Received: 21 April 2017 | Revised: 27 November 2017 | Accepted: 29 November 2017

DOI: 10.1002/ab.21749

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The roles of trauma exposure, rejection sensitivity, and

callous-unemotional traits in the aggressive behavior of
justice-involved youth: A moderated mediation model

Michaela M. Mozley | Crosby A. Modrowski | Patricia K. Kerig

Department of Psychology, University of

Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
Correspondence
Michaela M. Mozley, Department of
Psychology, University of Utah, BEHS 380
South 1530 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84112.
Email: michaela.mozley@utah.edu
Funding information
National Science Foundation Graduate
Research Fellowships, Grant number:
1256065; National Institute of Justice,
Grant number: 2014-R2-CX-0020
Research has demonstrated an association between childhood trauma exposure and
adolescent aggression. This association may be explained by rejection sensitivity, defined
as anger, or anxiety in the anticipation of rejection, which can be a consequence of trauma
exposure. Callous-unemotional (CU) traits also are associated with trauma exposure and
aggressive behavior; however, research has not yet investigated the interactive roles that
rejection sensitivity and CU traits play in the relation between trauma exposure and
aggression. Therefore, this study sought to investigate the role of rejection sensitivity in
the association between trauma exposure and aggression, and whether this indirect effect
was moderated by CU traits. Participants included 380 detained youth (98 girls, 282 boys)
who completed self-report measures of trauma exposure, angry, and anxious rejection
sensitivity, CU traits, and aggression. Results of moderated mediation demonstrated that
the relation between trauma exposure and aggression exhibited an indirect effect through
angry rejection sensitivity, but only at moderate or high levels of CU traits. This pattern
was not found for anxious rejection sensitivity. Results suggest that interventions aimed to
decrease aggressive behavior in traumatized adolescents may benefit from considering
how youth respond to rejection, as well as whether youth endorse CU traits, as this may
help to limit further involvement in the juvenile justice system after release.

KEYWORDS
adolescents, callous-unemotional traits, delinquency, rejection sensitivity, trauma exposure

1 | INTRODUCTION
Youth involved in the juvenile justice system have been found to have
significantly higher rates of trauma exposure than non-detained youth
(see Kerig & Becker, 2010, 2012 and for reviews; Wood, Foy, Layne,
Pynoos, & James, 2002). For example, research has shown that the
majority of justice-involved youth have experienced childhood trauma
exposure, with some studies showing that as many as 90% of detained
youth endorse at least one traumatic event (Abram et al., 2013).
Additionally, many justice-involved youth report experiencing multiple
types of trauma exposure (e.g., Abram et al., 2013; Ford, Grasso, Chapman,
& Hawke, 2013; Modrowski, Bennett, Chaplo & Kerig, 2016), and
detained youth report higher levels of posttraumatic stress symptoms
than youth in community samples (Falk, Thompson, & Sanford, 2014).
Ultimately, trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress confer risk for a
host of negative outcomes for justice-involved youth, which may
perpetuate their involvement in the justice system (Kerig & Becker, 2015).
One negative outcome associated with trauma exposure for
justice-involved youth is aggressive behavior (Stimmel, Cruise, Ford, &
Weiss, 2014). A large body of research confirms that exposure to
traumatic events, such as witnessing or being a victim of community or
domestic violence, is related to higher levels of aggressive or antisocial
behavior during adolescence (Bacchini, Concetta, & Affuso, 2011;
Flannery, Singer, & Wester, 2001; Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, 2008;
Moretti, Obsuth, Odgers, & Reebye, 2006), and later in life (Malvaso,
Delfabbro, & Day, 2015). Additionally, evidence suggests that

Aggressive Behavior. 2018;1–8. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ab © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 1

2 |
experiencing physical or sexual abuse in childhood is also related to the
perpetration of aggression against others in adolescence (Laporte,
Jiang, Pepler, & Chamberland, 2011) and adulthood (Kim, Talbot, &
Cicchetti, 2009). Recently, the call has been made for scholars to turn
their attention to identifying mechanisms that may account for the
association between childhood trauma exposure and adolescent
aggressive behavior so as to better inform prevention and intervention
efforts (Kerig & Becker, 2010).
One construct that may help explain why some trauma-exposed
youth behave aggressively is rejection sensitivity. Rejection sensitivity
is characterized by heightened anger or anxiety in reaction to
anticipated rejection from others (Downey, Bonica, & Rincon, 1999)
and is purported to be a result of the negative changes in interpersonal
schemas that can occur after trauma exposure and childhood
maltreatment (Briere & Scott, 2015; Downey, Khouri, & Feldman,
1997; Johnson et al., 2002). The theoretical framework underlying the
construct of rejection sensitivity encompasses attachment, social-
cognitive, and interpersonal theories and posits that traumatized youth
may learn to anticipate rejection from others when important
caregivers have repeatedly fallen short of expectations (Downey
et al., 1997, 1999). Therefore, youth who experience trauma in
childhood may be at a higher risk for developing cognitive schemas
that are marked by a hyperawareness for instances in which rejection
may occur, which in turn may make them more likely to anticipate and
react defensively when rejected by others (Downey et al., 1999; Ford,
Chapman, Mack, & Pearson, 2006). This may ultimately increase
youths’ risk for interpersonal difficulties, including aggression, in the
face of rejection.
