Do Executive Functions Moderate or Mediate? Exploring Their Role in the Prospective Association Between Psychopathic Traits and Conduct Problems in Children

Do Executive Functions Moderate or Mediate? Exploring Their Role in the Prospective Association Between Psychopathic Traits and Conduct Problems in Children | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Do Executive Functions Moderate or Mediate? Exploring Their Role in the Prospective Association Between Psychopathic Traits and Conduct Problems in Children Silvija Ručević, Dino Krupić, Sandra Brezetić This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7889593/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 10 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health → Version 1 posted 12 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Executive functions, including working memory, inhibition, sustained attention, cognitive flexibility, and planning are critical for regulating behavior and have been linked to externalizing outcomes. Similarly, psychopathic traits in childhood, particularly Callous-Unemotional, Grandiose-Deceitful, and Impulsivity-Need for Stimulation, are robust predictors of later conduct problems. Although studies have examined these relationships, findings are inconsistent regarding whether executive functions mediate or moderate the prospective association between early psychopathic traits and later conduct problems, and whether specific executive function components play distinct roles across psychopathy dimensions. Moreover, most prior work has relied on either teacher ratings or performance-based executive function measures alone, despite evidence that these approaches capture complementary aspects of executive functions. Methods This longitudinal study followed a community sample of 215 children (M age = 8.2 years) over five years. At baseline, parents rated psychopathic traits, teachers assessed executive function difficulties (working memory, inhibition/regulation), and children completed performance-based executive function tasks (working memory, sustained attention, cognitive flexibility, and planning). At follow-up, new teachers rated conduct problems, ensuring independent assessments. Mediation and moderation analyses were conducted using PROCESS (Hayes, 2022 ), controlling for IQ, hyperactivity, and gender. Critically, both informant-based and behavioral measures of executive functions were used to capture distinct behavioral and neurocognitive processes. Results Teacher-rated inhibition and regulation deficits partially mediated and moderated the link between Impulsivity-Need for Stimulation traits and later conduct problems, suggesting impulsivity heightens behavioral risk when self-regulatory capacities are weak. Performance-based executive functions showed a different pattern for Callous-Unemotional traits: cognitive inflexibility mediated their association with conduct problems, while sustained attention deficits amplified this relationship. Stronger working memory buffered the Callous-Unemotional-conduct problem link, reducing risk. Grandiose-Deceitful traits were unrelated to executive functions or conduct problems. Notably, teacher-reported executive functions captured observable emotional/behavioral regulation deficits linked to impulsivity, whereas performance-based tasks revealed cognitive control vulnerabilities relevant to Callous-Unemotional traits. Conclusions Distinct executive function mechanisms underlie different psychopathic traits, emphasizing the importance of multi-method executive functions assessment. Findings suggest that interventions targeting both behavioral regulation (inhibition) and cognitive control (attention, flexibility, working memory) may reduce conduct problems in at-risk youth. psychopathy features children executive functioning conduct problems mediation and moderation Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Executive functions (EF), including working memory, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, sustained attention, and planning are critical for self-regulation and goal-directed behavior (Diamond, 2013 ; Ibbotson, 2023 ; Lezak et al., 2012). Deficits in EF have been consistently linked to negative developmental outcomes, particularly within the externalizing spectrum. A recent meta-analysis found prospective associations between EF difficulties and increased risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder, conduct problems, substance use, and broader patterns of externalizing behavior (Yang et al., 2022 ). Alongside EF, childhood psychopathic traits have been recognized as robust predictors of behavioral problems. Of these, callous-unemotional (CU) traits, characterized by low empathy, guilt, and emotional responsiveness, have received the most empirical attention and are prospectively associated with persistent oppositional behavior and conduct issues (e.g., Frick et al., 2014 ; Demetriou et al., 2023 ), even after controlling for baseline problem behavior (e.g., Colins et al., 2020 ). However, psychopathy is a multidimensional construct. Beyond CU traits, the behavioral dimension (e.g., impulsivity, sensation seeking) is closely linked to aggression, defiance, and conduct problems (e.g., Fanti et al., 2018 ; Mathias et al., 2007), while the interpersonal dimension (e.g., grandiosity, deceitfulness) is associated with manipulation, relational aggression, and bullying (e.g., Frick & White, 2008 ; López-Romero et al., 2019). Although EF difficulties and psychopathic traits independently predict externalizing outcomes, less is known about how these factors interact. Some research suggests that EF difficulties may exacerbate behavioral risks associated with psychopathic traits (e.g., Joseph & Waschbusch, 2025; Murtha et al., 2025; Waller et al., 2017 ), while other studies have reported no effects (e.g., Kim & Chang, 2019 ; Rizeq et al., 2020 ). Adding to complexity, in some high-risk samples, higher EF have been associated with more strategic, calculated antisocial behavior (Baskin-Sommers et al., 2015 ), suggesting that executive functioning may have both protective and risk-enhancing roles depending on the broader developmental context. Despite these insights, several limitations in the current literature remain. Most of the aforementioned studies have relied on high-risk or clinical samples (e.g., Baskin-Sommers et al., 2015 ; Murtha et al., 2025), limiting the generalizability of findings to community populations. Moreover, single-informant designs (e.g., Barrau et al., 2025) and a lack of control for confounding variables such as hyperactivity, intelligence, and socioeconomic status (e.g., Waller et al., 2017 ; Baskin-Sommers et al., 2015 ) may obscure the true associations between EF and later externalizing behaviors. EF is also frequently measured too narrowly, with studies often relying on either performance-based tasks or rating scales in isolation. However, accumulating evidence suggests that these two approaches assess distinct underlying constructs, underscoring the importance of using multiple methods to fully capture the complexity of EF-related risk mechanisms (e.g., Toplak et al., 2013 ). Finally, research has disproportionately focused on callous-unemotional (CU) traits (e.g., Murtha et al., 2025; Rizeq et al., 2020 ), with comparatively less attention given to the behavioral and interpersonal dimensions of psychopathy, which may show unique patterns of association with conduct problems (e.g., Bonham et al., 2022 ; Fanti et al., 2018 ; Demetriou et al., 2023 ; Ručević & Andershed, 2022 ). As a result, it remains unclear whether specific EF components differentially interact with distinct psychopathy dimensions in predicting conduct problems. Given this, the present study addresses these gaps by examining whether executive functions, measured both through teacher report and performance-based cognitive tasks, mediate and/or moderate the relationship between early psychopathic traits and conduct problems five years later in a community sample. Specifically, using a multi-method and multi-informant approach, we examined whether executive functioning difficulties account for the association between early psychopathic traits and later conduct problems, and/or whether the strength of this association varies depending on performance in EF domains. By assessing both behavioral and cognitive manifestations of executive functioning, this study aimed to clarify the role of cognitive control processes in the developmental pathways to externalizing behavior. Given the contradictory results in previous research (e.g., Baskin-Sommers et al., 2015 ; Rizeq et al., 2020 ), no specific hypotheses were put forward. Methods The present study uses data from a longitudinal ECLAT study (Problem behaviors in elementary school-aged children: The role of Executive funCtioning, individuL, familiAl, and geneTic factors). Children and their parents were chosen through a multistage stage random sampling procedure (see Ručević & Andershed, 2022 for details). The current study specifically utilizes data collected in wave 3 (T3) and wave 8 (T8) of the ECLAT study. Participants At Wave 3, 215 participants were assessed (53% girls), with an average age of 8.21 years (SD = 0.62), and at Wave 8, the average age was 13.67 years (SD = 0.59). Retention between waves was 100%, with the same parents (155 mothers, 60 fathers) present at each wave. Most parents had completed secondary (mothers: 38.9%, fathers: 43.3%) or university education (mothers: 37.6%, fathers: 31.3%), while a small percentage had not finished high school (~ 3% of mothers, ~ 4% of fathers). The majority (78%) were employed, and about 5% of fathers were retired war veterans. At Wave 3, 15% of parents were divorced or separated, though most children lived with both biological parents. Measures Children’s performance-based executive function tasks were administered at T3. Data on children’s performance-based executive functions at T3 were complemented by multi-informant assessments of psychopathic traits, executive functions, and conduct problems collected across different time points. Specifically, lower-grade teachers provided ratings of executive functions and hyperactivity (T3), parents assessed psychopathic traits (T3), and higher-grade teachers, five years later, rated conduct problems (T8). Importantly, the two groups of teachers had no contact regarding the assessments, ensuring the independence of ratings across time points. Control variables Sociodemographic characteristics were assessed with items developed ad hoc for the project ECLAT. To this end, parents provided information on variables such as the child’s gender, age, and the family’s socioeconomic level (1 = significantly below average; 5 = significantly above average). Intelligence was assessed using the Block Design subtest of the Croatian version of the WISC-IV (WISC-IV-HR; Matešić, 2009 ), which has a strong correlation with full-scale IQ (r = .93; Groth-Marnat, 1997 ). Total scores, with higher scores indicating higher IQ, were included in the analysis. No child scored below the 75th percentile. Hyperactivity was assessed using the Croatian version of the Hyperactivity/Inattention subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997 ; Vučković et al., 2021 ), a five-item measure rated on a 3-point scale (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat true, 2 = certainly true). Higher scores indicate greater difficulties. The scale demonstrated high internal consistency (see Table 1 ). Table 1 Descrptives and Interccorelations Between Study Variables (N = 215) M SD α 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Control variables (T3) 1. Child's gender (males) ࣧ ࣧ ࣧ ࣧ .11 .03 .20 ** .13 * .17 * .22 ** .14 .12 − .09 .13 − .04 .07 − .03 .22 ** 2. Child's age 8.21 0.67 ࣧ ࣧ .05 .28 ** − .12 * − .14 * − .01 .02 .03 .07 .25 ** − .01 − .09 − .03 .26 ** .08 3. Family SES 3.43 0.64 ࣧ ࣧ ࣧ .10 − .01 − .07 − .02 − .04 − .14 − .12 .22** − .09 − .01 − .05 .04 − .10 4. Child's intelligence 32.61 13.02 ࣧ ࣧ ࣧ − .12 − .17* .04 .01 − .08 − .05 .43 *** − .21 ** − .37 *** − .19 ** .48 *** .04 5. Hyperactivity 2.76 2.07 .76 ࣧ ࣧ .25 ** .38 *** .54 *** .52 *** .62 ** − .16 * .20 ** .10 .05 − .09 .57 *** Parent-reported psychopathic traits (T3) 6.. Grandiose-Deceitful 11.00 3.31 .76 ࣧ .48 *** .39 *** .06 .04 − .04 .05 .03 .02 − .04 .05 7. Callous-Unemotional 14.57 4.54 .75 ࣧ .52 *** .36 *** .47 *** .01 .18 ** .20 ** .15 * .06 .39 ** 8. Impulsivity-Need for Stimulation 21.60 5.50 .80 ࣧ .38 *** .64 *** .03 .21 ** − .04 − .03 − .02 .43 *** Teacher-reported executive functions (T3) 9. Working Memory Deficits 22.65 8.23 .74 ࣧ .59 *** − .24 ** .23 ** .02 .14 − .10 .48 *** 10. Inhibition Deficits 23.27 7.30 .76 ࣧ − .11 .27 ** .01 .14 − .08 .60 *** Children’s performance-based executive functions (T3) 11. Verbal working memory 16.71 3.41 ࣧ ࣧ − .13 − .33 *** − .15 * .32 *** − .15* 12. Inhibition 0.98 1.24 ࣧ ࣧ .14 * .10 − .13 .32 *** 13. Cognitive flexibility 8.80 4.62 ࣧ ࣧ .05 .29 ** .27 ** 14. Sustained attention 5.58 4.27 ࣧ ࣧ − .15 * .15 * 15. Planning ability 5.89 2.12 ࣧ ࣧ .05 Outcome variable (T8) 16. Conduct problems 6.00 0.90 .75 ࣧ Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Independent Variable Psychopathic Traits. Psychopathic traits were assessed using the Croatian version of the 28-item Child Problematic Traits Inventory (CPTI; Colins et al., 2014 ; Ručević & Andershed, 2022 ) designed to measure three interrelated factors labeled as Grandiose-Deceitful (GD), Callous-Unemotional (CU), and Impulsivity-Need for Stimulation (INS). Parents rated children on a four-point Likert scale ranging from (1) ‘‘Does not apply at all’’ to (4) ‘‘Applies very well’’, with higher scores indicating more problematic traits. The fit indices of the three-factor model suggested a satisfactory fit for the data for both boys, TLI = .95, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .060 (.00-.11), and girls, TLI = .94, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .061 (.00-.12). The CPTI showed high internal consistency (see Table 1 ). Mediating/Moderating Variables Executive functions were examined using both informant-reported and performance-based measures. Teacher-reported executive functions were assessed using the Croatian version of the CHEXI (Vučković et al., 2021 ; Thorell & Nyberg, 2008 ), which measures working memory, planning, inhibition, and regulation across 24 items rated on a 5-point scale (1 = definitely not true to 5 = definitely true). Higher scores indicate greater EF difficulties. As in prior studies (e.g., Vučković et al., 2021 ), the four domains loaded onto two factors: Working Memory Deficits (working memory and planning; α = .93) and Inhibition Deficits (inhibition and regulation; α = .93). Model fit was good: χ²(1) = 1.802, p > .05, CFI = .99, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .057 (.00-.10). These factors were used in subsequent analyses. Correlation between the two domains was high, r = .59, p < .001. Performance-based executive function tasks assessed five subdomains, namely working memory, inhibition, cognitive flexibility and sustained attention, and planning. The last four were computerized and administered using the Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL; Mueller & Piper, 2014 ). Verbal working memory was examined using the Digit Span subtest from the Croatian version of the WISC-IV-HR (Matešić, 2009 ). The total number of correct trials on both the forward and the backward condition was used as a measure of verbal working memory. In line with previous studies (e.g., Berlin et al., 2003 ), inhibition was assessed using the go/no-go task (GNG; Milner & Ettlinger, 1972 ). Participants responded to frequent “go” stimuli and withheld responses to infrequent “no-go” stimuli across two phases. In Phase 1, they responded to blue shapes and withheld responses to red ones. In Phase 2, they responded to squares and withheld responses to triangles, regardless of color. The task included 60 trials with a 77% go-rate. Commission errors, defined as responses to no-go stimuli, served as an index of inhibitory control, with higher error rates reflecting greater deficits in inhibition. Cognitive flexibility and sustained attention were measured using the Berg’s Card Sorting Test-short-form (BCST-64; Berg, 1948 ). Children sorted cards by color, shape, or number, with rules changing after ten correct responses across 64 trials. Two types of errors were used, namely perseverative errors, which indicated cognitive inflexibility, and non-perseverative errors, which reflected broader EF deficits, particularly in sustained attention (i.e., the ability to maintain focus over time) (e.g., Han et al., 2016 ; Romine et al., 2004 ). In the present study, the two error types were not significantly correlated (r = − .05, p > .05). Planning ability was assessed using the Tower of London (TOL) (Shallice, 1982 ). Children had to reproduce a target arrangement of three disks by moving them from an initial to a final position using the fewest moves possible, following rules that allow only the top disk to be moved. The task includes 12 increasingly complex subtasks, requiring 2 to 5 moves. Planning was measured by the number of correctly solved subtasks (range: 0–12), with higher scores indicating better planning ability. Consistent with our aim to examine specific relationships between distinct executive function (EF) components and psychopathic trait dimensions, EF was modeled at the component level rather than as a single latent construct. This approach was further supported by the low intercorrelations among EF