Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Recent research suggests that externalizing behaviors may influence the severity of delinquent behavior and may also be associated with low affective empathy and sensitivity to the well-being of others, as well as a decreased ability to recognize the emotions of others and to experience reciprocal psychological distress.

Aim:

This study examines the effects of empathy and callous unemotional traits-and the mediating role of moral disengagement-in explaining externalizing behavior in juvenile offenders.

Method:

The study was observational-analytic, correlational-exploratory, and involved 376 juvenile offenders (M = 17.36 years, SD = 1.445) who were sanctioned with a custodial measure.

Results:

Results indicated that empathy, callous-unemotional traits, and moral disengagement had significant associations and differential effects on externalizing behavior. In addition, moral disengagement was identified as a psychological mechanism mediating the effects of empathy and callous-unemotional traits on externalizing behavior, and the age invariance of the mediation model was determined.

Conclusion:

These findings provide valuable information for specific interventions aimed at reducing externalizing behaviors in juvenile offenders and highlight the importance of the fundamental mediating role of moral disengagement in the relationship between emotional factors and antisocial behavior.

Keywords

Empathy callous-emotionless traits externalizing behavior moral disengagement

Introduction

Juvenile delinquency is on the rise worldwide. Between 7% and 8% of all homicides in the United States involve a minor (Baglivio & Wolff, 2017), and approximately 10% of juvenile offenders have committed serious crimes (Baglivio et al., 2014; Baglivio & Wolff, 2017). In Latin America and the Caribbean, violence and adolescent involvement in crime is a social and public health issue of concern to governments (Hernández Bringas, 2021). Brazil, Colombia, and Peru report the highest concentration of adolescents in juvenile detention facilities in Latin America, which has been linked to the increase in juvenile crime in these countries (Hernández Bringas, 2021).

Studies have shown that, between 20% and 70% of adolescents who have been involved in delinquent activities, especially involving violence, present a high prevalence of conduct disorders, externalizing behaviors, antisocial traits, lack of empathy and poor self-care behaviors (Atilola et al., 2017, 2018; Gallego-Matellán et al., 2019; Fassaert et al., 2016; Saladino et al., 2020).

Thus, conduct problems are common in juvenile offenders. More seriously, conduct disorders are frequent diagnoses in this population (Restrepo & Acosta-Tobón, 2023). These problems act as risk factors (predisposing, precipitating, or perpetuating) for involvement in illegal activities such as vandalism, theft, and other delinquent behaviors, including serious crimes (Murray & Farrington, 2010). In general, this group of youth exhibits externalizing behaviors, which are characterized by aggressiveness and manifest in physical altercations, bullying, and verbal hostility. Furthermore, they display disruptive behaviors, including disobedience, defiance of authority, and violation of social and institutional norms. Hyperactivity, impulsivity, and substance abuse are prevalent, contributing to the exacerbation of these behaviors (Cuervo et al., 2015; Loeber & Burke, 2011; Restrepo & Acosta-Tobón, 2024).

A variety of causes have been identified for the externalizing problems of juvenile offenders. In addition to family dynamics and social environments, individual psychological factors are critical to understanding their disruptive and antisocial behaviors. Empathy is one of these psychological factors (Bock & Hosser, 2014; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004).

It has been documented that juvenile offenders frequently exhibit substantial behavioral issues that precede the imposition of sanctions or emerge during detention. These behaviors are frequently associated with externalizing symptoms (Atilola et al., 2017, 2018; Gilbert et al., 2021). Externalizing behaviors exert a significant influence on the severity of criminal behavior and are directly associated with low affective empathy and sensitivity for the well-being of others, as well as a decreased ability to identify others’ emotions and experience reciprocal psychological distress (Atilola et al., 2018; Gilbert et al., 2021; Miller & Eisenberg, 1988). Furthermore, a lack of empathy is associated with increased impulsivity, which in turn increases the likelihood of engaging in risky and violent behaviors (Dal Santo et al., 2020; Gong et al., 2023; Piko & Pinczés, 2014). Several studies have documented difficulties in empathy expression among youth with behavioral problems (Arango et al., 2017; de Wied et al., 2010; Frick & Kemp, 2021; Michalska et al., 2016; von Polier et al., 2020).

A lack of empathy can have significant adverse effects and may manifest as callous-unemotional traits (CU). These traits are characterized by an inability or difficulty in understanding other people’s emotions, emotional indifference or disengagement, and a lack of emotional reaction to others’ emotions. Additionally, individuals with these traits may exhibit a lack of remorse, guilt, and callousness when someone has been harmed or harmed, and may display indifference to the needs, feelings, and well-being of others (Frick et al., 2018).

These traits also predispose youth to difficulties in accepting social norms and the law, which in turn increase the likelihood of engaging in delinquent and criminal behaviors (Gómez & Durán, 2024; Marzilli et al., 2021; Neo & Kimonis, 2021; Simmons et al., 2020). Moreover, callous-unemotional traits serve as reliable indicators of severe conduct disorders and represent a significant risk factor for the development of antisocial personality disorder in adulthood (Craig et al., 2021; Goulter & Moretti, 2021; Squillaci & Benoit, 2021; Waller et al., 2020).

Empathy should facilitate the avoidance of harming or injuring one’s fellow human beings. This capacity should be the result of typical socio-cognitive development, enabling the acquisition of moral development that produces moral reasoning and judgments aligned with social norms and human welfare (Bandura, 1977).

A series of cognitive mechanisms may result in the attenuation or nullification of prosocial moral reasoning, thereby leading to moral disengagement. In other words, these are the moral cognitive mechanisms that enable the rationalization and justification of disruptive and criminal behaviors without the subsequent emotional experience of guilt or regret (Bandura, 2002, 2016). These mechanisms include moral justification, euphemistic labeling, advantageous comparison, diffusion of responsibility, displacement of responsibility, distortion of consequences, dehumanization, and attribution of blame (Bandura, 1999, 2002; Moore, 2015).

There is evidence indicating that juvenile offenders experience difficulties in moral development, with this delay being closely associated with delinquent behavior, irrespective of socioeconomic status, gender, age, and intelligence (Stams et al., 2006). The role of moral disengagement and its associated mechanisms in the development and maintenance of antisocial behaviors in juvenile offenders has been well documented (DeLisi et al., 2014; D’Urso et al., 2018; Petruccelli, Barbaranelli, et al., 2017; Petruccelli, Simonelli, et al., 2017). A recent meta-analysis on moral disengagement in juvenile offenders revealed that these mechanisms have a disinhibitory effect on antisocial behaviors, leading to the commission of violent and nonviolent crimes against people and property (Férriz-Romeral et al., 2019). The authors concluded that moral disengagement may be a significant risk factor for delinquency, capable of weakening widely accepted protective factors such as empathy, resulting in persistent and severe delinquent behaviors (Férriz-Romeral et al., 2019).

In this regard, Shulman et al. (2011) reported a strong association between callous-unemotional traits and moral disengagement, as well as a moderate association between these traits and self-reported antisocial behavior. Additionally, the researchers discovered that callous-unemotional traits did not influence the long-term correlation between moral disengagement and delinquency in adolescents. The findings indicate that moral disengagement is the primary indicator of change in antisocial behavior (Shulman et al., 2011). Consequently, a reduction in moral disengagement levels serves as a protective factor against juvenile delinquency.

