روابط میان تحریفات شناختی خود خدمت دهنده ، صفات روانی و رفتار ضد اجتماعی در یک نمونه غیر بالینی نوجوانان

Abstract The aim of the present study was to assess the relative contributions self-serving cognitive distortions and psychopathic traits to adolescent antisocial behavior. Participants were 972 high-school students who completed self-report questionnaires. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses showed that self-serving cognitive distortions, psychopathic traits, as well as their interaction term were significant predictors of antisocial behavior in both genders after adjustment for the main other cognitive, psychopathological and sociofamilial variables. High levels of self-serving cognitive distortions were associated with more extensive antisocial behavior among participants with higher scores on psychopathic traits. This result may have implications for prevention and treatment.

Introduction Antisocial behaviors among adolescents are associated with a multitude of risk factors, including impulsiveness and sensation seeking, borderline and sadistic personality traits, depression, substance use, social disadvantage, family problems such as poor attachment and parent–child discord, exposure to stressful life events, and academic failure (e.g., Bailey & Scott, 2008). Among the psychological variables, the role of social cognitive factors has been recently emphasized. These factors include moral judgment immaturity (Stams et al., 1996 and Leenders and Brugman, 2005); self-serving cognitive distortions and or deviant models of social information processing (e.g., Gibbs, 2010 and Weiss et al., 1992); lower levels of cognitive empathy (e.g., Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006); and attitudes conducive to delinquent behavior (Pardini, Lochman, & Frick, 2003). Self-serving cognitive distortions have been characterized as primary and secondary (Gibbs, 2010 and Gibbs et al., 1995). Primary distortions form a consolidated egocentric bias stemming from self-centered attitudes, thoughts, and beliefs. Secondary cognitive distortions are pre or post-transgression rationalizations that serve to neutralize conscience, empathy, and guilt, and thereby protect the self-image when engaging in antisocial behavior. The secondary distortions consist of blaming others, minimizing/mislabeling, and assuming the worst. Blaming others means misattributing blame to outside sources, especially another person or group, or to circumstances (e.g., responsibility for an aggressive act is blamed on a perceived provocation). Minimizing/mislabeling is considering antisocial behavior as being harmless, acceptable, or even admirable and using depreciating or dehumanizing labels in speaking of others. Assuming the worst is unwarrantedly attributing hostile intentions to others, seeing worst-case scenarios as inevitable in a range of social situations, or assuming that improvement is impossible in one’s own or others’ behavior (Barriga, Gibbs, Potter, & Liau, 2001). Self-serving cognitive distortions are elevated in offender populations such as adolescent sex offenders (McCrady et al., 2008) and seem to be closely linked to psychopathic traits; indeed, the distortions may be the cognitive expression of those traits. Over the two past decades, the constructs of psychopathy and psychopathic traits have been extended to children and adolescents in forensic, referred or community samples (e.g., Salekin & Frick, 2005). The importance of psychopathic traits as a marker of persistent and severe antisocial behavior has been highlighted: psychopathic traits in antisocial youths have been shown to be linked to a greater number, variety and severity of conduct problems in forensic, mental health and community samples (e.g., Frick, Cornell, Barry, Bodin, & Dane, 2003) and predictive of the severity and stability of conduct problems in adolescents (Moran, Ford, Butler, & Goodman, 2008). Factor analytic studies have generally supported three primary dimensions of psychopathic traits in youth: callous-unemotional traits, egocentricity, and impulsivity (Salekin & Frick, 2005). Pronounced egocentric bias bears a straightforward relation to the primary self-centered cognitive distortions. The lower empathy, guilt, or remorse of callous-unemotional traits—considered the key feature of juvenile psychopathy—may reflect the neutralization processes of secondary cognitive distortions. To date, no study has explored the relationships among self-serving cognitive cognitions, psychopathic traits and antisocial behavior in community samples of adolescents. In this study, we investigated the relative contributions of self-serving cognitive distortions and psychopathic traits to antisocial behavior in a non-clinical sample of high-school students after controlling for the main cognitive, psychopathological, and sociofamilial factors.

