Conceptual Framework of Antisocial Behavior: in the Light of Contributing Factors (CONFLICT)

Antisocial behavior is behavior that brings harm to another person and
encompasses behavior that violates the rights of others (Tuvblad & Beaver,
2013). This behavior is the main feature of Antisocial Personality Disorder
(ASPD; APA, 2015), Conduct Disorder (CD; APA, 2013) and psychopathy (Hare,
2003) and can also be part of or co-occur with several other psychological
disorders, such as cluster B personality disorders, substance abuse and
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Tuvblad et al., 2009; Rijckmans, Van
Dam & Van den Bosch, 2020).

Antisocial behavior has a significant impact on society and affects antisocial
individuals themselves and their environment in terms of interpersonal,
financial, and emotional consequences (Quinsey et al., 1998; Moffitt et al.,
2002; Rijckmans, Van Dam & Van den Bosch, 2020). Within mental health
organizations, antisocial behavior is often an exclusion criterion for
treatment and in scientific research also for participation in research groups.
This impacts the understanding of antisocial behavior. Moreover, it leads to
the fact that evidence-based treatment is scarce for these individuals and
gives that scientific evidence is limited for existing treatments (Rijckmans,
Van Dam & Van den Bosch, 2020; Van den Bosch et al., 2018).

A considerable amount of literature has been published, describing theories
related to the factors that contribute to the development and maintenance of
antisocial behavior. These theories describe various explanatory factors.
However, there is much controversy about these models* scientific evidence, and
there is no general agreement about a comprehensive model (Hamilton et al.,
2015). A reason for these contradictory findings and a lack of general
agreement among researchers may be the heterogeneity of antisocial behavior and
the multiple pathways that may lead to it (Rutter et al., 1997; Curtis, 2016;
Burt et al., 2011). The definition of antisocial behavior varies in the
literature and therefore leads to conceptual confusion.

A way to get a better conceptual understanding of antisocial behavior may be to
start with a better understanding of why most people behave prosocially and are
willing to cooperate and empathize with each other. Prosocial behavior includes
*concern for others* wellbeing, empathic (*) and moral focused behaviors, joy
at relieving suffering, distress at causing suffering and capacities for
remorse and guilt* (Gilbert & Basran, 2019). Antisocial behavior can then
subsequently be described as a lack of prosocial abilities to engage in
functional relationships with others.

An influential theory based on the evolution theory, the reciprocal altruism
theory, explains why most people show prosocial behavior (Trivers 1971). This
theory states that altruism can be seen as an act of helping another person,
while this act is incurring some costs. Altruism could evolve regarding it
would be beneficial to make these costs, when there is a change that, in a
reverse situation, the receiver would altruistically act towards the person
that helped him initially. Specific, altruistic behavior contains small costs
for the giver and great benefit for the taker. It can be seen as prosocial
behavior needed to survive in a social environment (Trivers, 1971).

Central processes for understanding prosocial behavior are trust and
reciprocity (Nowak, 2006; Walker & Ostrom, 2009; Balliet & Van Lange, 2013).
Ibáñez and colleagues (2016) suggest that individuals will exhibit prosocial
behavior if they trust the other person and can understand how they can behave
reciprocally towards others. Therefore, a likely explanation for antisocial
behavior would be a lack of trust and reciprocity within antisocial persons.
However, placing trust and reciprocity as central factors for the current
research does not implicate that other factors, such as IQ (Loney et al., 1998;
Lykken, 1995; Ribera et al., 2019) and impulsivity (Mann et al., 2017; Swann et
al., 2009), are of less importance in the explanation of the development of
antisocial behavior. Nevertheless, this research focusses on examining central
pathways to antisocial behavior in the light of prosocial behavior, namely
trust and reciprocity.

The degree of trust towards others depends on several factors, such as the
ability to detect trust cues and which prior trust situations a person has
experienced (Thielmann & Hilbig, 2015). Individuals can differentiate in their
degree of trusting others due to attribution errors in detecting (dis)trust
cues (e.g., facial expressions) and as a result of negative prior trust
experiences (e.g., interpersonal trauma). A possible explanation for the lack
of prosocial behavior is that exhibiting antisocial behavior may be a
consequence of a negative prediction of others* trustworthiness (i.e., hostile
bias; Smeijers et al., 2017). Specifically, antisocial behavior as result of
earlier traumatic experiences in which trust has been challenged, is
hypothesized to represent the first pathway to antisocial behavior.

Reciprocity, on the other hand, is a component of social functioning and
includes the ability to initiate and maintain relationships and acting in a
socially appropriate way (Ayaz et al., 2013), which is closely associated with
prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior requires both skill and will (Van
Doesem, Van Lange & Van Lange, 2013). The skill to exhibit prosocial behavior
includes the ability to attribute mental states (beliefs, intentions, desires,
knowledge) to oneself and others, and to understand that those are different
from one*s own (Van Doesem, Van Lange & Van Lange, 2013), also known as the
ability to mentalize. A reduced capacity to mentalize, hypomentalization,
refers to a reduction in mental state awareness and can be influenced by both
genetic (e.g., impulsivity, IQ, low theory of mind) as well as environmental
factors (e.g., emotional or physical neglect). Antisocial behavior is linked in
literature to a weaker ability to take another*s perspective and determining
their mental state (Newbury-Helps, Feigenbaum & Fonagy, 2017). There can be
hypothesized that the second pathway to antisocial behavior is based on a
reduced ability to mentalize; hypomentalization.

