CPs = a pattern of behaviour characterised by a failure to conform to society’s rules and expectations (Rutter & Rutter, 1993).

• subjective depending on cultural expectations
• according to DSM-IV, CPs categorised into 2 types of disorder:
  -Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD)= pattern of negativistic, hostile and defiant behaviour towards authority figures
  -Conduct disorder (CD) essential feature = violation of the rights of others and a violation of age-appropriate norms and rules
• ODD typically considered less severe compared to CD, which is considered more difficult to control
• 2 conditions often conflated into the same construct --> specifically due to their high comorbidity (Maughan et al. 2004) and considering that ODD often precedes CD (Hill, 2002)
• Causes of CD are multifaceted: the role of bad parenting is very important in the development of CPs, but its effect is bidirectional (with child factors) and thus it is not a sole determinant of CPs in childhood

• ‘Good parenting’ behaviours = the encouragement of desirable behaviours and strengths, sensitivity to the child’s needs and setting consistent and firm limits on behaviour (Laird et al. 2003).
• 'Bad parenting' behaviours = low involvement (i.e. low emotional support and communication), high monitoring and supervision of child activities and harsh (e.g. physical punishment) or inconsistent discipline
  --> these are correlated with increased delinquent behaviour in childhood e.g. Barker (2011) harsh parenting at age 4 sig. predicted CU traits at age 13, accounting for 10% (boys) and 14% (girls) variance in these traits
• Stormshak et al. (2000) found that physically aggressive punishment was linked to increased child aggression, and low parental involvement was linked to resistant child behaviour

Problem: findings are only correlational and research has mainly focused on the development of child CPs in boys = limits generalisability of findings

• Dunn & Plomin (1990) siblings (so boys and girls) in the same family experience very different parental treatment = affect of bad parenting on girls may therefore have different consequences to the affect on boys.
• e.g. Deater-Deckard & Dodge (1997) state of mother-daughter relationships and differential treatment between siblings by parents has been found to be particularly important for girls at risk of developing CPs = suggests parenting is associated with CPs for both boys and girls, but the aspects of parenting that are influential may differ for each gender

Why they are important:

• global prevalence in 2010 estimated to be 3.6% for males and 2.2% for females (Erskine et al., 2014).
• Predict many suboptimal outcomes: Carr (2004) adult outcomes for children with CD = criminality, mental and physical health issues, poor social and marital adjustment, poor education and occupation attainment
• Social and economic cost: Scott et al. (2001) cost to public services from 10-28yrs is more than £70,000
  

BUT might be that boys and girls exhibit different traits that influence differential parenting.

• explained by Patterson’s (1970) coercion hypothesis, whereby parenting practices and child disruptive behaviours are reciprocally influential = follows the principle that aversive stimuli (child screams in response to parent’s command) control the behaviour of one person (parent shouting) and positive reinforcement (parent withdraws command or comforts the child) maintains the behaviour of the other (reinforces child’s screaming behaviour).
• Cycle has negative consequences as it means the parent has few positive interactions with their child, they punish their child frequently and ineffectively and the child learns that coercion is an effective strategy
• LINK TO CHILD FACTORS

Parenting and child factors interact:

• Wootton et al. (1997) found that bad parenting only had a negative effect on child behaviour when the child had high levels of callous and unemotional traits (i.e. lack of empathy) = influence of child factors on parenting behaviour
• Burke et al. (2008) investigated the bidirectional nature of CPs in a longitudinal sample by recording the subtle changes in their behaviour, parenting practices and communication techniques over the 5-10 year period. Found a reciprocal effect of child and parent behaviour, but the child’s disruptive symptoms influenced parental behaviour to a greater extent than parenting behaviour influenced child behaviour --> ODD resulted in reduced involvement and communication, and increased timid discipline, whilst CD predicted reduced parental supervision.

BUT regardless, parenting interventions (i.e. teach parents how to implement structured management programs at home) have been generally successful in reducing CPs in children
= suggests bad parenting is to some degree a cause, or at least that good parenting can be a protector against the behaviours exhibited by these children.

