Of course, people who make a practice of lying and cheating usually get caught. Their effectiveness then is greatly reduced, so they quickly move on to other partners, groups, neighborhoods, or cities. Their mobile, nomadic lifestyle, and the ease with which they adapt to new social environments, can be seen as part of a constant need for fresh breeding grounds.
One other point. Cheating skills may have adaptive value in some segments of a competitive society such as ours. In other words, far from landing at the bottom of the heap, psychopaths might be helped up some success ladders by their distinctive personality traits.
The sociobiological theory has strong intuitive appeal for some people, but is difficult to test scientifically; most of the supportive evidence is circumstantial and anecdotal.
• A biological theory that has been around for a long time is that, for reasons unknown, some of the psychopath’s brain structures mature at an abnormally slow rate.10 The basis for this theory is twofold: similarities between the EEGs (recorded brain waves) of adult psychopaths and those of normal adolescents; and similarities between some of the psychopath’s characteristics—including egocentricity, impulsivity, selfishness, and unwillingness to delay gratification—and those of children. To some investigators, this suggests that psychopathy reflects little more than a developmental delay. Harvard psychologist Robert Kegan, for example, has argued that behind Cleckley’s “mask of sanity” lies not insanity but a young child of nine or ten.11
These are interesting speculations, but the brain-wave characteristics in question are also associated with drowsiness or boredom in normal adults, and could as well result from the psychopath’s sleepy disinterest in the procedures used to measure them as from a delay in brain development. Furthermore, I doubt that the egocentricity or impulsivity of children and psychopaths are really the same. I am certain that few people have difficulty in distinguishing between the personality, motivations, and behavior of a normal ten-year-old and those of an adult psychopath, even after allowing for the difference in age. More important, few parents of a ten-year-old psychopath would confuse him or her with an ordinary ten-year-old.
• An interesting biological model argues that psychopathy results from early brain damage or dysfunction, especially in the front of the brain, which plays a major role in high-level mental activities. This model is based on some apparent behavioral similarities between psychopaths and patients with damage to the frontal lobes of their brains. These similarities include poor long-term planning, low frustration tolerance, shallow affect, irritability and aggressiveness, socially inappropriate behavior, and impulsivity.
However, recent research has failed to find any evidence of frontal-lobe damage in psychopaths.12 Moreover, the similarities between psychopaths and frontal-lobe patients may be only superficial, or at least no more important than the differences. Still, several investigators have argued persuasively that some sort of frontal-lobe dysfunction—not necessarily involving actual damage—may underlie the psychopath’s impulsivity and frequent failure to inhibit inappropriate behavior.13 It is well established that the frontal lobes play a crucial role in the regulation of behavior, and it seems reasonable to hypothesize that, for some reason—“faulty wiring,” early damage—they are relatively ineffective in regulating the behavior of the psychopath.
NURTURE
My favorite comic strip is “Calvin & Hobbes.” In one sequence an irritated Calvin yells, “Why do I have to go to bed now? I never get to do what I want! If I grow up to be some sort of psychopath because of this you’ll be sorry!” “Nobody ever became a psychopath because he had to go to bed at a reasonable hour,” his father replies. “Yeah,” retorts Calvin, “but you won’t let me chew tobacco either! You never know what might push me over the brink!”
Calvin reflects what is perhaps the most popular generalization about psychopathy—that it is the result of early psychological trauma or adverse experiences: poverty, emotional or physical deprivation or abuse, parental rejection, inconsistent disciplinary techniques, and so on. Unfortunately, the picture that emerges from clinical experience and research is far from clear on this matter. On balance, however, I can find no convincing evidence that psychopathy is the direct result of early social or environmental factors. (I realize that my opinion will be unacceptable to people who believe that virtually all adult antisocial behavior—from petty theft to mass murder—stems from early maltreatment or deprivation.)
The neglect and abuse of children can cause horrendous psychological damage.14 Children damaged in this way often have lower IQs and an increased risk of depression, suicide, acting out, and drug problems. They are more likely than others to be violent and to be arrested as juveniles. Among preschool children the abused and neglected are more likely than other children to get angry, refuse to follow directions, and to show a lack of enthusiasm. By the time they enter school, they tend to be hyperactive, easily distracted, lacking in self-control, and not well liked by their peers. But these factors do not make them into psychopaths.
There is little doubt that correction of these early problems ultimately would lead to a dramatic reduction in crime and other forms of social dysfunction. But it is unlikely there would be a comparable reduction in the number of psychopaths and in the severity of their antisocial behavior.
ADORABLE, TERRIFYING TESS
In a made-for-television film psychologist Ken Magid is shown working with six-and-a-half-year-old Tess—an angel to look at, with wide, sweet blue eyes and a gap where her front baby teeth have fallen out. The bulk of the film consists of videotapes of therapy sessions with Tess. Hearing her speak of the pain she inflicts on her younger brother Benjamin in the night—to the point where her parents feel they must lock her in her room so that the embattled baby can sleep unharmed—is not only chilling, it conflicts sorely with our understanding of childhood behavior (the children’s names have been changed).
