using 11 polymorphic DNA microsatellite markers. Measures

Author Manuscript

More information regarding the reliability and validity of measures examined here can be found in Rhee et al. (2012), Rhee, Boeldt, et al. (2013), and Smith et al. (2012). For several measures described below, results from confirmatory factor analyses indicated that there is an underlying latent factor with significant loadings on the individual measures examined. Composite scores were examined rather than latent variables given that they were used in other, more complex models such as latent growth curve analyses, biometrical genetic analyses, and models combining latent growth curve analyses and biometrical genetic analyses. Negative emotionality—Negative emotionality, the tendency to experience negative emotions frequently, intensely, and with little provocation, is an antisocial propensity in the developmental propensity model. The present study included children’s responses to mildly frustrating events and parent report of negative emotionality.

Author Manuscript

Two coding schemes were used to assess observed negative emotionality at 14, 20, and 24 months. In the Frustration coding scheme, expressivity, protest strength, and distress strength were assessed in the Restraint protocol, during which children were restrained as the examiner put on an identifying vest or bib on the child and as the child was measured and instructed to lie still, and in the Toy Removal protocol, when a toy was abruptly taken away after the child was intently involved with the toy for 2 minutes. The inter-rater reliability was 0.69 for expressivity, 0.75 for protest strength, and 0.89 for distress. The Frustration score was the sum of expressivity, protest strength, and distress strength scores during each task. In the Negative Hedonic Tone coding scheme (Emde & Easterbrooks, 1983), the child’s strongest negative affect during the administration of a cognitive ability test was recorded during 1-minute intervals within four 5-minute segments. The inter-rater reliability was .84.

1Zygosity could not be confirmed for two twin pairs.


Rhee et al.

Page 8

Author Manuscript

The Negative Hedonic Tone score was the average negative affect score across all intervals coded. A composite score for observed negative emotionality was created by averaging the standardized scores for Toy Removal, Restraint, and Negative Hedonic Tone; the composite was normally distributed at each age.

Author Manuscript

Parental ratings of toddler negative emotionality were assessed at 14, 20, 24, and 36 months using three questionnaire measures: mother and father ratings on the emotionality scale of the Colorado Childhood Temperament Inventory (CCTI; Rowe & Plomin 1977), mother ratings of negative disposition on the Differential Emotions Scale (DES; Izard, Huebner, Risser, McGinnes, & Dougherty, 1980), and mother and father ratings on the mood scale of the Toddler Temperament Scale (TTS; Carey & McDevitt 1978). When available, averages of mother and father ratings were used to reduce measurement error. A composite score for parent-rated negative emotionality was created by averaging the “CCTI Emotionality”, “DES negative disposition”, and “TTS mood” scales after standardizing them; the composite was normally distributed at each age. Behavioral inhibition—The developmental propensity model includes daring (characterized by adventurousness and enjoyment of loud, rough, and risky activities) as a predictor of later conduct problems. We examined behavioral inhibition, which may be inversely associated with daring.

Author Manuscript

Observed measures of behavioral inhibition included “approach” (i.e., shyness, proximity to the researcher [reverse coded], and playing with a novel toy during the first five minutes of the home visit [reverse coded]), “cling” (proximity to mother, touching mother, and clinging to mother during the first five minutes of the home visit), “fearfulness” (examiner’s rating of level of fearfulness using the Infant Behavior Record (Matheny, 1980) during cognitive testing, and “lab visit shyness” (examiner’s global ratings of shyness and hesitation towards stranger during the lab visit) assessed at 14, 20, and 24 months. Inter-rater reliability was high, with kappas between .86 to greater than .95 (Emde et al., 1992) and intraclass correlation coefficients between .77 and .99 (Robinson, Kagan, Reznick, & Corley, 1992). A composite score of observed behavioral inhibition was created by averaging the four scores after standardizing them; the composite score was normally distributed at each age.

Author Manuscript

Parental ratings of toddler behavioral inhibition included an average of the mother and father ratings of shyness on the CCTI (Rowe & Plomin 1977), mother ratings of fearfulness on the DES (Izard et al. 1980), and mother and father ratings of approach on the TTS (Carey & McDevitt 1978), and were assessed at 14, 20, 24, and 36 months. The parent-rated composite score of behavioral inhibition was created by averaging “CCTI Shy”, “DES Fear”, and “TTS Approach” after standardizing them; the composite score was normally distributed at each age. Concern and disregard for others—Prosociality, characterized by dispositional sympathy for others, is a predictor of conduct problems in the developmental propensity model. The present study examined children’s concern and disregard for others in distress.


Rhee et al.

Page 9

Author Manuscript

At 14, 20, 24, and 36 months, in separate sessions, the mother and the examiner pretended to hurt herself for 30 seconds, during which she vocalized pain and simulated pained facial expressions, with gradually subsiding distress during the next 30 seconds. At 14, 20, and 24 months, a recording of an infant crying broadcast from a speaker (in a room containing ten toys, including a baby doll) was also an empathy probe. Children’s responses were coded, and the variables included in the present study are “concern for victim”, “helps victim”, “proximity to victim”, “hypothesis testing”, “anger”, “hits offending object”, and “hostility”; interobserver reliabilities ranged from .76 to .99.

Author Manuscript

Concern and disregard for others were also assessed via mother interview at 14, 20, 24, and 36 months. Mothers were asked, “Do you ever see ___ spontaneously help (prompt: pick up things, getting dressed, offering toy)?”, and to answer “yes” or “no” to the possible responses shown by their children, including “approaches”, “comforts”, “hits”, “runs”, and “laughs”, when either the co-twin or mother is distressed. Codes across empathy probes or situations were averaged to maximize reliability. The average scores were highly skewed, so they were transformed into ordinal variables, with the number of categories chosen to maximize variability while avoiding small cell sizes (three or four categories for the observed concern for others items, two categories for the observed disregard for others items, four to six categories for the mother-rated concern for others items, and four categories for the mother-rated disregard for others).

Author Manuscript

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses suggested two factors underlying the items (“concern for others” and “disregard for others”) from mother interviews and observations at each age. In the mother interviews, “helps”, “approaches”, and “comforts” loaded on one factor and “hits”, “runs”, and “laughs” loaded on another factor, and in the observations, “concern for victim”, “helps victim”, “proximity to victim”, and “hypothesis testing” loaded on one factor and “anger”, “hits offending object”, and “hostility” loaded on another factor (Rhee, Boeldt, et al., 2013). Given several cases of bivariate missingness when examining longitudinal data from 14 to 36 months (e.g., no individual with a positive score for “hits offending object” at 14 months and “anger” at 24 months), composite variables were created for mother-rated concern and disregard for others and observed concern and disregard for others at each age by summing the items loading on each factor (for individuals with data for all items). These sums, which were significantly skewed, were transformed into ordinal variables with four categories for mother-rated concern for others, observed concern for others, and mother-rated disregard for others, and three categories for observed disregard for others.

