1. Parenting and Youth Conduct Problems and Delinquency: Reciprocal Effects and Moderation by Callous-Unemotional Traits Luna C. Muñoz University of Central Lancashire, UK Research Methods Festival, Oxford, 2010

2. Importance of parenting Efforts to change parents’ behaviours depend on this link Poor parenting Conduct problems

3. Poor parenting Earlier Conduct problems Some children may not respond

4. One size may not fit all

5. The some.... Hawes & Dadds (2007) conducted parent- training for young children’s conduct problems They found that children whose conduct problems were accompanied by stably-high callous and unemotional traits improved but only temporarily

6. Callous-Unemotional Traits  Is unconcerned about the feelings of others  Doesn’t feel empathy  Does not feel any emotions deeply  Lacks fear or anxiety  Lacks remorse or regret  Sees emotions as a hindrance  Emotions do not control his/her actions

7. Subtyping Antisocial Behavior in Children: Using Callous- Unemotional Traits Conduct Disorder Childhood-onset Callous-Unemotional Traits Impulsive High Emotional Arousal/ Emotion Dysregulation

8. Callous-Unemotional Traits/ Psychopathy in Adulthood - Similarities Children with CU show more serious offending a particularly violent form of criminal behavior They also are more likely to recidivate Poor treatment progress Related to emotional processing deficits

9. Callous-Unemotional Traits Conduct Problems CU Conduct Problems More Severe Antisocial Behavior

10. Conduct Problems Some children continue to have conduct problems, which affects them more than other kids Why?

11. Conduct Problems with/without Callous-Unemotional Traits Without Callous-Unemotional Traits With Callous- Unemotional Traits

12. Origin of Conduct Problems Parenting Strong emotional reactions Thoughts – that people's actions are hostile Inattention/ Impulsivity/ Hyperactivity Cognitive ability – Intellectual deficits Personality

13. These traits drive behavior The research carried out tends to be conducted with the assumption that CU traits drive behavior with little input from the environment

14. Callous-Unemotional Traits are Largely Inherited Twin studies of children who display antisocial behaviors (Viding et al., 2005)  Strong genetic influence was found for children with antisocial behaviors AND callous- unemotional traits  Only modest genetic influence for children with antisocial behaviors but without callous- unemotional traits

15. ---Low CU Traits High CU Traits Ineffective Parenting Conduct Problems

16. Earlier Poor parenting ---Low CU Traits High CU Traits Later Poor parenting Earlier Conduct problems Later Conduct problems

17. Origin of Conduct Problems Parenting Strong emotional reactions Thoughts – that people's actions are hostile Inattention/ Impulsivity/ Hyperactivity Cognitive ability – Intellectual deficits Personality

18. Earlier Poor parenting ---Low CU Traits High CU Traits Later Conduct problems

19. Poor parenting ---Low CU Traits High CU Traits Conduct problems Earlier Later

20. Some evidence for reciprocal direction Hawes & Dadds (2004) found that parents of children with CU  reported that time-out was less effective, when compared to those parents of children with high levels of conduct problems but with low levels of callous-unemotional traits

21. My argument... A child’s lack of concern over punishment may be one reason why parents loosen control over their children Parents may give up trying when children are delinquent, but especially with children with callous-unemotional traits Examine bi-directionally!

22. Why longitudinal investigations? Wohlwill (1973) and Kessen (1960)  We need to go beyond age-related descriptions  We need to be able to clarify individual processes of development and change Cairns & Cairns (1994)  Identify individual difference predictability  Stability over time  Rates and types of individual change  Identify periods of greatest risk and possibility for greatest change

24. Parenting and Problem Behaviour: Callous-Unemotional Traits 100 school children from a moderate-sized city from southeastern USA A stratified random sampling design was used to match the selected sample to the school sample on gender, ethnicity, and SES 76 children (mean age 13.4 years at Time 1) provided data over three years Muñoz, Pakalniskiene, & Frick. Manuscript under review

