Critically Discuss the Biological and Psychosocial Perspectives on the Aetiology of Criminal Behaviour with Specific Reference to Psychopathy.”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 3.
2. A DEFINITION OF TERMS: PSYCHOPATHY 4.
3. BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES 5.
3.1 FAMILY STUDIES; TWIN AND ADOPTION STUDIES 5.
3.2 PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORIES 6-7.
3.3. EYSENCK’S THEORY 7.
4. PSYCHOSOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOPATHY 8.
4.1 BEHAVIOURAL THEORIES 8.
4.2 SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY 8.
4.3 MODELLING 9.
5. CONCLUSION .. 10-11.
6. REFERENCES 12-13. 1. INTRODUCTION
“The biological and psychosocial perspectives on the aetiology of criminal behaviour with specific reference to psychopathy” is an age-old debate between nature versus nurture. Extensive research has been conducted in order to determine whether the genetic make-up of an individual or the environment in which they are raised is accountable for creating criminals. The result of which, is the conclusion that both genes and the environment play a role in the criminality of an individual (Bartol, 2002). Various twin, family, and adoption studies in addition to laboratory experiments have generated supporting evidence that it is mostly an interaction between biological and psychosocial perspectives that predicts criminal behaviour with regards to psychopathy. However, having a genetic predisposition to psychopathy does not determine the actions of an individual unless they are exposed to the right environment resulting in a greater chance of that individual engaging in criminal or psychopathic behaviour. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to critically discuss the biological and psychosocial perspectives on the aetiology of criminal behaviour with specific reference to psychopathy. 2. PSYCHOPATHY DEFINED
In recent times, Psychopaths are more commonly referred to as people with antisocial personality disorder and are characteristically among the most interpersonally disparaging and emotionally harmful individuals (Passer & Smith, 2009). Psychopaths seem to lack a conscience; they exhibit little anxiety or guilt, are almost always impulsive and unable to suspend the immediate gratification of their needs. Psychopaths have a marked absence of emotional attachment to other people. A lack of capacity to care about others makes psychopaths potential dangers to society (Black, 1999). Case in point, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahmer failed to show even the slightest remorse for their crimes or sympathy for their victims. Despite a psychopathic individuals’ ability to verbalise emotions and commitments with great sincerity, their disturbing behaviours indicate otherwise. They often appear highly intelligent and charming, and they are very capable of rationalising their inappropriate behaviour for the purpose of seeming reasonable and justifiable. Accordingly, they are often the masters of manipulating other people and talking their way out of trouble. These characteristics can be reflected in psychological test responses such as the DSM-IV, as well as in social behaviour (Passer & Smith, 2009).

To be diagnosed as psychopathic, a person must be at least 18 years of age in addition to extensive evidence of psychopathic behaviour before the age of 15 such as habitual lying, early and aggressive sexual behaviour, disproportionate drinking, theft, vandalism, and enduring rule violations at home and school. Hence psychopathy is the culmination of a deviant behaviour pattern that characteristically begins in childhood (Kernberg, 2000).

3. BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOPATHY
3.1 FAMILY STUDIES; TWIN AND ADOPTION STUDIES
Biological research on psychopathy has focused on both genetic and physiological factors. Evidence for a genetic predisposition is shown in consistently higher rates of concordance for psychopathy among identical twins than among fraternal twins (Airey & Sodhi, 2007). Heritability is between .40 and .50 for psychopathy in children, adolescents and adults (Bouchard, 2004). Furthermore adoption studies suggest a similar assumption. When researchers compared the criminal records of men who had been adopted in early life with those of their biological and adoptive fathers, the results of which were that the criminality rate was nearly twice as high if the biological father had a criminal rate and the adoptive father did not, plainly suggesting the operation of genetic factors (Cloninger & Gottesman, 1989).
