Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2022) 44:11–25 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-021-09947-3 Fear Conditioning Deficits in Children and Adolescents with Psychopathic Traits: a Study in a Clinical Population Anastasiya Ivanova‑Serokhvostova1 · Beatriz Molinuevo1 · David Torrents‑Rodas2 · Albert Bonillo3 · Iris Pérez‑Bonaventura4,5 · Montserrat Corrales1,6,7,8 · Montserrat Pamias4,5,7 · Josep Antoni Ramos‑Quiroga1,6,7,8 · Rafael Torrubia1 Accepted: 22 October 2021 / Published online: 10 January 2022 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract Deficits in fear conditioning related to psychopathy have been widely studied in adults. However, evidence in children and adolescents is scarce and inconsistent. This research aimed to expand knowledge about fear conditioning in psychopathy and its dimensions in child and early adolescent clinical populations. Participants were 45 boys (outpatients) aged 6–14 years (M = 10.59, SD = 2.04). They were assessed with the parents’ and teachers’ versions of the Child Problematic Traits Inventory (CPTI). A fear conditioning paradigm (Neumann et al., in Biological Psychology, 79(3), 337–342, 2008) for children and adolescents was used. Conditioned stimuli (CS+ and CS-) were geometric shapes and the unconditioned stimulus (US) was an unpleasant sound of metal scraping on slate (83 dB). Difference scores (CS+ minus CS-) in skin conductance responses (SCR) and self-reported cognitive and affective measures were considered as indices of fear conditioning. Results showed that: a) deficits in fear conditioning were related to some psychopathy dimensions but not to psychopathy as a unitary con- struct; b) the Impulsivity-Need for Stimulation dimension was a predictor of impaired fear conditioning at a cognitive level; c) the interaction of Callous-Unemotional and Impulsivity-Need for Stimulation dimensions was a significant predictor of impaired electrodermal fear conditioning; d) by contrast, the Grandiose-Deceitful dimension, was marginally associated with a greater electrodermal fear conditioning. In conclusion, psychopathy dimensions and their interactions, but not psychopathy as a whole, predicted deficits in fear conditioning as measured by SCR and cognitive indices. These findings confirm the notion that psychopathic traits are associated with deficits in fear conditioning in child and adolescent clinical populations and provide support for a multidimensional approach to youth psychopathy. Keywords Psychopathy · Fear conditioning · Skin conductance · Children · Adolescents · Child problematic traits inventory Psychopathic personality is defined as a constellation of early adulthood, but instead has its roots in childhood and interpersonal (e.g., grandiosity, deceitfulness), affective adolescence (Frick & Marsee, 2018). Understanding how (e.g., callousness, absence of remorse and guilt), behavio- psychopathic traits manifest themselves in earlier stages of ral/lifestyle (e.g., irresponsibility, impulsivity), and antiso- development may help to design more successful interven- cial traits related to antisocial behavior (Hare & Neumann, tion and prevent major personal and social harm (Frick et al., 2008). These traits have proven to be very relevant for des- 2014a, b). However, the construct of psychopathy in youths ignating an important subgroup of antisocial adults, as they is still subject to debate. show a more severe, violent, and stable pattern of antisocial Factor analytic studies with young populations have shown behavior (see Leistico et al., 2008 for a meta-analysis). that, in line with adult literature, psychopathy is multidimen- More recently, there has been increasing interest in the sional, with at least three correlated factors named differ- study of early development of psychopathy because research ently across psychopathy measures but representing similar has shown that psychopathy does not emerge suddenly in traits: grandiose-deceitful (GD), callous-unemotional (CU), and impulsive-need for stimulation (INS) (Andershed et al., 2002; Colins et al., 2014; Frick & Hare, 2001). Empirical research * Anastasiya Ivanova‑Serokhvostova Anastasya.Ivanova@uab.cat has been focused mainly on CU traits as they have purportedly been linked to more severe, stable, and aggressive antisocial Extended author information available on the last page of the article 13 Vol.:(0123456789) 12 Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2022) 44:11–25 behavior starting in early childhood as a result of distinct the automatic responses and the conscious experience of fear emotional, cognitive, and personality characteristics (Frick could be independent. Despite correct cognitive processing of et al., 2014b; Frick & White, 2008). Nevertheless, CU fearful stimuli, automatic emotional reactions may not occur traits, though relevant and necessary to understand serious and vice versa (LeDoux, 2014). conduct problems, only represent the affective facet of the Studies about fear conditioning processes with adults multidimensional construct of psychopathy, and reporting on have found deficits related to psychopathy as a unitary con- all three dimensions when exploring their correlates could be struct (Birbaumer et al., 2005; Flor et al., 2002; Rothemund more informative (Salekin, 2016, 2017). Recently, research et al., 2012) and also with some interpersonal-affective in children and adolescents has begun to consider this multi- measures of psychopathy (López et al., 2013; Veit et al., dimensional model of psychopathy. This approach will allow 2013). Nevertheless, psychopathy has been associated with the study of the relevance of the whole construct and also of impaired physiological responses, but not with cognitive or each one of its components to explain associations with psy- affective measures of fear conditioning (Birbaumer et al., chological or biological correlates. In fact, a growing body 2005; Flor et al., 2002; López et al., 2013; Rothemund of research suggests that different, and even contrary, deficits et al., 2012). Taken together, it is suggested that adult psy- underlying neurobiological correlates for the three psychopa- chopaths may be consciously aware of the CS-US associa- thy dimensions exist (see Salekin, 2017 for a review). tion, but do not process the emotional significance of that One of the proposed correlates has been impaired fear pro- information as a result of reduced physiological respon- cessing as a sign of emotional arousal dysfunction that could siveness (Hoppenbrouwers et al., 2016). affect moral development at early ages (Chen et al., 2021; In children and adolescents, the literature is still scarce Cohn et al., 2013; Kochanska, 1991). In this sense, given that and inconclusive. To the best of our knowledge, only four the presence of psychopathic traits is related to behaviors that published papers (Chen et al., 2021; Cohn et al., 2013, 2016; violate the basic rights of others or social norms considered Fairchild et al., 2010) have investigated psychopathic traits appropriate for the child's age, it is important to understand and their association with differential fear conditioning indi- how these traits and fear processing are related. Deficits in ces in child or youth populations. The most recent revealed fear processing could play a relevant role in explaining the that, in a community-recruited children sample, CU traits greater engagement in antisocial behaviors, causing seri- were associated with a reduced electrodermal conditioning, ous harm to others since these children are not concerned but not GD or INS traits (Chen et al., 2021). By contrast, two about negative consequences of their acts (Van Goozen et al., studies (Cohn et al., 2013, 2016) conducted with arrested 2007). A series of studies supported this idea linking adult adolescent samples with disruptive behavior disorders psychopathy, especially the interpersonal-affective factor, to evinced no associations between GD, CU or INS traits and impaired fear processing (see Hoppenbrouwers et al., 2016; electrodermal fear conditioning. Another study (Fairchild Kozhuharova et al., 2019 for reviews), and to structural and et al., 2010) with conduct-disordered adolescent girls also functional abnormalities in fear processing areas, such as the reported no associations between electrodermal fear con- amygdala and the orbitofrontal regions (Blair et al., 2005; ditioning and psychopathy. Nevertheless, the psychopathy Glenn & Raine, 2008; Patrick, 2007). dimensions were not considered. Consistent with findings in One of the most widely employed approaches to objec- adults (Hoppenbrouwers et al., 2016), none of these studies tively study fear processing has been the use of fear condition- detected deficits in conscious measures of fear experience ing paradigms. In simple fear conditioning, a neutral stimulus such as CS-US contingency awareness, arousal or valence becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS) after being paired with ratings. In addition, consistent with results in adult samples, an unconditioned aversive stimulus (US; e.g., mild electric neuroimaging studies in youths also suggest that deficits in shock or unusual sound). Discrimination or differential condi- fear conditioning acquisition could be underlied by abnor- tioning consists of presenting two CSs, one paired (CS+) and malities in amygdala and other fear-related areas (Cohn the other unpaired (CS-) with the US. After the association et al., 2013; Fanti et al., 2020). between CS+ and US is produced, the CS+ becomes a threat In sum, although in adults there is considerable accumu- cue, and the CS- a safe cue. If the association has been suc- lated evidence regarding the role of fear conditioning in psy- cessful, then the CS+ evokes a greater conditioned response chopathy, the number of studies in children and adolescents (CR) than the CS-. CRs can include two components: auto- is limited. It is important to ascertain to what extent deficits matic reactions (e.g., changes in skin conductance, heart rate, are observed only in the physiological response, or whether respiration, body temperature or the startle reflex) and con- cognitive and affective components are also altered. Finally, scious experience (US expectancy, CS-US contingency aware- it is important to analyze whether the supposed deficits in ness, valence ratings, or arousal ratings) (see Hoppenbrouwers conditioning are linked to the overall psychopathy construct et al., 2016; Lonsdorf et al., 2017, for reviews). Importantly, or only to some of its dimensions. 