Next Article in Journal
Relationship Between Leadership, Personality, and the Dark Triad in Workplace: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Factors Influencing College Students’ Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage Behavior in Mathematics Learning: A Case from China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Behavioral Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/bs15030296
behavsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Linking Callous–Unemotional Traits to Social Withdrawal Among Young Chinese Left-Behind Children: Examining the Moderated Mediation Model

by
Ruifeng Tan
1,2,†,
Suiqing Chen
1,*,†,
Xinying Guo
1,
Huiyin Chen
3 and
Guixian He
1,4
1
School of Education, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China
2
School of Education, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China
3
School of Journalism and Communication, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510006, China
4
Department of Education and Art, Luoding Secondary Vocational School, Yunfu 527200, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Behav. Sci. 2025, 15(3), 296; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15030296
Submission received: 8 January 2025 / Revised: 22 February 2025 / Accepted: 25 February 2025 / Published: 3 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Developmental Psychology)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Much attention has been given to the predictive role of callous–unemotional (CU) traits in children’s social and peer functioning. As an important dimension of social adaptation, early social withdrawal in preschool left-behind children (LBC) might be the outcome of psychological factors and growth environments. This study explored the predictive effect of CU traits on social withdrawal among preschool LBC, including the indirect effect of emotion regulation and teacher–child relationship quality. Data from 513 Chinese preschool LBC (257 boys and 256 girls) were reported by their teachers in rural areas, including assessments of CU traits, emotion regulation, social withdrawal, and teacher–child relationship quality. Path analyses showed that the CU traits of young LBC could significantly positively predict the prevalence of social withdrawal, and emotion regulation played a key mediating role in this effect path. Notably, teacher–child relationship quality moderated the indirect effect of emotion regulation on CU traits and withdrawal behaviors. Therefore, the moderated mediation model was supported. The findings expanded the recognition of LBC with CU traits and further suggested that the association of some personality traits and growing environments in the early left-behind childhood can significantly make a difference in peer functioning and social adjustment.

1. Introduction

With the development of rural revitalization since the reform and opening-up of China, the rural left-behind population has received increasing attention (Xu et al., 2023; Ma et al., 2022). Because parents migrate to cities, the positive development of behaviors and social engagement in their children left behind in rural hometowns has attracted serious attention (Wen & Lin, 2012). Preschool age (3–6 years old) is a vital developmental period for young children in terms of socialization and human capital accumulation (Knudsen et al., 2006; Jones et al., 2015). The formation of active cooperation and social interaction is of great significance to left-behind children (LBC).
However, the absence of parents for most of the year may result in insecure attachments in preschool LBC (Shuang et al., 2022). Furthermore, temporary guardians are committed to providing food and safe care, and the limited face-to-face interactions with migrant parents may increase the prevalence of emotional neglect and withdrawal behaviors (Ye & Lu, 2011; Zhan et al., 2021). The family transformation of LBC may make them actively lose their sense of presence in social interactions (Ye & Lu, 2011). A previous study identified an association between attachment and withdrawal responses (e.g., shyness and unsociability), especially avoidant attachment (Chen & Santo, 2016). Some researchers proposed that the construction of a developmental model consisting of biological, familial, sociodemographic, and extra-familial factors would contribute to the exploration of children’s active unsociability (Coplan & Weeks, 2010). Based on the general aggression model (GAM), aggressive behaviors might be the outcome of personal (e.g., personality traits) and situational factors (e.g., maladaptive families or parenting) through their effects on internal emotion variables (J. J. Allen et al., 2018; Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Additionally, from a comprehensive perspective through the GAM, withdrawn behavior might be a joint outcome influenced by the above influence factors (Shao & Zhang, 2021). For instance, an aggressive response may occur when there is an extreme aversion to developing and mending social relationships, while a withdrawal response may occur when there is a low desire to develop and maintain social relationships (Shao & Zhang, 2021).
Generally, social withdrawal is a precursor to social maladjustment in later childhood and adolescence (Ding et al., 2023). From an individual perspective, the increasing body of literature implies that CU traits might be regarded as a new predictor of low affiliative inputs and solitary activities in young children (Facci et al., 2023; Levine et al., 2023; Wagner et al., 2020; Hawes et al., 2019; Waller & Wagner, 2019; Porcelli et al., 2019; Haas et al., 2018). From an environmental perspective, LBC teachers have been recognized as unique figures providing attachment and emotional bonds (Liu et al., 2015; Commodari, 2013; Verschueren & Koomen, 2012). A positive relationship between LBC and teachers could weaken the risk of CU traits (Tan et al., 2023). Moreover, emotional expression and regulation may be closely associated with secondary CU traits from disadvantaged family experiences (Waller & Wagner, 2019; Lahey, 2014).
Existing studies have indicated that CU traits can strongly predict the early emergence and the extent of externalizing symptoms (Longman et al., 2016), but few studies have explored peer functioning and withdrawal symptoms (Facci et al., 2023). In particular, the effects of CU traits on social withdrawal among preschool LBC without parental care deserve further examination.