A variety of explanatory models have been proposed to elucidate the interrelationships between externalizing behaviors, callous-unemotional traits, and moral disengagement. Walters and DeLisi (2015) discovered that moral disengagement served as a mediator between psychopathic personality traits and violence and behavioral deviance among delinquents. In a similar vein, Thornberg and Jungert (2017) discovered that callous-unemotional traits were indirectly associated with bullying behaviors through a reduction in the utilization of harm-based moral reasoning. This form of moral reasoning entails the evaluation of an action’s moral status based on its potential to cause harm to others, with the aim of preventing unnecessary harm.

Furthermore, Paciello et al. (2020) examined empirical evidence regarding the interactions between callous-unemotional traits and moral disengagement in the prediction of externalizing and disruptive behaviors in young people. The analysis of several explanatory models revealed two key findings. Firstly, it highlighted the mediating and moderating role of moral disengagement. Secondly, it demonstrated the mediating role of callous-unemotional traits. The authors conclude that both CU traits and moral disengagement interact reciprocally during adolescence in predicting externalizing behavior and are conducive to antisocial-delusional behaviors (Paciello et al., 2020).

In contrast with these mediating models, Sijtsema et al. (2019) proposed that antisocial behavior represents a common underlying factor associated with dark personality traits (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy) and moral disengagement. In a longitudinal study of adolescents with disruptive behavior disorder, Muratori et al. (2017) reported that increases in antisocial behavior predicted relative increases in moral disengagement over time; however, the reverse was not true. The authors found no evidence to support the hypothesis that moral disengagement mediates the relationship between psychopathic personality traits and antisocial behaviors. The longitudinal cross-mediated models revealed that antisocial behaviors exerted effects on moral disengagement and on psychopathic traits, but not on other types of relationships.

It is postulated that the proclivity towards aggressiveness, disobedience, disruptive behaviors, and other antisocial behaviors observed in many juvenile offenders can be attributed to a diminished capacity to recognize and respect the emotions and interests of others, coupled with a total indifference to the suffering of others and a lack of remorse, guilt, and sensitivity when someone has been harmed or harmed. In alignment with the assertions, the objective of this study was to examine the influence of empathy and callous-unemotional traits, along with the mediating role of moral disengagement, in elucidating externalizing behaviors among juvenile offenders. We began with the theoretical assumption, supported by some empirical findings, that juvenile offenders’ externalizing behaviors are partially explained by a lack of empathy and callous-unemotional traits. However, we also hypothesize that the effects of empathy and callous-unemotional traits impact externalizing behaviors through moral disengagement.

Method

Participants

Based on an observational-analytical study of correlational-exploratory scope (Ato et al., 2013), 376 juvenile delinquents who faced judicial proceedings in the System of Criminal Responsibility for Adolescents (SRPA) in Colombia and were sanctioned with a custodial measure in specialized reeducation centers participated. Participants were recruited from two of the most important re-education centers in Colombia because they housed the largest number of juveniles. A total of 54.5% (n = 205) were in the city of Manizales and 45.5% (n = 171) were in the city of Medellín. The age of participants ranged from 14 to 24 years, with a mean age of 17.36 years (SD = 1.445). A total of 58.3% were younger than 17 years old, 35.1% were between 18 and 19 years old, and 5.6% were between 20 and 24 years old. Among the participants, 82.2% were male. Regarding family structure, 33.2% came from single-parent families, 22.9% from extended families, 17.6% from nuclear families, 7.7% from reconstituted families, 4.8% reported living alone, 4.5% with their partner, 0.5% with their friends, and 7.4% did not answer. About 96.8% were of low socioeconomic status and had an average education of seventh grade (M = 6.87, SD = 1.969).

Instruments

Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement Scale (MMDS)

Designed to assess moral disengagement and its impact on aggressive and antisocial behavior (Bandura et al., 1996). It consists of 32 items with a 5-point Likert scale (1 [strongly disagree] to 5 [strongly agree]). The scale provides a total score for moral disengagement from the sum of the items and eight scores for each of the mechanisms (moral justification, euphemistic labeling, advantageous comparison, displacement of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility, distortion of consequences, dehumanization, and attribution of blame). The psychometric properties of the scale have been confirmed in several studies with a population of adolescents and young people in Colombia, showing good fit indicators for both a unifactorial and octofactorial model, as well as adequate internal consistency and significant correlations with theoretically relevant constructs (Gómez-Tabares et al., 2024; Restrepo Cervantes et al., 2024; Romera et al., 2023). The validated version for Colombia with 1,431 young people confirmed a first-order, single-factor structure grouping the eight mechanisms of moral disengagement (TLI = 0.999, AGFI = 0.993, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.010) and invariance by gender, age, and geographic area (Gómez-Tabares et al., 2024). Internal consistency using McDonald’s Omega (ω) was .89 for the total scale and ranged from .72 to .86 for the subscales (Gómez-Tabares et al., 2024).

Inventory of callous unemotional traits. Self-report version (ICU)

It consists of 24 Likert-type items from 0 to 3 points (0 (completely false) to 3 (definitely true)) that assess callous-unemotional traits and three dimensions: unemotional (UE), callousness (CA), and uncaring (UC; Frick, 2004). The inventory was translated and validated in Spanish with a sample of 324 juvenile offenders from the juvenile justice system in Spain (López-Romero et al., 2015), and the factor structure composed of the three original dimensions was corroborated. The total score and the indifference subscale showed adequate internal consistency (α = .88 and .82, respectively), while it was acceptable for insensitivity and uncaring (α = .76 and .78, respectively; López-Romero et al., 2015). The CU inventory has also been adapted and validated in a multicenter community sample of Colombian neurotypical children and adolescents (n = 903) with internalizing (n = 54) and externalizing (n = 64) symptoms. A good fit was corroborated for a three-dimensional factor structure and an acceptable internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha for the 24-item version (.81 for total score, .58 for callousness, .76 for uncaring, and .77 for unemotional; Arango-Tobon et al., 2022. In addition, the CU inventory has been used with juvenile offenders in Colombia, reporting adequate internal consistency using McDonald’s omega (ω = .86 for the CU trait total score, .81 for callousness, .83 for uncaring, and .66 for unemotional; (Gómez, & Durán, 2024).

Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI)

It is a self-report scale of 28 Likert-type items with five response options (1 (does not describe me at all) to 5 (describes me very well); Davis, 1983). It assesses cognitive and affective empathy based on four factors. Perspective Taking (ability to take the perspective of others) and Fantasy (ability to understand the feelings and behaviors of fictional characters) make up cognitive empathy. Empathic Concern (ability to experience warmth and compassion in situations that cause discomfort to others) and Personal Distress (experiencing feelings of fear, apprehension, and discomfort when observing negative experiences in others) make up affective empathy. The Spanish translated and adapted version with adolescents confirmed the 4-factor structure (Mestre et al., 2004). Arenas-Estévez et al. (2021) validated the 4-factor structure in a sample of university students and demonstrated good fit and invariance by gender. The scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (α) when applied to a Colombian population of juvenile offenders (total empathy (α = .73), perspective taking (α = .71), fantasy (α = .69), empathic concern (α = .82), and personal distress (α = .73); (Gómez Tabares & Narváez Marín, 2019).

