Childhood Maltreatment and Adolescents’ Aggression: A Moderated Mediation Model of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Friendship Quality

Abstract

A growing body of research has documented that childhood maltreatment is associated with increased risk of child aggression. However, little is known about the mediating and moderating mechanisms underlying the relationships between childhood maltreatment and reactive and proactive functions of aggression. Therefore, the present study examined whether callous-unemotional traits mediated the relationships between childhood maltreatment and two subtypes of aggression and whether these mediating processes were moderated by friendship quality. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 2407 adolescents between 11 and 16 years (M _age = 12.75, SD = .58) in Shanxi province, China. Participants filled out questionnaires regarding childhood maltreatment, callous-unemotional traits, aggression, and friendship quality. The results indicated that childhood maltreatment was significantly and positively associated with proactive and reactive aggression, and these relationships were partially mediated by callous-unemotional traits after controlling for demographic variables. Friendship quality moderated the relationship between childhood maltreatment and proactive aggression as well as callous-unemotional traits and proactive aggression. These relationships became weaker for adolescents with high levels of friendship quality. Friendship quality did not moderate the effects of childhood maltreatment and callous-unemotional traits on reactive aggression.

Keywords

childhood maltreatment callous-unemotional traits proactive aggression reactive aggression friendship quality

Introduction

Children and adolescents who grow up in a stable and nurturing environment can have a variety of positive and robust outcomes. However, childhood maltreatment (CM), as an extreme and severe form of maladaptive parenting, has occurred frequently and has become a worldwide public health problem associated with negative outcomes (Carlson et al., 2015; Fang et al., in press). For instance, a systematic review of 68 studies assessing CM in China, where the present study was conducted, finds that approximately 26.6% of children have suffered physical abuse, 19.6% emotional abuse, 8.7% sexual abuse, and 26.0% neglect (Fang et al., 2015). CM, which includes emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, as well as physical and emotional neglect, has been shown to have a host of adverse effects on adolescents’ short- and long-term development, such as aggression (Shackman & Pollak, 2014; Stoltenborgh et al., 2015). It is worth noting that early adolescence is the period when aggressive behaviors tend to arise and increase, and high levels of aggression in early life could indicate more violent behaviors later (Fagan, 2020). Accordingly, it is of theoretical and practical importance to have a deeper exploration of the negative impact of CM on adolescent aggression.

Understanding the complexity of aggression has been a significant investigation endeavor across child development (Dodge & Pettit, 2003). Previous researchers have classified two subtypes of aggression, proactive aggression and reactive aggression, in children and adolescents through factor analyses (Poulin & Boivin, 2000; Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002). Proactive aggression is defined as any act which is goal-oriented, cold-blooded, and offensive. Proactive aggressors will use aggression to obtain social benefits and dominance, think of aggression as positive behavior, and show less negative emotions when aggressive (Barratt et al., 1999; Dodge, 1991). Conversely, reactive aggression refers to an impulsive, affective aggressive reaction to a perceived threat, provocation, or frustration directed at self-defense or revenge (Dodge & Coie, 1987). Although the two subtypes of aggression behave similarly, they have diverse underlying motivations, etiologies, correlates, and consequences (Dodge, 1991; Dodge & Coie, 1987). Given the variation of these subtypes of aggression, it is crucial to identify the unique risk or protective factors, such as CM, callous-unemotional traits (CU traits), and friendship quality, related to each aggression subtype. Identifying the role of these factors in functional aggression could provide valuable information to the development of effective aggression prevention and intervention efforts.

Childhood Maltreatment and Aggression

Existing research shows that CM, as a risk factor, is significantly related to reactive aggression. For instance, children and adolescents who have experienced CM are more likely to engage in reactive aggression (Ford et al., 2010; Shackman & Pollak, 2014). The aggravating effect of CM on reactive aggression can be explained by the social-cognitive model. This model posits that early aversive child experiences could lead to adolescents with the tendency to attribute hostile intentions to others. Children who frequently infer the intentions of others as hostile in ambiguous situations will be more likely to react aggressively as a way to revenge or self-defense (Verhoef et al., 2019). According to this model, adolescents who have experienced CM would be more likely to perceive threats or provocations in the action of others and thereby participate in reactive aggression. In addition, CM is particularly likely to jeopardize children’s ability to regulate emotions, making it difficult to control their anger, which can foster reactive aggression (Dickerson et al., 2018).

However, the findings linking proactive aggression with CM have been less consistent than for reactive aggression. Specifically, some cross-sectional studies suggested that CM was significantly related to proactive aggression (Dickerson et al., 2018; Dileo et al., 2017; Hoeve et al., 2015). In contrast, other studies investigating CM and proactive aggression did not find a significant connection between them (Kolla et al., 2013; Richey et al., 2016). Similarly, childhood physical abuse or sexual abuse also failed to be significant in predicting proactive aggression (Ford et al., 2010). Furthermore, a longitudinal study indicated that parents’ physical abuse of children in kindergarten did not predict proactive aggression in third grade (Dodge et al., 1997). Such mixed findings indicate that more research effort is needed to clarify the impacts of CM on adolescents’ proactive aggression.

It is important to note that the study of CM in Chinese culture lags far behind that of Western culture (Wang et al., 2019). China is a collectivist society that emphasizes family relationships, and the relationship between parents and children is seen as much important as other relations (Fang et al., in press). Therefore, the adverse effect of CM on adolescents’ aggression may be more robust in China than in other countries. Given that, exploring the effect of CM on proactive aggression in the context of Chinese culture may provide unique evidence for understanding this relationship. The social learning theory states that maltreated children could learn from their abusers to solve conflicts and have a positive psychological response to aggression to achieve their goals (Bandura, 1978; Vahl et al., 2016). Based on this theory, we believe that CM could significantly predict proactive aggression.