1.1. CU Traits and Social Withdrawal

CU traits generally refer to deficits in the subset of affection (e.g., empathy and guilt) and are precursors to serious externalizing syndrome in children and adolescents (Longman et al., 2016; Frick et al., 2014). However, children with CU traits might have difficulties developing and maintaining friendships (Miron et al., 2020) or even less desire to have and make friends (Haas et al., 2018). According to the sensitivity to threat and affiliative reward models, a low level of affiliative reward sensitivity or social motivation might be one of the inter-dimensions of CU traits (Waller & Wagner, 2019). From the psychopathological perspective of detachment (De Caluwé et al., 2019), there are relationships among anhedonia, intimacy avoidance, depression, restricted affectivity, and withdrawal (Holden et al., 2015). A previous study found that low-empathy children show greater social withdrawal and poor prosocial behaviors (Findlay et al., 2006).
Social withdrawal generally refers to a child’s behavior of removing themselves from interpersonal interactions (Rubin & Chronis-Tuscano, 2021; Rubin et al., 2009). Social withdrawal is detected in the first few years of life and is directly correlated with social and emotional development (Zhou et al., 2021; Guedeney et al., 2014; Milne et al., 2009). Different subtypes of social withdrawal behavior generally underlie children’s social motivation (e.g., approach and avoidance) (Coplan et al., 2013). For example, shy children tend to have higher avoidance motivation in social situations, whereas unsociable (i.e., socially disinterested) children tend to have lower approach motivation in interpersonal interactions. A prior study examined the impact of conflict, shyness, and unsociability on the prevalence of psychopathology during childhood (Kopala-Sibley & Klein, 2017).
Do young children with high CU traits care about social preference and friendships in real life? In fact, compared with their counterparts with low CU traits, individuals with high CU traits show a lack of sensitivity to self-performance and punishment in academic or athletic performance (Haas et al., 2015). However, little evidence implies that children and adolescents with high CU traits prefer solitude and fail to feel lonely (Haas et al., 2018). Children with higher CU traits may be mindful of whether peer functioning is valuable and decide whether to cooperate with others (Hawes et al., 2019). While a study on general adolescents found no significant link between CU traits and social withdrawal (Voss, 2022), this might not apply to possible behavioral outcomes in early childhood, especially in young children during critical periods of socialization. Furthermore, limited parental warmth and secure attachment were linked to CU traits in preschool-aged children (Baroncelli et al., 2024; Glenn, 2019; Waller et al., 2018). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that CU traits would positively predict social withdrawal in LBC at the preschool age.

1.2. The Mediating Role of Emotion Regulation

Generally, emotion regulation involves attempts to recognize, control, modulate, and express emotional reactions in ways that support adaptive functioning (Gratz & Roemer, 2004; Cicchetti et al., 1995; Cassidy, 1994; Thompson, 1994; Garber & Dodge, 1991). An existing study identified the immediate and ongoing role of emotion regulation in cultivating a high degree of social competence (Blair et al., 2015). A higher ability to regulate emotions leads to a higher level of social interaction (Lopes et al., 2005). A previous study has found that emotional dysregulation could positively predict a decrease in prosocial tendencies in middle childhood (Elhusseini et al., 2023). In particular, the level of emotional self-regulation may affect social withdrawal during childhood (Calkins & Fox, 2002). Furthermore, affective experiences of shyness in social situations involve emotion regulation, particularly the down-regulation of negative emotions (Gross & John, 2002). A previous study showed that preschoolers who were socially hesitant and shy experienced emotional dysregulation (Rubin et al., 1995).
Are CU traits associated with emotion regulation? An existing study suggested a significant effect of emotion regulation on psychopathology involving emotional awareness, emotion regulation goals, and strategies (Gross & Jazaieri, 2014). A systematic review revealed that CU traits were robustly associated with emotion regulation (Squillaci & Benoit, 2021). A recent study indicated that preschool children with high CU traits have significantly poorer ratings of observed emotion regulation (Graziano et al., 2022). A prior study revealed that emotion regulation mediates the relationship between CU traits and antisocial behaviors (Falcón et al., 2021). Another study demonstrated the mediating role of emotion regulation in the association between personal disposition and withdrawal tendencies (Casini et al., 2022). Accordingly, regardless of the theoretical model (Shao & Zhang, 2021) or empirical findings (Kokkinos & Voulgaridou, 2022), emotion regulation may mediate the relationship between personality factors (e.g., CU traits) and withdrawal responses (e.g., social withdrawal).
Importantly, the prevalence of CU traits is closely associated with susceptible and maltreating parenting environments, where there might be a negative effect of CU traits on regulatory functioning as well (Waller & Wagner, 2019; Craig et al., 2023). Therefore, it is likely that emotion regulation mediates the relationship between CU traits and social withdrawal in young LBC.

1.3. The Moderating Role of Teacher–Child Relationship Quality

From the perspective of the relationship-driven model, teacher–child relationships affect the developmental pathway toward adjustment and maladjustment in young children (Zatto & Hoglund, 2019). A growing body of literature implies that high-quality teacher–child relationships contribute to developmental outcomes regarding social and cognitive skills in early childhood (Paes et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2018; Baker et al., 2008; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004; Davis, 2003; Pianta et al., 1997). Therefore, children may perceive emotional support and trust from high-quality teacher–child relationships and learn to regulate and manage emotions in complex social situations to promote adaptive functioning (Berry & O’Connor, 2010; Pianta, 1999).
From the perspective of secure attachment accessible to LBC, teachers may provide emotional support and consideration for LBC and form multiple attachment relationships with these children (Liu et al., 2015; van Ijzendoorn et al., 1992). It was noted that the cultivation of emotion regulation was impacted by perceived environmental factors, such as attachments between children and adults (Maas et al., 2011). Drawing on the resilience framework (Kumpfer, 1999), as a protective factor, teacher–child relationship quality (TCRQ) contributes to children’s emotional resilience, further reducing the level of social maladjustment, such as the social withdrawal of LBC (Yang et al., 2021). Previous literature has posited that children’s emotion regulation is affected by components of emotional functioning in the family context (Morris et al., 2007). Despite this, high-quality teacher–child relationships provide prominent value and compensation for emotional adjustment in LBC with migrant parents (Liu et al., 2015; Xiang et al., 2022).
The existing studies indicate that disruptive behaviors are influenced by a combination of internal (e.g., CU traits) and external situational factors, which are mediated by internal emotional functioning (Tan et al., 2023; L. Zhang et al., 2023). The GAM posits that personal traits and situational variables also contribute to the prevalence of withdrawn behaviors by influencing inter-emotional function (Shao & Zhang, 2021). Prior studies have highlighted that high levels of teacher–student relationship quality promote students’ emotional prosperity rather than maladaptive outcomes such as CU traits caused by poor parenting practice (Baroncelli & Ciucci, 2020; Stoppelbein et al., 2021). The provision of high-quality teacher–child relationships is a significant developmental resource for young children (Hughes et al., 2012; Meehan et al., 2003). Moreover, the teacher–child relationship quality is of great significance to the psychological development of disadvantaged children (Y. F. Li, 2022).
In other words, the quality of the teacher–child relationship might play a protective role in the emotional development of LBC with limited parental care. There might be an interaction between CU traits and teacher–child relationship quality in predicting a child’s developmental outcomes (Crum et al., 2016). Therefore, it is implied that teacher–child relationships play a moderating role between CU traits and emotion regulation among young LBC during social interactions.