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

It is a behavioral assessment questionnaire used to profile emotional and behavioral problems and symptoms in adolescents up to 17 years of age and over 18 years of age (Goodman, 1997). It consists of 25 items on a 3-point Likert scale ((1 (not true) to 3 (completely true)) that assess prosocial behavior (strengths) and internalizing and externalizing problems in 4 subscales: emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention symptoms, and peer relationship problems. The emotional symptoms and peer relationship problems subscales group internalizing problems, and the conduct problems and hyperactivity/inattention symptoms subscales group externalizing behaviors (Ortuño-Sierra et al., 2015).

The psychometric properties of the SDQ in Spanish were analyzed in a sample of 1,547 adolescents and young adults aged 11 to 19 years (M = 15.15; SD = 1.99; Ortuño-Sierra et al., 2015). CFA yielded acceptable goodness-of-fit indicators for a 5-factor model and a bifactor model with a general factor and five dimensions. Measurement invariance across gender and age was also demonstrated. The internal consistency of the total difficulties score was .84 and ranged from .71 to .75 for the subscales (Ortuño-Sierra et al., 2015). Ortuño-Sierra et al. (2022) also confirmed the five-factor structure in adolescents (⩽17 years) and young adults (⩾18 years), as well as measurement invariance by age and gender. The internal consistency of the total difficulties score was ω = .74. This study focused on assessing externalizing behavior from the combined dimensions of conduct problems and hyperactivity/inattention symptoms.

Statistical analysis

First, a descriptive analysis of the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants was performed. The distribution of the data was checked using Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. A descriptive analysis of the study variables was performed, followed by an analysis of correlations using Spearman’s coefficient to examine the relationships between empathy, callous-unemotional traits, moral disengagement, and externalizing behaviors.

A multi-equation model was proposed from path analysis to examine the direct and indirect effects of empathy, callous-unemotional traits, and moral disengagement (mediator) in explaining externalizing behaviors. The asymptotic free distribution method accompanied by bootstrapping with 10,000 resamples and a 95% confidence interval was used to determine the total, standardized direct and indirect effects of the proposed model (Byrne, 2016).

Robust indices, including the ratio of chi-squared to degrees of freedom (χ²/df), were used to assess model fit. Values below 3 in χ²/df are considered adequate (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003). Comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and its corresponding adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), and Bentler-Bonett normalized fit index (NFI). Values above 0.90 indicate adequate model fit (Byrne, 2016). The Bollen Incremental Fit Index (IFI) was also considered, with high values (⩾0.90) being preferred, reflecting an optimal balance between model complexity and explanation of observed variance (Byrne, 2016; Hu & Bentler, 1999; McArdle & Nesselroade, 2014).

In addition, the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) was evaluated. Values below 0.08 in the RMSEA indicate a good model fit, suggesting minimal discrepancy between the estimated and observed covariance patterns (Hu & Bentler, 1999; McArdle & Nesselroade, 2014). The expectation cross-validation index (ECVI) was also reported. A lower ECVI indicates better model fit and replicability (Browne & Cudeck, 1992). Together, these indicators provide a rigorous and detailed assessment of model fit to the data.

Finally, the age-group invariance of the proposed model was analyzed. To determine whether the model was invariant, the stability of the fit indices of the unconstrained and constrained models was analyzed. In addition, the change in CFI (ΔCFI) was analyzed to determine the invariance of the model. If the change in CFI is equal to or less than 0.01 (ΔCFI ⩽ 0.01), invariance between groups is accepted (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002).

Ethical aspects

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Universidad Católica Luis Amigó. It also had the ethical and technical approval of the Colombian government through the National Direction of the ‘Instituto Colombiano de Bienestar Familiar’ (Colombian Institute of Family Welfare). The study is of minimal risk according to Resolution 8430 of 1992 of the Ministry of Social Protection. The ethical principles of research were respected, guaranteeing anonymity, voluntary participation, confidentiality, minimal potential for harm, and transparency in the communication of results.

Results

Table 1 shows the results of the descriptive analysis and the correlations between the study variables. It was found that the total score of externalizing behavior and the dimensions of conduct problems and hyperactivity were directly and significantly correlated with all mechanisms of moral disengagement, fantasy, personal distress, callous-unemotional traits, and the callousness dimension. In addition, uncaring correlated directly and significantly with externalizing behavior, conduct problems, but not with hyperactivity. Perspective taking was inversely and significantly correlated with externalizing behavior and its dimensions. Empathic concern and unemotional trait had no significant correlations.

Table 1.

Descriptive analyses and correlations between the dimensions of moral disengagement, empathy, callous-unemotional traits with externalizing behavior.

Correlations	M (SD)	Min-max	Externalizing behavior	Behavioral problems	Hyperactive behavior
Moral disengagement	67.798 (22.236)	32–137	.411**	.474**	.422**
Moral justification	10.285 (4.010)	4–20	.357**	.321**	.301**
Euphemistic labeling	8.769 (3.242)	4–20	.353**	.304**	.303**
Advantageous comparison	7.348 (3.476)	4–20	.342**	.315**	.257**
Displacement of responsibility	8.585 (3.685)	4–20	.280**	.282**	.187**
Diffusion of responsibility	8.301 (3.355)	4–19	.282**	.246**	.240**
Distortion of consequences	8.513 (3.523)	4–20	.340**	.287**	.280**
Attribution of blame	8.242 (3.464)	4–20	.342**	.303**	.272**
Dehumanization	7.755 (3.766)	4–20	.283**	.277**	.193**
Total empathy	83.625 (11.866)	51–129	.091	.076	.070
Perspective taking	21.902 (4.401)	7–35	−.160**	−.149**	−.131*
Fantasy	20.715 (4.712)	7–35	.180**	.136**	.169**
Empathic concern	22.665 (4.333)	7–35	.018	−.006	.032
Personal Distress	18.343 (4.274)	7–33	.240**	.269**	.146**
Callous-unemotional traits	29.840 (8.408)	0–57	.317**	.374**	.167**
Callousness	14.287 (6.212)	0–31	.321**	.395**	.145**
Uncaring	8.000 (4.620)	0–24	.107*	.115*	.079
Unemotional	7.553 (2.810)	0–15	−0.011	−.005	−.004
M (SD)			7.577 (3.530)	3.428 (2.225)	4.149 (1.951)
Min-max			0–17	0–10	0–10

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 2 illustrates the findings of the correlation analysis between the dimensions of moral disengagement, empathy, and callous-unemotional traits. In general, there were significant inverse correlations between perspective-taking, empathic concern, and moral disengagement. In contrast, personal distress, callous-unemotional traits, callousness, and a lack of empathy were found to correlate inversely and significantly with moral disengagement. No correlation was found between fantasy and unemotional trait and moral disengagement (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Correlations between moral disengagement, empathy, and callous-unemotional trait dimensions.