tasks in the present sample, indicating that each task captured relatively independent cognitive processes. (e.g., r = .08 for inhibition-planning, r = .29 for cognitive flexibility-planning). Outcome variable Conduct problems were assessed using the Croatian version of the SDQ (Goodman, 1997 ; Vučković et al., 2021 ), a five-item measure rated on a 3-point scale (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat true, 2 = certainly true). Higher scores indicate greater levels of behavioral problems. The scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (see Table 1 ). Procedure Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board. All parents and teachers received written information about the study procedures. Written informed consent was obtained from parents or legal guardians prior to participation, and children provided verbal assent. Teachers who completed the questionnaires also provided informed consent. Parent-child dyads were seen individually in the department lab. Teachers, familiar with the children for at least a year, completed questionnaires sent to schools, with a 100% response rate. Families received compensation (toys, school supplies, or clothing; ~€20 value). Results Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are presented in Table 1 . Higher parent-reported psychopathic traits showed moderate bivariate correlations with teacher-reported conduct problems five years later. Four of the five performance-based EF subdomains (verbal working memory, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, sustained attention) were correlated with conduct problems. There were low correlations between male gender and reported hyperactivity and psychopathic. Table 1 about here Separate simple mediation and moderation were tested for each psychopathic trait dimension, namely callous-unemotional (CU), grandiose-deceitful (GD), and impulsivity-need for stimulation (INS) using the Hayes’ PROCESS macro for SPSS (version 4.2; Hayes, 2022 ). In all analyses, gender, IQ and levels of hyperactivity were included as covariates based on the correlation analysis (see Table 1 ). We first examined whether deficits in working memory and planning, as well as inhibition and regulation, assessed through teacher reports, mediated or moderated the prospective association between parent-reported psychopathic traits and teacher-reported conduct problems five years later. Simple mediation analyses indicated that among the three CPTI dimensions, only the Impulsivity-Need for Stimulation (INS) dimension exhibited significant indirect effects through executive function. Specifically, INS predicted greater inhibition and regulation deficits, R² = .21, F (4, 157) = 10.47, p < .001, which, in turn, predicted higher levels of conduct problems five years later, R² = .32, F (5, 156) = 14.67, p < .001. The indirect effect was significant, ab = .030, Sobel’s z = 2.98, p = .003, while the direct effect of INS remained significant, c′ = .062, p = .002, indicating partial mediation. No significant indirect effects emerged for working memory or planning deficits, and neither Callous-Unemotional (CU) nor Grandiose-Deceitful (GD) traits showed significant mediation through either teacher-reported executive functioning scale. Simple moderation analyses (i.e., Model 1, Process 4.2) further revealed a significant interaction between INS and deficits in inhibition and regulation, R² = .35, F (6, 155) = 13.76, p < .001, b = .005, p = .011. Simple slopes analyses indicated that INS was positively associated with conduct problems at high levels of inhibition and regulation deficits (+ 1 SD), b = .099, SE = .024, t (155) = 4.14, p < .001, and at the mean level, b = .051, SE = .020, t (155) = 2.59, p = .011, but not at low levels (-1 SD), b = .002, SE = .030, t (155) = 0.07, p = .947 (see Graph 1). No other significant moderation effects involving working memory and planning deficits or inhibition and regulation deficits measured by teacher report were found ( p mean >.17). Graph 1. Interaction of Impulsivity-Stimulation and Inhibition/Regulation Deficits Predicting Conduct Problems In summary, we found consistent effects across the CPTI dimensions only for the INS dimension, for which inhibition and regulation deficits served as indirect pathways to later conduct problems and interacted with these deficits to predict later conduct problems. Working memory and planning deficits did not play a significant mediating or moderating role, and no similar executive function pathways were observed for CU or GD traits. We then turned to analyses using performance-based executive functioning tasks. Only three models yielded significant results and are presented below. One model revealed that non-perseverative errors, reflecting broader executive function deficits, particularly in sustained attention, moderated the association between CU traits and conduct problems, R² = .13, F (9, 209) = 3.48, p < .001. A significant CU × sustained attention deficits interaction was found, b = .057, 95% CI [.022, .092], p = .002. Simple slopes analyses showed that CU traits were significantly associated with later conduct problems at high levels of deficits in sustained attention (+ 1 SD), b = .081, SE = .041, t (209) = 2.00, p = .047, and at the mean level, b = .073, SE = .017, t (209) = 4.33, p < .001, but not at low levels (-1 SD), b = .064, SE = .036, t (209) = 1.78, p = .076 (see Graph 2). These finding indicating that the effect of CU traits on conduct problems becomes stronger at higher levels of sustained attention problems (i.e., worse sustained attention). Graph 2. Interaction of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Sustained Attention Deficits Predicting Conduct Problems Another model showed that perseverative errors, indexing cognitive inflexibility, mediated the relationship between CU traits and conduct problems. CU traits significantly predicted deficits in cognitive flexibility, R² = .26, F (7, 211) = 10.54, p < .001, b = .31, SE = .08, t (211) = 3.88, p < .001, 95% CI [0.15, 0.47], and cognitive inflexibility, in turn, predicted greater conduct problems, R ² = .13, F (8, 210) = 4.08, p < .001, b = .10, SE = .02, t (210) = 5.45, p < .001, 95% CI [0.06, 0.14]. The bootstrapped indirect effect was significant, ab = .03, 95% CI [.02, .09], supporting a mediation pathway whereby cognitive inflexibility contributes to later conduct problems among children high in CU traits. Finally, a third model (i.e., Model 1, Process 4.2) indicated that deficits in working memory moderated the association between CU traits and conduct problems. This model explained 13.5% of the variance in conduct problems, R² = .135, F (10, 208) = 3.25, p < .001. A significant CU × working memory deficits interaction emerged, b = .056, 95% CI [.020, .092], p = .002. Simple slopes analyses indicated that CU traits were most strongly associated with conduct problems at low levels of working memory capacity (-1 SD), b = .070, SE = .034, t (208) = 2.06, p = .040, remained significant at the mean, b = .053, SE = .014, t (208) = 3.79, p < .001, and became non-significant at high levels (+ 1 SD), b = .035, SE = .029, t (208) = 1.20, p = .231 (see Graph 3). These findings suggest that stronger working memory may buffer against the behavioral effects of CU traits. Graph 3. Interaction of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Working Memory Deficits Predicting Conduct Problems Discussion The present study aimed to clarify the role of executive functioning (EF) in the link between early psychopathic traits and later conduct problems. Specifically, it examined whether EF deficits mediate or moderate this prospective association, using a multi-method, multi-informant approach in a community sample of youth. Consistent with prior research, we found EF deficits associated with psychopathic traits in youth, extending previous work through diverse samples and a broad array of EF measures (e.g., Barrau et al., 2025). These findings indicate that EF deficits are implicated in the neurocognitive profile of psychopathic traits but are unlikely to represent a universal feature. Rather, the strength and nature of these associations appear to depend on both the specific EF domain assessed and the psychopathic dimension in question. Consistent with this, prior work suggests there is little evidence for a generalized EF impairment across all facets of psychopathy (Maes & Brazil, 2013). Using teacher-reported EF, deficits in inhibition and regulation partially mediated and moderated the relationship between parent-reported Impulsivity-Need for Stimulation (INS) traits and later teacher-reported conduct problems (e.g., Barrau et al., 2025; Eisenberg et al., 2009). These findings suggest that children high on impulsivity are particularly vulnerable to behavioral issues when regulatory and inhibitory capacities are compromised. This also highlights the importance of testing for both mediation and moderation effects in developmental models (Goldstein et al., 2023 ). In contrast, working memory and planning deficits did not mediate or moderate the association between psychopathic traits and conduct problems, and no significant effects were found for Grandiose-Deceitful (GD) or Callous-Unemotional (CU) traits in the teacher-reported EF models. Performance-based EF tasks revealed a distinct pattern, with significant effects primarily observed for CU traits. Specifically, broader executive dysfunction, particularly deficits in sustained attention, moderated the relationship between CU traits and later conduct problems. CU traits were more predictive of conduct problems among children with greater sustained attention difficulties. This builds on findings by Dotterer and colleagues ( 2021 ), who identified attentional processes as a key factor in the CU and antisocial behavior link. In a large twin sample, they found that at low levels of CU traits, antisocial behavior was associated with poorer sustained attention, indexed by higher reaction time variability. At high CU levels, however, antisocial behavior was linked to better sustained attention. These findings indicate that impaired sustained attention may intensify impulsive and dysregulated behaviors in youth with callous-unemotional traits, whereas intact attention may facilitate more deliberate, calculated, and goal-directed antisocial conduct (e.g., Frick et al., 2018). Recent evidence further indicates that working memory, along with sustained attention, contributes uniquely and interactively to goal-directed behavior (Slattery et al., 2022 ), and is associated with multiple aspects of social functioning, including peer acceptance, physical and relational aggression, and conflict resolution skills (e.g., McQuale et al., 2013). Consistent with this, working memory was found to buffer the association between CU traits and conduct problems. Youth with high CU traits but stronger working memory exhibited fewer behavioral difficulties. This supports models suggesting that executive functions can reduce antisocial risk (Dotterer et al., 2021 ) and aligns with research in children with ADHD, where working memory has been shown to support impulse control (Raiker et al., 2012 ), delay tolerance (Patros et al., 2015), and sustained attention and task engagement (McBurnett et al., 2014 ; Rapport et al., 2008 ). In youth with CU traits, stronger working memory may facilitate better behavioral regulation by enabling reflection before acting, consideration of social consequences, and long-term planning, even in the absence of emotional empathy. In contrast, when working memory is impaired, these self-regulatory capacities may fail, increasing vulnerability to persistent conduct problems. Interestingly, working memory has been linked to the strategic aspects of children's lying rather than the initial decision to lie. Children with stronger verbal working memory are better able to maintain their deception during follow-up questioning (Alloway et al., 2015 ; Evans & Lee, 2011 ), a pattern that has also been associated with CU traits (Gouwy et al., 2024 ). Cognitive inflexibility also emerged as a significant mediator of the CU and conduct problem association. Specifically, perseverative errors, an indicator of poor cognitive flexibility, explained part of this link, consistent with findings from Barrau and colleagues (2025) in a sample of at-risk children. Cognitive inflexibility may help explain why youth high in CU traits often persist in maladaptive behavior despite corrective feedback or punishment (Frick et al., 2003 ; Frick et al., 2014 ; Séguin & Zelazo, 2005 ; Squillaci & Benoit, 2021 ), suggesting that difficulty adapting behavior contributes to the stability and severity of conduct problems in this population. Overall, these findings support a dual-path model of behavioral problems linking psychopathic traits to conduct problems (Frick & Marsee, 2018 ). INS traits appear to operate primarily through deficits in inhibition and regulation, while CU traits influence behavior both through cognitive inflexibility, as a mediating pathway, and through sustained attention and working memory, as moderating pathways. In contrast, the GD dimension was not significantly associated with EF deficits or conduct problems in the present sample, suggesting that traits such as deceitfulness and grandiosity may contribute to externalizing behavior through alternative mechanisms not captured by the current EF measures. Alternatively, the lack of association may reflect the possibility that GD traits involve less impairment in brain functioning compared to the other two dimensions (Salekin, 2017 ). Overall, these different association patterns highlight the need to carefully consider both the type of EF assessment and the specific psychopathic traits under investigation (e.g., Barrau et al., 2025; Kary & Moul, 2024 ; Tan et al., 2018 ; Toplak et al., 2013 ). Informant-based EF measures captured key emotional and behavioral regulation deficits linked to impulsive traits, which are likely to be visible in everyday contexts and thus readily reported by teachers (e.g., Rizeq et al., 2020 : Tan et al., 2018 ). In contrast, performance-based tasks identified cognitive control vulnerabilities, such as sustained attention and cognitive flexibility deficits, that were particularly relevant to the behavioral risks associated with CU traits. These cognitive difficulties may be less apparent in daily interactions but become evident under structured task demands, highlighting the value of using multiple assessment methods (McAuley et al., 2010 ; Toplak et al., 2013 ). Several limitations should be noted. The study relied on a community sample, which may limit generalizability to high-risk or clinical populations where psychopathic traits are more severe and persistent (e.g., Rizeq et al., 2020 ). The performance-based EF tasks primarily assessed lower-order processes (e.g., inhibition, working memory) and may not fully capture higher-order EF deficits, such as strategic planning or abstract reasoning (e.g., Ibáñez et al., 2016: Kiehl et al., 1999 ; Kiehl et al., 2004 ), which could also play a role in psychopathy-related conduct problems. Additionally, teacher-reported EF difficulties may reflect classroom behavior (i.e., context-dependent) rather than underlying neurocognitive impairments, introducing potential reporter bias (Foster et al., 1993 ; Webster-Stratton & Lindsay, 1999 ). The null findings for the GD dimension may not reflect a true absence of association but rather unmeasured social-cognitive mechanisms (e.g., theory of mind, moral reasoning) that are more relevant to interpersonal psychopathic traits (e.g., Song et al., 2023 ). Lastly, although the detected moderating effects were statistically significant, their effect sizes were modest, highlighting that conduct problem development is influenced by multiple interacting factors. Despite its limitations, the present study strengthens the literature on executive functioning and externalizing behavior. First, it employed a multi-method, multi-informant approach, combining teacher ratings of executive function (EF) with performance-based EF tasks to capture both behavioral manifestations and underlying cognitive processes. This design reduces single-method bias and allows for a more nuanced understanding of EF-related mechanisms. Second, the longitudinal design, spanning five years, provides stronger evidence for temporal and potentially causal relationships between early psychopathic traits, EF deficits, and later conduct problems. Third, the study took a dimensional approach to psychopathy, separately examining CU, GD, and INS traits, rather than treating psychopathy as a unitary construct. This allowed for the identification of distinct EF pathways linked to specific psychopathic dimensions (Salekin, 2017 ). Fourth, the study used rigorous statistical analyses, controlling for IQ, gender, and hyperactivity, thereby isolating the unique contributions of EF to the development of conduct problems. Fifth, the research was conducted within a distinct cultural context, contributing cross-cultural evidence to the study of psychopathic traits and executive functioning. Finally, the findings offer contextual relevance, highlighting specific EF processes, such as sustained attention and cognitive flexibility that differentially moderate or mediate the association between psychopathic traits and behavioral outcomes. Declarations Supplementary Material Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Author contributions Conceptualization: SR; methodology: SR, DK, SB; writing- original draft preparation: SR; writing review and editing: SR, DK, SB; resources: DK, SB; funding acquisition: SR. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding This research was supported by grants from the Croatian Science Foundation [HRZZ-IP-2016-06-3917], University of Osijek [IZIP-2016-79], and the ADRIS Foundation (30.10.2018.). Data availability Because the dataset contains personal and potentially identifiable information, it is not publicly available. However, the datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Ethics approval and consent to participate Ethical approval was obtained from the University of J. J. Strossmayer in Osijek, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Institutional Review Board (KLASA: 602-04/19-04/64; URBROJ: 2158-83-02-19-2). All procedures complied with the local regulations for research with minors. Written informed consent was obtained from all parents/guardians prior to participation, and children provided assent. Teachers who completed questionnaires provided informed consent. Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted Techniques Artificial intelligence (AI; ChatGPT) tools were used only for minor language editing (e.g., grammar and style checks). All scientific content, interpretations, and conclusions were generated by the authors. References Alloway, T. P., McCallum, F., Alloway, R. G., & Hoicka, E. (2015). Liar, liar, working memory on fire: Investigating the role of working memory in childhood verbal deception. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 137, 30-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.03.013 Barrau, V., López-Romero, L., Bosch, R., Torrubia, R., Bonillo, A., Casas, M., & Molinuevo, B. (2025). Psychopathic traits and behavioral problems in children at risk of psychopathology: The mediating role of executive functions. Revista de Psicología Clínica con Niños y Adolescentes, 12 (1), 5-13. https://doi.org/10.21134/rpcna.2025.12.1.2 Berlin, L., Bohlin, G., & Rydell, A. M. (2003). Relations between inhibition, executive functioning, and ADHD symptoms: a longitudinal study from age 5 to 8(1/2) years. Child Neuropsychology, 9 (4), 255-266. https://doi.org/10.1076/chin.9.4.255.23519 Bonham, M. D., Hawkins, E., Waters, A. M., & Shanley, D. C. (2022). Can't stop, won't stop? the role of inhibitory control and callous-unemotional traits in childhood conduct problems and aggression. Developmental Neuropsychology, 47 (4), 210-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2022.2069770 Baskin-Sommers, A. R., Waller, R., Fish, A. M., & Hyde, L. W. (2015). Callous-Unemotional traits trajectories interact with earlier conduct problems and executive control to predict violence and substance use among high risk male adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43 (8), 1529-1541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0041-8 Berg, E. A. (1948). A simple objective technique for measuring flexibility in thinking. The Journal of General Psychology, 39 (1), 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1948.9918159 Colins, O. F., Andershed, H., Frogner, L., Lopez-Romero, L., Veen, V., & Andershed, A. K. (2014). A new measure to assess psychopathic personality in children: The Child Problematic Traits Inventory. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36 (1), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-013-9385-y Colins, O. F., Roetman, P. J., Lopez-Romero, L., & Andershed, H. (2020). Assessing psychopathic traits among children: the first validation study of the Child Problematic Traits Inventory in a clinical sample. Assessment, 27 (6), 1242-1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119832654 Demetriou, C. A., Colins, O. F., Andershed, H., & Fanti, K. A. (2023). Assessing psychopathic traits early in development: testing potential associations with social, behavioral, and affective factors. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 45 (3), 767-780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-023-10059-3 Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64 , 135-168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 Dotterer, H. L., Tomlinson, R. C., Burt, S. A., Weigard, A. S., Klump, K. L., & Hyde, L. W. (2021). Neurocognitive abilities associated with antisocial behavior with and without callous-unemotional traits in a community sample. Neuropsychology, 35 (4), 374-387. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000733 Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Spinrad, T. L., Liew, J., Zhou, Q., Losoya, S. H.,. . . Cumberland, A. (2009). Longitudinal relations of children’s effortful control, impulsivity, and negative emotionality to their externalizing, internalizing, and co-occurring behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 4 , 988-1008. Evans, A. D., & Lee, K. (2011). Verbal deception from late childhood to middle adolescence and its relation to executive functioning skills. Developmental Psychology, 47 (4), 1108-1116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023425 Fanti, K. A., Kyranides, M. N., Lordos, A., Colins, O. F., & Andershed, H. (2018). Unique and interactive associations of callous-unemotional traits, impulsivity and grandiosity with child and adolescent conduct disorder symptoms. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 40 (1), 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9655-9 Foster, S. L., Inderbitzen, H. M., & Nangle, D. W. (1993). Assessing acceptance and social skills with peers in childhood: Current issues. Behavior Modification, 17(3), 255-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455930173003 Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Barry, C. T., Bodin, S. D., & Dane, H. E. (2003). Callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in the prediction of conduct problem severity, aggression, and self-report of delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31 (4), 457-470. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023899703866 Frick, P. J., & Marsee, M. A. (2018). Psychopathy and developmental pathways to antisocial behavior in youth. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed., pp. 456-475). The Guilford Press. Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2014). Can callous-unemotional traits enhance the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of serious conduct problems in children and adolescents? Psychological Bulletin, 140 (1), 1-57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033076 Frick, P. J., & White, S. F. (2008). Research review: The importance of callous-unemotional traits for developmental models of aggressive and antisocial behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49 (4), 359-375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01862.x Goldstein, B. L., Finsaas, M. C., Olino, T. M., Kotov, R., Grasso, D. J., & Klein, D. N. (2023). Three-variable systems: An integrative moderation and mediation framework for developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 35 (1), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421000493. Goodman R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, 38 (5), 581-586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x Gouwy, M. C., Franssens, R., Roets, A., & De Clercq, B. (2024). Is childhood lying shaped by callous-unemotional traits or does lie-telling make children more callous-unemotional? A longitudinal between- and within-person perspective. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 33 (10), 3541-3550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-024-02398-7 Groth-Marnat, G. (1997). Handbook of Psychological Assessment (pp. 499-533). Wiley. Han, G., Helm, J., Iucha, C., Zahn-Waxler, C., Hastings, P. D., & Klimes-Dougan, B. (2016).Are executive functioning deficits concurrently and predictively associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms in adolescents? Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 45 (1), 44-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1041592 Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). Guilford Press. Ibáñez, M. I., Sabater-Grande, G., Barreda-Tarrazona, I., Mezquita, L., López-Ovejero, S., Villa, H., Perakakis, P., Ortet, G., García-Gallego, A., & Georgantzís, N. (2016). Take the Money and Run: Psychopathic Behavior in the Trust Game. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 1866. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01866 Ibbotson, P. (2023). The development of executive function: mechanisms of change and functional pressures. Journal of Cognition and Development, 24 (2), 172-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2022.2160719 Kary, A., & Moul, C. (2024). Meta-analysis of the implied distribution of callous-unemotional traits across sampling methods and informant. Clinical Psychology Review, 109, 102407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102407 Kiehl, K. A., Hare, R. D., McDonald, J. J., & Brink, J. (1999). Semantic and affective processing in psychopaths: An event-related potential (ERP) study. Psychophysiology, 36 (6), 765-774. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0048577299971081 Kiehl, K. A., Smith, A. M., Mendrek, A., Forster, B. B., Hare, R. D., & Liddle, P. F. (2004). Temporal lobe abnormalities in semantic processing by criminal psychopaths as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 130 (1), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-4927(03)00106-9 Kim, H., & Chang, H. (2019). Longitudinal association between children's callous-unemotional traits and social competence: Child executive function and maternal warmth as moderators. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 379. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00379 López-Romero, L., Molinuevo, B., Bonillo, A., Andershed, H., Colins, O. F., Torrubia, R., & Romero, E. (2019). Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Child Problematic Traits Inventory in 3- to 12-year-old Spanish children. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35 (6), 842-854. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000458 Matešić, K. (2009). Wechslerov test inteligencije za djecu -četvrto izdanje - WISC-IV-HR. Naklada Slap. Mathias, C. W., Furr, R. M., Daniel, S. S., Marsh, D. M., Shannon, E. E., & Dougherty, D. M. (2007). The relationship of inattentiveness, hyperactivity, and psychopathy among adolescents . Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1333-1343. McAuley, T., Chen, S., Goos, L., Schachar, R., & Crosbie, J. (2010). Is the behavior rating inventory of executive function more strongly associated with measures of impairment or executive function?. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 16 (3), 495-505. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617710000093 McBurnett, K., Villodas, M., Burns, G. L., Hinshaw, S. P., Beaulieu, A., & Pfiffner, L. J. (2014). Structure and validity of sluggish cognitive tempo using an expanded item pool in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder . Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42 (1), 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9801-5 McQuade, J. D., Murray-Close, D., Shoulberg, E. K., & Hoza, B. (2013). Working memory and social functioning in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115 (3), 422-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.03.002 Milner, A. D., & Ettlinger, G. (1972). Response latencies in go, No-go discrimination performance by monkeys. Neuropsychologia, 10 (3), 375-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(72)90030-9 Mueller, S. T., & Piper, B. J. (2014). The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) and PEBL Test Battery. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 222 , 250-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.10.024 Murtha, K., Perlstein, S., Paz, Y., Seidlitz, J., Raine, A., Hawes, S., Byrd, A., & Waller, R. (2025). Callous-unemotional traits, cognitive functioning, and externalizing problems in a propensity-matched sample from the ABCD study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 66 (3), 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.14062 Patros, C. H., Alderson, R. M., Kasper, L. J., Tarle, S. J., Lea, S. E., & Hudec, K. L. (2016). Choice-impulsivity in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 43, 162-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.11.001 Raiker, J. S., Rapport, M. D., Kofler, M. J., & Sarver, D. E. (2012). Objectively-measured impulsivity and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): testing competing predictions from the working memory and behavioral inhibition models of ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40 (5), 699-713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9607-2 Rapport, M. D., Alderson, R. M., Kofler, M. J., Sarver, D. E., Bolden, J., & Sims, V. (2008). Working memory deficits in boys with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): the contribution of central executive and subsystem processes. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36 (6), 825-837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-008-9215-y Romine, C. B., Lee, D., Wolfe, M. E., Homack, S., George, C., & Riccio, C. A. (2004). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test with children: a meta-analytic study of sensitivity and specificity. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19 (8), 1027-1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2003.12.009 Rizeq, J., Toplak, M. E., Ledochowski, J., Basile, A., & Andrade, B. F. (2020). Callous- unemotional traits and executive functions are unique correlates of disruptive behavior in children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 45 (3), 154-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2020.1737698 Ručević, S., & Andershed, H. (2022). Are psychopathic traits predictive of conduct problems and aggression when other risk factors are considered? A longitudinal test among Croatian children. Journal of Criminal Justice, 80, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101777 Salekin R. T. (2017). Research Review: What do we know about psychopathic traits in children?. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 58 (11), 1180-1200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12738 Séguin, J. R., & Zelazo, P. D. (2005). Executive Function in Early Physical Aggression. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 307-329). The Guilford Press. Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 298 (1089), 199-209. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1982.0082 Slattery, E. J., O'Callaghan, E., Ryan, P., Fortune, D. G., & McAvinue, L. P. (2022). Popular interventions to enhance sustained attention in children and adolescents: A critical systematic review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 137, 104633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104633 Song, Z., Jones, A., Corcoran, R., Daly, N., Abu-Akel, A., & Gillespie, S. M. (2023). Psychopathic traits and theory of mind task performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 151, 105231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105231 Squillaci, M., & Benoit, V. (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), 4712. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094712 Tan, A., Delgaty, L., Steward, K., & Bunner, M. (2018). Performance-based measures and behavioral ratings of executive function in diagnosing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children. Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders, 10 (4), 309-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12402-018-0256-y Thorell, L. B., & Nyberg, L. (2008). The childhood executive functioning inventory (CHEXI): a new rating instrument for parents and teachers. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33 (4), 536-552. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640802101516 Toplak, M. E., West, R. F., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Practitioner review: do performance-based measures and ratings of executive function assess the same construct?. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54 (2), 131-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12001 Vučković, S., Ručević, S., & Ajduković, M. (2021). Parenting style and practices and children’s externalizing behaviour problems: Mediating role of children’s executive functions. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18 (3), 313-329. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2020.1768067 Waller, R., Hyde, L. W., Baskin-Sommers, A. R., & Olson, S. L. (2017). Interactions between callous unemotional behaviors and executive function in early childhood predict later aggression and lower peer-liking in late-childhood. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45 (3), 597-609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0184-2 Yang, Y., Shields, G. S., Zhang, Y., Wu, H., Chen, H., & Romer, A. L. (2022). Child executive function and future externalizing and internalizing problems: A meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 97, 102194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102194 Webster-Stratton, C., & Lindsay, D. W. (1999). Social competence and conduct problems in young children: Issues in assessment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28 (1), 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2801_3 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 10 Mar, 2026 Read the published version in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 01 Jan, 2026 Reviews received at journal 20 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 28 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 25 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 05 Nov, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 04 Nov, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 03 Nov, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 02 Nov, 2025 First submitted to journal 17 Oct, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7889593","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":541725221,"identity":"09964b5b-92ce-46a9-a955-f6756f6c3660","order_by":0,"name":"Silvija Ručević","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of J. J. Strossmayer in Osijek","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Silvija","middleName":"","lastName":"Ručević","suffix":""},{"id":541725222,"identity":"95274329-1eef-4110-9a03-84dcb975db08","order_by":1,"name":"Dino Krupić","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of J. J. Strossmayer in Osijek","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dino","middleName":"","lastName":"Krupić","suffix":""},{"id":541725223,"identity":"649c12d9-6ea4-4895-b3b7-083e1398e5b8","order_by":2,"name":"Sandra Brezetić","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of J. J. Strossmayer in Osijek","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sandra","middleName":"","lastName":"Brezetić","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-17 20:38:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7889593/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7889593/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-026-01058-9","type":"published","date":"2026-03-10T15:58:20+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":95914141,"identity":"2774b2b0-00ab-4c60-a753-0b86b51da5e5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-14 11:11:51","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":553365,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"DoExecutiveFunctionsModerateorMediate2.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7889593/v1/a8ea437317ed1980f94e8d25.docx"},{"id":95914140,"identity":"01ede572-e7e9-4e0c-81df-aba89fe5e140","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-14 11:11:51","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":6727,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7bddb625752643b3b167ece1e5834614.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7889593/v1/3201051eb319fc1df34a4e10.json"},{"id":95914149,"identity":"cd5f156a-6c21-4426-8fee-512335fefb63","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-14 11:11:51","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":180966,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7bddb625752643b3b167ece1e58346141enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7889593/v1/eb4518eeee36e872dab1d94f.xml"},{"id":96242983,"identity":"30e9e8cf-7f3b-444c-8a0d-027027fdf9c2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:15:06","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":163499,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7889593/v1/1336b2a07f504d456940a8dc.png"},{"id":96244284,"identity":"22ff09a8-d85c-400f-a8b0-c09c2125d6cc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:18:03","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":164077,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7889593/v1/72fd8ce030b62ece74a96605.png"},{"id":96244609,"identity":"6d336881-d597-4be5-b548-a6ac432b7cc2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:18:58","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":155712,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7889593/v1/7a127a6f688df4e620fc12dd.png"},{"id":96242362,"identity":"9df96818-510d-4237-a89d-a4cae0e33192","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:12:48","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":68490,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7889593/v1/5f528898956a5c120dbd91f0.png"},{"id":95914148,"identity":"fc1d7094-f47b-4259-a509-f86d85b2300d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-14 11:11:51","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":65446,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7889593/v1/bfbae5e392f283a169d0a401.png"},{"id":95914145,"identity":"a663fb02-62c7-4e00-9a5f-887559275905","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-14 11:11:51","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":62374,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7889593/v1/2fc78b810f2d3656619d0eb6.png"},{"id":95914151,"identity":"fd0c2614-5c03-4944-a760-ceb2a5a62e67","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-14 11:11:51","extension":"xml","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":171756,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7bddb625752643b3b167ece1e58346141structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7889593/v1/2e5808b8a881ff08cf2e5183.xml"},{"id":95914152,"identity":"824ac3b1-b473-49c9-a411-0fc446657325","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-14 11:11:52","extension":"html","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":193402,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7889593/v1/0eca224195b43e608f35283f.html"},{"id":95914138,"identity":"a58c0d42-7f6b-4c73-9d54-9044a595722e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-14 11:11:51","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":58681,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGraph 1. Interaction of Impulsivity-Stimulation and Inhibition/Regulation Deficits Predicting Conduct Problems\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7889593/v1/305a525645914199d446e148.png"},{"id":95914144,"identity":"56a55c98-fc34-4ef3-8243-e1aafacfb250","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-14 11:11:51","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56104,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGraph 2. Interaction of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Sustained Attention Deficits Predicting Conduct Problems\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7889593/v1/a24372b47b7afff2204e8417.png"},{"id":95914139,"identity":"5f77cf8c-d5ad-4f63-90a2-2fc7b3ac2efb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-14 11:11:51","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":53049,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGraph 3. Interaction of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Working Memory Deficits Predicting Conduct Problems\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7889593/v1/92fc2780bced40c93ba8effc.png"},{"id":104739350,"identity":"6b1e572f-f6a2-46f4-90e1-f2f5153dca45","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-16 16:03:30","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":936751,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7889593/v1/398cbcd0-3ee4-45ae-9fc1-678a62e66bad.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Do Executive Functions Moderate or Mediate? Exploring Their Role in the Prospective Association Between Psychopathic Traits and Conduct Problems in Children","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eExecutive functions (EF), including working memory, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, sustained attention, and planning are critical for self-regulation and goal-directed behavior (Diamond, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Ibbotson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Lezak et al., 2012). Deficits in EF have been consistently linked to negative developmental outcomes, particularly within the externalizing spectrum. A recent meta-analysis found prospective associations between EF difficulties and increased risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), oppositional defiant disorder, conduct problems, substance use, and broader patterns of externalizing behavior (Yang et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR116\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlongside EF, childhood psychopathic traits have been recognized as robust predictors of behavioral problems. Of these, callous-unemotional (CU) traits, characterized by low empathy, guilt, and emotional responsiveness, have received the most empirical attention and are prospectively associated with persistent oppositional behavior and conduct issues (e.g., Frick et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Demetriou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), even after controlling for baseline problem behavior (e.g., Colins et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). However, psychopathy is a multidimensional construct. Beyond CU traits, the behavioral dimension (e.g., impulsivity, sensation seeking) is closely linked to aggression, defiance, and conduct problems (e.g., Fanti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Mathias et al., 2007), while the interpersonal dimension (e.g., grandiosity, deceitfulness) is associated with manipulation, relational aggression, and bullying (e.g., Frick \u0026amp; White, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; L\u0026oacute;pez-Romero et al., 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough EF difficulties and psychopathic traits independently predict externalizing outcomes, less is known about how these factors interact. Some research suggests that EF difficulties may exacerbate behavioral risks associated with psychopathic traits (e.g., Joseph \u0026amp; Waschbusch, 2025; Murtha et al., 2025; Waller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR114\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), while other studies have reported no effects (e.g., Kim \u0026amp; Chang, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Rizeq et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Adding to complexity, in some high-risk samples, higher EF have been associated with more strategic, calculated antisocial behavior (Baskin-Sommers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e), suggesting that executive functioning may have both protective and risk-enhancing roles depending on the broader developmental context.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite these insights, several limitations in the current literature remain. Most of the aforementioned studies have relied on high-risk or clinical samples (e.g., Baskin-Sommers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Murtha et al., 2025), limiting the generalizability of findings to community populations. Moreover, single-informant designs (e.g., Barrau et al., 2025) and a lack of control for confounding variables such as hyperactivity, intelligence, and socioeconomic status (e.g., Waller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR114\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Baskin-Sommers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) may obscure the true associations between EF and later externalizing behaviors. EF is also frequently measured too narrowly, with studies often relying on either performance-based tasks or rating scales in isolation. However, accumulating evidence suggests that these two approaches assess distinct underlying constructs, underscoring the importance of using multiple methods to fully capture the complexity of EF-related risk mechanisms (e.g., Toplak et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR110\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, research has disproportionately focused on callous-unemotional (CU) traits (e.g., Murtha et al., 2025; Rizeq et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), with comparatively less attention given to the behavioral and interpersonal dimensions of psychopathy, which may show unique patterns of association with conduct problems (e.g., Bonham et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Fanti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Demetriou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Ručević \u0026amp; Andershed, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). As a result, it remains unclear whether specific EF components differentially interact with distinct psychopathy dimensions in predicting conduct problems.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGiven this, the present study addresses these gaps by examining whether executive functions, measured both through teacher report and performance-based cognitive tasks, mediate and/or moderate the relationship between early psychopathic traits and conduct problems five years later in a community sample. Specifically, using a multi-method and multi-informant approach, we examined whether executive functioning difficulties account for the association between early psychopathic traits and later conduct problems, and/or whether the strength of this association varies depending on performance in EF domains. By assessing both behavioral and cognitive manifestations of executive functioning, this study aimed to clarify the role of cognitive control processes in the developmental pathways to externalizing behavior. Given the contradictory results in previous research (e.g., Baskin-Sommers et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Rizeq et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), no specific hypotheses were put forward.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study uses data from a longitudinal ECLAT study (Problem behaviors in elementary school-aged children: The role of Executive funCtioning, individuL, familiAl, and geneTic factors). Children and their parents were chosen through a multistage stage random sampling procedure (see Ručević \u0026amp; Andershed, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e for details). The current study specifically utilizes data collected in wave 3 (T3) and wave 8 (T8) of the ECLAT study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt Wave 3, 215 participants were assessed (53% girls), with an average age of 8.21 years (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.62), and at Wave 8, the average age was 13.67 years (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.59). Retention between waves was 100%, with the same parents (155 mothers, 60 fathers) present at each wave. Most parents had completed secondary (mothers: 38.9%, fathers: 43.3%) or university education (mothers: 37.6%, fathers: 31.3%), while a small percentage had not finished high school (~\u0026thinsp;3% of mothers, ~\u0026thinsp;4% of fathers). The majority (78%) were employed, and about 5% of fathers were retired war veterans. At Wave 3, 15% of parents were divorced or separated, though most children lived with both biological parents.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChildren\u0026rsquo;s performance-based executive function tasks were administered at T3. Data on children\u0026rsquo;s performance-based executive functions at T3 were complemented by multi-informant assessments of psychopathic traits, executive functions, and conduct problems collected across different time points. Specifically, lower-grade teachers provided ratings of executive functions and hyperactivity (T3), parents assessed psychopathic traits (T3), and higher-grade teachers, five years later, rated conduct problems (T8). Importantly, the two groups of teachers had no contact regarding the assessments, ensuring the independence of ratings across time points.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eControl variables\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSociodemographic characteristics\u003c/em\u003e were assessed with items developed ad hoc for the project ECLAT. To this end, parents provided information on variables such as the child\u0026rsquo;s gender, age, and the family\u0026rsquo;s socioeconomic level (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;significantly below average; 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;significantly above average).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntelligence\u003c/em\u003e was assessed using the Block Design subtest of the Croatian version of the WISC-IV (WISC-IV-HR; Matešić, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e), which has a strong correlation with full-scale IQ (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.93; Groth-Marnat, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e). Total scores, with higher scores indicating higher IQ, were included in the analysis. No child scored below the 75th percentile.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHyperactivity\u003c/em\u003e was assessed using the Croatian version of the Hyperactivity/Inattention subscale of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Vučković et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR112\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), a five-item measure rated on a 3-point scale (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;not true, 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;somewhat true, 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;certainly true). Higher scores indicate greater difficulties. The scale demonstrated high internal consistency (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescrptives and Interccorelations Between Study Variables (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;215)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"19\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c13\" colnum=\"13\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c14\" colnum=\"14\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c15\" colnum=\"15\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c16\" colnum=\"16\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c17\" colnum=\"17\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c18\" colnum=\"18\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c19\" colnum=\"19\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eα\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"18\" nameend=\"c19\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eControl variables (T3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1. Child's gender (males)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.20\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.13\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.17\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.22\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.22\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2. Child's age\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.21\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.67\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.28\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.12\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.14\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.25\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.26\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.08\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3. Family SES\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.43\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.64\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.22**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4. Child's intelligence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e32.61\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.17*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.08\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.43\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.21\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.37\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.19\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.48\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5. Hyperactivity\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.07\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.25\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.38\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.54\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.52\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.62\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.16\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.20\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.09\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.57\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"18\" nameend=\"c19\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParent-reported psychopathic traits (T3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.. Grandiose-Deceitful\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.48\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.39\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.06\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7. Callous-Unemotional\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.57\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.54\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.75\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.52\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.36\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.47\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.18\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.20\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.15\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.06\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.39\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8. Impulsivity-Need for Stimulation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e21.60\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.50\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.80\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.38\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.64\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.21\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.03\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.43\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"18\" nameend=\"c19\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher-reported executive functions (T3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9. Working Memory Deficits\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22.65\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.23\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.74\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.59\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.24\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.23\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.48\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10. Inhibition Deficits\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e23.27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.30\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.76\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.27\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.01\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.08\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.60\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"18\" nameend=\"c19\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eChildren\u0026rsquo;s performance-based executive functions (T3)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11. Verbal working memory\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16.71\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.41\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.33\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.15\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.32\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.15*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12. Inhibition\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.98\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.24\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.14\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.32\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e13. Cognitive flexibility\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.80\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.62\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.29\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.27\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14. Sustained attention\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.58\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.27\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.15\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.15\u003csup\u003e*\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15. Planning ability\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.89\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"18\" nameend=\"c19\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOutcome variable (T8)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16. Conduct problems\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.00\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.75\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eࣧ\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"19\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e *\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05; **\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01; ***\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eIndependent Variable\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ePsychopathic Traits.\u003c/b\u003e Psychopathic traits were assessed using the Croatian version of the 28-item Child Problematic Traits Inventory (CPTI; Colins et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Ručević \u0026amp; Andershed, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR92\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) designed to measure three interrelated factors labeled as Grandiose-Deceitful (GD), Callous-Unemotional (CU), and Impulsivity-Need for Stimulation (INS). Parents rated children on a four-point Likert scale ranging from (1) \u0026lsquo;\u0026lsquo;Does not apply at all\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo; to (4) \u0026lsquo;\u0026lsquo;Applies very well\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo;, with higher scores indicating more problematic traits. The fit indices of the three-factor model suggested a satisfactory fit for the data for both boys, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.95, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.96, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.060 (.00-.11), and girls, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.94, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.95, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.061 (.00-.12). The CPTI showed high internal consistency (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMediating/Moderating Variables\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExecutive functions were examined using both informant-reported and performance-based measures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTeacher-reported executive functions\u003c/em\u003e were assessed using the Croatian version of the CHEXI (Vučković et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR112\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Thorell \u0026amp; Nyberg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR108\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), which measures working memory, planning, inhibition, and regulation across 24 items rated on a 5-point scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;definitely not true to 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;definitely true). Higher scores indicate greater EF difficulties. As in prior studies (e.g., Vučković et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR112\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), the four domains loaded onto two factors: Working Memory Deficits (working memory and planning; α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.93) and Inhibition Deficits (inhibition and regulation; α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.93). Model fit was good: χ\u0026sup2;(1)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.802, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.99, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.99, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.057 (.00-.10). These factors were used in subsequent analyses. Correlation between the two domains was high, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.59, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerformance-based executive function tasks assessed five subdomains, namely working memory, inhibition, cognitive flexibility and sustained attention, and planning. The last four were computerized and administered using the Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL; Mueller \u0026amp; Piper, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eVerbal working memory\u003c/em\u003e was examined using the Digit Span subtest from the Croatian version of the WISC-IV-HR (Matešić, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). The total number of correct trials on both the forward and the backward condition was used as a measure of verbal working memory.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn line with previous studies (e.g., Berlin et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e), \u003cem\u003einhibition\u003c/em\u003e was assessed using the go/no-go task (GNG; Milner \u0026amp; Ettlinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1972\u003c/span\u003e). Participants responded to frequent \u0026ldquo;go\u0026rdquo; stimuli and withheld responses to infrequent \u0026ldquo;no-go\u0026rdquo; stimuli across two phases. In Phase 1, they responded to blue shapes and withheld responses to red ones. In Phase 2, they responded to squares and withheld responses to triangles, regardless of color. The task included 60 trials with a 77% go-rate. Commission errors, defined as responses to no-go stimuli, served as an index of inhibitory control, with higher error rates reflecting greater deficits in inhibition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCognitive flexibility and sustained attention\u003c/em\u003e were measured using the Berg\u0026rsquo;s Card Sorting Test-short-form (BCST-64; Berg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1948\u003c/span\u003e). Children sorted cards by color, shape, or number, with rules changing after ten correct responses across 64 trials. Two types of errors were used, namely perseverative errors, which indicated cognitive inflexibility, and non-perseverative errors, which reflected broader EF deficits, particularly in sustained attention (i.e., the ability to maintain focus over time) (e.g., Han et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Romine et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR86\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). In the present study, the two error types were not significantly correlated (r\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;.05).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePlanning ability\u003c/em\u003e was assessed using the Tower of London (TOL) (Shallice, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR98\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1982\u003c/span\u003e). Children had to reproduce a target arrangement of three disks by moving them from an initial to a final position using the fewest moves possible, following rules that allow only the top disk to be moved. The task includes 12 increasingly complex subtasks, requiring 2 to 5 moves. Planning was measured by the number of correctly solved subtasks (range: 0\u0026ndash;12), with higher scores indicating better planning ability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsistent with our aim to examine specific relationships between distinct executive function (EF) components and psychopathic trait dimensions, EF was modeled at the component level rather than as a single latent construct. This approach was further supported by the low intercorrelations among EF tasks in the present sample, indicating that each task captured relatively independent cognitive processes. (e.g., \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.08 for inhibition-planning, \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.29 for cognitive flexibility-planning).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eOutcome variable\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConduct problems\u003c/em\u003e were assessed using the Croatian version of the SDQ (Goodman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1997\u003c/span\u003e; Vučković et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR112\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), a five-item measure rated on a 3-point scale (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;not true, 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;somewhat true, 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;certainly true). Higher scores indicate greater levels of behavioral problems. The scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board. All parents and teachers received written information about the study procedures. Written informed consent was obtained from parents or legal guardians prior to participation, and children provided verbal assent. Teachers who completed the questionnaires also provided informed consent. Parent-child dyads were seen individually in the department lab. Teachers, familiar with the children for at least a year, completed questionnaires sent to schools, with a 100% response rate. Families received compensation (toys, school supplies, or clothing; ~\u0026euro;20 value).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. Higher parent-reported psychopathic traits showed moderate bivariate correlations with teacher-reported conduct problems five years later. Four of the five performance-based EF subdomains (verbal working memory, inhibition, cognitive flexibility, sustained attention) were correlated with conduct problems. There were low correlations between male gender and reported hyperactivity and psychopathic.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e about here\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeparate simple mediation and moderation were tested for each psychopathic trait dimension, namely callous-unemotional (CU), grandiose-deceitful (GD), and impulsivity-need for stimulation (INS) using the Hayes\u0026rsquo; PROCESS macro for SPSS (version 4.2; Hayes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In all analyses, gender, IQ and levels of hyperactivity were included as covariates based on the correlation analysis (see Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe first examined whether deficits in working memory and planning, as well as inhibition and regulation, assessed through teacher reports, mediated or moderated the prospective association between parent-reported psychopathic traits and teacher-reported conduct problems five years later.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSimple mediation analyses indicated that among the three CPTI dimensions, only the Impulsivity-Need for Stimulation (INS) dimension exhibited significant indirect effects through executive function. Specifically, INS predicted greater inhibition and regulation deficits, R\u0026sup2; = .21, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(4, 157)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.47, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, which, in turn, predicted higher levels of conduct problems five years later, R\u0026sup2; = .32, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(5, 156)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.67, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001. The indirect effect was significant, ab\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.030, Sobel\u0026rsquo;s z\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.98, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003, while the direct effect of INS remained significant, c\u0026prime; = .062, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002, indicating partial mediation. No significant indirect effects emerged for working memory or planning deficits, and neither Callous-Unemotional (CU) nor Grandiose-Deceitful (GD) traits showed significant mediation through either teacher-reported executive functioning scale.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSimple moderation analyses (i.e., Model 1, Process 4.2) further revealed a significant interaction between INS and deficits in inhibition and regulation, R\u0026sup2; = .35, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(6, 155)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;13.76, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.005, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.011. Simple slopes analyses indicated that INS was positively associated with conduct problems at high levels of inhibition and regulation deficits (+\u0026thinsp;1 SD), b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.099, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.024, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(155)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.14, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, and at the mean level, b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.051, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.020, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(155)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.59, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.011, but not at low levels (-1 SD), b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.030, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(155)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.07, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.947 (see Graph 1). No other significant moderation effects involving working memory and planning deficits or inhibition and regulation deficits measured by teacher report were found (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003emean\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026gt;.17).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGraph 1. Interaction of Impulsivity-Stimulation and Inhibition/Regulation Deficits Predicting Conduct Problems\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn summary, we found consistent effects across the CPTI dimensions only for the INS dimension, for which inhibition and regulation deficits served as indirect pathways to later conduct problems and interacted with these deficits to predict later conduct problems. Working memory and planning deficits did not play a significant mediating or moderating role, and no similar executive function pathways were observed for CU or GD traits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe then turned to analyses using performance-based executive functioning tasks. Only three models yielded significant results and are presented below. One model revealed that non-perseverative errors, reflecting broader executive function deficits, particularly in sustained attention, moderated the association between CU traits and conduct problems, R\u0026sup2; = .13, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(9, 209)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.48, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001. A significant CU \u0026times; sustained attention deficits interaction was found, b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.057, 95% CI [.022, .092], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002. Simple slopes analyses showed that CU traits were significantly associated with later conduct problems at high levels of deficits in sustained attention (+\u0026thinsp;1 SD), b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.081, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.041, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(209)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.00, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.047, and at the mean level, b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.073, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.017, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(209)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.33, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, but not at low levels (-1 SD), b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.064, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.036, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(209)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.78, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.076 (see Graph 2). These finding indicating that the effect of CU traits on conduct problems becomes stronger at higher levels of sustained attention problems (i.e., worse sustained attention).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGraph 2. Interaction of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Sustained Attention Deficits Predicting Conduct Problems\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother model showed that perseverative errors, indexing cognitive inflexibility, mediated the relationship between CU traits and conduct problems. CU traits significantly predicted deficits in cognitive flexibility, R\u0026sup2; = .26, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(7, 211)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.54, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.31, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.08, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(211)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.88, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, 95% CI [0.15, 0.47], and cognitive inflexibility, in turn, predicted greater conduct problems, \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2; = .13, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(8, 210)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.08, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.10, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.02, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(210)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.45, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, 95% CI [0.06, 0.14]. The bootstrapped indirect effect was significant, ab\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.03, 95% CI [.02, .09], supporting a mediation pathway whereby cognitive inflexibility contributes to later conduct problems among children high in CU traits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, a third model (i.e., Model 1, Process 4.2) indicated that deficits in working memory moderated the association between CU traits and conduct problems. This model explained 13.5% of the variance in conduct problems, R\u0026sup2; = .135, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(10, 208)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001. A significant CU \u0026times; working memory deficits interaction emerged, b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.056, 95% CI [.020, .092], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002. Simple slopes analyses indicated that CU traits were most strongly associated with conduct problems at low levels of working memory capacity (-1 SD), b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.070, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.034, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(208)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.040, remained significant at the mean, b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.053, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.014, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(208)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.79, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, and became non-significant at high levels (+\u0026thinsp;1 SD), b\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.035, SE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.029, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(208)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.20, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.231 (see Graph 3). These findings suggest that stronger working memory may buffer against the behavioral effects of CU traits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGraph 3. Interaction of Callous-Unemotional Traits and Working Memory Deficits Predicting Conduct Problems\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study aimed to clarify the role of executive functioning (EF) in the link between early psychopathic traits and later conduct problems. Specifically, it examined whether EF deficits mediate or moderate this prospective association, using a multi-method, multi-informant approach in a community sample of youth.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsistent with prior research, we found EF deficits associated with psychopathic traits in youth, extending previous work through diverse samples and a broad array of EF measures (e.g., Barrau et al., 2025). These findings indicate that EF deficits are implicated in the neurocognitive profile of psychopathic traits but are unlikely to represent a universal feature. Rather, the strength and nature of these associations appear to depend on both the specific EF domain assessed and the psychopathic dimension in question. Consistent with this, prior work suggests there is little evidence for a generalized EF impairment across all facets of psychopathy (Maes \u0026amp; Brazil, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsing teacher-reported EF, deficits in inhibition and regulation partially mediated and moderated the relationship between parent-reported Impulsivity-Need for Stimulation (INS) traits and later teacher-reported conduct problems (e.g., Barrau et al., 2025; Eisenberg et al., 2009). These findings suggest that children high on impulsivity are particularly vulnerable to behavioral issues when regulatory and inhibitory capacities are compromised. This also highlights the importance of testing for both mediation and moderation effects in developmental models (Goldstein et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, working memory and planning deficits did not mediate or moderate the association between psychopathic traits and conduct problems, and no significant effects were found for Grandiose-Deceitful (GD) or Callous-Unemotional (CU) traits in the teacher-reported EF models.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerformance-based EF tasks revealed a distinct pattern, with significant effects primarily observed for CU traits. Specifically, broader executive dysfunction, particularly deficits in sustained attention, moderated the relationship between CU traits and later conduct problems. CU traits were more predictive of conduct problems among children with greater sustained attention difficulties. This builds on findings by Dotterer and colleagues (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), who identified attentional processes as a key factor in the CU and antisocial behavior link. In a large twin sample, they found that at low levels of CU traits, antisocial behavior was associated with poorer sustained attention, indexed by higher reaction time variability. At high CU levels, however, antisocial behavior was linked to better sustained attention. These findings indicate that impaired sustained attention may intensify impulsive and dysregulated behaviors in youth with callous-unemotional traits, whereas intact attention may facilitate more deliberate, calculated, and goal-directed antisocial conduct (e.g., Frick et al., 2018).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecent evidence further indicates that working memory, along with sustained attention, contributes uniquely and interactively to goal-directed behavior (Slattery et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR100\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), and is associated with multiple aspects of social functioning, including peer acceptance, physical and relational aggression, and conflict resolution skills (e.g., McQuale et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsistent with this, working memory was found to buffer the association between CU traits and conduct problems. Youth with high CU traits but stronger working memory exhibited fewer behavioral difficulties. This supports models suggesting that executive functions can reduce antisocial risk (Dotterer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) and aligns with research in children with ADHD, where working memory has been shown to support impulse control (Raiker et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR82\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), delay tolerance (Patros et al., 2015), and sustained attention and task engagement (McBurnett et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Rapport et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR84\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). In youth with CU traits, stronger working memory may facilitate better behavioral regulation by enabling reflection before acting, consideration of social consequences, and long-term planning, even in the absence of emotional empathy. In contrast, when working memory is impaired, these self-regulatory capacities may fail, increasing vulnerability to persistent conduct problems. Interestingly, working memory has been linked to the strategic aspects of children's lying rather than the initial decision to lie. Children with stronger verbal working memory are better able to maintain their deception during follow-up questioning (Alloway et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Evans \u0026amp; Lee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), a pattern that has also been associated with CU traits (Gouwy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCognitive inflexibility also emerged as a significant mediator of the CU and conduct problem association. Specifically, perseverative errors, an indicator of poor cognitive flexibility, explained part of this link, consistent with findings from Barrau and colleagues (2025) in a sample of at-risk children. Cognitive inflexibility may help explain why youth high in CU traits often persist in maladaptive behavior despite corrective feedback or punishment (Frick et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Frick et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; S\u0026eacute;guin \u0026amp; Zelazo, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR96\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Squillaci \u0026amp; Benoit, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR104\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), suggesting that difficulty adapting behavior contributes to the stability and severity of conduct problems in this population.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, these findings support a dual-path model of behavioral problems linking psychopathic traits to conduct problems (Frick \u0026amp; Marsee, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). INS traits appear to operate primarily through deficits in inhibition and regulation, while CU traits influence behavior both through cognitive inflexibility, as a mediating pathway, and through sustained attention and working memory, as moderating pathways. In contrast, the GD dimension was not significantly associated with EF deficits or conduct problems in the present sample, suggesting that traits such as deceitfulness and grandiosity may contribute to externalizing behavior through alternative mechanisms not captured by the current EF measures. Alternatively, the lack of association may reflect the possibility that GD traits involve less impairment in brain functioning compared to the other two dimensions (Salekin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, these different association patterns highlight the need to carefully consider both the type of EF assessment and the specific psychopathic traits under investigation (e.g., Barrau et al., 2025; Kary \u0026amp; Moul, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Tan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Toplak et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR110\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Informant-based EF measures captured key emotional and behavioral regulation deficits linked to impulsive traits, which are likely to be visible in everyday contexts and thus readily reported by teachers (e.g., Rizeq et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e: Tan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR106\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, performance-based tasks identified cognitive control vulnerabilities, such as sustained attention and cognitive flexibility deficits, that were particularly relevant to the behavioral risks associated with CU traits. These cognitive difficulties may be less apparent in daily interactions but become evident under structured task demands, highlighting the value of using multiple assessment methods (McAuley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Toplak et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR110\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations should be noted. The study relied on a community sample, which may limit generalizability to high-risk or clinical populations where psychopathic traits are more severe and persistent (e.g., Rizeq et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR90\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The performance-based EF tasks primarily assessed lower-order processes (e.g., inhibition, working memory) and may not fully capture higher-order EF deficits, such as strategic planning or abstract reasoning (e.g., Ib\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez et al., 2016: Kiehl et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Kiehl et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e), which could also play a role in psychopathy-related conduct problems. Additionally, teacher-reported EF difficulties may reflect classroom behavior (i.e., context-dependent) rather than underlying neurocognitive impairments, introducing potential reporter bias (Foster et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e; Webster-Stratton \u0026amp; Lindsay, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR118\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). The null findings for the GD dimension may not reflect a true absence of association but rather unmeasured social-cognitive mechanisms (e.g., theory of mind, moral reasoning) that are more relevant to interpersonal psychopathic traits (e.g., Song et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR102\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Lastly, although the detected moderating effects were statistically significant, their effect sizes were modest, highlighting that conduct problem development is influenced by multiple interacting factors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite its limitations, the present study strengthens the literature on executive functioning and externalizing behavior. First, it employed a multi-method, multi-informant approach, combining teacher ratings of executive function (EF) with performance-based EF tasks to capture both behavioral manifestations and underlying cognitive processes. This design reduces single-method bias and allows for a more nuanced understanding of EF-related mechanisms. Second, the longitudinal design, spanning five years, provides stronger evidence for temporal and potentially causal relationships between early psychopathic traits, EF deficits, and later conduct problems. Third, the study took a dimensional approach to psychopathy, separately examining CU, GD, and INS traits, rather than treating psychopathy as a unitary construct. This allowed for the identification of distinct EF pathways linked to specific psychopathic dimensions (Salekin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR94\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Fourth, the study used rigorous statistical analyses, controlling for IQ, gender, and hyperactivity, thereby isolating the unique contributions of EF to the development of conduct problems. Fifth, the research was conducted within a distinct cultural context, contributing cross-cultural evidence to the study of psychopathic traits and executive functioning. Finally, the findings offer contextual relevance, highlighting specific EF processes, such as sustained attention and cognitive flexibility that differentially moderate or mediate the association between psychopathic traits and behavioral outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSupplementary Material\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptualization: SR; methodology: SR, DK, SB; writing- original draft preparation: SR; writing review and editing: SR, DK, SB; resources: DK, SB; funding acquisition: SR. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research was supported by grants from the Croatian Science Foundation [HRZZ-IP-2016-06-3917], University of Osijek [IZIP-2016-79], and the ADRIS Foundation (30.10.2018.).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBecause the dataset contains personal and potentially identifiable information, it is not publicly available. However, the datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthical approval was obtained from the University of J. J. Strossmayer in Osijek, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Institutional Review Board (KLASA: 602-04/19-04/64; URBROJ: 2158-83-02-19-2). All procedures complied with the local regulations for research with minors. Written informed consent was obtained from all parents/guardians prior to participation, and children provided assent. Teachers who completed questionnaires provided informed consent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted Techniques\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArtificial intelligence (AI; ChatGPT) tools were used only for minor language editing (e.g., grammar and style checks). All scientific content, interpretations, and conclusions were generated by the authors.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlloway, T. P., McCallum, F., Alloway, R. G., \u0026amp; Hoicka, E. (2015). Liar, liar, working \u0026nbsp;memory on fire: Investigating the role of working memory in childhood verbal deception. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Child Psychology, 137,\u003c/em\u003e 30-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.03.013\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBarrau, V., L\u0026oacute;pez-Romero, L., Bosch, R., Torrubia, R., Bonillo, A., Casas, M., \u0026amp; Molinuevo, \u0026nbsp;B. (2025). Psychopathic traits and behavioral problems in children at risk of psychopathology: The mediating role of executive functions. \u003cem\u003eRevista de Psicolog\u0026iacute;a Cl\u0026iacute;nica con Ni\u0026ntilde;os y Adolescentes, 12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5-13. https://doi.org/10.21134/rpcna.2025.12.1.2\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBerlin, L., Bohlin, G., \u0026amp; Rydell, A. M. (2003). Relations between inhibition, executive functioning, and ADHD symptoms: a longitudinal study from age 5 to 8(1/2) years. \u003cem\u003eChild Neuropsychology, 9\u003c/em\u003e(4), 255-266. https://doi.org/10.1076/chin.9.4.255.23519\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBonham, M. D., Hawkins, E., Waters, A. M., \u0026amp; Shanley, D. C. (2022). Can\u0026apos;t stop, won\u0026apos;t stop? the role of inhibitory control and callous-unemotional traits in childhood conduct problems and aggression. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Neuropsychology, 47\u003c/em\u003e(4), 210-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2022.2069770\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBaskin-Sommers, A. R., Waller, R., Fish, A. M., \u0026amp; Hyde, L. W. (2015). Callous-Unemotional traits trajectories interact with earlier conduct problems and executive control to predict violence and substance use among high risk male adolescents. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1529-1541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0041-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBerg, E. A. (1948). A simple objective technique for measuring flexibility in thinking. The \u003cem\u003eJournal of General Psychology, 39\u003c/em\u003e(1), 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1948.9918159\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eColins, O. F., Andershed, H., Frogner, L., Lopez-Romero, L., Veen, V., \u0026amp; Andershed, A. K. (2014). A new measure to assess psychopathic personality in children: The Child Problematic Traits Inventory. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 36\u003c/em\u003e(1), 4-21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-013-9385-y\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eColins, O. F., Roetman, P. J., Lopez-Romero, L., \u0026amp; Andershed, H. (2020). Assessing \u0026nbsp;psychopathic traits among children: the first validation study of the Child Problematic Traits Inventory in a clinical sample. \u003cem\u003eAssessment, 27\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1242-1257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119832654\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDemetriou, C. A., Colins, O. F., Andershed, H., \u0026amp; Fanti, K. A. (2023). Assessing psychopathic traits early in development: testing potential associations with social, behavioral, and affective factors. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 45\u003c/em\u003e(3), 767-780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-023-10059-3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDiamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology, 64\u003c/em\u003e, 135-168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDotterer, H. L., Tomlinson, R. C., Burt, S. A., Weigard, A. S., Klump, K. L., \u0026amp; Hyde, L. W. \u0026nbsp;(2021). Neurocognitive abilities associated with antisocial behavior with and without callous-unemotional traits in a community sample. \u003cem\u003eNeuropsychology, 35\u003c/em\u003e(4), 374-387. https://doi.org/10.1037/neu0000733\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Spinrad, T. L., Liew, J., Zhou, Q., Losoya, S. H.,. . . Cumberland, \u0026nbsp;A. (2009). Longitudinal relations of children\u0026rsquo;s effortful control, impulsivity, and negative emotionality to their externalizing, internalizing, and co-occurring behavior problems. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology, 4\u003c/em\u003e, 988-1008.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEvans, A. D., \u0026amp; Lee, K. (2011). Verbal deception from late childhood to middle adolescence and its relation to executive functioning skills. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology, 47\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1108-1116. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023425\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFanti, K. A., Kyranides, M. N., Lordos, A., Colins, O. F., \u0026amp; Andershed, H. (2018). Unique and interactive associations of callous-unemotional traits, impulsivity and grandiosity with child and adolescent conduct disorder symptoms. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 40\u003c/em\u003e(1), 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-018-9655-9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFoster, S. L., Inderbitzen, H. M., \u0026amp; Nangle, D. W. (1993). Assessing acceptance and social skills with peers in childhood: Current issues. Behavior Modification, 17(3), 255-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455930173003\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFrick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Barry, C. T., Bodin, S. D., \u0026amp; Dane, H. E. (2003). Callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems in the prediction of conduct problem severity, aggression, and self-report of delinquency. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31\u003c/em\u003e(4), 457-470. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023899703866\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFrick, P. J., \u0026amp; Marsee, M. A. (2018). Psychopathy and developmental pathways to antisocial behavior in youth. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook of psychopathy\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed., pp. 456-475). The Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFrick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., \u0026amp; Kahn, R. E. (2014). Can callous-unemotional traits enhance the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of serious conduct problems in children and adolescents? \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin, 140\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-57.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033076\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFrick, P. J., \u0026amp; White, S. F. (2008). Research review: The importance of callous-unemotional traits for developmental models of aggressive and antisocial behavior. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49\u003c/em\u003e(4), 359-375.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01862.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGoldstein, B. L., Finsaas, M. C., Olino, T. M., Kotov, R., Grasso, D. J., \u0026amp; Klein, D. N. (2023). Three-variable systems: An integrative moderation and mediation framework for developmental psychopathology. \u003cem\u003eDevelopment and Psychopathology, 35\u003c/em\u003e(1), 12-23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421000493.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGoodman R. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: a research note. \u003cem\u003eJournal\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eof child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, 38\u003c/em\u003e(5), 581-586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGouwy, M. C., Franssens, R., Roets, A., \u0026amp; De Clercq, B. (2024). Is childhood lying shaped by callous-unemotional traits or does lie-telling make children more callous-unemotional? A longitudinal between- and within-person perspective. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Child \u0026amp; Adolescent Psychiatry, 33\u003c/em\u003e(10), 3541-3550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-024-02398-7\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGroth-Marnat, G. (1997). \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Psychological Assessment\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 499-533). Wiley.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHan, G., Helm, J., Iucha, C., Zahn-Waxler, C., Hastings, P. D., \u0026amp; Klimes-Dougan, B. (2016).Are executive functioning deficits concurrently and predictively associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms in adolescents? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Clinical Child and\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdolescent Psychology 45\u003c/em\u003e(1), 44-58. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.1041592\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHayes, A. F. (2022). \u003cem\u003eIntroduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eanalysis: A regression-based approach\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIb\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez, M. I., Sabater-Grande, G., Barreda-Tarrazona, I., Mezquita, L., L\u0026oacute;pez-Ovejero, S., Villa, H., Perakakis, P., Ortet, G., Garc\u0026iacute;a-Gallego, A., \u0026amp; Georgantz\u0026iacute;s, N. (2016). Take the Money and Run: Psychopathic Behavior in the Trust Game. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in psychology, 7,\u003c/em\u003e 1866. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01866\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIbbotson, P. (2023). The development of executive function: mechanisms of change and functional pressures. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cognition and Development, 24\u003c/em\u003e(2), 172-190. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2022.2160719\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKary, A., \u0026amp; Moul, C. (2024). Meta-analysis of the implied distribution of callous-unemotional traits across sampling methods and informant. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eReview, 109,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e102407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102407\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKiehl, K. A., Hare, R. D., McDonald, J. J., \u0026amp; Brink, J. (1999). Semantic and affective \u0026nbsp;processing in psychopaths: An event-related potential (ERP) study. \u003cem\u003ePsychophysiology, 36\u003c/em\u003e(6), 765-774. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0048577299971081\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKiehl, K. A., Smith, A. M., Mendrek, A., Forster, B. B., Hare, R. D., \u0026amp; Liddle, P. F. (2004). Temporal lobe abnormalities in semantic processing by criminal psychopaths as revealed by functional magnetic resonance imaging. \u003cem\u003ePsychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 130\u003c/em\u003e(1), 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-4927(03)00106-9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKim, H., \u0026amp; Chang, H. (2019). Longitudinal association between children\u0026apos;s callous-unemotional traits and social competence: Child executive function and maternal warmth as moderators. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in psychology, 10,\u003c/em\u003e 379. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00379\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eL\u0026oacute;pez-Romero, L., Molinuevo, B., Bonillo, A., Andershed, H., Colins, O. F., Torrubia,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eR., \u0026amp; Romero, E. (2019). Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Child Problematic Traits Inventory in 3- to 12-year-old Spanish children. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35\u003c/em\u003e(6), 842-854. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000458\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMate\u0026scaron;ić, K. (2009). \u003cem\u003eWechslerov test inteligencije za djecu -četvrto izdanje - WISC-IV-HR.\u003c/em\u003eNaklada Slap.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMathias, C. W., Furr, R. M., Daniel, S. S., Marsh, D. M., Shannon, E. E., \u0026amp; Dougherty, D. M. (2007). The relationship of inattentiveness, hyperactivity, and psychopathy among adolescents\u003cem\u003e. Personality and Individual Differences,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e43,\u003c/em\u003e 1333-1343.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMcAuley, T., Chen, S., Goos, L., Schachar, R., \u0026amp; Crosbie, J. (2010). Is the behavior rating inventory of executive function more strongly associated with measures of impairment or executive function?. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 495-505. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617710000093\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMcBurnett, K., Villodas, M., Burns, G. L., Hinshaw, S. P., Beaulieu, A., \u0026amp; Pfiffner, L. J. (2014). Structure and validity of sluggish cognitive tempo using an expanded item pool in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder\u003cem\u003e. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42\u003c/em\u003e(1), 37-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9801-5\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMcQuade, J. D., Murray-Close, D., Shoulberg, E. K., \u0026amp; Hoza, B. (2013). Working memory and social functioning in children. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115\u003c/em\u003e(3), 422-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2013.03.002\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMilner, A. D., \u0026amp; Ettlinger, G. (1972). Response latencies in go, No-go discrimination performance by monkeys. \u003cem\u003eNeuropsychologia, 10\u003c/em\u003e(3), 375-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(72)90030-9\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMueller, S. T., \u0026amp; Piper, B. J. (2014). The Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) and PEBL Test Battery. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Neuroscience Methods, 222\u003c/em\u003e, 250-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2013.10.024\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMurtha, K., Perlstein, S., Paz, Y., Seidlitz, J., Raine, A., Hawes, S., Byrd, A., \u0026amp; Waller, R. (2025). Callous-unemotional traits, cognitive functioning, and externalizing problems in a propensity-matched sample from the ABCD study. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 66\u003c/em\u003e(3), 333-349. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.14062\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePatros, C. H., Alderson, R. M., Kasper, L. J., Tarle, S. J., Lea, S. E., \u0026amp; Hudec, K. L. (2016). Choice-impulsivity in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A meta-analytic review. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology Review, 43,\u003c/em\u003e 162-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.11.001\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRaiker, J. S., Rapport, M. D., Kofler, M. J., \u0026amp; Sarver, D. E. (2012). Objectively-measured impulsivity and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): testing competing predictions from the working memory and behavioral inhibition models of ADHD. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40\u003c/em\u003e(5), 699-713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9607-2\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRapport, M. D., Alderson, R. M., Kofler, M. J., Sarver, D. E., Bolden, J., \u0026amp; Sims, V. (2008). Working memory deficits in boys with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): the contribution of central executive and subsystem processes. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36\u003c/em\u003e(6), 825-837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-008-9215-y\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRomine, C. B., Lee, D., Wolfe, M. E., Homack, S., George, C., \u0026amp; Riccio, C. A. (2004). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test with children: a meta-analytic study of sensitivity and specificity. \u003cem\u003eArchives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1027-1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2003.12.009\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRizeq, J., Toplak, M. E., Ledochowski, J., Basile, A., \u0026amp; Andrade, B. F. (2020). Callous- unemotional traits and executive functions are unique correlates of disruptive behavior in children. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Neuropsychology, 45\u003c/em\u003e(3), 154-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2020.1737698\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRučević, S., \u0026amp; Andershed, H. (2022). Are psychopathic traits predictive of conduct problems and aggression when other risk factors are considered? A longitudinal test among Croatian children. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Criminal Justice, 80,\u003c/em\u003e 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101777\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSalekin R. T. (2017). Research Review: What do we know about psychopathic traits in \u0026nbsp;children?. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 58\u003c/em\u003e(11), 1180-1200. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12738\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eS\u0026eacute;guin, J. R., \u0026amp; Zelazo, P. D. (2005). Executive Function in Early Physical Aggression. In R.\u0026nbsp; E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, \u0026amp; J. Archer (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental origins of aggression\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 307-329). The Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eShallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. \u003cem\u003ePhilosophical Transactions of the\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoyal Society B: Biological Sciences, 298\u003c/em\u003e(1089), 199-209. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1982.0082\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSlattery, E. J., O\u0026apos;Callaghan, E., Ryan, P., Fortune, D. G., \u0026amp; McAvinue, L. P. (2022). Popular interventions to enhance sustained attention in children and adolescents: A critical systematic review. \u003cem\u003eNeuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 137,\u003c/em\u003e 104633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104633\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSong, Z., Jones, A., Corcoran, R., Daly, N., Abu-Akel, A., \u0026amp; Gillespie, S. M. (2023). Psychopathic traits and theory of mind task performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eNeuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 151,\u003c/em\u003e 105231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105231\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSquillaci, M., \u0026amp; Benoit, V. (2021). Role of callous and unemotional (CU) traits on the development of youth with behavioral disorders: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18\u003c/em\u003e(9), 4712. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094712\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTan, A., Delgaty, L., Steward, K., \u0026amp; Bunner, M. (2018). Performance-based measures and behavioral ratings of executive function in diagnosing attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children. \u003cem\u003eAttention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorders, 10\u003c/em\u003e(4), 309-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12402-018-0256-y\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eThorell, L. B., \u0026amp; Nyberg, L. (2008). The childhood executive functioning inventory (CHEXI): a new rating instrument for parents and teachers. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Neuropsychology, 33\u003c/em\u003e(4), 536-552. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640802101516\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eToplak, M. E., West, R. F., \u0026amp; Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Practitioner review: do performance-based measures and ratings of executive function assess the same construct?. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54\u003c/em\u003e(2), 131-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12001\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVučković, S., Ručević, S., \u0026amp; Ajduković, M. (2021). Parenting style and practices and children\u0026rsquo;s externalizing behaviour problems: Mediating role of children\u0026rsquo;s executive functions. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18\u003c/em\u003e(3), 313-329. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2020.1768067\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWaller, R., Hyde, L. W., Baskin-Sommers, A. R., \u0026amp; Olson, S. L. (2017). Interactions between callous unemotional behaviors and executive function in early childhood predict later aggression and lower peer-liking in late-childhood. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 45\u003c/em\u003e(3), 597-609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-016-0184-2\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYang, Y., Shields, G. S., Zhang, Y., Wu, H., Chen, H., \u0026amp; Romer, A. L. (2022). Child executive function and future externalizing and internalizing problems: A meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology Review, 97,\u003c/em\u003e 102194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102194\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWebster-Stratton, C., \u0026amp; Lindsay, D. W. (1999). Social competence and conduct problems in young children: \u003cem\u003eIssues in assessment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28\u003c/em\u003e(1), 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2801_3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"child-and-adolescent-psychiatry-and-mental-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"caph","sideBox":"Learn more about [Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health](http://capmh.biomedcentral.com)","snPcode":"13034","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/13034/3","title":"Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health","twitterHandle":"@IACAPAP","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"psychopathy features, children, executive functioning, conduct problems, mediation and moderation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7889593/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7889593/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eExecutive functions, including working memory, inhibition, sustained attention, cognitive flexibility, and planning are critical for regulating behavior and have been linked to externalizing outcomes. Similarly, psychopathic traits in childhood, particularly Callous-Unemotional, Grandiose-Deceitful, and Impulsivity-Need for Stimulation, are robust predictors of later conduct problems. Although studies have examined these relationships, findings are inconsistent regarding whether executive functions mediate or moderate the prospective association between early psychopathic traits and later conduct problems, and whether specific executive function components play distinct roles across psychopathy dimensions. Moreover, most prior work has relied on either teacher ratings or performance-based executive function measures alone, despite evidence that these approaches capture complementary aspects of executive functions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis longitudinal study followed a community sample of 215 children (M\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 8.2 years) over five years. At baseline, parents rated psychopathic traits, teachers assessed executive function difficulties (working memory, inhibition/regulation), and children completed performance-based executive function tasks (working memory, sustained attention, cognitive flexibility, and planning). At follow-up, new teachers rated conduct problems, ensuring independent assessments. Mediation and moderation analyses were conducted using PROCESS (Hayes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), controlling for IQ, hyperactivity, and gender. Critically, both informant-based and behavioral measures of executive functions were used to capture distinct behavioral and neurocognitive processes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher-rated inhibition and regulation deficits partially mediated and moderated the link between Impulsivity-Need for Stimulation traits and later conduct problems, suggesting impulsivity heightens behavioral risk when self-regulatory capacities are weak. Performance-based executive functions showed a different pattern for Callous-Unemotional traits: cognitive inflexibility mediated their association with conduct problems, while sustained attention deficits amplified this relationship. Stronger working memory buffered the Callous-Unemotional-conduct problem link, reducing risk. Grandiose-Deceitful traits were unrelated to executive functions or conduct problems. Notably, teacher-reported executive functions captured observable emotional/behavioral regulation deficits linked to impulsivity, whereas performance-based tasks revealed cognitive control vulnerabilities relevant to Callous-Unemotional traits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eDistinct executive function mechanisms underlie different psychopathic traits, emphasizing the importance of multi-method executive functions assessment. Findings suggest that interventions targeting both behavioral regulation (inhibition) and cognitive control (attention, flexibility, working memory) may reduce conduct problems in at-risk youth.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Do Executive Functions Moderate or Mediate? Exploring Their Role in the Prospective Association Between Psychopathic Traits and Conduct Problems in Children","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-14 11:11:47","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7889593/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-01-01T19:08:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-12-20T20:32:14+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-28T18:23:44+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-25T18:49:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"232504332198487915525451107714595256128","date":"2025-11-07T11:48:31+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"32181693453401455950636886318669628271","date":"2025-11-07T09:32:45+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"324502994258455910929035666029048036081","date":"2025-11-07T06:40:44+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"45290273255341784765365794724196669171","date":"2025-11-05T10:09:48+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-11-04T20:40:51+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-11-03T09:57:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-11-03T02:40:49+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health","date":"2025-10-17T20:33:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"child-and-adolescent-psychiatry-and-mental-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"caph","sideBox":"Learn more about [Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health](http://capmh.biomedcentral.com)","snPcode":"13034","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/13034/3","title":"Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health","twitterHandle":"@IACAPAP","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ad5f340f-4fd2-4d7f-af60-91814399f7dd","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 14th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-16T16:01:34+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7889593","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-026-01058-9","journal":{"identity":"child-and-adolescent-psychiatry-and-mental-health","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health"},"publishedOn":"2026-03-10 15:58:20","publishedOnDateReadable":"March 10th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-14 11:11:47","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s13034-026-01058-9","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-026-01058-9","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7889593","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7889593","identity":"rs-7889593","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}