1.4. The Current Study

This study explored the relationship between CU traits and social withdrawal among left-behind young children. To understand the associations among variables, a hypothetical moderated mediation model was constructed and examined. To be specific, the following three hypotheses were tested:
Hypothesis 1.
CU traits forecasts social withdrawal significantly.
Hypothesis 2.
Emotion regulation mediates the relationship between CU traits and social withdrawal.
Hypothesis 3.
Teacher–child relationship quality negatively moderates the relation between CU traits and emotion regulation, or teacher–child relationship quality constricts the effect of CU traits on this relation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants and Procedure

The teachers of a total of 520 young kindergarten LBC from rural areas were recruited through purposeful sampling. Eventually, data from 513 preschool LBC aged 3 to 6 years were selected and analyzed. After excluding 7 incomplete questionnaires, the response rate was 98.7%. Among these children, 257 were boys (Mage = 4.19, SD = 0.82) and 256 girls (Mage = 4.21, SD = 0.87). The proportion of LBC by age was 25.2% (age 3 and younger), 30.6% (age 4 to 5), and 44.3% (age 5 and older). The study protocol was approved by the research ethics committee of Guangzhou University (Protocol Number: GZHU202301).

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. CU Traits

CU traits were measured using an 11-item version of the Inventory of Callous–Unemotional Traits (ICU) (Frick, 2003; Deng et al., 2016). The score of each item in two dimensions (callousness and uncaring) was reported using a 4-point Likert scale (0 = not at all true, 1 = somewhat true, 3 = very true, and 4 = definitely true). A higher score indicated a higher degree of perception of CU traits. The ICU has been examined in preschool children (Ezpeleta et al., 2013), and the revised form has shown great reliability and validity in Chinese preschool children (Zhu et al., 2023; Cao et al., 2023). Cronbach’s α of the scale in the current study was 0.79.

2.2.2. Emotional Regulation

Emotion regulation was measured using the Emotion Regulation Subscale of the Emotion Regulation Checklist (ERC) (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997). There are 5 items of the revised Chinese version for preschool children (Zeng, 2020), contextually representing emotional expression, empathy, self-awareness of emotions, etc. A 4-point scale was used (0 = never, 3 = almost always). Great reliability and validity of this scale have been identified in Chinese preschool children (Zhu et al., 2020; W. Zhang et al., 2019). In this study, Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.78.

2.2.3. Social Withdrawal

Social withdrawal was measured using the Child Social Preference Scale (CSPS) (Coplan et al., 2004). The CSPS contained 11 items and divided into two dimensions: shyness (7 items) and unsociability (4 items) (Y. Li et al., 2016). This scale was scored on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot), where the higher the total score of the CSPS, the more evident the prevalence of social withdrawal. Existing studies have examined the reliability and validity of the CSPS in Chinese preschool children (Chen & Santo, 2016; Y. Li et al., 2016; Zhu et al., 2017). In this study, Cronbach’s α of this scale was 0.89.

2.2.4. Teacher–Child Relationship Quality

Teacher–child relationship quality was measured using the 15-item short form of the Student–Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS) (Pianta & Steinberg, 1992). After excluding the dependence scale with low reliability, teacher–child relationship quality was scored by the closeness and conflict scales (X. Zhang, 2011). Each item was answered using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (definitely does not apply) to 5 (definitely applies). A higher score showed a higher quality of the relationships between preschool LBC and their teachers. Prior studies have identified the great reliability of the STRS in preschool LBC (Yang et al., 2021; Hou et al., 2019). In the current study, the internal consistency of Cronbach’s α was 0.86.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

In this research, the analyses of data were performed using SPSS 26.0. First, a preliminary analysis of the Pearson correlations among the measurement variables was conducted. Second, the moderated mediation effect was examined by the PROCESS macro in SPSS (Hayes, 2013). The indirect effect of emotion regulation linking CU traits and social withdrawal was determined using the macro Model 4. To estimate the standard error and confidence interval, bias-corrected bootstrapping based on 5000 samples was performed. Third, the moderated mediation effect was assessed using PROCESS (model 7) to identified whether teacher–child relationship quality weakened the effect of CU traits on emotion regulation. Meanwhile, the conditional indirect effects were tested. Gender and age were controlled for as covariates in the actual analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Analyses

A difference test was conducted to control for the effects of age and sex. The results showed that CU traits had significant gender differences (t(511) = 2.14, p < 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.19), implying that the level of CU traits in left-behind boys (Mboys = 2.10, SD = 0.41) was significantly higher than that in girls (Mgirs = 2.02, SD = 0.40). The quality of the teacher–child relationship also reached marginal significance in terms of gender (t(511) = −1.93, p = 0.05, Cohen’s d = 0.17), which meant that left-behind girls (Mgirs = 3.92, SD = 0.62) had a higher relationship quality with their teachers than boys (Mboys = 3.81, SD = 0.60). Regarding age, there were significant differences in CU traits (F = 3.26, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.03) and social withdrawal (F = 3.21, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.03), suggesting that increasing age among left-behind preschoolers is associated with higher risks of exhibiting CU traits and social withdrawal. In the subsequent tests, age and sex were included as covariates to examine their effects.
Further statistical correlation tests found that, as shown in Table 1, CU traits had a significant negative relationship with emotion regulation (r = −0.45, p < 0.001) and teacher–child relationship quality (r = −0.68, p < 0.001). However, there was a significant positive correlation between CU traits and social withdrawal (r = 0.49, p < 0.001). Emotion regulation was negatively correlated with social withdrawal (r = −0.39, p < 0.001) and positively correlated with teacher–child relationship quality (r = 0.47, p < 0.001). In addition, children’s social withdrawal was negatively correlated with teacher–child relationship quality (r = −0.59, p < 0.001). LBC with higher CU traits may have lower levels of teacher–child relationship quality and emotion regulation, as well as higher levels of social withdrawal behavior.