Results 3.1. Descriptive statistics Most participants reported at least one antisocial behavior during the past year (99.5% of males vs. 98% females). The frequency and types of antisocial behaviors are reported in Table 1 and Table 2. Boys reported a greater number of antisocial behavior than girls (28.6 ± 13.3 vs. 15.6 ± 22.7, t = −10, p < 0.001). Means and standard deviations or frequency for cognitive and psychopathological variables are reported in Table 2. Table 1. Frequency of at least one antisocial act among boys and girls. Items Boys (n = 594) Girls (n = 378) p % % Disrespect of rules Lied to a teacher to cover up something you did? 69.5 55.5 <.0001 Stayed out all night without permission? 29 18 .0001 Lied to your parents or guardians about where you have been or who you were with? 65 61 .21 Skipped school without permission? 63 46.5 <.0001 Carried a gun? 16 4 <.0001 Carried a blade, knife, or gun in school? 19 5 <.0001 Entered without paying? 36 22.5 <.0001 Drugs consumption Been at school after drinking alcohol? 39 26 <.0001 Been high at school from smoking marijuana? 29 18.5 .0001 Been high from drinking alcohol? 63 49 <.0001 Sold marijuana or drugs to earn money? 13 4 <.0001 Vandalism Damaged equipment at school? 42.5 30 <.001 Damaged a car or a motor bicycle? 16 5 <.0001 Disfigured public or private property? 11.5 10 .62 Damaged public or private property? 26 9.5 <.0001 Deliberately polluted the street by throwing bottles in pieces, cutting waste disposal bags, etc.? 69 13 <.0001 Deliberately destroyed or damaging others’ belongings? 43 27.5 <.0001 Lit fires (e.g., in a garbage container)? 10 2 <.0001 Set fire to a car? 4 1.5 <.01 Physical and verbal violence Been in a fist-fight? 51.5 19 <.0001 Used a weapon (like a knife, a bat…)? 15 2 <.0001 Thrown rocks, bottles or other objects to somebody? 25 3 <.0001 Beat someone up for no reason? 7 2 .0005 Hurt someone badly in a physical fight so that they had to be treated by a doctor or nurse? 28 8.5 <.0001 Been involved in gang fights? 16 4.5 <.0001 Threatened to beat someone up? 60 37 <.0001 Insulted someone? 88 87 .64 Stealing Stolen minor things from a supermarket or another store of which the value is less than € 10? 39 38 .75 Stolen money from your parents? 36 38 .53 Robbed someone (e.g., his or her bag, purse, bike)? 2 0.79 .13 Stolen something in school? 33 16 <.0001 Committed breaking and entering? 7 4 .05 Broken into a house? 8 3 .001 Racketed? 2 0.26 .02 Illegal sale and justice Bought, use or sell stolen things? 25 11 < .0001 Been suspended from school? 8 8 1 Been in juvenile court because of your behavior? 6 6 1 Been arrested by the police? 24.5 9 < .0001 Sexual offense Used force to obtain sex? 1.5 1 .52 Taken advantage when they were too drunk? 