Author Manuscript

Cognitive and language ability—General cognitive ability was assessed via the Mental Developmental Index of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley, 1969) at 14, 20, and 24 months and the intelligence quotient score from Stanford-Binet, Form L–M (Terman & Merrill, 1973) at 36 months. The Sequenced Inventory of Communication Development (SICD; Hedrick, Prather, & Tobin, 1975) was used to assess both expressive (e.g., “What do you wear on your feet?”)


Rhee et al.

Page 10

Author Manuscript

and receptive (e.g., “Give me the cup and ball.”) language ability at 14, 20, 24, and 36 months. The same set of items was given at ages 14, 20, and 24 months, but different items were assessed at 36 months. Results for the average of the expressive and receptive scales are presented, as they were similar when expressive and receptive scales were examined separately. Observed aggression—At 14, 20, and 24 months, a free play session at home was observed. Toys were set in a standardized array on the floor in the family’s living room. The mother was instructed not to interact with the twins, and the children played freely without interruption by the examiners for 15 minutes. Coders rated the level of aggression (unaggressive to highly aggressive) of each twin’s interactions with the co-twin.

Author Manuscript

Conduct problems—The Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL/4–18; Achenbach, 1991a) was mailed to the twins’ parents at age 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12, and the Teacher’s Report Form (TRF; Achenbach, 1991b) was mailed to the twins’ teachers yearly from age 7 to 12. The externalizing scale scores of the CBCL and the TRF were skewed; therefore, they were binned into ordinal variables with four categories, with the number of categories chosen to avoid small cell sizes.

Author Manuscript

Conduct disorder symptoms were assessed on the twins via the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children-IV (Shaffer, Fisher, Lucas, Dulcan, & Schwab-Stone, 2000) at age 17. The stem questions for the conduct disorder symptoms occurring over the lifetime were assessed to examine the presence/absence of conduct problems; in this general population sample, past year conduct disorder symptoms (as defined by the DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) were not common. Two items, “stealing with confrontation” (0.8%) and “forced sex” (0.1%) were dropped from the analyses because of their extremely low prevalence. The percentage of the sample with a positive score in the remaining items ranged from 1.5% (cruelty to animals) to 38.1% (stealing without confrontation); see Appendix 2 of the Supplemental Online Materials. Analyses

Author Manuscript

Three main questions were addressed. First, we fit a series of models examining the associations between the four antisocial propensity dimensions and conduct problems. Second, we conducted multiple regression analyses to address whether the antisocial propensity dimensions independently predict conduct problems after controlling for other predictors. Third, we fit biometrical genetic models to examine whether the covariances between antisocial propensity dimensions and conduct problems are due to genetic or environmental influences. All analyses were conducted in Mplus, version 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). Given some ordinal data, analyses were conducted using the weighted least squares, mean and variance adjusted (WLSMV) estimation method, with which pairwise deletion is used to handle missing data. The default for the minimum covariance coverage (i.e., proportion of values present for pairwise combinations of variables) required for model convergence is .10 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012), and the range of the covariance coverage in the present study is .26 to .83. Nonindependence of twin pairs was taken into account when computing J Abnorm Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 May 01.

Rhee et al.

Page 11

Author Manuscript

standard errors and model fit using the TYPE=COMPLEX option. The parameters’ significance was determined by p-values for the z-statistic (the ratio of the parameter estimate to its standard error). If there was an inconsistency between the conclusions regarding the parameter significance reached from the p value and the result of a χ2 difference test between a full model and a reduced model where the parameter was dropped, the χ2 difference test was used. Given that the χ2 is sensitive to sample size, supplementary fit indices were examined, including the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; Bentler, 1990) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993). A TLI greater than .95 and RMSEA less than .06 indicate good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1998).


Each antisocial propensity dimension was assessed at three or four time points. We examined the association between the antisocial propensity and conduct problems in two ways. First, we examined models assuming that there is a latent variable reflecting the common variance underlying the antisocial propensity assessments across the ages, with freed loadings at all time points. In these models, we were able to examine antisocial propensity examined at all time points, despite some changes in assessments from age 24 to 36 months for some constructs, including general cognitive ability and language ability. Second, latent growth curve modeling was conducted to examine the possibility that individuals’ changes in antisocial propensity are associated with conduct problems. For example, it is possible that children whose cognitive ability develops slowly, or whose negative emotionality increases, during toddlerhood might be at greater risk for later conduct problems. These analyses were limited to antisocial propensity measured in the same scale across the time points. In the growth models, the latent Intercept has an unstandardized loading of 1.0 on all time points, indicating that the Intercept influences behavior across all time points. The latent Slope factor has loadings constrained to zero for the first time point, 1.0 for the last time point, and freely estimated for the intermediate time points. With this parameterization, the Intercept captures individual differences in initial levels and the variance that is stable and shared in common across time with the initial time point, whereas the Slope represents individual differences in change (which is allowed to be nonlinear) from the initial time point.

Author Manuscript

Conduct problems were examined via parent report, teacher report, and self report. First, a correlated factors model with correlations between latent parent (with loadings on each age), teacher (with loadings on each age), and self report (with loadings on the individual items) factors was examined; this model fit the data well, χ2 (296) = 420.54, p < .01, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .02. Second, a hierarchical model with a higher order conduct problems factor that had loadings on the parent-, teacher-, and self-report latent factors was examined. This model is equivalent to the correlated factors model when only the conduct problems are examined. In models examining the correlations between the antisocial propensity dimensions and conduct problems, it represents the hypothesis that the antisocial propensity influences conduct problems through the higher order factor, or the common variance across the three informants. Third, we conducted latent growth curve modeling for parent and teacher reports, for which the same measure was assessed at multiple time points. See Appendix 3 in Supplemental Online Materials for figures depicting the correlated factors model, the hierarchical model, and the latent growth curve models.


Rhee et al.

Page 12

Author Manuscript

We examined potential gender differences in the association between antisocial propensity and conduct problems, given significant gender differences in the level of conduct problems (e.g., Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001). We conducted a series of analyses where males and females were analyzed in separate groups2. In these analyses, there were several instances of bivariate missingness (e.g., a zero cell in the bivariate table for “cruelty to animals” and teacher-reported conduct problems at several ages) when the sample was split into male and female groups, so four conduct disorder symptoms had to be deleted from the model. There was not a statistically significant difference between a model where the association between antisocial propensity and conduct problems was free to vary across males and females and a model in which the association was constrained to be equal, with one exception out of ten tests (for parent-reported behavioral inhibition, which had a significant, negative association with conduct problems in females and a non-significant positive association with conduct problems in males; χ2 (1) = 5.63, p = .02). Given these findings and the issue of bivariate missingness when males and females were examined separately, we conducted all analyses in the combined sample. For antisocial propensity dimensions that were robustly associated with conduct problems, we examined whether the associations remained significant after controlling for gender.

Author Manuscript

Power to detect a significant genetic correlation is not adequate with the current sample size if the genetic correlation and/or heritabilities are low. Therefore, we examined the effect sizes of all parameters from the full model, rather than interpreting models in which nonsignificant parameters are dropped from the model.