Correlations	MD	MJ	EL	AC	DR	DifR	DC	AB	DH
Empathy	−.083	−.146**	−.055	−.090	−.040	.025	.030	−.044	−.136**
Perspective taking	−.153**	−.167**	−.136**	−.155**	−.098	−.025	−.047	−.131*	−.214**
Fantasy	.007	−.005	−.006	.020	.001	.059	.013	.018	−.038
Empathic concern	−.219**	−.218**	−.165**	−.206**	−.119*	−.098	−.108*	−.177**	−.260**
Personal distress	.130*	.001	.152**	.090	.144**	.120*	.180**	.151**	.113*
Callous-unemotional	.278**	.224**	.234**	.268**	.199**	.128*	.220**	.273**	.230**
Callousness	.242**	.182**	.197**	.227**	.169**	.144**	.180**	.257**	.194**
Uncaring	.174**	.147**	.139**	.165**	.124*	.024	.139**	.144**	.167**
Unemotional	.069	.104*	.035	.061	.061	.047	.054	.075	.061

Note. MD = moral disengagement; MJ = moral justification; EL = euphemistic labeling; AC = advantageous comparison; DR = displacement of responsibility; DifR = diffusion of responsibility; DC = distortion of consequences; AB = attribution of blame; DH = dehumanization of the victim.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Path analysis was used to analyze the total, direct, and indirect standardized effects of exogenous variables on externalizing behavior in juvenile offenders. Moral disengagement was used as a mediator between the dimensions of empathy, callous-unemotional traits, and externalizing behavior. Because the unemotional dimension did not correlate with moral disengagement and externalizing behavior, it was removed from the path analysis to improve goodness-of-fit indicators. The proposed model obtained good goodness-of-fit indicators (see Table 3). In addition, age invariance was analyzed to determine if the proposed model was equivalent between adolescents aged 14 to 17 and 18 to 24 years. Comparison of goodness-of-fit indicators by adding constraints to the model and the difference in CFI (ΔCFI ⩽ .01; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002) indicated that the model was equivalent between these age groups.

Table 3.

Model goodness-of-fit indices and invariance by age.

Proposed model	χ²/df	df	p	IFI	CFI	NFI	TLI	GFI	AGFI	ECVI	RMSEA 90% CI
Proposed model	1.263	2	0.283	.998	.998	.989	.963	.998	.961	.188	.026 [.000–.110]
Metric invariance by age (14–17 years/18–24 years)
Unrestricted	.627	4	0.643	1.005	1.000	.991	1.093	.998	.998	.370	.000 [.000–.063]
Structural weights	.644	16	0.850	1.022	1.000	.963	1.089	.993	.993	.327	.000 [.000–.027]
Structural covariances	1.067	36	0.360	.990	.989	.863	.983	.974	.974	.295	.013 [.000–.040]
Structural residuals	1.112	38	0.293	.982	.981	.849	.972	.971	.971	.295	.017 [.000–.041]

Figure 1 shows that empathy dimensions, callous-unemotional traits, and moral disengagement explained 30% of juvenile offenders’ externalizing behavior (R² = .301, 95% CI [0.208, 0.370], p = .002). Empathy and callous-unemotional trait dimensions provided differential effects explaining moral disengagement by 14% (R² = .143, 95% CI [0.076, 0.201], p = .002).

Figure 1.

Model of externalizing behavior and the mediating role of moral disengagement.

Table 4 shows the total, direct, and indirect standardized effects of the exogenous and mediating variables on externalizing behavior (endogenous variable). Regarding the mediating role of moral disengagement, it was found that the traits of callousness (β = .065 95% CI [0.032, 0.109]; p < .001) and uncaring (β = .028; 95% CI [0.001, 0.064]; p = .046) and the dimensions of empathy corresponding to empathic concern (β = −.075; 95% CI [−0.122, −0.037]; p < .001) and personal distress (β = −.042; 95% CI [−0.011, 0.079]; p = .009) provided significant indirect effects, mediated by moral disengagement, on externalizing behaviors. The indirect effect of fantasy, mediated by moral disengagement, was not significant (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Total, direct, and indirect standardized effects of exogenous variables on endogenous variables.

Variables	Moral disengagement (mediator)			Externalizing behavior
Effects	Value β	95% CI	p	Value β	95% CI	p
Fantasy
Total	.059	[−.043, .161]	.24	.171	[.05, .282]	.004
Direct	.059	[−.043, .161]	.24	.153	[.041, .254]	.006
Indirect	–	−	−	.018	[−.012, .053]	.216
Callousness
Total	.209	.102, .311]	<.001	.303	[.210, .395]	<.001
Direct	.209	.102, .311]	<.001	.238	[.141, 0.334]	<.001
Indirect	−	−	−	.065	[.032, 0.109]	<.001
Empathic concern
Total	−.240	[−.356, −.12]	<.001	.014	[−.112, .137]	.836
Direct	−.240	[−.356, −.12]	<.001	.089	[−.03, .203]	.148
Indirect	−	−	−	−.075	[−.122, −.037]	<.001
Taking perspective
Total	−	−	−	−.175	[−.277, −.071]	.001
Direct	−	−	−	−.175	[−.277, −.071]	.001
Indirect	–	−	−	−	−	−
Personal distress
Total	.136	[.031, .236]	.013	.124	[.013, .232	.026
Direct	.136	[.031, .236]	.013	.082	[−.024, .183]]	.128
Indirect	−	−	−	.042	[.011, .079]	.009
Uncaring
Total	.091	[−.008, –.191]	.07	.123	[.027, .219]	0.014
Direct	.091	[−.008, .191]	.07	.095	[.001, .186]	0.046
Indirect	−	−	−	.028	[.001, .064]	0.046
Moral disengagement
Total	−	−	−	.311	[.217, .401]	<0.001
Direct	−	−	−	.311	[.217, .401]	<0.001
Indirect	−	−	−	−	−	−
R ²	.143	[.076, .201]	.002	.301	[.208, .370]	.002

Discussion

The present study aimed to analyze the effects of empathy and callous-unemotional traits, as well as the mediating role of moral disengagement, on externalizing behavior in juvenile offenders. The results demonstrated that empathy, callous-unemotional traits, and moral disengagement have significant associations and differential effects on externalizing behavior. Furthermore, trajectory analyses revealed that empathy and CU traits exert significant indirect effects on externalizing behavior through moral disengagement.

The most noteworthy aspect of our study was the identification of moral disengagement as a psychological mechanism mediating the effect of empathy and CU traits on externalizing behavior, as well as the determination of the age invariance of the mediation model. These findings are consistent with those of previous studies that have identified a consistent association between moral disengagement mechanisms and the severity of externalizing and antisocial behaviors in juvenile offenders (DeLisi et al., 2014; D’Urso et al., 2018; Kiriakidis, 2008; Petruccelli, Barbaranelli, et al., 2017; Petruccelli, Simonelli, et al., 2017). A common factor in this association between moral disengagement and externalizing behavior is the lack of empathy and emotional regulation, as well as the presence of callous-unemotional traits. Collectively, these factors predict antisocial behavior, crime severity, and inhibit prosocial behavior (DeLisi et al., 2014; D’Urso et al., 2018, 2019; Hyde et al., 2010; Hardy et al., 2014; Shulman et al., 2011; Gómez Tabares & Narváez Marín, 2019; Muratori et al., 2017; Paciello et al., 2008, 2017, 2020; Petruccelli, Barbaranelli, et al., 2017; Petruccelli, Simonelli, et al., 2017; Walters, 2018).

