Exposure to Violence as a Mediator of the CU–Aggression Relationship: on the Importance of Establishing the Causal Direction of Variables in a Path Analysis
The current study sought to determine which of three variables—callous-unemotional (CU) traits, exposure to violence (ETV), and aggressive offending—did the best job of mediating the other two variables. This question was addressed in a sample of 1170 male delinquents from the Pathways to Desistance study using three waves of data and the comparison pathways approach to mediation. Consistent with predictions, ETV successfully mediated the CU–aggression relationship, whereas the two control pathways (ETV → CU → aggression and CU → aggression → ETV) were non-significant. These results suggest that certain variables are better suited to serving as mediators than other variables. Hence, while personality-based constructs like CU traits perform well as independent variables and behavioral measures like aggressive offending make for effective dependent variables, mediation is perhaps best served by social cognitive, affective-motivational, perceptual, and experiential variables, the latter of which is the category into which exposure to violence falls. From a theoretical standpoint, these findings suggest that exposure to violence may trigger or prime aggressive offending in individuals possessing strong CU traits. Exposure to violence may therefore serve as one mechanism with the capacity to link CU traits to later aggressive offending, with implications for both prevention and intervention.
KeywordsCallous-unemotional traits Exposure to violence Aggressive offending Mediation
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Glenn D. Walters declares that he has no conflict of interest concerning this study.
This study constitutes a secondary analysis of publicly available data. Use of these data for research was granted by the Kutztown University Institutional Review Board (IRB). The current study received no funding.
- Allison, P. D. (2012). Handling missing data by maximum likelihood. In SAS Global Forum 2012 (Paper 312–2012). Cary: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
- Andershed, H., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Levander, S. (2002). Psychopathic traits in non-referred youths: Initial test of a new assessment tool. In E. Blaauw & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Psychopaths: Current international perspectives (pp. 131–158). The Hague: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliff: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Collins, L. M., Schafer, J. L., & Kam, C. M. (2001). A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6, 330–351.Google Scholar
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge: Ballinger.Google Scholar
- Kenny, D. A. (2013). Mediation: Sensitivity analysis [webinar]. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/webinars/Mediation/Sensitivity/Sensitivity.html.
- Kimonis, E., Frick, P., Munoz, L., & Aucoin, K. (2008). Callous–unemotional traits and the emotional processing of distress cues in detained boys: Testing the moderating role of aggression, exposure to community violence, and histories of abuse. Journal of Developmental Psychopathology, 20, 569–589.Google Scholar
- 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
- McMahon, R. J., Witkiewitz, K., Kotler, J. S., & the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2010). Predictive validity of callous-unemotional traits measured in early adolescence with respect to multiple antisocial outcomes. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 752–763.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Mulvey, E. P. (2012). The Pathways to desistance study: Design and methods. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. Retrieved on 06-03-2013 from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p574246_index.html.
- Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (1998–2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén and Muthén.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- van Baardewijk, Y., Vermiren, R., Stegge, H., & Doreleijers, T. (2011). Self-reported psychopathic traits in children: Their stability and concurrent and prospective association with conduct problems and aggression. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 33, 236–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Walters, G. D. (2018). Callous-unemotional traits and moral disengagement as antecedents to the peer influence effect: moderation or mediation? Journal of Crime and Justice. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2017.1284688.
- Young, R., & Johnson, D. R. (2013). Methods for handling missing secondary respondent data. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 221–234.Google Scholar