Essential to understanding the neurobiology of violence is this: The brain's impulse-mediating capacity is related to the ratio between the excitatory activity of the lower, more-primitive portions of the brain and the modulating activity of higher, sub-cortical and cortical areas.... Any factors which increase the activity or reactivity of the brainstem (e.g., chronic traumatic stress) or decrease the moderating capacity of the limbic or cortical areas (e.g., neglect, EtOH (n2)) will increase an individual's aggressivity, impulsivity and capacity to display violence.... The effects of emotional neglect in childhood predispose to violence by decreasing the strength of the sub-cortical and cortical impulse-modulating capacity and by decreasing the value of other humans due to an incapacity [sic] to empathize or sympathize with them. This decreased value of humans means that there is a much lower threshold for the unattached person to act in an antisocial fashion to gratify their impulses. (Perry 1997)Since the majority of violence in Western society takes place in the home, what should be a safe environment can become the place where a child is neurologically conditioned for accepting and engaging in violent behavior. (n3)
Nevertheless, most children who experience violence do not become adult perpetrators. (n4) Lisak, Hopper, and Song have indicated the possibility of two divergent pathways for (male) survivors of childhood violence, especially sexual abuse. In the first path, a male child victim may experience psychological distress, especially with regard to gender identity. This was, in fact, positively correlated to developing empathetic abilities and rejecting violent behavior, especially as gender identity is related to culturally communicated gender stereotypes and gender rigidity. (n5)
Significantly, Lisak et al (1996) also correlated the violent pathway with an inability to empathize with others. This inability is related to the victim’s attempt to suppress the volatile emotional states stemming from the abuse by adopting stereotypical masculinity.
Heaving sealed himself off from his own pain, the perpetrator may well seal off his capacity to feel the pain of others, and thereby diminish a crucial inhibition against interpersonal violence. Simultaneously, his rigid gender conformity may accentuate his reliance on anger as a culturally acceptable outlet for his emotions, again increasing his propensity for aggressive interpersonal behavior.” (739-740)
As Perry (1997) noted, important variables affecting the impact of violence on brain development include the type and pattern of violence, the presence of supportive adults, and the child’s age. Following Lisak, Hopper, and Song, this list might also specifically include teaching and support directly related to gender stereotypes and empathy.
***Notes1) Violent behavior engaged in by a child will also impact brain development. (Perry 1997)2) EtOH, ethyl alcohol, is studied to investigate the relationship of alcohol consumption to aggression.3) “Understanding the roots of community and predatory violence is impossible unless the effects of intrafamilial violence, abuse and neglect on the development of the child are examined. Indeed, the adolescents and adults responsible for community and predatory violence likely developed the emotional, behavioral, cognitive and physiological characteristics which mediate these violent behaviors as a result of intrafamilial violence during childhood.” (Perry 1997)4) That is, most perpetrators experienced childhood violence, but most childhood victims do NOT become adult perpetrators. For example, in one study, 38% of male child victims reported adult perpetration, while 70% of adult perpetrators reported experiencing childhood violence. (Lisak, Hopper, and Song: 721)5) “One startling finding was revealed in comparisons of nonperpetrating abused men and nonabused men. Abused men, particularly those who were sexually abused, actually appeared to be better adjusted than nonabused men on measures of gender stress, emotional constriction and homophobia.” (Lisak, Hopper and Song 1996: 739)