• Kazdin (1995) argued that the effectiveness of this treatment technique is the most consistently demonstrated for treating CD. Furthermore, such
• treatments have been successfully applied at various age groups, from preschool to adolescents
• However, successful intervention depends largely on parental competence (Kazdin, 1995) e.g. many parents do not complete the parenting programs, and so success largely relies on their motivation to change their maladaptive parenting.
  = treating parenting does to some extent reduce CPs, suggesting that bad parenting is associated with increased CPs in childhood.

Temperament = key aspect of child development and when it is associated with negative emotionality, inflexibility and reactive responding, can predict externalizing behaviours seen in those with CPs

• a facet shown to evoke more negative aspects of parenting = may play a vital role in contributing to the coercive cycle.
• Thought to be an innate, biological characteristic --> a twin study found that the strongest temperamental predictor of CPs was emotionality and that this was significantly influenced by genetics (Gjone & Stevenson, 1997) = temperament may be critically important if a genetic predisposition to potentially later develop CPs can be assumed.
• has implications for preparing parents to avoid maladaptive techniques if they know their child is a potential risk for developing CPs
• Barker et al. (2011) 7,000 p's- fearless temperament at age 2 predicted both CU traits and CP at age 13 --> follow-back analyses shows had less fearful responses to punishment cues at age 2 = important link between temperament and cognition (punishment insensitivity) and elevated CU traits

Academic performance:

• Low intelligence often been considered an antecedent of CPs, with low IQ being associated with school failure and antisocial behaviour later in life (Farrington, 1995)
• poor verbal IQ and reading disorders have also been demonstrated to be related to increased CPs (Sanson et al. 1996) = intuitively understandable as it infers a poorer ability to communicate with others, which may in turn result in antisocial behavioural responses.
• BUT, like with parenting, gender differences also exist with regards to the relationship between IQ and CP’s
  -Maughan et al. (1996) boys with CPs are at risk of later developing reading problems, whilst with girls, reading problems during childhood are predictive of CPs in teenage years
  = gender differences are a confounding factor for both parenting and child factors when considering their role in causing CPs.
• link to SES --> more likely to receive worse education

Given the complexity of the aetiology of CP, not surprising that most treatment approaches are ineffective:

• Bakker et al. (2017) - meta-analysis found that psychological treatments have a small effect in reducing parent-, teacher- and observer-rated CD problems in children and adolescents with clinical CD problems/diagnosis. There's not enough evidence to support one specific psychological treatment over another
• Frick (2001) explained lack of efficacy by the fact that such treatments are often founded on broad theories designed for adult interventions, instead of utilising the current understanding of the dimensional nature of the causes of CD and of potential developmental issues associated with youths

Contingency management programs:

• The principle is to readdress the fact that most families of children with CD do not have a consistent environment, resulting in inability to modulate their behaviour. It also focuses on the notion that these children tend to have temperamental vulnerabilities, exacerbating the negative effects of a non-contingent environment (O’Brien & Frick, 1996).
• aims to establish behavioural goals and a system in order to achieve these goals that includes positive reinforcement for positive behaviours.
• These programmes are effective amongst children in residential treatment centres and at home, as well as in educational settings (Abramowitz & Leary, 1991).
• BUT, these programs are often used inefficiently, in that they are not manipulated to suit the individual and negative reinforcement is often used more than positive reinforcement as a method of behaviour control
  = Both of these factors often result in a lack of motivation in the child (Frick, 2001)

• Pickles et al. (2016)164 children with lang impairment at 7, 8, 11 and 16yrs --> CP always co-occurred with hyperactivity in children with lang impairment regardless of difference in onset of symptoms (childhood vs. adolescence) or persistence (persistent vs. childhood limited)
• Frick et al. (2013) review claims children and adolescents with both severe CP and callous-unemotional traits are at risk for more severe and persistent antisocial outcomes, even when controlling or age of onset and severity of CP --> role of CU traits