How genetic factors predispose individuals to become psychopaths might be evident in the relative absence of anxiety and guilt that seems to characterize psychopathy. A number of researchers suggest that the physiological basis might be some dysfunction in brain structures that govern emotional arousal and behavioural self-control (Blair, 2005). The result of which is behavioural impulsiveness and a chronically under-aroused state that impairs avoidance learning, causes boredom, and inspires a search for excitement (Passer & Smith, 2009). In support for a physiological perspective of psychopathy, children as well as adults with psychopathic tendencies have lower heart rates particularly when stressed (Ortiz & Raine, 2004). MRIs have also revealed that psychopaths have subtle neurological deficits in the prefrontal lobes which house executive functions namely; sustaining attention and concentration, planning and anticipating, reasoning and inhibition of unsuccessful, inappropriate or impulsive behaviours (Gorenstein, 1982; Yeudall, 1980; as cited in Lynam, 1997); these neurological deficits are associated with reduced autonomic activity (Raine et al., 2000).Therefore it seems as long suspected, that severely psychopathic individuals may definitely be structured differently at a neurological level, responding with less arousal and greater impulsiveness to both pleasurable and unpleasant stimuli (Passer & Smith, 2009).

3.2 PSYCHOANALYTIC THEORY
Psychodynamic theorists regard psychopaths as people without a conscience and suggest that their lack of anxiety and guilt are a consequence of their failure to develop an adequate superego (Gabbard, 1990). In the absence of a well-developed superego, the limitations on the ID are greatly reduced, ensuing in impulsive and hedonistic behaviour. The failure to develop a strong superego is speculated to be an outcome of insufficient identification with appropriate adult figures who were either physically or psychologically unavailable to the child (Kernberg, 2000). In support of this theory is evident in the absence of the father from the home is related to a higher incidence of psychopathic symptoms in children, even when socio-economic status is equated (Pfiffner, McBurnett & Rathouz, 2001).
Psychodynamic perspective is the result of Sigmund Freud’s pioneering notions such as his thought of human behaviour which includes violent behaviour, is the product of “unconscious” forces operating within the human mind. Furthermore, that early childhood experiences have a profound impression on adolescent and adult behaviour. Freud believed aggression to be a basic or ID based human impulse that is repressed in well-adjusted individuals who have experienced a normal childhood. Nevertheless, Freud administered the term “displaced aggression” if the aggression is uncontrolled or abnormally repressed it is likely the aggression will exude the unconscious mind and the person will consequently participate in random acts of violence and criminal behaviour (Englander, 2007; Bartol, 2002).
With regards to the study of criminality, Freud is surpassed by August Aichorn who assured that exposure to stressful social environments was not an automatic initiator of crime or violence as most people are in fact regularly exposed to extreme stress without resorting to any serious forms of criminality. Additionally, Aichorn specified that stress is only possible for evoking crime in individuals possessing a specific mental state defined as ‘latent delinquency’. An inference of inadequate childhood socialisation, ‘latent delinquency’ manifests in the need for immediate gratification or impulsivity, lack of empathetic feelings towards others as well as the inability to feel guilt (Aichorn, 1935).
Despite notable criticism of the psychoanalytic perspective due to the fact that the theory has not yet been subjected to rigorous scientific verification; it is derivative of therapists’ subjective interpretations of interviews conducted with a small number of subjects. Moreover, the explanations offered by psychodynamic theory with specific reference to psychopathy is inconsistent, as it is based on untestable anecdotal drives and needs as well as ignoring conscious cognitions and situational influences. The psychodynamic perspective has had significant influence on the aetiology of criminal behaviour with specific reference to psychopathy as many other theories have come to accent the pertinence of the family, early childhood experiences.
3.3 EYSENCK’S THEORY
Together with some biological theories, learning explanations suggest that psychopaths have poor impulse control due to an impaired ability to develop conditioned fear responses when punished resulting in a deficit in avoidance learning. Hans Eysenck (1964) argued that the development of a conscience is dependent on the ability to learn fear and inhibitory avoidance responses, and people who fail to do so will be less able to inhibit their behaviour (Passer & Smith, 2009). In agreement with this hypothesis, Raine et al. (1996) conducted a 14 year follow-up of males who at the age of 15 were subjected to a classical conditioning procedure in which a soft tone was used as a Conditioned Stimulus and a loud, aversive tone as the Unconditioned Stimulus. Conditioned fear was measured by the participants’ skin conductance response when the CS occurred after a number of pairings with the loud UCS. The researchers discovered that the men who accumulated a criminal record by age 29 had shown much poorer fear conditioning at age 15 than those with no criminal record.

4. PSYCHOSOCIAL PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOPATHY
4.1 BEHAVIOURAL THEORIES
In conjunction with biosocial theorists, psychologists place emphasis on how certain individual characteristics may interact within the social environment resulting in a violent occurrence. The alternative to concentrating on the biological basis of criminal behaviour, psychologists are concerned with the manner in which mental processes impact individual susceptibilities to violence (Bartol, 2002).
