Introduction
In our postmodern age, the propensity of antisocial behavior seems to be more apparent and on the rise than ever before. Psychologist Benjamin Wolman calls his recent publication, Antisocial behavior: personality disorders from hostility to homicide, an “alarm signal” to “all people in the United States and other countries” (Wolman, 1999). Although the crime rate has not fluctuated immensely in the past few years, it has dramatically climbed over the period of thirty years. In addition, the crimes committed today appear to be more intense in their heinousness than crimes committed in the previous era, suggesting that the problem lies within a behavioral and sociological context of this generation. “Psychopathy is often the primary cause of physical and sexual abuse as well as being present in all kinds of criminality, and the cost to society and the consequences in personal suffering are no doubt huge” (Simonsen & Birket-Smith, 1999). Due to the devastating consequences of antisocial behavior (more specifically to the quote, psychopathy), rigorous research began near the end of the 20th century largely focusing on many aspects of violence in order to find some kind of causal model or explanation as to what is happening and why (Wolman, 1999).
Definition and Description
Psychopathy is one of four categories of describing antisocial behavior. The other three categories are sociopathy, dyssocial personality disorder, and antisocial personality disorder (APD) (APA, 1994). To some professionals, the three categories are distinctly different (Cooke, 1998; Hare, 1993; Paris, 1998). To others, they are more similar terms and are nearly synonymous (APA, 1994). APD is a mental disease that can only be diagnosed at or after the age of 18, and also only if the individual has had a previous diagnosis of Conduct Disorder (CD) before the age of 13. These are strictly following the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) (APA, 1994). Due to semantic disagreement between professionals (due to its over generalization of violent and criminal behavior, disallowing differentiation suggesting a more narrow criteria to define a more severe disorder), researchers have found their own measures outside of the clinical field in order to collect data on these individuals. Thus, for the sake of confusion and a semantic argument, the four categories known as psychopathy, sociopathy, dyssocial personality disorder, and APD, will be combined and assumed under the definition of antisocial behavior. All measures of personality have been thoroughly investigated and approved on a national and international basis (Kiehl et al., 1999).
Antisocial behavior encompasses much more than behaviors that are “against society” or behaviors that are “not sociable.” It is a term that refers specifically to individuals who are callous, apathetic, impulsive, inclined to lie and cheat in order to get their own way, violent, aggressive, and criminal, self-interested, often promiscuous, and who have little regard for the law as well as social norms (APA, 1994; Hare 1993; Kiehl et al., 1999; Lahey et al., 1999; Paris, 1998). Psychologist Robert Hare, the pioneer of the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R), a personality measure that has been adopted worldwide as the main psychometric to diagnose psychopaths, separates the psychopathic personality into two categories. The Emotional/Interpersonal category suggests that psychopaths have the following key symptoms: glibness and superficiality, egocentricity and grandiosity, a lack of remorse or guilt, a lack of empathy, deceitfulness and manipulability, and shallow emotions. The Social Deviance category consists of: impulsivity, poor control of behavior, consistent need for excitement, irresponsibility, early behavior problems, and adult antisocial behavior (Hare, 1993; Kiehl et al., 1999).
Prevalence & Distribution
It is a difficult area of study mainly because the behaviors are so covert that an institution would have to take note of these special individuals beforehand. Therefore, many antisocial individuals go unnoticed (Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Lahey et al., 1999; Paris, 1998). The ones that are sought are the aggressive, violent and criminal type, and the mental health institution has specifically focused on the criminality of APD for epidemiological purposes, but it must be understood that there is also the non-aggressive antisocial individual who does indeed violate norms, but not so much that it would be noticeable as to invite attention from any institution, for example, law enforcement and the judicial system (Dahl, 1998; Paris, 1998). Very rarely do antisocial individuals seek mental health, unless for some other mental disorder other than APD. Some have been appointed to mental health institutions through physicians who found nothing physically wrong with the individual and suggested that the pathology could be psychological (Wolman, 1999). A majority of them are speculated to be within the non-criminal population. Thus, the true prevalence and distribution of psychopathy cannot and can never be known (Cairns & Cairns, 1994).
