Research on proactive and reactive aggression has identified covariates unique to each function of aggression, but hypothesized correlates have often not been tested with consideration of developmental changes in or the overlap between the types of aggression. The present study examines the unique developmental trajectories of proactive and reactive aggression over adolescence and young adulthood and tests these trajectories’ associations with key covariates: callous–unemotional (CU) traits, impulsivity, and internalizing emotions. In a sample of 1,211 justice-involved males (ages 15–22), quadratic growth models (i.e., intercepts, linear slopes, and quadratic slopes) of each type of aggression were regressed onto quadratic growth models of the covariates while controlling for the other type of aggression. After accounting for the level of reactive aggression, the level of proactive aggression was predicted by the level of CU traits. However, change in proactive aggression over time was not related to the change in any covariates. After accounting for proactive aggression, reactive aggression was predicted by impulsivity, both at the initial level and in change over time. Results support that proactive and reactive aggression are unique constructs with separate developmental trajectories and distinct covariates.

Children with callous–unemotional (CU) traits are at risk for severe conduct problems. While CU traits are moderately heritable, parenting also predicts risk. However, few studies have investigated whether parenting factors (e.g., acceptance, conflict, parental psychopathology) moderate the etiology of CU traits, while accounting for gene–environment correlations. To address this knowledge gap, we used data from 772 twin pairs from the Adolescent Brain and Cognitive Development Study to test bivariate models that explored overlapping etiological influences on CU traits and child reports of their parenting environment. We also used gene-by-environment interaction models to test whether parenting moderated genetic versus environmental influences. There were no overlapping etiological influences on CU traits and parental acceptance, but modest genetic and non-shared environmental overlap between CU traits and family conflict. Parental acceptance and psychopathology moderated non-shared environmental influences, with stronger non-shared environmental influences on CU traits among children who experienced lower parental acceptance and greater parental psychopathology. Family conflict only moderated environmental influences when models did not covary for conduct problems. Parental acceptance and parental psychopathology may be specific environmental protective and risk factors for CU traits, whereas family conflict may represent a general environmental risk factor for both CU traits and conduct problems.

Incremental prediction of aggression from callous–unemotional (CU) traits is well established, but cross-cultural replication and studies of young children are needed. Little is understood about the contribution of CU traits in children who are already aggressive. We addressed these issues in prospective studies in the United Kingdom and Colombia. In a UK epidemiological cohort, CU traits and aggression were assessed at age 3.5 years, and aggression at 5.0 years by mothers (N = 687) and partners (N = 397). In a Colombian general population sample, CU traits were assessed at age 3.5 years and aggression at 3.5 and 5.0 years by mother report (N = 220). Analyses consistently showed prediction of age-5.0 aggression by age-3.5 CU traits controlling for age-3.5 aggression. Associations between age-3.5 CU traits and age-5.0 aggression were moderated by aggression at 3.5 years, with UK interaction terms, same informant, β = .07 p = .014 cross-informant, β = .14 p = .002, and in Colombia, β = .09 p = .128. The interactions arose from stronger associations between CU traits and later aggression in those already aggressive. Our findings with preschoolers replicated across culturally diverse settings imply a major role for CU traits in the maintenance and amplification of already established aggression, and cast doubt on their contribution to its origins.

Less is known about the relationship between conduct disorder (CD), callous–unemotional (CU) traits, and positive and negative parenting in youth compared to early childhood. We combined traditional univariate analyses with a novel machine learning classifier (Angle-based Generalized Matrix Learning Vector Quantization) to classify youth (N = 756; 9–18 years) into typically developing (TD) or CD groups with or without elevated CU traits (CD/HCU, CD/LCU, respectively) using youth- and parent-reports of parenting behavior. At the group level, both CD/HCU and CD/LCU were associated with high negative and low positive parenting relative to TD. However, only positive parenting differed between the CD/HCU and CD/LCU groups. In classification analyses, performance was best when distinguishing CD/HCU from TD groups and poorest when distinguishing CD/HCU from CD/LCU groups. Positive and negative parenting were both relevant when distinguishing CD/HCU from TD, negative parenting was most relevant when distinguishing between CD/LCU and TD, and positive parenting was most relevant when distinguishing CD/HCU from CD/LCU groups. These findings suggest that while positive parenting distinguishes between CD/HCU and CD/LCU, negative parenting is associated with both CD subtypes. These results highlight the importance of considering multiple parenting behaviors in CD with varying levels of CU traits in late childhood/adolescence.