4.2 SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
Behaviour theories centralise that all human behaviour including violent behaviour is learnt via interaction with the social environment. Behaviourists claim people are not born with a violent disposition instead they learn to think and act violently as a result of day-to-day experiences (Bandura, 1977). To illustrate, one of the most infamous psychopaths Jeffrey Dahmer began his enjoyment for dismemberment by expanding his fascination from his first encounter with a decomposed squirrel. These experiences might comprise observations of family or friends being rewarded for violent behaviour such as Gary Ridgeway, the most prolific psychopath who murdered around 50 prostitutes, witnessed his father gain satisfaction from his encounters with prostitutes. Lastly psychopaths could learn to think and act violently as a result of the glorification of violence in the media (Bartol, 2002).
Four factors have been identified by behaviourists in helping to produce psychopathy; stressful events or stimulus that heighten arousal such as a threat or assault, aggressive skills or techniques acquired through observing others; the belief that aggression or violence will be socially rewarded for instance reducing frustration or worthy of other people’s praise and lastly, a value system that condones violent acts within certain social contexts Consequently, behavioural theory directly contributed to the progression of social learning theories of deviance (Bartol, 2002).

4.3 MODELLING
Learning through modelling may also serve an important role as psychopaths often come from homes in which parents exhibit a significant amount of aggression and neglect of the needs of the children. Therefore, such parents provide role models for aggressive behaviour as well as disregard for the needs of others. A supplementary environmental factor is exposure to deviant peers as children who become psychopathic often learn some of their deviant behaviour from peer groups that model psychopathic behaviour in addition to its reinforcement through social approval (Bandura, 1997). Therefore it is clearly evident that such environmental factors, coupled with a possible genetic predisposition for psychopathy, would entice the development of criminal behaviour patterns. 5. CONCLUSION
Psychopathy of which Antisocial personality Disorder is a comparable term, with regards to criminal behaviour has been recognised not only as a defining property but also the result of the disorders (Gunn, 1977). Past behaviour is highly regarded as the most accurate predictor of any future behaviour thus individuals having been diagnosed as psychopaths are later reported to have suffered worse consequences than offenders with less serious criminal histories (Rice, Harris & Cormier, 1992). Biological perspectives of psychopathy provide evidence for a genetic predisposition evident in the relative absence of anxiety and guilt which is shown in consistently higher rates of concordance for psychopathy among identical twins than among fraternal twins (Airey & Sodhi, 2007). Researchers suggest that the physiological basis might be some dysfunction in brain structures that govern emotional arousal and behavioural self-control (Blair, 2005). The result of which is behavioural impulsiveness and a chronically under-aroused state that impairs avoidance learning, causes boredom, and inspires a search for excitement (Passer & Smith, 2009). Psychodynamic theorists view violent behaviour as the product of “unconscious” forces operating within the human mind and regard psychopaths as people without a conscience and suggest that their lack of anxiety and guilt are a consequence of their failure to develop an adequate superego resulting in impulsive and hedonistic behaviour (Gabbard, 1990).The failure to develop a strong superego is speculated to be an outcome of insufficient identification with appropriate adult figures who were either physically or psychologically unavailable to the child (Kernberg, 2000).
Psychosocial perspectives on the aetiology of criminal behaviour with regards to psychopathy consists of behaviour theories specifically ‘Social Learning Theory’ which claim people are not born with a violent disposition instead they learn to think and act violently as a result of day-to-day experiences (Bandura, 1977). Learning through modelling may also serve a key role as children who become psychopathic often come from homes where the parents provide role models for aggressive behaviour as well as disregard for the needs of other in addition to learning some of their deviant behaviour from peer groups that model psychopathic behaviour and view its reinforcement through social approval (Bandura, 1997).
A genetic predisposition to psychopathy does not determine the actions of an individual unless they are exposed to the right environment resulting in a greater chance of that individual engaging in criminal or psychopathic behaviour. However, psychopaths can learn pro-social behaviours to replace criminal actions. A prominent feature in psychopaths is their constant failure to think about or anticipate the long term negative costs of their acts, an inference of which is that they behave impulsively, thinking only of what they want at that moment (Bandura, 1997). From biological and psychosocial perspectives, it is considered crucial to prevent psychopathic individuals from getting into trouble by helping them develop the cognitive controls or executive functions needed to think before acting (Passer & Smith, 2009). 6. REFERENCES
Aichorn, A., 1935, Wayward Youth, New York: Viking Press.