“Tess’s abuse of Benjamin made life miserable,” her adoptive father told the interviewer. “We thought at first Benjamin might have an abdominal problem, but it turned out that Tess was punching him in the stomach at night. We had to tie her door shut.”
Tess stole knives—“big, sharp ones,” she admitted. “What did you want to do with them, Tess?” Magid asked his small patient. Calmly the little girl answered, “Kill Mommy and Benjamin...”
At one point, the film’s narrator recounted how, in one of many episodes of violent rage, Tess banged Benjamin’s head repeatedly against a cement floor. Her mother had to pry Tess’s hands from the baby’s head.
“I didn’t stop,” Tess reported. “I just kept on hurting him.”
“Thinking ...?” the therapist urged.
“Thinking of killing him.”
At another point in the video, Magid asked Tess to tell him how she treats small animals.
“Stick ‘em with pins. A lot,” the girl says. “Kill ‘em.”
Tess and her brother Benjamin had been adopted by a loving couple who were appalled and frightened by Tess’s behavior. In attempting to understand, they researched Tess’s case and learned that as babies in their biological family both children, but particularly Tess, had suffered unimaginable sexual abuse and psychological and physical neglect. Magid presented Tess as a vivid—indeed, an unforgettable—example of what can happen to children who fail to “attach” or “bond” to their parents or primary care givers during early life. His book, High Risk, first published in 1987, outlined the position that the failure of the psychological parent-child bond to form at the proper developmental stage, from birth to age two, is a major factor in the development of psychological and behavioral problems, including psychopathy.15
Attachment theories continue to be popular in large part because they appear to “explain” everything from anxiety and depression to multiple personality disorder, schizophrenia, eating disorders, alcoholism, and crime. But most of the empirical support for these theories comes from retrospective reports of early expe
riences, certainly not the most reliable source of scientific data.16 Moreover, there is little evidence that early attachment difficulties have anything to do with the development of psychopathy.
Most of the external factors associated with the “failure to bond”—rejection, deprivation, neglect, abuse, and so forth—can indeed produce terrible effects, and some of these effects may resemble a few of the traits and behaviors that define the disorder of psychopathy.
Certainly little Tess in the television film seems a poignant example. But there is no evidence to suggest that failure to bond can result in anywhere near the full gamut of symptoms comprised by psychopathy—including the characteristic manipulative charm and the distinct lack of serious and debilitating psychological symptoms found in those who have been emotionally damaged by their social and physical environments.
While some assert that psychopathy is the result of attachment difficulties in infancy, I turn the argument around: In some children the very failure to bond is a symptom of psychopathy. It is likely that these children lack the capacity to bond readily, and that their lack of attachment is largely the result, not the cause, of psychopathy.
This possibility is conveniently overlooked by those who assert that a poor environment or improper parenting is everything. The parents of a young psychopath who has turned their lives upside down, in spite of their frantic attempts to understand and nurture him or her, will find it doubly difficult to bear when society unfairly blames them for the problem. Their psychological guilt trip to find out where they went wrong is not likely to be very fruitful.
AN INTERACTIVE MODEL:
NATURE AND NURTURE
The position I favor is that psychopathy emerges from a complex—and poorly understood—interplay between biological factors and social forces. It is based on evidence that genetic factors contribute to the biological bases of brain function and to basic personality structure, which in turn influence the way the individual responds to, and interacts with, life experiences and the social environment.17 In effect, the elements needed for the development of psychopathy—including a profound inability to experience empathy and the complete range of emotions, including fear—are provided in part by nature and possibly by some unknown biological influences on the developing fetus and neonate. As a result, the capacity for developing internal controls and conscience and for making emotional “connections” with others is greatly reduced.
This doesn’t mean that psychopaths are destined to develop along a fixed track, born to play a socially deviant role in life. But it does mean that their biological endowment—the raw material that environmental, social, and learning experiences fashion into a unique individual—provides a poor basis for socialization and conscience formation. To use a simple analogy, the potter is instrumental in molding pottery from clay (nurture), but the characteristics of the pottery also depend on the sort of clay available (nature).18
Although psychopathy is not primarily the result of poor parenting or adverse childhood experiences, I think they play an important role in shaping what nature has provided. Social factors and parenting practices influence the way the disorder develops and is expressed in behavior.
Thus, an individual with a mix of psychopathic personality traits who grows up in a stable family and has access to positive social and educational resources might become a con artist or white-collar criminal, or perhaps a somewhat shady entrepreneur, politician, or professional. Another individual, with much the same personality traits but from a deprived and disturbed background, might become a drifter, mercenary, or violent criminal.