Although the relationships between CM and two subtypes of aggression have been investigated, the underlying mechanisms that could account for these relationships (i.e., mediating mechanisms) and modify them (i.e., moderating mechanism) still remain largely unclear. Based on the general aggression model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002), situational factors (e.g., CM and friendship quality) and personal traits (e.g., CU traits) can affect individuals’ aggression. Therefore, the present study utilized a sample of Chinese adolescents to determine whether CU traits mediated the relationships between CM and two subtypes of aggression and whether the mediating processes could be moderated by friendship quality.

The Mediating role of CU Traits

CU traits characterize adolescents who lack empathy and guilt, have shallow affect, and are unconcerned about their actions’ negative consequences (Frick et al., 2014). These traits are consistently related to aggression, violent behaviors, and even criminal behavior (Frick & White, 2008; Frick et al., 2014). A comprehensive review indicates that CU traits are positively related to proactive aggression and reactive aggression (Frick et al., 2014). In addition, a longitudinal study further shows that CU traits are related to proactive aggression and reactive aggression 18 months later (Van Baardewijk et al., 2011).

The adaptive calibration model argues that CU traits, the organization of extreme emotional response patterns, emerge as coping strategies to adapt to stressful environments (Del Giudice et al., 2011). Individuals in maltreating families are under tremendous stress, and thereby they often use CU traits to protect themselves from CM. According to this model, the experience of CM could contribute to callous-unemotional traits. Many cross-sectional studies have shown that there is a significant and positive relationship between CM and CU traits (Bisby et al., 2017; Carlson et al., 2015). Moreover, a longitudinal study has illustrated that initial CM can positively predict the growth of CU traits after 18 months, whereas initial CU traits cannot significantly predict the growth of CM after 18 months (Walters, 2018).

Most importantly, two empirical studies have demonstrated that CU traits can mediate the relationship between CM and cyber bullying perpetration in Chinese adolescents, as well as CM and physical fighting in American young adults (Carlson et al., 2015; Fang et al., in press). Although existing work does not distinguish between reactive aggression and proactive aggression, it is reasonable to expect that CU traits would mediate the relationships between CM and two types of aggression.

The Moderating Role of Friendship Quality

Although CM may significantly affect adolescents’ aggression via the mediating role of CU traits, there is evidence that many victims of CM are resilient and do not participate in aggressive behaviors (Klitka & Herrenkohl, 2013; Widom, 2017). Such findings indicate that it is necessary to identify potential moderating factors that may alleviate (i.e., moderate) the relationship among CM, CU traits, and aggression. Adolescence is a period in which adolescents increasingly spend time with their peers compared with their parents (Larson & Richards, 1991). Literature shows that quality friendships affect the experience of group-belonging, instrumental support, and the ability to establish intimacy (Ryan & Deci, 2009; Steinberg, 2010). Given the important role of friendship in adolescent development, the present study hypothesized that friendship quality moderated the relationship between CM and aggression as well as CU traits and aggression.

Friendship quality refers to the degree of companionship, help, intimacy, and safety of friendship (Gauze et al., 1996). The risk-buffering model holds that protective factors can buffer or weaken the adverse effects of risk factors (Zimmerman et al., 1999). Given this model, friendship quality (protective factor) would buffer the adverse effects of CM and CU traits (risk factors) on adolescents’ aggression. Specifically, adolescents who experienced higher levels of CM but had high levels of friendship quality would be less likely to participate in aggression than those who experienced higher levels of CM and had low levels of friendship quality. The reason may be that depending on the context, involvement in friendship relationships can mitigate negative attributions and emotions and help develop coping strategies (Steinberg, 2010; Troop-Gordon et al., 2015). For instance, friendship networks can provide social support and protection, improving situational assessment and the subsequent behavioral responses (Burgess et al., 2006). Some empirical research studies support these expectations. Friendship quality can moderate the relationship between negative parenting and adolescent externalizing behavior (Lansford et al., 2003). Similarly, the effect of harsh family environment on self-perceived well-being is moderated by friendship quality (Gauze et al., 1996). Moreover, the link between victimization and well-being is moderated by some dimensions of friendship quality (Cuadros & Berger, 2016). To our knowledge, however, no previous studies have examined whether friendship quality is a protective factor that buffers the adverse effects of CM and CU traits on two subtypes of aggression.

Based on the literature review, we propose the following hypotheses (Figure 1):

Hypothesis 1. Callous-unemotional traits would mediate the relationships between childhood maltreatment and two subtypes of aggression.

Hypothesis 2. Friendship quality would moderate the effects of childhood maltreatment and callous-unemotional traits on two subtypes of aggression. Specifically, these effects would be much weaker for adolescents with higher levels of friendship quality.

Figure 1.

Proposed moderated mediation model.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited from seven middle schools in Taiyuan and Changzhi, Shanxi province, China. Schools were selected through convenience sampling; all seventh grade students were invited to participate. The class size approximately ranged from 40 to 60. A total of 48 classes participated in the current study. These seven schools were coeducational, ordinary public secondary schools. Overall, these secondary school students are reasonably representative of the adolescents in China. A total of 2407 adolescents (boys: n = 1191, girls: n = 1202, and 14 participants who did not report gender) participated in this study. The data were collected in November 2018. The mean age was 12.75 years (SD = .58, range = 11–16 years). With reference to educational qualifications of fathers and mothers of the participants, 6.7% and 7.2% have completed elementary or lower level; 38.5% and 38.9% have completed junior middle school level; 27.4% and 27.7% have completed senior middle school level; 27.4% and 26.2% have completed bachelor’s degree or higher level, for fathers and mothers, respectively.