Other studies have demonstrated that moral disengagement is a mediator between empathy and callous-unemotional traits and externalizing-antisocial behaviors (Hyde et al., 2010; Ouvrein et al., 2018; Paciello et al., 2020). Furthermore, moral disengagement has been demonstrated to mediate the association between callous-unemotional traits and perpetration in bullying among adolescents (Thornberg et al., 2025) and peer influence on antisocial behavior in adolescent offenders (Walters, 2018).

The findings of research conducted with juvenile offenders in Colombia indicate that moral disengagement mechanisms are directly and significantly correlated with CU traits and inversely correlated with empathic concern and perspective-taking (Gómez Tabares & Narváez Marín, 2019; Gómez, & Durán, 2024). In this regard, Wang et al. (2017) conducted an analysis of the mediating and moderating role of moral disengagement in Chinese juvenile offenders. The researchers discovered that moral disengagement served as a mediator in the relationship between empathy and aggression. Furthermore, moderation analyses revealed that the negative association between empathy and aggression was significant at low levels of moral disengagement (β = −.38, p < .01), but not at high levels (β = −.01, p > .05; Wang et al., 2017).

Our findings are consistent with previous literature in demonstrating the role of moral disengagement as a mediator in the relationship between empathy, callous-unemotional traits, and externalizing behaviors in juvenile offenders. Furthermore, the effects of this mediation remain stable after controlling for age. However, our study also revealed discrepancies in the magnitude and significance of the direct and indirect effects of empathy and CU traits through moral disengagement in explaining externalizing behaviors. Therefore, it can be concluded that not all dimensions of empathy and CU traits exert the same influence on externalizing behavior, nor do they interact with moral disengagement in a uniform manner.

About empathy, two dimensions have been identified: affective and cognitive (Reniers et al., 2011; Watt, 2007). The cognitive dimension of empathy refers to the ability to understand another person’s point of view, including the capacity to empathize with fictional characters in a narrative context. The affective dimension of empathy encompasses empathic concern, which refers to the emotional response that coherently underlies the psychological state of the other person. The personal distress dimension of empathy involves the feelings of distress experienced when observing the adverse circumstances or suffering of other people (Gómez, 2019; Johnson et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2023).

Empirical studies have indicated that empathic tendency is a significant factor in moral agency processes and is associated with prosocial moral reasoning (Gómez, 2019). Conversely, it has been negatively linked to moral disengagement (Gómez Tabares & Narváez Marín, 2019). However, the extant literature is inconclusive as to whether, when empathy dimensions are analyzed individually, they retain the same effect on moral disengagement and externalizing behaviors in juvenile offenders.

The path analysis revealed that the affective dimension of empathy exerted significant direct effects on moral disengagement and indirect effects on externalizing behavior. Additionally, negative correlations and effects were observed between empathic concern and moral disengagement. Conversely, personal distress demonstrated positive correlations and effects on moral disengagement mechanisms. Regarding the cognitive dimension of empathy, perspective taking was found to correlate inversely with moral disengagement and mechanisms involving cognitive restructuring of behavior and victim devaluation. Furthermore, the path model indicated that perspective taking has a negative direct effect on externalizing behavior, while fantasy has a positive direct effect.

In consideration of the findings, it can be posited that the externalizing behaviors exhibited by juvenile offenders are mitigated by the influence of perspective-taking and empathic concern, which in turn serves to inhibit moral disengagement. These findings are consistent with the thesis that moral disengagement mechanisms are selectively activated in the context of harmful behaviors (Bandura, 1999, 2002, 2016; Moore, 2015). However, the capacity to comprehend one’s perspective and establish an emotional bond with others restrains externalizing behaviors and fosters prosocial ones. Consequently, the deactivation of the moral regulatory system through moral disengagement mechanisms is unnecessary. Conversely, if a high level of discomfort is experienced in the face of exposure to the suffering of others, cognitive mechanisms of moral disengagement are activated to mitigate self-censorship and externalizing behaviors (Moore, 2015). Accordingly, the correlation between personal distress and externalizing behavior is indirect, operating through the mechanism of moral disengagement, as evidenced by the findings of this study.

In this regard, Barriga et al. (2009) conducted an analysis of the associations between moral cognitions (moral judgment maturity, moral identity, and self-serving cognitive distortion) and empathy in juvenile offenders. The findings indicated that self-serving cognitive distortion was inversely associated with cognitive and affective empathy, whereas moral identity and moral judgment were positively associated with empathy. Additionally, self-serving cognitive distortion was identified as a mediator between moral identity and empathy in juvenile offenders. These findings are consistent with those of the present study, which indicated that juvenile offenders who demonstrate deficits in empathy tend to resort to self-serving cognitive distortion (Barriga et al., 2009). Self-serving cognitions are analogous to moral disengagement mechanisms in that they pertain to the ways in which individuals justify immoral or antisocial behaviors in order to maintain a positive self-image and avoid feelings of guilt.

The results of Barriga et al. (2009) are partially consistent with those reported in this study, as cognitive and affective dimensions had significant negative and positive direct effects, respectively, on moral disengagement. Thus, empathic concern has a reducing effect on moral disengagement, whereas personal distress has an increasing effect.

Our findings support the notion that distinct domains of empathy exert distinctive effects on the activation of cognitive mechanisms of moral disengagement involved in externalizing behavior in juvenile offenders. In this sense, the affective components of empathy may serve to either reduce or increase externalizing behavior through the activation of moral disengagement in juvenile offenders. The empathic concern of juvenile offenders increases their moral connection with the victim, thereby enhancing their capacity to recognize and value the suffering of others. This, in turn, renders it more challenging for them to justify or minimize the negative consequences of their own actions. However, the personal distress of juvenile offenders increases moral disengagement, which allows them to minimize the perception of harm and justify their actions, thereby reducing the guilt and disengagement they experience.

Another noteworthy finding was the positive and significant direct effect of fantasy on externalizing behavior, which was not mediated by moral disengagement. One potential explanation for this link is that it may be associated with the identification processes that juvenile offenders construct with figures of power that legitimize violence and domination over others. This may manifest in various forms, including cinematographic or literary contexts (e.g. the lives of famous drug traffickers). This empathic connection with characters and stories that legitimize violence may subsequently lead to externalizing behavioral modeling processes and the naturalization of violence. However, this remains a speculative explanation, and further studies are needed to provide more empirical support.

In this regard, the meta-analytic studies by Jolliffe and Farrington (2004) and van Langen et al. (2014) demonstrated that affective and cognitive empathy are associated with delinquency, yet their effects are distinct. A comparison of the effect size between delinquents and non-delinquents by van Langen et al. (2014) revealed that the link with delinquency was more pronounced for cognitive empathy (d = 0.43) than affective empathy (d = 0.19). Moreover, the association between a lack of empathy and delinquency was more pronounced in youthful offenders who had perpetrated violent offenses compared to adults and those who had committed sexual offenses (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004).

