Inhibiting the Inhibitor: Are Callous-Unemotional Traits Capable of Suppressing the Inhibitory Effect of Child Self-Disclosure on Delinquency?
Using a mediation methodology and three waves of data, the current study sought to determine whether callous-unemotional (CU) traits were capable of suppressing the inhibitory effect of child self-disclosure on delinquency in line with predictions from criminal lifestyle theory. The results were then compared to the suppressant effect of low self-control (LSC) on the child self-disclosure–delinquency relationship.
Participants for this study were 2586 (1290 boys, 1296 girls) members of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth–Child (NLSY-C). CU traits and LSC were measured when participants were 9 to 10 years of age, child self-disclosure was measured when participants were 11 to 12 years of age, and delinquency was measured when participants were 13 to 14 years of age.
Consistent with predictions, the pathway running from CU traits to child self-disclosure to delinquency was significant whereas the pathway running from LSC to child self-disclosure to delinquency was non-significant. Contrary to predictions, the two pathways were not significantly different from one another.
Moderate support was found for the hypothesis that one way CU traits encourage delinquency is by inhibiting the child’s willingness to disclose information to parents. This, in turn, may limit a parent’s knowledge of a child’s friendship networks and routine activities and/or reduce parental monitoring activities.
KeywordsCallous-unemotional traits Perceived parental knowledge Child self-disclosure
- 2.Allison, P. D. (2012). Handling missing data by maximum likelihood. In SAS Global Forum 2012 (Paper 312–2012). Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
- 4.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- 7.Center for Human Resource Research. (2009). NLSY79 user’s guide. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, CHRR NLS User Services.Google Scholar
- 16.Farrington, D. P., Coid, J. W., Harnett, L., Jolliffe, D., Soteriou, N., Turner, R., & West, D. J. (2006). Criminal careers and life success: New findings from the Cambridge study in delinquent development (p. 281). London: Home Office (Research Findings No.Google Scholar
- 20.Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- 21.Greenland, S. (2003). Quantifying biases in causal models: Classical confounding versus collider-stratification bias. Epidemiology, 14, 300–306.Google Scholar
- 23.Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- 27.Kenny, D. A. (2013). Mediation: Sensitivity analysis [webinar]. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/webinars/Mediation/Sensitivity/Sensitivity.html.
- 30.Lahey, B. B., Van Hulle, C. A., D’Onofrio, B. M., Rodgers, J. L., & Waldman, I. D. (2008). Is parental knowledge of their adolescent offspring’s whereabouts and peer associations spuriously associated with offspring delinquency? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 807–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.MacKinnon, D. P., Kisbu-Sakarya, Y., & Gottschall, A. C. (2013). Developments in mediation analysis. In T. D. Little (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods (Vol. 2, pp. 338–360). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 36.Muratori, P., Lochman, J. E., Lai, E., Milone, A., Nocentini, A., et al. (2016). Which dimension of parenting predicts the change of callous unemotional traits in children with disruptive behavior disorder? Comprehensive Psychiatry, 69, 202–210.Google Scholar
- 37.Muthén, B. (2010). Missing data modeling: Multivariate normality. Mplus Discussion Board [Online forum comment] Retrieved from http://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/22/5308.html?1279319060.
- 39.Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (1998–2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén and Muthén.Google Scholar
- 42.Özdemir, Y., Vazsonyi, A. T., & Çok, F. (2013). Parenting processes and aggression: The role of self-control among Turkish adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 65–77.Google Scholar
- 43.Parker, J. S., & Benson, M. J. (2004). Parent-adolescent relations and adolescent functioning: Self-esteem, substance abuse, and delinquency. Adolescence, 39, 519–530.Google Scholar
- 45.Peyre, H., Leplége, A., & Coste, J. (2011). Missing data methods for dealing with missing items in quality of life questionnaires: A comparison by simulation of personal mean score, full information maximum likelihood, multiple imputation, and hot deck techniques applied to the SF-36 in the French 2003 decennial health survey. Quality of Life Research, 20, 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Diamond, B., Farrington, D. P., Tremblay, R. E., et al. (2016). A meta-analysis update on the effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12, 229–248.Google Scholar
- 54.Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 571–645). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 58.Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Mifflin.Google Scholar
- 61.Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
- 63.Ulmer, J. T., & Steffensmeier, D. (2014). The age and crime relationship: Social variation, social explanations. In K. M. Beaver, J. C. Barnes, & B. B. Boutwell (Eds.), The nurture versus biosocial debate in criminology: On the origins of criminal behavior and criminality (pp. 377–396). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 67.Walters, G. D. (2017b). Risk, need, and responsivity in a criminal lifestyle. In F. S. Taxman (Ed.), Handbook on risk and need assessment: Theory and practice (pp. 193–219). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 70.Walters, G. D. (2018c). Why are mediation effects so small? Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
- 71.Walters, G. D. (in press). Unsupervised routine activities as a mediator of the parental knowledge–delinquency relationship. Justice Quarterly. Google Scholar
- 73.Walters, G. D., & Espelage, D. L. (in press). Cognitive insensitivity and cognitive impulsivity as mediators of bullying continuity: Extending the psychological inertia construct to bullying behavior. School Psychology Quarterly. Google Scholar