3.2. Testing for a Mediation Effect

By controlling for sex and age as covariates, the analysis revealed statistically significant positive effects of CU traits on social withdrawal, where β = 0.66, p < 0.001. This finding implied that CU traits could positively predict the prevalence of social withdrawal in young patients with LBC. CU traits negatively predicted emotion regulation (β = −0.62, p < 0.001), while emotion regulation negatively predicted behavioral responses to social withdrawal (β = −0.27, p < 0.001). The analysis also examined the indirect effect of emotion regulation as a mediator between CU traits and social withdrawal. The results of bias-corrected bootstrap testing revealed that the mediation effect of emotion regulation was 0.17 (SE = 0.04, Boot CI = [0.09, 0.25]), accounting for 20.1% of the total effect (β = 0.83, p < 0.001). Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported, suggesting that emotion regulation plays a mediating role between CU traits and social withdrawal.

3.3. Testing for a Moderated Mediation Effect

The moderated mediation model was further tested, and the results are shown in Table 2. CU traits were positively linked to social withdrawal (β = 0.66, p < 0.001) but negatively associated with emotion regulation (β = −0.31, p < 0.001). Conversely, teacher–child relationship quality positively predicted the development of emotion regulation (β = 0.30, p < 0.001). More importantly, the interaction effect of CU traits and teacher–child relationship quality significantly and negatively predicted the developmental outcome of emotion regulation (β = −0.25, p < 0.01). Moreover, emotional regulation was negatively related to social withdrawal (β = −0.27, p < 0.001). Therefore, teacher–child relationship quality may play a moderating role when emotion regulation acts as a mediator between CU traits and social withdrawal.
The indirect effect of emotion regulation under high, medium, and low levels of teacher–child relationship quality should be assessed. The indirect effect of emotion regulation was not significant in lower-quality teacher–child relationships (effectlower = 0.04, 95% CI = [−0.02, 0.11]). The conditional indirect effect was significant in the average (effectaverage = 0.09, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.15]) and higher-quality teacher–child relationships (effecthigher = 0.12, 95% CI = [0.06, 0.19]). Specifically, as assessed through the Johnson–Neyman technique (Figure 1), the indirect mediation effect reached statistical significance when the standard score of teacher–child relationship quality was at or above −0.5543. Therefore, an improvement in teacher–child relationship quality may reduce the effect of CU traits on emotion regulation in young LBC. A moderated mediation model involving CU traits, emotion regulation, social withdrawal, and teacher-child relationship quality was supported.

4. Discussion

Based on theoretical models and empirical work, this study explored a moderated mediation model in which emotion regulation could act as a mediator and bridge the path between CU traits and social withdrawal in young LBC. Additionally, the quality of the teacher–child relationship played a moderating role in weakening the adverse effects of CU traits on emotion regulation.
The early social adjustment of LBC has been a major public issue, particularly regarding the prevalence of social withdrawal in young LBC identified in a recent study (J. Zhang et al., 2018). Notably, social withdrawal is sometimes an early symptom of a number of neuropsychiatric disorders, even appearing long before other symptoms (Porcelli et al., 2019). This phenomenon may occur in the early stages of some behavioral and personality traits related to psychopathy, such as CU traits. For example, it was generally found that CU traits were important for diagnosing and predicting externalizing symptoms in children (Longman et al., 2016). Similarly, a predictive role of CU traits in children’s social functioning and peer interactions has been gradually proposed (Waller & Wagner, 2019; Haas et al., 2018; Barry et al., 2008).
The present study found that CU traits can significantly and positively predict the occurrence of social withdrawal, which is consistent with the proposals of existing theoretical models from other researchers (Facci et al., 2023; Levine et al., 2023; Wagner et al., 2020; Hawes et al., 2019; Waller & Wagner, 2019; Haas et al., 2018). For instance, according to the STAR model, children with high CU traits are characterized by a deficit in social affiliation and show low sensitivity and less desire to seek out or enjoy sustained adaptive friendships (Waller & Wagner, 2019). In other words, these children may be used to, or even enjoy, spending time alone without actively seeking meaning and value from their peers and social groups (Haas et al., 2018; Foulkes et al., 2014); peer functioning may not be conducive to their own social manipulation (Hawes et al., 2019). Consequently, for children with high CU traits, social withdrawal may be an appropriate behavioral response and reaction strategy in social situations.
For young LBC, the transformation of the family and parental migration became risk factors for affection deficits and solitary preferences (Wang et al., 2019; Van den Akker et al., 2014). Secondary CU traits are believed to result from affective deficits caused by pathogenic environmental conditions (Craig et al., 2023), especially further impairments in emotional manipulation (Bennett & Kerig, 2014). Thus, the adaptive regulation of emotions may be particularly affected. Emotion regulation mainly reflects children’s appropriate emotional expression, empathy, and emotional self-awareness in certain situations (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997). However, difficulties in emotion regulation may contribute to delays in developing adaptive behaviors, which, in turn, may inhibit social interactions with peers (Calkins et al., 1999; Raver et al., 1999).
According to the findings of this study, emotion regulation as a proximate variable mediated the effect of CU traits on social withdrawal. This is consistent with existing theoretical views (Shao & Zhang, 2021; Squillaci & Benoit, 2021; Craig & Moretti, 2019). Notably, exposed to adverse parenting environments, children with high CU traits may develop a “cold” mask as an approach to coping with social situations (Craig et al., 2023), likely with inflexible and negative emotional expression and feedback (Craig & Moretti, 2019). In other words, the emotional regulation of young LBC could act as an intermediate process between personal factors (e.g., CU traits) and the withdrawn response. Due to insecure attachment from absent parents, LBC might not be very keen on the adaptive response and regulation of social emotions (Qu et al., 2020). Consequently, they are reluctant to participate in social interactions with their peers and show withdrawn and solitary responses.
Although there might be a recursive relationship between attachment and CU traits in the process of social adjustment (Baroncelli et al., 2024), a compensatory effect occurs in early growing environments, such as kindergartens and families (Y. F. Li, 2022). However, it is believed that a high-quality kindergarten environment will reduce the impact of negative family environments and safeguard the positive development of disadvantaged children. The bioecological model also provides a basis for understanding such compensatory effects between growth environments (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), and a high quality of the teacher–child relationship is considered an important source of the compensating effect (Y. F. Li, 2022).
The moderated mediation model in this study verified that a high-quality teacher–child relationship could weaken the negative effect of CU traits on emotional and social adjustment, which provided new validation of the compensatory effect from the perspective of psychopathology and early developmental environments. The teacher–child relationship was regarded as the potential point of effective intervention in addressing CU traits (Baroncelli & Ciucci, 2020; Barry et al., 2008). For example, teachers can form high-quality social relationships with children with high CU traits (J. L. Allen et al., 2018). More specifically, high-quality teacher–child relationships can improve the resilience of young LBC with parental absence and further reduce the prevalence of social withdrawal (Liu et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2021). Therefore, more attention should be paid to the unique significance of the teacher–child relationship in the socialization and peer functioning of LBC.
Left-behind preschool children are expected to achieve the appropriate developmental processes and outcomes of early socialization. Future studies should explore the association between CU traits and the growth environment of LBC in early childhood. In particular, it is clear that future longitudinal developmental studies will contribute more valuable evidence for providing more emotional support to left-behind preschool children with CU traits.

