There is gender bias in our current mental health diagnostic system. This bias occurs for three reasons.
- There are genuine gender differences in the manifestation of behavioral disorders.
- Those creating the diagnostic categories are biased.
- Those making the diagnoses are biased.
Each of these reasons for gender bias is operative with regard to sociopathy. We would hope though that gender differences found in behavioral disorders reflect true physiologic differences between men and women. This week I will attempt to convince you that physiologic differences between men and women account for the higher prevalence of sociopathy in men.
That men and women are different physiologically is apparent from our appearance. Other than the obvious difference in external genitalia, men are on average taller, stronger, have facial hair, deeper voices and smaller breasts. But take each of these secondary sex characteristics individually and you will see where the problem lies. There are some women who are taller than many men. There are other women who are physically very strong and others who have deep voices. Much money is spent on fixing the “problem” of facial hair and small breast size in some women. The point is that gender differences represent group differences in aggregate qualities.
The real question is, “is there some physical difference between men and women that causes more men to develop into sociopaths?” Alternatively, maybe we just label men with aggressive behavior sociopaths and we fail to label women, or we call them something else.
Hormones and sociopathy
There are two fairly consistent hormonal findings in sociopaths as a group. Sociopaths tend to have higher levels of masculine hormones like testosterone (androgens). They also have lower stress hormone (cortisol) output in response to stress. Higher androgen levels have been found in both male and female sociopaths. However, the abnormal stress hormone response to stress has only been documented for male sociopaths. There is one study that shows this characteristic is not present in female sociopaths. Hold this thought in mind because I am going to come back to it.
Borderline personality disorder is more common in women
Although more men than women are diagnosed with sociopathy, there is a sister condition to sociopathy that overwhelmingly more women get diagnosed with. That condition is borderline personality disorder (BPD). There is even more gender bias in the diagnosis of BPD than there is in the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD/sociopathy). It is relatively unusual for men to be diagnosed with borderline personality disorder.
The DSM-IV defines BPD as: “a pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts.” If you have been involved with a sociopath, you may be saying, “Wow that sounds like my ex!” In fact many with ASPD could also be diagnosed with BPD and vise versa. Nearly 40% of a clinical population met criteria for BOTH disorders in one study.
Many psychoanalysts consider those with ASPD to have an “underlying borderline personality organization.” I can’t really comment on that because it all sounds like psychobabble to me. But I can comment on why there is so much over lap between borderline and antisocial personality disorders, and why one is more common in men and the other in women.
Over the course of human evolution, there has been substantial selection pressure for women to have empathy and self control. Simply speaking, a woman without these had much less chance to survive and reproduce. Empathy is important, but differentially important for males. Therefore, when our nervous systems develop under the influence of our sex steroids, it is relatively more unusual for a woman to develop completely devoid of empathy. Lack of empathy is a central characteristic of ASPD but is not as pronounced in BPD.
The development of ASPD and BPD
Mother Nature also selected for women who are more cautious, less risk taking and more fearful. This is why anxiety disorders are much more common in women. Fearlessness and risk taking are part of the ASPD diagnosis. Anxiety is a central feature of BPD.
On this blog, I have written a great deal about the human social dominance drive. This drive is also called the power motive or need for power. I have explained that this need for power motivates much of the sociopath’s behavior. The power motive is also largely under the influence of testosterone in both men and women. The power motive causes women with BPD to be “manipulative.” But they do not show the proactive aggression that characterizes ASPD. If they did, they would be called ASPD rather than BPD.
So why is there a gender difference in the manifestation of the power motive? The reason is stress hormones. There is an interesting overlap between sex hormones and stress hormones. The interplay between sex hormones and stress hormones is partly responsible for the development of ASPD, and an excessive focus on power in relationships. I believe this is the major reason why we more commonly see BPD in women and ASPD in men.
The hormonal stress response is different in males and females. In boys and men, stress activates the sympathetic nervous system and also releases cortisol from the adrenal gland. The sympathetic nervous system stimulates the testis to release more testosterone. This is likely why childhood stress is related to the development of ASPD in boys and is also why harsh punishment increases, not decreases aggressive behavior in problem boys. Stress substantially increases testosterone in many boys and testosterone increases power motivated behavior.
In social interactions, children learn submissive behavior due partly to cortisol released in response to encounters with adults who are dominant or more powerful. When the average at-risk boy has these power encounters with adults, his body releases more testosterone than cortisol. Thus, power struggles increase dominance/aggressive behavior in at risk boys because these boy’s adrenal glands do not release enough cortisol in response to stress.
Since women do not have testis, they do not have this androgen boost in response to stress. The adrenal glands of some women do release more androgens in response to stress, this is why stress is associated with the development of ASPD in some girls. Remember also, nearly all cultures pressure girls from an early age to suppress their dominance drives, whereas boys are encouraged to be competitive and aggressive.
Most women with BPD were sexually molested as young girls. A history of sexual molestation is also common in incarcerated women and in women diagnosed with ASPD. It is very likely that the body’s response to childhood stress dictates whether a woman develops ASPD as opposed to BPD.
There are many adults with ASPD and BPD who did not experience excessive childhood stress. Many of these adults had ADD/ADHD as children. Impulsivity is a primary symptom of ADHD, BPD and ASPD. In antisocial individuals this impulsivity is associated with the enjoyment of aggression and power over others. In BPD others are manipulated but the aggression is primarily directed at the self.
To sum it all up then, an out of control drive for social dominance is required for the full manifestation of ASPD. Sociopaths thrive on power. Physiologically, boys and men are predisposed to develop an excessive dominance drive. This difference in the power motive is responsible for part of the gender differences found in ASPD and BPD. The other part of the gender gap is explained by increased levels of anxiety in women.
G1S,
lots of studies show that testosterone reduces empathy. Still, we know from experience that it isn’t the only factor. I think that there is a feedback loop involved in the making of testosterone too.
http://www.africangreys.com/articles/greys/elephants.htm
I have theorized about why spaths make so many babies. I think it’s because they don’t see the babies as responsibilities rather they see them as future ties to the mothers of the babies and later, to the adult children that they can use as supply.
As much as I agree that spaths don’t care about their children, they do see all human beings as pawns to control. So the more babies, the more chance for pawns who can be mined for resources, supply and most of all – emotions.
Sam Vaknin was asked if spaths have enemies and he said, “no, they only have supply.”
Whether you love them or hate them, you are supply because both love and hate are emotions. ANY emotions you give them makes them feel powerful because you are giving them ATTENTION. So if their kids grow up to hate and resent them for having abandoned them, that’s just more supply.
I came back to this topic today because I have “Snakes at Work” by Dr. Hare and Dr. Babiak out at the moment and found a great piece on female psychopaths on pages 101 & 102 of that book.
To quote (it sounds like Dr. Hare is speaking here – the uses of capitals in the piece are mine because I couldn’t emphasize what was being said another way, like boldfacing):
“The issue is clouded by sex-role biases in the diagnosis of the disorder. Thus, when a female and male each exhibit a psychopathic pattern of core personality traits-grandiose, egocentric, selfish, irresponsible, manipulative, deceitful, emotionally shallow, selfish, callous, and lacking in empathy, remorse, and guilt-a clinician will often diagnose the male as a psychopath (or antisocial personality disorder) and the female as something else, usually histrionic or narcissistic personality.
“” the clinician’s diagnosis is influenced by expectations of how psychopaths should behave. That is, the clinician expects psychopaths to be tough, dominant, and aggressive, and a woman who does not project these characteristics is therefore not a psychopath.
“What the clinician fails to understand is that the behaviors of male and female psychopaths, like most other people, are shaped by the sex-role stereotypes cultivated by society. The same underlying personality structure may find different behavior and social expression”
“”makes them (Ps) aware of society’s expectations about sex roles, about what is expected of them as men and women. More than most people, they (psychopaths of both sexes) effectively use these expectations as potent tools for manipulation. SO A FEMALE PSYCHOPATH MIGHT MAKE FULL USE OF THE PASSIVE, WARM, NURTURING, AND DEPENDENT SEX-ROLE STEREOTYPE IN ORDER TO GET WHAT SHE WANTS FROM OTHERS, just as a male psychopath might use a macho image, intimidation, and aggression to achieve satisfaction of his desires.
“Female psychopaths effectively use society’s expectations about female behavior to their own advantage…
“…the public is just catching up with a reality that has been long recognized by writers and those in the entertainment business. Female psychopaths are frequently well portrayed in fiction, true-crime books, television, and movies.”
There is more, but I wanted to respect their copyright and didn’t want to quote too much.
By the way, Strongawoman, not all animals care for and bond with their young. Dr. Hare talked about this.
There are some animals, such as fish or turtles, that lay their eggs, fertilize them, and move on. They never know their offspring.
Dr. Hare theorized that this is one course of development/evolution that Nature can take for the survival of a species; and that when humans were developing, Ps resulted because this course was “considered” before the final “decision” was made and emotionally-healthy humans evolved into parents who bonded with care and care for their young.
G1S, That makes perfect sense!
Femalse spaths learn to use the cultural approprioate female mask, and the clinician is culturally biased on top of it.
And it’s true that in the animal world a large group of species just produce without ever taking care of them or ever knowing them. One could argue it’s the size of their nerve centre or brain, and that the “higher” form like mammals and birds always at least bond with young for a while (except for the cuckoo). But even in the “lower” groups there are some species who take care of their young. Snakes, turtles don’t stay around. But the fiercest and most dangerous crocodile is a mother croc whose eggs are hatching. Some fish do keep their young with them… the seahorse is an example (and it’s the father who keeps and protects them). Some frogs and toads protect the tadpoles, letting them grow in their mouth or on their back. And even some insects stay with their young and take extra care for them: bees, ants, …
It’s just that certain species opt for mass production with the chance that some will survive long enough to reproduce too… Other species produce less offspring, but take care of it until it’s physically adult enough to fend for itself. Nature helps the children, the parents and the tribes/herds with bonding hormones and imprinting, that must cause some type of sensation that we call love. It also creates for species that can learn more from experience and environment, instead of relying solely on instinctive “eat, sex, hide, fight,” behaviour, which caused an evolutionary expansion of the brain.
Kind of brings them to a whole new level, doesn’t it?
I’d add to this “I’m sick” and “I’m elderly” etc. Anything to gain sympathy.
My son’s P father did this during the initial child support hearing. Begged for the court’s understanding because he was an alcoholic. SURE! He had been in AA for 13 years and had been sober 11 of them. He didn’t mention that. And you know what the judge did? Cut him slack.
By the way, Oxy, IMHO, I think there are less crimes happening these days because of all the forensic science being shown on TV and in the movies. Criminals who once thought they could get away with so much are learning about the available science and even with the tiniest of clues, crimes can be solved and criminals identified.
Darwin,
Is it the cookoo that lays its eggs in another bird’s nest and expects that species to care for its young?
Maybe we’ve found the “official” bird for the State of Psychopathy? LOL
Yup, I misspelled it. The cookoo is THE spath bird! And then there are of course the cuckholding species… where some males take care of the family eggs and young along with mom, but mom actually got preggers by a spath version within the species.
G1S,
I think that Diane Downs is the perfect example of a female P. The woman who attempted to kill her 3 children.
If you don’t quite know how a woman can use her “female-ness” to be evil…You will know without any doubt after you see some of the old press interviews with her.
She LOVED the attention the press gave her but actually this worked against her in the end. Because she just never shut up. And she was her own worst enemy when she continued to open her mouth.
Her disconnect with her children was so obvious not only by what she said to incriminate herself but by her actions.
As her 2 children lay in the hospital in very serious condition she was out giving coy, flirty, interviews?
They showed some of these old interviews with the press & Diane Downs on 20/20 several months ago. Just SEEING them makes you sick in your gut.
What about this woman who was claiming to be a 9/11 victim and then turned out she was in Spain or some place like that when the planes hit? It was just on the news this week.
I saw a few clips of her. Quite feminine and “sweet.” They wrote a book about her, The Woman Who Wasn’t There.
Wikipedia has a page on her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tania_Head
She rose to head the survivors’ network.
Witsend, Diane Downs is ringing a bell with me, but I can’t remember the details.
G1S:
You thought she was feminine and sweet???? Huh??? There is going to be a show on ID about Tania Head this weekend.