Importance to Preschools<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
In the context of early childhood education, this is only a relatively recent distinction. In 2009 Paul J. Frick and Essie Viding<\/a> tried to ascertain if antisocial behavior in children could be classified as a subset of conduct disorders, to make them eligible for treatment. At the time, the clinical term was rather loose: nonspecific deviant behavior.<\/em><\/a> Frick and Viding looked at the causal pathways<\/em><\/a> to behavior problems, and were able to document a link between fearless temperament<\/em><\/a> and poor emotional regulation<\/em><\/a>.<\/em>14<\/sup> They also found that there were underlying neural differences in children with and without CU traits, which called for different treatment options. While they acknowledge that only a minority of antisocial adults have psychopathic traits, those that do have high and stable levels can be especially violent. Even more striking, childhood onset of antisocial behavior was more likely to persist into adulthood than behavior that began in adolescence. Whether this is due to neuroplastic <\/a>reinforcement from childhood or to different causal relationships (biological or environmental influences) was not a component of this study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even more important to early childhood educators, was the speculation that mitigating callous-unemotional traits in young children would be possible by altering psychosocial environmental factors. Over the next several years, the pair engaged in other studies that were among the earliest to encourage treatment for children well before adolescence.13, 12, 34,<\/sup> 5<\/sup> Other researchers focused on communities with family instability and less effective parenting strategies.10,<\/sup> 17, 22, 25, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40<\/sup> At first, those like Kimonis et. al <\/a>who studied young children asked if callous-unemotional traits could be measured reliably.21<\/sup> Would parent and teacher reports be internally consistent? Would there be valid associations between the measures of callous-unemotional traits and behaviors such as empathy and aggression? Could the presence of traits such as lack of empathy and remorse in childhood reliably predict antisocial and criminal behavior in adulthood? The answers were, generally, yes\u2014but only relating to aggressive and non-aggressive conduct problems, and not necessarily with impaired emotion. The results, however, were consistent with studies of adolescent children. So, the research supported a predictive quality of the early presence of traits. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Kimonis study also suggested that parent and teacher ratings of CU traits were associated with low empathy scores, high conduct problem scores, and less accurate recognition of sad and fearful expressions. <\/a>Ratings that linked the presence of narcissism to psychopathy were not statistically strong, but those that linked impulsivity to psychopathy were better than average. This does not suggest that children who exhibit those traits will become psychopaths, but rather that there may be some valid reasons to take notice. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The major advance that moved this science forward was fMRI<\/em><\/a> technology, and other tools developed in the 1990s, because the biology behind the behavior could now be observed and examined. What had previously been documented only by empirical study (the effect of environment on behavior) could now be tested and quantified on a neural basis. In other words, behavior that was previously observable only in every-day settings could not only be examined in the lab, but had been justified for evidence-based study. The scientists set to work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Between 2011 and\n2019, researchers asked:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The risks associated with not<\/em>\nintervening at a young age are becoming clear. The research has also documented\nevidence for the converse principle: individuals who have problems regulating\nemotional reactions (or having an absence of regulation) are at a higher risk\nfor psychopathology.20<\/sup>, It is important, ethically,\nto avoid assigning adult labels such as \u2018criminal,\u2019 \u2018antisocial\u2019 and\n\u2018psychopath\u2019 to children, because they are still developing. Yet, the\nliterature acknowledges that there is<\/em> a positive association between the\nonset of antisocial behavior in childhood, and behavior in adolescent and\nadults.14<\/sup>, <\/sup>36<\/sup>, <\/sup>4<\/sup> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Young children can be keenly aware of how they perceive and are perceived. Operating under the theory that empathy for social pain might be different from empathy for physical pain, Carrie L. Masten and her team used functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging <\/a> (fMRI) to examine the neural responses generated by observing social inclusion and exclusion in adults.27<\/sup> They hypothesized that there would be activation in the brain regions that are typically linked with social exclusion and physical pain (the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insula) as well as the areas linked with perspective-taking (such as the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex and the posterior superior temporal sulcus).<\/p>\n\n\n\n By the completion of the experiment, they understood that social exclusion increased activation in the cognitive regions, especially the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC). There was no significant difference between physical and social pain. Yet, when regarded with activation in the left anterior insula (where disgust is processed intuitively) the activation in the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) suggested positive associations for later prosocial behavior. In fact, the participants who rated themselves highly for empathy (\u201ctrait empathy\u201d) were 68% more likely to act in prosocial ways. This led the researchers to speculate that the MPFC is the more important region when deciding to take another person\u2019s perspective, and to act in prosocial ways. Translated, this means that there is a cognitive element to prosocial behavior, suggesting that it is a skill that can be taught and developed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Later, in\n2014, Ann S. Masten (a\ndifferent researcher) provided an exploration of resilience in children who had\nsurvived violence or war.26<\/sup> Her research indicates\nthat creating adaptive systems, particularly those provided by communities, provide\na promising approach to facilitating an individual\u2019s ability to manage\nconflict. These systems boost the cognitive and self-regulation skills that are\nso integral to appropriate emotional responses, and are described as being founded\non three practices:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Callous-unemotional traits are but one of many neurological factors that influence behavior. A 2014 study by Blair, et. al <\/a>examined the relative prevalence of different clinical diagnoses that contribute to conduct disorder.5<\/sup> They found that anxiety and attention deficit\u2013hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) represented the largest group, followed by oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder, callous-unemotional traits, and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). Callous-unemotional traits are a subset of conduct disorders and overlap only a small portion of other diagnoses. This illustrated that some, but not all, children with callous-unemotional (CU) traits will go on to have antisocial personality disorder. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Blair and his team aimed to improve treatment\noptions by identifying and linking important neurocognitive dysfunctions with related\nbehaviors in each clinical entity. They found that standard conduct disorders,\nand those with callous-unemotional traits (CU) have some important distinctions.\nWhen studying children and adolescents, the researchers determined that\ndeficient empathy \u201coccurs relatively selectively in youth\u201d who have callous-unemotional\ntraits. Heightened threat sensitivity did not. That trait was more often found\nin adolescents with conduct disorder. The adolescents with<\/em> CU traits\nalso tended to have deficiencies with\ndecision making more often than those without CU traits. In summary, children\nwith conduct disorders tend to react more sensitively than others to threats,\nand children with callous-unemotional traits tend to be more naturally\ninsensitive to the feelings of others. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In particular, the adolescents who were less likely\nto recognize facial expressions as being fearful were less likely to respond\nempathetically to their peers. Increased<\/em>\nsensitivity to fearful faces, paired with increased\n<\/em>threat sensitivity, and decreased decision-making ability, which are\nprevalent in children with standard conduct disorders, leads to impulsivity and\nreactive aggression5<\/sup>. These neural differences may\neventually point to differences in the way that teachers address behavior management\nand the development of empathy. The trio of deficient empathy (reduced amygdala\nfunction), decreased threat sensitivity, and deficient decision making\u2014makes it\ndifficult for affected children to socialize well with others. Both <\/em>of these conduct disorders (with or\nwithout CU traits) are evident in children at very young ages.3<\/sup>, <\/sup>4<\/sup>,\n<\/sup>14<\/sup>,\n<\/sup>29<\/sup> Waiting\nto address the behaviors in adolescence only serves to strengthen the\nneurological pathways that lead there.8<\/sup>,\n<\/sup>26<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n There are many ways to nurture empathy in all<\/em> children: providing a caring\nenvironment, exercising mindfulness, and encouraging dialogue and perspective\ntaking. Although some children have impaired empathy, it may still be possible\nhelp them, by choosing the right approaches. One way is to encourage a change at the cognitive level.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are not yet any verified methods to improve\nbehavior by changing neural pathways. However, there are some small signs that\nit might be possible to make empathy spontaneous where it was previously\ndysregulated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2013, Meffert et al. compared Blair\u2019s idea of\ncomplete emotional dysregulation with Moul et al., who believe there may still\nbe cognitive control.28<\/sup>,<\/sup>\n<\/sup>31<\/sup>They\nmatched 18 male psychopathic offenders with 26 control subjects, who were all\ninstructed to watch videos of another person\u2019s hands in various situations\n(including neutrality, loving, painful, and exclusion). They found that the\npsychopathic offenders were able to regulate their reactions, when instructed\nto do so. Of course, this assumes there is no underlying physical problem. <\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"Scholar.](\"https:\/\/copperfernstudio.com\/neuropacificclassroom\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/scholar-1.png\")
If you take the position that young children are not under-developed humans, but individuals on a journey to adulthood, then predicting\u2014and preventing\u2014antisocial adolescent and adult behavior becomes imperative. Professionals who are entrusted with the task of guiding children towards healthy and productive futures see a broad spectrum of personalities and are therefore in an important position to recognize extreme behavior. Setting educator bias aside for the moment (it is a fully developed topic on its own), early childhood professionals can learn the causal pathways to antisocial behavior methodically, critically, and from different perspectives. <\/p>\n\n\n\nChildren and Social Pain<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Stepping back and remembering how environmental factors contribute to neuroplastic changes,<\/a> it becomes apparent that preparing for a future with greater possibilities for peace depends on far more than reminding children to be empathetic. We must also work to understand if, and to what degree can we ethically and responsibly change their brains at a neural level.<\/p>\n\n\n\nDiagnostic Tools<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Educators who work with children may wonder why such a high number of children <\/a>who exhibit early disrupted behaviors are present in preschool classrooms. There is some evidence that although there are many diagnostic tools to evaluate how well<\/em> a child can regulate emotion, there are no tools to assess the dysregulation<\/em> (or absence) of emotional regulation strategies.9<\/sup> <\/em>This could be particularly true if decreased emotional awareness (the ability to recognize and identify emotional experiences) turns out to be one of the main dimensions of emotional dysregulation. If so, it will be important for researchers to consider diagnosis from that perspective.<\/p>\n\n\n\nNeural Conditions That Affect Behavior<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Nurturing Empathy When It Seems Absent<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
As early disruptive behavior continues to be studied as a branch of neuroscience, future scholars may want to track the results to inform socio-emotional education. The experiments described here, and others described in the bibliography, provide a good starting point for additional research about cognition and self-regulation. Perhaps this will lead to interdisciplinary partnerships between neurologists and educators that can help to resolve classroom behavioral challenges<\/a> affected by mental health. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"References.](\"https:\/\/copperfernstudio.com\/neuropacificclassroom\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/npc-references.png\")
References<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n