Results Author Manuscript

Does Each Antisocial Propensity Dimension Predict Conduct Problems Across Informants?

Author Manuscript

Table 1 shows the associations between the latent variables underlying the antisocial propensity assessments across the ages and conduct problems (i.e., the higher order conduct problems factor from the hierarchical model and parent, teacher, and self report factors from the correlated factors model). All models fit the data well (all TLI > .95 and RMSEA < .06). With the exception of concern for others, each antisocial propensity dimension predicted later conduct problems, evidenced by a significant correlation with the higher order conduct problems factor. The robustness of the associations varied, however. Higher observed and parent-reported behavioral inhibition predicted lower levels of only teacher-reported conduct problems, whereas parent-reported negative emotionality and parent-reported disregard for others only predicted parent-reported conduct problems. In fact, the hierarchical model fit significantly worse than the correlated factors model for parent-reported negative emotionality, χ2 (2) = 31.08, p < .01, and parent-reported disregard for others, χ2 (2) = 10.12, p < .01, suggesting that the association is limited to parent-reported conduct problems and the antisocial propensity does not influence conduct problems through the higher order factor. There was also a worse fit for the hierarchical model than the correlated factors model for parent-reported behavioral inhibition, χ2 (2) = 13.34, p < .01. In contrast, higher 2Factor loadings were equated between males and females in most analyses, when there was evidence of measurement invariance. Exceptions were observed negative emotionality and observed behavioral inhibition.


Rhee et al.

Page 13

Author Manuscript

observed disregard for others and lower general cognitive ability and language ability were associated with higher conduct problems reported by all three informants, and the hierarchical models did not fit significantly worse than the correlated factors models (ps = . 29 to .54). In general, results of analyses examining the association between the Intercept and Slope in growth models of the antisocial propensity variables and conduct problems were consistent with those in Table 1 (see Appendix 4 in Online Supplemental Materials). If there were significant associations between the latent antisocial propensity variable and conduct problems, there were significant associations between the Intercept of the antisocial propensity variable and conduct problems, with two notable exceptions.

Author Manuscript

First, neither the latent observed negative emotionality factor nor the Intercept of observed negative emotionality was associated with conduct problems. In fact, none of the associations between observed negative emotionality assessed at each age and conduct problems was statistically significant (see Appendix 5 in Supplementary Online Materials). However, there was a positive correlation between the Slope of observed negative emotionality and the higher order conduct problems factor (r = .12, p = .04), teacherreported conduct problems (r = .13, p = .03), and self-reported conduct problems (r = .13, p = .04), although the association with parent-reported conduct problems was not significant (r = −.02, p = .67). The mean of the Slope of negative emotionality was significant and negative (mean of slope = −.12, p < .01), suggesting that overall, toddlers’ negative emotionality decreased from 14 to 24 months. Toddlers who had a higher Slope, or exhibited less decline in negative emotionality between age 14 to 24 months, had a higher level of later conduct problems.

Author Manuscript

Second, although there was an inverse association between the latent general cognitive ability factor and conduct problems (see Table 1), conduct problems were associated only with the Slope, not the Intercept, of general cognitive ability (see Appendix 4). Examination of each time point indicated that the lack of an association with the Intercept can be explained by the fact that conduct problems were associated with general cognitive ability assessed at each age, except the initial assessment at 14 months (see Appendix 5).

Author Manuscript

Although there was some evidence of each antisocial propensity dimension predicting later conduct problems, some associations could be context specific or due to method covariance. In contrast, high observed disregard for others and low general cognitive ability and language ability robustly predicted conduct problems reported by all three informants, and less decline in negative emotionality predicted conduct problems reported by two informants (teachers and self). We conducted further analyses examining the associations between antisocial propensity and conduct problems reported by at least two informants to examine the robustness of the results (e.g., whether the results are limited to a particular age or due to inclusion of a particular item that really assesses conduct problems)3. First, the associations between antisocial propensity assessed at each age (14, 20, 24, and 36 months) and conduct problems were generally consistent with the overall results, and the association was statistically


Rhee et al.

Page 14


significant at 14 months for observed disregard for others and language ability (see Appendix 5 of the Supplementary Online Materials). Second, the associations between antisocial propensity and conduct problems assessed at each age (4 years to 17 years) were generally consistent, and did not suggest the association was limited to conduct problems assessed at a particular age (see Appendix 6). Third, to address the possibility that the association between early disregard for others and later conduct problems may be due to inclusion of items that really assess early conduct problems, we examined the association between each item loading on the observed disregard for others factor and found a significant association for all items (anger – r = .12, p = .02, hits offending object – r = .09, p = .04, hostility – r = .17, p < .01). We also examined whether early observed disregard for others predicted later conduct problems after controlling for early observed aggression (assessed at 14, 20, and 24 months) during a free play session with the co-twin. Observed aggression, which was significantly associated with both observed disregard for others (r = . 32; p = .05) and later conduct problems (r = .29; p = .02), did not predict conduct problems after controlling for observed disregard for others (β = .13, p = .34), whereas observed disregard for others predicted conduct problems after controlling for observed aggression (β = .47, p < .01). Do the antisocial propensity dimensions independently predict conduct problems?


There were significant associations between antisocial propensity dimensions (see Appendix 7 of the Supplementary Online Materials), including a significant association between the two antisocial propensity variables associated with all three assessments of conduct problems — lower cognitive ability and higher observed disregard for others (r = −.44, p < . 01)4. We conducted a multiple regression analysis within the structural equation model framework to examine whether either had an independent influence on the higher order conduct problems factor4. Observed disregard for others significantly predicted conduct problems (β = .44, p = .01) controlling for cognitive ability, but cognitive ability was not significant in this model (β = −.15, p = .24). We also fit a structural equation model examining the antisocial propensity variables associated with at least two assessments of conduct problems (i.e., cognitive ability, Slope of negative emotionality, and observed disregard for others), again predicting the higher order conduct problems factor. These propensities did not have significant independent influences on conduct problems (Intercept of cognitive ability, β = −.01, p = .89; Slope of cognitive ability, β = −.20, p = .13; Intercept of observed negative emotionality, β = −.12, p = .30; Slope of observed negative emotionality, β = .06, p = .50), with the exception of observed disregard for others, β = 46, p = .03. The variance explained in the higher order conduct problems latent factor model was 31%. Results suggest that common variance shared across cognitive ability, change in observed negative emotionality, and observed disregard predict conduct problems; in addition, observed disregard had an independent influence on conduct problems.

3Additional results are available upon request. They suggest that: 1) there are no robust associations between antisocial propensity and the Slope variable for parent- or teacher-reported conducted problems, 2) general cognitive ability and observed disregard for others were significantly associated with conduct problems after controlling for gender and socioeconomic status, 3) the association between general cognitive ability and conduct problems was not due to language ability, and 4) results for aggression and delinquency were very similar. 4Language ability was not included in these analyses given high collinearity between general cognitive and language ability at each age (r = .56 to .76).


Rhee et al.