In each case, social factors and parenting practices help to shape the behavioral expression of the disorder, but have less effect on the individual’s inability to feel empathy or to develop a conscience. No amount of social conditioning will by itself generate a capacity for caring about others or a powerful sense of right and wrong. To extend my earlier analogy, psychopathic “clay” is much less malleable than is the clay society’s potters usually have to work with.
One implication of this view for the criminal justice system is that the quality of family life has much less influence on the antisocial behaviors of psychopaths than it does on the behavior of most people. In several recent studies we evaluated the effects of early family background on later criminality in psychopathic and other criminals.19
• We found no evidence that the family backgrounds of psychopaths differed from those of other criminals. Not surprisingly, most criminals came from families marked by some sort of problem.
• Among the criminals who were not psychopaths, the quality of family background was strongly related to the age of onset and seriousness of early criminal activities. Thus, those from a troubled or disadvantaged family background first appeared in adult court at about age fifteen, whereas those from a relatively stable background first appeared in adult court at a much later age, about twenty-four.
• In sharp contrast, the quality of family life had absolutely no effect on the emergence of criminality in psychopaths. Whether the family life was stable or unstable, psychopaths first appeared in adult court at an average age of fourteen.
• The findings for the criminals who were not psychopaths are consistent with the general literature on criminality: That is, adverse family influences promote the early development of criminal activity. However, even a good family life that promotes healthy behavior in their siblings does little to deter psychopaths from their lives of callous self-gratification.
• There is one important exception to these general conclusions: Our research indicated that psychopaths from unstable backgrounds committed many more violent offenses than did those from stable backgrounds, whereas background had little effect on the violence of other criminals. This is consistent with my earlier suggestion that social experiences influence the behavioral expression of psychopathy. A deprived and disturbed background, where violent behavior is common, finds a willing pupil in the psychopath, for whom violence is not emotionally different from other forms of behavior. Other people also learn violent behaviors, of course, but because of their greater ability to empathize with others and to inhibit impulses, they do not act out as readily as do psychopaths.
ANOTHER LOOK AT THE
CAMOUFLAGE SOCIETY
In view of our increasingly widespread social distress, the issue of psychopathy’s origins gains an ominous significance. A recent case in the city in which I live brought home not only the seriousness of rising juvenile crime rates but the meaning behind the statistics. A thirteen-year-old killer was given the maximum sentence under the Canadian Young Offenders Act—three years—for the bludgeoning murder of a twelve-year-old youth. The motive for the murder? The youth had failed to provide $250 worth of marijuana paid for by the murderer—a very grown-up crime indeed.20
The unnamed murderer was described as manipulative, street wise, and “messed up from the start.” The details surrounding the murder are of lasting significance. For example, friends from the murderer’s neighborhood described him as “just ‘a regular guy’ who skipped school, smoked marijuana and played video games. When asked if the youth had any special interests, his friends said shoplifting. [The] defense lawyer told the bail hearing the convicted killer began breaking into apartments at age eight. The youth was starting fires at age nine and he ran away ten times during the last three years. The boy has convictions for breaking and entering, theft and possession of narcotics. He was suspended from school several times for disruptive behavior and truancy. In Grade 7 he was expelled for stealing from the milk program. He smoked marijuana daily by age 11 and later became a regular user of hashish and occasionally cocaine. In his sentencing, [the judge] cited doctors’ profiles that say the youth shows classic ‘anti-social’ behavior. They do not experience guilt in the same fashion as others and have difficulty empathizing by and large they do not change over time.”
Sound familiar? Perhaps, although I cannot make a long-distance diagnosis based on a
few loosely reported details. The point of this portrait is not diagnosis of the young assailant but rather this comment on the circumstances surrounding his murderous act: “Stories circulating in the [area where he lived] suggested as many as 20 youths knew the accused was responsible for the murder but said nothing.”
GANGS HAVE ALWAYS provided great opportunities for young psychopaths. Their impulsive, selfish, callous, egocentric, and aggressive tendencies easily blend in with—and may even set the tone for—many of the gang’s activities. Indeed, there cannot be many other activities that produce so many rewards for violent psychopaths, and with such impunity. Local youth gangs are heavily involved in drug dealing, theft, intimidation, and extortion. They recruit many of their new members from the schools, and their presence in and around the schools is a constant reminder to students and teachers of the influence and raw power gangs have.
Although society is showing increased alarm at the presence of gangs in our communities, penalties for unlawful gang-related acts often remain trivial. In a recent case, two fifteen-year-olds and a sixteen-year-old were charged with gang-related activities, including assault, auto theft, possession of a dangerous weapon, assault with a dangerous weapon, and assault causing bodily harm. Most of the charges were dropped because the parents of the teenage witnesses, fearing reprisals, refused to allow their youngsters to testify in court. A police spokesman said that it was “very disturbing that through threats and intimidation a criminal can have the charge against him dropped,” and he noted that there is always witness tampering in any gang-related charge. These gangs have a collective sense of power and invincibility that is not unlike that of some of their psychopathic members.
Without Conscience Page 19
