Recently, there has been some discussion on Lovefraud about the relationship between antisocial behavior and sociopathy as a disorder. It has been argued that antisocial behaviors are learned by some people and so not all people who are antisocial are sociopaths. The idea is that behavior that is learned may not reflect a person’s underlying personality, and can therefore be unlearned. Many people also believe that personality features such as low empathy indicate sociopathy more than does antisocial behavior.
The above issues are important because if pervasive antisocial behavior is reflective of a deeply rooted personality profile as opposed to “social learning” then there are many more “sociopaths” than if there are a large number of antisocials who are really nice loving people underneath all that nasty behavior.
In the past three months there also has been discussion here about sex differences in violent and antisocial tendencies. These two discussions often become one discussion because there are some who believe our society teaches males to be violent and antisocial and that again “social learning” (as opposed to personality features) accounts for sex differences in antisocial behavior.
I am teaching a university course in “The Psychology of Gender” this semester. Due to the lack of good unbiased texts for the class, I am teaching from original research papers. In that context I discovered one of the most amazing books I have ever read. That book is Sex Differences in Antisocial Behavior, by Dr. Terrie Moffitt and colleagues. Anyone who wants to understand sociopaths/psychopaths should read that book. It is well worth the $20.00 – $25.00 price.
The book is not an opinion driven textbook. It is a report of years of very thorough research — The Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study which prospectively followed about 1500 men and women born between 4/1/1972 and 3/31/1973 in Dunedin, a provincial capital city on New Zealand’s South Island. The book covers the first 21 years of their lives. These individuals have been studied at age 32 and that data is reported in other sources. I obtained all those other sources and will share them with you.
The study collected comprehensive health data on all subjects; antisocial behavior was just one aspect of the research. They collected information every year or two by interviewing parents and teachers; and as the subjects got old enough they completed self-reports and brought friends and romantic partners in for interview. The researchers also accessed government and school records. The assessment tools used were well established valid instruments. They answered the following questions which also have implications for the etiology of antisocial behavior (ASB):
• Do males show increased ASB in all circumstances and in every antisocial activity?
• Are there sex differences in the developmental course of antisocial behavior?
• What is responsible for observed sex differences?
• Does ASB have different consequences for men and women?
In the next few weeks I will summarize and discuss their results in the context of other recent research. If we accept the 1 percent figure for PCL-R psychopathy in their population, we would expect about 15 psychopaths. Antisocial personality disorder has about a 4 percent prevalence rate so we would expect 60 sociopaths based on that figure. Keep that in mind as I go through the findings.
To give you an idea of this comprehensive study here is an outline of the assessments made:
• Teacher reports done at 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 (Rutter Child Scale)
• Self-reports were done at ages 11, 13, 15, 18, 21 (items included age appropriate antisocial and illegal acts).
• At ages 18 and 21 Study members were asked to nominate a friend or family member who knew them well to answer 4 items (problems with aggression, doing things against the law, alcohol, drug use).
Results
• The smallest sex difference was seen at age 15.
• Sex effect sizes ranged from d=.15 to d=.48 and indicated a small to moderate sex difference.
• The largest age difference in antisocial behavior was at age 21.
• Official records revealed a significant difference between males and females for every variable examined.
• Drug and alcohol use was most similar, but was still more common in males.
When they pooled the data on antisocial behavior they got results similar to those reported by psychopathy researchers including Dr. Robert Hare. These researchers say that “psychopaths” are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent and property crime in our society. In the Dunedin study most juveniles had broken the law but only a small number of juveniles were responsible for the majority of offending for both males and females. 50% of 64,062 “offenses” in 21 y/o males were reported by only 41 men (8%). 50% of the 23,613 offenses in women were reported by only 27 women (6%). The most active females were less prolific than their male counterparts.
There are several take-home messages given by the researchers:
• Males’ antisocial behavior is more often serious and is more likely to be sanctioned.
• Throughout the first two decades of life males consistently emerge as more antisocial than females with two exceptions.
• Males and females are most similar at age 15.
• Males and females are most similar in alcohol and drug use patterns.
To summarize then the Dunedin study identified a group of antisocial males and females whose pattern of antisocial behavior, beginning early in life resembles that of “psychopaths.” Most psychopathy researchers say that the disorder begins in childhood. The number of antisocial males and females identified by the researchers is very close to the number predicted, but was larger than expected. The researchers also collected personality profiles of all participants, data on intimate partner violence perpetration and data on whether subjects qualified for the diagnosis of conduct disorder. Kids with conduct disorder are considered to be “psychopaths in the making.” I will share those results with you in the next weeks.
Learnthelesson: I believe they make themselves the way they are … believing in their own BIG egos … then looking down at everyone … this, starting at a very young age where they are not sophisticated or wise enough to understand the damage they are doing to themselves. So it becomes a perpetual cycle of bad decisions from viewing life through their BIG egos.
If you notice everyone who is in the healing process on this site … what is the first thing we cling to? Humbleness… step by step, listening to truth from others who have gone through same experiences… expressing this knowledge through LOVE … not hate and manipulation. Keeping our minds and hearts open to LOVE.
Peace.
Little Blue Fish,
Your friend is searching for someone to validate her experience and the therapist is not doing that. The therapist is adding logs to the fire called “it’s all your fault.” SHAME ON HER!
Validation is critical to turning the corner.