Page 15

Author Manuscript

Are the Covariances Between Antisocial Propensity Dimensions and Conduct Problems Due to Genetic or Environmental Influences? General cognitive ability and observed disregard were significantly associated with conduct problems reported by all three informants. We fit biometrical genetic models, specifically a Cholesky decomposition (see Figure 2), to examine whether there are common genetic and environmental influences on cognitive ability, observed disregard, and the higher-order conduct problems factor. The results of the phenotypic analyses suggested that observed disregard had independent influences on conduct problems after controlling for the influences of general cognitive ability. Therefore, the order of the variables was 1) general cognitive ability, 2) observed disregard, and 3) conduct problems.

Author Manuscript

Using a latent variable approach was not possible because we encountered a number of bivariate missingness problems in the ordinal variables after the sample was split into four groups for the biometrical genetic analyses (i.e., MZ twin 1, MZ twin 2, DZ twin 1, and DZ twin 2). Therefore, analyses were conducted on mean cognitive ability5 and plausible values (i.e., imputed values for latent variables, or factor scores using Bayesian estimation; Asparouhov & Muthén, 2010; von Davier, Gonzalez, & Mislevy, 2009). Plausible values were imputed for observed disregard and parent-, teacher-, and self-reported conduct problems latent variables in 20 datasets using ESTIMATOR = BAYES, then analyzed in a secondary model. Genetic analyses using factor scores with WLSMV estimation and sums of items that loaded on the latent factors led to general conclusions that were generally similar to those using plausible values for latent variables.

Author Manuscript

Table 2 shows the MZ and DZ within-trait correlations for cognitive ability, observed disregard, and conduct problems, and the cross-trait cross-twin correlations for the associations between these variables6. For cognitive ability and conduct problems, the MZ within-trait correlations were higher than the DZ within-trait correlations, and the DZ within-trait correlations were greater than half of the MZ within-trait correlations, suggesting both genetic and shared environmental influences on cognitive ability and conduct problems. In contrast, for the within-trait correlations for observed disregard and the cross-trait correlations between antisocial propensity and conduct problems, the MZ and DZ correlations were very similar, suggesting no genetic influences but likely shared environmental influences.

Author Manuscript

Figure 2 shows the results of the Cholesky decomposition, which were consistent with those suggested by the twin correlations6. There were significant shared environmental influences common to cognitive ability, observed disregard, and conduct problems. There were also significant shared environmental influences common to observed disregard and conduct problems after controlling for cognitive ability. Finally, there were conduct problemsspecific genetic, shared environmental, and nonshared environmental influences. There was

5Mean cognitive ability was examined rather than latent variables or plausible values given the issue of linear dependency (i.e., the correlation between latent variables for twin 1 and twin 2 being greater than 1, due to correlations between twin 1 and twin 2 at each time point being greater than the correlations across time points within twin 1 or twin 2) and because residual correlations between time points were not possible in estimation of plausible values using ESTIMATOR = BAYES. 6Results were very similar when gender was included in the models as a covariate.


Rhee et al.

Page 16

Author Manuscript

no evidence for common genetic influences between antisocial propensity and conduct problems7.

Discussion The present study tested Lahey and Waldman’s developmental propensity model of conduct problems (2003), examining higher negative emotionality, lower behavioral inhibition (which was included because it may be inversely associated with daring), lower concern and higher disregard for others, and lower cognitive ability assessed during toddlerhood (14 to 36 months) as predictors of later conduct problems (4 to 17 years). We addressed new questions regarding how early antisocial propensity can be measured, how it develops over time, and how early it is predictive of later conduct problems.

Author Manuscript

Each hypothesized antisocial propensity dimension predicted later conduct problems, but several of these associations may be context-specific or due to method covariance, because these predictions were specific to particular raters. In contrast, higher observed disregard for others and lower general cognitive ability and language ability were associated with higher conduct problems reported by all three informants. Also, toddlers whose observed negative emotionality declined less from 14 to 24 months had more teacher- and self-reported conduct problems. Results suggested that observed disregard for others and language ability assessed as early as 14 months predict later conduct problems. Also noteworthy is the prospective association between the robust antisocial propensity and self-reported conduct problems, which were assessed via an independent method 14 years later.

Author Manuscript

It is possible that early observed disregard for others in response to others in distress predicts later conduct problems because particular items (e.g., “hits offending object”) may include an assessment of conduct problems, and the prediction simply reflects the continuity of conduct problems from toddlerhood to childhood and adolescence. When examined separately, all three items loading on the observed disregard for others (anger, hits offending object, hostility) were significantly associated with conduct problems. Also, early observed disregard for others predicted later conduct problems after controlling for observed aggression toward the co-twin during a free play session (assessed between 14 to 24 months), suggesting that continuity of conduct problems is not a likely explanation for the prediction.

Author Manuscript

The present study’s results did not provide evidence that all hypothesized antisocial propensities are robust predictors of later conduct problems. However, they do not necessarily refute the developmental propensity model. It is possible that the antisocial propensity dimensions that were not robust predictors of conduct problems are still developing and not yet stable during toddlerhood. This possibility is reinforced by results of several studies supporting the developmental propensity model in older children and

7We examined whether there were common genetic, shared environmental, and nonshared environmental influences between the Intercept and Slopes of negative emotionality and cognitive ability and conduct problems. There was a significant phenotypic association, but in general, we could not distinguish between genetic, shared environmental, and nonshared environmental influences on these associations (results available upon request).


Rhee et al.

Page 17

Author Manuscript

adolescents (6- to 18-year-olds; Lahey et al., 2008; Lahey et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2013; Trentacosta et al., 2009; Waldman et al., 2011).

Author Manuscript

Another possible reason for the discrepancies between the present study’s results and those of recent studies examining the Child and Adolescent Dispositions Scale (CADS) may be the differences in the operationalization of the antisocial propensity constructs. Some of the CADS items are not developmentally appropriate for toddlers. Also, although there is evidence for the reliability and validity of the antisocial propensity measures examined here (Rhee et al., 2012; Rhee, Boeldt, et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2012), they were chosen post-hoc rather than developed specifically to test the developmental propensity model, as the CADS was. Moreover, it was not possible to examine whether the very early antisocial propensity dimensions examined here and the CADS dimensions assess the same constructs, as the CADS was not available in our study. Therefore, the main differences in the operationalization of the antisocial propensity examined here and the CADS should be noted.

