Effects of social context on endocrine function and Zif268 expression in response to an acute stressor in adolescent and adult rats

There is a paucity of studies comparing social buffering in adolescents and adults, despite their marked differences in social behaviour. I investigated whether greater effects of social buffering on plasma corticosterone concentrations and expression of Zif268 in neural regions after an acute stressor would be found in adolescent compared with adult rats. Samples were obtained before and after one hour of isolation stress and after either one or three hours of recovery back in the colony with either a familiar or unfamiliar cage partner. Adolescent and adult rats did not differ in plasma concentrations of corticosterone at any time point. Corticosterone concentrations were higher after one hour isolation than at baseline (p < 0.001), and rats with a familiar partner during the recovery phase had lower corticosterone concentrations than did rats with an unfamiliar partner (p = 0.02). Zif268 immunoreactive cell counts were higher in the arcuate nucleus in both age groups after isolation (p = 0.007) and higher in the paraventricular nucleus of adolescents compared with adults during the recovery phase irrespective of partner familiarity. There was a significant decrease in immunoreactive cell counts after one hour isolation compared to baseline in the basolateral amygdala, central nucleus of the amygdala, and in the pyramidal layer of the hippocampus (all p < 0.05). An effect of partner familiarity on Zif268 immunoreactive cell counts was found in the granule layer of the dentate gyrus irrespective of age (higher in those with a familiar partner, p = 0.03) and in the medial prefrontal cortex in adolescents (higher with an unfamiliar partner, p = 0.02). Overall, the acute stress and partner familiarity produced a similar pattern of results in adolescents and adults, with both age groups sensitive to the social context.

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.