CU Traits and the Dimensions of Empathy

CU Traits and the Dimensions of Empathy

Youth who have a conduct disorder with callous-unemotional (CU) traits usually display behavior that makes it hard for them to get along with their peers. These traits include a lack of concern for other’s feelings and behavior that is uninhibited by fear. Researchers also suspect that youth with CU traits cannot recognize fear and sadness in other people. In adults, these same traits can be associated with psychopathic behavior.

Although these findings about empathy continue to be explored in academic research, the scholars in this 2019 study by Milone et. al,¹ which was published in the journal Neural Plasticity, wondered if they could find associations between maltreatment in childhood and behavior in adolescence. If so, they hoped to draw upon other research, which suggests that empathy can be developed when a caregiver increases eye-contact (paired with social-bonding hormone oxytocin). Similar research suggested that withholding eye contact can lead to a decrease in empathy.

But empathy is a complex emotion, with both cognitive and affective elements. (Emotional affect indicates how well a child can make inferences about another person’s emotional state, and emotional cognition indicates how well a child can recognize basic and complex emotions.) The researchers wanted to gain a better understanding of which elements might be most receptive to change. Like many other studies of childhood mental health, they concentrated on adolescents between  11 and 17 years old who met clinically established thresholds for conduct disorder—in this case, conduct disorder without a neurological basis.

In other words, the researchers could be assured that the CU traits were more likely the product of environment than of biology. In addition, the boys self-reported their own inclination to show concern for other’s problems (EC=Empathetic Concern), including the likelihood to take another person’s perspective (PT=perspective taking). After rating the boys for concern and perspective-taking, a standardized child’s eye test (CET) was administered to measure emotional affect and cognition. Finally, an additional scale was applied to rate the degree to which a child had been neglected, emotionally abused, or physically abused. Together, the tools provided a three-dimensional portrait of each adolescent: the presence of environmentally driven CU traits including maltreatment; the ability for empathetic concern and perspective taking; and the ability to make judgments about another person’s emotional state.

At the end of the study, the boys with higher levels of CU traits were reliably predicted to have lower levels of empathetic concern (affective empathy). As such, it is very difficult for them to feel compassion for someone else’s troubles. But the study was not able to draw similar conclusions about the relationship between the level of CU traits and the ability to recognize emotions or to determine that previous maltreatment has any influence. In fact, the author’s acknowledged that even if there were associations with maltreatment, it would still be hard to tell if they were inspired by the child’s difficult behavior.

In any event, their preliminary work suggests that if interventions (such developing empathy with eye contact) are successful, they may most apply to compassion, but not necessarily to recognition of fear or sorrow. While the study results cannot be transferred automatically to preschool children, it does provide some insight about what is in store for young children with high CU traits, and where researchers will look next to provide treatment.

• What do you make of these study results?
• What would you ask the researchers if you had the opportunity?
• Do you have any classroom management techniques or classroom curriculum ideas that seem related to these concepts?
• What would you hope scholars could observe about eye contact and empathy in your classroom?

Share your thoughts on our Twitter feed using #NP_CUEmpathy

Reference

¹Milone, A., Cerniglia, L., Cristofani, C., Inguaggiato, E., Levantini, V., Masi, G., … Muratori, P. (2019). Empathy in Youths with Conduct Disorder and Callous-Unemotional Traits [Research article]. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/9638973

Interdisciplinary Childhood Studies

Interdisciplinary Childhood Studies

I advocate for an academic environment that studies early childhood education from an interdisciplinary perspective. So, it seems fitting to begin this series by featuring “In Defence of Interdisciplinary Childhood Studies,” recently published in the journal Children & Society.¹

The article presents the viewpoint of Alan Prout, an author and professor of the sociology of childhood. He asserts that childhood studies are important to early childhood education because of serious threats that loom for the next generation: climate change, refugee crises, and the redistribution of wealth following financial crises, to name a few. He argues that the weight of these problems can be addressed by holistic solutions that consider insight from the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences. I agree!

The article is philosophical, rather than practical, and it meanders through a discussion about the distinction between the disciplines of Education and Childhood Studies. It also explores why biological and sociological scales are helpful for understanding what makes children tick. Even if you choose to skim the article, you can begin to question some of the assumptions we make about what a good teacher preparation program should include.

Prout urges university communities to expand their curriculums beyond providing the mechanics of educating children. He wants to provide educators (and anyone else who cares about the future) with opportunities to learn about the cultures that children live in. For example:

• Is debating the virtues of nature versus nurture as important as exploring the connections that can be made between them?
• Must theories of education be mutually exclusive, or can we be open-minded, and pull insight from polarized viewpoints and then create actionable solutions for real environments?
• Which social themes do you feel most influence behavior in the classroom, and what are your suggestions for addressing them?

As Prout notes, many of these topics have political overtones. So, I propose that the most successful programs must find ways to balance viewpoints. I believe that studying them methodically will help to raise awareness among all vocations and will help educators, specifically, to consider the wide range of factors that influence learning and behavior. By learning how to make scientific and sociological investigations of classroom problems (using surveys, field research, experiments, and data analysis) we are more likely to generate solutions that are free of bias and other distortions.

• What topics do you think a good teacher education program should cover?
• What pairings of study should future teachers pursue? Just as the medical field has debated if doctors are more effective when they understand alternative medicine, do you think educators should study social themes?

I look forward to hearing your opinions. For this topic, use the hashtag #NP_ChildhoodStudies

References

¹Prout, A., In defence of interdisciplinary childhood studies. Children & Society, 2019. 33(4): p. 309-315.