Author Manuscript

Lahey and Waldman (2003) define negative emotionality as experiencing negative emotions frequently, intensely, and with little provocation. In the present study, parent-reported negative emotionality, which assessed a construct similar to that assessed in CADS, predicted only parent-reported conduct problems. Observed negative emotionality, which was assessed during mildly frustrating situations such as toy removal, is more similar to Rothbart’s construct of anger/frustration, defined as negative affect related to the interruption of tasks or blocking of goals (Rothbart, Ahadi, & Evans, 2000). Change in observed negative emotionality predicted later conduct problems reported by teachers and adolescents; that is, those who are less successful in developing frustration tolerance between ages 14 and 24 months have a higher level of later conduct problems. Lahey and Waldman characterized daring as adventurousness and enjoyment of loud, rough, and risky activities. They note that daring may be inversely related to Kagan’s construct of behavioral inhibition (e.g., Kagan, Reznick, Snidman, Gibbons, & Johnson, 1988), the construct examined here, and cite studies showing that behaviorally “disinhibited” children are more likely to have later conduct problems (e.g., Biederman et al., 2001). However, results demonstrating the association between behavioral inhibition during toddlerhood and later daring are lacking. Both the parent-reported and observed behavioral inhibition predicted only teacher-reported conduct problems.

Author Manuscript

Finally, Lahey and Waldman’s definition of prosociality is similar to the parent-reported and observed concern for others examined here. Contrary to the predictions of the developmental propensity model, we found no associations between concern for others and later conduct problems. In contrast, observed disregard for others (i.e., responding to others’ distress with active, negative responses such as anger and hostility) was a robust predictor of conduct problems. These results are consistent with those of researchers who suggest that empathy deficits are not always associated with antisocial behavior, and that psychopathy and autism spectrum disorders may have different types of deficits (i.e., deficits in resonating with others’ distress in psychopathy and deficits in cognitive perspective taking in autism spectrum disorders; Jones, Happé, Gilbert, Burneet, & Viding, 2010). They are also


Rhee et al.

Page 18

Author Manuscript

consistent with Decety and Meyer’s (2008) distinction between “passive” empathy deficits characterized by a lack of either interest or capacity for empathy and prosocial behavior in autism spectrum disorders and “active” deficits characterized by negative affect and aggressive responses to others’ distress marked by anger and amusement in conduct disorder. Overall, these results suggest that lack of empathy assessed during toddlerhood is not associated with later conduct problems, whereas screening for early disregard for others in the face of others in distress may be useful in prevention.

Author Manuscript

There was more evidence for common shared environmental influences between antisocial propensity and conduct problems than for common genetic influences. In addition to the shared environmental influences common to cognitive ability, observed disregard for others, and conduct problems, there were also shared environmental influences common to observed disregard for others and conduct problems after controlling for general cognitive ability. The most robust predictor, observed disregard for others, is an early-emerging predictor of later conduct problems, but does not meet the definition of temperament, as it is not substantially heritable.

Author Manuscript

The present study’s results are contrary to the hypotheses that the three temperament dimensions are orthogonal, that the four broad dimensions of antisocial propensity have unique sets of genetic influences, and that there are common genetic influences between antisocial propensity and conduct problems. The present study’s results are also contrary to those of the two prior genetically informative studies testing the developmental propensity model that reported common genetic influences between antisocial propensity and conduct problems (Taylor et al., 2013; Waldman et al., 2011), and those reported in longitudinal genetically informative studies finding common genetic influences between earlier temperament and later conduct problems (e.g., Gjone & Stevenson, 1997; Schmitz et al., 1999). A possible explanation of these conflicting results is the use of questionnaire measures (parent and self reports) of antisocial propensity in the previous studies and observations in the present study. Others have noted that genetically informative studies using observations versus questionnaires of behavioral traits have varying results, with lower heritabilities and larger shared environmental influences for observations than for parent or self reports (Kendler & Baker, 2007; Roisman & Fraley, 2006).

Author Manuscript

A novel finding from the present study is that the shared environment influencing disregard for others assessed early in life (both in common with and unique from general cognitive ability) also influence later conduct problems. These results are consistent with Lahey and Waldman’s (2003) suggestion that antisocial propensity and low cognitive ability may increase the level of conduct problems over time through transactions with the social environment. Identifying the specific environmental influences on antisocial propensity and examining whether they continue to influence later conduct problems is an important future direction in developing early prevention programs for conduct problems (Burt, 2015; Keenan & Shaw, 2003). One such family environmental influence that needs further study is parental socialization. Several theorists have posited the importance of early socializing interactions with parents, particularly in empathy. Parental directiveness (Janssens & Gerris, 1992), parental


Rhee et al.

Page 19

Author Manuscript

encouragement of empathy (McDevitt, Lennon, & Kopriva, 1991), and parents’ use of induction, or explaining how a victim feels (Hastings, Utendale, & Sullivan, 2007), are associated with children’s empathy, even in children as young as 1 to 2 years old (ZahnWaxler, Radke-Yarrow, & King, 1979). Tremblay et al. (2004) found that family dysfunction and coercive parenting during the child’s first year life were the best predictors of a high physical aggression trajectory, or failure to learn to regulate physical aggression during the preschool years. Also, a recent review by Waller, Gardner, and Hyde (2013) suggests a prospective association between both negative and positive parenting and callousunemotional traits. Moreover, this review suggests that parenting-focused interventions lead to improvement in callous-unemotional traits.

Author Manuscript

Additional developmental behavior genetic studies addressing the interaction between children’s characteristics and socializing influences on conduct problems are needed. Lahey and Waldman (2003) noted that antisocial propensity shapes the environment and influence his or her reaction to it. For example, high negative emotionality in a child will raise the likelihood of aversive parent–child exchanges (e.g., Patterson, 1982), whereas toddlers with faster language development may be easier to socialize and less likely to become frustrated during interactions with parents (e.g., Keenan & Shaw, 1997). Lahey and Waldman (2003) also suggested that the examination of antisocial propensity may clarify why distal environmental factors such as high-crime neighborhoods, delinquent peers, and lack of economic resources do not lead all children to serious conduct problems, and that environmental influences will be less influential if children are not predisposed by antisocial propensity. Strengths and Limitations

Author Manuscript

The present study had many characteristics of the ideal study to test the developmental propensity model described by Lahey and Waldman (2003). There was multi-method assessment of both antisocial propensity dimensions (both parent-reported and observed negative emotionality, behavioral inhibition, and concern and disregard for others) and conduct problems (parent-, teacher-, and self-reported). The model was tested in a prospective longitudinal study with measures of antisocial propensity assessed at age 14–36 months and conduct problems assessed during childhood (4–12 years) and adolescence (17 years). It was also a genetically informative sample, allowing us to examine the magnitude of genetic and environmental influences on the covariation between antisocial propensity and conduct problems.

Author Manuscript

The results of the present study should be interpreted while also considering its limitations. First, a trade-off of conducting a longitudinal study with observational measures is that the sample size is relatively small, and statistical power is thus an issue. For example, there was lack of power to distinguish the role of genetic versus environmental influences on the covariance between changes in antisocial propensity during toddlerhood and later conduct problems7. Second, the model was tested in a twin sample. Generalizability to non-twin samples is a question, as twins are delayed in language acquisition compared to singletons (Thorpe, 2006), and the influence of having a same-age sibling on the results is unclear. Third, the level of conduct problems in the present sample was low, particularly for conduct


Rhee et al.