Thus, investigating whether rejection sensitivity acts as an
intervening mechanism between trauma exposure and aggression
may provide a clearer understanding of the development and
maintenance of aggressive behavior in justice-involved youth. Previ-
ous research has demonstrated that heightened levels of rejection
sensitivity are associated with higher levels of aggressive behavior
among youth, particularly those in justice-involved or at-risk samples
(Hafen, Spilker, Chango, Marston, & Allen, 2014; London, Downey,
Bonica, & Paltin, 2007; Moretti, Bartolo, Craig, Slaney, & Odgers, 2014;
Zimmer-Gembeck & Nesdale, 2013). For example, Leary et al. (2003)
found that in 13 out of 15 school shootings, the perpetrators reported
that chronic peer rejection was the precipitant for their aggressive acts.
Moreover, other investigations have demonstrated peer rejection as a
predictor of cyber aggression (Wright & Li, 2013). Additionally,
numerous studies have found an association between heightened
levels of rejection sensitivity and the perpetration of adolescent dating
violence when rejection is anticipated from a partner (Downey,
Feldman, & Ayduk, 2000; Romero-Canyas, Downey, Berenson, Ayduk,
& Kang, 2010; Volz & Kerig, 2010). Furthermore, given that previous
research has demonstrated differences in the effects of various
emotions on aggressive behavior, differentiating between angry and
anxious expectations of rejection may allow for a more fine-tuned
understanding of the mechanisms underlying youths’ aggressive
behavior. For instance, the relation between rejection sensitivity and
aggression may be particularly evident when feelings of anger, instead
MOZLEY ET AL.
of anxiety, are provoked by anticipated rejection (London et al., 2007;
Romero-Canyas et al., 2010; Zimmer-Gembeck & Nesdale, 2013). This
may be true given the relation between anger and aggressive behavior
in adolescents (Fives, Kong, Fuller, & DiGiuseppe, 2011) and the
likelihood that anxiety often results in avoidance behavior, rather than
direct conflict, a necessary component of aggression (Dymond &
Roche, 2009). Therefore, investigating whether angry rather than
anxious rejection sensitivity explains the relation between trauma
exposure and aggression would add to the extant literature.
In conjunction with rejection sensitivity, another construct that
may influence the association between trauma exposure and
aggression is that of callous-unemotional (CU) traits, which are
characterized by a lack of empathy or guilt and the manipulation of
other people (Roose, Bijttebier, Decoene, Claes, & Frick, 2010). Much
like rejection sensitivity, CU traits may stem from trauma exposure and
childhood maltreatment (Kimonis, Cross, Howard, & Donoghue, 2013;
Kimonis, Fanti, Isoma, & Donoghue, 2013). Specifically, previous
research has shown that a number of maltreatment experiences are
associated with elevated CU traits, including emotional, physical, and
sexual abuse histories (Kerig, Bennett, Thompson, & Becker, 2012;
Kimonis, Cross, et al., 2013; Kimonis, Fanti, et al., 2013; Krischer &
Sevecke, 2008; Sharf, Kimonis, & Howard, 2014; Waller, Baskin-
Sommers, & Hyde, 2016), as well as parental rejection characterized by
low maternal care, bonding, and emotional neglect (Kimonis, Cross,
et al., 2013; Kimonis, Fanti, et al., 2013). Theoretical accounts have
posited that youth may develop heightened levels of CU traits to cope
with trauma exposure and rejection from caregivers (Porter, 1996).
Additionally, CU traits are associated with higher rates of aggression
toward others (Fanti, Frick, & Georgiou, 2009; Frick, Cornell, Barry,
Bodin, & Dane, 2003; Marsee, Silverthorn, & Frick, 2005) given that
heightened levels of CU traits are associated with less remorse and less
concern for punishment (Pardini & Byrd, 2012). Therefore, it is
important to consider why CU traits may be related to higher levels of
aggression in response to negative social interactions.
To date, there has been some speculation as to why youth high in
CU traits respond aggressively to negative social interactions. A large
body of research confirms that aggression occurs as an emotional
response to real or imagined negative social interactions, such as
perceived or experienced rejection (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Eckhardt,
Barbour, & Davidson, 1998; Marsee & Frick, 2007; Murphy, 2013;
Wilkowski & Robinson, 2010). Although some studies indicate that, in
response to negative social interactions, youth high in CU traits show
limited emotionality with regards to fear, anxiety, or sympathy (Fanti,
Panayiotou, Lazarou, Michael, & Georgiou, 2016; Hawes et al., 2014;
Neumann, Johansson, & Hare, 2013; Roose et al., 2010), they readily
exhibit irritability or anger (Hawes et al., 2014; Jackson, Neumann, &
Vitacco, 2007). Therefore, youth high in CU traits may be likely to
respond angrily to negative social interactions, which could result in
aggressive behavior. Consequently, particularly among traumatized
youth who are prone to perceive and react to rejection in interpersonal
relationships, CU traits may interact with angry rejection sensitivity to
result in aggressive behavior. Thus, investigation of the possible
differences between how CU traits interact with angry versus anxious
MOZLEY ET AL.
rejection sensitivity could further clarify the underlying causes of
aggression so as to enlighten intervention and diversion programs that
aim to decrease aggression and recidivism in justice-involved youth.
To address these questions, the current study sought to investigate
the associations among trauma exposure, angry, and anxious rejection
sensitivity, CU traits, and aggressive behavior in a sample of justice-
involved youth. Based upon previous research and theory, we predicted
the following: (1) Trauma exposure would be significantly related to
heightened levels of both angry and anxious rejection sensitivity;
(2) Trauma exposure and angry rejection sensitivity would be significantly
related to aggressive behavior, but this association would not be found for
anxious rejection sensitivity; (3) Trauma exposure would be related to
aggressive behavior through the indirect effect of angry, rather than
anxious, rejection sensitivity, and the indirect effect of angry rejection
sensitivity would be modified by the presence of CU traits.
2 | M E TH O D
2.1 | Participants
Participants consisted of 380 youth (282 boys, 98 girls) recruited from
a juvenile detention center in the Western United States. Youth were
between the ages of 12 and 19 years old (M = 15.96, SD = 1.29).
Consistent with the demographics of detention centers in this
geographic region, 48.7% of the sample identified as White, 30% as
Latino(a)/Hispanic, 6.1% as Biracial/Multiracial, 5.3% as Black/African
American, 5% as Native American, 2.9% as Pacific Islander/Native
Hawaiian, 1.8% as an Other race, and 0.3% as Asian.
2.2 | Procedure
All study procedures were approved by the institutional review boards
of the University of Utah and the Utah Department of Human Services.
Informed consent was obtained by research assistants from youths’
legal guardians during visiting hours at the juvenile detention center,
after which youth were approached by research staff to determine if
they were interested in participating in the study. If youth were
interested in participating in the study, they provided informed assent,
after which they completed self-report measures on a laptop in a
private visiting room at the detention center. No compensation was
offered to legal guardians or youth.
2.3 | Measures
2.3.1 | Trauma exposure
The University of California at Los Angeles Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder Reaction Index for DSM-IV–Adolescent Version (PTSD-RI;
Pynoos, Rodriguez, Steinberg, & Stuber, 1998; Steinberg, Brymer,
Decker, & Pynoos, 2004) is a well-validated brief screening measure
used to assess exposure to traumatic events and past-month
symptoms of PTSD in adolescents. In the first part of the measure,
the PTSD-RI screens for exposure to 15 potentially traumatic events
| 3
according to Criterion A1 in the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric
Association, 2000). However, we queried youth about additional
potentially traumatic events, such as prolonged separation from a
caregiver or neglect, as these have also been demonstrated to be
salient events in adolescent populations (van der Kolk, 2005), as well as
items adapted from Goldberg and Freyd (2006) measure of betrayal
trauma, which relate to whether interpersonal victimization occurred
within the context of a close relationship (see Kerig et al., 2012). In
total, youth were asked about their exposure to 33 potentially
traumatic events to which they answered either “yes,” they had
experienced the event, or “no,” they had not. Responses to each item
were summed to produce a continuous total trauma exposure score. In
the current sample, the alpha for the trauma exposure score was 0.90.
2.3.2 | Angry and anxious rejection sensitivity
The Children's Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire (CRSQ; Downey, Lebolt,
Rincon, & Freitas, 1998) is a widely-used self-report questionnaire
assessing youths’ expectations of rejection by others. The CRSQ asks
participants to imagine that they are part of 10 scenarios in which they may
experience interpersonal rejection, and then asks them to indicate their
degree of anger and anxiety about potentially being rejected on a 6-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 = not angry/anxious to 6 = very, very
angry/anxious. Higher scores indicate expectations of rejection, whereas
lower scores indicate expectations of acceptance. A total rejection
sensitivity score was generated for each scenario by multiplying the
expectation of rejection by the degree of anger or anxiety endorsed. The
mean of these responses was then used to produce two total rejection
sensitivity scores, one for angry rejection sensitivity and one for anxious
rejection sensitivity. In this sample, the alpha for angry rejection sensitivity
was 0.69 and the alpha for anxious rejection sensitivity was 0.80.
2.3.3 | Callous-unemotional traits
The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU; Frick, 2004) is a
24-item self-report measure that was developed to provide an efficient,
reliable, and valid assessment of callous-unemotional traits in samples of
youth. Confirmatory factor analyses show the presence of three
independent factors (Uncaring, Callous, and Unemotional) that relate to
a higher-order callous-unemotional dimension. Each item is answered
using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 0 = not at all true to 3 = definitely
true. The Uncaring subscale includes eight items such as, “I do not care
about doing things well”; the Callous subscale includes nine items such as,
“I do not care who I hurt to get what I want”; and the Unemotional subscale
includes five items such as, “I hide my feelings from others.” Responses
from all subscales were summed to produce a total callous-unemotional
score. The alpha for the ICU in this sample was 0.79.
2.3.4 | Aggressive behavior
How Friends Treat Each Other (HFTEO; Bennett, Guran, Ramos, &
Margolin, 2011) is a measure of aggression against peers and focuses on
four types of aggressive behavior: electronic aggression, psychological
4 |
aggression, physical aggression, and coerced intimacy. For each item,
participants were asked in the past year “Have you done any of the
following things to any of the following people?” Youth indicated on a
5-point Likert scale the number of times they participated in each event
and responses ranged from 1—never happened to 5—happened more
than 10 times. Electronic aggression includes 4 items such as, “Sent
mean or hurtful message via e-mail, text message, Facebook, Myspace,
or Twitter.” Psychological Aggression includes 15 items such as,
“Said things just to make someone angry or hurt someone's feelings.”
Physical Aggression includes seven items such as, “Kicked, hit, or
punched someone.” Coerced Intimacy includes four items such as,
“Touched someone sexually when they didn’t want it.” The responses
were summed to produce a total perpetration score. In the current
sample, the alpha for HFTEO was 0.94.
2.4 | Data analysis
Before conducting the analyses, all variables of interest were inspected
for normality and potential outliers. Examination of scatterplots,
results of diagnostic tests, and histograms did not indicate any outliers
or skewed variables. The rejection sensitivity variable had 23.6%
missing data and the aggression variable had 31.5% missing data.
Missing data were assumed to be missing at random and were treated
using multiple imputation in SPSS. All predictor variables were
centered before conducting analyses. In order to investigate whether
trauma exposure was related to angry and anxious rejection sensitivity
and whether trauma exposure and angry and anxious rejection
sensitivity were related to the aggressive behavior, we performed a
series of linear regressions. To investigate whether angry and anxious
rejection sensitivity explained the relation between trauma exposure
and aggressive behavior and whether CU traits moderated these
indirect effects, we conducted two moderated mediation models using
Hayes (2013) PROCESS macro. This macro tested for both mediation
and moderation through direct and indirect effects, and also provided
bootstrapped estimates of the confidence interval (CI) around the
indirect effect. To investigate the effects of various levels of CU traits
on the indirect effects of angry and anxious rejection sensitivity, scores
for CU traits were defined as low, moderate, and high. Low scores were
defined as one standard deviation below the mean of CU traits,
moderate scores were defined as at the mean of CU traits, and high
scores were defined as one standard deviation above the mean of CU
traits. Analyses were conducted in SPSS version 23.
3 | RE SULTS
3.1 | Descriptive statistics
The majority of youth (96.3%) in the current sample endorsed at
least one traumatic event, with the overwhelming majority (n = 343;
90.3%) endorsing four or more separate traumatic events. Youth in
the current sample endorsed between 0 and 30 traumatic events.
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all study
variables are presented in Table 1.
MOZLEY ET AL.
3.2 | Regression analyses
Results of linear regressions demonstrated that both trauma exposure,
B = 1.14, p < .001, and angry rejection sensitivity, B = 1.25, p < .001,
were significantly related to aggressive behavior. In turn, anxious
rejection sensitivity was not significantly associated with aggressive
behavior, B = 0.29, p = 0.20. Results also indicated that trauma
exposure was not significantly related to angry rejection sensitivity,
B = .05, p = .07, nor to anxious rejection sensitivity, B = .07, p = .07,
although there were trends toward significance.
3.3 | Moderated mediation
The first moderated mediation model demonstrated that there was a
significant indirect effect between trauma exposure and aggressive
behavior through angry rejection sensitivity, but only at moderate,
CI = (.006, 0.133), and high, CI = (.008, 0.171), levels of CU traits. There
was no significant indirect effect for angry rejection sensitivity when CU
traits were low, CI = (−0.000, 0.144). Furthermore, the direct effect
between trauma exposure and aggressive behavior remained significant,
CI = (0.711, 1.319). Thus, findings are consistent with partial mediation
such that the relation between trauma exposure and aggressive behavior
was explained by angry rejection sensitivity, but only when CU traits were
moderate or high; the relation between trauma exposure and aggressive
behavior was not explained by angry rejection sensitivity when CU traits
were low (See Figure 1). There was evidence of moderation by gender. For
boys, the results remained the same in that there was a significant indirect
effect between trauma exposure and aggressive behavior through angry
rejection sensitivity, but only at moderate, CI = (.001, 0.147), and high,
CI = (.001, 0.194), levels of CU traits. There was no significant indirect
effect for angry rejection sensitivity when CU traits were low,
CI = (−0.007, 0.143), and the direct effect between trauma exposure
and aggression remained significant, CI = (0.849, 1.619). For girls, although
the effects were in the same direction as boys, none of the indirect effects
reached significance. However, the direct effect between trauma
exposure and aggression remained significant, CI = (0.104, 1.119).
Results of the second moderated mediation model demonstrated
that there were no significant indirect effects between trauma exposure
and aggressive behavior through anxious rejection sensitivity at any level
of CU traits. However, the direct effect between trauma exposure and
aggressive behavior remained significant, CI = (0.754, 1.375). This finding
indicates no mediational effects for anxious rejection sensitivity, as
anxious rejection sensitivity did not explain the relation between trauma
exposure and aggressive behavior at any level of CU traits (See Figure 2).
We also tested for gender differences in all direct and indirect effects of
this model and did not find any evidence of moderation by gender, as none
of the indirect effects were significant for either boys or girls. However,
the direct effect between trauma exposure and aggression remained
significant for boys, CI = (0.898, 1.679), and girls, CI = (0.138, 1.198).
The models were also run separately for each type of aggression
(physical, psychological, coerced intimacy, electronic) and tested for
moderation by gender. Further information regarding these post-hoc
analyses is available from the authors upon request.
MOZLEY ET AL.
TABLE 1 Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations
Variable Trauma exposure Angry RS
Trauma exposure − −
Angry RS 0.09 − −
Anxious RS 0.09 0.60**
CU Traits 0.12* −0.03
Aggression 0.35** 0.21**
M 10.64 6.20
SD 5.96 3.24
Angry RS, angry rejection sensitivity; Anxious RS, anxious rejection sensitivity; CU Traits, callous-unemotional traits.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
4 | DISCUSSION
The present study investigated the associations among trauma exposure,
angry, and anxious rejection sensitivity, CU traits, and aggressive behavior in
a sample of justice-involved adolescents, the overwhelming majority of
whom endorsed at least one traumatic event. The first aim of the study was
to investigate whether trauma exposure was related to anxious and angry
rejection sensitivity. Trauma exposure was not significantly associated with
either angry or anxious rejection sensitivity, although there were
nonsignificant trends in the expected directions. Given that the differential
association between trauma exposure and angry versus anxious rejection
sensitivity rarely has been studied, possible intervening mechanisms that
may account for this unexpected finding should be explored in future
research. For example, future research might investigate whether particular
types of trauma, such as trauma involving betrayal in a close relationship
(Freyd, 1994), may be related to heightened rejection sensitivity.
Additionally, future research might consider emotion dysregulation as a
possible intervening mechanism between trauma exposure and angry or
anxious rejection sensitivity, given that previous research has demonstrated
an association between emotion dysregulation and both trauma exposure in
detained youth (Bennett, Modrowski, Chaplo, & Kerig, 2016) and youths’
decreased ability to effectively cope with emotions during interpersonally
provoking situations (Hofmann, Sawyer, Fang, & Asnaani, 2012).
FIGURE 1 The role of angry rejection sensitivity in the relation
between trauma exposure and aggression at varying levels of
callous-unemotional traits. Angry RS, Angry rejection sensitivity; CU
traits, Callous-unemotional traits. Low, med, and high refer to CU
traits one SD below the mean, at the mean, and one SD above the
mean, respectively. **p < .05. ***p < .001
| 5
Anxious RS CU traits Aggression
− − −
− −
− − −
0.10 − −
0.07 0.21** −
7.81 29.30 15.29
4.50 6.51 19.54
Next, this study sought to investigate whether trauma exposure and
angry and anxious rejection sensitivity were related to aggressive behavior. As
expected, trauma exposure and angry rejection sensitivity were both related
to higher levels of aggression against peers. Also, consistent with our
hypotheses, anxious rejection sensitivity was not related to aggressive
behavior, indicating that angry rejection sensitivity may be particularly
implicated in provoking aggressive behavior. This is consistent with a wealth of
research confirming the associations between aggressive behavior and
trauma exposure (Flannery et al., 2001; Moretti et al., 2006) as well as angry
rejection sensitivity (London et al., 2007; Romero-Canyas et al., 2010;
Zimmer-Gembeck & Nesdale, 2013). Angry rejection sensitivity may have
been particularly likely to be related to higher levels of aggressive behavior
given the strong association between feelings of anger and aggression (Fives
et al., 2011). In contrast, anxiety may be more likely to result in withdrawal than
in direct confrontation in the form of aggression (Dymond & Roche, 2009).
This study also sought to investigate whether angry and anxious
rejection sensitivity acted as intervening mechanisms between trauma
exposure and aggressive behavior and whether this indirect effect was
modified by CU traits. Consistent with our hypotheses, angry rejection
sensitivity partially explained the relation between trauma exposure, and
aggression. Additionally, consistent with our hypotheses, this indirect effect
was only significant at moderate and high levels of CU traits, indicating that
higher levels of CU traits exacerbated the effect of angry rejection sensitivity
FIGURE 2 The role of anxious rejection sensitivity in the relation
between trauma exposure and aggression at varying levels of
callous-unemotional traits. Anxious RS, Anxious rejection sensitivity;
CU traits, Callous-unemotional traits. Low, med, and high refer to
CU traits one SD below the mean, at the mean, and one SD above
the mean, respectively. **p < .05. ***p < .001
6 |
on aggression. One explanation for why heightened levels of CU traits
exacerbated the effect of angry rejection sensitivity on aggression is that
youth who are high in CU traits are more likely to feel anger than other
emotions (Hawes et al., 2014), and are also less likely to feel empathy and
guilt when behaving aggressively (Roose et al., 2010). Therefore, heightened
levels of CU traits may facilitate an aggressive response when youth high in
angry rejection sensitivity are rejected or anticipate rejection from others.
Furthermore, consistent with our hypotheses, the relation between
trauma exposure and aggressive behavior was not explained by anxious
rejection sensitivity at any level of CU traits. It is possible that this finding
relates to the notion that youth who endorse CU traits may be less likely to
feel anxiety, as opposed to anger (Fanti et al., 2016; Hawes et al., 2014).
Additionally, feelings of anxiety in response to rejection may be less likely to
result in aggressive acts, and instead may result in social withdrawal. Future
research may benefit from testing whether angry or anxious rejection
sensitivity may be related to more overt or covert aggressive acts, as this
may further clarify the link between rejection sensitivity and aggressive
behavior. For instance, further investigation of possible gender differences
that could occur regarding reactions to rejection as well as the types of
aggression boys and girls are likely to take part in could be informative. One
reason angry rejection sensitivity may not have explained the relation
between trauma exposure and aggression for girls is that girls may respond
to the anticipation of rejection in ways other than aggression. For example,
girls may actively conform to others’ expectations in order to maintain
relationships and avoid rejection, rather than acting out aggressively (Kerig,
2014). Therefore, it may be particularly useful to further investigate girls’
delinquent behavior, given the importance of interpersonal relationships to
adolescent girls and the likelihood that disruption in these relationships may
lead to delinquency in order to maintain a relationship and in response to the
anticipation of rejection (Kerig, 2014).
The current study adds to the growing body of literature on adolescent
aggression and has a number of strengths. First, this study confirms findings
showing that youth high in CU traits may not be devoid of emotions, but
instead may be likely to react with specific emotions, such as anger, as
opposed to other emotions, such as anxiety (Hawes et al., 2014; Jackson
et al., 2007). Therefore, the unemotional dimension of CU traits may be
specific to certain emotions, which could inform interventions for youth high
in CU traits. Additionally, the current study adds to a body of research
demonstrating that it may be angry, rather than anxious, rejection sensitivity
that has specific implications for the development of aggressive behavior
(London et al., 2007; Romero-Canyas et al., 2010; Zimmer-Gembeck &
Nesdale, 2013). Despite this study's strengths, some limitations should be
noted. First, the sample was drawn from only one juvenile facility, which may
limit the generalizability of our results. Additionally, data were cross-
sectional, thereby precluding causal inferences regarding the associations
among the variables measured. Future research should investigate the roles
of rejection sensitivity and CU traits in predicting aggressive behavior in
traumatized youth using longitudinal data. Finally, all data used for this study
were self-reports, and so these data, particularly the reports of CU traits,
could have been biased given that recent research has found that parents’
reports of their children's CU traits may be preferable when evaluating
outcomes associated with CU traits (Docherty, Boxer, Huesmann, O'Brien,
& Bushman, 2016).
MOZLEY ET AL.
The results of the current study also have a number of clinical
implications related to the treatment of aggressive behavior. First, given
that trauma exposure has been shown to be associated with aggression
(Flannery et al., 2001; Holt et al., 2008), CU traits (Kimonis, Cross, et al.,
2013; Kimonis, Fanti, et al., 2013), and rejection sensitivity (Briere &
Scott, 2015; Downey et al., 1997, 1999; Johnson et al., 2002), trauma-
focused treatments may be specifically helpful in lessening the
aggressive behavior of justice-involved youth. Second, interventions
aimed at decreasing aggressive behavior may benefit from considering a
youth's level of rejection sensitivity, given that responding to rejection in
a positive manner may help reduce the aggressive behavior that is
associated with rejection. This may be particularly important to address
and treat in justice-involved youth, given that these youth may be more
likely to experience rejection from family and non-detained peers and
feel alienated due to their involvement in offenses after release
(Calabrese & Adams, 1990; Ford et al., 2006; McEvoy & Welker, 2000).
This feeling of alienation after release could result in them associating
with deviant peer groups, which is a strong predictor of future offending
(Kimonis, Frick, & Barry, 2004). Therefore, interventions focused on
reducing recidivism may benefit from considering youths’ levels of angry
and anxious rejection sensitivity, which could aid in youths’ successful
return to the community by allowing them to handle rejection in a way
that does not lead to further offending. Moreover, addressing both
rejection sensitivity and CU traits in intervention programs for
aggressive behavior would be particularly useful when treating youth
who have been the perpetrators of intimate partner violence given that
much research has found rejection sensitivity to play a crucial role in the
development of aggressive behavior in romantic relationships (Downey
et al., 2000; Romero-Canyas et al., 2010; Volz & Kerig, 2010). Finally, the
harmful effects of angry rejection sensitivity on recidivism would be
particularly useful to consider for youth high in CU traits, given that
these youth often show the most consistent offending patterns (Frick &
White, 2008), and, as shown by the results of the current study, are also
the most likely to respond aggressively to the anticipation of rejection,
which could facilitate further offending after release.
In conclusion, using a sample of justice-involved youth, the current
study found that angry rejection sensitivity partially explained the relation
between trauma exposure and aggressive behavior, and this effect was
especially strong at higher levels of CU traits. In contrast, anxious rejection
sensitivity did not explain the relation between trauma exposure and
aggression at any level of CU traits. The findings of the current study
support the idea that treatment for aggressive behavior in traumatized
youth may be more effective when rejection sensitivity and CU traits are
taken into account. Overall, the current study supports the notion that
aggression in adolescence often stems from coexisting characteristics
youth possess and exploring how these characteristics interact can greatly
benefit youth in determining not only why they may show hostility
towards others but also how to best decrease this behavior.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This material is based upon work supported by National Science
Foundation Graduate Research Fellowships to the first and second
MOZLEY ET AL.
authors (Grant No. 1256065), along with a grant from the National
Institute of Justice (2014-R2-CX-0020) to the third author.
ORCID
Michaela M. Mozley http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1031-5877
REFERENCES
Abram, K. M., Teplin, L. A., King, D. C., Longworth, S. L., Emanuel, K. M.,
Romero, E. G., & Olson, N. D. (2013). PTSD, trauma, and comorbid
psychiatric disorders in detained youth. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 1, 1–14.
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Association.
Bacchini, D., Concetta, M. M., & Affuso, G. (2011). Effects of parental
monitoring and exposure to community violence on antisocial behavior
and anxiety/depression among adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 26, 269–292.
Bennett, D. C., Guran, E. L., Ramos, M. C., & Margolin, G. (2011). College
students' electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships:
Anticipated distress and associations with risky behaviors. Violence and
Victims, 26, 410–429.
Bennett, D. C., Modrowski, C. A., Chaplo, S. D., & Kerig, P. K. (2016). Facets
of emotion dysregulation as mediators of the association between
trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress symptoms in justice-
involved adolescents. Traumatology, 22, 174–183.
Briere, J., & Scott, C. (2015). Complex trauma in adolescents and adults:
Effects and treatment. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 38, 515–527.
Calabrese, R. L., & Adams, J. (1990). Alienation: A cause of juvenile
delinquency. Adolescence, 25, 435–440.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1996). Social information-processing mechanisms
in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67, 993–1002.
Docherty, M., Boxer, P., Huesmann, L. R., O'Brien, M., & Bushman, B. (2016).
Assessing callous-unemotional traits in adolescents: Determining cutoff
scores for the Inventory of Callous and Unemotional Traits. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 73, 1–22.
Downey, G., Bonica, C., & Rincón, C. (1999). Rejection sensitivity and adolescent
romantic relationships. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The
development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 148–174). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Downey, G., Feldman, S., & Ayduk, O. (2000). Rejection sensitivity and male
violence in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 7, 45–61.
Downey, G., Khouri, H., & Feldman, S. I. (1997). Early interpersonal trauma
and later adjustment: The mediational role of rejection sensitivity. In D.
Cicchetti, & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Rochester symposium on developmental
psychology, vol. 8. developmental perspectives on trauma: Theory,
research, and intervention (pp. 85–114). Rochester, NY: University of
Rochester Press.
Downey, G., Lebolt, A., Rincón, C., & Freitas, A. L. (1998). Rejection
sensitivity and children's interpersonal difficulties. Child Development,
69, 1074–1091.
Dymond, S., & Roche, B. (2009). A contemporary behavior analysis of
anxiety and avoidance. The Behavior Analyst, 32, 7–27.
Eckhardt, C. I., Barbour, K. A., & Davison, G. C. (1998). Articulated thoughts
of maritally violent and nonviolent men during anger arousal. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 259–269.
Falk, D., Thompson, S. J., & Sanford, J. (2014). Posttraumatic stress among youths
in juvenile detention. Journal of Evidence-based Social Work, 11, 383–391.
Fanti, K. A., Frick, P. J., & Georgiou, S. (2009). Linking callous-unemotional
traits to instrumental and non-instrumental forms of aggression. Journal
of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 31, 285–298.
| 7
Fanti, K. A., Panayiotou, G., Lazarou, C., Michael, R., & Georgiou, G. (2016).
The better of two evils? Evidence that children exhibiting continuous
conduct problems high or low on callous–unemotional traits score on
opposite directions on physiological and behavioral measures of fear.
Development and Psychopathology, 28, 185–198.
Fives, C. J., Kong, G., Fuller, J. R., & DiGiuseppe, R. (2011). Anger,
aggression, and irrational beliefs in adolescents. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 35, 199–208.
Flannery, D. J., Singer, M. I., & Wester, K. (2001). Violence exposure,
psychological trauma, and suicide risk in a community sample of
dangerously violent adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 435–442.
Ford, J. D., Chapman, J., Mack, J. M., & Pearson, G. (2006). Pathways from
traumatic child victimization to delinquency: Implications for juvenile
and permanency court proceedings and decisions. Juvenile and Family
Court Journal, 57, 13–26.
Ford, J. D., Grasso, D. J., Hawke, J., & Chapman, J. F. (2013). Poly-
victimization among juvenile justice-involved youths. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 37, 788–800.
Freyd, J. J. (1994). Betrayal trauma: Traumatic amnesia as an adaptive
response to childhood abuse. Ethics and Behavior, 4, 307–329.
Frick, P. J. (2004). The inventory of callous-unemotional traits. Unpublished
Rating Scale, 91, 625.
Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Barry, C. T., Bodin, S. D., & Dane, H. E. (2003).
Callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in the prediction of
conduct problem severity, aggression, and self-report of delinquency.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 457–470.
Frick, P. J., & White, S. F. (2008). Research review: The importance of
callous-unemotional traits for developmental models of aggressive
and antisocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49,
359–375.
Goldberg, L. R., & Freyd, J. J. (2006). Self-reports of potentially traumatic
experiences in an adult community sample: Gender differences and
testretest stabilities of the items in a Brief Betrayal-Trauma Survey.
Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 7, 39–63.
Hafen, C. A., Spilker, A., Chango, J., Marston, E. S., & Allen, J. P. (2014). To
accept or reject? The impact of adolescent rejection sensitivity on early
adult romantic relationships. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24,
55–64.
Hawes, S. W., Byrd, A. L., Henderson, C. E., Gazda, R. L., Burke, J. D., Loeber,
R., & Pardini, D. A. (2014). Refining the parent-reported Inventory of
Callous–Unemotional Traits in boys with conduct problems. Psychological
Assessment, 26, 256–266.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hofmann, S. G., Sawyer, A. T., Fang, A., & Asnaani, A. (2012). Emotion
dysregulation model of mood and anxiety disorders. Depression and
Anxiety, 29, 409–416.
Holt, S., Buckley, H., & Whelan, S. (2008). The impact of exposure to
domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the
literature. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32, 797–810.
Jackson, R. L., Neumann, C. S., & Vitacco, M. J. (2007). Impulsivity, anger, and
psychopathy: The moderating effect of ethnicity. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 21, 289–304.
Johnson, J. G., Cohen, P., Gould, M. S., Kasen, S., Brown, J., & Brook, J. S.
(2002). Childhood adversities, interpersonal difficulties, and risk for
suicide attempts during late adolescence and early adulthood. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 59, 741–749.
Kerig, P. K. (2014). Introduction: For better or worse: Intimate relationships as
sources of risk or resilience for girls' delinquency. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 24, 1–11.
Kerig, P. K., & Becker, S. P. (2010). From internalizing to externalizing: Models
of the processes linking PTSD to juvenile delinquency. In S. Egan (Ed.),
Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD): causes, symptoms and treatment.
Hauppauge, NY: Nova.
8 |
Kerig, P. K., & Becker, S. P. (2012). Trauma and girls' delinquency. In S.
Miller, L. D. Leve, & P. K. Kerig (Eds.), Delinquent girls: Contexts,
relationships, and adaptation (pp. 119–143). New York: Springer.
Kerig, P. K., & Becker, S. P. (2015). Early abuse and neglect as risk factors for
the development of criminal and antisocial behavior. In J. Morizot, & L.
Kazemian (Eds.), The development of criminal and antisocial behavior
(pp. 181–199). New York: Springer.
Kerig, P. K., Bennett, D. C., Thompson, M., & Becker, S. P. (2012). “Nothing really
matters”: Emotional numbing as a link between trauma exposure and
callousness in delinquent youth. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 25, 272–279.
Kim, J., Talbot, N. L., & Cicchetti, D. (2009). Childhood abuse and current
interpersonal conflict: The role of shame. Child Abuse and Neglect, 33, 362–371.
Kimonis, E. R., Cross, B., Howard, A., & Donoghue, K. (2013). Maternal care,
maltreatment and callous-unemotional traits among urban male
juvenile offenders. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 165–177.
Kimonis, E. R., Fanti, K. A., Isoma, Z., & Donoghue, K. (2013). Maltreatment
profiles among incarcerated boys with callous-unemotional traits. Child
Maltreatment, 18, 108–121.
Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., & Barry, C. T. (2004). Callous-unemotional traits and
delinquent peer affiliation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72,
956–966.
Krischer, M. K., & Sevecke, K. (2008). Early traumatization and psychopathy
in female and male juvenile offenders. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry, 31, 253–262.
Laporte, L., Jiang, D., Pepler, D. J., & Chamberland, C. (2011). The
relationship between adolescents’ experience of family violence and
dating violence. Youth and Society, 43, 3–27.
Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing,
rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive
Behavior, 29, 202–214.
London, B., Downey, G., Bonica, C., & Paltin, I. (2007). Social causes and
consequences of rejection sensitivity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17,
481–506.
Malvaso, C. G., Delfabbro, P., & Day, A. (2015). The maltreatment–offending
association a systematic review of the methodological features of prospective
and longitudinal studies. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 19, 20–34.
Marsee, M. A., & Frick, P. J. (2007). Exploring the cognitive and emotional
correlates to proactive and reactive aggression in a sample of detained
girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 969–981.
Marsee, M. A., Silverthorn, P., & Frick, P. J. (2005). The association of
psychopathic traits with aggression and delinquency in non-referred
boys and girls. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 803–817.
McEvoy, A., & Welker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school
climate a critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8,
130–140.
Modrowski, C. A., Bennett, D. C., Chaplo, S. D., & Kerig, P. K. (2016). Screening for
PTSD among detained adolescents: Implications of the changes in the
DSM–5. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy, 9, 10–17.
Moretti, M. M., Bartolo, T., Craig, S., Slaney, K., & Odgers, C. (2014). Gender
and the transmission of risk: A prospective study of adolescent girls
exposed to maternal versus paternal interparental violence. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 24, 80–92.
Moretti, M. M., Obsuth, I., Odgers, C. L., & Reebye, P. (2006). Exposure to
maternal vs. paternal partner violence, PTSD, and aggression in
adolescent girls and boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 385–395.
Murphy, C. M. (2013). Social information processing and the perpetration of
intimate partner violence: It is (and isn’t) what you think. Psychology of
Violence, 3, 212–217.
Neumann, C. S., Johansson, P. T., & Hare, R. D. (2013). The Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), low anxiety, and fearlessness: A structural
equation modeling analysis. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research and
Treatment, 4, 129–137.
MOZLEY ET AL.
Pardini, D. A., & Byrd, A. L. (2012). Perceptions of aggressive conflicts and
others’ distress in children with callous-unemotional traits. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 283–291.
Porter, S. (1996). Without conscience or without active conscience? The
etiology of psychopathy revisited. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1,
179–189.
Pynoos, R., Rodriguez, N., Steinberg, A., Stuber, M., & Frederick, C. (1998).
The University of California at Los Angeles Posttraumatic Stress Disorder
Reaction Index (UCLA-PTSD RI) for DSM-IV (Revision 1). Los Angeles, CA:
UCLA Trauma Psychiatry Program.
Romero-Canyas, R., Downey, G., Berenson, K., Ayduk, O., & Kang, N. J.
(2010). Rejection sensitivity and the rejection–hostility link in romantic
relationships. Journal of Personality, 78, 119–148.
Roose, A., Bijttebier, P., Decoene, S., Claes, L., & Frick, P. J. (2010). Assessing the
affective features of psychopathy in adolescence: A further validation of
the Inventory of Callous and Unemotional Traits. Assessment, 17, 44–57.
Sharf, A., Kimonis, E. R., & Howard, A. (2014). Negative life events and
posttraumatic stress disorder among incarcerated boys with callous-
unemotional traits. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment,
36, 401–414.
Steinberg, A. M., Brymer, M. J., Decker, K. B., & Pynoos, R. S. (2004). The
university of california at los angeles post-Traumatic stress disorder
reaction index. Current Psychiatry Reports, 6, 96–100.
Stimmel, M. A., Cruise, K. R., Ford, J. D., & Weiss, R. A. (2014). Trauma
exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder symptomatology, and aggres-
sion in male juvenile offenders. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research,
Practice and Policy, 6, 184–191.
van der Kolk, B. A. (2005). Developmental trauma disorder: Toward a
rational diagnosis for children with complex trauma histories. Psychiatric
Annuals, 35, 401–408.
Volz, A. R., & Kerig, P. K. (2010). Relational dynamics associated with
adolescent dating violence: The roles of rejection sensitivity and relational
insecurity. Journal of Aggression Maltreatment and Trauma, 19, 587–602.
Waller, R., Baskin-Sommers, A. R., & Hyde, L. W. (2016). Examining
predictors of callous unemotional traits trajectories across adolescence
among high-risk males. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 00, 1–14.
Wilkowski, B. M., & Robinson, M. D. (2010). The anatomy of anger: An
integrative cognitive model of trait anger and reactive aggression.
Journal of Personality, 78, 9–38.
Wood, J., Foy, D. W., Layne, C., Pynoos, R., & James, C. B. (2002). An
examination of the relationships between violence exposure, posttrau-
matic stress symptomatology, and delinquent activity. Journal of
Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 6, 127–146.
Wright, M. F., & Li, Y. (2013). The association between cyber victimization
and subsequent cyber aggression: The moderating effect of peer
rejection. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 662–674.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Nesdale, D. (2013). Anxious and angry rejection
sensitivity, social withdrawal, and retribution in high and low ambiguous
situations. Journal of Personality, 81, 29–38.
How to cite this article: Mozley MM, Modrowski CA, Kerig
PK. The roles of trauma exposure, rejection sensitivity, and
callous-unemotional traits in the aggressive behavior of
justice-involved youth: A moderated mediation model.
Aggressive Behavior. 2018;1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21749