Let me share something… when I was with the Bad Man, I shared with my housemate all the things that were going on and the horrible things he was saying to me. I was very confused. My friend… who is a dear dear friend… did not say ti was wrong what he was doing. She seemed as confused as I was. But.. there came a day after nearly 1 year that she put her foot down and said, “NO!” She finally said this is wrong and I won’t put up with it anymore. I was desperate for someone to say something like that. I was debating with a mad man and no one said anything. I needed to hear that I was being abused.
I felt that I was being abused but as long as people were saying things like “well, it does take two” and ” what is your contribution to this?” I could not draw a line in the sand.
Validation is critical.
When you go to a therapist and tell them how horribly you are being treated (maybe she is hiding this or glossing it over?) and then the therapist tells you basically that you are lucky that men hasn’t left you…. well that kind of sounds like what an abuser would say, doesn’t it?
Again.. hugs and life rafts for you friend!
Thank you Aloha 🙂
You are right; trying to Dx the creep distracts the main issue. And yes, she has been with him since she was a teen, she has absolutely no idea of what it is to be cherished by a man, without the abuse (verbal or otherwise); you know, a normal relationship, yes with its ups and downs but never with the yelling, name calling and physical threats.
Thanks!
Little Blue Fish,
Thanks for sharing the example of your friend. If you haven’t seen the page on the Inner Triangle on the main lovefraud site you might want to take a look. It comes after what’s a sociopath.
You do not need to diagnose people like your friend’s husband. I heard that story and thought:
1. Given the genetics he likely has problems with Impulse Control and Ability to Love.
2. If he has poor ability to love, dominance and power are likley too important for him.
3. I hope your friend holds on to her family because they likely can and do love her. He may be mad they are there to protect her from him. People who approach relationships from a power concern want to fully own their target and her family has prevented that.
4. If she were to appease him and take a break from her family he likely would not be able to fill the void.
Thank you Miss Liane, you are right, I thought about the genetic pattern, the lack or poor impulse control.
Thank you for the infortmation 🙂
Aloha!!!!!
ME DIPLOMATIC??????? ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO CHOKE SPUTTER SPIT!
How you do JOKE!!!!
Dear Little Blue Fish (love the name)
You had me at “he calls her fat”. That is abusive. Have you or her family pointed out his behaviors as abusive? As mentioned above, she may need the repeated validation.
Hi Stargazer, thank you 🙂
Her family doesn’t know, of course; another friend of ours knows and this friend thinks he is neurotic and she is kind of fed up with our dear friend’s husband.
As for me, I told her once, that her family problems (her family of origin) have nothing to do with how he reacts, the impulse, the out of control madness and the way he treats her; that I absolutely agree with the fact that sometimes the families of origin can be a *problem*, however, HE is the one who has a problem, and the therapist and she (my friend), don’t see it; this was last week, she went to her therapist again this week after I told her this but I didn’t ask her how it went, it can be draining; I will tell her to come here and read and see how her therapy develops, my dear friend is in denial, denial, denial.
Another poster mentioned that marriages like this can go on for decades or even a lifetime ïŒ so I will see what happens; oh and I just found out that my dear friend doesn’t tell her husband that she calls her sister, because if he finds out, forget it, its chaos and drama ïŒ
So here is another example of the controlling issues, to say the least.
Talking about female psychopaths. I watched 48 hour mystery tonight which was about a woman named Ann Miller, and her husband Eric Miller. About 2000 she poisoned him with arsenic (a bad way to go!) without any “warning” as far as anyone knew. It took five years for her conviction, and she actually copped a plea since they managed to get the goods on her.
She had had an affair with a dupe to pass the blame off on him, apparently, but at the same time was having a long distance affair with another guy, not sure how she met the other guy, but my guess is internet.
Both Ann and her husband Eric were the “perfect people” he with a PhD and researching aids in kids. They had a baby that was about 4-5 months old when she started the poisoning him. She kept it up for quite some months then gave him the lethal dose in his IV at the hospital.
She also did some “scott peterson-like” things, like as her husband lay dying in the ICU with his parents and sibs there, she went out and got a salon make over. She had also taken an out of town trip with her dupe-lover a couple of days before the husband died.
The Detective Morgan stalked this woman for years trying to prove it, but was finally able to get her because her dupe-lover killed himself and he had told all the details to his attorney. The DA got the client priviledge revoked because the dupe was dead (shot himself) and so Ann took a 25 year guilty plea.
Detective Morgan called her a “Psychopath” and went on about how she had NO remorse, NO guilt.
I think her worst downfall was that she did the arrogant Scott Peterson thing where she didn’t know how to act the grieving part. Witnesses said she did a good job of the “grief” at the funeral, but then she had the body cremated against the wishes of his family.
The discussion also covered that she could have divorced him, but that would have destroyed her “perfect” image, so she went for the killing.
This woman, I think, would have been hard to predict as a killer, but I definitely agree with Detective Morgan that she is a psychopath.
The program has been covering psychopathic killers, but this one NAMED NAMES AND PUT THE LABEL ON her. It didn’t do anything though to help others see any “red flags” in the less sneaky psychopaths.
I think this woman though (at least from what was reported) didn’t wave a lot of red flags, but then the best witness, her husband, is too dead to tell us anything he saw waving in the breeze before she killed him over a period of 4-5 months..
i watched as well and was glad to see the bluntness and labels on her. Callous, callous , callous just like my s. Thank God for the tenacious detective and he feels like we do i think . No winning with these predators.