Page 20

Author Manuscript

disorder symptoms assessed at age 17. Stem questions rather than symptoms had to be examined. Two conduct disorder items with the lowest prevalence had to be dropped, and in analyses examining sex differences in the parameters and the influence of common genetic and environmental influences in models examining the changes in antisocial propensity and conduct problems, a few other conduct disorder items had to be dropped because of bivariate missingness problems.

Conclusions

Author Manuscript

The present study examined new questions regarding how early antisocial propensity can be assessed. Results suggest that antisocial propensity can be identified during toddlerhood, and that observed disregard for others, general cognitive ability, and language ability were robust early predictors of later conduct problems. Results were contrary to the hypothesis that unique sets of genetic influences on the antisocial propensity dimensions also influence conduct problems. In contrast, there were shared environmental influences common to general cognitive ability, observed disregard for others, and conduct problems, and an additional set of shared environmental factors influencing observed disregard for others and conduct problems after controlling for general cognitive ability. The identification of specific environmental influences common to early antisocial propensity and later conduct problems and additional developmental behavior genetic studies examining the interaction between children’s characteristics and socializing influences on conduct problems are important future directions.

Supplementary Material Refer to Web version on PubMed Central for supplementary material.

Author Manuscript

Acknowledgments This study was supported by the MacArthur Foundation, the Fetzer Foundation, and National Institutes of Health grants MH016880, HD010333, HD050346, DA011015, and AG046938. We thank Corinne Gunn, Sally Ann Rhea, and the participants.

References

Author Manuscript

Achenbach, TM. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry; 1991a. Achenbach, TM. Manual for the Teacher’s Report Form and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry; 1991b. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 4th ed.. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000. Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Plausible values for latent variables using Mplus. 2010 Technical report. Bayley, N. Manual for the Bayley Scales of Infant Development. New York: Psychological Corporation; 1969. Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin. 1990; 107:238–246. [PubMed: 2320703] Biederman J, Hirshfeld-Becker DR, Rosenbaum JF, Herot C, Friedman D, Snidman N, Kagan J, Faraone SV. Further evidence of association between behavioral inhibition and social anxiety in children. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2001; 158:1673–1679. [PubMed: 11579001]


Rhee et al.

Page 21

Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Blair C. School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist. 2002; 57:111–127. [PubMed: 11899554] Bogg T, Finn PR. A self-regulatory model of behavioral disinhibition in late adolescence: Integrating personality traits, externalizing psychopathology, and cognitive capacity. Journal of Personality. 2010; 78:441–470. [PubMed: 20433626] Burt SA. A double-edged sword: advantages and disadvantages to the current emphasis on biogenetic causes of child psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2015; 56:105–107. [PubMed: 25623325] Browne, MW.; Cudeck, R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, KA.; Long, JS., editors. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 1993. p. 136-162. Carey WB, McDevitt SC. Stability and change in individual temperament diagnoses from infancy to early childhood. American Academy of Child Psychiatry. 1978; 17:331–337. Cloninger CR. A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality variants. A proposal. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1987; 44:573–588. [PubMed: 3579504] Decety J, Meyer M. From emotion resonance to empathic understanding: a social developmental neuroscience account. Development and Psychopathology. 2008; 20:1053–1080. [PubMed: 18838031] Eisenberg, N.; Mussen, PH. The roots of prosocial behavior in children. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1991. Emde, RN.; Easterbrocks, A. Hedonic Tone Scales. Denver, CO: University of Colorado School of Medicine; 1983. Emde RN, Plomin R, Robinson JA, Corley R, DeFries J, Fulker DW, Reznick JS, Campos J, Kagan J, Zahn-Waxler C. Temperament, emotion, and cognition at fourteen months: the MacArthur Longitudinal Twin Study. Child Development. 1992; 63:1437–1455. [PubMed: 1446561] Farrington DP, West DJ. Criminal, penal and life histories of chronic offenders: Risk and protective factors and early identification. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. 1993; 3:492–523. Furnham A, Thompson J. Personality and self-reported delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences. 1991; 12:585–593. Gjone H, Stevenson J. A longitudinal twin study of temperament and behavior problems: common genetic or environmental influences? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 1997; 36:1448–1456. [PubMed: 9334559] Haemaelaeinen M, Pulkkinen L. Problem behavior as a precursor of male criminality. Development and Psychopathology. 1996; 8:443–455. Hastings, P.; Utendale, W.; Sullivan, C. The socialization of prosocial development. In: Grusec, J.; Hastings, P., editors. Handbook of socialization: Theory and research. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2007. p. 638-664. Hastings PD, Zahn-Waxler C, Robinson J, Usher B, Bridges D. The development of concern for others in children with behavior problems. Developmental Psychology. 2000; 36(5):531–546. [PubMed: 10976595] Hedrick, DL.; Prather, EM.; Tobin, AR. Sequenced Inventory of Communication Development. Seattle: University of Washington Press; 1975. Hink LK, Rhee SH, Corley RP, Cosgrove VE, Hewitt JK, Schulz-Heik RJ, Lahey BB, Waldman ID. Personality dimensions as common and broadband-specific features for internalizing and externalizing disorders. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2013; 41:939–957. [PubMed: 23474797] Hoffman, ML. Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy and guilt. In: Eisenberg, N., editor. The development of prosocial behavior. New York: Academic Press; 1982. p. 281-313. Hu L, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods. 1998; 3:424–453. Hughes C, White A, Sharpen J, Dunn J. Antisocial, angry, and unsympathetic: “hard-to-manage” preschoolers’ peer problems and possible cognitive influences. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2000; 41(2):169–179. [PubMed: 10750543]


Rhee et al.

