The social consequences of mild head injury and executive dysfunction /

Mild head injury (MHI) is a serious cause of neurological impairment as is evident by the substantial percentage (15%) of individuals who remain symptomatic at least 1-year following "mild" head trauma. However, there is a paucity of research investigating the social consequences following a MHI. The first objective of this study was to examine whether measures of executive functioning were predictive of specific forms of antisocial behaviour, such as reactive aggression, impulsive antisocial behaviour, behavioural disinhibition, and deficits in social awareness after controlling for the variance accounted for by sex differences. The second objective was to investigate whether a history of MHI was predictive of these same social consequences after controlling for both sex differences and executive functioning. Ninety university students participated in neuropsychological testing and filled out self-report questionnaires. Fifty-two percent of the sample self-reported experiencing a MHI. As expected, men were more reactively aggressive and antisocial than women. Furthermore, executive dysfunction predicted reactive aggression and impulsive antisocial behaviour after controlling for sex differences. Finally, as expected, MHI status predicted reactive aggression, impulsive antisocial behaviour, and behavioural disinhibition after controlling for sex and executive fimctioning. MHI status and executive functioning did not predict social awareness or sensitivity to reward or punishment. These results suggest that incurring a MHI has serious social consequences that mirror the neurobehavioural profile following severe cases of brain injury. Therefore, the social sequelae after MHI imply a continuum of behavioural deficits between MHI and more severe forms of brain injury.

Educator Evaluation of Academic and Social Competence in Students with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) Relative to Assessed Performance and Sense of Belonging

Acquired brain injury (ABI) is the leading cause of death and disability amongst children and adolescents andpresents itself with challenges associated in cognitive, social, emotional, and behavioural domains. These changes may interfere with academic performance and social inclusion, influencing self-esteem and personal success. The current study examined a subset of data to capture the sense of academic and social belonging for students with ABI as a function of the classroom teachers’ subjective perception of ability, their ABI knowledge, and student identification. Overall, a discrepancy was found between educators’ subjective ratings of student performance and students’ neurocognitive capacity. Educator knowledge and identification of ABI influenced student success in academic and social domains independent of teaching approach. This research has implications for the identification of ABI in the classroom and related challenges students experience. Educators are underprepared for the reintegration of students returning to school and lack appropriate knowledge and strategies to accommodate individual needs.

Psychopathy and Aggression: Examining the Role of Empathy

Empirical research has consistently demonstrated a positive association between psychopathic traits and physical aggression (Campbell, Porter, & Santor, 2004; Gretton, Hare, & Catchpole, 2004; Raine et aI., 2006; Spain, Douglas, Poythress, & Epstein, 2004). Moreover, research has also found that the emotional/interpersonal (Factor 1) psychopathy traits tend to be more closely associated with goal oriented, proactive aggression, whereas the social deviance (Factor 2) psychopathy characteristics have been more closely linked to reactive aggression, which is perpetrated in response to threat or provocation (Flight & Forth, 2007). Blair (2004; 2005; 2006) has recently proposed the Integrated Emotions Systems Model (lES), which posits that the association between Factor 1 psychopathy traits and proactive aggression is due to amygdala dysfunction leading to failed moral socialization. Consequently, individuals who exhibit Factor 1 psychopathy traits do not experience affective empathy in response to distress cues exhibited by others, thus, preventing the inhibition of proactive aggression. The current investigation sought to test this model by examining the associations among the emotional/interpersonal (Factor 1) psychopathy traits, proactive aggression, and affective empathy. After accounting for head injury, Factor 2 psychopathy traits, reactive aggression, and cognitive empathy, it was hypothesized that 1) Factor 1 psychopathy traits would predict proactive aggression, and 2) that affective empathy is a common cause of Factor 1 psychopathy traits, proactive aggression, and of the relationship between these two constructs. This hypothesis assumed that (a) affective empathy would uniquely predict Factor 1 psychopathy traits, (b) that affective empathy would uniquely predict proactive aggression, and (c) that affective empathy would account for the relationship between Factor I psychopathy traits and proactive aggression. The total sample consisted of 137 male undergraduate students. Participants completed measures of psychopathy (SRP III; Paulhus, Hemphill, & Hare, in press), aggression (PCS; Marsee, Kimonis, & Frick, 2004; RPQ; Raine et at, 2006), dispositional cognitive and affective empathy (BES; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006; TES; Spreng, McKinnon, Mar, & Levine, 2009), and situational cognitive and affective empathy in response to neutral and empathy eliciting video clips. Physiological indices (heart rate & electrodermal activity) of affective empathy were also obtained while participants viewed the neutral and empathy eliciting videos. Findings indicated that Factor I psychopathy traits predicted proactive aggression. In addition, results demonstrated that affective empathy predicted both Factor I psychopathy traits and proactive aggression. However, the association between affective empathy and proactive aggression appeared to be dependent on the conceptualization and measurement of affective empathy. Conversely, affective empathy did not appear to account for the relationship between Factor I psychopathy traits and proactive aggression. Overall, results demonstrated partial support for the IES model. Implications of the results, limitations of the study and future research directions are discussed.