Regarding CU traits, only callousness exhibited a significant positive direct effect on moral disengagement. Thus, the greater the emotional disengagement from the needs and suffering of others, the greater the reliance on reasoning strategies to justify one’s actions. This finding is consistent with the report by Walters (2018), who proposes that CU traits in general foster proactive criminal thinking. Moral disengagement removes moral barriers that would normally prevent youth from contemplating committing crimes. It is also possible that callousness and its effect on moral disengagement may contribute to the normalization of externalizing and delinquent behavior, which would facilitate a proactive and recurrent approach to crime. In order to achieve their personal objectives, juvenile offenders are willing to tolerate and justify their immoral actions by disabling moral control through moral disengagement (Paciello et al., 2020).

In adolescents with disruptive behavior disorders, CU traits and moral disengagement have been found to interact and contribute to the consolidation and persistence of an antisocial affective-cognitive system (Paciello et al., 2020). Gini et al. (2015) highlighted how moral disengagement promotes aggressive behavior, but emphasized that this relationship varies across different traits associated with psychopathy. However, they did not find that moral disengagement moderated the effects of CU traits on aggressive behavior. Walters et al. (2015), however, found that moral disengagement mediated the relationship between psychopathic personality traits and violent behaviors.

Additionally, Paciello et al. (2017) found that the relationships between these variables depended on their level. Not all youth with disruptive behavior disorders have the same levels of moral disengagement or CU traits. The interaction between higher moral disengagement and higher levels of CU traits is associated with greater severity of externalizing behaviors (Paciello et al., 2017).

Our model coincides with and complements the proposal that CU traits and moral disengagement contribute to the consolidation and persistence of an antisocial affective-cognitive system (Gini et al., 2015; Paciello et al., 2020). In line with this, we found that moral disengagement and CU traits (uncaring and callousness) have direct positive effects on externalizing behavior in juvenile offenders. This means that both the use of self-serving cognitions or strategies to rationalize and justify immoral behavior, as well as uncaring and callousness toward the suffering of others, increase the likelihood of antisocial behavior. In addition, it complements it because we found direct effects of some dimensions of empathy on externalizing behavior.

Limitations

The present study has several limitations. As an observational and cross-sectional study, it was not possible to determine the temporal precedence of the explanatory model with respect to the direct and indirect effects of empathy and UC traits and moral disengagement on externalizing behavior. In addition, self-report measures may introduce social desirability biases that cannot be fully controlled for in statistical analyses.

Future longitudinal and key informant-based studies could address these limitations and provide a more robust basis for explanatory models of the interactions between socioemotional and moral factors in externalizing behavior among juvenile offenders.

Despite these limitations, the path analyses were useful in establishing an explanatory model of externalizing behavior in juvenile offenders. Access to the selected sample is limited by government restrictions, which reinforces the importance of the data obtained and the implications of the results for the re-education processes and psychological care of juveniles who have been criminally sanctioned with custodial measures.

Conclusions

The results of this study support the proposed hypothesis that externalizing behavior is explained by the direct and indirect effects of empathy and callous-unemotional traits, through moral disengagement. Therefore, we can conclude that moral disengagement is a mediator of the association between empathy and CU traits in explaining externalizing behavior in juvenile offenders. In addition, the multigroup invariance analysis of the proposed model showed that the observed relationships, including the mediating effect of moral disengagement, remained stable when controlling for the age of the juvenile offenders. These analyses reinforce the robustness of the results by demonstrating that the model is invariant by age.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The main author of this paper would like to thank the Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación of Colombia for granting the forgivable credit for doctoral studies through the Call for Proposals 909.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was funded by Universidad Católica Luis Amigó, Medellín, Colombia, and Universidad de San Buenaventura, Medellín, Colombia.

Ethical statement

ORCID iD

Anyerson Stiths Gomez Tabares

Jorge Emiro Restrepo

David Andres Montoya

Reporting guidelines

The JARS-Quant guidelines for non-experimental quantitative research were followed in this study.

Open science

Data supporting the conclusions of this study are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author. Data are not publicly available due to ethical restrictions.

References

Arango

O. E.

Olivera-La Rosa

Restrepo

Puerta

I. C.

(2017). Empathic skills and theory of mind in female adolescents with conduct disorder. Revista brasileira de psiquiatria, 40(1), 78–82.

Arango-Tobon

O. E.

Pinilla-Monsalve

G. D.

Grisales-Aguirre

A. M.

Gómez-Tabares

A. S.

Carmona-Cardona

C. A.

(2022). Consistency and validity of the inventory of callous- unemotional traits in a multi-centric community sample. Heliyon, 8(6), Article e09789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09789

Arenas-Estevez

L. F.

Rangel Quiñonez

H. S.

Cortés Aguilar

Palacio García

L. A.

(2021). Validación en español del Índice de Reactividad Interpersonal –IRI- en estudiantes universitarios colombianos. Psychology, Society & Education, 13(3), 121–135. https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v13i3.3307

Atilola

Ola

Abiri

Adewuya

A. O.

(2018). Correlations between psychopathology and self-reported quality of life among adolescents in youth correctional facilities in Lagos, Nigeria: A short report. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 28(1), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2042

Atilola

Ola

Abiri

Sahid-Adebambo

Odukoya

Adewuya

Coker

Folarin

Fasawe

(2017). Status of mental-health services for adolescents with psychiatric morbidity in youth correctional institutions in Lagos. Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 29(1), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.2989/17280583.2017.1321550

Ato

López-García

J. J.

Benavente

(2013). Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 29(3), 1038–1059.

Baglivio

M. T.

Jackowski

Greenwald

M. A.

Howell

J. C.

(2014). Serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders: A statewide analysis of prevalence and prediction of subsequent recidivism using risk and protective factors. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(1), 83–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12064

Baglivio

M. T.

Wolff

(2017). Prospective prediction of juvenile homicide/attempted homicide among early-onset juvenile offenders. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(2), Article 197. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14020197

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.

10.

Bandura

(1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3

11.

Bandura

(2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724022014322

12.

Bandura

(2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves. Worth Publishers.

13.

Bandura

Barbaranelli

Caprara

G V.

Pastorelli

(1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2). 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364

14.

Barriga

A. Q.

Sullivan-Cosetti

Gibbs

J. C.

(2009). Moral cognitive correlates of empathy in juvenile delinquents. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 19(4), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.740

15.

Bock

E. M.

Hosser

(2014). Empathy as a predictor of recidivism among young adult offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2012.749472

16.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005

17.

Byrne

(2016). Structural equation modeling with Amos (3rd ed.). Routledge.

18.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

19.

Craig

S. G.

Goulter

Moretti

M. M.

(2021). A systematic review of primary and secondary callous-unemotional traits and psychopathy variants in youth. Clinical child and family psychology review, 24(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-020-00329-x

20.

Cuervo

Villanueva

González

Carrión

Busquets

(2015). Characteristics of young offenders depending on the type of crime. Psychosocial Intervention, 24(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psi.2014.11.003

21.

Dal Santo

Carballo

J. J.

Velasco

Jiménez-Treviño

Rodríguez-Revuelta

Martínez-Cao

Caro-Cañizares

de la Fuente-Tomás

Menéndez-Miranda

González-Blanco

García-Portilla

M. P.

Bobes

Sáiz

P. A

. (2020). The mediating role of impulsivity in the relationship between suicidal behavior and early traumatic experiences in depressed subjects. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, Article 538172. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.538172

22.