Procedure

The investigation was approved by the first author’s University Ethics Committee. We obtained parental consent and student assent from the participants before data collection. Students completed paper–pencil questionnaires and were encouraged to ask trained research assistants any possible questions they had during investigation in classroom. They were informed that their participation was voluntary, and they could decline to participate at any time they want. We checked all questionnaires for completeness when participants finished. All questionnaires took approximately 40 min to complete.

Measures

Childhood maltreatment

CM was assessed by the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Short Form developed by Bernstein et al. (2003). It includes five dimensions: physical abuse (PA), physical neglect (PN), emotional abuse (EA), emotional neglect (EN), and sexual abuse (SA). There are five items in each dimension. A representative item was: “I had to wear dirty clothes” (see Appendix 1 in the Supplementary Material for the complete list of the childhood maltreatment). Adolescents rated each item on a five-point scale from 1 = Never true to 5 = Very often true to estimate the frequency with which a range of experiences took place during their childhood. The Chinese version of this questionnaire has been demonstrated to be a reliable and valid measurement (Wang, Yang et al., 2019). Cronbach’s α for the total scale was .78. The independent variable in this study is the number of different types of maltreatment experienced by adolescents. Different types of maltreatment often occur in conjunction with others. Considering that the severity of abuse is highly correlated with the number of various forms of abuse that occurred, and the severity is often related to adverse outcomes in the future, this measurement strategy is chosen (Augustyn et al., 2019). The cut-off scores used in this study to categorize an adolescent as maltreated or nonmaltreated were based on the strategy adopted by Tietjen et al., (2010). These were as follows: PA ≥ 8, PN ≥ 8, EA ≥ 9, EN ≥ 10, and SA ≥ 6. The sensitivity and specificity of these cut-off scores were 89% and 97%, respectively (Tietjen et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2017). Participants could receive a score of 0 (no maltreatment) to 5 (experienced all five subtypes), indicating cumulative exposure.

CU traits

The Chinese version of the Inventory of Callous-unemotional Traits (Wang, Gao, et al., 2017) developed by Frick (2004) was used to examine adolescents’ CU traits. It consists of 24 items. A representative item was, “I do not show my emotions to others” (see Appendix 2 in the Supplementary Material). Adolescents rated each item on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 = Not at all true to 4 = Definitely true, with higher scores representing higher levels of CU traits. For the current study, Cronbach’s α was .76.

Friendship quality

The Friendship Quality Questionnaire (Zhou et al., 2005) developed by Parker and Asher (1993) is an 18-item questionnaire. A representative item was: “My best friend tells me I am good at things” (see Appendix 3 in the Supplementary Material). Adolescents rated each item on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = Not at all true to 5 = Definitely true. Responses to all items were averaged with higher scores indicating higher levels of friendship quality. This scale has been demonstrated to be a reliable and valid measurement in assessing friendship quality among Chinese adolescents (Li & Zhang, 2020). For the current study, Cronbach’s α was .88.

Proactive and reactive aggression

The 23-item Reactive–Proactive Aggression Questionnaire developed by Raine et al. (2006) was used to measure proactive and reactive aggression (Fu et al., 2009). Proactive aggression was based on 12 items and reactive aggression on 11 items. A representative item was: “Had fights with others to show who was on top” (see Appendix 4 in the Supplementary Material). Adolescents rated each item on a 3-point scale ranging from 1 = Never to 3 = Always. Higher scores indicated that adolescents were more likely to engage in aggression. For the current study, the Cronbach’s α for the proactive aggression subscale was .94, and the reactive aggression subscale was .86.

Covariates

Prior research has found that adolescents’ age and gender are related to proactive aggression and reactive aggression (Barlett, 2016; Dinić & Wertag, 2018). Thus, we controlled for these demographic variables in our statistical analyses. Gender was a dichotomous variable and was dummy coded (1 = female; 0 = male).

Analytic Strategy

All data were entered and analyzed in SPSS 25.0. First, all continuous variables were standardized. Second, descriptive statistics (i.e., M, SD) were calculated for all variables, followed by Pearson correlations among these variables. Third, the PROCESS macro for SPSS (Model 4) was applied to examine the mediating effect of CU traits (Hayes, 2013). Fourth, the PROCESS macro (Model 15) was applied to examine the moderating effect of friendship quality in the relationships between CM and two subtypes of aggression as well as CU traits and two subtypes of aggression. Finally, the bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) determine whether the effects in Model 4 and Model 15 are significant. The bootstrap method performs better (both in terms of its statistical power and Type I error) than the traditional causal steps approach. Specifically, the bootstrapping method produced 95% bias-corrected CIs for effects from 5000 resamples of the data. An effect is regarded as significant if the CIs do not include zero. In all analyses, we controlled for gender and age by entering them as predictor of CU traits and aggression into regression equations. Thus, these covariates were not underlying factors that explain the direct and indirect associations of CM with aggression.