Page 22


Izard CE, Huebner R, Risser D, McGinnes GC, Dougherty L. The young infant’s ability to produce discrete emotional expressions. Developmental Psychology. 1980; 16:132–140. Janssens, JMAM.; Gerris, JRM. Childrearing, empathy and prosocial behavior. In: Janssens, JMAM.; Gerris, JRM., editors. Child rearing: Influence on prosocial and moral development. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Swets; 1992. p. 57-75. John OP, Caspi A, Robins RW, Moffitt TE, Stouthamer-Loeber M. The “little five”: Exploring the nomological network of the five-factor model of personality in adolescent boys. Child Development. 1994; 65:160–178. [PubMed: 8131645] Jones AP, Happé FG, Gilbert F, Burnett S, Viding E. Feeling, caring, knowing: different types of empathy deficit in boys with psychopathic tendencies and autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2010; 51:1188–1197. [PubMed: 20633070] Kagan J, Reznick JS, Snidman N, Gibbons J, Johnson MO. Childhood derivatives of inhibition and lack of inhibition to the unfamiliar. Child Development. 1988; 59:1580–1589. [PubMed: 3208569] Keenan K, Shaw D. Developmental and social influences on young girls’ early problem behavior. Psychological Bulletin. 1997; 121:95–113. [PubMed: 9000893] Keenan, K.; Shaw, DS. Starting at the beginning: Exploring the etiology of antisocial behavior in the first years of life. In: Lahey, BB.; Moffitt, TE.; Caspi, A., editors. Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency. New York: The Guilford Press; 2003. p. 153-181. Kendler KS, Baker JH. Genetic influences on measures of the environment: A systematic review. Psychological Medicine. 2007; 37:615–626. [PubMed: 17176502] Lahey BB, Applegate B, Chronis AM, Jones HA, Williams SH, Loney J, Waldman ID. Psychometric characteristics of a measure of emotional dispositions developed to test a developmental propensity model of conduct disorder. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2008; 37:794–807. [PubMed: 18991130] Lahey BB, Rathouz PJ, Applegate B, Tackett JL, Waldman ID. Psychometrics of a self-report version of the child and adolescent dispositions scale. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2010; 39:351–361. [PubMed: 20419576] Lahey, BB.; Waldman, ID. A developmental propensity model of the origins of conduct problems during childhood and adolescence. In: Lahey, BB.; Moffitt, TE.; Caspi, A., editors. Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency. New York: The Guilford Press; 2003. p. 76-117. Lynam D, Moffitt T, Stouthamer-Loeber M. Explaining the relation between IQ and delinquency: class, race, test motivation, school failure, or self-control? Journal of Abnormal Psycholology. 1993; 102:187–196. Manninen M, Lindgren M, Huttunen M, Ebeling H, Moilanen I, Kalska H, Suvisaari J, Therman S. Low verbal ability predicts later violence in adolescent boys with serious conduct problems. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. 2013; 67:289–297. [PubMed: 23167535] Matheny AP. Bayley’s Infant Behavior Record: Behavioral components and twin analyses. Child Development. 1980; 51:1157–1167. [PubMed: 7193557] McDevitt TM, Lennon R, Kopriva RJ. Adolescents’ perceptions of mothers’ and fathers’ prosocial actions and empathic response. Youth & Society. 1991; 22:387–409. Miller PA, Eisenberg N. The relation of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin. 1988; 103:324–344. [PubMed: 3289071] Moffitt, TE.; Caspi, A.; Rutter, M.; Silva, PA. Sex differences in antisocial behaviour. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2001. Moffitt TE, Silva PA. IQ and delinquency: a direct test of the differential detection hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1988; 97:330–333. [PubMed: 3192826] Murray J, Irving B, Farrington DP, Colman I, Bloxsom CAJ. Very early predictors of conduct problems and crime: Results from a national cohort study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2010; 51:1198–1207. [PubMed: 20633069] Muthén, LK.; Muthén, BO. Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2012. Nichols RC, Bilbro WC. The diagnosis of twin zygosity. Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologiae. 1966; 16:365–275. Patterson, GR. Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia Publishing Co; 1982. J Abnorm Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 May 01.

Rhee et al.

Page 23


Raine A, Yaralian PS, Reynolds C, Venables PH, Mednick SA. Spatial but not verbal cognitive deficits at age 3 years in persistently antisocial individuals. Development and Psychopathology. 2002; 14:25–44. [PubMed: 11893093] Rhea SA, Gross AA, Haberstick BC, Corley RP. Colorado Twin Registry. Twin Research and Human Genetics. 2006; 9:941–949. [PubMed: 17254434] Rhea SA, Gross AA, Haberstick BC, Corley RP. Colorado Twin Registry: An update. Twin Research and Human Genetics. 2013; 16:351–357. [PubMed: 23092589] Rhee SH, Boeldt DL, Friedman NP, Corley RP, Hewitt JK, Young SE, Knafo A, Robinson J, Waldman ID, Van Hulle CA, Zahn-Waxler C. The role of language in concern and disregard for others in the first years of life. Developmental Psychology. 2013; 49:197–214. [PubMed: 22545842] Rhee SH, Corley RP, Friedman NP, Hewitt JK, Hink LK, Johnson DP, Robinson J, Smith AK, Young SE. The etiology of negative emotionality from 14 to 24 months. Frontiers in Genetics. 2012; 3:9. [PubMed: 22303413] Rhee SH, Friedman NP, Boeldt DL, Corley RP, Hewitt JK, Knafo A, Lahey BB, Robinson J, Van Hulle CA, Waldman ID, Young SE, Zahn-Waxler C. Early concern and disregard for others as predictors of antisocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2013; 54:157–166. [PubMed: 23320806] Robins RW, Johns OP, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Stouthamer-Loeber M. Resilient, overcontrolled, and undercontrolled boys: Three replicable personality types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996; 70:157–171. [PubMed: 8558407] Robinson JL, Kagan J, Reznick JS, Corley R. The heritability of inhibited and uninhibited behavior: A twin study. Developmental Psychology. 1992; 28:1030–1037. Robinson, JL.; McGrath, J.; Corley, RP. The conduct of the study: Sample and procedures. In: Emde, R.; Plomin, R.; Hewitt, JK., editors. The transition from infancy to early childhood. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 23-41. Roisman GI, Fraley C. The limits of genetic influence: A behavior-genetic analysis of infant-caregiver relationship quality and temperament. Child Development. 2006; 77:1656–1667. [PubMed: 17107452] Rothbart MK, Ahadi SA, Evans DE. Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000; 78:122–135. [PubMed: 10653510] Rothbart MK, Sheese BE, Rueda MR, Posner MI. Developing mechanisms of self-regulation in early life. Emotion Review. 2011; 3:207–213. [PubMed: 21892360] Rowe DC, Plomin R. Temperament in early childhood. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1977; 41:150–156. [PubMed: 856967] Schmitz S, Fulker DW, Plomin R, Zahn-Waxler C, Emde RN, DeFries JC. Temperament and problem behavior during early childhood. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 1999; 23:333– 355. Shaffer D, Fisher P, Lucas CP, Dulcan MK, Schwab-Stone ME. NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (NIMH DISC-IV): Description, differences from previous versions, and reliability of some common diagnoses. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2000; 39:28–38. [PubMed: 10638065] Shaw DS. Future directions for research on the development and prevention of early conduct problems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2013; 42:418–428. [PubMed: 23534691] Shirtcliff EA, Vitacco MJ, Graf AR, Gostisha AJ, Merz JL, Zahn-Waxler C. Neurobiology of empathy and callousness: implications for the development of antisocial behavior. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 2009; 27:137–171. [PubMed: 19319834] Smith SK, Rhee SH, Corley RP, Friedman NP, Hewitt JK, Robinson JL. The magnitude of genetic and environmental infuences on parental and observational measures of behavioral inhibition and shyness in toddlerhood. Behavior Genetics. 2012; 42:764–777. [PubMed: 22806186] Taylor J, Allan N, Mikolajewski AJ, Hart SA. Common genetic and nonshared environmental factors contribute to the association between socioemotional dispositions and the externalizing factor in children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2013; 54:67–76. [PubMed: 23017065] Terman, LH.; Merrill, MA. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: 1972 Norms Edition. Boston: HoughtonMifflin; 1973.


Rhee et al.