13 Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2022) 44:11–25 13 The Present Study Finally, the third aim was to explore whether physiologi- cal, cognitive, and affective indices of conditioning have This research aimed to expand knowledge about fear con- differential associations with psychopathy dimensions. As ditioning in psychopathy1 and its dimensions in child and previous studies in both children and adults have found no adolescent clinical populations. To this end, we selected associations between psychopathy and cognitive and affec- a sample without Attention-Deficit / Hyperactivity Disor- tive measures of conditioning (Birbaumer et al., 2005; der (ADHD)-like symptomatology from a research project Cohn et al., 2013; Fairchild et al., 2010; Flor et al., 2002; aimed at studying emotional, attentional, and psychometric López et al., 2013; Rothemund et al., 2012), it was expected correlates of psychopathic traits (EMPROLIMIT study). We that the associations would be found only with physiologi- conducted a multi-informant (parents and teachers) assess- cal indices. This research could shed light on the potential ment of psychopathic traits with the CPTI (Colins et al., childhood precursors to psychopathy to better understand the 2014), and used an adaptation of a paradigm of differential developmental processes that may lead to this personality fear conditioning for children and adolescents developed by disorder. It also would facilitate its identification and treat- Neumann et al. (2008). Previous results from research on ment at early stages. fear conditioning with young populations were inconclusive and hardly comparable, so the hypotheses were mainly based on those obtained in adult samples. Method The first aim was to ascertain whether the associa- tion between psychopathy and fear conditioning is better Participants explained by psychopathy considered as a unitary construct or by one or more of the psychopathy dimensions (either sin- The sample was composed of a pre-selection of children gle or additive effects). Prior research in this field in adults and early adolescents who took part in a research project has found evidence in both directions, that is, deficits in aimed at studying emotional, attentional, and psychometric fear conditioning have been related with psychopathy as a correlates of psychopathic traits (EMPROLIMIT study). unitary construct (Birbaumer et al., 2005; Flor et al., 2002; A total of 45 boys aged 6–14 years (M = 10.59 years, SD Rothemund et al., 2012), and also with some dimensions of = 2.04), treated as outpatients at two psychiatric services psychopathy instead of the whole construct (López et al., in the area of Barcelona (Spain) [Vall d’Hebron Hospital 2013; Veit et al., 2013). On the other hand, in children and (n = 31; 69%) and Parc Taulí Hospital (n = 14; 31%)], partici- adolescents, only one of the above mentioned studies has pated in the present study. The inclusion criteria in the pre- considered the global construct of psychopathy and the rest selection phase were: a) male participants; b) Vocabulary have analyzed only the psychopathy dimensions. Further- and Matrix test scaled scores of the Wechsler Intelligence more, considerable evidence exists showing that psychopa- Scale for Children – Fourth Edition (WISC-IV; Wechsler, thy dimensions present different cognitive, emotional and 2003) greater than 4 (less than two SDs below the median biological correlates (Salekin, 2017). For all of the above, of the scale scores M = 10, SD = 3); c) absence of explicit analyzing the data using both approaches would be the most difficulties in speaking and understanding the Spanish appropriate. Thus, it was hypothesized that an approach language; d) absence of schizophrenia, psychotic disor- based on the psychopathy dimensions would provide a better ders, autism spectrum disorder symptoms, and significant comprehension of differences in fear conditioning than one sensorial or motor deficits (MINI-KID interview and in 7 based on the whole construct, and that the most relevant to this cases by clinical criteria); and f) absence of a severe ADHD particular deficit would be the CU dimension (Chen et al., 2021). diagnosis2 (see footnote for more details). Due to record- A second aim was to investigate two-way interaction ing problems during the fear conditioning task, four par- effects of psychopathy dimensions on fear conditioning. ticipants were excluded. Thus, the final sample consisted Although there are no previous data about the role of psy- of 41 boys aged 6–14 years (M = 10.58 years, SD = 1.96) chopathy dimensions interactions on deficits in fear process- ing, this could be a fruitful approach, as some authors have 2 proposed (Fanti et al., 2017; Salekin, 2016, 2017; Somma The criteria for exclusion of a severe ADHD diagnosis was applied when participants had 1) an ADHD diagnosis on the basis of either et al., 2018). As no previous research surveys have studied the Mini International Neuropsychiatric for Children and Adolescents this topic in fear conditioning, no hypothesis was formulated. for DSM-5 (MINI-KID 7.0.2; Sheehan et al., 2010) or the Supple- ment for Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity and Conduct Disor- ders of the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children- Present and Lifetime version (K-SADS-PL; 1 In this study we understand psychopathy from a dimensional Kaufman et al., 1997); and 2) a mean total score greater than 2 (Quite approach. We use the term psychopathy to refer to children/adoles- a bit) on the Spanish version (de Extremadura, 2008) of the Swanson, cents with high scores on dimensional measures of psychopathy. Nolan, and Pelham–IV rating scale (SNAP-IV; Bussing et al., 2008). 13 14 Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2022) 44:11–25 [Vall d’Hebron Hospital (n = 31; 76%) and Parc Taulí Hos- the mean of the responses to items. In the current study, pital (n = 10; 24%)]. Participants were predominantly Cauca- Cronbach’s alphas of the parents (teachers) version were sian (85%), followed by Latins (10%), and others (5%). Par- .92 (.93), .89 (.93), .80 (.84), and .91(.96) for the, GD, ents were most commonly university/college graduates CU, INS traits, and the CPTI total score, respectively. (55% mothers, 36% fathers) or high school graduates (25% mothers, 47% fathers). The ethnic composition and educa- Inclusion Variables Assessment tional level of the parents were similar to those of previ- ous epidemiological studies with larger samples in our coun- Vocabulary and Matrix Subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence try (Ezpeleta et al., 2014). Diagnostic characteristics of the Scale for Children – Fourth Edition (WISC‑IV; Wechsler, child and adolescent participants were classified as external- 2003) The WISC-IV is a four-factor intelligence battery for izing disorders (at least one of the following diagnoses: Con- children who are between 6 and 16 years of age. This battery duct disorder (CD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), or is comprised of 10 core subtests that combine to form four ADHD3), internalizing disorders (at least one: major depres- psychometrically validated factor scores. The two-subtest sion, suicidal behavior, specific phobia, social phobia, obses- form was used, which presents greater associations with the sive–compulsive disorder, separation anxiety, or generalized total IQ score: Vocabulary (r = .73) and Matrix Reasoning anxiety disorder), and other (tic) disorders according to MINI- (r = .63). The Vocabulary subtest measures word knowledge, KID 7.0.2 (n = 34; Sheehan et al., 2010) or K-SADS-PL (n = 7; verbal concept formation, and fund of knowledge, and the Kaufman et al., 1997). Sixteen participants (39%) showed Matrix Reasoning subtest measures visual information pro- externalizing disorders; two participants (5%) presented inter- cessing and abstract reasoning skills. The subtest scaled nalizing disorders; four participants (10%) met criteria both for scores present M = 10 and SD = 3. In this study, a score internalizing and externalizing disorders; two participants (5%) greater than 4 (less than 2 SDs below the median) was con- had externalizing and other disorders; one participant showed sidered an inclusion criterion. externalizing, internalizing and other (tic) disorders; and six- teen (39%) participants did not meet criteria for any disorder. Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham–IV Parent’s Version (SNAP‑IV; Bussing et al., 2008) The Spanish version (de Extremadura, Material 2008) of SNAP-IV was used to assess ADHD symptoms. It comprises 18 items that measure ADHD symptoms: Inatten- Psychopathic Traits Assessment tion (9 items) and Hyperactivity/Impulsivity (9 items). Par- ents rated the items on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 3 (Very much). In the current study, Cron- The Child Problematic Traits Inventory (CPTI; López- bach’s alphas were .93, .87, and .92 for Inattention, Hyper- Romero et al., 2019) The authorized Spanish version activity, and Total score, respectively. of the Child Problematic Traits Inventory was used to assess psychopathic traits. Parents (n = 41) and teach- Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Children ers (n = 38) rated the 28 items on a 4-point Likert scale and Adolescents for DSM‑5 (MINI‑KID 7.0.2; Sheehan et al., ranging from 1 (Does not apply at all) to 4 (Applies very 2010) For most participants (n = 34), the authorized Span- well), based on how the child usually behaves rather ish version of the MINI-KID for DSM-5 was used for the than on current behavior. To avoid underreporting by assessment of neuropsychiatric disorders. The MINI-KID an informant and incorporate information about differ- is a widely used short standardized diagnostic interview for ent settings, scores from parents and teachers were com- psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents aged 6–16. bined by using the higher score from either informant for It covers a broad range of diagnoses applicable to children each item. This method has been recommended for the and adolescents. This interview has been shown to be reli- measure of psychopathic traits when used in multiple set- able and valid. The MINI-KID was administered to children/ tings (Frick & Hare, 2001; Frick et al., 2005). The 28 adolescents in the presence of their parents. items were designed to assess the corresponding psy- chopathy dimensions: Grandiose-Deceitful (GD; 8 items); Supplement for Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity and Callous-Unemotional (CU; 10 items); and Impulsive-Need Conduct Disorders of the Schedule for Affective Disorders for Stimulation (INS; 10 items). The total score of each and Schizophrenia for School‑Age Children‑ Present and scale, as well as the total CPTI score, were computed as Lifetime Version (K‑SADS‑PL; Kaufman et al., 1997) Neu- ropsychiatric disorders were first assessed (n = 7) with the K-SADS-PL. The K-SADS-PL is a valid and reliable semi- 3 The participants with ADHD included in the study did not meet the structured interview for the diagnosis of psychiatric disor- exclusion criteria based on MINI-KID/K-SADS-PL and SNAP-IV. ders in school-children and adolescents aged between 6–18. 13 Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2022) 44:11–25 15 It consists of two parts: a screening interview for affective, the whole experiment, but the answers were only considered psychotic, and other disorders, and five diagnostic supple- when a shape appeared. ments. Supplement 4, which includes the diagnosis of ODD, Subjective ratings of valence and arousal of the two CSs CD, and ADHD was employed. were assessed at the end of each phase with a paper-and- pencil adaptation of the Self-Assessment Manekin (SAM; Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention (CSEA) Psychophysiological Data Recordings NIMH, 1990). Each page contained an image of a CS and two 5-point rating scales that used anchors based on Physiological responses were recorded during all the phases the SAM. The participants rated on a 5-point Likert scale of the study by using a Biopac 150 polygraph (BiopacSys- the dimensions of emotional valence (1 = Very pleasant, tems, Inc). SCR were recorded from the distal phalanges of 5 = Very unpleasant) and arousal (1 = Very calm, 5 = Very the index and the middle left-hand fingers by means of two arousing). The same scales were also used to obtain valence Ag/AgCl electrodes filled with electrolyte. The GSR100C and arousal ratings of the US. module (Biopac Systems) was used to provide a constant Stimuli presentation, timing, and response recording were voltage of 0.5 V and to amplify the recorded signal. The controlled by the free software package Affect 4.0 (Spruyt signal was sampled at a rate of 125 Hz. et al., 2009). We adapted a paradigm of differential fear conditioning developed by Neumann et al. (2008) to be used with children Procedure and adolescents. It consisted of three experimental phases (pre-acquisition, acquisition, and post-acquisition). In this This study was approved by Ethics Committees from the study, the paradigm was modified concerning the number of Vall d’Hebron and Parc Taulí Hospitals. Authorization of the trials (8 trials instead of 12 in the acquisition and the post- Education Department of the Catalan Government was also acquisition phases to reduce the duration of the experiment). obtained to contact the boys’ teachers so they could answer Six training trials were also added before the experiment. some questionnaires online about their traits and behaviors. The CSs were geometrical white shapes presented against The recruitment was carried out at each hospital by mental a black background. The figures were an isosceles triangle health professionals with experience in child psychopathol- (17.5 cm base and height) and a circle (17.5 cm diameter), ogy assessment. The interviewers assessed the children and both presented 52 cm from the participant via a computer adolescents in the presence of their parents. screen. A fixation-cross appeared on the screen when no Pre-selection of participants at each hospital consisted stimulus was presented (inter-trial interval). The US was a of a session in which the children were assessed for intel- 3-s recording of a three-pronged garden fork scraping a slate ligence with the WISC-IV Matrix and Vocabulary subtests, (Neumann & Waters, 2006), which was presented binaurally and the SNAP-IV and either the MINI-KID (n = 34) or the through headphones at a maximum intensity of 83 dB. K-SADS-PL (n = 7) for clinical assessment. Additionally, Each CS presentation lasted 8 s. For half of the partici- some other questionnaires not used in the present study were pants, the triangle was the CS+ (paired with the US before also administered. The session lasted 2 h approximately. If its offset) and the circle was the CS-; for the remaining par- the candidates fulfilled the criteria to be included, they and ticipants, the pairing was reversed. Trials for all the phases their families were formally invited to participate in it. After were presented in quasi-random order with the restriction the boys and their parents both agreed, they were referred that no more than two stimuli of the same class appeared to the psychophysiology lab. Participants and their families consecutively. The onset of the US coincided with CS+ off- signed informed consent either at the end of the preselection set in the acquisition phase. The inter-trial intervals var- session or at the beginning of the session at the psychophysi- ied randomly from 13 to 16 s (CS offset to CS onset). ology lab. The consent also included parents’ permission for Online ratings of the perceived risk of US appear- the children's teachers to be contacted by the researchers to ance (risk ratings, RR) at each trial were obtained. These complete some questionnaires online about their sons’ traits were defined as the judgments that children make about the and behaviors. All participants were instructed to refrain possibility of the appearance of the US (noise) after each from using psychostimulant medication for at least 24 h CS (shape). The children were instructed to answer the before the experimental task. question “Will the sound appear after the triangle/circle?” The psychological assessment and the fear conditioning during each CS presentation. For this purpose, the children task were performed in two different places. The partici- used a 3-point Likert scale (No risk [= 0], I do not know pants (children and parents) recruited at the Vall d’Hebron [= 1], Yes, risk [= 2]) and clicked once as fast as possible Hospital were tested in that hospital. For this purpose, a on the appropriate option when the CS appeared. Both the room of the Psychiatry Service was adapted to carry out question and the options were present on the screen during psychophysiological recordings, and another room was used 13 16 Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2022) 44:11–25 for psychological assessment with the parents. The partici- included to extinguish the fear conditioning responses of pants and their families recruited at the Parc Taulí Hospital participants for ethical reasons. Hence, extinction processes were tested at the Human Psychophysiology lab located in were not an aim of the present study. Online RR of perceived the Medical Psychology Unit at the University Campus. All risk for US in the presence of each CS was registered dur- psychophysiological recordings were carried out with the ing each phase. At the end of each phase, participants rated same polygraph. Light conditions, temperature (between 19 arousal and valence of CS+ and CS-. At the end of the acqui- and 22 ºC), and humidity (between 50 and 65%) were kept sition, contingency awareness was also assessed by asking constant at both places during the entire study. the participants “Did you notice if the sound was paired An assessment session to obtain information about soci- with any of the figures?” If so, “With which one?” Indi- odemographic data, personality, and clinical symptoms of viduals who correctly identified the CS+ were considered each participant was carried out with the parents as inform- contingency-aware. Finally, in the post-acquisition phase, ants. Testing included a questionnaire developed by the participants also rated the US valence and arousal. research team to collect sociodemographic data, the CPTI, completed by one of the parents, and other questionnaires Data Scoring not used in the present study. Nevertheless, sometimes this second session had to be split in two to adjust the assess- SCR to the stimuli were analyzed following the criteria ment to the families’ needs or the children’s characteristics. established by Lonsdorf et al. (2017). The scorer