Within the United States, the known overall prevalence of APD in the general community is 3% in males and only 1% in females (APA, 1994). It is highly suspect that APD and antisocial behavior in general are more common in females, but their covert tendencies keep them protected from diagnoses. Females on a whole tend to act aggressively in different ways other than violence allowing them to avoid much attention (Lahey et al., 1999). In substance abuse treatment settings and prison or forensic settings, the prevalence can be anywhere from 3% to 30% (APA, 1994). It has been found that psychopathy and APD are highly comorbid with such mental disorders as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and undoubtedly coupled with substance abuse (Dahl, 1998; Hiday, 1999). However, regarding the mental disorders, there have been no sufficient measures to indicate the accuracy of those diagnoses and to validate that the disorders had not been mimicked by the antisocial individuals (Dahl, 1998). This is critical as Wolman has mentioned that sociopaths are, “notoriously hypochondriacal” (Wolman, 1999).
In the National Comorbidity Survey (NCS) conducted by Kessler and his team in 1994 and the Epidemiologic Catchment Area (ECA) study by Robins & Regier in 1991, results supported that the prevalence of APD had strong implications of demographic variables. Both studies showed a prevalence of the disorder in the younger male population of lower social economic status. Neither study supported that APD was differential by race. The ECA study found an increase in APD prevalence in urban areas as opposed to rural areas. The NCS reported a higher prevalence of APD in the Western states (Paris, 1998).
A psychometric measure developed in the ECA study called the Diagnostic Interview Schedule allowed researchers to conduct cross-cultural studies to investigate the prevalence of APD in other societies. They have found that APD is consistent across English speaking cultures. In the United States, the results of the prevalence of APD were 2.4% (ECA) and 3.5%. In Canada, a similar study was conducted and a prevalence rate of 3.7% was established. In New Zealand, APD had a 3.1% prevalence rate. Although psychopathy has been recognized in most if not all societies, some countries show a strikingly low prevalence of antisocial behavior. In both the countries of Taiwan and Japan, the prevalence rate of APD ranged from 0.03% to 0.14%. In these countries, there were no significant differentiations found in such demographic characteristics such as socioeconomic status. However, APD is not low in all East Asian societies. It was found highly coupled with alcoholism and substance abuse in such countries as South Korea (Paris, 1998). However, counterevidence has emerged in different epidemiological studies. While 24% of American prisoners fit within the scope of psychopathy (by Hare’s PCL-R), only 8-10% of British prisoners met the criteria for psychopathy. Significant differences were also found when comparing the Scottish population with the North American population. It is imperative that the individual differences and idiosyncratic tendencies of psychometrics and diagnoses of each country be taken into account (Cooke, 1998).
However, it is unanimous that that antisocial behavior is on the rise, if not in the world, than most definitely in North America. Antisocial behavior is emerging more rapidly and dramatically than ever before. ECA and NCS results suggest that in the last 15 years, the lifetime prevalence of APD has doubled. This evidence highly suggests a serious and dangerous collective reaction to societal and environmental changes (Paris, 1998).
Evaluation of the Evidence
The problems with the studies are indeed crucial to how we view the rise of antisocial behavior. Personality disorders are and have always been known to be highly sensitive, and develop when there is a serious deficit, usually in the environment (Dodge, 1990; Cairns & Cairns, 1994). This calls for a serious analysis of differences in cultures, as personality disorders are emergent properties of dysfunction in culture. Therefore, a sufficient measure needs to be designed in order to be more generalizable to other societies.
The findings of antisocial behavior are undoubtedly more accurate in North America than for any other society. This is largely due to the fact that the measures were invented in North America by psychologists and sociologists who were and are familiar with their culture. Cultural norms are unfortunately not generalizable to other cultures (Cooke, 1998).
Review of Theories and Hypotheses
Researchers have strongly suggested that antisocial behavior is on the rise not because of poverty or low socioeconomic status, but because of a stronger sociological and collective force. A study conducted in 1966 during a time of modern society showed no differences in prevalence among poor and rich American families. “Poverty is not related to crime when families are functioning well” (Paris, 1998). Furthermore, somewhat of an APD epidemic occurred during the post-World War II years when the country was celebrating its time of prosperity. Paris suggests that the beginning of family dysfunction during that time of change and excitement was the main cause of such an epidemic.
It has been supported that social structures indeed have a heavy impact on the prevalence of personality disorders in general, either depriving or giving individuals of what they need to grow in a healthy environment. Personality, while being able to be studied on a macro-level, is essentially a very intimate component of the human being. Its development is psychological, and individual differences such as the attachment between an infant and its mother, is significant and crucial for its development. Thus, there is a strong argument that the prevalence of antisocial behavior has a lot to do with the family dynamic (Paris, 1998; Wolman, 1999; Dodge et al., 1990). Paris explains, The East Asian cultures with a low prevalence have cultural and family structures that are strongly protective against psychopathy. The low rates in Taiwan are most probably due to the high levels of cohesion in traditional Chinese families. These families have characteristics that present a veritable mirror image of the risk factors for psychopathy: Fathers are strong and authoritative, expectations of children are high, and family loyalty is prized. (Paris, 1998).
Substance abuse and dependence as mentioned, also has a high correlation with psychopathy. This also feeds into the psychology of the psychopath who is constantly thrill-seeking, hedonistic, impulsive and irresponsible (Hiday, 1999).
Psychologists are torn between the two sides of gene vs. environment. Dynamic systems psychologists do years of research on longitudinal studies of antisocial individuals starting at preschool age. With firm belief that the development of antisocial personality is not as simple and reductionist as a biological predisposition, dynamic systems theorists attempt to look at every aspect of the individual’s life, from a psychodynamic view, to a behavior view, to a sociological view. The research from this perspective is difficult because it is not always economically feasible, and it is also very exhaustive. However, it is necessary to affirm their hypothesis that the development of antisocial behavior is in every way involved with the environment that the organism develops within (Cairns & Cairns, 1994).
Neurologists and neuropsychologists who conduct research on the changes of neural structures in the brain suggest that there is a strong biological component to psychopathy (Kiehl et al., 1999). Twin studies have supported that the heritability concordance rate is significant in predicting the emergence of APD (Paris, 1998). These studies usually have no sociological implications whatsoever.
Evaluation and Conclusion
Given the evidence that supports the various theories, it would be less assumptuous to suggest that the development and epidemiology of antisocial behavior is very complex. Biological and neurological dysfunctions hold little ground due to the faulty reductionist thinking. A differentiation in neural structure correlated with a behavior is merely a correlation and does not imply causality. Furthermore, neurological dysfunction is uncommon, and to suggest that it is the cause for all APD epidemics would be presumptuous. The evidence that suggests antisocial behavior is cultural rises above all else. The cultural differences that emerge from the individual differences of family and other environmental influences seem to appear as the most crucial variables across cultures. Further studies need to be conducted to investigate the differences between prevalence rates of APD and the differences between cultural practices, beliefs, and lifestyles.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. (4th ed.). Washington, D. C.: Author.
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: pathways of youth in our time. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, D. J. (1998). Cross-cultural aspects of psychopathy. In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior (pp. 260-275). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Dahl, A. A. (1998). Psychopathy and psychiatric comorbidity. In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior (pp. 291-303). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science, 250, 1678-1683.
Hare, R. D. (1993). Without conscience: the disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Hiday, V. A. (1995). The social context of mental illness and violence. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 122-137.
Kiehl, K. A., Hare, R. D., McDonald, J. J., & Brink, J. (1999). Semantic and affective processing in psychopaths: an event-related potential (ERP) study. Psychophysiology, 36, 765-774.
Lahey, B. B., Waldman, I. D., McBurnett, K. Annotation: the development of antisocial behavior: an integrative causal model. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 669-682.
Paris, J. (1998). A biopsychosocial model of psychopathy. In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior (pp. 277-287). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Wolman, B. B. (1999). Antisocial behavior: personality disorders from hostility to homicide. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
(c)2001 Nicomacheanus