Page 24


Thorpe K. Twin children’s language development. Early Human Development. 2006; 82:387–395. [PubMed: 16690234] Tremblay RE, Nagin DS, Séguin JR, Zoccolillo M, Zelazo PD, Boivin M, Pérusse D, Japel C. Physical aggression during early childhood: trajectories and predictors. Pediatrics. 2004; 114:e43–e50. [PubMed: 15231972] Trentacosta CJ, Hyde LW, Shaw DS, Cheong J. Adolescent dispositions for antisocial behavior in context: the roles of neighborhood dangerousness and parental knowledge. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2009; 118:564–575. [PubMed: 19685953] von Davier, M.; Gonzalez, E.; Mislevy, R. What are plausible values and why are they useful? IERI Monograph Series Issues and Methodologies in Large-Scale Assessments. Princeton, NJ: IER Institute. Educational Testing Service; 2009. Waldman ID, Tackett JL, Van Hulle CA, Applegate B, Pardini D, Frick PJ, Lahey BB. Child and adolescent conduct disorder substantially shares genetic influences with three socioemotional dispositions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 2011; 120:57–70. [PubMed: 21142331] Waller R, Gardner F, Hyde LW. What are the associations between parenting, callous-unemotional traits, and antisocial behavior in youth? A systematic review of evidence. Clinical Psychology Review. 2013; 33:593–608. [PubMed: 23583974] Zahn-Waxler C, Radke-Yarrow M, Wagner E, Chapman M. Development of concern for others. Developmental Psychology. 1992; 28:126–136. Zahn-Waxler C, Robinson JL, Emde RN. The development of empathy in twins. Developmental Psychology. 1992; 28:1038–1047. Zuckerman M. The psychobiological model for impulsive unsocialized sensation seeking: a comparative approach. Neuropsychobiology. 1996; 34:125–129. [PubMed: 8916069]

Author Manuscript Author Manuscript J Abnorm Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 May 01.

Rhee et al.

Page 25


Figure 1.

Author Manuscript

The developmental propensity model. Only genetic influences are shown, as specific hypotheses were proposed for the relations between genetic influences on antisocial propensity and conduct problems. A Cognitive Ability = genetic influences on cognitive ability, which also influence conduct problems (dashed lines indicate they also may influence negative emotionality, prosociality, and daring). A Negative Emotionality = genetic influences on negative emotionality, which also influence conduct problems. AProsociality = genetic influences on prosociality, which also influence conduct problems. ADaring = genetic influences on daring, which also influence conduct problems.

Author Manuscript J Abnorm Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 May 01.

Rhee et al.

Page 26


Figure 2.

Author Manuscript

Genetic (A), shared environmental (C), and nonshared environmental (E) influences on cognitive ability, observed disregard, and conduct problems. Significant influences on conduct problems are shown in darker lines. The measurement portion of the model for the higher order conduct problems is shown in lighter gray. Standardized parameters are shown. Dashed line indicates the genetic covariance between observed disregard for others and conduct problems, which was dropped, as the heritability of observed disregard for others was near zero. The squares of the standardized values do not add up to 100% because results are averaged across multiple imputed datasets. A1, C1, E1 = influences on cognitive ability, which also influence observed disregard, and conduct problems (CP). A2, C2, E2 = influences shared in common by observed disregard and CP after controlling for those in common with cognitive ability. A3, C3, E3 = influences specific to CP. APR, ATR, ASR, Cpr, CTR, CSR, Epr, ETR, ESR = influences specific to parent-reported (PR), teacher-reported (TR), and self-reported (SR) CP * p < .05, ** p < .01

Author Manuscript J Abnorm Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 May 01.

Author Manuscript

Author Manuscript .30** −.14* −.15*

−.34** −.33**

General Cognitive Ability

Language Ability

p < .01.

p < .05,

Note. p < .10

**

*

+

.26*

.51**

Parent-reported

−.01

−.04

−.05

Observed

−.02

Observed

.10+

Parent-reported

−.04

−.07

−.22**

Observed Parent-reported

.41**

.03

.38**

.07

Parent-reported

Observed

Parent Report (Age 4 to 12)

.22*

Disregard for Others

Concern for Others

Behavioral Inhibition

Negative Emotionality

Higher Order Conduct Problems

−.32**

−.33**

.08

.34*

−.06

.07

−.18**

−.25**

.02

.12

Teacher Report (Age 7 to 12)

−.14*

−.15*

−.02

.36**

−.01

−.07

.00

−.08

.04

−.04

Self Report (Age 17)

Author Manuscript

Correlations Between Antisocial Propensity and Conduct Problems

Author Manuscript

Table 1 Rhee et al. Page 27


Author Manuscript

Author Manuscript .74** .75**

.83**

.66**

Monozygotic

Dizygotic

p < .01.

**

Note. p < .05

*

Disregard for Others

Cognitive Ability

.71**

.83**

Conduct Problems

−.17**

−.14*

Cognitive AbilityDisregard for Others

−.23**

−.22**

Cognitive AbilityConduct Problems

Disregard for OthersConduct Problems

.43**

.43**

Author Manuscript

Within-trait and Cross-trait Monozygotic and Dizygotic Twin Correlations

Author Manuscript

Table 2 Rhee et al. Page 28


The Development of Comorbid Conduct Problems in Children With ADHD: An Example of an Integrative Developmental Psychopathology Perspective.

Gender Differences in the Developmental Links Between Conduct Problems and Depression Across Early Adolescence.

Developmental pathways from childhood conduct problems to early adult depression: findings from the ALSPAC cohort.

Protective factors in the development of early child conduct problems.

Neighborhood Disadvantage Alters the Origins of Children's Nonaggressive Conduct Problems.

The management of an adolescent with conduct problems in a primary care clinic - a case report.

Conduct a clinical viva voce examination.

Conscience and courage--a critical examination of professional conduct.

Psychosocial working conditions: an analysis of emotional symptoms and conduct problems amongst adolescent students.

Conduct Problems in Childhood and Adolescence: Developmental Trajectories, Predictors and Outcomes in a Six-Year Follow Up.

Parent Training Outcomes among Young Children with Callous-Unemotional Conduct Problems with or At-Risk for Developmental Delay.

The quality of the interparental relationship does not moderate the etiology of child conduct problems.

Not just another antipsychotic-for-conduct-problems trial.

Predictive value of early developmental examination.

Narcissism and Callous-Unemotional Traits Prospectively Predict Child Conduct Problems.

An emotion-focused early intervention for children with emerging conduct problems.

How to conduct a clinical viva voce examination.

Cross-sectional examination of the association of co-occurring alcohol misuse and traumatic brain injury on mental health and conduct problems in adolescents in Ontario, Canada.

An examination of the effects of mountaintop removal coal mining on respiratory symptoms and COPD using propensity scores.

Unsupervised self-care predicts conduct problems: The moderating roles of hostile aggression and gender.

An explanatory evo-devo model for the developmental hourglass.

Effects of Callous-Unemotional Traits on the Association Between Parenting and Child Conduct Problems.

An explanatory evo-devo model for the developmental hourglass.

DRD4 Genotype and the Developmental Link of Peer Social Preference with Conduct Problems and Prosocial Behavior Across Ages 9-12 Years.