Laura Murray1,2, Nestor L Lopez-Duran3, Colter Mitchell4, Christopher S Monk5, Luke W Hyde6. 1. McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Survey Research Center of the Institute for Social Research & Population Studies Center of the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. Department of Psychology, Survey Research Center of the Institute for Social Research & Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 6. Department of Psychology & Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescent antisocial behavior (AB) is a public health concern due to the high financial and social costs of AB on victims and perpetrators. Neural systems involved in reward and loss processing are thought to contribute to AB. However, investigations into these processes are limited: few have considered anticipatory and consummatory components of reward, response to loss, nor whether associations with AB may vary by level of callous-unemotional (CU) traits. METHODS: A population-based community sample of 128 predominantly low-income youth (mean age = 15.9 years; 42% male) completed a monetary incentive delay task during fMRI. A multi-informant, multi-method latent variable approach was used to test associations between AB and neural response to reward and loss anticipation and outcome and whether CU traits moderated these associations. RESULTS: AB was not associated with neural response to reward but was associated with reduced frontoparietal activity during loss outcomes. This association was moderated by CU traits such that individuals with higher levels of AB and CU traits had the largest reductions in frontoparietal activity. Co-occurring AB and CU traits were also associated with increased precuneus response during loss anticipation. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that AB is associated with reduced activity in brain regions involved in cognitive control, attention, and behavior modification during negative outcomes. Moreover, these reductions are most pronounced in youth with co-occurring CU traits. These findings have implications for understanding why adolescents involved in AB continue these behaviors despite severe negative consequences (e.g. incarceration).
BACKGROUND: Adolescent antisocial behavior (AB) is a public health concern due to the high financial and social costs of AB on victims and perpetrators. Neural systems involved in reward and loss processing are thought to contribute to AB. However, investigations into these processes are limited: few have considered anticipatory and consummatory components of reward, response to loss, nor whether associations with AB may vary by level of callous-unemotional (CU) traits. METHODS: A population-based community sample of 128 predominantly low-income youth (mean age = 15.9 years; 42% male) completed a monetary incentive delay task during fMRI. A multi-informant, multi-method latent variable approach was used to test associations between AB and neural response to reward and loss anticipation and outcome and whether CU traits moderated these associations. RESULTS: AB was not associated with neural response to reward but was associated with reduced frontoparietal activity during loss outcomes. This association was moderated by CU traits such that individuals with higher levels of AB and CU traits had the largest reductions in frontoparietal activity. Co-occurring AB and CU traits were also associated with increased precuneus response during loss anticipation. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that AB is associated with reduced activity in brain regions involved in cognitive control, attention, and behavior modification during negative outcomes. Moreover, these reductions are most pronounced in youth with co-occurring CU traits. These findings have implications for understanding why adolescents involved in AB continue these behaviors despite severe negative consequences (e.g. incarceration).
Authors: Laurence Steinberg; Grace Icenogle; Elizabeth P Shulman; Kaitlyn Breiner; Jason Chein; Dario Bacchini; Lei Chang; Nandita Chaudhary; Laura Di Giunta; Kenneth A Dodge; Kostas A Fanti; Jennifer E Lansford; Patrick S Malone; Paul Oburu; Concetta Pastorelli; Ann T Skinner; Emma Sorbring; Sombat Tapanya; Liliana Maria Uribe Tirado; Liane Peña Alampay; Suha M Al-Hassan; Hanan M S Takash Journal: Dev Sci Date: 2017-02-01
Authors: Thomas J Crowley; Manish S Dalwani; Susan K Mikulich-Gilbertson; Yiping P Du; Carl W Lejuez; Kristen M Raymond; Marie T Banich Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Amy L Byrd; Samuel W Hawes; Rebecca Waller; Mauricio R Delgado; Matthew T Sutherland; Anthony S Dick; Elisa M Trucco; Michael C Riedel; Ileana Pacheco-Colón; Angela R Laird; Raul Gonzalez Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 4.881