5. Conclusions

Although CU traits are known to be significant predictors of conduct disorders in mid–late childhood and adulthood, low prosociality and withdrawn responses in early developmental stages may also be the first signs in children suffering from parental migration. The current study explored the social withdrawal of left-behind preschool children from a comprehensive perspective of psychopathology and early growth environments. Not only did CU traits predict social withdrawal, but emotion regulation and teacher–child relationships also played important indirect roles in the model. Based on the findings of this study, future research can adopt a longitudinal design to explore how CU traits and social withdrawal interact and evolve over time. For left-behind young children, there is still more room to explore the significant role of high-quality teacher–child relationship and CU traits on their emotional and social development.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.T. and S.C.; methodology, R.T., S.C., X.G. and G.H.; software, R.T., X.G. and H.C.; validation, G.H.; formal analysis, R.T., X.G. and H.C.; Investigation, S.C., H.C. and G.H.; Resources, S.C. and G.H.; data curation, R.T., X.G. and H.C.; writing—original draft, R.T. and X.G.; writing—review & editing, S.C.; visualization, R.T.; supervision, S.C.; project administration, S.C.; funding acquisition, S.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Guangdong Office of Philosophy and Social Science (Grant No. GD22CXL02).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Education School, Guangzhou University (Protocol Number: GZHU202301).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We express our sincere gratitude to all the teachers for their invaluable participation in this research study. Additionally, we sincerely thank Jingyang Zhou and Qiming Yao for their valuable assistance and support throughout our investigation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Allen, J. J., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2018). The general aggression model. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 75–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Allen, J. L., Bird, E., & Chhoa, C. Y. (2018). Bad boys and mean girls: Callous-unemotional traits, management of disruptive behavior in school, the teacher-student relationship and academic motivation. Frontiers in Education, 3, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Baker, J. A., Grant, S., & Morlock, L. (2008). The teacher-student relationship as a developmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behavior problems. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Baroncelli, A., & Ciucci, E. (2020). Bidirectional effects between callous-unemotional traits and student-teacher relationship quality among middle school students. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 48(2), 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Baroncelli, A., Facci, C., Sica, L. S., Fusco, L., Di Palma, T., & Ciucci, E. (2024). Attachment to others and callous-unemotional traits in a sample of high school students. Current Psychology, 43(1), 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Barry, T. D., Barry, C. T., Deming, A. M., & Lochman, J. E. (2008). Stability of psychopathic characteristics in childhood: The influence of social relationships. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(2), 244–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bennett, D. C., & Kerig, P. K. (2014). Investigating the construct of trauma-related acquired callousness among delinquent youth: Differences in emotion processing. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 27(4), 415–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Berry, D., & O’Connor, E. (2010). Behavioral risk, teacher–child relationships, and social skill development across middle childhood: A child-by-environment analysis of change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Blair, B. L., Perry, N. B., O’Brien, M., Calkins, S. D., Keane, S. P., & Shanahan, L. (2015). Identifying developmental cascades among differentiated dimensions of social competence and emotion regulation. Developmental Psychology, 51(8), 1062–1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. M. Lerner, & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  12. Calkins, S. D., & Fox, N. A. (2002). Self-regulatory processes in early personality development: A multilevel approach to the study of childhood social withdrawal and aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 14(3), 477–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Calkins, S. D., Gill, K. L., Johnson, M. C., & Smith, C. L. (1999). Emotional reactivity and emotional regulation strategies as predictors of social behavior with peers during toddlerhood. Social Development, 8(3), 310–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cao, X., Somerville, M. P., & Allen, J. L. (2023). Teachers’ perceptions of the school functioning of Chinese preschool children with callous-unemotional traits and disruptive behaviors. Teaching and Teacher Education, 123, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Casini, E., Glemser, C., Premoli, M., Preti, E., & Richetin, J. (2022). The mediating role of emotion regulation strategies on the association between rejection sensitivity, aggression, withdrawal, and prosociality. Emotion, 22(7), 1505–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment relationships. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3), 228–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Chen, B. B., & Santo, J. B. (2016). Mother–child attachment and social withdrawal in urban Chinese children. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 44(2), 233–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cicchetti, D., Ackerman, B. P., & Izard, C. E. (1995). Emotions and emotion regulation in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 7(1), 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Commodari, E. (2013). Preschool teacher attachment, school readiness and risk of learning difficulties. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(1), 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Coplan, R. J., Prakash, K., O’Neil, K., & Armer, M. (2004). Do you “want” to play? Distinguishing between conflicted shyness and social disinterest in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 244–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Coplan, R. J., Rose-Krasnor, L., Weeks, M., Kingsbury, A., Kingsbury, M., & Bullock, A. (2013). Alone is a crowd: Social motivations, social withdrawal, and socioemotional functioning in later childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49(5), 861–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Coplan, R. J., & Weeks, M. (2010). Unsociability and the preference for solitude in childhood. In K. H. Rubin, & R. J. Coplan (Eds.), The development of shyness and social withdrawal (pp. 64–83). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  23. Craig, S. G., Goulter, N., Andrade, B. F., & McMahon, R. J. (2023). Developmental precursors of primary and secondary callous-unemotional traits in youth. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 54(2), 582–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Craig, S. G., & Moretti, M. M. (2019). Profiles of primary and secondary callous-unemotional features in youth: The role of emotion regulation. Development and Psychopathology, 31(4), 1489–1500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Crum, K. I., Waschbusch, D. A., & Willoughby, M. T. (2016). Callous-unemotional traits, behavior disorders, and the student–teacher relationship in elementary school students. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 24(1), 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of student-teacher relationships on children’s social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 207–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. De Caluwé, E., Verbeke, L., van Aken, M., van der Heijden, P. T., & De Clercq, B. (2019). The DSM-5 trait measure in a psychiatric sample of late adolescents and emerging adults: Structure, reliability, and validity. Journal of Personality Disorders, 33(1), 101–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Deng, Q. W., Ding, C. X., Liu, M. L., Deng, J. X., & Wang, M. C. (2016). Psychometric properties of the inventory of callous-unemotional in preschool students. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24(4), 663–666. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ding, X., Zhang, W., Ooi, L. L., Coplan, R. J., Zhu, X., & Sang, B. (2023). Relations between social withdrawal subtypes and socio-emotional adjustment among Chinese children and early adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 33(3), 774–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Elhusseini, S., Rawn, K., El-Sheikh, M., & Keller, P. S. (2023). Attachment and prosocial behavior in middle childhood: The role of emotion regulation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 225, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Ezpeleta, L., Osa, N. d. l., Granero, R., Penelo, E., & Domènech, J. M. (2013). Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits in a community sample of preschoolers. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 42(1), 91–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Facci, C., Imbimbo, E., Stefanelli, F., Ciucci, E., Guazzini, A., Baroncelli, A., & Frick, P. J. (2023). The social correlates to callous-unemotional traits in a sample of high school students. Behavior Therapy, 54(3), 595–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Falcón, A. K., Dobbins, A. E., & Stickle, T. R. (2021). Gendered associations among callous-unemotional traits, emotion regulation, and antisocial behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 179, 110944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Findlay, L. C., Girardi, A., & Coplan, R. J. (2006). Links between empathy, social behavior, and social understanding in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(3), 347–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Foulkes, L., McCrory, E. J., Neumann, C. S., & Viding, E. (2014). Inverted social reward: Associations between psychopathic traits and self-report and experimental measures of social reward. PLoS ONE, 9(8), e106000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Frick, P. J. (2003). The inventory of callous-unemotional traits [Unpublished rating scale]. University of New Orleans.
  37. 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? A comprehensive review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 1–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Garber, J., & Dodge, K. A. (Eds.). (1991). The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Glenn, A. L. (2019). Early life predictors of callous-unemotional and psychopathic traits. Infant Mental Health Journal, 40(1), 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Graziano, P. A., Landis, T., Maharaj, A., Ros-Demarize, R., Hart, K. C., & Garcia, A. (2022). Differentiating preschool children with conduct problems and callous-unemotional behaviors through emotion regulation and executive functioning. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 51(2), 170–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gross, J. J., & Jazaieri, H. (2014). Emotion, emotion regulation, and psychopathology: An affective science perspective. Clinical Psychological Science, 2(4), 387–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2002). Wise emotion regulation. In L. F. Barrett, & P. Salovey (Eds.), The wisdom in feeling: Psychological processes in emotional intelligence (pp. 297–319). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  44. Guedeney, A., Pingault, J.-B., Thorr, A., & Larroque, B. (2014). Social withdrawal at 1 year is associated with emotional and behavioural problems at 3 and 5 years: The Eden mother-child cohort study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 23(12), 1181–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Haas, S. M., Becker, S. P., Epstein, J. N., & Frick, P. J. (2018). Callous-unemotional traits are uniquely associated with poorer peer functioning in school-Aged children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46(4), 781–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Haas, S. M., Waschbusch, D. A., King, S., & Walsh, T. M. (2015). Examining the role of callous-unemotional traits in the attributional styles and self competence evaluations of children with conduct problems and ADHD. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 37(2), 196–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hawes, D. J., Straiton, M., & Howie, P. (2019). The social dynamics of boys with callous and unemotional traits: Uncooperative and proud of it. Journal of Research in Personality, 79, 79–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  49. Holden, C. J., Roof, C. H., McCabe, G., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2015). Detached and antagonistic: Pathological personality features and mate retention behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hou, L. M., Luo, L. L., & Wu, H. Y. (2019). Relations between grandparental rearing patterns and problem behaviors of rural left-behind children: Moderated by teacher-child relationship. Studies in Early Childhood Education, 295(7), 54–68. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hughes, J. N., Wu, J.-Y., Kwok, O.-m., Villarreal, V., & Johnson, A. Y. (2012). Indirect effects of child reports of teacher–student relationship on achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(2), 350–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Jones, D. E., Greenberg, M., & Crowley, M. (2015). Early social-emotional functioning and public health: The relationship between kindergarten social competence and future wellness. American Journal of Public Health, 105(11), 2283–2290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Knudsen, E. I., Heckman, J. J., Cameron, J. L., & Shonkoff, J. P. (2006). Economic, neurobiological, and behavioral perspectives on building America’s future workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(27), 10155–10162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kokkinos, C. M., & Voulgaridou, I. (2022). The indirect effects of pre-adolescents’ personality on shyness through emotion regulation. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 347–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kopala-Sibley, D. C., & Klein, D. N. (2017). Distinguishing types of social withdrawal in children: Internalizing and externalizing outcomes of conflicted shyness versus social disinterest across childhood. Journal of Research in Personality, 67, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Kumpfer, K. L. (1999). Factors and processes contributing to resilience: The resilience framework. In M. D. Glantz, & J. L. Johnson (Eds.), Resilience and development: Positive life adaptations (pp. 179–224). Kluwer Academic Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  57. Lahey, B. B. (2014). What we need to know about callous-unemotional traits: Comment on Frick, Ray, Thornton, and Kahn (2014). Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Levine, R. S., Smith, K., & Wagner, N. J. (2023). The impact of callous-unemotional traits on achievement, behaviors, and relationships in school: A systematic review. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 54(6), 1546–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Li, Y., Zhu, J.-J., Coplan, R. J., Gao, Z.-Q., Xu, P., Li, L., & Zhang, H. (2016). Assessment and implications of social withdrawal subtypes in young Chinese children: The Chinese version of the child social preference scale. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 177(3), 97–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Li, Y. F. (2022). Reshaping the early growth environment: Promoting the psychological development of children aged 0~6 years. China Textile & Apparel Press. [Google Scholar]