was blinded Some days after this session, information about participants’ to the task conditions. SCR magnitudes in microsiemens personality traits and behavior was also obtained online from (µS) were computed as the difference ≥ 0.05 µS between the their schoolteachers to obtain data from a second informa- maximum SCR occurring between 1-8 s after CS/US onset tion source. The CPTI and other questionnaires not used in and the previous minimum value during the latency win- this study were completed by the teachers. dow. A response to CS/US was considered only when the The fear conditioning paradigm for each child was con- changes in SCR started between 1- 4 s after each stimulus ducted in parallel with the second assessment session for onset. Trials in which no response could be detected or with parents. A researcher (AI) who was blinded to the partic- responses < 0.05 µS were considered non-response trials ipants’ diagnosis carried out this part of the study. Upon and coded as 0. SCR were visually inspected to ensure that arrival at the lab and after washing their hands, the instruc- responses were related to stimulus presentation and were not tions for the experiment were read to the participants, and due to artifacts (defined as fluctuations in the skin conduct- they were asked to be quiet and to relax. Next, the electrodes ance level occurring prior to stimulus onset which could and the headphones were placed. The participant was invited interfere with the detection of a response). Trials showing to sit in front of a screen, and the experimenter sat behind artifacts were rejected. SCR data were square-root trans- him so that the participant could not see her. For the train- formed to normalize the distributions. ing phase, the children were told that they would see letters (A or B) on the screen in front of them and hear a sound (a Data Analyses cockcrow). The children were further instructed on the use of the US RR scale and asked to answer just once each time To determine whether the fear conditioning procedure was that the letter appeared (results not presented here). During successful in the whole group, fear conditioning data were this phase, the instructions were read again in case the chil- analyzed using paired t-tests to examine differences between dren had not understood the task or had used the RR scale stimuli (CS+ versus CS-) for each experimental phase (pre- incorrectly. For the experiment proper, participants were told acquisition, acquisition, and post-acquisition) and measure that they would see geometrical shapes (a triangle and a cir- (SCR, RR, arousal, and valence). To analyze the influence cle) on the screen in front of them and then hear an “unusual of psychopathy dimensions on responses to the US (SCR, sound”. When the geometrical shapes did not appear on the arousal, and valence), multiple regression analyses were screen, participants were instructed to fix their eyes on the carried out with CPTI dimensions as predictor variables fixation-cross. They were not informed about the CS-US and responses to the US as criterion variables. To study the contingency but were told that they might learn to predict association of total CPTI with these responses, zero-order the sound if they attended to the presented stimuli. correlations were performed. The pre-acquisition phase consisted of two CS+ and two To test the association between responses to CS+ versus CS- trials presented in the absence of the US. The acquisi- CS- and psychopathy, first, we calculated the difference scores tion phase consisted of 8 CS+ always followed by the US (CS+ minus CS-) for SCR, RR, arousal, and valence as indi- (100% reinforcement) and 8 CS- trials. The post-acquisition ces of differential conditioning. The association between these phase consisted of 8 CS+ and 8 CS- always presented with- conditioning indices and psychopathy and its dimensions was out the US. It is important to point out that this phase was further examined at each phase using zero-order correlations 13 Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2022) 44:11–25 17 between scores on the CPTI (total score and dimensions) and and post-acquisition phases, only psychopathy dimensions, the difference scores (CS+ minus CS-). but not their interactions, were included as predictors. To To examine the predictive capacity of the distinct psy- study the predictive capacity of the psychopathy dimen- chopathy dimensions and also of the interactions between sions on contingency awareness, logistic regression analy- dimensions (GD*INS; GD*CU; and CU*INS) over dif- ses were performed. Psychopathy dimensions were predic- ference scores (CS+ minus CS-) in SCR, RR, arousal, and tor variables, and contingency awareness was the criterion valence, multiple regression analyses were performed variable. All analyses were performed using SPSS 22.0 at acquisition phase. The first step consisted of multi- for Windows. ple regression analyses with CPTI dimensions entered together as predictor variables, and the difference scores (CS+ minus CS-) in SCR, RR, arousal, and valence as cri- terion variables. These analyses would allow us to ascer- Results tain the relevance of each dimension and also whether some traits may act as suppressors for the others (Cohen Descriptive Statistics et al., 2003). In a second step, we performed a second- level multiple regression analysis adding the two-way The scores of participants in the CPTI were higher than interactions of the three dimensions. In the end, however, those obtained in community samples. As no normative these analyses were not considered because a collinearity data is available with combined scores of CPTI, we com- problem (tolerance < .10) was detected. Third, to overcome pared teachers’ scores from our study with the correspond- the above limitation, as recommended in Allen (1997), ing scores published in the authorized Spanish adapta- we examined only the predictive effect of the two-way tion (López-Romero et al., 2019). The mean psychopathy interactions of psychopathy dimensions on the difference scores were significantly higher than those obtained in scores (CS+ minus CS-) in SCR, RR, arousal, and valence child community samples in the total CPTI, M = 1.94, without taking into account the main effects of the dimen- SD = .63, t(37) = 5.03, p = .000; GD, M = 1.72, SD = .74, sions, which were tested at the first step of the analysis. t(37) = 2.86, p = .007; CU, M = 1.91, SD = .75, t(37) = 4.37, Finally, if a significant effect of a two-way interaction p = .000; and INS, M = 2.15, SD = .59, t(37) = 6.52, (e.g., CU*INS) was detected, we added the remaining p = .000. Additionally, all psychopathy dimensions were dimension (e.g., GD) to control for a possible confound- significantly related with each other and with the total ing effect, and recalculated the model. In pre-acquisition CPTI (Table 1). Table 1  Descriptive statistics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and zero-order correlations in acquisition phase between CPTI Fear conditioning indices (CS+ minus scores, fear conditioning indices CS-) and age (N = 41) GD CU INS CPTI Total SCR RR Arousal Valence Age 1 1 2 .68*** 1 3 .65*** .51** 1 4 .89*** .87*** .81*** 1 5 –.05 –.20 –.28a –.21 1 6 –.01 .07 –.34* –.09 .04 1 7 –.11 –.07 –.02 –.08 .29a .02 1 8 –.18 –.17 –.17 –.20 .29a –.17 .82*** 1 9 .28a .21 .00 .20 .21 .29a .15 –.02 1 Mean 2.06 2.09 2.71 2.30 .04 1.00 .63 .54 10.46 SD .72 .72 .56 .57 .13 .89 1.83 1.71 1.96 GD grandiosity-deceitfulness, CU callous-unemotional, INS impulsivity-need for stimulation, CS+ threat conditioned stimulus, CS- safe conditioned stimulus, SCR skin conductance responses (√µS), RR risk rat- ings of US expectancy * p ≤ .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 a p < .08 13 18 Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2022) 44:11–25 Preliminary Analyses Psychopathy and Responses to the US Fear Conditioning in the Whole Sample In order to discard the possibility that psychopathic traits could be predicting responses to the US (SCR, First, we analyzed whether fear conditioning induction was arousal and valence), multiple regression analyses were successful in the whole sample. Descriptive statistics for the performed with psychopathy dimensions as predictors. CS+ /CS- fear conditioning indices are presented in Table 2. Equivalent analyses for total CPTI were made by calcu- During the pre-acquisition phase, no differences between lating zero-order correlations. With respect to all three stimuli were found for SCR, RR, arousal, or valence. These psychopathy dimensions (GD, CU, INS), these were not results indicated that responses to CS+ and CS- before the significant predictors of SCR to the US, thus suggest- presentation of the US were not significantly different. In the ing that psychopathic traits were not related to US elec- acquisition phase, the differences between stimuli were margin- trodermal responsiveness across the task. Only the CU ally significant for SCR and significant for RR. This revealed dimension was significantly predictive of US arousal that the whole sample showed differential conditioning, with ratings, β = –.49, t(37) = –2.34, p = .025, and margin- greater SCR and RR to CS+ than to CS-. At the end of the ally predictive of US valence ratings, β = –.40, t(37) = acquisition phase, participants also rated the CS+ as more –1.84, p = .074. These results indicated that participants arousing and marginally less pleasant than the CS-, suggesting with higher CU traits rated the US as less arousing and that they experienced the CS+ as more aversive. In the post- unpleasant. The zero-order correlations between the total acquisition phase, no differences between stimuli were found CPTI and US SCR, valence and arousal ratings were not for SCR, RR, arousal, or