4 2 .08 Threatened someone so as to have sex? 5 3 .13 Table options Table 2. Corrélations, means, and standard deviations for all antisocial behavior, social-cognitive and psychopathological variables. Boys (n = 594) Girls (n = 378) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 M (SD) M(SD) p 1. Antisocial behav. – .58⁎ .48⁎ .53⁎ .55⁎ .47⁎ .29⁎ −.08 .50⁎ .33⁎ .44⁎ .35⁎ .18⁎ .14⁎ −.25⁎ .51⁎ .40⁎ 28.6 (22.7) 15.7 (13.3) <.0001 2. HIT total score – .86⁎ .87⁎ .87⁎ .88⁎ .28⁎ −.15⁎ .61⁎ .44⁎ .51⁎ .43⁎ .25⁎ .24⁎ −.28⁎ .28⁎ .22⁎ 98.5 (26.1) 88.5 (24.5) <.0001 3. Assuming the worst – .65⁎ .66⁎ .70⁎ .24⁎ −.11⁎ .50⁎ .34⁎ .46⁎ .33⁎ .29⁎ .28⁎ −.22⁎ .20⁎ .14⁎ 22.4 (7.5) 21.2 (6.7) .01 4. Self-centered – .71⁎ .67⁎ .28⁎ −.16⁎ .58⁎ .42⁎ .46⁎ .44⁎ .19⁎ .17⁎ −.27⁎ .29⁎ .22⁎ 24.3 (7.4) 22.1 (7.2) <.0001 5. Minimizing/mislabeling – .67⁎ .24⁎ −.14⁎ .53⁎ .38⁎ .45⁎ .37⁎ .16⁎ .16⁎ −.24⁎ .29⁎ .24⁎ 27.3 (7.3) 24.6 (7.1) <.0001 6. Blaming others – .23⁎ −.11⁎ .51⁎ .39⁎ .42⁎ .35⁎ .22⁎ .21⁎ −.26⁎ .19⁎ .16⁎ 24.4 (7.9) 20.7 (7.1) <.0001 7. Moral reasoning – −.23⁎ .22⁎ .17⁎ .14⁎ .20⁎ .00 .00 −.15⁎ .17⁎ .09⁎⁎ 15.3 (2.9) 14.5 (3.0) <.001 8. Cognitive empathy – −.09⁎ −.06⁎⁎ −.11⁎ −.03 .14⁎ .10⁎⁎ .08⁎⁎⁎ −.01 .00 11.8 (3.4) 12.0 (3.3) .32 9. YPI total score – .78⁎ .75⁎ .73⁎ .27⁎ .20⁎ −.25⁎ .27⁎ .29⁎ 65.4 (10.8) 61.6 (10.6) <.0001 10. CU – .31⁎ .38⁎ .14⁎ .13⁎ −.20⁎ .15⁎ .21⁎ 32.7 (5.6) 30.3 (5.0) <.0001 11. Impulsive – .39⁎ .32⁎ .26⁎ −.16⁎ .28⁎ .25⁎ 20.7 (4.9) 20.6 (4.8) .85 12. Narcissistic – .14⁎ .06⁎ −.20⁎ .19⁎ .21⁎ 12.1 (3.9) 10.8 (4.1) <.0001 13. Borderline traits – .55⁎ −.07⁎⁎⁎ .19⁎ .09⁎ 22.3 (5.9) 23.5 (6.5) <.01 14. Depressive symptoms – −.10⁎⁎⁎ .03 .01 19.3 (12.0) 22.8 (11.2) <.0001 15. Sadistic traits – −.12⁎ −.10⁎⁎⁎ 16.0 (4.2) 17.4 (4.3) <.0001 16. Cannabis use – .41⁎ 2.2 (2.1) 1.6 (1.5) <.0001 17. Alcohol use – 3.6 (1.8) 2.8 (1.5) <.0001 HIT = How I Think Questionnaire; YPI = Youth Psychopathic Inventory; CU = Callous-unemotional. ⁎ p < .001. ⁎⁎ p < .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .05. Table options 3.2. Intercorrelations among psychopathological variables, social cognitive variables, and antisocial behavior The four subscales of the HIT were highly correlated, with Pearson’s r ranging from .65 to .71. So we used the overall HIT score in regression analyses to avoid multicollinearity. HIT subscales were moderately correlated to psychopathic traits, with rs ranging from .50 to .58 and to the antisocial behavior scale, with rs ranging from .47 to .55. The correlations between the narcissistic component of psychopathic traits and self-centered cognitions or neutralization cognitions, and between callous-unemotional traits and self-centered or neutralization cognitions were comparable. So we used the YPI total score in the regression analyses. 3.3. Hierarchical regression analyses predicting the antisocial behavior scale scores In the total sample, we performed the analysis including sex as a covariate and, as it was significant, the analyses were repeated for boys and girls separately. Table 3 presents the four steps of the hierarchical regression analyses. Socio-familial variables were entered into a first step, followed by psychopathological ones in a second step, cognitive factors including moral reasoning and cognitive empathy were entered into a third step, self-serving cognitions and psychopathic traits in a fourth and their interaction in a final step. The interactive relations between psychopathic traits and self-serving cognitive distortions were entered in order to test the hypothesis that high levels of psychopathic traits and self-serving cognitive distortions may be associated with increased antisocial behavior. The interaction terms were mean-centered to minimize multicollinearity. At each step, incremental F ratios exceeded critical F for the 0.1 or 0.01 levels of significance, indicating that entered variables significantly increased the explained variance among both boys and girls. Table 3. Hierarchical regression analysis predicting antisocial behavior. Males (n = 589) Females (n = 378) β SE p R2 ΔR2 F ΔF β SE p R2 ΔR2 F ΔF Step 1 .09 14.6 .13 13.3 Repeating a class .07 .04 .06 .16 .05 .001⁎⁎ IPPA parents −.06 .04 .14 −.06 .05 .19 SES −.09 .04 .03⁎ −.03 .05 .59 Life events .25 .04 .001⁎⁎ .28 .05 .001⁎⁎ Step 2 .36 .27 36.3 49.1⁎⁎ .23 22.9 26.4⁎⁎ BPD .04 .04 .30 −.03 .05 .52 .36 Sadistic Traits −.14 .03 .001⁎⁎ −.12 .04 .001⁎⁎ CES-D .06 .04 .14 .08 .06 .15 Cannabis use .38 .04 .001⁎⁎ .38 .05 .001⁎⁎ Alcohol use .19 .04 .001⁎⁎ .15 .05 .001⁎⁎ Step 3 .40 .04 34.6 19.42⁎⁎ .40 .04 22.5 12.2⁎⁎ Moral reasoning .19 .03 .001⁎⁎ .18 .04 .001⁎⁎ Cognitive empathy −.04 .03 .21 −.08 .04 .05⁎ Step 4 .53 .13 50.4 79.75⁎⁎ .51 .11 29.1 39.3⁎⁎ HIT-Q .40 .04 .001⁎⁎ .18 .05 .001⁎⁎ YPI .07 .04 .04⁎ .25 .05 .001⁎⁎ Step 5 .55 .02 49.5 20.9⁎⁎ .52 .01 27.6 7.6⁎⁎ HIT-Q x YPI .13 .03 .001⁎⁎ .08 .04 .03⁎ Note. IPPA = Inventory of Parent Attachment; SES = Socioeconomic Status; CES-D = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; BPD = Borderline Personality Disorder; HIT-Q = How I Think Questionnaire; YPI = Youth Psychopathic Traits. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .001. Table options Among both gender every step significantly added to the explained variance. Among males, life events, SES, sadistic traits, cannabis and alcohol use, moral reasoning, self-serving cognitions, psychopathic traits and their interaction were all significant predictors of antisocial behavior. Among females, except for SES, they were also significant predictors of antisocial behavior in addition to repeating a class and cognitive empathy1. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 showed the forms of the interactions in boys and girls. Plotted interaction between psychopathic traits, and self-serving cognitive ... Fig. 1. Plotted interaction between psychopathic traits, and self-serving cognitive distortions in predicting the antisocial behavior scale score in boys. Figure options Plotted interaction between psychopathic traits, and self-serving cognitive ... Fig. 2. Plotted interaction between psychopathic traits, and self-serving cognitive distortions in predicting the antisocial behavior scale score in girls.