Davis

M. H.

(1983). Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a Multidimensional Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113

23.

DeLisi

Peters

D. J.

Dansby

Vaughn

M. G.

Shook

J. J.

Hochstetler

(2014). Dynamics of psychopathy and moral disengagement in the etiology of crime. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 12(4), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1541204013506919

24.

de Wied

Gispen-de Wied

van Boxtel

. (2010). Empathy dysfunction in children and adolescents with disruptive behavior disorders. European Journal of Pharmacology, 626(1), 97–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2009.10.016

25.

D’Urso

Petruccelli

Pace

(2018). Drug use as a risk factor of moral disengagement: A study on drug traffickers and offenders against other persons. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 25(3), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1437092

26.

Fassaert

Segeren

Grimbergen

Tuinebreijer

De Wit

(2016). Violent offenders as a target population for Public Mental Health Care. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 40, 54–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2016.03.003

27.

Férriz-Romeral

Navas-Sánchez

M. P.

Gómez-Fraguela

J. A.

Sobral-Fernández

(2019). Desconexión moral y delincuencia juvenil severa: metaanálisis de su asociación. Revista latinoamericana de psicología, 51(3), 162–170. https://doi.org/10.14349/rlp.2019.v51.n3.3

28.

Frick

P. J.

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

29.

Frick

P. J.

Kemp

E. C.

(2021). Conduct disorders and empathy development. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 17, 391–416. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-105809

30.

Frick

P. J.

Robertson

E. L.

Clark

J. E.

(2018). Callous–unemotional traits. In Martel

M. M.

(Ed.), Developmental pathways to disruptive, impulse-control and conduct disorders (pp. 139–160). Academic Press.

31.

Gallego-Matellán

López-Romero

León-Mejía

(2019). Socioemotional development in children with callous-unemotional traits: A case study of a multimodal intervention. Revista de Psicología Clínica con Niños y Adolescente, 6(1), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.21134/rpcna.2019.06.1.8

32.

Gini

Pozzoli

Bussey

(2015). Moral disengagement moderates the link between psychopathic traits and aggressive behavior among early adolescents. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 61(1), 51–67. https://doi.org/10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.61.1.0051

33.

Gilbert

Padmore

Norman

(2021). Offending patterns – alone or in a group – and severe conduct problems: Secondary analysis of cross-sectional questionnaire data. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 13(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-07-2020-0525

34.

Goodman

(1997) The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x

35.

Gómez

A. S.

(2019). Conductas prosociales y su relación con la empatía y la autoeficacia para la regulación emocional en adolescentes desvinculados de grupos armados ilegales. Revista criminalidad, 61(3), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.47741/17943108.70

36.

Gómez

A. S.

Durán

(2024). Association between callous-unemotional traits, empathy, and moral disengagement mechanisms in juvenile offenders. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 34, 85–95. https://doi.org/10.5093/apj2023a7

37.

Gómez Tabares

A. S.

Narváez Marín

. (2019). Mecanismos de desconexión moral y su relación con la empatía y la prosocialidad en adolescentes que han tenido experiencias delictivas. Revista de Psicología de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 37(2), 603–641. https://doi.org/10.18800/psico.201902.010

38.

Gómez-Tabares

A. S.

Nuñez

Grisales-Aguirre

A. M.

Zapata-Lesmes

Arango-Tobón

O. E.

(2024). Confirmatory factor analysis and factorial invariance of the mechanisms of the moral disengagement scale. Anuario de Psicología Jurídica, 34(2), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.5093/apj2023a10

39.

Gong

Yao

Liu

Zhang

Yang

Amdanee

Wang

Zhang

(2023). Empathy deficit in male patients with schizophrenia and its relationships with impulsivity and premeditated violence. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 14, Article 1160357. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1160357

40.

Goulter

Moretti

M. M.

(2021). Network structure of callous-unemotional traits and conduct disorder symptoms among at-risk youth: Multi-informant reports and gender differences. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 49(9), 1179–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-021-00819-8

41.

Hardy

A. M.

Bean

D. S

Olsen

J. A.

(2014). Moral Identity and Adolescent Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviors: Interactions with Moral Disengagement and Self-regulation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0172-1

42.

Hernández Bringas

H. H

. (2021). Homicidios en América Latina y el Caribe: magnitud y factores asociados. Notas de Población, 113, 119–144. https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/47698/1/05_LDN113_Hernandez.pdf

43.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

44.

Hyde

L. W.

Shaw

D. S.

Moilanen

K. L.

(2010). Developmental precursors of moral disengagement and the role of moral disengagement in the development of antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38(2), 197–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-009-9358-5

45.

Johnson

D. A.

Stone

Marsh

(2023). Structural, construct, and concurrent score validity evidence for the state-interpersonal reactivity index in telemental health care sessions. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 56(2), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2022.2066545

46.

Jolliffe

Farrington

D. P.

(2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(5), 441–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2003.03.001

47.

Kiriakidis

S. P.

(2008). Moral Disengagement: Relation to Delinquency and Independence From Indices of Social Dysfunction. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(5), 571–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X07309063

48.

Lee

Y.-M.

Park

Shin

H. S.

Huh

(2023). Validation of a modified version of Interpersonal Reactivity Index for medical students using Rasch analysis. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 35(3), 346–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2022.2042815

49.

Loeber

Burke

J. D.

(2011). Developmental pathways in juvenile externalizing and internalizing problems. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 34–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00713.x

50.

López-Romero

Romero

Gómez-Fraguela

J. A.

(2015). Delving into callous–unemotional traits in a Spanish sample of adolescents: Concurrent correlates and early parenting precursors. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(5), 1451–1468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-9951-2

51.

Marzilli

Cerniglia

Cimino

(2021). Antisocial personality problems in emerging adulthood: The role of family functioning, impulsivity, and empathy. Brain Sciences, 11(6), Article 687. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060687

52.

McArdle

J. J.

Nesselroade

J. R.

(2014). Basics of structural equation modeling. In McArdle

J. J.

Nesselroade

J. R.

(Eds.), Longitudinal data analysis using structural equation models (pp. 27–37). American Psychological Association

53.

Mestre

M. V.

Frías

M. D.

Samper

(2004). La medida de la empatía: análisis del Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Psicothema, 16, 255–260.

54.

Michalska

K. J.

Zeffiro

T. A.

Decety

(2016). Brain response to viewing others being harmed in children with conduct disorder symptoms. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 57(4), 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12474

55.

Miller

P. A.

Eisenberg

(1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive and externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 324–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.324

56.

Moore

(2015). Moral disengagement. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.018

57.

Muratori

Paciello

Buonanno

Milone

Ruglioni

Lochman

J. E.

Masi

(2017). Moral disengagement and callous-unemotional traits: A longitudinal study of Italian adolescents with a disruptive behaviour disorder. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 27(5), 514–524. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2019

58.

Murray

Farrington

D. P.

(2010). Risk factors for conduct disorder and delinquency: Key findings from longitudinal studies. Canadian Journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, 55(10), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371005501003

59.

Neo

Kimonis

E. R.

(2021). Callous–unemotional traits linked to earlier onset of self-reported and official delinquency in incarcerated boys. Law and Human Behavior, 45(6), 554–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000472

60.