Results

The Prevalence of CM and Preliminary Analyses

Of the 2407 adolescents, 17.8% reported having experienced physical abuse, 61.9% physical neglect, 22.5% emotional abuse, 42.4% emotional neglect, and 18.6% sexual abuse. Most adolescents (74.3%) indicated having experienced at least one form of CM, with 28.2% of the total sample indicating one form, 23.3% two forms, 10.3% three forms, 5.1% four forms, and 7.5% all five forms of CM. Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlation for all study variables are presented in Table 1. Results indicated that a great number of CM subtypes was significantly associated with higher levels of CU traits (r = .39, p < .001), proactive aggression (r = .30, p < .001), and reactive aggression (r = .22, p < .001). CU traits were positively associated with proactive aggression (r = .39, p < .001) and reactive aggression (r = .23, p < .001). Friendship quality was negatively associated with proactive aggression (r = −.19, p < .001) and reactive aggression (r = −.11, p < .001).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among Variables of Interest.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1 Age	12.75	.58
2 Childhood maltreatment	1.62	1.51	.12***
3 Callous-unemotional traits	2.07	.36	.11***	.39***
4 Friendship quality	3.80	.70	–.08***	–.38***	–.38***
5 Proactive aggression	1.12	.29	.09***	.30***	.39***	−.19***
6 Reactive aggression	1.36	.34	.02	.22***	.23***	−.11***	.64***

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Testing for the Mediation Effect

In hypothesis 1, this study anticipated that CU traits would mediate the relationship between CM and two subtypes of aggression. To test this hypothesis, Model 4 of the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013) was used. Model 4 requires three steps: (a) whether there is a significant link between CM and aggression; (b) whether there is a significant link between CM and CU traits; and (c) whether there is a significant link between CU traits and aggression while controlling for CM. After controlling for gender and age, CM was positively associated with CU traits (b = .37, p < .001), which in turn were related to proactive aggression (b = .32, p < .001). Simultaneously, the residual direct effect of CM on proactive aggression (b = .17, p < .001) was also significant. Therefore, CU traits mediated the relationship between CM and proactive aggression (indirect effect = .12, 95% CI = [.10, .14]). The mediation effect accounted for 41% of the total effect of childhood on proactive aggression.

Similarly, CM significantly positively predicted CU traits (b = .37, p < .001) and CU traits were significantly associated with reactive aggression (b = .17, p < .001) after controlling for gender and age. The positive direct association between CM and reactive aggression remained still significant (b = .16, p < .001). The indirect effect of CM on reactive aggression was mediated by CU traits (indirect effect = .06, 95% CI = [.05, .08]). The mediation effect explained 29% of the total effect of CM on reactive aggression. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was supported.

Testing for the Moderated Mediation

As noted, hypothesis 2 predicted that friendship quality would moderate the associations between CM and two subtypes of aggression as well as CU traits and two subtypes of aggression. To examine this hypothesis, we estimated parameters for two regression models with Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS macro (Model 15). Specifically, we estimated the moderating effect of friendship quality on (1) the relationship between CM and aggression; and (2) the relationship between CU traits and aggression.

As Table 2 illustrates, after controlling for gender and age, CM positively predicted proactive aggression (b = .15, p < 0.001), and this effect was moderated by friendship quality (b = −.06, p < 0.001). To reveal the nature of this moderation effect, we used the Johnson–Neyman technique to examine the regions of significance. As shown in Figure 2, the positive relationship between CM and proactive aggression was significant for friendship quality values less than or equal to 1.27 for which the confidence bands do not contain zero, and not significantly different from zero for friendship quality values greater than 1.27 for which the confidence bands contain zero. Thus, the adverse impact of CM on proactive aggression was weaker for adolescents who had higher friendship quality.

Table 2.

Testing the Moderating Effects of Friendship Quality on the Relationship Between Childhood Maltreatment and Two Subtypes of Aggression as Well as Callous-Unemotional Traits and Two Subtypes of Aggression.

Predictors	Model 1 (Callous-unemotional traits)		Model 2 (Proactive aggression)		Model 3 (Reactive aggression)
Predictors	b	t	B	t	b	t
Gender	−.22	−5.90***	−.08	−2.27*	−.07	−1.68
Age	.07	3.65***	.02	1.20	−.02	−1.23
Childhood maltreatment	.37	19.70***	.15	7.13***	.17	7.30***
Friendship quality			.04	1.83	.01	.58
Childhood maltreatment × friendship quality			−.06	−3.32***	.03	1.44
Callous-unemotional traits			.35	16.22***	.17	7.55***
Callous-unemotional traits× friendship quality			−.09	−4.32***	−.01	−.60
R ²	.18		.21		.08
F	169.27***		88.47***		28.79***

Note. Each column is a regression model that predicts the criterion at the top of the column. Gender was dummy coded such that 1 = female and 0 = male.

*p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Figure 2.

Conditional association between childhood maltreatment and proactive aggression as a function of friendship quality. The dark line indicates the simple slope of childhood maltreatment on proactive aggression. Areas to the left of the dotted line represent the regions of significance for the conditional association. The effect of childhood maltreatment on proactive aggression is weaker for adolescents with higher levels of friendship quality. CI = confidence interval.

The result also shows that CU traits positively predicted proactive aggression (b = .35, p < 0.001), and this effect was moderated by friendship quality (b = −.09, p < 0.001). As shown in Figure 3, the positive relationship between CU traits and proactive aggression was significant for all friendship quality values whose confidence bands do not contain zero. However, the adverse impact of CU traits on proactive aggression was weaker for those with higher friendship quality. As Table 2 illustrates, the moderating effect of friendship quality was not significant in the relationship between CM and reactive aggression (b = .03, p = .15) as well as CU traits and reactive aggression (b = −.01, p = .55).

Figure 3.