Even though trust and reciprocity seem to be central processes in the
development and maintenance of antisocial behavior, there seems to be a small
group of persons who present a high amount of callous-unemotionality (Cleckley,
1988). Subsequently, in contrast with above mentioned traumatized persons, they
show diminished experience of threat (i.e., fearlessness; Hicks et al., 2004).
It can be hypothesized that a small number of antisocial persons with
diminished mentalizing ability also have a genetic predisposition for
callous-unemotional traits, which together with a fearlessness, may lead to
*scheming* antisocial behavior. High callous-unemotionality is therefore
hypothesized as a subgroup of pathway 2 which leads to more intentional
antisocial behavior (e.g., masterful and strategized manipulation) due to a
high level of callous-unemotionality.

The question raises why only a specific group of individuals with a high amount
of distrust, a deficient ability to mentalize or a high level of
callous-unemotionality show antisocial behavior. For example, some individuals
who experience high distrust show more anxious and conflict-avoidant behavior
and are not known with antisocial behavior. A possible explanatory factor for
these various behavioral responses (e.g., avoidant, anxious, antisocial) may be
the Big 5 personality trait *antagonism*. The dimension Agreeable-Antagonism is
a well-researched personality construct and represents someone*s orientation
toward others, which ranges from an antagonistic to an agreeable interpersonal
focus (Miller & Lynam, 2001; Jones, Miller & Lynam, 2011). Antagonism can be
described as giving no value to interpersonal contact and sacrificing harmony
for goals that are more *proself* (Lynam & Miller, 2019). Being antagonistic
can be influenced by genetic and environmental factors (Jones, Miller & Lynam,
2011). In the current research, the extent of antagonism serves as a
fundamental component for the development of antisocial behavior. We
hypothesize that not only distrust or a deficient mentalizing ability itself
leads to antisocial behavior, but the combination of these factors with an
antagonistic personality evokes behavior that violates legal and social norms.
Specifically, being more antagonistic possibly pushes the tendency to use, for
example, a fight-reaction instead of avoiding interpersonal conflicts.

Regarding that trust and reciprocity can be seen as central processes for
prosocial behavior, we propose a conceptual framework in which we hypothesize
that there may be two central pathways leading to antisocial behavior, namely
antisocial behavior arising from (1) distrust as a result of traumatic
experiences, or (2) a diminished ability to reciprocate due to hypomentalizing,
which can be seen with extreme high callous-unemotionality. However, this
proposed structure is not intended to be a fixed model with two non-overlapping
categories, but as a dimensional framework in which people may differ to the
extend in which specific factors contributes to the development of antisocial
behavior. This means that a single person, for example, could have a high
amount of distrust and a reduced capacity to mentalize, which both can lead to
antisocial behavior, or even can be mutually reinforcing. This framework is
intended to give more insight into several pathways leading to antisocial
behavior and make implications for further research. More importantly, this
framework is intended to support the individual diagnostic process of
antisocial behavior and subsequently assists in adapting therapeutic
interventions to these specific antisocial behavior structures.

Antisocial behavior has a significant impact on society and affects antisocial
individuals themselves and their environment in terms of interpersonal,
financial, and emotional consequences (Quinsey et al., 1998; Moffitt et al.,
2002; Rijckmans, Van Dam & Van den Bosch, 2020). Within mental health
organizations, antisocial behavior is often an exclusion criterion for
treatment and in scientific research also for participation in research groups.
This impacts the understanding of antisocial behavior. Moreover, it leads to
the fact that evidence-based treatment is scarce for these individuals and
gives that scientific evidence is limited for existing treatments (Rijckmans,
Van Dam & Van den Bosch, 2020; Van den Bosch et al., 2018).

A considerable amount of literature has been published, describing theories
related to the developing and maintaining antisocial behavior. These theories
describe various explanatory factors. However, there is much controversy about
these models* scientific evidence, and there is no general agreement about a
comprehensive model (Hamilton et al., 2015).

In this research line, we examine a new conceptual framework, based on existing
research, to give more insight into several pathways leading to antisocial
behavior. A better understanding of developing and maintaining antisocial
behavior, gives foundation for the development of thorough diagnostic and
treatment programs for antisocial behavior. Specifically, this framework is
intended to support the individual diagnostic procedure of antisocial behavior
by differentiating within antisocial behavior problems, and subsequently it
assists in adapting therapeutic interventions to these specific antisocial
behavior structures.

Cross-sectional study with data collection of antisocial behavior and
contributing factors in a (forensic) mental health-setting.

For participating, the expected burden is primarily time. The measurement (1a +
b) will take approximately 3-4 hours for each participant (for a select group
of participants with a second administration it takes 1 additional hour of
measurement) Participants will be asked about traumatic life experiences which
can lead to temporal emotional feelings.