Antisocial Disorders in Adolescence and Youth, According to Structural, Emotional, and Cognitive Transdiagnostic Variables: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Transdiagnostic causal variables have been identified that have allowed understanding the origin and maintenance of psychopathologies in parsimonious explanatory models of antisocial disorders. However, it is necessary to systematize the information published in the last decade. The aim of the study was to identify through a systematic review, the structural, emotional and cognitive transdiagnostic variables in antisocial disorders of adolescence and youth. Recommendations for systematic reviews and meta-extraction and analysis of information according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), the Cochrane Collaboration and Campbell were followed. We found 19 articles from 110 reviewed documents. The results indicated that at a structural level there is a general psychopathological factor (psychopathy or externalizing), non-emotional callousness and impulsivity from behavioral inhibition and activation systems, and negative affect traits as base structures. In the emotional level, the study found a risk component from emotional dysregulation and experiential avoidance. In the cognitive level, a key role of anger-rumination and violent ideation as explanatory variables of antisocial disorders. We concluded that the interaction of these identified variables makes it possible to generate an evidence-based transdiagnostic model.

Emotional Assessment in Spanish Youths With Antisocial Behavior

“…In addition, differences are found in the arousal dimension in the evaluation of all images, indicating, that the custody group has greater activation than the non-custody and student groups, in the perception of pleasant and neutral images. This result indicates the impulsivity component associated with young people with antisocial behavior (Rockstroh and McTeague, 2019;Toro et al, 2020) which is consistent with a recent study finding an association between higher ratings of arousal to positive images and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in youth (Truedsson et al, 2019). Furthermore, the results showed that custody sample were associated with lower ratings of arousal to unpleasant images, and concurrently in line with previous finding with CU in youth samples (Truedsson et al, 2019;Szabó et al, 2020).…”

Online Trolls: Unaffectionate Psychopaths or Just Lonely Outcasts and Angry Partisans?

“…Moreover, neuroticism, low levels of agreeableness, and low levels of conscientiousness are correlated with a specific kind of social media use-that is, the kind that seeks to gain from social media the attention and social support people might lack in their offline lives (Seidman, 2013), so also possibly defensive trolling. Another known personality-related explanation of online deviance has to do with the difficulties some people experience in regulating their own emotions, and the ramifications of their anger (Toro et al, 2020). This negative affect is known to spiral, completely consume the person, and reduce the person's inhibitions, prompting an urge to engage in corrective action towards the culprit (the person perceived to have caused the anger; Agnew, 1995).…”

Adolescent Deviance and Cyber-Deviance. A Systematic Literature Review

“…Other theories related to deviance covered in the literature reviews are social learning theory, social control theory, differential association theory, life-course perspectives, social disorganization, strain theory, subcultural theory, social concern theory, routine activities theory or situational approaches, lifestyle exposure theory, arousal theory, criminology's situational approach, rational choice, delinquent problem-solving, deviance regulation theory, interactionist conception, neo-cognitive learning theory, genebased evolutionary theory, desistance theories, neutralization theory, frustration theory, etc. In the majority of the literature reviews, deviance was not studied as a single phenomenon, but as it related to other factors such as religiosity (Adamczyk et al, 2017), family influence (parental communication (Roisko et al, 2014), parental styles (Ruiz-Hernández et al, 2019), parental control, family processes, family history of substance use), peer-related factors (peer influence (Leung et al, 2014), peer network, peer association, motivations of dissent in social groups), individual factors (animal cruelty (Chan and Wong, 2019a,b;Longobardi and Badenes-Ribera, 2019), victimization and sexual victimization [(McGrath et al, 2011;Dennis et al, 2012;Engström, 2021), child maltreatment (Fitton et al, 2020), non-emotional callousness and impulsivity (Toro et al, 2020), motivational processes (Agnew, 1995)]. Concerning online deviance, most of the systematic reviews refer to a specific type of behavior, which is cyberbullying (Kowalski et al, 2014;Watts et al, 2017;Vale et al, 2018;Rosa et al, 2019;Zych et al, 2019).…”