The psychopath is a completely superficial creature. Any feeling he conveys is merely an illusion, a parlor trick designed to fool the untrained observer. For he is a being that, apparently, does not feel as other humans do. It is thought that he simply lacks any form of true emotion. He feels nothing for anyone; he does not have the capacity for love. It is from this attribute alone that so many of his characteristics are derived. His lack of conscience, for instance, extends from this quality (Cleckley, 1988).
The aggressive psychopath show a common pattern over his life. As a child, some signs of psychopathic behavior may include: lying, stealing, fighting, truancy, and generally resisting authority in any way possible. In adolescence, early – often aggressive – sexual behavior, use of drugs and alcohol at an early age, and other delinquencies are often dominant characteristics. As an adult, behaviors from adolescence continue, and crime often becomes a part of the psychopath’s life. The antisocial person is most likely to be unable to hold down a job, and is not a responsible parent. After the age of thirty, the activities of sexual promiscuity, fighting, and committing crimes often diminish significantly. Throughout the life of the psychopath, an inability to maintain warm, lasting relationships is constant because of the lack of emotion, or indifference to other people (Millon, 1981). Another constant characteristic of the psychopath is a failure to follow any life plan, and anything they are involved with – even if they show potential for success – is bound to end in failure. It seems that the psychopath may even go out of his way to fail. These are the typical characteristics of the psychopath as he matures and develops (Cleckley, 1988).
However, what are the possible causes of such behavior in an individual? There have been a variety of causes cited by many psychologists, some more scientifically valid than others. It is often hard to derive a cause when dealing with an affliction of the mind because this type of disease leaves much room for subjective inference and speculation that cannot always be disproved.
Potential causes of the antisocial personality
Many speculations have been made in regard to what may cause behavior observed in subjects of the psychopathic personality. These speculations include: environmental or experiential causes; genetic defects inherited from the parent; psycho-dynamic theoretical perspectives; brain damage or disease; and possible cognitive learning impairments. Each of these views has strengths and weaknesses, some views having a stronger argument than others, but all views have some merit, and certainly some significance in the history of the study of this problem.
Perhaps the strongest argument for a cause of the antisocial personality is with regard to the experience of parental discontent and hostility. There are many reasons for parental hostility towards the child, some stemming from frustrations due directly to the child itself, and others that are rooted elsewhere, with the frustration from somewhere else directed at the child. If a parent is hostile towards the child, the child sees and imitates this hostility. The child, at this young age has very few alternatives to observe as a model for behavior, and imitates whatever he sees – in this case, hostility (Millon, 1981). Millon (1981) gives a detailed inference between the three stages of neuropsychological development compared in line with the development of the antisocial personality due to the hostile parent.
The first stage, claims Millon, is the sensory attachment stage. More important than the amount of stimulation the infant is exposed to is, rather, the quality of this stimulation. If a hostile parent treats an infant roughly, the infant is cued to mistrust the environment, viewing it with suspicion (Millon, 1981).
The second stage of this development is the sensorimotor autonomy stage. Having learned to mistrust the world they live in, these children begin this stage with a feeling that they cannot depend on others. They feel they must turn to themselves to provide pleasure and avoid pain. By the end of this stage, they mistrust their parents and basically feel they must be independent of them (Millon, 1981).
The third stage of neuropsychological development is known as the intracortical-initiative stage. Suspicious of others, and more confident in their own independence, these children begin to reject the guidance of other people. They learn to reject not only their parents, but also the adult world which they represent. This rejection of authority is inherent in the shaping of their own identity. One effect of rejecting authorities is to lose the guidance society provides for controlling impulses. They must come up with their own methods of handling impulses. Often, at this stage of adolescence, most have great difficulty in repressing actions which will fill their impulsive desires. Also, at this point, their amount of concern for others is insignificant regarding the possible dangers or consequences of their actions (Millon, 1981).
This theory of Millon’s is quite easily understandable and simplistic. It has the elements of a good theory, but there are no means, at present, to prove scientifically what he infers in his hypothesis. Nevertheless, even though there is an obstacle present in a means to test this theory, it certainly cannot be disproved, and it does seem like a logical train of thought.
Another factor hypothesized to be prominent in development of antisocial behavior is a lack of parental models. If these models are not present for the child to imitate, then he is left to fend for himself, and imitate what models he can. This situation seems apparent in families in which the father has left the mother and child on their own, with little money. The mother is working most of the time to carry the financial burden that has been left on them. Since the child is left to fend for himself, the models he imitates may be those like himself who have little parental supervision, and lack a strong moral foundation. This fact, coupled with the rejection he feels from the mother always being away at work and the father never being there at all, are grounds to hypothesize a lack of moral development and an independence so often found in the antisocial personality (Millon, 1981).
This theory too, is well thought out, easily comprehendible, and does prove a good argument for the development of the psychopath. This theory is more easily testable in that one could, for example, draw a correlation between poor single parent families and development of psychopaths in such families. Indeed, testable theories are advantageous in their ability to be disproven.