Conditional association between callous-unemotional traits and proactive aggression as a function of friendship quality. The dark line indicates the simple slope of callous-unemotional traits on proactive aggression. All areas represent the regions of significance for the conditional association. The effect of callous-unemotional traits on proactive aggression is weaker for adolescents with higher levels of friendship quality. CI = confidence interval.

In sum, friendship quality moderated the second part of the mediation process and the residual direct relationship between CM and proactive aggression. However, the entire model of the CM on reactive aggression was not moderated by friendship quality. Therefore, the second hypothesis of the present study was only partially supported.

Discussion

Adolescents experiencing CM are more likely to engage in two subtypes of aggression. This view has garnered empirical support by showing that adolescents who have experienced CM are more likely to participate in proactive and reactive aggression (Dickerson et al., 2018; Ford et al., 2010). However, questions regarding the mediating and moderating mechanisms underlying the relationships between CM and adolescents’ proactive and reactive aggression remain largely unclear. Thus, the current study formulated a moderated mediation model to test whether CM would be indirectly related to aggression via CU traits and whether the direct and indirect relationships between CM and aggression were moderated by friendship quality. Our finding indicated that CM positively predicted two subtypes of aggression and CU traits partially mediated these relationships. Moreover, friendship quality moderated the relationships between CM and proactive aggression as well as CU traits and proactive aggression. In addition, the present study also found that specific forms of maltreatment were experienced by a significant number of Chinese adolescents.

The Prevalence of Childhood Maltreatment

A meaningful comparison of CM prevalence rate should be made among research conducted in similar or same cultures, designs, and methods (Li et al., 2014; Wong et al., 2009). Therefore, we compared the prevalence rate of CM to those of other studies in Chinese cultures with the same measures of CM and cut-off scores and found some consistencies. First, the high prevalence rate of emotional neglect, physical neglect, and emotional abuse as well as low prevalence rate of physical abuse are common in the Chinese context. In fact, cultural influence should be considered when interpreting the prevalence rates of CM. Chinese culture shares collectivist characteristics that emphasize social and family harmony, which may encourage parents to frequently use emotional rather than physical discipline strategies in parenting (Stoltenborgh et al., 2012).

Second, the prevalence rate of CM in our study is similar to previous studies that reported in China. An interesting phenomenon, however, is that our study yielded a slightly higher rate of physical abuse as well as a marginally lower rate of emotional and physical neglect than previous studies. One possible explanation for these subtle inconsistencies is that previous studies used a sample including high school students and adults. As children age, the trend for parents to use emotional discipline strategies in parenting may be stronger. Therefore, high school students and adults may report having experienced more neglect and less physical abuse by parents than secondary school students.

The Mediating Role of CU Traits

The current study is the first to document the mediating effect of CU traits in the association between CM and aggression. That is, CM may amplify CU traits, which in turn increase participation in aggression. Therefore, CU traits were not only an outcome of CM but also a fuel of aggression. Furthermore, it is worth noting that CU traits only partially mediated the relationship between CM and aggression. The remaining direct and positive relationship between CM and aggression may suggest that CM may function as a direct factor that increases adolescents’ aggression.

In addition to the overall mediation result, each of the separate links in our mediation model is noteworthy. For the first stage of the mediation process (i.e., CM → CU traits), our findings support the premise that CM is associated with more CU traits. This finding is consistent with the adaptive calibration model (Del Giudice et al., 2011). That is, CU traits, the organization of extreme emotional response patterns, are coping strategies aimed for adaption to CM. First, early CM might disrupt the normal development of remorse and guilt and lead to maladaptive coping strategies, including distancing coping and pathological adaptation (Boxer et al., 2012; Boxer & Sloan-Power, 2013). Second, previous research shows that maltreated children may suppress their emotional reactions to achieve increased preparations for attack or escape (Carlson et al., 2015; Del Giudice et al., 2011).

For the second stage of our mediation model (i.e., CU traits → aggression), the current study found that CU traits were positively associated with proactive aggression. The reason may be that adolescents with high CU traits have a low physiological reactivity to others in distress, lack concern for the suffering of others, and tend to fixate on the positive outcome of aggression (Kimonis et al., 2006; Pardini, 2011; Pardini & Byrd, 2012). Therefore, adolescents may use aggression to achieve goals (e.g., obtaining rewards and gaining dominance) and disregard for the feelings and rights of others. In addition, the present study also found that CU traits were positively associated with reactive aggression. One explanation is that individuals with CU traits may experience high levels of anger to provocation (Steuerwald & Kosson, 2000), leading to adolescents participating in reactive aggression.

The Moderating Role of Friendship Quality

The second goal of the present study was to explore the moderating effect of friendship quality on the direct and indirect associations between CM and aggression via CU traits. The results indicated that friendship quality moderated the direct relationship between CM and proactive aggression. This is roughly consistent with previous studies that high quality friendship for the development of communication skills, emotional self-regulation, and decision-making to deal with the negative effects of victimization (Bagwell & Schmidt, 2011; Bollmer et al., 2005; Cuadros & Berger, 2016; Fitzpatrick & Bussey, 2014; Schwartz et al., 2000). Furthermore, the relationship between CU traits and proactive aggression was also moderated by friendship quality. These findings can be explained by the risk-buffering model (Zimmerman et al., 1999). Given this model, friendship quality would buffer the adverse effects of CM and CU traits to alleviate adolescents’ proactive aggression. One explanation is that friendship networks can provide social support and protection, improving situational assessment and the subsequent behavioral responses. As a result, for adolescents with high levels of friendship quality, the relationship between CM and proactive aggression as well as CU traits and proactive aggression becomes much weaker.