25. Bidirectional effects one year later Low callous-unemotional More knowledge led to less control Control led to more knowlege Little effect No effect High callous-unemotional Less knowledge led to less control No effect Less knowledge led to more conduct problems More conduct problems led to less control Muñoz, Pakalniskiene, & Frick. Manuscript under review

26. Parenting Measures  Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Monitoring and Supervision scale

27. Problem with monitoring measures Many of the assessments being used assess what parents know about their children (i.e., knowledge) rather than actions to gain knowledge (i.e., monitoring)(Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Stattin & Kerr, 2000).

28. Problem with monitoring measures Wootton and colleagues’ (1997) study asked about whether the child hung out with peers that were unknown to the parent. Don’t know why  Unsupervised because parents have been lax  They disobey/ sneak out The latter is part of the child’s behavior

29. Parenting Measures Parents’ Knowledge  Alabama Parenting Questionnaire: Monitoring and Supervision scale Parental Monitoring  Solicitation of information from child Parental Control  Parents’ demands that lead to knowledge

30. Conduct Problem Measures Youth-report:  Self-Report of Delinquency Scale (Elliott & Ageton, 1980) assesses the child’s self-report of 36 illegal juvenile acts. Parent-report:  Behavioral Assessment System for Children- Parent Rating Scale (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 1992)  Conduct Problems scale focuses on more covert conduct problems (e.g., cheats in school, gets into trouble)

31. STABILITY OF PARENTING

32. Prediction of parenting from parenting.27*** KnowledgeControl

33. Prediction of parenting from parenting KnowledgeControl Hi= -.05 Lo=.39***

34. Prediction of parenting from parenting ControlKnowledge Hi=.20 Lo= -.20*

35. Prediction of parenting from parenting ControlSolicitation Hi=.07 Lo=.30***

36. Stability differed by CU Hi=.41** Control Lo=.75***

37. DO PARENTS AFFECT BEHAVIOUR? DIFFERING BY CU GROUPS

38. Parenting predicts behaviour Knowledge Delinquency / Conduct Problem Solicitation.13/ -.15* Control Analyses are conducted while controlling for earlier CP -.19*/ -.04 -.01/ -.03

39. What parents know predicts changes in behaviour, especially for high CU Knowledge Delinquency Solicitation Lo= -.13 Control Analyses are conducted while controlling for earlier CP Hi= -.28*

40. DOES BEHAVIOUR AFFECT PARENTING? DIFFERING BY CU GROUPS

41. Problem behaviour leads to changes in what parents do Knowledge Delinquency / Conduct Problems Solicitation -.13/.01 Control Analyses are conducted while controlling for earlier parenting -.01/ -.06 -.26**/.05

42. And is especially true for those with high levels of CU and who are delinquent Knowledge Delinquency Solicitation Control Analyses are conducted while controlling for earlier parenting Lo= -.10 Hi= -.38**

43. Implications for parental involvement Parents reduce their control over time when their child shows delinquent behaviours, particularly when the child also has callous-unemotional traits. A reduction in control leads to a less effective management of child behaviour. Interventions need to encourage an intimate relationship between parent and child so that youths with callous-unemotional traits actively disclose information to their parents.

44. Poor parenting ---Low CU Traits High CU Traits Conduct problems Earlier Later

45. Conclusions We were able to show that the relation between parenting and conduct problems can be a child- effect, which supports prior studies Another explanation is that shared genetic effects explain child personality traits, conduct problems, and parents’ parenting (see Jaffee et al., 2004)

46. Acknowledgments My post-doctoral advisers:  Margaret Kerr  Håkan Stattin Their superstar graduate student:  Vilmante Pakalniskiene, now Dr. Vilma My PhD supervisor:  Research Professor Paul Frick Very grateful to Neville Butler Memorial Prize

47. Future directions