  61. Liu, Y., Li, X., Chen, L., & Qu, Z. (2015). Perceived positive teacher–student relationship as a protective factor for Chinese left-behind children’s emotional and behavioural adjustment. International Journal of Psychology, 50(5), 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Longman, T., Hawes, D. J., & Kohlhoff, J. (2016). Callous–unemotional traits as markers for conduct problem severity in early childhood: A meta-analysis. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 47(2), 326–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., Côté, S., & Beers, M. (2005). Emotion regulation abilities and the quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5(1), 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ma, L., Dou, H., Wu, S., Shi, Z., & Li, Z. (2022). Rural development pressure and “three-stay” response: A case of Jinchang City in the Hexi Corridor, China. Journal of Rural Studies, 91, 34–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Maas, J., Laan, A., & Vingerhoets, A. (2011). Attachment, emotion regulation and adult crying. In I. Nykliček, A. Vingerhoets, & M. Zeelenberg (Eds.), Emotion regulation and well-being (pp. 181–195). Springer Science+Business Media. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Meehan, B. T., Hughes, J. N., & Cavell, T. A. (2003). Teacher-student relationships as compensatory resources for aggressive children. Child Development, 74(4), 1145–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Milne, L., Greenway, P., Guedeney, A., & Larroque, B. (2009). Long term developmental impact of social withdrawal in infants. Infant Behavior & Development, 32(2), 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Miron, C. D., Satlof-Bedrick, E., & Waller, R. (2020). Longitudinal association between callous-unemotional traits and friendship quality among adjudicated adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 81, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development, 16(2), 361–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Paes, T. M., Duncan, R., Purpura, D. J., & Schmitt, S. A. (2023). The relations between teacher-child relationships in preschool and children’s outcomes in kindergarten. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 86, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pianta, R. C., Nimetz, S. L., & Bennett, E. (1997). Mother–child relationships, teacher–child relationships, and school outcomes in preschool and kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(3), 263–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pianta, R. C., & Steinberg, M. (1992). Teacher–child relationships and the process of adjusting to school. In R. C. Pianta (Ed.), Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children’s lives (pp. 61–80). Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  74. Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. W. (2004). Teacher-Child Relationships and Children’s Success in the First Years of School. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Porcelli, S., Van Der Wee, N., van der Werff, S., Aghajani, M., Glennon, J. C., van Heukelum, S., Mogavero, F., Lobo, A., Olivera, F. J., Lobo, E., Posadas, M., Dukart, J., Kozak, R., Arce, E., Ikram, A., Vorstman, J., Bilderbeck, A., Saris, I., Kas, M. J., . . . Serretti, A. (2019). Social brain, social dysfunction and social withdrawal. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 97, 10–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Qu, X., Wang, X., Huang, X., Ashish, K. C., Yang, Y., Huang, Y., Chen, C., Gao, Y., Wang, Y., & Zhou, H. (2020). Socio-emotional challenges and development of children left behind by migrant mothers. Journal of Global Health, 10(1), 010806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Raver, C. C., Blackburn, E. K., Bancroft, M., & Torp, N. (1999). Relations between effective emotional self-regulation, attentional control, and low-income preschoolers’ social competence with peers. Early Education and Development, 10(3), 333–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rubin, K. H., & Chronis-Tuscano, A. (2021). Perspectives on social withdrawal in childhood: Past, present, and prospects. Child Development Perspectives, 15(3), 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., & Bowker, J. C. (2009). Social withdrawal in childhood. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 141–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., Fox, N. A., & Calkins, S. D. (1995). Emotionality, emotion regulation, and preschoolers’ social adaptation. Development and Psychopathology, 7(1), 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Shao, L., & Zhang, D. H. (2021). Behavioral responses to ostracism: A perspective from the general aggression model. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 29(6), 1163–1171. [Google Scholar]
  82. Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age children: The development and validation of a new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 906–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Shuang, M., Yiqing, W., Ling, J., Guanzhen, O., Jing, G., Zhiyong, Q., & Xiaohua, W. (2022). Relationship between parent–child attachment and depression among migrant children and left-behind children in China. Public Health, 204, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Stoppelbein, L., McRae, E., & Smith, S. (2021). Examining student–teacher relationship and callous–unemotional traits in children with adverse childhood experiences. School Mental Health, 13(1), 129–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tan, R., Guo, X., Chen, S., He, G., & Wu, X. (2023). Callous-unemotional traits and externalizing problem behaviors in left-behind preschool children: The role of emotional lability/negativity and positive teacher-child relationship. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental health, 17(1), 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59(2–3), 25–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Van den Akker, A. L., Deković, M., Asscher, J., & Prinzie, P. (2014). Mean-level personality development across childhood and adolescence: A temporary defiance of the maturity principle and bidirectional associations with parenting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 736–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Sagi, A., & Lambermon, M. W. E. (1992). The multiple caretaker paradox: Data from Holland and Israel. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1992(57), 5–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Verschueren, K., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2012). Teacher–child relationships from an attachment perspective. Attachment & Human Development, 14(3), 205–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Voss, F. (2022). The relationship between social withdrawal and callous-unemotional traits: Influences of sex and age. Tilburg University. Available online: https://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=161598 (accessed on 24 February 2025).