Contrary to our expectations, the relationship between CM and reactive aggression as well as CU traits and reactive aggression was not moderated by friendship quality. One possible explanation for this result is that adolescents with high CM have inadequate decoding of social cues and increased levels of hostile attributional bias. They may be prone to experiencing anger and are too overwhelmed to consider responses other than aggression during a social conflict situation.

Limitations and Contributions

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting findings. First, the data were collected only through self-report measures. Individuals are often not good at identifying their motivations. They may have poor insights into their relationships and have consistent biases that impact all of the measures. Second, the present study is based on Chinese adolescents, limiting its generalizability (Richey et al., 2016). Information from diverse samples should be employed in future studies, which can add unique perspectives and provide more reliable evidence. It is worth further exploring whether the findings of the present study suit Western culture. Third, the present study distinguished between proactive aggression and reactive aggression to better explore the impact of CM on aggression. However, considering different forms of CM is essential for further understanding the mechanisms involved. Fourth, although this study tested gender and age, several important correlates of the conceptual model have not been tested, such as the role of parents. Parental warmth and support could promote children’s development to resist the negative consequences of CM (Fagan, 2020). Therefore, future studies should consider including these variables in the model to avoid biases of omitted variables. Finally, we cannot draw causal conclusions about some relationships since the present study was cross-sectional in design. The longitudinal design may be helpful to confirm our findings.

Despite the limitations, our findings have several theoretical and practical contributions. From a theoretical perspective, we extended previous studies on adolescents’ aggression by confirming the mediating effect of CU traits in the relationship between CM and aggression and the moderating effect of friendship quality in the relationship between CM and proactive aggression as well as CU traits and proactive aggression. These findings could deepen our understanding of how CM affects adolescents’ aggression and for whom this effect is more serious. From a practical perspective, our findings have some implications for anti-aggression prevention. For instance, given that CU traits can mediate the relationship between CM and adolescents’ aggression, the anti-aggression interventions will be more effective when they take adolescent’s CU traits into consideration and develop strategies to decrease adolescent’s CU traits.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-cmx-10.1177_10775595211046550 – Supplemental Material for Childhood Maltreatment and Adolescents’ Aggression: A Moderated Mediation Model of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Friendship Quality

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-cmx-10.1177_10775595211046550 for Childhood Maltreatment and Adolescents’ Aggression: A Moderated Mediation Model of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Friendship Quality by Wenqing Li, Jiping Yang, Ling Gao and Xingchao Wang in Child Maltreatment

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-2-cmx-10.1177_10775595211046550 – Supplemental Material for Childhood Maltreatment and Adolescents’ Aggression: A Moderated Mediation Model of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Friendship Quality

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-2-cmx-10.1177_10775595211046550 for Childhood Maltreatment and Adolescents’ Aggression: A Moderated Mediation Model of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Friendship Quality by Wenqing Li, Jiping Yang, Ling Gao and Xingchao Wang in Child Maltreatment

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-3-cmx-10.1177_10775595211046550 – Supplemental Material for Childhood Maltreatment and Adolescents’ Aggression: A Moderated Mediation Model of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Friendship Quality

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-3-cmx-10.1177_10775595211046550 for Childhood Maltreatment and Adolescents’ Aggression: A Moderated Mediation Model of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Friendship Quality by Wenqing Li, Jiping Yang, Ling Gao and Xingchao Wang in Child Maltreatment

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-4-cmx-10.1177_10775595211046550 – Supplemental Material for Childhood Maltreatment and Adolescents’ Aggression: A Moderated Mediation Model of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Friendship Quality

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-4-cmx-10.1177_10775595211046550 for Childhood Maltreatment and Adolescents’ Aggression: A Moderated Mediation Model of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Friendship Quality by Wenqing Li, Jiping Yang, Ling Gao and Xingchao Wang in Child Maltreatment

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by grants from the Program for the Innovative Talents of Higher Education Institutions of Shanxi (PTIT).

ORCID iD

Xingchao Wang

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 27-51.

Augustyn

M. B.

Thornberry

T. P.

Henry

K. L.

(2019). The reproduction of child maltreatment: An examination of adolescent problem behavior, substance use, and precocious transitions in the link between victimization and perpetration. Development and Psychopathology, 31(1), 53-71.

Bagwell

C. L.

Schmidt

M. E.

(2011). The friendship quality of overtly and relationally victimized children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 57(2), 158-185.

Bandura

(1978). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28(3), 12-29.

Barlett

C. P.

(2016). Exploring the correlations between emerging adulthood, dark triad traits, and aggressive behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 293-298.

Barratt

E. S.

Stanford

M. S.

Dowdy

Liebman

M. J.

Kent

T. A.

(1999). Impulsive and premeditated aggression: A factor analysis of self-reported acts. Psychiatry Research, 86(2), 163-173.

Bernstein

D. P.

Stein

J. A.

Newcomb

M. D.

Walker

Pogge

Ahluvalia

Stokes

Handelsman

Medrano

Desmond

Zule

(2003). Development and validation of a brief screening version of the childhood trauma questionnaire. Child Abuse and Neglect, 27(2), 169-190.

Bisby

M. A.

Kimonis

E. R.

Goulter

(2017). Low maternal warmth mediates the relationship between emotional neglect and callous-unemotional traits among male juvenile offenders. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(7), 1790-1798.

Bollmer

J. M.

Milich

Harris

M. J.

Maras

M. A.

(2005). A friend in need: The role of friendship quality as a protective factor in peer victimization and bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(6), 701-712.

10.

Boxer

Sloan-Power

(2013). Coping with violence: A comprehensive framework and implications for understanding resilience. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 14(3), 209-221.

11.

Boxer

Sloan-Power

Mercado

Schappell

(2012). Coping with stress, coping with violence: Links to mental health outcomes among at-risk youth. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 34(3), 405-414.

12.

Burgess

K. B.

Wojslawowicz

J. C.

Rubin

K. H.

Rose-Krasnor

Booth-LaForce

(2006). Social information processing and coping strategies of shy/withdrawn and aggressive children: Does friendship matter? Child Development, 77(2), 371-383.

13.

Carlson

Oshri

Kwon

(2015). Child maltreatment and risk behaviors: The roles of callous/unemotional traits and conscientiousness. Child Abuse and Neglect, 50, 234-243.

14.

Cuadros

Berger

(2016). The protective role of friendship quality on the wellbeing of adolescents victimized by peers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(9), 1877-1888.

15.

Del Giudice

Ellis

B. J.

Shirtcliff

E. A.

(2011). The adaptive calibration model of stress responsivity. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(7), 1562-1592.

16.

Dickerson

Flynn

Levine

L. J.

Quas

J. A.

(2018). Are emotions controllable? maltreated and non-maltreated youth’s implicit beliefs about emotion and aggressive tendencies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 77, 222-231.

17.

Dileo

J. F.

Brewer

Northam

Yucel

Anderson

(2017). Investigating the neurodevelopmental mediators of aggression in children with a history of child maltreatment: An exploratory field study. Child Neuropsychology, 23(6), 655-677.

18.

Dinić

B. M.

Wertag

(2018). Effects of dark triad and HEXACO traits on reactive/proactive aggression: Exploring the gender differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 44-49.

19.

Dodge

(1991). The structure and function of reactive and proactive aggression. In Pepler

Rubin

(Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 201-218). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

20.

Dodge

K. A.

Coie

J. D.

(1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1146-1158.

21.

Dodge

K. A.

Lochman

J. E.

Harnish

J. D.

Bates

J. E.

Pettit

G. S.

(1997). Reactive and proactive aggression in school children and psychiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 37-51.

22.

Dodge

K. A.

Pettit

G. S.

(2003). A biopsychosocial model of the development of chronic conduct problems in adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 39, 349-371.

23.

Fagan

A. A.

(2020). Child maltreatment and aggressive behaviors in early adolescence: Evidence of moderation by parent/child relationship quality. Child Maltreatment, 25(2), 182-191.

24.

Fang

Fry

D. A.

Finkelhor

Chen

Lannen

Dunne

M. P.

(2015). The burden of child maltreatment in China: A systematic review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 93, 176-185C.

25.

Fang

Wang

Gao

Yang

Wang

Wen

(In press). Childhood maltreatment and adolescent cyberbullying perpetration: A moderated mediation model of callous-unemotional traits and perceived social support. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. DOI:10.1177/0886260520960106.

26.

Fitzpatrick

Bussey

(2014). The role of perceived friendship self-efficacy as a protective factor against the negative effects of social victimization. Social Development, 23(1), 41-60.

27.

Ford

J. D.

Fraleigh

L. A.

Connor

D. F.

(2010). Child abuse and aggression among seriously emotionally disturbed children. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39(1), 25-34.

28.

Frick

P. J.

(2004). The inventory of callous-unemotional traits. University of New Orleans.

29.

Frick

P. J.

Ray

J. V.

Thornton

L. C.

Kahn

R. E.

(2014). Can callous-unemotional traits enhance the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of serious conduct problems in children and adolescents? A comprehensive review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 1-57.

30.

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(4), 359-375.

31.

Luo

Yang

(2009). The reactive-proactive aggression questionnaire revision for middle school students. Journal of Capital Normal University (Social Sciences Edition), S4, 199-202.

32.

Gauze

Bukowski

W. M.

Aquan-Assee

Sippola

L. K.

(1996). Interactions between family environment and friendship and associations with self-perceived well-being during early adolescence. Child Development, 67(5), 2201-2216.

33.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

34.

Hoeve

Colins

O. F.

Mulder

E. A.

Loeber

Stams

G. J. J.

Vermeiren

R. R.

(2015). The association between childhood maltreatment, mental health problems, and aggression in justice-involved boys. Aggressive Behavior, 41(5), 488-501.

35.

Kimonis

E. R.

Frick

P. J.

Fazekas

Loney

B. R.

(2006). Psychopathy, aggression, and the processing of emotional stimuli in non‐referred girls and boys. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24(1), 21-37.

36.

Klitka

J. B.

Herrenkohl

T. I.

(2013). A review of developmental research on resilience in maltreated children. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 14, 222-234.

37.

Kolla

N. J.

Malcolm

Attard

Arenovich

Blackwood

Hodgins

(2013). Childhood maltreatment and aggressive behaviour in violent offenders with psychopathy. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 58(9), 487-494.

38.

Lansford

J. E.

Criss

M. M.

Pettit

G. S.

Dodge

K. A.

Bates

J. E.

(2003). Friendship quality, peer group affiliation, and peer antisocial behavior as moderators of the link between negative parenting and adolescent externalizing behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13(2), 161-184.

39.

Larson

Richards

M. H.

(1991). Daily companionship in late childhood and early adolescence: Changing developmental contexts. Child Development, 62(2), 284-300.

40.

Wang

Hou

Wang

Liu

Wang

(2014). Effects of childhood trauma on personality in a sample of Chinese adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(4), 788-796.

41.