Ortuño-Sierra

Chocarro

Fonseca-Pedrero

Sastre-Riba

Muñiz

(2015). The assessment of emotional and behavioural problems: Internal structure of The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 15(3), 265–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJCHP.2015.05.005

61.

Ortuño-Sierra

Sebastián-Enesco

Pérez-Albéniz

Lucas-Molina

Fonseca-Pedrero

(2022). Spanish normative data of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in a community-based sample of adolescents. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 22(3), Article 100328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2022.100328

62.

Ouvrein

De Backer

Ch.

Vandebosch

(2018). Online celebrity aggression: A combination of low empathy and high moral disengagement? The relationship between empathy and moral disengagement and adolescents’ online celebrity aggression. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 61–69 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.029

63.

Paciello

Ballarotto

Cerniglia

Muratori

(2020). Does the interplay of callous-unemotional traits and moral disengagement underpin disruptive behavior? A systematic review. Adolescent Health, Medicine and Therapeutics, 11, 9–20. https://doi.org/10.2147/AHMT.S151699

64.

Paciello

Fida

Tramontano

Lupinetti

Caprara

G.V.

(2008). Stability and change of moral disengagement and its impact on aggression and violence in late adolescence. Child Development, 79(5), 1288–1309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01189.x

65.

Paciello

Masi

Clemente

M. G.

Milone

Muratori

(2017). Moral disengagement and callous unemotional traits configurations in adolescents with disruptive behavior disorder: A person-oriented approach. Psychiatry Research, 258, 591–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.08.043

66.

Petruccelli

Barbaranelli

Costantino

Gherardini

Grilli

Craparo

D’Urso

(2017). Moral disengagement and psychopathy: A study on offenders in Italian jails. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 24(5), 670–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2017.1291291

67.

Petruccelli

Simonelli

Barbaranelli

Grilli

Tripodi

M. F.

D’Urso

(2017). Moral disengagement strategies in sex offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 24(3), 470–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1252291

68.

Piko

B. F.

Pinczés

(2014). Impulsivity, depression and aggression among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.05.008

69.

Reniers

R. L.

Corcoran

Drake

Shryane

N. M.

Völlm

B. A.

(2011). The QCAE: A questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93(1), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.528484

70.

Restrepo

J. E.

Acosta-Tobón

S. A.

(2023). Caracterización de la agresividad en adolescentes con trastorno de la conducta grave: un estudio exploratorio. Psychologia. Avances de la Disciplina, 17(1), 57–69.

71.

Restrepo

J. E.

Acosta-Tobón

S. A.

(2024). Perfiles psicológicos de delincuentes juveniles colombianos: variaciones según el tipo de delito. Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología, 4, 862–862.

72.

Restrepo Cervantes

Chamorro Coneo

Bolivar Pimiento

Hoyos de los Rios

Llinás Solano

. (2024). A psychometric analysis of the moral disengagement scale (MDS) in association to bullying roles in Colombian youth. International Journal of Bullying Prevention. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-024-00215-y

73.

Romera

E. M.

Herrera-López

Ortega-Ruiz

Camacho

(2023). The moral disengagement scale-24: Factorial structure and cross-cultural comparison in Spanish and Colombian adolescents. Psychology of Violence, 13(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000428

74.

Saladino

Hoelzlhammer

Verrastro

(2020). Criminality, substance abuse and problematic family relations in adolescence. Journal of Addiction Medicine and Therapeutic Science, 6(1), 16–020. https://doi.org/10.17352/2455-3484.000031

75.

Schermelleh-Engel

Moosbrugger

Muüller

(2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Method of Psychological Research, 8(2), 23–74.

76.

Shulman

E. P.

Cauffman

Piquero

A. R.

Fagan

(2011). Moral disengagement among serious juvenile offenders: A longitudinal study of the relations between morally disengaged attitudes and offending. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1619–1632. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025404

77.

Sijtsema

J. J.

Garofalo

Jansen

Klimstra

T. A.

(2019). Disengaging from evil: Longitudinal associations between the dark triad, moral disengagement, and antisocial behavior in adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 47(8), 1351–1365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-019-00519-4

78.

Simmons

Fine

Knowles

Frick

P. J.

Steinberg

Cauffman

(2020). The relation between callous-unemotional traits, psychosocial maturity, and delinquent behavior among justice-involved youth. Child Development, 91(1), e120–e133. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13176

79.

Squillaci

Benoit

(2021). Role of Callous and Unemotional (CU) Traits on the development of youth with behavioral disorders: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(9), Article 4712. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094712

80.

Stams

G. J.

Brugman

Deković

van Rosmalen

van der Laan

Gibbs

J. C.

(2006). The moral judgment of juvenile delinquents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(5), 697–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-006-9056-5

81.

Thornberg

Jungert

(2017). Callous-unemotional traits, harm-effect moral reasoning, and bullying among Swedish children. Child & Youth Care Forum, 46(4), 559–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-017-9395-0

82.

Thornberg

Wänström

Sjögren

Pozzoli

Gini

(2025). Concurrent associations between callous-unemotional traits, moral disengagement, and bullying perpetration in adolescence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 40(5–6), 1459–1483. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241260007

83.

van Langen

M. A. M.

Wissink

I. B.

van Vugt

E. S.

Van der Stouwe

Stams

G. J. J. M

. (2014). The relation between empathy and offending: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.02.003

84.

von Polier

G. G.

Greimel

Konrad

Großheinrich

Kohls

Vloet

T. D.

Herpertz-Dahlmann

Schulte-Rüther

. (2020). Neural correlates of empathy in boys with early onset conduct disorder. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, Article 178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00178

85.

Waller

Wagner

N. J.

Barstead

M. G.

Subar

Petersen

J. L.

Hyde

J. S.

Hyde

L. W.

(2020). A meta-analysis of the associations between callous-unemotional traits and empathy, prosociality, and guilt. Clinical Psychology Review, 75, Article 101809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101809

86.

Walters

G. D.

(2018). Callous-unemotional traits and moral disengagement as antecedents to the peer influence effect: Moderation or mediation? Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(3), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2017.1284688

87.

Walters

G. D.

DeLisi

(2015). Psychopathy and violence: Does antisocial cognition mediate the relationship between the PCL: YV factor scores and violent offending? Law and Human Behavior, 39(4), 350–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000123

88.

Wang

Lei

Yang

Gao

Zhao

(2017). Moral disengagement as mediator and moderator of the relation between empathy and aggression among Chinese male juvenile delinquents. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 48(2), 316–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-016-0643-6

89.

Watt

(2007). Toward a neuroscience of empathy: Integrating affective and cognitive perspectives. Neuro-Psychoanalysis, 9(2), 119–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/15294145.2007.10773550

The effect of empathy and callous-unemotional traits on externalizing behavior in juvenile offenders: The mediating role of moral disengagement

Abstract

Background:

Aim:

Method:

Results:

Conclusion:

Keywords

Introduction

Method

Participants

Instruments

Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement Scale (MMDS)

Inventory of callous unemotional traits. Self-report version (ICU)

Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI)

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

Statistical analysis

Ethical aspects

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusions

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Funding

Ethical statement

ORCID iD

Reporting guidelines

Open science

References