  92. Wagner, N. J., Bowker, J. C., & Rubin, K. H. (2020). Associations between callous-unemotional traits and peer-rated social-behavioral outcomes in elementary and middle school. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 48(6), 757–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Waller, R., Hyde, L. W., Klump, K. L., & Burt, S. A. (2018). Parenting is an environmental predictor of callous-unemotional traits and aggression: A monozygotic twin differences study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 57(12), 955–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Waller, R., & Wagner, N. (2019). The Sensitivity to Threat and Affiliative Reward (STAR) model and the development of callous-unemotional traits. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 107, 656–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Wang, L., Wu, W., Qu, G., Tang, X., & Sun, Y. (2019). The personality traits of left-behind children in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 24(3), 253–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wen, M., & Lin, D. (2012). Child development in rural China: Children left behind by their migrant parents and children of nonmigrant families. Child Development, 83(1), 120–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Wu, Z., Hu, B. Y., Fan, X., Zhang, X., & Zhang, J. (2018). The associations between social skills and teacher-child relationships: A longitudinal study among Chinese preschool children. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 582–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Xiang, D., Qin, G., & Zheng, X. (2022). The influence of student-teacher relationship on school-age children’s empathy: The mediating role of emotional intelligence. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 15, 2735–2744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Xu, H., Jiang, Q., Zhang, C., & Ahmad, S. (2023). Left-behind experience and children’s multidimensional poverty: Evidence from rural China. Child Indicators Research, 16(1), 199–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Yang, N., Qi, Y., Lu, J., Hu, J., & Ren, Y. (2021). Teacher-child relationships, self-concept, resilience, and social withdrawal among Chinese left-behind children: A moderated mediation model. Children and Youth Services Review, 129, 106182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ye, J., & Lu, P. (2011). Differentiated childhoods: Impacts of rural labor migration on left-behind children in China. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(2), 355–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Zatto, B. R. L., & Hoglund, W. L. G. (2019). Children’s internalizing problems and teacher–child relationship quality across preschool. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 49, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Zeng, Y. B. (2020). An investigation on the status quo of emotion regulation development in preschool children. Sichuan Normal University. [Google Scholar]
  104. Zhan, S., Yang, N., & Zhao, B. (2021). Receptive language skills and social withdrawal among Chinese left-behind preschool children: A moderated mediation model. Psychological Development and Education, 37(06), 834–844. [Google Scholar]
  105. Zhang, J., Yan, L., Qiu, H., & Dai, B. (2018). Social adaptation of Chinese left-behind children: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 95, 308–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Zhang, L., Chen, Y. L., Hong, X. W., Zhao, M. Y., Fan, H., & Liu, S. (2023). The Relationship between callous-unemotional traits and school bullying of junior high school students: A moderated mediation model. Psychological Development and Education, 39(2), 266–275. [Google Scholar]
  107. Zhang, W., Wang, M., & Ying, L. (2019). Parental mindfulness and preschool children’s emotion regulation: The role of mindful parenting and secure parent-child attachment. Mindfulness, 10(12), 2481–2491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Zhang, X. (2011). Parent–child and teacher–child relationships in Chinese preschoolers: The moderating role of preschool experiences and the mediating role of social competence. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(02), 192–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Zhou, F., Huang, P., Wei, X., Guo, Y., Lu, J., Feng, L., Lu, M., Liu, X., Tu, S., Deprez, A., Guedeney, A., Shen, S., & Qiu, X. (2021). Prevalence and characteristics of social withdrawal tendency among 3–24 months in China: A pilot study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 537411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Zhu, J. J., Shu, X., Zou, S. Y., & Li, Y. (2023). Reliability and validity of the inventory of callous-unemotional traits (teacher version) to Chinese preschoolers. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31(3), 620–624. [Google Scholar]
  111. Zhu, J. J., Xie, Q. B., Li, Y., Coplan, R. J., Xu, P., & Li, Q. (2017). Application of child social preference scale to Chinese preschoolers. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 25(2), 268–271. [Google Scholar]
  112. Zhu, J. J., Yan, Y. C., Yang, T. T., Zhu, L., Wu, M., Wang, Y. J., & Li, Y. (2020). Reliability and validity of the emotion regulation checklist to Chinese preschoolers. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28(6), 1186–1189. [Google Scholar]
Behavsci 15 00296 g001
Figure 1. Johnson–Neyman plot of the moderated effect.
Figure 1. Johnson–Neyman plot of the moderated effect.
Behavsci 15 00296 g001
Table 1. Pearson two-tailed correlations for all variables.
Table 1. Pearson two-tailed correlations for all variables.
VariablesMSD123456
1. CU traits2.060.41—
2. Emotion regulation2.660.570.45 ***—
3. Social withdrawal2.100.690.49 ***0.39 ***—
4. Teacher–child relationship quality3.870.610.68 ***0.47 ***0.59 ***—
5. Gender0.500.500.09 *−0.05−0.01−0.09—
6. Age4.200.84−0.080.08−0.040.0040.10—
N = 513. Gender is a dummy variable: boy = 1, girl = 0. * p < 0.05. *** p < 0.001.
Table 2. Testing the moderated mediation effects.
Table 2. Testing the moderated mediation effects.
Emotion RegulationSocial Withdrawal
βSEt95% CIβSEt95% CI
CU traits−0.310.07−4.28 ***[−0.45, −0.16]0.660.079.25 ***[0.37, 0.52]
TCRQ0.300.056.25 ***[0.21, 0.40]
CU traits × TCRQ−0.250.08−3.22 **[−0.40, −0.10]
Emotion regulation −0.270.05−5.18 ***[−0.37, −0.17]
Gender0.0040.040.91[−0.08, 0.09]−0.080.05−1.46[−0.18, 0.03]
Age0.040.020.16[−0.01, 0.09]0.010.030.33[−0.05, 0.07]
R20.27 0.28
F38.35 *** 48.82 ***
N = 513. TCRQ indicates teacher–child relationship quality. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tan, R.; Chen, S.; Guo, X.; Chen, H.; He, G. Linking Callous–Unemotional Traits to Social Withdrawal Among Young Chinese Left-Behind Children: Examining the Moderated Mediation Model. Behav. Sci. 2025, 15, 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15030296

AMA Style

Tan R, Chen S, Guo X, Chen H, He G. Linking Callous–Unemotional Traits to Social Withdrawal Among Young Chinese Left-Behind Children: Examining the Moderated Mediation Model. Behavioral Sciences. 2025; 15(3):296. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15030296

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tan, Ruifeng, Suiqing Chen, Xinying Guo, Huiyin Chen, and Guixian He. 2025. "Linking Callous–Unemotional Traits to Social Withdrawal Among Young Chinese Left-Behind Children: Examining the Moderated Mediation Model" Behavioral Sciences 15, no. 3: 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15030296

APA Style

Tan, R., Chen, S., Guo, X., Chen, H., & He, G. (2025). Linking Callous–Unemotional Traits to Social Withdrawal Among Young Chinese Left-Behind Children: Examining the Moderated Mediation Model. Behavioral Sciences, 15(3), 296. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15030296

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop