Running head: NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 1

Nature vs Nurture: What Influences Sociopaths ?

Thales Santos

Scott Sievert

Writing for College Success

Divine Savior Academy

NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 2

Jodi Arias, in 2008, was tried for murder of her boyfriend. This case sparked

conversations in the country, with many judging her and calling her all sorts of names. Many

professionals would describe her as a sociopath, and going by what the case uncovered, Arias

may qualify to be one as per the opinions of professionals in psychiatry. Sociopathy has proved

to be a very mysterious subject according to the opinions of many. Martha Stout, a Harvard

professor, discusses this matter in her book, ​The Sociopath Next Door​, which has been known to

provoke thought and extensive study into what makes sociopaths tick. Sociopaths have always

been conventionally generalized as people who primarily possess the malicious beliefs of putting

others into harm’s way, largely owing to the fact that very little is known about the overall

mental and physical makeup of sociopaths. Extensive study and consideration of professional

opinions reveal the controversial truth, which cannot be given as a single answer, but when

pieced together, points towards sociopaths having very little or no true feelings towards others at

all, which allows them to view others as just objects. This means that sociopaths may not be

malicious people in actual sense, but the effect of their behaviour that is malicious, even when

their intentions may not be the same.

The ultimate result of sociopathy is that the sociopath typically destroys those who are

close to them, emotionally, pretty much the same way one may take out characters in a shooting

video game with no emotions attached. Sociopaths lack real human feelings and a moral anchor,

according to Harvard professor Martha Stout, and therefore they do not possess a sense of social

obligations which is the ultimate rule of forming any relationship, thus those close to these

sociopaths end up suffering deeply. Sociopaths are also known to have an astonishing sense of

entitlement that mainly stems from feelings of rage. Sociopaths according to Stout, feel deep
NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 3

anger inside their often charming exterior and are filled with deep conviction that they absolutely

possess the right to act in any way they may feel like at a particular moment. Often, many of

those who have lived around a sociopath would describe them as very resentful in various

moments while turning into charmers in the next moments. This aspect often creates confusion,

making sociopathy a very mysterious subject. In a relationship, a sociopath will always assume

his or her position to be a the helm of things, displaying a classic example of a Machiavellian

creature, who displays an outward very polished look to the world by on the inside, is a hidden

self that can be described as possessing a rigid and calculated agenda which is supposed to keep

him of her, in control of everything.

At the hands of sociopaths, the most gullible and kind people endure suffering, especially

due to the fact that sociopaths feel no remorse even when they are confronted about any evil

deeds. Those who suffer also endure a difficult healing process even after a relationship with a

sociopath has been destroyed, and the question lingering in the minds of many is how these

sociopaths are able to harness that much power over them, which ends up destroying them even

further. For someone with real human feelings and a deep sense of social obligation, it is difficult

to understand how one can be responsible for so much cruelty and feels nothing for the people

that he or she has caused pain.

The questions which has now become the most frequently posed to psychiatrists and

other professionals is the genesis of sociopaths. People often ask want causes sociopathy. “Are

they usually born like that or they acquire over time?” is one of the most asked questions

whenever there is a professional presents to answer psychiatric questions. Nature vs nurture in

this sense, has always been the debate, with many coming up with explanations from conducted
NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 4

studies to argue for either. The truth is, there has not been a united from when it comes to

explaining the source of sociopathy, which consequently renders remedying the condition, partly

futile. This paper extensively analyses the work of professionals, available, to try and uncover

where the influences of sociopathy lie with regard to nature vs nurture. ​This study looks to

prove that behaviors that are sociopathic tend to be genetically passed even though

environmental factors influences them as well.

Literature Review

Nurture

Nurture in this sense explains sociopathy as an acquired behaviour and thus is not

encoded in one’s genetic makeup. The concept of nurture attempts to explain that with the right

biological conditions, a person’s background is also responsible for the development of

sociopaths. Early life experiences are therefore likely to make the person in question develop

into a sociopath. Examples of these early life experiences include, rejection, abuse, and poverty,

along with other adverse condition that may push one towards sociopathy. It has always been

commonly noted also that sociopaths hailing from unstable backgrounds commit more violent

crimes, in comparison to sociopaths from stable backgrounds.

A family that is characterized by chaotic behaviors among its members, in conjunction

with the absence of a parent’s supervision from parents or other people who are adult role

models may give rise to sociopathy. In a society where positive behaviour is also not rewarded

and even where negative behaviour receives praises may be fuel for sociopathy. In this sense,
NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 5

children learn from an early age that certain moral violations are acceptable and they begin to

justify wrongdoing as what the society readily accepts.

Alloway et al. (2008) in the United Kingdom conducted a study to examine the

contribution of cognitive, behavioral and environmental factors on antisocial juveniles that had

been expelled from school and revealed that a majority came from poor economic and social

status. The region from which the examined adolescents came from in the United Kingdom,

represents one of the poorest regions in the United Kingdom, where there is a relatively higher

level of unemployment and education levels are relatively lower, leaving the people of this

region to enjoy lower socio-economic status (Alloway et al., 2008). This study seeks to show that

the examined adolescents were greatly influenced by the living environmental conditions that

prevailed in the region they hailed from, which compelled them to show sociopathy behaviour.

The study however acknowledges that there could be genetic influences on the adolescents, that

they might have inherited from their parents, which would mean the precise development process

of this condition is still unknown to a great extent.

This is mirrored in a study carried out by Tuvblad et al.(2011), 2600 male and female

twins who came from the Swedish Twin Registry. The anti-social behaviour of these twins was

measured at different occasions as they grew older, to establish stability in their antisocial

behaviour over time, by making use of a common latent persistent antisocial behaviour factor

(Tuvblad et al., 2011).

The variance in the latent factor was most influenced by genetic influences at 67% while

environmental factors influenced 26% while the remaining 7% was due to differing

environments. The study further suggests that a smaller sample size of twins, say 1500 and
NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 6

below, show greater influence from genetic factors while with a larger sample size, both genetic

and environmental factors seemed to be a play.

Another study which incorporates both genetic and environmental factors into the

behaviour of sociopaths was conducted by Baker et al. (2006), who did a general study into the

heritability of antisocial factors that are correlated. The study examined people who are

genetically related to establish trends of antisocial behaviour and makes three conclusions. “First,

behavioral genetic studies of twins and adoptees have demonstrated that heredity plays a role in

antisocial behavior, including various forms of aggression and criminality, by finding greater

concordance for such behavior in genetically related individuals compared to non relatives living

in the same environment. Second, various correlates of antisocial behavior, including personality

factors such as impulsivity, sensation-seeking, risk-taking, and callous-unemotional traits, are

known to be at least partly genetically influenced. Third, psychiatric outcomes related to

antisocial behavior, including antisocial personality disorder, gambling, and substance use and

abuse, have also been investigated in genetically informative designs, and each of these has

demonstrated significant genetic influence”( Baker, Bezdjian, & Raine, 2006).

Nature

Raine and Yang (2006), in their journal article ​Neural foundations to moral reasoning

and antisocial behavior, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience​, sought to analyze

sociopathy from a neurological perspective, in a bid to bring out sociopathy as a problem that is

natural. The journal article argues that in antisocial, psychopathic and violent individuals, certain

parts of the brain are usually compromised, which include: both dorsal and ventral regions of the

Prefrontal Cortex, amygdala, hippocampus, angular gyrus, anterior cingulate and temporal cortex
NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 7

including the superior temporal gyrus (Raine & Yang, 2006). The journal compares sociopaths

with normal persons. In the brain, “regions activated during moral decision-making in normal

people include the polar/medial Prefrontal Cortex, ventral Prefrontal Cortex, angular gyrus,

amygdala and posterior cingulate. Brain areas associated with both moral reasoning and

antisocial behavior significantly overlap. The rule-breaking, immoral behavior of antisocial and

psychopathic individuals may in part be due to impairments in those brain regions sub serving

moral cognition and emotion. While impairments to the moral emotional system may be primary

in antisocialism, disruption of moral cognitive and cognitive-emotional systems are also

possible” (Raine & Yang, 2006). The journal, however, puts out a disclaimer that these results

are only provisional. This however, points towards the problem of sociopathy being one that may

be naturally associated with the performance of the sociopaths’ brain and thus it should be taken

that they are not in control of how they behave.

Ciaramelli, Muccioli, Làdavas & Pellegrino(2007) discovered that ventromedial

prefrontal lesions are also bound to affect the moral decision making, and patients with them are

bound to view personal moral violations as acceptable as opposed to normal subjects observed.

This journal argued that the ventromedial prefrontal cortex is an important part of opposing

moral violations. This section of the brain is responsible for assisting one forecast the future and

weigh the emotional consequences of one’s actions as they engage in decision making. This area

of the brain is therefore responsible for enabling one to resist moral violations and regard them as

wrong. According to this journal, it is also believed that ventromedial prefrontal cortex is at the

centre of the neural make up which allows one to persevere through a sacrifice now with the

hope of reaping benefits later on. The ventromedial prefrontal cortex mechanisms are also in
NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 8

play when we people are willing to punish social unfairness even at our own expense. Any

compromise therefore, to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex may lead one to find moral

violations an acceptable behaviour. This journal therefore argues that the decision making

process of a sociopath is heavily influenced by the way his brain is organized. According to the

researchers , neural mechanisms in the brain will always influence decision making process,

regardless of individual life experiences. Scientists argue that emotions are a major part of

decision making process, and form a major part of the moral anchor when one is in a dilemma

thus filling one with a feeling of social responsibility. When it comes to sociopaths, this part of

their decision making process is missing as a result of compromise to parts of the brain that give

one the chance to take action with careful consideration of morality. The above experts argue

that it is impossible for a sociopath to make any consideration to their moral obligation when it is

their nature to not be able to have one in the first place.

Application

The information above shows that there is a relationship between the behaviour of

sociopaths and their genetic makeup, as well as environmental factors. It is also worth noting that

there has not been a united front when it comes to explaining the etiology of sociopathy and this

has caused widespread speculation concerning the source of sociopathic behaviour.

I chose to talk about sociopaths for my senior project because this topic has become more

and more relevant in the recent years. I have a deep passion for psychology and I wanted my
NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 9

project to be psychology related. The 2017 Las Vegas Shooting was what solidified my decision

on doing the project about this topic.

Survey of Teachers and Students

In order to have thorough research on this project, a survey was conducted on high

school students and teachers from Pre-K to 12th grade at Divine Savior Academy (Appendix A).

The students and teachers were required to fill in a brief questionnaire on the subject of

sociopathy. A total of 50 people filled participated in the questionnaire which contained 4

questions. The first question asked whether the participants had dealt with or witnessed a case of

sociopathic behaviour. A significant 49% answered “yes” to the question. The second question

asked the respondents who had ticked yes to the first question for information on characteristics

displayed by individuals that displayed sociopathic behaviour. The results of this question are

displayed in Figure 1 below. There were five options to choose from in this question with the

option of writing one’s own answer as one of the options. Among these options were “​They had

no moral compass​,” “​They did not understand the obligations of a relationship​,” “​They showed

no emotions when confronted about bad behaviour​,” “​They easily find moral violations

acceptable when presented with a moral dilemma,​” and “​Write any other​.”

Figure 1.
NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 10

From Figure 1, 50% out of all the respondents that had witnessed a case of sociopathy felt that

the sociopaths had no moral compass, 35% felt the sociopaths did not understand relationship

obligations, 40% showed no emotions when confronted about wrongdoing, 38% easily found

moral violations acceptable when presented with a moral dilemma and 60% wrote other answers.

Figure 2​.

Figure 2 shows that 39% of the respondents thought that the sociopathic behaviour was in

the family of the sociopaths and therefore it was genetic. 40% thought that the sociopathic
NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 11

behaviour was influenced by environment, while 21% thought that the sociopathic behaviour

was brought about by both genetic and environmental factors.

Analysis of Survey Conducted

Although no conclusion should be drawn from this study of just 50 respondents, it serves

as a pointer towards the fact that little is known about the etiology of sociopathic behaviour. The

first question was meant to show how prevalent cases of sociopathy. The significant number of

respondents who said yes, may be biased, but it still does not preempt the fact that many people

are still affected by cases of sociopathy. In the second question, most of the respondents added

an extra answer, which means that sociopaths show different characteristics that are varied,

which shows that there is need for an extensive study into the condition. The answers to the third

question show that people are convinced that both genetic and environmental factors affect

sociopathy.

Solution to the Problem

Despite the fact that little is known about sociopathy, its believe that a neural moral

hypothesis of sociopathy is worthy of examination in later studies. Neuroscientists as well as

lawyers alike are starting to bring up important questions about the consequences of new

neuroscience knowledge that is affecting the society at large. Sociopaths may not be mean in

actual sense since they are cognitively capable of telling right from wrong, but if they missing

the capacity to feel the difference between of what is moral and what is not, owing to

neurobiological problems which are beyond their control, then the arising question becomes

whether are they fully responsible any criminal behavior. If they are not, then another question
NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 12

arises as to what are the implications for punishment as well as understanding of justice and

retribution.

At DSA, through psychology and sociology classes, we can educate students by going

deeper in the matter of nature vs. nurture in class. Although this topic comes back in later on

conversations, not much is discussed about it. This could be a way to understand and apply it in

society from a young age.

Conclusion

Based of research carried out by experts in the field of psychiatry, it is clear that

sociopathy is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. However, it is not really

known to what extent both of these factors influence sociopathy. There is no united front when it

comes to explaining the etiology of sociopathy, as a result, a lot of people are not really

understood as to why they do the things they do. Neuroscientists have a lot of work in

extensively and comprehensively getting to the bottom of sociopathy. These experts might be

key to uncovering why that shrewd boss at work is the way he is, or even why some people just

enjoy hitting animals especially dogs, whenever they find them peacefully resting under a tree or

any other place. It is clear that more work needs to be done to uncover more facts with regard to

sociopathy.
NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 13

References

Adrian Raine and Yaling Yang. (2006, 1 December). Neural foundations to moral reasoning and

antisocial behavior, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Volume 1, Issue 3,

Pages 203–213. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsl033

In this journal, Raine and Yaling summarize important findings derived from brain

imaging study that delves into both antisocial behavior as well as moral reasoning, and

uses this information to construct a neural moral model that explains antisocial behavior.

Raine and Yaling focus on impairment of the dorsal and ventral regions of the prefrontal

cortex, amygdala, angular gyrus, anterior cingulate, hippocampus and temporal cortex, as

key to explain their case. They focus on the regions that highest activated when a test

subject is making a moral decision among the ones listed above. The criteria here is that

antisocial behaviour is influenced heavily by impairment of some of the structures that

are vital for emotion, as well as moral cognition.

Alloway TM, Lawrence A, Rodger S. (2008) “Antisocial Behavior: Exploring Behavioral,

Cognitive, and Environmental Influences on Expulsion” Appl. Cognit. Psychol.

27:520–526.

Alloway et al. conducted a study on adolescents who had been expelled from school in

the United Kingdom for showing sociopathic behaviour. This study traces the life of

these expelled students to reveal that their socio-economic background influenced their

actions in school. This study argues that the adolescents had been traumatized by their

background life, by being subjected to a life of abject poverty and low social class, as a

result of the region they came from. The purpose of the study was to examine the
NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 14

contribution of cognitive, behavioral and environmental factors on the antisocial

juveniles. This study used a geodemographic database and revealed that 53% of the

adolescents came from poor economic and social status. The region from which the

examined adolescents came from, in the United Kingdom, represents one of the poorest

regions in the United Kingdom, where there is a relatively higher level of unemployment

and relatively lower education levels, in comparison with other regions.

Baker, L. A., Bezdjian, S., & Raine, A. (2006). BEHAVIORAL GENETICS: THE SCIENCE

OF ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR. Law and Contemporary Problems, 69(1-2), 7–46.

This study does a general study into the heritability of antisocial factors that are

correlated. The study takes a look at people who are genetically related to establish trends

of antisocial behaviour. The environment in which these people live is also put under

consideration in order to fully unpack the genetic and environmental factors that may be

key to antisocial behaviour. This study pays attention to twins and adoptees and focuses

on any antisocial behaviour from them e.g. cases of aggression and criminality, tracing

this behaviour to people that they are genetically related to, in comparison to those to

whom they are not related. This study looks to prove that behaviors that are sociopathic

are genetically passed. Examples of these behaviors include, risk-taking,

callous-emotionlessness and impulsivity. In this regard, this study establishes a trend

among people who are genetically related. This study also goes further ahead to list

various psychiatric outcomes which are related to antisocial behaviour.

NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 15

Blackmund. “Nature vs. Nurture: The Making of a Psychopath – 16blackmund –

Medium.”​Medium​, Medium, 1 June 2016,

medium.com/@16blackmund/nature-vs-nurture-the-making-of-a-psychopath-c9afd56d73

56.

Elisa Ciaramelli, Michela Muccioli, Elisabetta Làdavas, and Giuseppe di Pellegrino. (2007, 1

June). Selective deficit in personal moral judgment following damage to ventromedial

prefrontal cortex, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Volume 2, Issue 2, Pages

84–92. Retrieved from, https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsm001

This journal incorporates a study that seeks to prove that the decision making process of

human beings is influenced primarily by neural mechanisms. According to the study

carried out, there is evidence of an increase in medial prefrontal activation plays a major

role in contemplating personal moral dilemmas in comparison with impersonal moral

dilemmas, which gives suggestion that ventromedial prefrontal cortex is instrumental in

personal moral judgement. This is despite the fact that the study is cognizant that

functional image results cannot be used to prove that a certain area of the brain is used for

a particular cognitive function. This has to be done using lesion techniques. In this case

patients with focal brain damage may be used for evidence gathering. In light of this, this

study used 7 subjects with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions, and 12 healthy subjects

in impersonal moral dilemmas, non-moral dilemmas and also personal moral dilemmas,

and made comparisons to come up with conclusions. The study uncovered that, in

comparison to normal controls, patients showed more readiness in accepting moral

NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 16

violations as acceptable when it came to personal moral dilemmas, and they did not waste

time doing so. They were however, comparable to the normal controls when it came to

impersonal and non-moral dilemmas. These results indicate the importance to the

ventromedial prefrontal cortex in moral decision making.

P, Lyse. “Sociopaths: Nature Vs. Nurture.” ​Prezi.com​, 2014, May 5

prezi.com/u3apn0i2orzh/sociopaths-nature-vs-nurture/.

This presentation tries to expose a new concept not mentioned in this paper before. It

states that sociopathic children are often born with a certain abnormality in the front lobe

of their brains; this is the area which controls judgement and a balanced perception of

her own needs and the surrounding others.

It also states that environmental factors such as parenting can increase the productivity on

the abnormal part of the front lobe therefore increasing chances of sociopathy.

Smithstein, Samantha. “Nature vs Nurture: the Debate Rages On.” ​Psychology Today​, Sussex

Publishers, 1 Aug. 2010,

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/what-the-wild-things-are/201008/nature-vs-nurture-the-

debate-rages​.

Recently, there has been more research on the brain indicating that ​sociopathy

may be ​biologically based​. This means that while it may be true that some people

who are incapable of experiencing ​empathy​ towards others have had abusive or

traumatic​ childhoods, these experiences don't cause their condition. Indeed,

NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 17

there are people in our society who would qualify as ​psychopathic​ who have had

childhoods no different than most (and no different from their siblings, who turned

out differently).

Tuvblad C, Narusyte J, Grann M, Sarnecki J, Lichtenstein P. (2011) “The Genetic and

Environmental Etiology of Antisocial Behavior from Childhood to Emerging Adulthood”

Behav. Genet. 41:629–640.

Tuvblad et al. carried out a study on 2600 male and female twins who came from the

Swedish Twin Registry, in order to show that both genetic and environmental factors

influence the onset of sociopathy. The antisocial behaviour of the twins was measured at

different ages; 8-9, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 years old in order to determine by how much

genetic and environmental factors influenced their antisocial behaviour. Measurement

was done using a common latent persistent antisocial behaviour factor. The variance in

the latent factor was most influenced by genetic influences at 67% while environmental

factors influenced 26% while the remaining 7% was due to differing environments. The

study further suggests that a smaller sample size of twins, say 1500 and below, show

greater influence from genetic factors while with a bigger sample size, both genetic and

environmental factors seemed to be a play.

NATURE VS NURTURE: WHAT INFLUENCES SOCIOPATHS 18

APPENDIX A

1. Have you ever dealt with or witnessed a person of Sociopathic behaviour? If yes, proceed

to question #2, if no, skip to question #3.

2. What were the characteristics of the sociopathic person? Check all applicable answers.

● They had no moral compass.

● They did not understand the obligations of a relationship.

● They showed no emotions when confronted about bad behaviour.

● They easily find moral violations acceptable when presented with a moral dilemma.

● Write any other

3. Based on your knowledge and experience, what do you think was the cause of the

behaviour? Tick one option.

● It runs in their family

● It’s because of where they live

● Both of the above.