Response perseveration and sensitivity to reward and punishment in boys with oppositional defiant disorder
Response perseveration is the tendency to continue a response set for reward despite punishment. In the present study, response perseveration and sensitivity to reward and punishment were assessed in boys with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). The study also examined the relation between punishment sensitivity and autonomic arousal. Nineteen ODD boys (mean age 9.8 years) and 20 normal control boys (NC) (mean age 9.7 years) were administered the door-opening task. In this task, the subject chooses either to open the next door or to stop playing; the opening of doors is initially rewarded and then increasingly punished. ODD boys opened more doors than NC boys. Following punishment, ODD boys took less time than NC boys before opening the next door, but did not differ from NC boys in time after reward. Mean skin conductance level was lower in ODD boys than in NC boys. The correlation coefficient between time after punishment and skin conductance level was moderately positive in the total sample. These results suggest that response perseveration in ODD boys is related to low punishment sensitivity and that skin conductance level is a marker of punishment sensitivity.
Key wordsoppositional defiant disorder conduct disorder autonomic arousal inhibition punishment
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Achenbach TM (1991) Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile. University of Vermont Deartment of Psychiatry, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
- 2.American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edn (DSMIV). American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 3.Daugherty TK, Quay HC (1991) Response perseveration and delayed responding in childhood behavior disorders. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 32:453–461Google Scholar
- 4.Fonseca AC, Yule W (1995) Personality and antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: an enquiry into Eysenck’s and Gray’s theories. J Abnorm Child Psychol 23:767–781Google Scholar
- 5.Fowles DC (1980) The three arousal model: implications of Gray’s two factor learning theory for hear rate, electrodermal activity and psychopathy. Psychophysiology 17:87–104Google Scholar
- 6.Hinshaw SP, Lahey BJ, Hart EL (1993) Issues of taxonomy and comorbidity in the development of conduct disorder. Dev Psychopathol 5:31–49Google Scholar
- 7.Matthys W, van Goozen SHM, de Vries H, Cohen-Kettenis PT, van Engeland H (1998) The dominance of behavioural activation over behavioural inhibition in conduct disordered boys with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 39:643–651Google Scholar
- 8.McCleary R (1966) Response-modulating function of the limbic system: initiation and suppression. In: Stellar E, Sprague J (eds) Progress in physiological psychology (volume 1). Academic Press, New York, pp 209–271Google Scholar
- 9.Raine A (1993) The psychopathology of crime: criminal behavior as a clinical disorder. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- 10.Shapiro SK, Quay HC, Hogan AE, Schwartz KP (1988) Response perseveration and delayed responding in undersocialized aggressive conduct disorder. J Abn Psychol 97:371–373Google Scholar
- 11.Van Goozen SHM, Matthys W, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Buitelaar JK, van Engeland H (2000) Hypothalamic-pituitaryadrenal and autonomic nervous system activity during stress: a comparison of disruptive children and normal controls. J Am Acad Child Adolescent Psychiatry 39:1438–1445Google Scholar