valence, indicating that the partici- significant. pants extinguished the conditioned responses. These results support the idea of successful conditioning, as participants showed differential conditioning across acquisition and they Total CPTI and Fear Conditioning extinguished this conditioning in the post-acquisition phase. In the pre-acquisition phase, a marginal positive cor- relation emerged between the total CPTI and the CS+ / Psychopathy and SCR Across the Whole Task CS- arousal difference (r = .29, p = .068). In the acquisi- tion phase, as a marginal positive correlation was found To ensure that the mean SCR across the whole task was between RR and age (r = .29, p = .068), age was included not related to the psychopathic traits and that the following as a control variable in all subsequent analyses related to analyses were not skewed as a result, a multiple regression RR. Thus, a partial correlation between total CPTI and analysis was performed entering psychopathy dimensions CS+ /CS- RR differentiation controlling for age was per- as predictors and mean SCR as the dependent variable. formed. No more significant associations were detected No significant predictors emerged. Also, a zero-order between total CPTI and fear conditioning indices (SCR, correlation between total CPTI and mean SCR was not RR after controlling for age, arousal and valence) in the significant. pre-acquisition, acquisition, or post-acquisition phases. Table 2  Mean scores and standard deviations of physiological, cognitive and affective measures for CS+ , CS- and US and Student t-tests com- parisons (CS+ vs. CS-) Pre-acquisition Acquisition Post-acquisition CS+ CS- CS+ CS- US CS+ CS- M SD M SD t M SD M SD t M SD M SD M SD t a SCR 0.27 0.24 0.31 0.27 –1.16 0.27 0.22 0.23 0.19 1.95 0.56 0.30 0.22 0.16 0.20 0.14 0.56 RR 1.09 0.65 1.16 0.67 –0.54 1.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 7.26*** n.a n.a 0.64 0.55 0.53 0.51 1.09 Arousal 2.22 1.31 2.32 1.23 –0.44 2.71 1.50 2.07 1.23 2.22* 3.00 1.57 1.95 1.45 2.10 1.48 –0.90 Valence 2.64 1.16 2.46 0.84 0.70 2.76 1.26 2.22 1.04 2.00* 3.29 1.15 2.49 1.20 2.22 1.04 0.57 CS+ threat conditioned stimulus, CS- safe conditioned stimulus, SCR skin conductance responses (√µS), RR risk ratings of US expectancy; n.a. not applicable * p ≤ .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 a p < .06 13 Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2022) 44:11–25 19 CPTI Dimensions and Fear Conditioning p = .056 (Table 3). This revealed that higher INS scores mar- ginally predicted a smaller CS+ /CS- difference, and hence Pre‑acquisition Phase worse electrodermal fear conditioning. In the second regres- sion model, we entered the two-way interactions GD*CU, Zero-order correlations showed a significant association GD*INS, and CU*INS. Only CU*INS marginally predicted a between GD and CS+ /CS- arousal difference (r = .41 smaller CS+ /CS- SCR differentiation, β = –.77, t(37) = –1.96, p = .007), and a marginal association between INS and p = .057. Consequently, the regression model was recalcu- CS+ /CS- valence difference (r = .28 p = .077). No effects lated, entering GD and CU*INS as predictor variables. This emerged for CS+ /CS- SCR and RR differences. In the analysis revealed that, after controlling for GD, which was not regression analyses, no significant predictors (GD, CU, INS) a significant predictor and whose effect was in the opposite of the CS+ /CS- difference were found, either for SCR or direction, the CU*INS interaction was a significant predictor RR after controlling for age. With regard to affective rat- of poorer fear conditioning, β = –.50, t(38) = –2.12, p = .04. ings, GD emerged as a significant predictor of a greater The higher the scores in both CU and INS, the lesser was CS+ /CS- arousal difference, β = .63, t(37) = 2.77, p = .009. the CS+ /CS- SCR difference. Figure 1 displays the nature of When a similar analysis was conducted with the CS+ /CS- the CU*INS interaction at three levels (quartile 1, quartile 2, valence difference, INS emerged as a significant predictor of and quartile 3) in predicting mean CS+ /CS- SCR difference a greater difference, β = .43, t(37) = 2.12, p = .04. scores after controlling for GD. With regard to CS+ /CS- RR difference, in the regression Acquisition Phase analyses, all three psychopathy dimensions and age were included as predictors of CS+ /CS- RR difference (Table 3). In the acquisition phase, the correlations between the CPTI A significant effect was observed only for INS, β = –.54, scores (total and dimensions) and the four fear conditioning indi- t(36) = –2.75, p = .009. This model revealed that higher ces (Table 1) revealed a marginal negative association between INS predicted smaller CS+ /CS- RR differentiation, and INS and CS+ /CS- SCR difference (r = –.28; p = .078). Partial thus deficient fear conditioning at a cognitive level. When correlations between cognitive ratings and the psychopathic examining the two-way interaction effects, controlling for traits after controlling for age showed that INS and the CS+ / age, it was found that both GD*CU, β = 1.08, t(36) = 2.45, CS- RR difference were significantly related (r = –.36, p = .023). p = .02, and GD*INS interactions, β = –.63, t(36) = –2.08, To study the predictive capacity of each psychopathy p = .045, were significant predictors but in opposite direc- dimension (GD, CU, INS) and their interactions (GD*CU, tions. Given these interactions, models were recalculated for CU*INS, GD*INS) on the CS+ /CS- SCR difference, two each one, controlling for the third dimension not included in regression models were calculated. In the first one, all three the interaction. The first model included age, INS, and the psychopathy dimensions were included, and only INS emerged GD*CU interaction, and only INS was a significant predic- as a marginally significant predictor, β = –.40, t(37) = –1.98, tor of smaller CS+ /CS- differentiation, β = –.52, t(37) = –2.88, Table 3  Predictive effects of CPTI dimensions on fear conditioning indices during acquisition Skin conductance responses Risk ratings of US expectancy R2 change p Adjusted ­R2 R2 change p Adjusted ­R2 .15 .117 .08 .26 .027 .18 B SE beta t(df) p Partial r B SE beta t(df) p Partial r GD .07 .04 .39 1.65(37) .107 .26 GD .19 .29 .15 1.31 (36) .527 .11 CU –.05 .04 –.26 –1.27(37) .213 –.20 CU .25 .24 .20 1.02(36) .316 .17 INS –.09 .05 –.40 –0.20(37) .056 –.31 INS –.86 .31 –.54 –2.75(36) .009 –.42 Age .09 .07 .21 1.32(36) .195 .22 Arousal ratings Valence ratings R2 change p Adjusted ­R2 R2 change p Adjusted ­R2 .02 .901 –.06 .04 .676 –.04 B SE beta t(df) p Partial r B SE beta t(df) p Partial r GD –.38 .64 –.15 –0.60(37) .554 –.10 GD –.16 .60 –.07 –0.27(37) .788 –.05 CU –.04 .57 –.02 –0.07(37) .946 –.01 CU –.18 .53 –.08 –0.34(37) .738 –.06 INS .28 .71 .09 0.40(37) .689 .07 INS –.28 .66 –.09 –0.42(37) .680 –.07 GD grandiosity-deceitfulness, CU callous-unemotional, INS impulsivity-need for stimulation 13 20 Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2022) 44:11–25 Fig. 1  Interaction between 0.10 Callous-Unemotional (CU) * Impulsive-Need for Stimulation 0.08 (INS) traits in predicting mean CS+ /CS- skin conductance 0.06 difference scores after control- ling for Grandiose-Deceitful 0.04 SCR √µS (GD) traits (GD scores at median). CU and INS scores are 0.02 considered at three levels: low 0.00 (quartile 1), medium (quartile 2) and high (quartile 3) -0.02 -0.04 INS1 INS2 INS3 CU1 CU2 CU3 p = .007). A similar analysis was performed, entering age, evidence about this topic is very limited and, to the best of CU, and GD*INS, and no significant effect arose. Thus, INS our knowledge, this is the first research to explore both the was considered the only significant predictor of CS+ /CS- RR unique and interactive effects of psychopathy dimensions difference. These results indicated that after controlling for as predictors of fear conditioning in young clinical popu- age, GD and CU, higher INS traits were associated with a lations. Overall, findings showed that: a) deficits in fear poorer CS+ /CS- cognitive differentiation. conditioning were related to some psychopathic dimen- Most par ticipants (65%) were able to cor- sions but not to psychopathy as a unitary construct; b) INS rectly identify the CS+ at the end of the acquisition dimension was a significant predictor variable of deficient phase (i.e., aware; n = 26; Mage = 10.73, SD = 2.10). However, cognitive indices of fear conditioning; c) the CU*INS the other 35% of children were not able to correctly iden- interaction, after controlling for GD, was a significant pre- tify the CS+ (i.e., unaware n = 14; Mage = 9.83, SD = 1.56). dictor of impaired electrodermal fear conditioning; d) GD Aware and unaware participants did not differ concerning dimension was not a significant predictor of any indices, age, t(38) = –1.40, p = .17. Logistic regression analyses were but, contrarily to the other dimensions, was marginally conducted to study the predictive capacity of psychopathic traits associated with a greater electrodermal fear conditioning. on CS+/ US contingency awareness. No significant predictors Concerning the first aim, the results confirmed that were found, revealing that psychopathic traits were not related psychopathy dimensions, but not psychopathy as a whole, to CS+/ US contingency awareness. Considering the affec- were predictors of fear conditioning deficits. The entire tive ratings, no significant predictors of CS+ /CS- valence or psychopathy construct was not related to deficits in fear arousal differentiation emerged considering the dimensions or conditioning probably because these deficits were associ- their two-way interactions in regression analyses. ated in a different way with the dimensions. These data give support to prior research with children and ado- lescents about fear conditioning (Chen et al., 2021) and Post‑acquisition other experimental procedures with psychophysiological measures that have shown divergent associations with psy- In the post-acquisition phase, no significant correlations were chopathy dimensions (Fanti et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2018; found. In the regression analyses, no significant predictors MacDougall et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2012). In adults, (GD, CU, INS) of the CS+ /CS- difference emerged for SCR, however, there is empirical evidence in fear condition- RR after controlling for age, arousal, and valence. We also ing supporting the relationship with both approaches: analyzed whether psychopathic traits predicted the CS+ / psychopathy as a unidimensional construct (Birbaumer CS- difference scores during the first trials of this phase (2 et al., 2005; Flor et al., 2002; Rothemund et al., 2012) or a CS+ versus 2 CS-), and no significant effect was found. multidimensional one (Dvorak-Bertsch et al., 2009; López et al., 2013; Veit et al., 2013). Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that the studies with the first approach did not Discussion include data about the relationship between psychopathy dimensions and conditioning. The present study aimed to expand knowledge about the When analyzing the individual effect of each psychopa- role of fear conditioning in psychopathy in a clinical thy dimension after controlling for the others, INS emerged sample of children and early adolescents. The empirical as a significant predictor of poorer cognitive conditioning. 13 Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2022) 44:11–25 21 Importantly, this effect was observed only considering one the GD dimension may be related to a preserved capacity to of the cognitive indices (RR), but not the other (contin- form associations between a threat cue and an aversive event gency awareness). The different results obtained in the pre- at physiological level. Prior research is consistent with this sent study with respect to these cognitive indices could be finding, as it has been reported that GD dimension shows a explained by the characteristics of the paradigm used: RR different physiological reactivity response pattern than CU were assessed in each trial (directing participants’ attention and INS dimensions (Wang et al., 2012); in addition, GD to the CSs/US contingency) and contingency awareness was has been associated with higher cognitive abilities (Salekin, assessed at the end of the acquisition phase. It is likely that 2017) and with enhanced attention to novel stimuli (Gao individuals with higher INS scores needed more trials to et al., 2018). Altogether, these results could indicate that GD learn the CS+ /US contingency, which could be indicative of dimension is related to a better predisposition for successful a relationship between the INS dimension and an impaired conditioning. More studies with larger samples are needed to cognitive function or attention (Gao et al., 2018). corroborate this effect and clarify the role of GD dimension Of note is the fact that the association of INS with cogni- in fear conditioning. tive fear conditioning indices was greater when the effect of Altogether, these findings highlight the importance of the other dimensions was controlled, a finding which lends considering psychopathy from a multidimensional perspec- support to the suppressive effect hypothesis between traits tive instead of relying only on total psychopathy scores. The (i.e., when each variable accounts for more of the variance results show that psychopathy dimensions are associated in in the dependent variable in a regression model than when different and even opposite directions with psychophysi- presented alone; Cohen et al., 2003), as shown by previous ological correlates canceling the effect of the total score. If studies in the field of child/adolescent psychopathy (Fanti future studies about psychopathy correlates consider this and et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2018; MacDougall et al., 2019). report on both total and dimensions scores, it would help to With respect to the second goal, the CU*INS interaction understand how the configuration of these dimensions con- was significantly related to poorer electrodermal condition- tributes to a full clinical picture of psychopathy (Lilienfeld, ing, after controlling for GD. This interactive effect meant 2018; Lilienfeld et al., 2015). that the higher the scores in both CU and INS traits, the Considering the third aim, it was hypothesized that the poorer was electrodermal fear conditioning in the acquisition associations between psychopathy dimensions and fear phase. Thus, both dimensions seem to be relevant in auto- conditioning would be found specifically for physiological matic processes of fear conditioning. It is important to point indices but not for cognitive and affective measures. This out that the observed results cannot be explained by a gen- hypothesis was not supported in this study, as we found eral reduced electrodermal reactivity to aversive stimuli, as both impaired electrodermal fear conditioning related to no predictor effect was found for psychopathy on reactivity the CU*INS interaction, and deficits in one of the cognitive to the US. Rather, they are indicating that both CU and INS measures of fear conditioning related to INS. With respect contribute to an emotional deficit to form associations in fear to affective measures of conditioning, no association was learning contexts. Previous studies in children have shown detected. This occurred despite these variables being shown an impairment in electrodermal conditioning related only to to be sensitive to conditioning induction in the acquisition CU traits (Chen et al., 2021). Similar results were reported phase, and despite a negative relationship between CU traits in adult psychopathy (Dvorak-Bertsch et al., 2009; López and US valence and arousal ratings. et al., 2013; Veit et al., 2013). To the best of our knowledge, Prior research has usually found that cognitive or affec- this is the first study that has analyzed the interaction effects tive indices of fear conditioning were not impaired in adults between traits both in youths and adults, making our results (Birbaumer et al., 2005; Flor et al., 2002; López et al., 2013; difficult to compare with previous ones. Nevertheless, the Rothemund et al., 2012) and youths with psychopathic traits deficits in fear conditioning related to psychopathy as a uni- (Cohn et al., 2013; Fairchild et al., 2010). One of the possible tary construct reported previously might also be explained explanations of the results obtained in this study in relation by this interaction between the CU and INS traits if this to impaired fear conditioning at cognitive level could be the kind of analysis had been performed (Birbaumer et al., 2005; brain development differences between children, early ado- Flor et al., 2002; Rothemund et al., 2012). More studies are lescents, and adults. Youths evince higher sensation-seeking, needed in order to ascertain if this effect is replicated and impulsivity, and reward sensitivity because the maturation of can be generalized to other populations. connections between the prefrontal cortex and brain regions It is worth noting that even though the GD dimension was that control self-regulation and emotions is not completed not a significant predictor of fear conditioning indices, it pre- until the early twenties (Steinberg & Icenogle, 2019). As a sented a different pattern of associations as compared with result, youths could present more impulsive behaviors and the other dimensions and was marginally related to a greater deficits in cognitive conditioning, but these characteristics electrodermal fear conditioning. These results indicate that may become less pronounced with age. 13 22 Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2022) 44:11–25 Mention should be made about the findings in the these deficits could be an important biomarker to identify youths pre-acquisition and post-acquisition phases. In the pre- with severe conduct problems with high risk to engage in antiso- acquisition phase, some inconsistencies were detected cial behavior. This line of research would be fruitful to enhance regarding affective ratings. As in this phase US was not clinical assessment, therapeutic intervention and programs in presented and in the acquisition phase these effects of early stages of development for conduct problem youth. psychopathic traits disappeared, the children were prob- ably answering at random. In the post-acquisition phase, Acknowledgements The authors want to express their gratitude to fam- ilies, schools as well as staff of the Servei de Psiquiatria Vall d’Hebron as all indices indicate, extinction was successful, which is and Mental Health Service of Parc Taulí Hospital for their kind support important for ethical reasons. Even though extinction was in the study. The authors wish to thank Marina Alonso and Ariadna not an aim of the study, psychopathic traits were not pre- Mas for assistance in data collection. dictors of any fear conditioning indices in line with previ- ous research (Cohn et al., 2016; Fairchild et al., 2010). Funding Open Access Funding provided by Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. This research was financially supported by the Ministerio de Finally, our study has several strengths: a) it was carried Economía y Competitividad, Spanish Government (MINECO/FEDER, out in a child/early adolescent clinical sample, which helped UE), reference: PSI2015-67441-R and by the AGAUR, Generalitat to understand the predictive power of psychopathic traits on de Catalunya (2017 SGR1586). A.I. is recipient of a Ph.D. fellowship fear conditioning in a population with more prevalence of by the Secretaria d’Universitats i Recerca of Generalitat de Catalunya and European Social Fund (FI-DGR 2017). conduct problems (the scores of the CPTI were significantly higher than in community-based samples); b) we relied on multi-informant sources from different settings (parents Declarations and teachers); c) statistical analyses were carried out taking Conflict of Interest The funding sources had no role in the study de- into account psychopathy as a whole, the three psychopathy sign, collection, analysis or interpretation of data, the writing of the dimensions and their interactions. article or decision to submit the article for publication. Anastasiya However, some limitations can affect the significance of Ivanova-Serokhvostova, Beatriz Molinuevo, David Torrents-Rodas, Albert Bonillo, Iris Pérez-Bonaventura, Montserrat Corrales, Mont- our results: a) the size of our sample was relatively small; even serrat Pamias, Josep Antoni Ramos-Quiroga, and Rafael Torrubia so, it was adequate to detect significant effects that bear fur- declare that they have no conflicts of interest. ther investigation; b) the present results are not generalizable Experiment Participants to girls; c) the heterogeneity of the sample characteristics (and All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or na- the sample size) did not allow us to take the clinical diagnoses tional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and of participants into consideration, although this heterogene- its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. ity lends more ecological validity to the study and makes the results more generalizable to clinical samples; d) the high Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- prevalence of psychopathology in the present sample could bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long be relevant to explaining the pattern of the associations found as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, between psychopathic traits and fear conditioning, but hinders provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes the generalization of these results to community samples. were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not Conclusions permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a This study provides evidence for a multidimensional approach copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. to psychopathy, as no significant effects were found consid- ering psychopathy as a whole. The results give support to the notion that psychopathy dimensions could be rooted in References distinct underlying etiologic-dispositional factors, as they are Allen, M. P. (1997). The problem of multicollinearity. In Understand- associated with different neurophysiological and cognitive ing Regression Analysis (pp. 176–180). Boston, MA: Springer US. correlates. The results obtained suggest that the study of psy- https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-0-​585-​25657-3_​37 chopathy as a whole, and both single and interactive effects Andershed, H., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Levander, S. (2002). Psycho- of psychopathy dimensions in fear conditioning, should be pathic traits in non-referred youths: Initial test of a new assess- ment tool. In E. Blaauw & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Psychopaths: Cur- incorporated in the future. This approach could reconcile the rent international perspectives (pp. 131–158). Elsevier. inconsistent findings, help to better understand fear process- Birbaumer, N., Veit, R., Lotze, M., Erb, M., Hermann, C., Grodd, W., ing in youths with these characteristics and to progress in the & Flor, H. (2005). Deficient fear conditioning in psychopathy. study of psychopathy profiles. If deficits in fear conditioning Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(7), 799–805. https://​doi.​org/​ 10.​1001/​archp​syc.​62.7.​799 were replicated in future studies in children and adolescents, 13 Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2022) 44:11–25 23 Blair, R. J. R., Mitchel, D., & Blair, K. (2005). The psychopath: Emo- Frick, P., & Hare, R. D. (2001). Antisocial process screening device. tion and the brain. Blackwell. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Bussing, R., Fernandez, M., Harwood, M., Hou, W., Garvan, C. W., Frick, P. J., & Marsee, M. A. (2018). Psychopathy and developmental Eyberg, S. M., & Swanson, J. M. (2008). Parent and teacher pathways to antisocial behavior in youth. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), SNAP-IV ratings of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 456–475). The Guilford Press. symptoms: Psychometric properties and normative ratings from Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2014a). a school district sample. Assessment, 15(3), 317–328. https://​doi.​ Annual research review: A developmental psychopathology org/​10.​1177/​10731​91107​313888 approach to understanding callous-unemotional traits in chil- Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention (CSEA) NIMH. (1990). dren and adolescents with serious conduct problems. Journal of The international affective picture system: Digitized photographs. Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 55(6), The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Flor- 532–548. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jcpp.​12152 ida, Gainesville, FL. Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2014b). Can Chen, F. R., Raine, A., & Gao, Y. (2021). Reduced electrodermal fear callous-unemotional traits enhance the understanding, diagnosis, conditioning and child callous - unemotional traits. Research on and treatment of serious conduct problems in children and adoles- Child and Adolescent Psychopathology. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ cents? A comprehensive review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), s10802-​020-​00727-3 1–57. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​a0033​076 Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied mul- Frick, P. J., Stickle, T. R., Dandreaux, D. M., Farrell, J. M., & Kimonis, tiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences E. R. (2005). Callous-unemotional traits in predicting the severity (3rd ed.) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. and stability of conduct problems and delinquency. Journal of Cohn, M. D., Popma, A., Van Den Brink, W., Pape, L. E., Kindt, M., Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(4), 471–487. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Van Domburgh, L., & Veltman, D. J. (2013). Fear conditioning, 1007/​s10648-​005-​5728-9 persistence of disruptive behavior and psychopathic traits: An Frick, P. J., & White, S. F. (2008). Research review: The impor- fMRI study. Translational Psychiatry, 3(10), e319–e328. https://​ tance of callous-unemotional traits for developmental models of doi.​org/​10.​1038/​tp.​2013.​89 aggressive and antisocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology Cohn, M. D., van Lith, K., Kindt, M., Pape, L. E., Doreleijers, T. A. and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 49(4), 359–375. https://​ H., van den Brink, W., & Popma, A. (2016). Fear extinction, per- doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1469-​7610.​2007.​01862.x sistent disruptive behavior and psychopathic traits: FMRI in late Gao, Y., Zhang, W., Eisenbarth, H., Fung, A. L. C., Lu, M., Raine, adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11(7), A., Li, X. (2018). P3 amplitude and psychopathic traits in youths: 1027–1035. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​scan/​nsv067 Distinct contributions of the grandiose-manipulative and daring- Colins, O. F., Andershed, H., Frogner, L., Lopez-Romero, L., Veen, impulsivity traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 120(July V., & Andershed, A. K. (2014). A new measure to assess psycho- 2017), 87–94. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​paid.​2017.​08.​017 pathic personality in children: The child problematic traits inven- Glenn, A. L., & Raine, A. (2008). The neurobiology of psychopathy. tory. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 31(3), 463–475. https://​doi.​ 36(1), 4–21. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10862-​013-​9385-y org/​10.​1016/j.​psc.​2008.​03.​004 de Extremadura, J. (2008). Detección, diagnóstico y tratamiento del Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and Trastorno de Atención/Hiperactividad en Pediatría (Junta de rmpirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4(1), Extremadura, Ed.). Badajoz. 217–246. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 146/​a nnur ​ev.​c linp​s y.3.​0 22806.​ Dvorak-Bertsch, J. D., Curtin, J. J., Rubinstein, T. J., & Newman, J. 091452 P. (2009). Psychopathic traits moderate the interaction between Hoppenbrouwers, S. S., Bulten, B. H., & Brazil, I. A. (2016). Parsing cognitive and affective processing. Psychophysiology, 46(5), 913– fear : A reassessment of the evidence for fear deficits in psychopa- 921. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1469-​8986.​2009.​00833.x thy. Psychological Bulletin, 142(6), 573–600. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Ezpeleta, L., De La Osa, N., & Doménech, J. M. (2014). Preva- 1037/​bul00​00040 lence of DSM-IV disorders, comorbidity and impairment in Kaufman, J., Birmaher, B., Brent, D., Rao, U., Flynn, C., Moreci, P., & 3-year-old Spanish preschoolers. Social Psychiatry and Psychi- Ryan, N. (1997). Schedule for affective disorders and schizophrenia atric Epidemiology, 49(1), 145–155. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ for school-age children-present and lifetime version (K-SADS-PL): s00127-​013-​0683-1 Initial reliability and validity data. Journal of the American Acad- Fairchild, G., Stobbe, Y., van Goozen, S. H. M., Calder, A. J., & emy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36(7), 980–988. https://​ Goodyer, I. M. (2010). Facial expression recognition, fear con- doi.​org/​10.​1097/​00004​583-​19970​7000-​00021 ditioning, and startle modulation in female subjects with conduct Kochanska, G. (1991). Socialization and temperament in the develop- disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 68(3), 272–279. https://​doi.​org/​ ment of guilt and conscience. Child Development, 62(6), 1379– 10.​1016/j.​biops​ych.​2010.​02.​019 1392. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1467-​8624.​1991.​tb016​12.x Fanti, K. A., Konikou, K., Cohn, M. D., Popma, A., & Brazil, I. A. Kozhuharova, P., Dickson, H., Tully, J., & Blackwood, N. (2019). Impaired (2020). Amygdala functioning during threat acquisition and processing of threat in psychopathy: A systematic review and meta- extinction differentiates antisocial subtypes. Journal of Neuropsy- analysis of factorial data in male offender populations. PLoS One, chology, 14(2), 226–241. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jnp.​12183 14(10), 1–17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​02244​55 Fanti, K. A., Kyranides, M. N., Georgiou, G., Petridou, M., Colins, O. LeDoux, J. E. (2014). Coming to terms with fear. Proceedings of the F., Tuvblad, C., & Andershed, H. (2017). Callous-unemotional, National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, impulsive-irresponsible, and grandiose-manipulative traits: Dis- 111(8), 2871–2878. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1073/​pnas.​14003​35111 tinct associations with heart rate, skin conductance, and startle Leistico, A. A. R., Salekin, R. T., Decoster, J., & Rogers, R. (2008). responses to violent and erotic scenes. Psychophysiology, 54(5), A large-scale of psychopathy to antisocial conduct meta-analysis 663–672. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​psyp.​12837 the Hare Measures. Law an, 32(1), 28–45. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/​ Flor, H., Birbaumer, N., Hermann, C., Ziegler, S., Patrick, C. J., Flor, sl0979-​007-​9096-6 H., & Patrick, C. J. (2002). Aversive Pavlovian conditioning in Lilienfeld, S. O. (2018). The multidimensional nature of psychopathy: psychopaths: Peripheral and central correlates. Psychophysiology, Five recommendations for research. Journal of Psychopathology 39(4), 505–518. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S0048​57720​23940​46 and Behavioral Assessment, 40(1), 79–85. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 007/​ s10862-​018-​9657-7 13 24 Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2022) 44:11–25 Lilienfeld, S. O., Watts, A. L., Francis Smith, S., Berg, J. M., & Latzman, British Journal of Psychiatry, 209(3), 189–191. https://​doi.​org/​ R. D. (2015). Psychopathy deconstructed and reconstructed: Identi- 10.​1192/​bjp.​bp.​115.​179051 fying and assembling the personality building blocks of Cleckley’s Salekin, R. (2017). Research review: What do we know about psy- Chimera. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 593–610. https://​doi.​org/​ chopathic traits in children? Journal of Child Psychology and 10.​1111/​jopy.​12118 Psychiatry, 11, 1180–1200. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jcpp.​12738 Lonsdorf, T. B., Menz, M. M., Andreatta, M., Fullana, M. A., Golkar, Sheehan, D. V., Sheehan, K. H., Shytle, D. R., Janavs, J., Bannon, A., Haaker, J., & Merz, C. J. (2017). Don’t fear fear condition- Y., Rogers, J. E., Wilkinson, B. (2010). Reliability and validity ing: Methodological considerations for the design and analysis of of the mini international neuropsychiatric interview for children studies on human fear acquisition, extinction, and return of fear. and adolescents (MINI-KID). The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 77, 247–285. https://​ 71(3), 313–326. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4088/​JCP.​09m05​305whi doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​neubi​orev.​2017.​02.​026 Somma, A., Andershed, H., Borroni, S., Salekin, R.T., & Fossati, A. López-Romero, L., Molinuevo, B., Bonillo, A., Andershed, H., Colins, (2018) Psychopathic Personality Traits in Relation to Self-report O. F., Torrubia, R., & Romero, E. (2019). Psychometric properties Delinquency in Adolescence: Should We Mind About Interaction of the Spanish version of the child problematic traits inventory Effects? J Psychopathol Behav Assess, 40, 69–78. https://​doi.​org/​ in 3- to 12-year-old Spanish children. European Journal of Psy- 10.​1007/​s10862-​018-​9658-6 chological Assessment, 35(6), 842–854. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1027/​ Spruyt, A., Clarysse, J., Vansteenwegen, D., Baeyens, F., & Hermans, 1015-​5759/​a0004​58 D. (2009). Affect 4.0: A free software package for implementing López, R., Poy, R., Patrick, C. J., & Moltó, J. (2013). Deficient fear psychological and psychophysiological experiments. Experimen- conditioning and self-reported psychopathy: The role of fearless tal Psychology, 57(1), 36–45. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1027/​1618-​3169/​ dominance. Psychophysiology, 50(2), 210–218. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.​ a0000​05 1111/j.​1469-​8986.​2012.​01493.x Steinberg, L., & Icenogle, G. (2019). Using developmental science to MacDougall, E. A. M., Salekin, R. T., & Gillen, C. T. A. (2019). Ado- distinguish adolescents and adults under the law. Annual Review lescent psychopathy, heart rate, and skin conductance. Psycho- of Developmental Psychology, 1(1), 21–40. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ physiology, 56(6), 1–11. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​psyp.​13344 1146/​annur​ev-​devps​ych-​121318-​085105 Neumann, D. L., & Waters, A. M. (2006). The use of an unpleasant Van Goozen, S. H. M., Fairchild, G., Snoek, H., & Harold, G. T. sound as an unconditional stimulus in a human aversive Pavlovian (2007). The evidence for a neurobiological model of childhood conditioning procedure. Biological Psychology, 73(2), 175–185. antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 149–182. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biops​ycho.​2006.​03.​004 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​0033-​2909.​133.1.​149 Neumann, D. L., Waters, A. M., Westbury, H. R., & Henry, J. (2008). Veit, R., Konicar, L., Klinzing, J. G., Barth, B., Yilmaz, Ö., & The use of an unpleasant sound unconditional stimulus in an Birbaumer, N. (2013). Deficient fear conditioning in psychopathy aversive conditioning procedure with 8- to 11-year-old children. as a function of interpersonal and affective disturbances. Frontiers Biological Psychology, 79(3), 337–342. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​10.​1016/j.​ in Human Neuroscience, 7, 1–12. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3389/​fnhum.​ biops​ycho.​2008.​08.​005 2013.​00706 Patrick, C. J. (2007). Getting to the heart of psychopathy. In H. Herves Wang, P., Baker, L. A., Gao, Y., Raine, A., & Isabel, D. (2012). Psy- & J. C. Yuille (Eds.), The psychopath: Theory, research, and prac- chopathic traits and physiological responses to aversive stimuli in tice (pp. 207–252). Erlbaum. children aged 9–11 years. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, Rothemund, Y., Ziegler, S., Hermann, C., Gruesser, S. M., Foell, J., 40(5), 759–769. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10802-​011-​9606-3 Patrick, C. J., & Flor, H. (2012). Fear conditioning in psycho- Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children – Fourth paths: Event-related potentials and peripheral measures. Biologi- edition (WISC-IV). The Psychological Corporation. cal Psychology, 90(1), 50–59. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.b​ iopsy​ cho.​ 2012.​02.​011 Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to Salekin, R. (2016). Psychopathy in childhood: Why should we care jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. about grandiose-manipulative and daring-impulsive traits? The Authors and Affiliations Anastasiya Ivanova‑Serokhvostova1 · Beatriz Molinuevo1 · David Torrents‑Rodas2 · Albert Bonillo3 · Iris Pérez‑Bonaventura4,5 · Montserrat Corrales1,6,7,8 · Montserrat Pamias4,5,7 · Josep Antoni Ramos‑Quiroga1,6,7,8 · Rafael Torrubia1 Beatriz Molinuevo Montserrat Pamias Beatriz.Molinuevo@uab.cat mpamias@tauli.cat David Torrents‑Rodas Josep Antoni Ramos‑Quiroga torrents@uni-marburg.de jaramos@vhebron.net Albert Bonillo Rafael Torrubia Albert.Bonillo@uab.cat Rafael.Torrubia@uab.cat Iris Pérez‑Bonaventura 1 Department of Psychiatry and Forensic Medicine, Institute iperezb@tauli.cat of Neurosciences, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Montserrat Corrales 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain mcorrales@vhebron.net 13 Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment (2022) 44:11–25 25 2 6 Faculty of Psychology, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Department of Psychiatry, Hospital Universitari Vall Marburg, Germany d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain 3 7 Department of Psychobiology and Methodology of Health Biomedical Network Research Centre on Mental Health Sciences, Institute of Neurosciences, Universitat Autònoma (CIBERSAM), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain 8 Group of Psychiatry, Mental Health and Addictions, Vall 4 Department of Mental Health, Corporació Sanitària Parc d’Hebron Research Institute (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain Taulí, Sabadell, Spain 5 Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain 13