Airey, D., & Sodhi, M., 2007, Schizophrenia, New York: Chelsea House.
Bandura, A., 1977, Social Learning Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bartol, C., 2002, Criminal Behaviour: A Psychological Approach, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bouchard, T.J., 2004, ‘Genetic influence on human psychological trait’, Current Directions in Psychological Science 13, 148- 151.
Black, D.W., 1999, Bad boys, bad men: Confronting antisocial personality disorder, New York: Oxford University Press.
Blair, J., 2005, Development of the psychopath: Emotion and the brain, St. Louis, MO: Blackwell.
Cloninger, C.R, & Gottesman, I.I., 1989, ‘Genetic and environmental factors in antisocial behaviour disorders’, The Causes of Crime: New Biological Approaches, England: Cambridge University Press.
Eysenck, H.J., 1964, Crime and Personality. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gabbard, G.O., 1990, Psychodynamic psychiatry in clinical practice, Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Gunn, J., 1977, ‘Criminal behaviour and mental disorder.’, British Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 317-329.
Kernberg, O.F., 2000, Personality Disorders in Children and Adults. Poulsbo, WA:H-R Press.
Paulhus, D. L. & Williams, K.M., 2002, ‘The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy’, Journal of Research in Personality, (36), 556-563.
Passer, M.W. & Smith, R.E., 2009, Psychology. (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 570-575.
Pfiffner, L.J., McBurnett, K., Rathouz, P., 2001, ‘Father absence and familial antisocial characteristics’, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 357-367.
Lynam, D.R., 1997, ‘Pursuing the Psychopath: Capturing the fledgling psychopath in a nomological net’, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 3(106), 425-438.
Ortiz, J., & Raine, A., 2004, ‘Heart rate level and antisocial behaviour in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis’, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 154-162.
Raine, A., Lencz, T., Bihrle, S., LaCasse, L., Colletti, P., 2000, ‘Reduced prefrontal gray matter volume and reduced autonomic activity in antisocial personality disorder’, Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 119-127.
Rice, M.E., Harris, G.T. & Cormier, C.A., 1992, ‘An Evaluation of a Maximum Security Therapeutic Community for Psychopaths and OtherMentally Disordered Offenders’, Law and Human Behaviour, 4(16), 399-412.

References: Aichorn, A., 1935, Wayward Youth, New York: Viking Press. Airey, D., & Sodhi, M., 2007, Schizophrenia, New York: Chelsea House. Bandura, A., 1977, Social Learning Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bartol, C., 2002, Criminal Behaviour: A Psychological Approach, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bouchard, T.J., 2004, ‘Genetic influence on human psychological trait’, Current Directions in Psychological Science 13, 148- 151. Black, D.W., 1999, Bad boys, bad men: Confronting antisocial personality disorder, New York: Oxford University Press Blair, J., 2005, Development of the psychopath: Emotion and the brain, St. Louis, MO: Blackwell. Cloninger, C.R, & Gottesman, I.I., 1989, ‘Genetic and environmental factors in antisocial behaviour disorders’, The Causes of Crime: New Biological Approaches, England: Cambridge University Press. Eysenck, H.J., 1964, Crime and Personality Gabbard, G.O., 1990, Psychodynamic psychiatry in clinical practice, Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Gunn, J., 1977, ‘Criminal behaviour and mental disorder.’, British Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 317-329. Kernberg, O.F., 2000, Personality Disorders in Children and Adults. Poulsbo, WA:H-R Press. Paulhus, D Passer, M.W. & Smith, R.E., 2009, Psychology. (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 570-575. Pfiffner, L.J., McBurnett, K., Rathouz, P., 2001, ‘Father absence and familial antisocial characteristics’, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 357-367 Raine, A., Lencz, T., Bihrle, S., LaCasse, L., Colletti, P., 2000, ‘Reduced prefrontal gray matter volume and reduced autonomic activity in antisocial personality disorder’, Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 119-127. Rice, M.E., Harris, G.T. & Cormier, C.A., 1992, ‘An Evaluation of a Maximum Security Therapeutic Community for Psychopaths and OtherMentally Disordered Offenders’, Law and Human Behaviour, 4(16), 399-412.