Zhang

(2020). The prediction of parent-child relationship and empathy on adolescents’ social creativity: The mediating role of friendship quality. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 18(4), 496-502.

42.

Pardini

(2011). Perceptions of social conflicts among incarcerated adolescents with callous‐unemotional traits: “You’re going to pay. It’s going to hurt, but I don’t care.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(3), 248-255.

43.

Pardini

D. A.

Byrd

A. L.

(2012). Perceptions of aggressive conflicts and others’ distress in children with callous‐unemotional traits: “I’ll show you who’s boss, even if you suffer and I get in trouble.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53(3), 283-291.

44.

Parker

J. G.

Asher

S. R.

(1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental Psychology, 29(4), 611-621.

45.

Poulin

Boivin

(2000). The role of proactive and reactive aggression in the formation and development of boys’ friendships. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 233-240.

46.

Raine

Dodge

Loeber

Gatzke‐Kopp

Lynam

Reynolds

Liu

(2006). The reactive-proactive aggression questionnaire: Differential correlates of reactive and proactive aggression in adolescent boys. Aggressive Behavior, 32(2), 159-171.

47.

Richey

Brown

Fite

P. J.

Bortolato

(2016). The role of hostile attributions in the associations between child maltreatment and reactive and proactive aggression. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 25(10), 1043-1057.

48.

Ryan

Deci

E. L.

(2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation, learning and wellbeing. In Wentzel

Wigfield

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 171-196). Routledge.

49.

Salmivalli

Nieminen

(2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28(1), 30-44.

50.

Schwartz

Dodge

K. A.

Pettit

G. S.

Bates

J. E.

Group

C. P. P. R.

(2000). Friendship as a moderating factor in the pathway between early harsh home environment and later victimization in the peer group. Developmental Psychology, 36(5), 646-662.

51.

Shackman

J. E.

Pollak

S. D.

(2014). Impact of physical maltreatment on the regulation of negative affect and aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 26(4), 1021-1033.

52.

Steinberg

(2010). A dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Psychobiology, 52(3), 216-224.

53.

Stoltenborgh

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

Alink

L. R.

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

(2012). The universality of childhood emotional abuse: A meta-analysis of worldwide prevalence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 21(8), 870-890.

54.

Stoltenborgh

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

Alink

L. R. A.

van Ijzendoorn

M. H.

(2015). The prevalence of child maltreatment across the globe: Review of a series of meta-analyses. Child Abuse Review, 24(1), 37-50.

55.

Tietjen

G. E.

Brandes

J. L.

Peterlin

B. L.

Eloff

Dafer

R. M.

Stein

M. R.

Drexler

Martin

Hutchinson

Aurora

S. K.

Recober

Herial

N. A.

Utley

White

Khuder

S. A.

(2010). Childhood maltreatment and migraine (part I). Prevalence and adult revictimization: A multicenter headache clinic survey. Headache, 50(1), 20-31.

56.

Troop-Gordon

Rudolph

K. D.

Sugimura

Little

T. D.

(2015). Peer victimization in middle childhood impedes adaptive responses to stress: A pathway to depressive symptoms. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44(3), 432-445.

57.

Vahl

Colins

O. F.

Lodewijks

H. P. B.

Lindauer

Markus

M. T.

Doreleijers

T. A. H.

Vermeiren

R. R.

(2016). Psychopathic traits and maltreatment: Relations with aggression and mental health problems in detained boys. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 46, 129-136.

58.

Van Baardewijk

Vermeiren

Stegge

Doreleijers

(2011). Self-reported psychopathic traits in children: Their stability and concurrent and prospective association with conduct problems and aggression. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 33(2), 236-245.

59.

Verhoef

R. E.

Alsem

S. C.

Verhulp

E. E.

De Castro

B. O.

(2019). Hostile intent attribution and aggressive behavior in children revisited: A meta‐analysis. Child Development, 90(5), e525-e547.

60.

Walters

G. D.

(2018). Child and adolescent maltreatment as a mediator of continuity in callous-unemotional traits and low self-control. Children and Youth Services Review, 84, 26-34.

61.

Wang

M.-C.

Gao

Deng

Lai

Deng

Armour

(2017). The factor structure and construct validity of the inventory of callous-unemotional traits in Chinese undergraduate students. Plos One, 12(12), e0189003.

62.

Wang

Yang

Gao

Yang

Lei

Wang

(2017). Childhood maltreatment and Chinese adolescents’ bullying and defending: The mediating role of moral disengagement. Child Abuse & Neglect, 69, 134-144.

63.

Wang

Yang

Wang

Lei

(2019). Childhood maltreatment, moral disengagement, and adolescents’ cyberbullying perpetration: Fathers’ and mothers’ moral disengagement as moderators. Computers in Human Behavior, 95, 48-57.

64.

Widom

C. S.

(2017). Long-term impact of childhood abuse and neglect on crime and violence. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 24, 186-202.

65.

Wong

W. C. W.

Leung

P. W. S.

Tang

C. S. K.

Chen

W. Q.

Lee

Ling

D. C.

(2009). To unfold a hidden epidemic: Prevalence of child maltreatment and its health implications among high school students in Guangzhou, China. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 441-450.

66.

Zhou

Sun

Zhao

Yeh

(2005). The test of the mediator variable between peer relationship and loneliness in middle childhood. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 37(06), 776-783.

67.

Zimmerman

M. A.

Ramírez-Valles

Maton

K. I.

(1999). Resilience among urban African–American male adolescents: A study of the protective effects of sociopolitical control on their mental health. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(6), 733-751.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.18 MB

0.11 MB

0.17 MB