Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Discuss the Biological (Biological Bases (Genetic influences suggest a…

- - - - In terms of violent behaviour, twin and adoptive studies have provided overwhelming support for a genetic influence on violent behaviour (Popma & Raine, 2006). Percentages of variance attributed to genetics does vary depending on study (Waldman & Rhee, 2006),
        This variability does not negate the validity of genetic influence on violent behaviour, but instead can be attributed to studies using a variety of semi-overlapping phenotypes, including dimensional personality traits (Walsh & Ellis, 2007).
        
        HOWEVER, as Goldman & Ducci (2007) argued, many individual genes may be involved in coding the neurobiological risk factors for crime in general, but it is the way that these genes interact with the environment that is likely to be the most important when considering the development and expression of violent behaviour.
  - - - HOWEVER, importantly, violence is only predicted by the presence of the MAO-A gene when this gene is present and the individual has a history of neglect (Caspi et al., 2002; Beaver, 2010). In this instance, neglect (the environmental factor) displays an activation and multiplicative effect, genetics alone, or the biological basis, is not enough to predispose violent behaviour.
  - - - The relationship between deficits in the PFC and violent behaviour has been exemplified on several occasions (Raine et al., 2000; Volkow et al., 1995). Potentially the most convincing report of PFC dysfunction being linked to violent behaviour was Raine et al. (2004), who found that murderers had much lower PFC activation than non-murderers.in contrast, Cristofori et al. (2016) attributed the relationship between PFC dysfunction and violent behaviour to the DLPFC's role in moral evaluations. This study showed that damaged to the PFC meant that soldiers were more likely to think of violence in a positive way, which undoubtedly could predispose violent behaviour.
        
        If PFC is involved in the moral or emotional side of a predisposition to violence is relatively redundant. In reality, PFC deficits are probably involved in both sides, within distinct but interlinked substructures (Cristofori et al., 2016). HOWEVER, it is vital to consider longitudinal evidence in this case, to identify if the biological basis that seems to be present in fact has a social underpinning. Raine (2002) as a study does exactly that. They found that an overload in use of the PFC during development, due to the high social and executive functioning demands of late adolescence, can lead to PFC dysfunction in adulthood, behavioural inhibition failure and subsequently, a significant increase in violent behaviour.
        Thus, again, social factors seem to be the things activating and multipying the biological predispositions for violent behaviour.
- - - - HOWEVER, again, when investigated further, it seems that these biological underpinnings do not produce violent behaviour in a vacuum. Instead, the verbal IQ deficits that coincide with left hemisphere deficits affects the language-based self-control mechanisms, which in turn leads to a socialisation failure that ultimately produces the violent behaviours (Eriksson et al., 2005). Importantly, environmental therapy can successfully treat individuals in this situation (Teichner & Golden, 2000), which would suggest that it is again the environment that is activating and multiplying the effect of the biological basis for violent behaviour.